Variations in Communication Style

Communication stylecombines both language and nonverbal communication. It is the tonal coloring,the metamessagethat contextualizes how listeners are "expected to accept and interpret verbal messages. A primary way in which cultural groups differ in communication style is in a preference for high-context communicationor 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" (Hall, 1976, 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 nonverbal clue that it is time to go home.

In contrast, low-context communication is one in which the majority of meaning and information is in the verbal code. This style of communication emphasizes explicit verbal messages. It is highly valued in many settings in the United States and Europe. Interpersonal communication textbooks often stress that we should not rely on nonverbal, contextual information. It is better, they say, to be explicit, to the point, and not leave things ambiguous. However, many cultural groups around the world value high-context communication. They encourage children and adolescents to pay close attention to contextual cues (body language, environmental cues), not just the words spoken in a conversation (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996).

William Gudykunst and Stella Ting-Toomey (1988) identify four major dimensions of communication styles: direct/indirect, elaborate/exact/succinct, personal/contextual, and instrumental/affective.

Direct/Indirect Styles. The direct /indirect 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.

Many English speakers in the United States hold the direct speech style as the most appropriate in most contexts. This is revealed in sayings like "don't beat around the bush," "get to the point," and "what exactly are you trying to say?" A direct style emphasizes honesty, openness, individualism, and forthrightness (straightforwardness).

In contrast, some cultural groups prefer a more indirect style, an emphasis on high-context communication. Preserving the harmony of the relationship has a higher priority than being totally honest. A speaker might look for a "soft" way to communicate that there is a problem in the relationship. Some languages have many words and gestures that convey "maybe." For example, three Indonesian students living in the United States were invited by their advisor to participate in a cross-cultural training workshop. They did not want to participate, nor did they have the time. But they did not want to offend their professor, whom they held in high regard. Rather than tell the professor they couldn't attend, they just didn't return his calls and didn't 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. Many problems are caused by different priorities for truth, honesty, harmony, and conflict avoidance in relationships.

Elaborate/Exact/Succinct Styles This dimension of communication styles refers to the quantity of talk that people value. The elaborate style is the use of rich, expressive language in everyday talk. For example, the Arabic 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 succinct (brief and concise) style values understatement, simple assertions, and silence. Amish people often use this style of communication. A common refrain is "if you can't say anything good, don't 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. The exact style falls between elaborate and succinct. The exact style emphasizes cooperative communication and sincerity as a basis for interaction.

In international negotiations, there is often a visible difference in style that can contribute to misperceptions and misunderstandings. For example, when Saddam Hussein and George Bush (Senior) agreed to prepare speeches to give to each other's people just prior to the Gulf War of 1991, George Bush talked for 20 minutes and Saddam Hussein for two hours. In another speech, delivered after the war, George Bush revealed directness and succinctness:

Kuwait is liberated. Iraq's army is defeated. Our military objectives are met. Kuwait is once more in the hands of the Kuwaitis in control of their own destiny. We share in their joy, a joy tempered only by our compassion for their ordeal. Tonight, the Kuwaiti flag once again flies above the capital of a free and sovereign nation, and the American flag flies above our embassy. (George Bush, address from Oval Office, 1991, February 27)

Bush's speech stands in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein's speech:

О glorious Iraqis, О holy warrior Iraqis, О Arabs, О believers wherever you are, we and our steadfastness are holding. Here are the great Iraqi people, your brothers and sons of your Arab nation and the great faithful part of the human family. We are all well. They are fighting with unparalleled heroism, unmatched except by the heroism of the believers who fight similar adversaries. And here is the infidel tyrant whose planes and missiles are falling out of the skies at the blows of the brave men. He is wondering how the Iraqis can confront his fading dreams with such determination and firmness. (Saddam Hussein, broadcast on Baghdad Radio, trans. by Reuters, 1991, January 20)

These different uses of language communicate different things to their culturally disparate audiences. It is not easy to interpret language use from other people's perspectives.

