Better understanding how verbal symbols create meaning will help during the intercultural communication interview. However, there is no magic word one can use to reduce uncertainty and create a similar meaning. This chapter clarifies how language can help create a sense of connection as well as provide a barrier.
Verbal Communication Defined:
Verbal communication refers to words. Words are a type of symbol. The free, Open Education Resource, Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies (2016) explains:
Halverson-Wente photo, used with permission
Our language system is primarily made up of symbols. A symbol is something that stands in for or represents something else. Symbols can be communicated verbally (speaking the word hello), in writing (putting the letters H-E-L-L-O together), or nonverbally (waving your hand back and forth). In any case, the symbols we use stand in for something else, like a physical object or an idea; they do not actually correspond to the thing being referenced in any direct way (pp.113-114).
As noted above, “verbal communication” is our language use. In intercultural communication, there may exist either entirely different language use, a person using a second language, or even, both individuals communicating in a common second language.
Photo Submitted by Jordan Wente, used with permission
Speaking in a different language gives one a new outlook. Jordan, a Rochester Community and Technical College Alum, pursued his master’s degree in Denmark. Generally, the international university he attended used English as the common currency of language. However, as one of his college majors was Spanish, he soon found himself drawn to speaking Spanish with his classmates from Spanish-speaking countries and a special bond was made.
Language defines. The defining ability of language relates to intercultural communication and barriers, such as stigma, that language can impose. Galinsky, A. D., Hugenberg, K., Groom, C., & Bodenhausen, G. (2003) explain the power of stigma:
creative commons photo from burst.shopify.com
Stigma, according to Goffman, is an attribute that discredits and reduces the person ‘from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one’ (Goffman, 1963, p.3). Social stigma links a negatively valued attribute to a social identity or group membership. Stigma is said to exist when individuals ‘possess (or are believed to possess) some attribute, or characteristic, that conveys a social identity that is devalued in a particular social context’ (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998, p.505). Given these criteria, there are myriad groups in our own culture that tend to be The Reappropriation of Stigmatizing Labels considered stigmatized. Ethnic minorities, such as African Americans or Native Americans, persons with physical or mental disabilities, gay men and lesbians, and the obese can all be considered stigmatized groups. To be stigmatized often means to be economically disadvantaged, to be the target of negative stereotypes, and to be rejected interpersonally (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa & Major, 1998). Name calling (Smythe & Seidman, 1957) may be a favorite strategy for calling forth these harmful sequelae of stigma (pp.224-225).
Halverson-Wente submitted photo, used with permission
While stigmatizing language generally comes from persons in positions of “privilege” to define others in some way (remember social capital can equal privilege too), systematic policy, language structure, and attitudes can also create damaging language. Think of individuals with disabilities being called “crippled” or how often one hears, “Oh, that is handicapped parking.” Remember the person first – the “person with a disability” is not a “disabled person” simply. The order of the words can demonstrate an emphasis upon the person. Another example is the stigma surrounding how individuals with a mental health diagnosis are called: crazy, insane, mentally ill, nuts, loco, etc. Moving past the stigmatized “other” and into a healthy image means re-evaluating the language used to name, define, detain, diagnosis, and otherwise label others. We live in an era where preferred pronouns or other inclusive language choices are often quickly dismissed as politically correct and careless. Moreover, “Can’t you take a joke?” statements come from our own leaders after making racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or otherly offensive phases. Making a personal choice to avoid words that cause offense or poorly define others is one way to practice compassion and intercultural communication competence.
Galinsky, A. D., Hugenberg, K., Groom, C., & Bodenhausen, G. (2003) further examine how labels can be “reappropriated” to change the meaning of the word, if only for the person themselves:
creative commons photo from burst.shopify.com
Given that to appropriate means “to take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself,” we consider reappropriate to mean to take possession for oneself that which was once possessed by another, and we use it to refer to the phenomenon whereby a stigmatized group revalues an externally imposed negative label by selfconsciously referring to itself in terms of that label. Instead of passively accepting the negative connotative meanings of the label, …[one can reject] those damaging meanings and through reappropriation imbued the label with positive connotations. By reappropriating this negative label, …[one can seek] to renegotiate the meaning of the word, changing it from something hurtful to something empowering…[Such] actions imply two assumptions that are critical to reappropriation. First, names are powerful, and second, the meanings of names are subject to change and can be negotiated and renegotiated (p.222).
Reappropriation of language is often confusing and nebulous. As one mindfully decides (or not) to use terms in new ways, remember, many times others outside a peer group, co-culture or culture may not understand. For example, the true meaning of a female calling another female friend a “bitch” to reappropriate the term and give it a “hip” or “warrior-goddess” sound might be lost on the average passerby who might, then, believe it is acceptable for him or her to likewise use such language.
