“What’s in a Word?” The Impact of Culture on Cross-Cultural Communication

by Natalia Burianyk, Ph.D

In our daily life this is what we routinely do – give names. We name objects, people, and phenomena, we create new names for new concepts, we rename things replacing old names with new ones. Our language reflects our ever changing cultural paradigms by producing new words and recycling old ones thus granting them new meanings. The word is a subject and object of our daily life. It is very powerful and cannot be disregarded.

How many times have you been baffled by the reaction of your friends, neighbours, colleagues and family members by what you have said? What seemed like an innocent comment, a witty observation or a funny joke was interpreted as sarcasm, mockery or a downright insult. Long after the incident you were replaying the conversation over and over again in an attempt to understand how a word could provoke such a strong reaction from the people who should know better, the people you have known for years, the people who you love and respect and would never dream of hurting, and, finally, the people who speak the same language. How in the world did they manage to interpret your thought so dramatically different?

Let us imagine a similar situation in a different context. This time the parties have nothing in common except for some business or other interest – a joint venture, a government project, a cultural event, etc. They come from different countries, know very little about each other and speak different languages. In a word, they represent totally different universes with their business, political and economic climates, customs and traditions, art and philosophy, and, most importantly, their languages. “A different language is a different vision of life,” said Federico Fellini. “Learn a new language and get a new soul,” echoes a Czech proverb.

The importance of language, which is an essential part of culture, is hard to overestimate. Our language reveals not only how we express ourselves as individuals, but also how we think as a nation. It reflects our national biases, advantages and limitations. The very fact that some languages do not have the word “no” should provide clues on the challenges of negotiating with those people, while “polite” languages, Japanese for example, can open the floor for never-ending analysis and interpretation – did they mean that or not? Did they say that to be polite or because this is actually how things are? Were we snubbed or should we just hang in there for a little longer and things would change?

Or let us consider the issue of ambiguity. Some countries are better at it than others ranging from a very low tolerance level to ambiguity, like, for example, North Americans, to the most skilful use of it in Southern Europe. Their respective languages mirror this. Take Dutch, for example. The language is very economical in the way it uses words, nothing extra. This is consistent with the Dutch character and national mentality – pragmatic, efficient, careful with money, all stemming from their Protestant roots. The Dutch do not like to waste time or money, everything should be simple and streamlined, no reason to put on airs or show off your wealth. Even the royal family are not above it, being known for shopping in regular stores, frequenting local bars and restaurants and even accepting the commoners’ invitations to different festivities.

The Dutch language is a direct reflection of the above. The careful use of financial resources found its transformation in the economical use of words. “Dat kan,” say the Dutch, meaning “this can be” or “this is possible”, leaving foreigners wonder over what happened to the verb. This tendency to omit verbs when the context is quite clear is very common. Another example: “Mag ik een kopje coffie (hebben)?” translated as “Can I have a cup of coffee?” routinely omits the word “hebben” or “have”. A similar example in a different context, however with more implications for the perception of the Dutch by foreigners, is given by Jacob Vossestein in his “Dealing with the Dutch”: “… tram conductors in Amsterdam often have to urge the public, entering at the back of the train, to move forward to allow more passengers to board. As a courtesy to tourists they repeat themselves in English. In Dutch one can omit the word ‘please’ without sounding really rude. But a harsh ‘Move to the front everybody!’ through the loudspeaker may sound quite abrupt to the non-Dutch.” In fact, due to the very tendency to be precise and direct, the Dutch are often considered rude and blunt, particularly by the British and the Americans whose languages pay particular attention to the “niceties” or polite language rituals. Failing to say “please” in the example above is considered to be a major transgression noticed even by small children.

Dutch directness indicates that the Dutch are very likely to be challenged by ambiguity. For them “yes’ is a “yes,” and whole business deals are based on verbal agreements. While it could be a nightmare shopping for a house in the UK, going through the maze of Byzantine negotiations to ensure the final purchase of the house and being constantly concerned about the seller going back on his/her word, the whole procedure is very simple in the Netherlands. You cannot even negotiate with the other party if you are already discussing the matter with potential buyers. Once everybody agrees on the price and conditions, the deal is done, no need to worry or even hurry with signing the papers. The word is as good as a signature. In “Act Normal; 99 Tips for Dealing with the Dutch”, Hans Kaldenbach writes: “If a Dutchman answers ‘yes’ to something, he’s made a commitment. You on the other hand, might say ‘yes’ to be polite or to indicate that you heard what was said. Or your ‘yes’ might have been a way to avoid a fight, an argument, or friction. To the Dutchman ‘yes’ is a commitment to something. The Dutch find it extremely irritating that many foreigners say ‘yes’ without feeling that they have agreed to anything. A Dutchman usually keeps his word, even when it is not to his advantage to do so.”

