Dee A , Handbook of Intercultural — Communication k dited Loy 2 ree Pet ty ReHandbook of Communication Competence Handbook of interpersonal Communication Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning Handbook of Technical Communication Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversity and Change ‘The Mouton de Gruyter Handbooks of Applied Linguistics series is based on an understanding of Applied Linguistics as a field of academic enquiry that deals with the theoretical and empirical investigation of real-world problems in which language and communication are central issues. As a problem- oriented and problem-solving field, Applied Linguistics draws not only on insights from linguistics, but also from neighbouring disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, pedagogy, computer science, etc. ‘The Handbooks of Applied Linguistics provide a state-of-the-art description of different areas of Applied Linguistics with respect to their ability to offer descriptions, analyses, explanations and, if possible, solutions for everyday language-related problems. 000000000 isan 978-3-1-018471-6 vwwwdeGruytercom tltRitual and style across cultures Helga Kotthoff Introduction Ritual and style play an important part in the (re)construction of culture. Rituals ‘are multidimensional, social performances of collective knowledge and sense king. In agreement with Geertz (1973) I see ritual performances as “meta- ial commentaries” which can be interpreted in all their shades of meaning by sts have emphasized that their social functions are more important than the in- mental ones (Leach 1976; Werlen 2001); they bind the group together, in- spire joint action and structure the social reality. They have a beginning and an ‘end and thus a time structure. By highlighting expressive and aesthetic dimen- sions they also stimulate emotional and metaphysical experiences of the partici- pants (Knoblauch and Kotthoff 2001). Style comes into play. Collins (2004: xi) "suggests that we can see how variations in the intensity of rituals lead to vari- ations in social membership patterns “not on the global level of ‘society’ in the _Jarge sense but as memberships that are local, sometimes ephemeral, stratified and conflictual”. Hence, it is always important to identify how a ritual is carried _ out stylistically. Style features indexicalize the social meaning of an event and " they invite inferencing (see Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz in this volume; Eckert 2000). In this chapter I will discuss a variety of rituals, from simple rituals such as gift presentation to complex ones such as toasting. I will primarily discuss examples from Germany and countries of the former Soviet Union, especially from Caucasian Georgia. We will take a close look at cultural specificities and the knowledge which is demanded for the performance of toasts at the dinner table. All stylistic shades are interpreted, which sometimes in crosscultural en- counters leads to misunderstanding or astonishment. Some rituals are open to everybody; some are exclusive. Toasts are a genre known in many societies. In the former Soviet Union, however, toasting was of outstanding importance and it continues to be so. In homethodologists would put it, see Spreckels and Kotthoff in this volume) be- | cause it is often used to confess national values, which are communicated in a very emotional style. The West likes to see itself as “antiritualistic” (Douglas 1982). Goffman (1967, 1981), more than anyone, has however made us see that our everyday life174 Helga Kotthoff : is full of interaction rituals and that many activities have ritual layers beyond the instrumental one. Soeffner (1991) points out that Western societies are in fact only less ritualistic than more traditional ones in the degree to which they ac- knowledge their rituals. Consider, for example, the ritual of bringing a gift when one is invited to a private home. All cultures have special social semiotics for behaviour as a guest. In Western Europe a guest would not bring red roses be- cause they are reserved for lovers and could therefore invite such a reading: neither would one bring red cloves because they are reserved for the expression of solidarity on the first of May (Labour Day) or the eighth of March (Inter- national Women’s Day). In Germany we would not bring white chrysanthe- mums, either, because they normally express grief relating to a death and are brought to a funeral parlour. Likewise, for hosts with whom one is not on inti- mate terms, body care products could suggest a veiled complaint against poor hygiene. On the other hand, across most cultures wine or sweets, novels, and musical recordings are accepted without difficulty. Apparently there are areas in which a trans-national standard has emerged for fulfilling the role of guest. Once the gift is deposited in its wrapper with the host, the next problems in the semiotics of gift-bringing emerge. In contrast to Western Europe, gifts hardly merit a glance in China and Georgia, where they disappear immediately in cupboards or bedrooms (Kotthoff 1991b; Guinthner 2000a, b). Germans and most West Europeans, by contrast, expect euphoric gratefulness and enthusi- asm. The guest’s present must be unpacked and explicitly praised. Such a way of thanking belongs to the strategies of “positive politeness” (as also gift pres- entation), e.g., “Oh, is that the new CD of Madeleine Peyroux? Wow! I always wanted to buy that for myself.” (For the concept of positive politeness, see Brown and Levinson 1987). In China and Georgia, by contrast, the host exer- cises considerable restraint in expressing thanks for the gift to avoid giving the impression that the guest is welcome mainly because of the gift. Gift presenta- tion is ritualistic because it is a routine social act achieving various symbolic aims (Mauss 1978). The instrumental act, consisting in the presentation of some more or less useful object, is relatively unimportant. In Spencer-Oatey (2000b) a wide variety of intercultural misunderstandings resulting from different pol- iteness practices are discussed. gests 2 Goffman’s concept of rituality Drawing on the analogy to theories of religious ritual, Goffman (1967) extends the concept of ritual to everyday activities. Religious rituals are characterized by ceremonial forms of activity which are used as symbols, making reference to a transcendent religious realm of meaning. Similarly, in interaction rituals he sees symbolization processes that transcend the realm of interpersonal relations.Ritual and style across cultures. 175 ommunicative acts like greeting, expressing well-being, extending greetings others, expressing interest, etc, all serve to maintain a symbolic order among parti s in a chain of activities. The semiotics of dress and habit, space d presentation of food has ritualistic dimensions. For example, the semiotics if dress is gendered in most cultures and recreates a gendered social cosmos. In plicacy to itself by dressing in lace and silk stockings, whereas men’s corre- ‘nding dress code attributes robustness to the male sex. Many activities aris- g in social interaction thus carry with them ritual aspects and stand in some re- ion to membership significance. Just as drinking wine and eating bread at munion in a Christian church fulfill no practical or instrumental function — neither quench the thirst nor relieve the hunger of the participants ~ the eat- offman (1967) indeed mentions parties as ceremonial events several times. In any parts of the world, alcoholic drinks are obligatory at events to which a are invited in the evening. Drinking is i! associated with ee eorgia, Whenever a guest appears, he or she must be especially honored, and ong men the ritual dimension of drinking always comes into play (Kotthoff 1991b, 1995). To his considerable surprise, a man coming from the West may find himself required to empty a glass of Cognac even when invited to breakfast. interaction rituals are thus an essential means of symbolizing the quality of re- ationships. In this article we will examine the speech genre of toasting to show the " interconnection of style and ritual. It will be discussed how a pathetic style of " the toasting ritual creates a religious sphere for the dinner table society in Geor- gia. In other formerly Soviet republics the ritual was also carried out in pathetic "style but without prayer formulas. Western people, in contrast, practice toasting as a form of supporting “positive face needs” (i.c., thanking, congratulating, see below). Goffman’ interest in the interaction order is considerably more general than that of, e.g., Brown and Levinson (1987). From a sociological perspective, he | assumes that the social order reveals itself in forms of interaction but is also hi torically grounded in it. Over the span of his career Goffman attempted to es- tablish person-to-person interaction as a separate field of study. In connection with his studies of the interaction order, he also addressed those normative acts which have implications for the social place of individuals. He observed the dramatization of the social order in everyday encounters. Like linguistic anthro- _ pologists (see Gumperz and Cook-Gumper? in this volume), Goffman sees the 1ecess to social roles, ranks and functions not only as exogenous factors of com- munication but also as something produced in the social encounter.ib 176 Helga Kotthoit Aspects of sociail interaction are ritualized (symbolically loaded); e.g., a per- son presents a self. Goffman calls this “communicating a line”: _ Every person lives in a world of social encounters, involving him either in face-to- face or mediated contact with other participants, In each of the contacts, he tends to act out what is sometimes called a ‘line’ — that is, a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself ... The term face can be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact, Face is an image of self delineated in terms of ap- L proved social attributes — albeit an image that others may share. (1967: 5) : “Face” is an image of the self formed from recognized social attributes that a person claims for her- or himself and that in turn are confirmed by others. A per- i son’s “line” refers to the coherence that is expected in the presentation. Every : person is involved in confirming the lines of others; hence, their lines are con- : structions of the same order. Faces of persons must show consistency and they are thus institutionalized in interpersonal encounters. That certain “lines” have been assigned to a person often becomes evident only when the person no longer fulfills the expectations implied in them, Normally one feels emotionally bound ' to one’s personal face; it guarantees security and self-esteem. A personal face, | however, comes into being by means of a typification in which both the person t and her environment are involved. Within the confines of a culture, both social i and situative typifications can be readily identified. We can interpret by which i manner of speaking, hair style, style of dress or behavior someone such as a pro- t fessor presents herself as a progressive and easy going type (communicating a | “line” in Goffman’s sense), and with what means a conservative habitus (in 5: Bourdieu’s [1990] sense) is created, In intercultural contact, by contrast, there is little certainty as to how to interpret such stylistic devices and identify the types they are meant to create. Goffman mainly described US American and Western face politics, which attributes a sacred value to the individual and her/his autonomy. Other anthro- pologists (such as Shweder and Bourne 1984) have emphasized that many tradi- tional cultures have a sociocentric conception of personhood. The difference A between an individualistic and a sociocentric conception of personhood has H an impact on communicative styles. Matsumoto (1988) and Yamada (1997) iE contrast American ideals of independence to those of Japanese interdepen- a dence. With Geertz (1983: 59) we can contrast Western conceptions of egocen- ; tric personal autonomy with sociocentric conceptions of personhood: i ‘The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness with 7 emotion, judgement, and action organized into a distinctive whole, and set con- | trastively both against such wholes and against the self’s social and natural a background. We will see that in the former Soviet Union, to a much higher ex-Ritual and style across cultures 177 id-than in the West, drinking toasts communicate a sociocentric concept of sonhood Style, inference and keying Je plays an important role not only in ritual communication, Tannen (1984) sinted out that style is more than “the frosting on a cake.” Style is the particular yy in which utterances and activities are performed in their contexts of use. fithin a culture we conventionalize stylistic features which thereby become ex- peciable in a certain context. Degrees of (in)directness and (in)formality are, 1g others, important stylistic dimensions in many social settings. Gumperz 1979) combined insights from ethnography of speaking, anthropology, socio- “linguistics and conversation analysis to suggest a way of analyzing speech styles 5 contextualization cues, i.e., cues that speakers use to suggest the interpre- ‘¢g., for dimensions such as degree of formality, directness, and intimacy (cf. also Auer 1992). I will use this approach here to discuss scenes of intercultural "stylistic difference, adaptation, misinterpretation, and creativity. Interactants use styles and their alternation in order to signal and constitute yarious kinds of meaning, .g., textual, situational, social and/or interactional; recipients, on the other hand, perceive and interpret style as a meaningful cue used to make particular kinds of meaning inferable (Sandig and Selting 1997), Accordingly, important tasks of stylistic research are (a) the description of the ways in which style and stylistic means are used to constitute stylistic meanings and (b) the analysis of the kinds of stylistic meanings that recipients perceive and interpret. Since contextualization cues are the most unconsciously used de- vices and are interpreted against the background of one’s own culturally con- ventionalized expectations, their misuse often results in unnoticed misinterpre- tations of communicative intent. Style is often the interplay of verbal and other semiotic cues (Eckert 2000). Language and speech are accompanied by other semiotic procedures, for example clothing, which often indicate at the same time a gender, class and situation marking, The “performative tum” in semiotics and pragmatics points to the necessity of reconstructing bundles of co-occurring style features which are used as constitutive and meaningful cues of holistic styles, Sandig and Selting (1997) write that many typified styles can be con- ceived of as being organized prototypically, with prototypical kernel features ‘most relevant for the constitution and interpretation of a particular style as against more peripheral features that a style might share with “neighboring” styles. Hence, styles can be realized more or less clearly. In all areas of intercultural communication style is a relevant dimension which may be the origin of social difficulties and conflicts (Tannen 1984). In her178 Helga Kotthotf study of German-Chinese interactions, Gtinthner (1993, 2000b) reports on dif- fering stylistic conventions with respect to differing uses of recipiency tokens like “mhm” or “uhu” by Chinese and German native speakers, differing uses of proverbial