## Ariadna	Strugielska	&	Katarzyna	Piątkowska*

## Culture, Competence and Intercultural Competence: Global and Local Diversities in Intercultural Discourse

## Abstract

Despite the plethora of definitions and models of intercultural competence (IC), researchers still face challenges, among which bridging gaps between worldwide trends and local flows in intercultural discourse appears to be an essential goal if definitions and models of IC are to be exhaustive. The present paper summarizes trends in approaches to competence, culture and IC as presented in two types of discourse, global and local, pointing to incongruities between the two viewpoints. An analysis of intercultural research reveals that as opposed to global discourse, which is holistic in nature, local discourse is more modular. It remains an empirical question how these two discourses, and the centripetal and centrifugal forces that come with them, will permeate each other. Thus, the analysis highlights the need to enhance communication among researchers in order to manage multiple approaches, both global and local, and incorporate them into intercultural discourse.

## Keywords

competence, culture, intercultural competence, global and local discourses

## 1. Introduction - intercultural competence and complexity theory

Although the notion of intercultural competence (IC) has been the topic of interdisciplinary de -bate for decades now, its nature is still far from defined and ways of development far from delin -eated. In fact a recent monograph on the state of the art in intercultural research (see Deardorff 2009) reveals that the multitude of existing interpretations of the concept not only fails to resolve the more familiar dilemmas, including the degree to which recurrent elements of competence, i.e. motivation, knowledge and skills, should be approached in a discrete manner (2009: 35), or ways in which the stable and the developmental could be compromised (Bennett 1986), but also poses new challenges, among which the need to bridge gaps and construct models on the basis of ex -isting local patterns rather than a priori global stabilities seems particularly timely. Recent publi -cations (e.g. Dervin 2011, Sorrells 2014) strongly emphasize that global discourse has dominat -ed intercultural communication and highlight the need for re-defining the concept of culture, the linkage between global and local discourses and the positioning of intercultural communication in research. 1 Furthermore, 'synthesizing research from multiple disciplines and cultures into a co -herent whole' (2011: 24) is the course of action advocated in the UNESCO Conceptual and Op -erational Framework on Intercultural Competences.

1 Local discourse is understood as texts created in and influenced by particular national backgrounds and academic positions; local/national discourses tend to convey specific concepts typical of a given locality and rendered in its native language. Global discourse is understood as texts created by researchers coming from various national backgrounds and sharing an international language, typically English. Their common communicative ground facilitates the exchange of ideas and may result in the emergence of universal concepts of generic nature. The bridge between the local/national and the global/international could take the form of a holistic (transnational) paradigm (Risager 2007), whereby the two discourses would constitute its respective micro and macro levels.

* Ariadna	Strugielska	&	Katarzyna	Piątkowska Department of English Nicolaus	Copernicus	University,	Toruń,	Poland ul. W. Bojarskiego 1 87	-	100	Toruń,	Poland Ariadna.Strugielska@umk.pl - kapia@umk.pl

109

Recent tendencies in international intercultural research have been summarized in a number of publications, including Deardorff's (2006) synthesis of expert conceptualizations of IC, Spitz -berg and Changnon's (2009) overview of contemporary theories and models, or Dai and Chen's (2014) attempt to capture patterns in the evolution of IC. Endeavors to establish regularities at the theory level in the form of supradisciplinary models have also been undertaken, and it seems that the ecological perspective, informed by complexity theory, has become a particularly influential approach here (see Baker 2015 for a discussion). To be more specific, recent studies (e.g. Fon -cha and Sivasubramaniam 2014, Moeller and Nugent 2014, Rygg 2014, McBride and Gu 2015) point to instability, variability, unpredictability, aperiodicity, and non-linearity in the acquisition of IC. Thus, IC is viewed as an emergent category affected by variables which undergo changes and permeate one another, forming complex systems. Recognizing the nature of IC's develop -ment, Strugielska and Piątkowska (2017) point to congruence between IC and the theory of com -plex systems.

Complexity theory is an overarching explanation of both real-world phenomena and scholarly work, which aims to account for how elements of a system interact to become a new whole, with its  emergent attributes and dimensions. Since complex systems have been already extensively discussed and applied (see Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008 for an overview), their architec -ture and basic terminology will not be revised but simply acknowledged. Still, since a complex systems perspective tends to concentrate on particular elements and contingencies which show 'which aspects of context are most salient to solving the problems at hand' (Phipps and Levine 2011: 9), it needs to be declared that in the current discussion we evoke the following aspects of complexity theory: attractor states, i.e. stabilities - fixed, cyclic or chaotic - preferred by the sys -tem, the state space, delineated by the system's movement between or among the attractors and delimiting its scope of possibilities, and levels, i.e. micro and macro, as well as timescales, i.e. current and developmental, on which a complex system can be examined (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 57-61).

Likewise, drawing from the view of discourse as a flow of written or oral texts through time (Risager 2007: 18), we recognize local and global discourses as (potentially) interrelated. Fol -lowing the theory of complex systems, we demonstrate that each type of discourse mentioned above is characterized by its own stabilities, i.e. attractors - various components constituting cul -ture, competence and IC - which have emerged through a decade of intercultural research. We argue that these attractors function as centripetal and centrifugal forces, delimiting the interface between the two discourses under consideration and leading to inconsistency in the way IC is viewed as a whole.

Consolidating various characterizations of IC unavoidably leads to simplifying and essential -izing this inherently complex notion and putting forward universal tendencies, predominantly in the form of deductive models. Such top-down attempts, however, have not received support from studies focused on more limited contexts of IC, including discourse and culture-specific perspec -tives (see, for instance, Deardorff 2009). While generalizations are an intrinsic part of any theory or model, a contemporary position of intercultural research seems to be leaning towards experi -ential stabilities, variable patterns and global regularities emerging from local contexts rather than shaping them.

