Tag Archives: intercultural communication

How to adjust your international language

Posted on

When I saw this interview with Roger Federer the other day, I couldn't resist but share it in my facebook group Multilingual Families.

It is a perfect example for why, when we use our language in international settings, we shouldn't assume that sayings, metaphors (and abbreviations!) are universal.

 

 

In this particular example, Roger Federer made it very clear that "his mind went blank" when the journalist asked him if " (his) absence (on Centre Court) made the heart grow fonder (to come back, playing at Wimbledon)" applied to him too.

Let's have a look at the interview:
Journalist: "...is it true what they say that absence (is) making the heart grow fonder, being back here?"

Roger Federer: "I, I... sorry I didn't understand it." (look at his smile, he puts the arms behind his back, smiles to the public) "I heard that something absence, then, I don't know... my mind went blank-"

Journalist (smiles and repeats slightly louder): "I..Is it true they say about absence making the heart grow fonder and being back on Centre Court?"

Roger Federer (still his arms behind his back, shakes his head, looks into the public...): "I don't understand that saying..." (laughs and the public laughs with him; he looks at the interviewer) "My English is not good enough" (continues smiling and laughing...)

Journalist: "Fair enough... So, basically, having missed out last year [Federer: "Yes..."] away from this place for two years, how special is it to be back here?"

Roger Federer: (nods, puts the arms in front of him again) "Yes, there you go (public laughs, then claps, Federer crosses the arms in front of him, touches his face and waits until the public calms down) A good reminder my English is not very good but it's ah... (Journalist: "It's better than mine!") no, no no...  Ah, no, look, ah... I think we're all very happy, all the players, I think including all the fans and the organizers and everybody... that we get a chance to black ah... playing again back on tour overall. Especially here in Wimbledon and plus with the crowd, it would have been the worst to have this term with no fans. This would have been ... absolute killer... (cheering from the public) but it's ah...(applause and cheering from the public). That's... it's... it's such a privilege to play here. (puts his arms again on his back) Look, I couldn't be more excited. I made it after a long hard road last year and so forth, but ah... I'm happy I get a chance for a second match and I'll see how it goes, but I hope everybody else is having a great time (puts his hand up on the side) but even though it's raining but that's normal so (puts his arms on his back again, smiles, nods and talks to the public; the public is cheering) I'll see you at the second round".


This kind of mis-communications happen all the time in international settings (and not only in international settings) for the simple reason that we usually assume that the way we express ourselves is "clear enough", that the other person will understand what we mean and how we mean it. I like to quote Karl Popper: "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood". The same applies to the receiver: you can not assume that you'll understand everything the other person says. Not because you are not "good enough", "fluent enough" (whatever that means!!) in the language, but because the context, the word choice and the intonation, articulation, the use of sayings, metaphors etc. usually allows multiple interpretations and can be misleading.

In this particular situation, the interviewer could have explained what he meant immediately, without putting Federer on the spot. He could have rephrased it, paraphrased it, made an example... But he assumed that Federer "zoomed out" for other reasons – like acoustics, short distraction or because he was tired – and repeated exactly the same question.

Now, in this kind of situation we all know that some people would just ignore, do as if they understood something else and answer whatever they want to share, without letting the other person know that they didn't understand.
It requires a high sense of loyalty towards the interviewer and self confidence to react the way Roger Federer did. His English is very good and the way he reacted was top. After saying that he didn't know the saying he added "my English is not so good" – like an excuse. For this last comment or self-judgment people on twitter said that "he might have British humor after all". I think it has more to do with Federer being used to international settings and not taking this kind of situation too seriously, not personally. Federer is perfectly able to laugh at himself – a skill that comes with being multilingual and multi-cultural.

It is always ok to ask for clarification, no matter if in a private conversation or, like here, in front of a big public and when we're put on the spot. Roger Federer, who is perfectly capable of adjusting to the British communication patterns, gave the journalist the chance to reformulate the question by saying overtly what happened: his mind went blank which means: "something triggered my mind to go blank, aka, I didn't understand what you just said...".

This is a very polite and indirect way to signalize that one needs clarification. People who are used to "reading the air" or "reading in between the lines" would have reacted accordingly, without putting him on the spot. But in this particular situation, the journalist assumed that this meant that Federer didn't "hear" him (acoustically). He took it at face value, i.e. that Federer really didn't hear what he just asked, and chose to repeat the question. Let's not forget the situation: the journalist knew how fluent Federer is in English and didn't assume that he wouldn't be familiar with the saying and, he most probably expected a more direct hint.

Federer realized that the journalist didn't understand and specified why his "mind went blank" by adding that he didn't understand that saying. 

Now, one can be quick at judging the journalist and saying that he didn't manage to understand what went wrong. But when Roger Federer said that he didn't know the saying and that his English wasn't "good enough", the journalist replied that "it's better than mine".

I think most people who listened to this interview didn't understand what the journalist wanted to point out here: he realized that he didn't manage to adjust his language in this interviewee, and caused what could have been a very embarrassing situation for Roger Federer. He apologized in his own way. He emphasized with Federer's situation and quickly positioned himself and his English "under" the level of comprehension of his interviewee, which, in my opinion, saved the situation.

When the journalist explains what he means, Federer says "there you go", triggering the public to cheer, and relaxing the situation that could have been quite embarrassing. By responding in this colloquial way, Federer showed his flexibility and capacity to steer the interview back to where it was.

You can tell that I am a fan of Roger Federer – not only because he is Swiss! – but that's not the reason I chose this example. I think we should always look at both participants in a conversation: how are they adjusting to the other's way of communicating? 

 

I train internationals and those who work with internationals, become internationally fluent or multi-competent in international settings.

