Cultural Fluency as a Guide to Effective Intercultural Communication英语经典论文.doc

Cultural Fluency as a Guide to Effective Intercultural Communication:The Case of Japan and the U.S.:Yukiko InoueUniversity of Guam, AbstractIntercultural communication serves a vital role in that it can forestall miscommunication and misunderstanding. Because of increased intercultural contact and interdependence, people in the world are forced to "rethink" intercultural communication in order to acquire effective intercultural communication competence. The present paper provides a critical discussion of the conceptualization of intercultural communication and the commonly acknowledged challenge of intercultural communication. With a focus on Japan and the U.S. (since both countries have remarkably different forms of communication in terms of nonverbal communication particularly), the paper defines culture and explores the following: (1) origin of intercultural communication research; (2) cultural fluency and willingness to communicate; and (3) words versus haragei (a Japanese concept), touching upon intercultural (business) communication. Keywords: intercultural communication, cultural fluency, cultural communication, Japanese forms of communication, nonverbal communicationIntroduction"Intercultural" communication and "international" communication are separate areas of research; in brief, intercultural communication researchers focus on the individual as the unit of analysis, whereas international communication researchers work at the macro level using units of analysis such as nations, world systems, and groups (Gudykunst and Mody 2002). Intercultural business communication is a relatively young field of study compared with intercultural communication or business communication (Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson 2003). An often neglected dimension of business is human interaction (Brislin 1994), and thus, intercultural business communication has grown into a complex disciplinary endeavor: "Of themselves, the fundamental constructs of culture and communication involve an array of well-established and highly developed fields of enquiry, with their distinctive and sometimes overlapping approaches, theories, and methodologies" (Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson 2003, p. 3). Intercultural communication serves a vital role in that it can forestall miscommunication and misunderstanding. Because of increased intercultural contact and interdependence, people in the world are forced to "rethink" intercultural communication in order to acquire effective intercultural communication competence which, as Arasaratnam (2005) states, is becoming more relevant in the increasingly multicultural communities that people live in today. Although intercultural communication is not new, what is new is the systematic study of exactly what happens when cross-culture contacts and interactions take placethat is, when a message producer and a message receiver are from different cultures (Gao 2006). One major area of intercultural communication research is cross-cultural communication, and most current cross-cultural communication research tends to be comparative (e.g., comparing speech convergence in initial interactions in Japan and the U.S.) (Gudykunst and Mody 2002). The present paper, therefore, provides a critical discussion of the conceptualization of intercultural communication and the commonly acknowledged challenge of intercultural communication. With a focus on Japan and the U.S. (since both countries have remarkably different forms of communication and are two remarkably different cultures when it comes to nonverbal communication), the author defines culture and then explores the following: (1) origin of intercultural communication research; (2) cultural fluency and willingness to communicate; and (3) words versus haragei (a Japanese concept) in intercultural (business) communication. What is a Culture?The intersection of psychology with sociology, anthropology, and organizational studies, as noted by Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson (2003), is fertile ground for a critical appraisal of the overarching construct of culture; for instance, a survey of recent literature in these disciplines indicates that the debate is still continuing as to whether culture is a mental construct, a social dimension, or a shared, patterned behavior. Although the term "culture" has been defined in a variety of ways, culture is characterized as a "system of beliefs, values, and assumptions about life that guides behavior and is shared by a group of people; and these are transmitted from generation to generation, rarely with explicit instructions" (Peace Corps 2002, p. 14).Cultural dimensionsCultures tend to vary along a number of dimensions. The following are among those in which different views and behaviors can lead to misunderstanding and tension (Ziegahn 2001):· Individualism (values the self-reliance, equality, and autonomy of the individual) versus collectivism (values group effort and harmony) · Mono-chronic time (is tangible and can be saved, wasted, and run out) versus poly-chronic time (stresses involvement of completion of transactions rather than preset schedules) · Egalitarianism (believing in fairness and equal opportunities for everyone) versus hierarchy (may be valued in more collectivist cultures as a means of acknowledging innate differences and inequalities and of facilitating communication through the recognition of social levels) · Action (e.g., U.S. culture tends to value action, efficiency, getting to "the bottom line") versus being orientation (may be more important to people coming from a more holistic cultural orientation than the perception of precipitously moving to action steps) · Change (has become the mantra of dominant U.S. society) versus tradition (values the lessons of history view the past as an important guide to the present and the future) · Communication styles (depending on cultural variables such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, and race, individuals may have a reference for both sending and receiving messages in styles) · Power imbalances (i.e., cultures are stratified by inequities in terms of access to political and economical power). (pp. 2-3)Cultural psychology and its focus on historically situated and interactionally based relationships between individuals provide rich sources of data which benefit both inter- and intra research and, perhaps, a more accessible discipline for business interculturalists is that of linguistic anthropology, most especially in its approach to language is culture (Bargiela-Chiappini and Nickerson 2003): "There is much that linguists and communication scholars can contribute to an understanding of the processes generating and reconstructing the luminal zone of the intercultural communitywe now need to extend that analysis further using the tools afforded by multi-disciplinarity" (p. 10). The inseparability of language and culture using the term "languaculture" and that languaculture awareness is extremely important but extremely difficult to achieve in situations of intercultural context (Roberts 1998): "one of the most remarkable trends in current thinking about language and culture is a broad consensus on the constructed nature of social reality the recent literature within cultural studies and anthropology critiques the earlier abstract, homogeneous