COMMUNICATION ETHICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

COMMUNICATION ETHICS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Jill Dishart

Dr. Arnett

Communication Ethics

Fall 2004

“Our only claim is that a ‘higher education’ that does

not foster, support, and implement an examination of the

moral life will fail its own purposes, the needs of its

students, and the welfare of society” (Callahan and Bok

1980, 300).

The approach to successfully teaching (or learning) an

unfamiliar1 language should not pertain solely to the

content of the message, but also the context and manner in

which it is conveyed. Specifically, within the context of

foreign language pedagogy, the latter speaks to the role of

communication ethics. As Christians and Taber point out:

“Communications as human actions are grounded in the very nature of human beings…what distinguisheshuman beings from other animals is theior ability to use language. Whereas other animals may utter

1 It may appear more appropriate to use the term ‘unfamiliar’ instead of‘foreign’ in reference to language, as the latter term infers a completeseparateness and un-attainable union with the culture native to the language of study. The former term, ‘unfamiliar,’ indicates an opportunity for transition from the unfamiliar to the familiar, which isthe ultimate goal of international language acquisition. However, for the sake of readability, the commonly used term ‘foreign’ will be used for readability.

2

sounds to express pain or lust, only humans possess language that they use “to tell each otherwhat is good and bad, and what is just and unjust”(Politics I,2 1253a 16 as qtd in Christians and Traber). Language is then essential for the humanum, containing, as it does, the potential fora full development of human nature, both for individuals and groups or communities (330).

In order to consider how communication ethics informs

language, it is first necessary to understand the role of

language vis-à-vis its relationship to society. According to

Christians and Traber, language makes relationships possible

(330). Relationships are based on the “exchange of

experiences, of joys and anxieties, of hopes and fears, of

commitments and admissions of failure” (330). This sharing

is often expressed in “story” or narrative form. Through

story telling, “we tell each other about the world inI which

we live” hence, we participate in the lives of others (330).

There is also communication that degenerate and dehumanizes.

Communication ethics serves as a point of reference in

guiding our communication efforts. To further this

argument, Christinans and Taber argue” the task of ethics is

to reflect on, and subject to reason, the life-enhancing and

3

dehumanizing acts of communications , both interpersonal and

mass-mediated” (331).

The goal of this essay is to consider how communication

ethics informs foreign language pedagogy. First, this paper

will examine selected communication ethics theories which

may directly inform foreign language pedagogical processes.

Next, various approaches to foreign language pedagogy as it

is currently practiced within the United States will be

considered. The conclusion of this analysis will attempt to

inform the intersection between communication ethics and

foreign language pedagogy, with the hope of elucidating the

importance of communication ethics to the field of foreign

language instruction.

J. Vernon Jenson elaborates eight ‘dynamic and flexible

guidelines for evaluating degree of ethicality in

argumentation and persuasion (Johannesen 193). Although the

latter does not specify these guidelines within the realm of

foreign language pedagogy, they are nevertheless

sufficiently universal for its application and its

consideration of communication ethics. Of importance to note

4

is Jensen’s emphasis on “intentional acts, willfully and

purposefully committed (194)” in reference to the following:

1. Accuracy, which speaks to the conveyance of truth.

2. Completeness, which reveals various views, purpose,

and openness to sources of information.

3. Relevance, as Jenson points out, “Irrelevant

material included purposely to deceive, mislead, or

distract from the topic at hand would be unethical.”

4. Openness, which speaks to communicators2’ attitudes.

5. Understandability, in which communicators have a

responsibility to minimize vagueness and ambiguity,

and to avoid oversimplification.

6. Reason, which should be integrated with relevant

appeals to values, emotions, needs, and motives.

7. Social utility, in which the communicator should

promote usefulness to the people affected.

8. Benevolence, in which communicators should

demonstrate sincerity, tact, and respect for

dignity.

2 Instructor could be used in place of the term “communicator,” to situate these standards within the context of foreign language pedagogy.

5

Accordingly, Sproule (as qtd in Johannesen 195) offers

a checklist that communicators can employ to scrutinize the

ethicality of their own messages prior to presentation. This

could be applied to foreign language instructors as well:

1. Do I believe that this communication act or

technique is right in general and/or right in

this specific situation?

2. To what extent am I certain that my argument is

valid?

3. Do I genuinely care about promoting the best

interests of my audience?

4. Does a recognized social rule apply to what I am

proposing to do?

5. Does my communication act or technique appeal to

values the society holds to be morally good or

bad?

6. Would I be proud for others to know my real

motives or thoughts on the subject?

6

7. What would be the social consequence if my act

or technique were to become widely practiced by

others?

These guidelines can serve as ethical conditions for

communicating, which can carry over into every aspect of

life which involves communication. As Wallace points out,

“there are ethical guides in the very act of communicating,

[…] and the guides are the same for all communicators, no

matter whether they speak as politicians, states persons,

business persons or professionals” (9).

In considering pedagogy, it is important to consider

the respective tradition of both learner and teacher within

a society. According to Freire, the role of pedagogy must be

envisioned within its role in society. Freire’s invitation

to learners is, initially, “that they look at themselves as

persons living and producing in a given society” (xi).

