CC BY
294
Jens Olaf Jolowicz LACUNA THEORY IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION:
Focus on axiological lacunae
1. Introduction
The matter of intercultural communication has become omnipresent due to the increasing contacts between members of different cultures and their impacts on everyday life, business issues etc.. This paper presents a still pretty unknown model in the Western scientific community - the lacuna model - and its utility for the field of intercultural communication. Starting with the explanation of the term 'lacuna' and introducing its different classifications, chapter two will end with a short historical overview about ethnopsycholinguistics. In chapter three the term 'intercultural communication' will be defined for the purpose of this paper as well as application possibilities of the lacuna model in intercultural communication will be introduced. In chapter four I will first present my results of an association experiment (1) about the German self-perception and then compare these data with the Russian perception of the Germans. After evaluating the German
autostereotypes and the Russian heterostereotypes of the Germans I will conclude in chapter five with exploring the utility of the lacuna model in preparing intercultural encounters.
Most of the literature available is in Russian and only some literature is written in either German or English. Since I do not speak Russian all Russians texts had to be left aside. Quotes are mainly made from English
texts as this paper is written in English. All English translations of German quotes are made by myself except otherwise stated.
2. The Lacuna Model
2.1 What are lacunas?
The concept of lacuna was developed within the Russian ethnopsycho-linguistics [see as well chapter 2.3 History]. It focuses both, on problems of foreign text comprehension as well as on communication problems between different cultures.
Ethnopsycholinguists state that mutual understanding between cultures is in principle possible because no absolute original codes of communication exist. However, since within the environment of human cultures no absolute unequivocal codes exist intercultural understanding is only possible to a certain extent. [Antipov et al. in Schröder 1997]. Due to this limited intercultural and as well intracultural understanding the lacuna model has been developed as a specific tool to detect (potential) intercultural and intracultural 'gaps' (lacunas) which can hinder mutual understanding. If the comprehension of "single specific objects or events and specific processes and situations" [Grodzki 2003: 13] in another culture "run counter to the usual range of experience" [Dellinger 1995b] a lacuna is experienced. Thus, the lacuna theory helps us to recognize the "cultural glasses" [Grodzki 2003: 13] we wear when encountering an intercultural situation. Through our
"cultural glasses" we filter reality. They determine how we perceive and thus interpret culture and are responsible for the lacunas one can experience. Lacunas are gaps of experience, deficits of knowledge and niches [Ertelt- Vieth 1999: 132]. On the one hand, a recipient can perceive lacunas as something
incomprehensible, unusual, exotic, strange, unknown, erroneous or inaccurate. On the other hand, the recipient can experience a lacuna as superfluous, astonishing, peculiar, and unexpected, as something that cannot be predicted. Lacunas are fragments that strike the recipient and require interpretation or which are lying beyond the borders of his/her attention. According to Sorokin, the ambivalence is one important characteristic of a lacuna. [Schröder 1995a: 12f.] The lacuna model, primarily introduced by J.A. Sorokin and continually established by E. Tarasov by I. Markovina, represents a framework "for the systematic characterization, operationalization and classification of cultural differences in communication" [Schröder, 1995a: 10]. Thus, "lacunae are generally speaking a term for describing items that exist in one culture, but not in another" Schröder, 1995a: 12].
The origins of this term can be found in the Latin language where it is explained as a gap, depression, hole, pond or precipice. In the field of medicine it means a bulge on the surface of an organ. Sorokin and Markovina defined lacuna as phenomena of a culture that have no equivalents in another culture
regarding both linguistic as well as cultural specifics [in Panasiuk 2002: 261; Schröder 1997].
The following definition of the term lacuna are based on Ertelt-Vieth [2003: 14] and Grodzki [2003: 43ff.]:
1. Lacunas are elements or aspects of texts - texts in the broadest sense, including cultures - that do not correspond to the experiences of individuals of another culture. They might hamper or prohibit understanding of that text but they also motivate towards intercultural communication. Lacunas arise between cultures - lacunas present in the interaction of two or more cultures are called intercultural lacunas - and between cultural levels (intracultural lacunas).
2. Understanding of texts is an active, creative and perspective oriented process. This constitution of meaning unfolds on the basis of meaning potential of the text and of the preexisting experiences of the reader.
3. Lacunas do not describe stable meanings but depend on the respective conditions of the actual encounter of exponents of at least two cultures or cultural levels at a given moment in time. They can vary from long-traded relatively stable meanings to ad-hoc-meanings and can be complexly intertwined. They are subject to individual and subcultural differentiations as well as to historic change. Thus, they may not be thought of as rigid categories but as a dynamic model that enables us to differentiate varying levels and aspects such as verbal, psychological or geographical of any situation or action.
4. Culture specific connotations and evaluations are called axiological lacunas. For in any encounter between different cultures any object, any activity can gain significance independent of whatever significance is attributed to them in their own cultural context.
5. It is to be noted that the lacuna model is open for more categories and lacunas to emerge. It is expected that with increasing lacuna studies, more lacunas will be identified.
Taking the Latin meanings of lacuna (gap, precipice etc.) it is an adequate metaphor for the underlying problems in intercultural
communication: One can trap over them or one can drop into a lacuna as a precipice of lack of understanding only possible to overcome through the aid of e.g. an interpreter. However, a lacuna can as well motivate to explore the gap of understanding or fill up with knowledge the precipice of lack of understanding and therefore further intercultural and intracultural understanding. [Schröder 1997].
2.2 Classifications of lacunas -Cultural Lacunas (2)
Cultural lacunas can be understood as deeply embedded ways of communicating within a given culture, which seem to be odd or strange for non-members of the culture. A culture builds its identity by identifying outsiders, creating subjective viewpoints and opinions of others. Members of a certain culture think in a certain way [Grodzki 2003:46]. Opposite to many 'guides' on intercultural communication which are often at risk of propagating magic formulas, the aim of lacuna analysis is
to observe subtleties, overlappings, contradictions, individual
characteristics and developments [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 6].
