Contributions to the Sociology of Language 3 Editor Joshua A. Fishman Mouton de Gruyter Berlin - New York English across Cultures Cultures across English A Reader in Cross-cultural Communication edited by Ofelia Garcia Ricardo Otheguy Mouton de Gruyter Berlin - New York 1989Mon te Cre ermal Moto, Ts Hag) Bie oad ne Coe ava of Con Cag im Set De ‘agi sr as, tn a Eg, "Corso tes Sane) oma Pie eta — Va. 2 Bah ange — ‘elec lata epee Forte eum 4 Seco amram curt, Otte hs ‘Bow 069255157 sae) te boa Calg tn De reat mmaiaien | ON Gus Re ‘Stiga hese New You" Manon Grape 8 Sewevonna ne sme, ‘Ne Oar Ot ie OT (9 Pine ona oe ape com by ite Gr Ca ei A it re a Para nuestro ios, [ie Anthony, Raquel Alicia y Emma Adela, pars que alg dia nos lean, 208 revuerde,Foreword ‘That languages spread to new populations isa historia commonplace, asi the fact that, a reall, they are offen spoken by groups whose Culture i very diferent fom that of the original wes. Atleast ince Boas (1911), we take it 36 2 given that in many settings there wil be little congruence between language and ethnicity. Is therfore ‘eltvely ‘unremarkable thatthe Engish language, on the one hand, ‘and English, or even Brits ethnicity, on the other, should be found fogether nan increasingly small proportion of the total munber of speakers ofthe aaguage. A pew collection of artis tat deat simply ‘vith the spread of Englah, or even with ngusti dffson In general Imisht thus be dificult to Justify. After all, that people adopt new Tanguages and ew cultures is the stuf of which the dicipins of Linguistic and” Anthropolbey. were long ago fest made. Moreover, the teansfer of Linguistic system to a new place and a new society has been studied not only dachroncally, but abo as an unfolding synchronic roots. The elds of dalectolory and historcabeom- partie lingitics testify to our thorough familiarity with the out ‘Some of the procas of language difusion. And advances in the Field ‘Gf erclization, bilingualism and langage contact ear witness to ‘our growing tadentanding of whst happens to spreading linguistic ‘Sistem — and to others they meet ~ athe proces of expansion takes ‘Bt if both the diehronc outcome and the synchronic dynamics ‘of spreading Iingitc systems have recelved, and continue to get, the Sitention they dese, there har been considerably Tess study ofthe Aha langage exchanges in which the wer of thevedifusing Systems must have enpaged, and engage stl today. The spread of any language fon gives f8e f0 converstions in that language between pais of| Intelocutors who are very differently situated with respect to both Tingstic and cultural norms In many instances, one ofthe participants inthe conteation speaks the language natively, the other one a5 @ fccond or forign language. In other eases, both of them speak it hatvely, but bring to the eocounter very diferent communicate forms, the proces: of diffnion of language Iavng outpaced that of cate, is these converations that sorely need detailed study. At present,‘we know lite about the interactive successes and failures experienesd by pai of interlocutor caught inthe midst of language expansion. ‘teh interlocutor are using language tha at last for one of them in very likely to be elther (@) a language of recent acquisition, o (>) 4 language sequited ong ago, perhaps from birth, But nevertheless OF sil perape stony fet — foreign Identity, or (@) one that IS spoken wile rving on communicative noms based on, and for altars oily guage. Students (Of, sy, Romance linguistics know much about the historical outome ff the difusion of Latin, and it comes at n0 news to them, for sample, that time came when most speakers of Latin in Hispani ‘wore not of Roman ethnicity. But they have a much more limited Knowiedge ofthe nature ofthe encounter in Latin between Romans snd Tberans or Romans and Busiareans; of what ths form of eos ‘utr communication Was lke, of where it suceeded, of of the polats at which it failed; of whore the ares of comfortable under ‘Standing lay, or of wha pitfalls and misunderstanding marved it "When the peiod of expamion ofa language has past, the nature ofthe noel interactions that aspreating ngusti system brings aboot fecome obscured. Though not impose, i wil be dificult to Fearn about the Latin elated problems ofthe interlocutor mentioned above. ‘nd this ot simply Boose thse conversations took place so long a0; jist as Importantly, the difialty ates because, as time as ‘paved, the cilfal paps cross which the novel interchanges took ‘lace huve tended to else.) But languages whose period of expansion EE recent or sill curent afford usa valuable opportunity to stay the ature of thee encounter fist hand Enlsh is clearly one ofthe languages that today provides us with such an opportuty, one which researcher: hve started (0 take Advantage of only recently Pride 1985). I is the purpose of this otume, then, fo study cros-cultual interactions between people who Ive come to have acces to the sme English language system, but whose cult! and conceptual system hive not yot reached high Ieveh of convergence, One sould note, parenthetical, that it of ‘coune an overimplifeation to refer in such a facile manner to “the Sane imgustic system,” even when oth lntelocuors are native Speaker, That thes teractions aeos cultures erated by the spread ‘OT Englsh ae sometimes alto acrom wht have become, and arekely to remain, at leat partly afferent systems of English also occupies Foros ie some of the writers in this volume (se, for instance, the papers by ‘Algeo and by Kinlost, “To study these problematic Interactions, we have brought together authors from Brithn, Heland, and continental Earope, os well at from North America, the Cinbbets, India, Si Lanka, and revel fares of fia, tho Pacic, and the Far East. Although we have care filly edited their popes, and have standardized the formal appara ff section, footnotes, and referent, we have studiously refrained from any attempt to lnpose uniform sage or diction. The richness fod varity of English serous cultures is thor exemplified by the ‘ootibutorsthemelvet. Our authors study the problems of ros ‘ultra communication in English in settings whose spciiccharac- erties arose during several periods of the hittory of the Ingusgs. ‘They donot go tack to the time of English expansion through Bhitain or to ts continental roots ~ for that would defeat the purpose of seizing the opportunity of relatively recent contact, But ‘hey do study problemati interactions stil taking place in what Kachra (19860) has called the inner cre of Englsh — Britin, the United Sates, Canada, Australia and Now Zealand ~ whose formation started more than three hundred years ago; and they algo study interactions ‘whove roots le in the push of Bstsh empire during the lst centry, 3s well interaction that have come about because of United States tenitoral and commercial expansion during the lst two centuris, is wel as because of the recent te of Ausraba and Now Zealand to the status of economic powers, [A word is neoled about the tie of this volume, whose Janusike ‘quality detves from ronaetions by Joba Pade (for the fst haf, Engish acrow cultures) and by JL, Dilrd (for the second hal Guirares ocross Bngiih). As English bas spread, it has taken over how expremie functions; extended to new domains; come to rly ‘on new syste of belie and behavior nd become sgiicant for new {nterloeutons English sos cultures. But the new expesie functions tveraken by Ens have themselves taken it vcr. In order to make Sense of exchanges in English today, researchers and interlocutor tke must now come to some understanding of is new domains they ‘most