testing in english as a foreign language

7/31/2019 Testing in English as a Foreign Language

1/91

TESTING

IN EFL

Proceedings of the third Conference of

The Moroccan Association of Teachers

of English

EL Jadida

21-24 March 1983

1


2/91

MATE 1983-84

BOARD AND GENERAL COUNCIL

Board:A. Mkoun : President

A. Meziani : 1St Vice-President

F. Sabil : 2nd Vice-PresidentA. Azeriah : Secretary General

A. Essellami: Deputy Secretary General

N. Ziza : Treasurer

General Council:

Members of the board listed above and:

F. Berrada

N. Jalal

A. JamariS. El Amri

F. Maghfour

F. z Mghari

M. N'chiri

My T. Rifai

Moroccan Association of Teachers of English

BP - 6223 Rabat "Instituts" Rabat

C.C.P.: Association Marocaine des Professeurs d'Anglais - CCP 212927T

Printed in February 1984

Rabat - Morocco

Imprim lInstitut

d'Etudes et de Recherches

pour l'Arabisation

2


3/91

___________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

___________________________________________________________________________

Nonverbal Communication in the EFL Classroom 4A. Badre

Teaching Literature as Culture: an Anti-Linguistic Approach 21M. Ezroura

Twenty Common Testing Mistakes for EFL Teachers to Avoid 33

G. Henning

Silence in the Lycees: The Teaching and Testing of Reading Comprehension 40

C. Hickey

A Place for Visuals in Language Testing 50

P. McEldowney

Are You Teaching Reastening Comprehension? 59

A. Meziani

IntroducingHave A Go 67

A. Meziani

Multiple Choice: Uses and Methodology 71

A. Sanders

It Aint What You Teach. It's the Way you Test it 82

I. Stewart

3


4/91

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

IN THE EFL CLASSROOM

Abdelmajid Badre

Facult des Sciences de l'Education

I grew Up in Iowa and I knew what to do with butter: you put it on roastin' ears,

pancakes, and popcorn. Then I went to France and saw a Frenchman put butter on radishes. I

waited for the Cosmic Revenge - for the Eiffel Tower to topple, the Seine to sizzle, or the

grape to wither on the vine. But that Frenchman put butter on his radishes, and the Gallic

universe continued unperturbed. I realized then something I hadn't learned in five years of

language study: not only was speaking in French different from speaking in English, butbuttering in French was different from: buttering in English. And that was the beginning of

real cross-cultural understanding (Morain, 19?8, p.1).

A Moroccan student coming to the United States through an educational foreign

exchange program was received by his American host family at an airport. Acting in what he

believed a friendly manner, the Moroccan student kissed on both cheeks the family members

including the father and sons. The American family members felt rather embarrassed and,

consequently, the first contact was impeded. It was not until later that the Moroccan student

realized that kissing between men tends not to be a common and socially acceptable practice

in the American culture.

An American student enters a bakery Athens. Her Greek is very good, and she

confidently orders five cookies, giving the typical American hand gesture for five: palm

toward the receiver, fingers spread apart. The clerk becomes visibly upset, and ejects her

from the shop. The student had net realized that this gesture was a strong insult in Greece.

Be-cause her command of the language was so good, there was a high expectation that she

would be familiar with other communicative rules as well (Johnson, 1979, p. 21).

Interactions like these, involving participants from different cultures, often, if not

usually, result in misunderstandings. These miscommunications tend to occur largely as a

result of the participants' cultural differences in preconceptions, expectations, and ways ofreferring to the world of reality. When two people from different cultures interact, they tend'

to behave according to their own cultural norms almost taking for granted that they share

essentially the same rules of behavior. One interactant may well be linguistically competent

in the other's native language. Nevertheless, it is often the case that their interaction is hardly

fully communicative because of the participants' ignorance or misinterpretation of cultural

matters that transcend the linguistic knowledge such as the nonverbal system of behavior of

each other. The' participants, in this case, are considered to retain a cultural accent in their

interaction (Johnson, 1981, p. 3).

It is commonly accepted by now that speech does net constitute the only channel

through which human communication in face-to-face interaction takes place. Indeed, severalscholars have agreed that a large Proportion of the messages that are generally communicated

4


5/91

in face-to-face interaction takes non-linguistic forms (Mehrabian 1972, Birdwhistell 1970,

Applebaum et al. 1979).

For instance while the content of human face-to-face interaction tends to be primarily,

although net exclusively, carried in the linguistic channel, the mode of the interaction tends to

depend largely on the nonverbal channel. For example, the nature of the relationship between

interactants can be identified by their usage, of nonverbal elements such as whether they usetouch, how close or far apart they situate themselves from each other, and what kind of bodily

posture and orientation they adopt .

For the past two decades, the field of applied linguistics has witnessed a certain

emphasis of the teaching of culture (Brooks 1986,Hannerz 1973, Lafayette 1978, Lambert

1974 Seelye 1974, Trifonovitch 1980, Tucker 1971) and the incorporation of the nonverbal

aspects of the target culture in the foreign language classroom (Galloway 1979, Johnson 1979,

Morain 1978, Nine-Curt 1975, Saitz 1966,, Taylor 1975, Thompson 1973) to mention only...a

few.

Although these concerns have' been welcomed by a considerable amount ofresearch, very few investigators have actually compared the nonverbal systems of different

cultures with idea of presenting their findings and implications to the foreign language teacher

and textbook designer. Indeed, most of the research in nonverbal communication has been

limited, to the identification of the rules or patterns that are believed to govern the nonverbal

behaviour of a cultural group or the derivation of the relationship between a nonverbal

behaviour and certain psychological, sociological, or other nonverbal variables. result, applied

linguists as well as foreign language teachers tend to be confronted with a situation where

they are incessantly urged to incorporate the cultural as well as the nonverbal aspects of the

target language in their foreign language textbooks and classrooms on the one hand, and

where there is an evident paucity of contrastive studies between cultures to help them carry

out their task on the other . As Jenks correctly remarked :

We are not experiencing a shortage of techniques and rationales for teaching

culture . We have plenty of why s, hows, where s, and when s. We

lack what s. The actual information , the finding of current sociological

research , and the information concerning the various cultures is and will continue

to be a soft spot in the teaching of culture. This places the foreign language teacher

in an unenviable position the delivery systems are here but we have not located

much that we need to deliver ( Jenks , 1975 p 106 ).

To this effect , the present study is an exploratory , investigation of the nonverbalsystems of the American and Moroccan cultures . By comparing and contrasting he nonverbal

behavior of the American and Moroccan subjects in various social contexts and the way they

regard each others nonverbal system of behavior , the study attempts to determine whether

there are differences in the ways these subjects , as representatives of the American and

Moroccan cultures , behave nonverbally and the extent to which these differences can impede

communication in cross cultural interaction . The focus of the study is on five nonverbal

categories . These categories are : (1) chronemics , (2) gaze , (3) posture , ( 4 ) proxemics and

(5) haptics ( see below for definitions of these terms ) .

The Limitation of the scope of the present study to these five nonverbal variables only

should by itself suffice to alert the reader to the fact that the finding of the study will not leadto a conclusive , comprehensive judgment about the American and Moroccan nonverbal

5


6/91

systems of behavior . Human face-to-face interaction clearly involves more complex factors

than it is at present feasible to deal with satisfactorily in a single small scale study .

Thus delimited, the present study can be considered as an investigation of the

following questions about the American and Moroccan nonverbal systems:

(1) How do Americans and Moroccans go about using the above-mentionednonverbal categories in their interactions? Do they use these categories in similar fashions, or

are there differences in the way they use them?

(2) How do Americans and Moroccans view each other's usage of these

nonverbal categories?

(3) On the Basis of the subjects' responses to these questions, are there any im-

plications that could be drawn for applied linguists and foreign language teachers in general,

and English language teachers in Morocco in particular?

Before going into the data and in view of the terminological confusion that has

characterized the field of nonverbal communication, it is worthwhile to define some

categories that will be used in this study. These categories are (1) nonverbal

communication, (2) culture, (3) chronemics, (4) gaze, (5) posture, (6) proxemics, and (7)

haptics.

