AN EXPLORATION OF THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES USEDWHEN CULTURE-LADEN WORDS ARE TRANSLATED FROM JAPANESE

TO ARABIC IN ELF INTERACTION

STEPHANIE ANN HOUGHTON AND KHALIFA AL ASSWAD

ABSTRACTThe purpose of the study described in this paper is to

support the development of intercultural ELF pedagogy byconnecting Kirkpatrick’s (2007a) lingua franca approach toEnglish language education with Byram’s (1997) model ofintercultural communicative competence through actionresearch. Conducted in an English language course at auniversity in southern Japan by a British and a Libyanteacher-researcher, it explores the communicationstrategies used during the translation of culture-ladenJapanese words into Arabic in real-time interaction usingEnglish. Audio-recorded data of five dialogues in which tenJapanese students attempted to teach the Libyan teacher-researcher culture-laden Japanese words in English toelicit translations into Arabic were transcribed andanalysed by extending and adapting Kirkpatrick’s (2007b)list of ASEAN ELF communication strategies. Ethical issueswere duly considered. A range of communication strategieswill be presented that can be incorporated into materialsand methods, which may potentially be expanded upon bydrawing on existing communication strategy research. Theimplications of such an approach will be considered inrelation to the setting of learning objectives, task andsyllabus design, and the role of teachers and students asintercultural mediators. The appropriacy of the approach indifferent cultural contexts will also be considered.

Keywords: English as a Lingua Franca (ELF); interculturalcommunicative competence; intercultural translation;communication strategies; translation studies

1

INTRODUCTIONThose who use English as a second language or lingua

franca already greatly outnumber native-speakers for whomEnglish is the first language (The University ofSouthampton, 2013), and the development of interculturalcommunication skills is vital as people from diverselinguistic and cultural backgrounds interact. Cogo & Dewey(2012) have linked English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) withintercultural communication by defining ELF as“communication that takes place among speakers from variouslinguacultural backgrounds (e.g. a group made up of anArgentinian speaker, a French speaker and a Somali speaker)interacting in English, and making use of the language as acontact language or lingua franca” (p. 26). In thisprocess, the linguistic and cultural barriers arising whenthree or more languages and cultures are in play when ELFis used need to be overcome as two or more culturesinteract through English. How should English teachersrespond?

Recognising the difficulties of codifying ELF forpedagogical purposes given the many varieties of English,Kirkpatrick (2007a) proposes a three-pronged lingua francaapproach to English language education based on the goal ofsuccessful intercultural communication that highlights thelinguistic features that can hinder mutual intelligibility,the ways in which cultures can differ and the implicationsof such differences for intercultural communication, andthe communicative strategies that can facilitate successfulintercultural communication. Seidlhofer (2011) recommendsinfusing this approach with understandings of languageawareness, communication strategies, interculturalcommunication, sociolinguistics and social psychology.

Connecting Byram’s (1997) model of interculturalcommunicative competence (ICC) with several ASEAN ELFcommunication strategies (Kirkpatrick, 2007b), this paperaims to contribute to the development of intercultural ELFpedagogy by connecting the second two components ofKirkpatrick’s (2007a) lingua franca approach through actionresearch. It explores the communication strategies neededwhen translation of culture-laden words is performed real-

2

time in ELF interaction in the classroom, and considerssome implications for intercultural ELF pedagogy.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCELanguage is influenced by the natural, social and

cultural environment and according to the weaker version ofthe Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, it shapes rather thandetermines our perception of the world, so learning foreignlanguages raises awareness “of the constraints of ourlanguage and world view and allows us to see what we havein common with other forms of speaking and thinking ondeeper levels” (Bredella & Richter, 2013: 605). Teachersneed to raise their awareness of similarities anddifferences between English varieties and explore linksbetween language and identity to equip learners to expresstheir own sociolinguistic reality through English and maketheir speech intelligible to interlocutors from variouslanguage backgrounds (Jenkins, 2006).

As the communication, identity and cultural functionsof language may each require a different variety orregister, they may sometimes “be at odds with each other”(Kirkpatrick, 2007a: 10) and ELF is likely to display lessvariation when used for international communication, whenintelligibility is prioritised, than when its use is morelocalised and the need for cultural expression and socialidentification is fore-grounded, as language use shiftsstrategically within what he calls the ‘identity-communication continuum’. However, the fact that ELF users“see the world in different ways” (Kirkpatrick, 2007a: 170)necessitates a bridging of the two extremes of the‘identity-communication continuum’ if cultural diversity isto be preserved and stimulated, rather than avoided andneglected. The need to communicate about culture andidentity intelligibly is a central priority in interculturalcommunication, especially when the cultural gaps betweenthe interlocutors are great, so ICC development is vital.

ICC has been conceptualised in terms of knowledge,attitudes, the skills of discovery and interaction, theskills of interpreting and relating, and critical culturalawareness/political education (Byram, 1997). This model

3

evolved out of an earlier ICC model (Byram & Zarate, 1994)developed for incorporation into the Common EuropeanFramework of Reference for languages (Council of Europe,2001). However, the specific focus on the socioculturalcompetence component of communicative competence to theexclusion of the other components (which were coveredseparately in other parts of the CEFR) means that researchinto communication strategies was not explicitly connectedto either of Byram’s ICC models, although they areobviously needed. So, when translation of culture-ladenwords is performed in ELF interaction in real-time, whatkinds of communication strategies are needed?

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIESSince the early 1970’s, research into language

learning strategies has been characterized by the beliefthat “learners can improve communicative proficiency bydeveloping an ability to use specific communicationstrategies that enable them to compensate for their targetlanguage deficiency” (Nakatani, 2006: 151). While thisdeficiency view of language learners is rejected in thefield of ELF with its rejection of the native-speaker asmodel, research into the communication strategies used byELF users has been conducted (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Firth,1996; Kirkpatrick, 2007b).

