Foreign Language Learning Prejudice and

EKEV AKADEMİ DERGİSİ Yıl: 13 Sayı: 38 (Kış 2009) 317
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND

STEREOTYPING
Gonca EKŞİ (*)
Abstract
With the increasing mobility throughout the world and the advances in communication
technologies, people are much more in contact with one another than ever before. When people
from different national or ethnic groups come into contact with one another, the resulting interaction
patterns can take many different forms. Judgments such as prejudice and stereotyping may often
be negative because it is a common tendency to evaluate the other person with one’s own values
that their own culture imprinted on them. Although there is some truth in stereotypes, they are
often negative and resistant to change. Moreover, stereotyping and prejudice ignore the variability
within a group of people and thus unfair in the judgment of the individual. They may also distort
the communication between people. The Contact Hypothesis, suggested by Allport in 1954, states
that contact between people will increase positive relations between them. Indirect contact, that
is, learning about the beliefs, values and norms of others, can also cause positive attitudes among
people. As eficient language learning provides the learner with cultural awareness, successful
language learners might develop more favourable outlook on other nationalities. In this study,
Katz and Braly’s (1933) adjective checklist and Bogardus’ (1928) Social Distance Scale are
administered to 60 participants in order to see if speaking a foreign language makes a difference
in terms of prejudice and stereotyping. The results show that there is a statistically signiicant
difference between people who can speak a foreign language and those who cannot in terms of the
trait adjectives they attributed to other nationalities and social distance preference with them.
Key Words: Stereotyping, prejudice, foreign language learning
Yabancı Dil Eğitimi, Önyargı ve Stereotipleme

