A case for overt cultural instruction The Turkish context FINAL

Multilingual and Multicultural Education Duncan Rose
A Case for Explicit Cultural Instruction in EFL Teaching: The Turkish Context
Introduction
Kramsch states that “culture in language learning is not a fifth skill...it is always there
from day one” (Kramsch 1993:1). The relationship between language and culture is complex
and the two are deemed to be inexorably intertwined. Recently, Byram (1994) and Kramsch
(1993) have sought to re-evaluate the role of cultural teaching as an aid to good pedagogical
practice within the classroom. As a result, there has been an increase in the recognition that
teaching a language is teaching a culture, and that this has an effect on learners’ language
acquisition.
As we enter the 21st
Century the English language remains predominant as a lingua
franca. However, there is growing recognition that English no longer belongs to the “inner
circle” (Kachru 1977) of countries where English is the first language. Consequently, English has
both “global appropriacy and local appropriation” (Kramsch and Sullivan cited in Alptekin
2002:63). If ownership of English has become dispersed why should the teaching of culture be
so highly valued in the teaching process?
This assignment focuses on the teaching of English in the Turkish context. It examines
the role that cultural instruction will play in aiding language acquisition in Turkey, and the
potential benefits multicultural instruction has for Turkey’s future. It examines the questions of
which cultures should be taught, how they should be taught and why they should be taught. It
then looks briefly at the practical considerations of implementing a national cultural instruction
program as part of EFL/ESL instruction. It does this in reference to the current political climate
in Turkey and to the current motivations for Turks learning English.
English Teaching and Use in Turkey
English is used by a wide variety of countries for a diverse range of situations. Originally
the use of English as a de facto second language was confined to countries in Kachru’s (1977)
“outer circle”, i.e. those countries with an established history of colonisation by an “inner-
circle” country. However, this is not the case in Turkey, where despite negative, historically-
influenced prejudices (i.e. World War I) English has continued to grow in popularity since the
1950’s and is now established as the second language of choice (Genc 2004 cited in Bayyurt
2006). As Turkey lies within the “expanding circle” of Kachru’s concentric rings of world
Englishes, users of English have less access or exposure to the language beyond the classroom,
than they would in countries with an English colonial history. Thus, despite popularity English
has not gained comprehensive social penetration.
1

English instruction begins in elementary school at age 7 and students are given 3-6
hours a week of instruction for 8 years (Bayyurt 2006:236). Instruction continues throughout
high school in preparation for the national university entrance examination the OSS. The OSS is
of vital importance to Turkish learners owing to the availability of university places. Currently,
Turkey has problems providing enough university places for its predominantly youthful
population. Several private universities in Turkey now require students to attend an English
language preparatory school prior to attending their departments. This is seen as a way of
alleviating the back-log of students, determining academic ability and preparing the students to
be taught by foreign professors in an English medium. Bayyurt (2006:236) states that the
Turkish Education Ministry encourages English teaching to “enable students to read academic
and literary texts”.
The result of this system has been the introduction of English tests for most universities
as a further way to filter out students for acceptance. The “knock-on” effect has been the
expansion of the English language industry with a host of private schools and preparatory
schools tutoring students to pass entrance examinations. Currently, universities such as Bilkent
in Ankara boast some of the largest English language departments in Europe with Bilkent
fielding over 200 native and non-native teachers of English. The quality of teaching varies
considerably between private schools and universities, and many non-native teachers have
never visited an English speaking country.
There is growing recognition of the “cultural capital” of English, especially as ties with
the European Union strengthen. Consequently, English instruction in Turkey focuses on three
main areas for future English use:
• Education and better career opportunities (Sebuktekin, 1981)
• International business and negotiation (including local tourism) (Jernudd, 1993:141 cited
in Dogancay-Aktuna 1998:31)
• Establishment of international communication links (Dogancay-Aktuna 1998:31)
It should be noted that the use of English in these cases will mostly be “with non-native
English using groups, and for individual and national advancement.” (Dogancay-Aktuna
1998:31).
Why teach culture explicitly?
Byram (1991), Valdes (1986) and Kramsch (1993) have suggested that it is impossible to
teach English without teaching culture. Culture is consciously or unconsciously part of the
teacher’s pedagogical aims and is transmitted to the students accordingly. Byram (1997:52) and
2

