Download Understanding Uncertainty Reduction in Cross-Linguistic Intercultural Communication and more Study notes Theories of Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Abstract There is little research today that shows attempts at bridging cross-linguistic interactions. Numerous studies analyze intercultural communication and the way it may bridge or divide different people. Additionally, evidence between different people groups exists in their unique cultural values. Within these interactions exists a great amount of uncertainty between communication participants as well. Taking this into consideration, the amount of uncertainty between two strangers who speak different native languages is bound to have greater uncertainty. To overcome these barriers, people utilize specific uncertainty reduction strategies in a greater concentration. By analyzing practices such as nonverbal communication, shared experiences, and commonalities, a more effective means of communicating cross-linguistically is discovered in the current study. Keywords : cross-linguistic communication, uncertainty reduction theory, nonverbal communication, intercultural communication
Using Uncertainty Reduction Theory to Analyze Intercultural Communication between Strangers Who Speak Different Native Languages Introduction The uncertainty reduction theory has been fundamental in analyzing the trends in people’s initial encounters. The basic premise lies in people’s discomfort due to uncertainty felt towards strangers, which causes people to reduce uncertainty through interaction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). However, there are few studies that show how differences in language can contribute to this uncertainty and the implications that can be drawn from it. Essentially, I wish to analyze how intercultural communication during cross-linguistic interactions can impede or assist the reduction of uncertainty in initial encounters (Neuliep, 2012). If interactive approaches are the best way for individuals to reduce feelings of uncertainty, then language barriers make this difficult to accomplish (Theiss & Solomon, 2008). Through this research, I plan on utilizing interviews that seek to capture the effects that differences in language can have on levels of uncertainty felt towards others. Specifically, questions will be aimed at analyzing people’s psychological states when interculturally communicating. Interviews will seek to understand people’s level of comfort, anxiety, stress, confidence, and other characteristics that affect feelings of uncertainty. Interviews will be aimed at distinguishing peoples’ cognitive uncertainty felt prior to and during cross-linguistic interactions. These questions will seek to understand people’s beliefs and attitudes toward their cross-lingustic counterparts. Typically, people seek out ways to reduce cognitive uncertainty through opportunities for prediction, decisiveness, and structure (Kruglanski, 2004; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996 ).
Existing within interpersonal relationships are numerous types of uncertainty. These types are dependent on the focal point of the interaction. For example, cognitive uncertainty relates to uncertainty felt toward another’s thoughts as well as our own; behavioral uncertainty focuses on uncertainty in predicting or rationalizing someone’s behavior, or in how we should behave during an interaction (Redmond, 2015). Relational uncertainty is defined as the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement within close relationships (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Upon initial interaction, an individual’s level of uncertainty for another is at its highest. Three phases were identified during relational development including an entry phase, a personal phase, and an exit phase (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The entry phase focuses on the way people communicate as they withhold certain societal norms, behaviors, and standards. This can be introducing oneself and providing basic demographic information to become acquainted. The personal phase unveils more personal information as participants communicate attitudes, values, and beliefs on a variety of topics. Lastly, the exit phase is a determinant one in which participants decide whether to continue or terminate the relationship. This phase is dependent on a cost-benefit analysis of the uncertainty reduction process (Berger, 1979 ). Uncertainty arises when people cannot anticipate potential rewards and costs of interaction with a relational partner. The greatest uncertainty that individuals can feel in interpersonal relationships occurs when interactants communicate interculturally. Intercultural Communication Intercultural communication is when different cultures interact and create shared meanings through their use of symbolic, interpretive, transactional, and contextual processes (Lustig & Koester, 2007; Arasaratnam, 2013). Despite the lack of studies focused on language, there are a myriad of studies conducted on the relationship between
intercultural interactions and uncertainty reduction (Gudykunst, 1984, 1985, 1 989 , 2000; Redmond, 2015). A study conducted by Gudykunst and Nishida (1984) found that uncertainty reduction strategies such as intent to interrogate, self-disclose, and display nonverbal affiliative expressiveness are most effective in intercultural interactions. These specific strategies are aimed at gathering information to reduce uncertainty and mitigate the effects of cultural differences. Depending on the type of relationship, different strategies are utilized more frequently than others. Throughout all intercultural relationships, attitude similarity, interpersonal attraction, frequency of communication, and the use of interactive strategies have a positive impact on attributional confidence (Gudykunst, 1985). These variables explain the likeliness that two culturally different individuals will communicate. There are three hypotheses regarding the nature of intercultural communication including the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis, and the contact hypothesis (Berry, 2013). The multiculturalism hypothesis attributes a large pluralistic society to numerous cultural groups living together within a civic arrangement. Each group seeks to co-exist through constant negotiation, compromise, and mutual accommodations. Instead of a majority and minority division there are ethnocultural groups that offer their own cultures to a complex society. Neither group is mandated to change their way of life for the sake of another. The integration hypothesis champions engagement with both cultures. An individual maintains their own culture in high esteem, while interacting and forming relationships with people of another culture. This model highlights a cultural group whose participants are secure in their own culture and confident in learning from others. The contact hypothesis encourages contact and sharing between cultural groups for the sake of mutual acceptance. This ensures equality and voluntary contact but does not allow intercultural appreciation, but rather intercultural acceptance (Berry, 2013).