Özet
Dünyada artan seyahat hareketliliği ve gelişen iletişim teknolojileri ile artık insanlar daha önce
hiç olmadığı kadar birbirleriyle temas halindeler. Farklı milli ve etnik gruplara ait insanlar bir
araya geldiklerinde ortaya çıkan etkileşim pek çok farklı şekilde olabilir. Başkalarını kültürümüzün
bize işlediği değerler ile değerlendirmek yaygın bir eğilim olduğu için bu değerlendirmeler
stereotiplerde ve önyargılarda olduğu gibi genelde olumsuz olur. Stereotiplemelerde bir dereceye
kadar doğruluk payı olmasına rağmen genelde olumsuz yargılar içerirler ve değişime kapalıdırlar.
Dahası, stereotipleme ve önyargı insanların değişkenliğini göz ardı eder ve bu yüzden bireyin
değerlendirilmesinde haksızlık yapabilirler. İnsanlar arasındaki iletişimi de bozabilirler. 1954
de Allport tarafından öne sürülen Temas Hipotezi insanlar arasındaki iletişim ve temasın olumlu
tutumlara sebep olabileceğini söylemiştir. Dolaylı temas, yani başkalarının inançlarını, değerlerini
ve normlarını öğrenmek de olumlu tavırlara sebep olabilir. Etkili bir dil öğretimi kişilere kültürel
farkındalık sağladığı için, başarılı dil öğrenenler diğer milletlere karşı daha olumlu görüşler
geliştirebilirler. Bu çalışmada yabancı bir dili konuşabilmenin önyargı ve stereotipleme üzerinde
etkisi olup olmadığını görebilmek için Katz ve Braly’nin (1933) Sıfat Listesi ve Bogerus’un (1928)
Sosyal Mesafe Ölçeği 60 katılımcıya uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar bir yabancı dili konuşabilen kişiler ile
konuşamayanlar arasında diğer milliyetlere atfettikleri karakter özellikleri ve onlarla olan sosyal
mesafe tercihlerinde istatistik olarak anlamlı farklar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Stereotipleme, önyargı, yabancı dil öğrenimi
*) Okt. Dr., Gazi Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Öğretimi Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi.
(e-posta: gonca969@yahoo.com)
318 / Dr. Gonca EKŞİ EKEV AKADEMİ DERGİSİ
Introduction
Interest in stereotyping and prejudice has a sound basis due to its immense practical
importance. In the global world more and more people are getting into contact with each
other. Many societies are becoming increasingly ethnically diverse. With advances in
communication technologies global interactions are increasing; thus people from different
cultures are coming into greater contact with each other. These encounters may have
negative outcomes both for the individual and the society at large.
When people from different nationalities communicate, they tend to see the other
person as a representative of a country or nation. “Yet this focus on national identity, and
the accompanying risk of relying on stereotypes, reduces the individual from a complex
human being to someone who is seen as representative of a country or ‘culture’”(Council
of Europe, 2000:9).
Being a member of a group is a characteristic of our social self, that is, the group that
we belong to establish our social identity. Besides this, we tend to perceive our own group
as more favourable to, and distinct from, other groups. As people in other groups have the
same tendency of viewing their own groups favourably, prejudice occurs.
Stereotyping and Prejudice
Improved communication and transportation technologies have made contact between
cultures more frequent and common. That is why the issues of prejudice and stereotyping
are the leading issues of our times. Prejudice is commonly deined as “an unfair negative
attitude toward a social group or a member of that group”(Dovidio and Gaertner,
1999:101). Prejudice is a negative feeling or negative attitude toward the members of
a group (Stangor, 2000:1). It is often deined as a faulty or unjustiied negative attitude,
emotion or behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership of that
group. Similarly, stereotypes “which are overgeneralizations about a group or its members
that are factually incorrect and inordinately rigid, are a set of beliefs that can accompany
the negative feeling associated with prejudice” (Dovidio and Gaertner, 1999:101).
A common form of prejudice is the stereotype. Lippmann started a formal interest
and enquiry into stereotyping with the publication of his book Public Opinion in 1922.
Lippmann deined stereotypes as “simpliied pictures in our heads” (Lippmann, 1922:3
cited in Hinton, 2000:8) of people and events in the world. Lippmann argued that our actions
are not based on a direct knowledge of the “real” world because the “real environment is
altogether too big, too complex and too leeting for direct acquaintance” (p:16). Hence,
in order to cope with this diversity, we construct these “pictures”. Lippmann stated that
these pictures might be made by the person or given by their culture. He also argued
that stereotypes are both rigid in their deinition and resistant to change. As stereotypes
arise from overgeneralization, they are by their nature false. Yet, stereotypes arrange our
understanding of the world and once established, they are dificult to eradicate. Even in
the face of obvious contradictory evidence, we often hold steadfastly to our stereotypes.
To put in a nutshell, stereotypes arise from the limitations of human cognitive processes;
FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING 319
that is, the perception or the knowledge is arrived through simpliied pictures on the
world. In addition, stereotypes are shaped by the person’s culture. They are most likely
to be false or inaccurate, often with a negative connotation. Finally, they are not lexible
and not easy to change.
Stereotypes and prejudice are the result of social categorization. “Social categorization
occurs when, rather than thinking about another person as a unique individual, we
instead think of the person as a member of a group of people” (Stangor, 2000:2). Cross-
cultural research has shown that there are indeed characteristics of one culture that make
it different from another. Although the stereotype may be accurate in depicting some
“typical” members of a culture, it is inaccurate and insuficient to describe a particular
person.
Why do we categorise others?
Because we believe that categorization is informative in the sense that it provides
information about the characteristics of the other person. However, using social
categories will only be informative to the extent that our beliefs about the category are
accurate. Another reason for doing so is because things are so complicated that we reduce
complexity by categorizing others. Social categorization also satisies our need to be a
part of a social group. Thus feeling that our group is better than others provides social
identity.
Stereotypes and Culture
Stereotypes are a feature of prejudice. We gain our knowledge of the world around
us through our culture and the group that we belong to. Research shows that people
hold stereotypes of nationalities that they have not personally encountered (Katz and
Braly, 1933). Much of our knowledge of other people does not come from personal
contact with them. What we gain from “common knowledge” is the shared knowledge
that exists within a culture. Through communication between group members, this