Personal/Contextual Styles. This dimension refers to the extent to which the speaker emphasizes the self, as opposed to his or her role. The personal style is characterized by the use of linguistic devices to enhance the sense of I. Language emphasizes personhood, informality, and symmetrical power relationships. For example, as noted earlier, English has no formal/informal pronouns or honorifics. It lends itself well to the personal style. Although the language enables us to distinguish between formal and informal speaking, these distinctions are minor, compared with many other languages.

The Japanese language, for example, lends itself better to the contextual style, in which language emphasizes prescribed roles, status, and formality. The Japanese language offers distinctly different structures to be used by males and females. Similarly, speakers of Korean distinguish among the following three different groups:

1. People who have the same background and who are known

2. People who have a known background but who themselves are not known

3. People who are not known

Instrumental/Affective Styles. This dimension of communication styles is closely related to the dimension of direct/indirect styles. An instrumental style is characterized as sender oriented and goal oriented, whereas the affective style is receiver oriented and process oriented. In the instrumental style, used by many English speakers, the burden is on the sender to make the message clear. Assertiveness is valued, and persuasion is an important skill.

In contrast, the affective style encourages the listener to sense the message before the speaker actually expresses him- or herself verbally. The burden is on the receiver. Again, Japanese are often characterized as valuing this style, trying to sense what others mean by reading contextual cues. People who use an affective style see information as complex indicators of fluid human relationships.

Taking a dialectical perspective, though, should help us avoid stereotyping specific groups (such as Japanese 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 style to communicate better.

DISCOURSE: LANGUAGE AND POWER

Discourse refers to language in use, meaning that all discourse is social. The language that us used, the words and meanings that are communicated depend not only on the context but also on the social relations that are part of that interaction.

Semiotics

The study of semiotics, or semiology, help understand how different discursive units communicate meaning. The process of producing meaning is called semiosis. Meaning is constructed through the interpretation of signs – combinations of signifiers and signifieds. Signifiers are culturally constructed, arbitrary words or symbols used to refer to something else – the signified. Think about this example: The word man is a signifier that refers to some signified, an adult make human being. The difference between the signifier man and the sign rests on the difference between the word man and the meaning of that word. At its most basic level, man means an adult human, but the semiotic process does not end there. Man carries many other layers of meaning. The expression, "Man is the measure of all things," for example, is loaded with many levels of meaning, including the centering of male experience as the norm. Man may or may not refer to any particular adult male, but it provides a concept that you can use to construct particular meanings based on the way the sign man functions.

Intercultural communication is not concerned simply with the cultural differences in verbal systems, although that is certainly a central interest. Semiotics can be useful in unpacking the ways that the cultural codes regulate verbal and nonverbal communication systems, as we will see in the next chapter. That is, semiotics allows us one way to "crack the codes" of another cultural framework. The goal is to establish entire systems of semiosis and the ways that those systems create meaning. We are not so much interested in the discrete, individual signifiers, but rather the ways that signifiers are combined and configured.

The use of these semiotic systems relies on many codes taken from a variety of places: economic institutions, history, politics, religion, and so on. For example, when Nazi swastikas were spray-painted on Jewish graves in Lyon, France, in 1992, the message they communicated relied on semiotic systems from the past. The history of the Nazi persecution of Jews during World War II is well known: The power behind the signifier, the swastika, comes from that historical knowledge and the codes of anti-Semitism that it causes to communicate its message. Relations from the past influence the construction and maintenance of intercultural relations in the present.

Because we seek the larger semiotic systems, we need to be aware of the cultural contexts that regulate the semiotic frameworks. When we are in different cultural contexts, the semiotic systems transform the communication situations.

It is wise to be sensitive to the many levels of cultural context that are regulated by different semioticsystems. In other words, it's a good idea to avoid framing cultural context as simply a "nation." Nation-states have other cultural contexts within their borders – for example, commercial and financial districts, residential areas, and bars, which are all regulated by their own semiotic systems. Consider, for example, the clothes that people might wear to a bar. Wearing the same clothes to a business setting would not communicate the same message.

