Download cliches final

Cliches 1
Running head: CLICHES IN THE INTERCULTURAL
Clichés in the intercultural communication context
Konstantin Tovstiadi
Steven A. Beebe
Konstantin Tovstiadi (corresponding author) is a Ph. D. student in the Department of
Communication at the University of Oklahoma (610 Elm Avenue, Norman, OK 73019-2081;
phone: 405-325-9564; fax: 405-325-7625; e-mail: [email protected]). Steven A. Beebe (Ph.D.,
University of Missouri-Columbia) is Professor and Chair at the Department of Communication
Studies, Texas State University – San Marcos.
Cliches 2
Abstract
The joint project presented here was developed by a Russian linguist and an American
communication scholar. It serves as an illustration of how collaboration with Western
researchers can facilitate the development of communication studies in Russia and re-focus
traditional linguistic and psychological approaches on pragmatic and communicative issues. The
current report illustrates this approach by studying clichés, a primarily linguistic phenomenon,
from a communication standpoint. Clichés are defined as set phrases known to the majority of
people in a given culture, used in everyday speech to react to typical situations, describe
common states, express emotions and issue directions. Clichés have precise meanings and
guarantee effective communication. Yet in intercultural contexts they are often misinterpreted
and may cause confusion and uncertainty. The major task of this paper is to explore the functions
of clichés and identify pitfalls that make their correct interpretation difficult for non-native
speakers, and to do so using tools of communication and linguistics. The success of the
interdisciplinary approach suggests that foreign language instruction will benefit significantly if
the study of language incorporates a basic course in communication, and calls for the
development of communication curricula in Russian linguistic universities.
Cliches 3
Dedicated to the memory
of Prof. Dale G. Leathers,
who donated his library of
communication books
to Russian universities
Clichés in the intercultural communication context
During the past decade there has been a steadily growing interest in the study of
communication in Russia. The growth has been nurtured by the Russian Communication
Association, which brought together Russian scholars from various disciplines and U.S. scholars
in National Communication Association. The synergy created through Russian and U.S. scholar
collaboration has been an important factor in the growth and maturation of communication
studies in Russia.
Most Russian scholars who study communication-related phenomena are affiliated with
more traditionally oriented academic departments as linguistics, philology, and psychology.
Through interactions with Americans and other Western scholars, Russian researchers are able to
re-focus their scholarship by moving away from primarily single-discipline linguistic or
psychological approaches and develop a more interdisciplinary research perspective with a
communication studies component. Such a collaborative approach enriches both Russian and
American scholarship and allows researchers to view communication in a new light. To ensure
the future development of communication studies in Russia and productive collaboration
between RCA and NCA, we suggest that there is a need to develop strategies for joint research
between Russian and American specialists.
The current paper is a product of a successful collaboration between a Russian researcher,
who was in a linguistic department at the time when the project was initiated, and an American
scholar affiliated with a communication department. The paper has two goals. One goal, of
course, is to present the findings of the study. But the second goal is perhaps more important. We
want to share our experience of doing joint research. Our case will be especially helpful to
Russian linguists who would like to develop collaborative projects with American
communication scholars. Our successful collaboration had an applied focus and originated from
a mutual interest in applied linguistics and intercultural study. Other Russian-U.S. scholars may
wish to emulate our collaborative model. The research areas we explored addressed problems
that are easily transferred into the domain of communication study. The addition of a
communication perspective applied to other disciplinary paradigms can be illuminating for all
research partners.
History of the project
The current study began as a purely linguistic investigation of formulaic expressions (Van
Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004) used in everyday speech. It was a lexicographical project, aimed
at the creation of a learner's dictionary of cliches and proverbial formulas of English. It
culminated in the creation of a dictionary with approximately 1,000 entries organized
thematically. The project report was successfully defended as a Master's thesis by the Russian
author of this paper. Here's a few examples from the final collection along with their definitions:
That’s the way it goes – bad things happen, but you must not give up.
It comes with the territory – there are disadvantages in occupying this post, too.
A nod is as good as a wink – I have taken your hint.
Famous last words! – you sound too confident about it.
Cliches 4
The buck stops here / The buck stops with me – this is my responsibility and I don’t expect
anyone else to accept it.
