LOOKING AT ELT MATERIALS

FROM A LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Abstract. English language teaching (ELT) materials, as seen from a

linguistic perspective, call for three different but interrelated considerations:
cognitive, structural, and cultural considerations. First, cognitively, ELT
materials are primarily intended as means of enhancing interlanguage or
transitional competence. More clearly, ELT materials serve as means of
building interlanguage lexicon and grammar which enable the learner to
communicate using L2 more and more effectively. Secondly, in terms of
structure, ELT materials are meant to build in the part of the learner an ability
to communicate in the target language accurately. Thirdly, on cultural
consideration, ELT materials should help the learner to communicate in the
target language appropriately and hence politely. Overall, the three different
considerations offered by Linguistics are meant to be analytical tools for EFL
teachers when looking at ELT materialskeeping in mind that, in actual
verbal communication, interlanguage or transitional L2 operates as one whole
system.

Key words: ELT materials; linguistics; cognitive, structural, and cultural

considerations

1. ELT Materials: Yes to Linguistic Support, No to Linguistic Domination

This paper discusses how linguistics relates and potentially contributes to TEFL
(Teaching English as a Foreign Language). Linguistics is a pure or theoretical science,
whereas TEFL is an applied science and a profession as well. Chronologically, the former is
older than the latter. When modern linguistic theory was first set out by de Saussure during
the second decade of the 20th century (see de Saussure 1916 [1959]), TEFL was not there
yet. Onto-genetically, the former is the originator of the latterif we take Teaching and
Learning English as a Foreign Language, by Fries (1945), as the hallmark for the birth of TEFL.
Note that Fries was a hard-core Bloomfieldian linguist; and his book, considered monumental
in the history of foreign language teaching, introduced seminal ideas for audiolingualism.
This introductory remark may easily mislead linguists (myself included) to claim that
TEFL is nothing but an off-shoot of Linguistics. Fifty years ago, when Lado (1964)
published Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach, continuing and developing TEFL as
outlined earlier by Fries (1945), it was true that linguistics took lead and opened up then a
new way of teaching a foreign language. Lados book is one best example of applied
linguistics, that is, applying the Bloomfieldian linguistic principles (together with
behaviorist psychology) and making them foundations for the well-known Audiolingual
Method. As regards English Langage Teaching (ELT) materials, they were primarily
designed according to the results of contrastive analysis; structural differences were believed
to be the source of learning problems.
But in the last decade, when Harmer (2007) published How to Teach English, TEFL
was and currently is already a mature and autonomous discipline. It is no longer under the
shadow of linguistics. Whereas in Lados book, language learning and language teaching
(instructional materials included) were heavily placed under the guidance of structural
linguistics, in Harmers book only 1 out of 14 chapters (i.e., Chapter 5) is devoted to

1
describing language. In other words, as TEFL has reached its maturity, it now becomes a
truly independent discipline, hardly putting any reliance on linguistics.
Therefore, in this chapter I give a warning for myself, first as a linguist and secondly
as an EFL teacher. While linguistics keeps on exploring general principles of human
language, let TEFL stand up as a free and autonomous discipline. With regard to ELT
materials, let them say yes to linguistic support, but no to linguistic domination. When
linguistics moves to the domain of TEFL, more specifically to ELT materials, it should do so
with the purpose of giving support and leading to enhancement.
Now, the crucial question is: how does linguistics contribute to ELT materials? As
seen from a linguistic perspective, ELT materials merit three different but interrelated
considerations: cognitive, structural, and cultural considerations. In the following sections,
these three considerations will be discussed in orderwith the following notes. This paper is
theoretical in nature; it presents arguments at the conceptual level. It makes a broad survey
of ELT materials, followed by adequate literature review, and, as the title suggests, relates
them all, either directly or indirectly, to the present state of linguistics, with an aim to
highlight important issues related to ELT materials.

2. A Cognitive Look at ELT Materials

The term cognitive as used here is synonymous with mentalistic, a well-known
term originating from Chomsky (1965: 4).1 Both terms suggest that language, either L1 or
L2, is a system of verbal communication existing in the mind of the speaker or learner. Since
this mentalistic system is abstract in nature, two diagrams are necessary to make it clear,
specifically to account for the nature of foreign language (FL) learning. Figure 1 is a
modified version of what I call the Long & Larsen-Freeman (1991: 3) triangle.

TEACHING

LANGUAGE & LEARNING

CULTURE

Figure 1. Long & Larsen-Freeman Triangle

The triangle in Figure 1 tells us one important thing: a shift of paradigm in FL

teaching by asserting that learning and teaching are equally important. In the old paradigm,
or during the heyday of audiolingualism, learning received little attention, and only teaching
was given prominence, on the basis of research findings in structural linguistics, behaviorist
psychology, and cultural anthropology. But in the new paradigm, as generative linguistics
has moved from behaviorism to mentalism, FL teaching also takes learning into primary
consideration. What is going on in the mind of the L2 learner is as important as getting
engaged in the business of FL teaching. The primary importance of learning shows up,

1
For Chomskys mentalistic influence, among others, on SLA, I have discussed it more thoroughly in
a previous paper Mapping out Mentalism in Present-day Linguistics and other Related Disciplines
(Kadarisman 2012).
2
among others, in the move from the teacher-centered to the learner-centered perspective
(Brown 2001: 46-7), and in placing Learners as the first chapter of How to Teach English
(Harmer 2007), suggesting that learning is a fundamental component of EFL teaching. The
reason is simple but obvious: the learner may learn without the presence of the teacher; but
the teacher cannot teach without the presence of the learner(s).
Furthermore, in my own interpretation, the triangle also suggests that, to learn
English, the learner not only relies on the teacher but also has direct access to English
language and culture. More specifically, in the present era of rapidly advancing information
and communication technology (ICT), EFL learners at all levelselementary, intermediate,
and advancedare able to learn English directly from cyber space by making the best use
of ICT. Of course, they will do so much better and more effectively under the guidance and
supervision of a professional English teacher (Setyaningsih, 2013).
The second diagram for explaining the mentalistic nature of EFL learning goes far
back to the notion of interlanguage (IL), which was first proposed by Selinker (1972).

