KC88: Critical Cultural Linguistics

Key Concepts in ICDThe next issue of Key Concepts in intercultural Dialogue is now available. This is KC#88: Critical Cultural Linguistics, by Paola Giorgis. Click on the thumbnail to download the PDF. Lists organized chronologically by publication date and numberalphabetically by concept in English, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC88 Critical Cultural LinguisticsGiorgis, P. (2017). Critical cultural linguistics. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 88. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/kc88-critical-cultural-linguistics1.pdf

The Center for Intercultural Dialogue publishes a series of short briefs describing Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue. Different people, working in different countries and disciplines, use different vocabulary to describe their interests, yet these terms overlap. Our goal is to provide some of the assumptions and history attached to each concept for those unfamiliar with it. As there are other concepts you would like to see included, send an email to the series editor, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz. If there are concepts you would like to prepare, provide a brief explanation of why you think the concept is central to the study of intercultural dialogue, and why you are the obvious person to write up that concept.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Key Concept #1: Intercultural Dialogue Translated into Italian

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing with translations of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting the translation of KC1: Intercultural Dialogue. I wrote this in English for publication in 2014, and Maria Flora Mangano has now translated it into Italian with the help of Paola Giorgis. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC1 ICD_ItalianLeeds-Hurwitz, W. (2017). Dialogo interculturale (M. F. Mangano with P. Giorgis, Trans.). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 1. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/kc1-intercultural-dialogue_italian.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Key Concept #81: Dialogue as a Space of Relationship Translated into Italian

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing with translations of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting the translation of KC81: Dialogue as a Space of RelationshipMaria Flora Mangano wrote this in English for publication earlier this year, and has now translated it into Italian with the help of Paola Giorgis. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC81_ItalianMangano, M. F. (2017). Dialogo come spazio di relazione (M. F. Mangano with P. Giorgis, trans.). Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 81. Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/kc81_italian.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Intercultural Communication or Post-Cultural Communication?

Guest Post by Paola Giorgis

Intercultural communication or post-cultural communication? Reflecting on mistakes in intercultural encounters

Some years ago, I worked with a total of about 350 refugees who, with the help of some radical activists, had become squatters, taking over an empty building which occupied almost an entire block. Most were from Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan; the majority were young men, a few women with children, and there were one or two couples with babies. A group of associations had gathered to offer help and, as an activist and volunteer in an association for human rights, I decided to participate. With the on-and-off support of the local Institutions (mainly town council and prefecture), the group of associations developed a project which had the goal of meeting basic needs – food, shelter, health care – and then organizing the integration of the refugees into the region through accommodation, language classes and vocational training courses. What I liked about this project was that its goal was not assistance, but rather creating a path to autonomy and independence. The first to be integrated were the women with their children, then the vulnerable males (young men with diseases or handicaps), and then all the rest. The project lasted for about one year, and at the end of that time, all the refugees were, more or less successfully, integrated and settled in the region.

Most of the activists, me included, had a regular job, so we had to organize shifts to bring food (which was offered by some associations involved in the project), to take women and children to hospital, to the lawyers who were following their cases, or to the communal baths, as the place where the refugees stayed had no water facilities.

As one can imagine, conditions were really hard. People were crowded into a small space, with no heating or electricity, they were frustrated and angry, and these conditions sometimes fueled fights, which we volunteers had to deal with – trying not to involve the police as much as we could, as they would have immediately evacuated the building.

I felt frustrated and angry myself, as I could not conceive how so many people could be left to live in such conditions in a so-called civilized western country. There were many political issues at stake, and things were not always easy within the different groups of volunteers and activists, as well as between the associations involved.

