Beneke & Nothnagel are skeptical:

The very question of what should be semioticized and how is a question of specific cultures. The requirement for semiotics that are valid across cultures is difficult to fulfil. (1988:270.)

With that the theme of ethnocentricity in cross-cultural research has been addressed. Let me now, shortly, deal with some general methodological problems of culture analysis by referring to Raymonde Carroll's book Cultural mis understandings: the French-American experience.

According to Carroll, "cultural misunderstandings can easily occur and can cause pain, because they are not recognized as cultural - as owing to differences in cultural presuppositions of which we are unaware (p. xii). The concept o f culture is understood by Carroll as "the logic by which I give order to the world" (p. 3); "culture is a way of seeing the world, not a right of prior membership" (p. 143).

From the point of view of cross-cultural communication I see the actual problem in the fact that the most important "part of this logic is tacit, invisible" (p. 3); this part "consists in the premises from which we constantly draw our c onclusions. We are not conscious of these premises because they are, for us, verities. They are everything which 'goes without saying' for us and which is therefore transparent".

As soon as different cultures come into contact with each other it seems that certain conflicts simply cannot be avoided. This is because our 'natural' ways of seeing the world and our 'verities' do not coincide (p. 3). Furthermore, "si nce it is in the very nature of a verity to be self-evident and not to be challenged, I will not Attribute the uneasiness or hurt I feel in a conflict situation to an erroneous interpretation on my part. Instead I will Attribute this difficulty to one, or some, of the other's inherent characteristics" (pp. 3-4). In this fact we have to see one important reason for the rise of stereotypes and prejudices about other cultures.

Concerning cultural prejudices and stereotypes I agree with Carroll (p. 4) in the following: "if stereotypes are hardy, it is not because they contain a grain of truth but rather because they express and reflect the culture of those who espouse them. Thus when I - a French person - say, 'American children are spoiled and impolite,' I am not expressing a basic truth but referring rather to the French conception of child raising, which I unconsciously learned to regard as truth, wh ereas it is merely my (French) truth."

The researcher who deals with cultural analysis must be aware of the cultural frame created by his own culture and language backgrounds if she or he wants to understand another culture with 'typical' characteristics. In the words of Car roll: "I must become aware of my own culture, of my cultural presuppositions, of the implicit premises that inform my interpretation, of my verities. Only after taking this step, which is in fact the most difficult one, can I begin to understand the cultu ral presuppositions of the other, the implicit premises which inform a formerly opaque text." (p. 4.) Furthermore, we have to take into account "(a) that my culture is not something extemal to me, I create it just as it creates me; it is no more outside m e than my thoughts; it produces me and I produce it; (b) and that cultural propositions, the premises of which are invisible to me, exist at such a level of abstraction as to allow for and include a very wide range of variations at the level of experience. In other words, two people can act in very different ways and at the same time reaffirm the same cultural proposition at the level of production of meaning." (p. 5.)

To sum up, I see cultural analysis - according to Carroll - "as a means of perceiving as 'normal' things which initially seem 'bizarre' or 'strange' among people of a culture different from one's own. To manage this, I mus t imagine a universe in which the 'shocking' act can take place and seem normal, can take on meaning without even being noticed. In other words, I must try to enter, for an instant, the cultural imagination of the other" (p. 2). Last but not least, let me point out that cultural analysis "does not concern itself with value judgements" (p.2); cultural analysis has to avoid any form of ethnocentricity.

How we can actually perform a cultural analysis? According to Carroll, we have to take into account the three following steps:

Firstly I must "avoid all attempts at discovering the deep-seated reasons for the cultural specificity of such-and-such a group. That is to say that I must avoid the temptation of psychological or psychoanalytic explanations ('be cause American mothers ..,' 'because French people can't stand authority ..;') I must also avoid the temptation of explanations that are ecological ('because the Xs lack protein'), geographical ('because they live in the thin mountain air'); meteorologica l ('because of the abundance of rain'), or demographic ('because the opposition between city and country'). I must avoid the temptation of economic explanations ('because they are capitalists'), of religious explanations ('the French Catholics' 'the Ameri can Puritans'), of historical explanations (the role of invasions, wars), or even of sociological explanations ('the American family is such because people move around a lot), and so on." (pp. 5-6.) This is because the job of cultural analysis is not " to find out why things are as they are" (p. 6); rather, the job of cultural analysis is "to understand the system of communication by which meaning is produced and received within a group." (p. 6.)

