Appropriate pedagogy

Claire Kramsch and

Patricia Sullivan

The notion of authentic language becomes problematic within a frame-

work of English as an international language: whose words and whose
culture comprise authentic language? Native-speaker practices do not
apply across multiple contexts of use. A more acceptable notion is
appropriate language, but even this term needs to be examined, for what
is appropriate in an internationalcontext may not be appropriate in a local
context. We take the metaphor of the market-place to conceptualize
appropriate pedagogy as serving both the global and local needs of lear-
ners of English. A market-place is not only a place of business and inter-
national idioms, but also a place of local communication and culturally-
specific forms of discourse. We argue that the notion of appropriate
pedagogy should be a pedagogy of both global appropriacy and local
appropriation.

Itroduction The once uncontroversial notion of authenticity in language teaching

(see, for example Widdowson 1979, Breen 1985a) has become
problematic. Within a communicative pedagogy it seemed natural to
use dialogues and texts that were authentic, i.e. spoken or written by
native speakers for native speakers to communicate real-life messages
for real-life purposes according to the socially sanctioned conventions of
real-life language use. Indeed, according to Widdowson (1979: 166)
authenticity depends on a congruence of the language producers
intentions and language receivers interpretation, this congruence being
effected through a shared knowledge of conventions. (italics added)
This may be fine for ELT in the UK or USA, but as soon as English texts
are used in real-life contexts other than those of their original producers,
authenticity of language use becomes problematic. To what extent can
we expect rules of interpretation and discourse conventions to be shared
by speakers of English in London and Hanoi, for example? The same
language. yes, but surely not the same language use. Authentic native-
speaker discourse in London or New York might be quite inappropriate
for speakers of English in other parts of the world; what is authentic in
one context might need to be made appropriate to another.
In the last ten years, Widdowson (1994) and others (for example Breen
1985a, Candlin 1993, Kramsch 1993, and Taylor 1994) have tried to
tackle the two seemingly contradictory notions of authenticity and
appropriateness. In this paper, we examine the way in which ELT

ELT Journal Volume 50/3 July 1996 Oxford University Press 1996 199

articles welcome
 materials and concepts have moved from a concern for the authentic to
an interest in the appropriate. Then, using a concrete example taken
from an EFL class in Vietnam, we suggest an appropriate pedagogy
that takes into account both the global and local needs of learners of
English.

