Cultural differences have a potential to trigger conflicts at all levels, and the response each society gives to these conflicts depend on what they hold most dear as a foundational norm: independent existence of individuals or social interdependence. This calls for awareness in differences and discussion to benefit from cultural diversity.

Michael was having a problem with his neighbor next door. He decided to seek advice from his coworkers on the issue. Paul suggested that he express the problem openly right away, and, if that wouldn’t help, to take the neighbor to the court. Akihiro, on the other hand, warned him not to get too serious, and recommended him to write a letter which talks about their good memories in the past and how pleasant their neighborhood was. The backup plan in this case would be to invite a mutually respected neighbor of theirs to mediate the situation.

Of course, Michael has many other options to address the given problem. Yet, it is interesting to note the differences between the suggestions of the two coworkers. One party is focused on the issue per se and pursues a direct approach; whereas the other is concerned about the relationship and follows indirect/accommodating means to handle the situation. This article is intended to provide a better understanding of these two main approaches in conflicting situations. Since the responses to unease are generally situational, we may not judge whether any of the resolution efforts are good or bad, but rather, look closely on their rationale respectively.

Cultures differ on various aspects of life. Naturally, the approach of their members to conflict will also vary depending on the value they place on issues of interest and dominant cultural characteristics. A close examination of these features in a given society will give an idea on how its members would respond to conflicting situations in general. Given the growing interconnectedness of societies today, such knowledge of cultural tendencies might help in the development of strategies for conflict resolution and prevention.

Societies that promote independent existence of individuals are referred to as individualistic, and those which assume a great deal of social interdependence are grouped as collectivistic cultures.¹ Prior to discussing responses to conflict in these two types of cultures, it may be better to highlight some examples of their interpretations which will provide hints about their foundational norms.

He who hesitates is lost. (American expression)

Strike while the iron is hot. (American expression)

More haste, less speed. (Chinese expression)

A deliberate inaction is better than a blind action. (Chinese expression)

Different cultures may have different viewpoints about the same issue. This affects the responses of their members and the methods they favor in various situations. Existing theories in social sciences, which generally reflect social values of individualism and autonomy, may be inadequate in societies that do not share the same values and foundational norms, and vice versa. Such a cross-cultural analysis requires an understanding of the prevalent cultural values and norms in a given society.¹ These shared values, through which cultures develop and continue, are communicated in a variety of ways. One technique that commonly appears is the use of proverbs or sayings, and such quotes throughout the commentary will provide a general idea about some differing characteristics of these two cultural approaches.

Rather than criticizing or promoting any specific cultural aspect, this piece aims to discuss another dimension of multicultural approach to serve to break the stereotyped images (if any) about different cultures, and to help accept everybody as they are in a world of cultural diversity. Once we have a broad picture, we will further look into how interpersonal conflict is handled, and conclude with some overarching suggestions to foster mutual understanding in cases of unease.

Two’s company, but three’s a crowd. (American expression)

If you congregate, you live. If you scatter, you die. (Korean proverb)

One who leaves the herd, gets snatched by the wolf. (Turkish proverb)

One palm makes no applause. (Chinese proverb)

Two widely held worldviews have become evident in the cross-cultural literature as variables on which most cultures vary: individualism which objectifies the self, and collectivism which submerges the self to emphasize the group. A middle course in the de bate between those who claim the primacy of society and those who emphasize the primal significance of the individual would state that there is no society without an individual; and also that no individual can survive without society.² These concepts do not necessarily form opposite poles and may coexist due to the enormous intercultural mix, yet one approach may still have dominance to the other in a given culture.³

“The freedom to be an individual is the essence of America.” (Marilyn vos Savant)

“It is hard to be an individual in Japan.” (Haruki Murakami)

In individualistic societies, a person is an autonomous entity defined by a somewhat distinctive set of attributes, qualities, or processes; and these internal attributes determine the behavior. Yet, in collectivistic societies, a person is an interdependent entity who is part of the encompassing social relationships. This is not to say that a person in such a society lacks unique attributes, but rather that these are not primary forces that guide the behavior. In such societies, behavior is a consequence of being responsive to others and origins of behaviors are relationships and social harmony.³

He who converses not knows nothing. (English proverb)

He, who knows, does not speak. He, who speaks, does not know. (Lao Tzu)

In Western cultures, a highly verbal individual is perceived more positively, whereas in Eastern cultures perceptions for highly verbal individuals may not be that positive. Traditionally, communication apprehension has been attributed to a weak sense of identity and is viewed as a deficiency; but on the contrary, this reticence may be due to politeness or a tendency to preserve harmony in collectivistic cultures, depending on the social context.

