ELIA 3, 2002, 85-102
INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: A STEP
BEYOND COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Ma ía José Cope ías Aguila
Uni e si a de València
The concep o ‘communica i e compe ence’, i s p oposed by Hymes,
e e ed basically o abili ies speake s ha e in hei i s language. This
e m, howe e , was app op ia ed and ewo ked (Canale & Swain 1980; an
Ek 1986) wi hin he ield o o eign language eaching and new app oaches
o dimensions (sociolingus ic, socio-cul u al, social, e c.) we e added o he
o iginal idea. Consequen ly, he p esc ip i e model based upon na i e
speake compe ence s a ed o be pu in o ques ion and he eplacemen o
he na i e speake by he in e cul u al speake as a e e ence poin o he
o eign language lea ne was sugges ed (By am & Za a e 1994). S emming
om all hese conside a ions, a model was p oposed (By am 1997) o
In e cul u al Communica i e Compe ence (ICC), in ol ing one s ep u he
in communica i e compe ence.
Key wo ds: communica i e compe ence, in e cul u al speake , in e cul u al
communica i e compe ence
1. In oduc ion
Se e al decades ago, Noam Chomsky in oduced he concep o linguis ic
compe ence as he ideal model o any speake . In he 70s, Hymes p oposed
Es udios de
lingüís ica inglesa aplicada
86 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
a new concep , ha o communica i e compe ence, which co ec ed1 and
complemen ed he i s e m, since he abili y o disce n when and how o
use language in speci ic con ex s was added o shee linguis ic abili y when
speaking. By paying a en ion o he way in which he abili y o use language
app op ia ely was acqui ed, Hymes was placing emphasis on sociolinguis ic
compe ence, a undamen al concep in he de elopmen o communica i e
language eaching when i was applied o o eign language eaching and
lea ning (By am, 1997: 7-8).
Communica i e me hodology is basically ocused on acqui ing he
necessa y skills o “communica e” and emphasis is gi en o unc ions, ole
playing and eal si ua ions - among o he aspec s - in he lea ning p ocess.
Howe e , acco ding o Clai e K amsch
A e yea s o communica i e eupho ia, some language eache s a e
becoming dissa is ied wi h pu ely unc ional uses o language. [and] Some
a e pleading o supplemen he adi ional acquisi ion o ‘communica ion
skills’ wi h some in ellec ually legi ima e, humanis ically o ien ed, cul u al
‘con en ’(1995: 83).
Ano he ques ion ha mus be aken in o accoun is he ac ha
communica i e compe ence is based on he abili y speake s ha e in hei
i s language.2 I was only when he e m was app op ia ed by o eign
language eaching and aken as i s basis ha i became an aim o lea ne s, a
p esc ip i e model based upon na i e speake compe ence (By am, 1995:
56). A hi d aspec we would like o poin ou is ha o eign language
lea ne s nowadays a e no limi ed o con ac wi h speake s o he a ge
language and he coun y whe e i is spoken; mo e and mo e o en hey a e
1 The idea o communica i e compe ence was also de eloped in he ge manophone wo ld by
Habe mas; howe e , his wo k was much less in luen ial in language eaching, whe e English
is he dominan language, and also p obably due o he le el o abs ac ion in his w i ings
(By am, 1997: 7, 30).
2 When Hymes p oposed he e m communica i e compe ence he was no hinking o o eign
anguage eaching and lea ning (By am, 1997: 9).
In e cul u al communica i e compe ence. 87
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
in ol ed in si ua ions whe e hey a e media o s be ween di e en languages
and cul u es, and whe e hey ha e o in e p e he wo ld om di e en poin s
o iew. The la e wo issues a e p obably connec ed wi h he ac ha he
p esen educa ional sys em and o eign language cou ses, mos ly based on
communica i e me hodology, ha e no managed o a oid a ce ain amoun
o misunde s anding, a ising om cul u al a he han linguis ic p oblems.
