The Place of Culture in Foreign Language Instruction: A Practical View

COMMENTARY THE PLACE OF CULTURE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION: A PRACTICAL VIEW Theodore Alan Sackett The subject of the place of culture in college foreign language instruction continues to be discussed widely by theorists and teachers, in professional journals, and in scholarly groups. This meeting's emphasis on theory and practice offers an important opportunity to assess our problems with today 's compelling realities in view. I propose to examine the following aspects of our theme: the goals of current programs, the relationship between language study and university structure, and the nature of instructional personnel. On the basis of these considerations a proposal for language programs with cultural content will be offered. I shall leave to others the task of studying what culture as related to language is, first, because we now have a considerable body of iUuminating discourse on the subject; and second, because the matter of how culture can be integrated into our programs is more critical than the precision with which we formulate definitions. Nelson Brooks' article, 'Teaching Culture in the Foreign Language Classroom,"1 is very useful for the task of defining culture and understanding why its various components constitute important correlatives of language study. His five categories (biological growth, personal refinement, literature and the fine arts, patterns of living, and the sum total of a way of life) comprise suggestive lists of logical adjuncts to language comprehension. But no matter how valid and promising his proposals may be, they can have no practical meaning if we do not place them in the concrete context of today's university. Brooks illustrates convincingly that there are many important aspects of culture related to language besides literature. Yet we find that at least in most universities, virtually the only cultural values purposefully integrated into programs are literary. This phenomenon may be explained by considering who studies languages in college and why. Except in a few mainly private universities which require foreign language proficiency as an entrance requirement, it is a fact that the immense majority of those engaged in college language work do so at the beginning or intermediate levels. They study languages because they must do so, and very few continue beyond the minimal required levels. It is in the context of these elementary and intermediate "required" courses that the seemingly eternal polemic concerning "language versus lit1FoTeIgU Language Annals ( I, iii, 204-217 ), March, 1968. 177 178RMMLA BulletinDecember 1970 erature" arises. Discussions of this topic invariably produce much controversy . I believe, however, that whether participants realize it or not, the insistence on introducing literature in courses whose purpose is to satisfy a "language" requirement is based on the following: many of us seem to believe that the study of language and extra-literary culture alone is not enough to justify investment of university time. We imply by our actions that only through literature is it possible to communicate the uniqueness, national points of view, and customs of the countries whose languages we teach. We also seem to think that only contact with the best writers, the greatest works, and the most lofty philosophical and esthetic ideas produced by a culture justifies foreign language study on humanistic grounds. I believe that all of the above premises are incorrect. As successful teachers know, when aspects of language beyond grammar are stressed, such as the emotional realities underlying the meaning of an idiomatic expression , or why it would be ridiculous to use the 'Tu" instead of the "Ud." form in a living, real situation, or the socio-historical factors actuating for the discrepancy between English and foreign versions of a similar proverb, we are dealing with facets that account for much of the humanistic value of language study. Furthermore, we find that the introduction of literature is unsuccessful in motivating students to continue beyond required levels of language study. Most of those who proceed to the third year do so because interest in language or literature predates their presence in our university courses. The introduction of literature near the end of the second year changes fundamentally the original goals and methodology of our programs. In high school and at the elementary college level, language has been the focus. Oral drills...