Rules COMMUNICATING ACROSS CULTURES AT WORK 3rd EDITION COMPANION WEBSITE Chapter 3 Culture and Communication I have not

changed much in this chapter: the main Sections are those from Edition 2. They are 3.1 A brief note on communication, 3.2 Cultural differences in communication and 3.3

(Sub)cultural communication. I have also not removed any subtopics; additions consist only of paragraphs on relational attuning and other-regarding preference behaviour. Otherwise the changes are limited to updates to incorporate later research and the replacement of some illustrations with new ones.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE EXERCISES Q.1 Ethnologist Donald Brown gave the following list of universal people characteristics: Sense of self versus other, responsibility, voluntary versus involuntary behavior, intention, private inner life, normal versus abnormal mental states. Empathy. Sexual attraction. Powerful sexual jealousy. Childhood fears, especially of loud noises, and, at the end of the first year, strangers. Fear of snakes. Oedipal feelings (possessiveness of mother, coolness toward her consort). Face recognition. Adornment of bodies and arrangement of hair. Sexual attractiveness, based in part on signs of health and, in women, youth. Hygiene. Dance. Music. Play, including play fighting. Manufacture of, and dependence upon, many kinds of tools, many of them permanent, made according to culturally transmitted motifs, including cutters, pounders, containers, string, levers, spears. Use of fire to cook food and for other purposes. Drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Shelter. Decoration of artefacts. A standard pattern and time for weaning. Living in groups, which claim a territory and have a sense of being a distinct people. Families built round a mother and children, usually the biological mother, and one or more men. Institutionalized marriage, in the sense of publicly recognized right of sexual access to a woman eligible for childbearing. Socialization of children (including toilet training) by senior kin. Children copying their elders. Distinguishing of close kin from distant kin, and favoring of close kin. Avoidance of incest between mothers and sons Great interest in the topic of sex. Status and prestige, both assigned (by kinship, age, sex) and achieved. Some degree of economic inequality. Division of labor by sex and age. More child care by women. More aggression and violence by men. Acknowledgment of differences between male and female natures.

Domination by men in the public political sphere. Exchange of labor, goods, and services. Reciprocity, including retaliation. Gifts. Social reasoning. Coalitions. Government, in the sense of binding collective decisions about public affairs. Leaders, almost always nondictatorial, perhaps ephemeral. Laws, rights, and obligations, including laws against violence, rape, and murder. Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking of redress for wrongs. Mediation. In- group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of progeny. Sense of right and wrong. Envy. Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death. Medicine. Rituals, including rites of passage. Mourning the dead. Dreaming, Interpreting dreams. Interestingly, none of these is a basic communication activity. Q.2 If, as with the nurses researched, older people tend to greater rhetorical reflectiveness, younger people might mistake that for agreement. Culturally-influenced higher levels of relational attunement (behavioural mirroring) could lead to an individual being thought a copycat or even as mocking by a person from a culture where lower levels are the norm. A person acting assertively in terms of their own culture might be perceived as aggressive or a doormat in another. An argumentative subordinate from an individualistic culture might earn the displeasure of a manager from a collectivist or high power-distance culture. Q.6 a), b), c). Q.7 My explanation is given on p.101. Q.8 As Chapter 8 shows, to someone from a high power-distance culture a selection interview may require them to show such deference to the interviewer that they are unable to demonstrate their suitability for the post. Q.9 Tomorrow is pay day: said by a UK investment banker to mean that on the following day the size of that years bonuses would be announced; also the examples given in the Extra Materials section of this chapter.

Q.10 b) Q.13 People from individualist cultures may judge the tendency of people from collectivist cultures to say what they judge the other person wants to hear evasive, deceitful or untruthful. Cultural awareness and avoiding judgementalism help overcome these problems. Q.14 Would you mind doing X? is used in British English to give orders rather than to ask a question. Q.15 These are taken from the complaint letters between Americans and Koreans described on p.119 (ref 166); the (a) expressions are from the US complaint letters, the (b) expressions from the Korean. Q.16 (a) On the senior managers, high power distance would answer; on the other departments, the knee-jerk answer would be collectivism, but that usually means that the work unit is the ingroup and other units or departments are outgroups its probably communism, ie political rather than cultural; (b) collectivism does go along with a belief in the personal and interpersonal; the impersonality of rules of the game is not always understood. Q.18 This questionnaire, based on the research described on p.110, brings out the interesting point that personal circumstances affect compliance gaining attitudes as much as or more than culture. In relation to Japan, however, permanent employment is a culture-influenced circumstance. Q.20 Because collectivists are less concerned with the reactions and responses of out-group members. Q.21 I would predict higher levels of concern with rights among individualists than collectivists to my knowledge the rapport management theorists do not take a stand on this, though perhaps they should. Q.22 The scenario in the question is one used by Knutson and Smith (2002) for their research into American and Taiwanese conflict behaviour. The interpretation of the conflict handling choices offered is as follows: 1. I will tell Mr Powers supervisor about the problem and ask him to call a meeting between the three of us to discuss the situation (intermediary style) 2. I will tell Mr Power directly that these are NOT my duties (dominating style) 3. I will talk to my boss for some benefits for doing the extra work - eg free time to do his shopping (integrative style) 4. I will still follow his orders but make tiny mistakes so that after a time he will not ask me any more (indirect style) 5. I will file a requestion with Mr Powers supervisor for a transfer to another department (avoiding style 6. I will continue to follow his requests and do nothing to change the situation (obliging style) The research found few differences between the samples in perceived conflict in situations. A range of findings on conflict behaviour showed little difference between American and Taiwanese samples. The researchers commented, the foremost contributor to the lack of predictability may have involved rapidly changing Taiwanese political and cultural characteristics. Traditional Chinese cultural behaviour may no longer have a profound influence on Taiwanese conflict behaviour. Q.24 The reason for the correlation of expressiveness and uncertainty avoidance may be that high uncertainty avoiders are probably more motivated to communicate precise meaning and have a sense that that requires high levels of input from the speaker. Q.25 High individualism promotes self-disclosure expressing the self is a major goal in communicating; in combination with low power-distance, high individualism enables Americans to see criticism in business as other than a personal attack: they have a cultural belief in separating the problem from the people. Q.26 Because language influences what information outsiders obtain about a culture and how it is perceived.

