critique bryams model icc

8/12/2019 Critique Bryams Model ICC

1/34

A Critique of Michael ByramsIntercultural Communicative CompetenceModel from the Perspective

of Model Type and Conceptualizationof Culture

Catherine Matsuo

Introduction : The demand for individuals who possess intercultural

competence and overview of the critique of Byrams Intercultural Com-

municative Competence model

National governments, multinational and transnational corporations and other

businesses are urging schools and universities to turn out individuals who pos-

sess the ability to communicate across cultures, i.e. intercultural competence, or

IC Spitzberg and Changnon, . This urgency is reflected in the continuous

sharp increases in research into intercultural competence that have occurred inevery decade since the s Pillar, . Since intercultural communication

is not an independent discipline, research into it is conducted in a wide variety

of academic disciplines : e.g. education, communication studies, cultural an-

thropology, behavioral psychology and management science. The result is a

Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Fukuoka University

347

1


2/34

wide range of perspectives and emphases and a copious, rather unwieldy

amount of knowledge about it. Meanwhile, in the business world, demand forinterculturally competent workers is evident in the growing number of compa-

nies that now offer intercultural training servicessee Prechtl and Lund, ;

RostRoth, .

In a rapidly globalizing world, foreign language or FL teachers increasingly

recognize that intercultural competence is a desirable and necessary goal. How-

ever, as the discourses of economics infiltrate further into education and manyother once separate areas of life, we also increasingly find ourselves having to

negotiate between educational and economic articulations of what intercultural

competence should consist of and what its goals are. Speaking very generally

about goals see also Rathje, , respectively these would be educational

goals of human development and/or economicsinfluenced goals of efficient

communication that promotes increased productivity through the development of IC.

IC is a very complex term because it builds on another already complex

term, culture see Williams, . When culture changes to intercultural, an

extra and as yet still illdefined theoretical dimension is added and when actu-

These goals do not have to be mutually exclusive ; moreover, research has shown that our interpersonal communication is always a mixture of transactional and interactional in-teractions e.g. Brown and Yule, ; i.e. we have been and continue to be both eco-nomic and social animals, as well as being people of heart and mind. However, what haschanged in the last few decades is the degree to which economic discourses have infil-trated other areas of life. In dialogic theory terms, it can be argued that economic dis-courses are becoming official discourses in education Voloshinov, . If these dis-courses start to squeeze out other voices, so that it becomes very difficult to have a dia-logue or debate with them, then they are on the way to becoming totalitarian. From a dif-ferent perspective, Michael Sandel argues that in many parts of the world, we donot merely have a market economy, but are becoming a market society.

348

2


3/34

ally interacting across cultures, an indeterminable number of variables come

into play at the same time as commonalities decreaseFantini, . As noted, all of the copious theoretical and research activity has yielded a

considerable and diverse body of knowledge about intercultural competence.

However, there is still no clear or theoretically robust definition of the term

Spitzberg and Changnon, ibid.. Furthermore, a good number of the many

available IC models are also theoretically weak because of the type of model

they are : individualoriented list models and trait concept models predominatein IC research but can do very little theoretical heavy lifting such as explain-

ing casual development in IC and predicting it, or modeling interactionsee be-

low . In language teachers home domain of FL education, Michael Byrams

; Intercultural Communicative Competence, or ICC, model is a

model of this type, i.e. an individualoriented list model.

In this paper, I critique Byrams ICC model, which is widely cited in theFL pedagogical literature but proportionally, much less frequently critiqued. I

critique the model from the point of view of a practicing teacher approaching

the model with a view to implementing it in the FL classroom. The critique fo-

cuses on the model type and the models perspective on culture.

Individualoriented listtype models, apart from being theoretically weak,

are also inherently limited in terms of how they can inform the most commonactivities of practical pedagogy, as I argue below. Put bluntly, these types of

models are useful mainly for theorists ; for teachers, the uses are limited to

It is not clear, what the extra C brings to intercultural competence or IC, apart fromdenoting its foreign language education origin ; in general, I will use the term IC, but I will sometimes use ICC to stress a foreign language pedagogical context, although I un-derstand that this may be distracting.

A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural CommunicativeCompetence Model from the Perspective of Model Type

and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 349

3


4/34

raising consciousness about the need to highlight, or preferably inte-

gratethough the model is incapable of giving guidance for this, and it sepa-rates out competencesthe cultural dimension in language teaching, the inclu-

sion of intercultural competence objectives and the identification of the compo-

nents and scope of competences. But precisely because individualoriented

listtype models do not model interaction or causal interdependences, or chart

or predict development, they have very little to offer that can usefully inform or

guide the daytoday acts and momentbymoment decisionmaking of teach-ers.

The second half of the critique examines the models orientation to cul-

ture. It argues that its equation of culture with national culture is not just theo-

retically insufficient but also out of tune and step with the zeitgeist, and what it

actually feels like to be living right now in this era of rapidly advancing globali-

zation, i.e. in a hyperconnected, multilateral world, where consciousnessesare and always have been permeable, just like national borders, and where

trade within the Global Southe.g. between China and Brazilis creating

new connections, new patterns of life.

In this paper, I argue that equating cultures with national cultures is the

result of thinking of cultures as containers, i.e. as hermetically sealed units.

While I understand that the notion of cultures as meaning national cultures isubiquitous, and that national cultures are treated as facts in cognition, and by

the media and national governmentsPillar, ibid. so that it is unavoidable to

discuss them in pedagogy, I will argue that this conceptualization of national

cultures should not be the sole basis of a pedagogy that aims to develop ICC

Nederveen Pieterse discusses the psychologically felt processes of globalization.

350

4


5/34

because :

this view is both theoretically insufficient and partial, and rapidly losing validity as regards conveying the experience of what it is like to be liv-

ing daytoday in ;

the notion of national cultures is already an abstraction and so loses its

living vitality, meaning that teacher discourse about such abstractions

will tend to be monologic, i.e. authoritative delivery of facts where cul-

tures and the people in them are objectified because talked about inreadymade form Bakhtin, , and to which students cannot re-

spond creatively ;

research has tended to publish results that discover differences between

and among cultures ; differences create distance which can lead to

stereotyping, and a pedagogy based on national cultures and differences

is superficial since it does not create a true dialogue with cultures inthe students , and therefore, perhaps even damaging to developing IC ;

a focus on national cultures deflects attention away from the opportuni-

ties of developing IC through communication in the hereandnow

classroom, where a teacher exploits her own intercultural speaker iden-

tity to create intercultural interactions that optimally develop the ICC of

her students through dialogic discourses, i.e. discourses that engage,that create responsive understanding Matsuo, in press, and through

the exploration and development of both the teachers and students lan-

guacultures/linguacultures Risager,



5


6/34

Short description and account of Michael Byrams Intercultural Com-

municative Competence model

Byrams ; Intercultural Communicative Competence, or ICC,

model sets out all the competences that are theorized as comprising intercul-

tural communicative competence : linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and in-

tercultural competences. The three competences which are theorized as per-

taining specifically to language, i.e. the foreign language linguistic, sociolinguis-tic and discourse competences, appear beside each other at the top of the

model. The intercultural competence component appears below them, in the

centre of the model. This competence visually dominates the model and also

the authors discussions of the model. It is theorized not as a languagerelated

competence, but in common with many IC models, in terms of knowledge,

skills and attitudes, i.e. in cognitive and motivational terms. At the bottom of the model come locations of learning where ICC can be acquired : the class-

room teacher and learner, fieldwork teacher and learner or just the learner,

and independent learning just the learner. These locations are included to

emphasize that the model is intended for educational purposes and settings.

The name of the model, Intercultural Communicative Competence, adds an ex-

tra C to what in other disciplines tends to be called simply intercultural compe-tence. The extra C for communicative is there to emphasize, again, that the

model is a FL education model ; i.e. it references Hymess original

communicative competence model.

Byrams model, like other second and foreign language, or SL/FL, models

derived from Hymes e.g. Bachman, ; Canale and Swain, ; Canale,

; see also below , is, like the original, an individualoriented listtype

352

6


7/34

model. However, Byrams route back to Hymes is a little more circuitous than

that of its counterparts because Byram initially drew not on a North Americanmodel, but a European framework, for the modelthat of van Ek .

The ICC came into existence as a result of Byrams experiencesgood

and less good as a member of a working group which came together in the

s and eventually produced the Common European Framework of Languages,

or the CEFR, of the Council of Europe . The Western European influ-

ence but not necessarily the specific influence of the working groupis obvi-ous in the models Kantian rationality perspective on morality and also in the

Western European postWWII political, activist orientation to human rights.

Byram is unapologetic about the models prescription of rights and rationality

goals, declaring that this is consistent with compulsory educations liberal edu-

cation goals Byram, . The European geographical and historical context

of the model are also responsible for its identification of culture with the na-tionstate, i.e. culture = national culturesee below for a discussion of the

models conception of culture.

Byram has been persistent and tenacious in developing and defending his

definition of, and goals for, intercultural competence. But it doesnt take much

reading between the lines of his work to hazard a guess that a very small part

of this persistence and tenacity may be a reaction to the fact that much of his

Fulcher and Davidson distinguish between models and frameworks but in prac-tice, the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable, although of course,models strictly speaking refer to visual representations of concepts. Thus, for example,Bachman describes in detail a theoretical framework of communicative languageability but it is his depiction of language competence which is famous, and what we referto as his model. Hymes provides no visual depiction but we refer to his model of communicative competence.



7


8/34

work did not make it into the final version of the CEFR. It has been noted that

Byram is one of very few scholars who consistently and extensively operational-ize intercultural competence training in FL educationBelz, , cited in

Byram, ibid., so his sincerity is not in doubt. However, there is an undercur-

rent of frustration in his accounts of the models creation, which a sensitive

reader can pick up on. Thus, as well as the cultural provenance, I think it is

worth a teacher bearing in mind both the particular social circumstances sur-

rounding the models creation and its subsequent reception in European educa-tion policy circles when considering how to implement the model in practical

pedagogy, in particular, the dominance in the model of the intercultural compe-

tence and the centrality within this of the critical cultural awareness compo-

nent. For my own part, for example, I cant help feeling that that there is a kind

of overcompensation at work in the intensity with which Byram simultaneously

defends and prescribes the critical cultural awareness component of intercul-tural competence. I feel a teacher should take into account this possible over-

compensation and consider if it needs to be adjusted for when she is contem-

plating whether, and if so, how far, and how to, implement critical cultural

awareness into her own FL pedagogy.

According to Byrams own accountsByram, ibid., in the s he and

Zarate Byram and Zarate, ; produced a model, which refined vanEks sociocultural competence by defining four savoirs, or four dimen-

sions of knowledge, skill and attitudes. The CEFR kept the savoirs notion but

its final published list model was substantially different from the work Byram

and Zarate had originally producedByram, , p. .

Byrams ICC model is different again from his work with Zarate.

Byram asserts that the notions of the intercultural speaker and intercul-

354

8


9/34

tural competence are his. Byrams ICC model also retains the French word,

savoir, which can mean both knowledgeun/le savoir and to understand/know how to savoir . The definitions of the original four savoirs have been

overhauled, with only savoir etre and savoir apprendre remaining unchanged,

according to Byram ibid. . A fifth savoir has been added, so in the ICC model,

intercultural competence now comprises five dimensions or kinds of knowl-

edge, skills and attitudes : knowledge savoirs ; interpreting/relating skills

savoir comprendre ; discovery/interaction skills savoir apprendre/faire ; atti-tudes savoir etre and critical cultural awareness savoir sengager .

In the latest version of the modelByram, , this last savoir has been

moved right to the centre of the intercultural competence boxalthough the

original rectangular box is now a circle, to emphasize its increased and now

central importance. Byram translates this last savoir as critical cultural aware-

ness, and says it is akin to the German politische Bildung, which, as alluded toabove, has a political activist, human rights dimensionByram, ibid.. Critical

cultural awareness is now at the very centre of the ICC model, as noted. It also

increasingly dominates Byrams discussions of the modele.g. Byram, ;

Byram, . Thus, as well as being the central component of intercultural

competence, critical cultural awareness is supposed to be given priority as a

pedagogical purpose. One further point of interest is that the bidirectional ar-rows between competences which appear in the version of the model, and

which indicate possible interrelations between or among the competences, are

absent from the model, i.e. this version does not posit competence rela-

tionships.



