The Role Of Native Language And Culture In Cross Cultural Communication

Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….…......3
Chapter 1 Language is Culture: Intercultural Communication ………………………….….……….5
1.1 Language as a marker of cultural identity …………………………………………….………….5
1.2 Cross-cultural communicative competence ………………………………………………………7
1.3 Cultural and intercultural communication ………………………………………………...…….12
Chapter 2 Influence of Native Language and Culture on Intercultural communication ……………18
2.1 Levels of communication …………...………………………………………………………..…19
2.2 Cultural Values, Customs and Linguistic Expressions …………………………………………27
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………..31
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………………...33

Introduction

The phrase cross-cultural communication describes the ability to successfully form, foster, and improve relationships with members of a culture different from one 's own. It is based on knowledge of many factors, such as the other culture 's values, perceptions, manners, social structure, and decision-making practices, and an understanding of how members of the group communicate -verbally, non-verbally, in person, in writing, and in various business and social contexts. Like speaking a foreign language or riding a bicycle, cross-cultural communication involves a skill component that may best be learned and mastered through instruction and practice: simply reading about it is not enough. To be aware of issues in cross-cultural communication is becoming increasingly important. Learning a foreign language inevitably brings us into contact with other ways of speaking, other modes of behavior and other views of life. In this paper we examine how communication across cultures can be affected by participants’ interpretations, assumptions and expectations which largely derive from their own cultural background, as well as their native language and culture.
The paper intends to demonstrate that values and customs are manifested not only in non-verbal communication but also in verbal communication in that native language influences the speakers’ ways of using a non-native language. At the same time their native linguistic knowledge, values and customs impose constraints on how foreign language learners identify themselves.
Effective communication of ideas and thoughts become difficult if language and cultural barriers exist, as these barriers are hurdles against proper and effective communication among individuals or groups. The reason behind these differences is the nativity, education, religion and language that the person is used to and its correlation with other languages and cultures. These barriers can lead to misunderstandings among people and lead to a breakdown or failure of the communication process (S. Bochner “Cultures in Contact, Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction”, p. 32).
Self-identity can be racial (ethnic origin), national (citizenship), religious or linguistic. However, the main issue of self-identity is the relationship between the individual and groups in a given environment because human beings are social creatures. An individual’s relationship with a group can be that with work, family, recreation, worship or politics (B. Spitzberg and W. Cupach “Interpersonal communication; Communicative competence”, p. 67). On the basis of these premises, the paper discusses how native culture and language influence the communication when interacting with local ethnic groups.
In this paper we will analyze how native language and culture affect learners’ verbal and non-verbal communication with native speakers. It will be shown shortly that the influences of culture and language are a two-way traffic in that cultural influence affects verbal communication and in turn verbal behavior reflects non-verbal values and customs. In other words the two sets of communication interact with each other. With this as background the paper then focuses on how foreign language learners identify themselves and how their cultural values and customs influence or interfere with their verbal competence which in turn affects their communication with native speakers.
The present paper consists of an Introduction, two chapters, Conclusion and Bibliography. Chapter I gives a detailed survey on theoretical and practical knowledge about intercultural communication, whereas Chapter II shows how communication varies across culture.
The Conclusion affirms the influence of native language and culture on verbal or non-verbal communication in a new cultural and linguistic environment.

Chapter 1

Language is Culture: Intercultural Communication

"We didn 't all come over on the same ship, but we 're all in the same boat."
- Bernard Baruch, American financier and statesman

Intercultural communication is not new. As long as people from different cultures have been encountering one another there has been intercultural communication. What is new, however, is the systematic study of exactly what happens when cross-culture contacts and interaction take place—when message producer and message receiver are from different cultures. Increased contact among cultures makes it imperative for people to make a concerted effort to get along with and understand those whose believes and backgrounds may be vastly different from their own. Successful intercultural communication is a matter of highest importance if humankind and society are to survive. Thus, theoretical and practical knowledge about intercultural communication process and ability, through increased awareness and understanding, to coexist peacefully with people who do not necessarily share our own life styles or values, is essential to guarantee successful communication.

