4242

English context there are only three possible combinations of address between two people: (1) reciprocal use of TLN, as in the exchange “Hello, Professor Davis”, “Good evening, Mrs. Bolton”; (2) reciprocal use of FN, as in the exchange “What’s happening, Jack?”; “Not much, Norm”; and (3) nonreciprocal use of TLN and FN, as in the exchange “Good morning, Dr. Graves”; “Hello, Ricky”. The first two exchanges – both reciprocal – imply relatively equal status between the speakers. The first situation indicates a formal, nonintimate relationship, whereas the second situation indicates an informal, more intimate relationship. Unlike the first two cases, the third case is indicative of marked status inequality, either differences in age or differences in rank within an organization.

Not only is social status reflected in speech patterns, but frequently linguistic differences can be observed in the same speech community between men and women. Sometimes the distinctions between the sexes are reflected in vocabulary. In some languages these vocabulary differences are not simply a matter of relative frequency of usage; rather there are pairs of words (doublets) carrying the same meaning, one word being a male word and one word being a female word. To illustrate, among the Island Carib of the West Indies, women use the word kuyu for rain and men use the word kunobu; many more doublet nouns are found in this language. In Koasati, a native language of Southwestern Louisiana, differences appear in certain indicative and imperative verb forms depending on the sex of the speaker. Koasati men say lakawho’s to mean “lift it”, whereas Koasati women would use the word lakawhol. Thus, in this case grammatical forms are chosen to match the sex of the speaker rather that the referent.

Gender differences can also be seen in more subtle areas of language such as intonation, loudness, assertiveness, and style. For example, according to Kramer, women in the United States speak less forcefully than men as evidenced by their more frequent use of qualifiers (for example, “It may just be my opinion but …”) or the practice of following a declarative statement with such questions as “isn’t it?” or “wouldn’t you agree?” Moreover, according to Wood, men and women in the United States have very different communication styles, a phenomenon found in many other cultures as well. To illustrate, Wood found that U.S. women talk for the purpose of building and supplementing rapport with others, while men use talk to assert themselves; women use self-disclosure as a way of learning about others, while men tend to avoid self-disclosure; whereas women’s discourse strives for equality in social relationships, men’s discourse attempts to establish status and power, women will often match experiences with others for the sake of showing understanding and empathy.

Sometimes U.S. businesspersons can get themselves into hot water by assuming that foreigners are unable to understand English. Here is an example of a representative of a U.S. aircraft manufacturer riding into Cairo from the airport

with his American colleague and an Egyptian chauffeur. As the two Americans chatted, one made a somewhat disparaging remark about Egyptian’s ability to handle the aircraft they were purchasing from the American firm.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian chauffeur’s understanding of English was much better than the American had thought. The chauffeur relayed the contents of this remark to a colleague, who contacted the minister of defense, who, in turn, contacted the U.S. ambassador. Within 48 hours, the insensitive businessman had been deported from Egypt.

Variations in language usage according to age appear to be even more widespread than those based on sex. One particularly commonplace occurrence is “baby talk”, a specialized form of language used to communicate with children. In the English language we sometimes hear adults use such terms as night-night (for good night), choo-choo (for train), or woof-woof (for dog). Although English baby talk is quite unsystematic (to the extent that it is used inconsistently), other languages, such as Comanche, have a very well-defined and consistently used form of baby talk. The Comanche use about 40 words and phrases covering general topics of communication such as nana (meaning “it might hurt”) and koko (referring to candy, cookies, or between-meal snacks). Interestingly enough, these Comanche words have several things in common with the baby talk found in most other parts of the world: They use simple sounds in a repetitive fashion. Regardless of where we might find it, the relatively widespread occurrence of baby talk serves to remind us that variations of a language can depend on the age of the speaker or the age of the person being addressed.

EUPHEMISMS, PROVERBS SOME ADDITIONAL COMPLICATING

FACTORS: SLANG, AND VERBAL DUELING

To function effectively in any language community it is necessary to know not only the formal structure of the language (vocabulary and grammar, for example) but also how it is used in different social situations. We have seen that what is said and how it is said can vary depending on the sex, age, or relative social status of the speakers. In other words, to understand linguistic communication in an international business context, it is necessary to understand the social context in which the communication is taking place, or as the anthropological linguist would put it, the ethnography of speaking.