From authenticity The current re-examination of the concept of authenticity in ELT has to
to be viewed in the larger context of two conflicting trends in international
appropriateness affairs: on the one hand, the globalization of world economies and the
blurring of national and linguistic boundaries due to the explosion of
information technologies and large-scale migrations; and on the other
hand, the emergence of regional thinking and the revival of ethnic and
regional cultures. These two trends have given rise to the political motto
Think globally, act locally, translated into language pedagogy as global
thinking, local teaching (Berman 1994). Interest in an appropriate
rather than an authentic ELT pedagogy also stems from the realization
that the teaching methodologies and materials developed in Europe or
the United States could not be used in the way they were intended by
their original authors once they reached Swaziland or Malaysia.
Widdowson (1994: 387) clearly states the consequences for English
language teaching: instead of a pedagogy of the authentic which
[inappropriately] privileges native-speaker use and imposes its norms
at the global level, he suggests a pedagogy of the appropriate, which
revises the authentic and adapts it to local conditions.
It has been argued, most forcefully recently by Phillipson (1993) that
ELT materials export not only globally conceived English content, but
also a methodology often associated with an Anglo-Saxon view of
communication. Thus the communicative approach may be viewed as
based on a pragmatic, Dale Carnegie view of human relations, where
doing things with words is less important than getting people to do things
for you by using the words that will win friends and influence people.
One could argue that the communicative teaching of English imposes on
learners of English around the world discourse forms that are typical of
Anglo-Saxon commercial practices, and that one should therefore seek
to develop a pedagogy more appropriate to local conditions.
However, the matter is not so simple. Firstly, the symbolic value
accorded to the authentic, be it ELT concepts, materials, or pedagogic
practices, is as important as its actual effectiveness. Terms like
communicative approach, learner-centredness, and group work
have long become for many non-native teachers and learners
synonymous with progress, modernization, and access to wealth, even
if these terms do not mean the same for them as for native ESL teachers
in the UK or USA. Most learners of English around the world use
English to dream of better worlds. ELT nomenclature is part of that
dream. A panel at TESOL France 1994 pertinently debated the
question: The communicative approach: definable? imperialistic?
appropriate? and concluded that it was at once all and none of these.
Revising authentic methodology has therefore often meant buying into
200 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
 the symbolic capital associated with ELT rhetoric but retaining the local
conditions of the practice. Appropriate communicative language
teaching in Hanoi, for example, might use the same pedagogic
nomenclature as in London, but look very different in classroom
practice. Secondly, the English language is already appropriated by
teachers and learners around the world in ways that are completely out
of the control of the original English-speaking world (Bisong 1995). It is
already made to serve individual and social needs in local areas. What is
authentic in these local areas is not necessarily the material presented in
the text. but the interactions between classroom participants - interac-
tions that are based on broader social, historical, and cultural issues,
such as the purpose of education in that society or the ideal of a good
citizen. The question is not how to control this local appropriation, nor
how to reinstate the original intentions of the original authors, but how
to let a thousand flowers bloom.
Thus, we may need a new metaphor for the concept of appropriate
pedagogy. Rather than the centre to periphery metaphor, the native to
non-native transfer of pedagogical know-how, or even the tailoring of
the standardized product to fit the needs of local customers, we may
want to view an appropriate pedagogy as a multilingual, multicultural,
pedagogic exchange. Holliday (1994: 7) proposes such a metaphor:
Rather than the destructive notion of a cultural imperialism, I prefer
the market place analogy where all parties are equal and there is
tremendous potential for industry. Market places are essentially
cosmopolitan societies, where people come from afar to buy and sell.
Market-places fulfil several functions. They can be places where
economic wars are waged, stocks and bonds are exchanged, companies
boom or bust, or entrepreneurs invest and make a profit. They can also
be places that bring people together to talk and exchange life
experiences. They are sites of encounter, where the social fabric of the
community is woven and spun by means of the news exchanged, the
stories told, the marriages arranged, the words of honour given and
broken. The potential of market-places may lie not only in industry but
also in the discovery of potentialities in the self that have been brought
to light through encounters with the other.
This is precisely what happens when materials designed in one context,
for example the UK. are used in another context, in this case Vietnam.

Case study: ELT in English language learners in Vietnam often refer to their language
Vietnam1 abilities based on books in the much-used Oxford University Press
Streamline English and Headway series. The statement, Ive finished the
intermediate level of Headway puts one in a category that people
recognize: it gives a reference point for judging the English language
level of the speaker. What students learn, however, relates more to the
local situation than to the text itself.
To analyse the learning that goes on in the classroom it is helpful to
think of the classroom as a culture (Breen 1985b). Holliday (1994) has
Appropriate pedagogy 201

articles welcome
 recently expanded this concept by characterizing the culture of the
classroom as an interrelated and complex mix of student culture, host
institution culture, international education-related culture, professional -
academic culture, and national culture. In Vietnam, for example, the
host institution assigns students to class groups that stay together
throughout their university careers. The whole class, therefore, is one
group composed of students who come to know each other very well.
The international education-related culture affects classroom practices
through educators from Australia or the UK who train teachers in
communicative methodology. The professional-academic culture pre-
scribes highly differentiated roles for teachers and students in ways that
reflect traditional Confucian precepts. And the national culture
enhances classroom culture through a rich oral literary tradition that is
still alive in Vietnam. Classroom discourse reflects these interrelated and
overlapping cultures.
In Vietnam, as elsewhere in the world, teaching materials are used in
creative ways that may not be the ones envisaged by materials writers or
teacher trainers. The use of materials not only reflects local and
international needs such as those related to job preparation outside the
classroom, but also to practices arising from the culture of the classroom
itself. The examples given in this case study exemplify the multiple
effects of interrelated aspects of classroom culture. We might be
tempted to say that these practices maximize learning. but such a
phrase does not seem to fit what we observed. Rather than the
traditional concept of communicative learning associated with pair and
group work, or teacher as facilitator and communicator in real-life
situations, we were confronted with aspects of a different classroom
culture: the notion of classroom-as-family, teacher-as-mentor, and
language learning-as-play.

