Culture as Communication Patterns:
Linguistic Aspects of Cross-cultural communication
Mira B. Bergelson
Moscow State University
mirabergelson@gmail.com
Introduction.
Revived interest to interrelations between language, culture and cognition (see (Gumperz and
Levinson 1996)) is based upon developments across a variety of language-study-related fields,
such as: linguistic typology, linguistic anthropology, ethnography of communication, language
acquisition, and cognitive linguistics - see (Bybee and Hopper 2001; Duranti 1997; Puetz and
Verspoor 2000; Slobin 1996; Sweetser 1990) for the recent and comprehensive examples of
scholarship in each of the mentioned fields, respectively.
Some of these developments are summarized in an approach that is developed by Gary Palmer
under the name of ‘cultural linguistics’ as a “synthesis of antropological linguistics with the
newly emergent field of cognitive linguistics” - (Palmer 1996 p. 290). The approach centers on
linguistic imagery, which is largely defined by culture.
Both cultural linguistics and cognitive linguistics are theories of mental imagery, as virtually all
imagery is structured by culture and personal history. Cultural linguistics employs the notions of
cultural schemas and cultural models in belief that "… all native knowledge of language and
culture belongs to cultural schemas and the living of culture and the speaking of language consist
of schemas in action" (Palmer 1996 p. 63).
In modern research on cross-cultural communication cultural schemas are used as an important
tool for analyzing discourse created and exercized within a different culture: “[t]he merit of
schema theory lies in the interface that it provides between the studies of culture, cognition, and
language. This interface is created by the fact that schemas are cognitive structures that can be
formed by cultural experiences and that can be reflected in linguistic expression. In other words,
schema theory provides a powerful tool for examining culturally determined cognitive structures
which underlie the production of distinctive discourse patterns “ - (Sharifian 2000)
Culturally grounded analysis of discourse that is targeted at defining culturally specific patterns
of linguistic interaction and mental imagery underlying it, will necessarily look for culturally
specific metaphors, discourse strategies and, thus, underlying cultural schemas.
I. Main theses:
- Cultural knowledge may be summarized in schemas
- Cultural values define interactional communication patterns
- Cultural values show up through linguistic choices that shape language production
I.1. Methods:
Two different aspects of communicative event are isolated for the purpose of this study: one is a
situation of communication, the other - discourse per se embedded within it.
1
Situational analysis of commuication failures is one research topic that allows to look at a
broader context of cross-cultural communication based on ‘contextualization clues’ - (Gumperz
1982). These allow to account for the emerging meanings that are - in the cross-cultural situation very often grounded in different cultural schemas, which may lead to misinterpretation and
misunderstanding. Generalizations based on such instances of miscommunication are
communication patterns that may reflect or be deducted from certain cultural schemas.
Discourse analysis of conversational stories in a certain culture is another way to arrive at
cultural schemas. Analysis similar to that of (Polanyi 1989) allows to develop a number of cultural
schemas specific for certain genres, but also to get the ‘story of culture’ - a set of propositions
that being put together form a narrative exposing this culture’s worldview.
Because stories consist of settings, narration of events, and evaluation, what and how is
evaluated tells a lot about the storyteller - both as individual and a member of a given culture.
Besides the cultural schemas per se, stories are culturally characterized by their discourse
structure and compositional conceptual metaphors - (Grady 1997). Both are culturally specific,
but relatively independent from the language structures. Thus one may find similar discourse
strategies used in stories told in different languages belonging to closely related (if not same)
cultures, but differing strategies for the stories told (or translated into) the same language by the
representatives of very different cultures. This is reflected in the quality of interpretation, of
recall, and general evaluation of stories - see (Kintsch and Green 1978; Scollon and Scollon
1984) for the examples involving Western/Athabaskan storytelling .
I.2. Areas:
Situational analysis of commuication failures is undertaken using the data of Russian
~Western(American/German) interactions. It is based on huge literature (usually of practicalguide type) and on my personal research. Discourse analysis of conversational stories is
exemplified by the data I have gathered during my fieldwork among the Athabaskans of inner
Alaska in 20011 and takes advantage of numerous research on Alaskan Athabaskan and White
(Nacirema) interaction.
I.3. Applications:
Cross-cultural communication studies emerged as a result of practical needs of the global
society. Findings in this field have a number of most obvious practical applications for
workplace communication, for education, and language revitalization efforts.
II. Communication patterns.
Communication patterns that may rise as different cultural schemas in cross-cultural
communication can be categorized into interactional and content-handling groups.
1.
