Ayo Bamgbose
Language and Cross-Cultural Communication
Series B: Applied & Interdisciplinary Papers
ISSN 1435-6473
Essen: LAUD 1992 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2012)
Paper No. 233
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Ayo Bamgbose
Language and Cross-Cultural Communication
Copyright by the author
1992 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2012)
Series B
Applied & Interdisciplinary Papers
Paper No. 233
Reproduced by LAUD
Linguistic Agency
University of Duisburg-Essen
FB Geisteswissenschaften
Universitätsstr. 12
D- 45117 Essen
Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/laud.html
Or contact: [email protected]
ii
Ayo Bamgbose
Language and Cross-Cultural Communication
It is generally accepted that knowin a language is a lot more than knowing the structure and
even the meanings of expressions in the language. This is because knowledge of a language
implies an awareness of the totality of associations carried by expressions in the language,
particularly in the "context of situation" and "context of culture" (Malinowsky 1935: 51-2;
Firth 1957: 36) or "the immediate situation", which is defined as the factors relevant in the
speech situation, and the "wider situation", which is defined as the factors relevant and
specific to a given culture and its language (Ellis 1966: 80).
Perhaps arising from this close bond between language and culture, a bilingual person
is invariably said to be bicultural. As Christophersen (1973: 24) puts it
"It follows from what has been said that a person who has successfully learnt a
second language ... will have come to possess not only two languages but also
two cultures; he will be bilingual and bicultural".
The problem with this formulation is thi.it it is too strong. Is it really the case that every
bilingual possesses two cultures? Faced with this question. Grosjean (1982: 157) strongly
disagrees: "The answer is no", he says, "bilingualism and biculturalism are not necessarily
coextensive. Some people who use two languages on a regular basis are really
monocultural". In coming to this conclusion Gros jean had in mind a situation where a
bilingual uses a lingua franca to express essentially the culture of his ethnic group. For
example, the use of Swahili as a second language in Tanzania or Kenya.
There is need to clarify what biculturalism involves, even where it relates to divergent
cultures. There is a sense in which to use a word or a sentence of any language correctly,
one has to understand its linguistic context as well as the situations in which it can be
appropriately used. This, as was pointed out above, of course implies an awareness of the
cultural associations of the expression. But there is a difference between this kind of
knowledge and an immersion into the culture of a second language which one has acquired.
It appears there is a need to disambiguate the concept covered by bilingualism into an
awareness as opposed to a possession of the culture of a second language. In terms of
awareness, all bilinguals can be correctly said to be bicultural; but in terms of possession of
the culture, not all bilinguals are bicultural.
In a situation where there is instrumental acquisition and use of a second language, it
is not always the case that a bilingual "possesses" the culture associated with the other
language. For instance, a Japanese scientist may learn enough English to be able to interact
professionally with fellow scientists from the West, while resisting an encroachment of the
Anglo-Saxon culture associated with the English language. On a recent visit to Brunei
Darussalam, I saw how the English language could be used in a functional way without
1
having any real influence on the adherence by Malay-English bilinguals to Malay culture. It
seems that a bilingual stands a better chance of "possessing" the culture of his second
language, if he uses it regularly in a range of important domains. This is certainly the case in
those African countries where English or French is an official language.
For the purpose of examining the problems associated with cross-cultural
communication, only those cases of bilinguals who are bicultural will be considered in this
paper; and biculturalism will be taken to range from a mere awareness of the culture of a
second language to a full immersion in it.
Cultural Interference in Communication
A bilingual user of two languages has his first language (L1) which may be said to be
associated with his own culture (C1). He also has a second language (L2) which is associated
with the culture of the language he has acquired (C2) (Kachru 1966: 256). The relationships
between the languages and the cultures may be represented thus in the following diagram:
Since language is culture-based and cultural interference in communication can only
occur through language, we can make the following assumptions:
(a)
Native-like competence in a language involves the ability to move from the
culture to the language associated with it, i.e. C1→ L1 or C2→L2. Obviously, this
is the competence expected of monolinguals, and only a few so-called coordinate
bilinguals can attain anything near such competence.
(b)
No culture to culture transfer is possible, except throught hemediation of
language.
The point of interest for us in the above diagram is the way it throws light on interference
either of language or culture or of both language and culture. Basically, there are two types
of interference: language-motivated and culture-motivated.