Classroom-as- Second language acquisition research has supported the notion of the
family use of groups for learning (Long 1989, Long and Porter 1985). In fact,
the preference for a small group format as compared to a whole-class
format in language learning classrooms is rarely questioned. According
to Holliday (1994: 54)
The overall impact on English language education has been the
establishment of a notion of the optimum interactional parameters
within which classroom language learning can take place. For the sake
of discussion, I shall call this notion the learning group ideal. This
learning group ideal sets the conditions for a process-oriented, task-
based, inductive, collaborative, communicative English language
teaching methodology.
Each of these terms describing communicative teaching methodology
must be viewed within the context of a Western educational culture that
is traditionally described as individualistic and competitive, and within
which teaching methodologies such as the grammar-translation and
audiolingual methods were product-oriented, methods-based, deductive,

202 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
and formal. The rationale for pair and group work in ELT is based on a
reaction against these methods, which were viewed as alienating and
alienated from real-life communication. However, as Holliday (ibid.)
points out, this preference for small groups does not take into
consideration broader social factors. Group work may be perceived
quite differently in classroom cultures with a different educational
tradition.
In Vietnam, students are placed into classes of approximately twenty or
thirty when they enter the university. Members of these classes often
live, study, and play together. The associations students form are more
akin to Western notions of family than classmate. In many cases
students in the same class will continue close relationships throughout
their lives, forming ties that encompass financial, familial, and social
obligations.
In the classroom setting, then, the class is one family. This family stays
together during school hours, while the teachers, who share the teaching
either by day or by subject matter, come and go. Students are expected
to learn together and help each other inside and outside class. In such a
supportive setting. dividing into subgroups can be divisive and inhibit
learning. One recently-arrived Vietnamese student in the United States
said that when he was in his class in Vietnam. he felt that all the students
were connected by a thread, and that if they were divided up. that thread
was broken. He extended the metaphor by describing the class as one
body, adding that if the other students are separated from me, I feel
like my right arm is cut off.
In a close group setting such as in many classrooms in Vietnam, Western
observers may note that the whole class responds together, and that
students call out answers that often overlap. It has been difficult for us
even to find the words to describe what goes on in these classrooms, so
steeped are we in the nomenclature of communicative language
teaching. We may say, for example, that students build on each others
responses in collaborative ways. that the atmosphere is not one of
individual competitiveness, but of collaboration of the group as a
whole. But the very terms build and collaborative are inappropriate
to describe the conversational give-and-take, the verbal sparring, the
rhapsodizing and sounding that go on in these classrooms. The
metaphor is not one of efficiency, problem-solving, and goal-oriented
task, but rather of verbal creativity and poetic licence. Though
individuals are sometimes called upon to answer questions, much of
the learning is a growing-into-knowing (Heath 1983) that occurs
through listening to the teacher and experimenting with various
responses.
The excerpt below is taken from a class discussion on an exercise in
Headway Intermediate (Soars and Soars 1986: 33) entitled Vocabulary
skills development in a unit called Describing People and Places.
There are no explanations for carrying out the exercise in the students
book, though there is a subtitle, Vocabulary of character: What sort of
Appropriate pedagogy 203

