Intersubjectivity and interculturality: a conceptual link.

Dai, Xiaodong

Introduction

Human beings are social beings. They define social reality, establish identities and construct the meaning of life through various forms of communication. Interpersonal communication is the process through which individuals become socialized into a specific community. This process reduces interpersonal distance and brings forth intersubjectivity. When people engage in intercultural communication and become re-socialized into a larger intercultural community, they will go beyond cultural boundaries, produce interculturality and develop intercultural personhood (Kim, 2001). Intersubjectivity reflects the conditions of all human existence. It serves as an essential mechanism that hangs individuals together and facilitates social communications (Crossley, 1996). As a product of social communication, intersubjectivity not only plays a key part in establishing interpersonal relationships but also constitutes an indispensable element in constructing interculturality. Interculturality best expresses intercultural relations and functions as a bridge that promotes intercultural dialogues (Dai, 2009). Investigating intersubjectivity and interculturality helps us grasp the basic structure of interpersonal communication, comprehend the nature of intercultural dialogue and improve its effectiveness. Many scholars have discussed the concept of intersubjectivity (eg., Buber, 2001; Collier & Thomas, 1988; Habermas, 1970; Markoci, 2003a, etc.), but few of them have addressed the definitions of interculturality and how the former acts upon the latter. This paper first defines intersubjectivity and interculturality and explains their basic forms in communications. Secondly, it identifies the relationship between them and sheds light on how they can be mutually enhanced and transformed.

The Concept of Intersubjectivity

The idea of intersubjectivity stems from the European tradition of phenomenological philosophy. Based on the tradition, American social psychologist George H. Mead and his followers reveal how people make use of symbols to interact with each other and define their roles in society. They point to the intersubjective nature of human perception and behavior as well as the significance of intersubjective reality. German philosopher Habermas (1984), in his Theory of Communicative Action, further develops an intersubjective paradigm, arguing that it is the most rational way to produce intra/inter-cultural agreements.

The concept of intersubjectivity has been interpreted from diverse perspectives. Coelho & Figueiredo (2003: 196) suggest that there are mainly four perspectives: the first and most classic takes intersubjectivity as an interpersonal tie between subjects who are attuned to one another. This perspective attaches importance to mutual adaptation and complementarities of expectation, highlighting how social consensus and specific patterns of behavior are constructed. The second understands it as the joint attention to objects of reference in a conversation. This perspective directs our attention to the discursive process in which interlocutors engage in verbal and nonverbal communication, and attempt to negotiate shared norms and meanings. It observes the role of symbolic interaction and shows the possibility of intersubjective understanding. The third comprehends it as the capacity for feeling of others, which in a sense relates back to the concept of empathy. The fourth defines it as the situation in which two or more subjects form a society or community. The fourth perspective centers on the developing process of social groups, demonstrating how social agreement is produced. In addition to these definitions, Mary Collier and Milt Thomas claim that intersubjectivity refers to the agreements across community, whereby private meanings are transmitted from one subject to another and turned into social meanings (Collier & Thomas, 1988). Their definition stems from Clifford Geertz's interpretation of culture, a web of significance, which emphasizes the symbolic interaction among individuals and their shared knowledge. We focus on the relational dimension of intersubjectivity and conceptualize it as the interpersonal connection between individuals who are adapted to one another and negotiate social relations.

To establish interpersonal connection, a socializing process, individuals "take one another into account" (Blumer, 1953). Humans are capable of taking active roles in the cause of their own action (Charon, 1998:28). They not only interact with others but also with themselves. In defining and interpreting one another's acts, "they can and do meet each other in the full range of human relations" (Blumer 1969:68). The dual process of definition and interpretation operates both to maintain the established patterns of communication and to open them to transformation.

