I have a background in research, and moving to the United States I’ve had some situations where I’ve coached people in a team who’ve never directly talked to their customers. Something I always have to do with Americans is to practice getting them comfortable with silence.
A tip I stole from someone else (can’t remember who otherwise I’d credit) when asking a question in research interview is to stay silent until you’re feeling uncomfortable, and then count slowly another 3 seconds before asking a follow up prompt.
The majority of the time, people do have useful things to say if you are willing to give them the space to speak.
Yet another misuse of the word "Bahasa" as if that's shorthand for "Indonesian".
"Bahasa" literally just means "language", the Indonesian language doesn't have eponyms, so to say "He is Australian" you have to include the noun "person", so "Dia orang Australia" (Sound familiar? "orang utan" means "jungle person"). Same deal with language/bahasa.
People saying "I speak Bahasa" sounds to me like people saying "I speak Sprache" to say they know German or "I speak langue" for French. It's eye-rollingly obnoxious.
Eye-rollingly obnoxious? I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself. So whilst I agree "bahasa" has a commonly incorrect usage I don't think it is due to the typical "White Ignorance". I mean at least the author actually went to the effort of learning a non-European language right?
It's like "literally" in English has _changed_ its meaning. Yeah of course it originally meant non-figuratively, but it is clear to all that value language as a medium of communication (rather than a measure of intellectual status) that it now has another meaning as an intensifier.
> I've literally heard native Indonesians refer to their language as just "bahasa", though admittedly those same speakers told me off for doing it myself
The second part could be indicative of this being usage only acceptable for 'insiders' to employ, and the first part could mean but does not have to mean that outsiders / speakers of other languages / in other countries could and should use those very words. For example, in an American context one often hears "this country" to mean the USA, but that cannot be transported into contexts based outside the USA. Similarly, there's 우리나라 /uri nara/ lit. 'our country' > "Korea" in Korean but you wouldn't say "I'm flying to Urinara" or "I'm flying to Our Country" when you're about to board a plane to Seoul. In Japanese and Taiwan, the Japanese language and the Chinese language are often referred to as 國語 lit. 'national language' > "Japanese" or "Chinese" (depending on the language used). Of course you can't normally say "我不會講國語" in Chinese to mean "I don't speak Japanese" except when the context is clear and the listener can be expected that 國語 may mean Japanese in Japanese.
So Indonesians using "bahasa" in Indonesian doesn't necessarily license using that word in English.
That's a good point. Now that I think about it, the Indonesians from whom I heard "bahasa" were actually also native Javanese speakers. Bahasa Indonesia is of course a lingua franca, and an increasingly imposing one for minority languages, so maybe that could be a possible source for your point that there are different connotations for insiders and outsiders.
I didn't get your point about "this country". The only thing I know is how it's inappropriate outside the USA, or in a global context, to use America to mean the USA, as of course the rest of the Americas also exist.
The OP's point was that even if you're American, using the phrase "this country" to refer to the US, when you're actually outside the US, is wrong, unlike, say "my country" or "our country". Similarly, it seems "bahasa" is inherently context-sensitive, like saying "our language", which is wrong if the speaker doesn't actually speak the language.
Thanks. Though I still don't understand, it just seems non-sensical to use "this country" when you're outside the country in question, likes it's just a fundamental error of grammar. Can you give me a specific example?
Yes, it's non-sensical, just like it's non-sensical to use a word that basically means "our language" when it's not actually a language that you speak. (Not a grammatical error though, but rather a semantic error, a dangling reference as it were!)
Let's say you don't speak German but keep hearing Germany referred to as "Vaterland" in the media. You might deduce that the word "Vaterland" is synonymous with Germany, and start using it yourself to refer to the country, but that would be wrong, because the word (without additional context) simply means "homeland", typically the speaker's homeland, whatever country that is.
This doesn’t make sense. If the word/phrase expresses a relative relationship to it’s user, then that works on a per user basis.
Eg- Non-Americans can say “this country” about their own countries. If the word/phrase is a generic term in a given language, it often ends up having fixed context —- eg “la Raza” as used by Latin American communities.
Besides, the original commenter denied it’s used at all. Gp implies otherwise.
Broadly speaking, this whole business of trying to “own” words on an identity basis is poisonous, corrosive and an abuse of the tool of language.