Cultural lacunas are classified into four principal groups [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 7] (3):
• Mental lacunas
• Lacunas of activity
• Lacunas of objects
• Axiological lacunas.
Mental lacunas follow two
principles: 1) the naming of the respective perspective or the respective intercultural constellation is crucial and 2) frequently different lacunas coincide. They denote differences in all cognitive or affective states or models, differences in the state of knowledge in its broadest sense, such as conscious and subconscious, so-called common sense and reflected knowledge, rules derived from experiences or ethics, expectations and fears. Mental lacunas are subdivided into culture emotive lacunas, lacunas related to language knowledge and lacunas of fond or of knowledge among others. The latter group is further subdivided into conceptual lacunas, role related lacunas, spatial lacunas, time related lacunas, partial and complete lexical lacunas and grammatical lacunas [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 7ff.].
The distinction between mental lacunas and lacunas of activity are made to adequately clarify the difference between mental concepts on one side and observable behaviour on the other side. Both sides seldom coincide. Additionally, different scientific research methods are needed. Lacunas of activity denote differing processes of thinking, talking, moving and other activities. They can be
caused by peculiar mental and objective preconditions and their results in turn can constitute mental lacunas or lacunas of objects. The following subgroups are an open list based on the current state of research: lacunas of use of language, lacunas of paralanguage and body language, lacunas of etiquette, behaviour, routine and taboo, lacunas of thinking, perception and orientation in space and time which are subdivided into syllogistic lacunas and perceptive lacunas, lacunas of communicative means, lacunas of oral texts and moving pictures and lacunas of virtual texts and pictures [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 12f.].
Lacunas of objects denote differences in objects and in human environment. Among others subgroups are lacunas of written or otherwise recorded texts and images, lacunas of public environment, lacunas of geographic infrastructure, lacunas of private environment, lacunas of the human body, attributive lacunas and lacunas of food [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 13].
Axiological lacunas - when evaluating the association experiment I will focus on axiological lacunas - in some way add a special dimension to the lacuna model because they denote culture specific connotations and evaluations of differing phenomena so that they are often at the heart of misunderstandings and conflicts. These culture specific connotations and evaluations can be seen as different interpretation schemes of reality or as the in chapter 2.1 mentioned 'cultural glasses'. In other words, any object/situation etc. of a foreign culture during an intercultural
encounter can account for a specific meaning in this concrete encounter that is an axiological lacuna. They have a key function in the lacuna model and only come to existence through the emergence of other lacunas in the way that the interplay of a multitude of gaps/ differences/misunderstandings lead to a specific meaning for the concrete intercultural encounter. Axiological lacunas are a second dimension in the lacuna model [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 7; 1990a: 309-310, 322323].
If a lacuna is perceived by the recipient as a strange phenomenon requiring interpretation it is defined as explicit lacuna. In contrast to an explicit lacuna an implicit lacuna is imperceptible to the recipient. Furthermore, intense and deep lacunas are considered confrontative whereas weak and not especially deep lacunas are characterized as contrastive. Lacunas can be either absolute or relative, depending as well upon the degree of intensity and depth of the experience [Schröder 1995a:12f.; Grodzki 2003: 45].
2.3 History (4)
Originally Russian
ethnopsycholinguists have been investigating the translation of written texts. Research in this area primarily focussed on the perception and understanding of texts written in a foreign language as well as the problems of communication between cultures [Panasiuk, 2002: 257f.; Schröder, 1997]. Within the field of ethnopsycholinguistics the lacuna model has been developed.
Ethnopsycholinguistics has emerged in the seventies within the
frame of the Moscow school of psycholinguistic. Research of the Moscow school of psycholinguistic, influenced by A.A. Leontjev, had focused on the "theory of speech activity", analysing different models of speech generation and perception as models of psychic processes. The underlying assumption had been that psychic processes are the same among all human beings. Questions regarding the cultural importance/determination of psychic processes had been neglected throughout a long period and therefore promoted the emergence of a new discipline, the ethnopsycholinguistics, searching for models integrating the cultural dimension into psychic models and processes and explaining the verbal behaviour of members of different languages and cultures.
Researchers have been interested in explaining why members of different cultures address the same object(s) with different names. One common hypothesis had been that the differences between natural languages resulted in different ways of addressing or describing the same idea/object. Yet,
ethnopsycholinguistics, drawing its origins both from linguistics and psychology, provided new explanations for the reasons accounting for the phenomenon of the differences in verbalising the same idea/object. These explanations pointed towards an origin outside the language sphere.
Ethnopsycholinguistic scholars
focused on the first stage of speech generation that is the analysis of thoughts. This approach of dealing with the problem of cultural specifics
by focussing on the first stage of speech generation enabled to analyse non-linguistic thought processes as well as the activity at hand that determined those thought processes.
The framework of cultural historical psychology by Wygotski had established the thesis of isomorphism of the internal mental and the external objective activity. Given this structure, it served as a basis for analysing the mental activity, which had not been accessible to the researchers till then by analysing the external activity. Based on Wygotski's theoretical background the cultural specifics of verbal and nonverbal thinking was seen by the ethnopsycholinguists as determined by the objective activity, as this activity only initiates human thinking. Without the stimulation of the objective activity, human thinking does not even start the internal mental activity: Letting individuals from different cultural backgrounds imagine a railway trip (objective activity) in their respective cultures will very likely produce differences in statements (reflecting their internal mental activity). These differences about one and the same activity in different national cultures depend on the peculiarities of their culture. These would be characteristics of cultural objects, the activities of producing them and the notional imagines of these objects and activities. Hence, for ethnopsycholinguists to be able to modify models of speech generation and speech perception for their purposes it was crucial to detect differences in external verbal behaviour within similar or same situations.
