Verbal Directness

Closely related to context is the dimension of directness. Generally, people from low-context cultures exhibit verbal directness: they get to the point quickly and say what they mean. People in high-context cultures often prefer verbal indirectness: they prefer to discuss matters in a more subtle and round­about way. Thus they may say things in ways that members of low-context cul­tures would consider “hinting,” or “beating around the bush.”

The following example, cited by Lustig and Koester is a perfect example of indirectness. A Malaysian teacher is talking to a European American teacher. The Malaysian, who doesn’t have a car, wants the American to drive him off campus for lunch but is too polite to ask directly. Instead, the Malaysian says, “Can I ask you a question?” “Yes, of course,” the American answers. “Do you know what time it is?” “Yes, it’s two o’clock,” answers the American. The Malaysian then asks, “Might you have a little soup left in the pot?” Puzzled, the American asks for clarification, forcing the Malaysian to be more explicit. “I will be on campus teaching until nine o’clock tonight, a very long day for any per­son, let alone a hungry one!” Finally, the American catches on: “Would you like me to drive you to a restaurant off campus so you can have lunch?” The Malaysian teacher answers, “What a very good idea you have!”

Members of high-context cultures use a variety of methods to get mean­ings across, including refraction (letting someone overhear what you want him or her to know), covert revelation (letting personal views out in a disguised way), or mediation (waiting for someone else to relay the message.)

Expressiveness

Expressive cultures are open when it comes to displaying emotions. Hugging, touching, laughing, and crying may not be out of place, even in the workplace. Eloquence is often valued. In other cultures, the opposite is true. In many cul­tures emotional displays are seen as inappropriate and unprofessional. Iranians, for example, are very emotionally expressive. When angry, an Iranian’s behav­iors may consist of “turning red, invoking religious oaths, proclaiming his in­justices for all to hear, and allowing himself to be held back.” Many southeast Asians, in contrast, value evenness and restraint and try to neutralize emotions. European Americans, in general, are somewhere in the middle.

Formality

A final dimension of intercultural language use is formality. Some cultures use language in a formal way. Protocol is very important, deference should be shown to superiors, and all messages should flow through proper channels. This kind of language use is found in cultures in which there is a distinct power hierarchy. Conversely, the goal of cultures favoring informal language is to re­duce this hierarchy, get rid of red tape, and treat individuals as equals. The United States and Australia are well know for such informality.

It’s important to realize that there are many different ways to use language and that our attitudes toward language are culturally determined. People say what they mean in very different ways. If you find yourself communicating with someone from another culture or co-culture, it's probably a good idea to keep this in mind and recognize the potential for misunderstanding.

Language Choices and Pragmatic Effects

One of the themes of this chapter is that language gives us power. Our linguistic choices count: they make a difference in our lives and in those of others. If we use language wisely, we can control communication; if we do not, communica­tion can have unintended effects. In this section we look at some of the effects of using four kinds of language. We'll discuss ambiguity, immediacy, abstrac­tion, and figurative language.

Ambiguity: When Not Making Sense Makes Sense

As we’ve seen, U.S. culture values directness and clarity. You’ve probably been told that language should be concrete, simple, direct, and straightforward. You've been warned that ambiguity diminishes communication. Often this is true. In many situations clarity is the measure of the success of a message. Legal documents or technical instructions, for example, must be precise. But clarity is not always advantageous, even in a low-context culture like ours, and ambiguity can sometimes help, rather than hinder, communication.

Eric Eisenberg, an expert in organizational communication, discusses pos­itive effects of using ambiguous language, language that can be interpreted in more than one way. First, ambiguous language can give an organization the flexibility to adapt to future contingencies. When a university issues the state­ment “The University shall be responsive to its surroundings”, the university is being deliberately ambiguous. It is assuring members of the surrounding com­munity of its intention to act in good faith while leaving itself room to develop policy. On an interpersonal level, ambiguity allows members of organizations to perceive themselves as similar rather than different. Because similarity is a basic factor in attraction, ambiguity can increase group solidarity. We often em­ploy strategic ambiguity unconsciously. For example, the first stages of group formation involve a great deal of ambiguity. Here, ambiguity allows members to avoid disagreements until the group is cohesive enough to deal with stress.

Eisenberg points out that people with high credibility often benefit most from ambiguity. If one's credibility is already high, clarity is more likely to de­crease than to increase it. Strategic ambiguity also allows one to deny a stand if it should become unpopular. “That’s not what I meant at all” gives a person a way to back down gracefully.

Janet Beavin Bavelas and her colleagues suggest that equivocal communication, another term used to describe ambiguous communication, is most often used when a communicator feels trapped between two unpleasant alter­natives. When speaking the truth and lying are both problematic, people often equivocate. Ask yourself which response you would choose in each of the fol­lowing situations:

A fellow student has just given a class presentation. It was very badly done. After class he asks you, “How did I do?” Which response is best?

a. You did very well. I really liked it.

b. You were terrible; bad job.

c. Not well, but don’t feel bad about it.

d. You were braver than I would be!