In consonance with this bottom-up, inductive propensity, we theorize IC as a complex system at two levels and in two contexts. First, at a micro level, (inter)culturality and competence will be characterized as dynamic and emergent phenomena. Importantly, and unlike previous research based on complexity theory (e.g. Kramsch 2011, Baker 2015), the intricacy of culture and com -petence will be viewed as a natural consequence of the ways the two concepts have been theo -rized. This evolutionary perspective will show how apparently incompatible conceptualizations of culture and competence in the relevant literature of a given period can indeed be reconciled as new wholes if stabilities are redefined and levels and timescales acknowledged. These findings are then consolidated at a macro level, whereby IC is seen as emerging from its component cat - egories, i.e. (inter)culture and competence. It is argued that the conceptual scaffolding provided by the two donor concepts is gradually removed and consequently, the experiential stabilities pro -posed at the micro level, i.e. in the theories of culture and competence, may emerge as evolved, novel categories at the macro level, i.e. in the characterizations of IC. To illustrate, while social norms, customs and values, which characterize early models of IC, may be directly related to their source category - culture - adaptability, responsiveness or disclosure, which, according to Chen (2014: 18), appear in more contemporary descriptions of the notion, can hardly be attached to a single donor category. Instead, IC has come to constitute 'a whole that is more than the sum of its parts and that cannot be explained reductively' (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 59). Whole -ness characterizes complex systems at higher, more advanced stages of evolution, and we demon -strate that unity indeed permeates a number of contemporary conceptualizations of IC. This ar -gument will be supported with recent findings from cognitive psychology, and the concept of a simulator (Barsalou 1999, 2003, 2016), will be proposed as a wholeness possibly characterizing the most advanced evolutionary stage of IC.

Simultaneously, following a recent call for a balance between global and local perspectives as a nexus in intercultural research (Liu 2012), we highlight two types of discourse, with reference to which IC could be characterized, i.e. global, where results are published in English and can thus easily reach and influence international audiences, and local, where results are published in a native language other than English and can therefore influence a limited number of intercultural researchers (Risager 2007). Consequently, we emphasize that intercultural dialogue between re -searchers is the basis for IC.

Following the urge to make pluralities and diversities 'serve as the beginning points for devel -oping…common definitions and creating a new space of interactions' (UNESCO 2011: 45), out of which a new understanding of IC may arise, we investigate a local discourse, i.e. interpretations of (inter)culture, competence and IC emerging from the narratives of Polish academics whose re -search results have influenced the Polish intercultural scene for the last decade, and juxtapose our findings with a propensity towards wholeness which seems to have had a considerable impact on intercultural research conducted on the international scene. Taking the nature of emergent stabil -ities, i.e. favored concepts and theories, as our criteria for comparison and acknowledging con -stant interaction between 'centripetal and centrifugal forces' (Bakhtin 1981: 272), or the recip -rocal nature of causality (Thompson and Varela 2001), we finally wonder if or how national and international visions of IC might influence each other in future research, stressing the need for in -tercultural communication between researchers, which is the basis of an integrative approach to intercultural investigations.

## 2. Culture, competence and IC in global discourse

Looking at the plethora of existing conceptions of IC, it is a truism to say that its constitutive cat -egories have been given various interpretations, oscillating between the solid and the fluid, the mentalistic and the social, the individualistic and the collective, the universal and the relative, and that leaning towards either end of this continuum has had repercussions for understanding IC as a whole. Importantly, these apparently contradictory positions have been supported by interdisci -plinary findings, encompassing research in applied linguistics and ecolinguistics, sociology and sociocultural studies, cultural and translation studies, to name but a few (for a complementary list see, for instance, Matsuo 2012). If indeed the existing variety of theories and notions used to build the intercultural framework at the global level has sound foundations, there is a need for an overarching explanation in order to account for apparently incompatible accounts, and complex -ity theory, embracing the fixedness of the structuralist tradition and the hybridity of the postmod -ern approach as a reconstructed wholeness, is an attractive option.

## 2.1.  Approaches to culture in global discourse

When looking at the idea of culture in global intercultural research, most studies depict the con -cept in terms of its products, or 'objective facts' (Deardorff 2009: xiii), and although the interpre -tation of culture as 'a shared, stable living space, supported equally by all members of the group, which passes it onto the next generation' (UNESCO 2011: 7) is distant from the reality of the globalized world, it still seems to permeate intercultural discourse. For instance, Larzén (2005) notes that the cognitive orientation to culture, based on factual knowledge and information, far surpasses its conceptualization inspired by what she defines as the affective orientation - a holis -tic approach to culture seen as a bi-directional perspective, where empathy and respect for other -ness are encouraged (2005: 145). Much in the same vein, Tournebise (2012: 114) concludes that narratives of educators involved in intercultural training are 'closer to a culturalist interpreta -tion', whereby cultures are treated as collections of facts and thus comparisons are easy to make and discrepancies easy to spot. This differentialist, solid approach to culture (Dervin 2010) fa -cilitates categorical classifications, contributes to the emergence of stereotypical discourses, and prevents genuinely intercultural encounters. i.e. exchanges based on flexibility, heterogeneity and mediation, or liquidity (Bauman 2004). Similarly, Matsuo (2014: 19) cautions against the objec -tification of culture into abstractions which can easily become 'a degenerate form of representa -tion: the stereotype'. In fact, if cultures are viewed in an ethnocentric, 'container-like' fashion, intercultural dialogue is likely to falter and ultimately freeze into an impenetrable whole (2014: 18). This conception of culture underlies a number of definitions of interculturality, among which Byram's (1997) model seems a classic example (see Matsuo 2012, 2014 for details). While focus -ing on the products of culture seems cognitively plausible since, as Matsuo (2014: 18) argues, re -ified abstractions are 'stable and held easily in cognition' and may provide 'invaluable windows into understanding a culture' (Deardorff 2009: xiii), such knowledge needs to be substituted by or complemented with a dialogic approach, whereby culture is seen through its complexity and in -stability. The former option, i.e. replacing the solid with the liquid, is elegantly captured through Dervin's (2010) Janusian perspective, which implies mutual excludability of the two conceptions. Likewise, Matsuo's (2014: 19) proposal, oscillating between the dialogic and the monologic, fi -nally settles on a dichotomous approach, whereby culture can be theorized in either cognitive, i.e. stable, or linguistic, i.e. relative, terms, with the latter being consistent with a culture-as-discourse perspective. The second alternative, i.e. supplementing the liquid with the solid, seems to tran -spire from Kramsch's (2011: 18) interpretation of culture as 'something that people carry with them in their heads', as myths and metaphors which have become commodities. This apparently reified view of culture is, however, strongly relativized through 'symbolic codes and discourses, habits of the mind and habits of the heart, values, philosophies and ideologies' (2011: 24), which replace national customs and historical facts, and which might counteract 'fears of undue stere -otyping' (2011: 18). Ultimately then, culture is a category of thought which, in intercultural en -counters, needs to be negotiated as 'speakers grapple with each other's categorizations of events and underlying ideologies' (2011: 15) and interculturality becomes a transcultural ability to op -erate between languages and cultures and to create a third culture - 'a symbolic process of mean -ing-making that sees beyond the dualities of national languages and national cultures' (Kramsch 2010: 1). Consequently, culture becomes a transcultural flow which requires a mindset that would optimize understanding symbolic values, reframing the familiar in order to create 'alternative re -alities' and 'looking at and through language' (2009: 201).

