In
line with the organisation theory, strategic management must incorporate
effective communication with a view to developing a common vision among all
members of the organisation. The use of language and the meanings deducted from
the words and their intonation is a complex function of the structural context
of the speakers and the listeners (Dominics, 2000). The same words may have
different meaning depending on how they are spoken and the manner in which they
are projected. Language may arguably be described as the most prevalent medium
through which individuals communicate with each other. It is the mode through
which people seek to translate their thoughts into messages that can be used to
convey the thoughts to others. The basic design of any language is therefore to
transmit meaning between different persons. Language is learned through
interaction with members of a society and so is the understanding of the
meaning that can be conveyed through given words and intonations and this
differs from one culture to another (Blum-Kulka and House, 1989).
Culture
is a people’s way of life. It is manifested through values, norms and practices
of a society. It is developed over time through interaction between the members
of a given society and is in oft times unique to a given society. It also
largely defines the content and style of communication that the members of a
society embrace in order to transmit meaning between each other. The in-depth
study of language and its use is therefore crucial to ensuring cultural
barriers to effective communication are surmounted. Language contains various
elements that must be understood in order to ensure proper communication at all
time. These elements include phonetics (sound systems); morphology (unit of
grammatical form); syntax (grammar and structures); semantics (word meaning);
pragmatics (use of language in contexts); and discourse (language as used in
society) (Dominics, 2000). Semantics and pragmatics must be considered together
as word meanings may be completely altered depending on the context in which
they are used. Different cultures attach varying levels of importance to the
retention of original word meanings when communicating. In an intercultural
setting, where different cultures are known to commonly interact, it is
important to understand the meaning attached to various language structures and
intonations in order to ensure that the communicator conveys the meaning
intended (House, 2006). This is why intercultural understanding is important in
strategic management; giving managers the knowledge they need to not only
communicate company policies, but also engage in successful negotiations.
For
effectiveness, strategic management teams must understand the influence of
context in influencing the quality of communication. This is especially with
regards to intonation. Intonation has been variously described as the
combination of different elements of phonetics in a manner that results in
distinct phonetics which alludes to given unique meanings. In general, speech
is rarely offered in monotone. There are always variations characterised by use
of high and low pitch, variations in the length of phrases and sentences, the
loudness or quietness of selected sentence segments and voice quality designed
at according prominence to some parts of the speech; use of discontinuities in
selected parts of a speech and basically the melodic component of the whole
speech (House, 2006a). Intonation varies from language to language and from
culture to culture with different cultures using the same language often being
able to draw different meanings using the same words where the only
modification is in the intonation. The understanding of intonations across
different cultures is of paramount importance for communication to be effective
in an intercultural setting. This is because the underlying basis of any
communication process is to create understanding and this understanding can
only be derived by the use of the language understood by the audience (Woodin,
2011a).
In
a study of the intonation systems of twenty languages across the world, the
findings underscored the existence of different intonation systems in different
languages (Dominics, 2000). These systems would in most cases be directly
translated in the use of foreign languages where such persons embrace foreign
languages to a limited extent. In a study that factored in twenty of the
world’s most spoken languages, it was established that intonation across the
majority of the languages tended to be similar when it came to the distinction
between declarative statements and questions. With the exception of two
languages, the declarative statements tended to tended to have a drop at the
end of the sentence. This was significantly different from the raised pitch
that normally characterised the end of a question with partial questions only
bearing a raised pitch on the question word alone. For effectiveness in
understanding intonation and its applicability to effective strategic
management, 2 main theoretical models are used to explain the influence of
intonation on meaning: the tone sequence (TS) and the contour interaction (CI) (Dominics,
2000).
Contour
Interaction refers to the application of pitch configurations at different
hierarchical levels where these intonations are of different forms and sizes.
