EKEV AKADEM DERGS Yl: 13 Say: 38 (K 2009)

317

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND

STEREOTYPING

Gonca EK (*)

Abstract
With the increasing mobility throughout the world and the advances in communication
technologies, people are much more in contact with one another than ever before. When people
from different national or ethnic groups come into contact with one another, the resulting interaction
patterns can take many different forms. Judgments such as prejudice and stereotyping may often
be negative because it is a common tendency to evaluate the other person with ones own values
that their own culture imprinted on them. Although there is some truth in stereotypes, they are
often negative and resistant to change. Moreover, stereotyping and prejudice ignore the variability
within a group of people and thus unfair in the judgment of the individual. They may also distort
the communication between people. The Contact Hypothesis, suggested by Allport in 1954, states
that contact between people will increase positive relations between them. Indirect contact, that
is, learning about the beliefs, values and norms of others, can also cause positive attitudes among
people. As efficient language learning provides the learner with cultural awareness, successful
language learners might develop more favourable outlook on other nationalities. In this study,
Katz and Bralys (1933) adjective checklist and Bogardus (1928) Social Distance Scale are
administered to 60 participants in order to see if speaking a foreign language makes a difference
in terms of prejudice and stereotyping. The results show that there is a statistically significant
difference between people who can speak a foreign language and those who cannot in terms of the
trait adjectives they attributed to other nationalities and social distance preference with them.
Key Words: Stereotyping, prejudice, foreign language learning
Yabanc Dil Eitimi, nyarg ve Stereotipleme
zet
Dnyada artan seyahat hareketlilii ve gelien iletiim teknolojileri ile artk insanlar daha nce
hi olmad kadar birbirleriyle temas halindeler. Farkl milli ve etnik gruplara ait insanlar bir
araya geldiklerinde ortaya kan etkileim pek ok farkl ekilde olabilir. Bakalarn kltrmzn
bize iledii deerler ile deerlendirmek yaygn bir eilim olduu iin bu deerlendirmeler
stereotiplerde ve nyarglarda olduu gibi genelde olumsuz olur. Stereotiplemelerde bir dereceye
kadar doruluk pay olmasna ramen genelde olumsuz yarglar ierirler ve deiime kapaldrlar.
Dahas, stereotipleme ve nyarg insanlarn deikenliini gz ard eder ve bu yzden bireyin
deerlendirilmesinde hakszlk yapabilirler. nsanlar arasndaki iletiimi de bozabilirler. 1954
de Allport tarafndan ne srlen Temas Hipotezi insanlar arasndaki iletiim ve temasn olumlu
tutumlara sebep olabileceini sylemitir. Dolayl temas, yani bakalarnn inanlarn, deerlerini
ve normlarn renmek de olumlu tavrlara sebep olabilir. Etkili bir dil retimi kiilere kltrel
farkndalk salad iin, baarl dil renenler dier milletlere kar daha olumlu grler
gelitirebilirler. Bu almada yabanc bir dili konuabilmenin nyarg ve stereotipleme zerinde
etkisi olup olmadn grebilmek iin Katz ve Bralynin (1933) Sfat Listesi ve Bogerusun (1928)
Sosyal Mesafe lei 60 katlmcya uygulanmtr. Sonular bir yabanc dili konuabilen kiiler ile
konuamayanlar arasnda dier milliyetlere atfettikleri karakter zellikleri ve onlarla olan sosyal
mesafe tercihlerinde istatistik olarak anlaml farklar olduunu ortaya koymutur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Stereotipleme, nyarg, yabanc dil renimi
*) Okt. Dr., Gazi niversitesi Yabanc Diller retimi Uygulama ve Aratrma Merkezi.
(e-posta: gonca969@yahoo.com)

