How Different Are We? By H.G.FitzGerald (2003)

http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/htmy/1853596191.html

Most of the English classes I teach at my Japanese university only have Japanese students. The students have discussions with each other, and based on those interactions with each other (and the limited interaction they each get with me), are expected to develop their ability to eventually (hopefully) communicate cross-culturally in English with non-Japanese speakers of English.

Does it work? In other words, based on this limited foreign language learning context, plus possibly a summer of overseas study and some coincidental conversations with international students or faculty on campus, how well-prepared are my students for participating in advanced interactions in English with persons from other cultures? Of course, each of my students has different charactertistics as a language learner and will face different interactional demands in different contexts, so it may be difficult to generalize what "well-prepared" for "advanced interactions" means, but I still need to have some general sense of where they are in relation to where they need to be, and what is needed in order to help them move closer to where they want to be. Given that most students rarely have had a chance to converse with people of different cultures, one of the greatest challenges they may face is achieving successful communication by adapting to a wide variety of cultural differences and communication styles.

So that's why I was interested in this work by FitzGerald. What tendencies, successes or failures do Japanese speakers have when they interact in English with persons of other cultures, and what might we recommend in terms of preparing for more successful interaction?

In "How Different Are We?" FitzGerald's examination of 40 hours of spoken discourse involving 155 non-native speakers from 104 different countries and 6 native-speakers provides many valuable insights for what seems to "work" or "not work" for smooth communication in collaboration tasks between persons of different cultural backgrounds.

Some competencies recommended are: (p.173)

• bring out into the open any cultural differences you feel may be impeding understanding
• if there is a misunderstanding, rephrase. Do not repeat exactly
• clarify the intention behind your words, knowing others may not share your worldview
• expect other ways of structuring information and emphasizing a point
• use fillers to avoid pauses when you have not finished what you want to say (Apparently because different cultural norms of turn-taking can cause you to lose the floor if you pause too much. Sees true from my experience. This can be a big challenge for Japanese speakers who come from a culture where longer pauses are accepted and respected.)
  
• soften negative statements where culturally appropriate
• do not break up units of meaning with pauses (Because it is hard to follow?)
• Repeat difficult ideas using different words; Ask questions to confirm understanding of the listener
• Use introductory phrases "What I want to emphasize is..." to make the function of important utterances clear
• Give instructions or information in correct sequence without extraneous comment

On rhetorical style and discouse organization, Asian and Middle Eastern background speakers tended to use a "more indirect, inductive organization of information" (reflecting the organization and rhetorical styles preferred in their first language).

FitzGerald's view, based on the intercultural interaction data, was that the inductive style often led to interruptions and misunderstandings. In other words, when a speaker took a long time to get to a point, building up to it implicitly and indirectly, the communication became confusing and frustrating (even when the interactants were familiar with the different styles of communication).

I like the quote on p.109 because it confirms my own conclusion on organization style for English in intercultural contexts:

"(With indirect approaches) ...it is more difficult to work at inferring meaning in intercultural interactions and, in such communication, there is a preference for more explicit, direct verbal messages."

Some may criticize this view of a preferred direct style as ethnocentric and biased, possibly even imperialistic, and that may be true to some extent. With more exposure to indirect styles in the future, the international preference may change, or they may become equally effective. Even today, in some contexts, an inductive, indirect style may be more effective. However, given FitzGerald's data that indirectness tends to lead to confusion in intercultural interaction, and given a tendency among advanced English learners from many countries to learn the rhetorical style preferred by Anglophone countries, it seems most practical for learners to try to use a direct style if they want to achieve smoother communication.

However, it is important to remember that one size does not fit all. Just because "direct and explicit and deductive" seems to generally work more efficiently does not mean it is always the best way to go. Intercultural communicators need to be ready to adapt styles to the persons they communicate with.

FitzGerald's chart on p.168 can lead to stereotyping, and so I am not in favor of matching categories of styles to certain regions. The valuable part of identifying communication styles is that communicators can reflect on their own style and realize that their way may not be the only way.

Communication styles identified by FitzGerald based on her data and literature:

• Instrumental/Exacting - Values individual autonomy. Linear, goal-oriented. Deductive, unemotional, objective, logical.
  
• Spontaneous/Argumentative - Values sincerity with blunt, direct style. Negative emotions are honestly expressed and not hidden. Arguments are forceful. Speak in length to say views in full to persuade the other side.
  
• Involved/Expressive - Warm, emotional, giving face to others, collaborative, enjoying the interaction, and sometimes like to digress from the goal on to tangents.
  
• Elaborate/Dramatic - Speaks take long turns to develop a dramatic, embellished story with metaphors, similes, rhythmic repetition and parallel structures. Positive, harmonious, but often full of sweeping assertions and overgeneralizations.
  
• Bureaucratic/Affective - Value harmonious relations and positive face. Stress form rather than content with formal bureaucratic language. Preference for inductive style of organization, including both sides of an issue.
  
• Succinct/Subdued - "These cultures value harmony, modesty and conformity and stress positive face, particulary position face. They express this by masking negative emotions and avoiding unpleasantness. Talk is status -oriented and should be deferential and indirect in many situations. People are expected to infer meanings. Turns are short and talk is concise except when an inductive organization of information and a conciliatory approach are used to avoid open disagreement. Talk and verbal skills are not highly valued: People are comfortable with silences."

So, which communication style do you use? Culture and school training affect the person's basic style, but ultimately I believe it is a personal choice, and all people can learn to adapt to different styles.