Language and Intercultural Communication

ISSN: 1470-8477 (Print) 1747-759X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

Communication, discourses and interculturality

Tony Young & Peter Sercombe

To cite this article: Tony Young & Peter Sercombe (2010) Communication, discourses
and interculturality, Language and Intercultural Communication, 10:3, 181-188, DOI:
10.1080/14708470903348523

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470903348523

Published online: 13 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3116

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmli20
Language and Intercultural Communication
Vol. 10, No. 3, August 2010, 181
188

INTRODUCTION
Communication, discourses and interculturality

Communication is generally realised through social action in the form of

interpersonal discourse. Social action can make implicit and/or explicit claims about
the various associated, and perhaps conflicting, collectivities to which those involved
in a given communicative event are affiliated (cf. Scollon & Scollon, 2001). However,
a substantial amount of commercially produced literature in the field of cross-
cultural communication (CCC) and inter-cultural communication (ICC; much aimed
at students in higher education) inclines towards the formulaic or rhetorical, tending
to be reductionist, essentialist (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2004) and simplistic; and
is often based on a priori (yet unjustified and unjustifiable) assumptions of ‘cultural’
difference (Piller, 2007). There is, then, in much of the literature available to students
of ICC or CCC a tendency to ignore the inherent complexity of interdiscourse
communication and the concomitantly critical issue of context (see, for example,
Goodwin & Duranti, 1992).
This special issue of Language and Intercultural Communication (LAIC) has its
origins in a colloquium of the same name which we convened for the 41st annual
meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics (for which the above
statements largely constituted the thematic call to participants). The colloquium
brought together a group of researcher-educators with an interest in interculturality
and interdiscourse communication. All share, to some degree, dissatisfaction with
currently prevailing models of ICC applied in higher education, especially regarding
training and research in ICC aimed at students in the field. The colloquium proposed
a series of papers to consider interdiscourse communication from a range of
positions, with the specific aim of considering ways in which interaction informs,
shapes and reflects the (social and cultural) make-up of discourse participants, in
different contexts, the complex nature of which might be summarised as the ‘Other is
in Us and we are in the Other’ (Kramsch, 2001, p. 205). In particular, we are
interested in contributing to the debate on interculturality as realised through
interdiscourse interaction. Interculturality is seen here as a dynamic process by which
people draw on and use the resources and processes of cultures with which they are
familiar but also those they may not typically be associated with in their interactions
with others. This may mean that people implicitly question aspects of their own and
each other’s cultures, but can also lead to innovation and the adoption and
adaptation of features derived from other cultural contexts.1 Thus, we aim to redress
the imbalance frequently located in notions of language and cultural categorisation
that view these as coterminous in CCC and ICC literature.
This issue appears at a time when the study of CCC and ICC is a rapidly
expanding field, in the UK. This is evidenced by the increasing number of CCC and
ICC programmes being offered at universities in Britain. Since 2000 the number of
modules and courses now available at UK institutions of higher education has
expanded exponentially.2 Much of the motivation for this relates to the rise in

ISSN 1470-8477 print/ISSN 1747-759X online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14708470903348523
http://www.informaworld.com
182 Introduction

international interaction and interchange, in juxtaposition with the increasingly rapid

