chapter 1

Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication

Chapter Overview
The scholarship on intercultural communication is grounded in interdis-
ciplinary research in anthropology, communication studies, education,
linguistics, and, more recently, applied linguistics. Given this interdisci-
plinarity, it is useful to establish a shared understanding of how key
concepts such as culture and communication are used in this book.
Additionally, this chapter highlights the nature of culture as layered and
of communication as dynamically co-constructed by participants and the
social context in which their interaction takes place. Finally, the discussion
turns to prominent models of intercultural communication from a social-
scientific perspective, which offer fruitful points of analysis in language
pedagogy as well.

Culture: An Elusive Definition

Defining the term ‘culture’ is a challenging endeavor, and since this book
explores it in depth, here I only offer a brief review of seminal works that
attempted to capture the meaning of ‘culture.’
Saville-Troike (2003) described it as a “set of codes and rules … for
contextually appropriate behavior in a community or group; in other
words, culture was conceived to be what the individual needs to know to
be a functional member of the community” (p. 6). Others note the
importance of shared beliefs, values, thought patterns, and rules of
making and interpreting meaning (Byram, 1997; Haslett, 2017;
Nostrand, 1989). Schiffman (1993) echoes this view and describes culture
as “the set of behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and historical circumstances
associated with a particular language” (p. 120). Similarly, Ting-Toomey
and Takai (2006) highlight the collective frame of reference that culture
provides:

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 10 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
[A] learned system of meanings that fosters a particular sense of shared
identity-hood and community-hood among its group members. It is a
complex frame of reference that consists of a pattern of traditions, beliefs,
values, norms, symbols, and meanings that are shared to varying degrees by
interacting members of an identity group. (p. 691; emphasis mine)
These definitions point to the cohesive power of culture, connecting
groups of individuals. Culture, in this sense, serves as a lens for making
sense of interactions with others, “a frame of reference for its members …
for making sense of the world” (Oetzel, 2009, p. 6). Yet, Spencer-Oatey
(2008) recognizes a duality in her definition of culture as “a fuzzy set of
basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs, policies, proce-
dures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people and
that influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/
her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour” (p. 3).
That is, culture as a cohesive force helps individuals connect with each
other, but at the same time, these individuals have the freedom and
flexibility to adhere to shared culture practices in some ways and diverge
from them in others.

Layers of Culture
While cultural cohesion is grounded in shared experiences, culture is not
monolithic. Instead, cultures are layered constructs, and each individual
reflects affiliation with and is influenced by broader and narrower social
forces that shape our communicative practices. Broader cultural forces
might include supranational (beyond the nation) communities, such as
Doctors without Borders or Harry Potter fans around the globe. Nations –
the most common association with the term ‘culture’ – that determine
laws, as well as language and other social policies, also have a significant
impact on cultural practices. For example, it is usually the state that
determines procedures or traditions for electing, appointing or inheriting
leadership (e.g., democracies versus a monarchy), including verbal and
nonverbal communication that such procedures entail. Within each poli-
tically defined nation, there are mid-level cultural groups – e.g., based on
ethnic identity, social class, or geographic region – whose values and
practices may align more or less with dominant trends in the nation-state
(Bonvillain, 2020; Haslett, 2017; Myers-Scotton, 2006; Neuliep, 2018).
Religious groups that share linguistic rituals or an indigenous community
revitalizing its heritage language represent two examples of such mid-level
groups. Representing the next layer, smaller cultural groups influence

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 11
family-level coherence, building and maintaining traditions such as nam-
ing children, creating shared jokes, or celebrating symbols of a clan.
However, some practices are particular to an individual (e.g., idiosyncratic
use of emojis).
In his discussion of culture, Oetzel (2009) identifies four intercon-
nected levels, which are shown in Figure 1.1: (1) the individual (e.g.,
sense of self, personal attributes), (2) interpersonal relationships with
others (e.g., friendships, families), (3) organizations that scaffold every-
day life (e.g., healthcare, education, work, hobbies), and (4) broad
cultural forces (e.g., values, belief systems shared across larger society).
The outer layers influence each circle going inwards (top-down effects,
such as media informing individual preferences or behaviors), while the
inner circles may have outward impact (bottom-up effects, such as
leaders who affect local or world events).
Neuliep (2018) offers a similarly layered notion of contexts that shape
communication. In this model, communication is most broadly influenced
by the cultural context, defined as the “accumulated pattern of values,
beliefs, and behaviors shared by an identifiable group of people with a

