I.A. Bobykina, V.S. MukharkinaAbstract
In present-day globalized world there is a distinct increase of students studying abroad. This study explores how relations between home and host cultures affect identities and behaviors of the students studying abroad during their adaptation in the high school context. The study promotes the understanding of social support in cross-cultural situation as a building of the third culture with the potential for multicultural identities and adaptive behavior as a self-development mechanism. The results contribute to cross-cultural adaptation literature.
Keywords: adaptation, social support, self-development, multicultural identity
IntroductionThe focus on competences in Higher Linguistics Education presented the objective to develop each student as a person who can show empathy and mutual respect in cross-cultural communication and also adapt to multicultural society just as well. Besides, the system of students’ professional training at the university could be seen as a socially determined communicative environment, which can provide the students with either professional growth or improvement of their social adaptation skills.

The context of present-day globalization established a flourishing environment for people of different cultural background to build the unique third culture with new cultural norms and new multicultural identities.

Problem Statement
As modern society shapes into more globalised one, a multitude of cultures begin to influence the development of personalities leading to a change of national and cultural identity of people. Alongside with that, new cross-cultural behavioral and cognitive patterns of interaction become to form the basis of successful cultural adaptation. As noted by A. Appadurai, this means that people now possess several identities that can’t be detached cultural dimensions anymore, therefore they become more hybridized, flexible and versatile. (Appadurai, 1996).However, traditional higher education, as well as almost all of modern learning theories leave out to account students’ peculiarities of intercultural thinking and behavior. As a result of such approach the number of military conflicts based on interethnic violence are still rising. There are still many occasions of the young people behaving disharmoniously and asocially in multicultural setting.
As our work experience have shown, Russian universities are in desperate need of implementation of educational strategies which can help a teacher to create a course sequence that, firstly, would be personalized to students’ cultural identity; secondly, would realize students’ adaptive behavior strategy as a mechanism of self-development; thirdly, would implement modern approaches to education (competence approach, constructivist approach etc.); finally, would meet the requirements of Russian higher education system.

Among all these points we see the study of students’ adaptive behavior and social support as the most topical issues. By social support we understand “verbal and nonverbal communication … that reduces uncertainty about the situation, the self, the other, or the relationship, and functions to enhance a perception of personal control in one’s life experience” (Albrecht &Adelman, 1987, p. 19)
Not least important is intra-group interactions between people of different cultural backgrounds, specifically visitors, i.e. foreign citizens who is temporarily staying in another country. This group in particular faces the hardships of being in foreign country, because the time needed to adapt to the cultural norms and values of a host culture is limited. Students who leave to study abroad also belong to this risk group. Their degree of adaptation to a new cultural environment depends entirely on the level of their social adaptation competence (skill?), which includes empathy, self-development skills and readiness to cross-cultural communication.

Thus modern academic society foregrounds the need to support students psychologically and pedagogically during the process of their social adaptation competence being shaped. This competence supports the development of self-regulation and self-development of the student’s personality. The academics researching intercultural communication in the field of psychology and pedagogy confirm the need to study the issues of multiculturalism, multicultural adaptation, hybridized identity, the creation of a model of the third culture and self-development of the individual (Chen, 2015; Sobre-Denton, 2015;Qadeer, 2016;Sokolsky, 2016; Korneev, 2014; Streltsova, 2014; GlickSchiller, 2015; Rodrigo-Alsina&Medina –Bravo, 2016).

Research questionsIn order to address the problem adequately, it is essential to identify the perception models of home and host culture, because they directly influence thinking and behavior.
For instance, students unconsciously realize behavior patterns that are products of culture. An individual is unable to identify the process of percepting another culture on their own, because this process is carried out at a subconscious level and manifests itself only in contacts with other cultures, when peculiar, unusual situations occur.

As the researchers note, personal development and personal becoming of each student arise from interaction with the surrounding world, where elements of home and host culture are intertwined, selected and integrated with elements of the surroundings.

