全屏显示专题章节

Aswe grow increasingly aware of the global interdependence of people and cultures，we confront ever shifting cultural，ecological，economic，and technological realities that define the shrinking world of the twenty-first century．The development of new ways of living in the world together is pivotal to further human progress；wemust learn how to see things through the eyes of others and add their knowledge to our personal repertories．Such a globalmind-set can result only from competent communication among peoples from diverse cultures．

The citizens of the twenty-first century must learn to see through the eyes，hearts，and minds of people from cultures other than their own．Several important trends of the late twentieth century have transformed the world into a global village：technology development，globalization of the economy，widespread population migrations，the development of multiculturalism，and the demise of the nation-state in favor of sub-and supranational identifications．In order to live meaningfully and productively in this world，individuals must develop their intercultural communication competence．Technology development

The development of communication and transportation technology linking every part of the world has served to interconnect almost every aspect of life at the onset of the twenty-first century（Frederick，1003；Porter＆Samovar，1994）．Today the flow of ideas and information increasingly transcends national boundaries．People can also travel to anywhere in the world much more quickly than ever before．The faster travel speeds wrought by transportation technology have introduced increasing face-to-face communication among people from different cultures．

The progress of communication and transportation technology has rendered globalmarkets more accessible and the business world more interrelated and international than in the past．Regional trade alliances have become the“new world order”．The trend toward a global economy is bringing people from different cultures together．It requires representatives from multinational corporations to communicate with those in other parts of the world to retain a competitive space in the global economic arena．The interdependence among international economies reflects the important role that intercultural communication plays now and will play increasingly in the next century．The development of greater intercultural understanding has become an essential element of global business（Adler，1991；Mead，1990）．Widespread population migrations

As cultural interconnectedness has increased as a result of technology advancement，we have alsowitnessed remarkable populationmigrations across national borders．The United States especially has felt the impacts of this trend．In 1990，the U．S．Census revealed that the first generation foreign-born population in the United Sates had reached almost 20 million．About 8．7 million immigrants entered the United States between 1980 and 1990．At least 32 million persons residing in the United State speak a first language other than English，and 14million of these do not speak English fluently．These figures indicate that the increasing numbers of immigrants have restructured the fabric of American society．The United States has become much more culturally diverse than it has been in the past．

This multiethnic structure makes intercultural contact among co-cultures inevitable．Members of the various co-cultures and ethic groups residing in the United Statesmust learn to adjust to one another’s identities．This trend demands that individuals learn to communicate in ways that are effective in such a diversifying society（Nieto，1992）．

The changing demographics described above stand to affect every aspect of life in the United States．Johnston and Packer（1987），for example，predict that the increasing diversity of workplace and social life in the United States will dramatically affect organizational life in the twenty first century．The new workforce will comprise personswho are diverse in race，culture，age，gender，and language．Cultural diversity，or multiculturalism，will become the norm rather the exception in American life．Thus，intercultural communication scholars need to address those issues thatwill help people learn towork and live together without being deterred by the differences they may bring to their encounters．The development of greater intercultural understanding and intercultural communication competence is an essential partof human life in the contemporary age．

As new immigrants arrive and co-culturesmake headway in achieving fuller participation in U．S．society，the very idea of national identity will surely change．Increasingly，the United States is pulled into regional alliances，such as NATO or NAFTA，that are larger than the nation．In addition，we see the reassertion of ethnic and gender differences within the nation；for instance，women have begun to talk as women，African Americans as African Americans，and Native Americans as Native Americans．The ability to negotiate themeanings and priorities of diverse identities has become a prerequisite of attaining interpersonal competence inmodern society（Collier＆Thomas，1988）．

The five trends described above combine to provide a foundation for the indispensability of intercultural communication competence in our increasingly global society．The world has become more interdependent and interconnected，and the nation-state has become more culturally heterogeneous．These developments foster within individuals multiple，simultaneous identities in terms of culture，ethnicity，race，religion，nationality，and gender（Belay，1993）．Intercultural communication competence therefore functions to nourish a human personality in which people are aware of their multiple identities and are able to maintain a multicultural coexistence in order to develop a“global civic culture”（Boulding，1988）．In other words， intercultural communication competence transforms a monocultural person into a multicultural person．This transformation is achieved through symmetrical interdependence that enables persons to demonstrate“tolerance for differences and mutual respectamong cultures as amark of enlightened national and global citizenship”in individual，social，business，and political institutions levels（Belay，1993）．