If a word is widely understood to have the meaning "our language", it's precisely its context-sensitivity that makes it wrong for a non-speaker to use that word to refer to the language, because he/she is not part of the "us". Thinking otherwise is basically telling the native speakers that you, as an ignorant ousider, know better than them how their language and its nuances work.
I agree that a possessive concept shouldn’t be used as a generic. I’m sure mistakes of that nature are made all the time by non-speakers of various languages.
Neither person in the discussion above claimed bahasa means “our language”. The positions were “bahasa=language(generic)” vs “bahasa=also colloquially used to mean Indonesian”.
It was your assertion/conjecture that it actually means “our language”. The (seemingly) native speaker posting the original comment did not make a similar claim.
Interesting. It’s similar to the use of the word “chai” in the US. It originally means tea, but in the US it is used to mean a specific blend/preparation (usually masala), so they say “I’ll have a chai tea”, which literally means “I’ll have a tea tea”.
Cue DFW's rant on silence and Pulp Fiction's uncomfortable silence scene [1, 2].
The author mentions Japan but doesn't mention aizuchi, a constant backchanneling that signals attentiveness that I'd classify as the opposite of silent pontificating [3].
Backchanneling is not exclusive to Japanese, but overuse in other languages can be perceived as rude and a sign of inattentiveness. You need to experience a casual Japanese conversation to realize how prevalent it is [1]. After my stint there, people noticed how much I backchannel even in my other languages.
> Given the different ways silence is used in China (a listening culture) and Canada (a speaking culture) ...
I observed the opposite. When I speak Chinese to Chinese people in Toronto, Canada - friends/family/business - I find that they speak faster, are more likely to interrupt or talk over me, and tend to push their viewpoints instead of waiting to hear yours.
I've interacted with Chinese vs. Canadian bankers, salespeople, doctors, etc., and the contrast is noticeable for me.
This isn't a statement about whether one way is better (e.g. I find the Chinese are more straightforward with their intentions, whereas Canadians leave more things implied); this is just an observation about tendencies.
Nordics and say Japanese may be listening cultures but in such a profoundly different way that it is hard to put them in the same group.
Japanese and Koreans speak in a very indirect and polite fashion. Us Nordics tend to be very blunt and direct. But we share this with the Dutch and Germans.
For me the main dividers are between direct and indirect speakers.
Like Americans like to keep things a bit fluffy and casual until they know you better or have sort of warmed up in the conversation. We are often opposite. We like going straight to the point and do the fluffy stuff last as way of ending a conversation.
The Western European and Scandinavian cultures are often used as the classic example of low context cultures and asian and middle eastern ones as the classic as high context cultures.
America vs Nordics is almost the opposite ends. Americans will ask you fluffy questions if they don't know you -- not expecting an answer! -- while Northern Europeans will mostly engage strangers factually and to the point. And you don't go asking strangers about how their day has been, that's none of your business, and you wouldn't do that unless you were actually offering to help deal with their stresses or such.
Are Americans really fluffy?
Many of the questions people perceive as fluffy aren't actually questions...
How you doing? etc that isn't a question and you aren't supposed to give a detailed response- it is basically just a dumb was of saying hi.
Uh, speaking as an american, yes, it is 100% actually a question, and yes, I do in fact want to actually know how the other person is doing. I'm fine with them leaving anything out they don't feel comfortable disclosing, but … if they do feel comfortable, it's an invitation to just cut through the nonsense and become a friend. It's the most no-nonsense way to bulldoze through the usual pointless formalities and actually get to know someone.
It's a deliberate short circuit to a real human problem - the problem of two compatible people (whether friends or lovers) being artificially delayed on connecting with each other because of "customarily enforced" protocol on how quickly they're allowed to be familiar. That problem is bad enough that it's a staple trope in rom-coms and buddy cop films - and it frequently leads to tragedy because of how short life is, and how opportunities don't last.
It feels like there are a lot of people in the american cultural milieu who've picked this up from other groups of americans (america's a huge country with tons of different culture groups), but … are missing the absolutely CRITICAL ingredient of taking it at face value.
It is exactly what it looks like; it's not facetious, it's not fake, and anyone who treats it like that is kinda cargo-culting it.
> How you doing? etc that isn't a question and you aren't supposed to give a detailed response- it is basically just a dumb was of saying hi.
