Module Meeting 5 Cross and Multicultural Communication

CROSS AND MULTICULTURAL COMMUNICATION
PBI 562
SESSION 5
CONNECTION BETWEEN VERBAL COMMUNICATION
AND CULTURE
COMPILED BY
WAWAN SETIAWAN, M.A.
UNIVERSITAS ESA UNGGUL

2021
Universitas Esa Unggul

http://esaunggul.ac.id 0/
33
CONNECTION BETWEEN VERBAL COMMUNICATION
AND CULTURE
A. Learning Outcome
By the end of this chapter, students are expected to be able to explain the connection
between verbal communication and culture
B. Human Language: Distinctive Features and Rule Patterns

Language is an arbitrary, symbolic system that labels and categorizes objects, events,
groups, people, ideas, feelings, experiences, and many other phenomena. Language is
also governed by the multilayered
rules developed by members of a particular sociocultural
community. Although broad similarities exist
among languages, variations remain in the sounds,
written symbols, grammar, and nuances of meaning
of an estimated 6,700 language varieties across worldwide
cultures. This section examines the four distinctive
features of language: arbitrariness, abstractness,
meaning-centeredness, and creativity. It also examines
the multilayered rules of language usage in relationship
to culture.
Distinctive Language Features Arbitrariness

Human language is arbitrary in phonemic (i.e., sound
unit) and graphic representation (i.e., alphabet or characters).
Language is viewed as an arbitrary symbolic
system because the words that are strung together have no innate meaning. It is people
in a speech community
who attach shared sounds and common meanings
to words that they use in their everyday lives.
For example, the word “player” has no real meaning
in its sounds and letters, yet in English we interpret
these sounds and letters as having a particular intimate
meaning. Even sign language, as “spoken” by
33
deaf people, is arbitrary in nature in terms of the use of
different nonverbal gestures. There are many different
culture-specifi c sign language varieties (e.g., American,
British, and Chinese).
By three months, infants have acquired the ability

to imitate some aspects of vowel sounds that they
hear (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1996). Through continuous
reinforcement, children learn to retain sounds that
are most familiar to their ears and tongues and drop
off other nonessential sounds. Universally, children
fi rst acquire speaking and comprehending skills, then
reading and writing skills. Whereas all children have
the capacity to utter all the sounds in all languages,
this linguistic competence tapers off as they reach
puberty.
Abstractness
Language, however, also allows humans to engage in abstract thoughts or hypothetical
thinking. Because of this unique feature, we can plan for our intercultural
journey, daydream, and fantasize about the infi nite
possibilities of our potential experience abroad. Our
ability to use different linguistic categories to imagine
ourselves in different locations, in different time
zones, and in different social interaction scenes is truly
a unique human language feature. The more we move away from concrete, external
phenomena, the more we engage in the process of
language abstraction. In many instances, language creates
intercultural friction because it is such an abstract,
imprecise instrument. We can use language to provoke
tension, create confl ict, reduce stress, fl irt with others,
and also uplift the spirit of others (Farb, 1973; Ting-
Toomey & Chung, 2005).

33
When we perceive that the use of our language
causes anxiety and uncertainty in our intercultural
interaction, we may want to force ourselves to
go “down the ladder” of symbolic abstraction—to
use more concrete wordings or alternative verbal
approaches to discuss the problematic interaction.
Likewise, we should also develop a sense of cultural
sensitivity when we communicate with individuals
from a linguistic system that values tactful, “abstract”
verbal styles.
Meaning-Centeredness
To understand a cultural stranger’s language usage, we
must acquire both the dictionary meaning of a word
and the subjective meaning of a word or phrase. In
any language, two levels of meaning exist: denotative
meaning and connotative meaning. The denotative
meaning of a word emphasizes its objective, dictionary
defi nition shared and recognized by the majority
members of a linguistic community. The connotative
meaning, on the other hand, stresses the subjective,
interpretive meanings of a word constructed by individual
members based on their cultural and personalized
language experience.
For example, the word hook up can have the

objective, denotative meaning of “an arrangement of
mechanical parts” or “an alliance or cooperation.”
However, from the connotative meaning construction
level of informal U.S. English usage, cultural members
may interpret the meaning of hook up as a casual sexual
encounter or dealing drugs.
In addition, translation problems and jokes that

33
involve different meaning misunderstandings abound
at the global level: “Things come alive with Pepsi” has
been translated into German as “Pepsi can pull you
back from your grave!” Mazda’s car “Laputa” has been
translated into Spanish as la puta, which means “the
prostitute.” The American Dairy Association’s “Got milk?” campaign in Spanish was
changed after it was
realized that “¿Tienes leche?” translates as “Are you
lactating?” In 2009, the debut of the “Audi RS6 White
Power” automobile from Germany was renamed
“Audi RS6 Avant” after complaints, accusations, and
negative publicity flooded car blogs, news sites, and
forums across the Internet.
These translation problems or jokes often occur

because of the crossover confusion between literal
or denotative translation emphasis and cultural connotative
inaccuracy. Even if the literal or denotative
translation were accurate, the “objective” meaning
often creates a very strange or even hilarious effect.
The challenge for translators is to understand the specifi
c intention and meaning of the original phrase and
then to adjust appropriately the meaning of the phrase
with regard to the cultural context and the situational
appropriateness of the other language application (see
also, Kwon, Barnett, & Chen, 2009).
Creativity
There are three distinctive elements in the linguistic creativity
feature: productivity, displacement, and the metacommunicative
feature (Crystal, 2010). The productivity
element refers to the immense creative capacity children
and adults have—to say things never spoken before once
they have mastered the basic “recipe” of a language. By

