1.3 The Business Discourse in the Context of Cross-cultural Communication and Interlingual Pragmatics
The modern business communication attracts huge interest from scientists in terms of its cross-cultural interaction. Considering interdisciplinarity of a business discourse as object of scientific studying, we consider it expedient to consider various theories of cross-cultural business communication, cross-cultural pragmatics and contrastive rhetoric as theoretical bases for the subsequent analysis of business correspondence and also for identification of various levels of socio-cultural, organizational and interpersonal contexts of the studied texts of business correspondence. In the context of this direction the general attention of researchers is drawn by cross-cultural business discourse understood as process of national and social interaction "with a part of which the process of construction and understanding of the text appearing as set of process and result is" [56, p. 150]. In this regard the concept "cross-cultural business discourse" should be understood as the business text in total with extra linguistic factors.
For the purpose of obtaining answers to important questions concerning features of business communication in the context of cultures and their interrelation with communicative and cognitive essence of language, scientists make attempts of the analysis of various business cultures and their classification by certain signs depending on historical, philosophical and lingual cultural aspects. So, linguists, cross culture psychologists, cultural anthropologists and other researchers developed formal tools of the analysis for understanding of cultural distinctions for a long time. Many researchers (F. Kluchholn, F. Strodtberg, E. Hall, G. Hofstede, R. House, M. Gannon, R. Pillai, etc.) made the significant contribution to development of special approach and measuring system to understand different national cultures and communities. According to scientific data, cultural measurements represent psychological lines, or valuable designs which can be used for the description of a certain culture. The main developments of these cultural models in the real work will be used as the fundamental principles of a research of cultural distinctions which will help to shed light in understanding of a socio-cultural context when comparing business letters subsequently.
First of all, it is necessary to mention models of measurement of the business cultures offered by the famous linguists and anthropologists E. Hall [57] and G. Hofstede [58; 59]. According to E. Hall, all existing cultures can be divided into the cultures of a high and low context. In relation to a written business discourse, high-contextual cultures, such as China, Japan, Korea, etc., are characterized by use of the veiled messages in business letters. At the same time low-contextual cultures, for example, the USA, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and other countries, on the contrary, differ in use of direct statements. It is necessary to emphasize that through traffics are transferred by means of clarity of style and expression because they cannot rely on a context in the same force in what low-contextual cultures often resort [57; 60].
The most successful, in our opinion, is determination of culture measurement parameters by G. Hofstede, in particular, those additional characteristics which were not considered in the previous model by E. Hall. According to the offered G. Hofstede concept, when studying a role of culture in business structures it is necessary to pay special attention to various models of thinking, feeling and possible actions of "the software of reason" [59, p. 5]. According to the researcher, it does not mean at all that thinking of people is as programmed as computer programs are arranged. Nevertheless the behavior of each individual is partially predetermined by the existing "mental programs" which are initially built in national cultures. According to the researcher, such mental programs are the cornerstone of a social environment. In other words, process of programming or formation of stereotypes begins with family and then continues in workplaces of a certain business community [59]. So, based on concepts it is low - and high-contextual cultures, G. Hofstede developed six parameters of measurement of culture including: "individualism – collectivism", "distance of the power", "rejection of uncertainty", "men's – a feminine", "long-term/short-term orientation to the future", "condescension – restraint". From six above-mentioned parameters, in our opinion, are most applicable for the real dissertation research "individualism-collectivism", "distance of the power" and "long-term – short-term orientation to the future" which will be opened subsequently by us in more detail in terms of a socio-cultural context in the analysis and comparison of business correspondence on material of the Kazakh, Russian and English languages. It is important to emphasize that these parameters play an important role in success of realization of business speech behavior as have a considerable impact on verbal registration of business communication in general and texts of business correspondence, in particular.
The following multidimensional model of measurement of culture to which it would be desirable to pay attention in our work is the Globe model (Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness) developed by the team of the American scientists under the leadership of R. House [61]. This approach includes 10 parameters: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, institutional collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, humane orientation, performance orientation.
