LINGUISTICS, STYLISTICS AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

Indirect vs. Direct Communication: Steps in

Becoming Culturally Intelligent
Claudia E. Stoian

Abstract:
The paper brings into discussion the importance culture plays in
communication, and highlights the necessity of training students in cross-
cultural communication. Focusing on an important dichotomy in
communication styles, i.e. indirectness vs. directness, it proposes possible
activities to do in language and/or translation and interpreting classes. Their
purpose is to culturally intelligent, particularly by drawing their attention to
cultural differences in communication, and helping them to acquire knowledge
to anticipate differences, practice mindfulness and develop cross-cultural skills.
Keywords: cross-cultural communication, indirect communication, direct
communication, cultural intelligence, training

The world we live in nowadays has become a global village, where

information travels by speed light and distances are reduced to
minimum. It seems that “[w]henever we read a newspaper or watch
television or buy a product from the grocery store we find ourselves in
this global village” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 5). Therefore, even if we
do not travel around the world, the world comes to us, since we interact
with people from other cultures and participate in international
transactions (Thomas & Inkson, 2017).
Communication has adapted and/or updated to the present-day
society requirements, and, at the same time, has become more
complicated. Considered “the fundamental building block of social
experience” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 77), it is used in every aspect of
our lives, from personal affairs to work and leisure. No matter the
simplicity of the process itself, i.e. that of transmitting and receiving
pieces of information, the meaning conferred by it and its interpretation
may lead to misunderstandings or failures of communication. As pointed
out by Thomas & Inkson (2017: 77), “communication failure is by far
the most common explanation” “when it comes to figuring out what
goes wrong in life”. For example, the same researchers argue that the

 Assistant Lecturer PhD, Communication and Foreign Languages Department,

Politehnica University of Timișoara, claudia.stoian@upt.ro

93
typical problems in companies are not related to technical or
administrative issues but to people interacting inadequately, indicated by
bad teamwork, poor leadership or personal conflicts.

1. Communication and culture

Communicating across cultures poses more problems than
communicating within the realms of one’s own culture, since the codes
and conventions shared are no longer or not totally valid. Since
communication is influenced by culture and vice versa (Stoian & Șimon,
2017, Şerbănescu, 2007), the differences existing in terms of culture
between the interlocutors “threaten communication by reducing the
available codes and conventions shared” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 79).
These differences are considerable and operate “at all levels of
behaviour, verbal and non-verbal” (Archer et al. 2012: 225), affecting
thus people’s ability to communicate.
One of the many existing definitions of culture and the one adopted
in this paper follows Hofstede’s theories (1984), considers culture as a
series of shared mental programs which guide and influence people’s
behaviour. It seems that “culture is inherent in everyday behaviour […],
but such behaviour is controlled by deeply embedded mental programs”
(Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 21). In other words, culture guides humans
through life. As individuals, people make their own choices, which are,
however, expressed within the parameters set by their particular cultures
(Culturewise, 2015).
On the present-day international stage, one culture appears to be
more and more dominant and influence all the others. The English
language has become “the lingua franca of global business and
education” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 12), while the American culture,
by means of Mcdonalidization, consumption and mass communication
(Ritzer, 2019; Thomas & Inkson, 2017) has reached almost every corner
of the world. Convergence of the world’s cultures is envisaged by many.
However, the slow pace of change plays an important role against
convergence and globalization. Regardless of the rapid modernisation
and change the world is living, “culture is slow to change” (Thomas &
Inkson, 2017: 29) and “convergence probably tak[es] place only in
superficial matters such as business procedures and some consumer
preferences” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 12). Moreover, change may be
“often recontextualized to fit preexisting cultural patterns” (Thomas &
Inkson, 2017: 27).
As mentioned earlier, culture influences the way communication
takes place within our own society and outside it. One well-known and
thoroughly studied distinction (Hall, 1997, 2000; Hall & Hall 1990,

94
LINGUISTICS, STYLISTICS AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

Peace corps, 2011, Samovar et al., 2010; Stoian, 2015, forthcoming) is

that between indirect and direct styles of communication.

