(Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native language textbooks

11 (Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native language textbooks1 maría doLores LóPez-Jiménez Universidad Pablo de Olavide Received: 2023-04-20 / Accepted: 2023-11-16 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi41.21630 ISSN paper edition: 1697-7467, ISSN digital edition: 2695-8244 ABstrAct: Research on the role of culture in textbooks for teaching Spanish as a non-native language (L2) is almost non-existent. Cultural studies note that the treatment of culture in the L2 classroom lacks systematicity apart from not being principled at all. This article analyzes 9 Spanish as an L2 textbooks from three proficiency levels, that is, beginning, intermediate, and advanced, published between 2008-2018 by Spanish publishing houses, and aimed at young adults and adults. The results indicate that the (inter)cultural approach in these textbooks is hardly principled, informed, organized, and structured. The proficiency levels and the publication years do not exert a clear influence on the (inter)cultural approach. Instead, the publishing market partly determines the (inter)cultural content in the textbooks under study. Keywords: (inter)cultural content, teaching, Spanish, non-native language, textbooks Los contenidos (inter)culturales en los libros de texto de español como lengua no materna resuMen: Apenas existe investigación acerca del papel de la cultura en los libros de texto para la enseñanza del español como lengua no materna (L2). Los estudios culturales señalan que el tratamiento que recibe la cultura en clase de L2 carece de sistematicidad y no sigue criterios fundamentados. Este artículo analiza nueve libros de texto para la enseñanza del español como L2 procedentes de tres niveles de lengua, esto es, inicial, intermedio y avanzado, publicados entre 2008-2018 por editoriales españolas y dirigidos a adultos y jóvenes adultos. Los resultados indican que el enfoque (inter)cultural en estos libros difícilmente está bien fundamentado e informado y apenas contiene una organización y estructura adecuadas. Asimismo, los niveles de lengua y los años de publicación no ejercen una clara influencia en el enfoque (inter)cultural. En cambio, el mercado editorial en parte determina el contenido (inter)cultural en los libros analizados. Palabras clave: contenido (inter)cultural, enseñanza, español, lengua no materna, libros de texto 1 This research was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF, 80 %) and by the Department of Economy, Knowledge, Business and University of the Andalusian Regional Government (20 %) within the framework of the research project UPO-1380541. Porta Linguarum, Issue 41, January 2024 11-26 11 12 Porta Linguarum Issue 41, January 2024 1. culture In An l2 The role of culture in non-native language (L2) teaching has encouraged considerable debate in language education for over 50 years. The inextricable interconnection between language and culture is undeniable (Brown, 2000; Byram, 2008; Hinkel, 2001; House, 2007). Language has been seen as the conveyor of culture (Kramsch, 1993; Young et al., 2009) to the point that learning an L2 without its target culture(s) (C2/C2s) leads the learner to become a fluent fool (Bennett et al., 2003). In the field of L2 teaching the renewed goal addressing not only aspects of the target language but also of the C2 has brought different perspectives on the notion of ‘culture’. This study takes into account the concept of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) proposed by Byram and colleagues (e.g., Byram, 1997, 2000; Byram & Fleming, 1998, etc.) focusing on the interrelation among language, culture, and communication in an L2 together with the more traditional notion of sociocultural aspects. Byram’s (1997) ICC accentuates the following: a) the relationship between the mother culture (C1) and the C2; b) the concept of the ‘intercultural speaker’, which contrasts with the traditional but unrealistic goal of aiming for an L2 learner that would eventually become a native speaker of the L2; c) communication among people from different C1s in an L2, whereas intercultural competence consists of communicating with people from different C1s in the speaker’s L1. 