1.1 Language as a marker of cultural identity
Language differs from other phenomena in that it is used to refer to other phenomena and has usually to be used to refer beyond itself. Language in use by particular speakers is constantly referring beyond itself irrespective at the intentions of the speaker: language cannot be used without carrying meaning and referring beyond itself, even in the most sterile environment of the foreign language class. The meanings of a particular language point to the culture of a particular social group, and the analysis of those meanings—their comprehension by learners and other speakers—involves the analysis and comprehension of that culture. It disregards the nature of language to treat language independently of the culture which it constantly refers to. No doubt all language teaching contains some explicit reference to the culture; the whole from which the particular language is taken.
Culture is notoriously difficult to define. The American anthropologists, Kroeber and Kluckhohn, as early as in 1952, critically reviewed concepts and definitions of culture, and compiled a list of 164 different definitions. Apt writing in the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, summarizes the problem as follows: "Despite a century of efforts to define culture adequately, there was in the early 1990s no agreement among anthropologists regarding its nature." Consequently, some scholars even suggest giving up defining culture. Despite these problems, we propose the following definition for the purpose of this paper: Culture is a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioral conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member 's behavior and each member 's interpretations of the meanings of other people 's behavior. This definition draws attention to a number of issues:
Firstly, culture is manifested at different layers of depth, ranging from inner core basic assumption and values, through outer core attitudes, believes and social conventions, to surface-level behavioral manifestations.
Secondly, the sub-surface aspects of cutler influence people 's behavior and the meanings they attribute to other people 's behavior (along with other factors such as personality).
Thirdly, culture is a "fuzzy" concept, in that group members are unlikely to share identical sets of attitudes, beliefs and so on, but rather show "family resemblances ', with the result that there is no absolute sort of features that can distinguish definitely one cultural group from another.
Fourthly, culture is associated with social groups. All people are simultaneously members of a number of different groups and categories; for example, gender groups, ethnic groups, generational groups, national groups, professional groups, and so on.
So in many respects, all these different groupings can be seen as different cultural groups. However, in this paper, "Culture is operationalized primarily in terms of ethno linguistic and / or national identity". The term "intercultural" refers to interaction between people from two different "cultural" groups.
The argument that cultural studies is an integral part of language teaching, because of the relationship of language and culture, has led to the notion of a disciplined study of culture. The idea that the study and acquisition of language - language in use and language awareness - must take place in the context of cultural study is widely accepted (Byran, 1989：56).
However, there is still the question of terminology of "cultural studies". The term "cultural studies" used here is not used in British education, or indeed elsewhere, although it is not entirely new. The best established term is that used in Germany, "Landeskunde", meaning literally "knowledge of the country". The French term "civilizasion" refers in a broad sense to the way of life and distinctions of a particular country. In the United States there is a tendency to use the word "culture" to refer to learning about customs and behaviors associated with language learning, thus concentrating largely on daily life. In Britain, the phrase used in secondary schools is usually "background studies", referring to any knowledge which supplements language learning, largely concentrated in information about customs and daily life with some reference to social institutions. In higher education the term "area studies" has been created to distinguish courses which are not devoted exclusively to literature, as used to be the dominant tradition. (Byran, 1989：58).
Recently interest has increased in cultural studies, particularly in how communication varies across culture. There are several different types of research used to compare cultures. Kohn (1989, cited in Byran), for example , isolates four types of cross-cultural research: [1] studies where culture is the object of study, [2] studies where culture is the context of study, [3] studies where culture is the unit of analysis, and [4] studies that are transcultural. Each of these types of studies has different goals.
When culture is treated as the context of the study, researchers are interested in understanding how different aspects of culture influence communication. Investigators, for example, can study how dimensions of cultural variability (e.g., individualism-collectivism; in individualistic cultures, the focus is on the individual, while the emphasis is on the group in collectivistic cultures) influence communication in different cultures.
The third type of cross-culture research focuses on cultures as the unit of analysis. Research using culture as the level of analysis requires that data from large numbers of cultures be available for analysis.
The final type of cross-cultural research is what Kohn (1989) calls "transnational" or "transcultural". This type of research in communication focuses on the transmission of mass media messages across national borders.

