The process of perception in intercultural communication

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru

Introduction

The world today is characterized by an ever growing number of contacts resulting in communication between people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This communication takes place because of contacts within the areas of business, military cooperation, science, education, mass media, entertainment, tourism but also because of immigration brought about by labor shortage or political conflicts.

The Relevance of the course work: The study of intercultural communication has tried to answer the question, “How do people understand one another when they do not share a common cultural experience?” Just a few decades ago, this question was one faced mainly by diplomats, expatriates, and the occasional international traveller. Today, living in multicultural societies within a global village, we all face the question every day. We now realize that issues of intercultural understanding are embedded in other complex questions: What kind of communication is needed by a pluralistic society to be both culturally diverse and unified in common goals? How does communication contribute to creating a climate of respect, not just tolerance, for diversity? The new vision and innovative competencies we bring to this changing world will determine the answer to another question about the global village posed by Dean Barnlund: “Will its residents be neighbors capable of respecting and utilizing their differences or clusters of strangers living in ghettos and united only in their antipathies for others? How people perceive in Intercultural communication?”

Inter-, as you'll probably know, comes from the Latin word for “between”, and the dictionary defines “communication” as “exchanging information”. Therefore, let's draw the following conclusion: Intercultural communication refers to exchanging information between people from different cultures. Sound is very easy, doesn't it? It's the “cultures” part of this simple definition where things start getting a tad complicated.

In all these contacts, there is communication which needs to be as constructive as possible, without misunderstandings and breakdowns. It is our belief that research on the nature of linguistic and cultural similarities and differences here can play a positive and constructive role.

Intercultural communication is defined as situated communication between individuals or groups of different linguistic and cultural origins. This is derived from the following fundamental definitions: communication is the active relationship established between people through language, and intercultural means that this communicative relationship is between people of different cultures, where culture is the structured manifestation of human behaviour in social life within specific national and local contexts, e.g. political, linguistic, economic, institutional, and professional. Intercultural communication is identified as both a concept and a competence. Intercultural competence is the active possession by individuals of qualities which contribute to effective intercultural communication and can be defined in terms of three primary attributes: knowledge, skills and attitudes.

I chose the theme of the course work, "The process of perception in intercultural communication", because I wanted to explore the process of perception of the representatives of the different countries.

The aim of the course work - the analysis of process of the perception in intercultural communication.

Objectives:

· Expand knowledge about intercultural communication;

· Identify main attributes of effective communication in different culture;

· Present stages of Intercultural Sensitivity;

· Find out the most important differences in process of perception in people from different countries.

1. Intercultural communication processes

1.1 The attributes needed to establishing effective and meaningful intercultural communication

To identify the positive attributes applicable to individual intercultural communication and the extent to which a developed intercultural competence can help a practitioner, we have to look at the opposite of intercultural communication, mono-cultural communication.

Mono-cultural communication is based on common behaviour, language and values. This means that the day to day interaction between members of the same culture are based on roughly common definitions. These similarities allow the members of the same cultural back-ground to be able to predict the behaviour of others and assume a common perception of reality .Mono-cultural communication therefore is based on similarities.

Intercultural communication does not allow for assumptions of similarity to be made that easily. If we define cultures by their difference of language, behaviour, and values, these differences have to be recognised. Intercultural communication therefore, is based on differences.

The issue of stereotypes and generalisations has to be tackled within this context. It is often a matter of expediency to work with generalisations and stereotypes, especially when working with migrants and refugees from not just one, but many different cultures. More important factors are, whether the stereotypes are based on respect for the other culture (positive stereotypes) or by disrespect (negative stereotypes). While the former can open the door to communication, the latter will inevitably impose sanctions and barriers to effective intercultural exchanges.

