A Critique of Michael Byrams

Intercultural Communicative Competence

Model from the Perspective
of Model Type and Conceptualization
of Culture
Catherine Matsuo

Introduction : The demand for individuals who possess intercultural

competence and overview of the critique of Byrams Intercultural Com-
municative Competence model
National governments, multinational and transnational corporations and other
businesses are urging schools and universities to turn out individuals who pos-
sess the ability to communicate across cultures, i.e. intercultural competence, or
ICSpitzberg and Changnon, . This urgency is reflected in the continuous
sharp increases in research into intercultural competence that have occurred in
every decade since the sPillar, . Since intercultural communication
is not an independent discipline, research into it is conducted in a wide variety
of academic disciplines : e.g. education, communication studies, cultural an-
thropology, behavioral psychology and management science. The result is a

Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities, Fukuoka University

347
1
wide range of perspectives and emphases and a copious, rather unwieldy
amount of knowledge about it. Meanwhile, in the business world, demand for
interculturally competent workers is evident in the growing number of compa-
nies that now offer intercultural training servicessee Prechtl and Lund, ;
RostRoth, .
In a rapidly globalizing world, foreign language or FL teachers increasingly
recognize that intercultural competence is a desirable and necessary goal. How-
ever, as the discourses of economics infiltrate further into education and many
other once separate areas of life, we also increasingly find ourselves having to
negotiate between educational and economic articulations of what intercultural
competence should consist of and what its goals are. Speaking very generally
about goalssee also Rathje, , respectively these would be educational
goals of human development and/or economicsinfluenced goals of efficient
communication that promotes increased productivity through the development
of IC.

IC is a very complex term because it builds on another already complex

term, culturesee Williams, . When culture changes to intercultural, an
extra and as yet still illdefined theoretical dimension is added and when actu-

These goals do not have to be mutually exclusive ; moreover, research has shown that
our interpersonal communication is always a mixture of transactional and interactional in-
teractionse.g. Brown and Yule, ; i.e. we have been and continue to be both eco-
nomic and social animals, as well as being people of heart and mind. However, what has
changed in the last few decades is the degree to which economic discourses have infil-
trated other areas of life. In dialogic theory terms, it can be argued that economic dis-
courses are becoming official discourses in educationVoloshinov, . If these dis-
courses start to squeeze out other voices, so that it becomes very difficult to have a dia-
logue or debate with them, then they are on the way to becoming totalitarian. From a dif-
ferent perspective, Michael Sandelargues that in many parts of the world, we do
not merely have a market economy, but are becoming a market society.
348
2
ally interacting across cultures, an indeterminable number of variables come
into play at the same time as commonalities decreaseFantini, .
As noted, all of the copious theoretical and research activity has yielded a
considerable and diverse body of knowledge about intercultural competence.
However, there is still no clear or theoretically robust definition of the term
Spitzberg and Changnon, ibid.. Furthermore, a good number of the many
available IC models are also theoretically weak because of the type of model
they are : individualoriented list models and trait concept models predominate
in IC research but can do very little theoretical heavy lifting such as explain-
ing casual development in IC and predicting it, or modeling interactionsee be-
low. In language teachers home domain of FL education, Michael Byrams
; Intercultural Communicative Competence, or ICC, model is a
model of this type, i.e. an individualoriented list model.

In this paper, I critique Byrams ICC model, which is widely cited in the
FL pedagogical literature but proportionally, much less frequently critiqued. I
critique the model from the point of view of a practicing teacher approaching
the model with a view to implementing it in the FL classroom. The critique fo-
cuses on the model type and the models perspective on culture.
Individualoriented listtype models, apart from being theoretically weak,
are also inherently limited in terms of how they can inform the most common
activities of practical pedagogy, as I argue below. Put bluntly, these types of
models are useful mainly for theorists ; for teachers, the uses are limited to

It is not clear, what the extra C brings to intercultural competence or IC, apart from
denoting its foreign language education origin ; in general, I will use the term IC, but I
will sometimes use ICC to stress a foreign language pedagogical context, although I un-
derstand that this may be distracting.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 349
3
raising consciousness about the need to highlight, or preferably inte-
gratethough the model is incapable of giving guidance for this, and it sepa-
rates out competencesthe cultural dimension in language teaching, the inclu-
sion of intercultural competence objectives and the identification of the compo-
nents and scope of competences. But precisely because individualoriented
listtype models do not model interaction or causal interdependences, or chart
or predict development, they have very little to offer that can usefully inform or
guide the daytoday acts and momentbymoment decisionmaking of teach-
ers.
The second half of the critique examines the models orientation to cul-
ture. It argues that its equation of culture with national culture is not just theo-
retically insufficient but also out of tune and step with the zeitgeist, and what it
actually feels like to be living right now in this era of rapidly advancing globali-
zation,

i.e. in a hyperconnected, multilateral world, where consciousnesses

areand always have beenpermeable, just like national borders, and where
trade within the Global Southe.g. between China and Brazilis creating
new connections, new patterns of life.
In this paper, I argue that equating cultures with national cultures is the
result of thinking of cultures as containers, i.e. as hermetically sealed units.
While I understand that the notion of cultures as meaning national cultures is
ubiquitous, and that national cultures are treated as facts in cognition, and by
the media and national governmentsPillar, ibid.so that it is unavoidable to
discuss them in pedagogy, I will argue that this conceptualization of national
cultures should not be the sole basis of a pedagogy that aims to develop ICC

Nederveen Pietersediscusses the psychologically felt processes of globalization.