sayings, differing levels of directness in topic development and dif- ferent strategies in handling disagreement. In most Asian cultures disagreement is expressed rather indirectly (Yamada 1997). Levels of directness and tenden- ies concerning how to support the negative or the positive face have often been identified as significantly different cross-culturally (Foley 1997; Spencer-Oatey 2000b). Sifianou (1992) notes a difference between England and Greece in the significance accorded to the two aspects of face. The English place a higher value on privacy and individuality (negative face), while the Greeks emphasize group involvement and ingroup relationships (positive face). The limits to per- sonal territory among Greeks include all those who belong to the same ingroup, defined as someone concerned with one’s welfare. Positive face extends to cover these, so that there is a strong desire that one’s companions are also liked and approved. Positive face is, thus, defined over the group of ingroup associ- ates, not with reference to isolated individuals, as is largely the case in England, We will later notice some similarities in the facework strategies of Greeks and Georgians. Kotthoff (1991a) also demonstrates stylistic differences in dealing with dis- agreement in German and American office-hour conversations at universities, To a much greater extent than the Germans, the American participants framed their dissent as proposals or suggestions, thereby mitigating the level of direct- ness. Within the United States, Tannen (1984) and Erickson and Shultz (1982) found considerable differences among social groups (ethnic and regional) in the ways conversational signals are perceived. New Yorkers interpret quick, short queries, “machine gun questions,” as encouragement to the story-teller to tell more, thus as signs of “high involvement” (Tannen 1984). Californians, on the other hand, interpret them as a signal to the teller to come to the end. A specch style also creates a certain keying. Following Goffman (1974) and Hymes (1974), keying signifies a process which regulates the particular reality and coherence relations of utterances (Kotthoff 1999b). In humor the relation- ship to reality is loosened and special inferences are needed to create “sense in nonsense,” to use Freud’s expression (1985). Loosening the relationship be- tween statement and reality means widening the possible scope of imagination. Laughter particles in utterances are important keying markers; they often in- dexicalize that a text is to be interpreted as humorous (see Marra and Holmes in this volume for cultural differences in humor). Pathos is another example of keying. It is important in toast rituals. We will show its stylistic markers and dif ferent evaluations. In the conyentional understanding of Western cultures, pathos is associated with emotionally laden words, stilted phrases, ponderous speech meant to beRitual and style across cultures 179 jotionally moving, festiveness, with emotionally excessive reception and the asy feeling of being all too close to kitsch. In Germany the keying of pathos fallen into especially deep disfavor, undoubtedly owing to its excessive use ‘Nazi period. By contrast, in Caucasian Georgia pathos has a fixed place ; everyday communicative genres. No meal takes place, even among good .quaintances, without several elaborate and festive toasts to guests, their milies and shared values (Kotthoff 1995, 1998). In Germany the peculiar inger of falling into pathos-laden speech is often avoided with irony and ‘mor, while in other cultures, like that of Georgia, it continues to be practiced ‘an undiluted way. Responses that neatly lead to tears or to the invocation of Formality vs. informality | Particular chosen styles serve, among other things, to mark situations or rela- tionships as formal or as informal. We use a wide variety of forms of expression to negotiate the degree of formality or informality (Irvine 1979). In most situ- ations this degree is in fact negotiable — and not already set, as in institutional discourse, for example, in a court of law. In this sense, stylistics goes beyond the verbal realm, including for example the use of space and body expression. In the ‘West, in general, strong efforts to de-formalize interactions can be observed (Collins 2004). Nowadays in Germany people take leave of one another in nearly any situation with the familiar and informal “tschiiss” (an even more in- formal leave-taking than “bye”). While twenty years ago it would have been un- thinkable for German newscasters to leave the television screen using this ex- pression, today it is more or less the rule. Likewise, people can be greeted nearly anywhere with “hallo”, (which in formal situations would have been felt as rude ‘a generation ago). In internet chats there is almost a prohibition against formal style, at least in those areas where young people set the tone. To be sure, there is, an accepted “netiquette,” which, however, mainly concerns gross indecency and tabu words. In the business world, too, a progressive deformalization is taking place. In smaller information technology firms the familiar address with “Du” is often the rule (Menz 2000) regardless of how well employees in fact know one another. ‘The traditional formal business dinner is giving way to a less formal “enriched apero,” as it is called in Switzerland. Much the same can be observed at aca- demic meetings, where appetizers are passed around on trays to guests who, standing at high tables, attempt to engage in relaxing smalltalk in all directions. ‘The ability to make friendly conversation on inconsequential topics is increas- ingly prized, and a plethora of books offer advice on how best to go about it i |, e 180 Helga Kotthoff While such trends seem to be firmly established in the West, in Caucasian Georgia, where neither the meals are small nor the talk that accompanies them, a much different use of formal style can be found. The following sections exam- ine ritual and style in the construction of social encounters with guests. I com- pare such situations in Georgia and Kazakhstan with ones in Germany. The toast ritual and its style 5.1. The Georgian ceremony “supra” and the genre of toasts Guests from the West taking their seats for food and drink at a Georgian table seldom know that they are entering a situation dramatically different from com- parable ones in their native country (Kotthoff 1991b). They are immersed in a ceremony, the ancient “supra” or table ceremony, that has little in common with the informal chatting between dishes and drinks familiar to them, The frame- work of meals shared with guests is something that varies greatly among cul- tures, and it activates different knowledge schemes. The enacting of a supra is an indispensible act of honoring the guest. But even within close groups like families and neighbours there are many occasions for ceremonial banquets, ¢.g, marriages, birthdays, examinations, births, returns from trips, funerals and their anniversaries —and everyday visits from neighbours. According to the occasion, “happy” banquets (Ixinis supra) are distinguished from “sad” ones (Giris supra), distinctions that are also enacted through the choice of foods and the topics of toasts. But even an ordinary evening spent with friends is formalized insofar as a communicative genre comes into play and sets the frame for the evening’s in- teraction, the toasting genre (see Giinthner in this volume on genres). After the Georgian wine has been poured, the central communicative piece of the supra scenario can begin, the canonical sequence of toasts. No wine is drunk until a toast has been uttered. Thus, with the alcoholic drink, a non-verbal element is incorporated into the structure of the genre sadiegrselebi (Chatwin 1997). The toasts, the sadfegrgelebi,! are generally offered by a man, the tamada, who has been assigned this task beforehand or was specially chosen by the group for this function, Often it is the host himself or a friend of the house who plays the part of the tamada. The tamada ensures that each draught of wine con- stitutes a gesture of honoring a person. Simply drinking without this function is regarded as impolite The toasts follow a variable set of canonic themes, but the canon is adapted to the situation. In this way the conversation is formalized to a high degree and fitted to a specific temporal structure.Ritual and style across cultures. 