pace of ‘globalisation’ (Holliday, this issue), and ways in which people try to
understand, investigate and deal with these phenomena. A further contributing
dimension may be a need for some kind of ‘constructed certitude’ (Beck, 1992) by
individuals in late modernity, as realised in the valorisation of and affiliation to
aspects of identity, such as nationality and a sense of cultural belonging (cf.
Anderson, 1991). In line with this, much of the prevailing literature which purports to
guide people on how to operate successfully ‘between cultures’ (e.g. Hofstede, 1980,
2003; Schwartz, 1992; Triandis, 2006; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004), tends
to essentialise culture and identity, despite repeated criticism of this stance (e.g.
Angouri, this issue; Bond, Žegarac, & Spencer-Oatey, 2000; Grimshaw, this issue;
Holliday, this issue; Kim, 2005; McSweeney, 2002; Piller, 2007; Zhu, this issue); and
evidence of its inadequacy and inaccuracy in identifying and explaining cultural
differences. Holliday (this issue) suggests that an essentialist stance promotes a sense
of people as too different to easily negotiate, accommodate or cross their own or
others’ cultural boundaries. Essentialism also helps to promote the development of
ICC as an academic discipline that can somehow address these challenges, providing
formulae and cultural constructs that people can absorb and enact in order to avoid
problems in the performance of ICC.
Notions of identity are particularly salient to investigations of the performance of
ICC. Identity has been defined as the ways in which people make, remake and
articulate their relationships with the world around them (Kiely, Rea-Dickins,
Woodfield, & Clibbon, 2006). Essentialism tends to locate identity inside individuals,
approaching it as a product of cognition, rooted in the process of socialisation. From
an essentialist perspective, cultural identity is approached as a characteristic of a
person that tends to be absolute, static and knowable (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006). The
power of an essentialist approach in relation to ‘national culture’ is associated, with a
structural-functional theory of society (Holliday, this issue), with its roots in a
Saussurean (1916) view of language that was subsequently adopted into anthro-
pology by Levi-Strauss (1963). This model approaches a society as a unified, singular
and organic system, which is uniformly normative in terms of underlying values and
behaviours. An implication of this is that lack of adherence or fit, by a person or
group, to this view can be seen as dysfunctional in relation to society at large. Such a
stance may have some heuristic power in understanding the broadest structural
workings of a society, and can be hard to resist as we are constantly exposed to
political and media rhetoric that continually present and represent views of society
and their citizens derived from structuralist-functional constructs. However, it also
claims for itself value-neutrality and a predictive power which evidence does not
support. An example might be the Culture shock book series which, through their
titles (e.g. Culture shock! Britain, Tan, 2006) implies that an identified cultural feature
is common to citizens of a particular region while, simultaneously, each citizen is also
implicitly seen to embody all those features perceived as typical of a national group.
When applied to interculturality, this runs the risk of reducing individuals to a single
stereotype, especially those from ‘non-western’, ‘peripheral’ Otherlands (see Angouri,
this issue; Grimshaw, this issue; Holliday, this issue; Woodin, this issue; see also Said,
2003). Included in this view is a tendency to impose binary categories, such as
individualism-collectivism which plainly do not reflect the complex, dynamic nature
of cultures and societies (Holliday, this issue; see also Bauman, 1996; Clyne, 1994).
 Language and Intercultural Communication 183

Such simplistic views also tend to promote the nation state as a collectivity which
necessarily pre-determines behaviour, including speakers’ discursive practices (Zhu,
this issue).
There is evidence of an enormous growth in the number of training programmes
(especially for people who are conducting, or will conduct, business internationally)
since the 1980s; and these have often attempted to operationalise an essentialist
model of ICC (e.g. Bennett, Aston, & Colquhoun, 2000). For example, organisations
such as Communicaid (2007) and Kwintessential (2009) appear to guarantee one-
stop solutions to challenges in ICC: ‘Our culture training will ensure you are
equipped with the practical tools and techniques necessary to live and work in a
multicultural environment’ (Communicaid, 2007). However, little or no evaluative
empirical work is cited to support the effectiveness of these programmes.
Furthermore, much of what has been empirically researched and published tends
not to support a view that these kinds of programme are perceived by participants as
effective (Angouri, this issue; see also, for example, Landis & Wasilewski, 1999).
Problems within the multidisciplinary field of ICC are compounded by a somewhat
simplistic notion of communication, proposed over 50 years ago and since employed,
sometimes without question in ICC literature. Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) linear
model of communication (intended to provide a mathematical model of telephone
interaction) suggests communication is about the one-way transmission of messages
(Fiske, 1990, p. 6) rather than, say, the mutual construction and negotiation of
meaning. Nonetheless, this model continues to be represented and is included in one
chapter of a commercial text, by McDaniel, Samovar, and Porter (2006), as a current
and representative view of interpersonal communication.
As a counterbalance to these prevailing essentialist views of culture and
communication, this issue offers contributions from a variety of perspectives to the
ongoing debate on the nature of ICC and, in particular, identity and interculturality
as realised through interdiscourse interaction. The contributors approach culture,
communication and interculturality from a broadly constructivist perspective. They
were encouraged to explore the view that social action makes implicit or explicit
claims about the collectivities to which those involved in a communicative event are
affiliated (Scollon & Scollon, 2001; see also Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985). Such a
position necessarily challenges a view of social environments as constellations of
discrete, mutually exclusive ‘cultures’, more often than not ‘national cultures’, that
constrain and determine the behaviour of individuals (Grimshaw, this issue; see also
Holliday et al., 2004; Kramsch, 2001; Piller, 2007). This stance also stands in
opposition to a view of culture as something that people ‘are’, or ‘have’, rather than
something that people ‘do’ as expressions of the fluidity and multiplicity of social
identities (Holliday, this issue; Woodin, this issue; Zhu, this issue).
A number of more recent approaches in sociology, applied linguistics and social
psychology, have also taken positions which critique essentialised, permanent and
unified notions of cultural identity (e.g. Baskerville, 2003; Bauman, 1996; Ivanič,
2006; McSweeney, 2002; Rampton, 2005; Weatherall, Gallois, & Watson, 2007). A
number of examples of applications of these approaches are adopted in this issue. For
example, both Angouri and Zhu apply a ‘Communities of Practice’ (CoP) framework
to the analysis of discourse (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The CoP framework, by its very
nature, destabilises essentialist interpretations of identity while acknowledging the
sense of subjective investment that people feel towards group categories (Benwell &
184 Introduction

