The origins of a seemingly nameless civic-social movement which later became popularly known as the “Gülen Movement” or “Hizmet Movement” date back to the early 1970s in Turkey.  The Movement’s goal is to produce “social good” throughout the world, which are manifested around peaceful activities like promoting dialogue among communities, human rights, love, tolerance, ethics, education, women’s issues, and eradication of poverty. It derives inspiration from the ideas and thoughts of Fethullah Gülen, a Muslim cleric who is known as “Hojaefendi.” The Movement has successfully nurtured a generation to establish a global network of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, media outlets, publishing houses, hospitals, dialogue centers, and relief organizations.

At its core, the Movement is a faith based social movement that takes inspiration from Islamic ideals to reinforce the civic, moral, and ethical goals of Islam. The goal is to transform individuals and society in such a way to produce a “golden generation,” which in turn provides leadership to all walks of human life.

The Movement has espoused a purely civic social aspect of Islam – as opposed to discourses of “Islam and modernity” – to universalize the message of the Movement which has ultimately paved the way for it to become transnational.

“The movement encapsulates a faith-inspired peace-invoking service. It promotes universal values, superiority of the law and human rights along with freedom of belief, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.” [1]

As the movement’s chief source of inspiration, Fethullah Gülen dwells upon the universal values of humanity as an integral part of Islam’s fundamental doctrine and values. His approach to faith bends on Sufism and this has always made him a propounder of the human-centric discourse of Islam. The goal of this discourse is to promote a civic and ethical transformation of an individual and society at large, based upon the prophetic model of insan al-kamil (perfect human being). Gülen maintains that “Morality is the essence of religion and a most fundamental portion of the divine message. The Prophet, who is the greatest embodiment of morals, said: Islam consists in good morals; I have been sent to perfect and complete good morals” [2].

Gülen further underlines that the basic dynamics of a life of action and thought is directly tied with our spiritual life, which is based upon our religious values [3]. Gülen’s very idea of hizmet, meaning “service,” reminds the spiritual fervor of Imam Rabbani’s “abadiyat,” (meaning eternity) notion, becomes in a way “service to eternal God.” The attainment of “service to eternity” can only be achieved by serving the humanity. This universal Islamic discourse of Gülen discards the need of state agencies as a perquisite to serve Islam and its interests. Rather, he maintains that Islam can best be served by participating in socially beneficial activities such as promoting peace, imparting education, providing relief and health facilities. To emphasize this point, Gülen has said; “Islam does not need a state to survive; in the modern age, civil society can independently maintain Islam even where Muslims are not in majority” [4].

These conceptual and ideological clusters helped create and broaden the vision of transnational networks of Hizmet Movement that had entered the global arena and made it to engage in a comprehensive perspective on social-civic challenges. Its transnational character became even firmer when Gülen himself moved to the United States and was actively involved in promoting and improving the overall wellbeing of society investing his robust efforts to foster dialogue and peace. Since then, themes such as peace, human rights, ethics, pluralism, altruism, reconciliation and dialogue have occupied even more space in the center of the Movement’s agenda in order to gain a better understanding of, and appreciation for, cultures, histories, civilizations and traditions.

Despite its current national experience in its homeland Turkey differs widely in terms of the social relevance and political interactions, at the transnational level one can hardly doubt that the Movement has progressively developed an ability to address and mobilize around problems of a social and civic nature.

Unlike many other Islamic modernist movements including Salafism and al-Nahdah in Arabia, the Muhammadiyah movement in Indonesia, the Aligarh and Nadwa movements in India, the Hizmet Movement has been characterized by mass interaction and participation at local, national, and transnational levels. This interaction and participation have attracted thousands of volunteers across the globe and have generated a global network of thousands of socio-cultural institutions including schools, coaching centers, universities, hospitals, dialogue centers, relief organizations etc. Their transnational networks active on global and local civic social issues have multiplied, built alliances with national and supranational civil actors including UN’s institutions, and influenced their views and actions.

Professor Anwar Alam maintains:

“Hizmet is a transnational civil society movement calling up everyone to collaborate around a common ideal of good work for humanity. The movement aims to facilitate an environment in which all can work together in a pluralistic, peaceful, all embracing spirit and voluntary altruism, regardless of subscription to a certain faith.” [5]

Unlike other movements, Hizmet’s most effective paradigm of conceptualizing such an unusual combination of coalitions, coordination, and diversities of convergence and pluralism, of national and transnational struggles is an example of a model grassroots movement.

Transnational networking of the Movement has emerged as a crucial aspect of its global activities and as the main form of organizational linkage between local nation-based civic actors to the cross-border activism of Hizmet. The Movement aptly fits into Robert Putnam’s theory on “Social Capital” which refers to “the connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Hizmet’s transnational network is a result of its employment of “social trust” and “reciprocity.”

