Meanings and Messages

A C A D E M I C A

edited by

inger askehave

birgitte norlyk

intercultural

business

communication

MEANINGSMESSAGES

AND

cover iconIcon.jpg

MEANINGSAND

MESSAGESintercultural

business

communication

MEANINGSAND

MESSAGESintercultural

business

communication

edited by

inger askehave

and birgitte norlyk

Academica

Meanings and Messages intercultural business communication1. e-bogsudgave, 1. oplag forfatterne og Academica, 2007

Ektern redaktion: Inger Askehave og Birgitte NorlykOmslag og layout: Lisbeth NeigaardISBN: 978-87-7675-580-5

Denne bog er beskyttet af lov om ophavsret. Kopiering til andet end personlig brug m kun ske efter aftale med forlag og forfatter

Trykt udgave:1. udgave, 1. oplagSats og tryk: Special-Trykkeriet Viborg a-sPrinted in Denmark 2002ISBN-13: 978-87-7675-212-5ISBN-10: 87-7675-212-7

AcademicaSkt. Pauls Gade 258000 rhus C

Hold dig orienteret om nye titler fra Academica.Tilmeld dig forlagets e-nyheder p www.academica.dk

Contents

Editors preface ................................................................ 6

CHAPTER 1 Culture in a business context .......................................... 7Inger Askehave, Malene Gram and Birgitte Norlyk

CHAPTER 2 Communication:Transmitting messages or fusing horizons? ................. 33Inger Askehave

CHAPTER 3 Made in Denmark global perspectives ....................... 61Per Blenker & Poul Rind Christensen

CHAPTER 4 Texts and localization ...................................................... 79Birgitte Norlyk

CHAPTER 5 The translator as cultural mediator ............................... 99Karen Korning Zethsen

CHAPTER 6 Yes, no or maybe? A problemin English and Danish business negotiations ................ 117Malene Djursaa

CHAPTER 7 B2B websites in an intercultural perspective ................ 133Malene Gram

CHAPTER 8 Speech acts in sales letters ............................................. 153Martin Nielsen

CHAPTER 9 Politeness in French and Danish e-mails ............................ 173Jeanne Strunck

CHAPTER 10 Business students and culture:Searching for a toolbox? ................................................. 185Maribel Blasco

Authors ............................................................................. 206

Index .................................................................................. 208

Editors preface

Meanings and Messages is the result of a unique cooperation between tenresearchers from Danish universities and business schools who joined forces toprovide teachers and students with an updated tool to describe and under-stand the complexities of intercultural business communication.

Highlighting the interaction between theory and practice and between localand global, Meanings and Messages takes its point of departure in a Danishbusiness context. To emphasize the complexity of business communication inthe global world, we have included examples in French, German and Chinese.

Meanings and Messages owes sincere thanks to the number of experiencedbusiness men and women who agreed to interviews, and who gave us the ben-efit of their practical insights and intercultural experience to supplement thetheoretical aspects of this book. While some wish to remain anonymous,others have permitted us to include examples and cases from their promo-tional material to illustrate some of the practical challenges of interculturalbusiness communication. We thank Aalborg Portland, GN Store Nord, ArlaFoods, Dansk Landbrugsrdgivning Landscenteret, Mors Jernstberi, TulipFood Company, Grundfos, and other contributors for providing us with exam-ples and material for this book.

Inger Askehave, Aalborg University

Birgitte Norlyk, University of Southern Denmark

CHAPTER 1

Culture in a business contextInger Askehave, Malene Gram and Birgitte Norlyk

1.1 Global or local?Open any newspaper, watch the business news on TV, check the corporate pro-files on the Internet and you get the picture: Danish companies, whether small,medium-sized or large, are significant players in the global market and face thechallenges of cooperating with people from all over the world on a regular ba-sis. More than ever before, companies need competent communicators whopossess the necessary skills and expertise to understand, communicate, and co-operate with people who in various ways and to varying degrees are different.

But what does it mean to be different? What kinds of belonging make us seemdifferent to others, and how do we approach the Other and reach cultural un-derstanding? These are some of the questions addressed in this chapter.

1.2 What is culture?If people are different, we tend to say that it is because their cultural back-grounds differ. However, such an explanation requires that we know what wemean by the term culture that we have established, at least in our ownminds, the factors which allow us to talk about cultural groupings, and that wehave an idea of how to identify and study cultural differences.

Culture is a very complex concept, rooted in different traditions and, there-fore, also approached quite differently by different theorists. Already in 1952,American anthropologists A. L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn collected and sys-tematised all the definitions of culture available at the time. They ended upwith no less than 164 definitions!

BOX 1.1: TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF CULTURE

Based on their collection of 164 definitions, Kroeber and Kluckhohn tried to concen-

trate it all into the following rather cumbersome definition of culture:

culture in a business context 7

Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and

transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups,

including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of tra-

ditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached

values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action,

and on the other as conditioning elements of further action

(Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952: 181).

Since then, many other definitions of culture have emerged, and they vary intheir view on how much culture encompasses: Is culture material or immate-rial or both? Does it include songs, pottery and politics? Is culture behaviour,or a question of how we speak and think? In spite of the plethora of culturaldefinitions, most definitions tend to agree on most of the following traits;namely that culture is:

a system of shared human behaviour, ideas, values and rules of living the result of a learning process created in social contexts expressed in symbolic form taken-for-granted and assumed to be natural by the culture itself.

In the context of this book we wish to address the question of culture from apractical business point of view. In an age when most companies constantlyneed to tackle issues such as outsourcing and international networking, cul-ture and communication have become essential elements in corporate strat-egy, planning and organizational identity.

BOX 1.2: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF CULTURE?

The term culture is used in several contexts.

Define organizational culture, professional or occupational culture, national cul-

ture, regional culture, political culture, etc.

Can you find other examples of culture?

What culture does the German Nazi leader Goebbels refer to in his famous quote

When I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver?

1.3 Approaches to cultural understanding:The functionalists and the interpretivistsCulture has been on the agenda in the business community for years; peopleagree that culture is relevant and should not be ignored, but they often dis-

8 chapter 1

agree about the best ways of approaching cultural differences. For many yearsthere has been a tendency within the business community (especially withinthe field of marketing and management) to approach the question of culturefrom a practical and functional point of view. This means looking for essentialinformation on future markets and business partners in prescriptive hand-books on how to do business in x-country, or turning to accessible theoreticalmanagement literature on cultural differences. The functionalist school ofthought, as represented by writers like Hall, (1959, 1966, 1983), Hofstede(1984, 1991), Gudykunst & Yun Kim (1984) and many others meet these practi-cal and functional requirements.

The functionalists tend to associate culture with a place or a country whichexists out there, imposing patterns of behaviour on its members. Equatingculture with countries or nationality, and suggesting a causal relationshipbetween country of origin and distinctive behavioural features, the functional-ists tend to focus their research on how people in country x are likely tobehave, and which values they hold. In other words, functionalist theory is predictive. It points to national patterns of thinking and behaving in order tominimise communication problems and to improve efficiency in interculturalbusiness encounters.

The functionalist approach has been taught for many years in business col-leges and universities and is well established in the business world, as it repre-sents a highly operational view on culture and intercultural communication.Its strong point is that it offers tools for the businessman for navigating in thecultural minefield. The first part of this chapter introduces the functionalistapproch to culture.

In academic circles, the functionalist approach to culture has been challengedby other views on culture, which question the reductionist and predictive ten-dencies of functionalist thinking, arguing that the complexity of culture cannotbe encompassed in tables of different nations values and expected behaviour.

The second part of this chapter introduces an alternative approach to cultureand intercultural encounters referred to here as the interpretive approach.This approach differs from the functionalist approach in several ways. Ratherthan being predictive and assigning general patterns of behaviour to certainnationalities, the interpretive approach focuses on how patterns of behaviourare interpreted and shaped by the members of a given culture.


In the interpretive approach, culture is considered to be a symbolic construc-tion of shared meaning, i.e. an on-going, changeable, social construction ameaning system which members use to interpret the world around them.While the interpretivists also tend to see culture as contained within a groupof people or a certain location, they are more focused on the complexity ofculture and the existence of a myriad of overlapping, changeable small cul-tures.

