Linguistic Features of Intercultural Miscommunication in Sydney - Research Paper Example

An Analysis of Linguistic Features in Intercultural Miscommunication in Sydney Name Institution An Analysis of Linguistic Features in Intercultural Miscommunication in Sydney Introduction Australia, as part of its multicultural policy, welcomes and embraces migrants from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Not only that, the policy also encourages these groups to retain elements of their original cultures. Sydney, for instance, has been referred to as Australia’s largest ‘EthniCity’ (Forrest & Dunn, 2007). This is in reference to the fact that the city hosts the highest number of diverse ethnicities and cultures. These multicultural policy efforts, having encouraged the arrival of people from diverse backgrounds, pose a new problem- communication. Naturally, in a context of such ethnic and cultural diversity, there is bound to be difficulties in communication. The premise here has little to do with just the ability of people from diverse cultural backgrounds to speak English. Instead, it has more to do with how culture influences one’s interpretation of language. According to Gudykunst (200b), the nature of one’s culture influences how they interpret and understand the phonological, lexical and pragmatic elements of language. Speaking of the ‘nature of culture’, Gudykunst (2003b) refers to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: individuality versus collectivism; power distance; uncertainty avoidance; and masculinity versus femininity, as well as the descriptions of high- versus low-context cultures. For instance, people from high-context cultures “tend to communicate with implicit messages” (Hall, 1976, p.79, cited in Forrest & Dunn, 2007). On the other hand, those from low-context cultures include abundant information in their message. These differences give rise to intercultural miscommunication. This paper will examine how intercultural miscommunication (arising from phonological, lexical and pragmatic features of language) play out in Australia, particularly Sydney. Demographics of Sydney According to Forrest & Dunn (2007), the main feature of major immigrant receiving countries is that inter-ethnic/cultural tensions is within the cities, particularly the largest cities. For example, for New Zealand, the most ethnically and culturally diverse city is Auckland and for Canada, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver are the biggest immigrant receiving cities. Although the distribution of immigrants in the United States (US) is widespread in all the cities, it still remains an urban phenomenon. In Australia, in the same respect, distribution of immigrants confirms the same thesis; for the past 50 years, immigrants have streamed into and concentrated in the country’s major cities. Sydney is the largest immigrant receiving city in Australia. About 43 percent of Sydney’s population is of non-English speaking background. This is the highest, followed by 41 percent in Melbourne. Between 1986 and 1996, many immigrants arrived from Asia and the Middle East. This marked an increase of these immigrant populations from 6 to 13 percent. In the years that followed, the number of new immigrants in Sydney continued to rise. Between 1996 and 2001, 39 percent of new immigrants arriving increased by 39 percent. The largest ethnic group in Sydney comes from Asia (Forrest et al., 2003). “Sydney continues to dominate among arrivals of the post-White-Australia period” (Forrest & Dunn, 2007, p.702). These arrivals have included independent or skilled as well as business migrants from Philippines, Chins and Hong Kong, as well as smaller streams of groups of refugees from Vietnam Lebanon and East Africa (Forrest et al., 2003). Because of this diversity, Sydney’s multicultural policies, more than other cities, have been successful at absorbing the diversity of immigrant streams in the post-World-War-II Australia. According to Forrest et al. (2003), the transitory-nature of ethnic migrant enclaves in Sydney is supported by the analysis of ancestry data cited in the 2001 census This indicates a “strong tendency towards spatial mixing or assimilation which places Sydney among the least segregated of cities of developed nations in the English-speaking world” (Poulsen et al., 2004). This has been attributed to the great diversity of both national and ethnic origin which has to a large extent prevented the build-up of smaller number of particular groups that could lead to widespread segregation as witnessed in the US. My Personal Experience My native language is Arabic and I have lived in Sydney since 2012. My personal experiences both as an immigrant in Australia and as a student of language have provided me with opportunities to witness first-hand moments of miscommunication between people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In fact, despite learning English from a relatively early age, I have personally been caught in situations where I do not understand what the other person says. In my encounters with people living in Australia, I would say I have