Complete APP_final

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................i
i

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The United States is a country where many cultures mix and interact. Each
subculture has its own language, communication rules, behavior patterns, beliefs, and
value system. Each subculture is valuable and contributes to the overall “American
culture” and can also provide a valuable perspective to those who do not share in its
traditions. However, when people from different cultures mix and interact, intercultural
miscommunication can occur. Though it is true that each cross-cultural encounter can be
a rewarding learning experience, it does not mean that it is free of intercultural
miscommunication.
For many, intercultural communication is part of daily life. Singer (1987) states
that the more one knows about one’s own perceptions, identities, and communication
style, the better intercultural communicator she/he can become (as cited in Vuckovic,
2008). Each person has a different cultural background. Because of different cultural
backgrounds, language teachers should develop insights to understand the beliefs,
attitudes, values, and assumptions of cultures that are different from their own (Vuckovic,
2008).
Statement of Problem
When people try to communicate with those who come from different cultural
backgrounds, they often have problems managing the resultant conflicts (Lustig &
Koester, 2006). One conflict that often occurs in the language learning classroom is
when students come from a collectivist culture that follows the traditional ways of
teaching and are immersed in a classroom that reflects an individualistic culture that
favors rapid innovation and change (Lustig & Koester, 2006). Other factors that might
1

result in this kind of miscommunication include differing cultural conditionings, use of
figures of speech, and different discourse patterns. Cultural values and barriers (e.g.,
language barriers, language anxiety, and different cultural factors) play significant roles
in creating problems and conflicts in the multilingual environment and in multicultural
education (Renner, 1993).
The main purpose of the paper is to examine intercultural communication by
addressing factors affecting intercultural communication, and ways to avoid and repair it.
The paper also provides an overview of issues that impact intercultural communication in
the English as a Second Language and/or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) classroom.
Furthermore, the paper aims to provide a summary of what language teachers can do to
develop a successful curriculum that addresses cultural issues in the ESL/EFL classroom.
In addition, the paper discusses how intercultural miscommunication can impact
intercultural communication in the classroom and in the community, and shows how one
can avoid communication problems between native and non-native speakers.
The research in Chapter two, the literature review, provides information on the
following two questions: 1) Why does cross-cultural miscommunication occur? and 2)
Where does cross-cultural miscommunication occur? The answering of these questions
will be accomplished by discussing factors that impact intercultural miscommunication
including cultural differences. Additionally, conflict and miscommunication issues
between ESL parents and teachers will be addressed. The paper will also address cultural
barriers like language limitations and language anxiety that impact intercultural
communication in the EFL setting. It will also include issues on discourse mechanisms
2

and good curriculum development. Chapter two will identify how specific strategies can
help language learners become more successful in their intercultural communication.
Chapter three will then integrate some of the research discussed in chapter two
with applications of possible activities that language teachers can use to help language
learners develop English proficiency as well as repair possible miscommunication. It
also provides guidelines that language teachers should utilize when teaching in a
multicultural classroom and/or in a classroom where English is being taught as a Foreign
Language to create a successful learning environment for their students. Finally, chapter
four will bring together all three chapters. It will provide an overview of the findings in
chapter two as well as highlights of the strategies discussed in chapter three. These
strategies and guidelines should help language teachers get a better understanding of what
makes a successful EFL classroom so that intercultural miscommunications can be
avoided and misunderstandings do not occur once students leave the classroom. In
addition, these strategies and guidelines can provide teachers with a better understanding
of the many communication problems language learners encounter in a multicultural
environment.
3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
There are many factors that cause intercultural miscommunication. However, the
main two factors are differing cultural values and cultural barriers. Zhang (2005) defined
these constructs from an ideological perspective by saying that differing cultural values
and cultural barriers in intercultural communication can be analyzed from four factors:
the ways of thinking, the value systems, the beliefs and attitudes, and the language usages
and habits of the culture itself (Zhang, 2005). For example, one American cultural value
is “outspokenness.”
In a class setting, foreign students are often less outspoken than their American
counter-parts (Sapozhnikov, 2005). “Outspokenness” is defined as always having
something to say on an issue. Americans often exhibit this characteristic because it stems
from the fundamental right to which Americans proudly profess—the freedom of speech
(Sapozhnikov, 2005). This chapter will address what intercultural miscommunication is,
why it occurs, where it occurs, and what teachers can do in the classroom to help students
prevent and/or repair these communication issues.
Why Does Cross-Cultural Miscommunication Occur?
During many cross-cultural interactions, miscommunication occurs. This is
because miscommunication is very common when people from widely different cultures
interact (Cushner & Brislin, 1996). This type of miscommunication occurs because
people believe that there is only one “right” way to think, express themselves, and act.
That “right” way is learned through socialization (Cushner & Brislin, 1996).
4

Socialization is defined as the process by which individuals learn what is required of
them in order to be successful members of a given group (Cushner & Brislin, 1996).
However, socialization can lead to ethnocentrism. When ethnocentrism occurs,
people have a tendency to judge others from their own cultural perspective, believing
theirs to be the only “right” or “correct” way to perceive the world (Cushner and Brislin,
1996). According to Cushner and Brislin (1996), people are considered socialized
because the groups to which they belong influence their behaviors and thought patterns.
This includes gender concepts, nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion
(Cushner & Brislin, 1996). To expand on this, Brislin (1993) introduced a list of features
that can help people understand the influence of culture on behavior:
• Culture refers to something that is made by human beings rather than
something that occurs in nature.
• The most critical dimension of culture concerns itself with people’s
assumptions about life in relation to subjective culture.
• Culture is a collective creation.
• There exist clear childhood experiences that individuals can identify, which
helps to develop and teach particular values and practices.
• Aspects of a person’s culture, which guide behavior, are spoken of
infrequently.
• Culture allows people to fill in the blanks.
• Cultural values tend to remain in practice in spite of compromises.
• People experience strong emotional reactions when their cultural values are
violated or when their cultures’ expected behaviors are ignored.
• People’s acceptance of their cultures’ values can vary at certain times.
• When changes in cultural values are contemplated, a likely reaction is, “This
will be an uphill battle.”
5

• When we look at expected behaviors across cultures, some observations can
be summarized in clear contrasts.
(Cushner & Brislin, 1996, p.5-9)
Samovar et al (1981, as cited by Musthafa & Sundayana, 1993) stated that
“cultural variance in how people encode and decode messages is the foremost problem in
intercultural communication” (p.2). According to Barna (1991, as cited by Musthafa &
Sundayana, 1993), misunderstanding in intercultural communication occurs mainly
because either one or both people adopt misconceptions about the cultural patterns of
their interlocutors. The indication here is that the lack of awareness of the culturally-
bound nature of communication patterns can lead one to a wrong assumption: that people
perceive life and communicate their experience and ideas in the same way across cultures
(Musthafa & Sundayana, 1993). This misconception can in turn result in inaccurate
encoding and wrong interpretation of messages in intercultural communication (Musthafa
& Sundayana, 1993).
Conventions of communication
Both linguistic and extralinguistic communication differences can influence face-
to-face interactions (Kartalova, 1996). Communication differences can act as a guide to
help people “identify national stereotypes that may affect cultural concepts underlying
general communication conventions between different cultures” (Kartalova, 1996, p.2) as
well. Kartalova’s (1996) study observed conventions of communication between
Russians and Americans, and examined the aspects of culture in symbolic meanings of
several cultural themes (Kartalova, 1996). Some of the themes discussed were food,
personal boundaries, and small talk.
6

In addition to identifying communication problems within the sample themes,
Kartalova (1996) also found that awareness and successful interpretation of these
differences may reduce miscommunication between the participants in the study and
other language learners (Kartalova, 1996). All of these concepts play important roles in
intercultural communication and miscommunication in a variety of contexts. Cross-
cultural differences in symbolic meanings of the act of eating, for example, seem to be a
major source of misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts for the Americans
studying in Russia (Kartalova, 1996). For example, the offering of food to others in
one’s house is viewed by Russians as an act of displaying courtesy and hospitality to a
guest and refusal to eat may often be perceived as impolite by Russian hosts. So in the
case of students who believe someone asking if they wish to eat are asking a ‘yes or no’
question, there could be a clash of different symbolic meanings inherent in the act
(Kartalova, 1996).
External and internal personal boundaries also play a role in the cultural
differences of Americans and Russians. The relative importance of personal boundaries
as a means of preserving one’s independence underlies most of American communication
conventions. Privacy is considered a little wall around oneself (Kartalova, 1996). In the
Russian culture, however, there are no equivalents to “privacy” and “personal space.”
For Russians, “privacy” is often associated with “private life” and refers to male-female
romantic relationships. Also, “privacy” for Russians can imply the “inner world” of a
person, one’s “personality” or “soul” (Kartalova, 1996). To Americans, things
considered “personal” only relate to the individuals immediately involved. One example
on how this could cause miscommunication is seen in the concept of “money.” Because
7