Despite the successful defense, the author was dissatisfied with the results. He realized that
pragmatic functions of cliches were vital to their understanding, yet these functions were
overlooked if cliches were approached as linguistic units rather than as communicative behavior.
Experience at his university, a major educational center in Southern Russia, suggested that
Russian students, for whom English is a foreign language, often fail to interpret clichés correctly.
At the time, language instruction was a core element of any academic program at that university
but it had no communication curriculum, and in the study of language the emphasis was made on
linguistic approaches. Thus various communication theories and assumptions applicable to
clichés were overlooked.
Clichés are a part of linguistic competence (Fillmore, 1979), as indispensable as grammar
or syntax. They serve various pragmatic functions, such as facilitating turn taking and indicating
status differences (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004). Native speakers have a stock of these
expressions and easily recognize them (Jackendoff, 1995); but non-native speakers often have
problems correctly interpreting them (Van Lancker-Sidtis, 2003) because they often include
nonliteral or non-standard meaning (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004). Inability to interpret
clichés and other idioms correctly seriously impairs a speaker’s communicative competence.
The understanding that pragmatics are essential to correct interpretation of cliches also
brought about the realization that it was difficult to study this phenomenon within the confines of
traditional linguistics. The author started incorporating communication research into his study.
Most of this research was done by American scholars, and the Russian author decided to
establish contact with a currently active U.S. communication researcher. In the one-and-a-half
year of active e-mail correspondence that followed, the American and the Russian researchers
jointly reworked and expanded the project, attempting to deepen the understanding of clichés by
using insights gained from communication studies.
What we present here is a three part report of our joint project. First, we describe the initial
linguistic component of the study and provide definitions of cliches. Second, we present the new
communication-driven understanding of cliches that emerged from our collaboration. Third, we
make suggestions for future researchers interested in creating Russian – American partnerships
in the field of communication.
Cliches from a linguistic standpoint
The discussion of English clichés draws upon examples from the collection1 of some 1,000
set phrases used in everyday speech in America and Britain. On the face of it, our collection may
seem unsystematic, since it mixes items normally treated as separate classes. Yet all phrases in
the sample satisfy three criteria: we gathered (a) fixed phrases, (b) acting as complex signs of
trivial situations, and (c) having a strong connotative meaning.
We will provide a definition of clichés through a discussion of these three criteria. This is
done by setting up several dichotomies: signs vs. symbols, fixed vs. free phrases, connotative vs.
denotative meaning. At this stage, clichés are studied using linguistic and semiotic approaches.
The opposition of signs and symbols is central to our definition of clichés. It explains what
brings such communications into being.
Sign vs. Symbol (Simplification vs. Sophistication)
We hold that clichés act as complex signs of trivial attitudes and emotions. The distinction
between signs and symbols is a cornerstone of any semiotic or linguistic theory. Yet
definitionally, these terms are murky. Carley and Kaufer (1993) note that “the word “symbol” is
Cliches 5
notoriously vague” (p. 183), while Thomas A. Sebeok justly claims that “symbol is one of the
most overburdened and difficult terms because everyone seems to feel at liberty to define it for
themselves”(Switzer, Fry and Miller, 1990, p.394).
In this paper the essential difference between signs and symbols is the number of
interpretations to each (Condon, 1985). A sign has a direct linear connection with the object,
state, or relation it designates. As such, it has only one possible meaning, and its interpretation is
largely predictable. Communicating with signs is very effective. Yet signs lack the vividness and
the individual character of the symbols. As language develops, previously monosemantic signs
develop new meanings and become symbols. A symbol is more complex. It has connections with
several objects and relations, and through them it also has stronger links with other signs and
symbols. Its correct interpretation depends on its context and the recipient’s knowledge. If it
overlaps with the speaker’s background, chances are that communication will be effective.
Symbols convey more information, and thus symbolic discourse is richer. At the same time, the
possibility of various interpretations puts communication at risk.
