Understanding Intercultural Communication Part 1 - Saying 'no'

When discussing the implications of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in the world of English language teaching, we sometimes seem to be stuck in a place where debates tend to be about whether ELF is a variety in its own right or whether proponents of ELF are at all advocating the dumbing down of the teaching of lexis and grammar.

However, the fact is, English is increasingly being accepted as the main lingua franca of global business and trade, and perhaps the issues this is posing to intercultural communication are really discourse-related, and not strictly grammar- or lexis-related. But can we look at the discourse of intercultural communication without considering the different discourse styles of the different cultures? Would that then mean that English teachers now need to also be cultural trainers?

Some claim that as language trainers, we should just be teaching language. We could of course confine ourselves to looking at the linguistic differences between cultures and how people use of language to convey a more hidden illocutionary force. Let me further exemplify.

When I say to my partner, ‘Why are these shoes sitting in the hallway?’, the real meaning behind my utterance is ‘These shoes don’t belong in the hallway. You really should have put them away.’ This ‘real meaning’ is the illocutionary force of my utterance.

However, my partner completely misunderstands me and perceives this to be a real question. The perlocutionary force for him is ‘I really want to know why the shoes are in the hallway’. So he proceeds to explain that the shoes were wet when he came in from the snow, and how he didn’t have time to put them on the shoerack. From my point of view, the time he has taken to explain why the shoes are in the hallway could have been better spent just putting those shoes away.

Clearly, what is meant by the speaker is not always perceived correctly by the interlocutor. And some say that this could be put down to the simple cultural differences between the way men and women speak.

When everyone agrees and we’re all saying ‘yes’, things are usually much simpler. But having to say ‘no’ to someone is a face-threatening act (FTA) and often has to be handled with a bit more tact.

When a Japanese person looks at a proposal and says ‘Omoshiroidesune…’ (i.e. That’s interesting…), it is really a polite and face-saving way of rejecting the idea and saying ‘no’. In fact, learners of the Japanese language often find out soon enough that the word for ‘no’ is hardly used in Japanese. So someone asks me ‘Are you Japanese?’, I’d answer ‘Eh…chigaimasu…’ (i.e. Well…that’s different…).

The act of saying no to offers can conversely be used to show how much we hate to burden our conversation partner. Such preservation of what Applied Linguists call ‘negative face’ is seen quite often in the UK and Ireland. When asked if one wants a second helping at the dinner table, it is often polite in English/Ireland to refuse by saying things like, ‘Oh, I couldn’t possibly.’ The host would then insist once or twice in order to tell the difference between a true refusal or one that is only meant to be polite.

Host: ‘Would you like more potatoes?’

Guest: ‘No, I couldn’t possibly.’

Host: ‘Oh go on. Have some more. Go on…’

Guest: (looking apologetic) ‘Oh, okay, if it’s not too much trouble...’

Polite refusals in Germany, on the other hand, are often taken at face value. 

Host: ‘Would you like more?’Guest: ‘No, I couldn’t possibly.’Host: ‘Ok, then.’

My German friend who was having dinner with a family in Dublin found it incredibly irritating that he had to reiterate his refusal of those potatoes several times before being understood, while his Irish counterpart found it shocking that his initial polite refusal was immediately accepted in Bavaria, and he was left hungry and wanting more food, but not wanting to seem rude.

As we can see, confining our training to merely linguistic differences can sometimes overlook the different rhetorical conventions of the different cultures. In what is becoming a common maxim in the service culture, the use of the word ‘no’ or any form of negative in a sentence is to be avoided at all costs when speaking to customers. Here’s a recent experience my partner had that perfectly exemplifies how this can sometimes lead to frustration and misunderstandings.

Flight Attendant: What would you like to drink?Passenger: Fanta orange, please.Flight Attendant: We have Coke, Sprite, Orange juice and Apple juice.
(She avoids saying ‘no’ to the passenger’s question)
Passenger: It doesn’t have to be Fanta. Any kind of fizzy orange drink will do.
(The passenger has failed to understand her illocutionary force: ‘No, we don’t have any fizzy orange drinks’)
Flight Attendant: Well, I can put some orange juice into fizzy water for you if you like.Passenger: So, you don’t have any kind of fizzy orange juice?(exasperated and thinking, ‘Why is she not answering my question?)
Flight Attendant: Well, I can give you Sprite or Coke, if you like?(exasperated and thinking, ‘Is he being daft or just difficult?’)
Passenger: Oh, alright then, give me a Coke.(still perplexed but has given up on trying to get a straight answer out of the attendant)

The expectation of a more direct answer has left the passenger feeling condescended and frustrated by the end of the conversation, and the culture of never saying ‘no’ in the flight service industry clearly has not worked for this one exasperated flight attendant.