Kramsch (1993:1) both consider that culture is in the classroom despite any attempt to remove
it. Cook (1999:194-196) suggests that culture is implicitly taught when teachers correct
student’s word choices or their grammar. Cunningsworth (1995 cited in Nault 2006:315)
believes that culture is inherent in the teachers’ methodology and the educational materials
they use.
Explicit cultural instruction is considered to be something of an afterthought on the part
of the teacher. Kramsch suggests that culture in the language classroom is only taught to “the
extent that it reinforces and enriches” (1996:105). There is little concept of the questioning the
boundaries of one’s own or other cultures. This view is supported by Byram (1991) who has
shown that normal language classes have little influence on learners’ attitudes to other
cultures. If it is certain that “learning a language does not automatically lead to a heightened
cultural awareness” (Dlaska 2000:250), then a case can be made for the explicit teaching of
culture in the classroom as an additive factor, which supports acquisition of the language by
broadening the learners perceptions of other cultures and their own.
Baker (2001:403) suggests that the teaching of culture is essential to encourage
multiculturalism. He states that, those “who own more than one culture are more sensitive and
sympathetic, more likely to build cultural bridges than barricades and boundaries”. This view is
supported by Dlaska (2002:252) who refers to the European Union’s efforts to integrate culture
into language learning to foster more harmonious relationships. The teaching of culture in most
cases serves to reduce social stereotyping and nationalism. As Baker (2001:403) asserts, “with
multiculturalism at its best…out goes racism and in comes empathy and sensitivity”.
This is of particular value as Turkey prepares to enter the European Union. Especially in
light of a growing wave of nationalism and “wariness about the spread of something foreign”
(Dogancay-Aktuna 1998:23). Turkish nationalism has been highlighted by laws which have seen
several prominent writers imprisoned under articles 159 and 301 of the penal code for
questioning aspects of the national culture (Amnesty International 2007).
Which culture should we teach?
When aiming to teach cultural awareness we should be aware of the cultures we teach
and should examine their level of appropriateness and suitability in relationship to our learners
and their goals. Smith (1987:3 cited in Alptekin 1993:140) states, “English already represents
many cultures and it can be used by anyone to express any cultural heritage and value system”.
As Turkish students are studying English for use within situations that will mainly involve
interactions being undertaken with other non-native speakers, the appropriacy of solely
teaching British or other Anglophone cultures must be questioned.
3

English in modern times does not belong to any single nation or group (Crystal
2001:21,130, Jenkins 2003 162-168) with this in mind it would be a fallacy to assume the right
to teach Anglophone culture in the Turkish classroom. As Mackay (2002:98) states, one of the
primary goals of current language learners is not to assimilate or acculturate to a particular
nation but instead to a discourse community such as the scientific community. Therefore, when
choosing which cultures to teach in the classroom, we must consider the fact that many Turkish
students will not actively communicate with native speakers, and that solely teaching
Anglophone culture may be considered to be imperialistic. Phillipson (1992) notes that there is
an emphasis in cultural teaching for students to adapt to Western norms and Cook (1999:194-
196) supports this in the deficit model by suggesting that learners who approximate naturalistic
speech patterns of American English and British English are often praised more highly as
effective learners. This kind of discrimination is seen by Phillipson (1992) as an “attempt to
devalue, subjugate or undermine non-Western culture” and will be rejected in Turkey’s climate
of nationalism.
Alptekin and Alptekin (1984:16) advocate the teaching of English without reference to
English-speaking countries cultures. However, Byram (1988) suggests the divorcing of language
from culture denies the learner the purported fundamental purpose of language learning,
which is to give the learners the opportunity to cope with experience in a different way.
Equally, Valdes (1996:121) decries the use of the learners’ native culture as a “trap, leading to a
gross impasse”; she states that it is impossible to teach a language without culture.
Therefore in the case of Turkish students the emphasis should be on teaching English as
an international language with the cultural content being tailored to the discourse community
the students wish to assimilate to i.e. business or academic. Nault (2006:318) points out that
“knowledge of British or American culture is of no practical use” for those learning English for
local not global use. This is supported by Bayyurt (2006:241) whose survey of Turkish teachers
and students highlights the fact that “ELT materials should also include cultural examples from
other parts of the world”. Consequently, a mix of cultures including Turkish culture should be
taught in the classroom, as a means of promoting cultural awareness, as to “confine English to
one of its native settings…is unrealistic and misleading” (Alptekin 1993:141).
Difficulties in Teaching Culture
Stereotyping can be generated by time constraints placed upon the teacher who
“essentialize” other cultures to speed delivery of their curriculum. This is exacerbated by native
speaker text book writers who write about their own culture “where they are at home”
(Alptekin 1993:139). Essentialization and stereotyping are not confined to Anglophone cultures
but all cultures represented within texts. As Guest (2002:159) points out, in educational
materials “foreign cultures are otherized and essentialized, reduced to static monolithic
4