318 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

Introduction

Interest in stereotyping and prejudice has a sound basis due to its immense practical
importance. In the global world more and more people are getting into contact with each
other. Many societies are becoming increasingly ethnically diverse. With advances in
communication technologies global interactions are increasing; thus people from different
cultures are coming into greater contact with each other. These encounters may have
negative outcomes both for the individual and the society at large.
When people from different nationalities communicate, they tend to see the other
person as a representative of a country or nation. Yet this focus on national identity, and
the accompanying risk of relying on stereotypes, reduces the individual from a complex
human being to someone who is seen as representative of a country or culture(Council
of Europe, 2000:9).
Being a member of a group is a characteristic of our social self, that is, the group that
we belong to establish our social identity. Besides this, we tend to perceive our own group
as more favourable to, and distinct from, other groups. As people in other groups have the
same tendency of viewing their own groups favourably, prejudice occurs.
Stereotyping and Prejudice

Improved communication and transportation technologies have made contact between

cultures more frequent and common. That is why the issues of prejudice and stereotyping
are the leading issues of our times. Prejudice is commonly defined as an unfair negative
attitude toward a social group or a member of that group(Dovidio and Gaertner,
1999:101). Prejudice is a negative feeling or negative attitude toward the members of
a group (Stangor, 2000:1). It is often defined as a faulty or unjustified negative attitude,
emotion or behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership of that
group. Similarly, stereotypes which are overgeneralizations about a group or its members
that are factually incorrect and inordinately rigid, are a set of beliefs that can accompany
the negative feeling associated with prejudice (Dovidio and Gaertner, 1999:101).
A common form of prejudice is the stereotype. Lippmann started a formal interest
and enquiry into stereotyping with the publication of his book Public Opinion in 1922.
Lippmann defined stereotypes as simplified pictures in our heads (Lippmann, 1922:3
cited in Hinton, 2000:8) of people and events in the world. Lippmann argued that our actions
are not based on a direct knowledge of the real world because the real environment is
altogether too big, too complex and too fleeting for direct acquaintance (p:16). Hence,
in order to cope with this diversity, we construct these pictures. Lippmann stated that
these pictures might be made by the person or given by their culture. He also argued
that stereotypes are both rigid in their definition and resistant to change. As stereotypes
arise from overgeneralization, they are by their nature false. Yet, stereotypes arrange our
understanding of the world and once established, they are difficult to eradicate. Even in
the face of obvious contradictory evidence, we often hold steadfastly to our stereotypes.
To put in a nutshell, stereotypes arise from the limitations of human cognitive processes;

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

319

that is, the perception or the knowledge is arrived through simplified pictures on the
world. In addition, stereotypes are shaped by the persons culture. They are most likely
to be false or inaccurate, often with a negative connotation. Finally, they are not flexible
and not easy to change.
Stereotypes and prejudice are the result of social categorization. Social categorization
occurs when, rather than thinking about another person as a unique individual, we
instead think of the person as a member of a group of people (Stangor, 2000:2). Crosscultural research has shown that there are indeed characteristics of one culture that make
it different from another. Although the stereotype may be accurate in depicting some
typical members of a culture, it is inaccurate and insufficient to describe a particular
person.
Why do we categorise others?

Because we believe that categorization is informative in the sense that it provides

information about the characteristics of the other person. However, using social
categories will only be informative to the extent that our beliefs about the category are
accurate. Another reason for doing so is because things are so complicated that we reduce
complexity by categorizing others. Social categorization also satisfies our need to be a
part of a social group. Thus feeling that our group is better than others provides social
identity.
Stereotypes and Culture

Stereotypes are a feature of prejudice. We gain our knowledge of the world around
us through our culture and the group that we belong to. Research shows that people
hold stereotypes of nationalities that they have not personally encountered (Katz and
Braly, 1933). Much of our knowledge of other people does not come from personal
contact with them. What we gain from common knowledge is the shared knowledge
that exists within a culture. Through communication between group members, this
knowledge is developed and transmitted within the culture. Stereotypes are embedded
in the culture in which we are raised and live and they are conveyed and reproduced
through socialization in the family and at school, through repeated exposure to books,
television and newspapers, and so on. Culture affects how people interact, the meanings
that people place on different interactions, and how various interactions are organized.
Because cultures vary in important ways across societies, the behaviour of individuals
also differs across societies.
Changing Stereotypes and The Contact Hypothesis

