Communication styles : an overview (original) (raw)
Related papers
When East Meets West: Polish Business Communication from a Cross-Cultural Perspective
Journal of Intercultural Communication, 2023
This paper investigates how foreign nationals living and working in Poland evaluate Polish colleagues' communication in English and its effectiveness in international business. It identifies features of linguistic behaviour attributed to Polish business interactions. Five dimensions of cultural variability (directness, emotionality, power distance, confrontation, negative evaluation) are used as benchmarks and offer an observational framework for examining Polish communication patterns. The attitudes that foreign business professionals expressed towards their Polish colleagues' style of interaction are measured using a Likert scale and interpreted based on the results of qualitative interviews and secondary research. The article highlights the pragmatic dangers of misunderstanding or underestimating culturally-driven behaviours in the global setting.
Communication styles: Between deliberate strategy and ambivalence
Journal of Pragmatics, 2019
Communication styles: Between deliberate strategy and ambivalence Recent general trends in pragmatics research (as indicated by Terkourafi and Haugh (forthcoming) and Foolen (forthcoming)) demonstrate the trend among pragmatists to engage in comparative and intercultural studies based on corpora and on conversational interaction. The latter, particularly under the guise of participatory sense making in dynamic linguistic interaction, is argued to constitute the core contribution of pragmatics to linguistic research. The forays of cognitive linguistics or cognitive science in general (see Geeraerts, 2010) into the field previously reserved for pragmatics has forced pragmatics to respond to that challenge by stressing the social-pragmatic dimension of sense-making and the dynamic, online nature of interaction (Foolen, forthcoming). This special issue aligns with that idea by focusing on spontaneous conversations set in two socio-cultural contexts-Estonian and Polish-seen as forming a contrastive pair. We aim to present a novel framework for studying cultural communication styles and highlight its advantages and challenges. Communication style is a complex phenomenon, sometimes also referred to as style of communication (cf. Smith et al., 2007: 150e171) or communicative style (cf. for instance Larina, 2015), and is understood here as a cluster of features which together specify the culture-specific use of language in communication, these features including both a technical aspect (such as length of turns, turn taking, intonation patterns, questions, etc.) and content-related aspects such as metaphors, social actions or speech acts, as well as expression of values in conversation (cf. Chłopicki, 2017; Brzozowska and Chłopicki, 2015). It is thus an intersubjective, culture-specific notion, which largely ignores personality-related aspects and individual linguistic creativity, and in the present collection of studies is limited to oral communication style (cf. Hofstede, 2015). The studies in this special issue use either face-to-face or telephone conversational data, and exclude written registers (researched cross-culturally or across genres elsewhere, cf. Duszak, 1998 or Gajda, 2001 among Polish scholars). The current approach is influenced by the strain of research pursued for two decades by a group of intercultural theorists (cf. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988; Clyne, 1994; Fitzgerald, 2003) and then largely abandoned. They made style distinctions which the contributors refer to in the articles in this issue, namely instrumental/exacting (brief, explicit, linear, goal-oriented, deductive, unemotional, deprived of overlap; used in English-speaking countries, and northwestern Europe) versus spontaneous/argumentative (blunt, direct, sincere, stressing negative emotions, long turns, and repetitions; used in Eastern Europe) versus succinct/subdued style (status-oriented, deferential, indirect, inductive, conciliatory, having short turns and much silence; used in East and SouthEast Asia) (cf. Fitzgerald, 2003: 168e169). It is broadly assumed that Polish communication style is closest to the Eastern European one and thus spontaneous/argumentative (e.g. Fitzgerald, 2003, who identified Polish speakers among those in her Australian data). Estonians tend to be a low-context culture (Ryabina, 2008) with an explicit communication style (they like debates, discussions, hoping for the other person to defend himself and his opinions-Pajupuu, 1997). At the same time, there are many indications that Estonians are verbally quite reserved (Keevallik, 2005: 210)-this seems to correspond to instrumental/exacting with certain features of succinct/subdued style (Fitzgerald, 2003). Estonians do not attend very much to face needs and are more oriented towards negative face (Keevallik, 2005: 214). In contrast, Poles tend to prefer positive politeness (cf. Chłopicki, 2017; see also Brown and Levinson, 1987 for the positive/negative politeness distinction, criticised but still explanatory to some extent) and also display high conversational collaboration (Chłopicki, 2017). In spite of the above generalising statements, attention should be drawn to Fitzgerald's caveats that "...individuals are not cultural automatons who passively act out cultural values and expectations of which they are unconscious", but rather "constructive, autonomous agents" who "are only partly influenced by their culturally-bound schemas and frames and that they modify and suspend them to work together with others in intercultural interactions. The reality appears to be that schemata and frames inform and predispose, but by no means determine." (2003: 207). The present research is informed also by two other sources of methodological inspiration: cognitive linguistics and humour research. A particularly important innovative aspect of the present framework, situated broadly within cognitive linguistics, is