In the wake of the Enlightenment, the paradigm of subjectivity gains dominance which is typically embodied in Cartesian declaration "I think, therefore I am." It claims that each individual is endowed with reason and has the capacity of doing things rationally. In light of the paradigm of solipsism, self is merely an individual definition, and when individuals follow the innate reason, they can communicate with others and reach mutual understanding. This interpretation fails to grasp the intersubjective nature of human communication. "Communicative action is oriented to observing intersubjective norms that link reciprocal expectations" (Habermas, 1976:118). I can by no means exist without a not-I; in turn the not-I depends on that existence; and there is no longer "I think" but "we think" (Christians, 1997:9). Individuals may have different understandings on what is rational or desirable, and they may make use of different ways to fulfill their objectives. In order to be recognized and understood by others and produce social agreements, they have to negotiate with others and make mutual adaptations. Rationality is not individualistic; there is always "myself and others" (Markovc , 2003b). Individuals communicate with each other in reference to the generalized other (Mead, 1967), a role model of a society who provides people with common norms, rules and patterns of behavior (Charon, 1998). It is on the basis of the generalized other that shared meanings can be developed and an identity of "I" can be constructed and sustained. People share the same perspective in social communication, since they define objects, other people, the world, and themselves from a generalized standpoint and anticipate the socially expected reactions of others (Shibutani, 1955:564). There are variations among individuals, but these variations are usually within the limit of social tolerance and those who deviate far from social conventions inevitably live under great pressure, more often than not becoming marginalized and constantly in danger of being rejected by the mainstream.

Intersubjectivity is a field which "makes possible experiences of closeness, distance, withdrawal and isolation, for all these experiences are only possible in relation to something or someone," (Diamond, 1996:311). It gains substance in socially connected selves. Markus and Kitayama (1991; 1998) propose that there are two kinds of self: independent self and interdependent self. The former is perceived as a bounded, coherent, stable and free entity, focusing on the individual; the latter is perceived as a connected, fluid, flexible and committed being that is bound to others, focusing on social unity. Self-construal varies across cultures. Cultural differences arising from traditions, life philosophies and socialization processes affect people's self definitions. Although independent and interdependent self appear in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures, different societies have different emphases. Individualistic cultures tend to emphasize self-reliance, autonomy, control and priority of personal goals; in contrast the collectivistic cultures tend to emphasize cooperation, group welfare and ingroup harmony. Thus we find that the independent self more salient in individualistic cultures, and the interdependent self, more salient in collectivistic cultures (Somech, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 2005). Markus and Kitayama focus on the basic interpersonal connections. Some researchers formulate a tripatite--the personal, the relational and the collective, covering more complicated intersubjective relations (eg., Brewer & Gaertner, 1996; Triandis, 1989).

In social psychology, the concept of self usually refers to a set of roles people play in society (cf. Zhou, 2008:84). For example, a person can be a teacher, a husband, a father, a volunteer and so forth. Treating self as a set of solid and given roles in social structure misses the reflective process that alone can yield and constitute a self. Human beings are active beings who define and redefine their roles in reference both to themselves and to others. We hold the view that the self is an object that arises out of social negotiation. It is continuously created and recreated in social interaction, changing from one situation to another. In communication, individuals become connected to each other in diverse forms and show different levels of connectedness. Interpersonal connection usually first appears in family, and then in neighborhood, working community, ethnic group, nation or even larger society.

The prototypic forms of intersubjective relations include "I and He" and "I versus He." The first is equivalent to the self and other, and the second is equivalent to the self versus other. If we make further observation, "You and I," which is of more intimate relation than I and He, can be classified. In social interaction, individuals construct numerous interpersonal relations. They can be positive, negative, hierarchical or parallel. The ontological diversity implies that intersubjectivity has multiple connotations. It not only implies commonality, mutuality and consensuses, but also disagreements, tensions and conflicts.

