Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity

*Ciarán Dunne*

## **Abstract**

Despite recent increases in investment in initiatives relating to equality, diversity and inclusion, phenomena such as immigration and the resultant societal and organisational diversity are often seen through the lens of a deficit model - perceived as an issue that needs to be addressed, or a potential problem which needs to be neutralised or minimised. This, however, is a myopic lens. Cultural diversity affords many potential benefits, one of which is as a stimulus for arguably the most important human attribute of all, creativity. Having explored in detail the meaning of culture and the relationship between multiculturalism and intercultural, this chapter examines the concept of creativity, highlighting its value for individual and collective well-being, before drawing upon cognitive psychology to architect a compelling rationale for the potential value of cultural diversity as a facilitator of creativity. Importantly, by examining the factors which foster creativity, the discussion offers managers, leaders, policy makers and those in positions of power to identify the values and conditions which underpin a culture of creativity in a culturally diverse context, and highlights how interculturalism is preferable multiculturalism in this regard.

**Keywords:** creativity, culture, diversity, innovation, interculturalism, multiculturalism, affordances

## **1. Introduction**

International migration levels have been increasing notably in recent decades, with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) [1] estimating that in 2020, some 281 million people were living in a country other than that of their birth. This compares with a figure of 153 million in 1990, an increase of almost 85% over a 30-year period. Such human mobility inevitably alters the composition and dynamics of societies, albeit some more than others, given that certain geographical regions and corridors experience much higher levels of migration than others. Indeed, the mass migration of millions resulting from the conflict in Ukraine, which commenced in 2022, is a stark example of this.

To suggest that the diversity which emerges from migration does not bring with it a variety of challenges would be naive. Indeed, to ignore humans' natural proclivity

to gravitate towards familiarity, and instead rush to stigmatise such homophilic behaviour as inherently racist or xenophobic, is profoundly myopic, often serving to undermine the potential for honest, respectful and productive dialogues which can benefit everyone. That said, in many countries, migration and the diversity it brings is often disproportionately viewed through the lens of a deficit model, framed as a problem which needs to be addressed, minimised or neutralised, rather than a potential resource which can be cultivated to enrich society. This perspective can become yet more blinkered in the context of scarce resources, such as growing unemployment, limited accommodation or food shortages, which has come to characterise many societies in recent years. The resulting narrative, which often comes to dominate, is a manifestation of the tribal discrimination explained by in-groups and out-groups and, regrettably, moves discussions further away from exploring curious perspectives which seek to harness the many affordances of diversity within society.

Nonetheless, beyond the romance of intuitive assumptions about the value of diversity, which some people may hold, there exists a compelling rationale for not simply accepting or tolerating, but actively seeking out interactions with difference. This is perhaps most explicitly articulated in the 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity [2]. Several of the 12 articles which comprise this document refer to the relationship between cultural diversity and creativity, and crucially present the former as constituting both a source and catalyst for the latter. In particular, Article 7 contends that creativity 'flourishes in contact with other cultures'. This is a statement of profound importance, as it appears to offer us a mechanism to cultivate what Sir Ken Robinson [3] referred to as 'the greatest gift of human intelligence': namely, human creativity. Indeed, in the context of an increasingly unscripted world defined by exponential technological and social change, and the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) which characterise our lives, the need for creativity is more pressing than ever before. However, despite the seductive nature of such declarations, the cited beneficial outcomes are neither automatic, nor guaranteed. Like any resource, the accruable benefits of diversity have to be both firstly recognised and then actively fostered and harnessed. It is precisely here where notable divergences between multiculturalism and interculturalism are brought into sharp relief, given that the former recognises cultural plurality, but does not necessarily promote interaction, while the latter seeks to promote mutually enriching contact and communication across cultural boundaries.

## **2. Culture, multicultural and interculturalism**

Whether exploring or discussing multiculturalism or interculturalism, or indeed ideas such as 'cross-cultural' or 'intracultural', the unifying concept is that of 'culture'. Despite having been referred to as 'the most central problem of all social science' [4] way back in 1939, culture is a complex and slippery construct, which stubbornly eludes a universally accepted definition. Indeed, Keating, Martin and Szabo (2002) [5] remind us that as far back as 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhohn identified more than 160 definitions of 'culture'. While examining such a diversity of definitions is beyond the remit of this chapter, Singer's [6] description of culture as a *"pattern of learned, group-related perceptions – including both verbal and non-verbal language, attitudes, values, belief systems, disbelief systems, and behaviors – that is accepted and expected by an identity group* (original italics)", is particularly useful. Firstly, it conceptualises culture as shared knowledge that is acquired as part of a socialisation process. Although, it

#### *Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

is worth pointing out that knowledge is not necessarily shared equally within a given culture, a point we will return to later on in our discussion. Secondly, it proffers various components of culture, such as values, language, norms and behaviours, according to which cultures may be differentiated from each other. Thirdly, by citing an identity group, it implies that culture is fundamentally a collective phenomenon. An individual, for example, while being culturally unique on the basis of being simultaneously a member of multiple distinct cultural groups, cannot be a culture unto her/himself. As Levine, Park and Kim [7] succinctly point out, "culture is something people have in common with some people, but not with others".

Given that culture is then inherently a group phenomenon, the challenge therefore is identifying the boundaries lines that separate groups. Historically, these have been pragmatically drawn according to predetermined socio-political constructs, such as nationality. Certainly, from a research perspective, the ease of operationalising culture according to nationality makes cross-cultural and intercultural research much easier to conduct [8]. However, in recent decades the shortcomings which the expediency of this approach offers have been increasingly highlighted, challenged by the argument that diverse cultural groups may exist within, or indeed across, national boundaries [9]. Depending on the context, alternative markers, such as age, ethnicity, gender, race and others have been used to operationalise culture and, by extension, frame interactions as intra- or intercultural in nature. In terms of multiculturalism and interculturalism, however, the primary difference is not how the boundary lines of culture are delineated, but rather the nature of the relationship and interaction that exists between cultural groups.

Emerging from movements in countries such as Australia and Canada during the 1960s and 1970s, multiculturalism was associated with liberal values and sought to recognise cultural plurality and pursue equality for members of cultural groups within a nation-state, who were often disenfranchised indigenous communities. In the European context, however, multiculturalism came to be discussed primarily in relation to immigration and through the lens of identity markers such as race, religion and ethnicity. The primary goal of multiculturalism, therefore, was not to promote *interaction* between cultural groups cohabiting within a given territory, but rather to recognise differences and address more fundamental inequalities that characterised these societies. In this sense, the recognition of difference and calls for accommodation of the same, which characterised multiculturalism, meant that it was preferable to assimilation policies, which negated societal diversity. As such, one could argue that multiculturalism is in some way comparable to first-wave feminism, which sought to secure basic rights for women within a long established patriarchal social system, but did not necessarily explore how the sexes might most productively coexist. However, subsequent criticisms levelled at multiculturalism have argued that it promotes social divisions, solidifies boundary lines within societies, and inadvertently facilitates balkanisation within nation-states [10]. This is a key point for our current discussion: the idea that multicultural societies, while very possibly having high levels of structural diversity, are not organised in a manner that promotes meaningful and authentic interaction *between* diverse cultural groups. This not only means that in-group and out-group boundaries may crystalise, leading to tensions between groups, but crucially, that the affordances of diversity are not realised, including the opportunity to stimulate creativity, which will be discussed later.

In contrast to multiculturalism, interculturalism is premised on the idea of promoting dialogue and interaction between diverse groups. It espouses the thesis that such interaction may foster the co-creation of a synthesised, richer, more

multifaceted individual and collective identity. Furthermore, it may also help overcome the problems of cultural relativism, such as an aversion to questioning cultural behaviours, sometimes associated with multicultural societies. However, as mentioned at the outset, the disproportionate dominance of a problematising mindset and narrative in relation to cultural diversity within many societies - perhaps due in part to the unintended negative consequences of multiculturalism - has meant that the potential benefits associated with societal diversity have not be adequately explored and articulated by individuals and groups in positions of influence. The tokenistic, moral-based support for interculturalism and the goal of integration is insufficient and, arguably, damaging. In this sense, the current chapter is an attempt to offer some kind of counterbalance to this, by examining in depth how diversity can foster greater levels of creativity in our societies - a pursuit that commences with an attempt to clarify precisely what is meant by creativity.

## **3. The value of creativity**

Many of the most important and influential concepts which shape and inform human existence and our lived experiences - ideas such as health, happiness, love and identity - are notoriously difficult to define. As we have seen, this is true for 'culture' and it is equally true for 'creativity'. Much like culture, the complexity and abstrusity of the concept of creativity has precipitated multiple definitions over many decades. Despite this, however, there is a broad consensus that the creativity of an idea, product or other output, regardless of the domain in which it is located, or the medium through which it is expressed, is characterised by two fundamental criteria; novelty (originality, uniqueness) and value (usefulness, purposefulness, appropriateness, effectiveness) [11]. Importantly, such novelty does not emerge *ex nihilo*, but rather emerges from the synthesis of different knowledge sets. That is, novelty and the perceived value attributed to it, which combine to satisfy the fundamental criteria for creativity, stem from connections made between discrete, and at times apparently unrelated, knowledge sets [12]. This is an important point, as it implies that exposure to a greater variety of knowledge sets constitutes a valuable resource or stage in the creative process.

The diversity of perspectives about how to define and indeed operationalise creativity can be juxtaposed with the agreement about its importance to humans' individual and collective wellbeing. Across multiple domains, tributes to the centrality of creativity to the survival and development of human civilisations can be found. Simonton [13], for example, suggests that were we to '[r]emove everything about us that was not the product of the creative mind … we would find ourselves naked in some primeval forest', while Tina Seeling [14], adopting a more individualistic perspective, remarks that "without creativity we are not just condemned to a life of repetition, but to a life that slips backwards". Indeed, the utility function of creativity is increasingly highlighted given the myriad challenges stemming from the highly unscripted nature of our contemporary world [15, 16], with Montuori [17] declaring that creativity constitutes 'a vital human capacity for postnormal times', defined by the aforementioned conditions of VUCA. The implication of this is that wherever possible, creativity should be actively fostered, given its acute importance to both societies and individuals. This, in turn, raises the question as to whether creativity can actually be fostered and, if so, precisely how this might be achieved.

#### *Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

Formal interest in the field of creativity is relatively recent, and the idea that it can be nurtured is relatively new. Pre-1950s, creativity was a heavily gendered and individualistic concept, viewed as the quasi-mystical characteristic of a small number of lone male geniuses operating independently of their external environment. Individuals were born to be creative (or not), and the thesis was that regardless of external variables, an individual's creative capacity would inevitably manifest itself. However, this rigid, Galtonian mindset shifted significantly from the 1950s onwards, as creativity, influenced by the field of cognitive psychology, became 'democratised' and reconceptualised as a universal human attribute, a cognitive process within the reach of all individuals. Crucially, this shift also implied that creativity could be both fostered and hindered. That is, contrary to the historical perspective, an individual's or group's creativity capacity could be enhanced if certain conditions were satisfied. As we shall see, this recognition of the potential influence of environmental factors and lived experiences on creativity is central to the idea that engagement with cultural diversity in the form of intercultural contact may foster creativity.