This paper attempts to define a culture-specific communicative style which I call communicative ethno-style and determine the factors which lead to its formation. While defining communicative ethno-style some generalizations are unavoidable and reference is made to a typical user of standard language and his/her communicative behaviour in interpersonal interaction in everyday situations. At the same time it is not possible to take a dichotomous approach in describing the communicative styles as they form a continuum and need to be viewed in comparison. In this paper I demar-cate the dominant features of Russian communicative style as opposed to British and emphasize the importance of a systemized description of culture specific communicative differences through communicative ethno-styles. This is important for developing pragmatic and discourse competence necessary for intercultural communication. The study is based on empirical data obtained through questionnaires, interviews and observations and follows contextual, pragmatic, discourse analyses. The theoretical framework is based on Politeness Theory (Brown
Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and English
Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and English, 1999
The subject of the present study is the verbal realization of polite speech acts, namely greetings, farewells, thanks, apologies, compliments, congratulations, good wishes, toasts, and condolences. The main aim of the study is to provide a pragmatic contrastive analysis of polite verbal behaviour in Polish and English, stressing the most striking differences and similarities in the form and content of the polite formulae used in particular contexts. The analysis was carried out to assist the author in answering the following questions: To what extent does polite verbal behaviour differ in these two languages? Where and why does it differ? Where can the greatest difference be perceived?
Innovative scientific researches: European development trends and regional aspect: Monograph. 3rd ed. Riga, Latvia: “Baltija Publishing”, 2020. P. 1–21. , 2020
The paper examines pragmatic registers of strategic-tactical implementation of the modes of politeness, neutrality, tolerance and familiarity in the national cooperative communicative behaviour of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans (USA). The phenomenon of national cooperative communicative behaviour of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans was chosen as the object of research. The purpose of the proposed work is to identify and characterize the main pragmatic registers of national cooperative speech behaviour of representatives of two Slavic (Ukrainian and Russian), Baltic (Lithuanian) and American communicative cultures based on the mode-organization of a strategic-tactical repertoire of discursive space. Linguistic-cognitive, pragmatic, communicative and linguacultural aspects of national cooperative communicative behaviour of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans are comprehensively considered based on the data material in the form of discursive situations (fragments) and discursive practices, selected according to the text and contextualized texts of American fiction in the second half of the XX – early XX centuries. As a result of the analysis, the pragmatic registers of the research object were characterized, in particular the mode-organization of cooperative communication was determined and a repertoire of communicative strategies and tactics was established, which contribute to non-confrontational, harmonious, successful (non)verbal interaction of interactants. The paper also reveals the essence of pragmatic objectification of explicit (conventional) Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian and American national cooperative communicative behaviour, which is realized, first of all, in verbal communication within etiquette and ritual discursive practices of greeting, acquaintance, invitation, request, consent, praise / compliment, gratitude / appreciation, apology, sympathy / compassion / empathy / consolation, wish / desire, goodbye by defining specificity the mode-organization (politeness, neutrality, tolerance and familiarity) and the establishment of a broad strategic tactical repertoire. The analysis of discursive situations has allowed to establish five types of universal communication strategies: solidarity; self-presentation; improving the status of the interlocutor; sincerity; creating a positive tone of communication, the successful implementation of which is ensured by the variable configuration of a broad tactical repertoire. Thus, based on the mode-organization and strategic tactical potential, the pragmatic registers of national cooperative communicative behaviour of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans imply a synthesis of explicit (discursive practices, non-verbal somaticon) and implicit (archetypal) (non)verbal interaction based on the principles of cooperation, solidarity, contractual capacity, etc., which makes it mandatory to have an incentive for further contact. The discursive space of the Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian and American of national cooperative communicative behaviour is characterized by a variational and complex mode-organization (politeness + neutrality; neutrality + familiarity; neutrality + politeness + tolerance, etc.), which is achieved by a semiotic configuration of discursive practices (tactics) typical for a particular discursive situation (strategy).
