SIETAR Europa Congress 2005 France Your Culture, My Culture, Our Opportunity 21-25 September 2005
1. Title of presentation: RETHINKING STUMBLING BLOCKS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
2. Abstract:
Today thanks to the huge social demand and the extensive research in the area of intercultural communication we have come to know that to communicate successfully with people from a different culture one needs to be tolerant, sensitive, open, well informed, aware of the customs and traditions of the culture involved and prepared to learn more about it. This is the general stance accepted in many practical course books on intercultural communication aimed both at the people who need this sort of skill professionally and at the general public. Yet, our common sense tells us that it is impossible to learn all the rules governing appropriate and inappropriate behaviour for every culture or subgroup with which we come in contact not only because there are too many of them, but mostly because they are implicit and those who follow them are seldom aware that there are any special rules there unless they are broken. There are several reasons for why intercultural communication often fails to bring about mutual understanding: assuming similarity instead of difference, preconceptions and stereotypes, the tendency to evaluate, language problems, nonverbal misunderstanding and the high anxiety that often exists in intercultural encounters (LaRay M. Barna 1996). They are often regarded as barriers for intercultural communication that could be successfully removed through efficient training. However, as shown by the latest research, the problem seems to be more complicated than it looks. The paper discusses barriers for intercultural communication focusing on pragmatic differences in the language use as a factor often underestimated by both speakers and researchers.
3. Presenters information:
I. Prof. Lubov Tsurikova Voronezh State University, Russia
Tel. ++7 (0732) 457872 (0732) 208489
Mailing address: Leninsky prospekt 45-101 Voronezh 394004 Russia
SIETAR membership: NO
Previous SIETAR presentations: Research presentation "Cross-Cultural Analysis of Conversational Norms in Russian and English" April 1998, 8th SIETAR Europa Congress, Bath, UK (article published in the SIETAR Europa Congress 1998 Proceedings. 2000)
II. Dr Vladimir Titov Voronezh State University, Russia
Tel. ++7 (0732) 207523 (0732) 208731
Mailing address: Universitetskaya pl., 1 Voronezh 394693 Russia
SIETAR membership: NO
Previous SIETAR presentations: NO
4. Selection length and format: D Formal Paper/Research Presentation 50 minutes
5. Biographical Note about presenters: Lubov Tsurikova is professor of linguistics and Head of English Philology Department, Romance and Germanic Philology, Voronezh State University, Russia. Co-ordinator of the research project "Mutual understanding in Intercultural Dialogue" run by the Voronezh University Centre for Advanced Social Studies and Education. Field of study: discourse studies, cross-cultural and cognitive pragmatics. Current research deals with sociopragmatic and cognitive aspects of discourse processing in cross-cultural communication. Published 2 monographs and over 60 papers in national and international linguistic journals and books. Co-author of a course book Introduction to the Theory of Intercultural Communication. Teachers intercultural communication theory, cultural and pragmatic aspects of interpreting and translating, sociolinguistics, theoretical linguistics to the students specialising in languages and intercultural communication. Taught various courses at Liverpool John Moors University (UK), and Edinburgh Heriot-Watt University (UK). Took part in more than 20 international conferences in Great Britain, Belgium, United States, Hungary.
Vladimir Titov is vice rector of Voronezh State University, Russia, Director of Voronezh University Centre for Advanced Social Studies and Education. Published over 50 scientific papers, his book “Quantative lexicology of Romance languages” (2002) is one of his most significant publications. Took part in more than 30 international conferences in Spain, Ireland, England, France. Areas of study: theory of translation, comparative language studies, Spanish studies, pragmatics. Teaches theory of translation and general language studies.
6. Target Audience:
Level of experience: Intermediate Advanced
Areas of professional interest: Research Training Communication/dialogue Intrapersonal dimensions Higher education
7. Equipment: Overhead projector
8. Room size and set up: Number of participants 40-50 Classroom style
9. Session description:
Lubov Tsurikova Vladimir Titov
RETHINKING STUMBLING BLOCKS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
In the presentation the following problems are discussed : I. NATURAL BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION (Laray M.Barna. Stumbling blocks in Intercultural Communication // L.A.Samovar, R.E.Porter (eds.) Intercultural Communication. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997)
1. Assuming similarities instead of differences Assumption based on: expectation that simply being human, having common requirements of food, shelter, security etc. makes everyone alike : “People are people”; belief that human feelings and emotions are universal as well their expressions, so if not verbal, non-verbal behaviour (particularly uncontrolled) could be easily decoded; illusion that globalisation increases similarity; popular expectation that increased contact with representatives of diverse cultures through travel, student exchange programs, joint business ventures etc., will automatically result in better understanding and friendship; psychological reasons: the confidence that comes with the myth of similarity is much stronger than with the assumption of differences – subconsciously one tries to avoid the anxiety of “not knowing”.