In order to analyse specifics of national languages and cultures, scholars within the Moscow school of
ethnopsycholingistic have worked with association experiments. These experiments can grasp unconscious knowledge, which accompanies processes of speech generation and speech perception. Nowadays, results of these experiments are taken to explain communicative conflicts which arise in cross-cultural exchange. Differences found in mental images of different cultures point to possible "critical incidents" in communication. Scholars classify these differences as differences of cultural specifics of verbal categorization. Furthermore,
associative norms are regarded as a base for further interpretation, as the association experiment is a method of analysing cultural specific linguistic consciousness.
Through the last decade, Russian scholars within
ethnopsycholinguistics have focused on cultural specifics of linguistic consciousness. It has been considered as the main reason for communicative conflicts in cross-cultural communication. Searching for new ways of analysis, new concepts to analyse cultural consciousness have emerged. One takes mental images of an identical cultural object of two cultures and compares the results. The theoretical background of such concept focuses on the apprehension that images of the real world are projected into our consciousness in a way that these mental images are accompanied by such causal, temporal, local and emotional relationships which exist between these images in communication and in activities. To conclude, cultural specifics regarding images of the
language consciousness can be explained by the cultural specifics of communication and activities that are customary in this very culture.
3. Intercultural communication 3.1 Definition
Intercultural communication, though a widespread and often used term, has no underlying, generally accepted definition. For this reason I would like to approach this term by defining the two inherent terms "culture" and "communication" [based on Schröder 1997]: Communication can be seen as symbolic interaction between individuals which is either intentional (that is having a specific aim) or social (acting focused on other individuals). Symbolic interaction consists of signs organized in codes attaching meaning to the signs. The most important and complicated system of signs is language which goes along with nonverbal communication.
Communication is conducted through signs and therefore not only consists of explicit but as well of implicit communication. The latter consists of what is meant but not explicitly said; it needs interpretation. To establish successful communication either a common code or the knowledge of the foreign code is needed. Codes as systems of signs heavily depend on the respective culture - remember chapter 2.1: Ethnopsycholinguistis state that mutual understanding between cultures is in principle possible because no absolute original codes of communication exist. However, since within the environment of human cultures no absolute unequivocal codes exist intercultural understanding is only
possible to a certain extent. Culture itself can be understood as a code that is a system of concepts, value orientations and norms which are expressed through the feelings, thoughts, actions and language of the individual. Culture helps the individual to structure the world, it is the immanent logic how we perceive the world. Still, cultural rules are mostly not codified or consciously utilized by the members of a culture because the cultural rules are learned through socialization. Through this early learning of cultural rules they are seen as familiar, are taken for granted so that they are not easily questioned. Probably, mistakes in communication between individuals of geographically closely related cultures in intercultural
communication count more to the respective individual than with individuals from a geographically distant culture due to a certain bonus of being "exotic".
Communication is always bound by culture because during communication information about the communication parties and their relationship are stated through their use of explicit (words) and implicit communication (including nonverbal communication). Thus, the prerequisite for successful communication is either a more or less common culture or cultural sensitivity for cultural-bound differences. Though, the linguistic operationalisation of culture-bound differences is not easy the lacuna model solved in my opinion this problem very impressively [Schröder 1994]. Before continuing with application possibilities of the lacuna
model in intercultural communication the definition of intercultural communication for this paper based on Knapp & Knapp-Potthof [in Schröder 1997] is introduced: "[...] we can define „inter cultural communication' as taking place whenever participants introduce different knowledge into the interaction which is specific to their respective sociocultural group, which is relevant in the sense that it determines how a particular interaction should normally be verbally or non-verbally accomplished, but which is taken for granted and thus can affect the process of communication." This definition holds as well for communication among subcultures and for all groups sharing some specific knowledge.
3.2 Applying the lacuna model in
intercultural communication
Starting out from the issue of English as a world language Smith [in Schröder 1997] points out that in all intercultural encounters a „negotiating of meaning' is necessary. Smith proposes five criteria which add up to a successful „negotiating of meaning': 1) a sense of self, 2) a sense of the other, 3) a sense of the relationship between self and the other, 4) a sense of the setting/social situation and 5) a sense of the goal or objective. Schröder [1997] sees the sense of self as crucial for intercultural communication because individuals are usually not aware of their values, communication styles within their own socio-cultural group (see as well above: definition of intercultural communication). Still "[...] when one communicates across cultures, a clear sense of self is crucial in negotiating meaning." [Smith in Schröder 1997]. Schröder stresses that
taking Smith's five criteria into account when encountering an intercultural situation would facilitate understanding, not in the sense of adapting totally to the other but by being sensitive for occurring problems.
Two main advantages of the lacuna model to further intercultural communication are the following:
• It is a store of categories enabling to scientifically register, classify and analyse the immense diversity of cultural peculiarities. Inductively various different aspects of a conflict situation or even of the whole genesis of a conflict can be analysed [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 6].
• Lacuna studies are able to track cultural differences by seeing what seems 'strange' or 'odd' for non-members of a given culture. By being aware of the fact that lacunas exist, one is able to attempt to promote better intracultural and intercultural understandings. The lacuna model does not attempt to solve cultural differences, it simply identifies the differences. However, the lacuna model can be beneficial by promoting mutual understanding [Grodzki 2003: 57].
Through the 'negotiation of meaning', in my point of view, the lacuna model is brought into the game because it is able to linguistically operationalise the culture-bound differences in intercultural communication and consequently, can be used as a tool to fill with knowledge the five criteria above which I believe serve as a solid basis for preparing intercultural encounters.
