This paper addresses, from a European perspective, the issues raised in a joint session of the back-to-back EAIE-CIEE (European Association for International Education/Council on International Educational Exchange) conferences, held in Barcelona, Spain, from November 18-22, 1997. The session, entitled «Global English: the only future?», dealt with the following questions: (i) Is English, as a modern lingua franca, an appropriate means of interaction among people from different linguistic backgrounds or is it becoming a threat to cultural diversity? (ii) Are there other ways to communicate in a globalized community? (iii) Does the use of English distort communication across cultures resulting in inaccurate comprehension?First and foremost, it must be noted that the term «global» is attached only to English … in English only! This double fact seems to underline both the uniqueness of this language and the tendency for many Anglophones, and for quite a number of unaware non-native speakers of English, to equate uniqueness with uniformity. In the European context, this confusion, be it intentional or not, poses a threat to cultural and linguistic diversity, which is the quintessence of European identity. We may also argue, to set the tone for this article, that global English is very different from British English, and that, as such, it turns out to be the official language of no European nation. Besides, ironically enough, global English has estranged the British themselves from the rest of Europe. Most Britons, indeed, because of speaking an allegedly universal language, hardly ever feel the desire, much less the need to learn another European language. To be sure, this must be considered as one of the major paradoxes of a language that is purportedly aimed at making people from all over the world, including Europeans, understand and communicate with each other. In an article titled «A faraway continent of which the British know nothing?», published in the Opinion section of the Times Higher Education Supplement (8 August 1997), John Reilly, Director of the UK SOCRATES-ERASMUS Council, criticizes the Dearing report which ignored British participation in European mobility schemes. He asks : «What impact will this [report] have on the UK role in Europe? How will it enhance the opportunities for young people if they find that, in the European environment in which they will spend their working life, they are increasingly handicapped by linguistic incompetence and lack of experience of living and working in another European country?»

The need or desire for a global language goes back to the dawn of times; there have been previous attempts to overcome linguistic differences such as the Babel Tower and Esperanto, both of which were doomed to failure. Global English offers a new twist to this utopia, albeit along somewhat different lines. Indeed, global, again, but on whose terms? The question is all the more relevant as a language is intricately bound to a culture. Can the same be said of global English? What culture is it anchored in? A global culture? If so, whose culture has been globalized along with the language?

It would be meaningless to discuss «global English» without first seeking to dissipate the ambiguity that the phrase «English language» conveys. Our contention is that English is indeed ambiguous, in that it is a multi-purpose language with three distinct statuses.

First of all English, like every other language, reflects the cultures and mindsets of its native speakers. The British, Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. speak their own forms of English which unite them as specific peoples while distinguishing them from each other. Parenthetically, even as a native language, English, like French, Portuguese and Spanish, is not homogeneous. Indeed, these four languages were exported from Europe to other parts of the world through colonization, and were made to evolve as a result of new geographical, historical and cultural realities. Ambiguity is already inherent in this first dimension of English; this common language would seem to build bridges between the Anglophone peoples, but its various native varieties also create boundaries among them due to cultural differences.¹

Non-native varieties of English make up a second category. By these we refer to local variations of the language found in several countries where English, the native language of a privileged few, is either the country’s official language or a common second language, or the means of communication with all foreigners. None of these NNVE’s are European: they can be found in India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, Nigeria, Uganda, etc. The former colonies have integrated the colonizers’ language, transforming it from a second or foreign language into their own primary one.

As for so-called «global English», one cannot help but wonder, considering today’s historical, political and economic context in Europe, why and how English has been let to become a universal lingua franca. For it has, to such an extent that even in France, where a difficult battle has been fought to promote the French language in and out of Europe, the current Minister of Education, Claude Allègre, asserts that English can no longer be regarded as a foreign language. For a European, the question is doubly relevant, first because English is the mother tongue of but one nation -Great Britain- out of the fifteen nations currently composing the European Union, and the thirty-odd countries in greater Europe who hope to become members in the near future, and second because other European languages, such as French, German and Russian, could historically claim equal status as «federating languages».

The answer, as ever, lies in history. The English language was exported by English immigrants to North America and other parts of the world. By dint of several military victories, and the diplomatic leverage consequent on them, England managed to impose its rule and its language on much of the globe. More specifically, when it comes to the USA, England built a cultural and linguistic bridge between the Eastern and the Western shores of the Atlantic Ocean. After the independence of the USA in 1783, the new nation, which was to be built by successive inflows of immigrants from diverse linguistic and cultural origins but in search of a common ideal, had to find an element of cohesion. The English language served that tremendous purpose to the detriment of cultural and linguistic diversity. Thirsting for freedom and self-fulfillment, immigrants did not think twice about discarding their cultural identity. Indeed what is the melting pot but the one and only path to complete integration? Indeed, what has come out of it is Homo Americanus, a hybrid creature whose original inherent diversity has been melted down to uniformity. Nonetheless the immigrants’ languages managed to reshape and transform the original English language, making it more flexible and open to change. This new language, commonly referred to as «American English», crossed the Atlantic back to Europe in the twentieth century, notably after World War II, in a new form distinct from British English.² This distinction had already been modeled by one and a half centuries of immigration, new values and lifestyles, all of which had been set against the backdrop of a unique geographical environment. American English, as it came to be termed, now established itself as the language of a nascent economic, military, and diplomatic superpower. The emergence of the United States on the world scene, and its subsequent ambition to have, as President Reagan put it, «the splendors of our natural ressources spread across the tables of the world »³ , proved an ideal boon to the dissemination of American English. True, having to play a game whose rules were set by the USA, the people of the world came to use the language that these rules had been written in, much to the helpless dissatisfaction of former world rulers like Great Britain and France. However, at a time when shattered Europe was busy picking itself up from the rubble of war, and collecting the pieces of its ruined economy and society, many were content with having to speak a language that embodied a new, easier lifestyle, even if this language was opportunely filling the vacuum left by the other federating languages, namely French, German, and even Russian (the Soviets imposed their language on the satellite countries for whose populations English became the language of freedom). From then on, the USA, boosted by the Cold War, established its economic, diplomatic and cultural domination over much of the planet. The soldiers who liberated Europe, then the Marshall Plan and its future corollaries, proved instrumental in spreading American language and culture.

The de facto adoption of American English by non-Anglophone people around the world, and even, to a lesser degree, by non-American Anglophones, was necessary in order for them to function as adequately as possible in an economic and cultural environment where traditional boundaries were being pulled down. The globalization of trade, of the economy, and of the American way of life, in short their «Americanization», was expressed, ushered in, and supported by the specific language that reflected the mindset that had produced them.⁴ The use of American concepts, imported verbatim into other languages, bears witness to the specific meaning of words, and to their dependence on a particular reference system. For example, the word «business» evokes intense activity and a specific approach to time, which are far from being universally shared. Glen Fisher, who served as a U.S. Foreign Service officer, suggests that the word ‘business’ « connotes ‘busyness’, doing things – and that is good. One is going about one’s business, is getting down to business, is responsible for attending to one’s work responsibilities; one is not loafing or pursuing pleasure before the business at hand is completed. (…) In Spanish, [however] the word is ‘negocio’. Here (…) the value is turned around. The key is the ‘ocio’ part of the word, which connotes leisure, serenity, time to enjoy and contemplate as the preferred human condition and circumstance. But when harsh reality forces one from one’s ‘ocio’, when it is negated, then one has to attend to ‘negocio.’ The subjective meaning is obviously less positive than in English ».⁵

The cultural specificity of universalized American concepts led the French linguist Claude Hagège to refer to global English as «américain de commodité» -American of convenience- in his thought-provoking book, Le souffle de la langue : voies et destins des parlers d’Europe.⁶ Indeed, we may contend along with him, that using a concept as such rather than trying to translate it, is a much easier and convenient, if not a wiser way to handle new and inescapable, albeit strange realities. In so doing, one wittingly accepts the fact that «a global economic power is just as determined to promote its language as it is to conquer markets for its products (, and that) the two are in fact closely bound, for the exporting of the language opens the road for the exporting of goods».⁷ The acceptance is all the less difficult as «of all the languages in the world, English happens to be the language that best adapts to emerging needs, and is the first to express them (…) Hence English conveys contemporary needs, whether natural or artifically created; by spreading everywhere it obviously spread those needs»⁸ The Marshall Plan, which came in as a blissful conclusion to World War II, not only helped Europe recover from the war, but it also created new needs, expressed by new concepts, which permeated European and other cultures in times of psychological and economic frailty.

Today, we believe, one should reach beyond the concepts themselves, and consider the whole syntax of the language, as is appositely suggested by the English philosopher J.L. Austin and the French linguist André Martinet. The former posits that some statements are neither true or false, that they establish nothing in particular, but that they actually do things: they are actions unto themselves. Austin distinguishes three different aspects of speech act: locution itself, simply saying something, then perlocution, which is the effect produced by the saying of things, and illocution, which is the act itself as produced by speaking.⁹ The latter states that language is behavior. A language, he contends, reflects, up to a certain point, the conceptions or the human behavior of the society that speaks it.¹⁰ If using language is acting, with reference to specific conceptions and behaviors, then it should be easy to understand that acting within a particular reference frame is impossible if one does not master the corresponding language. One telling and familiar example of what it is possible to achieve through language are the many student exchange programs that actually get off the ground thanks to careful and accurate negotiation and grant writing. Extending this view to global communication, the new world order, which has been willed and masterminded by the USA, and accepted willy nilly by a huge number of other nations, is one that is difficult to take part and be active in if the global «américain de commodité» that underlies it is a language with which one does not feel comfortable.

And so, as a matter of course, after being established as the overriding language of worldwide entertainment, business, science and the like, American English has laid the groundwork for further cultural expansionism. After global entertainment standards and global markets, the time has now come for global communication, that is, global action through global language. Again, communication on a world scale both reflects and suits the specific mindsets of its promoters. Electronic mail and the Internet, for example, are privileged means to exchange information in real time, and act accordingly, that is, efficiently. Now, efficiency and saving time are by no means concepts that are universally recognized as positive values. Mediterranean peoples, for instance, have been made to act and interact in a global context in a way that is not at all in-keeping with their own «laid back» cultures. Moreover, the language that is used to communicate, and therefore to act globally, via electronic mail and the Internet, hopefully in one’s own legitimate interests, is more often than not English. When English is not used, because the interlocutors have chosen to use a different language, the latter has to be defaced for technical reasons : accents are not allowed, and only the Latin alphabet can be used, which compels Greeks, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. to transcribe their language in order to comply with these norms. Besides, «fast-track English» comes along with its own code of ethics and courtesy, which dismays many; the conventional «(best) regards», or «warm wishes», for instance, is just not felt by the non-native speaker who automatically types in a good-looking formula at the end of his electronic messages. Even worse, these new fast-track communication tools further alienate the non-native speakers of English, especially those whose command of the language is inadequate. Instead of bringing people together, more and more are left by the wayside. The American journalist Flora Lewis suggests that even « English-speakers will be the losers if their Internet victory leaves them mute in other languages». ¹¹ Here is another astounding paradox for a language that is meant to facilitate communication and interaction on a world scale! The paradox, we can safely argue, may be intentional this time!

