Conflict, Culture and Communication

Stefanie Stadler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429828942
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Conflict, Culture and Communication provides a coherent, research-informed overview of conflict and intercultural communication. Aimed at encouraging and enabling conflict prevention, this book contributes to a better understanding of the factors that create, foster and exacerbate conflict in intercultural interaction and discusses how conflict can be handled, managed and resolved once it has manifested. Furthermore, this book:

• 
  
  

• Critically assesses the repercussions of prevalent conflict management approaches, providing insights into best practices and sustainable conflict resolution outcomes.

• 
  
  

• Combines insights from multiple disciplines and cultures, including Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North and South America, in order to arrive at a holistic and balanced understanding of the complexities inherent in negotiating conflict across cultural contexts.

• 
  
  

• Avoids cultural stereotyping by discussing both between-culture variation and within-culture variation.

Conflict, Culture and Communication is essential reading for students and researchers of applied linguistics, communication studies and international business, as well as anyone interested in learning more about this growing area.

Chapter 1

Communication across cultural contexts

Communication is central to successful intercultural encounters and work of any kind, be it for travelling, interpersonal interactions or international business. Unfortunately, speaking the other party’s language is not sufficient to guarantee successful interactions, and many of the discrepancies in communication are due to pragmatic differences and cultural preferences for particular ways of communicating, with language functioning merely as a tool (Stadler, 2011). As interactional partners rarely completely align in their views and goals, managing intercultural interactions and transactions is particularly prone to conversational conflict. The particularly high propensity for conflict in intercultural communication is documented in studies such as Spencer-Oatey and Xing (2008), which investigated business deals that went awry on the grounds of culture-based conflicts. The tendency for intercultural contact to lead to more, and more complex, conflict situations is also documented by Elmer (1993) and von Glinow et al. (2004). Conflict is not conducive to successful interactions and it need not come in the shape of a complete breakdown to adversely affect communication and relationships. Previous research demonstrated clearly that different cultures have starkly different orientations to disagreement and approaches to managing conversational conflict situations (Stadler, 2013a). Hence, it is imperative to gain a better understanding of culture-based attitudes towards conflict, as well as the cultural variables that underlie them, in order to arrive at smoother relations and more successful interactions and transactions across cultures.

1.1 Demographics, context and conflict

When we communicate, we invariably assess who we talk to. The interactional strategies we choose may be selected subconsciously, but just because this occurs predominantly outside our immediate awareness does not mean it is not subject to a complex decision-making process. Stadler (2007) outlines the elaborate processes utterance-production and utterance-interpretation undergo, both on a conscious and on an unconscious level. Banks (1998, p. 5) points out that we are all members of cultural communities where the interpretation of our life experiences ‘is mediated by the interaction of a complex set of status variables, such as gender, social class, age, political affiliation, religion, and region’. Consequently, in interaction with other people there are a wide array of variables to consider, the most salient of which include age, status, power and gender.

1.1.1 Age

Although the precise way in which age affects communication is very much culture-dependent, in no culture do we address all individuals in the exactly the same manner. Confucian-influenced cultures with long-standing traditions of filial piety show a great deal of respect for age and seniority (Cho & Yoon, 2001; Lee, 2012; Sung, 2003). Chinese culture, for example, as Merriam et al. (2010) report, places greater value on age and on being male. This does not necessarily only refer to older generations, but can involve very complex structures where minimal age differences matter greatly. One thing that typically strikes visitors to Korea as rather odd is people’s tendency to immediately inquire about a person’s age. This is oftentimes perceived as somewhat intrusive. However, in Korean in culture, it is necessary to establish age differences precisely, as specific speaking and behavioural practices have to be observed when addressing an older person, whereby even a single year age gap carries implications of seniority and warrants deferential treatment. Consequently, establishing a conversational partner’s precise age is a must. Reverence and respect for elders is a long-held social tradition and consequently, elders and seniority have vested rights in Korean culture (Cho & Mor Barak, 2008). A transgression of said rights can have serious repercussions, even in the social domain. I have witnessed several incidents among friends which make the potential for offence, that even minimal age gaps carry, very clear.