9


10/34

The Intercultural Communicative Competence model in historical and

theoretical context

In a relatively short period,modern second and foreign language education

has produced a considerable number of models or frameworks, e.g. Bachman,

; Byram, ; ; Canale and Swain, ; Canale, ; Celce

Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell, ; CelceMurcia, ; Hymes, ; Savi-

gnon, ; and van Ek, . Most of these models derive from, and/or areheavily influenced by, Hymess original communicative competence model.

These models have tended to become increasingly elaborate over time, e.g.

Bachmans and Byrams models.

Of these models, Michael Byrams ICC model is at present increasingly in-

fluential in the FL education arena for the following reasons. Since the model

was first created in , and arguably, particularly even in this last half dec-ade, globalizations ever more rapid spread has made the ability to communi-

cate across cultures, i.e. intercultural competence, or IC, a much indemand

and urgently required skill see above as well as a very fashionable buzz

word. Byrams model is coming into its own because it replaces its predeces-

sors stated or implicit goals of the linguistic and sociolinguistic competence

of a nativespeaker in an inner circle English milieuby positing an intercul-

In the Anglophone world, what Howatt calls the third phase of modern secondand foreign language education coincides with the advent of the Communicative Ap-proach, or Communicative Language Teaching, CLT, in the lates and early s.

Hymess model was intended for L education but was adapted for L education by Ca-nale and Swain and further elaborated in Bachman .

Kachrus three famous concentric circles characterized English use around the world in terms of the Inner Circle of nativespeaker varieties ; the Outer Circle, whereEnglish was first introduced as a colonial language ; and the Expanding Circle, where

356

10


11/34

tural speaker. This intercultural speaker possesses intercultural competence,

i.e. can communicate across cultures and uses English to mediate betweenspeakers of different cultures and languages. Adopting the intercultural speaker

as an ideal rather than the nativespeaker means the model appears both politi-

cally and geographically more neutral than its predecessors. An idealized inter-

cultural competence, i.e. one which stresses, but is not limited to, an ability to

perform intercultural mediation tasks, seems more realisticthough of course

no ideal is realistic in the sense of appearing to be more achievable than theelusive perfection of what is, after all, an idealized nativespeakers linguistic

competence. It is more realistic in the sense that mediation skills are likely to

be actually required. It is realistic, period, because of the times we live in :

more communication in English is now thought to be carried out between non

native speakers than between nativessee Graddol, . Similarly, the iden-

tity of the intercultural speaker that the ICC model puts forward is multifac-eted, and thus can be considered more representative of the complex identities

of people living in a postmodern era where the opportunities for intercultural

English has been introduced as a foreign language. An important caveat is that Byram insists that teaching for ICC should still fo-

cus on one of the countries where English is spoken as a native language. People tend toforget this stipulation, and assume that the nativespeaker has been ditched, which

strictly speaking may not be the case, since the term intercultural speaker was introducedfirst and foremost to distinguish the notion of intercultural competence from the notion of a native cultural competence.

See also preceding footnote : because the model advocates a focus on an inner circlecountry, it follows that the language competences, particularly the sociolinguistic and dis-course competences, must refer to the norms of language use in those contexts whereEnglish is spoken as a native language.

Byram himself notes that cultures are hybrid, and so multifacetedness and hy-bridity are not products only of postmodernity. However, in the model, he continues to

equate culture with the culture of a nation state and this has been criticized for creatingmisleading impressions of the cultural homogeneity of nations.



11


12/34

interactions and encounters have increased exponentially, thanks to migration,

tourism and the Internet. The ICC model is different from its SL/FL predecessors in positing an ide-

alized intercultural speaker rather than an idealized nativespeaker. It is also

different because it includes a competenceintercultural competence which is

not theorized as being a language competence, but in cognitive and motiva-

tional terms as knowledge, attitudes and skills.Furthermore, this nonlan-

guage competence is at the centre of the model and its central compo-nentcritical cultural awarenessis conceived in overtly political terms : no

previous models have prescribed morality or the political activist pursuit of hu-

man rights.

Despite these differences, the ICC model is similar to the other models

that have descended from Hymes in ways that are consequential to both FL

theory and pedagogy. Like the original communicative competence Hymesmodel, and like its predecessors that followed Hymes, i.e. Bachman ;

Canale and Swain ; Canale ; the ICC model is a listtype model

that is individual oriented. Most models in Anglophone SL/FL education are of

this type because of this common origination in Hymes and because our theo-

rists have chiefly been concerned to identify components of competences and

It is clear from the above summary that there is a strong argument to be made that Byrams model is equally timely and relevant for second language learning locationsin-cluding the nativespeakers in those locations, perhaps!, but this paper will limit its dis-cussion to foreign language education.

Fulcher and Davidson note that Bachmans model, developed for lan-guage testing, was the first SL/FL language model to make an explicit distinction be-tween knowledge and skill ; however, in Bachman, both of these elements are embedded within language competence.

358

12


13/34

specify teaching objectives for the purposes of language testing.

Hymes ended up producing an individualoriented list model because he was unable to escape Chomskys influence on the then contemporary field of

linguistics and because of the Western theoretical and cultural bias that has

historically prioritized the individual and placed himsic at the centre of

thought and thought about the world. Turning to Chomskys influence on

Hymess model, even though Hymes created his model in reaction against

Chomskys mentalist competence/performance distinction and Chomskys re-fusal to deal with the latter because it was outside the subject matter of linguis-

tics, Hymes was unable to, or at any rate, finally did not, reject outright the no-

tion of Chomskyan linguistic competence located in the individual human brain.

The result in Hymess model is that Hymes, in effect, embeds linguistic compe-

tence within his formal possibility component and then adds on another three :

feasibility, appropriateness, and whether something is actually performed. In ef-fect, he creates or we can say maintainsa binary. So, even though Hymess

discussion of his model stresses that competence lies in the situation, the tim-

ing, length, style, and content of utterances, and the contributions and judg-

ments of the interlocutor/audienceall the other aspects of a speech event

as much as it does in the individual, he ends up making an individualoriented

model. Thus, Halliday says that Hymes ended up taking the intraorganismticket to what is actually an interorganism destinationHalliday, , p. .

