Abstract:
Recent
developments in cognitive psychology have suggested definite differences in the
way Westerners and North-East Asians perceive and think about the world. This
information suggests major reasons for L1 interference in L2 learning and also
dictates how some teaching methodology may, in fact, hamper the way a student
learns English. This paper will examine some of the findings of Nisbett (2003)
and others in a way that can be applied to the EFL classroom demonstrating ways
to use this difference in thinking to enhance student understanding of English
and eliminate common errors.
1.
Introduction How
a student views the world could influence the perceptions and learning strategies
that a student adopts in the classroom and in their personal studies. Though
much has been made over the years to discuss, debate, refute and support the Whorf-Sapir
hypothesis of the intertwined nature of language and culture with proponents and
detractors on both sides of the argument (Kramsch, 1998; Hall, 1990; Nisbett,
2003; Sapir, 1929), recent developments in cognitive psychology have shown that
there are at least some very dramatic differences between the way Westerners and
Easterners conceive of the world we live in and approach that world.
It
is not the intention of this paper to re-argue the question: Does language influence
culture or does culture influence language? The author is content to assume that
they are somehow related and to approach cultural/linguistic differences with
the intension of exposing possible pedagogical errors in current teaching methodology
in the teaching of English to Asian students.
In what is certain to become
a seminal work, The Geography of Thought, Nisbett (2003) has laid out a
convincing argument for the cognitive differences between North East Asians and
Westerners. How teachers and textbook writers learn to interpret these differences
in a positive way that can enhance learning is the focus of this paper. There
are detractors (Dash, 2003; Guest, 2000) to teaching with culture, of course: Reducing
culture to a few generalized propositionally-stated 'pegs', while ignoring features
of genre, parallels an outdated teaching methodology. Thus, it would seem that
a cultural anthropology-based contrastive approach may be unsuited to the EFL/ESL
classroom. (Guest, 2000)
However,
this researcher believes that the recent cognitive psychological findings bear
scrutiny as applied to second language acquisition. Drawing upon both existing
research and practical classroom experience I hope to suggest some enhancements
that can be made in current pedagogy and suggest other areas for future classroom
based research.
2.
How are you prepared for the world?
When
a Japanese mother sits down to play with her child, she speaks mostly in relationship
words (Fernald & Morikawa, 1993; Nisbett 2003), "I give the vroom vroom
to you. Now, give it to me. Thank you." An American parent would be more
inclined to talk with object words "Here's the car. It has nice wheels"
(Nisbett, 2003). Relationships become very fundamental in Asian thinking and influence
a great deal of the way their world is created, where European/Americans tend
to be prepared for a world of objects. Most
Americans over a certain age well remember their primer, called Dick and Jane.
Dick and Jane and their dog, Spot, were quite the active individualists. The first
page of an early edition from the 1930s (the primer was widely used until the
1960s) depicts a little boy running across a lawn. The first sentences are "See
Dick run. See Dick play. See Dick run and play." This would seem the most
natural sort of basic information to convey about kids--- to the Western mentality.
But the first page of the Chinese primer of the same era shows a little boy sitting
on the shoulders of a bigger boy. "Big brother takes care of little brother.
Big brother loves little brother. Little brother loves big brother." It is
not individual action but relationships between people that seem important to
convey in a child's first encounter with the printed word. (Nisbett, 2003)
In
tests (Ji et al, 2004; Nisbett, 2003) both Western and Eastern subjects were shown
pictures of a chicken and grass and were asked to group them with a cow. Most
westerners have tended to group the chicken and the cow, and justifying their
answers by thinking taxonomically, (both are animals); yet most Eastern subjects
would group the cow and grass, thinking via relationships (cows eat grass).
3.
What is the world made of, Verbs or Nouns?