With no formal, or even informal, training, I found myself confronted with an asymmetrical intercultural context of relations involving all the sensitive issues of potential intercultural misunderstanding and conflict:

Issues at Stake Volunteers Refugees
Role – issue of power active (the ‘givers’; the ‘helpers’) passive (the ‘receivers’; the ‘helped’)
Gender mostly female mostly male
Age mostly middle-aged women mostly young men
Religion mostly non-religious or atheist mostly religious
Language mostly monolingual mostly monolinguals (different languages than the volunteers)

To manage each of these issues, cultural and linguistic mediators were involved, but things were not always easy for them either, as sometimes they were not accepted by their own community – when, for example, they belonged to a different ethnic group than the majority of their group – and it sometimes happened that we volunteers had to mediate between the groups and their own mediators.

In a few words, situation was very complex, I was totally unprepared to deal with it, and I made all of the possible mistakes.

First of all, as there were so many people, I perceived them as groups rather than individuals – on one floor were the Sudanese, on the other the Somali women, on the next the Somali men, etc. It was only little by little, and when people were less, that I could see and appreciate differences between them, but sometimes it was too late as they were about to leave. Another mistake was that, as they all had very basic needs, I was mainly focused on doing things – bringing food, taking them to hospital, etc. – rather than trying to get some time to simply be there, stay with them, and get to know them. That attitude contributed to creating fixed roles on both sides, and sometimes I felt frustrated as I had the impression I was perceived only as a problem-solving machine. Fixed roles also meant that I saw the refugees as people in need, which of course they were, but the fact was that I could only see one side of the coin, and I was not able to notice and relish their resources and skills, which of course were many – and which, again, I was able to see only later on in our relationship. Given that several issues were at stake simultaneously, I found it difficult to cope with them: being totally untrained for this context, I swung from an almost omnipotent attitude to a sense of impotence, a fluctuation which caused frustration to me as well as to the refugees. The sense of guilt which derived from this fueled my sense of inadequacy, and only after a while was I able to replace it with a sense of responsibility able to trace good boundaries, which prevented both peaks and valleys and therefore offered greater stability to the refugees, and to myself too.

Though I made a lot mistakes, some of the refugees were able to see beyond them (a good example of their resources and skills, by the way), and that brought about several episodes where true communication occurred. For example, one day an old wise man from Sudan invited me to have a coffee in a nearby café. As soon as we got out of the building, our roles blurred: I was no longer the person who provided food, and he was no longer a person in need, but we were just two people going to have a coffee together. In the café, we talked in English about our families, and exchanged comments and opinions about children’s education. Another day, a woman invited me into her room – women rarely went out of the building, and when they did, it was to go to the doctor, or to the hospital for their kids. She offered to comb my hair; I sat down and she combed my hair in silence because I could not speak her language, nor she could speak mine. It was a precious moment of silent dialogue, as when another woman invited me to have tea in her room. We spent some time together drinking tea in silence, smiling to each other. And though there was actually not much to laugh about in general, it also happened that, with some of the refugees, we enjoyed a good laugh together – for example, we often laughed at my efforts to say some words in their language. Actually, we found out that trying to look at things, and ourselves, from a slightly different and, when possible, even humorous perspective was a good way to relieve tensions and stress, and to create connections.

We were painfully aware that this subversion of roles was only temporary, and that we would soon return to our highly asymmetrical conditions; yet, these moments created the opportunity for relationship and dialogue. I think these episodes occurred when (and because) we reciprocally put down our pre-established roles (in fact, when we decided, more or less consciously, to subvert them), and we were mutually open, curious, and generous. Then, are these attitudes – not taking people or people’s roles for granted, openness, curiosity, generosity and a little sense of humor  – the fundamental characteristics of good intercultural communication? I don’t think these were episodes where intercultural communication occurred: we did not communicate so much between cultures as between individuals. Therefore, I now wonder: haven’t we devoted too much attention to ‘culture’ in ‘intercultural communication’, and not enough to individuals as the primary protagonists, and on what can encourage (or hinder) communication between them – which does not necessarily have much to do with ‘culture’? So, I ask myself whether it would be useful to critically consider intercultural communication itself, focusing more on what happens between individuals rather than between cultures. In sum: what if we try to think beyond cultures, and consider post-cultural communication as an option?