1.2 Cross-cultural communicative competence
When referring to the origin of cross-cultural communicative competence, we should mention Chomsky and Hymes because they two first raised the concept of “competence”. In 1965, Chomsky gave a detailed and strict distinction of two important concepts—competence and performance. He believed that competence indicates the speaker’s and the listener’s internalized linguistic knowledge, so the practical usage of language doesn’t interfere. While performance means the practical usage of language in a specific situation or indicates everybody’s practical usage of language in a unique linguistic “society”. He also pointed out that linguistic theory must firstly focus on the speaker and listener in a homogeneous linguistic “society”. So obviously, Chomsky paid more attention to “competence”, but not the language itself.
And Hymes believed the “competence” Chomsky mentioned was only the linguistic competence which cannot include all the practical usage of language in a unique linguistic “society”. And in his opinion, he took linguistic competence as a part of communicative competence. So communicative competence can not only give the person the ability to learn a language but also provide him the capability to use the language properly in the society. He also gave four parameters on communicative competence—degree of possibility, feasibility, appropriateness and performance.
After the appearance of communicative competence, more and more scholars did research on it, and at last gave a clear and detailed concept to it. In 1970s’, scholars believed that communicative competence includes linguistic competence, social linguistic competence, and pragmatic competence. The core of their theory is the acclimation to the society which decides the use of the language (Hymes, 1971, 23). But when we survey it from the perspective of cross-cultural communication, we can find the theory is insufficient: first, though it concerned about the rules of society objectively, it didn’t mention the purpose of the communicators; second, the content of communicative competence must go deeper and boarder or it cannot show the dynamic development of cross-cultural communication. So according to the opinions of Spitzberg (1994), cross-cultural communicative competence must indicate: “the competence which follows the acclimation rules to the society and meanwhile achieve the purpose of the cross-cultural communication.”(Spitzberg, 1994, 129)
Broadly speaking, cross-cultural communicative competence can be generalized into three levels: (Pan, 1996, 7)
System of Communication Competence Basics: This system mainly indicates the communicative competence which an individual must occupy and must be related to the social rules, such as language and gestures, social linguistic competence and acclimation rules, relevant communicative knowledge, motivates of the communication, method to recognize and social cultural knowledge.
Episodic Competence Communicative System: It means the individual has the competence to give a brand new reflection in a specific scene or a specific communicative snippet. This system includes these two variables: first, to show higher communicative status; second, to fulfill the expectation of others in order to get a higher evaluation.
Relational Competence System: The core of this system is the quality of the communication. And the relational quality is the specific symbol of the effectiveness of the communication: first, the communicators must be both “free” and “intimate”; second, similarities of the cultures must be the very hypothesis, and meanwhile the differences of the cultures must be sacrificed a little; third, communicating the sensibility; fourth, use acclimation instead of egotism.
In this communicative competence system, it is easy to see the four parameters in the system, and this system is the basis for people to discuss the impact of cultural transfer on cross-cultural communication, especially cross-cultural communicative competence.
Under the trend of globalization, culture is becoming a “melting pot”, so the purpose for English learners to study a language is to communicate with others freely and correctly. A successful communication not only requires you a good mastery of foreign language, but also the knowledge of the differences of different cultures and the practice of the knowledge. Therefore, the corresponding culture of language is what the learners should learn if they want to study a language. Next, we will discuss culture transfer which plays an important role in both the foreign language study and the language itself.
Culture transfer is the cultural interference caused by cultural difference. Generally speaking, it means that in culture communication, people use their own culture rules and value to guide their words and deeds, even thoughts, and they also use these as standards to judge the words and deeds of others.
To analyze the forms and essence of cultural transfer, researchers should first define and classify culture. Culture contains the things people learn in their whole life, including languages, deeds, faith and the martial and spiritual base for living. The big concept of culture can be divided into three levels (Hu, 1997. 35): the first level is the material culture altered and processed by people’s subjective thoughts; the second level is the systematic culture including the political and economic systems, legal and artistic works and the deeds and habits of people; the third level is the psychological level which contains the life value, thought pattern, moral standard, religious feeling and so on. Though this classification is not specific and clear enough, it can show the essence of cultural transfer.
According to the classification, culture transfer can be described as two kinds: surface-structure transfer and deep-structure transfer. The first and second culture levels belong to the surface-structure transfer, so if people care a little, they can find the differences of cultures in these aspects. The deep-structure transfer indicates the transfer of the culture in the third cultural level, and since it’s the psychological elements, it is difficult to feel.
Why is cultural transfer the biggest barrier in cross-cultural communication? This is mainly because the national culture is so impressed in the deep heart of people in that nation. Ever since they were born, they had received the national cultural influence, and no matter what they did, they were guided by the national culture. And people all take their own culture as the center, so they believe that only doing things as people around do is correct, or the action will be wrong and unacceptable. This opinion can help national union on one hand, but on the other hand, it will cause misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication.
There are a lot of research on cultural transfer and the relationship between culture and foreign language learning. In 1940s’, the American linguists C.C.Feris (1945) and Robert Lado (1957) advocated paying more attention to culture in the teaching of foreign language and they asked the learners to understand the cultural differences and do cultural comparison. Moreover, Social linguists also gave some information about cultural transfer. For example, British linguist, Jenny Thomas, did a successful research on the interference of cultural difference on the cross-cultural communication. She divided the failure in the cross-cultural communication into two kinds (Thomas, 1983, 3): pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. Correspondingly, pragmalinguistic failure is the surface-structure transfer, and sociopragmatic failure is the deep-structure transfer. From this we know that cultural transfer must play an important role in cross-cultural communication, and actually, Thomas’ theory is the theoretical frame of cultural transfer and we can discuss the impact of cultural transfer on cross-cultural communication from the perspectives of surface-structure transfer and deep-structure transfer.
Language teaching has always and inevitably meant, in fact, "language and culture" teaching. In the British traditions this has largely been taken for granted and considered unproblematic. Elsewhere---in Germany in particular--- there has existed a greater awareness. In Germany, the debate about the relationship between language and Landeskunde, has been long and intense and the fact that at various points in the modern history of language teaching Landeskunde has been called Kulturkunde and Wesenskunde is an indication that the relationship is not unproblematic, in Germany or elsewhere.
Reviewing "Landeskunde" in Germany, Buttjest (1982, cited in Byran ) claims that "Culture learning is actually a key factor in being able to use and master a foreign linguistic system", and not just a "rather arbitrary claim that culture learning is a part of language teaching."
In the Bellagio Declaration of the European Cultural Foundation and the International Council for Educational Development in 1981 the following view is maintained: “For effective international cooperation, knowledge of other countries and their cultures is as important as proficiency in their languages and such knowledge is dependent on foreign language teaching”.
The assumption that culture studies will be an aid to efficient communication and cooperation is further reinforced by recent emphasis on "communicative competence" as a broad concept than "grammatical competence". For "communicative competence "involved an appreciate language usage which, in part at least, is culture-specific. This recent development is therefore a renewal and extension of the auxiliary, pragmatic function of cultural studies (Byran, 1989：61).
The understanding of Intercultural Communication as ‘interdiscourse communication’ is the most recent addition to the field, and traditionally Intercultural Communication studies have been most widely understood as comprising studies, whether of a comparative or an interactional nature, that take cultural group membership as a given. This predominant essentialism makes Intercultural Communication studies an exception in the social sciences, where social constructionist approaches have become the preferred framework in studies of identity. Rather than taking culture and identity as given, social constructionism insists that it is linguistic and social practices that bring culture and identity into being (Burr 2003).
The essentialist assumption that people belong to a culture or have a culture, which is typically a part of intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication studies, has given Intercultural Communication a somewhat old-fashioned, dowdy, not-quite-with-it, even reactionary image; an image which one recent commentator describes as follows:
To many teachers and researchers working [...] under the broad designation of media and cultural studies, the subfield of ‘intercultural communication’ might seem a bit suspect. For a start, it might appear to be yet another of those divisions of ‘communication’ that raise questions about what is being immediately left out of the picture, theoretically and substantively, by the way in which the defining category is employed; by the way this slices into social and symbolic complexity and classifies what it wants to know more about. Moreover, there is a legacy of rather functionalist and technicist tendencies in the background, a legacy that has had its impact upon the intellectual quality of many areas of ‘communications’ research. (Corner 2006:155f.)
Given the frequency with which Intercultural Communication usually in the form of ‘culture A, B or C’ and ‘cultural difference’ are invoked in a wide range of discourses, the reluctance of (critical) academics is considered to get involved in Intercultural Communication research as problematic.
How do people from different cultures communicate or how can misunderstandings between cultures be avoided? These understandings are in line with textbook definitions such as these: ‘a transactional, symbolic process involving the attribution of meaning between people of different cultures’ (Gudykunst and Kim 2002:14) or ‘the exchange of information between individuals who are unalike culturally’ (Rogers and Steinfatt 1999:1). What the student expectations, the textbook definitions, and maybe reader expectations, have in common is the implicit assumption that people somehow have culture (to be of a culture) and that they somehow are culturally different or similar to others.
Whether culture is viewed as nation, as ethnicity, as faith, as gender, or as sexuality, all these ‘cultures’ have one thing in common: they are imagined communities (Anderson 1991). That means that members of a culture imagine themselves and are imagined by others as group members. These groups are too large to be ‘real’ groups (i.e. no group member will ever know all the other group members). Therefore, they are best considered as discursive constructions. That means that we do not have culture but that we construct culture discursively.

