グライスの意味理論における「自然的意味」の位置づけについて

山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69

ArticleDeveloping Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect

Stephen B. RYAN
1. Introduction
Recently, many scholars have explored and discussed the notion of intercultural competence,
intercultural sensitivity, and how this relates to our judgments of others’ behavior and thinking. Interculturalcompetence results in producing unique perspectives that arise from the interaction of several culturesand is a part of developing multilingual or multicultural perspectives (Fantini, 2007). In other words,
intercultural competence can give us the ability to adapt to unpredictable multicultural situations, which isa recurrent theme in English as an International Language contexts as well as English as foreign language
contexts. Bennett (1986) describes how intercultural sensitivity is not natural to any single culture and thatthe development of this ability depends on acquiring a new awareness and attitudes. The author introduces
an awareness model called the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) which consists of acontinuum of six stages (discussed in Section 3.2) of personal growth among intercultural communicationfrom denial to integration. The latter being the acceptance of behavioral differences, including language,
communication style, and nonverbal patterns. Bennett (1986) emphasizes that developing empathy inintercultural sensitivity is defined as a temporary shift in perspective such that one interprets events as
if one were the other person. Empathy has been identified as the key factor when trying to understandand adapt to other worldview belief systems for successful intercultural communication. When the otherperson is using a significantly different world view to process reality, the development of intercultural
empathy allows for a shift in our cultural world viewpoint. Chen and Starosta’s (1998) research about
intercultural sensitivity takes a wider approach by relating attitudes, such as self-esteem, self-monitoring,open-mindedness, empathy as well as non-judgement to the term. Perry and Southwell’s (2011) approachto developing intercultural sensitivity for successful intercultural interaction is to have an active desire to
motivate interactants to understand, appreciate and accept differences among cultures.
1.1 English as an International Language
Because English is used more widely as a second language than as a first and spoken widely, it canbe defined as an international language. Within the field of English as an International Language (EIL) ,for example, being international means that the language has developed to where it is no longer linked toa single culture or nation, but serves both global and local needs as a language of wider communication(McKay, 2002). In the process of achieving the status as English as a lingua franca, the very nature of－55 －Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect―RYANEnglish has changed in terms of how many of its speakers make use of English and how English relates
to culture (McKay, 2003). This means that the development of English on a global and local scale hascreated world Englishes, such Singlish (Singaporean English), which carry unique linguistic and culturalfeatures. Yet, when someone is speaking our native tongue, albeit in another world English form, there isa tendency to unconsciously link our dominant culture values to the form of English that best represents
our larger norms and rules of interactions. Because language is a symbol of culture, symbols often haveunique interpretations depending on what culture values and norms underpin it. For example, ambiguous
communication styles (aimai) in Japan is the norm to maintain social harmony; whereas in the American
English ambiguous communication is usually interpreted negatively in face-to-face interaction. Because
different interpretations are often unconsciously derived from each country’s national culture values andnorms, more complex cross-cultural interactions involving migration, economic and business situations (seeHammer, 2000) can easily lead to miscommunication and negative evaluations of the other speaker. This
is why, acknowledging intercultural competence in first, second and EIL contexts is essential. In this essay,
we shall briefly discuss how to acquire Intercultural Competence and several different models that canhelp us along the journey. The main purpose of this paper, however, is to highlight the minimization stage(Section 3.2.1) of Bennett’s DMIS model (2011) as it is arguably the most important stage in understanding
cultural diversity.

First, it is necessary to define and discuss the concept of intercultural competence

within the field of Intercultural Communication, and why it is needed as a critical component to developing
intercultural sensitivity for those in contact with dissimilar cultures.

2. Intercultural and Communicative Competence
2.1 Terms
The term culture in this paper shall be referred to as, “...a learned meaning system that consistsof patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, norms, meanings, and symbols that are passed down from one
generation to the next and are shared by varying degrees by interacting members of a community” (TingToomey and Chung, 2012, p. 16). Norms tell us what is correct behavior and can be defined as a “standardof behavior that exist within a group or category of people” (Hofstede et. al., 2010, p. 29). Values tell
us what is right or wrong and are based on what we have learned from interacting with members of ourcommunity. Schema can be defined as being, “...generalized collections of knowledge of past experiences
which are organized into related knowledge groups and are used to guide our behaviors in familiar
situations ” (Nishida, 1999, p. 754). “Schema(ta)” and “background knowledge” are used interchangeably
to imply unrecognized culture-specific groups of knowledge that the speaker uses to interpret a text orutterance.
－66 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69