To sum up, perspectives on culture within global intercultural discourse oscillate between re -ified and processual interpretations, with the former anchored in degenerate and detached rep -resentations and the latter drawing on the subjective and the relative, on the awareness of symbol -ic values and the recognition of previous discourses. Much as these two extreme positions could be the preferred interpretations of (inter)culturality, constituting a kind of a cyclic attractor, there is also the middle way, where observable stabilities result from development, where there is vari -ability within permanence, and where constancy is always relative and dependent on the strength of an attractor (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 56). When culture self-organizes as a general cognitive and affective orientation of the self, a relational frame of mind, or 'a mode of belong -ing' (Kramsch 2009: 247), unwarranted and vacuous representations are transformed into attrac -tors, e.g. stereotypes and facts, cultural frames and models, cultural metaphors and symbols as well as individual realities, which, although apparently stable, are indeed dynamic and prone to change. These sedimentations, reflecting emergence at different levels and timescales, will evolve further when coupled with other systems and contexts. Thus, while Collier (1989) rightly notes that the way culture is defined fundamentally shapes the conceptualization of IC, from the com -plexity perspective, IC is also influenced by the way competence is characterized.

## 2.2.  Approaches to competence in global discourse

To begin with, as Byrnes (2006) observes, the notion of competence unavoidably echoes the the -oretical burdens of the structuralist tradition and evokes an unmotivated competence/performance dichotomy. Indeed, as Matsuo (2014: 19) argues, this division can be perceived in Byram's (1997) cognitive interpretation of competence in terms of knowledge, behaviours, attitudes and skills, which she contrasts with a dialogical position, whereby 'knowledge and actions are conceptual -ized linguistically'. Hence, competence is viewed as a Janusian concept, which is either cogni -tive, i.e. located inside an individual and thus 'too rational, too conscious, and too intentional' (Spitzberg and Changnon, 2009: 35), or relational, i.e. 'active, responsive, creative, 'emotion -al-volitional' (Matsuo 2014: 18). In other words, the cognitive perspective on competence pre -supposes  either  excluding  certain  important  notions  from  an  overall  representation,  including emotional and physiological aspects, or characterizing these elements, e.g. anxiety or motivation, as cognitive, i.e. stable, fixed and retrievable categories. Another consequence of a dichotomous perspective on competence in intercultural research is adopting a modularity, or dimensionality, position, whereby motivation, knowledge and skills - the core components of IC (Spitzberg and Cupach 1984) - are taken as separated. Throughout the history of global intercultural research, this classic triad has been supplemented by other notions, such as awareness, context, or outcomes (see Dai/Chen 2014 for an overview), all of which have been metonymically captured as traits, e.g.  tolerance,  flexibility,  patience,  a  sense  of  humor,  adaptability,  curiosity,  empathy,  a  clear sense of self, or tolerance of ambiguity (Fantini/Tirmizi 2006). In fact, as Spitzberg and Chang -non (2009: 6) argue, certain features of competence, e.g. understanding, co-orientation, satisfac -tion or adaptation, have functioned as its synonyms, and 'empathy, perspective taking, and adapt -ability continue to serve as the hallmarks of most models of IC, regardless of the cultural origins of the authors' (2009: 44). In the same vein, Deardorff (2011) enumerates six recurrent criteria of competence, which are: respect, self-awareness/identity, seeing from other perspectives, listen -ing, adaptation, relationship building, and cultural humility. In fact, metonymic representations of competence have led to its alternative conceptualizations as, for instance, (cross-cultural) ef -fectiveness (Kealey 1989) or (intercultural) sensitivity (Bennett 1986). A remaining challenge for intercultural researchers, however, is how to account for these emergent features of competence with reference to levels or scales. For instance, according to Spitzberg and Changnon (2009: 35), sensitivity is a subcomponent of adaptability which, in Dai and Chen's (2014) view is itself a component of social adjustment, while Deardorff (2011) interprets adaptation as a prerequisite for IC. In an attempt to overcome this confusion alternative terminology has been proposed, with the notion of capacity, or abilities, offered as a possible solution. According to Phipps/Levine (2011: 11), capacity is 'the disposition for action, not just about how well someone can do something but with competences subsumed beneath it'; it is 'the capacity for creativity and collaboration'. Our solution is to refer the variety of interpretations that competence has received to the system of human abilities.

To begin with, a number of metonyms for competence in fact refer to basic cognitive skills, which, according to Tomasello (2003), are pattern-finding and intention-reading abilities, with the latter consisting of three interrelated phenomena: joint attention frames, the understanding of communicative intentions and role reversal imitation. Intention-reading abilities seem to empow -er such features of competence as co-orientation, social adjustment, perspective taking or empa -thy. Importantly, according to Barsalou (2003, 2009), intention-reading abilities lead to inferences about object affordances, the effectiveness of actions and possible emotional rewards and hence, they become a scaffolding for the conceptual system. Analogically, certain features of compe -tence, e.g. co-orientation or perspective taking, are a scaffolding, or a set of prerequisites, for more abstract, i.e. emergent, traits, e.g. adaptation or sensitivity. While the exact nature of these interdependencies needs further research, what transpires from the present perspective is an evo -lutionary nature of competence, i.e. its tendency for development and emergence. In this frame -work, capacity, i.e. a new term for competence, may indeed be built on capabilities which adapt in response to change, i.e. the growing demands of globalized contexts.

If this non-modular and dynamic cognitive perspective on competence is valid, it should also consolidate interpretations which view knowledge, skills, emotions, attitudes and actions as sep -arate components of IC. Indeed, Barsalou's (1999) characterization of cognition, which depends on perception, action and interception and couples with the physical and social environment, val -idates redefining competence as a category encompassing elements of objects, settings, self rel -evance, physical actions, and a variety of cognitive, affective and bodily responses. If seen from this perspective, the previously separated components of competence become dimensions of mul -timodal conceptualizations. This approach is consistent with Kramsch's notion of symbolic com -petence, which is 'engaged in the symbolic power game of challenging established meanings and redefining the real' (2010: 359), in that established meanings are the fixed categories of the mind, characteristic of structuralist approaches, while redefined meanings are conceptualizations, or situated simulations (Barsalou 2009), which 'are likely to be incomplete and distorted in many ways, representing abstractions, caricatures, and ideals, as well as specific learning episodes' (Barsalou 2016: 3). Recurrent elements of such conceptualizations can be abstracted as frames or schemas, and these statistically relevant configurations become records of past experiences, or points of emergence, which Barsalou (2008) calls simulators. If a simulator, or a cognitive frame, is re-activated, it gives rise to a potentially infinite set of simulations, i.e. conceptualizations. If reenacted in specific contexts, frames emerge as cultural models, social abstractions and stere -otypes, conceptualizations constrained at personal or discourse levels. Consequently, simulators may be taken as our general cognitive potential which enables categorization, supports action and provides people with 'diverse forms of expertise about perceived category instances' (Bruner 1973 quoted in Barsalou 2016: 1), i.e. competence. If re-activated in a particular context or cul -ture, competence is elaborated as a particular assembly of simulators, or their dimensions, or sim -ply a frame of mind. Ultimately then simulators, i.e. the new wholes emerging from the co-ad -aptation of context (culture) and cognition (competence), are much simpler and, simultaneously, more advanced, than the complexities beneath them.