The e o e, he e a e easons o us o e hink he concep o communica i e
compe ence (Aa up Jensen, 1995: 30).
Educa ional au ho i ies in di e en coun ies and a di e en le els
ha e o some ime now been conce ned wi h he objec i es ha he eaching
o a o eign language should achie e. Fo ins ance, he law which egula es
he educa ional sys em in Spain3 es ablishes ha s uden s, apa om being
able o unde s and and p oduce o al and w i en messages app op ia ely in
hei own language as well as in a o eign language, should also lea n o
ela e wi h o he pe sons and ake pa in g oup ac i i ies wi h ole an
a i udes, o e coming p ejudices. This law speci ically alues he p esence
o o eign languages in he cu iculum as he knowledge o one o se e al
o eign languages is a necessa y condi ion o acili a e in e cul u al
unde s anding in a wo ld inc easingly open o all kinds o in e na ional
ela ionships, and i will allow s uden s o expand he ield o in e pe sonal
ela ionships, con ibu ing o he s uden s’ socializa ion p ocess.
In he Uni ed Kingdom, a epo issued by he educa ional au ho i ies
abou he eaching o a o eign language up o he age o six een p esen ed
simila cha ac e is ics. The objec i es es ablished we e di ided in o
linguis ic and li e a y, and human and social; he la e se aimed a
enhancing he social compe ence o s uden s by os e ing sensi i i y owa ds
di e en social and beha iou al habi s, encou aging posi i e a i udes
owa ds o he coun ies and hose li ing he e, s opping p ejudices,
awakening in e es owa ds a o eign cul u e, and s imula ing ole ance
(quo ed by Dueñas, 1997: 143). In he Uni ed S a es, he Na ional Fo eign
3 Ley O gánica de O denación del Sis ema Educa i o (1/1990, 3 d Oc obe ; la e de eloped in
Real Dec e o 1345/1991, 6 h Sep embe ).
88 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
Language Cen e (NFLC) a Washing on, has de ined ou basic missions o
language eaching/lea ning in highe educa ion (S eele, 1996: 76). One o
hese missions is called he gene al educa ion mission and i seeks o
de elop, h ough he s udy o ano he language, cul u al awa eness,
in e cul u al sensi i i y, global pe spec i es, unde s anding o di e en
modes o app ehending eali y, and insigh in o he wo kings o language
and sys ems o logic4.
2. Communica i e compe ence o he o eign language s uden
As we ha e poin ed ou ea lie , when Hymes p oposed his heo y o
communica i e compe ence he was mos ly conce ned wi h analysing social
in e ac ion and communica ion wi hin a monolingual (and p obably
monocul u al) g oup. I was Canale and Swain (1980) in No h Ame ica and
an Ek (1986) in Eu ope who de eloped he idea o communica i e
compe ence (By am, 1997: 9).
In hei seminal a icle “Theo e ical Bases o Communica i e
App oaches o Second Language Teaching and Tes ing” (1980), Canale and
Swain p oposed ha communica i e compe ence was minimally composed
o g amma ical compe ence, sociolinguis ic compe ence and communica ion
s a egies o s a egic compe ence (1980: 27):
G amma ical compe ence includes he knowledge o lexical i ems and ules
o mo phology, syn ax, sen ence g amma seman ics, and phonology (29).
Sociolinguis ic compe ence is made up o wo di e en se s o ules:
sociocul u al and discou se. The o me ocus on he ex en o which ce ain
p oposi ions and communica i e unc ions a e app op ia e wi hin a gi en
sociocul u al con ex , and he ex en o which app op ia e a i ude and
4 The o he h ee missions a e: he applied language mission, which suppo s he acquisi ion
o ask-speci ic compe ences o di e en pu poses; he specialis mission, which ensu es he
con inui y o he p o ession by p epa a ion o g adua e s udy and an academic ca ee ; and he
he i age p ese a ion mission, which ocuses on he main enance o acquisi ion o language
o he p ese a ion o en ichmen o cul u al iden i y (S eele, 1996: 76).
