Cultural Identity and Interpersonal Communication Read about the communication accommodation theory on pages 152 and 153 in Chapter 7 of Baldwin, et al. You can find a direct link in this week's Readi

137 Systems of language and culture:

Why is talking across cultures so difficult?

Discursive elements of cultures: What happens when we join the elements of language?

Theories of conversation and culture:

What happens when we actually talk to each other? Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication?

Chapter 7 Chapter objectives After this chapter, you should be able to: ➔Apply notions of face theory and speech acts theory to understand cultural differences in specific types of verbal communication (e.g., attempts to persuade) ➔Describe and apply various dimensions of difference in verbal communication ➔Understand and explain cultural discourses ➔Explain and give examples of cultural myths, conversational episodes, and social dramas ➔Implement general ideas of communication accommodation to understand a speech episode Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Intercultural Communication for Everyday Life, First Edition. John R. Baldwin, Robin R. Means Coleman, Alberto Gonz lez, and Suchitra Shenoy-Packer.

© 2014 John R. Baldwin, Robin R. Means Coleman, Alberto Gonz lez, and Suchitra Shenoy-Packer. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 138 W ebsites from Engrish.com to The Huffington Post (2010) give humorous translations of signs from around the world into English, such as the notice exhorting, “Don’t molest the hawks”, based on the Spanish verb, molestar (meaning to bother); or the hotel called “The Homely Raj”, probably intending homey (homelike), rather than homely (unattractive) (Murdock, 2011). Often these are funny (Figure 7.1), such as the list of mistranslated advertising slogans (of doubtful reliability) currently going around the Internet: Chevrolet trying to sell a car in Mexico called “Nova” (“no va,” in Spanish, means it does not go); or “Pepsi brings you back to life”, which translates into Chinese as “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead” (Takingontobacco.com, n.d.). Of course, language difficulties in intercultural communication are based on much more than translation errors. In this chapter, we discuss how different aspects of language reflect culture and can lead to cultural misunderstanding. We will touch on theories that explain how cultures differ in terms of verbal communication, as well as what happens when people of different groups and cultures talk with each other. We will end with some brief sugges- tions for more successful interaction. Systems of language and culture: Why is talking across cultures so difficult?

Language refers to a system of verbal, nonverbal, and visual symbols that a group pieces together to share meaning. There are often forceful politics surrounding language, because making one language a “national language” gives those who speak that language prestige and power over others who do not speak the language well, or even who speak it with a different dialect or pronunciation than has become dominant. For example, in Québec, Canada, language politics between French and English have been longstanding. One recent Figure 7.1 Cultural mistakes abound as people tr y to translate signs into other cultures. What kind of mistakes have you made while tr ying to speak or write in a second or third language?

Source: Andrew Woodley/age fotostock/SuperStock.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 139 policy there requires that all advertising, including in Chinese businesses and restaurants, post French as the largest language on signs and advertising (Croucher, 2006).In any language community, there are multiple ways of speaking (speech codes)—but people in different situations have different “communicative resources” (Philipsen et al ., 2005). For example, students in a classroom are guided by culture as to how (or if ) to ask the teacher questions in class or challenge a teacher’s mistake. Language also structures the interaction, so that certain people have the right to do some things and others to do other things. These rights are accepted and consented to by people in the situation, but sometimes challenged. In sum, language is not something we simply participate in as individuals—it is structured by history, social situations, social relations, and hierarchies.

Systems of meaning Semantics Language researchers discuss several aspects of language that are beyond the scope of our discussion, such as writing systems, sounds that different languages make, or grammar and word order. Two main areas of language are relevant in the study of cultural communication semantics and discourse. Semantics is the area of language study that considers what words mean. Words have denotation —the relatively objec - tive dictionary type of definition of a word, and connotation —the feelings (personal or social) that individuals associate with a word. Meaning comes in part from the per - sonal experiences we have with a word. When we are little, we see a dog on the street and someone says either “puppy!” or “viralata! ” (Brazilian Portuguese meaning “tin can-turner”, or mongrel). We associate the sound or image with something we see (“reality”)—either face-to-face or in a mediated text—and we get a sense of how we should feel about it. “Puppies” are cuddly and cute and want to be petted; “viralatas ” should be avoided and left alone. Through interaction, then, we create meanings (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), and these meanings differ from culture to culture. For example, the word “friend” translates into “amigo” in Spanish and Portuguese—but people who speak these as first languages often have different expectations and meanings for what a friend is and does than those who speak U. S. American English. In the mobile American culture, a friend may be someone one sees after a long absence and feels as if the relationship continues right where it left off. But in other cultures, friendship implies a deep sense of obligation and continued communication. At the same time, social ideologies also frame language, through the reproduction of mediated messages, politics (for example, legal definitions of what it means to be Black or White in a given country), and so on. What do you think? In the United States, there are currently movements in some places to make English an official language—or, at least, there have been complaints about the need to “Press One for English” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJfS1v-fU0 ) or for or against Ebonics (African American Vernacular English). But Tarik Rahman (2002) also talks about language politics in Pakistan, and elsewhere in this book we mention the language politics in Spain. What language politics exist in your region or culture?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

140 Some argue that meanings of words are not simply neutral, but are loaded with power implications. Groups struggle to define certain words, illustrating the notion of discourse .

Discourse, in this sense, refers to the sets of ideas surrounding a concept. Michel Foucault (1978) talks about the history (what he calls the archeology) of words, noting how cultures and societies create notions such as mental illness, sexuality, and crime in a way that keeps certain sets of ideas in power. (For example, is same-sex sexual activity a “mental illness” or “crime” in your culture?) These meanings change over time, such as the notion of “race” in U.S. American culture (Banton, 1977), but they change through group striving, as people with different ideologies fight to make their meanings central. What you say is what you get: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis We have seen that cultures may differ in the way they think of language. Some writers go further to suggest that the language of a culture dictates how people within that culture can think. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis posits that, in a way, language creates social reality through language structure, such as the fact that different languages make different verb tenses, word order, or words available to describe certain things (see Figure 7.2). Harry Hoijer (1991) cites examples from Navajo, Hopi, and other languages in which people from dif- ferent cultures have wider or narrower sets of names for color spectrum. Thomas Steinfatt (1989) analyzes the evidence on both sides and concludes that, while language may not create a “reality” for people, it does lead people in a culture to tend to think about certain things rather than others. HOPI - P AHE HOPI - ONE WORD (MASA’YT AKA) ENGLISH - THREE WORDS ENGLISH - ONE WORD (SNO W) ESKIMO - THREE WORDS ENGLISH - ONE WORD (W ATER); HOPI - TWO WO RDS HOPI - KEYI H2O Figure 7.2 The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis notes that different languages classify the world differently. This may lead people who speak these languages to think of the world in different ways or focus on different aspects of reality.