33
the time children with normal language development patterns reach their fourth
birthday, they have already
internalized the exceedingly complex structure of their
native tongue. Add a couple more years and children
will possess the entire linguistic system, allowing them
the ability to utter and understand sentences they have
never heard before. Parents do not have to teach their
children every sentence in their language system. Once
they have mastered the common vocabulary and grammatical
structure of their native tongues, children can
creatively spit out coherent sentences from their mouths
via a creative reconfiguration of words.
Furthermore, individuals in all linguistic communities

also have the capacity to talk about things
far away in time and space (i.e., the displacement
element) and to use language (e.g., via oral history,
poetry, parables, stories, or songs) to pass on their heritage,
lessons learned, memories, and wisdom from
one generation to the next. It also means that individuals
can garner their creative potential to use language
mindfully (i.e., meta-communication) for mutual collaboration
and understanding. Alternatively, language
can be used to disseminate hate-filled propaganda,
bully others, express prejudice, wage war, and engender
destruction.
Multiple Rule Patterns

All languages are constructed with words
or symbols that are arranged in patterned ways, that
is, they are rule governed. Most native speakers have
difficulty clearly articulating the rules of their own
language. Native speakers often operate on the unconscious
competence stage of language usage because

33
they can converse fluently within their own linguistic
community without needing to over worry about the rule patterns of their everyday
language usage (see, for
example, Bolden, 2008). We introduce the following
rule patterns of language here: phonology, morphology,
syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.
Phonological Rules
The phonological rules (or phonology) of a language
refer to the different accepted procedures for combining
phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest sound
units of a word. For example, some of the phonemes
in English are [k], [sh], [t], and [b]. Native speakers of
English, for example, may possess an intuitive sense
of how to utter these sounds, such as kick, shame, tree,
and butter; however, they may not be able to articulate
the how and why of the phonetic rules for producing
these sounds. Although the English language
has forty-five phonemes, other languages have a range
of phonemes spanning anywhere between fifteen and
eighty-five.
Linguistically speaking, everyone who communicates

speaks with an accent because accent means the
inflection or tone of voice that is taken to be characteristic
of an individual. Our inflection and tone of voice
are unique. Members of subcultures who are native
speakers of the same language can also be identified
as having accents. In such cases, the distinctive accent
is attributed to shared group membership interacting
within a common space (Wyatt, 1995). Many Bostonians,
for example, claim that they can differentia the Italian, Irish, and Jewish groups in their
city by the
way they articulate their /o(r)/ vowel sound (e.g., in

33
words like “start” and “park”).
The issue of accents becomes apparent because technology

has been in the forefront of speech and speechto-
text recording. Cell phones have the “voiceprint”
app, which allows you to record your own unique voice
saying the names in your address book and instead of
dialing, you just say, “Call Catanzaro.” In our modern
times, speech-to-text technology is becoming rampant,
where a person can speak into a device that then produces
written text of what was said, thus justifying the
use of “accent-free” language. In 2011, Sprint was the
fi rst U.S. cell phone carrier to integrate Google Voice
across its entire handset lineup, which allows a Google
search by speaking the search term into the phone.
Morphological Rules
The term morphological rules (or morphology)
refers to how combinations of different sounds make
up a meaningful word or part of a word (e.g., “lead”
and “er-ship” form “lead-er-ship”; or words such as
“caffeine” and “flower”). In English and many other
European languages, morphemes that are required by
grammar are often put at the end of words as suffixes
(i.e., “is going” and “is sleeping” contain the morpheme
“ing,” which indicates that an activity is currently
in progress; or in adverb form as in “worth-less”
and “mind-less”).
Languages develop different rules on the basis of

cultural conventions that are passed down from one
generation to the next. Once we have internalized
the language sound habits of our culture, it is much
more diffi cult to learn another set of linguistic conventions.

33
In Swahili, the grammatical information indicating
verb tense appears at the beginning as a prefi x
(law = “to go,” and nalaw = “is going”; or sun = “to
sleep,” and nasun = “is sleeping”). Thus, in the Swahili
morphological system, individuals are in a state of
preparation before actually doing something. Interestingly,
well-trained Russians who speak fl uent English
will still give themselves away when they pronounce
the letter “t” in the English sentence such as “Tomorrow
is a town hall meeting.” The Russian “t” is pronounced
by contact between the tip of the tongue and
the upper teeth, unlike English, which pronounces “t” by making contact between the
tongue, just back of its
tip, and the upper gum ridge.
When we hear nonnative speakers chatting, we

often view the morphological sounds of their foreign
language as undetermined patter and may even get
annoyed when their intonations sound unfamiliar
and out of the range of our language tones. Again, we
should practice linguistic empathy in many intercultural
occasions because we should remember that once
a child reaches four years old, she may have internalized
the sound habits of her native-tongue language.
Instead of evaluating harshly the “off-kilter” sound
system of a foreign speaker, we should extend respect
for any individual who tries to master and practice a
second or third language in her later years.
Syntactic Rules
The syntactic rules (or syntactics) of a language refer
to how words are sequenced together in accordance
with the grammatical practices of the linguistic community.
The order of the words helps to establish the