Whenever the topic of cultural difference is discussed, the allegation of stereotyping usually is not far behind. For instance, if cultural patterns of men and women are being compared, someone may well offer that she is a woman and doesn't act that way at all. Stereotypes arise when we act as if all members of a culture or group share the same characteristics. Stereotypes can be attached to any assumed indicator of group membership, such as race, religion, ethnicity, age, or gender, as well as national culture. The characteristics that are assumedly shared by members of the group may be respected by the observer, in which case it is a positive stereotype. In the more likely case that the characteristics are disrespected, it is a negative stereotype. Stereotypes of both kinds are problematic in intercultural communication for several obvious reasons. One is that they may give us a false sense of understanding our communication partners. Whether the stereotype is positive or negative, it is usually only partially correct. Additionally, stereotypes may become self-fulfilling prophecies, where we observe others in selective ways that confirm our prejudice. Despite the problems with stereotypes, it is necessary in intercultural communication to make cultural generalizations. Without any kind of supposition or hypothesis about the cultural differences we may encounter in an intercultural situation, we may fall prey to naïve individualism, where we assume that every person is acting in some completely unique way. Or we may rely inordinately on “common sense” to direct our communication behavior. Common sense is, of course, common only to a particular culture. Its application outside of one's own culture is usually ethnocentric. Cultural generalizations can be made while avoiding stereotypes by maintaining the idea of preponderance of belief. Nearly all possible beliefs are represented in all cultures at all times, but each different culture has a preference for some beliefs over others. The description of this preference, derived from large-group research, is a cultural generalization. Of course, individuals can be found in any culture who hold beliefs similar to people in a different culture. There just aren't so many of them--they don't represent the preponderance of people who hold beliefs closer to the norm or “central tendency” of the group”.

Communicating across cultures is challenging. Each culture has set rules that its members take for granted. Few of us are aware of our own cultural biases because cultural imprinting is begun at a very early age. And while some of a culture's knowledge, rules, beliefs, values, phobias, and anxieties are taught explicitly, most of the information is absorbed subconsciously.

The challenge for multinational communication has never been greater. Worldwide business organizations have discovered that intercultural communication is a subject of importance not just because of increased globalization, but also because their domestic workforce is growing more and more diverse, ethnically and culturally.

We are all individuals, and no two people belonging to the same culture are guaranteed to respond in exactly the same way. However, generalizations are valid to the extent that they provide clues on what you will most likely encounter when dealing with members of a particular culture.

A related aspect is the assimilationist approach to intercultural communication. This is commonly connected to the notion that everyone is an individual and can only be dealt with as such. It normally implies that the individual should change to enable mono-cultural communication and that the host society should avoid the dangers, pitfalls and the hard work required by intercultural communication. Or, as LaRay Barna puts it:

"Another reason many people are lured into thinking that 'people are people' is that it reduces the discomfort of dealing with difference, of not knowing. The thought that everyone is the same, deep down, is comforting. If someone acts or looks 'strange' (different from them), it is then possible to evaluate this as wrong and treat everyone ethnocentrically".

What then are the attributes needed to establishing effective and meaningful intercultural communication?

· Firstly, there is language. It does not only serve as a tool for communication but also as a "system of representation" for perception and thinking.

In order to make use the knowledge of other nations and endeavor to preserve this knowledge for coming generation, human beings try to take advantages from any methods of communication. In S. Terminasova's opinion, communication is a dialogue act, connection between two and more individuals which is, first of all, based on mutual understanding [4],that is why nowadays translation has become the most effective method of communication, especially in international relations.

The process of globalization has brought the world community to the great need for interpreters. In many areas, such as linguistics, cultural studies, sociology, psychology, international relations, new researches are devoted to the problem of intercultural communication. The political and social situation in the modern world generates the problem of adequate communication, but speaking about adequacy is possible only under condition of full mutual understanding of the representatives of different cultures speaking in different languages. International communication is mainly performed in English. Knowledge of this language is a basic condition to be accessed to the world of scientific literature, doing business with foreign partners and integrating into foreign markets. In this context, the profession of an interpreter has started to receive greater acknowledgement. Demand in highly qualified specialists has grown immensely for the last few decades. Requirements to professional qualifications and competences have changed similarly, because of the great globalization process the world being involved in. This means that things, no matter what they are, can be transformed from being local or regional ones into worldly, international and global. Globalization can also involve people becoming one global community in which their economic growth, social prosperity, political forces, and technological advancements turn out to be a common denominator to the whole globe. Therefore, what happens in one country at the social, economic and political levels affects another. People's political systems and economic strategies become integrated as one system, affecting one another. The effect of globalization had a tremendous linguistic and social impact on translation or translation studies simply because globalization necessitated translation. Nowadays, there are more demands on translation services requested by educational institutions and private companies than any other time, simply because parts of the world are becoming interested in one another due to many reasons, i.e. world conflicts and clashes, world economic crisis, shared concerns, common interests, etc. This was triggered through the need for technology, which has helped, to a large extent, reduce the cost of disseminating or exchanging information. This in turn has led to two things: one is the spread of English as a world language, and the second is the global demand on translation. Globalization is an economic process, impacting the social role of translation. Such a role will definitely affect the political organization of translation studies as a scholarly discipline. There are, however, political processes that build on globalization but should not be identified with it. Now we see that globalization for the impact of technology, is a consequence of cost reduction in communication and transportation. It is just a set of things no more or less. It takes place only when distances among nations and cultures become closer, not physically or geographically of course, but mentally or intellectually.

