Email Class Listserv

University of Florida

 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
.

• Summary
• Bibliography

INTRODUCTION
     The linkages between language and culture are complex and numerous. In an attempt to address the issues surrounding language and culture, the following areas will be examined in this report: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and the cultural aspects of language; nonverbal communication; and language and social conflict.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
     Stevenson tells us that “language, more than anything else, is the heart of culture” (p. 55), a point supported by the body of literature on the study of linguistics, especially when we include intonation and nonverbal cues –– known as body language –– to the complex of human actions and utterances that we call “communication” (Bonvillain 1993, Shaul and Furbee 1998). In Chapter 3, Stevenson initially focuses on the verbal aspects of communication and looks at two oppositional theoretical perspectives that are currently at the forefront of linguistics: the Whorf–Sapir Hypothesis and the Cognitive Linguistics school of thought.

     Reduced to a very simplistic level, the Whorf–Sapir Hypothesis can be understood as the idea that human perception and thinking is influenced by the language we first acquire (Crystal 1992, Pullum 1991, Shaul and Furbee 1998). This hypothesis comes from the social science discipline called psycholinguistics and proposes that language acquisition influences what we understand the world to be –– and can have a powerful impact on our ability to transfer human meaning to another culture despite language proficiency. A cross-cultural analysis of color perception, for example, has found that some shades and hues of color are indiscernible in one culture and distinctly marked in another (Eco 1996). Cognitive Sociolinguistics, associated with the work of Noam Chomsky, offers a model of human language acquisition that “incorporates a ‘deep grammar,’ or set of rules that apply equally to all human languages” (Stevenson, p. 59). According to this school of thought, humans acquire the base of language in the same manner exactly because we are all humans  –– across the board, the hardwiring of our brains makes this the only option possible.

Differences that Make a Difference
     These differing perspectives point out the complexity and variation of human behaviors and perceptions both across and within cultures. A synthesis of these two schools of thought might go as follows: human cognition (or thought processes) do not vary across cultures, for we are biologically all the same  –– but the “differences that makes a difference” is the layering of individual cultures that impart a particularly unique “flavor” (see Pullman 1991) to the inherent biology of communication.

     Stevenson seems to situate his arguments within the camp of the cognitive socio-linguistics perspective when he asserts that “contrary to both popular belief and common sense, we don’t think differently in different languages” (Ibid, 59) but that it is a simple lack of vocabulary that inhibits cross-cultural communication and leads to misunderstandings and potential conflicts. This is because all words have both denotative and connotative means. If you are learning a second language and look up a word in a bilingual dictionary, it will give you the denotative meaning –– the equivalent to that object or concept in another language. Yet nuances of language are found in their connotative meanings, that is, the cultural meanings individuals give to a word. This is the part of language acquisition that proves most difficult for people learning a second language, i.e., learning the “shared meaning” of a particular culture.

Denotative & Subjective Meanings
     Yet what is communication after all, but sharing meaning? According to Stevenson, communication is impossible without an overlap between the denotative and subjective meanings of words. Research in this area of linguistics begun by Osgood (1957, as cited in Stevenson , p. 61) explores semantic differences across cultures. It holds that the subjective meaning of any word has three distinct components –– evaluation, potency, and activity –– that can be categorized dichotomously. A word can be “evaluated” as “good or bad,” its “potency” can be described as “strong or weak,” and the level of activity is possesses can be termed “active or passive” (Ibid). 

     According to Osgood’s model, the word “individual” when used to describe a person should have the same denotative meaning across cultures. Yet subjectively, it would probably have very different embedded meanings which vary from culture to culture. For example, in the dominant culture of the United States, which places a high value on self-autonomy and self-reliance, we might guess that this word would tend to be evaluated by Americans as “good,” it is highly potent because it is linked to positive core values within our social structure, and is considered “active” rather than passive. In an Arabic culture, on the other hand, which places a high value on homogeneity, the collective good, and strong links to extended family (Hall and Hall 1994), we could surmise that the subjective meaning of the word “individual” could take on opposite associations. 

     Stevenson also briefly discusses the importance of accents within a culture as many languages struggle to retain their uniqueness in a globalizing world –– and, as Stevenson has argued at length in the Chapter 2, in which English is becoming the lingua franca. Embedded within a discussion of accents is the realization that members of cultures use language as an easily recognized tool for making social distinctions among differing classes. According to Stevenson, it is the semantic differences embedded within languages that lead to many cross–cultural  –– and even intercultural –– misunderstandings.