broad cultural
context

organizations
& institutions

interpersonal
relationships

the individual

Figure 1.1 Layers of culture and impact (adapted from Oetzel, 2009).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 12 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
common history and verbal and nonverbal symbol systems” (p. 21). Within
broad cultural contexts exist microcultural contexts, the way smaller social
groups (e.g., ethnic groups) view and understand the world. The next layer
is the environmental context, referring to the ways in which the physical
location and immediate surroundings affect communication (e.g., whis-
pering during a religious ceremony but yelling at sports games). The most
immediate influence on interactions is each individual’s perceptual context,
“the individual characteristics of each interactant, including cognitions,
attitudes, dispositions, and motivations” (p. 22). Moreover, interactions
take place within sociorelational contexts, or “the relationship between the
interactants,” both familial and professional, such as friends, parents and
children, mentor and pupil (p. 22). It is within this context that inter-
actants use verbal and nonverbal communication to create and interpret
messages.
Oetzel’s layers and Neuliep’s contexts reflect multiple cultural and
individual factors that influence specific communicative events. These
factors impact our interactions in different ways at different times. What
is salient – relevant, impactful – varies across situations. For example,
whether an individual is shy or has a particular way of speaking, whether
the interlocutors are familiar with each other or not, and what each
person wants to achieve with the interaction plays an important role in
determining how an interaction progresses, and what its outcomes
might be.
Figure 1.2 illustrates how broader societal forces and highly individual,
local factors may converge: an American athlete, the captain of the U.S.
women’s soccer team1, will likely interact differently during training or at
an international press conference than she might with her friends at home;
she might also interact differently if she is stressed or has a disagreement on
a consequential issue, as opposed to discussing what movie to watch
Saturday night. In any of her interactions with others, a different aspect
of her identity might be most salient: her being on the American as
opposed to the German team may influence her attitude towards winning;
her being the captain of the team versus another player determines who
represents the team to the media; her being with friends rather than
strangers affects her language choices, her verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
When analyzing interactions, it is important to understand how various
contextual and cultural forces interplay to shape an interaction, and how
participants consequently enact their social personae, or identities, through

1
www.ussoccer.com/womens-national-team#tab-1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 13

Coarse-Grained Factors

Americans Germans

American women American men

American women American women

athletes non-athletes

The American
Other American
women’s soccer
women athletes
team

The other players of

The captain of the
the American
American women’s
women’s soccer
soccer team
team

The captain during The captain during a The captain at home

training game with friends

The captain having a The captain having a

good time with disagreement with a
friends friend

The captain when

The captain during a
discussing an issue
first-time
of ongoing
disagreement
disagreement

The captain having a The captain having a

disagreement while disagreement while
tired well rested

Fine-Grained Factors

Figure 1.2 Cultural influences on interaction

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 14 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
language. It is equally important to understand the role that socialization
plays in the development of these identities (Monaghan & Goodman,
2007).

Communication and Socialization

Communication is a basic human need that is equal parts pure joy and
endless opportunity for mishap or even conflict. We use language to accom-
plish a wide range of social purposes, from expressing friendship or thanks,
giving advice or solace, teasing or flirting, debating issues of policy, establish-
ing social identity or creating, maintaining or deconstructing power and
authority (Monaghan & Goodman, 2007). As infants, our instinctive cries
are soon recognized as a cue to get fed or soothed, and we notice that
babbling makes others interact with us (Clark, 2016). Soon, toddlers drasti-
cally increase their vocabulary and use it to demand, cajole, express affection,
and comment verbally on their expanding world, using short utterances.
They learn how to ask and answer questions, and often how to play different
roles (parents, children, favorite characters in books or movies, etc.) by
adopting distinct voices, expressions, or speech patterns. Byram (1997) and
Risager (2007) refer to these types of processes as primary socialization. They
are followed by secondary socialization, when children enter the educational
system, although many kids around the world lack access to a formal
education. During our teenage years and throughout our lives, we encounter
new cultural groups and continue to grow our communicative skills, learn-
ing to participate in increasingly more diverse communicative events effec-
tively, such as celebrating graduation, giving a talk, participating in a friend’s
wedding, or giving a eulogy at a funeral (Duff & Hornberger, 2010; Ochs &
Schieffelin, 2008; Saville-Troike, 2003).
Socialization teaches in-group members how these events might be
celebrated, how they are organized, who may speak, and when or what is
appropriate to say. Expectations are rarely articulated and instead reflect
implicit rules for the “ways in which information, ideas, and attitudes pass
among individuals, groups, nations, and generations” (Barnouw, 1989,
p. 25). Constituted in infinite ways – a family, siblings, a sports team, a
village, a nation, or a group of people sharing the same gender, political
view, or religious affiliation – the communities to which we belong impact
how we view ourselves and others who belong to the same community –
i.e., members of the in-group – and, conversely, how we view and com-
municate with ‘outsiders,’ who are members of the out-group. As Baumann
(2007) notes,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 15
Communication is socially constituted, rooted in social relationships and
produced in the conduct of social life … not only is communication socially
constituted but society is communicatively constituted, produced and
reproduced by communicative acts … the communicative forms and prac-
tices of a society ~ its ways of speaking, dressing, dancing, playing music,
and so on – are social means that are available to members for the accom-
plishment of social ends. (pp. 25–26)