1.1. Indirectness vs. directness in communication

Certain cultures, particularly many Middle Eastern and Asian
cultures, adopt a more indirect style of communication. In these cases,
“the context is more important – for example physical setting, the
previous relationships between participants, and nonverbal behaviour”
(Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 84) than the content, as people are
preoccupied with avoiding embarrassment and saving face. Context has
to do with “the amount of innate and largely unconscious understanding
a person can be expected to bring to a particular communication setting”
(Peace Corps, 2011: 78). As such, interlocutors do not say what they
mean, since they know and understand each other quite well and the
way interactions unfold; they imply meaning, with the aim of not
hurting people’s feelings and maintaining harmony (Hall 1997; Peace
Corps, 2011; Stoian, 2015).
At the other end of the continuum, there are the cultures, usually
Western ones, that put emphasis “on the content of the communication –
the words” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 84) instead of the context,
preferring to say the truth and to “use explicit, direct, unambiguous
verbal messages” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 84). Interlocutors do not
have to look for implied meaning or read between the lines as they say
exactly what they mean and the other way around, the focus being on
honesty, truth and the exchange of literal information (Hall 1997; Peace
Corps, 2011; Stoian, 2015).
The dichotomy in the styles of communication is usually linked to
the importance of saving face and to the context of communication. The
associations go even further, as the indirect style of communication is
usually encountered in high-context, homogeneous, collectivistic, high
power distance cultures, whereas the direct style is typical of low-
context, heterogenous, individualistic and low power distance cultures
(Neuliep, 2006; Peace Corps, 2011; Şerbănescu, 2007).
This classification is clear cut, but real-life situations and cultures
are not so easily classified. The two ends of the continuum are extremes;
communication takes place in between them. People use both types of
communication styles in their own culture, depending on the context of
situation. Nevertheless, “the tendency to prefer one style of behaviour
over another is widely reported to vary across cultures” (Culturewise,
2015: 10), as indicated by the research consulted in the intercultural
field (Hall, 1997, 2000; Hall & Hall, 1990; Peace Corps, 2011; Samovar
et al., 2010; Stoian, 2015, forthcoming). This means that
misunderstandings and misinterpretation may arise when people from
different styles communicate, as the codes and conventions known
95
change and become unpredictable and/or confusing. Moreover, in face-
to-face communication, understanding may be guided by gestures and
clarified by questions or repetitions, but, when it comes to writing,
things get more complicated. One such example is the e-mail, which
relies on turn-taking, leaving almost no room to implicit meanings
(Thomas & Inkson, 2017).
Understanding the different styles in communication and being able
to communicate in another style than the one known “may sometimes
involve learning another code” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 84). This
indicates that training in the field is needed. Acquiring another code may
be done by oneself, based on experiences and reading, or by trainers in
formal settings.
Within the framework depicted so far, the present paper aims to
highlight the necessity students of foreign languages and of translation
and interpreting have to become aware, learn and master techniques that
may turn them into better communicators and lead to a successful
communication across cultures. For this, it, first, proposes a model for
acquiring cultural intelligence (Thomas & Inkson, 2017) to be adopted
by trainers and then, presents several exercises to do in language classes
in accordance with the model.

2. Training cross-cultural communicators

Despite the rapid changes and modernisations of our times, culture,
as mentioned earlier, has a slow pace in adopting and adapting
modifications. As such, learning cultural features is not in vain. As
stated by Thomas & Inkson (2017: 159) “[f]or the foreseeable future,
cultural differences will remain a key factor in interpersonal
interactions”. That is why, language students need to learn not only the
foreign language but also the “silent language of [its] culture” (Peace
Corps, 2011: 2). Cross-cultural training, either as a separate discipline or
within the language/specialised class, should increase students’
awareness and understanding, while providing them with a set of skills
to use in real-life situations. In order to avoid future failures in
communication, language teaching needs to focus more on cultural
aspects. Usually, the “focus on words and grammar often crowds out
pragmatic and social considerations” (Archer et al., 2012: 225).

2.1. Cultural intelligence – a model

Thomas and Inkson (2017) propose a model to follow with the aim
of becoming cross-culturally competent or culturally intelligent, as they
call it. Cultural intelligence or CQ (Earley, 2002; Earley & Ang, 2003)
is compared with the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the emotional
intelligence quotient (EQ) by the researchers, as it “describes and
96
LINGUISTICS, STYLISTICS AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

assesses the capability to interact effectively across cultures” (Thomas

& Inkson, 2017: 15).
Cultural intelligence is defined as “being skilled and flexible about
understanding a culture, interacting with it to learn more about it,
reshaping your thinking to have more empathy for it, and becoming
more skilled when interacting with others from it” (Thomas & Inkson,
2017: 14). It includes three interrelated aspects, as presented in Figure 1,
namely knowledge – regarding cultures, cultural variations and how
they can influence behaviour, mindfulness – reflective and creative
attention paid both to cues in communication and to one’s own feelings
and knowledge, and cross-cultural skills – competency across different
situations by choosing the appropriate behaviour from a repertoire of
intercultural possibilities.

Figure 1. Cultural intelligence (CQ)

(Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 15)

In other words, a culturally intelligent person has “the knowledge to

understand cross-cultural phenomena, the mindfulness to observe and
interpret particular situations [and] the skills required to adapt behavior
to act appropriately in a range of situation” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017:
20). As stated by Thomas and Inkson (2017: 15), “[t]he process of
becoming culturally intelligent involves a cycle or repetition in which
each new challenge builds upon previous ones” so that both general and
specific cultural intelligence is acquired simultaneously, each future
challenge becoming easier to deal with.

