Cited by 573Language, Communication, and Linguistic StudiesDigital Communication and LanguageEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication

Open access
Thorne, Steven L.·2003·Language Learning & Technology

Abstract

This article develops a conceptual framework for understanding how intercultural communication, mediated by cultural artifacts (i.e., Internet communication tools), creates compelling, problematic, and surprising conditions for additional language learning.Three case studies of computer-mediated intercultural engagement draw together correlations between discursive orientation, communicative modality, communicative activity, and emergent interpersonal dynamics.These factors contribute to varying qualities and quantities of participation in the intercultural partnerships.Case one, "Clashing Frames of Expectation --Differing Cultures-of-Use," suggests that the cultures-of-use of Internet communication tools, their perceived existence and on-going construction as distinctive cultural artifacts, differs interculturally just as communicative genre, pragmatics, and institutional context would be expected to differ interculturally.Case two, "Intercultural Communication as Hyperpersonal Engagement," illustrates pragmatic and linguistic development as an outcome of intercultural relationship building.The final case study, "The Wrong Tool for the Right Job?," describes a recent generational shift in communication tool preference wherein an ostensibly ubiquitous tool, e-mail, is shown to be unsuitable for mediating age peer relationships.Taken together, these case studies demonstrate that Internet communication tools are not neutral media.Rather, individual and collective experience is shown to influence the ways students engage in Internet-mediated communication with consequential outcomes for both the processes and products of language development.For some social classes and in highly privileged geographical regions, we have entered into a period of rapid and efficient global communication practices mediating an array of interpersonal, discursivematerial, and cultural activities.Despite the robust connections between the increasing digitization of everyday communicative practice and issues such as globalization and homogenization, Internet-mediated intercultural educational activities remain demonstrably polymorphous.Reasons for this are many.Educational cultures and objectives vary across nation state boundaries (Belz, 2002) as well as across educational institutions within the US.Moreover, within the same university but across courses or time periods, student populations shift, pedagogical goals are reassessed, and micro-interactional phenomena illustrate their own "accentuality" (Volosinov, 1973), even when the task, as it were, is supposed to remain consistent across participants and time (Coughlan & Duff, 1994).The focus of this article is yet another dimension of human heterogeneity --the cultural embeddedness of Internet communication tools and the consequences of this embedding for communicative activity.Three case studies will be presented which illustrate some of the possibilities and problems associated with foreign language intercultural interaction mediated by Internet communication tools.I argue that Internet communication tools, like all human artifacts, are cultural tools (for an extension of this argument to the natural environment and the social construction of nature, see Braun & Castree, 1998;Harvey, 1996;Williams, 1980).Specifically, I show that e-mail, instant messenger, and forms of synchronous chat, are deeply affected by the cultures-of-use, or to borrow a biological term --phenotypic characteristics, evolving from the manner in which these tools mediate everyday communicative practice.To unpack this somewhat, most of the American students in the case studies have extensive Internet experience that catalyzes specific forms (and expectations) of communication.In turn, the resulting Steven L. Thorne Artifacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural CommunicationLanguage Learning & Technology 39 communicative dynamics are consequential for both the processes and products of language learning.Importantly, these case studies span a 5-year period and in so doing demonstrate that the cultures-of-use of Internet communication tools are rapidly evolving, if in geographically non-uniform directions, and play a critical role in the manner in which intercultural communication plays out in formal educational contexts.Of particular relevance to foreign language uses of "telecollaboration" (implying interaction mediated by Internet communication tools), I will include a critical discussion of recent Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) research (Walther, 1994(Walther, , 1996(Walther, , 1997) ) and will build on a theoretical framework that can broadly be termed a cultural-historical perspective of human communication and cognition (e.g., Bruner, 1995;Cole, 1996;Hanks, 1996;Levinson, 1995;Rommetveit, 1974;van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).This approach emphasizes the process whereby individuals modify, transform, and comprehend artifacts and environments (e.g., Bødker, 1997;Cole & Engestrom, 1993;Kapetlinin, 199

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/25200

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Contradictions may also take place because of the misalignment of academic calendars, institutionalized classroom scripts, methods of learning accreditation, academic socialization and technological access.

    “A number of recent studies found that the contradictions may also take place because of the misalignment of academic calendars, institutionalized classroom scripts, methods of learning accreditation, academic socialization and technological access (Belz, 2002;Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003;O'Dowd, 2005;Thorne, 2003).”

    From An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration (2007) · cites this paper as Thorne, 2003

    In “Phatic Versus Informational; Trust Versus Truth” (page unavailable), Thorne links difficulties in intercultural interaction to mismatched communication practices, classroom contexts, and unequal Internet access. The cited paper does not establish misaligned academic calendars or methods of learning accreditation as causes, so it supports only part of the list. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Learners' relationship with physical contexts and computers may facilitate contradictions.

    “Thorne (2003), for example, in his study demonstrates how the learners' relationship with physical contexts and computers may facilitate contradictions.”
  • Internet communication tools are often different cultural artifacts for different communities, precipitating consequential effects on the processes of communication, relationship building, and language development.

    “Internet communication tools are often”
  • The same task is implemented differently by means of available tools across different socio-cultural contexts.

    “Thorne (2003) and Wertsch, Minick, and Arns (1984) showed how the same task is implemented differently by means of available tools across different socio-cultural contexts.”
  • The most recent studies on telecollaboration explore the kinds of cultural contact afforded by a technological medium.

    “The most recent studies on telecollaboration (Belz, 2001(Belz, , 2002(Belz, , 2003;;Belz & Muller-Hartmann, 2003;Belz & Thorne, 2006;Chase, Macfadyen, Reeder & Roche, 2002;Kramsch & Thorne, 2002;O'Dowd, 2003O'Dowd, , 2005;;Schneider & von der Emde, 2006;Thorne, 2003Thorne, , 2006;;Ware, 2005) explore the kinds of cultural contact afforded by a technological medium.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: A morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Bruner, J. (1995). Meaning and self in a cultural perspective. In D. Bakhurst & C. Sypnowich (Eds.), The social self (pp. 18-29). London: Sage Publications.
  3. In S. Chaiklin (Ed.), The theory and practice of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 15-34). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
  4. Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDermott, R. (1997). Concepts of ecological validity: Their differing implications for comparative cognitive research. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and actvivity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 49-58). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Hanks, W. (1996). Language and communicative practice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  6. Lantolf, J. (in press). Sociocultural theory and SLA: An exegesis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (in press). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  8. Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath. Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97-114). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  10. Thorne, S. (1999). An activity theoretical analysis of electronic foreign language discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  11. Thorne, S. (2000b). Second language acquisition and the truth(s) about relativity. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 219-244). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  12. van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  13. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 245-259). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  14. van Lier, L. (in press). The ecology of language learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
  15. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Wilkinson, S. (1996). Foreign language conversation and the study abroad transition: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the Pennsylvania State University.
  17. Wylie, L., & Brière, J. F. (1995). Les Français (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thorne, S. L.
Affiliations
Portland State University (US)
Corresponding author
Thorne, Steven L.
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Published
2003-05-01
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
38-67
ISSN
1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109217363
Cited by
573
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 41
FWCI
80.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
  • Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Pennsylvania State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Language, Communication, and Linguistic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
intercultural communication, cultural artifacts, computer-mediated communication, foreign language learning, hyperpersonal communication, email, interpersonal dynamics, language development, digital communication tools, cross-cultural collaboration, pragmatic development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review