Like culture, the term intercultural competence is a slippery term to define but a needed baseline at
the beginning of any work using it because a study’s interpretations are often influenced by the researcher’s
particular point of view. For instance, one researcher may be focused on how well participants recognize
cultural differences in a particular intercultural context. Another may try to answer how competentparticipants performed in the same or similar intercultural context. The former approach concerns
intercultural awareness skills while the latter intercultural competence skills. The two are linked but atdifferent parts of the same spectrum of intercultural and communicative competence. Lustig and Koester
offer a rather opaque definition of intercultural competence as “..a symbolic process in which people fromdifferent cultures create shared meanings” (p. 57, 1999). However, the creation of a successfully shared
meaning depends on applying our IC knowledge of the norms and values of both cultures to the appropriate
context. How well we can create this meaning determines our level of competence. Unfortunately, it isproblematic to recognize our own level of competency and, hence, the need for the models of interculturalawareness for didactic purposes.
Communicative competence is an important concept in cross-cultural studies because it implies morethan only linguistic competence. Communicative competence is a term that was first used by Hymes (1971)
to describe a system of rules underpinning communicative behavior. Similarly, the field of ethnography of
speaking or communication (Saville-Troike 1982, Gumperz 1982b) attempts to answer the question, “Whatdoes a speaker need to know to communicate appropriately within a particular speech community, and how
does (s)he learn? (Saville-Troike, p. 2). While intercultural competence is based on a solid understandingof our own cultural rules and norms in relation to the culture being compared, communicative competence
focuses more on the language part of this cultural understanding and so that a social judgement can bemade of how well a person interacts with others (Lustig and Koester, 1999).
Chen and Starosta define intercultural communication competence as, “...the ability to effectively andappropriately execute communication behaviors that negotiate each other’s cultural identity or identities ina culturally diverse environment” (1998, p. 28). However, the terms intercultural competence, awarenessand sensitivity are often muddled in Intercultural Communication literature obfuscating the meanings
and can lead to slightly different conclusions. The differences are summarized below, and thanks to Chen
and Starosta’s (1996, 1998) work in this area, we have a clear starting point to differentiate the terms.
According to their work, intercultural competence is comprised of three interrelated concepts: intercultural
sensitivity, intercultural awareness and intercultural adroitness. Intercultural sensitivity can be describedas our willingness to try and understand and appreciate cultural differences. Intercultural awareness,
which is the focus of this paper, is the cognitive aspect of intercultural communication competence thatseeks to understand cultural tendencies that can affect communication cross-cultural contexts. Developing
intercultural awareness most often occurs in didactic contexts such as university lectures, exchange－66 －Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect―RYAN

programs, study abroad or cross-cultural role-plays. Finally, intercultural adroitness is the aspect thatemphasizes the “skills needed for us to act effectively in intercultural interactions” (1998, p. 28).

3. Models of intercultural awarenessThe purpose of intercultural awareness (IA) models is to understand the deep structure or cognitive
aspects of a culture. Cultural values tell us how to be behave and are the framework of our schema that
holds culture together. Schema itself is based on generalizations, or stereotypes, to help us interpret theconstant stream of complex stimuli in daily life. Seeking to identify cultural values asks the question “why”
as opposed to what or how. Why are Japanese polite? Why do Americans value modesty less? The answer
to these why questions can greatly aid in our understanding and awareness of our own culture and increase
our intercultural awareness and sensitivity.
So, how do IA models work? IA models originally started to identify the basic factual informationof a culture (e.g. Saville-Troike 1978). Hall’s model (1976) classified culture into high and low context
which highlighted different thinking patterns. Kohl’s fifty question model (1984) was aimed to develop thesojourner’s knowledge of their host country. Questions such as, “who are your country’s national heroes?”and “what is an important religious ceremony?”, helped participants to understand their own culturalvalues better. Chen and Starosta (1998) developed an IA model that investigated cultural value orientations
on 15 items. IA models seek to form a “cultural map” through collecting empirical information and thenshowing how to measure intercultural awareness (Chen and Starosta, p. 349). Measuring cultural values,
however, is problematic due the large number of data required to cover the complexity of cultural value
orientations. Therefore, cultural value orientations are often measured using Likert scale questionnaires
to analyze the degree with which participants agree or disagree with targeted statements. More recently,
Hofstede’s (2004) developed six dimensions that contrast national culture: individualism, large/small power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long-term orientation, indulgence versus restraint. Finally,
Bennett’s (2011) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), mentioned above, describes
a developmental process of how we construct boundaries between our cultural “self” that of the “other”
culture with the ultimate goal of providing intercultural training in deficient areas in corporate contexts.
3.1 Intercultural Sensitivity
Developing sensitivity, it is argued, as opposed to awareness or skills, would be the necessary firststep in order to increase awareness of cognitive cultural differences so that intercultural skills can befurther developed and used for interacting successfully. If the learner is not sensitive to intercultural
topics and issues, becoming more aware and skillful at interacting with intercultural environments－66 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69

