Intercultural Communication as mediation

Intercultural Communication as mediation

Jan D. ten Thije

Inaugural lecture Spoken at the assumption of the chair of Intercultural Communication at Utrecht University on Friday 31 January 2020.

2

Rector Magnificus, dear listeners, Today, January 31st, 2020 is a day of joy for me. The acceptance of the first chair in Intercultural Communication at Utrecht University is a fait accompli. This chair of intercultural communication is the crowning glory of many colleagues from Utrecht University and beyond from all walks of life in the past fifteen years. Together with the departmental and faculty board, we have developed the master’s degree in Intercultural Communication at Utrecht University into one of the most successful Master’s degrees of the Faculty of Humanities.

Since the start of the degree program, 675 students have completed this master’s degree. They have found jobs at embassies, cultural institutions, in education, and at translation and consultancy agencies. Interestingly, more than half of the alumni find work in the business world: in Human Resources, internal communication departments or in marketing. The wide range of professions in which our alumni enjoy working is certainly special for graduates of master’s programmes in Humanities. Every year we admit a maximum of sixty students, including a respectable proportion of international students. In this way we contribute to the internationalisation policy of Utrecht University.

This new intercultural communication chair is built on the success of the academic master’s degree in Intercultural Communication.

Today I will delve deeper into the scientific basis and the origins of this interdisciplinary field.

Introduction The title of this inaugural lecture reads: Intercultural communication as mediation. Mediation has several meanings. The most commonplace 3

meaning is that of mediating in conflicts, which can prevent the pressing of legal charges (Busch & Schrรถder 2005). Another meaning of mediation is bridging. This meaning is filled in in a more abstract way within the social sciences and humanities. One refers to a medium that makes communication and image formation possible (Baraldi 2017). It concerns the medium by which and through which communication takes place. For communication is of course more than sending messages back and forth. The way in which a communicative medium is or must be used determines the communicative result in a conversation, newspaper, film, blog, website or catalogue (Gautheron-Boutchatsky et al. 2004; Agha 2011). Using the concepts of mediating and bridging, I want to explain how researchers from different disciplines work together to shape the interdisciplinary field of intercultural communication.

To this end, I am going to discuss five scientific approaches.

We will see that in the past thirty years there have been shifts in the definition of intercultural communication. Initially, researchers assumed that every communication between people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds concerns intercultural communication (Samovar & Porter 1991; Jandt 1995). Nowadays we use a more limited definition: intercultural communication only occurs when people change their attitude, knowledge and skills of languages and cultures through reflection on their own language and culture (Rehbein 2006; Piller 2009; Jackson II 2014; Zhu 2019). In this context one speaks of a move from an essentialist conception of intercultural communication towards a non-essentialist conception (Cole & Meadows 2013; Nathan 2015; Dervin & Gross 2016). I will get back to that at the end of my inaugural lecture.

Rich points in Volgograd Wonder and reflection are key concepts in intercultural communication. Based on my own intercultural experience, I 4

would like to give you an example, and discuss how my personal wonder and reflection have helped shape my vision of research into intercultural communication. After all, this is how an ethnographer works (ten Thije 2009).

In 1996, as part of an international scientific cooperation project between partners in Western, Eastern, and Southern Europe - the so-called TEMPUS projects - I paid a working visit to Volgograd.

After my PhD at Utrecht University, I was appointed to the chair of Intercultural Communication as an employee at Chemnitz University of Technology. Chemnitz is located in the former GDR, and at that time was called Karl Marx Stadt. The TEMPUS projects were intended to promote international cooperation between the East and West in the field of knowledge sharing in higher education. It was eight years after the fall of the wall and Glasnost was in full swing. After the flight to Moscow, I was in the night train with two other male colleagues from Nijmegen and Aarhus for 18 hours before we arrived in Volgograd. We were warmly welcomed at the station by our Russian partners and brought to our hotel. It was winter and it was very cold. Then we went to the Academy Building of the university, where we were welcomed by the dean and all six vice-deans of the university. Toasts were made and the guests were welcomed again.

Then something totally unexpected to us happened. The ladies of our project team said goodbye and the dean invited the men to come with them to the basement of the Academy Building. There turned out to be a sauna in the basement, and before we knew it we were minimally clad and we were enjoying the hot and cold. In the meantime an extensive meal was served and we learned how to make a toast in Russian whilst enjoying various glasses of vodka.

I have never been in the basement of this academic building before, but I don’t think there is a sauna here. Besides, I could not - and I cannot - imagine that our dean and his vice-deans would invite 5

international partners visiting Utrecht into a sauna to celebrate international cooperation.

This experience in Volgograd - which I have learned to call a Rich Point using the term coined by linguistic anthropologist Michael Agar (1994) - has triggered an extensive process of amazement in me. How to deal with these kinds of culturally determined etiquette? What was the role of men and women in this collaborative project? What political and economic interests played a role in the background? What was the role of using English as a Lingua Franca in addition to using an interpreter? What is the role of this kind of European projects in the development of EastWest relations altogether? How did different cultural identities play a role?

The fact that, after three glasses of vodka, I could still participate in the conversation was much appreciated at the time. The fact that I had three sons also raised my prestige in the eyes of the Russian male administrators.

During my visit to Volgograd I was able to observe the textual genre of making a toast. The toast turned out to be an important instrument for intercultural understanding, as I was able to analyse what happened later on. An interesting side effect was that I was able to speak Dutch out loud with my Dutch colleague because we knew that the Russians did not understand Dutch. Conversely, however, the same applied to the Russians. I had received permission in advance to make recordings of all the meetings.

This provided interesting insights back home when I had the intercultural interaction literally translated and examined the role of the interpreter. I will come back to that.

For my speech now, it is important to keep in mind how wonder, formulated as Rich Points, is a stimulus for reflection on intercultural communication. When you compare languages and cultures, you become aware of cultural representations and how these affect mutual perceptions. You reflect on the role of multilingualism and 6

how it affects interaction. Self-reflection turns out to be a main component of intercultural competence.

First acquaintance with five approaches I now come to the introduction of the five approaches on which current scientific research into intercultural communication in Utrecht is based. I have put these five approaches in a diagram for you, which also shows the special position of intercultural mediation.

Cultural Representations

Multilingualism and Diversity

Contrastive Approaches

Intercultural mediation

Transfer: Intercultural competencies

Interactive Approaches

7

The first approach is called the contrastive approach. This is about comparing languages and cultures: what are differences and what are similarities? This comparison is on the one hand about finding universal principles in languages (Lado 1957; Bandle et al. 2008) and on the other hand about the characteristics that are important for learning a foreign language (Fisiak 1983; Trosborg 2010). In my Department of Languages, Literature and Communication there are colleagues who follow both paths (Van den Doel 2006; Pinto & Zuckerman 2019; Steffens 2019; Sudhoff 2019; Dorleijn, Kossman & Nortier 2020).

When researching cultural differences, you can also think of the work of organisational psychologist Hofstede, who developed universal dimensions with which cultures can be compared to one another (Hofstede 1984). Think of collectivist versus individualistic cultures. His work is well known, but also controversial, because it is considered essentialist. In his model, a culture is equated with a country. Nowadays this is considered too simple (Bell Ross & Faulkner 1998; Dervin & Gross 2016).

