BA Opgave
BA Opgave
Indhold
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem statement ................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
3.3
3.1
4.1.1
Assumption of similarities............................................................................................... 8
4.1.2
Language differences....................................................................................................... 9
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
Theories ......................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.5
6
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 16
6.1
Watching the English A social anthropological observation
By Kate Fox ....................................................................................................................................... 16
6.2
Similarities and differences in perceptions and evaluations of the communication styles of
American and British managers
By Kathleen Dunkerley and W. Peter Robinson................................................................................ 17
6.3
Getting to No. A Matter of English Ethics or Culture?
and
Northern European Business Cultures: Britain vs. Denmark and Germany
By Malene Djursaa............................................................................................................................ 18
6.4
Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 18
6.4.1
Summing up .................................................................................................................. 26
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 30
10
Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 32
Abstract
When the world becomes more globalized, businesses across the world engage more and more in
cross-cultural interaction. Different theories on culture suggest that one should be aware of the
linguistic and cultural differences which can cause misunderstandings and miscommunication between
two cultures.
The aim of this thesis is to unveil some if the characteristics that are special for the British
communication behavior as there seems to be several examples of miscommunication happening when
engaging in cross-cultural interaction with the British. The problem statement in all its simplicity
states: Why are the British so difficult to communicate with? Sub-questions have been made to
substantiate the findings and the thesis will therefore also try to determine whether or not the British
should be characterized as high- or low-context. To answer these questions the use of different
theories will be explained and put into practice in trying to decipher what aspect have an influence on
the difficulties in communication with the British.
Barnas Six Stumbling Blocks present the difficulties which can hinder an efficient crosscultural interaction. The stumbling blocks include assumption of similarities, language barriers,
Analyzing the case studies and applying the theories, makes it evident that the British almost
fall into their own category. They are defined by Hall as a low-context culture but the case studies
show evidence that they share many commonalities with high-context cultures such as Japan and Arab
countries like for instance their emphasis on politeness and the precedence of personal relationships
and social cues over tasks.
The British are therefore a unique instance of an almost non-categorical culture which, although
presumably belonging to the same cultural group as Denmark and America, still posses enough
differences to cause misunderstandings and miscommunication when interacting cross-culturally with
people from another culture.
Introduction
In a world that continually becomes more and more globalized people engaging in crosscultural interaction, either in personal or business relations, discover that culture has not
become globalized too. There can be barriers which prevent people from different cultures to
communicate in an efficient manner and misunderstandings and miscommunication can make
reaching a mutual agreement impossible. People from different cultures have different
understandings of the interaction process as well as having different communication styles
and so, culture and communication are therefore closely related and one way of avoiding
cross-cultural communication problems is having a better understanding of cross-cultural
differences because one will only be able to deal with new situations on the basis of the
competences learned from the reflection of personal experience (Kakabadse et. al. p. 12).
It is important to establish what we are referring to, when talking about culture. The
definition which suits the topic of this thesis best is given by Helen Spencer-Oatey who
provides the following definition:
Culture is a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioral conventions, and basic assumptions
and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each members behavior
and each members interpretations of the meaning of other peoples behavior1.
Spencer-Oatey p. 4
suppressed depends on the accepted cultural beliefs, therefore signs of grief or happiness may
be completely different from one culture to another (Barna p. 337).
10
of the world. Stereotypes continue to exist because they are sustained by only recognizing that
information which is supported by the views the stereotypes present us with (Barna p. 341).
Theories
The theories discussed in this part of the thesis consist of culture-related, face-related and
politeness-related aspects and the highlights of the theories will be presented and used for the
analysis which follows the theoretical part.
11
something universal but other theorists such as Ting-Toomey argues that culture can affect
the relative sensitivity of different aspects of peoples face, as well as which strategies are
most appropriate for managing face (Spencer-Oatey p. 12).