For example the „sense of self can be strengthened by becoming aware of typical behaviour, important values, communication styles etc. of oneself and of the own socio-cultural group by detecting these commonalities through lacuna analysis. Lacuna analysis as specific tool to detect (potential) intercultural and intracultural gaps is either applied as what I call 'preparation-tool ' (that is in advance) for hopefully then successful intercultural encounters, e.g. the preparation of pupils for a pupils exchange programme into a foreign country, or as what I named 'reparations-tool ' (that is in retrospect) of intercultural
misunderstandings/miscommunication like misunderstandings based on the different meaning attached to a word (axilogical lacuna). The approach of lacuna analysis to first accept different perspectives and then to compare and try to explain them [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 9] adds to its value as both, preparation-tool and reparations-tool.
Ertelt-Vieth [2003: 15] proposes three areas of application of the lacuna model in intercultural communication:
• Discovery and analysis of critical incidents in face-to-face situations or in medially mediated intercultural encounters,
• Reconstruction of problematic confrontations of even long-lasting relations,
• Preparing intercultural encounters.
The latter aspect of preparing intercultural encounters will be treated more in detail in chapter five.
4. Association experiment
The association experiment on which this paper is based had been conducted in the period from October
2003 till January 2004. The distributed questionnaire designed by Prof. Dr. Markovina in English covered questions regarding 1) The Germans - what are they like?, 2) Name 5 outstanding figures that symbolize the German nation to you, 3) The Russians - what are they like? and 4) Name 5 outstanding figures that symbolize the Russian nation to you. Question one and three offered five spaces for answers, that is five responses were requested. Additionally, the respondents were asked to fill in age, sex, occupation and nationality - the last two pieces of information were needed to sort out respondents who were neither German nor university students since our target group were German university students. My wife and I distributed the questionnaires in two periods: in October 2003 we approached German university students ('Fachhochschule' and university) within Germany via email; in a second period in January
2004 we asked German students at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany to fill in the questionnaires. My wife and I both, at that time 26 years old were and are students of cultural studies (M.A.) at the European University Viadrina. The questionnaire started with an explanation of the background of the project stating that it is part of an intercultural project conducted by Prof. Dr. Irina Markovina from Russia from the Sechenow Moscow Medical Academy, Foreign Languages Department researching the self-
perception of nations as well as their perception of other nations, in this specific questionnaire the self-perception of the Germans and their perception of the Russians. My wife and I had supplementary mentioned (in German) that we take part in this project based on a seminar we took with Prof. Dr. Markovina, we indicated that respondents should be German university students ('Fachhochschule' and university), we referred to the fact that the original questionnaire had been designed in English and that we had added a German translation to the English version and we offered to the respondents to answer questions via email. Not to forget we kindly encouraged participation, expressed our thanks for the participation in our project and signed both with our full names. The respondents made up for more than 60 questionnaires but some had to be sorted out due to non-German nationality so that all in all I had 60 questionnaires as basis for this paper. Nearly all respondents replied in German whereas a few chose to fill in the questions in English. Most respondents named five associations for each question yet, some could not think of five associations for each question. Out of the 60 respondents 23 were male and 37 female university students. The age range was from 19 to 42 years but the majority of respondents, all in all 54, constituted the age range of 20 to 27 years.
Due to the restricted frame of this paper and due to the data available to me, I chose question 1) The Germans - what are they like? as example of an association experiment. The gained data will be compared with the Russian perception of Germans.
The latter data are based on data Prof. seminar at the European University Dr. Markovina had distributed in our Viadrina.
Association experiment
German self-perception Translation
bürokratisch / Bürokratie; formalistisch, lieben die Bürokratie, konventionell;unflexibel; folgsam; hierarchieorientiert;obrigkeitshörig bureaucratic/Bureaucracy; formalistic; love bureaucracy; conventional; not flexible; obedient; focussed on hierarchy; obey to authorities
direkt, (sehr) /nicht heuchlerisch;direkt/offen (straightforward)/im Sinne von konfrontativ;diskutierfreudig (very) direct/blunt, are no hypocrites direct/open/straightforward (in the sense of confrontative); love discussions
freundlich;fröhlich;humorvoll;nett;wit zig;sozial;zwischenmenschliche Bindungen, enge;;warm friendly; merrily; funny; kind; social; close relationships; warm
genau/ Genauigkeit;denken sich alles genau durch;diszipliniert; gewissenhaft; gründlich;Paragraphenreiter;penibel;p erfektionistisch; pflichtbewußt;sachlich;rational;kühl/k alkulierend;streng;strikt exact/accurate/precise/exactness/ accuracy/precision/meticulousness; think through issues in a very accurate manner; disciplined; conscientious; thorough; stickler for the rules/pedant; pernickety; perfectionist; conscious of their duties; factual; rational; calculability/coldness; strict
ordentlich, sehr;Ordnung & Regeln liebend;Ordnung/ Ordnungssinn; ordnungsliebend;(gut) organisiert;korrekt;sauber; Sauberkeit;prinzipientreu (very) neat/tidy; love neatness/tidiness & rules; tidiness/neatness/strong conception for tidiness/order; very tidy-minded; (well) organised/structured; (politically) correct; clean; cleanliness; firm-principled
pünktlich/ Pünktlichkeit;pünktlichkeitsliebend (love) punctual/punctuality
reisefreudig;neugierig;offen;offen gegenüber Neuem; weltoffen;offen/freundlich; interessiert love travelling; curious; open(/friendly); open to new people/countries etc.; cosmopolitan; interested
Reserviertheit/reserviert;keine schnellen Kontakte, dafür dann tiefe Freundschaften; verschlossen;distanziert;grimmig; grob, wenig offen;ernsthaft/ernst (serious) reserved/reservedness; not easy to get to know but if a friendship emerges it will be profound; distant; grim; hard/rough; not very open; serious
Überheblichkeit;etwas spießig;;beserwisserisch;meckern/d (manchmal konstruktiv) /meckrig; unfreundlich;;vorlaut;not-char ming; egoistisch; eigensinnig;stur;starrköpfig;verbohrt; arrogance; sometimes they act in a bourgeois way; know-all; moan/bleat/grouse /sometimes constructive); unfriendly; not-charming; egoistic; cheeky/impertinent; stubborn/obstinate; inflexible
