On interculturality and intercultural communication competence.

Dai, Xiaodong ; Chen, Guo-Ming

Introduction

Competence is a key concept to the study of intercultural communication which has attracted much attention from scholars in different disciplines for decades (Chiu, Lonner, Matsumoto, & Ward, 2013; Deardorff, 2009). Scholars have conceptualized intercultural communication competence (ICC) from diverse perspectives and formulated useful models. Although they generally agree that ICC consists of affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, there is still no consensus about what it means to be interculturally competent (Arasaratnam & Doerfel, 2005; Dai & Chen, 2014; Deardorff, 2006). For example, Byram (1997) approached ICC from the perspective of foreign language teaching by claiming that a competent intercultural communicator has to acquire linguistic and socio-cultural knowledge and cultivate the ability to manage the relationship between his own and the other's systems. In line with this reasoning, he treated critical cultural awareness as the core element of ICC. Ting-Toomey (1998, 2007) theorized ICC from the perspective of face negotiation. She asserted that a competent intercultural communicator is mindful, resourceful and creative by maintaining an optimal sense of balance when negotiating face in various cultural contexts; intercultural knowledge therefore constitutes the most crucial component of ICC. Kim (2001, 2008) examined ICC from the perspective of intercultural adaptation. She posited that ICC denotes an individual's capacity to accommodate the demands of the new environment and foster cooperative relationships with culturally different others; hence, adaptability is the essential element of ICC.

Moreover, while the cultural process has been emphasized by scholars, the focus continues to be on the acquisition of cultural knowledge, rather than how cultures interact and how this dynamic process shapes the development of ICC. It is obvious that cultures are flowing, mixing and evolving in the process of intercultural communication, and this dynamic nature of interaction between cultures reflects the essence of interculturality, which provides multiple connections across cultures and enables culturally different individuals to relate, to negotiate, to transform, and to grow (Dai, 2010).

By emphasizing the dynamic cultural process, we argue that meaningful intercultural communication should result in reciprocal interactions and harmonious relationships; thus, the ability to develop interculturality is a prerequisite for becoming an interculturally competent person. It is then the purpose of this paper to theorize ICC from the perspective of interculturality to demonstrate the dynamic nature of culture in the process of intercultural communication. In the following sections we first conceptualize interculturality, then discuss its significance to intercultural communication, and finally re-examine ICC in light of interculturality and explore its theoretical implications.

The Conceptualization of Interculturality

When individuals cross the cultural border, they begin to develop interculturality through interaction by cultivating constructive interpersonal relations and intercultural ties. Interculturality enables culturally different individuals to relate to each other for a meaningful dialogue. Traditionally, the concept of interculturality was used in bilingual, bicultural education and immigrant policy studies, which is associated with ethnic, linguistic and national conflict; recently, scholars added the elements of mutual acknowledgement and respect to the concept (e.g., Mato, 2012). In other words, as Zhu (2014) indicated, interculturality refers to the process where people with differing cultural identities learn from each other and mediate between different perspectives to become an intercultural speaker.

In this paper we use the concept of intersubjectivity as the basis of explicating the meaning of interculturality. Intersubjectivity, as the interpersonal connection between people who are attuned to one another and construct social relations, not only embodies mutuality and consensuses, but also disagreements and tensions (Dai, 2010). Interculturality, based on the concept of intersubjectivity, therefore can be defined as the multiple connections between cultures, in which culturally different individuals endeavor to reduce cultural distance, negotiate shared meanings and mutually desired identities, and produce reciprocal relationships in order to achieve communication goals. This definition of interculturality possesses three assumptions of intercultural communication.

First of all, the development of interculturality is a dialogical process that involves two or more culturally different individuals. It is characterized by interactants' desire to talk, to learn, and to establish connections with others, and its typical goals include self-growth, relational transformation, and change in communication patterns (Buber, 2002; Heidlebaugh, 2008). The emphasis of dialogue on multivocality, open-endedness, mutuality, and the co-creation of meaning allows interactants to further explore the complexities of their counterpart's commitment and perspective as well as their own (Black, 2008).

The dialogical process dictates that the construction of interculturality is founded on the two distinct cultural parties with each assuming the role of a cultural agent. As White (2008) pointed out, the self and the other are existentially different and separate and relationally asymmetrical, but they are intrinsically interdependent trying to develop mutuality and reciprocity for a synthesis of connection and distance. In an ideal state the self and the other are equal, but due to the differences in power, knowledge and wealth, the self sometimes dominates the other and vise versa. The two cultural parties are constantly in tension and struggling for recognition. However, the space between the self and the other remains open in the sense that "each party recognizes his or her dependence upon the other, and each can allow the judgment of the respective other to be valid as an objection against oneself' (Honneth, 2003, p. 12).

Second, individuals adapt to each other and negotiate their desired identities in the process of developing interculturality. The establishment of intercultural connection suggests that individuals have to go beyond their cultural boundary to initiate a contact with members of another culture. In other words, through mutual adaptation the two parties are re-socialized themselves into a larger intercultural community and develop a more inclusive identity. Kim (2001, 2012) indicated that adapting to others is a learning process, through which individuals acquire new cultural elements and integrate them into their communicative scripts. They unlearn some of the old behaviors and habits by adopting new responses in situations that previously would have evoked old ones.

The process of mutual adaptation illustrates the needs of recognition and inclusion on the one hand and autonomy and differentiation on the other for the individual, so that both the self and the mutual identification can be achieved. This involves intercultural identity negotiation that is based on the two basic dialectical principles of inclusion and differentiation (Brewer, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005). That is, when intercultural interactants become progressively similar to each other, they begin to diverge to accentuate differences; and when they perceive that difference deters the maintenance of intercultural ties, they start to develop commonalities. In addition, research shows that identification with the two separate cultures is an important component of the reconstructed identity (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). It is the correction of deviations from the optimal distinctiveness that keeps the equilibrium of intercultural interaction, through which the newly acquired identity paves the way for the development of intercultural personhood and helps to improve intercultural relations (Brewer, 1991, 1999; Kim, 2012).

