The
use of language and the meanings deducted from the words and their intonation
is a complex function of the structural context of the speakers and the
listeners (Dominics, 2000). The same words may have different meaning depending
on how they are spoken and the manner in which they are projected. Language may
arguably be described as the most prevalent medium through which individuals
communicate with each other. It is the mode through which people seek to
translate their thoughts into messages that can be used to convey the thoughts
to others. The basic design of any language is therefore to transmit meaning
between different persons. Language is learned through interaction with members
of a society and so is the understanding of the meaning that can be conveyed
through given words and intonations and this differs from one culture to
another (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989).
Culture
is a people’s way of life. It is manifested through values, norms and practices
of a society. It is developed over time through interaction between the members
of a given society and is in oft times unique to a given society. It also
largely defines the content and style of communication that the members of a
society embrace in order to transmit meaning between each other. The in-depth
study of language and its use is therefore crucial to ensuring cultural
barriers to effective communication are surmounted. Language contains various
elements that must be understood in order to ensure proper communication at all
time. These elements include phonetics (sound systems); morphology (unit of
grammatical form); syntax (grammar and structures); semantics (word meaning);
pragmatics (use of language in contexts); and discourse (language as used in
society) (Dominics, 2000). Semantics and pragmatics must be considered together
as word meanings may be completely altered depending on the context in which
they are used. Different cultures attach varying levels of importance to the
retention of original word meanings when communicating. In an intercultural
setting, where different cultures are known to commonly interact, it is
important to understand the meaning attached to various language structures and
intonations in order to ensure that the communicator conveys the meaning
intended (House, 2006).
Intonation
has been variously described as the combination of different elements of
phonetics in a manner that results in distinct phonetics which alludes to given
unique meanings. In general, speech is rarely offered in monotone. There are
always variations characterised by use of high and low pitch, variations in the
length of phrases and sentences, the loudness or quietness of selected sentence
segments and voice quality designed at according prominence to some parts of
the speech; use of discontinuities in selected parts of a speech and basically
the melodic component of the whole speech (House, 2006a). Intonation varies
from language to language and from culture to culture with different cultures using
the same language often being able to draw different meanings using the same
words where the only modification is in the intonation. The understanding of
intonations across different cultures is of paramount importance for
communication to be effective in an intercultural setting. This is because the
underlying basis of any communication process is to create understanding and
this understanding can only be derived by the use of the language understood by
the audience (Woodin, 2011a).
In
a study of the intonation systems of twenty languages across the world, the
findings underscored the existence of different intonation systems in different
languages (Dominics, 2000). These systems would in most cases be directly
translated in the use of foreign languages where such persons embrace foreign
languages to a limited extent. In a study that factored in twenty of the
world’s most spoken languages, it was established that intonation across the
majority of the languages tended to be similar when it came to the distinction
between declarative statements and questions. With the exception of two
languages, the declarative statements tended to tended to have a drop at the
end of the sentence. This was significantly different from the raised pitch
that normally characterised the end of a question with partial questions only
bearing a raised pitch on the question word alone. The main theoretical models
used to explain the influence of intonation on meaning are the tone sequence
(TS) and the contour interaction (CI) (Dominics, 2000).
Contour
Interaction refers to the application of pitch configurations at different
hierarchical levels where these intonations are of different forms and sizes.
On the other hand, Tone Sequence focuses on sentence intonation where a sentence
may be made of a number of sub-sentences which are separated through the use in
intonation contours in a manner that draws attention to the intended meanings
(Dominics, 2000). However, these models are seldom used exclusively in
practical communication. They are creatively combined in order to ensure the
intended meaning is conveyed during communication sessions. The combination of
the forms and sizes of pitch modifications based on hierarchy and the use of
sentence contours enables effective communication in a manner that supersedes
the effectiveness of both models when used exclusively. The development of the International
Transcription System for Intonation (INTSINT) underscores the importance of
understanding the unique intonation features across different languages and
cultures (Dominics, 2000).
INTSINT
is basically a coded description of the intonation features of different
languages and may therefore serve as a dictionary of some sought that aims to
create understanding on the effective use of language across different cultures
across the world. It outlines both the pitch patterns and the sequence of
static points as used in different languages. The meaning and form of
intonation has been a subject of thorough research in recent times. Intonation
is considered to be a special feature of spoken language due to its
inseparability with the semantics and is hence part and parcel of any
utterances. The meaningfulness of intonation becomes more apparent in common
usage where a set of utterances can have different meanings as a result of
changes in the intonation used (Setton, 2006). However, intonation can only
make sense in the context of utterances and cannot therefore be exclusively
used to create meaning. The linguistic theory tends to leave out the study of
intonations due to the inconsistency and dynamic nature of intonations that
inhibit the development of any comprehensive studies.