2. teAchIng culture In An l2 Research suggests that culture teaching is an essential part of L2 learning. Explicit culture teaching in L2 classrooms increases motivation, heightens cultural sensitivity, and promotes positive attitude changes such as discouraging stereotyping among other benefits (e.g., Heusinkveld, 1985; Morgan, 1993; Webber, 1987). Despite all these benefits, empirical evidence shows that culture is not approached in the L2 classroom in a principled, systematic, active, and engaged manner (Atkinson, 1999; Baker, 2012; Byram & Feng, 2004; Byram & Morgan, 1994; Chastain, 1988; Holliday, 1996; Morgan, 1993; Omaggio Hadley, 1993). Extensive testing on L2 knowledge and skills has relegated culture teaching, making culture a diversion and add-on activity rather than an indispensable component of the teaching/learning process. A critical, non-essentialist, and non-stereotypical view of the nature of culture, and cultural differences are imperative. Thus, culture is best approached in an engaged and critical manner. It is difficult to identify a clear trend in culture teaching due to educational and influential socioand geopolitical views together with its interdisciplinary character (Risager, 2011). Overall, three major periods may be singled out. In the first period (1950searly 1990s) culture is seen as an object consisting of cultural artefacts, that is, Big C, about the C2, represented by a national culture. This notion of culture coincides with the traditional, and rather elitist, view where the “formal institutions (social, political, and economic), the great figures of history, and those products of literature, fine arts, and the sciences” (Brody, María Dolores lópez-JiMénez (Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native... 13 2003, p. 39) are introduced. Culture teaching becomes part of an acculturation process by which the learner is immersed in the C2. The second period extends during the 1990s. The previous emphasis on cultural artefacts is replaced by the more anthropological concept of culture, that is, small c. Small c can be identified with the way of life or lifestyle of a particular group, especially with “housing, clothing, food, tools, transportation, and all the patterns of behavior that members of the culture regard as necessary and appropriate” (Brody, 2003, p. 39). The inextricable interconnection between language and culture is accepted as an indispensable part for successful language acquisition (Kramsch, 1993, 1998). Also, Byram and colleagues (1997, 2000; Byram & Fleming, 1998, etc.) put forward the ICC model underpinned by the notion of critical cultural awareness (Byram, 1997), that is, a conscious understanding of the role of culture which leads to “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices, and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries” (Byram, 1997, p. 101). The last period is identified by the research literature since 2000. Culture moves away from the national conception to a “transnational or global/local approach” (Risager, 2011, p. 485). In a more globalized world with a growing use of certain languages such as Spanish as an L2 (second or foreign language) and as a lingua franca, it should not be restricted to the linguistic and sociocultural norms of countries where Spanish is spoken by native speakers. Instead, a non-essentialist, dynamic, heterogeneous, and hybrid approach to Spanish culture teaching is deemed essential. In this context cultural awareness is replaced by intercultural awareness, which incorporates a more wide-ranging understanding of culture for intercultural communication in the expanding contexts of a global language (Baker, 2012). The concept of intercultural citizenship (Byram, 2008, p. 157; 2011, pp. 11-12) also comes into play. Students should become not only intercultural speakers but also active intercultural citizens by means of acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to act within a community which is multicultural and international with more than one set of cultural behaviors, values, and beliefs. Within this context of interculturality, Holliday (1999) denounces the limitations of a “large culture approach” based on “large ethnic, national and international cultural differences” (macro-culture) as part of “post-colonial and inter-ethnic discourses” (pp. 237-238). Instead, he proposes the notion of ‘small culture’ to refer to “any cohesive social grouping” (micro-culture)2 (Holliday, 1999, p. 237). He explains that a small culture approach thus attempts to liberate culture from a “reductionist overgeneralization and otherization of ‘foreign’ educators, students and societies” (Holliday, 1999, pp. 237-238). Spanish L2 learners are expected to understand large entities such as the Spanish-speaking world, Spain or Latin America (macro-culture) and also become familiar with some of the social and/or sociolinguistic practices of a Spanish-speaking family, a school classroom or a post office in a town in South America (micro-culture). From a pedagogical point of view, the duality of large and small cultures is accepted. However, there is no agreement on when and how to address both types of culture. What seems evident is that small culture samples are likely to draw young adults’ attention in a more effective manner than large entities which result in more distant aspects. 