Among the jobs faced to modern civilization, there is one that is bit by bit going a specifying factor in cross-cultural dealingss. The address is traveling about miscommunication that is more and more form the manner of the cultural procedures of modernness. Miscommunication as the opposite side of apprehension is one of the measurings in the procedure of communicating between different civilizations. However, the planetary struggle of civilizations, informants, confederates and the Judgess of which we are was generated by the deficiency of apprehension of an unprecedented graduated table and strength. And this deficiency of understanding beneath our eyes becomes more of import in comparing to all other dimensions of communicating within different civilizations.
I would wish to discourse the job of miscommunication in this undertaking and utilize my ain experience as an illustration of a communicating dislocation between myself and a individual from another civilization. The chief ends of my undertaking are to explicate and discourse how cultural miscommunication influences on our life, and to turn out a thesis that miscommunication between different civilizations and states could be overcame through the specific cognition and regard to a individual whom we are pass oning with.
First of all in the frames of this paper it is necessary to advert that existent struggle takes topographic point under particular fortunes: in a province of globality. The province of globality is characterized by the activity of an already established and effectual “ planetary society ” , where the contours of conventional civilizations are broken.
Actually, no civilization, cultural group, state, state or group of states can no longer feign that it is separated from the remainder of the universe and its personal businesss are “ internal jobs ” that do non associate to any of the “ aliens ” . It turned out that there are no aliens at all: they ‘re gone in the sense that the civilization had lost its old, chiseled boundaries, and hence foreign and ain mostly assorted up, changed its old topology and geographics.
In the modern universe “ ethical issues ” , and, in peculiar, issues of cultural individuality and cultural bias achieved its apogee: the lingual, cultural, position and other differences have become a stumbling block for the peaceable coexistence of many cultural groups.
Specifying the term “ miscommunication ” we should state that harmonizing to Gudykunst ( 2003 ) , …
As serious psychological barriers in the procedure of cross-cultural communicating the alleged “ cultural stereotypes ” Acts of the Apostless as comparatively stable representation of the moral, mental, physical and other qualities of the representatives of different cultural communities. Every individual is a member of a certain cultural group, and he or she consciously or subconsciously divides all people into “ one ‘s ain ” ( belonging to the same cultural group ) and “ foreigners ” ( members of other cultural groups ) .
Harmonizing to Gumperz ( 1982 ) we see that on the verbal degree culturological mark “ of person ‘s ain or person else ” is manifested in the semantics of the assorted nominative units: lexemes, phraseological units, syntactic constructions, Proverbss, small-format texts ( for illustration, anecdotes and gags ) .
Thinking about my ain communicating dislocation with a individual from another civilization I should state that it was connected with one duologue misinterpretation. The individual whom I communicated with was certain that merely old people could be good advice-givers and immature people should merely listen to them and have no right on ain determination of the job. In that minute I forgot about cultural differences between us ( my opposition is a Muslim and they respect old people more than other states ) and tried to turn out that every individual should has a right on ain sentiment and it is non a right place ever merely to listen to person ‘s words. Therefore, it was the hot argument between us and as a consequence each of us was disappointed and even upset about consequence of our conversation. Merely now I understood that both of us were incorrect, because we used different “ cultural ” linguistic communications and we made several errors in our conversation. I would wish to state that this illustration of miscommunication is instead simple, and it even has an ordinary character, but precisely such simple state of affairss lead in future to difficult effects, when one cultural groups consider other groups bad educated and ill-mannered. Therefore, I would wish to look on this job of cultural miscommunication through the prism of my new cognition about this inquiry and show a solution for this state of affairs.
In the beginning of this portion of my undertaking I would wish to state that all people should work for constructive duologue between each other. It is a well-known fact that the full history of humanity – is a duologue. Dialogue permeates our whole lives. It considers a tool for the execution of communicating links, the status of common apprehension. Fitzgerald ( 1996 ) admitted that the interaction of civilizations and their duologue – is the most favourable land for the development of interethnic and international dealingss. Conversely, when the society feels inter-ethnic tenseness and even, cultural struggle, the duologue between civilizations is hard, the interaction of civilizations may be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tensenesss of these states, carriers of these civilizations. I understood that procedures of cultural interaction are more complicated than we naively one time thought ; it was a theory that cultural duologue is nil more than simple “ transportation ” of the accomplishments of a extremely developed civilization in the less developed, which in its bend logically leads to the decision of the interaction of civilizations as a beginning of advancement. Now is actively studied the inquiry of boundaries of civilization, its nucleus and fringe.