It is interesting that this very trait of the Dutch, while appreciated by the British and the Canadians, to name but a few, can be an impediment in the countries where ambiguity is a way of communicating. For example, employees of a Dutch company doing business in Ukraine, which experienced difficulties in their daily operations, particularly while dealing with government representatives, were complaining that they did not understand the “politics” of the country. What in fact they meant was the cultural context in which they were doing business. It goes without saying that one can learn about the country’s politics by reading newspapers and watching TV. This is a no-brainer. What is much more challenging is to decipher the cultural undercurrent of what is going on and what impact it has on a particular business situation or negotiations. It is quite clear that the Dutch company found itself in a different cultural paradigm and was unable to deal with the situation because of lack of preparation and cross-cultural training. The latter resulted even in the wrong use of the word, “politics”, instead of “cross-cultural differences”, thus revealing how the wrong use of the word can identify the wrong problem.

Another example of a similar problem in Ukraine, this time encountered by my North American client. The latter had the rights to build a facility in that country, however, their license had expired. During this time, Ukraine had new elections and the new government, interested in the construction of the above-mentioned facility, came to power. The discussion about future plans between the North American executive and a Ukrainian government official was conducted along the following lines: the North American was insisting on the expiration of the license saying that the company could not go ahead without it (which, of course, is the way business is done in that part of the world), while the Ukrainian official kept repeating that they had a new government (implying that it did not matter and that things could be changed very quickly since the new government was interested in the project). As could be expected, the dialogue did not lead to anything except for an acute feeling of exasperation on both sides. Thus cultural misunderstanding led to business challenges. What is quite revealing in this situation is that both parties understood exactly what the other said, however, the words had no meaning without a cultural context. This sentiment is underscored by a Canadian businessman whose company experienced problems while doing business in Ukraine because of lack of cultural understanding: “You have to pay attention very carefully to what you say. One word can change the meaning. Subtleties in the language are key to understanding the message. Interpreters will probably not convey this.”

The question of interpreters deserves special attention. It is no secret that a good interpreter can either make or break negotiations. After all, the future of a project often depends upon correct and precise translation which incidentally requires cultural knowledge on the part of interpreters. Those with experience in international negotiations will not fail to remember puzzled looks on their counterparts’ faces after the interpretation of some of their statements. What it means is that the interpreter, having no experience with the other party’s cultural paradigm, decided to provide his or her version of the utterance, ignoring the first rule of professional interpretation: always ask for clarification if you are not sure about a phrase or a concept. Unfortunately, lack of professionalism often leads to incorrect translation of business contracts, a dangerous phenomenon if you seal it with a signature and then have to argue about it in court. There are even rumours that part of the problem of the tension between the EU and Russia regarding the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Georgia found its roots in the incorrect Russian translation of the agreement between the two parties. Whether these rumours could be confirmed is not important. What is important is the weight of each word in our communication.

Perhaps the French are next to none in recognizing the power of the word. Conducting a never ending love affair with their own language and being masters of ambiguity, the French appreciate wit and a skilful use of the word. Known for refraining from making important decisions during negotiations, they use the time as an intellectual exercise and a way to familiarise themselves with the other party. For them conversation is a game, a pastime and a contest. The French pride themselves in their art of eloquence and undefeated logic, and intellectual confrontations are looked upon favourably. This often exasperates North Americans and the British who seek consensus and understanding in their discussions and resent the time spent on what they perceive as irrelevant matters.

In “Sixty Million Frenchmen Can’t be Wrong (why we love France, but not the French)”, Canadians Jean-Benoit Nadeau and Julie Barlow wrote: “The French’s love of words and esprit creates a strange dynamic in political coverage. The words politicians choose are often the real news – not what they actually say. Nothing fascinates the French more than what they call the petite phrase (little sentence), or murderous verbal jab, designed to cast ridicule on political opponents. After the president’s highly ritualized New Year’s Greetings, the press scrutinizes his words for two weeks. Endless editorials are written on what his real intentions may have been by using a certain word of expression.”

In Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part I” Sir William Lucy says, “Submission, Dauphin! ‘tis a mere French word; We English warriors wot not what it means,” thus underscoring an age-long issue of cross-cultural communication. To argue with Sir William, “a mere word” can cause us loss of life, love, friendship, relationships or business contracts. It can also give us hope, joy and happiness. Only on one condition – not to be ignored.