2 The notions of macroand micro-cultures (Holliday, 1999) should not be confused with the already existent duality, that is, Big C and small c. 14 Porta Linguarum Issue 41, January 2024 3. goAls Nowadays, the textbook (TB) continues being an essential tool in L2 teaching. It directly or indirectly conveys sociocultural values acting as a hidden curriculum (Cunningsworth, 1995; Shin et al., 2011). An exploration of the teaching of culture in Spanish as an L2 TBs is overdue given the particular importance attached to approaches for teaching culture and intercultural communication in an L2. Little research literature explores the actual teaching and learning of culture in Spanish as an L2 programs and classroom materials (cf. Arizpe & Benigno, 1987; Elissondo, 2001; Gil Bürmann & León Abío, 1998; Illescas García, 2016; Níkleva, 2012; Ramírez & Hall, 1990; Robles Ávila & Palmer, 2020; Williams, 1978). This study analyzes the cultural dimension in Spanish as an L2 TBs from different proficiency levels and publication years. To be more specific, the main goals of this research are as follows: a) analyze whether the sociocultural approach in the selected TBs is principled and informed; b) analyze whether the sociocultural approach in the selected TBs is organized and structured; c) based on the results from these two objectives (a, b), investigate whether the variables publication year and proficiency level influence the treatment provided to the sociocultural content in the selected TBs. 4. InstruMents The 9 selected TBs (see Table 1 below) were designed for teaching Spanish for general purposes and aimed at young adults (17-19 years) and adults (20 years or over). They were produced by the main 6 Spanish as an L2 publishers within a range of 10 years (2008-2018) and covered three different proficiency levels, that is, beginning, intermediate, and advanced, three TBs per proficiency level. With respect to the publication years and for a balanced representation, the following distribution was established: (a) three TBs published in 2008, the beginning of the 10-year period; (b) three TBs published at an intermediate period, that is, between 2012-2014; and (c) three TBs published in 2018, the end of the 10-year period. For this study the student’s book and the last edition of each TB was considered for the analysis. Table 1. Textbook identification titLe and autHors LeVeL PuBLication Year PuBLisHer identiFication Nuevo Curso de Español para Extranjeros Virgilio Borobio Beginning 2008 SM Beggining TB 2008 Nuevo Avance Concha Moreno, Victoria Moreno, Piedad Zurita Beginning 2013 SGEL Beggining TB 2013 Nuevo Español en Marcha Francisca Castro, Ignacio Rodero, Carmen Sardinero Beginning 2018 SGEL Beggining TB 2018 Prisma Avanza B2 Gloria Mª Caballero et al. Intermediate 2008 Edinumen Intermediate TB 2008 Abanico Mª Dolores Chamorro et al. Intermediate 2014 Difusión Intermediate TB 2014 María Dolores lópez-JiMénez (Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native... 15 Método B2 Salvador Peláez Santamaría et al. Intermediate 2018 Anaya Intermediate TB 2018 A Fondo 2 Mª Luisa Coronado, Javier García, Alejando Zarzalejos Advanced 2008 SGEL Advanced TB 2008 Dominio Dolores Gálvez, Natividad Gálvez, Leonor Quintana Advanced 2012 Edelsa Advanced TB 2012 ¡A Debate! Javier Muñoz-Basols, Elisa Gironzatti, Yolanda Pérez Advanced 2018 Edelsa Advanced TB 2018 The two categories for the analysis and evaluation, that is, a principled and informed approach (see Table 2, Category 1) and an organized and structured approach (see Table 3, Category 2), were developed taking into consideration limitations and weaknesses in TBs for teaching a foreign language that stem from different studies (e.g., Abello-Contesse & López-Jiménez, 2010; Clavel-Arroitia & Fuster-Márquez, 2014; Lam, 2009; Liu, 2013; Masuhara et al., 2008; Pinnix, 1990; Rajabi & Ketabi, 2012; Ramirez & Hall, 1990; Sadeghi & Sepahi, 2017; Sercu, 2000; Tomlinson et al., 2001; Yuen, 2011). For each category a group of criteria was analyzed and assessed. As for the sociocultural content in the analyzed TBs, the following clarifications should be taken into consideration: a) the sociocultural content that was not related to the Spanish-speaking world was not considered for the study except for Category 2, criterion (e) (see Table 3); b) the content identified as sociocultural content in the table of contents, and it was not culture-specific, but it could be related to any culture (for example, urban tribes [unit 7] and well-known diets [unit 8], Advanced TB, 2018) was not assessed; c) the introductory and review units that were present in some of the TBs that conform this study were not taken into consideration; d) the supplemented material in the appendices of the TBs was analyzed. According to Masuhara et al. (2008), the most reliable conclusions are provided by comprehensive assessments of TBs during and after their use. Nevertheless, the whilst-use and post-use evaluations are compatible with a pre-use evaluation approach. This latter approach is the one being used in this study. One of its major advantages with respect to the other types of assessment (whilst-use and post-use) is that it allows a considerable number of TBs to be analyzed in the same empirical study. 