Human beings share similar biological endowments, similar physical and social needs, and similar life worlds. These similarities make up the premise of interpersonal communication and the basis of mutual understanding, opening up the possibility of reaching interpersonal agreement or consensus. Because people can engage in another's world and play the role of the other, intersubjectivity can be constructed through social interactions (Mead, 1967). Distance between individuals will be reduced with the development of communication but can by no means be completely removed. Most people prefer to keep a socially acceptable distance from others in order to maintain his/her subjectivity and autonomy. Consensus will be reached when individuals make a mutual adaptation but there is no such thing as a full agreement. Actually, intersubjectivity presupposes that there is a difference between self and other; otherwise, when self and other become completely identical, intersubjective space will disappear. Gudykunst (1995)demonstrates that individual identities are derived from a tension between the need to be seen as similar to and fit in with others and the need to be seen as unique people. According to Hall (1990, p.226), identity is framed by two axis: "the axis of similarity and continuity and the axis of difference and rapture". Intersubjective difference may produce communication barriers, but it is an indispensable element that makes genuine interpersonal dialogues and it makes them more meaningful and more constructive. "If people were not different they would have nothing to say to each other," (Gillespite, 2003:217). It is difference that keeps dialogue going and because the other always has surplus over self, the self can learn from the other and enrich oneself. Besides commonality and complementarity, tension and conflict also play a part in promoting social interaction. Due to difference in power, knowledge, personality and so forth, people have to compete to fulfill their own values. Tension and conflict do not always lead to separation; in some circumstances, they enhance self-reflectivity and self-transformation, help individuals understand each other better and help individuals to make better adaptations.

The key to our definition is that when individuals become connected to each other they share commonality and at the same time they still have difference; they try to reduce interpersonal distance and develop mutuality as well as reciprocity. While mutually shared knowledge and patterns of behavior constitute a common ground among individuals that makes interpersonal dialogue both possible and easy to be sustained, mutually manageable distance and tension make interpersonal communication more dynamic and creative. The investigation of intersubjectivity reveals the basic mechanism that is at work in interpersonal interaction and its role in promoting mutual understanding and social agreements. Since society is complex, people often shift their roles and perspectives in order to understand others and interpreting intersubjectivity can help us grasp how intercultural relationships are constructed and how intercultural agreements are produced.

The Concept of Interculturality

Interculturality seems to be similar to L. E. Sarbaugh's interculturalness, but they actually have different meanings. Sarbaugh (1988) identifies seven levels of interculturalness, ranging from a pure heterogeneous level to a pure homogeneous level that forms an interculturalness continuum. He attaches importance to similarities between cultures and makes use of the degree of cultural overlap to classify intracultural and intercultural communication. In his understanding, interculturalness equates to cultural difference. We argue that intercultural space is the ground shared by two or more cultures and interculturalness denotes the degree of intercultural connectedness. Based upon intersubjectivity, we coin the term of interculturality to explain intercultural relations.

While intersubjectivity refers to the interpersonal connection between individuals in the same society, interculturality refers to the complex connection between and among cultures whose members negotiate intercultural agreements and work together to establish reciprocal interactions. Traditionally, cultural self and cultural other form a dichotomy where the two parties are different and contradictory to each other. Members from different cultures become connected in diverse relations; they may be friendly to other cultures and make effort to experience new ways of life, they may be hostile to other cultures and try to assimilate or dominate cultural others, or they may be indifferent and show little interest to other cultures. Intercultural ties usually first appear in geographically neighboring communities and then in those societies that have economical, political or cultural interactions. It can be fostered by trade, wars, immigration, cultural integration or other forms of communication.

To establish an intercultural connection means that individuals go beyond their cultural boundary and venture into other cultural domains. There are some overlaps and universals among cultures. Kluckhorn and Strodtbeck (1961) claim that all human cultures are confronted with universally shared problems emerging from relationships with fellow beings, time, activities, and nature; Hofstede (1984) asserts that people across cultures identify with some basic values, but each has its own preferred orientations; Schwartz (1990) proposes that people share the following universal values such as power, achievement, benevolence, self-direction, security and so forth. But commonalities and similarities between/among cultures only make up the basis of constructive dialogue and can seldom guarantee mutual understanding and intercultural agreements. Communicators have to accommodate each other and develop mutuality. Through mutual adaptation, people become socialized into a larger intercultural community. In most cases, it is relatively easy for cultures that share much in common to establish interculturality and difficult for those dissimilar to each other.

Interculturality gains substance in culturally related selves. Cultural self is also a product of social communication. Each self performs the role of a cultural spokesman and perceive the world in its unique way. They work together to reduce cultural distance and co-construct the shared meanings. There are two basic intercultural relations: "cultural self and cultural other" and "cultural self versus cultural other." Cultural pluralism gives good expression to the relationship of self and other, and the West/East distinction of Orientalism provides us a typical self versus other relationship (Said, 1978). The former constitutes relatively harmonious and reciprocal ties, and the latter constitutes troublesome and detrimental ties. The diverse relations between and among cultures suggest that interculturality implies not only commonality, mutuality and reciprocity, but also differences, tensions and conflicts.

Ethnocentrism might well be the characteristic that directly relates to intercultural communication (Samovar et al., 2000). In intercultural communication, individuals often interpret things from their own perspective and do not have a commonly shared generalized other, which leads to different ways of organizing the world. Some of the communicators simply apply local knowledge to communication and some of them make use of cultural stereotypes to define members from other cultures. Still, some others attempt to integrate diverse cultural scripts into a coherent one and construct an overarching frame of reference. There are geographical, historical and social gaps between cultural self and cultural other, all of which may produce barriers to meaningful dialogue. Culture originates from a specific geography; it is accumulated through historical processes and further shaped by specific social conditions. People in the same cultural community share similar values and cognitive schemata, and use similar criteria to evaluate communicative behaviors. Thus, it is relatively easy to reach an intersubjective consensus.

What makes intercultural agreement difficult is the lack of a common frame of reference. In intercultural encounters, each party defines and evaluates things in reference to their respective generalized other. They approach the same world with diverse preferences and make different or even contradictory interpretations. For example, in a collective culture, people subordinate their own interest to the interest of their community and appreciate an interdependent self; while in an individualistic culture, people take personal goals as a priority and value an independent self. Therefore, in order to reach mutual understanding, people from different cultures have to negotiate to produce a shared frame of reference. Through repeated, patient and mindful negotiation, they accumulate a consensus, develop mutuality and establish reciprocal interaction.

In globalization with the development of communication revolution and the spread of modernity, the geographical gap has been significantly narrowed down due to the accelerated de-territorization of cultures, while the historical and social gaps are still salient (Tomlinson, 1998). With the deepening of globalization, social and historical distance will also be markedly reduced. "In the dizzying interface of national, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious tradition, the once clear definition of 'us and them' are being blurred." (Kim, 2008:359) More significantly, differences have gradually become known to all and can be potentially turned into sources of cultural creation.

Commonalities and overlaps between and among cultures constitute the basis of intercultural communication and the establishment of interculturality. Cultural universals, in most cases, are values or ideas related to humanity that differentiate people from other species. For example, people in all cultures desire beauty, want to be respected and pursue happiness. In essence, they have similar life worlds and similar needs. When people encounter unfamiliar situations, they may change or elaborate their cognitive structure and accommodate to novel contexts (Nishita, 1999). More importantly, they all possess communicative reason-the ability to criticize and argue with others, and can learn from each other, perfect each other and reach agreement across cultures. In intercultural communication, people are capable of making systematic adaptations, enlarging one's horizon and achieving self-transformation (Kim, 2001). The establishment of interculturality neither leads to the thorough removal of differences nor the end of intercultural tensions. It provides communicators with a shared space where differences and tensions can be constructively managed and changed into creative dynamics. New ideas are often generated at the cultural interface and it is difference that turns intercultural dialogue more meaningful, and the manageable tension turns it more vigorous. In intercultural communication, individuals want to be recognized and included, but they also want to be autonomous and differentiated so that both self and mutual identification can be achieved. Manageable intercultural tensions are conducive to reflexive thinking, mutual criticizing and mutual correction, thus help increase cultural vitality and enhance cultural transformation. Since culture is a system that tends to maintain equilibrium and keeps foreign attitudes away, it may lose vitality without the outside impact. Stress or pressure is intrinsic to a complex open system and essential in cultural adaptation and renewal (Kim, 2008).

The Relationship between Intersubjectivity and Interculturality

People not only communicate with members within the same society, but also go beyond social boundary and communicate across cultures. In transcending self and establishing relationships with others, they produce both intersubjectivity and interculturality. Intersubjectivity and interculturality have similar structures but their operational mechanisms are quite different. Despite the difference between them, they not only interact with each other, but can also be mutually changed and strengthened.

In essence, both intersubjectivity and interculturality consist of two parties: self and other. All kinds of human relations derive from this basic structure. In intersubjective space, individuals are members of the same society; while in intercultural arena, people come from different societies or communities. Self and other are existentially different and separate, and relationally asymmetrical. They are supposed to be relatively independent partners who live in different worlds but try to develop mutuality and reciprocity. In an ideal state, self and other are equal. But due to difference in power, knowledge, wealth and so forth, self sometimes dominates the other, and sometimes is dominated by the other. The two parties are constantly in a certain degree of tension and struggling for recognition. The space between self and other is 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, 2003:12). The fundamental problem of human communication deals with how to bridge the gap between self and other and achieve reciprocity.

Intersubjectivity and interculturality express different levels of human connection. Harb and Smith (2008) identify four levels of connectedness between self and other: (1) individual level (2) interpersonal level (3) collective level (4) humanity level. At the first level, the independent self strives to differentiate from others with unique self-representations. The second is the interpersonal self that engages in small group interactions. The third level of connectedness is the collective self who participate in the interaction within larger groups. The final level of connectedness involves the super structure of humanity, in which self is defined by its belonging to human species as differentiated from other living organism. With universal representation, self relates with all the members of the whole human community. The first and the fourth are the two extremes of human relations. Intersubjectivity and interculturality express the human relations that lie between the two extremes, and constitute the most active and productive communication space.

The key difference between intersubjectivity and interculturality lies in their operational mechanisms. Ling Chen (1995) argues that the most striking operational difference between the intercultural and the intracultural communication are interlocutors' cultural backgrounds and their first language. In the social communication, individuals interpret things with the same cultural knowledge and intersubjectivity is constructed in reference to a shared generalized other. In intercultural communication, individuals communicate as cultural spokesmen and employ different frames of reference. Because interculturally shared generalized other is yet to be negotiated, interculturality is constructed in reference to cultural overlaps and human universals. Individuals in a society may deviate from the generalized other, but the deviation in most cases is within the social limit. Hence, it is relatively easy to establish connection between the members of the same group than the members of the two different groups (Moghaddam, 2003).

In communication, intersubjectivity and interculturality not only act upon each other, but can also be mutually transformed. Intersubjectivity facilitates social communication and paves the way for the development of interculturality. The construction of interculturality in turn broadens people's horizons and enriches intersubjectivity. The extension of intersubjective experience and the accumulation of intercultural agreements are helpful in transforming intersubjectivity into interculturality, which extends social space and strengthens intercultural ties.

Communication takes place between and among individuals. Intersubjectivity constitutes the primary field where people interact with each other and co-produce the meaning of life. Through mutually shared language, self and other coordinate their actions, develop patterned behaviors and common values, and define their identities. Because self and other are different and the other always has surplus over self, interlocutors can draw upon each other and perfect each other, thus social communication proceeds in a reciprocal way. Just as Gillespite (2003) has argued, self and other may take different and incommensurable perspectives on the same act in communication; nevertheless, human reflective consciousness forms a new matrix for action, possibly a new dimension of otherness, and the return of surplus of the other to self makes people grow.

The ability to play the role of the other and the reflective mechanism help people develop intercultural ties. Taking the role of other allows us to see things from the perspective of the people with whom we communicate, hence we are able to understand them, sympathize with them and reach agreement with them. The reflective mechanism urges us to examine our own weakness and endeavor to find other life possibilities. When we venture into other cultural domains and come to realize the validity of their way of representing reality, we are ready to relate ourselves to cultural others and attempt to establish reciprocal relations. When engaging in the life of cultural others, we are exposed to new ideas and behaviors. Our cultural inventory will be enlarged and more richly elaborated with the borrowing of new words and the introduction of new categories. It paves the way for the development of intercultural awareness and intercultural perspective. Both intracultural socialization practices and contact with new cultures may contribute to the relative strength of the images of self (Yamada & Singelis, 1999).

There are various ways to remove the barrier to intercultural connection. Assimilation or empathy can bridge the gap between self and other, but they make communicators identical, fail to maintain intercultural space and render intercultural dialogue meaningless. Assimilation is a uni-directional process in which individuals acquire the attitudes and values of other groups, and are incorporated with them in a common cultural life (Taft, 1953;Teske & Nelson, 1974). It leads to the loss of cultural identity of the other, usually a member of non-dominant culture, which is rarely the goal espoused by acculturation groups (Berry, 2005). Pure empathy leads to a submerging of the self in the other and reduces individuals to non-being. "Some distance makes space for a relation, in order not to violate the other by treating him/her like ourselves" (Diamond, 1996:314), or violate the self by thinking completely in the other's shoes. The extension of social experience proves to be a more viable way to construct interculturality. Both language and culture are human extensions (Hall, 1976). Extensions help people increase sharing of social or individual resources and develop more quickly. In globalization, human community has extended into a global scale. There is a growing need to expand our cultural vision and learn more about other cultures (Chen, 2005; Somech, 2000). Extending intersubjectivity and construct interculturality demands that individuals endeavor to transcend their social boundaries and experience new cultural life. Through extending intersubjective experiences, individuals join the larger intercultural community. Intersubjective communication is typically characterized by a monocultural way of thinking, which tends to breed ethnocentrism and prevent communicators from recognizing the value of cultural diversity.

The key difference between monocultural ways of thinking and intercultural orientation lies in their frames of reference. Monocultural communicators simply employ the local knowledge to interpret communication behaviors, taking the local value as legitimate and appropriate and the foreign as illegitimate and undesirable. Intercultural persons, in contrast, make use of both local and foreign knowledge in comprehending communication behaviors. They no longer take their own value for granted and interpret things merely from one cultural perspective, but rather view things from both their and others' cultural lens and try to synthesize the local and the foreign knowledge into an extended intercultural frame of reference. When intercultural person's cultural inventory expands into a bi-cultural or an intercultural one, their mind has changed from the ethnocentric into the intercultural. New cultural information is more easily accessible to intercultural persons, because they live in worlds where cultural cues are more prominent or available, thus they have cognitive advantages over mono-culturals (Benet-Martinez et al., 2006). Self-transformation not only takes place in cognition but also in communication behaviors. When individuals acquire foreign cultural scripts, their behaviors will become more flexible and progressively predictable to cultural others. In cultivating an intercultural way of thinking and constantly adapting to intercultural contexts, communicators are able to improve intercultural understanding, reach more agreements and develop intercultural identity.

The construction of interculturality is of vital importance to intercultural communication. First, it opens up the space between cultural self and cultural other and offers communicators a wider platform for dialogue. Traditionally, people take culture as a self-contained system and fail to pay due attention to the intercultural space. Culture itself is a product of both social and intercultural communication, and every culture has both the local and the foreign elements. A certain otherness is always present in the constitution of cultural self but the value of difference is often neglected or underestimated. Interculturality accommodates both similarities and differences, hence being capable of widening our horizons and providing us with a more dynamic and productive space for communication. Secondly, it enhances the fusion of minds. Interculturality is a space where different cultural perspectives meet. Communicators with diverse cultural backgrounds can articulate their opinions and negotiate shared meanings and desired identities. It is possible for them to reach agreements, since in intercultural space, communicators dwell in each other and there is fundamental overlapping between one and another (Heidegger, 1962). Third, it helps communicators harness intercultural tension and turn differences into creative dynamics. In intercultural communication, people often have difficulties in managing intercultural tensions. One of the main reasons is that they fail to construct interculturality. With the construction of interculturality, people will find it easier to locate where a problem lies and work out a mutually acceptable way to solve it. In the monocultural way of thinking, communicators treat difference as communication barriers and spare no effort to remove it. In the intercultural way of thinking, difference is not only legitimized, but also appreciated and treated as a dialogue promoter. Thus, people can bring the potential of difference into full play and have more fruitful communication.

