Effective communication in different cultures

Hence, silence destroys continuity which is necessary in order to lend clarity to speech. Only by the destruction of continuity we can consider a thought or an emotion as finished.

5.1 Forms of silence

Bruneau described three different forms of silence, each with different functions: psycholinguistic silence, interactive silence and socio-cultural silence.

Psycholinguistic Silence

Both, encoder and decoder of speech need to gain time to either encode mental thoughts into proper words and grammatical forms, or to decode a message. This is often done by hesitations which are forms of silence. They include unfilled and filled pauses. Pauses can be filled with utterances such as ?ah?, ?um?, repetitions, sentence corrections, word changes etc. The longer or the more complex the periods of speech are, the longer is the hesitation. Psycholinguistic silence does not contain a potential source of misunderstanding in an intercultural conversation as it only describes cognitive processes. We therefore turn directly to the next form of silence.

Interactive Silence

Another kind of silence is called "interactive silence" which are pausal interruptions in a conversation and which tend to be longer than hesitations. Bruneau noted that "interactive silences differ from psycholinguistic silence mainly in each participant?s conscious recognition of the degree and manner in which he is expected to participate in communicative exchange." A long interactive silence can signify that one is careful or an has an emotionally close relationship with his or her counterpart or, in contrast, an interpersonal snub when the participants are not familiar. Moreover interactive silence can express deep emotions and it is used as a form of social control.

Turn Taking and Transition Relevant Places

During a conversation of two or more interactants, the question when one has finished expressing his intention and is ready to give the burden of speech to the interlocutor, is very important as a smooth, synchronized manner of turn taking reduces the risk of an uncomfortable interruption in conversation. In discussions between two politicians of opposite parties for example, it happens quite often that one speaker is interrupted by his or her interlocutor. He or she then often claims his right to finish the sentence. There seems to be a rule in conversation that only one person speaks at a time and that the other has to wait until a certain point before taking over the burden of speech. Enninger calls these points Transition Relevant Places (TRP?s), "points where speakers may change in conversations.". They can be relatively short but despite that they can be considered as one kind of interactive silence. As length of pauses between turns can vary across cultures they constitute a potential danger which can lead to a breakdown in intercultural communication. The example of a conversation between an Athabaskan and an English speaker may help to explain this:

Athabaskans accept a slightly longer pause between sentences than do English speakers. When an English speaker has finished a sentence he expects the Athabaskan to take the burden of speak within a certain time. Due to different systems of pausing between turns, the Athabaskan would reply later than the English expects. The English might think that his interlocutor does not want to speak and feels free to continue. But at the same time, the Athabaskan has just been waiting his regular length of time before answering in order to not interrupt the speaker. If the conversation continues this way, the Athabaskan will not be able to start talking or to make any comments while the English speaker goes on and on. The conversation seems to be for both sides rather unsatisfying. It can moreover lead to negative assumptions by the interlocutors. The Athabaskan might think that the English speaker just wants to present his point of view and that he is not interested in the other one. In contrast the English speaker could assume that the Athabaskan is not interested in his opinion or, even worse, that he is not able to follow him intellectually. Negative assumptions can also include the whole opposite ethnic group.

A similar situation can occur when the Athabaskan intends to say a series of sentences. After having finished the first one, he will wait his regular length of time before continuing. The English speaker will now most likely interrupt him because he thinks that the Athabaskan has finished due to the length of the pause. In this context, the English speaker might feel that the Athabaskan cannot pronounce a whole coherent idea and vice versa the Athabaskan feels interrupted and not being able to say what he intended to say. As this example shows, different assumptions on pauses between sentences can lead to serious problems during a conversation despite the tiny difference of not more than half a second in length.

Enninger found out that Old Order Amish people are very tolerant concerning non-phonation. In a sixty minute conversation of members of this culture he counted 85 between-turn non-phonations, varying in length from five to 55 seconds. The big differences in length reveal that in this culture an obligatory conversational principle concerning the duration of pauses at TRP?s does not exist but an optional rule producing a high tolerance for non-phonation.