As seen in the above examples, the term ‘culture’ is in no way limited to discussions solely about national cultures. Each different social or gender group, community, company, and industry could have a culture of their own, and even so, this culture is dynamic, and always changing and developing. As it develops, it might even take on the qualities or values of the cultures of new participants or new influences.

In the above example, the assumption that indirectness is always more polite and therefore the preferred way in customer service industry could be due to the fact that quite a lot of recent customer service training has its roots in the USA, and therefore is very much based on an American/British discourse pattern.

As English becomes a lingua franca of global businesses, would the culture of the economically dominant native English speakers also become the norm in such global industries as flight service? Or should we take into account the fact that such customer service approaches might not work as well when communicating with those from cultures that expect more direct answers?

Do you consider these issues worth discussing in your language classroom?

http://www.eltknowledge.com/understanding_intercultural_communication_part_1__saying_39no39_31678.aspx

You Don't Need an Interpreter!

Those who interpret in community and court settings will probably be quite familiar with this interesting species: the person who does not really need an interpreter, but who requests one (and is certainly mostly entitled to one) anyway. We've never personally seen this happen in conference interpreting settings (or at least we don't find out, but we have heard of conference attendees who get a headset to listen to the interpreting just to see if it's good). Those who DNRNAIs (=do not really need an interpreter) can present a wide variety of potential challenges, and it also makes for an interesting interpreting assignment. Here's our take on how and why this happens and how to deal with it.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the interpreter is there to interpret and has not been retained to give an expert opinion of the person's ability (or lack thereof) to speak the language. Many times, attorneys, especially during highly contentions civil depositions, will try to pull the interpreter into the argument, asking him or her to "tell us if the deponent (the person who has requested an interpreter) speaks _________." When we are in that situation, we politely say that we are not qualified to give an on-the-spot language ability assessment  nor has it been agreed upon which criteria or scale should be used. Our advice: don't give an opinion. While you may have some insight into the person's language ability, you are probably not qualified to give an expert opinion, so you should not. Stick to your role.

Now that it's probably been established that the interpreter should stay (after much bickering between attorneys or other parties), the tough part starts. For example: it is probably quite true that the person in question (the DNRNAI person) understands the source language quite well. That means that the DNRNAI person doesn't really need an interpreter to understand the question, but does need one to answer, as he or she is simply not that strong in the second language -- understanding is always easier than speaking. There are a variety of reasons for requesting an interpreter when you don't truly need one (again, there's a lot of debate as to who needs an interpreter):

• For tactical advantages in court. We've seen this a lot during divorce and custody proceedings. Sometimes things are so contentious that the parties don't want to leave anything to chance, even though they can communicate in English with their attorneys just fine. However, once proceedings start, the parties (or party) do want an interpreter, many times in the hopes that court interpreters will simplify or explain the proceedings to them, which of course we cannot.
• As a security blanket. Some parties just want an interpreter present in case they don't understand something and request the interpreter to be on stand-by. Usually the other party loudly protests this and demands that the interpreter either interpret everything or nothing. Of course everyone knows things will take a lot longer with an interpreter, which is why occasionally attorneys will kindly suggest sending the interpreter home. Again, as the interpreter, we don't chime in. We sit there, looking pretty (if we can), smile, and let the parties sort it out. 
• Because they can. Depending on the state, the jurisdiction and the type of case, people have a well-established right to an interpreter (Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.), so many times people just want their interpreter, period. Sometimes, this can get a bit odd. Judy has interpreted for well-known business owners who've lived and worked in the United States for years, yet want an interpreter for their native language (Spanish), which is no longer their dominant language. The problem: when you interpret correctly into their native language, they oftentimes don't understand it, because English is really their dominant language. Still, they insist on answering in half-English, half-Spanish. We just keep calm and carry on.

