The Relationship Between Language and Culture, and Its Implications for EFL Teaching

Abstract

Is there a relationship between language and culture? If so, what is the role of culture in language classrooms? This chapter attempts to answer these questions. Obviously, there is a reciprocal relationship between language and culture. What is more, people’s cultural background and behaviors shape the way they interpret the world around them. Apparently, being aware of one’s own culture paves the way towards being aware of the new culture by developing a sense of cultural awareness. Therefore, communicating cross-culturally is regarded as an effective skill that can be developed through cross-cultural awareness (Gudynkunst & Kim, 2003). With these in mind, let us consider what lies behind the relationship between language and culture, and of course, how culture is integrated into language classes. The organization of the chapter is designed as follows: firstly, the relationship between language and culture is described. Secondarily, the state-of-the-art of culture pedagogy in terms of language teaching is introduced. Making the case for language and culture pedagogy, its implications are presented to which reference is made subsequently in order to deliver target culture with the priority of teaching English as a Foreign Language (hereafter: EFL). Conclusively, the last section remarks conclusions, and pedagogical implications for teaching target culture through teaching the target language.

Full text

CHAPTER6
THERELATIONSHIPBETWEEN
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, AND ITS
IMPLICATIONSFOREFLTEACHING
NurdanKavaklı
Izmir Democracy University
ORCID: 0000-0001-9572-9491

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
88
Pre-readingQuestions:
How are language and culture interrelated?
What does teaching of culture target at language classrooms?
How can teachers develop learners’ cross-cultural awareness in
language classrooms?
What is linguaculture learning?
Is there a ready-made way of developing intercultural capabilities
through language education?
Introduction
Is there a relationship between language and culture? If so, what is the
role of culture in language classrooms? This chapter attempts to answer
these questions. Obviously, there is a reciprocal relationship between
language and culture. What is more, people’s cultural background and
behaviors shape the way they interpret the world around them. Apparently,
being aware of one’s own culture paves the way towards being aware of
the new culture by developing a sense of cultural awareness. Therefore,
communicating cross-culturally is regarded as an eective skill that can
be developed through cross-cultural awareness (Gudynkunst & Kim,
2003). With these in mind, let us consider what lies behind the relationship
between language and culture, and of course, how culture is integrated into
language classes.
The organization of the chapter is designed as follows: rstly, the
relationship between language and culture is described. Secondarily,
the state-of-the-art of culture pedagogy in terms of language teaching
is introduced. Making the case for language and culture pedagogy, its
implications are presented to which reference is made subsequently in
order to deliver target culture with the priority of teaching English as a
Foreign Language (hereafter: EFL). Conclusively, the last section remarks
conclusions, and pedagogical implications for teaching target culture
through teaching the target language.
Framing the relationship between language and culture
“All words have the ‘taste’ of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party,
a particular work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the day
and hour. Each word tastes of the context and contexts in which it has lived
its socially charged life.” (Bakthin, 1981, p. 293)

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
89
Imagine that you were grown up in a dierent place by learning a
dierent language. Would your perception of the world change? Would
you then categorize objects and/or ideas dierently? Would you have
a dierent understanding of the words? What about raising up with no
language! Would you then stop thinking since there was no language at
all? Would you able to enroll in cultural activities meaningfully?
First of all, let us agree on the denition of culture since both terms,
language and culture, do refer to one’s place in a social group, or their
relation with that group. Basically, culture is regarded as a repertoire of
shared beliefs, experiences, practices and values that are used by a group of
people in order to understand the world surrounding them (Nasir & Hand,
2006). Notably, it is important to clarify the distinction between objective
and subjective culture (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). The relatively visible
and obvious elements of culture such as food preferences, dressing, and
architecture are embedded within objective culture whereas subjective
culture encompasses more hidden and invisible cultural elements such as
values, beliefs, patterns of verbal and nonverbal communication (Hall,
1966). However in both, culture manifests arbitrariness in the sense that
dierent patterns could be interpreted and recorded in dierent ways;
therefore, the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ may have a change.
Perhaps most obviously, culture is represented by language since
culture is interpreted, mediated and recorded by means of a language
(Kramsch, 1995). Language is not solely a means of communication, albeit
a cumulation of socially embedded practices; thus, words live socially
responsible lives. Quite similarly, social interactions do live linguistically
responsible lives since language is the mediator of any social interaction
so as to occur. The starting point is that language is inherently social by
nature. Therefore, the language we use is aected by the social contexts
in which we see, hear and experience even though we do things with
words. Since language we use and the social contexts in which it occurs
are mutually related, language should be treated “not only as a mode of
thinking but, above all, as a cultural practice, that is, as a form of action
that both presupposes and at the same time brings about ways of being in
the world” (Duranti, 1997, p.1).
For much of the past century, to say nothing of the present one, culture
had been a topic of research for the scholars in the eld of sociolinguistics
and cultural studies in terms of forming local and/or universal links

