Verbal Differences in ICC

1. Verbal Differences in ICC COM 372—Intercultural Communication John R. Baldwin Illinois State University

2. Aspects of human language • Arbitrary (symbols > just signs & symptoms) • Abstract • Meaning-centered • Discourse • Connotation • Denotation • Communicative meaning (intent) • Relational meanings (solidarity, status, etc.) • Conventional/contextual meaning (context)

3. Levels of Language • Phonemic: /th/ /r/ /ö/ • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31zzMb3U0iY • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aB4tOwf2Sc • Some tonal humor… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gKqjd00E4 • Morphological: Kayla/s/; particles: “ma” • http://www.omniglot.com/writing/definition.htm • Semantic/Lexical: “babe,” “amigo” • Syntactic: Imperfect v. preterit; future subjunctive • Pragmatic: Asking a Q; persuading • Rhetorical/ideological:Underlying ideas, nature of “communication,” etc.

4. Phonemes and the mouth… http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/factsheets/families/F000368/images/diagram.gif

6. Morphological Differences • Greek nouns: http://abacus.bates.edu/~hwalker/Grammar/gramrev.html • Conjugating verbs: Pick a language: http://www.verbix.com/languages/ • Check out SIUs South East Language page! http://www.seasite.niu.edu/ • Tones?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJFG98o7aLM • Language humor: Fun translation of key tourist phrases: http://www.zompist.com/phrases.html

7. Lexical Choice • Words of Connection • Kuan-shi • Nunch’I • Jeito • Palanca • Semantic differences: • Amigo; close friends • Freedom • Term paper • Pragmatic differences: conflict, humor, etc...

8. Functions of language…It’s not just about transfer of information anymore… • Cultural worldview function??? (maybe “cultural transmission??) • Cognitive formation function • Social reality function: “core symbols” Baldwin’s functions • Transfer of information • Expression of cultural values (face, expressiveness, etc.) • Group identity function • Social change (and resistance) function

9. Linguistic Relativity • Sapir-Whorf hypothesis • The hypothesis • Strengths & limitations • Bernstein hypothesis: • The hypothesis: • Two types of codes • Restricted • Elaborated • Codeswitching • Translational difficulties! • Zompist rules!!! http://www.zompist.com/

10. Basic Concepts • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Language “constructs” or creates our (social) reality http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/L14.html

11. Some types of language • Pidgin: Mixture of two or more languages, but generally used for trade (people speak other dialects in the home) • Creole: Mixture of two or more language taught to children as a “first” language • Patois: Any “nonstandard” language, which can include dialects, pidgins, creoles; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patois • Argot: A language spoken by a group of people, such as criminals, with a restricted meaning; similar to or the same as cant. Like a slang. • Cant: A crypto-dialect, or language spoken by a group to exclude others, used to exclude meaning from those outside the group. • Code-switching

12. (culture-general) dimensions of language difference • High/low context • Direct/indirect • Formal/informal • Differentiated: more or less • Elaborated, exacting, succinct • Instrumental/expressive • Self-credentialing/self-humbling

13. Logical approaches • Linear • Factual-inductive • Axiomatic-deductive • Spiral styles • Intuitive styles

14. Far Eastern Communication Confucianism & Communication (Yum, 1991)

15. Far Eastern Communication Confucianism & Relationships (Yum, 1991)

16. American Communication What is said q “I” focus q Impolite talk q Direct talk q Assertive speech q Self-enhancing talk q Public personal questions q Expressive speech Chinese Communication What is not said “We” focus q Polite talk q Indirect talk q Hesitant speech q Self-effacing talk q Private personal questions q Reticent speech American & Chinese Communication (Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998)

17. Speech Codes Theory (Philipsen et al., 2005) • What’s the main point? Grounded in: ___________________________________ • Using the observed/observable(e.g., talk patterns) as a way to understand “situated codes of meaning and value” (p. 56) • Both situation specific and “general” • So—is it local, or is it universal? • Each speech code has a unique culture • (cultural communication / emic)

18. Speech Codes Theory • Speech Code: “a system of socially-constructed symbols and meanings, premises, and rules, pertaining to communicative conduct” (Philipsen, in Philipsen et al., 2005, p. 57) • Communicative Resources: used to “enact, name, interpret, and judge communicative conduct.” Def: “symbols and meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct” (p. 57) • Contingent, not deterministic, open, not fixed

19. Speech Codes Theory: Hymes’ “SPEAKING” framework • Scene:What are physical and social contexts where handshakes occur? • Participants:Who tends to be involved in handshakes (e.g., romantic partners meeting for a date?) • Ends (motives/purposes):Why would people shake hands instead of, say, hugging, bowing, kissing, or slapping? • Act sequence:What happens prior to handshake? Who starts it? Are words exchanged and when? • Key (tone, feeling):Is handshake aggressive, warm? • Instrumentalities (channel):handshake:nonverbal • Norms (expected behaviors):When/how do you shake hands?Force, strength? How long to you hold the hand shake? • Genre (type of comm event):shaking hands • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_2cubD5uE

20. “American” Values Materialism Success Work & Activity Progress Rationality Democracy Humanitarianism Middle Eastern Values Hospitality Generosity Courage Honor Self-Respect Middle-Eastern Communication(Vander Zanden, 1965; Patai, 1976)