To simplify matters, it can be argued that functionalist theory is inspired bypositivist thinking as it is reflected within the natural sciences: Phenomenacan be measured and weighed and presented in a logical and structuredframework from which we can deduce what to expect. The interpretiveapproach, on the other hand, is largely inspired by a humanistic traditionwhich relies on individual interpretations of meaning, arguing against general-isations and fixed frames of interpretation. To work with culture and commu-nication in a business context, we have to understand the way both traditionswork and interact.

1.4 The functionalist approachFrom a practical business point of view, one of the strong points of functio-nalist theory lies in its highly operative and pragmatic nature. In a sense, thetraditional functionalist approach can be described as very user-friendly, as itprovides business people and students with a range of practical tools for inter-cultural communication. Establishing a framework of what to expect in variousintercultural encounters as regards e.g. values, norms, negotiation style andbusiness behaviour, functionalist theory enables people to prepare for themeeting with other cultures and other ways of doing business in a readilyaccessible form. Referring to individual national cultures, functionalist theoryhas collected and systematized a huge amount of data on various issues suchas e.g. the attitude towards power and authority, the need for structures andprocedures in working life, the preference for material values over immaterial,directness versus indirectness, etc.

Focusing on contrasts rather than nuances, functionalist theory attempts tomap dominant behavioural trends and cultural characteristics of differentnational cultures. From a functionalist perspective, intercultural communica-tion is the meeting of different value systems based on patterns of expectedbehaviour. To prepare for a multicultural meeting and to prepare for potentialcommunication problems in an intercultural or global context, the business

10 chapter 1

world traditionally relies on the functionalist approach as it offers a structuredframework and a set of operative tools that are easily applicable in the prac-tical context of international business.

Functionalist theory has many facets. In the following we have chosen to con-centrate on two influential representatives of functionalist theory, whose find-ings are represented in the curricula of most business courses in interculturalcommunication.

1.5 Hofstedes dimensionsFrom the 1970s and onwards, Geert Hofstede, Dutch researcher of manage-ment and culture, has collected large amounts of data on culture and commu-nication in the business world. Hofstedes first major study was based on aseries of interviews and questionnaires targeting IBM middle managers world-wide. This study revealed substantial cultural differences in managementstyles across national cultures and presented Hofstede with a unique collec-tion of data based on the responses from individual national cultures.

Based on these national data, Hofstede subsequently presented a frameworkfor understanding culture and intercultural communication. This model wasinitially referred to as Hofstedes four dimensions. Later, when researcherswith special insight into Asian cultures re-examined Hofstedes data, a fifthdimension was added to the original four dimensions, i.e. that of long-term vs.short-term orientation.

Culture, as defined by Hofstede, is the collective mental programming ofpeople or groups (1984). This programming of the mind takes place in thesocialization processes that each individual experiences. According to Hof-stede, culture consists largely of stable and deep-rooted sets of norms andvalues which change little over time.

Hofstede bases his model of intercultural differences on the following fivedimensions, which he considers to be cultural universals: Power distance,uncertainty avoidance, masculine vs. feminine value orientation, individualismvs. collectivism, and short-term vs. long-term orientation.

Power distance refers to a cultures acceptance of differences in power andauthority. In cultures characterized by high power distance a managers job isto manage his employees, who should respect his authority and his decisions.


Students should be respectful towards university professors, since universityprofessors are older and wiser than students, etc. In cultures characterized bylow power distance, employees expect to take an active part in decision mak-ing concerning their job, and university students do not generally considertheir professors as potential oracles to be treated with due respect and admi-ration.

Uncertainty avoidance describes a cultures need for structure and proce-dures. For instance, cultures with a high degree of uncertainty avoidanceexpect their working life to be characterized by rules and regulations andwould feel let down and uncomfortable if no fixed procedures existed for howto fill in their jobs. At the other end of the scale, cultures characterized by alow degree of uncertainty avoidance would feel restricted in their work per-formance if they were not allowed varying degrees of freedom in relation totheir work performance, since cultures characterized by a low degree of uncer-tainty avoidance prefer a more flexible structure.

The masculine or feminine dimension is concerned with but by no meanslimited to gender roles in society. Masculine cultures demonstrate a prefer-ence for the so-called hard values such as economic success, status symbolsand traditional masculine values such as ambition, will-power, strength andself-confidence. Stressing social rather than technical and individual compe-tence, feminine cultures on the other hand are characterized by soft valuesdirected at the common good rather than individual self-interest.

Individualism or collectivism is used to describe how members of a cultureinterpret the concept of family and relationships. Members of individualist cul-tures tend to define family as the immediate nuclear family and tend to keeptheir working life and their private life apart. In collectivist cultures familyrefers to a much larger unit, including great-grand aunts and second cousinswho are expected to help and support each other. Work relations, social rela-tions and family relations form an integrated network.

Short-term or long-term orientation, based on the teachings of Confucius, isthe most recent of Hofstedes dimensions. Asian cultures rank high on thelong-term orientation dimension, which indicates that these societies arecharacterized by respect for tradition and long-term commitments. Hard workhere and now is expected to result in long-term rewards. Short-term orien-tated cultures, while respecting the importance of personal face and stabil-

12 chapter 1

ity, do not allow long-term traditions and long-term commitments to stand inthe way of change.

Hofstedes findings are introduced and discussed in most of his books which,like Halls, have been printed and reprinted in several versions and editions.The results of his analysis are presented in tables in which you can check thescore of individual nations in relation to the five dimensions of his research.Denmark and Holland e.g. are characterized by a low degree of power distanceand uncertainty avoidance, and a high degree of feminine value orientation in contrast to e.g. Southern European countries.

1.6 Hall: Context and timeFunctionalist thinking encompasses a wide range of problem areas in intercul-tural interaction. For the purposes of this discussion, we have chosen to focuson differences relating to communication styles and perceptions of time, sincethese aspects play important roles in the demonstration of respect for others.In a series of studies published between the 1960s and the 1980s, The Ameri-can anthropologist Edward Hall highlights the influence of communicationstyles and the influence of the way time is perceived in intercultural communi-cation.

Hall (1981, 1990) introduces the concept of context in communication.Broadly speaking, high-context communication and low-context communica-tion refer to the degree of explicitness used in communication. High-contextcultures tend to express themselves in an indirect, roundabout manner, avoid-ing the explicitness of e.g. North European and North American cultures. High-context communication is implicit and relies on a highly coded communica-tion style in which the speaker does not have to spell things out. In his studies,Hall argues that e.g. Asian cultures, South European cultures and South Ameri-can cultures are high-context cultures. Indirectness, politeness and formalityare tokens of respect in high-context cultures. The development of personalrelationships in business is considered important and needs to be built up overtime.

Low-context cultures, on the other hand, are direct and explicit in their com-munication. North Europeans and North Americans belong to this category, inwhich getting to the point is considered a sign of respect, as one should notwaste other peoples time. A similar reflection on directness and indirectnessin intercultural communication is made by other functionalists, e.g. Gesteland


(2005), whose categories of relationship-orientated cultures and deal-orien-tated cultures mirror the characteristics of high- and low-context cultures.

Straight answers, an informal communication style, and a clear business focusare typical of deal-orientated, low-context cultures, although the degree oflow-context orientation may vary from one low-context culture to another, asillustrated in Chapter 6 on Danish and English negotiation styles.

BOX 1.3: A HIGH-CONTEXT WAY OF SAYING NO

A British journalist received the following letter from a Beijing newspaper explaining

why the editors had rejected his article.

We have read your manuscript with boundless delight. If we were to publish your

paper, it would be impossible for us to publish any work of a lower standard. And as

it is unthinkable that, in the next thousand years, we shall see its equal, we are, to

our regret compelled to return your divine composition, and beg you a thousand

times to overlook our short sight and timidity (Zahedi, et al. 2001).

The example illustrates the importance of politeness and face-saving actions in a

high-context Asian culture traditionally cherishing values such as harmony and

group cohesion.

In his studies of time, Hall operates with two culturally determined percep-tions of time: Polychronic time (doing many things at the same time) andmonochronic time (doing one thing at a time). Polychronic cultures acceptthat matters may be in a constant state of flux. Keeping appointments, beingon time, making fixed plans and adhering to preset schedules is not con-sidered very important in polychronic cultures, as time is not considered aresource that can be wasted. Polychronic cultures value the involvement ofpeople, while monochronic cultures find it important to structure and plantime. Keeping appointments, respecting other peoples valuable time is a wayof showing respect in monochronic cultures. Electronic calendars, planningtools, checklists, etc. are significant artefacts in monochronic, Western cul-tures in which conveying an impression of being busy and having to plan onesactivities play an important part in individual self-presentation. In fact, socialand business life, even ones sex life, is commonly schedule-dominated (Hall1989).