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
90
between language and culture. Its mediatory role, on the other hand,
directs language teachers’ interest towards two unleashed catchwords:
‘intercultural’ and ‘multicultural’. Intercultural as a term has widely
been used in the European world of education to label the acquisition of
knowledge in relation with the customs and history of a society, which has
later paved the way towards the development of intercultural sensitivity
in teachers (Baumgratz-Gangl, 1992), and intercultural communicative
competence (Byram, 1993). In particular, multicultural education thrives
to expand the traditional curriculum through the integration of issues
such as social class, gender, identity, and the like in order to develop an
understanding of unique and sensitive realities of history. In doing this, it
is molded by de-emphasizing the national dierences, and displaying the
already existing social diversities, and therefore, cultural pluralism.
But what about language teaching? In practice, language teachers teach
both language and culture, or culture as language, albeit not language as
culture (Kramsch, 1995). Culture is employed to enrich language classes
to reinforce language learning; however, it is not questioned whether
this dialogic process of enunciation reveals codes for the conception of
language and culture. What is more, native culture and target culture
are embedded in this process in a cross-cultural way. Thus, when they
encounter, some new and hybrid codes could emerge, which is named as a
“third space that does not simply revise or invert the dualities, but revalues
the ideological bases of division and dierence” (Bhabha, 1992, p. 58).
With these in mind, the section below spotlights the case for language and
culture pedagogy with special concern upon EFL settings.
Makingthecaseforlanguageandculturepedagogy
Although culture was regarded as an integral part of teaching a language,
it was somehow underrated, and cultural components were eliminated from
learning materials (Stern, 1992). To mention, English language teaching in
the 1970s was framed by Pulverness (1996) as:
“English was seen as a means of communication which should not
be bound to culturally-specic conditions of use, but should be easily
transferable to any cultural setting. Authenticity was a key quality, but
only insofar as it provided reliable models of language in use. Content was
important as a source of motivation, but it was seen as equally important to
avoid material which might be regarded as ‘culture bound’. Throughout the
1970s and much of the 1980s, syllabus design and materials writing were

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
91
driven by needs analysis, and culture was subordinated to performance
objectives.” (p. 7)
Quite reasonably, there has recently been a consensus on integrating
culture as an inseparable element in foreign language pedagogy (Byram,
Bolubeva, Hui, & Wagner, 2017; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). Such an
evolution in foreign language pedagogy blossoms a rather new perspective
and goals for learning culture in addition to language learning. To mention,
‘linguistic competence’ (Chomsky, 1965) was at the center to enhance
language-related abilities of the learners. Seemingly inadequate, learning
goals were then oriented around ‘communicative competence’ (Canale
& Swain, 1980). Following these, however, the new learning goals are
shaped by the context of globalization, and the term of ‘intercultural
competence’ has arrived (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2015). The learning
goals of intercultural communicative competence are now expanded
with communicative competence, discourse competence, linguistic
competence, and sociolinguistic competence (Byram & Parmenter, 2012).
Thus, the multidimensional nature of intercultural abilities is described by
the skills of interpreting, discovering, relating and interacting; knowledge
of interaction and social groups in the society; attitudes of curiosity and
openness; and critical cultural awareness, which is depicted as the ability
to value dierent perspectives.
Moreover, with the adoption of communicative curriculum, language
teaching has shifted from an initial focus on grammar, literature and
translation studies towards more communicative approaches with the
integration of culture into the language teaching practices. The growing
body of research recognizes the probable set of learning goals which
integrates culture into foreign language classroom (Diaz, 2012; Liddicoat
& Scarino, 2013; Risager, 2015). Perhaps not surprisingly, culture serves
as the fth skill broadening the scope of four basic language skills of
listening, speaking, reading and writing (Corbett, 2003). Correlatively, it
is noted that an increased cultural awareness stimulates learners to develop
an understanding of sensitivity, tolerance and empathy, all of which are
benecial for language learning (Tomlinson & Musuhara, 2004). Thus,
serving as a hidden curriculum (Kumaravadivelu, 2003), culture teaching
plays a signicant role in language classrooms.
Putting this into practice, however, is arduous for language teachers.
For instance, it is challenging for language teachers to develop cultural