This controversy leads to the coexistence of two competing drives in the language. On the
one hand, there is an increase of the symbolic dimension. The language is becoming more
complex. On the other hand, there is a polar process, as a result of which language becomes
simplified. Symbols lose their polysemantic qualities, and move towards signs, guaranteeing
more effective communication. These two contrary processes develop simultaneously in any
language. They are driven by two opposing forces. The drive to complexity aims at finding best
ways of expressing oneself, even at a risk of misunderstanding, while the drive to simplification
aims at secure communication, even if that means sacrificing some of the vividness and precision
of expression. The two processes are two alternative ways of minimizing loss of information that
is inevitable in any interaction. In the terms of the model of communication, losses occur both
during encoding and decoding. Simple and sophisticated messages minimize losses during
encoding and decoding respectively.
It is necessary to point out that these two processes are not absolute. The extremes are
never reached, and a general balance is maintained. No absolute language sign exists. We can
only speak about a tendency to become a sign; no language unit can ever shed all its symbolic
qualities and go back to the linear connection between itself and the phenomenon it designates.
The clichés act as signs and they are part of the simplification process. Their function is to
express trivial attitudes and emotions. Despite the enormous variety of communication contexts
we daily find ourselves in situations similar to our previous experiences. Obviously our reactions
to such repeated events are largely predictable. Typical situations result in typical reactions to
them. The phrases discussed above serve as signs of these situations, helping to reduce
uncertainty of those involved in the communication process2. The proposed relationship between
signs and symbols is portrayed in Figure 1.
Traditional linguistics focused on the expressive side of language and its unlimited
combinatory potential, overlooking the importance of premanufactured idioms that the speakers
can use in standard situations. Newer models allow for both fixity and creativity (Tannen, 1989),
and recognize that competence consists in the ability to construct new utterance but also in the
ability to recognize and use preexisting utterances (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004).
An example will help to explain this. In a conversation between two people one is telling
unbelievable stories. The other has a stock of ready-made phrases to respond to that. He or she
can say, ‘Tell it to the Marines’, ‘Don’t give me that line’, ‘Pull the other one’, etc. These clichés
stand for ‘You are trying to deceive me; you are lying, but I don’t believe you’, but they are
Cliches 6
preferable because they allow speakers to communicate the same message implicitly, avoiding
explicit accusations and insults.
Fixed vs. free phrases
Clichés have fixed word order. Unlike most other verbal messages, they are not produced
spontaneously in conversation. They are rather reproduced, i.e. taken ready-made from the
memory. They serve as building blocks of communication much the same way words do. They
are recognized as ‘chunks’ and stored in short term memory in the same way, while newly
created speech is processed by different neural structures (Simon, 1974), suggesting a
fundamental difference between ‘new’ and ‘old’ utterances, and a similarity between idioms and
words.
Clichés are perceived as entities, as unitary expressions (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon,
2004). The meanings of the individual words are fused to produce the overall meaning. In
collocations words are firmly bound together and lose their symbolic nature. Their multiple
interpretations are reduced to one contextually dependent meaning. A cliché is a sign even
though its components are symbols.
Words in clichés cannot be changed at will. If they are modified by adding a new word or
changing word order, this usually results in a different message transmitted and a different
response received. Only given words in given order can generate the right response. In most
clichés, even the intonation is fixed (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004).
Connotative vs. denotative meaning
Most clichés have a strong connotative meaning, i.e. they are confusing if taken literally.
To use the terminology of linguistics, they are idioms. The meaning of all the words in the
phrase taken together is different from the meaning of the whole phrase. On the face of it, this
discrepancy causes the greatest difficulty for non-native speakers. It can be argued that the
clichés are so hard to interpret correctly because of their idiomatic nature. This assumption is
true, but there is more to clichés than meets the eye. The following discussion suggests that a
deeper understanding of the clichés’ nature and functions can be obtained if we apply the
instrumentary of the communication science to them.
Clichés from speech communication standpoint
The three dichotomies discussed so far have served us several purposes: we have
described our selection criteria, defined our subject, and prepared grounds for further
investigations. New distinctions presented below will help us to study clichés in more detail. We
will see how clichés can help to structure and regulate interactions. Finally, we will discuss the
relative roles of verbal and nonverbal cues in responding to clichés.
Clichés and emblems.