L1 -------------------- IL ------------------ L2

Figure 2. Interlanguage or Transitional Competence

Just as learning at the right corner of Figure 1 suggests mentalism, interlanguage (IL) in
Figure 2 is also mentalistic, or even more strongly mentalistic, for two principled reasons. In
the first place, IL is a transitional competence (Corder 1967) within the mind of individual
learners; it is unique in character, and hence also called idiosyncratic dialect (Corder 1971).
The broken line ending up with an arrow on the right end in Figure 2 tells us that IL is
constantly on the move from L1 to L2. As outlined by Saville-Troike (2006: 17), at its initial
state, IL is already equipped with L1 knowledge, world knowledge, and interaction skills. At
the intermediate state, IL partly proceeds through transfer, relies heavily on comprehensible
input, obtains facilitation through instruction and feedback, and attains success or failure as
determined in part by aptitude and motivation. At the final stage, it reaches multilingual
competence, not native competence.
This description reveals that IL is significantly different from L1, which at the initial
state starts as an innate capacity; at the intermediate state it becomes child grammar, which
grows toward maturation through exposure to primary language data or reciprocal
interaction; and at the final state it becomes native competence (Saville-Troike 2006: 17).
Secondly, the individual-mentalistic nature of IL can be seen in its huge variation
across L2 learners. While children acquiring their L1 eventually become fluent speakers with
native competence (Chomsky 1965: 47-59), L2 learners proceed in many different ways. In
terms of proficiency, some of them attain near-native fluency, some become fluent L2 users
with occasional language errors, some produce broken L2 but can still get engaged in
verbal communication, and still some others get stuck at the elementary level with little
ability to communicate in L2. With reference to language skills, particularly the productive
skills (speaking and writing), L2 learners may eventually get better in speech than in writing,
or vice versa. This is because, when we speak or write in L2, we often need to think
unlike in using L1, utterances or sentences seem to flow out instantly and automatically.
What are the implications of these unique individual-mentalistic features of IL on
selecting or using ELT materials? They lead to a cognitive perspective, where ELT materials
have to be well selected, well graded, and well balanced in terms of presenting language
components which allow language skills. This is a common-sense rule; but its application
is heavily determined by a chosen approach. The following section is devoted to discussing
3
several ELT material designs, in both the national and international context, as determined by
different approaches. Remarks will be added at the end on the creative behavior of
interlanguage.
In the structural approach, where language learning is learning structures, sounds,
and words (Brown 2001: 45), ELT materials are selected and graded on the basis of the
increasing difficulty of English grammar plus vocabulary in context. They are meant to
establish in the part of the learners L2 linguistic competence (ibid.), which eventually
allows them to communicate in English with high accuracy in form. In the history of TEFL
in Indonesia, the so-called English for the SLTA series is probably the best example of ELT
materials based on the structural approach, with strong flavor of audiolingualism. This series
consists of Students Book and Supplementary Reader (three volumes each), plus Teachers
Manual. This seriescompiled by the national team for textbook writing (Proyek Bahasa
Inggris), supervised by British and American scholars in TEFL, and preceded by a three-year
try-out in eight senior high schools throughout Indonesia during the late 1960sis probably
the best teaching materials in terms of selection, grading, and keeping the balance between
the language components (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation) and language skills
(listening, speaking, reading, and writing). 2
In the international sphere, the louder echo of audiolingualism can be traced back in
the publication of English 900 series, comprising the textbook and workbook (6 volumes
each, accompanied by cassettes) as well as 6 volumes of supplementary reader. The term
900 itself refers to 900 sentence patternspresented in 6 textbooks, each divided into 10
chapters; each chapter contains15 sentence patterns. These 900 sentence patterns, put in
various contexts and recorded in cassettes, are meant to give laborious oral drill to EFL
learners, based on two linguistic assumptions: language is primarily speech and language is a
set of habits. The high prominence of sentence patterns in English 900 series tells us that
grammar is the backbone of selecting and grading ELT materials.
Whereas English 900 series, with its rigorous structural approach, did its best during
the 1970s in selling American English, for British English at that time came out an equally
well-known seller, L. G. Alexander, with his New Concept English series: First Things
First, Practice and Progress, Developing Skills, and Fluency in English. These are textbooks
or reading books, written in a well-graded order and accompanied with cassettes, which
systematically cover ELT materials for elementary, intermediate, advanced, and high
advanced EFL learners. Since in this series reading passages with an increasing order of
difficulty take the lead, plus relevant grammatical structures highlighted in progress, I would
say that L. G. Alexanders New Concept English series implicitly uses a lexical
approach.3
Upon reflection, in the ELT material design using the structural approach, mastery of
grammar takes the lead and vocabulary is given along in context; but in the lexical approach,
vocabulary building takes the lead with grammatical structures presented along the way in

