Note:
We are still collecting data and you will not be
able to be a participant after reading this poster. If Cross-Cultural Differences in Comprehension of Implied Meaning
you would like to be a participant and be sent a
$10 Amazon Gift Card, and have college-level
internship/work experience, please contact
oksa2019@mymail.pomona.edu to be included.
Introduction
One major challenge in cross-cultural communication is to understand implied
meaning because comprehension of implied meaning involves a multilayered
cognitive process to choose the most appropriate meaning from several competing
cues in context. Such comprehension is critical for second language (L2) learners
to succeed in Chinese business conversations because different from the
American cultural norms, the Chinese culture is more indirect in language use.
This means that a Chinese businessperson often prefers indirectness in decision
making, requiring an ability to process contextual cues to understand the
speaker’s real intention. Our study aims to investigate what factors can affect L2
Chinese learners’ comprehension of implied meaning in business conversations.
We believe that our findings can help us develop effective methods to teach
comprehension of implied meaning and raise students’ awareness of cross-cultural
differences in business communications between the West and China.
Language and Cross-Cultural Understanding in the
Business Setting
In her 1983 paper “Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure,” Thomas provides a useful
framework for theorizing the components of linguistic competency. The more
commonly understood type is “pragmalinguistic,” which is comprised of standard
pronunciation or grammar. Deficiencies in this area can be solved by instruction
relatively easily. However, the second area, sociopragmatic competence, is much
more difficult for second-language learners to acquire as it requires an
understanding of culture instead of just linguistic rules. Across many cultures and
settings, having this understanding is necessary to correctly interpret statements
that may have deeper meanings than their literal translations.
Within today’s era of hyper-globalized commerce, this second area of language
competency is becoming much more important. Even for native speakers working
domestically, foreign firms may bring with them distinct cultural and linguistic
practices that may hinder cross-cultural communication. For example, a director
at a Canadian bank mentioned at a recruiting event that he felt insufficiently
fluent in or comfortable with the culture at his previous firm, a Swiss bank. This
issue contributed to a major career decision for him to change banks. We believe
that cross-cultural communication skills can meaningfully affect career outcomes
which creates an imperative for educators to thoughtfully prepare students to
navigate these differences. Our study will contribute to a growing body of work in
this area notably including Johnson (2006), but we focus particularly on the
pragmatic use of language, a relatively less studied aspect of international
business.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015
www.PosterPresentations.com
Owen Sherry and Feng Xiao
Pomona College
Methods:
To gather data, we employed methods similar to Taguchi, Xiao, and Li
(2016) wherein researchers create a situational description and
prompting line of dialogue from person A. The survey participant crafts
an original response as person B, taking into account the situational
description and importantly for our purposes, the relationship they are
meant to have with person A. In our case, this method is apt because we
want to observe participants’ natural approach to communication and
ability to interpret implied meanings inherent to the situation in
question. These original responses will allow us to find commonalities
in communication strategies and diction/jargon. Additionally, to measure
the nuances of hierarchy in the workplace, half of the situations involve
individuals of unequal status whereas half have individuals with equal
status.
We took a several-step process to create these situations and prompts:
firstly, we set out common speech actions that we would test. These
included refusals, disagreements, suggestions/requests, compliments,
and offerings of help. We will define these speech acts in more detail in
our coming paper. Filler questions were also added to prevent
participants from clearly identifying our objectives. Once we’d crafted
situations based on our experiences, we translated them into simplified
and traditional Chinese and focus-grouped them with 10 native speakers
in each language focusing on the commonality of the situation and
naturalness of the situation/prompt text. If a question scored below or
near an average of a 2 on a 0-3 scale, we adjusted the wording as
needed, consulting the focus group. Figures 1 and 2 show the results of
these instrument tests. After the instrument was complete, the order of
questions was randomized so that questions testing different speech acts
appeared evenly throughout the survey. Data collection is still in process
at the Claremont Colleges, Duke University, and Carnegie Mellon
University.
Hypothesis
Prevailing wisdom and personal experience suggest that Chinese people
are more likely to prefer indirect methods in decision making, requests,
and other speech, particularly in comparison to their Western
counterparts. Existing studies such as Jia (2008), which analyze implicit
and explicit requests bear this out. The speech acts that we expect the
most divergence between the two groups are refusals and
disagreements.
Next Steps This Fall:
Example question:
Situation: B works under A and is feeling overworked, but rarely feels As of submitting this poster, we have begun to collect data and have
comfortable saying no to additional work. However, B is quickly gathered 15 out of a planned 100 participants. After concluding data
reaching a breaking point and needs to set boundaries. collection, we will assess the responses based on two main categories of
A: We’ve got a big meeting next week, can you pull the deck observation: vocabulary and strategies (directness vs indirectness, use
together by Monday by yourself? Everyone else is slammed with of polite excuses). Following this, we will run a simple regression and
other projects. t-test analysis to determine whether the two groups have significant
B： differences in the way they respond to these situations. We plan to write
a full paper more comprehensively documenting the project during the
fall semester.
Value and Limitations:
Being cognizant of cross-cultural differences in pragmatic use of
language is key to success in many international workplaces.
However, our sample is somewhat limited by the population that we
have easiest access to: college students at U.S. universities. Though
Chinese international students certainly provide a valuable
perspective, their characteristics and views may not be representative.
Further research with full-time professionals in each context might
better capture what we aim to observe in this study.
References:
Johnson, J. P., Lenartowicz, T., & Apud, S. (2006). Cross-cultural competence in
international business: Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International
Business Studies, 37(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400205
Taguchi, N. (2017). Second Language Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., & Li, S. (2016). Effects of Intercultural competence and social
contact on speech Act production in a Chinese study Abroad Context. The Modern
Language Journal, 100(4), 775–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12349
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
Acknoledgements
I want to thank Feng Xiao for introducing me to this topic and a breadth of new
ideas, methods, and concepts that I wouldn’t have otherwise encountered in my
regular Pomona course load.
Figures 1, 2: Focus Group Ratings