这个是我在韩国上学的妹妹的作业.我英文能力有限实在帮她翻译不了.请好心的MM们帮我翻译一下…谢谢谢谢~~~
Face and cross-cultural communication
Perhaps one of the more problematic aspects of international online communication involves varying cultural expectations of face. As Lusting and Koester explain, face is the “public expression of the inner self,” and it usually “involves a claim for respect and dignity from others”. As Uh and Grove note, the overall concepts of face is not limited to certain cultures, but rather is “a universal concern of human beings”. However, Gudykunst and Kim point out that individuals from different cultures can have very different views on how face-and activities associated with maintaining face-is defined.
Gudykunst and Kim explain, “Problems in communication may occur when there is a [cultural] difference in the interpretation of the face-concern being used”. As a result of cultural differences related to face, individuals from one culture could inadvertently present information in a face-threatening way that could cause coworkers located in another culture to loose face. Moreover, what constitutes face-threatening behavior can vary along cultural lines. Thus, individuals from one culture might continue to display inappropriate face behavior (and thus jeopardize important international relationships) until someone makes them aware that such behavior is offensive to counterparts from other cultures.
Additionally, as Lusting and Koester explain, there are different kinds of FACE NEEDS.
1) Control: related to an individual’s need for others to acknowledge his or her autonomy and self-sufficiency.
2) Approval: related to an individual’s need for others to acknowledge his or her friendliness and honesty.
3) Admiration: related to an individual’s need for others to acknowledge his r her talents and accomplishments. However, individuals from different cultures can have different expectations of what kind of face need is important to a certain kind of activity.
For example, a manager from one culture might feel comfortable directly criticizing the work of subordinates in order to fulfill that manager’s face need of control (to maintain the appearance that the manager is in charge). A manager from another culture, however, might avoid such a direct criticism and instead comment on what subordinates are doing well (not what subordinates are doing poorly). Such an attempt to emphasize the positive would be more in line with meeting the face needs of approval and admiration than that of control.
Different cultural concepts of face can affect both unidirectional and bidirectional exchanges. In unidirectional communication, one person could inadvertently do something that is embarrassing according to the cultural face expectations of the listener. For example, stating the purpose of a business meeting is an expected practice in cultures that value direct presentations. However, for many individuals from cultures where an indirect presentation style is preferred, stating the purpose of a business meeting could be perceived as face-threatening behavior, for it involves stating something that everyone should already know (i.e., why the participants are meeting). In this case, stating the obvious could cost the listener face, for it appears as if he or she is being talked down to by the speaker. Since I don’t think you’re competent enough, I’ll state the obvious for you. Such direct statements could also cost the speaker face by making him of her inadvertently look foolish according to the audience’s face expectations. He or she is so boorish-always stating the obvious like that.
In bidirectional communication, where two or more people interact, the same unidirectional face problems could exist in cross-cultural exchanges (i.e., inadvertently embarrassing yourself of the audience). However, the interactive nature of the bidirectional exchange could also cause further face-related problems.
To use the previous scenario to illustrate this concept, a speaker from a more direct culture explicitly states the reason for a meeting to a listener from a more indirect culture:
We are meeting for this reason.
The listener, in turn, follows his or her cultural norm, which is to indirectly help the speaker save face by getting the speaker to stop stating the obvious:
Perhaps we should discuss this topic instead.
The speaker, however, interprets this face –saving behavior as face-threatening behavior (i.e., why are you trying to dismiss what I’m saying?) and responds with yet another remark that is face-threatening in terms of the listener’s culture:
No, first we need to discuss the reason for this meeting.
This exchange could continue to spiral out of control as each side does what is “correct” according to its culture’s definition of face. In so doing, each side offends the other by continually and unintentionally violating the face-related norms of that other culture.
The fact that different cultures can associate different face needs with similar situations could cause cross-cultural communication problems as individuals from one culture behave in a way that is considered offensive or unacceptable by counterparts from another culture.
[ 编辑 LiLianMiMi 在 08-04-12 05:43 ]
帮你可以。。先分类。。。。
不然会被锁帖的MM 