On Cross Cultural
Communication
George Ypsilandis ypsi@itl.auth.gr
Dept of Italian Language and Literature
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
What is the most problematic
area for teachers to coach
In Foreign Language
Teaching and Learning?
What is the most valuable
skill one would expect
students to acquire in
Foreign Language Teaching
and Learning?
The Art of Communication
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
PROBLEMS
Asynchronous Communication
PROBLEMS
Delays
in Correspondence
Monolingual
Environment
Not natural/authentic/spontaneous
ROLE PLAY
Lack of authenticity
CONFERENCING
language
Not natural
language
Genre
not particularly
friendly and
LETTER
Communication
THE DISTANT PAST
BLOG
notLimited
developing
FINAL RESULT
Written language not spoken
PHONE
Communication Becomes
Static
(fluency)
NETPHONE
and Does not motivate Language
Learning
Low motivation
due to long delays
WIKI
THE PRESENT
Email/TANDEM
UTUBE
/
CHATPAST
THETEXT
RECENT
GOOGLETALK
MOO
SKYPE
www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
SMS
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
Speed
Economical
ROLE
Simple
Convenient
THE NEGATIVE
Synchronous
Asynchronous Communication
PLAY
Communication
Genre
not particularly friendly but
CONFERENCING
Spoken Language
developing
LETTEReven
if it appears in
THE DISTANT
PAST
Lack ofBLOGS
spontaneous
written format
communication
PHONENatural Language
FINAL RESULT
Written
Language
NETPHONE
Communication does not develop. Remains at levels of
small talkTHE NEGATIVE
WIKIor new writing
New
language
and often is repeated with new
acquaintances
THE
PRESENT
system
, : (,  : )
and therefore results in shorting
wordse.g.
anda/s/l,
phrases`
UTUBE
Often ‘one
word’ communication
Email/TANDEM
Sexual harassment
www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/
GOOGLETALK
Non
paralinguistic features, such
as face grimaces, hand
CHATPAST
THETEXT
RECENT
SMS
movement,
stress, intonation, etc.
Bad quality of sound transmission
MOO
and video
SKYPE
Delayed Roundtrip
Time and location of meeting
Το πού
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.icq.com ICQ
www.paltalk.com PALTALK
www.aim.com AOL (AMERICA ON LINE)
www.mirc.com/ MIRC
http://messenger.msn.com/Xp/Default.aspx?mkt=el-gr
MESSENGER
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/netmeeting/
NETMEETING
http://www.cuworld.com/ CUWORLD
http://www.radvision.com/EnterpriseSolutions/Videoconf
erencingProducts/ClickToMeet/ CLICK TO MEET
www.skype.com SKYPE
http://www.webacall.com VOIP
http://www.voipbuster.com/en/index.html VOIPBUSTER
TYPICAL INSTANCES OF
•Generally
positive
reactions
CROSS
CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
•Model
– Language
Provider
•No
clear
results
of
language increase
Model – Language Provider
•The
teacher/researcher aims
or
uptake
Aims at uptake
at uptake
ATTENTION
Model –between
Language
Provider
•Distinction
Form
and Culture
Aimsand
at uptake
other minority languages
TANDEM•English
SYNCHRONOUS
NATIVE-NON NATIVE
NATIVE-NON NATIVE
NON NATIVE-NON NATIVE
ONE TO ONE
ONE TO ONE
MANY TO MANY
Comparisons with other studies:
Native-Non native,
many to many
CAREFUL PREPARATION
PRE-TASK – WHILE TASK – META TASK
AVOIDANCE OF HOT TOPICS
Examples of failed communication From O’Reily discussed at a pre-conference
workshop in Grenada Spain with reference to The Cultura Project
Comparisons with other studies:
Non Native-Non native,
one to one
TYPICALLY STUDIES OF CROSS CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION IN COMPUTER MEDIATED
COMMUNICATION EXAMINE:
•AMOUNT OF LANGUAGE PRODUCED (MLU)
•UPTAKE
From Ceferoglu (2007)
UNTELE conference,
Compiegne, France
Study 1: Participation and Engagement,
Amount and Confidence
1st Stage
2nd Stage
3rd Stage
Students were engaged in open
communication on specific topics
Communication was recorded and
analysed through
Adobe’s AUDITION
program
Students
were engaged in free
communication on topics
Structured Interviews Followed
of their interest
Students were engaged in
communication collecting
information for project
Participation is minimal.
Single word Phrases.
Voice is extremely low.
Discussion is only one sided.
Results: findings AUDITION
Difficult to identify
Who is who by non
Listening to the audio
Participation is small.
Phrases are short.
Phrases are not complex.
Voice is low.
Discussion is almost one sided.
Participation is increasing.
Phrases remain short.
Phrases become a little more
complex.
Voice is still low.
More engaged in Discussion.
Results: findings AUDITION
Possible to identify
Who is who even by non
Listening to the audio
Participation is equal.
Phrases are long.
Phrases are complex.
Voice is louder.