On the other hand, Tone Sequence focuses on sentence intonation where a sentence
may be made of a number of sub-sentences which are separated through the use in
intonation contours in a manner that draws attention to the intended meanings
(Dominics, 2000). However, these models are seldom used exclusively in
practical communication. They are creatively combined in order to ensure the
intended meaning is conveyed during communication sessions. The combination of
the forms and sizes of pitch modifications based on hierarchy and the use of
sentence contours enables effective communication in a manner that supersedes
the effectiveness of both models when used exclusively. The development of the International
Transcription System for Intonation (INTSINT) underscores the importance of
understanding the unique intonation features across different languages and
cultures (Dominics, 2000). For strategic management teams, emphasis is on the
need to understand how to effectively pass messages to advance the interests of
the organisation.
INTSINT
is basically a coded description of the intonation features of different
languages and may therefore serve as a dictionary of some sought that aims to
create understanding on the effective use of language across different cultures
across the world. It outlines both the pitch patterns and the sequence of
static points as used in different languages. The meaning and form of
intonation has been a subject of thorough research in recent times. Nonetheless,
it is incumbent on strategic management teams to look out for socio-cultural
changes that can potentially change intonation meanings hence be able to
maintain effectiveness in diverse contexts. Intonation is considered to be a
special feature of spoken language due to its inseparability with the semantics
and is hence part and parcel of any utterances. The meaningfulness of
intonation becomes more apparent in common usage where a set of utterances can have
different meanings as a result of changes in the intonation used (Setton, 2006).
However, intonation can only make sense in the context of utterances and cannot
therefore be exclusively used to create meaning. The linguistic theory tends to
leave out the study of intonations due to the inconsistency and dynamic nature
of intonations that inhibit the development of any comprehensive studies.
An
example of intonation in practice may be denoted from the following phrases: a.
Coffee; and b. Coffee? Part a. comes out as a statement where the speaker
simply states the noun coffee (House, 2006b). When read in context, it may come
as an answer to a previous question or may just be a statement or a conclusive
part of it. Part b comes out vividly as a question where the speaker seems to
be asking his audience if they would like to have coffee. In this example,
intonation becomes the single most important factor in giving meaning to the
conversation. Another example may involve the use of apostrophe marks. For instance:
I won; and I won! While the first sentence simply states that the speaker won
the contest, it is devoid of any emotion and the audience may be unable to
deduct from the sentence what the speaker feels about their victory. However,
the second sentence leaves no doubt as to the speaker’s emotion. He is
definitely excited about the victory. The manner in which sentences are
interpreted depends mainly on the cultural context of the speaker and the
audience (Blakemore, 1995). In highly expressive societies, the sentence is
taken on the face value of it while in less expressive societies; deeper
meanings are sought in addition to the obvious meaning portrayed by a sentence.
This is where intonation plays a critical role in effective strategic
management; especially when it comes to personnel management in organisations.
For
instance, while the expressive audience may simply read the sentences as an
expression of the speaker’s view about the victory, their less expressive
counterparts may want to use the sentence to deduct the level of challenge
faced during the contest, the prize won as a result of the victory or even the
level of importance that the speaker attaches to this victory. A flat tone may
be interpreted to mean that even though the speaker won the challenge, he may
not really value the victory due to the ease with which he attained the
victory. Conversely, excitement would mean that the speaker highly values his
victory or won against very stiff competition and was therefore thrilled to
emerge the winner. The contextual meaning may further be illustrated in the
following two phrases: a. it’s you again; and b. it’s you again! The first
phrase merely indicates that the speaker has had a previous encounter with the
listener and simply takes cognisance of that fact. However, the second phrase
seems to display a certain level of emotion. It is a likely indication of the
fact that the speaker is irritated by the second encounter he is having with
the listener. In a different cultural context, the second phrase would be
interpreted to mean excitement; with the danger of misunderstanding being very
high if used wrongly in such a context. This prompts organisations to ensure
that there is a fair representation of local cultures in their strategic
management teams for purposes of ensuring that special cultural contexts are
understood and exploited as appropriate.
