It is almost a truism to say that a competent person will adapt better to a new environment, within the same or a different cultural setting, than one who is less competent. Although the study of communication competence can be indirectly traced back to Aristotle's rhetoric, relatively few scholars currently deal with communication competence by considering cultural factors. That is, there are surprisingly few studies of intercultural communication competence (ICC).

　Because of the impact of cultural factors, study of intercultural communication competence becomes complicated. Culture, in its broadest sense, is considered to be the way of human life in a group and includes "knowledge, belief, act, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (Tylor, 1958, p.1). Because some consider this definition to be too inclusive, Stewart (1972) offers a more specific concept of culture as "the cognitive process serving as the background of communication," which is "an analytical tool for assessing communication, selecting strategies and evaluating results" and serves as "a filter for communication" (p.299). This indicates that different cultures generate distinctive value systems and perceptions of meaning.

　Because communication conveys values and shape perceptions, it is sufficient to say that communication systems differ from society to society. This makes the study of intercultural communication more intricate. Because the specific cultural milieu determines an individual's communication competence, it is important to investigate "the breadth and depth of the impact of culture on communication behavior, and the salience of particular communication behavior to members of different cultures" (Cooley & Roach, 1984, p. 14).

　Basically, ICC not only examines human communication but also investigates interaction between people and their environment. Therefore, this article examines some perspectives on this topic by developing a definition and a series of propositions of intercultural communication competence. More specifically, the article contains three major sections: the first conceptualizes ICC; the second details major components and propositions concerning ICC; and the third considers problems and prospects in the study of ICC.

　A Conceptualization of ICC

　Although recent studies have moved intercultural communication forward in its theoretical and practical orientations, yet there is no denying that it remains a fresh field. The study of intercultural communication dates back to the works of political scientists and anthropologists in the 1930s and 1940s. More recently, sociologists, linguists, and communication scholars have developed interest in it. Consequently, two separate schools of thoughtcultural dialogists and cultural criticshave guided research in intercultural communication (Asante, Newmark, & Blake, 1979).

　The cultural dialogue school argues that its theories can be used to promote world understanding; the group believes people from diverse cultures could and should communicate across cultural boundaries. Therefore, the school emphasizes internationalism and humanism, and considers intercultural communication an attempt to organize human society.

　On the other hand, cultural critics try to pose research questions by isolating the conflict found in crosscultural communication. They attempt to seek ways of improving interaction among people across cultures by decreasing barriers through classificatory, analytic, and applicative steps. According to Asante, Newmark, and Blake (1979), cultural critics attempt to identify intercultural communication barriers "in terms of priority, intensity, or difficulty," and to apply the results to specific instances of intercultural interaction.

　Both schools have spawned significant research in the field of intercultural communication. One of the main topics studied by the two groups is ICC  the only means whereby people can move beyond cultural differences to reach the ideal goals advocated by cultural dialogists and cultural critics.

　But, "What is communication competence?" One early study (White, 1959) considers competence "an organism's capacity to interact effectively with its environment" (p. 297). He argues that competence is the common property of behaviors, and this competence can be reached through "behaviors instigated by drives" in their own right (p. 329). White suggests that competence is a basic human need, and the measure of competence depends on the extent to which a person produces the intended effect from interaction with the environment. Argyris (1965a, 1965b) agrees with White's ideas and posits further that human competence tends to increase under three conditions: "(1) As one's awareness of relevant factors increases, (2) as the problems are solved in such a way that they ［remain］ solved, and (3) with a minimal deterioration of the problemsolving process" (1965a, p. 59).

　Foote and Cottrell (1955) and Holland and Baird (1968) simply conceptualize communication competence as the "acquired ability for effective interaction" (Foote & Cottrell, p. 53). Unlike White's concept, they claim that communication competence is an inherent trait that is unrelated to personal intellect and education. However, Weinstein (1969) theorizes that communication competence is increased through socialization, and that it is learned incidentally rather than manipulatively. Weinstein perceives communication competence as "the ability to accomplish ［an］ interpersonal task" (p. 755). This definition not only views competence as the ability to manipulate the interaction, but also relates it to personal goals. Weinstein asserts further that communication competence stems primarily from empathy, and empathy builds upon personal intelligence and sensitivity.

　Trying to outline a more systematic concept of communication competence, Bochner and Kelly (1974) define the concept of communication competence as "the ability to relate effectively to self and others" (p. 280). This definition broadens the concept to include both interactants. That is, to be competent, individuals must not only feel that they are competent, but their ability should be observable and confirmed by their counterparts. This definition also suggests that communication competence can be judged by "(1) ability to formulate and achieve objectives, (2) ability to collaborate effectively with others, and (3) ability to adapt appropriately to situational or environmental variation" (p. 288).

　In the same vein, Parks (1976) examines communication competence from the viewpoint of goal attainment. In his opinion, an ideal competent communicator should be able to maximize his or her personal goal attainment. Accordingly, Parks defines communication competence as "the communicator's ability to control or manipulate his or her environment in order to attain personal goals" (p. 5). Furthermore, in order to maximize these personal goals, one must be able to identify these goals, get relevant information about them, accurately predict the others' responses, select communication strategies, implement these communication strategies, and accurately assess the interaction results.