350
4
because :
this view is both theoretically insufficient and partial, and rapidly losing
validity as regards conveying the experience of what it is like to be liv-
ing daytoday in;
the notion of national cultures is already an abstraction and so loses its
living vitality, meaning that teacher discourse about such abstractions
will tend to be monologic, i.e. authoritative delivery of facts where cul-
tures and the people in them are objectified because talked about in
readymade formBakhtin, , and to which students cannot re-
spond creatively ;
research has tended to publish results that discover differences between
and among cultures ; differences create distance which can lead to
stereotyping, and a pedagogy based on national cultures and differences
is superficialsince it does not create a true dialogue with cultures in
the students, and therefore, perhaps even damaging to developing IC ;
a focus on national cultures deflects attention away from the opportuni-
ties of developing IC through communication in the hereandnow
classroom, where a teacher exploits her own intercultural speaker iden-
tity to create intercultural interactions that optimally develop the ICC of
her students through dialogic discourses, i.e. discourses that engage,
that create responsive understandingMatsuo, in press, and through
the exploration and development of both the teachers and students lan-
guacultures/linguaculturesRisager,
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 351
5
Short description and account of Michael Byrams Intercultural Com-
municative Competence model
Byrams ; Intercultural Communicative Competence, or ICC,
model sets out all the competences that are theorized as comprising intercul-
tural communicative competence : linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and in-
tercultural competences. The three competences which are theorized as per-
taining specifically to language, i.e. the foreign language linguistic, sociolinguis-
tic and discourse competences, appear beside each other at the top of the
model. The intercultural competence component appears below them, in the
centre of the model. This competence visually dominates the model and also
the authors discussions of the model. It is theorized not as a languagerelated
competence, but in common with many IC models, in terms of knowledge,
skills and attitudes, i.e. in cognitive and motivational terms. At the bottom of
the model come locations of learning where ICC can be acquired : the class-
roomteacher and learner, fieldworkteacher and learner or just the learner,
and independent learningjust the learner. These locations are included to
emphasize that the model is intended for educational purposes and settings.
The name of the model, Intercultural Communicative Competence, adds an ex-
tra C to what in other disciplines tends to be called simply intercultural compe-
tence. The extra C for communicative is there to emphasize, again, that the
model is a FL education model ; i.e. it references Hymessoriginal
communicative competence model.
Byrams model, like other second and foreign language, or SL/FL, models
derived from Hymese.g. Bachman, ; Canale and Swain, ; Canale,
; see also below, is, like the original, an individualoriented listtype
352
6
model. However, Byrams route back to Hymes is a little more circuitous than
that of its counterparts because Byram initially drew not on a North American
model, but a European framework, for the modelthat of van Ek.

The ICC came into existence as a result of Byrams experiencesgood

and less goodas a member of a working group which came together in the
s and eventually produced the Common European Framework of Languages,
or the CEFR, of the Council of Europe. The Western European influ-
encebut not necessarily the specific influence of the working groupis obvi-
ous in the models Kantian rationality perspective on morality and also in the
Western European postWWII political, activist orientation to human rights.
Byram is unapologetic about the models prescription of rights and rationality
goals, declaring that this is consistent with compulsory educations liberal edu-
cation goalsByram, . The European geographical and historical context
of the model are also responsible for its identification of culture with the na-
tionstate, i.e. culture = national culturesee below for a discussion of the
models conception of culture.
Byram has been persistent and tenacious in developing and defending his
definition of, and goals for, intercultural competence. But it doesnt take much
reading between the lines of his work to hazard a guess that a very small part
of this persistence and tenacity may be a reaction to the fact that much of his

Fulcher and Davidsondistinguish between models and frameworks but in prac-

tice, the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable, although of course,
models strictly speaking refer to visual representations of concepts. Thus, for example,
Bachmandescribes in detail a theoretical framework of communicative language
ability but it is his depiction of language competence which is famous, and what we refer
to as his model. Hymesprovides no visual depiction but we refer to his model of
communicative competence.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 353
7
work did not make it into the final version of the CEFR. It has been noted that
Byram is one of very few scholars who consistently and extensively operational-
ize intercultural competence training in FL educationBelz, , cited in
Byram, ibid., so his sincerity is not in doubt. However, there is an undercur-
rent of frustration in his accounts of the models creation, which a sensitive
reader can pick up on. Thus, as well as the cultural provenance, I think it is
worth a teacher bearing in mind both the particular social circumstances sur-
rounding the models creation and its subsequent reception in European educa-
tion policy circles when considering how to implement the model in practical
pedagogy, in particular, the dominance in the model of the intercultural compe-
tence and the centrality within this of the critical cultural awareness compo-
nent. For my own part, for example, I cant help feeling that that there is a kind
of overcompensation at work in the intensity with which Byram simultaneously
defends and prescribes the critical cultural awareness component of intercul-
tural competence. I feel a teacher should take into account this possible over-
compensation and consider if it needs to be adjusted for when she is contem-
plating whether, and if so, how far, and how to, implement critical cultural
awareness into her own FL pedagogy.
According to Byrams own accountsByram, ibid., in the s he and
ZarateByram and Zarate, ; produced a model, which refined van
Ekssociocultural competence by defining four savoirs, or four dimen-
sions of knowledge, skill and attitudes. The CEFR kept the savoirs notion but
its final published list model was substantially different from the work Byram
and Zarate had originally producedByram, , p. .
ByramsICC model is different again from his work with Zarate.
Byramasserts that the notions of the intercultural speaker and intercul-
354
8
tural competence are his. Byrams ICC model also retains the French word,
savoir, which can mean both knowledgeun/le savoirand to understand/
know how tosavoir. The definitions of the original four savoirs have been
overhauled, with only savoir etre and savoir apprendre remaining unchanged,
according to Byramibid.. A fifth savoir has been added, so in the ICC model,
intercultural competence now comprises five dimensions or kinds of knowl-
edge, skills and attitudes : knowledgesavoirs; interpreting/relating skills
savoir comprendre; discovery/interaction skillssavoir apprendre/faire; atti-
tudessavoir etreand critical cultural awarenesssavoir sengager.
In the latest version of the modelByram, , this last savoir has been
moved right to the centre of the intercultural competence boxalthough the
original rectangular box is now a circle, to emphasize its increased and now
central importance. Byram translates this last savoir as critical cultural aware-
ness, and says it is akin to the German politische Bildung, which, as alluded to
above, has a political activist, human rights dimensionByram, ibid.. Critical
cultural awareness is now at the very centre of the ICC model, as noted. It also
increasingly dominates Byrams discussions of the modele.g. Byram, ;
Byram, . Thus, as well as being the central component of intercultural
competence, critical cultural awareness is supposed to be given priority as a
pedagogical purpose. One further point of interest is that the bidirectional ar-
rows between competences which appear in theversion of the model, and
which indicate possible interrelations between or among the competences, are
absent from the model, i.e. this version does not posit competence rela-
tionships.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 355
9
The Intercultural Communicative Competence model in historical and
theoretical context
In a relatively short period,

modern second and foreign language education

has produced a considerable number of models or frameworks, e.g. Bachman,
; Byram, ; ; Canale and Swain, ; Canale, ; Celce
Murcia, Dornyei and Thurell, ; CelceMurcia, ; Hymes, ; Savi-
gnon, ; and van Ek, . Most of these models derive from, and/or are
heavily influenced by, Hymess original communicative competence model.