Interactional dimension deals with so called ‘politeness phenomena’ - see (Brown and
Levinson 1987) which involve presentation of self, distribution of talk, and Face
Threatening Acts with numerous politeness strategies to mitigate them. A special point of
interest in cross-cultural studies is presence in certain cultures of Face Satisfying Acts (Yuhwei 1994).
1
This fieldwork in the village of Nikolai, Alaska was part of my Fulbright Research Fellowship in May- December
2001.
2
2. Handling-information dimension embraces various strategies ranging in scope from the level
of the clause to larger discourse units. It deals with fore- and backgrounding and availability
of information reflected in the information structure of a clause/sentence and content
organization beyond the sentence. The former, being in many languages part of the grammar,
has little to do with cultural schemas and free choice of linguistic form for their speakers.
But structuring of discourse at the paragraph (stanza, episode, scene, etc.) level and beyond
that is very much culturally bound. Indeed, it often allows to speak of cultures and
(sub)cultural groups as of representatives of a certain type of discourse - see (Scollon and
Scollon 2001).
II.1. Some Russian communication patterns
These patterns are characteristic of discourse in educational settings and in workplace (outside of
the chain of hierarchy), and in interpersonal communication.
1. Lack of deferential politeness
- Expressing and expecting solidarity politeness
- FSA: small distance between equals
2. Communication style not targeted at reaching consensus
- Starting with ‘njet!’
- Wrong or no answers to your questions
- Addressee’s responsibility for information
- Potential mistrust of ‘objective truths’
- Parallel processing of information
II.2. Russian basic world attitudes (according to (Wierzbicka 1992))
Emotional: relations are more important than reality; interpersonal reality stands for external in
many contexts.
Not-having-control: the realm of uncontrollable and, thus, unconceivable is broader.
Irrational: one can not always rely on objectivized methods of analysis and logic.
Judgemental: tendency towards and importance of ethical evaluation.
II.3. Introduction to Norhten Athabaskan cultural values
1. Traditional culture
- importance of moving
- importance of oral tradition
- ‘bush consciousness” (Scollon and Scollon 1983)
2. Specific features of Northern Athabaskans’ cultural tradition
- industriousness and self-reliance
- generosity, mutual aid, and support
- individual autonomy
- personal restraint and control (Rushforth and Chisholm 1991)
II.4. Athabaskan communication patterns
1. Deferential politeness
- non-intervention in other’s affairs is expressed literally
- Face-Satisfying-Acts: integration of knowledge
2. Handling information dimension: “The listener tells the story”
3
- oral narrative of personal experience
- narrator’s role - to give background information
- ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ manner
II.5. Some formal properties of Athabaskan narratives - avoiding the cultural ‘doublebind’.
Performing not telling
Concern with formal structuring
- signalling the end of verse, stanza, and scene
Organizing knowledge through the use of themes
Naming actions and postponing conclusions
How to use directives in Athabaskan
Literature
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness : some universals in language usage. Cambridge
Cambridgeshire ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. and P. Hopper, Eds. (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure.
Typological Studies in Language.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning : primary metaphors and primary scenes. University
of California, Berkeley. Dept of Linguistics Dissertations. Berkeley: iv, 299 leaves.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. and S. C. Levinson (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge ; New
York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch and Green (1978). “The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and
recall of stories.” Discourse Processes 1: 1-13.
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin, University of Texas Press.
Polanyi, L. (1989). Telling the American story : a structural and cultural analysis of
conversational storytelling. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Puetz, M. and M. Verspoor (2000). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Amsterdam ;
Philadelphia, J. Benjamins.
Rushforth, S. and J. S. Chisholm (1991). Cultural persistence: Continuity in meaning and moral
responsibility among the Bearlake Athapaskans. Tucson & London, The University of
Arizona Press.
Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon (1983). Face in interethnic communication. Language and
communication. J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt. London ; New York, Longman.
Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon (1984). Cooking it up and boiling it down: Abstracts in
Athabaskan children's story retellings. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. D.
Tannen.
Scollon, R. and S. B. K. Scollon (2001). Intercultural communication : a discourse approach.
Malden, Mass., Blackwell Publishers.
Sharifian, F. (2000). “Aspects of schematic processing in Indigenous speakers of Aboriginal
English.” Applied Language & Literacy Research (ALLR) 1(5).
Slobin, D. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking". Rethinking linguistic
relativity. J. J. Gumperz.
4
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of
semantic structure, Cambridhe University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture, and cognition: universal human concepts in culturespecific configurations. N.Y., Oxford University Press.
Yu-hwei, E. L.-S. (1994). What do "Yes" and "No" really mean in Chinese. Educational
linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence. J. E. Alatis.
Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.
5