Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching Intercultural Communication For L 2/Lx Use

chapter 2
Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching Intercultural

Communication for L2/Lx Use
Chapter Overview
Our understanding of language learning and teaching, and what role we
believe the broader social context plays in the L2/Lx learning process, have
changed drastically over the past 100 years. This chapter offers a brief
review of key developments in language pedagogy, from the grammar
translation method to the communicative approach and beyond. This
review lays the groundwork for teaching languages with an intercultural
communication orientation, which is discussed in the second half of this
chapter and explored in depth in the pedagogical chapters in this volume.
The Evolution of Language Pedagogy: L2 Pedagogy until

the 1970s
Until the nineteenth century, Latin and Ancient Greek were the most com-
monly taught foreign languages in Europe. Teaching focused on grammar
(taught by rote memorization), translation of literary and historical texts, and
rhetoric. Due to the central role of grammar instruction, this teaching style was
later labeled the Grammar Translation Method (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
Societal changes in the nineteenth century, however, reshaped the perception of
language learning, as more people either had to or chose to travel during the
Industrial Revolution and colonial expansion, and as public education gained
momentum (Lawson & Silver, 2013). This was also a period of rapid growth in
scholarship by Danish, English, French, and German linguists (Koerner, 1994),
whose work shifted the focus to spoken and living languages and changed
considerations regarding how languages were learned and used in society.
Consequently, by the turn of the twentieth century, practically oriented
European linguists reconceptualized language instruction, giving rise to the
Direct Method (also known as the Berlitz method), whose main tenets were
that:
30
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:55:43, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.003
2 Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching ICC for L2/Lx Use 31
• spoken language was the primary mode of communication,
• the process of L2 learning was similar to L1 acquisition,
• correct pronunciation was essential,
• L2 learning should reflect real-world language use,
• grammar should be taught implicitly, and
• the target language should be taught without relying on learners’ L1
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014).
This method required native or near-native levels of language knowl-
edge of instructors and the ability to teach without a textbook or coherent
syllabus. The learning process was also lengthy (children take years to
develop good language skills in their L1) and did not utilize cognitive
advantages that adult speakers could bring to the table, such as the ability
to analyze texts, to draw on linguistic and cultural background knowledge
or a well-formed L1.
The next major shift in L2 teaching occurred in the middle of the
twentieth century, when World War II and the Cold War increased the
need for communication across languages and cultures. Much of this
change was driven by the demand for translators and interpreters, code-
breakers and other specialized linguistic personnel in the military.
Influenced by contemporary psychological theory (behaviorism), language
learning was seen as habit formation: practice reinforced knowledge in
ways that “minimized the chances of producing mistakes” (Richards &
Rodgers, 2014, p. 26). Behaviorism informed the Audiolingual Method,
which used dialogic pattern drills focusing on structural components of
language (e.g., phonemes, morphemes). While this pedagogy aimed to
foster primarily spoken communication, successful L2 learning required
exceptional motivation and availability (lessons and practice could last
10–12 hours a day), and the ability to extrapolate from memorized chunks
of language to communicative contexts beyond the textbook dialogs
(Shrum & Glisan, 2015).
Cognitive Theory and L2 Pedagogy

One of the most important conceptual developments in L2 pedagogy
occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. Arising in part as a critique of behaviorism,
the work of Noam Chomsky posited that the previously believed pattern of
stimulus and response could not account for all the innovative language
phenomena in child language acquisition. Instead, he argued, language
learning is generative: with relatively limited input, children can produce
32 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
endless variations of language due to the brain’s innate ability to organize
information – form rules – via abstract mental processing (Gass, Behney, &
Plonsky, 2013). In addition to reconceptualizing the way humans learn
language, Chomsky (1965) also proposed the notion of language competence,
the knowledge that native speakers are capable of applying to the comprehen-
sion and production of language. This construct was based on the abilities of
an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community,
who knows his language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically
irrelevant conditions as memory limitation, distractions, shifts of attention
and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his knowl-
edge of the language in actual performance. (p. 3)
Chomsky contrasted competence with performance, the actual produc-
tion of language, during which humans are prone to making mistakes, such
as hesitations, false starts, and grammatical or other mishaps. As
a theoretical linguist, Chomsky did not intend to influence second lan-
guage learning, but his work had a long-lasting impact on the way we
understand second language acquisition (SLA).
Consequently, cognitively oriented scholarship in SLA research has
sought to understand the nature of knowledge that learners acquire, how
it responds to environmental stimulation (e.g., input types or instructional
intervention), and what they need to know to complete language tasks
(Doughty, 2003; Gass et al., 2013; Tóth & Davin, 2016). Learners’ perfor-
mance is typically compared to that of idealized or highly educated native
speakers, mostly on lexico-grammatical features of language (cf. Gass et al.,
2013). The resultant language pedagogy presents and practices the L2 via
activities that break down information into manageable chunks. Input-
presentation draws learners’ attention to target features, while negotiation
of meaning during interaction and error correction facilitates the mental
restructuring and solidification of knowledge. Learning is measured in
terms of linguistic output, with a primary focus on form and quantifiable
effects of pedagogical intervention (Atkinson, 2013; Ellis, 2001a, b; van
Patten & Williams, 2015). Missing from cognitively oriented pedagogy is
the role that the social context plays in learning.
The Sociocultural Theory of Second Language