Nonverbal Communication: There have been various definitions of this term

depending on the researchers' theoretical affiliations and level of focus. However, most

investigators tend to use this term to refer to the usage of paralinguistic expressions and

bodily movements such as body posture and orientation, gestures, eye-contact, time, body

contact, and facial expressions in daily interactions. As Kendon (1981, p. 3) noted, many

analysts tend to focus on the role that these movements play in establishing and maintaining

the inter-active process between participants who are physically present to each other.

Culture: Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) who have assembled more than two

hundred definitions of "culture" have found that this elusive term has, throughout time, been

defined in a number of ways and from different points of view. For instance, in pre-classical

Latin, the term was used to refer to cultivation or nurture. One of the earliest definitions

(Tylor, 1872) regarded "culture" as

that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom,and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a society (in

Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 43).

In the 1950's, anthropologists tended to contend that "culture" is a set o

elements that are socially learned. For instance, Kroeber and Kluckhohn defined it as:

A set of attributes and products of mankind, which are extrasomatic and

transmissible by mechanisms other than biological heredity, and are essentially

lacking in sub-human species (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952, p. 145).

However, the last two decades have witnessed an emphasis on the cognitiveaspects of culture. As such, the anthropologist Haviland defined "culture" by maintaining that

6


7/91

it:

not observable behavior of a group of people, but an abstraction derived from it.

Culture is a set of rules, or standards which, when acted upon by members of a

society, produce behavior that falls within the range of variance that members

consider proper and acceptable ( Haviland , 1974 , p .264) .

Chronemics : Essentially , this term is used to indicate the meaning and function

of time in a cultural group i.e. , how members perceive the importance of timeand how they go about using it in their daily interactions . Chronemics also refers

to what members consider a late , early , or punctual arrival for social transactions

such as visits , meetings , and social engagements .

Gaze : refers to the communicational significance of the usage of the eyes in

interactions and what members of a cultural group consider an appropriate or

unacceptable way of gazing . The terms eye-contact and graze are used

interchangeably to refer to the same construct .

Posture : Essentially , this term is most frequently used to refer to the ways of

sitting and standing , and body orientation in face-to-face interactions and their

cultural significance .

Proxemics : Initially christened by Hall ( 1963 ) , this term is used to refer chiefly

to how members of a cultural group conceive interpersonal spacing and

manipulate it in their daily transactions . It also refers to what they regard

acceptable ways of interpersonal territoriality such as how close or far apart they

are allowed to sit and stand from each other .

Haptics : This term is used to refer to the nature and extent of acceptable ways of

physical contact between members of a cultural group , i.e. how these members of

a cultural group , i.e. , how these members touch each other in their interactions

and what kinds of bodily contact they consider appropriate or inappropriate .

I. The Subjects

The research reported in this paper was conducted among fourteen American and

Moroccan informants during the fall, 1982, semester. At the time of this investigation,

thirteen of these subjects were students at Indiana University. In view of the small number ofMoroccan students, the number of the Moroccan informants was slightly lower than that of

the American subjects. The total of the subjects is eight Americans, four males and four

females, and six Moroccans, two females and four males.

The ages of the American subjects ranged from twenty-three to twenty-nine years.

They come primarily from Midwestern states. Three informants come from Indiana, two

from Illinois one from Ohio, one from Michigan, and one from Iowa. They were selected on

the basis of their willingness to be interviewed and their familiarity with the Moroccan

culture. All of these subjects had travelled to Morocco or interacted with Moroccans prier. to

their interviewing.

Five of the Moroccan informants were enrolled in various departments at Indiana

University at the time of this study. The ether subject was a housewife. Their ages. rangedfrom twenty to thirty years. Two subjects come from Casablanca, two from El Jadida, and

7


8/91

two from Rabat.

II. Data Collection and Analysis

In order to obtain these subjects' verbal reports, a questionnaire was developed.Although this questionnaire was basically adopted from Johnson (1979), it was substantially

modified and expanded (see appendix). It consists of sixty-two questions pertaining to the

usage of the above mentioned nonverbal categories. Emphasis was put on the informants'point of view. The subjects were asked how they think they as well as members of their

culture use these nonverbal categories in their daily transactions. The questions were

administered in an open-ended fashion in order to give the informants ample opportunity and

time to provide their reports and perspectives.

The research method employed in this study is referred to as the semistructured

interview (Berelson and Steiner, 1964, p. 32) or self- analysis (Johnson, 1979, p. 115). There

are three major concerns that were taken into consideration in the development of this ques-tionnaire. First, every nonverbal category is contextualized. The questions within each

category deal with the usage of that category in situations of face-to-face interaction and in

specific social contexts. These contexts represent four social situations where daily

interaction takes place: classroom, market restaurant, and parties or social engagements. The

purpose of this contextualization is to determine the extent to which social situations affect

the nonverbal behavior of these groups .

Another point is the issue of whether there are differences between the female and male

nonverbal behavior of these cultures. In order to determine these differences, if any, male as

Well as female subjects were interviewed. Moreover, each category in the questionnaire

includes several questions about how men and women go about using that category.

In addition to the contextualization and gender differences, an attempt was made

to find out how the American subjects construe the nonverbal behavior of Moroccans and vice

versa. Therefore, one or two questions were inserted at the end of each category asking

the informants what they think of the way members of the ether culture use that category. The

purpose of these questions is twofold. First, by telling how they conceive the non-verbal

behavior of the ether cultural group, the subjects add more information about their own

nonverbal system. Moreover, it was assumed that the subjects' reactions would indicate the

extent to which the differences in the usage of nonverbal behavior could hinder successful

cross-cultural face-to-face inter-action between these two groups. Accordingly, EFL teacherswould be able to know what nonverbal aspects of the target culture should be taught in the

classroom in order to facilitate English language learners' eventual interaction with members

of that culture.

Once all the informants were interviewed, their responses were broken into cultural

groups. The responses of each cultural group were further broken into two categories:

female and male. Afterwards, the answers of these four groups to each question were record-

ed separately on a chart. These answers were then compared at the female/male level within

each group in order to find the similarities, if any. Once these common similarities were

determined, they were contrasted with those of the other cultural group in order to find out the

differences in the usage of the categories, if any.

III. Findings

8


9/91

Chronemics: In general, the subjects' responses seem to indicate that the usage of time

appears to be much more emphasized in the American culture. Time is a common denomin-

ator with which the American professional and academic activities function to Precision. For

instance, when having an appointment or a meeting, people are expected to show .up on time.

Students are expected to show up for their classes on time. Radio and television programstend to be broadcast as announced in newspapers. It is common for people to leave and show

up for their work on time. Trains, buses, and aeroplanes tend to leave and arrive as

scheduled. Civil servants are expected to issue requested administrative documents on time.

The American social interactions tend to function with more flexibility. For instance,

the length of a party can vary from 3 to 5 hours. Guests are usually informed about when to

come but not when to leave, unless it is a formal party or reception. however, there seems to

be a tacit expectation for guests to leave after 3 to 5 hours. It appears customary for guests to

show up a little late, usually between 30 minutes to one hour, unless it Is a dinner party in

which case guests are expected to arrive no later than 15 minutes. The length of a friendly

visit usually lasts up to 2 hours. However, when a visitor comes from out of town, she/hewould be expected to stay up to 2 nights, preferably on the weekend. Shopping and with flex-

ibility going to restaurants take place once a week and usually last Up to 2 hours.

The Moroccan subjects' responses revealed that the usage of time appears to be less

important in the Moroccan culture. Although it is emphasized in the professional and

academic areas, time tends to be less respected than in the American culture. For example,

when having an appointment, it is not surprising for one to wait up to one hour before the

other person shows up. Radio and television programs do not always correspond to their

announcements in newspapers. It seems customary for people to show up late for their work

and leave early. Trains and buses are usually expected to be late. It seems common for civil

servants to issue requested administrative documents a few days late.

It appears that the Moroccan social inter-actions are less concerned with time than the

American ones. For instance, the length of a party can vary from 4 to 9 hours, with formal

parties and receptions being shorter. Guests are usually not told when to come and leave.