In e cul u al communica i e compe ence. 89
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
egis e o s yle a e con eyed by a pa icula g amma ical o m wi hin a
gi en sociocul u al con ex . Rules o discou se a e conce ned wi h cohesion
and cohe ence o g oups o u e ances (30).
Finally, s a egic compe ence is made up o e bal and non e bal
communica ion s a egies ha he speake may eso o when b eakdowns in
communica ion ake place due o pe o mance a iables o o insu icien
compe ence. These s a egies may ela e o g amma ical compe ence (how o
pa aph ase, how o simpli y, e c.) o o sociolinguis ic compe ence ( o
ins ance, how o add ess s ange s when unsu e o hei social s a us) (30-
31).
A ew yea s la e , an Ek placed emphasis on he idea ha o eign
language eaching is no conce ned me ely wi h aining in communica ion
skills bu mus also in ol e he pe sonal and social de elopmen o he
lea ne as an indi idual, and, he e o e, he p esen ed a amewo k o
comp ehensi e o eign language objec i es which included aspec s such as
social compe ence, he p omo ion o au onomy o he de elopmen o social
esponsibili y (1986: 33). The model he p esen ed con empla ed six
dimensions o communica i e compe ence, each o hem called compe ence
also. In ac , hey a e six poin s o iew o a complex phenomenon, which
o e lap and a e mu ually dependen . These six compe ences a e:
Linguis ic compe ence: The abili y o p oduce and in e p e meaning ul
u e ances which a e o med in acco dance wi h he ules o he language
conce ned and bea hei con en ional meaning ... ha meaning which na i e
speake s would no mally a ach o an u e ance when used in isola ion (39).
Sociolinguis ic compe ence: The awa eness o ways in which he choice o
language o ms ... is de e mined by such condi ions as se ing, ela ionship
be ween communica ion pa ne s, communica i e in en ion, e c. ... [ his]
compe ence co e s he ela ion be ween linguis ic signals and hei
con ex ual – o si ua ional – meaning (41).
Discou se compe ence: The abili iy o use app op ia e s a egies in he
cons uc ion and in e p e a ion o ex s (47).

90 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
S a egic compe ence: When communica ion is di icul we ha e o ind
ways o ‘ge ing ou meaning ac oss’ o ‘ inding ou wha somebody means’;
hese a e communica ion s a egies, such as eph asing, asking o
cla i ica ion (55).
Socio-cul u al compe ence: E e y language is si ua ed in a sociocul u al
con ex and implies he use o a pa icula e e ence ame which is pa ly
di e en om ha o he o eign language lea ne ; socio-cul u al
compe ence p esupposes a ce ain deg ee o amilia i y wi h ha con ex
(35).
Social compe ence: In ol es bo h he will and he skill o in e ac wi h
o he s, in ol ing mo i a ion, a i ude, sel con idence, empa hy and he
abili y o handle social si ua ions (65).
We can obse e ha bo h p oposals ha e some aspec s in common.
Bo h o hem speak abou compe ences wi hin a compe ence and conside
ha communica i e compe ence is a complex phenomenon which in ol es
di e en aces o app oaches, which in ac become new compe ences. Some
o hese new compe ences ake in o conside a ion he same o e y simila
con en s: Wha Canale and Swain call g amma ical compe ence is called
linguis ic compe ence by an Ek, bu bo h o hem ha e o do wi h
g amma ical ules; wha Canale and Swain call sociolinguis ic compe ence is
spli in o sociolinguis ic and discou se compe ence by an Ek, bu again hey
conside he same issues; as o s a egic compe ence, an Ek p obably ook
he concep om Canale and Swain. The main di e ence hen is an Ek’s
inco po a ion o wo mo e poin s o iew, socio-cul u al and social
compe ence, which ake in o accoun alues and belie s, on he one hand,
and a i udes and beha iou s, on he o he . Being a mo e comp ehensi e
model and mo e sui able o ou pu poses, we shall ake an Ek’s model as a
basis o ou u u e analysis.