Nonverbal Communication Nonverbal communication consists of eight main types that include proxemics, kinesics, occulesics, physical appearance, haptics, paralanguage, olfaction, and chronemics. Proxemics communicates distance and consists of four proxemic zones as examined by Edward Hall (Hall et al., 1968). Firstly, the intimate zone involves any space ranging from 0 to 18 inches and is reserved for people closest to us such as family members and close friends. Secondly, the personal zone involves a space ranging from 18 inches to 4 feet and allows for contact with friends and acquaintances. Thirdly, the social zone involves a space ranging from 4 to 10 feet and consists of less intimate interpersonal relationships such as those with business partners or acquaintances. Lastly, the public zone involves a space ranging from 10 to 25 feet and is meant for the least intimate communication. The public zone is within public spaces such as presenting in front of people (Hall et al., 1968). Kinesics refers to how people utilize movement of their face, body, arms, and legs and this concept can be applied to interactions. When people communicate, they tend to utilize gestures to relate to their physiological or communicative needs. Adaptive behaviors can be shown by actions such as foot tapping or pen clicking and insinuates uneasiness or impatience in social situations (Hans & Hans, 2015). Occulesics focuses on eye movement and can indicate where someone’s attention lies. In high power distance cultures, it is considered rude to make eye contact with a superior. In contrast, in low power distance cultures, where people are treated as equals, eye contact is appropriate and encouraged (Gudykunst, 1998). Physical appearance includes dimensions such as body shape, body image, physical attractiveness, clothing, cosmetics, hair, and accessories (Moore & Hickson & Stacks, 2010). Whenever two people meet, appearance is the first characteristic of a person that is noticed. In fact, appearance may be the initial reason that two people communicate at all (Berger &
Calabrese, 1975). The way someone dresses may communicate what group or people they surround themselves with. Haptics , the study of touch, occurs when people come into physical contact with one another. Although there is limited scholarship of this nonverbal cue, Weitz says that “the logical end of proxemics [study of space] is touching. Once two people touch, they have eliminated the space between them, and this act usually signifies that a special type of relationship exists between them” (Weitz, 1974). Paralanguage describes all unspoken attributes of verbal communication and includes vocal inflection, tone, speed, and utterances. These different expressions of voice during a conversation create different messages for the receiver to interpret. Linguistic communication relies on the recognition of intentions and the ability to decipher all aspects of voice (Wharton, 2016). Olfaction is the sense of smelling and has potential explanations for whether people choose to communicate. Three types of odors are taken into consideration when communicating with people. These are natural, unnatural, and diplomatic odors (Gaby & Zayas, 2017). Natural odors are innate odors unique to the individual. Unnatural odors are acquired throughout one’s daily life. Diplomatic odors are modified scents such as perfumes and colognes utilized for personal needs. Chronemics is the study of how time pertains to communication. Cultures are described as monochronic and polychronic. For example, Americans have a monochronic view, focusing their attention on one thing at a time. Time commitments, deadlines, and schedules have a pivotal role in society and are taken seriously (Hall & Hall, 1990). In contrast, polychronic cultures can perform multiple tasks at once. Additionally, time is less permanent, and individuals are not expected to meet deadlines perfectly.
