Cross- cultural Communication This page intentionally left blank

Language
Language is a matter of custom, courtesy and taboo as well as meaning. 
A concept that appears simple to one mentality can cause confusion in 
another. (Binyon, 2001)
As discussed in Chapter 4, English is practically universally accepted as the 
foremost working international language, although it faces challenges in 
this respect from Mandarin and Spanish. Difficulties with language and 
interpretation can cause problems in negotiation – see, for example, the 
exchange between the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and 
the then President of France, Francois Mitterrand, who appeared not fully 
to understand a point, when Thatcher said at an EU meeting: ‘We are using 
the same words, so why do we have so much misunderstanding?’ The gist of 
Mitterrand’s reply was that he was French, but that Thatcher always insisted 
on speaking English. Not everyone speaks English fluently or indeed neces-
sarily wants to speak English.
Cohen (1999) emphasizes that
cross- cultural differences occur in the 
meaning of such words as ‘justice’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘leader’, ‘corruption’, 
‘democracy’ and ‘intervention’. A word or phrase meaning one thing in 
one culture can mean something very different in another culture. A classic 
example is the emotive word ‘crusade’, used by many in the West without 
any historical significance – for example, ‘a crusade against poverty’. In a 
very different context, namely the war in Iraq, the word ‘crusade’ was seen 
as extremely provocative because of its historical connotation by Arab coun-
tries. As Szaly states: ‘The idea itself does not really travel, only the code – the 
meaning that a person attributes to the words received will come from his 
own mind. His interpretation is determined by his own frame of reference, 
his ideas, interests, past experiences, etc.’ (1981: 135).
Michael Binyon (2001) quotes the case of a fast and essentially literal 
translation of the new use of an everyday word which has become a political 
cliché. He refers to the US proposal to use new ‘smart sanctions’ against 
Saddam Hussein. However, the Arabic translation was that ‘smart’ meant 
‘intelligent’ and ‘clever’ rather than ‘technically more accurately targeted’. 
This gave rise to the implication that the existing sanctions were stupid.

---

The Effect of Culture on International Negotiations 167
Diplomacy is said to be the art of linguistic invention. In diplomacy, 
language is sometimes referred to as ‘diplomatspeak’. This is an interna-
tional code of language perfected over centuries. It is very often deliberately 
opaque, using jargon and words such as ‘appropriate’, ‘apposite’, ‘full and 
frank discussion’, ‘matters of mutual interest’ and recently ‘coalition of the 
willing’. Often ‘yes’ may mean ‘perhaps’ and ‘perhaps’ may mean ‘no’, but 
to say ‘no’ is undiplomatic.
The word ‘sorry’ is associated in some Eastern cultures with blame, loss of 
‘face’ and even humiliation and guilt. As a result, the Japanese have found 
difficulty in finding a phrase that expresses an apology for some of the 
events in the Second World War which does not convey humiliation when 
used in Japanese.
It should be emphasized that when we are using English as native speakers, 
we should make every effort to use clear, simple and unambiguous English, 
remembering to:
avoid slang, jargon, metaphors and acronyms;
speak more slowly than usual without appearing patronizing;
avoid complex sentence structure and the use of double negatives;
use both verbal and written summaries as appropriate;
use simple visual aids to reinforce key points and have copies available 
for distribution.