Culture Assisted Language Learning(CALL)
and Teaching General English

Fatemeh Haji Seyed Abolghasem, Islamic Azad University – Roudehen Branch, Tehran , Iran
Abstract
With all the pearls and the pitfalls in the use and abuse of Computer Assisted Language Learning
(CALL) ,the traditionally known CALL , this paper tries to draw attentions towards the
importance of culture in English language learning and give culture a new recognition and fame.
Of course, however, the acquisition of computer skills alongside the acquisition of English
language is essential for survival in the modern world. And ,it is also quiet obvious that the full
potential of integrating computer into the ELT curricula has not yet been reached and their use is
still limited. Moreover, the introduction of computer into the culture of language learning is a
complex change. Since the influence of works written by Edward Sapir, and Benjamin Whorf
(1929) ,known as Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguists and many teachers and textbook writers were
aware that language and culture were related. When you teach English , you also teach a complex
system of cultural customs , values ,and ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Therefore, the main
concern would be the use of culture in classes in a way to help the General English learners feel
safe and secure and above all gain culture identity and suggesting that linguistic inquiry can not
be separated from the social reality or culture of the learners . Thus, introducing one’s culture
and particularly utilizing it in teaching General English materials, without embarrassment and
fear, is considered essential .
Key words: CALL , culture, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, GE materials
Introduction
It is a common saying among language practitioner : "there is no such a thing as human nature independent
of culture." Culture is our social legacy as constructed with our organic heredity. It regulates our lives at every turn.
Thus, the connection between language and culture has always been of great concern for L2 teachers and
educators. Throughout language teaching history, culture of the target language is incorporated into L2 teaching and
undergone rapid changes since. People involved in language teaching have again begun to understand the
intertwined relation between culture and language. It has been emphasized that without the study of culture, teaching
L2 is inaccurate and incomplete. For L2 students, language study seems senseless if they know nothing about the
people who speak the target language or the country in which the target language is spoken. Therefore, acquiring a
new language needs a lot more than the manipulation of syntax and lexicon, it has something more to consider
about, culture. According to Bada(2000:101) , "the need for cultural literacy in ELT arises mainly from the fact that
most language learners, not exposed to culture elements of the society in question, are seen to encounter significant
hardship in communicating meaning to native speakers." In addition, nowadays the L2 culture is presented as an
interdisciplinary core in many L2 curricula designs and textbooks (Sysoyev& Donelson,2002).
Although the ground of discussion on language and culture has been cleared for ages, it is not until the 80s that the
need of teaching culture in language classes is indicated, reaching its climax in the 90s thanks to the efforts of
Byram and Kramsch . Although by mid80s, various advantages of teaching culture in L2 classes were virtually
universally accepted , and culture was widely taught in language classes, there were still problems about what
should be taught and how culture could be taught most beneficially.
The mutual relation between language and culture, i.e. the interaction of language and culture has long been
a settled issue thanks to the writings of prominent philosophers such as Saussure (1966), Foucault (1980), Adorno
(1993), Davidson (1999) , Chomsky (1968), and many others (cited in Bada 2005). These are the names first to
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland
372
come to mind when the issue is the relation between language and culture. Yet , the most striking linguists dealing
with the issue of language and culture are Sapir(1962) and Whorf (1956). They are scholars whose names are often
used synonymously with the term "linguistic Relativity" (Richards et al. 1992). The core of their theory is that a) we
perceive the world in terms of categories and distinctions found in our native language and b) what is found in one
language may not be found in another language due to cultural differences.