To further complicate the learning of another language, most languages, for a variety of cultural reasons, employ certain nonstandard forms such as slang, word avoidances, euphemisms, proverbs, and various types of verbal dueling.

Slang

Slang has been defined as “very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language”. This definition should not lead us to conclude that slang is the language of the common people. Instead, slang should be viewed as the speech of those who consider themselves to be part of particular subgroup within the wider linguistic community. In certain northern U.S. cities, blacks use such slang terms as hawks (“strong winds”), oreo (“a person who is black on the outside but white on the inside”), and bad (“good”). Jazz musicians, computer buffs, teenagers, hookers, psychologists, and truck drivers are just several subgroups within the United States that have their own slang. The importance of slang, whether we are referring to the speech of black New Yorkers or that of truck drivers, is that it helps determine who is a member of an in-group and who is not. Slang presents several important problems for the person trying to learn a second language. First, slang increases the possible variations of expressions in any given speech community. And second, since many slang words are used for only several years before disappearing or becoming incorporated into the standard form of the language, it is difficult to keep up with current slang trends.

Euphemisms

Behavioral and verbal taboos exist in all known societies. That is, there are certain categories of words that should be avoided in normal, polite parlance. In many, but certainly not all, cases, the prohibited words are associated with sexual relations and everyday bodily functions such as menstruating, urinating, and defecating. Whatever words may be deemed to be taboo by a language, it is a fairly arbitrary process, for a word prohibited in one speech community may be perfectly acceptable in another. Taboo words are dealt with through the use of euphemisms – that is, by substituting a bland, vague, or indirect expression for one thought to be too direct, harsh, or blunt. In the English language, for example, the subject of death is so unpleasant that they have developed an entire system of euphemisms to avoid dealing with the subject in a direct way.

People don’t die, they “pass away”. Those in charge of burials are no longer undertakers but are now “funeral directors”.

When communicating across cultures it is best to avoid using jargon, slang, or euphemisms. Brake, Walker, and Walker remind us (in a hypothetical discussion between a North American and his potential business partner from India) that while they might seem innocuous, these irregular forms of the English language can cause problems:

“I’ve been reviewing the materials you gave me, Mr. Neuru. You have a real cash cow hear. Excellent”.

First of all, is Mr. Neuru going to have any idea what a “cash cow” is? And if Mr. Neuru is a Hindu, isn’t possible he might take offence to the use of “cow” in this context?

Corpses are not buried in graves, but rather the “dearly departed” are “interred” in “memorial parks”. And hearses, which clearly are single-purpose vehicles, are now euphemistically called “coaches”.

Even though the English language has more than its share of euphemisms, this practice of substituting vague words for more precise ones can be found to some degree in all languages. Again, the existence of taboo words and euphemisms presents yet another obstacle to second language learning for the international businessperson. The learner must become familiar with the prevailing value system of the particular speech community in order to understand which topics can legitimately be dealt with in direct and straightforward manner. Without such an understanding it will be impossible to know when to use a bland expression and when not to.

Proverbs

Another nonstandard form of language that must be mastered is the general category of proverbs, aphorisms, and maxims. These wise sayings, regardless of where they might be found, have certain things in common with one another: (1) They deal with the essential truths as defined by the culture; (2) they are usually expressed simply and concretely, though often metaphorically; and (3) they advise and instruct how people should comfort themselves. The English language is filled with pithy proverbial expressions (for example, Burton

Stevenson’s The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims and Familiar Phrases, 1948, contains 2,666 pages of English proverbs) that are widely understood if not always used on a regular basis:

The early bird catches the worm. All that glitters is not gold.

He who lingers is lost.

A penny saved is a penny earned. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

It is wise to risk no more than one can afford to lose.

Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Proverbs are found in all languages and are related to other forms of folk literature, such as riddles, fables, and myths. A cross-cultural examination of proverbs reveals that the same basic idea can appear in two widely divergent and unrelated languages. For example, the biblical injunction “an eye for an eye, a

tooth for a tooth” can be found in the Nandi (East African) proverb “a goat’s hide buys a goat’s hide and a gourd a gourd”. And of course, many similarities in the style and substance of proverbs can be identified in geographically contiguous speech communities. The proverb “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” originated in Latin but can be found today in the Romanian, Spanish,

Portuguese, German, and Icelandic languages.