develop a8 appreciation forthe systems of behavior and belief that ae now relied on by its speakers; and. they must come 10 ‘pprehend the seifieance for Englsh of those very interlocutor, for whom English has bocome sigufcent: Cultures across English “The reearch model and the detailed empiscal studies presented erex Foreword ate motivated by the bei that only by understanding cultures across English can there be commnictive succes in and theoretical under Standing of the lateratons that ee now #0 provalent a English across alton "The eilors of this volume — across whom English has been, and ‘who hope to have pst something acros It too — have moch to thank John Pide. As port of projet to expand hs Craseultural encour ters: Communication and miscommunication (1985), it was Pride ‘who fix proposed the volume and who lnitally asked for some of the contibutions which now appear here. We have expanded his iniah theoretical framework and have invied many other conto tions, We remain indebied to hie fr al the initial work of concept lization and actual preparation of this took, which would not have ‘been posible without hi initiative and effort. ‘The editors ako wh to acknowledge the help and trust of the Series Edltor, Josioa A. Fatman, who ofer the yea has been @ ‘most generous colleague and inspiring teacher. We are fortunate tO Ihave tad the opportunity to work with him and benefit fom his {atallectal stimulation, detication, and eneay Finally, the editors wih fo acknowledge the suppor of the National ‘Academy’ of Eduction of the United Staten the form of Spencer Fellowsip to Ofelia Garcs, and of the City College of New York through sabbatical leave to Riardo Othepuy. Both editors wish to acknowledge as well the support given to them by the School of Education ofthe City Collegeof New York. Ofelia Grea ‘Ricardo Otheewy ‘The Authors JOHN ALGEO is Profesor of English at the University of Georgia ‘Athens, Geom, USA), where be har served as department ead land a defor of the Ungustics program. During the academic yest 19861987, he wae a Goseenheim Fellow and Fulbrght Research Scholar at'the Survey of Engish Usage, University College London, investigating grammatical and lexical differences between. British tnd. American English. He has coauthored Origins and Development Of the English Language, suthored On Defining the Proper Name, td served as eitor of American Speech for ten yeus. He is curetly tditing "Among. the New Words” for Amercon Speech sod preparing 1 Dictonary of Britcar collaboration with Allen Walker Read CELIA ALVAREZ is « New York born Puerto Rican. She has been 1 meniber ofthe Language Policy Task Force ofthe Centro de Estudios Pertoriguetos (CUNY). Her research interests include sociolngustics and ethnography of speaking, bilingual education and womenjgender ‘le. She attended the Semmer Institute in Women Studies atthe Univenity of London (1987) and coordinated the werkshop on women fof cobor in the US. atthe UN Decade of Women Symposiom, Uni- Versty of Nairobi, Kenya, 1985. She is presently teaching in the Biingial-Bleultural Progam at Teacher Colles, Cohumbia Univesity. WALTER $, AVIS was born in Toronto, Ontario in 1919 and died tn Kingston, Ontario in 1979. After completing a doctorate at the University of Michigan, he joined the faculty of the Royal Miitary Collegeof Canada in Kington Ontario where he remained for it teaching le. He was 8 founding member ofthe Canadian Linguistic ‘Sssoviation and served at is President from 1968 to 1970. His many ‘writings on Canadian English brought him international fame as an Suthorty on that subject. His maseplece was A Dictionary of Canad nis on Hatorieal Principles (1967). He was avarded the Centennial Meda in 1967 and the Queen's Saver Jublee Medal in 1978, COURTNEY B, CAZDEN is Profesor of Education at Harvard, Cam brides, US.A. She has boon 2 primary school teacher and a Fellow tthe Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences, In 1985sh The Authors she was President of the American Association of Applied Linguistics She spent 6 months in 1967 at 4 Fulbright scholar in New Zeala ‘The author of nuterous articles on the development of children’s ‘etal slities and the anetions of language in educational settings, her most recent book, Clatroom Discourse: The Language of Learing cand Teaching, was published in 1987 KEITH CHICK & curently Head of the Department of Gener Lingus snd Commusistion at th Univesity of Natal, South ‘Afion, His teaching and research Interests e within the fields of tecilinguities, appiodHnguistes, and the teaching of Englsh as 1 second language. PAULINE CHRISTIE is « Senior Lecturer in the Department of Lingistcs end Use of Enelih atthe Univesity of the West Inds, ona, Jamnica. For some years she has been a member of the [Examining Committee for Engish Language in the examinations ‘administered bythe Carfbbean Examinations Council (CXC). EL. DILLARD, Profesor of English at Northwester (Louisiana) ‘Sate University, US.A, i suthor,elitor, or collaborator on eleven books dealing with dialct variation or hstorial chang, especialy in non-traditional vate. \VIV EDWARDS i lecturer in the Department of Applied Linguistics st Birkbeck College, University of London, UK. Her main publications inciude The Wet Indian Language Ise in Bish Schools (Routledge 1583) and. Language in a Black Community. Cultingual Matters 1986), Her main areas of research are language in education and language variation, Sho is curently codirector of a research project con Beith Dslot Grammar CHITRA FERNANDO as born in Sof Lanks and eduested in Sei [Lanka and Austra, She has been teaching in the Schoo! of Engl snd Linguistics, Macquarie University (SyGney, Austral) since 1968 find curently holds the postion of Senior Lecturer in Linguistics Her major resarch interests are in the areas of bilingualism and ‘Gacourse stays, She ie ako a writer of short stores and has written for both cron and adults JUDITH KEARINS was born in New South Wales, Australia. She tind and_worked a8 an occupational therapist before studying pvchology atthe University of Western Austral, where she obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1977. She lectures in the Department of Peychology at the University of Wester Australia (Nedlands, Since 1974 the has studied the ability and performance of Aboriginal chen, |AM. KINLOCH, «native of Scotland, received his doctorate from the Univenity of Saint Andrews, After teaching at the Uniersity ‘of Hull andthe University College of Wales, he came fo the Unversity ‘of New Brunrwick in 1959, eteiag in 1986, He was resident of the ‘American Disect Society in 1983 and 1984 and is currently (1987- 1988) Preient of the Aantic Provinces Linguistic Association. He was Asoc elitor of American Speck from 1968 to 1984. He fas witen» number of articles on various aspect of Canadian English, ‘mong otter things. He is currently caying out research on the English ofthe Province of New Brunswick 4J0 ANNE KLEIPGEN f astant profesor of linguists and education St Teachers College, Colombin University. Her research interests are ‘Primary in the ares of interactional roiliguistics. She has examined {sroom infraction between. chidren of various language back- [sounds and exprienod ax well novice teachers, and is currently fxploring the nature of communication in computerized educational ftviranments, She has papers and reviews published in Anthropology tnd Education Quarterly, Capstone Journal of Education, Text, end World Englishes, ar wel popes ln edited series on topes in second Ibngusae acqusion. Her teaching expeiene is extemive, including tlementary and