Stand up for your own rights. (American expression)

Unless you blow your own horn, who will? (American expression)

Once you preach, the point is gone. (Zen phrase)

Mature rice plants bow down lower. (Korean expression)

According to individualistic point of view, communicators can get things done by being assertive. On the other hand, from the collectivistic standpoint, people are expected to preserve group identity and may be discouraged from asserting themselves as individuals. Therefore, it will not be a true assumption to attribute this lack of assertiveness to some negative traits such as low self-esteem, shyness, disinterest, or ignorance.³

Cultural dimensions of conflict resolution

“The practice of peace and reconciliation is one of the most vital and artistic of human actions.” (Nhat Hanh)

Keeping all the above examples in mind, now let’s briefly compare and contrast responses to conflict in individualistic and collectivistic societies:

Since individuals’ self-articulated interests are of utmost importance, individualistic perspective frames conflict as the divergence of interests or issues, which limits the focus of solution efforts solely to reconciling the differences in interests between parties. Yet in collectivistic cultures, social harmony is a critical aspiration and community involvement is likely even in interpersonal matters. Then, a deeper and wider analysis that will address the concerns of both types of approaches should better view conflict as a situation and place the situation to the heart of any resolution endeavor.¹

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense.” (Joseph Conrad)

The one who raises his/her voice has already lost. (Japanese proverb)

Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct/dominating/prompt communication styles, since they deem open discussion as the best way to deal with their interpersonal problems. On the other hand, individuals in interdependent societies are less likely to “express negative emotions (such as anger) to confront each other, and to use verbal aggressiveness and open discussion in conflict situations. They may avoid reactions to their relational problems that can potentially cause further conflict”. Among them, the stress is not so much upon the individual and his/her interests, but on the maintenance of the collectivity and the continuation of harmonious relationships; conflict is viewed as damaging to social fabric and relational harmony, so it should be avoided as much as possible. This naturally leads to the adoption of high compromising and avoiding behaviors and a relatively low preference for competing and assertive postures which emphasize the value they place on maintaining social harmony rather than personal interests in conflict interactions.³

“Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” (Ronald Reagan)

There is a natural tendency to avoid conflicts as much as possible. While it is a major strategy to preserve harmonious relationships in Eastern cultures, Western societies may view accommodation efforts as giving up critical values and personal rights. Furthermore, according to the Western approach, people will prefer to avoid conflict only if their stake in an issue is not high enough to get involved, whereas collectivist cultures actually utilize it as a social remedy.³

In collectivistic societies, “understanding is seen not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspective, expectations, and intimacy”, and avoidance is utilized as a strategy to handle the conflict. Besides expressing the discomfort indirectly/nonverbally in a polite and educating way, non-confrontational communication modes in problematic situations include, but are not limited to: “(a) the use of management to prevent a conflict before it happens, (b) expression of conflict emotions like anger or frustration by non-communication, such as ignorance or silence, (c) pretense of being harmonious in peoples’ presence, even though parties are actually avoiding each other, (d) management of conflict using a third party, (e) tendency of directing accusations against oneself.”³

Cultural differences in third party intervention

“The Believers are but brothers; so make peace and reconciliation between your brothers… ”⁴

How, when, and why a third party interferes has been the central focus of conflict resolution studies. Models on interpersonal conflict that assume a great deal of individual autonomy and privacy in interpersonal matters hardly speak about engaging one’s social network into a conflict, however interpersonal conflict intervention in a collectivistic setting will not take place only between contending individuals and the intervener, but is likely to engage other entities (e.g. extended family members) almost in any given conflict. This involvement of others, with the purpose of securing, improving or sustaining a resolution, can be added strength for conflict intervention and resolution.¹

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” (Paulo Freire)

Western literature on interpersonal conflict intervention generally undermines the adjustment of the involvement style depending on the stage of the disagreement. However in collectivistic societies, “third parties are expected to function in a reconciliatory mode, unless clear injustice or deviance takes place. In this case, third parties should get actively involved in restoring justice and eliminating deviance before returning to the reconciliatory role.” Consultation may be utilized “when relationship issues (perception and attitudes) are not suitable for mediation, and to help parties clarify their underlying needs (security, or identity for example) and interests tied to such needs. Mediation, on the other hand, aims at negotiating certain substantive issues, based on a clear understanding of relationship issues and parties’ own needs and interests.”¹