2. Preconceptions and stereotypes Stereotyping is one of the basic functions of human cognitive activity; it implies generalising and classifying the information received from outside world. Stereotypes are overgeneralized beliefs about things, events, people, relations etc., that provide conceptual bases from which we “make sense” out of what goes on around us, whether or not they are accurate or fit the circumstance. They are psychologically necessary for us as they reduce the threat of the unknown by making the world predictable. Stereotypes could be: i. positive, negative, neutral; ii. (when referred to people) self-stereotypes (endostereotypes; autostereotypes) and stereotypes about others (exostereotypes; heterostereoptypes).
3. Non-verbal misinterpretations People from different cultures inhabit different sensory realities. They see, hear, feel, and smell only what has some meaning or importance for them. They abstract whatever fits into their personal world of recognition and then interpret it through the frame of reference of their own culture.(E.g.) The lack of comprehension of non-verbal signs and symbols that are easy to observe, such as gestures, postures, and other body movements, is a definite communication barrier, but it is possible to learn the meaning of these messages. It is more difficult to note correctly the unspoken codes of the other culture that are less obvious, such as the handling of time and spatial relationships, because people are usually unaware of these codes (they acquire them naturally and take them for granted) and can rarely explain how they work.
4. Tendency to evaluate Evaluating, i.e. approving or disapproving, the actions or statements of other people rather than trying to comprehend the thoughts and feelings expressed from the world view of the other is natural for interpersonal communication, and when any miscomprehension occurs on interpersonal level between interlocutors having the same cultural background, we often try to negotiate our judgements. However, in cross-cultural encounters, this can become a barrier to understanding between persons of different cultures or (ethnic/social) groups. Because our own cultural values and beliefs always seem right, proper, natural and taken for granted, we sometimes can’t even imagine there could be other approaches to things that seem obvious. This bias prevents the open-minded attention needed to look at the attitudes and behaviour patterns from the other point of view. (E.g.) The admonition to resist the tendency to immediately evaluate does not intend to suggest that we should not develop our own sense of right and wrong, but before judging whether this or that is right or wrong (good or bad) it might be a good idea to look and listen emphatically rather than through a screen of value judgement to try to achieve a better understanding. When comprehension is achieved it can be determined whether or not there is a clash in values or ideology and how to evaluate it.
5. High anxiety Tension, or stress, is common in cross-cultural experiences due to the number of uncertainties present. This barrier is not only distinct, but often underlies and compounds the other stumbling blocks discussed earlier. Here 3 possible combinations could be considered: 1) S1 – host national (native culture; native language) → Speak L1 S2 – foreign (foreign culture; foreign language)
2) S1 – host national (native culture; foreign language) → Speak L2 S2 – foreign (foreign culture; native language)
3) S1 – foreign (foreign culture, foreign language) → Speak L3 S2 – foreign (foreign culture, foreign language)
6. Language Differences For many years teaching and learning a language mainly implied developing a certain level of linguistic competence (i.e. phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic knowledge). However, as we all very well know, good linguistic competence does not eliminate communication problems for the non-native speakers of a language (far from that: sometimes it can even cause more problems). In recent years, the development of the notion of communicative competence has put into focus the learners’ pragmatic and discourse knowledge as it became obvious that to interact effectively with native speakers of a target language one must also learn the rules of the speaking community which uses it. It has been generally accepted that for successful communication knowing conversational norms of the target language culture is as important as knowing the phonology, syntax and vocabulary of this language. This idea inspired a lot of research in intercultural communication and culturally bound communication behaviour, as well as contrastive analysis, and some of the results of these studies have been used both in intercultural communication training and language teaching. Most of this research has been done on comparison of very distant language cultures and focused on the language behaviour of the learners who are usually not very advanced in the target language and because of that experience considerable difficulties communicating with the native speakers of this language. There is a lot of very interesting works on contrastive analysis of English and Chinese/Japanese etc. Considerably less research