　More recently, Rubin (1983) theoretically applies communication competence to the four perspectives of interpersonal communication study proposed by Miller (1978). After examining the four perspectives  the situational approach, the developmental approach, the lawgoverned approach, and the rulesgoverned approach  Rubin argues that "communication competence is an impression based on perception" (p.1), and these impressions are formed about both one's own and others' behaviors. Through these impressions, one can draw inferences about interactants' internal states, in Rubin's opinion, to know if a communicator is competent, another's observation is indispensable.

　Finally, Wiemann (1977) synthesizes the concept of competence from tile human relations, social skills, and selfpresentation approaches. He conceptualizes communicative competence as "the ability of an interactant to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he ［sic］ may successfully accomplish his own interpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation" (p. 198). This definition obviously argues that competent communication is otheroriented, and, at the same time, that communicators must successfully accomplish their own goals. All these conceptualizations focus on perceived effectiveness in an interaction.

　Whereas some scholars conceive of communication competence as a function of perceived effectiveness, others look at communication competence from the viewpoint of appropriateness. For example, Backlund (1978) reviews the various definitions and conceptions of communication competence as "the ability to demonstrate a knowledge of the socially appropriate communicative behavior in a given situation" (p.26), Wiemann and Backlund (1980) explain appropriateness in the communication process as follows:

　Appropriateness generally refers to the ability of an interactant to meet the basic contextual requirements of the situationto be effective in a general sense…These contextual requirements include: (1) The verbal context, that is, making sense in terms of wording, of statements, and of topic; (2) the relationship context, that is, the structuring, type and style of messages so that they are consonant with the particular relationship at hand; and (3) the environmental context, that is, the consideration of constraints imposed on message making by the symbolic and physical environments. (p. 191)

　They refer to "appropriateness of behavior" as one of the most important criteria to conceptualize communication competence.

　Trenholm and Rose (1981) argue that a basic skill for effective interaction is "the ability to recognize how context constrains communication" (p.13). In other words, "in order to act and speak appropriately, individuals must recognize that different situations give rise to different sets of rules; compliance and noncompliance separate those who 'belong' from those who do not 'fit in' " (p.13). This is similar to the definition of organizational communication competence set forth by Harris and Cronen (1976) where understanding of organizational rules constitutes a criterion for competence.

　Getter and Nowinski (1981) likewise utilize appropriate responses in interaction to evaluate communication competence. They suggest that a competent communicator should be able to avoid inappropriate responses. An inappropriate response is defined as "one which is unnecessarily abrasive, intense, or bizarre. It is also likely to result in negative consequences which could have been averted, without sacrifice of the goal, by more appropriate actions" (p.303). 

　In another study, Allen and Wood (1978) state that the functions of communication include controlling, sharing feelings, informing, ritualizing, and imagining. In order to fulfill these functions, a competent communicator must know how to act appropriately. This argues that appropriateness is the main criterion for conceptualizing communication competence. The authors further extend the meaning of appropriateness in interaction as "(1) Say just enoughnot too little or too much. (2) Don't say something that's falseor speak about something for which you lack evidence. (3) Relate your contribution to the topic and situation. (4) Be clear about what you are saying, and say it 'with dispatch' " (p.290). This includes the four elements of appropriateness: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner of message sending in interaction.

　Finally, Lee (1979) states that competence is a dynamic process that translates an individual's cognitive, linguistic, and social abilities into appropriate strategies in interpersonal interaction. Lee defines competence as "the ability to draw on one's capabilities and social knowledge and combine them for lines of action or strategies in functionally appropriate ways" (p.795).

　To summarize, appropriateness is important in the formulation of the concept of communication competence, and "the fundamental criteria of appropriateness are that the interactants perceive that they understand the content of the encounter and have not had their norms and rules violated too extensively" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p.101).

　Most of the literature shows that the conceptualization of ICC is similar to the abovementioned intracultural definitions (Hammer, 1989). The only difference is, in addition to looking at communication competence as effective and appropriate interaction, intercultural communication scholars place more emphasis on environmental factors. They conceive of communication competence not only as effective and appropriate interaction between people, but as effective and appropriate interaction between people and their particular environments. This orientation is similar to that of those communication scholars who place emphasis on competence as contextspecific behavior (e.g., Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).

　Although researchers conceive of communication competence as the ability to interact effectively and appropriately with others, their definitions suffer from, more or less, certain degrees of ambiguity, confusion and imprecision. For example, from Wiemann's (1977) synthesized definition, the question arises: What constitutes "available behaviors," or "constraints of the situation"? These concepts are not clear, and require definition. To alleviate the problem in defining communication competence and to apply the concept to an intercultural setting, ICC might be conceived of as "the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors to elicit a desired response in a specific environment." This definition shows that competent persons must not only know how to interact effectively and appropriately with people and their environments, but also know how to fulfill their own communication goals using this ability.

　Six Investigative Approaches

　In order to be able to execute communication behaviors that will elicit a desired response in interaction, communication scholars have sought to identify those discreet behaviors that combine to constitute effective and appropriate communication behaviors. Historically, according to Dinges (1983), there are six approaches investigating this question. First, the overseasmanship approach, presented by Cleveland, Mangone, and Adams (1960), attempts to identify common factors in effective performance when one sojourns in another culture. A competent person must have the ability to develop versatility gained through various experiences that will be evident in the person's effective communication skills. 

　Second, the subjective culture and isomorphic attribution approach requires a competent person to have the ability to understand the causes of interactants' behaviors in order to reward them appropriately, and to modify suitably their behaviors according to the demands of the setting (Triandis, 1976, 1977). This ability to understand must be based on accurate cognitions of the differences in cognitive structures between cultures.