However, it is customary for guests to arrive up to 2 hours and a half late, if they ever show

up.

However, when dinner is mentioned, guests are allowed to arrive Up to one hour late.

The length of a friendly visit can last overnight. However, when visitors come from out of

town, the visit can last up to a week. Shopping is generally left to women who tend to go to

the market place every day. It appears that Moroccans do not go to restaurants as often as

Americans do. However, going to cafes and snack-bars seems a daily activity.

The American subjects' attitude toward the usage of time by Moroccans seems on the

whole negative. Most of the American informants qualified the Moroccans' usage of time in

daily inter-actions with Americans as disrespectful and annoying. The American subjects

believe that time is fundamental in planning and executing professional as well as social

interactions. Therefore, failure to respect time would be considered offending. Nevertheless,

some American subjects expressed a certain regret for not being able to spend more time in

their social transactions. The Moroccan subjects' view of the usage of time in the American

culture, however, seems positive. Most of the Moroccan subjects tend to be impressed by the

degree of respect of time in the American culture and wished that the professional as well as

the social activities in the Moroccan culture were more concerned with time.

9


10/91

Haptics: The usage of this category appears to be similar in the two cultures in terms

of form and context of occurrence. In both cultures, body contact takes place in the form of a

handshake or a kiss usually in greetings and leave-takings. It is also similar in that men and

women in both cultures use it differently. However, touch appears to differ in both cultures in

terms of the degree of emphasis.

In the American culture , touch appears to be rarely used in interactions in publics

places except when it conveys a certain degree of intimacy or affiliation , in most daily face-

to-face interactions in public places such as market place ,restaurant , or classroom . A Simple

HI a little head nod or smile are used to acknowledge another interactants presence . In

parties a handshake between men and a kiss on the cheeks between women appear to be a

common practice . When people meet or are introduced for the first time , they often do not

touch . Greetings among relatives appear to take the form of a handshake or no touch for men

and hug or a kiss on the cheeks for women . In formal situations , it seems customary for men

to shake hands and women not to exchange body contact . Greeting and leavetaking among

friends or relatives who have not or are not going to see each other for a long time usually

take the form of a handshake or no body contact between men and a hug or a kiss betweenwomen . In general , touch appears to be American subjects regarded a long handshake and a

long hug or kiss that occur in daily interactions in public situations as inappropriate when they

do not respectively denote formality and intimacy .

In the Moroccan culture , touch tends to be much more emphasized . In most daily

face-to-face interactions in public places such as market place , classroom , or restaurant ,

shaking hands appears to be a common practice . It tends to be customary for an interactant to

walk into a place where there are 10 interactants and shake hands with everyone of them .

When people meet or are introduced for the first time , they usually shake hands . Greeting

among relatives usually takes the form of a handshake or a kiss on both cheeks for men and

kiss on both cheeks for a woman . Kissing between men tends to be common when it denotesintimacy and between women merely as a form of greeting . When expressing intimacy,

women tend to kiss several times on the cheeks. In formal situations, it is common for men as

well as women to shake hands. Greeting and leave-taking among friends or relatives whohave not or are not going to see each other for a long time usually take the form of a long hug

and few kisses on both cheeks for men and women. In general, touch in public places tends to

be used intrasexually more than intersexually. However, women seem to use touch more than

men.

The American subjects qualified the usage of touch by Moroccans as excessive and

overemotional. According to the American subjects, it appears that there tend to be in the

American culture a certain awareness and respect of individual territories in face-to-face

interactions. Therefore, when used without denoting intimacy, any form of touch can

constitute a violation of these individual territories. On the other hand the Moroccan subjects

regarded the usage of touch in the American culture as formal, distant, and cold. They did not

view body contact as a violation of the' limits that are set by the individual .

Gaze: This category can result in some misunderstandings in intercultural interactions.

It appears that Americans prefer to use a brief or casual glance in public places such as market

place, restaurant, and classroom. In such places, a longer gaze is considered rude. However,

in communicative social situations, the gaze tends to be longer and seems to be usually

accompanied by some paralinguistic and facial expressions such as smiling, nodding, or even

the verbal "uhum". Eye contact in such situations appears to indicate that the channels of

communications are open and that attention is being paid to the interlocutor. A friendly gaze

10


11/91

is usually short and accompanied by a smile.

The Moroccan subjects' responses revealed that in the Moroccan culture, eye contact

tends to be longer and much more direct in general. In public places, people seem to take the

time to look at each other in a rather examining way such as looking at the private parts ofothers' bodies, especially at women. Women seem to look up at men less than men do. In

communicative face-to-face interactions, the Moroccan gaze tends to be direct and not as

often accompanied by facial and paralinguistic expressions for communicative purposes.

However, in other situations, eye contact tends to be shorter and less frequent. For instance,

when youngsters interact with elderly relatives, they tend to look down most of the time. The

absence of gaze in such situations is commonly regarded as an indication of respect.

The American male subjects regarded the Moroccans' scrutinizing gaze without a

smile as disrespectful and expressed their intolerance of it. The American female informants

appeared to be embarrassed by the complete absence of eye-contact in face-to-face

interactions, which means lack of interest or rejections, and by the cold stare which denotesboldness or threat. The Moroccan subjects qualified the Americans' brief and casual gaze as

an indication of lack of interest.

Posture: It turned out that this category revealed some significant intercultural differ-

ences. In general, it appears that the American subjects favored comfortable ways of sitting

and standing more than the Moroccans did. In classroom situations, for instance, it is

tolerated and quite normal for American students to sit in relaxed manners such as sticking

their feet up. There seems to be fewer differences between the ways men and women sit in

the American culture than in the Moroccan ans. In informal interactions, it is customary to sit

with the back head to the chair, hands held down and feet crossed or held moderately apart.

In formal interactions, people usually sit with their legs crossed, arms folded, and backstraight. Standing in informal situations appears to consist of leaning on one foot and leaning

on both feet and folding arms in formal situations. In the Moroccan culture, on the other

hand, forms of body orientation, sitting, and standing tend to denote the immediate attitudes

of the interactants. To use the same example, sitting in a comfortable position, as defined by

the American standards, such as. sticking the feet up, would indicate disrespect and probably

lack of manners. Even among family members, there tend to be same postures that are not

tolerated such as sprawling or lying in bed.

The American subjects regarded the usage of posture by Moroccans as formal and

confined. The Moroccan subjects expressed their intolerance of the Americans' ways of sitting

which they qualified as sloppy and disrespectful.

Proxemics: The subjects' responses revealed that, in general, the Moroccans tend to

situate themselves closer than the Americans do in face-to-face interactions. In interactions in

public situations, the American subjects favored an average interpersonal distance of

approximately 2 to 3 feet. Unless it means intimacy or affiliation, an interpersonal distance

closer than 2 feet 16 considered embarrassing.

It seems that interpersonal spatial regulations are much more structured and organized

in the American culture. personal space is emphasized even among members of an American

family. It is manifested by individual bedrooms, personal territory at meal tables, and

individual seats in classrooms, to use only a few examples. The usage of interpersonal spacecan be summarized by Eisenbergs remark that it "can best be visualized as a 'plastic bubble'

11


12/91

which surrounds the individual. When people meet, they manipulate their badies in such a

way as to keep their bubbles intact.

If one pushes to the other, the bubbles bounce apart (Eisenberg, 1971, p.102).

The Moroccan subjects, on the other hand, an average interpersonal distance of one

foot in public places. It appears that an embarrassing interpersonal distance in the Moroccanculture would include touch, unless it is used to convey intimacy and affiliation .

Most of the American subjects regarded usage Moroccans usage of interpersonal

distance in Face-to-face interactions as aggressive and embarrassing. They believed that

Moroccans tend to invade personal space easily. The Moroccan informants, on the other

hand, viewed the American proxemic system as cold, distant, and rejecting .

