Análisis de elementos expuestos en zonas de peligros

Comparing the two waves of language education in Cyprus, it can be argued that each proposed vastly different ways for conceptualising language teaching; as indeed language itself. Whereas the communicative approach was focused on an instrumental understanding of language – in other words, viewing language as a medium of communication (Hadjioannou et al., 2011; Tsiplakou et al., 2006) – critical literacy sought to push language education to new heights. It has done so in three ways: a) with the understanding of language as a semiotic mode influencing, and influenced by, social reality and ideologies, b) with the recognition of the linguistic varieties as an integral part of language education (Tsiplakou et al., 2018), and c) by encouraging the teachers to act as autonomous decision-makers of the materials brought inside the classroom. Table 2 summarises the main differences between the 2010 new language curriculum and its predecessor.

The first aspect (a) has to do with the continuous interaction between language and meaning. Texts, the new language curriculum maintained (MoEC, 2010b), are to be regarded as the product of the social and cultural context in which they have been produced. Text genres thus became an integral part of language teaching during this second wave of language policies in Cyprus. Capitalising on Halliday’s (2014) systemic-functional grammar, which views language and linguistic structures as aggregates of sociocultural parameters, the new language curriculum encouraged the teachers to discuss texts critically and with added consideration to their ideological (field), relational (tenor) and contextual (mode) discourse (see MoEC, 2010b). The study of grammar was therefore put in the forefront and was no longer regarded as a secondary skill to be acquired in a holistic way, as the communicative approach was proclaiming (see Charalambopoulos, 1999). The new language curriculum promoted a classroom teaching that targeted not merely the enhancement of students’ communicative skills – as with the case of the communicative approach (Tsiplakou et al., 2006) – but rather the cultivation of students’ understanding of the multidimensionality of language; fostering, at

the same time, their critical metalinguistic awareness of how grammar and vocabulary are tied with ideology, social relationships and the social context of texts (Luke, 2000).

As far as the second aspect (b) is concerned, the launch of the 2010 new language curriculum signaled the maturity of language policies in Cyprus, which were now more open to embracing the diglossic situation of the country (Ioannidou, 2012). The teaching of language varieties, other than the standard modern Greek, was an aspect that was ignored – if not intentionally bypassed – during the years of the communicative wave and for political/ nationalistic reasons that mainly served the continuation of the country’s Greek roots (Ioannidou, 2012). In contrast to the communicative approach to language teaching, the new language curriculum put an emphasis on the teaching of language varieties. As the new language curriculum stated: Students are called to:

Gain knowledge over the basic structural similarities and differences between modern Greek and the Cypriot variety and to be capable to identify aspects of other linguistic varieties / languages in hybrid, multimodal or multilinguistic texts; to approach the Cypriot dialect as a linguistic variety with structure and consistency in its phonology, morphology, syntax and vocabulary [and] to be able to analyse a variety of hybrid texts produced through language and code switching in a multilingual and multicultural society such as Cyprus (MoEC, 2010b, p. 11).

The new language curriculum capitalised on the fundamental assumption that the fostering of a target language, in this case the standard modern Greek, does not occur “in a linguistic ‘vacuum’ ”, as Tsiplakou et al. (2018, p. 64) remarked, but rather is achieved by taking into account students’ “linguistic capital” (Tsiplakou et al., 2018, p. 64). The new language curriculum thus sought to educate students towards a higher level of linguistic and literacy competence; achieved through the systematic teaching of the linguistic varieties of the country. In actuality, the teaching and learning of language varieties ought to be at the centre of any critical literacy and genre awareness document. The argument is that, if the objective is to develop critically literate individuals – who are able to analyse the social and semiotic import of genres – then this objective can hardly be achieved without any reference to how linguistic varieties are associated with specific identities and ideologies, or how they influence the tenor, field and mode of texts. The emphasis on linguistic varieties proffered a basis for the enhancement of what has been declared as the core objective of the new language

curriculum: to cultivate the understanding that texts are both socio-linguistically and semiotically laden (see MoEC, 2010b).

Lastly, and with regard to the content being taught inside the classroom (c), the new language curriculum proposed a shift from the use of a single classroom material (i.e. teaching guide) to teachers’ autonomy in selecting their own classroom materials and texts (Philippou et al., 2014). The overarching principle laid down within the new language curriculum was that, in matters of classroom materials and content, the teachers should engage their students with texts through which to study the sociocultural origin of language. This led to the suggestion on part of the government that the teachers must act as curriculum developers and decision makers, making sure to engage their students with texts that are, firstly, appealing to them, both cognitively and emotionally, and secondly, with texts that provide the platform for analysing language as “an ideological and socially semiotic structure” (MoEC, 2010b, pp. 10- 11). Teacher autonomy was thus construe as an important parameter for the fruition of the new language curriculum (see MoEC, 2004). The call for teacher autonomy was based on the premise that teachers, as the professional pedagogues they are – or they will be trained to be (see MoEC, 2004) – ought to engage their students with texts that provide the platform for meaningful discussions about the role of grammar and lexis in the construction of social relationships and ideologies (Ioannidou, 2014). Contrary to the pseudo-texts that permeated the classroom teaching for years (i.e. short dialogues produced for pedagogical purposes by the MoEC during the communicative wave) (Ioannidou, 2012), the new language curriculum urged the teachers to find their own classroom materials with which to teach their students how tenor, field and mode is influenced by dominant ideologies, audience, and social context.

The communicative approach to language teaching

Language Standard modern Greek

Pedagogy

Communicative approach, student-centred classroom practice, grammar to be taught in a holistic way and insofar as it helps to study the communicative intend of texts. Emphasis on the enhancement of students’ communicative skills.

Classroom materials Government-approved teaching guides and textbooks. Texts with themes

relevant to students’ life experiences.

The 2010 new language curriculum

Language Standard modern Greek and the Greek-Cypriot dialect

Pedagogy

Critical literacy and genre-base pedagogy for the development of critically literate students. Grammar is emphasised as the medium for unlocking the ideological and sociocultural influences upon the texts. Genres are central.

Classroom materials

Teachers are encouraged to act as autonomous decision-makers of the materials brought inside the classroom. Texts that have field, tenor, and mode.

Table 2 The two waves of language education