Intercultural communication in the Internet: main features and peculiarities

INTRODUCTION

The internet affords its users an unprecedented level of contact with people from other cultural and social groups. It is often assumed that because of this it can facilitate intercultural communication and reduce the perceived distance between cultures.In the field of intercultural communication studies, online communication is a subject which often polarizes researchers into supporters and opponents. For some, the internet is a medium which facilitates intercultural communication, whereas others consider that online communication makes intercultural communication difficult or reinforces cultural standardization at the expense of cultural diversity. Now, in the era of globalization and wide cross-cultural processes, this controversial issue is more relevant than ever. This paper addresses the problem of the use of the Internet as means of communication between the representatives of different cultures, its main features, advantages and disadvantages. According to the above-mentioned objective of the paper, there were set the following tasks:- to study the differences between different cultures according to their division into high-content and low-content cultures;- to examine the multilingual nature of the Internet;- to review the characteristics of computer-mediated communication and their influence on development of intercultural communication in the Internet;- to define the role of the Internet in the communication between people of different nationalities as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the World Wide Web in the process of building intercultural communication.This article is an overview of recent research and commentary from the perspective of computer-mediated communication studies and media studies. Scientists’ different points of view related to the problem of intercultural communication in the Internet are considered in the present work.CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONThere are various perspectives that examine how culture impacts communication. The famous researcher Hall [9] provides the study that focuses on cultural influences on communication behaviors, patterns, and preferences. Table 1 provides an overview of major perspectives from this framework.Table 1: Summary of Communication Traits and Preferences of High-Content and Low-Context Cultures. (Adapted from Hall, 1976 and Hall and Hall, 1990.)High-Context Low-ContextHigh-Context Low-ContextCommunication includes indirect and implicit messages Communication includes direct and explicit messagesCommunication includes indirect and implicit messages Communication includes direct and explicit messagesNon-verbal communication used often Non-verbal communication used infrequentlyNon-verbal communication used often Non-verbal communication used infrequentlyContext and the individual are important in understanding a message Words are important in understanding a messageContext and the individual are important in understanding a message Words are important in understanding a messageIntuition, feelings, and emotions are important elements of communication Facts, information, and evidence are important elements of communicationIntuition, feelings, and emotions are important elements of communication Facts, information, and evidence are important elements of communicationRelationships are often long-term developed after many interactions Relationships are often short-term and contextual Relationships are often long-term developed after many interactions Relationships are often short-term and contextual Communication is often unplanned and without emphasis given to the amount of time involved Communication is often scheduled and conducted quicklyCommunication is often unplanned and without emphasis given to the amount of time involved Communication is often scheduled and conducted quicklyDisagreement that occurs during communication is often personalized. Conflict must be solved before further interactions can occur. Disagreement that occurs during communication is depersonalized. The focus is on rational solutions to a disagreement with explicit discussion about the disagreement and troublesome behaviors.Disagreement that occurs during communication is often personalized. Conflict must be solved before further interactions can occur. Disagreement that occurs during communication is depersonalized. The focus is on rational solutions to a disagreement with explicit discussion about the disagreement and troublesome behaviors.From regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East From regions such as Australia, Western Europe, United StatesFrom regions such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, Middle East From regions such as Australia, Western Europe, United StatesHall explained that an individual considered HC typically interacts using communication patterns that are meant to engage someone rather than simply communicate a message. Messages being communicated are frequently implied and not directly stated—context is often more important than the words. Nonverbal communication is used as a method to engage with another individual [7]. Of specific relevance to an examination of an online DE program, nonverbal elements such as body language, facial expressions, hand gestures, paraverbal cues (e.g., inflection, speech tone), and even silence, are highly important elements of communication interactions among HC individuals [9]. Individuals who are HC will also rely heavily on feelings and allow conversations to evolve without referring to problems