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION
     Nonverbal communication is an often over-looked aspect of language and communication.  According to Stevenson, it is defined as "...all those stimuli within a communication setting, both humanly generated and environmentally generated, with the exception of verbal stimuli, that have potential message value for the sender or receiver" (p. 67).  Regarding these messages, "the thing that non-verbal communication does best is communicate emotions" (Kansas State University Presswire).  Indeed, Albert Mehrabian found that only 7 percent of the emotional meaning of a message is communicated with words, while 38 percent comes from paralanguage, or the use of voice, and over half – 55 percent, is through nonverbal communication.  In addition, "Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) pointed out that nonverbal expression can account for as much as one and one half times the impact of verbal expression in the judgement of a message" (Goddlett, p. 122).  Because nonverbal communications and gestures vary with cultures, awareness of their importance in sending and receiving messages is crucial to understanding each other.  "In nonverbal language, you cannot not send messages. .... The difficulty is greater, too, because so much of nonverbal communication is culturally acquired and culturally specific. ...nonverbal communication is usually not controllable and not repeatable" (Stevenson, pp. 67-68). 

     Nonverbal communication serves many purposes, including: “(a) providing information, (b) regulating interaction, (c) expressing intimacy, (d) exercising social control, and (e) facilitating service or task goals” (Goddlett, p. 127).  According to Adler (pp. 192-194), nonverbal communication functions include: Repeating (emblems-- deliberate nonverbal behaviors that have a very precise meaning, known to virtually everyone within a culture group); Substituting (emblems also can replace a verbal meaning); Complementing (consists of illustrators-- nonverbal behaviors that accompany and support spoken words); Accenting (stressing certain words with voice); Regulating (nonverbal behaviors can control the flow of verbal communications); and Contradicting.  This final function is important because "When verbal and nonverbal contradict, we tend to believe the nonverbal. ... [V]irtually everything we use to discern if someone else is lying comes from the nonverbal realm or the paralanguage realm, with the bulk falling in nonverbal. .... It is behavior other than spoken or written communication that creates or represents meaning" (Nonverbal Communication [On-Line]).
Nonverbal communication, also referred to as "body language," has many meanings and expressions, such as hand and facial gestures, posture and stance, clothing and hair styles, time symbolism, and timing, pauses and even silence within verbal behavior.  These can be grouped into categories (Dodd, as cited in Stevenson, p. 67): 

1) kinesics (gestures, facial expressions, body positions and body movement); 
2) oculesis (eye movement and contact); 
3) proxemics (spatial relations between people); 
4) chronemics (use of time, i.e., the pace of speech, including pauses); 
5) sensories (smell and taste); 
6) haptics (touching); and 
7) paralinguistics (qualities of speech). 

     As Adler puts it, "...through its tone, speed, pitch, number and length of pauses, volume, disfluencies -- nonlinguistic verbalizations, ... together can be called paralanguage, and they can and do a great deal to reinforce or contradict the message our words convey"  (p. 207).

     Additionally, there is some indication that climate may play a role in communication styles.  "High-contact cultures... were located in warmer countries and low contact cultures in cooler climates. .... Cultures in cooler climates tend to be more task oriented and interpersonally 'cool,' whereas cultures in warmer climates tend to be more interpersonally oriented and interpersonally 'warm'"  (Goddlett, p. 128).  Perhaps this may even explain the differences in the United States between the high-context (HC) South and low-context (LC) North with regard to communication styles. "HC cultures are more reliant on and tuned in to nonverbal communication.  LC cultures, particularly men in LC cultures, fail to perceive as much nonverbal communication as members of HC culture" (Goddlett, p. 132, see also Weaver, 1994). 

     According to a Press Wire from Kansas State University, there is a difference in men and women when it comes to nonverbal communication: "As a generalization, women tend to be better than men at communicating non-verbally and at picking up non-verbal cues."  This is explained in that "historically, women have been the primary care givers, so... they may have become more attuned to the way people communicate non-verbally. .... Another reason is that historically men have been the people who have talked and women... who have listened and watched, ... So in watching, women may have developed this ability to see things non-verbally that men don't always see."  These statements are echoed by Goddlett: "In general, female communications are more adaptive because they are more attentive to the silent nonverbal cues, and cross-cultural research shows that young girls are expected to be more nuturant..." (p. 129).