Even in traditional communication situations, for example face to face or telephone conversations, or conferences, negotiations, publications, etc., non-native speakers are always at a decided disadvantage. Language is not the only stumbling block: culture is an additional hurdle. In effect, and quite understandably, non-native speakers of English keep thinking in their own language and trying to express their specific mindset in a language not ideally suited to this task. When dealing with a native speaker of English, their effort to make themselves understood in a language not their own should be shared and commended by their interlocutor. The latter should admit that (s)he is in a privileged position and act accordingly: speak slowly, articulate, choose appropriate words, avoid slang, jargon, and complex sentence structures… A sympathetic native speaker will do so spontaneously, making up for the language imbalance thereby showing respect for otherness and fully acknowleding parity of status.

However, this is usually not the case. The native speaker either through unawareness, or deliberately, to be sure to get the upper hand, will make no allowance for the non-native speaker’s disadvantage. This attitude, the mirror image of a complete ignorance of other languages and cultures, has given Anglophones, especially Americans, a reputation for ethnocentricity. Because they already master English, as a birthright, because they think the world looks up to them as a model and that they are invested with a civilizing mission, they feel no need to learn other languages and to experience other cultures. In his second inaugural address, President Clinton stated that the 20th century is «the American Century (…) America became the world’s mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long cold war; and time and again, reached across the globe to millions who longed for the blessings of liberty (…) America stands alone as the world’s indispensable nation».¹² This quotation, like the whole address, goes beyond simple patriotism; one can, indeed, sense ethnocentricity in the President’s discourse. Moreover, Bill Clinton refers to the «rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity», but never once mentions language diversity, which, as everyone knows, is a real issue today, not only in the world but in the USA, too. The condescension that transpires through Bill Clinton’s speech came to the fore during the «G8» summit that was held in Denver, Colorado, in July 1997. Everyone remembers Clinton’s « cowboyism », and Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl’s point-blank refusal to dress up as cowboys. The incident, which may have raised a smile around the world, revealed American «triumphant rhetoric and condescension»¹³, as the American journalist Charles Trueheart puts it.

The European Union has bravely set itself a unique goal that will be difficult to attain: to create political, economic and social unity through genuine cultural and linguistic diversity. This is a challenge for all the nations of Europe. The uniqueness of this challenge stems from the specific nature of Greater Europe. There are over 60 languages spoken within a well defined geographical area, each with its own culture and traditions. Some languages have been dominant in the past, others dominated or repressed, but most have survived to the present day in both an oral and a written form. The countries making up the European Union have had fairly strong identities within relatively constant areas. The countries of eastern Europe have had successive waves of invasions which have shifted boundaries and territories. Language has always played a crucial role in defining the specific identity of each nation. For example, even a supposedly common language can hide very different aspirations. Take Serbo-Croatian: 1 hyphenated language, 2 alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic), 3 cultures… Hence the novel challenge for Europe is to encompass each and every one of these nations within a common entity, Europe, preserving, promoting and thriving on cultural and linguistic diversity.

Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Claude Hagège points out that the Jews were precursors of the ideal European citizen. Because of successive persecutions and exiles they lived in different cultural environments and had to speak many languages: Yiddish, German, the Slav languages of Central Europe, Spanish for the Sepharad Jews. Aside from all other considerations, the Holocaust was also disastrous from a linguistic point of view. The extermination of millions of Jews, who had become language nomads and polyglots by necessity, also proved a tragedy in this respect. The challenge for Europe in the 21st century is to reinforce its cohesion by teaching as many languages as possible to today’s schoolchildren, i.e tomorrow’s citizens, who will then become polyglots by choice.

Though English is not mandatory in the schools, it is, by far, the foreign language chosen by the vast majority of pupils. Without denying the importance of English, two other categories of languages should be supported by the educational systems and the legislators to create a more balanced and equitable situation for all. The first one is languages spoken in neighboring countries, natural partners for trade and recreation: these languages will obviously be more useful for personal and professional life than English. The second one is the other federating languages, French, German, Russian and Spanish, mentioned earlier.

In this context, we cannot and should not be content with a supra language coming from elsewhere. Globalization, if it is to happen on the terms of only one culture and one language, will negate the originality of Europe. Global English is not European and is not suitable for Europe inasmuch as it is «extracultural». By extracultural we mean a language severed from or deprived of a familiar or easily identifiable cultural backdrop. To an overwhelming majority of Europeans, English is an extracultural language because it is a language they use more or less adroitly by piecing together words and phrases, and which does not reflect their intrinsic mindsets. What most of them do not even realize, or do not bother to give a thought to, is that they are at a constant disadvantage when it comes to communicating in English for professional purposes. A common language is obviously necessary, but it should be made to vary according to the specific communication situation. Global English should not be imposed in situations where people communicate with their immediate neighbors, which is very often the case in Europe. Whatever common language seems most appropriate should be chosen. English may or may not be this language.

We have attempted to show throughout this paper that, from a European perspective, global English has no raison d’être. First for historical reasons: as Claude Hagège aptly contends, «Europe, unlike the United States, is not a new land where immigrants have made a single language a factor of unity over and above their diverse origins. European states have long forged their identities on the basis of cultural traits deeply rooted in languages.»14 Secondly, for cultural reasons, as linguistic and cultural diversity is the foundation stone of European identity. Claude Hagège again insists that «because Europe is diverse through its languages, it gives its inhabitants the authority to embrace the diversity of the world. Hereby, Europeans should be in a position to escape the dangers of monolingualism, a serious threat to the United States, because of blindness to the needs of the other, which can be brought about by the exclusive attachment to English. As citizens of a multilingual land, Europeans cannot but hear the polyphonic clamor of the languages of mankind. Being attentive to the other speaking his own language, such is the prerequisite for building solidarity with more concrete substance than speeches of propaganda».¹⁵ The point, therefore, at least from a European perspective, is not simply to try or to pretend to understand each other, but to fully get through to each other’s cultures, to build on these cultures, and to ultimately produce an interdependent community that is inherently enriched by its differences.

Finally, to sum up, we shall once again quote Claude Hagège : «The Europe of languages has a destiny of its own, and should not look to foreign models for inspiration. As opposed to the United States where the adoption of a single language appeared to each new immigrant as a seal of identity, the originality of Europe stems from the diversity of languages and of the cultures which these languages reflect. The domination of a single language, such as English, cannot help fulfill this destiny. Only a permanent opening onto multiplicity will. The European will have to bring up his sons and his daughters in language variety, not in unicity. Such is for Europe the call of the past and the call of the future».

References:

1. See Lewis, Richard D. When Cultures Collide. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 1996.
2. For a concise description of the differences between British and American English, see R.D. Lewis, op. cit., pp. 108-109. See also Hagège, Claude. Le souffle de la langue: voies et destins des parlers d’Europe. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob, 1994. pp. 49-51.
3. President Reagan’s « Thanksgiving Day Proclamation », November 1987.
4. For more details on the relationship between language and mindset, see Kakouridis and Magnan’s article: «Language and Beyond: Cross-Cultural Awareness Through Language Learning », in Journal Of International Education, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1997).
5. Fisher, Glen. Mindsets. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press, 1988. pp. 148-149.
6. The Breath of Language: Paths and Destinies of the Spoken Languages of Europe. All the quotations from this book have been translated from the French by the authors of this article.
7. Hagège, op. cit., p. 42
8. Hagège, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
9. Austin, J.L. How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.
10. Martinet, André, in Linguistique et communication. Lausanne: Editions Grammont S.A., 1975. p. 85. See also Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964.
11. Lewis, Flora. « When ‘Everybody’ Is Speaking English, Something Is Lost », in The International Herald Tribune, Summer 1996.
12. President Clinton’s second Inaugural Address, January 20, 1997.
13. Trueheart, Charles. « France: Going Its Own Way, Despite Global Economic Trends », in The International Herald Tribune, July 15, 1997. Note how the title of this article speaks for itself.
14. Hagège, op. cit., p. 272.
15. Hagège, op. cit., p. 275.

Any study of the interactions inherent in managing international relations necessarily implies an analysis of the crosscultural environment in which an International Relations Office performs its task and accomplishes its missions. Paradoxically enough, culture is what binds us together but, at the same time, it is what keeps us apart. It is precisely this duality that we would like to explore in this presentation as we study the intercultural problems encountered in the running of an international office.The very words « intercultural problems » imply an interference between our cultural background and that of our international colleagues. One of the harshest realities of intercultural incomprehension is the natural tendency to contrast the « others’ » cultural framework to our own. This results in a systematic juxtaposition of « us » and « them ». These two frameworks cannot, however, be understood separately because the latter is developed as something we « know » as seen from our own cultural framework. It is, if you like, a mirror image that only provides us with what we want to know or accept about ourselves. Ideally our own culture must not to be taken as the standard or « right » one while we look at the rest of the world as having « strange behavior ».

Misunderstandings often arise from our lack of understanding of the « cultural mindset » of those we interact with. Here is a very telling example of cultural « interference » and its effects on a student:

« All this morning, » said Akibombo mournfully,  » I have been much disturbed. I cannot answer my professor’s questions good at all. He is not pleased at me. He says to me that I copy large bits out of books and do not think for myself. But I am here to acquire wisdom from much books and it seems to me that they say better in the books than the way I put it, because I have not good command of the English. » (1)

This quotation comes from the work of an author whom we identify with the study of crime and its effect on human nature. In this passage, Agatha Christie introduces an African student who is studying in London. She evokes Akibombo’s different cultural view of plagiarism, which is generally defined as the unauthorized and unacknowledged borrowing of another’s words and ideas. When treated at the hands of the queen of crime, plagiarism can been seen in a very different and intercultural light. Perhaps Agatha Christie with her in-depth evaluation of human nature, would have also made an expert at intercultural communication!

Language is a vehicle for communication since it is the most visible and available expression of a culture. The way an individual thinks, acts or feels; the way he or she communicates, views the world about him or her and the way an individual identifies him or herself are all affected by a transition from one culture to another. This creates what theory now refers to as cultural bias. Running international exchanges necessitates a constant cultural shift as we strive to contain our cultural bias by attempting to find inroads into the cultural framework of the person we are dealing with.

Any activity we undertake is weighed down by our own cultural bagage and by our language. In our roles as directors or coordinators of international exchanges we are confronted daily with problems of a cultural nature either within our own institutions or within the framework of our contacts with international colleagues or students. In order to understand how we handle these problems and in order to better appreciate the cultural expertise required of the successful international exchange officer, we would like first to examine his or her constantly evolving role.

In the « ancient » times of the pre-ERASMUS program, a professor was sometimes called upon to receive international students in the classroom or in the laboratory. With the advent of the mobility scheme called ERASMUS, great numbers of students began arriving in our institutions and funding became available for student mobility and for the administration of the exchange programs financed by the European Community. It was at this time that the role of « international exchange coordinator » was created. Professors, with no reduction in their teaching load, then became Erasmus coordinators called upon to supervise the exchange of students with their own institution’s partners as well as becoming « accountants » responsible for the payment of student scholarships and the maintenance of strict accounting procedures to respect the guidelines set out by Brussels for each ICP contract it funded. As the flows of students increased, the professor turned administrator/accountant was increasingly being sollicited as a « psychologist »/hand holder » for the incoming international students and for his or her outgoing study abroad students. It became apparent that students were ill-prepared (both linguistically and culturally) for their study abroad period and, at the apparition of their first difficulties, they immediately went to see the exchange coordinator in the host institution and contacted the « sending professor » from their home institution. Students have too widely differing language and cultural preparations for their period of study abroad. These range from no preparation at all or often hastily thrown together pre-departure orientations, to well thought-out cultural modules or ideally, courses.