Q.28 Others have attributed it to womens lower power and status, rather than to a motivation or orientation i.e. in using hedges, etc., women are doing the equivalent of putting up their arm across their face to avoid blows. EXTRA QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
In my culture people at work usually 1. Avoid open discussions of differences 2. Exert pressure on their peers to make decisions in their favour 3. Try to find a middle course or compromise to resolve an impasse 4. Give in to the wishes of their peers 5. Try to give and take so that a compromise can be made 6. Try to satisfy the expectations of their peers 7. Try to avoid unpleasant exchanges with their peers 8. Keep disagreements with their peers to themselves to prevent disrupting their relationship Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

EXTRA MATERIAL AND COMMENTS ON THE TEXT 3.2 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION Communication traits and styles p.93 Communicator style One study of twins found that some communicator style variables may be inherited the most likely being openness, relaxation, dominance and communicator image. Obviously, any genetic component of communicator style cannot be caused by culture, so this sets a limit on the conclusion that The environment plays an important part in the development of an individuals communication personality, which thus can be expected to vary among cultures and subcultures.
Horvath, C.W. (1995) Biological origins of communicator style, Communication Quarterly, 43: 394407.

Situations
p.94 There are cultural differences in how people interpret situations. People adjust in one or more of the following ways: By evaluating the participants differently. For instance, a managers behaviour will be evaluated differently by subordinates according to whether it takes place in the office or at the office party.

 By adjusting their goals what they hope to achieve from the encounter. Thus, most people would recognize that they are unlikely to succeed in a request for a salary raise in a large meeting where a major sales dip has been reported. i By adjusting their behaviour. For example, they may adjust the degree of formality they use in addressing others, whether to make jokes or how much of the air time to take. Different cultures use the resources of visual communication in different ways. For example, traditional Japanese writing goes vertically; so horizontal writing implies modernity in a way that does not apply in most countries. In Japanese advertizements, the direction suggesting progress and improvement is right to left, whereas the opposite holds in British advertisements. Advertisements showing the image of a woman holding the product are more close-up and have greater direct eye contact with the camera in Britain than Japan, reflecting different attitudes to women. Thus, it can be said, Intercultural communication can be deeply conditioned by the degree of understanding of visual semiotics as a cultural code.ii

p.96 A study of social class in Britain found that codes differ from one social class to another Later critics have contended that identifying restricted and elaborated codes with particular classes is wrong because it implies that there is a deficiency in the language used by some groups. They argue, for instance, that Black English is a fully developed language and that difficulties arise for Black children (in the USA) only because they are not proficient in Standard English, which is the dominant medium in which they must function in formal situations. This criticism may be misplaced. As the author of the study commented, Let it be said immediately that a restricted code gives access to a vast potential of meanings, of delicacy, subtlety and diversity of cultural forms.
Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Toward a Sociology of Language, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

In any case the criticism does not detract from the idea of different codes used by different groups. Some languages and dialects communicate some topics more and others less efficiently than other languages and dialects.
Leigh, J. (2000) Implications of universal and parochial behaviour for intercultural communication, Electronic Journal of Communication, 4, November. URL: www.cios.org/ www/eju/v4n 23L.htm

p.96 Verbal communication I removed the illustrations previously given in a Box (3.3) here. This one still seems useful, though: In English, the head of a phrase comes before its role-players. In many languages it is the other way round . For example, in Japanese, the verb comes after its object, not before: they say, Kenji, sushi ate, not Kenji ate sushi. The preposition comes after its noun phrase: Kenji to not to Kenji (so they are actually called postpositions*). The adjective comes after its complement: Kenji than taller not taller than Kenji. Even the words making questions are flipped: they say, roughly, Kenji eat did? not Did Kenji eat? Japanese and English are looking-glass version of each other. * This is also true of Hindi
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, p. 110.

p.98 Non-verbal communication Most non-verbal signals are analogic that is, the signal has preserved some of the pattern of what it stands for whereas most words are digital (onomatoepia is an exception) in which the signals are arbitrarily related to the thing represented. It is probably for this reason that humans make more use of nonverbal communication for intensity, using more loudness,

tempo and pitch to communicate greater strength of feeling or conviction, and for relationship data. Leigh (2000) suggested that the following examples of body language are probably universal: Smiling when happy or greeting another. Raising eyebrows or hand waving when greeting another. Laughing when amused. Partially hiding the face or blushing when coy or embarrassed. Startling as a reaction to shock. Baring our teeth when enraged. Crying when sad or in pain. Frowning when discomforted or concerned. Whimpering under sustained and intense suffering. Adopting the foetal position when under massive threat, dejected or cold, or other hopeless situation. Making barriers with legs or arms in front of our bodies (e.g., by crossing them) to keep another at bay. Body shrug to express, I don't know. Slumping when dejected or tired. Standing straight when alert or confident. Open hand and arm gestures when sincere. Fleeting eye contact when deceit or covering up is present. More sustained eye contact when goodwill, honesty and sincerity are present. Hand activity around the face, head and neck when stressed or deceitful.
Leigh, J. (2000) Implications of universal and parochial behavior for intercultural communication, Intercultural Communication 4 URL: www.immi.se/intecultural/nr4/leigh.htm

p.100 It is probable that in all cultures, to speak is to perform an act and to be successful the communicative intention behind the act must be understood by the receiver. However, both intentions and the forms required to communicate them may be culture-specific and hard for outsiders to comprehend. In the West, promising involves five basic rules: It must include a sentence indicating that the speaker will do some act in the future. The receiver would rather that the speaker does the act than not do it. It would not be obvious that the act would be done in the normal course of events. The speaker must intend to do the act.

It establishes an obligation for the speaker to do the act.

An intercultural group could usefully discuss, for the cultures represented, what forms would be used to communicate the intention to promise. They could also discuss their cultures speech act rules and forms for, for instance, complimenting, criticising, complaining, or, in a work context, rebuking, requesting, ordering, etc. p.100 A discourse refers to the ways in which language is used in a particular social context. a. Discourse, then, is language in social use, Discourse analysis differs from linguistic analysis in focusing on what statements are made rather than how they are [made] As this quotation underlines, discourse studies do not describe language as a system but analyse language as a social act and the social use of language. Discourse studies can primarily investigate the construction of mental models, processes and representations and try to define rules and conventions of social knowledge production. This group of discourse approaches and studies is closely connected with cognitive and social psychology. Another group of

discourse studies focuses on aspects of interaction as they appear in speech and conversation. Central concepts of this group of approaches are transferred from the social sciences as e.g. the setting of discourse, ideology, power etc. This group has the aim to illuminate the relations between discourses and society.
Fiske. J. (1996) Media Matters: Race and Gender in U.S. Politics. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

b. Sociolinguistics is that part of linguistics which is concerned with language as a social and cultural phenomenon. It investigates the field of language and society and has close connections with the social sciences, especially social psychology, anthropology, human geography and sociology. It basically describes what was said, why it was said, what it meant to the speaker and what it meant to the listener. Bringing these questions together are the concepts of speech community and communicative competence which are central to sociolinguistics.
Trudgill P. (1983 Revision of 1974 Edition) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin Books.