becomes problematic. Herein lies the problem with developing intercultural competence. Those who often
most need intercultural awareness and adroitness fail to accept the first step of acquiring sensitivity ofintercultural differences by seeking only to address the commonalities between two diverse speakers. In
order to develop greater IC sensitivity, the receiver of the information or knowledge must first recognize
three levels of understanding: 1) the need for better relationships and successful outcomes with people
from different backgrounds 2) an acknowledgement as a starting point to sensitivity that cultural norms
and values are indeed unique to a community of people resulting in distinct communication and behavioral
tendencies. 3) dispelling the naïve form of individualism and inaccurate idea that if you treat everyone
equally and communicate openly, you will succeed cross-culturally. Common sense is only common to thecommunity of speakers to which we derive our culture identity from.
3.2 DMIS model
For didactic purposes, Bennett’s DMIS model (2011) is particularly useful and practical forhighlighting our level of sensitivity to cultural differences. The DMIS is relevant to the discussion of
IC competence and awareness because it highlights problematic areas in thinking that can prevent thetransition from IC awareness to sensitivity. Because of this, it is worth describing in detail here andbecomes the focus of this paper. The DMIS model describes a six stage process (see Figure 1) we undergo,from denial to integration, to become competent in intercultural contexts or from dissimilar groups within
the same national culture and is described in more detail below.

Figure 1

The first stage is denial. According to Bennett (2017), this stage is the most ethnocentric because
those within this stage deny that differences are important. The denial stage is characterized by an isolationfrom those who different than themselves. Imagining that other people have a different experience andworldview is difficult mainly because of a lack of exposure to them. For example, many Americans
who have not traveled outside the US cannot tell the difference between a person from China or Japan.
－66 －Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect―RYAN

Likewise, someone from an Asian country is likely to have trouble discerning Europeans from Americans
or Australians. The result of the lack of intercultural competence means diversity and cultural differences
tend to be ignored and negative stereotyping, and dehumanizing more readily occurs. A person in the denialstage will have the attitude of “I don’t need to know” and have what Bennett calls “aggressive ignorance.”
One step after denial is the defense stage. In this stage, we tend to positively evaluate our own world
view and negatively evaluate “the other” culture. We believe that we are the “good guys” and often feelthat our identity or majority power base is under threat. We have a tendency to have polarizing views thatput others in evaluative categories such as, “immigrants are lazy and taking our jobs” or “foreigners are
loud and don’t understand how to act properly.” According to Bennett, common implications for minority
individuals in this stage is being excluded from dominant group decision making and the denial of equal
opportunities. Those in the minority often feel under siege and threatened to try and protect their identity
and world view.
3.2.1 Minimization
The next state after denial and defense Bennett labels minimization. This stage is quite common in
low context cultures that value social equality and individualistic self identities. It is also the most difficult
stage to recognize and acquire a greater depth of intercultural sensitivity unless we have developed adeeper culture awareness and recognition of our own specific cultural schema. In the minimization stage,
we tend to recognize superficial cultural differences (e.g. Japanese don’t say their opinions directly or
Americans are friendly) but maintain the belief that “all humans are basically the same.” People in thisstage tend to ignore or disregard different world views as a way to reduce the threat to their culturalnorm(s). We unconsciously (via culture specific schemata) look for commonalities that can confirm thiscultural assumption such as personality, character, tolerance of ambiguity, or views of the self. However,as Bennett argues, when we give use to these psychological systems to find commonality as humans, weare giving more weight to these descriptions themselves than the fact that people come from distinct world
views with unique values. Assuming what other people would think (e.g. we are all free individuals whowant to live in a capitalistic society) is an ethnocentric problem resulting from this form of minimization
by assuming human alikeness. Bennett cites the example of the US government’s tendency to consistently
believe that if they can remove a particular country’s leader, its people will want to live like us. This
comes from the erroneous position of assuming that cultural values are universally the same for all humans
resulting in an unrecognized schema of “we are all basically the same like me.” The idea of expecting
others to be “just like ourselves” minimizes important unrecognized differences and often results in the
different interpretations of the same behaviors. The minimization of cultural differences is used as a wayof avoiding recognizing our own cultural patterns and prevents us from adapting to understanding others－66 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69(Bennett, 2011). In the unconscious search for the minimization of differences via cultural schemata, or“cultural constructs” as Bennett uses, information is construed non-evaluatively within familiar categories
of our own world view, not because we believe we are better, but because we believe everyone isessentially the same. This stage makes it difficult to develop our own cultural awareness and intercultural
sensitivity to others and in the workplace can stifle diversity and creativity from those with divergent
world views. This makes it the most critical and problematic stage to recognize. For most Americans,for example, believing that “we are all basically the same just like me” is a deeply held cultural belief
because this is underpinned with the cultural values of social equality and individualism. It would be
difficult to apply this social equality norm if we believed that people had different views and opinions onsocial hierarchy and individual versus group norms and values. This is exactly the case between Japan andthe US when it comes to the norms of interdependent consensus making in Japan versus defining one’s
individuality and independence in the low context communication US. Both unconsciously assume theirway is the norm and, therefore, most desirable approach. Several examples of intercultural conflict due tominimization of cultural differences are discussed in section 4.0.
Minimization of the minority culture almost always, and sometimes unintentionally, cedes powerand status to the dominant culture to maintain status quo. This minimization effect is usually evident
in large institutions with a disproportionate number of culturally diverse minorities in the lower ranks
compared with the upper ranks of those with decision making power. Interestingly, for organizations, thisminimization often leads to difficulty in retaining employees from diverse cultural backgrounds because ofan extreme emphasis on conformity, commonalities and a lack of recognition of their own unique culturalcontext in the world (Bennett, 2004).
If a person or organization is able to acquire enough intercultural sensitivity through education andtraining, the next stage becomes acceptance. In this stage, the dominant cultural group accepts differences.
This means that individuals actively seek out knowledge of different cultures and may even “apply ethicalprinciples cross-culturally.” Organizations finally see the need for training efforts and those in positionsof power are encouraged to recognize cultural differences. Once this is done, the acceptance stage
manifests itself into behavior that allows us to put ourself in the other’s shoes or what Bennett describes as“cognitive frame shifting.” Our cultural schema becomes more flexible and we become more confident tocommunicate across different cultural contexts. We are able to recognize power discrepancies and the needfor colleagues to have intercultural skills to maintain a climate of respect for diversity.
Finally, adaptation develops into integration which is the final stage of Bennett’s six stage model.
In the integration stage, we define cultural differences as part of our identity and often feel that we do notbelong in any one single culture. We may have multiple frames of references we can draw from and canmove in and out of more than one cultural group seamlessly. Our identity is not based on any one culture－66 －Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect―RYAN

