Cufture c,o m m u n i c a t i a o nd inte ractio n

1.1

INTRODUCTION

research conducted by the authorsis exemplified and explained,lrro.rgho,r, the book so that students canbecom.f"-ili", with the i"y ,.r."rch i'n this field is reportedand can foilow up on the ideas presented. An understanding of interculiural .o-rn.rni.ation is crucially related to an understandi5_gf the ways in which the spoken and *ritt.r, word may be interpreteddifferentially, dependingor, ,h. contexr.The message received is not alwa,ys the one intenied by ih. speaker or the writer. This book systematically examines socio.,rlt,rr"l and pragmaticaspects of the language context, and discusses a wide range oi'f".,orc that contribute to the interpretationof.language in contexr.Th. authorsargue,h", understanding of h.w theseprinciplesinteract in a given lariguage, "r, and in interculturalcommunication,is crucialto the d.,r.lopm..r,"ofir,r,,r"l understanding in the globalworld. Although speaker:s engaged in intercultural communication q,pically . choose a singlelanguage i'which ro communicate, individualsrypically bring their own soci.ocultural expectations of language to the encounrer. Speakers' expectations shape th.i.rt.rpretation of meaningin a varietyof ways.Tc,_ manageintercultural inter*.iion effectively, ,p.#.r, r" u. awareo{tthe inhere't norms of their own speech "..J practices, rhe waysin

j;1x,ffi ,ffi :,-;i"m::ffffi:::.*:rffi **i:;l'; :

T r', B o o K r s TNTENDED as an academ ic r efer ence for undergraduateand graduatestudentsand interdisciplinary ..r."r.h.rs who do not.have specialised knowledge of linguistics. K.y.orr.epts relevanr to an understanding ,rf language issuesin intercultural communication are

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

which normsvary depending on situationalfactorsand the waysin which from otherlanguage speakers backgrounds may havedifferentexpectarions of language usage and behaviour. Representative research methodologies are exemplified throughout the book, althoughthereis no singlechapterdevotedro methodology.

1.2

C U L T U R EC . OMMUNICATION AND I N T ER C UL T UR A L I N T ER A C T IO N

Some of the key ideasrelating to the study of cuiture, communication and intercultural communication are presented here and developed in more detail in each chapter.

CULTURE
The term culture, aswe will be using it, refersto the customs and expectations of a particular group of people, particularly asit affectstheir language use. The term culture has a wide range of meanings today, becauseit has actually changed in meaning over time. Goddard (2005:53 ff.) provides an excellent account of some of these changes.In its earliestEnglish uses, cuhurewasa 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 sixteenthcentury cuhurebeganto be used about'cultivating' the human body through training, and later about'cultivating' the non-physical aspects of a person.In the nineteenth century the meaningwas broadenedto include the generalstate ofhuman intellectual, 'civilisation'), spiritual and aestheticdevelopment (roughly comparable to 'artistic giving rise to the works and practices'meaning that which is associatedwith music, literature, painting, theatreand film. Goddard reportsthat 'anthropological' the usageof culture was introduced into English by Tylor in the la.tenineteenth century in his book Primitiue Cuhure. Tylor defined 'that culture as complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, mords, law; custom and other capabiiities and habits acquired by man as a mernber of a sociery'(Tylor 1871: 1). 'anthropological' Godclard (2005:58) makes the point that the use 'other qypically related to people living in places';however, in contemporary expressionssuch aslouth cuhure, gay cubure, kid cubure the principle 'kinds of differentiation has shifted entirely to the notion of different of

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

'Iylor's people'. Even so, definition of culture seemsto us to still be verv J relevant. Research on intcrcultural communication often relates to cultural groups ar the level of nations and national languages;however, we need to be awarethat many ,cf the major languagesof th. world such as German, English, Spanishand Arabic arespoken by people of different nationalities, often in geographi,cally distant areas and that each national variery of these pluricentric languageswill have at least some of its own codified norms (Clyne 1992; ClynLe, Fernandez& Muh r 2003). Researchon cross-cultural communication rypically compares communication practicesof one languagelcultural group with another, while srudies; on intercultural communication focus on features of the sharedcommunica.tion berweenspeakers from different language/cultural backgrounds. Mol;t modern researchon cross-cuituraland intercultural communication talkes into accc,untthat communication is affectedby differenr aspecrs of the context, including cultural expectations,social relations and the purposeof the cornmunication.