c. Discourse is the social process of making and reproducing sense in a post-structuralist paradigm. Structuralists insisted that meaning is an effect of signification and that signification is a property not of the world out there not of individual people but of language. We are what we say and the world is what we say it is. This is now understood to be too freefloating language is too flabby and imprecise a concept: thus the use of discourses, which are the product of social, historical and institutional formations. The theory of discourses proposes that individuality itself is the site, as it were, on which socially produced and historically established discourses are reproduced and regulated. Discourses are power relations struggles between ideologies for example, the working through of the struggle between the discourses of patriarchy (legitimate, naturalised) and feminism (emergent, marginalized). Discourse analysis, however, is the study of message structure, especially of naturally occurring talk. Discourse analysts share three concerns: With the ways in which communication is organised to generate and understand speech and other types of messages; With analysing units of communication which are larger than sentences; With how people organise communication to accomplish pragmatic goals in social situations. The analyses and explanations of discourse analysts are not psychological or sociopsychological, although they recognise the value of these perspectives,; similarly, discourse analysts recognise the place of interaction within communication, but do not accord it quite the significance attached to it by interaction theorists, for whom people become aware of themselves only in the context of their social relationship, which are bestowed, sustained and transformed through communication. Instead, they focus on individuals and their overt communicative behaviour.
Communicating Across Cultures 1st edn.

p.100 An analysis of interviews with and documents from Indian and Israeli business partners suggested that local discourse systems play a major role in business communication. a. The researchers concluded that three major discourse systems were found to influence Israeli/Indian business communication: Utilitarian discourse (dominant in business, government and academe, especially in the West); Dugri speech; and Indian English as spoken by the educated class in India. In the utilitarian discourse system, clarity, brevity and sincerity are valued; styles are antirhetorical, reasoning is positivist, empirical, deductive, language avoids set phrases, metaphors and clichs, tone is egalitarian and public. In Dugri, which means truthful, informative and clear in Arabic and Hebrew, discourse is spontaneous, immediate and equal

and exhibits high directness. Indian English is formal, poetic, literary, inefficient, long sentences, point expressed at the end politeness requires long, indirect sentences; language include hyperbole, expressions of humility, honorifics and respect terminology.
Zaidman, N. (2001) Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication between Israeli and Indian businesspeople, Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 408441.

b. According to Canning, an international communications firm, and the British Chambers of Commerce, millions of pounds are being lost in deals each year because foreigners are bamboozled, literally, by the speech of their British counterparts. Examples of confusing expressions include Business is going swimmingly, When the chips were down, we really pulled out the stops for you, Its horses for courses, How long is a piece of string? Lets roll our sleeves up and get stuck in, We can piggy-back this deal onto the other one, Lets get our act together. According to Canning, some foreign companies are awarding major contracts to non-British organisations simply because they speak better English. An East Asian airline handed an order for flight simulators to a French firm because the airline pilots would have to be trained in English to use the machines and the company considered the French supplier spoke clearer and more comprehensible English.
The City Spy column of the London Evening Standard, January 2005.

p.101 The culture-in-context approach (also known as the discourse/practice approach) Other research in support of the culture-in-context account explored intercultural dialogues between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. The two groups were expected to argue in a manner consistent with their respective cultural communication codes, known as dugri and musayra respectively. Thus, the Israeli Jews were expected to be assertive and the Palestinians more accommodating. However, the study found the reverse the Israeli Jews were more accommodating and the Palestinians more assertive. This finding is claimed to be inconsistent with the concept that cultural differences in communication style strongly affect intercultural communication practices. In 15 per cent of cases, each adopted aspects of the others style: the Israelis used metaphors: I must congratulate you for the achievement in receiving the approval for our project and looking forward for the wind to blow in our ships sail; the Indians simply stated facts: I wish to state that the offer is beyond our scope of investment at this juncture as we have more competitive offers. These occasions were too rare, however, to prevent a high rate of breakdown of communication and negotiations.
Zaidman, N. (2001) Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication between Israeli and Indian businesspeople, Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 40841.

Conversational constraints p.101 CC [conversational constraints] theory is relevant to cultural differences in communication behaviour because it makes links between individuals self-construals (described in Chapter 4), their needs, psychological make-up and choice of communication strategy. These concepts are operationalized as follows: self-construals as independence and interdependence, needs as need for social approval or need for dominance and and psychological make-up as psychological gender. These variables are linked to interaction goals and hence to choice of direct or indirect communication strategy as follows: An interdependent self-construal leads to placing primacy on face goals; independent to emphasis on clarity goals. Thus, collectivists are theorised to prioritise face goals; individualists to prioritise clarity goals. The need for approval leads to concern for others face, the need for dominance leads to concern for clarity.

Biculturals, who maintain both high independent and high interdependent construals, had the highest totals for the importance ratings of all the constraints combined.
Kim M.-S, Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H. (1996) Individual-vs. culturelevel dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles, Communication Monographs, 63: 2949.

A study undertaken with 972 undergraduates studying in Korea, Japan, Hawaii and mainland USA found the following: culture-level individualism correlated positively with concern for clarity and promoting ones own goals in communication but not with the relational constraints of concern for minimizing threats to the hearers face, for minimising imposition or for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer. In contrast, the results for culture-level collectivism were vice versa. In both cases, the researchers found that a mediating cultural variable an independent or interdependent self-construal was operating.1 Again, though Koreans and North Americans both saw the incompatibility of clarity with the three relationally oriented dimensions, Americans saw clearer request strategies as more effective; Koreans saw clarity as counterproductive to effectiveness. 2
Kim, M.-S., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H. (1996) Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: effects on preferred conversational styles, Communication Monographs, 63: 29 49. Kim, M.-S., and Wilson, S.R. (1994) A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting, Communication Monographs, 61: 21035.