This paper tries to points out the idea of teaching culture along with the language is something essential
;there is no question about it. However, in the General English classes with the students recently graduated from
high school , and are in the beginning of their university studies, teaching English has always been a nightmare for
the teachers and a torture for the students. One of the main reason , I believe, is that in this classes the passages , the
questions , the exercises for vocabulary learning are basically taught in L2 language and culture . Moreover,
gaining familiarity with the target language and at the same time learning the culture is rather breathtaking for the
teachers and the learners. And in the evaluation stage , also , they do not perform well as they are expected , having
been able to communicate is out of question. In Iran GE classes , in which the medium is merely the source
language, the teacher tries to explain the points in anyway he can , and tries hard to cross the meaning. He tries hard
to make the learners believe that using SL can help to get a good command of the materials. The teachers,
however , are well aware of their artificial effort in class. They do well know that no matter how hard they try ,
nothing perfect would come out of it. Therefore, for the GE students , English classes are not pleasing , do not give
them strong motives, and welcoming sense to follow. They come to class with rather negative attitude that makes
the job of teaching absolutely difficult. In my opinion , the teachers should approach the issue of teaching with less
threatening environment by starting with the students. The GE learners perceive the L2 world as something distinct
which is hard to handle specially where there is not any domain to turn the key to open the lock of
misunderstandings. Due to cultural differences ,understanding the concepts in L2 causes the embarrassment ,in a
way that makes the communication impossible either in writing or in oral production. We are all aware that English
language is the most studied language all over the world, and culture is the foundation of communication. Therefore
, English language students in general and learners in General English classes in particular can be helped by
providing the authentic material in the medium of their cultures . We can use the similarities to get the meaning ,
and use the cultural based materials to deal with the differences. Culture is the foundation of communication, and
lexical and grammatical categories of a language have been assumed how its speakers conceptualize the world
around them. Hence using L1 culture is a means to an end.
Literature Review
If we turn to the relationship between culture and language, we see some remarkable comments from Sapir
and Whorf Hypothesis, and many other scholars
Edward Sapir(1929) indicated that languages continued the key to understanding the differing world views
of people. He also pointed out that because of the staggering differences in the grammatical systems of languages no
two languages were ever similar enough to allow for perfect translation between them . Sapir also believed that
because language represented reality differently, it followed that the speakers of different languages would perceive
reality differently. According to Edward Sapir:
No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality.
The worlds in which different societies lie are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels
attached.
More than any other linguist, B.L. Whorf has become associated with what he himself called "the principle
of linguistic relativity" (1956). Instead of merely assuming that language influences the though and behavior of its
speakers , he looked at the other languages and attempted to account for the ways in which differences in
grammatical systems and language use affected the way their speakers perceived the world. Whorf has been
criticized by many , often pointing to his " premature comment" , insinuating that he was unqualified . Among many
who criticized him are Eric Lenneberg, Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. They believe his comment is not being
sufficiently explained , so it is not clear in his formulation of how he meant languages influences thought , and his
examples are speculative and do not provide actual proof. Whorf' s words of " exotic " grammatical traits and their
connection with apparently equally " exotic" worlds of thought:
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland
373
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. We cut nature up , organize it into
concepts, and ascribe significances as we do , largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this
way _ an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our
language…. all observers are not led the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless
their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.
Among Whorf's well known examples of linguistic relativity are examples of instances where an
indigenous language has several terms for a concept that is only described with one word in English and other
European languages. Whorf was not principally concerned with translatability, but rather with how the habitual use
of language influences habitual behavior.
The main criticism of Whorf' works that he had ever actually shown the causality between a linguistic
phenomenon and a phenomenon the realm of thought or behavior, but merely assumed it to be there.
In 1953 psychologist Eric Lenneberg published a detailed criticism of the line of thought that had been
fundamental for Sapir and Whorf .He criticized Whorf's examples . He believes that languages are principally meant
to represent events in the real world and that even though different languages express these ideas in different ways,
the meanings of such expressions and therefore the thoughts of the speakers are equivalent. Brown and Lenneberg
formulated one based on a condensation of the different expressions of the notion of linguistic relativity in their
works. They identified the two tenets of the Whorf thesis as (i) " the world is differently experienced and conceived
in different linguistic communities" and (ii) " language causes a particular cognitive structure." These two tenets
were later developed by Roger Brown into the so called "weak" and " strong" formulation respectively:
1. Structural differences between language systems will, in general , be paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive
differences, of an unspecified sort, in the native speakers of the language.
2. The structure of anyone's native language strongly influences or fully determines the world view he will
acquire as he learns the language.