The contrastive approaches also include research within translation studies: how do you deal with language and cultural differences if you translate discourses and texts from one language into another (Knapp & Knapp-Potthoff 1987; Bot 2005; Kruger 2016; Zendedel 2017).

The second approach focuses on research into cultural representation and imaging: how does one see oneself, the other and vice versa. How does cultural identity come about (Hall 1997; Leerssen 2007)? Research into discrimination and racism also fits within this approach (Reisigl & Wodak 2001; Holliday, Hyde & Kullman 2010). Here a fruitful exchange is possible between research into intercultural communication and literature studies, media and gender studies and research into post-colonialism, of which there is a significant amount of expertise present within 8

our faculty (Wackers 2010; Waaldijk 2012; Cole 2014; Verheul & Besamusca 2014; Buelens 2015; Douglas & Poletti 2016; Van der Tuin 2018; Bagchi 2019; Brillenburg & Rigney 2019; Leurs 2019; Houvenaghel & Garciá-Manso 2020; Secardin to appear).

The third approach is about the interaction itself: how does faceto-face interaction between people in multilingual and multicultural situations take place? This is the domain of interaction researchers and ethnographers (Gumperz 1982; Clyne 1994; Van Charldorp & Stommel 2016). In America, linguistic anthropology is an established discipline. It is of great importance to research into Intercultural Communication. Think of Agar’s work (1994) with his Rich Points. For my own interaction-research, functional pragmatics as a language action theory is an important source of inspiration (Koole & ten Thije 1994; Bührig & ten Thije 2005; Ehlich & ten Thije 2010).

The fourth approach focuses on research into linguistic diversity and multilingualism: how do organisations deal with multilingual situations and how do you describe for instance the development when children learn several languages side by side at home? What is the influence of language policies at school and at home (Phillipson 2003; Blommaert 2010; Jessner-Schmidt & Kramsch 2015)?

This approach is in the domain of sociolinguists and language psychologists, also well represented in our department (Le Pichon & Baauw 2019; Kester, Faraclas & Mijts 2019; Tribushinina & Mak to appear).

Finally, the fifth approach is called the transfer approach. This approach is about how intercultural knowledge and skills are transferred (Deardorff 2004; Spitzberg & Changnon 2009). This starts with the crucial question of what is meant by intercultural competences. This approach includes, on the one hand, research into language learning and the training of competences (Abitzsch & Van der Knaap 2019; Hagar 2020). On the other hand, it also 9

involves research into transfer in the form of advice, counselling and training (Byram 1997; Barmeyer & Franklin 2016; Jauregi Ondarra et al. 2019; Beerkens et al. 2020).

To summarise: the contrastive approach is about the comparison of languages and cultures, the representation approach is about the representation between cultures. The interaction approach answers the question: what do people do when they communicate face to face in multilingual situations? The multilingualism approach is about how diversity is dealt with in practice and in policy. Finally, transfer is about transfer of knowledge and experience in the form of education, training or advice.

All these approaches provide building blocks for scientific research into intercultural communication. But not all the research in these approaches is equally relevant to Intercultural Communication. That is why I have put intercultural mediation in the middle. By focusing on mediation we get a specific view on the contributions from the different approaches that are important for mediation and bridging in intercultural communication (Busch 2016).

You may have noticed that the five approaches I mentioned above deviate from the classical classification of university science in language and cultural studies. This classification is also reflected in the structure of secondary-school education in the language curriculum, where we speak of Linguistics, Literature, Language Proficiency and Language Acquisition of Language X, Y or Z. This new classification of approaches has been chosen deliberately. Research practice shows that researchers of the various languages collaborate very fruitfully in research into intercultural communication. The interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers from different language backgrounds but within the same approach has proved crucial for the development of the field of intercultural communication.

10

In the context of this inaugural lecture, it is not possible to address all the details of the approaches. To this end, I would like to refer to two handbook articles that I have written (ten Thije 2016, 2020).

Here I concentrate on the main lines and give one example of each approach, and look at what mediation means in that approach.

The contrastive approach IKEA is an example of an international company about which the methods of the contrastive approach can be well explained.

The marketing and external communication of such companies is determined by two trends: globalisation and localisation.

Globalisation indicates the unification of the message. Think of the advertising of Coca-Cola: equal in all countries. On the other hand there is localisation. Then texts are adapted to the customs of the countries. IKEA chooses a mix between these strategies.

If you think of the IKEA research as a contrastive study, everything falls into place. You can see the range of IKEA furniture as the point of comparison between languages and cultures. The furniture remains the same, but how they are described differs from language to language. This neutral point of comparison is called tertium comparationis (Connor & Moreno 2005). So if you compare the catalogues, you get insight into how IKEA adapts to different languages and cultures. This is called localisation (ten Thije & Pinto 2011).

There are two German-language catalogues, one for Germany and one for Austria. During my stay at the university in Chemnitz and in Vienna, I compared the two German catalogues and the Dutch catalogue with students. It was striking that in the description of the children’s room in the Dutch catalogue the word kinderland is used, in the German catalogue the word Kinderwelt and in the Austrian catalogue the word Kinderreich. The difference between 11

Kinderwelt and Kinderreich is immediately noticeable. Where the word Kinderreich in Germany would evoke a negative connotation with National Socialism, leading people to choose Kinderwelt, the choice for Kinderreich in Austria can be understood from the positive connotation with the Habsburg Empire. This was clarified to me at the time by the Viennese students with whom I did this research. It is clear that kinderland, Kinderwelt and Kinderreich are not literal translations of each other. Apparently, IKEA strives to give the children’s own domain a positive charge of self-determination.

This works differently in three languages. In translation theory, such cases are referred to as functional equivalence (BĂźhrig, House & ten Thije 2007). It does not say the same thing - that would be the case with formal equivalence - but the chosen expression has the same effect in the other language.

Functional equivalence is an important concept for research into intercultural communication. To achieve the same thing, you sometimes have to choose a different formulation in another culture. Only then will you achieve the goal you have in mind.

Within translation studies, this approach has led to the concept of cultural filter (House 1997). The idea behind this is that translators consciously or unconsciously apply a cultural filter when carrying out their work.

Sometimes things go completely wrong with the cultural filter, like seven years ago in Saudi Arabia. Compare the page of the Swedish catalogue, left, and Arabic on the right. The woman of the house has disappeared from the Saudi Arabian catalogue. This deliberate non-representation of the woman led to international protest (Taher 2019) and the management of IKEA was forced to apologize:

12

Figure 1: IKEA Catalogue 2013: Sweden on the left and Saudi Arabia on the right (Taher 2019: 258)

In a statement IKEA says that the company should have realised “that omitting women in the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the values of IKEA”. According to the spokesman, in IKEA’s code of conduct it is stated that men and women are equal (IKEA 2012).

With extra interest, I looked at the 2020 catalogue and, what is there to see?

Figure 2: IKEA Catalogue 2020 Saudi Arabia (IKEA 2020)

13

What does this example teach us: localisation can never be separated from globalisation. The images and language focused on one country can now be seen everywhere else at the same time through all media. This has to be taken into account. This is called glocalisation, a highly intercultural phenomenon (Goodman & Hirsch 2010; Wu & Chung 2015).