It
is the opinion of this researcher that this verb/noun tendency of the two linguistic
groups can be exploited in the teaching of English as "considerable evidence
supports the hypothesis that is enhanced through matching learning style to type
of instruction" (Hansen-Strain, 1993). Currently most common EFL/ESL textbooks
and lesson plans are filled with taxonomic teaching methodology, since, it could
be assumed most textbook writers and EFL/ESL teachers are experienced speakers
of English and therefore tend to think taxonomically. Yet research has shown that
if language is instructed via relationships there are greater opportunities for
vocabulary retention (Nation, 2000). At present, for example, when students encounter
colours in English textbooks they are often taught all at one time, a wonderful
taxonomical grouping. It should come as no surprise that days after instruction
students sort-of know that "red" is a "colour" and "green"
is a "colour" but which colour is red and which is green is hard to
remember. By the instruction of one colour and another noun with a relationship
"Green frogs live in a river," there is a far greater chance that students
will retain the vocabulary (Nation, 2000) both of the target colour as well as
the nouns frog and river, as opposed to collectively grouping "Animals"
and "Bodies of water" or "Places to live" in another lesson.
Grouping
things in a textbook or lesson is perhaps still useful in form of review and this
is not to suggest that Eastern learners can't be instructed taxonomically however; There
is direct evidence that Eastern children learn how to categorize objects at a
later point than Western children. Developmental psycholinguists Alison Gopnik
and Soonja Choi studied Korean-, French-, and English-speaking children beginning
when they were one and a half years old. They found that object-naming and categorization
skills develop later in Korean speakers than in English and French speakers. (Nisbett,
2003, p 152).
It
would seem clear that using a "relationship-based instruction model"
would have far greater success in the teaching of English to Asian students. That
North East Asian languages tend to be driven by verbs can be demonstrated in Koreans
ending a dinner out with friends with the single word "Go." To the more
noun conscious Westerner, the phrase "Home, boys." would be equally
comfortable. A
difference in language practice that startles both Chinese speakers and English
speakers when they hear how the other group handles it concerns the proper way
to ask someone whether they would like more tea to drink. In Chinese (as well
as Korean and Japanese) one asks "Drink more?" In English, one asks
"More tea?" To Chinese speakers, it's perfectly obvious that it's tea
that one is talking about drinking more of, so to mention tea would be redundant.
To English speakers, it's perfectly obvious that one is talking about drinking
the tea, as opposed to any other activity that might be carried out with it, so
it would be rather bizarre for the question to refer to drinking. (Nisbett, 2003,
p158 italic addition, mine)
This
verb dominated linguistic structure can lead to L2 errors in Asian students (Moon
& Vercoe, 2003). Although errors of accuracy not fluency (and ESL/EFL teachers
would be well advised to allow the errors during fluency exercises) considerable
student confusion can be cleared up by pointing out this different thought process.
"Because the verb precedes the object in English but follows it in Korean,
errors involving incorrect verb-object order arise in the production of the English
learner, e.g., *Cigarette give me and *(You) pizza like? (Shaffer, 2002).
Most research indicates that toddlers can learn nouns at the rate of up
to two per day, much faster than they learn verbs. However, "developmental
psycholinguist Twila Tardif and others have discovered that East Asian children
learn verbs at about the same rate as nouns and, by some definitions of what counts
as a noun, at a significantly faster rate than nouns" (Nisbett, 2003). It
would be logical to assume that viewing the world via relationships would present
an advantage in the acquisition of verbs in an L2, but more research needs to
be done to confirm this.
4.
Receiver vs. Transmitter
L2
listening can be one of the most frustrating and stressful parts of language learning.
Though normally considered a passive language skill, explaining to students: that
they may possess a different way of listening than the language they are learning
requires; could do much to affect student study methods. The
relative degree of sensitivity to others' emotions is reflected in tacit assumptions
about the nature of communication. Westerners teach their children to communicate
their ideas clearly and to adopt a "transmitter" orientation, that is,
the speaker is responsible for uttering sentences that can be clearly understood
by the hearer---and understood, in fact, more or less independently of the context.
It's the speaker's fault if there is a miscommunication. Asians, in contrast,
teach their children a "receiver" orientation, meaning that it is the
hearer's responsibility to understand what is being said. If a child's singing
annoys an American parent, the parent would likely just tell the kid to pipe down.