　Third, the multicultural approach emphasizes that a competent person must be able to adapt to exceedingly difficult circumstances by transcending usual adaptive limits (Adler, 1975, 1977). These include the abilities to move in and out of contexts, to maintain coherence in different situations, and to be dynamic. 

　Fourth, the social behaviorism and culture learning approach is one wherein successful intercultural coping strategies are more dependent on predeparture experiences, such as training and sojourning in another country, rather than a person's inherent characteristics or personality (Guthrie, 1975). That is, a competent person must be able to learn discriminative stimuli to obtain social rewards, and to avoid punishments that would create hardship in intercultural interaction (David, 1972).

　Fifth, the typological approach develops different models of ICC. Most of the models focus on sojourners' behavioral styles on a continuum from most to least effective. For example, Brislin (1981) proposes that a successful intercultural interaction must be based on the sojourner's attitudes, traits, and social skills. Thus, the major attitudes for effective intercultural interaction are nonethnocentrism and nonprejudicial judgments. The major adaptive personal traits include personality strength, intelligence, tolerant personality, competent social relations, potential for benefit, and taskorientation. Last, the social skills consist of knowledge of subject and language, positive orientation to opportunities, effective communication skills, and the ability to use personal traits and to complete tasks.

　Sixth, the intercultural communicators approach emphasizes that successful intercultural interaction is based on communication processes between people from different cultures. In other words, a competent person must show the ability to establish interpersonal relationships by understanding his or her counterparts through the effective exchange of verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Hall, 1959, 1966, 1976).

　Components and Their Propositions

　The six approaches show a wide range within the study of ICC. This section summarizes some of the major components of ICC, and delineates propositions about ICC. Some of the propositions here have been supported in recent empirical studies; however, most derive from earlier extant literature, and need to be confirmed further.

　Research has identified the components of ICC as roughly: personality strength, communication skills, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Chen, 1989; Hammer, 1987, 1988, 1989; Harris, 1977; Hawes & Kealey, 1979, 1981; Hwang, Chase, & Kelly, 1980; Martin, 1987; Smith, 1966; Spitzberg, 1988; Wiseman & Abe, 1984).

　Personality Strength. Personality strength refers to those personal traits that constitute an individual's personality. Traits are products of each person's unique experiences within a culture, and are always affected by the person's heredity. Personal traits usually play an important role in determining the process of interaction (Brislin, 1981; Harris, 1977; Hawes & Kealey, 1979: Smith, 1966). The main personal traits that affect ICC include selfconcept, selfdisclosure, selfmonitoring, and social relaxation.

　Selfconcept refers to the way in which a person views the self. It is not only the key to communication but is probably fundamental in order to relate to the world (TingToomey, 1989), one of the most important elements of selfconcept is selfesteem. It has been found that the behaviors of high sellesteem individuals and low selfesteem individuals are significantly different in the communication process. These differences are summarized by Adler and Towne (1987). For instance, persons with high selfesteem, as opposed to persons with low selfesteem, are more likely to think well of others, to be accepted by others, to perform well when being watched, to feel more comfortable when working with superiors, and to be able to defend themselves against negative comments of others.

　Ehrlich (1973) also shows that people with high selfesteem are more likely to feel positively toward outgroup persons than are people with low selfesteem. In intercultural encounters, where people inevitably meet psychological stresses when trying to complete their jobs and to establish relationships with others, selfesteem is an important variable in the calculation of whether they can fulfill their needs or not.

　Other aspects of selfconcept that affect communication are discussed by various scholars. For example, Foote and Cottrell (1955) indicate that a competent person must have an optimistic outlook  this instills confidence in interaction with others. Gardner (1962) suggests that a stable and extroverted personality is the key to effective intercultural communication. Another study (Harris, 1973) shows that personality traits such as sellreliance, perseverance, and reliability combine to make one of the dimensions of ICC. To summarize the relationship between selfconcept and ICC:

　Proposition I: Individuals with highpositive selfconcept are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with lowpositive selfconcept.

　Selfdisclosure refers to willingness of individuals to openly and appropriately reveal information about themselves to their counterparts. Although "appropriate" selfdisclosure may vary across cultures, Adler and Towne (1987) propose that selfdisclosure must be intentional, and the information revealed to others must be significant and previously unknown to others. Bochner and Kelly (1974) and Parks (1976) point out that selfdisclosure is one of the main elements for individual competence in communication, Parks (1976) further argues that selfdisclosure can lead to achievement of personal communication goals.

　When interacting with people from different cultures, the level of uncertainty is normally high because of the ambiguous situation. Predictably, reduction of the uncertainty level can be achieved through common selfdisclosure. Chen's (1989) study has shown that selfdisclosure is one dimension of ICC, especially the depth and breadth of selfdisclosure. This finding helps to illustrate the social penetration model (Airman & Taylor, 1973) wherein relationships develop from superficial to more personal levels through the depth and breadth of information individuals disclose to their counterparts. However, selfdisclosure must be regulated by the norm of' appropriateness. To summarize the key point succinctly:

　Proposition 2: Individuals with an appropriate degree of selfdisclosure are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with an inappropriate degree of selfdisclosure.