I look forward to discussing these issues with the newly appointed professor of translation sciences, Haidee Kotze. We can investigate how the functioning of a cultural filter can be understood as a form of intercultural mediation. This brings me to the second approach.

Approach to cultural representation and imaging A cultural representation approach is about self-image, other image and meta image, in other words: what image do you think the other person has about you? These images can strongly influence each other (Beller & Leerssen 2007; Holliday, Hyde & Kullman 2010; Siapera 2010; Agha 2011).

In the next example is a completely different representation of a woman, different than the woman in the IKEA catalogue. This clip is also about the equality of man and woman. I show you some pictures from the clip ‘Apesh*t’ by the famous musician couple Beyoncé and Jay Z’ Carter (The Carters 2020).

We see the Carters posing in front of the Mona Lisa and other famous paintings in the Louvre, such as the painting in which Napoleon crowns his own wife. The clip has now been viewed 200 million times. That is just as many times as last year’s IKEA catalogue has been issued.

Taylor Hosking (2018) points in her analysis to the creative way in which the construction of identities provides a counter-image to 14

Figure 3: ‘Apes**t’ (The Carters 2020)

all sorts of traditional stereotypes about black women and men.

She creatively addresses the ambiguity and hybridity of all kinds of cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, feminist, power and postcolonial issues. In the clip, the stratification of representation plays a crucial role. The Louvre is a symbol of hegemonic Western museum power. Beyoncé dances with her group in front of the famous painting in which Napoleon crowns his wife. In reality he had just crowned himself. The fact that the coronation of his wife is the subject of the state portrait was a tribute to his wife at the time.

Further on in the clip sits the Carter couple, very richly dressed and in a typical power expressing pose, but hierarchically equal. Fans of Beyoncé know that it has not always been roses in this marriage.

On the contrary. Hosking concludes that the clip represents the mutual coronation of the couple without placing a crown on any head.

Imaging the other turns out to be a permanent social and interactive process. It confirms stereotypes about other groups, but can also be used creatively. Siapera (2010) speaks of mediated

15

Figure 4: Stills from ‘Apes**t’ (The Carters 2020)

16

multiculturalism, in which cultural representations are produced and reproduced by mass and digital media. According to this theory, showing photos from the clip in this inaugural lecture is also part of cultural representation. Which eyes did you first look at when you saw the carters for the Mona Lisa: Beyoncé’s, her husband’s or Mona Lisa’s?

Colleague Keimpe Algra, originally a classicist, pointed me in a discussion on the construction of identity to the relationship with the concept of personae as it was proposed by Cicero (Long & Sedley 1987) in the classical philosophical tradition. Algra wrote to me: “In Cicero’s Panaetian passage the point is that the determination of our officia, what we ‘have to do’, also depends on the different roles we have, the personae (lit. ‘the masks’) we wear.

Cicero distinguishes four masks: • our rational human nature (with which we can fathom the foreseen divine nature of the world), • our personal character, • the circumstances that fate has brought us (kingship, slavery, etc.), and • the social roles we have chosen ourselves” (Algra 2020).

It is important to note that these elements from antiquity are still relevant when analysing a clip like this: is it about kingship or about slavery? Slavery has been abolished, but the old images of the slaves in the paintings still have a relevant meaning and The Carters’ clip shows this very nicely. Here, mediation receives the meaning of wearing masks and being able to choose which mask you want to put on, or are forced to wear.

In an analysis of table discussions between international students in Brussels, Messelink analysed the wearing of masks as the 17

assumption or assignment of a specific quality. The term personae has interesting parallels with the term capacity she proposes (Messelink & ten Thije 2012).

I look forward to further discussing cultural representation and intercultural communication with colleagues. Within the faculty of Humanities there is a lot of expertise on cultural representations in various genres, such as in refugee stories or on the notion of intersectionality for example (Cole 2014; Douglas & Poletti 2016; Leurs 2019). This research also forms one of the pillars of intercultural communication.

Interactive approach The interactive approach of intercultural communication has its origins in sociolinguistic and discourse-analytical studies of language contact, and focuses on face-to-face interaction (Gumperz 1982; Clyne 1994; Koole & ten Thije 1994).

Therefore, I would like to return to my visit to Volgograd (ten Thije 2009). My example shows how the interpreter acts as an intercultural mediator between languages and cultures. In the example, the Dutch colleague announces that he would like to make a second toast. In the scheme below, on the left you can see what the Dutch coordinator says. On the right you can see how the interpreter translated his words into Russian. For this presentation I have translated his words into English, but he speaks Russian.

The Dutchman says “Alec, may I make another toast. In Holland I’m not used to making so many toasts�. In the translation of the interpreter I have reconstructed three steps so that the importance of this second toast for the Russian host is made clear. I have called these steps generalising, perspectivising and contrasting (ten Thije 2006).

18

Interpreter as intercultural mediator Speaker in English

Interpreter in Russian

1. Alec

1. -

2. May I bring another toast

2. -

3. In Holland I am not used to

3. In Holland it is not customary

bring so many toast

to bring so many toast 4. But 5. Here in Russia 6. He would like to say one more

Step 1 – generalising - the sentence “In the Netherlands I am not used to making so many toasts” is translated as “In the Netherlands it is not customary to make so many toasts”. The words of the speaker are generalised so that they express a cultural standard in the Netherlands. Step 2 connects directly to this: “here in Russia”.

The request of the Dutchman is explicitly placed in the current communicative situation in Russia. In step 3, the two cultural standards in the Netherlands and Russia are juxtaposed and connected with the conjunction “but”: “In the Netherlands it is not common to make many toasts, but here in Russia he would like to make another one”. The interpreter makes his own position clear by changing “me” into “him”. For Russians it is very common for people to make several toasts during dinner. Because of this contrast, the interpreter makes it clear to the Russian host that the fact that the Dutchman makes a second toast should be regarded as a special form of courtesy. If the interpreter had translated literally, this form of intercultural politeness would have been lost.

In my research into intercultural communication without an interpreter, I also encountered the same steps - generalising, 19

perspectivising and contrasting. This concerned, for example, research into Trabi-Geschichte with analyses of stories about the (in) famous car of the GDR (ten Thije & Beermann 2011). I identified the three steps as a strategy of perspectivising. After all, a speaker can also present his own actions as an expression of a cultural norm and then compare this norm with the cultural norm of the other. In this way the other person comes to a better understanding.

This intercultural strategy of perspectivising is a good example of intercultural mediation, where the speaker meditates his own goals.

Multilingualism approach We have arrived at the approach of multilingualism and linguistic diversity. Multilingualism refers to two types of multilingualism: additive and inclusive multilingualism (Schjerve-Rindler & Vetter 2012). Additive multilingualism is about different languages working side by side. When the European Community was founded, all national languages were considered equal. Since then, additive multilingualism in Europe has been referred to in Brussels as the equivalence of national languages. This view stems from the emergence of European nation states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Each state chose one language. There was an ideology of one country, one culture and one language. Switzerland, Belgium and Luxembourg are the exceptions. With European unification, increased migration and mobility, another form of multilingualism has become increasingly important. Citizens are increasingly confronted with situations in which several languages are used at the same time. Backus et al (2013) have called this form of inclusive multilingualism. Here it is about using multiple languages at the same time.

