Many assumptions of a communicative orientation
towards language teaching need questioning in a global
context. Ozóg (1989) discusses the idea of the ‘information
gap’, which is supposed to induce students to speak. ‘Are we
as Europeans’, he asks, ‘not making a cultural assumption
that speakers the world over are uneasy in silence and that
they have an overwhelming desire to fill gaps which occur
in natural discourse?’ (p.399). Silence is a salient feature of
conversation in the Malay world, he points out, a feature that
has also been noted in Japan and a number of other cultures.
Indeed, the whole question of requiring others to speak
needs to be questioned in terms of both cultural and gender
differences. The point here is not to exoticize some notion
of cultural difference, but rather to suggest that language is
a cultural practice, that both language and thinking about
language are always located in very particular social,
cultural and political contexts. How language (including
silence, paralanguage, and so on) is used, therefore, differs
extensively from one context to another, and thus any
approach to language teaching based on one particular
view of language may be completely inapplicable in another
context. If particular language teaching practices (advertised
and exported as the best, newest and most scientific) support
certain views of language, then such practices clearly present
a particular cultural politics and make the English language
classroom a site of struggle over different ways of thinking
about and dealing with language.
(A. Pennycook, The Cultural Politics of English as an International
Language.London and New York: Routledge. 2017. Adaptado)