Language-motivated interference is a transfer of the feature of one language to another
arising purely from the difference between the two languages. It is of two types: linguistic
interference and cultural interference. Linguistic interference is represented by L1 →L2. It
involves first language interference in the second language without any implication for the
culture of the second language. Such cases include simple phonological transfer e.g. r for 1
in 'love', 't' for 'th' in 'thief', lexical interference e.g. 'borrow' for 'lend', as in "Borrow me
your book", 'cow meat' for 'beef and syntactic deviance e.g. "I am owing him ten dollars"
instead of "I owe him ten dollars". A lot of such interference is associated with low—level
proficiency, but a native speaker of English will easily recognise and accommodate such
2
errors in a communicative encounter. No further account will be taken of this type of
interference, since it does not involve any cultural transfer into the second language.
Language-motivated cultural interference is represented by L1→ L2 →C2 It is a case
where the interference from the first language to the second language also involves a
transfer of an aspect of the culture of the first language into the second. When a feature of
stress or intonation typical of one1s language is transferred to a second language, the effect
may be a wrong signal to the native-speaker interactant who will certainly judge the
utterance by the norms of his own culture. Thus, as Gumperz (1980: 410) reports; the use of
a falling intonation such as
"You left the door open!" instead of a rising one "You left the door open?" is likely to
cause offence, since it implies an accusation. Similarly, when a word order typical of one
language is transferred to another, cultural interference may arise. In the Yoruba language,
the first person is mentioned first in a noun phrase coordination. Hence, èmi àti ìwọ "I and
you". Imagine the effect of transferring this to English. The interactant is likely to feel that
the bilingual concerned is arrogant or impolite since in English it is the first person that is
mentioned last. Even the Queen of England always talks of "My husband and I" and never
"I and my husband".
Culture-motivated interference arises from a culture-bound concept, practice or habit
transferred into another culture. Although this transfer is done through a language, the
immediate motivation for it is an attempt to translate certain aspects of one culture into the
language embodying the culture of another. There are two types of culture-motivated
interference: Source-to-Target interference and Target-to-Source interference.
Source-to-Target interference is represented by C1→L2 → C2 It is a case where a
cultural aspect of a bilingual's culture is transferred into a second language with obvious
implication for the way an interactant belonging to the second culture will react to the
transfer. This sort of interference is the commonest feature of a bilingual1s performance in a
second language. Examples of such interference could be found in greetings, kinship terms,
idioms, and use of pronouns of respect. I will give one illustration each from greetings and
kinship terms.
Some cultures are well-known for the importance they attach to greetings. The
Yoruba, for example, have greetings for practically all activities and occasions - standing,
sitting, working, birth, bereavement, promotion, loss, etc. It is, therefore, normal for
someone getting on a bus to say either 'Greetings on being on the bus´ or any greeting
appropriate to the time of day. Someone from this culture is reported to have extended this
practice to passengers on a London bus. He got on and said, "Good morning, everybody"
and there was dead silence. Obviously the native English speakers on the bus must have
thought he was mad, while he felt that they were incredibly rude and unfriendly.
The next example concerns a situation that did not end on a happy note. A woman
wrote a letter to her brother-in-law who was a student in a Teacher Training College
3
addressing him as "My dear husband". This mode of address is perfectly normal in Yoruba
culture where a wife is not only a wife to her husband but to all male and female siblings of
the same age as, or younger than, her husband. The white missionaries opened the letter and
concluded that, contrary to the College regulations, the student-teacher was already married.
He was, therefore, expelled. One can imagine how snocked they would have been if the
recepient of the letter had been a woman! The three interactants in this episode have
different concepts of the kinship term "husband". As far as the writer of the letter is
concerned, it is the same concept as in Yoruba culture. For the white missionaries, the
concept is as found in Anglo-Saxon culture, while perhaps only the student is aware of the
difference in the concepts in both cultures.
Target-to-Source interference is represented by C2→L2→C1 It is a case where a
cultural norm of a second language is wrongly interpreted by a bilingual in terms of the
norms of his own culture. The famous advertisement for Kentucky Fried Chicken is that it
has "finger-licking goodness". While this advertisement makes sense in a culture where one
licks one's fingers for any delicious taste, it is profoundly offensive in cultures in which
such a practice is taboo. Hence, the unfavourable reaction to this advertisement in Malaysia.
Another example of such interference is an incident reported in Sukwiwat (1981) of a
hostess in 1949 post-war Southern England asking a foreigner guest on which day of the
week he would like to have his bath. Although the guest understood every word of the
question, he could not offer any answer, as the idea of a weekly bath was entirely alien to
his culture. As a result, there was a complete breakdown in communication.
