Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
.
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,
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. .
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-
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