secondary schoo! insruction in the US, Mexico, tnd Switzerland. KOENRAAD KUIPER teaches linguistics a the University of Canter. bbuy in New Zealand, He hs published « numberof studies of oral formulate speech, as well st work on the theory of the lexicon and teary theory TAN G. MALCOLM is Head of the Department of Language Studies and of the Institute of Applied Language Studies in the Western ‘Australian College of Advanced Education (Must Lawley, Westerniv Theduttor ‘Avstrain). He is ao Asociate Head of School, Community and Language Studies at the same institution. Ie hs studied commeni- cation problems in the Aboriginal clssroom. He has coauthored English and the Aboriginal Child, Communication and the Teacher land authored many scholarly papers on Aborgina! English, sci Tingubstss and discourse analysis tn 198687 he was Visiting Expert at the Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languags, Chins PAUL MBANGWANA was bom ia Bamenda in the English-speaking part of Cameroon, Since 1983 he has served 2s Head of the Depart- ment of English at the University of Yaounde, Cameroon, where the isan Asociate Professor. He completed an M.A. in the University ‘of Leeds, Englind, His doctorate i from the Univers of Yacunde RR. MEHROTRA taught English in Banaras Hindu University sine 1959, He i preseutly ProViceChancllor of North-Easicrn Hit Ur verity in Auatl, Muoram. He ba been Visiting Fellow atthe Indian Institate of Advanced Study, Simla, and has lectured in the United Kingdom, West Germany, Ausra, Soviet Union, Singapore, Hong ‘Kong, and Japan. He is the author of Sociolinguistics im Hind Com texts, Sociology of Secret Language, and numerous papers on socio= Iingustes and Taian English. He has just completed 2 book on Indion nash and is urrenly working on Indian Pidgin Engh JOYCE PENFIELD is Asstnt Profesor at the Graduate Schoo! of Education, Ratger: Universty, New Brunswick, New Jersey. She is Interested in sociolinguistic research related to bilingualism, inter cultural communication, and the politics of language, She is coauthor (of Chicano Englih An Ethnic ‘Contact Duce (1985), editor of Women and Language in Transtion (1987) and autor of Commun ‘ating with Quotes: The Igbo Case (1983) and The Media: Catalysts for Commnicaive Language Learning (1987). DAVID PIPER studied English at Cambrige University, education at London University, and Hagusties at the University of Reading, Defore taking his Ph.D. in linguists and educational psychology at the University of Alberta, He has also had experience teaching Enlish tes second language on both sides ofthe Atlantic. Hs current research Intersts inchide writing development in multiethnic classrooms and foundational search in the teaching and learning of English He is Pre Authors 37 sn Asocate Profesor inthe Department of Educational Psycholoay 1 the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada JOHN PLATT is Asoclate Profesor inthe Department of Linguistics At Monash University in Melboume, Austra. He bas published ex {sively on the indigestion of Engsh, multBingwalism and language polices, pariculay in relation to Singapore and Malaysia is publ ations Include: Bnotsh ix Singapore and Malays (1980) with Hk ‘Weber, The New Enpiches (1988) with Heidi Weber and Min Lisn Ho snd De Longman Dictionary of Apple Linguistics (1985) with Sock Richards and Held Weber ‘SHIRLEY A. RIVERS, who has an MS. degree anda Speciai's Cert fate. from Northwestern (Loukiana) State Unierity, as been a Student and graduate sistant of JL. Dil. She grew up among the Cajuns (Acadians) of south Loublana, U.S.A. tok an undergraduate Alege in French, and has «continuing interest in both the French and Enlth ofthe Cs people MURIEL SAVILLE-TROIKE is Professor of Educational Prychology, Division of English at an Intemational Language, and Linguistics, and (Cir of the Department of Edocational Prychology atthe University ‘of Iii, Urbana-Champaign. She rceived her PRD. in Linguistics ftom the University of Texas at Austin. Her rewarch interests are primarily in Neva and rated Athabaskn lsguages, fst and second Tanguage aequston, and the ethnography and socislinguistics of Communication. She bis poblshed extensively in ell these ares, ix lading. The Eehaography of Communication: An Introduction sod Foundations for Teaching English os 0 Second Language, and has cited Lingustes and Anthropology (Georgstown University Round ‘Table on Languages and Llagustice 1977) and, with Deborah Tannen, Perspectives on Silence, Shei coating ber research onthe process (of communication, fmt and_ second language development, and Tanewage los among speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and ‘pani WILLIAM A. STEWART is profesor of Linguistics atthe Graduate Schoo! of the City Univeity of New York, He is the author of rumerous works in the aret of ceolzation and language contact nd has done pioneering work on Black English vermcular. He Isat The Authors well known for hi expertihe in the ares of socolinguistes,lexico- feaphy, daloctology and African survivals in the languages of the New Woda DAPHNE TAN GEK LIN received her Masters degree in ingusics from the Univenity of Canterbury in New Zealand. She was born and preenly lies in Singapore LORETO TODD was born in Irland whore he competed hs B.A. and M.A. Ia England he rotved an M.A. in Linguistics and a PhD. He is curently Senior Lectorer in Brith atthe University of Leeds, England. He is published fifteen books and aver one hundred articles ‘on the sobjecte of English Language, Folklore, Linguistics, Literature, ideas and Creoles. JER VERSCHUEREN & ¢ Research Associate ofthe Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research. He obtained a loentiate in Germanic Philology ftom the Univesity of Antwerp in 1974, and a PhD. in Linguists from tho University of California at Berkeley in 1979, He bas served as Anocite Editor ofthe Joural af Pragmatics (North Holland) and Baitor of Pagmaries & Beyond (ohn Benjamin). He i presently Secretary General of the Intemational Pragmatics As soctation at the Univenity of Antwerp, Wisk, Belgium. His recent Dublestionsinclade: What People Say’ They Do With Words and International News Reporting. He has coauthored A comprehensive Bbilogaphy of Pragmatics nd co-edited The Pragmatic Perspective: ‘Selected Papers from the 1985 Ineratonal Pragmatics Conference. RT, WILLIAMS was born and educated in the United States. Since 1975 he has aught courses in applied linguistics ad psyholingustic at Wester Australisn Colee, Mount Lawley, where he is presently Senior Lecturer in the Department of Language Stags. The summer (of 1986 he was appointed Honorary Research Fellow at Birmingham University, Eneland, where he cased out research onthe perception fof accented speech, His poblihed work has dealt primal with eos ‘tural communication, functional aspects of lngusge, nd comsmuni- ‘ative language teaching EAE SETEE aE ESTEE TEE eae SEDE EEE aE See TEESE aUE REESE EEE SEEPS Eee ‘The Editors OFELIA GARCIA i Amociate Profesor of Education inthe Schoo! fof Béacation of the City College of New York. Her publications are Jn the areas ofthe sociology of language and the education of language minorities. She has conductd joint research with Joshua A. Fishman fon Spank in the United Sates and on biitercy in ethic schools. During the preparation of this volume sho was the recipient of @ Spencer Fellowship from the National Academy of Education of ‘the United States. RICARDO OTHEGUY is Profesor of Linguistics and. Education| st the Graduate School ofthe City University of New ere and at ‘the City Colles of New York. He has also been