181 2. Drinking to wish God’s favor jetween 1988 and 2006 I spent altogether some 27 months in Georgia and col- lected about 40 hours of sound recordings of toasts, offered mainly in Georgian # also in German and in Russian. Let us look at a toast made by a man (Cotne) from the capital city of Tbilisi, " yho, with four others (including myself) from Tbilisi, was making a visit to the country in the region Pshavi. Cotne drinks to the neighborhood and to the ex- rnded families of the Pshavs who are present. He invokes religious formulas in Jine 43 (“Tbless you all”) and in line 44 (“and may God give his favour to every- © onc”) as it is normal. The start of the toast is clearly marked by a formal and cer- © emonial manner of speech. © Data l 27 Cz sgorgmb odsann bobs, adidos imati saxeli, praised be the names of those, 28 Kendgenbayy enjggbo byyreores6 Rogol oonbengh, romelnic tkveni xelidan Gikas itxovs, who await from your hands a glass, S20 anJggbo gBors6 Usbyoob da tkveni enidan saxelis and from your tongues mention agrbydob soo boenJ8geoob onAsb gagonebas da satkmelis tkmas. of their own names. gaumar3os (parallel conversation)) oder balogeerbo :@o oBsar goxgerdsb imat saxelsa da imat kacobas to the names and to the humanity, go ooo gogjogerdob da imat vazkacobas and to the virility ago adden JoenerBob, da imat kalobas, and to the femini goby agaMigam 904 vine gverdit dagidian, that accompany you, agenage-Rogroognbo Iérqxeg angomd of grdergagrrengegD, avlil-Cavlilni mrude tvals ar gamogagoleben, and cast no disparaging looks at you,182 Helga Kotthoff 37 andgab Ssxhogbs Lago «eo obobog3 Seog’ aaqee- tkven pativsa scemt da isinic pativsa gcemen. whom you honor and by whom you are honored 38 MA oaids aryBoOguerb bays, imertma gaumaros suqvelas, God shall give his favor to all. 39g sdoen seargenen(39g 2 ongg6 WoBgtbmrdgeoendenb, me amit davlocav ak tkven samezoblobos herewith I drink to your neighbors, 40 wggsegzearibol sagvareulosas. ((raises the glass)) to your extended families. 2 bowBogegenb, ((glasses clink)) sapSavlos, to the P¥avs. 42. Cz Wag dogeard. sapSavlos, to the PXavs. 43 sesqngemgegm bagageaeb, dagilocavt suqvelas, Ibless you all, 44 sea mdgHonds goypPoeoyed beyggqgersl, da imertma gaumargos suqvelas, and may God give his favor to everyone ((holds the glass) 45. Biggb dolsobdeogBb éven maspinglebs to our hosts 46 B: amin, amin, amin. amin, amin, amin. amen, amen, amen. q 47 V: gaumaryos. i 48 ((all drink)) er = Zz ‘The city-dweller Cotne begins his toast with a formally polite introduction that reminds us of a prayer: “praised be” (adidos). And indeed, in Georgia prayer is in a way a genre that borders closely on toasting. 27 C: adidos imati saxeli, praised be the names of those, 28 romelnic tkveni xelidan Gikas itxovs, who await a glas from your hands, 29 da tkveni enidan saxelis and mention from your tonguesRitual and style across cultures. 183 fe makes much use of metonomy, as in line 27 (“praised be the names of those” “praised be those”), in line 28 (“from your hands” for “from you"), and in ‘ne 29 (“from your tongues” for “from you”). Metonomy adds pathos to the dis- urse by elevating the particularity of its contents. Further, we find repeatedly jetorical three-part lists: imat saxelsa da imat kacobas to the names and to the humanity, da imat vazkacobas and to the virility da imat kalobas, and to the fernininity of those, vine gverdit dagidian, that accompany you, avlil-Cavlilni mrude tvals ar gamogagoleben, and cast no disparaging looks at you, tkven pativsa scemt da isinic pativsa gcemen. whom you honor and by whom you are honored. imertma gaumargos suqvelas, God shall give his favour to all. Here two such three-part lists follow one another. We encounter important cul- tural concepts like that of the family name (saxeli; vazkacoba, which could be translated by “proper virility” (line 33), and of kaloba (34), “proper femininity” (see Kotthoff 1991b and 1995 for a discussion of the gender politics of the Geor- gian toasts), as well as the term for honor and deference (pativi). Further mean- ings, that do not need to be made explicit, are associated with these terms; they are invoked by virtue of the shared understanding of the participants. ‘Again and again there appear religious formulas, as in (38). Hence, it is not surprising that the toast elicits a religious formula as response. 46 B: amin, amin, amin. amen, amen, amen. ‘A round of toasting ends normally when all participants have seconded with “gaumargos” (47).if 184 Helga Kotthoff ie : 5.3. Communicating honor and interdependency The great importance given to formal and pathos-laden communication and to addressing those present as representatives of larger entities, such as their clans, their regions, or their extended families or institutions to which they may be- long, marks stylistic and ritual differences to the corresponding genre of toasts in western Europe or North America. In Georgia, the pathos-laden form of pres- entation is seen as normal and is not felt to be bombastic or pompous. While raising glasses and clinking them belong internationally to the genre, in Georgian toasts an emotionally laden and sometimes even religious vocabu- lary plays an important role, as we have just seen, and additionally, speakers use metaphor, metonymy, and threefold lists of parallel structures to achieve aes- thetic and emotive effects. Important textual characteristics include a marked framing of the toast, more or less pronounced prosodic and syntactic line struc- turing, repetitive use of formulas, as well as a special, picturesque and exclusive vocabulary distinct from that of everyday speech; these serve to praise the qualities of the toasted individuals. In the toast social qualities of persons are often made publicly visible. Geor- ' gian guests and their hosts expect positive mention of their families or native regions as signs of politeness, as well as respect for deceased members of their families. Similar to what Sifianou (1992) and Matsumoto (1988) write about politeness standards in Greek and Japanese cultures, in Georgia a person is posi- tioned in relationship to his/her social group and the duties it entails. Interdependency and reciprocity can be identified as the central ideas in the Georgian concept of “pativi.” In Georgia the honor of an individual unavoidably extends to that of his family and village (as in many Asian and southern Euro- pean cultures, as well). Persons who honor others too little place their own honor in jeopardy. In that sense Georgian culture resembles all those which have : been characterized as sociocentric (see Foley 1997 for an overview). i Culturally and morally bound conceptions are involved in many ways in encounters with guests. In comparing Western and Oriental? styles of communi- cation, we often encounter contrasting values of independence and interdepen- dency. I have analyzed toasts as ways of communicating respect in social net- works (Kotthoff 1999). In toasts culturally specific morals (and the attendant politics of feeling) become evident in the performances. The repetitiveness of themes and formulas, the pathos-laden manner and [ the verbal expression