Grażyna Kiliańska-Przybyło, associate professor, works at the Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, University of Silesia, Sosnowiec, Poland. She specializes in applied linguistics, language education and foreign language teacher training. Her academic interests include language awareness, intercultural awareness and reflection in teaching/learning.  She conducts research on the role of cultural, personal and affective factors in the process of foreign language learning, and reflective teaching.

Email: grazyna.kilianska-przybylo@us.edu.pl

 

Abstract

The paper discusses the role of perceptual acuity and awareness of sociocultural cues as factors that play the role in intercultural communication. The aim of the paper is also to examine students' perception of contextual cues as exemplified by some cultural artefacts, and find out to what extent students are familiar with the meaning-making processes of contextual cues in cross-cultural communication. The study was conducted among advanced students of English (n= 50) who have had some intercultural experiences. The students participated in various awareness raising tasks and ideas sharing activities. Moreover, they were asked to complete questionnaires and worksheets with verbal elicitation tasks, which were used to collect data. The research findings indicate that the respondents display low awareness of contextual cues. Moreover, they claim to be often unaware of cultural constraints and social consequences of culturally inappropriate use of objects. When asked about the  role of material culture, the respondents enumerate the following functions: the ‘‘meaning-making processes’’ of material culture in social interaction, the communication of cultural and symbolic values through material culture, the indication of cross- cultural differences, and finally, the manifestation of individual’s identity.

 

Introduction: Contextual cues and artefacts- background to the study

Contextual cues and cultural artefacts shape linguistic landscape, and they can, undoubtedly, have some impact on the process of intercultural communication. Scollon and Wong Scollon (2003) highlight the fact that we are often unable to read the sociocultural cues and interact with them in the proper way. This happens because artefacts are differentially defined by particular communities (Aronin 2012; Aronin et al. 2018; Cole 1996; Kiliańska-Przybyło 2017; Knappett 2011; Lunn-Rockliffe, Derbyshire and Hicks 2019; Scollon and Wong Scollon 2003). Aronin (2012) notes that multilinguality of material culture includes, among others, the use and interpretation of material culture in multilingual contexts. Moreover, Cenoz and Gorter (2006: 67- 68) observe that the relationship between linguistic landscape and the sociolinguistic context is bidirectional. Consequently, lack of awareness or knowledge about cultural constraints often leads to miscommunication or communication failure.

 

Perceptual acuity and other personal predispositions to cope with contextual cues

To cope with culturally unfamiliar cues and handle intercultural interactions, certain personal predispositions are essential. Cultural adaptation or the motivation and the ability to adjust one's thinking, feelings and behaviours to a new culture are regarded as an important predictor of effective performance in global settings (Ang et al. 2007; Hanek et al. 2014:78; Matsumoto et al. 2001). Some other studies reveal that exposure to cultures facilitates cultural adaptability. For example, people who are exposed to and identify with many cultures think about culture in more cognitively complex ways, and have more culturally diverse social networks (Ang et al. 2007;  Hanek et al. 2014: 78; Matsumoto et al 2001).

However, cultural adaptation may be dependent on perceptual acuity, defined as attentiveness to interpersonal relations and to verbal/non-verbal behaviour (Kelley and Meyers 1992; Wright 2012). Perceptual acuity can also be related to the awareness of communication dynamics (i.e. sensitivity to contextual cues, awareness of how context affects communication) and empathy (i.e. recognition of people's emotion and their appropriate interpretation) (Kelley and Meyers 1992; Wright 2012). Research by Brannen and Lee (2014, in Hanek et al. 2014:79) shows that individuals who identify with multiple cultures have lower perceptual acuity and awareness of cultural differences, which can decrease their cultural adaptation. The authors state that individuals who have lived and worked effectively in multiple cultures may be less likely to attend to and understand different cultural environments because they perceive cultural differences as easy to bridge and unproblematic. This, in turn, had some negative inhibitory impact on their cultural adaptation. Similarly, Chang et al. (2013: 272) say that “the number of exposures to foreign cultures per se does not predict the level of cross-cultural adaptability, but the longer and more meaningful encounters do.” To put it differently, indirect experience provides an individual with an opportunity to get acquainted with the culture, however, deeper engagement with the new culture and reflection are needed to talk about adaptation and awareness of cultural differences (Chang et al. 2013:272).

