Các dụng pháp song văn hóa của tiếng Anh với tư cách là ngôn ngữ quốc tế

Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 239 CÁC DỤNG PHÁP SONG VĂN HÓA CỦA TIẾNG ANH VỚI TƯ CÁCH LÀ NGÔN NGỮ QUỐC TẾ Roland Sussex Trng Đi hc Queensland, Úc Tóm t t: Tiếng Anh với tư cách là ngôn ngữ quốc tế (EIL) mặc nhiên trở thành một kênh giao tiếp quốc tế. Tuy nhiên, năng lực ngữ âm, ngữ pháp và từ vựng tiếng Anh không đủ để đảm bảo giao tiếp thành thạo. Trong khi người nói có thể chuyển tải thông tin bằng ngôn từ tiếng Anh, nghĩa văn hóa và dụng học thường được chuyển tải trực tiếp từ ngôn ngữ và văn hóa bản ngữ. Bởi vậy, năng lực tiếng Anh tốt vẫn chưa thể đảm bảo giao tiếp thành công. Bài viết này xem xét bản chất của EIL dưới quan điểm sự phù hợp giữa hình thức ngôn từ và dụng học văn hóa. Một số biểu thức ngôn từ với từng người nói khác nhau lại có vai trò dụng học văn hóa khác nhau, và vai trò dụng học văn hóa có thể được biểu đạt khác nhau tùy mỗi người nói. Ở một số biến thể EIL, một số vai trò dụng học văn hóa không có hiện thực ngôn từ trực tiếp. Sự đa dạng văn hóa dụng học này khiến chúng tôi đặt câu hỏi vậy EIL thuộc loại ngôn ngữ nào trong mối liên hệ với các ngôn ngữ quốc gia, chuẩn, và đã được lập mã chặt chẽ. Bài viết này tìm hiểu các nhân tố từ mô hình giao tiếp liên văn hóa của Hofstede để xác định một số đặc điểm trọng yếu của giao tiếp dụng học văn hóa EIL. Abstract: English as an International Language (EIL) has become the default channel for international communication. However, competence in English sounds, grammar and vocabulary is not enough for competent communication. While speakers may be making messages in English words, their pragmatic and cultural meanings are often transferred directly from their first language and culture. An apparent competence in English language can therefore result in substantial miscommunication. This paper explores the nature of English as an International Language from the point of view of the fit between language forms and cultural pragmatics. Some language forms can have different cultural- pragmatic roles for different speakers, and some cultural-pragmatic roles can be differently expressed by different speakers. Some cultural-pragmatic roles have no direct linguistic realization in some varieties of EIL. This cultural-pragmatic plurality of English prompts us to ask what kind of a language EIL is in relation to conventional, and especially highly codified, national languages. I will explore several factors from Hofstede’s models of Intercultural Communication to develop some key characteristics of cultural-pragmatic communication in English as an International Language THE BICULTURAL PRAGMATICS OF ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE INTRODUCTION English as an International Language (EIL) has become an international factor of our communicative context, and is spoken, in one form or another, by somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion speakers world-wide. There is a corresponding emphasis on English language as a first foreign language across the globe, and education systems rigorously examine the grammar and vocabulary, and in some cases also the phonetic performance, of students at various points in their educational careers. There are substantial benefits for those who have superior English, and can use these in professional and interpersonal contexts. English is the default language of communication where speakers do not otherwise share a common language. Nonetheless, two other aspects of English competence are accorded far less emphasis: pragmatics and cultural values. Pragmatics, or the Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 240 competence in using the forms of language for interpersonal communication, involves a wide range of speech acts, and body language acts, from questions to greetings to compliments to warnings to statements, and many more. The cultural values which underlie these speech acts are not infrequently taught as part of the formation of our education systems, but are also insufficiently related to their expression in our mother tongues, and in particular, to the ways in which we use languages other than our mother tongue for communication, both at home and abroad. Textbooks and scholarly studies of intercultural communication, as well as scholarly publications like the Journal of Pragmatics, give ample evidence of the richness of the material that exists across languages. What has been less studied is the ways in which they come together, and sometimes fail to collaborate, in the exercise of English in international space. In fact, the capacity for multi-cultural, multi- pragmatic competence in English is likely to be significantly enhanced for people who do not come from an English-speaking background. The most significant factor behind this claim is the fact that English-speaking countries currently do not, as a whole, have a reputation for promoting LOTEs (Languages Other Than English) in their education systems. A major educational policy announcement in Australia in 2014, for instance, was the press release from the Federal Minister for Education, Mr Chris Pyne, that by the year 2020 he wants 40% of Australian school students in final year to be studying a foreign language. In the context of recent policy-making in Australia this is a bold and innovative step, though it leaves Australia still some distance behind the education systems of Asian countries, and especially those of smaller European countries, where trilingualism is common. The absence of exposure to non- Anglo pragmatics and cultures in first-language English speakers means that they do not have the opportunity to learn how non-native cultures can be encoded in English discourse. This contrasts strongly, for instance, with the appreciation of the cultural role of thanking in Singapore in English (Wong, 2007), or the treatment of compliments in languages like Vietnamese (Pham, 2011)(see below). From this point of view the non-native speaker of English has a distinct cultural and pragmatic advantage when using English, even if, as argued by Hino (2012), the properties of English – formal, cultural and pragmatic – have selectively been shifted by the instructor in the direction of the students' L1. THE LANGUAGE CULTURE/PRAGMATICS DISLOCATION It is not difficult to identify communicationally critical examples in the usage of International English. The