These models have tended to become increasingly elaborate over time, e.g.
Bachmans and Byrams models.
Of these models, Michael Byrams ICC model is at present increasingly in-
fluential in the FL education arena for the following reasons. Since the model
was first created in , and arguably, particularly even in this last half dec-
ade, globalizations ever more rapid spread has made the ability to communi-
cate across cultures, i.e. intercultural competence, or IC, a much indemand
and urgently required skillsee aboveas well as a very fashionable buzz
word. Byrams model is coming into its own because it replaces its predeces-
sorsstated or implicitgoals of the linguistic and sociolinguistic competence
of a nativespeaker in an inner circle English milieu

by positing an intercul-

In the Anglophone world, what Howattcalls the third phase of modern second
and foreign language education coincides with the advent of the Communicative Ap-
proach, or Communicative Language Teaching, CLT, in the lates and earlys.

Hymess model was intended for Leducation but was adapted for Leducation by Ca-
nale and Swainand further elaborated in Bachman.

Kachrusthree famous concentric circles characterized English use around the

world in terms of the Inner Circle of nativespeaker varieties ; the Outer Circle, where
English was first introduced as a colonial language ; and the Expanding Circle, where
356
10
tural speaker.

This intercultural speaker possesses intercultural competence,

i.e. can communicate across cultures and uses English to mediate between
speakers of different cultures and languages. Adopting the intercultural speaker
as an ideal rather than the nativespeaker means the model appears both politi-
cally and geographically more neutral than its predecessors.

An idealized inter-
cultural competence, i.e. one which stresses, but is not limited to, an ability to
perform intercultural mediation tasks, seems more realisticthough of course
no ideal is realisticin the sense of appearing to be more achievable than the
elusive perfection of what is, after all, an idealized nativespeakers linguistic
competence. It is more realistic in the sense that mediation skills are likely to
be actually required. It is realistic, period, because of the times we live in :
more communication in English is now thought to be carried out between non
native speakers than between nativessee Graddol, . Similarly, the iden-
tity of the intercultural speaker that the ICC model puts forward is multifac-
eted, and thus can be considered more representative of the complex identities
of people living in a postmodern era

where the opportunities for intercultural

English has been introduced as a foreign language.

An important caveat is that Byraminsists that teaching for ICC should still fo-
cus on one of the countries where English is spoken as a native language. People tend to
forget this stipulation, and assume that the nativespeaker has been ditched, which
strictly speaking may not be the case, since the term intercultural speaker was introduced
first and foremost to distinguish the notion of intercultural competence from the notion of
a native cultural competence.

See also preceding footnote : because the model advocates a focus on an inner circle
country, it follows that the language competences, particularly the sociolinguistic and dis-
course competences, must refer to the norms of language use in those contexts where
English is spoken as a native language.

Byramhimself notes that cultures are hybrid, and so multifacetedness and hy-
bridity are not products only of postmodernity. However, in the model, he continues to
equate culture with the culture of a nation state and this has been criticized for creating
misleading impressions of the cultural homogeneity of nations.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 357
11
interactions and encounters have increased exponentially, thanks to migration,
tourism and the Internet.

The ICC model is different from its SL/FL predecessors in positing an ide-
alized intercultural speaker rather than an idealized nativespeaker. It is also
different because it includes a competenceintercultural competencewhich is
not theorized as being a language competence, but in cognitive and motiva-
tional terms as knowledge, attitudes and skills.

Furthermore, this nonlan-

guage competence is at the centre of the model and its central compo-
nentcritical cultural awarenessis conceived in overtly political terms : no
previous models have prescribed morality or the political activist pursuit of hu-
man rights.
Despite these differences, the ICC model is similar to the other models
that have descended from Hymes in ways that are consequential to both FL
theory and pedagogy. Like the original communicative competence Hymes
model, and like its predecessors that followed Hymes, i.e. Bachman;
Canale and Swain; Canale; the ICC model is a listtype model
that is individual oriented. Most models in Anglophone SL/FL education are of
this type because of this common origination in Hymes and because our theo-
rists have chiefly been concerned to identify components of competences and

It is clear from the above summary that there is a strong argument to be made that
Byrams model is equally timely and relevant for second language learning locationsin-
cluding the nativespeakers in those locations, perhaps!, but this paper will limit its dis-
cussion to foreign language education.

Fulcher and Davidsonnote that Bachmansmodel, developed for lan-

guage testing, was the first SL/FL language model to make an explicit distinction be-
tween knowledge and skill ; however, in Bachman, both of these elements are embedded
within language competence.
358
12
specify teaching objectives for the purposes of language testing.

Hymes ended up producing an individualoriented list model because he

was unable to escape Chomskys influence on the then contemporary field of
linguistics and because of the Western theoretical and cultural bias that has
historically prioritized the individual and placed himsicat the centre of
thought and thought about the world. Turning to Chomskys influence on
Hymess model, even though Hymes created his model in reaction against
Chomskys mentalist competence/performance distinction and Chomskys re-
fusal to deal with the latter because it was outside the subject matter of linguis-
tics, Hymes was unable to, or at any rate, finally did not, reject outright the no-
tion of Chomskyan linguistic competence located in the individual human brain.
The result in Hymess model is that Hymes, in effect, embeds linguistic compe-
tence within his formal possibility component and then adds on another three :
feasibility, appropriateness, and whether something is actually performed. In ef-
fect, he createsor we can say maintainsa binary. So, even though Hymess
discussion of his model stresses that competence lies in the situation, the tim-
ing, length, style, and content of utterances, and the contributions and judg-
ments of the interlocutor/audienceall the other aspects of a speech event
as much as it does in the individual, he ends up making an individualoriented
model. Thus, Halliday says that Hymes ended up taking the intraorganism
ticket to what is actually an interorganism destinationHalliday, , p. .
If Halliday is right, the individual orientation of Hymess model is down to
Chomskys influence on the study of linguistics in thes and s, but it is