Kirkpatrick’s (2007b) description of the communicativestrategies of multilingual ASEAN ELF speakers includeslistener and speaker strategies, but they may not all beconducive to intercultural communication. Jenkinshighlights Seidlhofer’s (2004) point that one of the maincauses of communication breakdown is unlilateralidiomaticity which occurs when “one speaker uses a nativespeaker idiomatic expression such as an idiom, phrasalverb, or metaphor, that the interlocutor does not know”(Jenkins, 2006: 170), but Table 1 suggests thatlocal/idiomatic referents may be edited out of ELFinteraction, rather than being actively negotiated.

List of ASEAN ELF Communication Strategies

4

Strategy type (Listener)1 Lexical

anticipation Giving someone the word needed

2 Lexicalsuggestion

Suggesting a better alternative tothe word used

3 Lexicalcorrection

Correcting a misused word

4 Don’t give up Working together to understand what is being said in moments on non-understanding

5 Requestrepetition

Request repetition of the point

6 Requestclarification

Request clarification of the point

7 Let it pass Letting moments of non-understanding pass perhaps signalling uncertainty

8 Listen to themessage

Focusing on the message when the language is unclear

9 Participantparaphrase

Paraphrasing the speaker’s point by a fellow participant to help the addressee understand

10

Participantprompt

Clarifying the speaker’s point by a fellow participant to help the addressee understand

Strategy type (Speaker)1 Spell out the

word Spelling a word out loud when it

is not understood2 Repeat the

phrase Repeating a phrase when it is not

understood3 Be explicit Verbalising communicative intent4 Paraphrase Paraphrasing a point made but not

understood5 Avoid

local/idiomaticreferents

Edit out any terms or idioms that may cause misunderstanding

Table 1 List of ASEAN ELF communication strategies (adaptedfrom Kirkpatrick, 2007b).

5

In their review article, Dörnyei and Scott (1997)claim that despite the various differences betweendefinitions and taxonomies of second language communicationstrategies, researchers generally agree that their mainpurpose is to manage communication problems. Languagelearning strategies have generally been categorized intoeither achievement or compensatory strategies, or reduction oravoidance strategies (Nakatani, 2006), depending upon whetherlearners use their resources to work on a plan to achievetheir original goal, or avoid a problem by giving upon oncommunication.

Indeed, one area of convergence between three1 of thenine taxonomies reviewed by Dörnyei and Scott (1997) was “abasic duality in strategy use: strategies are used either(a) to tailor one’s message to one’s resources by altering,reducing or completely abandoning the original content; or(b) to try and convey the intended message in spite of thelinguistic deficiencies by extending or manipulating theavailable language system” (p.195). The use of the phrase“linguistic deficiencies” in the latter part isproblematic, however, partly because it implies a negativeevaluation of the learner made by comparison with a native-speaker, and partly because it ignores the difficultiescaused by culture gaps that can exist between anyinterlocutors of any linguistic and cultural background,which is problematic from the standpoint of interculturalcommunication.

The need to communicate about culture and identityintelligibly is a central priority in interculturalcommunication. For communication strategy research to beincorporated into intercultural ELF pedagogy, then, thefocus of the classroom needs to move away from “theacquisition of norms associated with a standard model”(Kirkpatrick, 2007a: 194). Intercultural speakers,including ELF speakers, need to learn to handledysfunctions and mutually contradictory meanings byactively building knowledge where it is lacking, and bydeveloping “an understanding of the beliefs, meanings andbehaviours which are inherent in particular phenomena,1 (Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1977; Willems, 1987)

6

whether documents or interactions” (Byram, 1997: 37-38).Indeed, this ability to handle dysfunctions, and mediatebetween cultures, distinguishes intercultural speakers fromnative speakers (Byram, 1997).

INTERCULTURAL TRANSLATIONAs noted earlier, Byram’s (19979) ICC model includes

the skills of discovery and interaction, and the skills ofinterpreting and relating. While the former are mostcertainly needed in ELF interaction, the latter can bedeployed when translating documents in isolation. However,when interaction takes place in real-time, the two sets ofskills cannot be treated in isolation as they becomeintrinsically linked as incoming cultural information isgathered and interpreted (Byram, 1997).

Translation is a process of replacing a text in onelanguage by a text in another language. It is not only alinguistic but also a cultural act; an act of communicationacross cultures. Translation always involves both languageand culture simply because the two cannot be separated.Language is culturally embedded: it both expresses andshapes cultural reality, and the meaning of linguisticitems can only be understood when considered together withthe cultural context in which the linguistic items areused.

Moreover, there is a long tradition in TranslationStudies to link translation to aspects of communication.The texts that are involved in translation are used bypeople in specific communicative settings for particularpurposes. Source texts (ST) and target texts (TT) functionin different communicative contexts. That is, they arereceived by their respective addressees in differentsituations, at different places and times, with theaddressees belonging to different cultures and speakingdifferent languages. They also fulfil interculturalcommunicative functions for their addressees, such asinforming, instructing, persuading, or entertaining them.

In this respect, both disciplines operate on the basisof shared assumptions, but communication is not astraightforward process of undisturbed message transfer.

7

Neither language nor culture are stable concepts or closedsystems, but rather dynamic, flexible, open systems.Communication across linguistic and cultural borders needsto recognize different cultural foundations of languages.