Acquisition and L2 Pedagogy
Sociocultural theory was originally conceptualized by Lev Vygostky,
a Soviet psychologist, to describe a theory of mind that explained the
centrality of human-to-human interaction required for learning
(Vygotsky, 1978). While Vygotsky’s theory focused on learning in general,
it has been embraced in recent SLA scholarship as well. The basis of this
theory is that “humans use symbolic artifacts to establish an indirect, or
mediated, relationship between ourselves and the world” (Lantolf, 2001,
p. 1) and that human social and mental activity is culturally organized.
Accordingly, sociocultural theory considers learning to be prompted by the
social environment as a result of goal-directed intellectual and practical
activities (Hall & Walsh, 2002), and language is viewed as one of the
semiotic tools whose primary role is to shape and reflect cultural practices,
which are rooted in sociocultural and historical contexts (Muto, 2011).
Additionally, sociocultural theory views L2 learning as a process of
increasing autonomy, first directed by another, perhaps an expert, then
by the self (di Donato, 1994). This moves learners along the zone of
proximal development, which is the difference between the actual develop-
mental level of individuals at any moment and the potential skill they can
reach with the help of a more advanced interactant (Lantolf, 2011; Sato &
Viveros, 2016). L2 learning, then, requires social interaction, such as story-
telling or chatting, ideally with native speakers, highlighting the external
source of learning (Aimin, 2013). As Tóth and Davin (2016) note, “While
cognitive accounts envision an ‘inside-out’ process, where internal devel-
opment affects externalizable behavior, social perspectives emphasize an
‘outside-in’ process where engagement with the environment affects inter-
nal thoughts and activity” (p. 154). A more recent theoretical approach
bridges cognitive and social perspectives, integrating them as a unified
system.
The Sociocognitive Theory of Second Language

Acquisition and L2 Pedagogy
Sociocognitive theory advances the idea that L2 learning is “a meeting of
minds within social worlds” (Tóth & Davin, 2016, p. 149). The ecological
perspective that underscores this theory considers cognition, social rela-
tionships, and the broader social context to be integrated, where learning is
seen as a dynamic, adaptive process (Atkinson, 2011, 2013). That is, learning
is both cognitive and social in nature (Kasper, 2006; Tóth & Davin, 2016;
Young, 2009).
As a result, in sociocognitively oriented L2 pedagogy, practice focuses on
context-sensitive uses of “lexical and grammatical resources to do some-
thing with language that matters” (Tóth & Davin, 2016, p. 153). Language
is presented in social contexts, and learners’ ability to use language inde-
pendently comes from related language experiences. Instructors can model
language use and provide guided practice, which steps should enable
learners to use the L2 in new and innovative ways (van Lier, 2004, 2008).
Explicit instruction is possible, as long as it directs learners’ attention to
specific grammatical, lexical, and content knowledge that they need for
accomplishing particular communicative goals. Communication with
others can be an effective source of social interaction, as can any artifact
(e.g., maps, movies) “that promotes interactive engagement with/in L2
environments” (Atkinson, 2013, p. 8).
Moreover, activities must engender a genuine exchange of information
among learners or between a source and the learner, engaging learners both
cognitively and socially (Atkinson, 2011, 2013). According to Tóth and
Davin (2016) three principles guide sociocognitively oriented language
teaching:
• Exercises should lead learners from more controlled language use
(modeling and guided practice) to independent and interactive self-
expression, using the L2 purposefully.
• Learning activities should reflect the symbolic complexity of real-world
language, both to interpret sources of input and to produce the L2 for
self-expression.
• Learners should gain “meaningful experience with knowledgeable
others” (p. 163), in order to develop the interdependent cognitive and
social processes necessary for successful L2 use.
Thus, according to sociocognitive theory, language is a social tool used
in situated activity to achieve social goals. Such a view would seem to be in
natural alignment with the notion of communicative competence,
a concept that has purportedly been behind L2 pedagogy in the past five
decades, although not always successfully. However, just as views of
language teaching have shifted over time, so have conceptualizations of
the competences learners need to develop in order to participate in inter-
cultural interactions.
Communicative Competence
In addition to new developments in cognitive psychology, the 1970s
witnessed the emergence of innovative theories in the social sciences as
well. While these new, socially oriented theories focused on L1 language use
and socialization, they were also very influential for L2 pedagogy, especially
the contrast between Hymes’ (1972) notion of communicative competence
and Chomsky’s view of cognitive competence. Hymes’ model of commu-
nicative competence recognized the importance of knowing how linguistic
elements of the language work (e.g., the vocabulary and linguistic struc-
tures), what sociolinguistic rules determine effective language use in inter-
action with others, and the social meaning of routine phrases (e.g., ‘I
hereby declare’) that carry specific meaning if uttered under specific con-
ditions, but sound strange if spoken by a random person.
Thus, instead of an abstract set of rules and patterns, Hymes’ framework
emphasized the relationship between the linguistic code and how it is used
to communicate ideas. According to this framework, the context in which
interaction takes place also determines what is ‘correct’ and what is not. As
Myers-Scotton (2006) states, communicative competence is the “ability to
recognize and use unmarked [i.e., commonly expected] ways of speaking in
a particular interaction – vary[ing] our way of speaking, depending on who
our audience is” (p. 29; emphasis mine).
Communicative Competence in L2 Pedagogy

