Communication, Language Use and Culture - Essay Example

Introduction Culturally shaped meanings are created and interpreted in a culturally shaped context using culturally shaped codes to engender communication. These culturally shaped meanings are body signals, facial expressions, intonation, gestures, and nuances in behavior. While many emotional expressions are displayed universally, a significant part of non-verbal communication behavior varies from culture to culture. Liu (2016, p. 5) argues that people from all cultures can caress, cry and smile or even use their facial or body action to repress their emotions but to a certain degree only specific to each culture of which their interpretations may vary. According to Liu (2016), communication styles of individuals from different cultures combine both non-verbal and verbal elements and are shaped by shared norms, thinking styles, world views and cultural values. Liddicoat (2009) observes that cultures embed shared knowledge of codes and rules that are very significant and pronounced in non-verbal communication. Any discourse that is meant to appeal to the emotions of the receiver has a persuasive impact. Indeed, no other mode of communication has this emotionally repressive element than non-verbal communication. Arguably, non-verbal actions help the audience to absorb subtle hints on how the message of the speaker is to be understood. This essay, using Palestinian-Israeli interactions example, argues that meanings and the context of communication are passed through cultural codes built in individuals and intra-groups. Intercultural communication The underlying differences in thinking styles and cultural values coupled with cultural differences explain the variation in communication even with groups in a similar geographical region (Liu, 2016). As a result, intercultural communication becomes a source of conflict, distrust and misunderstanding. Culturally coded meanings and context sometimes correspond to stereotypes and prejudices that often evoke group-based identity perceptions. For example, the long standing interethnic conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews could be attributed to cultural differences in language use and coded meanings that are interpreted differently. In their relational history, the two nation states have differences in communication styles accompanied by deep-rooted differences in thinking styles and cultural values characterized by casualties, violence and strife. One way to explain this phenomenon is the impact of non-verbal communication rooted in cultural values and implied meanings of coded messages. Non-verbal communication is associated with high-context communication (Dronen, 2009, p.11). High context messages are indirect and subtle and may require the understanding of one’s patterns of discourse, values and culture (Jackson, 2006, p.111). The author concurs with Liddicoat (2009) on the existence of culturally shaped meanings by emphasizing that communication carries messages and meaning simultaneously. These meanings and messages could also be embedded in indirect oral discourse and gestures by use of etiquette expressing intent or emotions, nuances and specific code words. Jackson (2006) directly agrees with Liddicoat (2009) that people who are unfamiliar with norms of communicating meaning and its respective culture can fail to understand the circumstances or the details of an event. More so, if the cultures in question have social norms that are grounded in homogenous cultural values and tradition. The cultural context gives rise to low-context and high-context messages. Cultures that use low-context messages embody details that attach meaning to new learning. On the other hand, Jackson (2006) hints that people coming into contact with cultures that use high context messaging can get frustrated and confused owing to lack of knowledge on the unwritten assumptions required to decode the meaning of a message. Furthermore, Koinig (2016, p.50) obtains that meanings are negotiated and constituted into local cultural contexts. According to the author, human interactions are based on shared codes and symbols that are culturally shaped and internalized during ones tender age. Still, culture is subject to a constant re-definition and only becomes a participatory process when communication is factored in. Communication occurs in a cultural context it is created and received into a culture in the form of linguistic acts or language use (Hofstede, 2001). While culture influences perceptions of communication, and the interpersonal and interactional value of linguistic acts, it is expressed through language. Conceptual understanding of the world is encoded, at various levels of embeddedness, through language as a culturally constructed artefact. Myron and Koester (1998, p.30) concur with this argument by opining that the manner and art of understanding the world, determined largely by language and experience of the world, is expressive of a given culture. LeBaron (2003) observes that culture links a wide range of human experience to communication including meaning-making, identity and feelings. On the same vein, communication is a vehicle to express feelings, compose and reinforce identity and convey meanings. The possible outcomes of any interaction may be harmony or conflict depending on how the meaning systems and cultural habits are communicated (Novinger, 2001). Revisiting the Palestinian-Israeli case mentioned earlier, the Arab communication style can be regarded as elaborate, indirect and high-context. Their speech pattern, musayra, means ‘to go along with,’ or ‘to accommodate’. This communication pattern orients speakers to give attention to face saving and form harmonious social relations. Musayra has four essential features; repetitiveness, indirectness, elaboration and affectiveness. Repetitiveness is used in asymmetrical status relations to compliment and praise others. Indirectness facilitates face saving, politeness and expresses a cultural tendency to be cautious interpersonally. Moreover, elaboration creates deep