Freire challenges them to understand that “they are

themselves the makers of culture, leading them to learn the

anthropological meaning of culture […] When men and women

realize that they themselves are the makers of culture, they

7

have accomplished, or nearly accomplished, the first step

toward feeling the importance, the necessity, and the

possibility of owning reading and writing (…) and they

become literate” (Freire xi).

As for the teacher, Freire specified attributes which

he feels are necessary for a significant educational

practice. These attributes serve as an ethic for teachers,

by which to follow when conducting pedagogical practices.

The first is humility, which Freire points out is by no

means “lack of self respect, resignation or of cowardice”

(39). Freire points out that humility requires courage,

self-confidence, self-respect and respect for others (39).

According to Freire, “without humility, one can hardly

listen with respect to those one judges to be too far below

one’s own level of competence. But the humility that enables

one to listen even to those considered less competent should

not be an act of condescension or resemble the behavior of

those fulfilling a vow. Listening to all that comes to us,

regardless of their intellectual level, is a human duty”…

(39). Freire asks, “How can I listen to the other, how can I

8

hold a dialogue, if I can only see myself, if nothing if

nothing or no one other than myself can touch me or move me”

(40)? In addition to humility, Freire points to another

quality to be added, that of lovingness, without which the

teacher’s work would “lose its meaning” (40). Freire points

out that lovingness indicates not a not only a lovingness

toward the student, but also toward the very process of

teaching.

Another quality germane to successful teaching is

courage. According to Freire, courage is born out of

humility. However, in order to gain courage, one must not

avoid fear. In fact, Freire points out that as “courage, as

a virtue, comprises the conquering of fear, it thus implies

fear” (39). Freire maintains that one needs to be in

control of one’s fears, to educate one’s fear, from which is

finally born his courage (41). “Thus I must neither, on the

one hand, deny my fears nor, on the other, surrender myself

to them. Instead, I must control them, for it is in the very

exercise of this control that my necessary courage is

shared” (41). Tolerance is another attribute Freire

9

identifies. “Tolerance is another virtue, without it no

serious pedagogical work is possible, without it no

authentic democratic experience is viable; without it all

progressive educational practice denies itself” (41).

In addition to the attributes ascribed to learners and

to teachers by Freire, it is important to consider the

implication of values in determining actions, especially

where making ethical decisions in communication is

concerned. According to Johannesen, “values can be viewed as

conceptions of The Good or the Desirable that motivate human

behavior and that functions as criteria in our making of

choices and judgments. Concepts such as material success,

individualism, efficiency, thrift, freedom, courage and hard

work, competition, patriotism, compromise, and punctuality

are all value standards that have varying degrees of potency

in contemporary American culture” (1). However, these values

would probably not be viewed primarily as ethical standards

of right and wrong. Johannesen asserts that ethical

judgments focus more precisely on degrees of rightness and

wrongness in human behavior. “Standards such as: honesty,

10

promise-keeping, truthfulness, fairness, and humaneness are

usually used in making ethical judgments of rightness and

wrongness in human behavior” (1). Accordingly, Barnlund

strengthens the argument for these standards in maintaining

that “any satisfactory theory/philosophy of human

communication must include specification of moral standards

“that will protect and promote the healthiest communication

behavior” (198).

After having reviewed the descriptive aspects of

communication ethics, it is important to ask “why”? For some

philosophers, this reason can only be found by looking into

one’s narrative, as the latter may inform an ethical point

of reference. Fisher defines narrative as “symbolic actions,

words, and/or deeds that have sequence and meaning for those

who interpret them. Accordingly, Anderson adds that:

“Narrative theory presents a preeminently ethical

stance. It proposes that knowledge is the

production of good reasons for carrying out proper

actions. The knowing subject is in command of both

the good reasons and the actions to be performed.

11

While narrative is transcendent, knowledge is

historical, located I the proper actions in the

life world. There is no bloodless scholarship. For

Fisher, knowledge and our scholarly pursuit of it

should be motivated by love. He states that “love

provides the ground of being and is the motive

which should inform all others in human decision

making and action. Thus knowledge is in the

service of the good and the good rests on love”

(Anderson 210).

To summarize, some common themes have emerged from the

literature review of communication ethics: truth, freedom

and narrative, humility, and courage have been considered to

serve as guidelines in approaching pedagogical techniques,

which can fruitfully be applied to the field of foreign

language pedagogy.

Before considering the intersection of communications

ethics and foreign language pedagogy, it is important to

look at the status quo of the latter field. In approaching a

foreign language, many endeavor little more than the

12

accumulation of vocabulary. This speaks to a method of

translation, or a ‘banking method’ of language learning. For

some, the latter serves merely as a transaction of knowledge

rather than a transition of the learner. The changing, or

rather, evolution of the learner as he or she becomes

embedded in the culture of the spoken language, is

inevitable and indispensable to successfully grasping the

essence of a foreign language, until the language is no

longer ‘foreign.’ A transaction approach to language

learning is no more embedded than in the American culture:

“Since most Americans speak only one language, they are usually dependent on finding English speakers or translators. Once they succeed in their search, Americans are likely to believe thatthe problem is solved. They assume that words alone are conduits for conveying meaning and tend to ignore the more subtle role of language in communication. According to this assumption, the message reaches the receiver, and the words unloadtheir content and deliver their meaning intact (Reddy 1979). If the message is misunderstood, either the receiver is faulted for not listening, or the sender is blamed for selecting the wrong words” (Stewart and Bennett (45-46).