This brings up two questions. The first is about interaction models between home and host culture: what kinds of interaction models can be distinguished? And the second is: how do these models affect the student’s adaptive behavior?
Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study was to analyze relations between home and host cultures, based on looking into the different cultural identities. The differentials of such cultural features as identity and stereotyping are analyzed as factors influencing the behaviors of the students studying abroad during their adaptation in the high school context. The results of the study revealed theoretical models that allow to observe how cross-cultural factors influence students’ behavior. In addition, the study is designed to understand social support in cross-cultural situation.
Research methodsThe current study uses Casmir´s third culture theory as a framework to explore social support during adaptation of the university students in multicultural groups. According to Casmir, third cultur? is “… the construction of a mutually beneficial interactive environment in which individuals from two (or more) different cultures can function in a way beneficial to all involved” (Casmir, 1997, p. 92). This theory represents an alternative model as a unique socially determined communicative space that is created when individuals from different cultures form hybrid identities, cognitive schemas, patterns of behavior, and relationships within a new cultural context (Sobre-Denton, 2017). As such, we apply this model to educational context to provide support in developing students’ multicultural identities and their mechanism of self-development during adaptation processes in today’s globalized world. Thus, the current research is also based on constructive approach to social support to the students within the dynamics of cross-cultural relationship-building in educational discourses.

During communication people tend to perceive and judge each other from point of view of their home culture and consciously (or unconsciously) make assumptions based of their previous experience.

Alongside with this, the representatives of different cultures possess different experience of cross-cultural communication. As the touchstone of behavior and communication people tend to regard both innate and acquired factors, e.g. cultural stereotypes, that we gain through socialization from the moment when an individual starts identifying with a particular culture and finds its own level in it. By the presence of basic stereotypes core of knowledge that is repeated in the process of socialization of an individual in a particular society, we determine belonging to a particular culture.

Staying inside the boundaries of one’s own culture can create an illusion that the world view, the lifestyle, etc. of this particular culture is the only one possible and acceptable. All peoples tend to recognize their home culture as natural and true, see the customs of their society as universal and believe that their norms and values are absolutely right.
However when encountering the representatives of other cultures, the discrepancies between cultural phenomena of one’s own culture and the foreign become more evident. The ethnocentric evaluation of home culture makes it possible to unconsciously separate the bearers of one’s culture from another’s. Consequently, the contacts between different cultures tend to display the opposition known as “Us” and “Them”.

The concept of “Our” implies surrounding world phenomena, that are characterized by an individual as familiar, safe, habitual, self-evident.

The opposite concept is “Their” that is associated with various notions: outworld, foreign, beyond the borders of home culture; peculiar, anomalous, contrasting with the common and usual; unidentified, supernatural and inaccessible to knowledge. “Their” is also connected with interaction and communication.

The comprehension of the concept of “Our” inevitably touches upon the problems of cultural identity, the main point of which is the individual’s conscious acceptance of corresponding cultural norms and patterns of behavior, values and language, the understanding of one’s self from the standpoint of those cultural characteristics that are accepted in a given society, in self-identification with the cultural examples of this particular society.

Cultural identity has a decisive influence on the process of cross-cultural communication. It is comprised of a set of certain long-standing qualities, due to which particular cultural phenomena or people can evoke a feeling of sympathy or antipathy. According to this, the communicant chooses the appropriate type and style of communication. Cultural identity performs a dual function: on the one hand, it helps the communicants to form a decided opinion on ??each other, predict each other’s behavior reciprocally, that is, to lighten up the communication. On the other hand, because of cultural identity’s restrictive nature, in the communication process may arise confrontations and conflicts.

According to R. Nestvogel, the relations between home culture and culture can be cast into three models. The first model represents a flexible transition from home culture to host culture and vice versa. The second model demonstrates a strict boundary as an unambiguous division into “Our” and “Their”. The third model displays the mutual acceptance of cultures, their consolidation.

Let’s present the models of the relations between home and host cultures in the form of schemes.


Figure 1. Home culture, host culture (“????”, “?????” ? “?????”)

Figure 2. Division between home culture and host culture
Figure 3. Overlapping space=Multi-culture= third culture
These models represent the patterns of thinking, behavior, emotional state which, in a certain way influence the view of one’s home and host culture. These models of the relations between “Our” and “Their” represent the natural biophysical processes that are necessary for life, for example, eating or satisfying one’s natural needs. But even at this level, the simplest procedures (e.g. personal hygiene, food consumption, etc.) has culturally specific character. The presented models explain the process of student’s adaptation as a process of self-development in interrelation with the socially conditioned social environment of another culture.