## **4. The creative process**

The 1950s paradigm shift away from the idea that individuals' creativity is predestined and fixed, towards a mindset in which creativity became democratised and conceptualised as a malleable, universal human trait, sparked huge interest among those who were interested in, (i) identifying how it might be stimulated, and (ii) understanding how it might be assessed. As regards the former, in his 2011 book, The Geography of Creativity, Törnqvist [18] reflects upon how a certain cultural milieu which dominated in particular cities at particular points in history appeared to promote creativity and innovation. Examples include 5th century Athens, Florence during late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Vienna from 1880 to 1930 and Paris in the period between the two world wars. Importantly, Törnqvist's observation raises the important question as to what specific factors combine to promote a culture of creativity within a large social context, or perhaps even a private organisation. Over the decades, various scholars [19–22], have suggested factors which they believe can foster creativity. One of the first was Arieti [23], who as far back as 1976 proposed nine socio-cultural factors which underpin a 'creativogenic culture' - understood as a culture which facilitates, but does not guarantee, the realisation of creative potential. Factors he proposed include openness, the availability of cultural resources, freedom of access to cultural media, incentives and rewards for creative endeavours, the ability to interact with significant cultural agents, and, crucially for our discussion, exposure to diversity, as well as tolerance of diverse perspectives. Csikszentmihalyi [19], meanwhile, also acknowledges the value of diversity as a stimulus for creativity when he argues that "hubs of creativity tend to be at the intersection of different cultures, where beliefs, lifestyles, and knowledge mingle and allow individuals to see new combinations of ideas with greater ease". It is here we see an explicit link between creativity and intercultural contact, and an echoing of the ethos, which underpinned the UNESCO declaration on cultural diversity. But why would exposure to diversity, which includes intercultural contact, serve to stimulate creativity? This is the fundamental question, given that it underpins the rationale for seeking out contact with culturally different others in order to stimulate creativity.

The idea that intercultural experiences can foster creativity is part of what is referred to as the 'value-in-diversity' hypothesis [24], and contrasts with

aforementioned tendency to view diversity as a problem that needs to be addressed, rather than an opportunity to be harnessed. In exploring the relationship between creativity and intercultural contact, it is first useful to present the theoretical argument, before citing the results of empirical studies. In order to elucidate this, we must examine the cognitive approach to creativity in some detail, including the two central processes; namely, the generative and exploratory process. By doing this, we, and others, can articulate a far more compelling, evidence-based approach to promoting interculturalism, rather than relying on solely emotional appeals and moral arguments.

In creativity, the *generative* process essentially involves producing and combining ideas. Specifically, it is associated with the capacity to demonstrate 'fluency' (the ability to produce many ideas in a given timeframe), 'flexibility' (the ability to produce a variety of qualitatively different ideas) and 'originality' (the ability to produce unusual or novel ideas), which are encapsulated under the conceptual umbrella of 'divergent thinking'. This is seen as an important component of the overall creative process and is facilitated by what is termed 'conceptual expansion'. This is a cognitive process whereby the boundaries of an existing concept are expanded by adding attributes of other *seemingly irrelevant* concepts' [25]. In addition to this, the creative process is facilitated by 'cognitive flexibility', which refers to the ability to diverge from, or transcend, established cognitive patterns and make novel associations between concepts [26]. Importantly, the cognitive approach to creativity supports the thesis that creativity involves accessing a variety of apparently unrelated knowledge sets and making connections between them in order to produce novel and useful outputs [27–29]. The implication of this is that individuals can benefit from experiences that enable them to increase both the variety and density of their knowledge sets, given that this can facilitate more productive divergent thinking. That is, creativity emerges at the nexus between diverse domains.

Crucially, it can be posited that intercultural experiences have the *potential* to facilitate both conceptual expansion and cognitive flexibility, and as a result stimulate the generative process, by exposing individuals to new forms of social organisation and the diversity these entail. Intercultural experiences, by bringing individuals into direct contact with difference, often expose us to novel or unexpected phenomena for which we have no predefined 'script'. This means that there is a level of uncertainty that needs to be addressed. According to development theorists such as Newcomb [30], the psychological discontinuity and incongruence resulting from exposure to such novelty, subsequently encapsulated under the term 'disequilibrium' by Piaget in 1971 [31], are conducive to stimulating cognitive activity in order to re-establish 'equilibrium'. That is, in the same way that humans collectively seek to mitigate uncertainty via (i) the use of technology, such as traffic lights or sensors, (ii) the creation of laws, which are essentially legalised coercion used to predict and control behaviour, and (iii) religion, which offers us an reassurance to counteract existential angst, we take action to reconcile incongruence resulting from intercultural interactions, given the uncomfortable cognitive and emotional states these can generate. This, in turn, is said to counteract the common tendency towards what Langer [32] terms 'mindless' thought processes. That is, automatic, unengaged, sub-optimal forms of thinking. Not surprisingly, such preconditioned, uncurious, predictable thinking is argued to be unconducive to generating novel ideas, which we know is part of the creative process. In addition to this, the idea of 'minority influence' [33], which can arise when diverse perspectives are introduced into a relatively homogeneous group, counteracts the proclivity towards routinised 'groupthink' [34] within groups. Importantly,

#### *Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

intercultural experiences often involve exposure to such diverse perspectives, and this in turn can challenge mundane thinking styles and help to develop a more flexible mindset [35]. As such, based on the premise that intercultural experiences involve exposure to diverse information, alternative knowledge sets, and alternative value and behavioural systems, which challenge conditioned mindsets, there emerges a strong rationale, from a cognitive psychology perspective, for the potential for such experiences to stimulate the generative cognitive process associated with creativity.

Meanwhile, following on from the generative process, the *exploratory process* adopts a more exacting lens and examines and evaluates 'candidate ideas to determine which ones should receive further processing, such as modification, elaboration, and transformation' [36]. Upon consideration of this in greater detail, a strong rationale for the potential of intercultural experiences to stimulate the exploratory process can also be constructed. This is because such experiences often see individuals confronted with norms, values and behaviours which may be incongruent with those to which the individual has been conditioned within his/her core cultural group. Therefore, seeking to reconcile alternative and potentially conflicting cultural systems, individuals can engage in a process termed 'perspective-taking' [37]. This cognitive process involves trying to understand another person's viewpoint through the conscious and deliberate adoption of their perspective. This process, in turn, is associated with 'integrative complexity', which is 'the capacity and willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspectives on the same issue (differentiation) and to forge conceptual links among these (integration)' [38]. Importantly, for our discussion, this is proffered as an important mediator of creativity, facilitating several mechanisms associated with the creative process, including the ability to frame problems flexibly from different perspectives. Indeed, over fifty years ago, in 1966, Tuckman [39] suggested a link between integrative complexity and creative performance. This implies that the process of actively attempting to engage with another's perspective in a manner which suspends judgement, in order to achieve integration, can stimulate cognitive reframing, which along with challenging assumptions and making novel connections between ideas, is key to the overall creative process. With regard to this idea of challenging assumptions, intercultural experiences offer the opportunity to challenge stereotypical assumptions by using cognitive adaptation and flexibility to resolve inconsistencies that emerge during or pursuant to the interaction. While the cognitive process of creativity is complex, collectively, these processes can facilitate the overall exploratory process, including the elaboration stage, which Csikszentmihalyi [19] contends is the most labour-intensive stage of the creative process.

In sum, a detailed literature review indicates that when creativity is conceptualised as a cognitive process, which encompasses both the generative and exploratory stages, the constituent sub-processes - such as cognitive expansion, cognitive flexibility, integrative complexity, inconsistency resolution, perspective-taking, cognitive reframing and integration - may be stimulated by intercultural experiences. As such, there emerges a compelling, albeit complex, theoretical rationale for the potential for intercultural experiences to foster and stimulate creativity. In addition to this, there is an increasing body of empirical evidence to support this thesis. Dunne [11], for example, reviews fourteen empirical studies published since 2008 that explored the connection between intercultural experiences and creativity, and presents a growing body of empirical data in support of the argument that intercultural experiences can enhance creativity. Indeed, this review indicates that the adoption of integration, rather than assimilation strategies offer the greatest likelihood of achieving enhancements in

creativity. This, in turn, is part of a broader narrative and body of empirical data that examines the potential of diversity, which can be operationalised in myriad ways, to foster creativity. This is more recently outlined in detail by Hundshell, Razinskas and Backmann [40], in their detailed multilevel review of 119 empirical studies which explores the effects of diversity on creativity. Such findings, in turn, bring us on to another question, which relates to the conditions which ought to characterise an intercultural society in order to maxmise the probability of realising the creative potential which such a society affords us.

## **5. 'Creativogenic' interculturalism**

By now, we have drawn upon knowledge from cognitive psychology to highlight the potential for interculturalism, understood most simply as the interactions between diverse cultural groups – or individuals from diverse cultural groups - within a society, to foster creativity. That is, interculturalism, rather than multiculturalism, given the lack of interaction which often characterises the latter, affords societies the opportunity to generate greater levels of individual and collective creativity. However, in the same way as any resource needs to be carefully managed in order for its benefits to be realised, and indeed its potential drawbacks to be minimised, it is necessary to consider the specific conditions which an intercultural society, community, or organisation ought to espouse and prioritise, in order to fulfil this creative potential. This is an important point for organisations that are explicitly espousing initiatives relating to equality, diversity and inclusion – that is, the vital importance of not simply engineering diverse workforces or communities, but the equally important task of architecting and 'infrastructuring' an organisation in such as a way as the affordances of such diversity are both recognised and fostered. Indeed, the empirical studies conducted to date indicate a complex, rather than simplistic relationship between creativity, diversity and intercultural experiences. Importantly, these conditions may be categorised under two broad headings, (i) resources and (ii) values, which will be discussed below.

As regards 'resources', we must not only consider the nature of these resources, but also the manner in which they are distributed within an intercultural context. This relates to the definition of culture presented at the outset, and the idea that culture involves the sharing of knowledge among a group. This means that the ability for individuals and groups to access these resources must be carefully considered. Such resources may be technological, material, informational, human and capital in nature. Beyond the more obvious ones, such as finance, raw materials and labour, other resources which can be highlighted as important include communication channels and the ease of access to existing knowledge sets. This is a key point: in order for intercultural societies to foster creativity they need to be architected in such a way that access to knowledge is both easy and equitable. This means that intercultural societies should actively develop strategies and create environments which not only provide migrant or minority communities with access to knowledge, but also offer members of the 'host', dominant or majority communities - all of which, we must acknowledge, are contentious terms - the opportunity to access the cultural knowledge which resides primarily within the migrant and minority communities. Therefore, a robust and quality knowledge sharing exchange, whatever format that might take, is an important resource to have in order to foster creativity within an intercultural society. At an organisational level, the same is true, and there are important implications for

#### *Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

internal structural and hierarchical design to ensure appropriate access to resources if the full potential of a diverse workforce is to be realised.

The easy and equitable access to diverse knowledge sets is directly linked to the level of social capital within society. This is arguably one of the most important concepts in sociology, and can usefully be applied to differentiate interculturalism and multiculturalism. Specifically, multiculturalism is often strong on the first level of social capital. This is the concept of bonding, understood as connecting with others who are like you. Bonding has certain benefits and is important in relation to having a strong identity group, a sense of security and validation of one's self-concept. However, from a knowledge sharing perspective, bonding offers minimal opportunities to engage with different knowledge sets, as relationships and communications are kept primarily within the in-group. As such, multiculturalism as a model does not promote creativity in the sense that it does not promote meaningful interaction between different cultural groups and therefore nor does it facilitate the sharing of diverse knowledge sets. Interculturalism, meanwhile, in principle at least, espouses the second and third levels of social capital: namely, bridging - creating links with those who are different to you - and linking - connecting with people and groups in positions of power within society, or even within an organisation. Both of these levels are characterised by giving individuals access to knowledge and other resources, including power, which bonding does not. We also know that societies with high levels of social capital and the social cohesion it promotes, tend to enjoy disproportionate benefits vis-a-vis societies with low levels of social capital. Again, this is true of organisations which promote healthy and rewarding relations among co-workers. As such, interculturalism is far better positioned to promote a culture of creativity within society than multiculturalism. However, the cautionary note is that these potential benefits will not automatically accrue unless purposefully cultivated.