Accordingly, Stewart and Bennett argue that this

“closed association between words and their meaning has a

13

long history in Western thought, tracing back to at least

Aristotle. “In this conception, words were merely

mechanisms, or something of a dealer’s choice in expressing

an essence of being and reasoning which all men, or at least

all educated men, share. Hence, reality and reasoning about

reality are considered universal in nature and in

application, and unaffected by language” (Fisher 1972, 9 as

qtd. in Stewart and Bennet 46).

To some, however, the art of translation alone can

indeed hold some to ethical standards. Weaver maintains that

“nothing so successfully discourages slovenliness in the use

of language as the practice of translation. Focusing upon

what a word means and then finding its just equivalent in

another language compels one to look and to think before he

commits himself to any expression. It is a discipline of

exactness which used to be reflected in oratory and even in

journalism but which is now growing as rare as considerate

manners. Drill in exact translation is an excellent way of

disposing the mind against that looseness and exaggeration

with which the sensationalists have corrupted our world.

14

There is a close correlation between the growth of

materialism and the expulsion of languages from the

curricula, which is a further demonstration that where

things are exalted, words will be depressed” (Weaver 53).

Clearly, some ethics appear to compete with each other,

which is why unyielding rules cannot apply. Of importance

are elements of timing, context, and degrees to each ethic.

For example, in considering the ethic of authenticity of a

language, foreign language educators should have an openness

to change. While some may view this as interfering with

“academic correctness,” a challenge arises when such lengths

are taken as to juxtapose a myopic commitment to ‘purity’ of

language without taking into consideration changes in

meaning assigned to language which happens naturally over

time (Weaver 129). Weaver concurs that believers in the

value of language as a convention (and in the connection of

this with preserving cultural tradition) are, for such

reasons, suspicious of those who take a complacent attitude

toward semantic change. They feel that change of meaning is

somehow a sign of ignorance and laxity. It represents to

15

them a breaking away from some original standard of

“rightness” owing to the user’s failure to inform himself

fully about the word or to irresponsibility. They wish the

language to remain pure, and “pure” means in accordance with

the old standards of signification (Weaver 129). This

semantic cacophony then leads to the Weaver’s questions: “Is

there any way of reconciling the ideal of semantic purism

given the fact that meanings do shift over time? Is it

possible to visualize a kind of gold standard of semantic

reference, from which illegitimate departures could be

detected?” Weaver maintains that “it might be possible if we

could find some basis for distinguishing between those

changes which are “natural” and therefore must be conceded

and those which are perverse and should be put down in the

interest of intellectual and cultural integrity” (129). This

is the point where communication ethics, as outlined

previously, could serve as the fulcrum for considering such

a decision.

Another aspect of communication ethics which could

inform foreign language pedagogy questions the goal or the

16

intention of the instructor for the student. Is it enough

for the student to be articulate in the language of

instruction? Weaver asks, about what do we wish to make men

(or women) articulate (188)? “Admittedly, we who instruct in

the art of speech (or language) are turning loose upon the

world a power. Where do we expect the wielders of that power

to learn the proper use of it (188)?” This question leads to

a historical inquiry during the Renaissance when empiricism

was gaining strength. According to Weaver, there came a

moment in the fourteenth century when teachers of rhetoric

and philosophy hesitated between teaching men (and only men)

vere loqui (truth) or recte loqui (etiquette). Vere Loqui means teaching

people to speak the truth, which can be done only by giving

them the right name of things (Weaver 192). For Plato, a

name is “a means of teaching and of separating reality”

(193). Weaver points out that because those who give the

names are in a unique position to control, the task is not

to be trusted to just anyone (192). Weaver continues that

the world has to be named for the benefit of each oncoming

17

generation, and asks, who teaches more names than the

arbiter of the use of language?” (194).

Recte loqui teaches etiquette and “bears the stamp of

conventional correctness (190).” “They are more fearful of a

misplaced accent than of an ambiguity, because the former

arouses suspicion that they have not been with the right

people. This is the language favored by the timid who, live

in fear of conventions, and by the ambitious who have

learned how to use conventions as a means of self-promotion.

Making allowance for those who see an ideal in purism, we

can yet say that this is speech which is socially useful,

and thus we are not in much better plight is we confine

ourselves circumspectly to the teaching of recte loqui as this

still leaves the teacher indifferent to the truth As the

decision was made to teach recte over vere loqui, as is revealed

by the manuals of rhetoric of the Renaissance, this was to

be only an “intermediate stage,” hence paving the way for

utiliter loqui, art of using language to better our position in

the world. Weaver points out that this philosophy uses

language as a tool “to get what you want if you use it well—

18

and well does not mean scrupulously” (189). “Those which

teach English (or foreign language) on this level (of utiliter

loqui) are the modern sophists, “making speech the harlot of

the arts […] and using the element of universality in

language for purposes which actually set men (and women)

against one another. Weaver maintains that this form of

teaching instructs students how to prevail with verbal

deception (190). From speaking truthfully to speaking

correctly to speaking usefully—Weaver refers to this as the

“rhetorician’s easy descent to Avernus” (189).

