3.6 Language, Listening, and Culture

Society and culture influence the words we speak, and the words we speak influence society and culture. One of the best ways to learn about society, culture, and language is to seek out opportunities to go beyond our typical comfort zones. Studying abroad or travelling, for example, brings many challenges that can turn into valuable lessons.

The video below provides an interesting discussion and examples of how language shapes the way we think.

(TED, 2018)

Language and Social Context

We arrive at meaning through conversational interaction, which follows many social norms and rules. Rules are explicitly stated conventions, such as “Look at me when I’m talking to you,” and norms are implicit, such as saying that you have to leave before you actually do to politely end a conversation. To help conversations function meaningfully, we learn social norms and internalize them to such an extent that we do not often consciously enact them. Instead, we rely on routines and roles, as determined by social forces, to help us proceed with verbal interaction, which also helps determine how a conversation will unfold. Our various social roles influence meaning and how we speak. For example, a person may say, “As a longtime member of this community …” or “As a first-generation college student …” Such statements cue others into the personal and social context from which we are speaking, which helps them better interpret our meaning.

One social norm that structures our communication is turn-taking. People need to feel like they are contributing something to an interaction, so turn-taking is a central part of how conversations play out (Crystal, 2005). Although we sometimes talk at the same time as others or interrupt them, there are numerous verbal and nonverbal cues, almost like a dance, that are exchanged among speakers that let people know when their turn will begin or end. Conversations do not always neatly progress from beginning to end with shared understanding along the way. There is a back and forth that is often verbally managed through rephrasing, such as “Let me try that again,” and clarification like “Does that make sense?” (Crystal, 2005).

Some conversational elements are highly scripted or ritualized, especially the beginning and end of an exchange and topic changes (Crystal, 2005). Conversations often begin with a standard greeting and then proceed to “safe” exchanges about things in the immediate field of experience of the communicators such as a comment on the weather or noting something going on in the immediate environment. At this point, once the ice is broken, people can move on to other more content-specific exchanges. While conversing, before we can initiate a topic change, it is a social norm that we let the current topic being discussed play itself out or continue until the person who introduced the topic seems satisfied. We then usually try to find a relevant tie-in or segue that acknowledges the previous topic, in turn acknowledging the speaker, before moving on to a new topic. Changing the topic without following such social conventions might indicate to the other person that you were not listening or are simply rude.

Ending a conversation is similarly complex. I’m sure we’ve all been in a situation where we are “trapped” in a conversation that we need or want to get out of. Just walking away or ending a conversation without engaging in socially acceptable “leave-taking” behaviours would be considered a breach of social norms. Topic changes are often places where people can leave a conversation, but it is still routine for us to give a special reason for leaving, often in an apologetic tone, whether we mean it or not. Generally, though, conversations come to an end through the cooperation of the participants, as they offer and recognize typical signals that a topic area has been satisfactorily covered or that one or all the people need to leave. It is customary in North America for people to say they have to leave before they actually do, and for that statement to be dismissed or ignored by the others until additional leave-taking behaviours are enacted. When such cooperation is lacking, an awkward silence or abrupt ending can result, and as we’ve already learned, North Americans are not big fans of silence. Silence is not viewed the same way in other cultures, which leads us to our discussion of cultural context.

Language and Cultural Context

Culture isn’t solely determined by a person’s native language or nationality. It’s true that languages vary by country and region and that the language we speak influences our reality, but even people who speak the same language experience cultural differences because of their various intersecting cultural identities and personal experiences. We have a tendency to view our own language more favourably than other languages. Although people may make persuasive arguments regarding which languages are more pleasing to the ear or difficult or easy to learn than others, no one language enables speakers to communicate more effectively than another (McCornack, 2007).

From birth, we are socialized into our various cultural identities. As with social context, this acculturation process is a combination of explicit and implicit lessons. A child in Colombia, which is considered a more collectivist country in which people value group membership and cohesion over individualism, may not be explicitly told, “You are a member of a collectivistic culture, so you should care more about the family and community than yourself.” This cultural value would be transmitted through daily actions and through language use. Just as babies acquire knowledge of language practices at an astonishing rate in their first two years of life, so do they acquire cultural knowledge and values that are embedded in those language practices. At nine months old, it is possible to distinguish babies based on their language. Even at this early stage of development, when most babies are babbling and just learning to recognize but not wholly reproduce verbal interaction patterns, a Colombian baby would sound different from a Brazilian baby, even though neither would actually be using words from their native languages of Spanish and Portuguese (Crystal, 2005).