Zielstrebig(keit);erfolgsorientiert;streb sam/geld-/karrieregeil;Strebsamkeit; fleißig;ehrgeizig;eifrig;hard-working; concentrated; effizient; entschlossen; ;unhappy reliable;selbstbewusst determined/focussed/determination; assiduous/industrious/ career-mad/avaricious; assiduity/industriousness; self-confident; unhappy reliable; hard-working; concentrated; efficient; resolute; eager; ambitious;
pessimistic, immer; besorgt; melancholy; unzufrieden: sorgenvoll;(sich)beklagen d/complaining;selbstzweifelnd;self-critical; schuldbewußt; skeptisch; Arbeitslosigkeit;ehrgeiz, z.Zt. Ohne pessimistic; always worried; melancholy; discontent/dissatisfied; complaining; self-critical; self-doubt; feeling guilty; sceptical; not ambitious in present time; unemployment
4.1 German self-perception & Russian
To be able to compare the data I first of all grouped the multitude of responses according to the meaning of the words so that different semantic groups emerged. At this point, I need to mention that the semantic groups are based on common sense by reason of that I am no student of linguistics. In this paper I will present those semantic groups being mentioned by at least ten respondents. These groups
perception of the Germans
accounted for eleven semantic groups. Each semantic group is labeled with a major term which is chosen out of the terms mentioned by the respondent and which I believe to be representative for the respective group. After grouping the responses I translated them into English, except those few answers already given in English, which resulted in the following table:
German Self-perception
Semantic Groups Content
Neat/Tidy (very) neat/tidy; love neatness/tidiness & rules; tidiness/neatness/strong conception for tidiness/order; very tidy-minded; (well) organised/structured; (politically) correct; clean; cleanliness; firm-principled
Accurate/ Precise exact/accurate/precise/exactness/accuracy/precision/ meticulousness; think through issues in a very accurate manner; disciplined; conscientious; thorough; stickler for the rules/pedant; pernickety; perfectionist; conscious of their duties; factual;
rational; calculability/coldness; strict
Pessimistic pessimistic; always worried; melancholy; discontent/dissatisfied; complaining; self-critical; self-doubt; feeling guilty; sceptical; not ambitious in present time; unemployment
Bureaucratic bureaucratic/Bureaucracy; formalistic; love bureaucracy; conventional; not flexible; obedient; focussed on hierarchy; obey to authorities
Determined determined/focussed/determination; assiduous/industrious/ career-mad/avaricious; assiduity/industriousness; self-confident; unhappy reliable; hard-working; concentrated; efficient; resolute; eager; ambitious;
Punctual (love) punctual/punctuality
Reserved reserved/reservedness; not easy to get to know but if a friendship emerges it will be profound; distant; grim; hard/rough; not very open; serious
Unfriendly arrogance; sometimes they act in a bourgeois way; know-all; moan/bleat/grouse (sometimes constructive); unfriendly; not-charming; egoistic; cheeky/impertinent; stubborn/obstinate; inflexible
Open love travelling; curious; open(/friendly); open to new people/countries etc.; cosmopolitan; interested
Blunt/Direct (very) direct/blunt, are no hypocrites; direct/open/straightforward (in the sense of confrontative); love discussions
Friendly friendly; merrily; funny; kind; social; close relationships; warm
Table 1: Semantic groups of the German self-perception
After receiving table 1 I proceeded by ranking the above semantic groups according to how frequently they were mentioned by the respondents. If two groups achieved the same number of responses I ranked them on the same
place, e.g the group 'Bureaucratic' and 'Determined' are both ranked on place four, and left out the next rank - in this case place five - to continue with the next place but one, here place six. Thus, I constituted the following table:
German Self-perception
Ranking Semantic Groups How Frequently Mentioned in Responses
1 Neat/Tidy 39
2 Accurate/Precise 23
3 Pessimistic 21
4 Bureaucratic 19
4 Determined 19
6 Punctual 17
7 Reserved 16
8 Unfriendly 14
9 Open 12
9 Blunt/Direct 12
11 Friendly 10
Table 2: Ranking of semantic groups To receive a comparative table of the German self-perception and the Russian perception of the Germans I added the Russian attributions about the Germans and received the table below:
Ranking German Self-Perception Russian Perception of Germans
German university students, major age range 20-27 years Russian schoolchildren, age range 12-16 years
1 Neat/Tidy Economically
2 Accurate/Precise Business-like (disciplined/inventive)
3 Pessimistic Clever/Intelligent
4 Bureaucratic (4) Determined (4) Friendly (frank/likeable/open-hearted)
5 Neat/Tidy/Clean
6 Punctual Good Cultural Background
7 Reserved Punctual
8 Unfriendly Reserved in Behaviour (modest/cool/shy/unsociable)
9 Open (9) Blunt/Direct (9) Good Mixer
10 Realistic/No Illusions
11 Friendly
Table 3: Comparative table of German Germans
As already mentioned the data about the Russian perception of Germans was given to me by Prof. Dr. Markovina during her seminar at the European University Viadrina. I know about the difficulties of comparing data of such different age ranges as schoolchildren and university students notwithstanding the data about the Russians was the only for me accessible data and to be able to conduct an intercultural lacuna analysis I needed some comparative data regarding the German self-perception, in this case the Russian perception of the Germans. In the following chapter 4.2 I will evaluate table 3.
self-perception & Russian perception of
4.2 Evaluation
Let's start with a short review of the research on stereotypes [Hansen 2000: 321-327]: Walter Lippmann introduced the term 'stereotype' in 1922. Later on stereotypes were subdivided into 1) 'autostereotypes' and 2) 'heterostereotypes'. Autostereotypes are the image/notion of a nation, socio-cultural group, individual etc. of itself whereas heterosterotypes describe the image/notion a nation, socio-cultural group, individual etc. has about another nation, socio-cultural group or other groups. Both, autostereotypes and heterostereotypes are closely
interlinked: often a positive self-perception goes along with a negative perception of the other, for example during the Cold War the United States and the former Soviet Union had respective positive self-images (that are positive autostereotypes) and a very negative image of the other nation (that are negative heterostereotypes). Tajfel [in Hansen 2000: 324] and Ertelt-Vieth [1993a:
18f.] point out that groups and therefore cultures are constituted through stereotypes. Especially important are positive autostereotypes as they are necessary for the integration of different social and political groups within a society, that is stereotypes can support integration but as well to a certain extent leave aside the perception of the individuals because they focus on groups, esp. nations.