Where Brown's weak version of the linguistic relativity hypothesis proposes that language influences
thought and the strong version that language determine thought. Then, we can propose that language is a key to
culture. Another person who adopted Whorfian approach was George Lakoff. He argued that language is often used
metaphorically and that different languages use different cultural metaphors that reveal something about how
speakers of that language think.
Lakoff (1987)concluded that the debate on linguistic relativity had been fruitless. He identified four
parameters on which researchers differed in their opinions about what constitutes linguistic relativity.
One parameter is the degree and depth of linguistic relativity.
Second is whether conceptual systems are to be seen as absolute or whether they can be expanded or
exchanged during the life time of a human being.
A third parameter is whether translatability is accepted as a proof of similarity or differences between
concept systems or whether it is rather the actual habitual use of linguistic expressions that is to be examined.
A fourth parameter is whether to view the locus of linguistic relativity as being in the language or in the
mind.
Two separate studies by Melissa Bowerman and Slobin treated the role of language in cognitive process did
not use language to any significant extent and therefore could not be subject to effects of linguistic relativity. Slobin
on the other hand, described another kind of cognitive process that he named" thinking for speaking " _ the kind of
processes in which perceptional data and other kinds of prelinguistic cognition are translated into linguistic terms for
the purpose of communicating them to others. These , Slobin argues , are the kinds of cognitive process that are at
the root of linguistic relativity (cited in Bada 2005).
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland
374
John Lucy has identified three main strands of research into linguistic relativity. The first is what he calls
the structure centered approach. This approach starts with observing a structural peculiarity in a language and goes
on to examine its possible ramification for thought and behavior.
The second strand of research is the " domain centered " approach in which a semantic domain is chosen
and compared across linguistic and cultural groups for correlations between linguistic encoding and behavior. The
main strand of domain centered research has been the research on color terminology,, although this domain
according to Lucy and admitted by color terminology researchers such as Paul Kay , is not optimal for studying
linguistic relativity because color perception unlike other semantic domain, is known to be hard wired into the
neural system and as such subject to more universal restriction than other semantic domains.
The third strand of research is the " behavior centered" approach which strands by observing different
behavior between linguistic groups and then proceeds to search for possible causes for that behavior in the linguistic
system.
With the respect to all three strands regarding language relativity, the idea of "domain centered" mentioned
in strand number two, is the main concern in this paper. It is mainly because this strand is about semantic domains.
There are a number of instruments to examine the semantic ability.
To examine the interface between thought , language and culture, and describe the degree and kind of
interrelatedness experimental data is needed to back up their conclusion
I strongly believe that our learners behave in the same order. Their way of thinking, mentality , the way
they brought up, have strong affects on their way of translating linguistic terms to be able to understand the material
first and to communication successfully. So , I as their teacher can help them by drawing their attention toward their
own surroundings, immediate environment, present situation, obvious examples and last but not least, their culture.
There are the elements help the think, analyze, process and or communicate in letters or in words. Then, thought is
dependent on words.
The Study
This paper , as mentioned before, is a preliminary report on the culture-assisted language learning, which
through the use of L1 culture the learners would learn/ acquire language through the differences and similarities of
L1 and L2 cultures. And learning process is finding actual relationship between these two elements in order to come
cross difficulties in language learning .
I. Participants
To have strong base to proof the effect of culture awareness in language classes , the number of participants
is of great importance. The provider of this paper has wished to have a number of learners and teachers of GE
classes from variety of university majors and from universities of great cultural differences from Iran and other
places as well. The learners must study in different fields of education and teachers who teach them must also wish
to participate in the study. These elements would be considered regardless of the gender and age of the
participants. Since the variables of gender and age is not concerned in this study.
II. Data Collection
It is common to collect data to proof any kinds of study. The suggested methods of collecting data are as
follows:
A. Questionnaires for the learners
a. on language skills and sub skills: the questions can be made according the dimension of role of culture on
language skills.
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland
375
e.g. To which skill did the culture contribute most?
b. on cultural awareness : since culture-oriented class would raise awareness of language learners about the
source and target language culture. The participants can express that views regarding awareness rising of
the target culture as well as theirs.
e.g. Did this course help you raise awareness about your own culture / target culture?
c. on attitude towards learning: attitudes are one of the inhibiting factors in GE classes. In this regard question
on attitudes can help the researcher to draw a conclusion.
e.g. Did your attitudes towards GE class change at the end of this course?