Nonverbal Interpretation
     Interpreting nonverbal language can be tricky.  "...[N]on-verbal behavior is structured and rule-governed, especially when such behavior takes place as part of a social interaction. ...[T]hese rules represent 'an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known by none, and understood by all'" (Gilroy, p. 153).   Still, there are those who have tried.  "Cooke (1972) suggested that there were four major factors considered in the interpretation and differentiation of the forms of nonverbal behavior: (a) the motives, attitude, responses, conflicts and personalities of people involved in the communication event; (b) the content of the message; (c) the entire social setting; and (d) the communication event itself" (Goodlett, p. 123). 

     Three primary dimensions for interpreting nonverbal cues were also identified by Mehrabian as cited in Nonverbal Communication.  The first is immediacy, whose “...cues communicate liking and pleasure.  We move toward persons and things we like and avoid or move away from those we dislike. ....[C]ues that fall in this dimension include eye contact, mutual eye contact, ...leaning forward and touching."  Goddlett expands on this dimension: "Immediacy as a cultural dimension as anchored to nonverbal actions which communicated closeness and distance of expressions. .... Highly immediate behaviors in the United States culture includes smiling, touching, eye contact, open body positions, closer distances and more vocal animation"  (p. 127). 
The second dimension as cited in Nonverbal Communication is arousal, which “... is similar to animation.  That is, when we are interested in communicating with someone else, we tend to be more animated. ...[C]ues that fall in this dimension include eye contact, varied vocal cues, animated facial expressions, leaning forward, movement in general."  The third and final is dominance, whose cues “...indicate something about the balance of power in a relationship.  They communicate information about relative or perceived status, position, and importance. .... Furniture, clothing, and location also tend to communicate this dimension"  (Ibid).
Likewise, in an article in the New Straits Times (Malaysia), J. Yogarajah also offers three rules for interpreting body language: "The first rule is cluster, where you have to look out for two, three or more gestures in order to interpret the non-verbal gestures correctly.  The second rule is congruence, where we must take gestures into account with the situation, the identity of the person using them, and they must match the verbal communication at that time.  The third rule is culture.  Certain gestures may vary in meaning with different cultures."

Gestures and Meanings 
     Although there is not magical list of gestures and meaning that works in every part of the globe, there is some merit in identifying a few to illustrate the differences we have covered regarding nonverbal communication. 

*Smiles:  "Smiling is one of the most common non-verbal communication experiences that we have. .... As far as our cultural esthetic is concerned, a smiling face has a universal acceptance.  I don't know of any cultures where a smile means something different. .... [But] There are times in the history of different cultures where smiling was interpreted in a negative fashion by the leader.  For instance, if you were smiling towards a Nazi guard, they might as well put you under arrest and torment you.  A smile would have meant disrespect"  (Chwialkowska).  "Smiles and frowns are about the same in every language and often have a counterpart in animals. ....  In Western cultures, a big, toothy smile is an expression of friendship... but in some Asian cultures, showing your teeth is considered rude..."  (Stevenson, p. 68).

*Gestures: "A smile is a smile the world over; a frown is a frown; a stare is a stare.  Arms-folding shows defensiveness; arms placed on the hips reveal that I feel anti-social - these are common gestures all over the world. ....[however] Crossed arms, for example, may mean a closed mind, but it can also mean anxiety, anger or feeling cold.  You can't interpret one gesture without considering the whole context"   (Yogarajah).  "Different gestures have different meanings depending on where you are.  For example, to ask for two of something in America, we raise our index and middle fingers; in some parts of Europe, two is represented by raising the thumb and index finger" (Stevenson, p. 68).   "...Stroking a beard in Israel means "I am deep in thought."  In Austria the same gesture means ‘How boring’"  (Yogarajah). "The "A-okay" gesture made by joining thumb and forefinger to form a circle is a cheery affirmation to most Americans, but it has less than positive meanings in other parts of the world.  In France and Belgium it means ‘You're worth zero.’  In Greece and Turkey it is a vulgar sexual invitation, usually meant as an insult"  (Adler, p. 190-191).