Considering
the apostrophe also tends to denote excitement, the phrase could imply that the
speaker is probably very excited about his encounter with the listener. Given
that the irritation or excitement cannot be conclusively deducted from the
written conversation, it proves that intonation that is in written form is
seldom conclusive (Puntoni, Lanche and Van Osselar, 2009). It often has to be
used in conjunction with other nonverbal communication techniques such as
facial expressions and body language. In this case, it is only the facial
expression that would enable the listener to interpret the second phrase as
either irritation or excitement. These portrayals of emotions in utterances are
referred to as paralinguistic elements of communication and the interpretation
termed as discoursal interpretation due to the fact that it is based more on
the manner or speech rather than the content of the speech alone (Puntoni,
Lanche and Van Osselar, 2009). Intonation can either be intentional or
unintentional and the meaning of the communication is likely to be altered
despite the intentionality of such intonations. Care must therefore be taken to
avoid unwarranted eventualities during communication. Given the extent to which
intonation enriches verbal and nonverbal communication, it brings in new
meaning to the interaction and enables the communicating parties to the gauge
the success or failure of the discourse. The aim of strategic management teams
would be to understand these non-verbal elements in communication and exploit
them to ensure that the intended meanings are passed with success.
In
understanding how intonation can be used in the effective strategic management
of the organisation, the pragmatic theory should be adopted. Pragmatics refers
to the meaning communicated by the speaker. It involves the study of the
speaker’s communiqué and seeking to draw meaning of it whether it is implicitly
or explicitly expressed (Doing Pragmatics, 2011). This is the essence of the
pragmatic theory. Intonation enables the avoidance of ambiguities in
interpreting the speaker’s message as the listeners take into account the
context of such conversations when drawing the resultant meaning. This goes to
the heart of the Relevance Theory which refers to the efficiency of the
processing costs of the listeners when creating meaning out of a conversation.
This theory works on the presumption that upon hearing a message, people’s
cognitive systems would automatically push them to try and make sense of such a
message and in a manner that is most relevant for the least amount of
processing effort (Austin, 1955). Intonation and context therefore function
most effectively used together.
Culture
bears an undisputed influence on the modes of communication in any society,
organisation, or strategic management team. Culture can be described as a
people’s way of life. It includes values, norms, beliefs, and practices which
are developed through societal interactions over time. It is unique to specific
societies and often differentiates members of a society from others. Culture
dictates the language and the manner of speech which includes the verbal and
non verbal elements of the communication process. It therefore goes to the
heart of communication processes where it controls the approaches to
communication, the preference for explicit or implicit expression and even the
preference for body language in the communication processes (Biletzki, 1995).
Different cultures have different styles of communication and interpretation of
the messages communicated. Inter-cultural settings refer to areas or contexts
where the persons interacting emanate from different cultural backgrounds. These
backgrounds have an undeniable influence in their manner of communication of meaning
creation from a communication process (Grabe, Rosner, Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal,
2003).
Communications
in such settings must therefore be modified in a manner that would ensure the
intended meanings are conveyed to the audience. Even in scenarios where the
language in use is the same, there exist differences in sentence structures and
intonations which shape the meaning of messages. These differences may be
formed due to the influence of the natives’ language whose features are
translated directly into the learned language. Strategic management teams should
therefore bear in mind the defining features of the basal language when drawing
meaning into the communications or when communicating to the affected persons
(Grabe, Rosner, Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal, 2003). In order to ensure that
communication in an intercultural context is effective, it must bear two main
features namely: communication must be seen purely as a form of communication;
and secondly, it must distance itself from substantial engagement with culture
(Leezenberg, 2002).
Focusing
on communication as simply a form of communication means that the main
intention of the process must always be borne in mind: that of creating meaning
(Verschueren, 2008). In strategic communication management, 3 elements must
exists for communication to be effective: variability, adaptability, and
negotiability. Variability refers to the range of choices available for
communication which includes languages, sentence structures and words.
Fundamental variability may therefore be used to refer to situations where the
range of choices are sufficient to ensure that members of a society can
literally speak different languages in the context of the available choices
(Verschueren, 2008). Negotiability refers to the dynamism that describes the
relationship characterising linguistic forms and their corresponding functions.
