Intercultural Competence and Multiple Identities in the Context of English Language Use in an Institutional Setting

Kharchenko Mariya Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-4363-2388 Senior Lecturer; Department of Foreign Languages No. 3, Institute of Philology; V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University 14E Trubachenko str., Simferopol, Republic of Crimea, 295048, Russia kharchenkomariia88@gmail.com

The relevance of the research topic is related to the fact that traditional ideas about intercultural competence and identity no longer correspond to modern conditions determined by new phenomena and trends of globalization. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: first, to substantiate new relations between language and culture in conditions when the studied English is not associated with a homogeneous "target culture", but with the contexts of several cultures in the "third space", that is, in the gap between the native language and the culture of diverse users of the studied language. Secondly, to reconstruct the concept of user identity as a dynamic social practice. Thirdly, to argue for the need to move from the traditional model of using English as a foreign language to a model reflecting its role in intercultural communication.

The theoretical basis of the research was the publications of domestic and foreign authors in the field of culture, intercultural communication and linguistic and cultural identity. The practical significance of the work lies in the fact that it can be used to reconstruct the model of using English as a means of intercultural interaction in an institutional environment.

Within the framework of this research, methods of theoretical analysis and synthesis, sociolinguistic and socio-constructivist approaches, as well as comparative analysis are applied, allowing us to consider the role of English as a lingua franca through the prism of multilingual communicative practice and intercultural interaction.

Language, culture, and identity in intercultural communication are key elements that shape a person's social life, identity, and interaction with the outside world. Culture is a dynamic, creative continuum that includes common behaviors, values, and meanings that define our lives ^[9]. In the context of globalization, English is no longer associated with the territory of a particular state or its history, but acts as a dynamic space of discourses that are constructed and reconstructed depending on different contexts.

From this point of view, identity should be understood not as a fixed and unchanging phenomenon, but as a dynamic, complex and multi-layered one. It varies in time and space, reflecting a variety of interactions and influences. Three concepts of identity are distinguished in the scientific literature, based on different foundations of this phenomenon: the first is the concept of a single subject, the center of which is the fixed identity of an individual; the second is the concept of the identity of a sociological subject, which is formed in the interaction of personality and society. Finally, the third concept is that of a subject who assumes other identities when faced with different situations and cultural representations ^{[2, pp. 46-48]}; ^{[3, p. 31]}; ^{[15, p. 11]}.

Identity is no longer perceived as a monolithic and unchanging phenomenon. In the above-mentioned terms, the formation of an individual's identity is influenced by the coordination of meaning and interaction with members of the social, cultural and historical community.

Thus, the interaction between the interlocutors should take place taking into account their complexity as human beings with multiple identities and a unique personality. They should be perceived as individuals whose characteristics should be identified and understood, and not as carriers of stereotypes associated with the cultures they represent ^[17].

This idea is especially relevant in the context of intercultural communication in English, the cultural component of which requires rethinking. To adequately reflect the diversity of linguistic and socio-cultural aspects, it is important to take into account the intercultural perspective, which is becoming an effective approach to interaction in a global world.

Geopolitical changes and the development of technology have significantly affected the nature and role of culture in the context of global communication. However, approaches to presenting the cultural component often continue to rely on models that are dominant in certain countries, offering content that has little to do with local contexts. K. Kramsh notes that in an educational environment, the interaction process often focuses only on standard linguistic and communicative models that can be repeated without taking into account cultural diversity.

Such homogenizing approaches require rethinking, since they no longer correspond to the modern global dynamics in which the English language has become an instrument of intercultural interaction that goes beyond the framework of unified, unified ideas about culture.

The cultural aspects related to the use of English have become more complicated for the following reasons ^{[19, p. 58]}:

a) in countries where English is the mother tongue, it plays a significant role as a component of national culture;

b) being a denationalized language, modern English has largely lost touch with the cultures of its countries of origin;

c) At the global level, one of the key functions of the English language has become to ensure intercultural communication, which implies dialogue and interaction between representatives of different cultures.

The difficulties associated with cultural aspects lie in the need to promote effective interaction between communicants in an institutional environment. They include developing communication skills with people from different cultures and traditions, as well as with different ways of thinking and behaviors ^[21].

K. Kramsch emphasizes the importance of establishing intercultural values that allow a person to comprehend the relationship between their own culture and the cultures of others. This process goes beyond the simple exchange of information between cultures, encouraging deep reflection on both another culture and one's own. Another approach concerns the study of culture as an aspect of identity. This understanding focuses on the fact that national identity is not a static or homogeneous phenomenon, especially given the increasing polyethnicity and multiculturalism of modern society ^{[19, p. 59]}.

Effective collaboration in authentic communication situations requires an understanding of communication strategies that help compensate for the lack of knowledge of the target culture. In such interactions, native speakers play a key role as sources of cultural and social context.

The successful use of such strategies presupposes not only knowledge of the norms and rules of language, but also an understanding of their application in specific social situations. For example, in the context of learning English, it is important to take into account not only the cultural characteristics of Great Britain, but also to be aware of the cultural diversity of this country, while relying on the use of a standard language variant.