It is not easy to change stereotypes and prejudice because they are fairly resistant to
change because they are supported by cognitive perceptions and are reinforced by the
society as a whole. The Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954) proposes that the contact
between groups, such as in schools and the workplace, will increase positive relations
between them (cited in Stangor, 2000:15). Stereotypes might change in response to
disconfirming information. The most common approach to changing stereotypes is to

320 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

provide people with information about the characteristics of the stereotyped groups by
having them interact with each other. The idea is that once we learn about and get to
know individuals from groups whom we are not familiar with, our stereotypes will be
dispelled. However, not all contact guarantee positive change in stereotypes and prejudice.
Stereotypes and prejudice will only change to be more positive when contact itself is
positive. Otherwise, a negative contact may even strengthen stereotyping and prejudice.

People are not born prejudiced. They learn it in their social environment. Can
stereotyping and prejudice be unlearned then? The answer is, to some degree, yes. There
are two basic approaches to reduce prejudice:
the promotion of increased interaction between groups in all aspects of everyday
living
the dispensing of information that will contradict stereotypes
Language learning and Cultural awareness

The ultimate goal of language teaching and learning is to be able to communicate

in another language. Cultures shape the way language is structured and the ways in
which language is used. When we use a language, we are involved in culture. Cultural
awareness is an approach to culture which emphasises not information about a culture but
skills in exploring, observing and understanding difference and sameness, and perhaps
most centrally, suspension of judgement, i.e. not being instantly critical of other peoples
apparently deviant behaviour(
Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2004 :
7).
The cognitive approach to stereotyping asserts that stereotypes are cognitive
structures, like other schemas, influence the way people perceive, process, store and,
retrieve information. Thus, stereotypes are likely to affect behaviours that are based on
these biased processes. Through language learning, we can form new cognitive schemashopefully more positive ones.
The question in this study is to find out if knowing a foreign language makes a
difference in peoples attitudes towards other nationalities. Below is the method and
findings of the study.
Method

Participants

60 people consisting of two groups of 30 participated in this study. The first group
consisted of people who can speak at least one foreign language and who defined their
proficiency in the foreign language as intermediate or upper intermediate. The second
group consisted of people who cannot speak any foreign language.
The table below describes demographic information about the participants.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

321

Table 1. Participants
Sex
Number of Foreign Languages
Spoken
Number of Speakers of Foreign
Languages
Level of Proficiency in Foreign
Languages Spoken
Stay Abroad

Duration of Stay Abroad

Male
Female
One
More than one
English
French
German
False beginner
Elementary
Pre-intermediate
Intermediate
Upper intermediate
Yes
No
Up to 1 month
Up to 3 months
Up to 9 months
10-18 months
18-24 months
more

Group A
47%
53%
77%
23%
23
6
4
16%
84%
60%
40%
27%
30%
3%
17%
20%
3%

Group B
50%
50%
none
100%
27%
73%
60%
40%
-

Group A consists of people who can speak one or more foreign languages (namely
English, French and German), whereas Group B consists of people who cannot speak
any foreign languages. In group A, several participants can speak more than one
language. In terms of proficiency, the majority of the participants defined their level as
upper intermediate. When asked if they have ever been abroad, more than half said yes.
Participants in Group B define themselves as false beginners and say that they cannot
speak any foreign languages. Anyone who receives some kind of schooling today takes a
foreign language. However, participants in Group B either received very little instruction,
or think that it was neither effective nor successful and feel that they are unable to
communicate in any foreign language. Compared to Group A, a smaller number of people
have been abroad for relatively shorter time.
Procedure
The participants were asked to answer a questionnaire about their reactions to
different nationalities. They were told that all their responses would be kept anonymous
and that their participation was voluntary. They were asked not to write any identifying
information on the questionnaires. This procedure was designed to assure participants
that their responses could not be associated with any particular individual. Participants
then completed the questionnaire (a full description is given below). At the end of the
questionnaire, the participants were asked to write their comments if they had any.