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
92
awareness in English language classes under the constraints of time
allowance, education system, even teacher’s own cultural knowledge,
and so forth (Ho, 2009). In a similar vein, learners with dierent cultural
background learn in dierent ways (Hui, 2005). What is more, it is rather
dicult to integrate culture and language-related practices in non-English-
speaking countries since communicative norms to teach are not similar
to that of English as a second language (hereafter: ESL) case (Sowden,
2007). That is, in EFL classes, the language instruction in the classroom
is most probably the only exposure to target language, and EFL learners
do not have the immediate reaction to show and face in their daily life
practices since their surrounding is oriented with a non-English-speaking
culture. Beyond question, it becomes more critical since language teachers
are most generally non-native speakers of the target language, and it is
then rather complex to decide on the specic cultural norms to integrate
into language classes since EFL learners may not have the opportunity to
engage in such a community in which target language is used. In this vein,
developing cross-cultural awareness is regarded as a burden for language
teachers to choose and integrate parts of English-speaking culture as an
eective element of foreign language instruction.
Most simply, cultural learning is complex by nature since terms such
as critical cultural awareness is abstract and ideal, which seems far from
everyday language practice. What is more, there are three stumbling blocks
that make it more complex for practical concerns: conceptual, developmental
and relational (Diaz, 2013). The conceptual one refers to the limitations of
the conceptualization of intercultural competence. The relational one refers
to the lack of clarity in terms of relational elements that bring intercultural
competence together. Lastly, the developmental one refers to the lack of a
pure continuum of how intercultural competence is enhanced in time. As
it seems, there is no doubt that intercultural competence has a signicant
role in language learning; however, dening the learning goals to put into
practice remains as the nuts and bolts of language classrooms, where the
target language itself requires a rather complex process to be acquired.
In terms of language learning, there is still no consensus on a single
theory to explain how foreign languages are learnt; and thus, nascent
theoretical orientations are yet to occur (Mitchell, Myles, & Marsden,
2013). As there is no single pedagogy declared as superior to the others
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Richards & Rodgers, 2014), culture learning
should rst contend with the process of language learning as a complex

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
93
phenomenon. Recently, it is succinctly presupposed by the notion of
developing pragmatic competence that is “possible to create opportunities
for meaningful learning even with conventional materials such as
coursebooks” by letting language learners to “analyze and reect on their
interactional experiences” (McConachy, 2018, p.9). Just as importantly,
pragmatic competence permits language learners to establish the ability
to use the target language appropriately in a social context by means of
appropriate topics of conversation, nonverbal behaviors, and turn-taking
patterns (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001), which is not a common case amidst
language learners, especially intended messages are indirectly addressed
by the speakers of the target language (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010).
Quite the contrary, there is an opposing view on the integration of culture
in language classrooms that purports to localize the language learning
materials (e.g., textbooks) to respond to the needs of non-English learners
(Kachru, 1986; Canagarajah, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 2007). Accordingly, it is
required to start with the familiar before moving to more unfamiliar elements
so as to maintain target language. To put it plainly, the pedagogy behind it is
that familiar local materials can help to teach a foreign language and culture
better by eliminating language learners’ anxiety and ambivalence during
the language learning process. Similarly, language learners are not likely
to experience culture shock since local contextualization permits them to
become more interactive with the target culture and language.
It is also worthwhile to reect that that culture is a ‘muddied concept’
(Hall, 1981, p.20), albeit inextricably related to language. Within a specic
culture, cows are regarded as sacred animals, or seeing a black cat is assumed
to bring bad luck. Seemingly, the value judgments are culture-specic,
and culture is not static. So to speak, cultural awareness is there to avoid
stereotypes. In this sense, watching foreign movies may help to promote
cultural awareness, and eliminate stereotypes (Cardon, 2010), but cross-
cultural stereotypes may mushroom, though (Angelova & Zhao, 2014).
Seemingly, there is “no ready-made, one-size-ts-all way of developing
intercultural capabilities through language education” (Liddicoat, 2013, p.
xii). Therefore, in an attempt to integrate culture into language teaching,
language teachers need to employ culture-specic language use to prevent
misconceptions to blossom (Shemshadsara, 2012). With these in mind, the
section below highlights some practical concerns for language teachers
and pedagogical implications to arrange EFL classrooms for eective
culture teaching process.