An
example of intonation in practice may be denoted from the following phrases: a.
Coffee; and b. Coffee? Part a. comes out as a statement where the speaker
simply states the noun coffee (House, 2006b). When read in context, it may come
as an answer to a previous question or may just be a statement or a conclusive
part of it. Part b comes out vividly as a question where the speaker seems to
be asking his audience if they would like to have coffee. In this example,
intonation becomes the single most important factor in giving meaning to the
conversation. Another example may involve the use of apostrophe marks. For
instance: I won; and I won! While the first sentence simply states that the
speaker won the contest, it is devoid of any emotion and the audience may be
unable to deduct from the sentence what the speaker feels about their victory.
However, the second sentence leaves no doubt as to the speaker’s emotion. He is
definitely excited about the victory. The manner in which sentences are
interpreted depends mainly on the cultural context of the speaker and the
audience (Blakemore, 1995). In highly expressive societies, the sentence is
taken on the face value of it while in less expressive societies; deeper
meanings are sought in addition to the obvious meaning portrayed by a sentence.
This is where intonation plays a critical role.
For
instance, while the expressive audience may simply read the sentences as an
expression of the speaker’s view about the victory, their less expressive
counterparts may want to use the sentence to deduct the level of challenge
faced during the contest, the prize won as a result of the victory or even the
level of importance that the speaker attaches to this victory. A flat tone may
be interpreted to mean that even though the speaker won the challenge, he may
not really value the victory due to the ease with which he attained the
victory. Conversely, excitement would mean that the speaker highly values his
victory or won against very stiff competition and was therefore thrilled to
emerge the winner. The contextual meaning may further be illustrated in the
following two phrases: a. It’s you again; and b. It’s you again! The first
phrase merely indicates that the speaker has had a previous encounter with the
listener and simply takes cognisance of that fact. However, the second phrase
seems to display a certain level of emotion. It is a likely indication of the
fact that the speaker is irritated by the second encounter he is having with
the listener.
Considering
the apostrophe also tends to denote excitement, the phrase could imply that the
speaker is probably very excited about his encounter with the listener. Given
that the irritation or excitement can not be conclusively deducted from the
written conversation, it proves that intonation that is in written form is
seldom conclusive (Puntoni, Lanche and Van Osselar, 2009). It often has to be
used in conjunction with other non verbal communication techniques such as
facial expressions and body language. In this case, it is only the facial
expression that would enable the listener to interpret the second phrase as
either irritation or excitement. These portrayals of emotions in utterances are
referred to as paralinguistic elements of communication and the interpretation
termed as discoursal interpretation due to the fact that it is based more on
the manner or speech rather than the content of the speech alone (Puntoni,
Lanche and Van Osselar, 2009). Intonation can either be intentional or
unintentional and the meaning of the communication is likely to be altered
despite the intentionality of such intonations. Care must therefore be taken to
avoid unwarranted eventualities during communication. Given the extent to which
intonation enriches verbal and non verbal communication, it brings in new
meaning to the interaction and enables the communicating parties to the gauge
the success or failure of the discourse.
Pragmatics
refers to the meaning communicated by the speaker. It involves the study of the
speaker’s communiqué and seeking to draw meaning of it whether it is implicitly
or explicitly expressed (Doing Pragmatics, 2011). This is the essence of the
pragmatic theory. Intonation enables the avoidance of ambiguities in
interpreting the speaker’s message as the listeners take into account the
context of such conversations when drawing the resultant meaning. This goes to
the heart of the Relevance Theory which refers to the efficiency of the
processing costs of the listeners when creating meaning out of a conversation.
This theory works on the presumption that upon hearing a message, people’s
cognitive systems would automatically push them to try and make sense of such a
message and in a manner that is most relevant for the least amount of
processing effort (Austin, 1955). Intonation and context therefore function
most effectively used together.
Culture
bears an undisputed influence on the modes of communication in any society. Culture
can be described as a people’s way of life. It includes values, norms, beliefs,
and practices which are developed through societal interactions over time. It
is unique to specific societies and often differentiates members of a society
from others. Culture dictates the language and the manner of speech which
includes the verbal and non verbal elements of the communication process. It
therefore goes to the heart of communication processes where it controls the approaches
to communication, the preference for explicit or implicit expression and even
the preference for body language in the communication processes (Biletzki,
1995). Different cultures have different styles of communication and interpretation
of the messages communicated. Inter-cultural settings refer to areas or
contexts where the persons interacting emanate from different cultural
backgrounds. These backgrounds have an undeniable influence in their manner of
communication of meaning creation from a communication process (Grabe, Rosner,
Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal, 2003).