If Halliday is right, the individual orientation of Hymess model is down to

Chomskys influence on the study of linguistics in the s and s, but it is

Notable exceptions are CelceMurcia et al. and CelceMurcia , who havetried to create models with the specific goal of describ[ing] communicative competencefor language teachers CelceMurcia, , p. .



13


14/34

probably also, as noted, a product of the wider historical Western bias in favour

of the individual see also Spitzberg and Changnon, , below . The linguistic competence/communicative competence binary and the indi-

vidual orientation persist in all subsequent second and foreign language models

in this line, including Byrams. Because Hymes did not resolve the binary, the

models that follow him retain, however implicitly or latentlye.g. Canale and

Swain, , and Canale, , changed linguistic competence to grammatical

competence, but this is switched back to linguistic competence again in CelceMurcia, , and also in Byram, , a Chomskyan linguistics orientation to

language and linguistic competence, i.e. language as an abstract system where

competence language knowledge is located within the individual. This influ-

ence impacts teachers who profess to be working in the Communicative Lan-

guage Teaching, or CLT, paradigm, i.e. using a communicative approach, even

if indirectly, and even if teachers themselves are not aware of it. That is to say,the notion of idealized competence located in an individual persistsagain,

even if latently and is operationalized in language tests ; the competence/

communicative competence binary remains unresolved in CLT theory and mod-

els, and it is manifest in the classroom in the way teachers struggle to some-

how close the use/usage divide in their CLT practice. Hymess call for

theories of communicationnot only sociolinguistic theories, but theories of communicationto inform language education continues to go more or less un-

heeded. Thus, as Burns ; has noted, in her compilation of re-

search into the state of CLT, CLT classrooms are often hybridsof traditional

grammar instruction/communicative teachingor even a chimera Thornbury,

, cited in Burns, .

This residual orientation to language from Chomskyan linguistics accounts

360

14


15/34

for applied linguistic theorys persistent blind spots as regards language pro-

duction that cannot be accounted for by generative grammar, e.g. what appliedlinguists now call formulaic language chunks, and which are only belatedly be-

ing given attention in the field.Similarly ignored until recently are the role of

communication over time in developing complex grammar formulations and in

creating culture Tomasello, ; and the nature of communication itself.

Only such a persistent orientation to languagealong with the Western limit-

ing bias towards the individualcan explain the paucity or absence of othertypes of models in the fielde.g. relational, developmental or causal models

and the repeated failure to theorize the relational and interactional aspects of

communication, even in models that call themselves communicative.

To repeat : in sum, Hymess original communicative competence and

those that have followed after it, are individualoriented list models. They list

the components that are necessary in order to be judged communicative but because they are individualoriented, they merely imply, but do not adequately

theorize, an interlocutor, or the copresence, joint perception and attention to

goals that the presence of an interlocutor entailssee Tomasello, ibid.. Hymes

perceived that language exists in the world as language/speech communication

but his model failed to conceptualize the interactional processes that in great

part account for communicative competence and the development of it, and in which competence itself is in part located. As an individualoriented model,

ipso facto, Hymess model locates communicative competence in the individual,

even though Hymess discussion of his list of competences argues that this is

These chunks are included in what is called the formulaic competence in CelceMur-cias Communicative Competence model. In dialogic theory, these chunks arecalled speech genres.



15


16/34

not the case.

The Intercultural Communicative Competence model : Individual

oriented list model

The Intercultural Communicative Competence or ICC model, as noted, is an in-

dividualoriented listtype model. List models are useful for identifying thescope of the components that are hypothesized as comprising a competence,

but theoretically weak because they cannot identify the relations between the

components, meaning that levels of competence or combinations of criteria that

determine competence are impossible to defineSpitzberg and Changnon,

. For precisely this reason, i.e. the inability to conceptualize relations,

interdependences, combinations, levels, development , list models are of limiteduse to teachers for practical pedagogical purposes other than raising conscious-

ness about the competences, allowing the identification of the components of a

competence and for summative evaluation.

As noted, the ICC model is a listtype model which is individualoriented

as are the majority of IC models from various fields. As Spitzberg and Chang-

non ibid. also note, many individualoriented models assume a partner, but they omit to/cannot conceptualize communication, either its relational nature or

interactional processes. Therefore, the nature and role of communication in de-

In the very same volume as Byram, Spitzberg and Changnon somewhat curiously de-fine Byrams model as a coorientational model, though with the caveat that Byramsmodel is concerned with negotiating identity in the space within and across cultures

, p. . I was very surprised at their definition as the model is clearly a list modeland Byram himself defines it as suchByram, .

362

16


17/34

termining and developing communicative, and thus intercultural communicative

competence, is not theorized at all, and competence is located, de facto, in theindividual. Now, to an extent, this is criticizing Byrams model and others like

it for not being a different type of model, but it should be noted that creators of

individualoriented models have ignored repeated requests that they theorize

the relational and interactional aspects of communicationSpitzberg and

Changnon, ibid. p. . These types of models do not optimally assist teachers

because, essentially, all they allow is for a teacher to be alerted to the constitu-ent elements of competences and then to determine whether the competences

are presentor absentin individual students.

The notion of culture in the ICC model

Byrams ICC model is very infrequently criticized, especially when one consid-

ers how frequently it is cited. The main criticisms directed at IC models in gen-

eral and which also apply to the ICC model, are to do with their ethnocentricity

and resulting overreliance on, and assumption of, rationality. IC models are

overwhelmingly of Western origin,and they tend to focus overwhelmingly on

an individual who is theorized in an overly cognitive way where cognition istheorized as separate from affect or emotion. Interactants are thus, and in fact,

depicted as too conceptual, too rational, too conscious, and too intentional

Spitzberg and Changnon, , p. . With respect to Byrams ICC model in

See Deardorff for African, Arab, Chinese, Indian, and Latin American perspec-tives, including a Chinese leadership competence model and an Indian model of crosscultural competency.