Thus, in addition to already heavy teaching and research loads, the professor-administrator-accountant-hand-holder began spending time counseling disgruntled or homesick students. These professors, specialists in their respective fields, are not trained as intercultural specialists. They may even have been « victims » of cultural misunderstandings in their dealings with fellow professors or administrators in their partner institutions. Suddenly, the tables were turned on these professionals trained to impart information to students. They found themselves not only taking on added tasks, but also being transformed into self-taught and makeshift students of intercultural communication themselves. As specialists of cross cultural communication and international relations office management, it is our responsibility to make ourselves heard by decision-makers not only in our own institutions but also in the European Commission. Due to the quantitative and qualitative development of educational exchanges which are the prerequisite of true European citizenship, it has now become imperative that the promotion of language and cultural competencies become an integral part of the mission of each and every international office across Europe. In some countries inroads have been made to achieve this integration whereas in others much remains to be accomplished.

Besides problems of dwindling budgets, demanding students, timetable juggling, financial reporting, etc. there are numerous problems of an intercultural nature that are encountered in the running of the international office. These are the most difficult to resolve because they necessitate cultural insights (foresight and hindsight) which are far more subtle than the purely administrative tasks of the international office.

Before looking at what we call « international intercultural problems » we propose to begin our focus with some of the often forgotten cultural problems that we have come to terms with in our own institutions.

Cultural clashes are not necessarily international. Take, for example, the coexistence and often, mutual misunderstanding, of the scientific and the humanities cultures within our higher education institutions. This could be generalized as the opposition of the scientific culture, characterized by the « brevity + directness = efficiency » formula that sometimes omits accuracy and refinement, to the humanities culture which sees the scientific « lack of eloquence » as being equal to the omission of important information. Scientists, more often than not, are unaware of the fact that they impart their knowledge through language and that language cannot be separated from culture since it reflects particular thinking patterns. They denigrate the role of language teachers whom they see as « bilingual babysitters » and promote science as the only important element in a student’s education. Language teachers are humanists and have, by the very nature of the bilingualism/biculturalism of their training, an intercultural outlook on education and see their contribution as helping to make the student « a citizen of the world ».

Again within our own institutions, each International Office or other administrative office faces having to deal with the « cultural » chasm which often exists between academics and administrators. Each thinks that the other is contriving insurmountable obstacles to foil the plans of the other. In most cases, this is remedied by installing a good level of communication between the administrator and those being « administered ». The centralized international office is perceived to have structural power over the different university departments due to its control of financial resources and information.

There are thus undeniable differences between, on the one hand, the « cultures » of scientific and humanist academics and, on the other hand, between the « cultures » of academics and the culture of administrators. The academics are in daily contact with the international students and are the first ones consulted by these students when problems arise. They see things in the light of their scientific specialties and often in the light of the demands made on the time that they normally devote to research and teaching and that qualifies them for promotions within their scholarly ranks.

On the other hand, administrators are concerned with the cost effectiveness of international exchange programs and often do not realize the significant personal input of the professor when he or she is not primarily an administrator. The transformation and absorption of the ERASMUS program into the new SOCRATES program has brought with it even more clashes between the two « cultures ». Whereas previously the professors were individual administrators of each ICP, the new SOCRATES program requires each university to have a central office responsible for the administration of all the international exchanges taking place with the various departments of the university. Overall responsiblity has thus been centralized in all institutions be they large or small. This was immediately seen by the professors as a bureaucratic effort to give them all of the work and none of the credit for handling international exchanges. Thus, intercultural misunderstandings need not be international in scope!

Besides dealing with « internal » intercultural realities, we are called upon to reckon with intercultural problems on an international scale. In International Offices the old proverb « Seeing is believing » becomes the intercultural proverb « Experiencing is learning ». We have all been faced, at one time or another, with situations in which we cannot understand the reaction or response of an international colleague. Some of the more common cultural differences encountered in the running of international offices are examined below.

Let us start by looking at the person responsible for the International Office. In most large French educational institutions, the person officially in charge is a professor promoted to the position of Vice President for International Relations. How close this person is to the daily running of individual exchange programs is what differs from one institution to another. Most of the time, however, the international office is managed de facto by full time administrators who do all the real work behind the scenes, and do not get all the credit that they so rightfully deserve. That being said, there are mammoth institutions both in France and elsewhere in Europe where full-time professors are heads of these offices but spend their time primarily in their classrooms or laboratories. When such is the case, administrators in the international offices of partner institutions abroad can be faced with a slow response time to problems or requests because no immediate contact with the professor-administrator can be made. Because of infrequent and/or irregular presence of the head of the International Office, the daily running of the office is entrusted to individuals who are not authorized to make important decisions. This leaves international colleagues perplexed as to the degree of importance given to the international office in their partner institutions. In other words, if I can’t get someone on the phone to immediately resolve a problem, how can I be perceived in my own institution as being efficient when this problem is seen to drag on? More importantly, why doesn’t my partner institution feel that international exchanges are important enough to confide the running of the international office to a full time administrator, i.e. someone immediately available to respond to requests or problems? Cultural differences both within our institutions and beyond do, indeed, come into play here.

Time, and how it is viewed, can also be an intercultural problem encountered in the running of an international office. Differences in the treatment of time is one of the most often cited sources of misunderstanding between peoples of different cultures. Here in Europe, this has led to the opposition of cultures of the « North » to cultures of the « South ». In his book entitled The Hidden Dimension (2), Edward T. Hall examined the influence of time across culture. He distinguished between « monochronic » which he called « M-time » and « polychronic » which he called « P-time » treatments of time .

In our case, The M-Time can be seen to be the Northern European culture and the P-Time, the Southern European culture in international offices. In M-time cultures, things are taken care of one at a time. Time is linear and segmented. People in M-time international offices like events to be scheduled and they are often distracted or distressed by unplanned and unforeseen interruptions. In general, they have a more immediate time-related response to faxes, electronic mail and phone calls, which are regarded as « urgent » top priority requests and must therefore be treated without delay. But these are requests that can be « budgeted » in terms of time and can then be turned into planned events.

On the other hand, P-Time is characterized by many things happening at once and P-Time individuals have a much more loosely defined notion of what is « on time » or what is « late ». Interruptions are a fact of daily life in these international offices and delays are to be expected. Deadlines never have anything of the word « dead » in them and human activities do not proceed according to a well-defined and linear scenario. The notion of what is « urgent » is thus very different. This P-Time culture consequently can explain the « cultural » clash between administrators of « Northern » international offices who consider that faxes require an immediate reply and administrators of « Southern » international offices for whom time is not linear and who are engaged in many activities at the same time and therefore do not see why one activity should be given any more « urgency » than another.

Another of the major intercultural problems that international offices must deal with is the range of grading systems used throughout Europe. Students who study abroad return home with transcripts of their grades as given in the host institution and seek home institution validation for the coursework accomplished abroad. Should we go by the straightforward ECTS grading scale which, if easy to handle, remains inaccurate or incomplete since it makes a clean sweep of the cultural dimension inherent in a professor assessing an international student or an international student being assessed by a professor from a different cultural background? Or conversely, should we officially recognize and take into account the added difficulty of successfully studying in another language and culture?

The importance grades have on a student’s career is a cultural phenomenon in itself. In Germany, for instance, grades appear on a student’s diploma and thus, students register to take exams only when they feel that they are properly prepared to take them. On the other hand, in France, students only strive to obtain the minimum passing grade that will enable them to obtain their diploma. This is because their employers will never see their grades since they are not mentioned on the diploma.

As a general rule, individual coordinators and/or universities have established their own assessment procedures for recognizing course and project work done abroad by their students. These procedures, which have evolved over time, range from block recognition of the work to direct grading equivalences for each course. These systems have been somewhat complicated by the recent introduction of double diploma schemes such as that of the TIME network (Top Industrial Managers for Europe) where two continuous years of study abroad lead to the obtaining of engineering degrees in both the home and the host institutions. Within this network both grading and course equivalence procedures have had to be worked out. In other words, we have had to work out the cultural differences of grading systems to handle the credit transfer between two institutions as well as establish waivers for course requirements taking into account work already accomplished in the home institution. Here the problem has been to overcome the common reaction: « No course could ever replace mine! » All of this has been accomplished without having recourse to the European Credit Transfer System which did not exist when many of our double diploma exchanges were created. It remains to be seen whether ECTS will be a cultural « help » or « hindrance » in the pursuit of these double diploma or other exchanges since, under pressure from Brussels, most of the twenty-five universities which are members of the TIME network have had to incorporate ECTS into their SOCRATES institutional contracts even though the course requirements and grading equivalences had already been worked out.

Another intercultural problem encountered in the running of international offices is the way information is treated. Here the word intercultural assumes its double meaning – inter-culture as in the opposition between the culture of academics and that of administrators and inter-culture as in between cultures. In France, for example, to possess information is to possess power. Sharing information puts you on the same foot as the one with whom you share the information. If you practice information retention, then you can be seen as being superior to the other because you know something that he or she does not. Unfortunately, information is frequently not shared between academics and administrators because each feels that the other will gain the upper hand. What then suffers from this lack of information sharing is the quality of the international exchanges and, perhaps, even the reputation of the institution.

Another problem encountered by international exchange coordinators is the enormous differences in the reasons for internationalization of the university or for international mobility. Some establishments seek numerous bilateral exchanges because they see them as a means to increase their status and give publicity to the institution. Others see internationalization in purely mercantile terms and seek to increase their enrollments with fee paying students since ERASMUS/SOCRATES exchanges provide clauses for compulsory tuition waivers. Still others have the ingrained attitude that teaching is less « international » than research, that « noblest of all callings »!

In dealing with our international colleagues we must keep in mind that their reactions are often produced by the university « culture » that is their working environment. In other words, their decisions and/or actions may often be based on university politics rather than on a cultural heritage. To this university « culture » we must add intercultural differences which automatically cause us to see internationalization in a different light.
__________________

As has been shown in the first part of this paper, the international relations manager is faced with cross-cultural problems, not only when dealing with his/her counterparts in foreign institutions, but also, and perhaps more significantly, when trying to interact with other members of staff in his/her own institution. Short of finding solutions to this intricate knot of cross-cultural problems, it will be extremely difficult to set up and develop a truly effective and satisfactory international policy. Suffice it to remember that European unity is at stake, so that the cross-cultural challenge is for each and every institution across Europe to take up.

We will now present a few « interculturally correct » solutions to the problems identified previously. Before doing so, however, it is necessary to define such fundamental concepts as « culture », « self-awareness », and « cross-cultural competence », as these concepts underpin our approach, and as people have too often come to use them without being fully aware of their meaning.

Culture : – A set of material and ideological phenomena which distinguish an ethnic group, or a nation, a civilization from any other group, nation or civilization : Western culture. We consider the following as material and ideological phenomena : language, thinking patterns, mindsets, reference systems, religion, political and socio-economic systems, social behavior and interaction, uses and customs, the arts, clothing, food and cuisine…

- In a social group, set of signs typical of someone’s behavior (language, gestures, clothing, etc ) which set off members of one social group from another.