It should be clear from the above examination of cultural interference that in any
crosscultural communication, there is always a potential for cultural interference ranging
from simple misinterpretation to more serious misunderstanding or even a complete
breakdown of communication. To say this, however, is not to give the impression that ail
cross-cultural communication must of necessity involve cultural interference. If this were
the case, no cross-cultural communication would be possible.
The reasons why we manage to communicate in spite of difference in cultural
background are: first, there are intercultural similarities, shared language behavioural norms
(Bamgbose 1987) and universal terms of a conversational contract (Fraser and Nolen (1981:
94), Hymes (1986: 63-4) and, second, as part of the aim of speaking a language well, a
bilingual tries hard to situate his language use within the cultural context, either through an
awareness or a through an understanding of the culture of his second language. It is where
there is a failure in such awareness or understanding that cultural interference occurs.
However, an account of cross-cultural communication must concentrate on dissimilarities in
cultures and the resulting cultural interference, since as Asante (1980: 1) has rightly pointed
out, "Cultural difference, not cultural similarity, is the premise of the inter-culturalcommunication field. If this were not the case, then all of our discussion would be
pointless".
4
Cultural interference is not limited to verbal communication only. Although it is often
assumed that when people do not speak the same language, they may communicate through
gestures, Omondi (1979) in a study of gestures in several African languages in Zambia and
Kenya has shown, that just as language is characterized by variations, ambiguities, and
differences, paralanguage is an elaborate system of signs whose variations, unless properly
mastered, can lead to a breakdown in communication.
The fact that even gestures can be culture-specific is illustrated by the following
examples recorded by Omondi. In counting with the fingers, a Dhuluc speaker from Kenya
starts with his index finger while a Lozi speaker from Zambia starts with his little finger.
These two practices may be contrasted with that of a Hindustani speaker from India who
starts counting with the thumb. It is unlikely that these differences will lead to any problems
in communication since an interactant is likely to adjust quickly once the process of
counting begins, especially as all he has to do is note the number of fingers raised. To this
extent, this is very similar to linguistic interference without any cultural implication
It is also possible, however, for cultural interference to occur as in the case of gestures
employed in indicating height. The Bemba of Zambia and the Luo of Kenya indicate the
height of a child by holding the hand up vertically, while they indicate the height of a tree
by the palm held out facing the ground. The Kikuyu of Kenya, on the other hand, do not
make this distinction. Imagine then what would happen if a Kikuyu were to describe the
height of a Luo child by making use of the gesture associated with his own language and
culture! In all probability, an affront would have been committed, for the Luo interactant is
likely to misunderstand the gesture as wishing a stunted growth for his child. Hence, even in
non-verbal communication, there is a potential for miscommunication.
Verbal Communication and Cultural Conflict
In any communicative encounter in which there is cultural interference, there is potential for
cultural conflict arising from differing attitudes or a divergence between expectation and
reality of use by an interactant. Two areas in which such conflict can be shown are in the
way politeness is expressed and culturally relevant norms of appropriateness.
In interaction with other people, it is usual to show politeness, particularly bearing in
mind social status, relationship to interactant, gender, and age. How politeness is expressed
in particular situations is language and culture-specific, but there are certain universals such
as the way one talks to superiors as opposed to equals or subordinates, formal as opposed to
informal situations, transactional versus intimate roles etc. When there is interference from
the culture of a source to that of a target language, the bilingual speaker of the second
language may have one of three attitudes to the expression of politeness: hypocorrectness,
hypercorrectness or obligatory politeness.
Hypocorrectness arises where a bilingual's use of language is such as not to be polite
enough judging by the norms of the second language. Second language speakers of English
5
from different cultural backgrounds often ignore the degrees of politeness expected in
making requests. For example, they may use an imperative or an indicative sentence for
making a request instead of an interrogative e.g. "Give me an orange" or "I want an orange"
rather than "Can I have an orange?" In a study conducted by Fraser and Nolen (1981) of the
different sentence types which can be employed for making requests, conditionals were
considered to be more polite than indicatives, interrogatives more polite than imperatives,
and positive modals more polite than negative ones. When bilinguals speaking English as a
second language use the least polite forms for making requests, they invite negative
attitudes on the part of native English speakers. For example, they may be considered rude
or impudent. Similar cases of hypocorrectness are the use of a falling intonation when a
rising one is called for or failure to add "thank you" to an expression when the situation
demands it. For example, "Would you like a beer?" - "No!" instead of "No, thank youl".
