Abstract
Byram (1997)’s definition of intercultural communicative competence clearly moves beyond communicative competence, adding to Hymes’ central idea Van Ek’s (1986) six competences of communicative ability, Argyle's (1983) eight dimensions of non-verbal communication and Gudykunst's (1994) characteristics of a competent communicator. University undergraduates whose aim is to become English teachers and translators cannot overlook the importance of intercultural communicative competence in their future professional performance. As language professionals in a rapidly-changing, globalized world, they must be fully aware that the difference between native and non-native speakers has become blurred and obsolete, and that learning is now more about skills than about knowledge per se. Building human capacity has become a process, and flexibility and creativity (rather than content) are more desirable to cope with constant change (Graddol, 2006). However, a diagnosis of trainees’ performance in their last year of studies at Universidad del Comahue shows that their command of intercultural competences does not match their linguistic proficiency. This gives rise to questions regarding the effectiveness of the materials chosen and the role of the participants in the teaching-learning process. This article explores the possibilities of introducing intercultural competence training to an advanced English course for future translators and teachers. It looks into the concept of pragmatic ability, understood as “being able to go beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written, in order to interpret the intended meanings, assumptions, purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that are being performed” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010) and it analyses how students’ intercultural competence can be contextually constructed, through both content and context.
Highlights
The pedagogic model based on the native speaker-based notion of Canale and Swain’s (1980) communicative competence is still highly influential in current curriculum design and classroom practice; and the four competences it entails regard the learner from the point of view of the target language (TL), and see the aim of learning as becoming able to participate fully in the TL culture
Learners are expected to acquire the form of the TL accurately and to use it in the target community context to convey meanings appropriately, coherently and in a strategically effective way
Learning a language becomes an enculturation, learners are expected to acquire new cultural frames of reference and a new world view, and teachers are a kind of gatekeepers that equip learners with the tools they need for economic and social success in the target language setting (Alptekin, 2002)
Summary
The pedagogic model based on the native speaker-based notion of Canale and Swain’s (1980) communicative competence is still highly influential in current curriculum design and classroom practice; and the four competences it entails (grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic) regard the learner from the point of view of the target language (TL), and see the aim of learning as becoming able to participate fully in the TL culture. Communicative competence is unrealistic to Alptekin as it fails to recognize the lingua franca status of English and its instrumental use for, among others, academic studies and commercial pursuits, which largely involve non-native speaker-non-native speaker interactions He believes it is constraining, circumscribing learner and teacher autonomy by limiting the activation of their own experience in the use of language as part of the teaching-learning process. As for the role of behavior and strategies as non-linguistic variables, Pragmatics, understood as all the linguistic research focusing on the relationships existing between the linguistic sign and the users of the language within a particular context, becomes central It is relevant in its link to culture, which is usually defined pragmatically in language teaching as the culture associated with the language being learned (Byram & Grundy, 2003). The development of intercultural competence is essential as students’ pragmatic ability (being able to go beyond the literal meaning of what is said or written, in order to interpret the intended meanings, assumptions, purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that are being performed) is “contextually constructed in interaction, often in context” (Ishihara & Cohen, 2010, p. x)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