The purpose of the interpreters is not only the semantic and syntactic transmission of the statements but as well to achieve the same effect with the translation as what the original version is supposed to achieve. Communication can be called effective if know when, what, to whom and how to say in order to reach certain goal. For this success the interpreter needs to be aware of cultural features of the other party. These cultural features include as linguistic, so nonlinguistic elements. A former Hungarian foreign minister mentioned a situation in his memoir, when a Hungarian delegation tried to convince the French president about their cause. The head of the delegation started his speech in very factual way, without using any rhetoric phrases, and, however, his recommendations had been denied immediately. Then the foreign minister, being aware of the French spirit, of the way how French people use to argue for their right, even he used their tone and as a result the attitude of his counterpart had completely changed.

The different way of thinking, and the different way of expression that characterize the various cultures can influence the negotiations. Once during the negotiations Chairman Mao drew a parallel between Secretary State Henry Kissinger and the busy swallows preparing for the storm, An American politician didn't quite understand the metaphor and a Chinese leader had to explain its meaning. That is why interpreters are required to know not only the terminology, but as we see to be mentally fit to deal with the individual questions. And, of course, the interpreter has to be able to speak in public without the trace of fright or shyness. Another required quality is discretion. The people they are working for need to be safe at the most confidential meetings. It's important for them at once can grasp the meaning of the spoken words. A good presence of mind, a good measure of psychological understanding, a long-lasting ability of concentration, these are all the essential qualities for the good interpreter.

Nowadays many politicians know many languages and they are able to have negotiations without interpreters, but there are some advantages to use them. One of the advantages of using interpreters during bilateral meetings is that the negotiating parties gain some time for thinking over what they wish to reply, while the interpreter is doing his job. On the other hand, it is possible to observe and analyze the non-verbal elements of communication of the other party, which also might provide information of great importance to the listener.

· Secondly, there is non-verbal behaviour or communication. In some cultures the non-verbal way to express things is much more common and much more important than in many European cultures. Non-verbal communication can be something, as Hall defined, "in which most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the (...) explicit transmitted part of the message". Therefore, the understanding of the "hidden" messages of non-verbal behaviour in some cultures can be absolutely essential in dealing effectively with members from these backgrounds.

Non-verbal communication plays an important role in human social interaction. In this regard, Abercrombie states what is generally taken for granted: “We speak with our vocal organs, but we converse with our entire bodies.” Every facial expression and every gesture contributes to the overall meaning of a statement. Our body language thus accompanies every speech act we make, and even if we do not speak, our non-verbal behaviour constantly transmits information that can be meaningful.

Birdwhistell (1955), one of the pioneers in research on non-verbal communication, estimates that in a conversation up to 65% of what is transmitted on the social, interpersonal level is conveyed non-verbally. This implies that a considerable part of any message that we are sending and receiving is encoded and decoded non-verbally. Consequently, although only recently, non-verbal phenomena have become a focus of interest in various disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, and linguistics.

Usually, non-verbal communication is defined in opposition to verbal communication: all phenomena with a communicative value that are not part of verbal communication are summarised under the umbrella term `non-verbal communication'. As the psychologist Scherer (1980: 225) notes, ambiguities in the use of the term can often be traced back to the fact that the term `non-verbal' refers both to visible phenomena such as gestures and facial expression as well as to audible aspects such as speaking styles and quality of speech. It is for this reason that Scherer (ibid.) proposes making a distinction between vocal and non-vocal phenomena. On the one hand we can, therefore, find paralinguistic (i.e. vocal) phenomena such as individual characteristics of the voice, speech melody, temporal aspects, forms of articulation and side noise. On the other hand, there are non-vocal phenomena in conversation such as the external characteristics of a speaker, physical reactions and a number of kinesic phenomena, which can be divided into macro-kinesic and micro-kinesic phenomena.

The following figure shows a systematic overview of the main forms of non-verbal communication.