Translation may be defined as the comprehension of themeaning of a text, source text and the subsequentproduction of an equivalent text target text thatcommunicates the same meaning (message) in anotherlanguage. The language translated is known as sourcelanguage (SL) and the other one is target language (TL).Translation not only involves the knowledge of twolanguages but also the awareness of two cultures. Thus,translation is a means for intercultural communication.

Translation theory recognizes that different languagesencode meaning in different forms and guides translators tofind appropriate ways of preserving meaning, while usingthe most appropriate forms of each language. Among theinfluential theories of translation which suggested amethodology for translating is that of Vinay and Darbelnet(1958), who take the view that translation is easy untilyou meet lacuna or gaps where there is no direct equivalentin the TL. How should one cope with these gaps? Vinay &Darbelnet distinguish between direct and obliquetranslation methods, which many translation theorists usein work on formal correspondence and translationequivalence (Catford, 1965), formal and dynamic equivalents(Nida, 1964; Nida & Taber, 1969), semantic andcommunicative translations (Newmark, 1988), anddomestication versus foreignization strategies (Venuti,2000). The direct translation method includes borrowing,calque and literal translation techniques.

1. Borrowing entails the use of a foreign term as used inthe SL, introducing it into TL. For example: the termsperestroika and glasnost are Russian terms borrowed intoEnglish. The same applies to the Japanese and Arabicfood terms sushi and couscous respectively.

2. Calque is another word for loan translation where theform of a foreign phrase is reassembled in the targetlanguage using simple translations of the elements of

8

the original phrase. For example: the compound words‘birthday’ and ‘birth control’ are calqued into Arabicas Eid milaad [feast of birth] and taqleel an-nasl [limitingoffspring, progeny] respectively.

3. Literal translation denotes a technique similar to wordfor word translation of common phrases. Phrases like ‘Myname is John’ or ‘Leave me alone’ can be translatedliterally or word for word.

When the use of the direct method techniques fail toconvey the meaning in the SL, the translator needs toemploy other techniques of the indirect oblique translationmethod, which includes transposition, equivalence,modulation and adaptation techniques.

1. Transposition (change from one part of speech in the STto another in the TT): Where a grammatical formation inthe source language is altered. Many examples spring tomind such as ‘medical student’. The structure of thisphrase is Adjective + Noun, but when translated intoArabic, it becomes Taalib Tib [Student Medicine] where thestructure consists of Noun + Noun.

2. Modulation (change in semantics and point of view): Thisinvolves a change in the point of view of the translatorsuch as an active structure changed into passive, anaffirmative changed into negative, part into whole etc…

3. Equivalence (different languages describing a situationby different means, e.g. idioms): This technique is usedwhen there is an equivalent concept in the targetlanguage and is sometimes used to convey more complexliterary texts. One example is ‘too many cooks spoil thebroth’, translated into Arabic as ‘a vessel of twocaptains may sink’ where there are no cooks in theArabic equivalent.

4. Adaptation (changing cultural reference): This is usedwhen a cultural concept in the SL does not exist in theTL. The translator has to find the nearest or closestconcept in the TL which may have similar status to thatof the SL. For instance; if we consider football as anational game in Britain, rugby may have similar status

9

in New Zealand, sumo wrestling in Japan, Tour de Francein France.

THE STUDYAction research “combines a substantive act with a

research procedure; it is action disciplined by enquiry, apersonal attempt at understanding while engaged in aprocess of improvement and reform” (Hopkins, 2002: 42). Thephilosophical foundations of the action research studydescribed in this paper lie in Schön’s (1983) concepts ofreflection in action and the reflective practitioner, bothof which provide principled foundations for teacher-initiated research that can have an impact upon theory andpractice (McDonough and McDonough, 1997). To contribute tothe development of intercultural ELF pedagogy by connectingthe second two components of Kirkpatrick’s (2007a) linguafranca approach, the following research questions wereformulated to guide the study:

When translation of culture-laden words is performedduring ELF interaction in real-time, what kinds ofcommunication strategies are needed?

What are the implications for intercultural ELFpedagogy?

The research question was investigated in study thatwas conducted by a teacher-researcher from the UnitedKingdom based in Japan (TR1), and a guest teacher-researcher from Libya (TR2) in the first half of a fifteen-week English language course aiming to develop ICC throughELF classroom interaction at a university in southernJapan. Following a series of input sessions that included aset of presentations on various Libya-related themes by TR2in Stage 1 (Weeks 1-4) of the course, ten Japanese students(five female and five male) were asked to make ten-minutepresentations identifying similarities and differencesbetween Arab-Libyan2 and Japanese culture in pairs over a2 It is difficult to separate Arab culture and Libyan culture because the geopoliticalborders between Arab countries in the Arabian peninsula or in North Africa were non-existent during the 19th century and were only set during the 20th century, whereas Arab

10

period of three weeks in Stage 2 (Weeks 5-7). In Stage 3, immediately after making their

presentations, the pairs of students attempted to teach TR2culture-laden Japanese words to elicit translations intoArabic. In this process, students were provided withopportunities not only to discover common ground betweenthe Japanese and Arabic languages, and Japanese and Arab-Libyan cultures, but also to negotiate any communicativedysfunctions that arose.

Qualitative data from the audio-recordings of theStage 3 dialogues were transcribed and analysed usingAtlas.ti computer software. The total data stock amountedto 4959 words. While the communication strategies listed inTable 1 were used as preliminary data analysis categories,they were extended and adapted to fit the data. In theinteraction between TR2 and the relevant students, speakercodes were assigned to the transmitter of a message, whilelistener code(s) were assigned to the receiver(s) of themessage. Participant codes were assigned to third partiesto the interaction, which included other students in theclass and TR1. Ethical issues related to informed consent,participant anonymity and the safe storage of data, forexample, were duly considered and taken into account(Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000; Creswell, 2003;McDonough and McDonough,1997).