Key Concept #39: Otherness Translated into Italian

Key Concepts in ICDContinuing with translations of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, today I am posting  KC#39: Otherness and The Other(s), originally written by Peter Praxmarer for publication in English in 2014, now translated with the help of Paola Giorgis into Italian. While translating, he has taken the opportunity to slightly revise and update the original English version as well. As always, all Key Concepts are available as free PDFs; just click on the thumbnail to download. Lists of Key Concepts organized chronologically by publication date and number, alphabetically by concept, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC39 Otherness_ItalianPraxmarer, P. (2016). L’Alterità e gli Altri. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 39. (P. Praxmarer & P. Giorgis, Trans.). Available from:
https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/kc39-otherness-italian1.pdf

If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue
intercult.dialogue[at]gmail.com


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

On Translation as an Intercultural Practice

Guest Post by Paola Giorgis
On Translation as an Intercultural Practice

It is an encounter with diversity which favors a critical reflexivity on what we take-for-granted of both emic and etic worldviews. It is practice that involves the constant exercise of moving in a space in-between. It represents the opportunity to engage in a double perspective. It is an experience which make us observe, challenge, redefine and move through borders. It is an occasion to look at our knowledge, assumptions and representations from a different point of view.  Well, no, it is not Intercultural Dialogue. It is Translation.

Translation shares indeed many characteristics with the intercultural perspective. Though translation necessarily requires the theoretical knowledge of different languages, it is mainly a practice and an experience. Translation thus combines cognition with exercise. after all, physical activity and spatial feature characterize it from its own etymological roots. The word ‘translation’ comes from the Latin ‘trans’ + ‘ducere’, where ‘trans’ means ‘across’, ‘beyond’, ‘through’, and ‘ducere’ is a verb meaning ‘to lead’, so that the literal meaning of translation refers to the actions of ‘leading from one place to another’, of ‘going through/across’, and of ‘moving beyond a place to reach another’.

Yet, if cognition and exercise necessarily characterize translation, they are not sufficient conditions for it to substantiate and display. In his seminal book on translation, Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Esperienze di traduzione [Saying almost the same thing. Experiences in Translation], Umberto Eco offers several factual, witty, humorous and sometimes paradoxical examples of all the problems, but also the opportunities, offered by the practice of translation. Eco’s volume originated from personal and professional experiences on and with translation which he was later asked to present in a series of conferences and, which, in turn, were collected in this text. The experiential element then characterizes the volume, but Eco does not miss the opportunity to reflect theoretically on the semantic units of ‘dire’ [saying] and ‘cosa’ [thing]. Yet, the key word there is ‘quasi’ [almost], that is the acceptance of the condition of being in-between two words, two languages, two cultures. Moving from one language to another always means, in Eco’s word, ‘negoziazione’ [negotiation], that is an activity in which usually two parties are ready to give up something in order to gain something else with the intent of being mutually satisfied. In translation, though, the practice of negotiation always implies the constant comparison between the structures of the different languages, a process through which each language can become its own meta-language.

Translation, then, encompasses several elements: theoretical knowledge, exercise, motion, negotiation, and reflexivity. And a further element too: the acknowledgment of the mutual influence of language and culture in shaping the link and the word/world. Anthropologists know it pretty well, as epitomized by (the now almost anecdotal) Sapir & Whorf’s example of Inuit snow-terms, or Claude Lévi-Strauss’ assertion that the French word ‘fromage’ ascribes to a different worldview than the English word ‘cheese’.