Adhering to the common good while not favoring any of the parties has good intentions, yet the mediator may face difficulties in modern diverse societies, where notions of common good may be too diverse and vague; focus being on the individual. Material resources are often the codes used, thus legal procedures are vital parts of the resolution in these societies, and mediators are expected to be professionals who are knowledgeable of legal procedures. Thus, actions in a resolution process are task-oriented. Conversely in collectivistic societies, where the main focus is on social harmony and social norms/values form the basis of a solution, mediators are generally seniors (in terms of age or hierarchy) who are knowledgeable of cultural norms. Some codes mainly used by interveners in these cultures include honor, dignity, unity, future of the next generations, religious values, and tradition of forgiveness.^1,5

Speaking of religion and its role in conflict, one’s voluntary sacrifice from his/her rights in some conflicting situations, repelling evil with what is better,⁶ and forgiveness has been encouraged for thousands of years by major world religions.⁷ “Adherents of these religions have claimed that forgiveness yields numerous emotional and spiritual benefits, and can dramatically transform one’s life.”⁸ Hence, it may be useful to explore their resources, which are rich with conflict intervention principles, values and models, in a way that would prepare them for contemporary practice. For instance, it is stated that reconciling a dispute between two parties is a charity,9 and that “kind words and forgiving of faults are better than charity followed by injury.”¹⁰

The most beneficial approach for the involved parties in a conflict situation would be an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties and to find mutually satisfactory solutions to the cause of the conflict. This collaborative approach is of utmost importance and most viable, particularly when the issues are critical and maintaining an ongoing relationship is important. For an effective assistance, third parties involved in mediation processes should carefully study the needs and values of contending parties and have cultural awareness in order to provide mutually satisfactory resolution options regardless of the society they operate.

Considering that disagreements could be resolved much easily when parties are aware of corresponding needs/values and interests/concerns, getting to know one another would be an important basis for any resolution endeavor. Therefore, the more we exchange ideas without prejudice, the more we’ll understand each other. Although some disagreements yield positive outcomes and new ideas, intense conflicts generally drain energy and resources. Hence, it is heartening to observe that peace studies such as conflict resolution are blossoming, despite some scholars expecting a “clash of civilizations” and some claiming that we are at the “end of history.” Contrary to the arguments that define life as a series of struggles for limited resources, this relatively new field of social sciences will help humanity make the best out of its potential and reach a better state of living. Comprehensive resolutions which are globally applicable to disagreements in-between individuals, organizations, or nations overall, call for good deeds, positive motives, and pure intentions without self-interest. Tolerance, forgiveness, altruism, compassion, submission to ethical/moral codes, fairness, openness of hearts and minds, and welcoming people as they encompass some of the universal means to cure conflicts at various levels.

References

1. Abdalla, Amr. 2000. “Principles of Islamic Interpersonal Conflict Intervention: A Search within Islam and Western Literature.” Journal of Law & Religion 15, no. 1. 151-184.

2. Nasr, Seyyed H. 2002. The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

3. Kim, Min-Sun. 2002. Non-Western Perspectives on Human Communication: Implications for Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, Cal.: Sage Publications.

4. Qur’an, 49:10.

5. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. 1996. “Conflict Resolution in an Islamic Context: Some Conceptual Questions.” Peace and Change 21, no. 1. 22-40.

6. Qur’an, 41:34.

7. For some of the Qur’anic verses on interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation not mentioned in the text, the reader may refer to 2:280; 3:134, 4:128, 135, 149; 24:22; 25:63; and 42:37, 40, 43.

8. McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen. 2000. Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Bukhari, Sulh, 11; Muslim, Zakat, 52.

10. Qur’an, 2:263.

As citizens of this macro-reality, we can often feel as if we are but pawns in the vast global chess game being played by multinational corporations, traditional superpowers, new and emerging nuclear powers, and the economic pushbuttons of development and consumer capitalism. Within such a world, some may find it difficult to believe that our individual choices can make a difference in our communities. So what if a few dozen or even a few hundred people in our city get together for an interfaith meal? So what if families from different cultures living together in a town get to know each other? What difference does it make in the end? Political powers and other forces call the larger shots and will send us all into war and conflict if they so desire. Human nature being what it is, we will succumb to our baser instincts in hard times no matter how many positive interfaith or intercultural experiences we’ve had with others.