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
94
Pedagogical implications and practical concerns for language
teachers
At any rate, teaching culture while teaching the target language aims
to develop language learners’ cross-cultural awareness. In doing these,
the teaching of culture targets to the followings as noted by Tomalin and
Stempleski (1993):
“To help students to develop an understanding of the fact that all people
exhibit culturally-conditioned behaviors;
To help students to develop an understanding that social variables such
as age, sex, social class, and place of residence inuence the ways in
which people speak and behave;
To help students to become more aware of conventional behavior in
common situations in the target culture;
To help students to increase their awareness of the cultural connotations
of words and phrases in the target language;
To help students to develop the ability to evaluate and rene
generalizations about the target culture, in terms of supporting evidence;
To help students to develop the necessary skills to locate and organize
information about the target culture;
To stimulate students’ intellectual curiosity about the target culture,
and to encourage empathy towards its people.” (p. 7-8).
Obviously, language is enmeshed with culture; however, it is challenging
to integrate culture into language teaching. One way to do this is to use culture-
specic language in teaching culture from an intercultural perspective. In
doing this, language teachers may apply some key tenets such as (a) active
construction of both language and culture; (b) meaning-making through the
reciprocal relationship between language and culture; (c) social interaction
for the negotiation of meaning; (d) reection as the recognition of culture as
an inseparable element of the target language; (e) responsibility indicated by
language learners’ attitudes and values in order to develop cultural awareness;
(f) noticing the dierences to avoid stereotypes, and to respect varieties; (g)
engagement of language learners through culture-specic language tasks to
experience language, culture and the relationship between them.
Simply put, classroom practice should reect the ideal learning
outcomes by integrating language and culture. Reecting this, language
teachers can apply the notion of linguaculture, which has recently been

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
95
popular in foreign language education (Diaz, 2013; Risager, 2015).
In the era of globalization, language and culture pedagogy has been
primed by a sociolinguistic perspective. In this context, it is proposed
that there are three dimensions in culture teaching: identity dimension,
poetic dimension, and semantic and pragmatic dimension. This taxonomy
provides a conceptualization of language and culture in a multidimensional
and undivided way. The focus is on cultural dierences that inuence
interactions; therefore, linguaculture learning provides a deep-seated
procedure of constant modication and regulation of linguistic ability and
intercultural awareness. However, in a single framework, it is the core
dilemma to note how language and culture are addressed:
Translating the language and culture nexus, or in this case, linguaculture,
into an incremental learning progression is challenging. The lack of
developmental notions of linguaculture learning makes it dicult to map a
coherent, progressive path from ab initio, beginning levels — the largest in
most language programs — to advanced levels. (Diaz, 2013, p. 34)
Incorporating language and culture in a broader view of learning,
dynamic skill theory may help language teachers to understand the
complexity of culture teaching in language classrooms through the
‘Developmental Model of Linguaculture Learning’ (hereafter: DMLL).
In doing this, simple elements are gathered together to frame the whole
knowledge through self-organization and adjustment in a dynamic process.
To elaborate, the levels of complexity are dened and mapped together
for meaning-making. Therefore, cultural facts are encountered as the new
data to be experimented through cultural rules and structures, and then,
the bridge between language and cultural awareness is built by integrating
self-expressions with cultural views (Schaules, 2019). For instance, you
are playing chess. To become a good player, you need to express yourself
in the medium of the play. You need to follow the other player’s moves,
which emerge from the general knowledge of the rules in a cumulative
process so as to play the game. The gure given below entails the overall
process for DMLL:
Enco unteri ng
new data as
culturalfacts
Experimenting
cultural rules and
structures
Integratingself-
expressions with
aculturalview
Bridging language
and cultural
awareness
Figure 1. How culture is incorporated into language through DMLL