2
I am very grateful to Prof. Kasihani K. E. Suyanto, Ph.D., a well-known TEFL scholar in Indonesia
and a former English teacher who got engaged in trying out the ELT materials at SMAN I Malang
during the late 1960s, for providing me with complete information concerning the compilation as well
as the practical use of English for the SLTA series during the 1970s and early 1980s.
3
The discussion of English 900 series and L. G. Alexanders New Concept English series was
primarily based on my own experience of learning English using both series during the 1970s
through1980s. Unfortunately, most of the hard copies of both series are now missing; and as
references for this paper I have obtained information about both series from Google.
4
context. The former believes that the bones should come before the flesh; but the latter
believes that the flesh should come before the bones.
Back to the Indonesian context, since the early 1980s the structural approach has been
pushed aside by the communicative approach, where communicative competence is the
desired goal and language learning is learning to communicate (Brown 2011: 45). In this
approach, there is no favored choice. The learning sequence is neither grammar-before-
vocabulary nor vocabulary-before-grammar, but a combination of both. Grammar-and-
vocabulary should come out together as living language in action.
In the structural or lexical approach, language form should come up first and serve as
the basis for language function, or communicative function. But in the communicative
approach, meaningful communication should start from the very beginning, with language
form introduced and manipulated throughout the learning process. Notice that learning is
now promoted to higher prominence, and hence the learner-centered perspective.
What is the consequence of communicative approach on ELT material design? It
becomes more challenging, since communicative functions in real life do not go hand in hand
with the increasing order of complexity in grammar and vocabulary. Sequencing is
determined by any consideration of content function or meaning that maintains interest,
which is totally different from material design in the structural approach, where the
sequence of units is determined solely by principles of linguistic complexity (Brown 2011:
45).
Owing to space limitation, I would like to go directly and take a look at ELT materials
used by Indonesian senior high schools nowadays, especially after the introduction and
implementation of the 2004 national curriculum, which was soon followed by the 2006
national curriculum. Under the broad label communicative approach, there is the so-called
genre-based approach, where a complete and hence meaningful verbal interaction is known
as discourse or genre, and it is linguistically realized as text (Thornbury 2005). Senior
high school textbooks were then written (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) following this genre-based
approach (see Emilia 2011). Critical comments on these textbooks will be given in the
following section (A Structural Look at ELT Materials) of this paper.
At this point, I would like to note that these textbooks give strong emphasis on
learning text types (such as narration, recount, description, procedure, explanation,
discussion, exposition, and news item) along with practicing language functions (such as
accepting and refusing invitations, expressing feelings and attitudes [e.g., like vs. dislike,
satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction, surprise, pain and relief, embarrassment, and complaints],
giving opinions and suggestions, persuading, encouraging, criticizing, predicting, and
judging). Both text types and language functions, in this genre-based approach, give
direction to developing the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing; and
grammar, now pushed to the periphery, goes along under the sub-heading Grammar Focus
(in books I and II) and Grammar Review (in book III).
How do senior high school students in Indonesia learn English using different ELT
materials? In other words, how do their ILs make progress? To give the right answer to
this question, an extensive survey and a well-designed study are necessary. What I can do
right now is simply providing an answer in conjectural terms. As noted earlier, senior high
school graduates in this country probably fall within the normal curve: few of them are highly
proficient in English; most of them probably have moderate proficiency; and the remaining
few have very low proficiency.
Of course, this statistics will be different between big cities and small towns, urban
areas and rural/remote areas, and also the present and the past. Those belonging to the former
are in general better than those belonging to the latter. In big cities or urban areas, the
5
learners are better equipped with instructional facilities as well as supporting learning
environments, such as public libraries, bookstores, and the Internet. More exposure to the use
of English through ICT is also the privilege of EFL learners nowadays, which was not
available to EFL learners in the past. In this context, during the time of English for the SLTA,
when grammar took lead through pattern practice and went along with vocabulary building,
many students got trapped by the complexity of grammar rules. Hence, they were good
readers and generally well-versed in grammar, but not fluent speakers. In contrast, with the
genre-based textbooks nowadays, when learners are geared toward practicing all types of
language functions and provided by the social environment with sophisticated ICT, more
learners become fluent speakers, but their writing often shows grammar problems.4
In retrospect, some of us (senior English teachers and lecturers) attending the 5th
NELTAL Conference today are partly products or the structural approach, whereas many
others (younger English teachers and lecturers) are partly products or the communicative
and/or genre-based approach. This fact tells us that either approach is, to some extent,
equally successful in building in each of us the working knowledge of English. This
further reveals that our mastery of English is partly due to linguistic creativity 5 (Brown
2001: 109) pertaining to our language acquisition device (LAD) in the sense of Krashen
(1982). With respect to L1 acquisition, Chomsky (1965) argues that the LAD eventually
develops into mature grammar or linguistic competence regardless of the quality of the
input. Likewise, in L2 acquisition, our language faculty has also developed into
multilingual competence (Saville-Troike 2006) regardless of the pedagogical approach.
Moreover, in learning English at the higher level, particularly at English Departments,
specific approaches (e.g., structural, lexical, communicative, and genre-based approaches
mentioned above) are no longer the main issues. At the English Department FS UM, for
example, after the Intensive Course in the first semester, the four language skills
(Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing2 credits/2 semester hours each) are taught
sequentially in the next three semesters, Grammar (2 credits/2 semester hours) in the next two
semesters, plus Extensive Reading (2 credits/2 semester hours) in three sequential
semesters (IV VI); and pronunciation is indirectly but formally taught through English
Phonology (2 credits/2 semester hours) in one semester. Setting English Phonology aside, all
these courses add up to 62 credits, making up one major part of the curriculum, called
English Language Skills. 6
To recapitulate, from the cognitive or mentalistic consideration, ELT materials are
absolutely needed for IL development. Furthermore, IL or transitional competence seems to
know how to adjust itself to a given material design (as determined by a particular
approach) so as to develop into the stage of adolescence. For IL to further develop into
full-blown maturity, more intensive training, either given formally as in English
Departments or informally as in private English courses, is necessary. Briefly, it takes IL
years of training to accomplish near-native competenceit is a long way to Tipperary.

