COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL EFFECTIVELY USING
RELEVANCE THEORY AND THE CORPUS CHRISTI
FESTIVAL: A CASE STUDY IN EL-TINGO, ECUADOR
By
Alan D. Gordon
A Dissertation Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Intercultural Studies
FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2009
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1 THE ECUADORIAN INDIAN IN THE ANDES AND THEIR FESTIVALS: A RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM ..............................................2
The “Chillo Valley” and the town of “El-Tingo” .....................................2
The Ecuadorian Indian ..............................................................................3
The Corpus Christi Festival ......................................................................4
PART 1: REVIEW OF PRECEDENT LITERATURE ...........................................6
Introduction ...............................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCE THEORY: LOOKING AT “COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT” IN COMMUNICATION ................................................7
Code Theory..............................................................................................7
Relevance Theory ...................................................................................11
So what exactly is “relevance theory?” ......................................12
Cognitive Environment ...............................................................13
Context ........................................................................................14
Intention ......................................................................................15
The Communication Process ..................................................................16
The Missiological Bias ...............................................................19
Shaw and Van Engen ..................................................................20
Cross-Cultural Communication ..................................................20
God Accommodates to Communicate ........................................22
Missiological Communication ....................................................24
Conclusion ..............................................................................................28
CHAPTER 3: ETHNOMUSICOLOGICAL THEORY: MUSIC-RITUAL REVEALS “COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT” ............................................29
Introduction .............................................................................................29
The Music-Event .....................................................................................31
iii
The Development of a Theoretical Model ..............................................31
Alan Merriam ..............................................................................32
Jeff Titon .....................................................................................33
Synthesis of Merriam and Titon .................................................33
Clifford Geertz: The Music-Ritual as a Window into Culture ..34
CHAPTER 4: CONSTRUCTIVISM: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL CHOICE .......36
Epistemological biases ............................................................................36
Bernard ........................................................................................36
Guba ............................................................................................38
Hiebert.........................................................................................39
Researcher’s Choice................................................................................40
Conclusion ..............................................................................................41
PART 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS ..............................42
CHAPTER 5: THE LOGIC OF INQUIRY: A MULTI-FACETED, SPIRALING PROCESS .....................................................................................................42
CHAPTER 6: EVANGELICAL AND INDIGENOUS “MUSIC-RITUAL:” A MARKED DIFFERENCE ............................................................................42
CHAPTER 7: THE CORPUS CHRISTI FESTIVAL IN EL-TINGO: UNDERSTANDING THE INDIGENOUS MENTALITY..........................42
CHAPTER 8: A NEW FRAMEWORK: CHANGING ONE’S MENTALITY ....42
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................42
CHAPTER 9: DISCOVERING COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH “MUSIC-RITUAL:” A PROPOSAL FOR MISSIONARIES ......................42
CHAPTER 10: AN EVANGELISTIC STRATEGY FOR RURAL TOWNS IN THE ANDES ................................................................................................42
REFERENCES CITED ..........................................................................................43
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Guba’s comparison of Research Strategies ........................................................38
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Communication Model of Shannon and Weaver ..........................................8
Figure 2: A Basic Communication Model ...........................................................................9
Figure 3: Hiebert’s Model of Interaction .............................................................................9
Figure 4: Message without communication .......................................................................16
Figure 5: Ineffective communication .................................................................................18
Figure 6: Effective communication ...................................................................................19
Figure 7: Communication and Cultures .............................................................................21
Figure 8: Accommodation in Relevance Theory ...............................................................22
Figure 9: Accommodating to another culture ....................................................................23
Figure 10: The Missionary as a Communicator .................................................................25
Figure 11: The Missionary as a Facilitator ........................................................................27
Figure 12: Role of Music and Culture ...............................................................................31
Figure 13: Merriam’s theory of music ...............................................................................33
Figure 14: Titon’s theory of the music event .....................................................................33
Figure 15: A synthesis and adaptation of theories from Merriam and Titon .....................34
Figure 16: Music rituals as a window into beliefs .............................................................35
1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose The purpose of this investigation is to study the communication of the gospel in the Andes of Ecuador. Goals The goals of this study are:
1. To understand the mentality of the indigenous folk in small, rural towns in the Andes (world)
2. To understand the mentality of evangelicals in small, rural towns in the Andes (church)
3. To look at communication through religious festivals (word) 4. To understand one’s own mentality (personal pilgrimage)
Significance The result of this study will be to improve the communication of the gospel to the rural Andes people of Ecuador Central Research Issue
The central research issue of this investigation is to develop an understanding of the “cognitive environment” of the rural Andes people. Research Questions
1. What is the history of the Ecuadorian Indian population? 2. How do rural Ecuadorians in the Andes celebrate music-rituals? 3. What is the cognitive environment of the evangelicals in the Andes? 4. What is the cognitive environment of the indigenous folk in the Andes? 5. What is the cognitive environment of the missionary?
Delimitations
1. This will be primarily a case study in the Andes town of “El-Tingo.” Definitions
1. Cognitive Environment – the information and experience that a person has in relation to a specific area of personal knowledge.
2
CHAPTER 1 THE ECUADORIAN INDIAN IN THE ANDES AND
THEIR FESTIVALS: A RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM
The “Chillo Valley” and the town of “El-Tingo”
East of the capital city of Quito, Ecuador lies a lower plateau called “Chillo
Valley.” This valley consists of small country towns which all center around a park that
holds the Catholic Church as the center of community life. (The whole range of Andes
Mountains from Columbia to Peru is full of these small towns.) As the capital city can no
longer hold its more than one-million inhabitants, more and more urban folk are moving
out to the valley, most of them living in newly-built, residential neighborhoods. Thus the
Chillo Valley holds both indigenous folk and urban commuters.
Quito is city. But just on the other side of its east mountain ridge lies a valley
which holds an interesting mix of city folk escaping the crowd and smog, and indigenous
folk trying to hold onto their lands and traditions. The Chillo Valley is a mixture of white,
middle-class urbanizations, and indigenous, lower-class “pueblos.”1 The word “pueblo,”
used throughout this paper, refers to what Dr. Alfredo Costales, the first anthropologist in
Ecuador, calls “doctrines” (Costales Samaniego 2006:107). During the Conquest, the
Catholic church gathered the Indians into pueblos in order to indoctrinate them. As a
result, the whole Ecuadorian Andes region is dotted with pueblos from north to south.