Source: Whorf, 2012, Figure 15.2.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 141 Speech acts and cultural communication Another important area for intercultural communication is what we do with words—the pragmatic aspect of language. For example, someone tells you, “You look great”. The words contain a second-person singular pronoun, “you,” a linking verb suggesting how something appears, “look,” and an adjective with a positive feeling behind it, “great”. In one situation, this could be a compliment, but, if you have just spent all night studying and have not cleaned up before class, it could be sarcasm. It could be flattery, to your bosses’ wife, or a lie, to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. This example shows us that there are many things we can do with a phrase, just as there are many ways to accomplish the same sort of act. Speech acts theory outlines the types of actions we perform with utterances (Austin, 1962). We follow basic rules when we com- municate, as long as we are trying to cooperate with others in conversation. If we are com- petent, we will stay on topic, give sufficient detail but not more than is necessary, speak things we believe to be true, and speak in a way that is relatively clear (Grice, 1957; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2007). There are different types of action we can do with words—we can make statements (observations), express our feelings or opinions (compli- ment, curse, greet), try to influence others (hint, question, command), commit to a future act (promise, threat, vow), or change the state of things with our words (fire someone, decree something—acts that can usually only be done by people in authority). And each of these follows a set of hidden rules about what constitutes an act (an apology must be about a negative event over which a person has control and feels sincerely sorry for) or who can do it (only someone with authority can make a “pronouncement”) (Nofsinger, 1991; Searle, 1969). We probably follow all of these rules without thinking about them. Speech acts theory helps us understand cultural language difficulties. What counts as enough detail in one culture may not be the same in another culture. In one culture, some- one might make a request using indirect language, which would violate unstated expecta- tions for clarity in another culture; and the intended purpose of a message is often not what is received. We experience this in our daily lives. Deborah Tannen (1991) outlines sex-based differences in the workplace: a woman might give an order that looks and sounds like a sug- gestion (“you might try…”), and men might misunderstand it, with the result that women’s requests are often not fulfilled by men (this explanation, neglects the possibility that men undervalue women’s leadership in organizations). Shoshana Blum-Kulka (1997) illustrates such forms of indirectness in requests by analyzing a scene at an Israeli dinner table, where the father is hungry and seeks permission to make himself some food, but the mother per - ceives it as a complaint about what is offered, so defends her choice of rice for dinner. In intercultural communication, people often mistake the force of a statement for what it actually looks like. Many newcomers to the United States get frustrated when people ask, “How’s it going?” when they do not really want to know. While “How’s it going?” can be a heartfelt request for information in the U.S., it usually serves as a greeting, and the speaker does not expect a response. In cultures that prefer indirectness, like Japan, a statement in a negotiation session like “We’ll think about it” sounds like a promise for future consideration but may be a polite way to say “no”. Getting things done with language We can see culture’s impact on how we accomplish many different communication acts. These include things like making and responding to apologies, making requests, Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

142 showing camaraderie, giving criticism, and gaining agreement on a project. Each area has produced rich research in cross-cultural and intercultural communication, but we will consider just four areas.

Directives As noted earlier, directives (attempts to influence the behavior of or per- suade another) can range from subtle hints to overt commands. Kristine Fitch (1994) found that attempts to persuade in Colombia were informed by two dimensions: hierar - chia (hierarchy) and confianza (trust, relatedness), similar to power and solidarity already mentioned. People in Colombia might use a go-between or intermediary to persuade someone across status lines. People in Colorado (U.S.) tend to use politeness behaviors, giving the target of persuasion a way to avoid the imposition. Someone might say, “Hey, if you’re not busy, would you be able to give me a ride?” so that the other person could reply that she or he is busy. Min-Sun Kim and Steven Wilson (1994) found that U.S. Americans and South Koreans both felt that direct requests were the clearest way to get someone to do something, but that the U.S. Americans felt such a form to be the most effective, and the South Koreans, the least effective. Criticism In a study of criticism, Taiwanese and U.S. American participants gave their most likely responses to situations that might yield a complaint or criticism, such as being late for an appointment, invasion of privacy by a parent, or a server’s mistake at a restaurant. There were no important differences in the frequencies of options such as saying nothing or using accusing questions to criticize; but analysis of open-ended data showed that U.S. American questions about a behavior were often phrased to assume guilt on the part of the other person, where the Chinese questions were framed more to ask if the other was aware of the sender’s perceptions and resulting disappointment (Chen et al., 2011). Findings from conversational data suggest that some cultures prefer to soften criticism or not offer it—but for different reasons. Japanese people might avoid criticism and strong emotional displays in many cases because it shows lack of omoi - yari —the ability to sense the pain or pleasure of another. The Japanese often do not want the other person to feel bad. Malays might engage in self-silencing to avoid having the other think badly of them. Polish speakers, however, are more likely to say things like, “Where did you get such an idea from?! You are wrong!”. In fact, the ability to openly express one’s perception of “disagreement, exasperation, and impatience” with the other is a sign of the feeling of openness one feels one should have in relationships (Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997, p. 244). Apologies In response to an embarrassing situation, should someone make a joke, give an explanation or defense, or make an apology of some sort? Todd Imahori and William Cupach (1994) had student participants describe an embarrassing predicament of their choice. The Japanese students were more likely to describe something that had happened with someone from their in-group, and the U.S. Americans, someone from an out-group.