4
Differences in the mastery of language skills here are presented on the basis of an informal
interview with two English teachers: Dra. Sri Endarwati at SMAN 5 Malang and Drs. Bambang
Tribagjo, M.Psi. at SMAN 1 Malang; both have been senior high school English teachers since 1976.
5
The term linguistic creativity here is used in a positive sense, suggesting that EFL learners have
some innate ability to move toward L2 norms and construct multilingual competence. At the same
time, however, it may also be used in a negative sense, leading to producing errors or systematic
deviation, which reflects the defective state of IL or transitional competence.
6
See Catalogue, English Department (2011: 15-16) FS UM.
6
3. A Structural Look at ELT Materials
The term structure is often interchangeable with grammar; but in linguistics it has
much wider coverage, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Subfields of Linguistics and their Objects of Investigation

Subfield of Linguistics Object of Investigation
Phonology structure or patterning of speech sounds
Morphology structure of (complex and compound) words
Syntax structure of phrases and sentences
Semantics structure of lexical and propositional meaning
Discourse Analysis structure or organization of text

The four subfields in context-free linguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, and

semantics) and one sub-field in context-bound linguistics (i.e., Discourse Analysis) all study
the structures of language, starting with the structure or patterning of speech sounds and
ending up with the structure or organization of text. Notice that text here is put in
quotation marks, telling us that in Discourse Analysis text refers mostly to a linguistic unit
larger than a sentence, not only in writing but also in speech (Salkie 1995: xi). Notice also
that the structure of meaning as the object semantic investigation is also put in quotation
marks, telling us that, owing to its mentalistic nature, it is less rigid or more elusive than the
structure of form. Briefly, structure in linguistics refers primarily to structure of form at all
linguistic levels, whereas grammar, or more precisely pedagogical grammar, refers to
sentence structure plus some bits and pieces of word structure.
Referring to TEFL, structure relates closely to accuracy in language use. For
EFL learners, accuracy refers not only to correct grammar and appropriate vocabulary but
also to right pronunciation. Therefore, in the textbooks for senior high school students
mentioned in section 2 above, new words are usually introduced in a list, accompanied with
their phonetic transcription, to ensure that learners are familiar with their pronunciation and
can pronounce them correctly in reading aloud and in speech. In the Handbook for the
Intensive Course (6 volumes) at the English Department, State University of Malang,
individual phonemes are presented through minimal pairs under the sub-heading
Pronunciation, apparently based on the belief that producing English speech sounds with
high phonetic accuracy is a crucial part of EFL learning. For example, the phonemic contrast
between /p/ and /b/ are presented through the minimal pairs (a) pick : big, pack : back, peach
: beach and (b) rope : robe, nip : nib, cap : cab (Book 1 A: 43) to make students aware that
/p/ in pick, pack, and peach are aspirated, whereas /b/ in robe, nib, and cab remain voiced
word-finally. It is very clear that Contrastive Analysis is at work here: aspiration of /p, t, k/
and keeping /b, d, g/ voiced word-finally are absent in Indonesian speech; and therefore they
could be problematic for Indonesian EFL learners.
Pushing the notion accuracy further, I have found that the textbooks written
following the genre-based approach are somewhat problematic. The textbooks for Grades X
and XI (henceforth Books I and II) are Interactive English Learning for SMA/MA Students;
and the textbook for Grade XII (henceforth Book III) is Developing English Competencies
for Senior High School (SMA/MA). Books I and II, published in 2006 and 2007 respectively,
were written by a team of authors at MGMP Bahasa Inggris Kota Malang; and Book III,
published in 2008, was written by a team of nationally-appointed authors and officially stated
as an English textbook through the Decree of the Minister of National Education no. 34, year

7
2008. Note that all the three textbooks were written by teams of Indonesian authors with no
supervision or even proofreading by English-speaking scholars.
In terms of grammar, the titles of the textbooks are definitely well-formed. However,
in terms of style, particularly the word choice, the title of Books I and II and also that of
Book III sound strange to me; that is, they do not sound quite English. Through
correspondence with an American scholar (i.e., Thomas J. Conners, Ph.D, a linguist in the
Center for Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland)7, I have obtained a
confirmation that a better title for Books I and II is Interactive English for Senior High
School Students, and a better title for Book III is Developing English Proficiency for Senior
High School.
What do we learn from this incident? When it comes down to textbook writing,
supervision by native-speaker scholars (as done during the preparation for English for the
SLTA during the late 1960s) is a must; otherwise we would produce un-English expressions,
which would be a disaster when they show up as titles of English textbooks.
In addition, there are also grammatical, lexical, and stylistic errors in the three
textbooks. Grammatical errors are rare; and as shown in Table 2, they are found in Books II
and III, listed here together with their corrected versions.