Thus, these forms of movement within Hizmet can be characterized by voluntary horizontal and, at times, vertical patterns of coordination that are reciprocal and asymmetrical. Within the Hizmet Movement, in particular, the transnational network can be understood as maintaining coordination among different civil society actors including both organizations and individuals such as experts, located in several countries, based on a shared frame of work, and investing joint efforts for common good. Being a faith based movement, the crucial factor that motivates its volunteers is, as Anwar Alam rightly observed, “the in-built Islamic cognitive structure of the ‘ikhlas-iman-hijrah-dawa’” linkage that provides the motivational resources for the expansion of the movement.” While detailing the micro structure of the Movement he concluded, “in short, the whole Hizmet Movement runs on the informal principle of consultation, trust, cooperation, and faith” [6].

In spite of the different perspectives and viewpoints in course, the Movement flourished as a self-organized and self-sustained actor on the global scene with its own policy priorities and agenda for social-civic changes. The Movement is clearly transnational in its very nature and in the reach of its activism that converges in fostering universal values. While having such a vivid picture of the transnational character of the Movement, one can rightly argue that this transnational character became the reason the Movement not only survived but thrived, in wake of the so called failed coup attempt of 2016 and subsequent witch hunts and purges that were launched by the Turkish regime.

References

1 Alam, Anwar. 2019. For the sake of Allah, The Origin, Development, and Discourse of the Gülen Movement. Blue Dome Press, USA, p. 28.

2 Gülen, M. Fethullah. 1998. Towards the Lost Paradise. Izmir: kaynak.  Al-Bukhari, “Al-adab-ul-Mufrad” no. 273, and  Ibn-Sa’ad, “al-tabaqat” vol.1, p. 192.

3 Ibid, p. 87.

4 Quoted in Mustafa Akyol, “What made the Gulen Movement Possible” in International Conference Proceedings: Muslim World in Transition: Contributions of the Gülen Movement, Leeds Metropolitan University Press, London, October 2007, p. 31.

5 Alam, op. cit. p. 27.

6 Alam, op. cit. p. 159-164.

Current trends in language studies

Of the various functions of language one is its meaning making, knowledge producing activity. Various theories of language and discourses produce different kinds of knowledge, meaning, reality and truth-claims. Over the last four decades much academic discussion dealing with language has started out with its value-laden entwinement with ideology. Language’s ambiguous nature, culture-specific character, indeterminacy of meaning and the ways in which it shapes and controls our perceptions of the world, have been studied in the social and political context. Consequently, there has been proliferation of such diverse disciplines as psycholinguistics, socio-linguistics, and post-colonial studies. Research in language use has tended to focus on its power to shape our perceptions of the world within hierarchical structures of power which are both formulated and upheld by language. Language has been studied as social capital, an instrument for establishing cultural hegemony, a form of manipulation and conquest, a discourse of power embedded in ideology in the context of education, interpersonal and mass communication, business, propaganda, advertisements, natural sciences and translation studies.

The truth-claim of the designative tradition in the philosophy of language, based as it is on nominalism and naturalism, limits meaning to word-object relation only, and reduces reality to mere physical phenomena that can be quantitatively measured and explained. This exclusive, separatist, Cartesian focus on mirroring objective reality ends in scientific materialism and determinism, which leaves no room for the noblest reaches of spiritual life. On the other hand, if the twin emphasis on how discourse is both constituted by and constitutes the socio-cultural world and the notion that discourse is invested in and contributes to the (re)production of power relations in society, ends in cultural materialism, likewise the poststructuralist marginalizing of external reality, exaggerated one-sided emphasis on hermetically closed system of textuality, regression and deference of meaning results in nihilism.

Breaking free from linguistic reductionism

If it is to have a future, the philosophy of language has to break free from cultural narcissism, solipsism, and linguistic reductionism. It has to make a connection between the fullness of life and language. The idea of reality needs to be extended to make room for the complexity of full human experience-the Transcendental and the temporal and spatial, the Eternal and the historical, the spiritual and the physical, the sacred and the secular. Regrettably research in language studies has not been carried over into the domain of mystical discourse. The absence of an adequate study of the need, nature, function, effect and context of language in leaping up to Transcendence, neglect of the study of the relationship between language and faith in mystical discourse in various theories of meaning and reality is symptomatic of a deep problem in our current views of our cognition of reality. The difficulty is not a matter of mere oversight. The problem is far more distressing, for it concerns our entire orientation towards these issues, which is based on a set of presuppositions that deny God, spirituality, mysticism, and sacredness a central role in the constitution of reality. The paradigms of positivism and empiricism are still regarded as organizing forms which exclude transcendence and subjective mystical experience as integral parts of the fullness of life.