3. The In e cul u al Speake
Complex and comp ehensi e as i is, an Ek’s communica i e compe ence
model s ill su e s om some sho comings. The i s one, on which we a e
In e cul u al communica i e compe ence. 91
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
going o base a g ea pa o his c i ique, is o ake he na i e speake as a
model. As By am poin s ou (1997: 10), in linguis ic and sociolinguis ic
compe ence he na i e speake as a model is implici when he e a e
e e ences o “ he ules o he language conce ned”, “con en ional
meaning”, “ ela ionship be ween communica ion pa ne s”, and also explici
wi h he e y men ion o “na i e speake s”. And e en wi h espec o
sociocul u al compe ence, we also ake he na i e speake as a e e ence as
he “sociocul u al con ex ” men ioned is p esumably he na i e one, and he
assumed “ce ain deg ee o amilia i y wi h ha con ex ” is again na i e.
Howe e , aking he na i e speake as a model may no be he igh
choice and he e a e se e al easons o dismiss him. One eason is ha aking
he na i e speake as a model means c ea ing an impossible a ge o a ain,
wi h he consequen ine i able ailu e. As By am explains (1997: 11), he
condi ions unde which a language is lea n and acqui ed in cu en
educa ional sys ems makes he ideal o bilingual speake an objec i e
di icul o a ain. Cook also ag ees on he idea “ ha he p ominence o he
na i e speake in language eaching has obscu ed he dis inc i e na u e o he
success ul L2 use and c ea ed an una ainable goal o L2 lea ne s” (1999:
185) and she sugges s a econside a ion o he lea ne ’s goals as well as he
acknowlegemen o he s uden ’s cul u al and linguis ic backg ound. Ano he
eason o dismissing he na i e speake as he ideal model is ha we may be
c ea ing he w ong kind o compe ence, as he lea ne would be almos
linguis ically schizoph enic, elinquishing comple ely one language and
e e y hing else a ached o i o ano he one, in which he would be
conside ed a “na i e” (By am, 1997:11-12).
The eplacemen o he na i e speake as a e e ence poin o he
o eign language lea ne by he in e cul u al speake was al eady p oposed
by By am and Za a e in 1994. The idea is ha o eign language lea ne s a e
indi iduals who b ing wi h hem o hei lea ning expe ience hei
sociocul u al iden i y as membe s o hei na i e cul u e, and e en i hey
ha e acqui ed ad anced le els o p o iciency, wha is con en ionally called
“na i e speake luency”, hey a e none heless “media o s” be ween wo
cul u es. The concep o “media o ” includes aspec s bo h linguis ic and
92 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
cul u al; by communica ing in a o eign language, he lea ne is also
becoming a dual-cul u e pe son whose na i e cul u e will always be pa o
his o he iden i y (S eele, 1996: 77). We mus obse e ha he change o
goal om he na i e speake o he in e cul u al speake should no in any
way be seen as lowe ing he s anda ds o achie emen cu en ly expec ed o
he language lea ne ; i is jus a ques ion o changing he poin o iew and
ealizing ha he compe ence o he in e cul u al speake and he na i e
speake is no he same linguis ically o cul u ally. In ac , i may be mo e
complex and demanding o become an in e cul u al speake han o y o be
up o he le el o a na i e speake since he o me is a dynamic concep
which has no inal goal (Jaege 2001: 53). In By am’s wo ds
he mo e desi able ou come is a lea ne wi h he abili y o see and manage
he ela ionships be ween hemsel es and hei own cul u al belie s,
beha iou s and meanings, as exp essed in a o eign language, and hose o
hei in e locu o s, exp essed in he same language – o e en a combina ion
o languages - which may be he in e locu o s’ na i e language, o no
(1997: 12).