visting Fulbright Scholar in the Department of Linguistic at the Universidad de la Republica in Montevideo, Uruguay. His publications are in the area ‘of Spanish grammar snd somantis and inthe fed of language contact. He has alo worked in the area of Alrcan surals In New Worl Spanish. GARCIA and OTHEGUY have coauthored a numberof ates on Tangusge contact and on the sociolinguistic and socoeducational situation of language minorities in the United StatesContents Foreword Ofelia Garcia sna Ricardo Othapuy wi ‘The Authors si ‘The Editor 0 Introduction Ofelia Garcia a Ricardo Othepuy ' PART 1: ENGLISH ACROSS CULTURES Section One. The impact of diferences in sociocltural tcksrounds of interlocutor on communication in English: Soci-pragmatic constrains Some types of communicative strategies across cultures Senco an sensi Joh Pitt 3 Englch as object and medium of (mis)understanding Jef Verschueren 31 “The (mis identfcation of rplona and national accents of Enlish Pragmatic, cognitive and soca aspects RT. Willame ss Culture and language in lasroom communication [MurelSavile-Troite and Jo Anne Kleifgn a English for academic purpote: A hidden curiulum in ways of speaking Courmey B.Cazden 103 Invitble oltre in the ciasroom: Minority pupils nd the piacple of adaptation Tan 6, Malcolm urSection Two. The impact of ferences in socio-political ‘eas on communication in English: Macrosocetal constraints Intercultural miscommunication a source of frition inthe workplace and i dationalsetigs in South Aca Keith Chick Socio oii influence on cultural identity in Canada, Implications for crosecultural communication in Enash Dad Piper "Engsh as problem and resource in Sri Lankan Universities Chitra Ferando ‘They speak English, don't they? Judith Kearns PART Il: CULTURES ACROSS ENGLISH Section The. The impact of differences in socio ngustic bckarounds of interioeutors on communication in English: iinosingistic constraints Brith American lexical ditferences. A typology of iteriletl variation John Aigeo (Questions of standards and intrcesonal ferences Carioca extinations Pauline ire Structural mimiry in decrotization and it fect on preudocomprenension Willan A Stewart, Cultural congruence and conf in the acquisition of formula in second lngusg> ‘Koonraad Kuper ana Daphne Ton Gek Lr iasctology in our time? The English of the Cans JL Dlr and Shey A. Rivers 139 161 18s 205 219 243 263 2a 305 Flexibility in lexioal wage in Cameroon English Paul Moanawara Cultures in conflict: Varieties of English in Northern Ireland Loreto Toda Section Four. The impact of differences in socio-psychological ‘enfity of aterloowtore: Identity constants Patois and the polite of protert Back Ealsh in British classrooms Viv award ‘Code-switchin in narrative performance: A Puerto Rican spech ‘community in New York (Cs Aivres Sos and Ungustic parameters f prosody in Chicano English Joyee Penfield Central Canaan Engl and Received Standard Engh ‘A comparison of pronunciation AM, Kinloch sod Water 5. Avs Indian erature fa Eaglsh RR Mehrotra ‘Bibliography ‘Author Index Subject Index 319 335 399 313 387 03 ‘at 4a an 49Introduction 1. The study of cross-cultural communication As put of a series on the Soclology of Language, this volume attempts ‘to examine verbal exchanges thous the use of Englsh when the Ceommusistive act has Been organized and given meaning scoring to ‘onficting commonity norms. The paper gathered here owe much {o all the different penpectves that Took af how hngaage functions In social life. The four setios of the book contain work that falls roughly nto the four mala categories of the study of language and Souicfy, The wader wl find here papers that focus on features of Geourse and’ the communicative tution, the aren that has been Nariouly, and more or les feictously, calle pragmates (Cole and Morgan '1975), conversational analyas (Gomperz 1978), or the Cheopaphy of speaking (iymes 1974). There are also papers tat Some under the category ofthe sociology of lnguage (Fishman 1968) ‘Xnd there Is abo work covering aspects ofthe tradition of diaectology (eDovid 1946, Read 1938) and sociolinguistic varlaton (Labov 1966), Fly, there are articles that eal with aspects of sora phology {Giles end Powesland 1975), Lreapective ofthe intelectal tration to Which we may asign Gem, all papers foois on the culture specific Charter ofall communication, and on the overing importance of Giffering catural noms for conversations carried out in # common langue. ‘Athough many other texts hive atested to the spread of Enlish (Gshman, Cooper sn Conrad 1977; Greenbaum 1985, Kachry 19863) tnd many fave described the diffrent varieties of English spokes today (Buiky. and Gorlch 1982, Greenbaum 1985, Kachmu 1986, Pride 1982, Quirk and Widdowson 1985), there ave been few that hove. adéresed the communication problems encountered by dif ferent kinds of English spesking interlocutor. ‘Communizatve synchrony between interlocutor, which di fiealt to achieve oven in the most culturally homogeneous setigs, ‘pevomes sil more dificlt in intrthale encounters. All he papers Incinded here addres the complex sociolinguistic station that results ‘when Engh faclitates commenication, on the one hand, but produces ‘what Stowart (this volume) as clled pseudocomprehenion, Sever! theoreticians of language, both in and out of linguistics,2 Innoancton have emphasized the active role that hearers playin all communication through language (Chick, this volume, Diver 1975, Kiser 1979, Widdowson 1984). Linguistic sentences do not encode complete rmessges that are transmitted whole from speaker to hears On the contrary, what happens in a conversation i that speaker offer ‘up matenal tht i denottve incomplete unt & hearer, engaging in sn alfimative inferential at, fs in conceptal gape and rounds off complete thoughts that wer only inchoate in the utterance. In this view, messages are not conveyed; they ate sketched by speakers and Consructed by eres (Reid 1974, 1957). With this in mind, i Decomes clear that linguistic exchanges mnt, by their very nati, rely on myriad speakertearer sociocultural undemtendings. The erosion Of these understandings due to cultural distance can souly threaten the very bass of successful communication throug language. Tn examining the inherent strains of cross-cultural communication 145 not enough to be reminded ofthis constructs view of language, ‘wth ts emphasis on the participant's necesariy active ~ and neces: Sarly sockaly conditioned ~ role in communication. We most a0 bbe reminded of one of the foundational Hess of Westen European and” American linguistics, namely that languages ae not simply Aliferetnomencatures for universal concoptal sets (de Sausre 1915, Supir 1929). Rather, cach language serves to expres is own, to some degree unique, ieational universe (Cer 1976). Sap, in tartculr, stesed the sci mature of tie uniqueness, eamphasing {huts "No two languages are over sulficently similar to be considered 2s reprsenting the same socal reality. The worlds in which diferent Secietis Ive are distinct Words, not merely the sane words with diferent labels attached” (1929°162). ‘The Use of English by inter focutors who hail fom varying cultural backerounds, and who not Jong ago spoke, and perhaps stl today speak, another language ie addition to English, is bound to bring Sapir’ diferent “socal realities” to the fore. The interaction of these reaites, and thei frequent con flict, adds another dimension to the tensions of intercultural com- "As our authors show, a serious consequence ofthe spread of English thas teen that it as created a fle sense of mutual ineligiity. As English resources are