Based on this theoretical foundation，the following discussion of intercultural communication competence is divided into five sections．These address，in turn，the nature of communication competence，approaches to the study of intercultural communication competence，amodel of intercultural communication competence，a critique and directions for future research，and a summary and conclusion．

Although 50 years of conceptualizing have provided a theoretical and practical foundation for intercultural communication，it remains a fresh field．The study of intercultural communication dates back to the works of political scientists and anthropologists in the 1940s and 1950s．Whereas linguist Edward Sapirwrote about this topic in the 1920s，it took Benjamin Whorf to frame hiswork more fully as a communication question．As sociologists，linguists，and communication scholars have developed an interest in intercultural communication，two separate schools of thought—cultural dialogue and cultural criticism—now inform research in intercultural communication（Asante，Newmark，＆Blake，1979）．Both schools have spawned significant research in intercultural communication．One of the main topics studied by the two groups is intercultural communication competence，or the effectivemeans whereby individuals can understand cultural commonalities and move beyond cultural differences in order to reach the ideal goals advocated by cultural dialogists and cultural critics．But，we ask，What is communication competence？

Two concepts have long been applied in discussions of communication competence：effectiveness and appropriateness．Effectiveness refers to an individual’s ability to produce intended effects through interaction with the environment．This ability is treated either as a basic human skill that is obtained through learning and socializing processes（Weinstein，1969；White，1959）or as an acquired ability that is related neither to personal intellect nor to education（Foote＆Cottrell，1955；Holland＆Baird，1968）．In either case，the ability is understood to increase as the individual’s awareness of relevant factors increases（Argyris，1965a，1965b）．In addition，ideally，competent communicators should be able to control and manipulate their environments to attain personal goals．In order to maximize such goals，individualsmust be able to identify them，get relevant information about them，accurately predict others’responses，select communication strategies，implement those communication strategies，and accurately access the interaction results（Parks，1985，1994）．

A more systematic view of effectiveness in communication relates the concept to both interactants．To be competent in communication，a person must not only feel competent，but his or her ability should be observed and confirmed by the people with whom he or she interacts．Thus，communication competence should be judged based on individuals’abilities to formulate and achieve objectives，to collaborate effectively with others，and to adapt to situational variations（Bochner＆Kelly，1974）．Rubin（1983）has further considered communication competence to be a kind of impression based on the individual’s perception，an impression the individual forms of both his and her own and others’behaviors．Through this impression，a person makes guesses about the internal states of those with whom he or she is interacting．

Finally，Wiemann（1977）synthesizes the concept of communication competence from the perspective of effectiveness．He conceptualizes communication competence as“the ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during an encounter whilemaintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation”（p．198）．This definition argues simultaneously that competent communication is other oriented and that communicators have to accomplish their own goals．

Whereas some scholars conceive of communication competence as a function of perceived effectiveness，others look at it from the viewpoint of appropriateness．Wiemann and Backlund （1980）explain appropriateness in the communication process as follows：

Appropriateness generally refers to the ability of an interactant to meet the basic contextual requirements of the situation—to be effective in general sense．．．These contextual requirements include：（1）The verbal context，that is，making sense in terms of wording，of statement，and of topic；（2）the relationship context，that is，the structuring，type and style of messages so that they are consonant with the particular relationship at hand；and（3）the environmental context，that is，the consideration of constraints imposed on messagemaking by the symbolic and physical environments．

The“appropriateness of behavior”thus implicates three kinds of ability．First is the ability to recognize how context constrains communication，so that one acts and speaks appropriately by combining capabilities and social knowledge to recognize that different situations give rise to different sets of rules（Lee，1979；Trenholm＆Rose，1981）．Second is the ability to avoid inappropriate responses．An inappropriate response is defined as“one which unnecessarily abrasive，intense，or bizarre．It is also likely to result in negative consequences that could have been averted，without sacrifice of the goal，by the more appropriate actions”（Getter＆Nowinski，1981，p．303）．Third is the ability to fulfill appropriately such communication functions as controlling，sharing feelings，informing，ritualizing，and imagining（Allen＆Wood，1978）．We extend Grice’s（1975）recommendations concerning appropriateness in interaction to include the following：