Facework p.103 Face is the positive social value people assume for themselves, the image they try to project to the public. Goffman (1959), like other symbolic interactionists, saw the human drive to sense-making as fundamental: in any typical situation, people are asking and answering the question, What is going on here? Their answer is their definition of the situation and it is that definition which is real for them. Since what is going on here is at least in part an effect of culture, the implications of this idea are worth exploring in an intercultural group.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, p.3.

p.104 A summary of low-context and high-context face negotiation processes (Table 3.1) A low- versus high-context framework in facework was used in research in the US, Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan; data was also collected from Australia, Thailand, and India. People from low-context cultures tended to equate the meaning of face with saving their own face, i.e., pride, reputation, credibility, and self-respect (relating to the ego) and could not offer a meaning for face giving. For them face is more individualistic, low context, and is associated with intrapsychic phenomena. Concerns centre on autonomy face (freedom) where privacy or personal space is important and individual (intrinsic) accountability is emphasised. To these subjects loss of face means personal failure, loss of self-esteem, or loss of self-pride on an individual attribution basis; recovery from face loss is achieved by humour, or, where that would be inappropriate by defensive or attacking strategies. In conflict situations they adopt self-face preservation and maintenance, focus on self-face issues, use control-focused and confrontational strategies, and display stronger win-lose orientations. High-context culture subjects, on the other hand, understand the concept of face to be related to honour, claimed self-image, and the family/organisation. For them there is more awareness of relational dynamics in the concept of face saving. To Asians, face-giving means allowing room for the other person to recover his/her face - room to manoeuvre, to negotiate - so both can gain face in the end. For Japanese and Korean subjects, loss of face means disrupting group harmony, bringing shame to their family, classmates, or

company. Shame arises in relation to self, parents, or group situations. However, practices differ, for instance, between Japanese and Chinese: for the Japanese, if they disgrace their organisation, they may or may not also disgrace themselves and their family; for the Chinese, any disgrace reflects on their family honour. Following loss of face, Asian cultures focus on recovering by maintaining a win-win process. Asian subjects tend to use face-smoothing strategies, mutual-face preservation strategies, and conflict avoidance strategies. People from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China use more compromising strategies; the Japanese use more controlling styles (i.e. competitive) with outgroup members and conflict avoidance with ingroup members.1 Conclusions about collectivist conflict styles, however, need to be qualified by Khoos finding that people from collectivistic cultures are likely to be more aggressive and confrontational than people from individualistic cultures in conflicts with members of their outgroups. Khoo found that Euro American business executives were more likely than Chinese people to use Integrating, Compromising, and Obliging Conflict Styles. One possible explanation is their high concern with the task, which over-rides national cultural predilections. These business people contended that the best way to handle conflict was to avoid or minimize it to the extent possible to try to avoid possible economic loss. Among the ways to avoid or minimize conflict would be to strive towards mutually acceptable and favourable outcomes through the use of compromising and integrating conflict styles.2
Communicating Across Cultures 1st edn. 1. Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. Lin, S.L. and Nishida, T. (1991) Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: a study in five cultures, The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 27596. 2. Khoo, G.P.S. (1994) The role of assumptions in intercultural research and consulting: examining the interplay of culture and conflict at work, Paper given at the David See-Chai Lam Centre for International Communication, Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre: Pacific Region Forum on Business and Management Communication. URL: http://222.cic.sfu.ca/forum

Politeness p.104 According to politeness theory, there is a relationship between a speakers face concerns, perceived threats to face and the ways in which a speaker will express a request, explanation, disagreement or any other verbal communication. a. Some further explanation of this sentence may be needed. Speakers are normally concerned both with their own face and with that of their hearer: they want to maintain their own position without giving offence to the hearer. Speakers who are indifferent to the effect of what they say on the hearers face are poor communicators: by giving offence they reduce the chances of their message being attended to and understood All communication exposes us to the risk either of earning others disapproval or of reducing our independence of them, on the one hand; or on the other hand of threatening the other partys desire for independence or their desire for approval. Communications that pose a threat to face are termed face-threatening acts (FTAs). For example, if I use an abrupt command to ask someone to do something, I threaten both their desire for autonomy (by treating them as someone dependent on me, and therefore able to be commanded by me) and their desire for approval (by showing a lack of respect for them and their feelings). However, even if I phrase my request obsequiously, as in, Id be most grateful if you would please consider doing ......... I still threaten their autonomy, though I may placate their desire for approval. The abrupt command, though, does not threaten, indeed supports, the speakers own desire for independence and in some situations also their desire for approval - if they feel that to be in charge is what is expected. The speaker who phrases their request in an obsequious way, on the other hand, probably threatens their own sense of autonomy, by expressing subservience. There is thus a trade-off between concern for own face and concern for hearers face. In other words, in order to minimize the potential social and personal emotional harm that

might result from an FTA, speakers employ a variety of politeness or facework strategies. Brown and Levinson (1978 ref 54) divided these facework strategies into four categories: 1. bald-on-record: this involves no actions to attend to the hearer's face needs; 2. positive politeness: this addresses the hearer's need to maintain a sense of approval by others and generally employs inclusive language which indicates that the speaker wants the same things the hearer wants; 3. negative politeness: this addresses the hearer's need to maintain a sense of personal autonomy and generally employs hedges (such as if you agree or if you dont mind) which indicate that the speaker wants to avoid violating the hearer's autonomy; 4. off-record: this addresses the speaker's need for positive and negative face (that is, social approval and personal autonomy) and generally employs evasive and ambiguous language which provides the speaker with an opportunity to deny the FTA. There is a fifth possible strategy no communication. This minimises face threat but does not allow the speaker to progress towards those goals which the speaker may be able to gain through interaction. Speakers select facework strategies based on three situational factors: 1. the social distance between the speaker and the hearer 2. the degree of power which the hearer has over the speaker 3. the relative cultural assessment of the imposition the specific FTA represents The speaker assesses the relative risk of damage to face and chooses a strategy which carries no greater risk than required in the situation. Despite its great influence, Brown and Levinson's (1978) model has received some critical comment. For instance, it has been shown that, in some situations, some assumptions are invalid: for example, that speech acts threaten only one aspect of face, that face threats can be understood by analyzing individual acts in isolation and that all face threats are intrinsic. Secondly, how well developed cognitively a speaker is affects how they employ various politeness strategies. There is also criticism of the theories for ignoring strategies which might address the face needs of the speaker rather than the hearer and for the focus on politeness when such speech acts as showing contempt for the other person in the interaction clearly involve facework.
Communicating Across Cultures 1st edn.

b. I have omitted the following Box from the 3rd edition, but it may be useful. It could, for instance, be used to form an exercise, as in: From this list select the ten that you think are most threatening in your culture, ensuring that you include one of each of the four types. Put them in order of decreasing threat. Compare your list with those of colleagues from a different culture. Box 3.7 A typology of face-threatening acts (FTAs) FTAs which threaten the hearers positive face include disapproval, criticism, contempt, ridicule, complaints, reprimands, accusations, insults, contradictions, disagreements, challenges, expressions of violent emotions, taboo topics or bad news. FTAs which threaten the hearers negative face include orders, requests, suggestions, advice, reminders, threats, warnings, dares, offers, promises, compliments and expressions of strong emotions. FTAs which threaten the speakers positive face include apologies, accepting compliments, failing to maintain bodily control, making a faux pas, offering a confession of guilt and failing to maintain emotional control. FTAs which threaten the speakers negative face include expressing thanks, accepting thanks, making excuses, accepting offers, responding to the hearers gaffes and making reluctant promises or offers.