33
meaning of an utterance. It is also reflective of the cultural
notions of causality and order.
In English grammar, for example, explicit subject

pronouns are used to distinguish self from other
(e.g., “I cannot give you the report because Manuela is
still working on the conclusion section.”). In Chinese
grammar, explicit pronouns, such as “I” and “you,”
are deemphasized. Instead, conjunctive words, such
as “because” (yinwei), “so” (suoyi), and “then” (juo),
appear early in the sentence to pave the way for the
rest of the story. For example, the following statement
illustrates this point: “Because of so many snow storms,
so the report has then not been handled properly, then
we’re now one week behind the deadline.”
Chinese syntax establishes a context and contingent

conditions and then introduces the main point,
but English syntax establishes the key point and then
lays out the reason (Young, 1994). Likewise, in Spanish,
there are two different verb forms to address the
past tense, depending on how the action occurred in
the past, whereas English is a “matter-of-fact” language
with fewer ways to address the past tense. The syntactic
rules of a language—in interaction with the cultural
value system—assert tremendous power on people’s
thinking and reasoning patterns within a culture.
Semantic Rules
The semantic rules (or semantics) of a language
concern the features of meaning we attach to words.
Words themselves do not have self-evident meanings.
It is people within a cultural language community
who consensually establish shared meanings for specifi

33
c words and phrases.
The concept of “meaning” is tied closely to how

we interpret the incoming verbal message in a culturally
relevant and situationally relevant manner. To
truly understand what someone is saying from another
linguistic community, we must understand three affective
(or connotative) features of meaning: the evaluative
feature (i.e., good–bad), the potency feature (i.e.,
strong–weak), and the activity feature (i.e., fast–slow)
(Osgood, Suci, & Tanenbaum, 1957).
For example, your cultural classmate says, “I am

totally committed to this project” with the affective
connotations of “good, strong, and fast.” This particular
cultural member thinks that the project will
be completed before spring break. The other cultural
member echoes the same phrase, but with the affective
connotations of “good, strong, but slow” (i.e., I will
mull over our project, meet a couple more times, and
we’ll do it after break). Although both teammates have
similar meaning reactions concerning the “good and
strong” portions of the concept concerning “commitment,”
they differ signifi cantly on the activity feature of
“fast versus slow.”
Further culture-based meaning misunderstandings

could take place, for example, if both U.S. and Russian
confl ict negotiators cannot agree on the semantic meaning
of words such as “compromise” or “collaboration.”
U.S. American negotiators generally regard compromise
as inevitable and desirable. Russian diplomats, on the
other hand, consider compromise a sign of weakness,
a retreat from a correct and morally justifi ed position.

http://esaunggul.ac.id 10 /
33
Russian confl ict negotiators, therefore, are prepared to
“wait out their opposite numbers in the expectation that
time and Russian patience will produce more concessions.
. . . Chess is a Russian national pastime, and Russians
negotiate in the same way they play chess, planning
several moves ahead” (Richmond, 1996, pp. 150–151).
Pragmatic Rules
The pragmatic rules (or pragmatics) of a language
refer to the contextual rules that govern language usage
in a particular culture. Pragmatics concerns the rules
of “how to say what to whom and under what situational
conditions” in a speech community (Hymes,
1972). A speech community is defi ned as a group
of individuals who share a common set of normative
expectations and communication rules regarding
appropriate or inappropriate interaction practices in
a community (Byram, 2009; Carbaugh, 1996; Lee &
Park, 2011; Philipsen, 1997, 2010).
What would be your analysis of this communication

incident? You can answer number (1), (2), or (3).
However, if you choose (3), congratulations! Amaya’s
remark (i.e., “I can work with any hot mess!”) was negatively
interpreted by Seung-Ho. The term “hot mess”
can have at least two meanings. “Hot” has a feature of
temperature and “mess” has a feature of organization.
When we combine “hot + mess,” the concept takes on
a whole new meaning. Amaya used the idiomatic term
“hot mess,” as in the context of having thoughts being
in disarray but maintaining some beauty in a very
informal, American English way. However, “hot mess”
also describes a situation, behavior, or someone’s
appearance that is disastrously distasteful. Seung-Ho

33
must have thought that this was the meaning Amaya
had in mind. He probably felt that the remark sounded
patronizing and also caused him to lose face in front
of his Korean guy friends.
Amaya and Seung-Ho actually have two language

problems here: the semantic problem and the pragmatic
problem. The semantic problem is caused by
the different meaning interpretations of the term “hot
mess.” The pragmatic problem is that Seung- Ho perceived
Amaya’s remark about his use of “totally” and
“hot mess” as out of context and insulting, especially
in front of his friends.
What can Amaya do now? After hearing your language

analysis, Amaya may want to use a perception
check with Seung-Ho. She may want to approach
Seung-Ho and apologize for her unintended unconsciously
incompetent behavior. Amaya may ask probing
questions about Seung-Ho’s sudden exit and sullen
expression. Seung-Ho may also take the initiative to
refl ect on his own confusion concerning Amaya’s rude
comment. Seung-Ho may raise his own awareness and
realize perhaps he misinterpreted the term “hot mess.”
Seung-Ho may tell Amaya that he doesn’t mind that
she jokes with him in English on a one-to-one basis in
the English Tutorial Lab setting; however, in the public
cafeteria setting, he doesn’t want his friends or professors
to witness their casual bantering style.
Someone learning a new language will have diffi

culty understanding something so subtle as what
happened between Amaya and Seung-Ho—unless
a culturally sensitive language tutor can explain the