Secondly cultural analysis consists of listening to my own discourse and learning "to recognize the value judgments I include when I (sincerely) believe I am simply describing something" (p. 6). All this concerns my personal prejudices against a culture different from my own. If these prejudices are consciously going to be reflected as a result of my own cultural background it will be obvious to me that I have to do only with certain forms of ethnocentricity. In other words: The feature s I criticize in another culture are simply either the distance from my own culture or absence. "What I am saying, in fact, is that the Xs do not have 'my' sense of whatever it is." (p. 6) To avoid prejudices and stereotypes, "I must try to imagine a cont ext in which this experience is no longer shocking or unpleasant, try to imagine a universe in which what was 'bizarre' becomes 'normal"' (p. 7).

Thirdly "cultural analysis consists of trying to discover, by analyzing other experiences, written texts ... or oral text ..., other domains in which the same cultural proposition seems to be confirmed, but in an apparently different fa shion." (p. 9.)

Apart from these steps given by Carroll I perceive amongst other things the following possibilities for the avoidance of stereotypes and an ethnocentric viewpoint in cross-cultural analyses, which are only given briefly here and merely reflect experiences from project work:

At the present time it is not possible apprehend cultures in all their complexity. Since the abstract overall communication of a certain society is subdivided horizontally into a seemingly inordinate number of relatively self-contained areas of communication, and furthermore within these areas there is, in turn, a marked vertical division according to the specific communication situation, ä complete understanding of the communicative reality would seem to be excluded. Moreover, homogeneous cultures are in any case an abstraction, since in reality social, regional, national, ethnic, religious, political and other factors are present within a culture society and can possibly exert a greater influence on the communicative behavior of the individual than the supposedly common culture. Finally, communicative behavior is essentially an individual act so that generalizations are definitely ruled out.

Because of this complexity of the determinants of communicative behavior, puported cultural differences (i.e. established as such in empirical research) can only ever be seen as an approximation to the communicative reality; for that reason they are unsuited for judging, or even for making predictions about, other cultures. Descriptions of cultural differences are at their most meaningful when small, selected and well isolated areas of communication are researched, as for example in our project on company and product presentations. A generalization of research results from such a basis is, by their nature, excluded.

As long as cross-cultural research is carried out by people, it runs the general risk, when forming hypotheses, of basing arguments on stereotypes and/or, in categorizing, of creating stereotypes. In this connection it should be pointed out that it was through the more intensive examination of aspects of intercultural communication that new stereotypes were created and old ones gained a wider currency as well as a "scientific gloss". This is especially true - I think - for stereotypes about Finland and the Finns. Research work in bicultural research groups can offer a solution, although even this can easily lead to biased viewpoints due to the simple contrast of two cultures. Thus for instance the characterization of Finns as reticent is only valid in comparison with certain other cultures, but has no absolute validity. Therefore a multilateral approach would recommend itself, that is, the inclusion of many different cultures and Cooperation between researchers from many different countries. In that way, particular categories of research such as reticence and directness could be further relativized and new viewpoints found as well as differentiating more accurately between individual cultures on a scale than if one hastily carries out a merely bilateral and thus almost always dichotomous contrast.

Since stereotypes have a strong influence on comparative cultural research as well as on intercultural communication itself, this concept will be analyzed in more depth in the following. The term stereotype originally comes from sociology, or social psychology, where it is taken to mean an ingrown impression which a social group has of itself (autostereotype) or of another social group (heterostereotype). Often the term stereotype is linked with the term prejudice, by which it acquires a negative Connotation. Since the development of sociolinguistics the term has had an increasing presence in linguistics too, as documented in, for example, the fairly detailed Bibliography on research on cultural prejudice and stereotypes by Marianne Kranz (1987) with over 350 entries.