caricatures”. Teachers often fail to challenge the stereotypes given to students. Kramsch
(1993:48) states “culture has often become invisible to them”, and they unconsciously accept
the portrayal of cultures presented by textbook writers. However, in some cases stereotyping is
reinforced by teachers who do not challenge or are happy to disseminate an idealized or
simplified version of another culture. This can lead to students drawing ill-founded conclusions
about the nature of other cultures or simply reinforce nationally cultivated prejudices.
Nault (2006:317) describes how countries with histories of British/American domination
may feel alienated by insensitive attempts to teach those cultures. While this is not a major
issue in Turkey, the culture is currently undergoing a marked nationalistic period, and attempts
to introduce the cultures of Anglophone or European countries to the classroom, especially
Greece and Albania, may cause tension as a result of historical, social or religious factors.
McKay (2002) states, “English should be taught in a culturally sensitive manner”. Taboo
topics, such as the Gallipoli landings, or issues to do with the formation of Turkey as a republic
should not be discussed. Other taboo issues include discussing the Kurdish “nation”, regarding
Ataturk in a negative light or discussing the Albanian massacres. Turks are fiercely patriotic and
will staunchly defend the cultural perspective with which they have grown up.
Far from motivating students to learn, culturally insensitive teaching can dampen
enthusiasm and lead to what Giles (1984) referred to in his accommodation theory as
“divergence” (Ellis 1997:38). This leads students to emphasise the differences between
themselves and the target culture which results in a decrease in learning and can lead to a
rejection of the culture and the language. Kramsch supports this concept and says that explicitly
stressing social and cultural differences in schools is taboo because it “raises fears of reviving
age old ideological conflicts” (Kramsch 1996:100).
Ultimately, insensitivity can lead to rejection. While Turkey is a secular country, it is also
predominantly Muslim and it should be acknowledged that the dissemination of Western
cultural values is not always welcomed and is sometimes met with resistance (Dogancay-Aktuna
1998:36). Adasouku et al (1990) believed that students in Morocco not only became
discontented when making comparisons between their culture and Anglophone “idealized
cultures” promoted in books, but also questioned the validity and suitability of introducing
Westernized ideology, values and patterns of behaviour to Moroccan youth. Any cultural
teaching in Turkey must therefore take into account the values of the society and taboo issues
in order to be valid and acceptable to both the students and the institutions in which culture is
being taught. This is especially pertinent in light of laws concerning criticism of Turkish culture
as cultural instruction in Turkey will be subject to intense political scrutiny. Therefore, an
effective cultural program needs to be government sanctioned and organized at a national level
with clear guidelines.
5