Characterizing culture and competence from a complex systems perspective can be done at two levels. At the micro level the concepts of culture and competence will display features of com -plexity, which in turn will be reflected in the way they are theorized. Essentially, if complexity is the model, dichotomies, e.g. the solid and the fluid or the universal and the relative, will interact and emerge as relative though constrained dynamic stabilities. At the macro level, IC, a complex -ity emerging from its two donor categories, will be viewed as a whole which is less complex and more unified than its parts. We propose that this novel wholeness be a simulator which reenacts the ultimate unity of embodied and embedded cognition.

## 2.3.  Approaches to IC in global discourse

The above proposal is consistent with recent unifying tendencies in the global intercultural par -adigm. As Chen (2014: 17-18) demonstrates in his overview of intercultural research, the longheld dimensions of IC, e.g. cultural awareness or personal and psychological attributes, should indeed be replaced by less specialized, generic concepts, i.e. self-disclosure, self-consciousness, social adjustment or interaction involvement. 'Indeed, many who encourage intercultural compe -tences are coming to understand that people either are competent jointly, or are incompetent, but there is no such thing as one person being interculturally competent alone' (UNESCO 2013: 38).

If unification, wholeness and simplicity are indeed the driving forces of global intercultural research, leading to the emergence of IC at an evolved, advanced stage, it is intriguing to see if or how this tendency corresponds to elements of intercultural research highlighted in local dis -course. This interface will be outlined with reference to the Polish perspective.

## 3. Culture, competence and IC in local discourse

Polish intercultural discourse has been chosen as a local discourse for the analysis since there is a lack of data regarding this perspective (Risager 2007) which, as the discussion below shows, is potentially influential. We may distinguish two tendencies which determine the understanding of the concepts of culture, competence and IC in the national discourse. The first one, a cognitive perspective, which is characterized by a differentialist approach to culture and IC and a structur -alist approach to competence, defines the three notions as stable and modular concepts. A cogni -tive view can be juxtaposed with a new tendency, i.e. an attempt at a dialogic perspective, which represents a more dynamic approach to the notions of culture, competence and IC, typical of a constructivist perspective.

## 3.1.  Approaches to culture in local discourse

To begin with, two approaches to culture, cognitive and dialogic, emerge from the local intercul -tural discourse. The majority of Polish researchers (e.g. Jabłońska 2008, Szczurek-Boruta 2013, Mihułka 2010, 2012, 2014, Więcek-Janka 2011) assume a cognitive perspective. Its supporters view culture as knowledge, assumptions and practices which allow distinguishing one culture from another. Since heterogeneity is acknowledged, the analysis of culture focuses on cross-cul -tural differences, which become the foundations of knowledge, abilities and attitudes of IC (e.g. Komorowska 1996), pointing to a dfferentialist perspective. Cross-cultural differences dominate all ranges of knowledge (see Komorowska's 1996 or Szczurek-Boruta's 2013) and the importance of cultural diversity is emphasized in knowledge of meanings held by people of various cultures or culturally shaped perceptions (Bandura 2007).

The other perspective on culture, a dialogic approach, stresses an individual dimension in its interpretation (e.g. Żydek-Bednarczuk 2012). This position is emphasized by Owczarek (2004), who concludes that the comprehension of culture is influenced by the feelings and intellectual as -pirations an individual experiences. In this sense culture is viewed as a dynamic concept under -going constant change which, rather than following a universal line, proceeds in an individual way. Furthermore, culture is always contextualized, i.e. cultural competence is always a conse -quence of a given situation, hence, variety is a norm. This is best summarized by WąsikiewiczFirlej, Szczepaniak-Kozak and Lankiewicz (2012), who consider culture with reference to prag -matic competence and situational context, concluding that frequent heterogeneous exposure to cultural experience may enhance adaptability, resourcefulness and perceptiveness. In the same vein, Owczarek (2004) reflects on the interface between the cultural aspects an individual experi -ences and an attitude they take. Thus, the dialogic perspective presupposes a subjective and rela -tivist position in the interpretation of culture. However, this perspective does not reject a modular view, which considers knowledge, skills or assumptions as components of culture and IC. Such an approach is taken by, e.g. Owczarek (2004), who distinguishes between knowledge, skills and attitudes, which are based on comparing and contrasting cultures. Similarly, Żydek-Bednarczuk (2012), Wąsikiewicz-Firlej et al. (2012) introduce a modular view of culture, where abilities, awareness and competences are referred to culture and influence the quality of IC. Therefore, the two perspectives on culture, differentialist and dialogic, cannot be treated as contradictory.