Stokoe, 2006). A CoP can be defined as ‘an aggregate of people who come together
around some common endeavour’ (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1998, p. 490), and is
characterised by social engagement rather than location, and thus emerges as a
categorisation that is meaningful and salient to individuals participating in
interaction, rather than being etically defined and imposed.
Zhu adopts a CoP framework to investigate processes of language socialisation
and of interculturality revealed in communication involving members of different
generations of diasporic families. Her study thus draws together two domains of
enquiry which have hitherto remained separate. She finds that her participants
negotiate, construct, co-construct and renew their sociocultural values and identities
through their discursive practices. Specifically, she argues that her participants’ ‘talk
about social, cultural and linguistic practice’, particularly their use of address terms,
show interculturality to be an emergent, dynamic process. The cultural and linguistic
practices of the ‘traditional family’, as well as those of the wider ‘local community’
help to make salient aspects of the multiple and shifting social and cultural identities
of interactants. She argues that this revealed interculturality shows how cultural
norms and values which may be ascribed to a group do not remain static, but are
constantly being negotiated and reconstructed through interactional processes.
Angouri applies a CoP framework to an analysis of international meeting talk as
presented in ‘business English’ texts aimed at learners of the language. She is
especially concerned with underlying assumptions about culture and ‘preferred
norms’, often prescribed in published literature, for handling meetings labelled as
‘international’ and (usually by implication) intercultural. She finds a predominantly
narrow, deterministic conceptualisation of culture running through these materials,
from which emerges the idea of ‘behavioural’ equating with ‘cultural’ which, in turn,
equates with ‘national’. Her conclusions stress the importance of including authentic
data in language learning materials in the form of, for example, real-life spoken
interaction from workplaces, especially multinational workplaces. She also empha-
sises the importance of encouraging learners to observe and learn from exposure to
and immersion in ‘local’ discursive practices, rather than attempting to pre-categorise
or seek out pre-categorised notions of behaviour supposedly rooted in what are
perceived as nationally held cultural norms.
Motivating this constructivist approach to culture, interculturality and identity is
a resistance to reductionism and stereotyping. There is a general recognition, from
this perspective, that an a priori assumption of the nature of ‘cultural differences’ is
simplistic (e.g. Clyne, 1994), unhelpful and unrealistic. Reductionism is integrally
linked to stereotyping, and so tends to underemphasise the possibilities of individual
differences among members of cultural groups (see, for example, Littlewood, 1999).
Woodin (this issue) examines how interlocutors draw upon references to self and
culture in order to self- and other-categorise. She employs a broadly conversational
analytical approach, particularly influenced by Scollon and Scollon’s (2001) notion
of mediated discourse, to examine categorisation in ‘real time’. Her data is
drawn from semi-structured interactions between tandem learners of English and
Spanish, tandem learning being a cooperative language exchange activity in which
participants are simultaneously learners and (‘native speaker’) teachers. She is
interested in talk about culture and the cultural: in this instance, which of her
participants introduced culture as a relevant category, why they did so, and what the
consequences of doing so were (in a similar way to Zhu, this issue). Like Zhu, she
 Language and Intercultural Communication 185