“money” is considered “personal” to Americans, it is inappropriate for discussion. From
the American’s point of view, questions about money and salaries seem to endanger a
person’s need for “independence” and “security” (Kartalova, 1996). In contrast, this is
not so for Russians (Kartalova, 1996).
Kartalova (1996) also reports that successful communication is perceived
differently by Americans and Russians as well. Both American and Russian participants
claimed that the notion of “small talk” may not be typical of the Russian culture.
Russians were reported by some American observers to either discontinue a
“meaningless” conversation or “go more in-depth” (Kartalova, 1996). Direct and open
expression of thoughts and feelings, be they positive or negative, are viewed by Russians
as permissible and sometimes has the positive connotation of displaying concern and
involvement with an interlocutor (Kartalova, 1996). Complaining about one’s
misfortunes is viewed as appropriate by the Russian subjects because it reinforces the
values of “trust” and “sincerity” (Kartalova, 1996). These are a few of many examples of
how conventions of communication can impact intercultural miscommunication.
There are also numerous communication problems between Chinese and native
English speakers when using English as the communication tool (Chang, 2002). The
research done by Chang (2002) qualitatively describes Chinese ESL adults and their
interactions with native English speakers and explores the communication rules or value
system that involves verbal and nonverbal behavior patterns and how these make sense
(Chang, 2002). Chang (2002) discusses the way to give compliments (e.g., why an
American visitor who compliments his Chinese hostess on her beauty comes close to
being immoral or may even provoke a fight), ways to make a request (indirectness vs.
8

directness), ways to accept and reject an offer (for example, ‘no’ may not mean
‘rejection’; and ‘yes’ may not signify ‘acceptance’ according to Chinese communication
rules), and ways to present oneself and interact with people (i.e., with modesty and
humility) (Chang, 2002). Chang’s (2002) research also included the ‘Chinese smile’
(which may not mean happiness), nodding (which may not signify agreement), and the
Chinese attitudes toward language shown in Chinese philosophies of Confucianism and
Taoism, as well as the function and the interpretation of silence in the Chinese value
system (Chang, 2002). Chang’s (2002) study was designed to contribute an
understanding of cross-cultural communication problems between English native
speakers and Chinese who speak English as a second language (Chang, 2002). It
revealed that miscommunications may arise when different communication rules arise,
and when different models of perceiving, relating, and interpreting things often occur. As
a result, serious communication breakdown and/or conflict can occur (Chang, 2002).
Reasons for Intercultural Miscommunication
There are several reasons for intercultural miscommunication that can impact
communicative competence. These reasons include differing 1) cultural conditionings, 2)
use of figures of speech, 3) ideological perspectives, 4) cultural barriers, and 5) discourse
mechanisms. These five types of intercultural miscommunication are described in the
following sections and linked to the following two questions, “Why does intercultural
miscommunication occur?” and “Where does intercultural miscommunication occur?”
Differing cultural conditioning
Differing cultural conditioning plays a role in intercultural communication.
Gochenour (1993) explains about differing cultural conditioning in two mainstream
9

cultures, American and Nepali, by using the example of sense of self. According to
Gochenour (1993), Americans’ sense of self is rooted in shared “archetypes of bold
pilgrims and pioneers and a frontier struggle which favored rugged individualists”
(Gochenour, 1993, p.33). In other words, a nation’s history begins with individuals
trying to gain power over their own lives by getting out from under the tyranny of groups,
and the theme of respect for individuals (and mistrust of groups) comes from cultural
conditioning (Gochenour, 1993). For example, Americans from an early age are taught
about private property: what is considered your own and what is considered others’.
Because American culture is individualistic, decisions and even communication patterns
are driven by the individual and not the group. Having an insight to this communicative
approach can help with cross-cultural communication (Gochenour, 1993).
This American sense of the individual self, with its notions of private property
and space, differs greatly from Nepali’s notions on private property and space. For the
Nepali, children are taught to think of themselves as intimately bound to a series of
concentric groups—extended family, village, and caste at a very young age (Gochenour,
1993). For the Nepali, the smallest property-holding unit is not the individual, but the
extended family, the use of possessions is determined by consulting the male hierarchy
(Gochenour, 1993). People sleep together and children are rarely excluded from adult
conversations or gatherings. One’s possessions are methodically examined, unbidden,
with frequent requests that things be given away (Gochenour, 1993). Therefore, if his/her
own cultural conditioning continues to interpret behaviors in terms of one’s own
description, frustration and misunderstanding can result (Gochenour, 1993). Intercultural
miscommunication, then, can occur if one person is approaching communication based
10

on group consensus while the other may be approaching the same communication from
an individualistic perspective.
Figures of speech
Miscommunication can also occur as a result of using figures of speech and
symbolism in a classroom where people do not share a common linguistic background.
This issue is explained in Suleiman and Moore’s (1995) study. Suleiman and Moore
(1995) stated that the increasing linguistic and cultural diversity of U.S. public schools
requires teachers to be more sensitive to how symbols and figures of speech are used in
their classrooms in order to maintain effective cross-cultural communication (Suleiman &
Moore, 1995). For example, when a native English speaking teacher uses the phrase
“Let’s pick up where we left off,” he/she is indicating that the lesson be continued from
the point it was stopped. This phrasing would likely be confusing to a language learner
because they may be wondering “what should be picked up?”
An ideological perspective
There are also causes and factors of intercultural miscommunication from an
ideological perspective (Zhang, 2005). The goal of intercultural communication studies
is to help increase people’s cross-cultural awareness so that fewer problems arise in their
interaction with people of another culture (Zhang, 2005). From an ideological point of
view, intercultural miscommunication stems from four factors: 1) ways of thinking, 2)
value systems, 3) beliefs and attitudes, and 4) language usage and habits (Zhang, 2005).
In ways of thinking, the thinking pattern of people influences not only the individual
ways of communication, but also the response of other people (Zhang, 2005). Zhang
(2005) further states that intercultural miscommunication occurs because of the
11

differences in eastern and western rationalism. Zhang (2005) explains that Chinese
rationalism tends to be specific, and American rationalism tends to be abstract (Zhang,
2005). Chinese people like presenting more examples and talking about specific matters;
however, western rationalism, according to Zhang (2005), tends to be abstract. This
means that western people often talk more about concepts, methods and principles, and
base their thinking conventions on syllogism and deduction. In contrast, the Chinese
base their thinking on intuition, and that the sense of the whole occupies the most
important status in thinking. In other words, it is based on the Chinese pattern that
involves interchange and conflict between Ying and Yang (Zhang, 2005).
Zhang (2005) also states that the value system of a culture plays a great role in
intercultural communication. Cross-cultural misunderstandings could occur if people
involved are not conscious of the different cultural values ingrained in their minds
(Zhang, 2005). This idea can be applied to Cohen’s (1990; 1991) studies. Cohen (1990;
1991, as cited by Zhang, 2005) uses Hall’s (1959) distinction between low-context,
individualistic and high-context, collectivist cultures to analyze how intercultural
communication can be a significant barrier to effective negotiation and conflict resolution
(Zhang, 2005). Ross (2000, as cited by Zhang, 2005) explains that where high context
cultures emphasize maintaining face, group harmony, and expressive elements in
communication, low-context cultures are much more instrumental and legalistic in their
interaction; communication is far more direct in those cultures, and responsibility is a
greater concern than outward appearances (Zhang, 2005). This can be tied to direct and
indirect communication between cultures because these two types of communication
impact successful intercultural communication. In terms of direct communication,
12