12
According to Goffman, face, therefore, is a mask that changes according to the situation
the audience in front of you or the social interaction in which you engage. People are
emotionally attached to their face, which is created in social settings and so people will use
different politeness strategies in social situations as a means to help maintain each others face
because they strive to maintain the face which they have constructed (Metts et. al. p. 206).
What can be concluded from the latter is that face is both public and social. Face
happens in our interactions with others and refers towhat kind of image is revealed in your
own and others actions. Face can be observed in public actions and interactions and because
it includes not only the individuals own face but also the actions of the participants, face is
also social (ibid. p. 220).
13
Brown and Levinsons model namely that the concept of positive face was underspecified and
that the negative face issues was not necessarily face concerns after all (Spencer-Oatey p. 13).
Rapport Management refers to the management of harmony and disharmony among people
and it involves two main components. Firstly, the management of face involves managing
face needs and Spencer-Oateys definition of face is equal to that of Goffman emphasizing
that it is the positive social value that concerns us. Secondly, the management of sociality
rights refers to the management of social expectancies which Spencer-Oatey defines as
fundamental personal/social entitlements that individuals effectively claim for themselves in
their interactions with others. Spencer-Oatey proposes yet two components within each of
the two mentioned above. Within the management of face we find quality face, concerned
with personal qualities and self-esteem, and identity face, concerned with values effective in
social or group roles. Similarly, within the management of sociality rights we find equity
rights and association rights. Equity rights consist of yet two components referring to the
extent to which we are exploited and the extent to which people impose on us, the latter being
the notion of autonomy-imposition and the former being the notion of cost-benefit (ibid. p.
14).
Spencer-Oatey p. 15
quality face
(cf. Brown and Levinsons
positive face)
(personal/social
entitlements)
equity rights
(cf. Brown and Levinsons
negative face)
14
Social/interdependent
perspective
identity face
association rights
15
in the South can penetrate the bubble of space for a Northern European thereby making that
person uncomfortable or aggressive (ibid. p. 10-11).
Time is part of the measuring system used to sequence events and especially two kinds of
time systems have proven to cause difficulty in international business; monochronic and
polychronic time.
The following table shows some of the direct differences between the high- and lowcontext cultures. More differences are present but these specific areas have been chosen out of
relevance for the topic of the thesis.
Table 1.2
Contexting Categories and Related Cultural Characteristics in
Intercultural Business and Technical Communication Literature4
High-Context Characteristic
Low-Context Characteristic
Contexting category
Directness of communication
Primary message is implicitly coded.
Politeness is emphasized.
Management of information
Ambiguous information is preferred
context.
16
problems or tasks.
Analysis
Todays globalization process has reduced the cultural differences5
The quote stems from a paper on the business relationship between Spanish toy manufacturers
and their British customers and reveals certain differences between the two cultures. The two
had difficulties working together and understanding one another because of the fact that
cultural and linguistic barriers had not been taken into consideration as possible hindrances to
business communication and relationships.
The following analysis will use three different case studies as well as an anthropologists observations of the British as the basis for identifying and analyzing the cultural and
linguistic barriers likely to be encountered in cross-cultural interactions. A brief summary of
the material will be presented first then followed by the analysis in which all the texts and
theories will incorporated in an overall analysis of the problem statement. Lastly a final subparagraph has been devoted to the concluding part of the analysis which will give a recap of
the findings.
Nieto p. 4
17
patterns common enough to be taken in and significant (ibid. p. 9). Fox refers to her work as
a book about the rules of Englishness (ibid. p. 9) by which she intended to identify the
norms and guiding principles about normal English behavior and the differences in these
rules help us distinguish one culture from another (ibid. p. 13).
18
and
6.4 Analysis
The analysis will first identify the characteristics observed from an outside perspective. In
identifying these, we will use Barnas theory of the Six Stumbling Blocks to Intercultural
Communication. Secondly, the case studies will be analyzed using the theories by Goffman,
Brown and Levinson, Hall and Spencer-Oatey in an attempt to unveil the hindrances for
effective cross-cultural communication caused by cultural norms and behavior.