Successful intercultural communication implies coping with verbal messages, but also paying attention to contextual cues and reacting to them appropriately. Kecskes (2015) mentions sensitivity to context as an essential factor in intercultural communication. Hodder (1982:2) states that cultural “similarity” reflects degrees of interaction. Gurbin (2015: 2333) claims that attention, including attention to context, is dependent on social and cultural influences. There are key cultural differences in the level of attention paid to the context and the amount and the type of contextual cues attended (Gurbin 2015: 2333-2334). When it comes to perceptual acuity, it is determined by individual's psychological characteristic (Tang and Rothenberg 2009). Perceptual acuity is also positively correlated with individual’s noticing and observational skills, yet it can be trained and developed. In their article, Nixon and Bull (2006) provide examples that practice in observing behaviour of others or accuracy feedback can improve people’s perceptual sensitivity.

 

The study

Research questions

The idea for this research comes from the belief the situatedness of object meaning in a social and environmental context is crucial in maintaining effective communication (Bih 1992; Roth 2001; Parasecoli 2011). This is particularly observable in multilingual environments and conversational contexts, which are dependent on our cultural schemata, constant interpretation and sense-making. Consequently, the possible misinterpretation of contextual cues in conversational contexts as well as the use or misuse of material objects can have some impact on interaction and communication. Also, people can have low awareness and sensitivity of contextual cues and they may not realize the impact of material environment on conversation maintenance. The study presented in this paper intends to examine and find answers to the following questions:

1. What is the students' understanding and perception of contextual cues?

2. What is the respondents' awareness about the role of contextual cues and cultural artefacts in intercultural communication? What situations of contextual cues use/misuse do they report as critical?

The respondents

The study was carried out among university students of English, aged 24-25, at one of the universities in Poland. There were 50 people participating in the research, 38 females and 11 males. When we consider the gender distribution of the sample, we can note that women comprise about 76% of the total, whereas men – 22%. One person refrained from providing any answer on their gender (2%). The students described themselves as proficient English language learners, and reported knowing at least two other foreign languages, mostly German and Spanish. At the time of the research, the research participants pursued the MA programme focusing on applied linguistics and English language teaching. They were going to become teachers of English as a foreign language.

The respondents are characterized by limited and irregular professional contacts with people from other countries. Half of the respondents admit to having infrequent work contacts with people from other countries. They often go abroad, mostly for some integrative and instrumental motives (i.e. to experience the culture of the target language community and practise English). However, their visits are relatively short usually lasting from one week up to one month.

Instrumentation and research procedure

To obtain data, two research instruments (a questionnaire and a worksheet with verbal elicitation tasks) were implemented. The aim of the questionnaire was to elicit students‘ biodata and their experiences of intercultural contacts. Furthermore, the students were inquired about their own perceptions of contextual cues, material culture and cultural artefacts.

The section concerning contextual cues and artefacts aimed at examining students' understanding of the possible influence of contextual cues/artefacts on the course of conversation. The aim was to identify the students’ level of awareness about the recognition of contextual cues. Another objective was to help the respondents to report and share their experiences of miscommunication or communication failure due to misinterpretation of contextual cues and misuse of artefacts.

 

Research results and discussion

When inquired about the meaning and relevance of contextual cues, the research participants listed the following functions (the order of the entries reflects the ranking in terms of the most frequent responses):

- as a way of understanding another culture (understanding culture also means decoding the messages built into its objects, recognizing norms or values that may be ascribed to the another culture). The respondents admit that examining objects, decorations or food items allows one to understand and extend knowledge about the other culture. In their opinions, contextual cues can inform interlocutors about routines and rituals,  

- as an additional language (people turn things into signs, they communicate through objects in ways that are laid out by their culture),

- as a way to mark one's own distinct identity or belonging (people use similar objects, however they give different relationships and meanings to them). The respondents agree that objects or artefacts reflect culture and are often used to mark cultural identity of the person who wears a particular item of clothing or uses different culturally specific objects,

- as a means of communication: contextual cues or artefacts themselves convey messages or add up to verbal messages. In the respondents' opinion, artefacts sometimes speak louder than words. Consequently, verbal message is redundant or it can be reduced to minimum,

- as a manifestation of belonging to one’s own community (international transmission or communication). Roth (2001) maintains that people in different cultures can buy the same global products, but they use them in different ways to stress the fact that they constitute part of a community with their own community rituals. In that case, people may adapt physical objects or change their function, use, and meaning. The respondents claim that they tend to associate particular cultures with certain physical objects that are characteristic for that culture,

-  as themes of intercultural communication. In the subjects' opinion, contextual cues can often serve as a trigger to initiate conversation and provide topics or conversation openings convenient in the moments of silence. Sometimes, initial discussion about artefacts can be turned into more profound conversation about culture tradition, festivals or intercultural communication in general.

Interestingly, data collected by means of verbal elicitation tasks partially reflect tendencies depicted in the questionnaires. The theme most frequently emerging from the students’ self-reports concerns the “meaning-making processes” of the material culture. As Crane and Bovone (2006) note, material culture can be seen as a type of text that expresses symbols and contributes to discourses and to cultural repertoires. The respondents often comment upon different meanings of contextual cues that are culture-specific, additional and incongruent with the home language culture. Contextual cues are used in social exchanges as a starting point of conversation. The sample the students' self-report best illustrates the point.