1．Say just enough—not too little or toomuch．

2．Do not say something that is false—or speak about something for which you lack evidence．

3．Relate your contribution to the topic and situation．

4．Be clear aboutwhat you are saying，and say itwith dispatch．

These guidelines specify the four elements of appropriate communication：quantity，quality，relevance，and manner ofmessage sending．

To summarize，communication competences requires appropriateness，and“the fundamental criteria of appropriateness are that the interactants perceive that they understand the content of the encounter and have not had their norms and rules violated too extensively”（Spitzberg＆Cupach，1984，p．101）．

The literature treats intercultural communication competence in much the same way as it does communication competence in general（Hammer，1988；Lustig＆Koester，1993；Martin，1989；Ruben，1989；Spitzberg，1988，1989；Wiseman＆Koester，1993）．The only difference is，in addition to looking at communication competence as effective and appropriate interaction，intercultural communication scholars place more emphasis on contextual factors．They conceive of communication competence not only as effective and appropriate interaction between people，but as effective and appropriate interaction between people who identify with particular physical and symbolic environments．This orientation resembles that of communication scholars who emphasize competence as a context-specific behavior（Spitzberg ＆Cupach，1984）．

Although researchers conceive of communication competence as the ability to interact effectively and appropriately with others，their definitions betray greater or lesser degrees of ambiguity，confusion，and imprecision．For example，from Wiemann’s（1977）synthesized definition，the question arises，What constitute“available communicative behaviors”and “constraints of the situation”？These concepts are not clear，and require definition．To alleviate the problem in defining communication competence and to apply the concept to intercultural settings，intercultural communication competence can be conceived of as the ability to negotiate cultural meanings and to execute appropriately effective communication behaviors that recognize the interactants’multiple identities in a specific environment．This definition emphasizes that competent persons must know not only how to interact effectively and appropriately with people and environment，but also how to fulfill their own communication goals by respecting and affirming the multilevel cultural identities of those with whom they interact．

How do individuals interact across multiple cultural identities？Spitzberg and Cupach （1984）propose seven generic types of competence：fundamental competence，social competence，social skills，interpersonal competence，linguistic competence，communicative competence，and relational competence．Fundamental competence involves the general ability to adapt effectively to a new environment in order to achieve goals．In this sense，fundamental competence comprises the cognitive capacities that individual communicators need to be effective crosssituationally．Social competence involves specific，rather than general，abilities．Spitzberg and Cupach include within social competence the skills of empathy，role taking，cognitive complexity，and interaction management．Interpersonal competence is the ability to accomplish tasks and achieve goals through successful communication．Even though interpersonal competence is part of both fundamental competence and social competence，it is especially related to how individuals execute certain skills to control their environments in order to achieve goals in particular communication situations．Linguistic competence and communicative competence both relate to language and messages in the interaction process．Linguistic competence（a concept that stems from the work of Chomsky，1965）is specifically the ability to use language properly．Communicative competence entails not only the knowledge of how to use language，but also knowledge about how to execute one’s language knowledge appropriately．To be communicatively competent，a person must be able to convey messages appropriately in a given context of interaction．Finally，relational competence comprisesmany of the other six kinds of competence，but independent and reciprocal processes of interactions are among itsmost important aspects．An individualmust establish certain degrees of relationships with others before he or she can interact effectively with them and achieve his or her goals．Such relationships crossmultiple dimensions of language，profession，ethnicity，and nation．

Spitzberg and Cupach’s view of competence suggests that individuals have unitary and unchanging cultural identities．By contrast，we view cultures as a set of preferences and possibilities that inform，rather than determine，given interactions．Communicators both shape and are shaped by these familiar meanings．Especially as individuals draw from multiple identities，interactionsmay not perfectly resemble any one cultural expectation．

To understand the mutual negotiation of cultural meanings in intercultural communication，Dinges（1983）and Collier（1989）have classified the study of intercultural communication competence into different approaches．Dinges（1983）identifies six approaches to the study of intercultural communication competence：“overseasmanship，”subjective culture，multicultural person，social behaviorism，topology，and intercultural communicator．The overseasmanship approach，first presented by Cleveland，Mangone，and Adams（1960），identifies common factors in effective performances among sojourners，or individuals on extended，nonpermanent stays in cultures other than their own．To be considered competentaccording to this approach，a sojournermust show the ability to convert lessons from a variety of foreign experiences into effective job-related skills．