With regard to the second umbrella concept of 'values', this encompasses the dominant values within a society or organisation, including the norms, attitudes, systems and behaviours, which reflect these values. Furthermore, it also includes the value which a given cultural group ascribes to creativity itself, which is typically reflected in the form of incentives or disincentives, rewards or punishments relating to creativity and creative pursuits. For example, if a society is defined by high levels of power-distance, this will have a direct impact on how the aforementioned resources are shared within society. Specifically, high power distance societies are those in which power is very unequally distributed among the population and, as a consequence, such societies will not realise their creative potential, given that a large proportion of those within the society would be limited in their ability to access to the aforementioned resources and knowledge that facilitate and stimulate the creative process. This point is made by Hoegl, Parboteeah and Muethel [41] who, when exploring how cultural values promote creativity, conclude that power distance plays a negative role when promoting creativity. This point equally applies to organisations, whereby employees who feel valued and have access to resources are more likely to produce creative outputs. That is, outputs which are both novel and of value to the organisation.

Furthermore, if one of the dominant values within a society were to minimise uncertainty, be it via the aforementioned mechanisms of technology, laws or religion, then several factors which have been identified as fostering creativity - tolerating ambiguity, risk-taking, suspending judgement, embracing novelty, sensationseeking - would be implicitly or explicitly discouraged. Fortunately, the values of interculturalism are typically aligned with low power-distance and encourage mixing

with difference, which augurs well when it comes to fostering creativity. However, it is imperative that any intercultural society actively espouses and enacts the values it claims to prioritise. A concept which is closely related to this, is that of 'failure'. Often framed as an a priori negative outcome, and one with which individuals and organisations are deeply uncomfortable, there is ample opportunity to reframe 'failure' as a mechanism for reducing uncertainty, given that each attempt constitutes a step closer to a desirable outcome and also eliminates one possible course of action.

In addition to this, Kim [42], having examined the relationship between Confucian values and creativity, concluded that Confucianism could stifle creativity based on the values it espouses. Specifically, she highlighted the values of gender inequality, unconditional obedience and the suppression of expression, which are associated with Confucianism, as representing significant obstacles to creativity. It is perhaps within this context that Lubart [43] noted how during the 2000s several Asian societies, including China, Taiwan, and Singapore, began to set specific objectives to foster creativity in their education systems. That said, it is important to keep in mind the problems associated with 'sophisticated stereotyping' of cultures, and recognise that different cultures may have discrete approaches to stimulating creativity. In sum, however, the fundamental argument is that the dominant values within a given culture, national, societal, organisational, or otherwise, may play a significant role in the level of creativity which is permitted, encouraged and produced within that context.

## **6. Conclusion**

In this chapter, we have raised the idea that interculturalism, understood as a situation which involves constructive interaction between diverse cultural groups, is a preferable model to multiculturalism. This thesis is based on the idea that multiculturalism is defined by cultural plurality, but does not necessarily involve interaction between groups, yet we know that such interaction has the greater potential to foster higher levels of creativity within such a society. This is important because creativity is arguably the most valuable human attribute of all, and is central to humans' individual and collective well-being, progress and, ultimately, our survival. The rationale for this thesis is grounded in the field of cognitive psychology and supported by an increasing number of empirical studies which provide supporting data. However, a key message which is highlighted is that a society or organisation which embraces interculturalism will not reap the potential benefits of enhanced creativity unless the values which define this society and the manner in which its resources are managed and distributed are such that creativity is encouraged to flourish. In this sense, this chapter serves the dual purpose of counteracting the deficit model which often problematises diversity in society, by presenting a compelling, evidence-based argument in favour of cultural diversity within societies, while also cautioning against a naive passivity in relation to how such diversity is managed. Only through an intentional, careful, evidence-informed and ongoing consideration of the potential benefits of diversity, can such benefits be fully realised.

*Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

## **Author details**

Ciarán Dunne Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

\*Address all correspondence to: ciaran.dunne@dcu.ie

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] International Organisation for Migration [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.iom.int/. [Accessed: 12 September 2022]

[2] UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. 2001. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0012/001271/127162e.pdf

[3] Robinson K. Out of our Minds. Hoboken, NJ: Capstone; 2011

[4] Malinowski B, von Wiese L. Six essays on culture by Albert Blumenthal. American Sociological Review. 1939;**4**(4):588-594

[5] Keating M, Martin GS, Szabo E. Do managers and students share the same perceptions of societal culture? International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2002;**26**(6):633-652

[6] Singer MR. The role of culture and perception in communication. In: Weaver GR, editor. Culture, Communication and Conflict Readings in Intercultural Relations. Revised Second ed. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press; 1998. pp. 28-53

[7] Levine TR, Park HS, Kim RK. Some conceptual and theoretical challenges for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. 2007;**36**(3):205-221

[8] McDonald G. Cross-cultural methodological issues in ethical research. In: Business Challenging Business Ethics: New Instruments for Coping with Diversity in International Business. Dordrecht: Springer; 2000. pp. 89-104

[9] Handwerker WP. The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, culture theory, and a method for ethnography. American Anthropologist. 2002;**104**(1):106-122

[10] Meer N, Modood T. How does interculturalism contrast with multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies. 2012;**33**(2):175-196

[11] Dunne C. Can intercultural experiences Foster creativity? The relevance, theory and evidence. Journal of Intercultural Studies. 2017;**38**:189-212. DOI: 10.1080/07256868.2017.1291495

[12] Hołub G, Duchliński P. How philosophy can help in creative thinking. Creativity Studies. 2016;**9**(2):104-115

[13] Simonton DK. Creativity around the world in 80 ways…but with one destination. In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. The International Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. pp. 490-496

[14] Seelig T. In Genius: A Crash Course on Creativity. New York: HarperOne; 2012

[15] Dziedziewicz D, Gajda A, Karwowski M. Developing Children's intercultural competence and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014;**13**:32-42

[16] Gocłowska MA, Crisp RJ. How dual-identity processes foster creativity. Review of General Psychology. 2014;**18**(3):216-236

[17] Montuori A. Beyond Postnormal times: The future of creativity and the creativity of the future. Futures. 2011;**43**:221-227

[18] Törnqvist G. The Geography of Creativity. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011

*Harnessing the Potential of Cultural Diversity to Foster Creativity DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110052*

[19] Csikszentmihalyi M. Creativity. The Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial; 2013

[20] Florida RL. The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books; 2002

[21] Landry C. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK: Earthscan; 2012

[22] Cohendet P, Grandadam D, Simon L. The anatomy of the creative city. Industry and Innovation. 2010;**17**(1):91-111

[23] Arieti S. Creativity: The Magic Synthesis. New York: Basic Books; 1976

[24] McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox TH. Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research. 1999;**27**(2):248-264

[25] Leung AK-Y, Chiu CY. Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2010;**41**(5-6):723-741

[26] Ritter SM, Rodica ID, Simonton DK, van Baaren RB, Strick M, Derks J, et al. Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2010;**48**(4):961-964

[27] de Bloom J, Ritter S, Kühnel J, Geurts S. Vacation from work: A 'ticket to creativity?' The effects of recreational travel on cognitive flexibility and originality. Tourism Management. 2014;**44**:164-171

[28] Sanchez-Burks J, Lee F. Connecting the dots within creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science. 2008;**19**(11):1178-1184

[29] Çelik P, Storme M, Forthmann B. A new perspective on the link between multiculturalism and creativity: The relationship between Core value diversity and divergent thinking. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016;**52**:188-196

[30] Newcomb TL. Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a Student Community. New York: Dryden Press; 1943

[31] Piaget J. The theory of stages in cognitive development. In: Green DR, Ford MP, Flamer, editors. Measurement and Piaget. New York: McGrawHill; 1971. pp. 1-11

[32] Langer E. Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In: Harvey J, Ickes W, Kiss R, editors. New Directions in Attribution Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978. pp. 35-38

[33] Nemeth C, Swedlund M, Kanki B. Patterning of the Minority's responses and their influence on the majority. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1973;**44**(1):54-64

[34] Janis IL. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1972

[35] Chao MM, Kung FYH, Yao D. Understanding the divergent effects of multicultural exposure. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2015;**47**:78-88

[36] Leung AK-Y, Chiu C-Y. Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2008;**20**:376-382

[37] Hoever IJ, van Knippenberg D, van Ginkel WP, Barkema HG. Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to

unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2012;**97**(5):982-996

[38] Tadmor CT, Galinsky AD, Maddux WW. Getting the Most out of living abroad: Bicutluralism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012;**103**(3):520-542

[39] Tuckman BW. Integrative complexity: Its measurement and relation to creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1966;**26**(2):369-382

[40] Hundschell A, Razinskas S, Backmann J, Hoegl M. The effects of diversity on creativity: A literature review and synthesis. Applied Psychology. 2022;**71**(4):1598-1634

[41] Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP, Muethel M. Cross-national differences in managers' creativity promoting values. Management International Review. 2012;**52**(4):565-595

[42] Kim KH. Cultural influence on creativity: The relationship between Asian culture (Confucianism) and creativity among Korean educators. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2009;**43**(2):73-93

[43] Lubart T. Cross-cultural perspectives on creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Sternberg RJ, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. pp. 265-278

## **Chapter 10**

## A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited

*Jens Allwood*

## **Abstract**

This paper provides a general model of intercultural communication with a focus on the actual observable features of communication, including written, spoken and gestural features, and what influences the occurrence of these features. The model is thus different from most other general accounts such as those of Hofstede or Inglehart and Welzel which mostly focus on values and attitudes and are based on questionnaires rather than observation. The paper also includes a discussion of problems and solutions related to intercultural communication on an individual and societal level. The paper opens with a discussion of terminology and concepts relating to communication, culture, and intercultural communication. A model is then proposed of similarities and differences between languages and cultures concerning individual and interactive-collective communicative behavior (Sections 2–5). As part of the model, there is a discussion of the contextual factors that influence both types of behavior (Section 6). Comparisons between different languages and cultures are made throughout. In the next sections, I return to a consideration of the context and discuss some of the problems related to intercultural communication (Sections 7–8). Following this, I consider some solutions to these problems (Section 9). Finally, I attempt to formulate some conclusions (Section 10).

**Keywords:** intercultural, communication, stereotypical descriptions, gestures, vocabulary and phraseology

## **1. Introduction**

## **1.1 Terminology**

**Intercultural communication** or communication between people who have different cultural backgrounds has always been and will probably always remain an important precondition of human co-existence on earth [1, 2]. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework of factors that are important in intercultural communication within a general model of human, primarily linguistic, communication. It is not cultures that communicate, whatever that might imply, but people with different cultural backgrounds that do. This is so, even if sometimes people do so as representatives of social institutions like companies, associations, or countries. The alternative term "cross-cultural" is probably best used for comparisons between cultures (as

in "cross-cultural comparison"). Even if the study and description of intercultural communication go back to antiquity, the term "intercultural communication" itself, was probably first used by E.T. Hall in the 1950s, see [3], in his work as a teacher and trainer at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) in Washington D.C., USA.

## **1.2 What is culture?**

Let us more closely analyze the concepts that can be found in the term "intercultural communication". One of them is **culture** which has been analyzed in several different ways by different researchers. See [4] for an account of about 200 ways to define the concept. It will be used here in the following way. The term "culture" refers to all the characteristics common to a particular group of people that are learned and not given by nature. That the members of a group have two legs is thus not a cultural characteristic but a natural one, while a special but common way of walking would probably be cultural. Analytically, we can differentiate between the following four primary cultural dimensions:


All human activities involve the first two dimensions. Most activities involve the third dimension, and ecologically important activities also involve the fourth. When a particular activity lastingly combines several of these traits, one usually says that the activity has become institutionalized and that it is thus a **social institution**. Perhaps, the most important of these social institutions is the **language** which combines all four dimensions thought (meaning), linguistic behavior, writing systems and tools of writing (artifacts), and biological readiness combined with acoustic, and optic transmission (traces in nature).