deployed relying on the various culrural norms ‘of eiferent speakers of Eaglsh, problems are for many ofits heaters, ‘who often go onto improvise inferential solutions ~ to construct the Final message based on divergent sociocultural reali, It ie at this point where much interethnic miscommunieation takes place. When the linguistic codes of heres and speakers are the same, the hearer feels ented, indeed compeled, to interpret, eventhough Ihe or the may in fct lack even the ost rudimentary elements with ‘which 10 jnfer an Interpretation, the mere posession of « common Tenpwage being, as the authors here abundantly demosstte, not ‘ney enough. This fin contast tthe much simpler situation that lises wien the linguistic codes do not mate, which allows the hearer to explain the dffielty, and to resolve the imgas, by simply 2c Sowledging that he or he does not understand. Ironically, then, i is preely the sized language tht causes the communication breaks down, "The interactions of samelanguage, diferentcutureinteriocutors thus ploy out the dl character of Enplsh sb thls lnguage serves to both promote and impede inter-ethnic communication (Verschucren, this volume), Even though many waiters have stresed the role of Engi a medium of pica! ane cutural domisation(Kachra 1985, Wolfion and: Manes 1985), the fact remains that Enlish es lingua Franca hat abo facitated political and cultural understanding across ‘Socotig welds served ar a medium to expos inustins perpetrated. ‘on poweres ethnolinguistic sroups (no infrequeny, by the Enalish fucking powerfuD, The role Englsh has played in the political, focial and cultural oppression of groups i balanced by the Key role At has ato played in the efforts to understand the different realities ff our international world. But even in this more benign role the Sustion is replete with ony. For as Enlsh has become necessary in sucessful jnterethnic communication, the differences in English discourse modes have crested interethnic communicative dificali. For as we wil see in many’ of the paper, asthe possibility for inter ‘nie commutation increases, #0 too i thre an inerease in the pace and magnitade ~ and subsequent danger ~ of interethnic mi ‘understanding 2. The organization and content of the volume ‘The papers in this text address the communicative interference (Wolfon 1983) created by Four socolinguistic station: 1. Ditferences in sociocultural backgrounds of individual inter. Tocutor.4 maicton 2 Diferences in societal strctures and socio-pocal realities. 3 fferences in socioinguiti backgrounds of interlocutor, 4 Differences in socio poychoogial dentity of interlocutor Part: Bagh Across Cultures Section: The impact of differences inthe sociocultural backsrounds of interloeaors on communication ia English: Soci-pragmatic con- All six papers in section 1 provide microanayses of how the inter locaton” knowledge of each ether’ sociocultural bsckgrounds affects Interethnic communication. AN! papers suggest that there is top- down or conceptually driven effort in the sensemaking process of communication rather than a bottomdown or data driven effort, ‘Ths, its the match betwoon the interlocutor hema or structures of expectation that determines, t0 a considerable extent, succesful fnteretinie communication. "The fst thee papers in Section 1 (Plt, Verschueren, and Wiliams) Introduce the reer to some of the basic concepts in studying com ‘munication difficulties between speakers of differet sociocultural backgrounds, Platt provides a general overview of difeing commun- ative tratgis in establishing interpersonal relationships. His examples fre drawn (rom interactions among many different types of inter Toeutors Verchueren likewise presents examples of miscommunication ‘de tothe diferent sociocultural backgrounds of speakers and hear His examples are also general and ae drawn fom international news reporting. Although Willams Focus on accent perception, his atile fxamines some of the pragmatic, copnitve and socal factors that ‘ome nto ply when ntersthnic communication takes place “The other three articles in this section (SuvleTroike & Keioen, ‘Carden, nd Malcolm), all ivole interactions inthe classroom, the ‘mos fertile domain for interetnlc communication studies. Savile ‘Trike and Kisfen's paper presents conincing evidence that stared Cultural knowledge offen more necesary in iatersthale commun Gation than’ a shared language code. Carden discusses discourse Structures that are expected inthe clssroom. Like Savile Trike and Kisigen, she looks at how knowledge of the specific clasroom ds- Course mode i more important in cssoom Communication than & Inoticion 5 shared lingubtle code. Finally, Malcolm's paper dicustes how par tigation structures and interactional routines in eros-ultural case oom prevent minority pups from earaing. He sageste ways in which these clasoom dicoure patlers that have become normative In Eralshpeaking areas might be change. Section 2: The impact of differences in socio-political realities on ‘communication in English: Macrosocietal constraints Section 2 includes paper that focus on macroscietal constants that affect communication among different Enalsh speakers Apartheid Jn South Africa (Chick), language policy in Canada (Pipes) and in Si [Lanka (Fernando), and economy and lifestyle in Australis (Keatns), hve created conditions of communicative asynchrony among. the Aiferent groupe. These papers ean be seen a5 avaration of the theme [presented inthe Gat section. Although thelr emphasis ison identifying how the macrosocital constraints have affected iatersthal com ‘munication, the analyses which are included are frequently based on the ifferences in cltural knowledge and interactional style created by thee societal constraints, ‘Chick's paper provides the transition between the microstudies of lntecutual communication in section 1 and some ofthe studies of fisero proceses tht affect Hnlrcullural communication in section 2. His paper addreses the relevance of research on differences in ‘communicate strategies between two groups in a society in need fof structural change, discusing specifically the diferent interactional Sylescteted by the apartheid system in South Afra. Both Piper find Fernando addres the impact of lanauage policy on language use land language learning. Piper argues tat the Offical Language Policy in Canada has differently impacted the nature of communication ‘between aaglophone, on the one hind, and fncophones, natives tnd immigrants, on the other Fernando outlines how changing the ‘fatue of Englsh in Sot Lanka from am offic state language to 2 foreign one, coupled with English taking over prestigious societal fonctions, expecially an academic language, as led t0 a socc- economic division based on language. Kearns discusses how the dif ferent economy and bfe style of white and. Aboriginal Australians hve created difeences in chldzearing practices that are response {or misunderstandings inthe classroom.Part I: Cultres Acros English Section 3: The impact of differences in sciotinguistic backgrounds ‘of interlocutor on commanication in English: Ethno-linguistic con ‘minte [AL papers inthis section dea with how different groupe attempt to ‘expen their different rococatural realities in English and how the ‘esting different varieties of English constrain interethnic communi ‘ation. The paper addres how what appeams on the cute to be the samme form of English i relectve of very diferent cultures and suagestive of very diferent messages. The papers show how succesful communication between speakers and featers can only occur if both Intelocsors share cultural nd