Critics of interfaith dialogue often make this case. They point to examples from Bosnia, the Middle East, Kashmir, Punjab, Rwanda and elsewhere to illustrate that people who coexist peacefully for centuries can be manipulated into barbarically killing each other relatively quickly. Tyrants, insurgents and other power-seekers have learned that cultural, ethnic, and/or religious differences can form natural fault lines in a given communal fabric, which can be exploited by skillful media messaging and the opportunistic staging of current events into powerfully persuasive political theater. Once the mass media have been harnessed, if not outright hijacked, power seekers can move populations as if mountains – whipping up mass fear, anger, hysteria and eventually an appetite for genocide.

Interfaith dialogue seems no match for these gargantuan modern monstrosities. And, in many cases, it isn’t. The warmly felt bonds of interfaith harmony that thrive in times of relative peace and prosperity chill easily in times of strife and hardship, especially when political, economic or national security interests are at stake. In such times, usually all but a few individuals will succumb to fear, and then retreat to their respective religio-ethnic corners to prepare for a fight. The individuals who maintain their commitment to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors resist the fight, try to save their friends who have suddenly become “the enemy” because of their religion or ethnicity, and often lose their lives in the process. They may be heroes, to be sure, but they are dead. And they do not win in the end; the warmongers do – at least, most of the time.

But not all the time. Occasionally, we find exceptions to this all too common trajectory in human socio-political relations. Situations wherein populations held themselves together despite enormous pressures to fight and kill one another. Where community leaders resisted the gravitational pull of hatred that strips them of their voices and replaces them with those of fear mongers and peddlers of hatred. When we find these exceptions, we must review and analyze the exact conditions that made them possible in the first place, and determine if they can be replicated in other situations of strife and war.

I encountered such an exceptional situation this past spring while visiting Croatia. Fuzine is one of several quaint mountain villages in the district of Gorski Kotar in northern end of the Dalmatian coast of Croatia. I recently listened to the former governor of the district and a local radio producer tell their stories from the period of the war in 1991.

A Yugoslavian Army base camp was built near the district, on top of a hill. Normally, the existence of this base would have been the beginning of the end for peaceful relations between the Croat and Serbian villages of the district. Croats would view the base as a danger and a provocation, as well as a support camp to the Serbian villages. The Serbians, for their part, would have used the base as a “back-up” for their own violence against their Croat neighbors. Since violence begets violence, Croats or Serbs would make the first strike and the cycle would begin. Many would die, the villages would be destroyed, and the resulting “life” would resemble existence on the surface of the moon.

That’s not what happened.

In a stunning turn of events, the municipal leaders of all the villages – Serb and Croat – approached the base commanders and established a relationship with them. After several meetings, it became clear that none of them wanted either to shoot at each other or to be shot. So, they made a written agreement that constituted the “terms” of their coexistence during those months. For example, when the Yugoslav army was required to fire on the villages, per orders from up the chain of command, they warned the citizens ahead of time and instructed them on how to survive the barrage. They provided the citizens with maps of the mines they laid. The village leaders returned the favor and provided base commanders with a “heads up” when they were forced, by public opinion and the radical fringe, to fire on the army base. The local radio producer treated the army base as another “village” in the district and reported its news, events, and played music for the troops, etc. They called the families of wounded guards to apologize – and did so publicly on the radio – when radical elements in their midst broke the agreement and fired on the soldiers. Media reports stayed ahead of the rumor mills, reported the facts of things, and controlled the message to minimize the inflammatory impact of the angry rhetoric coming from other sources.

As a result of the extraordinary bravery and commitment from people on both sides, no one from the district was killed and no one was taken to a wartime prison camp.

Leaders on both sides suffered consequences. Two of the base commanders went to prison for 12 years. One of them disappeared into the mists of “the system” while the other was killed by civilians after being released. The radio producer in Gorski Kotar was banned from media and only recently has begun to work again. Other city leaders voluntarily disappeared into anonymity – this story was kept quiet at first – so as to avoid persecution and death for their actions.