322 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

Measures
Following the demographic information, the questionnaire consisted of 2 sections.
First, the participants are provided with a list of 84 trait adjectives and instructed to read
through and select as many adjectives as necessary to define the target group adequately
and are encouraged to add their own adjectives if needed. The list was adapted from Katz
and Bralys (1933:283) Verbal stereotypes and Racial Prejudice and another study
conducted in Turkey in 2000 by Hacer Harlak .

They were also asked to complete the Social Distance Scale by E.S. Bogardus (1928),
which requires respondents to indicate which step in the following scale they would admit
members of various ethnic and national groups:
to close kinship by marriage
to my club as personal chums
to my street as my neighbours
to employment in my occupation
to citizenship in my country
as visitors only to my country
would exlude from my country (cited in Stangor, 2000:35).
Results and Discussion
The tables 2-8 below show the results of the positive and negative trait adjectives
attributed to the nationalities (the British, the American, the French and the German)
according to the variables, sex, knowing a foreign language and stay abroad. The tables
9-12 show the results of social distance preference of the participants for each nationality
according to knowing a foreign language or not.
Table 2. Positive traits according to sex
sex

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

Mean

Std. Deviation

F
M

26
34

5,2308
5,2059

3,88132
3,47091

,026
,026

,979
,980

Unsignificant

American
F
M

26
34

4,8362
5,4118

3,58544
3,92442

-,574
-,581

,568
,564

Unsignificant

F
M

26
34

4,0000
4,0284

2,68328
2,82291

-,041
-,041

,968
,967

Unsignificant

German
F
M

26
34

5,1154
5,8529

3,59251
4,58676

-,676
-,698

,502
,488

Unsignificant

British

French

Sig.(2-tailed) Significance

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

Table 3. Negative traits according to sex
sex

323

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

Mean

Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Significance

F
M

26
34

6,3462
6,4118

4,88215
4,46615

-,054
-,054

,957
,958

Unsignificant

American
F
M

26
34

6,8462
6,6176

5,85623
4,92990

,164
,160

,870
,873

Unsignificant

F
M

26
34

4,6923
4,7941

4,37053
4,00590

-,094
-,093

,926
,927

Unsignificant

German
F
M

26
34

3,5769
2,9118

3,41963
3,05869

,793
,781

,431
,438

Unsignificant

British

French

As Table 2 and Table 3 shows, there is no statistically significant difference in positive

and negative traits attributed to the nationalities mentioned above according to the sex of
the participants.
Table 4. Negative traits according to speaking a foreign language
*P<.05, **P<.01, ***P<.001
language

Mean

Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Significance

British
yes
no

30
30

6,6667
6,1000

4,85893
4,41276

,473
,473

,638
,638

Unsignificant

American
yes
no

30
30

7,5667
5,8667

5,81724
4,68109

1,247
1,247

,217
,218

Unsignificant

French
yes
no

30
30

5,8667
3,6333

4,32103
4,67173

2,157
2,157

,035
,035

*significant

German
yes
no

30
30

4,4000
2,0000

3,97058
3,48556

3,101
3,101

,003
,004

**significant

Speaking a foreign language causes statistically significant difference in terms of

negative traits for the French and the German but not for the English and American.

324 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

Table 6. Positive traits according to speaking a foreign language

*P<.05, **P<.01, ***P<.001

language
British
yes
no
American
yes
no
French
yes
no
German
yes
no

Mean

Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Significance

30
30

6,9000
3,5333

3,93350
2,31537

4,040
4,040

,000
,000

***Significant

30
30

6,7667
3,5667

3,90122
2,87298

3,618
3,618

,001
,001

***Significant

30
30

5,0333
3,0000

2,90639
2,16556

3,073
3,073

,003
,003

**Significant

30
30

6,9667
4,1000

4,82439
2,79593

2,816
2,816

,007
,007

**Significant

On the other hand, speaking a foreign languagecauses statistically significant

difference in positive traits for all nationalities. It is likely that they aremore in contact
with the target culture and people, and this contact, direct or indirect, might cause them to
develop relatively more favourable attitudes toward the native speakers of the language.