The third and final assumption of interculturality stipulates that individuals endeavor to achieve intercultural agreement and productive relationship in intercultural interaction. In the intersubjective space individuals often communicate with each other in reference to the generalized other or the role model of a society who provides people with common norms, rules and patterns of behavior (Charon, 1998; Mead, 1967). According to Shibutani (1955), people tend to share the same perspective in the social communication in intracultural context, because they define objects, other people, the world, and themselves from a generalized standpoint and anticipate the socially expected reactions of others.

In contrast, individuals employ a different frame of reference in the context of intercultural communication, in which the interculturally shared generalized other is yet to be negotiated. They approach the world from diverse perspectives and make different or even contradictory interpretations. However, in order to have a meaningful interaction across cultures they have to negotiate intercultural agreements on the basis of cultural similarities and human universals. When negotiating with cultural others, two basic human mechanisms help individuals to bridge the cultural gap, i.e., taking the role of the other and the self-reflection. The ability to take the role of the other is basic to human understanding and cooperation, which allows people to see things from the perspective of their counterparts and reach the agreement with them; the reflective mechanism or self-reflection leads people to realize the validity of their way of representing reality and further relate to others in intercultural interaction (Blumer, 1969; Charon, 1998).

In addition to the three assumptions above, interculturality is also associated with a number of terms such as the third culture, hybridity, transversality, and transculturaltion. According to Casmir (1999), the third culture denotes a mutually interactive space in which "individuals from two different cultures can function in a way beneficial to all involved" (p. 92). It deals with the common ground between two cultures by emphasizing the functional aspect of intercultural communication. Hybridity is a site of cultural mixture, where intercultural communication practices are continuously negotiated (Kraidy, 2002). It implies the state of cultural co-existence; however, insinuated in the concept is a negative attitude toward cultural blending or synthesizing (Wang & Yeh, 2005). Transversality lies at the cultural crossroad. It is the place where different cultures intersect with each other without losing their original uniqueness (Miike, 2010a; Palencia-Roth, 2006). It highlights intersecting and crossing, which has the purport of enhancing cultural diversity. Similarly, transculturation demonstrates the ongoing process of cultural exchange, which refers to "a process whereby cultural forms literally move through time and space where they interact with other cultural forms and settings, influence each other, produce new forms, and change the cultural settings" (Lull, 2000, p. 242). Its major concern is the circular appropriation of elements between multiple cultures and the fusing of cultural forms (Rogers, 2006).

The concept of interculturality is more inclusive comparing to the terms mentioned above. It highlights the reciprocal interaction across cultures, mutual sharing, cultural creation and common growth, and captures the multiple dimensions of intercultural relations. In the space of interculturality culturally isolated individuals are transformed into culturally interconnected persons, who move and interact steadily between the sameness and the otherness; and in which differences are positively recognized and diverse ideas mingle, clash, evaluate and illuminate with one another. Accordingly, interculturality not only embodies commonality, mutuality, and reciprocity, but also tensions, conflicts, struggles, and intercultural transformation. It denotes a state in which the cultural dichotomy is removed, and cultural differences are legitimized, accommodated, and transformed into the source of innovation. Dai (2010) asserted that in this dynamic space culturally dissimilar individuals encounter each other in the full range of human relations. Figure 1 summarizes the main ideas of interculturality and the associated concepts.

In sum, the delineation of interculturality treats intercultural communication as a dialogical process in which people of differing cultures endeavor to reduce cultural distance in order to establish a harmonious relationship. Through interculturality people not only exchange information, acquire cultural knowledge and reach mutual understanding, but also develop cultural ties and inspire the cultural creation in intercultural interaction. The next section continues to discuss the important role interculturality plays in the process of intercultural communication.

The Significance of Interculturality to Intercultural Communication

Culturally different individuals need to be connected in order to have a meaningful interaction. Interculturality characterized by mutuality and reciprocity in social communication functions to connect interactants from different cultures. It bridges cultural gap, enhances mutual understanding, and promotes reciprocal interactions across cultures. More specifically, the significance of interculturality to intercultural communication lies in the following four aspects.

First, interculturality penetrates the rigid cultural boundary and facilitates the development of intercultural relations. According to Harb and Smith (2008), human connectedness is demonstrated in personal, interpersonal, collective, and humanity levels. In the personal level the self strives to differentiate from others with a unique self-representation. In the interpersonal level the self engages in small group interaction. In the collective level the self participates in the interaction within a larger group. The last level of connectedness involves the superstructure of humanity, in which the self is defined by its belonging to human species as differentiated from the other living organism. With the universal representation in the humanity level the self is therefore related with members of the whole human community.

Intersubjectivity and interculturality represent the interpersonal and collective levels of human connection respectively. The two forms of human connection constitute the close human ties, in which interculturality involves both intercultural and intracultural adaptations that make communication more dynamic and productive. It opens up a space for culturally different individuals to form a union. In this intercultural space the legitimacy and equality of others is recognized, multiple opinions are articulated, diverse perspectives are presented, and one's counterparts are placed in the position of continually negotiating for a new intercultural relation. The sustained contact required by interculturality demands the need for mutual adaptation in both thinking and behavior. Kim (2008) indicated that mutual adaptation leads to intercultural transformation and the development of intercultural identity, that in turn results in a more open, flexible and inclusive conception of the self and the other. Moreover, it defies the conventional categorization of culture and projects a new way of relating oneself to others.

Second, interculturality broadens the perspective of interactants, enhances the fusion of horizons, and promotes intercultural understanding. In the early stage of intercultural contact individuals tend to communicate with an ethnocentric mindset and avoid cultural differences "either by denying its existence, by raising defenses against it, or by minimizing its importance" (Bennett & Bennett, 2004, p. 153). Tu (2006) further indicated that the denial of cultural differences reflects a narrow vision that hinders the drawing on the insight and wisdom of other cultures.