The Genesis of Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication

The field of intercultural communication emerged out of the work of
Edward T. Hall, a cultural anthropologist who linked anthropology,
linguistics, ethology (the study of human/animal behavior and social
organization), and psychology to study communication. Much research
in the social sciences, including Hall’s work, has been cross-cultural: two or
more cultures are studied in terms of behaviors, beliefs, values, or practices,
identifying differences and similarities between them, so that members of
each group can interact more effectively with members of the other group
(Oetzel, 2009). This approach was used to help train diplomats and other
Foreign Service employees, based on interviews and observations of cul-
tural groups, whose behavior was interpreted in terms of societal patterns
that the trainees were likely to encounter.
More recent research reflects an intercultural approach, which explores
communication that occurs between members of different cultural groups
(Neuliep, 2018). This approach embraces the idea that, through commu-
nication, learners become more aware of the realities and perceptions
regarding their own culture and those of another culture, creating a “sphere
of interculturality” that encourages learners to put another “culture in
relation with one’s own” (Kramsch, 2003, p. 205). An intercultural per-
spective acknowledges the demands of navigating a new culture, maintain-
ing some of our own beliefs and practices, while giving up others (Byram,
1997; Byram & Masuhara, 2013). Intercultural communication requires
“intercultural competence [which] is the ability to interact effectively with
people from cultures that we recognise as being different from our own”
(Guilherme, 2000, p. 297). Intercultural competence, as we discuss in
detail in Chapter 2, entails linguistic and cultural knowledge regarding
more than one social group, the willingness to explore similarities and
differences between them through self-and other-reflection, cognitive and
psychological engagement, as well as a commitment to ongoing learning.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 16 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
In this volume, communication is viewed as an intercultural and layered
process that reflects the broadest range of experiences individuals have: some
people traverse cultural boundaries and shift between cultural selves, others
meld cultural identities or choose not to adopt or adapt to another culture.
In order to learn about this process, a few key concepts need to be clarified
for establishing a shared understanding of intercultural communication.

Communication Basics: Participants and Modalities

As Neuliep (2018) states, communication is an “ongoing, ever changing,
and continuous … interactive” process that is culturally bound (p. 11),
mostly intentional, although sometimes we communicate information
unwittingly. In interactions, information is exchanged between two or
more participants, also called interlocutors or interactants. Interactions
may be between two or more participants: a dyadic interaction can be
between a tutor and his student, whereas multiparty interactions have
more participants, such as a talk given at a public lecture or a group of
friends debating politics. Most of us are aware of our interlocutors and
share an expectation of information exchange, even if the speaker might
not know every person in the audience (e.g., a TV anchor). Expected
participants are ratified or legitimate. The roles of the speaker, who relates
the information, and the addressee(s), who listen(s), typically shift in
dynamic ways among participants. There may also be legitimate third-
party participants (e.g., the TV audience).
In some communication, however, there are unratified participants –
inadvertent (or intentional) hearers and listeners – in addition to the
ratified participants. They are not explicitly a part of the conversation or
may not be legitimate interlocutors. They might overhear a conversation by
accident, such as standing in line at the grocery store when somebody is
talking on the phone, or intentionally, without the knowledge of the
ratified participants, such as in the case of wiretapping2 during the course
of a criminal investigation. Figure 1.3 presents a diagram of the types of
participant roles I describe here.
Participant roles are not static; instead, participants create, shape, man-
age, and enact their identities in conjunction with their interlocutors
within social contexts during communication (Kern & Liddicoat, 2008).
At the same time, participants also enact culturally defined social roles,
such as an author writing in her diary, friends chatting or a therapist

2
www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 17

PARTICIPANTS

RATIFIED PARTICIPANTS UNRATIFIED

(interlocutors/interactants) PARTICIPANTS

Speakers Hearers/Listeners

Addressees Third parties Overhearers

Bystanders Eavesdroppers

Figure 1.3 Potential participants in interactions (based on Dynel, 2010)

interacting with her patient. These roles are often limited in the language
classroom but are at the heart of meaning-making in real-world commu-
nication. Therefore, L2/Lx learning must shift to provide opportunities for
creative and diverse language use as a living expression of the self
(Shohamy, 2007).

