INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we survey important workplace communication research, with the aim of showing how a combination of methods and theoretical concepts may contribute to intercultural understanding and smoother working relationships. The 1990s saw a series of key workplace communication studies, with many of these originating from the Australian context. Michael Clyne (1994), in particular, building on the seminal work of John Gumperz, played a major role in spearheading studies of intercultural communication in the workplace. In recent years, there have been growing numbers of workplace studies in the United Kingdom, the United States and beyond. We review some of these studies here to demonstrate how workplace research has evolved in recent years. In any case, a survey of intercultural communication in the workplace shows how research may highlight the causes of miscommunication and how such miscommunication may be resolved.

This book has noted a few times by now that within the intercultural communication field there has been an increased focus on ethnography, naturally occurring conversations and constructivist approaches in the past few decades. Thus, in this chapter we begin each section with a review of some of the seminal 1990s studies of workplaces. We use these as a foundation for discussing more recent and more ethnographically and constructivist-driven approaches. In doing so, we introduce a few more useful theoretical concepts for understanding workplace culture. Of particular note, monolithic, homogenous and nationalistic accounts of workplace cultures have been shown to be reductive. Thus, we show how the Community of Practice, devised in the field of education and used extensively by sociolinguists, provides a useful frame for understanding workplace culture(s).

INTRODUCTION

Mis communications emerge in conversations between Korean shopkeepers and African American customers in Los Angeles, as we observed at the start of Chapter 2. We linked this miscommunication to the two groups speaking at cross-purposes: financial transactions and social exchanges respectively (Bailey 2001). Yet, even when these groups speak with the same purpose, miscommunication can result from differing conversational styles. In the following social exchange, an African American customer (‘cust’) describes a recent trip to Chicago to a Korean shop owner (‘own’), who has been in the United States for 20 years and has a degree from the University of California, Los Angeles:

The African American customer’s style is emotional, performed and involved. This includes the use of falsetto voice, engaged body language (e.g. lateral headshakes) and profanity. The Korean shopkeeper’s style is less involved. He is looking at the floor and unsmiling as the customer recounts his trip.

INTRODUCTION

Staff at a British airport once complained that newly hired Indian and Pakistani cafeteria workers were uncooperative and surly. This was in spite of few words being exchanged between the staff and new workers. Gumperz (2004 [1982]) studied communication between the groups and found the miscommunication could be linked to the intonation and manner of speaking of the cafeteria workers in the British context. For instance, the cafeteria workers would offer gravy (gravy?) to the ground staff using a falling intonation rather than the rising intonation typical of Anglo-English questions. Consequently, this utterance was interpreted by staff as a statement (this is gravy) or imperative (have gravy!) rather than the cafeteria worker’s intended interrogative meaning (gravy?).

Preferred ways of speaking and the ways in which politeness and speech acts are accomplished are subtly different across cultures. An English speaker who wishes another to close a window will often say can you close the window? whereas a German speaker would be more likely to say you should close the window. We outline why this is the case through a synthesised discussion of the concepts of speech acts and politeness, introduced in the previous chapters. This discussion emerges from the influential Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) project (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper 1989). The work of the CCSARP project is also extended through discussions of the studies that have been conducted in the wake of this project as well as more ethnographic and conversational approaches. As noted in Chapter 2, these latter approaches have sought to provide a more nuanced understanding of direct and indirect messages, speech acts and politeness.

INTRODUCTION

This book is intended as an academic reference for undergraduate and graduate students and interdisciplinary researchers who do not have specialised knowledge of linguistics. Key concepts relevant to an understanding of language issues in intercultural communication are drawn from the research areas of pragmatics, discourse analysis, politeness and intercultural communication. Relevant academic literature and recent research conducted by the authors is exemplified and explained throughout the book so that students can become familiar with the way research in this field is reported and can follow up on the ideas presented.

An understanding of intercultural communication is crucially related to an understanding of the ways in which the spoken and written word may be interpreted differentially, depending on the context. The message received is not always the one intended by the speaker or the writer. This book systematically examines sociocultural and pragmatic aspects of the language context, and discusses a wide range of factors that contribute to the interpretation of language in context. The authors argue that an understanding of how these principles interact in a given language, and in intercultural communication, is crucial to the development of mutual understanding in the global world.

Speakers engaged in intercultural communication in this increasingly globalised world may choose one or more languages in which to communicate. However, regardless of whether it is their first, second or third language, individuals typically bring their own sociocultural expectations of language to the encounter. Speakers’ expectations shape the interpretation of meaning in a variety of ways. To manage intercultural interaction effectively, speakers need to be aware of the inherent norms of their own speech practices, the ways in which norms vary depending on situational factors and the ways in which speakers from other language backgrounds may have different expectations of language usage and behaviour.

The study of intercultural communication continues to grow in importance in response to greater population mobility, migration and globalisation. Howard Manns has joined Heather Bowe and Kylie Martin in this revision of Communication Across Cultures: Mutual Understanding in a Global World to incorporate insights from research in the field since the publication of the first edition in 2007.

The first edition sought to present relevant research approaches in the field of linguistic aspects of intercultural communication, including pragmatics, discourse analysis, studies of politeness and cross-cultural communication, and to explain and exemplify these for beginning researchers, drawing on material from a variety of languages and cultures. It has been adopted as a required or recommended text for students of intercultural communication, language culture and communication, cross-cultural pragmatics and related fields at undergraduate and postgraduate level in Australia and elsewhere, and has also been adopted as a resource for university students of non-English-speaking background exploring issues in using English as a global language.