second group consisted of six native English speakers. The six speakers only knew English. Five participants were of European heritage with four being White and one being Hispanic. The last participant from this sample was Middle Eastern. The participants, aged 19 - 60 years old, were all native to the United States, except for the Middle Eastern participant, who was born in Iran. Two participants were female, and four were male. Participants came from different socioeconomic backgrounds, ranging from lower class to upper middle class. Interview Protocol The examination of both groups was conducted through a semi-structured interview, with questions relating to which influences shaped a participant’s ability to form a cross-linguistic relationship. Participants were asked to keep a friend in mind throughout the interview. This friend was required to have a different native language in order to examine the relational development between the two. Additionally, participants signed a consent form to allow the use of an audio recorder during the interview. Interviewees were informed of their rights and told their names would be deidentified in the final findings of the research. The three bilingual Hispanic interviewees were given the option of conducting the interview in English or Spanish. Two chose English and one chose Spanish. The interviewer had an intermediate mastery of Spanish, meaning enough to conduct an interview. For the last two interviews conducted entirely in Spanish, a friend of the interviewee translated during communication errors. It is important to note that the interviewees agreed to have this translator prior to the interview. The interview length varied between 40 and 58 minutes. Differences in interview length were dependent on how interviewees responded to questions, the rate at which the interviewee spoke, how thorough answers were, and if answers were repetitive. The approval of the study protocol was obtained by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Transcription and Data Analysis After all interviews were conducted, the audio was sent via two websites for transcription purposes. The three interviews that occurred in Spanish were sent to TranscribeMe for transcription; while the eight interviews that occurred in English were sent to Temi for transcription. TranscribeMe is a transcription service that is manually transcribed, while Temi is done by an automated machine. After receiving the transcription for the Spanish interviews, the written data was inputted to Google Translate for a final English transcript. The author revised and edited the English transcript after Google translation to account for any errors in the data. Once transcripts were confirmed accurate, they were put into a qualitative data analysis software called Atlas.ti. Using this software, codes were made to highlight important insights that offered answers to the research question. A full code list of significant findings, as well as the frequency of its appearances within all interviews, is provided in Table 2. In total, 726 significant codes were created after examining every interview transcript. Results Commonality One of the first themes found within each interview was the importance of finding a commonality when building a cross-linguistic relationship. In both groups participant’s cited instances in which language differences were mitigated through commonalities and shared activities. The importance of finding a commonality within the relationship was evident. Participants’ desired commonalities existed as demographics, interests, and experiences, depending on the participant. Participant A spoke about a commonality of having a family that made interactions more meaningful. “There's a point at which if you have things in common and you care about each other and care about even finding [out more about each other] … I would feel comfortable
little purpose if there is no shared fluency. As the level of fluency decreases so does the amount of interrogative communication. Participant J expressed concerns in asking questions. “I can greet the person, ask any short question, but as for a kind of conversation without me being unable to understand...” If questions are asked cross-linguistically, they are often shorter and less specific due to the language barrier. Most Spanish-speaking participants knew some English (aside from the billingual speakers) and vice versa; however, it was not sufficient for full conversations. Participant A confirms this when stating that “to have a conversation…to ask questions or whatever, is necessary for that interaction…if it’s obvious meaning that they tell me they don’t speak any English…we negotiate.” Due to differences in language, interrogative communication is deemed less effective in reducing uncertainty. These differences in language created environments in which communicators were less likely to self-disclose. For example, when put into a cross-linguistic situation participant B said “I'm definitely going to be more shy and more reserved in starting a conversation.” With little conversation came little self-disclosure and ability to express one’s self. Reflecting on their transition to American life and failing to connect with English speakers, participant F relayed their thoughts. “You go back into that little shell of like, if I just don't speak, I won't be noticed and end, you know, it's a good tactic.” There appears to be limited attempts amongst participants to interact cross-linguistically and even less attempts at self-disclosure. Participant C captures a key reason why cross-linguistic relationships are difficult to maintain apart from language. “There's more uptime to try and get to know somebody who is cultural with that language barrier in place. Whereas with somebody who does speak English, I
know it's going to be a smooth conversation.” The amount of time and effort for expected miscommunications creates an environment where less self-disclosure is bound to occur. The participants of the study acquainted differences in language to be almost synonymous with a difference in culture. Research question number one produced similar findings when considering differences in both language and culture. While participants rarely found similar cultural values in their cross-linguistic counterparts, there were still similarities in values aside from culture. Participant D shared an annecdote about how he “sold the alarm systems for ADT… [and] for a lot of slammed doors” he learned valuable communication skills. When participant D became a restaurant manager, a non-English speaking man asked for a job. Participant D expected this potential employee to have a strong work ethic, and because of this shared value, he hired him. Through that, a friendship was made. Self-disclosure and interrogative communication increased despite the difference in language. “We would maybe go watch some movies or something like that, but we would always just go somewhere and hang out. Or sometimes we would just go and talk… [but] he didn’t speak any English,” explained participant D. The relationship between the two grew as they began to laugh with each other. “You get to know someone else's personality, [when] you get to know someone intimately,” exclaimed participant D. Acculturation There is limited data on the acculturative measures that Spanish speaking participants have taken to adjust to a new culture. Of the five interviewed, only two fell into the integration category of acculturation. Even so, it appears that people who are more integrated have a greater use of self-disclosure and interrogative communication based on these participants. Participant E shared of his experience expressing himself, despite not knowing any English. “I love to laugh and I love to smile and no matter what language you speak, like that's