Barnas stumbling blocks pose some serious difficulties in attaining proper crosscultural communication without misunderstandings. It suggests that there exist six stumbling
blocks that can prevent efficient cross-cultural communication is important in cross-cultural
business relations because the understanding of the others culture can make or break a
business deal. The stumbling blocks include; the assumption of similarities, the language
barriers, the tendency to evaluate, the high anxiety, the stereotypes and the nonverbal
misinterpretations are all contributing to creating difficulties when engaging in cross-cultural
interaction. In order for miscommunication not to take place, one must be aware of the fact,
19
that ones own cultural background cannot automatically be transferred to another culture.
Djursaa presents the example of a Danish margarine manufacturer trying to make a deal with
an English supermarket and the process of the initial negotiations seems positive to the
Danish company. Their assumption of similarities overshadows the context in which the
British were actually giving the Danish company their turndown. One can argue that the
Danish posses more similarity assumptions than is actually the case. The language barrier is
an obvious difficulty when a conversation is made between a native and a non-native speaker
of English. As Djursaa also points out in her article, the Danish tend to overestimate their
language skills, and though speaking English well they seem to have an over-confidence and
believing that they speak it even better (Djursaa (1995) p. 2). The English language surely has
a variation of the language that even the Danish do not know how to use, even though
belonging to some of the non-native speakers in the world who do actually speak English
well. Language itself is ambiguous and can cause a huge amount of confusion. English being
the lingua franca of the world means that the native English speakers almost expect their
partners in interaction to adopt the same ways of using the language as they do but this puts
tremendous pressure on the non-native speaker as he/she for instance will have to
comprehend the English use of voice modulation and understand that questions can be
expressed as statements. We only have our own knowledge about the world and the what kind
of language the speaker has used to rely on in situations like this (Guirdham p. 191).
Barnas concept of the tendency to evaluate can be applied to the Danish company in
the sense that they took the British companys actions as a positive sign. The Danish
perception of approved behavior is clearly demonstrated in the case of the Danish paint
manufacturer trying to negotiate a deal with a British firm. Barnas tendency to evaluate states
that one either approves or disapproves the statements or actions made by the other, and in the
case of the Anglo-Danish business relation, the Danish approved the actions made by the
British, who gave off positive signals and permitted a total of three visits by the Danish
company, who had started an advanced planning process at the time, before turning them
down by means of a letter. The Danish evaluation was not consistent with the reality of the
message that the British wanted to send because the Danish process of negotiation differs
from the British.
Answers given by Danes, Americans and Brits in both case studies agree that the British
are indirect in their form of communication. The British peoples inability to handle simple
20
matters efficiently such as greeting and parting is partly related to the almost exaggerated
British politeness. The British do not want to know any personal information about a stranger
until a much higher degree of intimacy has been established between the two. The British
pertain almost in scholarly manner the practice of beating around the bush because of their
extensive use of indirectness.
Anthropologist Kate Fox observed, that the British find it much to direct for a foreigner
to simply introduce themselves on a first-name basis. The right way to introduce oneself in
a social setting, would be simply not to introduce oneself at all but work ones way into it by,
for instance, making an initial remark about the weather. (Fox p. 39) Fox states that the
British peoples obsession with talking about the weather is a matter of easing your way into a
conversation with another person and the weather-talks, she states, are a means for the British
of getting passed their natural reserve and actually talk to people (ibid. p. 26).
The British construct roundabout ways of introducing topics
- it avoids social embarrassment6
The statement, given by an American businessman in the Dunkerley and Robinson study,
support the argument, that the British are anything but direct. Fox argues that a smooth and
confident style of communication is un-English and, surprisingly as it may seem, a hesitant
and almost ineffective style is the correct behavior (ibid. p. 41). The determination of the level
of directness can among other theories be explained by means of Brown and Levinsons
concept of politeness.