connection with messages from the receiver given its use of encompassing and expressive styles. On the other hand, affectiveness maintains positive face and helps build identification with others through emotional appeal (Ellis & Maoz, 2011). On the contrary, the Israeli Jews use a low-context, pragmatic and direct communication style with more emphasis on assertiveness. Their speech pattern, dugri, or ‘straight talk’ allows for free expression of preferences, opinions and thoughts by the speaker. The speech pattern has a potential to pose a threat to the message receiver as it involves a conscious suspension of face. The Israeli Jews cultural identity is represented by dugri and has been developed over time reinforced by the Diaspora experience and historical oppression of Jews. Interpersonal interactions among them are heavily influenced by cultural values and the ability to perform dugri, in order to maintain their strength and integrity, with less attention given to maintenance of social harmony. However, Besson (2005) argues that people in different cultures have a similar understanding of non-verbal cues with some slight variations in countries and cultures. In relation to the interactions between Palestinians and Israeli Jews, their communication patterns are diametrically opposite which reinforces barriers instead of improving inter-ethnic relations between the two communities and cultures. Liu (2016) suggests that effective communication is required in facilitating intergroup dialogues between two cultural groups. The hint is to unravel the underlying values and histories in language use and linguistic acts that give rise to the stylistic differences existing. According to some scholars, use of musayra and dugri differs and has variations from intragroup interactions to intergroup interactions (Liu, 2006; Ellis & Maoz, 2011). Yet, communication settings are not conducive to intergroup dialogue despite the communication patterns featuring more in communication between intragroup members (Fitzgerald, 2002). In the Middle Eastern inter-ethnic communication setting, Palestinians argue when necessary but always take the opportunity to make and elaborate assertions as opposed to the Israeli Jews who tend to modify their aggressive styles. A context of equality in an intercultural context is possible in reducing the cultural misunderstanding owing to differences in communication styles (Hofstede, 2001). Increasing the interactions of members in the low-context and the high-context communication cultures, and partly a solution, could be more effective in enabling interactions among members. Some degree of communication accommodation is important for both parties to make useful engagement. In communication accommodation theory, Giles and Byrun (1982) posit that members of ingroups have a tendency to use similar speech style or accent and react favorably to outgroup members engaging in communication convergence. The evaluation of outgroups by ingroup members in the initial stages is based on situational norms of conversation, and in later stages of the conversation, it assumes interpersonal convergence. Communication convergence occurs when the speech style of the receiver matches the views of messages from the speaker. The key determinants in this case are the communication norm in the context and the actual style used. A communication style that can be accommodated by a stranger is perceived as having an intention to be positive (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). As a result, it promotes greater rapport between the two parties and reduces anxiety and uncertainty. In intercultural communication settings, knowing how to communicatively accommodate others is possible through understanding differences in communication styles. Language and culture has a dynamic relationship that is always at play. The ability to act and awareness of this relationship is developed by exploring the interactions of culture and language. In socio-cultural theory, Liddicoat (2009) holds that interactions entered into with other members of same culture give rise to human forms of mental activity through specific experiences from artefacts of contemporaries and ancestors. The theory emphasizes the existence of a dialectic and seamless relationship between the mental and the social domains and cannot be dichotomized (Levine & Adelman, 2002). The extent at which the human mental processes are regulated is determined by mental activities through human relationships and artefacts as well as the nature of our social world. Linguistic forms, from an intercultural perspective, embody a certain philosophy and world view and not simply a structural language feature. Liddicoat (2009) continues to assert that communication is culturally contexted through structural elements such as syntax, morphology and lexicon. Amy (1992, p.142) concurs with this point of view that the forms of language have cultural context and coded into a cultural frame to form part of meaningful elements. Lexicons best highlight the linguistic forms that is influenced by culture and recognizes that words are also embodied in conceptual systems that are biased on cultural contexts (Amy, 1992, p.142). Lexical items construct differences and similarities between category patterns in an organized physical and social universe. According to Kashima and Kashima (1998), creating social contexts and social activities that can be understood by participants are possible through language use and constructs. In a way, participants who share underlying cultural assumptions and similar language have their interpretation of communication in social dimensions as shared perceptions. The social world is created to a larger extent by the role of language. Nonetheless, possibilities of communication breakdown increase where speakers misinterpret utterances in a cultural context that shares different cultural assumptions (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). Communication and language use are intertwined in a cultural continuum that only requires the interpretive framework