In recent years, the development of communicative competence has been widely viewed as the primary goal of second language instruction. According to Canale and Swain[1], communicative competence requires the development of four competences:
As the traditional focus of second language education was to develop the ability to communicate in a mother tongue setting, the native speaker became the standard through which communicative competence was measured. However, the world has increasingly become a global community and languages are increasingly utilized as a lingua franca, so the use of the native speaker standard has become increasingly problematic. To address current trends in global language usage and the problematic character of the native speaker norm, greater attention has been given to the intercultural character of second language education.
The intercultural character of second language education has been postulated in numerous forms[2]; however, the most common manifestation has been in the form of the product of instruction, commonly referred to as intercultural communicative competence. The concept draws its roots from the work of Edward Hall at the Foreign Service Institute in the United States, which led to the formation of the field of intercultural communication, and the work of prominent scholars in the Council of Europe, such as Michael Byram and Genevieve Zarate. Intercultural communicative competence has been conceptualized in numerous ways; however, one of the most common formulations of the concept in second language education was developed by Byram. According to the author, intercultural communicative competence involved development of the competences associated with communicative competence, combined with and additional competence, intercultural competence. Byram contended that five areas comprise intercultural competence[3]:
Each of the areas overlap and work in concert to foster a deeper understanding about cultural diversity and one’s own culture, and the skills and disposition to navigate intercultural encounters in a productive manner.
In order to understand the nuances of intercultural competence, it is important to have an elaborated understanding about the root concept, culture, and its relationship to language. Culture is a complex, abstract concept that is difficult to precisely define. Various scholars have attempted to capture the complexity of culture using various models and metaphors. For example, the 3P model of culture consists of three interwoven, interdependent aspects of culture – perspectives, products, and practices.[4] In contrast, the onion metaphor portrays culture as a concept consisting of various layers of complexity with assumptions at the core followed by norms and values, etc.[5] Similarly, the iceberg metaphor highlights the difference between tangible, objective elements of culture (big ‘C’ Culture) that are apparent above the surface and abstract, subjective elements of culture (little ‘c’ culture) that define how we think and behave but are not easily identified.[6] In the materials presented on this website, culture is understood as including tangible elements such as traditions, food, and geographical landmarks, but also more subtle elements including body language, notions of politeness, and worldviews.
Culture and language are viewed as complementary concepts that are interrelated - culture forms the foundation on which communication takes place, while language acts as the medium through which culture is established and shared. Language and culture are also understood as mutually effecting communication. As Smith, Paige and Steglitz noted: “Understanding what is said does not always help you understand what is meant.”[7] In other words, communication is fostered through an understanding of linguistic codes and context – a context that is provided by culture. As a result, culture is viewed as an essential component of instruction in the second language classroom.
While culture is a complex concept that influences interaction in various ways, it is often taken up in the second language classroom with a focus on objective elements of culture related to a specific cultural group (e.g., Quebecois culture). The problem with this approach is that it leads to superficial exploration of culture presented as a static, monolithic entity and ignores heterogeneity within cultures. In other words, it presents culture as facts to be learned, leading to a disposition of confidence in ‘knowing the other,’ rather than fostering a disposition of curiosity and openness to better understand cultural diversity in perspectives, products and practices. In order to foster a principled approach to culture instruction, the following pedagogical understandings and practices are encouraged:
Suggested Readings about Intercultural Communicative Competence and Culture Instruction
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56, 57-64.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural education: Theory and practice. Intercultural Education, 17, 245-257.
Fantini, A. E. (ed.) (1997). New ways in teaching culture. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Gorski, P.C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19, 515-525.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram, & M. Fleming (eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lange, D. L., & Paige, R. M. (eds.) (2003). Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Liddicoat, A.J. (2009). Communication as a culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29 (1), 115-133.
Ogilvie, G. (2013). Promoting principled intercultural education in second language pedagogy: An analysis of various conceptualizations of intercultural. In S. May (ed.), LED 2011: Refereed Conference Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity (pp. 1-30). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.
Ogilvie, G. (2015). Investigating intercultural habits: Mini research project about the frequency of behaviour in different settings. In M. Lewis, & H. Reinders (eds.), New Ways in Teaching Adults (2nd Edition) (pp. 126-130). Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17, 55-72.
Shaules, J. (2007). Deep culture: The hidden challenges of global living. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Smith, S.L., Paige, R.M., & Steglitz, I. (2003). Theoretical foundations of intercultural training and applications to the teaching of culture. In D.L. Lange & R.M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp. 89-125). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill.
Weaver, G. R. (1986). Understanding and coping with cross-cultural adjustment stress. In R. M. Paige (ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 111-145). Lanham: University Press of America.
Additional Works Cited
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
[1] Canale & Swain (1980)
[2] Ogilvie (2013)
[3] Byram (1997)
[4] Tang (2006)
[5] Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998)
[6] Weaver (1986)
[7] Smith, Paige, & Steglitz (2003), p. 101
- Grammatical competence – the ability to apply rules correctly in the creation of utterances
- Discourse competence – the ability to produce coherent and cohesive utterances
- Sociolinguistic competence – an understanding of the appropriacy of language based on context
- Strategic competence – the ability to effectively use strategies to enhance comprehension and solve communication problems
As the traditional focus of second language education was to develop the ability to communicate in a mother tongue setting, the native speaker became the standard through which communicative competence was measured. However, the world has increasingly become a global community and languages are increasingly utilized as a lingua franca, so the use of the native speaker standard has become increasingly problematic. To address current trends in global language usage and the problematic character of the native speaker norm, greater attention has been given to the intercultural character of second language education.