Brown and Levinsons Politeness Theory states that the level of directness conveyed in
communication is related to the losing and maintaining of ones public image (Kakabadse et.
al. p. 13). In high-context cultures, the preferred way of communicating is the indirect mode
and the use of a direct form may be unsettling for ones own face. The decision to use the
indirect form of communication is therefore a conscious attempt to avoid face-threatening acts
but also a form of communication which will inevitably cause ambiguity and equivocation
(ibid. p. 13) Brown and Levinsons Politeness Theory distinguishes between positive and
negative face. By positive face wants we refer to having ones social image accepted by
others and negative face wants involve the rights of that image, meaning in short that we take
6
Ibid. p. 399
21
exception to it when people impose on us or do not show us the respect we see fit (Goldsmith
p. 256). The distinction between positive and negative face, however, only relates to an
individual/ personal conceptualization of face (Spencer-Oatey p. 15). Interaction and
communication requires a social component and the Politeness Theory will therefore be used
in the analysis of the case studies in interlacement with Spencer-Oateys Rapport
Management Theory as they do share some similarities.
Both participants in an interaction strive for both positive and negative face wants, so it
is in the participants best intention to help and corporate in maintaining each others face
(Goldsmith p. 222). The British, being both indirect and polite, take precedence over personal
relationships and social cues (cf. table 1.2) and by avoiding open conflicts they help maintain
the other persons face, as the following suggests.
The British are more cautious they have more of a
concern for peoples sensitivities7
Brown and Levinson argue that our aspiration to respect face makes us less direct and
efficient in expressing what we actually mean (ibid. p. 223). There is a genuine interest in
almost a type of looking after one another which takes precedence over a business deal.
Spencer-Oatey proposes two ways in which rapport can be threatened. If someone asks
something of us which we feel they have no right to, they threaten our equity rights, and if
someone speaks to us in a manner that is too personal for us they threaten our association
rights (Spencer-Oatey p. 16). The British obsession with avoiding conflicts and thereby also
the loss of face, makes them aware of using different linguistic options that serve as strategies
for managing face and sociality rights (ibid. p. 20). As Djursaa witnessed in the analyzing of
her data, personal relationships are important for the British when doing business. As
previously stated, the degree to which the two components, the interactional associationdissociation and the affective association-dissociation differ depends on the culture and the
norms and behaviors relating to that specific culture. The British take the concept of
interactional association-dissociation seriously when engaging in business relations, as the
following example shows.
Ibid. p. 399
22
The human side means a lot. If he doesnt like me, there wont be a deal
for the Englishmen the people are vital, whether you get along8
Spencer-Oatey defines this aspect as the type and extent of our involvement with others
(ibid. p. 15). Spencer-Oateys Rapport Management builds on Brown and Levinsons
Politeness Theory and adds a social component which is distinguishable from the Politeness
Theory. She differentiates between a personal perspective in which ones values are at stake
and a social perspective in which ones entitlements are at stake (Spencer-Oatey p. 15). The
association rights are also made up of two components, the interactional associationdissociation and the affective association-dissociation.
The association right is the personal fundamental belief that we are entitled to an
association with others which is related partly to the extent of our involvement and to the
extent we share feelings and interests. These rights differ from one culture to another because
the suitable amounts in which these rights are expressed partly depend on the cultures
sociocultural norms (ibid. p. 15). In the case of the Anglo-Danish business relations the
British show behaviors very similar to those characteristic for the high-context cultures.
Spencer-Oateys sociality rights are concerned with personal or social expectancies and our
concerns with for instance social inclusion.
As Hall identified, the UK is a low-context culture (Hall p. 7) in which less attention is
paid to social cues and context, physical cues are unimportant and problems or tasks take
precedence over relationships (cf. table 1.2). However, it can be detected in the Djursaa
articles, that the British felt that their association rights were threatened. An English business
man visited a Danish stand at an exhibition was genuinely surprised and offended that his
Danish hosts did not spend time being social with him and inviting him to lunch (Djursaa,
(1994) p. 140). This example shows in all its clarity the major cultural differences between
the British and Danish cultures.
