Manual for Students

chapters to illuminate this relationship. First, we can use the individualcultural dynamic to examine the issues that arise when we encounter people whose identities we do not know. In intercultural communication interactions, mistaken identities are often exacerbated and can create communication problems.

Sometimes we assume knowledge about another person’s identity based on his or her membership in a particular cultural group. When we do so, we are ignoring the individual aspect. Taking a dialectical perspective can help us recognize and balance both the individual and the cultural aspects of another’s identity. This perspective can guide the ways that we communicate with that person (and conceivably with others). “The question here is one of identity: Who am I perceived to be when I communicate with others? My identity is very much tied to the ways in which others speak to me and the ways in which society represents my interests” [9, p. 14].

Now let us turn to the static-dynamic dialectic. The problem of erroneous assumptions has increased during the information age, due to the torrent of information about the world and the dynamic nature of the world in which we live. We are bombarded daily with information from around the globe about places and people. This glut of information and intercultural contacts has heightened the importance of developing a more complex view of identity.

Given the many identities that we all negotiate for ourselves in our everyday interactions, it becomes clear how our identities and those of others make intercultural communication problematic. We need to think of these identities as both static and dynamic. We live in an era of information overload, and the wide array of communication media only serve to increase the identities we must negotiate. Consider the relationships that develop via e-mail, for example. Some people even create new identities as a result of on-line interactions. We change who we are depending on the people we communicate with and the manner of our communication. Yet we also expect some static characteristics from the people with whom we communicate. We expect others to express certain fixed qualities; these help account for why we tend to like or dislike them and how we can establish particular communication patterns with them. The tensions that we feel as we change identities from e-mail

281

to telephone to mail to fax and other communication media demonstrate the dynamic and static characters of identities.

Finally, we can focus on the personal – contextual dialectic of identity and communication. Although some dimensions of our identities are personal and remain fairly consistent, we cannot overlook the contextual constraints on our identity.

SUMMARY

–In this chapter, we explored some of the facets of identity and the ways in which identities can be problematic in intercultural communication. We used several dialectics to frame our discussion. Identities are both static (as described by social psychologists) and dynamic (as described by communication and critical scholars). They are created by the self and by others in relation to group membership. They may be created for us by existing contexts and structures. When these created identities are incongruent with our sense of our own identity, we need to challenge and renegotiate them.

–Identities are multiple and reflect gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, race, religion, class, nationality, and other aspects of our lives. Identities also develop in relation to minority and majority group membership. The development of such identities may follow several stages for individuals of either group.

–Identity is expressed through language and labels. Keeping in mind the many dynamics in people’s lives can help minimize faulty assumptions about their identities. It is important to remind ourselves that identities are complex and subject to negotiation.

PRACTICE

ØAnswer the Following Questions:

1)How do our perceptions of our own cultural identity influence our communication with others?

2)What are some ways in which we express our identities?

3)What are the roles of avowal and ascription in the process of identity formation?

282

4) What are some of the ways in which members of minority cultures and members of majority cultures develop their cultural identities.

ØStereotypes in Your Life. List some of the stereotypes you have heard about Ukrainians. Then answer the following questions:

(a)How do you think these stereotypes developed? (b) How do they influence communication between Ukrainians and people from other countries?

ØStereotypes in Prime-Time TV. Watch four hours of television during the next week, preferably during evening hours when there are more commercials. Record the number of representatives of different identity groups (ethnic, racial, gender, age, class, and so on) that appear in the commercials; also record the role that each person plays. Answer the following questions: (a) How many different groups were represented?

(b)What groups were most represented? Why do you think this is so? (с) What groups were least represented? Why do you think this is so?

(d)What differences (if any) were there in the roles that members of the various groups played? Did one group play more sophisticated or more glamorous roles than others? (e) In how many cases were people depicted in stereotypical roles – for example, men as politicians, or women as homemakers? (f) What stereotypes were reinforced in the commercials?