　Selfmonitoring is the individual's ability to possess the "requisite information necessary to implement conversationally competent behavior" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 23). According to Snyder (1974), high selfmonitoring persons are always particularly sensitive to their counterparts' expressions and selfpresentations and know how to use these behavioral cues to guide their own selfpresentation. High selfmonitoring is characterized by elements such as:

　(1) Concern with social appropriateness of one's selfpresentation. (2) Attention to social comparison information as cues to situationally appropriate expressive selfpresentation. (3) The ability to control and modify one's selfpresentation and expressive behavior. (4) The use of this ability in particular situations. (5) The extent to which one's expressive behavior and selfpresentation are tailored and molded to particular situation. (Snyder, 1979, p. 184)

　Berger and Douglas (1982) indicate that persons with high selfmonitoring are more likely to be able to adapt their behaviors to different situations and to present themselves competently in interactions. Their results lead Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) to include selfmonitoring as one of the elements of relational competence. To summarize, the relationship between selfmonitoring and ICC is as follows:

　Proposition 3: Individuals with higher selfmonitoring are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with lower selfmonitoring.

　Social relaxation is the ability to reveal little anxiety in communication. Gudykunst and Hammer (1988) assume that a series of crises usually occurs in the initial experience of sojourners in the host culture. This anxiety, according to Herman and Schield (1961), originates from the lack of security that is the immediate psychological result when one is in a new situation.

　The symptoms of social anxiety include undue perspiration, shakiness, postural rigidity, vocal quavering, and lessened response tendencies (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). This is similar to Wiemann's (1977) suggestion that competent individuals must know how to cope with behaviors such as rocking movement, leg and foot movements, body tilt, and speech rate, speech disturbances, hesitations, and nonfluencies. Finally, Barna (1979) also states that to be effective in intercultural communication the individual must have the ability to eliminate stumbling blocks. One of these is a feeling of anxiety when communicating with people from different cultures. All these show the important role social relaxation plays in intercultural interaction. In sum, a proposition can be generated as follows:

　Proposition 4: Individuals with a higher degree of social relaxation are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with a lower degree of social relaxation.

　Communication Skills. Communication skills are verbal and nonverbal behaviors that lead individuals to be effective in interaction. Those effective behaviors in intercultural communication include message skills, behavioral flexibility, interaction management, and social skills.

　Message skills require that individuals show not only the ability to understand the host language but also show the knowledge to use it. Communication scholars stress the significance of message skills. For example, Chomsky (1965) emphasizes linguistic competence that pertains to the knowledge of rules underlying the use of language. Parks (1976) indicates that competent persons must be able to code skillfully or create messages in the process of communication, and Barna (1979) further suggests that a good understanding of the interactant's language and the ability to recognize the meaning of nonverbal behavior are two major elements of ICC. Other studies from Sewell and Davidsen (1956), Morris (1960), Deutsch and Won (1963), and Selltiz, Christ, Havel, and Cook (1963) show that fluency in the host language is the key element in being effective in an intercultural interaction.

　Besides language itself, message skills include the ability to use descriptive and supportive messages in the process of interaction. Descriptiveness means the use of concrete and specific feedback as opposed to judgment of another's behaviors. This will avoid a defensive reaction from one's counterpart (Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Gibb, 1961). Supportiveness is the sine qua non for being an effective communicator. It requires individuals to know how to support effectively or to reward others in communication by cues such as head nod, eye contact, facial expression, and physical proximity (Parks, 1976; Ruben, 1976, 1977; Wiemann, 1977). In sum, the key point is:

　Proposition 5: Individuals with message skills are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than individuals without message skills.

　Three theorems can be derived from proposition 5.

　Theorem 1: Individuals with ability in the host language are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without ability in the host language.

　Theorem 2: Individuals with the ability to be descriptive in the process of messagesending are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without descriptive ability.

　Theorem 3: Individuals with the ability to be supportive in the process of messagesending are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of supportiveness.

　Behavioral flexibility is the ability to select an appropriate behavior in different contexts and situations (Bochner & Kelly, 1974). This concept is identical to Parks' (1976) creativity or the flexibility dimension of communication competence. Parks shows that a behaviorally flexible person must demonstrate the abilities of accuracy and adaptability when attending to information, and must be able to perform different behavioral strategies in order to achieve communication goals.

　Martin (1987) and Wiemann (1977) also propose behavioral flexibility as one dimension of communication competence. According to Wiemann, behavioral flexibility is expressed through verbal immediacy cues, in which a person knows how to use different kinds of intimate verbal behaviors to establish interpersonal relationships. Moreover, behaviorally flexible persons must be good at "the alternation and cooccurrence of specific speech choices which mark the status and affiliative relationships of interactants" (p. 199).

　Finally, Wheeless and Duran (1982) point out that, in addition to being flexible in verbal and nonverbal behaviors, behavioral flexibility must include feeling comfortable while interacting with people from different cultures. To summarize, the key point is:

　Proposition 6: Individuals with higher behavioral flexibility are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with lower behavioral flexibility.

　Interaction management is the ability to speak in turn in conversation and to initiate and terminate the conversation appropriately. In other words, it deals with the ability of individuals to "handle the procedural aspects of structuring and maintaining a conversation" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 46). This implies knowing how to develop a topic smoothly in interaction.

　According to Ruben (1976), individuals with good interaction management skills are "extremely concerned with providing equal opportunity for all participants to share in contribution to discussion" (p.35 l). Ruben has included interaction management as one of the major dimensions in his Intercultural Behavioral Assessment Indices that measure ICC.