Interculturality encourages openness to cultural differences. It is a space where diverse cultural perspectives meet. These new perspectives presented in intercultural interaction must be accommodated through the development of a larger and more integrated schema before they are assimilated into the existing one (Piaget, 1982). The cognitive integration of new perspectives signifies that individuals are capable of transcending their own culture and internalizing the other's perspective. Evanoff (2006) contended that this process involves a two-way cultural critique, namely, the critique of one's own original cultural values and the critique of adopted culture's values. The new schema developed from the cultural critique is not a pastiche of incongruous ideas drawn from diverse cultural sources, but instead is a coherent whole. When different views are blended and synthesized in the space of interculturality, a mutually shared intercultural perspective will emerge that significantly broadens one's mindset.

The development of interculturality also enhances intercultural understanding, which is contingent on the degree of cultural similarities between the two parties. Interculturality increases shared experiences and provides an objective reference point for the culturally different to interpret the meanings of messages. It is this process of co-producing shared symbols and conceptual framework that makes intercultural interaction meaningful and innovative. Through the participation in a collaboratively constructed and collectively upheld social life, individuals therefore come to understand others both within and across cultures (Moghaddam, 2003; Talamo & Pozzi, 2011). Hence, the mutual shared experiences and accumulated intercultural agreements embedded in interculturality induce the intercultural frame of reference to incorporate the two parties' cultural views. It further becomes the culturally shared generalized other interactants employ to interpret their acts for reaching the mutual understanding in intercultural interaction.

Third, interculturality helps to manage intercultural conflicts and promote harmonious relationships. Although cultural differences do not necessarily result in a conflict, how these differences are perceived, interpreted and handled may elicit intercultural conflicts (Collier, 1991; Marsella, 2005; Worchel, 2005). Because communication across cultures is influenced by cultural perception, intercultural conflicts become more complicated and difficult to manage. In order to effectively manage intercultural conflicts, as Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014) suggested, mutually shared perspective, common understanding on the root of the conflict, and coordinated action that are rooted in the concept of interculturality need to be appropriately incorporated in order to develop harmonious relationship.

Interculturality embodies an individual's openness to others and manifests the interactive nature of human relations. Cultural differences have become relativized in relation to a shared world in the intercultural space, in which differences are known to participants and can be mutually transformed. In other words, individuals in the intercultural space are "dealing with a relational field, not with dual worlds" (Diamond, 1996, p. 310). Interculturality demands that cultural differences should not be treated as communication barriers, but rather as dialogue promoters. The open attitude toward differences makes it possible for culturally dissimilar individuals to engage in mutual learning and mutual adaptation through the acquiring of the new cultural knowledge and to develop an intercultural personhood. As ideal cultural mediators, intercultural persons can effectively access the mutual frameworks and seamlessly switch back and forth between them, i.e., they are able to understand the nature of conflict, locate where the problem is, and negotiate possible solutions in the process of intercultural interaction (Ringberg, Reihlen, Luna, & Peracchio, 2010). In addition, Brewer and Gaertner (2004) pointed out that the extended intercultural personhood is also conducive to intergroup harmony, because it transforms "members' representations of the memberships from separate groups to one more inclusive group.... With common ingroup identity, the cognitive and motivational processes that initially produced ingroup favoritism are redirected to benefit the former outgroups" (p. 306).

Finally, interculturality enhances cultural creativity in intercultural interaction. Interculturality constitutes a space where diverse cultures encounter on the basis of equality. It provides opportunities for people to expose to different cultures and to tap the rich and varied cultural resources of global community (Tu, 2001). Studies from Cheng and Leung (2012) and Sternberg and Lubart (1995) demonstrate that the acquisition of different knowledge from culturally dissimilar counterparts is the foundation of creativity. Hermans (1999, 2001) further argued that the new and better ideas are often generated at the contact or the intersecting zone between the self and the other. As the interactive space, interculturality dynamically relates one culture to another by allowing different ideas, values, and ways of thinking to co-exist. It increases the connection between cultures and entails the recombination and transformation of the existing cultural forms into new ones.

More significantly, interculturality generates an intercultural perspective. People with the intercultural frame of reference can more easily see and experience new ideas, because they live in a world where cultural cues are more prominent, thus they have a cognitive advantage over mono-cultural persons (Benet-Martinez, Lee, & Leu, 2006). This motivates them to develop a flexible mindset, break away from the structured and routine ways of approaching problems, and inspire the creative thinking in intercultural context (Monturi & Fahim, 2004). The four characteristics discussed above illustrate the impact of interculturality on intercultural communication that can be used to re-examine the concept of intercultural communication competence in the following section.

Re-examining Intercultural Communication Competence within the Framework of Interculturality

The previous discussion demonstrates that interculturality connects one culture from the other and opens up an interactive space for culturally disparate individuals. It allows them to exchange information, acquire cultural knowledge, negotiate intercultural personhood, build up intercultural harmony, and inspire cultural creativity--interculturality constitutes both the dynamic process and the desired outcome of intercultural communication. From the perspective of interculturality, ICC can be conceived as the ability to reach reciprocity and mutuality in order to establish harmonious relationships across cultures.

Because the asymmetrical structure of intercultural interaction reflects the fact that some participants are privileged to initiate the flow and movement of messages, a harmonious intercultural relationship is inherently difficult to be developed (Chen & Dai, 2012; Nakayama & Martin, 2014). Bennett and Bennett (2004) mentioned that the factors such as power differentials, cultural prejudices and exclusion involve in the deep-seated ethnocentric tendency of cultural beings often cause serious barriers in the process of intercultural communication. Thus, any act that needs to take others into account and any act that should be regulated by something other than the striving of one's ego in cultivating the harmonious relationship in intercultural interaction is a moral issue, for without the moral principle intercultural communication will be threatened by coercion, bias, intolerance, or unrestrained self-expression (Hall, 1997). Hence, a number of scholars argued that, in addition to the dimensions of affect, cognition, and behavior, ICC must be imbued with the moral principle (e.g., Miike, 2012; Nakayama & Martin, 2014; Xiao & Chen, 2007). In other words, based on interculturality, ICC is comprised of affective, cognitive, behavioral, and moral dimensions. The following sections continue to delineate these four aspects of ICC from the perspective of interculturality.