but a conglomeration of two or more cultures. Unfortunately, few of us are at this stage unless we wereraised in a bicultural and bilingual environment.

4. Minimization and IC conflict
Recognizing the importance of minimization is not solely a phenomenon in Western individualistic
low-context cultures. High-context communication cultures, such as Japan, strongly emphasize group held
norms over individual norms; social hierarchy is assumed in contrast to a low-context way of viewing theworld. What does minimization look like for a high-context culture? “We are all basically the same just likeme” schema also applies but from this cultural construct, assumes others value group consensus building
and the maintaining of strong harmonious interpersonal relationships above all else. So, when a lowcontext world view speaker, interacts in this culture, individual opinions are interpreted from the standpointof how it affects others in the group. This often leads low-context speakers to feel that their opinions havelittle or no weight or that they are being marginalized or forced to fit-in with others and, thus, threatening
their individuality and social equality value world view.
4.1 Example: Japan and the US
Japan as a high context culture that highly values social harmony is a useful contrast to the US.
The cultural emphasis on social harmony and in-group interdependency in Japan makes diversity more
problematic than in other more multicultural diverse societies. Japanese culture is described as a large
power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance culture (see Hofstede et. al. 2010) that highly values
harmonious social relationships. This tendency has many strong points (see Ryan 2012 for merits
and demerits) such as establishing and maintaining strong interpersonal relationships, team building,
teamwork, less workplace stress. However, for those trying to work and live inside Japan as outsiders tothis community of shared norms, Japan can be frustratingly opaque and impersonal because these traits
often result in individual feelings, opinions being excluded or ignored by (tatemae) ambiguous public facecommunication values. For the American native English speaker, openness and frankness (honne) are vitalto establishing trust in social relationships rather than anticipating the feelings of others first. These two
conflicting deep structure traits are internalized to help communication run smoothly. Hall describes this as
an “action chain” which relies on these internalized processes to quickly make judgements and decisions
across the entire spectrum of communication behavior. Minimization is often an unintended consequence
to those who are unfamiliar with their own cultural construct or schema for interaction.