*Eye Contact:  "A direct gaze is considered appropriate for speakers in Latin America, the Arab world, and southern Europe. On the other hand, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, and northern Europeans gaze at a listener peripherally or not at all. .... [R]esearch in the 1970's revealed that many blacks avoid looking others directly in the eyes.  The findings also showed that whites in the study interpreted this lack of eye contact as a signal of disinterest and withdrawal" (Adler, p. 191).

*Distance & Space:  "...[T]hree feet... is the distance at which two people in our [Western] culture normally stand while conversing socially"  (Adler, p. 218).  "Intimate distance... begins with skin contact and ranges out to about eighteen inches. We usually use intimate distance with people who are emotionally very close to us, and then mostly in private situations.... Personal distance ... ranges from eighteen inches at its closest point to four feet at its farthest....  Social distance... ranges from four to about twelve feet....  Public distance... running outward from twelve feet" (Adler, pp. 219-220).

     All in all, sensitivity to the power of nonverbal communication is essential to facilitate clear communications because "nonverbal cues substitute for, contradict, emphasize, or regulate verbal messages" (Nonverbal Communication).  Adding a cross-cultural element only complicates the issue of nonverbal communication: "...When communicating with others from different cultures, a significant barrier to understanding is added because nonverbal behavior that is widely understood in one culture can be misunderstood in another" (Stevenson, p. 66).  "What you have to be careful of is that you can get a 'sense' of what people are feeling or are thinking from their non-verbal communication, but as far as knowing exactly what they're thinking or feeling, that's more difficult because there's so much that plays into people's body movement" (Kansas State University). 

LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL CONFLICT
     Stevenson (1994) argued that the global trend for cultural autonomy is more defined by language than religion, which in the past was the basis for much cultural and social conflict (p. 69). Language is a cultural symbol that can be found everywhere and that many times has been suppressed. When different individuals make the decision to speak a certain language, they make a cultural statement about themselves (Stevenson, p. 69). In this discussion of language and social conflict, three current issues will be examined: Wales and Welsh, Canada and French and the United States and English.

Wales and Welsh
     The Welsh language, with the advance of Anglo and English culture and language, has been suppressed throughout the history of English and Welsh coexistence. As Stevenson showed, with the suppression of language comes the suppression of culture. Many times, language suppression is used as a tool in lessening cultural and political power. Stevenson found that “ancient animosities” exist between the Welsh and English, mainly because of the existence of separate, but unequal cultures in economic and political terms (p.70).
Wales is a double peninsula off the largest island in the archipelago off the northwest coast of France. The political descriptions of Wales can be confusing. As Mark Nodine said in his online interview on the Web site History and Status of the Welsh Language, Wales is an administrative entity, which in British English terms is called a country, although others describe it as an internal colony of the United Kingdom. 

     Welsh is a Celtic language spoken naturally in Wales and a small colony in Patagonia, Argentina. Also, there are Welsh speakers in other places such as England, Australia and the United States of America. When Nodine was asked in his interview whether Welsh was a dying language, he answered that the conventional answer in the first half of the twentieth century would be yes. He also said in answer to the question:
There is perhaps less of an obvious consensus on the answer at the end of the century, although the long-term prospects must be pretty bleak for any particular language with a small community of speakers, and particularly one like Welsh which both is devoid of great concentrations of speakers, and is surrounded by the particularly aggressive culture of the American and English speaking world.

     A survey published by the Welsh Office in 1995, Arolwg Cymdeithasol Cymru 1992: adroddiad ar y Gymraeg, showed that 21.5 percent of the population of Wales spoke Welsh (Jones, p.8). Of this percentage, 55.3 percent were first-language speakers (12 percent of the population). When asked how many people speak Welsh, Nodine replied: “Ah, now. There is a question to keep one awake at nights. It really rather depends what one means by speaking Welsh” (Jones, p.7). He claimed that Welsh speakers exhibit a reluctance to admit to speaking Welsh because they have a formal education in English and an informal knowledge of Welsh. Thus, if they claimed to speak Welsh, many would fear receiving official, incomprehensible documents in Welsh rather than the English they are comfortable with. Nodine also said Welsh speakers suffer from a feeling of a lack of self-esteem at not being able to speak the language better.