5. results froM the AnAlysIs And evAluAtIon 5.1. Results from Category 1: Is the approach to (inter)cultural content principled and informed? Category 1 consisted of 10 criteria (see Table 2 below) that were analyzed taking into account their presence in the TB units except for criterion (b), which was assessed counting the TB pages in which it appears. In the case of criteria (e) and (f), the percentages were calculated considering their presence only in those units with cross-cultural activities, that is, a dual focus based on comparisons of the C1 and the C2. 16 Porta Linguarum Issue 41, January 2024 Table 2. Category 1 BEGINNING INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED Is the approach to (inter) cultural content principled and informed? Beg. TB 2008 Beg. TB 2013 Beg. TB 2018 Int. TB 2008 Int. TB 2014 Int. TB 2018 Adv. TB 2008 Adv. TB 2012 Adv. TB 2018 % of TB units (a) Integration of both ‘small c’ and ‘Big C’ aspects of culture 40% (6/15) 66.6% (6/9) 40% (4/10) 75% (9/12) 33.3% (4/12) 50% (5/10) 55.5% (5/9) 20% (2/10) 40% (4/10) 46.3% (45/97) (b) Presence of ‘Big C’ and ‘small c’ aspects Big C 8.06% (12.9/160) Big C 4.62% (8.6/186) Big C 4.2% (6.4/150) Big C 11.06% (20.7/187) Big C 11.21% (24.9/222) Big C 2.3% (5.5/239) Big C 11.65% (29.6/254) Big C 18.75% (34.5/184) Big C 8.59% (14.7/171) Big C 8.9% TB pages (157.8/1753) Small c 8.4% (13.5/160) Small c 5.05% (9.4/186) Small c 4.6% (6.9 /150) Small c 11.28% (21.1/187) Small c 4.14% (9.2/222) Small c 7.65% (18.3/239) Small c 12.71% (32.3/254) Small c 2.06% (3.8/184) Small c 17.42% (29.8/171) Small c 8.2% TB pages (144.3/1753) (c) Simplistic and/or superficial approaches to teaching culture 13.3% (2/15) 55.5% (5/9) 50% (5/10) 33.3% (4/12) 0% (0/12) 70% (7/10) 11.1% (1/9) 20% (2/10) 0% (0/10) 26.8% (26/97) (d) A dual focus on the similarities and differences between the C1 and the C2 20% (3/15) 33.3% (3/9) 50% (5/10) 66.6% (8/12) 8.33% (1/12) 70% (7/10) 66.6% (6/9) 10% (1/10) 60%% (6/10) 41.2% (40/97) (e) Cross-cultural activities for reading or listening comprehension based on aspects of the C2 followed by equivalent aspects in the C1 100% (3/3) 100% (3/3) 40% (2/5) 50% (4/8) 100% (1/1) 85.7% (6/7) 100% (6/6) 100% (1/1) 83.3% (5/6) 77.5% (31/40) (f) Cross-cultural activities designed to produce spoken or written texts based on the C2 and the C1 100% (3/3) 100% (3/3) 80% (4/5) 50% (4/8) 100% (1/1) 85.7% (6/7) 100% (6/6) 100% (1/1) 83.3% (5/6) 82.5% (33/40) (g) Opportunities to become aware of verbal and non-verbal differences in intercultural communication 0% (0/15) 11.1% (1/9) 10% (1/10) 25% (3/12) 8.33% (1/12) 10% (1/10) 22.2% (2/9) 0% (0/10) 10% (1/10) 10.3% (10/97) (h) Opportunities to become aware of appropriate strategies to deal with such differences in non-judgmental or non-ethnocentric ways 0% (0/15) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/10) 8.3% (1/12) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/10) 11.1% (1/9) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/10) 2.06% (2/97) (i) Simplified information about verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication from anthropology, social psychology, or international business (especially at more advanced levels) 0% (0/15) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/10) 8,3% (1/12) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/10) 1.03% (1/97) (j) Key cultural concepts and terms defined and/ or exemplified, and/or illustrated 0% (0/15) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/12) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/9) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/10) 0% (0/97) María Dolores lópez-JiMénez (Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native... 