(g)What do your findings suggest about the power of the media and their effect on identity formation and intercultural communication? (Think about avowal, ascription, and interpellation).

REFERENCES

1.Adler P. S. Beyond Cultural Identity: Reflections on Cultural and Multicultural Man / Peter S.Adler // Topics in Culture Learning. – 1973. – Vol. 2. – P. 23 – 40.

2.Bederman G. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880 – 1917 / Gail Bederman. – Chicago : Chicago University Press, 1995. – P. 15 – 48.

3.Brislin R. Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior / Richard Brislin. – Belmont : MIT Press, 1999. – P. 27 – 32.

283

4.Cupach W. R. Competence in Interpersonal Conflict / William R. Cupach, Don J. Canary. – New York : Columbia University Press, 1997. – P. 63.

5.Fighting Whities: Mock School’s Indian Mascot / Electronic Resource // Internet Access :

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/03 llfightingwhities-on.html.

6.Frankenburg R. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness / Rosa Frankenburg. – Minneapolis : MU Press, 1993. – P. 24.

7.Gao G. Self and Other: A Chinese Perspective on Interpersonal Relationships / Ge Gao // Communication in Personal RelationshipsAcross Cultures. – 2000. – P. 81 – 101.

8.Hall E. T. Beyond Culture / Edvard T. Hall. – New York : Garden City, 1976. – P. 108 – 110.

9.Hamilton D. L. Stereotype-Based Expectancies: Effects on Information Processing and Social Behavior / Daniel L. Hamilton, Stan J. Sherman, Claire M. Ruvolo // Journal of Social Issues. – No. 46. – 2001. – P. 35 – 60.

10.Hardiman R. White Racial Identity Development in the United States / Rita Hardiman // Race, Ethnicity and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspective. – Washington : WU Press, 1994. – P. 130 – 131.

11.Hecht M. L. Introduction: Communicating Prejudice / Michael Hecht. – Newbury : MIT Press, 1998. – P. 5.

12.Lanston D. Tired of Playing Monopoly? / Donna Lanston // Race, Class, and Gender. – Belmont : IA Press, 1995. – P. 101.

13.Martin J. N. Behavioral Categories of Intercultural Communication Competence: Everyday Communicator’s Perceptions / Judith N. Martin, Mitch R. Hammer // International Journal of Intercultural competence. – 1989. – No. 13. – P. 303 – 332.

14.Martin J. N. Intercultural Communication in Contexts / Judith N. Martin, Tomas Nakayama. – New York : McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2000. – P. 149 – 168, 170 – 231.

15.Martinez R. Technicolor / Ruben Martinez // Half and Half: Writers on Growing Up Biracial. – New York : Columbia University Press, 1998. – P. 260.

284

16.Merritt B. D. Illusive Reflections: African American Women on Primetime Television / Bishetta D. Merritt // Our Voices : Essays in Culture, Ethnicity and Communication. – LosAngeles : LAPress, 2000. – P. 52.

17.Weissman D. The Expectations and Experiences of a Sojourning Temporary Resident Abroad: A Preliminary Study / Daniel Weissman, Allan Furnham // Human Relations. – 1987. – No. 40. – P. 53.

285

-4-

LANGUAGEAND INTERCULTURAL

COMMUNICATION

Overview

One study compared perception of color variations in U.S. English speakers and the Dani of western New Guinea, who classify colors into roughly two groups, light and dark. The researchers showed a paint chip to an individual, removed the paint chip, showed the person the same chip along with others, and then asked her or him to identify the original paint chip. There was little difference in the responses of the U.S. English speakers and the Dani, who were able to identify the original paint chip even though their language may not contain a word for that color. Consider a more familiar example. Many men in Ukraine might identify someone’s shirt as “red”, whereas women viewing the same shirt might call it “raspberry” or “cherry” or “scarlet”. Both the men and women recognize the color distinctions, but men tend to use fewer words than women to distinguish colors. Another example of cross-cultural research involves variations in verb forms. The Chinese language has no counterfactual verb form (illustrated by “If I had known, I would have gone, but I did not”). Researchers constructed stories using the counterfactual form and found that the Chinese respondents understood the concept of counterfactual and could answer questions appropriately even though this structure is not present in Chinese. Thus, the chapter explores cultural variations in language – how language influences culture and how culture influences language.

