What is the difference between intercultural and intercultural communication?
|
The chapter discusses the differences between intracultural communication and intercultural communication from a socio-cognitive perspective that treats this issue as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Variation on the continuum and differences between the two phenomena are affected by different factors. While discussing those factors I will refer to issues that are relevant to the three focus points of this volume: internationalization of education, ethnicity, and ideology with special attention to Southeast Asia. Show
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Buying optionsChapter EUR 29.95 Price includes VAT (Singapore)
eBookEUR 74.89Price includes VAT (Singapore)
Softcover BookEUR 89.99Price excludes VAT (Singapore)
Hardcover BookEUR 129.99Price excludes VAT (Singapore)
Learn about institutional subscriptions Notes
Bates, D. G., & Plog, F. (1980). Cultural anthropology (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Google Scholar Blommaert, J. (1998). Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey. Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung. Universität Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28 February. Retrieved 27 July 2017 from http://www.cie.ugent.be/CIE/blommaert1.htm Cappelen, H. (2008). Content relativism and semantic blindness. In M. García-Carpintero & M. Kölbel (Eds.), Relative truth (pp. 265–286). Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossRef Google Scholar Clark, H. H. (2009). Context and common ground. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 116–119). Oxford: Elsevier. Google Scholar Cnagarajah, A. S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review, 22, 5–22. Google Scholar Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin/Boston: DeGruyter Mouton. CrossRef Google Scholar Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Simon and Schuster. CrossRef Google Scholar Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of international and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Google Scholar Gumperz, J. J., & Roberts, C. (1991). Understanding in intercultural encounters. In J. Blommaert & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication (pp. 51–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRef Google Scholar Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. C. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–25. CrossRef Google Scholar Gumperz, J. J., & Tannen, D. (1979). Individual and social differences in language use. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S.-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 305–325). New York: Academic Press. CrossRef Google Scholar Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Toronto: Beacon Press. Google Scholar Hinnenkamp, V. (1995). Intercultural communication. In V. Jef, Ö. Jan-Ola, B. Jan, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar House, J. (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua Franca communication (pp. 245–267). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In J. House, G. Kasper, & S. Ross (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk (pp. 22–56). London: Longman. Google Scholar Hymes, D. H. (1968). The ethnography of speaking. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp. 99–138). The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRef Google Scholar Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29, 192–208. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I., & Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Mawah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2002). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskés & L. R. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 191–219). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling context: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Society, 1(1), 50–73. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2011). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 67–84). London: Routledge. Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2012). Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 285–299. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2013). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–83. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Kecskes, I. (2015). Is the idiom principle blocked in bilingual L2 production? Chapter 2. In R. Heredia & A. Cieslicka (Eds.), Bilingual figurative language processing (pp. 28–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef Google Scholar Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. CrossRef Google Scholar Kidwell, M. (2000). Common ground in cross-cultural communication: Sequential and institutional contexts in front desk service encounters. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 17–37. Google Scholar Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes, 31(1), 4–18. CrossRef Google Scholar Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). English in SEA: Emergent concepts: Pedagogical and policy implications. World Englishes, 33(4), 426–438. CrossRef Google Scholar Koole, T., & ten Thije, J. D. (1994). The construction of intercultural discourse: Team discussions of educational advisers. Amsterdam/Atlanta: RODOPI. Google Scholar Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Language ideology and language change in early modern German: A sociolinguistic study of the consonantal system of Nuremberg. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossRef Google Scholar Neuliep, J. W. (2006). Editorial welcome. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 1–2. CrossRef Google Scholar Nishizaka, A. (1995). The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a Japanese with words. Human Studies, 18, 301–326. CrossRef Google Scholar Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language & Communication, 5(5), 191–226. Google Scholar Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A corpus based analysis. London: Continuum. Google Scholar Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Google Scholar Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–44). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Google Scholar Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2001). Communication between cultures (4th ed.). New York: Thomas Learning Publications. Google Scholar Scribner, S. (1997). A sociocultural approach to the study of mind. In E. Tobach, R. J. Falmagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 266–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar Simmel, G. (1972). On individuality and social forms (D. N. Levine, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar Strickland, M. J. (2010). Are they getting it? Exploring intersubjectivity between teachers and immigrant students in three culturally diverse classrooms. The International Journal of Learning, 17(6), 197–214. Google Scholar Subtirelu, N. C. (2015). “She does have an accent but…”: Race and language ideology in students’ evaluations of mathematics instructors on RateMyProfessors.com. Language in Society, 44(1), 35–62. CrossRef Google Scholar Ten Thije, J. D. (2003). The transition from misunderstanding to understanding in intercultural communication. In L. I. Komlósi, P. Houtlosser, & M. Leezenberg (Eds.), Communication and culture: Argumentative, cognitive and linguistic perspectives (pp. 197–214). Amsterdam: Sic Sac. Google Scholar Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112. CrossRef Google Scholar Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society, 14(3), 327–343. CrossRef Google Scholar Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Google Scholar Winch, P. (1997). Can we understand ourselves? Philosophical Investigations, 20(3), 193–204. CrossRef Google Scholar Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed.). Oxford/Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55–82. CrossRef Google Scholar Wray, A., & Namba, K. (2003). Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japanese Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9(1), 24–51. Google Scholar Download references Author informationAuthors and Affiliations
Authors
Corresponding authorCorrespondence to Istvan KECSKES . Editor informationEditors and Affiliations
Rights and permissionsReprints and Permissions Copyright information© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature About this chapterCite this chapterKECSKES, I. (2018). How Does Intercultural Communication Differ from Intracultural Communication?. In: Curtis, A., Sussex, R. (eds) Intercultural Communication in Asia: Education, Language and Values. Multilingual Education, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69995-0_7 What's the difference between intercultural and intracultural communication?In short, Intercultural communication is communication between two or more people, from different cultures. On the other hand, Intracultural communication is reserved for when people of the same culture are communicating. Inter is Latin for between or among and intra means on the inside, or within.
What is the difference between communication and intercultural communication?That is, intercultural communication is different from inter- national communication because it is concerned with people's cultural beliefs, attitudes, and values as they affect other people in other cultures in the pro- cess of social interaction.
What is the meaning of intercultural communication?Intercultural communication refers to the communication between people from two different cultures. Intercultural communication is a symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which people from different cultures create shared meanings.
What are the two types of intercultural communication?There are basically two types of intercultural communication: Verbal communication and non-verbal communication. Verbal communication consists of words used to communicate messages whereas non-verbal communication is gestures that give out messages.
|