So, it is evident that translation is not so much about words, but, rather, it necessarily involves a reflexivity on how words shape our meanings, our cultural conceptualizations, our emotions. Therefore, reflecting on other words is a task which engages us to reflect on our own words: unveiling how much is cultural and situated in the folds of what we consider ‘natural’ and taken-for-granted in our language, translation invites us to explore the differences not only between languages, but within language too. Encountering the Other entails a reconsideration of the Familiar, so that translation implies the beneficial exercise of discovering l’étranger qui nous habite (Kristeva 1988), as well as the acknowledgment that foreignness and exile do not refer only to migrants, but are rather the archetypical condition of contemporary lives (Hoffman 1998).

It is then indeed a most suitable intercultural practice that the Center for Intercultural Dialogue has bravely launched from its pages. The translation of the Key Concepts into different languages is not only a political statement encouraging a reconsideration of the conventional use of English as the one-and-only language of academia and research, but it also elicits the profitable activity of the relativization and the decentralization of one’s own language and culture. A multilingual website is then very fit for the purposes of Intercultural Dialogue, as it does not involve the simple multiplication of languages, but it invites us to a critical reflexivity on how languages work, from within and in-between, and how they shape (and are shaped by) our cultural conceptualizations.

References:

Eco, Umberto. (2003). Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Esperienze di traduzione. Milano: Bompiani.
Hoffman, Eva. (1998). Lost in Translation. A Life in a New Language. London: Vintage Books.
Kristeva, Julia. (1988). Étrangers à nous memes. Paris: Gallimard.

Key Concept #51 Critical Discourse Analysis Translated into Italian

Key Concepts in ICDAs explained recently, some of the Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue are being translated into other languages than English. Today I am posting the translation of KC51: Critical Discourse Analysis, written by Paola Giorgis in English in 2015, and now translated by her. Click on the thumbnail of the translation to read it. Lists organized chronologically by publication date and numberalphabetically by concept in English, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

KC 51 CDA ItalianGiorgis, P. (2016). Analisi critica del discorso. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 51. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/kc51-cda_italian.pdf

The goal of the translation project is to expand the concepts available to discussions of intercultural dialogue beyond those who are fluent in English. What began with a request to translate a few concepts into 2 languages has now developed into a serious effort to translate most of them. Choice of languages is being left up to those who are doing the work, which has prompted much interesting discussion about whether to be organized about this (translating all of them into a single language, then moving on to the next). Obviously the decision was  not to take that route. Instead, authors are being given the opportunity to translate their own into whatever languages they know best; once they respond, their concepts are put on a list of those available to requests from others. If you are interested in translating one of the Key Concepts, please contact me for approval first because dozens are currently in process. As always, if there is a concept you think should be written up as one of the Key Concepts, whether in English or any other language, propose it. If you are new to CID, please provide a brief resume. This opportunity is open to masters students and above, on the assumption that some familiarity with academic conventions generally, and discussion of intercultural dialogue specifically, are useful.

Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Director
Center for Intercultural Dialogue


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Teaching EFL with a Hidden Agenda: Introducing Intercultural Awareness through a Grammar Lesson

Teaching EFL with a Hidden Agenda:
Introducing Intercultural Awareness through a Grammar Lesson

Guest post by Dr. Paola Giorgis

Is there anything more standardized than grammar? How can it then work to dismantle the standard, favoring non-standardized and non-sterotypical readings and representations of individual and collective cultural identities, and promoting intercultural understanding?

Here’s a brief example of an actual unit of two lessons, which I conducted some years ago, on simple past during a course on English as a Foreign Language.

The context
• a vocational high school with an art curricula in Turin, a city in the northwest of Italy
• a class of 25 students, the majority of Italian origins, a couple of students from Morocco, another three from Romania, and two from Peru. Most of the students of Italian origin came from families who had experienced migration, belonging to the third generation of what is known in Italy as the “internal immigration”, a phenomena which, from approximately the Fifties to the Seventies, moved families and work force from the south of Italy to the industries of the north.