articles welcome
 person are you? and the instruction Put Y for Yes, N for No, and S for
Sometimes. From a Western perspective, we would expect the authors
to assume that students would individually and truthfully answer the
questions about their own behaviour, and then possibly get into groups
to discuss their answers more fully, thereby practising the language and
negotiating meanings. From this Western perspective, the word you is
singular, and the focus is on expressing oneself and understanding one
another in small groups . However, in this Vietnamese classroom the
students are not divided into small groups, nor do they answer the
questions individually. In fact, the teacher - perhaps subconsciously -
interprets the word you as a plural by reading the word person as
persons.
Excerpt 12
1 T: The first one is vocabulary. Here in the following sentences
2 uh questions you are going to meet with some of the
3 vocabulary of character. ((T reads)) What sort of persons
4 are you? Put Y for Yes. N for No, and S for Sometimes. ( )
5 A. Are you generally aware of other peoples feelings?
6 Ss: [Yes.]
7 Ss: [Sometimes.]
8 T: Sometimes?
9 s: Yes.
10 T: You say yes ( ). OK. Do you find it difficult to meet new
people?
11 Ss: [No.]
12 ss: [Never.]
13 T: No?
14 Ss: [No.]
15 Ss: [Never.]
16 Sl: Sometimes.
17 T: Sometimes? Uh? Do you frequently make people laugh?
18 Ss: ((laugh)) [Yes.]
19 ss: [Sometimes.]
20 T: No. Always, OK?
21 Ss: ((laugh))
22 T: Does your mood change often and suddenly?
23 S2: [No]
24 Ss: [Yes]
25 Ss: [Sometimes]
In this example students call out answers simultaneously. The point is
not to reveal oneself to others or clarify intended meanings. Presumably
students in this class know each other quite well. They already know
who makes people laugh and who has a difficult time meeting new
people. Rather than the focus of the exercise being on individuals
understanding each other, it is on the group celebrating language use.
Translated into Western terms, one could view this as simply language
practice, but this term would not do justice to the type of non-referential
meanings given to the language by teacher and students, who seem to
204 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
enjoy playing with the ideas and using new words.
Though many whole-class activities consist of group response such as in
the above example. this does not preclude students from calling out
unique responses. Excerpt 2 is from a discussion based on a vocabulary
exercise in Headway Intermediate (1986: 46) on the cause and treatment
of injuries. In this segment, the teacher has asked about the possible
cause of a dislocated shoulder.

Excerpt 2
1 T: OK. So. what about the cause. What about the other causes?
2 Sl: You fall down
3 S2: Fall down
4 T: Fall down?
5 Sl: From the branch of the tree.
6 T: From a branch of the tree? Yes?
7 S2: Or your boyfriend put her [hand]
8 S3: [hands]
9 S4: too long
10 52: on [your shoulder]
11 S4: [for a long time]
)I
:: F All
[( ri:ght.
14 Ss: ((laugh))
In this example, four students jointly create a mischievous narrative
about a boyfriend. They add to each others narrative thread by stitching
together the elements of a story-line. A Western observer might
conclude that the students have come up with a more complete
response than they might have individually. But we would argue that
the terms response and individual are wrongly used here, and that
such a classroom style is better described as joint storytelling than as an
orderly initiation/response/evaluation (Kramsch 1989).
Excerpt 3 gives another example of this imaginative storytelling. In
answer to a question about the possible cause of a sting, students jointly
invent a scenario about a prick from a sharp needle used while sewing.

Excerpt 3
1 T: OK. All right. What else?
2 Sl: Or you STICK on your finger when you are... sewing.
3 T: Uh huh? Yes =
4 s2: = Yeah when [sewing.]
5 T: [and sewing] [( )]
6 Ss: [( )]
7 Sl: [needle]
8 S2: [a needle]
9 S3: [very sharp]
10 T: Very sharp? Right? So what about the treatment for that?
(2.0)
These examples represent the notion of classroom-as-family. The
Appropriate pedagogy 205

articles welcome
 narratives that students construct in class reflect their status as close-knit
members of a group. Verbal support comprises one aspect of the
formation of relationships that are the basis of lifetime commitments and
obligations. Another aspect of classroom relationships is the respect due
to the teacher, who is expected not only to be an expert knower of the
language but also to uphold the moral values of the community.