33
semantic meaning and the pragmatic rule of the phrase. Furthermore, Amaya may really
need to polish
her understanding of the pragmatic rule of whether to
use informal English in front of ingroup or outgroup
members when interacting with Seung-Ho. The truth
is that most people learning or even teaching the language
do not have this kind of opportunity to refl ect
so carefully on these rules.
Paying close attention to the multilayered rules
of everyday language usage in a new culture may be a
good start to move you from conversing at the unconscious
incompetence stage to the conscious incompetence
stage and, hopefully, lead to the conscious
competence staircase level. Linguistic rules give rise
to the diverse functions of languages across cultures
and answer the question of why language plays such
a critical role within each culture (Dougherty, Mobley,
& Smith, 2010; Park & Guan, 2007, 2009). Language
is an integral part of both a sense of identity and the
mindset that goes with it.
C. Appreciating Diverse Language Functions

Cultural value orientations drive language usage in
everyday lives. If a culture has a high individualism
value index (e.g., Canada and Ireland), words and
phrases such as “I,” “me,” “my goal,” “my opinion,”
“self-help,” and “self-service” tend to appear as part
of everyday parlance. If a culture has a high collectivism
value index (e.g., Costa Rica and Nigeria),
phrases such as “our work team,” “our goal,” “our
future together,” and “we as a group” are part of the
everyday lexicon.
In this section, we identify the diverse functions

33
of languages across cultures as the cultural worldview
function, the social reality function, the cognitive
shaping function, the group identity function, and the
social change function.
The Cultural Worldview Function

To really connect with a culture, we must understand
the language of a cultural group. To understand
language in context, we must understand the fundamental
worldview that drives particular language
reasoning processes in particular situations. Worldview
refers to our larger philosophical outlook or ways of perceiving the world and how this
outlook,
in turn, affects our thinking and reasoning patterns.
Intercultural experts have proposed two worldviews
that divide Western and non-Western cultures: the
linear worldview and the relational worldview (Stewart
& Bennett, 2005).
A linear worldview emphasizes rational or analytical

thinking that is based on an objective reality. A
relational worldview emphasizes holistic or connected
thinking that is based on a contextual reality. The language
systems of the linear worldview tend to emphasize
beginning with either facts and figures or models
and theories and uses two reasoning patterns: inductive
and deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning refers to the importance of

facts and evidence to make a claim. Facts are important
because they are objective. A claim is not valid
until proven with concrete facts and tangible figures.
The U.S. American reasoning process has been identifi
ed as following an inductive reasoning pattern or

33
a linear inductive persuasion style. For example, any
case that goes to trial in a U.S. court follows such a
persuasion style in court. Deductive reasoning, on
the other hand, refers to the primacy of conceptual
models or big principles to start and then moves on
to specific analytical points of inferences and factual
conclusions. The European (e.g., France) to East
European styles (e.g., Russia) of reasoning have been
identified as reflective of a broadly deductive reasoning
pattern (Stewart & Bennett, 2005). For example,
the Russians will start with an agreement in principle
(i.e., the big picture) and then fill in the details step by step based on linear deductive
reasoning process
(Glenn, 1981).
Alternatively, the language systems of the relational
worldview emphasize the importance of concerns
about relational loyalty and trust, extended family
connections, and ingroup membership dignity and
honor. Thus, individuals operating from the relational
worldview language system avoid the use of extreme
polarized and direct wordings in their everyday interactions.
For example, the Chinese language and worldview
pattern avoids using the polarized ends (e.g.,
love–hate, good–evil, rich–poor) to comprehend the
nature of the universe. Instead, the Chinese language
pays close attention to the quality of the spectrum of
emotional expressions (e.g., “not that bad,” “I like,” “I
very like,” “I not too like”), which in English are polarized
(e.g., like and dislike).
The relational worldview language patterns also
reinforce the notion of different forms of spiral reasoning
styles—from the dramatic to the subtle. Members
in many Arab cultures, for example, tend to use
the dramatic spiral reasoning style such as effusive

33
metaphors, stories, parables, and a wide range of fl owery
adjectives to reinforce a point. Thus, the dramatic
conversation styles of many of the Arabic cultures
often tend to emphasize image over digital content
and form over function. Members of Italian, Slavic,
Jewish, and many African cultures, for example, also
have a tendency to use demonstrative speeches, vivacious
similes, and spirited narratives to dramatize the
emotional impact of their message. Many Asian and
Native American cultures, however, may resort to using
the understated spiral reasoning style, including subtle
messages, implied hints, reserved talks, relational
reasons, and tactful nonverbal gestures to convey an
intended meaning and context.
The Everyday Social Reality Function