The following evaluation of table 3 will be focussed on the detection of some axiological lacunas between the German and Russian perceptions. I want to start with the description of the top three rankings in table 3:
Ranking German Self-Perception Russian Perception of Germans
German university students, major age range 20-27 years Russian schoolchildren, age range 12-16 years
1 Neat/Tidy Economically
2 Accurate/Precise Business-like (disciplined/inventive)
3 Pessimistic Clever/Intelligent
Table 4: Comparative table of the top three rankings of the German self-perception & Russian perception of Germans
The three major important characteristics of the German self-perception (autostereotypes) (5) are 1) neat/tidy, 2) accurate/precise and 3) pessimistic whereas the Russians name as the three major important characteristics of the German (heterosterotypes) (6) 1)
economically, 2) business-like and 3) clever/intelligent. 'Neat/tidy' - place 1 as German autostereotype - are ranked as Russian heterostereotype only on the fifth place whereas the group 'accurate/precise' (place 2, German autostereotype) seem to me to be at least partially congruent with the group 'business-like' (place 2, Russian heterosterotype) and its semantic terms counting up for the attribution discipline because the term discipline is as well part of the group 'accurate/precise'. The Russian
heterostereotype 'economically' is unfortunately not further described in the available data to me and I therefore interpret it in the way of Germany as successful economic power. 'Economically' seems to me to correspond to the German autostereotype 'determined', ranked place 4, as the group 'determined' includes terms linked to success and business. The group 'pessimistic' as German autosterotype ranked place 3 has no corresponding group in the Russian heterosterotypes as well as the Russian heterosterotype
'clever/intelligent' ranked place 3 has no corresponding group in the German autostereotypes.
As mentioned I will now denote in the following sequence some axiological lacunas to demonstrate the immense potential of the lacuna model.
Remember: axiological lacunas were defined as 'different interpretation schemes of reality which come to existence through the emergence of other lacunas. They are culture specific connotations and evaluations. For in any encounter between different cultures any object, any activity might gain significance independent of whatever significance is attributed to them in their own cultural context.' Due to the available data to me I will research the below chosen German autostereotypes more in a general sense not in the context of a specific intercultural encounter. Focussing hereby on the top three rankings in table 3 I want to pick out the groups 'Neat/Tidy' (place 1) and 'Accurate/Precise' (place 2) of the German self-perception: 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' are seen as positive characteristics by the Germans themselves as Schneider [2001: 178] describes in his book. Schneider [2001] interviewed (standardized interviews) Germans located in Berlin and the surrounding area, born in the period from 1957 till 1970 and involved in politics, media business and the field of culture. Based on my research results and Schneider's book, I define „Neat/Tidy' and „Accurate/Precise' as important positive elements of the German self-perception. Yet, if for the Germans 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' account to a positive autostereotype which meaning to the Russians - in my data Russian schoolchildren aged 12-16 years - attach to 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' by analysing them through their ' interpretation schemes'? Löwe [2003: 142] denotes as positive Russian heterostereotypes
(about the Germans) besides the by the majority mentioned characteristic 'Punctuality', 'Neat/Love for Tidiness' and 'Discipline'. Based on table 1 and thus on my grouping of terms to semantic groups, I define 'Discipline' as belonging to the semantic group 'Accurate/Precise' so that I assume that if 'Discipline' is a positive Russian heterostereotype 'Accurate/Precise' are seen as positively as 'Discipline'. Eventhough 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' are positive Russian heterostereotypes Löwe [2003: 142] draws the attention to the different meanings Russian attribute to those two groups: Russians are often amused about the Germans being so 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' or they even feel disturbed by these two characteristics. Why? By perceiving the Germans as being 'Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise' besides other characteristics [see Löwe 2003: 142] they associate that Germans have a fixed plan of life and consequently they do not live a real life; their eagerness to work is seen as a missing depth of the soul.
To conclude I want to note that Russians and Germans interpret the same characteristics ('Neat/Tidy' and 'Accurate/Precise') differently due to different knowledge, in its broadest sense, which is specific to their respective sociocultural group, here the nations Russia and Germany - remember intercultural communication was defined as 'taking place whenever participants introduce different knowledge into the interaction which is specific to their respective sociocultural group [..]' [Knapp & Knapp-Potthof in Schröder 1997]. The different knowledge leads to varied
'interpretation schemes' or 'cultural glasses' generating different meanings. Consequently, the different meanings might hamper intercultural communication ('the gap over which one traps'), prohibit mutual understanding ('the precipice of lack of understanding one can drop into') or might motivate towards intercultural communication ('to explore the gap of understanding or fill up with knowledge the precipice of lack of understanding'). The denoted axiological lacunas are representative for intercultural axiological lacunas occuring in intercultural encounters. The differences in 'interpretation schemes' draw from historical, social and other reasons which are explored in the multitude of literature about intercultural communication, the Germans, the Russians etc. but cannot be considered in this paper due to its restricted frame.