Americans are a key example. Americans tend to be very direct when communicating
with each other because the concept of face is not as important as it is in Asian cultures,
and everyone is considered equal. In contrast, Asian cultures tend to be indirect because
the concept of face is very important to them and avoiding conflicts to create group
harmony is a key focus.
Zhang (2005) states that belief systems are significant to intercultural
miscommunication as well; this is because they are the core of one’s thoughts and actions
(Zhang, 2005). According to Zhang (2005), beliefs are an influential factor in
intercultural communication because they affect one’s conscious and unconscious mind,
as well as the manner in which we communicate (Zhang, 2005). Hall (1959, as cited by
Zhang, 2005) suggested that groups with very different cultural beliefs and practices get
into conflicts because of their inability to communicate effectively (Zhang, 2005). This
is further implied when Zhang (2005) stated that cultural differences in beliefs and
behaviors are viewed as barriers to effective intergroup communication and may be
sources of misperception and distrust (Zhang, 2005). As a result, tension occurs if the
intended message sent from one party is not the one the other party receives (Kochman,
1981, as cited by Zhang, 2005).
The final factor in Zhang’s (2005) article is language usage and habits. This
factor tells us that culture influences language by ways of symbols and rules (Zhang,
2005). According to Mandelbaum (1949, as cited by Zhang, 2005), two American
linguists, Sapir and Whorf, stated that “no two languages are ever sufficiently similar to
be considered as representing the same social reality” (as cited in Zhang, 2005, p.42).
From these ideas, a comparison can be made between Chinese and American people
13

(Zhang, 2005). One example would be that American people tend to place things on a
continuum—man to woman, good to bad, black to white (Zhang, 2005) whereas the
Chinese tend to reciprocate relationships between two extremes that are emphasized
(Zhang, 2005). The example shows us that in order to avoid intercultural
miscommunication, “we need effort, desire and patience to get [a] better mutual
understanding, and learn more about cultural differences so that we can increase cross-
cultural awareness” (Zhang, 2005, p.42).
One specific example is shown in Gebhard’s (2006) work. In his work, Gebhard
compared two mainstream cultures to explain how different cultural values and beliefs
play significant roles in intercultural communication as well (Gebhard, 2006). These two
mainstream cultures were the United States and Saudi Arabia. Gebhard (2006) explained
that time, for the average American, is very important at least in part because Americans
set deadlines based on time (Gebhard, 2006). Gebhard (2006) also states that American
English is filled with references to time. In Gebhard’s (2006) words, “time is something
to be on, spent, gained, kept, filled, killed, saved, used, wasted, lost, and planned”
(Gebhard, 2006, p.120).
In contrast, Gebhard (2006) explained that Arabs see time as “flowing from the
past to the present to the future, and they flow with it” (Gebhard, 2006, p.120).
According to Gebhard (2006), in the Arab culture, social events and appointments do not
always have fixed beginnings and endings (Gebhard, 2006). Also in the Arab culture, if a
time for an appointment is set, under many circumstances, it is acceptable to be late. This
is especially true if the person is engaged in conversation (Gebhard, 2006). This is
because in the Arab culture, it is considered rude to leave in the middle of a conversation
14

since maintaining friendships and engaging in human interaction are more highly valued
than being on time (Gebhard, 2006). This is because the Arab culture’s concept of time
and deadlines are different than the American culture’s concept of time and deadlines.
This can cause miscommunication because if one sets up some sort of deadline, it is
highly possible that the Arabs may tend not to get a task done in the timeframe that an
American would expect. That is because in the Arab culture, giving deadlines would
make them feel forced into doing something. And, as a result, may lead them to feeling
threatened and resistant.
Cultural barriers
Sometimes language learners start to develop foreign language anxiety and/or are
unwilling to communicate. Major obstacles like this prevent language learners from
learning the language and can create cultural barriers. One example of a cultural barrier,
as cited by Liu (2008), found in McCroskey’s (1977) study is ‘communication
limitations.’ Communication limitations occur when EFL learners have trouble
participating in class because they do not like to speak up, and because they feel anxious
about their skills. This can lead to communication withdrawal resulting in an
unwillingness to communicate. Ultimately, the outcome is often low proficiency and low
competency (Liu, 2008). This is evidenced by Liu’s (2008) study. The study reports the
results of the unwillingness to communicate and the anxiety of Chinese learners of
English in EFL classrooms (Liu, 2008). Furthermore, the findings showed that most of
the students were willing to participate in interpersonal conversations, but many of them
did not like to risk using English in class.
15

Several researchers have found that participants in their studies who had higher
levels of communication apprehension had a marked tendency to avoid public speaking,
whereas people with low levels of communication apprehension demonstrated the
opposite tendency (Burgoon, 1976; McCroskey, 1991; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987,
all as cited by Liu, 2008). McCroskey (1977, as cited by Liu, 2008) explained that
people who experience a high level of communication apprehension “withdraw from and
seek to avoid communication when possible” (Liu, 2008, p.71). McCroskey (1991) also
suggested that introverted and reserved people tend to be quieter and less willing to
communicate (as cited in Liu, 2008). Because of this lack of willingness, foreign
language anxiety occurs (Liu, 2008). This anxiety can cause miscommunication because
students have little control over the communicative situation (Liu, 2008) and if students
have little control over the communicative situation, communication barriers will result.
Discourse
Miscommunication can also occur due to differences in social and grammatical
construction by language learners. By examining the interlocutors’ social and
grammatical constructions, one can analyze how communication breakdown occurs
through discourse, and learn how to better facilitate information transfer (Loheyde &
Kunz, 1994). Not only are the contextual clues regularly misunderstood by the English
language learner but also the native speaker uses different contextual clues than he/she
would with a native speaker. For example, the native speaker might neglect to use proper
inflection when asking a question and present the question as a statement. This can cause
confusion because of subsequent pauses, pitch levels, and discernible stress in the
16

discourse. Furthermore, the discourse could change the non-native speaker’s
question/statement’s main focus (Loheyde & Kunz, 1994).
Overview of the Five C’s
The reasons for intercultural miscommunication described above are important to
understand because they relate to five important communication goals known as ”The
Five C’s” (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities)
provided by Savignon & Sysoyev’s (2002). The Communication goal “addresses
learners’ ability to use their L2 to communicate thoughts, feelings, and opinions in
various settings” (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002, p.509) emphasizes learner communication
(Savignon and Sysoyev, 2002). The “Cultures” goal addresses the learners’
understanding of how the practices of a culture shape its perspectives, and in turn, reflects
the language (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). For language learners, “Cultures” is of
primary importance because it addresses the interrelationship between language and
culture (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
“Connections” also play an important role for language learners in that it
addresses the use of language to learn new content and information beyond the classroom
(Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). By using the language in different settings, learners can
discover the distinctive viewpoints that are only available through the foreign language
and its culture (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). “Comparisons” are designed to promote
insight and understanding by comparing language and culture. By following the
standards of the “Comparisons” goal, language teachers can promote insight and
understanding through a comparison of the new language and culture with American
17

language and culture. By doing this, language teachers can promote a more sophisticated
understanding of culture (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
“Communications” draws on the knowledge and competence developed in the
other four C’s and describes a learner’s life-long use of the language in communities and
contexts, both within and beyond the school setting itself (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
The five goals together reflect a focus on what learners can do with language. They also
represent a holistic, communicative approach to language learning (Savignon & Sysoyev,
2002). This leads to the conclusion that “language and communication are at the heart of
human experience” and that we need to educate students who are “linguistically and
culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and
abroad” (ACTFL, 1999, p.7, as cited in Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
Where Does Cross-Cultural Miscommunication Occur?
Cross-cultural miscommunication can occur in or out of the classroom and in the
community. One issue that can occur in the classroom stems from the use of peer
response groups with ESL students (Nelson, 1997). If language teachers are not aware of
cultural differences, they may find that the groups would not function effectively, thus
leading to alienation and misunderstanding between students and the teacher (Nelson,
1997). And, as a result, may lead to generalizations about culture that would affect the
effectiveness of peer response groups (Nelson, 1997).
In most U.S. classrooms, writing groups function more often for the benefit of the
individual writer than for the benefit of the group (Nelson, 1997). In his study, Nelson
(1997) found that East Asian students exhibit a different behavior with group members
from cultures unlike their own. One example would be the behavior exhibited in the
18

writing groups (Nelson, 1997). He said that when the students interact with members of
their group, they will generally work toward maintaining group harmony and mutual
face-saving to maintain a state of cohesion (Nelson, 1997). One Chinese student
explained why she kept her comments to herself: “I don’t want to embarrass the writer or
arouse an argument” (Nelson, 1997, p.79). From this comment, Nelson (1997)
discovered that students were reluctant to criticize their peers’ drafts, recognizing that
making negative comments might lead to division, not cohesion, in the group (Nelson,
1997). Additionally, Nelson (1997) found that Chinese students were more concerned
with the group’s social dimensions than with providing their peers with suggestions to
improve their essays (Nelson, 1997). The other writers, therefore, did not have the
opportunity of benefiting from the Chinese students’ verbal responses to their drafts
(Nelson, 1997). From this, two general areas of concern about the social dimension of
the peer response group can be made: the concern for the feelings of their peers
(particularly the need not to hurt or embarrass the writer) and concern for a positive
group climate (Nelson, 1997).
Another factor that impacts intercultural communication is communication styles.
Nelson (1997) defined communication style as the way we talk. From the different types
of communication styles discussed in their research, Nelson (1997) suggests that the most
well-documented communication style is direct communication. Nelson (1997) also
stated that Americans have a more direct communication style than many other cultural
groups and value “telling it like it is,” “not beating around the bush,” and “getting straight
to the point.” He also stated that Americans tend to be suspicious of people who do not
say “what they’re thinking” or “what’s on their minds.” In contrast, Chinese, Japanese,
19