linguistic background Ina sene, these paper ave abo variations of those ia Part 1. But whereas papers in the fst part considered the communicative act fo be the interplay of social, ultra, linguistic, and psychological factors, these papers attach more importance tothe role of nguistic factor in interethnic communication, although of course, the no0- linguistic factors ate lkewise considered. We can say that thee papers Took at the same probiem from diffeent angle. Whores papots in Part I looked at difcalies in interethnic communication when Engsh was used across cultures, thes papers look at what happens {o communication when cultures (and ether lnguage) come acs English, giving it a tines, the same linguistic forme deployed for the purpose of suggesting very different mesg, ‘Agen offen a fine typology of lencal diferences that ae created, in pat, by referential differences, Although his typology i mostly Slotated by Brith Amerian examples, it presents 8 model of inter- alectal lexical vartion tht can abo’be applied t0 the examples ‘Ben in this same section by Christe and’ Mbangwana. Chrisie scribes intraresional vartion i Caribbean English as well as df= ferences between the anglophone Caribbean as a whole and other “ratetie of English. She then consider the efforts of the Caribbean Examinations Council to. avoid caer of communicative asynchrony that occured when only the Britsh standard. was accepted in sxamination. “The ret of the papers in thi section discuss how the English spoken by Afrn-Amerisne in the United States (Stenat), Singsporcans (Guiper and Tan), Cajuns in Louisiana (Dilard), anglophones in Ieradacion 7 Cameroon (Mbangwans), and Protestants and Catholics in Northern Iieend (Todd) makes use of English forms to pall fmlar messes ‘ponmally tramacted in the nomEngsh language. Stewart discusses hhow structural mimicry in decreolztion can Iead (0 the kind of Inscomprehenson which he label poeudocomprehension. Likewise, Kuiper and Tan show that poltenes formule of Singapore English fae loan ttatulations of Hokkien Chinese. They show how only Knowledge of Singapore Hokkien Chinee caure would make com ‘munication posible Between Singapore English speakers and speakers (Of other aretie of English, Dilan argues for the wse of folk fypologies in identifying overlays such as that of French in Cain Enis, Mbangwana detribes how French, competing varieties of| DBhtsh and American Engh, and Afican sources have influenced [Ensish in Cameroon, Finally Todd shows how in Norther Ireland a Combination of features of pronunciation, structure or smile reveal 3 ‘Speake’ linge background and thus his ein. ‘All thse papers tempt to show that the vrcty of Enis spoken by the diferent ngustic groups & only homophonous, at tines, with other Kinds of Fnlish Only knowledge of the specie cltural Gnd of linguistic group would resalt in succesful intcrethnic com ‘munication. Section 4: The impact of differences in socio-psychological entity of interlocutor. Identity constraints ‘These papers focus on how ‘entity consciously determines the Tangwage form choren for communication (whether that form is @ rmarked or unmasked variety of Enaish, or even English over 8 non- Engish langage). Aspects of interethaic communication are then Considered. Although the interethnic communicate. situations Dresnfed ere are also result of cultures (and languages) acros EEnesh (athe than, English across cultures), they differ from those insection 3 in tha the interocutorsconscowsly choos specifi forms ‘Whereas in section 3 speakers may use dieing English forms ut> ‘conscious in an attempt to pet across meses from disimilar ultra teal, In section 4 they choose divergent English forms consciously ‘eons they want to ifferentate themsslves from others. Whereas the pepers in section 3 focus on bow the different referential set ‘of diferent cultural andjor linguistic groups determine English forms, thee papers fooue on how the speaker's psychological identity con:© tnoducton siously shapes the choice of English or the Engl variety chosen. "Edwards (or blacks in Britain), Alvarez (or Puerto Ricans in New York City), Penfield (for Chicanos or Mexican Americans inthe South- west United States), and Kinloch (for Canadians) present clinic entcy and in some eases linguistic background) asthe reason for the particular discourse mode chosen. Finally, Mehrotra addresses the choice made by several Indi writers o writin English “The abiity 10 codeswitch between standard Enel and what the members of the group themselves call Patos (Edwards) or between [English end Spanish (Alvarez) lads to miscommunication whea other English speakers do not understand the nature of bidilectism of bilinguaism. Likewise, different prosdic patters (Penield) or di ferent pronunciations (Kinloch) may also lead to pscudocomprehension between interlocutor. In choosing Eaglsh asa medium of expression, the Indian writer helps create the sort of communicative interference that arses when readers and author are Ignorant ofeach ofhe's socal, poli, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds (Mehuotr) ‘These papers then focus on ways in which speakers and hearers bring concious asynchrony to the communicative att, Because of {helt need to give expreson fo dillerentsocio-peychlogieal ystoms ‘of rales ad belt, 3. Future directions in the study of ‘cross-cultural communication [As we wl sc, most of the problems of interethnic communication affect the nondominant Ens speaking group advesly. The power Tul impose communication norms and the poweriess ae asked 10 follow them. latelocutrs who. ate socal, racy, paltialy, lnguistialy, or culty marked in a given ociety ae judged by ‘the standard imposed by the dominant eroup. “The nature of language should make miscommunication equally posible among intarocutors of the samo socul, racial, policl, linguistic and/or cultural group. Yet, stances of miscommusication ‘mone matched interlocutor ae ‘much leis fequently reported (although the editors regulry see mamerous cases at faculty meetings) ‘Although miscommunication obviously occurs among matched groups, ‘i doesnot have any sci meaning. When speakers of the same back ‘ound do not understand each other's intents, the effects ae often a Inrotucion 9 Ihamless. Miscommunication a faculty meetings, for example, often result in confusion. The corollary of this confusion is usually nor- {ction The hearer rarely blames the speaker fo the miscommunication. ‘Otten, he/she asign Blame to othersourees of eror ot hearing right, fot paying atention, Infact, the haaer often bles himself for ‘the confusion. in interethnic miscommunication, however, the dominant intr focalor always blames the minor ‘one for the confusion. Usually the faut is ot even ationed to tis interlocutor’ indeidual charac- teristics (the fact tht he/she Is not 2 good communicator), but to hisMher membership in a iferent and stigmatized soil group. Judy tment is posed and communication effectively smpede. Tn communication Between matched interlocutor, the miscom- ‘munication i amigned ether to tie medium or 10 interferences in the channel. This, Meas at across, even if only imperfectly. I inte ‘tinie micommunication, however, the muin wea that is transmitted {S thatthe minority interocutor inept. Gumper (1978) has said that {ths pe of mistommuniostion inereaes the storeotyping of the Speaker as belonging 10 4 diferent social group and thus impedes further communication “This Book itl” suffer from 2 inition that bas been determined by the nature of socal intercon. Although problems in croscult communications afe exposed, they are most offen judged from a