1.3 Cultural and intercultural communication
Learning a language is an intricate process involving not only learning the alphabet, the meaning and arrangement of words, the rules of grammar, and understanding of literature, but also learning the new languages of the body, behavior, and cultural customs. Language is a product of the thought and behavior of a society. An individual language speaker 's effectiveness in a foreign language is directly related to his understanding of the culture of that language.
It has been reported once and again how the dropping of the atom bomb might have been avoided in one Japanese word mokusatsu in the answer to the Postdam ultimatum had been translated "Let us wait and see", as the Japanese intended it, rather than literally, as "Let us ignore." John Seward, in his "Views and Reviews" in the Mainichi Daily News, April 13, 1972, commented that the Nixon-Sato problems over the textile issue were probably a result of a badly translated remark made by then Prime Minister Sato. Sato most likely had intended to say "Let me see what I can do about it," but the sentence was conveyed to then President Nixon as "Leave it up to me." Therefore, when the Prime Minister did not perform as the President expected him to, "Nixon lost faith in Sato, which indeed may have been one of the factors behind his (Nixon 's) later failure to inform the Japanese government of his visit to China until the last minute.” All this is surmising, but incidents involving important international affairs have swung on small hinges. Many regrettable decisions could probably have been avoided if both parties had been able to approach each other with an understanding of the other 's culture and of the factual issues involved.
Different culture may have different conventions as to what is appropriate behavior in what contexts. Lack of relevant knowledge may cause intercultural misunderstanding (Hinde, 1997：99).
One afternoon after work, a British Teacher of EFL, who had recently started teaching at a college in Hong Kong, decided to visit some friends who lived in a different part of the city. She went to the appropriate bus stop, and as she walked up, a group of her students who were waiting there asked "Where are you going?" Immediately she felt irritated, and thought to herself, "What business is it of theirs where I 'm going? Why should I tell them about my personal life?" However, she tried to hide her irritation, and simply answered, "I 'm going to visit some friends."
However, in fact, "Where are you going" is simply a greeting in Chinese. There is no expectation that it should be answered explicitly: a vague response such as "Over there" or "Into town" is perfectly adequate. Moreover, according to Chinese conventions, the students were being friendly and polite in giving such a greeting, not intrusive and disrespectful as the British teacher interpreted them to be.
The teacher was irritated, while she should have been pleased, simply because of the cultural differences - "Where are you going?" is a polite greeting among acquaintances in Chinese, but is an inappropriate explicit question in this context in English.
Modern research has strongly emphasized that nonverbal behaviors (body motions mad gestures) are learned. That is they are culturally determined. Cultural differences in nonverbal behaviors can contribute to misunderstandings.
Different cultures have developed a variety of uses for the eyes in the communication process. Americans are familiar with the admonition to maintain good eye contact with one 's audience. But some cultures teach their young people, especially girls, that to look someone in the eye, especially an older one or important person, is disrespectful and highly improper. Hence, one should lower one 's gaze accordingly. For example, a very expressive girl from Indonesia, studying at an American university, told her professor that because of this emphasis in her culture, the most difficult thing for her in America public speaking classes was to learn to look at her audience.
On the other hand, in a conversational situation, Americans do not practice such rigorous eye contact as do Britons or Arabs. The educated Briton consider it part of good listening behavior to stare at his conversationalist and to indicate his understanding by blinking his eyes, whereas Americans nod their head or emit some sort of grunt, and are from childhood taught not to stare at people. One writer has asserted that the "Arabs look each other in the eye when talking with an intensity that makes most Americans highly uncomfortable." Furthermore, the Arabs has grown so accustomed to facing the person with whom he is conversing, that he finds it awkward and feels it is impolite, for instance, talk when walking side by side. Thus he may dance ahead in order to achieve eye contact. Americans make more use of eye movements in general, while other cultures make more use of hand and arm motions.
The use of hand and arm motions for communicative purposes varies to a remarkable degree between cultures. The following contrasts have been suggested: Gestures among the Americans is largely oriented toward activity; among the Italians it serves the purposes of illustration and display; among the Jews it is a device of emphasis; among the Germans it specifies both attitudes and commitment; and among the French it is an expression of style and containment.
When an American clasps his hands over his head, it signifies, usually with pride and occasionally a touch of arrogance, that victory over some foe has been achieved. A prize fighter, for instance, so signals after having been designated the victor. But to the Russians this is a symbol of friendship. Thus, when Khrushchev came to the United States, decades ago, and was photographed making that gesture, millions of Americans were irritated at what they interpreted to be an arrogant signal of confidence in eventual victory of Communist over America and Capitalism. But the gesture was meant to communicate a spirit of friendship. In Colombia, a similar gesture but with clasped hands level with the face means "I agree with you." To clap the hands together is a familiar Western habit to communicate approval, but to many in the Orient it is used primarily to summon an inferior person, such as a servant.
In many ways it is extremely difficult to ascertain the thinking ability of other cultures. Not only is it agreed by psychologists that formal tests of intelligence which have been constructed and standardized in Western society are inappropriate for evaluating results in these areas, but also tests of abstract reasoning have this difficulty of the bias of environmental factor. More fruitful approaches to cross-cultural cognition have consisted in comparing one particular cognitive process across various cultures, and investigating the special question of language.