     In 1536, English became the official language of Wales and in 1870, it became the language of instruction (Stevenson, p.69). Since then, the use of Welsh was suppressed and purposely restricted, and thus the number of people who spoke the language quickly dropped. But, in 1993 government policy changed, and the Welsh Language Act was passed to provide for the treatment of both English and Welsh on a “basis of equality” (Welsh Language Act 1993, Online). Under this act, the Welsh Language Board was established to promote and facilitate the use of Welsh. Stevenson also found that the Welsh culture was being restored, and one of the means of the restoration was the modest increase of Welsh speakers (p. 70). Also, a Welsh television channel was created which then backed the reparation of Welsh literature and theater (Ibid).
 The language conflict situation in Wales shares much in common with the language conflict in Canada. In both cases, a minority language coexists with the dominant English language. Also, along with the language suppression came cultural suppression and a backlash movement to restore the culture and the language, including federal laws regulating the fair use of the minority and majority languages.

Canada and French 
     The existence of two official languages in Canada has caused social and cultural conflict among Canadians since the language co-existence began in the 1750s and 1760s. In 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded a French settlement now known as Quebec City. Quebec is now the home to the majority of French-speaking Canadians, although there are almost 969,000 French-speaking people in other parts of Canada (Canadian Heritage: Official Languages Support Programs, Online). Canada’s 1991 census showed that 83 percent of Canadians spoke English, while 32 percent spoke French. About 350,000 spoke neither official language (Ibid).
 
     In 1988, the Official Languages Act was established to provide full and equal access to Canada’s courts and Parliament in both languages; to give Canadian’s the right to receive federal government services in either English or French; to ensure equal employment opportunities in both languages; to establish a commitment of the government to promote English and French; and to provide opportunities for Canadians to learn both languages (Ibid).

Quebec
     Because Quebec is home to 96 percent of all Canadians whose mother tongue is French, Quebec is a French society that tends toward French unilingualism. In November 1976 the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101) was passed, making French Quebec’s official language (Bourhis, p. 1). This bill has been the most controversial legislation in Quebec and throughout Canada, favored by Quebec francophones and opposed by Quebec anglophones. Bourhis argued that these extreme protests and contrasts between the two groups on this single piece of legislation exemplifies the linguistic social conflict between the two groups in Canada that has lasted so long (p.1). 

     In the 1950s, the traditional French Canadian social patterns were deteriorating because of several changes. Industrialization gave rise to the decline of the rural community, increasing contact between francophones and anglophones. French Canadians had to compete in the English-dominated industries that they were not prepared for (Bourhis, p.29). Thus, the Quiet Revolution began in the 1960s. This was an attempt to increase the socioeconomic development of French Canadian culture and society to bring it to the level of English-speaking Canada (Ibid). This movement increased feelings of nationalism among Quebec citizens, while also increasing resentment of their secondary linguistic, social, cultural and economic status.

Language Police
     In addition to the Quiet Revolution, in 1976 the Parti Quebecois (PQ) – a party committed not to bilingualism but to French-first policy – won control of the provincial government (Stevenson, p. 70). The PQ established strict language laws, such as the requirement that all immigrants to Quebec attend French-language schools. This coupled with Quebec’s low birth rate contributed to the decreasing number of Quebec citizens. Also, businesses were forced to operate in French while the language was not allowed on signs, and thus the “language police” were commissioned to find language-law transgressors.
 
     After an attempt at succession in which the armed forces were sent to keep peace, eventually, according to Stevenson, the extreme language policies relaxed. And, in 1985 the Liberal party won control and negotiated an agreement to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, but still a member of the Canadian confederation (Stevenson, p. 72). But the controversy continues as Quebec Canadians struggle to determine their cultural and linguistic identity in a multicultural nation.