As an elaboration of inclusive multilingualism, I would like to discuss Luistertaal (Lingua Receptiva). It has been one of the important themes in my research in recent years (ten Thije & 20

Zeevaert 2007; ten Thije 2018a). I choose an example from the research of Roos Beerkens (2010). She did ethnographic research in the border region between the Netherlands and Germany. One of the cases was the spatial planning team that met twice a year to discuss cross-border projects. In these teams civil servants from the German Bezirksregierungen (district governments), from the Dutch provinces, from the Euroregion and sometimes from ministries worked together. These officials consciously choose that both sides speak their own language. Dutch people speak Dutch and German people speak German. Their receptive knowledge of the other’s language is sufficient to understand each other.

Luistertaal, which is also known internationally as lingua receptiva, turns out to be an optimal form of intercultural communication (Rehbein, ten Thije & Verschik 2012). After all, it shows great respect for the other person that he or she is given the opportunity to use the language that he or she controls best in the given situation. In this way, speaking anxiety is also removed from people who would otherwise have to use a foreign language.

Beerkens’ research (2010, 193-196) contains a good example of an intercultural discussion. It is about the train connection between Rotterdam and Oberhausen. The Dutch know this as the Betuwelijn. In the Netherlands the connection to the border has been ready for a long time, but in Germany it is not progressing. A German newcomer to the discussion does not understand why the connection is called the Betuwelijn and why his German colleagues also refer to the connection between Arnhem and Oberhausen that way. It is explained to him that in the Netherlands the train runs through a region called the Betuwe. It finally makes sense and the colleague understands the name and that his German colleague also refers to it that way, because the train already runs in the Netherlands and not in Germany. For the sake of clarity, this communication is conducted entirely in lingua receptiva.

21

The intercultural reflection of the German colleague shows how intercultural mediation works in Lingua Receptiva. Language differences in a multilingual situation are bridged so that intercultural understanding arises. The Betuwelijn in Germany is still not ready, much to the annoyance of the Netherlands. On a German website I read that this connection will be extended to Genoa (Jacobs 2018). From the point of view of intercultural mediation, I would like the Dutch policymakers to have another good think about the name Betuwelijn. Wouldn’t a name like Trans Europa Express One be more likely to prompt Germans, Swiss and Italians to invest billions?

Today at the international symposium, a study commissioned by the Dutch Language Union (Nederlandse Taalunie) was presented (ten Thije, Gulikers & Schoutsen 2020). It describes the practice of lingua receptiva in construction, health care and education in the Netherlands and Flanders and makes recommendations for implementation. An interesting finding is that many people use lingua receptiva, but do not know that they do.

Utrecht University is considering using lingua receptiva in the University Council. This will enable international students and colleagues to participate more effectively. Then, it would not be necessary to convert the entire board to English as has now been decided in Twente. The Minister is right to be concerned about the Dutch-language character of Dutch universities.

Research commissioned by the Nederlandse Taalunie (ten Thije et al. 2020) shows that dealing with multilingualism can also be done in another way than opting integrally for English. I do not want to argue that lingua receptiva is a solution to all problems with multilingualism. However, it is important to add this skill to intercultural competences as one of the strategies for dealing with multilingualism.

22

Transfer approach: intercultural competences The transfer approach summarises the results of the other approaches and focuses on the formulation of intercultural competences. Intercultural mediation plays a central role in this.

Intercultural competence is described by Deardorff (2004, 194) as: “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes”. The fundamental issue common to all transfer studies is how selfreflection can be taught and integrated in intercultural education.

Self-reflection, or reflective learning, is the key to teaching and learning intercultural competences (Alred, Byram & Flemming 2002; McConachy & Liddicoat 2016).

The last project I would like to discuss with you shows a nice summary of my argument in practice. The past two years I coordinated an Education Innovation Project at Utrecht University: Intercultural Competences for Utrecht University: ICUU (ten Thije 2018b). In that context, we developed a training course for staff members of the university. These are colleagues who work at the international office, at HR or as a study advisor. These are people who have to deal with internationalisation on a daily basis in their work and who want to increase their competencies. The training is based on the wonder of the Rich Point, with which I started my lecture (Agar 1994). The training illustrates the critical reflection brought forward by the non-essentialist approach of intercultural communication.

Rosanne Severs, Karen Schoutsen and I have converted this approach into a type of text that the elderly among you will remember. It is a large notepad that used to be on everyone’s desk with all the months of the year following. You could take small notes on it. It’s called a desk pad. (In Dutch: Bureau Onderlegger Blok abbreviated to BOB). We made a modern desk pad on which 23

employees could write their observations about intercultural communication on a daily basis, so that they could discuss them in their team meetings or in their conversations with managers (Severs, Schoutsen & ten Thije 2017). The desk pad has an English and a Dutch version. You cannot read the text on the slide exactly, but you can see the structure, which is characteristic of the approach to intercultural communication I would like to advocate.

Guided Awareness - An Intercultural Deskpad for SAS Wo r king on my int ercultural compet en ce s a nd a wa r e ne s s : r e f l e ct i o n o n ‘r i ch p o i nt s ’ R ic h point: what happened?

Name: Date:

knowledge

attitudes values

attitudes • Openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, world views and practices • Respect • Civic-mindedness • Responsibility • Self-efficacy • Tolerance of ambiguity

skills

critical

skills • Autonomous learning skills • Analytical and critical thinking skills • Skills of listening and observing • Empathy • Flexibility and adaptability • Linguistics, communicative and plurilingual skills • Co-operation skills • Conflict-resolution skills

knowledge and critical understanding • Knowledge and critical understanding of the self • Knowledge and critical understanding of language and communication • Knowledge and critical understanding of the world: politics, law, human rights, culture, cultures, religions, history, media, economics, environment, sustainability

POINTS OF INTEREST/GUIDING TOPICS & QUESTIONS • Mutuality: are you talking about the same thing?

• Image building: how do you see yourself and how does the other see you (identities & identification)?

• (Cultural) prior knowledge/stereotypes: what is the role of previous experiences (as tourist, as professional, as family member, …)?

• Language choice: which language works best?

• Ways of communication: what is the role of body language, forms of address, (in)directness, …?

observations & insights

What can I learn from it?

Evaluation: how did I feel about it? What did I think of it?

and understanding

values • Valuing human dignity and human rights • Valuing cultural diversity • Valuing democracy, justice, fairness, equality and the rule of law

reflect & learn

LEARNING IS A CYCL IC P ROCE SS

What were my possibilities to act?

• You wait until the situation passes.

• You copy the behaviour of the other.

• You perceive the oddness as a stereotype of the other culture and/or as confirmation of the inferior or deviation of the other culture.

• Your incomprehension is the start of a process of wonder and curiosity (rich point!).

What were my possible communication strategies?

Active listening, message attuning, linguistic accommodation, building of shared knowledge, reformulating, showing empathy, information structuring, …

What would I do (differently) next time?

• How did I pay attention to the institutional perspective?

• How did I pay attention to the intercultural perspective?

• Which competences did I (not) use?

• Was I aware of the different possibilities to act and communicate?

Is this something to discuss within my team?

rete n c nce co erie xp

tio n

ob r

ive e c t on ef rvati se

POINTS OF INTEREST/GUIDING TOPICS & QUESTIONS • Capacity: which hats are you wearing?

