Prof Joe Liro

I wish to amplify one of my comments. I mentioned in an earlier post that “culture is key,” and that “cultural literacy” is a major goal of second language acquisition. That is easier said than done. That’s one of the reasons why there are no standards for measuring cultural competence as there are for measuring linguistic competence. Here are some examples, in increasing order of “disconnected-ness.” В России, можни играть ромашкой игру “любит не любит.” In English one can play “(s)he loves me, (s)he loves me not” on the same daisy. That’s a good example of cultural overlap. No disconnection here. В России растут “полевые цветы,” and in western English-speaking countries “wildflowers” grow. There’s a bit of a disconnect here, but it doesn’t impede communication in a major way. “Field flowers” and “дикие цветы” sound a bit odd, but they do make the point. But some disconnections are major and impede communication. I’m a Texan, and in Texas the perfect gift for a sweetheart or a hostess is a bouquet of a dozen yellow roses. In Russia, this is a colossal blunder, and no amount of explanation will convince the recipient otherwise. A complete cultural disconnect. There are other disconnects. Consider the матрёшка – there is no one-word English definition for this example of folk culture. Or баня, likewise lacking a one-word English definition and carrying with itself its own rituals and internal lexicon. Or чаепитье. English-speaking learners of Russian may never quite reach the “near-native” level of cultural competence. A more modest goal can still produce results. It the beginning, for instance, learning tp avoid cultural stereotypes is a perfectly fine goal. It’s the difference between saying “they drive on the wrong side of the road” and “they drive on the other side of the road.” Professor Joe Liro Austin, Texas

Working with the America and Americans Today project, I found that that virtual language learning is an important new addition to the inventory of second language acquisition genres, even while my beliefs about language and teaching and culture that I held for a long time were validated I have come to see that virtual programs or on-line programs are not “just as good” as physical programs, no more so than a Chevy is “just as good” as a Ford, or a cell phone is “just as good” as a land line. Virtual programs are a bona fide, new, legitimate option for language students. The goal is for the students to acquire a measure of communicative and cultural competence in Russian. This means that we work toward using the language for communicative purposes – obtaining information, answering questions, expressing agreement and disagreement, expanding a point, narrating, describing, paraphrasing, expressing feelings, persuading. Language acquisition works best when it is based on the normal uses of the language. I have also long held that it is usually cultural barriers, not linguistic barriers, that inhibit communication between people of different cultures. Different cultures provide different behavioral options for satisfying human needs, and coming to understand that point lays the foundation for a kind of cultural literacy. Language is more than nouns and verbs, and communications is more than grammatical correctness. Culture is key. Cultural competence is what this program is all about. Professor Joe Liro Austin, Texas