DATA PRESENTATIONIn this study, pairs of Japanese students taught TR2

what they considered to be a culture-laden Japanese word toelicit a translation into Arabic. The Japanese words arepresented in Table 2 with their translations into Arabic.(Bulleted) English translations of all the Japanese andArabic words are also provided with a list of thetranslation strategies used.

culture has existed, at least, since the 6th century. Originating in the Arabianpeninsula, Arab culture entangled with the culture of indigenous ethnic groups as itspread to North Africa. Since disentanglement is difficult, the term Arab Libyan cultureis used here to indicate this variety of culture, though it may not be an exact replicaof the Arab culture in the Arabian peninsula.

11

  Japanese words (with Englishtranslations)

Arabic translationsof the Japanese

words (with Englishtranslations)

Translation

strategies used

Dialogue 1

ごごご [goshuugi] َلة� حْ و ن�ِ [musaa’ada] مساعدة� أequivale

nce wedding present

(of money tohelp pay for thewedding)

wedding present(of money tohelp the couplebuild a family)

Dialogue 2

ごご [tanka] ة� وز� زج� [aurjuuzah] أequivale

nce traditionalJapanese poem of31 syllables

short poem

Dialogue 3

ごごご [petto] ف� لي�������� وأن� أ hayawan] .حي��������aaleef]

equivalence

pet timid animal

Dialogue 4

ごごごご [kyouiku jisshu]   ة� ة� عملي�������������� ي�������������� ب'& ر tarbiyah] .ت�‘amaliyah] calque

teachingpractice

teachingpractice

Dialogue 5

[hatsumoude] طر د ألف� [Eid al-Fitr] عي�

adaptation

a person’s firstvisit to ashrine or atemple at theNew Year

celebration ofthe end of thefasting month ofRamadan

Table 2: Translation of the Japanese words selected bystudents into Arabic with English translations andtranslation strategies used

In the transfer of kyouiku jisshu, the calque translationtechnique was used as the Japanese phrase was reassembledin Arabic using simple translations of the elements of theoriginal phrase. This is a kind of loan translation because

12

the structure was borrowed but the words themselves werenot. In the transfer of hatsumoude, the adaptationtranslation technique was used because the Japanesecultural concept does not exist at all in Arabic. Theclosest concept that could be identified in Arabic was Eidal-Fitr, which is the celebration of the end of the fastingmonth of Ramadan. However, the equivalence translationtechnique was adopted in the transfer of the Japanese wordsgoshuugi, tanka and petto into Arabic because the equivalentconcepts already exist in the receiving culture. Forexample, the Arabic equivalent for the Japanese term tanka

(31 syllable poem) is aurjuuzah ( وة� زج������� which is a short ,(أpoem. Despite their equivalence, however, the concepts arenot identical. For example, the Japanese word goshuugirefers to money given by wedding guests to help cover thecosts of the wedding, while the Arabic word musaa’adarefers instead to money given by relatives and closefriends to help a marrying couple build their new family.

In Dialogue 3, it can be seen that although theJapanese word petto was originally borrowed from the Englishword ‘pet’, students still selected it as a word thatexpressed some aspect of Japanese culture. While neitherpetto nor kyouiku jisshu can be considered exclusively Japaneseconcepts, their selection by students did highlight somedifferences between Japanese and Arab-Libyan culture. Inboth cases, however, TR2 was clearly able to rely uponprior knowledge when making the translation into Arabic.See the underlined parts of Data 1 and 2. This may explainwhy Dialogues 3 and 4 had considerably fewer turns than theother three dialogues that centred on the translation ofexclusively Japanese concepts. See Table 3.

Data 1: Dialogue 3 (petto)Student 5: A pet is an animal which makes us feelcomfortable and relaxed so…Student 6: And they are a member of our family, so we

take care of them of course every day... Can youtranslate pet into Arabic?

TR2: I can’t think of an exact equivalent, but any

13

domestic animal which could be accommodatedwithin the house, we call it a timid animal Ithink, but we do not have a specific term for petbecause we do not normally have pets within thehouse. We have timid animals around the house atthe front or at the back yard but not inside thehouse, so a pet is sort of a timid animal. We sayhaiwan alif. It’s a compound term ... I am familiarwith pets. For one year, I stayed in the studentaccommodation at London University and one of thestudents had a snake. And he feed it and takescare of it.

Data 2: Dialogue 4 (kyouiku jisshu)Student 7: Kyouiku jisshu is to practice, teaching

university students go to elementary school orjunior high school or high school, and planningthe class and do some subjects of class as ateacher. Do you understand?

TR2: Yes, I do. I think I understand that term becauseI first was trained to be a teacher at asecondary high school, and I did practiceteaching when I was still a student. I think thisis the term you are referring to. We call itpractical education. The Arabic term is terpia amelia - education practical. terpia - education and ameli - practical.