2.2. Teaching activities

As indicated by Thomas & Inkson (2017: 16),

[c]ultural intelligence is not difficult to understand but is hard to learn and to put
into practice on an ongoing basis. It takes time and effort to develop a high CQ.
Years of studying, observing, reflecting, and experimenting may lie ahead before
one develops truly skilled performance.

97
 The authors reflect on the types of formal training available and
link them to their model. The following different types of trainings and
methods that develop a particular aspect of the CQ are mentioned:
- books, lectures, films and area briefing, which provide factual
knowledge about cultures,
- case studies, discussions and culture-training manuals, which
offer analytical insights into culture-general and culture-specific
knowledge, as well as the chance to practice mindfulness, and
- simulations, role-plays, field trips and actual intercultural
experience, which give the opportunity to practice both mindfulness and
behaviour skills, while experiencing emotions of cross-cultural
interaction (Thomas & Inkson, 2017).
The present paper combines area briefing, case studies, discussions
and simulations in order to introduce students to and train them in the
two different styles of communication presented above, namely indirect
and direct communication. The activities are designed following the
three aspects of the cultural intelligence model, i.e. knowledge,
mindfulness and skills.

2.2.1. Activity 1: Exemplifying cultural misunderstanding

Firstly, students are presented with an instance of real-life
communication between persons using different styles.

Committee Meeting (adapted from Peace Corps, 2011: 88)

John: How did it go with the committee members?
George: A lot easier than I was expecting.
John: Really? Did you ask about buying the new equipment?
George: Yes. I explained we had to have it and told them how much it would cost.
John: And?
George: There was no discussion. They said fine and asked me to move on to the
next item.

Then, students are asked to think whether this instance is an

example of successful communication. They are guided towards
realising that George, being American, expects people to tell others the
truth, even in front of other people during a meeting. This is not
customary in less direct cultures, as the one where the meeting was
taking place, which usually try to avoid public confrontation. In brief,
one of John’s mistakes is that “of assuming that no comment means
approval […], and that a person who says ‘fine’ is pleased.” (Peace
Corps, 2011: 240).

98
LINGUISTICS, STYLISTICS AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

2.2.2. Activity 2: Understanding indirect and direct communication

Following Thomas and Inkson (2017: 13), the first step towards
gaining cultural intelligence is “[u]nderstanding cultural differences
between cultures and how those differences affect behaviour”. The
characteristics of the indirect and direct styles of communication are
summarised in the next exercise. The activity focuses on the differences
between the styles, making students aware of their own style and of that
of others.
Students receive the following set of statements, and have to decide
whether they apply to indirect or direct styles of communication.

Characteristics & Behaviours (Peace Corps, 2011: 79)

1. Communication is like that between twins.
2. People are reluctant to say no.
3. You have to read between the lines.
4. Use of intermediaries or third parties is frequent.
5. Use of understatement is frequent.
6. It’s best to tell it like it is.
7. It’s okay to disagree with your boss at a meeting.
8. “Yes” means yes.
9. “Yes” means I hear you.
10. Communication is like that between two casual
acquaintances.
11. It’s not necessary to read between the lines.
12. People engage in small talk and catching up before
getting down to business.
13. Business first, then small talk.
14. Lukewarm tea means all is not well.
15. Lukewarm tea means the tea got cold.
16. People need to be brought up to date at a meeting.
17. People are already up to date.
18. The rank/status of the messenger is as important as the
message.
19. The message is what counts, not who the messenger is.
20. People tell you what they think you want to hear.

After verifying the answers to the exercise with the class, the
students have to group the characteristics for the two types of
communication. The statements numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18
and 20 are typical of indirect communication, whereas the others, i.e. 6,
7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are typical of a more direct style of
communication. Then, they are asked to think which type they use. The
students are expected to choose the indirect one, as Romanian culture is
considered to favour indirect communication (Şerbănescu, 2007).
99
 2.2.3. Activity 3: Mindfulness in cross-cultural interactions
Mindfulness in cross-cultural communication is, according to
Thomas and Inkson (2017: 50), “simultaneously paying attention to the
external situation, monitoring our own thoughts and feelings, and
regulating the knowledge and skills we use”. Students are asked to
consider the next example:

We are in a meeting and I have just proposed a project. Jane keeps repeating that
she doesn’t like it. She is American and she doesn’t understand how things are
done here. We don’t say things so directly, going around hurting people’s feelings.
I just can’t stand it anymore. I am about to leave the room, providing an excuse
that I have some urgent task.