Notable exceptions are CelceMurcia et al.and CelceMurcia, who have

tried to create models with the specific goal of describ[ing] communicative competence
for language teachersCelceMurcia, , p. .
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 359
13
probably also, as noted, a product of the wider historical Western bias in favour
of the individualsee also Spitzberg and Changnon, , below.
The linguistic competence/communicative competence binary and the indi-
vidual orientation persist in all subsequent second and foreign language models
in this line, including Byrams. Because Hymes did not resolve the binary, the
models that follow him retain, however implicitly or latentlye.g. Canale and
Swain, , and Canale, , changed linguistic competence to grammatical
competence, but this is switched back to linguistic competence again in Celce
Murcia, , and also in Byram, , a Chomskyan linguistics orientation to
language and linguistic competence, i.e. language as an abstract system where
competencelanguage knowledgeis located within the individual. This influ-
ence impacts teachers who profess to be working in the Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching, or CLT, paradigm, i.e. using a communicative approach, even
if indirectly, and even if teachers themselves are not aware of it. That is to say,
the notion of idealized competence located in an individual persistsagain,
even if latentlyand is operationalized in language tests ; the competence/
communicative competence binary remains unresolved in CLT theory and mod-
els, and it is manifest in the classroom in the way teachers struggle to some-
how close the use/usage divide in their CLT practice. Hymesscall for
theories of communicationnot only sociolinguistic theories, but theories of
communicationto inform language education continues to go more or less un-
heeded. Thus, as Burns; has noted, in her compilation of re-
search into the state of CLT, CLT classrooms are often hybridsof traditional
grammar instruction/communicative teachingor even a chimeraThornbury,
, cited in Burns, .
This residual orientation to language from Chomskyan linguistics accounts
360
14
for applied linguistic theorys persistent blind spots as regards language pro-
duction that cannot be accounted for by generative grammar, e.g. what applied
linguists now call formulaic language chunks, and which are only belatedly be-
ing given attention in the field.

Similarly ignored until recently are the role of

communication over time in developing complex grammar formulations and in
creating cultureTomasello, ; and the nature of communication itself.
Only such a persistent orientation to languagealong with the Western limit-
ing bias towards the individualcan explain the paucity or absence of other
types of models in the fielde.g. relational, developmental or causal models
and the repeated failure to theorize the relational and interactional aspects of
communication, even in models that call themselves communicative.
To repeat : in sum, Hymess original communicative competence and
those that have followed after it, are individualoriented list models. They list
the components that are necessary in order to be judged communicative but
because they are individualoriented, they merely imply, but do not adequately
theorize, an interlocutor, or the copresence, joint perception and attention to
goals that the presence of an interlocutor entailssee Tomasello, ibid.. Hymes
perceived that language exists in the world as language/speech communication
but his model failed to conceptualize the interactional processes that in great
part account for communicative competence and the development of it, and in
which competence itself is in part located. As an individualoriented model,
ipso facto, Hymess model locates communicative competence in the individual,
even though Hymess discussion of his list of competences argues that this is

These chunks are included in what is called the formulaic competence in CelceMur-
ciasCommunicative Competence model. In dialogic theory, these chunks are
called speech genres.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 361
15
not the case.
The Intercultural Communicative Competence model : Individual
oriented list model
The Intercultural Communicative Competence or ICC model, as noted, is an in-
dividualoriented listtype model. List models are useful for identifying the
scope of the components that are hypothesized as comprising a competence,
but theoretically weak because they cannot identify the relations between the
components, meaning that levels of competence or combinations of criteria that
determine competence are impossible to defineSpitzberg and Changnon,
.

For precisely this reason,i.e. the inability to conceptualize relations,

interdependences, combinations, levels, development, list models are of limited
use to teachers for practical pedagogical purposes other than raising conscious-
ness about the competences, allowing the identification of the components of a
competence and for summative evaluation.
As noted, the ICC model is a listtype model which is individualoriented
as are the majority of IC models from various fields. As Spitzberg and Chang-
nonibid.also note, many individualoriented models assume a partner, but
they omit to/cannot conceptualize communication, either its relational nature or
interactional processes. Therefore, the nature and role of communication in de-

In the very same volume as Byram, Spitzberg and Changnon somewhat curiously de-
fine Byrams model as a coorientational model, though with the caveat that Byrams
model is concerned with negotiating identity in the space within and across cultures
, p. . I was very surprised at their definition as the model is clearly a list model
and Byram himself defines it as suchByram, .
362
16
termining and developing communicative, and thus intercultural communicative
competence, is not theorized at all, and competence is located, de facto, in the
individual. Now, to an extent, this is criticizing Byrams model and others like
it for not being a different type of model, but it should be noted that creators of
individualoriented models have ignored repeated requests that they theorize
the relational and interactional aspects of communication Spitzberg and
Changnon, ibid. p. . These types of models do not optimally assist teachers
because, essentially, all they allow is for a teacher to be alerted to the constitu-
ent elements of competences and then to determine whether the competences
are presentor absentin individual students.
The notion of culture in the ICC model
Byrams ICC model is very infrequently criticized, especially when one consid-
ers how frequently it is cited. The main criticisms directed at IC models in gen-
eral and which also apply to the ICC model, are to do with their ethnocentricity
and resulting overreliance on, and assumption of, rationality. IC models are
overwhelmingly of Western origin,

and they tend to focus overwhelmingly on

an individual who is theorized in an overly cognitive waywhere cognition is
theorized as separate from affect or emotion. Interactants are thus, and in fact,
depicted as too conceptual, too rational, too conscious, and too intentional
Spitzberg and Changnon, , p. . With respect to Byrams ICC model in

See Deardorfffor African, Arab, Chinese, Indian, and Latin American perspec-
tives, including a Chinese leadership competence model and an Indian model of cross
cultural competency.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 363
17
particular, its goals for intercultural competence are very, perhaps overly, aspi-
rational, or even piousseeming.