Upon analysis, a few things stand out about this exceptional situation. First of all, there were conditions on the ground that the village leaders exploited to their advantage. The Gorski Kotar district was somewhat geographically remote from the heart of the fighting during the war. As such, neither the base nor the villagers had direct daily involvement in the heart of the war’s operations. Without interventions for peace that could have certainly changed, and the district could have become an additional center or “theater” of the war; however, the interventions took advantage of the district’s “off the beaten path” status. An additional opportunity came in the fact that one of the base commanders was nearing retirement, weary of his job and of fighting, and was inclined to strike a deal with the villagers as long as he could save face. Therefore, when village leaders approached him and his colleagues with a plan for peaceful coexistence, they were ready to negotiate a plan that would let both sides fly under the radar of the larger war and possibly come away from it largely unscathed.

Secondly, media leaders took their share of responsibility for the creation and maintenance of the arrangement with the base camp, as well as for keeping the peace between the villages during particularly tense weeks. Put simply, radio and print media controlled the message in favor of peace. When infractions to the agreement happened from time to time, from both sides, reporting of the story was done in the least inflammatory way possible. For example, when the base camp did an obligatory firing on the villages (after warning the villagers of the times and locations) and accidentally damaged the radio transmission tower, the base commander sent his own soldiers to repair it immediately so that broadcasts could resume as soon as possible. More importantly, this fact was reported to the community so as to minimize anger and outrage over the incident. In short, media operatives used their power for peace and not for war. They recognized the power of media to incite, enflame, and create the larger narrative in which people experience things in their communities. Through skillful messaging and the coordination of communication lines, they maintained and nurtured the agreement for peace through its many months, creating the very conditions for peaceful coexistence.

Finally, we can see that community leaders in the villages refused to relinquish immediately their roles as leaders to the larger forces of the army. They easily could have done otherwise. Once the base camp was established, they could have decided that war was now inevitable, that their little villages stood no chance to resist the war tide rolling towards them, and that each village needed to now begin fortifying themselves against the army and each other, and prepare to fight and die.

They didn’t do this. Instead, they banded together, created a plan, and took a huge risk in walking up the hill to the base camp and presenting it to the commanders. The creativity, courage and will power this required of them simply cannot be overstated. In the end, this human element is what makes the ultimate difference. Human beings are endowed with self-consciousness, agency and imagination, which allows us to not only visualize alternative scenarios in any given situation, but also to imagine and implement alternative courses of action within them – for ourselves and for others. These leaders together resisted the war tide, created an alternative possibility for their district, and bravely took radical steps to implement it. And it worked. Not flawlessly, but enough to keep their people, their homes and their way of life from going up in flames.

Can what happened in Gorski Kotar work everywhere? No and yes. No, in the sense that certain conditions in place on the ground in this district that contributed to the peace are not in place ubiquitously. Most army base commanders aren’t open to illegal agreements with “enemy” villagers. Not all regional or district leaders – in the media or otherwise – have working relations good enough to band together in wartime to create and implement such a thing as this. Many other factors prevent any one exception, such as what happened in Gorski Kotar, from providing a stable template for peace easily applicable to any other situation. These situations are exceptions, after all.

Nevertheless, what happened here can be instructive for other areas. The positive and necessary role of media in maintaining the peace agreement in Gorski Kotar is abundantly clear. Those who find themselves in similar situations of religious and ethnic conflict will do well to procure access to media, if possible, sooner rather than later in order to shape the messaging toward peace and restraint, away from hatred and violence. Today’s 21st century media technology resists totalitarian control in important ways, as recent events in Iran, China and even North Korea indicate. Those with skills can exploit media for peace as well as for war.

Finally, in the end, much turns on the simple power of human agency and choice, and the willingness of people to join together and exercise that agency in the direction of peace in the face of seemingly impossible circumstances. Of course, such principled action plans don’t always make a difference. In fact, such plans may often fail in times of war. But, they certainly have no chance of success at all if people give up on the fight from the beginning and refuse even to attempt to alter the course of things. On this point, people on the brink of war in all sorts of situations have at least a chance – perhaps not a big chance, but a chance nevertheless – to turn the tide in another direction, or at least to reduce the body count and carnage.

I am haunted by an image one of the community leaders in Gorski Kotar used in telling us their story when we met with them. The radio producer told us that media flies “as fast as a bird, as fast as the speed of light” even; however, it typically arrives after the dead bodies already lay on the ground. The producer and the other leaders in the community wanted to avoid bodies on the ground altogether. They wanted media to be faster than the dead.

It seems, in this case at least, they succeeded.

B. Jill Carroll is an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University.

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