Week 6

Language and intercultural communication

 Functions of language: the cultural perspective

 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
 Intercultural verbal communication styles: In_ Competence (P167)

Reading:
1. Ahearn, L. M. (2012). Living language: an introduction to linguistic anthropology.
Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.
2. Fred E Jandt. (2016). An introduction to IC identities in a global community. LA, London,
New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, Boston: Sage. P 128-132.
3. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: OUP.
4. Gibson, R. (2002). Intercultural business communication. Oxford: OUP.
5. Stellar Ting-Toomey. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, London: The
Guilford Press. P 85-110.
6. Ting-Toomey, S, Leeva C. Chung. (2005). Understanding intercultural
communication. New York and London: OUP.

I. Function of language: the cutural perspective (Communicating across cultures –

Page 85-110
II. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
III. Intercultural verbal communication styles – Page 58 - 65

1. Communicating across cultures (P85-110)

Language – Imprison and set us free
- Frames our expectation
- direct our perceptions
> Inter communicators achieved shared meanings > understand through effective
exchange of ver and non-ver communication.
Relationship BT cultural values & Verbal/Nonverbal communication styles
Our primary indentities: Cultural and ethnic > expressed through symbol and styles
when interacting with others
1. Human language: a coherent system
A Language names ideas, feelings, experiences, events, people
2. Language across crultures:
Cultural value orientations drive language usage in everyday lives.

Australia - Me culture Japan - We culture

A culture has a high individualism A culture has a high collectivism value

value index index
I, me, my goal, my opnion Our team, our goal, our unit
Appears everyday conversations Appear every day

Diverse functions of language across culture:

+ Group identity Function
Language is the key to the heart of culture. It serves the larger cultural identity
function
Language is important in ethnic and nationalist setiment because of its powerful and
visible symbolism

Stellar
Ting-Toomey. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, London: The Guilford
Press. P 91
Since language is learned early and so effortlessly by all children. It permeates the core of our
cultural and ethnic indentities without our full awareness of its impact. Until we encounter
linguistic differences, we may not develop an optimal mindfulness for our cultural-based “
linguistic-naming process”
Our construction of our own identities and the identities of others are closely tied with the
naming and labeling process
Ex 1: Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese culture
- [Family name] precedes [personal name] > the importance of family identity over
personal identity (Nguyễn Văn A)
Ex 2: America
(Retrieved from: https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/american-culture/american-culture-
naming)
[personal name] [middle name] [family name].
(A Văn Nguyễn)
In sum, individual construct their identities through naming > in turn, their
naming and labeling process shapes how they view themselves and others.

+Perceptual filtering Function

Language – more than a communication tool. Reflect worldview and beliefs.

An everyday language in a culture serves as a prism > individual interpret what they
perceive to be “out there”
Ex: Vietnamese culture –

A: Tuổi 17 “bẻ gãy sừng trâu”: mental, physical changes..Top performance in

physical development
Ex: Chinese culture
Xiao (the proper relationship bet children and parents)
Han xu (implicit communication) (Gao, ting-toomey, 1998)

Chinese: those sensitive to parents’ needs – speak subtly and implicitly, act as a good
listener
Are aware of facebook and emotional work in developing interpersonal relationship
considered competent communicator
Conversely, individuals disrecpectful to parents’needs > Speak bluntly or explicitly

Language permeates our social experience and ultimately shapes our cultured and
gendered expectations and perceptions. Individual’s perceptions are closely tied with
their symbolically mediated.

+ Cognitive reasoning
Benjamin Whorf (1952), has tested “the language is a guide to cultural reality”
Concludes “Language is not merely a vehicle for voicing idea but rather “is itshelf
the shaper of idea…”
Whorf believes that the grammars of different languages constitute separate
conceptual realities for member of different cultures. We experience different
cognitions and sensations via our linguistic system

+ Status and intimacy

- Use language to signify status differences such as the selective use of formal versus
informal pronouns in different languages.
- Use language to regulate intimacy through verbal means of signal friendship and
relational bonding (Brown and Gilman, 1960)
Overall, whether a particular linguistic code is selected or evoked in a given situation
often depends on the topic, the relative status of the speakers and the relational
intimacy level
+ Creactivity functions
Children reach their fourth birthday – already internalized the exceedingly complex
structures of their native toungues > a few more years > children posses the entire
linguistic system that allows them to utter and to understand sentences they have not
previously heard. (Fard, 1973)
Individuals can garner their creative potential to use language mindfully for mutual
gain and collaboration across gender and cultural groups.
II. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers
to the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks
about reality. (J.A. Lucy, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences, 2001)
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis asserts that language influenced or even determined the
ways in which people thought (Myron W. Lustig & Jolene Koester. (2006)
Intercultural competence,P 177)

III. Cross-cultural verbal communication styles (p58 – p66)

Low – context communication:
- How intention or meaning is best expressed through explicit verbal messages.
- Refers to communication paterns of direct – verbal mode --- straight talk,
nonverbal immediacy, and sender-oriented values
High – context commnication:
- How intention or meaning can be best conveyed through the context and
nonverbal channels of verbal message
- Refers to communication paterns of indirect verbal mode – self –effacing talk,
nonverbal subtleties, and interpreter-sensitive values (Ting-Toomey, 1985)
Example: In business, the Chinese people often discuss about the contract while
eating, but the American people discuss and sign the contract right in the meeting

Direct verbal style: Statements clearly reveal the speaker’s intentions and are
enunciated in a forthright tone of voice.
Indirect verbal style: Statements tend to camouflage the speaker’s actural intentions
and are carried out with more nuanced tone of voice.
Person – Oriented Styles:
- Individual – centered verbal mode that emphasizes the importance of
informality and role suspension.
- Emphasize the importance of respecting unique, personal identities in the
interaction.
Status – Oriented Styles:
- A role – centered verbal mode that emphasizes formality and large power
distance.
- Emphasize the importance of of honoring prescribed power-based membership
identities.
Self – Enhancement Verbal Styles:
- Emphasize the importance of boasting about one’s accomplishments and
abilities.
Self – Effacement Verbal Styles:
- Emphasize the importance of humbling oneself via verbal restraints,
hesitations, modest talk, and the use of self – deprecation concerning one’s
effort or performance.
Beliefs Expressed in Talk and Silence
- Silence can oftentimes say as much as words.
- Silence may hold strong, contextual meanings in high-context cultures.
- From high-context perspective, silence can be the essence of the language of
superiority and inferiority, affecting such relationships as teacher-student,
male-female, and expert-client.
- The process of silencing or refraining from speaking can have both positive and
negatives effects.