knowledge is developed and transmitted within the culture. Stereotypes are embedded
in the culture in which we are raised and live and they are conveyed and reproduced
through socialization in the family and at school, through repeated exposure to books,
television and newspapers, and so on. Culture affects how people interact, the meanings
that people place on different interactions, and how various interactions are organized.
Because cultures vary in important ways across societies, the behaviour of individuals
also differs across societies.
Changing Stereotypes and The Contact Hypothesis
It is not easy to change stereotypes and prejudice because they are fairly resistant to
change because they are supported by cognitive perceptions and are reinforced by the
society as a whole. “The Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954) proposes that the contact
between groups, such as in schools and the workplace, will increase positive relations
between them” (cited in Stangor, 2000:15). Stereotypes might change in response to
disconirming information. The most common approach to changing stereotypes is to
provide people with information about the characteristics of the stereotyped groups by
having them interact with each other. The idea is that once we learn about and get to
know individuals from groups whom we are not familiar with, our stereotypes will be
dispelled. However, not all contact guarantee positive change in stereotypes and prejudice.
Stereotypes and prejudice will only change to be more positive when contact itself is
positive. Otherwise, a negative contact may even strengthen stereotyping and prejudice.
People are not born prejudiced. They learn it in their social environment. Can
stereotyping and prejudice be unlearned then? The answer is, to some degree, yes. There
are two basic approaches to reduce prejudice:
• the promotion of increased interaction between groups in all aspects of everyday
living
• the dispensing of information that will contradict stereotypes
Language learning and Cultural awareness
The ultimate goal of language teaching and learning is to be able to communicate
in another language. Cultures shape the way language is structured and the ways in
which language is used. When we use a language, we are involved in culture. Cultural
awareness is an approach to culture which emphasises not information about a culture but
skills in exploring, observing and understanding difference and sameness, and perhaps
most centrally, ‘suspension of judgement, i.e. not being instantly critical of other people’s
apparently deviant behaviour’(Tomlinson
Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2004 :�). �).
The cognitive approach to stereotyping asserts that stereotypes are cognitive
structures, like other schemas, inluence the way people perceive, process, store and,
retrieve information. Thus, stereotypes are likely to affect behaviours that are based on
these biased processes. Through language learning, we can form new cognitive schemas-
hopefully more positive ones.
The question in this study is to ind out if knowing a foreign language makes a
difference in people’s attitudes towards other nationalities. Below is the method and
indings of the study.
Method
Participants
60 people consisting of two groups of 30 participated in this study. The irst group
consisted of people who can speak at least one foreign language and who deined their
proiciency in the foreign language as intermediate or upper intermediate. The second
group consisted of people who cannot speak any foreign language.
The table below describes demographic information about the participants.
Table 1. Participants
Group A Group B
Male 4�% 50%
Sex
Female 53% 50%
Number of Foreign Languages One ��%
none
Spoken More than one 23%
English 23 -
Number of Speakers of Foreign
French 6 -
Languages
German 4 -
False beginner -
Level of Proiciency in Foreign
Elementary -
Pre-intermediate - 100%
Languages Spoken
Intermediate 16%
Upper intermediate 84%
Yes 60% 2�%
Stay Abroad
No 40% �3%
Up to 1 month 2�% 60%
Up to 3 months 30% 40%
Up to 9 months 3% -
Duration of Stay Abroad
10-18 months 1�% -
18-24 months 20% -
more 3% -
Group A consists of people who can speak one or more foreign languages (namely
English, French and German), whereas Group B consists of people who cannot speak
any foreign languages. In group A, several participants can speak more than one
language. In terms of proiciency, the majority of the participants deined their level as
upper intermediate. When asked if they have ever been abroad, more than half said yes.
Participants in Group B deine themselves as false beginners and say that they cannot
speak any foreign languages. Anyone who receives some kind of schooling today takes a
foreign language. However, participants in Group B either received very little instruction,
or think that it was neither effective nor successful and feel that they are unable to
communicate in any foreign language. Compared to Group A, a smaller number of people
have been abroad for relatively shorter time.
Procedure
The participants were asked to answer a questionnaire about their reactions to
different nationalities. They were told that all their responses would be kept anonymous
and that their participation was voluntary. They were asked not to write any identifying
information on the questionnaires. This procedure was designed to assure participants
that their responses could not be associated with any particular individual. Participants
then completed the questionnaire (a full description is given below). At the end of the
questionnaire, the participants were asked to write their comments if they had any.
Measures
Following the demographic information, the questionnaire consisted of 2 sections.
First, the participants are provided with a list of 84 trait adjectives and instructed to read
through and select as many adjectives as necessary to deine the target group adequately
and are encouraged to add their own adjectives if needed. The list was adapted from Katz
and Braly’s (1933:283) “Verbal stereotypes and Racial Prejudice” “and another study
conducted in Turkey in 2000 by Hacer Harlak .
They were also asked to complete the Social Distance Scale by E.S. Bogardus (1928),
which requires respondents to indicate which step in the following scale they would admit
members of various ethnic and national groups:
to close kinship by marriage
to my club as personal chums
to my street as my neighbours
to employment in my occupation
to citizenship in my country
as visitors only to my country
would exlude from my country (cited in Stangor, 2000:35).
Results and Discussion
The tables 2-8 below show the results of the positive and negative trait adjectives
attributed to the nationalities (the British, the American, the French and the German)
according to the variables, sex, knowing a foreign language and stay abroad. The tables
9-12 show the results of social distance preference of the participants for each nationality
according to knowing a foreign language or not.
Table 2. Positive traits according to sex �P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
sex N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig.(2-tailed) Signiicance