## 3.2.  Approaches to competence in local discourse

There are also two tendencies in the way the concept of competence in the national intercultural discourse is approached, i.e. a structuralist and a dialogic position. The former is based on a di -chotomy between competence and performance while the latter results from an experiential and individualist approach. However, regardless of the approach adopted, researchers enumerate vari -ous criteria of competence, which are its equivalents. These include: knowledge (Jabłońska 2008, Szczurek-Boruta 2013), savoir (Komorowska 1996), skills (Jabłońska 2008, Rapacka 2009), mo -tivation (Jabłońska 2008), and attitude (Białek 2009). Therefore, the same criteria which are con -sidered to be the elements of competence are also the components of IC. Researchers following Byram's (1997) model of IC understand competence in terms of a dichotomy between compe -tence and performance with the former referring to factual general and culture-specific knowl -edge, self-awareness, awareness of otherness and the latter relating to skills and attitudes result -ing from this knowledge, i.e. skills of observing, discovering, analyzing, interpreting, relating, and evaluating and attitudes of open-mindedness and empathy. Hence, competence includes cog -nitive (knowledge) and functional (the skill of applying this knowledge) elements. The interface position, i.e. the interrelation between competence and performance, is at the same time empha -sized. However, while knowledge affects skills and attitudes, it remains unaffected by them. In most discourse (e.g. Komorowska 1996, Szczurek-Boruta 2013, Jabłońska 2008) there is predom -inance of competence over performance. As a consequence, knowledge is treated as central and necessary to attain communicative competence; it is a prerequisite of effective communication, which is treated as a by-product of competence. For example, Komorowska (1996) treats com -petence in terms of separate categories, distinguishing between knowledge of facts and knowl -edge understood as the ability both to adapt (including attitudes and acting appropriately in a giv -en situation), and to analyze phenomena. In the same vein, Jastrzębska (2005) distinguishes be -tween declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge of facts and awareness while procedural knowledge relates to perception and ability. Szczurek-Boruta (2013) presents a similar approach to competence. Namely, she introduces four types of knowl -edge: knowing about (gathering knowledge), knowing how (the ability to act appropriately verbally and non-verbally - in a given context), knowing why (discovering and understanding), and knowing oneself (reflecting). Similarly, Jabłońska (2008) enumerates the following compo -nents of competence: knowledge (of facts), motivation (readiness to cooperate with others), and abilities (to empathize and to adapt). Competence, therefore, means having a sufficient amount of knowledge to sanction an appropriate skill. In other words, performance depends on compe -tence and is affected by it. Such an interpretation of competence presupposes the transferability of abilities from knowledge to skills and attitudes, with the three components viewed as separate. In other words, the supporters of this approach do not take into consideration a situation or con -text as a factor influencing the development of competence, which lets us conclude that compe -tence is treated as an autonomous faculty in the human mind. It is thus typical of the structuralist view, whereby competence is a set of stable and fixed categories understood as general abilities based on knowledge, skills, emotions, and attitudes. However, it has to be stressed that Polish re -searchers are not unanimous about the degrees of autonomy the components of competence may display. For example, Komorowska (1996) and Szczurek-Boruta (2013) view knowledge as the core components of IC, pervading other components. Wilczyńska (2005) considers personality features among the most essential elements of IC since they influence individuals' ability to act in intercultural situations and themselves are affected by knowledge, abilities and individual fac -tors. Another feature of the structuralist perspective upon competence is its approach to the nature of interaction and its role in IC. Interaction is one of the elements of competence. It refers to the ability to transfer interactive skills in one's native culture to a new cultural context. From this per -spective the ability of effective interaction is placed alongside other components of competence, especially in the development of IC.

A dialogic approach to competence views the concept as a more complex notion referring to an ongoing process of changing personality and self-awareness, which leads to changes in knowl -edge, skills and attitudes, emphasized in IC (Białek 2009). The outcome of this process is affected by a situation, which influences the levels and degrees of competence. Thus, the perspective re -jects the view of competence as a set of fixed stabilities. Instead, it presents the notion as a fluid category approached through a more constructivist tradition, i.e. meaning construction. This in -terpretation is represented by Owczarek (2004), who notices that the development of IC is an in -dividual process affected by personal emotions and mental processing; these are transformed into the interpretations of culture; i.e. the development of competence is based on personal meaning construction. Another difference between structuralist and dialogic perspectives is the way they view the role of interaction with reference to competence. Despite the fact that in both interpreta -tions competence and interaction are inseparable, the dialogic perspective sees the ability to in -teract as permeating all aspects of competence and working with them at all levels. Moreover, an important role of conscious reflexivity in developing IC (Białek 2009) means that competence is understood as an assembly of interfacing cognitive and affective domains, personality factors, a situation, verbal and behavioural reactions, which lead to changes in knowledge, skills and atti -tudes. As a result, the level of competence attained by various individuals may be different and unpredictable. Consequently, competence is interpreted in terms of sociolinguistic, pragmatic and psychological aspects. To conclude, although the two perspectives presented above interpret com -petence in different ways, in both views the concept is composed of linguistic, social and psycho -logical phenomena, which, as Żydek-Bednarczuk (2012) notices, form a continuum. This con -tinuum is interpreted either as a transfer of core elements of these phenomena (a structuralist ap -proach) or as a an assembly of elements permeating one another (a dialogic approach).

## 3.3.   Approaches to IC in local discourse

Recent intercultural research in Polish points to the interpretation of interculturality being domi -nated by a cognitive perspective with the focus on the direct application of Byram's (1997) mod -el of IC (e.g. Jabłońska 2008, Szczurek-Boruta 2013, Mihułka 2010, 2012, 2014) or following this tradition (e.g. Więcek-Janka 2011). From this perspective IC is discussed with reference to its products, which are delineated as a collection of separate competences, i.e. knowledge, skills and attitudes, wherein these competences are a priori stabilities emerging from theoretical assump -tions. Knowledge underlies IC and is treated as a stability embracing these competences. Conse -quently, the definition of IC as four types of knowledge prevails with savoir-etre referring to the ability to overcome ethnocentric attitudes, savoir-apprendre relating to the ability to analyze new -ly encountered cultural phenomena, savoir-knowledge of basic cultural facts, and savoir-faire as the ability to communicate with people of other cultures (Komorowska 1996). Although main -stream studies treat the development of IC as a dynamic and complex process, where particular competences may not only attain diverse levels in an individual but also change dynamically de -pending on a communicative situation (Mihułka 2012), researchers strive to establish elements or fixed entities which are viewed as requirements to attain IC. These are reminiscent of Byram's (1997) savoirs (see table 1 below for details).

Table 1. Elements of IC

| Knowledge                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | Ability                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | Attitude                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| knowledge of one's own and the target culture and knowledge of people of other cultures (Komorowska 1996, Mihułka 2010, 2012, 2014), which refers to the knowledge of problems arising from cross - cultural interaction and the knowledge of other people's perceptions | ability to analyze newly encountered cultural phenomena (Komorowska 1996)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | attitude of empathy, tolerance, openness to others, respect for cross - cultural differences, the ability to abandon ethnocentric attitudes, to suspend judgment and disbelief (Ambrosewicz - Jacobs 2004, Sobieraj 2012) |
| metacognitive reflection on intercultural experiences and o bservations (Sobieraj 2012, Szczurek - Boruta 2013)                                                                                                                                                          | ability to act properly when in contact with other people, which entails the ability to adjust to a culturally new situation (i.e. the ability to communicate verbally and non - verbally in a multicultural environment) (Komorowska 1996, Aleksandrowicz - Pędich 2006, Jabłońska 2008, Szczurek - Boruta 2013) |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| awareness of self - identity referring to the ability to reflect on the system of values existing in one's own culture which determine human behaviour and ways of discovering self - identity (Sobieraj 2012, Szczurek - Boruta 2013)                                   | ability to discover and understand perception, values and code of conduct typical of a particular culture (Szczurek - Boruta 2013)                                                                                                                                                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |

Thus, cross-cultural differences, the attitude of open-mindedness built on them, and skills of act -ing in a multicultural context respecting these differences lie at the heart of IC, which is under -stood as a by-product or a consequence of its particular competences.