The Japanese were more likely to feel a sense of shame , in the sense of negative reflection upon their group for the embarrassing situation, but the U.S. Americans, guilt , or a sense of personal responsibility. While people in both cultures preferred to avoid mentioning the wrong and an “apology” as the primary responses, in some situations, Americans were much more likely to use humor to lighten the situation, whereas Japanese were Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 143 more likely to use remediation —that is, to do something concrete to make up to the injured party for the embarrassment. Compliments Finally, Farhad Sharifian (2008) describes how Persian speakers, even when they are speaking English as a second language, give and receive compliments. The Persian notion of adah, a form of politeness in which one seeks to give compliments, sug- gests one should give many, but sincere, compliments on various aspect of the other person’s life. While one may give lots of compliments, however, a contrasting notion of shekasteh- nafsi —modesty—leads one to downplay one’s own accomplishments. In response to a prompt that one had done a great job, one participant responded with, “I owe this achieve- ment to your efforts. If it hadn’t been for your help, I would never have achieved this” (p. 62).

Another study classifies the various types of compliments given in Pidgin English in Cameroon (Nkwain, 2011), such as direct appraisals (“What a beautiful blouse you have!”, p. 67), or interrogative appraisals (“Where do you do your hair?”, p. 68). The author suggests that the compliments, shared between people of different ethnic or tribal groups but shared in a common trade language of Pidgin, serve to build solidarity between speakers, as long as they are perceived as genuine. Explaining the details: Seeking ways to explain differences across cultures As we have seen, there are many different ways to make an argument, negotiate, joke, request, compliment, promise (or threat), show respect, or give instructions. Even with flu- ency in the logistics of a language, if we do not master the pragmatics of the culture, we will be incompetent. There are too many types of specific differences to explain here, but here we will explain several approaches researchers have used to try to explain cultural differ - ence in language use.

Relational orientations Many scholars have defined relational orientations in two primary dimensions of interaction: power and solidarity (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987; Tannen, 1994). Pow e r refers to the level of control over another’s thoughts, feelings, or behavior. This includes communication in which one person imposes upon or yields to another. In any culture, different situations or relationships have more of a hierarchical difference, which impacts our communication. We communicate differently with our friends than with our employer, and differently with our employer than we might if we met the Queen or the Prime Minister. Another dimension of interaction is solidarity (relational distance) , the degree of familiarity and/or intimacy we have with another person. We tend to react differently—more formally or less rudely—to someone who is a stranger than to an acquaintance, a friend, or a close friend. The two dimensions interact. In some cases, we might have a closer level of intimacy with a supervisor, even though she is also hierarchically above us in the organizational structure; but we might act more cordially to a stranger who is our age than one with a higher status. Deborah Tannen (1994) notes that some cultures, like the United States, associate power with asymmetry, hierarchy, and distance, and see it as the opposite of solidarity: it is difficult to be in a close relationship with a boss or status superior. Other Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

144 cultures, such as one might find in Indonesia or Japan, imagine relationships that bind people together hierarchically, but also with a strong sense of solidarity. These dimen- sions exist in all cultures, though individual, cultural, and structural influences shape them in actual communication.

Face theory As we consider these various types of action that one can accomplish with communication, we see both cultural differences and cultural similarities. Researchers have proposed several frameworks to try to make sense of a wide variety of communication behavior (verbal and nonverbal). Some seek explanations that apply across all cultures.

Many authors use notions of face and politeness theory. Irving Goffman (1959) argues that we are often concerned about what he calls face —the image we seek to have of ourselves in interaction. We are like actors on a stage, with props, lines, and performances; but some- times, we let others “backstage” to see more of what we are really like. Goffman (1967) argues that in interaction, we work together with others to protect and repair loss of face, because face-loss can interrupt the flow of interaction. Once face has been damaged, conversation often stops while someone makes a joke, an apology, a threat, or some other remedy, and that remedy is accepted by others—unless the most face-saving move is to say nothing, such as we do when people pass audible gas publicly in cultures where this is disap- proved of (Cupach & Metts, 2006). Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1987) find evidence that in all cultures, people seek to preserve the idea that they are free and autonomous ( negative face ) as well as the idea that they are competent and qualified for some task; people also like to feel included or liked by others (the last two notions are aspects of positive face ). (We will say more about how these relate to conflict in chapter 13.) We see an example of how cultural dimensions might be explained and predicted using notions of face in the Imahori and Cupach (1994) study noted earlier. Cultural scripts Other researchers, rather than try to predict behaviors, use obser - vation and talk to people to learn the communication scripts used in a culture. These are cultural rules regarding expected behavior that include expectations of who does what (actors, roles), and any expected sequence of actions in a communication routine.

Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka (1997), using a script approach, describe what they call a “natural semantic metalanguage” (p. 235) that uses simple words, like people , something , say , think , know , good , and bad , to describe a behavior in a particular cul- ture. They use this approach to describe what they call halus speech—a speech form in What do you think? Make a list of large or small favors or requests you could ask of someone. Now, list the ways you might ask or tell someone to do the favor. What are some ways your persuasion attempts can vary? What are some factors that influence how you shape your attempt to influence the other person? Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest hierarchy, relational closeness, and size of the imposition as three factors. How do these play out in your culture (for example, how would your request differ between a stranger and a close friend)? What other factors might influence how you shape your communication?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 145 Malaysia in which people talk carefully with people outside of the immediate family.

The cultural logic is that: When people hear someone saying something Sometimes they think something like this:

“This person knows how to say things well to other people; this is good.” Sometimes they think something like this:

“This person doesn’t know how to say things well to other people; this is bad.” (p. 242) In a similar way, Donal Carbaugh (2005) unpacks a negative live-audience reaction to Phil Donahue, as he tries to goad Russian youth into talking about the “problem” of pre- marital sex in Russia. Carbaugh concludes that, while “public talk” and turning issues into problems is a mainstay of American talkshow television, with sex being treated very ration- ally, the Russians perceive sex to be a deeply emotional topic and do not perceive public television as the correct place to air public problems. Dimensions of difference Instead of theories and frameworks, many authors summa- rize types of differences one might expect between cultures. These provide a simple way to think of how cultures can differ, as long as we realize that a) most cultures will sit between the “extremes” on any set of terms and contain elements of both aspects of a dimension; b) there will be differences within each culture based on age, social class, task at hand and so on; and c) cultures balance change and tradition in the face of globalization.

