The article proposes a model of intercultural communicative competence. The need for further reflection on this topic derives from two facts: existing models are not built on Dell Hymes’ model of communicative competence (cc), although they use Hymes’ term ‘cc’ is used; our discussion in this essay starts from a definition of cc in Hymes’ tradition and studies what changes are needed to make it fit to describe intercultural cc; most models are, in fact, not ‘models’. According to the theory of models, models aim at being universal, based on formal logic rather than empirical evidence, and this is extremely important in ICC studies where empirical research is always partial. The result is a new instrument to analyse, describe and teach ICC.
Keywords: Communicative competence, Intercultural communication, Models of intercultural interaction
Most of the research on intercultural communication (hereinafter referred to as IC) produced in the 1970s and 1980s was descriptive, which was only natural in the pioneer phase of such studies. Towards the mid-1990s the perspective started to change, and it focused mainly on the notion of intercultural communication competence (or as they say in Europe: intercultural communicative competence – or simply ICC). This shift brought about two consequences:
In our opinion a clear shift from description models to performance models is needed if we aim to design a process of competence building, i.e. courses teaching ICC. In fact, descriptions cannot be taught or they are useless if they are, whereas models can be taught, and competences based on models can be developed.
The first thing to do in this process is to give a definition of the term 'model'.
‘Model’ is a concept often used as a synonym for ‘theory’ (Chomsky’s syntactic model) or to indicate an analogy (a set of billiards balls in casual movement can be employed as a model for gas molecule movement). In other cases, ‘model’ defines an exemplary paradigm to be followed (Leonardo’s Vitruvian man offers a model of the proportions of the human body), or rejected (the development model in the North of China is deleterious to the environment). In each of these cases, ‘model’ is used to offer a formal structure as a reference point. Although this is an intuitively clear idea, it is certainly far from rigorous. In fact, there are more rigorous meanings for ‘model’, and they are described in the following paragraphs (we have discussed modeling in Balboni 2010; see also Balboni 2006 in English and 2007 in Italian discussing models of intercultural communication).
A ‘theory of models’ was proposed in the 1930s by the Polish philosopher Albert Tarsky, who dealt with the parameters of sentence veracity and semantic logic in scientific definitions: under this theory, a model is a true, therefore perpetually valid, interpretation of a linguistic or of a mathematical formulation. His collaboration with Robert Vaugh in the 1950's led Tarsky to focus his attention on mathematics and pure logic studies, largely abandoning his interest in linguistics. Therefore, the theory of models, originally logical-semantic, became an aspect of mathematical research.
In the 1960s, the concept of ‘model’ entered cognitive sciences, as in Neisser’s cognitive psychologyor Arnold’s cognitive model of emotions: they proposed schemes that were valid on a purely logical basis, independent from empirical measurability.
On the basis of this tradition we define a model as a structure that includes all and only the relevant factors of an idea, an action, an object, a phenomenon, so that secondary or unpredictable information does not overload the model and therefore increases the risks of its falsification. (A model must be falsifiable, of course, in order to be scientifically acceptable – yet, should falsification occur the model would be abandoned).
Our definition is expressed in four declarations (in the cognitive science sense of that term, see declaration 3, below):
We saw that the intrinsic ambiguity of language was the main reason why Tarsky, the creator of the Theory of Models, slowly abandoned the verbal model approach in favor of a mathematical one. In order to reduce linguistic ambiguity a useful aid can be found in a collection of essays edited by Allwein, Barwise (1996), Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. They argue that by using the mechanism called ‘relais’ – a term used by Roland Barthes in his Le dit et le vu – the iconic element acquires meaning only if it is interpreted through language, and the latter becomes non-ambiguous through iconic interpretation. Diagrams, moreover, activate three different forms of intelligence, three different ways of seeing, interpreting, and psychologically representing the world: the logical-formal, the linguistic, and the spatial intelligences, in Gardner’s sense of these terms – and this once more reduces the possibility of ambiguity and misinterpretation.
Therefore, in our perspective, the use of diagrams is not only an instrument to clarify and reduce the possibilities of logical ‘catastrophes’ (to use René Thom’s term) due to ambiguity, but it is also a way to think differently from the merely linguistic approach.
In order to work, a model needs to be economic in structure and reliable in contents:
A model must be economic, i.e. easy to remember and to use. Simplicity is necessary at the surface level of a model: complexity can be added by working in depth, as in a website homepage. We mention here the model of IC critical points, which we shall discuss later, in order to show what ‘economic’, ‘simple’, and ‘in depth construction’ mean.
The declaration is: critical points in IC belong to one of these areas:
This model is
For a model to be reliable, the information it contains must be true. This statement may sound tautological, but we should not forget that senses sometimes lead to the construction of unreliable models: scientists were killed or imprisoned because they challenged the Ptolemaic model of cosmology, based on the fact that we do see the sun going from East to West while the earth stays motionless.