Based on: Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1978) Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena, in Goody, E.N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 56289

p.106 Rapport management A little more explanation may be needed of the concepts here: 1. Quality face is concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of personal qualities, and so is closely associated with our sense of personal self-esteem. 2. Social identity face is concerned with the value that we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of our social roles, and is closely associated with our sense of public worth. 3. There seem to be two components to this equity entitlement: the notion of cost-benefit (the extent to which we are exploited, disadvantaged or benefited, and the belief that costs and benefits should be kept roughly in balance through the principle of reciprocity) and the related issues of autonomy-imposition (the extent to which people control us or impose on us). They include concerns about association as well as cost-benefit issues, and it should not be assumed that autonomy/independence is always the preferred option.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002) Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 529545.

p. 109 Compliance gaining a. Theories of compliance gaining identify seven message strategies that managers use: 1. reasoning - influencing subordinates by relying on explanations to support requests, stating the objective merits of the request 2. friendliness - convincing the subordinates to think well of the superior, creating favourable impressions 3. coalition - using social pressure to obtain compliance, mobilising other people to support requests 4. bargaining - relying on negotiations and the exchange of favours, appeals to social norms of reciprocity 5. assertiveness - employing a forceful manner, making demands, setting deadlines 6. appeal to higher authority - relying on the chain of command, using the influence of higher levels in the organisation to back up requests 7. sanctions - using rewards and punishments derived from organisational position, employing promises and threats about pay and employment conditions. Theories of Japanese management suggest that five different compliance gaining strategies would be used: i. appeals to duty and loyalty, built by managerial communication ii. assertiveness, used as an easy strategy where there is no problem of the exit alternative or need for 'voice' because of lack of a hiring market at other than entry level iii. appeals to wa spirit - emphasising the need for harmony and unity of purpose within the group and in the organisation. This is based on an assumption of subordinates willing control of self-interest in service to the group iv. indirect use of coalitions v. appeals to authority (due to high power distance). However, as the findings given in the text show, Japanese managers actually do not always follow Western theories of how they should behave!
Sullivan, J. and Taylor, S. (1991) 'A Cross-cultural test of compliance-gaining theory' Management Communication Quarterly, 5(2), 220239.

b. An article by Fitch explores the subtle and pervasive influence of culture on persuasion.

Based on comparison across ethnographic case studies, I propose that cultural premises and norms delineate a range of what may and what must be persuaded. Outside that range lie actions requiring no persuasive appeal because the cultural premises and norms are so strongly influential that the persuasive work is already done, and actions so contrary to cultural norms and premises that no persuasive appeal in the usual sense could work. A proposed cultural model of persuasion incorporates social components as well as specifically relational codes, face wants, and interactional sequence.
Fitch, K.L. (2003) Cultural persuadables, Communication Theory, 13(1): 100123.

Conflict management p.110 Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) argued that culturally competent facework is a critical aspect of conflict management. The concept of face becomes especially problematic in uncertainty situations (such as embarrassment or conflict) when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question. In addition, cultural individualism-collectivism, together with other individual, relational (eg ingroup-outgroup) and situational variables influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters. However, assumptions regarding the relationship of culture to conflict style preferences may not be valid. A small-scale study (188 graduate students from 31 different countries residing in the USA) indicated that an integrating style, then an obliging style, were the most preferred by both individualists and collectivists; an avoiding style was more strongly supported by individualists than collectivists, collectivists preferred compromising and integrating more than individualists did, while both had an equal (low) ranking of a dominating style.
Cai, D.A., and Fink, E.L. (2002) Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists, Communication Monographs, 69(1): 6787.

p.111 Simplex-relationship oriented societies also tend to prefer adversarial adjudication An adversarial legal system was set up in Japan by the USA after the Second World War, but the Japanese, while retaining its form, subsequently modified it in an investigative direction. p.111 Kim and Leung (2000) proposed a model a. Many researchers have conceptualized avoidance styles of conflict management as reflecting low concern for self as well as for the other. This assumption is taken so much for granted in individualist cultures that it has rarely been stated explicitly. The individualist assumption that overt conflict resolution is better than avoidance has led to a focus on limited aspects of conflict resolution and has resulted in ignorance about, or misinterpretation of, alternative conflict management styles.
Cai, D.A. and Fink, E.L. (2002) Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists, Communication Monographs, 69(1): 6787.

b. An expectancy model suggests further motivations for conflict avoidance in Chinese people, including higher Chinese expectations that direct conflict will hurt the relationship with the other party and greater concern for the other party among Chinese than Americans. Moreover, Chinese people are more sensitive to hierarchy than Americans, so that avoiding is heightened more for Chinese than for Americans when the other party is of higher status. Qualitative results suggest that ChineseAmerican differences in time frames may also explain differences in avoiding. Instrumental reasons, however, play little part in the Chinese preference: differences in the expected career costs/benefits of good/bad relations with others did not explain it.
Friedman, R., Chi, S.-C. and Liu, L.A. (2005) An expectancy model of ChineseAmerican differences in conflictavoiding, Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 7691.

Kim and Leung (2000) also suggested that bicultural individuals are likely to be more flexible and effective than culture-typed individuals (individualist or collectivist) in dealing with conflict situations. Kim, M.-S. and Leung, T. (2000) A multicultural view of conflict management styles: review and critical synthesis, Communication Yearbook, 23: 22769.