directly. According to Gudykunst et al. [8], “Using HC communication involves using and interpreting messages that are not explicit, minimizing the content of the verbal message, and being sensitive to others” [8]. They indicate that this type of communication may come across as indirect or ambiguous to individuals from a lowcontext culture.Message speed and perceptions of time are connected elements that also influence communication preferences and behaviors (Hall, 1976). Hall and Hall [9] wrote that, “A fast message sent to people who are geared to a slow format will usually miss the target. While the content of the wrongspeed message may be understandable, it won’t be received by someone accustomed to or expecting a different speed” [9]. Individuals from HC cultures typically use slow and methodical methods of communication with a focus on building relationships rather than solely communicating a message.Building relationships is done deliberately and slowly. The closer the relationship is between individuals who are communicating, the more likely the communication will take on HC attributes, such as relying on previous experiences and knowledge that individuals share [16].Low-context cultures. Hall indicated that an individual considered to be LC will rely heavily on the message and what is directly being communicated when interacting with others. Messages, therefore, are direct and explicit. Context is less important than the words of the message; thus, background information to provide clarification is important to avoid message misunderstandings. Communication for LC individuals primarily focuses on the exchange of information, ideas, and opinions rather than on building relationships [9]. According to Gudykunst et al. [8], this type of communication may come across as impersonal to individuals from a high-context culture because it “involves being direct, precise, and open” [8]. As mentioned, Hall and Hall [9] indicated that message speed and perceptions of time impact how individuals communicate. For individuals from LC cultures, careful consideration is given to the time spent communicating and interacting with others. Interactions are often short and direct; they are typically scheduled and are focused on a specific message. Building relationships is not a primary objective of communication for LC individuals [9].USE OF INTERNET FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION. The internet began as a US-based research project (the Arpanet project), and its technical standards and tools were designed originally to be used by monolingual English speakers. However, as the internet has spread to become a worldwide communication tool, it has also become suitable for all written languages. In other words, since its creation, the internet has become more and more multilingual.English is the ‘lingua franca’ of the internet, as it is in many other contexts [14]. More precisely, the internet has produced a specific variety of lingua franca English, which can be called ‘internet-mediated global English’. Internet-mediated global English can be described as combining a simplified use of English, now well known as global English [3], and the use of specific devices of internet language or ‘netspeak’. Netspeak can be characterized by the use of an informal, concise and expressive style, and by features such as conversationalization, i.e. language devices which help to simulate conversational dynamics in a non-conversational situation, and iconization of the written language, with the use of smileys or acronyms such as ‘LOL’, for example.The use of a lingua franca can, it seems, be assumed to promote intercultural communication if one considers that it can make mutual intelligibility possible.However, at the same time, the specificities of a lingua franca can be problematic: internet-mediated global English implicitly produces a particular communicative style, which may be not adapted to all cultures. O’Dowd [12] points out, for example, that ‘the informal and friendly style which characterizes much of the interaction on the internet in discussion forums or email, for example is suitable for members of individualistic cultures (American, for example), but that it ‘may prove disturbing for unprepared members of a collectivist culture (Asian or Latin American countries).Scollon [13] likewise differentiate between these two types of cultures, and consider that the communicative style in individualistic cultures is essentially situational, in the sense that relationships between speakers are ‘negotiated and developed right within the situation of the discourse’. In contrast, collectivist cultures have ‘special forms of discourse which carefully preserve the boundaries between those who are inside members of the group’ and all those who are not. In the same way, internet-mediated communication seems to be more suitable to individualistic cultures because it implies low-context and ‘direct’ communication, whereas collectivist cultures prefer high-context messages and indirect speech [8].Whether internet-mediated communication does promote intercultural communication or not, it has to be acknowledged that the internet often simply makes intercultural communication possible and, more specifically, is often used to fulfil this objective. Any online tool can be used for intercultural communication (chat, discussion forums, email, weblogs, etc.) but the most emblematic seems to be the discussion forum.The internet can be used to foster intercultural exchanges in foreign language learning situations.It can also be used in non-learning situations, to promote intercultural dialogue