14 chapter 1

BOX 1.4: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF TOMORROW?

The Spanish word maana translates as tomorrow.

In the business world, different interpretations of tomorrow are the cause of much

frustration, especially in negotiations involving deadlines and time frames.

Discuss the meaning of tomorrow.

In monochronic cultures?

In polychronic cultures?

As an international business negotiator, how would you deal with this problem?

According to Hall, North European and North American cultures are examplesof cultures in which monochronic time is so thoroughly integrated that itseems the only acceptable way of organizing life. Adhering to schedules, stick-ing to agendas, and being on time are ways of expressing respect for otherpeople in monochronic cultures. By contrast, in Southern, polychronic cul-tures, these traits are perceived as signs of inflexibility, bordering on rigidityand impoliteness. Generally speaking, polychronic cultures, e.g. SouthernEuropean cultures, are also high-context cultures, while monochronic culturesare also low-context cultures.

1.7 Criticism of the functionalist approachThe functionalist approach has been criticised for taking the concept ofnational culture and national identity as its point of departure and suggestingthat people of a certain nationality have shared patterns of behaviour, values,ideas and meanings which are different from those of other nationalities (e.g.Danes do this, Italians are like that). However, national culture can be a prob-lematic construct, as similarities or differences in people are not only based oncountry of origin.

Firstly, many state borders have been drawn arbitrarily and not always accord-ing to the more natural borders following languages. Secondly, thoughnational identity often serves as an important means of identification andbelonging, and to some extent suggests the likelihood of specific behaviouralpatterns, peoples identity is not only a product of nationality. Other impor-tant identity-creating factors are age, gender, race, religion, family patterns,education and occupation. In fact, people usually have several identities, apartfrom their national identity, since most people belong to a wide variety ofgroups which all shape their behaviour and preferences. These different groupidentities are enacted in different contexts, e.g. at home, at work, in the local


pub, among friends or family, at work, in the leisure centre, etc. In otherwords, people belong to a myriad of small cultures or communities and gener-ate their own composite cultural identity. No one model or theoretical frame-work can fully reflect this degree of complexity and individual variety.

BOX 1.5: WHAT IS NATIONAL IDENTITY?

Identify and discuss some of the factors that influence national identity

educational systems

family patterns

media

gender roles

the role of regional differences

etc.

1.7.1 EthnocentrismThe functionalist concept of mapping cultural differences has been challengedby rival approaches to intercultural communication. Critics argue that thefunctionalist approach relies on standardization, categorization and stereo-typing, and that the representatives of functionalist theory reflect a limitedand ethnocentric understanding of culture. Ethnocentrism is one of the mostimportant keywords in the criticism raised against functionalist thinking. Hofstede may have missed important dimensions relevent to non-western cul-tures, and his five dimensions for measuring culture cannot be considered cul-tural universals.

The word ethnocentrism is derived from the Greek ethnos, i.e. people. Ethno-centrism literally means to place your own people in the centre and to assumethat your own race, culture, society, etc. are superior to all others. In otherwords, ethnocentrism can be defined as a biased set of assumptions in favourof ones own ethnic group or culture. Generally speaking, people from mostcultures:

Think of what goes on in their own culture as natural and correct andwhat goes on in other cultures as not natural and not correct.

Perceive their own customs as universally valid. Believe their own norms, roles and values are correct, particularly as

concerns their own immediate ingroup or subculture. Favour and cooperate with ingroup members while feeling hostile

towards outgroups (Triandis in Guirdham 2005: 149).

16 chapter 1

1.7.2 DeterminismThe functionalists have been criticised for comparing the relationship betweenvalues and behaviour, with the role of natural forces in the world of physics.One knows that forces exist when objects move, Hofstede claims (1980). In thesame way, Hofstede maintains, we know that mental programmes exist bylooking at the way people behave or the other way around we can predictthe behaviour of people by looking at their country of origin. This determinis-tic view of culture, i.e. that we are programmed mentally and therefore vic-tims to our circumstances (Holliday et al. 2004: 157), has been counter-argued by the interpretivists, who claim that people are not computers andcannot be expected to act according to the logic of computer programmes.Individuals are more likely to respond to the same events in many differentways depending on the situation, their personal history, etc. (Fay in Holliday2004: 60). For these reasons, the interpretivists say, it is not helpful to meetpeople with fixed expectations.

1.7.3 StereotypingStereotypes are not facts, but rather preconceived ideas about the Other, i.e.other cultures or groups. Stereotypes may lead to crude generalizations ininternational encounters and prevent us from noticing individual differencesand from responding to the individual rather than to preconceived ideas ofnational stereotypes. Remember the old joke on national stereotypes? InHeaven, the police are English, the cooks are French, the mechanics are Ger-man, the lovers are Italian, and everything is organized by the Swiss. In Hell,the police are German, the cooks are English, the mechanics are French, thelovers are Swiss, and everything is organized by the Italians.

In a broader, cognitive context, however, the concept of stereotype has gradu-ally lost its former sense of irrationality and prejudice and can also be con-sidered an ordinary cognitive process in which people categorize people andentities in order to avoid information overload (Guirdham 2005: 150).

1.8 The interpretive approachThe interpretive challenger to the functionalist approach sees culture as ameaning system which people produce and use to make sense of the worldaround them. Rather than placing a particular culture on a scale from high tolow power distance, by way of example, the interpretive approach focuses onthe importance of individual interpretations and meaning systems in intercul-tural communication.


Based on a humanistic or hermeneutic view on culture, the interpretivistsadvocate an approach which favours experience and dialogue rather than pre-conceived opinions about the Other. From an interpretive point of view,understanding is the key to successful intercultural communication. Under-standing comes from experience; experience obtained when entering into dia-logue with the other cultures. From an interpretive point of view, cultural dif-ferences are sources of valuable input about other cultures, while functio-nalists traditionally regard differences as obstacles to effective communica-tion. The interpretive approach suggests that entering into dialogue withother cultures and meeting other cultures with an open mind is a sine qua nonin intercultural understanding, as it serves to:

sensitise those engaging in intercultural encounters to the importance of

acknowledging difference and regarding it as a productive resource rather than

a barrier to communication. In practice, this means attempting to understand

the other on his or her own terms (Blasco 2004: 39).

BOX 1.6: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING OPEN TO DIFFERENCES

Some of the businessmen interviewed for the purpose of this chapter have em-

phasised the importance of being curious, of showing a genuine interest in and respect

for others. They stress the importance of remaining open to the fact that people are

different and may interpret the world differently even within the same culture.

We are extremely aware of the fact that people think in different ways (Danish

International Sales Manager).

You should know, what you dont know (Danish International Sales Manager).

Its important that those [working with intercultural communication in the com-

pany] not simply get stories from us [in the sales department]. They need to get out

and see, feel and experience things for themselves. And they do! (International Sales

Manager).

Underestimating the complexities of cultural processes can be detrimental tobusiness negotiations and result in market failure. With limited knowledgeabout other cultures, i.e. the Other, or the belief that you can rely on a set ofrules for intercultural communication, you run the risk of assuming that youknow in advance how the Other feels, thinks and acts. An awareness of thefact that your knowledge of the Other is only a fragment of what that personmay contain will help you remain open to the fact that people are complex andcontain more than any cultural guide can capture.

18 chapter 1

The interpretive approach is inspired by a range of different academic disci-plines which all deal with questions of interpretation and meaning, rangingfrom literary theory to semiotics and interpretive anthropology. As the namesuggests, interpretive anthropology is concerned with interpretation andunderstanding, relating to the way the interpretivists define culture and to themethods they use to conduct intercultural research.

1.9 Geertz webs of significanceClifford Geertz, The American anthropologist and one of the leading figureswithin the interpretive approach, defines culture as a system of symbols, or aswebs of significance:

The concept of culture I espouse [] is essentially a semiotic one. Believing,

with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he

himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be

therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in

search of meaning (Geertz 1973: 4-5).

Suggesting that culture is webs of significance essentially means that culturehelps us learn and manage what is meaningful and what makes sense to usand others in a given context. Culture becomes a universe of meaning we useto conduct and interpret events and actions around us in a meaningful way.