3.3 (SUB)CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

National Culture and Communication p.113 Cultural values play an important part in determining the general tone of communication. A study of informal Greek conversations among young people found that disagreements were expressed indirectly rather than directly. They were constructed through special turn-initial markers, stories used as analogies for the issues debated and questions. The researchers contended that this pairing of disagreement and indirectness in the context of informal conversation between intimates is neither an index of sociability nor motivated by increased politeness and formality. Instead the demands of the data in question, the close-knit relations of participants, the implicitness allowed by their previous interactions, the activity type (talk about the future) and local norms of argumentation call for a collaborative perspectivebuilding. This supports the now widely accepted idea that face-threatening acts are constructed using different devices in different local contexts. The context includes cultural values but also the subject of the disagreement and interactional goals of the participants.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001) Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1881-1900.

p.113 differences between communicator styles in different countries On linguistic style differences: The difference between high and low context cultures is another example of linguistic style differences that can influence negotiators feelings. Low context cultures confer meaning through explicit and direct messages, while high context cultures communicate through messages that are implicit and indirect, usually embedded in the person, situation, or socio-cultural context. p.113 Individualism-collectivism has both a direct effect on communicator styles and an indirect effect that is mediated through self-construals and values. Gudykunsts (1996) finding on this suggested that individual level factors (i.e., self-construals and values) are better predictors of low- and high-context communication styles across cultures than cultural individualism-collectivism, though both are correlated. p.114 Japanese culture, for instance, places a very high value on communicating subtle aspects of feeling and relationship and a much lower value on communicating information. Note that this is despite the fact that the Japanese are low in relationship values high in achievement values. High-context communication and high relationship values are not necessarily correlated although some researchers, such as Ting-Toomey, treat them as if they are. p. 115 National culture and language usage a. Leigh (2000) asserted the following about language: Wherever we find humans we find language. There are universal characteristics shared by languages around the world. Each language is adapted to serve each one of us well in our surroundings. Each language is potentially infinite in the number of sentences that can be produced.

A language mirrors its physical and social surroundings and so changes as the surroundings change. Every normal child is able to learn any language irrespective of whatever language he is born into. Language is a product of ones anatomy, psychology and, social and physical environment. Language is a function of its historical heritage. Similar vocal pitches indicate positive or negative moods in many languages. Each language refines and indicates different ways to understand and collate the surroundings. Language is a survival tool that facilitates our adjustment to our surroundings. All languages: Are largely arbitrarily symbolic. Have vowels and consonants. Can form sentences, including commands and questions. Use sound, word meaning and word sequence as a part of standard usage. Relate events to time somehow (e.g., past, present or future), and create negatives (e.g., I didn't go.). Borrow and lend words. In most languages: The subject goes before the object. Sentences include a subject, a verb, and an object, which may not be in that order. There are opposites like dry/wet, long/short, hot/cold

Leigh, J. (2000) Implications of universal and parochial behavior for intercultural communication, Intercultural Communication 4 URL: www.immi.se/intecultural/nr4/leigh.htm

b. Nigeria made English its own, giving rise to Standard Nigerian English but also to various dialects and registers and a lot of special-purpose English. A teacher in Lagos says, Without English, this society wouldn't function. It is what makes Nigeria Nigeria. For the most part, Nigerians like English. It's theirs. They don't ask other English-speaking nations what Standard English is, any more than U.S. speakers ask Great Britain. A comment by Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe expresses this challenge well and is applicable to most of the world's Englishes: The price a world language must be prepared to pay is submission to many different kinds of use. The African writer should aim to use English in a way that brings out his [sic] message best without altering the language to the extent that its value as a medium of international exchange will be lost. He should aim at fashioning out an English which is at once universal and able to carry his peculiar experience.... I feel that English will be able to carry the weight of my African experience. But it will have to be a new English, still in full communion with its ancestral home but altered to suit its new African surroundings (1975, pp. 100-103). Here are some of the world's Englishes: Australian English, British English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Hong Kong English, Indian English, Irish English, Malaysian English, New Zealand English, Nigerian English, Philippine English, Scots English, Singaporean English, South African English, U.S. English, Zambian English In the process of formation is the Euro-English that is increasingly becoming the language of business among members of the Eurozone. There are still other Englishes, and also other languages built on English that have not been codified as English, including pidgins and Creoles.
Gilsdorf, J.(2002) Englishes and Standard World Englishes: living with a polymorph business language The Journal of Business Communication, 39(3): 36478.

p.117 Many terms are untranslatable, because the underlying concepts differ.

The terms sabar, ikhlas and setia identify core personal virtues in traditional Malay culture. They have no exact equivalents in English. For instance, setia combines elements of loyal, faithful and true. What counts as a bad event includes words or deeds that could lower someones manuah (roughly dignity) or nama (reputation). Therefore, someone who is setia to a politician will be highly reluctant to criticize them or do anything to cause them to have bad feelings.
Goddard, C. (2001) Sabar, ikhlas, setia patient, sincere, loyal? Contrastive semantics of some virtues in Malay and English, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 65381.

Green Party posters for a German election included one which shows Mr. Fischer (German Foreign Minister and a Green Party member) in open-necked shirt and dishevelled hair, and says: Minister on the outside, green on the inside. (Aussenminister translates as minister on the outside but also means Foreign Minister.)
Dejevsky, M. (2002) Greens roar back with Schroders blessing, The Independent, 17 September.

National culture and work communication p. 119 According to a study of complaint letters, US and Korean business writers prefer different structures and styles. In requests for action to solve the problem, hedging strategies appeared in 2 out of the 7 U.S. letters and in 3 out of the 14 Korean letters. However, lexical hedges in requests produced different effects in the U.S. and Korean letters. U.S. hedging devices suggested the probability that the requested action will achieve the desired effect, but this probability remained open-ended (e.g., If we can get the rate, we can probably get it done, If we could, perhaps they would match.). While Korean hedging devices intended politeness, to the U.S. reader they may have appeared to make the request ambiguous (e.g., if we require something after discussion of our import agent, Anyway we hope to receive some information, Besides, we have not yet received some drawings.). Five out of the 7 U.S. letters impersonalised both the writer and the reader by referring to the company name, using the plural we, or employing passive voice; the 2 remaining U.S. letters mixed strategies of impersonalisation and personalisation. By contrast, only 3 out of the 14 Korean letters impersonalised both the writer and the reader. A greater percentage of U.S. letters used intense adjectives and adverbs: 4 out of the 7 U.S. letters and 6 out of the 14 Korean letters employed this strategy. However, the U.S. letters usually contained only one intense adjective or adverb in each letter, while in the Korean sample, multiple intense adjectives and adverbs occurred within individual letters. As a result, the Korean letters seemed to show more emotion in discussing the business problem. As a result, U.S. readers could consider their Korean counterparts' messages as either unprofessional or unclear because the writers' emotional reactions to the problem seem to take precedence over its resolution. In each sample, direct action requests occur approximately 60% of the time and indirect action requests occur approximately 40%. Please + imperative structure is the most frequent usage for direct requests in both U.S. and Korean letters (e.g., Please advise us as soon as possible, Please resolve this matter honorable by sending, Please review with your people and advise). In indirect action requests, the Korean letters show a preference for wishful requests (e.g., We hope you can make a replacement order for this, XXX wishes that ZZZ provide the Block Diagrams, We hope the following matter can be released). To U.S. readers, the Korean writer might seem to be unsure whether the reader can or will comply. Unlike the Korean letters, the U.S. letters contain no wishful requests.
Park, M.Y., Dillon, W.T. & Mitchell, K.L. (1998) Korean business letters: Strategies for effective complaints in cross-cultural communication, The Journal of Business Communication, 35: 328345. Babcock, R.D. and Du-Babcock, B. (2001) Language-based communication zones in international business

communication, The Journal of Business Communication, 38:372412.

p. 119 The researchers concluded that in different types of interactions and different cultural
settings, different kinds of face and sociality rights may arise.