Every pueblo has a central park with a catholic church where mass is held regularly as
well as baptisms, weddings, and many festivals. At first the catholic missionaries tried to
1 Many excellent ethnographies have been written about some of these pueblos: Conocoto
(Gallardo 1994); Sangolqui (Gomezjurado Zevallos 2003); Sangolqui (Hinojosa Figueroa 2002); Pintag (Sosa Freire 1996).
3
eliminate these pagan festivals, but were unsuccessful. The festivals eventually merged
with many catholic traditions (Moya 1995:18), and formed a religious syncretism.
The Ecuadorian Indian
Whereas in North America, the Indian was conquered by extermination, in South
American, the Indian was conquered by domination. The Spaniards enslaved the Indians,
drove them off the best lands, and forced them to become Christians.
The Ecuadorians Indians were treated as slaves, considered as less than human,
and excluded from the Eucharist (Cisneros Cisneros 1948:44); (Mackay 1933:44-45). As
a result, millions of them fled to the mountains and the jungle to escape (Cisneros
Cisneros 1948:46). And that’s why today, most of the concentrations of Indians are in the
mountains. The Spaniards took away the best lands in the valleys. Chillos is one of those
valleys, and ever since Colonial days was one of the most fertile and productive valleys
in Ecuador, providing the capital, Quito, with most of its food (Costales Samaniego
2006:92). The small town of El-Tingo is located at the foot of the mountain Ilaló, as are
the other nearby Indian towns of Guangopolo, Toglla, Angamarca, and La Merced.
In the Chillo Valley, where El-Tingo lies, lands were distributed by the Spanish
Crown to what are called “encomenderos” (“those in charge”). In the years 1551 to 1559,
the Chillo Valley was divided into “encomiendas” (districts) (Landázuri 1990:11). The
“encomenderos” were not given the land, as many believe, but were in charge of
collecting taxes from the Indians who worked those lands (Costales Samaniego 2006:65).
Even so, the Indians often rebelled against this treatment, and conflicts over lands
continue to this day.
4
From the Conquest, the Spaniards felt it their obligation to convert the Indians,
even if by force. “The Crown charged the colonists with the conversion of the Indians to
the Holy Catholic Faith” (Mackay 1933:43). Along with each “encomendero,” a
“doctrinero” was assigned to teach the Indians the Christian doctrines. Both received
taxes from the Indians (Landázuri 1990:36). In the Chillo Valley, the Jesuits received
large portions of land, known as “El Colegio.” The Indians were forced off these lands,
and many conflicts resulted, one case being in Guangopolo (Costales Samaniego
2006:88-92). Even the lands left to the Indians on the mountain tops became objects of
dispute. Ilaló was no exception. In 1933, the government had to intervene to settle
disputes among the Indians in El-Tingo, Alangasí, and Angamarca about land rights on
Ilaló (Cisneros Cisneros 1948:190-191). Even today, the natives of El-Tingo are
nominally Catholic, and are extremely sensitive about land issues.
The Corpus Christi Festival
Before the arrival of the Incas, the inhabitants of Quito, who were called
“Quitus,” worshipped the sun and the moon, and had a temple for sun worship on the
mound in the center of Quito (Cisneros Cisneros 1948:18). The harvest festival is related
to sun worship, because the solar equinox marked the date between sowing and
harvesting (Friedemann 2002:93). In the Chillo Valley, the old crater of Ilaló was a
sacred place where Pachacamac, the Creator of the Andes world, was worshipped with
yumbos (holy men) and sacharunas (men dressed as weeds), directed by a priest (Costales
Samaniego 2006:92). At the foot of Ilaló the most ancient evidences of human life in
5
Ecuador have been found (ibid:7-8). Therefore this worship at the crater may have a long
history.
The Corpus Christi festival came from Spain with the conquerors and is a mixture
of historical traditions. It is celebrated every year around June. Some of the symbols used
in the festival symbolize the harvest. Other figures date back to Inca sun worship. The
formal procession traces its roots to Spain itself. Police and military figures are a recent
addition.
In the fifteenth century the Corpus Christi Festival became the principal ritual of
the Catholic faith (Friedemann 2002:93). It was superimposed upon the ritual of sun
worship: Inti Raymi (Moya 1995:16). In fact, the Indian race was never really
Christianized (Mackay 1933:48), the festivals merely became a means of celebrating old
rituals (Moya 1995:15). Religious syncretism is predominant in the whole Andes region,
and is seen in the Corpus Christi festival celebrated in El-Tingo: a nominal Catholic faith
celebrated by a mixture of historic rituals.
6
PART 1: REVIEW OF PRECEDENT LITERATURE
Introduction
Part 1 of this dissertation lays out the foundation for the research, pulling together
communication theory and ethnomusicological theory with a Constructivism bias.
Chapter 2 will look at the relationship between relevance theory and the
missionary task of communicating the gospel cross-culturally. Chapter 3 proposes that
the music-ritual can be used to understand a people’s mentality. Chapter 4 delineates the
epistemological bias of the investigation.
7
CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCE THEORY: LOOKING AT
“COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT” IN COMMUNICATION
In general there are two fields of communication theory: code theory and
relevance theory. The difference between the two is the assumption of where meaning
lies. Code theory holds that meaning is in the message, whereas relevance theory argues
that meaning is not transferred, but inferred. The receptor makes that inference.
For missionaries, who are “communicators of the gospel,” each school derives a
different application. Using code theory, a missionary tries to make the gospel
presentation as “clear as possible.” Much effort is spent on preparing and executing the
message. This works well in a mono-cultural setting. Using relevance theory, a
missionary first strives to understand the people’s mentality before trying to
communicate the gospel to them. This is useful in a cross-cultural setting.
In looking at religious syncretism in the Andes, the author assumes that most
evangelistic efforts have been based on code theory, and believes that a new look at
evangelism from a relevance theory perspective will be most beneficial to effectively
communicate the gospel in this setting. Code theory will be discussed before relevance
theory so that the reader may appreciate the contribution of the latter to communication
theory.
Code Theory
Code theory has been the traditional model for studying communication. Shannon
and Weaver are credited with developing the basic model used much even today
8
(Shannon 1949:5). They developed their model from a mathematical perspective applied
to the telegraph. Figure 1 illustrates their model. An “information source” transmits a
message through a channel to a receiver at a destination. A signal is sent and a signal is
received, and the channel may contain noise which distorts the message. It is interesting
to note that their model does not include encoding, nor feedback, which were soon to be
added.