Did culture-assisted class help you to have different attitudes towards English language and GE English learning?
B. Questionnaires for the teacher
a. on language skills/sub skills: these questions similarly can contribute to teachers' prospects in teaching
carrier. Since teachers and learners have similar cultural background, then their answers is more valuable.
e.g. In what part of teaching process in GE class , culture comes handy?
b. on culture similarities and differences: It is obvious in GE class, there is no place comparison of two
cultures. However, GE teachers can use L1 and L2 language cultures similarities and differences.
e.g. How much did the similarities help in teaching English?
How did the learners feel about differences between cultures?
c. evaluation ; The main teaching goal in any class is learning and the traditional apparatus to know this is
evaluation through different testing methods.
III. Data Analysis
The researcher wishes to analyze the purposes of the participants (learners and teachers) through the SPSS
statistical package , observing frequencies of roles and the chi-square dependence significance. The results and their
interpretation would be presented in tabular forms.
IV. Variables
There are different kinds of variables to be considered in this paper:
a. The dependent variables : teachers and learners both come from the same cultural background.
b. The independent variables : since the participants in this study would be the university students, their age
and gender are not considered of utmost importance. So the study could be done regardless of these two
facts or elements.
V. Limitation and delimitation
Talking about culture is not easy , causing awareness is not that easy too. The participants of this study (
learners and teachers ) may show some kinds of reactions due to the teacher unawareness of the learners way of
brought ups. Therefore, L1 culture , itself, is of limitation.
2010 EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings Dublin, Ireland
376
The subject – matter in class and how are the teachers able to approach it is directly dependent on the class
is of delimitation elements of the study. To have more enjoyable ,interesting and attractive class is the teachers'
strategies to approach the learning.
VI. Questions for further research
The researcher of this paper strongly announces that this paper carries characteristics of a very short
preliminary report . Nevertheless , questions that may help others who wish to have similar paper can be of great
help.
1. As already mentioned, the elements of age and gender is not the concern in this paper, so is Culture-
Assisted Language Learning class different according to the learners age ? learners gender?
2. How can Culture-Assisted Language Learning class be entirely used in teaching language skills and
component?
3. How can culture-training materials be included in teacher training courses (TTC) ?
4. What part of culture should be taught ? and how?
5. In designing materials for different learners , how far they should be individualized according to the
culture?
6. What is the role of teacher in CALL?
Conclusion
The language classes with the aid of culture awareness, would improve one's understanding of the L2
language and L2 culture as well. For a culturally well-trained teacher of English utilizing L1 cultures to teach the
L2 language is not only arbitrary but a necessary activity.
This paper suggests that a culture-assisted class is significantly beneficial in terms of language skills,
raising culture awareness, changing attitudes toward learning target and native societies without having been forced
to forget their own which was the main reason for misunderstanding .
A culture-assisted class has implications for curriculum and material designing in language teaching
departments. A culture class would prove to be a vital component of language learning and teaching, and it has a
great deal to offer to the development of communicative competence as well as other skills in the instruction of any
language.
References
1. Bada ,E(2000).Culture in ELT. Cukurova University Journal of Social Sciences,100-110
2. Bada,Erdogan, Gen.Bilal (2005). Culture in Language Learning and Teaching. Cukurova University,
Turkey.
3. Byram, M. (1989). Cultural Studies in Foreign language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
4. Kramsch, C. (2001). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Lakoff, G (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press.
6. Richards, J.C.,Platt, J. , and Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and Applied Linguistics.
Essex: Longman.
7. Sapir, E. (1962). Culture, Language &personality. University of California.
8. Sysoyev,P.V. & Donelson, L.R. (2002).Teaching Culture in foreign language classroom.
9. Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: selected writing of Benjamin Lee Whorf. (Ed) John
B. carrel . Cambridge: MIT Press.
Source: http://www.cluteinstitute.com/proceedings/2010_Dublin_ETLC_Articles/Article%20547.pdf