－66 －山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69

5. Discussion
Intercultural competence is a diverse range of appropriate cognitive, behavioral and affective skills
that can lead to more effective communication with someone from another culture. However, it is argued
here that to have successful cross-cultural outcomes, we need to first acquire intercultural sensitivity.
However, as we have discussed, the process of developing IC awareness, and the sensitivity that follows,is counterintuitive because we need to become mindful and aware of our own cultural tendencies as we
contrast them with the other culture while suspending any ethnocentric judgements. This is problematic
because most of us take for granted that our norms and values are based upon the centralizing tendenciesof our larger national culture to make “common sense” decisions and judgements. Bennett’s DMIS model
describes six stages of intercultural sensitivity that can help us raise our awareness so that sensitivity may
follow. It was argued in section 3.2.1 that the third stage, minimization, is the most critical to acquiring
the intercultural sensitivity to increase awareness of cognitive cultural differences so that intercultural
skills can be further developed and used for successful outcomes. The minimization of differences as an
unconscious cultural norm (e.g. we all want to live in a free market society that stresses individualism vs.
group consensus and interdependence) is often used to justify the dominant culture’s behavior but often
fails to give real inclusion and empowerment for those in the cultural minority to achieve real diversity.
Cultural diversity means more than simply recognizing that differences exist; it also means becoming
more aware of our own cultural norms of being so as not to impose them on those from difference cultural
backgrounds. Becoming more interculturally competent allows those from diverse cultural perspectives tofeel more included, empowered and productive which can inspire greater creativity and drive innovation inan organization or in smaller cross-cultural interactions.

References
Bennett, M. (1986). A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, no.2: 179-95.
Bennett, M. J. (1998a). Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective. In Milton, M.J. (Ed.), Basic
Concepts of Intercultural Communication, 1-34, Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). From Ethnocentrism to Ethnorelativism . In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.) Toward
Multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource
Corporation.
Bennett, M.J. (2011). A Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (PDF file). Retrieved from https://www.idrinstitute.org/dmis/－66 －Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect―RYAN

Bennett, M. (2017) Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. In Kim, Y. (ed). Interculturalencyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley.
Chen, G. and Starosta, W.J. (1998). A Review of Intercultural Competence. The University of Rhode
Island@URI, Human Communication, vol. 2, pp. 27-54.
Fantini, A. E. (2007). Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence. Centre for Social Development,
Washington University, Washington, USA.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Hammer, M. R. (2000). The Importance of Cross-Cultural Training in International Business. In Weaver,G.R.(Ed.), Culture Communication and Conflict (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Harris, P. Moran, R.T. (1987). Managing Cultural Differences. Houston TX: Gulf Publishing.
Hofstede, G., Gofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind.
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hymes, D. (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kohls, R. (1984) Intercultural Training: Don't Leave Home Without It. Washington, D.C: SIETAR.
Lustig, M.W. and Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural Competence. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking goals and perspectives.
NY: OUP, 142-146.
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an Appropriate EIL Pedagogy: Re‐examining common ELT assumptions.
International journal of applied linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.
Nishida, H. (1999). A Cognitive Approach to Intercultural Communication Based on Schema Theory.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 753-777.
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing Intercultural Understanding and Skills: Models andapproaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453-466.
Ryan, S. B. (2012). Understanding the Merits and Demerits of High and Low Context Oriented
Communication Cultures in Intercultural Business Conflict: the case of Fukushima and Japanesecommunication schema. 山形大学紀要（人文科学）, 第17巻 , ３号 , pp. 37-47.
Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication. An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ting-Toomey, S. and Chung, L.C. (2012). Understanding Intercultural Communication. New York: OUP.

－66 －

山形大学人文社会科学部研究年報

第17号（2020．３）59－69

Developing Intercultural Competence: recognizing the minimization effect

Stephen B. RYAN
Abstract

Intercultural Communication studies help us to identify the unique cultural perspectives of others
so that we do not misunderstand people in important situations such as in educational, health or businesssettings. To become a competent intercultural communicator, we first need to develop an awareness of our(lack of) cultural knowledge and not solely focus on the commonalities of two culturally diverse speakers
because this neglects important value differences of the minority second or foreign language speaker.
Intercultural Communication focuses on the study of differences because this is where we can best develop
the sensitivity to speakers who have divergent cultural norms and values on our journey of becoming
more interculturally competent. The goal of this paper is to define and discuss the concept of interculturalcompetence within the field of Intercultural Communication, and why it is needed as a critical component
to developing intercultural sensitivity for those in contact with dissimilar cultures. Several interculturalcompetence models are discussed with the main focus on how we can become mindful of how our culturalbiases affect the communication process.

－66 －