5. Conclusions: One application possibility - Preparing intercultural encounters.
How to avoid as far as possible or overcome possible obstacles of intercultural communication through axiological lacunas and lacunas in general? As trainer of intercultural trainings for children this is a fundamental question I have to deal with in my trainings. In chapter 3.2 I listed several application possibilities of the lacuna model and on one of them we will have a closer look in this final chapter: preparing intercultural encounters. Astrid Ertelt-Vieth's [2003: 15ff.] approach struck me by its simplicity and its effectiveness: to be able to provide handy formulas easy to comprehend and easy to remember during the period abroad which addi-
tionally aim at being useful in drawing conclusions afterwards and in analysis of possible concrete conflicts Ertelt-Vieth [2003: 16] proposes a checklist divided into a 'structural aid towards cultural knowledge' and 'normative goals'. The „structural aid towards cultural knowledge' is called 'From existing knowledge to new experience in six steps':
Remember: In (e.g.) Russia and elsewhere
1) many things are like they are here,
2) many things are like they are in many other countries
- only in Germany they are
different,
3) many things are different indeed,
4) many things might have different relations and different meanings,
5) no two persons are alike (and yet many may be similar in many respects),
6) hardly anything will remain the same.
The 'structural aid towards cultural knowledge' covers in simple words the principles of lacuna analysis, such as perspective or axiological lacunas, individual differences etc. Starting out with similarities it leads towards discovery and comprehension of differences. Its use can promote 1) expression, exchange and differentiation of an existing inventory of knowledge, 2) larger "cultural attentiveness", 3) better targeted questioning and 4) better action and more adequate reaction [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 15ff.].
The second part of the checklist „normative goals' indicates how to react to the through part one detected cultural peculiarities. Ertelt-Vieth
[2003: 18] proposes as principles for intercultural encounters of any of the in the 'structural aid towards cultural knowledge' mentioned headings that you should:
1) try and gain much experience in common and in differing and in unusual situations and even in misunderstandings,
2) often put yourself into the other person's shoes in trying to understand them,
3) explain your customs and perspectives to the others,
4) in any unfamiliar situation look for the things that are in common, compromise but criticize only if necessary, and never in an offending way, make your own points clear but always stay open for further communication,
5) reflect what you would want to change for yourself or what you want to keep - just for your time abroad or permanently at home,
6) remember that understanding rises in spirals: you frequently arrive at similar points, feel like you are starting anew, and yet move on.
To me Ertelt-Vieth's approach is a very promising approach in preparing persons for a foreign culture. I very much appreciate that human beings are seen as active, reflective and self-reflective [Ertelt-Vieth 2003: 19] and in my point of view therefore have both, the responsibility to contribute to a successful intercultural communication on whatever basic or sophisticated level it takes place and through the lacuna model and the model of 'negotiating of meaning' the tools to constructively interact with members of other cultures. I often ex-
perience when talking to people about their intercultural experiences or observing them in intercultural encounters that many people are not aware of their responsibility in contributing to a successful intercultural (and even in-tracultural) communication by being 'active, reflective and self-reflective' according to Ertelt-Vieth's 'normative goals'. Additionally, many people believe they do not have the tools to constructively interact with members of other cultures. With the lacuna model the five criterias of Smith's 'negoating of meaning' can be filled with knowledge and as shown the 'negotiating of meaning' is a solid preparation tool for intercultural encounters - thus the lacuna model and the 'negotiating of meaning' model can be seen as a tool combination to constructively interact with foreign cultures based on Ertelt-Vieth's assumption of human beings as being 'active, reflective and self-reflective'.
The lacuna model is in my opinion a major important contribution (7) to the field of intercultral communication: not only that it provides „handy formulas easy to comprehend and easy to remember during the period abroad' which is relevant for the intercultural training sector but the handy formulas are based on a solid scientific method to which different cultures have contributed and which can therefore claim more than other so called "intercultral" theories to be intercultural. Still, drawing its origins from linguistics and psychology I believe not only the application of the lacuna model in areas paid attention to like international advertising [research by Grodski 2003] and a 'translation' into a less linguistic vocabulary - as
already down by Ertelt-Vieth and pre- language in explaining the different sented in this paper - are very impor- categories of lacunas will help to tant but a less linguistic and scientific spread its popularity.
1. The through the association experiment generated data can certainly be analysed much more in depth. However, the intension of this paper is to show the utility of the lacuna model in the field of intercultural communication and not to analyse and evaluate the complete gained data.
2. Due to the restricted framework of this paper and its intercultural focus, I will only focus on cultural lacunas.
3. For example Ertelt-Vieth [1990: 112ff.], Schröder [1995b: 13f] and Grodzki [2003: 46ff.] use a different classification of lacunas.
4. The overview is based on the English translation of a colleague student of Tarasov/Ufimceva's [1999] article. For a detailed overview of the recent research/development in the field of ethnopsycholinguistics see Grodzki [2003: 39-42].
5. Further on referred to as German autostereotype.
6. Further on referred to as Russian heterostereotype.
7. When I was confronted with the lacuna theory for the first time I found it rather an annoying complex scientific tool and questioned its utility for the field of intercultural communication.
Bibliography
Dellinger, B. (1995a): „Using the Lacuna to Detect Implicitness in Commercial News Broadcasts." In: Schröder, H. et al. [eds]: Lacunaology - Studies in Intercultural Communication. Vaasa. 48-77.
Dellinger, B. (1995b): Finnish views of CNN television news: A critical cross-cultural analysis of the American commercial discourse style. http://cnncritical.tripod.com/c5.htm (07/24/2004)
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (1990a): Kulturvergleichende Analyse von Verhalten, Sprache und Bedeutungen im Moskauer Alltag. Frankfurt (Main), etc.: Peter Lang.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (1990b): „Der Ost-West-Konflikt im Kopf. Irritationen in Sachen Völkerverständigung." In: MERKUR - Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken. 10/11: 972-978.