Cultures vary considerably in the degree of frankness expected. The English for instance, with their long heritage of open, direct, and frank confrontation in parliament debating and in the heckling of public speaks, are more likely to be more sharp and blunt than most people, including the Americans. Britons hit hard and expect to be hit hard in return. This was well illustrated when an English in a faculty committee meeting stirred considerable animosity by his frank, sharp, and unambiguous statement of his views on the topic under consideration. When told later of the reactions of some of the committee members, he was shocked, for he thought he had expressed himself rather mildly and circumspectly.
Most Asians would be far more reticent than Americans to engage in a sharp exchange, and tend to couch their remarks very carefully so as not to hurt the feelings of, or embarrass, the other person. This results in rather heavy use of euphemisms and ambiguity. It has also been asserted that some Asians are less able than some Westerners to separate the criticism of issues and the criticism of the person holding those views. Thus, criticizing their views means you are really criticizing the person. Peace Corps volunteers are learning that the common American frankness and open criticism creates in the recipient a strong embarrassment, loss of face, and possible hostility.
Several definitions of communication competence revolve around the central criteria of effectiveness and appropriateness, or the relationship between communicative practices and the practical and moral context(s). However, what constitutes effectiveness and appropriateness is a complex matter, including not only the doing of proper things properly, and further, there are times and occasions when one ought to exhibit incompetence to artfully communicate to others the competence of being incompetent. With each such situated assessment, competence gets configured culturally, through local symbols, symbolic forms, and their meaning (Wiseman, 1993：177).
The 1991 Miss University Contest, hosted by the popular American media figure Dick Clark, was shown on American television in the summer of 1991. The field of contestants had been narrowed to the final three, Miss Netherlands, Miss Mexico, and Miss Russia. As is the typical in such events, the final stage of judging involved an evaluation of how each contestant responded to the same question, while the others were secluded in a soundproof booth. The question this year as posed by Clark was: "What are the main problems confronting your country and what should be done about them?" Both Miss Netherlands and Miss Mexico responded without pause by describing some prominent problems in their countries, and sketched some general solutions to them. Miss Russia, however, was left literally speechless. Feigning the question as inaudible, she asked that it be repeated. Upon hearing it again, she replied with a brief utterance and what appeared to be extreme embarrassment, "They are all over now" (giggle).
Most American viewers who were interviewed about this exchange interpreted her reply, or lack of a reply, in individual terms, as an unfortunate slip in her poise or personality. After all, one should be able to speak in public - with talk about problems being the hallmark of many prominent American scenes. If one is asked to produce such talk, and does not, several inferences may be forthcoming. Perhaps, as some American viewers suggested, the Soviet woman simply lost her composure and couldn 't gather her thought in order to be responsive; or perhaps she was being disingenuous, or maybe was being silenced by some hidden force (such as the government).
Soviet responses, however, suggested deeper forces at work in this public communication event. From the vantage point of a Soviet expressive order, when one is in public, and especially in the presence of outsiders, there is a strong moral (and in the recent past, governmental) imperative that one ought not speak problems; one should espouse the virtues that are the bases of social life. Further, these should be predicated to a collective agent, and presented as exercised pattern of behavior, "such as occur in the Motherland" - as Soviet have put it. So, to ask Miss Russia about "the main problems confronting (her) country and what should be done about them," was to create an agonizing public exigency for Miss Russia.
Miss Russia could have addressed the question or not. If she talked about the problems, she would perhaps exude competence to the pageant judges (and American, Western audiences) and enhance her standing with them, but she also would risk accusations of incompetence, perhaps even betrayal, by those in her motherland. If she did not speak about problems, she would fail to address the question, thus lose standing within the pageant, but she would uphold the expressive system of her homeland. Each of these two possible and feasible public speeches, with the inherent counterforce of patriot and pageant, was clearly suboptimal for at least some crucial part of her audience. Against these dynamics, her eventual utterance appears rather artful, for she indeed addressed the topic, if hesitantly, and did so in order to dismiss it, "They (the problems) are all over now." In an utterance her ably artistry apparently failed to impress the pageant judges, since Miss Russia, on the basis of this interview, was ranked third of the final three contestants.
Cultural characters, such as Miss Russia, find their interactional footing with distinctive and cultural frames of reference, including at times different assessments of what is proper (and improper) for public speaking. And thus different standards of appropriateness, of competence, are invoked within a multicultural event, with the one being as the standard of final judgment (Wiseman, 1993：175). To avoid misunderstandings like these and some others in intercultural communication, good communication competence is indispensable.
Communication competence is generally defined as the overall internal capability of an individual to manage key challenging features of intercultural communication: namely, culture differences and unfamiliarity, intergroup posture, and the accompanying experience of stress (Toomey, 1991：259).
Communication competence has been examined by scholars from a variety of academic disciplines, yet consensus has not been reached concerning the definition and conceptualization of the communication competence (Asante 1990：247).
Communication competence involves interactants making social judgment concerning the "goodness" of self and others ' communicative performances (Spitzberg and Cupach, 1984). According to Spitzberg and Cupach, both appropriateness and effectiveness are dimensions that people use to base their judgments of a communicative performance. Behavior is appropriate when it meets contextual and relational standards or expectations and effective when it is functional in achieving desirable ends or goals or satisfying interactants ' needs.

