Transcript Verbal and Nonverbal Differences in ICC

Language &
Meaning
COM 370—Psychology of Language
John R. Baldwin
Illinois State University
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
Levels of Language
•
•
•
•
Phonemic: /th/ /r/ /ö/
Morphological: Adam/s/; particles: “ma”
Semantic/Lexical: “babe,” “amigo”
Syntactic: Imperfect v. preterite; future
subjectunctive
• Pragmatic: Asking a Q; persuading
• Rhetorical/ideological: Underlying ideas,
nature of “communication,” etc.
Morphological Differences
• Greek nouns: http://abacus.bates.edu/~hwalker/Grammar/gramrev.html
• Conjugating verbs: Pick a language:
http://www.logosconjugator.org/owav/verba_dba.verba_main.create_page?lang=en
• Check out SIUs South East Language page! http://www.seasite.niu.edu/
• Tones?: http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Music/perfectpitch.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X25lLdXeSUo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlw4NJdnNE
• Clicks?: http://www.educyberpg.com/Music/perfectpitch.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_l7ty_MH_Y
Some tonal humor… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gKqjd00E4
Lexical Choice
• Words of Connection
–
–
–
–
Kuan-shi
Nunch’I
Jeito
Palanca
• Semantic differences:
– Amigo; close friends
– Freedom
– Term paper
• Pragmatic differences: conflict, humor, etc...
Basic Concepts
• Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language
“constructs” or creates our (social) reality
http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/L14.html
Stances on Linguistic Relativity
Steinfatt, 1989
•
•
•
•
LR-NO: __________________
LR-LO: ___________________
LR-GCS: __________________
LR-CA: ___________________
Basic Concepts
• Bernstein Hypothesis: Social situations
dictate our language
– Restricted Code
– Elaborated Code
– Code Switching
Evidence for or against linguistic
relativity
Area of Research
Language Development
Language comparison
(interlanguage)
Dialects, etc. (Intralanguage)
• deficit explanation
• difference explanation
Bilingualism
Aphasics
• Rule of Ribot
Deaf languages
For?
Against?
Ways of doing language research
on cultural differences
(Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997)
• Ethnography of Communication: _____________
• Contrastive pragmatics
– Grice
– Politeness
– Speech Acts, etc.
• “Culture” studies (not “cultural studies”)
• Cultural scripts approach:
– Why do Goddard & Wierzbicka like this approach?
– Key words: PEOPLE, SOMEONE, THIS, SAY, THINK,
WANT, GOOD, BAD, etc.
Example of a Cultural Script
• If something bad happens to someone because
of me
• I have to say something like this to the person: “I
feel something bad because of this.”
Not an apology, because the speaker may or may
not be responsible for the bad thing!
Scripts, language forms, & values
What are some scripts or language forms for each
of the following groups? What underlying values
do they suggest?
Compare and contrast!
How might such differences cause difficulty in
intercultural communication, negotiations, public
relations or media work,?
Scripts, language forms, values
Form
Japanese
Malay
Polish
Yakunytjatjara
Ewe
Underlying Value
BREAK!
Speech Codes Theory
Background
Ethnography (Soc/Anth)—Dell Hymes
Ethnography of Speaking/Comm
Gerry Philipsen (UW)
Donal Carbaugh
Chuck Braithwaite
Mary Jane Collier?
Tamar Katriel
Bradford “BJ Hall
Kristine Fitch
Stella Ting-Toomey
Speech Codes theory
(Philipsen, Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005)
• Background
– Grounded in “observation of communication
conduct” (p. 56)
– A way to use “situated codes and meanings” to
decipher everyday communication conduct
– Goal to develop a specific understanding of each
culture, with assumption that each culture is
unique
– Goal to develop a framework that can be used to
apply to any culture, even to compare cultures, in
regards to a particular speech genre (Philipsen,
1989).