Case study: Age gap

A group of friends of 14 people (12 of them Korean) went on a trip to Busan. Due to the relatively large group size, we had to take multiple taxis. After one dinner, four of us went back to the apartment we all stayed in, while the rest went out for drinks, which they had forgotten to tell us about. Despite the fact that we tried to contact them, we could not reach them. Although none of the four of us were upset about this, when the rest of the group arrived back at the apartment a huge heated discussion broke out involving many accusations. After this had been going on for quite some time, one of the ‘forgotten’ four, a Korean male, made a remark along the lines of ‘it’s enough now’ to a slightly older female. This was deemed so inappropriate that the female addressee was so livid with rage that she stormed out of the apartment and several group members had to run after her to console her, calm her down and convince her to come back. The following day, during a dinner, one male participant made a joke that another, also slightly older, female considered inappropriate, with the same resultant effect. She went out of the restaurant, only to be followed by several group members consoling her and persuading her to return, while the others scolded the offending male for his inconsiderate behaviour.

As these incidents demonstrate, even rather innocuous utterances across fairly small age gaps can incur serious consequences when norm-expectations are violated. The importance of age in such cultures should be viewed more in terms of what Merriam et al. (2010) refer to as ‘positionality’, i.e. how one stands relative to another person in terms of status. Park and Kim (2005) speak of an age-graded seniority system in Korean culture.

Although it has to be made clear at this point that foreigners are not subjected to the same expectations and scrutiny as locals, it is important to understand the dynamics at play in other cultures. While there may be some kind of ‘foreigner allowance’, providing a little bit of leeway for the non-initiated, there is a point beyond which transgressions are no longer forgiven. The repercussions for relationships can be disastrous, particularly in cultures that are bound by reciprocity and loyalty. While specific dynamics do not apply to foreigners to the same degree, a violation of reciprocity expectations affects foreigners every bit as much once they are included in the Korean in-group system.

While not all cultures are equally age-conscious, a sensitivity to age as a powerful determinant for communicative behaviour is advisable in nearly every context.

1.1.2 Status and power

LaFrance and Mayo (1978) consider status differences as one of the central factors in intercultural miscommunication. The notions of status and power are so prominent in our communicative strategies that very elaborate systems of deference marking have come into existence for the purpose of either exerting power or deferring to it. This is somewhat easier to negotiate in the English language, since it lacks an elaborate pronoun system. Therefore, power and solidarity of the speaker-hearer relationship cannot be analysed by the pronoun choice (Takenoya, 1999). Many Western cultures, however, have a T/V distinction, as Brown and Gilman (1960) defined the formal and informal second person personal pronoun address forms. Even to insiders, correctly identifying the most appropriate address form is not always straightforward, as it is subject to a complex interplay between either emphasizing closeness or status, and can therefore cause affront if misjudged. Pronouns can be found in most languages, but are ‘perhaps the most diversified and complex in societies characterized by pronounced forms of hierarchical social organization and status’ (Heine & Song, 2011, p. 588). Pronoun choices, therefore, affect hierarchically structured societies more than egalitarian systems.

On the far end of the scale lies the extraordinarily complex Japanese honorifics system, which modulates power differentials and marks distinctions of rank or horizontal distance (Pizziconi, 2011). In Japan, power and/or distance ‘are assigned markedly high values’ (Fukada & Asato, 2004, p. 1997) and its society is characterized by extreme sensitivity to rank order (Nishiyama, 2000) and strict guidelines according to status and roles (Leung et al., 2002). According to Mitarai (1988, pp. 2–3), the ‘concept of status pervades the lives of Japanese … because no Japanese regards himself as the exact equal of any other person’. From a linguistic point of view then, ‘the Japanese language does not allow any Japanese to so consider as there are only word forms that refer to superiors and inferiors. It is for this reason that a Japanese person almost always relates another person’s status to his own by his choice of words. That is, a person of equal status is looked upon as a superior, and the speaker humbles himself’ (Barna, 1973 cited in Mitarai, 1988, p. 3). The use of honorifics has been described as socio-pragmatically obligatory (Ide, 1989). Though this latter part has been contested, there is no doubt that status and power exert an extremely high influence on language choices in Japanese society.