Figure 1. Overview of the main forms of non-verbal communication

Observing such non-verbal phenomena in conversation plays an important role in the interpretation of meaning, for instance when it comes to assessing others, to the creation of closeness and distance or to understanding the relationship between conversation partners:

First, our physical appearance provides nonverbal cues that others use to make judgments about us. Second, the way we use space […] helps us regulate intimacy and control our sensory exposure to others. Third, the way we move our bodies […] provides information about us to others. Fourth, the way we use our voice [...] tells others how we define the relationship between ourselves and them. Fifth, the degree to which we touch others and the degree to which we allow others to touch us provides cues to how we see our relationships.

In some cultures, for example, gestures play a more prominent role than in others, e.g. Italians use more gestures than Scandinavians. As a result, Scandinavians appear `wooden' and boring to Italians. […] Eye contact is also treated differently. For example, most Germans would think East Asians are trying to hide something, or are shifty because respect forbids East Asians from looking their partner directly into the eyes. […] During a discussion of equals, Arab men tend to raise their voice to express strength and sincerity; an American would consider that to be aggressive and objectionable.

These examples indicate that the greatest obstacles to successful intercultural communication are very often not linguistic mistakes. Though grammar or vocabulary errors can make conversation difficult, they seldom inhibit the communication process. Violations in non-verbal behaviour normally entail more serious consequences: many intercultural misunderstandings and even communication breakdowns are due to the behaviour of a person from one culture being `inappropriately' perceived, interpreted, and reacted to by someone from another culture. This is particularly true for homomorphy, that is, one and the same gesture being used as an emblem in different cultures but carrying significantly different meanings. Burgoon et al. point out that the use of different non-verbal signs by political leaders can even lead to geopolitical embarrassment:

A prime example is when then vice president Richard Nixon undertook a good-will tour to Latin America. Photographers at his first airport stop flashed pictures of Nixon holding up both hands in the `OK' gesture. Unfortunately, that gesture in many Latin American countries means `screw you' […].

Therefore, the teaching of intercultural communicative competence should include non-verbal communication. Learners of foreign languages must be made aware of the impact culture has on vocal and non-vocal phenomena. This implies that they should explore and develop an awareness of the conventional behaviour in common situations in their own culture. This is particularly obvious in the case of so-called `culturemes', that is, specific forms of behaviour such as how to treat guests, table manners, giving and receiving presents etc., that play a role in every culture, but that are often expressed through different non-verbal behaviour, so-called `behavioremes'.

· Thirdly, is communication-style. There may be quite a difference between the way a European might describe a problem, than someone from an African background. Some cultures may go straight to the point whilst others may circle round the topic. The difference between a linear and a more contextual way of expressing things can cause anger, impatience and misunderstanding. This can be avoided or at least limited by some basic knowledge of different communication-styles. Habitual patterns of thought are manifested in communication behavior. Since our habits of thought are largely determined by culture, in cross-cultural situations we should see contrasts in these styles of communication.

The concepts of high context and low context refer to how people communicate in different cultures. Differences can be derived from the extent to which meaning is transmitted through actual words used or implied by the context.

High context implies that a lot of unspoken information is implicitly transferred during communication. People in a high context culture such as Saudi Arabia tend to place a larger importance on long-term relationships and loyalty and have fewer rules and structure implemented.

Low context implies that a lot of information is exchanged explicitly through the message itself and rarely is anything implicit or hidden. People in low context cultures such as the UK tend to have short-term relationships, follow rules and standards closely and are generally very task-oriented.

Understanding whether your international colleagues are high context or low context will help you to adapt your communication style and build stronger relationships with them. These concepts are covered during cross-cultural training programms such as Communicating across Cultures and managing international teams.

In a high context culture such as Mexico, Japan or the Middle East, you might encounter the following:

· Misunderstanding when exchanging information.

· Impression of a lack of information.

· Large amount of information is provided in a non-verbal manner, e.g. gestures, pauses, facial expressions.

· Emphasis on long term relationships and loyalty.

· `Unwritten' rules that are taken for granted but can easily be missed by strangers.

· Shorter contracts since less information is required.

In a low context culture such as Germany, Switzerland or the US, on the other hand, you might find the following:

· All meaning is explicitly provided in the message itself.

· Extensive background information and explanations are provided verbally to avoid misunderstandings.

· People tend to have short-term relationships.

· People follow rules and standards closely.

· Contracts tend to be longer and very detailed.

