Bringing Cross-Cultural Communication Analysis Into Foreign Language Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The teaching of a second or foreign language has always incorporated some aspect of cultural information, but the full and rather complex nature of cross-cultural and intercultural communication has not always been an explicit pedagogical focus. The chapter outlines the key components of cross-cultural and intercultural communication (CCC/ICC), and reviews some major theories that have dominated the area. It is suggested that providing explicit instruction in CCC/ICC to language learners will prepare them for interacting appropriately in the target language in whatever global context they may wish to use it. Learners need to be not only linguistically and pragmatically but culturally competent as well as they move into multicultural contexts of interaction in that language. Specific elements of cross-/intercultural communication with regards to linguistic features and potential points of confusion in the EFL (English-as-a-foreign language) classroom are discussed as accessible examples. The chapter then relates some ways that cross-/intercultural mindfulness and understanding can form an active part of the teaching of a second/foreign language in order to enhance the full language learning experience and subsequent entry to successful communication.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".