Despite the fact that since the 1970s the study of mysticism has completely transformed, it has yet to draw the attention of linguists, literary critics and philosophers of language. Far from being regarded as sentimentalism and deviation from religion or abnormal behavior it has come to be recognized as an account of sublime spiritual experience. The labors of religions psychologists, like the work of William James (1982) disentangled it from psycho-physical accidents and no responsible student now identifies mysticism with confusion of thought. The philosophical and theological landscape with its increasing emphasis on Transcendence, respect for the idea of the sacred, growing recognition of the distinctness, independence and need of the spiritual order and a revival of the creaturely sense, strongly contrast with the temper of the nineteenth-century thought. The metaphysical claims of mystics are now recognized as truth-claims. The warm welcome given to Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy (1926) has been followed by renewed interest in the sacred. Yet in spite of the adjustments required by such a shift in philosophical outlook, language theorists have yet to enrich their insights by gleaning from the field of mysticism. Wittgenstein’s catalogue of “language games” includes prayer but it does not move beyond formal prayer to private prayer, munajat, “a prayer of intimate conversation between God and man during which words of love and affection are exchanged and consolation is found for the afflicted heart.” The linguist’s inquiry does not address issues of the meaningfulness, force and effect of language constructs in the mystical discourse and context. This constitutes a very large gap in scholarship on language.

The profundity of thought, sublimity of emotion and esthetic beauty of the works of Muslim mystics has gained international attention and respect by virtue of their translation into different languages and the commentaries on them-Massignon’s French volume on Mansur al-Hallaj (1922), Chittick (2000), Nicholson (1964, 1970, 1989), Arberry (1956, 1979) and Schimmel’s works (1975, 2003) in English on Muslim mystics in general and in particular on Al-Hujwiri and Maulana Rumi, Margaret Smith on Muhasibi (1935), and Rabia (1994), Schimmel’s German volume on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (1981). Maulana Rumi has emerged as the most widely read poet in the United States because of the accessibility of translations of his work into English.

Rationale

Why Sufi poetry? The devastation caused by the two world wars, for the first time shook the Western world into realizing a two-fold need .The first was of “a deeper understanding and appreciation of other peoples and their civilizations, especially their moral and spiritual achievements.” The second need arose from the strong call for “a new vision of the Universe, a clearer insight into the fundamentals of ethics and religion.” What should be the criteria for living a decent life? Can the nations be brought together? Is there a God of love or simply a blind, mechanical, impersonal force behind the chance collocation of atoms? What is the nature of the relationship between man and God? Can man reach out to Him or does He remain inaccessible? This quest led men and women to dig out what the mystics, the greatest minds of East and West, who by common consent are accepted as the people of God, have thought and said about the truth of God.

This was, according to Arberry, one of the main objectives behind a series of translations of Sufi (Islamic mystical) literature and commentaries on them, showing the background against which this kind of literature arose and developed. The translator of Sufi literature emerged in the role of the guide who shows the way to treasures. Arberry (1956) wrote, “Mankind is hungry, but the feast is there, though it is locked up and hidden away.” The aim of translations was to put that feast within reach, so that, like “the Heroes of Homer, we may stretch out our hands to the good cheer laid before us.”

Unfortunately this aim has not yet been realized. Since 9/11 nations have drifted even further away from each other. Misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misrepresented, seething with the consuming passion of mistrust and hatred, the world today is once again standing on the brink of disaster. We behave in this wasteland like hollow men who eschew eye contact with each other, who can connect nothing with nothing, and talk only about the clash of civilizations. We need to open our eyes to the beauty of the emotion of love shared by all the religions and traditions of mysticism. No doubt, the great religions differ in fundamentals, but the essence is the same, and that is compassion and it is that which brings the great religions together on a strong spiritual footing.

The transformative spirit and power of Sufi poetry was later voiced once more by a Western scholar, Karen Armstrong, who viewed her access to the Holy Qur’an and Sufi literature through translations as a “very liberating experience.” She discovered expansion, pluralism and compassion in Islam. Since then it has been her jihad, as she puts it, to enlighten her people in the West about the true spirit of Islam and dispel misunderstandings, prejudices, and negative stereotyping of Muslims.

Another motive which should precipitate translation of Sufi poetry is the need to fill the gap in scholarship on language. Language has a complex character. It can perform diverse and contradictory functions. Like the two-faced Roman God Janus, language has an ambivalent character; it can equally disclose and hide, construct and destroy, inspire and demoralize, liberate and imprison, clarify and distort, heal and hurt. Sufi literature brings forth the paradox of the inadequacy of words to express and convey the mystical experience and insight, and on the other hand the meaning, power and need of words. Sufis always say that their experience is ineffable, yet they couch their feelings and experiences in words and express them with great conviction, force and eloquence .If the spiritual experience and the vision are unutterable and beyond expression and words are inherently incapable of expressing something which is beyond the comprehension of intellect (because words are the tools of intellect to conceptualize) then these questions are immediately raised:

1. What is the nature of language in Sufi poetry?
2. What does a Sufi describe?
3. How do the words function?
4. What is the purpose of this functioning?