➔ Direct versus indirect : As we have already seen, people in some cultures—depending on the relationship between individuals, the urgency of the topic, and other factors— can be very direct, even “in your face.” People in some cultures can be direct and forthright in their speech. People in other cultures can be quite indirect, such as in orga nizational communication in Japan or Korea (though young Korean friends might make a request or joke quite directly to each other). For example, Egyptians in Break it down To learn more about cultures around you, join a cultural interest group or make frequent visits to a cultural location different from your own (e.g., a different type of worshiping community, different festivals). Interact with people enough to understand how communication in that group might differ from or be similar to your own. How does your increased understanding of the communication work together to inform—and be informed by—your understanding of the background, immigration conditions, and so on, of that group? What does your experience teach you about yourself?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

146 many cases use musayara speech, marked by deference, commonality, and avoidance of conflict (Zaidman et al ., 2008).

➔ Formal versus informal : All cultures have situations that are more or less formal, though in some cultures, there are more occasions for formality than others. For example, in midwestern U.S. American classrooms, students are more informal, some even calling professors by first name (though this might differ in the southern U.S., among different ethnic cultures, or for those who have served in the armed services).

In other cultures, communication in business or education situations or with status superiors demands formality.

➔ Differentiated and undifferentiated codes: Language is differentiated when there are different registers, or forms and levels of formality of speech for people in differ - ent societal groups, such as based on social status. Romance languages are more differentiated than English, with both formal and informal forms for singular “you” (Spanish: tú, Usted)—though the specific rules for going from tú to Usted vary from culture to culture, even within a single Spanish-speaking country. Korean, on the other hand, has multiple levels of formality in language, and even “honorific verbs” to describe things such as eating or sleeping for those very high in status. A reporter for Seoulbeats demonstrates how these levels of formality apply even in K-pop, a contem- porary form of popular music from South Korea (Dana, 2012).

➔ Instrumental and affective styles: People in some cultures may be more direct and goal oriented, preferring efficient linguistic forms, while other cultures may have a preference for more emotional and expressive communication. This com- bines elements we discuss in chapter 4, such as being versus doing, or instrumental versus expressive. We see this in the way that offers are made in U.S. America and China. In the U.S., the correct sequence is offer → request/decline (“Would you like some iced tea?” “No, thanks.” “Okay.”) But in China, as in many other cultures, one should offer food or hospitality even if one is not willing or able to give it at that time, just to be polite; and the other person, even if hungry or tired, should decline the request, just to be polite. The function of such offers in these cultures, then, is to make someone feel welcome. The correct sequence becomes offer→ de cline→ insist→ [resist→ double insist→ ]accept/decline. A larger offer may require multiple resistance and insistence turns.

➔ Exaggerated, exacting, succinct styles: An exaggerated style may use language more to embellish upon reality than to describe it, as a major function of communication is to reveal the speaker’s ability to use language creatively. For example, many U.S. African American males might employ boasting, rapping (romantic come-ons), and verbal games like “the dozens” (Johnson, 2000). An exacting style emphasizes saying what one means, giving the detail necessary— with a focus on efficiency similar to the instrumental style noted earlier. The succinct style reflects a cultural or personal preference for fewer words. The instrumental/exacting communication is speaker-focused, with the speaker pro- viding the detail she or he feels the other needs, where a succinct style is listener- focused, leaving the listener to fill in the gaps (Lustig & Koester, 2010), such as in the traditional notion of British understatement or some Asian forms that include more silence and subtlety in communication.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 147 Discursive elements of cultures: What happens when we join the elements of language?

We often interact with friends and relatives for easily identifiable reasons. We engage in conversation to exchange information and to express our feelings and judgments.

However, there are times when our interactions with others have meaning beyond the immediate context and are explained by broader patterns of communication. For example, when sports fans arise for their national anthem before a game, they partici- pate in a public ritual. The song is an expression of national pride and is a deliberate reminder of national greatness and national ideals. When fans stand, sing, remove their hats and show other signs of respect, they publicly confirm their loyalty to the state. The anthem along with other verbal (for example, a formal pledge of allegiance) and nonverbal (a flag) symbols, compose a set of meanings—or a discourse—that guides understanding and action.These broader patterns of communication are discursive elements of language .

Cultural myth, conversational episodes, social dramas, and metaphor are examples of discursive elements of cultures that are examined in this section. Being prepared for suc- cessful civic action requires having an understanding of the discursive elements that guide communities. Cultural myth Cultural myth is a narrative that is popularly told to teach preferred ways of behaving, such as a familiar story that recommends particular values and responses to situations. An example might be the U.S. American myth of the “American Dream,” traditionally a view that anyone can work hard to achieve a better life (expressed in terms of monetary wealth/ security and material goods). Myths may have origins in historical events or may be anchored in values that have evolved over time. A myth is told that Buddha called all the animals to him as he ended his earthly stay. Only 12 animals answered the call, so Buddha rewarded the rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog, and bear by giving each animal its own year (Fong, 2012). People born during the year of a par - ticular animal have the characteristics of that animal, thus giving honor to each animal. As a cultural myth, the story allows parents to recommend to their children socially valued behaviors. Though the 12 animals are assigned different traits, all have traits that point toward passion, focus, and hard work. Myths are conveyed through a variety of methods, including popular culture. For example, the U.S. song The Ballad of Davy Crockett, found on a popular children’s CD titled For Our Children (Stern & Kleiner, 1999), tells the story of Davy, who was “born on a mountaintop in Tennessee” and who was so skilled in the woods that he “kilt him a bar [killed him a bear] when he was only three.” In addition to conquering the land, he fought different Native tribes and got elected to the U.S. Congress. He “saw his duty clear” and went off to fight with the Texas Revolution at the Alamo, where he met his demise in 1836. The actual Davy Crockett dropped out of school, ran away from home and angrily left Tennessee after losing an election. So why is Crockett commemorated in this song? The song emphasizes (and exaggerates) aspects of a U.S. American character that are deeply rooted in American folklore. Crockett, as the “King of the wild frontier,” Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

148 reinforces the goodness of turning natural resources to human use—by force if neces- sary. He reinforces the goodness of individualism and single-minded determination and he legitimizes the superiority of Euro-American Protestantism over other beliefs.