of hopes and shared desires remind one of prayer. God and other transcendental forces are addressed directly in the Georgian toast. Hence, it is hardly surprising that the guests respond with “amin” (amen). Indeed, culi- nary events often combine with religion in all comers of the world, and even in i the Western world, within the religious sphere shared eating and drinking play a symbolic role, even if that role is exclusively symbolic.Ritual and style across cultures 185 ‘Anoften made, explicit compliment in a toast is that someone is a good Geor- wn, Being Georgian is an omnipresent moral value, which confirms on an eryday level the importance of national independence, won only a few years go. Throughout Georgia “doing being Georgian” is one ritual layer within the process. By contrast, in Germany today “Germanness” does not represent a recog- nized value; at the best, “Europeanness” can fill this role. Persons who proclaim “their “good Germanness” unavoidably assume a political stance associated with ‘rightist fringes of the political spectrum. Thus, for many German guests in “Georgia the repeated praise of “good Georgianness” seems a little suspicious. ikewise, the praise of qualities like “proper virility” in mixed company gather- gs furnishes much material for jokes among guests from the West. 5.4. Toasts that honor parents ~ ‘The toast presented in Data 1 is in no way a special or unusual event in Georgia. | To make this clear I present as Data 2 a toast recorded in 1990 at an evening gathering of young, well acquainted academics in Tbilisi (the Georgian original can be found in Kotthoff 1995). ‘Tamada Badri (T), Goéa (0), Gia (G) and a young married couple (E:)= Data 2 First toast in a round of young intellectuals in Tbilisi 1 T; I want to offer you a toast (to our earthly gods, to our parents, mother and father. (1.0) anyway I have taken it as a rule not to ask the participants at this table if their mother or father is missing. (1.0) even if a parent is already dead, he or she is not dead but alive, (2D as long as a gram of their blood still flows in someone else. because of that they are earthly gods, (--) because their earthly children when they do not dwell on this earth anymore, do not Iet the memories of them decay. gaumargos to our earthly gods, to our parents, to our mother and father. [gaumargos. [cheers to them, (? 2) ((everybody drinks)) T wish them well-being, health and good luck. (1.0 drinking)See ree nanan Saeco aA 186 Helga Kotthoff 19 popular wisdom claims, (-) even if a child for his parents (- 20 would fry an egg on his or her hand, 21 she could never pay back what her/his parents did for 22 her/him. 23. paying back merits might mean that we should not 24.0: [2 2) 25 T: [lose or reject the traditions, (~) customs, moral credo, 26 that our parents gave us, 7 we should not lose it and trample on it. 28 this honor will surely be the payment for their caring efforts. 29 in Hegel there is a remarkable statement. parents love their children more than children love their parents, and that is natural. 32 why? he was asked. (-) 33 because parents are imperfect and sce the extension 34 of their own imperfection in their children. 35 therefore they love them more. 36 O: gaumaryos. 37 T: gaumarjos. best wishes to all of your parents. 38 O: [gaumargos to our earthly gods. 36 E: [gaumarjos. (they clink glasses and drink) As in the toast of Data 1, the conventional formal announcement “I want to offer you a toast” (me minda Semogtavazot sadegr3clo) attracts attention. Here again the toast-maker (tamada) switches to a formal style and a ceremonious vocabu- lary such as “earthly gods” (micieri tmertebi). Further stylistic changes help to set the toast off from the usual conversation; these include the progressively specific, three-part list in lines 2-3, “to our earthly gods, to our parents, to our mother and father.” ‘The third sentence (7-10) contrasts death and life. The expression micieri imertebi (earthly gods) is substantiated in lines 11-15. It is repeated again in line 16. This linc shows again the rhetorical procedure of triple denomination of the object. In line 17, the group gives a toast reply. The central formula is often repeated by the audience. The good wishes expressed next in line 18 are also structured in a three-part list format: “well-being, health and good luck” (kargad qopna, Zanmrteloba vusurvot, bedniereba vusurvot). The one-second pause marks the time that is given for drinking. In lines 19ff., the tamada refers to a popular saying, which is also a typical procedure. He uses an extravagant, but concrete picture, thereby combining tradition and creation. From line 23 to 26, he explains the traditional values. The usage of a three-part grouping can again be observed with the values mediated by the parents (traditions, customs, moral credo). These lists serve to elaborateRitual and style across cultures 187 biopics by way of varied repetition. Triple denomination facilitates both oral sition and memory. ‘A dialogical dramatization, starring the philosopher Hegel as the main .e, then follows in line 29. The small drama is used as the punch line of the The coda is presented in line 33ff., at which point the toast noticeably es to an end. The closing consists of gaumaros, expressed by speaker O. gs are often collaboratively produced. Tamada Badri repeats this formula d another one. Speaker O again repeats the gaumargos-formula, seconded by ybody present. They all clink glasses and drink, In the toasts, Georgian value orientations are conspicuously expressed and eatedly acknowledged. Toasts to participants’ parents, “our earthly gods”, icieri tmertebi), are common, In stark contrast to that of western countries, d especially to that of post-war Germany, the Georgian culture of communi sn emphasizes pathos and religiously flavoured praise of others. To be sure, 10s-laden toasts are not exclusively Georgian; a highly developed culture of sting can be found throughout the territories of the former Soviet Union. ywever, the toasts of Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are not so noticeably re~ ious as those of Georgia, which may be traced to the role this genre played ing the Soviet era in keeping Georgian religious practices alive outside of the wurch (Kotthoff 19992). Comparison of a Russian-Kazakh with a German toast "The toasts which follow below were recorded at a conference on German lan- ‘guage and literature at Alma-Ata in 1994. Data 3 is translated from a toast given ‘in German by a Russian scholar of German living in Kazakhstan, Here we see again how the discourse is coloured by pathos-laden strategies. Data 4 illus- ‘rates the relative sobriety of a German native offering a comparable toast, more or less within the genre norms of his own culture. Data 3 _ K: A Russian scholar of German at a German-Kazakh Conference 1K: the (~~) international (~) conference of German scholars ( was (-) for us (-) I don’t know how for you (—-) was for us a (——) notable, a (~~) a remarkable (~~) event. (~~ its significance extends far (-) beyond (—-) the bound of our purely professional, pedagogic (—-) linguistic (—-) (~—) interests. () linguistics, (~) pedagogy, (-) these are really only (-) the formal themes of this event. it was (~) not (~) a (—~) not a simple meeting of German scholars, teachers, (~) of German teachers,SSRN ASST ee esas 188 Helga Kotthoff 11 ©) who (~~) treat their many problems. (-) @ no. (-) this meeting (—) had a greater (-) meaning. 13 (—-) it was an (~) important, 14 it was something more important than a (-) simple meeting 15 for (-) here (~—) the spiritual forces (—) 16 of differing, (-) powerful cultures came in contact. 