FIGURE 1: THE COMMUNICATION MODEL OF SHANNON
AND WEAVER
Since Shannon and Weaver, code theory has developed into a generally used
model, which may be described as follows. The central idea of code theory is the
transmission of a message. The message requires someone to send it, and another person
to receive it. The message must be encoded into some symbolic form, whether this be
spoken words, electric signals, gestures, or written words. The receiver must then decode
the symbols in order to understand the message. The message can be transmitted through
various channels, and its transmission can be affected by noise. The basic model is
illustrated in Figure 2, and is often represented by the symbols: “S-M-R” which stand for
“sender,” “message,” and “receiver” (Schramm 1963:7); (Nida 1960:47).
9
S e n d e r R e c e i v e rM e s s a g eE n c o d e s D e c o d e s
C h a n n e lN o i s e
F e e d b a c k
FIGURE 2: A BASIC COMMUNICATION MODEL
Others, such as King, have emphasized the aspect of feedback, since the receiver
can respond to the message by sending another message to the sender, especially in a
musical performance (King 1989:60). Others have proposed that each person is both a
sender and receiver simultaneously (Kraft 1978:82), creating a model of interactive
communication (Hiebert 1985:166). See figure 3.
FIGURE 3: HIEBERT’S MODEL OF INTERACTION
10
Others have detailed the different channels through which the message may be
sent. Berlo details five channels, which correspond to the five human senses (Berlo
1960:32), but Smith expands the list to twelve signal systems: verbal, written, numeric,
pictorial, audio, artifactual, kinesic, optical, tactile, spatial, temporal, and olfactory
(Smith 1992:163).
The S-M-R model has been the basis of communication theory for many years.
Most would agree that communication takes place when a person says something,
someone else hears what is said, and a message has been sent from sender to receiver.
But the question is: “Is the meaning in the message, in the symbols that are sent?” The
answer has traditionally been “yes.” Therefore much effort has been spent on analyzing
language and how people use words to communicate with each other.
But this logic breaks down in the following scenario: Mike says to Bill, “Are you
going tonight?” Bill replies, “Yes.” But Bill thought Mike was referring to a concert,
when Mike was thinking about a ball game. Was a message sent and received? Yes. But
the received message does not match the sent message. What happened? A clear message
was sent, but Bill and Mike had different assumptions in their minds about that message.
So was the meaning in the message, or in the minds of the sender and receiver?
If we apply this same scenario to evangelism, we could ask ourselves: “When a
missionary takes the gospel to another culture and asks the people: ‘Do you want to be
saved?’ What is it that the people really understand?” The missionary has a whole set of
assumptions in his or her mind that probably does not match the assumptions of the
people of another culture. Therefore, the people will attach a meaning to the missionary’s
11
message that the missionary had no intention of communicating. The result is a
misunderstanding of the gospel.
The limitation of code theory is that it does not take into account the mental
assumptions of the sender and the receiver. Relevance theory begins with this issue.
Relevance Theory
We begin with the bias that the meaning is not found in the message. This is a
fundamental shift in communication theory where it was previously assumed that the
message carried the meaning.
Berlo, one of the early communication theorists, built on the model of Shannon
and Weaver, but with a new bias: meaning is not in the message, but in the person (Berlo
1960:175). When two persons share similar meanings they can communicate more easily.
Thus the same message may not communicate the same thing to two persons. Each will
give it their own interpretation and meaning.
Kraft follows this same train of thought: “Meaning is the creation of the receptor”
(Kraft 1991:77). This implies that meaning is not even transferred1, but people create
meaning themselves. Alaichamy states it well:
“In human communication, meaning is not transferred from one end to the other end as in telecommunication. Instead, meaning is created in the minds of the receptors during the process of communication. Human communication is a process of meaning creation, not meaning transference” (Alaichamy 1997:56).
This has significant implications for communication theory, especially for missionaries:
1 “Messages can be transmitted from one person to another, but meanings cannot” (Gudykunst
2003:6).
12
“The understanding that what messages mean is constructed by the receiver rather than inherent in the message is perhaps the single most threatening insight of contemporary communication theory for Christian communicators” (Kraft 1991:92).
And thus Kraft advocates that the communicator must take into account the receptor of
the message even more than the message itself.
So what exactly is “relevance theory?”
Grice planted the seed for relevance theory by proposing that the receptor of the
message must recognize the intent of the sender. His main thesis is “’A meant something
by x’ is (roughly) equivalent to ‘A intended the utterance of x to produce some effect in
an audience by means of the recognition of this intention’” (Grice 1957:385). This is
fundamentally different from “decoding a message.” Here Grice is emphasizing the
“intent” of the sender, rather than the message given by the sender.
Sperber developed this theory further by emphasizing the importance of
recognizing the intention of the sender. This recognition is done by inference, not by
decoding. He argues: “Communication is successful not when hearers recognize the
linguistic meaning of the utterance, but when they infer the speaker's 'meaning' of it"
(Sperber 1986:23).
Sperber asked the question of where the meaning lay in communication. Was the
meaning in the sender, the message, and/or the receiver? He begins by arguing that the
encoding-decoding process has yet to be explained. What are the rules one uses for
13
decoding a message? Sperber states that there are no rules, but that the receiver uses a
completely different process in communication.2
Sperber argues that one can infer intention without using code. Therefore,
communication is possible without code (rules or conventions). Coding is part of the
evidence; only in inference is meaning created (Sperber 1986:25). The message is not the
vehicle for meaning transfer. The message is evidence of the intent of the communicator,
but meaning is created by the receiver through inference.
In other words, a message is presented from which the receiver derives meaning.
But the receiver does not derive the meaning only from the message. The receiver also
infers meaning based on what he or she already knows. The receptor chooses some of
what he or she already knows to process new evidence and create meaning from it.
The thrust of Sperber’s argument is that meaning is not transferred, but that the
sender seeks to modify the “Cognitive Environment” of the receiver, and in the process
the cognitive environment of the sender is also modified. This needs to be explained in
more detail.
Cognitive Environment
Let us begin by talking about a person’s knowledge. What we know consists of all
of our experiences, plus our interpretation of those experiences. Sperber refers to this as
our “cognitive environment” which includes not only what we presently know, but all
2 This is similar to the argument between Goodenough and Geertz on cultures. Goodenough
argues that culture exists in the mind and consists of rules of what is acceptable or not (Goodenough 1957:167). Whereas Geertz argues that culture is public and does not consist of rules, but of meanings which must be uncovered by “thick description” (Geertz 1973:89).