Everyday language serves as a prism or mirror through
which individuals emphasize “important” versus
“unimportant” events out there or “interesting” versus
“uninteresting” value priorities in a cultural
speech community. For example, in Mexico, Spanish
words such as machismo (i.e., masculinity, physical strength, sexual attraction),
marianismo (i.e., a woman’s
submissiveness, dependence, gentleness, and
remaining a virgin until marriage), respeto (i.e., showing
proper respect for authority, such as parents and
elders), and familismo (i.e., the importance of family
and the extended family network) infi ltrate individuals’
everyday social experiences, and they are used as
yardsticks to measure self and others’ appropriate role
performance.
Our everyday language has repeated categories that

capture our social experience and ultimately shape our

33
cultural and gendered expectations (Brabant, Watson,
& Gallois, 2010; Lee & Park, 2011). For example, the
usage of everyday English idioms in the U.S. corporate
world or in confl ict context such as “That was a slam
dunk,” “This will be a game changer,” and “Wow you
hit that out of the park,” refl ect a strong doing and
gaming metaphor in corporate U.S. culture.
Moreover, on the personal level, English speakers

tend to use explicit pronouns of “I,” you,” and “my” to
express an opinion or solicit an idea such as “I totally
disagree with you,” ‘What do you think?” “I’m doing a
fact check,” or “My bad!” Furthermore, the term “self”
is common in daily English, for example, self-service,
self-help, self-made, self-regard, self-importance, selfinterest,
etc. which refl ects the individualistic value
motif. In contrast, Korean speakers use more implicit
and ambiguous words. Instead of appearing to be
assertive, they use more qualifiers such as “maybe,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “excuse
me,” or “sorry” at the
beginning of a sentence in substitution for the explicit
use of the “I” pronoun in an up-front manner.
The Cognitive Shaping Function

Language also serves as a strong fi lter between what we
think and how our thinking pattern is shaped by the
grammatical structure of our language system. Benjamin
Whorf (1952, 1956), drawing from the work
of his mentor, Edward Sapir (1921), tested the “language
is a shaper of ideas” hypothesis. By comparing
the Hopi Indian language with European languages,
Whorf (1952) found that language is not only a vehicle
for voicing ideas but also “the shaper of ideas.” He
further emphasized that the grammatical structure of

33
a language shapes and constitutes one’s thought process.
This grammatical structure is entirely culture
based and, as such, language, thinking, and culture are
integral parts of a mindset system.
Whorf cited several examples from the Hopi language:

(1) The Hopi language does not possess a
discrete past–present–future grammatical system as
in most European languages; instead, it has a wide
range of present tenses based on the observations of
the speaker, such as “I know that she is sleeping at this
very moment” or “I am told that she is sleeping.” (2)
The Hopi language does not use a cyclic noun, such
as “days” or “years,” in the same manner as countable
quantities, such as eight women or eight men; instead, it emphasizes the concept of
“duration” when conceiving
time. Thus, the Hopi equivalent for the English
statement “They stayed eight days” is “I know that they
stay until the seventh day.” (3) English speakers tend
to use spatial metaphors in their sentences (e.g., “time
is up,” “I’m on top of it,” or “I’m running low”), but
the Hopi language tends to emphasize events that are
happening in the here and now.
By linking cultural worldview and thought pattern

together, one achieves the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis,
also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
The grammars of different languages constitute separate
conceptual realities for members of different
cultures. We experience different thoughts and sensations
via our linguistic systems. For example, the
structure of the future tense in Spanish tells us a
great deal about the notion of the future in Spain.
In Spanish, statements made about the future signal

33
probability rather than certainty. A Spanish speaker
will prefer the statement closer to the English “I may
go to the market” (“Puedo ir al mercado”) instead of
“I will go to the market” to indicate the probability
of an action in the future rather than the certainty
of that action. The future, for many Spanish-speaking
people, represents an unknown in time and
space: many things can happen later this afternoon
or tomorrow—they are beyond the control of
individuals.
After reviewing extensive studies on the Sapir–

Whorf hypothesis, Steinfatt (1989) concluded that
although the weak form (i.e., language helps to
shape our thinking patterns) of the linguistic relativity
hypothesis received some support, no conclusive
evidence can be drawn to support the strong form
(i.e., language completely determines our thinking
patterns). Sapir and Whorf were trailblazing pioneers
in linking language with culture and, as such,
they left a major contribution to the study of intercultural
communication.
The Group Membership Identity Function

Language represents a rallying point for evoking group
sentiment and shared identity. Language serves the
larger cultural–ethnic identity function because it is
an emblem of group solidarity. In speaking a common tongue, members signal ingroup
ties and outgroup
separation. The core symbols and linguistic categories
of a group often express ethnic and nationalistic
sentiment. By virtue of its powerful and visible symbolism,
language maintenance issues are worth fighting
and dying for—from many ethnic groups’ perspectives.

33
For example, the disputes between Anglophones
and Francophones over the use of English or French
in Canada’s Quebec province and the heated debates
over whether Pidgin and Ebonics (i.e., Hawaiian
English and Black English) are languages or dialects
in the United States refl ect the signifi cant role of the
group membership function of language. The debate
over Ebonics recently reignited in 2010 when the U.
S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced
it was hiring nine Ebonics translators to assist them
with their drug enforcement efforts in the southeastern
United States. “Unfortunately, the use of the term
‘Ebonics’ in the public sphere raises a red fl ag,” said
Walt Wolfram, linguistics professor at North Carolina
State University. “(T)he term has been politicized and
racialized” (McDonald, 2010).
Some cultural members develop enormous membership

loyalty to and pride in speaking their native
tongue, but other members derive tremendous fl exibility
in their ability to code-switch. Code-switching
means switching to another language or dialect to
increase or decrease intergroup distance. For example,
many African Americans have developed different
verbal strategies to deal with the stigma attached to
Black English (or Ebonics—ebony and phonics) by the
dominant group. Black English is a distinctive rulegoverned
language (Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993;
Hecht & Ribeau, 1984) that gained public attention
in 1996 as a result of a proposal by the Oakland California
School Board to use African American English
in teaching Standard English in the Oakland School
District (Applebome, 1996). Many African Americans
are able to code-switch using mainstream American