One may speak of a **culture** or a **subculture** when one or more of the characteristics are lastingly connected with a certain group of people. In the context of intercultural communication, the groups are often associated with national states, and we may speak about Swedish culture, French culture, etc. but the group does not necessarily have to be a national group. It may be any group at all that is distinguishable over a longer period. We can thus speak about teenage culture, male culture, working-class

#### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

culture, bakers' culture, or the culture of the city of Gothenburg. Cultural differences between groups of these types are often just as great or even greater than those that exist between national cultures. However, our focus in this article will be on studying intercultural interaction between persons with different national or ethnic backgrounds as well as on some of the similarities and differences found in comparing national and ethnic cultures. In doing so, we will pay much attention to language which is, probably the most important identifying characteristic of a national, or ethnic culture and also identifies many subcultural groups (dialects, sociolects) in a nation.

Cultures (including languages) are not static but under constant development. However, since social habits and traces in nature are involved, change is usually gradual and allows continuity with the past. We can still read Shakespeare and perhaps be influenced by features of Elizabethan culture. Among the drivers of cultural change change in the natural environment itself, technological development, imitation of new behaviors, and political and scientific ideas and ideologies. For this reason, we should always be ready to update our descriptions of cultures (and languages).

#### **1.3 Intercultural communication**

As for the other key concept in intercultural communication—**communication**—I mainly follow the analysis presented in [5, 6]. For the present purposes, we can briefly characterize "communication" as the sharing of information between people on different levels of awareness and control.

The concept of "sharing" rather than "transfer" implies the active role of both speaker/sender and listener/recipient. Communication is not transfer from an active sender to a passively receiving listener. The perceiving and understanding activity of the recipient is essential. The concept of sharing also implies the importance of commonality. The purpose of communication is to increase the information the communicators have in common. The more they already have in common, the less needs to be said. This means that similarities between communicators are basic. It also means that when we study intercultural communication, we should pay attention to similarities as well as differences between cultures. Finally, we should note that the sharing can take place on different levels of awareness and control. This is important since, in an intercultural context, it can become a problem, particularly with features of communication about which people have a low degree of awareness and find difficult to control. Critical examples of this include how we show and interpret feelings and attitudes of ourselves and others.

If we use what is said above about "culture" and "communication" as a base, we are now able to define "**intercultural communication"** as the sharing of information on different levels of awareness and control, between people with different cultural backgrounds, where different cultural backgrounds include both ethnic-national cultural differences and cultural differences which are connected to participation in the different activities that exist within a national or ethnic unit.

#### **1.4 The danger of stereotypical descriptions**

Studies and teaching programs that deal with intercultural communication are often based on attempts to understand national cultures; therefore, there is a great risk of neglecting the significant differences which exist between activities, groups, and individuals on a non-national level. An orientation toward national cultures combined with efforts to find easily conveyed generalizations gives a further risk,

namely that of taking over stereotypical notions of a "national character" that often have arisen to serve what a certain group sees as its own or national interests, see [7, 8]. For example, Swedes may be characterized as envious, Scots as stingy, French as vain, Americans as superficial, etc.

The danger of misleading and biased generalizations is one of the greatest risks in research on intercultural communication, and that danger increases as soon as someone tries to describe the differences between groups from the perspective of a particular group's interests.

#### **1.5 Social identity and ethnicity**

Two important concepts in this discussion are ethnicity and social identity. I believe that these concepts can be related to culture and national states in the following way. A group is an **ethnic group** when certain of its cultural characteristics are used to organize it socially and politically, and when this organization is allowed to continue for a relatively long period. The group's **ethnicity** includes those traits which a politically cohesive power. If the ethnic group has or strongly aspires to have its own politically independent nation, the characteristics are termed **nationally ethnic** and the desire to emphasize and/or spread them is called **nationalism**. Depending on the strength of this nationalism or the evaluation of it, it can further be characterized as chauvinism or patriotism.

Social identity can be related to culture in the following way. At a particular point in time, culture provides some properties and relations around which individual persons can organize their lives. People construct their **social identity** by regarding a part of these properties and relations as decisive for who he/she is. In this way, a person can identify him or herself with his/her age, sex, family position, profession, political ideology, religious belief, regional residence or national affiliation, etc. As social organizations can be constructed around most of these characteristics, by identifying with them, one often simultaneously comes to belong to a group of people who think alike. Most people have a potential for identifying with several of these characteristics but gradually come to focus on a few as primarily creating their identity.

One of the possibilities is that you strongly identify with characteristics that you consider important for your national or ethnic group. You mainly become a Swede, a Finn, a Basque, or a Sami. Being a father or a teacher may become less important. For a person of this type, national or ethnic membership is what gives him/her their main identity. But as we have seen, identity can of course be constructed based on other characteristics. Personal preferences and degree of social recognition are among the decisive factors in constructing one's identity. This probably means that people with high-status jobs will be less prone than people with low-status jobs to let ethnic membership be the characteristic they mainly identify with (possible exceptions here might be found among the leaders of an ethnic group).

In studying what I am here calling "intercultural communication", it is particularly important to be aware that there are no necessary relationships between identity, on the one hand, and ethnicity or nationalism, on the other. Lack of reflection concerning this point can easily lead to hasty assumptions about stereotypical cultural differences in trying to understand your co-communicators.

#### **1.6 Culture and activities**

One way to escape the danger of stereotypes, at least to a certain extent, is to connect the concept of culture with the concept of **activity**, see [6]. A culture, which is a

### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

way of thinking, behaving, etc., surfaces in the activities which the people in a certain group pursue. By an activity is here meant anything from arguing to hunting, fishing, or farming. Most people participate in several different activities and can often think and act in substantially different ways in these. There is a great difference between being a father, a pastor, and a lover but, at least in Sweden, it is completely possible for one person simultaneously to have each of these roles. By taking into consideration the variation in activities and roles among a group of people, we can begin to get an understanding of the nature of intranational and international cultural similarities and differences. To complete this understanding, the variation in activity must at the same time also be supplemented with other differences that are e.g. biological or regional.

## **2. Components in a model of intercultural communication**

When people of different cultural backgrounds meet, differences between them can potentially lead to misunderstandings and other related problems. One of the ways of grasping the problems that can arise in intercultural communication is therefore to investigate how communication patterns can vary between different linguistic and cultural communities. A way of doing this is to make use of a model in which we take into account communication behaviors and what can influence these types of behaviors and then try to analyze differences between linguistic and cultural communities with regard both to communication behavior and influencing factors.

As for communicative behavior, a distinction can be made between behavior that is produced or perceived by a single individual and behavior that requires the interaction and/or cooperation of several individuals. I will call the first type of behavior "individual behavior" (Sections 3 and 4) and the other type of behavior, "interactive" behavior (Section 5). That behavior is individual does not mean that it is not influenced by other people, such as by another person's words or actions. It only means that some types of behavior, like the uttering or understanding of words, can be ascribed to an individual while other interactive types of behavior, like turntaking, need to be ascribed to several interacting individuals. After having considered individual production and perception as well as interactive-collective behavior, I will turn to some of the contextual factors that influence both types of behavior (Section 6). In going through components of the model, I will, when relevant, to facilitate understanding, be making comparisons between different languages and cultures. In Sections 7 and 8, I will return to a consideration of the context and discuss some of the problems related to intercultural communication. In Section 9, I consider some solutions to these problems. Finally, in Section 10, I attempt to formulate some conclusions.

## **3. Individual production**

On the level of individual production (sending) of communicative behavior it is often convenient to consider the following four aspects:


## **3.1 Body movements (gestures)**

When we speak, our speech is continuously accompanied by gestures, facial expressions, and other body movements that add to what we are saying in different ways. There are clear differences in how people from different cultures communicate with their bodies. The largest differences probably occur in the use of hands to convey different meanings. Gestures for such things as "*money*", "*great*", and "*come here*" vary considerably between for example Sweden and the Mediterranean countries. Other differences can be found concerning when and where a person is permitted to express something, perhaps particularly certain emotions. There can also be variations from culture to culture in how intensely people show different emotions. In certain cultures, such as the Mediterranean cultures, it is ok to show strong feelings such as happiness, anger, and grief in public. In others, such as Sweden or Japan, there are restrictions against this. See [9].

## **3.2 Sound and writing**

Two very obvious differences between different languages are their sound and writing systems. The differences in sound can be seen from two main perspectives:


Not least, the way of expressing emotions and attitudes using prosody is probably not the same in all languages and cultures. In a study of how prosody is interpreted, Abelin and Allwood [10] got the following two main results:


*A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

The differences between different writing systems are often more obvious than differences in sound systems. A main division of the world's writing systems can be made between (1) **ideographic**, where each written unit in principle expresses a morpheme (smallest meaning bearing language unit), and (2) sound-based system that either can be **phonemic**, based on phonemes (the smallest meaning differentiating linguistic sound) or **syllabic**, based on syllables. The differences between writing systems can be less obvious, for instance when two languages use the same written letters but with different pronunciations. Compare the pronunciation of (j) in English and in Swedish, where (j) is pronounced like English (y)).

In addition, it is important again to remember that all communicative means of expression, not only prosody, can signal identity, and that phonemes, prosody, gestures and ways of writing can all show considerable internal cultural differences between different dialects, sociolects, genders, ages, activities etc.

#### **3.3 Vocabulary and phraseology**

The differences between different languages, which people who learn several different languages probably most easily can become aware of, are the differences in vocabulary, in terms of words and phrases.

In every culture, the words and phrases of everyday language mirror the needs, values, and attitudes that have been common and strong and for this reason have been necessary to communicate. People who live in a desert, in their everyday language have a vocabulary that allows differentiation between many different types of sand, while people who live in areas, with a great deal of snow, instead develop a vocabulary that allows differentiation between many types of snow.

One of the differences in vocabulary that has been investigated a lot has to do with differences between the words for color in different languages. **Table 1** adapted from [11], shows the great differences that can exist with regard to color vocabulary.


#### **Table 1.**

*Color words in eight languages.*

The languages range from Jale in New Guinea where there are only two words, one for all dark and one for all light nuances of colors to Swedish where there are at least nine distinct color words in ordinary use and several more in technical use. For a discussion of the effects of differences in vocabulary such as these, see e.g. [11, 12]. It is clear that problems in understanding can arise in communication between people from different cultures as they have different expectations as to what distinctions and nuances they should be able to express using their vocabularies.

Another important area in uncovering differences that can be significant in intercultural communication is different types of standardized phrases and metaphors.

Among such expressions are what usually is called proverbs, that is, standardized phrases that directly or metaphorically express what is seen as wisdom of life, often by many people in the culture. Swedish, for example, has the following phrases that can all begin with "Man Skall" which in English corresponds to *one should* or *you should* (**Table 2**).


#### **Table 2.**

*Proverbs in Swedish with English translations.*

Phrases of this type, sometimes as here stated as rules, reflect values that are shared by many people and thus give a good insight into the values and attitudes that are common in a particular culture. The phrases thereby function both as a guiding and legitimizing instrument: you should behave in such a way that is consistent with the proverbs and you can also use a proverb to justify your actions or opinions.

## **3.4 Grammar**

A fourth dimension that can be used to differentiate languages is grammar, e.g. the inflection, derivation, and syntactic patterns that exist in the language. For example, in Swedish, it is possible using forms of inflection to indicate whether a noun is plural or singular and has the definite form e.g. *flick*[girl]-*or*[s]-*na*[the] (the girls), while this is not possible in Chinese, where it may either be understood implicitly through context or explicitly through the use of independent words that express number or definiteness. Besides morphology, languages also exhibit great differences in basic word order patterns (syntax). A very well-known way to classify language introduced by Joseph Greenberg, a California linguist (see [13]), is based on the basic word order in statements between subject (S), verb (V), and object (O) (**Table 3**).

*A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*


#### **Table 3.**

*Basic word-order types in five languages.*

An interesting similarity can also be noted by classifying the languages of the world in this way, namely that 99% belong to the first three categories, SVO, SOV, or VSO. The subject comes before the object in all three types. However, no satisfying explanation has yet been offered for why this pattern is the most common. See further [14].