In some cases, theoretical models anticipated empirical demonstration, e.g. when Einstein imagined that time slowed down as speed increased. This is why empirically validated models are no longer the only models to be considered reliable, as validation or falsification of a model’s reliability can be logical prior to be empirically possible..
In conclusion, we can say that although an economic and reliable description of IC is impossible (IC is continuously changing, there are billions of possible combinations among cultures, the list of events is enormous, etc.), yet it is possible to propose a model to observe IC and to classify all possible critical points at any time and in any place.
As we have already seen, a model must be simple and include all and only the relevant features of an idea, an action, or an object, so that it is not blurred or loaded with irrelevant secondary information. We shall proceed to outline three steps in order to construct an IC competence model, starting from a communicative competence model, and going through an IC observation model.
A model of communicative competence must respond to this brief question: what is the meaning of “being able to communicate in a language”?
Different answers were give to the question above as posed by Hymes in 1972, and different models of communicative competence have been produced (the main ones being Canale, Swain, 1980, later expanded by Canale1983, and Sauvignon 1883; in the 1990s Bachman1990, expanded the original models by stressing on the pragmatic aspects of communication, and Celce-Murcia et al.1995, produced a ‘pedagogically motivated model’; the most widely used model of communicative competence today is the one underlying the Common European Framework of 1991).
In order to use the model of communicative competence as the basis for a model of intercultural communicative competence we need to reconsider the tradition above focusing primarily on two of the communicative codes at the disposal of human semiotics: verbal and non verbal ones.
Codes are mental constructions which include sets of items and the rules that govern their combination (‘grammar’).
A model of communicative competence includes first of all ‘linguistic competence’ and then ‘extra-linguistic competence’. These are competences, that is, mental representations and unrelated to real utterances or texts: the ability to judge the grammaticality of a sentence exists in a person even if no sentence is spoken hic et nunc.
In Hymes’ model of interaction the term competence has a broader meaning. It indicates both the mental models, and their implementation in a social context, which is governed by the ‘grammars’ of socio-cultural competence. Hymes’ model needs mastery, a series of processes and skills translating mental reality into social action.
These 5 elements constitute ‘communicative competence’ and can be graphically represented as follows:
Some of these factors of communicative competence include intercultural critical points. For instance:
In some cases a speaker may easily master these problems: one may control the tone of voice, avoid taboo words, abstain from the use of the future tense or mask its force in adding “it is God's will”, avoid yes/no questions in cultures where a foreigner is supposed to receive a ‘yes’ answer just because he or she is a foreigner and respectable and rich. Other aspects are more difficult to cope with, e.g., textual interculturality, which depends on a person’s forma mentis. For example, the way that texts are constructed mirrors the way they are thought, and as a consequence they can differ significantly between cultures; a semantic example can be provided by pointing out that such words as ‘democracy’ or ‘university’, which can be found in many languages, sound similar but often refer to quite different concepts of democracy and university;
Communicative events are governed by universal rules (for example: written correspondence in any culture will include an address, salutations, a sender and a date) and by cultural rules (an American letter has different rules than an Italian or a Chinese letter): and here the critical aspects of intercultural communication and of paramount importance.
This model of communicative competence is thought to be valid in all languages and in all communicative occurrences, on any occasion and in any location.
Moreover, all the factors intervening in a communicative act can be included in one of the ‘boxes’ of the diagram: in other words, the model is thought to be exhaustive.
Finally, the model is economical: it has only 5 factors and this means it is easy to learn and apply, and is simple to use, being constructed in depth, with a limited system of sub-headings within each ‘box’.
As a consequence of the principles of economy and simplicity the model of the critical points in IC includes only three components, which we can describe by using Hofstede’s (1991) metaphor of software:
The diagram is as follows:
The diagram should be interpreted as follows:
Intercultural communication is governed by competence groups, respectively verbal, non-verbal and cultural, and is realised in the context of communicative events governed by grammars which contain both universal elements and local cultural elements.
Each of these areas may include IC critical points, to be highlighted in a description of IC among people from culture ‘x’ and from culture ‘y’.
(This model was designed by Balboni in 1999 and later used in all his works on intercultural communication).
We are fully aware that there have been many attempts to define ICC, yet many of them describe the rewarding effects of competent intercultural communication but do not define its elements, its constituents – i.e., they do not provide a model.
Moreover, most studies are not aimed at an epistemological definition of intercultural communicative competence but at designing ways to assess it, for academic or commercial purposes.