Meaning of often arrived at through an interactive process and is caused by the
implicit nature of most conversations. Implicitness therefore requires the
speakers and the listeners to have a reasonable understanding of each other’s
presuppositions. This is in accordance with the theory of mind which recognises
the pre-existing assumptions in people’s minds as has been formed through their
interaction with the society since their childhood. Implicitness also implies
ambiguity which in turn calls for negotiated meanings which are generated
through a dynamic interaction process (Woodin, 2011b). For instance, where a
person is asked about their origin, they may either interpret it to mean their
country, region, city, or village.
Differences
in interpreting relatively ambiguous statements may often lead to the
degeneration of a communication process and the persons involved must try to
understand the cultural context in which their peers are operating in order to
understand the meanings they attach to some of the statements. Adaptability
refers to the retuning fitting the communication processes into varying contexts
(Verschueren, 2008). This adaptability implies that in the situation where
cultures interact, the context is not regarded as the sum of the constituent
cultures but rather the creation of a new cultural context. In these contexts,
members of the different cultures tend to drop some of their deep-seated
beliefs and adopt some of the practical solutions offered by the cultures that
they interact with. The end result is that no members of such a society remain
purely engraved in the cultures that they grew up with. A good example is the
changing management styles between the US and Japan where the US managers are
steadily enriching their individual responsibility approach with emphasis on
teamwork while their Japanese counterparts are enriching their teamwork
provisions with an emphasis on individual performance (Grabe, Rosner, Zhou, and
Garcia-Albeal, 2003). These elements of a communication process must be kept in
mind in order to ensure that communication in an intercultural setting remains
effective. In strategic communication management, the pragmatic approach to
meaning creation remains the underlying foundation for the application of these
elements.
The
non-essentialist view of culture requires the avoidance of stereotyping and
grouping of individuals into perceived cultural clusters. The essentialist view
disregards the fact that culture is learned and presumes that the beliefs,
norms and values held are deeply engraved into the people’s personality in a
manner that cannot be erased (Verschueren, 2008). The clustering of bundles of
people in the society disregards the arbitrariness with which certain cultural
norms are adopted by different members of the society. The intercultural
communicator should view culture as dynamic and therefore adaptable to prevailing
changes in the society. The non-essentialist view focuses on the individual and
desists from categorising them based on the groups to which they belong
(Verschueren, 2008). However, this is not to say that the cultural norms and
contexts within which individuals operate are to be ignored. It simple means
that the communication approach should not be unnecessarily bound by the notion
that the individuals are completely incapable of grasping any information
outside their cultural contexts. Concentration on issues and the subject of the
communication process and effectively steering away from the non-essentialist
view of culture is crucial in creating understanding in communications
conducted in intercultural settings. This is a view that acknowledges the
cultural variability that characterises most strategic management contexts in
the market today.
From
the assertions made above, intercultural communication only remains effective where
focus is turned on the objectives of the communication process without undue
deviations focusing on cultural differences.
The
generation of meaning in a communication process is dependent on two elements:
context and structure. Context refers to the set of activities or the
environmental conditions within which the communication is taking place (Doing
Pragmatics, 2011). This context is useful in forming the basis for
interpretation of the messages produced. The structure focuses on the formation
of the message itself. It refers to the language and the manner in which the
communicator decodes their mental processes into a message that can in turn convey
this meaning to the audience. Inferences are the meanings that the audience
tend to draw from the communication emanating from the speaker. On the other
hand, intentions refer to the mental meanings that the communicator seeks to
impart on his audience by decoding his thoughts into messages that are directed
towards his audience. Whereas it is critical to bear in mind the cultural
context of the audience, it is more important to embrace the elements of the
communication process namely negotiability, adaptability and variability with
the main focus being on creating the intended meaning (Verschueren, 2008). It
is akin to the strategic planning and management processes in the organisations
that must consider both internal and external factors for effectiveness to be
achieved.