lominanteroup point of view. Most of the papers focus on what happens when oppresed sroups hae to communicate with dominant populations. Probleme dealing with the Ick of Knowledge that each Srithese proupe has of each other ae detaleé. However, most of the paper do not dkectly addres what hnpens when dominant populations ve t0 communicate with oppresed groups. Thi, omever hs been previoualy determined by the nature of soc inter ction, since oppresed groups need to make themselves understood to dominant groups, whereas the reverses seldom the case Interethie communication needs to be abo judged from a minority polat of view. We need to examine not only what we, te consumes ot vocology of lange, know about the oppressed, but what they, ttn the tins of sock circumstances, Know aboutus. Edwards, fn this volume, ends by saying: “Te essential that Patls shoul be fpproached within the framework of language awarenes progamme in which all children are given the opportunity to explore and share ther own language use in an atmosphere in which hey — and not10 Inradton Ahir teachers — ae the experts.” [our italics] ‘Ae work on intersthnic ‘communication continue, minorities eed 10 be given a greater vos, for they, as Edwards sys, are the fxperts Gren the social structures genecally prvaling inthe English ‘peaking world, minorities have litle opportunity to do this at prsent. It remains, however, s ask that socblogits of language working on Inerethnic communication should see as 2 worthwhile goa! forthe future. By then, ie i hoped that the excollent contributions of the suthors presented ere, and of others lke them, will have helped fo pave the way for a greater, nd more compete, understanding Of the process of interethnic Inguistic interaction, and of the more feneral proces of human communiestion of which it forms par. tats Garcia Ricardo Otheuy Se ere eee ee Mee ecg cee ears eee era ENGLISH ACROSS CULTURES Section One ‘The impact of differences in socio-cultural backgrounds of interlocutors on communication in English: Socio-pragmatic constraintsSome types of communicative strategies across cultures: Sense and sensitivity! John Platt Abstract, (One of the functions of communicative srteies the establishing ‘of interpenonal reltionsips and this ofton as important as the ‘other finction ~ the transmitting of 2 message. Communicate Strategies differ (fom one culture to another, and problems may aris: in communication between those for whom English isa naive, orien, second of indgenzed language. Six problem or ‘sasitity” areas of ‘ommusiation are dicused and illustrated, namely engaging, di ‘ngarng, requesting, acceding fo 6 request, postive responding (0 Sn offer or invitation) and negative responding (to an offeror ivita- ‘oo) He shown that in al cnes communicate diferencas may be Iisinterpreted as due to insincerity, rudenes, inqustivenes, oF indifference. As important a8 th role of communicative stapes i transiting ‘messages is their ole In establishing interpersonal relationships. Since Communicative strategies differ from one cute to another, problems in communication often asbe between speaker who share at lent ‘to some dere, the sme lnguage system but not, rat east nt tothe Same degree, the same culfrl system. I hal discuss here the problems that aris due to the diferent communicative strategies of speakers for whom Engish sa nave, rel, second, of indienized language the anaes of dscoune, terms such as discourse states, communication sates, a conimucatve sargis are frequently ‘wed although not always referring fo the same concepts. My use of| the term communicative sateies in this discussion i closer 10 GGamger’s (1982) dcoune srategy than, for example, to Canale’ (1983) and Tarone's (1983) communication satis. By communicative strategies T moan verbal andor non-verbal rale- governed behaviour in interpersonal exchanges which, onthe one and,serves f0 convey a message, taking ‘message’ here in its widest seas nd, on the other hand, serves o establish or re-establish interpersonal felatonships. Its understood that by “ule governed’ I refer ot only fo the rules of a linguistic system but abo to a wer sytem of com ‘munication based onthe interlocutors socio-cultural background Ta this digussion I intend to focus on the second main funtion of communicative strategies, namely that of establishing interpersonal Felationships. There are many instances of verbal interchange Where the relationships between the intedocutos are as important a5 the tuansmiting ofthe message. Often they ar vita. Ifwe wish to request, trother peson to do something or petsude him/her to espouse out Siew on a particular mate, i esentil{o ave otto extabish, even IF temporanly, the right slationhip with this person, Le. a balice ‘of status postions or a depos of intimacy, whataver may be noceiry Tp other words iti of great smportance thatthe other interiocoor should peresive our ego inthe way that we want himfher to perceive it and that we convey to him/her our appropriate pereption of the alter ea "We may consider that there are diferent systems involved in inter personal communication which supply the interlocutor with rues {or norm-governod verbal or non-tertal behavour ina given situation. Berger and Bradac (1982), rofering to Miller and Steinberg (1975), rention three jvels of commenicaton which may’ al be operative Inthe one Gansaction, i. the cultural soeologial und psychological loves, where at the cltural level “we communicate with ther on the basis of shared cultural norms and conventions” and if we fa to meet the cuilurl expectations of the others “the comequences can be negative. Faling fo greta person of to reciprocate a greeting ‘may induce the other person to fel rejected or alighted and will most, probably lower the attractiveness of the person commiting the com- ‘munlcatie sn” (Berger and Bredac 198210) Rather than looking at sepuste systems which shape communi- cation, I prefer the concept ofan allembraing communicative system ‘with 2 number of subsjstems, eg. linguistic, cultural, socal. ps}~ ‘hological, which are closely inierlated and which supply the ap- propriate rules and norms in any interpersonal exchange, Tatelocuors called upon fo operte in a language other than their ‘own would he governed by the communicative systems at thet di bom. And sf their communicative system im thei L2, es. Enalish, ‘eas imited, at least in sveal ares, they would fll back on the com ee eee ee ee Some ype of commune teers 1S ‘mnciive system oftheir LI, which fe more familia to thom. Wolfson (1985:62}, when discusing phenomena where "people tarsfer rus ‘of ther own native speech communities to. what seems to them 10 bbe # comesponding station n'a new speech community,” uses the term communtcarve interference (sugested to her by Hymes). 