Hypercorrectness is the exact opposite of hypocorrectness. It arises from an attempt by
a bilingual to avoid being impolite with the result that he or she ends up by being unduly
polite in a way that is not acceptable judging by the norms of the second language. A simple
example of this is the transfer of the pronoun of deference found in seme African languages
into English. For example, a student that says "They are calling you" may simply be
referring to the Principal of the school. Similarly, although the technique of "you"
avoidance occurs in native varieties of English (Brown and Levinson 1978: 203-4), its
manifestation in a second language user's English is often very different from that of the
first language situation. For example, an African student will find it natural in a face-to-face
interaction with his or her professor to say "Will the Professor be in the office tomorrow?"
This is an expression of deference as well as social distance between the student and the
professor. In a British or American setting, this mode of address will be considered very
odd.
Most second language users of English know that the word "please" is a marker of
respect; but in an attempt to be polite, some often use the word where it is superfluous e.g.
"Can I please see you?", "May I please talk to you?" I have even encountered a situation in
which a Nigerian senior civil servant goes round saying "Good morning, please". This is
comparable to the case of an Arab who when greeted "Hello" replied, "Hello, Welcome!"
(Scarcella and Brunak 1981: 62). Although hypercorrectness may not be as devastating in
its effect on a native speaker interactant as its opposite practice, it is still an awkward
feature in a communication situation which could lead to false judgments being made about
the speaker.
Obligatory politeness is a norm of politeness typical of the first language which must be
transferred to the second language. It is irrelevant whether the bilingual is fully aware of the
deviance of this norm in the second language. As long as he has language to use this second
in the cultural setting of the first language, he or she has no choice but ho impose this alien
6
norm on the second language. An example of this is mode of address. In writing letters, for
example, one is told of the appropriate opening and closing formulas.
As Quirk (1962: 217) puts it,
"We observe that if people we respect begin a letter 'Dear Mr Jones', they will
close it with 'Yours sincerely', but that if they begin with 'Dear Sir1, they will end
it with 'Yours faithfully'. Experienced and well-educated people do not mix these
formulas - and they tend to think poorly of those who do".
Yet, in many African cultures, it will be considered impudent to address an elderly relation
as anything but "Dear Sir" even in a private letter which then appropriately ends "Yours
sincerely".
Similarly in Nigeria, one bears one or more titles such as Doctor, Chief, Professor,
Alhaji which must be reflected in addressing him. If he belongs to one of the professions,
this fact is also reflected in such titles as Engineer, Architect, Barrister, General, Surveyor
etc. It is not unusual to find a combination of titles such as Alhaji, Chief, Engineer, Dr.
XYZ. Conflict arises when someone is not addressed by his proper title. Anglo-Saxons for
whom such titles are not very important often refer co holders of these titles by plain
"Mister" which is not considered offensive. While it is not considered an affront for the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to refer to "Mr. Bush", a similar reference to an
African president is bound to be taken as an act of disrespect.
Every culture has its norms of what is appropriate and what is not. Hall (1960)
contrasts the American monochronic sense of time (i.e. doing one thing at a time) with the
polychronic one in Arab culture (i.e. several different things going on at the same time).
This difference is illustrated by different attitudes to deadlines. To say to an Arab mechanic
"I must have my car by 5 o'clock tomorrow" is to exert undue pressure and hence put in
doubt the possibility of the job being completed. Hall (1960: 162) says:
"The best way not to get your radio fixed is to pinpoint the time when you expect
to have it done. In the U.S., to get technical about the specific time a given job
has to be finished is a way of increasing the emphasis and urgency. In the Middle
East such specificity communicates something quite different".
If this characterization of the cultural difference is correct, there is limitless potential for
cultural conflict when an American transfers his concept of time and deadline to an Arab
setting. Another example of appropriateness in the context of the culture is the difference in
the convention of beginning phone calls. Godard (1977) reports two major differences
between Americans and the French making private phone calls. While the French verify the
number called and callers identify themselves, Americans usually do not, with the result that
someone who is not aware that he has obtained a wrong number might say, "Hello, how are
you, can I come for you?" to the annoyance of the receiver of the call. Another difference is
that Americans do not feel obliged to exchange courtesies when a call is not meant for them,
whereas, for the French, it would be considered extremely unfriendly not to. For example, a
7
husband who receives a call intended for his wife might simply say "Jane, this is for youl"
even though the caller is known to him. Commenting on these cultural differences, Godard
(1977: 209) as a French woman living in America and having to get used to the American
practice says, "I have sometimes been irritated and even insulted and I have often been
amused. Again one can see here the seeds of cultural conflict brought about by difference in
norms of appropriateness.