to narrow cross-cultural differences in understanding. People from different cultures need to communicate and understand their respective contexts to accurately predict and evaluate the behaviors, feelings and meanings of utterances and messages. As seen in the Palestinian-Israeli case, differences in interpreting meaning and context of communication likely evokes distrust and misunderstanding. Different cultures need to have a more flexible and open attitude in intercultural communication, develop patience and empathy for culturally different others. The differences in assumptions, values, perspectives and styles are potentially reduced by sharing and educating others about these differences. The world is increasingly becoming diverse and knowledge of strangers and ours can be increased through building stronger relations throughout cultures (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003). Communication breakdown emerges from different cultural contexts coming into play. The true intentions of a high-context communicator can be explicit and more direct to someone from a low-context communication culture. The low-context recipient who culturally pays closer attention to contextual cues saving face will have to adjust to understand the actual verbal message, directness, and integrity and message clarity (Chen, 2013). Yet, the sensitivity of a low-context communicator is felt during responses to situational cues and the need to use indirect communication style. Depending on the kind of relationship, people who are communicating move along the high and low context continuum. They may be less or more direct and explicit depending on the communication purpose and the situation. As Venuti (2006) observes, communication short-hand is often used in closed relationships making communication perfectly clear to the parties and opaque to outsiders. The same people can switch to low-context communication when dealing with strangers. Therefore, understanding cultural groups begins with decoding the low and high-context communication (Liddicoat, 2009). For example, the Israeli communication culture tends to gravitate toward low-context starting points as Palestinians use high-context communication bringing in many variations and important differences. Specific attention is given to behavior of others and nonverbal cues in a high-context communication environment as the unstated rules governing the communication (Erez & Earley, 1993). Directness is likely expected in return in a low-context communication. Conclusion The essay has found that communication, language use and culture are intertwined. Communication is viewed from a cultural perspective because of the complex interrelationships between culture and language. In intercultural communication perspective, interactions between cultures can be harmonious or strained depending on the level of understanding meanings, feelings and identity. This is evident in the Palestinian-Israeli interactions noted in the essay. Communication whether high-context or low-context are cultural meanings and significance because they are culturally coded in their contexts. While the dimensions of context, message and code are not a privilege of the intra-group members, harmony is located at the intersection. Language in its cultural context not only conveys meaning but also creates and interprets the meanings, feelings and identity. All these aspects exist within a cultural framework. Factually, what is communicated and how it is communicated is defined in its context which is largely affected by culture. The essay affirms that possible meanings of structural language elements such as syntax, morphology and lexicon are created, coded, communicated and understood in a cultural context. In conclusion, communication interprets culturally shaped meanings in a culturally shaped context using culturally shaped codes. List of References Besson, C., Graf, D., Hartung, I., Kropfhausser, B., & Voisard, S. (2005). The importance of non-verbal communication in professional interpretation. aiic.net. January 19, 2005. Accessed May 2, 2017. . Chen, M. K. (2013). The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. American Economic Review, 103, 690-731. Dronen, T.S. (2009). Communication and Conversion in Northern Cameroon: The Dii People and Norwegian Missionaries, 1934-1960. BRILL. Ellis, D. G., & Maoz, I. (2011). Cross-cultural argument interactions between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30:181-194. Erez, M., & Earley, P. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Fitzgerald, H. (2002). How Different Are We? Spoken discourse in intercultural communication. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Giles, H., & Byrun, J. (1982). The intergroup theory of second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17-40. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Jackson, Y. (2006). Encyclopedia of multicultural psychology. Sage Books. Kashima, E., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461-486. LeBaron, M. (2003). Bridging Cultural Conflicts: New Approaches for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Levine, D.R., & Adelman, M.B. (2002). Beyond Language: cross-cultural communication. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Communication as culturally contexted practice: A view from Intercultural Communication. Australian Journal of Linguistics 29(1), 115-133. Liu, M. (2016). Verbal communication styles and culture. Journal of Communication and culture, 4(2), 1-15. Koinig, L. (2016). Pharmaceutical Advertising as a Source of Consumer Self-Empowerment: Evidence from Four Countries. Springer. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2013). Intercultural communication in contexts (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Myron, L., & Koester, J. (1998). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal CommunicationAcross Cultures (3rd Ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing. Novinger, T. (2001). Intercultural Communication, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Read More