has been done on the differences between closer cultures and languages, such as European languages, but the results of these studies put the problem into a different perspective (e.g. E. House; S. Blum- Kulka). First, contrary to the early expectations of contrastive analysts, it’s been shown that serious communication problems are more likely to take place between interlocutors coming from close or related cultures than between those coming from cultures that widely different. The seeming cultural closeness or “similarity” (which is the case for many European languages, for instance) can be very misleading for the participants and sometimes cause a lot of misunderstanding. Second, it has been effectively shown by these studies that even fairly advanced second language speakers have regular difficulties when communicating with the native speakers of this language and often fail to convey/express or comprehend the intended meaning. For some reason there has been very little research on this phenomenon. Most of such studies focus on the linguistic difficulties for people who have problems with either grammar or vocabulary of the language they use. But as many of us know, being fluent in the target language does not prevent us from having various problems when we communicate with the native speakers of this language, no matter how long we live in the target culture and how well we think we know it. When we communicate with a non-native speaker of our language we often notice that despite the absence of phonetic, lexical or grammatical mistakes in their speech, they seem to behave “unnaturally” and say funny things inappropriate for the situation, from the native speaker’s point of view.
II. COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS:
Example from: Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, Gray (2000)
This example shows that very often the failures to communicate successfully in the second language occur on the PRAGMATIC LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION and are caused by the violation of language-specific (pragmalinguistic) and culture-specific (sociopragmatic) norms and rules of language use. This can be accounted by what is called “pragmatic interference” or “communicative interference” (Wolfson 1983), i.e. the projection of the speaker’s existing knowledge of the native language use to similar communicative situations in the target language culture – the phenomenon known as “pragmatic transfer”. In a number of empirical studies, two types of pragmatic transfer are distinguished: sociopragmatic transfers and pragmalinguistic transfers.
DIAGRAM 1
SOCIOPRAGMATIC TRANSFERS cause errors resulting from the failure to identify the situation correctly and are related to mistaken beliefs about the norms of behaviour in the society, whereas PRAGMALINGUISTIC TRANSFERS cause errors resulting from the failure to identify or express the meaning correctly and are related to mistaken beliefs about the language (or rather conventional meaning of linguistic forms). Both, however, result in persistently inappropriate language use. When this happens, the most “innocent” and seemingly unambiguous behaviour can cause problems. Examples: 1) THANKING IN English and Russian. 2) ADVICE and OFFER in English and Russian
DIAGRAM 2
All these examples show that the choice of linguistic and interactional strategies is culturally bound and non-native speakers tend to base their discourse choices on their native rules, values and beliefs (this implies that the rules of the language use are inseparable from the linguistic forms). As a result their communication style in the target language remains “unauthentic” and deviates from the “normal” communication style of the target language culture. However, both the native and the non-native speakers are usually unaware of that, and the better the non-native speaks the language the more dangerous this becomes for them in terms of misinterpretation their intentions because of the natural barriers people have in perception and interpretation of each other’s behaviour. 10. Presenters curriculum vitae:
CURRICULUM VITAE Personal Details
Name: Lubov Tsurikova Address: Leninsky prospekt 45-101, Voronezh 394004, Russia Telephone: ++7 (0732) 457872 (home) ++7 (0732) 208489 (work) Fax: ++7 (0732) 208388 E-mail: [email protected]
Education
2001.2002 Research fellow at Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Degree: Professorship in Theory of Language and Germanic Languages 1994 RSEP-ACTR research fellow at University of Arizona, Tucson, US 1989-1992 Voronezh University post graduate course Degree: PhD in Theoretical Linguistics 1978-1983 Romance and Germanic Philology Department Voronezh University, Russia Degree: Diploma with Distinction in English Philology and Translation
Work Experience
2004 - Head of English Philology Department, Romance and Germanic Philology, Voronezh State University, Russia
2002-2004 Professor of English Philology Department, Romance and Germanic Philology, Voronezh State University, Russia Courses taught: theoretical linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cultural and pragmatic Aspects of interpreting and translating, intercultural communication theory, English in use.