From a linguistic point of view, Bussmann (1983:504) understands by a stereotype a "term for describing mostly subconscious, deeply rooted judgements/prejudices that are specific to certain groups and emotionally charged"; in communication they generally offer an "aid to assessment", contribute to a mastery of the situation and fulfil a "relief function" in conflict situations. Thus the functionality of the stereotype for its bearers⁶ (i.e. its cognitive and social function) can be further complimented by reference to its (often) self-fulfilling effect: stereotypes (like rumors) create the reality from whose supposed existence they originate since they direct the social experiences of their bearers.' Thus despite the lack of an empirical basis (i.e. without actual verification) they constitute a coherent world which eases orientation and social behavior even in new and unsure situations.

Evidently, stereotypes in intercultural communication present a particular problem area since here it is not only a question of communication between different social groups, but unfamiliar languages and cultures are also involved. Since verbal communication is mostly not explicit and direct - see for example Tannen (1985:205): "most communication is characterized by indirectness"⁷ - contextualization cues play an important role in getting the message through. The term contextualization cues, coined by Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1976), is understood by Tannen in the following - somewhat abbreviated - way: "these signals indicate a metamessage about how the message... is intended" (1985:204). In a General article about contextualization Auer (1986:41) summarizes the "central idea" of this concept:

Furthermore, as a result of much research (latterly Kotthof 1989) one can assume that contextualization cues are culture-bound and "thus lead to misunderstandings and stereotyping despite the redundancy already touched upon" (Auer 1986: 27). That is to say that even the linguistically more or less competent (but foreign) non-native speaker does not or does not sufficiently know and recognize a) the contextualization cues of the destination language when communicating with a native speaker so that he inadequately interprets non-explicit linguistic behavior by his communication partner and b) is inadequately interpreted by his communication partners in the foreign language by the use of contextualization cues from his own culture⁸. In both cases the result is that existing stereotypes about the alien person gain "confirmation" through social experiences, so that in this way stereotypes are reinforced, and/or through overgeneralization and simplification of the social experience with the alien person stereotypes are created which then become guiding in future communication. Here intercultural communication finds itself in a viscous circle, from which the only escape is on the metacommunicative level: i.e. the rules of the communication must be negotiated and the content of the communication must be made as explicit as possible.

lt should be stressed here that miscommunication is caused not only by language differences, but even more by culture differences which are usually manifests on the level of the contextualization cues and concern here primarily the non-linguistic contextualization cues. To that extent, I do not see the problem of address by the formal or informal "you" ("Sie" or "Du") in German-Finnish communication primarily as an expression of a cultural difference, rather as a linguistic problem which can hardly lead to damaging miscommunication in so far as competent communication partners can be assumed on either side (which is almost always the case in business communication). If, for example a Finn uses the informal "you" ("Du") with a German who only has a very limited knowledge of Finnish and has had contact with Finns, the German will hardly regard this as an affront, but will understand that a faux pas has occurred as a result of other linguistic customs - and that it moreover is easily put to rights (for example by consistent use of the formal "you" ["Sie"] thereafter).⁹ Much more significant and intrusive, however, are the various (culture-bound) customs informs of address; mentioning the forenames and surname (maybe even the title and other Attributes) of the other, looking at the other person whilst addressing him, as well as other social niceties. Here culture differences are present as it is a question of differing cultural value systems: the frequent use of the name serves in some cultures as an expression of interest in the communication partner or of respect towards him; in other cultures it can token a certain intimacy; and in certain cultures the mention of a proper name can even be forbidden.¹⁰ In written communication there are differing norms governing whether one may/should use the forename (with or without surname) when addressing someone, whether one may/should abbreviate it or omit it completely", whether an explicit address is usual at the opening of a letter and whether substitute forms (e.g. passive forms) may/should be used."