BOX 1.7: CULTURE AND INTERPRETIVE ANTHROPOLOGY

Symbolic or interpretive anthropology is an umbrella term used within anthropology

to refer to a number of cultural theories developed in the 1970s and 80s. Common to

these approaches is a view of culture as a meaning system, and the anthropologists

aim is to interpret the way people in a particular culture use their meaning system to

make sense of the world, i.e. to interpret their interpretations. Key figures within

this approach are Clifford Geertz (1973) and Victor Turner (1974).

According to the interpretive approach, there is no one-to-one relationshipbetween thoughts, words and behaviour as suggested by some functionalists.People are to some extent guided by their values, but their actual behaviour isconstantly modified and conditioned by the context and peoples interestsand experiences (cf. Chapter 2). Culture is much more than a question ofnationality; the social context plays a significant role in the way we add mean-ing to things, and so does the individual and his or her interests and experi-ences.


The cultural meaning system is passed on from one generation to the next but not in an unchangeable and static form as suggested by the functionalists.Cultures are considered dynamic and changeable as people continually construct and reconstruct their webs of significance. Geertz proposes thatculture is a product of man and that a reciprocal relationship exists betweencultural meanings and man; meanings act upon man and man acts uponmeanings.

BOX 1.8: CAN YOU STEP INTO THE SAME RIVER TWICE?

When you see a river from afar, it may look like a blue (or green, or brown) line

across a landscape; something of awesome permanence. But at the same time you

cannot step into the same river twice for it is always moving, and only in this way

does it achieve its durability. The same way with culture even as you perceive struc-

ture, it is entirely dependent on ongoing process (Hannerz 1992: 4).

The following example illustrates how webs of significance sometimes clashand create problems in intercultural encounters. The example highlights howvalues connected with farming and animal ethics clash in a joint Danish-Polishagriculture project:

People can have very different understandings of farming ethics. What about

animal welfare how do people view animal welfare? Here is a significant differ-

ence. We lead lengthy discussions about animal welfare in Denmark. Whereas

in Eastern Europe attitudes towards animals often equal those of farmers in

Denmark in the 40s and 50s: an animal is an animal which means you can treat

it exactly as you like and anybody was free to beat or shoot his dog. This is the

attitude I feel still exists in Eastern Europe. They are willing to discuss these

things but it doesnt mean that they accept our attitude (Danish Interna-

tional Adviser).

As the example suggests, the webs of significance in which people are spunform the point of departure for their communication. Webs of significanceconstitute peoples horizon of interpretation (cf. Chapter 2). If we do notunderstand the behaviour of people from other cultures, it may be due to thefact that we are unfamiliar with their webs of significance the frameworkwhich adds meaning and sense to their signs. To return to our example,anthropologists would be interested in interpreting the cultural meaningsassociated with farming and animal ethics in Denmark and Eastern Europe(not least trying to find out which animals people are allowed to kill in cold

20 chapter 1

blood) rather than simply observing and interpreting the behavioural patternsfrom a Danish point of view and suggesting that Eastern Europeans are cruelto animals.

1.9.1 From observation to understandingRather than trying to predict peoples behaviour, e.g. by posing causal rela-tionships between the value time orientation and a certain behaviour such asbeing late for a meeting, Geertz suggests that all we can do is to observe,describe, and interpret the symbolic meaning of public practices, events,rituals and interactions that people in particular cultures use to make lifemeaningful.

BOX 1.9: DANES AND THE DANISH FLAG

Exchange students are amazed that Danes use the Danish flag (the Dannebrog) at

home, in the streets, in shops, on cakes, on Christmas trees, etc. They interpret the

use of flags as a manifestation of strong nationalistic tendencies.

What is your interpretation?

Observing and understanding other cultures is an important factor in a business context. Intercultural marketing e.g. can be extremely culture-sen-sitive and it is a vital importance for producers to remain open to the fact thatproducts can be perceived and interpreted differently from one culture toanother (cf. Chapter 5).

The aim of cultural studies, therefore, is to meet and try to understand peopleon their own terms, i.e. who they are and why they act as they do (from theinsiders perspectives). Pre-defined, universal categories as presented by thefunctionalists should be avoided and replaced by observations of the specific,i.e. the observation of specific people in specific cultures in specific contexts.

BOX 1.10: THE ETIC AND THE EMIC WAY OF STUDYING CULTURE

The functionalists employ an etic perspective in their study of cultures, whereas the

interpretivists employ an emic perspective. The concepts etic and emic were

coined by the linguist/anthropologist Kenneth Pike in 1954. If you use an etic perspec-

tive, you examine a culture on the basis of predefined concepts (e.g. power distance,

high context/low context, individualism/collectivism, time orientation), looking for

cultural universals, comparing and contrasting your own culture with the culture

under investigation. If you use an emic perspective you try to avoid the predefined

concepts. Instead you turn to insiders, i.e. members of the culture in question, and


search for relevant and possibly unique concepts which make sense to insiders. You

try to understand peoples values, ideas and beliefs and in this way let cultural pat-

terns emerge from the investigations themselves.

The etic perspective is often accused of being ethnocentric in its approach to culture

as its point of departure often refers to Western cultural contexts. The emic perspec-

tive may give access to unique and in-depth knowledge of the cultures in question.

On the other hand, it is a time-consuming and intangible approach relying on ethno-

graphic methods (participant observations), semiotic analyses (study of signs), and

discourse analyses (the way people in a given group talk about given phenomena).

Geertz suggests that analyzing a culture is like analyzing the meaning of a text,sorting out the structures of signification [] and determining their socialground and import (1973: 9). Doing ethnography is like trying to read (in thesense of construct a reading of) a manuscript [] (ibid: 10).

BOX 1.11: INTERCULTURAL MARKETING AND NATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Working with local agents and local focus groups, Arla markets dairy products in

ways that are highly conscious of the influence of culture and context in individual

markets. Arlas product managers for the Chinese, Overseas, and Middle East mar-

kets provide the following information:

Butter is virtually an unknown product in the Chinese market, as the Chinese use

cooking oil. In the framework of this chapter, we would say that butter has no place

in Chinese webs of significance. However, as the potential of the Chinese market is

huge, LURPAK butter is now marketed to the segment of young, upper-middle class

22 chapter 1

Figure 1.3: The etic andemic approach to cul-tureThe etic approach:

Culture is studied fromthe outside

The emic approachCulture is studied fromthe inside

Chinese who want to be seen as modern and westernized. In the Chinese market,

according to Arlas product managers, the use of butter is limited to a breakfast

framework which also has to be explained to the consumer.


Figure 1.1: Contextualizing LURPAK butter for Chinese customers

In Australia, marketing challenges are of a very different nature. The fact that New

Zealand butter is sold at approximately one third of the price of LURPAK butter

influences Arlas choice of marketing and advertising strategies for the Australian

24 chapter 1

4HEEVERYDAYLUXURY

1,*>`ìL>`vLi>ì>`>Li>ìi>qiVvv>>i1,*`}i`L>>]ìV>i>`vi>i

1,*ViiiiiLiV>ivi>i>`>1,*ì>vV}/iiVii>viLii>Viiy>viv`

q>>i>iiìi1,*i>`}iiv1,*>Lii>>ìì`LiLin>`

1,*>>>Li7

iv>]i>i>V>ìii\>iJ>iV>

- 1 / / ,

Figure 1.2: LURPAK butter ad for the Australian market

market. Why should Australians buy expensive LURPAK butter when they can get

cheaper New Zealand butter of a reasonable quality?

What webs of significance and which connotative framework does the ad for the

Australian market suggest?

In ads and TV commercials for the Middle East, we find other webs of significance in

relation to LURPAK butter. The TV commercials for LURPAK butter in this market fea-

ture the story of the spoiled cow that leads a life of luxury. The spoiled cow flies its

own airplane, visits beautiful castles, and is waited on by a series humble footmen

waiting to obey its every command. This universe of opulence and the reversed ani-

mal/man hierarchy stress the unique quality of the product. The spoiled cow is

revered and obeyed because it delivers milk of unsurpassable quality. In this particu-

lar context, the spoiled cow is the king of kings. Interestingly, the gender of the

spoiled cow is somewhat ambiguous. His/her Excellency, the spoiled cow, moves in

a male universe and mirrors male patterns of behaviour, e.g. flying airplanes and tak-

ing part in football settings.

Why has Arla chosen this approach in the Middle East context? Which of Hofstedes

dimensions may be working in the background in this particular cultural context?