Discourse and Social Structure

Just as organizations have particular structures and specific job positions within them, societies are structured so that individuals occupy social positions. Differences in social positionsare central to understanding communication. For one thing, not all positions within the structure are equivalent. Everyone is not the same. When men whistle at a woman walking by, it has a different force and meaning than if women were to whistle at a man walking by.

Power is a central element, by extension, of this focus on social position. When a judge in court says what he or she thinksfreedomof speech means, it carries much greater force than when your neighbor who is not a judge gives an opinion about what this phrase means. When we communicate, we tend to note (however unconsciously) the group membership and positions of communication participants. Take the examples above. We understand how communication functions, based on the group membership of the judge (as a member of the judicial system) and of the women and men (as members of their gendered groups); we need know nothing about their individual identities.

Groups also hold different positions of power in the social structure. Because intercultural contact happens between members of different groups, the positions of the groups affect communication. Group differences lend meaning to intercultural communication because, as we noted earlier, the concept of differences is key to language and the semiotic process.

The "Power" Effects of Labels

We often use labels to refer to other people and to ourselves. Labels, as signifiers, acknowledge particular aspects of our social identity. For example, we might label ourselves or others as "male" or "female," indicating sexual identity. Or we might say we are "Canadian" or "Midwestern," indicating a national or regional identity. The context in which a label is used may determine how strongly we feel about the label. On St. Patrick's Day, for example, someone may feel more strongly about being an Irish American than about being a woman or a student or a Midwesterner.

Sometimes people feel trapped or misrepresented by labels. They might complain, "Why do we have to have labels? Why can't I just be me?" These complaints belie (distort) the reality of the function of discourse. It would be nearly impossible to communicate without labels. People rarely have trouble when labeled with terms that they agree with—for example, man, student, Californian, or Czech.

Trouble arises, however, from the use of labels that we don't like or that we feel inaccurately describe us. Think about how you feel when someone describes you by terms that you do not like.

Labels communicate many levels of meaning and establish particular kinds of relationships between the speaker and listener. Sometimes people use labels to communicate closeness and affection for another. Labels like "friend," "lover," and "partner" communicate equality. Sometimes people intentionally invoke labels to establish a hostile relationship. Sometimes people use labels that are unintentionally offensive to others. When this happens, it demonstrates the speaker's ignorance, lack of cultural sensitivity, and real connection to the other group. The use of terms such as "Oriental" and "homosexual" communicates negative characteristics about the speaker and establishes distance between the speaker and the listener.

Discourse is tied closely to social structure, so the messages communicated through the use of labels depend greatly on the social position of the speaker. If the speaker and listener are close friends, then the use of particular labels may not cause a distancing in the relationship or be offensive. But if the speaker and listener are strangers, then these same labels might invoke anger or close the lines of communication.

Furthermore, if the speaker has a powerful social position, then he or she risks even greater influence and impact. For example, when Edith Cresson was the prime minister of France, she made several statements that created considerable controversy. Her claims that the "Japanese are like ants" and that "25% of all English and Americans are homosexual" did not establish the kinds of relations with Japan, the United Kingdom, or the United States that France desired. Because of Mme. Cresson's powerful position in the social structure, her discursive practices created international and domestic controversies. This would not have been the case had her position been greatly different.

Individuals from powerful groups generally do the labeling of others; they themselves do not get labeled. For example, when men are asked to describe their identities they often forget to specify gender as part of their identity. Women, on the other hand, often include gender as a key element in their identity. This may mean that men are the defining norm and that women exist in relation to this norm. We can see this in the labels we use for men and women and for people of color. We rarely refer to a male physician, but we do refer to a female doctor.

Multilingualism

People who speak two languages often are called bilingual;people who speak more than two languages are considered multilingual.Rarely do bilinguals speak both languages with the same level of fluency. It is more common that they prefer to use one language over another, depending on the context and the topic.