Another way of considering the presence of

communication ethics in foreign language pedagogy is the

role of the ‘Other.’ The attitude of “I am my brother’s

keeper” (Arnett 40 as mentioned in Cohen, foreword,

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence xii) is conducive to

foreign language pedagogy, as learning another’s tongue is a

response to the Other, provided it allows the understanding

of the Other’s culture associated with the language. Another

statement, supporting the notion that language represents

experience, appears in Benjamin Whorf’s assertion:

19

“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our

native languages. The categories and types that we

isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find

there because they stare every observer in the

face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a

kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be

organized by our minds--- and this means largely

by the linguistic systems in our minds” (Carroll

213).

Language as experience could then speak to ethics as we

must disseminate the impressions which are presented before

us through language. In terms of the relationship between

ethics and the other, Levinas explicates the role of the

other vis-à-vis its ethical implications. For Levinas,

“ethics becomes a phenomenological call to responsive care

of the Other, from which action shapes the “I.” The “I” is

derivative of attentiveness to the Other and responsive to

an ethical call” (Arnett 40). Arnett continues that

knowledge of the Other permits one to discover new

possibilities, ever shaping and reshaping the “I.” It is

20

encounter with the unknown that permits constant reshaping

of the “I” through meeting of the Other” (40). To ignore the

Other ultimately puts one’s own identity at risk (42). If we

place ethics as a priori to philosophy, religion and

metaphysics, as does Levinas, then could this not apply to

pedagogy as well? Entering into an unknown world allows one

to enter into ones self, as the discoverer becomes the

discovered. This behooves one to ask the question, ‘How is

teaching language relative to the Other?’ Levinas points

out that “language is produced only in the face to face; and

in language we have recognized teaching…teaching is a way

for truth to be produced such that is not my work, such that

I could not derive it from my own interiority. (Levinas

295)” Culture is germane to understanding the Other as it

gives insight into the core values and beliefs which drive a

society (295). Therefore, what we learn about the Other when

we explore their culture is not static to the individual.

Farley points how the awareness of the ‘Other’ leads one to

eros:

21

“The rightness of an action is not reducible, however, to a response to other persons. It includes a responsiveness to values, beliefs, principles, as well as aesthetic and religious sensibilities. Human beings are immersed in their cultural worlds; to respond to persons necessarily includes responsiveness to the values and meanings of their worlds. Further, it is shaped by the principles, values, religious ethos though which one’s own ethical life is made concrete. Eros for others does not dispense with principles but retains the connection between principles and persons. Ethical life presupposes awareness of the loveliness ofwhat is harmed by injustice. This knowledge arises through eros. By making awareness of the existence and beauty of the other available, eros directs ethics toward its proper subject matter. Ethical existence rooted in eros includes recognition that fulfillment ofhuman existence comes only in relationships with others, even when relations are experienced in the midst of suffering” (Farley 90-91).

Accordingly, for example, Chinese ethics emphasize an

indomitable tie between the ‘Other’ and ethics in its

contribution to society. “In ancient times, the Chinese

people paid much attention to ethics because they believed

that ethics were the cornerstone for building a functioning

and orderly society. In Chinese culture, the core ethics is

the relationship between people, and people are the core of

ethics. Hsieh Hsieh and Lehman continue that Ethics in

modern Western culture, except perhaps for relationships

22

between spouses and to a lesser extent parents and children,

is much less developed” (Hsieh et al. 271-272). This insight

reveals the magnitude and extent to which the ethics of the

East relies upon the existence of the other. Like Levinas,

the Eastern philosophy would support that without the other

there is no ‘I’. The focus on the other is fundamental to an

ethical ‘raison d'être’ in approaching a foreign language.

After determining the motivation for foreign language

learning, the approach should be given consideration as

well. “Ethical standards of communication should place

emphasis upon the means used to secure the end, rather than

upon achieving the end itself (Wallace 3). If for example,

we give too much weight to the immediate success of

proficiency of a language and in glorifying the end, we

encourage the use of any means which will work to this goal.

So, ethics in this instance “measures the quality of the

communicative product in terms of the communicator, rather

to its immediate effect upon the audience” (Wallace 3). This

standard suggests that a teacher not only has sufficient

education, training and competence in the art of foreign

23

language pedagogy, but also acts as a guide giving direction

and purpose. “Purpose serves to give organization and shape

to the discussion, and aids in the choice of means, but it

should not dominate the moral values of either the product

or the speaker” (4).

Next, it is interesting to consider how faith informs

foreign language pedagogy. To situate faith within foreign

language pedagogy, it is important to keep an open mind vis-

à-vis potential contributions to the field of language

pedagogy from seemingly unlikely sources. Smith aims to show

that despite the scarcity of faith-informed investigation,

there exist theoretical contributions within the discipline

of foreign language pedagogy which can be faith-based.