• Aim of the conversation and type of conversation • Organisation: formal versus informal frameworks and structures • What gets done orally and what gets done in writing?

• Sequential communication: what preceded and what follows?

What happened at the intercultural level?

n on -

FORMAL AND INFORMAL ORGANISING

intercultural perspective

INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES

ve acti nta e experim

analysis & interpretation

What happened at the institutional level?

e

institutional perspective

PHASES IN INSTITUTIONAL COMMUNICATION • Opening • Qualification • Clarification of question/problem/complaint • Reformulation within the institutional framework • Formulation of answer/solution/advice • Acceptance of answer/solution/advice • Planning a follow-up • Closing

o tc abstrac ati lis ceptua

© Severs, Ten Thije and Schoutsen (2017) Sources: intercultural competences - Council of Europe (2016), learning cyclus - D. Kolb (1983), rich points - M. Agar (1996)

Figure 5: Deskpad (Bureau Onderlegger Blok) – ICUU project (Severs, Schoutsen & ten Thije 2017)

I will briefly explain this structure. At the top you write a Rich Point. Then there are three columns. The left column represents the institutional perspective. What are organisational conditions for communication? This prevents something from being seen as intercultural too quickly, when the cause lies in the formal or informal organisation of the university. The second column 24

questions all sorts of aspects of interculturality and the third column focuses on the reflection process itself. Reflection is a cyclical process of observing, naming, trying out and experiencing again (Kolb 1984; Deardorff 2004). This desk pad was rolled off the presses before Christmas 2019 and will soon be on the desks of the participants of the ICUU training. With its cheerful colours, it is also a nice reminder for colleagues to see intercultural communication not as an individual problem, but as a collective learning process from which the university as a whole can benefit.

These are the small steps by which intercultural changes are put into practice.

Intercultural communication: from essentialism to non-essentialism We have come to the end of my inaugural lecture and I will now weave several threads together: What insights do the interfaces between the five approaches provide? What do we understand by intercultural communication, and what is the meaning of mediation?

Since the concept of intercultural communication was first used in 1959, there has been a shift in the interpretation of this concept (Hall 1959). One speaks of a development from an essentialist to a non-essentialist conception of the field. I can summarise this development here based on three definitions.

The oldest and still best known definition states that intercultural communication is understood as all communication between people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. From this definition the focus is laid on the explanation of misunderstandings.

Hofstede’s research (1984) into universal cultural dimensions can serve as an example here (Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov 2010). In his model, culture is equated with country. Smaller cultural units 25

Cultural Representations

Multilingualism and Diversity

Contrastive Approaches

Intercultural mediation

Transfer: Intercultural competencies

Interactive Approaches

within countries, such as regions, cities or neighbourhoods, are ignored (Krase & Uhere 2017; Masana 2018; Trana & Vub 2016).

Cultural identity is seen as static and unchanging. In the analysis and comparison of different languages, the native speaker is the norm. Intercultural training focuses on learning do’s and don’ts with the motivation that more knowledge about other languages and cultures prevents misunderstandings (Mßller-Jacquier & ten Thije 2000).

Influenced by research within all approaches, the field has developed in a more non-essentialist direction. This is expressed in the second definition: Intercultural Communication only exists when linguistic 26

and cultural differences become relevant for the course and outcome of multilingual or multicultural communication (Spencer Oatey & Franklin 2009). Of course, national cultures remain important, but researchers have become more aware of the fact that identity is a construction shaped and reformed by new and old media all over the world (Ponzanesi 2016). Think in this context of globalisation, localisation and glocalisation. Cultural identities are seen as more hybrid and plural. Attention is paid to racism, discrimination and post-colonialism as forms of intercultural communication. Besides the attention for these forms of oppression, there is also attention for how to play creatively with the concepts of race, ethnicity, gender and social position as the Carters do in their clip.

The interaction approach has played a major role in this development by showing how you can deduce from the reaction of the other whether and how you understand each other (Di Luzio, GĂźnthner & Orletti 2001; BĂźhrig & ten Thije 2006). Think of the interpreter in Volgograd. In this way you can show that successful intercultural communication exists and that it differs from monolingual communication, as we have seen in lingua receptiva (Rehbein et al. 2012). In research into multilingualism, attention has shifted from the native speaker to efficient communication (Backus et al. 2013). Education and training is no longer just about learning about other languages and cultures, but also about which strategies you can use to promote intercultural understanding.

The third definition is the most narrowed down. It states: Intercultural communication only occurs when people change their attitudes, knowledge or skills of languages and cultures through reflection on their own language use and culture in multilingual and multicultural situations (Rehbein 2006). Interestingly, this definition presupposes a combination of the essentialist and nonessentialist approaches (Siapera 2010). You can reflect better on your own behaviour if you have knowledge of how others view your language and culture. In other words: How can you avoid 27

the essentialist trap in intercultural education (Cole & Meadows 2013)? In this context I also like to refer to MC Escher, one of my favourite painters, who invites with his multi-interpretable work to switch perspectives (see cover; Bool et al 1992). For efficient multilingual communication you do not always need to use the native or national cultural standard, but it is necessary to know when this standard is absolutely necessary and therefore you need to seek help to meet it (Sweeney & Zhu 2010). The key to this approach is that learning is cyclical and that people understand how different factors affect communicative success at the same time (Deardorff 2004; McConachy & Liddicoat 2016) The desk pad visualises that cyclical character.

As I have shown, scientific research into intercultural communication is a product of many, very diverse theories. With the help of intercultural mediation I have shown how different approaches can be linked in a meaningful way. Of course, there are still challenges ahead (Herlyn 2005; Katan 2013; Tarozzi 2013; Crocker et al. 2015; Busch 2016).

I started this lecture with the remark that this is a joyful day because of the new chair in intercultural communication. What is less pleasant is that today is also the day of the Brexit. As a convinced European with Dutch roots in Utrecht and Amsterdam, and with many European contacts, I find the political Brexit an extremely disappointing fact. However, I am convinced that intercultural communication, also in light of Brexit, only will grow in importance. Because we are, we can’t and we don’t want to get rid of each other in Europe, and that’s a good thing.

28

Word of thanks Finally, I would like to thank the Executive Board for the trust placed in me.

What I am proud of is that it is the third time that Utrecht University has granted this trust to a member of the ten Thije family. In 1948 my grandfather, Jan Hendrik - Hens - ten Thije, held his inaugural lecture at the acceptance of his chair in veterinary medicine. In 1980 my father, Otto Jan ten Thije, was appointed to Internal Medicine with a chair in the field of gastrointestinal diseases. My parents and grandparents are no longer alive, but I am sure they are beaming up there. At least that goes for my family in the front rows as well.

I would like to thank all the directors and in particular Els Stronks, Ann Rigney, Frank Wijnen and Ted Sanders who made this chair a reality.

I would like to thank my promoters, Konrad Ehlich and Wolfgang Herrlitz, both present here, for putting me on the right track, here in Utrecht and later in Chemnitz.