focuses on the use of personal identification markers and address forms, as well as
the use of proximal and distal deictics (here/aquı́ and there/alli, for example). She
seeks out meaning-in-interaction and, in so doing, finds that cultural categorisations
are used for a variety of purposes. These include the legitimisation of participants’
own ideas; marking similarity, difference or both between ‘world of origin’ and
‘world of difference’; and ways in which these contribute, or not, to instances of
shared meaning in the two languages. She finds instances of ‘crossing-over’ (cf.
Rampton, 2005), where both partners may claim affiliation and/or identification with
one or other language or place. She also notes instances where the use of personal
identity distinction is used to mark the subjectivity and relativity of the interlocutor’s
viewpoint, allowing for the legitimisation of other perspectives. She concludes that
her participants’ use of personal and cultural categorisation accepts complex cross-
identification of difference and similarity, and allows for the joint construction of
meaning and mutual validation of perspectives; and so manages to avoid the dangers
of reductionism and stereotyping inherent in essentialised, a priori cultural
categorisations.
‘Crossing’ (Rampton, 1998, 2000, 2005) and ‘styling’ (Rampton, 1999) are two
interdiscursive features particularly relevant to the study of communication, identity
and interculturality, and emerge through the linguistic behaviour of participants in
Woodin and Grimshaw’s contributions to this issue. Woodin sees crossing, using
discursive practices which are not usually seen as belonging to a speaker, in her
participants’ identifications with aspects or dimensions of the ‘other’ culture, or
country. Grimshaw sees crossing as a feature of the discourse of his participants as
they engage creatively with otherness. He employs a critical ethnographic approach
to explore interdiscourse communication within the context of institutional
performances. He observes styling
the use of language and discursive practices to
reproduce, explore and to challenge, what can be, influential images of ‘other’ groups’
in Chinese students’ behaviour in appropriating ‘Western’ discourses. He argues that
this serves as a useful corrective to the prevailing dominant discourse which can often
view Chinese students as members of a passive, homogenised collective who
straightforwardly reproduce pre-packaged information. His social constructivist
perspective, he argues, reveals ‘culture’ as a commodity that social actors can be
drawn on, managed and adapted for pragmatic and ideological purposes. He
highlights the agency of individuals who, from an essentialised perspective, are
usually positioned as ‘bound’ to and by their ‘collectivist’ cultures. He also shows
how students, through acts of playful appropriation and mediation, create hybridised
identities, where discourses are mixed and so challenge traditional binaries and
notions of cultural separateness and homogeneity (Bauman, 1996; Benwell & Stokoe,
2006; Bhaba, 1994; also cf. Barth, 1969).
Holliday (this issue) draws broadly similar conclusions from his critique of
essentialised cultural dualities. He explores frames of cultural description in
ICC studies and training, and finds that the dominant approach to culture does
not do justice to the full richness and complexity implicit in interculturality and
its realisations. Such approaches are, he argues, ideologically constructed and
maintained (not neutral, as they purport): the (western) Self is invariably idealised
at the expense of the (non-western) Other. He argues that recent work that engages
with a diversity of cultural behaviour, and in many ways challenges the Hofstedian
position,3 nonetheless still shows a neo-essentialising tendency to maintain that
186 Introduction

diversity is the exception to the rule, rather than being recognised as the norm. In the
narratives of complexity revealed in Holliday (in press), he finds voices from the
emergent periphery which highlight a need for a new ‘cultural realism’ in ICC studies.
This rejects the easy answers and tight definitions offered by (neo)essentialism and its
structural-functional underpinnings. It promotes instead a critical-cosmopolitan
social action approach. This acknowledges the influence of national structures but
helps to project a different, more authentic picture of most people’s social realities
which, like Grimshaw’s styling participants, demonstrates the agency of individuals
in their discursive practices.
Holliday et al. (2004) point out that much of the literature on ICC invites an
assumption that ‘to communicate with someone foreign or different we must first
understand the details of the stereotype of their culture’ (Holliday et al. 2004, p. 5,
quoted in Grimshaw, this issue). We hope that the contributions in this special issue
of LAIC can help to refocus the research and teaching agenda in ICC studies by
encouraging engagement with social action, and by challenging outdated and
essentialist and misleading assumptions about interculturality in communication
(Scollon & Scollon, 2001).
Overall, what we maintain is that communication and discourse cannot always be
meaningfully categorised into prearranged sets, norms for the conduct of which are
necessarily neatly and predictably adhered to by people involved in interaction.
Interaction is, generally, a messy business. We also realise, however, that there is a
potential double bind in adopting a somewhat postmodern stance to ICC. The
‘ditching’ of pre-ordained categories in favour of a more grounded approach can still
lead us to consider actual ICC in order to identify usable patterns, on the basis of
which working hypotheses can be proposed. These patterns are likely to be named
and, hence, categorised, such that ‘If to name is to represent . . .it follows that all
collective namings or labellings are essentialist’ (Werbner, 1997, p. 228). However,
what we are arguing is that the examination of authentic interaction, at least, can
precede categorisation, as far as possible, not the other way round, so that we try and
‘avoid seeing the social world as self-evident and familiar’ (Alvesson, 2002, p. 91). We
hope that this issue, and the contributions herein, might inform and contribute to
further debate about how interculturality can be revealed in the detail of discourse
and the broader and complex world of human communication.