Discuss the influence of culture and context in relation to the presentation of LURPAK

butter in the markets mentioned above.

In intercultural marketing, adapting to local markets (localization) is an important

issue, especially as regards products relating to food or home, cf. Chapter 4 on

localization.

1.9.2 Thick descriptionClifford Geertz is famous for his very detailed description of cultural pheno-mena, referred to as thick description. In his essay Notes on the BalineseCockfight (1973), Geertz wants to find out why cockfights are taken so seri-ously by the Balinese. Applying the concept of thick description, Geertzdescribes and analyses the role of cockfights in Bali.

Geertz uses thick description to illustrate the intense atmosphere of cockfights. Following talks with informants, Geertz suggests that cock fights influ-ence social hierarchies in the local communities and thus play an importantpart in the understanding of these communities at the time.


BOX 1.12: A FAMOUS EXAMPLE OF THICK DESCRIPTION:

Most of the time, in any case, the cocks fly almost immediately at one another in a

wing-beating, head-thrusting, leg-kicking explosion of animal fury so pure, so

absolute, and in its own way so beautiful, as to be almost abstract, a Platonic concept

of hate. Within moments one or the other drives home a solid blow with his spur. The

handler whose cock has delivered the blow immediately picks it up so that it will not

get a return blow, for if he does not the match is likely to end in a mutually mortal tie

as the two birds wildly hack each other to pieces [] During this interval [the break],

slightly over two minutes, the handler of the wounded cock has been working franti-

cally over it, like a trainer patching a mauled boxer between rounds, to get it in shape

for a last, desperate try for victory. He blows in its mouth, putting the whole chicken

head in his own mouth and sucking and blowing, fluffs it, stuffs its wounds with vari-

ous sorts of medicines, and generally tries anything he can think of to arouse the last

ounce of spirit which may be hidden somewhere within it. By the time he is forced to

put it back down he is usually drenched in chicken blood, but, as in prize fighting, a

good handler is worth his weight in gold. Some of them can virtually make the dead

walk, at least long enough for the second and final round (Geertz 1973: 422-423).

1.10 Criticism of the interpretive approachAs previously discussed, the interpretive approach to intercultural communi-cation has its roots in interpretative anthropology. When applied within thebusiness world, however, some critical points are raised against this approach.

1.10.1 UtilityWhile the functionalist approach seeks to establish patterns of behaviour andtries to formulate generalizations which can be used as guidelines for culturalcommunication, the interpretivists stress the importance of interpretationand context, arguing that each cultural meeting is unique.

If that is so if each cultural meeting is unique and has to be understood incontext then what are the lessons we can learn at the end of the day? Danishphilosopher Sren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) said that life can only be under-stood backwards, but has to be lived forwards. If we can only understand back-wards, then, perhaps, this approach may be difficult to put into practice forthe businessman trying to prepare himself for an intercultural encounter.

1.10.2 RelativismA key concept in interpretive thinking is the rejection of truth, or authorita-tive knowledge. Instead, interpretive thinking operates with different sets of

26 chapter 1

possible and even co-existing interpretations, each one in principle as valid asothers in its own web of meaning. If several interpretations are possible andequally valid, however, we find ourselves in a relativist position of beingunable to choose, unable to decide in any rigorous, academic way what thebetter interpretation is.

Not only are we deprived of authoritative knowledge relativism also deprivesus of authoritative moral and ethical values. According to the emic approachadvocated by the interpretivists we have to try to understand the Other onhis or her own terms, starting from their web of meaning. But if we under-stand, should we also accept? Should we accept cannibalism because weunderstand its cultural context? Should business people accept nepotism andcorruption if they understand why these practices can be both acceptable andexpected in human as well as cultural terms? In the ultimate consequence, dowe find ourselves without either truth or morals?

1.10.3 IdealismFor interpretivists, roughly speaking, the most important tool in the meetingof cultures is an open mind, and the willingness constantly to review andadjust ones impressions and interpretations of other cultures, and to avoidcultural stereotypes and ethnocentric value judgments.

In practice, this may be easier said than done. Are we being nave in assumingthat we can free ourselves from the influence of cultural stereotypes? Is itreally possible for individuals to participate in cultural encounters without anyprejudice or any pre-set interpretive patterns? Functionalists would argue thatthe cultural analysts task is to equip the cultural traveller with the best modelsand patterns possible, however inadequate they turn out to be in the individ-ual encounter. Interpretivists, however, will argue that increased culturalawareness of other cultures and increased experience with other patterns ofinterpretation or other webs of significance will prevent the individual fromrelying on stereotypes and generalizations.

BOX 1.13: A BALANCED VIEW ON STEREOTYPES

Despite the problems with stereotypes, it is necessary in intercultural communi-

cation to make cultural generalizations. Without any kind of supposition or hypothe-

sis about the cultural differences we may encounter in an intercultural situation, we

may fall prey to naive individualism, where we assume that every person is acting in

some completely unique way. Or we may rely inordinately on common sense to


direct our communication behaviour. Common sense is, of course, common only to a

particular culture. Its application outside of ones own culture is usually ethnocen-

tric (Bennett 1998: 6).

1.11 ConclusionHow, then, should we approach culture if we want to become capable andcompetent communicators in a global context? Should we act as functionalistsor interpretivists?

Instead of thinking in either-or terms, it seems meaningful to consider thefunctionalist and interpretive approaches as steps in an understanding of theOther, thereby combining aspects of each tradition. For example, there is noproblem in saying that Danes and Italians differ in their time-orientation or interms of power relations and in using this pre-understanding as a point ofdeparture in business negotiations. But we must not fall prey to the belief thatsuch dimensions tell us the truth about the individual Dane or the individualItalian or that this is the case in all situations. Nor should these value dimen-sions constitute the sole guideline for our behaviour abroad and blind us toother and perhaps more important dimensions.

BOX 1.14: SOFT VALUES

Its the soft values, cultural awareness, acceptance of other peoples behaviour and

the fact that they are different from us. And the ability to acknowledge all this and

still carry out your work. This is extremely important. Also being able to listen and

trying to understand the unsaid (Danish International Adviser).

Crude categories or golden rules may perhaps serve as an introduction to agiven field. However, they should not become fixed beliefs or predefinedstereotypes which blind us to other important observations in interculturalencounters.

We do not suggest that Danish businesses should make participant observa-tions, extensive discourse analyses or other time-consuming research intotheir foreign business partners before entering business relationships. Neithertime nor money would ever allow this approach.

We do suggest, however, that the importance of interpretation, understand-ing and interaction deserves a higher degree of attention in the business com-munity, and that the key to successful intercultural encounters lies in under-

28 chapter 1

standing! First of all you should understand what it takes to communicate,since this is what we are concerned with in intercultural communication. It isequally important that you use dialogue actively to understand the partiesinvolved in the communication situation, i.e. that you pay attention to othersby being a good listener and meeting others with an open mind rather thandrawing on a set of predefined national stereotypes.

It is equally important that you are aware of what possible stereotypes andinterpretive patterns characterize your own frame of reference. The chancesare that dialogue and an open mind will help you gain a deeper understandingand insight into the culture of those with whom you are communicating.

BOX 1.15: THE INTERCULTURAL MANAGER

Research indicates that managers are ineffective in cross-cultural situations when

they either deny having stereotypes or get stuck in them. Managers rated most effec-

tive by peers were those who admitted having stereotypes, using them as a starting

point, but continually revising them as they gained more experience. These man-

agers were constantly checking and rechecking, always updating the files against

first-hand information. They were willing to question themselves and their stereo-

types, to consciously unlearn, and to redefine their experiences. This requires careful

observation, suspending judgement and looking for explanations reasons that

make sense from the native perspective (Schneider and Barsoux 2003:14).

By way of conclusion, we would like to suggest that culture is peoples hori-zon of interpretation, also referred to by Geertz as their webs of significance.Following this line of thinking, successful intercultural communicationdepends on creating a fusion of different horizons and a set of shared symbolsthrough which communication can take place.

Exercises and points for discussion

1. Discuss the main differences between the functionalist approach and theinterpretive approach.

2. What is a web of significance and how does this term relate to intercul-tural communication?


3. Discuss the concept of national identity? Is it meaningful to talk about aDanish national identity? What constitutes this identity?

4. Discuss the relation between ethnocentrism and stereotypes. Can youthink of situations in which people from other cultures have experiencedyou as ethnocentric? Ask exchange students for examples of cultural differ-ences.

