A Study on Communication Breakdowns: Sources of Misunderstanding in a Cross-Cultural Setting

A Study on Communication Breakdowns: Sources of Misunderstanding in a Cross-Cultural Setting

The Erasmus exchange program has a positive influence on students’ intercultural awareness since they find the chance to meet other cultures. Despite high levels of proficiency, there may still be misunderstandings between students of different cultures. As a consequence, the Erasmus program might not achieve its pluriculturalism aim. Purpose of the Study: This study aimed to find out what kind of communicational problems -if any- stemmed from cultural differences in the interactions of Erasmus students with the Turkish students in an undergraduate education context. Method: The data was collected from 69 participants: 39 Turkish students attending three different universities in Turkey and 30 Erasmus students coming from seven different countries. Findings: The answers were clustered in three main themes; the quality of communication; common areas of misunderstanding; and perceptions of each other. Turkish students perceived a better quality of communication with the visiting students. The eye contact patterns of the visiting students and Turkish students caused misunderstanding. As for pragmatics, inviting and offering procedures w ere the main sources of misunderstanding. Visiting students perceived Turkish people as helpful and benevolent, sometimes to the point of being pushy or too protectionist. Turkish people, on the other hand, tended to describe visiting students as individualistic and “free-spirited” people. Implications for Research and Practice: University courses can help students engage in awareness raising activities, and provide more orientation at the onset of exchange terms. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential areas of miscommunication, and with a more representative sample of cultures.

___

  • Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62-70.
  • Barkhuizen, G., & Feryok, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 3(1), 115-134. DOI: 10.1080/13598660500479904
  • Barnett, G.A., & Jiang, K. (2017). Issues in intercultural communication: A systematic network analysis. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural communication (pp.99-118). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc.
  • Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.057
  • Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bordens, K.S., & Abbott, B.B. (2008). Research design and methods: A process approach (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Bratanic, M. (2007). Nonverbal communication as a factor in linguistic and cultural miscommunication. In A. Esposito, M. Bratanic, E.Keller & M.Marinaro (Eds.), Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the Biometric Issue (pp. 82-91). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
  • Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  • Chick, K. (1989). Intercultural miscommunication as a source of friction in the workplace and in educational settings in South Africa. In O. Garcia & R. Otheguy (Eds.), English Across Cultures, Cultures Across English (pp.139-160). Berlin-NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Crowther, D., & DeCosta, P.I. (2017). Developing mutual intelligibility and conviviality in the 21st century classroom: Insights from English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 450-460.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fox, C. (1997). The authenticity of intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 85-103.
  • Garand, D. (2009). Misunderstanding: A typology of performance. Common Knowledge. 15(3), 472-500.
  • Groenwald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42-55.
  • Gulbinskiene, D., & Lasauskiene, R. (2014). Intercultural communicative competence (ICC) of EFL students at university level. Man and the Word/Foreign Languages, 16(3), 150-159.
  • Hao, Q, H., & Zhang, Y. (2009). A survey on Chinese college students’ intercultural literacy. US-China Foreign Language, 7(7), 1-5.
  • Hartog, J. (2006). Beyond “misunderstandings” and “cultural stereotypes”: Analysing intercultural communication. In K.Buhrig, & J.D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp. 175-188). Amsterdam/Philedelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Ieracitano, F. (2014). New European citizens? The Erasmus generation between awareness and scepticism. European Journal of Research on Social Studies, 1(1), 16-21. DOI: 10.15526/ejrss.201416199
  • Ifantidou, E. (2013). Pragmatic competence and explicit instruction. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 93-116. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.008
  • Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 93-116. DOI: 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Novinger, T. (2001). Intercultural communication: A practical guide. Texas: University of Texas Press.
  • Olsina, E.C. (2002). Managing understanding in intercultural talk: An empirical approach to miscommunication. Atlantis, 24(2), 37-57.
  • Qin, X. (2014). Exploring the impact of culture in five communicative elements: Case of intercultural misunderstandings between Chinese and American. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 34. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/delivery?sid=aaee960aOa34-4c.1f-82e3-eOFlebbe30f9
  • Spinthourakis, J.A., Karatzia-Stavlioti, E., & Roussakis, Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher intercultural sensitivity assessment as a basis for addressing multiculturalism. Intercultural Education, 20(3), 267–276.
  • The Centre for UE Education and Youth Programmes, Turkish National Agency, LLP/Erasmus Programme. (2010). Studying in Turkey for Erasmus (4th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ua.gov.tr/docs/erasmus-/studying_in_turkey.pdf?sfvrsn=0
  • Uckun, B. & Buchanan, J. (2009). Investigation of cross-cultural communication between native English-speaking lecturers and their students in Turkish tertiary education. Gaziantep Üniversitesi SosyalBilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 101-109.
  • Verma, M. H. (2013). Communication breakdown: a pragmatics problem. The Criterion An International Journal in English. 12, 1-8. Retrieved February, 21, 2018 from http://www.the-criterion.com/V4/n1/Verma.pdf
  • Walters, L.M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international Exchange and intercultural learning into pre-service teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(1), 151-158. DOI: 10.1080/14675980903371050
  • Yu W., Chang, X. (2009). An investigation into learners’ intercultural communicative competence. US-China Foreign Language,7(8), 22-27.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-597X
  • Başlangıç: 2015
  • Yayıncı: Anı Yayıncılık