14
that we could possibly come to know. Knowledge is not “facts,” but our beliefs and
assumptions about our experiences. We create our own perception of the world and our
beliefs about it. Berlo says we structure our reality into theories (Berlo 1960:25). When
someone says something to me, I have to “reconcile” that message with how I see my
world. I can reject it, accept it, or modify it, but sooner or later I have to relate it to my
perception of the world.
Sperber bases his model of communication on this concept of the cognitive
environment of every individual. Communication is an attempt to modify the cognitive
environment of another person (Sperber 1986:150). The previous example can illustrate
this.
Suppose Mike says to Bill, “Are you going tonight?” and Bill answers, “I’ve had a
long day.” What are some of the possible interpretations of this conversation? We do not
know to what Mike is referring. Nor it is clear if Bill’s reply is affirmative or negative. If
the meaning were totally in the message, we should be able to know where Mike is going,
and whether Bill will accompany him. But we are unable to decipher this from the
messages sent. Therefore, the meaning must lie elsewhere. Sperber proposes that
meaning lies in the context. This is a different connotation of the word “context” as used
by Kraft, who uses the word “context” to refer to the external circumstances (Kraft
1991:132). Sperber uses the word to describe a group of mental assumptions.
Context
What exactly is “context?” In simple terms, context is the set of assumptions or
beliefs that one uses to process a message and decide on a meaning. Sperber argues that
15
we cannot use all of our cognitive environment to analysis every message we receive.
That would be too laborious. We choose some of what we know in order to process the
message and make it meaningful. That “something we choose” is the “context.” Sperber
argues that we will choose the context that we feel is most relevant in order to process the
message (Sperber 1986:141). We will not use everything we know to process every
message.
Now let us return to the sender. According to Sperber’s view of communication,
the sender must know a possible context that the receiver will use to process the message
in order for the sender (her) to communicate with the receiver (him). (For the rest of this
paper, I will adopt Sperber’s convention of referring to the sender as “she,” and to the
receiver as “he.”) In order words, she must know what context he will use to process her
message in order to communicate effectively with him.
Intention
To complete this description, we must add one more concept, that of “intention.”
Sperber adds that communication only takes place when both the sender and the receiver
are conscious that she wants to communicate with him (Sperber 1986:61). It is not
enough for her send a message, but he must also realize that she is sending a message.
She must also establish that he realizes that she wants to send a message. If only the
sender is conscious of the attempt to communicate, but not the receiver, Sperber refers to
this as “informing, but not communicating” (ibid:50).
16
The Communication Process
These concepts can be illustrated with a few diagrams. A circle will represent the
cognitive environment of an individual. For communication to take place, the cognitive
environments of two individuals must overlap at least to some degree. The message lies
in that overlap. Here we must change our vocabulary to that of Sperber. A message is not
sent, but “evidence is displayed.” It is the receivers task to make a conclusion from that
evidence.
The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory)
CognitiveEnvironment
RECEIVER
CognitiveEnvironment
COMMUNICATOR
Evidence
Non-ostensive: no intent to communicate, although a message is present.
FIGURE 4: MESSAGE WITHOUT COMMUNICATION
For communication to take place, the communicator must have an intent to
communicate, and the receiver must recognize that intent. This is Sperber’s emphasis. In
17
our daily lives, many messages are sent, both verbal and non-verbal, but communication
does not occur unless the intent is present and recognized. In figure 4, the communicator
has “sent a message” (evidence), and the receiver is conscious of the phenomenon, but
since he didn’t recognize any intent to communicate, he did not process the message.
This is non-ostensive communication. In a busy city street, one sees much movement,
and hears many sounds, but one does not (and cannot) process them all. A person will
only process those phenomena he or she perceives as “an intent to communicate.”
Now let us examine the communication process by adding the concept of
“context.” (In this case, the intent to communicate is recognized.) The communicator
produces “evidence” with a specific intention: that of modifying the receiver’s cognitive
environment. The receiver “infers” from the evidence, using the context most relevant in
order to process the evidence. (See figure 5.) If the context the communicator is intending
for the evidence is different from the context the receiver uses to process it,
communication is ineffective. Let us return to our example.
Mike asks Bill, “Are you going tonight?” The context Mike has in mind is a
concert, but Bill immediately thinks of a ballgame. Evidence was produced, both were
conscious of an attempt at communication, but Bill’s conclusion was very different from
Mike’s intention. We could call this “misinterpretation.”
18
The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory)
CognitiveEnvironment
RECEIVER
CognitiveEnvironment
COMMUNICATOR
Intent Meaning
Context Context
Evidence
Context
Context
Context
Context
Misinterpretation: different contexts are being used.
FIGURE 5: INEFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
On the other hand, if the two share similar contexts, communication is more
effective. If both of them enjoy concerts, frequently attend concerts, and never go to a
ballgame, the question “Are you going tonight?” is immediately processed in the context
of a concert. Bill would conclude that Mike is talking about a concert which is what Mike
intended to communicate. (See Figure 6.)
This is the most simple form of Sperber’s model. Communication is rarely so
simple. If we add Bill’s reply, “I’ve had a long day,” the receiver has become the
communicator and the communicator the receiver, who must now infer from what Bill
has said. Again, context plays the key role. “I’ve had a long day” could mean that Bill
wants to stay home to rest or it could mean that Bill wants to get out and relax. No
amount of decoding the message will distinguish the difference. Only context will. Even
19
though the receiver may not give the message the same meaning as the sender intended, it
is the chosen context of each person that determines the meaning, not the message itself.
The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory)
CognitiveEnvironment
RECEIVER
CognitiveEnvironment
COMMUNICATORIntent
Mea
ning
Context Context
Evidence
Improved communication: the contexts are similar.
FIGURE 6: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
The Missiological Bias
So far, the discussion has treated the communication process as a sender and a
receiver sharing a message. This has carried two basic assumptions: first, the sender and
the receiver share much of the same culture, and second, the sender is the originator of
the message. The Christian bias changes both assumptions: first, we are called to
communicate to people with a culture different from ours, and second, we are
ambassadors of a message that originated with God, not with us.
20
Shaw and Van Engen
The following is a discussion a Christian communication model based on
relevance theory (Shaw 2003:90). I will use different shapes to illustrate different
worldviews. The choice of each shape purely symbolic. The shape itself has nothing to do
with the superiority or inferiority of any culture.3 In my opinion, worldview is the same
as Sperber’s “cognitive environment.” Both are used to describe the assumptions one
uses to order his or her own world to be able to function in it.