Sometimes entire nations are bilingual or multilingual. Belgium, for example, has two national languages: Flemish and French. So does Canada: English and French. Switzerland is a multilingual nations that has four languages – German, French, Italian and Romansh.

On either individual level or the national level, multilinguals must engage in language negotiation. That is, they need to work out which language to use in a given situation. These decisions are sometimes clearly embedded in power relations. For example, French was the court language in the 18^th-century Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great. French was considered the language of culture and elite, whereas Russian was considered a vulgar language, the language of the uneducated.

The reasons that people become bilingual reflect the changes that drive the need for intercultural communication. Bilingualism results from these imperatives, as people move from one country to another, as businesses expand into international markets, and so on. More personal imperatives also drive people to become bilingual. Speaking a foreign language is a chance for growth and freedom. Many people use foreign languages to escape from the history of oppression in their own languages.

Among the variations in U.S. English, the southern accent unwittingly communicates many negative stereotypes. Escaping into another accent is, for some, the only way to escape the stereotypes.

Learning another language is never easy, but the rewards of knowing another language are immense. Language acquisition studies have shown that it is nearly impossible for someone to learn the language of a group of people they dislike.

The article below describes a recently appointed British commission to investigate the reluctance of the English to study other languages, in contrast to other European countries where it is not unusual for people to speak two or three languages.

Sir Peter Parker, the former chairman of British Rail and the chairman of the Languages for Export campaign, who speaks French and Japanese said, “It is desperately important to speak the language of the customer. English may now be the lingua franca of the world, but this is an ambiguous blessing. For people in Europe, to speak three languages is not uncommon.”

Alan Mois, the president of the National Association of Language Advisers, who is coordinating the commission, said the English suffered from physical isolation from the rest of Europe and from a sense of superiority, a hangover from the British Empire. With even German companies now suggesting to their executives that English is a better language to speak in the boardroom than their own, English people also had more of a problem deciding which foreign language they should learn.

A background paper for the commission says, “The UK's reputation for arrogance in the eyes of other countries and for occasional intolerance of national and cultural difference are no doubt partly linked with our traditional failure when abroad to show willingness to use other languages than English.”

"While this might be an oversimple stereotype,” it continues, "it remains a fact that we as a nation all too readily accept our supposed incapacity in languages, and have hitherto given the matter low political priority.”

Source: The Sunday Telegraph, March 22, 1998, p. 5.

Translation and Interpretation

Translation and interpretation are two distinct but important means of communicating across language differences. The role of the interpreter, especially in the global 21^st century, is concisely portrayed R. Schulte:

The person who will have to play a major role in regulating the pendulum between global and local communication is the translator. . . . Translators build bridges not only between languages but also between the differences of two cultures. We have established that each language is a way of seeing and reflecting the delicate nuances of cultural perceptions, and it is the translator who not only reconstructs the equivalencies of words across linguistic boundaries but also reflects and transplants the emotional vibrations of another culture.

Translationgenerally refers to the process of producing a written text that refers to something said or written in another language. The original language text of a translation is called the source text.The text into which it is translated is called the target text.

Interpretationrefers to the process of verbally expressing what is said or written in another language. Interpretation can either be simultaneous, with the interpreter speaking at the same time as the original speaker, or consecutive, with the interpreter speaking only during the breaks provided by the original speaker.

As we know from language theories, languages are entire systems of meaning and consciousness that are not easily rendered into another language through a word-for-word equivalence. The ways in which different languages convey views of the world are not equivalent, as we noted earlier.

It is an common knowledge that our globally oriented world needs accurate translators. But, effective translations may be elusive (hard to achieve) because the act of translating is so demanding and complex. People tend to assume that text in one language can be accurately translated into another as long as the translator uses a good bilingual dictionary. Unfortunately, languages are not so simple, and direct translations in many cases are difficult if not impossible. A language may be difficult to translate if the structure of the receptor language is different than the source language. Also the difficulty in translation multiplies when the cultures are extremely different from each other. A translation may involve not only differences of linguistic affiliation but also highly diverse cultures.