Koreans, and Egyptians among others have a more indirect communication style (Nelson,
1997).
In the community
In the community, people become accustomed to doing things (e.g., eating,
courting, working, teaching and learning, interacting with others) in certain ways, and
they see their behaviors as proper. When they interact with people from other cultures,
however, what they perceive to be proper behaviors are not always forthcoming (Cushner
& Brislin, 1996). In addition, behaviors that one group of people consider improper may
be practiced on a routine basis by those in another group (Cushner & Brislin, 1996).
Common responses to this confrontation of past learning and present experiences include
intense dislike for culturally different others which can lead to prejudice, negative labels
or stereotypes, refusal to interact with others, or discrimination, and, as a result,
misunderstandings might occur (Cushner & Brislin, 1996).
In the classroom
If language teachers address the possibility of including some aspects of L2
culture in a foreign language curriculum, they could link language and culture and their
relevance for L2 teaching and curriculum design (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). However,
inadequate attention to stereotypes and overgeneralizations in relation to culture in the
curriculum may often perpetuate one of two widespread myths that can also lead to
intercultural miscommunication (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). These myths are ‘people
are all the same’ and ‘everyone is different’ (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). Furthermore,
there is often a lack of learner opportunity for beyond-the-classroom interaction in school
foreign language programs. This lack of opportunity places learners at considerable
20

disadvantage when confronted with inevitable psychological, linguistic, and sociocultural
obstacles in second language communication (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
According to Savignon and Sysoyev (2002), “efficient and successful intercultural
communication comes about only when learners assume their roles both as open-minded
representatives of their first language (L1) community and as subjects engaged in a
dialogue of cultures” (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002, p.509). Dialogue of cultures is a term
introduced by two Russian philosophers, Bakhtin (1981, 1986) and Bibler (1991). The
term is introduced as two separate concepts, dialogue and culture. According to Bakhtin
(1981, 1986) and Bibler (1991), dialogue is “the very essence of humanity and mutual
understanding” (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986; Bibler, 1991, as cited by Savignon & Sysoyev,
2002, p.510). As for culture, it is said to be a “concentration of all other meanings
(social, spiritual, logical, emotional, moral, esthetic) of human existence” (Bakhtin, 1981,
1986; Bibler, 1991, as cited by Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002, p.510). So, a dialogue of
cultures used in L2 teaching revolves around three major relationships of intercultural
communication in the community:
1. A valuable and equal dialogue.
2. A utilitarian relation between cultures.
3. A complete rejection of one culture by another.
The first relationship is characterized by negotiation and exchange of meanings, equal
representation of cultures for the purpose of the learners. The second one occurs when
one of the cultures in contact imposes its values and the values of others onto another
culture. If that occurs, then these relationships would constitute a process of
acculturation leading to a sense of complete acceptance of another culture’s norms and
21

values (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). As a result, many cultures lose their uniqueness and
become parts of other dominant cultures (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002).
The third relationship occurs only in cases of purposeful isolation. In this case,
cultures co-emerge and co-exist with each other, which can lead to cultures that do not
seek interaction with others because the ‘other’ culture is believed to be “uncultured” or
of “low value” (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). All three relationships could create
misunderstandings between cultures because by the time learners begin the study of an
L2 context and its culture, they might have already formed certain concepts, stereotypes,
and expectations about L2 cultural realities (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). These would
then influence the way learners comprehend and interpret a L2 culture (Savignon &
Sysoyev, 2002).
Intercultural Miscommunication: Classroom Practices
Knowing that miscommunication exists and understanding that ESL classrooms
in the US reflect the broader cultures (which includes a great many subcultures), it is
imperative that we understand cultural miscommunication so we can improve our
pedagogy and teaching practices. One issue that can affect the classroom is parent-
teacher miscommunication. In Guo and Mohan’s (2008) study, conflict and
miscommunication between ESL parents and teachers are common. In a previous study,
Ran (2001, as cited by Guo & Mohan, 2008) found that Chinese parents and British
teachers failed to connect with each other because of the differences in each culture’s
educational philosophy (Guo & Mohan, 2008). Chinese parents wanted more homework
and emphasized accuracy and perfect scores, micro-aspects of learning, whereas British
22

teachers viewed error as a normal part of the learning process and focused on problem-
solving, macro-aspects of learning (Guo & Mohan, 2008).
The main issue here is that ESL teachers were focused on necessary language
development via the ESL program. In contrast, the ESL parents were focused on the very
different issue of progress in the ESL classroom with a view to graduation within the
normal time limit (Guo & Mohan, 2008). The problem here is that the education system
for high school ESL students with minimal English is that it places these two goals at
odds with each other, and in turn can place ESL teachers and parents at odds with each
other (Guo & Mohan, 2008). This leads to a concern on the educational progress of ESL
students because they may not be able to graduate within the time limit. This issue
resulted in conflict and misunderstanding between the teachers and parents in this study
(Guo & Mohan, 2008).
ESL/EFL Curriculum Practices
To avoid intercultural miscommunication in the ESL/EFL classroom and in other
situations, an intentional curriculum that includes cultural information is necessary.
According to Cummins (1981, as cited by Renner, 1993), language learners’ ability to
acquire language and understand the cultural dimensions (i.e., understand incomplete
responses, non-verbal cues, etc.) is referred to as Basic Interpersonal Communication
Skills (BICS). Research suggests that non-English speakers can often communicate
competently in casual conversations within two years of instruction in an acquisition-rich
ESL course (Cummins, 1981, as cited by Renner, 2003). However, this is not so for EFL
learners. Renner suggests that this is because of the following factors:
23

• Strong emphasis is placed on mainstream culture in textbooks, course
content and objectives
• Strong emphasis is placed on British mainstream literature as cultural
basis for language learning.
• Teacher training focuses on language production rather than as world
communication.
• Overemphasis is placed on the translation of written texts into the L1 thus
hindering the creation of English thought patterns.
(Renner, 1993)
Integrating multicultural content into the course syllabus can also help in
developing a successful ESL/EFL curriculum. Banks (1993, as cited by Renner, 1993),
provides four basic approaches for integrating multicultural content into the course
syllabus. These approaches are summarized below:
1. Contributions Approach. This approach focuses on heroes, holidays, and
other cultural elements like food, gift giving, and fashion.
2. Additive Approach. This approach adds cultural concepts (death, birth,
social participation), themes (ecology, justice, economic development), and
perspectives to the content of the curriculum without changing the overall
structure of the program.
3. Transformation Approach. This approach brings about structural and
didactic changes that enable learners to view concepts, issues, events and
themes from the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups.
4. Social Action Approach. This approach provides further changes in
educational methodology with learners taking part in decision making on
social issues and taking actions to help solve the problems.
(Renner, 1993)
These approaches are worthy of consideration by language teachers in determining
curriculum development. Because of that, language teachers need to make critical
24

decisions on whether or not they should incorporate the approaches when teaching
ESL/EFL learners.
With the first approach, Martin Luther King might be studied during African
American History Month in February, and ethnic foods are studied with little attention
given to the cultures they come from (Renner, 1993). The second approach adds authors
of color to a literature syllabus without giving students backgrounds about the authors or
their culture’s impact on mainstream culture, and includes Native American Indian
thinkers and their opinions to a US history course (Renner, 1993). The third and fourth
approaches are considered better approaches because they let students view concepts,
historical events, issues, and themes from Western and non-Western perspectives.
However, despite these benefits, language teachers would need to consider the right
materials to use with these approaches (Renner, 1993).
The third approach infuses various perspectives, points of reference and content
sources from various ethnic groups with the content of mainstream culture (Renner,
1993). In addition, English verbal structures are taught without reference to “British” or
“American” (Renner, 1993). Textbooks used for this approach should include 20th
century literary works, by authors like William Faulkner, Langston Hughes, Saul Bellow
or Piri Thomas because these texts provide students with various perspectives on the
classroom context (Renner, 1993). With the fourth approach, students identify important
social problems and issues, gather pertinent data, clarify their values on issues and take
reflective actions to help resolve the issue or problem (Renner, 1993). However, with
this approach, language teachers would not find a textbook ready for classroom use
because this approach bases its curriculum on the students’ acquisition of knowledge,
25

