Starting Point on the Roadmap of the Intercultural Communication Competence (Case of Turkish-Russian Language Pair)
https://doi.org/10.26794/2308-944X-2023-11-1-51-57
Abstract
In spite of the widespread use of the concept of “intercultural communication competence” in theoretical and empirical studies, there are problems with the development of this competence in real-time teaching process within local contexts. This research aims to analyze the situation regarding the development of intercultural communicative competence in the learning process in the context of Turkey and to evaluate the approach used as a starting point for developing linguistic and cultural awareness among the students of the Russian language and literature department in Ankara Haci Bayram Veli University. As part of the study, the author used the methods of deductive analysis, the analysis of the current state of the problem as well as the onomasiological and contrastive analysis. The author analyses the results of testing, based on the ideas of contrastive onomasiology and presented in a learning book for the Translation Course. The results show that a comparative analysis of the reality - language interaction models based on concepts such as “situation”, “perspective” and “reframing” helps develop the awareness of the students towards the different “thought patterns”. The main conclusion of this paper is the thesis that contrastive onomasiology contributes to the development of linguistic and cultural awareness, which is the first step towards intercultural communicative competence.
About the Author
O. Kozan
Haci Bayram Veli University
Turkey
Turkey
Olena Kozan - Ph.D. (philology), Docent, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures
Ankara
References
1. Valeeva R., Valeeva A. Intercultural education from Russian researches perspective. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2017;(237):1564–1571. DOİ: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.246
2. Hoff H. E. The evolution of intercultural communicative competence: Conceptualisations, critiques and consequences for 21st century classroom practice. Intercultural Communication Education. 2020;3(2):55–74. DOI: 10.29140/ice.v3n2.264
3. Dombi J. Intercultural communicative competence and individual differences. A model for advances EFL learners. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2021. 205 p.
4. Spitzberg B. H., Changnon G. Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In: Deardoff D. K., editor. The sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009:2–52.
5. Fong C. S., DeWitt D. Developing intercultural communicative competence: Formative assessment tools for Mandarin as a foreign language. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction. 2019;16(2):97–123. DOİ: 10.32890/mjli2019.16.2.4
6. Byram M. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1997. 124 p.
7. Byram M. Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing; 2003. 147 p.
8. Arasaratnam L. A., Doerfel M. L. İntercultural communication competence: İdentifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2005;29:137–163. DOİ: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.04.001
9. Kurt Ç., Yetiş A. V. Türkiye’de yabancı dil öğretmenliği lisans programlarının kültürlerarası yaklaşım açısından incelenemesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi. 2019;9(3):344–352.
10. Nemtchinova E. Developing intercultural competence in a Russian language class. In: Dengub E., Dubinina İ., Merril J., editors. The art of teaching Russian. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 2020:333–358.
11. Özışık B. Z., Yeşilyurt S., Demiröz H. Developing intercultural awareness in language teaching: İnsights from EFL lecturers in Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019;15(4):1436–1458. DOİ: 10.17263/jlls.668546
12. Çırpan M., Sabuncuoğlu O. Attitudes of EFL teachers towards intercultural communicative competence: A Turkish foundation university case. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020;6(1):107–132. DOİ: 10.17932/IAU.EFD.2015.013/efd_v06i1006
13. Parmenter L. Describing and defining intercultural communicative competence. International perspective. In: Byram M., editor. Intercultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2003:119–147.
14. Atay D., Çamlıbel Z., Kurt G. The role of intercultural competence in foreign language teaching. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education. 2009;10(3):123–135.
15. Kaplan R. B. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning. 1966;16(1–2):1–20. DOİ: 10.1111/j.1467–1770.1966.tb00804.x
16. Lotman Yu. M. Structure of fiction text. Saint-Petersburg: Art — Saint-Petersburg; 1998. 285 p. (In Russ.).
17. Zaliznjak A., Ivanov V., Toporov V. On the possibility of structural-typological study of some modeling semiotic systems. In: Moloshnaja T., ed. Structural-typological research. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, USSR; 1962:134–143. (In Russ.).
18. Kubrjakova E. Language and knowledge. On the way to gaining knowledge about the language: Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in exploring the world. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture; 2004. 560 p. (In Russ.).
19. Kubrjakova E. In search of the essence of language. Cognitive research. Moscow; 2012. 208 p. (In Russ.).
20. Boldyrev N. N. Representation of knowledge in the language system. Issues of cognitive linguistics. 2007;(4):17–27. (In Russ.).
21. Grondelaers S., Geeraerts D. Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In: Cuyckens H., Dirven R., Taylor J. R., eds. Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 2003:67–92.
22. Štekauer P. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In: Štekauer P., Lieber R., eds. Hand-Book of word-formation. The Netherlands: Springer; 2005:207–232.
23. Fernández-Domínguez J. The onomasiological approach. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford; 2019. URL: https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-579 (accessed on 14.02.2023).
24. Meshchaninov I. General linguistics. Leningrad: Science; 1940. 260 p. (In Russ.).
25. Serebrennikov B., Ufimtseva A. Language nomination: general issues. Moscow: Science; 1977. 360 p. (In Russ.).
26. Blinova O. Motivology and its aspects. Moscow: Krasand; 2010. 304 p. (In Russ.).
27. Gak V. Comparative lexicology. Moscow: International Relations; 1977. 264 p. (In Russ.).
28. Melchuk I., Zholkovsky A. Explanatory-combinatorial dictionary of the modern Russian language. Experience of the semantic-syntactic description of Russian vocabulary. Vienna; 1984. 992 p. (In Russ.).
29. Mustajoki A. Theory of Functional Syntax: from Semantic Structures to Linguistic Expressions. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture; 2006. 511 p. (In Russ.).
30. Kozan O. Translation workshop: Turkish-Russian language couple. Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı; 2020. 255 p.
31. Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Progress; 1986–1987. (In Russ.).
32. Odintsova I. V. Frame, framing and reframing in linguodidactics. The World of the Russian Word. 2012;(1):73–81. (In Russ.).
33. Yanda L. Russian prefixes as a system of verb classifiers. Topics in the Study of Language. 2012;(6):3–47. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Kozan O. Starting Point on the Roadmap of the Intercultural Communication Competence (Case of Turkish-Russian Language Pair). Review of Business and Economics Studies. 2023;11(1):51-57. https://doi.org/10.26794/2308-944X-2023-11-1-51-57
Email this article 