High and low context cultures usually correspond with polychronic and monochronic cultures respectively. The table below shows some general preferences of people from high context and low context cultures:

Table 1. Differences between Low and High context

· Fourthly, are values and assumptions. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck have developed five dimensions of cultural assumptions: people's relationship to the environment, to each other, to activity, to time, and to the basic nature of human beings operating either individualistically or collectively. Knowing that someone operates as an individual with an apprehension towards authoritarianism or operates as a member of a group, with an inherent subservience towards a superior, provides insight into how someone may adapt to a workplace or job in a different culture.

There are four underlying assumptions that ensure the success of individual intercultural communication:

1. The smaller the similarities between two cultures, the more problematic intercultural communication is.

2. Intercultural interaction offers the possibility of social change arising from new ideas and insights that will not always be immediately apparent.

3. Only if you operate as partners from different cultures action on an equal basis will be ensured.

4. These plans for action will be more successful if a high degree of cultural awareness, i.e. of intercultural competence is available.

In many ways, the crux of intercultural communication is in how people adapt to other cultures. Yet the intercultural concept of adaptation is frequently misunderstood. To clarify the idea, it is useful to distinguish adaptation from assimilation. Assimilation is the process of resocialization that seeks to replace one's original worldview with that of the host culture. Assimilation is “substitutive.” Adaptation, on the other hand, is the process whereby one's worldview is expanded to include behavior and values appropriate to the host culture. It “additive,” not substitutive. The assumed end result of assimilation is becoming “a new person,” as Israel Zangwill wrote in his play The Melting Pot.

The assumed end result of adaptation is becoming a bicultural or multicultural person. Such a person has new aspects, but not at the cost of his or her original socialization. The identity issues around adaptation are quite complex, and understanding them is one of the new frontiers of intercultural communication.

Cultural adaptation is not an on/off phenomenon. Like many other human abilities, it appears that cultural adaptation develops through stages, in much the same way as does cognition as described by Jean Piaget or ethicality as described by William G. Perry Jr. With descriptions of the stages of development, interculturalists who are responsible for facilitating cross-cultural encounters are able to diagnose learners' levels of development and thus design their interventions more effectively. A straightforward form of developmental thinking can be illustrated with one of the best-known of all intercultural concepts: culture shock.

The evolution of this concept began with a relatively simple statement of how disorientation can occur in a different cultural context, along with the implication that culture shock was something like a disease that could be prevented, or caught and cured. From this distinctly nondevelopmental beginning, the concept gained complexity as it was described in terms of U or W curves extending through time. Then Peter S. Adler suggested that culture shock was a process that went through five stages: the euphoria of Contact, when cultural difference is first encountered; the confusion of Disintegration, when loss of self-esteem intrudes; the anger of Reintegration, when the new culture is rejected and the old self reasserted; the relaxed self-assuredness of Autonomy, when cross-cultural situations can be handled with relative ease; and the creativity of Independence, when choice and responsibility accompany a deep respect for one's own and others' cultures. These ideas were placed in an even broader developmental context by Janet M. Bennett, who defined culture shock as a special case of the typical human response to any transition, loss, or change. So when even a relatively simple aspect of cultural adaptation--culture shock--is cast in developmental terms, it attains a level of complexity that makes it a richer and more useful descriptor of peoples' experiences. When the broader topic of cultural adaptation in general is described in developmental terms, the result is even more descriptive of complex experience. One example of this attempt is the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Based on “meaning-making” models of cognitive psychology and radical constructivism, the DMIS links changes in cognitive structure to an evolution in attitudes and behavior toward cultural difference in general. The DMIS is divided into Ethnocentric Stages and Ethnorelative Stages.

1.2 Development of Intercultural Sensitivity

There are several definitions of cultural sensitivity out there, but we find this one gets the idea across the best.

Cultural sensitivity is being aware that cultural differences and similarities between people exist without assigning them a value- positive or negative, better or worse, right or wrong. Many years ago, Milton Bennett developed a solid framework to understand the various stages of cultural sensitivity (or as he calls it “intercultural sensitivity”) that a person may experience. He argues that as people become more and more culturally sensitive, they progress from having an ethnocentric orientation to a more ethnorelative worldview. In Bennett's words, “In general, the more ethnocentric orientations can be seen as ways of avoiding cultural difference, either by denying its existence, by raising defenses against it, or by minimizing its importance. The more ethnorelative worldviews are ways of seeking cultural difference, either by accepting its importance, by adapting perspective to take it into account, or by integrating the whole concept into a definition of identity”.

