Journal of Language and Learning Volume 2 Number 1 2004 ISSN 1740 - 4983

Introduction

An important tool that an individual uses to relate to her society and in turn to construct her "world" is the language. This is a triangular relationship where each factor depends on the other two to connect to that common space, which exists amongst the three - the individual, the society in which she operates and the language she uses. This space is where that complex phenomenon called "communication" plays itself. Analyzing this common space in case of a communication situation where a foreign language is used is the aim of this paper. Placing language in a broader framework of social events facilitates a much wider understanding of language as a means of communication.

The Language

Taking the Humboldtian view of language as Energia one could understand the dynamic nature of the two constituents in this triangle, namely the language and the society; the two constructs which could be seen as the epitome of human development. The language, in that it is born, it develops and it changes is the dynamic organism, which needs to be studied along with its socio-cultural context. For the purpose of this paper, language is perceived as a socially anchored medium, rooted deeply in its cultural contexts. This cultural rootedness is what imparts a language its distinctive features, which differentiate one language from the other. The debate is not about the essence of the philosophical nature of the language, which has remained unchanged since Humboldt, but rather about what makes a language a "tongue". What is it in a language that needs to be learnt or acquired?

According to Habermas, language use implies not just using the language as a tool for interpersonal communication, but it means that the speaker is constantly referring to the world around, creating own reactions to the perceived world. It is through the language that one relates to and interacts with the "other". (Habermas 1999) The fundamental role of language, though not entirely in the sense of influencing ones thinking, as proposed by Sapir, is that of an agent between an individual and her world; the world she shares with others and which constitutes mentally and physically the space where she uses the language.

The Language Use

Language manifests itself in its use. Theoretically it is important to differentiate the two areas viz. language and its use, since it is this separation of the grammatical, structural core from its socio-cultural element, which helps explain problems faced by learners of a foreign language in using that language in certain situations. Is it possible then that a static, constant entity called 'language' exists outside of its use? In the linguistic theory there are arguments for and against such a stark division. Sybile Kraemer points out that Saussure, Chomsky, Searle and Habermas share the idea of distinction between the logical - genealogical primacy of the language and the utterances produced, whereas Wittgenstein, Austine, Derrida and Bourdieu do not share this intellectualistic notion of language, though their reasons for not separating language from speaking differ. (Kraemer 2001)

It is clear that there is much more to language than grammar, when we apply this separation to the problem of learners, who know the grammar of the foreign language well but fail to put the language to use in conversation situations. And in case of the use of a foreign language, how does this "factor other than grammar" affect the capacity of the learner to communicate effectively? To deal with the study of use of a language, which one has learnt as an adult in an artificial classroom setting, we need to take a pronouncedly socio-linguistic approach. What is it then that is not available in the classroom and that hampers to a large extent possibility of communicating successfully in the foreign language?

Existing Research

A review of the available researches in the field of spoken use of a foreign language reveals that there is hardly any attempt at examining the relation between L1 and a foreign language from the point of view of language usage.

"Deutsch als Fremdsprache" is a relatively young research area dealing with various aspects of teaching and learning of German as Foreign language. Understanding complicated processes involved in the use of a foreign language is in itself a new research branch, deriving its theoretical framework from sociological researches, second language research, linguistics, pragmatics etc. Oral communication in the context of German as foreign language teaching has been studied from various perspectives like:

Didactics of speaking (Geißner 1980, Forster 1997), Communication Norms (Schwerdtfeger 2000, Königs 2000), Oral communication skill as a composite skill along with listening comprehension and thinking for speaking / Sprechdenken (Forster 2000, Teuchert 1992), Psycholinguistic study of oral communication (Börsch 1986), Communication strategies (Wildner-Bassett 1986, Van den Burg, Krijgsman 1996), as trans-cultural communication (Mairose-Parovsky 1997), Speech act competence as learning goal (Farenkia 1999), analysis of foreign language classroom discourse (Lörscher 1983) etc.

What is lacking is a socio-cultural approach to foreign language communication. A socio-cultural approach does not however mean teaching about the history and geography of the country where that target language is spoken or teaching "conversation" as was attempted through the concept of "communicative language teaching" in the 70s. That concept failed precisely because it was a top-down and artificial enforcing of essentially unfamiliar communication situations, which had hardly any relation to the social reality and the real communication needs of the learner.