I suspect that if more national governments around the globe become seri-
ous about using this model in their national foreign language curricula, then
criticism of the rights and rationality prescriptive aspects of the ICC model
will grow as those governments consider the ramifications of including political
activist goals in foreign language pedagogy. At the moment, however, the main
criticism that has been directed specifically at the ICC model regards its per-
spective on culture. Now, Byram, perhaps wisely, refuses to define cul-
ture, which is a notoriously difficult and complex termsee Williams, ;
also Kroeber and Kluckhohn, , cited in SpencerOatey, , who com-
piled definitions of the term. In essence, however, Byram sidesteps the
need to define culture by equating it with the national culture of nationstates.
Kramschhas criticized this perspective, arguing that it makes the cul-
ture of a nation appear much more homogenous than it really is. Furthermore,
the boundaries between cultures are not as rigid as Byrams view seems to
suppose.
Byram has defended his model against these criticisms on the grounds
that his equation of culture with national culture was a conscious decision be-
cause the model was conceived in and for a situation and tradition that has fo-
cused on national culturesi.e. the Council of Europe and its publications and
audience in the lates. He asserts that there are in fact such things as na-

The rights and rationality aspects of the ICC model are outside the scope of this paper
but I would like to draw attention to an episode of the BBC radio series In Our Time
Bragg, , which is still available for listening. Here, Homi Bhabha and John Gray
conduct an intercultural discussion of human rights, including the necessity of, but prob-
lems inherent in, having highly aspirational human rights goals.
364
18
tional identity and national cultures, and in support of his contention cites Foxs
identification of a grammar of English behaviorrules that define our
national identity and characterByram, , p. .

Byram is certainly correct that ordinary peopleus!seem to endorse

the idea that there is such a thing as a national culture, and it is also common
for institutions such as governments and newspapers to equate culture with a
national culturesee Pillar, . However, Byram seems now to acknowledge
that there are some limitations to his stance, admitting that in intercultural in-
teraction, national identity is never the only identity presentByram, ibid..
But the difficulty of equating culture with national culture is not resolved
merely by conceding that there may be more than a national identity present
when persons are interacting. Byramibid.cites Barthsidea of the
ways in which boundaries are marked in national cultures through notions of
national memory and national space, but he does so only in order to claim,
again, that there is such a thing as a national culturethat national memory
and national space mark a national cultures boundaries.
Byrams equation of culture with national culture is based on the flawed as-
sumption that cultures are spatial entities, containers of sorts, with internal
territory and more or less hard and fast boundaries. If this assumption was
ever viablei.e. as Byram asserts it was for an audience of education policy
makers and language teachers in Western Europe in thes, it is increasingly
untenable in the face of the evidence produced by the processes of globaliza-