Chapter 2

Influence of Native Language and Culture on Intercultural communication

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 be 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 behavior 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.
In our own culture we can afford to take much communication for granted. Since childhood we have learned what word normally means, 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.
2.1 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 be 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 focused 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 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 signaled by a downward head movement or up-and- down nodding. In contrast, in Turkey and neighboring 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. 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 honor 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 humor - 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 are 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 be 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 China but quite unexpected in Britain, America or Australia. Western tourists in 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.
Part of the challenge in learning a foreign language is to learn how to manage the 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 Botswana, a greeting is ‘How did you wake up?’. Each language also has many informal greetings. An Indonesian student in Britain (A) did not realize this when greeted by a British teacher (B) at a bus stop:
(B) Hello. How’s it going?
(A) 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 (A) and a British visitor (B) shows.
(A) Your Chinese is very good.
(B) Oh, thank you.
This dialogue looks harmless until we consider what each speaker is thinking. A thinks B must be very boastful: B’s Chinese is not, in fact, good and A 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 complimenter, 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, an Armenian 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. An Armenian 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 Armenians respond to personal invitations by accepting to come, but when the day arrives they may not turn up. This may leave many British and North American hosts puzzled, thinking: why did they promise to come, then break their promises? Can they be trusted? But this interpretation misses the Armenian 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 in this situation Armenians 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 are important in all cultures, hut the nature and emphasis of each may vary.
Social Status. To live in a society that is culturally and linguistically different, foreign language learners may come across a number of problems. To start with, many Armenian students have to lower what they think is social status. Not only do they have to work but also be engaged in lower social status manual work such as cleaning and washing dishes. For some this is to lose face and many of them would not write home to tell their families and friends about their work and life. The fact that these students had to do the kind of work they did not like to do and that they found the situation face-losing is partly cultural partly economical. It is economical because economic circumstances have forced them to do manual work. In America, for example, there is less a contemptuous attitudes towards such kind of work. Professional cleaners may be considered as an uneducated group; but not the part-time students. Some people do work part-time as baby-sitters, cleaners or other kind of manual work. A lot of them are university students who are not referred to as "uneducated". To work part-time in a restaurant is normal for American students which has no lower social status stigma. Because the discourses are so different between that in Armenia and that in America the Armenian students find it hard to explain their work to their families and friends. So they do not tell them about it.
Student Life. Student life is vastly different too. In Armenia, everyday life of a university student is highly structured. One lives in a dormitory on campus and eats in a canteen. University life is self-contained, simple and mostly detached from the outside world. In America or Britain one has to find their own accommodation. One has to shop and cook. Because of the economic circumstances it is not uncommon for several to share a house to save cost. Sometimes when times are getting tough, some students may even sleep in turn in one room. On the other hand, the British or American students would not have to go that far to save money. As a result some Armenian students tend to live with themselves because of the economic circumstances and therefore are deprived of the opportunity to mix with British or American students on a regular basis. Because they were used to a structured life in Armenia which some may describe as administrative control, students in America or Britain need to take some time to get used to what may seem to some of them to be an "uncaring" way of university life. There is so much freedom in a society like America or Britain that many Armenian students feel lost. They do not know what to do with their freedom initially.
Recreation. The American way of enjoying oneself may be another problem for some Armenian students. Native Americans would very often be drinking in a pub or having a wild party, sometimes going on for a whole night. In an occasion like this these young people are loud, joyful and tend to be causal about things such as relationships. For many Armenian students this kind of life style is superficial, unintellectual and even outright immoral. Again, because of the cultural gap there is an obstacle to effective communication for the understanding of these issues. As a result students may find this kind of life uncomfortable, unhealthy, waste of time and energy, and totally non-productive. Very often Armenian women students are either more tuned to intercultural communication or more likely to be sought after by local Americans. As a result one tends to see that Armenian women students are more adaptable, more flexible and therefore make friends more easily with local Americans. There is of course an economic factor as well. If an Armenian man wants to go out with a local American girl he is not only expected to take the initiative but also expected to pay for a drink or a meal. Finally there is a problem of what is called "conversational currency" (Brislin 1981:65). In Armenian culture when people first meet the most common question they ask each other is where they come from. Then conversation may go on about work and about interesting things of these places where they come from. Then they may proceed to personal questions such as marriage status, whether they have children and even how much they earn from their work. When familiar people meet they may greet each other by asking "Have you eaten?" or "Where are you going?" which are not meant to be real questions. One can speculate endlessly on the reasons behind the origin of this kind of "conversational currency"; it is quite obvious though that people in different cultures have different conversational topics. The Americans or British, especially male ones, may talk a lot about sports.
Academic Life. In academic life, problems can be manifested linguistically and culturally as well. First of all it is the teaching methodology. In Armenia there are usually core textbooks which are spoon-fed to the students who are then to memorize them for examinations. Teachers are more serious, solemn and strict. In Britain or America every academic is responsible for his or her own curriculum, which can either be eccentric, inspiring or boring. There are no unified core textbooks for the students to be dependent on. A teacher may be joyful, humorous and friendly towards students. At first some Armenian students find this kind of behavior and teaching trivial and unintellectual. One of the most difficult things to manage in an American or British university is the reading list provided by the lecturer. To read them all or just to read some? To read them all is too difficult; but to read some means making selections which is also difficult. In Armenia the teacher or someone will tell you what to do and what not to do, like a child being told by a mother. In America or Britain, however, you are on your own. If reading presents problems for Armenian students, speaking is even more daunting. Many students may study some English before they go to America or Britain; but have little chance of practicing speaking. Usually their reading ability is only slightly better. Even after some study of English before entering college for a proper degree course many still find speaking a huge problem. Therefore during seminars or tutorials, many would feel frustrated for not being able to express themselves. Language is not the only problem for the Armenian students in tutorial sessions. Armenian students tend to think that only the teacher has the wisdom on the subject. They therefore think it a waste of time to listen to another student speak in a tutorial class.