“Foreign language pedagogy has in recent decades been

studied and discussed largely within the terms set by a

positivist mindset which allows little or no place for the

formative role of religious beliefs and commitments” (Smith

7). Smith continues that the trend of this mindset has been

so widely practiced that to most, the role of faith in the

field strikes many as “strange and out of place” (7).

24

“Reflection on the basic aims which underpin a program of

foreign language education or on the vision of human life

implicit in the worlds presented to us in foreign language

teaching materials could both reveal plenty of issues to

which faith is more than relevant” (8). Smith points out

that the methodology to teaching foreign languages is

permeated by the ideal of scientifically verified technique,

of an objectively correct way of doing things not dependent

on particular beliefs or convictions (8). This methodology

is void of passion and convictions, and replaces the

‘messiness’ of beliefs, customs, and commitments with the

“cleanliness of method” (8). This predominant tendency to

utilize the “method” technique, hence “establishing

empirically a single best way to teach a second a language,”

has diminished considerably in plausibility. Smith points

out that this is not to say that there is no methodological

element to teaching, but rather, that teaching itself should

not be studied in and of itself as simply a ‘method’ (9).

Indeed, a method does supply an element of organization

where goals or attainment is concerned. However, setting up

25

rigid criteria to determine the correctness of a language

hardly speaks to the understanding for the non-grammatical

components to foreign language, such as appropriateness,

nuance and cultural situated ness--which to most native

speakers (the ‘Other’ in this instance), are absolutely

essential in a successful communication.

Smith’s development gives rise to new ways of thinking

about approaches to teaching processes. “If they are not

best though of in terms of the appliance of science to

achieve the right ‘method’—how are teachers to think about

what they do in what Kumaravadivelu calls the “post-method

condition” (9)? Davies points out that the scientifically

validated best method has always fallen short of its goal.

“Applied linguistics, he suggests, is like a loose

federation, and in no case is there a single, monolithic,

unitary view and nowhere is there complete agreement of what

the discipline is about. Davies goes on to argue that “the

positivist attempt to exclude from enquiry all that is not

empirical can never succeed as philosophical convictions

will always play a role” (as mentioned in Smith 9-10). “The

26

scientific method does not tell us which possibilities to

test, or which experiments to conduct, and the mere

gathering of pieces of information does not tell us what our

educational aims should be (…) therefore, our guiding

inspirations must come from elsewhere, and not solely from

our empirical results or our scientific method” (10). What

then would be an alternative? Davies discusses Widdowson’s

understanding of applied linguistics. Widdowson discusses

the attitude which language teachers should take to the

ideas which come to them from various academic disciplines

claiming to offer insight relevant to language teaching.

Smith points out in “countering the assumption long embedded

in talk of ‘applied linguistics’ that ideas developed in

linguistics or other related disciplines can simply be

applied in teaching situations so as to scientifically

validated methods, Widdowson emphasizes the issue of

pedagogical relevance” (11). According to Widdowson,

“different domains of inquiry and action work to different

criteria of significance…there is no reason to suppose that

what goes on in one domain is necessarily relevant to what

27

goes on in another… relevance is a matter of significance in

one’s own concerns” (16). This approach can present two

converse implications: first, it means that “ideas emerging

from other disciplines must make a special case to be worthy

of consideration” and second, it means that “ideas generated

within core disciplines will be presumed to be applicable to

foreign language pedagogy” (Smith 12). Widdowson claims that

no theory can claim relevance in advance to the practice in

advance to the practice of language teaching simply because

it comes from linguistics or psychology. Rather, the

criterion for acceptance of a theory is whether it is

coherent and relevant (12).

Widdowson offers three levels of description which

inform fruitful teaching: procedure, design and approach.

These three ways of teaching are interdependent and

hierarchical, with ‘approach’ as the bearer of philosophical

framework. It is within the approach where communication

ethics resides and, where its effects on foreign language

pedagogy, is evident. Beginning with ‘procedures,’ Widdowson

28

describes his constructivist approach to foreign language

pedagogy:

“Procedures are specific individual actions applied in the classroom to achieve specific objectives. They are organized and patterned in certain ways, with consistency and direction. A constellation of these procedures is what makes a design. A design is a dependent on a wider framework of assumptions and beliefs about the nature of language and language learning. This wider framework is what is meant by an ‘approach’ ” (Smith 13).

Examples would include the conviction underpinning

various humanistic approaches that the individual’s

emotional well-being should be given priority, or the

assumptions about the importance of habit formation which

informed behaviouristic approaches. To quote Anthony, an

approach “states a point of view, a philosophy, an article

of faith – something which one believes but cannot

necessarily prove” (64). In sum, procedures are individual

actions in the classroom, designs are repeatable patterns in

the way teaching takes place and approaches are the

background beliefs, orientations and commitments which give

rise to one pattern rather than another.

29

Another area of inquiry for communication ethics is the

idea of ‘knowing a language.’ What does it mean to know a

language? Should such an assessment be quantified? Rather,

it appears that communication ethics would call attention to

‘qualifying’ of one’s abilities in a foreign language. This

section considers the ways in which various components of

language ability can be integrated into a variety of

different frameworks for describing and defining language

proficiency. First it is important to consider what it means

to determine proficiency. Chomsky asks, “What does it mean

to be proficient in a language? What does one have to know

in terms of grammar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic

appropriateness, conventions of discourse, cultural

understanding, and the like in order to know a language well

enough to use it for some real-world purpose” (Hadley 2)?

