Linguistics and Intercultural Communication

Abstract

Our times are often referred to as the ‘new world order’ with its ‘new economy’. What this means is that capitalism has been restructured on a global scale, and people of widely different cultural and linguistic backgrounds have been thrown into contact more than ever before. Cultural and linguistic contact may occur in the flows of information and mass media, as well as in the flows of actual people in migration and tourism. Given the ubiquity of cultural and linguistic contact, mergers and hybrids, it is unsurprising that there should be a strong interest in Intercultural Communication, both outside and inside academia. Linguistics as a discipline makes two key contributions to the study of Intercultural Communication. (i) It is the key contribution of discourse analysis and anthropological linguistics to take culture as empirical and cultural identity, difference and similarity as discursive constructions. (ii) Intercultural Communication by its very nature entails the use of different languages and/or language varieties and sociolinguistics, particularly bilingualism studies, illuminates the differential prestige of languages and language varieties and the differential access that speakers enjoy to them.

A survey of Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education in China

“…Such notions of national cultures embodying unchanging meanings, values and behaviours can lead to stereotyping (Jordan, 2002). More recent approaches recognize the multiplicity of cultures in any linguistic area, the infrequency with which individuals display 'national' collective characteristics (Macfadyen, 2005;Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005), and the relativity of all cultures which emerges from comparisons and contrasts across cultures, including the learners' own (Piller, 2007). Scollon (2000, 2001; also Piller, 2007) set aside what they call 'crosscultural communication' and 'intercultural communication' since, while the latter is interactional, both embody an essentialist assumption of culture A in contact with culture B.…”

“…More recent approaches recognize the multiplicity of cultures in any linguistic area, the infrequency with which individuals display 'national' collective characteristics (Macfadyen, 2005;Goodfellow & Hewling, 2005), and the relativity of all cultures which emerges from comparisons and contrasts across cultures, including the learners' own (Piller, 2007). Scollon (2000, 2001; also Piller, 2007) set aside what they call 'crosscultural communication' and 'intercultural communication' since, while the latter is interactional, both embody an essentialist assumption of culture A in contact with culture B. 'Interdiscourse communication' supposes that linguistic and social practices inform and formulate culture and identity (Burr, 2003in Piller, 2007, in a continuing process of assertion, negation, construction and reflection (Piller, 2007).…”

“…Scollon (2000, 2001; also Piller, 2007) set aside what they call 'crosscultural communication' and 'intercultural communication' since, while the latter is interactional, both embody an essentialist assumption of culture A in contact with culture B. 'Interdiscourse communication' supposes that linguistic and social practices inform and formulate culture and identity (Burr, 2003in Piller, 2007, in a continuing process of assertion, negation, construction and reflection (Piller, 2007).Within Second Language Acquisition, an essentialist language-plus-culture (L2 1 C2) perspective has often accompanied more cognitive approaches, while communicative language teaching, with its objective of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972;Canale & Swain, 1980;Byram, 1997), extends also to discourse, strategic and sociolinguistic competences. However, the emphasis on the native speaker as model and target, common in communicative approaches, is now recognized as largely unattainable and mostly inappropriate, partly because it ignores the learner's own cultural identity (Byram, 1997), and partly because international languages, especially English, are predominantly used as second languages by non-native speakers and not attached to any particular set of cultural norms.…”

Communication, discourses and interculturality

“…They were encouraged to explore the view that social action makes implicit or explicit claims about the collectivities to which those involved in a communicative event are affiliated (Scollon & Scollon, 2001; see also Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). Such a position necessarily challenges a view of social environments as constellations of discrete, mutually exclusive 'cultures', more often than not 'national cultures', that constrain and determine the behaviour of individuals (Grimshaw, this issue; see also Holliday et al, 2004;Kramsch, 2001;Piller, 2007). This stance also stands in opposition to a view of culture as something that people 'are', or 'have', rather than something that people 'do' as expressions of the fluidity and multiplicity of social identities (Holliday, this issue; Woodin, this issue; Zhu, this issue).…”

“…Hofstede, 1980Hofstede, , 2003Schwartz, 1992;Triandis, 2006;Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004), tends to essentialise culture and identity, despite repeated criticism of this stance (e.g. Angouri, this issue; Bond, Ž egarac, & Spencer-Oatey, 2000;Grimshaw, this issue;Holliday, this issue;Kim, 2005;McSweeney, 2002;Piller, 2007;Zhu, this issue); and evidence of its inadequacy and inaccuracy in identifying and explaining cultural differences. Holliday (this issue) suggests that an essentialist stance promotes a sense of people as too different to easily negotiate, accommodate or cross their own or others' cultural boundaries.…”