Employment and Work. Language problems are also reflected in difficulties encountered by Armenian students in finding jobs or even in a working environment. One clear example of linguistic problem is the preparation of a resume or curriculum vitae. Many Armenian students either tend to overstate themselves or understate themselves. However, when they discover that Americans or British people do not think the way they do they tend to overstate themselves. Problem of this kind is more obvious in interviews. How to be self-confident without appearing to be brash and boasting, modest without appearing not to know what to do is very difficult when one is not competent in the interview language.
Sometimes it is not easy to demarcate whether the communication problems are verbal or non-verbal. This is clearly shown in intercultural communication and in social interaction. There are for instance different concepts of being polite. Armenians may think they are a very polite people. However, some Armenians are perceived to be rude and lack of manners abroad. Not only they speak louder in public, say, on buses, among themselves, but also are not used to English way of being polite. When entering a shop an Armenian may just say "I want ....", or "Give me..." which is what they would say in an Armenian linguistic environment. Americans and British people find this way of requesting extremely impolite. In response they tend to say things rudely or behave rudely. In Armenian, the word for "please" is seldom used. In fact, the more close you are to someone you communicate with the less likely you would use "please" because the word sounds distant and formal in Armenian. In American and British culture "please" is one of the most used word, to strangers as well as to friends and family members. However, the fact that Armenians are not used to the word "please" of course does not mean they are not polite. There is a language problem.
2.2 Cultural Values, Customs and Linguistic Expressions The above is just example of the absence of formal ways of expressing politeness in Armenian which influence intercultural communication. This lack of formal explicitness is also shown in another kind of behavior to each other. In American and British culture, for instance, "I love you" is used very frequently, to children by parents, and partners to each other, so much so that one tends to suspect that the expression, like "please", does not mean much anymore! Armenians, on the other hand, usually find it quite embarrassing to say "I love you". For Armenians, whether one loves another person is shown by doing things for each other or by hints and little gestures. To say it explicitly sounds not only unnecessary but also fake. Armenians also restrain from touching the opposite sex because to do that signals some sexual intention. It is quite normal to touch each other of the same sex, a gesture indicating only friendliness or affection. On the other hand Americans may touch the opposite sex for fun or very trivial reasons. It is therefore not unusual for an Armenian to mistake a friendly touch from an American of the opposite sex for a more "deeper" meaning. Their inability to express emotions explicitly or differently tends to decrease the longer the Armenians live in American society, especially when he or she is more and more fluent in English. Armenians also appreciate friendship in a rather different way. They tend to think that friends should help each other in getting things done, or in times of difficulty. An Armenian may ask a local American friend (who may have influence and network in the immigration office) to help him or her to obtain a visa for a relative to enter America. The American may just say "Sorry mate, I cannot help you" without even seemingly wanting to try. To the Armenians this is only a bit less than betrayal of friendship. In an Armenian context you would at least say "Let me see what I can do" even if you know you cannot or will not do anything. There are other cultural values which baffle the Armenians. Some Armenians find it astonishing and even horrible that some Americans pay their parents for lodging and food when they live at home; and some even have to pay for the use of telephone at home.
As for the Chinese, they are perceived by some local Americans to be "inscrutable". Chinese laugh is an example in case. Chinese may laugh when an American mentions something in the Bible. This is because the Chinese may be pleased and touched by the American’s genuine feeling for religion. To the American, however, the Chinese takes the Bible and Christianity too lightly. Self-Identity. There is a tremendous sense of loneliness felt by many Armenian students in US. Though they may like it there and the majority of the students would not prefer to go back to Armenia. It is not just the material benefit or clear environment that is attractive to them. They like the freedom, liberty and career opportunity. A high percentage of the students also cited the lack of complicated human relationship as being very attractive to them. These students hate the idea of having to handle the complex of human relationship in Armenia. Compared with Armenia there is hardly any complicated human relationship to deal with in America. The American government is not intrusive and the ordinary people are left alone to do their own business. However, the price they have to pay is loneliness. In Armenia one needs to deal with delicate human relationship, with one’s relatives, friends, colleagues, various authorities and administrative personnel, to get things done, such as seeing a doctor, buying a railway ticket, or moving up in career. If you offend someone in the hierarchy in your work unit you will have endless trouble. Indeed the handling of these relationships requires so much constant time and energy that one has no time or sentiment to be lonely. In America and Britain, however, everything seems rule-governed. So long as you follow the rules you do not need to work on the human relationship to get things done. As a result there appears to be a lack of human relationship in America and Britain. Boy and girl friends come and go without much fuss. There are therefore so many single parents. An elderly may have died for weeks without being noticed. Some Armenian students go as far as to say that some local Americans live like animals, only focusing on immediate material gratification. They sell and buy houses frequently like changing clothes and they change jobs as if there is no big deal. Armenian students find it hard to identify themselves with these values and customs. They refer to the local Americans, especially the whites, as foreigners when in fact they themselves are foreigners in a foreign cultural environment. They feel uncertain, on the alert and even uncomfortable with the so-called foreigners. When they are among themselves they feel at ease and they speak louder and more fluently in their own language. A very frequent expression among them when they start talking about something is "We are Armenians, so...". Another pet phrase is "Foreigners would not understand...". On the other hand, they do not necessarily stick together with Armenians very much either, except a few very good friends. In fact they tend to be very suspicious of their expatriates. They feel that they can trust foreigners more than Armenians, especially in work environment. Either because psychological residue they have brought with them from Armenia or because competition in work many students do not trust each other though they may find it easier in communication. Consequently these foreign language learners do not have much of a self-identity. They can identify themselves with their expatriates in communication and even social life, though there is not much social life among themselves except some student activities. However, they have difficulty in identifying themselves with local Americans as well since the environment for their cultural values and customs is far away from them.
Aculturalisaiton. Armenian foreign language learners find it difficult to identify themselves with native Americans because of cultural and linguistic problems, at least initially. This does not, of course, mean that they are not trying. What may be called actualization, which means a shift from high culture to popular culture, from handcrafts to high tech, does take place. For those who get better jobs such as being academic at universities aculturalisation takes place rapidly. Some even marry native Americans. They work and live like native Americans, though seen to be odd now and then. That aculturalisation takes place for most of them can be seen by the fact that they find it very difficult to live in Armenia if and when they go back. Even a short visit to Armenia gives some cultural shock!
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 analyze 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.