First, Sufi poetry is highly metaphorical in nature. The illogical logic in Sufi poetry addresses the “ontological” status of metaphor in relation to how things actually are: the unreality of the phenomenal world and the way it should be “seen as something else.”

Second, Sufi literature reveals and describes the most profound spiritual truths disclosing the esoteric aspect of Islam, as the very titles of many Sufi treatises demonstrate. Kashf-Al-Mahjub, the oldest Persian treatise of tasawwuf (Sufism), written by Ali Bin Uthman Al-Hujwiri, means the “Unveiling of the Veiled,” and in his own words it is “an explanation of mystical sayings, and an uplifting of the veil of mortality.” Long before Derrida used the word “translator” for a writer, Sufi writers saw themselves in the role of translators, who transfer, reconstitute and interpret divine truths from the transcendental domain to the context of this physical world.

This makes us move on to the function that language performs in Sufi literature. Sufi poetry displays the close relation between language, belief, understanding and truth. Sufi poetry by its very nature engages us in a dialogue with the Transcendental. Not only does it initiate the move to relate, it then becomes the means of consolidating and strengthening the bond, and expanding understanding of the nature of relationship.

Here language becomes a way of showing the way to harmony and peace that passes understanding. Words do not strain, slip and crack here. They are meaningful, not illusory nor simulacra. They create meaning: meaning is not endless regression here. Language in Sufi poetry is not “a prison house” outside which no reality lives. Functioning as a therapy, Sufi poetry sprouts hope and shows possibilities of breaking through impasse, becoming a source of strength and inspiration. It reanimates and “brings dead hearts to life.”

Sufi poetry has constitutive value; it constitutes who we are, how we should think and live. It sets the parameters of our life by pressing upon us the ideal of love and compassion. Making us see beyond the mere referential value of word-object relationship, it offers a dynamic and creative view of language.

Thus, Sufi poetry develops an optimistic relationship between humankind and language. Just as mystical experience is liberating, likewise language is seen as a liberating force, expanding and promoting human well being, rather than being constrictive as Derrida, the philosopher of language, claims it to be.

Integrating the sacred with the secular

Research in the translation of Sufi literature becomes a way of reintegrating “the sacred with the secular” in today’s disenchanted world. The way language in Sufi literature creates and extends meaning and reality is nowadays ignored because of the Post-structuralist emphasis on culture, ideology and indeterminacy of meaning in language. But the significance of language as a “meaning-making” activity, a way of knowing and understanding Transcendence, a means of creating a bridge across diverse religions and cultures validates such comparative studies. Truth may be at stake. A researcher and a scholar like the translators, critics, historians, journalists and professors of literature can break or make a writer on his/her own terms. Research acquires the power of Plato’s pharmakon, both “poison” and “remedy.” The power invested in the researcher to change texts and so change the world should be increasingly recognized.

The researcher may intervene in the interpretation of text for different reasons and use research to serve various functions. If an interpretation is yoked to a political or national agenda it may manipulate language to construct meaning not intended by the original text. In this way research ceases to be a means of knowing the truth. It becomes manipulation, subsuming the original meaning into its own hegemonizing voice. In generating erroneous perceptions of a work and the doctrine it is embedded in biased or erroneous interpretation assists in promoting negative stereotypes. Inauthentic and distorted versions of Sufi literature were instrumental in re-presenting Islamic mysticism as a form of Bacchanalian ecstasy. Research can thus do more harm than good by repressing, distorting or containing the original meaning.

In its positive aspect, by being faithful to the original meaning of the text, research can promote good will through intercultural dialogue, expand understanding about other religions and literatures, and promote peaceful coexistence. The aim should be to deepen understanding and expand awareness about the complexity of the web of language use in making Sufi poetry.

Aalia Sohail Khan is an associate professor of English in the National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.

References

• Arberry A.J. Muslim Saints and Mystics. Trans. Tadhkirat-al-Auliya by Farid al-Din Attar. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966.
• Medina, Jose. Language: Key Concept in Philosophy. London: MPG Books Limited. 2000.
• Schimmel, Annemarie. As Through a Veil: Mystical Poetry in Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
• Underhill, Evelyn, Mysticism: A study in the nature and development of Man’s spiritual consciousness. New York: Meridian Books, 1960.

No one else, you, the candidly expected

A voice unreserved, sentimental

Nourishing sermons forever in memories

The sublime pundit,

Within an exalted sound

You left us an earnest legacy

More than a touching discourse

Guiding the devout minds

Into soulful sincerity.