In order to give this word of thanks the desired brevity, I would like to apologise for not mentioning any further names. Many thanks to all my colleagues with whom I have worked intensively in recent years. This morning some very valued colleagues spoke at the colloquium. I would also like to thank all the staff members, teachers and professors involved in the Master’s in Intercultural Communication, the colleagues from the Eurocampus, with whom we yesterday discussed the plans for the Eurocampus this autumn in Utrecht. I would like to thank colleagues from the Language and Communication department, the project team of the USO project Intercultural Awareness for Utrecht University (ICUU), the colleagues from the Centre for Academic Teaching 29

(CAT), my Teaching Fellows, the Lingua Receptiva team and the colleagues from Functional Pragmatics, who came over specially from Germany. Many thanks to all the students, with whom I have enjoyed working and worked out many rich points.

Finally, there are a few loved ones I would like to mention by name, namely my sons and daughter-in-law, Ot, Pim, Koos and Anouk.

Your support is indispensable and unconditional. And I would like to thank my very dearest love: Gerda.

I have spoken.

30

References Abitzsch, D. & Van der Knaap, E.W. (2019). Literatur im Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen - zur Auswahl eines Katalogs für freies Lesen im Bereich des Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 56 (3), 131-141.

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock, Understanding the Culture of Conversation.

New York: Harper Collins.

Agha, A. (2011). Meet Mediatization. Editorial. Language & Communication 31, 163–170.

Algra, K (2020). persoonlijke communicatie, 14 januari 2020.

Alred, G., Byram, M. & Flemming, M. (2002). Becoming an Intercultural Mediator. A Longitudinal Study of Residence Abroad, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23(5), 339-352.

Backus, A., Gorter, D., Knapp, K., Schjerve-Rindler, R., Swanenberg, J., Thije, J.D. ten, Vetter, E. (2013). Inclusive Multilingualism: Concept, Modes and Implications. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (2), 179–215.

Bagchi, B. (2019). Analyzing Toru Dutt’s Oeuvre Today - How a Transnational Literary-Educational Case from Colonial India Can Enrich Our Conception of Transnational History. In E. Fuchs & E.R. Vera (eds.). The Transnational in the History of Education Concepts and Perspectives, 179-199. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E.H., Karker, A., Naumann H-P. & Teleman, U. (eds.) (2008). The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages Nordic Languages. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Baraldi, C. (2017). Language Mediation as Communication System.

Communication Theory 27 (4), 367-387.

Barmeyer, C. Franklin, P. (eds.). (2016). Intercultural Management: A CaseBased Approach to Achieving Complementarity and Synergy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Beerkens, R. (2010). Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the DutchGerman border area. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.

Beerkens, R., Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., Supheert, R., & Thije, J.D. ten (eds.). (2020). Enhancing intercultural communication in organizations: insights from project advisers. New York and London: Routledge.

31

Bell Ross, R. & Faulkner, S.L. (1998). Hofstede’s dimensions: An examination and critical analysis. In K.S. Sitaram and Michael H. Prosser (eds.). Civic discourse: Multiculturalism, cultural diversity and Global Communication, 31-40. London: Ablex.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bool, F., Kist, J.R., Wierda, F., Locher, J.L. & Escher, M.C. (1992). M.C. Escher: His life and complete graphic work (with a fully illustrated catalogue).

New York: Abrams. Book.

Bot, H. (2005). Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Brillenburg Wurth, C.A.W. & Rigney, A. (2019). The Life of Texts - An Introduction to Literary Studies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Buelens, G. (2015). Everything to Nothing - The Poetry of the Great War, Revolution and the Transformation of Europe. London and New York: Vrso.

Bührig, K., House, J. & Thije, J.D. ten (2009). Introduction. In K. Bührig, J. House & J.D. ten Thije, (eds.). Translatory Action and Intercultural Communication, 1-7, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Bührig, K. & Thije, J.D. ten (2005). Diskurspragmatische Beschreibungsmodelle. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier (eds.). Sociolinguistics – Soziolinguistik. An international Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, 1225-1250. Berlin: Mouton.

Bührig, K. & Thije, J.D. ten (eds.). (2006). Beyond Misunderstanding.

The linguistic analysis of intercultural communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Busch, D. (2016). Does conflict mediation research keep track with cultural theory? A theory-based qualitative content analysis on concepts of culture in conflict management research. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2), 181-207.

Busch, D. & Schröder, H. (eds.). (2004). Perspektiven Interkultureller Mediation. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. London: Multilingual Matters.

Charldorp, T.C. van & Stommel, W. (2016). ‘Is het een Surinamer of eh…’ Nationaliteit, etniciteit en cultuur in Nederlandse politieverhoren. Tekstblad 22 (5-6), 30-35.

Cicero (1987) De officiis 1, In A.A. Long & D.N. Sedley (eds.). The

32

Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1, 107-117 (Translation of the principal sources with philosophical commentary). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, D. (2014). Mobilizing voices across representational boundaries: Some considerations for local values and functions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language Vol. 227, 175-192.

Cole, D. & Meadows, B. (2013). Avoiding the essentialist trap in intercultural education. Using critical discourse analysis to read nationalist ideologies in the language classroom. In F. Dervin & A.J. Liddicoat (eds.). Linguistics for Intercultural Education, 29-47.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Connor, U.M. & Moreno, A.I. (2005). Tertium Comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology. In: P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W.G. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (eds.).

Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan, 153-164. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Crocker, Ch. A., Hampson, F.O., Aall, P. & Palamar, S. (2015). Why Is Mediation So Hard? The Case of Syria, In M. Galluccio (ed.).

Handbook of International Negotiation Interpersonal, Intercultural, and Diplomatic Perspectives, 139-157. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.

Deardorff, D.K. (2004). The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as Student Outcome of Internationalization. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Press.

Dervin, F. & Gross, Z. (2016). Introduction: Towards the Simultaneity of Intercultural Competence. In F. Dervin and Z. Gross, (eds.).

Intercultural Competence in Education. Alternative Approaches for Different Times, 1-10. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Di Luzio, A., GĂźnthner, S. & Orletti, F. (eds.). (2001). Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Doel, W.Z. van den (2006). How Friendly are the Natives? An Evaluation of Native-speaker Judgements of Foreign-accented British and American English. LOT Vol. 144. Utrecht University.

Dorleijn, M., Kossmann, M. & Nortier, J.M. (2020). Urban youth speech styles in multilingual settings. In E. Adamou & Y. Matras (eds.).

33

The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact. New York and London: Routledge.

Douglas, K. & Poletti, A.L. (2016). Life Narratives and Youth Culture Representation, Agency and Participation. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ehlich, K. & Thije, J.D. ten (2010). Linguistisch begründete Verfahren der Analyse interkultureller Kommunikation. In A. Weidemann, J. Straub & S. Nothnagel (eds.). (2010). Wie lehrt man interkulturelle Kompetenz. Theorien, Methoden und Praxis in der Hochschulausbildung.

Ein Handbuch, 265-285. Bielefeld: transcript.

Fisiak, J. (ed.). (1983). Contrastive Linguistics. Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton.

Gautheron-Boutchatsky, Ch., Kok Escalle, M.C., Androulakis, G. & Rieder, K. (2004). Representations of the concept of otherness in advertising and cultural mediation. In G. Zarate, A. GohardRadenkovic, D. Lussier & H. Penz (eds.). Cultural mediation in language learning and teaching, 155-180. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.