value, and skills they need to participate in society and social change (Renner, 1993).
Furthermore, if language teachers decide to use one of the approaches when teaching
language learners, they would have to create a curriculum in which information would be
appropriately modified where necessary in order to avoid racial stereotypes or any other
issues that pertain to the content taught (Renner, 1993). This is an important factor
because if the curriculum is not modified appropriately, misunderstandings can occur.
Language Learning Strategies
Enhancing learner participation in class can help learners improve their language
learning and help them avoid miscommunication. However, this can only be possible if
teachers discuss the significance of intercultural communication in class. One way to help
might be to share with learners the feeling of anxiety experienced by many students when
they learn a foreign language (Liu, 2008). If students are made aware of the significance
of successful intercultural communication, and if teachers share the feelings of anxiety
experienced by other students, students may take steps to become more active and
confident in their English class, and be more willing to use the language more (Liu,
2008).
Increasing a learner’s self-perceived competence in English can also benefit
language learners. This is because underestimating self-competence in English,
according to MacIntyre et al. (1997, as cited by Liu, 2008), may make learners believe
they cannot learn or communicate successfully in the target language (Liu, 2008). This
kind of perception may lead learners to lose self-confidence in learning the language as
well as not be able to overcome communicative barriers (Liu, 2008). In order to help
students overcome these problems, language teachers could have students self-rate their
26

own English proficiency (Liu, 2008). The information could provide useful data when
creating student profiles (Liu, 2008). To achieve this objective, language teachers would
prompt students to set realistic, short-term goals in learning English, and these goals
would then be revised as the students progress through the term (Anderson, 2003, as cited
by Liu, 2008).
According to Lee (2006), theoretical models of communicative competence may
help to formulate target objectives for language teaching and learning and thus help to
determine what L2 instructors need to do in order to achieve them (Lee, 2006). These
objectives include objectives in communicative competence for L2 instruction and
objectives in interaction and interactional competence. Lee (2006) suggests that L2
classroom interaction itself relies on competent language use for its accomplishments;
competence that features work-practices of language teaching and learning (Lee, 2006).
An example of this is illustrated in the following exchange between a non-native speaker
and a native speaker.
NNS: How do you do on- o weekends? Usually, I mean usually.
NS: What do I do on the weekends?
NNS: Yeah.
(Day et al., 1984 as cited by Lee, 2006)
From this example, the native speaker’s comment “What do I do on the weekends?” is a
part of what is called negative input, informing the non-native speaker of what was
problematic in his/her talk and supplying corrective feedback (Schachter, 1982 as cited
by Lee, 2006). From the exchange, repair initiations are seen. The repair initiation is
found in the second utterance “Usually, I mean usually,” and indicates that the non-native
speaker is competent enough to see how his/her earlier question may be problematic.
27

Therefore repairing it to tell the native speaker how to hear the question: she/he is
interested in knowing what the native speaker does on weekends in general, not on one
particular weekend (Lee, 2006). So, the issue of learning the correct ways of speaking is
preceded by competent language use (Lee, 2006).
Conclusion
Teachers must recognize that intercultural miscommunications can occur.
Students and teachers will benefit by knowing why they occur, where they occur, and
practices to assist students in avoiding miscommunication so that learning is enhanced
not hindered. Furthermore, recognizing various intercultural miscommunications within
the community can help language teachers identify types of intercultural
miscommunications within the target community and help them avoid it when teaching
language learners. By identifying and utilizing different types of intercultural
miscommunication examples within the classroom, a successful multicultural
environment can be created.
28

Chapter 3: Research
Introduction
Language is an important part of culture. It is learned, shared, evolves and
changes over time just like culture (Renner, 1993). Language can be analyzed from
many different points of view and at many different levels -- from the creation of sound
to word formation, to sentence construction and physical gesture (Renner, 1993). When
using a communicative approach to language learning, emphasis is placed not only on
rules, syntax and lexis, it is also placed on the learning of discourse in which notions and
functions work together to create understanding between speakers (Renner, 1993).
Furthermore, language is a powerful force in that it gives individuals, groups, regions,
and cultures their own identity (Renner, 1993). It is shared through the people’s values,
attitudes, skills, dreams, and objectives as bearers of culture, and as indicators of future
culture development (Renner, 1993).
Language is also a complex system which influences and shapes culture, and
which is influenced and shaped by culture in return (Yemenici, 1996). Across cultures,
there are variations in communication patterns as well. Yemenici (1996) gives an
example of this variation by saying that when two people from different cultures
exchange information, they make predictions about the message being conveyed
depending on their background knowledge about the topic and on their own cultural
presuppositions (Yemenici, 1996). To prove this point, Yemenici (1996) tells us that the
speakers’ use of their native language is all based on different cultural presuppositions
that determines what kinds of language behavior is considered sociolinguistically
appropriate for different situations (Yemenici, 1996).
29

Language does not only mean vocabulary, syntax, and phonology; it also includes
different discourse mechanisms for interpersonal and cross-cultural communication
(Yemenici, 1996). These mechanisms reveal social rules and cultural habits as well, and
influence the rules of communication discourse in society. Therefore, these rules help
determine whether and to what extent there may be a cultural barrier between the speaker
and the foreign language she/he speaks (Yemenici, 1996). As a result, learners may face
many problems in their language learning because each speaker of English as a second or
foreign language are under the great influence of the phonological, syntactic, and
communication rules of their own mother tongues and cultures (Yemenici, 1996).
Therefore, a speaker’s use of his/her native language is based on cultural presuppositions
that determine the kinds of language behavior that are sociolinguistically appropriate for
particular situations (Yemenici, 1996). So, the study of discourse structures leads to the
awareness of principal cultural presuppositions conveyed in the discourse, which, in turn,
can minimize the cultural barriers that cause uneasiness and lack of control on the part of
the interlocutors (Yemenici, 1996).
Applications
Each of the studies examined in Chapter 2 focused on one thing: communication
and miscommunication in a variety of settings. The information found in each research
study also examined the efforts made to develop cross-cultural communicative
competence in ESL and/or EFL students. One of these studies (Sehlaoui, 2001) can be
examined in light of my own EFL teaching experience. Sehlaoui identified four main
themes that were most pertinent to intercultural communication in the EFL classroom.
These four themes are summarized as follows:
30

1) Conceptualizations of culture in the coursework
2) Students’ analyses of cultural relations, course content and classroom
dynamics that reflected accommodation, challenge, or contradictions
3) Individual level focus vs. system level focus of critical thought in ESL/EFL
culture learning and teaching
4) Students’ views of classroom pedagogy that leans toward social reproduction
or social reconstruction (Sehlaoui, 2001)
With the first and second themes, Chinese EFL students had different perceptions
of American culture as seen in the coursework and in their analyses of cultural relations.
During group discussions, students discussed among themselves what comparisons could
be made to the target culture and their culture on several cultural matters. It was not
surprising when students said that the Americans’ views on money tended to be very
different from their own views on money. In China, people are often more concerned
with spending cheaply and saving money rather than spending as Americans do on cars
and such. However, a similar view on money would be the saving of money for future
investments. Students were also surprised about how Americans consider money matters
as something personal and private. To the Chinese, money matters are not considered
personal and private. To them, money matters are an open and public topic.
During another group activity, students discussed social gatherings among the
target culture and their culture. In their discussions, social gatherings were very common
in China. Family and friends stop by without invitation. When people are playing games
outside, other people were welcome to play without requesting permission. When the
students heard about the social gatherings of Americans, they were surprised. To them,
calling before visiting was not done because to the Chinese, their home (as well as any
activities they participate in) has an open invitation to everyone and anyone. Since social
31