Topics covered include: Cultural Variations in Language; Language and Identity; Code-Switching; Language Politics and Policies; Language and Globalization.

Key words: Direct Communication Style, Formality, High-Context Communication, Indirect Communication Style, Informality, Interlanguage, Low-Context Communication, Metamessage, Multilingual, Social Positions.

————————————————————————————

286

4.1 Cultural Variations in Language

Languageispowerful andcanhavetremendousimplicationsforpeople’s lives. For example,utteringthe words “Ido”can influence lives dramatically. Being called names can be hurtful and painful, despite the old adage “Sticks and stones can break my hones, but words will never hurt me”.

The particular language we use predisposes us to think in particular ways and not in others. For example, the fact that English speakers do not distinguish between a formal and an informal you (as in German, with du and Sie, or in Spanish, with tu and usted) may mean that English speakers think about formality and informality differently than do German or Spanish speakers. In other languages, the deliberate use of non-formal ways of speaking in more formal contexts can be insulting to another person. For example, French speakers may use the tu form when speaking to their dog or cat, but it can be insulting to use tu in a more formal setting when speaking to relative strangers. Yet it may be permissible to use tu in more social settings with relative strangers, such as at parties or in bars. Here, pragmatics becomes important. That is, we need to think about what else might be communicated by others and whether they shift to more informal ways of speaking.

4.1.1 Variations in Communication Style

Communication style combines both language and non-verbal communication. It is the tonal coloring, the metamessage, that contextualizes how listeners are expected to receive and interpret verbal messages.Aprimary way in which cultural groups differ in communication style is in a preference for highversus low-context communication. A high-context communication style is one in which “most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” [7, p. 79]. This style of communication emphasizes understanding messages without direct verbal communication. People in long-term relationships often communicate in this style. For example, one person may send a meaningful glance across the room at a party, and his or her partner will know from the non-verbal clue that it is time to go home.

287

In contrast, in low-context communication, the majority of meaning and information is in the verbal code. This style of communication, which emphasizes explicit verbal messages, is highly valued in many settings in the United States [8, p. 204]. Interpersonal communication textbooks often stress that one should not rely on non-verbal, contextual information. It is better, they say, to be explicit and to the point, and not to leave things ambiguous. However, many cultural groups around the world value highcontext communication. They encourage children and adolescents to pay close attention to contextual cues (body language, environmental cues), and not simply the words spoken in a conversation [5, p. 23].

William Gudykunst and Stella Ting-Toomey identify two major dimensions of communication styles: direct versus indirect and elaborate versus understated.

Direct vs Indirect Styles. This dimension refers to the extent to which speakers reveal their intentions through explicit verbal communication and emphasizes low-context communication. A direct communication style is one in which verbal messages reveal the speaker’s true intentions, needs, wants, and desires.An indirect style is one in which the verbal message is often designed to camouflage the speaker’s true intentions, needs, wants, and desires. Most of the time, individuals and groups are more or less direct depending on the context [6, p. 94]. Many English speakers favor the direct speech style as the most appropriate in most contexts. This is revealed in statements like “do not beat around the bush”, “Get to the point”‘ and “What exactly are you trying to say?” Although “white lies” may be permitted in some contexts, the direct style emphasizes honesty, openness, forthrightness, and individualism. With regard to Ukrainian speakers, they can be characterized as easy going in making connections and straight forward in communication. They are treated as friendly, sociable, open-minded and hospitable by other nations.