The prequel
Observing the students’ behavior in asides in class, as well as in the liminal spaces/times of the school (in the corridors, during breaks, etc.), I had noticed that these adolescents tended to shape and re-shape groups (as well as couples) according to multiple changing variables that had nothing to do with criteria such as descent or origin, but rather depended on affiliations, usually related to some youth subcultures (music, in particular hip hop; some explicit codes regarding clothing and hairstyles, or implicit codes like special ritual gestures, etc.). Though many were the signals of these new affiliations, the creation of in- and out- groups was mainly linguistically marked through the practice of code-switching, language crossing and cross-linguistic interactions.

The motivation
In this class there had been no episodes of intolerance between groups from different nationalities or ethnicities. Actually, the most marginalized student was an Italian girl coming from a small village in the mountains nearby the city. Her naive and rural style contrasted with the urban attitudes, clothing and behavior of her peers, both of Italian and of non-Italian origins. Thus, the motivation to structure a unit with intercultural features did not come from any urgency to address a specific problem, but rather from the opportunity to make students aware that, in one way or another, we are all migrants – the girl from the mountains included.

The lesson and the assignment
In the students’ book, the unit on simple past began with a reading in which a teenager was speaking about the adult he most admired: his grandfather, an Irish emigrant to the USA. In three short paragraphs he explained why he liked him, drawing a general outline of his life – and using the simple past.

So, after reading and commenting on these paragraphs by only referring to the structure of the simple past, I invited my students to go home and write three short paragraphs with the same structure: identifying an adult they admired, the reason why they admired her/him, and some information about her/his life. The three paragraphs were to be written on a separate piece of paper with no name on it. As I expected, students came out with stories about their grandparents or aunts/uncles – apparently, parents are not generally much appreciated by this age group, while grandparents or other significant relatives are.

The overt assignment then was “practice-the-simple past”, and not “tell-the-class-about-the-story-of-your-family”. So, students focused on grammar, but they were actually working on several other issues: discovering or recollecting family stories, interviewing uncles, listening to their grandfathers, etc.

The language
Foreign language, of course, played a fundamental role. The fact that English was equally foreign to all students presented many advantages. First of all, it put all students, both native Italian and non-native Italian, in the same condition of disadvantage – or, to be more explicit, disadvantage in access to language repertoire depended on factors which had nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity. In this way, as it is often reported in literature (Kramsch 1993, 2009; Witte & Harden 2015), by detaching students from their mother tongue, the experience of a foreign language can allow them to develop a meta-linguistic awareness of how far linguistic and cultural features are situated and constructed, “opening up linguistic and intercultural spaces, that is, the de-familiarization and alienation of the familiar, taken-for-granted ways of talking, thinking, feeling and behaving” (Witte in Witte & Harden 2015: 20). Moreover, by separating students from their usual language, the new linguistic and symbolic territory of the foreign language decenters them from their usual self, allowing them to explore new identites (Giorgis 2013). Finally, in this particular case, the foreign language permitted students to recollect and report on family stories in a more freely and in a less emotional way.

The discussion
The following lesson, I collected all the anonymous papers, shuffled them, invited each student to pick up a story randomly, and then read/tell it to her/his classmates. So, it happened that an Italian student read the story of a Romanian aunt, or a girl from Peru read the story of an old couple from the south of Italy.

While still focusing on the grammar structure (use of simple past for regular and irregular verbs), students began realizing that something else was emerging: all the stories they were telling were migration stories.

Some regular patterns surfaced – how migrants tend to settle in the same neighborhoods, how they felt perceived by the natives, the problems they encountered, the strategies they adopted to integrate, etc.

But some differences emerged too. I invited students to avoid highlighting only similarities between cultures or migration patterns (see Kubota’s criticism on acritical celebrations of multiculturalism), but rather to read critically in between the lines and patterns, as well as to reflect on what these differences could tell us about broader issues.

