Printed Page 180

Language is Cultural

Languages and cultures are fused in fundamental ways. Language is the set of symbols that members of a culture create to communicate their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and values with one another. Once created, a language is used to bolster a sense of cultural identity and connectedness (Whorf, 1952). Thus, languages both reflect the cultures that created them and enable people to perpetuate those cultures, while also sustaining a sense of collective identity—for example, “We are Japanese” or “We are Kenyans.”

Moreover, people use language differently depending on the extent to which they assume that others share their cultural beliefs, attitudes, and values. Consider the challenges that a friend of mine, communication professor Naomi Kagawa, faced when she first arrived in the United States. In her home country of Japan, elaborate social norms govern how requests are expressed, accepted, and rejected. People presume this knowledge is shared by others. So, for example, when undesirable requests are received, respondents often reject them using language that in the United States would signal consent (words equivalent to “OK” or “sure”). Japanese reject in this way because it maintains the harmony of the encounter; requesters aren’t blatantly denied, and thus they don’t lose face. These words and phrases, however, are accompanied by subtle vocal tones that imply “no.” Requesters and rejecters—informed by their knowledge of Japanese customs—recognize that such seeming assents are actually rejections. In the United States, people typically don’t presume that others share similar knowledge and beliefs, so they “spell things out” much more explicitly. When people reject requests, for instance, they may come right out and say “no,” then provide an explanation of why they can’t grant the request. Needless to say, Naomi—and those with whom she interacted upon first arriving in the States—experienced much confusion. She rejected unwanted requests by saying “OK,” only to find that people thought she was consenting rather than refusing!

The struggle Naomi faced reflects the difference between high- and low-context cultures (Hall & Hall, 1987). Within high-context cultures, such as in China, Korea, and Japan, people presume that listeners share extensive knowledge in common with them. As a result, they don’t feel a need to provide a lot of explicit information to gain listeners’ understanding. People can hint, imply, or suggest meanings and feel confident that they will be understood. Consequently, communicators in high-context cultures rely more on indirect and ambiguous language and even silence to convey important meanings. They also often “talk around” points rather than addressing them directly.

In contrast, in low-context cultures, people tend not to presume that listeners share their beliefs, attitudes, and values, so they tailor their verbal communication to be informative, clear, and direct (Hall & Hall, 1987). They openly express their own viewpoints and attempt to persuade others to accept them (Hall, 1976, 1997a). Within such cultures, which include Germany, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, people tend not to rely as much on implying or hinting. Instead, they strive to make important information obvious in the words themselves (“Here are my thoughts on this situation . . .”).