First of all one must define the term ‘proficient.’ “Some

common synonyms for the term ‘proficiency’ include words

like ‘expertise,’ ‘ability,’ or ‘competence,’ implying a

high level of skill, well-developed knowledge, or a

political performance introduce yet another complication,

30

especially for those familiar with the field of languages

and linguistics. These two terms, used for centuries by

philosophers and scientists to characterize all types of

knowledge (Brown 1980, 1987, 1994) were fundamental to

Chomsky’s (1965) theory of transformational-generative

grammar. In his theory, Chomsky distinguished between an

idealized native speaker’s underlying competence (referring

to one’s implicit or explicit knowledge of the system of the

language) and the individual’s performance (or language

use). Because the native speaker’s performance is so often

imperfect, due to such factors as memory limitations,

distractions, errors, hesitations, false starts,

repetitions, and pauses, Chomsky believed that actual

performance did not properly reflect the underlying

knowledge (competence) that linguistic theory sought to

describe. Thus Chomsky felt that, for the purposes of

developing a linguistic theory, it was important to make the

competence-performance distinction. He also believed it was

necessary to study and describe language through idealized

31

abstractions rather than through records of natural speech,

which was so often flawed. (Hadley 2-3)

Chomsky’s work served as a catalyst for the work of

many other researchers interested in the nature of language

acquisition. In rebuttal of Chomsky’s theoretical

competence-performance approaches to foreign language

acquisition, which could be deemed more as an act of

acquisition, than that of a connection, the following

research speaks to the ethical void left in Chomsky’s work.

In an influential position paper published in 1980, Canale

and Swain (1980’s) reviewed and evaluated the various

theoretical perspectives on competence and performance that

had been articulated in response to Chomsky’s work.

According to their review, two of the most notable

extensions to Chomsky’s theory came from Hymes (1972) and

Campbell and Wales (1970). Hymes felt that there are rules

of language use that are neglected in Chomsky’s view of

language. He espoused a much broader view, in which

grammatical competence is only one of the components of

knowledge that native speakers possess. This broader notion

32

of “communicative competence,” a term he had introduced in

the mid 1960’s (Canale 1983a), incorporated sociolinguistic

and contextual competence, as well as grammatical

competence. Campbell and Wales accepted Chomsky’s

methodological distinction between competence as well as

actual performance, but they pointed out that Chomsky’s

conceptualization of these terms did not include any

reference to either the appropriateness of an utterance to a

particular situation or context or it sociolinguistic

significance. For Campbell and Wales, “the degree to which a

person’s production or understanding of the language is

appropriate to the context in which it takes place is even

more important than its grammaticality”(Hadley 3). They

referred to Chomsky’s very restricted view of competence as

“grammatical competence,” and to their more inclusive view

as “communicative competence” (Campbell and Wales 1970,

p.249 as qtd. in Hadley 3).

In terms of language competence, it is important to

consider the measure for a successful interaction within a

given language. Some philosophies consider grammatical

33

competence to be only one component for measuring

competence. According to Hadley, perhaps one of the best-

known studies involving the concept of communication

competence was done by Savignon:

Savignon sought to compare the effects of various types of practice on communicative skills development. Her definition of communicative competence did incorporate linguistic competence as one of its components. “Communicative competence may be defined as the ability to function in a truly communicative setting—that is,in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total information input, both linguistic and paralinguistics, of one or more of the interlocutors”(3). She went on to point out that successful communication would depend largely on individuals’ willingness to take risks and expressthemselves in the foreign language, and on their resourcefulness in using vocabulary and structuresunder their control to make themselves understood.According to Savignon, the use of gestures, intonation, and facial expression also contributesto communication, but linguistic accuracy, though of some importance, should be considered as only one of the major constituents of a communicative exchange. (3)

In order to determine how one might best design

communicative approaches to language teaching, Canale and

Swain felt it was necessary to clarify further the concept

34

of “communicative competence.” Drawing on the work of many

scholars, including Campbell and Wales, Hymes, Savignon,

Charolles, Munby, they formulated a theoretical framework

for communicative competence that, in the modified version

described by Canale, consisted of four major components: (1)

grammatical competence, (2) sociolinguistic competence, (3)

discourse competence, and (4) strategic competence.

According to Hadley:

The grammatical structure refers to the “degree to which the language user has mastered the linguistic code, including knowledge of vocabulary, rules of pronunciation and spelling, word formation, and sentence structure” (5). Second, sociolinguistic competence addresses the extent to which the second language can be used or understood appropriately in various contexts to convey specific communicative functions, such as describing, narrating, persuading, eliciting information, and the like. Such factors, such as topic, role of the participants, and setting will determine the appropriateness of the attitude conveyed by speakers and their choice of style. Next, discourse competence involves the ability to combine ideas to achieve cohesion in form and coherence in thought. A person who has a highly developed degree of discourse competence will know how to use cohesive devices, such as pronouns and grammatical connectors (i.e., conjunctions, adverbs and transitional phrases),to achieve unity of thought and continuity in a text. The competent language user will also be skilled in expressing and judging the relationship among the different ideas in a text (coherence). Finally,

35

strategic competence involves the use of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies to compensate for gaps in the language user’s knowledge of the code or for breakdown in communication because of performance factors. Canale adds that strategic competence can alsobe used to enhance rhetorical effectiveness of one’s communication. This component is qualitatively different from the other three in that it emphasizes the use of effective strategies in negotiating meaning.Students at lower levels of proficiency can benefit from learning effective communication strategies, such as paraphrasing through circumlocution or approximations, using gestures, and asking others to repeat or to speak more slowly (6-7).