Dialogue 1

Dialogue 2

Dialogue 3

Dialogue 4

Dialogue 5

Total

TR1* 21 13 10 6 14 64TR2** 30 19 12 7 27 95Student 1

15 0 0 0 0 15

Student 2

8 0 0 0 0 8

Student 3

0 12 0 0 0 12

Studen 0 3 0 0 0 3

14

t 4Student 5

0 0 5 0 0 5

Student 6

0 0 6 0 0 6

Student 7

0 0 0 11 0 11

Student 8

0 0 0 3 0 3

Student 9

0 0 0 0 17 17

Student 10

0 0 0 0 5 5

Totalno. ofturns

74 47 33 27 63 244

Table 3 Number of turns in Dialogues 1-5 * TR1= British teacher-researcher ** TR2= Arab-Libyan teacher-researcher

In the underlined part of Data 3, Student 1 attemptedto define goshuugi. In her first turn, she providedinformation but signalled inability to express the point inEnglish by saying “hmmm”. At this point, TR2 confirmedunderstanding by saying “I got it” twice. In her secondturn, Student 1 paraphrased her first point, although shedid not know the word for (wedding) guests and used theword attendants instead. This was questioned by TR2 whorepeated the phrase to request clarification, but notrealising this, she paraphrased the point again, and TR2paraphrased to request clarification. In her fourth turn,Student 1 then corrected an apparent misunderstanding butTR2 repeated a phrase and requested clarification in hisfourth turn. This confused Student 1 prompting TR2 toreformulate his request for clarification in question-form.Student 1 attempted to answer in her sixth turn, but stilldid not know the word for (wedding) guests. Rather thanusing the word attendants as she had before, however, shepaused and other students whispered it to her in support.

15

Student 1 then incorporated the word into the seventh turnparaphrase. TR2 then attempted to confirm understanding byparaphrasing the point also requesting clarification.Although Student 1 confirmed his understanding that thepurpose of giving the goshuugi money is to help the coupleto build their family in her eighth turn by saying “Yes,that’s right”, she had earlier claimed that its purpose wasto help cover the costs of the wedding, but she let thedistinction pass perhaps not having grasped it in herconfusion.

Data 3: Dialogue 1 (goshuugi)Student 1: Attendants have to bring congratulatory gift

to the wedding ceremony. It’s called goshuugi in Japanese. It means that attendants paythe hostess by themselves so attendants candecide the amount of money…. goshuugi is money for couple and …hmmm …

TR2: I got it. I got it. Student 1: So, originally goshuugi means that attendants

pay the hostess expenses by themselves.TR2: Attendants…?Student 1: … pay the hostess expenses by themselves. So

they don’t…so they want to save the moneyfor couple.

TR2: This is goshuugi. It’s money paid for thebride to help parents to prepare her for thewedding?

Student 1: Ahh…to the couple…TR2: The couple? Paid by guests or paid by the

groom? Who paid the goshuugi? The groomfamily? Or the guests?

Student 1: Pay for the…?TR2: Who give the money? The man...husband? Orthe guests? Student 1: The wedding…Other students: Guests…the guests…Student 1: The guests. The Japanese wedding ceremony

costs too much so the guests have to help.TR2: Yeahh…contribute… Yeahh. This is a help

16

gift? The money to help them build theirfamily? Help gift? Is that right?

Student 1: Hmmm...TR2: It’s a help gift to help the couple build

their family?Student 1: Yes, that’s right. Can you translate goshuugi

into Arabic?TR2: I will try. The money given by guests is

musaa’ada. That’s the Arabic word whichmeans money to help the couple build theirnew family. Normally relatives and closefriends. In the Arab world, sometimessecretly without telling the others, closefriends and relatives help the couple buildthe new family. This is musaa’ada - help.

Various communication strategies emerged in Data 3,and the full range of communication strategies identifiedacross Dialogues 1-5 are presented in Table 4 where theyare categorized into speaker, listener and participantstrategies. It can be seen that rather focusing uponlexical or grammatical correction, the two most commonstrategies in each category were information provision (S1)and paraphrase (S2), requesting clarification (L1) andconfirming understanding (L2), and requesting clarification(P1) and verbalising communicative intent (P2)respectively. The least common strategies in each categorywere signalling uncertainty (S5) and repeating the phrase(S6), being explicit (L5) and letting it pass (L6), andparticipant lexical anticipation (P3) and participantlexical correction (P4) respectively. Further, Table 5indicates that some students used fewer strategies thanothers with Students 4, 5 and 8 only using strategiestwice, for example, while Students 10 and 9 used themfifteen and sixteen times respectively.

Speaker strategiesCode Strategy typ

e Strategy definitionNo. ofexamples

17

S1 Informationprovision

Providing new information about the target word

71

S2 Paraphrase Paraphrasing a point made but not understood by the addressee

23

S3 Correct a misunderstandi

ng

Correcting a point that hasbeen misunderstood by the addressee

9

S4 Confirm understanding

Confirming that the point has been understood by the addressee

7

S5 Signaluncertainty

Signal uncertainty about how to express a point in English

7

S6 Repeat the phrase

Repeating a phrase when it is not understood by the addressee

5

Listener strategiesCode Strategy typ

e Strategy definitionNo. ofexamples

L1 Request clarification

Requesting clarification ofthe point

53

L2 Confirm understanding

Confirming that the point has been understood

20

L3 Paraphrase Paraphrasing a point made by the speaker that has notbeen completely understood

10

L4 Repeat the phrase

Repeating a phrase when it is not understood

7

L5 Be explicit Verbalising communicative intent

4

L6 Let it pass Letting moments of non-understanding pass

4

3rd person participant strategiesCode Strategy typ

e Strategy definitionNo. ofexamples

P1 Participant Requesting clarification of 29

18

request forclarificatio

n

a speaker’s point by a fellow participant

P2 Participantbe explicit

Verbalising communicative intent by a fellow participant

25

P3 Participantlexical anti

cipation

Giving someone the word needed by a fellow participant

5

P4 Participantlexical corr

ection

Correction of a misused word by a fellow participant

1

Table 4 List of communication strategies used in Dialogues 1-5

Table 5 Number of times each strategy was used by each student

In Data 3, the Participant Lexical Anticipationstrategy (P3) was illustrated when other students in theclass gave Student 1 the word she needed, although she didnot explicitly request help. An example of the ParticipantLexical Correction strategy (P4) is presented in Data 4when Student 3 explicitly signals uncertainty (S5) by

19

Strategy codesSt.codes

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 Total

St.1 4 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 13St.2 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7St.3 2 0 3 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 12St.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2St.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2St.6 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4St.7 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 11St.8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2St.9 5 3 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 16St.10 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 15

saying in Japanese (ja nai no kana…?) [isn’t that right?],which prompted another student to give her the word sheneeded.