The Bennett scale, also called the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The six stages:

Denial. People at the denial stage are unable to construe cultural differences in complex ways. They probably live in relative isolation from other cultures, either by happenstance or by choice. Either they do not perceive cultural differences at all, or they can conceive only of broad categories such as “foreigner, “people of color,” or “Africans.” People at this stage may use stereotypes in their description of others that are not meant to denigrate but are based on knowing only one or two things about the other people. For instance, many U.S. Americans seem to think that all Africans live near jungles and have encounters with wild animals; or many Asians seem to think that all Americans from the Pacifc Northwest live on ranches and ride horses. In contrast to the complexity of our own worldview, the simplicity of these stereotypes makes “their” seemingly sparse experience seem less real than “our” demonstrably rich experience. Consequently, when actually confronted by cultural diversity, people in denial unconsciously attribute less than human status to the outsiders. They may then use power for purposes of exploiting the others, and in extreme cases of threat, they may further dehumanize the outsiders to enable genocide.

Defense. People at the defense stage have more ability to construe cultural difference, but they attach negative evaluations to it. They combat the threat of change to their stable worldview by denigrating others with negative stereotypes and by attaching positive stereotypes to themselves. Consequently, they view their own culture as the acme of “development” and tend to evaluate different cultures as “underdeveloped.” A few people may enter a reversed form of defense, wherein they vilify their own culture and become zealous proponents of an adopted culture. For example, some U.S. Americans spurn their European roots while idealizing Native Indian cultures, and some U.S. Americans, when traveling, label most of their compatriots as “the ugly Americans.” In all cases, however, defense is characterized by the polarization of a denigrated“ them” with a superior “us”.

People in defense consider themselves under siege. Members of socially dominant cultures may attempt to protect privilege and deny opportunities to outsiders, while nondominant culture members may aggressively protect their ethnic identity from suppression by the majority. Ironically, while personally directed violence may be more common in defense than in denial, the threat of systematic genocide is reduced by the greater humanity accorded one's enemy.

Minimization. People at the minimization stage try to bury cultural differences within already-familiar categories of physical and philosophical similarity. They recognize and accept superficial cultural differences such as eating customs and other social norms, but they assume that deep down all people are essentially the same--just human. As a consequence of this assumption, certain cultural values may be mistaken for universal desires; for instance, U.S. Americans may believe that people everywhere desire individual freedom, openness, and competition. Religious people may hold that everyone is a child of God, is subject to Allah's will, or acquires karma “whether they know it or not.” Political and economic minimizers may suppose that we are all victims of historical Marxist forces or that we are all motivated by the private enterprise of capitalism. While people at the minimization stage are considerably more knowledgeable than those in denial and a lot nicer than those in defense, they are still ethnocentric in their adherence to these culture-bound universalistic assumptions. In domestic intercultural relations in the United States, minimization is the classic “white liberal” position. It is usually accompanied by strong support for the “melting pot” idea, a distrust of ethnic and other labels for cultural diversity, and an abiding belief in the existence of equal opportunity. While eschewing power exercised through exploitation and denial of opportunity, people in minimization unquestioningly accept the dominant culture privileges built into institutions. People who do not enjoy these privileges--people of color and others who experience oppression in U.S. society--tend not to dwell at this somewhat self- congratulatory stage.

Acceptance. People at the acceptance stage enjoy recognizing and exploring cultural differences. They are aware that they themselves are cultural beings. They are fairly tolerant of ambiguity and are comfortable knowing there is no one right answer (although there are better answers for particular contexts). “Acceptance” does not mean that a person has to agree with or take on a cultural perspective other than his or her own. Rather, people accept the viability of different cultural ways of thinking and behaving, even though they might not like them. This is the first stage in which people begin to think about the notion of cultural relativity--that their own behavior and values are not the only good way to be in the world.

People in acceptance tend to avoid the exercise of power in any form. As a consequence, they may at times become paralyzed by the dilemmas posed by conflicting cultural norms. At this stage, people have moved beyond ethnocentric rules for behavior and may not yet have developed ethnorelative principles for taking action.