33
English in formal or work-related settings and then
switch to Black English with familiar others in casual
settings for the purpose of forging group identity and
connection (Helms, 1993; Parham & Helms, 1985).
On purely linguistic grounds, all languages are created

equal. However, in all linguistic struggles, a fi erce competition exists: “Not between
languages themselves
but, rather, between language communities or linguistic
interest groups” (Edwards, 1994, p. 205). Matters
of group membership, power, and status interlock with
societal perceptions to form attitudes toward different
language varieties in the larger cultural context.
The Social Change Function
Twenty years ago, we did not have words like texting,
ipad, and refudiate or use Facebook or Google as verbs.
They are now part of our everyday vocabulary.As innovative
social beings, we are the creators of the social
tool of human language. We are also at times trapped
by the habits of our own linguistic system.
Let’s do the my.blog 6.1 poll here before you
read on.
Although some people may assume that women
are included in such male generic terms as mankind,
research has demonstrated conclusively that
“masculine generics are perceived as referring predominantly
or exclusively to men. When people
hear them, they think of men, not women” (Wood,
2004, p. 152). For example, the use of male generic
language in English—words such as businessman or
fi reman used in Western society or the use of “man”
in the Bible that refers to gender inclusivity—tends
to elevate men’s experience as more valid and make
women’s experience less prominent. To the extent

33
that the language of a culture makes men appear
more visible and concurrently makes women seem invisible, the perceptions generated
from such biased
language usage create biased thinking. By fl exibly
changing some of our linguistic habits (e.g., changing
fi reman to fi refi ghter, mankind to humankind), we
can start transforming our thinking patterns through
the use of gender-equitable terms.
Beyond language habit change, two interesting

trends are taking place. The fi rst interesting trend is the
language change in the U.S. sports and global social
scenes. For example, in the United States, it is common
for a sports fan to hear one minute left to go as “a buck”
and seconds as “change.” With 1:12 left in a game, you
can say “there is a buck and change left in the game.”
On the international language change scene is the
issue of language borrowing. For example, in Malyasia,
“gwai-lo size” refers to a very large “Western size” portion
of food. In the indigenous communities around
the town of Juchitán, Mexico, local Zapotec people
have made room for a third category of sexual orientation,
which they call “muxes” (pronounced MOOshays).
Muxes, derived from the Spanish “mujer,” or
woman are men who consider themselves women and
live in a socially sanctioned netherworld between the
two genders (Lacey, 2008). Or if one is on the Internet,
Germans will say “im Internet surfen” (“Pukka
German,” 2011). Global language borrowing can indicate
an ingroup connection and solidarity function, an
added status, or a necessary convenience.
The second interesting trend under the social

change heading is integrating brand names into everyday

33
language and, as a result, you cannot tell the product
from the brand. In the South (Texas, Oklahoma),
ordering a Coke refers to any soft drink. In Latin America,
when people want a pack of razors, they ask for
“Gillettes;” if they want a whirlpool bath, they ask for a
“Jacuzzi” (Bianchi & Sama, 2003). Domestically, with
an increase in the popularity of rap music, English is
now up for grabs. Called a new “bilingual” English,
this is a way for street kids, or the music industry, to
promote the inclusion of the slang and jargon of rap
music into everyday vocabulary.
D. Verbal Communication Styles: A General Framework

Before you continue reading, let’s do my.blog 6.2 to
check out your verbal style preference.
Why did you fi nd some of the behaviors irritating?
Where did you acquire your own verbal habits
or rituals? What cultural or personal values infl uence
your verbal styles? Do you notice any style differences
between females and males in your culture? How so?
Do you communicate very similarly in different situations?
Or do you switch your verbal styles to adapt to
different interaction situations?
Defining Low-Context and High-Context Interaction Patterns

Hall (1976) claimed that human interaction, on a
broad level, can be divided into low-context and
high-context communication systems. In low-context
communication, the emphasis is on how intention
or meaning is expressed through explicit verbal messages.
In high-context communication, the emphasis
is on how intention or meaning can best be conveyed through the embedded contexts
(e.g., social roles or
positions, relationship types, intergroup history) and

33
the nonverbal channels (e.g., pauses, silence, tone of
voice) of the verbal message.
In general, low-context communication (LCC)

refers to communication patterns of direct, matter-offact
tone, transparency, assertiveness, and sender-oriented
values (i.e., the sender assumes the responsibility
to communicate clearly). In the LCC system, the
speaker is expected to be responsible for constructing
a clear, persuasive message that the listener can
decode easily. The value priority in the LCC style is
“say what you mean, mean what you say” as a mode
of respect for verbal honesty and personal accountability.
In comparison, high-context communication

