That this special issue has seen the light of day is primarily due to the vision of Todd Sandel, the outgoing editor of the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, who readily identified the relative lack of visibility of South Asia focused intercultural communication research, suggested a special issue, and offered us total editorial discretion over the details. Thanks are also due, in equal part, to the many colleagues and peers who reviewed the articles that comprised this issue. We are proud to have had the opportunity to edit this special issue focused on intercultural research from/on South Asia. In the call for papers for this issue, we asked potential contributors to “showcase the multiple, contested and conflicting understandings around culture, identity, and power that inhabit the South Asian context.” One of our primary goals for this special issue is complicating and broadening the academic discourse on South Asia. This was a primary objective in selecting the articles that comprise this issue. As we explain below, the six articles respond to this call in important and intersecting ways. If critical intercultural studies in Communication refers to a set of practices that explore how “power, context, socio-economic relations, and historical/structural forces [constitute] and shape culture and intercultural encounters, relationships and contexts” (Halualani & Nakayama, 2013, p. 2), then the broad rationale of this issue is to crystallize these practices within the South Asian context. The point, of course, is not to engender some sort of fundamental South Asian exceptionalism, but to contemplate on how the abovementioned set of practices are manifest within that region. Here, we recognize that we stand on the shoulders of scholars before us – this move to de-parochialize the “inter” in intercultural communication has a long and storied history, and we recognize the work of the many scholars in our discipline that have allowed for the articulation of what we are attempting here. But first, a bit of context on terminology – the terms “Indian subcontinent” (or simply, “subcontinent”) and “South Asia” are often used interchangeably to refer to the region that corresponds to the nation-states of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, the difference between the terms is worth pause – the Indian subcontinent is primarily a geological term (referencing the peninsula created from the collision between Indian and Asian tectonic plates in the Cenozoic era), while South Asia is used in a political sense to refer to the contemporary nationstates that comprise the region and the relationships among them – consider the multilateral South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, or SAARC, as an exemplar for this

中文翻译：

---

次大陆说：来自/关于南亚的跨文化交流观点

该特刊之所以能见诸日，主要是因为国际和跨文化传播杂志即将卸任的编辑托德·桑德尔（Todd Sandel）的远见，他很容易确定南亚为中心的跨文化传播研究相对缺乏知名度。特刊，并为我们提供了有关细节的完全编辑自由裁量权。同样也要感谢许多同行和同行审阅了构成此问题的文章。我们很荣幸能有机会编辑此期特刊，重点是来自南亚/跨南亚的跨文化研究。在针对该问题的论文征集中，我们要求潜在的贡献者“展示在南亚背景下对文化，身份和权力的多重，有争议和冲突的理解。我们针对此特刊的主要目标之一是使关于南亚的学术讨论更加复杂和广泛。这是选择构成此问题的文章的主要目的。正如我们在下面解释的那样，六篇文章以重要且交叉的方式回应了这一呼吁。如果传播学中的重要跨文化研究涉及一组实践，这些实践将探索“力量，背景，社会经济关系以及历史/结构力量[构成]并塑造文化和跨文化相遇，关系和背景”（Halualani和Nakayama，2013年） （第2页），那么此问题的广泛原理是在南亚范围内具体化这些做法。当然，重点不是要引起某种基本的南亚例外主义，但要考虑在该地区如何体现上述一系列实践。在这里，我们认识到我们站在我们前面的学者的肩膀上–消除跨文化交流中的“国际人”的偏颇之举有着悠久而悠久的历史，并且我们认识到我们学科中许多学者的工作使得阐明我们在此所做的尝试。但首先，在术语上有一些上下文-“印度次大陆”（或简称为“次大陆”）和“南亚”一词经常互换使用，指的是与阿富汗，孟加拉国，不丹，印度，马尔代夫，缅甸，尼泊尔，巴基斯坦和斯里兰卡。然而，