If viewed as a class of verbal behavior, clichés are strikingly similar to emblems, one of the
categories of kinesic behavior identified by Ekman and Friesen (Ekman, 1976; Ekman and
Friesen, 1969). Drawing upon their work, Burgoon et al. (1996) provide criteria for isolating
emblems as a separate category of kinesics:
1. They have a direct verbal translation and can be substituted for the words they represent
without affecting the meaning.
2. Their precise meaning is known by most or all members of a social group.
3. They are most often used intentionally to transmit a message.
4. They are recognized by receivers as meaningful and intentionally sent.
5. The sender takes responsibility for them.
6. They have clear meaning even if displayed out of context. (p.41).
Cliches 7
Items 1, 2, and 6 of this list may as well be used to describe our subject. Clichés, too, can be
substituted with their more succinct and explicit translations. In our example, 'Pull the other one'
translates into a straightforward 'You are lying'. Clichés have precise meaning and can be safely
used in isolation, independently of context. (Items 3-5 deal with intentionality and sender's
responsibility; these criteria apply to many classes of verbal communications and are therefore of
little use in distinguishing clichés as a separate category).
In their discussion of emblems Harper, Viens and Matarazzo write that ‘because
[emblems] have a specific agreed-upon meaning, they are most easily understood, but as such
they generally carry less personal or idiosyncratic meaning than other nonverbal behavior’.
(Harper, Wiens and Matarazzo, 1978, p. 131). Translating this into the terms employed in this
paper, we could say that emblems are similar to clichés in that they act as signs and guarantee
effective communication since they are known to everyone, but at the same time are incapable of
transmitting more personal expressive messages.
Ekman also reported that emblems perform 6 functions in all cultures: (a) insulting others;
(b) giving interpersonal directions; (c) greeting others; (d) signaling departure; (e) replying
positively or negatively; and (f) commenting on physical and emotional states (Burgoon et al.,
1996). Clichés have a similar, if broader, range of functions – many of them contain "attitudinal
innuendos" (Van Lancker-Sidtis & Rallon, 2004). They are used to issue directions (Go jump in
the lake), signal departure (I must love you and leave you), express acceptance (It gets my vote),
disagreement (It doesn’t wash with me), indignation (What the world is coming to?), or surprise
(Wonders will never cease). The usage of many of them is restricted situationally: some are
employed when talking to children (Cat got your tongue?; That'll do), while other are
appropriate in a conversation with a shop assistant (Keep the change; I’m only looking).
Stylized and unique communications
The situations in which clichés are used have been labeled above as trivial, typical, and
predictable. It has also been noted that clichés lack individual character. But there is a positive
side in predictable and stylized interactions – they help us avoid the “anxiety of the
unpredictable” (Filley, 1975, p.1). Clichés are especially useful in social interaction since they
guarantee effective and predictable communication. They may be present in all relationships
during the initial encounters; however, as intimacy increases, stylized messages give way to
personalized and unique communications. Knapp (1978) states the case well:
The process of constructing a more intimate relationship eventually reaches a point where
we are interacting with the other person as a unique individual rather than as a member of a
particular society. Uniqueness in communication simply suggests the adoption of a more
idiosyncratic communication system adapted to the peculiar nature of the interacting
parties. This is not to suggest adaptation is absent in early stages, but that is an adaptation
to a more generalized other (an orientation toward another that makes sociological and
cultural predictions rather than personal and individual ones) and involves a more stylized
behavior acceptable to large groups of people…. In the deterioration process, it is not
uncommon to see the formalities of stylized communication returning (p.15).
If this argument is taken one step further, one can speculate that the use of clichés in intimate
conversations is a sign of a cooling relationship. Their occurrence in intimate interactions may
indicate the intent of the speaker to redefine a relationship and make it less intimate. Further
research is needed to test this claim.
Another provocative finding relevant to stylized/unique dichotomy is documented by
Jordan, Street, and Putman (1983). They found lexical diversity to be significantly higher when
Cliches 8
speakers were talking to strangers rather than friends. This is explained by verbal caution typical
of initial encounters. Use of clichés may be seen as cautious verbal behavior. In conversations
with each other, strangers tend to be noninvolved and nondisclosive. Clichés provide excellent
material for constructing stylized impersonal dialogue, serving as markers which help define the
situation as more formal and impersonal.