Ertelt-Vieth, A (1993a): "Politische und kulturelle Aspekte der Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Europa, zwischen Ost und West." In: Ertelt-Vieth, A. [ed]: Sprache, Kultur, Identität. Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Ost- und Westeuropa. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang. 17-23.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. [ed] (1993b): Sprache, Kultur, Identität. Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Ost- und Westeuropa. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (1998): „'Alles normal'! Eine kulturspezifische Erfahrung im Schüleraustausch." In: Krumm, H.-J./Portmann-Tselikas, P.R. [eds]: Theorie und Praxis - Österreichische Beiträge zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag. Vol. 2: 1-20.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (1999): „Kulturen modellieren aus empirisch-induktiver Sicht? Zum Potential zweier Ansätze: Kulturstandards und Lakunen" In: Hahn, H. [ed]: Kulturunterschiede. Interdisziplinäre Konzepte zu kollektiven Identitäten und Mentalitäten. Frankfurt: IKO: 121-145.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (2000): „Empirische Untersuchung interkultureller Begegnungen - Integration der beiden Analysekategorien Lakunen und Symbole (an Materialbeispielen)." In: Wierlacher et al. [eds]: Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Intercultural German Studies. München: iudicium. 26: 463-487.
Ertelt-Vieth, A. (2003): How to Analyze and Handle Cultural Gaps in German Everyday Life (from the Perspective of Exchange Students). http://www.interculture-online.de/info_dlz/ertelt_vieth_04_03.pdf (07/28/2004)
Grodzki, E. (2003): Using Lacuna Theory to Detect Cultural Differences in American and German Automotive Advertising. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.
Hansen, K.P. (2000): Kultur und Kulturwissenschaft. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.
Loew, R. (2001): Wie wir die Fremden sehen : Russen-, Rumänen- und Polenbilder im aktuellen deutschen Pressediskurs. Hamburg: Kovac.
Löwe, B. (2003): "Kulturkompetenz versus Kulturschock - Beispiel Russland." In: Chen, H./Jäger, H. [eds]: Kulturschock. Mit anderen Augen sehen -Leben in fremden Kulturen. Bielefeld: REISE KNOW-HOW.
Markovina, I. (1993): "Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Eliminierung der kulturoligischen Lakunen." In: Ertelt-Vieth, A. [ed]: Sprache, Kultur, Identität. Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Ost- und Westeuropa. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang. 174-178.
Panasiuk, I. (2000): Probleme der Übersetzung von Kulturen. Frankfurt (Oder). (unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit an der Europa-Universität Viadrina)
Panasiuk, I. (2002): „Perspektiven der Anwendung des Lakunen-Models in der Translationstheorie." In: Koskela, M./Pilke, N. [eds]: Publications of the Research Group for LSP and Theory of Translation at the University of Vaasa. Vaasa. 29: 257-278.
Richter, H.-E. (1993): Russen und Deutsche: Alte Feindbilder weichen neuen Hoffnungen. Düsseldorf/Wien: ECON
Schneider, Jens (2001): Deutsch sein. Das Eigene, das Fremde und die Vergangenheit im Selbstbild des vereinten Deutschlands. Frankfurt (Main): Campus.
Schröder, H. (1994): "Lakunen" und die latenten Probleme des fremdkulturellen Textverstehens - Anwendungsmöglichkeiten eines Modells der Ethnopsycholinguistik bei der Erforschung textueller Aspekte der internationalen Produktvermarktung.
http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Artikel/Art.docs/lakunen.bungarten.doc (07/24/2004)
Schröder, H. (1995a): „'Lacunae' and the Covert Problems of Understanding Texts from Foreign Cultures." In: Schröder, H. et al. [eds]:
Lacunaology - Studies in Intercultural Communication. Vaasa. 10-25.
Schröder, H. et al. [eds] (1995b): Lacunaology - Studies in Intercultural Communication. Vaasa.
Schröder, H. (1997): Interkulturelle Kommunikation. (script of lecture) http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Artikel/Art.docs/interk.kom.sonnenb.doc (07/24/2004)
Schröder, H. (1998): Ethonzentrismus, Stereotype und Lakunen -Methodologische Überlegungen zur Analyse interkultureller Kontaktsituationen. http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno1.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno2.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno3.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno4.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno5.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno6.html http://www.sw2.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Publikationen/Ethno/ethno7.html (07/24/2004)
Schuchalter, J. (1995): „Literature, Representation, and the Negotiation of Cultural Lacunae." In: Schröder, H. et al. [eds]: Lacunaology - Studies in Intercultural Communication. Vaasa. 26-47.
Sorokin, J.A. (1993): "Die Lakunen-Theorie. Zur Optimierung interkultureller Kommunikation." In: Ertelt-Vieth, A. [ed]: Sprache, Kultur, Identität. Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Ost- und Westeuropa. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang. 167-173.
Tarasov, E.F./Ufimceva, N. (1999): "Ethnopsycholinguistik. Eine neue Disziplin in Rußland zur Erforschung kultureller Spezifika des Denkens und
Sprechens." In: Hahn, H. [ed]: Kulturunterschiede. Interdisziplinäre Konzepte zu kollektiven Identitäten und Mentalitäten. Frankfurt: IKO. 185-198.
Trautmann, G. (1997): „Russland und Deutschland: Feind, Freund oder Partner?" In: Brütting, R./Trautmann, G. [eds]: Dialog und Divergenz. Interkulturelle Studien zu Selbst- und Fremdbildern in Europa. Frankfurt (Main): Lang. 59-77.
Ufimceva, N. (1993): "Zur Selbstwahrnehmung von Russen. Eine empirische Untersuchung." In: Ertelt-Vieth, A. [ed]: Sprache, Kultur, Identität. Selbst- und Fremdwahrnehmungen in Ost- und Westeuropa. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang. 156-166.
