1.2 Definitions and Meanings Proposed by Scholars for the Concept of Intercultural Competence
In the following three paragraphs, based on the work of
Perry and Southwell (2011), an attempt is made to convey the variety of definitions and meanings scholars have proposed for the concept of intercultural competence. Following the authors, three main conceptualizations will be described: (a) intercultural competence, (b) intercultural understanding, and (c) intercultural communication.
(a) Although “there has been little agreement amongst scholars about how intercultural competence should be defined” (Deardorff, 2006a pp. 5-9), it seems that definitions, meanings and conceptualizations frequently overlap. After a review of the literature,
intercultural competence can be conceived as consisting of knowledge, attitude, skills and behaviour.
Bennett (2008), after studying similarities between the definitions, affirmed that scholars talk about a “set of cognitive, affective and behavioural skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts” (p. 16). Other conceptualizations include: knowledge, attitudes, understanding, motivation, skills in verbal and non-verbal communication, communicative awareness, language proficiency, appropriate and effective behaviours, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, knowledge discovery, respect for others, empathy, interpreting and relating skills , skills of discovery and interaction, and critical awareness (
Byram, 1997;
Heyward, 2002; Lustig & Koester, 2006;
Hiller and Wozniak, 2009). Specifically, Byram defined intercultural competence as “intercultural communicative competence” where intercultural communication in a given social context sets the parameters for the development of such a competence (Byram, 1997).
(b)
Intercultural understanding, another broad concept indicated by Perry and Southwell (2011), embraces cognitive and affective domains. Knowledge is a fundamental part of the construct; knowledge of one’s own and other cultures, but also other characteristics related to attitudes, such as curiosity and respect (Hill, 2006;
Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Deardorff, 2006b; Heyward, 2002). The other fundamental part of intercultural understanding is the affective component, which is also called intercultural sensitivity. Perry and Southwell (2011) present
Chen and Starosta’s (1998) conceptualization of intercultural sensitivity as an “active desire to motivate themselves to understand, appreciate, and accept differences among cultures” (p. 231). Another definition presented by Perry and Southwell (2011) is Bennet’s idea that intercultural sensitivity is the experience of cultural difference that is dependent on the way a person constructs that difference (1993). It is worth mentioning that the intensification of culture-driven conflict in parallel to the acceleration of the rhythm of globalization renders intercultural understanding an imperative need (
Kwok-Ying Lau, 2016)
(c) The third concept which scholars have debated in the last few years is that of
intercultural communication, defined as ″the ability to communicate with people of different cultures effectively and appropriately″ (Arasaratnam, 2009). Unlike the previous two constructs, Perry and Southwell (2011), citing Lustig and Koester (2006), remember how intercultural communication is an attribute related to an association between individuals. Fundamental to the concept are empathy, intercultural experience/training, motivation, global attitude and the ability to listen well in conversation (
Arasaratnam and Doerfel, 2005). At the same time, emphasis may be placed on the interdiscourse analysis as the discourse in intercultural communication by examining the presuppositions in an intercultural communication setting (
Scollon, Scollon, & Jones, 2011, pp. 30-31).