Translation is an area par excellence where difference in culture can easily be
illustrated. Problems of translatability relate not only to culture-bound items such as words
for clothing, food, customs but also to idiomatic expressions. However these only result in
some cases in partial translation i.e. leaving parts of the text untranslated (Catford 1965: 21)
or literal translation. The more serious cases which could result in cultural conflict are
where a concept in one language is understood differently in another language. A good
example cited by Dirven (1991) is the Baoule concept of "intelligence" which first and
foremost embraces "willingness to help, responsibility" as opposed to the western concept
of intelligence which is largely cognitive. Imagine someone from the Baoule culture writing
a reference for a candidate and saying that the candidate is very intelligent. The western
recepient of the reference may accuse the writer of being untruthful, should the candidate
turn cut not to be intelligent in the western sense of the word.
The intended message does not always come through in a translation because of the
different cultural assumptions. And in certain kinds of translation, it is important that
everyone should have more or less the same kind of understanding of the message. This is
particularly true of the scriptures. The King James Bible records the Christian injunction,
"Bear ye one another's burdens". (Gal. 62). This same injunction turns up in the Yoruba
Bible as Ẹ máa ru ẹrù ọmọnìkejì yín" which translated back into English means "Carry your
fellowman's load". Obviously, "burden" in English covers not only physical load but also
the abstract concept of "burden", i.e. trouble, problem etc., and this interpretation comes out
clearly in the Living Bible version which more appropriately says, "Share each other's
troubles and problems". However, ẹrù in Yoruba refers primarily to the physical concept of
"load" particularly in the context of the verb rù "carry". The story of the farmer who, having
listened to a sermon on this injunction, went to the outskirts of the town and started helping
others to carry their produce may well be apocryphal, but it does illustrate how a
misunderstanding of the intended message can result from a translation.
Implications of Intercultural Communication
What is the practical application of the differences in culture as reflected in language?
Given the definition of culture as "an intertwined system of values and attitudes, beliefs and
norms that give meaning and significance to both individual and collective identity" (Adler
1977 as quoted in Sukwiwat 1981: 216), it is obvious that the intrusion of a person's culture
into a situation where the norms of another person's culture are expected is bound to impede
8
communication across cultural boundaries. The aim of ail interactants in intercultural
communication is basically to minimize the incidence of such intrusion.
Although one talks of culture in discrete terms, the fact is that there are cultural
similarities which also minimize the potential problems of intercultural communication.
Overlap in culture makes it possible for us to talk of Western culture as opposed to African
or Oriental culture. Within Western culture, one can proceed to further differentiate into
European, English, German, French culture etc. It is precisely in those cases where the
widest cultural divergence exists that the greatest care needs to be taken to avoid conflict
and breakdown in communication.
The first major implication of studies in intercultural communication is the promotion
of international understanding by avoidance of cultural interference, since much of
international communication presupposes intercultural communication as well. By drawing
attention to the factors that lead to cultural interference and cultural conflict, international
understanding is promoted.
The second implication is the need for a re-examination of development strategies that
depend crucially for their implementation on a language foreign to the culture of the
consumers. How do we ensure that in health programmes, such as disease control or family
planning, the correct message reaches the people? In a culture in which it is believed that
children are like eggs lined up inside a female and that it is wrong to stop them coming, it is
futile preaching family planning without at first tackling the fundamental belief about child
bearing; and this is best done in the language of the people.
The third implication concerns an awareness of the subtle influence of the culture of a
dominant language. For example, because of the predominance of English, values
associated with Anglo-Saxon culture are imbibed through a Eurocentric interpretation of
terms such as "jungle", "tribe", "classical" etc. (Asante 1980: 14). The long-term effect of
such influence could be a loss of confidence in the corresponding values of the less
dominant language and culture.
In this connection, a recurrent preoccupation in African countries is the need for a
horizontal language to facilitate communication between different groups, and across
national boundaries (Bamgbose 1979). A ready solution is usually found in a Language of
Wider Communication (LWC) which is usually said to be a neutral language not associated
with any ethnic group. As has been shown above, neutrality of language is a myth, since
every person who uses a second language must at least have an awareness of the cultural
associations of the language. The adoption of a LWC as an official language generally
means that it is the language of secondary and higher education, the language of
government and administration, and the language of science and technology. An allocation
of language function such that the official language is used in the domains that Dirven
(1991: 16) calls "hard sectors" and indigenous languages in "soft sectors" (comprising social
and cultural aspects of life) is bound to leave a lasting effect on the self-esteem that people
9
attach to their language and culture relative to the value attached to the official language and
its culture.