Data 4: Dialogue 2 (tanka)Student 3: Tanka is old poem that consists of 31 words

(laughter) (ja nai no kana…?) Another student: Syllables…

These were the only two examples of other students inthe class employing participant strategies. In all othercases, they were employed by TR1 mainly after thetranslation had been made as none of the studentsvoluntarily explored the concept any further. An example ofthe Participant Be Explicit (P2) strategy is presented inthe underlined part of Data 5, which follows on from acontinuation of TR2’s eighth turn in Data 3. Apparently notunderstanding the word ‘dowry’, Students 1 and 2 let thepoint pass as they indirectly request clarification (L1) bysaying “hmmm”. TR1 then pushed the students to stateexplicitly that they did not understand if they did not(P2). Student 2 admitted this (L5), and then Student 1explicitly requested clarification (L1), which was given byTR2 (S2) before he asked a question (L1). Although Student1 could not answer, the amount of interaction between thestudents and TR2 increased somewhat as a result of TR1’sintervention. TR1’s use of the Participant Be Explicitstrategy (P2) to support exploration of the concept is alsoillustrated in Data 6 after TR2’s tenth turn.

Data 5: Dialogue 1 (goshuugi)TR2: But there’s one thing in the Arab is that

the husband gives money to the family of thebride and this money will be given to her tobuy the things she needs and this is called dowry in English. Do they have dowry here? Ithink they do. Do Japanese husband give dowry to their wives or to their new wives? Dowry?

Students: Dowry?

20

TR2: Dowry is money given to the family of the bride, and to the bride, to buy the things they need in return for giving them their daughter.

Student 1 & Student 2: Hmmm?TR2: You see, the father and the mother…Teacher: Just a moment (to K). If you don’t

understand, say “I’m sorry. I don’t understand” (to Student 2)

Student 2: OK. I don’t understand…Student 1: Husband give money to the bride of family? TR2: To the bride’s family. Do Japanese people do

the same thing?Student 1: I don’t know.

Data 5 also illustrates how the Arabic word mahaa[dowry] also came into play once the Japanese word goshuugihad been translated into the Arabic word musaa’ada. Asimilar pattern was observed in Data 6 in relation to thetranslation of hatsumoude, for which the adaptationtranslation technique was used because the Japanese conceptis non-existent in Arabic. The underlined section of Data 6illustrates how the Japanese concepts of sanganichi […..]and shougatsu [New Year] came into play as TR2 tried tounderstand the word hatsumoude making use of priorknowledge by referring back to the students’ presentationof similarities and differences between Arab-Libyan andJapanese culture made immediately before this dialoguebegan.

Data 6: Dialogue 5 (hatsumoude)Student 9: Hatsumoude is the New Year visit to the

shrine or the temple to pray for gods. (silence)Student 9: Did you understand hatsumoude?TR2: Somehow. The day when Japanese people visit

the temple or the shrine to pray. That’s theNew Year’s Day, isn’t it?

Student 9: Uh?

21

TR2: The third day in January, the third day inJanuary, or the first day of January? Whichday in the month of January?

Student 10: Only January 1stTR2: What about number 3? Third January? What

happens on the third of January? Sangan i chi ? Student 9: Sanganichi is the…? Shougatsu is the whole

month of January. But sanganichi is the very special days .

TR2: The first day? On the calendar the arrowgoes to day 3 days?

Student 9: Three days. Ah yeah. The other days are veryspecial days

TR2: Yeah, so not just the first day. The 2nd andthe 3rd are also days of celebration.

Student 9: Yes.TR2: That’s interesting . Sanganichi …But that’s not

hatsu …? San … The three days are not the keyword. Hatsumoude . The keyword is?

Student 9: Hatsumoude.TR2: Is this the first day, or the second day or

the third day?Student 9: Oh no, no, no. First visit to the shrine or

the temple.TR2: The first dayStudent 9: For each personTR2: Yeah, the first visit…whether you go on the

first the second or the third Student 9: Yes, it dependsTR2: Hatsumoude is the event of visiting. It’s

not the day it’s the event of visiting.Teacher: Student 10, can you add anything?Student 10: Do people in Libya visit some shrine or

mosque in end of the Ramadan?TR2: They visit the mosque. Student 10: Like Japanese New Year’s Day… hatsumoude?TR2: Basically, the first day after the end of

Ramadan, people go and pray prayers of Eid al-Fitr, the prayers of the end of Ramadan.Because all the people are expected to come

22

they will not do it inside a mosque, theywill do it in an open space, public place,to have all the people, including children,and if women want to come, they sometimescome in the back rows. Yes, the womensometimes come. So it is an open place. If,like in London where there’s no space forMuslims, they do it in the mosque. I did itin the Central Mosque in London when I wasin London but in Libya, basically they do itoutside. But it’s only the first day. Youcan’t do it the second day or the third day.This is what’s called Eid al-Fitr prayer. It isobligation, a part of Islam.