Components of Intercultural Communication

We communicate meaning and our identities verbally and nonverbally,
through written and spoken language, using a combination of multiple
channels of communication simultaneously. In this volume, we will exam-
ine six subcategories to analyze culturally situated meaning that provide a
thorough overview of verbal and nonverbal communication: vocabulary,
grammar, pragmatics, paralinguistic features, nonverbal communication,
and context (Figure 1.4). Although, for the sake of clarity, individual
chapters are dedicated to each component (Chapters 4–9), in social prac-
tice they are integrated to interpret and create meaning, whereby “linguis-
tic structures provide elements for a communication system that, in turn,
becomes the resource through which social practices are created and
accomplished” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 17).
Vocabulary/Lexicon refers to words used in a language, including their
surface form and most frequent meaning, such as mosey for walking slowly,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 18 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
Vocabulary
Cultural
Knowledge
Grammar

Nonverbal
Communication
Pragmatics
Paralinguistic Features

Figure 1.4 Facets of intercultural communication

their collocations (frequently co-occurring words), such as mosey along,

their social connotations (e.g., in casual conversation), and referential
knowledge (e.g., that this term was used in the nineteenth-century Old
West in the United States).
Grammar is the morphology and syntax of a language (Myers-Scotton,
2006). Morphology explains how components of words work together to
express meaning; morphemes indicate, for example, whether an item is
singular, dual (two), or plural (three or more) in Inuktitut, a language
spoken in northern Canada (from Bonvillain, 2020, p. 21):
/iglu/ a house
/igluk/ two houses
/iglut/ three or more houses
Syntax describes how words fit together to form sentences and create
meaning. Syntactic rules determine word order or required elements in a
phrase, knowing, for example, that in French Je mange la baguette (‘I eat the
baguette’) is the correct word order (*La baguette je mange is not), and that
*Je mange baguette is insufficient, because either a definite or indefinite
article is required before the noun.
Pragmatics explores how we understand and use language beyond the
surface-level meaning, such as knowing to use thank you to express grati-
tude in English or convey sarcasm. Two sub-components comprise prag-
matics: pragmalinguistics focuses on the relationship between linguistic
form and meaning (e.g., the conditional may soften requests in the
German phrase könnten Sie mir bitte helfen [‘could you please help me’]),
while sociopragmatics refers to the social information required for inter-
preting and producing meaning (e.g., knowing with whom to use sensei
[‘teacher’] in Japanese).
Paralinguistic features pertain to sound quality, such as pitch, volume,
intonation, rate of speech, the use of silence, or hedges (e.g., ehm in British

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 19
English to fill in a gap in speech, which indicates that the speaker is not yet
finished with his or her turn).
An important, and in L2/Lx pedagogy much understudied, component
of communication is nonverbal communication. Facial expressions, hand
gestures, body movements (kinesics), touch (haptics), personal space
(proxemics), time (chronemics), and our appearance (e.g., clothing or
hairstyle) all contribute to meaning, either alone or in combination with
verbal language.
Finally, cultural knowledge is crucial in intercultural communication.
Our knowledge of the world – history, past experiences, current issues or
everyday practices in our own and other cultures – helps us participate in
the social/cultural groups to which we belong (e.g., how to contribute in a
university seminar). Such knowledge also activates interpretive frameworks
that allow us to make sense of intercultural communication if they are
similar between cultures or hinder communication if they are dissimilar.
Theoretical models of intercultural communication, which we discuss
next, can provide useful frameworks for organizing the aspects of commu-
nication we discussed in this section.

Theoretical Models of Intercultural Communication

Over the past sixty years, scholarship has sought to understand cultural
beliefs, values, and behaviors systematically. While not without limita-
tions, these models are useful for organizing intercultural communication
in the L2/Lx learning context as well. There is insufficient space to give a
complete overview of all available models (see Spitzberg & Changnon,
2009 for a detailed review), therefore just a few of the most influential
examples are addressed below.