Additional stories of characters such as Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox serve much the same purpose. In contrast, Cherokee storyteller Gayle Ross (1986) describes how the Cherokee obtained the first sacred fire. In The First Fire, various animals volunteered to bring fire from a burning log that lay across the water on an island. The council first chose several birds to go to bring the fire, because they were the fastest: the raven, screech owl and the hooting owl. But the birds could not get through the thick smoke of the fire. Then the bear and the snake were chosen because they were brave and strong. But they failed as well. Finally, the tiny water spider asked to go and everyone laughed. How could the tiny spider hope to succeed when the biggest, bravest and fastest animals had failed? The water spider was allowed to try anyway. It spun a bowl in which to put a piece of coal from the fire and soon it returned to light the sacred fire of the Cherokee. The lesson is that often the “smallest and meekest” have a role in finding solutions to problems. This cultural myth emphasizes the goodness of a collectivist orientation. Action is deter - mined through group decision-making. Instead of each animal acting individually, the council decided which animal would try to bring the fire. In the end, the least dominant animal succeeded through intelligence and patience. The First Fire and The Ballad of Davy Crockett express different cultural values and recommend different approaches for acting in the world.

Conversational episodes A conversational episode (CE) or communication ritual is a routine portion of conversation that has an expected beginning and end, like ordering a meal at a restaurant, or friends exchanging details about what they did last night. Though usually brief, exchanges are important and guided by tradition. As language philosopher Judith Butler (1997) wrote, the episode “exceeds itself in past and future directions” (p. 3). In this sense, CEs are performances of cultural knowledge. When a Spanish-speaking individual is introduced to another, the common reply is “mucho gusto ” or “nice to meet you.” In Morocco, it is nearly impossible to greet someone without invoking Allah. In a CE, some- thing specific gets accomplished: a joke is told, a bet is made, a greeting is given, much as in speech acts earlier though the CE involves more than one turn, as opposed to a hint or a threat. So, “mucho gusto ” would be a speech act, but it would occur within an episode, typically upon first meeting someone, and would be followed with an expected follow-up, like, “el gusto es mio” (“the pleasure is mine”). In a different example, during the first three days of the Chinese New Year, people commonly use the expression “gung hay fat choy ” (may you have a happy and prosperous new year) and avoid negative topics. If a speaker makes a disparaging remark and invites bad luck, the hearer replies, “Tou heu soey dzoi geng gwa” (spit out your saliva and speak once more) (Fong, 2012, p. 157). Some writers speak of different discourses as expectations and patterns of speech that occur in differ - ent situations, such as courtroom discourse, television interview discourse, or informal conversation. Who shares what in each situation is shaped by social roles, norms, and hierarchies, like other aspects of language.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 149 Social dramas A social drama is a conflict that arises in a community after a social norm is violated. The violation becomes a social drama when discussion about it calls into question that social norm, and the resolution of the conflict validates, strengthens, or weakens the norm for mem- bers of the community (Turner, 1982). Social dramas can occur on an international scale, on a national scale, or at local levels. Yet even the local-level dramas can be intercultural in nature. In 2010, the City Council in Toledo, Ohio, drafted a resolution calling for the federal government to undertake comprehensive reform of immigration policy (Messina, 2010a) as a response to controversial immigration laws passed in Arizona. The resolution was intro- duced by the lone Latino on the City Council. In this case, the drama centers around the response of the city leader, the mayor of the city. Through his response, we can see the four phases of a social drama:

➔ Breach of the code—this is violation of an accepted rule or law.

➔ Crisis—this is the talk or discussion in response to the breach. In the 2009 Indian blockbuster movie, 3 Idiots, three strangers—Farhan, Raju, and Rancho—join Delhi’s Imperial College of Engineering. On the night of arrival, there is an “initiation” ceremony that involves them stripping to their underwear, singing songs, and interacting with the student leader of the initi- ation (Figure 7.3). In a much less formal ritual, in the 1991 U.S. movie, White Men Can’t Jump, a group of basketball players engage in “trashtalking” (specifically, a verbal dueling game called “the Dozens,” which involves “yo mama” jokes; Johnson, 2000). Initiations and trashtalking constitute communication episodes, or rituals, that serve particular functions for the communicators. What rituals do you engage in within your own culture? What functions do they serve? POP CULTURE Figure 7.3 Farhan, Raju, and Rancho, characters in 3 Idiots, sing a silly song—but even silliness among friends has its hidden rules!

Source: Eros/Reliance Big Pictures/ The Kobal Collection.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

150 ➔ Redress—this is the method for resolving the breach. Redress can be formal (a trial) or informal (public opinion). Redress can result in reintegration or dissensus.

➔ Reintegration or dissensus—reintegration is forgiveness and inclusion back into the community. Dissensus means there is ongoing disagreement about the breach and its implications for the community.

In the case of the City Council resolution on immigration, the Council vote was tied, and it fell to Toledo’s mayor, Mike Bell, to break the tie. He voted against the resolution (breach).

The failure of the resolution created uproar in Toledo, particularly among Latina/os (crisis).

Many could not understand how the mayor, who was African American, could oppose a law that was widely seen as encouraging law enforcement officers to stop using racial profil- ing. Many Latinas and Latinos felt that the mayor’s action was a betrayal of the political alliance between African Americans and Latinas and Latinos. A columnist for La Prensa told the mayor “Some people have been so disappointed by your action that they have suggested simply writing you off ” (Abrams, 2010, p. 7). Ultimately, the City Council proved to have the power to redress the breach. A month later, in July 2010, the City Council passed a revised resolution. The new version directed the Ohio state legislature and the Ohio Governor not to propose or pass bills similar to the Arizona laws (Messina, 2010b). The resolution passed City Council and did not require the mayor’s vote. While Mayor Bell largely has been reintegrated into the Latina/Latino politi- cal sphere, memories of this perceived betrayal linger. Our verbal communication often is about community or national and international controversies. Our opinions become part of a larger dialogue on acceptable or reprehen- sible conduct. As we discuss topics with others and give our judgment on our own actions or the actions performed on our behalf (and perhaps change our judgment), we examine and prioritize our individual and cultural values. Thus, not only do social dramas shape our individual cultures, but as they arise in discussion, they become part of our intercul- tural dialogue. Cultural metaphor A metaphor is an association of two items. A characteristic of the more familiar item is associated with the less known item. If we talk about “saving time,” we are treating time in terms of something tangible that can be saved, like money. Metaphors can have many dif- ferent origins. For example “zubda ” is an Arabic word for “the best butter or cream.” Zubda refers to the best of what has been mixed or churned. So imagine a music CD called The Zubda of Shakira , which would mean “the best of Shakira” or “the essential Shakira.” Metaphors and metaphorical expressions in talk and literature have fascinated critics since Aristotle. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (2003), a linguist and a philosopher, go so far as to say that we “live by” metaphors—they structure the very way that we think. For example, we will treat immigrants differently if we think of them as a “scaffolding for our construction economy” as opposed to a “drain on society resources.” An especially helpful notion is the metaphorical archetype —a comparison of items that has many expressions (a “family” of metaphors, metaphorically speaking) and is deeply ingrained in a culture (Osborn, 1967). The metaphorical archetype is instantly recognized when it is used, and so assumed that it is rarely questioned. The archetypal metaphor found in President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign speeches was the metaphor of the “journey” (Darsey, 2009).