D I R E C T N E SA SN D I N D I R E C T N E S S
At the level of senrencegrammar, mappings berween one language and anothe.rcan be relatively straightforward; however, even with ri*pl. ,..rtences,the communication context can influence the interpretation of an uttefance. Grice (1975) and Searle(1969, 1975) were among the first researchers ro 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 inferencescan be drawn. Such "rr"lyri, :Ls even more important for intercultural communication because different r;ociocultural expectationsmay be involved. Grice's work has been critir:ised,more recently;for its anglocentric approach (e.g. Clyne rgg7, 1994; \Tierzbicka 199r, 1994a).Socialinteraction, cultural norms and numerous environmental lLctors need to be taken into account when interpreting conversationalimplicature (Levinson 1983: 127). Key ideas relating to the study of conversationalimplicature, of how peopledeterminethe literal andlor non-literal meaningof an urterance in a particular context, and the theory ofspeechacts,areexaminedin 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 NA C R O 5 5 C U L T U R E S

POLITENESS
The reiationshipbeween directness aqd indirectness and politeness is examinedfirst in a generalway, and stlbsequentlyusing examplesfrom cross-cultural research on speech actsand politeness. Different languages have different w4rs of marking politeness.people _ from some culturestend to favour directness, while people from orher culturesfavourless directness. Evenso, directness maFalsovary in relation to socialcontext.The relationshipbetweendirectness and politeness as examined by Blum-Kulka (1987:I33 ff.) illustrates that while these notions maybe related, theyarenot oneandthe same. This field of research suggesrs that politeness may be betterdefinedasdoingwhat is approprlate in girr.r, " cultural context. Directness and politeness are examinedin Chapter 3, drawing particularly on the research paradigmsof Brown and Levinson (I9 87),Goffman (1955, 1957),Ehlich (1992),Fraser ( 1990) for politeness and face,Blum-Kulka, Houseand 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 and Ehlich (1992)who challenge the universa,lity of aspects of these paradigms. The research of \Tierzbicka (1991,2003) and Sharifian(2004) provides further insight into the ways courtesyand respecrcan be conveyedin differentlanguages.

SPEECH A C T SA N D P O L I T E N E S S A C R O S SC U L T U R E S
Speech acts,suchasrequesrs, may differ accordingto cultural preferences for directness or indirectness. For example, in the case wherea person wanrs a favourfrom anotherperson, the preferred strategy may be to hint and talk aboutthe topic (Richards & Sukwiwat1983).In anotherculturalconrexr, it may be moreappropriate to askdirectly" In somecultures it is acceptable for the personaskednot to respondverballybut to simply carryout the requested action. The growing body of research on the inter-relatedness betweendirect and indirect speechacts and politeness in different cultural contexts is examined in Chapter4,begtnningwith the seminal work of the CCSARPproject (Cross-Cultural Act Realization Speech Parrerns, Blum-Kulka,House& Kasper1989),which is based on discourse completion tests conducted with nativespeakers of eightlanguages. Cross-cultural variationof requests, complaints,apologies, acceptances of apologies and complimentsareexemplified, drawing on rhe work of Houseand 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), \Wierzbicka (2003). Hobbs (2003)and

