17.05.2001
©1991
- Patrick Boylan – patrick |
www.boylan.it – Return to Publications Page or Home Page |
Presentazione given at the XXII Congress of SIETAR Europa in Stavanger (Norway), 17-19.5.2001 |
Proposal for a Language-oriented
University Curriculum
in Cross-Cultural Communication
Patrick Boylan.
e-mail:
web: www.boylan.it
Department of Linguistics
University of Rome III, Italy
2.
Strand 1:Intercultural education
1998, University of Trieste
2001, University of Rome III
"promote reciprocal understanding in multicultural contacts"
=get people to accept (or tolerate) diversity
3.
Declared target:
teachers,
social workers (for
multiethnic communities)
media practioners, intermediaries(for business/government)
Program:
____Trieste:____________________Rome III:____
intercul. pedagogy (of differences)__traditional M.L. degree
social psychology (of stereotyping)__Chinese, Arabic literatures
sociology (of cultural processes)
economics, law, political science(comparative)
4.
Results:
nlargely cognitive : new perceptions
You knowwhy you shouldn't hate diversity.
" " what kind of stereotypes to avoid.
" " how to collaborate with others.
nbut only partly affective
Some empathy, no shared likes
nnot volitional:no shared values, aims, wants
(Also many training courses, e.g. for expatriates)
5.
è"Rote"
language learning in Language Centres
6.
Strand 2:Intercultural communication
2000, Modern Languages, University of Genoa
2001, Masters, University of Rome III
"help interlocutors to communicate more effectively
in multicultural situations"
7.
Target:
negotiators, P.R., H.R., mangers (multinationals)
Program:
economics,law,marketing...
sociology (of communication)
____Genoa:______________Rome III:____
foreign language & literature___linguistics, sociolinguistics
area cultural studies_________history, philosophy (ethics)
8.
Results:
nlargely cognitive: new perceptions
You know why your interlocutor acts that way.
" " what kind of business deal to strike.
" " how to strike it(maybe).
nbut only partlyaffective: some empathy, no shared likes
nnot at all volitional:no shared values, aims, wants
(Also many training courses, with BOTH strands)
9.
è"Rote" language learning in Language Centres
10.
Counter proposal:
Language learning (for students specializing in language-related curricula)
(1.) is not conducted in LanguageCenters;
(2.) constitues the heart of a project-based,
experiential learning program.
11.
Sample project:
"Seeing double"
Students/trainees:
a. identify with a "double" from target community
b. define double's perceptions, likes, values
c. repeat definitions à la Stanislavsky
d. talk/behave consequently with language taught
12.
Other similar projects:
nwrite (business letters, pop songs...) in target culture's style
ndebate with native speakers, after doing their cultural IdentiKit
nexperiment L2 Politeness Routines through on-line chats
ntest L2 ads'perlocutionary force on L2 speakers; rewrite them
13.
Courses backing up language-centered learning:
·General courses: Social Psychology, Philosophy (Ethics...)
·L2-oriented disciplines:Pragmatics, Conversation Analysis, Cultural Studies, Literature, History...
·L2 expressive arts: theatre, creative writing,public speaking and presentation-giving, communicative translation...
14.
Predictable results:
ncognitive: perceptions of heart of target culture
(not just of the manifestations)
naffective: empathy, shared likes*
nvolitional:shared values, aims, wants*
*while espousing the target culture
èInternalization ofL2 as mind set (Weltanschauung)
15.
Why should this approach work?
16.
Because language is not essentially a code.It is:
nexpression of willed existential stance
nway communities name, relate, and thereby
"make sense" of things;
na people's collective act of will,by which they
situate themselves in a universe of values.
17.
Thus, the willed existential stance gives sense to the grammar, not the reverse.
(Sapir-Whorf hypothesis too word-centered)
18.
(paper, when published,will appear here)