Cross-Cultural Communication
Let us begin by simplifying communication to be a sender communicating a
message with a receiver. (See figure 7.) If the two share the same worldview or cognitive
environments, communication will be fairly effective. But if the sender and receiver have
very different worldviews, communication will be more difficult until they begin to
understand each others worldview and communicate accordingly. I illustrate this by
drawing the message in the shape of a circle. Cultures that think in a circle perspective
will readily send and receive such messages. But if a culture has a square perspective, the
message does not coincide with their way of thinking, and they will not readily
understand it.
Usually the missionary learns the language of the people in order to speak to
them. This is the basis of code theory: if one can use the same symbols as they do, one
will communicate effectively with them. But relevance theory points out that even if a
3 My use of geometric shapes for cultures and communication coincides with Nida (Nida
1960:47,222) and Kraft (Kraft 1978:98).
21
missionary speaks the same language as the people, miscommunication will be frequent
if they are using very different contexts to process the message. In other words, a
missionary has to understand how people think, what contexts they choose, and what are
their past and present experiences that form their cognitive environments in order to be
able to communicate effectively with them.
Mono-Cultural Communication
Sender
Cross-Cultural Communication
Receiver
Sender Receiver
Message ?
Message
FIGURE 7: COMMUNICATION AND CULTURES
For a communicator to effectively modify the cognitive environment of a receiver
who holds a different worldview, she could first modify her own context to that of the
receiver’s before attempting the communication. This is illustrated in Figure 10, by the
communicator modifying a circular context to a square context within her own cognitive
22
environment. My emphasis here is that the communicator is modifying her own cognitive
environment without expecting the receiver to modify his. We can call this
“accommodation.”
The Process of Communication (Relevance Theory)
CognitiveEnvironment
COMMUNICATOR
Intent MeaningEvidence
Context
Context
Cross-cultural communication: the communicator uses the receiver’s context.
Cognitive Environment
RECEIVER
Context
ContextContextContext
Conversion
FIGURE 8: ACCOMMODATION IN RELEVANCE THEORY
God Accommodates to Communicate
In relevance theory terms, God entered our cognitive environment, before we
could ever enter his. As if God, as a “circle,” became a “square” to “fit into” our
mentality. Kraft refers to this as “accommodation” (Kraft 1989:123). God accommodated
to our way of thinking so he could communicate with us. “Whenever God decides to
connect with human beings God does so in their particularity, on human terms” (Shaw
2003:13). A missionary must do the same with the people to whom he or she goes. If he
23
or she does not accommodate to the people’s culture and worldview, the Gospel message
will not be accepted, because it is not seen as relevant. Figure 9 illustrates this.
God
Missionary People
This step marks
the difference!
1
2
3a3b
?
?
?
UnderstandGod
MisunderstandGod
FIGURE 9: ACCOMMODATING TO ANOTHER CULTURE
God, represented by a circle, accommodates himself to our worldview, illustrated
by a square (step 1). The missionary, who holds a square perspective, must try to
accommodate his or her worldview to another people’s perspective, which is illustrated
by a triangle (step 2). If the missionary communicates God from his or her perspective
(represented by a square), the people will learn that God is like a square. Since they see
things as a triangle, a square God makes no sense to them (step 3a). Therefore, the God of
the missionary is irrelevant to them. But if the missionary first accommodates his or her
way of seeing God as a square to seeing God as a triangle, and then communicates God in
24
this way, the people will see God from a triangle perspective, which is their way of
seeing spiritual things, and they will see God as relevant to them (step 3b).
Someone might ask at this point: “If the missionary sees God as a square, and the
people see God as a triangle, which is the correct perspective?” The answer is neither.
We see and understand God from our own worldview. But we must accept other cultural
perspectives of God as valid. This implies that each culture must develop their own
theology. If they import a theology from another culture, God will appear as irrelevant to
them.
The main argument here is that the missionary must be able to recognize his or
her own worldview, and as much as possible, not let it interfere with the Gospel message.
In other words, the missionary must accommodate the Gospel message to the worldview
of the people to whom he or she goes. This is not easy. Even in the previous example, the
missionary has to work with two worldviews, his or her own, and that of the people.
Missiological Communication
Shaw and Van Engen take this one step further. This will be illustrated by using
two diagrams. The first one is a stepping stone to the second. In the first, Shaw and Van
Engen base their model on three biases: 1) Communication is intercultural; 2) The
message did not originate with us; and 3) The process is must pass through the universal
level.
The “universal level” concept is based on the following: all humans share a basic
commonality of experience which they express in different ways through their cultures.
As Shaw and Van Engen state: “Humans were created to be creative and express that
25
creativity in a multiplicity of cultural perspectives” (Shaw 2003:13). Some examples are:
All humans communicate, but they do it through different languages and styles. All
humans organize themselves into societies, but the societies are very different. All
humans distinguish “right” from “wrong,” but what is acceptable in one culture may not
be acceptable in another.
God
MissionaryPeople
UniversalExperience
FIGURE 10: THE MISSIONARY AS A COMMUNICATOR
Observe Figure 10. Here the task of the missionary is to accommodate the
message to the worldview of the people. But he or she should not do this by “translating”
his or her worldview into theirs. He or she should try to understand basic human
experience and how a particular culture expresses those experiences in their way. Only
then can the missionary begin to communicate God’s message to them. In Sperber’s
26
terms this means understanding the contexts they process in their cognitive environment
as a result of their experience, and choosing which of their contexts is appropriate for
communicating God’s message. So the missionary does not “translate” his or her culture
to another. The missionary tries to understand how to accommodate God’s message into
their cognitive environment.
Yet the thrust of Shaw and Van Engen’s argument includes another factor: the
Biblical writers.4 Their argument is that the Biblical writers accommodated their message
to their audience. This is much like the previous illustration of the missionary task, but in
reality it is a bit more complicated than has been explained. Today, for a missionary to
communicate what the Biblical writers wanted to communicate, he or she must take into
account four perspectives: God’s, the Biblical writer’s, his or her own, and the people’s.
Just as our goal is to communicate God’s message without our bias, now we must
communicate the Biblical message without the Biblical writer’s bias, in order for the
people to understand God’s original message accommodated to their present bias. Figure
11 illustrates this.
Rather than illustrating the missionary as part of “the chain of communication,”
the missionary is placed at the center of the process as the “facilitator of the
communication.” The idea is that the fewer cultures through which the message passes,
the better will be the communication of the original message. The final goal is for a
people to know God directly from their own perspective and experience.