In Djursaas artice Getting to No, the Danes expressed confusion and annoyance with
the behavior of the British (Djursaa (1995) p. 1). The Danes perceived positive signals and an
interest in a possible business deal when in fact the British were in the process of turning their
proposition down. Not surprisingly the Danes were puzzled by the turndown but the British
23
were not being rude rather they were behaving according to the conventional codes normal for
British communication behavior.
We dont like saying no, especially if we like somebody.
Wed rather they went away reasonably happy9
The statement, stemming from a British respondent from the study, indicates that the British
somewhat differs in the communication styles from countries supposedly belonging to the
same type of culture as the British.
Denmark, which is defined by Hall as a low-context culture (Hall p. 7), accentuate
directness and prefer getting to the point and not beat around the bush. In general it is
assumed, that the low-context individual is very literal minded; what is said is what is meant.
The high-context individual on the other hand, is already contexted, meaning that most of the
information is already in the individual (ibid. p. 6). The Danish company was most likely
assuming that their way of doing business and their practice of turning someone down would
be similar. Their ethnocentric view caused a miscommunication between the two companies
because what can cause problems between high- and low-context individuals is that the lowcontext individual cannot decipher the high-context individuals indirect messages (Djursaa
(1994) p. 3). The fact is though, that it has already been determined that the UK is a lowcontext culture so why the miscommunication?
When applying Halls concept of high/low context cultures, both Denmark and the UK
are identified as being low-context cultures (Hall p. 7) in which directness is emphasized but
the quote We dont like saying no, especially if we like somebody. Wed rather they went
away reasonably happy obviously indicates, that the British do not wish to let the Danes
directly down but just giving them a no. The British share similarities with countries, which
are by definition high-context cultures, such as Japan and the Arabian countries.
In Japanese business connections, the giving of a no is considered impolite and a
foreigner could therefore easily be given a yes which in fact means no simply because of the
fact, that neither party thereby would lose face and both parties could part as friends (Djursaa
(1995) p. 3). The same similarities can be detected in the Arabian world, where you do not
turn someone down directly unless that person has offended you. Turning one down directly
9
Djursaa p. 4
24
is regarded as impolite, so how can you know if the yes you have received in fact means no?
The answer lies in the culture. In the Arabian world a yes will mean yes when it is repeated
many times and accompanied by a clear positive attitude expressed via body language and eye
signals (ibid. p. 4). Instead of providing a short and clear turndown, the high-context people
are slow at getting to the point. The American businessman thinking that the British had too
many confusing ways of introducing a topic, support the argument that the British are
different from their cultural neighbors.
Goffman recognized in the making of his theory that people are emotionally attached to
their face and the directness of the Americans, for instance, may in some cases be a little
overwhelming for the British, as the following statement indicates.
Direct criticism can annoy and anger the British. Americans need to be aware that
direct criticism can cause negative feelings10
The British prefer avoiding the direct mode of communicating which may involve confrontations which can facilitate losing face and according to Goffman, the negative feelings
attained by the British as a result of direct criticism from the Americans is considered a loss
of face. Goffmans theory states that losing face is a typical human concern and as observed
by the British themselves in the following statement, they will strive to use the politeness
strategies most convenient for maintaining their own face as well as that of others.
The British are more cautious they have more of a
concern for peoples sensitivities11
The theory by Goffman roughly argues that face is a mask which changes according to the
variety of the audience. Face is created in social situations and interactions and we construct
a self that fits appropriately into the requirements of the context (Metts et. al. p. 205). The
significant observations made by both Fox and Djursaa point in the direction that the British
are relatively more high-context than assumed beforehand. The Face Theory therefore,
confirms the observation that the British will engage more in face work. This stems from a
10
11
25
British cultural norm of communication and behavior which determinedly involves a social
awkwardness and uncertainty which thereby produces an over-politeness (Fox p. 401).