Table 7. Positive traits according to having been abroad

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

abroad
British
yes
no
American
yes
no
French
yes
no
German
yes
no

Mean

Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Significance

21
39

6,7619
4,3846

4,30006
2,93451

2,534
2,265

,014
,031

*Significant

21
39

6,7619
4,3077

3,83282
3,47286

2,518
2,443

,015
,001

*Significant

21
39

5,1429
3,4103

2,92037
2,46788

2,431
2,311

,018
,027

*Significant

21
39

6,6190
4,9487

4,82158
2,70596

1,496
1,383

,140
,176

Unsignificant

There is statistically significant difference between the participants who have been
abroad and who have not for the positive traits. The only exception is the German. A
possible explanation for this is that there are a great number of Turkish immigrant workers
living in Germany and thus most people in Turkey have either a relative or a friend living
in Germany. Therefore, it is likely that they are more familiar with the German people and
culture, no matter they know the language or not.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

325

Table 8. Negative traits according to having been abroad

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

abroad
British yes
no
American yes
no
French
yes
no
German yes
no

N
21
39
21
39
21
39

21
39

Mean Std. Deviation

6,1905
4,71825
4,4872
4,61047
6,7163
5,36789
6,7179
5,34075
5,7619
4,2951

4,3333
2,5897

4,24152
4,02086

3,74611
2,74071

t
-,236
-,234
-,003
-,003

1,403
1,381
2,062
1,879

Sig. (2-tailed)
,814
,816
,998
,998
,166
,175

,054
,069

Significance
Unsignificant
Unsignificant
Unsignificant
Unignificant

However, as to negative traits there is no statistically significant difference between

participants who have been abroad and those who have not. As the Contact Hypothesis
assumes, the contact should be positive to disconfirm the stereotypes and prejudice. It is
probable that neither the type of contact nor the duration of contact was sufficient for the
participants to change their views in terms of negative traits.

Table 9. Social Distance preference according to speaking a foreign language

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

The British

language
Marriage
yes
no
Club members
yes
no
Neighbours
yes
no
Colleagues
yes
no
citizens
yes
no
Tourists
yes
no
Exluded
yes
no

Mean Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed) Significance

30
30

1,8000
2,0000

,40638
,00000

-2,693
-2,693

,009
,012

**Significant

30
30

1,5667
1,9000

,50401
,30513

-3,099
-3,099

,003
,003

**Significant

30
30

1,5667
1,8333

, 50401
,37905

-2,316
-2,316

,024
,024

*Significant

30
30

1,2333
1,6333

,43018
,49013

-3,360
-3,360

,001
,001

***Significant

30
30

1,6000
1,8667

,49827
,34575

-2,408
-2,408

,019
,020

*Significant

30
30

,0667
1,2333

,25371
,43018

-1,828
-1,828

,073
,074

Unsignificant

30
30

,9333
1,8000

,25371
,40684

1,523
1,523

,133
,134

Unsignificant

326 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

For most items in the social distance scale for the British people, there is statistically
significant difference between participants who can speak a foreign language and those
who cannot. To be more precise, with respect to becoming closer through marriage,
club membership, as neighbours, colleagues and citizens the difference is meaningful.
However, as to items tourists and be excluded from the country there is no significant
difference for the British.