You have received a gift from someone you really like a lot, but the gift is awful. How would you respond?

a. The gift is perfect; I really love it.

b. I don't like the gift and am going to exchange it.

c. I like you, but 1 don’t like the gift.

d. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

You are torn between loyalties to two people you know and like equally well. Ann worked for you at one time. Bob is thinking of hiring Ann. Unfortunately, Ann is nice but incompetent. You must write a letter of reference. What would you say?

a. Ann was an excellent employee; I recommend her.

b. Don’t hire Ann; she was not a good employee.

c. Ann is a nice person but not a good employee.

d. It’s been years since I employed Ann, so I can’t answer specifically.

In each case, d is the equivocal response. If you are like most people, you were probably tempted to use ambiguity in at least one of these cases, for it is a way of responding to an uncomfortable situation without lying or hurting someone’s feelings. Communication specialists differ in their evaluation of this form of communication. Some decry it as deceptive and misleading, others defend it saying that equivocation is rather subtle than deliberately deceitful communication.

Immediacy: Up Close and Personal

Language can be inclusive or exclusive. It can place the listener at a distance or forge a close and personal bond. Immediate language is personalized lan­guage, and it can be very effective in persuasive situations Consider the follow­ing excerpt from a televised speech:

This historic room and the presidency belong to you It is your right and responsi­bility every four years to give temporary custody of this office and of the institu­tion of the presidency. You so honored me, and I am grateful – grateful and proud of what together we have accomplished.

The speaker was President Ronald Reagan, and the occasion was the 1984 announcement of his decision to run for a second term. This speech illustrates an effective use of immediacy. Reagan involves us directly and personally. We feel we are a part of his presidency, although what exactly "we" did together is not specified. Critics might say that this use of immediacy is misleading, yet it is certainly effective.

Empirical studies show that the use of verbal immediacy in public situa­tions has positive effects, increasing ratings of a speaker's competence, charac­ter, similarity to audience members, and degree of relaxation, especially when the speaker agrees with audience members. Immediacy is also effective in in­terpersonal contexts. If, however, it is blatantly used to create a bond where none exists, it can backfire. A low-status speaker might offend someone of high­er stains bv being too familiar. Sometimes norms for considerateness preclude being too immediate. As communicators, we must find a balance between fa­miliarity and polite deference.

Abstraction: Creating General Categories

I remember in complete detail my grandmother’s house. If I close my eyes, I can picture the garden in back and the broad veranda where I played as a child. When I speak of this place, I use the word house. Yet no single thing called “house” exists, only particular houses, such as the ones you and I grew up in. A house has no particular color, shape, or size. It is simply a structure used for human habitation. “House” is an abstraction, a synthesis of what many houses have in common. All words are abstractions, although some are more general than others. To call my grandmother's house a “dwelling unit” or an “abode” is to abstract it even further, and to abstract something is to make it less real.

Of course, abstraction is necessary. Abstract concepts allow us to talk about the future, to make predictions, and to think logically and mathematically. In Robin Lakoff’s terms, abstraction is "the basis of science, crucial to human understanding and the growth of our intellect and to our power as a species over the physical universe. It has made us what we are."

Abstract language can also be false and dangerous. It is the basis of stereo­typing. When my grandmother's house becomes merely a “house,” it loses its individuality; it is reduced to a series of general qualities. Similarly, when my neighbor becomes a “New Yorker” or a “teacher” or an “American,” she loses her uniqueness. Your idea of what she is like is shaped by these abstractions. Fi­nally, when some people become “we” and others “they”, the way is paved for misunderstanding and abuse.

Metaphors We Live By

We usually think of metaphors as devices that poets use, not as a feature of everyday talk. Metaphors, however, are found in every kind of discourse, and their presence affects us in interesting and important ways. A metaphor is a lin­guistic usage that allows us to understand and experience one thing in terms of another. Metaphors guide our thoughts and actions.

Ceorge Lakoff and Mark Johnson illustrate the pervasiveness of meta­phors by looking at the common ways we talk about argument. What under­lying comparison is common to the following statements?

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were r ight on target.

I demolished his argument.

He shot down all my arguments

The metaphor is that argument is a war – a common way of viewing argument in our culture. Lakoff and Johnson ask us to imagine instead another kind of culture, where argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently.

