In the age of globalization, intercultural communication has become a necessity in many areas of life. Considering a worldwide increasing mobility, economists, politicians, scientists, tourists, exchange students, global celebrities, and many others frequently communicate in languages different from their mother tongues. Since English is widely spoken in the Western hemisphere, many native speakers are used to conversing with people who have acquired English as a foreign language. Misunderstandings are very likely to occur, often due to linguistic incompetence. Learners who have acquired basic knowledge of a foreign language in school, frequently struggle with their vocabulary, let alone grammatical correctness. Hence, a sufficient command of a (foreign) language is indispensable in order to communicate efficiently. Equally important is the awareness of cross-cultural differences, which often have a major impact on interactions in business as well as in everyday life. Being able to adequately interact with people from different cultures according to their respective values and unwritten rules of communication is referred to as intercultural competence and includes behavioral, communication and comprehension skills (Lüsebrink 2005:9). Interculturally competent individuals have usually appropriated their skills in a learning process of personal experience in foreign countries and theoretical knowledge about various aspects of one or several culture(s). Intercultural trainers are in demand: Seminars and workshops teaching basics of intercultural communication aim at passing on a general awareness of cross-cultural differences and possible difficulties resulting from them. As Casper-Hehne states, a major challenge in intercultural communication is to capture the link between linguistic phenomena and patterns of thought, emotion, and action, which are culture-specific for our interlocutors (2006: 63).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research
2.1. Face and face work
2.2. Contrastive Pragmatics
2.3. Interlanguage Pragmatics
2.4. Methodology and procedures
3. Findings
3.1. Dimensions of cross-cultural difference
3.1.1. Directness vs. indirectness
3.1.2. Self-orientation vs. other-orientation
3.1.3. Content vs. addressees / explicitness vs. implicitness
3.1.4. Ad-hoc formulation vs. verbal routines
3.2. Discourse rituals
3.2.1. Greetings
2.2.2. Farewells
3.2.3. Compliments
3.2.4. Criticism
3.2.5. Discussions
3.2.5.1. Opposition formats
3.2.5.2. Concessions
3.2.5.3. Intercultural disagreement
3.3. Cross-cultural convergence
4. Conclusion
5. References
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the linguistic and pragmatic foundations of intercultural misunderstandings between German and English speakers, specifically focusing on how different cultural conventions—often misinterpreted as "unfriendly" or "superficial"—affect interpersonal interaction.
- Analysis of face-work strategies and pragmatic conventions in German vs. American culture.
- Examination of discourse rituals including greetings, farewells, and disagreement patterns.
- Evaluation of contrastive and interlanguage pragmatic approaches to communication.
- Discussion of cross-cultural convergence through the influence of globalized media and interactional standards.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1. Greetings
Generally, greetings can either be realized in passing somebody or as an introduction to a conversation. In German, there are greetings such as “Hallo” or “Guten Tag”, and non-verbal salutations like smiling at somebody, which do not necessarily signal the desire to engage in a conversation (Kotthoff 1988: 8). Shaking hands or asking “Wie geht’s?” when approaching somebody often functions as an introduction to a longer conversation. Although “Wie geht’s?” is translated as “How are you?” into English, it does not carry the same meaning: While in Germany it is perfectly acceptable to reply honestly to “Wie geht’s?” (e.g. “Not so good”), Americans prefer “fine” or an equivalent as an answer (Kotthoff 1988: 9). Kotthoff suspects that bad feelings and failures are taboo subjects, which Americans only share with people they are very close to (1988: 9). Also, “I’m pleased to meet you” is not to be equated with the literal German translation “Schön, dich/Sie kennenzulernen”, since Americans use it inflationarily as an essential part of their greeting ritual (Kotthoff 1988: 9).
Interestingly enough, when talking in German, American learners frequently ritualize their “Wie geht’s?”, as noted by Casper-Hehne (2006: 326). Moreover, one of her American subjects directly translates the colloquial salutation “What’s happening?” into German and asks his/her interlocutor “Was passiert?” (Casper-Hehne 2006: 326), probably being well aware of the fact that this does not constitute a proper German greeting. By contrast, Germans tend to be more verbose when it comes to salutations, supporting House’s (1996) claim that they frequently use ad-hoc formulations, while Americans are very much used to relying on verbal routines. Kotthoff notes that expressions of sympathy are less conventionalized in German, which should not be mistaken for a lack of friendliness (1988: 10).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Highlights the necessity of intercultural competence in a globalized world and the common tendency to misinterpret cultural differences as personal character flaws.
2. Research: Introduces theoretical frameworks including Erving Goffman’s face-work, Contrastive Pragmatics, and Interlanguage Pragmatics to analyze German-English communicative differences.
3. Findings: Examines specific communicative dimensions, such as directness versus indirectness, and analyzes discourse rituals like greetings, criticism, and disagreement patterns.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, noting that while cultural differences remain distinct, there is evidence of cross-cultural convergence in how individuals adjust their behavior to mitigate face threats.
5. References: Provides the bibliographic list of academic works used to support the analysis of German-American intercultural communication.
Keywords
Intercultural communication, Contrastive Pragmatics, Interlanguage Pragmatics, Face-work, Directness, Indirectness, Discourse rituals, Verbal routines, Misunderstandings, Cultural conventions, German, American, Sociolinguistics, Cross-cultural convergence, Accommodation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this publication?
The work investigates the pragmatic differences between German and English speakers that lead to misunderstandings, specifically addressing common stereotypes like "unfriendly Germans" and "superficial Americans."
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The paper covers face-work strategies, conversational discourse rituals, disagreement sequences, and the role of cultural values in shaping communication styles.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to analyze linguistic phenomena and thought patterns that are culture-specific to explain why cross-cultural interactions often fail to meet expectations.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The study utilizes contrastive discourse analysis and interlanguage pragmatics, drawing on empirical data such as role-plays, recorded conversations, and academic observations from scholars like Kotthoff, House, and Casper-Hehne.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It details specific communicative dimensions (e.g., directness vs. indirectness), dissects discourse rituals (greetings, farewells, criticism), and analyzes disagreement management through opposition formats.
How would you summarize the key terminology?
The work is defined by concepts like "positive/negative face wants," "verbal routines vs. ad-hoc formulations," and "pragmatic transfer" in intercultural settings.
How do "opposition formats" distinguish German speakers?
German speakers often use opposition formats in debates to demonstrate verbal creativity and engagement, whereas Americans tend to avoid conflict and prefer to build consensus through concessions.
What role does the "foreigner register" play in intercultural interaction?
It is an unconscious process of accommodation where native speakers simplify their language and avoid vagueness to assist non-native interlocutors in understanding, thereby reducing face threats.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2007, “Superficial Americans” vs. “Unfriendly Germans”?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/85549