In Support of Cultural Instruction
Culture is often described as a powerful motivator in the classroom. Buttjes (1988:52
cited in Byram 1994:13) suggests that “cultural content…creates the motivation to learn a
foreign language [and] also indirectly promotes interlingual competence”. This interest in other
cultures is described by Coleman (1996:91-99) as integrative motivation. Coleman suggests that
while learners are influenced by instrumental factors such as career considerations it is
“integrative motivation [that is] most likely to ensure successful language learning”. Cook
(2001:115) states that “the more a student admires a culture….the more successful the student
will be in the L2 classroom”. This implies that cultural instruction is integral to successful
language learning.
A further benefit comes from awareness of other cultures behaviours and conventions.
As Kramsch (1996:99) puts it, “knowledge of a person’s language is no guarantee of mutual
understanding” if one does not “gain an understanding of the person’s culture”. This is
especially true for written discourse in English. As Turkish university students may be asked to
write essays in English, it is necessary to have an understanding of the conventions of the
appropriate discourse style. Especially as they bring to class with them a discourse style which
was fostered in their own culture (Kramsch 1998:51).
Alptekin (1993:137) suggests that not only the productive skills of a learner suffer but
also their passive skills, as “when the relevant cultural background assumptions are
missing….reading turns into a time consuming, laborious and frustrating experience”. As Turkish
university students will spend a good deal of time reading texts and papers prepared in English,
the teaching of culture to aid awareness of discourse styles and to expand student schema
could be crucial in expediting their acquisition of subject knowledge.
Behaviour also includes the comprehension of culturally fostered traits which aid the
learner by assisting them in avoiding miscommunication. Kramsch suggests the teacher’s and
learners task is to “understand in ever more sensitive ways why they talk the way they do”
(1993:245). This is of particular value to students studying English for business purposes.
One possible benefit that can be derived from this is a reduction in “culture shock” and
“culture bumps” for students who later operate aboard. Brown (1986:35) points out that
culture shock is only likely to occur when students must survive outside their primary culture.
However, culture bumps may be experienced locally by students who engage in conversation
with an English speaker from another country. A culture bump is defined by Archer (1986:170)
as an uncomfortable situation which arises when interacting with a member of a foreign
culture. These bumps are frequent and can be generated by behaviours such as the Turkish
“tut” which can be perceived as dismissive by other cultures. Archer (1986:170) states these
6

“bumps” are short lived but can impact severely on relationships between speakers if not
handled with care. Thus an understanding and awareness of other cultures could assist in the
smoothing of these “bumps” and facilitate smoother intercultural communication.
Dlasaka (2000:248) suggests teaching culture could increase the students’ “cultural
capital” as “cultural knowledge will stand graduates in good stead in the global economy
whether they ultimately live and work in the culture or not”. A view that is reiterated by
Dogancay-Aktuna (1998:33) who discusses in some depth the “market value” of English in
Turkish society when it comes to gaining a job. This area is of growing importance as ties with
the European Union strengthen, and Turkish businessmen seek greater access to the European
marketplace.
Bilingualism is also associated with higher cognitive abilities (Baker 2006:148) and it is
accepted that “culture plays a major role in cognition” (Alptekin 1993:137). Therefore teaching
a second culture could have an additive value, aiding not only the progression to bilingualism
but also improving Turkish university students’ cognitive abilities.
Goals for cultural teaching in Turkish Classrooms
Fennes and Hapgood (1997:37) suggest that the objective of intercultural learning is
“the development of greater openness towards other cultures, the appreciation of cultural
diversity, the overcoming of cultural bias and of ethnocentrism”. Therefore in reference to
Fennes and Hapgood (1997:60-62) the following goals could be applied to the teaching of
culture in a Turkish context:
• To create an understanding of self-perception
• To understand ones own culture and other cultures
• To become aware of cultural stereotypes and prejudices
• To accept and learn to value cultural differences
• To be open to “otherness”
• To be willing to deal with culture based conflict
• To understand that culture impacts on behaviours and perceptions of others
Equally important, as Dlaska (2000:253) points out, is “to help students increase their
awareness of the cultural connotations of words and phrases in the target language”.
Approaches to teaching culture
7

Cultural instruction in the classroom is currently undergoing a revolution. Previously
culture was generally taught as a fact based transmission of items such as geography, festivals,
and ways of life. The current suggestion is that cultural teaching must move beyond this
“tourist” point of view which according to Sercu (1998:271) “does not include values and
opinions predominant in societies”. Kramsch (1993) advocates a movement towards cross-
cultural understanding to enable the student to understand their own culture in relationship to
other cultures. This interpretive approach is designed to foster a deeper awareness of the
culture being taught and can be achieved by comparison between the culture being taught and
the learners own culture. Dunnet et al (1986:148-9) suggest that there are six aspects of culture
with which students and teachers should be familiar:
• Language cannot be translated word for word
• Intonation patterns carry meaning
• Cultures use non-verbal communication which conveys meaning
• Languages vary in their grammar content and thus in the way they represent the world
• Cultures have taboo topics
• Terms for addressing people vary across languages
While these topics provide a basis for the beginnings of comprehension of another culture
they do so by “scratching the surface”. While comparisons between Turkish and other cultures
will provide the students with a basis for comprehension of the differences between cultures it
does not fully foster a sense of cultural awareness and empathy. In essence it is still teaching
culture as “difference”.
Kramsch (1993:205) suggests that learners are able to construct a “third place” between
their home culture (C1) and the foreign language culture (C2). It is in this “third place” that
foreign language learning occurs as the learner strives to objectively and subjectively reflect
upon the C1 and C2. In this way cultural appropriation is enabled and the learner is able to
adopt and adapt foreign cultures to suit their own requirements, this ability is considered to be
the first step towards a fuller understanding of multicultural communication (Kramsch
1998:81).
Kramsch (1993:205-206) lists four main strands to cultural instruction:
1) “Establishment of a sphere of interculturality”, which allows the student to reflect upon
both the target and native cultures.
8