(HCC) refers to communication patterns of indirect,
tactful nonverbal tone, diplomatic talk, self-humbling
speech, and receiver-sensitive values (i.e., the interpreter
of the message assumes the responsibility to
infer the hidden or contextual meanings of the message
[Ting-Toomey, 1985]). In the HCC system, the listener
or interpreter of the message is expected to “read
between the lines” and infer the nonverbal subtleties
that accompany the verbal message. The value priority
in the HCC style is “don’t say anything that will
hurt the other’s feelings” as a mode of interpersonal
sensitivity for other-centric consideration. Of course,
the broad-based LCC and HCC communication style usage also varies—dependent
strongly also on generational
ethnic identity issues, individual-level personality
traits, relationship types, interaction goals, and
situational contexts.
Overall, LCC patterns emphasize direct talk, self enhancement,

33
informal interaction, and the value
of talkativeness. In comparison, HCC patterns stress
indirect verbal style, verbal self-humbling pattern, status-
sensitive formal interaction, and the importance of
silence (see, for example, Park & Guan, 2006, 2009;
Park, Lee, & Song, 2005). The following sections discuss
in detail some of these low-context and high-context
verbal habits in different cultures
Direct and Indirect Verbal Styles

Mannerism of speaking frames how a message should
be interpreted or understood on a continuum. Individuals
in all cultures use all of these verbal styles to
a certain degree, depending on assumed identities,
intentions, interaction goals, relationship types, and
the situation. However, in individualistic cultures, people
tend to encounter more situations that emphasize
direct talk. In contrast, in collectivistic cultures, people
tend to encounter more situations that emphasize the
use of indirect talk.
The direct and indirect styles differ in how they

reveal the speaker’s intentions through tone of voice
and the straightforwardness of the content in the message.
In the direct style, statements tend to reveal the
speaker’s intentions with clarity and are enunciated
with a forthright tone of voice. In the indirect style,
statements tend to camoufl age the speaker’s actual
intentions and are carried out with a softer tone. For
example, the overall U.S. American style often calls
for clear and direct communication. Phrases such as
“give me the bottom line,” “call it like you see it,” and
“what’s your point?” are some examples. In contrast,

33
in a request situation, U.S. Americans tend to use a straightforward form of request, but
Koreans tend to
ask for a favor in a more roundabout and implicit way
to sound not so imposing or demanding. The Koreans
are not the only indirect group.
In the Latina conversation, requests for help are

likely to be implied rather than stated explicitly and
directly. Indirect requests can help both parties to save
face and uphold smooth harmonious interaction.
When Daniela detects a request during a conversation
with Essie, she can choose to offer help, pretend she
does not understand the request, or apologize that she
cannot take Essie to the airport with a good reason.
An implicit understanding generally exists between two high-context communicators.
They do not need to

overtly state their request or use an overt “no” to state
their opinion overtly, thus hurting the feelings of the
other high-context collectivist.
Intercultural misunderstanding, however, becomes
highly probable when Essie communicates with Patrick.
They each rely on their own cultural scripts to
inform them of what to expect in the interaction. Let’s
look at L-Chat 6.5 of the “airport ride request” dialog,
this time between Essie and Patrick (adapted from
Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998, p. 77).
It should be obvious that Essie emphasizes the

indirect verbal style and Patrick emphasizes direct verbal
style. Because neither has knowledge of high-context
and low-context differences, a misunderstanding
is inevitable. In high-context conversations, negative
responses, such as “No,” or “I disagree with you,” or “I

33
cannot do it” are not stated overtly. Instead, apologetic
expressions with qualifying reasons, delayed decisions,
or indirect expressions are used.
If the conversational patterns of people from different

cultural or ethnic groups at some point annoy
you, think about the stylistic level of conversation. For
example, although the British are indirect in comparison
with U.S. Americans, the Japanese would not fi nd
them to be in the least bit indirect. Becoming fl exible
intercultural communicators means fl uid codeswitching
between the low-context and high-context
message system on both the verbal and the nonverbal levels and in accordance with the
situational norms
and rules of the cultural context.
Self-Enhancement and Self-Humbling Verbal Styles

Another verbal pattern is the spectrum between
self-enhancement and self-humbling verbal style.
The self-enhancement style emphasizes the importance
of drawing attention to or exaggerating one’s
credentials, outstanding accomplishments, and special
abilities. The self-humbling style, on the other
hand, emphasizes the importance of downplaying
oneself via modest talk, restraint, hesitation, and
the use of self-deprecation message concerning one’s
performance or effort.
Verbal self-humbling or self-effacement is a necessary

part of Puerto Rican American politeness rituals.
In Swiss or U.S. culture, we encourage individuals to
“sell themselves and boast about their achievements.”
Otherwise, in a performance review or job interview
session, who would notice the accomplishments

33
from a self-effacing individual? However, the notion
of merchandising oneself does not sit well with many
Latin American, Asian, and Native American groups.
“After 25 years working for California Transportation,”
says Dai, a retired worker, “I thought I would be given
a window when we moved offi ces. I never got one.
I assumed my supervisors would see that I deserved
it. I never asked.” Dai believed that if his performance
is exceptional, his supervisors will notice his stellar
performance and take appropriate, appreciative
action. However, from the Western cultural standpoint,
an exceptional performance must be documented
with concrete evidence and in an explicit
manner to catch the attention of busy supervisors.
This difference is probably caused by the observational-
centric value of the collectivistic HCC pattern,
as opposed to the sender-centric value of the Western
LCC pattern.
All cultural characterizations and comparisons

are in the eye of the beholder more than with the
behavior of the beheld—these are relative differences between cultural and ethnic
groups, not absolute
differences. By understanding such nuanced and
layered differences, we can learn to accept or even
to adapt to some of these culture-based verbal style
differences.
Beliefs Expressed in Talk and Silence