Hymes’ model of competence was highly impactful in L2 pedagogy,
pushing educators to emphasize the communicative potential of language
instead of focusing only on the linguistic code. This orientation was the
foundation of communicative language teaching (CLT), whose main
objective was to help learners develop communicative competence in read-
ing, writing, listening, and speaking. In CLT, language learning is
grounded in the primacy of interaction, whereby language is “a vehicle
for the realization for interpersonal relations and for the performance of
social transactions between individuals. Language is seen as a tool for the
creation and maintenance of social relations” (Richards & Rodgers, 2014,
p. 24). Thus the most important practice is to use the L2 in real-world
conversations with others who speak it as well, including both native
speakers and other L2 learners, although, until quite recently, an idealized
native speaker was still the gold standard towards which L2 learners were
expected to aspire. Consequently, there was great interest in identifying
what native speakers of a language need to know in order to communicate
in their L1, which would guide the learning objectives for L2 learners as
well.
One of the earliest models of communicative competence in the L2
context was developed in 1980 by Canale and Swain, who identified four
subcomponents of language knowledge:
1. Grammatical competence: knowledge of the linguistic system, such
as grammar or the lexicon, including knowing how to use cases and
genders, conjugate verbs or put words in the right order.
• Example: I went to the store describes an event that happened in the
past, and bought apples describes multiple items.
2. Sociolinguistic competence: knowledge of social rules that guide
language use, including when to say what to whom, and what is
appropriate or not appropriate language in particular situations.
• Example: cul8er is appropriate for sending a text message (‘see you
later’) and Good morning, Professor for greeting an instructor during
office hours.
3. Discourse competence: knowledge of the way language fits together to
form entire texts, influenced by the cultural context and bound by
cultural practice.
• Example: Once upon a time . . . denotes the beginning of a fairy tale;
therefore indicates the consequence of an event or action.
4. Strategic competence: knowledge of skills that speakers use to initiate,
maintain, redirect, close, or repair interactions.
• Example: using a synonym for a forgotten word; asking for help;
using filler words (um . . .) to keep control of the conversation while
the speaker collects her thoughts.
Expanding on the work of Canale and Swain, Savignon (1997) suggested
that each of the four components of communicative competence are
emphasized differently at various levels of L2 proficiency. Specifically,
learners are initially likely to rely more on communication strategies to
fill in gaps of linguistic knowledge, such as using gestures or asking for
help. They may also draw from their understanding of the world, in terms
of sociocultural knowledge. However, at this stage, they have less control
over linguistic or discourse knowledge. Conversely, more proficient speak-
ers can draw on increasingly refined grammatical and sociolinguistic
sophistication to participate in broader varieties of discourses and use
communication strategies to complement their utterances rather than in
lieu of them.
In 1990 Bachman developed a more detailed model of communicative
competence, which was both similar to and different from Canale
and Swain’s original design. He separated language competence into
two main branches: organizational and pragmatic competence.
Organizational competence is comprised of grammatical and textual
competence (see Figure 2.1).
• vocabulary
grammatical • morphology
competence • syntax
• phonology/graphology
organizational
competence
• cohesion
textual • rhetorical &
competence conversational
organization
Figure 2.1 Model of organizational competence (adapted from Bachman 1990)
• ideational functions
illocutionary • manipulative functions
competence • heuristic functions
• imaginative functions
pragmatic
competence
• sensitivity to dialects and
sociolinguistic language varieties
competence • sensitivity to registers
• sensitivity to natural and
idiomatic expressions
• cultural references and
figures of speech
Figure 2.2 Model of pragmatic competence (adapted from Bachman 1990)
Canale and Swain’s and Bachman’s concepts of grammatical com-

petence are similar, as are their concepts of textual competence and
discourse knowledge. However, Bachman separates pragmatic compe-
tence (related to Canale & Swain’s sociolinguistic competence) into
two subconstructs: illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence (see
Figure 2.2).
The first subconstruct, illocutionary competence, includes the ability to
express opinions or exchange ideas (ideational functions), persuade some-
one or make small talk (manipulative functions), solve problems like we do
in teaching and learning (heuristic functions), and express an imaginary
and/or humorous world through jokes, literature, and other creative
endeavors (imaginative functions).
The second subconstruct, sociolinguistic competence, pertains to the “sen-
sitivity to, or control of the conventions of language use that are determined
by the features of the specific language use context” (Bachman, 1990, p. 94).
That is, knowing “when to speak, when not, and . . . what to talk about
with whom, when, where, in what manner” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277).
Sociolinguistic competence includes four subskills. The first one pertains
to learners’ ability to distinguish and use different varieties of a language,
such as regional or social dialects, in contextually appropriate ways.
The second skill requires learners to identify and use the spoken or
written, formal or informal register appropriate for a particular interac-
tional context, knowing how to “formulate or interpret an utterance
which is not only linguistically accurate, but which is also phrased
in . . . a nativelike way . . . by speakers . . . who are native to the culture
of that dialect or variety” (Bachman, 1990, p. 97). The third subskill
requires learners to develop a sensitivity to natural and idiomatic expres-
sions. For example, they have to learn when and how to use phrases such
as three strikes, you’re out (a reference to baseball and a third missed strike
at a ball) in American English or Njia ya mwongo ni fupi1 (‘The route of
a liar is short ~ do not lie’) in KiSwahili. Interpretation of figures of
speech, such as the hyperbolic expression that weighs a ton for something
heavy also falls into this category. Finally, a large number of references
require knowledge of historical, political, or literary events to understand,
such as the meaning of I am Charlie Hebdo which was a rallying cry after
the January 7, 2015, shooting at the offices of the French satirical weekly
newspaper Charlie Hebdo2 in Paris. Notably absent from Bachman’s
model is strategic competence – how to fill gaps of knowledge, such as
missing vocabulary or background information – an essential skill for
navigating real-time interactions.
Since the late twentieth century, the definition of communicative com-
petence in applied linguistics has evolved and expanded as new under-
standings of language, language learning, and communication have
emerged, but it has remained a prominent driving force behind L2 peda-
gogy. Richards and Rodgers (2014: 89–90) summarize the main tenets of
communicative competence as follows:
1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function of language is to allow interaction and
communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative
uses.
1
www.kiswahili.net/3-reference-works/proverbs-and-riddles/proverbs-and-riddles-east-african.html
2
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237
4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and
structural features, but categories of functional and communicative
meaning as exemplified in discourse.
5. Communicative competence entails knowing how to use language for
a range of different purposes and functions as well as knowing how to
a. vary language use according to the setting and participants (e.g.,
knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use
language appropriate for written and spoken communication),
b. produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., advertise-
ments, interviews),
c. maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s Lx
knowledge (e.g., using various communication strategies).
These components of communicative competence are not isolated;
instead, they are inherently integrated in real-world communication, as
Spielmann’s3 model illustrates (Figure 2.3).
Communicative
competence
sociocultural strategic
competence competence
referential textual
gestural
proxemic
pragmatic
discursive
socio-
linguistic rhetorical
linguistic
syntactic - morphological - semantic
phonological
semiotic competence
© 2019 Guy Spielmann
Figure 2.3 Spielmann’s integrated model of communicative competence
3
http://opsis.georgetown.domains/LaPageDeGuy/docs/FLE/images/CommCompetence.jpg
In Spielman’s model, semiotic competence interacts with sociocultural
competence, and they both overlap with strategic competence. Many
textbooks in the United States focus on the lower circle, semiotic compe-
tence, primarily represented as linguistic competence: knowing vocabu-
lary, grammatical conventions, word order. However, Spielmann rightly
adds other semiotic systems, including images and symbolism, to the
repertoire of knowledge that individuals need to know, such as the
Statue of Liberty signaling freedom for immigrants in the United States.
Thus, sociocultural competence is integrally connected to semiotic
competence. It includes both sociolinguistic and referential competence,
such as cultural connotations and conventions for politeness or impolite-
ness. Originally developed by van Ek (1986), sociocultural competence is
broader than sociolinguistic competence and includes background knowl-
edge about a culture. It entails, for example, knowing famous people,
history, and important facts about a culture, but also everyday practices
and perspectives held by its members. Van Ek also included social compe-
tence as a separate tenet: the ability to handle social interaction with others,
their motivation and attitude towards participating in another culture, self-
confidence, and empathy.
The next component in Spielmann’s model, strategic competence, over-
laps with semiotic and sociocultural competence. Writing a research paper,
whether in the L1 or the L2, for example, relies on knowledge of rhetorical
organization, both in terms of what to include and how to structure the
paper. Knowing when and how to initiate, maintain, and terminate inter-
actions also requires the knowledge of both linguistic and sociocultural
practices, as does when and how to ask for help when the speaker’s (socio)
linguistic competence is inadequate in a communicative situation.
In the center of Spielmann’s Venn diagram, the three main constructs
converge, as several communicative devices require semiotic, sociocultural,
and strategic knowledge: gestures (e.g., a shrug indicating I don’t know),
proxemics (e.g., how close to stand to another person), pragmatics (e.g.,
how to apologize), and discourse competence (e.g., using cohesion devices,
such as first, or consequently).
Celce-Murcia (2007) considers two more components to the models of
communicative competence presented above: formulaic and interactional
competence. The former entails unanalyzed chunks of language – such as
idiomatic expressions and common lexical collocations – that native speak-
ers rely on for fluent language production. The latter refers to the practical
implementation of sociocultural/sociolinguistic competence and includes
the ability to produce speech acts, manage conversations (e.g., opening and
closing sequences, topic shifts), and nonverbal communication.
To recap, research on communicative competence has led to viewing
language in L2 pedagogy as an authentic communication system, whose
main components are linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and, in most
models, strategic competence. A logical extension of these explorations was
intercultural communicative competence the way culture and communica-
tion are used within and between social groups.
Byram’s Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence

In 1997 Michael Byram published his seminal book entitled Teaching and
Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, which inspired decades
of research in this area (e.g., Byram & Feng, 2005; Chun 2011; Furstenberg
et al., 2001; Hua, 2014; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2010, 2013; Moeller &
Nugent, 2014; Müller-Hartmann & Schocker, 2013; Ware & Kramsch,
2005). A foundational concept in Byram’s model is cultural belonging: “a
social group is the shared world which its members accept, and they in turn
are accepted as members because they subscribe to the beliefs, behaviors
and meanings of that shared world” (Byram, 1997, p. 17). The process of
socializing an individual into informal (e.g., a family or friendship) or
formal (e.g., institutions) groups is lengthy (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008) and
does not guarantee mastery of all types of knowledge required for all kinds
of interactions. Native speakers have to learn new skills continually, such as
how to participate in a job interview or express sympathy to a grieving
friend. While cultural participation can be challenging for members of the
in-group, out-group members often struggle with linguistic mismatches in
addition to lacking cultural understanding.
Given that native speakers acquire their L1 over time within various
sociocultural contexts, whereas L2 learners typically have little or no time
being socialized into L2 speech communities, Byram emphasizes that what
native speakers of a language know about its culturally contextualized use
cannot be the objective for L2 learning. He finds it unreasonable to expect
nonnative speakers to abandon “one language in order to blend into
another linguistic environment, becoming accepted as a native speaker
by other native speakers” (p. 11). Moreover, learning new languages may
entail adopting new and complex social identities, which cannot happen at
the expense of leaving behind ones developed from infancy. Language
learners might not wish to become like native speakers either, even though
they participate in L2 speech communities successfully. A better outcome,
Byram (1997) argues,
is a learner with the ability to see and manage the relationships between
themselves and their own cultural beliefs, behaviours and meanings, as
expressed in a foreign language, and those of their interlocutors, expressed
in the same language – or even a combination of languages – which may be
interlocutors’ native language, or not. (p. 12)
Learning to navigate inter-group memberships – adapting to new cul-
tures and participating in our own – takes explicit learning and depends on
individual needs and experiences. Byram identified two roles in cultural
encounters. A tourist briefly leaves her home to visit another place but
returns home without changing in any significant way nor having had
much of an impact on the location she visited. In contrast, being a sojourner
involves adaptation by individuals, whether the contact with the new
culture is sought (e.g., study abroad) or is forced by circumstance (e.g.,
refugee status, natural disasters). Sojourners identify practices, beliefs, and
behaviors that are similar to and different from what they experienced at
home, and ideally develop the “capacity to critique and improve their own
and others’ conditions” (p. 2). Byram’s notion of intercultural communi-
cative competence pertains to sojourners, who need to establish and main-
tain relationships with people whose cultural affiliations they do not share.
With sojourners’ needs in mind, L2 pedagogy should help learners
develop into intercultural speakers (Kramsch, 1993; Risager, 2007), who
operate across multiple languages, language varieties, and cultural contexts.
Thus, intercultural speakers need to develop both linguistic and cultural
skills. According to Byram and Zarate (1997), linguistic skills entail (1)
linguistic competence, the ability to apply the rules of a standard variety of
the L2 and produce and interpret it in speech and writing, (2) sociolinguistic
competence, the ability to interpret the L2, produced by native and non-
native speakers, in line with the speaker’s intention or in negotiation with
him or her, and (3) discourse competence, the ability to produce and inter-
pret different genres of spoken or written texts in line with L2 conventions.
These linguistic competences must be complemented by cultural and
intercultural communicative competence reflected in five pedagogical
objectives (Byram, 1997; Byram & Wagner, 2018; Wagner & Bryam, 2017).
The first objective is the development of attitudes that enable individuals
to be curious about and open to other cultures, suspending what they
believe about those cultures and about their own. Second, learners need to
gain knowledge about other social groups, including their products and
practices, and how those groups interact at the societal and individual
levels. Effective intercultural communication also requires skills of inter-
preting and relating, which refers to learners’ ability to make sense of
documents or events from the perspective of the other culture and compare
them to documents and events in their own. Skills of discovery and inter-
action describe the ability to gain new cultural knowledge and apply it
during real-time, real-world interaction. The final objective relates to the
development of critical cultural awareness/political education, the ability to
analyze one’s own and other cultures based on explicit criteria. In order to
achieve these objectives, Byram argues, learning activities should address
several subskills, which are presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Components of intercultural communicative competence