The slightest cultural difference may affect the way in which a text is understood or interpreted. The feeling of joy is experienced differently in various cultures. In most European languages, the heart is where joy is experienced. But, in the Chadic languages of Africa, joy is related to the liver. In Hebrew, the kidneys are said to experience joy while in the Mayan language the abdomen is the site of joy.

Even when messages provide adequate interpretations of original text, there is usually no full equivalence through translation. Word-for-word correspondences do not exist and what may appear to be synonymous messages may not be equivalent. This lack of correspondence may be seen in the translation of biblical references. The Bible idealizes sheep. But, in some cultures, sheep are viewed negatively or do not even exist. In the translation of the biblical phrase "Lamb of God" is translated into an Eskimo language using the term "Seal of God." The fact that lambs are unknown in polar regions has led to the substitution of a culturally meaningful item that shares some of the important features of the source language expression. (Shuttleworth and Cowie).

Issues of Equivalency and Accuracy

Some languages have tremendous flexibility in expression; others have a limited range of words. The reverse may be true, however, for some topics. This presents quite a problem, for translators and interpreters. The tradition of translation studies has tended to emphasize issues of equivalencyand accuracy. That is, the focus has been on comparing the translated meaning to the original meaning. For those interested in the intercultural communication process, the emphasis is not so much on equivalence, but rather on the bridges that people construct to cross from one language to another.

Lexical Equivalence. One of the goals of translation is to convey the meaning and style of the original language, but dictionary translations rarely reflect common language usage in a culture. Although thorough proficiency in both the source and target languages is important, translators need to translate not only to a target language, but to a target culture as well. Translators also need to deal with nuances and with words that have no equivalents in other languages. To give you examples from English and Russian, let us consider the English word meal, which has no equivalent in Russian, and the Russian word сутки, which has no equivalent in English. Or, the time 2 A.M. is called 2 o’clock at night in Russian and 2 o’clock in the morning in English.

There are many terms that appear to be universal, but actually are not. Among these are such things as freedom, equality, democracy, independence, free enterprise, equal opportunity, and justice. In many cases there is no lexical equivalent to the connotative range implied by these terms (Reeves).

Idiomatic and Slang Equivalence. Idioms are a number of words which, when taken together, mean something different from the individual words of the idiom when they stand alone. Many idiomatic phrases come from everyday life or reflect food and cooking and include such expressions as to make a clean sweep of something, to hit the nail on the head, or out of the frying pan and into the fire. Idiomatic expressions are culture-bound; they are not easy to translate well. The English phrase "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," for instance, was translated by someone into Russian as "The vodka is good but the meat is rotten." Also, the English slogan "Things come alive with Pepsi" was translated into German as "Pepsi can pull you back from your grave."

Grammatical-Syntactical Equivalence. Difficulties may also arise when there are no equivalent parts of speech. For example, in many languages there is no parallel for the distinctions made in English between modifiers of nouns that are 'countable' (such as days or flavors), and modifiers of nouns that are 'uncountable' (such as sugar, advice, or money). As a result, translations made by beginners may have statements like "much shoes" or "many patience." In addition the gender of nouns is difficult for English speakers in translation because the gender may vary by culture or language. Die Sonne in German is feminine, but le soleil in French is masculine. Both words refer to the same object – the sun, but have different genders. And in English nouns have no gender designation.

Experiential-Cultural Equivalence. Translators must deal not only with structural differences between languages but also with cultural differences, which requires precision and the ability to convey the speaker's or author's approach or attitude. All meaning is relative to the speaker and the situation in which the words are spoken or written. Also, translators need to consider shared experiences. Peace and war have various meanings for peoples of the world, depending on their conditions, time, and place. The meanings that cultures have for words are based on shared experiences, and the ability of a word to convey or elicit meaning depends on the culturally informed perceptions of both source and receiver.