British
Unsigniicant
F 26 5,2308 3,88132 ,026 ,9�9
M 34 5,2059 3,4�091 ,026 ,980
American
Unsigniicant
F 26 4,8362 3,58544 -,5�4 ,568
M 34 5,4118 3,92442 -,581 ,564
French
Unsigniicant
F 26 4,0000 2,68328 -,041 ,968
M 34 4,0284 2,82291 -,041 ,96�
German
Unsigniicant
F 26 5,1154 3,59251 -,6�6 ,502
M 34 5,8529 4,586�6 -,698 ,488
Table 3. Negative traits according to sex �P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001

sex N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Signiicance
British
Unsigniicant
F 26 6,3462 4,88215 -,054 ,95�
M 34 6,4118 4,46615 -,054 ,958
American
Unsigniicant
F 26 6,8462 5,85623 ,164 ,8�0
M 34 6,61�6 4,92990 ,160 ,8�3
French
Unsigniicant
F 26 4,6923 4,3�053 -,094 ,926
M 34 4,�941 4,00590 -,093 ,92�
German
Unsigniicant
F 26 3,5�69 3,41963 ,�93 ,431
M 34 2,9118 3,05869 ,�81 ,438
As Table 2 and Table 3 shows, there is no statistically signiicant difference in positive
and negative traits attributed to the nationalities mentioned above according to the sex of
the participants.
Table 4. Negative traits according to speaking a foreign language

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
language N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Significance

British
yes 30 6,6667 4,85893 ,473 ,638
Unsigniicant
no 30 6,1000 4,41276 ,473 ,638
American
yes 30 7,5667 5,81724 1,247 ,217
Unsigniicant
no 30 5,8667 4,68109 1,247 ,218
French
yes 30 5,8667 4,32103 2,157 ,035
*signiicant
no 30 3,6333 4,67173 2,157 ,035
German
yes 30 4,4000 3,97058 3,101 ,003
**signiicant
no 30 2,0000 3,48556 3,101 ,004
Speaking a foreign language causes statistically signiicant difference in terms of
negative traits for the French and the German but not for the English and American.
Table 6. Positive traits according to speaking a foreign language