Interpretations, assumptions and expectations

In situations of cross-cultural communication it is not only what happens or what is said that is important, it is how participants interpret the interaction which ultimately counts. It is this interpretation which guides our perception of meaning and our memory of other people. Most of us draw conclusions about others from what they say, or rather from what we think they mean. The gap between what we think others mean and what they intend to say can occur in any communication. This gap is often wider in cross-cultural contexts. This is evident when there is a lack of knowledge of the common language of communication, say English, which may he a second or foreign language to one or both sides. Less obviously the gap is often wider because in intercultural communication participants may not realize that they are using language in different ways which go beyond purely linguistic competence. Our consideration of cross-cultural communication needs to include: discourse competence in which conversations or texts may be structured using different principles; sociolinguistic competence in which language users may draw on differing ideas about who may speak to whom, on what sorts of topics, on what kinds of occasion, in what manner and for what purposes; cultural competence in which cultural norms and beliefs are used to interpret actions and language behaviour and to attribute values and interpretations to interaction. The problem is that our own perception of these aspects of language use is influenced by our own cultural background. It is all too easy to be unconsciously ethnocentric about such matters and to assume that our way is normal, logical or better than those ways used by speakers who come from other cultural backgrounds.

An analogy illustrates this point. In Figure 1 the middle item may be interpreted as a letter B or as a number 13, depending on whether it is read vertically or horizontally. Our interpretation depends on the context of what system we expect to use, in this example an alphabetical or numerical context.

In learning English, students need to be constantly alert for shifts in meaning as participants use varying systems and principles of interpretation. Objectively, the form and shape of the middle item in Figure 1 has not changed. Subjectively, the meaning can he completely different when the figure is seen in an alphabetical or numerical context. Different contexts lead to different expectations which in turn lead to different interpretations of the same object. Similarly, the context of our own culture may lead us to interpret another person’s words, behaviour or attitude quite differently from the way in which that person intends them to be interpreted. We may not be aware of the patterns of interpretation which members of a particular culture use.

In our own culture we can afford to take much communication for granted. Since childhood we have learned what word, normally mean, how and why things are said. Our own culture has provided us with a framework of working principles and systems of interpretation which most of us automatically use every day. We do not need to work out how to use greetings or apologies, how to respond to invitations or compliments, how to take turns or interrupt others, or what silences might mean. In learning to use a foreign language, however, we need to be aware that speakers of the target language may be using quite different assumptions and systems for such ways of using language. We need to become aware of alternatives. We need to expect the unexpected. We need to check our interpretations of what is apparently obvious.

Levels of communication

Language is like an iceberg: some aspects are visible with fairly obvious meaning, but a larger part is hidden or taken for granted.

The greater the foreign language skill in pronunciation, grammar or vocabulary, the greater the danger that the other hidden levels of communication may come into play. Participants on both sides will assume that they mean the same thing by different gestures or patterns of discourse, but in fact they often have quite different interpretations. Hearers often that if a speaker has a reasonable level of skill in the obvious areas of words, grammar and pronunciation then the speaker will he equally skilled in the other kinds of competencies. Often this is not at all the case, especially if the speaker’s foreign language learning has concentrated on language competence. Many learners of English have focussed their main attention on learning words and grammar. In many foreign language classrooms little attention is given to the role of culture and cross-cultural communication.

Words

For many students, learning a foreign language is all about learning words. The students’ aim seems to be largely to acquire a knowledge of a wide vocabulary, concentrating on new and difficult words. These students may not realize the importance of learning new meanings to known words, especially apparently simple words. However, simple words often turn out to have unexpected cultural meanings, as the following dialogue noted in Britain shows.

In this situation, A is an Arabic speaker, a visitor to Britain. She was only expecting a cup of tea and was puzzled by the offer of food. The British hostess (B) was upset that A had already eaten since she had, she thought, specifically invited A for food. The source of the misunderstanding is the word ‘tea’ which in Britain, especially among lower social classes, often means an early evening light meal. Although A speaks excellent English and is, in fact, an experienced university English teacher in her own country, she had not realized that a simple word like ‘tea’ can have different cultural meanings.

Similarly, ‘simple’ common words used in idioms can often catch out learners who are used to concentrating on ‘difficult’ words. The word ‘house’, for instance, takes on a variety of unexpected meanings in such examples as ‘The comedian really set the house on fire’ (the comedian got a good response from the audience, or ‘house’), The drinks are on the house tonight’ (the owner or manager will pay for all the customers’ drinks), ‘After the minister’s speech the House rose at nine’ (the members of the House of Commons, in the British Parliament, went home at nine o’clock).

Grammar

Grammar can often present unexpected difficulties in cross-cultural communication when learners of another language have not worked out the relationship between grammatical form and language function. This happened in the following example in Britain where a British person (B) wants to visit a Chinese student (C) in her room.

The problem ‘here is that the expression ‘do you mind it’ is a polite form of a request which anticipates a negative response, No, I don’t mind…’. C realizes that this is a request but responds only to the function, ‘Yes’ (meaning ‘Yes, do come in’). Since C has not responded with the expected negative grammatical form this leaves B to understand that she is busy (‘Yes, I do mind, I am busy at the moment’) . Fortunately, B did not leave immediately after C’s first response and the misunderstanding was cleared up.

Pronunciation

Clearly when words are mispronounced this can cause problems in cross-cultural communication. This usually happens when speakers have poor pronunciation or confuse words. Less obvious problems can crop up when fluent speakers of English, for instance, are influenced by local varieties of the language. This would be perfectly acceptable in local situations but can cause difficulties when English is used in international contexts. For example, Malaysian speakers of English may stress the second syllables of words like ‘colleague’ or ‘management’ where speakers of other varieties of English expect to hear the stress on the first syllable. Since the difference in stress is also accompanied by changes in the pronunciation of stressed or unstressed vowels (schwa) this can cause momentary confusion. More seriously, hearers’ perceptions of speakers of a language like English are influenced by the fact that stress and intonation commonly convey attitudes. Thus in English a heavy falling intonation can mean definiteness, abruptness or rudeness. Unfortunately, Arabic speakers who learn English have often not been taught this and they transfer Arabic falling intonation patterns to English. One result is that English hearers sometimes perceive the other group (wrongly) as being aggressive or pushy. A solution is to raise the learners’ awareness of the meanings of various intonation patterns in English and the attitudes which might be interpreted from their use.

Body Language

The same gestures or body language may express quite different meanings in different cultures. In Northern Europe yes’ is generally signalled by a downward head movement or up-and- down nodding. In contrast, in Turkey and neighbouring countries a common gesture for ‘no’ is an upward movement of the head, easily mistaken for the European ‘yes’ by those who are unfamiliar with Turkish people. Further scope for misunderstanding arises because the Turkish ‘no’ is often accompanied by a click of the tongue. This noise and the upward head movement means ‘you are stupid’ in Britain! There are cultural differences in the use of space, e.g. how close to others people expect to stand or sit. Many Latin Americans or people from the Middle East prefer to come quite close to their hearers when talking. This shows friendliness and solidarity. North Americans or Northern Europeans, on the other hand, tend to keep more space between themselves and hearers. This shows their awareness of the other person’s individuality and need for personal space.When speakers from the USA and Saudi Arabia, for example, come together they may feel uncomfortable without knowing the reason. Both parties unconsciously try to maintain their own natural polite and friendly distances, The American may feel the Arab is aggressive or pushy when the latter comes close, while the Arab may believe the American is unfriendly or untrustworthy if that person keeps moving away.

Further cross-cultural mismatches can occur in eye contact. Whether and how listeners look at a speaker’s eyes varies from culture to culture. One contrast seems to be that in Britain and the Middle East listeners gaze at a speaker’s eyes to show that they are listening and showing respect whereas in many parts of Africa and Asia this can signify disrespect or anger and be interpreted as insulting. On the other hand, the African or Asian manner of showing politeness, respect and honour to a speaker – by lowering one’s gaze or looking below the other’s eyes – can be interpreted as disinterest, suspicion or guilt by British or Middle Eastern listeners.

Even a smile can cause problems, as an American teacher in Taiwan discovered. One of her students arrived late. He was smiling. She became angry and said, ‘You are late and it’s not funny. Take that smile off your face. He then became very upset because she had publicly become angry with him. Later she realized that a smile is not always a sign of humour – the student was smiling with embarrassment. Such potential sources of difficulty are not likely to be pointed out by participants in cross- cultural situations. Openly drawing attention to misunderstandings may be thought impolite or over-direct unless the speakers are well known to each other.

Discourse Patterns

Speakers from different cultures make use of different discourse patterns in the way they structure information or interpret what others say. Even silence is used to structure discourse: participants know by the length of a pause that a speaker has finished speaking and they can take a turn. However, the exact timing of such turn taking can vary. Among many Greek speakers the pauses between turns are minimal; speakers alternate rapidly and overlaps between one speaker and the next are common and arc accepted as showing solidarity between speakers who understand each other. In contrast, in Scandinavia and Finland such pauses are often one or two seconds longer as members of those cultures show respect and perhaps think carefully about what they want to say. In cross-cultural situations between these two different groups it is very likely that English will be used as a common language of communication. Greek speakers report that they feel there are long silences between themselves and Scandinavians, which leads them to wonder if they have said something wrong or (given that Scandinavians are often highly competent in English) whether they have made a language mistake. As a result the Greeks feel rather insecure (unnecessarily). The Scandinavians meanwhile feel that the Greeks keep interrupting them. They feel (wrongly) that the Greeks are aggressive.