Further, after the Japanese word goshuugi had beentranslated into the Arabic word musaa’ada, the attempt todistinguish goshuugi, musaa’ada and mahaa unfolded over fifty-nine turns mainly between TR1 and TR2 amounting to 960words. A similar pattern was observed in relation to thetranslation of hatsumoude as the attempt to distinguish itfrom Eid al-Fitr unfolded over thirty-eight turns mainly betweenthe teacher and TR2 amounting to 841 words. While thispost-translation interaction pattern between TR1 and TR2was observed in all dialogues except Dialogue 4, it wasconsiderably shorter in Dialogue 3 perhaps because theculture gap was much smaller as noted earlier. Notably,while these latter sections of the dialogues involveddeeper conceptual analysis of the concepts concerned, theinitial translations were not amended as a result.

DISCUSSIONIntercultural communication rooted in the exploration

of cultural difference may be seen as inherentlyproblematic, but “the constructive function of thisphenomenon, its importance for co-constructing meaning ininteraction and the crucial negotiation of meaning thisgives rise to in communication” (Cogo & Dewey, 2012: 26)deserve recognition. This paper aims to contribute to thedevelopment of intercultural ELF pedagogy by connecting the

23

second two components of Kirkpatrick’s (2007a) linguafranca approach through Byram’s (1997) ICC model byexploring the kinds of communication strategies needed whentranslation of culture-laden words is performed during ELFinteraction in real-time.

Having presented the translation strategies used ineach case in Table 2 by way of illustration, severalcommunication strategies used by ELF users in this studywere presented in Table 4, which both expands uponKirkpatrick’s (2007b) description of the communicativestrategies of multilingual ASEAN ELF speakers, andhighlights various interactional moves that can be made byELF users “to facilitate communication with interlocutorsof different linguacultural backgrounds” (Cogo & Dewey,2012: 138), although some students used fewer strategiesthan others.

The translation and communication strategies presentedin this paper can both play a role in shaping thedevelopment of intercultural ELF pedagogy if they serve aslearning objectives that can be illustrated through in taskdesign in dialogues such as the ones presented in thispaper. Existing communication strategy research may alsopotentially be incorporated if the evaluative standardsimplicitly associated with the standard native-speakermodel can be replaced with new standards aimed atdeveloping instead the ability to handle dysfunctions andmediate between cultures in intercultural ELF interaction,although even the assessment of ICC is proving highlyelusive.

What are the implications of this? A question arisesas to the level of explicitness needed. Rather thanfocusing upon lexical or grammatical correction, the mostcommonly used speaker and listener strategies focusedprimarily on providing and paraphrasing information on theone hand, and clarifying and confirming understanding onthe other. Where correction was provided, this was more tocorrect misunderstanding of content than language error.The strategies generally seemed aimed at increasing theexplicitness and clarity of propositions, both identifiedas underlying motives and adaptive processes in ELF (Cogo &

24

Dewey, 2012). Notably, however, the degree of explicitness in

strategy use seemed to vary among speakers who werestruggling to get their point across as they eitherdirectly asked for help or left others to infer that it wasneeded. Students who did the latter may have been failingto use strategies to initiate negotiation in moments ofnon-understanding (Cogo & Dewey, 2012), or they may havebeen following Japanese communicative norms related toindirectness suited to high context culture that have beenused to explain the classroom silence of Japanese students(Nakane, 2007). The cultural dimensions of communicationitself thus deserve consideration. In any case, whencommunication was breaking down, participants sometimeshelped by requesting clarification of a speaker’s point,encouraging the verbalisation of communicative intent,giving someone a word that they needed or correcting amisused word. In such ways, both teachers and otherstudents can play useful roles as intercultural mediatorseven if they lack familiarity with the cultures beingcompared.

ELF users need to make their speech intelligible toexpress their own sociolinguistic reality, and this isespecially true when the cultural gaps are great. The wordsselected for translation into Arabic by studentsrepresented varying degrees of cultural gap betweenJapanese and Arab-Libyan cultures. While the Japanese wordspetto and kyouiku jisshu served to highlight some differencesbetween Japanese and Arab-Libyan culture, they are notexclusively Japanese concepts and seemed easier totranslate as prior knowledge that was more culture-generalin nature could be drawn upon.

We saw how dialogues focusing on exclusively Japaneseconcepts were longer probably because more interaction wasneeded to compensate for the lack of prior knowledge. Wealso saw how discussion about one culture-laden word canbring others into play as prior knowledge is drawn upon tofacilitate understanding. At such times, intellectualempathy is needed as an overarching cognitive skill thatcan guide strategy use to avoid interpreting information

25

from an ethnocentric viewpoint, so meta-cognitive awarenessand control are needed. In contrast to top-down processing,through which students make use of their own priorknowledge to develop their understandings of theinterlocutor, empathy is instead a bottom-up process thatrequires students to develop their understandings of theinterlocutor’s perspective based on information gathered.The development of intellectual empathy, conceptualised asa cognitive shift aimed at accurately reconstructinganother person’s point of view free from one’s own biasesas a critical thinking skill (Paul and Elder, 2002), thusneeds to be prioritised in syllabus design.

In Houghton’s (2012) intercultural dialogue model, anoperationalized and extended version of Byram’s (1997)model designed to sequence and structure interculturalpedagogy, the skills of discovery and interaction arelocated in the listener exploration of the interlocutor’sperspective using non-judgmental, empathy-orientedcommunication strategies, while the skills of interpretingand relating come later as students perform criticalanalysis by identifying similarities and differencesbetween self and other prior to critical evaluation. Thisflow from discovery and interaction to interpreting andrelating was observed in all of the dialogues as TR1employed participant strategies after the translations hadbeen made for the purpose of detailed conceptual analysisbetween the relevant words.