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
language N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Signiicance
British
***Signiicant
yes 30 6,9000 3,93350 4,040 ,000
no 30 3,5333 2,3153� 4,040 ,000
American
***Signiicant
yes 30 6,�66� 3,90122 3,618 ,001
no 30 3,566� 2,8�298 3,618 ,001
French
**Signiicant
yes 30 5,0333 2,90639 3,0�3 ,003
no 30 3,0000 2,16556 3,0�3 ,003
German
**Signiicant
yes 30 6,966� 4,82439 2,816 ,00�
no 30 4,1000 2,�9593 2,816 ,00�
On the other hand, speaking a foreign languagecauses statistically signiicant
difference in positive traits for all nationalities. It is likely that they aremore in contact
with the target culture and people, and this contact, direct or indirect, might cause them to
develop relatively more favourable attitudes toward the native speakers of the language.
Table �. Positive traits according to having been abroad

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
abroad N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Signiicance
British
*Signiicant
yes 21 6,�619 4,30006 2,534 ,014
no 39 4,3846 2,93451 2,265 ,031
American
*Signiicant
yes 21 6,�619 3,83282 2,518 ,015
no 39 4,30�� 3,4�286 2,443 ,001
French
*Signiicant
yes 21 5,1429 2,9203� 2,431 ,018
no 39 3,4103 2,46�88 2,311 ,02�
German
Unsigniicant
yes 21 6,6190 4,82158 1,496 ,140
no 39 4,948� 2,�0596 1,383 ,1�6
There is statistically signiicant difference between the participants who have been
abroad and who have not for the positive traits. The only exception is the German. A
possible explanation for this is that there are a great number of Turkish immigrant workers
living in Germany and thus most people in Turkey have either a relative or a friend living
in Germany. Therefore, it is likely that they are more familiar with the German people and
culture, no matter they know the language or not.
Table 8. Negative traits according to having been abroad

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
abroad N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Signiicance
Unsigniicant
British yes 21 6,1905 4,�1825 -,236 ,814
no 39 4,48�2 4,6104� -,234 ,816
Unsigniicant
American yes 21 6,�163 5,36�89 -,003 ,998
no 39 6,�1�9 5,340�5 -,003 ,998
French
Unsigniicant
21 5,�619 4,24152 1,403 ,166
yes
39 4,2951 4,02086 1,381 ,1�5
no
Unigniicant
German yes 21 4,3333 3,�4611 2,062 ,054
no 39 2,589� 2,�40�1 1,8�9 ,069
However, as to negative traits there is no statistically signiicant difference between
participants who have been abroad and those who have not. As the Contact Hypothesis
assumes, the contact should be positive to disconirm the stereotypes and prejudice. It is
probable that neither the type of contact nor the duration of contact was suficient for the
participants to change their views in terms of negative traits.
Table 9. Social Distance preference according to speaking a foreign language

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
The British
Marriage
**Signiicant
yes 30 1,8000 ,40638 -2,693 ,009
no 30 2,0000 ,00000 -2,693 ,012
Club members
**Signiicant
yes 30 1,566� ,50401 -3,099 ,003
no 30 1,9000 ,30513 -3,099 ,003
Neighbours
*Signiicant
yes 30 1,566� , 50401 -2,316 ,024
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -2,316 ,024
Colleagues
***Signiicant
yes 30 1,2333 ,43018 -3,360 ,001
no 30 1,6333 ,49013 -3,360 ,001
citizens
*Signiicant
yes 30 1,6000 ,4982� -2,408 ,019
no 30 1,866� ,345�5 -2,408 ,020
Tourists
Unsigniicant
yes 30 ,066� ,253�1 -1,828 ,0�3
no 30 1,2333 ,43018 -1,828 ,0�4
Exluded
Unsigniicant
yes 30 ,9333 ,253�1 1,523 ,133
no 30 1,8000 ,40684 1,523 ,134
For most items in the social distance scale for the British people, there is statistically
signiicant difference between participants who can speak a foreign language and those
who cannot. To be more precise, with respect to becoming closer through marriage,
club membership, as neighbours, colleagues and citizens the difference is meaningful.
However, as to items “tourists” and “be excluded from the country” there is no signiicant
difference for the British.

