Notas De Comunicacion Intercultural Ii

Notas de comunicación intercultural II Ovidi Carbonell

PROCESOS REALIDAD

DE

REPRESENTACIÓN

ESQUEMÁTICA

DE

LA

(Katan 1999) Dentro de las representaciones esquemáticas de la realidad, Katan identifica tres procesos:

GENERALIZATION DELETION DISTORTION

GENERALIZATION: A generalization occurs when one example is taken as representative of a number of different possibilities (O'Connor 2001:132). For example, an utterance such as "Cats are nice" will be the result of a specific learning or experience relating, possibly, to a reaction to a particular cat at a particular time. This experience is then expanded to the level of the universe. Frederic Bartlett (1932:206), one of the founders of modern psychology, was among the first to note that an individual "has an overmastering tendency to simplify, to get a general impression of the whole". He is cited by many linguists today. Tannen (1993b: 15), for example, notes that he was the first to popularize the term 'schema'. Brown and Yule (1983:61) also give him the credit for having first put into print the idea that "effort after meaning" involves "the attempt to connect something that is given with something other than itself. So, as Brown and Yule point out, Bartlett had already noted the phenomenon of generalization, "the importance of relating a particular experience to other similar experiences", over 70 years ago. He also noted that if we did not generalize we would have to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining and specifying, and we would not be able to benefit from learning. The whole of prototype theory and frame analysis discussed in Chapter 3.1 depends on our ability to generalize reality to fit our model of the world. The less positive aspect of generalization is that it limits the model of the world, so reducing choice. The idea that everything is immutably as stated, logically, reduces any possibility of an alternative. "Cats aren't nice", for example, allows for no exceptions to the rule.

Estrategias lingüísticas generalizadoras:

Cuantificadores universales (no permiten excepciones) all, always, each, every, any, never, nowhere, none, no-one, nothing, nobody Many famous quotations are generalizations stating a rule (emphasis added): Every country has the government it deserves.

J. D. Maistre

Trois heures, c 'est toujours trop tard ou trop tot pour tout ce qu 'on veut faire. Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything you want to do.

J. P. Sartre (trans., OUP)

or a general truth:

Let's be frank about it; most of our people have never had it so good. H. Macmillan Never in the field of human conduct have so many owed so much to so few. W. Churchill In advertising, the use of universal quantifiers is also common:

Political / ideological statements:

La juventud siempre estará con la Revolución (Cuba) Also, of course, by translation scholars:

All translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose. (Hermans 1985:11) Translation always involves a process of domestication. (Venuti 1995a:203)

DELETION: Linguistic deletion, in fact, allows the hearer to create an array of possible closures, and hence fully participate in the communication act.

The usefulness of deletions is clear in everyday talk once they are compared to registers of language that attempt to render, in the surface structure, a faithful mirror of the total possible representation. A perfect example is legal text, which is so explicit as to render it unreadable for the layperson. Below, for example, is an extract of Lord Diplock's words outlining, as clearly as possible, what constitutes a crime (Russell and Locke 1992:176): Conduct which constitutes a crime consists of a person's doing or less frequently omitting to do physical acts, and the definition of the crime also contains a description of physical acts or omissions, though it may, and in English law generally does, also require that the physical acts or omissions which constitute the described conduct should be done with a particular intent, either expressly cited in the definition or to be implied from the mere fact that Parliament has made the described conduct punishable. Though the language contains no legal terminology, its completeness makes for opaque reading. […] Paradoxically, by making the text less explicit through deletion, the meaning is rendered more clear to a non-legal audience: Conduct which is a crime consists of a person doing (or omitting to do) something with intent, either expressly cited or implied by Parliament as punishable.

Deletion can, however, also interfere with communication, either because the surface representation is no longer connected to a speaker's model of the world (linguistic deletion) or because the speaker's particular model of the world itself has deleted much of the world.