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory

One of the earliest models of intercultural communication was the Values
Orientation Theory (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961), developed originally
by Clyde Kluckhohn then expanded upon by Florence Kluckhohn and
Fred Strodtbeck, anthropologists who worked with five cultural groups in
the Southwest of the United States: members of the Navajo and Zuni
tribes, Mexican Americans, rural Texans, and members of Mormon vil-
lages. Their analyses generated five dimensions, with three value orienta-
tions possible for each, as shown in Table 1.1.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 20 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
Table 1.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation model

Dimensions Value Orientations

1. Human nature Basically good Mixture of good Basically bad

(socially oriented) and bad (selfish)
2. Relationship Mastery Harmony between Submissive
between humans (humans dominate) the two (nature dominates)
and nature
3. Relationship Individual Hierarchical Collateral
between humans (independent (deference to (consensus building,
decision-making) authority, state seen group members
as responsible) are seen as equals)
4. Preferred Doing/action Being-in-becoming Being (emphasis on
personality (achievement, both (spiritual growth) expressive/
(motivations) personally and emotional self-
externally set) presentation)
5. Orientation Past-orientation Present-orientation Future
towards time (preserving (here-and-now, (planning ahead,
traditions) accommodate seeking new ways
changes in beliefs to replace the old)
and traditions)

Adapted from Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, and Ting-Toomey, 2018.

A culture’s guiding documents (e.g., legal documents, an oral

narrative) provide useful insights as to its orientation towards these
five values. Regarding the first question, a culture that believes that
people are fundamentally good would focus on rehabilitation in
prison (e.g., Norway) and prioritize improving human goodness
(e.g., Buddhism). In a culture that views humans as basically bad –
like Christian notions of sin – the legal emphasis would be on
punishment, while the human emphasis would be on repentance. A
more mixed view blends these two perspectives and considers some
human action to be redeemable and others unforgivable (e.g., a family
unit decides what is acceptable and what results in shunning). In
Kluckhohn’s model, each category has a mutable and immutable ver-
sion: an individual can start out bad but improve (mutable) or be
born bad and remain that way (immutable) (Hills, 2002).
The second value focuses on humans’ relationship to nature, which they
may dominate, be subjugated to, or live in harmony with. In the United
States, government policies typically reflect a dominant stance towards

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 21
nature: rivers are rerouted and the Arctic is opened up for oil drilling3. The
human-over-nature paradigm reflects most Western countries since the
onset of the Enlightenment (Vining, Merrick, & Price, 2008). A nature-
over-human (biocentric) orientation, on the other hand, would accept
unlimited births (Martin & Nakayama, 2018), prefer organic food, or
engage in environmental activism. Cultures in which nature and people
are viewed as being in harmony with one another – neither dominant over
the other (e.g., adapting to nature by building homes on stilts) – include
many Native American societies and most Japanese people (Martin &
Nakayama, 2018).
Human relationships are also guided by value systems. Individualistic
societies (like many communities in the United States and Western
Europe) prefer individuals to take full responsibility for their actions
(e.g., financial situation), while hierarchical societies might be more likely
to see the state (or a patriarch or matriarch) as being responsible for the
well-being of its citizens (family or community members) (Hills, 2002). In
a collaterally oriented culture, members would make decisions with equal
weight and reach consensus, stressing “role obligations and in-group
interdependence, kinship bonds, and extended family bonds” (Ting-
Toomey, 2018, p. 194).
Doing, being-in-becoming, and being are the three possible responses to
motivations. The United States, by and large, is doing-oriented: it is not
enough to make it to the Olympic Games, it is crucial to earn a medal, lest
the country’s performance be called ‘lousy’ (Paine, 2018). A being-in-
becoming orientation may be difficult to measure in surveys, since personal
growth can mean myriads of possible paths that are important to a unique
human being. According to Martin and Nakayama (2018), “This orienta-
tion seems to be less prevalent than the other two, perhaps practiced only in
Zen Buddhism” (p. 101). Arguably, however, artists who wish to hone their
skills to meet their own aspirations towards a goal they had set for
themselves would also reflect this orientation. The third orientation –
being (expressive/emotional self-presentation) – emphasizes social struc-
tures and relationships (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, or Arab cultures, with the
obvious caveat that there is variation in each of these broad cultural labels).
In such cultures, an individual’s birth, family connections, or age would
outweigh their personal actions: “what [a person] is” carries greater sig-
nificance than “what he does” (Okabe, 1983, p. 24).

3
www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/trump-administration-takes-first-steps-toward-drilling-alaska-
s-arctic-refuge

