The Cross-Cultural Background and Modern Transformations of Religious and Spiritual Symbols of Lithuanian Identity

Traditional symbols and codes are very powerful elements of culture. In modernity they have become connected with the paradigm of intertextuality: being actual because of their modern and contemporary treatment, at the same time they are associated with intracultural communication, the national historical background and ethnic traditionalism, as well as having a lot of intercultural features. Paradoxically serving to define cultural boundaries and uniqueness, they also can testify to historical processes of cultural globalization. The aim of this research is to contextualize the iconicity and contemporary meaning of modern national visual symbols (a rue, a six-petal rosette; a sun with wavy rays) and uncover the main differences and similarities between their ancient historical and folkloric meaning and actual modern interpretations based on art, folk art and art-historical, historical, archaeological and folkloric data. This interdisciplinary approach is based on semiotic (i.e. ethnosemiotic), ethnological interpretation and contextual analysis of the function and meaning of visual symbols as elements of culture. The study clarifies how these ornamental signs of national identity, which are related to cultural heritage, but with intercultural historical origins, come alive and come to be newly interpreted by the social imaginary, influenced by scientific concepts in modern religious, spiritual and cultural life and their representations, and how these signs are prevalent internationally. It also analyses how, as logos in highly symbolic forms relating to mythical paradigms, these visual signs are involved in processes of the auto-communication of culture, its transmission, creation and memory, and how they are related to the boundaries of semiotic space or the semiosphere (Lotman 2005: 210; 2009: 131-142).

Inter-caste Marriage and the Impact on the Intra-cultural Communication Pattern of Balinese Hindu in Indonesia: An Ethnography Study

Intra-cultural communication of the Balinese community, acted as a representation of cultural and social identity. This intra-cultural relationship has consciously built relations of power in the life of the Balinese Hindu community including in very personal matters such as marriage. There are two kinds of marriages for Balinese Hindu, memadik (wooing) and ngerorod (eloping). The second married arose when women from high caste married with a man from a lower caste. In the Dutch colonial era, this kind of marriage was outlawed, since this time categorized as unexpected marriage. One of the consequences of eloping married, known as nyerod in Bali is a decline in the caste of the bride as same as the groom. Accordingly, the couple should change their ways of communication when they interact with the bride family. The aims of this paper is to describe the intra-cultural communications among the nyerod couple with their family and the indigenous environmental in Balinese Hinduism. The ethnography approach was taken to describing and analyzing the primary data from interview and observation. The result shows that the intracultural communication pattern among nyerod women and their parent, sibling and extended family, represent by their impression management. The foundation of interactions are the form of their identity which develops in four layers and bound by customary law.

Seren taun Sebagai Medium Komunikasi Adat

Seren taun is a traditional ceremony performed by Kasepuhan Cisungsang, Banten Kidul, as a vehicle to give thanks to God Almighty for their harvest. In the perspective of intracultural communication. Seren taun is an indigenous communication medium that serves to transform the values of adat from one generation to the next for the preservation of their cultural identity. Therefore, every ceremony of ceremonial seren taun must be attended and followed by all members of indigenous communities without exception, either living in custom territory or outside customary territory. Meanwhile, in the perspective of intercultural communication, seren epidemic ceremony becomes a medium for the existence of adat, so that its existence is accepted, acknowledged, and protected by the state.This study focuses on understanding: First, how the kasepuhan community makes seren taun as a medium of communal communication in order to reinforce their cultural identity. Second, how the society kasepuhan make seren epidemic as a medium of communication for the sake of existence. Based on these two questions, it is understood that seren taun has expanded its function. As a form of respect for the earth (land) and thankfulness of the harvest, as well as the symbolic form of existence of society. The existence of expansion of function in seren taun, based on awareness affirming identity as indigenous peoples with all its distinctive style and culture, which is not owned by other society entity, as well as contestation of their cultural identity to other party for the sake of existence of adat. Keywords: Seren Taun, Kasepuhan Cisungsang, Cultural Identity, Customary ExistenceÂ

Cross-Cultural Hindrances and Ways of Overcoming Them in the Process of Communication

The present study aims to explore the factors that hinder the realization of cross-cultural communication. It is culture that defines the participants of communication, the choice of topics and communication strategies, the context, the way and conditions of transmitting messages, the method of encoding and decoding information, the set of communicative steps, and so on. In the process of the contact of cultures the national-specific peculiarities, unperceived during intracultural communication, become apparent. During cross-cultural contacts a clash of two worldviews talces place. In this article we make an attempt to consider the mechanisms of transformation of the vision of the world in the process of cross-cultural communication, using two contacting linguocultures as an example.

Intracultural Communication and Intercultural Communication: Are They Different?

The paper discusses the differences between intracultural communication and intercultural communication from a socio-cognitive perspective that treats this relationship as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. Movement on the continuum, and differences between the two phenomena are affected by different factors that will be discussed in the paper. The hypothetical left end of the continuum is intracultural communication and the right end is intercultural communication. Neither exists in pure form. The question is to which end a given communicative situation is closer to and what characteristics it is dominated by. While moving on toward the right end communication becomes less dependent on standards, norms, frames, core common ground and formulaic language and is characterized more by emergent common ground, ad hoc generated rather than formulaic expressions, norm creating attempts and individual creativity in solving communication problems.

Speaker or listener or speaker and listener

Communication requires a considerable effort in order to facilitate and indeed reach shared understanding between interlocutors. This is even more important in intercultural communication, where our normal cues fail to function and shared background may be incomplete or altogether absent. Seeing as we can no longer rely on our usual meaning construction tools, we have to work harder than in intracultural communication to derive and deliver meaning. As a consequence, it is not sufficient to carry out the usual speaker and listener roles, in which the speaker holds a more active and the listener a more receptive participative role. Instead, both speaker and listener have to work together in a joint, collaborative and contemporaneous effort to create mutual understanding. This paper explores why there is a need in intercultural communication to fulfil a dual role relationship in the meaning creation process, how this can be achieved in intercultural discourse and how it can benefit interlocutors.