This in e cul u al speake has he abili y o manage communica ion
and in e ac ion be ween people o di e en cul u al iden i ies and di e en
languages, and he is also able o come ou o himsel and ake ano he
pe spec i e, which will allow him o b ing in o he in e ac ion di e en
in e p e a ions o eali y.
In S eele’s opinion (1996: 79), one o he ad an ages o aking his
in e cul u al speake as a model is ha his concep places he lea ne a he
cen e o he eaching and lea ning p ocess, some hing ha i s wi h he
lea ne -cen ed me hodology ha has been widely adop ed as an e ec i e
way o eaching a o eign language, as he in e ac ion, implici in he idea o
he in e cul u al speake as a media o be ween wo cul u es, places he
lea ne a he cen e o he eaching and lea ning p ocess5.
5 This idea is also p esen in he heo y o Cul u al Communi y Building wi hin English
language p og ammes, p oposed – o ins ance – by Ma ga e Co ey (1999), whe e a i s
In e cul u al communica i e compe ence. 93
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
4. By am’s model o In e cul u al Communica i e Compe ence (ICC)
Wha e e linguis ic compe ence lea ne s ha e in a o eign language, when
in e ac ion wi h a pe son om a di e en coun y akes place, hey b ing o
he si ua ion a gene al knowledge o he wo ld which will p obably include –
o a g ea e o lesse ex en - knowledge o he coun y o he in e locu o .
Bu his knowledge also includes cul u al awa eness o hei own coun y,
which is pa o he social iden i y hey b ing o he in e ac ion. This is an
impo an ac o o he in e locu o , as he ques ion o in e cul u al
in e ac ion is no some hing ha has o do solely wi h he “ isi o ” o
“ o eign” speake , bu also wi h he “hos ” o “na i e” speake , i his is he
case. E en i hos speake s will o en speak in hei na i e language, hey
s ill need he same se o abili ies as he gues speake s o unde s and and
main ain ela ionships be ween he wo cul u es (By am, 1997: 32, 41).
By am (1997: 22) con empla es h ee possible si ua ions in
in e cul u al communica ion o in e ac ion:
be ween people o di e en languages and coun ies whe e one is a na i e
speake o he language used;
be ween people o di e en languages and coun ies whe e he language
used is a lingua anca;
and be ween people o he same coun y bu di e en languages, one o
whom is a na i e speake o he language used.
s ep in communi y building is ha eache s should gi e up some con ol in he class oom and
sha e powe wi h s uden s (28).
100 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
6. Conclusion
In he same way as linguis ic o g amma ical compe ence was conside ed
insu icien a some poin and communica i e compe ence was b ough o
he o e, we should now conside going a s ep beyond communica i e
compe ence and y o make ICC pa o ou o eign language classes. Jaege
(1995:32) s a es ha he didac ics o in e cul u al communica ion d aws i s
heo e ical backg ound om a wide ange o “mo he disciplines”:
linguis ics, o eign language pedagogy, sociology, an h opology o
e hnog aphy, among some o he s, and ha i s emphasis is on applica ional
pe spec i es and i s conce n wi h he p ac ice o in e cul u al encoun e s. In
ou p esen wo ld, whe e a elling om one coun y o ano he has become
accessible o a ela i ely impo an pe cen age o people and whe e we may
ha e o be, di ec ly o indi ec ly, in ouch wi h people o so many o igins
and backg ounds, ICC will be an impo an asse in anyone’s educa ion.

In e cul u al communica i e compe ence. 101
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
Re e ences
Aa up Jensen, A. 1995. “De ining In e cul u al Compe ence o he Adul
Lea ne ” in A. Aa up Jensen e al. (eds.) In e cul u al Compe ence
( ol. II). Aalbo g: Aalbo g Uni e si y P ess. 29-41.