I like Ting-Toomey ( 1999 ) words who said that aˆ¦ These words forced us to halt be ill-mannered and to esteem other people. On my sentiment every individual should esteem the point of position of another individual and be patient during their communicating. In my instance cultural miscommunication was non merely a consequence of different attitude to one job, but besides it was provoked by the deficiency of forbearance and regard to each other. We forgot one simple truth stated by Van Dijk ( 1997 ) who said that aˆ¦ Muslims are people who are marked by the civilization from their birth and their specific traditions are sometimes unusual for me, but it is non a ground to state that their civilization is good or bad. I know that these people are different and their faith is different, but I even like them, because their historical, geographical and cultural elements combine in an alone and original manner.
Thinking about my state of affairs I have read one interesting advice about how to avoid miscommunication in future and harmonizing to Lawrence ( 1999 ) aˆ¦ It means that we should utilize the infinite of fluctuations around us and believe about other possibilities to construe information in proper manner. By maintaining our head free from stereotypes and open to extra possibilities of the information understanding we can forestall future miscommunication struggle from go oning. Besides it is necessary to add that when a individual became an instigator of a miscommunication struggle the simplest thing is to state: “ I am sorry for the miscommunication which has lead to this state of affairs ” , but the simplest manner is non ever the right manner. On my sentiment it is necessary foremost to take into history oppositions cultural specificity and merely so to discourse with the individual some crisp inquiries or state of affairss.
I want besides to listen to words said by Arcidiacono ( 2010 ) who thinks aˆ¦ Taking into history my ain job in communicating and information from different readings I want to state that the first thing that should be used for get the better ofing miscommunication is a duologue. Of class, at the beginning of the conversation, as it was supra mentioned, it is necessary to state sorry for miscommunication and so to talk with a individual in respectful and polite mode. Forthcoming mode could “ salvage ” many arguments and duologue is a communicating with the civilization, the realisation and reproduction of its accomplishments, it is the find and apprehension of the values of other civilizations, the possibility of taking political, spiritual or other tensenesss between states and cultural groups. It is necessary to retrieve that duologue is a necessary status for scientific hunt for truth and the originative procedure in art. Dialogue – is a manner for apprehension of ain “ I-image ” and possibility to pass on with others in proper constructive manner.
I even think that duologue between civilizations can move as a conciliating factor that prevents the outgrowth of wars and struggles. It can cut down societal tensenesss and to make an environment of trust and common regard. The impression of duologue is particularly true for modern civilization and it will assist modern-day society to avoid miscommunication. The really procedure of interaction is a duologue, and signifiers of interaction present different sorts of dialogic dealingss. The thought of duologue has developed in the deep yesteryear. Ancient texts of Indian civilization are filled with the thought of integrity of civilizations and peoples, macro-and microcosm, contemplations that human wellness depends mostly on the quality of this relationship with the environment, from the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding how the existence reflected in our being.
Establishing on my researches I came to the decision that the influence of one civilization to another is realized merely if the necessary conditions exist for such influence. Dialogue between two civilizations is possible merely when a certain convergence of cultural codifications and the being or happening of a common outlook have a topographic point. Dialogue of civilizations – is a incursion into the system of values of a civilization, regard to them, get the better ofing stereotypes, the synthesis of original and other nationalities, taking to common enrichment and integrating into the planetary cultural context. In the duologue of civilizations is of import to see the cosmopolitan values of cultural interaction. One of the chief nonsubjective contradictions built-in in all civilizations is the contradiction between the development of national civilizations and their convergence. Therefore, the demand for duologue between civilizations is a requirement for self-preservation of world. A signifier of religious integrity is the consequence of the duologue of modern-day civilization.
To sum up, I would wish to state that in this research undertaking I have discussed the job of miscommunication and demonstrated its solution. There were besides discussed cultural differences and their influences on our life. I strongly believe that duologue between civilizations was and remains cardinal point in the development of world. Throughout the centuries and millenary occurred common enrichment of civilizations that make up the alone mosaic of human civilisation. I agree that the procedure of interaction and duologue between civilizations is complex and uneven, but merely people who are ready go through all troubles and adversities could be considered communicating mastermind.