Now, during the actual proceedings, DNRNAI persons will routinely NOT wait for the question to be interpreted, since they understand it just fine in English. They will start answering the question in their foreign language immediately, even while the interpreter is still rendering the (unnecessary on all fronts) interpretation. Usually, their counsel will instruct them to let the interpreter finish, but that rarely works (in our experience). One must be prepared for hours of constantly being interrupted. This also really confuses the court reporter, and it's one of the big problems of interpreting for someone who doesn't need an interpreter. In addition, their attorney will usually instruct them to answer exclusively in their native language and let the interpreter do the job. The problem with that is that they are no longer fully fluent in their native language and thus speak Spanglish, Denglish, etc., which is of course also challenging  on all fronts, especially since they use many terms incorrectly.

As you can see, interpreting for people who don't really need an interpreter (DNRNAI persons) is full of potential landmines, but somehow, we manage to enable communication without too many problems. What's your experience? We'd love to hear about it. 

http://translationtimes.blogspot.it/2013/02/you-dont-need-interpreter.html

Machine Translation: Oversold And Under-delivered, But Who Is To Blame?

We all know the promise of MT: cheap translations, lingua franca, and the ability to keep up with the content explosion. Some folks have been standing on the street corner preaching the end of the world (ok, maybe just translation as we know it) for some time. And just like they do to the guy on the street corner, people have been diverting their eyes and stepping around him and the topic for years. (Full disclosure: I am a fellow MT zealot).

The question, though, is why have we not realized the vision? Is it the fault of MT technology providers? Perhaps the universities, where much of this technology is birthed, just aren’t turning out good enough doctoral candidates? No, surely it’s the consumers’ fault; they’re just too demanding! The real answer, in my not so humble opinion, is: it’s my own fault. Mine and the rest of the translation buyers’.
I don’t intend to let the suppliers, academics, developers, and others completely off the hook, mind you; they all have some work to do. However, nobody controls the pace of the technology and its adoption like the buyers. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say “MT doesn’t work for us,” or “The quality isn’t good enough for our content.” All too frequently, the answer to my follow-up question (“Have you actually tried it?”) is, “Well, no.”

Often it comes down to risk aversion. People are afraid that, if a quality mistake or two creeps in, they will lose credibility. But I haven’t spoken to a single executive who wasn’t willing to accept a quality excursion or two for a dramatic reduction in cost. And what about the customers? I have personal experience and data that says customers prefer timely data they can use over “pretty” content. Of course, there are always exceptions; certain industries, like medical devices, have very strict quality standards, and certain languages and cultures have less tolerance for imperfect translation. But on the whole, I have found that MT with post-editing can be used successfully without upsetting the customer or your credibility. In fact, I think there is only upside to MT.
I challenge anyone who hasn’t tested machine translation in their ecosystem to take a risk. You might just find yourself on the right side of executive scrutiny.

It Takes More Than Translation to Go Global

What does being global really mean for a website? For some organizations, it begins and ends with offering a version of their site in multiple languages. And this is certainly an important step - research shows people are more likely to purchase from a site in their own language.
But there are few sites where the content can truly stay the same across all localities. E-commerce sites usually sell different products and services in different global, or sometimes even regional locations, and at least need to offer customized information about shipping options. Audiences for news sites will generally have different interests, depending on where they live. A reader in Berlin, for example, won't be as interested in a U.S. election as a reader in Chicago.
Localizing both the language and content of a website is a significant, complex undertaking. But by doing so, you are speaking directly to your users and creating a simpler, more useful experience for them.

What Are Your Options for Globalization?
To illustrate the different options for creating a global site, let's assume you have a site with audiences in the United States, Mexico, and Spain. You could have three possible permutations of your content:

Translation
Content	Language
International	English
International	Spanish
Regionalization
Content	Language
U.S.	English
Mexico	Spanish
Spain	Spanish
Regionalization and translation
Content	Language
U.S.	English
U.S.	Spanish
Mexico	English
Mexico	Spanish
Spain	English
Spain	Spanish

As you can see, the amount of effort involved in creating content for each site increases as you offer more options for consuming content. In the translation model, you only need one version of your content, translated into two languages. In the regionalization model, you need to create three versions of your content, with no translation. In the regionalization and translation model, you need to create three versions of your content, and translate all three into another language.

When Translation Alone Works
The United Nations (UN) uses the translation model, so while it offers content in six different languages, the content in each version is exactly the same. This approach makes sense for the UN because it's an organization focused on international cooperation, where each audience needs to be aware of everything that is going on in their organization, around the world.

