sau JEF VERSCHUEREN Much of the miscommunication between members of different ethnic groups occurs because of fundamental differences in the values placed on commu- nication itself, and because of differences in interpretation caused by dif- ferences in the values placed on interpersonal face relations. These differences are values taught to members of these groups as a significant aspect of their identity as individuals and as members of ethnic groups. The solution to problems caused by ethnic difference is, therefore, not to eliminate those differences but to cultivate a deep and genuine respect for differences in individual and ethnic communicative styles (4). But what motivates the authors to advocate respect rather than a Messianic attempt (such as Glenn's) to reach stylistic uniformity (by upgrading “inferior” styles)? The answer should be clear from the following account of Scollon and Scollon’s exposition. The object of investigation is unication between Athabaskans in ‘Alaska and the Canadian North, and white North Americans (henceforth referred to as “speakers of English”). A detailed comparison between the Athabaskan and English discourse styles shows that, without extra efforts at mutual under- standing, Athabaskan—English communication is bound to go wrong. Though the comparison suffers from the overgeneralization of the polarity between the two cultures, it points out tendencies the recognition of which may be helpful in trying to cope with specific contexts of interaction. Only a few of the determin- ing factors, as discussed by Scollon and Scollon, can be mentioned here. First, the circumstances under which it is appropriate to speak or to remain silent vary considerably for the two styles. For instance, a very high degree of respect for the individuality of others, and a careful guarding of one’s own, leads ‘Athabaskans to remain silent as long as they do not know each other at all, whereas native speakers of English normally use speech as the primary means of getting to know each other (so that not talking only becomes appropriate amongst intimates). The result is the stereotyping of Athabaskans as unduly taciturn, and of English speakers as too talkative; thus, most contacts start with a high degree of uneasiness on both sides. In addition, patterns of dominance and dependence influence the appropriateness of speech versus silence. For (especially Ameri- can) English speakers, persons in a dominant position (such as teacher or parent) have the right to assume the role of ‘‘spectators,’” whereas the subordinate person (pupil, child) is supposed to “*display”” his or her skills. For Athabaskans, displaying is inappropriate for the child who, instead, has to learn as spectator from the adult's displaying of abilities. Thus, for the English-speaking teacher an Athabaskan child will either seem unduly reserved because he is spectating, or [when he is asked to display skills] unduly aggressive if the child has assumed the superordinate role that he feels is consistent with display or exhibitionism. For the Athabaskan child the 498LINGUISTICS AND CROSSCULTURAL COMMUNICATION teacher will either seem incompetent because he is not exhibiting his abilities, or unduly bossy because in spite of not exhibiting he is taking the superordi- nate role (17). Similar problems come up in every other situation with participants of unequal social status. In service encounters, for instance, the English-speaking represen- tative of the bureaucracy expects the Athabaskans to display enough of them- selves to evaluate their ‘‘needs,”’ and the representative is bound to interpret the Athabaskans’ taciturnity (inspired, in fact, by respect for authority) as showing a superior attitude; as a result, the “‘needs’’ are not properly evaluated, and the Athabaskans feel that their rights have not been granted. Thus, ‘as each speaker tries to take a position of subordination to the other, he unknowingly is commu- nicating just the opposite in the other speaker's system”’ (18). Furthermore, the Anglo-American custom of displaying onself in the best light possible in situa- tions such as job interviews (which includes speaking highly of one’s own potential future),* conflicts directly with an Athabaskan taboo: Speaking of one’s plans and expectations is equivalent to courting back luck. Again, “‘the more the Athabaskan seeks to succeed the stronger it works against him in communicating with English speakers’’ (20), and ‘“The Athabaskan thinks of the English speak- er as boastful or careless with luck and the future, while the English speaker thinks of the Athabaskan as unsure of himself, withdrawn, and aimless’ (20— 21). Second, structural properties of differences in discourse style also can work against successful communication. For instance, since an Athabaskan (due to the initial taciturnity mentioned) is not likely to be the first speaker in a conversation, he or she can rarely control the topic. Moreover, Athabaskans and speakers of English have different systems for pausing in conversation: Since Athabaskan pauses are always a little longer, speakers of English tend to mistake pauses between phrases for the end of a speaking turn. Therefore, it happens all the time that ‘‘the Athabaskan feels he has been interrupted and the English speaker feels the Athabaskan never makes sense, never says a whole coherent idea’’ (25). Further, since talking about the future means back luck to the Athabaskans, they rarely make a formal close to a conversation (since most closing formulae refer, somehow, to the future). This leaves the English speaker with the feeling that the conversation was a total failure and that further contact should not be expected. The end result is that in interethnic communication between English speakers and Athabaskans, talk is distributed so that the English speaker is favored as first speaker, as control- ler of topic, as principal speaker, and yet in the end he may not have any conclusive idea of what went on. For the Athabaskan speaker it is difficult to get the floor, to bring the conversation around to his own topic, and in the end to feel that he has had much effect on the outcome (27-28). 499sue JEF VERSCHUEREN A final type of factor determining differences in communicative style bears on content organization. One of the differences in conceptual structuring in English and Athabaskan discourse is said to be that the former tends to be organized in “chunks” of three, and the latter in chunks of four. These different types of chunking have been shown to affect memory and cognitive processing. As a result, ‘“An Athabaskan and an English speaker may well remember different things to have happened in a conversation because of different themes of organi- zation” (35). In most of the interethnic confrontations analyzed by the authors, only English was used. Their account of the problems, therefore, clearly exposes the illusion of the language dependence of communicative success (on which, for instance, much of the traditional U.S. language policy vis-d-vis new immigrants is based). Since ‘‘we are so accustomed to thinking that communication is a matter of grammar and vocabulary that if the grammar and vocabulary are the same or similar for two speakers it is difficult to believe that there might be trouble," itis likely that “‘the situation in which there is the greatest potential for problems is where the language being used by the two speakers is the most similar’” (28). No matter how perfect the Athabaskan’s command of English, the same problems come up; and the more perfect it is, the higher the likelihood that these will be interpreted as the result of a basic unwillingness to communicate. But is this not tantamount to saying, with Glenn, that the difficulties can only disappear if everyone learns to use the same discourse style? Scollon and Scollon devote the larger portion of their book (41-165) to a thorough justification for their negative response. They argue that the Athabas- kan and English discourse styles are manifestations of two different “reality sets’’: the ‘bush consciousness’’ (a somewhat infelicitous term) and the **mod- em consciousness.’’ The modern consciousness (marked by a view of the world as a plurality of separable worlds which are basically organized in a rational and clearly componential way) is both source and product of a centuries-old attempt to make the literacy of essayist prose (characterized by decontextualization through the fictionalization of both audience and author, and through the internal cohesion of the information structure) not only the medium but also the ultimate goal of schooling. The English discourse style is, in essence, the style of essayist prose. On the other hand, the Athabaskan discourse style correlates to the style of oral narration (accounted for in terms of a high degree of contextualization through its basically interactive organization, and an abstract formal structuring of its content through the abstraction of themes), which is the natural correlate to the bush consciousness (to which are central individual respect guarded by non- intervention, and an emphasis on the personal integration of knowledge and the consequent preference for lower order structures over higher order ones). Again, the polarity is clearly overgeneralized. And the underlying view of written as opposed to oral communication may even be somewhat simplistic. In particular, the appropriateness of interpreting writing as a decontextualization 500