作者：彭珺
　　【Abstract】In China， the importance of intercultural education is fully recognized by scholars and teachers for languages teaching. However， practitioners are overwhelmed by the contested definitions of intercultural competences. Moreover， English teachers are unconsciously falling into the ideological pitfall. Furthermore， the importance of the identities involved in teaching is ignored by English teachers.
　　【Key words】intercultural education; interculturality; intercultural competences; Chinese English teachers
　　Introduction
　　On the one hand， due to the link between languages and cultures， enhancing students’ intercultural communication competence is one of the main objectives of college English teaching in China （Ge & Wang， 2016）. Plenty of research has studied on how to improve students’ IC in English teaching （Hu & Gao， 1997; Wen， 1999; Sun， 2016; Ge & Wang， 2016）. Though many English teachers have recognized the importance of IC， it is still a mystery to most English teachers due to the contested definitions of IC.
　　1. contested IC definitions
　　The contested definitions of intercultural competences are the first dilemma that is faced by plenty of teaching practitioners. Though the concept of intercultural competence is the main element in various fields of research， the discussion between the concept of intercultural competence and intercultural communication competence （ICC） is continuously going. Some researchers point out that intercultural competence is the equivalence of intercultural communication competence （eg. Spitzberg， 1994）. Others claim that intercultural competence is a subdivision of intercultural communication competence （eg. Byram，， 1997; Wen， 1999） while the others who have contradicted this view state that intercultural competence intercultural communication competence is one part of intercultural competence which is comprised by many factors （eg. Kotthoff & Spencer- Oatey， 2000）. The conceptualizations of IC or ICC enrich the understanding of intercultural communication as well as the research of intercultural competence.
　　Most scholars agree that IC has three dimensions： knowledge， attitudes， and skills， or， the alternative terms referred to the three dimensions （see， Alred & Byram， 2002; Chen and Starosta， 1998; Jia， 1997; Yang & Zhuang， 2007; Ge & Wang， 2016）. Knowledge generally refers to the traditions， values， religions， political systems and so on from the host cultures. Attitudes often relate to being global-minded （Yang & Zhuang， 2007）， to respect other cultures （Sun， 2016） and to alert one’s own perspective to adequately understand and adapt to the demands of the host culture. Skills are specified to the communicative strategies which can lead to effective and appropriate communication （Dodd， 2006; Wang， 2016; Sun， 2016）. On the one hand， the simple categorization of IC into knowledge， attitudes， and skills dimensions can help researchers to assess the competences in an easy and ‘objective’ way.