順天堂グローバル教養論集第一巻20160325
7/158

3The developmental model of linguaculture learningFantini, 1997a, 1997b; Kramsch, 1993, 2015; Mo-ran, 2001; Risager, 2006). Such work emphasizes the importance of culture competencies in a global-ized world. Yet there are still few pedagogical mod-els to choose from. The best known—developed by Byram—focuses on savoirs: knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are said to be critical for intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 1997, 2008; Byram, et al., 2002; Byram, et al., 2001). Learning goals are described in terms of: attitude (relativiz-ing), knowledge (self and other), skills (interpretive and discovery) in the context of political education, and critical cultural awareness. Byram’s approach focuses on negotiation of social identities, a critical analysis of cultural ‘‘documents,’’ and seeks to help learners develop successful intercultural relation-ships. The strength of Byram’s work is its level of detail and clear articulation of learning goals. At the same time, these goals have also been criticized for being overly abstract, difcult to apply, and not dened ‘‘in a way that can be mapped onto the mechanics of everyday practice’’ (Diaz, 2013, p. 7). Other con-ceptualizations of cultural learning goals also suffer from a disconnect with language teaching. These in-clude intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2009; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Fantini, 2001; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Spitzberg & Changon, 2009), inter-cultural intelligence (Ang & Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003; Gaston, 1984; Hanvey, 1979; Tomalin & Stempleski, 1993; Tomlinson, 2000); intercultural awareness; and intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1986, 1993; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Olson & Kroeger, 2001; Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere 1999). Diaz describes this as a ‘‘gap between theory and practice in language and culture pedagogy that seems unbridgeable at times,’’ and that ‘‘continues to mystify theorists and practitioners’’ (Diaz, 2013, p. xiii). It is easy to say that cultural learning is important for language learners, but it is hard to integrate this with the nuts-and-bolts of everyday classroom teaching. One reason for this is that culture and language have traditionally been considered separate do-mains of inquiry, e.g., anthropologists study culture and linguists study language. The linguistic anthro-pologist Farzad Sharian argues that this has re-sulted in the ‘‘immature development of a unied sub-discipline for the study of language and cul-ture’’ (Sharian, 2015, p. 3). In recent years, how-ever, this gap has been closing. In the eld of lan-guage education, we nd increasing use of the term linguaculture (or languaculture) (Agar, 1994; Diaz, 2013; Fantini, 1997a; Friedrich, 1989; Risager, 2015). Language and culture are increasingly con-sidered to be two sides of the same coin—with lin-guistic meaning reecting the cultural perspective of linguaculture communities. The notion of lingua-culture is also being proposed as a way to bring cultural learning into foreign language pedagogy (Andersen, Lund, & Risager, 2006; Diaz, 2013; Ri-sager, 2006, 2007). The present work aims to con-tribute to this trend. 2. An integrated model of linguaculture learning This paper intends to help bridge the theory-prac-tice gap in culture and language education. It argues that language pedagogy and culture pedagogy is dif-cult to integrate because learning goals are typi-cally conceived of in fundamentally different ways. Language practice is traditionally thought about in terms of concrete knowledge and skills, such as vo-cabulary items or grammar structures, while cultural goals are thought of in abstract terms, such as global mindset or intercultural awareness. This results in teachers using incompatible mental frameworks for thinking about language and culture. In practice, in-tegrating culture into language education ‘‘does not simply involve a revision of language curricula, but

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です