Communications
in such settings must therefore be modified in a manner that would ensure the
intended meanings are conveyed to the audience. Even in scenarios where the
language in use is the same, there exist differences in sentence structures and
intonations which shape the meaning of messages. These differences may be
formed due to the influence of the natives’ language whose features are
translated directly into the learned language. Communicators should therefore
bear in mind the defining features of the basal language when drawing meaning
into the communications or when communicating to the affected persons (Grabe,
Rosner, Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal, 2003). In order to ensure that communication
in an intercultural context is effective, it must bear two main features
namely: communication must be seen purely as a form of communication; and
secondly, it must distance itself from substantial engagement with culture
(Leezenberg, 2002).
Focusing
on communication as simply a form of communication means that the main
intention of the process must always be borne in mind: that of creating meaning
(Verschueren, 2008). For communication to remain effective, the language used
must bear a number of elements. These elements include variability,
adaptability, and negotiability. Variability refers to the range of choices
available for communication which includes languages, sentence structures and
words. Fundamental variability may therefore be used to refer to situations
where the range of choices are sufficient to ensure that members of a society
can literally speak different languages in the context of the available choices
(Verschueren, 2008). Negotiability refers to the dynamism that describes the
relationship characterising linguistic forms and their corresponding functions.
Meaning of often arrived at through an interactive process and is caused by the
implicit nature of most conversations. Implicitness therefore requires the
speakers and the listeners to have a reasonable understanding of each other’s
presuppositions. This is in accordance with the theory of mind which recognises
the pre-existing assumptions in people’s minds as has been formed through their
interaction with the society since their childhood. Implicitness also implies
ambiguity which in turn calls for negotiated meanings which are generated
through a dynamic interaction process (Woodin, 2011b). For instance, where a
person is asked about their origin, they may either interpret it to mean their
country, region, city, or village.
Differences
in interpreting relatively ambiguous statements may often lead to the
degeneration of a communication process and the persons involved must try to
understand the cultural context in which their peers are operating in order to
understand the meanings they attach to some of the statements. Adaptability
refers to the retuning fitting the communication processes into varying
contexts (Verschueren, 2008). This adaptability implies that in the situation
where cultures interact, the context is not regarded as the sum of the
constituent cultures but rather the creation of a new cultural context. In
these contexts, members of the different cultures tend to drop some of their
deep-seated beliefs and adopt some of the practical solutions offered by the
cultures that they interact with. The end result is that no members of such a
society remain purely engraved in the cultures that they grew up with. A good
example is the changing management styles between the US and Japan where the US
managers are steadily enriching their individual responsibility approach with
emphasis on teamwork while their Japanese counterparts are enriching their
teamwork provisions with an emphasis on individual performance (Grabe, Rosner,
Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal, 2003). These elements of a communication process must
be kept in mind in order to ensure that communication in an intercultural
setting remains effective. The pragmatic approach to meaning creation remains
the underlying foundation for the application of these elements.
The
non essentialist view of culture requires the avoidance of stereotyping and
grouping of individuals into perceived cultural clusters. The essentialist view
disregards the fact that culture is learned and presumes that the beliefs,
norms and values held are deeply engraved into the people’s personality in a
manner that cannot be erased (Verschueren, 2008). The clustering of bundles of
people in the society disregards the arbitrariness with which certain cultural
norms are adopted by different members of the society. The intercultural
communicator should view culture as dynamic and therefore adaptable to
prevailing changes in the society. The non-essentialist view focuses on the
individual and desists from categorising them based on the groups to which they
belong (Verschueren, 2008). However, this is not to say that the cultural norms
and contexts within which individuals operate are to be ignored. It simple
means that the communication approach should not be unnecessarily bound by the
notion that the individuals are completely incapable of grasping any
information outside their cultural contexts. Concentration on issues and the
subject of the communication process and effectively steering away from the non
essentialist view of culture is crucial in creating understanding in
communications conducted in intercultural settings.
From
the assertions made above, intercultural communication only remains effective where
focus is turned on the objectives of the communication process without undue
deviations focusing on cultural differences.