met four different types of people. There are those who know I am a foreigner but do not necessarily treat me as such. They do not try hard to make me understand when they speak, although I do have the feeling that they try to make their English simple enough for my sake. This, however, does not mean that they are not able to say something that I do not understand or that I misunderstand. During heated conversation contexts, for example, they tend to speak more complex language (such as the use of Australian slang). The second group consists of those that treat me a native Australian. These do not make any efforts to speak in a way that they assume would help me understand. They simply speak and expect me to understand their language and act accordingly. This is perhaps the group that poses the highest cases of miscommunication. Then there are those who have some knowledge of Arabic culture, most probably because they have been friends with one from the Arabic countries. Some have only read about the culture of Arabs and assume they know so much. This group treats me in two different ways. Some of these (particularly those with experience with other people of Arab culture) are open-minded and will seek my advice about things they are not sure of. This is a natural response as far as Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) are concerned as it is the “first phase of the reaction cycles of people in the host country where foreign people visit” (p.13). Some (particularly those who have only read about Arab cultures and assume they have enough knowledge) tend to have some stereotype about all Arabs and will treat me based on that knowledge. This group seems to have already decided how I should behave and if I do not meet these expectations then they seem a little disappointed. According to Gydykunst (2003b), stereotypical categorization prevents genuine communication. True enough, those in this group will try to tell me what they think I want to hear or respond as they think I expect people to respond to me, but end up throwing me totally off-balance. Finally, there are those who have never interacted with Arabs (not up-close) and have no idea how to communicate or respond to me. These tend to just be quiet. My assumption is that people from other cultures, that is, those who are explicitly non-native (by race, for example) receive the same response either native Australians and/or non-natives. In many ways, all these categories of people, whether they are native Australians or people from other immigrants in the country, contribute to the question of intercultural miscommunication by the way they respond or do not respond to me, communicate with me or not. The focus here, however, is on those who have tried to communicate (speak, that is), not only with me but with people from other ethnic or cultural groups. However, these cases of miscommunication are not as common as some would say. Of course, this argument is based on my own personal encounters. Regardless, my focus is specifically on the instances of intercultural miscommunication (because of differences in phonological, lexical or pragmatic features of language from one ethnicity/cultural group to another) that I have gathered from personal encounters and observation. Methodology a) Data Collection This study involved personal encounters in and observation of conversational situations. The purpose of these observations was to collect data on how differences in phonological, lexical and pragmatic features of other languages against those of others (Australians and other ethnic groups) have contributed miscommunication with people. The findings of these observations were written down for analysis later. The data were recorded based on Dell Hyme’s framework of speech analysis. This focuses on eight factors based on the letters of the word SPEAKING: S (setting and scene) stands for the place and time of speech act; that is the physical and psychological circumstances. P (for participants) refer to both the speaker and audience. The audience are referred to as either hearers or addressees. E (for end) is the purpose and goals of communication, and the outcomes. A (for act sequence) is the order and form of event. K (for key) refers to the clues that reveal the manner, tone and spirit of a speech act. I (for instrumentalities) is about the speech forms and styles. N (for norms) concerns the social rules that govern the event, as well as the actions of the participants. G (for genre) is about the kind of event or speech act. Field Notes i. Lexical Pragmatics Lexical pragmatics concerns the way by which the use of words modify linguistically-specified word meanings. This is based on the hypothesis that “a lexical item and syntactically complex equivalent of it make different contributions to the interpretation of a sentence without making different contributions to its semantic structure” (Blutner, 2004, p.7). In the same respect, the argument is that the use of lexical items distinguishes between figurative and un-figurative use of language. In this respect, distinctions have been made between three phenomena: “narrowing, approximation and metaphorical extension” (Blutner, 2004, p.9). ‘Narrowing’ is the use of a lexical item to in a way to convey a meaning that is more restricted than the one semantically encoded, such as the use of drink to refer to ‘alcoholic drink’. ‘Approximation’ is the “process of interpretive broadening where the interpretation of a word with a restricted core meaning is extended to a family of related interpretations” (Blutner, 2004, p.11). This is common in the description of numerical figures (saying 100 women to mean about 100 women), geometric terms (such as using square to describe a figure that is only ‘squarish’) and color adjectives where precise value of color might deviate from the lexically coded focal color (such as saying red to describe a red nose). ‘Metaphorical extension’ broadens the scope of possible interpretation more radically than in approximation. This is common in English perception words, such as saying see to describe other perceptions (including smell or buy). Examples of Lexical Pragmatics Miscommunication a) ‘Bloody hell’ Setting and Scene In the library for one of our class group discussions, a number of the group members were late by a few minutes. Participants The speaker was the group leader (a native Australian male) and the addressee was a male group member from North Korea. The other group members already present for the meeting also heard the group leader. These were three in total: two native Australians (females) and I (a male Arab). Although we did not take part directly in the conversation, we took part in it in some way, such as through our response to the outcome. End The group leader’s intention was to press upon the listeners that they were late and needed to hurry. The North Korean colleague was offended. The other two, native Australians, were not as much offended. His voice had not sounded rude. Act Sequence The group leader comes from the shelves where he went looking for a book. Two other group members besides me (ladies who are native Australians) are also sitting at the table Group Leader: (To no one in particular) Are you serious? They’re not here yet? One of the ladies shrugs Group Leader: (He holds his phone against his ear. He makes three calls and says the same thing) Where the bloody hell are you people? Later, the North Korean colleague raises the issue with the group leader. He had found the call rude. I also did think the group leader had been rude, to all the members he called that is. Strangely, the native Australians found annoyance of the North Korean colleague amusing. To them, it meant nothing more than please do hurry up. But I could not ignore that the two of us (the only non-natives in the group) had both found it rude. Key The group leader’s tone did not sound rude. He instead sounded rude because of his words, specifically the words, ‘bloody hell’. Instrumentalities The group leader had spoken in a casual register. Norms The relationship between the members was largely that between who knew each other although not exactly friends. Genre This was a question over the phone. b) ‘Deadly/Deadliest’ Setting/Scene At the school cafeteria where two young men at a table close to mine are having drinks while one is scribbling on some papers, seemingly explaining something to the other. Participants These are two young men. One is obviously an Arab and the other, by skin color and hair, is an Aboriginal. The friend, who I get to know as Salim Bakar (from Egypt) confirms this, although he would not tell me his friend’s name. Both are undergraduate students of Chemical Engineering. Ends Leaving, Salim’s friend says something in gratitude for Salim’s help doing a sum. Act Sequence (The two friends busy at some work. Salim scribbles and explains fast I can’t quite catch the words. His friend looks on nodding his head occasionally) Salim: (Looking up from the papers and dropping the pen on the pile of papers on the table) There you are. Any questions? His Friend: Wow. How do you do that? Salim: Do what? His Friend: You really have it for these things. Salim: Naaah, it’s not as special as you make it His Friend: (Up and collecting the papers into a clipboard) Man you’re the deadliest. Salim makes to say something but stops and the look on his face tells me he’s thinking about something His Friend: (Now leaving) You’re the very best man, thanks Salim makes a feeble wave, a big smile on his face. Instrumentalities Nothing in the speaker’s voice tells he means malice Norms The two are good friends. Genre A conversation c) ‘Where are you going’ versus ‘Good afternoon?’ Setting/Scene I was on my way to the library one afternoon. Participants A Chinese friend and I Ends The Chinese friend initiates a greeting. Act Sequence I am on my way to the library for a study session when I meet a Chinese friend of mine (here referred to a ‘friend’) Friend: Hey there. Where are you going? I: To the library (Friend has a look on his face). What? Friend: (Chuckling) You wouldn’t know. I: What wouldn’t I know Friend: well, that’s for me to know and or you to find out. I: Find out what Friend: (Starting to walk away) How we say hello back in China I: Wait (Friend jogs away) Instrumentalities The look on his face tells me I have misunderstood his meaning when he asks me, “Where are you going?” Norms We are friends so we are casual in the way we deal with each other. Genre A conversation ii. Phonological Features Essentially, phonological features have to do with the elements of sound. In intercultural settings such as Sydney, phonological features can cause many problems of miscommunication. This is particularly true of ‘phonetically active’ phonetic features that are necessary in distinguishing words (that is, lexical contrast) (Clements & Engin, 1982). Examples of Miscommunication as a Result of Phonological Features a) ‘Sh’ Sound Setting/Scene We are at a cafeteria having breakfast. Two people I share a table with are having a conversation about various things. Participants The two, visibly of African origin, are both from Kenya. They are students. Geoffrey is from the Luo, a Nilotic tribe in Western Kenya (particularly Nyanza Province). For good measure, Geoffrey mentioned that Luo is the native tribe of Obama Senior (US President Barrack Obama’s father). Lewis is from the Nandi, one of the tribes living in the Rift Valley region of the country. Ends Geoffrey makes a statement about seeing his professor that afternoon. Act Sequence Geoffrey: (Sipping his tea) So how is your research coming? Lewis: Ah? Oh, the ... Well, I don’t know … Geoffrey: You must be done ah? Lewis: No, No. I’m actually not done. I should in a week I think Geoffrey: Well, aren’t you the lucky one. Lewis: Not really. I … Geoffrey: Man data analysis is killing me. The SPSS is still giving me the headaches. Lewis: Actually that’s the issue for me too Geoffrey: I sould (apparently meaning should) see professor at two Lewis: (Looking around) I think I’m done here. You? Geoffrey: Me too. Lewis: Where’s that waiter? Instrumentalities Geoffrey speaks in a casual register Norms The two are close and have casual and free conversation Genre A casual conversation between two friends b) ‘Bill’ or ‘Pill’ Setting/Scene We are at a cafeteria having breakfast. Two people I share a table with are having a conversation about various things. The two are done and abut to leave. Lewis asks the waiter for the bill. Participants Lewis is the speaker and the waiter is the addressee. Geoffrey is an addressee although when the waiter comes, he becomes a passive listener. Ends Lewis asks for his bill. Act Sequence Lewis: (Looking around) I think I’m done here. You? Geoffrey: Me too. Lewis: Where’s that waiter? (He shrugs like he is saying ‘I’ll find her eventually’). Anyway, you remind me when you will go to see the professor too. I think I also need to see him. Geoffrey: What’s that? Lewis: I was thinking … (the waiter comes by) Oh, hey. May I have the pill? (Meaning the bill) Waiter: Um, the pill? Lewis: The pill yes. (The waiter stands there rolling her eyes, most probably trying to figure out what Lewis means). The pill, the pill… you know, I want to pay… Waiter: Oh, sorry. (the waiter chuckles and Lewis and Geoffrey join her) Lewis: My mother-tongue… Waiter: It’s okay. I understand. The Waiter walks away Instrumentalities Lewis uses a formal approach. He says, “May I please have …” Norms There is a relational gap between Lewis and the waiter. These are revealed in instrumentalities. Genre A conversation between a waiter and a customer Findings and Discussion i. Lexical Pragmatics a) ‘Bloody Hell’ I conducted a research on ‘bloody hell’ and found out that it is an Australian slang that, depending on how interprets it, means nothing of either of the two constituents parts. For example, according to Hong (2008), while in its actual lexical meanings ‘bloody’ means ‘covered or stained with blood’, in its colloquial usage it can be an intensifier of the speaker’s emotion or/and the situation. The intensifier can contain either negative or positive meanings. But it can also be used as an expletive when used with neutral adjectives: 1) I’m so bloody tired. The second part ‘hell’ is also used as an intensifier to express impatience, anger and surprise. But it can also be used ironically or sarcastically to mean the very opposite of what one says (Hong, 2008). Finally, ‘bloody hell’ means is used as either a swear word or to express an exclamation meaning (Hong, 2008). But apparently, many- if not all- native Australians find no offense with the term. The interpretation of its meaning depends on the context of use (in this case, the timing). The North Korean colleague was late, so it was expected of him to be a little angry. However, focusing too much on this ‘expected emotions’ of the group leader (as a result of the situation) ignores other aspects of communication, such as the tone of voice and body language (facial expression). These last two showed no signs of anger or rudeness. Still it was easier for North Korean colleague to take offense as he was not there to see the group leader’s face. The group leader did explain himself and apologized for the offense although he did not intend to and the problem was resolved. Even then, I have found that I cannot