17


18/34

particular, its goals for intercultural competence are very, perhaps overly, aspi-

rational, or even piousseeming.I suspect that if more national governments around the globe become seri-

ous about using this model in their national foreign language curricula, then

criticism of the rights and rationality prescriptive aspects of the ICC model

will grow as those governments consider the ramifications of including political

activist goals in foreign language pedagogy. At the moment, however, the main

criticism that has been directed specifically at the ICC model regards its per-spective on culture. Now, Byram , perhaps wisely, refuses to define cul-

ture, which is a notoriously difficult and complex termsee Williams, ;

also Kroeber and Kluckhohn, , cited in SpencerOatey, , who com-

piled definitions of the term. In essence, however, Byram sidesteps the

need to define culture by equating it with the national culture of nationstates.

Kramsch has criticized this perspective, arguing that it makes the cul-ture of a nation appear much more homogenous than it really is. Furthermore,

the boundaries between cultures are not as rigid as Byrams view seems to

suppose.

Byram has defended his model against these criticisms on the grounds

that his equation of culture with national culture was a conscious decision be-

cause the model was conceived in and for a situation and tradition that has fo-cused on national cultures i.e. the Council of Europe and its publications and

audience in the late s . He asserts that there are in fact such things as na-

The rights and rationality aspects of the ICC model are outside the scope of this paperbut I would like to draw attention to an episode of the BBC radio series In Our TimeBragg, , which is still available for listening. Here, Homi Bhabha and John Gray

conduct an intercultural discussion of human rights, including the necessity of, but prob-lems inherent in, having highly aspirational human rights goals.

364

18


19/34

tional identity and national cultures, and in support of his contention cites Foxs

identification of a grammar of English behaviorrules that define ournational identity and characterByram, , p. .

Byram is certainly correct that ordinary peopleus!seem to endorse

the idea that there is such a thing as a national culture, and it is also common

for institutions such as governments and newspapers to equate culture with a

national culture see Pillar, . However, Byram seems now to acknowledge

that there are some limitations to his stance, admitting that in intercultural in-teraction, national identity is never the only identity present Byram, ibid..

But the difficulty of equating culture with national culture is not resolved

merely by conceding that there may be more than a national identity present

when persons are interacting. Byramibid. cites Barths idea of the

ways in which boundaries are marked in national cultures through notions of

national memory and national space, but he does so only in order to claim,again, that there is such a thing as a national culturethat national memory

and national space mark a national cultures boundaries.

Byrams equation of culture with national culture is based on the flawed as-

sumption that cultures are spatial entities, containers of sorts, with internal

territory and more or less hard and fast boundaries. If this assumption was

ever viable i.e. as Byram asserts it was for an audience of education policymakers and language teachers in Western Europe in the s , it is increasingly

untenable in the face of the evidence produced by the processes of globaliza-

Byram cites only Fox to assert the reality of a cultural grammar. However,Byram notes that Hymes had discussed the notion of a cultural grammar. To do this, Hymes drew on Burkes A Grammar of Motives / to assert in the-ory what Fox has now investigated empirically.



19


20/34

tion and what it actually feels like, moment by moment, to be living as we are

now, in a hyperconnected, globalizing, multipolar worldsee NederveenPieterse, , for a discussion of the psychological processes of globalization.

As dialogic theory asserts, cultures and people are not and never have been

hermetically sealed wholes ; bordersboth political and mentalare porous

Bakhtin, .

A different point that Barth makes in the same volume that Byram quotes

is that when there is contact between different groups a need for distinctionarises. Barth discusses ethnicity as a relevant category on which to base differ-

ence, but in reality, individual humans are always distinguishing themselves

from the person they are talking to. Distinguishing is a needfor me to create

or affirm my identityand it happens of necessity : the person I talk to occu-

pies a different place in time and space. Furthermore, the other person, in and

through dialoguethrough communicatingwith me, helps create my identity,my self, and I do the same for themBakhtin, .

Byrams equation of culture with national culture is misleading because to

state the obvious of which Byram, like everyone else, is of course aware, it is

not the nations that are doing the communicating but individuals. To an extent,

all communication between individuals is a kind of intercultural communication.

That is to say, as I have noted in dialogic terms in the preceding paragraph,and as SpencerOatey and Kotthoff , p. point out by drawing on the

work of Schutz , no ones experience coincides exactly with our own,

and each person processes new information within their own horizon. Any in-

stance of communication is always an act both of differentiation and of coori-

entation.

Concentrating on national cultures in pedagogy can result all too easily in

366

20


21/34

abstraction, as I will argue below. It can also deflect time and attention away

from the much more interesting prospect of basing an ICC pedagogy on the in-tercultural interactions in the hereandnow of the classroom between the FL

teacher who is already, or should be aspiring to be, an intercultural speaker

and the students, and the interplay of the foreign and native languages and the

teachers and students languacultures/ linguaculturessee Risager, .

Rather than concentrating on national cultures, the perspective on communica-

tion described above, i.e. of individuals at once orienting, differentiating and af-firming themselves through dialogue, is a more productive way for FL teachers

to think about culture and communication for teaching for intercultural compe-

tence because it is already integral to the life and events of the classroom. In

other words, this perspective entails a focus on, is immediately relevant to, and

can be operationalized in, the intense reality of the living present of the class-

room Matsuo, in press. This perspective also underscores the importance of the relational and interactional processes of communication and over time,

should draw the teachers awareness to, and improve her understanding of, the

various dynamics of communication that are at work and in play in the class-

room e.g. the different and varied dynamics of interpersonal communication,

intragroup, intergroup and public communication. Understanding that all

communication is an act both of differentiation and coorientation empowers theteacher to use her own intercultural speaker identity as the basis for an embod-

ied and on that basis systematic ICC pedagogy. That is to say, her intercultural

personhood creates intercultural interactions, which transform into culture, and

the development of her own and her students intercultural competencesee

Matsuo, ibid.. A pedagogy with this focus is more likely to be dialogictrans-

formative through dialogue because it requires the creative responses of stu-



21


22/34

dents in order for it to be sustained.

Such a focus in pedagogy also provides a counterweight to the dominant notions of culture nowadays : the clashes of cultures and cultures as deficits or

assets e.g. Huntingtons famous book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Re-

making of World Order, which has just been republished ; see also Nederveen

Pieterse, , who cites the first edition of this book along with other similar

examples . These are precisely the problematic and erroneous conceptions of

cultures that the cultures as containers metaphor generates ; that culturescan clash makes sense only because this view makes abstracted objects of cul-

tures.