Although not being fond of using the theory by Hofstede, his concepts of individualism
vs. collectivism spring to mind when reading some of the answers given by the participants in
the Dunkerley and Robinson study including the following quote.
The Brits prefer collective decisions; they prefer team problem
solving and team recognition12
Having established already that the UK is a low-context culture according to Hall, Hofstedes
theory states that the UK is an individualistic country however, this is not what is evident in
the above mentioned quote by an American. The Americans agreed that the problem solving
process was a long-term progression in which the British were not as resolute and forward as
the Americans because it was more appreciated and valued having an effective and
harmonious team rather than hastily coming to a decision (Dunkerley et. al. p. 401). However,
what is also characteristic about the British, as Fox argues, is that they do not appreciate
dramatic change and would rather settle for a compromise. When having established that the
UK is a low-context culture, we are taken by surprise by their appreciation of, and emphasis
on team work and collective harmony but this may rather be explained culturally as the
concept of compromise seems to be profoundly rooted within the English psyche (Fox p.
205). Fox also determines a sense of social dis-ease in the British, stating that they are
unable to engage in a direct and straightforward interaction with another person (ibid. p. 206)
which could help explain the notion of fairness in the British behavior. Fox argues that this
fairness seems to influence much of the British peoples behaviors and is marked with an
egalitarian politeness (ibid. p. 207).
12
26
6.4.1 Summing up
The three articles on which the analysis is based along with the anthropological observations
by Kate Fox all suggest that the British culture is rather difficult to categorize by means of the
theories discussed in the previous paragraph.
Barnas theory of the Six Stumbling Blocks suggest that the areas in which most
difficulties are encountered are the assumption of similarities, language barriers and tendency
to evaluate. Especially in the case of the Anglo-Danish business relations the differences
caused many misunderstanding between the companies. The Danishs assumption of similarities got in the way and caused them to evaluate the actions of the British wrongly. The Danish
perception of having English language skills almost consistent with that of a native made
them over-confident and may be one of the reasons for the miscommunication. Another
assumption was presumably of similar work/business/communication/negotiation behavior by
the Danish. The paint manufacturer finally received a decline after a total of three visits and
what seemed like positive signals. So what went wrong? The stumbling blocks are something
to be aware of when engaging in cross-cultural communication but the UK and Denmark are
close neighbors, so one can wonder why there are so many differences that hinder their
chances of efficient communication. In the case of the paint manufacturer the reason for the
mixed signals received by the Danish has to do with the British concept of face and politeness
which can be indentified and analyzed by using the Face Theory, Politeness Theory and
Rapport Management Theory.
Halls concept of High/Low Context Culture identifies that the UK has many
similarities with the high-context cultures even though being defined as a low-context culture.
Goffmans Face Theory argues that one should try to obtain a self which matches the
requirements of the surrounding context. Examples from the analysis show that the British
can develop negative feelings when being approached too directly which results in a loss of
face. When arguing that the British fall into the high-context category the Face Theory
therefore proposes that the British will be more engaged in face work as a result of cultural
norms.
The Politeness Theory by Brown and Levinson has been interlaced with the Rapport
27
Management Theory by Spencer-Oatey as they correlate. The Politeness Theory states that
there is a distinction between positive and negative face wants, the former referring to having
ones social image accepted by others and the latter referring to upholding the rights of that
image. Many of the examples of statements presented in the analysis are instances of negative
face wants and taking this concept one step further we can identify instances of association
rights as defined by Spencer-Oatey as the equivalent to Brown and Levinsons notion of
negative face. The British are concerned with the maintaining of face and therefore use
different politeness strategies to avoid threatening someones sociality rights.
The British are unique in their communication styles and it has been identified multiple
times throughout the articles and Foxs book, that they are anything but direct in their choice
of style, however this also relates to their excessive politeness which is embedded in the
English psyche. Fox observed that the British culture was primarily a negative-politeness
culture where the emphasis was not on being polite per se but rather avoiding intrusion and
imposition (Fox p. 173).