　In a similar vein, Wiemann (1977) suggests that, to be effective in interaction, an individual must understand that (1) interruptions are not permitted, (2) only one person is allowed to talk at a time, (3) speakers' turns should appropriately interchange, and (4) speakers should pay full attention to their counterparts. 

　Interaction involvement is a variable that is very close to interaction management. Interaction involvement measures the degree to which an individual "perceives the topic, situation, or other to involve his or her conception of self and selfreward" (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, p. 120). It emphasizes a person's empathic and otheroriented ability in interaction. Cegala (1981, 1984) considers interaction involvement to be a fundamental element in the interpersonal communication process. His study shows that interaction involvement comprises three major factors: responsiveness, perceptiveness, and attentiveness. The three factors are also found to be related to Wiemann's (1977) five dimensions of communication competence, and relate to concepts such as extroversion, neuroticism, selfconsciousness, and communication apprehension. All these show that interaction involvement is a necessary ability for individuals to be competent in interaction. The two key points are:

　Proposition 7: Individuals with ability in interaction management are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without ability in interaction management.

　Proposition 8: Individuals with ability in interaction involvement are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without ability in interaction involvement.

　Three theorems can be derived from proposition 8 as follows:

　Theorem 4: Individuals with the ability of responsiveness are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of responsiveness.

　Theorem 5: Individuals with the ability of perceptiveness are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of perceptiveness.

　Theorem 6: Individuals with the ability of attentiveness are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of perceptiveness.

　Communication skills similarly include social skills such as empathy and identity maintenance. Empathy has been long recognized as one ot the most important elements for effective interpersonal communication. Empathy is the ability to "project oneself into another person's point of view so as momentarily to think the same thoughts and feel the same emotions as the other person" (Adler & Towne, 1987, p. 95). It is the ability to sense what is inside another's mind or to step into another person's shoes. It is also called "affective sensitivity" (Campbell, Kagan, & Drathwohl, 1971), "telepathic or intuition sensitivity" (Gardner, 1962), and "perspectivetaking" (Parks, 1976).

　According to Parks (1976), an empathic person must demonstrate "the ability to accurately predict or discriminate various aspects of the others' behavior or internal states" (p. 14). Obviously, this is similar to Ruben's (1976, 1977) finding that a highly empathic individual usually responds accurately to another's feelings and thoughts. In addition, Wiemann (1977) mentions further that the skill of empathy should include reciprocity of affect displays, verbal response showing understanding, and active listening. Hwang, Chase, & Kelly (1980) also view empathy as one of the elements that accounts for ICC.

　Identity maintenance is the ability of individuals to maintain their counterpart's identity. Because the need to learn who we are is one of the reasons we want to communicate with others, competent persons not only need to understand themselves in interaction but also need to let their counterparts know who they are. Thus, in order to achieve smooth interaction, competent persons must know how to maintain their counterparts' identity. Parks (1976) mentions that individuals usually learn the ability of identity maintenance through their experience, and the use of identity maintenance skills must be changeable according to different situations and different personal goals. In sum, proposition 9 is:

　Proposition 9: Individuals with social skills are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without message skills.

　Two theorems can be derived from proposition 9:

　Theorem 7: Individuals with the ability of empathy are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of empathy.

　Theorem 8: Individuals with the ability of identity maintenance are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of identity maintenance.

　Psychological Adaptation. Psychological adaptation refers to the ability of individuals to acclimate to a new culture. It is a complex process through which a person "acquires an increasing level of 'fitness' or 'compatibility' in the new cultural environment" (Kim & Gudykunst, 1988, p. 11). That is, psychological adaptation is the general psychological wellbeing, selfsatisfaction, and contentment in a new environment. Lysgaard (1955) proposed the Ucurve hypothesis to explain the three steps of psychological adaptation: initial adjustment, crisis, and regained adjustment. The initial adjustment stage has been the focus of study since Lysgaard's hypothesis. This stage is generally termed "culture shock."

　"Culture shock," first coined by Oberg (1960), refers to an individual's initial experience or reaction during the first period of sojourning in a new culture. According to Oberg (1960) and Smalley (1963), the symptoms of culture shock include excessive hand washing, fearing people, being absentminded, being overly concerned with food and drink, refusing to learn the host country's language and customs, and worrying about being robbed, cheated, or injured. There is no question but that, for competent people, these symptoms are merely temporary phenomena that will be overcome after a short period of time. However, with less competent people, these symptoms could be persistent nightmares. If a person cannot return home, the difficulty in crosscultural adaptation may cause serious psychological or psychiatric problems such as schizophrenia, paranoia, depression, and lack of confidence (Yeh, Chu, Klein, Alexander, & Miller, 1981). This underlines the importance of competency in adapting to a new culture.

　In general, psychological adaptation typically is associated with a person's ability to cope with situations such as frustration, stress, alienation, and ambiguity caused by the host culture. That is, according to Furnham and Bochner (1982), psychological adaptation indicates how a person handles "social difficulties." Furnham and Bochner's study shows that social difficulties tend to increase when the differences between the host culture and the sojourner's culture become greater. The study indicates further that foreign students experience greater social difficulty than students of the host culture.