Fully engaged in Discussion.
More findings through AUDITION
Difficult to identify
Who is who by non
Listening to the audio
Student opinions and reactions
• Half the student population that was invited to
participate did not show up
• Some of those who came the first time did not show up
the second time
• Feel their language
improved
NO is
MLU
EXAMINED
• Feel their confidence in speaking the language is
increasing
UPTAKE
• Some feel they learnNO
about
target language every day
life and culture
• Did not have problems with the apparatus
• Sound was clear with no delays
• Enjoyed speaking
• Would have used it regularly
…Student reactions
• Difference in their linguistic behavior when
they speak with people of their age or
younger for topics of their interest
(One Non Native Speaker)
• Few instances of pragmatic failure
immediately negotiated
• No instances of failed communication
Study 2: Quality of Content
• Greeks writing in English (James,
Scholfield and Ypsilandis`92) for a
scholarship
• English natives evaluate the content
• Subjects are asked about their intention
(introspective data)
• Register Pragmatic Failure that had
occurred
Greeks writing in English
Direct Strategies
Strategy
Employed
Language Used
Quasilogical
Argumentation
Egocentric Language Don´t impose on
AV
your hearer Grice
(1973)
e.g. “I strongly
believe” “Iconsider” “I
am”
Affective Appeal
Charged language
e.g. “your schlsp is
my only chance” “I
hope you will not
refuse to me”
Give hearer option
Grice (1973)
Direct Demands
e.g. “I am sure… did
convince you…”
Don´t impose on
your hearer Grice
(1973)
Quasilogical
Argumentation
Pragmatic
Failure
Greeks writing in English
Indirect Strategies
Strategy
Employed
Language Used
Pragmatic
Failure
Quasilogical
Argumentation
Extensive reference
to their qualifications
e.g. “I speak… I
have… I am..”
Be as informative as
is required but no
more than that Grice
(1973)
Quasilogical
Argumentation
Charged language
e.g. “It (schlsp) will
give me the chance
to complete my
research”
Don´t impose on
your hearer Grice
(1973)
Use of
complimentary and
anticipatory
expressions
Charged language
e.g. “Thank you in
advance” “I would
like to congratulate
you”
Display of manners
Don´t impose on
your hearer Grice
(1973)
NNS evaluating Greeks writing in English
(James, Scholfield and Ypsilandis`94)
Evaluate each sentence in a Likert scale in terms of
Acceptable Neutral Unacceptable
PART
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NSs
+ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
NNs
+ x S +
-
S X X +
+
KEY
+ = considered suitable, - = considered unsuitable
S = neutral judgment, X = NNSs were divided
NNS evaluating Greeks writing in English
(James, Scholfield and Ypsilandis`94)
Evaluate each sentence in English and their own language
Acceptable Neutral Unacceptable
TLE
VERSION
Gr
Sy
Po
Port Fr
OL VERSION Gr
Sy
Po
Fr
Ge
Port Ge
Implications to Language
Quirk (1981) proposes English for International
Communication (Nuclear Engl.)
NE = ‘culture free as calculus, with no literary, aesthetic, or
emotional aspirations’
Fishman = “without love, without sighs, without tears and
almost without effect of any kind”
Colourless
language?
Implications to Syllabus
• Symbolic Cultural competence/awareness/expertise
should be included
• The art of accommodation
Which Social genre (Social Ladder)
What variation
Native and Non native
Englishes
Implications for Teaching
IMPLICIT
COST EFFECTIVE
OFFENCE GIVEN AND TAKEN
EXPLICIT
“studial capacity” Palmer `92
“ersatz” native speaker Cook `93
ETHICAL QUESTIONS
KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED
One Suggestion by Jenny Thomas
Pragmalinguistic Failure
Sociopragmatic Failure
3 PROBLEMS WITH THIS
Misformulated
Misused
APPROACH
Teacher corrects
straightforwardly
Teacher points out and
discusses
(a) No instructions for non clear-cut, mid-scale
instances: corrections on the spot-no source book
Skype does not provide a recorded version
(b) Should the learner know about this or teacher
centred (decide/correct)
(c) What pedagogic input should there be in cases of
doubt? Is there a test?
A TEST
Pragmalinguistic Failure
Misformulated
e.g. NP, this N of yours
has deprecatory overtones as in
This cat of yours has killed my canary,
PARAPHRASE
the semantic
paraphrase your cat has none.
New Language Teacher
•
•
•
•
The Grammar
The Lexicon
The Semantics and Pragmatics
The Skills
• Procedural Knowledge - Tasks
• The Culture and Rhetoric
•
•
Symbolic Expertise and Accommodation
The Socio affective parameters
•
•
Be Aware of Cognitive and Learning Style
Enhance Autonomy
•
•
Support the Learning Process (Supportive Feedback)
Provide Corrective Feedback
•
•
Organinisation skills
Ethnolinguistic knowledge
•
•
•
Knowledge on Sociology
Knowledge on the psychology of learning
Use Computers