A Personal Opinion
     Garry Peterson, University of Florida zoology graduate student and Canadian citizen, in a personal interview on Sept. 19, 1998, spoke about the recent Supreme Court ruling that decided Quebec could not laterally secede from Canada. He said that the ruling “has people all riled up in various ways.” In his personal experience living in Vancouver, as a high school student he was required to take French. At the university level, according to Peterson, most students continue to study French. He said this practice contradicts the linguistic make-up of many Vancouver residents, because there are more who speak Cantonese, Mandarin and Japanese than speak French. Peterson said there is a sentiment in Vancouver that citizens do not feel it is worthwhile to learn French. He said most Canadians (those who live outside of Quebec) do not want Quebec to separate from Canada and are tired of Quebec’s separatist attitudes. He also pointed out that much of the conflict in Quebec is divided between rural and urban areas, the rural areas being for separation and the urban areas being against. Rural areas are self-sufficient, and thus not as dependent on the Canadian federal government, whereas urban areas are more dependent on the federal government for their survival. In Quebec City, the synthesis of opinions is mixed because most urbanites are against separation, but Quebec City is the center of conflict, according to Peterson. 

The United States and English
     Stevenson argued that the United States could eventually see the same situation as Wales and Quebec face – a separate but unequal third nation along the U.S. – Mexico border (p.74). Stevenson (p. 73) also found that 10 million U.S. Americans spoke Spanish and that the number was rising. In response to the increasing immigration and resulting bilingualism in the United States, a backlash movement began in the 1980s to deem English as the official language of the United States.

Official English
     Noted semanticist and one-time senator S.I. Hayakawa led the unsuccessful national Official English movement called “U.S. English” (Stevenson, pp. 74-75). Although the national effort was not successful, by 1990 16 states had laws recognizing English and others had legislation being considered. The main problem, according to Stevenson, was that many people did not have a clear understanding of what Official English meant. Stevenson suggested that the issue was complex – how does the United States decide who receives special attention and language services and who does not? Also, do English language laws infringe upon First Amendment rights? And, will the United States face a new, separate, but unequal nation along the U.S./Mexican border?

     Tatalovich suggested that the majority of U.S. Americans support the Official English movement, rising to defend their language when it is challenged. He called the debate a controversy over “English Only” versus “English Plus” (p. 2). In a report published online by the University of Washington, the author poses his argument against Official English: “My investigations into the question at hand have led me to fear a climate of intolerance much more than a decline in the supremacy of English, and, at any rate, I have come to sense that attempting to promote stability through the direct legislation and enforcement of linguistic conformity misses the point” (Official English: A No Vote, [On-line]). He goes on to argue that the history of the U.S. political system shows a favorable trend towards explicit protections of the right of all persons to be free, safe and trusted to make their own decisions (including their preferred language).

Multiculturalism
     Multiculturalism is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “the existence, recognition, or preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society.” Stevenson (p. 74) discusses multiculturalism in a one-sided manner, tending towards the viewpoint that assimilation is better than multiculturalism. Tending toward an even more one-sided viewpoint is the Ayn Rand Institute. This institute is devoted to the theory of objectivism. This theory’s main characteristics include individualism, reason, egoism, capitalism and intellectual activity. In an essay on the institute’s Web site titled “Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism,” the author, Michael Berliner, Ph.D., argued that multiculturalism is racism in a politically correct disguise. The author argued that multiculturalism practices lead to the judgment and treatment of people on the basis of their race and not on their individual achievements.

CONCLUSION
     Is multiculturalism racism in a politically correct disguise? We do not believe so. As our research shows, finding one’s cultural identity is a worldwide struggle, of which language plays a major role. As the Official English movement, the Quebec movement to secede from Canada and the struggle to restore Wales’ culture shows, language is an important factor in multiculturalism and social conflict. The following quotes and information are provided to stimulate discussion and critical thinking of these complex issues.
 

 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Adler, R. & Towne, N. (1987).  Looking Out/Looking In.  New York: Holt, Rinehart and  Winston.
Chapter six of this text book on interpersonal communication is entitled    "Nonverbal Communication: Messages Without Words" and focuses on voice,   gestures, posture, touch, distance, clothing and environment in influencing   communications. 

Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, Culture, and Communication: the meaning of messages. 
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
This text focuses on language and cultural meaning including discussions on multilingual nations, bilingual communities, cross-cultural studies of language and gender and language and institutional encounters.

Bourhis, R. (Ed.). (1984). Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec. Avon, Great Britain: Short 
Run Press, Exeter.
This text is a compilation of articles exploring Canada’s language conflict with Quebec. Several topics are language planning in Quebec, social class and language policies in Quebec and a historical overview and future trends in Quebec language planning.

Canada: facts and figures [On-Line]. Available: 
www.pch.gc.ca/OFFLANGOFF/english/EF02/EF02a.htm
The Department of Canadian Heritage sponsored this Web site that provides general facts and figures on Canada such as land mass, geography, languages and population statistics.