Turning to abstraction, the idea of a national culture is of course, already

an abstraction, a product of thought about the world rather than realtime

thinking in the world, i.e. in the flow of events of lifeBakhtin, . As an

abstraction, the idea of a national culture is easily held in cognition because it is stable, unlike the unformedness of the eventsand the person before you!

unfolding in living sensation, i.e. life. This stability of abstraction makes na-

tional cultures easy to talk about ; what is also easy to talk about are the dif-

ferences between cultures because these are what research commonly tends to

present as its results and because talking about these gets students attention

fairly easily by arousing curiosity. In developing ICC, it is the nature and qual-ity of that initial curiosity which is important ; this is impacted by the kinds

of discourse monologic/dialogic the teacher uses to bring it forth. What is at

stake is whether or how the teacher can develop curiosity in her ICC pedagogy

into something deeper, enriching and affirming, not mere inquisitiveness about

something alien and alienating. A teachers discourse, those words that help

create and determine the culture of the classroom, the trajectory the class

368

22


23/34

takes, and the quality of ICC, are nearly always overlooked in the applied lin-

guistic literature. It is my contention that basing an ICC pedagogy on a notionof culture as national cultures and difference is likely, because of the problem

of abstraction, to promote monologic teacher discourse.

Abstraction creates distance ; Bakhtin , p. claims that cultures

become vacuous once separated from the boundaries on which cultures actu-

ally live. If the distance created by abstraction increases, it creates stereotypes

see hooks, . Here is how I see a lesson that sees cultures in terms of na-tional cultures perhaps creating distance and depriving those cultures of their

living spirits. Say a teacher starts reading up on crosscultural studies. These

tell us, for example, how Japanese, Americans and Iranians handle selfdisclo-

sure Gudykunst, , or how toasting is done in the former Soviet Republics

and in Western Europe Kotthoff, . The problem is that this kind of re-

search presents existence in readymade formBakhtin, , p. . Whena teacher consumes this research it becomes further abstractedit is thought

about the world rather than the active and creative understanding going on in

thought in the world Bakhtin, ibid.. When a teacher tells these cultural

facts to her students, using, as she probably will, the canonical discourse

that is used to deliver facts, then the information will only be recognized in cog-

nition by our students, i.e. passively understood by students as making somekind of sense and as transmitting some kind of informationsee Matsuo, ibid..

This kind of discourse is monologic ; it requires no real or creative response

from the students, meaning that the cultures so describedi.e. as containers,

and the people in those culturecontainers, are in real danger of becoming

mere cognized objects. At a minimum, a teacher will need to revisit monologic

discourse with genres that reinstate dialogue, which restores cultures and peo-



23


24/34

ple to their rightful status of active, creative subjects.

Conclusion

Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative Competence model is frequently

cited in the literature, but proportionally, much less frequently critiqued. When

it is critiqued, criticism usually centres on the models equation of culture withnational cultures, and claims that such a conception makes cultures seem too

homogenous and the borders between them too rigide.g. Kramsch, .

From the point of view of a language teacher studying this model, and con-

sidering how to implement it, initially it presents the many of the same difficul-

ties for a teacher as most of the other available second and foreign language

models descended from Hymes, i.e. the difficulties inherent in the model type.Individualoriented list models are problematic to use for pedagogical purposes

other than identifying and raising awareness about the scope and components

of a competence and for summative evaluation because list models identify the

components of a competence but cannot specify the relations or dependences

among competences. They are similarly incapable of identifying any level be-

yond a threshold level of a competence. Teachers are not nave ; they know that models cannot and never will

paint a full picture, and that they are, by definition, abstractions. But the quality

and effectiveness of teachers work depends on teachers ability to integrate

theory, to merge it into their acts of creative understanding in teaching in the

unique, specific, unrepeatable flow of events of living sensation that comprise

the intense reality of the classroom. In the actual classroom, a good teachers

370

24


25/34

apperception and understanding of such relations and dependences among

competences and of course, the relations and dependences among the peoplein the classroom are adjusting themselves momentbymoment ; they recur-

sively feed into her online decisionmaking, which is evinced, of course, in

her discourse. A model which deals with relations and dependences would en-

hance the quality of a teachers understanding, and thus her online decision

making.

Individualoriented models do not conceptualize communication eitheradequately or at all, and end up, of necessity, locating competence in the indi-

vidual Spitzberg and Changnon, . In actual communication, of course,

competence is never located solely inside a person ; the success of a communi-

cative act derives from all the elements that coalesce in a speech event, as

Hymes claimed. A model that addressed the relational nature of communication

would not only provide a necessary corrective to the continued dominance of linguistic perspectives but would also enrich teachers understanding of how in-

teractions not only determine competence but also develop it.It would also

empower teachersraise their consciousness and give them licenseto use

their own intercultural speaker identity to focus on creating real, dialogic inter-

cultural interaction in the classroom. Finally, a teachers knowledge, under-

standing and awareness of communication are integral to the types of discourseshe uses in the classroom, how she approaches and uses texts in classroom ac-

Insights from interactional sociolinguistics are beginning to redress the imbalance byinforming work in intercultural communication, e.g. SpencerOateys work on rap-port and egaracs examination of cultures role in communication. Also, relationalaspects of language are integral to Hallidayan Systemic Functional LinguisticsHalliday,

; . However, it is still true to say that not enough work has focused on the roleof communication in developing competences in FL pedagogical theory.



25


26/34

tivities i.e. whether, for example, she relatesovertly or implicitlyto texts as

authoritative and canonical and/or whether she orients to them as dialogictexts, for students to approach and engage with as equalstatus communica-

tors . Her discourse and stance obviously affect how her students apprehend,

orient to, and engage with and understand such texts, and hence the quality of

the competences and capacities they develop.

While Byrams ICC model inherits both modeltype limitations and the

theoretical difficulties that have persisted in CLT since Hymess original failureto reject Chomskyan competence outright, the addition of intercultural compe-

tence to the ICC model is a further complicating factor for practicing teachers.

This is not just because the term intercultural competence remains illdefined,

but also because the model theorizes IC as a non languagerelated compe-

tence i.e. cognitively and motivationallydefined knowledge, attitudes and

skills . It then calls upon teachers to integrate IC with language competences while offering no systematic guidance,and indeed, the model does not

now posit that the competences are related. At the same time, teachers are

urged to make the nonlanguage competence a priority.