In the Nineties, the scene was mostly occupied by Kelley and Meyers’ Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (1993), by Byram’s founding manual (1997) and by Hammer and Bennett’s Intercultural Development Inventory (Bennett 1998); Fantini developed the yoga assessment for Brattleboro students (Fantini 2000). In the first decade of the 21:st century more person-centred instruments and methods of assessment were proposed, such as Oudenhoven and Van der Zee’s Multicultural Personality Questionnaire (2002). An analysis of the discrepancies in the many attempts of assessing the development of intercultural communicative competence is in Garrett-Rucks (2012) and a general survey of assessment methods can be found in Deardorff (2006:72ff provides a clear synthesis; 2011 completes the survey) and Dervin (2010), the latter focusing on the intercultural element in language teaching but rich in general perspective and subtle observations.
We are aware of the value of these works, and of many others we cannot quote here, yet we think that a model such as the one we are suggesting below is not only more consistent as concerns epistemological paradigms, but can prove a more efficient framework to design intercultural communication curricula and courses.
The following diagram shows IC competence, seen as an integration of the model of communicative competence in a language and the model of critical points in IC. In other words: if a person living in Oxford uses English to communicate with other Oxonians he or she only needs communicative competence in English as shown in the model, as Oxford is culturally homogeneous. But if that person interacts with other English-speaking natives (neighbours such as Welsh, Scottish, Irish, or ‘foreigners’ such as Californians or Indians) or with non-native English speakers from the rest of the world, he or she needs both communicative competence in English and IC competence as shown below.
The most relevant element in this diagram is the central box, where there are not only language abilities (cognitive processes) and skills (the implementation of abilities in a given language on a given text), but also the abilities and skills of appropriate behaviour in IC, which were proposed by Fabio Caon as a qualifying aspect of ICC (Balboni, Caon 2010).
In order to interact in intercultural communicative events, intra- and inter-personal strategic skills must be built.
This process follows the two phases known in Latin as pars destruens and pars construens, that is, ‘first delete, then construct’.
The main elements a person should be able to delete in order to develop intercultural behavior abilities are:
Pars construens concerns the development of some skills which create a system of checks and balances between cultural detachment or shock, on the one hand, and willingness and openness on the other:
In order to allow the formation of psychological habits of rational decentralization and emotional distance, two attitudes must be constructed:
Developing the ability to postpone communicative reaction, both negative and enthusiastic, as long as we analyze exotopically and empathically the other person’s behavior, is the core of intercultural communication skills.
The word ‘communication’ derives from ‘putting in common’, i.e., sharing. The last of the skills to be developed is
The process described above is circular: it starts with what in counseling procedures is called ‘active listening’, that is, listening with a decentralized third-party attitude, and proceeds through the exotopic and empathic appraisal of the input, ending with feedback in order to check whether one’s interpretation of the other’s words or actions is right.
Kramsch (1993) hinted at the intercultural dimension in her classic book about culture in language teaching, and many methodologists of the 1990s picked up the idea; yet Beamer1992, Brislin, Yoshida 1994, Landis, Bhagat1996 and other leading studies of the same years separated IC teaching apart from language education, both in schools and universities, and in lifelong learning contexts, and this trend prevailed (a critique of intercultural communication training in these years can be found in Cargile, Giles 1996); only in Attard 1996, Byram 1997, Balboni 1999, Byram et al. 2001; Humprey 2002, IC teaching was seen under an educational perspective.
The basic assumption of the studies above (and many others we cannot quote here) is that IC can be taught. We think this is not exact. In fact, the dynamic and ever changing nature of intercultural communication implies that ICC must be seen as dynamic and ever changing as well, which implies lifelong and lifewide learning. In other words, no IC course can claim to be a ‘complete’ course.
Our opinion is that ICC cannot be taught as such because it changes continuously, but a model for lifelong observation of ic is fully teachable. The student attending a course of IC studies is an adult, a fully autonomous person, who needs a scaffolding (our model) to be filled up and completed through lifelong and lifewide observation.
As far as the behavioral component of ICC, exotopy, empathy, suspension of judgment, decentralization and so on can be presented to the student, can be described and discussed, but attitudes cannot be taught.
This perspective implies that teaching IC means making students aware of the nature of IC and of ICC, providing them with an instrument – the observation model – to record what they observe, lifelong, lifewide. The model thus provides the table of contents of a personal manual of IC manual.
Allwein G., Barwise J. (eds) (1996). Logical Reasoning with Diagrams. New York: Oxford University Press.
Attard, P. A. (ed.) (1996). Language and Culture Awareness in Language Learning/Teaching for the Development of Learner Autonomy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balboni, P. E. (1999). Parole comuni, culture diverse. Guida alla comunicazione interculturale [Common Words, Different Cultures. A Guide to Intercultural Communication].Venice: Marsilio.
Balboni, P. E. (2006). Intercultural Comunicative Competence: A Model. Perugia: Guerra,
Balboni, P. E. (2007). La comunicazione interculturale [Intercultural Communication]. Venice: Marsilio.