However, some cultural groups prefer a more indirect style, with the emphasis on high-context communication. Preserving the harmony of relationships has a higher priority than being totally honest. Thus, a speaker might look for a “soft” way to communicate that there is a problem in the relationship, perhaps by providing contextual cues. Some languages have many words and gestures that convey the idea of “maybe”. For example, three Ukrainians studying in the United States were invited by their advisor

288

to participate in a cross-cultural training workshop. They did not want to participate, nor did they have the time. In terms of values of the American society with its notions of egalitarianism and self-discipline, it is acceptable not to come if only a student reports about that to a professor. But this is not the case for the Ukrainian society where post-Soviet values in education still weight. Neither did they want to offend their professor, whom they held in high regard. Therefore, rather than tell him they could not attend, they simply did not return his calls and did not show up to the workshop. Different communication styles are responsible for many problems that arise between men and women and between persons from different ethnic groups. These problems may be caused by different priorities for truth, honesty, harmony, and conflict avoidance in relationships.

Elaborate vs Understated Styles. This dimension of communication styles refers to the degree to which talk is used. The elaborate style involves the use of rich, expressive language in everyday talk. For example, theArabic language has many metaphorical expressions used in everyday speech. In this style, a simple assertive statement means little; the listener will believe the opposite.

In contrast, the understated style values succinct, simple assertions, and silence. Amish people often use this style of communication. A common refrain is, “If you do not have anything nice to say, do not say anything at all”. Free self-expression is not encouraged. Silence is especially appropriate in ambiguous situations; if one is unsure of what is going on, it is better to remain silent [6]. The exact style falls between the elaborate and the understated, as expressed in the maxim “Verbal contributions should be no more or less information than is required” [4, p. 22]. The exact style emphasizes cooperative communication and sincerity as a basis for interaction.

Taking a dialectical perspective, though, should help us avoid stereotyping national groups (such as Russian,Arabic or English speakers) in terms of communication style. We should not expect any group to use a particular communication style all the time. Instead, we might recognize that style operates dynamically and is related to context, historical forces, and so on. Furthermore, we might consider how tolerant we are when we encounter others who communicate in very different ways and how willing or able we are to alter our own style to communicate better.

289

4.1.2 Variations in Contextual Rules

Understanding some of the cultural variations in communication style is useful. A dialectical perspective reminds us that the particular style we use may vary from context to context. Think of the many contexts in which you communicate during the day – classroom, family, work, and so on – and about how you alter your communication to suit these contexts. You may be more direct with your family and less direct in classroom settings. Similarly, you may be more instrumental in task situations and more affective when socializing with your friends. Many research studies have examined the rules for the use of socially situated language in specific contexts. They attempt to identify contexts and then discover the rules that apply in these contexts for a given speech community. Researchers Jack Daniel and Geneva Smitherman studied the communication dynamics in Black churches. They first identified the priorities among congregation members: unity between the spiritual and the material, the centrality of religion, the harmony of nature and the universe, and the participatory, interrelatedness of life. They then described a basic communication format, the call-response, in both the traditional religious context and secular life contexts. In church, the speaker and audience interact, with sermons alternating with music. In secular life, call-response takes the form of banter between the rapper (rhetor) and others in the social group [3, p. 129].

4.1.3 Co-Cultural Communication

The co-cultural communication theory, proposed by communication scholar Mark Orbe, describes how language works between dominant and non-dominant groups – or co-cultural groups. Groups that have the most power (Whites, men, heterosexuals) consciously or unconsciously formulate a communication system that supports their perception of the world. This means that co-cultural group members (ethnic minorities, women, gays) must function in communication systems that often do not represent their experiences. Non-dominant groups thus find themselves in dialectical struggles: Do they try to adapt to the dominant communication style, or do they maintain their own styles? Women in large, maledominated corporations often struggle with these issues.

290