Verbal Differences in ICC

COM 372—Intercultural CommunicationJohn R. Baldwin

Illinois State University

Aspects of human language

• Arbitrary (symbols > just signs & symptoms)

• Abstract

• Meaning-centered– Discourse

• Connotation

• Denotation

– Communicative meaning (intent)– Relational meanings (solidarity, status, etc.)– Conventional/contextual meaning (context)

Levels of Language

• Phonemic: /th/ /r/ /ö/– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31zzMb3U0iY

– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aB4tOwf2Sc

– Some tonal humor… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gKqjd00E4

• Morphological: Kayla/s/; particles: “ma”– http://www.omniglot.com/writing/definition.htm

• Semantic/Lexical: “babe,” “amigo”• Syntactic: Imperfect v. preterit; future subjunctive• Pragmatic: Asking a Q; persuading• Rhetorical/ideological: Underlying ideas, nature of

“communication,” etc.

Phonemes and the mouth…

http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/factsheets/families/F000368/images/diagram.gif

Morphological Differences

• Greek nouns: http://abacus.bates.edu/~hwalker/Grammar/gramrev.html• Conjugating verbs: Pick a language: http://www.verbix.com/languages/• Check out SIUs South East Language page! http://www.seasite.niu.edu/ • Tones?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJFG98o7aLM• Language humor: Fun translation of key tourist phrases:

http://www.zompist.com/phrases.html

Lexical Choice

• Words of Connection– Kuan-shi– Nunch’I– Jeito– Palanca

• Semantic differences:– Amigo; close friends– Freedom– Term paper

• Pragmatic differences: conflict, humor, etc...

Functions of language…It’s not just about transfer of information anymore…

• Cultural worldview function??? (maybe “cultural transmission??)

• Cognitive formation function

• Social reality function: “core symbols”

Baldwin’s functions

• Transfer of information

• Expression of cultural values (face, expressiveness, etc.)

• Group identity function

• Social change (and resistance) function

Linguistic Relativity

• Sapir-Whorf hypothesis– The hypothesis– Strengths & limitations

• Bernstein hypothesis:– The hypothesis:– Two types of codes

• Restricted• Elaborated

– Codeswitching

• Translational difficulties!• Zompist rules!!!

http://www.zompist.com/

Basic Concepts

• Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language “constructs” or creates our (social) reality

http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/L14.html

Some types of language

• Pidgin: Mixture of two or more languages, but generally used for trade (people speak other dialects in the home)

• Creole: Mixture of two or more language taught to children as a “first” language

• Patois: Any “nonstandard” language, which can include dialects, pidgins, creoles; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patois

• Argot: A language spoken by a group of people, such as criminals, with a restricted meaning; similar to or the same as cant. Like a slang.

• Cant: A crypto-dialect, or language spoken by a group to exclude others, used to exclude meaning from those outside the group.

• Code-switching

(culture-general) dimensions of language difference

• High/low context

• Direct/indirect

• Formal/informal

• Differentiated: more or less

• Elaborated, exacting, succinct

• Instrumental/expressive

• Self-credentialing/self-humbling

Logical approaches

• Linear– Factual-inductive– Axiomatic-deductive

• Spiral styles

• Intuitive styles

Far Eastern Communication

East Asian North American

•Process orientation (expressive)•Differentiated linguistic codes•Indirect •Receiver-centered

•Outcome orientation (instrumental)•Less differentiated codes•Direct communication•Sender-centered

Confucianism & Communication (Yum, 1991)

Far Eastern Communication

East Asian North American

•Particularistic•Long-term, asymmetrical reciprocity•Sharp in/out-group distinctions•Informal intermediaries•Personal/public relationships overlap

•Universalistic•Short-term, symmetrical reciprocity•In/out group distinction not sharp•Contractual intermediaries•Personal/public relationships more separate

Confucianism & Relationships (Yum, 1991)

American & Chinese Communication

American CommunicationWhat is said “I” focusImpolite talkDirect talkAssertive speechSelf-enhancing talkPublic personal

questionsExpressive speech

Chinese Communication What is not said “We” focusPolite talkIndirect talkHesitant speechSelf-effacing talkPrivate personal

questions Reticent speech

(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)