Byramcites only Fox to assert the reality of a cultural grammar. However,

Byramnotes that Hymeshad discussed the notion of a cultural grammar.
To do this, Hymes drew on Burkes A Grammar of Motives/to assert in the-
ory what Fox has now investigated empirically.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 365
19
tion and what it actually feels like, moment by moment, to be living as we are
now, in a hyperconnected, globalizing, multipolar world see Nederveen
Pieterse, , for a discussion of the psychological processes of globalization.
As dialogic theory asserts, cultures and people are not and never have been
hermetically sealed wholes ; bordersboth political and mentalare porous
Bakhtin, .
A different point that Barth makes in the same volume that Byram quotes
is that when there is contact between different groups a need for distinction
arises. Barth discusses ethnicity as a relevant category on which to base differ-
ence, but in reality, individual humans are always distinguishing themselves
from the person they are talking to. Distinguishing is a needfor me to create
or affirm my identityand it happens of necessity : the person I talk to occu-
pies a different place in time and space. Furthermore, the other person, in and
through dialoguethrough communicatingwith me, helps create my identity,
my self, and I do the same for themBakhtin, .
Byrams equation of culture with national culture is misleading because to
state the obviousof which Byram, like everyone else, is of course aware, it is
not the nations that are doing the communicating but individuals. To an extent,
all communication between individuals is a kind of intercultural communication.
That is to say, as I have noted in dialogic terms in the preceding paragraph,
and as SpencerOatey and Kotthoff, p. point out by drawing on the
work of Schutz, no ones experience coincides exactly with our own,
and each person processes new information within their own horizon. Any in-
stance of communication is always an act both of differentiation and of coori-
entation.
Concentrating on national cultures in pedagogy can result all too easily in
366
20
abstraction, as I will argue below. It can also deflect time and attention away
from the much more interesting prospect of basing an ICC pedagogy on the in-
tercultural interactions in the hereandnow of the classroom between the FL
teacherwho is already, or should be aspiring to be, an intercultural speaker
and the students, and the interplay of the foreign and native languages and the
teachers and students languacultures/ linguacultures see Risager, .
Rather than concentrating on national cultures, the perspective on communica-
tion described above, i.e. of individuals at once orienting, differentiating and af-
firming themselves through dialogue, is a more productive way for FL teachers
to think about culture and communication for teaching for intercultural compe-
tence because it is already integral to the life and events of the classroom. In
other words, this perspective entails a focus on, is immediately relevant to, and
can be operationalized in, the intense reality of the living present of the class-
roomMatsuo, in press. This perspective also underscores the importance of
the relational and interactional processes of communication and over time,
should draw the teachers awareness to, and improve her understanding of, the
various dynamics of communication that are at work and in play in the class-
roome.g. the different and varied dynamics of interpersonal communication,
intragroup, intergroup and public communication. Understanding that all
communication is an act both of differentiation and coorientation empowers the
teacher to use her own intercultural speaker identity as the basis for an embod-
ied and on that basis systematic ICC pedagogy. That is to say, her intercultural
personhood creates intercultural interactions, which transform into culture, and
the development of her own and her students intercultural competencesee
Matsuo, ibid.. A pedagogy with this focus is more likely to be dialogictrans-
formative through dialoguebecause it requires the creative responses of stu-
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 367
21
dents in order for it to be sustained.
Such a focus in pedagogy also provides a counterweight to the dominant
notions of culture nowadays : the clashes of cultures and cultures as deficits or
assetse.g. Huntingtons famous book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Re-
making of World Order, which has just been republished ; see also Nederveen
Pieterse, , who cites the first edition of this book along with other similar
examples. These are precisely the problematic and erroneous conceptions of
cultures that the cultures as containers metaphor generates ; that cultures
can clash makes sense only because this view makes abstracted objects of cul-
tures.
Turning to abstraction, the idea of a national culture is of course, already
an abstraction, a product of thought about the world rather than realtime
thinking in the world, i.e. in the flow of events of lifeBakhtin, . As an
abstraction, the idea of a national culture is easily held in cognition because it
is stable, unlike the unformedness of the eventsand the person before you!
unfolding in living sensation, i.e. life. This stability of abstraction makes na-
tional cultures easy to talk about ; what is also easy to talk about are the dif-
ferences between cultures because these are what research commonly tends to
present as its results and because talking about these gets students attention
fairly easily by arousing curiosity. In developing ICC, it is the nature and qual-
ity of that initial curiosity which is important ; this is impacted by the kinds
of discoursemonologic/dialogicthe teacher uses to bring it forth. What is at
stake is whether or how the teacher can develop curiosity in her ICC pedagogy
into something deeper, enriching and affirming, not mere inquisitiveness about
something alien and alienating. A teachers discourse, those words that help
create and determine the culture of the classroom, the trajectory the class
368
22
takes, and the quality of ICC, are nearly always overlooked in the applied lin-
guistic literature. It is my contention that basing an ICC pedagogy on a notion
of culture as national cultures and difference is likely, because of the problem
of abstraction, to promote monologic teacher discourse.
Abstraction creates distance ; Bakhtin, p. claims that cultures
become vacuous once separated from the boundaries on which cultures actu-
ally live. If the distance created by abstraction increases, it creates stereotypes
see hooks, . Here is how I see a lesson that sees cultures in terms of na-
tional cultures perhaps creating distance and depriving those cultures of their
living spirits. Say a teacher starts reading up on crosscultural studies. These
tell us, for example, how Japanese, Americans and Iranians handle selfdisclo-
sureGudykunst, , or how toasting is done in the former Soviet Republics
and in Western EuropeKotthoff, . The problem is that this kind of re-
search presents existence in readymade formBakhtin, , p. . When
a teacher consumes this research it becomes further abstractedit is thought
about the world rather than the active and creative understanding going on in
thought in the worldBakhtin, ibid.. When a teacher tells these cultural
facts to her students, using, as she probably will, the canonical discourse
that is used to deliver facts, then the information will only be recognized in cog-
nition by our students, i.e. passively understood by students as making some
kind of sense and as transmitting some kind of informationsee Matsuo, ibid..
This kind of discourse is monologic ; it requires no real or creative response
from the students, meaning that the cultures so describedi.e. as containers,
and the people in those culturecontainers, are in real danger of becoming
mere cognized objects. At a minimum, a teacher will need to revisit monologic
discourse with genres that reinstate dialogue, which restores cultures and peo-
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 369
23
ple to their rightful status of active, creative subjects.
Conclusion
Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative Competence model is frequently
cited in the literature, but proportionally, much less frequently critiqued. When
it is critiqued, criticism usually centres on the models equation of culture with
national cultures, and claims that such a conception makes cultures seem too
homogenous and the borders between them too rigide.g. Kramsch, .
From the point of view of a language teacher studying this model, and con-
sidering how to implement it, initially it presents the many of the same difficul-
ties for a teacher as most of the other available second and foreign language
models descended from Hymes, i.e. the difficulties inherent in the model type.
Individualoriented list models are problematic to use for pedagogical purposes
other than identifying and raising awareness about the scope and components
of a competence and for summative evaluation because list models identify the
components of a competence but cannot specify the relations or dependences
among competences. They are similarly incapable of identifying any level be-
yond a threshold level of a competence.
Teachers are not nave ; they know that models cannot and never will
paint a full picture, and that they are, by definition, abstractions. But the quality
and effectiveness of teachers work depends on teachers ability to integrate
theory, to merge it into their acts of creative understanding in teaching in the
unique, specific, unrepeatable flow of events of living sensation that comprise
the intense reality of the classroom. In the actual classroom, a good teachers
370
24
apperception and understanding of such relations and dependences among
competencesand of course, the relations and dependences among the people
in the classroomare adjusting themselves momentbymoment ; they recur-
sively feed into her online decisionmaking, which is evinced, of course, in
her discourse. A model which deals with relations and dependences would en-
hance the quality of a teachers understanding, and thus her online decision
making.
Individualoriented models do not conceptualize communication either
adequately or at all, and end up, of necessity, locating competence in the indi-
vidualSpitzberg and Changnon, . In actual communication, of course,
competence is never located solely inside a person ; the success of a communi-
cative act derives from all the elements that coalesce in a speech event, as
Hymes claimed. A model that addressed the relational nature of communication
would not only provide a necessary corrective to the continued dominance of
linguistic perspectives but would also enrich teachers understanding of how in-
teractions not only determine competence but also develop it.

It would also
empower teachersraise their consciousness and give them licenseto use
their own intercultural speaker identity to focus on creating real, dialogic inter-
cultural interaction in the classroom. Finally, a teachers knowledge, under-
standing and awareness of communication are integral to the types of discourse
she uses in the classroom, how she approaches and uses texts in classroom ac-

Insights from interactional sociolinguistics are beginning to redress the imbalance by

informing work in intercultural communication, e.g. SpencerOateyswork on rap-
port and egaracsexamination of cultures role in communication. Also, relational
aspects of language are integral to Hallidayan Systemic Functional LinguisticsHalliday,
; . However, it is still true to say that not enough work has focused on the role
of communication in developing competences in FL pedagogical theory.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 371
25
tivitiesi.e. whether, for example, she relatesovertly or implicitlyto texts as
authoritative and canonical and/or whether she orients to them as dialogic
texts, for students to approach and engage with as equalstatus communica-
tors. Her discourse and stance obviously affect how her students apprehend,
orient to, and engage with and understand such texts, and hence the quality of
the competences and capacities they develop.
While Byrams ICC model inherits both modeltype limitations and the
theoretical difficulties that have persisted in CLT since Hymess original failure
to reject Chomskyan competence outright, the addition of intercultural compe-
tence to the ICC model is a further complicating factor for practicing teachers.
This is not just because the term intercultural competence remains illdefined,
but also because the model theorizes IC as a nonlanguagerelated compe-
tence i.e. cognitively and motivationallydefined knowledge, attitudes and
skills. It then calls upon teachers to integrate IC with language competences
while offering no systematic guidance,

and indeed, the model does not

now posit that the competences are related. At the same time, teachers are
urged to make the nonlanguage competence a priority.
In actual classroom practice, teachers who have decided to introduce IC
development goals into their pedagogy will of necessity address these compe-
tences which are separated out in the model as if they are integrated through
the very act of teaching. In teaching, we proceed as if cognitionincluding af-
fect and emotion, culture and language are so interrelated as to be almost di-
mensions of each other, which, of course, is in fact the casesee Bakhtin,
; Fantini, , but which is a position that is only belatedly gaining rec-