(based on Byram, 1997)
Attitudes
• Engage with members of various social groups to learn about daily lives, beyond exotic
or touristic presentations.
• Discover diverse perspectives and interpretations of cultural phenomena.
• Actively question your own cultural beliefs, practices and habits.
• Be open to adapting to and interacting with other cultures.
• Learn conventions of verbal and nonverbal communication and rules for interaction.
Knowledge
• Understand current and historical relationships between the countries of the
interlocutors.
• Learn about opportunities for traveling to other countries and staying in touch with
members of that community.
• Learn about communication practices that may cause misunderstandings between
interlocutors.
• Know about the collective national memory of your own and the other country (e.g., myths,
historical sites, cultural products) from the perspective of both the in- and out-groups.
• Understand definitions of geographical space in your own and the other country and
how members of the in- and out-groups perceive them (e.g., regional dialects).
• Learn about how members of a social group are socialized formally and informally.
• Understand ways in which social identities, such as class, ethnicity, gender, profession,
or religion, are marked both in verbal and nonverbal communication.
• Learn about institutions that shape daily life in both countries, and how these institutions
are perceived (e.g., who determines the role of government in managing healthcare).
• Understand how social interaction is structured in both countries, in terms of formality
and informality, politeness, taboos, beliefs, etc.
Skills of interpreting and relating
• Understand ethnocentric perspectives and their origins when reading a text or obser-
ving an event; be able to explain the underlying issues.
Table 2.1 (cont.)
• “Identify areas of misunderstanding and dysfunction in an interaction and explain

them in terms of each of the cultural systems present” (p. 61).
• Use your knowledge of possible sources of misunderstanding to overcome instances of
miscommunication with your interlocutor.
Skills of discovery and interaction
• Learn about concepts and connotations of texts and events; build and test hypotheses
about cause and effect, logical or conditional relationships.
• Understand important cultural references, their connotations both within your own
and your interlocutor’s country.
• Recognize similarities and differences in interactional practices in your own and your
interlocutor’s culture, including verbal and nonverbal communication.
• Be able to identify the closeness or distance between your own and your interlocutor’s
culture, and apply the appropriate attitude, skills, and knowledge.
• Be aware of relationships between your own and your interlocutor’s cultures, present
and past.
• Engage with other cultures with the help of public and private organizations.
• Recognize the cause of misunderstandings and dysfunction during communication,
and repair it by using relevant knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Critical cultural awareness/political education
• Analyze documents or events from your own and your interlocutor’s cultures for
implicit and explicit values reflected.
• Be aware of your own cultural perspectives and values that influence the way you
evaluate documents and events (e.g., political/religious affiliation).
• Recognize potential sources of conflict between your own and your interlocutor’s
ideologies, negotiate differences, and reach acceptance when possible, using relevant
knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
It is important to acknowledge that developing all of the skills and knowl-

edge described in Byram’s model is not really feasible. If one is learning
English, should they know everything about the United States? The United
Kingdom? Australia? India? If someone is learning multiple languages, they
cannot learn everything about every cultural context in which that L2 is
spoken. Nor will instructors have all relevant information at their fingertips
(as we explore in later chapters). Our own understanding of the world is
already ‘limited’ and ‘influenced’ by our own cultural perspectives (for
example, a sixty-year-old Japanese-American woman will have a different
view of the United States, than a twenty-five-year-old Native American male
or a ten-year-old Latinx child). Instead, the objective is to provide as many
tools as possible over the course of a one-to-four-year curriculum and imbue
learners with a passion for continuing the life-long process of becoming
intercultural individuals across multiple cultural contexts.
Byram (1997) also recognizes that most curricula cannot address all of
these skills and subskills and suggests instead that instructors set realistic
goals for their pedagogical contexts (e.g., age of learners, length and purpose
of the course). Whether the L2 learning takes place in a second or foreign
language setting may also identify suitable goals, since the L2 classroom,
fieldwork, and independent learning will likely foster the development of
distinct types and levels of intercultural communication abilities (Byram,
1997; Byram & Wagner, 2018; Wagner & Bryam, 2017). In the classroom,
for example, students can read about the different perceptions of their own
culture and of the societies whose language they are learning. In fieldwork,
instructors can organize excursions, watch videos, or complete introspective
analyses of the culture; this arrangement can offer learners sufficient inde-
pendence to engage with the other culture on their own alongside a common
space for analyzing and reflecting on their experiences. Finally, independent
learning is part of “life-long learning” (Byram, 1997, p. 69), where learners
engage with the other culture without the safety-net of a classroom. Ideally,
learners have an opportunity to develop the attitude, knowledge, and skills
required for successful intercultural communicative competence in a guided
setting prior to having to navigate such encounters on their own.
To summarize, Bryam’s approach rests on “three fundamental features”
(p. 70): (1) the ideal is an intercultural speaker, in contrast to a monolingual
native speaker, (2) L2 pedagogy should foster the development of intercultural
communication, and (3) learning should take place in and beyond the L2
classroom. Byram’s ideas have influenced the profession in significant ways and
lay the foundation for recent research on intercultural communication as well.
Recent Developments in Intercultural Communication