It seems evident that these nonverbal differences as well as the informants' views of

each others nonverbal systems clearly indicate that foreign language proficiency cannot be

measured or considered only in terms of the internalization and correct production of the

linguistic aspects. A true foreign language achievement is one that ineluctably includes, inaddition to the linguistic aspects, the ability to interact with native speakers of the target

language verbally as well as nonverbally. Human social interaction, as has been discussed

earlier, is not exclusively linguistic. The nonverbal features that accompany the linguistic

messages are part and parcel of the communicative process and do contribute to he general

meaning and mode of face-to-face interaction. Regardless of the degree of his proficiency in

the English language, a Moroccan student, for instance standing in what is considered an

average distance in his, culture, would be considered by American interactants as aggressive

or too intimate. His direct and scrutinizing gaze may be embarrassing or intolerable. His lack

of respect to time in social interactions could be an indication of thoughtlessness or

disrespect. His excessive use of touch may be interpreted as a sign of aggressiveness or

excessive emotionality.

On the other hand, an American interactant's relaxed posture and body orientation in a

Moroccan context could be understood as a sign of disrespect or bad manners. His standing

two or three feet from Moroccan interactants may indicate formality. The absence of the use

of touch in greeting or leavetaking situation could mean coldness or rejection. In short, these

nonverbal differences can affect intercultural interactions. Second language learners' failure

to be acquainted with the usage of the nonverbal aspects of the target culture can provoke

uneasiness, embarrassments, or misunderstandings.

Teachers of English as a foreign language ought to realize that these are rather critical

issues that need to be seriously taken into consideration in the classroom. It is high timeforeign language textbook authors embedded these nonverbal aspects in their coursebooks and

materials. The inclusion of the nonverbal aspects of the American culture in the classroom

will ineluctably necessitate English language teachers familiarity with the American

nonverbal system of behavior. The awareness can be achieved by introducing nonverbal

communication as pert of teacher trainees formation in teachers' training colleges.

There are several ways of including the non-verbal aspects of the American culture in

the EFL classroom. The use of films, suggested by Johnson (1979,.p. 151), is particularly

worthy of consideration in the sense that, unlike most other techniques, films tend to show the

complete nonverbal motions along with the linguistic text. In situation where access to such a

technique may be difficult or expensive, prospective teachers ought to incorporate the targetnonverbal behavior in the classroom by preparing lecture presentations where they explain

12


13/91

how members of the target culture go about using nonverbal categories in their da1iy

transactions. (For a detailed discussion of the techniques of teaching the target culture, see

Chastain, 1976, pp. 394-403.)

However, in view of the present paucity of the nonverbal component in foreign language

textbooks and materials, the prospective foreign language teacher ought to pursue scholarlypub1ications in the field and observe haw members of the target culture interact nonverbally

by travelling to their country. These sources of information may prove to be reliable and

helpful for the English language teacher and learner. One of the prospective English language

learners' eventual realizations is that just as English is different tram their native language, the

American nonverbal system of behavior is also simply different. By being aware of it, they

would be able to understand better the target culture. Instead of evaluating it, they would

accept it as another important aspect to learn and use for better communicative purposes.

13


14/91


15/91

APPENDIX

I Chronemics

You have noticed how members of your culture use time in their daily interactions;

1. When invited to a party, are guests informed about when to come and leave?

2. What is the length of a party?3. How late are members of your culture allowed to arrive at a party?

4. What is considered an early arrival at a party?

5. What do you think a punctual arrival at a party is?

6. What is considered late for attending a party?

7. How often do members of your culture go

shopping?

8. When doing so, how much time do they spend in the market place?

9. How often do members of your culture go to restaurants?10. How much time do they spend on meals at restaurants?

11. How late are students allowed to begin an academic year?

12. How late are students allowed to arrive for class?

13. What is the length of a friendly visit?

14. What is the length of a visit by a friend or relative from out of town?

15. When having an appointment, how long does one wait for the other(s) to show up?

16. What is considered a late arrival for an appointment?

17. Are radio and television programs broadcast as announced in newspapers?

18. Do trains, buses, and airplanes arrive and leave as scheduled?

19. Is it common for people to leave and show up late for their work?

20. Do civil servants issue requested administrative documents to people on time?

21. Is there anything that you do not like about the way Americans/Moroccans organize time

in their interactions? If so, why?

II. Haptics

22. You have seen members of your culture touch each other. Under what circumstances do

they do so?

23. How do men/women greet each other in the following places:

a. Parties or social engagements?b. Market place?

c. restaurant?

d. Classroom?

24. How do people greet each other when they meet or are introduced for the first time?

25. What is a common way of greeting among relatives?

26. If relatives or friends have not seen each other for a long time, how do they greet each

other?

27. Do women/men touch when they leave each other?

28. In general, what is considered an appropriate touch?

29. What is considered an unacceptable touch in general?

30. Do you think the way women greet each other is different from the way men greet eachother

15


16/91

31. Who is allowed to touch whom in public places?

32. Is there anything that annoys you about the way Americans/Moroccans touch? Why?

III. Gaze

You have noticed members of your culture gaze at each other in their daily interactions:

33. How long is one (man/woman) allowed to look at people in the following places:

a. Parties?b. Market place?

c. Restaurant?

d. Classroom?

34. What is considered a friendly look?

35. In social interactions, how do members of your culture manage their gazing?

36. Do you think there is a difference between the way men and women gaze in your culture?

37. When walking down a street, how long is one allowed to gaze at passers by?

38. What is considered an unacceptable gaze?39. Is there anything that you do not like about the way Americans/Moroccans gaze? Why?

IV. Posture

You have noticed how members of your culture sit and stand in their daily inter-

actions:

40. How do members of your culture sit in general?

41. How do they sit and/or stand in the following places:

a. Parties?

b. Market place?

c. Restaurant?

d. Classroom?

42. What would be an unacceptable way of sitting?

43. Do both men and women sit in similar fashions, or are there differences in the way they

sit?

44. How do people (women/men) sit in formal gatherings?

45. What would be an informal way of sitting?

46. How do people (men/women) stand in general?

47. How do people stand in formal settings?

48. What would be an informal way of standing?49. Do men and women stand in different fashions?

50. What would be an unacceptable way 0f standing for a man/woman?

51. What do you think about the way Americans/Moroccans sit and stand in general?.

52. Is there anything that annoys you about the way Americans/Moroccans sit and stand?

Why?

V. Proxemics:

16


17/91

In your culture:

53. How close or far apart would you say people situate themselves from each other in the

following places:

a. Parties?b. Market place?

c. Restaurant?

d. Classroom?54. What would be an embarrassing distance in general?

55. What would be an intimate distance between men?

56. How close or far apart do men situate themselves from each other in formal settings?

57. What is considered an average distance between women?

58. What is an intimate distance between women?

59. In general, how close or far apart do men situate themselves from women?

60. What do you think about the way Americans/Moroccans use interpersonal distances in

their interactions?61. Is there anything that you do not like about the way Americans/Moroccans maintain

distances among themselves in their interactions? Why?

References

Applebaurn, P. L., E.M. Bodaken, K.K. Sereno, and K.W.E. Anatol. 1979. The Processes of

Group Communication. 2nd ed. Chicago: Science

Research Associates.

Badre, A. 1982. Nonverbal Communication in the EFL Classroom: A Comparison of the

American and Moroccan Nonverbal Systems of Behavior.

MA thesis: Indiana University.

Berelson, B., Steiner, G.A. 1964. Human Behavior: An : Inventory of Scientific Findings.

New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World Inc.

Birdwhistell, P. 1970. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Brooks, N. 1968. Teaching culture in the foreign language classroom." Foreign Language

Annals 1, Feb, pp. 71-78.

Galloway, C.M. 1979. "Teaching and nonverbal Behavior. Nonverbal Behavior:

Applications and Cultural Implications (Wolfgang, A., ed.) New York: Academic Press, PP.

179-208.

Hall, E.T. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior.

American

Anthropologist 65, pp. 1003-1026.

Hannerz, U. 1973. The second language: An anthropological view. TESOL Quarterly

7:3, pp. 255-248.

Haviland, W.A. 1974. Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

17


18/91

Jenks, F.C. 1975.Foreign language materials: A status report and trends analysis.