How Different is Foreign Language Communication?

While conversing, we draw upon the communicative competence (Hymes 1972) comprising of "our tacit knowledge of the abstract rules of a language". (Schiffrin 1988) Using this knowledge we build sound-meaning correspondences in grammatical structures and employ them in socially and culturally "appropriate" contexts. (Schiffrin 1988) According to Gumperz such a competence involves knowledge of the linguistic and other conventions of communication that a speaker must follow in order to start and sustain the conversational cooperation. (Gumperz 1982) Language use is in itself a complex event governed by and depending upon various factors identified by Dell Hymes in these sociolinguistically vital four questions:

Ø "whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;
Ø whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means of implementation available:
Ø whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy, successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated,
Ø whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed and what its doing entails." (Hymes 1985, pg. 25)

It is obvious from the four dimensions presented by Hymes that context, common knowledge and norms of communication are the prerequisites for a communication act to take place. Assuming that the expression "means of implementation available" implies linguistic competence, the ability to choose appropriate linguistic means, it can be inferred that the basic factors involved in a communication act are:

· Context and common knowledge
· Norms and conventions
· Linguistic means

Haslett's view also emphasizes that "communication is a shared, structured, conventional, culturally patterned and multichanneled act." (Haslett 1989) By highlighting the social nature of communication, it is possible to shed light on the role of social factors in foreign language communication. A language is culturally anchored in a society and the individual uses social contexts, norms and common knowledge in order to communicate in that language.

Contexts and common knowledge build a frame (van Dijk 1985) using which the communication partners derive inferences. The context is vital for interpretation of an utterance. Common knowledge and knowledge of stereotypical events or situations are the two factors necessary for both the participants to communicate effectively. While communicating in L1 this implicit knowledge is used to follow the norms of speaking to formulate appropriate responses.

Holding on to the cooperation principle (Grice), speakers begin a conversation with information which is most familiar and proceed towards the less known information. Studies on information structure of sentences have shown that cooperation and coordination at semantic and syntactic levels of language use are needed to complete a communication act.

In case of communication in a foreign language, even if linguistic means are available up to a satisfactory level, the communication process may not reach its desired goal due to the missing links viz. common knowledge, contexts and knowledge of norms. How does the foreign language learner derive that common ground in a dialogue? Conversation between a first language speaker and a learner of that language as a foreign language is a typical example of lopsided communication prerequisites due to missing common knowledge. Use of phrases and colloquial usage of common words are the areas where the learner finds it difficult to cope with the lack of contexts.

In spite of the Gricean maxims being followed the conversation suffers from a lack of enough implicit knowledge and remains limited in its scope. What does the learner do in such a situation? In a survey, which I conducted as part of my M. Phil. work, to establish the role of L1 conversation norms in foreign language conversation, I discovered that in most cases the successful learner is able to adapt her L1 norms to the conversation situation in foreign language. The learner makes use of all implicit knowledge available to her transcending the languages. Problem arises when this adaptation does not take place properly and the use of foreign language is limited to particular domains. (Fishman 1985) The question is, do our foreign language textbooks acknowledge the role of this implicit knowledge of the learner? Is her capacity to communicate according to her L1 norms used as a building block in foreign language teaching practices? The answer to both the questions is unfortunately "No".

Textbooks and Conversation

The problem with conversation-oriented textbooks was that they saw conversation as just language and not as a social process, the social process, taking place in a social environment, where the learner lives and not in the textbook country where the foreign language is spoken. Just by providing ready vocabulary and a made up situation the foreign language textbooks aimed to develop a communicative competence in the adult learners. But it could not take account of the fact, that a conversation takes place only when the partners have some content to communicate and not just for the sake of using language structure.

Bern-Dietrich Müller makes a very valid point when he talks about including traditional forms of narration like "narrating stories" in the teaching of forms of oral communication in a foreign language. He argues that learners often can not create communication situations important and suitable to them as they have learnt only those skills programmed in their foreign language textbooks or curricula. They learn "how to order a coffee in a restaurant" only in a dialogic form, but they do not learn to develop situations, where their narrative skills can be of help. This adds to the feeling of insecurity, as the familiar communication settings where the learner is traditionally more confident, are kept out of the foreign language communication scene. (Müller 1989)

Finally

To conclude, it can be said that the foreign language teaching must create possibilities for the learner to bring her traditional communication practices more constructively into the foreign language communication. The oral communication component needs to be situated equally within the foreign language as well as the L1 communication context. The learner should learn the foreign language in a form, which is compatible with her own cultural environment also. Communication should be seen as a social process and not just as a static entity, especially so in case of interactions in a foreign language. The need of a foreign language learner, to cope with situating this communication in her cultural context using a foreign language, has to be highlighted through research on this phenomenon of conversing in a foreign tongue.