This essentialist definition should be considered alongside a more existentialist one, where culture is also defined not only as somebody’s identity, as dependent on the aforementioned elements, but also as the way this identity is expressed and asserted as a function of one’s interlocutor’s culture. For instance, somebody’s  » Frenchness  » will not be vindicated or made apparent in exactly the same fashion, whether the Frenchman addresses a German, a Briton, an American, a Chinese or an African. Indeed, the difference in asserting one’s identity will depend, among other things, on the historical factors or the well-established stereotypes that have shaped the relationships between the two cultures.

The existentialist definition of culture makes cross-cultural interaction all the more difficult to master. The next two definitions should be construed in this light.

Self-awareness : People do not perceive their own culture in the same way as they do others because it is invisible i.e an intimate part of their being. Self-awareness is the ability for someone to perceive their own culture as if from the outside, and consequently to examine it critically. Self-awareness is a necessary key to understanding others. It makes ethnocentricity irrelevant by justifying and legitimizing otherness.

Cross-cultural competence : The ability to function efficiently in another culture and to interact with a correspondant whom you can have function in yours, so that neither culture is at a disadvantage. Work is done on equal terms and to the mutual benefit of both cultures. A common language may be used to communicate, English for example, but both parties are aware of the limitations of this lingua franca and of the necessity of perceiving, understanding, respecting the other’s culture.

Following the above definitions, we consider cross-cultural competence to be the means whereby people from different cultural backgrounds, in and out of their institutions, will really understand each other and interact together for their mutual benefit. As has been hinted by the first two definitions, there can be no cross-cultural competence without the awareness of all the specific aspects of culture in general, and of one’s own cultural identity in particular. Indeed, comprehending otherness, or difference, so as to better cope and interact with it, entails understanding and coming to grips with how other people’s values, mindsets, practices, organizations and the like really differ from one’s own. Very often difference, which is inherent in transnational, transcultural interaction, is perceived as an obstacle, and sometimes as a trap. This is because, not being fully aware of our own culture, we are quick to find fault with other unusual ways of doing things, and we do not consider that to others, we, too, do things in a strange fashion. One way to remedy this state of affairs is to become conscious of our own identity, and to look at our own culture critically, as if with the eyes of a stranger. This has proved to be the best weapon against intolerance. Thus, self-awareness is not, in essence, different from the awareness of others. Combined together, these two forms of awareness constitute cross-cultural awareness, which permits one to see otherness not as a threat, let alone an obstacle, but as a source of complementarity and mutual enrichment.

Identifying the various components of culture, becoming aware of one’s own, and seeking to understand otherness, are the three pillars of successful cross-cultural interaction. They are already solutions in themselves, or are at least, the very first keys to finding solutions to the problems analyzed in the previous pages. In what follows, we offer solutions that are anchored in the concepts defined above. These will systematically underlie our reflection and our approach.

In each European institution of higher education, all members of staff should understand that they have a crucial role to play in assuring the quality of their institutions’ international policies. This means that, contrary to what is too often thought and done today, people in the International Relations Office should not be the only ones left to decide on their institution’s international policy, to initiate and develop international programs, to take care of administrative issues, in short, to take responsibility for getting things done in a context that in fact concerns the entire institution. Internationalizing the institution, that is, broadening its scope in both education and research, should indeed be everybody’s interest and goal.

The starting point for a new, more communal and coherent approach to international relations, must be a better mutual understanding of non language academics and language specialists. More often that not, language professors are looked down upon by, say, science, law or economics professors, on the grounds that languages are marginal, ancillary disciplines, not fully relevant to their specialized disciplines. This widespread attitude best reveals that science, law and other such fields of expertise are believed to be self-sufficient, at least within a strictly national context, and that languages and cultures, which are by definition transversal disciplines, i.e. a common competency in today’s Europe, are still made to vegetate on the outer fringes of specialized curricula. This, we may argue, is the first manifestation, within the institution, of cross-cultural unawareness or, to be more explicit, of the inability to consider others as being able to contribute, on equal terms, to the education of students. Undoubtedly, Europe has been decreed politically, but it still has not been planted in the minds of all Europeans ! Yet, this situation must not solely be put down to non language specialists : language professors in non language curricula, also, in general, have but little awareness of their colleagues’ specialties and subsequent approach to education. They hardly ever try to probe the specific disciplines, and the related cultures, in the curricula where they are asked to carve their non-intrusive niche. Now, wherever education becomes internationalized, language specialists should make their own expertise valuable to non linguists. To do so, they should stop considering language as an end it itself, regardless of the many specialized professional contexts within which languages are used. They, too, should no longer be content with their classes being set aside from those of their colleagues in the so-called specialized disciplines, giving students, professors and other staff the feeling that languages disrupt the unity of the curriculum. Instead, language specialists had better plow ahead and advance their own competencies as being instrumental to the education of would-be international students and European citizens, be they scientists, lawyers, medical doctors and the like. To put it briefly, language specialists should first convince themselves that they are privileged vectors of European identity, by reason of the subjects they teach, then convince their colleagues in the other disciplines that they can add a new dimension to the teaching of their specialized courses. Eventually, cross-cultural awareness in the academic field would, among other things, be conducive to the pedagogical consistency that many an academic purports to hope for without really knowing how to go about it.

We have concentrated first on the relationships between non language and language academics because an institution of higher education concerns itself with education first. Nothing meaningful can be achieved on a European scale without offering a coherent all-embracing education to national and would-be international students.

That students, independently of their specialized backgrounds, should be allowed to become international students, studying their specialized subjects in different cultural and language environments, is not the sole responsibility of the specialist of languages and cultures. Harking back to non language specialists, it stands to reason that professors of physics, law, etc. must be made aware of the specific cultural baggage of the international students who attend their classes. Far too often, these professors are not mindful enough of the cultural heterogeneity or diversity of their students. They have a tendency to force all their students into a single mold, and to take it for granted that any student can adapt to their way of teaching. At best, they will understand that international students may be faced with a language problem, which becomes very acute when the terminology used in the classroom is highly specialized ; but they will not sense that a difference in the conceptual approach to a particular subject, as well as different teaching methods, may leave the international student flustered, confused, and sometimes at a loss. For instance, British students are not used to several hours of lecture every week as are French students. When they come to France, they often skip lectures, and learn from books, and they go to the professors for help as they would do in their home institution. They are often fazed by the professors’ lack of availability and admonishment to sit through their two-hour lectures. Of course, international students ought to adapt to their new learning environment ; but professors should be kept informed of the different teaching and learning habits across Europe so as to better respond to their international students’ need for smooth adjustment. At this point, specialists of languages and cultures should be called upon to make their colleagues culturally aware, which implies that they should be better integrated with the other professors in the first place, and that their competence should be acknowledged and put to good use outside of the traditional language classroom.

If all academics ought to become aware of the multiple applications of the language specialist’s competencies, beyond the somewhat marginal and narrow circle of traditional language teaching, it goes without saying that, in the framework of an institution’s international policy, administrators, too, should avail themselves of such competencies. Truth to tell, International Relations Offices, especially in the large institutions, lie solely in the hands of administrators who have not been encouraged to really consider languages and cultures as the mainspring of successful international programs. The situation is quite problematic. Indeed, if we consider that cross-cultural problems stand in the way of better international collaboration, both quality and quantitywise, then International Relations Offices should constantly keep their focus on these problems and seek to solve them. Instead, most of them keep administering programs as if international relations were nothing but redtape. There is no denying that some paperwork and administrative formalities are required, but that most, if not all international programs should be set up and run over and beyond cultural differences, that is, the cultural identities of the partners involved, is quite unsatisfactory. Again, in most institutions, specialists of language and culture are kept out of the International Relations Office, as though their competencies were irrelevant to interaction with international partners. This results in business being done between institutions on a purely administrative level, in a so-called common language – English most of the time – which is often tampered with, through lack of formal training, so that communication is never as accurate as it should be under such circumstances. The end result often is misunderstanding : agreements, albeit formal, remain on paper, and they hardly ever get off the ground. And when they do get off the ground, problems appear, especially with exchange students, most of which turn out to be insoluble in a purely administrative way. Among these problems, of course, are those of a cultural nature, such as the difficulty in adjusting to new study habits, new social patterns, and, last but not least, language. Most of the time, these problems arise because of the students’ cultural ignorance and unpreparedness, which bear witness to how little account most International Relations Offices make of culture and language in setting up and monitoring international programs. Here again, language specialists can best help international students grapple with these problems, first in the home institution, through mandatory full-length language courses and/or pre-departure orientation seminars, then in the host institution, as people more likely than others to help students adjust to their new work and living environments. Consequently, it is highly advisable that every International Relations Office either employ an academic specialized in languages and cultures, or at the very least, that it systematically refer to a cross-cultural consultant. Besides, an academic will ensure the structural link that must exist between the International Office and the learning environment of both outgoing and incoming exchange students. It is high time, also, that institutions stopped considering international relations only as a means to statistically enhance their prestige ; boasting scores, sometimes hundreds of formal international agreements, is not sufficient if such agreements remain only on paper for lack of an adequate cultural and language preparation of students.

Students, who constantly find themselves at the heart of their institutions’ international policies, are not the only reason why language specialists should be present in the International Office. The pedagogical effort extends far beyond the student population. Indeed, approaching – or being approached by – a prospective partner abroad, negotiating an agreement, and following it up, entails being aware of how both one’s own institution and the other function, and of what each has to offer in the way of complementarity. Last, one must be aware of how the partner institution should be dealt with once the agreement has been implemented. In short, trying to apprehend one’s partner’s culture while fathoming one’s own is a truly cross-cultural exercise. In addition, one should also bear in mind that using English as a common language is not always ideal; thinking that a working knowledge of this convenient but makeshift lingua franca is the ultimate solution is not only erroneous, but it can be hazardous if one tends to forget that English, when spoken and written by non native speakers, is but a pale and distorted reflection of their own thinking patterns. This, in fact, is a fundamental point of modern research in cross-cultural interaction.

As we have tried to show so far, every institution of higher education should place languages and cultures at the center of its international policy. Language specialists, by virtue of their cross-cultural competence, should not be locked up in their language departments and classrooms, but made to act as linchpins of their institutions’ international efforts. It goes without saying that if all institutions across Europe agreed to organize their international policies along those lines, the relationships between them would be greatly facilitated and rendered more effective.

Once each institution has invited specialists of languages and cultures to participate actively in thinking through and pursuing its general international policy, how is it going to interact effectively with other European institutions ? Given that most international policies are more or less dictated, or at least promoted by the European Commission in Brussels, it would be quite a propos for the European Commission to issue a few binding guidelines in accordance with what has been proposed above. Getting all European institutions of higher education to adopt the same language and culture oriented policy is not doable otherwise. Let it be unmistakably clear that we are dealing with European politics, to wit, politics conducted with a view to furthering European citizenship through a consistent European educational policy.

The first step toward a unified educational policy would be for the European Commission to organize cross-cultural seminars or symposia gathering European officials, university rectors or presidents, international relations officers, specialists of languages and cultures, and more cross-culturally aware university personnel. These symposia would be aimed at defining a common policy and common standards for the advancement of European education.