4 They refer to this as a “horizon” and divide them into two horizons: Old Testament and New
Testament (Shaw 2003:87).
27
God
BibleWriters
Missionary
UniversalExperience
People
Goal: a people to know God from their perspective.
Error: to see God from the missionary’s perspective.
Missionary’s task: to facilitate from what God spoke to the Biblical writers, accommodate it through universals to the people’s perspective.
U S U A L R O U T E
P R E F E R R E D R O U T E
FIGURE 11: THE MISSIONARY AS A FACILITATOR
In Figure 11, God has spoken to the Biblical writers within their perspective,
represented by a pentagram. The missionary, who has come to know God through the
message of the Biblical writers, wants to communicate the same message, but without his
or her personal perspective, represented by a square. If the people see God as a square,
they will reject him. So the missionary’s task is to help the people understand, not the
Biblical writers perspective, but how the intent of God’s message can be expressed in
their way of thinking, represented by a triangle. The missionary is not the channel of the
message, but a facilitator of the communication process.
The thesis of Shaw and Van Engen is that the Biblical writers accommodated
God’s message to the people’s mentality, and that we should do likewise.
28
“Contemporary communication of the biblical message can be modeled after the way the writers of Scripture utilized earlier texts and restructured them for their contemporary audience” (Shaw 2003:xiv).
Our task is to discern “God’s original intention.” This returns us to relevance
theory. It is not the Biblical text that contains the meaning of the message, but God’s
intention in that message, how the original recipients processed it, and how we should
also process it. We should not process the original recipients conclusions, but the intent
of the original message.
Conclusion
The previous discussion has applied relevance theory to cross-cultural
evangelism. It emphasizes that, following God’s example, the missionary must
accommodate his or her way of thinking to that of the people to whom he or she wishes
to communicate the gospel. This requires that the missionary understand the people’s
mentality of the new culture in which he or she now finds himself or herself. It also
requires that the missionary understand his or her own way of thinking so as not to
impose this on the people. Therefore the critical research issue of this investigation is to
understand the cognitive environment of the people and of the missionary.
29
CHAPTER 3: ETHNOMUSICOLOGICAL THEORY: MUSIC-
RITUAL REVEALS “COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT”
Introduction
The focus of this study is how to go about discovering two cognitive
environments: that of the people, and that of the missionary. One way of doing this is
through music. This study proposes using music as a means to discover the cognitive
environment of a people. Since this study deals with cross-cultural communication, we
have to use both music and culture. Ethnomusicology does this.
Most ethnomusicological theory has focused on the study of music in culture or as
culture (Blacking 1995; Merriam 1964; Nettl 1983). But other ethnomusicologists are
studying music as a means of communication (Corbitt 1998; King 1989; Scott 2000;
Stone 1982).
Another emphasis ethnomusicologists have made is how music expresses a
person’s thoughts and worldview. Alan Merriam mentions how music has a symbolic
function: “Men everywhere assign certain symbolic roles to music which connect it with
other elements in their cultures” (Merriam 1964:246). John Blacking describes how
"Music can express social attitudes and cognitive processes" (Blacking 1973:54). A
Christian ethnomusicologist, Joyce Scott, says “Music is the way we express what is
deepest in our souls and we may fell there is no better way to do this than our own. It is
part of our identity" (Scott 2000:85). Also, Bonnie Wade, says “One of the most
significant uses to which people put music is to express an identity" (Wade 2004:16).
Geertz solidifies these thoughts by his idea that “religious symbols synthesize a people’s
ethnos and their worldview”
30
Geertz looks at culture as symbols that represent meaning. His definition of
culture is:
“an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (Geertz 1973:89).
If meanings are embodied in symbols, and music is one of those symbols, then
music is an expression of meaning.
Further on in his article, Geertz states the paradigm of his investigation:
“sacred symbols function to synthesize a people’s ethos—the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood—and their world view—the picture they have of the way things in sheer actuality are, their most comprehensive ideas of order” (ibid:89).
This paradigm can be adapted for the present research in the following way: Taking out
the added definitions, Geertz’s paradigm reads: “sacred symbols function to synthesize a
people’s ethos and their world view.” This implies that symbols can represent a people’s
mindset or their cognitive environment. Music is definitely one of those symbols.
The resulting paradigm implies a very different approach from traditional
ethnomusicology. Music is often viewed as a part of culture, and how it interacts with
and functions within the rest of culture. But this paradigm proposes viewing music as an
expression of culture. The implication is that music becomes a window through which to
discover a people’s ethos and their world view. (See Figure 12.) Therefore studying
music in culture is a way of understanding a people’s cognitive environment. But how
can the music be used to do this?
31
Studying a culture through their music...
…as opposed to studying the music of a culture.
Culture
Music
Music
Culture
FIGURE 12: ROLE OF MUSIC AND CULTURE
The Music-Event
Music in itself is a very general term and includes a broad field of study. For this
investigation, the basic unit of research will be the “music-event.” This refers not just to
music, but to the performance of music in a specific setting of time and space. Both Titon
and Stone use this basic unit of the music-event in their investigations (Titon 2002);
(Stone 1982).
The Development of a Theoretical Model
The following describes the method used to develop a theoretical model for using
the music-event to understand a people’s cognitive environment. The ideas used come
32
from two ethnomusicologists, Alan Merriam and Jeff Titon, and one anthropologist,
Clifford Geertz. The idea of using the music-event as the unit of investigation and
describing it with three circles comes from Alan Merriam and Jeff Titon. Using the
music-event as window for discovering beliefs comes from Clifford Geertz.
Alan Merriam
Merriam’s basic theory is that music comes from behavior which comes from
concepts.
"The music product is inseparable from the behavior that produces it; the behavior in turn can only in theory be distinguished from the concepts that underlie it; and all are tied together through the learning feedback from product to concept” (Merriam 1964:35).
His theory includes the dynamic process of the music reinforcing or changing one’s
concepts. For a new model, Merriam’s three levels will be used with modifications:
“beliefs” will replace “concepts,” and “tradition” will replace “behavior,” and “music-
events” will replace “music.” (See figure 14.) Thus, Merriam’s theory becomes: beliefs
produce tradition which produce music-events.