In continuing the analysis of methodology for foreign

language pedagogy, this section involves the development of

the Standards for Foreign Language Learning as they present

a set of “interconnected goals that emphasize using language

for communication with other peoples, gaining understanding

of other cultures, and accessing information in a wide range

of disciplines” (Hadley 38). The standards integrate the

following elements: communication, cultures, connections,

comparisons and communities. These goals form a framework

which offers perspectives, insights and guidance as new ways

are sought to teach language in context. This section will

also briefly point out the way in which communication ethics

36

informs the five goals for foreign language learning. As

Philips and Draper maintain, the “four skills” of listening,

speaking, reading, and writing “remain visible with the

framework of communicative modes, but they are viewed

differently—not as separately skills, but within the context

of communication” (Hadley 17). For example, “speaking” can

be thought of as “interpersonal” in conversation, where

“two-way communication and negotiation are occurring,” but

“presentational” when the speaker is addressing an audience

(17). This latter use of the skill will entail a different

style or register and may require a different set of

abilities.

The interchange of ideas speaks to communication ethics

in a dialogic capacity. According to Arnett (1992),

“Dialogic education views learning as an ongoing discussion

of information between persons in hopes of making a

difference in the quality of life we live with one another

locally and globally”(96). Arnett continues that “dialogic

education views caring in educational relationships as the

act of reaching out and connecting with another’s

37

experience” (96). In reference to standard of the

‘Communicative’ mode, “skills of listening and reading are

implicit in the description of the ‘interpretive’ mode”, but

interpretation also implies that one can understand the

cultural allusions, nuances, and other information that may

be contained between the lines ((Hadley 39). As the authors

of Standards explain, the interpretive mode “requires a much

more profound knowledge of culture from the outset. The more

one knows about the other language and culture, the greater

the chances are of creating the appropriate cultural

interpretation of a written or spoken text” (33). They add

that “cultural literacy and the ability to read or listen

between the lines are developed over time and through

exposure to the language and culture. This ability to read

between the lines, informs a hermeneutical approach to

foreign language pedagogy, hence involving communication

ethics. Hermeneutics informs foreign language pedagogy vis-

à-vis the appropriateness and situated-ness of language

usage. Aristotle argues, “hermenia discerns the appropriate

action, in the right amount, and with proper timing.”

38

The standards for ‘Culture,’ and ‘Comparisons’

emphasize the “need for students to develop an awareness of

the cultural framework or ‘perspectives’ of the culture

whose language they are studying. Hadley maintains that it

is not enough to learn about practices and products in

isolation of their cultural framework; rather students need

to begin to discover how they are viewed and understood from

the point of view of the people who developed them Such an

approach voluminously informs the importance of

understanding cultural narratives. Situating oneself within

the “other’s” culture is imperative to understanding the

language and is a disservice to the student if this

opportunity is neither provided nor encouraged. The

connection between a culture’s narrative and its language is

inseparable. According to Arnett and Arneson, “Narrative

begins with a speech act that is tested by people and

competing world views, then it is fashioned into a story

with main characters, a history, and a direction; a story

becomes a narrative only when it is corporately agreed upon

and no longer the product of an individual person” (6-7). In

39

examining the role of the “other” in foreign language

pedagogy, Levinas maintains that “only otherness can save

the self from its bondage of sameness and provide what is

new. Revelation results from the disruption of the Self by

responding to the unknowable Other. The only way to exceed

our own possibilities as educators is though the infinity of

the Other” (135 as mentioned in Abunuwara, 1):

The educator stands in ethical relation with the student which essentially reverses their traditional roles. A Levinasian mandate for teachers might require teachers to resist categorizing students, and to remain flexible so as to be able to respond to the student’s Otherness. Only in being responsible to this primordial Otherness will the teacher bring ‘more than [she] contains’ into her teaching situation. Levinas’s radical rethinking of existence inspiresa similar rethinking of the teacher—student relation as primarily an ethical relation” (2).