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
The American

Marriage
yes 30 1,8000 ,40684 -1,523 ,133
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,9333 ,253�1 -1,523 ,134
Club members
yes 30 1,366� ,49013 -4,125 ,000
***Signiicant
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -4,125 ,000
Neighbours
yes 30 1,4333 , 50401 -2,128 ,038
*Signiicant
no 30 1,�000 ,46609 -2,128 ,038
Colleagues
yes 30 1,2333 ,43018 -1,921 ,060
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,466� ,50�42 -1,921 ,060
Citizens
yes 30 1,6000 ,4982� -2,041 ,046
* Signiicant
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -2,041 ,046
Tourists
yes 30 1,0333 ,1825� -2,344 ,023
* Signiicant
no 30 1,2333 ,43018 -2,344 ,024
Excluded
yes 30 2,0000 ,00000 2,693 ,009
* Signiicant
no 30 1,8000 ,40684 2,693 ,012
As to the American people, there is statistically signiicant difference for all items
except for the two, namely, “marriage” and “colleagues”. It is possible that Turkish
people think it is advantageous or preferable to get married to or work with an American,
no matter they speak the language or not.

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
The French
Marriage
yes 30 1,�66� ,43018 -1,828 ,0�3
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,9333 ,253�1 -1,828 ,0�4
Club members
yes 30 1,�000 ,46609 -1,216 ,229
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -1,216 ,229
Neighbours
yes 30 1,4333 ,50401 -3,4�4 ,001
*** Signiicant
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -3,4�4 ,001
Colleagues
yes 30 1,4000 ,4983� -3,�91 ,000
*** Signiicant
no 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -3,�91 ,000
citizens
yes 30 1,6333 ,49013 -3,391 ,001
*** Signiicant
no 30 1,966� ,1825� -3,391 ,001
Tourists
yes 30 1,1333 ,345�5 -2,131 ,03�
* Signiicant
no 30 1,366� ,49013 -2,131 ,03�
Excluded
yes 30 1,8333 ,3�905 1,494 ,141
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,666� ,4�946 1,494 ,141
As for the French people, the participants attitudes for social distance scales such as
neighbours, colleagues, citizens and tourists are statistically signiicant with respect to
their speaking a foreign language or not. However, for the other distance preferences;
that is, the ones that are much closer or more radical such as marriage, club members
or be excluded, there is no statistically signiicant difference between the two groups of
participants. In Group A, who can speak a foreign language, the speakers of French are
fewer compared to the English. It is possible that they are less familiar with the French
culture and people and therefore do not seek a more intimate relationship with them.

�P�.05, ��P�.01, ��P�.001
The German
Language N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) Signiicance

Marriage
yes 30 1,8333 ,3�905 -,356 ,�23
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,866� ,345�5 -,356 ,�23
Club members
yes 30 1,666� ,4�946 -2,249 ,028
* Signiicant
no 30 1,9000 ,30513 -2,249 ,029
Neighbours
yes 30 1,4000 ,4982� -,�69 ,445
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,5000 ,50855 -,�69 ,445
Colleagues
yes 30 1,166� ,3�905 -4,862 ,000
*** Signiicant
no 30 1,�000 ,46609 -4,862 ,000
citizens
yes 30 1,6333 ,49013 -1,433 ,15�
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,8000 ,40684 -1,433 ,15�
Tourists
yes 30 1,0333 ,1825� -1,02� ,309
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,1000 ,30513 -1,02� ,310
Excluded
yes 30 1,966� ,1825� ,584 ,561
Unsigniicant
no 30 1,9333 ,253�1 ,584 ,562
As to the German people, most of the items in the social distance scale show no
signiicant difference between the two groups of participants, except for the “club
members” and “colleagues”. As stated before, owing to the Turkish population living in
Germany, Turkish people might have already got familiar with the German people and
their culture no matter they speak the language or not.
Last but not least, there was a part in the questionnaire where the participants were
asked to write comments if they had any. 11 (out of 30) participants in Group A noted
that it is dificult and incorrect to deine a group of people with the same traits as each
individual is unique. In other words, some of the participants who could speak a foreign
language stated that they had dificulty in ascribing certain features to all members of a
nation and thought it was not right to do so. Thus we may conclude that indirect contact;
that is, speaking a foreign language and thus knowing about the people, their culture and
values, indeed help reduce stereotyping.
Conclusion and Suggestions

