Download Lecture 2

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