They are asked to think if the reaction is due to cultural differences

in style of communication. Students are indicated that the person telling
the story acted mindlessly, i.e. based on routines, being inflexible to
changing situations. Next, they are advised to become mindful and see
how the situation can be improved, paying attention to a different style
of communication than their own, namely direct.
After a few minutes of brainstorming, the students’ various
perspectives are discussed in class. In the end, the teacher may propose
the following situation:

We are in a meeting and I have just proposed a project. Jane keeps repeating that
she doesn’t like it. Probably this is due to her cultural background. She must
believe her behaviour is ok and that is why she keeps insisting on saying what is
on her mind. I am sure her aim is not to offend but to express herself. I will try and
discuss openly her points and see whether she has also some solutions. Maybe,
something good will come out of this situation.

2.2.4. Activity 4: Performing directness

Knowledge and mindfulness are not enough for mastering cultural
intelligence as they exist in the mind of the person. They are put into
practice by skilled behaviour, which seems to be related to general
skills, such as “relational skills, tolerance for uncertainty, empathy,
perceptual acuity, adaptability” (Thomas & Inkson, 2017: 55). The
exercise proposed here (adapted from Peace Corps, 2011: 97) aims to
make students think about how they could become more direct in their
communication styles.
The students receive several indirect statements and have to explain
them in a more direct language:

1. This proposal deserves further consideration.

2. I know very little about this, but ....
3. We understand your proposal very well.
100
LINGUISTICS, STYLISTICS AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

4. We will try our best.

5. I heard another story about that project.
6. Can we move on to the next topic?

A first example is provided to them:

That is a very interesting viewpoint.

This can mean ‘I disagree with you’, and be rephrased as ‘I don’t

agree’, ‘We need to talk more about this’ or ‘You’re wrong’.
Students’ answers are discussed one by one, paying attention to
context and politeness details.

3. Conclusion
The present paper has emphasised, if emphasis were needed, the
importance culture plays in communication. It has focused on a main
dichotomy of communication styles, namely indirectness – directness.
The paper pointed out that learning a foreign language has to go hand in
hand with learning a culture, especially in the case of students of a
degree in languages, linguistics and translation and interpreting. With
this purpose, the cultural intelligence model has been briefly described
and proposed as a guideline to follow in class. Possible exercises to
acquire knowledge to anticipate differences, practice mindfulness and
develop cross-cultural skills regarding the indirect and direct styles of
communication have been proposed.
To conclude, communicators and other professionals dealing with
different cultures must pay attention to other codes and conventions than
the ones they are used to. As summarised by Thomas and Inkson (2017:
14), people “must become flexible and adapt to each new cultural
situation with knowledge and sensitivity”.

REFERENCES:

Archer, Dawn, Aijmer, Karin, & Wichmann, Anne, Pragmatics: an advanced

research book for students, New York, Routledge, 2012.
Culturewise, Understanding Cultural Awareness and Cross-Cultural
Communication Skills, London, Culturewise Limited, 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.culturewise.net/about/cultural-awareness-training-resources/ (Date
accessed March, 1, 2020).
Earley, Paul, Redefining interactions across cultures and organizations:
Moving forward with cultural intelligence, in Research in Organizational
Behaviour, 24, 2002, p. 271–299.
Earley, Paul, & Ang, Soon, Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across
cultures, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2003.
101
Hall, Edward, Beyond Culture, New York, Doubleday, 1997.
Hall, Edward, Context and Meaning, in Samovar, Larry, & Porter, Richard
(eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 9th ed., Belmont, Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 2000, p. 34–43.
Hall, Edward, & Hall, Mildred, Understanding Cultural Differences,
Yarmouth, Intercultural Press Inc., 1990.
Hofstede, Geert, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1984.
Neuliep, James, Intercultural Communication, 3rd ed., London, Sage
Publications, 2006.
Peace Corps, Culture Matters: The Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workbook,
USA, Peace Corps Information Collection and Exchange, 2011.
Ritzer, George, The McDonaldization of Society: Into the Digital Age, 9th ed.,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 2019.
Samovar, Larry, Porter, Richard & McDaniel, Edwin, Communication between
Cultures, 7th ed., Boston, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010.
Stoian, Claudia E., The Discourse of Tourism and National Heritage: A
Contrastive Study from a Cultural Perspective, Newcastle upon Tyne,
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015.
Stoian, Claudia E., Language and Image: Advertising Discourse across
Cultures. Szeged, JatePress, forthcoming.
Şerbănescu, Andra, Cum Gândesc şi Cum Vorbesc Ceilalţi: Prin Labirintul
Culturilor (How others think and speak: Through the labyrinth of cultures),
Iaşi, Polirom, 2007.
Thomas, David, & Inkson, Kerr. Cultural Intelligence. Surviving and Thriving
in the Global Village, 3rd ed., Oakland, CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.,
2017.

102