This differentialist approach can be juxtaposed with studies representing a more dialogic per -spective (e.g. Wilczyńska 2005, Białek 2009), where IC is discussed with reference to pragmat -ics and liquidity. Instead of being understood as a set of stable elements (e.g. competences), IC is viewed as a process of constant change and growth of personality and self-awareness, which re -quires strong motivation and emotional engagement (Białek 2009). Such an understanding of IC results from the interpretation of culture as an individual experience. This experiential and indi -vidualist approach finds its manifestation in Owczarek's (2004) assumption, who bases the analy -sis of IC on the experience an individual goes through. Rather than a consequence or a product of certain competences, i.e. knowledge, skills and attitudes, IC is described as a process leading to changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes. In this respect the development of this competence is dependent on immeasurable factors such as attitudes and opinions (Komorowska 1999). Howev -er, it has to be clearly stated that the modular nature of IC is not totally rejected in this approach. Researchers point to the importance of components which form the basis of a differentialist per -spective, i.e. knowledge, skills and attitudes (e.g. Komorowska 1999, Białek 2009). A dialogic perspective assumes that these elements are dominated by other factors such as personality fea -tures or the attitude of openness towards otherness (e.g. Białek 2009). Similarly, in contrast to the representatives of a differentialist approach, researchers look for some commonalities unify -ing the whole framework of IC to account for the interface between the particular components of IC. For Rapacka (2009) it is general and language competence, through which intercultural edu -cation takes place. Wilczyńska (2005) considers personality features crucial since they influence knowledge, skills and individual aspects, i.e. opinions, emotions and the system of values. Ma -jewska (2014) points to discourse competence as a detrimental factor in the development of IC. As a consequence, the attitude of openness and willingness to accept cross-cultural differences substitute knowledge as an encompassing aspect and form the foundations of IC (Białek 2009). Interculturality builds on pragmatic competence (Nikitorowicz 2010) discussed in terms of flexi -bility with which an interculturally competent speaker engages in cross-cultural interaction. Niki -torowicz (2010) stresses that IC cannot be considered in terms of mere coexistence of various cultures but in terms of a public space where various cultures interact without losing its identi -ty. However, it is not context that is taken into consideration but a situation and verbal behaviour associated with it. Hence, different cultures require different reactions and the ability to execute appropriate verbal behaviour is associated with effective IC. Thus, IC is fostered through interac -tion. In the same vein, Rapacka (2009) maintains that the development of IC takes place together with the development of the ability to interact. Similarly, Majewska (2014) concludes that dis -course competence is the most important decisive factor in the development of IC. Therefore, the dialogic perspective postulates the interpretation of IC as the ability to construct meaning in in -teraction with representatives of other cultures. The need for such an approach is pronounced by Zarzycka (2001), who discusses this competence in terms of negotiating meaning by bringing our attention to possible obstacles in cross-cultural interaction resulting from different perception and interpretation of meaning by various representatives of cultures. Hence, the development of IC goes along with the development of the ability to interact with others. This simultaneous growth is a necessary condition for the acquisition and transformation of knowledge, the development of one's personality and reflexivity, whereby conscious reflexivity is treated as the core of intercul -tural education and development (Białek 2009: 121).

## 4. Conclusions

Although the analysis of the local discourse of IC reveals the presence of two approaches to cul -ture, competence and IC, they cannot be regarded as placed on the opposite ends of the contin -uum. Rather than being contradictory, the two approaches tend towards emergentism. Namely, a dialogic perspective presupposes the existence of the elements of culture, competence and IC which a differentialist perspective assumes while at the same time the approach introduces new features to the notions under discussion and consequently changes the balance and quality of the concepts and their components. Thus, the two perspectives permeate each other, which points to an evolving nature of the local intercultural discourse. However, even if there are signs of a sche -matic and liquid approach towards culture, competence and IC in some research, the national dis -course is rather modular with its descriptions of the three concepts as sets of either dependent or independent faculties functioning as fixed attractors defining the cores of these notions. At the same time, the understanding of culture, competence and IC within the two perspectives is inter -nally consistent, i.e. the three concepts are understood in a similar way within a single perspec -tive. Therefore, global and local discourses appear to be two-fold, i.e. while the former reveals a more holistic approach to culture, competence and IC, the latter seems to stay unaffected by this trend. In other words, if IC is viewed from a complexity perspective, its state space in global dis -course is more extensive than in the local milieu, with more dynamicity in the system's fluctua -tions among attractor states characterizing international intercultural research. This difference at the macro level can be related to discrepancies between global and local discourses at the micro level, whereby the notions of culture and competence are defined in a more schematic and generic manner in the former than in the latter.

While current incongruities between global and local approaches could be attached to particu -lar evolutionary paths each discourse has followed, the way culture, competence and IC are un -derstood and researched in the future remains to be seen. Undoubtedly, though, possible inter -plays between centripetal and centrifugal forces influencing IC will have a considerable impact on further research directions.

Finally, the discrepancy between national and international discourses may result from little intercultural communication and interface between global and regional contexts, as presented in the above analysis. Thus, it seems that bridging the communication gap between researchers is another challenge that the intercultural paradigm faces.

Clearly, the need to improve communication among scholars is justified by the necessity to devise an approach that would capture 'transnational connections and subnational localisations' (Risager 2007: 2), or facilitate greater interpenetration between local and global discourses which currently appear to exist alongside rather than within each other. In other words, the absence of a paradigm operating at micro- or/and macro-levels and bridging national and international dis -courses is the very reason why communication among researchers is not as fluent as it might be. For one thing, in the global vs. local perspective on IC emphasized throughout the article nation -al discourses are often excluded from a discussion. Thus, we propose that a possible way to solve the problem is to move beyond the local-or-the-global approach towards a holistic model in which national discourses are 'inclusive rather than exclusive' (Risager 2007: 236), and which shows the relation between language and culture as intricate and multidimensional (Risager 2007: 2). And we argue that complexity theory, with its focus on multifaceted nature of concepts, reciproc -ity of relations, levels and scales of development, offers a sound foundation upon which such a solution could be built.