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 22 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
Future, present, and past orientations form the basis of the final question
in Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s analytic model. Cultures that focus on the
future are likely to set out goals they want to meet in five or ten years, set up
appointments months or years in advance, and focus on saving up vacation
days or money for future adventures (e.g., the Boy Scout motto “Always be
prepared,” Canada and the United States at the national level). A present
orientation focuses on taking advantage of and enjoying the here and now
(e.g., Spain or Greece). As Kluckhohn (1953) herself observed, present-
oriented cultures “pay little attention to what has happened in the past, and
regard the future as a vague and most unpredictable period” (p. 348).
Cultures with past orientation, in contrast, emphasize tradition, a connec-
tion to the past, and the experience that older members of society can
contribute. Many European, Central and South American, and Asian
countries reflect this value orientation.
According to Hills (2002), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck proposed a sixth
value orientation, space, which they did not know how to investigate at the
time of their original research. Hills himself suggested expanding the
original model with four further dimensions (quotes from p. 10):
1. Space: “Should space belong to individuals, to groups (especially the
family) or to everybody?”
2. The nature of work: “What should be the basic motivation for work?
To make a contribution to society, to have a sense of personal achieve-
ment, or to attain financial security?”
3. The relationship between genders: “How should society distribute
roles, power and responsibility between the genders?” (power and
responsibility to men, women, or equally to both)
4. The relationship between individuals and the state: “Should precedent
right and responsibility be accorded the nation or the individual?”
(individuals take full responsibility for themselves, with no support
from the state; the state provides full support to all members; the
individual and the state share rights and responsibilities in reasonable
proportions).
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck were surprised by the relative similarities
among cultures around the world (five dimensions, fifteen value orienta-
tions), while at the same time, there was much diversity among cultures as
well (the permutations of five dimensions and fifteen orientations yield 243
possible variants). It is important to note that Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
did not elevate any orientations above the others; differences were seen as
differences, not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ways of understanding the world,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 23
behaving, or being. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s model is now almost sixty
years old and reflects their search for universal categories similar to the
contemporary foci in linguistics. Their model is also limited by its ground-
ing in Western value categories. Nonetheless, many of its tenets continue
to drive intercultural communication training in various professional
development arenas, therefore they can be useful entry points to investi-
gating cultural beliefs, products, and practices.

Hofstede’s Value Orientations Model

Geert Hofstede, a social psychologist, worked for IBM, a multinational
computer company, in the 1960s. He collected data from over 100,000
employees in seventy countries and regions to identify patterns of beliefs
and values across cultures. Between the 1980s and 2000s Hofstede devel-
oped a model of cultural analysis along four dimensions:

1. Individualism – Collectivism
In individualistic societies (e.g., the United States, Australia), the priority is given to the
needs of an individual, with little emphasis on group cohesion or the interests of a larger
social unit. In contrast, in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Ecuador, Taiwan), there is less
emphasis on individual achievement and wants and more on relationships and loyalty
(i.e., accomplishment is less important than membership in particular social groups).
Communication is more direct in individualistic cultures, while it may be mediated by
third parties in collectivist cultures.
2. High power distance – Low power distance
Although all cultures experience some degree of inequality, in high power distance
cultures, there is significant inequality between more and less powerful members. These
cultures tend to be very hierarchical, both at the family level and in society at large (e.g.,
Malaysia, Panama). Conversely, cultures with low power distance are comparatively
egalitarian, with little inequality between members of society. At work, supervisors are
more likely to accept questions and suggestions; at home, children are involved in
decision-making (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark).
3. Masculinity – Femininity
This dimension does not label countries masculine or feminine, rather it describes the
extent to which gender roles are distinguished from each other. More masculine
cultures (e.g., Japan, Austria) tend to have more rigidly assigned gender roles (e.g.,
women stay at home, men work; women perform low-level tasks, men are in positions
of power). Commensurately, traditional masculine attributes of assertiveness,
competitiveness, and material success are highly valued in such cultures. In contrast,
more feminine cultures (e.g., Sweden, Costa Rica) have fewer gender-specific roles and
reflect flexible ideas about work that men and women can undertake. These cultures
value characteristics that were traditionally associated with women: interpersonal
relationships, taking care of those in need, nurturing, or moderated ambition.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 24 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
(cont.)

4. High uncertainty avoidance – Low uncertainty avoidance

Cultures with a preference for high uncertainty avoidance dislike ambiguous,
unpredictable, or risky situations (e.g., Greece, Uruguay). To mitigate uncertainty, such
cultures set up detailed rules, discourage dissent, and strive for consensus in decision-
making. Low uncertainty avoidance, in contrast, means cultures in which there is less
concern about unpredictability (e.g., Jamaica, Denmark). Consequently, there are
fewer rules that confine life, dissent is welcomed and encouraged, and risk is not seen in
a negative light.

These studies were conducted in the domain of the workplace, and

probably skewed towards younger, technologically more savvy respon-
dents than the general population.
Later scholarship contributed two further dimensions to Hofstede’s
(1991) model, adding a non-Western perspective to cultural analysis –
long-term versus short-term orientation – grounded in Confucianism
and a modern concern regarding indulgence and self-restraint (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).