In spite of the fact that this concept in general duplicates model of the Netherlands researcher G. Hofstede, nevertheless it is one of the few researches which included Kazakhstan in the analysis. According to this model, in the world there are 10 regional clusters differing on common language, geography, religion, the historical past, etc. For example, the United States of America treat an Anglo-cluster which is characterized by high orientation to execution and low intra group collectivism [61]. It is interesting to note that the Republic of Kazakhstan was carried to the countries of the East European cluster within which the states relating to it show good results on intra group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, self-confidence, but low results on orientation to execution, orientations to the future and avoiding uncertainty / adoption of risks. Despite obvious innovation of the analysis offered by scientists, nevertheless, it is necessary to pay attention to some discrepancies and ambiguity of the received results, in particular, with the general conclusions of the theory by G. Hofstede. Moreover, we will dare not to agree with an otnesennost of Kazakhstan to the East European cluster, considering more expedient, inclusion of an additional cluster for the countries of Central Asia or addition of the separate Eurasian block.
A little under other point of view founders of model of cultural metaphors M. Gannon and R. Pillai consider culture [62; 63; 64]. Within this approach cultural metaphors were specially developed for characteristic of cultures of 29 countries. According to authors in spite of the fact that these cultural metaphors use rather small amount of parameters of measurement, this technique gives fuller picture of cultural reality and reveals historical, cultural, anthropological features of the people.
Within the real research great interest provide data on such countries as Russia, the USA, Great Britain. For example, for characteristic of culture of Russia the cultural metaphor "the Russian ballet" within which the Russian business culture is regarded in general as rather unpredictable and mysterious is used. According to this metaphor, today the Russian business culture combines sincere emotions, spirituality and ability to survive what p. s of history confirm. Echelons in the Russian society, the drama and realism, the Russian soul presented in "the Russian ballet" are those characteristics which do the Russian culture unique [64, p. 574]. For the description of business culture of Great Britain authors offer a cultural metaphor "the traditional British house". According to this understanding, constancy and traditional character is peculiar to British. As scientists consider, the image of the traditional British brick house is a suitable metaphor for the best understanding of the country, its inhabitants and features of business [64, p. 387].
Considering the American business culture, researchers came to a conclusion that the metaphor "the American soccer" most fully characterizes features of this country. Scientists are sure that it will be rather difficult to foreign partners to understand features of the American business culture if they do not understand rules of the American soccer.
The complexity of rules of the game, its strategy and tactics, unpredictable results, individual specific achievements within group, high risk and the celebration of a victory are lines of the American soccer which can be reflected also in their business culture.
Based on provisions of the theory by M. Gannon and R. Pillay, the Kazakhstan researcher K. Mukazhanova sentences the description of features of the Kazakh business culture, using a cultural metaphor "traditional Kazakh aul". According to the author, such characteristics as accessory of Kazakhs allow to explain to one big family consisting of several clans and belonging to one sort, respect for seniors, the fast adaptability caused by a nomadic way of life high degree of collectivism and distancing from the power as qualities which are reflected as well in business speech behavior of Kazakhs [65].
Philosophical fundamentals of rather new and dynamically developing science – cross-cultural or interlingual pragmatics – were put by such scientists as J. Austin, J. Searle, H. Grice who showed to general scientific community the known classifications of speech acts. Thanks to merits of H. Grice who included the principle of politeness in the basic principles of speech acts [66, p. 49], American scientists (R. Watts, S. Ide, K. Ehlich, G. Leech, G. Lakoff, etc.) was formulated the theory of politeness.
In worksy bP. P. Brown and S. Levinson this theory is submitted as a language universal [67; 68]. The central place in this concept is taken by the concept "persons" (face) for the first time offered by E. Goffman. "Face" reflects desire speaking, first, to get approval of people around ("a positive face" / "positive face"), secondly, to make actions necessary for it without hindrances from people around "negative face") [67, p. 13; 68, p. 58-62]. From this it follows that the politeness can be "positive", i.e. directed to maintaining positive image of interlocutors at which communicants emphasize friendly arrangement to each other, remaining at the same time equal participants of communication, and "negative", the forced persistence which is characterized by recognition, invasion on personal territories and causing perhaps certain inconveniences to the interlocutor in the circumstances.