This second edition incorporates recent research in the field, which now includes research from more global and pluralised perspectives, including hybrid or mixed language practices, and takes account of cultural and linguistic diversity within groups as well as between groups. More recent research involving actual intercultural communication complements the cross-cultural comparative nature of much early research, which, though crucial to an understanding of some of the issues involved, fails to take account of the creative strategies that speakers can use when communicating across cultures.

INTRODUCTION

Linguistic and cultural ‘brokers’ such as family members, friends and professional translators play a critical role in facilitating intercultural communication. For instance, Bolden (2012) demonstrates how family members serve as language brokers for Russian immigrants to the United States. Bolden finds these family members play a particularly valuable role in mediating miscommunication. We have shown extensively by now how intercultural communication often leads to miscommunication due to a lack of shared cultural conventions. This chapter marks a shift from a discussion of non-shared systems to how brokers in professional and non-professional contexts cope with non-shared systems and reduce miscommunication wherever possible.

Thus, it seems appropriate to begin our applied discussion with the linguistic and cultural brokers who have made a career out of conveying linguistic and cultural differences: interpreters and translators. Interpreting and translating involve rendering information and ideas from one language to another. Interpreters are concerned with the spoken word and translators are concerned with the written or recorded word. That said, many use translation as a blanket term for referring to the activities and responsibilities of professional brokers of both the spoken and written word. In any case, perhaps more than any other professionals, interpreters and translators are at the heart of the intercultural communication process. In addition, most individuals engaging in intercultural communication find themselves playing an interpretive role of some sorts.

INTRODUCTION

All social groups have preferred ways of speaking. For instance, contemporary English greetings include hi, what’s up?, how’s it going?, how are you?, hello, how do you do? and g’day (for many Australian English speakers, at least!). Furthermore, social groups tend to have preferred ways of speaking for particular contexts. For example, how do you do? would be highly valued at a formal occasion but it would not be a good way to greet your friend in the morning. You would need something cooler, more humorous – even perhaps a loud groan!

Most languages have differing styles of communication according to:

Getting these levels correct is often called socially appropriate behaviour or politeness.

Not surprisingly, politeness formulas vary across cultures. For instance, Chinese and Indonesian speakers often greet one another by asking where are you going? or have you eaten? Individuals from Anglo-European cultures can find these questions invasive, not recognising them as mere formulaic greetings akin to how are you? In other words, a Chinese or Indonesian stranger may not care where you are going any more than an English stranger cares about your general state of being. Moreover, a lengthy explanation of the day’s eating and travel plans would be as inappropriate in China or Indonesia as a discussion of your physical or mental ailments would be in Australia, the United States or the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION

This book has sought to provide a sophisticated but accessible discussion of intercultural communication. In Chapter 1, we noted that an understanding of intercultural communication is critically related to an understanding of context. The spoken and written word may be interpreted differentially depending on context. At its most basic level, a spoken or written text may be understood in terms of its contextual felicity. In other words, we noted, drawing on Roberts (2006, p. 199), contextual felicity refers to ‘the aptness of an utterance’ in ‘expressing a proposition that one could take to be reasonable and relevant in light of the context’. Much of Chapters 2–4 were dedicated to aspects of contextual felicity. Yet, we also presented context as something that could be updated and repaired (i.e. contextual update). With this in mind, much of Chapters 5–8 were dedicated to the nuanced, structured and co-constructed nature of social life through the spoken and written word. Chapters 9–10 extended the discussion of contextual felicity and contextual update into the professional realm.

This final chapter examines the implications of the theoretical and professional knowledge of intercultural communication. The reader might consider this his or her call to action. We explore a series of studies and projects that take as their starting point the idea that successful intercultural communication is something that can be achieved. Otherwise, this book and others like it would be pointless. This chapter shows that individuals engaged in intercultural communication can draw on creative discourse strategies to circumvent some aspects of potential miscommunication. As noted in Chapter 9, a human being is capable of establishing a communicative ‘bridgehead’ with another human being even if the two individuals do not share a linguistic system (e.g. a Westerner encountering a tribesman in Papua New Guinea). In sum, to repeat an assertion made in Chapter 9, ‘there is a broad background of shared beliefs and understandings common to us all by virtue of being a human person’ (Foley 1997, p. 173).

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we turn our attention to how language may be used to position the other, with a focus on how address forms vary across cultures. Addressee reference forms have been shown to be a salient means of accomplishing goals related to politeness, power and conversational cohesion. For example, Rendle-Short (2009, p. 262) points out the address term mate ‘works to emphasize the positive attitude of the speaker toward the hearer, adding a friendly tone to the interaction, orienting to the relaxed nature of the relationship’. In this capacity, mate is mobilised in a number of speech acts (e.g. greeting, leave-taking), especially those that are potentially face-threatening (e.g. advice-giving, requests), and to flag potentially problematic talk (e.g. disagreement, lack of clarity) (Rendle-Short 2009).

Such address forms, and the stances asserted with these forms, can contribute to a person’s sense of identity and characterise ‘an individual’s position in his family and in society at large; it defines his social personality’ (Mauss 1974, p.134; see also Wolfowitz 1991; Kiesling 2004, 2009; Agha 2007; Bucholtz 2009). Wolfowitz (1991) shows how Javanese speakers in Suriname use kin terms such as ibu (‘mother’) and pak (‘father’) for task-oriented utterances not unlike those noted for mate above. Javanese identity is critically linked to one’s ability to select the appropriate kin term at the appropriate time and place. For instance, Manns (2011) shows how young Javanese university students in East Java are expected to select the kin terms mas (‘older brother’) or mbak (‘older sister’) with their more senior classmates. This is particularly the case when providing a dispreferred response in unfolding conversation (see Chapter 5). These forms and their use may be linked to the Javanese schema of sopan (in a very general sense, ‘outward- and other-concerned politeness’).