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
96
Quite the contrary, oral exchange or interaction is not sucient for
developing language learners’ cross-cultural communication skills. In
terms of writing, it appears as a burden on language teachers to reach good
English writing since language learners may come from completely dierent
rhetorical traditions, or perceptions of good writing (Kachru & Smith,
2008). To exemplify, an element in the native language may be regarded
as grandiloquent when using it in English as a target language. Therefore,
language learners are to develop their own logical reasoning in both language
and culture by developing cross-cultural awareness while learning the target
language simultaneously, which is labeled as experiential learning.
Experiential learning benets from learners’ active engagement and
language practice in cultural context, albeit not purely the reception of the
language. For instance, language learners in groups can be assigned to create
a map of characteristics that are known as distinguishing elements of home
and target cultures. These maps can include music, clothing, geography,
architecture, and so forth. In this way, language teachers can identify any
kind of stereotypical lapses that language learners may have. As a practical
note, critical incidents, also known as cultural capsules (Singhal, 1998) or
culturgrams (Peck, 1998), can be used as a way of practicing experiential
learning in language classrooms. They are molded as the short anecdotes
or descriptions of some distinctive situations that may create cross-cultural
miscommunication. They provide language learners to identify the lacunae
between cultures by analyzing the situations and avoiding stereotypes.
As importantly, culture assimilators and cultoons (Henrichsen,
1998) can be used as a method for integrating culture into language
classrooms through experiential learning. Culture assimilators are
constituted by the short descriptions of situations with four possible
interpretations of the conversation between two people. Now, the case
is that one person is from home culture, and the other person is from the
target culture. Language learners are expected to read the denitions at
rst, and then come up with the correct interpretation of the already
existing situations. On the other hand, cultoons are the visual forms
of culture assimilators with a series of four pictures that elaborate
possible signs of misinterpretations experienced by people in contact
with the target culture. Now, language learners are expected to evaluate
the reactions of the characters given in the pictures by analyzing their
appropriateness with the target culture.

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
97
Cultural problem solving (Singhal, 1998) as another way to provide
information on target culture can be used as a classroom activity to
promote experiential learning. Herein, language learners are provided
with information in which a cultural dilemma is embedded. For instance,
they are given information on wedding ceremonies in dierent cultures,
and then asked to assess manners and traditional customs by pinpointing
appropriate and/or inappropriate behaviors. In doing this, they are expected
to employ problem-solving skills; henceforth, they have the opportunity to
develop empathy, so to speak.
Another insightful classroom activity is role-playing. Herein, language
learners are given roles to act out in English in a short and straightforward
way to conceptualize dierent cultural issues. Closely related, simulations
are used to elaborate more complex cultural situations with the enrollment
of more than two language learners. Both of them play a critical role in
enhancing language learners’ linguistic skills, pragmatic skills and cultural
awareness by representing culture-specic situations.
If language learners have the opportunity to observe the behavioral
patterns of and/or have an interaction with native speakers, mini
ethnographic observations and interviews can help them to develop
cultural understanding. For instance, language learners can be assigned
to notice how people from a denite culture behave when ordering a
meal from a restaurant. By the same token, they can be assigned to ask
questions and take notes on a previously selected topic (e.g., greetings)
in order to determine culture-specic behaviors through interviews.
However, language learners may not have the opportunity to nd a
native speaker; herein, language teachers may help them to nd someone
available either in person, or online.
Indisputably, with the advents in technology, media has a more prominent
role in language teaching. Therefore, incorporating media as an element
to teach culture in language classrooms can help language teachers to
promote cultural understanding, as well. Language teachers can use movies,
advertisements, video clips, sitcoms and other web-based innovative
materials by stimulating multimodal language learning environment so that
language learners experience language and culture as unied elements.
Conclusion
It goes with the saying that culture and language are interrelated;
therefore, it is beyond question to eliminate culture from language

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
98
learning. While developing a sense of otherness, culture teaching enables
language learners to both observe and participate in language learning
activities by means of culture-specic practices. Most importantly, the
number of EFL learners has been growing dramatically, and it becomes
increasingly clear that language learners will not only face language-
related problems in educational environments but also in pursuit of
professional opportunities. Therefore, having the ability to recognize
and utilize culturally appropriate patterns will help language learners to
have eective communication (either verbal or non-verbal) in real-life
practices. It is hoped that this chapter has contrived to clarify language-
and culture-related issues, and helped to contribute with a better
understanding of the priority of culture in foreign language classrooms.
Post-readingQuestions:
What are the main problems faced by language teachers to teach
culture in language classrooms?
How do language teachers integrate culture into teaching?
Do you think the concept of local-culture input for EFL teaching
is benecial for teaching target culture?