gatherings are more arranged in the US culture than in the Chinese culture, problems
could occur when someone comes by someone else’s home without calling. As a result,
an awkward situation might occur if the visit was unexpected. In order to avoid this,
teachers could have students do an activity that lets them experience the procedure of
calling beforehand when deciding to visit someone. An example could be to have
students sit back to back, and have one be the caller and the other the person he/she
would be visiting. This activity might assist students in understanding this cultural
behavior for social gatherings in the United States. This type of classroom activity
enables students to understand cultural and communication differences they would
encounter in the target community.
Chinese students also view class content and classroom dynamics differently as
well. Though they were fine with the content being taught, they were not as comfortable
with the American perspective on classroom dynamics. To them, interaction was not
expected in the classroom. Students were more used to a teacher-oriented class than an
interactive class. In a traditional teacher-oriented class, teachers are expected to lead the
class. In this kind of traditional classroom, teaching tends to involve repetition and
grammar-translation methods rather than the communicative and direct methods used in
American educational programs.
Very few Chinese teachers use American teaching methods like communicative
and direct methods of teaching. So in order to create a more interactive classroom, and
introduce students to different kinds of classroom dynamics, the EFL teacher would have
to model activities according to the context of the course and the curriculum of the
course. An EFL teacher would need to combine American classroom dynamics with
32

traditional classroom dynamics so that students would become more familiar with these
interactive techniques in order to create a more successful learning environment. In order
to ease students into more interactive methods, teachers could implement group activities
with some traditional ways of teaching such as minimal repetition and drills.
The third theme of Sehlaoui’s (2001) study (i.e., individual level focus vs. system
level focus of critical thought in ESL/EFL culture learning and teaching) was another
area that connected well to my teaching experience. In China, the students that I worked
with were able to critically analyze and process American cultural changes in the context
without much trouble because they were intermediate to advanced students.
Additionally, they were able to think critically about cultural changes in both their own
culture and the target culture they were learning about (i.e., mainstream United States).
In several activities, they were able to discuss a particular cultural change in their
surroundings as well as discuss several issues pertaining to American politics and culture.
Concrete examples on issues regarding American politics included gun control and the
death penalty. Examples regarding American culture included the positive and negative
aspects of television, computers, and the internet. One precise example of how cultural
understandings might be different can be seen during a sample conversation between a
native speaker and language learner. During the conversation, small talk may include
topics such as “how school is going” but the language learner might go completely off
subject according to the native speaker’s expectations and begin discussing foreign
relations between America and Iran. This abrupt change of topic could surprise the
native speaker but be completely normal for the language learner. A simple way to teach
33

this different expectation in order to avoid misunderstandings might be to focus on the
differences in culture in a particular unit on cultural differences.
The final theme in Sehlaoui’s (2001) study relates to classroom pedagogy. In this
theme, Sehlaoui (2001) found that students’ views of classroom pedagogy emerged from
their behaviors and interactions in classroom activities (Sehlaoui, 2001). For the EFL
students in my class, classroom pedagogy was a concern to them during the first few
weeks of class because they were not using the provided textbook. After the first few
weeks of class, however, several of the students wanted to learn things that were
beneficial to them, different from the textbook they had. The textbook included reading
passages with questions related to the reading which did not really help the students gain
communicative skills and fluency. The content of the readings were also uninteresting
and not motivating for the students, which lowered their interests in the course.
In order to create an interactive classroom, one could develop a unit focused on
the target culture. In other words, focus should be on the target language but equally
important is the target culture. The students’ learning should incorporate all four
language learning skills: speaking, writing, reading, and listening. However, in addition
to these skills the content would focus on the target culture. To introduce the unit, the
teacher could show a video presentation on America’s culture (e.g., American Experience
series, Standard Deviants School series, History Channel series, etc.). After the
presentation, the teacher could have students write brief reflections on the presentation in
order to utilize writing skills. The reflections would include what they learned and what
they found interesting. Speaking and listening skills could be incorporated through group
discussions in which students present their reflections to other group members and to the
34

teacher. When presenting reflections to each other, students could discuss among
themselves any differences and/or similarities they find.
After group discussion, teachers could have students present what they discussed
within their groups to the class; this activity could help students develop English
proficiency because teacher feedback would be given after the presentation. The next
step in the unit could be to have each group create a picture collage on what they learned.
Pictures for the collage could be found on the internet, magazines, and/or newspapers.
Students could spend 30 minutes a day for two days on this project. In order for this part
of the unit to be successful, teachers need to give students ample time to do their
research, provide clear and accurate instructions, and provide help when necessary.
Clear and accurate instructions include telling students where they could find the
resources on campus, off campus, and on the internet. The instructions should also be
given clearly without ambiguity that may cause confusion to students, and task
procedures should be explained in simple terms so students would know what to do. That
way, students would not feel rushed, would be able to follow instructions, and would be
able to know what the teacher expects of them. After each group completed their picture
collage, they would present their collages to the rest of the class.
The final step for the unit would be an assessment. Teachers could create a
“Jeopardy” kind of game that utilizes all the information from the video, and utilizes the
students’ own research. A benefit of this game is that teachers could use it to assess a
student’s speaking and listening ability, which play important roles in communicative
competence. Also in the target community, clear and accurate elicitation of both
questions and answers determines the communicative skills of learners. Another
35

assessment would be an oral report. The oral report would apply and link information
from the video with the picture collage project students completed. The oral report could
be in any kind of format, it is up to the students to decide on what they want their oral
report to look like. If students cannot decide on the best format, teachers can provide
them with optional report formats. Examples could include a slide show presentation, a
skit and/or role play, some sort of simulation, or a poster presentation. During the
presentations, students would be assessed based on pronunciation, fluency,
comprehension & comprehensibility, and task performance using a 1 to 4 grading scale,
with 1 being the lowest score and 4 being the highest.
Promoting learners’ willingness to use the target language and reducing anxiety in
class also play roles in developing communicative competence. In order to promote this
kind of willingness and reduce student anxiety, EFL teachers need to encourage learners
to practice English and gain more exposure to the language (Liu, 2008). This practice
and exposure is essential to Chinese EFL learners because these learners have little
contact with English in their daily lives. Because of this lack of contact, in class practice
is essential (Liu, 2008). Chinese EFL learners need to practice using and speaking
English both in and outside the classroom with different people, and in a range of
situations (Liu, 2008). This practice can help them become more confident and at ease
when using English with others in various contexts as well as promote communicative
competence (Liu, 2008).
This finding is supported by my own EFL experience in China. At the university
where I taught, we had an English Corner. The English Corner is an event that happens
every Tuesday and Wednesday night on campus. There, learners gather together to
36

practice English with each other and with foreign EFL teachers in the community.
English Corners seemed to have helped improve English proficiency dramatically,
especially compared to in-class English lessons. While this evidence is casual in nature
and not a result of a scientific investigation, it could be useful to take into consideration.
The research can also be linked to Liu’s (2008) study, in which she claimed that
unwillingness to communicate and anxiety may interfere with an individual’s learning of
spoken English, which in turn may lead to poor performance (MacIntyre et al., 1997;
Onwuegbuzie et al, 1999, both as cited in Liu, 2008). Strategies for increasing
willingness to communicate and reducing anxiety are essential in language learning and
communication as well (Liu, 2008). And as Liu (2008) explains, future research should
be directed to this area in order to help students become more active and confident in
English language lessons (Liu, 2008).
Liu (2008) also explained that future research should also examine potential
interactions between unwillingness to communicate and anxiety. Liu (2008) goes on to
suggest that student characteristics, such as learners’ beliefs about language learning,
learning styles, help-seeking behavior, personality traits, and knowledge, and use of
language learning strategies (Aida, 1994; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; Phillips, 1992;
Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004, all as cited in Liu, 2008), are also important
areas to consider. Liu (2008) gives an example of this by explaining that it would be
interesting to know which students are the most likely to be reticent and the most
susceptible to the obstructive influence of anxiety (Liu, 2008). She also explained that
research on these issues would promote the ESL/EFL teachers’ understanding of
language learning from the learners’ perspectives, and can deepen their insights (Liu,
37