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 151 Expressions such as “the journey that led me here,” “path of upward mobility,” and “the road to change” allow Obama to connect to the larger narrative of America’s forward motion.Metaphors of travel and motion are not hard to come across in ordinary North American speech. Expressions such as “I see where you’re going with that,” and “just follow me for a second” connect motion with argument and reasoning. Other metaphors such as “being concrete,” “getting to the bottom line,” “getting to the point,” and “the weight of evidence” all suggest a linear (“now it’s time to connect the dots”) orientation. The dominant U.S. culture preference for linearity (time’s arrow) contrasts with Native American metaphors of circu- larity and looking backward . Another cultural difference can be seen in archetypes or meta- phors for animals. All cultures use animals for different metaphoric purpose, but sometimes the meanings and feelings differ. For example, in U.S. American culture, if we call someone a “rat,” that person is “contemptible…sneaky, disloyal, and hated” (Smith-Marder, 2002, p. 55). But in many cultures, such as India, China, and ancient Egypt and Rome, the rat is revered (though in Rome, it depended on the color of the rat).

As critical observers and participants in cultures, we are reminded that discursive ele- ments of cultures serve a variety of purposes. The words and expressions that existed before us may have become popular to further marginalize a specific population or region or to privilege a particular cultural value or view of something, like success, beauty, or human nature. We should not automatically accept the verbal options given to us. We should always reflect upon who is served or under-served by a particular narrative, metaphor, or conver - sational episode. Typically, we view the breach of a code as negative. But we should ask: did that code need to be violated to advance social justice? Is dissensus the right outcome to achieve social justice?

Theories of conversation and culture: What happens when we actually talk to each other?

We have looked at what happens within each culture, either in terms of forms of languages (apologies, compliments) or in terms of larger levels of discourse and meaning (metaphors, rituals). But what happens when people from different cultures communicate? To the extent that differences in expectations for different behaviors are beyond our awareness, when someone else requests, criticizes, compliments, or greets in a way we do not expect, we will give meaning to their behavior based on our own cultural norms ( attribution , see chapter 6).

In many cases, this can lead to a negative evaluation or simply to misunderstanding. Here we introduce one theory that has gained much attention, and then address issues of dominance and power in intergroup communication. What do you think? Imagine an orientation that was grounded in recurring growth (birth-to-death-to-birth) rather than travel. The struggle to adopt policies that ensure a sustainable use of natural resources can be seen as a struggle over metaphors. Which metaphor families will prevail: metaphors of linear development or metaphors of growth?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

152 Communication accommodation theory Often people with different speaking styles communicate with each other, even from within the same nation. Basil Bernstein (1966) stated that the social situation, including commu- nicative context (for example, a job interview versus a party) and social relationships (for example, peers versus status unequals), dictates the forms of speaking used in a particular situation. Bernstein suggested that in all cultures, there are different types of codes. A restricted code is a code used by people who know each other well, such as jargon or argot. Jargon refers to a vocabulary used by people within a specific profession or area (such as rugby players or mine workers), while argot refers to language used by those in a particular underclass, often to differentiate themselves from a dominant culture (e.g., pros- titutes, prisoners). However, as people get to know each other better, even good friends can develop this sort of linguistic shorthand, speaking in terms or references that others do not understand. In an elaborated code , people spell out the details of meaning in the words in a way that those outside of the group can understand them. This switching back and forth between codes is called code-switching . Effective communicators should be able to speak in restricted codes appropriate to their context, but also know how to switch to elaborated code (for example, to include outsiders)—to change their vocabulary, level of formality, and so on, to match the audience and social occasion.

Based on the notions of different codes within a community, as well as code-switching and other theoretical ideas, Howard Giles and his colleagues introduced communication accommodation theory (Giles & Noels, 2002; Gallois et al ., 2005). This theory predicts how people adjust their communication in certain situations, the factors that lead to such changes, and the outcomes of different types of changes. In the U.S. television series, Lost , through a series of flashbacks and present commu- nication, we observe the speech of Jin Kwon (Daniel Dae Kim), a Korean man, the son of a fisherman, but hired by a wealthy restaurant owner. In some cases, his communica- tion is respectful, indirect, deferential; in others, it is direct, friendly or aggressive, and nonverbally more expressive. In some cases, he might change his behavior to be more like that of the person with whom he is speaking ( convergence ), and in others, he Break it down Tell about a time that you moved back and forth between an elaborated and a restricted code.

This might have happened at a workplace, if your work has a specific jargon, or even as you move between slang your friends use and the talk you use with parents or teachers. What are some ways that “code-switching” can be effective or ineffective in communication? How can we use an awareness of others around us (such as international students) to use code-switching appropriately to make their communication adjustment easier and to make them feel more accepted?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 153 might make no changes in his behavior ( maintenance ) or even highlight his own style to mark it as different from that of the other group ( divergence ). Jin can change his behavior in terms of nonverbal behavior (distance, posture, touch, etc.), paralinguistic behavior (tone of voice, rate of speech, volume, etc.), and verbal behavior (word choice, complexity of grammar, topic of conversation, turn-taking, etc.). Many things influence shifts in his speech, such as the status and power of the other communicator, the situa- tion, who is present, communication goals (for example, to seem friendly, or to show status or threat), the strength of his own language in the community, and his communi- cation abilities. Communication and sites of dominance Convergence can often go wrong. Giles and Noels (2002) explain that, although con- verging is usually well received, we can overaccommodate , or converge too much or in ineffective ways, by adjusting in ways we might think are appropriate, but are based on stereotypes of the other. People often speak louder and more slowly to a foreigner, thinking that they will thus be more understandable. Overaccommodation also works in situations of dominance. For example, younger people often inappropriately adjust their communication when talking with elderly people. Often called secondary baby talk , this includes a higher pitch in voice, simpler vocabulary, and use of plural first-person (“we”—“Would we like to put our coat on? It’s very cold outside”). While some older people find this type of communication comforting, especially from health workers, some feel it speaks down to them and treats them as no longer competent.

