The issue was regarding understanding the intent of the message producer (speaker, writer, etc.).
I mentioned once before how in my language teaching I was particularly interested in sociolinguistic aspects of language and communication. One of the things I did to help understand how seemingly small things can make a big difference in communication was to teach sentences that changed meaning according to where you put the emphasis. Here's an example:
The RAIN in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
The rain in SPAIN stays mainly on the plain.
The rain in Spain stays MAINLY on the plain.
The rain in Spain stays mainly on the PLAIN.
In as much as any of these is not the usual intonation for this sentence, the word being highlighted could be focusing on correcting an error someone else had just spoken. For example, the first sentence could be interpreted like this:
No, that's not right. It's the rain, not the snow, in Spain that stays mainly on the plain.
***
Another area for possible miscommunication is that of understanding what an action means. Here is a concrete and very real example of what I mean.
Action: Mom decided to increase her regular gifting for me (and not my brothers - although she's helped them from time to time too).
Interpretation 1: I love you and I want to help you.
Interpretation 2: It's not completely your fault you're needy.
Interpretation 3: I have more money than you do which means ... (e.g., ...I'm more powerful you in the family, etc.)
Interpretation 4: In the event you want to shift the family power structure... (e.g. ...I can use my money to maintain the status quo).
Interpretation 5: Here's some money to convince you to remain an active part of the family.
Interpretation 6: My being nice to you by giving you money is going to make you look bad if you say anything bad about the family.
Interpretation 7: Look how sacrificial I am in helping you when I'm not living high on the hog myself.
Interpretation 8: I'm only helping you to meet your basic needs, because I'll look bad if others think your situation is not your fault and I don't help you.
Interpretation 9: I'm helping you but only to meet your basic needs; if I find out you're spending it on anything other than the basics I'm going to cut off my assistance and make sure others know how careless you are with money.
I'm not saying that all of these are true, but I think that all of these are within the realm of the realistically possible.
So if I can't definitively understand this simple action, especially considering how long I've been a part of the family, can you see how it might be difficult for people to understand actions in the Vienna mission? Even for me, a semi-insider it was difficult enough.
***
Following is an excerpt from from a classic text on crosscultural communication, a text from my undergraduate European Studies coursework.
"Typically, the method used to improve chances for successful intercultural communication is to gather information about the customs of the other country and a smattering of the language...
A better approach is to study the history, political structure, art, literature, and language of the country if time permits...
One way to reach an improved state of awareness and sensitivity to what might go wrong is to examine five variables in the communications process that seem to be major stumbling blocks when the dyad or smal group is cross cultural. The first is so obvious it hardly needs mentioning - language...
Learning the language, which most foreign visitors consider their only barrier to understanding, is actually only the beginning. As Frankl says, "To enter into a culture is to be able to hear, in Lionel Trilling's phrase, its special 'hum and buzz of implication.'" This brings in nonverbal areas and the second stumbling block. People from different cultures inhabit different nonverbal sensory words. Each sees, hears, feels, and smells only that which has some meaning of importance for him...
The third stumbling block is the presence of preconceptions and stereotypes... Stereotypes do what Ernest Becker says the anxiety-prone human race must do, and that is to reduce the threat of the unknown by making the world predictable.
Another deterrent to an understanding between persons of differing cultures or ethnic groups is the tendency to evaluate, to approve or disapprove statements and actions of the other person or group rather than to try to completely comprehend the thoughts and feelings expressed.
The fifth stumbling block is high anxiety, separately mentioned for the purpose of emphasis. Unlike the other four (language, illusive nonverbal cues, preconceptions and stereotypes, and the practice of immediate evaluation), the stumbling block of anxiety is not distinct but underlies and compounds the others. The presence of high anxiety/tension is very common in cross-cultural experiences because of the uncertainties present...."
Barna, LaRay M. (1976). Intercultural communication stumbling blocks. In Samovar, Larry A., & Porter, Richard E., eds. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, p. 293-296
***
Communication, then is a difficult thing and is not as straight forward as it always seems, even sometimes in very familiar situations and relationships. The significance of this, as far as this blog is concerned, is that there was a lot going on in Vienna that could have resulted in communication problems, meaning either party being misunderstood for one reason or another.
From my perspective (that is my end of the communication relationship), the main cultural groups were the Austrian context and the Vienna mission.
I must say that I don't really remember having any problems communicating in Austria, although my German was limited at the beginning. But still, I didn't have any major gaffes, for example. I remember one time getting frustrated trying to figure out how to use a pay phone, but that was unusual. I definitely wasn't stressed about living in Austria and didn't shy away from interactions with Austrians. Besides, my European studies background I think helped me, even if I didn't have a strict focus just on Austria in my studies.
Regarding the Vienna mission, however, I can't say the same. You'd think the mission would be easier for me to get along in because of its homogeneity, which I've discussed elsewhere in this blog. But it wasn't easier. So somehow we have to account for why it was so hard for me to become acculturated to the mission and for me to even understand it. The mission, really, was almost as foreign to me as if I had been dropped in a tribal setting somewhere, except that we all spoke English, even if that didn't seem to help much. In any event, my stress was worst in relation to the mission and I had more trouble understanding it than the Austrian culture. Some of the things discussed in this post might account for some of the communication problems. It doesn't explain everything, though, I don't think. You have to also consider, for example, intentionally veiling intended meanings, which I think the mission was guilty of.