1986-2001 Reader of English Philology Department, Romance and Germanic Philology, Voronezh State University, Russia Courses taught: theoretical linguistics, sociolinguistics, cultural and pragmatic aspects of interpreting and translating, English in use, introduction into intercultural communication > supervising student research in cross-cultural pragmatics > 5th year course co-ordinator; > responsible for department international programmes
1998-1999 Centre for Translation and Interpreting Studies in Scotland, School of Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK Lecturer - courses taught: interpreting and translating, Russian as a foreign language
1992-1993 School of Languages, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK Lecturer - courses taught: Russian as a foreign language 1983-1986 Assistant Professor of Department of Languages, Voronezh Pedagogical University, Russia Courses taught: phonetics, English grammar
Field of study: discourse studies; cross-cultural and cognitive pragmatics. Current research deals with sociopragmatic and cognitive aspects of discourse processing in cross-cultural communication. Publications: 2 monographs, 1 course book and over 60 articles published in national and international linguistic journals.
TSURIKOVA, L.V. The problem of natural discourse processing in cross-cultural communication. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2002. – 257 pp. (ISBN 5-9273-0181-9) TSURIKOVA, L.V. The communicative range of questions in discourse. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2001. – 144 pp. (ISBN 5-9273-0117-7) TSURIKOVA, L.V., GRISHAEVA L.I. Introduction to the Theory of Intercultural Communication. A course book. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2003. – 369 pp. (ISBN 5-9273-0457- 5) TSURIKOVA, L.V. Cross-cultural analysis of conversational norms in Russian and English // D.Lynch and A.Pilbeam (eds). Heritage and Progress. From the past to the future in intercultural understanding. SIETAR Europa Congress 1998.– Bath, UK, 2000 – С.78-85. TSURIKOVA, L.V. Current problems in discourse studies // Linguistics: old problems within new paradigms. – Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000. – pp. 110- 117. TSURIKOVA, L.V. Interpreting: Cognitive aspects of intercultural competence // Sociocultural problems in interpreting and translating. – V.4. – Voronezh, 2001. – pp.93-100. TSURIKOVA, L.V. Political correctness as a sociocultural and pragmalinguistic phenomenon // Essays on the social power of language. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2001. – pp. 94-102. (ISBN 5-9273-0176-2) TSURIKOVA, L.V. Advice: A Pragmatic Approach To Teaching Functions in English // “Revista de lenguas para fines especificos”, La universsidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 1995, N 2. - С.4-10. TSURIKOVA, L.V. Teaching intercultural awareness as part of a pragmatic approach to teaching EFL/ESL // “The pleasures and joys of TESOL". Proceedings of the 4th Annual TESOL-Russia Conference.” - Vorenezh TESOL, 1997 – С.69-71.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Titov Vladimir
1. Sirname: Titov 2. Name: Vladimir 3. Date of birth: August, 9 1951. 4. Place of birth: Studenki village, Lipetsk region, Russia. 5. Office address: Russia, 394693, Voronezh, Universitetskaya ploshad, 1 6. Office telephone number: (0732) 55-34-95 7. e-mail: [email protected]
8. Professional activity: 2001 - now - Administrative Director of Voronezh Center for Advanced studies and Education; 1999 – now - Vice Rector of Voronezh State University; 1994 - 1999 – Dean of the Romance and German Faculty of Voronezh State University; 1993 – 1994 – associate professor of the Romance and German Faculty of Voronezh State University; 1988 – 1990 – worked as a teacher of Russian language in Leon University (Spain); 1974 – 1993 – a teacher at the Chair of Romance and German Faculty of Voronezh State University
Associate professor Titov has published over 50 scientific papers, his book “Quantative lexicology of Romance languages” is one of his most significant publications it was published in Voronezh in 2002. Took part in more than 30 international conferences in Spain, Ireland, England, France. His scientific interests lie in the following areas: theory of translation, comparative language studies, Spanish studies, pragmatics. He lectures on the theory of translation and on general language studies.
9. Education: 1988 – defended Ph.D. thesis on general linguistics at Saratov university. 1974 – Graduated Voronezh State University. Specialty in compliance with diploma: “Philologist. A teacher of Spanish language and literature.”