Adjacency pairs
As we have already established, clichés are reactions to typical situations. These reactions
are either responses to statements of the other party involved in the conversation or observations
made by the speaker which in their turn call for a response.
In both cases, conversation is structured in the same way: some statement is followed by a
reaction to it. These sequences of two phrases, termed adjacency pairs (Shegloff & Sacks, 1973)
are basic constructional units for producing organized conversation. Examples of adjacency pairs
are question – answer, request – grant / refusal, boast – appreciation / decision. Sims (1989)
quotes compliment sequences as another instance of the same phenomenon and highlights an
important characteristic of adjacency pairs: if first pair part (FPP) is present, a ‘next turn
position’ is established and the second pair part (SPP) is expected to follow.
The notion of adjacency pairs is critical for our discussion of clichés, since they often take
roles of either first or second pair parts (the latter is a more frequent case). This statement is
exemplified in the selection below and presented in Figure 2 (clichés are in bold).
The above discussion suggests that adjacent messages are interdependent. The first party’s
message is expected to be followed by an appropriate response, i.e. choices available to the
second party depend largely on the first party’s message. If it is misunderstood (as often is the
case with clichés for non-native speakers), communication programs are disrupted, and effective
exchange is blocked.
Content and Relationship Levels
Like all messages, clichés carry information on two levels: content level and relationship
level (Haley, 1959; Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967; Knapp, 1978; DeVito, 1991). In the
following example provided by Knapp he deliberately exaggerates the amount and the extent of
information carried on the relationship level. Presumably he does that to show that the
relationship message is critical to effective communication:
Content level: Come in. Have a seat
relationship level: I don’t know you very well; you probably want a lot from me, but won’t
give much in return; let’s keep brief and formal; state your business and get out; I am in
control of this situation and this is just the first of several directives I’ll be issuing in the
next few minutes; because of my position I expect you to follow my orders (p.5).
Some clichés that we have collected could also serve as fine illustrations of two levels of
communication:
Content level
message transmitted
relationship level
Make my day
If you proceed with you threat, you'll
Dominance
regret it – I am stronger than you are.
Our example shows that the relationship message is often implied, and interactants who depend
entirely on verbal cues to define their relationships will find that their perception of relationships
is incorrect. This confusion may have a highly disruptive effect on communication, resulting in
avoidance, misunderstanding, and hostility.
Cliches 9
Clichés can also take on the roles of verbal regulators. They can initiate and terminate
conversations (A penny for your thoughts / Put a sock in it!) or regulate turn taking (That about
sums it up; The rest is history; End of story).
In sum, we have identified another potential difficulty for non-native speakers which may
arise if they either fail to interpret the relationship message correctly or overlook the regulatory
function of clichés.
Verbal and Nonverbal
Our final argument focuses on the relative roles of verbal and nonverbal in clichés. It also
summarizes some of our previous assumptions. So far we have mostly explored the verbal
dimension. We have set up several dichotomies which enabled us to view and understand clichés
from different angles. This has prepared grounds for the final verbal/nonverbal division, which
not only presents another approach, but also adds depth to previous dichotomies.
For example, the discussions of denotative/connotative meaning and content/relationship
level are incomplete without taking into account the nonverbal dimension, since much of the
connotative meaning and relationship message is transmitted nonverbally. Thus the vital skills of
defining relationships greatly depend on the personal abilities to interpret nonverbal cues
correctly.
Our final assumption in the discussion of clichés is that they are so confusing to non-native
speakers because they misinterpret nonverbal messages which accompany them. This occurs
because “different cultures and subcultures, even when they use a common language, have
greatly different nonverbal communication channels” (DeVito, 1991).
Mehrabian's findings (1981) document the overwhelming role that nonverbal messages
play in communicating emotions. Extensive research by Ekman and Friesen (1971) has
confirmed the hypothesis of universal expression and recognition of emotion. Thus innate
abilities to express and recognize emotions are shared across cultures, but “culturally learned
display rules… dictate the modification of the expressions depending on social circumstance”
(Matsumoto, 1991, p. 129). Matsumoto found that cultural variables such as Individualism –
Collectivism and Power Distance can affect emotional displays, while other dimensions so far
unexplored (such as Uncertainty Avoidance) may account for additional variability in
emotionality across cultures. Since Russians and Americans score very differently on
Individualism – Collectivism and Power Distance scales (Hofstede, 1991), they probably have
different display rules, making correct interpretation of nonverbal emotional cues difficult.