UN site in English:

UN site in Spanish:

Region and Language Tied Together

The regionalization model seems to be the most common approach for global sites, where regionalized content is displayed in the official language(s) for that region.
For an example of this model, see the CNN website. CNN offers four different versions of its site: U.S., international, Mexico, and Arabic (in this instance the label "Arabic" seems to stand for both the Arab world and the Arabic language). In these different regions, the language changes, but the content also changes to fit the interests of readers in that region.

CNN U.S. site:

CNN Mexico site:

This model can be tricky if your target regions don't neatly subdivide into languages, in which case you'll generally need multiple versions of the regional content in the different relevant languages. The other drawback is that not all content is available to all users. For example, an English-speaking reader who wanted to read CNN's full coverage for Mexico would need to use an outside translation tool, such as Google Translate (which often yields awkward results) to translate the Mexican site.

Which Model Is Right for You?
To create your global site, you first need to examine your user base and determine where your customers live, what languages they speak, and what content they're interested in. You can get some of this information through your analytics program, but you'll also want to do some deep research into your customer base, either through surveys or interviews.
You then need to determine what resources you have available, both in terms of translators for your target languages and content creators who have a strong base in your target regions and can create regional content.
Offering regional targeted content in multiple languages takes more resources, but as people move around more and countries become more diverse, this model will become increasingly valuable to organizations - and their customers.

http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2243386/it-takes-more-than-translation-to-go-global?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Usefulness of CAT Tools

I find that a lot of people only use CAT tools for repetitive texts. And that is of course what they were originally developed for. Modern CAT tools, however, have so many other useful features that it’s worth considering using them for non-repetitive texts as well.
Here are some of the reasons why I use my CAT tool for most of my texts, even creative texts:

• Terminology
  It’s great when a client provides you with a terminology list, but I personally hate having to go back and forth between my translation and a terminology list, especially when you end up with more than one list (not unusual, in my experience). If you import your terminology list(s) in your CAT tool, you will automatically be notified if a term is available in the list and you can easily insert it in your translation. You can also easily edit your terminology list or add new terms to the list.

• Consistency
  Even if texts are not repetitive, consistency is still important. The concordance feature in your CAT tool allows you to search for words or phrases so you can check how they were translated before. This is also very useful in case you haven’t got a terminology list (yet).

• Quality control
  These days, CAT tools offer more and more quality control options. You can have your translation checked for, among other things, correct punctuation, conversion of numbers, tags and consistent terminology. If, like me, you tend to mix up numbers (typing 1956 instead of 1965 for example), it’s good to know you no longer have to worry about this, because your CAT tool will warn you when you’ve made a mistake.

• Reference material
  Ever received a 200-word translation job which came with about ten different bilingual and monolingual reference files and going through all those reference files took almost as long as actually translating the text? I have… CAT tools offer alignment options and ways to import reference files which help you efficiently find the information you need in those reference files while you’re translating.

• Formatting
  Clients love it when you are able to deliver their prettily formatted Word document or PowerPoint presentation in exactly the same format. When using a CAT tool, you don’t have to bother with the formatting: you can focus on the text while working in the CAT tool and when you are finished you can export your translation in exactly the same format. I’ve found this is especially useful for PowerPoint presentations containing lots of diagrams with text boxes: instead of having to edit every single text box separately to enter your translation, all you need to do after you have exported your translation is go through the slides to check whether the text fits in the boxes and adjust their size if needed.

• Backup
  You always have a backup of your translations and because each segment is saved after you have translated it, you will never lose more than one sentence of your work if your computer crashes. I discovered the advantage of this very soon after I started working with a CAT tool years ago: just when I was about to save my 1.5-page translation to send it to the client, Word crashed and my Word file was corrupted. If I hadn’t used my CAT tool, I would have had to do the translation all over again, but now I was able to take the original source file and have it pre-translated using my TM.

• Planning
  My CAT tool always knows exactly how much progress I’ve made: it indicates the percentage of translation/proofreading I’ve completed and for exact figures I can run an analysis at any time. I find this particularly useful for larger projects.

These are the reasons I use my CAT tool for pretty much every translation I do. One downside, especially for more creative texts, is that, by default, a CAT tool splits up your text in segments based on sentences. Most CAT tools, however, allow you to define different ways of segmentation and I have found that paragraph segmentation, rather than sentence segmentation, works better for creative texts. Paragraph segmentation will lead to fewer match results, so it is not recommended for repetitive texts, but since creative texts are typically less repetitious anyway, matches aren’t really an issue.

 https://pbtranslations.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/the-usefulness-of-cat-tools/