In the first case of relationship are based on geniality, "family behavior", in the second – on respect of freedom of people around, non-interference, distancing. Also the concept of speech acts which is widely used today in pragmatics, "threatening the person" is entered (face threatening acts). The concept "person", as well as the theory of politeness, in general reflects a ratio of aspirations speaking and the addressee, at the same time communication of these behavioural and language stereotypes with the cultural values defined, accepted in this or that society, such as advantage, independence of the personality, respect for itself and to others, etc. is undoubted. Therefore, the social distance between members of society, authoritativeness, etc. Model also depends on this or that cultural tradition, the offered P. Brown and S. Levinson, thus, was called to consider both universaliya, and cross-cultural distinctions.
According to P. Brown and S. Levinson, the importance and degree of the speech act decides on the help of the formula which is surely considering such social factors as a social distance between speaking and listening, the relative power speaking over listening and also ranging of the concepts "come on others territory", "impose the point of view", i.e. delimitation of tactlessness in each culture. According to researchers, these social variables are considered speaking unconsciously and influence use of this or that strategy. The following was distinguished from possible strategy by scientists:
1) strategy "to tell nothing" ("say nothing" strategy) – saying can regard the planned speech act to too "menacing" his "person" or "face" of his interlocutor therefore it will prefer not to discuss the matter or will try to finish the speech act the silence;
2) direct strategy ("bald on-record" strategy) – the most direct way of implementation of the speech act without the address of attention to decrease in risk of loss of the person which is most often applied in communication between close familiar people otherwise it, most likely, will bring audience to state of shock, confusions or bewilderment;
3) the strategy of "positive" politeness ("positive politeness" strategy) – the strategy used as attempt to compensate damage to a positive face, for example, manifestation of interest to listening or underlining of belonging to one circle by means of the address forms taken in it, aspiration to consent, avoidance of disagreements, etc.;
4) the strategy of "negative" politeness ("negative politeness" strategy) – the strategy intended for compensation of the menacing acts to the person connected with restriction of freedom of action and any infringement of the rights and the territory of another, for example, underestimation of scale of damage, creation of the pleasant atmosphere, underlining of the fact that the interlocutor is not forced to performance of a request;
5) indirect strategy ("off record" politeness strategy) – the strategy of hints by means of which more than one interpretation, speaking are allowed can decline all responsibility for the act menacing to the person; the similar objectives are usually achieved due to the use of irony, innuendo, an impersonalization which act as the so-called "trigger" inducing the addressee to interpretative activity [67; 68].
Despite the significant progress made in modern linguistics in studying of politeness, basic provisions of the theory of linguistic politeness and its concept nevertheless were exposed to criticism some modern researchers. For example, G. Eelen points to presence of some conceptual disagreements concerning differentiation of concepts "polite" and "impolite" [69; 70]. According to her, in this theory politeness / impoliteness are considered as opposite categories and it is paid too much attention speaking to the detriment of listening. Richard Watts also does not agree with the theory of politeness that she exaggerates the importance of rather disputable concept to the level of the technical term a little [71]. According to him, what is considered polite/impolite in many respects depends on a context. In this regard to define what to consider really polite or impolite it is possible only by means of the analysis of social interactions in a certain context. Therefore, it is quite difficult to define a scientific concept (not) of politeness which would belong to all human societies. However various theoretical provisions based on the concept of linguistic politeness still are of great interest to researchers, in particular, in development of very useful and optimum models of the analysis of oral or written language behavior.
The concept "pragmatic mistake" (more precisely "misunderstanding"), or "pragmatic failure", visually reflects the central problems and concepts of cross-cultural and interlingual pragmatics and also interlingual pragmatics.
Pragmatic differences between languages can be reduced to the following types:
1. In some languages there is a formula which does not have an equivalent in others. So, the formula marking the beginning of food (e.g., Приятного аппетита, Ас болсын, Астарыңыз дәмді болсын, Вuоn аppеtitо, Gutеn Аppеtit), does not exist in English.
2. The same speech act is implemented in different languages by means of the formulas having absolutely different structure (e.g., rising because of a table at restaurant, it is necessary to say before leaving Auf Wiedersehen in German and Excuse me in English).
3. The same equivalent formula is used in different values depending on a situation (e.g., How are you? – in English, Амансыз ба? – in Kazakh, the meaning greeting or question).