Table 2. Examples of Grammatical Errors in Senior High School Textbooks

Book Page No Grammatical Errors Corrected Versions
* the government will not allow the government will not allow
II 1 1
people hunting them. people to hunt them.
Expressing Opinion Expressing an Opinion /
6 2
Opinions
*In this chapter gives a concise *This chapter gives a concise
III v 3
summary summary
*Expecting it to be a fresh *Expecting it to be fresh
12 4 water, she drank it, having no water, she drank it, having no
suspicious that suspicion that

In commenting on the errors in Table 2, I will put only the correct version in each case. Error
(1) is a problem with a verb pattern (to allow someone to do something); error (2) is a
problem of using an article or a plural marker with countable nouns (an opinion / opinions);
error (3), typically Indonesian, is putting a preposition erroneously before the subject (This
chapter); and error (4) is of two types: a problem of recognizing a non-count noun (fresh
water), and a problem of using an adjective in place of a noun (having no suspicion). Since
each textbook was written by a well-chosen team of English teachers, we may conclude that
mastering grammar skill seems to remain a challenge for EFL teachers in Indonesia.
More errors are found in the area of vocabulary or diction, and also in the area of
style, i.e., weak manipulation of vocabulary and grammar which results in expressions that
sound strange in English. As shown in Table 4, lexical and stylistic errors are found in
Books I and II.
The errors listed in Table 3 each need specific comments. Error (1) is found in the
story of Bawang Putih, a local legend. This is a semantic error, since to drag means to

7
I did the correspondence with Thomas J. Conners, Ph.D. through email during the second week of
March 2013.
8
move something by pulling it along a surface, usually the ground. 8 Probably this verb was
chosen, since in Indonesian it means menyeret. And so terseret arus was translated into
*was being dragged by a stream instead of the lexically right version was being carried
away by a stream.

Table 3. Examples of Lexical and Stylistic Errors in Senior High School Textbooks
Book Page No Lexical/Stylistic Errors Corrected Versions
* a piece of cloth was being * a piece of cloth was being
I 7 1
dragged by a stream. carried away by a stream.
* to avoid Astinapura from to prevent Astinapura from
56 2
separation and damage. falling apart and chaos.
?I am not satisfied with the way Your clothes look so messed up.
II 10 3
you are dressing. Why?
?I was really embarrassed with I was really ashamed of what I
my attitude. I have come to the did. I just saw the teacher and
10 4
office and ask forgiveness from apologized to him. He forgave
the teacher. He forgave me. me.

Like error (1), error (2) is also found in a local narrative, i.e., an episode of the
Javanized version of Mahabharata, where Abiyasa was willing to become the temporary ruler
to prevent (the kingdom of) Astinapura from falling apart and chaos. However, instead of
using this right and appropriate expression, the textbook writers seemed to have translated the
Indonesian sentence untuk menghindarkan Astinapura dari perpecahan dan kehancuran
into *to avoid Astinapura from separation and damage. Notice that the English version
here, owing to lexical errors, sounds translationese; the form is English, but the feel is
Indonesian.
The sentence considered error (3) is in fact grammatically correct, but functionally
inappropriate. A teacher, unhappy with a students scruffy uniform, should have asked him
in a reprimanding tone, Your clothes look so messed up. Why? instead of conveying the
message in Indonesian-sounding English, I am not happy with the way you are dressing.
When engaged in a particular language function, especially a local function as noted in this
example, textbook writers should consult with native speaker experts, so that they can
produce texts which sound English. 9
Error (4) is equally local in terms of content. An Indonesian student felt guilty after
cheating on an exam. (In English-speaking countries, such an incident would never occur;
for studentsin high schools or at a universityare fully aware of the codes of academic
conduct.) Then he talked about his guilty feeling with a classmate, sayingagain in
Indonesian-English, I was really embarrassed with my attitude. I have come to the office
and ask forgiveness from the teacher. Correcting grammatical errors in the second
sentence would not make the expression sound English. If a student wants to convey a guilty
feeling for cheating on the exam, the best expression I can think of is I was really ashamed
of what I did. I just saw the teacher and apologized to him.

8
See Electronic Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (2007).
9
The corrected version given here (i.e., Your clothes look so messed up. Why?) has obtained
confirmation from Thomas J. Conners, Ph.D. (See footnote 6.)
9
 Examples of lexical and stylistic errors as shown in Table 3 reveal the text book
writers translated local legends or narratives, and also local speech acts with inadequate
knowledge and skill in translation. Therefore, as noted earlier, these errors often sound
translationese. Unlike grammatical errors which are straightforward and easy to correct,
lexical and stylistic errors are usually more complex in nature. They often relate to usage
and acceptability in English, and hence correcting them often requires help from native
speakers or Indonesian scholars with near-native competence.
However, as regards language functions, I would say that parts of Books I, II, and III
deserve special mention. Among them, Book III is best in presenting examples of natural
language use. Under Speaking is a sub-heading What to Say, where a newly introduced
speech act is given through various expressions, ranging from more formal to less
formal, as illustrated in Examples (1).
(1) Expressions for Giving Opinions (Book III: 60):
a. Id just like to say
b. From my point of view,
c. As far as Im concerned,
d. Well, I must say
e. I think
These examples tell us that, in giving opinions, different degrees of formality relate to (a)
different settings, from formal to informal settings, and also to (b) social distance, from
distant to intimate personal relationship. These all belong to Pragmatics, which has
revealed that there is not always one-to-one correspondence between form and function (see,
e.g., Grundy 2000). It is good that different degrees of formality pertaining to other speech
acts (such as requesting, suggesting, promising, persuading, encouraging, advising, blaming,
accusing, etc.) are introduced in Book III to senior high school students, so that they are made
aware of the way English operates in a natural setting.
In sum, the structural look at ELT materials is not meant to simply stress the
importance of grammar which leads to correct forms; but it goes further so as to underscore
the importance of appropriate diction and acceptable style. At this point, the structural-
functional consideration shows up, which allows the bigger and hence more complex picture
of English in use. Now the balance between sentence grammar and discourse grammar
(cf. McCarthy 2001) should no longer be a controversial issue. This should be taken as a
challenge, by means of which EFL teachers help their students to accomplish accuracy,
fluency, and appropriateness.

