Keywords

While international organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2013) or the Council of Europe (CoE, 2014) agree that intercultural competence (IC) should play a key role in education, it is not always clear what IC may encompass in specific teaching contexts and subject areas. Researchers working in the field of second language (L2)Footnote 1 pragmatics would argue that pragmatics is at the core of intercultural competence, since linguistic pragmatics studies what constitutes (in)appropriate and (im)polite language use in different contexts and cultures.

However, when looking at the existing literature on intercultural competence, the link between IC and pragmatics is frequently not explicitly addressed, although it may be implicitly presumed (see Schauer, 2022). Notable exceptions are, for example, McConachy and Liddicoat (2016, p. 16) who “view meta-pragmatic awareness as a central feature of intercultural competence”, Jackson (2019, p. 487), who writes that “L2 pragmatic competence and intercultural competence are closely related”, and Taguchi and Roever (2017, p. 261), who argue that “pragmatic competence in intercultural settings can be viewed as a constituent of intercultural competence”. The latter also make the very important point that “we need more studies that examine the relationship between pragmatic competence and intercultural competence” (2017, p. 261).

This book answers the call for more research on the link between intercultural competence and pragmatics. It presents the results of a research project that explored the views of modern foreign language (MFL) teachers in higher education. Learning more about how MFL teachers in higher education conceptualize intercultural competence and the value they attach to, as well as the attention they give to, various areas of pragmatics in their teaching is very important, since those language professionals may be the final language teachers that learners encounter during their formal foreign language education. They are, therefore, in a unique position in shaping foreign language learners’ intercultural and pragmatic awareness, competence and skills.

Data for the study were collected with an online survey that contained 18 items and sub-items (see Appendix in Chap. 3) and was available for participation from May to August 2021. The survey was completed by 133 teachers teaching a total of 15 different modern foreign languages. In addition to presenting the results of the complete group of 133 teachers, I will also frequently refer to subgroups of teachers when this seems relevant. In most cases this will involve a contrastive analysis of the six modern foreign languages that were focused on by three of more teachers in the survey: English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch and Swedish (presented according to group size).

The survey featured the following research questions; several of these contained a list of items to be ranked or evaluated (see the Appendix in Chap. 3)Footnote 2:

  • 1. How important is it for modern foreign language teachers in higher education to teach different skills and competences? [Followed by a list of nine items]

  • 2. Which terms do the MFL teachers associate with intercultural competence in the language(s) they are teaching? [Followed by a list of 24 items]

  • 3. Which linguistic aspects do the MFL teachers consider to be part of intercultural competence? [Followed by a list of 12 items]

  • 4. How important is it for the MFL teachers to teach specific facts/information about the countries and cultures in which the language(s) they are teaching is/are (an) official language(s) or native language(s)? [Followed by a list of 16 items]

  • 5. How important is it for the MFL teachers to include texts and materials focusing on different issues and addressing experiences of individuals representing different groups in their language classes? [Followed by a list of 11 items]

  • 6. How important is it for the MFL teachers to teach different aspects of the MFL? [Followed by a list of 19 items]

  • 7a. Are the MFL teachers familiar with pragmatic competence?

  • 7b. Do the MFL teachers consider pragmatic competence and intercultural competence to be connected?

  • 8a. Do gender-neutral expressions or pronouns exist in the languages the MFL teachers are teaching? [Teachers who answered “yes” to question 8a proceeded on to questions 8b to 8d, the other teachers proceeded on to question 9]

  • 8b. If gender-neutral language options exist in the languages the MFL teachers are teaching, do they teach them?

  • 8c. If the MFL teachers are teaching gender-neutral language options, what are their reasons for doing so?

  • 8d. If the MFL teachers are not teaching gender-neutral forms, what are their reasons for not doing so?

  • 9a. Was intercultural competence addressed during the MFLs teachers’ own university studies?

  • 9b. Do the MFL teachers associate particular scholars with intercultural competence?

The results of the survey are presented in Chaps. 4 to 8. Chapter 4 focuses on what teachers consider to be the components of intercultural competence (questions 2 and 3). Chapter 5 addresses aspects of MFL teaching in higher education (questions 1, 4, 5 and 6). Chapter 6 explores teachers’ views on the relationship between intercultural and pragmatic competence (questions 7a and 7b). Chapter 7 focuses on gender-neutral language (questions 8a–8d), while Chap. 8 addresses teachers’ encounters with IC during their own studies and their awareness of scholars working in the field (questions 9a and 9b).

Depending on the individual reader’s background and interests, they may wish to read the monograph not from beginning to end, but instead to focus on the issues that address their main interests. However, for readers mostly or entirely unfamiliar with pragmatics and intercultural competence, I would recommend reading the monograph chapter by chapter, in order. As the book is part of the Palgrave Pivot series, the review of the literature presented in the background chapter (Chap. 2) is concise and very much focused on the link between intercultural competence and pragmatics.Footnote 3 The methodology chapter (Chap. 3) provides information on the language teachers and also contains the full questionnaire in its Appendix. The conclusion chapter (Chap. 9) provides a summary of the findings of the research project and addresses the limitations of the study. It also features theoretical, methodological and pedagogical implications and presents two models of intercultural competence that are based on the results of the present project.

With the overall topic and the structure of this book now introduced, the next chapter lays the foundations for the study by providing an overview of pragmatics, culture, communicative competence and intercultural competence.