Teacher-as- In Vietnam, a country where people are deeply aware of their Confucian
mentor heritage, the tradition is that a teacher is honoured and respected, even
more so than ones parents, The teacher guides the students not only in
academic matters, but also in moral behaviour (Jamieson 1993, Nguyen
Khac Vien 1989). A well-known saying is First learn how to behave,
then learn the subject. Though this tradition is now changing - at least
at a surface level - the roots of tradition are still apparent.3 An
examination of classroom discourse reveals instances in which the
teacher is still the moral leader, sprinkling in admonitions about
behaviour to supplement the text. Excerpt 4 is from the discussion on
the exercise in Headway Intermediate (1986: 33) which deals with
personal characteristics.

Excerpt 4
1 T: OK. OK. When decisions have to be made do you think first
of yourself?
2 Sl: No =
3 S2: = Yes, sure.
4 S3: [Yes. sure.]
5 S4: [Sure]
6 S2: [Yes.]
7 S3: Sometimes.
8 Ss: Yes
9 T: It all depends.
10 s: Sometimes. =
11 T: = Sometimes
12 s3: I always think of myself first.
13 T: OK?
14 Sl: So youre selfish.
15 S2: Yes, OK. =
16 T: = self
17 T/S2: ((overlapping speech, indecipherable))
18 T: OK.
19 S2: Its OK. I think for myself first.
20 T: OK.
21 S5: Nothing to complain (about)
22 T: Um no, no.
23 S5: No?
24 T: But of course it must be in accordance with the others. OK?
25 Ss: Yeah. Yes.

In line 3 above, S2 makes a statement in a rather testy voice that goes

206 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
 against the expected negative answer. She is joined by S3 and S4 (lines
4-10). after which S3 answers the teachers original question (line 12)
saying that she always thinks of herself first. Sl follows this by saying
that S3 is selfish. Sl is not criticizing S3, but is trying the word out for
size, ventriloquating the native speaker, so to speak, and enjoying the
match between the word selfish, one of the focal words in this lesson,
and the new context at hand. The teacher ends this exchange by bringing
in a subtle moral lesson: ....it [thinking of oneself first] must be in
accordance with the others (line 24). This final admonition by the
teacher fulfils two functions: it exemplifies the effect of the professional -
academic culture in this Confucian society, that one of the traditional
roles of the teacher is to teach moral behaviour and remind students of
their values of group harmony and respect for others; and it glosses for
the Western researcher present in the room that the traditional mentor
role of the teacher is still important. despite the current economic revival
and the seemingly informal atmosphere between teacher and students.

Language As indicated by these excerpts, many of the classrooms observed in this

learning-as-play study were punctuated by laughter. Teasing was common, whether from
teachers to students, from students to teachers, or among students
themselves. There was also much play with word formation. The high
value placed on quick and clever oral responses and verbal volleying
seen in English classes has its roots in traditional culture.
Vietnams rich oral tradition and love of poetry is as evident among the
poor and the poorly educated as among the educated classes. Everyday
speech abounds with proverbs, sayings. and poetic allusions. People read
poetry. commit it to memory, and enthusiastically recite it to each other
(Jamieson 1993, Marr 1981). Television commentaries make references
to poems that are well known to everyone. At all levels of schooling,
teachers and students will juxtapose words, using different tones to
make new meanings. One newly emigrated Vietnamese student in the
United States reported that he fondly remembered how teachers and
students enjoyed experimenting with words, sometimes saying them
backwards. or in another order. or with different tones. Learning, he
added, was made light and fun through word play. The tradition
continues in English classes, where teachers make puns on words in both
English and Vietnamese. This playful experimentation with language
brings a poetic quality into the classroom.
In the excerpt below, taken from the discussion of injuries, their causes
and treatment, Sl introduces a personal story.
Excerpt 5
1 Sl: Yesterday I was urn bitten bitten by a mosquito but it

2 T:
3 sure are you sure that was a mosquito?
4 Sl: Yeah
5 ss: [(( laugh ))]
Appropriate pedagogy 207

articles welcome
 6 S2: [elephantiasis]
7 ss: Yeah. Elephantiasis.
8 T: OK [( )]
9 Sl: [I got ( )I
10 ss: ((lauch))
11 Sl: ( ) each time a mosquito has (several) victim
12 T: Oh really? OK. So that is the male mosquito.
13 Sl: Yeah
14 ss: [((laugh))]
15 Sl: [Now it has ] elephantiasis.
16 Ss: [((laugh))]
17 T: [Elephantiasis.] OK. Thank you. Next one? A cramp.
Note, in lines 2 and 3, the way that the teacher changes the focus from
truth to playfulness. An appropriate and authentic response to the
students first statement might be Oh, thats too bad. Does it hurt?
Instead, he initiates a free-for-all poetic experience. Other students
enter into the spirit by bringing up the previously discussed notion of
elephantiasis. Though Sl tries to continue her story as fact (line ll), the
teacher again brings a playful note into the interaction (line 12). Sl soon
joins the game by stating that now she has elephantiasis.
In excerpt 6 the teacher shifts stance when he casts himself as one of the
characters in the text, thus further blurring the boundaries between
reality and fiction.
Excerpt 6
1 T: All right? ((T. reads)) Well, he was very good-looking,
2 with dark hair and big, brown eyes. Um hum. He was
3 very romantic. He was always buying me flowers and
4 presents. Of course, he wasnt as nice as you.
5 Ss: ((laugh)) )
6 T: OK. Now uh I ( ) shes talking about me.
7 Sl: Sure?
8 Ss: (( laugh))
9 T: OK.
10 S2: But uh she hasnt said anything about the scar.
11 S3: Yeah.
12 T: No, this is a new scar.
13 ss: Yeah yes new one. ((laugh))
14 T: A new one. ( ) OK.
15 s4: She didnt mention the glasses.
16 T: Glasses. OK. Uh hum ( ).
The teacher begins the playfulness after reading a dialogue from the
textbook by stating that the text is referring to him (line 6), whereupon a
student (line 10) challenges his statement by protesting that the text
could not be referring to the teacher since the woman in the dialogue did
not mention the scar on the teachers cheek. (The teacher had just had
an accident from which a cut was still healing.) The teacher responds to
the effect that the scar came after the text was written (line 12). Another
208 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
student then protests that the dialogue did not mention the teachers
glasses. The interaction with text in this example brings together a gentle
teasing which juxtaposes a textbook dialogue that represents two British
speakers with a playful focus on truth and the reality of the classroom
setting. In excerpt 7 the teacher uses a students error to begin a play
with word formation.
Excerpt 7
1 T: OK. Now can you give me some more adjectives telling
2 the uh characteristics of the people?
3 Sl: Kind.
4 T: Kind?
5 S2: Kind.
6 S3: [Hospital.]
7 S4: [Open.]
8 T: Over?
9 Ss: ((laugh))
10 T: OK. Overbooked?
11 Ss: ((laugh))
12 T: OK. [Overheated? Overcooked?]
13 ss: [( )]
14 s3: Opened.
15 ss: Opened.
16 Ss: [Open-hearted.]
17 T: [Open-hearted.]
18 Ss: [((laugh
))]
19T: Open-hearted. OK. What else?
In lines 5, 6, and 7 above, students call out answers - two of them
incorrect, one correct - to the teachers question. The teacher picks up
on S2s incorrect word over and uses it to make the new words
overheated and overcooked, neither of which are common terms for
describing people. Students laugh and then together correct the teacher
and add to S4s original word open,, collectively coming up with a
correct word open-hearted.
This playfulness with words and teasing between teacher and students
seems a far cry from socializing learners into the conventions used by
native speakers in English-speaking countries. In these examples,
students do not bare their souls to each other with personal opinions.
They do not negotiate group consensus on issues, or brainstorm ideas.
They listen to each other, carefully challenging each others wording,
completing each others stories. The quickness and cleverness of oral
repartee turns the classroom dialogue into a conversation among friends
or family members - what Deborah Tannen (1989) has called the
talking voices of daily conversation.
Vietnams recent shift to a market economy has spurred economic
development and global contact, and with it has come an explosion in
the need and desire for proficiency in English. When asked why they are
learning English, an overwhelming majority of students respond, to
Appropriate pedagogy 209

articles welcome
 communicate with people in other countries and secondarily, to get a
job. While they want to be able to buy and sell in the global English-
speaking market, they also want to engage in the local, playful barter
and exchange of stories that make market-places what they have always
been: sites of local encounters where new ideas and new tools are
exchanged through language. This view of human relations prompts
Vietnamese teachers and students to transform British authenticity into
Vietnamese authenticity. The imaginary leap witnessed time and time
again in these classes is part of a pedagogy of appropriation that is
another face of the appropriate pedagogy mentioned earlier.

