Communication: intercultural communicationA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWwith other key factors – for example, social iden-
tities, those of age, gender, social class and
ethnicity. Th us, for example, the genderlects
noted by Deborah Tannen in You Just Don’t
Understand: Men and Women in Conversation
(Virago, 1992) could be expected to modify the
degree to which, say, the cultural variable of
individualism infl uences a person’s communica-
tive performance. Also part of the equation are
psychocultural infl uences such as stereotyping,
ethnocentrism and prejudice and environ-
mental influences such as population density
and terrain.
Encounters between people of different
cultures can also be reflected in language; a
Pidgin, for example, may be generated. In trad-
ing and doing business with the English in the
Far East, the Chinese and other peoples, such as
the Malays, communicated in a very basic, utili-
tarian mode of half-English. Pidgin is a Chinese
corruption of the word ‘business’ but the term is
more widely used to to denote such basic means
of communication. According to Elizabeth Closs
Traugott and Mary Louise Pratt in Linguistics
(Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1980), a Pidgin
may be ‘roughly defi ned as a language that is
nobody’s native language’.
Pidgins are developed in situations where
people with differing native languages are
brought together, some often in a relatively
powerless position, and have to communicate.
Pidgins, though, tend to meet only the basic
needs of communication and are strongly reli-
ant on the accompanying use of non-verbal
communication for their effectiveness.
Creoles are normally developed by the children
of Pidgin speakers and these are more complex
and more fl exible languages. Over time, through
the process of decreolization, a Creole often
changes to resemble more closely the predomi-
nant or prestige language that was its base, if this
language is still used in the area. Th is was the case
with Jamaican Creole. In Britain, British Black
English, derived largely from Jamaican Creole,
is widely used by people with Afro-Caribbean
origins as a linguistic marker of ethnic identity,
and typically is part of a linguistic repertoire
that also includes other varieties of English. See
apache silence; assertiveness; facework;
m-time, p-time.
▶Sang-Pil Han and Sharon Shavitt, ‘Persuasion and
culture: advertising appeals in individualistic and
collectivistic societies’, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 30 (4) 1994; Fons Trompenaars and
Peter Woolliams, Marketing Across Cultures (John
Wiley & Sons, 2004); Harry C. Triandis, Individual-the context, for example the status diff erences
between the communicators, to provide mean-
ing, and considerable use is made of non-verbal
signs.
Hall writes, ‘When talking about something
that they have on their minds, a high context
individual will expect his interlocutor to know
what’s bothering him, so he doesn’t have to be
specifi c. Th e result is that he will talk around
and around the point, in eff ect putting all the
pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing
it properly – this keystone – is the role of the
interlocutor. To do this for him is an insult and a
violation of his individuality.’
As Gudykunst and Kim argue, ‘High-context
communication can be characterized as being
indirect, ambiguous and understated with
speakers being reserved and sensitive to listen-
ers.’ High-context communication is favoured
by collectivistic cultures, such as that of Japan,
in which the centrality of in-group membership
ensures the degree of shared knowledge and
understanding of contextual factors, essential for
its eff ective use.
Individualistic cultures, such as that of Euro-
pean Americans, on the other hand, favour low-
context communication. Here, such a degree
of shared knowledge and understanding of
contextual factors cannot be taken for granted,
so meaning is made obvious and less use is
made of non-verbal signs – especially silence.
As Gudykunst and Kim comment, ‘Low-context
communication ... can be characterized as being
direct, explicit, open, precise and consistent with
one’s feelings.’
Whilst the cultural variable of Individualism/
Collectivism may predispose individuals to
favour one pattern over another, they may in
certain circumstances employ the contrast-
ing pattern. So whilst those in individualistic
cultures may generally employ low-context
communication, in certain situations, for
example when talking to a longstanding friend,
they may use high-context communication.
In cross-cultural encounters confusion and
possible confl ict can occur when high-context
meets low-context. Those from collectivistic,
high-context communication cultures, for
example, may fi nd the direct, open approach of
those from individualistic, low-context cultures
socially inept and tactless; whilst those from
individualistic, low-context cultures may get
frustrated with the failure of those from collec-
tivistic, high-context communication cultures to
‘get to the point’.
Th e infl uence of cultural variables interplays