A similar feeling might be experienced by Blacks in the United States when Whites use hyperexplanation . This inappropriate form of adjustment also includes use of simpler grammar, repetition, and clearer enunciation. But Harry Waters (1992) sug- gests that it is a behavior some Whites engage in while talking with Blacks (or other minority members)—perhaps based on real communication differences or perhaps based on stereotypes, but certainly leaving hurt feelings or resentment on the part of the Black listeners. Writers have outlined the ways in which word choice, turn-taking and length, or topic selection may also serve to exclude others, often without us even being aware of it (Fairclough, 2001; Tannen, 1994). Don Zimmerman and Candace West (1975) found that while women “overlapped” speech turns in talking to men, often with “continuers” (“mm hmm,” “yes”) that continued the turn of the male, men were more often likely to interrupt women, often taking the turn away from them. And when women did interrupt men, the men did not yield the turn to women, while women did yield the turn to men. Jennifer Coates (2003), observing storytelling, found that men and boys often framed themselves as heroes, as being rebels or rule-breakers. In analysis of family communication, she found that there is “systematic” work done by all family members in many families to frame the father as either the primary story teller or the one to whom children tell their stories. Coates concludes, “Family talk can be seen to construct and maintain political order within families. . . . to conform roles and power structures within families” (p. 158), giving men more power in most mixed-gender storytelling over women. We can see that each aspect of verbal communication could be used in ways to impose power over others, often based on group identity, cultural difference, maintenance of group power, or, simply put, prejudice.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

154 Summary Our focus in this chapter has been on various aspects of verbal communication as these relate to culture and intercultural communication. We considered elements that make up the language system—from the smallest parts of sound (phonemes) to language woven into myth, ritual, and practice. We considered perspectives of language and culture, such as whether linguistic relativity is a valid concept, that is, whether the language that a culture speaks creates the reality that the speakers of that language inhabit. We gave special atten- tion to the use of language in building myth, communication episodes, and social dramas.Beyond lists of dimensions of language variation (e.g., formal to informal), we provided some overarching ideas to explain how these might vary across cultures, such as speech acts and face theory. We considered explanations of what happens when people of different groups or cultures speak to each other, through the notion of communication accommoda- tion. Finally, we suggested ways that people use verbal language, perhaps without intention, to reinforce power structures and social discourses, such as discourses of traditional gender roles or ideas of group stereotypes. An understanding of the elements of language and how they can differ among cultures is useful as we engage ourselves with a multicultural world. Realizing how adjusting our language to others can often be helpful may help us to be aware of our own communication behavior when interacting with others. And, while our focus has been on how language might oppress others with or without intention, we can use this knowledge to speak more respectfully with others. Indeed, many scholars today are using this knowledge to give those who are in groups that dominant culture subordinates new ways of speaking that provide more equality of power among communicators. KEY TERMS language, 138 semantics, 139 denotation, 139 connotation, 139 discourse, 140 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 140 pragmatics, 141 speech acts theor y, 141 directive, 142 shame, 142 guilt, 142 remediation, 143 power, 143 solidarity (relational distance), 143 face, 144 negative face, 144 positive face, 144 scripts, 144 differentiated and undifferentiated codes, 146 register, 146 instrumental and affective styles, 146 exaggerated style, 146 exacting style, 146 succinct style, 146 discursive elements of language, 147 cultural myth, 147 conversational episode (CE) or communication ritual, 148 discourse, 148 social drama, 149 metaphor, 150 metaphorical archetype, 150 attribution, 151 Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 155 restricted code, 152 jargon, 152 argot, 152 elaborated code, 152 code-switching, 152 communication accommodation theor y, 152 convergence, 152maintenance, 153 divergence, 153 overaccommodate, 153 secondar y baby talk, 153 hyperexplanation, 153 Discussion questions 1 What mythic stories were you told as a child that influenced your values and decisions?

2 What metaphors do you commonly use in your talk? How do these work to create shared meaning with the people you are speaking with? What cultural assumptions and values do these reflect?

3 Visit a website that includes different mistranslations, such as in signs (e.g., http://www.

engrish.com; http://www.lonelyplanet.com/blog/2011/10/20/12-funny-lost-in-translation-photos/ ) for mistranslations into English. If English is not your first language, find examples in your language of English-speakers’ efforts to speak your language). See if you can describe how meaning is violated in the mistranslation (sounds, grammar, word meanings, prag- matic level).

4 Give an example of a time when you adjusted your behavior toward another person (especially of another age, ethnic, class or other group). Include how you adjusted, vari- ous factors that may have influenced your adjustment, and outcomes—your feelings/ perceptions or relational outcomes. What are some advantages or disadvantages of adjusting your behavior toward someone? Are there times not to do so, or to adjust your communication away from someone?

5 What are the advantages and disadvantages to a country having a single national language? Think broadly both about economic advantages and about aspects of prestige for various groups. Do some investigation: does your country or state have an official language? Action points 1 See what opportunities there are in your area to serve as a language instructor or tutor.

Often there are volunteer agencies to teach people the local language (e.g., in the U.S.), or to teach visitors the local customs, immigration information, and so on.

2 Review recent events at your school or within your city. What social dramas can you identify? Were existing values reaffirmed or weakened?

3 Identify metaphorical expressions from five different cultures. How do these metaphors reflect distinctive ways of understanding the world?

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

156 4 Analyze jokes that are popular in your culture (either among comedians or among you and your friends). What are some ways the jokes build or support lines of power (e.g., putting some groups over others)? Discuss in class or with friends appropriate ways to address jokes that cast people as “Other,” when you hear them.