## 5. References

- Aleksandrowicz-Pędich, Lucyna 2006: Rozwijanie	kompetencji	interkulturowej	na	studiach	biznesowych.	Propozycje programowe . Białystok: Wydawnictwo UwB.
- Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta 2004: Tolerancja.	Jak	uczyć	siebie	i	innych . Kraków: Stowarzyszenie Villa Decius.
- Baker, Will 2015: Cultural	awareness	and	intercultural	awareness	through	English	as	a	lingua	franca:	from	research to classroom practice . Paper presented at Intercultural Communicative Competence in Action Symposium, Sussex, University of Sussex.
- Bakhtin, Mikhail 1981: The	Dialogic	Imagination:	Four	Essays . Austin and London: University of Texas Press.
- Białek, Michał 2009: Kształcenie	międzykulturowe	w	edukacji	językowej . Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Atut.
- Bandura, Ewa 2007: Nauczyciel	jako	mediator	kulturowy . Kraków: Wydawnictwo Tertium.
- Barsalou, Lawrence 1999: Perceptual symbol systems. In Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577-660.
- Barsalou, Lawrence 2003: Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society	of	London:	Biological	Sciences 358, 1177-1187.
- Barsalou, Lawrence 2008: Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. In Current Directions in Psychological Science 17, 91-95.
- Barsalou, Lawrence 2009: Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal	Society	of	London:	Biological	Sciences 364, 1281-1289.
- Barsalou,  Lawrence  2016:  Situated  conceptualization:  Theory  and  application.  In  Coello,  Yann/Fischer,  Martin (eds.), Foundations	of	embodied	cognition . East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press, 1-17.
- Bauman, Zygmunt 2004: Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Bennett, Milton J. 1986: A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. In International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10(2), 179-196.
- Białek, Michał 2009: Kształcenie	międzykulturowe	w	edukacji	językowe. Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Atut.
- Bruner, Jerome Seymor 1973: Beyond	the	information	given:	Studies	in	the	psychology	of	knowing . Oxford, England: W. W. Norton.
- Byram,  Michael  1997: Teaching  and  Assessing  Intercultural  Communicative  Competence .  Clevedon:  Multilingual Matters.

- Byrnes, Heidi 2006: Perspectives. Interrogating communicative competence as a framework for collegiate for foreign language study. In Modern Language Journal 90, 244-256.
- Chen, Guo-Ming 2014: Intercultural Communication Competence: Summary of 30-year Research and Directions for Future Study. In Dai, Xiaodong/Chen, Guo-Ming (eds.), Intercultural	Communication	Competence:	Conceptual -ization  and  its  Development  in  Cultural  Contexts  and  Interactions. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 14-40.
- Collier, Mary Jane 1989: Cultural and intercultural communication competence: Current approaches and directions for future research. In International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 287-302.
- Deardorff, Darla K 2006: The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Institutions of Higher Education in the United States. In Journal of Studies in International Education 10, 241-266.
- Deardorff, Darla K. (ed.) 2009: The	SAGE	Handbook	of	Intercultural	Competence . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pub -lications.
- Deardorff, Darla K. 2011: Assessing intercultural competence. In New	Directions	for	Institutional	Research 149, 65-79.
- Dervin, Fred. 2010: Assessing intercultural competence in Language Learning and Teaching: a critical review of cur -rent efforts. In Fred Dervin/Suomela-Salmi, Eija (eds.), New	Approaches	to	Assessment	in	Higher	Education . Bern: Peter Lang, 157-173.
- Dervin, Fred 2011: A plea for change in research on intercultural discourses: A 'liquid' approach to the study of the acculturation of Chinese students. In Journal of Multicultural Discourse, 6 (1), 37-52.
- Dobrowolska, Barbara 2009: Kompetencje międzykulturowe uczniów jako funkcja rozumienia problematyki wielo -kulturowości i świadomość jej roli u nauczyciela. Z pogranicza praktyki i teoretycznej refleksji. In Dąbrowa, Ewa/ Markowska-Manista, Urszula (eds.), Między	kulturami.	Edukacja	w	wielokulturowej	rzeczywistości. Radom-War -szawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowe ITE PIB, 62-72.
- Fantini, Alvino/Tirmizi, Aqeel 2006: Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence . World Learning Publications Paper 1. [online]. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=worldlearning\_publi -cations.
- Foncha, John Wankah/Sivasubramaniam, Sivakumar 2014: The Links between Intercultural Communication Compe -tence and Identity Construction in the University of Western Cape (UWC) Community. In Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(10), 376-385.
- Jabłońska, Urszula 2008: Nowe wyzwania: Zespoły międzykulturowe. In GFMP	Management	Focus 14, 17-19.
- Jastrzębska, Elżbieta 2005: Edukacja	interkulturowa	przyszłych	nauczycieli	języka	francuskiego . Uniwersytet Zielo -nogórski 3.
- Kealey, Daniel J. 1989: A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues, practical applications. In International Journal of Intercultural Relations 13, 387-428.
- Komorowska, Hanna 1996: Nowe tendencje w pracach programowych Rady Europy. Koncepcje celów nauczania języków obcych. In Języki	Obce	w	Szkole 2, 109-115.
- Komorowska, Hanna 1999: Metodyka	nauczania	języków	obcych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
- Kramsch, Claire 2009: Cultural perspectives on language learning and teaching. In Knapp, Karlfried/Seidlhofer, Barbara (eds.), Handbook	of	Applied	Linguistics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 219-245.
- Kramsch, Claire 2010: Language and Culture. In Simpson, James (ed.), Routledge	Handbook	of	Applied	Lingui -stics. New York: Routledge, 305-317.
- Kramsch, Claire 2011: The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching (44)3, 354-367.
- Larsen-Freeman, Diane/Cameron, Lynne 2008: Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Larzén, Eva 2005: In	pursuit	of	an	intercultural	dimension	in	EFL-teaching.	Exploring	cognitions	among	FinlandSwedish	comprehensive	school	teachers . Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
- Liu, Shuang 2012: Rethinking intercultural competence: Global and local nexus. In Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 1-7 [online].doi: 10.1080/17447143.2012.693085.
- Majewska, Renata 2014: Rozwój kompetencji dyskursywnej na przykładzie porównań interkulturowych. Sprawoz -danie z badań przeprowadzonych w klasach dwujęzycznych z językiem hiszpańskim. In Języki	Obce	w	Szkole 2, 37-44.
- Matsuo, Catherine 2012: A critique of Michael Byram's Intercultural Communicative Competence Model from the perspective of model type and conceptualization of culture. In Fukuoka	University	Review	of	Literature	&	Humani -ties 44(2), 347-380.