17 () this meeting has given a strong impulse (-~) to our (~) thoughts, (-) 18 our thoughts develop, (-) expand more quickly, (-), more forcefully, more intensely (-) 19 our ideas realize themselves (~) in a coherent direction 20 (-) and our hearts (~) now beat (~) as I can (—) welll imagine, 21 (~) more in synchrony. (~) but (~) that does not mean, 22 that we (~) abandon (-) our individual interests, 23. our individual opinions, (-) views and so forth. 24 (--)no. no. it has to do with the (-) harmony, (~) the synthesis 25 (--)I mean, (-) the principle (~) will remain (——) valid, 26 (-) the principle of dialectical unity (-)the SHARED 27: hahahahaha 28 K: and the PARTIcular. (~) then (~~) via German scholarship (-~) 29 to the enrichment (-) of different (~) cultures. (—) thank you. 30 cheers. Professor K’s stylistic elaborations of this short toast speech are more than evi- dent. In particular, the lines 12 to 21 exhalt his theme in a manner that would be hard to imagine as coming from a Western scholar. 12 no, (-) this meeting (~—) had a greater (~) meaning. 13. (--) it was an (-) important, 14 itwas something more important than a (~) simple meeting, 15 for (~) here (—) the spiritual forces (-) 16 of differing, (-) powerful cultures came in contact. 17 © this meeting has given a strong impulse (-) to our (-) thoughts, (-) ‘The assertion in 20 and following, that as a result of the conference the partici- pants” hearts would synchronize, seems strange and slightly humorous to those from the West 18 our thoughts develop, (-) expand more quickly, (-), more forcefully, more intensely (-) 19 our ideas realize themselves (~) in a coherent direction 20 ()and our hearts (-) now beat (~) as I can (-) well imagine, 21) more in synchrony.Ritual and style across cultures 189 for example, explicit ‘upgrading’. (J its significance extends far (-) beyond (—-) the bound of our purely professional, pedagogic (~~) linguistic (~~) (~-) interests. (-) iI “keyings” it also makes use of prosodic strategies, like the many pauses and slow tempo of speech evident throughout data 3. ‘Keyings are an important subgroup of contextualization which have been as et litle studied. They influence both the meaning of an utterance and its prag- ion 10 reality; in humor orin eccentric speech, for example, they are loosened {Kallmeyer 1979); in pathos, as well, but in a different direction. In joking one play with incongruent double framings, while in pathos the double framing is congruent: value systems (c.g., a current-concrete frame and a general or tran- sndent one) are brought into alignment. In lines 22~27 the speaker begins ith a rather everyday remark (“our thoughts develop”) and ends with an eccen- ‘tic metaphor (“our hearts now beat more in synchrony”). The value of the in- “ tensified exchange of thoughts is thus raised. Kem (1994: 398), one of the few linguists who has written about the thos-laden speech acts undergo, by means of special mechanisms, a paradig- ‘matic mythologizing of everyday affairs. In fact, this is just what Prof. K. at- tempts. A conference of Germanic scholars, in and of itself no extraordinary ‘occurrence, is elevated to a rare if not impossible (except perhaps in a mythi- cal realm) event: the synchronous beating of hearts. Kern characterizes this, second level of the mythological as a diffuse conglomerate of meanings, which can be described here on the level of metaphor, metonomy and rhetori- cal three-part lists: thoughts develop more strongly, ideas develop more co- herently, hearts beat more in synchrony. Pathos presumes a shared frame of values, morals and feelings. According to Aristotle (Nikomachean Ethics and Rhetoric), pathos touches "the emotions (cf. Staiger 1944: 79) and “incites sleepy existence,” in Staiger’s ‘words (1944: 80). ‘The Georgian, Russian and Kazakh toasts unify shared, honored objects _ with expressions of praise. The speakers display high emotional involvement, which is meant to be shared by auditors, and it is affirmed in the clinking of glasses and drinking, The informational value is, in most cases, far less relevant than the evocation of a shared feeling of respect. This is what the ceremony is ‘meant to confirm, renew and strengthen. Those who clothe the objects of shared190 Helga Kotthoff esteem in the best, most pathos-laden linguistic forms earn the admiration of the entire table society. By comparison, the toasts of the Germans are usually as compact and to-the- point as the toast given by one of the organizers of the conference in Alma-Ata, which is transcribed and translated below. Data4 D: A German philologist 1 D: the conference (—-) was cooperatively prepared and organized and carried out and brought to a good conclusion, () but let me just say (2briefly?); ( the DAAD, (-) the Goethe Institute (-) have worked together, which functioned on a very good common ground, (we have got a lot, we have got quite a lot of things (~) set up (~~) and, uh, I'm glad 9 this conference (~) has been such a great success, 10 it would not () have succeeded so well, 11 had not the (-) foreign languages institute 12 (-) contributed (~) in a fundamental way. 13 so for this reason I now want to raise a glass (~~) 14 to C) the future (-) University of Linguistics in Alma Ata. wUAUEWN ‘The philologist D actually only thanks the three organizers who brought the conference together, and then he offers his toast to the host university. He as- cribes to it an important role in achieving the conference's success. But he praises neither the university nor its assembled teachers and their families. He does not engage in raising the values of shared goals or achievements. It is thus, not surprising that Georgians, Russians and Kazakhs often characterize the speeches of Germans with sober matter-of-factness. In the West, speeches of praise to persons present are incomparably less fre- quent, and toasts play a much smaller role in the society's genre household than in the territories of the former Soviet Union. They are, in fact, usual only at cer: tain festivities, like marriages and graduation parties. At the most, two or three are offered, but never a chain of ten to twenty (as is common in Georgia), and even these are often undermined or framed with humour and irony. On German internet pages toasts can be found almost exclusively in humoristic contexts, and even at weddings it is usual for parents and relatives to spice their good wishes for the bride and groom with little jokes and humorously revealing stories. The attitude of pathos is met with scepticism, In other contexts it is also unusual for Germans to come forth with explicit moral praise for persons present, for example, in the form of “Mr. Giorgi is a won- tialRitual and style across cultures 191 erful neighbour and a very good person. We love and value Mr. Giorgi greatly!" _ jn Georgia such exclamations are completely normal, not only at the table, | In toasts, values are expressed that can be understood against the back- “ground of a specific cultural history. These values are not always shared ~ and ‘even among Georgians a variety of opinions about them can be found. There are = lso Georgians who find the rigid toasts too long-winded and who object, above “all, to the resulting ample consumption of alcohol. The positive politeness of the Georgian table culture has a networking char- ‘acter, In contrast to Western cultures, it is oriented to a sphere of contact larger ‘han the individual. It brings esteem to the network in which the vis-i-vis stands, “including deceased relatives. To this extent, Georgian politeness has a strong ‘network oriented and even religious component not found in the West. 6. Handling cultural differences in ritual and style ‘An often cited dimension of intercultural contact is that the outsider usually in- terprets foreign behavior, at least at the outset, in the framework of his or her ‘own cultural system (Knapp 2004). In the intercultural