For more information Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.

Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication.

London: Routledge.

Johnson, F. (2000). Speaking culturally: Language diversity in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ng, S.H., Candlin, C.N., & Chiu, C.Y. (Eds.). Language matters: Communication, culture, and identity . Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication, and politeness theory. London: Continuum. References Abrams, A. (2010). An open letter to Toledo’s Mayor Mike Bell. La Prensa, August 13.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Banton, M. (1977). The idea of race. London: Tavistock.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bernstein, B. (1966). Elaborated and restricted codes. In A. Smith (Ed.), Culture and communication (pp. 427–441) New York: Holt, Rineholt, & Winston.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 38–63).

London: Sage.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A politics of the performative . New York, NY: Routledge.

Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in conversation . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chen, Y.-S., Chen, C.-Y. D., & Chang, M.-H. (2011). American and Chinese complaints: Strategy use from a cross-cultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 253–275. doi:10.1515/IPRG.2011.012 Coates, J. (2003). Men talk. Malden, MA: Oxford.

Croucher, S.M. (2006). The impact of external pressures on an ethnic community: The case of Montreal’s Quartier Chinois and Muslim-French immigrants. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 235–252.

Cupach, W.R., & Metts, S. (2006). Face management in interpersonal communication. In K.M. Galvin & P.J. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 164–171). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Dana. (2012). Korean through K-Pop 101: Navigating speech formality. Seoulbeats , August 9. Accessed March 15, 2013 at http://seoulbeats.com/2012/08/ korean-through-k-pop-101-navigating-speech- formality Darsey, J. (2009). Barack Obama and America’s journey. Southern Communication Journal , 74, 88–103.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.

Fitch, K.L. (1994). A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance- gaining research. Communication Monographs , 61, 185–209.

Fong, M. (2012). Communicating good luck during the Chinese New Year. In A. González, M. Houston & V. Chen, (Eds.). Our voices: Essays in culture, ethnicity, and communication (5th ed., pp. 154–157).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, M. (1978). The History of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1, Trans. R. Hurley). New York:

Vint age.

Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages Chapter 7 Verbal communication: How can I reduce cultural misunderstandings in my verbal communication? 157 Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giles, H., & Noels, K. (2002). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters. In J.N.

Martin, T.K. Nakayama, & L.A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (2nd ed., pp. 117–126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Discourse and culture. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.). Discourse as social interaction (pp. 231–257). London: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior . New York: Pantheon.

Grice, H.P. (1957) Meaning. The Philosophical Review , 66, 377–388.

Hoijer, H. (1991). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed., pp. 244–251).

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Huffington Post (2010) Lost in translation: Funny signs & text from around the world, October 15.

Accessed July 12, 2012, at http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/funny-signs-from- around-the-world_n_763727.html#s156821 Imahori, T.T., & Cupach, W.R. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: U.S. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 193–219.

Johnson, F. (2000). Speaking culturally: Language diversity in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, M.-S., & Wilson, S. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting.

Communication Monographs , 61, 210–235.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by .

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lustig, M.W., and Koester, J. (2010). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Messina, I. (2010a). Bell tiebreaker over Ariz. Immigration law rankles some on City Council.

Toledo Blade . Accessed March 26, 2012, at http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2010/07/22/ Bell-tiebreaker-over-Ariz-immigration-law-rankles-some- on-City-Council.html Messina, I. (2010b). Immigration measure revived City Council condemns Arizona law. Toledo Blade .

Accessed March 26, 2012, at http://www. toledoblade.com/local/2010/08/04/Immigration-measure- revived-City-Council-condemns-Arizona-law.html Murdock, A. (2011). Lost in translation: Our top 20 picks. The lonely planet . Accessed March 26, 2012, at http://www.lonelyplanet.com/blog/2011/11/24/ lost-in-translation-our-top-20-photos/ Nkwain, J. (2011). Complimenting and face: A pragma- stylistic analysis of appraisal speech acts in Cameroon Pidgin English. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia:

International Journal of Linguistics, 43, 60–79. doi:10.1080/03740463.2011.589992 Nofsinger, R.E. (1991). Everyday conversation . Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Osborn, M. (1967). Archetypal metaphor: The light- dark family. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53, 115–126.

Philipsen, G., Couto, L.M., & Covarrubias, P. (2005). Speech codes theory: Restatement, revisions, and response to criticisms. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 55–68). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rahman, T. (2002). Language, ideology, and power: Language learning among the Muslims of Pakistan and Nor th India . Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.

Ross, G. (1986). To this day: Native American stories. Audiocassette. Fredericksburg, TX: Gayle Ross.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sharifian, F. (2008). Complimenting and face: A pragma-stylistic analysis of appraisal speech acts in Cameroon Pidgin English. International Journal of Linguistics , 43, 60–79. doi:10.1080/03740463.2011.

589992 Smith-Marder, P. (2002). The rat as archetype. UPYP, 43, 50–64.

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (2007). Speech acts. Accessed July 14, 2012, at http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/speech-acts/ Steinfatt, T. (1989). Linguistic relativity: Toward a broader view. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture (pp. 35–75). Newbury Park: Sage.

Stern, S., & Kleiner, H.J. (1999). For our children. Santa Monica, CA: Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.

Takingontobacco.com (n.d.) Some humorous cross- cultural advertising gaffes. Accessed July 12, 2012, at http://www.takingontobacco.org/intro/funny. html Tannen, D. (1991). How to close the communication gap between men and women. M c C a l l ’s , May, 118(8), 99–102, 140.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

158 Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York, NY: PAJ Publications.

Waters, H. Jr. (1992). Race, culture, and interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16, 437–454.

Whorf, B.L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality,: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (2nd ed.), Eds. J.B. Carroll, S.C. Levinson, & Penny Lee.

MIT Press. Zaidman, N., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D.G. (2008).

Discourse-based technology support for intercultural communication in multinationals. Journal of Communication Management, 12, 263–272.

Zimmerman, D.H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex:

Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Baldwin, J. R., Coleman, R. R. M., GonzalÂ¿z, A., Shenoy-Packer, S., & González, A. (2014). Intercultural communication for everyday life. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Created from apus on 2021-12-14 10:35:24.

Par t three Messages