That's a gross oversimplification; the particular question used as an example may or may not be a genuine question and whether it is or isn't varies from person to person and, even for the same person asking, often by who they are asking and the context.
Treating it as a non-question to be blown off with a ritual “fine” can be anywhere from the correct formulaic response to an acceptable way of indicating you don't really want to discuss specifics to a significant insult.
When thinking of that as the default, within the culture, “we know what it actually means” is the most salient.
When thinking of that as not the default, in a cultural comparison, “how are analogous-role conversational elements expressed differently” is the most salient. So compared to a culture in which you don't ask that so cheerily, obligatorily, without-‘really’-meaning, yes, it totally is fluffy.
(Speaking as someone who's theoretically American but culturally ambiguous, who's recently been suggested by someone reviewing my social skills in a professional capacity to inject more low-content happy-mood pleasantries into my conversation—they may have actually used the word “American” in the process, and I hardly disagree with the connection. Of course, that's papering over a lot of intra-American variation too.)
When a grocery store cashier asks that question, yes it is very fluffy and no information is expected in response.
For contrast, in Northern Europe a cashier would greet you with the local version of "Hi", "Hello" or "Good morning". And them not verbally greeting you would be socially acceptable too!
In my experience at a software company located in the Midwest, I find most engineers engage in a hard listening culture. They have things that may want to say but do not want to say their thoughts for a myriad of reasons.
My (soft) heuristic towards engagement in meetings is to call on others and ask their thoughts. Sometimes I get a squeamish non-answer but sometimes I get a answer worth it’s weight in gold.
There are some who engage in a hard speaking culture, too. My heuristic operates to hear from everyone, when practical and possible.
What is meant by hard listening? I’ve never heard that. If engineers are reluctant to speak up its probably because years of experience that management/regular people just wants yes/no/we can do that type answers. Giving technical answers to things is sometimes perceived as aggressive or intimidating because the people who are supposed to be in charge often can’t follow all details. It takes a rare boss to truly trust the engineers.
As a Latin American (of Italian heritage!) that moved to the US, I learned this the hard way.
Many times, as an introvert, I sometimes like to be silent myself, even if I'm enjoying the moment. As the article say, this doesn't tend to be a problem in Latin America, because people are always talking over each other (and that's fine!), so anyone keeping quiet works ok.
But in the US, you're expected to talk, so keeping quiet means something is wrong. I finally got tired of people asking "what's wrong? why aren't you saying anything?" (and not understanding when I answer that nothing is wrong and that yes, I'm having a good time). So I started making a point of saying something of no value every now and then, to fill my quota. This seems to make everyone happy.
I've also had the problem of being overly quiet at times, in meetings typically. Unfortunately it gives the impression of being unengaged, when in reality I may just be thinking deeply about something. My solution, analogous to yours, is to ask questions -- which IMHO may be quite valuable at times!
As an American living in Finland you find that there is no such thing in Finnish culture as an "awkward silence". And (more humorously) when there's a group of people all talking, and someone says something really stupid and embarrassing, it's rare that someone steps in to save the offender's bacon by moving the conversation onward. Instead the stupid just hangs in the air for a looooong moment. Eye contact, knowing smiles. Highly entertaining.
While I generally appreciate silence more so than most, I've noticed a kind of unhealthy silence in certain work situations over the last 18 months.
While I've mostly enjoyed the pandemic-induced remote meetings via Teams/Zoom, et al, one thing that's annoyed me is people's unwillingness - when they don't turn on their cameras, which is 95% of the time in my org - to compensate for the fact that no one can see anyone else.
So someone will ask a question like "Does anyone have any questions?" In pre-pandemic days the questioner could scan the faces of those in the room and see people shaking their head "no". In virtual meetings with cameras off that's not possible. To me, that's awkward, and not in the good way that Uma's character in Pulp Fiction means[0]. Are people even paying attention? Did they hear me? Are they checking their email or otherwise multi-tasking?
So I've begun responding verbally to such questions and to otherwise fill the void that's left when no one wants to turn on a camera.
A tip I stole from someone else (can’t remember who otherwise I’d credit) when asking a question in research interview is to stay silent until you’re feeling uncomfortable, and then count slowly another 3 seconds before asking a follow up prompt.
The majority of the time, people do have useful things to say if you are willing to give them the space to speak.