As in a study with adult newcomers to Canada “traditional language learning activities such as a grammar lesson can be organized in such a way as to explore larger questions of identity and possibility (…) exciting opportunities for linking the microstructures of the text with the macrostructures of society” (Norton & Toohey 2004: 6). In our work too, differences in the micro opened some larger questions. Gender difference, for example, emerged as evidence: while the internal migration of the Fifties and Seventies had mainly involved male workers, who were later followed by their families, the immigrations of the Nineties often saw women coming first, and alone, to work as caregivers. That difference reflected a pivotal change in the broader society, which had moved from an industrial to a post-industrial pattern, from the production of goods to that of services, from rather structured and guaranteed work contracts, to the plethora of unstructured and non-guaranteed jobs of today. Differences in societies mean differences in socialization, too: working in a factory meant being with other fellow workers, a situation which offered the opportunity to confront, blend and share cultures, opinions, languages, dialects, food, ideas. Caregiving, on the other hand, is a solitary, and often silent, even silenced, work, with little, if any, opportunity for socializing or connecting with the wider society.

From the students’ reflections on their family stories, there emerged discourses on gender and on how different was the society met by former immigrants versus new comers, as well as on how new migrations can cast a light on some repressed memories and stories of older migrations (Gobbo 2007: 20). That led to a critical view on how intercultural interactions are, first and foremost, an opportunity to consider our own stories and observe what we take for granted from a different perspective.

And, by using them in a relevant and meaningful context, yes, students learned irregular verbs too!

Some references

Dervin, Fred, & Liddicoat, Anthony J. (eds.). 2013. Linguistics for Intercultural Education. Amsterdam;  Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Giorgis, Paola. 2013. Diversi da sé, simili agli altri. L2, immaginazione e letteratura come pratiche di pedagogia interculturale [Different from Oneself, Similar to Others. L2, Imagination and Literature as Practices of Intercultural Education]. With an Afterword by Martin Dewey. Roma: CISU.

Gobbo, Francesca (ed.). 2007. La ricerca per una scuola che cambia [Research for a Changing School]. Padova: Imprimitur.

Kramsch, Claire J. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, Claire J. 2009. The Multilingual Subject: what foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press.

Kubota, Ryuko. 2004. Critical multiculturalism and second language education. (pp. 30-52). In: Bonny Norton & Kelleen Toohey. Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning.

Norton, Bonny & Toohey, Kelleen (eds.). 2004. Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Witte, Arnd & Harden, Theo (eds.). 2015. Foreign Language Education as Intercultural Experience. The Subjective Dimension. Bern; Berlin; New York: Peter Lang.

Witte, Arnd. 2015. The Subjective Blending of Spaces in Intercultural Foreign Language Learning. (pp.19-40). In: Arnd Witte & Theo Harden. Foreign Language Education as Intercultural Experience. The Subjective Dimension.

Key Concept #51: Critical Discourse Analysis by Paola Giorgis

Key Concepts in ICDThe next issue of Key Concepts in intercultural Dialogue is now available. Click on the thumbnail to download the PDF. Lists organized  chronologically by publication date and numberalphabetically by concept in English, and by languages into which they have been translated, are available, as is a page of acknowledgments with the names of all authors, translators, and reviewers.

Key Concept #51: Critical discourse analysis by Paola Giorgis

Giorgis, P. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue, 51. Available from: https://centerforinterculturaldialogue.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/key-concept-cda.pdf

The Center for Intercultural Dialogue publishes a series of short briefs describing Key Concepts in Intercultural Dialogue. Different people, working in different countries and disciplines, use different vocabulary to describe their interests, yet these terms overlap. Our goal is to provide some of the assumptions and history attached to each concept for those unfamiliar with it. As there are other concepts you would like to see included, send an email to the series editor, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz. If there are concepts you would like to prepare, provide a brief explanation of why you think the concept is central to the study of intercultural dialogue, and why you are the obvious person to write up that concept.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.