Canadian Heritage: Official Languages Support Programs [On-Line]. Available: 
www.pch.gc.ca/OFFLANGOFF/english/index.htm
This site is sponsored by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in Canada and offers an interesting view of the government’s position on the language and social conflict in Canada. It answers general questions such as why Canada has two official languages and what is included in the Official Languages Act that was changed in 1988.

Chwialkowska, L. (1998, February 22).  An Ottawa Citizen Q&A: He always comes out smiling.   The Ottawa Citizen (Canada), p. A7.
This is an interview with William Fry, an emeritus associate clinical professor of   psychiatry at Stanford University who studies smiling in humans and animals.  It   focuses on smiling and non-verbal communication.

Coupland, N. (Ed.). (1989). English in Wales: Diversity, Conflict and Change. Avon, Great 
Britain: WBC Print.
This text is a compilation of articles on the language conflict between English and Welsh. Topics include: the Anglicization of Wales, social and linguistic perspectives on English in Wales and the social meanings of Welsh English.

Crystal, David. (1992). An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language & Languages. Oxford: Blackwell 
 Publishers.
This reference book takes an encyclopedic approach to the study of linguistics,    including information on the theoretical issues and the specialized terminology    of this discipline, while not disregarding the mundane and everyday relevance    of such a text.

Diversity & Multiculturalism: The New Racism [On-Line]. Available: 
www.multiculturalism.aynrand.org/
 This Web site includes several essays against multiculturalism, arguing instead for individualism. It provides an interesting contrast to many readings and provides a view of possibly many U.S. citizens.

Eco, U. (1996). “How Culture Conditions the Colours We See” in Communication Theory
 Reader, P. Cobley, Ed. London: Routledge.
  According to Eco, “Colour is not an easy matter” (148) and this is true because understanding the nature of color perception is not just about understanding values, hues, and shades as they are recognized by the human eye. 

Feinburg, S. & Mindess, M.  (1994).  Eliciting Children's Full Potential.  Pacific Grove, CA:  Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
This book has a sub-title of "Designing & Evaluating Developmentally Based   Programs for Young Children" and is focused toward teacher education.  Non-  verbal communication is discussed in a section on Cross-Cultural studies as it   relates to children in the classroom.

Fraenkel, E. & Kramer, C. (Eds.). (1993). Language Contact – Language Conflict. New York:
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
 This text is a compilation of articles on various language conflicts around the world. Topics include: urban Muslim identity in Macedonia, Bulgarian nationalism and Turkish language in Bulgaria and the internationalization of language conflict: the case of Kurdish.

Gilroy, P. (1996).  Meaning Without Words   Philosophy and non-verbal communication.   England: Avebury.
This book looks at philosophies, theories and non-verbal communication as a   "first language" acquisition and includes information on young children and the   formation of language.

Goodlett, N. (1990).  An analysis of the influence of verbal and nonverbal communication on the  perceptions of African-American and English-speaking African Caribbean students in  selected universities.  Ann Arbor, Michigan: U.M.I. Dissertation Services.
This book is a dissertation of a philosophy doctoral student at Howard University   (Graduate school of Arts and Sciences, Department of Human Communication   Studies).  Included are the introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis,   interpretation and accompanying tables.

Hall, E. and Elizabeth Hall. (1998). “How Cultures Collide,” in Culture, Communication and 
 Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations, Gary R. Weaver, ed. (2nd ed.), Needham Heights, 
 MA: Simon & Schuster.
   In this chapter, Hall and Hall look at cross-cultural communication using a    framework of high-context and low-context cultures, which includes verbal and    nonverbal communications.

Jahr, E. H. (Ed.). (1993). Language Conflict and Language Planning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 This text is a compilation of symposium papers presented at the Sixth International Tromso Symposium on Language. Topics include: language conflict and planning in Ireland, conflicting ideologies in contemporary Norwegian language planning and language planning from a management perspective.

Jones, G. (1995). History and Status of the Welsh Language. [On-Line]. Available: 
www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/geraint.jones/cwrs-cymraeg/welsh.html
This site provides an interview of a native Welsh speaker who answers questions such as: What is Welsh? Where is Wales? Is Welsh a dying language? What is being done to preserve the language over the last 20 years?