2008). In order to put this into future classroom practices, an informal survey could be
distributed to the students. The survey could have questions regarding language learning
strategies, learning styles, or questions related to the effect of English Corners to
students.
Chang’s (2002) research examined unwillingness to communicate and anxiety
through the use of diaries. The kind of diary study discussed in the research could act as
a tool to document one’s own learning experiences and the learning experiences of others
(Chang, 2002). To apply Chang’s (2002) study, language teachers could assign journal
entries to students. The journal entries would benefit students because writing in journals
can help students get a better understanding of their own learning experiences as well as
allow them to think critically about their own language learning abilities.
By incorporating the use of diaries into the classroom, language teachers can
discover just how powerful a tool it can be. Not only would it be a good resource tool to
use for language learning, it would also help teachers identify a learner’s personal
problems with the learning. Identifying a learner’s personal problems can help provide
teachers with a more complete picture of the frustration and difficulties learners
encounter (Chang, 2002). Furthermore, the use of diary studies can help both the teacher
and learners identify issues cultural groups encounter while communicating with another
cultural group (Chang, 2002). In addition, journal entries could give the language teacher
a way to identify a learner’s real-life instances of cross-cultural miscommunication or
communication conflict they experienced (Chang, 2002). Identifying a learner’s real-life
instances of cross-cultural miscommunication or communication conflict can be done by
38

providing a couple of question prompts to the learner. These questions would then be
answered through journal writing. Questions could be based on Chang’s (2002) study:
1. What kind of verbal miscommunication have you experienced when encountering
a native speaker? What kind of reaction did you have?
2. What kind of non-verbal miscommunication have you experienced when
encountering a native speaker? What kind of reaction did you have?
From the first question, teachers would understand that verbal miscommunication may
arise through several different reasons. These reasons include phonemic and
phonological differences between English and Chinese, problems caused by syntactic,
lexical and morphological differences between the two languages, different conceptions
about what a compliment is, different communication rules to make a request (directness
vs. indirectness), different ways to accept an offer, and different ways to interact with
people (modesty and humility) and others. From the second question, teachers might find
that non-verbal miscommunication may arise because of a different social order or
hierarchy, the meaning behind Chinese smile and nodding, and different cultural attitudes
toward language and silence.
According to Cushner and Brislin (1996), people who live in another culture
different from their own will encounter differences in behavior that are at odds with their
expectations (Cushner & Brislin, 1996). Consequently, they would have to adjust their
own behaviors accordingly to the target culture so as to avoid any cultural
misunderstandings that may occur (Cushner & Brislin, 1996). In order to adjust to the
target culture, Pipher (2003) advises about the importance of learning about America.
Pipher (2003) also encourages parents to reflect on the difficulty their kids have with
America’s culture by saying that the target culture they are in is a new place with very
39

different expectations for children. In the U.S., teenagers are not the same as the
teenagers from their family’s homeland (Pipher, 2003). Parents are also encouraged to
listen to their children’s point of view and to develop some empathy for the cultural
switching kids must do (Pipher, 2003).
Adjusting to a new culture is also not easy in that there is a lot of trial-and-error
learning. One challenge is the cultural transition. Families must transition from a culture
they are used to, to another that they are not (Pipher, 2003). To help them adjust more
easily, Pipher (2003) focuses on a couple of questions: “What do you want to keep from
the old culture?” and “What do you want to accept from America?” and places emphasis
on the importance of connections to the ethnic community as well as to American cultural
changes (Pipher, 2003).
In order to apply this concept to an ESL/EFL curriculum, one could provide
different scenarios in which cultural situations are shown. However, each scenario given
must meet learner levels. If the scenario is hard to comprehend by low-level learners,
then they would not be able to apply it. For low-level learners, a scenario of three to five
sentences would work (one brief paragraph), as long as it is put into simple terms. If one
is teaching high-level learners, three to four brief paragraphs would suffice using low-
intermediate to advanced terminology. Examples of scenarios may include business
situations, situations happening around one’s neighborhood, or cultural situations
nonnative speakers encounter in their daily lives. After learners have finished reading
each scenario, they would then be asked to apply a particular scenario to several different
questions. These questions could be based on Gochenour’s (1993) sample questions:
1. Is anything “right” or “wrong” in this situation? Do you need more
information?
40

2. What would you do in this situation?
3. What influenced your decision?
4. What questions would you ask yourself in making ethical decisions regardless
of the situation?
For new immigrants and second language learners coming into class, the first
thing a teacher would notice is that they would often keep silent and not participate in
class. This is because of language and cultural barriers. However, according to
Gochenour (1993), teachers can help the learners overcome these barriers by focusing on
several questions, which act as starting points to language teaching. This would then be
followed by the teachers’ decision on what activities, lessons, and/or exercises they plan
to use with their students. These questions include the following:
1. Who am I? (Self-awareness)
2. Where do I come from? (Awareness of culture, beliefs, values, etc.)
3. Where am I going? (Area information, the target culture, its expectations)
4. What for? (Purposes: learning, growth, language, interest in target country,
self-motivation, others)
5. What am I willing to attempt? (Self-image, willingness, openness to
participation, responsibility, effort, standards of performance, motivation, etc.)
(Gochenour, 1993)
Not only can a good curriculum provide learners with guidelines on how
miscommunication can be avoided in the target culture they are learning about, it can also
provide learners with a head’s up on what is expected in a culture different from their
own. In order to do that, language teachers could incorporate cultural components of
language learning into their curriculum. These can be components in areas of discourse,
appropriateness of usage, paralinguistic (body language, suprasegmental language
features), and pragmatics (Renner, 1993).
41

Another important factor in creating a successful ESL/EFL curriculum is
choosing a good textbook. However, the only problem with this is that textbook
information is not enough to offer a balanced study of cultural diversity in language
learners (Renner, 1993). In addition, it is rare to see language teachers sit down and
evaluate what they are putting into the hands of students, which can impact their world
vision (Renner, 1993). Another issue with textbook selection is the question of who
controls English (Renner, 1993). For example, why are common American verbal
patterns are not included in British-produced EFL materials? Or why are common
British differences not included in US-produced materials? And why are textbooks
produced with cassettes which are either/or and never both? (Renner, 1993)
All these questions need to be taken into consideration because the needs of non-
native speakers in EFL courses are those of international communication (Renner, 1993).
Should they not be given the cultural ability to communicate using more than just one
point of view? (Renner, 1993) Teachers must also ask what their cultural intentions are.
Do we expect that non-native speakers adopt cultural attitudes even in interactions with
other non-native speakers? (Renner, 1993) In addition, native speakers must compromise
and agree to open their cultural limits and expand on their understanding of each other by
broadening cultural boundaries that includes the wider community of English-speaking
people (Renner, 1993).
Once phonetics, syntax and lexis are learned, learners can gain communicative
competence (Renner, 1993). This is what language teaching materials were designed for:
to help learners develop communicative competence (Renner, 1993). Furthermore, the
vast majority of teachers that succeed in their endeavors are supplying the learner with
42

necessary information; however, language has five culture-related domains as cited by
Ovando and Collier (1985), which are culture bound and thus not always covered
successfully. This implies that the language teacher must fill the gap (Ovando & Collier,
1985, as cited by Renner, 1993). To fill the gap, language teachers need to understand
and incorporate four different areas into the curriculum so that it could be applied to the
cultural components of the language learning process. These four areas are summarized
below:
1. Discourse. How language is organized in active production (e.g., speech and
writing) beyond the level of a simple S-V-O sentence (e.g., organization of
ideas, logic, reasoning).
2. Appropriateness. The language used in accordance to the social situation
(e.g., “Y’all come back.” vs. “I have greatly enjoyed our time together,” and
“I hope we can see each other again soon.”).
3. Paralinguistic. The use of gestures, facial expressions, closeness of speakers,
volume and pitch of speech, intonation.
4. Pragmatics. Combines 1, 2 & 3. It has to do with implicit cultural norms for
determining when something is appropriate and when it is not. Examples
could include when to be direct or indirect in speech, how to take turns in
conversation, how to listen, how to adapt language to social needs.
(Renner, 1993)
From these four areas, one can note that no matter how precisely one plans lessons and
course content, language acquisition is still a complicated, subtle, and culture-specific
process. This is because it often takes years of exposure before the language learner can
achieve full communicative competence (Renner, 1993). Therefore, a learner’s
achievement of full communicative competence occurs when language teachers use
multicultural education to promote equality across different variables like race, sex,
43

ethnicity, nationality, social class, religion, and age (Renner, 1993). When applying this
to a language teacher’s curriculum, learners will be able to process the language and
understand the function of language in an intercultural environment (Renner, 1993).
Conclusion
The applications made, guidelines in ESL/EFL curriculum development, and
cultural adjustments new immigrants and language learners face should inform our
teaching practices. Culture should be as important as writing, reading, speaking, and
listening. Further research must be conducted regarding the integration of cultural
understanding and cross cultural skill sets as language is learned and taught. Teachers
can get a better understanding of cross-cultural preparations for immigrants and second
language learners who come to class in order to learn the target language (Gochenour,
1993).
By applying each application to the classroom, students would be able to become
more familiar with the cultural differences they encounter in the target culture.
Furthermore, an understanding could be developed through the teacher’s
acknowledgement of student-centered concerns about communication problems students
have encountered while living and studying in the target culture. Such problems include
different communication rules, different models of perceiving, relating, and interpreting
things that caused the miscommunication to occur. By teaching these problems, students
would be able to find feasible ways to solve them. Furthermore, successful cross-cultural
communication takes patience and effort to teach, and requires understanding and respect
from both the teacher and the student.
44