Communicative competence based on standardized norms of native speakers is a utopia. This is due not only to the fact that the very image of a native speaker is a linguistic myth, but also to the fact that it embodies a simplified, monolithic perception of language and culture, reflecting mainly traditional ways of thinking and behavior.

As a result, the concept of culture, encompassing the customs, traditions and lifestyle of native speakers, began to be integrated into the language code of English-speaking practice. However, despite the fact that everyday cultural practices are as diverse as the use of language itself, in institutional environments the main focus is still on aspects such as behavior, food, holidays and customs, which are often characteristic, and sometimes stereotypical, for the dominant group of native speakers and are more visible. for external observers.

Communicative competence is restrictive because it reduces the flexibility and autonomy of participants in interaction in an institutional environment. To achieve effectiveness, the language must be adapted to the real world of the participants in communication in this environment, contributing to the creation of more natural conditions for interaction.

The model of intercultural communicative competence (MCC), with an emphasis on observing the norms and culture of native speakers, has become widely used in the context of using English as a means of communication in an institutional environment. However, this approach often leads to misconceptions about the culture and identity of communication participants. Developing this competence requires focusing on the ability to be understood in cross-cultural situations rather than following strict standards of communication with native speakers. It is impossible to fully master the knowledge necessary to interact with representatives of different cultures. However, awareness of the importance of adaptation, acceptance and understanding of other people in diverse socio-cultural contexts is becoming a key element of effective intercultural communication.

A fundamental aspect of intercultural communicative competence is the speaker's or intermediary's ability to decenter and relativize their own values, beliefs, and expectations. This implies the ability to critically evaluate both one's own culture and the culture of another person ^[17].

Obviously, there is still uncertainty about how to integrate intercultural awareness, which is a key aspect of the ICC, into the institutional environment, since it goes beyond the limited communicative competence that dominates the practice of interaction in English. As W. Baker notes, no interlocutor follows an ideal model that the other must conform to; however, participants in intercultural communication must be able to understand cultural norms and be willing to cope with failures in communication ^{[16, p. 139]}.

In this context, it is important to take into account that English can be perceived as a foreign language (AIA) or as a means of intercultural communication — English as the lingua franca (ALF). The choice of approach and the content of training programs in an institutional environment remain largely traditional, despite the fact that B. Seidlhofer, J. Jenkins and others ^[18]; ^[20] demonstrated the need to revise approaches to the use of English. They emphasize that both native speakers and learners understand the marginalization of local English variants. At the same time, with the increasing global role of English, there is a growing interest in integrating local variants, which requires further research on the differences between English as a foreign language and English as a lingua franca ^{[18, p. 969]}; ^{[20, p. 13]}.

Unlike the ALF model, the traditional AIA model is focused on communicating with native English speakers in English-speaking countries. It is based on the linguistic and socio-cultural norms of these countries, which emphasizes their culture. In this model, communication is assessed in terms of compliance with British or American standards, as well as how well participants learn the grammatical rules and vocabulary inherent in these standards.

The ALF model, on the contrary, is focused on communicating with non-native English speakers from all over the world. It is neutral in relation to the cultural traditions of the interlocutors, and in the process of long-term communication, the participants establish a common intercultural basis. Unlike AI, communication in ALF does not require compliance with a specific national linguistic standard, since the norms of native speakers do not always ensure successful interaction. The use of complex grammatical structures and advanced vocabulary can even interfere with effective communication, especially if the interlocutors do not have the same language repertoire.

In his assessment, AIA B. Seidlhofer notes that in the learning process, "imitation of a native English speaker" is encouraged, which implies recognition of his authority as a model to strive for and identify with. This is especially true for those who seek to study in a country where English is the main language, or emigrate to such a country. For these people, the linguistic and cultural norms of native English speakers can serve as an appropriate model, and they will strive to comply with these norms in order to become part of this community ^{[20, p. 17]}. This also applies to many other foreign languages, which are studied mainly to communicate with native speakers of this language. The differences between AIA and ALF are shown in Table 1.

B. Seidlhofer, in his assessment of the AIA, notes that in an educational environment, imitation of a native English speaker is considered an important guideline. In this context, English is perceived as a model with which to identify oneself, and people strive to conform to the cultural and linguistic norms of the countries where this language is official. For such people, the linguistic and cultural norms of native speakers become an important model, and they try to conform to these norms in order to integrate into the relevant communities in the future ^{[20, p. 17]}. A similar approach is also applicable to other foreign languages, which are often studied to communicate with native speakers. The differences between AIA and ALF are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Conceptual differences between AIA and ALF ^{[20, p. 18]}.

Now let's turn to the differences that J. R.R. Tolkien suggests. Jenkins is between the ALF and AIA listed in Table 2. She refers to the current tendency to follow the norms of native speakers and suggests 5 differences between its ALPHA and AI.

Table 2. Differences between English as a lingua franca (ALF) and English as a foreign language (AIA) ^{[18, p. 926]}.

Firstly, J. Jenkins places the ALF in the Global Englishes paradigm, which recognizes that the majority of English speakers in the world are not native speakers, and accepts the sociolinguistic consequences of this fact, namely that the majority has the right to determine the type of English they want to use ^{[18, p. 926]}. Therefore, ALF is considered from the point of view of difference in the sense that deviations from the norms of the native language become differences, not disadvantages.