The Relationship Between Language And Culture, And Its Implications For E Teaching 6
99
References
Angelova, M., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students
to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language
Learning (CALL), 29(1), 167-185.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist., C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), The dialogic
imagination: Four essays (pp. 259-422). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In K. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baumgratz-Gangl, G. (1993). Compétence transculturelle et échanges éducatifs. Paris: Hachette.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bhabha, H. K. (1992). Post-colonial authority and post-modern guilt. In L. Grossberg, P. Nelson, & P. Treichler
(Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 56-66). London: Routledge.
Byram, M. (1993). Language and culture: The need for integration. In M. Byram (Ed.), Germany: Its
representation in textbooks for teaching German in Great Britain (pp. 3-16). Frankfurt Am Main:
Diesterweg.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. USA/ UK: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalization of
language education policy. In M. Byram, & A. Phipps (Eds.), Languages for intercultural communication
and education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Bolubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2017). From principles to practice for intercultural citizenship.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-padagogical
results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–93). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching
and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Cardon, P. W. (2010). Using lms to learn about the nature of cross-cultural stereotypes in intercultural business
communication courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 150–165.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Diaz, A. R. (2012). Intercultural language teaching and learning: Is it possible to bridge the gap between policy
and practice? MLTAQ Journal, 153, 30–36.
Diaz, A. R. (2013). Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher education. languages for
intercultural communication and education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gudykunst, W., & Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Henrichsen, L. E. (1998). Understanding culture and helping students understand culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ho, S. T. K. (2009). Addressing culture in EFL classroom: The challenge of shifting from a traditional to an
intercultural stance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 90– 109.
Hui, D. (2005). False alarm or real warning? Implications for China of English teaching. English Journal of
Educational Enquiry, 6(1), 90–109.
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet.
London: Routledge.

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CULTURE IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) EDUCATION
100
Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Cultures, contexts, and World Englishes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). Teaching English across cultures. What do English language teachers need to know how
to teach English. EA Journal, 23(2), 20–36.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 83-92.
Kramsch, C. (2015). Language and culture in second language learning. In F. Sharian (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and culture. New York: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond method: Macrostrategies for language teaching. London: Yale University Press.
Liddicoat, A. (2013). Foreword. In A. R. Diaz (Ed.), Developing critical languaculture pedagogies in higher
education: Theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, A., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned? Oxford handbook for lan- gauge teachers.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McConachy, T. (2018). Developing intercultural perspectives on language use: Exploring pragmatics and
culture in foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories. London: Routledge.
Nasir, N., & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 449-475.
Peck, D. (1998). Teaching culture: Beyond language. Yale: New Haven Teachers Institute.
Pulverness, A. (1996). Worlds within words: Literature and British culture studies. In D. A. Hill (Ed.), Papers
on teaching literature from the British Council’s conferences in Bologna 1994 and Milan 1995. The British
Council: Italy.
Risager, K. (2015). Linguaculture: The language-culture nexus in transnational perspective. In F. Sharian
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 87–99). New York: Routledge.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schaules, J. (2019). Language, culture, and the embodied mind: A developmental of linguaculture learning.
Singapore: Springer.
Shemshadsara, Z. G. (2012). Developing cultural awareness in foreign language teaching. English Language
Teaching, 5(3), 95–99.
Singhal, M. (1998). Teaching culture: Strategies for foreign language educators. Skokie, IL: National Textbook
Company.
Sowden, C. (2007). Culture and the “good teacher” in the English language classroom. ELT Journal, 61, 304–310.
Stern, H. H. (1992) Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomalin, B., & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomlinson, B., & Musuhara, H. (2004). Developing cultural awareness. MET, 13(1), 1–7.
AbouttheAuthor:
Dr. Nurdan Kavaklı is a full-time academic in English Language
Teaching at the Department of Foreign Language Education, Izmir
Democracy University, Turkey. She divides her time between teaching
undergraduate and graduate classes, and academic research. Her research
interests include language teacher education, language testing and
assessment, teaching L2 writing, and language attrition.