Goodman, M. & Hirsch, P. (2010). Corporate Communication: Strategic Adaptation for Global Practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hagar, T.J. (2020). Enhancements and Limitations to ICT-Based Informal Language Learning: Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey: IGI Global.

Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, S. (1997). Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices.

London: Sage.

Herlyn, M.A. (2005). Interkulturelle Aspekte von Mediation und Dialog in der internationalen Unternehmenszusammenarbeit, In D. Busch & H. Schröder (eds.). Perspektiven Interkultureller Mediation, 43-62.

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills CA: SAGE Publications.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviour, institutions and organisation across nations, (3rd ed.), Thomas Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Holliday, A., Hyde, M. & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural communication.

34

New York and Oxon: Routledge.

Hosking, T. (2018). Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s New Vision of Gender in ‘Apeshit’. Atlantic Online, June 22, 2018, geraadpleegd 28 februari 2020 op https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/ archive/2018/06/beyonce-and-jay-zs-new-way-of-looking-atgender/563360/ House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited.

Tübingen: Narr.

Houvenaghel, E.M.H. & García-Manso, M.L. (2020). Special Issue Agencia femenina e identidad transnacional - Mujeres republicanas en el exilio argentino. Anales de Literatura Hispanoamericana.

IKEA (2012). ‘Statement from Inter IKEA Systems B.V. regarding the IKEA catalogue in Saudi Arabia’. Geraadpleegd op 30 November 2014, op: http://www.ikea.com/dk/da/about_ikea/newsitem/Saudi_ Arabia.

IKEA (2020). Online Catalogue Saudi Arabia (English version) geraadpleegd op 28 Februari 2020 op: https://www.ikea.com/sa/ en/.

Jackson II, R.L. (2014). Mapping Cultural Communication Research: 1960s to the Present, In M.K. Asante, Y. Mike & J. Yin (eds.), The Global Intercultural Reader, 76-91. Second Edition. New York and London: Routledge.

Jacobs, P. (2018). Hafen Rotterdam dringt auf Betuwe-Linie. RP Online 7 November 2018, geraadpleegd 29 februari 2020 op https://rponline.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/betuwe-linie-hafen-rotterdamschreibt-mahnbrief-an-nrw_aid-34340455.

Jandt, F.E (1995). Intercultural Communication. An Introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jauregi Ondarra, M.K., Melchor-Cout, S. & Vilar, E. (2019).

Differentiation in TeCoLa - Inclusive Pedagogical contexts. In J. Colpaert & E. Spruyt (eds.). TeCoLa case study report - Pedagogical perspectives in intercultural telecollaboration.

Jessner-Schmid, U. & Kramsch, C.J., (eds.). (2015). The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton and De Gruyter.

Katan, D. (2013). Intercultural mediation, In Y. Gambiers & L. van Doorslaer, (eds.). Handbook of Translation Studies, 84-92.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

35

Kester, P.M., Faraclas, N. & Mijts, E. (2019). Community Based Research in Language Policy and Planning - The Language of Instruction in Education in Sint Eustatius. Cham: Springer.

Knapp, K. & Knapp-Potthoff, A. (1987). The man (or woman) in the middle: Discourse aspects of non-professional interpreting. In K. Knapp, W. Enniger & A. Knapp-Potthoff (eds.). Analyzing Intercultural Communication, 181-211. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Koole, T. & Thije, J.D. ten (1994). The Construction of Intercultural Discourse. Team discussions of educational advisers. Amsterdam and Atlanta: RODOPI. Krase, J. and Uhere, Z. (eds.). (2017). Diversity and Local Contexts Urban Space, Borders, and Migration. London: Palgrave Macmillam.

Kruger, H. (2016). Fluency/resistancy and domestication/ foreignization. A cognitive perspective. Target 28(1), 4-41.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Leerssen, J. (2007). Imagology: History and methods. In M. Beller & J. Leerssen (eds.). The cultural construction and literary representation of national characters. A critical survey, 17-32, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Le Pichon, E.M.M. & Baauw, S. (2019). EDINA, Education of International Newly Arrived Migrant pupils. European Journal of applied linguistics 7 (1), 145-156.

Leurs, K.H.A. (2019). Community Media Makers and the Mediation of Difference - Claiming Citizenship and Belongingness. In R. Buikema, A. Buyse & A. Robben (eds.). Cultures, Citizenship and Human Rights, 31-48. London: Routledge.

Massana, M. (2018). Towards a Comparative Analysis of Intercultural Cities. In B.M. White, (ed.). Intercultural Cities Policy and Practice for a New Era, 347-358. London: Palgrave Macmillam.

McConachy, T. & Liddicoat, A.J. (2016). Meta-pragmatic Awareness and Intercultural Competence: The Role of Reflection and Interpretation in Intercultural Mediation. In F. Dervin & Z. Gross (eds.). Intercultural Competence in Education Alternative Approaches for Different Times, 13-31. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Messelink, A. & Thije, J.D. ten (2012). Unity in Super-diversity: European capacity and intercultural inquisitiveness of the

36

Erasmus generation 2.0. Dutch Journal for Applied Linguistics (DuJAL) 1(1), 81-10.

Müller-Jacquier, B. & Thije, J. D. ten (2000). Interkulturelle Kommunikation: interkulturelles Training und Mediation. In: G. Brünner & M. Becker-Mrotzek (eds.). Berufshandbuch Linguistik, 3956. Frankfurt/M, New York: Lang.

Nathan, G. (2015). A non-essentialist model of culture: Implications of identity, agency and structure within multinational/ multicultural organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management Vol. 15(1), 101–124.

Phillipson, R. (2003). English-Only Europe: Challenging Language Policy.

London: Routledge.

Pinto, M. & Zuckerman, S. (2019) Coloring Book: A new method for testing language comprehension, Behavior Research Methods Vol. 51, 2609 – 2628.

Piller, I. (2009). Intercultural Communication In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (ed.). Handbook of Business Discourse, 317-329. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ponzanesi, S. (2016). Connecting Europe. Postcolonial Mediations. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

Rehbein, J. (2006). The cultural apparatus. Thoughts on the relationship between language, culture and society. In K. Bührig & J. D. ten Thije (eds.). Beyond Misunderstanding. The linguistic analysis of intercultural communication, 43-96. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Rehbein, J., Thije, J.D. ten & Verschik, A. (2012). Lingua Receptiva (LaRa) - Introductory remarks on the quintessence of Receptive Multilingualism. Special Issue on “Lingua Receptiva”. The International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (3), 248-264.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Samovar, L.A. & Porter, R.E. (eds.). (1991). Intercultural Communication. A Reader. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Schjerve-Rindler, R. & Vetter, E. (2012). European Multilingualism. Current Perspectives and Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Secardin, O. (to appear). The role of the author as intercultural mediator: the example of the French Antilles. In G. Cascio, R. Rupheert, O. Secardin & J.D. ten Thije (eds.). Crossing Borders.

Challenging linguistic and cultural diversity. Leiden: Brill.

