1.6.3. Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication No one can deny the fact that the study of cross cultural communication contributed to the field of applied linguistics and offered a plethora of examples of different aspects of communication. Deborah Tannen (1984), in her article: The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication has identified eight levels of differences in ways of speaking that differ from one culture to another and which represent the essence of language (ibid, 189). Therefore pragmatics and communication are interrelated. In the sense that pragmatics offers a thorough understanding of how speakers mean what they say on the basis of different levels of communication differences.
1.6.3.1. When to Talk Cultures across the world have special perception of when to talk. …show more content…
Indirectness In cross-cultural communication, speakers tend to be indirect in their speech by using a set of strategies including hints, assumptions, and audience filling-in from context and prior experience. However, some cultures do not appreciate such indirectness believing that “words should say what they mean”. In the opposite side, non-Americans believe that “what is meant cannot be said outright” (ibid). In this light, Tannen (1982) reports the benefits of indirectness in the following example:
A Greek woman told me that when she asked her father (as a girl) or her husband (as an adult) whether or not she could go somewhere, he would never say no. If he said, 'If you want, you can go', she knew he didn't want her to. If he really thought it was a good idea he would been enthusiastic: 'Yes, of course. Go.' She knew from the way he said yes whether he meant yes or no ( quoted in Tannen, ibid). Moreover, the American-Japanese relationship is a good example of cross-cultural miscommunication because Japanese people are, sometimes, obliged to say yes and do not mean it because they never say no in contrast to their American
1.6.3.1. When to Talk Cultures across the world have special perception of when to talk. …show more content…
Indirectness In cross-cultural communication, speakers tend to be indirect in their speech by using a set of strategies including hints, assumptions, and audience filling-in from context and prior experience. However, some cultures do not appreciate such indirectness believing that “words should say what they mean”. In the opposite side, non-Americans believe that “what is meant cannot be said outright” (ibid). In this light, Tannen (1982) reports the benefits of indirectness in the following example:
A Greek woman told me that when she asked her father (as a girl) or her husband (as an adult) whether or not she could go somewhere, he would never say no. If he said, 'If you want, you can go', she knew he didn't want her to. If he really thought it was a good idea he would been enthusiastic: 'Yes, of course. Go.' She knew from the way he said yes whether he meant yes or no ( quoted in Tannen, ibid). Moreover, the American-Japanese relationship is a good example of cross-cultural miscommunication because Japanese people are, sometimes, obliged to say yes and do not mean it because they never say no in contrast to their American