5. Long-term orientation – Short-term orientation

Cultures with long-term orientation (e.g., China, Japan) emphasize virtues such as
thrift, perseverance, and effort (persistent work towards a goal), the willingness to
subordinate oneself to a larger purpose or cause, and flexible concepts of good
and evil (what is good or evil depends on circumstances). Conversely, cultures
with short-term orientation (e.g., Nigeria, the Philippines) prefer quick results,
adherence to social pressure (e.g., spending money even beyond one’s means,
to keep up with external social expectations), reliance on luck (e.g., gambling),
pride in one’s country, universal notions of good and evil (circumstances are
irrelevant).
6. Indulgence – Self-restraint
Cultures that score high on the indulgence scale (e.g., Venezuela, Sweden) accept
“relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying
life and having fun” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 15). Individuals might have a strong sense
of control over their lives, value leisure, emphasize friendships, participate in
sports, and indulge in pleasurable activities (eating, partying, sexual liberty). At
the same time, a culture with stronger self-restraint “controls gratification of needs
and regulates it by means of strict social norms” (Hofstede, 2011, p. 15). Such
cultures (e.g., Pakistan, Latvia) limit freedom of speech, where individuals enjoy
less leisure time, de-emphasize friendships, and experience a more acute sense of
helplessness (what happens to me is beyond my control); consequently, fewer
people report feelings of happiness.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 25
Hofstede’s model has been criticized for its reductionist view of culture
and its propensity to emphasize stereotypical views of culture (cf. Gerhart
& Fan, 2005; McSweeney, 2002). Nonetheless, these dimensions merit
discussion, since his model is still used to guide intercultural communica-
tion training in corporate cultures, when employees are relocated to an
office abroad or when diplomats are prepared for assignment. The dimen-
sions can serve as useful tools to analyze intercultural communication, as
long as we keep a few points in mind. First, each of these dimensions is a
continuum, not a binary category. Countries can reflect degrees of power
distance, distributed between the two distal points at the ends of each
continuum. Second, Hofstede’s model examines national patterns, central
tendencies, of beliefs and behaviors. There is little connection to individual
variation, and applying country-level averages to understand personal
preferences and choices is misleading (Oetzel, 2009; Spencer-Oatey &
Franklin, 2009). As Gudykunst (2004) observes, national-level trends can
have an impact on individual beliefs and behaviors by influencing social
norms, rules, and how members of a culture are socialized. However,
individuals may differ significantly from country averages on any dimen-
sion or on all of them (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Oetzel, 2009).
Third, Hofstede’s analyses do not take into consideration potential regio-
nal differences, such as between the wealthier areas in Northern Italy
(where Hofstede collected data) and less affluent Southern regions
(Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, 2017). However, we can use these dimensions to
study the behaviors of specific interlocutors in intercultural communication.

Hall’s Dimensions of Cultural Difference

The final model to be addressed was developed by Hall (1976), who,
unlike the previous scholars, focused on behaviors rather than the
beliefs and values that motivate people’s actions. Specifically, he
studied time, communicative context, and the use of space. The first
two categories are continua, with most cultures falling somewhere
between the two endpoints, while the third one divides behaviors
across four types.

1. Monochromatic time – Polychromatic time

M-time describes practices where an individual focuses on one thing at a time; there is an
emphasis on being punctual, having a clear schedule of activities, and completing tasks
in a linear fashion. In contrast, P-time reflects multitasking, involvement with people,
and prioritizing them as opposed to completing tasks according to a preset schedule.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 26 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
(cont.)

2. Low-context communication – High-context communication

Low-context communication prefers explicit verbal messages to express meaning, and
very little information that pertains to an interaction has to be inferred from the
context. High-context communication, on the other hand, relies heavily on contextual
information pertaining to social roles and positions, customs, shared knowledge and
experience, and nonverbal communication (e.g., silence, intonation, pauses, gestures,
body posture).
3. Use of personal space
Hall distinguished four contexts for analyzing personal space: intimate distance,
personal distance, social distance, public distance. Each type of interactional context
permits for very different types of closeness and touching, and cultures have different
notions of how many inches or centimeters each of these distances should be (Crouch,
2012; Watson & Graves, 1966), although the sense of what is appropriate is typically
subconscious for most people.
Intimate distance is reserved for making love, comforting a loved one (partners, close
family, children), whispering secrets, and touching among close friends.
Personal distance is used with friends and acquaintances during casual conversations;
this distance is what we prefer to keep around ourselves, commonly labeled as ‘personal
space’ (about one arm’s length for men in the United States, Crouch, 2012).
Social distance refers to space that we consider appropriate in formal interactions (e.g.,
a business meeting, a company reception).
Public distance typically requires the largest space between a speaker and his or her
audience; a public speech, performance, or ceremony usually fall into this category.