Perspective: A New Freedom (Jarvis, G. A., ed.). Skokie, Iii.: National Textbook,

pp. 151-177. (The ACTFL Review of Foreign Language Education 5.)

Johnson, S. 1979. Nonverbal Communication in the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Doctoral Dissertation: Indiana University.

Johnson, S. 1981. A Handbook for Teachers of American English. Manuscript. Bloomington:Indiana University Research Center for Language and Semiotic Studies.

Kendon, A. (ed.). 1981. Nonverbal Communication, Interaction. and Gesture The Hague:

Mouton.

Kroeber, A.L., and C. Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Defini-

tions. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology

and Ethnology. Papers, vol. 47:1.

Lafayette, P.C. 1978. Teaching Culture: Strategies and Techniques. Arlington, VA.: Center

for Applied Linguistics.

Lambert, W.E. 1974. "Culture and language as factors in language and education." Paper

presented at the TESOL Convention, Denver.

Mehrabian, A. 1972. Nonverbal Communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc.

Morain, G .G. 1978. Kinesics and Cross-Cultural Understanding Arlington, Va.: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Nine-Curt, C.J. 1975. "Nonverbal communication in the classroom: A frill or a must?" On

TESOL '75 (Burt, M.K., and H.C. Dulay, eds.). Washington, D.C.: Teachers of English to

Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 171-178.

Saitz, R.L. 1966. "Gestures In the language classroom. Eng1ish Language Teaching 21 p.

33.

Scherer, K.R., and P. Ekman (eds.). 1982. Handbook of Methods in Nonverbal BehaviorResearch. London: Cambridge University Press.

Seelye, H.N. 1974. Teaching culture: Strategy for Foreign Language Educators. Skokie,

I1l.: National Textbook.

Taylor, H.M. 1975. "Beyond words: Nonverbal communication in E.F.L." On TESOL

(Burt, M. K., and H.C. Dulay, eds. ). Washington DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages. Pp. 179-189.

Thompson, J.J. 1973. Beyond Words: Nonverbal communication in the Classroom. New

York: Citations Press .Trifonovitch, G.J. 1973. "Culture learning/ culture teaching." Readings on English as

18


19/91

Second Language (Croft, K., ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, Inc.

pp. 550-558.

Tucker, R., Gatbonton, E. 1971. "Cultural orientation the study of foreign literature.

Quarterly 5:2, pp. 137-153.

19


20/91

Questions

1. Q. Mr Bagui: Bearing in mind the age of lycee students, don't you see any risks in

having our learners compare their own culture that of the target language? I'm

thinking mainly of two risks: 1) either they have a very low impression about their

own culture, or the other way round. 2) Reinforcement of stereotypes.A. The teacher has to create a certain equilibrium. The teacher mustn't indoctrinate.

Human behaviour is complex, and there may be some reinforcement of stereotypes.

But this isnt the point. The aim is to sensitize the students to a culture and familiarisea student for the event of interaction, and so minimise communicative problems.

2. Q. Abu-Talib: What are the basic factors of the culture to stress in the presentation of

material?

A. Particular items indicate (in the target culture) how people act, in many situations.

The purpose of my talk is not to know how to put your legs when you go to London,

but how the people in London put their legs, so as not to prevent cultural interaction.

The job of the teacher is this.

3. Q. Larry Cisney: What segments of U.S. society were used to gather the information

on which your findings are based? Why?

A. Indiana, Michigan, Iowa and Ohio - because I happened to be there.

4. Q. Fakharreddine Berrada: Don't you think it's very challenging to deal with the

problem of 'culture' in a classroom where many cultures are represented?

A. The States is a pluralistic society, and each environment has its own culture, but

even in that kind of society, sensitizing students culturally is a very good thing to do.

5. Q. If with a large smile on my beaming face, I was to communicate this to you: "I

love you!" How can you tell whether I'm lying telling the truth?

A. Intuition can be used here. But the topic is exceptional. The purpose is to focus

on the generalities that most people tend use, not on feelings which people

communicate in an individual way.

Back to Contents

20


21/91

TEACHING LITERATURE AS CULTURE:

An anti-'1inguistic' approach

Mohamed Ezroura

Faculty of Letters -Rabat

First I would like to warn you against the title of this paper as it stands. I am sure that manyof you are ready to jump on me for my claim to be 'anti-linguistic'. "What is wrong with

linguistics? Everything is 1anguage and linguistics studies 1anguage," you would say. This

is undoubtedly true, but my critique is levelled against certain types of linguistic analyses

which have used linguistics in approaching literature either in private reading or in the class-

room. Similarly, this critique is of any type of knowledge which claims objectivity while

soaring in the air, isolating and marginalizing from its domain the people or human beings

who it produce that knowledge or about whom it is produced.

This paper is an attempt to debate some commonly used models of teaching literature and

aims at establishing a method of reading and teaching literary and other discursive practices

as cultural signs rather than as mere linguistic signs. But before starting on this debate, let me

proceed with an imaginary anecdote relating the experience of some teachers of literature. It

runs as follows:

A group of teachers gathered once to select a number of texts (novels, short stories,

plays and poems) to be taught at the university the following academic year. Here is a

part of their discussion:

First teacher: I would like to suggest M. Gorky 's novel, The Mother.

Second teacher: It may be an excellent novel, but I object to its being taught at our

level. We may also be accused of being pre-Russian.

Third teacher: I would suggest D.H. Lawrence's novel, Lady Chatterly' s Lover,

instead.

Second teacher: That is also a very good novel, but I'm afraid we can't teach it. It is

pornographic and immoral. Besides, it is too difficult for our students... Think

of the students.

First teacher: What about W. Owen' s poem, 'Anthem for a deemed youth'?

Third teacher: I'm sorry again. That's anti-nationalistic. It is a beautiful poem, but you

know there are many sensitive minds around and we might be accused of beinganti-nationalistic...

This discussion went on for some time and the group of teachers finally e-greed upon

a collection of 'good' texts which were neither difficult for their students, nor political,

nor anti- nationalistic, nor immoral, nor pornographic.

Presumably, similar anecdotes have confronted several teachers of literature not only

when choosing texts to teach; but also when arguing about which methodology or approach to

adopt. However, this anecdote is very significant in the way it relates to use some of the

crucial problems that arise in classroom situations, and when a literary text is to be taught.

Here are at random some of these problems which are central to the debate in this paper:(a) the selection of texts for the curriculum and the aim behind the teacher's activity in the

21


22/91

classroom. (b) Is it a process of imparting knowledge to the students, or is it merely talking

about literature which concerns the teacher? (c) What is the nature of that knowledge and

which methodology to adopt in order to impart it? (d) What is the nature of the literary text,

its relationship to language, other social practices, and the real world?

I believe that all these questions are interrelated and find their ultimate solution in thenature of the literary text - which I detail below - and the nature of the language that con-

stitutes it.

On the whole, our main concern as teachers of literature is, should be, hew the

teaching of literature can have a positive influence on our students and thereby on our society

in general. This may be interpreted as setting up a goal for the practice of teaching literature;

but to be empirical, any approach to literature would normally assign itself a goal to attain. It

is a quest for a positive Influence as seen by individual teachers and educationalists which has

always governed the view of hew literature is to be taught, read, and disseminated.

Let us now consider some of the various methodological suggestions for the teachingof literature that have been advanced in such publications as the journals Forum, ELT, and

Widdowson' s Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature (Longman, 1975). It should be noted

that all these sources have a linguistically based approach to the teaching of literature.

Linguistics and the teaching of literature

Central to this approach is a peculiar view language, and more specifically literary

discourse. Briefly, this view's analyses turn around the following arguments:

a) 'writing' (is) a representation of speech", and literary language is radically different

from ordinary language. (Widdowson, 1975).

b) Priority is given to technique, the patterning of linguistic units in both prose and

verse; while less importance is given (if net ignored) to the communicative or social

content of literature (i.e. the segmental 16 central, whereas the cultural 16 mar-

ginal.)

c) The domain of reference is grammar, or in Widdowson' s words, it is

"grammaticalness and interpretability (Widdowson, op. cit.)

d) Linguistic structures govern literature and net the reverse, and thereby they should

govern the teaching of this literature as well.

e) The literary text is autonomous.