Metaphors allow us to grasp abstract or difficult concepts in terms of more understandable ideas. In doing so, however, they highlight some aspects of the concept and downplay others. Let’s look at some common metaphors used to describe love. Love can be thought of as a physical force (“There’s electricity be­tween us,” “When we’re together, sparks fly”); as mystic power (“She’s bewitch­ing,” “The magic is gone”); as madness (“I’m crazy about him”); or as war (“She conquered my heart,” “He’s besieged, by women”). Each of these metaphors calls our attention to a different kind of experience and legitimizes a different kind of behavior. If love is a physical force or mystic power, it is beyond our control; there's nothing we can do but let it wash over us. If love is madness, then irrational behavior is defensible. What if, however, we were to think of love in a new way, as a collaborative work of art? Following from this meta­phor, love would be something to be worked on, something that takes shape over time, and something that is beautiful and precious. Our reactions to and expenence of love would be significantly different.

Lakoff and Johnson believe that the metaphors we live by have a political dimension. Metaphors are often imposed on us by people in power: politicians, religious leaders, economists, and advertisers control us by creating metaphori­cal values. Once we come to believe in a given metaphor, say, “Bigger is better” or “More is good,” then it becomes difficult to see the world in any other way. Accumulation is valorized, and behaviors such as conservation are devalued.

Improving Language Choices

Language is a powerful tool. It allows us to abstract and store experiences and to share them with others. It allows us to make contact with and to influence, regu­late, persuade, and dominate one another. It makes us the humans we are. And yet, despite the great power it gives us, language also exerts power over us. Our thoughts and perceptions are filtered through language and can be distorted by it. It is important, then, that we use language with care and sensitivity, realizing that it can lead us astray as often as it can lead us to the truth.

We’ve seen that words are social agreements, agreements to express ideas in similar ways. We get into trouble if we start believing that words are complete and accurate reflections of reality. We should always remember that talking about something doesn’t necessarily mean it is real. Language has a peculiar tendency to reify concepts, to make us believe that they are tangible and real rather than fal­lible human constructions.

Another important principle to keep in mind is that meanings are in people, not in words. Although we share a language with others, we each shade its words and phrases with our own experiences. Meanings are by no means ob­jective, and, as our discussion of speech acts points out, we often mean more than we say and say less than we mean. Uncovering meaning involves making in­ferences about the communicative intentions of others. Only a madman would take as literal everything oth­ers say. A sane and competent communicator recognizes that language involves a great deal of social inference. One should always be careful to take context into account both when interpreting others’ messages and when creating one’s own.

When we encode messages through spoken language, we have to make choices. There is no single right way to use language; language choices must depend on our purposes, our audience, and the conventions of the discourse form we use. We use a specific kind of language to sell a used car, host a TV talk show, tell a joke, deliver a public speech, or talk to a stranger at a party. Each form of communi­cation has its own linguistic conventions. Although most of the time language that is direct, clear, concrete, and straightforward is preferred, there are also ap­propriate times for ambiguity, abstraction, and figurative language. Making lan­guage choices is no simple matter. It requires sensitivity to others, a clear sense of one’s own communicative intent, a great deal of social knowledge, and an overall understanding of the communication process.

II. DISCUSSION

Task 1. Discuss the following questions in groups.

1. Dwell on the notion of language, its main characteristics and kinds.

2. What is a sign? Speak on its two parts and relationships.

3. In what way does a symbol differ from other signs?

4. Think of some other means to carry meaning.

5. What does linguistic productivity mean?

6. In what way does language affect our thought?

7. What is linguistic determinism?

8. What is linguistic relativity? Provide examples.

9. Speak on different forms a language takes to meet the needs of its users.

10. Dwell on the sound system of a language (phonology, phonemes).

11. Speak on the study of the meaning of a language (semantics, morpheme, rules of word formation).

12. Speak on the sentence structure of a language.

13. Dwell on the use of language in social context. What is a speech act?

14. State the role of context in a communicative situation.

15. Provide the explanation of the levels of context.

16. What is discourse?

17. Dwell on the conversation as a private form of talk and its distinctive features.

18. State the defining characteristics of classroom discourse as an example of public talk.

19. What conversational maxims are differentiated? Why are they sometimes violated?

20. Dwell on the fact that conversation presupposes sequencing.

21. What are conversational closings aimed at?

22. Dwell on the term of genderlect; provide reasons and examples of genderlects.

23. What are gender expectations and how are they supposed to be met?

24. What are the ways to improve communication between men and women?

25. What is the difference between low-context and high-context cultures?

26. How are low-context and high-context cultures related to verbal directness and indirectness?

27. How is expressiveness depicted in cultures?

28. How do cultures differ in terms of formality?

29. How does ambiguity affect communication? Does it always impede communication? What are the advantages of ambiguous language?

30. What is immediate language? What is it aimed at?

31. State the advantages and disadvantages of abstraction.

32. Provide some examples of metaphors in everyday language. What are metaphors aimed at?

33. What should communicators bear in mind when encoding messages?

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16