Byramstates that his omission to offer specific guidance is intentional since lo-
cal context is and should be the main determining factor in teacher decisionmaking.
372
26
ognition in Western thinking about language and cognition. But teachers have
little assistance from the applied linguistics theory that is most familiar to them
because this still has not sufficiently addressed, let alone conceptualized or de-
veloped, an integrated theoretical orientation along these lines.
Finally, Byrams model has already been criticized for its equation of cul-
ture with national cultures on the grounds that this view presents national cul-
tures as homogenous and separated by too rigid boundariesKramsch, .
In this paper, I have approached the notion of culture from a different perspec-
tive, a dialogic one, which claims that cultures and persons exist on their per-
meable, elastic boundaries, actively and incessantly interdetermining each
other through languageBakhtin, . Identifying cultures in terms of na-
tional borders is cognitively easy because notions of space and territories are
stable. However, it is theoretically inadequate because borders are permeable
and the psychologically felt processes of globalization, i.e. what it is like to be
living in a hyperconnected world, only underscore that inadequacy.
Thus, teachers need to remember that although the idea of cultures in
terms of national cultures is cognitively easier to keep hold of precisely be-
cause abstractions are stable in cognition, and the notion of national cultures is
ubiquitous in daily life because of the media and national governments, this ab-
straction is in part a fiction, even if it is a fiction that most people believe in. By
this, I mean that cultures are presented this way or that, in readymade form,
which always excludes some part of the story in favour of another. The real
life of cultures is on their borders ; if we talk about culturesasproduct, it ren-
ders them and the people in them as voiceless, cognized objects. This objecti-
fication of cultures results in discourse that is monologic, requiring only recog-
nition that something makes sense, rather than the responsive and creative un-
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 373
27
derstanding which takes place in dialogue. At a minimum, teachers should be
aware that abstracting cultures in terms of national cultures will tend to result
in monologic discoursethe delivery of factsand that although this has its
uses monologic discourse needs to be revisited using other, more dialogic dis-
courses if we want our students to develop substantial and worthwhile ICCi.e.
ICC that both resists stereotypes and understands how they come about. To
that end, in pedagogy teachers must reinstate cultures and the people in them
as living subjects who have voices by focusing on the intercultural interactions
in the here and now of their own FL classrooms, using dialogic discourses. If
the intercultural interaction going on in the classroomthe interaction of
teacher and student cultures, the interaction of languages and linguacul-
turesis the basis and the medium for ICC teaching and training, it transforms
both into culture and intercultural competenceMatsuo, in press, and safe-
guards against cultures becoming objectified, thereby promoting a richer IC
with stronger roots, so to speak. Furthermore, such embodied experience
would certainly ensure that IC training and development is undertaken in a
systematic way, as Byram, Nichols and Stevens, p. urge, but which
they leave very much to individual teachers to sort out for themselves, while
their own theory remainslike much IC theory, in rather a primitive state
see Spitzberg and Changnon, .
Of course I recognize that it is neither realistic nor wholly desirable to
avoid talking about cultures in terms of national cultures since they are facts
for us, our governments and media, and because differences are more notice-
able and remarkable, initially, than similarities. I also recognize that there are
many interesting and varied ways to go about teaching for ICC while accepting
the notion of national cultures : see, for example, teachers accounts in Byram
374
28
et al.ibid.Some of these accounts, however, show just how demanding in
terms of time, personal commitment and financei.e. applying for, and winning
grantsit can be to include an intercultural competence dimension in FL peda-
gogye.g. Morgan, in Byram et al. . Furthermore, it is difficult to be sys-
tematic both in the implementation over a course of lessons of the intercultural
dimension as it is envisaged in the model and in terms of integrating the com-
petences that are separated out in the ICC model. As with many studies and ac-
counts in the applied linguistics/pedagogical literature, the teacher discourse in
real time, the discourse that implements and helps create the ICC pedagogy, is
overlooked. Thus, in this paper I have wished to highlight the insufficiency of
national culture alone as the basis for IC pedagogy in a globalizing, hypercon-
nected world, and to draw attention to the dangers of abstraction which can
create monologic discourse.
Finally, although the critical cultural awareness component of intercultural
competence is presumably supposed to safeguard against the abstraction and
objectification of cultures, I am not sure that it can, as it is presently envisaged
in the theory, including the language used to express how this should be done,
i.e. through decentring and relativizing learners understanding of their own
cultural values, beliefs and behavioursByram et al. ibid, p. . Thus, although
a discussion of the implementation of the critical cultural awareness component
of the ICC models intercultural competence is outside the scope of the present
paper, as a British teacher working in Japan I must note that both the concept
of critical cultural awareness and the vocabulary and metaphors used to de-
scribe and prescribe it indicate a very Western way of thinking whose transfer-
ability to cultural contexts that are geographically and culturally distant and/or
different is at the very least, problematic. Very careful consideration of the cul-
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 375
29
tural origins of decentring, what the term actually means, and whether or
how a teacher should undertake it or whether she is competent to do so, needs
to take place before the teacher decides to discuss with her students the possi-
bility, implications, advantages or possible disadvantages of implementing it in
pedagogy in such contexts.
References
Bachman, L. F.. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford : Ox-
ford University Press.
Bakhtin, M.. The dialogic imagination. M. Holquist, Ed. ; C. Emerson & M.
Holquist, Trans.. Austin, TX : University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.. Speech genres and other late essays. C. Emerson & M. Holquist,
Eds. ; V. W. McGee, Trans.. Austin, TX : University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.. Art and answerability : Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin.
M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds. ; V. Liapunov, Trans.. Austin, TX : University
of Texas Press.
Barth, F.. Ethnic groups and boundaries. London : Allen & Unwin.
Bragg, M.Writer/Presenter.. Cultural rights in the
th
centuryRadio series
episode. In O. SeligmanProducer, In our time. London : BBC. Retrieved from
http : //www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/ps/In_Our_Time_Cultural_Rights_
in_the_th_Century/
Brown, G., & Yule, G.. Discourse analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.
Burke, K./. A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA : University of California