Adaptation. People at the adaptation stage use knowledge about their own and others' cultures to intentionally shift into a different cultural frame of reference. That is, they can empathize or take another person's perspective in order to understand and be understood across cultural boundaries. Based on their ability to use alternative cultural interpretations, people in this stage can modify their behavior in ways that make it more appropriate to cultures other than their own. Another way to think about this is that people in adaptation have increased their repertoire of behavior--they have maintained the skills of operating in their own cultures while adding the ability to operate effectively in one or more other cultures. This intercultural competence may include the ability to recognize how power is being exercised within a cultural context, and some people may themselves be able to exercise power in ways that are appropriate to the other culture. Advanced forms of adaptation are “bicultural” or “multicultural,” wherein people have internalized one or more cultural frames in addition to that in which they were originally socialized. Bicultural people can completely shift their cultural frame of reference without much conscious effort. Most people at the adaptation stage are generally interculturally sensitive; with varying degrees of sophistication, they can apply skills of empathy and adaptation of behavior to any cultural context. However, in some cases people have become “accidently bicultural,” wherein they received primary socialization in two or more cultural frames of reference. (Children of bicultural marriages and of long-term expatriates may fall into this category.) Sometimes these people are very good at shifting between the two cultures they have internalized, but they cannot apply the same adaptation skills to other cultures. In addition, some people in adaptation do not exhibit intercultural sensitivity toward groups that they do not consider cultures. When these groups are defined in cultural terms, people in adaptation are more likely to be able to relate to them in interculturally competent ways.

Integration. People at the integration stage of development are attempting to reconcile the sometimes conflicting cultural frames that they have internalized. In the transition to this stage, some people become overwhelmed by the cultures they know and are disturbed that they can no longer identify with any one of them. But as they move into integration, people achieve an identity which allows them to see themselves as “interculturalists” or “multiculturalists” in addition to their national and ethnic backgrounds. They recognize that worldviews are collective constructs and that identity is itself a construction of consciousness. As a consequence, they may seek out roles that allow them to be intercultural mediators and exhibit other qualities of “constructive marginality.” They also tend to associate with other cultural marginals rather than people from any one of the cultures they know.

People in integration are inclined to interpret and evaluate behavior from a variety of cultural frames of reference, so that there is never a single right or wrong answer. But, unlike the resulting paralysis of action that may occur in earlier stages, people in integration are capable of engaging in “contextual evaluation.”

The goodness or ethicality of actions is not given by absolute (and ethnocentric) principles but is constructed by human beings who thereby take responsibility for the realities they are creating. Thus, people in integration face the unending task of guiding their own behavior along the ethical lines that they themselves have created.

2. The process of perception

2.1 Perceptions Of Self And Other In Intercultural Communication

Communication concerns a relationship between Self and Other. The perceptions the persons involved have of themselves and the other party play an important part in the process of communication. These perceptions are particularly pertinent in intercultural communication, where there are significant cultural differences and cultural stereotypes involved.

This is why we have studied British, American and Bulgarian native speakers' perceptions of their own and other cultures with respect to politeness. The results are discussed within a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective and implications are drawn for intercultural communication training and education.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.

The last decades have seen a growing interest in politeness, especially in an intercultural perspective. There is no doubt that politeness facilitates communication, serves as a social lubricant and makes communal life easier. However, it has been shown that politeness is highly culture-specific and can easily become the source of intercultural differences, negative stereotypes and communication problems.

The reason is that across cultures, politeness is subject to different cultural norms and conventions. There can also be observed different degrees of codification of politeness norms. In some societies, the norms are fairly loose and vaguely defined. In others, politeness norm shave been explicitly specified in the pages of etiquette books and other manuals regulating public behaviour, or the more recent how-to type of books postulating rules for effective communication.

In fact, the act of formulating and imposing the proper norms of behaviour is very similar to the codification practices described in sociolinguistics. Codification is an instrument in the establishment of standard national languages. It authorizes certain forms as standard and acceptable, while at the same time classifying others as sub-standard and unacceptable. Codification contributes to social cohesion, reduces variation and makes communication easier and clearer.

However, it also reinforces existing social inequalities. While it is generally acknowledged that no language or dialect is inherently superior to any other from a sociolinguistic point of view, it is the language or dialect used by the ones with most power which becomes established and authorized as the standard and correct one. Through this process, the language or dialect of non-powerful groups becomes marginalized and stigmatized as non-standard, inappropriate, and incorrect.

In a similar fashion, the values, behaviour patterns, norms and expressions favoured by powerful groups become established in society as the most correct, appropriate, prestigious, or polite ones, while the behaviour of non-powerful groups is stigmatized as incorrect, inappropriate, non-prestigious, or outright rude. Thus, politeness can be seen as a form of distinction, a difference, a gap, “that is, a certain quality of bearing and manners, most often considered innate”. It turns into what Bourdieu calls linguistic capital. He uses the term in place of the Chomskian notion of linguistic competence, which in his view “reduces acceptability to grammaticality”. intercultural communication verbal

This capital is the prerogative of powerful elites and gives its proprietors clear dividends. The feeling of being at ease with oneself and one's public behaviour, of “being what one ought to be” is one of the direct benefits of the dominant groups' symbolic power. On the contrary, the feelings experienced by the aspirant classes (such as the petit-bourgeoisie, in Bourdieu's example) are described as “timidity, tension; they always do too much or too little, they are ill at ease with themselves”.