Important cultural differences can emerge when we consider where a speaker puts the main point. Chinese speakers frequently put the main point near the end of what they say. First they establish common ground and give relevant background information before they lead the hearer up to the main point. Sometimes this point only gets a brief mention – after all, it will be clear to the listener familiar with this discourse pattern where the argument is going. This kind of inductive discourse pattern seems to be oriented to the hearer. Many British and American speakers, in contrast, use a more deductive discourse pattern which is more oriented to the speaker in this second pattern the speaker usually gives an early indication of what is to come. Often the main point conies right at the beginning, especially if the speaker is answering a question in a formal situation. The idea seems to be to get to the heart of the matter quickly. Background information or supporting arguments follow. Since the hearer already has a good idea of the main point, it is clear how this background information will be relevant. Each of these contrasting discourse patterns is completely valid and can he taken for granted in its own cultural context. In cross-cultural situations the differences can cause problems. British people listening to Chinese speakers expect the main point to come quickly. Not hearing one, the British may become impatient or lose concentration and miss the point when it finally comes. Some British listeners report that they think the Chinese keep ‘beating around the bush’, they go round and round but don’t seem to get to the point. Chinese listeners expecting the background first often feel they do not get this information from British speakers so they sometimes miss the significance of the main point or do not see the logic behind it. It would help if both sides realized that for the British the background comes from the main point, while for the Chinese the background leads up to the main idea.

Sociolinguistic Uses

Sociolinguistic uses of language relate closely to discourse patterns, but there is greater emphasis on the social context and variation. For instance, to ask a person’s age, how much they earn or whether they are married is acceptable in all cultures, but in very different circumstances. To ask such questions of a stranger is normal in Turkey or China hut quite unexpected in Britain, America or Australia. Western tourists in Turkey or China may not appreciate the friendliness behind such questions. Instead they may think that local people are too curious about what they think are private matters or questions for job interviews. They would prefer to talk about the weather or their jobs (but these may not be such interesting topics in Turkey or China).

Part of the challenge in learning a foreign language is to learn how to manage [he sociolinguistic uses of the language. At a simple level this means understanding how greetings vary across the world. In China, ‘Have you eaten?’ is a greeting, not an indirect invitation to a meal. In Fiji or Malaysia, ‘Where are you going?’ is not always an enquiry about a person’s destination, but again is a greeting. In Botswana, a greeting is ‘How did you wake up?’. Each language also has many informal greetings. An Indonesian student in Britain (I) did not realize this when greeted by a British teacher (B) at a bus stop:

B Hello. How’s it going?

I I’m going home.

This left B puzzled. His greeting had not been returned and he wondered why the student mentioned he was going home. Later he realized the student was about to catch the bus.

The sociolinguistic uses of compliments can cause dilemmas about the nature of the expected response, as this dialogue between a Chinese speaker (C) and a British visitor (B) shows.

C Your Chinese is very good.

B Oh, thank you

This dialogue looks harmless until we consider what each speaker is thinking. C thinks B must be very boastful: B’s Chinese is not, in fact, good and C expected B to say, ‘No, no, it’s very bad’, since in Chinese a compliment should be rejected to show modesty. B is much happier: he has been complimented and he has thanked the Chinese speaker for his kind thoughts; he is not, in fact, immodest but is following the English rule that a response to a compliment often relates to the complimentary, not to the content.

Cultural Presuppositions

In many instances of cross-cultural communication it is important to understand the cultural presuppositions which lie behind speakers’ words and their expectations and interpretations. For instance, a Chinese student (C) asks a British person (B) for help.

C Can you help me?

B I would like to help you….but I’m afraid I can’t because….

When C heard the first words she was very happy, believing she would get help; when she heard the second phrase she was very disappointed. She thought, ‘Why did you raise my hopes and then let me down?’ She concluded that B was hypocritical. It would help if she understood the cultural presuppositions that B is using: first, to show good will and kindness by saying he would like to help, then moving to the main point that he cannot help before explaining why not. A Chinese speaker would probably give the reasons for not helping first before concluding that it was impossible: this would prepare the hearer for the bad news.

Many Chinese and Latin Americans respond to personal invitations by accepting to come, but when the day arrives they may not turn up. This has left many British and North American hosts puzzled, thinking: why did they promise to come, then break their promises? Can they he trusted? But this interpretation misses the Chinese or Latin American cultural presupposition behind their reply: it is better to show good will, by accepting and perhaps not go, than to refuse and bring immediate disappointment to the potential host. This shows regard for the hosts face, and for that of the person invited, who does not have to provide an excuse for refusing the invitation. Thus the Chinese and Latin Americans in this situation base their reply on social values, while the British and North Americans put truth values first. If this is understood, the situation becomes easier on both sides, although there will still be further variation depending on whether the invitation is by telephone, letter, or face to face, on whether it is a group invitation and how well the people know each other.