2) “Teaching culture as an interpersonal process”, which encourages the teaching of an
understanding of “foreignness” or “otherness” instead of the simple presentation of cultural
facts and behaviours.
3) “Teaching culture as difference”, which is an understanding that national characteristics,
while important, must be viewed in relation to other cultural factors such as age, gender,
regional origin, ethnic background and social class.
4) “Crossing of disciplinary boundaries”, which encourages teachers to broaden their
reading of anthropology and sociology in order to disseminate a more comprehensive and
balanced view of the cultures they are teaching.
Teaching culture in reference to these four strands could be seen as a way of developing an
English speaker who was able to converse with a native speaker at a reasonable level of
competence while reflecting their own personal beliefs and their native culture. This concept
of cultural instruction moves the emphasis from trying to emulate a native speaker, and
develops the concept of the speaker’s ownership of the language they are learning. This leads
to the development of teachers and learners who are capable of mediating between cultures,
and would appear to be a far more sensible approach for Turkish learners in Kachru’s
“expanding circle”, where they may never need to emulate an ideal native speaker. As Alptekin
(1993:142) states, the goal of cultural instruction “should not necessarily be thought of as
moving from the learner’s native culture to the culture of the native speaker”.
Implementation
Bayyurt’s (2006) study failed to show a consensus amongst non-native speaker teachers
in a Turkish context for the introduction of culture into the English language curriculum. Many
stated they did not have the time or knowledge to implement a cultural program. However, few
doubted the value of cultural instruction and overwhelmingly suggested that it would assist in
the learning process. In practical terms the English language classroom is the ideal place to
address cultural issues (Kramsch 1993). The language classroom and the language teacher are
often the sole points of contact between Turkish students and another culture. Therefore the
onus should be on the development of strategies and curriculums that seek to mediate
between Turkish and other cultures. This can be done by integrating various cultures into a
nationally organized English language curriculum which begins at elementary school.
Materials and Methodologies
The current English texts used in Turkey vary across institutions but were predominantly
prepared in either America or Britain, and many emphasize the use of English when
immigrating to the USA or Britain (Wright 1996:36-37). Several Turkish universities such as
9

METU and Bilkent have sought to develop their own textbooks. However, these have a heavily
Anglophone cultural slant as the materials writers were native speakers.
Textbook selection should be dependent upon them showing a broad range of cultures
and asking the students to reflect upon these in relationship to their own culture. Ideally texts
will encourage students to develop cultural awareness and sensitivity in order to counter
nationalistic tendencies. Texts such as “New Headway” (Soars and Soars 2000) and “New
Interchange” (Richards 2000) would be ideal as they offer the learner a wide variety of cultures
and do not focus specifically on a single culture. While it is accepted that all texts will hold some
cultural bias (Clarke and Clarke 1990), texts which encourage reflection on both C1 and C2 are
preferable as they foster an understanding of “otherness”.
The use of American or British ESL books should be avoided as students invariably
question the validity of their cultural content. Books such as “Developing Reading Skills”
(Markstein 1994) promote a culturally biased view which does not encourage the student to
reflect upon their own and other cultures. Instead they seek to move the student through
acculturation and assimilate them into the target culture. In my experience, such texts are often
viewed as imposing another cultures values and lead to divergence and apathy amongst the
students.
Dunnet et al (1986:148) suggest a variety of techniques for the implementation of an
intercultural perspective in the classroom. These include class debates, a role playing technique
called “cultural assimilator” which involves viewing a problem from different cultural
perspectives, and the use of journals for “cross cultural introspection”. While cultural symbols
and icons will probably be central to textbooks the teacher should use these to construct a
more realistic representation of the culture being taught by encouraging the students to debate
the reality of what they see and to think about the other social variables mentioned in
Kramsch’s (1993:205-206) third strand of cultural instruction.
Teacher Training
A final consideration in the teaching of culture has to be the training of the teacher.
Byram (1988) suggests that it is unlikely that a methodology of integrated culture and language
teaching will establish itself until teachers are trained in cultural studies. The importance of this
cannot be overstated. As the teacher is a physical representative of the cultures being taught,
they must be seen to project a positive, non-biased view of those cultures.
Sercu (1998:256) describes teachers as being “social and cultural interpreters rather
than ambassadors” a role which is supported by Fennes and Hapgood (1997:49). However, non-
native teachers often “don’t know enough about the target culture” (Kramsch 1996:103), a fact
10