If we agree that cross-cultural competence is the basis of successful international policies, the aforementioned symposia should give their multicultural participants the opportunity to redefine a number of key concepts, whose meanings vary from one culture to another, thereby fostering misunderstanding, sometimes frustration, impatience, discouragement and distrust. One of the concepts that require a common, mutually agreeable definition is « responsibility ». Even though the term sounds almost the same in many European languages, its meanings are as numerous as the languages themselves. North Europeans, for whom being responsible often means the same as being in charge, are often struck, even dismayed, by the fact that many of their so-called southern counterparts do not have nearly as much initiative and decision-making power as they do. Often, in international conferences for instance, one comes to realize that the real counterpart of the northern international relations manager is a southern vice-president or president, who takes the initiatives and makes the decisions, but does not attend the conferences, and deputizes the international relations manager to simply give and collect information. In some cases, the entire International Relations Office only serves an administrative purpose, all the key decisions being made by academics, who do not attend the conferences either, on the grounds that conferences on international education are a waste of time and energy.

To some, being responsible means taking it upon oneself to do or manage all the work and making sure the work is done in time, according to a predetermined schedule. This is the typical conception of northern efficiency. To others, being responsible means having acquired a particular status and trusting the work to a number of people who need not report at a specific time, so that responsibility can seem diluted and impossible to pinpoint. Likewise, when it comes to exchange students, responsibility offers a wide range of acceptations. In some cases, international relations officers not only take responsibility for ensuring that the students are culturally and linguistically ready for departure, but they also insist that these students keep in contact with them throughout their period of mobility. Besides, they will also take charge of incoming students, some of whom may not have had any specific preparation prior to departure. Monitoring the progress of both outgoing and incoming students is not, to say the least, a task that is assigned to all international relations officers across Europe.

The varying degrees of responsibility make it very difficult to identify a reliable partner or counterpart with whom to do the work and refer to under all circumstances. It is essential, then, that all institutions across Europe define common standards of responsibility. This, again, is a cross-cultural effort as cultures have to take a few steps in each other’s directions, and as no national pattern is, or should be, applicable to other international organizations. Considerable emphasis must be placed on the non-transferrable character of national patterns because, to date, in most international programs, northern organizations are de facto trying to impose their own administrative and academic criteria on southern organizations, which results in warranted resentment and irritation from the latter.

It should easy to intuit that the variety of approaches to responsibility, both for the work done and to people all along the hierarchical ladder, from the President or the Rector all the way down to the student, stands in the way of effective international interaction. Hence the need for a cross-cultural definition of this and other related concepts, such as reliability, quality, and even deadlines !

The point of this paper is not to propound such definitions : its primary objective is to make European institutions aware that differences in approach, if unheeded or neglected, are bound to result in frustration, impatience and a sense of helplessness, all of which are harmful to the quality and durability of international programs. Finding common definitions for basic concepts is tantamount to negotiating and signing a new contract, wherein tasks will be clearly identified, assigned and performed in compliance with common standards. This contract would establish new rules of conduct and a new work ethic that all actors of international relations across Europe would find possible to abide by. The key word is compromise, which is, in point of fact, what cross-cultural competence and interaction boil down to.

Lors de la 6ème conférence annuelle de l’EAIE (European Association for International Education) qui s’est tenue à Londres au mois de décembre 1994, nous avons animé un atelier sur la bivalence du rôle du professeur de langue responsable des relations internationales. Notre réflexion sur le sujet a progressé, et nous nous proposons de montrer aujourd’hui qu’il ne s’agit pas ou plus simplement d’une bivalence mais d’une véritable symbiose. Le lien entre ces deux activités est de nature organique. En d’autres termes, nous souhaitons établir clairement qu’une nouvelle fonction est apparue, issue d’une interaction très forte entre deux activités naguère complémentaires : l’enseignement des langues d’une part et la responsabilité de la politique internationale de l’établissement d’autre part. Si de prime abord l’enseignement est une fonction pédagogique alors que le responsable des relations internationales doit avant tout jouer un rôle d’administrateur, on se rend très vite compte que les deux fonctions sont éminemment pédagogiques et qu’elles exercent l’une sur l’autre une influence elle aussi de nature pédagogique. Sans vouloir polémiquer ou minimiser les activités strictement administratives, il nous semble clair que dans le cadre des relations internationales le professeur de langues est plus à même que quiconque de mener à bien la mission qui lui a été confiée.

Pour entamer toute réflexion sur le rôle nouveau du professeur de langue responsable des relations internationales , il importe de s’interroger sur les raisons pour lesquelles les professeurs de langues sont très souvent pressentis, en particulier par les directeurs des Grandes Ecoles, pour s’occuper de relations internationales en plus de formation linguistique. Ce choix est presque uniquement « instinctif » ou « naturel » puisque la connaissance d’une langue (on n’en est pas encore à reconnaître l’importance de la culture) rend plus aisée la communication avec les étrangers. C’est donc à la fois pour des raisons d’efficacité mais aussi pour éviter les craintes et les frustrations du quiproquo ou, pire encore, de l’incompréhension totale, que les scientifiques, commerciaux et juristes s’en remettent volontiers aux linguistes. On pense avant tout à la facilité avec laquelle le linguiste peut écrire une lettre, envoyer une télécopie ou passer un coup de fil dans une langue étrangère. Mais en faisant ce choix, presque contraint et forcé, le non-linguiste ne se pose pas la question de savoir comment le professeur de langue va mettre à profit ses compétences linguistiques et culturelles pour initier et développer des collaborations internationales fructueuses et durables dans des domaines qui lui sont étrangers. C’est là une ironie qui donne toute sa saveur à cette fonction . Le non-linguiste ne se pose pas davantage la question de savoir si, pourquoi et comment cette nouvelle action va influencer la pédagogie du « prof de langue ». C’est justement là l’objet du présent article.

Un élément de réponse aux interrogations qui précèdent a été apporté par Michel CUSIN, Conseiller auprès du Délégué aux Relations Européennes, Internationales et à la Francophonie (Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche) aux Vème Journées Nationales ERASMUS qui se sont tenues au Pôle Universitaire Européen de Nancy-Metz les 6 & 7 avril 1994. Voici ce que M. CUSIN nous disait alors au sujet du rôle nouveau des langues dans le contexte international : « … on voit bien ici qu’il y a un effort fait pour développer les langues, mais c’est au prix d’une réalisation difficile et surtout pour nous c’est au prix de laisser croire que les langues vivantes sont une discipline comme les autres alors que, au niveau européen, et ce n’est pas le cas dans les Universités, elles ne doivent pas être une discipline comme les autres mais elles doivent être d’abord un outil au service des échanges communautaires. … il s’agit de faire prendre conscience que les langues sont un outil avec un grand O … »

Dans un milieu de non-linguistes, les langues et les cultures étrangères ne sont plus une fin en soi mais un outil permettant de communiquer, de se comprendre, de travailler et de vivre ensemble. Cette réalité incontournable est à la source même de la nouvelle mission fixée au professeur de langue : elle lui dicte ses objectifs et donc une stratégie pédagogique en même temps qu’elle définit clairement son rôle dans l’élaboration et le suivi de la politique internationale de son établissement. En bref, le professeur de langue doit enseigner la maîtrise d’un outil et se servir simultanément de ce même outil. Il n’existe pas de différence ni même l’ombre d’une nuance entre ces deux activités.

Commençons par un bref aperçu de la nature pédagogique de l’activité du professeur de langue responsable des relations internationales.

Le fait de parler une langue étrangère et de bien connaître le(s) contexte(s) culturel(s) dans lequel (lesquels) elle se parle permet de familiariser les élèves avec l’environnement linguistique et culturel dans lequel ils vont devoir vivre et étudier, si bien sûr, en bon pédagogue des langues et des relations internationales, on les a convaincus de « partir ». La stratégie pédagogique est ici conditionnée par le court ou le moyen terme. De toute évidence, les relations internationales offrent un champ d’action supplémentaire à la pédagogie des langues puisqu’il s’agit de permettre aux élèves d’être formés à leur domaine propre dans un environnement linguistique et culturel différent. Dans un cadre plus « administratif », les compétences du professeur de langue permettent, entre autres, d’aborder de nouveaux partenaires étrangers, de négocier, de jouer le rôle d’interface avec les collègues non-linguistes et de résoudre des problèmes de toute nature au fur et à mesure qu’ils se posent. Or la négociation et la poursuite d’un accord de coopération impliquent que l’on sache convaincre dans la langue du partenaire étranger en tenant compte de ses propres valeurs et systèmes de références : il s’agit ici aussi d’un acte éminemment pédagogique que seul le linguiste (au sens très large du terme) est en mesure de mener efficacement à son terme.

On voit bien dans ce qui précède que les langues et les cultures étrangères, disciplines en apparence non prioritaires car destinées à des « non-spécialistes », sont, avec ceux qui les maîtrisent et les enseignent, au centre de la pédagogie globale d’un établissement qui a fait des relations internationales une priorité.

Nous nous proposons de montrer dans ce qui suit comment les deux pans de l’activité du professeur de langue responsable des relations internationales se définissent l’un par rapport à l’autre et pourquoi il est séduisant de les considérer comme étant au service l’un de l’autre.

Les relations internationales au service des langues et des cultures

Il faut entendre par ce titre un peu tapageur que les relations internationales d’un établissement sont le vecteur idéal de la promotion de l’enseignement des langues d’une part et du statut du professeur de langue d’autre part. Il suffit de considérer les points suivants pour s’en convaincre :

1/ La motivation des étudiants

L’expérience a montré que la plupart des élèves des Grandes Ecoles souhaitent percevoir le plus rapidement possible le caractère concret de l’enseignement qui leur est dispensé. Après plusieurs années de lycée et de classes préparatoires, ils attendent de leur formation qu’elle les prépare efficacement à l’environnement professionnel qui sera bientôt le leur. Cette attente est légitime. Or, si dans les disciplines de spécialité, scientifiques, commerciales ou juridiques, les élèves ont le sentiment d’acquérir des connaissances indispensables à l’exercice de leur futur métier, il n’en va pas toujours de même pour les disciplines connexes telles que les langues et les cultures étrangères. Le professeur de langue devrait savoir qu’il ne suffit pas de dire à ses élèves-ingénieurs, par exemple, que la maîtrise d’une langue étrangère est indispensable de nos jours dans un environnement international toujours plus globalisé. Cette vérité, que nul ne conteste, est trop souvent perçue par nos auditoires comme une rhétorique dépassée dont l’objectif est moins de motiver les élèves que d’aider le professeur à se convaincre qu’il sert (vraiment) à quelque chose. Si nos élèves ont parfois du mal à entrevoir l’utilité des compétences en langue(s) étrangère(s) à moyen ou à long terme, ils la voient très clairement à court terme, dans le cadre de leur formation. C’est justement là qu’interviennent les relations internationales. En effet, il est à la fois plus confortable et plus convaincant de dire à ses élèves que la maîtrise de compétences linguistiques et culturelles est une condition préalable à toute expérience de formation internationale. On pourrait objecter que cet argument est de nature à ne convaincre que les candidats au départ, c’est à dire, dans le meilleur des cas, un tiers d’une promotion. Or, si l’on envisage de remplacer certains enseignements par des cours ou des séminaires donnés dans sa propre langue par un professeur étranger invité, c’est alors l’ensemble d’une promotion qui se sent concerné, surtout s’il est question d’évaluer les connaissances des élèves dans la langue étrangère à l’issue du cours ou du séminaire.