Nonverbal messages may differ or contradict verbal content. In the former case, the
principal message is implied and screened behind a verbal facade. The reason which brings such
communications into being is well explained by Leathers (1978):
Because many of us are so concerned about our own image, we prefer to use those means
of communication that possess maximum potential for enhancing the image and minimum
risk of deflating it. Nonverbal suggestion is a particularly suitable vehicle for attaining
those ends. Since one can always deny the seeming intent of nonverbal cues, he has the
potential of avoiding many of the negative psychological consequences that may result
from his nonverbal suggestion (p.7).
Clichés with strong connotative meaning may well serve as instances of nonverbal suggestion.
As an illustration to this statement, let us quote a definition of a cliché provided by Rees (1995),
which explains both literal and implied meaning:
I believe you, (but) thousands wouldn’t - reassuring statement to a friend or colleague but
possibly implying that the thousands are quite right in their disbelief. (p.87).
Cliches 10
If this discrepancy is carried to an extreme, the two messages mean exactly the opposite. There is
no common consent regarding the term to describe such communications: they have been
referred to as inconsistent messages (Mehrabian, 1981), incongruent messages (Leathers, 1978),
contradictory messages (DeVito, 1991), or simply as discordance (Beier,1974).
Deception is perhaps the most common example of incongruent messages. Another
frequent case is sarcasm. Sarcastic sayings abide in our selection of clichés. Here are some
examples of phrases used ironically: Thanks a bunch, Thank you for nothing (meaning 'I'm not
grateful to you at all'); You deserve a medal for it, I hope you feel proud of yourself, You've
surpassed yourself this time (meaning 'you should be ashamed of what you did'), My heart bleeds
for you! You are breaking my heart! (meaning 'you do not deserve any sympathy').
Most researchers agree that the instrumental purpose of incongruent messages is to send
two different messages at once. Mehrabian (1981) gives an insightful account of the underlying
social factors which generate such communications:
...inconsistent messages come into play in this culture when we have mixed feelings about
something. Implicit and explicit social rules sometimes dictate ways of acting that are
strongly at odds with our true feelings in given situations. At these times, we often send
inconsistent messages in which we quite literally pay lip service (verbal message) to social
convention, while implicit messages betray our real feelings (p.83).
There is ample proof of reliance on nonverbal cues in interpreting incongruent messages.
(Mehrabian, 1981; Stiff, Hale, Garlic, & Rogan, 1990; Burgoon, 1984). At the same time,
Solomon and Ali (1975) have found that words are the primary source of meaning in incongruent
messages for non-native speakers. Decoding a message in a foreign language is a cognitively
demanding task, so it is quite natural that focusing on verbal content results in ignoring
nonverbal cues. This is consistent with Broadbent’s (1958) filter theory: human nervous system
is a channel with limited capacity for processing information. “Complicated verbal messages
may take up so much of one’s channel capacity that they mask less highly coded nonverbal
behaviors” (Harper, Wiens and Matarazzo, 1978, p.12). Non-native speakers focus on the literal
verbal content clichés and overlook their implicit messages, especially if the two are
incongruent. This is another major pitfall for non-native speakers apart from those that we have
already identified in previous sections.
Summary
Summarizing the key points of this paper, we could say that:
1.
As a class of verbal behavior, clichés facilitate interactions as they have precise
meaning known to most or all members of the culture.
2.
Their effectiveness is reached at the cost of expressivity: clichés are unsuitable for
transmitting expressive personalized messages. As such, they are often used as markers
of formal, stylized, non-involved interactions.
3.
Clichés are culture-specific and therefore difficult to interpret correctly for non-native
speakers (i.e. members of other culture), who may fail to recognize the relationship
message that they carry, or ignore the regulatory functions of clichés and nonverbal
cues that accompany them.
