Cufture, communicat ion andinte ra ct io n

1 . 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Tr ' , BooK rs TNTENDED as an academic reference forundergraduate and graduate students and interdisciplinary

..r."r.h.rs whodo not.have specialised knowledge of linguistics. K.y.orr.epts relevanr toan understanding ,rf language issues in intercultural communication arej;1x,ffi ,ffi :,-;i"m::ffffi:::.*:rffi **i:;l'; :research conducted by the authors is exemplified and explained,lrro.rgho,r,

the book so that students can becom. f"-ili", with the i"y ,.r."rch i'n thisfield is reported and can foilow up on the ideas presented.An understanding of interculiural

.o-rn.rni.ation is crucially relatedto an understandi5_ gf the ways in which the spoken and *ritt.r, wordmay be interpreted differentially, depending or, ,h. contexr. The messagereceived is not alwa,ys the one intenied by ih. speaker or the writer. Thisbook systematically examines socio.,rlt,rr"l and pragmatic aspects of thelanguage context, and discusses a wide range oi'f".,orc that contributeto the interpretation of.language in contexr. Th. authors argue ,h",

"r,understanding of h.w these principles interact in a given lariguage, andin intercultural communication, is crucial to the d.,r.lopm..r,"ofir,r,,r"lunderstanding in the global world..

Although speaker:s engaged in intercultural communication q,picallychoose a single language i'which ro communicate, individuals rypicallybring their own soci.ocultural expectations of language to the encounrer.Speakers' expectations shape th.i.rt.rpretation of meaning in a variety ofways. Tc,_ manage intercultural inter*.iion effectively, ,p.#.r,

"..J r" u.aware o{t the inhere't norms of their own speech practices, rhe ways in

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A C R O S S C U L T U R E S

which norms vary depending on situational factors and the ways in whichspeakers from other language backgrounds may have different expectarionsof language usage and behaviour.

Representative research methodologies are exemplified throughout thebook, although there is no single chapter devoted ro methodology.

1 . 2 C U L T U R E . C O M M U N I C A T I O N A N DI N T E R C U L T U R A L I N T E R A C T I O N

Some of the key ideas relating to the study of cuiture, communication andintercultural communication are presented here and developed in moredetail in each chapter.

C U L T U R EThe term culture, as we will be using it, refers to the customs and expecta-tions of a particular group of people, particularly as it affects their languageuse.

The term culture has a wide range of meanings today, because it hasactually changed in meaning over time. Goddard (2005:53 ff.) providesan excellent account of some of these changes. In its earliest English uses,cuhurewas a noun of process, referring to the tending of crops or animals.This meaning (roughly'cultivating') is found in words such as agricuhure,horticuhureand uiuicuhure.In the sixteenth century cuhurebegan to be usedabout'cultivating' the human body through training, and later about'cul-tivating' the non-physical aspects of a person. In the nineteenth century themeaningwas broadened to include the general state ofhuman intellectual,spiritual and aesthetic development (roughly comparable to 'civilisation'),giving rise to the 'artistic works and practices' meaning that which is associ-atedwith music, literature, painting, theatre and film. Goddard reports thatthe 'anthropological' usage of culture was introduced into English by Tylorin the la.te nineteenth century in his book Primitiue Cuhure. Tylor definedculture as 'that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,mords, law; custom and other capabiiities and habits acquired by manas a mernber of a sociery' (Tylor 1 871 : 1).

Godclard (2005:58) makes the point that the 'anthropological' useqypically related to people living in 'other places'; however, in contempo-rary expressions such as louth cuhure, gay cubure, kid cubure the principleof differentiation has shifted entirely to the notion of different 'kinds of

C U L T U R E & C O M M U N I C A T I O N

people'. Even so, 'Iylor's definition of culture seems to us to still be vervrelevant.

J

Research on intcrcultural communication often relates to cultural groupsar the level of nations and national languages; however, we need to beaware that many ,cf the major languages of th. world such as German,English, Spanish and Arabic are spoken by people of different nationalities,often in geographi,cally distant areas and that each national variery of thesepluricentric languages will have at least some of its own codified norms(Clyne 1992; ClynLe, Fernandez & Muh r 2003).