No ambiguity there. The Asian parent would be more likely to say, "How well
you sing a song." At first the child might feel pleased, but it would likely
dawn on the child that something else might have been meant and the child would
try being quieter or not singing at all. (Nisbett, 2003, p.61)
Having
explained to my students this transmitter/ receiver role difference in our ways
of seeing the world I have observed a far greater sense of relaxation in my students
during listening activities. Similarly, I have noticed far greater production
in pair work when the speaker is given greater responsibility in making themselves
understood The transmitter/ receiver role may also be seen in writing styles of
Easterners and Westerns for Duncan has found that "East-Asian compositions
may comprise a "reader-responsible" organizational style of writing,
while English composition constitutes a "writer-responsible" organizational
style." (Duncan, 2003).
5.
Seeing the Individual vs. Seeing the Group
To
the Asian, the world is a complex place, composed of continuous substances, understandable
in terms of the whole rather than in terms of the parts, and subject more to collective
than personal control. To the Westerner, the world is a relatively simple place,
composed of discrete objects that can be understood without undue attention to
context, and highly subject to personal control. Very different worlds indeed.
(Nisbett, 2003, p.100).
In
a rather fascinating cognitive psychological test, Muttsumi Imae and Dedre Gentner
(Nisbet 2003) presented Eastern and Western subjects with objects composed of
particular substances and described them in neutral ways. For example, subjects
were presented with a pyramid made from cork and subjects were asked to "look
at this 'dax'." The subjects were then asked to choose another 'dax' from
two trays. One tray would have similar shapes yet different materials (e.g. a
pyramid made from plastic); and one tray would have different shapes yet the same
substance (e.g. pieces of cork). Asian subjects were more likely to chose a piece
of cork as their 'dax' yet Americans were more likely to chose the same shape.
This indicates that Americans are coding for objects yet Asians were coding for
what they saw as substance (Nisbett, 2003).
In a perhaps more telling example
of the processes in the Asian compared to the Western mind, subjects were presented
with an underwater scene involving fish, plant life rocks etc. and were asked
to describe what they see. Most Western subject would begin their description
by identifying a large individual fish and orienting their description around
the fish (viewing the world from an individual perspective) where as most Asian
subjects would begin their descriptions by declaring "it's a river (or pond
etc.)." They view the collective whole as a starting point. (Nisbett, 2003). That
Asians have a more holistic view of events, taking into perspective the orientation
of other people, is also indicated by a study by social psychologists Dov Cohen
and Alex Gunz. They asked North American students (mostly Canadian) and Asian
students (a potpourri of students from Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Korea, and various
South and Southeast Asian countries) to recall specific instances of ten different
situations in which they were the center of attention: for example, "being
embarrassed." North Americans were more likely than Asians to reproduce the
scene from their original point of view, looking outward. Asians were more likely
to imagine the scene as an observer might, describing it from a third-person perspective.
(Nisbett, 2003, p.88)
This
collective vs. individual model of cognitive processes can be seen to influence
error production in Asian students of English (Moon & Vercoe, 2003). Shaffer
(2002) has identified specific areas of languacultral influences on error production
in Korean students of English which he describes as the Macro-to-micro Principle
and the Most-to-least Principle (Shaffer, 2002). Though these two different principles
may be separate, it is the opinion of this researcher that both error productions
stem from the collective vs. individual cognitive perspective. These errors can
be demonstrated:
Names:
Kim
(surname) Sung-Chul (given name)
(collective) ------------- (individual) vs.
Todd (given) Vercoe (surname)
(individual) ------------ (collective) Error:
"It is nice to meet you, Mr. Todd."
Addresses:
Gyeongnam (province) Gimhae (city) Obang Dong (ward) Siyoung Apartments
(Building) Apt. #343 (apartment number)
(collective) ------------------------------
(individual) vs. Apt.
343, Siyoung Apartments, Obang Dong, Gimhae, Gyeongnam
(individual) ----------------------------------
(collective) Error:
"I come from Gimhae in Obang Dong."
Dates: 2005
Nyeon (year) 10 Weol (month) 15 il (day)
(collective) --------------------------
(individual) vs. 15th
of October, 2005
(individual) '' (collective) Error:
"I was born in 1975, February."