Tony Young and Peter Sercombe

Department of Applied Linguistics, Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Notes
1. Examples might include: word borrowings from other languages, foods, religious beliefs
and practices, sports and hosts of other features that are used by different groups in
various ways with differing levels of significance and meaning.
2. The following universities now deliver some degree of academic instruction in CCC and/or
ICC, indicating the growth of interest in this multidisciplinary field, in the UK in the
twenty-first century: Anglia Ruskin, Aston, Bedfordshire, Birkbeck College, Central
Lancashire, Edinburgh Napier, Essex, Kingston, Luton, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield,
Surrey and West of England; and there may well be others.
3. Hofstede (n.d.) sees nations as cultures and diversity as a problem to be overcome, rather
than as a resource, and this is unequivocally reflected in this statement at the head of his
 Language and Intercultural Communication 187

personal webpage: ‘Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural
differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster’ (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/),
below which he refers to ‘the Middle Eastern culture’, as if this whole region can be seen as
homogeneous, to be captured in a single and singular noun phrase.

References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
London: Verso.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Postmodernism and social research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Baskerville, R.F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
28(1), 1
14.
Bauman, G. (1996). Contesting culture: Discourses of identity in multi-ethnic London.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Bennett, R., Aston, A., & Colquhoun, T. (2000). Cross-cultural training: A critical step in
ensuring the success of international assignments. Human Resource Management, 39(2
3),
239
250.
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Bhaba, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bond, M.H., .Žegarac, V., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culture as an explanatory variable:
Problems and possibilities. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing
rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 47
69). London: Continuum.
Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Communicaid (2007). Cultural diversity training. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://
www.communicaid.com/cross-cultural-training/cultural-diversity.php
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics. New York: MGraw Hill.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998). Communities of practice: Where language, gender
and power all live. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 484
494). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti &
C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 1
42). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and
organizations across nations. London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (n.d.). Cultural dimensions. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://www.geert-
hofstede.com/
Holliday, A.R. (in press). Complexity in cultural identity. Language Culture and Curriculum.
Holliday, A.R., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004). Inter-cultural communication: An advanced
resource book. London: Routledge.
Ivanič, R. (2006). Language, learning and identification. In R. Kiely, P. Rea-Dickens,
H. Woodfield, & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in applied linguistics
(pp. 7
29). London: British Association of Applied Linguitics and Equinox.
Kiely, R., Rea-Dickins, P., Woodfield, H., & Clibbon, G. (2006). Introduction. In R. Kiely,
P. Rea-Dickins, H. Woodfield, & G. Clibbon (Eds.), Language, culture and identity in
applied linguistics (pp. 1
6). London: British Association of Applied Linguistics and
Equinox.
Kim, M-S. (2005). Culture-based conversational constraints theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 93
117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
188 Introduction

Kramsch, C. (2001). Intercultural communication. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The

Cambridge guide to teaching english to speakers of other languages (pp. 201
206).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kwintessential (2009). Cross cultural solutions
language translation, interpreting, multilingual
services and business training. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.kwintessential.
co.uk/index.php
Landis, D., & Wasilewski, J.H. (1999). Reflections on 22 years of the international journal of
intercultural relations and 23 years in other areas of intercultural practice. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 535
574.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Page, R.B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to
language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology, 2 Vols. New York: Schoepf, Basic Books.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied
Linguistics, 20(1), 71
94.
McDaniel, E.R., Samovar, L.A., & Porter, R.E. (2006). Understanding intercultural
communication: An overview. In L.A. Samovar, R.E. Porter, & E.R. McDaniel (Eds.),
Communication between cultures (11th ed., pp. 6
15). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith
a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89
118.
Piller, I. (2007). Linguistics and intercultural communication. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1/3, 208
226.
Rampton, B. (1998). Language crossing and the redefinition of reality. In P. Auer (Ed.),
Codeswitching in conversation (pp. 290
317). London: Routledge.
Rampton, B. (1999). Styling the other: Introduction [Special issue]. Journal of Sociolinguistics,
3(4), 421
427.
Rampton, B. (2000). Crossing. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1
2), 54
56.
Rampton, B. (2005). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents (2nd ed.).
Manchester: St. Jerome Press.
Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. London: Penguin.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical
tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25, pp. 1
65). New York: Academic Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In
D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis
(pp. 538
547). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Tan, T. (2006). Culture shock! Britain. London: Marshall Cavendish.
Triandis, H.C. (2006). Culture and conflict. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 22
31). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2004). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding
cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.
Weatherall, A., Gallois, C., & Watson, B.M. (2007). Introduction. In A. Weatherall, B.M.
Watson, & C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology (pp. 1
12).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Werbner, P. (1997). Essentialising essentialism, essentialising silence: Ambivalence and
multiplicity in the constructions of racism and ethnicity. In P. Werbner & T. Modood
(Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism
(pp. 226
254). London: Zed Books.