To conclude my article I would like to illustrate the use and function of stereotypes through examples of German-Finnish business communication, for which I shall first a) attempt a broadening of the term stereotype and b) relate the concept of the stereotype to written communication. By broadening the term stereotype I mean that the term here is not only employed in connection with attitudes and opinions towards social groups, but that attitudes and prejudices towards other countries and conditions are implied, in so far as these attitudes or prejudices have a generally collective character, are emotionally charged and overgeneralized and do not or only partially correspond to the facts. As regards written communication, I believe that stereotypes firstly manifest themselves in (written) texts and secondly that stereotypes towards other cultures can be created through (written) texts¹³. At the same time (written) texts are an important means for dispelling and dismantling stereotypes.

The key words are here: "somewhere abroad" and "perhaps at night" and (the slogan of the text) "We will keep you moving - even across borders". Apart from this advertisement there are other advertisements about the Mercedes-Benz touring guarantee which also refer to breakdown assistance abroad, but which I shall not go into further here. Rather I would like to discuss an advertisement (Der Spiegel No. 12/1990), in which Finland (or stereotypes about Finland) is used as a demonstration of the benefits of the touring guarantee. In that advertisement Finland is presented as the embodiment of foreign, winter, and border and (at least in the case of a breakdown) of frightening. The initial (threatening) situation is eased, however, and the fear of the Mercedes driver is removed by the touring guarantee; for "Even Leppävirta is only one hour away from Stuttgart".¹⁴

The large landscape photograph conveys a stereotype impression of Finland, where the elements are restricted to snow, lakes, forest and the horizon, against which only the stationary Mercedes stands out, and moreover it appears to have come to a halt on a snowed-up road. There is a (faint) hint of dusk and the headlight¹⁵ on the Mercedes also give the impression that it is fairly dark, and dusk can be seen as a symbol of the Finnish winter gloom. Through the choice of elements moreover the picture gives the impression of icy cold. Since other than the red color of the Mercedes and the red tone of dusk the only colors are blue and white, the Finnish national colors are brought into play, which ought to be familiar to the reader of the advertisement from the Finnish flag (and hint at Finnish patriotism).

The stage is then complimented by further stereotype impressions of Finland and her inhabitants: naturally there is a wooden house at the entrance to Leppävirta which naturally has two floors; the landlord of the Pikabaari (ie . the snack bar¹⁹) is naturally very friendly: the Mercedes driver is "very welcome to make a Telephone call". lt is also worth noting that the landlord's name somehow sounds endearing when pronounced the typical German way (hu:otäri].

The same goes for the proper name Soini [zo:fnil and for Matti, Seppo and Lapp, which sound pathetic in German ears. Apart from the landlord there is only one other Finnish actor in the short scene, a reliable and efficient garag e owner²⁰ who ignores both wind and weather to get Mercedes drivers out of trouble.

Although the Mercedes advert only makes positive comments on the Finns and even if the picture conveyed of Finland is not necessarily disparaging, overgeneralizations and simplifications are made which do not necessarily correspond to t he Finns' picture of themselves, but which are very functional in connection with the advertisement: the backdrop of a winter landscape in Middle Finland²¹ suits the purposes of the advertisement very well, and the tension is pierced by the friendly and reliable Finnish people, who are also portrayed as somewhat exotic if not pathetic.

Such stereotypes about Finland (used or created in the Mercedes advertisement)²² can be extremely annoying to the Finns, which is s hown, for example, by an extract from an information brochure "Innovatives Finnland" published by the Finnish Foreign Trade Association', to which I will refer in the following. I refer to the first two inside pages of the brochure, which contains one lar ge picture and a text which introduces the whole brochure.

2 There is a wealth of literature on intercultural comparison in sociology under the relevant entries in sociological dictionaries and in the articles in the anthology by Trommsdorf (1989b). Back 

3 I do not see the starting point for cross-cultural research in linguistics but in semiotics as a general theory of linguistic and non-linguistic sign systems. Frorn an intercultural viewpoint in particular, the inclusion of non-linguistic sign systems in oral as well as written communication is shown to be absolutely necessary. Back