mental rehearsal, concise speech, reduced slang, shared experiences, and utilizing nonverbal communication. Participant J focuses on her course of action before an expected cross-linguistic encounter. “What I am going to say comes to mind,” and this allows her to better prepare for techniques for interpretability. Likewise, participant F describes a cross-linguistic encounter of a simple task. “Kind of how a number one with fries and a large Coke, like you have to rehearse that before.” Through mental rehearsal and preparation, these tasks become more doable, allowing for smoother communication. Participant A uses simple and unconvuluted speech to ensure that communication is as easy as possible. “I don't wanna say speak slower, but in some ways I think just clear, clearer and more concise.” Through this approach, receivers are given more opportunity to rationalize and interpret messages with context clues and basic language skills. By limiting slang, cross- linguistic messages are more decipherable, and this allows more recognizable words to surface. Participant D spoke on his friend’s interpretation of slang as “he didn't really catch on to the slang because he understood more English formal… that’s what he was taught in ESL.” In order for classes such as ESL to be effective, it is up to the communicator to code a message in an interpretable and formal way. Lastly, nonverbal cues are among the most effective approaches at bridging language gaps. Participant H spoke in response to communicating with a Spanish speaker. “I think it goes back to the environment and [using] the visual cues around if there is a difficulty with [communicating].” This strategy is imperative because it allows receivers to gather information to conclude what is being shared. Furthermore, participant K displays that nonverbal cues can explain what verbal communication cannot. “There are many ways of speaking languages, such as signs, gestures, mimes. It is how to imagine or how to express things [that is important].” Nonverbal cues are not
limited to direct conversation, but can also be from shared activites that communicators engage in. Every participant sited instances in which shared activities allowed for relational development. Whether this was through sports or another source, the act of participation nonverbally communicated satisfaction and commonality between interactants. Limitations While this research offers some insights as to better practices in bridging language differences, there are still limitations to consider. Due to the nature of the small sample size, generalizations are difficult to make. In the future, a sample size of at least 30 individuals would be more representative of an individual’s communication practices in the researched situation. Secondly, the sample was collected through convenient measures and 7 of the 11 were direct friends of the author. Following the snowball sampling method, the last four participants of the interview were friends of the first seven interviewed. This created little diversity amongst the interviewees and thereby is less representative of a more diverse population. Thirdly, each interviewee did not receive completely identical questions. Since the interview was semi- structured, following a participant’s response, appropriate probing was done. Although a minor limitation, the general theme of questions was still followed. Additionally, the questions provided in Table 1 of this paper were the framework for the interview and were closely followed. Discussion This research offers an inside perspective as to how people communicate cross- linguistically. While differences in language are a barrier, there are countless others to consider. Cultural differences, inability of relational depth, and dissimilar interests are all worries that participants face. Despite the importance of language for smooth communication, it does not appear to be a necessity for relational development. Similar values and commonalities shared
References Arasaratnam, L. A. (2013). Intercultural communication competence: Representation and construction of culture Los Angeles (Kurylo A., Ed.). CA: SAGE Publications. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112. Berger, C. R., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Uncertainty and Communication. Progress in Communication Sciences, 1, 21 - 66. Gaby, J. M., & Zayas, V. (2017). Smelling is Telling: Human Olfactory Cues Influence Social Judgments in Semi-Realistic Interactions, Chemical Senses, 42(5), 405– 418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjx Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. South-Western Journal of Anthropology. 23. 337 - 350. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1984). Individual and cultural influence on uncertainty reduction. Communication Monographs, 51, 23- 36. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2000). The Influence of Culture and Strength of Cultural Identity on Individual Values in Japan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 9(1), 1 - 15. Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, E. T., Birdwhistell, R. B., Bohannan, P., Diebold A. R., Durbin M. Jr., Edmonson M. S., Fischer, J. L., Hymes D., Kimball, S. T., Barre, W. L., Lynch F., S. J., McClellan, J. E., Marshall, D. S., Milner G. B., Sarles, H. B, Trager, G. L., & Vayda A. P. (1968).
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hans, A., & Hans, E. (2015). Kinesics, Haptics and Proxemics: Aspects of Non - Verbal Communication. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20( 2 ), 47-52. http:dx.doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1351951.v Knobloch, L. K. & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261- 278. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Essays in social psychology. The psychology of closed mindedness. New York. New York: Psychology Press. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2007). Intercultural competence: interpersonal communication across cultures (5th ed.). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Moore, N. J., Hickson, M., & Stacks, D. W. (2010). Nonverbal communication: Studies and applications ( 5 th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Neuliep, J. W., & Grohskopf, E. L. (2000). Uncertainty reduction and communication satisfaction during initial interaction: An initial test and replication of a new axiom. Communication Reports, 13(2), 67-77. Neuliep, J. (2012). The Relationship among Intercultural Communication Apprehension, Ethnocentrism, Uncertainty Reduction, and Communication Satisfaction during Initial Intercultural Interaction: An Extension of Anxiety and Uncertainty Management (AUM)