Sales: seil
(sale) 80-50% halin (off)
(collective) -------------- (individual) vs. 50%
to 80% off
(individual) '' (collective) Error:
"It is an 80 to 50% discount sale."
Time: O-Jeon
(a.m.) 10 shi (hour) or O-Hoo (p.m.) 10 shi (hour)
(collective) ---- (individual)
__(collective) ---- (individual) vs. 10
o'clock a.m. or 10 o'clock p.m.
(individual) --- (collective) (individual)
--- (collective) Error:
"It's a.m. 10 o'clock."
Salutations:
Sinsa suknyeo yeoreobun (Gentlemen, ladies, everyone)
Error: "Gentlemen
and ladies…"
Shaffer
(2002) notes, In
Korean society there has long been a tradition of respect for teachers, so the
Most-to-least Principle predictably also applies to the formation of the lexical
item, with internal bound morphemes, meaning "teacher(s) and students"
Since the teacher has been thought of as the object of respect and as being in
a position of more importance than that of the student, the morpheme sa (teacher)
precedes the morpheme jae (student) in the lexical item sajae.
Korean:
sa-jae (teacher-student)
English: Students and teachers
It
has been my experience that by simply making students aware of our individual
to collective (Western) vs. collective to individual (Eastern) cognitive styles
I have been able to reduce the number of these types of errors that my students
produce. By indicating that producing language from a different cultural group
may require a shift in perspective is difficult to achieve (Boroditsky, 2001),
but students have commented that understanding this difference has opened the
door to understanding how to properly produce sentences in English. 6.
Conclusion
Though understanding the cognitive differences between Easterners
and Westerners may still be in its infancy, considerable advantage can be applied
to the teaching of English, and modern ESL/EFL pedagogy would be wise to take
advantage of the cognitive styles that Asian students have. Educators should make
themselves aware of the verb/noun difference, transmitter/receiver difference,
and collective vs. individual difference. By tapping into these processes it is
my contention that better language instruction and retention can be achieved and
a reduction in the production of errors would be a natural outcome of properly
instructed cognitive differences.
References Boroditsky,
L. (2001). Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions
of Time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22 Dash,
P. (2003, June). Culture Rejected as an Individual Difference in the SLA Process:
Not Significant Separate and Appropriate, Overall-nor for Northeast Asia. Asian
EFL Journal 5(2) Retrieved March 1, 2005 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/june2003subpd.php Duncan,
B. (2003). Reader-and Writer-Responsible and the In-between: A Cross-cultural
Comparison of East Asian and English Writing. In D. Shaffer, D. Berry and David
D.I. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings From the 11th Annual KOTESOL International Conference
(pp. 157-167) Seoul: Korea TESOL Fernald,
A., & Morikawa, H. (1993). Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese
and American mothers' speech to infants. Child Development, 64, 637-656 Guest,
M. (2002). A Critical 'Checkbook' for Culture Teaching And Learning. ELT Journal.
56(2) 154-161 Hall
E. T. (1990). The silent language. New York: Anchor Books. Hansen-Strain,
L. (1993). Educational Implications of Group Differences in Cognitive Style: Evidence
From Pacific Cultures. Pacific Studies, 16(1) 85-97 Ji,
L.J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett R. (2004). Is it Culture or Is It Language? Examination
of Language Effects In Cross-Cultural Research on Categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65 Kramsch
C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moon,
S.W., & and Vercoe, T. (2003). "I was boring so I played with myself:
First language interference in Korean students of English." Paper presentation
9th Jeolla KOTESOL Regional Conference, Chosun University, April 19, Gwangju,
Republic of Korea Nation,
P. (2000). Learning Vocabulary in Lexical Sets: Dangers and Guidelines. TESOL
Journal, 9(2), 6-10 Nisbett,
R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently…and
why. New York: The Free Press. Sapir,
E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 207-14. Reprinted
in D.G. Mandelbaum (Ed.) [1958], The Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language,
Culture and Personality, pp. 160-166. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shaffer,
D. (2002). Erring In English: Korean L1 and cultural interference. In G. Lasche
(Ed.), Proceedings From the 10th Annual KOTESOL International Conference
(pp. 219-231) Seoul: Korea TESOL
| 