Appropriate When we see the way learners of English in Vietnam acquire correct and
pedagogy and idiomatic forms of English, but then use these forms with the poetic
pedagogy of licence of the non-native speaker. we can envisage the potential of an
appropriation appropriate pedagogy which would, at the same time, be a pedagogy of
appropriation. based on the unique privilege of the non-native speaker
to poach on the so-called authentic territory of others, and make the
language their own.
Indeed. it is worth noting that the term appropriate involves an original
ambiguity that encompasses both a global. societal, and a local,
individual meaning. Like its original Latin root proprius. the English
term proper refers to something that conforms both to prevalent social
norms - as in apropos. proper behaviour. or propriety. meaning that
which is suitable, or fits the larger societal conditions - and to specific
individual norms - as in the town proper or a proper noun, or
property. meaning an intrinsic feature or exclusive ownership.
The use of English in the Vietnamese classroom was proper, in both
senses of the word. It taught the students the proper. i.e. correct use of
passives like I was bitten. and lexical items like swell or mosquito,
but it allowed them to combine these words in their own unconventional
ways, and build their own proper context of play, pun, and narrative
fiction, where mosquito bites produce elephantiasis, and male
mosquitoes have several victims.
Appropriate pedagogy would thus allow learners either to conform to
British social norms and give the socially expected rejoinders, or create
their own context of use according to the values cherished in their
national, professional-academic, or institutional culture.
In different cultures, the boundaries between property and propriety.
individual and communal ownership, self and other are differently
drawn, and so are the perceptions of appropriateness. Indeed, the whole
distinction between authenticity and appropriateness may seem futile in
parts of the world where the appropriation by one person of multiple
languages is current practice, and one simply uses one or the other,
according to how well it serves ones local needs (Bisong 1995), without
any of the qualms of ownership that speakers from more monolingual
traditions may have.
210 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan

articles welcome
 The debates surrounding the concept of pedagogic authenticity and
appropriateness in language teaching are linked to larger issues of
effectiveness and relevance in the teaching of English as an international
language around the world. These debates reflect an effort to make ELT
both efficient for global transactions and relevant to the users local
culture. While authentic pedagogy tries to apply native-speaker
practices across multiple contexts of use, irrespective of local conditions,
appropriate pedagogy tries to revise native-speaker language use and
make it fulfil both global and local needs.
But appropriate pedagogy must also be a pedagogy of appropriation.
The English language will enable students of English to do business with
native and non-native speakers of English in the global world market,
and for that they need to master the grammar and vocabulary of
standard English. But they also need to retain control of its use. The
poetic practices of appropriation we have observed in Vietnamese
learners and teachers are evidence of the multiple cultures at work at the
local level of market-place, home, and classroom. By keeping a playful
distance from conventional norms of use, these practices keep alive the
local educational values associated, for instance, with the culture of the
family, the school, and a strong oral tradition.
Appropriate pedagogy should therefore prepare learners to be both
global and local speakers of English and to feel at home in both
international and national cultures. Clifford (1992: 97) has called such
cross-cultural individuals insiders-outsiders. The market-place is not
populated by outsiders or insiders alone, but by people who mediate
between the two, and draw pleasure from such mediation, like the class
observed in Hanoi. The pedagogical challenge is to enable students to
adopt the appropriate ways with words of native speakers, all the while
giving them the freedom to give distance its due (Becker 1995).
Received June 1995

