A Comment on Laurie Grobman's “Beyond Internationalization: Multicultural Education in the Professional Writing Contact Zone”

A Critique of Hall's Contexting Model

“…For example, HC language devices in American culture, such as the use of puns, idioms, metaphors, humor, and hyperbole, are often pointed out in IBTC literature that discusses American culture in isolation but not in literature that contrasts it with HC cultures. Furthermore, LC cultures are often advised to avoid using such HC communication patterns by using simplified language with less nuance and by avoiding using too much humor when dealing with HC cultures (DeVoss et al, 2002;Griffin, 2004;Horton, 1993;Serebryakova-Collins, 1998;Thrush, 2000). Such treatment of HC behavior in LC cultures interferes with a balanced discussion of the contrasts between cultures.…”

Meeting the Challenges of Globalization

“…Professional communication scholars have already begun reexamining the uses of the term culture. Grobman (1999Grobman ( , 2000 and Thrush (2000), for example, observed that the particularistic approach reifies national identity and thus ignores the complexity of identities in professional communication. Similarly, Varner (2001) urged professional communicators to overcome "static and traditional views of culture" (p. 101).…”

“…To account for the interactions between local and global discourse, professional communicators may also need to question traditional distinctions between national, international, and intercultural professional communication. As Grobman (1999Grobman ( , 2000 and Thrush (2000) pointed out, traditional distinctions between intercultural and international professional communication may not help us account for the complexity of diversity. With a globalization context involving increased mobility, migration, flexible citizenship, and hybrid identities, we may indeed need to ask what these traditional distinctions allow us to see, what they preclude from view, and what assumptions they rest on.…”