Page 88 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

66 Madeleine Brabant, Bernadette Watson and Cindy Gallois

3.3. A typology of intercultural adaptation
Another approach that focuses on motivation is Berry’s (1997) typology of inter-
cultural adaptation. Berry (1980) was the first to propose that immigrant and host
cultural identity could be portrayed as independent dimensions, rather than as ex-
treme points of a single bipolar continuum. According to Berry’s acculturation
model, there are two dimensions yielding four acculturation strategies: ‘inte-
gration’, ‘assimilation’, ‘separation’ and ‘marginalization’ (Berry 1980). Inte-
gration reflects a desire to maintain key features of the immigrant cultural identity
while adopting aspects of the majority culture (i.e. a high value placed on the
original culture and the new culture). Assimilation reflects a desire by immigrants
to relinquish their own cultural identity for the sake of adopting the cultural iden-
tity of the host majority (high value on the new culture but not the old one). Sep-
aration is characterized by the immigrant’s desire to maintain all features of the
original cultural identity while rejecting relationships with members of the ma-
jority host culture (high value on the old but not the new culture). Marginalization
(more recently called individualism) characterizes individuals who reject both
their own and the host community culture and emphasize another social identity
(e.g. occupation), thereby losing contact with both their heritage culture and that
of the host majority (low value placed on both the old and the new culture).
Acculturation orientations such as maintenance of the immigrant culture can
be mediated by the extent to which immigrants feel accepted or discriminated
against by host community (Bourhis and Gagnon 1994; Moghaddam, Taylor
and Wright 1993). Bourhis et al. (1997) extended Berry’s model to the societal
level (see also Moïse and Bourhis 1994), positing that the match between indi-
vidual and societal orientations determines the effectiveness of intercultural
communication. Their model aims to present a more dynamic account of immi-
grant and host community acculturation in multicultural settings.

3.4. Summary
The second theory discussed here takes an intergroup approach to intercultural
communication. From this perspective, researchers address the concept of eth-
nocentrism (a preference for all aspects of one’s own culture relative to other
cultures) as opposed to ethno-relativism. Good communicative outcomes may
come out of the reduction in discriminatory language or harmful speech, more
effective learning of the other culture’s language, dialect, or style by members
of both (all) cultures, better accommodation to the communication needs and
behaviours of others, and better language and cultural maintenance by minority
groups. Communication is viewed not so much as a skill but rather as the result
of a motivation (identity maintenance or negotiation, reduction of prejudice,
etc.), based on intergroup history. Miscommunication is construed not as a defi-