that is supported by Brumfit (1980:95) who suggests that foreign teachers are placed in the
difficult position of expressing a culture with which they have had little or no contact. This issue
is further exacerbated by the abilities of the Anglophone teachers, with Kramsch (1996:99)
asking if “native speakers [are] truly qualified to teach about their own culture”.
If Turkish students need to be exposed to a variety of cultures and not just Anglophone
ones it is important that teachers receive more training in line with Kramsch’s (1993:205-206)
fourth strand of cultural instruction so that they develop a better understanding of other
cultures. In the case of Turkish universities this could be achieved through a pooling of
knowledge between native Turkish and Anglophone teachers. This would assist in breaking
down cultural stereotypes and moving teachers away from passing on their own culturally
biased viewpoints. While a strengthening of ties between universities and high-schools could
increase the latter’s access to a valuable resource in the form of native-speaker teachers in
order to combat culturally stereotypes formed prior to university entrance. Programmes such
as the JET programme in Japan have found ways to introduce foreigners to Japan’s students at
high school level to encourage multicultural awareness. Such a programme would be of great
benefit at a national level in Turkey.
Conclusion
As Crystal (1999:17) points out, teachers have to prepare their students for a “world of
staggering linguistic diversity”. Proper preparation will involve exposing students to as “many
varieties of English as possible” (Nault 2006:320). Culture is no different. Exposure to a variety
of cultures will aid Turkish language learners who are acquiring English for local and global
usage. As the goals of English instruction in Turkey are focussed on national or self-
improvement the covert goal of cultural instruction is to expand the cultural perceptions of
Turks in order to counter what the European Union’s President has called “unacceptable
intolerance” (BBC website 2007). Additionally, cultural instruction leads to improvements in
international business relationships and the development of Turkish university students’
cognitive abilities.
The methodologies proposed by Kramsch (1993:205-206) allow Turkish students to
develop not only a better understanding of their own country but also that of others. Students
will be able to learn to comprehend and understand differences in pragmatics, cultures and
behaviours while still holding onto their own culture. In reference to the current political and
social situation in Turkey, this will enable learners to overcome prejudices related to other
societies, while examining their own in a covert way which does not threaten the respect for
Turkish national values demanded by the state.
11

While this essay is only able to cover a fraction of the issues regarding cultural
instruction in Turkey, it is hoped that further research and investigation will lead to a change in
policy which will promote the teaching of other cultures in order to establish a greater sense of
cross-cultural understanding in its citizens prior to European Union entry.
Words: 4, 694
References
Adaskou, K., Britten, D. & Fashi, B. 1990 Design decisions on cultural content of a second
Language course for Morocco in ELT Journal, 44(1), pp3-10
Alptekin, C., 1993 Target Language culture in EFL materials in ELT Journal Vol. 47/2 April pp136-
143
12