About the Author

Anjali Pande works at the Centre for German Studies, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

E mail: anj_p@rediffmail.com

References

Börsch, S. (1986) Die Auffassung von ‚Identität' im kommunikativen Fremdsprachenunterricht- Lehrziele und subjektive Bedürfnisse, In J. Gerighausen & P. Seel (eds) Methodentransfer oder angepasste Unterrichtsformen, idicium, München

Farenkia, B. (1999) Sprechaktkompetenz als Lernziel, Peterlang, Frankfurt /M

Forster, R.(1997) Mündliche Kommunikation in Deutsch als Fremdsprache- Gespräche und Rede Band 12, Röhrig Universitätsverlag, St. Ingbert

Fishman, J. (1985) The relationship between Micro- and Macro Sociolinguistics in the study of Who speaks What Language to Whom and When. In: J.B Pride & J.Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics-Selected readings, Penguin Books, England

Geißner, H. & J. Schnorrenberg (1980) Sprecherziehung. In Kühlwein & Raasch (eds) Angewandte Linguistik, Gunter Narr , Tübingen

Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, pp. 41-58

Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Habermas, J. (1999) Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, (Band I) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns , Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt/M

Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the functions of language, Arnold, London

Haslett, B. (1989).Cultural influences on the acquisition of communication. In S. TingToomey (ed.), Issues in international and intercultural communication annual, Vol. 13.: Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA

Humboldt, W. (1967) Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts, Ferd. Dümmlers Verlag, Bonn

Hymes, D. (1972) Models of the Interaction of Languages and Social Life. In J. Gumperz. & D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics - The Ethnography of Communication, Holt Rinehart &Winston, New York 35-71

Hymes, D. (1985) On Communicative Competence. In J. B.Pride & J. Holmes (eds) : Sociolinguistics-Selected Readings, Penguin Books, England

Königs, F. (2000) Wer bestimmt die Richtung? Überlegungen zum Normbegriff aus fremdsprachendidaktischer Sicht. In W. Börner & K. Vogel(eds) Normen im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Gunter Narr, Tübingen

Krämer, S. (2001) Sprache-Sprechakt-Kommunikation.Sprachtheorische Positionen im 20. Jahrhundert, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

Lörscher, W. (1983) Linguistische Beschreibung und Analyse von Fremdsprachenunterricht als Diskurs, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen

Mairose-Parovsky, A. (1997) Transkulturelles Sprechhandeln- Bild und Spiel im Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Werkstattreihe Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Band 56, Peter Lang

Müller, B. (1989) Geschichten erzählen. In Berndt-Dietrich Müller (ed) Anders lernen im Fremdsprachenunterricht Experimente aus der Praxis, Langenscheid, Berlin

Schiffrin, D. (1988) Conversation Analysis in Linguistics. In Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed) The Cambridge Survey IV Languages: The Socio-cultural context , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schwerdtfeger, I. (2000) Ideologiekritik der Normen im Fremdsprachenunterricht- oder machen die Lehrende Sprachen schwer? In W.Börner & K. Vogel (eds) Normen im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen

Teuchert, B. (1992) Kriterien mündlicher Kommunikation und Hörverstehen. In Info DaF Nr.6 Dezember

Van den Burg, V. & A. Krijgsmann (1996) Reich mir mal den...Dingsda- Möglichkeiten der Kompensation von Wissenslücken in der fremdsprachlichen Kommunikation. In Fremdsprache Deutsch, Heft 14, Klett Verlag, München

Van Dijk, T. A. (1985) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3. Discourse and Dialogue, Academic Press, London

Wildner-Bassett, M. (1986) Sicherheitsinseln im Kommunikationsfluß. In Probleme und Perspektiven der Sprachlehrforschung- Bochumer Beiträge zum Fremdsprachenunterricht in Forschung und Lehre, Scriptor, Frankfurt/M