The Affective Dimension of ICC

The affective dimension refers to the emotional aspect of ICC. It is the motivational force that pushes individuals to ceaselessly acquire knowledge and skills in the process of building a harmonious relationship with one's intercultural counterparts (Byram, 1997; Chen, 2005; Okayama, Furuto, & Edmonson, 2001). Four affective components are needed to reach intercultural harmony, namely, open-mindedness, relational self-concept, active empathy, and mutual appreciation.

An open attitude toward cultural differences is the prerequisite for relating ourselves to others. Open-minded people are willing to acquire different perspectives; they have a broad concept of the world, accept the multiplicity of reality, and are ready to expand the range of acceptable ideas. The ability allows them to go beyond egocentrism and ethnocentrism, so that the space of interculturality can be created for a harmonious interaction with cultural others (Hermans, 2001).

Brewer (1991) indicated that as people penetrate the personal boundary to develop social relationships, they are reformulating their self-concept to construct a more inclusive identity. In a similar way, when people cross the cultural border to relate to cultural others, a more accommodating identity will be developed through the redefinition of self-concept. Markus and Kitayama (1991) argued that self-concept, referring to the way we view ourselves, is shaped by our culture. They identified the independent and the interdependent as the two types of self-construal across cultures. It is the interdependent self that captures the interconnectedness of human beings and encourages people to interpret the personal significance in relation to others. Although when people are still different form each other in the interdependent or relational selfhood, the difference has been relativized. In other words, the relational self-conception enables people to better comprehend the interrelatedness of cultures. Research shows that people with the relational self-concept believe that mutual caring and reciprocal exchange are the key to human survival or ICC development, by which they put themselves in a more advantageous position in making self-adjustment, improving mutual understanding and achieving intercultural harmony (Chen, 2006; Miike, 2012).

In order to produce the shared meaning and enhance the mutual understanding dictated by interculturality, interculturally competent persons need to cultivate empathy. Empathy has long been recognized as a central element of intercultural sensitivity, representing the affective dimension of intercultural competence (Chen & Starosta, 2000). It refers to a process of projecting ourselves into another person's point of view, in which we think the same thought and feel the same emotion as our counterparts. Empathic individuals are less selfish and show more concern toward others. They are able to develop a positive feeling or emotion that motives them to understand, acknowledge, respect, and even accept the cultural differences in intercultural context (Chen & Young, 2012). Moreover, Gurevitch (2000) argued for the plurality of intercultural dialogue and emphasized the need of active empathy for a successful intercultural interaction. Active empathy refers to the willingness to make a perspective shift by interpreting messages from the other's stance, but at the same time maintaining one's own identity through the sharing of experiences and the accurate response to feeling and thoughts of one's intercultural counterparts. Unlike the pure empathy that often leads to submerging the self to the other's perspective and shrinking the intercultural space, it is this on-going switch of perspectives between the cultural self and the cultural other that makes intercultural communication embedded in interculturality meaningful and productive (Markova, 2003).

Lastly, in order to develop the harmonious intercultural relation participants need to further cultivate a mutual appreciation. Mutual appreciation advocates that intercultural interactants have to recognize the importance of complementarity and correlativity between the two parties. Treating each other as a respectable partner, being ready to explore the treasure and beauty of other cultures, and enjoying the interactive process with counterparts reflect the nature of complementarity and correlativity. Thus, the mutual appreciation of cultural differences is like, as Tehranian (2007) asserted, "a grand old tree with many branches, flowers, and fruits, nurtured by the same earth, water, air, and human ingenuity" (p. 46). Only through the cultivation of mutual appreciation can people emotionally validate both parties' cultural identity, remove the selective bias against the outgroup, which results in a friendly atmosphere where culturally different people have more opportunities to learn from each other and motivate themselves to reach the state of intercultural harmony.

The Cognitive Dimension of ICC

The cognitive dimension of ICC refers to intercultural awareness or the understanding of one's counterpart's cultural conventions. It is a process of learning about the way of thinking based on the beliefs and values of persons from another culture (Chen, 2014). Four basic cognitive abilities for ICC that aim to promote interculturality in intercultural interaction, namely, cultural knowledge, critical cultural awareness, cultural integration, and intercultural perspective, are delineated here.

Cultural knowledge includes knowing one's own and other's cultures. Knowing our own culture helps to develop a perspective from which we interpret our actions and initiate a dialogue with others. ICC uses our own cultural knowledge as the foundation for knowing other cultures. Key elements in this cultural learning process include language, values and customs, and the history of one's counterpart's culture. Language proficiency provides us with the crucial means to interact with others for the development of interpersonal relationship; knowing cultural values and customs enables us to understand our counterparts' broad tendency, collectively preferred mode of action, and generally pursued goals; and the acquisition of the historical knowledge of other cultures is also crucial to the construction of interculturality (Fantini, 1995; Schwartz, 1992). Together, they allow us to decode the rich and subtle information embedded in cultural symbols across times and spaces and enhance the mutual understanding through the deep-level interaction and relationship development. Byram (1997) further claimed that cultural knowledge is usually relational, and should be acquired through multiple channels to secure the rational basis through which we can reduce ethnocentric presentations.

Critical cultural awareness calls for the ability to make a reflexive evaluation on one's own and counterpart's cultures; it prevents individuals from blindly accepting cultural differences without rejecting the negative elements and enables us to become a creative interactant (Byram, 2012; Evanoff, 2006). Hence, critical cultural awareness plays an important role in developing a healthy intercultural relation by opening up more desirable alternatives in the space of interculturality to promote mutual adaptation and intercultural transformation of interactants.