- Matsuo, Catherine 2014: A Dialogic Critique of Michael Byram's Intercultural Communicative Competence Model: Proposal  for  a  Dialogic  Pedagogy  [online].  http://www.academia.edu/14378676/A\_Dialogic\_Critique\_of\_Mi -chael\_Byrams\_Intercultural\_Communicative\_Competence\_Model\_Proposal\_for\_a\_Dialogic\_Pedagogy.
- McBride, Kara/Gu, Jingyun. 2015. Do the Folk Believe that They Can Speak Their Way into Interculturality? In Roz -bicki, Michał Jan (ed.), Perspectives	on	interculturality:	the	construction	of	meaning	in	relationships	of	difference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 237-256.
- Mihułka, Krystyna 2010: Trening interkulturowy na lekcji języka obcego a rozwój sprawności mówienia. In Pawlak, Mirosław/Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa (eds.), Mówienie	w	języku	obcym	-	sukcesy	i	porażki	uczenia	się	i	nauczania. Poznań, Kalisz, Konin: Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny UAM w Poznaniu i PWSZ w Koninie, 153-163.
- Mihułka, Krystyna 2012: Rozwój	kompetencji	interkulturowej	w	warunkach	szkolnych.	Mity	a	polska	rzeczywistość. Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego.
- Mihułka, Krystyna 2014: Dylematy współczesnej glottodydaktyki: język - kultura, interlingwalizm - interkulturo -wość. In Języki:	obce	w	szkole 3, 78-87.
- Moeller, Aleidine Kramer/Nugent, Kristen 2014: Building intercultural competence in the language classroom. Faculty Publications:	Department	of	Teaching,	Learning	and	Teacher	Education [online] . http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ teachlearnfacpub/161.
- Nikitorowicz, Jerzy 2013: Kompetencje do komunikacji międzykulturowej w aspekcie tradycyjnej wielokulturowości regionu i procesów migracyjnych. Wprowadzenie w realizowaną problematykę. In Nikitorowicz, Jerzy/Sobecki, Mirosław/Danilewicz, Wioleta/Muszyńska, Jolanta/Misiejuk, Dorota/Bajkowski, Tomasz (eds.), Kompetencje do komunikacji	międzykulturowej	w	aspekcie	wielokulturowości	regionu	i	procesów	migracyjnych . Warszawa: Wydaw -nictwo Akademickie Żak, 9-19.
- Owczarek, Dorota 2004: Kształcenie kompetencji interkulturowej on-line. Projekt przeprowadzony w KJO w Poznaniu w ra -mach programu Democracy Education Exchange Project autorstwa Emily Abbot. In Neofilolog 25, 43-49.
- Rapacka, Sylwia 2009: Kształcenie kompetencji interkulturowych uczestników procesu dydaktycznego poprzez roz -wój komunikacji językowej [online]. http://www.kms.polsl.pl/prv/spnjo/referaty/rapacka.pdf
- Risager, Karen 2007: Language and Culture Pedagogy . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
- Rygg, Kristin. 2014: Intercultural Training: Learning to avoid treading on other people's toes or experience walking in other person's shoes. In Scandinavian Journal of Intercultural Theory and Practice 1(1), 1-14.
- Sobieraj, Iwona (ed.) 2012: Kompetencje	informacyjno-komunikacyjne	i	międzykulturowe	w	gospodarce . Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
- Sorrells, Kathryn 2014: Intercultural Praxis: Transforming Intercultural Communication Competence for the 21st Cen -tury. In Dai, Xiaodong/Chen, Guo-Ming (eds.), Intercultural	Communication	Competence:	Conceptualization	and its  Development  in  Cultural  Contexts  and  Interactions .  Newcastle  upon Tyne:  Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 144-169.
- Spitzberg, Brian/Changnon, Gabrielle 2009: Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In Deardorff, Darla K. (ed.), The	SAGE	Handbook	of	Intercultural	Competence . Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications, 2-52.
- Spitzberg, Brian/Cupach, Willaim. R 1984: Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Strugielska, Ariadna/Piątkowska, Katarzyna. 2017: A plea for a socio-cognitive perspective on the language - culture - cognition nexus in educational approaches to intercultural communicative competence. In Review	of	Cognitive Linguistics 15(1), 224-252.
- Szczurek-Boruta, Alina. 2013: Nauczyciele i kształtowanie kompetencji interkulturowej uczniów. In Pogranicze. Studia	Społeczne 21, 155-169.
- Thompson, Evan/Varela, Francisco J. 2001: Radical Embodiment: Neural Dynamics and Consciousness. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(10), 418-425.
- Tomasello, Michael 2003: Constructing	a	Language:	A	Usage-Based	Theory	of	Language	Acquisition . Harvard: Har -vard University Press.
- Tournebise, Céline 2012: The place for a renewed interculturality in Finnish higher education. In IJE4D Journal 1, 103-116.
- UNESCO 2011: The	Cultural	Diversity	Programming	Lens:	A	practical	tool	to	integrate	culture	in	development	-	Ped -agogical guide . Paris: UNESCO [online]. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-development/ the-cultural-diversitylens/
- UNESCO 2013: Intercultural	Competences:	Conceptual	and	Operational	Framework . Paris: UNESCO.
- Wąsikiewicz-Firlej, Emilia/Szczepaniak-Kozak, Anna/Lankiewicz, Hadrian (eds.). 2012: Interkulturowość,	kreatyw -ność,	refleksyjność	w	dydaktyce	języków	obcych . Piła: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Pile.
- Więcek-Janka, Ewa 2011: Komunikacja międzykulturowa. In Marketing i Rynek 4, 1-11.

- Wilczyńska, Weronika 2005: Czego trzeba do udanej komunikacji interkulturowej?. In Mackiewicz, Maciej (ed.), Dydaktyka	języków	obcych	a	kompetencja	kulturowa	i	komunikacja	interkulturowa . Poznań: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej, 15-26.
- Zarzycka, Grażyna 2001: Typy zakłóceń w komunikacji międzykulturowej. In Hrabajska, Grażyna (ed.), Język	w	ko -munikacji 3. Łódź: WSHE Łódź, 243-258.
- Żydek-Bednarczuk, Urszula 2012: Kompetencja międzykulturowa w nauczaniu języka polskiego jako obcego. In Postscriptum polonistyczne 2(10), 19-30.