Knowledge of Hall’s and the preceding models might not eliminate

miscommunication or conflict entirely; instead, they provide frameworks
for guiding reflection, analysis, and understanding in intercultural com-
munication, a worthy and necessary goal in today’s interconnected world.
His dimensions also lend themselves particularly well to materials design
for lower-level language classes.

Recent Conceptualizations of Intercultural Knowledge

and Competence
Over the last decade, faculty from several U.S. universities collabo-
rated on designing a rubric to evaluate individuals’ intercultural
competence from early to more advanced stages of development.
This rubric is grounded in a framework based on knowledge, atti-
tudes, and skills and entails the following subcomponents, and ideal
competences:

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 27
1. Knowledge:
a. Cultural self-awareness: The ability to recognize the complexity of
one’s own cultural practices and biases and how one’s experiences
shape these rules.
b. Knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks: The ability to
understand the complexity of another culture, such as its history,
values, communication styles, and so on.
2. Skills
a. Empathy: The ability to interpret intercultural experiences from
multiple perspectives, including one’s own cultural framework, as
well as that of another cultural group.
b. Verbal and nonverbal communication: The ability to interpret
and participate in interaction successfully, using culturally appro-
priate verbal and nonverbal communication (e.g., preferred phy-
sical contact, directness, or indirectness).
3. Attitudes
a. Curiosity: The ability and willingness to ask complex questions
about other cultures, recognizing that answers to these questions
vary, reflecting multiple perspectives.
b. Openness: The ability and willingness to interact with people
from diverse cultural backgrounds, suspending judgment limited
by one’s own cultural beliefs and practices.
This framework recognizes the importance of intercultural commu-
nicative competence in a globally interconnected world. It also puts
culture at the center of transformative learning. Thus, the rubric
offers “a systematic way to measure our capacity to identify our
own cultural patterns, compare and contrast them with others, and
adapt empathically and flexibly to unfamiliar ways of being”
(www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/intercultural-knowledge). While the
faculty experts acknowledge that intercultural communicative
competence is more complex than the components of the rubric,
this matrix is a valuable way to conceptualize and understand the
knowledge, attitudes, and skills required for becoming an intercultu-
rally competent individual.

Summary
Since the study of intercultural communication first began in the 1950s, it
has been dominated by the social sciences, such as anthropology,

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 28 Part I Theoretical and Methodological Foundations
communication, and sociology (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009).
Consequently, it has typically examined culture under a broad-lens micro-
scope: What do Americans do in certain situations? What do the Japanese
do differently? More recent work views interactions as multi-layered and
shaped by broader cultural practices as well as individual and context-
specific factors. Culture itself is a dynamic, multifaceted experience, and
analyses must account for changes within and between cultures and the
individuals who embody them (Oetzel, 2009).
In professional and personal spheres nowadays, it is essential to
learn to communicate effectively with others whose cultural and
linguistic backgrounds differ from ours. When we learn other lan-
guages, we are presented with a unique opportunity to reflect upon
our own multilayered cultural selves and practices, while we learn how
to make sense of and participate in intercultural communication. To
further this goal, the present volume reconceptualizes components of
language as essential tools in Lx learners’ intercultural communicative
repertoire, since “language is fundamental to intercultural compe-
tence” (Byram & Masuhara, 2013, p. 142).

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

1. What culture(s) do you belong to? How did you learn about the
practices, behaviors, and values of that/those culture(s)? Which practices
do you participate in, and which values do you share? Which practices do
you choose not to participate in, and which values do you not
share? Why?
2. How might your cultural affiliations change in different situations?
What factors influence your sense of cultural belonging?
3. Who determines what is ‘appropriate’ – in terms of beliefs and
practices – in a cultural group? What are some top-down and
bottom-up effects that may effect change in this group (see
discussions regarding Oetzel and Neuliep)?
4. Keep a journal for a day and note the different social personae you
inhabit in various interactions. What cultural affiliations are salient in
these interactions? How do you know? How does your communication
change to reflect various social identities?
5. Select a model of intercultural communication and analyze one of the
cultural groups you belong to (e.g., nation, hobby, family). Afterwards,
reflect on what practices, beliefs, and values were easy or difficult to
identify and why.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002
 1 Key Concepts in Intercultural Communication 29

6. Using the same model, analyze a cultural group that you are at least
somewhat familiar with but do not belong to. Afterwards, consider what
dimensions of the model were easy or difficult to identify. What kinds of
knowledge would you need to develop to be able to analyze this cultural
group more thoroughly, effectively, and accurately?

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Connecticut, on 17 Aug 2020 at 01:37:07, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780360.002