Communication Across Cultures

Abstract

Communication Across Cultures is an academic reference for university students and interdisciplinary researchers who have no specialised knowledge of linguistics. Key concepts relevant to an understanding of language issues in intercultural communication are drawn from the research area of pragmatics, discourse analysis, politeness and cross cultural communication. The book examines the ways in which the spoken and written word may be interpreted differently depending on the context and expectations of the participants. Intercultural communication involves additional sociocultural dimensions to the context. Examples are drawn from a variety of languages and cultures - ranging from Japan to Germany to the Americas, to Africa and to Australia. Relevant academic literature and recent research is exemplified and explained throughout the book so readers can become familiar with the way research in this field is conducted and so that interdisciplinary researchers can incorporate some of the perspectives presented here into their own research.

Differences in Response Bias Among Younger and Older Preschoolers

“…It is also different from Japanese (Japonic language family) and Vietnamese (Austro-Asiatic language family). People need to understand others’ utterances pragmatically in a question-exchange situation, and some of the researchers have pointed out that pragmatic rules, or Gricean maxims, could be different among cultures (Bowe & Martin, 2007; Clyne, 1994; Hymes, 1986; Loveday, 1983). For example, maxims of manner are required to avoid obscurity, ambiguity, and to be brief and orderly (Grice, 1975); however, Japanese culture prefers indirect and tentative discussion about matters, and Japanese avoid plain statements (Loveday, 1983).…”

The role of face in a Chinese context of trust and trust building

“…The imposition of a view by one member of the dyad on the other member of the dyad, when two parties with possibly conflicting interests start to interact, leads to the emergence of a game during which the conditions are established under which trustworthy behavior can be expected (Dugar and Shahriar, 2012; van Witteloostuijn, 2003). The realization of the game is manifested in the rules and practices of social interchange that reflect cultural norms (Bohnet et al, 2010; Bowe and Martin, 2007; Doney et al, 1998; Eliasoph and Lichterman, 2003; Kadar and Mills, 2011).…”

“…Individuals living in a society are obliged to share communal work and benefits (Fukuyama, 2011) that over time establish cultural norms and social imperatives (Bowe and Martin, 2007; Farmer and Miller, 2013; Rest et al, 2000; Vanhala et al, 2011). Adherence to social norms is enforced by society, is culturally based, and determined by explicit or implicit imperatives (Bedford, 2004; Bell, 1998; Ehrlich and Feldman, 2003; Rest et al, 2000), to which individuals may choose to conform, or failing conformity, to accept the consequences of transgressions (Perez et al, 2004).…”

“…Proper behavior includes a moral imperative that individuals avoid causing a loss of face both for the self and for others (e.g. Bowe and Martin, 2007; Bedford, 2004; Joy, 2001; Zhang et al, 2012a). Gambetta (1988: 154) noted that “trust is a peculiar belief predicated not on evidence but on the lack of contrary evidence, a feature that makes it vulnerable to deliberate destruction.” This vulnerability is manifested in the Chinese conduct of social interaction that includes a need to preserve face (Redding, 1980).…”

Chinese and Western Leadership Models: A Literature Review

“…The idea that subordinates are entitled to humane considerations such as respect did not reappear until the last decades of the twentieth century (McCloskey, 2006;McGregor, 2006;McGregor, 1960;Nonaka & Zhu, 2012;Sergiovanni, 1992;Wren, 2005). Leaders are now expected to respect their subordinates (Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo- Metcalfe, 2009;Caldwell & Canuto-Carranco, 2010;Chen & Lee, 2008;Mohr & Wolfram, 2008;Van Quakabeke & Eckloff, 2010), interact politely (Bowe & Martin, 2007;Kadar & Mills, 2011), value the contributions of subordinates (Caldwell et al, 2008;Hui et al, 2007), involve subordinates through communication (Franken et al, 2009), and promote career development (Cheng et al, 2004). Such humane considerations are found in Chinese leadership approaches (Chen & Lee, 2008;Fu, Wu, Yang, & Ye, 2007;Jung et al, 2010).…”