Doing business across cultures is not just a matter of speaking the same language. We need to keep in mind the kind of society our speech partners are from.

When communicating with someone from another culture, have you ever found that, although you are communicating on one level — somehow you are passing each other by? For instance, two people are speaking English. This language might be a second language for both, or it might be the first language for one and the second language for the other. What is often missing, however, is the substratum of a common culture that not only determines how something is communicated, but what and how much of a topic is to be conveyed.

Without understanding the essential role of cultural factors in cross-cultural communication, we are often left wondering exactly what the other person was trying to say and why we didn’t quite "get it", even though we paid close attention.

The purpose of communication

The factors in miscommunication, or partial communication, are complex, but there are several key elements in this process. First of these is the purpose of communication. Generally, in the West talk is less of "an art form" as it is a "tool". If we refer again to a Protestant influence on language use, we note the importance of the “plain style.”

This means that, in the more recent tradition of English-language use, speech should be unadorned and “to-the-point” (direct). In other words, as George Orwell demanded in his essay “Politics and the English Language”, metaphors and “poetic” diction is not helpful to communication. This demand for a “stripped down” or “plain” style of speech (and writing) comes from the primary purpose of English language — to communicate information rather than to impress or entertain listeners or readers.

Tone of voice

Similarly, plain speaking entails using a controlled, dispassionate tone of voice. We noted this in the rhetoric used by George W Bush, in contrast to the style employed by the Information Minister of Iraq in the various pronouncements made on television during the second Gulf War. President Bush spoke in an unemotional, evenly paced, and highly controlled tone that was meant to impress listeners with the seriousness of what he was saying.

The Iraqi Minister, on the other hand, used a communication pattern typical of his Arab heritage, highly passionate in tone and colourful in use of imagery. The Minister was less interested in conveying facts or data, but wished to impart to listeners the emotional sincerity with which he announced his government’s resistance. It is quite possible that the words of the two parties simply flew past each other without hitting a receptive spot in either the American or the Iraqi mind.

"Getting it"

It is often said that the English language demands directness in communication while many other tongues thrive on indirection or understatement. Understatement means that the listeners know most of what remains unsaid. They share a common culture that makes full disclosure unnecessary because people share the same context. We call this type of culture a high context culture, meaning that the message is in the context of the communication, not in the words themselves. If you understand the circumstances (context) of the talk, you understand the talk without needing long explanations. If not, you don’t.

 In multicultural Western societies information is itemised so that everyone “gets it” because people come from different cultures and don’t understand each other’s contexts. This difference in approach to message transmission also has something to do with how “open” or “free” a society is.

Democratic societies thrive on freedom of information, in contrast to more “closed” or authoritarian societies in which to say things openly could mean serious difficulties for the speaker and his family. Open societies tend to discuss even what is shameful in less open

Content

What is “say-able” (content) is also relevant here. In democratic forums, criticism is often personal and can be harsh indeed. A look at the popular press in English-speaking cultures will illustrate the kinds of things that are commonly written and said in Western countries, in sharp contrast with more cautious societies where “face saving” and “respect” are more important than “openness” and “truth.”

We note that the British royal family is regularly embarrassed in public forums like the news tabloids. In other societies, the offending heads would roll. Again, offending someone in authoritarian cultures can have far-reaching consequences, whereas “telling it like it is” in more democratic cultures is seen as criticism intended to correct behaviour, even when it is royal behaviour. So, content may differ in public communication.

Complimenting

What we are allowed to say includes the type and frequency of complimenting statements. For instance, in the West it is common to make compliments on other people’s clothes, or hairstyles, or tastes in general. People say “I like your shirt”, or “You have a lovely daughter.” But, in many cultures, such compliments are seen as wanting what others have. “I like your watch” could easily be responded to with “Oh. Take it. Here, please.” Not all cultures allow for easy traffic in compliments. It depends on the culture you are in.

Clearly, those making compliments are trying to show that they hold similar tastes to those receiving them. In the West, complimenting is a way of bringing people closer together and has nothing to do with envy. (The “evil eye” of jealousy is more prevalent in Eastern than it is in Western cultures.) Hence, we need to keep in mind the kind of society our speech-partners are from if we are to understand the true intention behind their communications.

"I" or "We"?

In individualistic cultures, depending on which we are looking at, first-person talk is more common than it is in collectivistic cultures. The “I”, as in “I want… I believe… I think…” statements is common in the US but less so in the Far East where “We” predominates. The “I” or the “We” in talk is evidence of where one’s interests lie, in the self or in the collective. What to a collectivist seems like selfishness, in the speech of an individualist is merely expressing oneself from a personal perspective.

Conversely, to the individualist, the “We” of the collectivist sounds like the speaker has “no mind of their own.” Where the one freely chats about personal opinions or matters, the other is reluctant to give information, seems to have no opinions of their own, and is reluctant to talk about the self for fear of seeming “egotistical” or “immodest.” Thoughts as well as words are cultural products and serve different purposes.

Having said this, what is often not mentioned in the discussion of intercultural communication is just how much of what is said is empty chatter or cliché thinking. Where people praise democratic free-speech they tend to overlook the real absence of so-called “personal opinions,” mistaking clichéd thinking for individual thought.

Truly informed opinions, that only come with extensive reading and reflection, are as rare in individualistic as they are in collectivistic cultures. Here the lack of original thinking tells us more about levels of education than it does about patterns of communication. Without education, without reading behind it, much of what is said is thoughtless chatter even in open societies.

Tips for clearer communication

Can we learn each other’s speech patterns? Certainly we can become aware of them. We can also take some measures to improve transmission and reception of information and feelings. For instance, we can listen attentively and ask for clarification (“When you say…do you mean…?”).

We can also avoid using slang or expressions that could confuse the listener. We can speak more clearly, pronounce words distinctly. We can also summarise what has been discussed, especially at the end of meetings, so as to avoid misunderstandings.

So, cross-cultural talk does not have to be an exercise in frustration; it can more closely approximate a true sharing of minds.

July 2004

Intercultural trainer Hans Straub has worked in Canada, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, Taiwan, China and Saudi Arabia. He also teaches English for academic purposes (EAP) and English as a second language (ESL).