5. Find a business etiquette guide on the Internet (e.g.http://www.executiveplanet.com/business-etiquette/Denmark.html).Consider the way Danish business people are described in the guide. Arethe descriptions correct? What are the strengths and weaknesses of suchguides?

6. Discuss the role of national languages in relation to globalization andnational identity. Some Danish politicians e.g. suggest that children shouldbe taught English from early Kindergarten-age. Others suggest that Englishshould be the dominant language in schools and universities to preparechildren and students for the global world.What do you think? What is the opinion of your parents, grand parents,neighbours, business relations, language teachers, economics teachers,etc.? Discuss how different webs of significance influence our values andopinions.

References

Bennet, M.J. (1998): Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective. In:Bennet, M.J. (ed.), Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication selected readings, Maine: Intercultural Press Inc.

Blasco, M. & Gustafsson, J. (eds. 2004): Intercultural Alternatives Critical Per-spectives on Intercultural Encounters in Theory and Practice, Copenhagen:Copenhagen Business School Press.

Fay. B. (1996): Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science: A MulticulturalApproach, Oxford: Blackwell.

Ferraro, G. P. (1998): The Cultural Dimension of International Business, NewJersey: Prentice Hall.

Geertz, C. (1973): The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.

30 chapter 1

Gesteland, R. (2005): Cross-Cultural Business Behavior (4th ed.), Copenhagen:Copenhagen Business School Press.

Guirdham, M. (1999, (2005)): Communicating across cultures at work, NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gudykunst, W.B. & Y.Y. Kim (1984): Communicating with strangers: Anapproach to intercultural communication, New York: Random House.

Hall, E. T. (1989, (1983)): The Dance of Life, New York: Doubleday.Hall, E. T. (1990, (1966)): The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday.Hall, E. T. (1981, (1959)): The Silent Language, New York: Doubleday.Hannerz, U. (1992): Cultural Complexity. Studies in the Social Organization of

Meaning, New York: Columbia University Press.Hofstede, G. (2001, (1984), (1980)): Cultures Consequences, Sage Publica-

tions: Beverly Hills.Hofstede, G. (2005, (1991)): Cultures and Organizations Software of the

Mind, McGraw-Hill: London.Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004): Intercultural Communication. An

Advanced Resource Book, London: Routledge Advanced Linguistics.Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952): Culture: A critical review of concepts and

definitions. In: Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeol-ogy and Ethnology Papers 47.

Jandt, F. E. (1998): Intercultural Communication. An Introduction, London:Sage Publications.

Pike, K. (1954): Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure ofhuman behaviour, Glendale: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Schneider, S. C. and Barsoux, J. (2003, (1997)): Managing Across Cultures,Essex: Pearson Education.

Triandis, H.C. (1990) Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis ofethnocentrism. In: Brislin, R.W. (ed.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology,Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Turner, V. (1974): Dramas, Fields and Metaphors. Symbolic Action in HumanSociety, Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.

Zahedi, F.M., Van Pelt, W. & Song, J. (2001): A Conceptual Framework for Inter-national Web Design. In: IEE Transactions on Professional Communication,44 (2).


CHAPTER 2

Communication: Transmittingmessages or fusing horizons?Inger Askehave

2.1 Five easy steps to successful communication?Let me warn you! This chapter does not provide you with five easy steps tosuccessful communication. The reason is that your choice of communicationstrategy differs immensely depending on whether you are talking to yourgrandmother, your teacher, the newly arrived exchange student or the charm-ing Greek waiter. This makes it very difficult if not impossible to provideyou with advice on how to communicate successfully in any situation you maycome across.

However, what we can do, is to address the basic premises of communicationand discuss what it takes to understand (or misunderstand) other people, and inthis way open your eyes to the challenges and opportunities which communica-tion presents to you. And then, it is up to you to decide how the situation you arein may influence the way you speak, and the way you are being understood.

The aim of the chapter is, therefore, to discuss the concept of communication;from a conventional to a more sophisticated and elaborate view. In our discus-sion, we shall consider questions like: What is communication, what makes atext (be it oral or written) meaningful, and why do some people understand ormisunderstand each other? To this end, the chapter returns to the definition ofculture as a horizon or a meaning system presented in Chapter 1 and dis-cusses how different cultural backgrounds, and therefore different horizons,may influence the way we communicate.

2.2 What is communication transmission vs. interactionCommunication is approached quite differently by different theorists. In theprevious chapter we saw an opposition between the natural science-based,

communication: transmitting messages or fusing horizons? 33

prescriptive functionalists and the humanistic, descriptive interpretivists. Inmany ways the same opposition is at play within communication theories.

Roughly speaking, we might say that two different approaches dominate thefield of communication. The first one is the transmission approach which isincluded here because of its dominance within American business literature(e.g. marketing, public relations, and intercultural market communicationliterature) and within the business world in general. The second approach,communication as interaction, originates in sociology, philosophy, andlinguistics, and is perhaps best described as the humanistic alternative to therather mechanical transmission model.

The two approaches provide very different hypotheses about communicationand their focus and object of study are, as a consequence, also very different.We shall consider each approach in turn in the first sections of this chapter;not because comparisons and contrasts are interesting in themselves (manyother books on communication have already contrasted the two) but becausefamiliarity with the two dominant views on communication within intercul-tural communication and marketing makes you a more competent and criticaluser of such literature in the future.

After having compared the two approaches we choose sides and elaborateon the interactive approach which offers an interesting method for capturingthe complexity of communication and ties in well with the interpretivists viewon culture discussed in Chapter 1. But lets begin with the beginning and thecommunication model which marked the launch of communication studies:the transmission model.

2.2.1 Communication as transmissionThe transmission approach dates back to the 1940s where Claude E. Shannonand Warren Weaver, engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratory in the USA,devised a model of information transmission to account for the technicalitiesof communication, and look for ways to eliminate technical problems whencommunicating over the phone or the radio.

34 chapter 2

Information source; the person talking on e.g. the phone. Message sent; that which is being transmitted, e.g. spoken words but

it could also be music, pictures etc. in other media. Transmitter; e.g. the device in the telephone which turns the voice into

electrical impulses (signals). Channel; the channel or the medium spoken through here the tele-

phone or telephone wire. Signal/Received Signal; electrical impulses on the wire. Receiver; the telephone receiver which turns the electrical impulses into

a human voice. Message received; the words being heard by the person in the other end

of the line. Destination; the person being talked to. Noise; e.g. distortions in sound on the telephone.

As engineers, Shannon and Weaver were concerned with the communicationchannel itself, mainly the medium used to transmit the signals (or message)from the sender to the receiver. Human aspects of communication, e.g. themessage itself, or the meaning exchange which took place between senderand receiver, were deemed irrelevant to their research as they were concernedwith solving an engineering problem related to the communication channelonly (Shannon & Weaver 1949: 31).


Figure 2.1: Shannon and Weavers communication model (Shannon & Weaver 1949: 7)

Informationsource Transmitter

Message

Noise source

Signal Recievedsignal

Message

Reciever Destination

Neglecting the human beings behind the communication and focussingwholly on the technicalities of the communication did not, however, preventpsychologists, social scientists, marketers, and linguistics from adopting themodel, using it with varying modifications to account for the way people com-municate with each other.

The transmission approach sees communication as a one-way process, wherethe sender sends off his message and the receiver waits in the other end of theline, ready to receive it. The metaphor for communication is one of transporta-tion and transmission. Though, as we shall see later, one might argue that it is asimplistic view on communication, it is interesting to see the impact it has hadon us up till this day. Just think of all the transportation metaphors we (uncon-sciously) use when talking about communication in everyday life. A quick searchon the word message in the text corpora database from Collins Birmingham Uni-versity International Language Database, provides the following examples of theway people use and understand the word message in standard English:

EXAMPLE 2.1

Only in this way can we hope to continue to spread the message about womens ordi-

nation in these vital years during the long process of legislation.

We urgently need to find a way to get this message across to more people so we can

increase the number of our supporters.

Apart from the focus on transmitting (the senders) message as in the exam-ples above, there are also elements of control and efficiency in the transmis-sion model. Not only does the sender send off his message, he does so withthe purpose of influencing the receiver, for example getting the receiver to dosomething, thereby indirectly controlling his behaviour. Such elements of con-trol and efficiency are also remnants of Shannon and Weavers studies as theysuggested that with no errors from noise or other causes, the received signalswould correspond precisely to the message symbols sent (1949: 19) which tosome extent is true if we, as Shannon and Weaver did, only focus on the trans-mission of sound waves and electrical impulses. Within human communica-tion, however, the message is made up of symbols (e.g. words) which meandifferent things to different people. And this often causes the message to beinterpreted differently than what was intended originally.

