Geum.ru

Е. Ф. Тарасов главный редактор

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


3. Intercultural communication 3.1 Definition
Applying the lacuna model in intercultural communication
Подобный материал:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   ...   33

3. Intercultural communication

3.1 Definition


Intercultural communication, though a widespread and often used term, has no underlying, generally accepted definition. For this reason I would like to approach this term by defining the two inherent terms “culture” and “communication” [based on Schröder 1997]: Communication can be seen as symbolic interaction between individuals which is either intentional (that is having a specific aim) or social (acting focused on other individuals). Symbolic interaction consists of signs organized in codes attaching meaning to the signs. The most important and complicated system of signs is language which goes along with nonverbal communication. Communication is conducted through signs and therefore not only consists of explicit but as well of implicit communication. The latter consists of what is meant but not explicitly said; it needs interpretation. To establish successful communication either a common code or the knowledge of the foreign code is needed. Codes as systems of signs heavily depend on the respective culture - remember chapter 2.1: Ethnopsycholinguistis state that mutual understanding between cultures is in principle possible because no absolute original codes of communication exist. However, since within the environment of human cultures no absolute unequivocal codes exist intercultural understanding is only possible to a certain extent. Culture itself can be understood as a code that is a system of concepts, value orientations and norms which are expressed through the feelings, thoughts, actions and language of the individual. Culture helps the individual to structure the world, it is the immanent logic how we perceive the world. Still, cultural rules are mostly not codified or consciously utilized by the members of a culture because the cultural rules are learned through socialization. Through this early learning of cultural rules they are seen as familiar, are taken for granted so that they are not easily questioned. Probably, mistakes in communication between individuals of geographically closely related cultures in intercultural communication count more to the respective individual than with individuals from a geographically distant culture due to a certain bonus of being “exotic”.

Communication is always bound by culture because during communication information about the communication parties and their relationship are stated through their use of explicit (words) and implicit communication (including nonverbal communication). Thus, the prerequisite for successful communication is either a more or less common culture or cultural sensitivity for cultural-bound differences. Though, the linguistic operationalisation of culture-bound differences is not easy the lacuna model solved in my opinion this problem very impressively [Schröder 1994]. Before continuing with application possibilities of the lacuna model in intercultural communication the definition of intercultural communication for this paper based on Knapp & Knapp-Potthof [in Schröder 1997] is introduced: “[…] we can define ‘intercultural communication’ as taking place whenever participants introduce different knowledge into the interaction which is specific to their respective sociocultural group, which is relevant in the sense that it determines how a particular interaction should normally be verbally or non-verbally accomplished, but which is taken for granted and thus can affect the process of communication.” This definition holds as well for communication among subcultures and for all groups sharing some specific knowledge.

    1. Applying the lacuna model in intercultural communication


Starting out from the issue of English as a world language Smith [in Schröder 1997] points out that in all intercultural encounters a ‘negotiating of meaning’ is necessary. Smith proposes five criteria which add up to a successful ‘negotiating of meaning’: 1) a sense of self, 2) a sense of the other, 3) a sense of the relationship between self and the other, 4) a sense of the setting/social situation and 5) a sense of the goal or objective. Schröder [1997] sees the sense of self as crucial for intercultural communication because individuals are usually not aware of their values, communication styles within their own socio-cultural group (see as well above: definition of intercultural communication). Still “[…] when one communicates across cultures, a clear sense of self is crucial in negotiating meaning.” [Smith in Schröder 1997]. Schröder stresses that taking Smith’s five criteria into account when encountering an intercultural situation would facilitate understanding, not in the sense of adapting totally to the other but by being sensitive for occurring problems.

Two main advantages of the lacuna model to further intercultural communication are the following:
  • It is a store of categories enabling to scientifically register, classify and analyse the immense diversity of cultural peculiarities. Inductively various different aspects of a conflict situation or even of the whole genesis of a conflict can be analysed [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 6].
  • Lacuna studies are able to track cultural differences by seeing what seems ‘strange’ or ‘odd’ for non-members of a given culture. By being aware of the fact that lacunas exist, one is able to attempt to promote better intracultural and intercultural understandings. The lacuna model does not attempt to solve cultural differences, it simply identifies the differences. However, the lacuna model can be beneficial by promoting mutual understanding [Grodzki 2003: 57].

Through the ‘negotiation of meaning’, in my point of view, the lacuna model is brought into the game because it is able to linguistically operationalise the culture-bound differences in intercultural communication and consequently, can be used as a tool to fill with knowledge the five criteria above which I believe serve as a solid basis for preparing intercultural encounters. For example the ‘sense of self’ can be strengthened by becoming aware of typical behaviour, important values, communication styles etc. of oneself and of the own socio-cultural group by detecting these commonalities through lacuna analysis. Lacuna analysis as specific tool to detect (potential) intercultural and intracultural gaps is either applied as what I call ‘preparation-tool’ (that is in advance) for hopefully then successful intercultural encounters, e.g. the preparation of pupils for a pupils exchange programme into a foreign country, or as what I named ‘reparations-tool’ (that is in retrospect) of intercultural misunderstandings/miscommunication like misunderstandings based on the different meaning attached to a word (axilogical lacuna). The approach of lacuna analysis to first accept different perspectives and then to compare and try to explain them [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 9] adds to its value as both, preparation-tool and reparations-tool.

Ertelt-Vieth [2003: 15] proposes three areas of application of the lacuna model in intercultural communication:
  • Discovery and analysis of critical incidents in face-to-face situations or in medially mediated intercultural encounters,
  • Reconstruction of problematic confrontations of even long-lasting relations,
  • Preparing intercultural encounters.

The latter aspect of preparing intercultural encounters will be treated more in detail in chapter five.