## **4. Individual reception**

#### **4.1 Producer and recipient (sender and receiver)**

The four aspects of linguistic behavior on the individual level mentioned above can be viewed from two main perspectives: the perspective of the producer or sender and the perspective of the recipient or receiver. All communicators are both producers and recipients. You hear what you say and see what you write. However, in interactive, faceto-face communication, rather than one-way communication, you take turns to mainly do one or the other and you can mostly hear and/or see the reactions of your recipient, while you are producing your message.

To be able to express his/her message, the producer must simultaneously plan, maintain control of and produce his/her message in all the four dimensions discussed above. He/she cannot control everything with an equally high degree of awareness but must continuously rely on pre-existing "programmed, automatic subroutines". Among these automatic routines, we find routines for pronunciation, body movements, and grammar, while our choice of words probably has a lesser degree of automaticity.

The automatization of certain linguistic behavior is probably one of the reasons why it is so difficult for adults, when they attempt to learn a new language, to alter many patterns of grammar, pronunciation (especially prosody), and body movement, even if they can learn new words.

In the same way, as for the producer, the recipient's task implies control and integration of several different dimensions at the same time. The recipient probably also uses automatic routines, which he/she is not able to control with any higher degree of awareness. However, it would be a mistake to believe that the recipient is only passive—a sort of clay tablet on which the incoming message makes an imprint regardless of the recipient's reactions. The recipient's inner activity (perhaps even the part that can be controlled) is at least as great as the speaker's, see also [5]. At least the following must be included among the recipient's activities and reactions:

a.Influence on a low level of awareness.


#### **4.2 Influence on a low level of awareness**

The first type of reaction is the influence or the processing of information without a high degree of awareness and control. In a series of experiments, Marcel [15] showed that we can be influenced by a text without having consciously perceived it. Other studies show that we can be influenced by the size of pupils of other people without being aware that this is what is influencing us [16].

#### **4.3 Perception (apprehension)**

The second type of reaction is the perception or apprehension of information. This means that information is also consciously registered by the receiver through his/her five senses. This type of reaction is necessary for such specialized activities as reading.

#### **4.4 Understanding**

Some of the information that is perceived is also understood. Whether understanding can be said to take place depends on if the receiver can put the information, he/she perceives into a meaningful context, a context that is, for example, based on understood logical or causal relations. The difference between perception and understanding can be illustrated by considering a person not well-versed in mathematics who attends a lecture on topology. He/she probably perceives in some sense what is being said but probably does not understand. To be able to put perceived information into a meaningful context, a person must have already stored a certain amount of information. One must already understand to a certain extent. This relationship is often formulated as **"understanding requires pre-understanding"**. If you already understand a great deal, then not so much needs to be said to make you understand more.

This relationship is continuously used in everyday conversations in which we normally succeed in sharing more information than we express. By building upon the information that we assume we share with other people, we can take a great deal for granted and be satisfied with hints. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that half of the information we are sharing in ordinary conversations is implicitly understood and is based on the receiver, through his/her process of interpretation and understanding, successfully reconstructing the message the sender intends.

The consequences of these considerations that have to do with linguistic communication, in general, are relatively important if we wish to understand the difficulties that can exist in intercultural communication. Some of these difficulties occur when the persons who communicate lack a relevant common cultural background, that is, they lack common beliefs, values, and norms (see also below, Section 6). They have no shared pre-understandings on which to build.

The strategy I recommend here is to try to clarify, through the use of language, what is normally taken for granted, by making explicit as many requirements as possible for what is said. This is the strategy used in certain legal traditions, see for example [17] when you want to be sure that the law is being applied in the same way in all places without opportunity for differing interpretations by any individual reader. The process requires a great deal of thought and consideration and is probably more easily applied in written language, where passages can be changed and added to in retrospect.

In an intercultural face-to-face communication situation, the solution indicated by legislative texts is normally not available. You are mostly limited to spoken language

### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

and gestures, and the spoken language is often not shared and therefore perhaps poorly used/understood by at least one of the parties.

The starting point for reaching mutual understanding in intercultural communication is thus a difficult one and can be improved only by carefully observing and noting what types of pre-understanding are necessary for different contexts, by building a sensitivity concerning the points at which misunderstanding between people with different cultural backgrounds can occur and, secondly, by becoming acquainted with and learning about other people's cultures.

So what types of understanding, values, and attitudes can represent relevant differences in pre-understanding? Unfortunately, the general answer to this question probably is that whatever represents a difference between two people's understanding in any particular context can be relevant to their interpretation and understanding. However, on a general level, the following areas can be mentioned:


### **4.5 Other reactions**

Parallel to factual **understanding**, emotional and attitudinal reactions are integrated with the process of understanding. Factual understanding is concurrently combined with emotional and attitudinal reactions. We become interested, bored, upset, sad, angry, happy, or irritated about what we hear and we direct these reactions toward the contents of what we are hearing and toward the person who is speaking. Reactions of this type occur among all people in all communication situations and can only by training and analytical abstraction be differentiated from the more factual understanding. For example, most people have a very difficult time differentiating between claims made and the person making them. They are not aware of the fallacy of ad-hominem argumentation. If I do not respect X, then what X is saying cannot be true, or the reverse if I respect X then what X is saying must be true. Factual understanding and emotional reactions always function in an interplay with one another.

Emotional and attitudinal reactions often have a relatively low degree of awareness and are difficult to control. However, this does not stop them from showing a systematic pattern. They are the results of the norms and values that a certain individual has accepted through his/her biological nature and his/her upbringing in a particular environment. In this way, it is possible for certain emotional and attitudinal reactions to become dominant in a particular culture and we can observe phenomena like the following, "Most Swedes do not like to speak loudly and shrilly in public situations when they are sober."

Our emotional and attitudinal reactions are thus additional factors that must be considered in intercultural communication. An intercultural situation can be open to misunderstandings connected with hasty emotional reactions on a relatively low level of awareness. These reactions, in turn, can further be connected to other reactions that have to do with desires and dispositions toward behavior. To the extent that the reactions are positive, the complex nature of the receiver's reactions can lead to a quicker establishment of good contact between the parties. To the extent that they are negative, we can, however, based on small misunderstandings, get reactions that involve prejudice, suspicion, dislike and discrimination.

## **5. Communication behavior on an interactive level**

Above we discussed communication behavior that can be produced and interpreted by individual speakers and listeners. We will now look more closely at characteristics of communication behavior that refer to the interaction between producer and recipient. The aspects we will discuss probably make up the most important characteristics on the interactive level, but they do not represent an exhaustive list of all the interesting aspects of interaction in intercultural communication. The aspects I will discuss here are (1) interaction sequences, (2) turn-taking, (3) feedback, and (4) spatial configurations.

#### **5.1 Interaction sequences**

The concept of an "interaction sequence" is derived from the fact that a specific type of communication can often be said to go through a number of distinct stages. For example, you begin, continue and complete a communicative interaction in a particular way. The initial sequences include greetings, introductions, and routines for opening channels between the sender and the receiver, such as the initial use of the word *hello* in a telephone conversation.

Different cultures and linguistic areas vary considerably in terms of how much body contact is permitted in the greeting and introduction routines of different situations. In a relatively neutral contact, body contact can be completely lacking, as in classical China, or a handshake may suffice, as is most common in Sweden at present, or one may use hand contact together with an embrace and a varying number of kisses, as is currently the practice in France. The same types of differences and preferences can also be observed in closing sequences such as in leave-taking. For a more exhaustive review of differences of this type, see [18]. It is important at this point to again warn against simple generalizations. In each culture, there are several ways to, for example, greet people and take leave from people, which are dependent on the situation and the activity at hand. Important factors that influence what should be done are here the purpose of the activity and the person with whom you are speaking. I greet my children differently than I greet my colleagues and what I say and do in parting is different if I will be taking a long trip than if I will be meeting the person with whom I am speaking again in a few hours. Purpose and interlocutor probably influence the variation in communication patterns in all cultures but do so in different ways in each culture.

Thus, the interaction sequences that take place are dependent upon the activity that the communication serves. The different purposes of the activity lead to an organization of linguistic and other behavior in the activity. This, in many cases, results in

#### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

a sequence of sub-activities that is typical for a particular activity. In a conversation in which advice and counsel are given, for instance in a meeting with someone who works at an employment agency, or social welfare office, or in a psychological consultation, one or more of the following activities would probably be included (at least in a Swedish cultural setting).


The number of activities included and the order in which they come can vary depending upon specific characteristics of the counselor and the person seeking advice as well as on the relation between them. However, it is probable that a relatively frequent pattern is developed for a particular type of counseling activity in a particular culture, not least if the activity can be regulated by establishing rules for general practice.

These patterns by no means need to be the same from one culture to another. It is highly probable that activities such as "getting to know someone", "keeping informal company", "teaching", "being in meetings together" and "counseling" exhibit differences from culture to culture. As it is often exactly within the framework of activities such as these that intercultural communication takes place, differences in expectations regarding what sequences should exist and in the way they should be carried out are one of the factors that can cause difficulties in intercultural communication.

#### **5.2 Turn-taking**

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the concept of "turn-taking" has been used to characterize a basic set of principles for conversational interaction, see [19]. The principles have to do with how the right to speak is distributed—who speaks with whom, for how long, about what, when, and in which way.

A question that arises out of the five questions above is how many speakers may speak at the same time in different situations. In Northwestern Europe, it seems in most cases that the rule is "one speaker at a time". Interrupting other speakers is generally avoided, even in informal contexts and debates. This pattern is strongest in the Scandinavian countries and somewhat weaker in Germany and England.

Compare, for example, a Swedish, a German, and an English political debate. While Mediterranean countries to some extent show the same pattern, overlap and interruptions are more frequent. The tolerance for interruptions and simultaneous speaking is there much greater in lively discussions and debates. Interruption and overlap are normal expressions of involvement and participation.

Other questions having to do with turn-taking concern speed of talk and tolerance of silence, that is, such questions as how rapid speaker change should be and whether you can allow yourself, now and again, to say nothing. There seem to be great differences both between and within different cultures in these respects. A relatively general pattern seems to be that urban cultures have a higher speech rate and less silence than rural cultures. However, there seem also to be national ethnic differences, see [20]. The greatest appreciation of silence in certain types of interaction has been reported for the Apache Indians of North America, see [21]. There are also many reports of silence being appreciated from northern Sweden and Finland, see [22, 23]. Speech rate seems to be correlated with silence so a lower speech rate is associated with a greater occurrence of silence.

A third area in which there seem to be differences between cultures regarding turn-taking has to do with rights and obligations in different situations. Very generally, it can be said that rights and obligations concerning turn-taking are determined to a great extent by a person's social role. Persons, who have roles that imply social prominence, for example, because they are considered to be associated with knowledge or power, such as bosses, ministers, or professors, seem in most cultures to have greater freedom with respect to turn-taking than do other people. They can speak about what they like, for as long as they like and in the way in which they like. They can permit themselves to interrupt other speakers, even in cultures in which the "one speaker at a time" rule is relatively strong, see also [24]. However, besides similarities, there are also differences between the rights and obligations connected with a particular role; differences that can be associated with the type of tradition and authority that is found in a certain culture. A teacher, for example, has a somewhat different role in Sweden and Turkey. Certain roles are thus very strongly associated with rights and obligations in turn-taking.

One such is the role of chairperson at a meeting. The task of a chairperson is to maintain order in turn-taking. What will we talk about? Who will be allowed to speak? In what way will we be allowed to speak? Although meetings as an activity exist in most European cultures, a chairperson's rights can vary. In England and the USA, for example, a chairperson has somewhat greater rights than in Sweden. He/she can choose to ignore persons whom he/she does not believe will add anything positive to the discussion. This behavior would hardly be tolerated in Sweden, where tradition states that every person who wishes to say something has the right to do so if the item has not been concluded or stricken from the discussion.

#### **5.3 Feedback**

The third interactive aspect I would like to mention is "feedback". Feedback here means the processes through which a speaker receives information from a listener about how the listener has perceived, understood, and reacted to what the speaker has said. A major division of feedback behaviors is (1) feedback elicitation and (2) feedback giving.

