Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Does Intercultural Communication Differ from Intracultural Communication?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intercultural Communication in Asia: Education, Language and Values

Part of the book series: Multilingual Education ((MULT,volume 24))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “online” here refers to creation of culture in the moment of speech.

  2. 2.

    NS: Native Speaker, NNS: Non-Native Speaker.

References

  • 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.

    Chapter  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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Chapter  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.

    Book  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. C. (2005). Making space for bilingual communicative practice. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(1), 1–25.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, J. (2010). Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29, 192–208.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Society, 1(1), 50–73.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2013). Why do we say what we say the way we say it? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 71–83.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). English in SEA: Emergent concepts: Pedagogical and policy implications. World Englishes, 33(4), 426–438.

    Article  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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Neuliep, J. W. (2006). Editorial welcome. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishizaka, A. (1995). The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a Japanese with words. Human Studies, 18, 301–326.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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 information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Theory, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

    Istvan KECSKES

Authors
  1. Istvan KECSKES
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Istvan KECSKES .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Anaheim University, Anaheim, California, USA

    Andy Curtis

  2. School of Languages and Cultures, and Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Roland Sussex

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

KECSKES, 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

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69995-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69994-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69995-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation