Theoretical bases of a conceptual framework with reference to intercultural communicative competence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid expansion of communication, the mobility of people and the expansion of immigration, it is generally agreed, in language education, that ‘intercultural communicative competence’ (ICC) should be an essential component of ‘language competence’ or vice versa. It also implies that there could not be intercultural communication without the integration of intercultural competence in language teaching. But, there is a need to study this issue logically and coherently. Accordingly, this article reviews existing theories and models. It also proposes a conceptual framework for the development of ICC which involves cognitive, affective and psychological factors. The three essential domains of ICC are: intercultural knowledge, intercultural skills and intercultural being. They capture the interrelations that are embedded in language, thought and culture. The paper argues that language competence needs to address not only the linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic/discourse elements of langue but should integrate (inter)cultural interactions and transactions between individuals in the learning process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it