4. The equivalent formula can have opposite value in different languages (e.g., in English the answer (She's speaking" to a request "It is possible to talk with …?" will be affirmative, and in German it is necessary to tell "Sie (er) ist am Apparat" and the answer "Er (sie) spricht" can be negative) [72, p. 197-198].
The language and cultural specifics of creation of speech acts can be expressed in use of the corresponding markers of a discourse having exclusively phatic function ("please", "isn't that so", etc.) in syntactic and morphological creation of the speech act (a request with an imperative either as a question, or as a hint), in admissible or inadmissible use of rough words and expressions, in the address to the interlocutor on "you" ", in the form of the address to the addressee (by name, on a name and a middle name, by last name, etc.). The cross-cultural pragmatics uses a number of criteria for evaluation of a statement.
The contrastive researches connected with such key concepts of pragmatics as frankness or indirection of a statement are not less curious. The following situation is indicative in this regard. The student missed a lecture and asks the classmate to give it the abstract. It is possible to imagine that she will tell: "Give me, please, the abstract" or "You could not give me the abstract?", or "You have an abstract of the last lecture?", or "I missed a lecture yesterday". All these statements are synonymous in terms of pragmatics and have to cause the same action. Their distinction consists in degree of frankness of a statement. The choice of option depends on speech etiquette of this or that language, and in this cultural linguistic community – the relations between speaking and the addressee.
Comparison of expression of a request in various languages allowed the researchers to draw a conclusion about the culture of the corresponding people in most cases coinciding with the fact that we know about the corresponding culture or intuitively we feel. So, direct statements in Russian correspond to a direct manner of communication of Russians, in the same way as the stiffness of British known to all is reflected also in language.
Thus, from a position of interlingual pragmatics it is obviously possible to analyse speech acts taking into account cultural features of communicants in a certain socio-linguistic context. These provisions will be used by comparison of business correspondence in the Kazakh, Russian and English languages. Besides, the received results can be also useful when studying indirect and direct rhetorical structures within contrastive rhetoric.
The term "contrastive rhetoric" came from foreign linguistics and has the following interpretation: the direction of comparative linguistics which purpose is identification of the cultural caused differences in the principles of the organization of written texts in different languages.
The founder of this direction R. Kaplan found out that the linearity of the organization of paragraphs in the letter is connected generally with frankness of judgment whereas the corresponds to noncommittal and digression [73]. As a result of the carried-out analyses R. Kaplan allocates the next typical ways of creation of texts depending on language groups: 1) English, 2) Semitic, 3) east, 4) Romance and 5) Russian [73; 74].
Results of R. Kaplan's research demonstrate variability and close interrelation of the cultural caused models of composite and semantic structure of the written text and cognitive models caused by type of national culture are of great interest. This interrelation became a subject of numerous researches which authors explained influence of the cultural caused cognitive models on a world picture, the valuable orientations, behavior and speech activity learning English as foreign [12; 76; 77; 78; 79]. There was the whole direction in a research of interaction of language and culture by means of cognitive models and language models of composite and semantic structure of the text corresponding to them. This referral was got by the name of contrastive rhetoric [73; 74; 80].
At the same time linguists are far from absolutizing the models offered by R. Kaplan which were criticized as too simplified and generalized [81]. Under the influence of this criticism the researcher was forced to reconsider a little the hypothesis and to present it in less categorical form, recognizing that at each language there can potentially be present be all considered cognitive models and language models of composite and semantic structure of the text, but preference should be given only one, caused social, cultural and linguistic factors [74; 82].
Despite fair criticism of the theory by R. Kaplan, it is necessary to recognize that in it in the New World the ratio of language, thinking and culture is presented. The scientist managed to get into an essence of the fact that texts in different cultures differ not only with grammar, but also models of the organization and also the steady expectations connected with it from the author and the addressee. It will quite be coordinated with communicative and pragmatic and socio-cognitive approaches to the description of a business discourse in which the business text is considered as sign model of the interfaced communicative active business communicants. The extra linguistic basis of this model is nonverbal, in our case – the professional and business, cultural caused activity of communicants.
Достарыңызбен бөлісу: |