use ‘bloody hell’ eve when I intend to mean well by it, not even with my native Australian friends. b) Deadly/Deadliest When I approached him, he told me he was Salim Bakar from Egypt and he was an Undergraduate student of Chemical Engineering. The one who had spoken was (by skin color and hair texture) of an Aboriginal descent (and Salim did confirm this, although he did not tell me his name) was a classmate. I explained why I had approached him, asking him if I had been correct to think he was offended by the ‘You’re the deadliest, man’ part than the second part. He was amused at first, but did admit to it although he also admitted it was silly on his part. He said being referred to as ‘deadliest’ go him a little edgy although he knew his friend only meant it as a complement for helping him with a sum. In the actual lexical meaning of the term, deadly (and its superlative deadliest) means ‘fatal, toxic and/or lethal’ (Vinson, 2008, p.4). These terms, therefore, connote disapproval or approval for the negative. To hear the word, therefore, Salim found a subconscious connection with the stereotypical association of those from the Middle East with terrorism. Without meaning to, he flinched at the word ‘deadliest’. But this is not what his friend had referred to. On the other hand, the friend had meant it as a complement. Among the Aboriginals, especially the young people and as used in this context, the terms ‘deadly’ and ‘deadliest’ are also used to mean ‘impressive’. Although Salim was a little offended at first, it is clear that this was more of a subconscious problem. Otherwise, the speech event meant that he also understood the speech act as a complement. c) ‘Where are you going?’ versus ‘Good afternoon?’ Asking the Chinese friend about it, I learnt that in his native land and language, ‘what are you doing’ is used to initiate greeting. It is a way of saying ‘Good morning or evening or afternoon?” This is consistent with the nature of communication in high-context cultures. In high-context cultures, communication is indirect. What happened, therefore, was a pragmalinguistic transfer. He had transferred a speech act in his native language directly to English. This is what caused my misunderstanding. Further, my response was not right. This is what amused my friend. ii. Phonological Features a) ‘Sh’ Sound After a little while listening, I noticed Geoffrey did not have any ‘Sh’ sound in his speech. At first, I thought he had not come to a word that required the sound. But soon realized that he actually had, only he said ‘s’ instead. For example, he said ‘situason’ instead of ‘situashon’; ‘sould’ instead of ‘should’. This second example was particularly tricky because it sound like ‘sued’ (although it also did not sound like it). So I would not sound rude, I did not ask him to clarify himself and got to figure it for myself. I did this by placing it within the rest of the sentences, I ‘sould’ see professor at two. But I eventually had to ask Geofrey how come he never said that sound ‘sh’. It turned out he could say the sound, only it did not come out when he was deep in conversation. I gathered that the sound ‘sh’ is not in their alphabet. Apparently, this is not a problem for those who live in the urban areas from a young age as they interact with English early enough to adapt and internalize the sound. Geoffrey, however, had studied in the rural and only moved with the scholarship that brought him to Australia. b) ‘Bill’ or ‘Pill’ I also questioned Lewis about this and he told me in their tribe, the sounds ‘p’ and ‘b’ are used interchangeably. This example is shows the importance of voicing and aspirations as ‘phonologically active’ phonetic features. These bring out words clearly which help one to make meaning. The words ‘bill’ and ‘pill’ are close but mean different things, and that was the problem in this particular case. Conclusion This paper provides 5 examples of instances of intercultural miscommunication among the various ethnic groups living in Sydney. The two examples of miscommunication related to ‘phonological features’ relate to two Kenyans of different tribes Nonetheless, both cases shows the importance of ‘phonologically active’ phonetic features of language influence how words are understood and how one makes meaning of what one says. The three examples on lexical pragmatics show how words mean different things to people from different cultures. Ultimately, these examples show how linguistic features in general can influence meaning. By extension, these examples shows how elements of culture can influence articulation and construction of English speech, as well as the interpretation of other’s speeches. The Aborigines use deadly differently than its actual ‘standard English’ usage and Australian slang can also be a factor of miscommunication. References Bartolo, K.F. (2008). ‘Bogan’: Polite or Not? Cultural Implications of a Term in Australian Slang, Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 7-20 Blutner, R. (2004). Pragmatics and the Lexicon, in L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances: the Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Clements, G.N. & Engin, S. (1982). Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish, in H. Hulst & N. Smith(Eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Forrest, J. & Dunn, K. (2007). Constructing Racism in Sydney, Australia’s Largest EthniCity. Urban Studies, 44(4), 699-721 Forrest, J., Poulsen, M. & Johnston, R. (2003). Everywhere different? Globalization and the Impact of International Migration on Sydney and Melbourne. Geoforum, 34, 499–510 Hofstede, G.H. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Hong, M. (2008). “Where the Bloody Hell are You?”: Bloody Hell and (Im)politeness in Australian English, Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 33-39 Gudykunst, W.B. (2003b). Intercultural Communication: Introduction, in W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication, California: SAGE Poulsen, M., Johnston, R. & Forrest,J. (2004). Is Sydney a Divided City Ethnically?, Australian Geographical Studies, 42, 356–377 Vinson, T. (2008). Some Lexical Variations of Australian Aboriginal English, Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 1-6 Read More

Between 1986 and 1996, many immigrants arrived from Asia and the Middle East. This marked an increase of these immigrant populations from 6 to 13 percent. In the years that followed, the number of new immigrants in Sydney continued to rise. Between 1996 and 2001, 39 percent of new immigrants arriving increased by 39 percent. The largest ethnic group in Sydney comes from Asia (Forrest et al., 2003). “Sydney continues to dominate among arrivals of the post-White-Australia period” (Forrest & Dunn, 2007, p.702). These arrivals have included independent or skilled as well as business migrants from Philippines, Chins and Hong Kong, as well as smaller streams of groups of refugees from Vietnam Lebanon and East Africa (Forrest et al., 2003). Because of this diversity, Sydney’s multicultural policies, more than other cities, have been successful at absorbing the diversity of immigrant streams in the post-World-War-II Australia.

According to Forrest et al. (2003), the transitory-nature of ethnic migrant enclaves in Sydney is supported by the analysis of ancestry data cited in the 2001 census This indicates a “strong tendency towards spatial mixing or assimilation which places Sydney among the least segregated of cities of developed nations in the English-speaking world” (Poulsen et al., 2004). This has been attributed to the great diversity of both national and ethnic origin which has to a large extent prevented the build-up of smaller number of particular groups that could lead to widespread segregation as witnessed in the US.

My Personal Experience My native language is Arabic and I have lived in Sydney since 2012. My personal experiences both as an immigrant in Australia and as a student of language have provided me with opportunities to witness first-hand moments of miscommunication between people from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In fact, despite learning English from a relatively early age, I have personally been caught in situations where I do not understand what the other person says. In my encounters with people living in Australia, I would say I have met four different types of people.

There are those who know I am a foreigner but do not necessarily treat me as such. They do not try hard to make me understand when they speak, although I do have the feeling that they try to make their English simple enough for my sake. This, however, does not mean that they are not able to say something that I do not understand or that I misunderstand. During heated conversation contexts, for example, they tend to speak more complex language (such as the use of Australian slang). The second group consists of those that treat me a native Australian.

These do not make any efforts to speak in a way that they assume would help me understand. They simply speak and expect me to understand their language and act accordingly. This is perhaps the group that poses the highest cases of miscommunication. Then there are those who have some knowledge of Arabic culture, most probably because they have been friends with one from the Arabic countries. Some have only read about the culture of Arabs and assume they know so much. This group treats me in two different ways.

Some of these (particularly those with experience with other people of Arab culture) are open-minded and will seek my advice about things they are not sure of. This is a natural response as far as Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) are concerned as it is the “first phase of the reaction cycles of people in the host country where foreign people visit” (p.13). Some (particularly those who have only read about Arab cultures and assume they have enough knowledge) tend to have some stereotype about all Arabs and will treat me based on that knowledge.

This group seems to have already decided how I should behave and if I do not meet these expectations then they seem a little disappointed. According to Gydykunst (2003b), stereotypical categorization prevents genuine communication.

Read More