The
generation of meaning in a communication process is dependent on two elements:
context and structure. Context refers to the set of activities or the
environmental conditions within which the communication is taking place (Doing
Pragmatics, 2011). This context is useful in forming the basis for
interpretation of the messages produced. The structure focuses on the formation
of the message itself. It refers to the language and the manner in which the
communicator decodes their mental processes into a message that can in turn
convey this meaning to the audience. Inferences are the meanings that the
audience tend to draw from the communication emanating from the speaker. On the
other hand, intentions refer to the mental meanings that the communicator seeks
to impart on his audience by decoding his thoughts into messages that are
directed towards his audience. Whereas it is critical to bear in mind the
cultural context of the audience, it is more important to embrace the elements
of the communication process namely negotiability, adaptability and variability
with the main focus being on creating the intended meaning (Verschueren, 2008).
Ideological
noise refers to the perceptions formed towards certain groups that may
interfere with the process of interpretation and accurate creation of
understanding (Verschueren, 2008). The influence of ideological noise is
significantly high and has been known in many cases to be the cause of gross
misunderstanding due to the fact that virtually all human interactions are accompanied
by the presence of ‘ideas’ about the other parties. Other ideologies may
include language ideologies or those related to the communication process.
Ideological noise must be quietened substantially to ensure that the
interacting persons can draw the desired meanings of the communication process
(Verschueren, 2008). For instance, the condescending attitude towards the
English language by the Chinese in the 1970s had become a major source of
ideological noise that prevented meaningful interactions between the British
and the Chinese (Grabe, Rosner, Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal, 2003). These
condescending attitudes were experienced on both sides of the divide and the
result was an eventual relegation of meaningful communication between the two
groups.
Communication
involves the use of language to create meanings as intended by the communicator
to their audience. Language contains various elements that must be understood
in order to ensure proper communication at all time. These elements include phonetics
(sound systems); morphology (unit of grammatical form); syntax (grammar and
structures); semantics (word meaning); pragmatics (use of language in
contexts); and discourse (language as used in society). One of the key
determinants of the meaning created in any sentence is the intonation.
Intonation refers to the variations of the sound in order to emphasise selected
phrases with a view to shaping the meaning deducted by the audience. In
general, speech is rarely offered in monotone. There are always variations
characterised by use of high and low pitch, variations in the length of phrases
and sentences, the loudness or quietness of selected sentence segments and
voice quality designed at according prominence to some parts of the speech; use
of discontinuities in selected parts of a speech and basically the melodic
component of the whole speech.
The
influence of culture on intonation designs is significant and must be taken
into consideration when generating meanings of messages relayed. The use of language
and intonations are mostly interpreted in accordance with the Relevance Theory
and the Pragmatic Theory which emphasise the interpretation of information in
accordance with the context of the communication. In the intercultural
settings, one of the key determinants of the success of the communication
process is the focus on the objectives of such a process. The communicator
should therefore desist from essentialist views that may result in the
generation of the ideological noises that may inhibit intercultural
communication.
Puntoni,
S., Lanche, B.D., Van Osselar. S.T.M., 2009. Bilingualism and the Emotional
Intensity of Advertising Language. Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (6), pp. 1012-1025
Blakemore,
D., 1995. Understanding Utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. A book review. Lingua, 96, pp. 267-286
House,
J., 2006a. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 1542-1558
House,
J., 2006b. Text and context in translation. Journal
of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 338-358
Setton,
R., 2006. Context in Simultaneous Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 374-389
Blum-Kulka,
S., House, J., 1989. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requestive behavior in five
languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics, pp.
123-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Dominics,
A., 2000. Intonation systems: a survey of twenty language. A review. Language, 76 (2), pp. 460-463
Biletzki,
A., 1995. Is there a history of pragmatics? Journal
of Pragmatics, 25, pp. 455-470
Grabe,
E., Rosner, B.S., Garcia-Albea, J.E., Zhou, X., 2003. Perception of English
Intonation by English, Spanish, and Chinese Listeners. Language and Speech, 46 (4), pp. 375-401
Leezenberg,
M., 2002. Power in Communication: Implications for the semantics-pragmatics
interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,
pp. 893-908
Dynel,
M., 2009. Pragmatics and Discourse. A resource Book for students, 2nd
Edition. Journal of Pragmatics, 41,
pp. 1074-1078
Austin,
J.L., 1955. How to do things with words. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Verschueren, J.,2008.
Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 8 (1) pp. 21-35
Woodin, J., 2011a. Language in Context, MLT603. Sheffield University.
Unpublished
Woodin, J., 2011b. Language in Context: Speech Acts. MLT603.
Sheffield University. Unpublished
Doing Pragmatics, 2011.
Speech Acts- language as action
No comments:
Post a Comment