Intercultural Communication Language and Verbal Behaviour
Dec 27, 2015
Intercultural Communication
Language and Verbal Behaviour
Outline
What is Language? Symbols, design features and rule systems
Pragmatics Cooperative Principle Politeness and facework Indirect/direct speech and high- /low-context
speech Language Attitudes
Standard/nonstandard speech Attitudes and discrimination
What is Language?
Communication is the process of exchanging messages and creating meaning.
Language is a symbol system. It includes rules regarding the combination of sounds into meaning units, meaning units into words, words into sentences, along with the rules for using that language.
Symbols
Symbols are arbitrarily assigned representations that stand for something else; conventional labels used by participants in a language community to arouse standardized aspects of reality.
Some Design Features of Language
Arbitrary Conventional Discrete Displacement Productivity
Rule Systems in Language
the vet examine s the dog
The vet examines the dog.
morphological
phonological
syntactic
semantic
Th+e+v+e+t+e+ks+a+m+i+n+s+th+e+d+o+g
Rule Systems, cont:Pragmatics
Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle “Make your conversational contribution
such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (p. 45)
Rule Systems, cont:Pragmatics
Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle4 Maxims Quantity: Say only what is required, no more,
no less Quality: Be nonspurious, be sincere,
speak the truth Relation/Relevance: Be relevant, to the point Manner: Be perspicuous, avoid ambiguity and
obscurity
Rule Systems, cont:Pragmatics
Politeness and Facework (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987) Violations of maxims happen in the
interest of politeness, in an effort to be efficient but meet face concerns. These violations can render our speech more or less direct or indirect.
Rule Systems, cont:Pragmatics
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) Politeness and facework Face: “the positive social value a
person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact (Goffman, 1967, p. 5)
Negative face = autonomy concerns (e.g. requests and impositions)
Positive face = closeness concerns (e.g. disagreements and criticism)
Direct and Indirect Speech
Speech varies in the extent to which it is direct, explicit, and exact with regards to the speaker’s true intentions vs. indirect, implicit, and ambiguous.
2 dimensions of indirectness are correlated (Holtgraves, 1997) Look for indirect meanings in others’ remarks Speak indirectly
Using indirect speech may be related to minimizing face-threats.
Direct and Indirect Speech
Direct speech reveals speaker’s true intentions
(manner). is relevant to the topic at hand
(relevancy). is consistent with true feelings &
opinions and reveals personal information (quality).
is precise (quantity).
Direct and Indirect Speech
Indirect speech Does not reveal speaker’s true
intentions (manner). May be ambiguous and irrelevant; the
listener must infer what is relevant (relevance)
Does not reveal personal information but relies on group-based information (quality)
Involves the use of understatement.
High vs. Low-Context Language
We can figure out indirect speech from context.
Context can include World knowledge Knowledge of the other Knowledge of the context The history of their interactions Verbal and nonverbal messages Social roles
High vs. Low-Context Language
Hall (1976, p. 79) High-context messages include “…
most of the information in either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message”.
Low context messages include most of the information in the explicit code.
High vs. Low-Context Language
High context (direct) speech reveals speaker’s true intentions
(manner). is relevant to the topic at hand
(relevancy). is consistent with true feelings &
opinions and reveals personal information (quality).
is precise (quantity).
High vs. Low-Context Language
Low context (indirect) speech Does not reveal speaker’s true
intentions (manner). May be ambiguous and irrelevant; the
listener must infer what is relevant (relevance)
Does not reveal personal information but relies on group-based information (quality)
Involves the use of understatement.
Related Ideas
Elaborate vs. Understated Interaction Style Elaborate style refers to the use of
expressive language in everyday conversation (e.g., exaggeration or animation).
Understated style involves use of subdued language (e.g., silence, pauses, and understatements).
Language Attitudes: Definition of Attitudes
An attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to all objects and situations with which it is related. (G.W. Allport, 1935)
Attitudes and Language Variation
“Persons have attitudes toward language which are especially salient and influential in initial interactions. Various linguistic features trigger in message recipients beliefs and evaluations regarding message senders and these beliefs and evaluations are most likely to affect recipient’s behaviours toward senders in contexts of low mutual familiarity” (Bradac, 1990, p. 388)
Standard and Non-Standard Speech Styles
A standard speech style is the prestige form of a language, associated with the higher status group in a society.