Ideological
noise refers to the perceptions formed towards certain groups that may
interfere with the process of interpretation and accurate creation of
understanding (Verschueren, 2008). The influence of ideological noise is
significantly high and has been known in many cases to be the cause of gross
misunderstanding due to the fact that virtually all human interactions are
accompanied by the presence of ‘ideas’ about the other parties. Other
ideologies may include language ideologies or those related to the
communication process. Ideological noise must be quietened substantially to
ensure that the interacting persons can draw the desired meanings of the
communication process (Verschueren, 2008). For instance, the condescending
attitude towards the English language by the Chinese in the 1970s had become a
major source of ideological noise that prevented meaningful interactions
between the British and the Chinese (Grabe, Rosner, Zhou, and Garcia-Albeal,
2003). These condescending attitudes were experienced on both sides of the
divide and the result was an eventual relegation of meaningful communication
between the two groups.
Effective
communication is essential to effective strategic management of the
organisations. In fact, it is the single-most important element in management.
This is especially with regards to the increased level of globalisation that compels
organisations to operate more in multicultural contexts where languages and
cultural approaches to expression differ. Communication involves the use of
language to create meanings as intended by the communicator to their audience. Language
contains various elements that must be understood in order to ensure proper
communication at all time. These elements include phonetics (sound systems);
morphology (unit of grammatical form); syntax (grammar and structures);
semantics (word meaning); pragmatics (use of language in contexts); and
discourse (language as used in society). One of the key determinants of the
meaning created in any sentence is the intonation. Intonation refers to the
variations of the sound in order to emphasise selected phrases with a view to
shaping the meaning deducted by the audience. In general, speech is rarely
offered in monotone. There are always variations characterised by use of high
and low pitch, variations in the length of phrases and sentences, the loudness
or quietness of selected sentence segments and voice quality designed at
according prominence to some parts of the speech; use of discontinuities in
selected parts of a speech and basically the melodic component of the whole
speech.
The
influence of culture on intonation designs is significant and must be taken
into consideration when generating meanings of messages relayed. The use of
language and intonations are mostly interpreted in accordance with the
Relevance Theory and the Pragmatic Theory which emphasise the interpretation of
information in accordance with the context of the communication. In the
intercultural settings, one of the key determinants of the success of the
communication process is the focus on the objectives of such a process. The
communicator should therefore desist from essentialist views that may result in
the generation of the ideological noises that may inhibit intercultural
communication.
Puntoni,
S., Lanche, B.D., Van Osselar. S.T.M., 2009. Bilingualism and the Emotional
Intensity of Advertising Language. Journal
of Consumer Research, 35 (6), pp. 1012-1025
Blakemore,
D., 1995. Understanding Utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. A book review. Lingua, 96, pp. 267-286
House,
J., 2006a. Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 1542-1558
House,
J., 2006b. Text and context in translation. Journal
of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 338-358
Setton,
R., 2006. Context in Simultaneous Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 374-389
Blum-Kulka,
S., House, J., 1989. Cross-cultural and situational variation in requestive behavior in five
languages. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics, pp.
123-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Dominics,
A., 2000. Intonation systems: a survey of twenty language. A review. Language, 76 (2), pp. 460-463
Biletzki,
A., 1995. Is there a history of pragmatics? Journal
of Pragmatics, 25, pp. 455-470
Grabe,
E., Rosner, B.S., Garcia-Albea, J.E., Zhou, X., 2003. Perception of English
Intonation by English, Spanish, and Chinese Listeners. Language and Speech, 46 (4), pp. 375-401
Leezenberg,
M., 2002. Power in Communication: Implications for the semantics-pragmatics
interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 34,
pp. 893-908
Dynel,
M., 2009. Pragmatics and Discourse. A resource Book for students, 2nd
Edition. Journal of Pragmatics, 41,
pp. 1074-1078
Austin,
J.L., 1955. How to do things with words. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Verschueren, J.,2008.
Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 8 (1) pp. 21-35
Woodin, J., 2011a. Language in Context, MLT603. Sheffield
University. Unpublished
Woodin, J., 2011b. Language in Context: Speech Acts. MLT603.
Sheffield University. Unpublished
Doing Pragmatics, 2011.
Speech Acts- language as action
No comments:
Post a Comment