Alptekin, C. 2002 Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT Journal Vol. 56, no.
1, pp 57-64
Amnesty International website 2007 Turkey: Article 301 is the real insult
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=99 (accessed 20th
April 2007)
Archer, C., 1986 Culture bump and beyond in Culture Bound: Bridging the gap in language
teaching pp148-161 (ed.) Joyce Merill Valdes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Baker, C., 2001 Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters
Baker, C., 2006 Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters
Bayyurt, Y., 2006 Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in English as a
Foreign Language Classrooms in Teacher Development Vol. 10, No 2 pp 233-247
BBC News website 2007 Germany Urges Turkey over murders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6582441.stm (accessed 23rd April 2007)
Brown, H., 1986 Learning a second culture in language teaching in Culture Bound: Bridging the
gap in language teaching pp 33-48 (ed.) Joyce Merill Valdes Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Brumfit, C. J., 1980 Problems and Principles in English Teaching Oxford: Pergamon Press
Byram, M. 1991 Teaching Culture and Language: Towards an Integrated Model, in Buttjes, D. &
Byram, M. (eds.) Mediating languages and cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Byram, M., & Morgan, C., et al 1994 Teaching and Learning Language and Culture Avon:
Multilingual Matters
Byram, M., 1997 Culture awareness as vocabulary learning in Language Learning Journal 16, pp
51-57
Byram, M., & Risager, K., 1999 Language Teachers, Politics and Culture Avon: Multilingual
Matters
Clark, J. and Clark, M., 1990 Stereotyping in TESOL materials in Culture and the Language
Classroom Brian Harrison (ed.) London: Modern English Publications
Coleman, H. 1996 Society and the Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press
13

Cook, V., 1999 Going beyond the native speaker in English Language teaching In TESOL
Quarterly 33(2), pp 185-209
Cook, V., 2001 Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (3rd
Edition) New York:
Arnold
Crystal, D., 1999 The future of Englishes in English Today 58 (15/2), pp 10-20
Crystal, D., 2001 English as a Global Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dlaska, A., 2000 Integrating Culture and Language Learning in Institution-wide Language
Programmes in Language, Culture and Curriculum Vol. 13, No 3 pp247-263
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., 1998 The Spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile
in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Vol. 19, No 1 pp 23-39
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., 2005 Intercultural communication in English language teacher education
in ELT Journal Volume 59/2 April pp 99-107
Dunnet, S., Dubin, F., & Lezberg, A., 1986 English Language Teaching from an intercultural
perspective in Culture Bound: Bridging the gap in language teaching pp 148-161 (ed.) Joyce
Merill Valdes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ellis, R., 1997 Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fennes, H. and Hapgood, K., 1997 Intercultural Learning in the Classroom London and
Washington: Cassell
Giles, H. & Beebe, L. 1984 Accommodation theory: a discussion in terms of second language
acquisition in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46, pp 5-32
Guest, M., 2002 A critical “checkbook” for culture teaching and learning in ELT Journal Volume
56/2 April pp 154-161
Jenkins, J., 2003 World Englishes: A resource book for students Oxford: Oxford University Press
Jernudd, B., 1993 Planning English Language Acquisition in ESL and EFL societies: Development
and maintenance of languages and cultures. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 14, pp 135-149
Kachru, B 1977 The new Englishes and old models English teaching forum 15/3 pp 29-35
Kramsch, C., 1993 Context and Culture in Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press
14

Kramsch, C., 1996 Why should Language Teachers Teach Culture? In Language, Culture and
Curriculum Vol. 9, No 1, pp 99-107
Kramsch, C., 1998 Language and Culture Oxford: Oxford University Press
Markstein, L. 1994 Developing reading Skills New York: Heinle & Heinle
McKay, S., 2002 Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and
Approaches Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nault, D.,2006 Going Global: Rethinking Culture Teaching in ELT Contexts in Language, Culture
and Curriculum Vol. 9, No 3, pp 314-328
Phillipson, R., 1992 Linguistic Imperialism Oxford: Oxford University Press
Richards, J., 2000 New Interchange Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sercu, L., 1998 In-service teacher training and the acquisition of intercultural competence. In M
Byram and M Fleming (eds.) Language Learning in an Intercultural Perspective
Soars, J. and Soars L., 2000 New Headway English Course Oxford: Oxford University Press
Valdes, J. (ed.) 1986 Culture Bound Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wright, M. 1996 The cultural aims of modern language teaching: Why are they not being met?
In Language Learning Journal 13, pp 36-37
15

A case for overt cultural instruction The Turkish context FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to A case for overt cultural instruction The Turkish context FINAL

Similar to A case for overt cultural instruction The Turkish context FINAL (20)

More from Duncan Rose

More from Duncan Rose (6)

A case for overt cultural instruction The Turkish context FINAL