Courtesy, Adequacy, Procedure: A Brief Account of the Intercultural Communication Background (2017)
Duszak, Anna; Jabłoński, Arkadiusz; Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka (eds.) (2017). East-Asian and Central-European Encounters in Discourse Analysis and Translation. [Multilingual Applied Linguistics 2]. Warsaw: Institute of Applied Linguistics., 2017
The term intercultural communication (ICC, not explicitly distinguished in this paper from the concept of cross-cultural communication) is commonly used to refer to the instances of actual communication acts performed in and/or between heterogeneous communication environments. While the instances of intercultural encounters are usually viewed in terms of heterogeneous codes (languages), different communication environments require diverse linguistic competences and different patterns for their use. The codes, as such, may be regarded translatable and interpretable in abstracto. The patterns, however, usually require specific conditions for their evocation and complete (as well as effective) execution: the latter also requires the (prior) projection of actual goals and subsequent verification of actual changes in the communication environment, which result from a certain act of communication. The subject of the usage patterns of actual codes will be described in this paper in terms of intercultural honorifics, with special emphasis placed on situations of communication and miscommunication typical of a Polish-Japanese communication/translation/interpreta-tion environment, as well as the metalanguages used in the processes of their explanation. The selected instances of communication and miscommunication will be analyzed with respect to the gains and losses in the environment in which the communication acts are performed, including intricate issues of intercultural translatability/ interpretability. For the purposes of this paper, no specific distinction is made below between the notions of intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication.
Conversation Analysis: Communication Across Cultures
2020
The study of intercultural communication continues to grow in importance in response to greater population mobility, migration and globalization. Communication across culture explores how cultural context affects the use and interpretation of language. It provides accessible and interdisciplinary introduction to language and language variations in intercultural communication. This is done by drawing on both classic and cutting-edge research from pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, anthropology and politeness study. This study aims to discuss the variety of linguistic and non-linguistic features generated by participants in social interaction. The first part will examine turn-taking dynamic in a conversation between three students who have different cultural backgrounds. Later, the last four sections of the study also take into account power relation among the participant, the collaboration, politeness strategy employed as well as embedded speech act in the conversation.
Neofilolog, 2021
The present study aims to investigate the use of Polish and Czech as a lingua receptiva (LaRa) in comparison with English as a lingua franca (ELF) between Polish and Czech students when making semi-spontaneous dialogues. With this aim in mind, the notion of intelligibility together with communication strategies (CSs) and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) are discussed. The study is inspired by Bulatović’s et al. (2019) who investigated the effectiveness of LaRa and ELF between Croatians and Slovenes. The study investigated listening skills and showed that the mean of intelligibility was high irrespective of the mode. The study in question aims to expand prior research with reference to spoken interactions between Polish and Czech speakers. In particular, it examines the role of communication strategies and intercultural communicative competence in achieving intelligibility in two multilingual modes. The results of the study show that the level of intelligibility is high i...
THE NINTH DIMENSION OF NATIONAL CULTURE: UNPACKING CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION STYLES
Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 2023
This article aims to study the communication styles among different national cultures, that is, we examine the relationship between national culture, based on Hofstede model, and communication styles. In order to investigate the role of national culture, it is fundamental to first analyse the communication styles and then identify how these are related to each other. With a purpose to identify differences (or similarities) in communication styles across selected countries, a factor analysis was conducted, combined with an ANOVA test. Based on a sample from 10 different cultures: Germany