In her article, "some insights from linguistics the teaching of literature", published in

Forum , Vol. XIX, no. 4+, l976, Virginia French Allen says that

how to cheese and arrange words in a passage se as to evoke in a reader's mental ear

the rhythms and emphases appropriate to the writer's intention - that is one of the

central problems in literary art. Perhaps this task would not be made easier for literary

artists by acquaintance with the work of Pike, Trager and Smith; but the observations

of the one and ether linguists concerning intonation, stress, and juncture are helpful to

teachers. They offer ways of accounting for the effects produced by literary

craftsmanship... ." (p. 18)

She also states hew the way language is spoken is the dominant feature in literarycraftsmanship Therefore, the teacher should accordingly pay close attention to the patterning

22


23/91


24/91

meanings which are not determined by the phonology, syntax or semantics of the

language code which provides it with its basic resources..." (Widdowson, op. cit.:

36)

If therefore, in ordinary language, an utterance presupposes the interaction of a sender

and a receiver, or an addresser and an addressee (Jakobson), literature according to thislinguistic approach does away with these primary factors. The author or the poet addresses

himself to nobody and the message becomes self-referential. Thus

"A piece of literary discourse is in suspense from the usual process of social

interaction whereby senders address messages directly to receivers. The literary

message does net arise in normal course of social activity as do ether messages; it

arises from no previous situation and requires no response, it does net serve as a

link between people or as a means of furthering the business of ordinary social

life..." (Widdowson, op. cit.: 51)

Contrary to this assertion, any text has always addressed itself to a particular group ofpeople either in support of or within an argument against a certain view of the world.

Literature has never exiled itself from the social world.

One actually would encounter the same problematic in some contemporary views of

literature which have adopted as a tool of analysis Saussurian linguistics; namely linguistic

structuralism, l'analyse textuelle and Deconstruction. Unfortunately, what they end up doing

is (an attempt to describe the structures of the human) mind on the basis of the structures of

language." (Tolson, 1979)

In order to achieve an objective view of language; Ferdinand De Saussure contended

that linguistics needed an object specific to its nature in order to become a science. The thrust

of his theory can be summed up in the following:

a) The arbitrariness of the sign (language, literature)

b) There is no natural link between the signifier and the signified.

c) "The value and function of a given unit in language, its accepted meaning, depends on

its relationship to other such units within the system of language." (Bennett, op.

cit.:45)

In applying these concepts to literary discourse, many literature specialists marginalize the

referent as social and cultural. In a similar way, structuralists view "cultural forms - such asmyths, folk tales, literature (...) as being articulated like a language and the methods of study

derived from linguistics should accordingly be used in their study..." (Bennett, op .cit.) One

deduces from this theoretical view that literature is constituted of different linguistic elements

(units) which produce their meaning through their reflexive relationship; a relationship of

resemblance and difference. Moreover the text is an autonomous artefact which is isolated

from the social milieu where it is rooted.

This type of linguistics which constitutes the basis of Widdowson' s 'approach and

Saussurean structuralism has led to viewing the literary text as self-referential; a view which

has become the watch-word for the highly sophisticated and fashionable approach to the

reading and teaching of literature in the United States: Deconstruction. What adeconstructivist critic or teacher believes is that,

24


25/91

"the deconstructor (...) undertakes a minute and rigorous analysis of a; particular text

and shows that it in fact contains contradictions which make it impossible to project a

single coherent meaning from it. Instead of capturing a referential object or an

authorial intention, the text is entangled in the network of its own rhetorical

organization..." (Marshall, 198O: 43O)

A clear deduction from these views is that the linguistically-based approaches t' the

teaching of literature have not been able to go beyond the linguistic units of texts in order to

seek interpretations of the cultural elements and layers of literary discourse. The reasonsbehind this shortcoming lie in a particular misunderstanding of artistic language and the

literary text in general.

I believe that in order to be objective, any approach to literature and its function in the

educational system of any society should take into consideration the sociolinguistic

dimensions of texts and see them as "a totality of literary and extra-literary factors including

the prevalent mode of production, the prevalent ideology, the author's ideology and the mode

of his insertion into the complex total." (A. Williams, 1982)

But before the consideration of the nature of the literary text which is going to

determine what appropriate' approach to adopt, let us consider first the difference between lit-

erary/artistic language and ordinary language.

Literary 1anguage and ordinary 1anguage

It is truistic to say that the raw material of literature is literary language, but it is very

misleading to advance that literary language is a self-referentia1 system which is exiled from

the rea1 world. Let us consider the following statements which were a credo for the German

Romantics, French Symbolists and other semioticians the early part of this century. Both are

simultaneously by Kar1-Philip Moritz and Jan Mukarovsky:

a) "The truly beautiful (and hence art, which is its incarnation) consists in the

fact that a thing should signify nothing but itself, that it should be an

achieved whole in itself."

b) "The artistic sign (is) ... an autonomous sign.... (Quoted by Todorov, 1973)

If we accept - for the sake of argumentation-that artistic language is not referential to

anything outside itself, we shall find ourselves in contradictory reasoning when we note thatlanguage (either literary or non-literary) has changed According to historical events and

developments, periods and usage. It is needless to stress here the fact that Hamlet's language

is not that of Look back in Anger, or that Robinson Crusoe's religious discourse is radically

different from Faulkners rhetoric in Light in August.

Literary language, in fact, faces a serious problematic relating to its function and its

relationship to the real world. According to the different schools of criticism which have tried

to solve that problem, artistic language had to accept either mimesis or self-referenciality.

However; language in literature neither mirrors the world nor detaches itself from it; it has a

complex and particular relationship with it. . As Todorov says, "language mediates the

world".

25


26/91

It represents the world to us and gives us a view of it. Authors 're-present' the world in

which they live via the language they use. Unfortunately, they have no other means to 'speak'

the world to us outside language. They 'reflect an image of a broken image; a contradictory

view of a world itself full of contradictions.

If we go back to the constitutive 'unit' of literature which is the word, we note that itdoes not-as in life- only function in grammatical relationship to other words in the text, but is

burdened with cultural signification as well. As Voloshinov explains:

"In actuality, we never say or hear words, we say and hear what is true or false,

good or bad, important or unimportant, pleasant or unpleasant, and so an. Words

are always filled with content and meaning drawn from behaviour or ideology.

That is the way we understand words, and we can respond only t-o words that

engage us behaviourally or ideologically." (Voloshinov, 1973:70)

Thus, it is this type of concern with empty and dry words that the literary critic and the

teacher of literature should bath avoid believing in and imparting to their students. In thelight of this argument, a careful consideration of the nature of the literary text and its genesis

seem necessary.

The nature of the literary text

If the nature of the literary text is clearly defined, it will be easier for the teacher of

literature to find a better way to confront the text in the classroom. This will also enable us to

answer all the questions posed at the beginning of this paper. In reference to the diagram

below, the literary text is by no means only a linguistic construction which awaits the reader's

or the teacher's deciphering and consumption. It is not only a collection of linguistic units

which are isolated from the social world; on the contrary, it is a discursive practice which is,

like any other cultural activity, strongly rooted in the various other activities of individuals

and their relationships to each other.

When a literary text is written, read or taught, its nature and function become clearly

defined by a whole series of factors which (directly or indirectly) interfere with its

signification and textual construction or interpretation. In the classroom, (ref. diagram), the

centre of attention is the text per se, which is signification, a knowledge of the world (cultural

and ideological) and textuality (linguistic material). The agents behind its status as a text are

the author (producer) and the teacher (reader). Both of them approach the text carrying inside

their heads mnemonic systems which have always and already been modelled through a directcontact with the outside world.