　Ruben's (1976) study demonstrates that persons with high ambiguity tolerance show little visible discomfort, little confusion, and little nervousness in a new environment. Moreover, high ambiguity tolerance persons can adapt quickly to situational demands with "no noticeable personal, interpersonal, or group consequences" and can cope with the changing environment rapidly and comfortably. These abilities will, in turn, tend to eliminate feelings of frustration, alienation, and stress when sojourning in a new culture (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). In addition, Hammer (1987), Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978), and Wiseman and Abe (1986) demonstrate that the ability to deal with psychological stress in a new environment is one of the main elements for ICC. This ability includes the skills needed to cope effectively with frustration, interpersonal conflict, pressure to conform, financial difficulties, social alienation, different political systems, and general anxiety. These collective traits show that a psychologically welladjusted person can effectively cope with the feelings of stress, frustration, alienation, and ambiguous situations in a new culture. That is, effective psychological adaptation is a key variable for competency in intercultural interaction. In sum, the key point is:

　Proposition 10: Individuals with the ability of psychological adaptation are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability of psychological adaptation.

　Four theorems can be derived from proposition 10 as follows:

　Theorem 9:  Individuals with the ability to cope with the feeling of stress caused by the new environment are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability to deal with the feeling of stress.

　Theorem 10: Individuals with the ability to cope with the feeling of frustration caused by the new environment are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability to deal with the feeling of frustration.

　Theorem 11: Individuals with the ability to cope with the feeling of alienation caused by the new environment are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability to deal with the feeling of alienation.

　Theorem 12: Individuals with the ability to cope with the ambiguous situation caused by the new environment are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without the ability to deal with the ambiguous situation.

　Cultural Awareness.  Cultural awareness refers to understanding the variety in the host culture, which affects how people think and behave. Oliver (1956) mentions that each culture shows different thought patterns. One frequent problem in intercultural communication is the misunderstanding of thinking patterns. That is, to be effective in intercultural interaction one must first learn the characteristics of the host culture, especially its thinking patterns. Hall (1959) and Hall and Whyte (1963) show that understanding a host culture may enable sojourners to modify their communication patterns to be congruent with the cues of the people of the host culture. Changing behavior to match that of the host culture is the key to reaching mutual understanding.

　Cultural awareness is similar to the idea proposed by Kluckhohn (1948) and Turner (1968). Both scholars emphasize that knowledge of a culture is essential for effective intercultural communication. Kluckhohn asserts that cultural awareness requires understanding the "cultural map"; "if a map is accurate, and you can read it, you won't get lost; if you know a culture, you'll know your way around in the life of a society" (p. 28). Turner indicates that to be aware of a culture means to catch the "culture theme"  the thread that goes through a culture and organizes it as a recognizable system. It acts as a guideline to people's thinking and behavior, and is often reflected and repeated in daily life. 

　The key components of a cultural map or a cultural theme that affect ICC include cultural values, social customs, and social system. The studies mentioned above have shown the important role that cultural values play in the process of intercultural communication. Furthermore, studies from Abe and Wiseman (1983), Chen (1989), Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978), and Martin (1987) show that intercultural interaction competence requires an understanding of the social customs and the social system of the host culture. To sum up, the key point is:

　Proposition 11: Individuals with a higher degree of cultural awareness are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals with a lower degree of cultural awareness.

　Three theorems can be derived from proposition 11:

　Theorem 13: Individuals with an understanding of the host culture's values are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without an understanding of the host culture's values.

　Theorem 14: Individuals with an understanding of the host culture's social customs are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without an understanding of the host culture's social customs.

　Theorem 15: Individuals with an understanding of the host culture's social system are more likely to be competent in intercultural communication than are individuals without an understanding of the host culture's social system.

　Problems and Prospects

　Conceptualization

　There are several research challenges in the study of ICC. The first challenge exists because as the concept of ICC has grown more sophisticated, it has become confused with the definition of the term "competence." As mentioned earlier, argument still exists on the issue of whether competence is an inherent or a learned ability. To answer this question, this paper proposes that competence should refer to the abilities of personality strength and communication skills. In other words, both inherent and learned abilities ("traits" and "states") should be considered and included. It would be futile to separate trait and state when conceptualizing competence.

　Another problem when conceiving of communication competence is the argument that competence refers to the interactant's knowledge or performance. Chomsky (1965) emphasizes that competence is simply "the speakerhearer's knowledge of his ［sic］ language" (p. 4). Phillips (1983) further differentiates the concepts of competence, skill, and effectiveness as follows: competence as "understanding situations and their requirements," skill as "demonstrated ability to meet requirements," and effectiveness as "the ability to accomplish specific goals" (p. 33). This classification shows that competence is merely the first step toward communicative competence. Both definitions focus on an individual's knowledge. The definitions suffer from a degree of incompleteness, especially when considering that the process of communication demands not only situational knowledge but behavioral skills as well. Furthermore, this paper indicates that knowledge and performance also must be considered elements of ICC.

　Finally, the confusion between effectiveness and competence must be resolved to arrive at the concept of communicative competence. Many scholars (e.g., Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wisemann, 1978) use the term "effectiveness" instead of "competence." Others (e.g., Ruben, 1976, 1977: Ruben & Kealey, 1979) use "effectiveness" and "competence" interchangeably. The usage must be crystalized in future studies. Obviously, the term "competence" is preferable, especially in an intercultural communication setting. The previous discussion indicates that effectiveness is only one of two variables for conceptualizing competence. Another variable, "appropriateness," plays a role of equal significance. In other words, to be competent in intercultural interaction, individuals must communicate effectively and appropriately.

