Page 64 - Reading Between the Sign Intercultural Communication for Sign Language Interpreters

Selected Topics in Intercultural Communication 49

shared. This could be likened to the flow of water in a series of
canals compared with a free-flowing system of rivers and tribu-
taries. An excellent example can be found in Stephanie Hall’s ar-
ticle, “Train Gone Sorry” (1989), about communication etiquette
at a Deaf club. She explains that
hearing people often comment that Deaf people do not
keep secrets among themselves—although they may
keep their secrets from hearing people! Yet it should
not be surprising that among people for whom all in-
formation is precious, even sacred, secrecy is consid-
ered antisocial. Sharing information is an affirmation
of the unity of the Deaf community. Deaf people in turn
often think a hearing person’s attitude toward privacy
[is] infuriating and perplexing. (S. Hall 99)

Context in the Legal Arena
One final example of differences in levels of context can be found
in the legal arena. This aspect of American culture is even farther
out on the low-context end of the continuum. Edward T. Hall (1976)
describes the American legal system as so decontexted that “…it
is extraordinarily difficult to guarantee that the proceedings can
be linked to real life” (106). The inadmissibility of hearsay, per-
sonal opinion, and background information as well as the heavy
usage of yes-no questions “…reveal the U.S. courts as the epitome
of low-context systems” (107). In comparison, Hall describes the
French courts, which are higher context and which “…allow great
leeway in the testimony admitted as evidence. The court wants to
find out as much as possible about the circumstances behind the
surface acts.… Everything is heard—facts, hearsay, gossip” (108).
Hall goes on to say that low-context legal systems view the
participants as adversaries, while high-context cultures such as
Japan put “the accused, the court, the public, and those who are
the injured parties on the same side, where, ideally, they can work
together to settle things” (111). Another example of this high-con-
text justice system is found in Native American “sentencing circles,”
which are community-based tribunals that are composed of tribal
leaders, the victim, the defendant, friends, and families; at times
a judge presides and there are lawyers present. After a long pro-
cess—sometimes several days—of discussion and consensus build-
ing, participants arrive at a sentence (Turner 1996).

03 MINDESS PMKR 49 10/18/04, 11:23 AM