As for cultural integration, it is the outcome of the shared knowledge created by the two-way learning and mutual criticizing between the two parties (Miike, 2010b). Boski (2008) treated cultural integration as a process in which different cultural sets are blended into a larger one that involves the dialectical reconciliation and mutual accommodation. It allows interactants to relate themselves to cultural others and retain their cultural integrity simultaneously, thus individuals can have the access to both their own and others' perspectives (Berry, 2005). When the divergent cultural values are coherently synthesized into a wider framework, an intercultural perspective of interaction will naturally emerge, through which one's horizon is significantly expanded, and a more comprehensive vision of human possibility is therefore developed.

Finally, intercultural perspective provides participants with a shared frame of reference that helps them reach the intersubjective understanding, identify their common orientation to a practical goal, and take a joint action (Talmo & Pozzi, 2011). Because, according to L. Chen (1995), the key operational difference between intracultural and intercultural communication usually lies in the first language and the reference frame of interactants, it becomes difficult for ethnocentric or monocultural individuals to reach an agreement in the process of intercultural interaction. However, cultural synergy is gradually unfolded when intercultural interactants begin to coordinate their actions. Evanoff (2006) indicated that cultural synergy is the optimal cultural integration in the space of interculturality, in which multiple voices are orchestrated into a meaningful dialogue and different views are harmonized into a new way of thinking.

The Behavioral Dimension of ICC

The behavioral dimension of ICC refers to the practical skills of intercultural communication. It is the individual's ability to put the knowledge into practice, so that intercultural effectiveness/adroitness can be achieved in the space of interculturality (Chen, 2014). In order to realize ICC for the achievement of the harmonious relationship dictated by interculturality, four basic elements of the intercultural effectiveness are imperative: interaction skill, identity negotiation, rapport building, and creative tension.

Interaction skill stipulates the ability to communicate appropriately and effectively in intercultural interaction. It deals with the issues of communication language, message skill, and interaction management. Because the development of interculturality is grounded on equality, mutual respect, and sharing, every language involves in intercultural interaction should have an equal opportunity to be selected as the lingua franca, which infers that bilingualism and multilingualism should be encouraged (Nakayama & Martin, 2014). It further indicates that when interacting with people from different cultures, the native speaker is expected to learn how to accommodate the non-standard form of language varieties, such as "foreigner talk", "interlanguage", "pidgin", and "Japanese English" that often emerge in intercultural encounters, so that the intercultural understanding can be attained (Honna, 2008; Long, 1983). Message skill affects the quantity and quality of intercultural interaction in both verbal and non-verbal forms. In addition to the production and interpretation of meaningful expressions, message skill also includes the pragmatic and sociolinguistic competence that is embedded in the everyday use of language (Byram, 1997; Masgortt, 2006). The non-verbal aspect of message skill often regulates the rhythm of interaction and reflects the nature of relationships among interactants. To correctly decode non-verbal cues is therefore the sine qua non for being competent in intercultural interaction (Chen & Starosta, 1996; Hall, 1976). Moreover, interaction management as a form of message skill also requires the ability to appropriately initiate, regulate and terminate a conversation. Interaction management thus creates a friendly atmosphere that allows participants to dynamically and productively talk about a topic of mutual interests on the basis of an equal status (Cheng, 2003; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).

Identity negotiation refers to a process whereby individuals attempt to define, assert, modify, or challenge their own and others' identities (Ting-Toomey, 1999). It is crucial for participants to specify each other's role in interaction and negotiate the mutually acceptable identity in the process of developing the reciprocal relationship for the cultivation of intercultural harmony. As people expect to be recognized as being similar without losing their uniqueness in interaction, to be able to validate the other's and one's own identities , i.e., to keep a balance between inclusion and differentiation, becomes a critical element of interculturality for being interculturally competent (Brewer, 2003).

Rapport building, referring to the process of creating a harmonious and smooth relation between people, is essential for the development of intercultural tie which is often characterized by tension and conflict (Spencer-Oatey, 2000). The establishment of rapport building is based on the attainment of appropriate facework, reciprocal expectation, and mutual sharing. Face as a universal need of human beings constitutes the ritualistic basis of social interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987). According to Ho (1994), an appropriate facework implies the interactant's ability to show a high degree of sensitivity on how their actions are perceived by others. Ting-Toomey (2005) found that the appropriate facework enables individuals to maintain, save and enhance one's own and the other's face in developing a favorable intercultural relationship. Reciprocal expectation demands that our behaviors are oriented in accordance with others' expectations. It is the precondition of the collective activity that leads to the harmonious intercultural relationship (Charon, 1998). Burgoon (1993) pointed out that interactants need to develop an anticipated pattern of interaction, make use of culturally specific and personally idiosyncratic knowledge to reckon and explain each other's behavior, avoid the negative violation of expectations, and show the high predictability in behavior in order to reflect the essence of the reciprocal expectation, which in turn will lead to the mutual sharing of interactants for the development of a sustainable intercultural relationship. In other words, the mutual sharing of cultural knowledge implies the interactant's intention of breaking the old cultural boundary by showing a concern for others' well-being in order t o develop intercultural commonality.

Furthermore, the maintenance of creative tension is complementary to the rapport building in developing the harmonious intercultural relation. Creative tension encourages culturally individuals to embrace competing ideas, by which they are ready to defend their own cultural position and engage others in arguments. Although the contradictory ideas caused by creative tension may produce a dialogical dilemma, they can help interactants recognize the irrelevance of the habitual way of doing things and motivate them to invent a new one (Heidlebaugh, 2008). As Westwood and Low (2003) put it, the creative tension demonstrates that "An orientation towards a degree of risk-taking is seen as necessary if people are to explore new ideas and potentially challenging ideas in acts of creativity" (p. 251), and it is "the very otherness of the other, the fact that the other speaks from a different horizon, that constitutes the enabling condition for the productivity of dialogue" in intercultural interaction (Cheyne & Tarulli, 1999, p. 13).