Concepts Behavior Music
Feedback
Beliefs Tradition Music-events
33
FIGURE 13: MERRIAM’S THEORY OF MUSIC
Jeff Titon
Titon uses the idea of the music-event and illustrates this with circles (Titon
2002:16). His theory illustrates the context of the music event. He places music at the
center, followed by the performers, then the audience, and finally time and space in the
outer circle. (See figure 15.) His conceptual framework is to use circles to illustrate levels
of context: music takes place among performers who are surrounded by an audience
within a particular time and space. This framework of circles can be used in combination
with the modification of Merriam’s theory: “beliefs,” “tradition,” and “music-events.”
FIGURE 14: TITON’S THEORY OF THE MUSIC EVENT
Synthesis of Merriam and Titon
In figure 16, the synthesis and adaptation of Merriam’s and Titon’s models is
illustrated. Beliefs are the root of tradition, and from tradition, music-events develop.
34
This is the basic structure of the model with a further modification. We can call “music-
events” that develop from tradition: “music-rituals.” By placing Merriam’s concepts in
Titon’s framework, the result are three concentric circles. The inner circle represents
“beliefs.” The middle circle represents “tradition,” and the outer circle represents “music-
rituals.” An arrow begins in the inner circle and travels to the outer circle to represent the
idea that beliefs produce tradition which produces music-rituals.
Music-rituals
Tradition
Beliefs
FIGURE 15: A SYNTHESIS AND ADAPTATION OF THEORIES
FROM MERRIAM AND TITON
Clifford Geertz: The Music-Ritual as a Window into Culture
The usual way is to see music-rituals coming from beliefs, but from Clifford
Geertz we have already discussed the possibility of looking at this process in reverse:
music-rituals are a window to discovering beliefs. Jennings also argues that ritual is “a
means to gain epistemological access” (Jennings 1982:111). Therefore in this model, the
arrow is turned in the reverse direction to illustrate using music-rituals through tradition
to discover deep-level beliefs or “cognitive environments.” (See figure 17.)
35
Music-rituals
Tradition
Beliefs
FIGURE 16: MUSIC RITUALS AS A WINDOW INTO BELIEFS
36
CHAPTER 4: CONSTRUCTIVISM: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL
CHOICE
After discussing several epistemological positions, the choice for this
investigation will be a position similar to Constructivism.
Epistemological biases
Any investigation must delineate its epistemological biases before beginning
(Guba 1994:116). These biases determine the types of conclusions that will be reached,
and the necessary methodology that will be used. Not ever bias is suitable for every
investigation, and yet a single investigation may be approached from different biases.
The researcher must choose from which bias he or she is going to approach the
investigation. The basic philosophical questions to be dealt with are: “What can be
known?” And “How can it be known?” Different authors have different ways of handling
this question. Here is only a summary of their main arguments. The reader can analyze
their arguments in full by consulting their works. Most of their discussions describe a
continuum between two extremes.
Bernard
Bernard begins by describing two different descriptions of reality. The first he
calls “constructivism” in which “reality is uniquely constructed by each person.” This he
contrasts with “there is an external reality to be discovered” which he calls “positivism”
(Bernard 2002:3). The difference is generally seen as the first being “subjective” and the
37
second “objective.” Traditionally “objective” has been seen as the superior method, but
the real issue is the assumption it is based on. A “subjective” investigation looking at the
reality constructed by persons is just as valid as an “objective” study of a tree. Since the
tree is seen through the eyes of the researcher, pure “objectivity” is impossible.
“Objectivity” is a construction of the researcher.
Another way Bernard describes this is in the difference between understanding
the beliefs of another person, and explaining what causes those beliefs1 (Bernard 2002:3).
Both studies are worthwhile, but the approach to each is extremely different.
Understanding the beliefs of another person implies that reality is being constructed by
that person, whereas explaining what causes those beliefs implies there is a reality outside
that person that is influencing him or her. Each case assumes a different perspective of
reality and requires a distinct methodology.
Historically, “rationalism” has been based on the assumption of “pre-existing
truths,” and “empiricism” begins by assuming that “truth is what one experiences”
(ibid:4). The well-known “positivism” which has been the standard for many years is
really based on the premise that “natural laws can be discovered by observation” (ibid),
but other epistemological positions such as “empiricism,” “humanism” and
“interpretivism” challenged that premise and proposed a different one: “people live
within webs of meaning they themselves have spun” (Geertz 1973:5).
1 As well as what those beliefs cause
38
Guba
These arguments give us a choice between two extremes in order to begin an
investigation. Guba describes the general difference between “positivism” and
“constructivism” (Guba 1994:112).2 Research based on “positivism” is considered to be
“objective” and usually takes the form of an experiment where an hypothesis is tested.
The researcher is considered “removed” from the experiment and concludes by
“explaining” what has been observed.
POSITIVISM CONSTRUCTIVISM
“Objective” “Subjective”
Controlled experiment and hypothesis testing
Dialogue and interaction
Researcher is removed Researcher is an active participant
Goal is to explain the observations
Goal is to understand phenomena through progressive reconstructions
TABLE 1: GUBA’S COMPARISON OF RESEARCH
STRATEGIES
On the other hand “constructivism” is “subjective” and research takes the form of
dialogue and interaction rather than a variable-controlled experiment. The researcher is
2 There are more than two options for investigation, but for clarity, it’s easier to show the contrast
between the extremes.
39
an active participant in the investigation, and the goal is to understand what’s going on
through progressive reconstructions. Obviously the two positions differ greatly in their
premises, methods, and types of conclusions. (See Table 1.)
Hiebert
Where does theology fit on this epistemological continuum? As a Christian who
believes in God and in the Bible, Hiebert tries to answer that question, and lays out
several different epistemological positions, which are not necessarily on a continuum
(Hiebert 1999:37-38). He uses the framework of the “world” to illustrate the differences.
For simplicity, four positions will be mentioned here: Idealism, Pragmatism, Positivism,
and Critical Realism. In “Idealism,” the world is unknown and unknowable. It is an
illusion. All reality is in the mind. This concept Hiebert rejects, because he believes God
is a reality outside the mind.
Pragmatism, as Hiebert sees it, assumes that the world is real, but truth is relative.
There are no morals. Whatever works is “right.” As a Christian, Hiebert cannot accept
this position either because the Bible gives us absolute morals.
Positivism, which holds that the world can be know “objectively,” has been the
norm even for Christians, argues Hiebert, but it lacks the ability to dictate morals
(ibid:35). So where does that leave room for Christians who believe in God, absolutes,
and morals?
Hiebert takes a position which he calls “critical realism.” This assumes that the
world is real, but our knowledge of it is partial. Everything that we know is through
progressive approximations of the real world. This is similar to arguments of Guba and
40
Bernard. But the point here is that Hiebert chose a position that satisfied his question. The
researcher must do the same, before beginning the investigation.