La dimension internationale de la formation fait prendre conscience aux élèves qu’une langue et une culture sont autre chose qu’un passage obligé et parfois obscur dans leur cursus. Elles sont véritablement un outil de communication sans lequel un nouveau formation ne peut être dispensée. La chose étant acquise, nombreux sont les élèves qu’achève de motiver la possibilité de donner à leur formation une dimension internationale et par là-même une plus-value intéressante voire décisive qu’il est facile de quantifier à moyen ou à long terme. Grâce aux relations internationales, les langues sont enfin perçues par les élèves comme un moyen d’optimiser leur formation et ainsi leurs futures compétences professionnelles. Du même coup, le professeur de langue, jusqu’ici considéré comme l’enseignant à part d’une discipline à part, voit son rôle et sa discipline plus clairement définis et beaucoup mieux situés dans la politique pédagogique générale de son établissement.

2/ Le rôle du spécialiste étranger dans le cours de langue

Nous n’abordons pas ici l’enseignement de la langue de spécialité par le professeur de langue lui-même mais par le spécialiste étranger qui, dans le cadre d’un échange, vient enseigner sa discipline dans sa propre langue. Le professeur de langue responsable des relations internationales, soucieux de conférer et de conserver à son enseignement le caractère concret et utile que souhaitent ses élèves, peut inviter des collègues étrangers à intervenir dans sa salle de cours. Le cours de langue de spécialité tel qu’il est dispensé en amont par le linguiste ne peut intégrer que la dimension linguistique du message. Si l’on peut confier au professeur de langue et à lui seul l’enseignement de techniques spécifiques de compréhension et d’expression, on ne peut pas lui demander de devenir physicien, gestionnaire ou juriste. On peut tout au plus exiger de lui qu’il ait ou acquiert une culture scientifique, commerciale ou juridique, mais ceci ne donnera jamais à la langue de spécialité qu’il enseigne une saveur authentique. Son rôle est avant tout de familiariser ses élèves avec un lexique et des structures syntaxiques particuliers pour leur permettre de comprendre et de se faire comprendre dans une situation de communication spécialisée. Les techniques dont il est l’expert sont un outil permettant à ses élèves d’aborder (comprendre et produire) la langue de leur spécialité. Le spécialiste étranger vient donc à point nommé pour une mise en application directe de la théorie linguistique. Notons qu’à ce stade, ce n’est pas encore le contenu scientifique du message qui importe mais son authenticité linguistique. Dans le cadre du cours de langue, le discours scientifique doit servir de toile de fond à la communication interculturelle. La priorité du professeur de langue n’est pas dans l’immédiat que ses élèves apprennent dans une langue étrangère comment fonctionne un transistor ou un réseau de neurones, par exemple. Ce n’est que dans la dernière phase – le cours de spécialité en langue étrangère, éventuellement assorti d’une évaluation des connaissances – que la langue à proprement parler devra passer au second plan pour faire place au contenu strictement scientifique du message. Fort de cette approche, le professeur de langue reste maître de la situation et donc de sa pédagogie : il doit imposer à ses élèves comme à son collègue étranger, lui-même devenu pour la circonstance un professeur de langue, un certain nombre de règles pour privilégier la forme du message par rapport au fond. Ces contraintes linguistiques ont pour but d’authentifier et donc de valider l’enseignement du professeur de langue. Les élèves retrouvent dans le discours du spécialiste étranger les caractéristiques lexicales et structurales de la langue qui leur a été enseignée par le linguiste. Cette démarche pédagogique permet une fois encore de situer clairement le professeur de langue à mi-chemin entre ses élèves et les spécialistes étrangers; il n’est plus un enseignant « périphérique » mais bel et bien un trait d’union incontournable dans le processus de communication interculturelle.

Thierry Kakouridis, Agrégé d’anglais, responsable des langues et des relations internationales, ENSPM, Domaine Universitaire de Saint-Jérôme, 13397 Marseille Cedex 20.
Myrna Magnan, Agrégée d’anglais, responsable des langues et des relations internationales, IUT d’Aix-Marseille III, Traverse Charles Susini, 13388 Marseille Cedex 13.

In the European Union, some 320 million people from fifteen nations, speaking more than ten different languages, must now get used to living and working together, and to feeling they all belong together. Cross-cultural interaction is then a political, economic, social, and of course cultural priority. As the president of Saint-Gobain aptly suggests:

« The heart of the European challenge is to know whether in multinational firms, we will manage to deal with Europe’s cultural diversity as a « plus » in comparison with American or Japanese monolithism. [...] changing what today is a difficulty, cultural diversity, into a positive factor of integration, this is the research to be undertaken ». ¹

Quite naturally, language specialists across Europe are being called upon to make their fellow Europeans culturally competent. As language specialists, we believe it is both safe and cogent to think of foreign languages in terms of conflict. True, learning and using a foreign language is a task which many students find difficult, in some cases virtually impossible. Hence, they develop an antagonistic view of the foreign language and, in the process, of the people who speak it as their mother tongue. The most obvious manifestation of this attitude is the reluctance to speak the language in the language classroom, and later in a professional environment, especially with native speakers. In many cases, conflict fosters discouragement, frustration, sometimes anger, hatred, and … failure. Thus, the key to successful language learning, then to fruitful and successful communication in a foreign language, is to find ways of warding off conflict or of resolving it when it crops up. We will consider this as our basic premise. Now, it is important to pinpoint the reasons why conflict appears in language learning and, more generally, in a foreign language environment. It has occurred to us that in most cases traditional language pedagogics is at fault. Indeed, languages are far too often taught and learned regardless of the cultural contexts which underlie them and from which they have evolved. It has become clear that learning a language without being able to relate it to a cultural system makes it difficult to interact efficiently with difference or otherness, that is, first, to envision difference and otherness not as a source of conflict but as a source of potential mutual enrichment.

In today’s international, multicultural context, cross-cultural interaction is developing tremendously, both quantity and qualitywise. Quantitywise because the world is actually becoming a global village, and exchanges are increasing at a dizzying rate, and qualitywise because communication must be accurate ² in order to be successful. When it comes to learning and using a foreign language, we can no longer be content with the clumsy piecing together of words and the automatic applying of strange rules that sometimes seem utterly irrational : we must now probe the cultural background behind the lexical and syntactical organization of each language, so as to get through to particular thinking patterns and mindsets. In other words, we must use the language to bring out, understand and interact with the less visible parts of a culture.³

Before discussing our experience, we feel that it is imperative that a few fundamental concepts be defined. Indeed, most of these concepts are so commonly used that we may wonder what they actually mean.

Key concepts

Culture : a set of material and ideological phenomena which distinguish a group, a nation or a civilization from any other group, nation or civilization. We consider the following as material and ideological phenomena : language, thinking patterns, mindsets, reference systems, religion, political and socio-economic systems (including educational systems), social behavior and interaction, uses and customs, the arts, clothing, food and cuisine. One must also consider an individual’s own psyche within the cultural group to which (s)he belongs as well as his/her way of relating to this group as essential components of culture, as does Zack Eleftheriadou :

« the relationship between the individual and his or her culture is an active and changing space; [...] the in-between area of the internal and external – the space used by the individual, depending on their life experience and upbringing, which changes through time ». ⁴

We shall complement the above by stating that most of culture is « invisible », which means that thinking patterns, mindsets, value systems, and the like are difficult to come to grips with because they are abstract, diluted, as it were, in our being. The whole point of cross-cultural interaction, therefore, is to make culture visible so as to better interact with it. As we will see, language is the most visible part of a culture. As such, it can be used to unravel the intricacies of the less tangible aspects of that culture.

Trying to define culture has proved very arduous. No definition has yet proved entirely satisfactory. Indeed, as Michel Oriol and Francis Affergan suggest, « The notions of culture, identity and difference, which are most of the time closely related, cannot be clearly defined, and thus encompass several meanings ». ⁵ Authors often feel the urge to (re)define culture such as Clifford Geertz :

« Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning ». ⁶

Geert Hofstede refers to two types of culture: « culture one » or « culture in the narrow sense », that is « ‘civilization’ or ‘refinement of the mind’ and in particular the results of such refinement, like education, art, and literature », and « culture two » or « mental software » which he sees as a « collective phenomenon », and which includes « the ordinary and menial things in life: greeting, eating, showing or not showing feelings, keeping a certain physical distance from others, making love, or maintaining body hygiene ». ⁷

Self-awareness: people do not perceive their own culture in the same way as they do others because it is invisible i.e an intimate part of their being. Self-awareness is the ability for someone to perceive their own culture as if from the outside, and consequently to examine it critically. Self-awareness is a necessary key to understanding others. It makes ethnocentricity irrelevant by justifying and legitimizing otherness. Authors, quite appropriately, often place considerable emphasis on self-awareness as a necessary step toward cross-cultural interaction: Pierre R. Dasen points out that « One rule of overriding importance for effective cross-cultural communication is first and foremost to be aware of the conventions of one’s own culture. » ⁸

Cross-cultural interaction: functioning efficiently in another culture and interacting with a correspondant who can also function in yours, so that neither culture is at a disadvantage. Work is done on equal terms and to the mutual benefit of both cultures. A common language may be used to communicate, English for example, but both parties are aware of the limitations of this lingua franca and of the necessity of perceiving objectively, understanding, and respecting the other’s culture.

Language as a means of making students aware of cultural systems

Given the objective of a united European community, interdependent and interactive in its diversity, and taking into account the above definitions, how can the language teacher make his students competent in intercultural communication/interaction? In this paper, we will give a very personal response resulting from all the thinking we have done on the subject, and which we have put into practice in our classrooms.

It dawned on us, within the framework of our relationship with foreign colleagues, that the use of English, or any other language, by people who don’t speak this language naturally, does not lead to maximum accuracy in getting the message across, and can therefore lead to misunderstanding. To put it bluntly, we have attended meetings where participants did not understand each other though they were speaking the same language. English, which everyone used for reasons of convenience, in fact hid each participant’s own culture. We rapidly came to the conclusion that language alone does not transmit the message. Even worse, supposedly more convenient though it seemed, language alone could lead to frustration, misunderstanding, and… conflict. Obviously, people who use English as a lingua franca must refer to the culture beyond the language. Eva Hoffman, in her autobiographical novel Lost in Translation , speaks about the dislocation of personality and the self in the immigrant’s experience. She tries to come to terms with her new environment through writing, but has problems deciding which language to choose :

« Because I have to choose something, I finally choose English. If I’m to write about the present, I have to write in the language of the present, even if it’s not the language of the self ». ⁹

English teachers by background, and in the light of what has just been said, we have wondered about the specific relationship between the English language and Anglophone culture(s), and intuitively about how the language – grammar and vocabulary – can be used to probe, discover, understand, and interact with culture. We have come to the conclusion that a language is the mirror image of a culture ; as in photography, it is the developer of a way of thinking, mindset and insight into the world. Thus, studying a language within the context of cross-cultural interaction means, of course, not only learning grammar and vocabulary, but also and above all, through them, weaving one’s way to the way of thinking, which is the real medium of the message. It seems to us that learning the rules and vocabulary of a language automatically makes us understand a message not as it really is but as our own way of thinking makes us perceive it. Likewise, when it comes to producing a message in a foreign language, words and syntax are but a pale reflection of our own thinking patterns. How then can we understand the Other under such circumstances, and communicate i.e. really interact with her/him? This « really » is at the crux of our cross-cultural approach to language learning and teaching. We will give just a few examples where lexis and syntax highlight specific thinking patterns and ways of apprehending a phenomenon.