All languages seem to have both verbal and nonverbal (body movement) ways to elicit and give feedback. Some Swedish feedback elicitors are *inte sant* (isn't that true?)

#### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

and *eller hur***,** *eller, vad* (or how? or? what?). Similar expressions are used in many languages. They often contain words for disjunction, negation, truth, or correctness, for example, *n'est ce pas* ("is this not so?" in French), *ne pravda li* ("not true?" in Russian), *nicht wahr* ("not true?" in German), *no es cierto* ("isn't that certain?" in Spanish). In English, feedback elicitation has been grammaticalized through the socalled tag questions: *you smoke, don't you*? *you don't smoke*, *do you*? Feedback elicitation takes place nonverbally in Swedish (and probably in several other cultures) by for example moving the head forward and raising the eyebrows.

As regards feedback giving, there are several hundred expressions for giving feedback in Swedish. Sometimes they form derivational paradigms like the following series of triplets of feedback givers: *Ja—jaha—ha* (variations on (yes), *jo—joho—ho* (variations on a yes contradicting a no), *nä—nähä—hä* (variations on (no), *m—mhm—hm* (variations on (uhu), *a(h)—aha—ha* (variations on (ah), that is, the first word's vowel (or continuant) is repeated and preceded by the addition of an <h>. Some of these are fairly unusual from an intercultural perspective. This applies to the Swedish practice of using in-breath in saying *ja or nej* (yes or no), which is often interpreted by persons of other cultural backgrounds as a lung problem or as holding back emotion.

Although most cultural and language communities seem to have means for eliciting and giving feedback, there are important differences between them. One difference has to do with whether the feedback takes place for the most part verbally and auditively or whether it takes place with body movements and is perceived visually. The feedback patterns here are dependent e.g. on the culture's patterns for eye contact. In Japanese culture, for example, where direct eye contact can be interpreted as a lack of respect or as aggression, we thus find much verbal/auditive feedback, while, according to the studies we have carried out, there seems to be less auditive feedback and more non-verbal, visual feedback between Latin American Spanish speakers. See also [18].

#### **5.4 Spatial configurations**

Another area in which clear culturally dependent ethnic differences seem to exist concerns the closeness and physical contact between persons in a conversation. In cultures in northwestern Europe adult men generally, avoid touching one another during conversations and maintain a greater distance from one another than do e.g. adult men from Mediterranean cultures. The latter also shows a greater frequency of physical contact during neutral conversations. See [18, 25].

Most likely, similar but small differences between northwestern Europe and the Mediterranean countries also exist for women. This is in spite of the fact that they, in comparison with men from Northwestern Europe, show less distance and more physical contact. For conversations between a man and a woman, the pattern is less clear but, at least in public contexts, the distance can be greater in Mediterranean cultures than in northwestern European cultures.

Distance and contact are also clearly dependent on other factors than the sex of the speakers. Physical space is a basic consideration. Even Swedish men stand close to each other on crowded buses. Another factor has to do with the type of activity. In most cultures, we find more physical contact and closeness in activities of arrival or leavetaking, than in other situations The same applies in most cultures to situations characterized by love or aggression, although the differences can be considerable. In classical Chinese culture, man and wife were not allowed to show physical contact in public and public kissing among young couples in love is still today viewed with skepticism.

## **6. Contextual factors influencing communication**

After having considered communication on an individual and interactive level, we will now turn to contextual factors that influence the three aspects (production, perception/understanding, and interaction) of communication that we have considered. First, we should note that there are many factors that influence communication and that this model only highlights a few of them. Second, many of the factors are not primarily cultural, and third it should be remembered that generalizations about differences in communication patterns cannot always be associated simply with differences between ethnic groups. A French person does not greet another person in the same way in all situations. Many different contextual factors can be relevant. However, the variation in communication within an ethnic or national group is not entirely random. There seem to exist certain factors that often are decisive for the variation. Some main factors that influence communication in the present model are the following three: (i) variation in the **features of the individuals** that participate, (ii) the **features of the activity** of which the communication is a part, and (iii) common **attitudes and values** in the culture of the communicating individuals.

### **6.1 Features of individuals**

As regards individuals, their biological status, for example, their sex, age, and possible disabilities, play an important role. However, a perhaps even more important factor is what we can call their focus on identity (see above). What socially "focusable" characteristics have they made into the primary components of their identity? Is it their education, their occupation, their interests, their family role, their ideology, their gender role, age role, their regional affiliation, or something else that they have chosen to guide them in their ways of being? What they have chosen to identify themselves with will to a great extent determine their attitudes, norms, and values and will thus also color their behavior in different activities. Particularly important is probably their level of education and skills. People act and speak in different ways depending on their skills and how much information about the surrounding world they have come to possess.

Features of individuals are important since cultural generalizations, whether they are statistical or merely stereotypical, concern a group level and that therefore, in analyzing cases of actual communication, we always have to be open to the possibility that the particular individuals we are concerned with do not conform to the generalizations. Even if most Italians like pasta, the particular Italian, I am talking with, might not.

#### **6.2 Features of social activities in a culture**

To form a more complete picture of the intra-ethnic cultural variation, information is needed which goes beyond socio-biological status, desired or ascribed identity, and level of education and skills to encompass the social activity in which a particular individual is engaged. To be able to make a reasonable prediction about how someone carries out a greeting, we must know more than that he is for instance a 25- year-old male socialist industrial worker and father with a family in Paris. The prediction will be easier if we know in what situation or, if you will, in what activity context he will be giving the greeting. Is he going to greet his boss or an old childhood friend? The following factors are able to predict many of the communication characteristics

#### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

that exist in different activities: (1) purpose, (2) roles, (3) artifacts, and (4) physical circumstances, see also [6]. Although all four factors are relevant for analysis in all cultures, the way they are realized can vary considerably and are important in understanding both differences and potential similarities in the way persons from different cultures interact in what, on an abstract level, should be the same activity.

#### *6.2.1 Purpose of an activity*

The purpose of social activity is the goal the activity is meant to achieve. There are many words for activities in everyday language which, if consideration is given to their meaning, show the purpose of the activity and thereby often also the types of interaction and communication that usually characterize the activity. Such words are *negotiation*, *meeting*, *fight*, *flirt*, *lecture*, *interview*, and *counseling***.** Other words for activities, such as *hunting*, *fishing*, or *business purchase*, have less clear consequences for communication. However, even in these latter cases, it is possible, through reflection, to gain an understanding of certain of the communicative characteristics that are required by the activity.

A purpose can be more or less specific. Compare, for example, the purpose of "*negotiation*" with "*diplomatic negotiation between Russians and Americans concerning disarmament*". The more specific the purpose is, the more it will influence the activity.

A difficulty in intercultural communication is that not precisely the same meaning is attached to activity words that are otherwise normally considered to be the correct translation of each other. Do, for example, the English words *debate* and *job interview* have the same meaning as the Swedish words *debatt* and *anställningsintervju*? Despite the very similar meaning of the words, there are differences with respect to for instance expectations about argumentation style in a debate and type of questions asked in a job interview. In certain situations, even such relatively small differences can lead to difficulties in cooperation between a Swede and for example, an Englishman.

#### *6.2.2 Roles in an activity*

Closely associated with the purpose of social activity are the different roles that are ordinarily associated with the participants in the activity. Compare, for example, lecturers and audience at a lecture, salesperson, and customer engagement in a purchase made in a store, chairperson, rapporteur, and participants at a meeting. As we have already mentioned above that the rights and obligations that are tied to a certain role do not need to be the same in different ethnic groups. A chairman often has greater rights at a meeting in England and in the U.S. than in Sweden.

To each role belong certain rights and obligations that normally have a strong impact on what a person with a certain role will say and do during the activity. Rights and obligations often correspond to one another so one party's rights determine the other party's obligations. The right of a Swedish customer to information about the price and quality of goods thus corresponds to the obligations of a Swedish salesperson to give this information (and probably similarly so in many other cultures).

#### *6.2.3 Artifacts in an activity*

A third factor that can determine a part of what is said and done in an activity is the artificial objects or artifacts that are used in the activity. As regards communication, the artifacts usually called communication aids and media (e.g. pen, megaphone, telephone, telegraph, radio, etc.) are particularly important. Special conventions are formed in different linguistic and cultural communities for how these aids are to be used. The conventions can, for example, concern how to talk on the telephone, write different kinds of letters or speak on the radio.

#### *6.2.4 Physical circumstances*

The last factor I will discuss here is the physical circumstances of the activity and the communication, that is, how phenomena such as noise level, light level, space, temperature, furniture, distance between sender and receiver, and the number of senders and receivers affect what is said and done. Activity and communication are always adapted in different ways in different cultural areas to physical factors of this type. We discussed above how even if Swedish men normally like to keep a fairly large distance between themselves and other men, will accept standing very close to one another on a crowded bus.

#### **6.3 Attitudes and values**

As we have seen above, both participating in and studying intercultural communication require taking into consideration the differences in understanding, values, and attitudes that people with different cultural backgrounds can have. These factors are important in determining both how to communicate and how to interpret and react to messages that are received. The results of questionnaire-based investigations of values and attitudes are the main topic of most studies of intercultural communication, see [1, 2]. The main problem with most of these studies is that the taxonomies of cultural differences that they present are too abstract and pay little attention to communicative behavior, and actual circumstances like type of activity, or individual differences. Another problem is that they tend to neglect the importance of cultural change and the fact that there are many similarities between human beings and human cultures.

An alternative way of identifying attitudes and values is to make a list of phenomena that play an important part in most people's lives and then investigate whether there is any pattern in the attitudes of a particular group towards these phenomena. This list might, for example, include the following: family, child rearing, the opposite sex, socializing with friends, work—money, authorities (e.g. the state, teachers), aging, goals of life—career, death, time and space, metaphysics.

To investigate what attitudes people in a certain culture have toward these phenomena, we can consider at least two approaches that complement each other. One approach is to try to empirically investigate via direct observation, interviews, or questionnaires what attitudes people have.

The second approach is more indirect but may allow for a deeper understanding of the attitudes that exist in a particular culture. This approach is based on a historical analysis of the different influences that may have formed people's attitudes in a certain culture. The analysis should take into consideration the following types of influences: (1) nature and climate, (2) resources, (3) technology, (4) population density, (5) types of activities, (6) types of behavior, and (7) ideological influences. In an intricate interaction, these factors, and perhaps others, form the values and norms that are typical of a particular culture. By studying not only the norms and values themselves but their background as well, one has a greater chance of understanding why certain patterns are more common than others, why changes in the patterns have and are taking place and at what points changes will eventually take place again.

#### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

Among the ideological influences, religion has often been the most important in creating norms and values, see [26]. In most cultures, religion has traditionally offered an explanatory and legitimizing framework for human behavior. Religious theses have been used to motivate and maintain such things as an approach to childrearing, family, work, the opposite sex, and authorities. These approaches have then lived on in the culture and come to be shared also by people who no longer believe in the religious theses that originally motivated the approaches.

A development of ideological influences on Swedish culture must cover at least the following: (i) belief in the Nordic Asa Pantheon that possibly lives on in the celebration of Christmas and Midsummer; (ii) Catholicism, which introduced Christian values, for example, the idea of the equal value of all people in the eyes of God and the teaching of individual salvation; (iii) Lutheranism, which gave the king authority over the church (caesaropapism) and to some extent gave Christianity another meaning than what existed under Catholicism. (iv) During the 1800s, Calvinism was often introduced together with liberal political ideology. (v) Different forms of socialism also turned up, some were atheist and others were combined with different forms of religion, especially Lutheranism. (vi) The latest ideological influence in Sweden has probably been the so-called "green wave", that is, a strong emphasis on certain ideas and attitudes concerning man's interplay with nature. Other doctrines also exist but are somewhat less widespread than those listed above.