4. A Cultural Look at ELT Materials

How culture shapes ELT materials goes far back to Lados Linguistics across
Cultures (1957); but his heavily structural view, which suggests straightforward and atomistic
relationship between language and culture, now needs reconsideration as well as revision.
From Linguistic Anthropology, we learn two different types of relationship: language and
culture and language in culturewith strong preference for the latter. In this respect, Duranti
(1997: 337) states that language is in us as much as we are in language, implying mutual
influence between a language and its speakers. This mutual influence is clearly an echo of
the well-known Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: our language, or more specifically our native
language, influences the way we perceive reality.
What is the implication of this hypothesis on EFL learning? Indonesian EFL learners
may speak and/or write in English while thinking in Indonesian. The case of being
translationese in Books I, II, and III noted earlier serves as a piece of supporting evidence.
That is, even EFL teachers (i.e., Indonesian textbook authors) write in English but
10
occasionally think in Indonesian. Some lexical errors (showing up in Book: 8) are in fact
cultural errors.
(2) a. Its our classroom, *Mom
b. Well, *Mom
The misuse of *Mom in place of Maam here is probably due to cultural transfer: literally
translating the Indonesian term of address Bu into Mom in English. Literal translation of
Indonesian address terms by EFL learners yields similar but more glaring errors.10
(3) a. *Mother, mother (a student addressing his lecturer)
b. May I ask a question, *father? (a student in a class discussion)
c. my mother and other PKK *mothers (a student describing a local
social activity)
The error in (3.a) owes to a literal translation from Bu, Bu , that in (3.b) from Pak, and that
in (3.c) from ibu-ibu PKK.
These errors, upon deeper investigation, have something to do with different types of
culture. In our collectivistic Indonesian culture, terms of address (such as Pak and Bu) are
literally used within the nuclear family, and metaphorically used in the wider speech
communitysuggesting that our community is a keluarga besar. 11 In a public speech, an
Indonesian speaker usually addresses the audience saying,
(4) Bapak-bapak, Ibu-ibu, dan Saudara-saudara sekalian,
This metaphorical use of address terms has no literal equivalent in English. The closest
natural equivalent is the well-known phrase Ladies and gentlemen. To push further, the
address term Bu in an Indonesian question Sudah selesai, Bu? is ambiguous in English; it
may mean either Are you through, Mom? or Are you through, Maam?.
While in Indonesian collectivistic culture Pak and Bu are used either literally or
metaphorically, in English individualistic culture Dad and Mom are used only literally within
the nuclear family. Still related to these address terms, EFL learners often think that Pak or
Bu + name, such as Pak Gunadi, Bu Arwiyati, and Bu Nurhayati, is translatable into Mr.
Gunadi, Mrs. Arwiyati, and Miss Nurhayatiwhich are all wrong. In English, Mr., Mrs., and
Miss. (the last two now combined into Ms.) are used with last names, suggesting respect and
social distance. Accordingly, the use of Mr. Najib and Mr. Amin (in Book II: 14), probably
translated from Pak Najib and Pak Amin, are culturally doubtful.
The question is: how do we translate Pak, Bu, Mas, or Mbak + name into English?
These address terms are culture-specific and language-specific; and so they are not
translatable. For convenience, lets take a look at the flyer for the 5th NELTAL Conference,
which among others reads:
(5) Submit your abstract of 100-200 words to Pak Yudi at yudic2000@yahoo.com
by January 10, 2013.
(6) Or, send a message to Mbak Ratih at 085-749580434.
What do the phrases Pak Yudi and Mbak Ratih in (5) and (6) respectively tell us? Now we
live in a globalized world and use global English, which allows some cultural blending.
The use of Pak Yudi (whose full name is Bambang Yudi Cahyono, a professor of Applied