A similar trend is found in educational language policies which are often characterized
by the use of the official language as a medium of instruction in the higher cycles, while the
indigenous languages are relegated to the lower levels of primary school.
A variation on this practice is the use of a LWC such as English for mathematics, the
sciences and other hard core subjects, while the indigenous languages are used for history,
religion, arts and culture etc. The effect of this unnatural division of labour is that, in time,
the indigenous languages will come to be associated with traditional culture only, and
effective language development, including an expansion of vocabulary to cope with the
demands of modern life, will be seriously hindered.
While an appreciation of other people's culture is a sine-qua-non for effective
intercultural communication, this should be done from the basis of an understanding,
acceptance and appreciation of one's own culture. A situation in which such communication
is perpetually licensed by the norms of a dominant language is, for the speaker forced all the
time to adapt to the dominant language and culture, nothing short of cultural deprivation.
10
References
Adler, P.S. 1977 "Beyond cultural identity: Reflections upon cultural and multicultural
man" In: Richard W. Brislin (ed.) Culture learning: concepts, applications, research
Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Asante, Molefi K. 1980 "Intercultural Communication: An Afro-centric Inquiry into
Encounter" In: Bruce E. Williams and Orlando L. Taylor International Conference on
Black Communication New York: The Rockefeller Foundation, pp. 1-15.
Bamgbose, Ayo 1979 "Models of Communication in Multilingual 'states" Journal of the
Language Association of Eastern Africa 4: 1, pp.5-13.
Bamgbose, Ayo 1987 "Language Norms" In: Werner Banner, 'Joachian Shildt and Dieter
Viehweger (eds.) 1987 Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of
Linguists Berlin: Akademic-Verlag Berlin.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson 1978 Politeness: Some Universals in language
usage Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bazell, C.E., J.C. Catford, M.A.K. Halliday and R.H. Robins (eds.) 1966 In Memory of J.R.
Firth London: Longmans
Catford, J.C. 1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christophersen, Paul 1973 Second-Language Learning Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin Education.
Dirven, Renè 1991 Language, Cultural Community and Nation in Africa Duisburg:
Universit St Duisburg Gesamthochschule L.A.U.D.
Ellis, Jefferey 1966 "On contextual meaning" In: C.E. Bazell et. al. (eds.) 1966, pp. 79-95.
Firth, J.R. 1957 Pacers in Linguistics 1934-1951 London: Oxford University Press.
Fraser, Bruce and William Nolen 1981 "The association of deference with linguistic form"
International Journal of the Sociology of Language vol. 27, pp.93-109.
Godard, D. 1977 "Same Setting, Different Norms: Phone Call Beginnings in France and the
United States" Language in Society 6:2, pp.209-219.
Grosjean, Prangois 1982 Life with Two Languages Cambridge: Havard University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1980 "The Conversational Analysis of Interethnic Communication" In:
Evangelos A. Afendras (ed.) 1980 Patterns of Bilingualism Singapore: Singapore
University Press, pp.406-415.
Hall, Edward T. 1960 "Linguistic Models in the Analysis of Culture" In: William M. Aus-in
(ed.) 1960 Report on the Ninth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and
Language Studies Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp.157-164.
11
Hymes, Dell 1972 "Models of Interaction of Language and Social Life" In: John Gumpers
and Dell Hymes (eds.) 1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of
Communication New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston INC pp.35- 71
Kachru, 3raj 1966 "Indian English: A study in contextualization" In: C.S. Basel! et. al.
(eds.) 1966, pp.255-287.
Malinowsky, Bronislaw 1935 Coral Gardens and their Magic Vol. II, New York: American
Book Company. Also reprinted 1965 Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
Press.
Omondi. Lucia 1979 "Paralinguistics: A survey of Non-Verbal Communication with
Particular Reference to Zambia and Kenya" Journal of the Language Association of
Eastern Africa 4:1, pp.19-41.
Quirk, Randolph 1962 The Use of English London: Longmans.
Scarcella, Robin and Joanna Brunak 1981 "On speaking politely in a second language
"International Journal of the Sociology of Language vol. 27, pp.59-75.
Sukwiwat, Mayuri 1981 "Crossing the Cultural Threshold: a Challenge to Users of EIL" In:
Larry E. Smith (ed.) 1981 English for Cross-cultural Communication London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd., pp.216-224.
12