Transcript Verbal and Nonverbal Differences in ICC

Verbal
Differences in
ICC
COM 372—Intercultural Communication
John 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
Confucianism & Communication
(Yum, 1991)
East Asian
North American
•Process orientation
(expressive)
•Differentiated linguistic
codes
•Indirect
•Receiver-centered
•Outcome orientation
(instrumental)
•Less differentiated codes
•Direct communication
•Sender-centered
Far Eastern Communication
Confucianism & Relationships
(Yum, 1991)
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
American & Chinese Communication
(Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)
American Communication
Chinese Communication
 What is said
 “I” focus
 Impolite talk
 Direct talk
 Assertive speech
 Self-enhancing talk
 Public personal
questions
 Expressive speech
 What is not said
 “We” focus
 Polite talk
 Indirect talk
 Hesitant speech
 Self-effacing talk
 Private personal
questions
 Reticent speech
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 sociallyconstructed 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 ValuesCommunication
“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
A penny saved is a penny
Cleanliness is next to
earned
godliness
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
 Assertiveness,
Confrontation, Fair
Sophistication, Direct
Play
Confrontation
• Besprechung
 Discussion
 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’
–
–
–
–
–
CauseEffect/ EffectCause
Topical (aspects/types of something)
Chronological (often not the best approach)
Spatial
SimpleComplex, KnownUnknown
• 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
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
33
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
34
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
35
Research: Results & Implications
(Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989)
Results: Behaviors by Race & Group Composition
Homogenous
Heterogeneous
Black
White
Black
White
Smiling
46.7
25.78
28.7
47.33
Adaptors
6.6
9.89
5.3
9.11
Interrupt
5.4
1.78
2.3
1.55
Expressive
11.86
8.86
10.43
9.22
Luster
36
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?