Conceptual Equivalence. Another difficulty in translation lies in matching concepts. Some concepts are culture-specific (emic) and others culture-general (etic). By definition, it is impossible to translate perfectly an emic concept. So different, for instance, are Spanish cultural experiences from the English that many words cannot be translated directly. Strong affection is expressed in English with the verb to love. In Spanish, there are two verbs, te amo and te quiero. Те ато refers to nurturing love, as between a parent and a child or between two adults. Te quiero translates literally as 1 want you, which connotes ownership, a concept not present in the English expression I love you. Commonly used to express love between two adults, te quiero falls somewhere between the English statements f love you and 1 like you.

The Role of the Translator or Interpreter We often assume that translators and interpreters are "invisible," that they simply render into the target language whatever they hear. The roles that they play as intermediaries, however, often regulate how they render what is said.

We often assume that anyone who knows two languages can be a translator or an interpreter. The truth is, however, that high levels of fluency in two languages do not necessarily make someone a good translator or interpreter. The task obviously requires the knowledge of two languages. But that's not enough.

Because of the complex relationships between people, particularly in intercultural situations, translation and interpretation involve far more than linguistic equivalence, which traditionally has been the focus.

Working with a Translator. Proper use of an interpreter can enhance your ability to communicate with people of other cultures, but misuse can have serious consequences. A good interpreter needs special, highly developed skills.

Translation, as every translator learns quickly, is not just a matter of imitation, or finding our words to imitate their words, but it is also the recreation of the context of the foreign text (Becker). He or she must be able to translate a message so that others hear it as though it were the original message. This means that the interpreter must be skilled in more than vocabulary. A translator is responsible for taking several factors into account. These include culture, context, and audience. Additionally, translators must be sensitive to the nuances of words in both the source and target languages and sensitive to the style, tone, and purpose of the speaker. She or he must also know the word's emotive aspects, as well as the culture's thought processes and communication techniques. In certain situations, interpreters should include and communicate possible meanings of cues such as body posture, gestures, movement, and other devices. Finally, if you want to maintain the intention of the sender of the message, you can attempt by means of commentary, notes and explanatory renderings to reveal those underlying values.

Improving Translation.There are a number of things translators can do to improve the quality of their translations. The starting point is respect for individual cultures and appreciation of what they are, not what we think they should be. A translator must have a wide base of knowledge of a number of things if translation is to be accurate. Among these are current world and local events, the writer or speaker, the audience, the setting in which the communication takes place, and, of course, the subject of discussion.

Among the many factors one should consider when translating are: (1) history of the culture, (2) social and political institutions (3) message genre and accompanying vocabulary, and (4) the intentions of the sender and the translator (Reeves). The following example makes this point. In a courtroom, an interpreter was interpreting for a Latin American defendant, and the judge asked the defendant his name. He answered "Jose Manuel Gomez Perez-Marm." The judge asked, "Why do you have so many last names? The defendant answered, "They are my first last name and my second last name." Instead of interpreting word for word, the interpreter drew on her background knowledge of Latin culture in which individuals often carry their father's and their mother's last names. She interpreted to the judge, "They are my father's last name and my mother's last name." By accessing her cultural knowledge, the interpreter not only avoided a lengthy interrogation but also avoided creating an impression of the defen­dant as a criminal who used several aliases to cover his identity.

Effective Use of an Interpreter. The effective use of an interpreter requires the establishment of a three-way rapport: between the speaker and the interpreter, between the speaker and the audience; and between the interpreter and the audience. This is extremely difficult because of the complexity of translation in “real time.”

Consider what an interpreter must do simultaneously. When the speaker says a phrase, the interpreter must listen to that phrase. While the speaker says the next phrase, the interpreter must not only be translating the first phrase, but also listening to the second phrase. Then, while the speaker is saying the third phrase, the interpreter must be storing in his or her memory the first, interpreting the second, and listening to the third. This procedure goes on and on throughout the process of message delivery, but because the speaker doesn't stop to let the interpreter do all this, the interpreter must listen, process, and store incoming information while processing and delivering the previous information.