In contrast to the Old Order Amish, North American speakers would hardly accept a pause longer than six seconds. They will only tolerate such a gap when it has been marked in advance as a temporary interactional exit (for example by saying `Wait a second?) which has been accepted (for example by saying `Take your time?). Without this hold-accept procedure, longer pauses are rather possible in unfocused interactions where "participants are not so much concerned with filling the time by a continuous flow of turns, but the management of sheer and mere copresence., as for example retired neighbours sharing a park bench."

In order to distinguish cultures using rather longer pauses at TRP?s and those using shorter ones at these points we can refer to Hall?s low- vs. high context dimension. High context cultures have widely shared socio-cultural assumptions and therefore they do not have to verbalise as much as low-context cultures. Hence, longer pauses are more common in high-context cultures and shorter ones in low-context cultures.

Socio-cultural silence

Cultural communication patterns include not only rules concerning the use of verbal expressions but determine also situations in which entire social and cultural orders select silence in order to express their intentions or feelings. Socio-cultural silence may help understanding cultural communication patterns much better than spoken words. Basso stated that " an adequate ethnography of communication should not confine itself exclusively to the analysis of choice within the verbal repertoires. It should also specify those conditions under which the members of the society regularly decide to refrain from verbal behavior altogether."⁶²

There is no clear distinction in some positions from interactive silence but it can be seen as a concurrent support.

Cultures have developed certain conceptions of authorities. These conceptions often include the use of silence for different purposes. Students for example become quiet as soon as the teacher enters the room. The public will stop talking when the judge enters the court. Becoming silent in such situations means a recognition and acknowledgement of the authoritative position.

Cultures also refrain from speech at certain places. Churches, libraries and cemeteries are just a few examples where people keep silent for the purpose of maintaining norms and popular belief.

Silence as a major source of rhetorical control takes place mostly in ceremonial public events, like flag rising, praying or testimony. If one breaks the silence in such a situation, it is seen as strong anti-social behaviour.

Conclusion

We conclude that:

• Communication is the process of transferring meanings from sender to receiver. It has two types such as verbal and non-verbal communication.

• Culture provides people with ways of thinking - ways of seeing, hearing, and interpreting the world. Thus the same words can mean different things to people from different cultures, even when they talk the “same” language.

• People in collectivistic societies live in societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. In individualistic society" the `I? identity has precedence over the `we? identity".

• In high-context cultures, feelings and thoughts are not explicitly expressed; instead, one has to read between the lines and interpret meaning from one's general understanding. In low-context cultures feelings and thoughts are explicitly expressed and information is more readily available.

• Contextual style is one that focuses on the speaker and relationship of the parties and it is often associated with high-power distance, collective, high-context cultures. Personal style focuses on the speaker and the reduction of barriers between the parties and it is more popular in low-power-distance, individualistic, low-context cultures.

• Affective style is common in collective, high-context cultures and is characterized by language that requires the listener to note what is said and to observe how the message is presented. Instrumental style is goal oriented and focuses on the sender who clearly lets the other party know what he or she wants the other party to know and it is more commonly found in individualistic, low-context cultures.

• Non-verbal communication includes body language, physical characteristics and appearance, personal space and environment.

• Silence is inevitable to destroy continuity which is necessary in order to lend clarity to speech. And the length of silence differs according to cultures.

Intercultural communication has been becoming far more commonplace in people's day-to-day activities. Each of us must enhance our ability to understand cultural differences in order to communicate effectively with those who are different from ourselves.

References

1. Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.), "Intercultural Communication Theory", Beverly Hills 1983.

2. Gudykunst, W.B. /Ting-Toomey, S. "Culture and interpersonal communication", Newbury Park 1988.

3. Gudykunst, W.B. /Ting-Toomey, S. /Nishida T. "Communication in personal relationships across cultures", Thousand Oaks 1996.

4. Hofstede, G., Cultures and Organization: Software of the mind", Maidenhead 1991.

5. Mortensen, C.D. "Basic readings in Communication Theory", New York 1979.

6. Okabe, R "Cultural Assumptions of East and West; Japan and the United States", in: Gudykunst, W.B. (1983).

7. Prosser, M.,,The Cultural Dialogue", Boston 1978.

8. Scollon, R./Wong-Scollon, S. "Athabaskan-English interethnic communication", in: Carbough, D. (1990).

9. Wiemann, J. and Knapp, M. "Turn Taking in conversations in: Mortensen, C.D. (1979).

Размещено на Allbest.ru