The standards associated with Connections emphasize

that there are additional bodies of knowledge that are

unavailable to monolingual English speakers and that

students’ developing language skills can be used to access

this knowledge. The Communities standards likewise emphasize

the use of language beyond the traditional boundaries of the

40

foreign language classroom to communicate with others in

multilingual communities “in a variety of contexts and in

culturally appropriate ways” (27). Hadley wants to convey

the idea that the classroom provides the means so that

students can interact beyond classroom walls. The myriad of

ways in which students can apply their classroom learning to

the world beyond the walls emphasizes the contextual

fruitfulness of foreign language learning

In conclusion, perhaps the most imperative ethical

dilemma facing foreign language pedagogy today, especially

in the United States, is its existence! Although students

are strongly encouraged to study a foreign language in high

school, ethically to learn the language, one should be able

to ‘live’ it. Living a language involves understanding the

essence, hence using it within the appropriate context,

which is inevitably the culture which accompanies the

language. The essence of the culture and language should be

introduced at a young and impressionable age. Unlike

children, adults, especially in the United States, have to

make a special effort to attain the “essence” of a culture,

41

as it is not apriori as it is for children, given the

natural-ness of language and culture. This strengthens the

ethical argument to begin foreign language learning in the

earlier years. According to the National Commission on

Excellence in Education:

Achieving proficiency in a foreign language ordinarily requires from 4-6 years of study and should, therefore,be started at the elementary grades. We believe it is desirable that students achieve such proficiency because study of a foreign language introduces studentsto non-English-Speaking cultures, heightens awareness and comprehension of one’s native tongue, and serves the Nation’s needs in commerce, diplomacy, defense, andeducation (A Nation at Risk, 1983, 25-26).

What the author of this essay hopes to achieve is to

foster the notion of learning a foreign language as an

invitation to a cultural experience. Truly learning a

language involves the will and interest, and cannot be

measured by deconstructive means. Rather, a phenomenological

approach must exist to foreign language learning in order

for the other to truly engage oneself. This latter attribute

requires trust. Is this why language learning would be more

effective if begun in the earlier years? Maybe there exists

42

a correlation between our trust, as a culture, and the

likelihood to engage oneself and identify oneself with the

‘other’. In learning a language, staying within the

boundaries of grammatical rules will never transcend the

transactions of knowledge-carrying. However, if approached

as an experience, and what Arnett has referred to as an

“invitation into the experience,” language provides the

greatest opportunity to enter into Levinas’ “infinity”. Each

language experienced (not acquired) is another world. If

language learning is approached so as to place oneself

within the tradition of the host culture of the spoken

language, the possible ways of seeing the world transcend

the temporal realm of language transaction and enter into a

new home, apart from the focus for perfect dialogue, rather

a part of the experience which language learning can bring

to the student.

43

Works Cited

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform. A

Report to the Nation and the

Secretary of Education, United States Department of

Education. The National

Commission on Excellence in Education, April 1983.

(Reprinted by the American Council on the Teaching of

Foreign Languages [ACTFL], October 1983.)

Abunuwara, Kimberly. “Drawing on Levinas to redefine

education: Making the

unknowable the new priority.” Education. Chula Vista

119, I (1998): 147: 1-4.

Anderson, James A. Communication Theory. New York: The

Guilford Press, 1996.

44

Anthony, E. M. “Approach, Method and Technique.” English

Language Teaching. 17,

no.2 (1963): 63-67.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. (Trans. J.E.C. Welldon).

Amherst: Prometheus

Books, 1987.

Arnett, Ronald C. Dialogic Education: Conversation About

Ideas and Between Persons.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992.

Arnett, Ronald C. “The Responsive “I”: Levinas’s Derivative

Argument.” Argumentation

and Advocacy. 10, Summer: 2003, p.39-50.

Arnett, Ronald C. and Pat Arneson. Dialogic Civility in a

Cynical Age: Community,

Hope and Interpersonal Relationships Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1999.

Barnlund, Dean. “Toward a Meaning-Centered Philosophy of

Communication.” Journal

of Communication. 12, December: 1962, p. 198.

45

Carroll, B.J. Ed. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected

Writings of B.L. Whorf.

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956.

Christians, Clifford and Michael Traber, eds. Communicatiom

Ethics and Universal

Values. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997.

Callahan, Daniel, and Sissela Bok, eds. Ethics Teaching in

Higher Education. New York:

Plenium Press, 1980.

Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: toward a

philosophy of reason,

value, and action. Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press, 1987.

Freire, Paolo. Teachers as Cultural Workers. Boulder:

Westview Press, 1998.

Hadley, Alice Omaggio. Teaching Language in Context. Boston,

Heinle & Heinle, 2001.

Hsieh, Ying-chun, Hesieh, Ching-chun and John A. Lehman.

“Chinese Ethics in

46

Communication, Collaboration, and Digitalization in the

Digital Age.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 18, (3&4),

p. 268-285).

Johannesen, Richard L. Ethics in Human Communication. 3rd

ed. Prospect Heights,

Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1975.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity. Pittsburgh:

Duquesne University Press, 1969.

Reddy, Michael J. “The Conduit Metaphor—A Case of Frame

Conflict in Our Language

about Language.” In Metaphor and Thought, edited by

Andrew Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1979, 284-324.

Smith, David I. “Faith and Method in Foreign Language

Pedagogy.” Journal of

Christianity and Foreign Languages I (2000): 7-16.

Stewart, Edward C. and Milton J. Bennett. American Cultural

Patterns. Yarmouth:

Intercultural Press, Inc., 1991.

47

Wallace, Karl R. “An Ethical Basis of Communication.” The

Speech Teacher. IV, No.1,

January: 1955, p.1-9.

Weaver, Richard M. Language is Sermonic. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University

Press, 1970.

Widdowson, Henry G. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press,

48