　Operationalism

　The second challenge is the operationalization of ICC. Two issues are subsumed within this challenge. First: What should be measured for ICC? This paper proposes four categories  personality strength, communication skills, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness  that can be used as guideposts to measure ICC. However, for future study, it will be necessary to discover more elements to account for ICC.

　Second: How must ICC be assessed? Use of a selfreport scale, otherreport scale, or both is still a critical question. Because ICC contains personality strength and behavioral skills, some would argue that it is more appropriate to use both self and otherreport methods. Although use of both methods in combination may assure the external validity of the data, it will be difficult to bridge the discrepancy between the self and otherreport measures unless a more acceptable scale is created. Moreover, the problem is accelerated in the intercultural communication setting. For example, people from different cultures may have different perceptions or attitudes toward the process in the study including items of the scale and the way to operate it.

　Number of Elements

　The last challenge is to determine those elements individuals must possess to be considered "competent." For example, is it enough for individuals to possess communicative ability, or must they possess other abilities such as personality strength, psychological adaptation, and cultural awareness? Communication scholars must investigate whether the degree of ICC is affected by the number of competence elements or by some other measures. It will be provocative to examine this question and, furthermore, to investigate the interrelationships among those elements of ICC.

　The final problem concerning the dimensions and components of ICC must be mentioned. Because the study of ICC is an interdisciplinary phenomenon, scholars from different fields might generate different dimensions and components of ICC. The dimensions and components of ICC covered in this paper represent this writer's arbitrary decision. It must be stressed that these dimensions and components are neither definitive nor exhaustive. Future research is encouraged to adopt a broader range of dimensions and components for the study of intercultural communication competence.

　Conclusion

　Because increased contacts between people from different cultures are inevitable, the study of ICC is critically important. Only with mastery of ICC can people from various cultures communicate effectively and appropriately. This is why Sitaram and Cogdell (1976) proclaim that "all people of the world should study intercultural communication." To be sure, this dictum is somewhat broad, but it reflects the significance of learning more about people of other cultures.

　Although the study of communicative competence has a long history, the consideration of competence from the intercultural standpoint is still evolving. This article attempts to organize some perspectives of ICC from the extant literature. The variable "competence" is conceptualized to fit the intercultural setting. Major components of ICC are described. Propositions, problems, and suggestions for future research about ICC are discussed also. It is hoped that this article may help to develop a more coherent and consistent focus of inquiry in the field of ICC.

　References

　Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A crosscultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 5367.

　Adler, P. (1975). The transnational experience: An alternative view of culture shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 1325.

　Adler, P. (1977). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon cultural and multicultural man. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and research. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

　Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1987). Looking out/looking in. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.

　Allen, R. R., & Wood, B. S. (1978). Beyond reading and writing to communication competence. Communication Education, 27, 286292.

　Altman, I., &: Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationship. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

　Argyris, C. (1965a). Explorations in interpersonal competence1. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 5885.

　Argyris, C. (1965b). Explorations in interpersonal competence1. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1, 255269.

　Asante, M. K., Newmark, E., & Blake, C. A. (1979). Handbook of intercultural communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

　Backlund, P. (1978). Defining communication competence. In C. Larson, P. Backlund, M. Redmond, & A. Barbour (Eds.), Assessing functional communication. Annandale, VA: SCA/ERIC.

　Barna, L. M. (1979). Intercultural communication stumbling blocks. In R. E. Porter & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 291298). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

　Berger, C. R., & Douglas, W. (1982). Thought and talk: Excuse me, "but have I been talking to myself?." In F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human communication theory: Comparative essays (pp. 4260) New York: Harper & Row.

　Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. W. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech Teacher, 23, 279301.

　Brislin, R. W. (1981). Crosscultural encounters: Facetoface interaction. New York: Pergamon.

　Campbell, R. J., Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1971). The development and validation of a scale to measure affective sensitivity (empathy). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 407412.

　Cegata, D.J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of communicative competence. Communication Education, 30, 109121.

　Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and competitive interactions. Communication Monographs, 51, 320338.

　Chen, G. M, (1989). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 118135.

　Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

　Cleveland, H., Mangone, G. J., & Adams, J. C. (1960). The overseas Americans. New York: McGrawHill.

　Cooley, R. E., & Roach, D. A. (1984). A conceptual framework. In R.N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 1132). Beverly Hills: Sage.

　David. K. (1972). Intercultural adjustment and applications of reinforcement theory to problems of culture shock. Trends, 4, 164.

　Deutsch, S. E., & Won, G. Y. M. (1963). Some factors in the adjustment of foreign nationals in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 115122.

　Dinges, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (Vol. 1): Issues in theory and design (pp. 176202). New York: Pergamon.

　Ehrlich, H. (1973). The social psycholagy of prejudice. New York: Wiley.

　Foote, N. N., & Cottrell, L. S. (1955). Identity and interpersonal competence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

　Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in crosscultural interaction. New York: Pergamon Press.

　Gardner, G. H. (1962). Crosscultural communication. Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 241256.

　Getter, H., & Nowinski, J. K. (1981). A free response test of interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 301308.

　Gibb, J. ( 1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141  148.

　Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M.R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Crosscultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 106139). Beverly Hills: Sage. 

　Guthrie, G. (1975), A behavioral analysis of culture learning. In R. W. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Crosscultural perspectives on learning. New York: Wiley.

　Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

　Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

　Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

　Hall, E. T., & Whyte, W. F. (1963). Intercultural communication: A guide to men of action. Practical Anthropology, 9, 83108.

　Hammer, M. R. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: A replication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 6588.

　Hammer, M. R. (1988, November). Communication skills and intercultural communication competence: A review and research agenda. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.

　Hammer, M. R. (1989). Intercultural communication competence. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 247260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

　Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 382393.

　Harris, J. G. (1973). A science of the South Pacific: An analysis of the character structure of the Peace Corps volunteer. American Psychologist, 28, 232247.

　Harris, J. G. (1977). Identification of crosscultural talent: The empirical approach of the Peace Corps. Culture learning: Concepts, applications, and research (pp. 182194). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

　Harris, L., & Cronen, U. E. (1976). A rulebased model for the analysis and evaluation of organizational communication. Communication Education, 25, 222230.

　Hawes, F., & Kealey, D.J. (1979). Canadians in development: An empirical study of adaptation and effectiveness on overseas assignment  Technical report. Ottowa, Canada: Canadian International Development Agency.

　Hawes, F., & Kealey, D.J. (1981). An empirical study of Canadian technical assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 5, 239258.

　Herman, S., & Schield, E. ( 1961). The stranger group in crosscultural situation. Sociometry, 24, 165176.

　Holland, J. L., & Baird, L. L. (1968). An interpersonal competence scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 5035 I0.

　Hwang, J. C., Chase, L. J., & Kelly, C. W. (1980). An intercultural examination of communication competence. Communication, 9, 7079.

　Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 326). New York: Academic.

　Kim, Y. Y., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1988, Eds.). Crosscultural adaptation: Current approaches. Beverly Hills: Sage.

　Kluckhohn, C. (1948). Mirror of man. New York: McGraw Hill.

　Lee. L.(1979). Is social competence independent of cultural context? American Psychologist, 34, 795796.

　Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 4551.

　Martin, J. N, (1987). The relationships between student sojourner perceptions of intercultural competencies and previous sojourn experience. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 337355.

　Miller, G. R. (1978). The current status of theory and research in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 4, 164178.

　Morris, R. T. (1960). The twoway mirror: National status of foreign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

　Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environment. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177182.

　Oliver, R. T. (1962). Culture and communication: The problem of penetrating national and cultural boundaries. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

　Parks, M. R. (1976, December). Communication competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.

　Phillips, G. M. (1983). A competent view of "competence." Communication Education, 33, 2536.

　Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 334354.

　Ruben, B. D. (1977). Guidelines for crosscultural communication effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 470479.

　Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of crosscultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 1547.

　Rubin, R. B. (1983, November). Conceptualizing communication competence: Directions for research and instruction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, DC.

　Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J., & Cook, S. W. (1963). Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

　Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. (1956). The adjustment of Scandinavian Sludents. Journal of Social Issues, 12(1), 919.

　Sitaram, K. S., & Cogdell. R. T. (1976). Foundations of intercultural communication. Columbus. OH: Merrill.

　Smalley, W. A. (1963). Culture shock, language shock, and the shock of selfdiscovery. Practical Anthropology, 10(1), 4956.

　Smith, M. B. (1966). Explorations in competence: A study of Peace Corps teachers in Ghana. American Psychologist, 21, 555556.

　Snyder, M. (1974). Selfmonitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 528.

　Snyder, M. (1979). Cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of selfmonitoring. In P. Pliner, K. R. Blankenstein, I. M. Spigel, T. Alloway, & L. Krames (Eds.), Advances in the study of communication and affect: Vol. 5. Perception of emotion in self and others (pp. 181201). New York: Plenum.

　Spitzberg, B. H. (1988, November). Progress and pitfalls in conceptualizing and researching intercultural communication competence. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.

　Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills: Sage.

　Stewart, E. C. (1972). Outline of intercultural communication. In F. L. Casmir (Ed.), Intercultural and international communication (pp. 265344). Washington, DC: University Press of America.

　TingToomey, S. (1989). Identity and interpersonal bonds. In M. K. Asante & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (pp. 351373). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

　Trenholm, S., & Rose, T. (1981). The compliant communicator: Teacher perceptions of classroom behavior. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 1326.

　Triandis, H. C. (1976). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

　Triandis, H. C. (1977). Subjective culture and interpersonal relations across cultures. In L. LoebAdler (Ed.), Issues in crosscultural research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 418434.

　Turner, C. V. (1968). The Sinasina "Big Man" complex: A central culture theme. Practical Anthropology, 15, 1623.

　Tylor, E. B. (1958). The origin of culture. New York: Harper & Row.

　Weinstein, E. A. (1969). The development of interpersonal competence. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 753775). Chicago: Rand McNally.

　Wheeless, E. W., & Duran, R. L. (1982). Gender orientation as a correlate of communicative competence. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 5184.

　White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297333.

　Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195215.

　Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Gurrent theory and research in communicative competence. Review of Educational Research, 50, 185199.

　Wiseman, R. L., & Abe, H. (1984). Finding and explaining differences: A reply to Gudykunst and Hammer. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1116.

　Wiseman, R. L. & Abe H. (1986). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 13, 333.

　Yeh, EK., Chu, HM., Klein, M. H., Alexander, A. A., & Miller, M. H. (1981). Psychiatric implications of crosscultural education: Chinese students in the United States. In S. Bochner (Ed.), The mediating person: Bridges between cultures (pp. 136168). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.