In handling a text and through the production of an imaginary (fictional) world, the

author interrogates, sides with or subverts the dominant conception of this world. Examples

of this fact are many in world literatures. In fact, when an author deals with the raw materials

he has acquired through family, class, and intellectual alliances, his Personal view interferes

with the production process of the output he finally presents us, as readers, with. It is at this

level that we get psychological and technical transformations in the text (see the left-hand side

of the diagram). This is actually what has always differentiated authors and poets from each

other - even when they belong to the same historical period and the same society - and I

believe that they will, accordingly, remain so for ever.

26


27/91

The Literary text: (Diagram)

ocial .

The cultural world : history ,

language , other texts

The materiel world : The

economic , s

The teacher : reader = (eye) : ( recipient )

The process of teaching the text

TEXT : Signification : Knowledge

The process of production : Linguistic ,

Cultural

The author = The I ( eye ) : ( recipient )

The cultural world : history ,

language , other texts

The material world : The economic ,

the social , ..

Psychological &

ideologicaltransfomations of the

text

The literary text that the author produces is not scientific knowledge of the world nor a

purely linguistic artefact. It is a cultural and an aesthetic construct which mediates a vision of

the world and takes a position towards the different modes of writing which preceded it. This

is the real nature of the literary text which the teacher of literature should seek and try to

impart to his/her students. On the whole, a literary work is "the Product (...) of a signifying

practice, a practice which constructs and produces meaning" (Hall, 1978); a meaning which is

at the same time textual and cultural. Be it Dante's Comedia Divina or Milton's Paradise Lost

or Hemingways Farewell to Arms; they are all their Authors expression of a way ofhandling, transmitting and distorting the dominant cultural and textual views of a historical

27


28/91

period.

On the other hand, when a literary text is approached by the teacher, its nature changes

and becomes more complex; yet richer (ref. diagram). Here, it is not only the authors world

which is there; but the teacher's too. Therefore, an awareness of this fact is to be kept in the

teachers mind. Both the reader's and author's presence on the pages of a text intermingle in theinterpretation of the latter. As in the case of the author's encounter with the materials he

exploits in his production, the teachers background and view of the world is present in the

way the text is taught and interpreted. This explains a lot the factors behind the multiplicity ofreadings that a literary work life Hamlet has so far undergone.

Teaching literature as culture

Thus, literary texts cannot be reduced to Language as a linguistic construction devoid

of Cultural content. The linguists are right to remind us of the fact that no human practice can

be thought outside language, but we cannot be committed to the view that "in the beginning

there was only the word.... (Hall, op. cit.). Before the word, there existed an addresser, and anaddressee a something to talk about, and a labor to think and utter it. What literature

produces, beside its technical craftsmanship, is a world of ideas which are over-loaded with

cultural meaning. As Andrew Tolson clearly explains:

"Literature itself is a form of labor (work), the transformation of a set of 'raw

materials' (goods), facts, ideas, etc..., via a certain means of production (language),

into a product (a new work). This product enters the cultural life of the society as

the 'objectivication' of a 'theoretical practice' and may serve as the raw material for

future theoretical practice..." (Tolson, op. cit.: 57)

What I mean by culture and the cultural as the core of literary discourse is the way

people live, express themselves, and deal with the material and ideological world around

them. I would go along with the definition Raymond Williams gives to culture:

A "signifying system through which meaning (...) a social order is communicated,

reproduced, experienced and explored." "It includes formal and conscious beliefs

but also less conscious, less formulated attitudes, habits and feelings, or even

unconscious assumptions, bearings and commitments... (Raymond Williams,

1980)

This whole system or beliefs - even those 0f the self-referentiality of language - finds itway into literature via the language it uses. And without taking all these elements into

consideration, any methodology of teaching literature; which aims objectivity and claims it;

will remain weak and unreliable.

28


29/91

REFERENCES

French Allen, Virginia ."Some insights from linguistics for the teaching of literature,"

Forum ,Vol. XIV, Number 4 (1976).

Hall, Stuart. Some paradigms in cultural studies " Annali-Anglistica, Number 3 (Naples,

1978)

Marckwardt , Albert. "What literature to teach: Principles of selection and class treatment,

"Forum, Vol. XIX, Number 1 (1981).

Marshall, Donald. "Teaching literature, Partisan Review, Number 2 (1980).

Moody, L.H.B. The teaching of literature with special references to developing countries,

Longman, 1971).

Sopher, H. "Discourse analysis as aid to literary interpretation " Forum, Vol. XXXV Number

3 (1981)

Strachtenberg, Alan. Teaching literature, Partisan Review, Number 2 (1980).

Todorov ,Tzvetan. Artistic language and ordinary language"; Times Literary Suplement,

(October 5, 1973).

Tolson, Andrew. "Reading literature as culture," Working papers of the Centre of

Contemporary Cultural Studies, Number 9 (Birmingham University , 1976).

Voloshinov , V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of language, (New York: Seminar Press,

1975).

Widdowson , H.G. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature, (Longman , 1975).

Williams, Adebayo. "The crisis of confidence in the criticism of African literature," Presence

Africaine , Number 123 (1982).

Williams, Raymond. Culture, (Penguin, 1980).

29


30/91

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q: Don't you think that most teachers of literature impose their own analysis, appreciation on

their students?

A. It is what I have criticized in my paper. Teachers have always imposed methodologies of

reading and analyses on their students. It is better to present the students with differentreadings/approaches and let them choose which one suits them best. Sometimes, some

readers would opt for an eclectic method; a bit far from this approach, and pieces from

that one. Undoubtedly, each teacher has his/her own view of literary interpretation.

Certainly, he/she is entitled to it; but as long as he/she is aware of the intentions (social,

cultural, political etc. behind) that view. There is no way to limit that. What my

approach puts forward is an analysis or a method of reading which is aware of its project

(and explains it to the students). It also takes into account what a literary text says and

what it does not say explicitly.

Q: The student of literature is still learning the language. Should the teacher focus on

literature or on language?

A: The think that this arbitrary distinction between literature and language should be avoided

as much as possible. I believe that it is wrong to talk about language separately from

literature. Once a discourse is uttered, it becomes literature. Some theorists of discourse

are reading history now as literature! It is actually when critics /teachers started

separating literature from language that they started producing misreading of texts

because they conceptualized language in literature as a discourse without addresser and

addressee. The linguistic elements of a text such as verbs, adjectives and so on are the

bricks in the constructed text and cannot be understood without the literary/cultural

content they carry.

Q: How would you go about testing literature?

A: In order to test literature, the teacher should test the student's knowledge of the text. The

teacher should start with testing the factual elements of the novel, story, poem or play and

move on to the different themes and interpretations the student may come Up with as

long as these readings: are supported by logical/sound arguments and passages from the

text.

Q: Is the aim of teaching literary texts to spoon-feed students with ideas or to help them gain

an understanding of how to approach a particular literary work?

A: The aim of teaching must not be spoon-feeding, but developing the Intellectual faculties

the student already has; namely the faculty of criticism and analysis. When these

faculties are developed, the student will be equipped with a methodology and an ability to

confront various literary texts.

Q: You have mentioned only the psychological approach, aren't there any other approaches?

If yes which of them, do you think, is the most reliable

30


31/91

A: I have not mentioned only the psychoanalytic approach, and my approach is not

psychoanalytic, but borrows some theoretical concepts from psychoanalysis. There are

many approaches in the field of literary interpretation. To mention a few: the formal

approach, the archetypal approach, l'analyse textuelle, structuralism, Marxism, the

Feminist approach, Deconstructivism , etc... As of the reliability of these approaches, Iam personally dissatisfied with most of them; but I think that if we combine different

principles from some of them, we can come Up with a more objective method of reading

literary texts which I would call: Culturalism. This approach takes into account thetechnical (Linguistic) as well as the cultural and ideological components of a text.

Q: Language is highly organized; if you don't understand the structure patterns of a language

or understand the meaning of some words; you will not be able to understand fully the

literary text. In general, you cannot teach literature without a language and since

linguistics helps us understand language better, I think one will gain more by using it.

Can you comment on this, please?

A: It seems that some of you have not well understood the basic arguments in my paper. I

am not saying that linguistics is a useless 'science' for the teacher of literature or the

interpreter in general. Yes to linguistics; but the question raised is about the type of

linguistics we should adopt. Take for example Deconstruction in the U.S.; it sees the text

merely as a word play and only as a 1inguistic construction which does not refer to

anything outside the text itself.