Research on cross-cultural communication rypically compares com-munication practices of one languagelcultural group with another, whilesrudies; on intercultural communication focus on features of theshared communica.tion berween speakers from different language/culturalbackgrounds.

Mol;t modern research on cross-cuitural and intercultural communica-tion talkes into accc,unt that communication is affected by differenr aspecrsof the context, including cultural expectations, social relations and thepurpose of the cornmunication.

D I R E C T N E S S A N D I N D I R E C T N E S SAt the level of senrence grammar, mappings berween one language andanothe.r can be relatively straightforward; however, even with ri*pl. ,..r-tences, the communication context can influence the interpretation of anuttefance.

Grice (1975) and Searle (1969, 1975) were among the first researchersro grapple with the difference beween direct and indirec messages. They.identified the importance of context to the interpretation of meaning,:rnd examined the 'way in which inferences can be drawn. Such

"rr"lyri,:Ls even more important for intercultural communication because differentr;ociocultural expectations may be involved. Grice's work has been criti-r:ised, more recently; for its anglocentric approach (e.g. Clyne rgg7, 1994;\Tierzbicka 199r, 1994a). Social interaction, cultural norms and numer-ous environmental lLctors need to be taken into account when interpretingconversational implicature (Levinson 1 983: 127).

Key ideas relating to the study of conversational implicature, of howpeople determine the literal andlor non-literal meaning of an urterance in aparticular context, and the theory ofspeech acts, are examined in Chapter 2,eLlong with modifiqrtions necessary to make this rype of analysi, ,J.l.".r,to interr:ultural corxirnuflication.

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A C R O 5 5 C U L T U R E S

P O L I T E N E S SThe reiationship beween directness aqd indirectness and politeness isexamined first in a general way, and stlbsequently using examples fromcross-cultural research on speech acts and politeness._

Different languages have different w4rs of marking politeness. peoplefrom some cultures tend to favour directness, while people from orhercultures favour less directness. Even so, directness maF also vary in relationto social context. The relationship between directness and politeness asexamined by Blum-Kulka (1 987:I33 ff.) illustrates that while these notionsmay be related, they are not one and the same. This field of research suggesrsthat politeness may be better defined as doing what is approprlate in

"

girr.r,cultural context. Directness and politeness are examined in Chapter 3,drawing particularly on the research paradigms of Brown and Levinson(I9 87), Goffman (19 5 5, 19 57), Ehlich (1992), Fraser ( 1 9 90) for politenessand face, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989) and'Wierzbicka (2003)for cross-cultural research on speech acts, and the research of Ide (1989,1990), Matsumoto (1988, 1989), Meien (1995a,b) and \fatts, Ide andEhlich (1992) who challenge the universa,lity of aspects of these paradigms.The research of \Tierzbicka (1991,2003) and Sharifian (2004) providesfurther insight into the ways courtesy and respecr can be conveyed indifferent languages.

S P E E C H A C T S A N D P O L I T E N E S SA C R O S S C U L T U R E S

Speech acts, such as requesrs, may differ according to cultural preferencesfor directness or indirectness. For example, in the case where a person wanrsa favour from another person, the preferred strategy may be to hint and talkabout the topic (Richards & Sukwiwat 1983). In another cultural conrexr,it may be more appropriate to ask directly" In some cultures it is acceptablefor the person asked not to respond verbally but to simply carry out therequested action. The growing body of research on the inter-relatednessbetween direct and indirect speech acts and politeness in different cul-tural contexts is examined in Chapter 4,begtnning with the seminal workof the CCSARP project (Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Parrerns,Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989), which is based on discourse comple-tion tests conducted with native speakers of eight languages. Cross-culturalvariation of requests, complaints, apologies, acceptances of apologies andcompliments are exemplified, drawing on rhe work of House and Kasper

C U L T U R E & C O M M U N I C A T I O N

(1981), Cohen and Olshtain (1981), Blum-Kulkp (1987), Suszczyiska(1999), Cly". (1994), Cordella (1990), Smith (19?2), Sugimoto (1998),Hobbs (2003) and \Wierzbicka (2003).