S10: While I was laying the table, I paid attention to table mats, which represented farm animals – a cow, a duck, a dog, a pig, a horse and a sheep – noises that they make. I pointed out that in Poland a dog does make “woof, woof” but “hau hau”, a pig makes “chrum, chrum”, a horse makes “iiha” and a duck makes “kwa kwa”. Just as I supposed, my Scottish friends burst out laughing because they had thought that all animals in the world make the same noises. They tried to imagine what would happen if a Polish and a Scottish dog meant and wanted to communicate, moreover, we had a heated discussion on which pig makes more realistic noise. In addition, they were so amused that they decided to call their friends and share the new discovery with them.

The second most popular theme relates to the additional meaning of artefacts. The research participants point to the routines, rituals and processes ascribed to contextual cues and artefacts by a particular culture. The students’ reports depict cross-cultural differences in the daily use of everyday objects and present different functions or situations, in which everyday objects the respondents are familiar with are used. Among the examples provided, we can find the use of cutlery to eat a sandwich or ties worn by school students as an essential piece of garment for both female and male students (shops sell shirts together with ties in the UK). Some other examples include serving French fries to any food order in Scotland (one of the respondents expressed her astonishment when she observed that French fries were served with spaghetti). The respondents’ reports corroborate the findings of Bih (1992: 137-138), who claims that every object has its function and is used for some instrumental purposes. However, the utility of the objects is determined by a cultural and social context.

In some of the self-reports, the respondents recognize objects as embodiments of values and ideals. They point to different symbolic and cultural meanings that were encoded in particular objects in L1 and L2 or connotations that the use of objects evoked. Material culture is often described as a means of communication. Examples provided in this category include the following: English superstitions of folding/unfolding umbrella, which can bring bad luck; a wishbone game or the ritual of folding an American national flag. Some other examples include culture-depended meaning of flowers (in Scotland sunflowers are considered as stylish, high quality flowers).

Finally, some of self-reports discuss the identity function of material culture, presenting artefacts as an extension or manifestation of one’s self. The respondents described and commented about some elements of material culture, e.g. tattoos or jewellery that captured their attention during their intercultural encounters. The subjects reported that material culture served as an additional language, which conveyed or revealed detailed information about their interlocutors.

 

Conclusions

The study shows that research participants do not always realize the importance of contextual cues and material culture in intercultural communication. However, the respondents of this study intuitively perceive contextual cues and material culture as additional sources of information that can help one to make meaning of the culture, context and people operating within this context. The research participants associate contextual cues with learning more about the target language culture and communication rather than identity manifestation or context formation (this category was noted in the research data, however, it was not the most popular one). For them, examining artefacts is one of the ways to develop intercultural pragmatics and communicative competence. They recognize the importance of contextual cues and various artefacts in broadening their knowledge about the target culture or noticing cross- cultural differences. They also admit that objects and contextual cues communicate cultural and symbolic values. The respondents agree that material culture (e.g. artefacts) can be used to manifest individual’s identity. 

In addition, the research participants assume that there are certain cultural differences (or cultural scripts) that determine the application of material culture objects, however, they are not always familiar with or aware of them. That is why, in elicitation tasks the respondents  often report situations that were unexpected and surprising. They present situations that resulted in sudden conversational turn or the necessity to introduce some some compensatory/ repair strategies due to miscommunication or misuse of contextual cues. The accounts of the respondents are very personal, full of positive and negative emotions. The respondents describe emotional reactions of surprise, enjoyment, pleasure, but also shock, disbelief or tension resulting from discomfort and the need to react quickly to some unexpected conversational turns. In their reports, they often express confusion due to verbal language and non-verbal uses of the objects. They admit that they tend to focus more on handling conversations with their foreign interlocutors and implementing appropriate conversation- maintaining strategies rather than noticing conversational cues.

To sum up, we are quite satisfied with our research results, however, we do realize that a number of potential limitations need to be addressed. To start with, the types and format of the research tools enabled us to elicit explicit knowledge that respondents were ready and willing to disclose. As regards contextual cues and material culture, the students' declarative knowledge about the importance and perception of artefacts may differ from their procedural knowledge, behaviour and experience of culture (questionnaires, self-reports vs personal experiences). This calls for the need of any awareness-raising tasks that would develop students' observational skills and let them share their experiences. Furthermore, it would be good to implement some tools to examine student’s personal characteristics of their natural acuity and perceptual skills to identify some areas for potential training. Then, the implementation of techniques to develop noticing and observational skills, e.g. critical incidents, cultural assimilation or reformulation of observed facts that would be designed for particular group of students, may bring positive results. Training should also include tasks that raise students' awareness about their emotions and reactions to novel situations, and increase students' self- knowledge in the areas of emotional resilience, flexibility, openness.