Acknowledgements (( )) observers editorial comment

We would like to thank Mr. Nguyen Dzung, of indecipherable word or phrase
Hanoi National University, and his second year (word) transcribers guess of word or phrase
students in 1994, for allowing us to use the overlapping speech
discourse excerpts in this paper; and Mr Le Due ? voice rises
Nhuan and Mr Phuong Suu, also of Hanoi voice falls
National University, for their support, assistance, = latching speech
and invaluable discussions about classroom learn- "..."
... speaker is reading text
ing in Vietnam. CAPS emphasized word
(2.0) two-second pause
Notes 3 With the move to a market economy and the
1 These examples are taken from an ethnographic growth of international business, English lan-
research study carried out by Patricia Sullivan in guage classes are in great demand. Those who
Hanoi between June 1993 and September 1994. can teach English have the opportunity to work
English language classes at the university level mornings, afternoons, and evenings. This situa-
were observed, audio-taped, and video-taped. tion has led to complaints that English language
2 The following notations are used in the tran- teaching is becoming more a business than a
scriptions: respected profession.
Appropriate pedagogy 211

articles welcome
References
Becker, A.L. 1995. Giving distance its due. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the
Berkeley Linguistic Society, 17 February.
Berman, R. 1994. Global thinking, local teaching:
departments, curricula, and culture. ADFL
Bulletin 26/1: 7-11.
Bisong, J. 1995. Language choice and cultural
imperialism: a Nigerian perspective. ELT
Journal 49/2: 122-32.
Breen, M. 1985a. Authenticity in the language
classroom. Applied Linguistics 6/1: 60-70.
Breen, M. 1985b. The social context for language
learning: a neglected situation?. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 7: 135-58.
Candlin, C. 1993. Problematising authenticity:
whose texts for whom?. Paper presented at
TESOL, Atlanta.
Clifford, J. 1992. Travelling culture in L. Gross-
berg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler (eds.). Cultural
Studies. New York: Routledge.
Hartley, B. and P. Viney. (1978-95) Streamline
English series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, S. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life
and Work in Communities and Classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Jamieson, N. 1993. Understanding Vietnam. Ber-
keley, CA.: University of California Press.
Kramsch, C. 1989. Discourse and text: a narrative
view of the foreign language lesson in J. Alatis
(ed.) Georgetown Roundtable on Languages
and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. 1989. Task, group, and task-group
interactions. University of Hawaii Working
Papers in ESL 8/2: l-26.
Long, M. and Porter, S. 1985. Group work,
interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19/2: 207-28.
Marr, D. 1981. Vietnamese Tradition on Trial,
1920-1945. Berkeley. CA.: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
212 Claire Kramsch and Patricia Sullivan
Nguyen Khac Vien. 1989. On the historical role of
Confucianism. Vietnamese Studies 94/4: 67-72.
Phillipson, R. 1993. Linguistic Imperialism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soars, J. and Soars, L. 1986 Headway
Intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, D. 1994. Inauthentic authenticity or
authentic inauthenticity? The pseudo-problem
of authenticity in the language classroom.
TESL-EJ (Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language: An Electronic Journal) 1/2:
l-12, A-l. Contact: Maggi Sokolik, Editor
<msokolik@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Widdowson, H.G. 1979. Explorations in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1994. The ownership of Eng-
lish. TESOL Quarterly 28/2: 377-88.
The authors
Claire Kramsch is Professor of German and
Foreign Language Acquisition, and Director of
the Language Center at the University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley. She teaches applied linguistics
and conducts research on the application of
discourse analysis to the teaching of foreign
languages. Her recent publications include Con-
text and Culture in Language Teaching (Oxford
University Press 1993) and Text and Context:
Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language
Study (D.C. Heath 1992, co-authored with S.
McConnell-Ginet).
Patricia Sullivan is a lecturer in the Board of
Studies in Education, University of California,
Santa Cruz. She has worked as an English
language teacher and teacher trainer in Vietnam,
China, Taiwan, and Afghanistan. Her interests are
in the use of discourse analysis as a means of
analysing the social context of English language
teaching and learning. Her publications include
Preparation for the TOEFL (Macmillan 1995),
and TOEFL Supercourse (Macmillan 1995), both
co-authored with G. Zhong.
articles welcome