Conclusion

It has long been a fundamental belief of language teachers that one of the contributions of foreign language teaching to students ' education is to introduce learners to and help them understand "otherness". Whether it be linguistic or cultural terms, learners are confronted with the language of other people, their culture, their way of thinking and dealing with the world. However the complexity of the journey to be traveled from academic study of exotic peoples to the foreign languages classroom is not underestimated.
Culture teaching needs to draw on the disciplines of the social sciences, especially cultural and social anthropology, in order to determine what shall be taught and why. Similarly, culture teaching needs to have regard to work in social psychology in order to understand and foster the psychological process which learners may be expected to experience in the course of exposure to a different culture. The peculiar relationship between language and other aspects of culture, and the traditions of language teaching itself, require particular consideration. Thus from a social anthropological point of view it is possible to consider teaching culture through the learners ' own language, for from the point of view this language is used in a specific way to interpret the other culture. From a psychological and linguistic view point, however, it is necessary to create modifications in learners ' concepts and schemata by a process of further socialization and experiential learning in the foreign language, which itself embodies the foreign culture. Since, however, the acquisition of the foreign language at language schools inevitably lags behind the maturation and socialization process, the use of the learners ' first language has to be invoked to some extent in the modification of existing and still developing perceptions of culture and society.
In our paper we conclude that there are two possible approaches: first, the use of learners ' first language as the medium of study of a foreign culture, taught according to the principles of appropriate disciplines, although without the intention of introducing the learner to the totality of the culture. Second, the integration of language and culture learning by using the language as a medium for the continuing socialization of students is a process which is not intended to imitate and replicate the socialization of native-speaker teachers but rather to develop students ' cultural competence from its existing stage, by changing it into intercultural competence.
Our findings show that native language and culture do influence verbal or non-verbal communication in a new cultural and linguistic environment. It is sometimes very difficult to make a distinction between what is cultural and what is linguistic.
This is the case because cultural values and way of thinking are so embedded in language use. Not only native cultural values and customs influence intercultural communication, native language also interferes with the competence of using the non-native language. The other side of the story is that once one acquires the non-native language better one also knows the non-native culture better. These are two sides of the same coin of what can be called aculturalisation.
This seems to suggest that acquisition of a non-native language by foreign language learners is culture-orientated. The more you are ready to embrace a culture the more you are tuned to the language of that culture; and as a result the more you will be competent in that language. In other words this is to state that linguistic competence of a non-native language is not just a kind of practical skill that one can acquire value-free. A learner has to take an attitude. This attitude, one way or another, will have an effect on the depth and speed of aculturalisation. This is not to say, however, that the acquisition of second language competence cannot be obtained by motivation other than aculturalisation. There are other motivations which drive a person to learn a second language and learn it well. During the Cold War period, for instance, some Russians were trained to learn excellent English which was the language of their enemy. Equally, some Muslim fundamentalists may learn to speak perfect English in order to fight those who are perceived to be their enemies, "To know the enemies better" is certainly one strong motivation.
As a way of reconciling the two points - the point that one tends to learn the target language better when one is ready to embrace the culture of that language and the point that you can learn the target language well even if you hate it (though this is not totally clear even in the case of the Muslim fundamentalists) - I would like to conclude the paper by saying that aculturalisation does not necessarily mean love, like or even sympathy of the culture of the target language. To say that the acquisition of a second language is not culturally value-free does not necessarily mean only positive attitude. It is the attitude of engagement, positive or negative, that matters.

Bibliography

1. Ager, D. (1993) Language Education for Intercultural Communication. U.S: Multilingual Matters LTD.
2. Asante, M.K. (1990) Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. SAGE Publishing’s.
3. Bochner, Stephen. (1982) Cultures in Contact, Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
4. Bond, Michael Harris. (1991) Beyond the Chinese face: insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
5. Brislin, Richard, W. (1981) Cross-Cultural Encounters, Face-to-Face Interaction. New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.
6. Byran, M. (1989) Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Multilingual Matters LTD.
7. Clyne, M. (1994) Intercultural communication. Cambridge University Press.
8. Dodd, H.D. (1997) Intercultural Communication. Wm.c. Brown Publisher.
9. Hinde, R.A. (1997) Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press.
10. Jackson, Jane. (2011) Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. United Kingdom. Taylor & Francis LTD Routledge.
11. Levine, D. R. and Adelman, M. B. (1993) Beyond Languages: Cross Cultural Communication. New York: Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall Regents.
12. Lustig, M. and Koester, J. (1996) Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Culture. New York: Harper Colin.
13. Samovar, L. A. (1986) Intercultural Communication: A Reader. U.S: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
14. Seelye, Ned, H. (1994) Teaching Culture, Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook Company.
15. Spitzberg, Brian H. and Cupach, William R. (1984) Interpersonal communication; Communicative competence. SAGE Publishings.
16. Toomey, S.T. (1991) Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. SAGE Publishings.
17. Wiseman, L.R. (1993) Intercultural Communication Competence. International Education and Professional Publisher.

Internet Sources

http://culturespan.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-culture-affects-communication.html http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/5_1/3LingGao.pdf http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6491/Culture-and-Communication.html http://www.languageonthemove.com/downloads/PDF/piller_2007_intercultural%20communication.pdf

Bibliography: 1. Ager, D. (1993) Language Education for Intercultural Communication. U.S: Multilingual Matters LTD. 2 3. Bochner, Stephen. (1982) Cultures in Contact, Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 4 5. Brislin, Richard, W. (1981) Cross-Cultural Encounters, Face-to-Face Interaction. New York/Oxford/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt: Pergamon Press. 6 7. Clyne, M. (1994) Intercultural communication. Cambridge University Press. 8. Dodd, H.D. (1997) Intercultural Communication. Wm.c. Brown Publisher. 9. Hinde, R.A. (1997) Non-verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press. 10. Jackson, Jane. (2011) Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. United Kingdom. Taylor & Francis LTD Routledge. 11 12. Lustig, M. and Koester, J. (1996) Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Culture. New York: Harper Colin. 13 14. Seelye, Ned, H. (1994) Teaching Culture, Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook Company. 15 16. Toomey, S.T. (1991) Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. SAGE Publishings. 17. Wiseman, L.R. (1993) Intercultural Communication Competence. International Education and Professional Publisher.