Fundamentally, relevant cultural presuppositions relate to how members of a culture view the world, how they think about human nature, time, space and society. Also crucial are the balance between individual and social identity, the role of language in social relations and getting things done, and how concepts of politeness and face are realized in interaction. Probably all of these is important in all cultures, hut the nature and emphasis of each may vary.

Some Caveats

When we consider cross-cultural communication it is natural to consider cross-cultural differences but we should first remember that cultures have much in common: we are all members of humanity, there has been extensive interaction between cultural groups for centuries and for most of the time most people get along very well with each other. Differences and problems should not obscure common elements.

Secondly, we need to remind ourselves that generalities about cultural groups do not always apply to individuals. There is always individual variation even in those cultures which emphasize collective thinking and action. Every culture has some balance between unity and diversity, between the individual and the group, between expected conventional responses and freedom of choice.

Thirdly, while general insights are very helpful we also need to bear in mind that different situations elicit different responses even in the same culture. Situational variation is common and much cultural activity is determined by context even in those cultures which stress principles which apparently transcend contextual variation.

Fourthly, in thinking about cross-cultural communication we should avoid a tendency to think about ‘us’ and ‘them’- For example, it is very useful to analyse some cultures (like British, French, German, American) as being individualistic, since they put emphasis on the individual, and other cultures (say Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Indian) as being collective, since they tend to emphasize the group. But in using such binary categories we should remember that any culture probably has both individualistic and collective tendencies – it is a question of emphasis and relative balance.

Some Conclusions

We have looked at cross-cultural communication from a foreign language perspective. We have emphasized that it is not only cross-cultural language and behaviour which count but also participants interpretations of situations and people, since this interpretation often frames perceived meaning. Our own culture provides us with systems of interpreting language and interaction and in cross-cultural situations we need to be aware of these systems and endeavour to transcend them. Here, we have used a framework of different levels of communication to discuss how the more obvious levels of words, grammar and pronunciation often obscure the crucial role of body language, discourse patterns, sociolinguistic uses of language and cultural presuppositions. In face-to-face communication all these levels usually work simultaneously, in combination,

Speakers’ or hearers’ attitudes can be influenced by their interpretations, which in turn can be influenced by their own cultural systems. There can be a vicious circle here: cultural expectations can lead to different language use, which can lead to miscommunication. This in turn can lead to wrong assessments and stereotypes of participants from other cultures, which cart reinforce or mould cultural expectations, and so on. However, a major way to break such vicious circles is to be aware of possible difficulties, to have some knowledge of other cultures, and to try to develop intercultural skills.

To finish on a positive note, it is worth remembering that most of the time people from different cultures do get on with each other: as members of different cultures we share a common humanity. Good will and a friendly smile can overcome many barriers. Patience, trust and sensitivity are part of an international language of humanity which goes beyond words.

FURTHER READING ON THE TOPIC BY THE AUTHORS

• CORTAZZI, M. (1990) ‘Cultural and Educational Expectations in the Language Classroom’ in B. Harrison (ed.) Culture in the Language Classroom, pp.54-65, London: Macmillan.
• JIN, L. CORTAZZI, M. (1993) ‘Cultural Orientation and Academic Language Use’ in I). Graddol, L. Thompson, M.Byram (eds.) Language and Culture, pp.84-97, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• CORTAZZI, M. JiN, L. (1994) ‘Narrative Analysfis: applying linguistics to cultural models of learning’ in D.Graddol, J. Swann (eds.) Evaluating Language, pp.75-90, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• CORTAZZI. M.; JiN, L. (1994) ‘Ways with Words – Chinese students’ learning of English vocabulary’in D. Dai (ed.) Papers from the Second International Symposium on ELT, pp.1 5-28 Taipei: ETAROC.
• JIN, L; CORTAZZI, M. (1995) ‘A Cultural Synergy Model for Academic Language Use’ in P. Bruthiaux; T. Boswood; B. Du-Babcock(eds.) Explorations in English for Professional Communication,pp.41-56, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.
• JiN, L. CORTAZZI, M. (1996) ‘Changes in Vocabulary Learning in China’ in H. Coleman & L. Cameron (eds.) Change and Language,Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
• CORTAZZI, M JiN, L. (1996) ‘Cultures of Learning: Language Classrooms in China’ in H. Coleman (ed.) Society and the Language Classroom, Cambridge: CUP.
• JIN, L. CORTAZZI, M. (1996) ‘This way is very different from Chinese Ways’, EAP needs and Academic Culture in T. Dudley-Evans. M. Hewings (eds.) Evaluation and Course Design in EAP.London: Macmillan