Conclusion

Both intersubjectivity and interculturality constitute the space between self and other. The former refers to the links between and among individuals in the same society; and the latter the connection between and among members from different cultures. Genuine dialogue takes place in intersubjective engagement and intercultural communication becomes possible with the extension of intersubjectivity and the development of interculturality. Interculturality broadens communicator's horizon, brings forth intercultural frame of reference, and maximizes the value of difference. With the establishment of interculturality, culturally isolated self has changed into a culturally related self. Thus the distance between cultural self and cultural other is effectively reduced and it becomes possible for communicators to turn intercultural tension into creative dynamics. While the significance of intersubjectivity as social binding has been investigated from quite a few perspectives, the domain of interculturality has hardly been explored. In globalization, cultural hybridization, appropriation and transplanting have become mundane and routinized, which facilitates the growth of intercultural space and makes the investigation of interculturality more imperative. This paper has only defined the concepts of intersubjectivity and interculturality, and tentatively discussed the relationship between them, leaving many questions unanswered. Issues such as the transformative mechanism of interculturality and how it helps to develop intercultural awareness and intercultural identity are yet to be addressed in the future.

References

Bauber, M. (1962). I and you. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark.

Benet-Martinez, V. et al. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity: Expertise in cultural representations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 386-407.

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

Blumer, H. (1953). Psychological importance of the human group. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp.185-202). New York: Harper & Row.

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

Brewer, Marilynn B. & Gaertner, Samuel L. (2004). Toward reduction of prejudice: Ingroup contact and social categorization. In Mrilynn B. Brewer & Miles Hewstone (eds.), Self and social identity (pp.298-318). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

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, Vol. 1 (1), 3-11.

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.

Coelho, Jr., N. E. & Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity: Dimensions of otherness. Culture Psychology, 9 , 193-208.

Collier, M. J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp.99-120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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

Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dai, X. D. (2009). Intercultural personhood and identity negotiation. China Media Research, Vol. 5 (2), 1-12.

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

Gillespie, Alex T. (2003). "Supplementarity and surplus: Moving between the dimensions of otherness". Culture & Psychology, 9, 209-220.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp.8-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.

Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: community, culture and difference (pp.222-237). London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart.

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

Harbermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. H. P. Dreizel (ed.), Recent sociology (Vol. XII, pp.115-148). London, UK: Macmillan.

Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and the evolution of society (translated by T. McCarthy). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Harbermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. I), Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hofsted, G. (1984). Cultural consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

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.

Kluckhohn, C. & Strodbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientation. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Markova, I. (2003a). Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 63-87.

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

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

Nishida, H. (1999). A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 753-777.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Sarbaugh, L. E. (1988). Intercultural communication. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Samovar, L. A. et al. (2000). Communication between cultures (third edition). Bejing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Schwartz, S. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

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

Somech, A. (2000). The independent and the interdependent selves: Different meanings in different cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 161-172.

Taft, R. (1953). The shared frame of reference concept applied to the assimilation of immigrants. Human Relations, 6, 45-55.

Teske, R. H. C. & Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American Anthropologist, 1, 351-367.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tomlinson, J. (1998). Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 60, 649-655.

Yamada, Ann-Marie & Singelis, T. M. (1999). Biculturalism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 697-709.

Zhou, X. H. (2008). Identity theory: An analyzing method of sociology and psychology. Social Science, 4, 46-53.

Correspondence to:

Dr. Xiao-Dong Dai

100 Guilin Road,

Foreign Languages College of Shanghai Normal University

Shanghai, China, 200234

Email: xddai@shnu.edu.cn

Xiaodong Dai

Shanghai Normal University