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY body language can say a lot about you (1998, June 25).  M2  PRESSWIRE (Manhattan).
This wire contains consecutive quotes from David Procter, associate professor of   speech communication at Kansas State University.  How non-verbal    communications relate to emotions and moods, how gestures can be    misinterpreted and how women tend to be better at recognizing and interpreting   non-verbal communication than men.

Kramarae, C., Schulz, M. & O’Barr, W.M. (Eds.). (1984). Language and Power. Beverly Hills, 
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 
This text is a compilation of articles discussing language and power. Topics include: Black language as power, planning for language change in the United States: the case of monolingual Spanish speakers and problems and problems: power relationships.

Lieberson, S. (1981). Language Diversity and Language Contact. Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press.
 Lieberson explores in this text such topics as language and ethnic relations, national and regional language diversity, language spread and language diversity.

Nonverbal Communication [On-Line].  Available: www2.pstc.cc.tn.us/~dking/nvcom.htm
This site references Albert Mehrabian's research in non-verbal communication.   It includes a general discussion of how non-verbal communication relates to messages and verbal communication, problems of studying non-verbal communication, interpreting non-verbal cues and improving non-verbal communication. 

Official English: A No Vote [On-Line]. Available:
gopher://wiretap.spies.com:70/00/Library/Article/Language/english.1st
This Web site is an argument against the official English movement. It summarizes two basic assumptions of official English (English hegemony is important and unifying, and English hegemony is in jeopardy) and provides evidence of negative effects of official English legislation.

Pullum, G. (1991). The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the 
 Study of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   This is a collection of essays by the author was first published in a Linguistics    journal. I use it here because “The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax” is an     excellent repudiation of the oft–sited misconception, echoed by Stevenson, that    the “snow vocabulary” (p. 160) of Eskimos is vast.

Seigel, A. (1998, January 5).  Harnessing The Power Of Body Language, Part1.  SalesDoctors  magazine [On-Line].  Available: www.salesdoctors.com/diagnosis/3bodyl.htm
This on-line version of the SalesDoctors magazine (based in Boca Raton, FL)   appears to focus on body language as it applies to sales communications.  It   includes sections on positive and negative body language (with specific    examples), gestures, transitions and observing a customers body language.

Shaul, D. and N. Louanna Furbee. (1998). Language and Culture. Prospects Heights:  Waveland Press.
   Grounded in the anthropological subdiscipline of linguistics, this reader is an    attempt to make the complexities of the nexus between language and culture    studies accessible to non-linguists. It focuses on semiotics (accounting for     meaning), linguistic relativity and linguistic universals as a basis for interpreting    cultures and understanding individual human behavior.

Stevenson, R. (1994).  Global Communication in the Twenty-First Century.  New York:  Longman Publishing Group. 
This is our class text.

Tatalovich, R. (1995). Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the 
American States. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky. 
This text gives a historical account of the official English movement and provides legislative information on the issue and what the author considers is the majority opinion of the issue.

Treffers-Daller, J. (1994). Mixing Two Languages: French – Dutch Contact in a Comparative 
Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
This text gives a sociolinguistic viewpoint on the language conflict situation in Brussels. Topics include educational, attitudinal and sociolinguistic aspects of the mixing of French and Dutch.

Weaver, G. (1998). “Contrasting and Comparing Cultures,” in Culture,Communication and Conflict: Readings in Intercultural Relations, Gary R.    Weaver, ed. (2nd ed.), Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
   Class text.

Wright, S. (Ed.). (1995). Languages in Contact and Conflict: Contrasting Experiences in the 
Netherlands and Belgium. Avon, Great Britain: Short Run Press, Exeter.
 This text provides information on language conflict in the Netherlands, Belgium and England. Topics include: an overview of language and education policies for ethnic minorities in the Netherlands and a parallel overview of the education policy for bilingual children in Britain.

Yogarajah, J. (1997, March 8).  "Body language preconceptions."  New Straits Times (Malaysia),  p. 1-Ex.
This newspaper article (as found on Lexis-Nexis) notes how often non-verbal communication is overlooked.  Five preconceptions are noted and three rules for interpreting non-verbal communications.  Additionally, he uses two careers in which non-verbal communication and its application can benefit others.