In general, collectivistic cultures tend to value listening more than individualistic cultures, which are more speaker oriented. The value placed on verbal and nonverbal meaning also varies by culture and influences how we communicate and listen. A low-context communication style is one in which much of the meaning generated within an interaction comes from the verbal communication used rather than nonverbal or contextual cues. Conversely, much of the meaning generated by a high-context communication style comes from nonverbal and contextual cues. For example, Americans of European descent generally use a low-context communication style, whereas people in East Asian and Latin American cultures use a high-context communication style.

Contextual communication styles affect listening in many ways. Cultures with a high-context orientation generally use less verbal communication and value silence as a form of communication, which requires listeners to pay close attention to nonverbal signals and consider contextual influences on a message. Cultures with a low-context orientation must use more verbal communication and provide explicit details because listeners aren’t expected to derive meaning from the context. Note that people from low-context cultures may feel frustrated by the ambiguity of speakers from high-context cultures, while speakers from high-context cultures may feel overwhelmed or even insulted by the level of detail used by low-context communicators. Cultures with a low-context communication style also tend to have a monochronic orientation towards time, whereas high-context cultures have a polychronic time orientation, which also affects listening.

Cultures that favour a structured and commodified orientation towards time are said to be monochronic, while cultures that favour a more flexible orientation towards time are polychronic. Monochronic cultures like Canada and the United States value time and action-oriented listening styles, especially in professional contexts, because time is seen as a commodity that is scarce and must be managed. This is evidenced by leaders in businesses and organizations who often request “executive summaries” that only focus on the most relevant information and who use statements like “Get to the point!” Polychronic cultures value people and content-oriented listening styles, which makes sense when we consider that polychronic cultures also tend to be more collectivistic and use a high-context communication style. In collectivistic cultures, indirect communication is preferred in cases where direct communication would be considered a threat to the other person’s “face” (desired public image). For example, flatly turning down a business offer would be too direct, so a person might reply with a “maybe” instead of a “no.” The person making the proposal, however, would be able to draw on contextual clues that they implicitly learned through socialization to interpret the “maybe” as a “no.”

The actual language we speak plays an important role in shaping our reality. Comparing languages, we can see differences in how we are able to talk about the world. In English, we have the words grandfather and grandmother, but no single word that distinguishes between a maternal grandfather and a paternal grandfather. But in Swedish, there’s a specific word for each grandparent: morfar is mother’s father, farfar is father’s father, farmor is father’s mother, and mormor is mother’s mother (Crystal, 2005). In this example, we can see that the words available to us, based on the language we speak, influence how we talk about the world because of differences in and limitations of vocabulary. The notion that language shapes our view of reality and our cultural patterns is best represented by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Although some scholars argue that our reality is determined by our language, we will take a more qualified view and presume that language plays a central role in influencing our realities but doesn’t determine them (Martin & Nakayama, 2010).

Customs and Norms

Social norms are culturally relative. The words used in politeness rituals in one culture can mean something completely different in another. For example, thank you in North American English acknowledges receiving something (a gift, a favour, a compliment), but in British English, it can mean “yes” similar to North American English’s yes, please, and in French, merci can mean “no” as in “no, thank you” (Crystal, 2005). Additionally, what is considered a powerful language style varies from culture to culture. Confrontational language, such as swearing, can be seen as powerful in Western cultures, even though it violates some language taboos, but would be seen as immature and weak in Japan (Wetzel, 1988).

Gender also affects how we use language, but not to the extent that most people think. Although there is a widespread belief that men are more likely to communicate in a clear and straightforward way and women are more likely to communicate in an emotional and indirect way, a meta-analysis of research findings from more than two hundred studies found only small differences in the personal disclosures of men and women (Dindia & Allen, 1992). Men and women’s levels of disclosure are even more similar when engaging in cross-gender communication, meaning that men and woman are more similar when speaking to each other than when men speak to men or women speak to women. This could be because of the internalized pressure to speak about the other gender in socially sanctioned ways, in essence reinforcing the stereotypes when speaking to the same gender but challenging them in cross-gender encounters. Researchers also dispelled the belief that men interrupt more than women do, finding that men and women interrupt each other with similar frequency in cross-gender encounters (Dindia, 1987). These findings, which state that men and women communicate more similarly during cross-gender encounters and then communicate in more stereotypical ways in same-gender encounters, can be explained with communication accommodation theory.

Communication Accommodation and Code-Switching

Communication accommodation theory explores why and how people modify their communication to fit situational, social, cultural, and relational contexts (Giles et al., 1973). In communication accommodation, conversational partners may use convergence, meaning that a person makes their communication more like another person’s. People who are accommodating in their communication style are seen as more competent, which illustrates the benefits of communicative flexibility. In order to be flexible, of course, people have to be aware of and monitor their own and others’ communication patterns. Conversely, conversational partners may use divergence, meaning that a person uses communication to emphasize the differences between them and their conversational partner.