Foxs observation of the negative-politeness culture brings us back to the paper on the
Spanish toy manufacturer and their British costumers. The study revealed that many of the
Spanish respondents were not aware of the existence of linguistic and cultural barriers and
described the British as inflexible, aloof, cold, strict, distant and unexpressive (Nieto p. 1).
However, there are certain characteristics which actually confirm such arguments, especially
seen from an outsiders perspective, so let us just end this analysis by establishing that:
The British are indirect its a way of avoiding emotional engagement13
The different theories by Goffman, Brown and Levinson, Hall, Spencer-Oatey and Barna
discussed in the previous paragraph and used for the analysis all contain strengths and
weaknesses which will be the topic of this paragraph. The Politeness Theory by Brown and
Levinson contains many strengths that can help us determine many differences in
communication and it is therefore a theory especially useful for communication scholars. The
13
28
Politeness Theory offers, unlike many other communication theories, a new approach to
communication in that it can provide strategies to becoming a more efficient communicator
instead of simply predicting what people will say (Goldsmith p. 232-33). Other authors have
questioned the usefulness of Brown and Levinsons theory as they believe their view on
culture to be somewhat insufficient. The understanding of face is different from culture to
culture and is a concept which is deeply rooted in cultural knowledge and values (ibid. p.
231). Consequently, Brown and Levinsons notion of face may not be of the same
significance in every culture and these concept may also take on different meanings crossculturally. Brown and Levinson acknowledge the fact that there are cultural differences in the
choosing of the politeness strategies and this question the cross-cultural strength because we
have different perceptions of differences in communication.
The concepts of face and politeness traditional for the British communication style may
determine that the use of the Politeness Theory has different meaning for the British and the
Danish or Americans who were the partners in the case studies. Where the theory does work
however, is when an awareness of linguistic and cultural differences has been raised. Then it
will be possible to use the theory in action, meaning that cross-cultural interactants will be
able to obtain a better and more efficient communication thereby, hopefully, avoiding crosscultural misunderstandings.
Conclusion
The aim of this thesis has been to try and account for the reasons why the British are so
difficult to communicate with by the means of different theories on culture, face and
politeness. The British have a unique communication style and behavior which have roots
deep in the cultural tradition of the country. It is difficult really to state the reasons why the
British differ so significantly in their communication style and behavior because they
themselves differ when it comes to identifying and categorizing certain cultural
characteristics.
The British can hardly be categorized as an either-or culture because they share
similarities with both ends of the context scale. The high-context cultures emphasis on
29
politeness and social cues is also relevant when discussing the British people but there is
another side to the story as well.
As Barnas theory suggests, the Danish and American businesspeople took certain
similarities for granted, assuming that the British process of doing business would be
somewhat the same as theirs seeing as the UK was a member of the same cultural club.
This hypothesis however, turned out not to be true. Distinguishing between business and
personal connections, an individualistic/collectivistic difference can also be detected.
One of the findings in the analysis suggests that the British are high-context when it
comes to personal relationships and the maintaining of a group harmony. The British are very
biased when it comes to this subject. Being extremely polite on the one hand and offended
when not shown the interest in social mingling by a foreign partner, they are described among
others as cold, distant, severe and unexpressive on the other hand. In her anthropological
observations, Fox argues that the British obsession with politeness is in fact only a matter of
almost involuntary deeply ingrained manners. When Goffman states that we enact the
characteristics that go along with some line in an interaction and others act toward us in ways
that sustain that image (Goldsmith p. 221), we decipher this and hereby understand, that the
British reserve and social dis-ease are realized through the British behavior in which they
judge each other by themselves and assume that everyone else must feel the same way and
therefore ignore them. So how come the British are such a difficult people to communicate
with?
The analysis provides findings which are useful for detecting certain cultural barriers
which can hinder any cross-cultural interaction. The special case with the British, however, is
that their ambiguous ways of communication can be hard for a foreigner to detect if not
knowing some of the cultural differences beforehand. One way we can answer the why aspect
of the research topic, is applying the problem to Halls theory of High/Low Context Culture.