In actual classroom practice, teachers who have decided to introduce IC

development goals into their pedagogy will of necessity address these compe-

tences which are separated out in the model as if they are integrated throughthe very act of teaching. In teaching, we proceed as if cognitionincluding af-

fect and emotion, culture and language are so interrelated as to be almost di-

mensions of each other, which, of course, is in fact the casesee Bakhtin,

; Fantini, , but which is a position that is only belatedly gaining rec-

Byram states that his omission to offer specific guidance is intentional since lo-cal context is and should be the main determining factor in teacher decisionmaking.

372

26


27/34

ognition in Western thinking about language and cognition. But teachers have

little assistance from the applied linguistics theory that is most familiar to thembecause this still has not sufficiently addressed, let alone conceptualized or de-

veloped, an integrated theoretical orientation along these lines.

Finally, Byrams model has already been criticized for its equation of cul-

ture with national cultures on the grounds that this view presents national cul-

tures as homogenous and separated by too rigid boundariesKramsch, .

In this paper, I have approached the notion of culture from a different perspec-tive, a dialogic one, which claims that cultures and persons exist on their per-

meable, elastic boundaries, actively and incessantly interdetermining each

other through language Bakhtin, . Identifying cultures in terms of na-

tional borders is cognitively easy because notions of space and territories are

stable. However, it is theoretically inadequate because borders are permeable

and the psychologically felt processes of globalization, i.e. what it is like to beliving in a hyperconnected world, only underscore that inadequacy.

Thus, teachers need to remember that although the idea of cultures in

terms of national cultures is cognitively easier to keep hold of precisely be-

cause abstractions are stable in cognition, and the notion of national cultures is

ubiquitous in daily life because of the media and national governments, this ab-

straction is in part a fiction, even if it is a fiction that most people believe in. Bythis, I mean that cultures are presented this way or that, in readymade form,

which always excludes some part of the story in favour of another. The real

life of cultures is on their borders ; if we talk about culturesasproduct, it ren-

ders them and the people in them as voiceless, cognized objects. This objecti-

fication of cultures results in discourse that is monologic, requiring only recog-

nition that something makes sense, rather than the responsive and creative un-



27


28/34

derstanding which takes place in dialogue. At a minimum, teachers should be

aware that abstracting cultures in terms of national cultures will tend to result in monologic discoursethe delivery of factsand that although this has its

uses monologic discourse needs to be revisited using other, more dialogic dis-

courses if we want our students to develop substantial and worthwhile ICCi.e.

ICC that both resists stereotypes and understands how they come about . To

that end, in pedagogy teachers must reinstate cultures and the people in them

as living subjects who have voices by focusing on the intercultural interactionsin the here and now of their own FL classrooms, using dialogic discourses. If

the intercultural interaction going on in the classroomthe interaction of

teacher and student cultures, the interaction of languages and linguacul-

turesis the basis and the medium for ICC teaching and training, it transforms

both into culture and intercultural competenceMatsuo, in press, and safe-

guards against cultures becoming objectified, thereby promoting a richer IC with stronger roots, so to speak. Furthermore, such embodied experience

would certainly ensure that IC training and development is undertaken in a

systematic way, as Byram, Nichols and Stevens , p. urge, but which

they leave very much to individual teachers to sort out for themselves, while

their own theory remains like much IC theory, in rather a primitive state

see Spitzberg and Changnon, .Of course I recognize that it is neither realistic nor wholly desirable to

avoid talking about cultures in terms of national cultures since they are facts

for us, our governments and media, and because differences are more notice-

able and remarkable, initially, than similarities. I also recognize that there are

many interesting and varied ways to go about teaching for ICC while accepting

the notion of national cultures : see, for example, teachers accounts in Byram

374

28


29/34

et al. ibid. Some of these accounts, however, show just how demanding in

terms of time, personal commitment and financei.e. applying for, and winninggrants it can be to include an intercultural competence dimension in FL peda-

gogy e.g. Morgan, in Byram et al. . Furthermore, it is difficult to be sys-

tematic both in the implementation over a course of lessons of the intercultural

dimension as it is envisaged in the model and in terms of integrating the com-

petences that are separated out in the ICC model. As with many studies and ac-

counts in the applied linguistics/pedagogical literature, the teacher discourse inreal time, the discourse that implements and helps create the ICC pedagogy, is

overlooked. Thus, in this paper I have wished to highlight the insufficiency of

national culture alone as the basis for IC pedagogy in a globalizing, hypercon-

nected world, and to draw attention to the dangers of abstraction which can

create monologic discourse.

Finally, although the critical cultural awareness component of interculturalcompetence is presumably supposed to safeguard against the abstraction and

objectification of cultures, I am not sure that it can, as it is presently envisaged

in the theory, including the language used to express how this should be done,

i.e. through decentring and relativizing learners understanding of their own

cultural values, beliefs and behavioursByram et al. ibid, p. . Thus, although

a discussion of the implementation of the critical cultural awareness component of the ICC models intercultural competence is outside the scope of the present

paper, as a British teacher working in Japan I must note that both the concept

of critical cultural awareness and the vocabulary and metaphors used to de-

scribe and prescribe it indicate a very Western way of thinking whose transfer-

ability to cultural contexts that are geographically and culturally distant and/or

different is at the very least, problematic. Very careful consideration of the cul-



29


30/34

tural origins of decentring, what the term actually means, and whether or

how a teacher should undertake it or whether she is competent to do so, needsto take place before the teacher decides to discuss with her students the possi-

bility, implications, advantages or possible disadvantages of implementing it in

pedagogy in such contexts.

References

Bachman, L. F. . Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford : Ox-

ford University Press.

Bakhtin, M. . The dialogic imagination. M. Holquist, Ed. ; C. Emerson & M.

Holquist, Trans.. Austin, TX : University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. . Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist,

Eds. ; V. W. McGee, Trans.. Austin, TX : University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. . Art and answerability : Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin.

M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds. ; V. Liapunov, Trans.. Austin, TX : University

of Texas Press.

Barth, F. . Ethnic groups and boundaries. London : Allen & Unwin.