Researcher’s Choice
The issue of this investigation is the discovery of “cognitive environments.” The
researcher must choose an epistemological position that is compatible with the issue, and
he or she must be consistent with this throughout their research. In this study, the choice
of the investigator is “constructivism,” which assumes the following:
1. There is an objective truth that is subjectively apprehended. All our
observations of reality are approximations of the truth.
2. “Spiritual meaning” is not a single, objective truth, but a web of
interconnected experiences and ideas.
3. Spiritual knowledge is dynamic and much of it is created through personal
interaction.
And the resulting methodology of this investigating is based on the following:
1. The goal is not to discover universal laws, but to understand a people.
2. Understanding is obtained through multi-experiential interaction and
dialogue over time.
3. Conclusions are reflections of a progressive understanding.
41
Conclusion
Part 1 has discussed the theoretical foundation for this dissertation which is a
combination of Communication Theory, Ethnomusicological Theory, and
Anthropological Theory. It has defined the main objective to be the understanding of
cognitive environment of both a people and the missionary through music-ritual. The
research will be conducted from an epistemological position similar to Constructivism.
42
PART 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
CHAPTER 5: THE LOGIC OF INQUIRY: A MULTI-FACETED,
SPIRALING PROCESS
CHAPTER 6: EVANGELICAL AND INDIGENOUS “MUSIC-
RITUAL:” A MARKED DIFFERENCE
CHAPTER 7: THE CORPUS CHRISTI FESTIVAL IN EL-TINGO:
UNDERSTANDING THE INDIGENOUS MENTALITY
CHAPTER 8: A NEW FRAMEWORK: CHANGING ONE’S
MENTALITY
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
CHAPTER 9: DISCOVERING COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT
THROUGH “MUSIC-RITUAL:” A PROPOSAL FOR
MISSIONARIES
CHAPTER 10: AN EVANGELISTIC STRATEGY FOR RURAL
TOWNS IN THE ANDES
43
REFERENCES CITED
Alaichamy, Christeena. 1997. Communicative Translation: Theory and Principles for
Application to Cross Cultural Translation in India. Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.
Berlo, David K. 1960. The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and
Practice. San Francisco: Rinehart Press. Bernard, H. Russell. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Third ed. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Blacking, John. 1973. How Musical is Man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. ———. 1995. Music, Culture and Experience. Chicago. Cisneros Cisneros, César. 1948. Demografia y Estadistica sobre el Indio Ecuatoriano.
Quito: Talleres Gráficos Nacionales. Corbitt, J. Nathan. 1998. The Sound of the Harvest. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Costales Samaniego, Alfredo. 2006. Ilaló: La Montaña Luminosa. Historia antigua de la
zona del Ilaló. De la prehistoria al siglo XVIII. Quito: OCP Ecuador, S.A. Friedemann, Nina. 2002. Solsticio de Verano. In!Viva la Fiesta! Ecuador, edited by P.
Cuvi. Quito: Dinediciones. Gallardo, José Felix. 1994. Conocoto: Puerta del Cielo. Quito: Biblioteca Aurelio
Espinosa Polit. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Gomezjurado Zevallos, Javier. 2003. Sangolquí Profundo: Historia, Genealogía y
Biografías: Siglos XVI al XIX. Quito: Grupo Cinco Editores. Goodenough, Ward H. 1957. Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. Report of the
Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. In
44
Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, No. 9, edited by P. Garvin. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66:377-388. Guba, Egon G. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative
Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. D. a. Y. S. Lincoln. London: Sage Publications.
Gudykunst, William B. and Young Yun Kim. 2003. Communicating with Strangers: an
approach to intercultural communication. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Hiebert, Paul G. 1985. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. ———. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts. Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International. Hinojosa Figueroa, Ángel Leonardo. 2002. Sangolquí: Historia, Tradiciones, Anécdotas
y Leyendas. Quito: Abya Yala. Jennings, Theodore W. 1982. On Ritual Knowledge. Journal of Religion 62:111-127. King, Robert Rose. 1989. Pathways in Christian Music communication: The Case of the
Senufo of Cote D'Ivoire. Ph.D. Dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.
Kraft, Charles H. 1991. Communication Theory for Christian Witness. New York: Orbis
Books. Kraft, Charles H. . 1989. Contextualizing Communication. In The Word Among Us.
Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today, edited by D. S. Gilliland. Dallas: Word Publishing.
Kraft, Marguerite G. 1978. Communication Defined. In Worldview and the
Communication of the Gospel, edited by M. G. Kraft. South Pasadena: William Carey Library.
Landázuri, Cristóbal. 1990. Visita y Numeración de Los Pueblos del Valle de Los Chillos
1551-1559. Quito: Abya-Yala. Mackay, John A. 1933. The Other Spanish Christ. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock
Publishers. Merriam, Alan P. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern
University Press.
45
Moya, Luz del Alba. 1995. La Fiesta Religiosa Indígena en el Ecuador. Quito: Abya-
Yala. Nettl, Bruno. 1983. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Twenty-nine Issues and Concepts.
Chicago: University Press. Nida, Eugene A. 1960. Message and Mission. New York: Harper & Row. Schramm, Wilbur. 1963. The Science of Human Communication. New York: Basic
Books, Inc. Scott, Joyce. 2000. Tuning in to a different song. Using a Music Bridge to Cross Cultural
Differences. University of Pretoria: The Institute of Missiological and Ecumenical Research.
Shannon, Claude E. and Warren Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Shaw, R. Daniel, and Charles E. Van Engen. 2003. Communicating God's Word in a
Complex World: God's Truth or Hocus Pocus? . Lanhan, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Smith, Donald K. 1992. Creating Understanding. A Handbook for Christian
Communication Across Cultural Landscapes. . Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Sosa Freire, Rex Tipton. 1996. Miscelánea Histórica de PINTAG. Quito: Abya-Yala. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stone, Ruth M. 1982. Let the Inside Be Sweet. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Titon, Jeff Todd. 2002. Worlds of Music: An Introduction to the Music of the World's
Peoples. 4th Edition.: Schirmer Thomson Learning. Titon, Jeff Todd and Mark Slobin. 2002. The Music-Culture as a World of Music. In
Worlds of Music, edited by J. T. Titon. United States: Schirmer. Wade, Bonnie. 2004. Thinking Musically. Experiencing Music, Expressing Culture. New
York: Oxford Press.