There are very effective strategies one can learn to master this kind of situation with dignity, without loosing the face, self respect and the trust of the other person, exactly how Roger Federer and the journalist did in this example.

In every conversation – and interviews are conversations! – both interlocutors need to adjust their "communication game" to the situation. I like to compare turns in a communication to a tennis game, where you want to have "many successful turns" (without dropping the ball...) and where the pass to the other player can trigger some new reaction, a new way of playing/communicating that you may not have explored yet, but that makes it fun and entertaining. Like every effective communication we want it to be enjoyable and to have a positive outcome for everyone involved.

 


My questions for you:

  • Does it happen to you that in one or more of your languages you don‘t get certain meanings/allusions etc?
  • How do you respond? Do you feel inadequate, or blame yourself?
  • Do you adjust your language to your interlocutor? If so, by doing what exactly?

 

Please let me know in the comments.

 

 

Finger-counting across cultures

Posted on

[update May 2023]

Finger-counting varies considerably across cultures, and not only: it can vary within a same culture too!

 

The following examples present conventional finger-counting systems in several countries.

 

I asked in my facebook groups – and among speakers of different languages in my community – about how people count with their fingers and compared their responses with what I read and observed about this topic.


In countries like Germany, France, Italy etc. it seems that people start counting with the thumb (=1), adding one finger at each number up to five. Some say that in Spanish one would do the same, but when asking Spanish speakers, they said that they would rather follow the US way of counting, where the number one is indicated with the index finger, and one continues counting by adding the other fingers, with the thumb as number 5.

In the picture below, the number 4 is indicated with the thumb down. When counting from 1-5 in German, one would rather keep the little finger (pinky) down. But when indicating "4" as for example when ordering 4 coffees, use the thumb down like illustrated in the picture.

Although some people from the UK seem to count in the same way as in the US and China, it seems that counting starting with the thumb is equally acceptable. – Please have a look at the last video in this post about this.

 

In Japan, the finger counting system proceeds the opposite way. Instead of showing the numbers by raising the fingers, it is the fingers that are hidden in the hand that indicate the number. You start with the thumb and hide the next fingers in the hand while counting upwards until the closed palm indicates number five. 

 

 

Two or not two...

The way to indicate "2" could cause some misunderstanding if someone who is used to count in Chinese is shown a German "2" with the thumb and the index finger, because this would mean "8" in Chinese finger counting (see here below). I find it very interesting (and helpful!) that in Chinese one can count up to 10 by using one hand only!

 

When indicating number "2" in the UK following the US way (with index and middle finger) one should be careful not to turn the palm towards oneself, inwards, as that gesture is or was (!) perceived as an insult in the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Although this gesture seems to loose its offensive connotation, it is advisable to avoid it when in international settings. The origin of its meaning is uncertain. Only in recent years the origin of the V-sign dating it from the Battle of Agincourt has appeared. "The story maintains that British archers were so effective and so feared by their enemy that when the French captured an archer they chopped off the two fingers he needed to draw a bow-string. Bowmen who had not been thus disfigured took to holding up two fingers to taunt their cowardly foes." (see Oxford Reference) Another explanation wants the V-sign "a development from the much older horns symbol (...)"


The V-sign with the palm away from the gesturer has multiple meanings: it indicates the number 2, victory (since the WWII) and peace (since the 1960ies).

 

 

The finger counting in India

Finger counting in India goes a step further as per finger one can count up to 4, and therefore count up to 20 with one hand only. In this article you can find a short video about different types of finger counting across the world. Prof. Andrea Bender from the University of Bergen (Norway) has done some research about culture and cognition, and the way people count with their fingers across cultures.

 

"In the past, researchers have believed that finger counting, and especially the way that we do it in the West, is essential for children when they start to learn counting, and when they try to grasp what numbers actually are. One reason for casting doubt on that is that there is so much cultural diversity in how fingers or body parts are used for counting."

 

When considering the many different ways to use fingers for counting across cultures and eras – think about the way Romans used to count! – and the way numbers are signed in Chinese, shows that there is much more to this than meets the eye.

Finger-counting differs between regions, ethnicities, and historical periods


In war times, differences in counting were used to distinguish nationalities. In Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards there is a scene where a spy outs himself by ordering a drink with three fingers up — his index, middle, and ring finger. A German would have ordered “three” with the index, middle finger, and thumb extended. 

 

Scene of Inglorious Basterds 

 

Have a look at this short video where people around the world show how they count with their fingers. I assume that this all changes when we indicate the finger with the index of the other hand though. What do you think?

 

 

 

 

If you want to know how Romans used to count with their fingers...:

 

 

 

 

Ken Powell from Write Out Loud was so kind to show us his various ways of counting with fingers.

  • When indicating "first thing... second thing...etc."  starting with his little finger and using the index finger from his other hand to count up to 5, with pointing at the thumb for last.
  • When pointing out a "first task... second task... etc." he'd start with the index.
  • When counting to himself and using one hand he would start with the thumb.
  • When counting in Bangla, he would count with the thumb of the same hand, counting 4 per each finger, i.e. up to 20 on one hand.

 

I haven't even shared how people count and do maths in India and other countries, as this deserves a separate post...

 

In international settings at school or at work, I find it is important to understand the different finger-counting systems to avoid misunderstandings. Teachers who adopt translanguaging practices in class, shouldn't assume that their pupils count in the way their parents do: they might count like their peers in class just because they are used to doing maths in the school language. Some children switch ways to count with fingers when switching languages, whereas others adopt one "universal" way to count with their fingers. 

 

How do you count with your fingers?
What about your friends and colleagues?
Do your children use the same finger counting across all their languages?
Please share in the comments!

 

I recommend also reading this article mentioned above.

Please read also my other post about What is your maths language?