37

Severs, R., Schouten, K. & Thije, J.D. ten (2017). Bewustvaardig onder begeleiding (BOB) – Intercultural Awareness voor OBP. Werken aan mijn interculturele vaardigheden en bewustwording: reflectie op ‘rich points’ / Guided Awareness – An Intercultural Deskpad for SAS. Working on my intercultural competences and awareness: reflection on ‘rich points’. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Siapera, E. (2010). Cultural diversity and global media. The mediation of difference. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

Spencer Oatey, H. & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. New York: Palgrave.

Spitzberg B.H. & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing Intercultural Competence. In D.K. Deardorff (ed.). The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 2-52. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Steffens, M.G. (2019). L’antonymie - fonctions sémantico-référentielles de la coprésence d’antonymes français. Leuven: Peeters Publishing.

Sudhoff, S. (2019). Ja, ik spreek Nederlands - But not wel. In E. van der Knaap & C. Koster (eds.). Teksten in beweging - Over vertaling, vertalers en literatuur, 205-212. Nijmegen: Vantilt.

Sweeney, E. & Zhu, H. (2010). Accommodating toward your audience.

Do native speakers of English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward non-native speakers of English?

Journal of Business Communication 47(4), 477–504.

Taher, E.A.T. (2019). Female Visibility/Representation in Saudi Arabia: A Critical Multimodal/Discourse Analysis of the 2013 IKEA catalogue and Press Discourses on Saudi Arabia. Thesis School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, Newcastle: Newcastle University.

Tarozzi, M. (2013). Translating and Doing Grounded Theory Methodology.

Intercultural Mediation as an Analytic Resource Forum. Qualative Social Research 14 (2), geraadpleegd op 28 Februari 2020: http://www. qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1429/3513.

The Carters (2020). APES**t. Geraadpleegd op 28 Februari 2020 op https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbMqWXnpXcA. Thije, J.D. ten (2006). The notion of ‘perspective’ and ‘perspectivising’ in intercultural communication research. In K. Bührig & J.D. ten Thije, (eds.). Beyond Misunderstanding. The linguistic analysis of intercultural communication, 97-153. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

38

Thije, J.D. ten (2009). The self-retreat of the interpreter. An analysis of teasing and toasting in intercultural discourse. In K. Bührig, J. House & J.D. ten Thije (eds.). Translatory Action and Intercultural Communication, 114-151. Manchester: St Jerome.

Thije, J.D. ten (2016). Intercultural Communication. In L. Jäger, W. Holly, P. Krapp & S. Weber, (eds.). Sprache – Kultur – Kommunikation / Language – Culture – Communication. Ein internationales Handbuch zu Linguistik als Kulturwissenschaft . An International Handbook of Linguistics as Cultural Study, 581-594. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thije, J.D. ten (2018a). Receptive multilingualism. In D. Singleton & L. Aronin (eds.). Twelve Lectures on Multilingualism, 327-363. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Thije, J.D. ten (2018b) ICUU: visie op interculturele vaardigheden. In Educational Database Centre for Academic Teaching Utrecht University, geraadpleegd 29 februari 2020 op: https://cat-database.sites. uu.nl/kennis_item/interculturele-vaardigheden/.

Thije, J.D. ten (2020). What is Intercultural Communication. In G. Rings & S. Rasinger (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thije, J.D. ten & Zeevaert, L. (eds.). (2007). Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Thije, J.D. ten & Beermann, K. (2011). Geared to Intercultural understanding. The technique of perspectivizing in biographical interviews about the East German TRABI. Journal of pragmatics 43(14), 3579-3590.

Thije, J.D. ten, Gulikers, E. & Schoutsen, K. (2020). Het gebruik van Luistertaal in de praktijk. Een onderzoek naar meertaligheid in de bouw, de gezondheidszorg en het onderwijs in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Den Haag: De Nederlandse Taalunie en Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Thije, J.D. ten & Pinto, M. (2011). Twee IKEA-catalogi, een Italiaanse en een Nederlandse. Lezerswaardering van een ‘covert translation’.

Filter 18(4), 67-80.

Trana, L.T. & Vub, T.T.P. (2016). Mediating transnational spaces: international students and intercultural responsibility. Intercultural Education 28 (3), 283–303.

Tribushinina, E. & Mak, W.M (to appear). Linguistic advantages of

39

bilingualism: The acquisition of Dutch pronominal gender. In G. Cascio, R. Rupheert, O. Secardin & J.D. ten Thije (eds.). Crossing Borders. Challenging linguistic and cultural diversity. Leiden: Brill.

Trosborg, A. (ed.). (2010). Pragmatics across languages and cultures.

(Handbook of pragmatics 7). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Van der Tuin, I. (2018). Resourceful: Critique and Creativity in Cultural Inquiry (inaugural lecture. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

Verheul, J. & Besamusca, E. (2010). Discovering the Dutch: On Culture and Society of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Waaldijk, M.L. (2012). Speaking on Behalf of Others: Dutch Social Workers and the Problem of Maternalist Condescension. In M. van der Klein, R.J. Plant, N. Sanders & L.R. Weintrob (eds.).

Maternalism Reconsidered. Motherhood, Welfare and Social Policy in the Twentieth Century, 82-98. New York & Oxford: Berghahn.

Wackers, P.W.M. (2010). De Nederlandse Reynaert-traditie in prenationaal, nationaal en transnationaal perspectief. Internationale Neerlandistiek 48, 22-32.

Wu, D.D. & Chung, A.M. (2015). Glocalising Voice and Style of Cosmopolitan in China. In L. Ko & P. Chen (eds.), Translation and Cross-Cultural Communication Studies in the Asia Pacific, 407-421.

Leiden: BRILL. Zendedel, R. (2017). Informal interpreting in Dutch general practice.

Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amterdam.

Zhu H. (2019). Exploring Intercultural Communication. Language in Action.

London: Routledge.

40

Curriculum vitae Dr. Jan D. ten Thije is professor of Intercultural Communication at the Department of Languages, Literature and Communication, and the Utrecht Institute for Linguistics (UiL-OTS) of Utrecht University.

He was previously attached to the Institut für Interkulturelle Kommunikation of the Chemnitz University of Technology (1996-2002) as a ‘Hochschuldozent’, as a visiting professor at the Institut für Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft of the University of Vienna (2001) and as a lecturer/researcher at the Institute for General Linguistics of the University of Amsterdam (1994-1996).

He studied Dutch Language and Literature and General Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam and obtained his PhD at the Utrecht University (1994) on research into intercultural communication in educational advisory institutions.

His interest and expertise lies in the field of institutional and intercultural communication in multicultural and international organisations, lingua receptiva, (receptive) multilingualism, intercultural training, language education and functional pragmatics.

He coordinates the Master’s programme in Intercultural Communication at the Department of Languages, Literature and Communication at Utrecht University.

Jan D. ten Thije is editor of the European Journal of Applied Linguistics (EuJAL) published by Mouton de Gruyter and series editor of the Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication (USLC) published by Brill Publications, Leiden.

41

More information: www.jantenthije.eu www.luistertaal.nl/en

42

Colophon

Copyright: Jan D. ten Thije, 2020 Translated by: Bridget van de Grootevheen (thanks for valuable comments from Debbie Cole) Design: Communication & Marketing, faculty of Humanities, Utrecht University Picture title page: M.C. Escher’s “Print Gallery” © 2020 The M.C. Escher Company B.V. – The Netherlands. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.com Portrait photo: Ed van Rijswijk

43