Arasaratnam and Doerfel's (2005) study on defining intercultural communicative competence (ICC) may be dated, but I believe their discussions are very relevant to the current situation of ICC. Their study aimed to define ICC from a grounded exploratory approach. Their reasoning behind this is because of the subjective understanding of what intercultural is, and what competence is. Communication, from an intercultural perspective, is typified as spoken discourse. To come to a definition of ICC, the study interviewed a group of international and local students studying in an American university. The students were asked what they thought ICC is, and what they thought are key components of a person who is interculturally competent. Though responses were diverse, a common thread was induced. But would this common thread still be applicable to different cultural contexts? Probably from a qualitative perspective it would be, but perhaps not if viewed with a quantitative lens. F
Recently, I wrote a response to an article urging English teachers in Malaysia to teach only in English. Aside from my response there were at least one other who wrote a very well thought-through piece . An English-only approach was a common sentiment you would find in language pedagogic textbooks and manuals published decades ago. With the expansion of applied linguistics, the current community of language educators and scholars acknowledge that the language learning process involves more than just picking up new language knowledge and abilities through immersion. Gone are the days when language is just considered a cognitive exercise. These days, we have other affective variables to consider such as anxiety, stress, motivation, and the list goes on. This was the idea that I had hoped my write-up would convey. How wrong I was. Not only did nobody understand what I wrote, I got a few interesting comments as well. I doubt that anyone who had read my article, or the one th