C O N V E R S A T I O N SPeople from different cultural backgrounds may have differenr expecra-tions of conversation. Clyne and Platt (1990) poinl out that interculturalcommunication conflict can develop where one pafrF considers the otherto be either offensively forward or arrogantly uncoqperative. Routines forgreetingand leave-taking can vary considerably from culture ro cuhure,ras

-can the use of laughter and expectations concerning the organisation'ofspeaker turns. Preferences for different communication channels (e.g. face-to-face communication versus the use of the telephone or email) also differbetween different cultures and sub-cultures, as do the appropriate length ofa speaker's turn in conversation and attitudes to intErruptions and silence.These features of conversarion are examined in Chapter 5, drawing par-ticularly on the research paradigms of Schegloff (1958, I9B2), Schegloffand Sacks (1973), Sacks, SchegloffandJefferson(1974), Albert and Kessler(I97 6, I97 B) for turn-taking, adj acency pairs, back-qhannelling and repeti-tion, and exemplified by the research of Goddard (1977), Clark and French(1981) and Sifianou (1989) on telephone use in different cultures, andGavioli (1995) on the function of laughter in different cultural contexts.Intercultural conversation is exemplified from research in the Australianworkplace from Clyne (L994) and B6al (1992) and from Kjaerbeck (1998)from intercultural business negoriation in Mexican and Danish.

P O W E R A N D S T E R E O T Y P I N GStereoryping is the process by which all members of a group are asserted tohave the characteristics attributed to the whole group (Scollon & Scollon200I:168). \7e need to remernber that no individuan member of a group isthe embodiment of his or her group's characteristics, Furthermore, peoplebelong to a multitude of different sub-groups and thus cannot be definedby their membership to any one particular group. Cultural differences inthe concept of self and others, and related perceptions of power are alsoimportant in understanding the social expectations and conventions whichunderlie language use. They are also used to interpre0linguistic meaning ina given interaction. However, any categorisation of a group results in somelevel of stereoryping (El-Dash & Busnardo 2001)" Thus, while linking

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A C R O S S C U L T U R E S

certain characteristics to different cultures serves as a useful guide, suchcategorisations may lead to some level of overgeneralisation.

These topics are examined in Chapter 6, drawing particularly on thework of Fairclough (1989, 2000), Fairclough and \fodak (1997), Giddens(1982, 1993), Gottlieb (2006), Hofstede (1980, 1983, l99I), Pennycook(2001) and van Di;k (1987, 1996).

N A M I N G A N D A D D R E S S I N G

Modes of address and naming systems vary greatly from culture to culture.For example, among Sikh Indians, men and women may have similar'given' names and sex is marked by the use of 'Singh' for males and 'Kaur'for females. However, in Australia, 'Singh' has been adopted as a surnameby Sikh Indians (males), and has in some cases been passed on as the familysurname for females as well as males in the subsequent generation. There areso many naming systems that Clyne and Platt (1990) suggest that peopleneed to be alert, to enquire and not to be surprised about differences whenthey encounter people from different cultural groups.

The variery of naming practices available to identify individuals in asociery are examined in Chapter 7, drawrng on the research paradigms ofBraun (1988), Brown and Gilman (1950), Geertz (1976) and Goffman(1968), which show how different forms of address can contribute to aperson's sense of identity and the relationship berween the individual andtheir social contexr.

Brown and Gilmank (1960) paper is used to illustrate the ways in whichsecond- and third-person pronoun forms can be used to signal familiarityand formaliry/deference in some Indo-EuroPean languages. The ways inwhich nouns and pronouns of address, kinship terms, and honorifics areused as part of complex systems of familiariry respect and deference indifferent languages are exemplified through the research of Suzuki (1976)and Koyama (1992) for Japanese, Geertz (1976) and Koentjaraningrat(1989) for Javanese, as well as Hvoslef (2001) for the language of theKyrgyz Republic, one of the fifteen new states after the dissolution of theSoviet Union.