first involves the apparently universal act of thanking. This is a ritual where forms of language are used to acknowledge that the other person has rendered some valuable service or action. The issue is how valuable or weighty that service or action need be. This question was brought to my attention by my Singapore students, who asked why Australians thank the bus driver. To Australians this is simply a matter of cultural habit and good manners. But as Wong (2007) shows, in Singapore one thanks when the other party has rendered a service which requires substantial effort, time, expense or inconvenience. That is not the case with the bus driver in Australia, who is paid to do a job. As a result Singaporeans in Australia can sound surly, while Australians in Singapore, saying thank you very frequently, can appear superficial and insincere. A further complication is that Australians often say “thanks” when other varieties of English would say “please”. For instance, when asked if you would like a drink, Australians will say either “yes, please” or “yes, thanks”, even before the drink is delivered. The role of “thanks” in this context acknowledges the offer rather than the provision of the drink itself, but is confusing to non- Australian uses of English, even those for whom English is a first language. There is also the question of acknowledging Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 241 thanks. All European languages have a formula which is obligatory and polite usage, and indicates that the act was not too onerous, for example in German: Receiver: “Bitte” (“thank you”) Giver: “Bitte schön” (lit. “don't mention it”) Until recently in British and Commonwealth English one did not usually say anything in response to statement of thanks. Now, however, perhaps under the influence of European languages, perhaps because of American influence, it is becoming customary to say something: “you're welcome” (American), “no worries” (Australian), or even “cheers” (in numerous countries). This has brought Australian English into line with European and increasingly international practice. It was not that Australian English was formally less polite, except in another context of English usage where some verbal acknowledgement of thanks was expected. But it does indicate a difference between a culturally appropriate pragmatic act of thanking, and its linguistic expression. The second example involves valedictions, or saying farewell. The standard pattern in European languages is to invoke some expectation of the next time you see the person you are farewelling: “until the seeing” Spanish: hasta la vista, Czech: na shledanou, Polish: do widzenia lit. “until the again seeing” French: au revoir, Italian: arrivederci, German: auf Wiedersehen In English, on the other hand, the standard formula is “goodbye”, which originally derives from "God be with ye". There is no expressed expectation of the next encounter. It is not known exactly how this arose, but in Australian English there is now a standard way of saying goodbye, “see you later”. This formula is used even when farewelling someone who is leaving through the gates of an international departure lounge at an airport, and where it is obvious that the next seeing is unlikely to be “later". But this formula has in one respect brought Australian English back into line with European languages, and involves a wish that one is looking forward to the next visual encounter. As a result, saying merely “goodbye” in Australia can sound a little formal and distant, except in contexts where one is speaking more carefully. Interestingly, in Chinese zaj jian means literally "until seeing”. In both these examples a single pragmatic act, of thanking or of farewelling, shows differing linguistic performance: sometimes zero (as in the former acknowledgement of thanks in British and Commonwealth countries), sometimes differing linguistic formulations. Others examples are not far to seek. Saying “no” to someone's face is culturally difficult in Confucian culture is like Japan and Korea. But a frank statement of “yes” or “no” is expected and standard in Hebrew. Israelis and Japanese communicating in English are therefore immediately faced with a diametrically opposed interpretation of frankness. The balance between frankness and politeness, in fact, is also highly relevant to languages which share as long a cultural and historical path as English and French. In French the cultural value of “frankness” is superior to that of “politeness”, to the point where the French word “politess” has a narrower range of use than its English counterpart “politeness”, and the French phrase “savoir vivr”, meaning approximately “knowledge of how to liv”, is both more frequent and more highly valued. The French can see the British as being less than honest because they are avoiding and uncomfortable truth; conversely, the British can see the French as rude and insensitive as they practise their standard variety of interpersonal interaction, and all of this can happen in English. Again, frankness is valued by the French in refusing an answer to a dinner invitation. In French is quite appropriate, and sufficient, to say merely “thank you, sorry, I can't make it”. In English, in contrast, it is expected that one will Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 242 produce some kind of excuse, as plausible as possible, even if one is otherwise able to accept the invitation. In French such an excuse can sound contrived, insincere and unnecessary. And it will sound even more so if that French person is speaking English (Béal, 1994). In other instances a single linguistic act can have different pragmatic and cultural values, depending on the cultural background of the interlocutor. Such an example is a simple compliment: “what good manners your little boy has”. In Anglo societies the conventional response to receiving such a compliment is to smile, thank the complimenter, and accept the compliment gracefully. In Confucian cultures like Vietnam, on the other hand, compliments can be embarrassing, and accepting them can imply an excess of pride. The conventional response is to deflect the compliment, return it for instance to the little boy of the interlocutor, or to find ways of politely declining it. I have witnessed a number of such encounters in English between Anglos and Vietnamese, when the Anglo offered a compliment in good