Since proverbs tend to be recited in the present tense, people tend to think of them as being universally applicable, as relevant

guides for living today as they have been in the past and will continue to be in the future. Different societies rely on proverbs to varying degrees as guides for present behavior. An important part of mastering a second language in understanding both the meanings of proverbs and how seriously they are taken as prescriptions for behavoir.

Verbal Dueling

In certain speech communities, and under specified conditions, people are encouraged to engage in competitive communication, in which the speakers are more concerned with asserting their dominance than with imparting information. One particularly well-documented example of verbal dueling from American society is an institutionalized form of insult contest played by urban black adolescent males – “playing the dozens”. This form of verbal dueling begins when one player insults a member of the opponent’s family, in most cases his mother. Although the person whose family member has been disparaged can choose not to play, in most cases he will retort with a counter insult of his own. These insulting verbal thrusts and parries will continue until the participants get bored or someone emerges victorious, with both participants being incited by an attentive audience.

A similar type of verbal game is played by Turkish male adolescents. The objective of the Turkish version is to call into question a young man’s virility, thereby forcing him into a subordinate role. Even societies that have reputations for being particularly peaceful in nature, such as the Eskimos, engage in verbal dueling. In fact, it is not surprising to find verbal dueling in nonaggressive societies, for its serves as an effective mechanism for diffusing personal enmity by the use of words rather than weapons.

In some cases verbal dueling can be carried out at a national level. All three of the major players in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) used an archaic rhetorical art form to exchange insults over the airwaves. This traditional form of verbal dueling, known as hija, dates back to biblical times when warriors (such as Goliath) would loudly ridicule their opponents while boasting of their own prowess. This ancient literary tradition of “cursing in verse” was based on the notion that one could gain a supernatural advantage by insulting one’s adversaries in rhyme. The hija form of verbal dueling – which

has its own format, meters and rhyming patterns – begins with boastful selfpraise and then proceeds to vitriolic insults. Immediately after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwaiti television stations broadcasted hours of uninterrupted hija poetry, praising themselves while berating the opposition. The content of the dueling poets was scathing. To illustrate, because the allied forces included some women, the Iraqi hija poets ridiculed the Saudis for hiding behind the skirts of women, a direct and unequivocal insult to their virility. One the other side, Saudi hija poets composed brutal verses that accused Saddam Hussein of attacking his neighbors at night, of being ungrateful for the help given him in his earlier efforts against the Iranians, and, the ultimate insult, of being a Jew.

All of these forms of verbal dueling – be they found in a Philadelphia ghetto, a Turkish village, the Alaskan tundra, or in the Middle East – are examples of nonstandard forms of language use that must be understood if the secondlanguage learner is to appreciate fully the subtleties of the communication patterns in the international marketplace.

I.BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION

Ethnosentrism

Given the intense feelings that experiencing a new culture can generate – fear, confusion, etc. – it should be no surprise that we often degenerate into ethnocentrism, i.e., a belief in the inherent superiority and naturalness of our own culture.

When experiencing a new culture, try to:

Set realistic expectations for yourself and others.

Be curious. Seek to learn all you can about the new culture. What are the primary value orientations? What makes the other culture tick?

Look at problems and experiences from the other person’s point of view.

Keep your sense of humor. Keep judgments at bay.

Be tolerant of yourself and others.

Accept that you and the others are going to make mistakes. Be patient. Slow down.

Don’t

Keep comparing the other culture with your own.

Deny that you can be ethnocentric. Recognize it and move on to a deeper understanding.

OTHER COMMUNICATION BARRIERS

INDIRECT COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Indirectness can be a very difficult communication style for direct Americans to deal with. Typical indirect communication strategies are as follows:

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMMUNICATION

It is difficult to avoid all the barriers to cross-cultural communication at all times. It helps if you take responsibility for the communication. Active listening and observing are key to taking responsibility.

Some cultures refer to the mind as the “Mad Monkey”. It never rests; it jumps from one bit of information to another. Focusing its attention is hard work. It can be “tuned out”, but it can also be “tuned in”.

Passive listening and looking = “tuning out”, faking comprehension, pretending to pay attention. Hearing without listening. Looking without seeing.

Passive listening and looking is a denial of responsibility for the communication.

Active listening and looking = “tuning in”, working at getting meaning, paying closer attention to details and nuances

Active listening and looking is accepting responsibility for the communication.

When making deals, or trying to increase productivity, you can’t afford to deny responsibility for the communication.

Tips