The Contact Hypothesis suggests that contact between people might increase positive
relations between them. The contact might be indirect as well; in other words, learning
about the beliefs, values and norms of the people might help reduce prejudice and
stereotyping. As language is a part and conveyor of culture, this can only be achieved
through language learning.
This study is conducted to see if speaking a foreign language, in other words
indirect contact, makes a difference in people’s stereotypes and prejudice towards other
nationalities, namely, the British, the American, the French and the German. A trait
adjectives checklist and a social distance preference questionnaire are administered to
60 people, half of whom could speak at least one foreign language at intermediate or
upper-intermediate level. The other half could not speak any foreign language. Although
some time in their education they received some foreign language instruction, they stated
that it was too short or ineficient and they described themselves as false beginners. The
participants were asked to tick the trait adjectives that they think most describe some
nationalities and to state what social distance they would prefer to have with them.
As to results, the two groups do not differ in positive and negative traits they attribute
to the nationalities according to the sex of the participants. Speaking a foreign language
causes statistically signiicant difference particularly in positive traits for all nationalities.
Similarly, staying abroad also causes statistically signiicant difference in terms of
positive traits attributed to the nationalities. As to social distance preference, speaking
a foreign language causes signiicant difference for nearly all items for all nationalities.
The indings related to the German people show that there is relatively less difference
between the participants who can speak a foreign language and those who cannot. This
can be attributed to the fact that Turkish people are familiar with the German due to the
large number of Turkish immigrant workers living in Germany. Even if they cannot speak
the foreign language, most Turkish people are somehow in contact with the German
people and therefore there is not much difference between the attitudes of the two groups
of participants. In brief, the indings of the study conirm the Contact Hypothesis in
that there is statistically signiicant difference between the participants who can speak
a foreign language at least at intermediate and upper-intermediate level and those who
cannot, particularly with regard to positive traits.
Last but not least, research suggests that overcoming prejudice is a top priority for
language teachers (Council of Europe, 2002:2�). Integrating cultural awareness into
language learning, we can help learners become “intercultural speakers or mediators
who are able to engage with complexity and multiple identities and to avoid the
stereotyping which accompanies perceiving someone through a single identity.” (Council
of Europe, 2002:9) When people from different cultures come together and start to interact,
their social identities are unavoidably a part of the social interaction between them and
it greatly affects how they perceive each other. Because social identities are closely
related to cultures, language teaching with an intercultural dimension to enable them to
understand and accept people from other cultures as individuals with other distinctive
perspectives, values and behaviours; and to help them to see that such interaction is an
enriching experience. Foreign language learning might help us perceive differences,
appreciate them and above all respect and value each and every individual human being.
References
Council of Europe (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching.
A Practical Guidebook for Teachers. Strasbourg
Dovidio, J. F. and Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup
Biases. American Psychological Society. 1999. Vol.8 No.4 p.101-105.
Harlak, Hacer. (2000). Önyargılar: Psikososyal Bir İnceleme. �stanbul: Sistem
Yayıncılık.
Hinton, P. R. (2000). Stereotypes, Cognition and Culture. East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Katz, D. and Braly, K.W. (1933). Racial Prejudice and Racial Stereotypes. (1958) 3rd ed.,
ed. E.E.Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley, Holt and Reinhart and
Winston Inc.
Stangor, Charles. (2000). Stereotypes and Prejudice : Essential Readings UK: Psychology
Press.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (2004). ‘Developing cultural awareness.’ Modern
English Teacher, 13 (1), 5-11.

Foreign Language Learning Prejudice and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Language Learning Prejudice and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EKEV AKADEMİ DERGİSİ Yıl: 13 Sayı: 38 (Kış 2009) 317