Speech Codes theory
(Philipsen, Coutu, & Covarrubias, 2005)
• Speech codes:
– “a system of socially constructed symbols and
meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to
communicitave conduct” (Philipsen, in PCR, p. 57)
• Symbolic (situated) resources:
– “Symbols and meanings, premises, and rules,
pertaining to communicative conduct—that
participants use to name, interpret, and judge
communicative conduct.” Resources “to eanct,
name, interpret, and judge communicative
conduct” (p. 57). That is…
• Codes: contingent (not fixed); open (not
closed)
Speech Codes Theory
Speech codes involve/result/create:
• Psychology of culture: meanings
• Sociology of culture: social relations
• Rhetoric of culture: strategic conduct
In sum,
– Meaning of messages relies fundamentally on
codes
– Speech codes are located in language and
communication of native speakers
– Speech codes can be used to understand, predict,
and control communication
– Speech codes enact certain identities
Speech Codes Theory
The Propositions:
1. Distinctive culture. . Distinctive speech code
2. In any community, multiple speech codes
3. Code  distinctive psychology, sociology,
rhetoric
4. SCs speakers use determine how important
speaking is to give meaning to action
5. Terms, rules, premises of SC are woven into act
of speaking itself (metacomm, stories, etc.)
6. “Artful use of a shared code” creates conditions
for “predicting, explaining, and controlling”
various aspects of the form of discourse (p. 63)
Speech Codes Theory
The “Descriptive Model”:
Scene: when, where…
Participants: who…
Ends: why…
Act sequence: what order…
Key: feeling
Instrumentalities: channel, register
Norms: how
Genre: what (joke, conversation,
leave-taking, requests, instructions…)
Applications of SCT
Egyptian & Jewish Comm
• 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
Applications of SCT
Colombian, Colorado & Beyond
• Columbia (Fitch, 1994)
– Hierarchia: social status
– Confianza: trust, connectedness
– [cf. “Sal si puede” ritual]
• Colorado
– Saving negative face
Application: Public “Problem”
Talk & Donahue
• New York Hardcore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfoVyTnz0g
• The Dangers of Moshing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47TWt3vi9hc
Face negotiation theory (of
conflict) (Ting-Toomey, 2005)
• Background: Goffman
– Face: “about identity respect and other-identity
consideration issues within and beyond the actual
encounter episode” (p. 73)
– Can be “threatened, enhanced, undermined, and
bargained over—on both an emotional reactive
level and a cognitive appraisal level” (p. 73)
• Brown & Levinson
– Positive and negative face
– Self and other face
– Positive and negative politeness
Face negotiation theory
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
• Background: Facework
“the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors that we
engage in to maintain or restore face loss and to
uphold and honor face gain”
• Face loss
• FTAs
• Preventative and
restorative facework
Face negotiation theory
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
• Assumptions (summarized)
– People in all cultures negotiate face
– Some situations especially threaten face
– Cultural variable differences influence aspects of face
negotiation
– Individual differences also influence face
Face negotiation theory
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
• Aspects of face that might
be influenced:
– Face orientation
(self/other/both)
– Face movements
(defended, saved,
maintained, upgraded)
– Facework interaction
strategies (V/NV—
direct/indirect)
– Conflict communication
styles
– Face content domains
(positive/negative)
Facework interaction strategies
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
• Preventative Facework
– Credentialing
– Suspended judgment
appeals
– Pre-disclosure
– Pre-apology
– Hedging
– Disclaimer
– …
• Restorative Facework
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Direct aggression
Excuses
Justifications
Humor
Physical remediation
Passive aggressiveness
Avoidance
Apologies
…
Facework Conflict strategies
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
Dominating/
Integrating/
Controlling
Collaborating
Own Goals
I Win
Compromising
I Lose
Avoiding/
Withdrawing
You Lose
Yielding/
Obliging
You Win
Other’s Goals
Face Content Domains
(Ting-Toomey, 2005)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Autonomy face
Inclusion face
Status face
Reliability face
Competence face
Moral face
Lets Make Some (facework)
Predictions!
• Culture-level variables
– Individualism/collectivism
– Power distance
• Individual-level variables
– Self-construal
• Independent/dependent
• Biconstrual/ambivalent
• Relational-contextual variables
– In-group/out-group
• Other important variables?