The subjective culture（isomorphic attribution）approach requires individuals to have the ability to understand the causes of interactants’behaviors and reward them appropriately，and tomodify their own behaviors suitably according to the demands of the setting（Triandis，1976，1977）．This ability to understand the reasons that members of other cultures give for their behaviorsmust be based on accurate cognition of the differences in cognitive structure between cultures．

Themulticultural person approach emphasizes that a competence person must be able to adapt to exceedingly difficult circumstances by transcending his or her usual adaptive limits （Alder，1975，1982）．The individualmust learn to move in and out of different contexts，to maintain coherence in different situations，and to be dynamic．

The social behaviorism（culture learning）approach emphasizes that successful intercultural coping strategies depend more on the individual’s predeparture experiences，such as training and sojourning in another country，than on inherent characteristics or personality （Guthrie，1975）．That is，to be competent in intercultural interaction，a person must learn discriminative stimuli to obtain social rewards and to avoid punishments that will create hardship（David，1972）．

The typology approach develops different models of intercultural communication competence．Most of themodels place sojourners’behavioral styles on a continuum from most to least effective．For example，Brislin（1981）proposes that a successful intercultural interaction must be based on the sojourner’s attitudes，traits，and social skills．He asserts that nonethnocentrism and nonprejudicial judgments are the most valuable attitudes for effective intercultural interaction．Ethnocentrism is the judgment of an unfamiliar practice by the standards and norms familiar to one’s own group or culture．Themajor adaptive personal traits Brislin mentions include personality strength，intelligence，tolerance，social relations skills，recognition of the potential for benefit，and task orientation．Important social skills are knowledge of subject and language，positive orientation to opportunities，effective communication skills，and the ability to use personal traits to complete tasks．

Finally，the intercultural communicator approach emphasizes that successful intercultural interaction centers on communication processes among people from different cultures．In other words，to be interculturally competent，an individual must be able to establish interpersonal relationships by understanding others through the effective exchange of verbal and nonverbal behaviors（Hall，1959，1966，1976）．

Collier（1989）identifies four categories of approaches to intercultural communication competence：ethnography of speaking，cross-cultural attitude，behavioral skills，and cultural identity．The ethnography of speaking approach assumes thatmeaning，conduct，and cultural membership are interdependent，thus，competencemust be contextually defined（Geertz，1973；Hymes，1971，1972）．In order to achieve communication goals，an individual must correctly perceive，select，and interpret the specific features of the code in interaction and integrate these with other cultural knowledge and communication skills（Saville-Troike，1982）．The cross-cultural attitude approach assumes that understanding the culture of those with whom one is communicating and developing a positive attitude toward that culture are the keys to attaining communication competence across cultures．Studies by Chen（1989），Abe and Wiseman （1983），Gudykunst，Wiseman，and Hammer（1977），and Wiseman and Abe（1984）have examined the concept from this perspective．The behavioral skills approach assumes that “humans are goal directed and choicemaking beings，and thathumans can distinguish between skillswhich will be effective and skills which will not be effective”in interaction（Collier，1989，p．294）．Thus，competent persons are able to identify and adopt those effective skills in intercultural interaction（Chen，1992；Hammer，1989；Ruben，1976，1977；Ruben＆Kealey，1979）．Finally，the cultural identity approach assumes that communication competence is a dynamic and emergent process in which interactants are able to improve the quality of their experience by recognizing the existence of each other’s cultural identities（Collier，1989，1994；Cupach＆Imahori，1993）．Thus，interculturally competent persons must know how to negotiate and respectmeanings of cultural symbols and norms that are changing during their interactions（Collier＆Thomas，1988；Y．Y．Kim，1994a）．In addition，Ward and Searle （1991）have found that cultural identity significantly affects adaptation to a new culture．

Although the approaches described above provide useful perspectives from which to study intercultural communication competence，they fail to give a holistic picture that can reflect the global civic culture in which people can mutually negotiate their multiple identities．In the following section we attempt to synthesize these approaches into a model of intercultural communication competence．

（The global intercultural communication reader．Taylor＆Francis e-Library．2007．）