Speech Codes Theory (Philipsen et al., 2005)

• What’s the main point? Grounded in: ___________________________________

• Using the observed/observable (e.g., talk patterns) as a way to understand “situated codes of meaning and value” (p. 56)

• Both situation specific and “general”• So—is it local, or is it universal?• Each speech code has a unique culture• (cultural communication / emic)

Speech Codes Theory• Speech Code: “a system of socially-

constructed symbols and meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct” (Philipsen, in Philipsen et al., 2005, p. 57)

• Communicative Resources: used to “enact, name, interpret, and judge communicative conduct.” Def: “symbols and meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (p. 57)

• Contingent, not deterministic, open, not fixed

Speech Codes Theory: Hymes’ “SPEAKING” framework

• Scene: What are physical and social contexts where handshakes occur?

• Participants: Who tends to be involved in handshakes (e.g., romantic partners meeting for a date?)

• Ends (motives/purposes): Why would people shake hands instead of, say, hugging, bowing, kissing, or slapping?

• Act sequence: What happens prior to handshake? Who starts it? Are words exchanged and when?

• Key (tone, feeling): Is handshake aggressive, warm?• Instrumentalities (channel): handshake: nonverbal• Norms (expected behaviors): When/how do you shake

hands? Force, strength? How long to you hold the hand shake?

• Genre (type of comm event): shaking hands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_2cubD5uE

Middle-Eastern Communication(Vander Zanden, 1965; Patai, 1976)

“American” Values Materialism Success Work & Activity Progress Rationality Democracy Humanitarianism

Middle Eastern Values Hospitality Generosity Courage Honor Self-Respect

ME ValuesCommunication

“American” Communication Direct “Elaborated” Informal Low context Less differentiated codes

Middle Eastern Communication

Indirect Emphatic Formality High context More differentiated codes

Egyptian & Jewish Communication

• Dugri & Musayra (Ellis & Maoz, 2003)– JEWISH ISRAELI: Dugri (Katriel, 1986):

• “Straight talk”: Direct, to the point

• Assertive

• Concerned with clarity, efficiency, image of directness

• In-group code among Western Israeli Jews

– ARABIC: Musayra (Feghali, 1997):“Accommodating, going along with”: 4 aspects

• Repetition: formulaic, compliments, praise, paralellism

• Indirectness: Interpersonal caution

• Elaboration: metaphor, exaggeration

• Affectiveness: intuitive and emotional style

Latin American Communication

• Values– Collectivism– Hierarchia & confianza

• Implications for the classroom

– Personalismo– Respeto– Familia– Palanca / o jeito brasileiro– Mañana: time/work orientation

• Some specifics– “Salsipuede”– “Si Dios quiere”

“Dichos”

• What are some Mexican “dichos” and what values do they represent?

• What are the main “values” in Mexican culture? How might they show themselves beyond “dichos” (structuralism approach)

• What are some sayings proverbs, etc., in the U.S. cutlure, and what values do they represent?

American Proverbs

God helps those

Who help themselves

Early to bed, early to

rise…makes a man healthy,

wealthy, and wiseWhen the going gets

tough…

the tough get going

Cleanliness is next to godliness

Every problem has a

solution

Idle

han

ds a

re th

e de

vil’s

works

hop

A penny saved is a penny earned

Tim

e is

mon

ey

Look out for Number One!

German and American Communication

American Managers German Managers Business is impersonal Business is not as

impersonal Need to be liked Need to be credible Assertiveness, Direct

Confrontation, Fair Play

Assertiveness, Sophistication, Direct Confrontation

Discussion • Besprechung

Informal Culture Formal Culture

Interlude 1: Review of Literature

• Introduction: 1-1.5 pp. Why is this topic important? – Colorful start, like a speech– Pop culture references, sources probably okay

• Review of Lit: Points:– Based on academic lit, APA style– Use of theory is useful– Styled as an argument—not just a summary list of

sources– Some sources get more attention, some less– Some sources used only once, others several times– The best Revs of Lit have theory in them!

