Language, Thought and Culture: Links to Intercultural Communicative Competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in a world where many countries are at war, where religious and ethnic conflicts tend to intensify in spite of sustained effort from governments and inter-governments, where solitudes and tensions between linguistic communities still prevail. In a context where geo-political interests predominate, how do we view cultural and intercultural issues? How can we promote values and attitudes that recognize experiences of diversity and openness to other cultures? Can institutions such as schools and universities promote social cohesion through education? These issues are essential to mankind but they have to be looked upon with logical coherence.This article reviews existing theories, definitions and a conceptual framework to the development of ICC which involves cognitive, affective and psychological factors, and intends to capture the interrelations that are embedded in language, thought and culture. It argues that language competence needs to address not only the linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic/discourse elements of langue but should also integrate (inter)cultural interactions, the development of (inter)cultural representations and transactions between individuals in the learning process. Nous vivons dans un monde dans lequel plusieurs pays sont en guerre ; dans lequel les conflits religieux et ethniques tendent à s’intensifier en dépit des efforts constants des gouvernements et des agences intergouvernementales ; un monde dans lequel les isolements et tensions entre les communautés linguistiques persistent encore. Alors, dans un contexte où les intérêts géopolitiques dominent, comment voyons-nous les problèmes culturels et interculturels ? Comment pouvons-nous promouvoir des valeurs et attitudes qui reconnaissent l’expérience de la diversité et l’ouverture sur les autres cultures ? Des institutions telles que les écoles et les universités peuvent-elles exhorter à une cohésion sociale à travers l’éducation ? Ces questions sont essentielles à l’humanité ; cependant, elles doivent être considérées avec une cohérence logique. Cet article passe en revue des théories existantes, des définitions et un cadre conceptuel au développement des CIC qui implique des facteurs cognitifs, affectifs et psychologiques ; et projette de capter l’essence des interrelations qui sont incorporés au langage, à la pensée et à la culture. Cet article soutient que la compétence linguistique doit se pencher non seulement sur les éléments linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et pratiques/ discursives de la langue ; mais devrait également intégrer des interactions (inter)culturelles, le développement des représentations et transactions (inter)culturelles entre les individus en processus d’apprentissage.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".