A nonstandard form is any variant from the standard form (e.g., another language, dialect, accent), usually associated with the lower status group.
Hypotheses about Standard and Non-Standard Speech Styles
Inherent value hypothesis The standard dialect became the prestige form
of the language because it evolved as the aesthetically ideal form of that language.
Imposed norm hypothesis Standard and non-standard dialects are equally
aesthetically pleasing, but the non-standard form is viewed negatively because of social norms which are biased against it.
Research Approaches
Content analyses Survey research Experimental research
Matched Guise Technique(Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillenbaum 1960)
Independent Variable 4 bilingual speakers read passage once
in English and once in French = 8 passages
Dependent Variable Height, good looks, leadership, sense of
humour, intelligence, religiousness, self-confidence, dependability, entertaining, kindness, ambitious, sociable, character, likeablity
Evaluative Dimensions
Evaluations can occur along 2 (or more) dimensions (Ryan et al., 1977)
Status Educated-uneducated, wealthy-poor,
intelligent-unintelligentSolidarity
Trustworthy-untrustworthy, friendly-unfriendly, kind-cruel
Language Attitudes and Discrimination
Compliance Workplace Education Law Medicine
Language Attitudes and Discrimination in the Workplace (de la Zerda & Hopper, 1979)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Supervisor SkilledTechnician
UnskilledWorker
AccentedUnaccented
Pro
babil i
ty o
f Em
pl o
ym
ent
Code-switching
“the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or sub-systems” (Gumperz, 1982, p. 59)
Examples extra-sentential
Il est difficile, you know? intersentential
Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español.
intrasentential J’aime ta jupe, mais je n’aime pas le way que it
hangs.
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory (Kim, 2005)
Goals approach Want to understand “why” certain
types of verbal strategies are preferred by a cultural group
Predictability of strategy choices Want to discover underlying reasons
why specific strategy choices are made across cultures and how general impressions of competence are formed.
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory
Conversational constraints (Kim, 1993, 1995) “cognitive generators of tactical
preferences” (Kim, 2005, p. 95) principles that guide an individual’s
conversational style in general. General and overarching criteria for
choosing conversational strategy (Kim, 1993)
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory
Knowledge of interaction goals is cast at 3 levels of abstraction 1. tactical or strategic goals
Desires for a specific behavioral action (e.g. raise eyebrows, ask a question, turn away)
2. primary communication goals desires for the outcome of a conversation (e.g.
gaining compliance, seeking information, testing affinity)
3. global goals Guide conversational style in general (e.g.,
Clarity/efficiency and face-support/ appropriateness)
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory
5 global constraints Concern for clarity Concern for minimizing imposition Concern for other’s feelings Concern for avoiding negative
evaluation by the hearer Effectiveness
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory
Kim (1994)No significant cultural differences in concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer (appropriateness) and in concern for effectiveness.Group differences emerge in terms of what predicts effectiveness
Korea: avoid neg. eval/hurting otherUS: clarity
Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
SELF SELF
MotherCoworker
Friend Neighbour
Mother Coworker
FriendNeighbour
Independent Interdependent
Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
Independent Separate from social
context Bounded, unitary,
stable Internal, private
(feelings, thoughts) Life tasks: Be unique,
express self, self-actualization
Self-esteem depends on ability to express self, validate internal attributes
Direct communication
Interdependent Connected with social
context Flexible, variable External, public (roles,
statuses, relationships) Life tasks: belong, fit-in,
engage in appropriate action, promote others’ goals
Self esteem depends on ability to adjust, maintain harmony, restrain self
Indirect communication
Culture-Based Conversational Constraints Theory
(Kim et al., 1994; Kim & Sharkey, 1995) The higher the level of independent self-
construals, the greater the concern for clarity; The higher the level of interdependent self-
construals, the higher the perceived importance of not hurting the hearer’s feelings.
The higher the level of interdependent self-construals, the greater the concern for negative evaluations.