Main Article Content

Ariadna Strugielska


The article demonstrates possible impact of internationalization at Polish universities on the ways in which research interests can be polarized and intercultural competence fostered. Since international educational programs tend to be created by academics whose interest in intercultural competence is secondary, i.e. it derives from the process of internationalization. The perspectives of various research domains are likely to influence concepts of intercultural competence and the ways of its development. Simultaneously, academic interests of lecturers will be polarized by intercultural and international contexts. The said phenomenon is illustrated with examples from an Erasmus+ seminar at the NCU in Poland.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details



  1. Barsalou, L. 1999. „Perceptual symbol systems”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 577-660.
  2. Barsalou, L., A. Santos, W. K. Simmons, i C. Wilson. 2008: „Language and simulation in conceptual processing”. (w) Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. (red. M. De Vega, A. Glenberg i A.Graesser). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, str. 245-283.
  3. Barsalou, L., w druku: „Situated conceptualization: Theory and application”. (w) Foundations of embodied cognition. (red. Y. Coello i M. Fischer). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press, str. 1-17.
  4. Bennett, M. 2013. Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Paradigms, principles, and practices. Revised edition. Boston: Intercultural Press.
  5. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  6. Cameron, L. 2007. „Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk”. Discourse and Society, 18: 197-222.
  7. Chuderski, A. i J. Bremer. 2011: „Pojęcia jako przedmiot badań interdyscyplinarnych”. (w) Pojęcia. Jak kategoryzujemy i reprezentujemy świat. (red. J. Bremer i A. Chuderski). Kraków: TAiWPN Universitas, str. 7-45.
  8. Deardorff, D. K. 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  9. Evans, V. i M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  10. Fillmore, C. 1982: „Frame semantics”. (w) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. (red. The Linguistic Society of Korea). Soeul: Hanshin, str. 111-137.
  11. Foncha, J. i S. Sivasubramaniam. 2014. „The Links between Intercultural Communication Competence and Identity Construction in the University of Western Cape (UWC) Community”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science, 5: 376-385.
  12. Gibbs, R. i H. Colston. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Grady, J. 1997. Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. Berkeley: University of California.
  14. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  15. Lakoff, G. i M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
  16. Knight, J. 2003. „Updated internationalization definition”. International Higher Education, 33: 2-3.
  17. Kramsch, C. 2010: „Language and Culture”. (w) Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. (red. J. Simpson). New York: Routledge, str. 305-317.
  18. Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  19. Liu, L. i Y. Zhang. 2014. „The Application of Constructivism to the Teaching of Intercultural Communication”. English Language Teaching, 7: 136-141.
  20. Matsuo, C. 2014. „A Dialogic Critique of Michael Byram’s Intercultural Communicative Competence Model: Proposal for a Dialogic Pedagogy”. [online: http://www.academia.edu/14378676/A_Dialogic_Critique_of_Michael_Byrams_Intercultural_Communicative_Competence_Model_Proposal_for_a_Dialogic_Pedagogy; DW 20.12.2015].
  21. Risager, K. 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  22. Ritchie, D. 2008. „X IS A JOURNEY: Embodied Simulation in Metaphor Interpretation”. Metaphor and Symbol, 23: 174-199.
  23. Sharifian, F. 2011. Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. Philadelphia – Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  24. Ting-Toomey, S. i L. Chung. 2005. Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
  25. Zinken, J., I. Hellsten i B. Nerlich. 2008: „Discourse metaphors”. (w) Body, Language, and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness. (red. R. Dirven, R. Frank, T. Ziemke i J. Zlatev). Berlin: Mouton, str. 363-385.
  26. Netografia
  27. http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal [DW 29.12.2015].
  28. http://nauka.gov.pl/g2/oryginal/2015_06/a6435263c76eecaa0821221e6bd708ac.pdf [DW 21.12.2015].
  29. http://nauka.gov.pl/aktualnosci-ministerstwo/ministerstwo-rozpoczyna-debate-o-umiedzynarodowieniu-polskich-uczelni.html [DW 22.12.2015].
  30. http://umk.pl/en/erasmus/courses/offer_14_15/Faculty_of_Languages_30_ECTS_courses.pdf [DW 21.12.2015].
  31. http://pixabay.com/pl/photos/superhero [DW 27.12.2015].