The Moral Dimension of ICC

The moral dimension of ICC refers to the ethical principles of intercultural interaction; it is concerned with the basic norms and values that regulate intercultural interaction knitted in the aspects of affect, cognition, and behavior (Ayish & Sadig, 1997). Four ethical principles that help to reach the harmonious relationship and enhance interculturality for ICC are discussed here. They include mutual respect, sincerity, tolerance, and responsibility.

Mutual respect is the foundation of a just relationship, which creates a space for culturally different individuals to engage in an open communication with the spirit of solidarity (Pasquali, 1997). To value each other's culture, treat our partners as equal participants, and grant them the right of free expression in interaction specify the behavioral guideline of mutual respect; thus, a genuine intercultural interaction can only take place in the subject to subject relation and in the experiences of profound mutual awareness of the presence of the other (Black, 2008). In other words, it is the co-participation in the act of thinking and doing that enables the both parties to make due contributions in the process of intercultural interaction. Christians (1997, 2014) considered mutual respect as the joint collaboration of participants to achieve interculturality that defines the concept of ICC.

Sincerity dictates that a healthy human relationship cannot be built upon illusion and delusion, but instead people need the truthful expression to develop reciprocity and harmony in intercultural interaction. To be sincere means to be honest to ourselves and others and to wholeheartedly seek mutual understanding and intercultural agreement without concealing the true intension and interests (Aren, 1997). Sincerity enables intercultural interactants to fully express themselves and sensitively respond to others' needs, so that a sound cultural knowledge can be acquired. The mutual confidence and trust gained from sincerity fosters a vital bond among culturally different individuals that allows them to speak out the truth, and consequently communication reveals more than it conceals (Pines, 1996; Richards, 2014).

Tolerance is the ability to accommodate the values or behaviors of others (Morris, 1967). Because intercultural interaction is typically characterized by cultural diversity, in order to develop harmonious relationship interactants are required to tolerate cultural differences even if disagreements appear. It is important to understand that no culture can own the truth alone, the ability to tolerate differences makes it possible for participants to cross the cultural boundary through sharing others' insights and facilitating the open exchange of ideas and peaceful coexistence (Klyukanov, 2005). However, although tolerating differences is indispensable for a meaningful intercultural interaction, a sense of responsibility needs to be cultivated so that interactants can actively pursue the harmonious relationship and enhance interculturality (Tu, 2001). A sense of responsibility involves the recognition of obligations to others (Moghaddam, Slocum, Finkel, Mor, & Harre, 2000). Taking the responsibility to negotiate cultural agreements and develop commonalities in intercultural interaction thus sheds light on the importance of moral dimension of ICC. As Casmir (1997) mentioned, the more differences we face, the more important is the moral obligation especially in intercultural context. Moral responsibility engages interactants in the constructive criticism, in the attempt to discover the cultural strength and weakness, and in exploring the possibility of reconciling the positive cultural aspects into a new framework of intercultural interaction (Evanoff, 2004).

Conclusion

Interculturality denotes the multiple connections between cultures that allow culturally disparate individuals to transcend differences for the development of intercultural harmony. It embodies agreement and consensus, as well as tension and conflict, and captures the dynamic nature of intercultural interaction and the complex substance of intercultural relations. The development of interculturality penetrates the rigid cultural boundary, provides people with a larger space for interaction, facilitates cultural integration, and inspires human creativity. In light of interculturality individuals are required to establish mutuality and reciprocity for orchestrating a meaningful interaction across cultures. It further dictates the equal importance of the affective, cognitive, behavioral abilities of ICC that are regulated by the moral principle. The four dimensions together form a holistic picture of ICC from the perspective of interculturality. Figure 2 shows the interculturality model of ICC.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The analyses above show four potential theoretical implications for conceptualizing ICC within the framework of interculturality. First, it takes a dynamic view on explicating the concept of ICC by emphasizing that ICC involves in the process of two-way learning, mutual critique, and mutual change. The existing literature shows that most of the ICC studies focus on the static acquisition of cultural knowledge. The interculturality perspective of ICC demonstrates that to know is not only to comprehend and reflect, but also to shape and create based on the acquired cultural knowledge. To be competent in intercultural communication we have to learn our counterparts' cultures through the process of selecting, criticizing, or rejecting some of the cultural elements. Thus, the achievement of ICC brings to the outcome of self-renewal and cultural transformation, which assists individuals to effectively and appropriately manage how cultures act upon each other, how participants negotiate cultural differences, and how new ideas are generated in the process of intercultural interaction.

Second, it stresses the multiplicity of intercultural relations. Conceptualizing ICC from the perspective of interculturality implies that the complexity of intercultural relations, such as how to reach agreement or consensus, how to manage intercultural tension or conflict, and how to negotiate mutually acceptable identities need, should be addressed in a systematic way. In other words, the various levels of intercultural relations are interdependently connected, hence, focusing on both positive and negative aspects of the relations is a prerequisite for theorizing ICC. In addition, the focus of multiplicity for ICC demands the effort to explain how different kinds of relationships can be maintained, modified, challenged, and mutually transformed in the process of intercultural communication.

Third, it takes a dialectical approach to the management of intercultural tension and conflict. The dialectical approach stresses the relational, processual, and contradictory nature of knowledge production, which assigns the intercultural interactant a positive role in constructing the harmonious relationship by explaining the complex nature of social reality (Martin & Nakayama, 1999, 2010). The dialectical thinking leads people to face the simultaneous pull of opposing forces, in which both forces are valued; thus, although intercultural disagreement tends to cause the dialogical tension, it does not infer that the tension is negative and should be removed. It is the effective management of the tension that reflects the dynamism and complexity of intercultural interaction and induces productive cultural innovation.