The intercultural character of second language education has been postulated in numerous forms[2]; however, the most common manifestation has been in the form of the product of instruction, commonly referred to as intercultural communicative competence. The concept draws its roots from the work of Edward Hall at the Foreign Service Institute in the United States, which led to the formation of the field of intercultural communication, and the work of prominent scholars in the Council of Europe, such as Michael Byram and Genevieve Zarate. Intercultural communicative competence has been conceptualized in numerous ways; however, one of the most common formulations of the concept in second language education was developed by Byram. According to the author, intercultural communicative competence involved development of the competences associated with communicative competence, combined with and additional competence, intercultural competence. Byram contended that five areas comprise intercultural competence[3]:
- Attitudes (savoir etre) - “curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (p. 57).
- Knowledge (saviors) – ““knowledge of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (p. 58).
- Skills (savoir comprendre) - “the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own” (p. 61).
- Skills (savoir apprendre/faire) - “ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real time communication and interaction” (p. 61).
- Education (savoir s’engager) - “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” (p. 63).
Each of the areas overlap and work in concert to foster a deeper understanding about cultural diversity and one’s own culture, and the skills and disposition to navigate intercultural encounters in a productive manner.
In order to understand the nuances of intercultural competence, it is important to have an elaborated understanding about the root concept, culture, and its relationship to language. Culture is a complex, abstract concept that is difficult to precisely define. Various scholars have attempted to capture the complexity of culture using various models and metaphors. For example, the 3P model of culture consists of three interwoven, interdependent aspects of culture – perspectives, products, and practices.[4] In contrast, the onion metaphor portrays culture as a concept consisting of various layers of complexity with assumptions at the core followed by norms and values, etc.[5] Similarly, the iceberg metaphor highlights the difference between tangible, objective elements of culture (big ‘C’ Culture) that are apparent above the surface and abstract, subjective elements of culture (little ‘c’ culture) that define how we think and behave but are not easily identified.[6] In the materials presented on this website, culture is understood as including tangible elements such as traditions, food, and geographical landmarks, but also more subtle elements including body language, notions of politeness, and worldviews.
Culture and language are viewed as complementary concepts that are interrelated - culture forms the foundation on which communication takes place, while language acts as the medium through which culture is established and shared. Language and culture are also understood as mutually effecting communication. As Smith, Paige and Steglitz noted: “Understanding what is said does not always help you understand what is meant.”[7] In other words, communication is fostered through an understanding of linguistic codes and context – a context that is provided by culture. As a result, culture is viewed as an essential component of instruction in the second language classroom.
While culture is a complex concept that influences interaction in various ways, it is often taken up in the second language classroom with a focus on objective elements of culture related to a specific cultural group (e.g., Quebecois culture). The problem with this approach is that it leads to superficial exploration of culture presented as a static, monolithic entity and ignores heterogeneity within cultures. In other words, it presents culture as facts to be learned, leading to a disposition of confidence in ‘knowing the other,’ rather than fostering a disposition of curiosity and openness to better understand cultural diversity in perspectives, products and practices. In order to foster a principled approach to culture instruction, the following pedagogical understandings and practices are encouraged:
- The teacher should assume the role of facilitator of cultural exploration rather than purveyor of information
- Stereotypes and over-generalizations should be explicitly discussed and challenged
- Instruction on specific cultures should be complemented by culture general instruction in which the influence of culture on how people think and act is explored
- Culture instruction should touch on both tangible and abstract elements of culture (i.e., big ‘C’ Culture and little ‘c’ culture)
- Learning about cultural difference should be experiential as much as possible
- Learners should be recognized as cultural beings that bring a cultural identity and prior cultural knowledge to the classroom
- Culture should be understood as historically contextualized and politically implicated
- The complexity of intercultural concepts warrants discussion/ exploration in the mother tongue, even in a class dedicated to second language acquisition
Suggested Readings about Intercultural Communicative Competence and Culture Instruction
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56, 57-64.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Coulby, D. (2006). Intercultural education: Theory and practice. Intercultural Education, 17, 245-257.
Fantini, A. E. (ed.) (1997). New ways in teaching culture. Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Gorski, P.C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. Intercultural Education, 19, 515-525.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram, & M. Fleming (eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lange, D. L., & Paige, R. M. (eds.) (2003). Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Liddicoat, A.J. (2009). Communication as a culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29 (1), 115-133.
Ogilvie, G. (2013). Promoting principled intercultural education in second language pedagogy: An analysis of various conceptualizations of intercultural. In S. May (ed.), LED 2011: Refereed Conference Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity (pp. 1-30). Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.
Ogilvie, G. (2015). Investigating intercultural habits: Mini research project about the frequency of behaviour in different settings. In M. Lewis, & H. Reinders (eds.), New Ways in Teaching Adults (2nd Edition) (pp. 126-130). Alexandria: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sercu, L. (2006). The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new professional identity. Intercultural Education, 17, 55-72.
Shaules, J. (2007). Deep culture: The hidden challenges of global living. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Smith, S.L., Paige, R.M., & Steglitz, I. (2003). Theoretical foundations of intercultural training and applications to the teaching of culture. In D.L. Lange & R.M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp. 89-125). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill.
Weaver, G. R. (1986). Understanding and coping with cross-cultural adjustment stress. In R. M. Paige (ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 111-145). Lanham: University Press of America.
Additional Works Cited
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
[1] Canale & Swain (1980)
[2] Ogilvie (2013)
[3] Byram (1997)
[4] Tang (2006)
[5] Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998)
[6] Weaver (1986)
[7] Smith, Paige, & Steglitz (2003), p. 101