The following sections will focus on those deletions in the surface structure that point to a speaker's map of the world rather than deletion due to cohesion or shared understanding. They will cover the following areas:

Intrinsic modal possibility According to the University Course in English Grammar (Downing and Locke 1992:382), modality is one of the most important ways in which interpersonal meaning can be expressed. It is the expression of an attitude of the speaker towards a reality: "modality is said to express a relation to reality, whereas an unmodalized declarative treats the process as reality" (emphasis in original). Generally, modality is expressed either through an auxiliary verb (can, may, should, etc.) or through a full lexical verb (wish, need). Other possible ways are through adverbs and adverbial clauses (possibly, probably, certainly) and adjectives (it is necessary/vital that). Modality can be divided into two basic areas: extrinsic (or epistemic) modality and intrinsic (root or deontic and dynamic) modality. Extrinsic covers the possibility, probability or certainty that a proposition is true according to one's own model of reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ——------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ '--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------■

Assessment

reality/fact

It can't be You can

raining get coffee on the train

as far as I know

Intrinsic modality, on the other hand, is a sign of an individual's personal involvement.

Control

reality/fact

You can We can't I can't

have an ice-cream now go on meeting like this allow myself any more chocolate

I have decided.

More than anything else, the difference between the two modalities is of Logical Level. Extrinsic modality is an utterance at the level of environment or behaviour, while intrinsic modality is a surface sign that the speaker is (re)acting at the level of beliefs and values. Both levels can provide us with much information about our constructed model of the world. We will divide intrinsic modality into necessity and possibility. Both intrinsic modal possibility and necessity set the individual and culture-bound limits of choice, either by implying (limiting) beliefs about the world or by stating what is considered possible.

Intrinsic modal necessity Modal necessity expresses levels of obligation. It can range from advisability through to inescapable duty or requirement: have to, need, should, ought to, it is necessary ... Here are some requirements handed down to us from translation scholars in history: You've got to go out and ask the mother in her house, the children in the street, the ordinary man at the market. Watch their mouths move when they talk, and translate that way. (Martin Luther, in Robinson 1997:87) The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original. (Tytler, in Robinson 1997:211) [The translator] must be our tour guide. (Herder, in Venuti 1995a:99) The necessity is often expressed through rules. For example: ... society needs some regulations, and these must mean some restriction of personal freedom. The Weekly Telegraph (1995, No. 193) Intrinsic modal possibility includes ability and permission, and sets the limits to options as perceived by the speaker or writer. It is realized principally through 'can', 'could', 'may' and 'might'.

Below is another personal belief which appears to be extrinsic. Again, the modal impulse does not come from 'knowledge' but from the speaker's conviction and desire to control events: We cannot repair the American community and restore the American family until we provide the values, the discipline and the reward that work gives. Bill Clinton, The Independent (19/12/93) The last example concerns a person who has just won a court case. He is discussing the damages he has been awarded as a result of police conduct during a raid on his house: This case was never about money. It was about clearing our names once and for all and about showing the police they cannot act in this fashion. The Independent (21/12/93) This is a further example of a personal desire to influence events (intrinsic modality). Again, the surface structure regarding conduct is stated as an established extrinsic rule. In the examples above, the language of limiting rules through intrinsic modality has been used to express a personal belief about behaviour in society. In other cases, the limits actually define the limits of the speaker's world, which are then generalized (through deletion) to become a universal rule for the whole of society: You cannot take seriously how Hollywood at its worst will see you. You just cannot. Sigourney Weaver The Independent (31/ 10/93)

Missing referential index Lyons (1981:220) begins his chapter on reference with the title 'Worlds within Worlds: the subjectivity of utterance'. 'Reference', as he explains, is "the relation that holds between linguistic expressions and what they stand for in the world", whereas the 'index' is the point of reference. The referential index may be missing either due to the language filter (e.g. cohesive and other stylistic reasons) or to culture/social engineering. The use of the pronoun is generally a clear index (hence a linguistic deletion) pointing to a referent, as in the well-known (to some) "We are not amused". The reader, though, will only be able to attach the index to a referent through his or her knowledge of the context. In this case the knowledge is culture-bound: 'We', the 'royal we', refers to Queen Victoria, but only because native-speakers share that exophoric knowledge.

Restricted codes

The second reason for deletion of the referential index in the surface representation is due to social engineering. 'Restricted' and 'elaborated' codes are terms used by Bernstein for the different ways of conveying meaning in a social context (which were briefly discussed in Chapter 4.7). Restricted code users, for example, delete nouns from the surface structure. Bernstein's (1972:478) study of the language of middle-class and working-class children showed that "The working class children are more likely to select pronouns as heads (especially third person pronouns). Where pronouns are used as heads, the possibility of both modification and qualification is considerably reduced". This lack of modification occurs when there is no deeper semantic representation. The use of 'we' or 'they' is not actually connected to a specific referent, to any first-hand experience, but to vague and unchangeable 'diem' and 'us'. However, as both Bernstein and Hasan report, it is not only in terms of unspecified referential indices that people (and in particular the working class) limit their map of the world, and hence choice in life:

Hasan's research shows clearly that the "why/'cause" routine lies firmly within the LAP world and that Karen, for example, has already learned to delete a host of possibilities. Hasan's (1991:107) conclusion is as follows (emphasis in original): The children learn something from the typical absence or irrelevance of what mothers say a propos their questions... But if a why question typically draws no answer, or if it draws the simple response, cause, then is it really reasonable to expect that one will go on believing in the efficacy of why? HAP children, on the other hand, will learn to link references to an individual source, thus constantly enriching their view of the world (Hasan 1992:14)

Missing performative Austin introduced the concepts of'performative utterances' in the early sixties, and his ideas were widely adopted through to the end of the seventies. He believed that a performative act takes place when an utterance performs an act, as in: "I name this ship Mr. Stalin" - and the ship is effectively named as a result of these words. However, this principle has been extended by Austin himself, among others, to the effect that behind every sentence there lies a hidden performative. Quite simply, in

saying something one is also performing an act. […] There are few supporters of this view today, as pointed out by Geoffrey Leech (1983:174-75) in his 'Performative Fallacy'. Leech (1985:325) rightly says "it seems unnatural to argue that every single direct statement is fundamentally an indirect statement". However, making the cross-cultural (or rather, the culture-bound) aspect of communication explicit entails framing the statement with its performative reference. For example, the following direct statement, from an on-line gift flower catalogue" is presented as a generalized (and not culture-bound) rule: "These autumn classic chrysanthemums will make for a warm, wonderful feeling anytime". We do not know, at this stage, anything about the writer's identity: 'a warm, wonderful feeling', according to whom? Is the writer also the original creator of these thoughts, the animator/interpreter or reporter? Are these beliefs individual or corporate? Have they been handed down as a tradition, do we know the source? Once we have made the source explicit, we can have a clearer idea of the applicability and (relative) universality of the statement. In this particular case, the "warm, wonderful feeling" is certainly culture-bound.

Leech (1983:181), in his discussion of the 'Performative Fallacy', explains clearly when and why the performative is made explicit: "it occurs, understandably enough, when a speaker needs to define his speech act as belonging to a particular category". Generally, as Leech makes clear, a speaker does not need to consider his or her utterance as belonging to a particular category because the category, in this case the culture, is taken for granted. Whenever we speak about social or culture-bound rules (the dos and taboos, manners, etiquette and so on), we do not connect them to a particular speaker or category because the rule is all encompassing and includes every speaker. In short, these are imprinted rules. Bernstein (1972:485) categorizes three principal types of parental appeals that become imprinted rules: imperative form

Don't do that.

positional appeals

Little boys don't cry.

personal appeals

I know you don't like X but [reason] Y.

In all these cases, the form of language used "transmits those aspects of culture that are not to be questioned" (Saville-Troike 1986:48). This is a form of instrumental conditioning, the child being usually rewarded or punished in some way depending on his or her response. Of the three examples, the personal appeal is the most explicit allowing for what Bernstein (1972:486) calls "the individualized interpersonal context". In this case, the hearer understands that there is a rule, and that the rule is part of the external world. The imperative is also implicitly clear about limits being dictated by the speaker. However, the positional appeals are the most difficult to unravel: "The essence of a positional appeal is that in the process of learning the rule, the child is explicitly linked to others who hold a similar universal or particular station". This type of appeal presupposes a universal rule to which both speaker and hearer must obey. Apart from there being no exceptions, there are also no limits. For example, in "little boys don't cry", information has been deleted which would reveal which little boys exactly, in what situations exactly, until what age, and also the reasons and beliefs underlying the expected behaviour.

However, the most important deletion is the performative, to be clarified by asking "according to whom?" By disconnecting the surface structure from its original reference structure, specific parts of the society's contextualized experience have been deleted. It is, of course, very likely that the speakers will be repeating the same surface structure that they heard from their home environment and had simply internalized without question. As we have already mentioned, present behaviour is often related to a historical response to past perceived needs. As a result of lack of specification, meaning in discourse is generalized to imply that the rules are the same for all people and cultures all the time - and that rules are unchangeable. Though it may seem paradoxical, translation scholars, themselves, are not immune to falling into the same universal (i.e. culture-bound) trap.