CONVERSATIONS
People from different cultural backgrounds may have differenr expecrations of conversation.Clyne and Platt (1990) poinl out that intercultural communication conflict can develop where one pafrF considersthe other to be either offensively forward or arrogantly uncoqperative. Routines for greetingand leave-taking can vary considerably from culture ro cuhure,ras -can the use of laughter and expectationsconcerning the organisation'of turns. Preferences for different communication channels(e.g.facespeaker to-facecommunication versusthe use of the telephone or email) also differ betweendifferent cultures and sub-cultures,asdo the appropriate length of turn in conversationand attitudes to intErruptions and silence. a speaker's These featuresof conversarionare examined in Chapter 5, drawing particularly on the researchparadigms of Schegloff (1958, I9B2), Schegloff and Sacks(1973), Sacks, SchegloffandJefferson(1974),Albert and Kessler (I97 6, I97 B) for turn-taking, adjacencypairs, back-qhannellingand repetition, and exemplified by the research of Goddard (1977), Clark and French (1981) and Sifianou (1989) on telephone use in different cultures, and Gavioli (1995) on the function of laughter in different cultural contexts. Intercultural conversation is exemplified from research in the Australian workplace from Clyne (L994) and B6al (1992) and from Kjaerbeck (1998) from intercultural businessnegoriation in Mexican and Danish.

POWER AND STEREOTYPING

Stereoryping is the process by which all membersof a group areasserted to havethe characteristics (Scollon attributedto the whole group & Scollon 200I:168).\7e needto remernber that no individuan memberof a groupis the embodimentof his or her group'scharacteristics, Furthermore, people belongto a multitude of differentsub-groups and thus cannotbe defined by their membership to any one particulargroup. Cultural differences in the conceptof self and others,and relatedperceptions of power are also importantin understanding the socialexpectations and conventions which underlielanguage use.They arealsousedto interpre0linguistic meaningin a giveninteraction.However, any categorisation in some of a group results (El-Dash & Busnardo2001)" Thus, while linking level of stereoryping

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

to different cultures serves as a useful guide, such certain characteristics may leadto somelevelof overgeneralisation. categorisations Thesetopics are examinedin Chapter 6, drawing particularlyon the (1989,2000), Fairclough work of Fairclough and \fodak (1997),Giddens (1982, 1993),Gottlieb (2006),Hofstede(1980, 1983, l99I), Pennycook (2001)andvan Di;k (1987,1996). NAMING AND ADDRESSING vary greatlyfrom culture to culture. Modes of address and naming systems For example,among Sikh Indians, men and women may have similar 'Singh' 'Kaur' 'given' for malesand names and sexis markedby the useof 'Singh' However,in Australia, hasbeenadoptedasa surname for females. beenpassed on asthe family by Sikh Indians(males), and hasin somecases Thereare in the subsequent generation. for females surname aswell asmales (1990) suggest that people that Clyne and Platt so many naming systems about differences when needto be alert,to enquireand not to be surprised they encounter peoplefrom differentcultural groups. to identify individualsin a available The variery of naming practices paradigmsof socieryare examinedin Chapter 7, drawrngon the research Braun (1988),Brown and Gilman (1950),Geertz(1976) and Goffman (1968), which show how different forms of address can contribute to a the individual and berween sense of identity and the relationship person's their socialcontexr. Brown and Gilmank (1960)paperis usedto illustratethe waysin which and third-person pronoun forms can be usedto signalfamiliarity secondThe waysin languages. in someIndo-EuroPean and formaliry/deference kinship terms,and honorificsare which nouns and pronounsof address, in used as part of complex systemsof familiariry respectand deference of Suzuki (1976) are exemplifiedthrough the research different languages Geertz (1976) and Koentjaraningrat and Koyama (1992) for Japanese, (1989) for Javanese, of the as well as Hvoslef (2001) for the language Kyrgyz Republic, one of the fifteen new statesafter the dissolution of the SovietUnion.

