Verbal Directness

Closely related to context is the dimension of directness. Generally, people from low-context cultures exhibit verbal directness: they get to the point quickly and say what they mean. People in high-context cultures often prefer verbal indirectness: they prefer to discuss matters in a more subtle and round­about way. Thus they may say things in ways that members of low-context cul­tures would consider “hinting,” or “beating around the bush.”

The following example, cited by Lustig and Koester is a perfect example of indirectness. A Malaysian teacher is talking to a European American teacher. The Malaysian, who doesn’t have a car, wants the American to drive him off campus for lunch but is too polite to ask directly. Instead, the Malaysian says, “Can I ask you a question?” “Yes, of course,” the American answers. “Do you know what time it is?” “Yes, it’s two o’clock,” answers the American. The Malaysian then asks, “Might you have a little soup left in the pot?” Puzzled, the American asks for clarification, forcing the Malaysian to be more explicit. “I will be on campus teaching until nine o’clock tonight, a very long day for any per­son, let alone a hungry one!” Finally, the American catches on: “Would you like me to drive you to a restaurant off campus so you can have lunch?” The Malaysian teacher answers, “What a very good idea you have!”

Members of high-context cultures use a variety of methods to get mean­ings across, including refraction (letting someone overhear what you want him or her to know), covert revelation (letting personal views out in a disguised way), or mediation (waiting for someone else to relay the message.)

Expressiveness

Expressive cultures are open when it comes to displaying emotions. Hugging, touching, laughing, and crying may not be out of place, even in the workplace. Eloquence is often valued. In other cultures, the opposite is true. In many cul­tures emotional displays are seen as inappropriate and unprofessional. Iranians, for example, are very emotionally expressive. When angry, an Iranian’s behav­iors may consist of “turning red, invoking religious oaths, proclaiming his in­justices for all to hear, and allowing himself to be held back.” Many southeast Asians, in contrast, value evenness and restraint and try to neutralize emotions. European Americans, in general, are somewhere in the middle.

Formality

A final dimension of intercultural language use is formality. Some cultures use language in a formal way. Protocol is very important, deference should be shown to superiors, and all messages should flow through proper channels. This kind of language use is found in cultures in which there is a distinct power hierarchy. Conversely, the goal of cultures favoring informal language is to re­duce this hierarchy, get rid of red tape, and treat individuals as equals. The United States and Australia are well know for such informality.

It’s important to realize that there are many different ways to use language and that our attitudes toward language are culturally determined. People say what they mean in very different ways. If you find yourself communicating with someone from another culture or co-culture, it's probably a good idea to keep this in mind and recognize the potential for misunderstanding.

Language Choices and Pragmatic Effects

One of the themes of this chapter is that language gives us power. Our linguistic choices count: they make a difference in our lives and in those of others. If we use language wisely, we can control communication; if we do not, communica­tion can have unintended effects. In this section we look at some of the effects of using four kinds of language. We'll discuss ambiguity, immediacy, abstrac­tion, and figurative language.

Ambiguity: When Not Making Sense Makes Sense

As we’ve seen, U.S. culture values directness and clarity. You’ve probably been told that language should be concrete, simple, direct, and straightforward. You've been warned that ambiguity diminishes communication. Often this is true. In many situations clarity is the measure of the success of a message. Legal documents or technical instructions, for example, must be precise. But clarity is not always advantageous, even in a low-context culture like ours, and ambiguity can sometimes help, rather than hinder, communication.

Eric Eisenberg, an expert in organizational communication, discusses pos­itive effects of using ambiguous language, language that can be interpreted in more than one way. First, ambiguous language can give an organization the flexibility to adapt to future contingencies. When a university issues the state­ment “The University shall be responsive to its surroundings”, the university is being deliberately ambiguous. It is assuring members of the surrounding com­munity of its intention to act in good faith while leaving itself room to develop policy. On an interpersonal level, ambiguity allows members of organizations to perceive themselves as similar rather than different. Because similarity is a basic factor in attraction, ambiguity can increase group solidarity. We often em­ploy strategic ambiguity unconsciously. For example, the first stages of group formation involve a great deal of ambiguity. Here, ambiguity allows members to avoid disagreements until the group is cohesive enough to deal with stress.

Eisenberg points out that people with high credibility often benefit most from ambiguity. If one's credibility is already high, clarity is more likely to de­crease than to increase it. Strategic ambiguity also allows one to deny a stand if it should become unpopular. “That’s not what I meant at all” gives a person a way to back down gracefully.

Janet Beavin Bavelas and her colleagues suggest that equivocal communication, another term used to describe ambiguous communication, is most often used when a communicator feels trapped between two unpleasant alter­natives. When speaking the truth and lying are both problematic, people often equivocate. Ask yourself which response you would choose in each of the fol­lowing situations:

A fellow student has just given a class presentation. It was very badly done. After class he asks you, “How did I do?” Which response is best?

a. You did very well. I really liked it.

b. You were terrible; bad job.

c. Not well, but don’t feel bad about it.

d. You were braver than I would be!

You have received a gift from someone you really like a lot, but the gift is awful. How would you respond?

a. The gift is perfect; I really love it.

b. I don't like the gift and am going to exchange it.

c. I like you, but 1 don’t like the gift.

d. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

You are torn between loyalties to two people you know and like equally well. Ann worked for you at one time. Bob is thinking of hiring Ann. Unfortunately, Ann is nice but incompetent. You must write a letter of reference. What would you say?

a. Ann was an excellent employee; I recommend her.

b. Don’t hire Ann; she was not a good employee.

c. Ann is a nice person but not a good employee.

d. It’s been years since I employed Ann, so I can’t answer specifically.

In each case, d is the equivocal response. If you are like most people, you were probably tempted to use ambiguity in at least one of these cases, for it is a way of responding to an uncomfortable situation without lying or hurting someone’s feelings. Communication specialists differ in their evaluation of this form of communication. Some decry it as deceptive and misleading, others defend it saying that equivocation is rather subtle than deliberately deceitful communication.