36 chapter 2

In spite of this, the transmission approach argues that with no error (noise) themeaning of the message is what the sender puts into it. Not the other wayround. So if all the key components of communication are fine-tuned, e.g. themessage is thoughtfully designed, the channel is right, and noise is eliminated,etc., the receiver will automatically adopt the message and start to react in thedesired way. The following statements from the English text corpus are a testi-mony to this belief:

EXAMPLE 2.2

I have no doubt of the strength of our message but we have to be sure that it is com-

municated effectively to the electorate.

What do you want to achieve? Who are you aiming at and with what message?

All of the expressions above allude to the idea of messages being sender-con-trolled, goal-oriented and meaningful per se.

Now, if this is a gross misrepresentation of what happens when we communi-cate, or at least a very simplified view on communication, why spend time dis-cussing this view in a book like this? The reason is that this approach to com-munication is still quite dominant in our society, pervades our language, and,as shown in the examples above, influences the way we talk about, and to avery large extent come to understand communication. In addition it is also acommonly held view in present-day literature on marketing, Public Relationsand corporate communication1 where this approach to communication andthe corporate acceptance of it as truth, seem to reinforce each other.

The communication gurus want to offer solutions to problems, and so theyneed to approach communication as something which is controllable, treat-able, and goal-oriented. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the models we areconfronted with today within business and market communication may bemore elaborate and detailed than the Shannon and Weaver model presentedabove, the view on communication is more or less the same: If you follow aparticular, step-wise procedure and eliminate noise, your message will getthrough and you will achieve ultimate control over business partners, employ-ees, consumers, etc. Book titles such as Talking business Making Communi-


1) Though one should of course not ignore the important contributions within marketing and semioticsin the 1990s, see for example Dahl & Buhl (1993) and Allingham (1997).

cation Work, Effective Writing Skills for Public Relations, or Making yourMark: Effective Business Communication in Germany abound, and bear evi-dence to the dominance of the transmission approach within business com-munication.

2.2.2 Questioning the transmission modelNo wonder books on business communication are top seated on the list of pro-fessional how-to-do books. They seem to suggest that with a little effort andrhetorical flair you can create effective messages, and get the response youwant. But there is a problem. And the problem is that the transmissionapproach more or less neglects the fact that communication is an interactiveand dynamic process between two or more participants and, therefore, notsomething the sender does to the receiver. Also how can we be so sure thatwhat we consider an effective message is considered effective by our targetgroup?

In order to address this question we need to turn to an alternative view oncommunication. This view suggests that rather than focusing on the transmis-sion of messages we should investigate how people understand and interpretthe messages they receive and how their interpretation actively contributesto the communication as a whole.

In any communication situation, it is important to realize that what you say tosomeone is hardly ever unpacked in exactly the same way by the addressee.What is more likely to happen is that the addresser creates a message out ofsigns (e.g. words). This message stimulates the addressee to create meaningfor himself that (hopefully?) relates to the meaning generated in the firstplace. However, the message contains no fixed meaning in itself and theaddresser cannot be sure that the addressees interpretation corresponds tothe intended meaning. As one of the prominent figures within literary studies,Wolfgang Iser, says when talking about text interpretation:

The message is transmitted in two ways, in that the reader receives it by com-

posing it. There is no common code at best one could say that a common code

may arise in the course of the process (Iser 1980: 107).

So if a Danish purchasing agent goes out to China to negotiate terms and con-ditions for the next delivery of goods, the agent should be aware that what hesays, e.g. his choice of words, is not nearly as important as what the Chinese

38 chapter 2

product manager makes of these words. For example when the Danish agentuses a word like quality, he has a pre-understanding of the meaning of thisword; probably derived from the grading of quality used in his company. How-ever, quality, especially good quality, is not a universal concept and the ques-tion of what constitutes good quality may differ from one company to anotheror from one person to another. One way to overcome this problem is to com-pare product samples and discuss the grading of quality, thereby reaching ashared understanding of good quality.

BOX 2.1: THE MEANING OF WORDS

If you dont ask for anything specific [e.g. a specific product] youll get whatever is

available, at least in a Chinese context. Ill always specify the product that I want. Ill

spell out exactly what I want down to the last detail. Thats the only way to ensure

product quality. Im very conscious of the fact that you need to be conscious about

your concepts. (Danish Procurement Director).

Thus the meaning of what is said or written down is neither fixed nor sender-controlled, but depends just as much on the interpretation of the addressee(his time, tradition, world view, situation, etc.). What is important in a conver-sation is not simply to get your own message of e.g. good quality across, butto fuse or merge the two, perhaps slightly diverging, understandings of goodquality and make sure that the parties views become in line2.

2.2.3 Communication as interaction & dialogueBOX 2.2: COMMUNICATION

The word communication originates from the Latin word communis which means

common. When we communicate, we try to establish commonness with other

people, sharing ideas, attitudes and beliefs.

A more productive approach may be to consider communication as coopera-tion and interaction, as a means to share (not send) information, where com-munication is used to search for and establish common ground, and createmutual understanding between the communicators. The interactive and dia-logic approach is captured in the double-swing communication model ofJapanese-American Scholar, Muneo Jay Yoshikawa, (Yoshikawa 1987: 321)


2) The example may lead you to believe that understanding quality is mainly a question of nationality(Danes vs. Chinese). This is not the case. Also internally in a Danish company we may find diverging viewsas to what constitutes good quality.

which depicts communication as a dynamic, cooperative, and interactiveprocess.

The infinity symbol signifies that communication is an on-going process ratherthan a static, one-way transmission of messages between a sender andreceiver. The two interactants step out from their own ground to meet oneanother in-between and though A and B are separate and independent enti-ties, they are at the same time interdependent and both take an active part inconstructing and decoding the message in a dialogic process, rather than onebeing the source and the other the destination. As Yoshikawa (1987: 326) putsit: Focus is not on one side nor on the other, but rather on the dynamic flow ofdialogical interaction, a process through which the one and the other are con-stantly created anew. When person A and B communicate, a transformationoccurs in both participants. As they enter into dialogue and ask questions/getresponses, they gradually build up shared understanding and agreement3, orwe may suggest that they create an overlap between their webs of signifi-cance (horizons) and may even end up creating what Yoshikawa (1987: 329)refers to as a third culture perspective which is a unique or multicultural per-spective on the world, based on the combination of A and Bs cultural features.Thus the feedback and the dialogue involved are essential for co-producingmeaning and creating mutual understanding.

The advantage (and some would say disadvantage) of this approach is that itshows us the complexity of communication and the difficulty of predicting theoutcome of communication, as communication is an ongoing processbetween two active participants. What is more, the interactive approach alsopoints to the fact that we are able to cross borders, reach commonality, andcreate an overlap between our webs of significance (see Chapter 1), thus creat-ing shared symbols through which communication can take place.

40 chapter 2

Figure 2.2: Yoshikawas double swingmodel (Yoshikawa 1987: 321)

3) To agree here does not mean to dislike or like the same thing but simply to agree on the topic of conversation.

BOX 2.3: COMMUNICATION AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

Its my experience that personal relations are extremely important [in the intercul-

tural business encounter] they are more important than the company you repre-

sent. I think it has something to do with that fact that you get together, you talk, and

you try to work out [who the other is]? Its also crucial to be a good listener and to be

able to sense if there is something thats particularly important to the person you are

going to cooperate with ask questions and in the way ... yes, good personal rela-

tions are a must. Thats what its all about, and when you have reaced this, every-

thing else becomes much easier (Danish International Adviser).

2.3 How do we understand?So far we have established that communication is about aligning webs of sig-nificance, reaching commonality, and creating shared meaning and under-standing. But how do we do this? In this section we shall discuss the factorswhich constitute our webs of significance and which we depend on for inter-preting and producing messages.

First we need to turn to a theory of interpretation called hermeneutics, orthe art of interpretation, a discipline rooted in the 17th centurys bible transla-tion, but whose version relevant to us, referred to as philosophical hermeneu-tics, originates in the work of German philosopher, Hans Georg Gadamer.Hermeneutics is an attempt to clarify the conditions in which understandingtakes place (Gadamer 1989: 263). In other words: How do people under-stand?