Finally, the perspective of interculturality infuses the moral aspect to the conceptualization of ICC. The moral dimension, which especially is valued by Asian cultures, bridges the gap of neglecting the ethical principle in the West when conceptualizing ICC. Most of the Western scholars tend to treat ICC as a goal-achieving capacity based on self-assertive skills (Xiao & Chen, 2009). As Deetz (1983) argued, all human communication possesses the ethical dimension as the foundation for reaching a more satisfactory outcome of the interaction. It is the moral principle that regulates the cultivation of affective, cognitive and behavioral abilities for appropriately achieving the communication goal in intercultural interaction. Moreover, to explore the moral principle of ICC can not only correct the Eurocentric biases, but also enrich our understanding of the complex nature of intercultural communication (Miike, 2007).

Correspondence to:

Xiaodong Dai, Ph.D.

Foreign Languages College

Shanghai Normal University

100 Guilin Road

Shanghai, P. R. China, 200234

E-mail: xddai@shnu.edu.cn

Guo-Ming Chen, Ph.D.

Department of Communication Studies

University of Rhode Island

10 Lippitt Road, Davis Hall

Kingston, RI 02881

E-mail: gmchen@uri.edu

References:

Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137-163.

Arens, E. (1997) Discourse ethics and its relevance for communication and media ethics. In C. Christians, & M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 46-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ayish, M. I., & Sadig, H. B. (1997). The Arab-Islamic heritage in communication ethics. In C. Christians, & M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 105-127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benet-Martinez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J-x. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386-407.

Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712.

Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18, 93-116.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 142-153.

Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

Brewer, M. (1999). Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 187-197.

Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480-491). New York: The Guilford Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup contact and social categorization. In M. B. Brewer, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity (pp. 298-318). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Buber, M. (2002). Dialogue (R. G. Smith, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.

Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 30-48.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness--relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness, 11, 5-13.

Casmir, F. L. (1997). Ethics, culture, and communication: An application of the third-culture building model to international and intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 89-117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Casmir, F. L. (1999). Foundations for the study of intercultural communication based on a third-culture building model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 91-116.

Charon, J. M. (1998). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chen. G. M. (2005). A model of global communication competence. China Media Research, 1, 3-11.

Chen, G. M. (2006). Asian communication studies: What and where to now. The Review of Communication, 6(4), 295-311.

Chen, G. M. (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Summary of 30-year research and directions for future study. In X-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 14-40). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Chen, G. M. & Dai, X-d. (2012). New media and asymmetry in cultural identity negotiation. In P. H. Cheong, J. N. Martin, & L. P. Macfadyen (Eds.), New Media and intercultural communication: Identity, community and politics (pp. 123-137). New York: Peter Lang.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-383.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). Intercultural sensitivity. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 406-414). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Chen, G. M., & Young, P. (2012). Intercultural communication competence. In A. Goodboy, & K. Shultz (Eds.), Introduction to communication: Translating scholarship into meaningful practice (pp. 175-188). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Chen, L. (1995). Interaction involvement and partners of topical talk: A comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 463-482.

Cheng, C.-y., & Leung, A. K.-y. (2012). Revisiting the multicultural experience--creativity link: The effects of perceived cultural distance and comparison mind-set. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 475-482.

Cheng, W. (2003). Intercultural conversation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Cheyne, J. A., & Tarulli, D. (1999). Dialogue, difference and voice in the zone of proximal development. Theory & Psychology, 9, 5-28.

Chiu, C.-Y, Lonner, W. J., Matsumoto, D., & Ward, C. (2013). Cross-cultural competence: Theory, research, and application. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6), 843-848.

Christians, C. G. (1997). The ethics of being in a communication context. In C. Christians, & M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 3-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Christians, C. G. (2014). Primordial issues in communication ethics. In R. S. Fortner, & P. M. Fackler (Eds.), The handbook of global communication and media ethics (pp. 1-19). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Collier, M. J. (1991). Conflict competence within African, Mexican, and Anglo American friendships. In S. Ting-Toomey, & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 132-154). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dai, X-d. (2010). Intersubjectivity and interculturality: A conceptual link. China Media Research, 6(1), 12-19.

Dai, X-d., & Chen, G. M. (Eds.). (2014). Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241-266.

Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deetz, S. (1983). The principle of dialectic ethics. Communication, 7, 263-288.

Diamond, N. (1996). Can we speak of internal and external reality? Group Analysis, 29, 303-317.

Evanoff, R. (2004). Universalist, relativist, and constructivist approaches to intercultural ethics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 439-458.

Evannoff, R. (2006). Integration in intercultural ethics. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 421-437.

Fantini, A. E. (1995). Language, culture and world view: Exploring the nexus. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 143-153.

Gureritch, Z. (2000). Plurality in dialogue: A comment on Bakhtin. Sociology, 34, 243-263.

Hall, B. J. (1997). Culture, ethics, and communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Ethics in intercultural and international communication (pp. 11-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Harb, C., & Smith, P. B. (2008). Self-construals across cultures: Beyond independence interdependence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 178-197.

Heidlebaugh, N. J. (2008). Invention and public dialogue: Lessons from rhetorical theories. Communication Theories, 18, 27-50.

Hermans, H. J. M. (1999). Dialogical thinking and self-innovation. Culture & Psychology, 5, 67-87.

Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243-281.

Ho, D. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 269-286). Albany, NY: State University of New University Press.

Honna, N. (2008). English as a multicultural language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo, Japan: Kuroshio Shuppan.

Honneth, A. (2003). On the destructive power of the third: Gadamer and Heidagger's doctrine of intersubjectivity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29, 5-21.

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 359-368.

Kim, Y. Y. (2012). From ascription to achievement: The case of identity adaptation and transformation in the globalizing world. In X-d. Dai, & S. J. Kulich (Eds.), Intercultural adaptation (I): Theoretical explorations and empirical studies (pp. 31-49). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Klyukanov, I. E. (2005). Principles of intercultural communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12, 316-339.

Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.

Lull, J. (2000). Media, communication, culture: A global approach (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Markova, I. (2003). Constitution of the self: Intersubjectivity and dialogicality. Culture & Psychology, 9, 249-259.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Marsella, A. J. (2005). Culture and conflict: Understanding, negotiating, and reconciling constructions of reality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 651-673.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication. Communication Theory, 9, 1-25.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural communication and dialectics revisited. In T. K. Nakayama, & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 59-83). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Masgoret, A. M. (2006). Examining the role of language attitudes and motivation on the sociocultural adjustment and the job performance of sojourners in Spain. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 311-331.

Mato, D. (2012). Socio-cultural differences and intercultural communication in social participation experiences. Intercultural Communication Studies, 21(1), 101-116.

Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Miike, Y. (2007). Asiacentric reflection on Eurocentric bias in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 74, 272-278.

Miike, Y. (2010a). An anatomy of Eurocentrism in communication scholarship. China Media Research, 6(1), 1-11.

Miike, Y. (2010b). Culture as text and culture as theory: Asiacentricity and its raison d'etre in intercultural communication research. In T. K. Nakayama, & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 190-215). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Miike, Y. (2012). Harmony without uniformity: An Asiacentric worldview and its communicative implications. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 65-80). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). Interobjectivity and culture. Culture & Psychology, 9, 221-232.

Moghaddam, F. M., Slocum, N. R., Finkel, N., Mor, T., & Harre, R. (2000). Toward a cultural theory of duties. Culture & Psychology, 6, 275-302.

Monturi, A., & Fahim, U. (2004). Cross-cultural encounter as an opportunity for personal growth. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44, 243-265.

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. (2014). Managing cultural differences. New York: Routledge.

Morris, C. W. (1967). Introduction: George H. Mead as social psychologist and social philosopher. In G. H. Mead, Mind, self, & society (C. W. Morris Ed., pp. ix-xxxv). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Nakayama, T. K., & Martin, J. N. (2014). Ethical issues in intercultural communication competence: A dialectical approach. In X-d. Dai, & G. M. Chen (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence: Conceptualization and its development in cultural contexts and interactions (pp. 97-117). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Okayama, C. M., Furuto, S. B., & Edmondson, J. (2001). Components of cultural competence: Attitudes, knowledge, and skills. In R. Fong, & S. B. Furuto (Eds.), Culturally competent practice: Skills, interventions, and evaluations (pp. 89-100). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Palencia-Roth, M. (2006). Universalism and transversalism: Dialogue and dialogues in a global perspective. In UNESCO (Ed.), Cultural diversity and transversal values: East-West dialogue on spiritual and secular dynamics (pp. 38-49). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Pasquali, A. (1997). The moral dimension of communicating. In C. Christians, & M. Traber (Eds.), Communication ethics and universal values (pp. 24-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Piaget, J. (1982). Functions and structures of adaptation. In H. C. Plottin (Ed.), Learning, development, and culture (pp. 145-150). Chickchester, UK: Wiley.

Pines, M. (1996). Dialogue and selfhood: Discovering connections. Group Analysis, 29, 327-341.

Richards, I. (2014). The dilemmas of trust. In R. S. Fortner, & P. M. Fackler (Eds.), The handbook of global communication and media ethics (pp. 247-262). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Ringberg, T. V, Luna, D., Reihlen, M., & Peraccchio, L. A. (2010). Bicultural-bilinguals: The effect of cultural frame switching on translation equivalence. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10, 77-92.

Rogers, A. R. (2006). From cultural exchange to transculturation: A review and reconceptualization of cultural appropriation. Communication Theory, 16, 474-503.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Shibutani, T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 562-569.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). London, UK: Continuum.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Talamo, A., & Pozzi, S. (2011). The tension between dialogicality and interobjectivity in cooperative activities. Culture & Psychology, 17, 302-318.

Tehranian, M. (2007). Rethinking civilization: Resolving conflict in the human family. London, UK: Routledge.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Facework Competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face- negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2002). Intercultural conflict competence. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in intercultural communication (pp. 323-336). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211-234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Researching intercultural conflict competence. Journal of International Communication, 13(2), 7-30.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tu, W.-m. (2001). The context of dialogue: Globalization and diversity. In G. Picco (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Dialogue among civilizations (pp. 49-96). South Orange, NJ: School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University.

Tu, W.-m. (2006). The Confucian ethic and the spirit of East Asian modernity. In UNESCO (Ed.), Cultural diversity and transversal values: East-West dialogue on spiritual and secular dynamics (pp. 7-13). Paris, France: UNESCO.

Wang, G., & Yeh, E. Y. (2005). Globalization and hybridization in cultural products: The case of Mulan and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 8, 175-193.

Ward. C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove, UK: Routledge.

Westwood, R., & Low, D. R. (2003). The multicultural Muse: Culture, creativity and innovation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 235-259.

White, W. J. (2008). The interlocutor's dilemma: The place of strategy in dialogic theory. Communication Theory, 18, 5-26.

Worchel, S. (2005). Culture's role in conflict and conflict management: Some suggestion, many questions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 739-757.

Xiao, X-s. & Chen, G. M. (2009). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4, 61-74.

Zhu, H. (2014). Exploring intercultural communication: Language in action. London, UK: Routledge.

Xiaodong Dai *, Guo-Ming Chen **

* Shanghai Normal University, China

** University of Rhode Island, USA

Figure 1. The main ideas of interculturality and other associated
concepts

Concept             Denotation

Third Culture       interactive space, mutual benefit, common ground
Hybridity           cultural mixture, cultural negotiation,
                      co-existence
Transversality      intersecting, crossing, cultural diversity
Transculturation    cultural exchange, mutual influence, fusion of
                      cultural forms, cultural change
Interculturality    cultural connection, mutual sharing, reciprocal
                      interaction, dialogical tension, intercultural
                      transformation