Table 10. Social Distance preference according to speaking a foreign language

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

The American
language

Marriage
yes
no

Mean Std. Deviation

30
30

1,8000
1,9333

,40684
,25371

-1,523
-1,523

,133
,134

Unsignificant

1,3667
1,8333

,49013
,37905

-4,125
-4,125

,000
,000

***Significant

30
30

1,4333
1,7000

, 50401
,46609

-2,128
-2,128

,038
,038

*Significant

30
30

1,2333
1,4667

,43018
,50742

-1,921
-1,921

,060
,060

Unsignificant

30
30

1,6000
1,8333

,49827
,37905

-2,041
-2,041

,046
,046

* Significant

30
30

1,0333
1,2333

,18257
,43018

-2,344
-2,344

,023
,024

* Significant

30
30

2,0000
1,8000

,00000
,40684

2,693
2,693

,009
,012

* Significant

Club members
yes
30
no
30
Neighbours
yes
no

Colleagues
yes
no
Citizens
yes
no

Tourists
yes
no

Excluded
yes
no

Sig. (2-tailed) Significance

As to the American people, there is statistically significant difference for all items
except for the two, namely, marriage and colleagues. It is possible that Turkish
people think it is advantageous or preferable to get married to or work with an American,
no matter they speak the language or not.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

327

Table 11. Social Distance preference according to speaking a foreign language

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

The French
language

Mean Std. Deviation

30
30

1,7667
1,9333

,43018
,25371

-1,828
-1,828

,073
,074

Unsignificant

Club members
yes
30
no
30

1,7000
1,8333

,46609
,37905

-1,216
-1,216

,229
,229

Unsignificant

Neighbours
yes
no

30
30

1,4333
1,8333

,50401
,37905

-3,474
-3,474

,001
,001

*** Significant

Colleagues
yes
no

30
30

1,4000
1,8333

,49837
,37905

-3,791
-3,791

,000
,000

*** Significant

citizens
yes
no

30
30

1,6333
1,9667

,49013
,18257

-3,391
-3,391

,001
,001

*** Significant

Tourists
yes
no

30
30

1,1333
1,3667

,34575
,49013

-2,131
-2,131

,037
,037

* Significant

Excluded
yes
no

30
30

1,8333
1,6667

,37905
,47946

1,494
1,494

,141
,141

Unsignificant

Marriage
yes
no

Sig. (2-tailed) Significance

As for the French people, the participants attitudes for social distance scales such as
neighbours, colleagues, citizens and tourists are statistically significant with respect to
their speaking a foreign language or not. However, for the other distance preferences;
that is, the ones that are much closer or more radical such as marriage, club members
or be excluded, there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups of
participants. In Group A, who can speak a foreign language, the speakers of French are
fewer compared to the English. It is possible that they are less familiar with the French
culture and people and therefore do not seek a more intimate relationship with them.

328 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

Table 12. Social Distance preference according to speaking a foreign language

*P<.05,
**P<.01,
***P<.001

The German

Language

Marriage
yes
no

Mean Std. Deviation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Significance

,37905
,34575

-,356
-,356

,723
,723

Unsignificant

,47946
,30513

-2,249
-2,249

,028
,029

* Significant

30 1,4000
30 1,5000

,49827
,50855

-,769
-,769

,445
,445

Unsignificant

30 1,1667
30 1,7000

,37905
,46609

-4,862
-4,862

,000
,000

*** Significant

30 1,6333
30 1,8000

,49013
,40684

-1,433
-1,433

,157
,157

Unsignificant

30 1,0333
30 1,1000

,18257
,30513

-1,027
-1,027

,309
,310

Unsignificant

30 1,9667
30 1,9333

,18257
,25371

,584
,584

,561
,562

Unsignificant

30 1,8333
30 1,8667

Club members
yes
30 1,6667
no
30 1,9000
Neighbours
yes
no
Colleagues
yes
no
citizens
yes
no
Tourists
yes
no

Excluded
yes
no

As to the German people, most of the items in the social distance scale show no
significant difference between the two groups of participants, except for the club
members and colleagues. As stated before, owing to the Turkish population living in
Germany, Turkish people might have already got familiar with the German people and
their culture no matter they speak the language or not.
Last but not least, there was a part in the questionnaire where the participants were
asked to write comments if they had any. 11 (out of 30) participants in Group A noted
that it is difficult and incorrect to define a group of people with the same traits as each
individual is unique. In other words, some of the participants who could speak a foreign
language stated that they had difficulty in ascribing certain features to all members of a
nation and thought it was not right to do so. Thus we may conclude that indirect contact;
that is, speaking a foreign language and thus knowing about the people, their culture and
values, indeed help reduce stereotyping.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING, PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPING

329

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Contact Hypothesis suggests that contact between people might increase positive
relations between them. The contact might be indirect as well; in other words, learning
about the beliefs, values and norms of the people might help reduce prejudice and
stereotyping. As language is a part and conveyor of culture, this can only be achieved
through language learning.

This study is conducted to see if speaking a foreign language, in other words

indirect contact, makes a difference in peoples stereotypes and prejudice towards other
nationalities, namely, the British, the American, the French and the German. A trait
adjectives checklist and a social distance preference questionnaire are administered to
60 people, half of whom could speak at least one foreign language at intermediate or
upper-intermediate level. The other half could not speak any foreign language. Although
some time in their education they received some foreign language instruction, they stated
that it was too short or inefficient and they described themselves as false beginners. The
participants were asked to tick the trait adjectives that they think most describe some
nationalities and to state what social distance they would prefer to have with them.

As to results, the two groups do not differ in positive and negative traits they attribute
to the nationalities according to the sex of the participants. Speaking a foreign language
causes statistically significant difference particularly in positive traits for all nationalities.
Similarly, staying abroad also causes statistically significant difference in terms of
positive traits attributed to the nationalities. As to social distance preference, speaking
a foreign language causes significant difference for nearly all items for all nationalities.
The findings related to the German people show that there is relatively less difference
between the participants who can speak a foreign language and those who cannot. This
can be attributed to the fact that Turkish people are familiar with the German due to the
large number of Turkish immigrant workers living in Germany. Even if they cannot speak
the foreign language, most Turkish people are somehow in contact with the German
people and therefore there is not much difference between the attitudes of the two groups
of participants. In brief, the findings of the study confirm the Contact Hypothesis in
that there is statistically significant difference between the participants who can speak
a foreign language at least at intermediate and upper-intermediate level and those who
cannot, particularly with regard to positive traits.

Last but not least, research suggests that overcoming prejudice is a top priority for
language teachers (Council of Europe, 2002:27). Integrating cultural awareness into
language learning, we can help learners become intercultural speakers or mediators
who are able to engage with complexity and multiple identities and to avoid the
stereotyping which accompanies perceiving someone through a single identity. (Council
of Europe, 2002:9) When people from different cultures come together and start to interact,
their social identities are unavoidably a part of the social interaction between them and
it greatly affects how they perceive each other. Because social identities are closely
related to cultures, language teaching with an intercultural dimension to enable them to

330 / Dr. Gonca EK

EKEV AKADEM DERGS

understand and accept people from other cultures as individuals with other distinctive
perspectives, values and behaviours; and to help them to see that such interaction is an
enriching experience. Foreign language learning might help us perceive differences,
appreciate them and above all respect and value each and every individual human being.
References

Council of Europe (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching.

A Practical Guidebook for Teachers. Strasbourg

Dovidio, J. F. and Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup

Biases. American Psychological Society. 1999. Vol.8 No.4 p.101-105.

Harlak, Hacer. (2000). nyarglar: Psikososyal Bir nceleme.

stanbul: Sistem
Yaynclk.

Hinton, P. R. (2000). Stereotypes, Cognition and Culture. East Sussex: Psychology

Press.
Katz, D. and Braly, K.W. (1933). Racial Prejudice and Racial Stereotypes. (1958) 3rd ed.,
ed. E.E.Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley, Holt and Reinhart and
Winston Inc.

Stangor, Charles. (2000). Stereotypes and Prejudice : Essential Readings UK: Psychology
Press.
Tomlinson, B. and Masuhara, H. (2004). Developing cultural awareness. Modern
English Teacher, 13 (1), 5-11.