Conclusions
Clichés have served us as a fine example of language in concentrated form. Analysis of
this highly stylized, culture-specific, and potentially incomprehensive discourse enables us to
make general assumptions about the relative role of communication science in language
instruction. We hope that it also shows how linguists can enhance their study of language
Cliches 11
phenomena by teaming up with communication researchers and focusing on the pragmatic side
of language. Such research can eventually deepen our understanding of language and facilitate
second language instruction.
Recently there have been a growing interest in developing communication studies and
communication education in Russia. We join a chorus of voices that call for such an innovation.
Our study shows that Russian students need to receive additional training to communicate
effectively. Language teaching may make them skillful in constructing the right messages, but
they also need teaching on how to produce right responses. As a field related to psychology,
social and cultural studies, communication science could provide the required additional
instruction.
The argument laid out in this paper shows that effective intercultural communication is
impossible if its participants are unaware of the fact that ‘each country simply has its own way of
seeing and doing things, based on unstated rules, and these hidden differences make cooperation
difficult’ (Hall & Hall, 1990, p. xiii). We have also seen how social norms can affect verbal
messages transmitted. Suggestion and incongruence are fine examples of such modification.
Thus adequate language instruction should incorporate discussions of related cultural and social
phenomena, which are as important as the teaching of grammar and syntax.
At the moment there are virtually no courses in communication in the curriculum of
Russian universities. Our research furnishes another proof that an introduction of such a course
would enrich the educational experience in Russian language and business schools. An opinion
poll conducted by Beebe, Kharcheva and Kharcheva (1998) has shown that the majority of
Russian high school professors would welcome this change.
Businessmen, politicians, interpreters, translators and foreign language instructors are the
people for whom acquiring adequate intercultural communication skills is essential. We all
depend on their ability to understand each other. We all depend on their ability to make our
differences the basis for exchange and enrichment, and not confrontation and hostility.
Limitations and directions for future research
Our study is based on the analysis of English clichés (mostly American) and their
interpretation in the Russian university environment. Although the authors did have some limited
evidence on German and Spanish clichés, their primary focus was American-Russian, so the
conclusions reached in this paper shouldn’t be applied outside this perspective.
Also, in identifying difficulties that non-native speakers might have in responding to
clichés, we did not intend to provide a methodological framework and develop teaching
approaches for foreign language instructors. Another limitation of our discussion is that it is
based largely on English (i.e. American and British) and Russian context. It is hoped that
subsequent research would test the applicability of our assumptions to other cultures.
Finally, the collection of clichés that we have created for the current study is a selection
of fixed expressions of English in the late 1980s – early 1990s. At the same time, it may contain
items that are dated or unfamiliar to some English speakers. We have used the collection as a
sample which does not necessarily represent English idioms with absolute accuracy and is by no
means exhaustive.
Cliches 12
Notes
1. The usage of many clichés is restricted and they quickly become dated: it is only with the
advent of computerized corpora that these elusive collocations have begun to be
comprehensively covered in dictionaries. We have used the following dictionaries in compiling
our collection: Collins COBUILD dictionary of idioms, 1996; Collis & Risso,1989; Concise
Oxford dictionary of quotations, 1964; Hornby, 1998; Longman dictionary of contemporary
English, 1995; Masner, 1995; Mieder, 1993a; Mieder; 1993b, Rees, 1995; Rees, 1997; Titelman,
1996. All the preparation work was done by the Russian scholar and the final version has been
checked by the American researcher and three other native speakers of English; two of these
speakers rated the idioms in the collection for currency and provided audio recordings of the
collection, which were used to determine common intonation patterns.
2. Russian scholar Permyakov (1982). gives many insights into the nature of these phrases in his
essay on ‘paremiological clichés’. Paremiology is the study of proverbs and sayings, so his field
of study coincides roughly with our subject. The study of Russian clichés leads Permyakov to
conclusions similar to ours.
Cliches 13
References
Beebe, S. A., Kharcheva, M., & Kharcheva V. (1998). Speech communication in Russia.
Communication Education, 47, 261-273.
Beier, E. (1974). Nonverbal communication: How we send emotional messages. Psychology
Today, 8, 53-56.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W.G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The
unspoken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burgoon, J.K. (1984). The relationship of verbal and nonverbal codes. In B. Dervin & M. J.