and L2 Pedagogy
Advancing Byram’s (1997) proposal, recent scholarship (cf. Hua, 2014;
Kramsch, 2009; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013) has offered complementary
and expanded understandings of Byram’s work. A shared principle under-
lying these discussions is the belief that L2/Lx instruction must move
beyond a focus on teaching language as linguistic code and emphasize its
socially contextualized meaning.
The Multilingual Subject

In The Multilingual Subject, Kramsch (2009) reconceptualizes the notion
of her earlier (Kramsch 1993) concept of third culture – the cognitive and
affective ‘place’ multilingual speakers create as they navigate two or more
languages and cultures – as symbolic competence, a dynamic concept that
reflects the cognitive and affective strengths and tensions that arise from
belonging to multiple speech communities. Multilingual persons’ sym-
bolic competence entails the use of multiple semiotic systems to interpret
and create meaning and experience events from different perspectives.
Symbolic competence also allows multilingual speakers to traverse bound-
aries of both languages and break with conventions in novel, creative ways;
they can also enact different social personae in their various languages and
cultures.
In order to foster the development of symbolic competence, Kramsch
(2009) suggests viewing language learning “as a semiotic, historically and
culturally grounded, personal experience” (p. 2) grounded in specific social
contexts. To reflect the diversity of social contexts in which language is
used, L2 pedagogy should (1) focus on social interaction that reflects
variation across specific communicative contexts, (2) examine how multi-
ple modes of communication – different semiotic systems – are used to
convey meaning, and (3) encourage learners to shed conventional social
identities (e.g., nationality, gender, age) and adopt different subject posi-
tions across languages and social contexts.
The social context – and by extension navigating different identities –
includes tensions between conventional and subjective uses of language
and cultural practices. The former refers to the way that society has
traditionally used certain words, symbols, or meanings, while the latter
reflects a person’s idiosyncratic use of language. Learners have to navigate
these tensions by exploring and even moving beyond conventional uses of
language (i.e., creating meaning or subverting social expectations), while
remaining comprehensible by members of the community:
the multilingual subject is not defined by its boundless freedom and agency,
but, on the contrary, by the linguistic and discursive boundaries it abides by
in order to, now and then, transgress them. The ability to decide how to attach
oneself to the world does not come from a lack of boundaries, but from the choice
of which boundary to transgress. (Kramsch, 2009, p. 185; emphasis mine)
Several pedagogical guidelines for facilitating the development of sym-
bolic competence can be gleaned from Kramsch’s discussion. First, she
argues that classroom activities should address “cultural, political and
ideological issues of language, power, and identity,” perhaps by comparing
representations of the same event from multiple cultural perspectives
(p. 192). Second, activities should foster “sustained thinking or personal
insights,” possibly by focusing on fewer themes for longer periods of time
(pp. 202–203). Personal insights can be further promoted by allowing
learners to try on different identities, including race, class, gender, sexu-
ality, or ability (Norton, 2000); this type of engagement with the material
can increase learners’ self-determination and intrinsic motivation (Byram’s
[1997] savoir s’engager). Additionally, language play can enhance learners’
motivation and push their linguistic boundaries as they try out what is and
is not possible in the L2. She also recommends that instructors stay attuned
to their affective engagement with the L2 and its culture(s), as their feelings
may impact their pedagogical practices, as they navigate multiple cultural
selves.
Moving between Linguistic and Cultural Systems

Similar to Kramsch, Liddicoat and Scarino (2013) recognize multilingual-
ism as movement between languages and cultures. Thus, the basic premise
of learning intercultural communication, they argue, is that learners
already enact cultural practices as members of various cultural groups,
“‘moving between’ linguistic and cultural systems” (Liddicoat and
Scarino 2013, p. 33). For this reason, learning new languages provides an
excellent opportunity for reflecting on one’s own cultural assumptions
about how meaning is created and interpreted in day-to-day interactions,
and how such assumptions might impact the way learners make sense of
practices in the new culture, since “the linguistic and cultural repertoires of
each individual exist in complex interrelationships” (p. 2). This perspective
can serve as an organizing principle for pedagogical practice, prompting
the selection of materials that consistently encourage meaning-making and
interpretation across languages and cultures.
Authentic resources that reflect linguistic and cultural diversity in com-
municative practice beyond the reality of dominant cultural and social
groups (e.g., literary canons) can help foster intercultural communicative
skills. These resources should reflect cultural activities that social groups
use to “express, create, and interpret meanings and to establish and main-
tain social and interpersonal relationships” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013,
p. 15). At the same time, teaching materials should engage learners as
coparticipants in a communicative system, whereby the new culture serves
as a lens “through which people mutually create and interpret meanings”
(p. 20).
Learning to interpret and create meaning with this new lens requires
new linguistic skills, cultural knowledge, and meta-awareness about how
people communicate (Svalberg, 2007). Liddicoat and Scarino (2013)
describe a tripartite model of communication in which “linguistic struc-
tures provide elements for a communication system that, in turn, becomes
the resource through which social practices are created and accomplished”
(p. 17) within specific contexts of use; since it is impossible to learn all
cultural practices, pedagogical tasks should help learners develop the
analytic skills necessary for interpreting and creating meaning. By becom-
ing sensitive observers, individuals can learn to “participate in multiple
cultures, deploying practices in context-sensitive ways to construct action
in different social groups” (p. 22). Context-sensitivity includes the possi-
bility of learners choosing not to adopt the communicative practices,
beliefs, or behaviors of particular cultural communities; it also recognizes
the diversity of human experience within cultures, including variation in
education, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background
(Liddicoat, 2002; Norton, 2000). Ultimately, the objective of pedagogy
with an intercultural communication orientation is for learners to “to
know how to produce language that can be interpreted by native speakers,
but which at the same time acknowledges their own place as members of
another culture along with the identity issues that relate to their first
language cultural frame of reference as nonmembers of the target language
community” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 29).
Intercultural Communication as Language Socialization

