Cross-Cultural Miscommunication

1
Cross-Cultural Miscommunication
The book, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall
Down, the article Shakespeare in the Bush, and
the film A World of Differences (which you will
see next week) all stress the fact that
communicating across cultural boundaries can be
very difficult. On the one hand, language very
complex, and there are many opportunities for
communication errors and faux pas. On the other
hand, even a perfect grasp of language does not
ensure perfect communication since our very
ability to transmit meaning rests on a vast web
of cultural understandings that may not be shared.
2

• For some humorous examples of communication
  blunders, see . . .
• The website Some Humorous Cross-Cultural
  Advertising Gaffes! (this is hilarious)
  (http//ahsoon.net/2008/01/11/top-13-worst-slogan-
  translations-ever-2/)

3
Reflecting on the article Shakespeare in the
Bush, what were some of the stumbling blocks
that the anthropologist encountered as she tried
to tell the story of Hamlet? Was this a problem
of language (that the anthropologist did not know
the African language well enough?) or a problem
of culture (that a different set of cultural
presumptions kept her audience from comprehending
key points of the story?)?
4
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

• The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis revolves around the
  idea that language has power and can control how
  you see the world. Language is a guide to your
  reality, structuring your thoughts. It provides
  the framework through which you make sense of the
  world.

See the article The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Worlds Shaped by Words
5
To understand the S-W Hypothesis, it helps to be
aware that there are two opposing ideas about
language and culture. The S-W Hypothesis is in
line with the second idea listed here
1. Language mirrors reality People have thoughts
first, then put them into words. Words record
what is already there. All humans think the same
way, but we use different words to label what we
sense.
This is an example of the cloak theory that
language is a cloak that conforms to the
customary categories of thoughts of its speakers
This is NOT the S-W Hypothesis
6
To understand the S-W Hypothesis, it helps to be
aware that there are two opposing ideas about
language and culture. The S-W Hypothesis is in
line with the second idea listed here
2. Language dictates how we think. The vocabulary
and grammar (structure) of a language determines
the way we view the world (worlds shaped by
words).
This is an example of the mold theory that
language is a mold in terms of which thought
categories are cast.
This IS the S-W Hypothesis
7
The S-W Hypothesis consists of 2 paired
principles

1. Linguistic determinism the language we use to
   some extent determines the way in which we view
   and think about the world around us.
2. Linguistic relativity people who speak different
   languages perceive and think about the world
   quite differently from one another.

8

• Example 1 Gasoline barrels
• Example 2 Inuit words for snow Apache
  place-names (Basso reading)
• Example 3 Hopi conceptions of time
• Example 4 Color words
• Example 5 Piraha lack of recursion and lack of
  number words

9
Implications of the Strong Version of the S-W
Hypothesis note that these implications are
controversial, which is why many do not accept
the strong version of the S-W Hypothesis A
change in world view is impossible for speakers
of one language. For this reason, some speak of
the prison-house of language, or call language
a straightjacket True cross-cultural
communication and translation are
impossible --case of Pablo Neruda refuses to
allow his poetry to be translated from
Spanish --case of Ngugi Wa Thiongo refused, for
a long time, to write in any language but
Swahili Language is powerfulit can stimulate
strong, emotional responses and shape how people
think about morally and socially important
issues. --This is why we use euphemisms. --This
is why groups like the language police try to
intervene and control what words people use.