Balboni, P. E. (2010). Language Teaching Research Based on the Theory of Models. Perugia: Guerra,
Balboni, P. E., Caon, F. (2010). Abilità strategiche di comunicazione per il funzionario degli ‘Esteri’: dalla competenza linguistica alla competenza interculturale [Strategic Communicative Abilities at the Foreign Office: From Language Competence to Intercultural Competence]. Petri, F., Lobasso, F. (eds). Diplomathìa: l’arte di imparare due volte. Messaggi dal G8 [Diplomathìa: The Art of Learning Twice. Messages from the G8 Meeting]. Catanzaro: Rubbettino. 34-42.
Beamer, L. (1992). Learning Intercultural Communication Competence. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 285-303.
Bennett, M. J. (ed.) (1998). Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. His essay on current perspectives is in http://www.ikwa.eu/resources/Bennett_intercultural_communication.pdf;
an excellent introduction to the Italian translation (Milano: Angeli. 2002), written by Castiglione, I., can be found in
Brislin, R. W., Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. London: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Béacco, J. C. (2003). Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases Of Communicative Approaches To Second Language Teaching and Testing.
Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47, http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/I/1/1.full.pdf+html
Canale, M. (1983). From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy. Richards, J. C., Schmidt, R. W. (eds). Language and Communication. London: Longman. 2-27.
Cargile, A. C., Giles, H. (1996). Intercultural Communication Training: Review, Critique, and a New Theoretical Framework. Burleson, B. (ed.), Communication yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 385-423.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 5-35.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing Intercultural Competence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149, 65/79.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266, http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/5733/1/etd.pdf
Dervin, F. (2010), Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Learning and Teaching: A Critical Review of Current Efforts. Dervin, F., Suomela-Salmi, E. (eds). New Approaches to Assessment in Higher Education. Bern: Peter Lang. 157-173.
Fantini, A. E. (2000). A Central Concern: Developing Intercultural Competence. adapted from the 1994 Report by the Intercultural Communicative Competence Task Force, Brattleboro, Brattleboro University, 25/42, http://www.adam-europe.eu/prj/2935/prd/8/1/develop-I-com.pdf
Garrett-Rucks, P. (2012). Byram versus Bennett: Discrepancies in the Assessment of Learners’ IC Development. Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference, 11-33, http://cercll.arizona.edu/_media/development/conferences/2012_ICC/garrett_rucks_byram_versus_bennett_ic2012.pdf
Hymes D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (eds). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. London: Penguin, 269-293.
Kelley, C., Meyers, J. (1993). Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory Manual. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Humphrey, D. (2002). Intercultural Communication: A Teaching and Learning Framework. Database of llas, Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies of the University of Southampton, https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/paper/1303#toc_2
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kupka, B., Everett, A. (2007). The Rainbow Model of Intercultural Communication Competence: A Review and Extension of Existing Research. Intercultural Communication Studies, 2, 18-36. http://www.sitttr.com/uploadfile/20110224/20110224185357847.pdf
Landis, D., Bhagat, R. S. (eds) (1996). Handbook of intercultural training. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Oudenhoven, J. P., Van der Zee, K. I. (2002). Predicting Multicultural Effectiveness of International Students: The Multicultural Personality Questionnaire. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 6, 679-694.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Paolo E. Balboni: Docente di Glottodidattica a Ca' Foscari, Dip. Studi Linguistici e Culturali Comparati, DD1075, 30125 Venezia. Presidente del Centro Linguistico di Ateneo e Delegato del Rettore per la formazione linguistica. Presidente della Società Italiana di Didattica delle Lingue e Linguistica Educativa, DILLE. Direttore del Centro di Ricerca sulla Didattica delle Lingue (CRDL) e della sua rivista Educazione Linguistica - Language Education.Vicepresidente della World Federation of Language Teacher Associations (FIPLV)
Fabio Caon: Dr Caon teaches Intercultural Communication, Language Teaching Research and Literature Teaching Research at Venice University and is the founder and director of the Laboratory for Intercultural Communication of the Centre for Research on Language Education. He has authored and edited several monographs and essays about multilingual and multicultural classes and above alternative ways of dealing with the problem of migrant students language education and social integration, carrying out experiments about the use of sport, of songs and other multisemiotic activities. He is one of the editors of Educazione Linguistica – Language Education, the journal of the Centre mentioned above.
P.E.Balboni is the author of the section from the beginning to “A model of intercultural communication description”, F. Caon from “A model of intercultural communication competence” to the end.
Centro di Ricerca sulla didattica delle lingue
Dpt di Studi Linguistici e Culturali Comparati
DD 1705 Ca’ Bembo
Università Ca’ Foscari
30122 Venezia (Italia)