situation, the presumed ‘common knowledge about behavioural patterns is problematic (Gunthner and Luckmann 2002). In terms of intercultural understanding, misjudgements of culturally differing pragmatic conventions have far greater consequences in their emotional significance than grammatical or lexical mistakes, since they are often ascribed to personality attributes of the speaker, not merely to his or her linguistic knowledge. A further difficulty is that in the realm of politeness it is, seldom possible to inquire about how an utterance was meant (Holmes 1995). A possible misinterpretation cannot be clarified on the spot because the rules of politeness forbid going into the unexplicit levels of meaning, Listening to toasts, differences in values and in the associated structures of social relevance within cultures become visible. These can be brought together under the well-known dichotomy: esteem for interdependence or independence. This does not mean, however, that individuals are forced to choose between the two; in fact, many today are able to move comfortably in both cultural frame- works. We have seen that, in Georgia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, toasts play a much larger role in communicating honor and respect than they do in western Europe. The toast honors not only the person toasted but his or her entire social network, including deceased relatives. A shared meal thus has an implicit religious dimension in Georgia, which on my view, is a consider- able difference to the West. In other countries of the former USSR, as well, a pa- thetic style that Westeners often smile about is practiced within the genre (as was the case at the conference dinner in Alma Ata). However, for Georgians it was192 Helga Kotthotf important in the Soviet era to distinguish themselves from other Soviet peoples, and one possibility to communicate this distinction was achieved by including a religious dimension in their toasts. In the data presented above, we find that a high degree of formality, pathos, the explicit communication of values such as ‘clan orientation’, expressed in re- ligious undertones and references to transcendent reality, as well as explicit praise of the guests, are dimensions that characterize the Georgian toasts by their presence, and the German toast by their absence. In Georgia the communciation of honor (pativi) is ominpresent in everyday life and is often directly expressed: I give you pativi. On my view, this is a special case of “positive politeness” as it has been described by Brown and Levinson (1987) and debated by Matsumoto (1988), Foley (1997), Spencer- Oatey (2000a) and others. Giving and receiving pativi takes place not primarily in reference to the individual but to his or her social network, Morally laden net- works of social obligation play a large role in all aspects of everyday life. Dis- plays of honor, esteem and deference are part of the give and take of extended families. Thus, the dichotomy of collectivism and individualism often cited in intercultural research is quite plausible. However, some researches, like Hof- stede (1991), overlook the need to “do” both, in the sense of ethnomethodology. One should not invoke such concepts in order to essentialize a difference, but rather show how they acquire relevance within a community of practice (which might for some activities extend to the level of a nation), bearing in mind that the dichotomy does not characterize societies absolutely, and that mixed forms are likely to be found. Goffman, too, has emphasized that the Western concept of “face” is oriented to the concept of the individual, with his particular freedom of action and his personal need for acknowledgment, not as a concept of the collective. Cultures of the East did not, in general, become collective just by virtue of the socialist phases some of them experienced. Rather, one important historical factor was that they did not develop a Weberian “protestant ethic,” which in many Western societies brought in an enhanced dose of individualism (Hahn 1994), In closing, let me summarize some observations that result from the ethno- graphic study of ritual and style in German-Georgian situations with guests, particularly at meals. In recent times both cultures have had considerable con- tact, and itis not necessary to expect that their different behavioural norms must lead to irritation and tensions. As has been noted by Biihrig and ten Thije (2006), in intercultural encounters a wide variety of perceptions, from positive enrichment to rejection, can be found, varying according to context as well as the type and length of the encounter. In the points below I continue to speak of relations between Georgians and Germans, but in fact most observations would hold for encounters between individuals from the former Soviet Union and those from Western cultures.Ritual and style across cultures 193 enrichment 's often express mild amazement at the Georgians’ rhetorical prowess for social observation that they reveal in their toasts. Georgians, on the invited to gatherings with Georgian families, Germans often find dis- we in the formalized drinking, in the way that toasts interrupt what, for ‘would be the normal flow of conversation, and in the repetition of a small of themes in the toasts, Georgians object that, in Germany, they are given ttle opportunity to honor appropriately the other guests and their families. sation to the styles of the others rs from the West must learn to formulate toasts in Georgia, Russia, Ka- \stan, Ukraine, etc., while Georgians, Russians and Kazakhs, etc. in Western {ries must learn to be flexible in their use of the genre and to find pleasure in astances of rejection sitors, especially from the West, often object to the long toasts of the Geor- ans and the accompanying high consumption of alcohol. [nstances of confirming stereotypes These differing social practices are often cited when Georgians characterize ans as too sober and dry, or when Germans complain that Georgians are _too ceremonious, fussy and long-winded. Flexible “we” and “you” constructions Mixed German-Georgian groups in Germany or in Georgia construct situations "with guests in a relatively Western, informal style, or in a style that is more Georgian” and formal, whereby it must be noted that neither the Germans nor the Georgians fully change their style and adopt that of the other group. When _ Georgians living in Germany invite other Georgians as guests, normally all par- ticipants confirm their shared Georgian identity with toasts. They practice “doing being Georgian” (see Spreckels and Kotthoff in this volume). Likewise, Germans meeting only other Germans in Georgia offer no toasts in unmarked situations. However, arising intercultures such as mixed networks also form a “we” from the conglomeration of styles they comprise.acca i i 194 Helga Kotthoff Notes: 1. The transliterations from Georgian generally follow scholarly conventions described, for example, in Fahnrich (1987). However, I notate the voiced post-velar fricative ag, 2, Such concepts as “Western” and “Oriental” are, of course, vague and problematic, but they are used here to suggest that some of the cultural differences described here make sense for large cultural areas which go beyond a community of practice. References Auer, Peter and Aldo di Luzio (eds.) 1992 The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bourdieu, Pierre 1990 The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biihrig, Christin and Ja ten Thije 2006 Beyond Misunderstanding. The Linguistic Reconstruction of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chatwin, Mary Ellen 1997 Socio-cultural Transformation and Foodways in the Republic of Georgia. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Collins, Randall 2004 Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cook-Gumperz, Jenny and John Gumperz 1976 Context in children’s speech. In: Papers on Language and Context. (Work- ing Papers No. 46.) Berkeley, CA: Language Behaviour Research Labora- tory. Corder, Saskia and Miriam Meyerhoff this volume Communities of practice in the analysis of intercultural communication. Chapter 21 Douglas, Mary 1982 Natural Symbols. New York: Pantheon. Eckert, Penelope 2000 __Lingustic Variation as Social Practice. London: Blackwell, Erickson, Frederic and Geoffrey Shultz 1982 The Counselor as Gate Keeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press. Fahnrich, Heinz 1987 Grammatik der georgischen Sprache. Jena: Universititsverlag Poley, William A. 1997 Anthropological Linguistics. An Introduction. Malden and Oxford: Black- wellRitual and style across cultures. 195 d, Sigmund Der Witz und seine Bezichung zum Unbewupten. Frankfurt: Fischer. First published Vienna [1905]. , Clifford The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Clifford Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. man, Erving 61 Interaction Ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. an, Erving J4.-Frame Analysis. An Exsay on the Organizations of Experience. New York: Harper & Row. in, Erving 981 The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48: 1-17. perz, John Cross-cultural communication. In: John Gumperz, Tony Jupp and Celia Roberts, Crosstalk. London: BBC. Reprinted (2003) in Roxy Harris and Ben Rampton (eds.), The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader, 267-276. London: Routledge. umperz, John and Cook-Gumperz, Jenny is volume Discourse, cultural diversity and communication: a linguistic anthropologi- cal perspective. Chapter 2 ithner, Susanne 1993 Diskursstrategien in der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Analysen deuisch- chinesischer Gespriiche. Tibingen: Niemeyer. jinthner, Susanne 20002 -Hoflichkeitspraktiken in der interkulturellen Kommunikation — am Bsp. chinesisch—deutscher Interaktionen. In: Heinz-Helmut Liiger (ed.), Stile der Héflichkeit, 295-313. Frankfurt: Lang. Giinthner, Susanne 2000b Argumentation and resulting problems in the negotiation of rapport in a German—Chinese conversation. In: Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, 217-240. Lon- don/New York: Continuum. Giinthner, Susanne this volume Intercultural communication and the relevance of cultural specific reper- toires of communicative genres. Chapter 7 Giinthner, Susanne and Thomas Luckmann 2002 Wissensasymmetrien in interkulturetler Kommunikation. In: Helga Kott- : hoff (ed.}, Kultur(en) im Gespriich, 213-245. Tuebingen: Narr. Hahn, Alois 1994 Theorien zur Entstehung der curopiiischen Modetne. Philosophische Rundschau Heft 3-4 31: 178-202. Hofstede, Geert H. 1991 Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw- Hill, Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman,196 Helga Kotthoff Hymes, Dell 1974 Ways of speaking. In: Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explora- tions in the Ethnography of Speaking, 433-451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Irvine, Judith 1979 Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropol- ogist 81(4): 773-790. Reprinted (2001) in Alessandro Duranti (ed.), Lin- guistic Anthropology, 189-208. London: Blackwell. Kallmeyer, Werner 1979 “(Expressif) Eh ben dis donc, hein’ pas bien’”. Zur Beschreibung von Exal- tation als Interaktionsmodalitit. In: Rolf Kloepfer (ed.), Bildung und Aus- bildung in der Romania, 549-568. Miinchen: Fink. Kern, Peter Christoph 1994 Pathos. Vorliufige Uberlegungen zu einer verpénten Kommunikations- haltung. In: Heinrich Léfiler, Karlheinz Jakob and Bernhard Kelle (eds.), Texttyp, Sprechergruppe, Kommunikationsbereich. Studien zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 396-411. Berlin: de Gruyter. Knapp, Karlfried 2004 Interkulturelle Kommunikation, In: Karlftied Knapp et al. (eds.), Ange- wandte Linguistik, 409-431. Tubingen: Francke. Knoblauch, Hubert and Helga Kotthoff (eds.) 2001 Verbal Art across Cultures. Tuebingen: Nar. Kotthoff, Helga 1991a _Lemersprachliche und interkulturelle Ursachen fir kommunikative Inrita- tionen, Linguistische Berichte 135: 375-397 Kotthoff, Helga 1991b Der Tamada gibt am Tisch den Ton an. Tafelsitten, Trinkspriiche und Ge- schlechterrollen im kaukasischen Georgien. In: Susanne Gtinthner and Helga Kotthoff (eds.), Von fremden Stimmen. Weibliches und ménnliches Sprechen im Kulturvergleich, 229-261. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Kotthoff, Helga 1995 The social semiotics of Georgian toast performances. Oral genre as cultural activity. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 353-380. Kotthoff, Helga 1998 Trony, Quotation, and Other Forms of Staged Intertextuality. In: InList-Ar- beitspapier No. 5. University of Potsdam. Reprinted (2002) in Carl Graum- ann and Werner Kallmeyer (eds.), Perspectivity in Discourse. 201-233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kotthoff, Helga 1999a_ Mablzeiten mit Moral: Georgische Trinkspriiche zwischen Pathos und Poe- sie. In: Jérg Bergmann and Thomas Luckmann (eds.), Komumunikative Kon- struktion von Moral, Volume 2: Von der Moral zu den Moralen, 13-50. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kotthoff, Helga 1999) Coherent keying in conversational humour: Contextualising joint fictional- isation. In: Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk and Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, 125-150. Amsterdam: BenjaminsRitual and style across cultures 197 Fdmund Rethinking Anthropology. New York: Athlone Press. ‘Meredith and Holmes, Janet flume Humour across cultures: Joking in the multicultural workplace, Chapter 8. ation of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japan- ese. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 721-736. s, Marcel 8 Dic Gabe. In: Marcel Mauss (ed.), Soziologie und Anthropologie, Bd. 2, 9-114, Berlin: Ullstein. First published Paris [1925]. Plorian Selbst- und Fremdorganisation im Diskurs. Interne Kommunikation in Wirtschafisunternehmen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universititsverlag. Barbara and Margret Selting Discourse styles. In: Teun van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Pro- cess: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 138-156. London: Sage. fhweder, Richard and E. Bourne 1984 Does the concept of person vary cross-culturally? In: Richard Shweder and : Robert A. LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emo- tion, 158-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ifianou, Maria 1992 Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Culwural Ap- proach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. mner, Hans-Georg 1991 Zur Soziologie des Symbols und des Rituals. In: Jigen Oelkers and Klaus Wegenast (eds.), Das Symbol — Briicke des Verstehens, 63-81. Stuttgart! Berlin/K6In: Kohlhammer. er-Oatey, Helen 20002 Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In: Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cul- tures, 147. London: Continuum. ‘Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2000 Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum. Spreckels, Janet and Kotthoff, Helga this volume Communicating Identity in Intercultural Communication. Chapter 20, Staiger, Emil 1944 Vom Pathos. Ein Beitrag zur Poetik. Trivium 2: 77-92. Tannen, Deborah 1984 Conversational Style. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Werlen, Iwar 2001 _Rituelle Muster in Gesprichen. In: Klaus Brinker et al. (eds.), Text- und Gespréichslinguistik, 1263-1278. Berlin: de Gruyter Yamada, Haru 1997 Different Games, Different Rules: Why Americans and Japanese Misunder- stand Each Other. Oxford: Oxford University Press.