Hua (2014) defines intercultural communication “as the study of how
people from different cultural backgrounds communicate with each
other,” with the understanding “that cultural groupings are not given or
pre-defined. They can be of different levels or sizes; overlap with or be
subsumed within another; come into existence, rejuvenate, retract, or
disassemble through interaction” (p. 198). During intercultural interac-
tions, cultural differences may become salient, but do not become auto-
matically problematic. The L2/Lx classroom is an ideal location for
discussing cultural patterns – differences and similarities – since learners
are drawn to language learning for a variety of reasons, most of which
include an interest in other cultures. While ‘culture’ is often understood as
high culture (e.g., the arts, music, literature, history), common patterns of
interaction, such as rules for politeness, humor, or how to do ‘small talk’
are just as important to address in intercultural analyses. Intercultural
pedagogy, as Hua presents, should focus on integrating language and
culture – teach culture through language, actually, to help the learner
“become an ‘intercultural speaker’ who can mediate between different
cultures and different viewpoints” (p. 7).
Intercultural learning that fosters the development of diverse view-
points can occur in both the classroom and the real world. Classroom
activities can encourage ethnographic observations and the develop-
ment of declarative knowledge (explicit understandings of how culture
works), while real-world interactions offer opportunities for develop-
ing procedural knowledge, knowing how to participate in commu-
nities of practice (Hua, 2014). Both types of learning are important:
real-world interactions help newcomers become fully legitimate parti-
cipants in cultural practice, both in their own eyes and those of the
host community (Scollon, Scollon, & Jones, 2012), whereas explicit
instruction can help make sense of the new culture, whose practices
often seem indecipherable (Hua, 2014). This duality highlights the
“social nature of the process of socialisation, which is very often
overlooked. It also reminds us of the ‘unfinished’ and ongoing nature
of learning and socialisation” (Hua, 2014, p. 168).
In outlining a pedagogy that fosters the development of intercultural
communicative competence, Hua makes several key observations, high-
lighting that developing intercultural communicative competence is
a long-term process that requires both awareness about language and
culture (i.e., declarative knowledge) and real-world opportunities for put-
ting theory to practice (i.e., procedural knowledge). Moreover, Hua
argues, language pedagogy should support learners at their stage of devel-
opment, while also pushing them to try new experiences, using the class-
room to help “the learner make sense of their intercultural learning
experience” (p. 159). Like Kramsch (2009), Hua also emphasizes that
pedagogical tasks focusing on intercultural communication should guide
learners to analyze and understand contexts of communication (e.g., the
setting of the interaction, the participants, their goals for the interaction)
and culture-specific ways of communication (e.g., directness/indirectness).
Finally, she underscores the importance of language play as well, because it
can help learners explore in what ways and to what extent they wish to
adopt the practices of the host culture(s).
Suggestions for an Intercultural Communication Oriented

L2/Lx Pedagogy
In this chapter we examined the evolution of L2 pedagogy, from teaching
grammar to communicative competence and intercultural communicative
competence, which itself has undergone growth since it was intro-
duced into applied linguistics. In spite of the important role inter-
cultural (communicative) competence has come to play in language
pedagogy, a clear definition has remained elusive (Deardorff, 2011).
Nonetheless, synthesizing the discussions in the second half of this
chapter, several characteristics emerge, pertaining to (1) knowledge
and skills, (2) linguistic repertoires (both declarative and procedural
knowledge), and (3) curricular issues. These themes suggest that an
intercultural communication-oriented pedagogy should help learners
do the following:
Knowledge & Skills

1. Reflect on their own cultural practices and use their existing knowledge as a resource
for learning about new cultures (without that knowledge impeding exploration).
2. Discover trends in the practices, beliefs, and behaviors of new cultures, while also
attending to intracultural variation.
3. Gain knowledge about social groups in other cultures, including critical awareness of
cultural, political, and ideological issues of language, power, and identity.
4. Develop skills of interpreting and relating different perspectives on events and
documents, as well as gaining new cultural knowledge and applying it during real-time
interaction (e.g., explore the motivations of different characters in stories).
5. Foster learners’ engagement with authentic materials, increasing their self-
determination and intrinsic motivation, by allowing them to try on different identities,
including race, class, gender, sexuality, or ability.
6. Develop attitudes of openness and curiosity, accepting that there is no one right way to
do things and valuing one’s own culture and other cultures.
7. Evaluate the L2/Lx within its social contexts, while also reflecting critically on
the L1.
Linguistic Repertoire
1. Move from more controlled language use to independent, interactive and purposeful
L2 use.
2. Learn to interact effectively with people from cultures different from their own, using
varieties of languages (e.g., regional and stylistic variation).
3. Pedagogical tasks need to analyze and understand contexts of communication (e.g., the
setting of the interaction, the participants, their goals for the interaction) and culture-
specific ways of communication (e.g., high- and low-context cultures).
4. Engage in intercultural interaction with the help of interesting L2/Lx materials and
develop the interdependent cognitive and social processes necessary for successful L2
use; authentic linguistic resources that reflect the symbolic complexity of real-world
language and can facilitate skills of interpretation and production of the L2 for self-
expression.
5. Develop linguistic, cultural, and meta-skills to discuss a range of language forms,
cultural expression (e.g., art, politics), and learners’ own experience with the learning
process.
(cont.)
6. Learn to understand communication in specific interactional situations; what is