Language Politics and Policies

Some countries have multiple official languages. Others have no official national language (for example, the USA, although English is de facto national language).

Laws or customs determining which language is spoken where and when are referred to as language policies. These policies often emerge from the politics of language use. As mentioned above, the court of Catherine the Great of Russia used French, not Russian.

Language policies are embedded in the politics of class, culture, ethnicity and economics. They do not developed as a result of any supposed quality of the language itself. Attitudes about language – and those who speak that language – are influenced by economic contexts, social contexts and power of various linguistic groups. Examples are quite a few: French and Flemish in Belgium (after it gained independence from the Netherlands in 1830); English and French in Canada (“French-only” movement in Quebec, Canada); Belarusian and Russian in Belarus after the 1995 referendum, etc.

SUMMARY

- Many dimensions of language and discourse in intercultural communication are explored in this lecture. Discourse, or language in use, always has a social context. Linguists study four basic components of language as they investigate how language works: semantics is the study of meaning, syntax is the study of structure, pragmatics studies context, and phonetics studies the sound system of the language.

- People in different cultures can characterize the meaning of a phrase according to three criteria: the phrase’s value, its potency and level of activity. The particular language we speak influences our perception, but it does not totally determine our perception.

- Languages exhibit many cultural variations, both in communication style and in the rules of context. Cultural groups may emphasize importance of verbal (low-context) or nonverbal (high-context) communication. Four types of communication styles are direct/indirect, elaborate/exact/succinct, personal/contextual, and instrumental/affective. The context in which the communication occurs is a significant part of the meaning. Understanding the role of power in language use is important.

- The effects of power are also revealed in the use of labels, with the more powerful people in a society labeling the less powerful.

- The complexities of moving between languages is facilitated by interpretation and translation, in which issues of equivalency and accuracy are crucial. Being a good translator or interpreter requires more than just fluency in two languages.

- Languages politics and policies are discussed at the end of the lecture.

1. Why is it important for intercultural communication scholars to study both language and discourse?

2. What is the relationship between our language and the way we perceive reality?

3. What ideas are behind the nominalist and relativist positions of language and perception? How does Sapir-Whorf hypothesis express the relativist position?

4. What are some cross-cultural variations in language use and communication style?

5. What aspects of context influence the choice of communication style?

6. What does a translator or an interpreter need to know to be effective?

7. Why is it important to know the social positions of individuals and groups involved in intercultural communication?

8. Why do some people say that we should not use labels to refer to people but should treat everybody as individuals? Do you agree?

9. Why do people have such strong reactions to language policies, as in the "English-only" movement? What is your understanding of the language politics and policies in your country?

REFERENCES

Becker, A. L.Communication Across Diversity. In: A. L. Becker & A. A. Yenogoyan (Eds.). The Imagination of Reality. – Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1979.

Gudykunst, W. B. & Matsumoto, Y.Cross-Cultural Variability of Communication in Personal Relationships. In: W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida (Eds.). Communication in Personal Relationships Across Cultures. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996, pp. 19 – 56.

Hall, E. T.Beyond Culture. – Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.

Osgood, C. E., May, W. H. & Miron, M. S. Cross-Cultural Universals of Meaning. – Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975.

Reeves, N. B. R.Translating and Interpreting as Cultural Intermediation: Some Theoretical Issues Reconsidered. In: R. K. Seymour & C. C. Liu (Eds.). Translation and Interpreting: Bridging East and West. – Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pp. 33 – 50.

Schulte, R.Editorial: The Reviewing of Translations: A Growing Crisis. In: Translation Review, No.1, 1995, pp. 48 – 49.

Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M.Dictionary of Translation Studies. – Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.

LECTURE SEVEN