The Japanese honorific system is so complex in structure and nature that even addressing someone with a personal pronoun becomes a dangerous minefield. A complex interplay between status, distance, age and gender render the decision-making process so treacherous and the consequences so serious, that Japanese people often avoid the use of personal pronouns altogether (Hinds, 1975). Suzuki (1978, p. 92) observed that ‘there is a definite tendency to avoid their use as often as possible and to carry on a conversation using some other words to designate speaker and addressee’. In my observations, Japanese people do not necessarily even try to replace pronouns verbally. Rather, they show a preference for either replacing personal pronouns with a gesture, i.e. by politely pointing to the addressee (if present, predominantly to replace the personal pronoun ‘you’) or leaving the implication up to contextual inference. Japanese people largely avoid direct communication, not only in terms of pronoun use, and have thusly become extremely apt at guessing their interlocutor’s intentions. Because of the homogeneity of Japanese society, Japanese ‘are able to guess at each other’s feelings from facial expressions, movements of the eyes and the slightest gestures, and their conjectures are not mistaken’ (Eto, 1977, p. 75). This interactional style makes the burden on the addressee somewhat heavier, but avoids potential pitfalls.

The reason for the complexity of the Japanese system is that pronouns carry various semantic properties that are ‘absent in the English parallels’ (Hinds, 1975, p. 132). Each pronoun carries strong correlations to status and social distance. Barke and Uehara (2005) list anata, anta, kimi, omae, kisama and temee in rank order from most polite to least polite second person singular personal pronoun form. Each of these pronouns carries with it meaningful connotations. Kimi, for example, carries connotations of informality and lower status; however, it also carries strong connotations of relative closeness and proximity (Mitarai & Moriyoshi, 2015; Takenoya, 1999). By using this pronoun one risks offending someone by not attributing a high status to them, because it can be perceived as speaking down to someone (Mogi, 2002). By avoiding it, one risks distancing the other and downplaying one’s bond. According to Mogi, if a husband were to address his wife with anata (the more formal and more polite form) instead of kimi, it would sound ironic. Hence, both the use of a personal pronoun or the lack of use of a specific pronoun can be offensive.

Even addressing someone with anata, the most polite form, can be impolite, as it is still directly addressing a person. Tanaka (1999) cites a case of a foreign employee who was fired after referring to her boss with the pronoun anata. Kabaya et al. (1998) and Kurosawa (1972) outline that Japanese second person pronouns are not deferential; thus, even though anata is categorized as a polite word, it is not in and of itself functioning as an honorific. Mogi (2002) explains that someone might feel slighted through being addressed as anata, especially when a woman uses it, because then it often sounds informal and indicates social closeness (as apparently ‘being female might be one part of closeness in the relationship’ and invariably introduces an element of social proximity, according to Takenoya, 1999, p. 131). With this in mind, it is easy to see why Japanese people would rather avoid the use of personal pronouns altogether.

The Japanese system is only one such example, however. Heine and Song (2011) also list Thai, Burmese, Khmer, Vietnamese and Korean as languages with complex systems of personal pronouns based on distinctions of honorification. The Balinese language system even comprises of several entirely different registers that relate to various forms of hierarchical, status and caste considerations, with the highest register being reserved for priests and ritual language use (Fox, 2005). Fox (2005, p. 101) speaks of Javanese (a language system closely related to Balinese, and supposedly one that exerted influence on the Balinese system) ‘as consisting of a layered number of speech levels reflecting distinct social gradations. These levels may vary from two to ten, depending on the analyst.’ Though the same un-clarities exist regarding the Balinese system, a Balinese informant mentioned learning of four distinct registers: Basa Kepara (lowest), Alus Sor (strangers), Alus Mider and Alus Singghih (addressing p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Communication across cultural contexts
• 2. Conflict orientation
• 3. Conversational style
• 4. Conflict markers
• 5. Multimodality and conflict
• 6. Interpersonal relationships and network structures
• 7. Relational conflict
• 8. Conflict negotiation
• 9. Conflict mediation
• Index