Intercultural communiction

[fighting spirit]

I was asked to make a presentation on intercultural commnication based on a few topics, so I have some question for you.

1. What are the factors that condition perception in intercultural communication?
2. What are the reasons for the failure of intercultural communication?
3. How do the differences in styles of discourse influence communication?
4. How do the differences in styles of work influence communication?

Thank you ;)

[TheParser]

I was asked to make a presentation on intercultural commnication based on a few topics, so I have some question for you.

1. What are the factors that condition perception in intercultural communication?
2. What are the reasons for the failure of intercultural communication?
3. How do the differences in styles of discourse influence communication?
4. How do the differences in styles of work influence communication?

Thank you ;)

NOT A TEACHER


(1) May I comment on your third point.

(2) Of course, I shall NOT be specific, but cultures differ in how

people are supposed to express themselves, I hear.

(a) For example, in some cultures, people hate to say "No," I hear.

Thus in a discussion among people of different cultures, perhaps

people who come from a more "assertive" culture would assume that

people from Group A (who do not want to say "No") agree with their

views even though the people in Group A actually disagree. This could

lead to misunderstandings.

(b) I have also heard that in some cultures, there is the attitude of

win or lose. That is, there is no compromise. Perhaps in a muticultural

discussion group, some people would refuse to ever admit that the other

side might have some valid points.


Respectfully yours,


James

[konungursvia]

These are HUGE questions. I'd answer it by referring to a triadic model of semiotics, as seen in the Stoics, Augustine and Georges Kalinowski: a sign can designate a material object, but it will inevitably also signify a mental one (the verbum mentis if you like), and in fact the way in which language evokes cultural icons is the richest and most powerful part of it.

Obviously, a common cultural repertoire, our baggage of symbols, "the archetypes of perception" as Jung put it, are all requirements for meaningful understanding.

[5jj]

These are HUGE questions. I'd answer it by referring to a triadic model of semiotics, as seen in the Stoics, Augustine and Georges Kalinowski: a sign can designate a material object, but it will inevitably also signify a mental one (the verbum mentis if you like), and in fact the way in which language evokes cultural icons is the richest and most powerful part of it.

Obviously, a common cultural repertoire, our baggage of symbols, "the archetypes of perception" as Jung put it, are all requirements for meaningful understanding.

Respect!