notion of culture" (pp. 109-110). Culture is (1) an important idea as it deals with the way people live and approach problem solving in a social and organizational context, (2) the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another, and (3) the result of a complex interaction of values, attitudes, and behaviors of the members of a group; "values" influence attitudes, "attitudes" affect behaviors, and "behaviors" in turn have an impact on "cultures"thus forming a reinforcing or self adjusting, circular phenomenon (Soutar, Grainger, and Hedges 1999) (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Circular phenomenon of culture based on the theory by Soutar et al. (1999) In the same way, LeBaron (2003) argues that cross-cultural communication is demonstrated by examples of values, attitudes, and behaviors involving four variables as described below: 1. Time and space: Time is one of the most central differences that separate cultures and cultural ways of doing things. Roberts Rules of Order (rules for meetings), observed in many Western meetings, enforce a mono-chronic idea of time. In the East, time feels like it has unlimited continuity, an unraveling rather than a strict boundary. 2. Fate and personal responsibility: This refers to the degree to which people feel themselves the masters of their lives, versus the degree to which people see themselves as subject to things outside their control. 3. Face and face-saving: In the broader definition, face includes ideas of status, power, courtesy, insider and outsider relations, humor, and respect. In many cultures, maintaining face is of great importance, though ideas of how to do this vary. 4. Nonverbal communication: Research has shown that the emotions of anger, fear, sadness, disgust, and surprise are expressed in similar ways by people around the world. (pp. 2-3)As peoples familiarities with the above four different starting points increase, they are cultivating cultural fluencycultural fluency is awareness of the ways cultures operate in communication and conflict, and the ability to respond effectively to these differences.Stumbling blocks in cross-cultural communicationRegarding the researchers/interviewers in intercultural context, Shah (2004) identifies the following six stumbling blocks in cross-cultural communications and understanding:1. Assumption of similarities: This might temporarily ease the discomfort of walking on thin ice, but it can be seriously misleading, with implications for data interpretation and the research itself (Holstein and Gubrium as cited in Shah 2004). 2. Language differences: Communication competence studies insist that knowing the language is not enough unless and until it is supported by cultural knowledge. 3. Nonverbal misinterpretations: Nonverbal messages and signals are located within cultures and patterns of behavior and, therefore, cannot be learned through mere language acquisition (e.g., a nodding implies Yes in many cultures but means No in parts of Greece). 4. Preconceptions and stereotypes: Intercultural communication takes place in the backdrop of preconceptions and stereotypes deriving from initial contacts with other cultures. 5. Tendency to evaluate: Evaluations are made in comparison with the known value systems and patterns of behavior, derived from ones own cultural background. 6. High anxiety: In intercultural interaction, the participants might experience both stress and anxiety at the prospect of dealing with the "unknown."Culturally unique conceptsCommunication is a process involving multiple messages sent via multiple signal systems; and culture has a "pervasive influence on the encoding of both verbal and nonverbal signals and on the decoding of those signals. Because of this influence, misunderstanding and conflict is inevitable in intercultural communication" (Matsmoto, Leroux, and Yoo 2005, p. 28):Cultural groups are often characterized by distinct languages, and subcultures often have dialects within a language. Each is a unique symbol system that denotes what a culture deems important in its world. That words exist in some languages and not others reflects the fact that different cultures symbolize their worlds differently. The German word "schadenfreude" and the Japanese word "amae," which do not have counterparts in English, provide examples. (p. 15)Asian constructssuch as amae (a Japanese concept that describes dependence upon anothers benevolence) and woori (an inclusive group in Korea)reflect the relational nature of human existence; that is, a relational analysis requires consideration of how relationships are culturally defined before attempting to interpret the behavior of individuals, and it entails making explicit the normative expectations and behavioral rules implicit in social relations (Miyahara n.d.): "The strategic units of analysis are not the individual or the situation alone but person-in-relations (focusing on a person in different relational contexts) and person-in-relations (focusing on persons interacting within a relational context)" (p. 11).Origin of Intercultural Communication ResearchThe term "intercultural communication" was first used in Edward T. Halls (1959) book, The Silent Language, and Hall has been acknowledged to be the founder of the field of intercultural communication (Note that The Silent Language was translated into Japanese in 1966 by Masao Kunihiro, et al. as Chinmoku No Kotoba) (Rogers, Hart, and Miike 2002). The original paradigm for intercultural communication took form in conceptualizations by Hall and associates at the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State during the 1951-1955 period; Halls early life experiences as he grew up in the culturally diverse state of New Mexico, and commanded an African American regiment in World War II expressed a high degree of cultural fluency, and were significant influences (Rogers et al. 2002): "Halls graduate training in anthropology at Columbia University and his work as an applied anthropologist in the Foreign Service Institute brought him in contact with scholars who influenced his conceptualization of intercultural communication" (p. 5). Table 1 traces the history of intercultural communication research.Table 1. Major events in the development of the field of intercultural communicationDateEvents1950-1955Development of the original paradigm of intercultural communication by Edward T. Hall and others at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington D.C.1955First publication on intercultural communication by Hall ("The Anthropology of Manners" in Scientific American)1959Publication of The Silent Language in English (a Japanese edition appeared in 1966 as Chinmoku No Kubota)Late 1960sDevelopment of the first intercultural courses at universities (e.g., University of Pittsburgh); and publication of Alfred Smiths (1966) Communication and Culture.1970International Communication Association established a Division of Intercultural Communication1972First publication of an edited book on Intercultural Communication by Larry A. Samovar and Richard E. Porter. 1973Intercultural Communication by L.S. Harms at the University of Hawaii is published (the first textbook on intercultural communication)1974First publication of International and Intercultural Communication Annuals; The Society of Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR) is found1975An Introduction to Intercultural Communication by John C. Condon and Fat