Voigt (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. 7. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Carley, K. M., & Kaufer D. S. (1993). Semantic connectivity: An approach for analyzing
symbols in semantic networks. Communication Theory, 3, 183-213.
Collins COBUILD dictionary of idioms. (1996). London: Harper Collins.
Collis, H., & Risso, M. (1989). 101 American idioms. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books.
Concise Oxford dictionary of quotations (1964). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Condon, J. C. (1985). Semantics and communication. New York: Macmillan.
DeVito, J. (1991). Human communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ekman, P. (1976). Movements with precise meanings. Journal of Communication, 26, 14-26.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: categories, origins,
usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. (1971). Constants across cultures in face and emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124-129.
Filley, A.C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Fillmore, C. (1979). On fluency. In C.J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W.S.-Y. Wang (Eds.),
Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85-102). London:
Academic Press.
Haley, J. (1959). An interactional description of schizophrenia. Psychiatry, 22, 321-332.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and
Americans. Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.
Harper, G. H., Wiens, A. N., and Matarazzo, J. D. (1978). Nonverbal communication: the state
of the art. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. London: McGraw Hill.
Hornby, A.S. (Ed.) (1998). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (5th ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1995). The boundaries of the lexicon. In M. Everaert, E. J. van der Linden, A.
Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp.
133-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jordan, W. J., Street, R. L., & Putman W. B. (1983). The effects of relational and physical
distance on lexical diversity. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49, 80-89.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Leathers, D. G. (1978). Nonverbal communication systems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (3rd ed.) (1995). London: Longman.
Masner, M. H. (1995). A dictionary of everyday idioms. London: Macmillan.
Matsumoto, D. (1991) Cultural influences on facial expression of emotion. Southern
Communication Journal, 56, 128-137.
Cliches 14
Mehrabian, A. (1981) Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mieder, W. (1993a) Proverbs are never out of season. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mieder, W. (Ed).(1993b). Oxford dictionary of American proverbs. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Permyakov, G.L. (1982). K voprosu o russkom paremiologicheskom minimume [The issue of
the paremiological minimum in the Russian language]. Slovari y lingvostranovedenie
[Dictionaries and linguistics-based country study]. Moscow: Russky Yazyk.
Rees, N. (1995). The Cassell dictionary of catchphrases. London: Cassell.
Rees, N. (1995). The Cassell dictionary of catchphrases. London: Cassell.
Rees, N. (1997). Dictionary of slogans. London: Harper Collins.
Shegloff, E. A., Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 22, 289-327.
Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482-484.
Sims, A. L. (1989). The compliment sequence. Southern Communication Journal, 54, 171-184.
Solomon, D., & Ali, F. A. (1975) Influence of verbal content and intonation on meaning
attributions of first- and second-language speakers. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 3-8.
Stiff, J. B., Hale, J. L., Garlic, R., & Rogan, R. G. (1990). Effect of cue incongruence and social
normative influences on individual judgments of honesty and deceit. Southern
Communication Journal, 55, 206-229.
Switzer, J. Y., Fry, V. H., & Miller, L. D. (1990) Semiotics and Communication: A dialogue
with Thomas A. Sebeok. The Southern Communication Journal, 55,. 388-401.
Tannen (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Titelman, G. Y. (1996). Dictionary of popular proverbs and sayings. New York: Random House.
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. (2003). Auditory recognition of idioms by first and second speakers of
English: It takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 45-57.
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D., & Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in
everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and
Communication, 24, 207-240.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication:
A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton.
Cliches 15
Figure 1
Some Dimensions of the Sign – Symbol Dichotomy
one interpretation
simplification
fixed
multiple interpretations
sophistication
free
Cliches 16
Figure 2
Clichés in Adjacency Pairs
Description
FPP
SPP
request – refusal
Will you let me drive your car
tonight?
Forget it.
No way.
In your dreams.
narrative –
astonishment
She got married, and she is a mother
now.
You don’t say!?
The mind boggles.
I can’t believe my ears.
offer –
acceptance
What are you drinking?
Name you poison.
I’ll have a pint of porter.