Press.
Burns, A., October. Demythologising communicative language teaching. Paper pre-
376
30
sented at the
st
International Free Linguistics Conference, Sydney. Retrieved
from http : //www.professoranneburns.com/downloads/freelinguistics.pdf
Burns, A., April. Visible pedagogy in the adult ESOL program. Paper presented at
the
rd
meeting of the IATEFL Annual Conference and Exhibition, Cardiff, UK.
Byram, M.. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Cleve-
don, UK : Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizen-
ship. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M.. The intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign language edu-
cation. In D. K. DeardorffEd., The Sage handbook of intercultural competence
pp. . Los Angeles, CA : Sage Publications, Inc.
Byram, M., & Zarate, G.. Definitions, objectives and assessment of sociocultural
competenceCCLANG. Strasbourg, France : Council of Europe.
Byram, M., & Zarate, G.. Defining and assessing intercultural competence : Some
principles and proposals for the European context. Language Teaching, , .
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D.. Developing intercultural competence in prac-
tice. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M.. From communicative competence to communicative language peda-
gogy. In J. C. Richards & R. SchmidtEds., Language and communicationpp.
. London : Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M.. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to sec-
ond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, , .
CelceMurcia, M.. Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language
teaching. In E. Alcon Soler & M. P. Safont Jorda,Eds., Intercultural language
use and language learningpp. . Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer.
CelceMurcia, M., Drnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S.. A pedagogical framework for com-
municative competence : A pedagogically motivated model with content specifica-
tions. Issues in Applied Linguistics, , .
Council of Europe. . Common European framework of reference for languages :
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 377
31
Deardorff, D. K.. The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Los Angeles, CA :
Sage Publications, Inc.
Fantini, A. E.. Language, culture, and world view : Exploring the nexus. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, ,
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F.. Language teaching and assessment : An advanced re-
source book. Abingdon, UK : Routledge.
Graddol, D.. English next. London : British Council. Retrieved from http : //www.
britishcouncil.org/learningresearchenglishnext.pdf
Gudykunst, W. B.. Methodological issues in conducting theorybased crosscul-
tural research. In H. SpencerOateyEd., Culturally speaking : Managing rapport
through talk across culturespp. . London : Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K.. Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of lan-
guage and meaning. London : Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K.. An introduction to functional grammar. London : Edward Ar-
nold.
hooks, b.. Representing whiteness in the black imagination. In L. Grossberg, C.
Nelson, & P. TreichlerEds.. Cultural studiespp. . New York : Rout-
ledge.
Howatt, A.. The principles of approach. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds.&
K. Knapp & B. SeidlehoferVol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. .
Handbook of foreign language communication and learningpp. . Berlin :
Mouton de Gruyter.
Huntington, S. P.. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world orderUp-
dated ed.. New York : Simon & Schuster.
Hymes, D.. On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes,Eds., So-
ciolinguisticspp. . Harmondsworth, UK : Penguin.
Kachru, B. B.. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism : The English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. WiddowsonEds., English in the
world : Teaching and learning the language and literatures pp. . Cam-
378
32
bridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
Kotthoff, H.. Ritual and style across cultures. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries
Eds.& H. Kotthoff & H. SpencerOateyVol. Eds., Handbooks of applied lin-
guistics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural communicationpp. . Berlin :
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kramsch, C.. Thirdness : The intercultural stance. In T. VestergaardEd., Lan-
guage, culture and identitypp. . Aalborg, Denmark : Aalborg University
Press.
Matsuo, C.in press. Intercultural communicative competence in a globalizing world :
Language as positive creativity at dialogic borderzones.
Morgan, C.. The international partnership project. In M. Byram, A. Nichols & D.
StevensEds., Developing intercultural competence in practicepp. . Cleve-
don, UK : Multilingual Matters.
Nederveen Pieterse, J.. Globalization and culture. Lanham, MA : Rowman and Lit-
tlefield.
Pillar, I.. Intercultural communication : A critical introduction. Chippenham and
Eastbourne, UK : Edinburgh University Press.
Prechtl, E., & Lund, A. D.. Intercultural competence and assessment : Perspec-
tives from the INCA project. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds.& H. Kotthoff
& H. SpencerOateyVol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. . Hand-
book of intercultural communicationpp. . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
Rathje, S.. Intercultural competence : The status and future of a controversial con-
cept. Language and Intercultural Communication, , .
Risager, K.. Language and culture. Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.
RostRoth, M.. Intercultural training. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds.& H.
Kotthoff & H. SpencerOateyVol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol.
. Handbook of intercultural communicationpp. . Berlin : Mouton de
Gruyter.
Sandel, M. J.. What money cant buy : The moral limits of markets. New York :
A Critique of Michael Byrams Intercultural Communicative
Competence Model from the Perspective of Model Type
and Conceptualization of CultureMatsuo 379
33
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Savignon, S. J.. Communicative competence : An experiment in foreign language
teaching. Philadelphia, PA : The Center for Curriculum Development.
SpencerOatey, H.Ed... Culturally speaking : Culture, communication and polite-
ness theorynd ed.. London : Continuum.
SpencerOatey, H., & Kotthoff, H.. Introduction. In K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries
Eds.& H. Kothoff & H. SpencerOateyVol. Eds., Handbooks of applied linguis-
tics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural communicationpp. . Berlin : Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G.. Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D.
K. DeardorffEd., The Sage handbook of intercultural competencepp. . Los
Angeles, CA : Sage Publications, Inc.
van Ek, J. A.. Objectives for foreign language learning. Vol. : Scope. Strasbourg :
Council of Europe.
Voloshinov, V. N.. Freudianism : A critical sketch.I. R. Titunik & N. H. Bruss,
Eds. ; & I. R. Titunik, Trans.. Indianapolis, IN : Indiana University Press.
Williams, R.. Keywords : A vocabulary of culture and society.nd ed.. London :
Fontana Press.
egarac, V.. A cognitive pragmatic perspective on communication and culture. In
K. Knapp & G. AntosSeries Eds.& H. Kothoff & H. SpencerOateyVol.
Eds., Handbooks of applied linguistics : Vol. . Handbook of intercultural commu-
nicationpp. . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
380
34