‘correct’ and ‘appropriate’ depends on variables such as the participants, their goals for,
and the setting of the interaction, their communication styles that are both culturally
bound and idiosyncratic.
7. Use language creatively and playfully, to (a) give learners some control over their L2
learning and whether, how, or to what extent they wish to participate in L2 speech
communities, (b) help learners discover and enjoy the L2 and test its boundaries, and
(c) give learners the opportunity to explore their personal intercultural styles and
identities.
8. Learn to analyze multimodal sources, to examine how complementary modes of
communication create meaning through multiple semiotic systems (including
comparisons between filmic and textual versions of the same story).
Curricular considerations
1. Develop intercultural communicative competence through both formal education and
real-world interactions, and thereby offer a balance between supporting and
challenging growth.
2. Incorporate both classroom-based learning of intercultural communication, which can
help improve learners’ awareness about it (i.e., declarative knowledge), and real-world
interactions, which may foster procedural knowledge, the lived experience of
improving interaction with others in real time (i.e., putting theory to practice).
3. Accept that developing intercultural competence takes time, both in the short term
(tasks should allow in-depth investigations of intercultural communication and foster
sustained thinking) and the long term (expectations for progress need to be reasonable,
given that it takes years to become interculturally competent).
4. As multilingual subjects themselves, instructors should reflect on what they like
or dislike about the L2/Lx, and how their emotions may shape their pedagogical
practices.
Summary
While most scholarship focuses on SLA as a predominantly psycho-
linguistic process, some recent theories acknowledge the social context
in which language is used. Living in a multilingual and multicultural
world requires such a social orientation and entails developing com-
municative competence. Since this construct was developed for study-
ing language use among native speakers, it has been expanded to
intercultural communicative competence in the L2/Lx learning con-
text, to reflect the existing linguistic, cultural, and referential knowl-
edge that (especially) adult learners have upon embarking on their
language learning journey (Byram, 1997; Hua, 2014; Kramsch, 2009;
Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). Proposals for a pedagogy oriented towards
intercultural communicative competence emphasize the need for lear-
ners to be able to navigate multiple linguistic and cultural repertoires,
reflecting actively and critically on existing and new cultural practices
in which they participate. Moreover, such pedagogy should focus on
helping learners to become thoughtful observers of other cultural
behaviors, beliefs, and practices, developing the skills to analyze
socially contextualized interaction within and beyond the L2/Lx
classroom.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

1. Reflect on a day’s interactions and identify the communicative
competences you need in order to be able to participate in them.
What are areas of strength for you? In what areas do you still need
to develop?
2. Think of an interaction you participated in yesterday and consider
how it might have gone differently if you changed one of the
participants or the reason for the interaction? Would these changes
have impacted the way you talked and behaved? How so? Can you
make these changes both in your L1 and your L2/Lx? If not, what
knowledge do you need to gain to be able to adapt your language use to
specific contexts?
3. Think of an authentic resource you use every day (e.g., menu,
newspaper, TV show). How might you describe this resource to
a friend? Reflect on your description and consider how it might change,
if you had to describe it to a language learner of the L2/Lx you will be
teaching, who has limited language proficiency.
4. Consider a historical event or a political issue and examine it from the
perspectives of at least two cultural groups. What are the similarities and
differences between how these groups see that event or issue? What past
and current cultural forces have helped to shape these differing
perspectives? Consider how you would structure teaching activities –
within one lesson and over the course of several weeks – that would help
learners acquire the necessary skills to analyze this event or issue
thoroughly and critically.
5. Using the pedagogical activities you developed for question #3, consider
how you would help learners adopt – and maintain – attitudes of
curiosity and openness. While the former might be easy in an academic
setting, the latter may be more challenging; debating abstract issues of
democracy versus other forms of government may or may not bring
about heated exchanges, but discussing human rights violations or
prison reform might.
6. Reflect on how you developed your intercultural communication skills

through both formal education and real-world interactions. How could
you foster a similar development for your learners, perhaps with the help
of real-world practice, authentic materials, and realistic interactions
followed by tasks that prompt reflective discussions about the
interaction?

Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching Intercultural Communication For L 2/Lx Use

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching Intercultural Communication For L 2/Lx Use

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chapter 2

Pedagogical Foundations of Teaching Intercultural

The Evolution of Language Pedagogy: L2 Pedagogy until

Cognitive Theory and L2 Pedagogy

The Sociocultural Theory of Second Language

The Sociocognitive Theory of Second Language

Communicative Competence in L2 Pedagogy

Figure 2.1 Model of organizational competence (adapted from Bachman 1990)

Figure 2.2 Model of pragmatic competence (adapted from Bachman 1990)

Canale and Swain’s and Bachman’s concepts of grammatical com-

© 2019 Guy Spielmann

Figure 2.3 Spielmann’s integrated model of communicative competence

Byram’s Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Table 2.1 Components of intercultural communicative competence

• “Identify areas of misunderstanding and dysfunction in an interaction and explain

It is important to acknowledge that developing all of the skills and knowl-

Recent Developments in Intercultural Communication

The Multilingual Subject

Moving between Linguistic and Cultural Systems

Intercultural Communication as Language Socialization

Suggestions for an Intercultural Communication Oriented

Knowledge & Skills

6. Learn to understand communication in speciﬁc interactional situations; what is

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

6. Reﬂect on how you developed your intercultural communication skills

You might also like