21. “American” Communication Direct “Elaborated” Informal Low context Less differentiated codes Middle Eastern Communication Indirect Emphatic Formality High context More differentiated codes ME ValuesCommunication

22. Egyptian & Jewish Communication • Dugri & Musayra (Ellis & Maoz, 2003) • JEWISH ISRAELI: Dugri(Katriel, 1986): • “Straight talk”: Direct, to the point • Assertive • Concerned with clarity, efficiency, image of directness • In-group code among Western Israeli Jews • ARABIC: Musayra (Feghali, 1997): “Accommodating, going along with”: 4 aspects • Repetition: formulaic, compliments, praise, paralellism • Indirectness: Interpersonal caution • Elaboration: metaphor, exaggeration • Affectiveness: intuitive and emotional style

23. Latin American Communication • Values • Collectivism • Hierarchia & confianza • Implications for the classroom • Personalismo • Respeto • Familia • Palanca / o jeito brasileiro • Mañana: time/work orientation • Some specifics • “Salsipuede” • “Si Dios quiere”

24. “Dichos” • What are some Mexican “dichos” and what values do they represent? • What are the main “values” in Mexican culture? How might they show themselves beyond “dichos” (structuralism approach) • What are some sayings proverbs, etc., in the U.S. cutlure, and what values do they represent?

25. American Proverbs God helps those Who help themselves A penny saved is a penny earned Idle hands are the devil’s workshop Cleanliness is next to godliness Early to bed, early to rise… makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise Look out for Number One! Time is money Every problem has a solution When the going gets tough… the tough get going

26. German and American Communication

27. Interlude 1: Review of Literature • Introduction: 1-1.5 pp. Why is this topic important? • Colorful start, like a speech • Pop culture references, sources probably okay • Review of Lit: Points: • Based on academic lit, APA style • Use of theory is useful • Styled as an argument—not just a summary list of sources • Some sources get more attention, some less • Some sources used only once, others several times • The best Revs of Lit have theory in them!

28. Organizing a Review of Lit • Standard (Soc Scientific approach) • I. DV: Stereotypes of South Asians • II. Various predictors  IVs: Media, Personal experience • III. Putting them together for RQs or Hs.

29. Standard organizational “tropes’ • CauseEffect/ EffectCause • Topical (aspects/types of something) • Chronological (often not the best approach) • Spatial • SimpleComplex, KnownUnknown • These can be sub or main points • Main points: Effect (DV)  Cause (IVs) • Subpoints: Spatial: societal, relational, personal • Subpoints: Topical: interpersonal and media influences

30. Hs or RQs? • If interpretive (interviews, analysis of single text): RQs • Avoid generalizing language—your purpose is to interpret a single text or group of people’s reality • Avoid causal language (cause, influence, affect) • If social scientific (surveys, experiments) can be either RQs or Hs (directional or nondirectional), depending on • How much evidence you have to support an H • Whether there are contradictory valid explanations that lead to different predictions

31. Interlude: Writing about a theory! • Intro: Brief overview of what the theory is about • Body: Main structure/terms of theory • Application: Either interpreting a real, single event or drawing very practical applications to a situation (work, school, relationships, etc.) • Evaluation

32. Practicing: CAT • Overview: • Main terms: Organization • Application: • Evaluation

33. Initial Orientation • Ethnolinguistic Vitality- The likelihood that an individual will use their own language (which they see to be high vitality) or the other groups language (which is seen to have a higher vitality than one’s own language). • Ethnolinguistic Boundaries- Are the boundaries between culture’s languages seen to be hard (cannot change) or soft (more flexible). • Sociostructural Relations- Are the groups supposed to be meeting (legitimate) or not supposed to be meeting (illegitimate). • Stability- Are the groups on good terms with each other, or bad terms with each other? • Ability- What skill does the individual have to adjust? Luster

34. Situation • Norms- How do the norms of the cultures decide whether or not an intercultural communication episode is either inter-group, interpersonal, or both. Luster

35. Outcomes • What speakers take away after an intercultural communication episode takes place. • Can be Good or Bad. • If overaccommodation (either too much accommodation, or accomodation based on stereotypes) will be bad! • Ex: hyperexplanation—when one group (often Whites) simplifies language and word choice or engages in repetition to “overexplain” to another group (often Blacks)—cited as a major problem in interracial communication! • Ex: secondary baby talk —using upward tone, simple words, “we” form when speaking with elderly people, as if we were speaking to small children. • Ex: speaking more loudly to foreigners, as if that would help them understand. • The key: How does the other person perceive your accommodation to be intended? If she or he perceives good motives, the result will likely be positive; if bad or stereotypical motives, result will likely be bad! • Nonconvergence (maintenance or divergence) almost always result in more negative intergroup perceptions. Luster

36. Research: Results & Implications(Booth-Butterfield & Jordan, 1989) Luster

37. Evaluating a theory • Scope, boundaries: How broad is it? Is what it covers clear? • Logical consistency: Does it hold together well? • Parsimony: Is it appropriately simple? • Testability(if scientific): Can the propositions be measured and tested? • Heurism: Does it lead to new study or theory? Does it stand the “test of time”? • Explanatory power: Does it explain most cases, or are there classes of cases it does not explain? • Utility: Is it useful in everyday life?