 

References

Aronin, L. (2012). Material culture of multilingualism and affectivity. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 2 (2). 179-191. 

Aronin, L., and Ó Laoire, M. (2013). The material culture of multilingualism: moving beyond the linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism 10(3), 225-235.

Aronin, L.; Horsnby, M. and Kilianska-Przybylo, G. (eds.) (2018). Material culture of multilingualism.Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.04.001

Asa Berger, A. (2016). What Objects Mean: An Introduction to Material Culture. London: Routledge.

Bih, Herng-Dar. (1992). The meaning of objects in environmental transitions: Experiences of Chinese students in the United States. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 135- 147.

Brislin, RW. (1986). A culture general assimilator: Preparation for various types of sojourns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, volume 10, issue 2, 1986, pp. 215- 234.

Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2006) Linguistic landscape and minority languages. The International Journal of Multilingualism 3; pp. 67-80.

Chang,W-W, Yuan, Y-H, Chuang, Y-T. (2013). The relationship between international experience and cross-cultural adaptability. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 37, issue 2, March 2013, 268-273.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Crane, D. & Bovone L. (2006). Approaches to material culture: The sociology of fashion and clothing. Poetics 34 (2006) 319–333 

Dant, T. (2007). The ‘pragmatics’ of material interaction. Journal of Consumer Culture, 2007, Vol. 8(1): 11-33.

Devoss, D., Jasken, J., & Hayden, D. (2002). Teaching Intracultural and Intercultural Communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 69–94.doi: 10.1177/1050651902016001003

Earley PC. And Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Gurbin, T. (2015). Enlivening The Machinist Perspective: Humanising The Information Processing Theory With Social And Cultural Influences.  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 197, 25 July 2015, pp. 2331-2338.

Hanek, K.; Lee, F. and Yoko Brannen, M. (2014). Individual Differences among Global/Multicultural Individuals. Cultural Experiences. Identity and Adaptation. International Studies of Management and Organization. Vol. 44. no 2, pp. 75-89.

Hayes, K.J. (1997) Folkore and Book Culture. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press

Herman, B.L. (1992). The Stolen House, Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia.

Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological studies in material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. (2003). The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture. In Methods of Collecting and Analyzing Empirical Materials 2003/2/13. pp. 110- 129.

Kelley, C. and Meyers J. (1992). Cross-cultural adaptability inventory (rev ed). Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.

Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural Communication and Intercultural Communication: Are They Different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194. doi:10.1163/18773109-00702002

Kiliańska-Przybyło, G. 2017. The Anatomy of Intercultural Encounters. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Knappett, C. (2011). Thinking through material culture: an interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pensylvania

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J.A., Ratzlaff, Ch., Tatani, H., Uchida, H., Kim, Ch., Araki, S. (2001). Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS) International Journal of Intercultural Relations 25 (2001) 483- 510.

Nixon, Y. and Bull, P. (2005). The effects of cultural awareness on nonverbal perceptual accuracy: British and Japanese training programmes. Journal of Intercultural Communication,  2005, issue 9, ISSN 1404-1634.

Parasecoli, F. (2011). Savoring semiotics: food in intercultural communication. Social Semiotics, vol. 21, no 5, 645- 663.

Prown, J.D. (1982). Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), pp. 1-19.

Lunn-Rockliffe, S., Derbyshire, S. and Hicks, D. (2019) Material culture, analysis of. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. Shakshaug and R. Williams (eds.). SAGE Research Methods Foundations. doi: 10.4135/9781526421036843497
(PDF) The analysis of material culture. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344354227_The_analysis_of_material_culture [accessed Feb 05 2021].

Roth, K. (2001). Material culture and intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 25, issue 5, October 2001, 563- 580.

Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in Place. Language in the material world. London: Routledge

Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Tang, Z. and Rothenberg,S. (2009). Does Perceptual Acuity Matter? - An Investigation of Enterpreneurial Orientation, Perceptual Acuity, and Firm Performance. Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 17, no. 1, 79- 102.

Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artefacts and Cultures-of-Use in Intercultural Communication. Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/May 2003, Volume 7, Number 2, pp. 38-67.

181192742046. Ian.(2007) Understanding Material Culture. London: SAGE Publications Ltd  

Wright, S. C. (2012). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity and the tolerance of injustice. In X. Chrysochoou (Ed.), Aspects of hegemony in liberal societies. Athens, Greece, Pedio Publishing.

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website.