This approach has been rejected by many critics .As of the type of linguistics I would

support and see as an objective way of interpreting a literary text, it is the one which

takes into account the cultural and ideological factors which construct a text.

Q: The process of selecting set books for a certain level remains very critical. Don't you

think we can have any book set for a level and the conception, perception and

interpretation lie in the hands of the teacher first and the student?

A: The selection of books (texts) is indeed very problematic at all levels. I don't think that

we can have any book (text) for any level.

Texts vary in their structure, difficulty of the vocabulary used, and most of ail the

complexity of the themes dealt with by their authors. There are books of easy structure

and themes; namely, Robinson Crusoe, Jane Eyre, Bleak House, Native Son, The RedBadge of Courage etc. And there are books which have complex structures and themes

such as Gulliver's Travels, Ulysses, Jealousy, Dr. Faustaus, Absalom! Absalom! and

others. These different books must be set for different levels.

As regards interpretation, it does not lie in the hands of the teacher and the students. We

should not forget that the student is still a learner of the tools of reading and deciphering;

whereas the teacher is more experienced and knows the trade better.

Q: If language cannot be trusted anymore, how can we evaluate the culture conveyed via this

medium?

31


32/91

A: My paper is a critique of this very view of language which borrows its tools of analysis

from Saussurean linguistics. It is this view which sees the text as a linguistic construct

which refers to nothing outside itself. The approach adopted here in this paper gees

against this view in the sense that it believes in the existence of a 'referent' which is

cultural and ideological in the text. The only means human beings can express

themselves through is - unfortunately - language and as critics, we must account for thenature of this medium before establishing any view of the text.

Q: How can we make literature (in a foreign language course) relevant to the target as wellas the source culture (s)?

A: All literatures can be incorporated under the notion of 'discourse practice' which is

governed by linguistic, social cultural and ideological factors. Accordingly, any text in a

foreign language can be made relevant to the target/source culture(s). When the different

analyses or interpretations of this text take into account in their reading the multiple

manifestations of these factors, the aim which is that of understanding and explaining

both cultures is achieved through the text. Generally, the social and cultural factorswhich produce a literary text-be it in English or Spanish or Arabic-are the same in their

difference. Factors differ according to cultures and social formations, but are similar in

the type of knowledge and view of the world they produce. Once we analyse a text

which mediates a view of the world (which is different from ours), it helps us improve

and understand or it least, compare a variety of world visions to each other. Human

beings, undoubtedly, live and understand their world through comparison, and teaching or

reading literature helps improving that cultural (discursive) practice.

Back to Contents

32


33/91

TWENTY COMMON TESTING MISTAKES FOR

EFL TEACHERS TO AVOID

Grant Henning

American University - Cairo

To some extent good testing procedure, like good language Use, can be achieved

through avoidance of errors. Almost any language instruction program requires thepreparation and administration of test and it is only to the extent that certain common testing

mistakes have been avoided that such tests can be said to be worthwhile selection, diagnostic,

or evaluation instruments. The list of common testing problems provided here is by no means

exhaustive, but it has been drawn from wide experience with tests prepared for classroom and

district use, and may there fore be said to be representative. It is intended as a kind of

checklist to serve as guidelines for EFL teachers in the preparation of their own examinations.

The common mistakes have been grouped into four categories as follows: generalexamination characteristics, item characteristics, test validity concerns, and administrative and

scoring issues. Five specific mistakes have been identified under each of these categories.

While some overlap may exist in categories of mistakes and methods of remediation, it is

believed that each of the following twenty mistakes constitutes a genuine problem which, if

resolved, will result in an improved testing program.

GENERAL EXAMINATION CHARACTERISTI CS

1. Tests Which Are Too Difficult or Too Easy

When tests are too difficult or too easy, there is an accumulation of scores at the lower

or higher ends of the scoring range. These phenomena are known collectively as "boundary

effects". As a result of such effects, there is information loss and reduced capacity of the test

to discriminate among students in their ability. The net result is a test which is both unreliable

and unsuitable for evaluation purposes. For most purposes, care should be taken to prepare

tests and items which have about 50 per cent average rate of student success. Such procedure

will maximise test information and reliability .his implies that the test should be tried out on a

restricted sample of persons from the target population before it is used for student or program

evaluation purposes.

2. An Insufficient Number of Items

Test reliability is directly related to the number of items occurring on the test. While

tests, may be too long and thus needlessly tire the students, a more common mistake is for a

test to be too short and thus, unreliable. For most paper-and- pencil EFL tests it is difficult to

achieve acceptable reliability (say .85 or above) with less than 50 items. This is particularly

true with tests of listening comprehension. At the same time, EFL tests with 100 or more

items rapidly reach a point of diminishing reliability returns for the inclusion of additional

items. Similar comments may be offered regarding tests of written or oral production that do

not involve the use of items. For these tests as well, a sample of language usage must be

elicited from the students that is both large enough and diverse enough in content to permit

reliable measurement.

33


34/91

3. Redundancy of Test Type

In testing general language proficiency, it is Common practice to devise a battery of

subtests to ensure that all important language skills are covered by the test as a whole. This

may well be a necessary step in the development of tests which have validity as measures of

general proficiency. The problem Arises when such combinations or batteries areindiscriminately maintained beyond the development phase. It can be demonstrated through

stepwise multiple regression procedure that no significant variance explanatory information is

usually added to most test batteries beyond the three or four best, reliable subtests. What thismeans in practice is that we Indulge in a kind of measurement 'over kill' by proliferating

subtests. It has been demonstrated, for example, that inclusion of subtests of error

identification grammar accuracy, vocabulary recognition, and composition writing "leaves no

room' for a subtest of listening comprehension (Henning, 1980). This is to say that nothing is

added beyond the existing components of the test in terms of the ability of the test to explain

or predict general EFL proficiency. Many such indiscriminately maintained proficiency tests

are inefficient in the sense that they carry too much extra baggage.

4.Lack of Confidence Measures

Most standardized tests come equipped with a user's manual. The manual provides us

with information about the reliability and validity of the tests, both what they are and how

they were ascertained. This information permits us to estimate the level of confidence which

may be placed in the test result when it is applied to various situations. When use is made of

locally developed test for important evaluative decisions, estimates of reliability and validity

should be provided for these tests. Appropriate computational formulas may easily be found

in measurement theory texts. Closely related to this problem is the need to ensure that the

persons on whom the test was tried out in its evaluation stage are from the same general popu-

lation as those on whom the test is ultimately applied. It is not uncommon for unwarranted re-

liance to be placed in some foreign standardised test when the characteristics of the

population on which it was developed are vastly different from those on which it is being

used. Vast differences of this sort imply a need for reanalysis of the test in the new situation.

5. Negative Washback Through Non-Occurrent Forms

Through use of inappropriate structures of the language it is possible to teach errors to the

students the following item:

I __________ here since five o'clock.a) am being c) will be

b) have been d) am be

Option d clearly does not exist in any natural context in the English Language. The

possibility exists that a learner, particularly at a beginning stage, might learn this form and

entertain the thought that am may serve as an auxiliary of be. While it is necessary that

options include incorrect forms as distractors, it is best that forms, like a and c above, have

some possible appropriate environment in the language.

ITEM CHARACTERISTICS

34


35/91

6Trick Questions

Use of trick questions must be avoided. As such items impair the motivation of the students,

the credibility of the teacher, and the quality of the test. Their use is a distinct sign of poor

pedagogy. Consider the following example:

I did not observe him not failing to do his work because he was

A) always working.B) ever conscientious.

C) consistently lazy.

D) Never irresponsible.

A quick glance at this item reveals that the stem contains a double negative structure

that makes wider the bounds of normal English usage. Such items are frequently found to

have negative inability; i.e., many of the better students e comparatively greater mastery of

the Lexicon are cheated, while weaker students manage to pass perhaps by attending to thefact that option c is different from the other options.

7. Redundant Wording

testing in english as a foreign language

Documents