Of the mentioned ideologies, the most important influence is probably Lutheranism. Luther's doctrines have been preached in churches, religious house examinations, morning assemblies in schools, and many other places for over 450 years. In many ways, Luther's doctrines have affected attitudes toward (e.g. work, the idea of the calling), obligation, authorities, child-rearing, the opposite sex, the difference between private and public, the value of man, and goals in life that are common in Swedish culture. Departing from the model, let us now go on to look at some of the problems that can arise in an intercultural context on an individual and collective level.

## **7. Some problems related to understanding intercultural communication**

We will begin by looking more closely at some different types of problems that can arise in situations of intercultural communication. As in all communication, a fundamental problem has to do with understanding.

Let us further assume that two persons with different cultural backgrounds start to communicate because at least one of them needs to do so. As they have different cultural backgrounds, they probably have less common pre-understanding than two persons with the same cultural background. If the lack of common pre-understanding is relevant to their joint activity and communication, this may lead to several consequences which will be treated below.

#### **7.1 Lack of understanding**

Lack of understanding is a failure to interpret parts of or all of what the other person is saying or doing. The lack of understanding may be conscious or unconscious, that is, you may or may not notice that you have not understood. The lack can, if it is a conscious lack, lead to an attempt to do something about it, such as to say that you

have not understood or to ask for an explanation. The lack of understanding can also be allowed to pass, in spite of the fact that you are aware of it, perhaps because, owing to a lack of time or to an inferior status, you do not consider yourself in a position to ask for help or to admit that you have not understood.

## **7.2 Misunderstanding**

A difference in relevant pre-understanding can also lead to misunderstanding, i.e. one actually makes an interpretation but this interpretation is inadequate or incorrect. The risk that poor understanding will lead to misunderstanding is dependent on factors like:


Consider the following example of misunderstanding from [27] in an interview concerning living conditions:

Interviewer: *du har två bord* **intill** *sängen* (you have two tables **near** the bed). Interviewee: *jag har sängen jag kan inte sova på golvet* (i have the bed, I can't sleep on the floor).

The interviewee, who at the time in question was attempting to learn Swedish, later reported that she had interpreted *intill* (near) as *inte* (not). The example shows a combination of some of the factors named above. The interviewee did not have a great enough mastery of the Swedish language and thus did not notice the sound differences between *near* and *not* (in Swedish, the sound difference between the words *intill* and *inte*). She also had a suspicion that the interviewer believed that the standard of her living quarters was primitive. These two factors, in combination with a desire to understand and to demonstrate a mastery of Swedish, lead her, rather than simply noticing that she does not understand (lack of understanding), to make an incorrect interpretation (misunderstanding). The example is typical of how misunderstandings take place. Misunderstandings are nearly always the product of a combination of some or all of the factors mentioned above.

## **7.3 Emotional reactions and actions**

Integrated with the process of understanding are different factors that have to do with emotions and attitudes. These factors are also present in cases of a lack of understanding and misunderstanding. Even if a lack of understanding sometimes is experienced as a challenge and an incentive toward increasing mutual understanding, it is likely that it generally and particularly, if it leads to misunderstanding, is connected with negative emotional reactions. As emotional reactions are usually

### *A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

associated with desires and dispositions toward behavior, the consequence can be that verbal and other actions based on misunderstanding and hasty negative reactions occur. The nature of the further consequences of such actions depends on how great the misunderstanding is, how great the need for communication is of each of the parties, the occurrence of conflicts of interest between the parties, and, not least, the power relation between the parties.

If the misunderstanding is great, the need for communication small, the conflict of interest large, and the power difference small, it is likely that the misunderstanding will lead to some sort of conflict.

Such a conflict can in turn have several different consequences, on an individual level for the individuals that are communicating, and on a group level, one individual's reaction pattern, in some cases, can become the general one for a larger group of people.

### **7.4 Interruption and breakdown**

A possible reaction to a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding is that the communication is interrupted or breaks down and that one or both of the communicating individuals then refuse to communicate. Another less common consequence of a breakdown is that the individuals are stimulated to try to improve their possibilities for communicating with one another. One of the factors that determine whether the reaction becomes a refusal or motivation for a new attempt is the power relation between the parties. If A has equal power to B, it is easier for A to refuse to communicate with B than if A is dependent upon B. In the same way, if A's need to communicate with B is not very great, it is also easier for A to refuse to communicate than if A truly needs to communicate with B. Furthermore, A's and B's ability to communicate in the language they have chosen is also relevant. If the distance is too great between A's ability and what is demanded of A for communication with B to be possible, the probability that A will not make further attempts at communication also increases.

## **7.5 Communication on the conditions of only one party**

Another development that is also often related to a power difference between parties is that one of the parties gives up and begins to communicate completely on the conditions of the other party. This pattern is typical for persons from ethnic groups who live in countries in which they are not in the majority and do not belong to the ruling class.

#### **7.6 Communication via a third party**

If the need for communication between two parties is great and they are not able to speak each other's language or do not wish to be brought into a position of inferiority towards the other party, they can choose to communicate via a third party. One of the possibilities is then to use an interpreter. If the parties are very mistrustful of one another, as sometimes is the case at international political negotiations, two interpreters can be used, one for each party. The interpreter's task is generally difficult as he/ she must constantly compromise between being faithful to what has been said and adapting himself/herself to what he/she knows about the level of pre-understanding of the receiver. His/her social position is also insecure because he/she can often be

suspected by both parties of having exploited the potential power he/she has in his/ her role as a connecting link.

If the communication takes place in written form, one can instead choose a translator as a third party. The translator's problem is often different from that of the interpretor because he/she does not have immediate access to either the sender or the receiver. He/ she must trust his/her general cultural and linguistic competence, and his/her audience is less clear than the interpreter's. However, as is often pointed out, for example, in [28], the translator's role as a transmitter of culture can hardly be overestimated. A further possibility occurs if the communicating parties have knowledge of a language that is not the first language of either of the parties. If the need for communication is great enough and the power differences are not too large, they can then choose to use this language. In certain small countries such as Sweden, this has become something of a national strategy, as most people believe they can communicate in English in most contexts.

#### **7.7 Communication on the conditions of both parties**

A fourth conceivable communication situation between two parties with a different language and cultural backgrounds is what may be called communication on the conditions of both parties. This can be designed in at least two ways. The first is that an exchange takes place in an alternating manner in the languages of both parties. A's language is spoken for a while and then B's language is spoken for a while. This type of communication most often occurs between persons who are relatively equal in terms of power and who also have relatively good competence in the other party's language. This is thereby a special case of what linguists have called code-switching—see [29] that is, there is a switching from one language to another in the same conversation.

The term "switching" could also be used for the form of communication that occurs, e.g. in diplomatic negotiations between equally powerful parties. Each of the parties speaks his/her language which, in turn, is translated by an interpreter into the other language.

Another form of communication on the conditions of both parties is what could be called "mixture". In this case, the boundaries between the two languages in question are not maintained; the parties begin to use forms from each other's language and a sort of mixed language is created. The probability that this form of communication will arise is greater if the parties are equal with respect to power, do not have good knowledge of each other's language (over and above what they can pick up online), and have a relatively great need to communicate.

## **8. Problems on a collective level**

The effects on the individual level that I discussed above can also occur on a larger scale on what could be called a collective level, see [30].

#### **8.1 Expulsion and segregation**

On a collective level, expulsion and segregation correspond to the individual-level phenomena of interruption and refusal to communicate. **Expulsion**, which in its most extreme form becomes extermination, is the process by which a powerful group of people chooses, often with violence, to remove a less powerful group of people from their territory. Expulsion has most often been associated with extreme manifestations

of ethnic and national identity in the powerful group as well as with far-reaching interruptions in communication between the two groups.

Interruption of communication also characterizes what is usually called **segregation**, that is, that one group of people, instead of being removed, is isolated and extremely limited in their contact and communication with surrounding groups of people. The groups that are segregated most frequently have less power than those who do the segregating, e.g. Black people in South Africa during apartheid or socalled ghettos in many large cities. However, it also occasionally happens that the segregated group has more power. It is and has been common for the powerful elite in many countries to live in great isolation from the people it tries to control.

In cases where the segregated group has less power, the motivation for segregation is often, although not always, ethnic—national identity. Social segregation occurs somewhat less frequently but is also relatively common (Parias in India, Romanis and vagabonds, drifters, and tramps in Sweden or Buraki in Japan). Even if a segregated group has less power, the reason for its segregation is not always that it is directly forced into segregation by a powerful group. Segregation also often seems to be a socio-political protection mechanism for avoiding being dominated by a stronger group. This is especially the case if segregation is related to ethnic identity.

#### **8.2 Assimilation**

On a collective level, **assimilation** corresponds to an individual giving up and communicating on the other party's conditions. A dominant group's pressure on a group with less power does not need to be expressed in expulsion and/or segregation. It can also be expressed in attempts toward assimilation, that is, an attempt to get the group to disappear by handling it in such a way that it becomes dispersed within the dominant group. This has been the primary political direction in Anglo-Saxondominated countries of immigration. It has also been a strong political tendency in both the Soviet Union and Russia.

One of the important steps in assimilation policy is directly oriented toward linguistic communication. The group to be assimilated is forbidden to use its language or attempts are made in some other way to ensure that the group cannot do this. Compare the previous prohibition against the Sami and Finnish languages in Swedish schools in Tornedalen or the previous prohibition against Scottish-Gaelic in Scotland.

#### **8.3 Dominance by a third party**

We saw on the individual level that one solution to the problem of understanding in intercultural communication is to use a third power, either a language that is foreign to both the communicating parties or a third person—an interpreter or a translator who conveys the contact.

Both these ways of handling problems of understanding can be found on a collective level. The first way probably represents the most common type of intercultural communication in the world today. The communicating parties must use a language that neither of them has mastered sufficiently, such as English. Through the difficulty of attempting to master a third culture's way of thinking and speaking that is foreign to them both, they are forced to add to the difficulties in understanding that might already exist between them because of differences between their respective background cultures. That which is said must now be interpreted not only with

consideration to the background of the speaker but also with consideration to the values and norms of the third, imported culture.

In addition to the relatively obvious negative consequences of using a third language, that is, the greater risks of misunderstanding, there are probably also positive effects such as an equalization of power. Both parties have difficulties and may therefore take a flexible position where certain of the opposing party's mistakes are excused and where there is greater awareness of the risk of misunderstanding and therefore also greater caution in reacting and acting based on what you have understood. These effects are probably canceled if representatives of the culture whose language is being used, participate as equal discussion partners and may well be replaced by a greater normative focus on the culture whose language is used, which results partly in a greater fear of saying the wrong things (prestige and losing power) and perhaps also in a pressure to consider a greater number of relevant factors. If this analysis is correct, it should then be simpler for Japanese people and Swedish people to carry on bilateral negotiations in English than to carry on trilateral negotiations with participants who have English as their first language. This consequence is probably most clear when there exist conflicts of interest between all three parties but might disappear to some extent if the English-speaking party altruistically puts its language abilities at the disposal of the others.

The language used as the third language in intercultural communication is largely dependent upon political and economic relations of dominance. The groups that have the most money and guns usually succeed in getting others to use their language. Important world languages like—Latin, French, Russian, Spanish, and English—have all initially been based on economic and political dominance. Despite the weakening of the economic and political bases of the Romans and the French, Latin and French have managed to have a more lasting dominance owing to their use in international organizations such as the Catholic church (Latin), the postal services, and the diplomatic corps (French).

Unfortunately, none of the artificial natural languages (as opposed to artificial non-natural languages like computer languages) that have a more idealistic basis, such as Esperanto, Neo, or Ido, have become sufficiently widespread to offer an alternative on the international level. This would probably require a connection based on political power. A first step might be achieved if international organizations such as the U.N. started to use one of these languages. The advantages of the use a non-national state-based third language for intercultural communication could be significant with a considerable effect toward equalizing power and more flexibility, caution, and patience in interpretation, at least initially.