Gadamer talks about understanding as a process of fusing horizons, whichwe take to be the same as creating shared webs of significance (see Chapter 1).In order to understand this view, we need to briefly address some of the keyterms in Gadamers philosophy, namely pre-understanding and horizon.

2.3.1 Pre-understanding the silent partner of interpretationWhen two people communicate (either face to face or in print), they bothapproach the text (oral or written) with a particular pre-understanding of whatis about to come, e.g. a pre-understanding of the subject matter (what thetext is about), and a pre-understanding of how to talk about the subject-mat-ter (the conventional language use also referred to as discourse). These pre-understandings originate from a previous experience with similar communica-tive events. For example when we turn on the TV to watch the 9 oclock news,we more or less know what to expect. The news may change but the general


idea of news presenting is familiar to us and our pre-understandings arebrought into play as we watch the programme. So the idea is that we accumu-late knowledge about the world and appropriate communicative behaviourthrough personal experience, as we encounter people and texts in our lives.This knowledge helps us sense what is about to come when we find ourselvesin similar situations later on. For example familiarity with the context and lan-guage use of business meetings in general helps us make sense of a specificbusiness meeting which we participate in. Our previous experience providesus with a template. The template is a possibility that we put into play. How-ever, it is only a template and we are most likely to find differences betweenthis particular business meeting and business meetings in general, whichmeans we need to re-adjust our pre-understandings and transform andnuance them to understand a new situation. Thus understanding is a questionof moving back and forth between a specific communicative event and similarcommunicative events experienced in the past, in order to challenge and letgo of pre-understandings which may be wrong (such as stereotypes/prejudices), and open up to new, alternative interpretations. As Gadamer(1989: 267) suggests:

Interpretation begins with fore-conceptions [preunderstandings] that are

replaced by more suitable ones. This constant process of new projection consti-

tutes the movement of understanding and interpretation.

Here is a short test of the pre-understandings you bring into play as you inter-pret a text. Try to read the following text extract from Reuters.com.

EXAMPLE 2.3

Once Upon a Time Thatll Be Seven Dollars, Please

You may find that this text is difficult to understand; you know the words ofcourse, but do they make sense to you when arranged like this? Perhaps youexpect to hear a fairytale because of the phrase Once upon a time, but youhave to reject this interpretation because of what follows. When you read theline thatll be seven dollars, please, you start projecting a new meaning ontothe text; you may think of a business transaction in a shop. However, it stilldoesnt make sense, even though you try to readjust your pre-understandings.Now read the rest of the text and see if the first sentence begins to makesense:

42 chapter 2

EXAMPLE 2.4

Once Upon a Time thatll Be Seven Dollars, Please

Amsterdam (Reuters)

Dutch children can dial phone lines to listen to recordings of fairytales like Little Red

Riding Hood, but busy parents must be willing to pay about $7 a call, enough to buy

the printed version of the classic tales []..

As the example illustrates, we always approach a text with particular expecta-tions of what is about to come (due to our pre-understandings). However, weare also willing to negotiate meaning and modify our understanding, i.e. to letgo of the original interpretation (e.g. this is a fairytale) and move onto a newinterpretation (e.g. this is a business transaction) to arrive at another possibleinterpretation. This constant process of negotiating meaning as we go alongconstitutes the essence of communication and the movement of understand-ing and interpretation (cf. Yoshikawas double-swing model) .

Of course this does not mean that when we listen to someone or read a book we

must forget all our fore-meanings concerning the content and all our own ideas.

All that is asked is that we remain open to the meaning of the other person or

text (Gadamer 1989: 268).

As Gadamer emphasises in the quote, communication is a question of know-ing yourself i.e. the resources you draw upon to make yourself and the worldaround you understood (e.g. your pre-understandings, and their influence onyour interpretation of a text). But it is equally important to remain open to theresources and the interpretive framework which others draw upon and lookinto the conditions and assumptions that underlie their point of view. Andfinally, it is essential that you are willing to negotiate rather than simplyimpose your ideas on others.

2.3.2 Horizons: why interpretations differSometimes we encounter texts (or people) which are so strange to us thateven though we put our pre-understandings into play, we simply cannot crackthe code. That is because our pre-understandings are limited by whatGadamer refers to as our horizon or horizon of interpretation4. A horizon in the everyday sense of the word usually refers to what we can see from


4) Similar to Geertz notion of webs of significance (cf. Chapter 1)

where we stand. If we stand in the middle of the street surrounded by largebuildings, our horizon will be very limited because our view is restricted bybuildings, the general traffic, etc. However, if we stand by the sea, looking intothe horizon, our gaze is much wider, but still not unlimited, as our horizonends where the skyline meets the sea.

Gadamer uses the horizon metaphor to illustrate that we as individuals have ahorizon which helps us add meaning to what we experience and provides themeans to talk about things in a meaningful way. Depending on what we haveexperienced so far in our lives, we might suggest that our horizon is broad,limited, or something in between, which of course influence our ability tounderstand the world around us.

The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from

a vantage point. Applying this to the thinking mind, we speak of narrowness of

horizon, of the possible expansion of horizon, of the opening up of new

horizons, and so forth (Gadamer 1989: 268).

Horizon includes what we know, and, therefore, determines how we makesense of the world. But it is more than just knowledge. It is more accurate tosay that it is knowledge coupled with attitudes, values, perspectives or worldviews. For example my knowledge of abortion is very closely related to myattitude towards abortion (and vice versa). Those who are against abortionregard it as a crime and are likely to conceptualize the pregnant woman as acriminal, the doctor as a killer, whereas those who are for abortion may con-ceptualize pregnant women as women with a right to choose, doctors asexperts, etc. Thus there is a very close relation between our attitude towardsand knowledge of a subject matter and the language we use to talk about thesubject matter (words like criminal, and killer, are used to accentuate andpresent a particular, negative attitude towards abortion). This type of ideol-ogy-vested language is also called discourse; a term we shall get back to inthe sections below.

Our horizon is a result of the time we live in, our culture, personal experience,etc. And so in spite of its individual nature, a horizon is very much a culturaland social phenomenon which may explain why people from similar back-grounds find it easier to communicate and fuse horizons. Luckily, however,our horizon is never static and restricted to places, people or cultures. On the

44 chapter 2

contrary it is changeable, limitless and open to new input (Gadamer 1989:302). After all, this is what communication and understanding are all about;the ability to negotiate meaning and move beyond the limits of our horizon.This is also why we suggested in Chapter 1 that intercultural communication isa question of trying to reach out and create an overlap between horizons, thuscreating shared symbols and meanings through which communication cantake place.

BOX 2.4: HOW TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR THE INTERCULTURAL

ENCOUNTER

Its important to read books and keep yourself up-dated on what is happening [in

the country in question]. Read historical accounts about people who have lived in

another culture. Get an intellectual approach to whats happening. Understanding

the history of a country is extremely important. If you want to enter the Chinese mar-

ket, go and see the film The Last Emperor. Its a fantastic way to be introducted to

the depressing history of the Chinese People just over the past 100 years (Danish

Procurement Director).

So to sum up, we suggest that intercultural communication is a process of fus-ing horizons rather than sending messages. It is cooperation between actorswho actively try to understand the horizon of their conversation partner,expanding their own horizon to accommodate the horizon of the other (andvice versa). Through dialogue (either face to face or with the text you read) wenegotiate meaning and come to an understanding5. This also means that wenever simply receive a fixed, meaningful message from an addresser; ratherthe message contains multiple meanings because it is both a reflection of theauthors horizon and the readers horizon, and only when both horizons fuseand we agree on the meaning, the meaning of the message stabilizes andcommunication takes place.

In the figure below, each circle is supposed to signify a conversation partner.The intersection in the middle where the circles cross signifies a fusion ofhorizons. This is where, in spite of all our differences, we use interaction anddialogue to get insights into each others horizons and meaning can beexchanged.


5) Fusing horizons may not be always in the interest of all parties, for example if power, status, andauthority are at play.

2.4 Horizon and CommunicationSo far we have established that our horizon and pre-understandings constituteour network of possible reference, i.e. elements we bring into play as we try tomake sense of the world around us. In this section we shall try to be a bit morespecific, considering in more detail some of the important elements whichconstitute our horizon and which influence the way we communicate w

Documents

Meanings and Messages