Convergence and divergence can take place within the same conversation and may be used by one or both conversational partners. Convergence makes others feel at ease, increases understanding, and enhances social bonds. Divergence may be used to intentionally make another person feel unwelcome or perhaps to highlight a personal, group, or cultural identity. While communication accommodation might involve anything from adjusting how fast or slow you talk to how long you speak during each turn, code-switching refers to changes in accent, dialect, or language (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). There are many reasons that people might code-switch. Regarding accents, some people hire vocal coaches or speech-language pathologists to help them alter their accent. If a person thinks their accent leads others to form unfavourable impressions, they can consciously change their accent with much practise and effort. Once their ability to speak without their accent is honed, they may be able to switch very quickly between their native accent when speaking with friends and family and their modified accent when speaking in professional settings. Additionally, people who work or live in multilingual settings may code-switch many times throughout the day, or even within a single conversation. Increasing outsourcing and globalization have produced heightened pressures for code-switching.

Language and Cultural Bias

Cultural bias is a skewed way of viewing or talking about a group that is typically negative. Bias has a way of creeping into our daily language use, often without our awareness. Culturally biased language can make reference to one or more cultural identities, including race or ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability. There are other sociocultural identities that can be the subject of biased language. Much biased language is based on stereotypes and myths that influence the words we use. Bias is both intentional and unintentional, but as we’ve already discussed, we have to be accountable for what we say even if we didn’t “intend” a particular meaning. Remember that meaning is generated—it doesn’t exist inside our thoughts or words. We will discuss specific ways in which cultural bias manifests in our language and ways to become more aware of bias. The following few examples focus on bias rather than preferred terminology or outright discriminatory language.

Race

People sometimes use euphemisms for race that illustrate bias because the terms are usually implicitly compared to the dominant group (APA, 2020). For example, referring to a person as “urban” or a neighbourhood as “inner city” can be an accurate descriptor, but when such words are used as a substitute for racial identity, they illustrate cultural biases that equate certain races or groups with cities and poverty.

Gender

Language has a tendency to exaggerate perceived and stereotypical differences between men and women. The use of the term opposite sex presumes that men and women are opposites, like the positive and negative poles of a magnet, which is obviously not true or men and women wouldn’t be able to have successful interactions or relationships. One key to avoiding gender bias in language is to avoid the generic use of he or her when referring to something relevant to everyone. Instead, you can use a gender-neutral pronoun like they or their, or you can use his or her if appropriate (APA, 2020). We have lasting gendered associations with certain occupations that have tended to be male or female dominated. For example, certain words reflect the general masculine bias present in English. The following word pairs show the gender-biased term followed by an unbiased term: waitress/server, chairman/chair or chairperson, mankind/people, cameraman/camera operator, mailman/postal worker, sportsmanship/fair play.

Age

Language that includes age bias can be directed toward older or younger people. Descriptions of younger people often presume recklessness or inexperience, whereas those of older people presume frailty or disconnection. The term elderly generally refers to people over 65 years of age, but it has connotations of weakness, which isn’t accurate because there are plenty of older people who are stronger and more athletic than people in their twenties and thirties. Even though it’s generic, older people doesn’t really have negative implications. More specific words that describe groups of older people include grandmothers/grandfathers (even though they can be fairly young, too), retirees, or people over 65 (APA, 2020).

We have discussed a number of ways that culture and society can affect language and listening. Some examples are provided, but there are also many other groups and cultures that are important as well. This page, and the overall chapter, are meant to provide a foundational knowledge of these complex concepts, and from there, growth can continue. Listening itself is a complex and integral skill that will continue to develop over time, and our listening skills can vary from day to day. Intentional and continual focus on these skills is necessary for becoming competent communicators.

References

American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

Crystal, D. (2005). How language works: How babies babble, words change meaning, and languages live or die. Overlook Press.

Dindia, K. (1987). The effect of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 345–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00109.x

Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 106–124. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106

Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. (1973). Toward a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language and Society, 2(2), 177–192. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/S0047404500000701

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, N. K. (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

McCornack, S. (2007). Reflect & relate: An introduction to interpersonal communication. Bedford/St Martin’s.

TED. (2018, May 2). How language shapes the way we think | Lera Boroditsky [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k

Wetzel, P. J. (1988). Are “powerless” communication strategies the Japanese norm? Language in Society, 17(4), 555–564. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/S0047404500013099

Wierzbicka, A. (2004). The English expressions good boy and good girl and cultural models of child rearing. Culture and Psychology, 10(3), 251–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X04042888

Image Credits (images are listed in order of appearance)

Las Burriquitas de Sanare, los niños con la tradicion by Rodolfo pimentel, CC BY-SA 4.0

Grandparents-1969824 by sylviebliss, CC0 1.0