While this natural flow can be used to structuresyllabus design, however, detailed conceptual analysis ofthe relevant concepts may still be required whichhighlights the need for appropriate conceptual tools.Analytical skill is certainly needed as the degree ofcultural gap affecting translation is likely to varydepending upon the words selected. While the identificationof equivalent concepts in Arabic for the Japanese wordsgoshuugi, tanka and petto reflected a degree of culturalsimilarity that seemed to facilitate communication, someconfusion also arose as the concepts are not identical. Thebiggest cultural gap was identified in the transfer of theJapanese word hatsumoude when the adaptation translation

26

technique was used to identify the closest comparableconcept in Arabic due to the lack of an equivalent.

Two cultures may be analysed and brought into relationby identifying similarities and differences, or by usingother analytical frameworks. According to Lado (1957), theunits of patterned behaviour which constitute each culturehave form, meaning and distribution that may be combined indifferent ways. Analysis of the translation of goshuugi intomusaa’ada within this framework shows that while aparticular behaviour such as gifting money may have thesame form, its meaning and distribution can differ. Theintended purpose of the gift (i.e. what it means to thegivers) can differ, as can the timing of the behaviour(before the ceremony or after it) and who specificallyperforms the action (one member of a given family or onemember of a group of friends), for example.

While this analytical framework was not used in thisstudy, it could potentially be incorporated intointercultural ELF pedagogy aimed at enhancing thedevelopment of the skills of discovery and interaction, andthe skills of interpretation and relation as they interactin ELF communication in real-time, especially in detailed,post-translation conceptual analysis.

CONCLUSIONThis study aims to promote the development of

intercultural ELF pedagogy by exploring the communicationstrategies needed when translating culture-laden wordsduring ELF interaction in real-time. A list ofcommunication strategies was presented in connection withillustrative translation strategies that reflecteddiffering degrees of cultural gap between the wordstranslated that can potentially be expanded by drawing uponexisting communication strategy research. Such strategiesmay potentially serve as learning objectives that can bepresented through illustrative ELF interaction dialoguescentring upon the exploration, translation and analysis ofcultural-laden words.

While the strategies used in this study aimed toincreasing the explicitness and clarity of propositions,

27

the cultural dimension of communication also deservesconsideration as the level of explicitness aspired to bydifferent interactants may vary in high and low-contextculture. But when communication breaks down, both teachersand other students can serve as intercultural mediators indifferent ways even if they lack familiarity with thecultures being compared.

The development of intellectual empathy should beprioritised in syllabus design as an overarching cognitiveskill that can guide strategy use to avoid ethnocentricinterpretion, especially when knowledge is lacking, someta-cognitive awareness and control are also key. Thenatural flow from discovery and interaction to interpretingand relating can be used to structure a syllabus withinwhich students not only learn about the various strategiesand their appropriateness in different cases, but also howto make detailed conceptual analysis of the relevantconcepts through to the post-translation stage throughcritical analysis, perhaps with reference to otheranalytical frameworks.

REFERENCESBredella, L. & Richter, A. (2013) Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.In M. Byram and A. Hu (Eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of LanguageTeaching and Learning, pp. 604-605. Oxford: Routledge.

Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural CommunicativeCompetence. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. and Zarate G. (1994) Definitions, objectives and evaluationof cultural competence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Catford, J.C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay onApplied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methodsin education. London; New York: Routledge.

Cogo, A. & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as Lingua Franca. Acorpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework ofreference for languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative andmixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SagePublications.

28

Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M.L. (1997) Communication Strategiesin a Second Language: Definitions and Taxonomies.Language Learning 47 (1) pp.173-210.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983) In C. Faerch & G. Kasper(Eds.) Strategies in interlanguage communication, pp. 20-60.London: Longman.

Firth, A. (1996) The discursive accomplishment ofnormality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversationanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26: 237-59.

Hopkins, D. (2002). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Houghton, S.A. (2012) Intercultural dialogue in practice: Managingvalue judgment in foreign language education. Bristol, England:Multilingual Matters.

Jenkins, J. (2006) Current Perspectives on Teaching WorldEnglishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly40(1), pp. 157-181.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007a) World Englishes. Implications for InternationalCommunication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007b) The communicative strategies ofASEAN speakers of English. In D. Prescott (Ed.) English inSouth-East Asia. Varieties, Literacies and Literatures, pp. 119-137).Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics across culture, Applied Linguistics forLanguage Teachers. Michigan: The University of MichiganPress.

McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods forEnglish language teachers. London: Arnold.

Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in Intercultural Communication.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nakatani, Y. (2006) Developing an Oral CommunicationStrategy Inventory. The Modern Language Journal 90, pp. 151-168.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire:Prentice Hall InternationalLtd.

Nida, E.A. (1964).Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden:E.J.Brill

Nida, E.A. and Taber, C.R. (1969). The Theory and Practice of

29

Translation. Leiden: E.J.Brill. Paul, R.W. and Elder, L. (2002) Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking

Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Arena: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teachingEnglish as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics24, pp. 209-239.

Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarone, E. (1977) Conscious communication strategies ininterlanguage: A progress report. In H.D. Brown, C.A.Yorio & R.C. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77, pp 194-203.Washington: TESOL.

The University of Southampton (2013), Website of the Centrefor Global Englishes. Retrieved 15th April 2013 fromhttp://www.southampton.ac.uk/cge/

Venuti, L. (Ed.) (2000) The Translation Studies Reader. London:Routledge.

Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet (1995) Comparative Stylistics ofFrench and English: a Methodology for Translation, translated by J.C. Sager and M. J. Hamel, Amsterdam /Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.

Willems, G. (1987) Communication strategies and theirsignificance for foreign language teaching. System 15,pp. 351-364.

TR2 Abubaker Al-AsswadP.O. Box : 83323Tripoli - Libya.e.mail: TR2 54@tripoliuniv.edu.ly

30