10
Examples of cultural errors given in section 4 of this paper are all naturally occurring errors,
collected from colleagues at the English Department FS UM and graduate students at PPs UM who
are all engaged in TEFL. I apologize to them, owing to space limitation, for not mentioning their
names individually in this paper.
11
I have discussed the literal and metaphorical use of Indonesian kinship terms as terms of address in
an earlier paper Linguistic Relativity Revisited and Renewed (Kadarisman 2008), the latter use
suggesting verbal manifestation of social harmony within our collectivistic Indonesian culture.
11
Linguistics at State University of Malang) and Mbak Ratih (whose full name is Ratih
Mufidah Kusfianti, the receptionist of the Language and Culture Center of State University of
Malang) suggests friendliness and intimacy, whereas the use of Professor Cahyono and Ms.
Kusfianti would suggest keeping up social distance.
In this context, to acquire the right cultural feel of the second English pronoun you
can be problematic for some EFL learners, since it sounds like kamu or Anda in Indonesian.
In effect, this leads to pragmatic transfer, producing the following error during a class
discussion.
(7) Student : But last week Pak Ali said
Pak Ali : Who is Pak Ali?
Instead of using the right form you, the student uses Pak Ali, which in English refers to a third
person. Therefore, the lecturer asks, Who is Pak Ali?
Interestingly, the opposite is also true. A junior colleague teaching English to a group
of non-English Department lecturers was taken by surprise when a senior lecturer eventually
became very angry when she addressed him using you all the time. Perceiving the social
overtone of you as kamu, he considered the much younger instructor linguistically rude and
impolite. But when the instructor explained that in English everyone, regardless of their age
and social status, is addressed with you, he was equally taken aback and started to calm
down.
The word understanding in Cross-cultural Understanding (CCU) often requires our
special attention when we are engaged in verbal communication with native speakers. Below
is a cultural note from Karen Goodchild, a British volunteer who taught English at SMAN
1 Kediri for one semester, sent to Bambang Yulianto, an English teacher at this school. The
note was sent by her via facebook upon leaving the school in November 2009.
Hi Bambang, I think that what I found most shocking or surprising when I was in
Indonesia were the questions that I was asked by people I had only just met.
Questions such as 'How old are you?' 'Are you married?', 'Do you have any
children?', 'Are you Christian?'. These are extremely personal questions that, in our
culture, we would ask someone we don't know very well. I don't think I ever got used
to that! Also, the 'How are you? - Fine' routine was a bit strange as it's really
unnatural for us to speak like that, especially not responding by 'Fine, and you?'. It
comes across (in our culture) as a bit arrogant if you don't respond by asking the other
person how they are too (italics added).
Even in Indonesian, those four questions ('How old are you?' 'Are you married?', 'Do you
have any children?', 'Are you Christian?') sound personal and intrusive; and in English they
sound strongly personal and intrusive. I would assume that one possible reason why
Indonesians ask Karen those questions is that, besides their ignorance of English culture, their
English proficiency is probably (very) low; but they want to keep the conversation going. So
they would just grab any question coming up to their mind and relevant to the immediate
interpersonal context.
The How are you? Fine routine should be of special concern to us, Indonesian
EFL teachers. This routine has been there for decades as part of our TEFL tradition. In
response to a native speakers comment, we should revise and refine this routine. Karen
suggests that and you? should at least be replaced by and how about you?
Furthermore, she also suggests that, instead of repeating How are you? all the time, other
expressions such as Hows life? and How are things? need to be introduced to our
studentsjust as various expressions for giving opinions (Book III: 60) have been discussed
earlier as examples (1).
12
 Finally, I need to go back to local legends/narratives, apparently translated from
Indonesian into English and then made parts of the ELT materials. They are presented as
passages (listed in Table 4) in Books I and III.

Table 4. Local Legends/Narratives Taken up as ELT Materials

Book Page(s) Legend/Narrative Quality of English Translation

translated poorly, with many lexical and
I 7 Bawang Putih
grammatical errors
The Legend of
9 translated well, with a few grammatical errors
Banyuwangi
50 & translated poorly, with many lexical and
Reigning the Crown
56 grammatical errors
III 12-13 Sangkuriang translated well, with a few grammatical errors
The Story of Mbok translated well, with a few lexical and
106
Gendong grammatical errors

Books I and II were written by the same team of authors at MGMP Malang. However, while
Book I contains three local narratives, Book II contains none. It is obvious that inconsistency
crept in into the textbook writing project, resulting in different contents between Books I and
II. Moreover, Bawang Putih and Reigning the Crown were poorly translated into
English, and the resulting texts, which sound translationese, contain many lexical and
grammatical errors. By contrast, the last two legends (in Book III) were translated well into
English, with a few grammatical and lexical errors.
One requirement for ELT materials is that they should be error-free. So, Book I,
contaminated with poor-quality narratives, fail to meet the requirement; and Book III,
contaminated with grammatical and lexical errors, partly fail to meet the requirement. As we
learn from this lesson, if local narratives are to be included as ELT materials, only Indonesian
EFL writers with near-native fluency have the right to do the translation. Still, some
supervision or at least proofreading by native speaker experts is necessary so as to ensure the
quality of the translated texts.
To sum up, parts of our everyday speech (such as terms of address and greetings) turn
out to be culture-bound and language-specific. Carrying them over into conversation with
English native speakers may result in misunderstanding, annoyance, or even intrusion and
offense. Moreover, making local narratives parts of ELT materials require excellent
translation skill. It should further be noted that only basic components of culture are
discussed in this section, especially those pertaining to elementary and intermediate levels.
There are other aspects of culture (such as apology, ways of reasoning, secular vs. religious
domains, etc.) which need elucidation, especially for EFL learners at the (high) advanced
level.