Words like violence
Break the silence
Come crashing in
Into my little world
Painful to me

33
Pierce right through me
Can’t you understand . . .
Depeche Mode, “Enjoy the
Silence,” 1991
This British single of 1991 captures the momentary
need for peace and quiet that will be ruined with
words. Silence can oftentimes say as much, if not more,
than words. Although silence occurs in interaction
contexts in cultures around the world, how silence is
interpreted and evaluated differs across cultures and
between persons. Hall (1983) claims that silence, or
ma, serves as a critical communication device in many
Native American and Asian communication patterns.
Ma is much more than pausing between words; rather,
it is like a semicolon that refl ects the inner pausing
of the speaker’s thoughts. Through ma, interpersonal
understanding is made possible in many high-context
cultures. Although silence may hold strong contextual
meanings in high-context cultures, prolonged silence
is often viewed as “empty pauses” or “ignorant lapses”
in the Western rhetorical model.
From the high-context perspective, silence can

be the essence of the language of superiority and
inferiority, affecting such relationships as teacher–
student, male–female, and supervisor–employee.
The process of refraining from speaking can have
both positive and negative effects. In some situations,
such as members in the Apache, Navajo, and
Papago Indian tribes, silence is appropriate in contexts
where social relations between individuals are
unpredictable, role expectations are unclear, and
relations involve high levels of ambiguity (Basso,
1970; Covarrubias, 2007).

33
Do you use talk to “break the ice” and reserve
silence for your most intimate relationships? If so,
this is typical of European American styles. In France
people tend to engage in animated conversations to
affi rm the nature of their established relationships;
in the absence of any such relationship, silence serves the French as a neutral
communication process. This
is why in the elevator, in the street, or on the bus, people
don’t talk to each other readily in France. This is
a seemingly inexhaustible source of misunderstanding
between the French and U.S. Americans, especially
because “these rules are suspended under exceptional
circumstances and on vacation (and therefore on
the train, on the plane). . . . U.S. Americans often feel
rejected, disapproved of, criticized, or scorned without
understanding the reason for this hostility” (Carroll,
1987, p. 30).
The mode of speaking, in short, refl ects the overall

values and norms of a culture. The cultural modes
of speaking in many speech communities refl ect the
hierarchical social order, family socialization, asymmetrical
role positions, and power distance values
of the different cultures. Intercultural miscommunication
can thus often occur because of the different
priorities placed on talk and silence by different
groups. Silence can serve various functions, depending
on the type of relationship, the interactive situation,
and the particular cultural beliefs held. Silence
can also serve as a powerful means of sharing or
persuasion.

33
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jandt., F.E. (2018). An Introduction to intercultural communication. 9th ed. SAGE

Publications.
Hurn B., & Tomalin B. (2013). Cross-cultural communication: Theory and practice.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ting-Toomey, S. & Chung L.C. (2012). Understanding intercultural communication.

2nd ed. Oxford University Press.

33

Module Meeting 5 Cross and Multicultural Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module Meeting 5 Cross and Multicultural Communication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module Meeting 5 Cross and Multicultural Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CROSS AND MULTICULTURAL COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITAS ESA UNGGUL

Universitas Esa Unggul

B. Human Language: Distinctive Features and Rule Patterns

Distinctive Language Features Arbitrariness

By three months, infants have acquired the ability

Universitas Esa Unggul

For example, the word hook up can have the

In addition, translation problems and jokes that

Universitas Esa Unggul

These translation problems or jokes often occur

Universitas Esa Unggul

Furthermore, individuals in all linguistic communities

Multiple Rule Patterns

Universitas Esa Unggul

Linguistically speaking, everyone who communicates

Universitas Esa Unggul

The issue of accents becomes apparent because technology

Languages develop different rules on the basis of

Universitas Esa Unggul

When we hear nonnative speakers chatting, we

Universitas Esa Unggul

In English grammar, for example, explicit subject

Chinese syntax establishes a context and contingent

Universitas Esa Unggul

The concept of “meaning” is tied closely to how

For example, your cultural classmate says, “I am

Further culture-based meaning misunderstandings

Universitas Esa Unggul

What would be your analysis of this communication

Universitas Esa Unggul

Amaya and Seung-Ho actually have two language

What can Amaya do now? After hearing your language

Someone learning a new language will have diffi

Universitas Esa Unggul

C. Appreciating Diverse Language Functions

In this section, we identify the diverse functions

Universitas Esa Unggul

The Cultural Worldview Function

A linear worldview emphasizes rational or analytical

Inductive reasoning refers to the importance of

Universitas Esa Unggul

Universitas Esa Unggul

The Everyday Social Reality Function

Our everyday language has repeated categories that

Universitas Esa Unggul

Moreover, on the personal level, English speakers

The Cognitive Shaping Function

Universitas Esa Unggul

Whorf cited several examples from the Hopi language:

By linking cultural worldview and thought pattern

Universitas Esa Unggul

After reviewing extensive studies on the Sapir–

The Group Membership Identity Function

Universitas Esa Unggul

Some cultural members develop enormous membership

Universitas Esa Unggul

On purely linguistic grounds, all languages are created

Universitas Esa Unggul

Beyond language habit change, two interesting