By analysing the tape recording of an initial get-to-know-you meeting between two German and two Chinese students, Gnthner (2000) identified cultural differences in how the two approach such intercultural communication situations. After preliminary small talk, the Germans, whose hope was for a good argumentative exchange, launched a discussion on the position of women. During this discussion, the Germans used highly aggravated forms of dissent, such as distorting quotations of the opposing speakers utterances and formally continuing the sentence of the previous (opposing) speaker only to show consequences which contradict their argument: Housework should be shared by both husband and wife. Yes, and when they neither of them feel like doing it, then the wife has to do it. The Chinese, on the other hand, showed reluctance to get into an argument and made repeated efforts to return the conversation to small talk efforts which failed because the Germans responded to concessions by focusing on any contradiction with what they had said before, rejected offers of compromise and only temporarily accepted a change of topic. When the Chinese did participate in the argument, they avoided formal disagreement; instead, they would list further aspects of their position, or formally agree, then give a qualification: Do you believe there is a natural limitation? I believe not, but I must say, there is a bit. In addition to these differing expectations and ways of signalling dissent, there were differing norms for how to behave. The direct way of disagreeing was seen as very rude and inconsiderate behaviour by the Chinese, but the Germans saw it as signs of argumentative involvement. The researcher commented: In this [German] culture, getting to know someone means finding out what the others opinions and positions on different issues are and perhaps debating with them. Chinese responded to this by feeling the much too strong willingness of the Germans to argue. In China an initial meeting between people who want to get to know one another would involve talking about oneself and the family and asking the others about their families. Only when this kind of rapport is well established may one start to discuss social and political issues.
Gnthner, S. (2000) Argumentation and resulting problems in the negotiation of rapport in a GermanChinese conversation, in Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally Speaking, pp. 21839. London: Continuum.

p.119 Marked differences in conversation rules were found among Finnish, Swedish and Austrian students of business. The author of this research study stated that conversation rules embed rules of politeness and relate to cultural premises of personhood. The Finns often communicate in a polite, nonintrusive manner. In contrast, the Austrian students used polite indirect verbalisation, which Finns consider either somewhat intrusive if the speech enters their private space or hot air if the talk does not deal with concrete issues. The Swedish students fell in between but were closer to the Austrians. However, the Austrian and Swedish ways of communicating during group discussions also differ from each other. Swedes are talkative and participatory by Finnish standards, but as one Swedish student told Austrians in her group, If we talk about it, people will think we consider it important. The Swedish students used a style of communication that Austrian students occasionally considered blunt, but less blunt than the straightforward Finnish speech

that followed the Finnish silence. All three of these approaches to communication differ from an American preference for debating with and/or challenging the other.
Auer-Rizzi, W. and Berry, M., (2000) Business vs. cultural frames of reference in group decision making: Interactions among Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish Business students, The Journal of Business Communication, 37(3): 26492.

Ethnicity and communication

p.121 Decoding and encoding were influenced by both social skills and attitudes towards the

other interactors. According to Gallois & Callan (1986), the rules for encoding and decoding negative messages are clearer and more accessible to English-speaking senders and receivers than rules for positive or neutral messages, which could significantly affect how, for instance, workforces respond to management announcements of their plans.
Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (1986) 'Decoding emotional messages: influence of ethnicity, sex, message type and channel', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(4): 755762.

p.121 Gender and communication Tannen (1990) argued that gender differences in communication are based in womens lower power-orientation. Her research in companies across the US showed that: Men tend to be sensitive to the power dynamics of interaction, speaking in ways that position themselves as one-up and resisting being put in a one-down position by others. Women tend to react more strongly to the rapport dynamic, speaking in ways that save face for others and buffering statements that could be seen as putting others in a one-down position. These linguistic patterns...affect who gets heard and who gets credit. Women are likely to downplay their certainty; men are more likely to minimize their doubts.
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Communication, New York: William Morrow, p. 42.

p.121 Women often soften their messages by adopting linguistic practices such as using tag questions a. There is a power-based explanation for the fact that women use qualifiers and tag questions more than men do that they have been socialised to appear and feel tentative and powerless. Baker reviewed a stream of research in the area and concluded that, although the situation mediates it, gender may well be related to usage of qualifiers (hedges) and tags. One researcher has argued that womens use, even in professional settings, of 'self-depowering' communication, and mens use of self-empowering ones, are strategic. These differences, it is argued, originate in the different conversational objectives of professional men and women: women are seeking affiliation, men are more instrumental. Lack of opportunity, tokenism and gender role spillover contribute to differences in both communication acts and communication expectations (including goals) One of the explanations offered for gender differences in assertiveness is that men and women evolve differently and because of this they have different goals and patterns of communicating. While this is a valuable perspective, another possibility is that we are setting up particular expectations for how men and women should behave and are measuring expectations rather than actual behaviours.
Baker, M.A. (1991) Gender and verbal communication in professional settings: a review of research, Management Communication Quarterly, 5(1):36-63. Communicating Across Cultures 1st edn.

b. An analysis of previous empirical investigations located 16 language features that had consistently been shown to indicate communicator gender. Research subjects in three studies then rated these language features on stylistic dimensions. Results across the three studies supported the hypothesized language feature-by-stylistic dimension relationships for 15 of the 16 variables: the six male language features were rated as more direct, succinct, personal,

and instrumental, whereas nine of the 10 female features were perceived as more indirect, elaborate, and affective.
Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J. and Gibbons, P. (2001) Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences, Human Communication Research, 27(1): 121-52.