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
According to Hamburger (1990, as cited by O’Dowd, 2003), intercultural learning
over-emphasizes differences between cultures that can lead to a reinforcement of
stereotypes and ethnocentrisms among learners (O’Dowd, 2003). Because of that,
intercultural miscommunication can occur. However, a general agreement can be made:
intercultural learning is the key underlying goals and their consequences for language
instruction and competence (O’Dowd, 2003) as well as successful intercultural
communication. These are introduced, discussed, and applied in the previous chapters.
Because the United States is considered a “salad bowl,” it is not surprising that
when cultures mix and interact intercultural miscommunication can occur. This is a big
problem because successful intercultural communication is part of our daily life. It is
expected that one would know about one’s own perceptions, identities, and
communication style in order to become a better communicator. This is not only the case
for non-native speakers; it is also the case for native speakers. That is because every one
of us comes from a different cultural background. Be it African, Native American,
Asian, British, Hispanic, German, or even American. And, as a result, we must
understand our own cultural behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, values, and assumptions for
successful intercultural communication.
However, it is not easy to become a successful communicator because non-native
speakers must overcome obstacles that prevent them from communicating competently
with native speakers. These obstacles are differing cultural values and cultural barriers
that can be broken down into four factors that cause intercultural miscommunication.
These factors are the learners’ ways of thinking, different value systems, beliefs and
45

attitudes as well as different language usages and habits. One example of cultural values
is the concept of outspokenness in which Americans are well-known for. But this does
not answer why it occurs or where, and does not answer what teachers can do to help
students prevent and/or repair these communication issues.
To answer those questions, Chapter 02 goes over the questions on why
intercultural miscommunication occurs and where by linking them to several research
examples. In terms of conventions of communication, intercultural miscommunication
can occur because of linguistic and extralinguistic communication differences which
influence face-to-face interactions (Kartalova, 1996). In addition, communication
differences can act as a guide to help people “identify national stereotypes that may affect
cultural concepts underlying general communication conventions between different
cultures” (Kartalova, 1996, p.2). To answer the question of where intercultural
miscommunication could occur, several example situations were given in the content and
discussed.
There were also other reasons on why intercultural miscommunication occurs.
These reasons included differing cultural conditioning, use of figures of speech,
ideological perspectives, cultural barriers, and discourse mechanisms. The reasons were
then applied to five important goals of communicative competence (Communication,
Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities). These goals were then
discussed and linked to the question of where intercultural miscommunication could
occur, followed by what language teachers could do to repair communication problems.
To help students to prevent and/or repair intercultural miscommunication, Chapter
03 provides language teachers with guidelines and several classroom applications they
46

could use when teaching about culture and intercultural miscommunication. The
guidelines give a brief overview of how teachers can analyze the language taught from
several perspectives, and provide them sample applications one can utilize and facilitate
in class when teaching language. By combining the guidelines and applications given,
students would have a chance to develop high proficiency and competence so that they
would overcome obstacles that would impact student language development and
communicative competence. Furthermore, when creating a successful curriculum, one
needs to take into account questions that relate to the learner. The questions that ask
“who am I, where do I come from, what for, and what am I willing to attempt”.
Succinctly put, not only can a good curriculum provide learners with guidelines on how
miscommunication can be avoided in the target culture they are learning about, it can also
provide learners with a head’s up on what is expected in a culture different from their
own.
For as long as there have been languages, there have been language learners
(Savignon, 1992). And for as long as there have been learners of language, there have
been teachers of language (Savignon, 1992). Whether they are children or adults,
whether the language they are learning is their first, second, or third, learners need
teachers (Savignon, 1992). According to Savignon (1992), the best teachers provide
models for learners. They engage and guide them in their efforts of self-expression.
Teachers also interpret and respond to learners. They know and understand learner
limitations. Above all, good teachers challenge learners (Savignon, 1992).
Language teachers must be aware of the culture as well as the reading, writing,
speaking and listening strategies needed in the language they are teaching. In addition to
47

cultural expectations, they also need to point out any racial stereotypes in the mainstream
culture so students are prepared. Most importantly, language teachers need to become
culturally aware of their students’ backgrounds in order to develop a successful
multicultural curriculum. Multicultural education seeks to promote the equality of
people. By recognizing, acknowledging, and promoting cultural understanding, language
teachers help students avoid intercultural miscommunications and in doing so fulfill the
educational and cultural goals of language learning for all students.
48

REFERENCES
Chang, Hsiu-Chen (2002). The interrelationship between language and culture. Journal
of Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 183-197.
Cushner, K. & Brislin, R.W. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Gebhard, J.G. (1996). Culture and the language teacher. In Gebhard, J.G. Teaching
English as a Foreign or Second Language: A Self-Development and Methodology
Guide (pp. 119-121). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Gochenour, T. (1993). The inner side of experiential learning. In Gochenour, T. (Ed.),
Beyond Experience: The Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Education (pp.
33-35). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Guo, Y. & Mohan, B. (2008). ESL parents and teachers: towards dialogue? Language
and Education, 22(1), 17-32.
Kartalova, Y.B. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in American and Russian general
conventions of communication. Pragmatics and Language Learning: Monograph
Series, 7, 71-96.
Lee, Y. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: condition of L2
instruction or its objective? Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 349-376.
Liu, M. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate
and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(i), 71-86.
Loheyde, K. & Kunz, N. (1994). “Yes I think it’s you”: a discussion of intercultural
communication. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10(1), 47-66.
Lustig, M.W. & Koester, J. (2006). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal
49

Communication Across Cultures (p. 283). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Musthafa, B. & Sundayana, W. (1993). Teaching EFL learners sociolinguistic concepts
for intercultural understanding. TEFLIN Journal, 1993, 54-67.
Nelson, G.L. (1997). How cultural differences affect written and oral communication: the
case of peer response groups. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997,
70, 77-84.
O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: intercultural learning in a Spanish
English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 3-4.
Pipher, M. (2002). The Middle of Everywhere: Helping Refugees Enter the American
Community (pp. 229-230). Orlando: Harcourt, Inc.
Rempel, L. (2004). Hey, Hmong Girl, Whassup? The Journal of Choua Vang. St. Paul:
Hamline University Press.
Renner, C.E. (1993). Multicultural language learning: applications in EFL curriculum
Development: Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages. Italy.
Sapozhnikov, M. (2005). All quiet on the discussion front. TechLearning, 2. Retrieved
October 21, 2008, from
http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=55300832.
Savignon, S. (1992). Language, communication, social meaning, and social change: the
challenge for teachers. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics, 1992, 104-116.
Savignon, S. & Sysoyev, P. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures.
The Modern Language Journal, 86(iv), 508-521.
50

Sehlaoui, A. (2001). Developing cross-cultural communicative competence in pre-service
ESL/EFL teachers: a critical perspective. Language, Culture, and Curriculum,
14(1), 42-55.
Storti, C. (1994). Cross Cultural Dialogues: 74 Brief Encounters with Cultural
Difference. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Vuckovic, A. (2008). Inter-cultural communication: a foundation of communicative
action. MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY
JOURNAL, 2(1), 47-59. Retrieved
November 3, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document
ID: 1514147961).
Yeager, D. & Sivell, J. (2001). ESL teachers’ perceptions of the cultural variables that
impact on teaching and learning in the ESL classroom: Annual Meeting of the
Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics. Quebec, Canada: Quebec City.
Yemenici, A. (1996). A discourse-centered approach: repetition in cross-cultural settings:
Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Chicago, IL.
Zhang, Q. (2005). Intercultural miscommunication: causes and factors from ideological
perspective. US-China Foreign Language, 3(7), 40-42.
51

Complete APP_final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Complete APP_final

Similar to Complete APP_final (20)

Complete APP_final