Obviously Halls theory does not offer a scale on which only countries can be found on
the extreme end. The conclusion is not that the British should be defined as a high-context
culture because this is not the case. However, the British have remarkably many traits in
common with the obvious high-context cultures such as Japan and countries from the Arabian
world but that is as far as the comparison goes. The British are not high-context but nor are
the low-context. The final statement of this thesis is that the British are a predominantly lowcontext culture but with many high-context traits in varying degree depending on the
30
situation. The British are higher up the scale than her Northern European neighbors and
though not being frightfully different, the differences are significant enough to cause
problems in cross-cultural interactions.
Bibliography
Barna, LaRay, Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication, In L.A. Samovar and R.E.
Porter, Intercultural Communication: A Reader (pages 337-346), 7th Edition, Wadsworth
Publishing Company, 1994
Djurssa, Malene, North European Business Cultures: Britain vs. Denmark and Germany, In
European Management Journal, (pages 138-146), Volume 12, Issue 2, Elsevier Science
Ltd., 1994
Djursaa, Malene, Getting to No. A Matter of English Ethics or Culture?, In Business Ethics. A
European review (pages 1-5), Vol. 4, Issue 1, Blackwell, 1995
Dunkerley, Kathleen J., Robinson, W. Peter, Similarities and differences in perceptions and
evaluations of the communication styles of American and British managers, In Journal of
Language and Social Psychology (pages 393-409), Vol. 21, No. 4, Sage Publications,
2002
Fox, Kate, Watching the English The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour, Hodder &
Stoughton, 2005
Goldsmith, Daena J., Brown and Levinsons Politeness Theory, In B. Whaley, W. Samter
(Eds.), Explaining Communication Contemporary Theories and Exemplars (pages 219237), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007
Grice, Paul, Studies in the Way of Words, First Harvard University Paperback Edition, 1991
Guirdham, Maureen, Communicating across Cultures at Work, Second Edition, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005
31
Hall, Edward T., Hall, Mildred Reed, Part 1: Key concepts: underlying structures of culture,
In E. Hall, M. Hall, Understanding cultural differences (pages 3-31), Intercultural Press,
1990
Korac-Kakabadse, Nada, Kouzmin, Alexander, Korach-Kakabadse, Andrew, Savery, Lawson,
Low- and High-Context Communication Patterns: Towards Mapping Cross-Cultural
Encounters, Cross- Cultural Management, Volume 8, Number 2, 2001
Langergaard, Luise Li, Rasmussen, Sren B., Srensen, Asger, Viden, Videnskab og
Virkelighed, Forlaget Samfundslitteratur, 2006
Metts, Sandra, Cupach, William R., Face Theory Goffmans Dramatistic Approach to
Interpersonal Interaction, In L. Baxter, D. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging Theories in
Interpersonal
Communication
Multiple
Perspectives
(pages
203-215),
Sage
Publications, 2008
Nieto, Victoria Guilln, The invisible face of culture: Why do Spanish toy manufacturers
believe the British are most peculiar in business?, University of Alicante
http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/4184/2/The%20invisible%20face%20of%20culture.pdf
32
10 Appendix
Djurssa, Malene, North European Business Cultures: Britain vs. Denmark and Germany, In
European Management Journal, (pages 138-146), Volume 12, Issue 2, Elsevier Science
Ltd., 1994
Djursaa, Malene, Getting to No. A Matter of English Ethics or Culture?, In Business Ethics. A
European review (pages 1-5), Vol. 4, Issue 1, Blackwell, 1995
Dunkerley, Kathleen J., Robinson, W. Peter, Similarities and differences in perceptions and
evaluations of the communication styles of American and British managers, In Journal of
Language and Social Psychology (pages 393-409), Vol. 21, No. 4, Sage Publications,
2002