5. Closing: Critical Stance and Back to the Essentials

ELT materials call for cognitive, structural, and cultural considerations. Cognitively,
ELT materials are absolutely needed to help EFL learners transitional L2 competence to
fully develop into the so-called multilingual or near-native competence. Interestingly,
regardless of the chosen approach and its concomitant material design, the transitional
competence seems to have a natural ability to make the best use of any given materials in
moving ahead toward stages of adolescence and maturity. Structurally, ELT materials are
supposed to be error-free, covering all linguistic levels: phonological, morpho-lexical,
13
grammatical, and discourse levels. They are needed by EFL learners to accomplish accuracy
in pronunciation, grammar, and diction; and acceptability in style and language functions.
Culturally, ELT materials should be designed with sensitivity to verbal conventions in
English, so as to help EFL learners stay away from doing negative transfer in pragmatic or
sociolinguistic domains, which can be annoying, shocking, or even offensive to native
speakers.
These three considerations are neither meant to be complete nor exhaustive. The
functional consideration is noted only in passing; and the textual consideration, which relates
directly to the genre-based approach, is not discussed in this paper. Of course, both
functional and textual considerations are equally important. However, due to space
limitation, ELT materials are presented and analyzed only from cognitive, structural, and
cultural perspectives.
More importantly, the analyses here are never meant to break up ELT materials into
fragments and infinitesimal details; but rather they are meant to help EFL teachers to take a
critical look at their instructional materials regardless of the chosen approach and design. In
case there are problems in language use (i.e., in diction, grammar, style, or
appropriateness), EFL teachers are expected to know how to tackle them wisely. They may
set aside poor-quality materials and replace them with error-free materials. In case there are
lexical or grammatical errors, they should know how to correct them. As regards cultural
conventions, they may occasionally be demanded to enrich the instructional materials in use
or to add supplementary materials. Overall, by looking at ELT materials critically, EFL
teachers should become more professional in selecting, sequencing, and presenting them to
their students.
A critical look at the textbooks (Books I, II, III) written on the basis of SFL 12 genre-
based approach (see Emilia 2011: 4-8) reveals something unusual. During the 1970s, when
we were fascinated by audiolingualism, TEFL in Indonesia (and in the global sphere) was
under the shadow of Bloomfieldian linguistics. In this last decade, we seem to have been
equally enthralled by the SFL genre-based approach; and so TEFL in Indonesian high schools
has been under the shadow of Hallidayan linguistics. Right at the beginning of this paper, I
gave a warning to linguists, myself included, not to interfere with TEFL business. And yet,
strangely enough, TEFL scholars in Indonesia prefer to cast linguistic shadow on the
discipline. Does it mean that autonomy in TEFL is too burdensome, and theoretical
affiliation with a linguistic school (see McCarthy 2001: 5-7) is therefore preferable? Does it
mean that freedom is to be cast away, and bondage is to be clad in? I know these are
political questions, and I know that not all TEFL scholars agree with the adoption of the
SFL genre-based approach. But here we are now; and TEFL scholars who prefer autonomy
for the discipline have to do something to regain their academic freedom.
If EFL teachers, upon reading this paper, gain a better understanding of the nature of
ELT materials, then the goal of this paper is accomplished. As expected, linguistics has been
contributive to TEFL in a positive and supportive manner. In this respect, theoretical
linguistics has moved to applied linguistics: offering the best possible solution to a real-world
language-related problem at hand (McCarthy 2001; Davies and Elder 2004). Borrowing an
appealing expression from Chomsky (1957: 85), what is needed right now is the explanatory
power of linguistics, that is, shedding light on ELT materials used in Indonesian EFL
context.

12
SFL stands for Systemic Functional Linguistics, a well-known linguistic school pioneered by M. A.
K. Halliday, and accordingly also known as Hallidayan linguistics.
14
 Eventually, lets end up this discussion by going back to our topic. When ELT
materials have been taken apart and then put back together, we EFL teachers have to go back
to the essentials. A few lines from The Rock, written in 1934 by T. S. Elliot (1888-1965),
can be taken as a good precaution.13
Where is the life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
In teaching English in Indonesia, we EFL teachers should not get trapped by the periphery
and lose sight of the center. We should not get captivated by the nitty-gritty and let go the
fundamentals. We should not get entangled in trivialities and forget the basic principles.
Following the basic principles, we should teach our students in a professional manner by
making the best use of available ELT materials.

References
Brown, Douglas H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy (Second Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Catalog, English Department 2011. Malang: Faculty of Letters, State University of
Malang.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Corder, Stephen P. 1967 [1974]. The Significance of Learners Errors. In Richards, Jack C.
(Ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, pp. 19-27.
London: Longman.
Corder, Stephen P. 1971 [1974]. Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. In Richards,
Jack C. (Ed.). Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, pp. 172-
188. London: Longman.
Davies, Alan & Elder, Catherine. 2004. General Introduction, Applied Linguistics: Subject
to Discipline? In Davies, Alan & Elder, Catherine (Eds.). The Handbook of Applied
Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fries, Charles C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.
Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics (Second Edition). London/New York: Arnold.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. How to Teach English (New Edition). Edinburg Gate: Pearson
Longman.
Kadarisman, A. Effendi. 2012. Mapping out Mentalism in Present-day Linguistics and other
Related Disciplines. Linguistik Indonesia, February 2012, Year 30, No 1, pp. 1-24.
Kadarisman, A. Effendi. 2008. Linguistic Relativity Revisited and Renewed. In Katharina
E. Sukamto (Ed.). Kelana Bahasawan: Persembahan untuk Prof. Soenjono
Dardjowidjojo, Ph.D. (ultah ke 70), pp 63-106. Jakarta: Unika Atma Jaya.
Krashen, Steven D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

13
I am very grateful to Daniel Ginting, M.Pd., a doctoral student at PPs UM, for providing me with
complete information surrounding the quoted lines from T. S. Elliot.
15
Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Lado, Robert. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.McCarthy, Michael. 2001. Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Long, Michael. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman.
Salkie, Raphael. 1995. Text and Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916 [1959]. Course in General Linguistics (English translation by
Baskin, W.). New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, Larry. 1972 [1974]. Interlanguage. In Richards, Jack C. (Ed.). Error Analysis:
Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, pp. 31-54. London: Longman.
Setyaningsih, Yudi. ([2013] in progress). The Roles of CALL in Enhancing Students
Autonomy in Learning English. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. PPs UM.
Thornbury, Scott. 2005. Beyond the Sentence: Introducing Discourse Analysis. Oxford:
Macmillan.

ELT Materials Chosen as Samples for Analysis

Developing English Competencies for Senior High School (SMA/MA) Grade XII of Natural
and Social Science Programmes. 2008. Jakarta: Pusat Perbukuan Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
English for the SLTA series: Students Book I, II, III, and Supplementary Reader I, II, III.
1981. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Handbook I A, Intensive Course. 2008. Malang: English Department, Faculty of Letters,
State University of Malang.
Interactive English Learning for SMA/MA Students (Grade X). 2006. Malang: Dinas
Pendidikan Kota Malang.
Interactive English Learning for SMA/MA Students (Grade XI). 2007. Malang: Dinas
Pendidikan Kota Malang.

16