Regarding vocabulary, it is essential to supersede a strictly lexical approach with a more conceptual one. In other words, we must not be afraid of doing away with literal translations, such as the ones given in bilingual dictionaries; instead we have to seek a different meaning beyond the translation provided. Indeed, a dictionary will give, for instance « friend » for ami or amigo. Now, to believe that these terms express one and the same idea is a gross mistake. The fact of the matter is these words acquire their full meaning from the social interactions typical of each culture. To Eva Hoffman, friendship is « a word which in Polish has connotations of strong loyalty and attachment bordering on love [while] ‘Friend’, in English, is such a good-natured, easygoing sort of term, covering all kinds of territory ».¹⁰ Even straightforward substantives can pose problems : « The milk, homogenized, and too cold from the fridge, bears little resemblance to the liquid we used to drink called by the same name ». ¹¹

The conceptual approach comes in handy for a host of words, especially in the socio-professional field. Teachers in an engineering school know that the word « engineer » in American English does not have the same meaning as the British « engineer », or as the French « ingénieur » or still the German « Ingenieur ». We could continue indefinitely with similar examples and relevant cultural areas. Curiously enough, the pre-eminence of the concept over the word is not revolutionary. Indeed, certain languages have borrowed numerous words and phrases from other languages, being wise enough not to translate them. Here again, we could give an endless list of examples. A few will suffice : the French fin de semaine is but inadequate for « week-end »; not so long ago, some in France tried to force through, albeit unsuccessfully, the neologism marchéage for the English « marketing »; the Spanish « aficionado » has no faithful translation when it comes to bull-fighting; almost all languages have made theirs the German « Leitmotiv »; English has imported French phrases like « deja vu », « bon vivant », « rendez-vous », « creme de la creme », « par excellence », etc. Why borrow verbatim from another language? The answer is simple : behind the word lies a cultural fact which bestows on it a precise meaning, which cannot be rendered by any other language. To complicate matters, within the same language community, French or English to mention but two, there are cultural variations that give different meanings to the same word. For an American the word « friend » does not have quite the same meaning as for a British person. The Quebecker uses the English word « chum » to express the French petit(e) ami(e) which in English translates « boyfriend » or « girlfriend ».

The cultural dimension of a language is equally present in its grammatical system. As is the case for lexis, translation offers at best an equivalent meaning, not an identical one. Take the verb, for example. Conjugation is a non-issue in English, where the verb stays almost unchanged from the first person in the singular to the last in the plural. What actually makes the difference between one person and another is the subject. We will see here a superb example of the emphasis that is placed on the person acting over the action itself. This is all the more obvious in the first person, where the I (Individual!) stands erect (like an I, in a manner of speaking) to vindicate his/her identity or specificity. How about Spanish or Italian, where the subject is completely effaced, where only the verb’s ending makes the difference? We could argue that in Latin societies, contrary to Anglo-Saxon ones, the individual (the subject), because of coming second to the group, counts less than the action. Still for the verbal system, it is wrong to consider the French « J’irai à Paris » as conveying exactly the same meaning as the English « I will go to Paris ». Indeed, French regards the future as a real tense and, therefore, as something real which is yet to happen, whereas English sees in the future what grammarians call « modality », a fact that is not yet real. More than a mere nuance, this is a fundamental difference in approach to time and events. The same applies to the present-perfect, which is used to establish a link between the past and the present. Compare the two following sentences : « He has been doing the same job for 20 years » and its French equivalent : « Il fait le même métier depuis 20 ans ». In the English sentence, the use of the present-perfect implies that the subject started doing his present job twenty years ago. The reference to the past is made explicit through the use of the present-perfect. On the contrary, in French, the link between the present and the past is irrelevant – only the present matters – so that the present tense is enough.

Another fundamental difference : English is an explicit language ; French an implicit one. When the latter says « Il marchait les mains dans les poches » (He was walking with the hands in the pockets), one immediately understands that the hands and the pockets belong to the person who was walking. English, because it leaves no room for doubt, ambiguity and misunderstanding, will say « He was walking with his hands in his pockets ». Paradoxically enough, English is both more explicit and more economical than French. This means that it is possible to reach extreme accuracy with a modicum of words. The best example of this is the use of phrasal verbs. Take, for instance, the following sentence : « The wire loops through the glass cylinder », which the French translates « Le fil (électrique) traverse [through] le cylindre en verre ». For a message as explicit as in English, which is hardly ever warranted in French, a French speaker would have to say « Le fil (électrique) traverse [through] le cylindre en verre en décrivant des boucles [loops]« . One will also notice here that French and English have radically different syntactical architectures : in English the idea of « looping » is contained in the verb whereas in French it’s optional and thus comes last. French considers more important the idea of « traversing » the cylinder, which the English mentions in second place after the verb proper.

The above remarks and examples bring to light the intrinsic pragmatism of Anglo-Saxon cultures, something that most Latin cultures are very uncomfortable with. Pragmatism means being precise, going straight to the point, saving time, being efficient, all of which are reflected by the grammatical system of the English language. Now, for, say, a French person to learn English without being fully aware of this fact, will inevitably lead to frustration, discouragement and failure because (s)he will try to communicate his/her own thoughts in a language that is not cut out to express them the way they are. For example, using an explicit language like English to express your own implicit way of thinking is both inadequate and misleading, hence the need to systematically refer to the particular mindset that underlies the language learned.

When it comes to complements, English and French offer structures that reveal opposite thinking patterns. French has only one type of complement, built around the preposition de. English has three, two of which are very difficult to grasp for a French person. Consider the following examples : « Tom’s twenty-year-old friend, John, made a sixty-day trip around the world on his twenty-foot-long boat « . In French : « L’ami de Tom, John, âgé de vingt ans, a fait un voyage de soixante jours autour du monde, sur son bateau de vingt pieds de long ». Besides the greater variety of complements in English, the problem is that, to fully understand and use each other’s languages, the Anglophone and the Francophone need to think backward. This is made clear by the above examples (Tom’s friend/l’ami de Tom) and the following one : « the frequency control dial/ le cadran de contrôle de la fréquence », which, with a few others, has been giving both our colleagues and our students a hard time. The most common remark that a Francophone will make about these and other similar structures is that English-speaking people do things à l’envers (the wrong way). Getting the French-speaking person to understand that Anglophones do things differently and not the wrong way is already a major step in the good direction.

We now come to one aspect of the English language that best illustrates the cultural concept of individual freedom. This does not mean that the French, Spaniards, Italians, etc. are not free people. We are simply trying to show in the following that the amount of individual freedom and creativity that people have with their language can bring out interesting aspects of the societal system that they live in. Indeed, why is it that French has only about 200,000 words while English has twice as many. The reason is that English is not so « reined in » as French, so that it is apt to develop faster. The French Academy has been the « protector » of the French language since it was founded by Cardinal Richelieu in 1634. Today, there still are people in France who are crusading against the invasion of French by other languages, in pretty much the same way as Don Quixote fought against windmills. Obviously, these people have not yet realized that a language that does not evolve is on its way to the museum (department of antiquities). Fortunately, these people’s rearguard ideology and official instructions go unheeded : the French keep using foreign words to express foreign concepts, thereby making 20th-century French different from its 19th-century counterpart.

On a first trip to the U.S in 1979, one of the writers of this article was struck by all the « unacademic » turns of phrase that his hosts were using all the time, and which he had not been taught in school. He learned, for instance, that you could « okay » something or « wow » at it, which he rightly perceived to be the result of an almost limitless opportunity to create language when the need for new meaning is felt. True, Americans have long been « language smiths », playing around, sometimes tampering with the original English language. A few examples : some irregular verbs have been made regular (burn, dream, learn, etc.); adjectives are often used instead of adverbs ( »I did things real quick »); and we have already talked about words and concepts imported from other languages. In the same vein of thought, we could consider the compilation of the first-ever dictionary of Asian English now under way. The former colonies have integrated the colonizers’ language, transforming it from a second or foreign language into their own primary one. New vocabulary translating the local culture has made its way into common usage. In the Philippines, the adjective imeldific, a word play on the former First Lady Imelda Marcos’ name, means excessively ostentatious or in bad taste. In Malaysia « half past six » means both the time of day and a disparaging remark for someone or something considered to be useless. Achar is fruit or vegetable pickle (as it is in French in the Island of La Réunion). The onomatopoeic word tuk-tuk has been coined by the Thais for motorbike taxis. Since British or American English cannot translate the realities of life in Asia, linguistic innovation allows Asian speakers of English to gear the existing language to the needs of their own culture, thus expressing their sense of identity and cultural independence.

We draw several conclusions from the way in which the English language has evolved through the years : 1/ creativity in language is in keeping with the basic concept of individual freedom and growth (the American educational system, albeit in a major crisis, is the only one, to our knowledge, that offers classes in creative writing); 2/ language is created or modified to convey new ideas; 3/ creativity in language causes ideas (and goods!) to flow more freely; and 4/ if English (American English) is such a free language, it does not matter all that much if you make mistakes. This last conclusion is our students’ favorite!

Now it should be clear that studying the fundamental features of Anglo-Saxon cultures through language will make students realize that it is impossible to speak a target language, and therefore try to get a message across with maximum accuracy while thinking in and referring to one’s mother tongue. When they realize that a language has structural/organic links with a particular thinking pattern, students somehow kill two birds with one stone : they not only learn the language but they also adjust to and interact with cultural elements that they would otherwise have stayed strangers to. In other words, students become aware that when using a particular structure in English, they do not mean exactly the same as when they speak French. Speaking a different language also means thinking differently while probing the native speaker’s own mindset. Being shown the whys and wherefores of the target language, students learn the art of accurate cross-cultural communication. They are made to understand that languages, and so mindsets, bear very little resemblance to each other, and that, accordingly, intercultural communication cannot rely on knowing a lexis and grammatical rules to be applied without thinking twice about it. They feel that ready-made recipes for how to approach cultural differences cannot safely be relied upon because they know that the meaning is somewhere beyond the language, and that the language as such is but a means to convey the meaning.

Understanding a people through their language is one of the means to attain accuracy in communication and, beyond that, mutual respect and a sense of necessary complementarity. Our method is not an easy one, in that it calls for a lot of reflection, investigation and even introspection; and it invites one away from systematic, or automatic learning. However, we have had evidence that it is bearing its fruits : students learn better because they feel they have a real opportunity to apprehend otherness with curiosity, intelligence, honesty, and … efficiency.