through the use of dedicated websites or internet tools. In this case, the internet enables not only communication and ‘an open and respectful exchange of views’ between individuals from different cultures, but also a ‘deeper understanding of the other’s global perception’ [2]. It can be also intercultural ‘in passing’, in an incidental way, when an intercultural exchange occurs in a site which does not have this specific purpose: any discussion forum can be the site of an intercultural encounter, for example.In cases where the internet is used to foster intercultural exchange for foreign language learning purposes, intercultural communication is the objective of exchanges and, often, dialogues have to follow some set rules or instructions. Email or discussion forum exchanges between language learners in different cultures are the best known and oldest use of the internet in the foreign language classroom.FEATURES OF INTERNET COMMUNICATION AND THEIR IMPACT ON INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONVarious arguments have been put forward in the literature describing how characteristics of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and the internet can facilitate, and contribute to, more successful intercultural communication.Firstly, in the case of foreign language learning, CMC is often seen by researchers as a medium which not only promotes language skills development, but also the development of cultural knowledge in L2 learners. Through CMC and various activities, participants may develop relationships in which they may learn about one another’s culture. In other words, when they are engaged in exchanges with learners of other cultures, participants have the opportunity to develop their intercultural competence, and not just their linguistic skills [1]. As he points out, ‘online discussions offer language learners the possibility of using their language to socialize, collaborate, and create cross-cultural communities, while at the same time developing their language skills’.This argument seems to be strictly technological, however. According to this view, CMC benefits intercultural communication just because the internet is a network which increases the opportunities for contact with other cultures. With the internet, these intercultural contacts have become easier in practice. This point of view can be seen as naive, optimistic and pertains to technicism (an overconfidence in the power of technology).Secondly, in non-learning situations, the internet is described as a factor of intercultural communication because CMC has a reduced social dimension. Some internet tools, such as discussion forums or internet relay chats, are characterized by the absence of social context cues. Thus, some aspects of peoples’ identity such as their ethnic group, gender, social class and accent are hidden in the textbased environment of internet-mediated communication. Warschauer suggests that the absence of the non-verbal ‘contributes to making CMC a less intimidating environment and thereby encourages those individuals or cultures which are less dominant to play a greater role in interaction’. According to O’Dowd [12], Simons [15] ‘summarizes this particular advantage of communicating in a virtual intercultural environment in the following way’: for Simons [15], ‘skin colors and other biases based on visual factors’ play a less important role. In a more general way, anonymity can play a positive role on intercultural communication. Thus, speakers who hesitate to take part in a face-to-face discussion for reasons linked to ethnicity or personality may contribute to online forums. Thirdly, according to some researchers [11], the internet can benefit intercultural communication because, in cyberspace, users share more or less the same cultural codes. According to Levy [11], the internet has resulted in the creation of a virtual community and a virtual space: netizens and cyberspace. This virtual community has produced its own cultural practices and patterns that are shared by more or less all netizens and thus facilitates communication between persons who are members of different cultures but of a same virtual community. In other words, with the internet, globalization and standardization become positive factors for intercultural communication. As Ersoz [5] points out, foreigners who are using English to communicate but are not native speakers, can overcome misunderstandings thanks to the internet’s cultural codes (e.g. by adhering to netiquette, using smileys): ‘these codes can unify two people coming from different cultures under its globally accepted cultural rules’ [5].INTERNET AS MEANS OF COMMUNICATION OF NO BENEFIT TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONThe reduction of the social dimension of communication, which can be seen as an opportunity for intercultural communication, can also be analysed as a harmful factor. This aspect of CMC can even be considered as the main obstacle to intercultural communication.According to many researchers, some features of CMC (mainly text-based) make for a kind of decontextualized communication which causes problems for mutual understanding and intelligibility in general, and particularly in intercultural situations. CMC is characterized by the absence of social context cues. It is hard to interpret participants’ messages without having access to their facial expressions, gestures, voice intonations, appearance, and so on.When a lingua franca is used in intercultural internet discussions (e.g. English or French), it can be very difficult to identify the cultural origin of speakers, and thus to make good