A further problem is that probably none of the present artificial natural languages would be optimal as a global auxiliary language. To serve this purpose, the language should be neutral in relation to the main language groups in the world. This requirement would not be met by, for example, Esperanto, which is completely based on Indo-European languages. In the same way, the language should be neutral in the question of what demands are placed on cultural pre-understanding to use the language. None of the presently existing languages meet this requirement.

The practice of including a third party through the use of interpreters can also be found on a collective level. Certain groups of people have relatively often during the course of history created a role for themselves to their advantage as negotiators of contacts between other groups of people, such as the Phoenicians, Jews, the Hanseatic League or the Venetians. These groups have, exactly as some interpreters, sometimes been able to wield a considerable amount of power through their central role in contact and communication.

#### **8.4 Pluralism and integration**

Pluralism and integration correlate on a collective level with the individual-level communication phenomena of code-switching and code mixing.

**Pluralism** usually calls to mind a pattern in which different groups are given the possibility, and perhaps a certain support, to maintain their distinctive characters without the coercive and defense mechanisms usually associated with segregation or assimilation. On a group level, pluralism can be multilateral, that is, it may equally apply to several different groups. However, in many states, it is more what may perhaps be called "centripetal bilateral" (centripetal force = force pressing from the periphery toward the center). This occurs when there is one majority group in a country and a number of minority groups and the members of the minority groups receive certain support to have freedom of choice between his/her group and the majority group. However, they do not receive support for having freedom of choice between their own and other minority groups, and the members of the majority group do not receive support enabling freedom of choice between the majority culture and one or a number of the minority cultures. The Swedish immigration policy of today, just as traditional US immigration policy, can be said to aim at just this kind of centripetal bilateral pluralism. There is hardly any corresponding centrifugal (centrifugal force = force from the center toward the periphery) bilateral pluralism in Sweden, as the members of the majority group neither receive support for nor try on their own (to any great extent) to become acquainted with the cultures of any of the minority groups.

International organization today mostly adheres to multilateral pluralism, at least regarding five to ten strong nations. That is, representatives of these nations speak their languages and have interpreters translate what others are saying into their languages. Under the condition that an acceptable ideally based artificial natural language could be developed and accepted as the language of these organizations, it would probably be desirable to complement this multilateral pluralistic system with a centripetal, bilateral pluralistic system based on this language. If this were so, it would be possible to utilize the advantages that direct communication gives in combination with the equalization of power.

Pluralism and **multiculturalism** are often associated with **integration** which is the case when the exclusive features of different groups start to dissolve and new groups develop which in their culture, mix new and old features. Internationally, integration processes of this type are unusual because they require equality between the integrating parties. The more unequal the situation, the more integration will resemble assimilation. A common case might be labeled "asymmetric integration" where members of one group while maintaining their own culture, to varying extents also become competent in another culture, whose members, however, only stay competitive in their own culture. We can imagine a scale where one extreme is the assimilation of one group into another with a total loss of their culture—total assimilation—and the other extreme is the entering of both groups into a new integrated unit in which the resulting culture contains features of both the previous cultures.

## **9. Can any of the problems of intercultural communication be avoided?**

To investigate whether it is possible to avoid any of the problems of intercultural communication, it is suitable to start with the communication situation itself and analyze why misunderstanding and conflict arise. If you do this, you find that it

should be possible to put in preventive measures related to the factors which according to the analysis given above lie behind the problems that can arise. As most of these actions are found to require education and training, they will be goals for education in intercultural communication since if we can speak the language, we can learn from people from another cultural background than our own.

## **9.1 Awareness and insight into differences between cultures and communication patterns**

Since the basic difficulty in intercultural communication is the differences that exist between the producer's and recipient's cultural backgrounds and ways of communicating, a first action to reduce the risks of misunderstanding would be to gather good insight into the differences and similarities that exist. Although differences between cultural and communication patterns are in focus, similarities should not be ignored as they form a general human base that can be used to solve some of the difficulties in intercultural communication.

As the road to insight for many people goes through education and training, the first goal for education in intercultural communication is to give:


### **9.2 Flexible attitudes toward differences in culture and communication patterns**

As emotion and will are so closely connected with the process of understanding, no education in intercultural communication should ignore these factors. If there is no empathy and desire to adapt to the other party, better insight into the differences between cultural patterns will not necessarily lead to better understanding. There are several studies that show that more information does not always positively influence negative attitudes and biases. See example [31] which is a report from a Swedish parliamentary committee on discrimination. In some way, feeling and desires must also be influenced.

This requires experience that leads to greater empathy for other cultural patterns and for the difficulties experienced by those who are trying to come closer to your cultural patterns. For this to happen through education, the studies need to include methods that can appeal to emotion, desire, and action. One such method is role play. It would be very valuable to try to develop role play as an aid in teaching intercultural communication. Another type of education that seems to increase empathy and understanding is the teaching of co-existence found in international children's camps and international work camps. A third type of experience that points in this direction is international exchange programs for students, for example, AFS, Rotary, Lions, ERASMUS, SOCRATES, People to People, and Nord Plus.

One feature of the ability to adapt to other people's cultural patterns is the ability to form a common social identity with the person with whom one is speaking. We are both fathers, teachers, businessmen, or interested in stamps. Keeping in mind that there are many more possible foci of identity than national or ethnic identity will very likely facilitate mutual adaptation and understanding. This is probably not the case if we neglect similarities and focus on the potential differences that can surface when the emphasis is on national or ethnic identity.

## **9.3 Ability and skill**

The most far-reaching goal of intercultural education is to give people the ability and skill to live in other cultures and exercise other communication patterns. For this type of education, training in the language of the new culture is clearly of the greatest importance. Training and education in a foreign language is education in intercultural communication since we can speak the language, and we learn with people from another cultural background than our own.

To serve as an effective instrument for intercultural communication, language instruction must place greater importance on how a language is tied to a cultural pattern. Beyond traditional written language instruction, much greater consideration must be given to the conditions for understanding, that is, what sort of preunderstanding is normally required among large groups of people in a culture. Greater consideration should also be given to factors that are decisive in face-to-face interaction, such as body communication, intonation, feedback, and turn-taking.

Language instruction that contains more of these components would have the possibility much more so than is the case today to be a support for the individual who gradually with the help of the learned language will begin some type of intercultural communication.

## **10. Concluding remarks**

In a world increasingly characterized by contact over national and ethnic boundaries, we have no choice, for the foreseeable future, but to communicate interculturally. This paper, therefore, presents an overview of a model for intercultural communication which hopefully might be useful both for continued research and practical training. The model stresses, for example, the following features which are less common in other accounts:


In addition, I have also tried to point to some of the problems and solutions related to intercultural communication. Most of the solutions involve openness and flexibility and the realization that cultural generalizations, whether they are statistical or merely stereotypical concern a group level and that therefore, in analyzing cases of actual communication, we should always be open to the possibility that the persons analyzed do not conform to the generalizations. The model thus primarily provides a basis that always must be modulated by the circumstances at hand.

Finally, I have tried to link features of the level of individual intercultural interaction with phenomena like assimilation, integration, or segregation which are features of collective multicultural and intercultural social organization.

## **Acknowledgements**

I would like to warmly thank the following people for valuable discussions of the contents of this paper: Teresa Allwood, Elisabeth Ahlsén, and Sven Strömqvist. Furthermore, I would like to thank Christina Andersson and Gunilla Wetter for their help in getting the paper into readable shape. A special thanks for the help with the translation to Janet Vesterlund and Susan Szmania.

## **Additional information**

This paper is a revised and translated version of [32].

## **Author details**

Jens Allwood University of Gothenburg, Sweden

\*Address all correspondence to: jens@allwood.se

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*A Model of Intercultural Communication Revisited DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.110074*

## **References**

[1] Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2001

[2] Inglehart R, Welzel C. World Values Survey. The WVS Cultural Map of the World. (WVS). 2013

[3] Hall ET. The Silent Language. NY, Doubleday: Garden City; 1959

[4] Kroeber AL, Kluckhohn C. Culture – A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Peabody Museum Papers 47(1). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1952

[5] Allwood J. Linguistic Communication as Action and Cooperation, Monographs in Linguistics 2. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics; 1976

[6] Allwood J. A multidimensional activity based approach to communication. In: Wachsmuth I, de Ruiter J, Jaecks P, Kopp S (eds.). Alignment in Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2013. pp 33-55

[7] Den TH. nationella diktaturen: Nazismens och fascismens idéer. Stockholm: Bonniers; 1936

[8] Allwood J. Reflections on the function of national images in intra- and intercultural communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication. 2021;**21**(2):1-16

[9] Barnlund DC. Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo, Japan: The Simul Press; 1975

[10] Abelin A, Allwood J. Tolkning av känsloprosodi – en kontrastiv studie. Unpublished essay. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Department of Linguistics; 1985

[11] Berlin B, Kay P. Basic Color Terms— Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1969

[12] Allwood J. Kan man tänka oberoende av språk? In: Teleman U, editor. Tal och Tanke. Liber: Lund; 1983. pp. 11-33

[13] Greenberg JH. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Greenberg JH, editor. Universals of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1966. pp. 40-70

[14] Comrie B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1981

[15] Marcel AJ. Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking of word recognition. Cognitive Psychology. 1983;**15**:197-237

[16] Argyle M. Bodily Communication. London: Methuen; 1975

[17] Gunnarsson B-L. Lagtexters begriplighet. Lund: Liber; 1982

[18] Allwood J. Finns det svenska kommunikationsmönster? In: Allwood J, editor. Vad är svensk kultur? Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 9. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics; 1982. pp. 6-50

[19] Sacks H, Schegloff EA, Jefferson G. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 1974;**50**(4):696-735

[20] Saville-Troike M. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1982

[21] Basso K. Portraits of 'The Whiteman': Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols among the Western- Apache. London: Cambridge University Press; 1979

[22] Lehtonen J, Sajavaara K. The Silent Finn. Jyväskylä: Dept of English, University of Jyväskylä Occasional Papers; 1982

[23] Hakulinen A, Karlsson F. Den finländska tystnaden: Några teoretiska, deskriptiva och kontrastiva bidrag. In: Skutnabb-Kangas T, Rehdal O, editors. Vardagsskrift, Uppsala: Uppsala University, Dept of Nordic Languages; 1977. pp. 1-16

[24] Allwood J. Power and Communicatio. In: Allwood J, Ljung M, editors. Alvar – A festshrift to Alvar Ellegård, SPELL 1. Stockholm: Dept of English, Stockholm University; 1980. pp. 1-20

[25] Hirsch R. Ickeverbal kommunikation i ett tvärkulturellt perspektiv. In: Allwood J, editor. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics, PAL12; 1985. pp. 189-200

[26] Sander Å. Religion, värdekonflikt och ömsesidig förståelse. In: Allwood J, editor. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics, PAL12; 1985. pp. 62-158

[27] Allwood J, Abelar Y. Lack of understanding, misunderstanding and language acquisition. In: Extra G, Mittner M, editors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants. Tilburg Studies in Language and Literature 6: Tilburg; 1984. pp. 27-56

[28] Schenck L. Översättning som tvärkulturell kommunikationsform. In: Allwood J, editor. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics, PAL12; 1985. pp. 329-341

[29] Blom JP, Gumperz J. Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: CodeSwitching in Norway. In: Gumperz J, Hymes D, editors. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1972. pp. 407-434

[30] Nelhans B. En modell för förståelse av kulturmöte och kulturkonflikt. In: Allwood J, editor. Kulturmöte -konflikt eller samarbete? Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics; PAL 11; 1983. pp. 2-29

[31] Diskrimineringsutredningen SOU. Swedish Government Official Report. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 1984. p. 55. DOI: 10.3384/db.sou

[32] Allwood J. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 12. In: Allwood J, editor. Tvärkulturell kommunikation. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept of Linguistics; 1985. pp. 9-61

## **Chapter 11**