This view of politeness departs considerably from the view generally adopted in pragmatics. It sets politeness in a critical perspective and presents it not simply as a highly desirable attribute of discourse providing effective social living, but also as a powerful medium which could be manipulated and abused or used to perpetuate and reinforce social inequalities. That is why it was of particular interest to me not only to study differences in politeness norms between Bulgarian, British and American culture, but also to look at the subjective perceptions of native speakers about the politeness of their own respective cultures. The results were obtained through questionnaires filled in by 100 Bulgarian, 22 British and 22 American respondents.

The respondents were asked to qualify a statement about the politeness of their own culture and to express agreement or disagreement with the statement “Bulgarians (the English; Americans) as a whole are polite.”

The results showed that British respondents generally demonstrate confidence in the politeness of their nation (Table 2). The majority (64%) express moderate agreement with the statement that the English are polite, while 18% express moderate disagreement:

Table 2. Do you agree that “The English as a whole are polite people”?

The American respondents seem slightly less confident about their own politeness. Most of them (55%) agree, while 36% disagree (Table 3):

Table 3. Do you agree that “The Americans as a whole are polite people”?

Bulgarians, by contrast, are much more critical of themselves. Only 27% of them express moderate agreement, while 60% express disagreement, of whom 7% express strong disagreement, not found at all in the respective British and American responses (Table 4).

Table 4. Do you agree that “The Bulgarians as a whole are polite people”?

The figures show that, compared to their British and American counterparts, Bulgarians are much less confident about the politeness of their own nation. This can be interpreted either as proof of the impoliteness found in Bulgarian culture in the present day, or as an extreme form of self-consciousness and self-criticism on the part of Bulgarians. In addition to the question discussed above, the respondents are asked to explain their answer if they wish. These answers throw more light on the perceptions they have of the politeness of their own and other cultures.

2.2 British, American, Bulgarian People's Perceptions Of Self And Other

The above figures demonstrating the great confidence of British people in the politeness of their own culture are supported by the comments provided. As some of them state, compared to “most other European counterparts, the English are definitely much more polite and considerate”, “less prone to be deliberately rude than other nations, and they are more prone to accept impoliteness without complaint”.

Several respondents refer to politeness as a stereotypically British characteristic, even though they question the relevance of such broad generalizations: These days there are many English people who are extremely impolite and it would be easy to find areas where the statement is at odds with reality. However, politeness is a stereotypical English characteristic.

Moreover, this stereotype seems to concern some parts of Britain more than others and some layers of society more than others: It is difficult to generalize on a national basis. There are areas of Britain considered more stereotypically polite than others. Conceptions of politeness are further influenced by class, background, religion and gender stereotypes.

There are also divergent opinions from different groups within Britain: for example, some specify that their positive reply is “for Britons - not for the English - of whom the Welsh have a low opinion”.

Some respondents refer to the stereotype but then comment that the realities are changing and the level of politeness is declining: “ The English are polite, or at least were”. This observation is supported by some examples: “I think we are polite, but we're becoming less polite. People complain more, push in queues etc.”

Others oppose the idea of making any generalizations: “Such generalizations are, in my view, very impolite”.

Some respondents refer to American politeness for comparison and share the view that it is insincere: “At least when we the English are being polite it's genuine, unlike the Americans where it is always false”.

The next question in the Questionnaire asks the respondents to share impressions of the politeness or impoliteness of other cultures they have been in contact with. Not surprisingly, the British and American respondents generally exhibit greater awareness of foreign cultures than their Bulgarian counter parts.

For Britons, examples of the impolite behaviour of foreigners include queue jumping. One respondent reports about problems with the concept of “personal space” which people form other cultures may try to invade. Another problem in intercultural communication identified by British respondents is the degree of directness of some other cultures and the lack of overt politeness markers in making routine requests: By and large, many foreigners come across as excessively direct - sometimes by British standards, provocatively so (e.g. Germans).When buying things, they [Germans] don't say “please”, just “I'll take... “.“ Please” comes in later.