As can be seen from Table 2, AI is placed in the paradigm of modern foreign languages, which means that people who study English as a foreign language do so in order to be able to communicate with native English speakers, and all differences are considered mistakes. J. Jenkins highlights another difference regarding the metaphors underlying the ALF and AI paradigms: while the former is based on metaphors of language contact and change, the latter has its roots in metaphors of interference and fossilization. Bilingual users of ALF may resort to code switching, which is perceived as a practical resource used to demonstrate identity, strengthen solidarity, and engage in creative activities, rather than to compensate for knowledge gaps. In the case of English speakers as a foreign language, code switching is frowned upon and is usually considered a mistake — a sign of the aforementioned knowledge gaps, i.e. the two concepts pursue different goals.

A comparison of linguistic and cultural norms, goals and learning processes of AIA and ALF convinces that a revision of approaches to teaching foreign languages in general is required: ALF should be studied not as a foreign language, but as a second language aimed at international communication, since it is used in the social practice of communication of the world community, and does not represent the culture of the national version of Great Britain or USA ^{[12, p. 21]}.

Interaction between participants in communication in English in an institutional environment can be considered as a social practice aimed at developing the ability to effectively communicate in a bilingual and/or multilingual environment, understand and accept the intercultural values of the community, as well as transmit, receive and process specialized and general scientific information in English. According to the interpretation of social practice proposed by N. V. Smirnova ^{[11, p. 12]}, there are four aspects that manifest themselves in this context: value-semantic, cognitive, motivational and behavioral. The value-semantic aspect is associated with the formation of the participants' identity through their awareness of the values and attitudes of a certain community of practice. The cognitive aspect involves the development of critical thinking skills necessary to solve problematic situations in intercultural communication. The motivational aspect reflects that the success of intercultural interaction depends on the subject-to-subject interaction between the participants and on their personally significant goals. Finally, the behavioral aspect is the ability to carry out intercultural communication based on knowledge, independence and reflection.

Thus, the content of social practice related to the use of English covers the categories of social interaction and behavior of all participants in certain social contexts. As noted by M. A. Yadova, this can be considered as a kind of background practices – "systematically performed social actions that become an informal pattern, the norm of social behavior" ^{[13, p. 9]}.

If the value-semantic, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral aspects determine the content of the social practice of interaction in English, then it is advisable to use concepts such as multimodality, polycode, and intersemiotic to describe its form. These categories, which underlie an interdisciplinary multimodal approach to the study of language and culture, reflect a complex multidimensional reality that is constantly expanding due to new verbal and non-verbal means of information transmission. In addition, they indicate a tendency towards the formation of a new scientific paradigm related to polycode (or multimodal, multimedia) communication ^{[5, p. 13]}; ^{[10, p. 17]}.

Within the framework of the socio-constructivist approach to modern English, there is a tendency towards the formation of a new paradigm characteristic of the ALF, which is based on polycode (or multimodal, multimedia) communication, especially in an intercultural context. According to G. G. Molchanova, "polycode is understood as the formality of meaning, its attachment to a certain format, a method of semiotic expression" ^{[5, p. 14]}. The interaction between cognition (the process of creating knowledge) and the medium (the material form of its embodiment) goes beyond purely technical means: an increase in the number and variety of such means expand the scope of communication. It is important to take into account the role of various semiotic elements used by communication participants, including both verbal and less studied non-verbal means (gestures, intonation, color, scale, body movements, etc.), as well as to take into account their unequal contribution to the communication process ^{[5, p. 14]}.

According to S. Kanagaraja, the connections between the ALF, the culture of its multilingual users and their communities are so diverse that they allow us to understand how the English language can be decentralized and adapted to values and identities unrelated to the history of Great Britain ^{[14, p. 116]}. The socio-constructivist approach highlights the ways of ALF transformation towards multiculturalism and overcoming linguocentric stereotypes. Strengthening the role of English as a means of international communication actualizes the need to review its traditional status in the Russian context, where it is often perceived exclusively as a foreign or second language.

In the context of modern globalization of social and economic activity, English is no longer perceived solely as a "communication tool". It becomes an integral part of culture, reflecting not so much the historical and cultural context of its countries of origin as the modern worldview and way of life. The intercultural nature of ALF plays a key role in the formation of intercultural communicants who are able to interact effectively in conditions of complex and multiple identities. Today, cultural affiliation is becoming more and more personalized, and identities intersect and interact with each other in various contexts of intercultural communication. Such interaction requires the development of intercultural competence skills, which is central to the process of communication and cooperation between people from different cultural backgrounds.

The prospects for further research of the problem are related to the reconceptualization of the understanding of ALF as a phenomenon not tied to any national community of the English language. From a sociolinguistic point of view, ALF cannot be classified as one of the varieties of the English language. Instead, it represents a wide range of language resources used in multilingual communication practice. These diverse resources are combined under the umbrella concept of "English as a lingua franca", which emphasizes its functional nature and intercultural character.