Moving on now to a more applied dimension of language, we show that being unaware of the intricate links between a language and a mindset/system of reference, precludes the foreign language learner from fully making it through a foreign culture. For this, we have chosen to speak about humor, as humor sheds light on the subtleties of a language and a culture : it is like a window opening into a particular approach to life. If understood and appreciated, humor makes you feel that you belong in that culture. Typically, English humor is something that a French speaker does not understand, much less enjoy. Because (s)he has no or little access to this essential channel of cross-cultural communication that is humor, the French speaker will not be able to fully reach out for his English-speaking interlocutors, even though (s)he may be operational from a strictly linguistic viewpoint. As John Mole remarks :

« There is an aversion to seriousness. Humour is expected at all levels, between all levels, and on all occasions. It is important to be entertaining on every possible occasion, public or private. [...] In a culture where the direct display of feelings is suppressed, humour is a cover for embarrassment and aggression ». ¹²

Punning is the most obvious manifestation of humor through language. Studying British or American culture with our students, we like to introduce the issue of humor with a few puns and jokes, in order to assess their responsiveness or … lack of responsiveness. Very often the response, if any, is a sick smile!

Humor, like the cultural approach to syntax and lexis, makes it very clear that real cross-cultural interaction cannot depend on a set of rules to be learned out of context, or regardless of related mindsets and value systems. Even if students find that English humor, for example, is hard to appreciate and enjoy, they are made to realize that cross-cultural communication does not come down to speaking or understanding a foreign language. Humor certainly is the best tool to hammer home the idea.

Language and culture in practical situations

Language learning is no longer an end in itself. A significant proportion of our students will be doing part of their curriculum in a member country of the European Union and in the language of that country. Some of them will be working in industry or in research laboratories, doing their mandatory placement or project work. Others will spend an academic year following courses in the host institution, a year for which they obtain credit from their home institution and sometimes a degree from the host institution, too. Thus language and culture are not abstract notions. They are applied and used in every day life during the period of mobility.

Moreover our students do not have special classes as foreigners. They are totally integrated into academic, professional, social and student life in the language and culture of the host country. They are treated in the same way as local students and thus have to adapt to the local mindset, way of thinking, behaviour as much as possible.

Before departure our students have often had a taste of the host culture in the language class. Foreign colleagues who visit us for the coordination of our European programmes or for research collaboration are invited to intervene in the language class in their own language. They can introduce their institution, region and nation, lecture on their specific field, advise prospective exchange students. Their way of speaking and lecturing helps prepare students for a new approach both to everyday life and to their specific field of study. Through questions concerning lodging, French students realise that British students, for example, tend to live in student halls, or in flats or houses shared with fellow students. Life on campus encourages independance and interaction with others, as do the numerous sports and recreational facilities available. In France the majority of undergraduates live at home. There is less student social life. The family influence is still strong and it is not uncommon to receive phone calls from parents enquiring about specific aspects of the stay abroad.

As for academia, teaching styles vary, as do expectations for student assignments. Words such as essay, dissertation, etc. are intricately bound to cultural notions. The French cartesien mind assumes a dissertation will be structured properly as the form is at least as important as the content. A foreign student unaware of this cultural assumption could do very badly on his exams in France, as a foreign professor marking a French student’s assignment could find it too abstract and intellectual. Likewise oral presentations differ from one culture to another, be they in academic situations or in professional life. Anglo-Saxons are fond of humor, and it is not uncommon to begin a speech with a humorous anecdote or a joke. The audience or participants have a good laugh, relax and settle down to listen or to work. The Germans or the French do not react in the same way. The Frenchman gives you the outline of his presentation as an introduction, so that you know in advance exactly what he wishes to prove, and you can admire his intellectual verve, while the efficient German sticks strictly to his planned agenda, wasting no time on humor or superfluous comments.

Foreign exchange students present on our campus are also invited to the language class for introductions and then they act as resource persons for future consultation, often informally. This in fact both helps the integration of foreign students on our campus (our students approach them for information first, then they usually become friendly and include the foreign students in their activities) and prepares students for contact with the host culture -in France before departure and often in the host country when the foreign students have returned to their home institution and act as mentors for our out-going students.

During the academic year preceding their mobility our students have to do a research project in the language class. We encourage them to choose a topic related to the city, region, country of their destination and if possible to do a comparative study with their own country. They have several months to read up on the subject, preferably in English, and to interview foreign students and colleagues on campus to get first hand information. The students work in groups of two to four persons. A written report is submitted for correction (language, style, fluency…), is marked by the teacher and a corrected version, taking into account the teacher’s remarks, is handed back, so that students learn from their mistakes. There is an oral presentation in front of the whole class. Students share the fruit of their research with fellow students. Thus, everyone gets an insight into the host culture through the report, even though everyone does not partake in real mobility.

Our French students come from a system where there are a lot of hours spent in the classroom, lecture hall, or laboratory – 25 to 35 hours a week, depending on the programme. They have to absorb a great deal of information and have less time for independent study, especially as undergraduates. When they go to an Anglo-Saxon country where the contact time is much lower, we have to warn them that they are expected to read through bibliographies and to prepare their classes beforehand. On the whole, though, they adjust fairly well.

Foreign students coming to France, especially the ones not used to long classroom hours, balk at the mandatory attendance and the traditional lecturing methods of some of the teachers. It is particularly hard for them at the beginning of their stay, since their language skills may not be sufficient to cope with the situation. They are tempted to skip classes, thinking they will work on their own, as they would have done at home. Yet if they do not conform to the academic customs they are quickly marginalized. French teachers consider absenteeism as rude and will feel less inclined to help students who do not attend regularly. Since so much work is covered in class it is difficult to catch up and the foreign student, who may have already been feeling a bit left out, will in fact be excluded from the system. As advisers we must warn the students about these cultural differences and insist they go to all their classes, including the ones at 8 am!

In the Anglo-Saxon university and workplace our students are surprised by the more informal atmosphere. They appreciate the availability of the staff, the freedom they have to organize their work, the time at their disposal. They are proud of the trust employers place in them, the responsibilities they are given, and the leeway they have to get the job done. This often stimulates them to work hard and perform well, to prove they were worthy of this trust. Young students rarely have as much initiative in French firms in a similar situation. When they have had the opportunity to work in both cultures they certainly appreciate the difference.

Similarly students coming from informal systems have to be cautioned about invisible barriers that exist in French firms. Students from Quebec would not be expected to have problems adjusting in France as they speak the same language. Or do they? The French language has evolved differently in Quebec. Vocabulary dating from the 18th and 19th centuries is used in different contexts (jaser ). Anglo-American concepts have crept into the language (avoir du fun ) and new words have been coined as literal translations for English expressions (shopping : magasiner ). The Quebeckers’ mindset is North American. The educational system encourages students to be critical and outspoken. This can be quite disconcerting to the average French executive who is not used to being told by a trainee how to run his firm! Our role is to advise the Quebeckers to temper their critical ardor and to warn the host firms that cultural differences can explain « impertinent » behaviour. Thus, it is obvious that speaking the « same » language does not automatically facilitate cultural understanding. Quebeckers with their North American way of thinking are not used to the French hierarchical system. Their Quebec accent and different language structures surprise the unaware French person, who calls them affectionately our « cousins ». But the Quebeckers do not necessarily consider this to be a compliment. Why should they align their language to French academic norms? For them the French are the ones who have the strange accent. Without cultural awareness this situation can be explosive and lead to conflict.

One of the French expatriates’ common complaints is that they miss French food. Notwithstanding the more than 300 varieties of cheese and the exquisite wine, there is more to this than meets the eye, or rather the tummy! As in many aspects of French life there is a special ritual to a meal in France. Of course the choice of the food as well as the appropriate wines to accompany each dish is done with painstaking care. The order in which the different courses are served and the harmony of the meal as a whole are carefully planned. For example le trou normand, a refreshing sherbet soaked in alcohol (pear liquor in general), comes between the fish course and the main dish. A green salad is often served after the main course and just before the cheese. Both of these clear the mouth of previous tastes and prepare it for the next. Moreover, the traditional French meal is not just food to eat, but also food for thought. This is what the French call « art de vivre » (the art of living). Conversation over a good meal is a national pastime and can last for several hours. Many business lunches can go on till 3 or 4 pm, much to the dismay of « culturally unaware » foreigners. A refined meal in good company is one of the pleasures of life. A French host is honoring his guest by inviting her/him to lunch. He is not wasting time eating instead of discussing business. Business will be broached entre la poire et le fromage, literally between the pear and the cheese, at the end of the meal, once the essentials of life have been discussed! That is why the French miss their food so much and the ritual that goes with it when they go abroad. To get the real flavor of the above, one should read A year in Provence by Peter Mayle!

Undoubtedly, language is barely the visible tip of the iceberg Culture ; as such, it warns us that beneath the surface, there lies an incredibly huge, yet invisible mass which, if ignored, will present as great a danger to cultural interaction as the iceberg did to the Titanic. Our basic premise has been that language is generally taught and learned regardless of culture. Whenever language and culture are considered to be separate entities, conflict inevitably appears. As stated before, conflict fosters all sorts of negative reactions not only toward the Other but also, at times, toward oneself. Our duty as language specialists and promoters of international education, is to anticipate, stave off or resolve conflict by making our students aware of the organic link between language and culture. As we say in French, language is like « l’arbre qui cache la forêt » (the tree that hides the forest ).

Thierry Kakouridis, Agrégé d’anglais, directeur des relations internationales, professeur d’anglais. ENSPM, Domaine Universitaire de Saint-Jérôme, 13397 Marseille Cedex 20.
Myrna Magnan, Agrégée d’anglais, responsable des langues et des relations internationales. IUT d’Aix-Marseille III, Traverse Charles Susini, 13388 Marseille Cedex 13.

References

1. Gauthey, F and Xardel, D. (1993) Le management interculturel, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (coll. Que sais-je ?), p.98.
2. Pedersen, P. (1996) « Recent trends and developments in cross-cultural theories: A critical review of the current models and theories of cross-cultural differences, and how these relate to working with international students », pp. 23-25 in S. Sharples (Ed.) Changing Cultures: Developments in Cross-Cultural Theory and Practice, London: UKCOSA.
3. Refer to Pouw, A. (1996) «Aspects propositionnels, relationnels et contextuels de la communication interculturelle» in G.M. Willems (Ed.) Issues in Cross-Cultural Communication, Nijmegen: Hogeschool Gelderland Press.
4. Eleftheriadou, Z. (1996) « Notions of Culture », p. 7 in S. Sharples (Ed.) Changing Cultures: Developments in Cross-Cultural Theory and Practice, London: UKCOSA.
5. Oriol, M. and Affergan, F. (1995) « L’altérité et les différences culturelles », p. 15 in C. Camilleri (Ed.) Différences et cultures en Europe, Strasbourg: Les éditions du Conseil de l’Europe.
6. Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, USA: Basic Books, A Division of Harper-Collins Publishers, p.5.
7. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill, p. 5.
8. Dasen, P. (1995) « Fondements scientifiques d’une pédagogie interculturelle » in C. Camilleri (Ed.) Différences et cultures en Europe, Strasbourg: Les éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, p.128.
9. Hoffman, E (1991) Lost in Translation, Toronto: Minerva, p. 121.
10. Ibid; p. 148.
11. Ibid. p. 106.
12. Mole, J. (1992) Mind Your Manners, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, p. 111.