Page 13 - Diversity in Action

Introduction: Diversity in Action

titude toward cultural learning and intercultural differences (affective
facet), and skills for coping with different cultures effectively (behav-
ioral facet).

Byram (2021) emphasises that five main factors are involved in IC: knowl-
edge of self and others (savoirs), skills of interpreting and relating (savoir
comprendre), skills of discovery and interaction (savoir apprendre/fair), criti-
calculturalawareness (savoir s’engager), and attitudes, such as curiosity and
openness (savoir être). Language competences are further emphasised in
Byram’s (2021) model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), where
the different components of IC are interrelated, but also closely linked to
language competences: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence,
and discourse competence. Linguistic competence is the ability to produce
and interpret language by applying the rules of a standard version of the lan-
guage. Sociolinguistic competence involves assigning meaning to the lan-
guage produced by any interlocutor, L1 speaker or not, understanding im-
plicit meanings or negotiating explicit ones. Discourse competence is the
ability to apply, explore, and negotiate strategies for creating or interpreting
monologues or dialogues in an intercultural communication setting. Being
aware of the context, the communicative intention, and the relationship be-
tween the communicators is central (Byram, 2021). While these three dimen-
sions of competence have been used previously in language-based models,
Byram (2021) refines them and incorporates them into his model, replacing
the traditional native speaker model with the concept of the intercultural
speaker – referring to individuals engaged in intercultural communication
and interaction. Rather than pursuing the unrealistic goal of native speaker
competence, learners should aim to become competent intercultural speak-
ers in specific situations.
The prefix inter in intercultural communication has been criticised for im-
plying that participants are positioned ‘in-between’ clearly defined cultures
and languages. This has led to a challenge against the term intercultural, with
the suggestion that the term transcultural communication might more ac-
curately ‘represent communicative practices in which cultural and linguistic
boundaries are moved through and across and in the process transgressed,
transcended and transformed’ (Baker, 2022, p. 291). However, the term inter-
cultural seems to remain dominant among educational theorists and prac-
titioners, as it is closely linked to the concepts of mediation and interac-
tion.
Teachers have a responsibility to equip learners with the skills, attitudes,

13