p.121 A 1998 meta-analysis of 43 published studies indicated that men were more likely than women to initiate interruptions, but only to a slight extent. Other findings were: there was a slight tendency for gender differences in intrusive interruptions to decrease over time, suggesting that relations between the sexes may have shifted slightly over the past 30 years; a slight tendency for gender differences to increase as the length of interaction increased; no pattern of gender difference related to the gender composition of the group or the familiarity of the interactants. Size of group and type of activity unstructured versus instrumental tasks were the main influence on gender differences in intrusive interruptions. They occurred more often in groups of three or more but not in dyads (interacting in dyads may be a way for men to mitigate their domineering behavior). These findings do not address whether women are better listeners than men. Our research suggests language processing is different between men and women, but it doesn't necessarily mean performance is going to be different, said Joseph T. Lurito, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of radiology at IU School of Medicine. We don't know if the difference is because of the way we're raised, or if it's hard-wired in the brain. The author concluded that the findings lend support to a contextual-interactive model of gender, whereby gender-related variations in behavior are influenced more by situational factors than by inherent individual differences between women and men.
Anderson, K.J. (1998) Meta-analyses of gender effects on conversational interruption: who, what, when, where, and how, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 39(3): 225252.

p.123 Men perceive women as dominating a discussion even when they contribute as little as 30% of the talk. a. Research into the traditional question of whether men dominate women in conversation, by analysing audiotapes of give meetings, found that men talked significantly more than women when there was someone in charge of the group, although not when the task setting was cooperative.
Le Poire, B.A., Burgoon, J.K. and Parrott, R. (1992) Status and privacy: restoring communication in the workplace, Journal of Applied Communication, 20(4): 41936.

b. However, gender differences in communication are not always obvious. For instance, one American study found that in mixed-gender groups of adolescents, young African American women contributed more equally with African American men than White women with White men. This was true overall, in terms of the level of activity and also of one measure of influence. Some of the differences were quite marked unassertive utterances such as yeah, uh-huh made up 36 per cent of White female adolescents speech acts, but only 12 per cent to 17 per cent of those of each of the other race-gender categories of participants. This pattern suggests a distinctly less assertive speech style among the White female adolescents than among either African American female adolescents or male adolescents of either ethnic group.
Brown, P. (1990) Gender, politeness and confrontation in Tenejapa, Discourse Processes, 13(1): 12341.

c. In fact, to the extent that people rely on alternate appropriateness cues relevant to the interaction context (e.g., professional roles, relational rules, personal preferences, etc.), stereotypic portrayals of men and women provide little insight regarding standards for behavior, and by extension, what behavior we can predict.1 In some cases, women and mens

communication style may superficially correspond to stereotypes but at a deeper level contradict them. For example, in topical and political interviews on radio and television, while female interviewers used more indirect requests for information than male interviewers, they tended to favour those indirect forms that engage the interviewee analytically, whereas the males favoured those that foster attunement. The female interviewers employ indirect requests for information to ask tough questions, maintain a line of questioning and maintain their position as speakers who have power. 2
1. Braithwaite, D.O. and Thompson, T.L. (eds.) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2. Macaulay, M. (2001) Tough talk: Indirectness and gender in requests for information, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 293316.

p.123 Research shows that how credible an individual is judged to be is influenced by their status and expertise but also by speech style and vocal and facial qualities linked to gender. a. In the literature on how perceived gender enters into peoples evaluation of credibility, some studies report that women are judged less credible than men, some studies report that women are judged more credible than men, while other studies report no gender differences in credibility. In addition, in some studies, but not in others, the gender of the judge is reported to make a difference in how speakers' credibility is evaluated.
Robinson, K.A. (1998) Gender and truthfulness in daily life situations, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38(9): 821831.

b. One response to the damage done to women by masculine power-based concepts of appropriate talk is feminist critiques which (1) point out the dangers of hierarchies, linear thinking and assuming that logic and science, particularly technology, can solve our problems (2) attempt to root out masculine biases in word choice, metaphor, labels, and the like (3) uncover the power equation in communication settings and more directly engage with and include audience members, and (4) explore the relationship of power and knowledge to demonstrate that by keeping important information from others one participates in a kind of enslavement. Feminist writers also urge black women to use their position as outsiders within to reject imposed hierarchies and take up new positions that they define and determine.
Smith, C.R. (2001) Multiperspectival feminist critiques and their implications for rhetorical theory, American Communication Journal, 4(3). URL: www.americancomm.org/~aca/acj/acj.html

c. Ethno-cultural and gender effects can be multiplicative. Research found that women in the Mexican region Tenejapa are constrained to be polite, co-operative and meek in their conversation. To express anger and confrontation they are obliged to emphasize only lack of agreement and co-operation with an adversary.
Brown, P. (1990) Gender, politeness and confrontation in Tenejapa, Discourse Processes, 13(1): 12341.

Marginalized groups p.126 There is a body of theory and research, termed co-cultural communication a. Co-cultural communication theory states: 1. Although representing a widely diverse array of lived experiences, co-cultural group members, including women, people of colour [sic], gays/lesbians/bisexuals, people with disabilities, and those from a lower socioeconomic status, will share a similar societal positioning that renders them marginalised and under-represented within dominant structures; and 2. In order to confront oppressive dominant structures and achieve any measure of success, co-cultural group members adopt certain communication orientations when functioning within the confines of public communicative structures.
Orbe, M.P. (1998) From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: explicating a co-cultural communication theoretical model, Communication Theory, 8(1): 126.

b. One of the foundations of co-cultural communication theory is muted group theory, which suggests that in every society a social hierarchy exists that privileges some groups over others. Those groups that function at the top of the social hierarchy determine to a great extent the communication system of the entire society. Over time, the structures of this system -which reflect the worldview of dominant group members -- are reinforced as the appropriate communicative system for both dominant and nondominant group members (E. Ardener, 1978). This process renders marginalized groups as largely muted because their lived experiences are not represented in these dominant structures. c. Edition 2 gives a Table (Table 3.3) that summarizes co-cultural communication practices. The source is the article by Orbe cited in a. Professional, business and organisational discourses and their reception p.126 Professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, business executives in particular industries and company employees often use vocabulary, phrases and ways of speaking that are unknown to outsiders. According to Horsfield (2000), in contrast to most Western organizations, the professional communication of post-modern organisations de-emphasizes the passing on of an established body of skills and lore to a subordinate group. Ideally, professional communication in the post-modern organisation is concerned least with micro-skilling and most with group processes and the negotiation and capture of meanings within the organisational context.
Horsfield, B. (2000) Communication and the postmodern organisation: A Report of qualitative research on the Australian Special Air Service Regiment, Electronic Journal of Communication, 10 (1&2) URL: http://www.cios.org/www/ejcrec2.htm.

Cody, M.J. and McLaughlin, M.L. (1985) The situation as a construct in interpersonal communication research, in Knapp, M.L. and Miller, G.R. (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. ii Oyama, R. (2003) Visual communication across cultures: a study of visual semiotics in Japanese and British advertizements, Intercultural Communication Journal, 191219. URL: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr3/abstract3.htm