17 The analyzed TBs present an (inter)cultural approach that is principled and informed since: (a) 100% of the TBs integrate both Big C and small c, and (b) 100% of the TBs include a dual focus which allows comparisons between the C1 and the C2. Nonetheless, the (inter) cultural approach taken in the TBs is not principled and informed for the following reasons: (a) the (inter)cultural approach does not avoid simplistic and/or superficial approaches to teaching culture; (b) it hardly makes the students aware of verbal and non-verbal differences in intercultural communication between the C1 and the C2;c) strategies to deal with such differences in non-judgmental/non-ethnocentric ways are also scarce; (d) simplified information about verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication from other disciplines, for example anthropology, psychology or international business, is almost non-existent, and (e) there are no definitions or examples of key cultural concepts. The concepts of Big C (civilization) and small c (culture) are integrated in 100% of the analyzed TBs, specifically in 46.39% of the units. Over half of the TBs, that is, 55.5%, present a quite balanced number of pages on Big C and small c aspects. Only 22.2% of the TBs (Intermediate TB, 2018; Advanced TB, 2018) reveal a clear emphasis on small c. Among the examples of Big C that were found in the TBs the following ones can be mentioned: texts on Spanish-speaking writers, features of the Spanish language, the origin of the name Argentina, official languages in the Spanish-speaking world, the history of the Incas, the Spanish health system, etc. On the other hand, examples such as the culture of tapas and pinchos, specific gestures, the Three Wise Men, sleeping a siesta, Caribbean dances, etc. are considered instances of small c. Simplistic and/or superficial approaches are not avoided. All of the TBs except the Intermediate TB, 2014 and Advanced TB, 2018, include one or more of the following approaches identified as such (Omaggio Hadley, 1993): (a) the 4 Fs approach (folk dances, festivals, fairs, and food), (b) the Frankenstein approach by which very different topics appear throughout the units without any apparent relation among them, (c) the By-the-way approach which is based on pieces of information to mark contrasts, and (d) the Tour Guide approach which focuses on historical sites and very well-known architectural monuments in urban areas. Instances of the 4 Fs (Carnivals in Cádiz and Santo Domingo, paella, Mediterranean diet, The Three Wise Men, etc.) and the By-the-way approaches (contrasts between life in a town and in a city) can be found, for example, in the Beginning TB, 2013. Regarding the presence of a dual focus based on the similarities and differences between the C1 and the C2 that will allow the students to deal with cultural misunderstandings in a better way, 100% of the TBs include it. Nonetheless, 44.4% of the TBs offer very limited opportunities to compare the C1 and the C2 (8.33%, 10%, 20%, and 33.3% of the units from the Intermediate TB, 2014; Advanced TB, 2012; Beginning TB, 2008, and Beginning TB, 2013, respectively). In 77.5% of the units with a dual focus, comparisons between the C1 and the C2 are carried out through readingand listening-comprehension activities based on any C2 aspect followed by questions that demand information about the C1 from the student. Likely, 82.5% of the units with a dual focus contain activities designed to produce spoken or written texts based on sociocultural aspects from the C1 and the C2. In the case of the Advanced TB, 2018 the demand for information about the C1 is always preceded by the words Ahora tú (Now you). 18 Porta Linguarum Issue 41, January 2024 Concerning interculturality and communication, 77.7% of the TBs (Beginning TB, 2013; Beginning TB, 2018; Intermediate TB, 2008; Intermediate TB, 2014; Intermediate TB, 2018; Advanced TB, 2008; Advanced TB, 2018) offer the students opportunities to become aware of verbal and non-verbal differences in intercultural communication, although that occurs in a reduced number of units (10.3% of the units). In those units where those differences are taught once again the student has to provide the information about intercultural communication from the C1. In the same way, the students are hardly offered negotiation strategies to deal with the differences between their C1 and the C2 in a non-ethnocentric way in intercultural communication, since those strategies are only present in 2.06% of the units. For example, in the Intermediate TB, 2008 the students are introduced to the use of llamadas perdidas (signal calls) made with the cellphone in Spain to indicate that we have already arrived. This was common practice among Spanish people when cellphone users did not enjoy flat rates and/or the use of WhatsApp. Furthermore, intercultural dialogues between native and non-native speakers of Spanish are scarce. They were found in the Beginning TB, 2013; Beginning TB, 2018, and Advanced TB, 2008. In these dialogues non-native speakers’ productions are indistinguishable from the native speakers’ ones. The only distinctive feature between both types of production can be found in the non-native speakers’ pronunciation as shown in recorded dialogues. In these intercultural dialogues negotiation strategies are non-existent. Only 11.1% of the TBs (Intermediate TB, 2008), that is, 1.03% of the units that were analyzed include simplified information about verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication from international business. In this case, sociocultural aspects of business negotiation in sub-Saharan Africa are introduced in a written text. The students are required to specify the main sociocultural aspects that should be taken into consideration in a business negotiation in the Spanish culture such as collectivism (versus individualism), and directness (versus indirectness) together with specific gestures, etc. In the same way, the students need to look for similarities and differences regarding business negotiation between the African culture and their C1. Furthermore, none of the analyzed TBs, not even Advanced TBs, contain definitions, examples, and illustrations of key cultural concepts, for example, culture, acculturation, ethnocentrism, stereotype, etc. 5.2. Results from Category 2: Is the approach to (inter)cultural content organized and structured? Category 2 is composed of 9 criteria that were measured following this scale: 1=no; 2=partially, and 3=yes (see Table 3 below). In case a criterion was rated as “partially”, the number of TB units in which it appears was indicated. María Dolores lópez-JiMénez (Inter)cultural content in Spanish as a non-native... 19 Table 3. Category 2 BEGINNING INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED Is the approach to (inter) cultural content organized and structured? Beg. TB 2008 Beg. TB 2013 Beg. TB 2018 Int. TB 2008 Int. TB 2014 Int. TB 2018 Adv. TB 2008 Adv. TB 2012 Adv. TB 2018 (a) Is the (inter)cultural content explicitly identified in the table of contents? 333333113 (b) Judging by the information provided in the table of contents, is there a reasonably stable structure in the treatment of cultural aspects? 3 3 3 3 3 3 N/A N/A 3 (c) Are illustrations placed next to the cultural content and/or activities included? 333333333 (d) If so, do they tend to be pedagogically appropriate (i.e., they are directly related to the content)? 333333333 (e) Is the approach to (inter) cultural content based on a miscellaneous or rather unstructured coverage? 2 (1/15) 12 (3/10) 2 (1/12) 2 (1/12) 2 (1/10) 2 (2/9) 1 1 (f) Is a practical (e.g., pedagogical) distinction made between countries where Spanish is spoken as a first language (L1) and countries where it is used as a second (L2-SL)? 2 (1/15) 11111111 (g) Does it mention the use of Spanish as a lingua franca? 2 (1/15) 111112 (1/9) 1 1 (h) Are there examples of gradual/appropriate development of (inter)cultural content? 111111111 (i) Are there regular sections that deal with cross-cultural and/or intercultural awareness? 111111111 The results indicate that the (inter)cultural approach is organized and structured with respect to (a) the explicit identification of (inter)cultural content in the table of contents, (b) the presence of a reasonably stable structure of (inter)cultural material in the table of contents, (c) the use of illustrations related to the (inter)cultural content which are not only placed next to the (inter)cultural content and/or activities but they are also pedagogically appropriate, and (d) the information coverage of sociocultural content which is hardly miscellaneous. However, the (inter)cultural approach in the analyzed TBs is not organized and structured since (a) a distinction between countries where Spanish is spoken as a first language (L1) and countries where Spanish is a second language (L2-SL) is almost non-existent; (b) very 26 Porta Linguarum Issue 41, January 2024 Shin, J., Zohreh, R.E., & Chen, W-C. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture in current international English-language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture, and Curriculum 24(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2011.614694 Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H., Rubdy, R. (2001). EFL courses for adults. ELT Journal, 55(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.80 Webber, M. J. (1987). The role of culture in a competence-based syllabus. Theory into Practice, 26(4), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1056233 Williams, S.A. (1978). Spanish cultural materials with a local focus: The Chicano, Cuban, and Puerto Rican Connection. Foreign Language Annals, 11, 375–380. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1978.tb00052.x Young, T.J., Sachdev, I., & Seedhouse, P. (2009). Teaching and learning culture on English language programmes: A critical review of the recent empirical literature. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802283178 Yuen, K-M. (2011). The representation of foreign cultures in English texbooks. ELT Journal 65(4), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq089 Zu, L., & Kong, Z. (2009). A study on the approaches to culture introduction in English textbooks. CCSE English Language Teaching, 2(1), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p112