DISCOURSE O R G A N I S A T I OO NF W R I T T E N
Variation in the organisation of writing acrosscultures has been studied from a cross-linguistic perspective, particularly over the last two decades. Differences of expectation with regard to the appropriatenessof topics and the sequence of topics may differ acrosscultures. In different cultures

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

may placemore weight on verbal or written undertakings. PeoPle Texts and argumenrs can be organised in difiFerent ways.There -"y b. a preffor more or lessformally orientedtexts.Someculrures, erence suchasthe Englishculture, favour presenting ideasin a linear progression, while in 'Jigressive' other culturesthe presentation of ideasmay be more or tend towardsdifferentrhythms,suchassymmerryor parallelism. The issues of cultural differences in the organisation of ideasand written d.iscourse as (1972, observed by Kaplan 1988) and exemplified by Hinds (1980) for (1987)for Korean, Eggington Kirkpatrick(1991)for Mandarin Japanese, letters of request, Ostler(19s7)forArabic prose, and Clyne (1980, r9B7) andClyneandlGeutz(1957)for Englishand Germanarefurtherexamined in Chapter8.

I N T E R C U L T U RC AO L M M U N I C A T I O IN N PROFESSIONAN L D WORKPLACE CONTEXTS

One important intercultural communication issue in professional and workpiace contexts is the practice of translating and interpreting, which needsto be sensitiveto most of the issuesdiscussed thus far in this book. Translators face a particular chalienge ro balance pragmatic equivalence and impartialiry. Pragmatic equivalenceis sensitiveto the cultural and linguistic norms of the respectivelanguages.Some central issuesrelating to the practice of translating and interpreting (e.g.Viddowson L97B; Larson 1984) are examinedin Chapter 9, along with some examplesof translation challenges in advertising. The medical and legal professions,which rely heavily on question and answersequences, are also particularly problematic for intercultural communication, whether or not interpreters are involved. Different culrural norms may pertain to the way quesrionsand answersare posed, and there are also other issues that are specificto eachof theseprofessions. These are discussed with referenceto the researchof Davidson (2000), a casestudy of medical interpreting in the United States,and Pauwels,D'Argaville and Eades(1992) relating to the provision of evidencebyAustralian Aboriginal clients in the courrroom. Different cultural expectationsmay also shapethe behaviour and interpretation of different parties engaged in intercultural business negotiation. This is also exemplified in Chapter 9 with reference studies reported by Marriott (1990) for aJapanese-Australian business encounrer, and by Spencer-Oateyand Xirg (2003) for a Chinese-British business encounter.

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

TOWARDS SUCCESSFU LTERCULTURAL IN COMMUNICATION

Research on spoken discoursein the Australian multicultural workplace by (e.g. Clyne 1994; Bowe 1995; Neil 1996) involving Monash researchers participants from different cultures who are engagedin natural communication in a languagethat is not a first languageto any of the speakers, has shown that individuals can develop ways to construct a'common ground., and avoid many of the problems inherent to intercultural communication. The researchfindings of Bowe'sstudy of automotive manufacturing workers, and of Neil s (1995) study of hospital ancillary stafi reported in Chapter 10, illustrate that speakers involved in intercultural communication on adatly basisfind ways to uselanguagecreativelyand collaboratively to ensurethat the intended message is receivedand that potential miscommunication is circumvented. Giles' (1977:322) notion of accommodation,and Sharifiant notion of conceptual renegotiation (Sharifian forthcoming), are also examined to illustrate dimensions of the way in which individuals can adapt to the challengesof intercultural communicarion. The book concludes with some cautious optimism. Although, in the early stages,individuals may approach intercultural communitation through the ethnocentric prism of their own immediate culture and misread the intentions of their intercultural communication parrners, as they become more aware of the ways in which sociocultural conventions shape ianguage use, individuals may be more able to understand intercultural communication and communicate more effectively.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING

Goddard, C. 2005 'The lexicalsemantics of cuhure'. Language Sciences n o . 2 7 ,p p . 5 1 - 7 3 . Neil, D. 1996 Collaboration in Intercubural Discourse: Examples from a Mu bi cuburaI Australi an Workplace. Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang, Chapter 2,pp.27-58. Scollon,R. & Scollon,S.tWong200r Intercubural Communication: A Discourse Approach 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter7, pp. 122-37.