• Organizing a Review of Lit– Standard (Soc Scientific approach)– I. DV: Stereotypes of South Asians– II. Various predictors IVs: Media, Personal

experience– III. Putting them together for RQs or Hs.

• Standard organizational “tropes’– CauseEffect/ EffectCause– Topical (aspects/types of something)– Chronological (often not the best approach)– Spatial– SimpleComplex, KnownUnknown

• These can be sub or main points

• Main points: Effect (DV) Cause (IVs)– Subpoints: Spatial: societal, relational, personal– Subpoints: Topical: interpersonal and media influences

• Hs or RQs?– If interpretive (interviews, analysis of single text): RQs

• Avoid generalizing language—your purpose is to interpret a single text or group of people’s reality

• Avoid causal language (cause, influence, affect)

– If social scientific (surveys, experiments) can be either RQs or Hs (directional or nondirectional), depending on

• How much evidence you have to support an H

• Whether there are contradictory valid explanations that lead to different predictions

Interlude: Writing about a theory!

• Intro: Brief overview of what the theory is about

• Body: Main structure/terms of theory

• Application: Either interpreting a real, single event or drawing very practical applications to a situation (work, school, relationships, etc.)

• Evaluation

Practicing: CAT

• Overview:

• Main terms: Organization

• Application:

• Evaluation

Luster 33

Initial Orientation

• Ethnolinguistic Vitality- The likelihood that an individual will use their own language (which they see to be high vitality) or the other groups language (which is seen to have a higher vitality than one’s own language).

• Ethnolinguistic Boundaries- Are the boundaries between culture’s languages seen to be hard (cannot change) or soft (more flexible).

• Sociostructural Relations- Are the groups supposed to be meeting (legitimate) or not supposed to be meeting (illegitimate).

• Stability- Are the groups on good terms with each other, or bad terms with each other?

• Ability- What skill does the individual have to adjust?

Luster 34

Situation

• Norms- How do the norms of the cultures decide whether or not an intercultural communication episode is either inter-group, interpersonal, or both.

Luster 35

Outcomes

• What speakers take away after an intercultural communication episode takes place.

• Can be Good or Bad.– If overaccommodation (either too much accommodation, or

accomodation based on stereotypes) will be bad!– Ex: hyperexplanation—when one group (often Whites) simplifies

language and word choice or engages in repetition to “overexplain” to another group (often Blacks)—cited as a major problem in interracial communication!

– Ex: secondary baby talk —using upward tone, simple words, “we” form when speaking with elderly people, as if we were speaking to small children.

– Ex: speaking more loudly to foreigners, as if that would help them understand.

– The key: How does the other person perceive your accommodation to be intended? If she or he perceives good motives, the result will likely be positive; if bad or stereotypical motives, result will likely be bad!

– Nonconvergence (maintenance or divergence) almost always result in more negative intergroup perceptions.

Luster 36

Research: Results & Implications(Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989)

Results: Behaviors by Race & Group Results: Behaviors by Race & Group CompositionComposition

HomogenousHomogenous HeterogeneousHeterogeneous

BlackBlack WhiteWhite BlackBlack WhiteWhite

SmilingSmiling 46.746.7 25.7825.78 28.728.7 47.3347.33

AdaptorsAdaptors 6.66.6 9.899.89 5.35.3 9.119.11

InterruptInterrupt 5.45.4 1.781.78 2.32.3 1.551.55

ExpressiveExpressive 11.8611.86 8.868.86 10.4310.43 9.22 9.22

Evaluating a theory

• Scope, boundaries: How broad is it? Is what it covers clear?

• Logical consistency: Does it hold together well?• Parsimony: Is it appropriately simple?• Testability (if scientific): Can the propositions be

measured and tested?• Heurism: Does it lead to new study or theory?

Does it stand the “test of time”?• Explanatory power: Does it explain most cases,

or are there classes of cases it does not explain?• Utility: Is it useful in everyday life?