Bragg, M. Writer/Presenter . . Cultural rights in the th century Radio series

episode . In O. Seligman Producer , In our time. London : BBC. Retrieved from

http : //www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p s/In_Our_Time_Cultural_Rights_

in_the_ th_Century/

Brown, G., & Yule, G. . Discourse analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University

Press.

Burke, K. / . A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA : University of California

Press.

Burns, A. , October. Demythologising communicative language teaching. Paper pre-

376

30


31/34

sented at the st International Free Linguistics Conference, Sydney. Retrieved

from http : //www.professoranneburns.com/downloads/freelinguistics .pdf

Burns, A. , April. Visible pedagogy in the adult ESOL program. Paper presented at

the rd meeting of the IATEFL Annual Conference and Exhibition, Cardiff, UK.

Byram, M. . Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Cleve-

don, UK : Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M . From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizen-

ship. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. . The intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign language edu-

cation. In D. K. Deardorff Ed. , The Sage handbook of intercultural competence

pp. . Los Angeles, CA : Sage Publications, Inc.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G. . Definitions, objectives and assessment of sociocultural

competence CCLANG . Strasbourg, France : Council of Europe.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G. . Defining and assessing intercultural competence : Some

principles and proposals for the European context. Language Teaching, , .

Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. . Developing intercultural competence in practice. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.

Canale, M. . From communicative competence to communicative language peda-

gogy. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt Eds. , Language and communication pp.

. London : Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. . Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to sec-

ond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, , .

CelceMurcia, M. . Rethinking the role of communicative competence in languageteaching. In E. Alcon Soler & M. P. Safont Jorda,Eds. , Intercultural language

use and language learning pp. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.

CelceMurcia, M., Drnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. . A pedagogical framework for com-

municative competence : A pedagogically motivated model with content specifica-

tions. Issues in Applied Linguistics, , .

Council of Europe. . Common European framework of reference for languages :

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.



31


32/34

Deardorff, D. K. . The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Los Angeles, CA :

Sage Publications, Inc.

Fantini, A. E. . Language, culture, and world view : Exploring the nexus. Interna-

tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, ,

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. . Language teaching and assessment : An advanced re-

source book. Abingdon, UK : Routledge.

Graddol, D. . English next. London : British Council. Retrieved from http : //www.

britishcouncil.org/learningresearchenglishnext.pdf

Gudykunst, W. B. . Methodological issues in conducting theorybased crosscul-

tural research. In H. SpencerOateyEd. , Culturally speaking : Managing rapport

through talk across cultures pp. . London : Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. . Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of lan-

guage and meaning. London : Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. . An introduction to functional grammar. London : Edward Ar-

nold.

hooks, b. . Representing whiteness in the black imagination. In L. Grossberg, C.Nelson, & P. Treichler Eds. . Cultural studies pp. . New York : Rout-

ledge.

Howatt, A. . The principles of approach. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds. &

K. Knapp & B. Seidlehofer Vol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. .

Handbook of foreign language communication and learning pp. . Berlin :

Mouton de Gruyter.

Huntington, S. P. . The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order Up-dated ed. . New York : Simon & Schuster.

Hymes, D. . On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes,Eds. , So-

ciolinguistics pp. . Harmondsworth, UK : Penguin.

Kachru, B. B. . Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism : The English

language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. WiddowsonEds. , English in the

world : Teaching and learning the language and literatures pp. . Cam-

378

32


33/34

bridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.

Kotthoff, H. . Ritual and style across cultures. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries

Eds. & H. Kotthoff & H. SpencerOatey Vol. Eds., Handbooks of applied lin-

guistics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural communication pp. . Berlin :

Mouton de Gruyter.

Kramsch, C. . Thirdness : The intercultural stance. In T. VestergaardEd. , Lan-

guage, culture and identity pp. . Aalborg, Denmark : Aalborg University

Press.

Matsuo, C. in press . Intercultural communicative competence in a globalizing world :Language as positive creativity at dialogic borderzones.

Morgan, C. . The international partnership project. In M. Byram, A. Nichols & D.

Stevens Eds. , Developing intercultural competence in practice pp. . Cleve-

don, UK : Multilingual Matters.

Nederveen Pieterse, J. . Globalization and culture. Lanham, MA : Rowman and Lit-

tlefield.

Pillar, I. . Intercultural communication : A critical introduction. Chippenham andEastbourne, UK : Edinburgh University Press.

Prechtl, E., & Lund, A. D. . Intercultural competence and assessment : Perspec-

tives from the INCA project. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds. & H. Kotthoff

& H. SpencerOatey Vol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. . Hand-

book of intercultural communication pp. . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.

Rathje, S. . Intercultural competence : The status and future of a controversial con-

cept. Language and Intercultural Communication, , .Risager, K. . Language and culture. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.

RostRoth, M. . Intercultural training. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds. & H.

Kotthoff & H. SpencerOatey Vol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol.

. Handbook of intercultural communication pp. . Berlin : Mouton de

Gruyter.

Sandel, M. J. . What money cant buy : The moral limits of markets. New York :



33


34/34

Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Savignon, S. J. . Communicative competence : An experiment in foreign language

teaching. Philadelphia, PA : The Center for Curriculum Development.

SpencerOatey, H. Ed. . . Culturally speaking : Culture, communication and polite-

ness theory nd ed. . London : Continuum.

SpencerOatey, H., & Kotthoff, H. . Introduction. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries

Eds. & H. Kothoff & H. SpencerOatey Vol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguis-

tics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural communication pp. . Berlin : Mou-

ton de Gruyter.Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. . Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D.

K. Deardorff Ed. , The Sage handbook of intercultural competence pp. . Los

Angeles, CA : Sage Publications, Inc.

van Ek, J. A. . Objectives for foreign language learning. Vol. : Scope. Strasbourg :

Council of Europe.

Voloshinov, V. N. . Freudianism : A critical sketch. I. R. Titunik & N. H. Bruss,

Eds. ; & I. R. Titunik, Trans.. Indianapolis, IN : Indiana University Press. Williams, R. . Keywords : A vocabulary of culture and society. nd ed. . London :

Fontana Press.

egarac, V. . A cognitive pragmatic perspective on communication and culture. In

K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds. & H. Kothoff & H. SpencerOatey Vol.

Eds. , Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural commu-

nication pp. . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.

380

critique bryams model icc

Documents