Perspective
by simplifying, paraphrasing and slowing down” Kubota, 2012, p.65. These strategies will enhance the linguistic competence of the speakers.
Furthermore, linguists try to scrutinise whether or not to modify the grammatical patterns in EIL. In spite of efforts to narrow the influence of NS norms on ELT, Prodromou 2007
suggests the use of SE concerning a grammatical core which comprises of NS norms. It refers to the lexicon-grammatical systems which exclude native speaker accents, lexical items
within professions and regions as well as idioms which are culturally centralised to particular countries. Murray 2012 agrees, asserting that it is better for teachers to teach something
more realistic and applicable in the classroom, and thus NS norms can help them to accommodate the students’ L1. However, teachers should be careful as they need to
understand that these norms carry the power of the Centre which needs to be utilised carefully. An effective appropriation was found by Tupas 2010 in his study of one of the
classrooms in the Philippines. The results showed that Filipino teachers rejected English imperialism, yet did not take Philippine English as an ideal norm in the classroom. Instead,
they appropriated SE as a form. In fact, they resisted SE by teaching it. The sensibilities of SE function as social mobility and individual achievement which made it important to learn.
Despite this reality, Philippine English was employed as the content in order to promote their identity as Filipino. In addition, cultural strategies such as code switching and the use of local
content were highly regarded in their English teaching.
b. Raising Intercultural Awareness
Intercultural competence is also prominent for EIL speakers in multicultural interactions. Intercult
ural competence refers to “the ability to communicate effectively in cross-cultural situations and to relate appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts” Bennett and Bennett,
2004, p. 149. When teaching EIL, teachers need to be aware that in intercultural communication, particularly in expanding-circle countries, cultures appear to be varied and
dynamic Baker, 2009. Moreover, Sercu 2005 claims that the concepts of communicative
competences and cultural competence are intertwined, because intercultural competence embraces communicative competence which concentrates on linguistic and pragmatics
elements. It highlights that interpreting the meaning of language in communication is in
Perspective
parallel with understanding the cultural background in communication. The components of intercultural competence that are proposed by Byram, Nichols and Stevens 2001, such as
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values, need to be in accordance with an equality in viewing the other culture, or ‘cultural relativism’. Kubota 2012, p.65 defines this term as ‘a view
that each culture is different but equally legitimate in its own right’. In terms of pedagogy,
Jenkins 2000 believes students subsequently become tolerant and adjust to the demands of their interlocutor and to day-to-day context.
Kramsch 1993 recognises the issue of multiculturalism in society and proposes the term ‘third culture’. She conceptualises third culture as “a metaphor for eschewing other dualities
on which language education is based: L1L2, C1C2, Us vs Them, Self vs Other” 2009,
p.338. Kramsch 2009 argues that there is no intention eliminating this dichotomy, but shifting the focus to its relation and hybridity. Third culture accentuates cultural mediation
which is presented in its characteristic s. Firstly, ‘popular culture’ is when third culture makes
room for linguistically hybrid activities and identities. Secondly, ‘critical culture’ refers to critical thinking for the comparison between L1 and L2. Finally, ‘ecology culture’ works
when third culture adjusts to the demands of the social context. Consequently, the meanings learnt will be multiple, subject to change and possibly contradictory, as can be found within
intercultural zones in social life Weedon, 1987, as cited in Kramsch, 2009. Moreover, cultural acquisition should occur in line with language learning and should not be
presented as ‘lecturettes’ Rivers, 1986, as cited in Steele Suozzo, 1994. It is important to teach language through culture and vice versa, verifying that the teacher cannot teach
language in a vacuum and therefore cultural background needs to be taught. The comprehension of language through sociocultural and pragmatic meanings in culture will
help students to be effective in cross-cultural interaction and to create in a classroom what Canagarajah 2005 underscores as local knowledge in globalism. When selecting
instructional models and classroom activities, Matsuda 2003 suggests that they should serve the comprehension of the pluralism of EIL. McKay 2002 p.129 presents a similar view in
regards to “a sphere of interculturality” in the classroom, which means that learners learn another culture as a foundation for reflection on their own. Matsuda 2012 suggests three
cultural resources to be incorporated into the EIL classroom, comprising global cultures in