Conclusion?????? “????” ? “?????” ? “?????” ? “?????” ???????????? ????????? ?????????. ???? ???? ?? ?????????????????? ????, ???? ?????????, ? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????, ????? ??????????, ????????? ? ?????????? ???????????, ???????????, ????????????, ????????? ??????????? ????????? ????? “?????” ? “?????” ??????????. ?? ?????????? ???? ??????? “????” ? “?????” ?????????? ????? ?????????, ??? ???????????, ??? ? ?????????, ???????? ????? ?????, ??????? ??????????? ???? ??? “????” ???? ??? “?????”. ????????? ????? “?????” ? “?????” ?????????? ????????, ????? ???????, ??????????????, ???????, ???????????? ???????????? ? ???????????? ??????????. ?????? ? ???????????? “??????” ? “??????” ?????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????????. ?? ??????? ? ????????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????, ??? ?????, ??????????????, ???????, ???????? ??? ???? ????. ?????????? ????? ??? ? ??????????? “??????” ? “??????” ????????? ? ?????????. ??? “???? ? ?????” ? “???? ????? ?????” “??????” ? “??????”, ????????????, ?? ???????? ?????????????????? ????????, ? “?????????????????? ??”????????”, ?????????? ???????? ???-?? ???????, ??? ??? ?????????????? ? ????? ??????? ???????. ????? ????? ?????????? ???????????, ??????? ????????? ?? ???????????-?????????? ?????????????? ????????? “???????” ? “???????”. ? ????????, ?????? ?????? ? ???????????? ?? “??????”. ???????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????????????? ???????????. ????????????? ?????????? ????, ????? ????????? ??? ????? “??????”: “?????” ?????? “??????”, ????????????? ? ???????????? ??????????? ?????????, ? “?????” ??? “??????”, ????????????? ? ??? ???????? ?????????. ??????? “?????” ?????????? ?? ??????????? “??????”. ?????????? “?????” ????????? ?? ????? ????????????, ? ????, ??? ?? ?? ?????, ?? ???, ??????? ??? “???????? ?????” ???????? ?? ??? ???? “????”. ??? ???? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????. ? ????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ????????????????? ????????.

????????? ? ???????????? ?????? ??????. ???? ?????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????? ????? “?????” ? “?????”. ???? ??????????? ?????????, ???????? ??, ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ???????????. “?????” ???????????? ??? ????? ??????, ?????????? ?????????????, ?????????, ?????????????. ? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ????? ????? ? ?????, ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ????? ?????????? ???????????? “??? – ???”- ???????? ? ?? ?????????????? ????????????. ? ?????? ?????? “?????” ??????? ????????, ???????? ?? ??, ??? ???????????? ??????? ????? ??????????? ??????????????, ? ????? ? ???????????-??????????? ?????????, ?????????? ?? ??????????, ?????????????, ????????? ???????????.

?????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????????? ??????, ???????????? “??????” ? “?????”. ??????????? ?????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??????????? ???????????? ???????. ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ????????????????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????? ?????.

???????? ????????? ????, ??????????, ??? ?????????? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ? ????????? ?????????? “??????-??????” ? ???????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ???????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?? ??????????? ??????.

???? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ??????????? ????? ????? ? ?????? ?????????, ? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????????, ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ? ???????? ????????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????? ? ????????? ?????????????. It is hoped that future cross-cultural study incorporates empirical testing of the suggested method building third culture on the sample of cross-cultural students while studying at university Bachelor and Master educational programs.

Albrecht, T.L. ; Adelman, M.B. (1987) Communicating social support: A theoretical perspective. In T.L. Albrecht, M.B. Adelman, and Associates (Eds.), Communicating social support (pp. 18-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Casmir, F.L.(1997) Ethnics in intercultural and international communication. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, G.M. (2015) Theorizing global community as cultural home in the new century. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 73-81.

Nestvogel, R.”Fremdes” oder “Eigenes”? Freiräume zwischen Ausgrenzung und Vereinnahmung// Ladmiral Jean-Rene, Lipiansky Edmond Marc Interkulturelle Kommunikation.- Frankfurt/Main, Campus-Verlag, 2000.- C.27-59.

Qadeer, M., (2016). Multicultural cities : Toronto, New York, and Los Angeles. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press.

Sokolsky, M. (2016). Broad is my naitive land: Repertoires and regimes of migration in Russian´s twentieth century. Journal of Social History. First published online March 3, 2016 (3 pages). Doi:, O. (2014) Exchainging knowledge, enchanging capacities, developing mechanism: IOM´s role in the implementation of the EU-Russia readmission agreement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 888-904.

Streltsova, Y. (2014). The adaptation of immigrants in Russia: The language aspect. Rusian Politics ; Law, 52, 24-41.

Glick Schiller, N. (2015). Explantory frameworks in transnational migration studies: The missing multi-scalar global perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38, 2275-2282.

Sobre-Denton, M. (2017) Multicultural third culture building: A case study of a multicultural social support group. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 45.?????????????????????doi??????.

Rodrigo-Alsina, M.; Medina –Bravo P. (2016) A reflection on identities, culture models and Power. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 40.


I'm Alfred!

We can help in obtaining an essay which suits your individual requirements. What do you think?

Check it out