Social domain theory: interpreting intercultural communication
In our earlier discussion of what applied linguistics is, we have cited Brumfit's (1997: 93) definition: 'the investigation of real-world problems in which language is a central issue'. One such problem is that people can often fail to understand each other even when, on narrowly defined linguistic criteria, they have access to a shared language variety. Even within a context familiar to all the participants, knowledge of grammar and vocabulary alone does not guarantee the 'communicative competence' identified by Hymes (1972) as the knowledge of 'when to speak, when not, and ... what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner' (p.277).
An increase in the movement of people internationally- as a result of the 'globalizing' of the economy and of forced migration- has led to a considerable increase in contact between people of different social and linguistic backgrounds, compounding the potential for communicative failures. Considerable resources are expended on ensuring that interlocutors do have a shared linguistic code in their repertoires, and commercial enterprises value employees who are fluent in several languages. However, there is a growing recognition that access to a common language variety does not necessarily lead to shared understanding. The applied linguistic problem is that which has come to be labelled 'inter cultural communication'.
This area features as a component of language courses, but its significance extends beyond the pedagogical dimension of applied linguistics. As we have indicated, commercial organizations may have an interest in offering 'training' in intercultural communication to their employees (Mead 1994), and 'the workplace' is one site of applied linguistic research in this field (e.g. Candlin 2002; Clyne 1996; Roberts and Sarangi 1999). Studies have been conducted of 'interethnic service encounters' (Bailey 1997), while interactions in health settings have also received extensive attention (e.g. Cameron and Williams 1997; Candlin and Candlin 2003; Frank 2000; Teschendorff 1994). Encounters in courtrooms and police stations, as well as other aspects of the legal process, have also been studied from this perspective (e.g. Beach 1991; Bhatia et aJ. 2003a; Bhatia et aJ. 2003b; Krouglov 1999). Moreover, this is an aspect of communication in social life where applied linguists have contributed directly to the amelioration of a recognized problem, by providing not only analysis but suggestions for improved practice to professionals such as healthcare workers and interpreters (e.g. Candlin et al. 2002; Cass et aJ. 2002; Roberts et al. 2000).
Intercultural communication involves speakers' communicative not merely linguistic- competence, and those problems which occur are often variations on the pragmatic misunderstandings which can arise between speakers in any sociocultural interaction. For example, a speaker may assume a greater degree of shared knowledge with an interlocutor than is actually the case, and therefore say less than is required to be understood, thus flouting the 'maxim of quantity' (Grice 1975). The additional layer of potential problems identified in the literature on intercultural communication includes contrasting expectations about what counts as an adequate, relevant or appropriate contribution to an interaction. Illustrations are often provided of 'critical incidents', where these contrasts give rise to problems in communication. Here is an extract from one such example:
Mrs Jane Simpson enjoyed her job as a departmental secretary in a large, well-respected university in the United States. She enjoyed trying to be helpful to students as they worked their way through department and university regulations on their way toward earning their bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. One day, a student from India entered the department office and began demanding attention to his various problems with his visa, low course grades, and his thesis adviser. He never said 'please' or 'thank you,' talked in a tone of voice reminiscent of a superior talking to subordinates, and gave orders to Mrs Simpson. (Cushner and Brislin 1996: 198)
The intended audience for this text, includes 'professionals in multicultural settings and business people around the world'. Readers are invited, often in the context of a course of training in intercultural communication, to consider the source of such problems, and the subsequent discussion sections encourage them to recognize the unstated assumptions made by both parties. This example is used to illustrate, among other things, 'a big problem in cross-cultural encounters- figuring out which behaviors directed toward one are role-based and which should be interpreted personally' (ibid.: 221). This approach represents an instrumentally focused strand in intercultural communication studies. The goal is for those involved to 'develop broader vocabularies and conceptual bases about intercultural interactions that will empower them to understand and solve their own cross-cultural problems more efficiently' (ibid.: 2).
This is not the only perspective from which intercultural communication has been studied, however. As with many other areas of applied linguistics, various disciplines have made contributions. These include management training such as that illustrated in the example above, where patterns of difference in cultural practices are taught in order to reduce the risk of mutual misunderstanding (e.g. Hall and Hall 1990). In addition, the area has been discussed in: social psychology, where there is an emphasis on how the individual accommodates to unfamiliar social settings and learns to manage the concomitant stress (e.g. Gudykunst 1995); language teaching, where writers seek to emphasize that problems in communication are rarely simple matters of linguistic translation (e.g. Byram 1997; Kramsch 1993); and discourse analysis, where the insights from ethnographies of speaking are brought to bear on intercultural encounters (e.g. Gumperz 1982). Obviously, these different perspectives derive from different academic traditions and have different goals, with varying degrees of emphasis on analysis and application.
We aim to demonstrate how the theoretical approach we are presenting can help to clarify the concepts involved in the study of intercultural communication. We shall draw on these different disciplinary traditions listed, while suggesting that sociological realism brings an additional dimension by making plain the respective contributions of language, structure and agency to inter cultural communication.