Be y, J.W. e al. (1992) 1994. C oss-cul u al Psychology Resea ch and
Applica ions. New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
B øgge , F.C. 1992. Cul u e, Language, Tex : Cul u e S udies wi hin he
S udy o English as a Fo eign Language. Oslo: Scandina ian
Uni e si y P ess.
By am, M. 1995. “Acqui ing In e cul u al Compe ence. A Re iew o
Lea ning Theo ies” in L. Se cu: 53-69.
By am, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing In e cul u al Communica i e
Compe ence. Cle edon: Mul ilingual Ma e s.
By am, M. & G. Za a e. 1994. De ini ions, objec i es and assessmen o
socio-cul u al compe ence. S asbou g: Council o Eu ope.
Canale, M. & M. Swain. 1980. “Theo e ical Bases o Communica i e
App oaches o Second Language Teaching and Tes ing”. Applied
Linguis ics, ol. 1, No 1. 1-47.
Co ey, M. 1999. “Building Cul u al Communi y in English Language
P og ams”. TESOL Jou nal, 8/2: 26-30.
Cook, V. 1999. “Going Beyond he Na i e Speake in Language Teaching”.
TESOL Qua e ly, 33/2: 185-209.
Co azzi, M. & L. Jin. 1999. “Cul u al mi o s. Ma e ials and me hods in he
EFL class oom” in E. Hinkel (ed.) Cul u e in Second Language
Teaching and Lea ning. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess:
196-219.
Dueñas Vinuesa, M. 1997. El con enido sociocul u al de los lib os de ex o
pa a la enseñanza de la lengua inglesa. Diseño y aplicación de un
modelo analí ico a una selección de ma e iales. Unpublished doc o al
disse a ion, Uni e si y o Mu cia.
Jaege , K. 1995. “Teaching Cul u e. S a e o he A ” in L. Se cu: 32-40.
102 M. J. Cope ías Aguila
ELIA 3, 2002, pp. 85-102
Jaege , K. 2001. “The In e cul u al Speake and p esen -day equi emen s
ega ding linguis ic and cl u al compe ence”. Sp og o um, 19: 52-56.
K amsch, C. 1995. “The Cul u al Componen o Language Teaching”,
Language, Cul u e and Cu iculum, 8 (12): 83-92.
Meye , M. 1991. “De eloping T anscul u al Compe ence: Case S udies o
Ad anced Fo eign Language Lea ne s” in Bu jes, D. & M. By am
(eds.), Media ing Languages and Cul u es. Cle edon: Mul ilingual
Ma e s L d.
Mülle , B.D. 1995. “An In e cul u al Theo y o Teaching Ge man as a
Fo eign Language”, in Aa up Jensen, A. e al. (eds.), In e cul u al
Compe ence, olume II: The Adul Lea ne . Aalbo g: Aalbo g
Uni e si y P ess. 59-76.
Mughan, T. 1999. “In e cul u al Compe ence o o eign languages s uden s
in highe educa ion”. Language Lea ning Jou nal, 20. 59-65.
Seelye, H.N. (1984) 1987. Teaching Cul u e. S a egies o In e cul u al
Communica ion. Lincolnwood, Ill.: Na ional Tex book Company.
Se cu, L. 1995. In e cul u al Compe ence, olume I: The Seconda y School.
Aalbo g: Aalbo g Uni e si y P ess.
S eele, R. 1996. “De eloping In e cul u al Compe ence h ough Fo eign
Language Ins uc ion” in J.E. Ala is e al. (eds.), Linguis ics, language
acquisi ion, and language a ia ion: Cu en ends and u u e
p ospec s. Washing on, D.C.: Geo ge own Uni e si y P ess: 70-83.
Ta p,G. 1995. “Re lec ions on Cul u e in Fo eign Language Teaching and
Exchanges” in L. Se cu. 147-167.
Van Ek, J. 1986. Objec i es o Fo eign Language Lea ning. S asbou g:
Council o Eu ope.