faith. There was no hint of lack of courtesy or good will on either side. But it was evident that the compliment had provoked tension and discomfort. EIL AND CULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE MODELS OF LANGUAGE Profiles of English as an International Language have so far tended to concentrate principally on the formal properties of the language, and which parts of “standard” English can afford to be ignored in international communication: for instance, Jenkins' (2000) discussion of the marginal status of the two “th” sounds [θ] and [ð]. From a cultural and pragmatic point of view, however, the operative principles are far less defined, and are often more likely to be discovered in use, especially between speakers who come from differing cultural backgrounds. In this context it is valuable to consider research on Intercultural Communication by scholars like Hofstede (2001), and their attempts to establish some cultural commonalities of communication irrespective of the base language. Two of Hofstede's criteria which work in substantial collaboration are Power Distance and Individualism. Here the Anglo-speaking countries form a group which is low on power distance and high on individualism: this means that interpersonal communication tends to have rather less observance of power and seniority, but also that the individual has a higher perception of their own identity, over and above that of any social group to which they belong. At the other end of the graph are, inter alia, the countries of East Asia, where we find high power distance and traditional respect for seniority and authority as well as age; and low individualism, which implies that the social group and its interests take precedence over those of the individual. These criteria pose immediate issues for the effective exercise of communication in International English, especially when it concerns speakers from the opposing ends of the spectrum. Not only does English have a relatively poor repertoire of forms for expressing respect – for instance, in contrast to the pronoun system of Vietnamese – but the forms for expressing respect which it does possess are used rather less, and in different contexts, from those which would be appropriate in an East Asian context. Australians, for instance, use formal titles only very sparingly, especially face to face. This is intercultural communication at work within a single language, or perhaps, more accurately, with in a single language code. Canagarajah (2007) has called this “Lingua Franca English” to distinguish it from English as an International Language, highlighting the fact, as happens with a lingua francas, that much of the meaning which they achieve is established in practice and on-the-fly, and may remain uncodified. But unlike a lingua franca, the contexts in Asia in which English are used more stable, and more structured in terms of culture and pragmatics. They will tend to reflect deep traces of the speaker's L1, as well as their C1 (native culture) and P1 (native pragmatics). An Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 243 interpenetration across language / cultural barriers like this is also obvious with native speakers of a language who have spent substantial periods overseas in another culture. When they return home their use of their L1 is no less competent, though it may be a little outdated; but their interpersonal behaviour may well exhibit features of the culture in which they have been resident. The second operative factor from Hofstede's analysis involves Uncertainty Avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance is found in cultures which tend to be high in ritual and formality, and tend to rely more on established patterns of social interaction, ritual, rules, and factors which contribute to the creation of unknown and workable interpersonal dynamic. Anglo societies tend to tolerate uncertainty more, and so operate in a less structured and more unpredictable way. This has obvious implications for the activation of language, culture and pragmatics. English, particularly in countries like Australia, ranks rather low on the scale of ritual behaviour, and conversations are often relatively unstructured. Interpersonal relations are established by negotiation in real time, but also against a background where Australians have an unusual tendency – unusual, that is, in terms of international norms – to address each other by their first names. This can be used educationally as a deliberate destabilising strategy. In our classrooms at the University of Queensland, where we teach Applied Linguistics to classes which are 85% international, principally from Asia, and principally graduates, we took a decision to encourage our students to address us, the teachers, by our first names. The strategy was specifically designed to encourage students to become proactive independent contributors to classroom discussion and exploration. For many students from Asia this was culturally and personally quite painful. But they acquired this practice over a couple of months, and our classrooms became vibrant places of exploration and argument. This, if you wish, is manipulating cultural values of International English for educational purposes. I can vouch for its efficacy, but also for the implications which it has in helping students become more acute and effective observers and interpreters of these cultural and pragmatic behaviours, and to train them in ways of negotiation and accommodation in order to achieve effective channels of communication with the people that they will increasingly meet speaking English in international spaces when they return to take up teaching positions in their home countries. Interestingly, when I meet these students again in their home context in Asia, I am conscious that while I may use their first names to them in private, I will tend to do this much less in public, particularly when they are in the presence of their peers and superiors. CONCLUSION I have written elsewhere (Sussex & Kirkpatrick, 2012) about the key properties of “communicacy” in the international arena of English. These include tolerance of variation, readiness to engage in inter-language switching, competence in repair and recovery when communication breaks down, skill in negotiation, readiness to engage in accommodation or adaptation to the other speaker, and the importance of emotional in