O R G A N I S A T I O N O F W R I T T E N D I S C O U R S EVariation in the organisation of writing across cultures has been studiedfrom a cross-linguistic perspective, particularly over the last two decades.Differences of expectation with regard to the appropriateness of topicsand the sequence of topics may differ across cultures. In different cultures

C U L T U R E & C O M M U N I C A T I O N

PeoPle may place more weight on verbal or written undertakings. Textsand argumenrs can be organised in difiFerent ways. There -"y b. a pref-erence for more or less formally oriented texts. Some culrures, such as theEnglish culture, favour presenting ideas in a linear progression, while inother cultures the presentation of ideas may be more 'Jigressive' or tendtowards different rhythms, such as symmerry or parallelism. The issues ofcultural differences in the organisation of ideas and written d.iscourse asobserved by Kaplan (1972, 1988) and exemplified by Hinds (1980) forJapanese, Eggington (1987) for Korean, Kirkpatrick (1991) for Mandarinletters of request, Ostler (19s7) forArabic prose, and Clyne (1980, r9B7)and Clyne and lGeutz (1957) for English and German are further examinedin Chapter 8.

I N T E R C U L T U R A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N I NP R O F E S S I O N A L A N D W O R K P L A C EC O N T E X T S

One important intercultural communication issue in professional andworkpiace contexts is the practice of translating and interpreting, whichneeds to be sensitive to most of the issues discussed thus far in this book.Translators face a particular chalienge ro balance pragmatic equivalenceand impartialiry. Pragmatic equivalence is sensitive to the cultural and lin-guistic norms of the respective languages. Some central issues relating tothe practice of translating and interpreting (e.g. Viddowson L97B; Larson1984) are examined in Chapter 9, along with some examples of translationchallenges in advertising.

The medical and legal professions, which rely heavily on question andanswer sequences, are also particularly problematic for intercultural com-munication, whether or not interpreters are involved. Different culruralnorms may pertain to the way quesrions and answers are posed, and thereare also other issues that are specific to each of these professions. These arediscussed with reference to the research of Davidson (2000), a case studyof medical interpreting in the United States, and Pauwels, D'Argaville andEades (1992) relating to the provision of evidence byAustralian Aboriginalclients in the courrroom.

Different cultural expectations may also shape the behaviour and inter-pretation of different parties engaged in intercultural business nego-tiation. This is also exemplified in Chapter 9 with reference studiesreported by Marriott (1990) for aJapanese-Australian business encounrer,and by Spencer-Oatey and Xirg (2003) for a Chinese-British businessencounter.

C O M M U N I C A T I O N A C R O S S C U L T U R E S

T O W A R D S S U C C E S S F U L I N T E R C U L T U R A LC O M M U N I C A T I O N

Research on spoken discourse in the Australian multicultural workplace byMonash researchers (e.g. Clyne 1994; Bowe 1995; Neil 1996) involvingparticipants from different cultures who are engaged in natural communi-cation in a language that is not a first language to any of the speakers, hasshown that individuals can develop ways to construct a'common ground.,and avoid many of the problems inherent to intercultural communica-tion. The research findings of Bowe's study of automotive manufacturingworkers, and of Neil s (1995) study of hospital ancillary stafi reported inChapter 10, illustrate that speakers involved in intercultural communica-tion on adatly basis find ways to use language creatively and collaborativelyto ensure that the intended message is received and that potential miscom-munication is circumvented.

Giles' (1977:322) notion of accommodation, and Sharifiant notion ofconceptual renegotiation (Sharifian forthcoming), are also examined toillustrate dimensions of the way in which individuals can adapt to thechallenges of intercultural communicarion.

The book concludes with some cautious optimism. Although, inthe early stages, individuals may approach intercultural communitationthrough the ethnocentric prism of their own immediate culture and mis-read the intentions of their intercultural communication parrners, as theybecome more aware of the ways in which sociocultural conventions shapeianguage use, individuals may be more able to understand interculturalcommunication and communicate more effectively.

S U G G E S T E D F U R T H E R R E A D I N GGoddard, C. 2005 'The lexical semantics of cuhure'. Language Sciences

no.27, pp.51-73.Neil, D. 1996 Collaboration

Mu bi cu bura I Aus tra li anChapter 2,pp.27-58.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. tWong 200r Intercubural Communication: A Dis-

in Intercubural Discourse: Examples from aWorkplace. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,

course Approach 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 7, pp. 122-37 .