implicatures in order to understand their message. That is why we can sometimes observe exchanges about participants’ origins in discussion forums.Secondly, the internet can be seen as a medium which is of no or limited benefit to intercultural communication because it can promote aggressiveness and hostility between participants. Many social researchers [6] have shown that internet-mediated communication, and particularly discussion forums, create a communication situation which is characterized by the reduction of participants’ inhibitions and of collective social control. This characteristic is an obstacle to intercultural dialogue. In this sense, cyberspace is as much a space for spreading aggressiveness and hatred as for intercultural understanding.De Nooy [4] shows that the internet creates easy opportunities for reinforcing stereotypes and racist hostility. With their rapid and largely anonymous exchanges, and the dominance of an adversarial communication style in postings, internet discussions can lead to intercultural disputes.Hamburger [] makes similar observations for situations of intercultural learning, when he suggests that intercultural learning in fact emphasizes the differences between cultures and ‘therefore risks leading to a reinforcement of stereotypes and ethnocentrism among learners’.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, two points can be highlighted. It is interesting to note first that the contrasting arguments reviewed in this article are somehow paradoxical in the sense that they can be used to claim both that the internet facilitates intercultural communication or hinders it. Internet-mediated global English is the lingua franca of the internet. It is an opportunity for intercultural dialogue but also an obstacle in the sense that this ‘cyberlingua franca’ is not necessarily suited to any specific culture. CMC has a reduced social dimension. This characteristic aids intercultural communication because it reduces cultural differences, but, at the same time, it is an obstacle to intercultural communication because it increases misunderstanding or aggressiveness. The internet can promote intercultural communication, because, thanks to internet culture, participants in online communication share cultural codes. However, at the same time, internet culture can be a threat to cultural variation. With the internet, cultural variation does not disappear but the communicative norms that are supposed to be adhered to in cyberspace imply cultural standardization. It is further interesting to notice that most of the research work devoted to online intercultural communication, whether the internet is considered to facilitate intercultural communication or not, is predicated on the assumption that the characteristics of the medium have a positive or negative impact on intercultural communication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Belz, J.A. (2007). The development of intercultural competence in online interaction. In R. O’Dowd (Ed.), On-line intercultural exchange: A practical introduction for foreign language teachers Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. P. 163-215. 2. Council of Europe. (2008). The concept of intercultural dialogue. (URL: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/concept_EN.asp#P30_3374)3. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 318 p.4. de Nooy, J. (2006). Border patrol in the borderless world: Negotiating intercultural Internet discussion. Language, Society and Culture, 19. (URL: http:// www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/ARTICLES/2006/19-4.htm).5. Ersoz, S. (2009). Cultures in cyberspace: Interpersonal communication in a computermediated environment. Paper presented at NCA Summer Conference on Intercultural Dialogue, Maltepe, Turkey. (URL: http://maltepe.academia. edu/SelvaErsoz/Papers/563123/Cultures_in_cyberspace_Interpersonal_communication_in_ a_computer-mediated_Environment) 6. Flanagin, A., & O’Sullivan, P.B. (2003). Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media & Society, 5, 69-194.7. Green T., Hoffmann M. Cultural Communication Characteristics and Student Connectedness in an Online Environment: Perceptions and Preferences of Online Graduate Students // International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education. 2017. № 32. P. 1-29. 8. Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.9. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. 230 p.10. Hamburger, F. (1990). Der Kulturkonflikt und seine paedagogische Kompensation [Cultural conflict and its pedagogical compensation]. In E. Dittrich & F. Radttke (Eds.), Ethnizitaet (pp. 311-328). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutsche Verlag.11. Levy, P. (1997). Cyberculture. Paris: Odile Jacob.12. O’Dowd, R. (2001). In search of a truly global network: The opportunities and challenges of on-line intercultural communication. CALL-EJ, 3(1). (URL: http://callej.org/ journal/3-1/o_dowd.html)13. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 316 p.14. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, № 59. P. 339-341. (URL: http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/4/339.full.pdfhtml)15. Simons, G. (1998). Meeting the intercultural challenges of virtual work. Language and Intercultural Learning, 16(1), 13-15. [Available as Simons, G. (n.d.). Meeting the intercultural challenges of virtual work. (URL: http://www. diversophy.com/gsi/Articles/meetchall.pdf )16. Wurtz, E. (2006). Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from highcontext cultures and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 274-299.