1 shall ‘Seal ere with some of thes communicative interferences and the ‘esting interpretations by the other interlocutor, oF rather by other ‘per of interocutors, concentrating on communication between speakers of the more esablshed varieties of Tnglish, e Bish, ‘American and Avstaisn Englsh, on the one hand, and speakers of English at a foreign or second language as well as speakers of in- Aigenized Englishes on the other hand. 1. Types of interlocutors ‘As Ihave pointed out on various occasions (eg. Piatt and Weber 1982, Pat, Weder and Ho 1984), language systems resulting from Ena language seqvisition cn be plced along a communicative axis from English st a Foreien Language (EFL) to English as a Native Language (END), Naturally, there ae no clearcut dwviions but I should ke, or the purpow of this dicumion, to refer to four types of iter. locators with the proviso that there are many borderine cases (1). Bimterlocutors: speakers of more established varieties of English ‘vith their own Eystom of communicative rules related to thet ultra, social and educational backaround (@) EPintricutor speakers of English asa Foreign language, with 4 filly developed system of communicative rules related 10 thet ‘own cultural and socal backaround, and baviag inadition an Erystem of communcstive rules, which is rarely complete end tamvally bred on the upper Social and educational norms of an E-roup. (2) ESinterlocutors: speakers of English a socond language. All of these would be using English in at least one domain of thei every ‘sy astiritis, eg. in the workplace, but often in more than one domain. The typical ESinterlocutor & an immigrant to an E- Country, ga Chinese immigrant to Australi The coastelation ‘of communicative competence systems would be similar to that (ofthe E-type but ifthe Peystem of rules has nt been auired formally, it may be based on lower social norms.(4) NBinteriocutors: These would be members of a speech com: ‘unity Which uses an indienized Engsh, New English (NE) (Gf Pht, Weber and Ho 1984, Pride 1982) a one of tel codes, For som’ of them the NE his become a native ngage, being toed forall everyday needs. These NEsnterioculors could fave thos of more communicate systems, eg. one or more systems Felting (0 focal ungussss and cultures (Lystems), one NE system, more oF less developed according to the socio economic and educational background, and sometimes an Ester, partially {oquired through edveaton, sally based upper socal norms More often than not the communicative Eytem ofthese inter locator is incomplete although their NE system i fully developed. ‘The Laystems a wall a6 tho NEtom relate to local cultural backgrounds but these may not be identical. For example, an Englsh-aedium educated Singaporean Chinese may have an L- system ised on Chiose culture wheres hisher NEsystem, of communistve rule is based on a "ew culture system” de Yeloping among the younger generation of Singaporeas, which 5 10 some extent influenced by a rather stereotyped view of US. caltre. 2. The decoding of non-E strategies by E-interlocutors IC BF, ES-oF NEJateslocutors use, in verbal interaction with Ener: Jocutors, communicative strateies which are based on the vue system fof thelr own cults, reactions ofthe Einlerlocator would depend ‘on sre actor. Two lnportaat ones ae (1) the Einterlocutor's attitudes to the ethnic group of the other Intesioetor andr hisher culture and (@) ‘whether or not the nterlocitr recognizes the other es an interlocutor not usally operating within an Eystem. “The fit fictor has been dussed by various remarchors (eg. Giles 1977) I shall concentrate hereon the second oe. If the other interocuton? ovenll competence in Enalsh 8 very noticeably non-aatite, ef. lack of Oueney, song accent, or if thet ‘ay of dresing and nonverbal behaviour are noticeably diferent, the Pinterocator may membership them knmedltely as ‘outsiders! ‘nd judge all ther verbal and non-verbal behaviour ewentialy positively Some ypesof commune stages eros culares 17 for negatively depending on higher own attitude t0 this particular future. Communicative strategies employed by thes interlocutor: ‘would generally be judged by the interlocutor as being outside ‘the Eaystem of communicate rues. Fithr they would be considered strange and "incomprehensible" ofan attempt would be made to inte prot them, if the E/ntrocutor posed some knowledge of the these system. However, there aro many instances when strategies which ae based fo snother communicative system are interpreted by an Banterocutor {belonging to an Eystem and are decoded by the rules of this ‘tem, Thee ae Several reasons why ths occur. Ie may be tat the fpesker’s physinl pearance docs ot signal thithelsbe is a nom Hsteicuto, or, even if i does, it may be that he or she dresses and ‘behaves in a typical Edsterlocutor way. Such appearance i usualy linked with a way of speaking Englsh that i close to an Eaystem, Therefore the Einterlocutor wrongly memberships the other one snd automatically decodes al hi/her verbal behaviour by the cus of the Exystem At mentioned calls, an overall communicative fystem conte of @ network of subayitems. Because of commun ative interference, nom Enterocator may use communicative Mratepes that sre dicated by the rales of ser own coltral sub fysem but thee may be interpreted by an Einterocutor not by the ‘cultura norms of hier system ut rather by socal and/or psy- ‘hololcal norms. "An example ian ares of communication wherein the Bsystem serbal bohwiour i required whereas in some of the Leystems verbal Uehaviour and. even nonverbal balavour is soverely restcted. In tome cltues, eg. many Asia cultures, It pot the custom to open ‘reens in ftont ofthe eer and give effose thanks. eis often more opropeate to smile sight and. pot the preset asle unopened, ‘Thanks may be espresed on a ble occasion. An Ednterlocutor, ‘ring the Bayter 9 decode these strategies, may apply social norms, fee "that penon has no breeding” or noms bearing on persona felitionsips, ex. “that pemon doesnt ke me or docstt cae (0 ‘eoeivea present fom me™ 3, Sensitivity areas ‘A considerable part of interpersonal behaviour ito establish nd re ‘tablish temporary role reitonshipe viewers the ether interlocutor18 Joba ae aswell sto establish a degre of ‘losenes of “intinacy’ Each inter Tocutor has a depres of ‘closeness or “intimacy. Each interlocutor has ‘concept of hsfher own ego which helshe wishes to project to the ther interlocutor. Thee fs also an endesvour to Keep ui, or at leaet to pectend to keep up, the other's concept of hisyber ego in order to tstablish a reasombie ego ~ aller ego elatonsip. tn succesful communication between equak, for example, thee ¢ need, with tod Intelcutors, to Keep a proper balance between not lowering ‘One's own ego too much and Keeping up the alter ego suficiently without rang it t00 high. Brown and Levinson (1978:65), looking 4 the same problem fom a slightly diferent aspect, have developed fir complex theory ofthe concepts of negative and postive face and ‘hey maintain tat “it wi generally be to the mutual intrest of two MP their model pereons’ to maintain each other's face.” ‘Thee ae a number of seas in communication where this balancing of intepenonal reutiomips mentioned above is of particular Importance, Taba refer f them as senibty rear and 1 shal deal here with six of them ~ naturally thre ae others ~ and, in parte calur, with the use of inappropriate (or ‘othersystem’) statetes {8 wel as inappropriate interpretation of such stratepes. “able I shows sx sensitty areas and possible problems in balancing pevonal ations. (Engaging ‘One of the most important area of interpemoal interaction is eo- bubly at the polat When two or more interloctors start some sort of verbal exchange Communistive statgie here would inchnde testing routines (Envin-Tripp 1964, ScheglotT 1972) and abo the Aleabion whether or net to engage a al. "There ae stutions where is necesary, particulary in an Esytem cor socal or regional variety of sucha sysem, or someone to initiate {verbal exchange, In Australis suburbs, and even moreso in aad tress, for example itis commonly expected, particule by members (of an older age group, tht tomcone passing a property where the ‘owner isin the font garden should initiate a verbal exchange, usally fnly #gretig, een if both lnteocutors re strangers oF know each ‘other only by sight This would typically be impossibe in some Asian flture systems. Anstralians, judging by their Eaystem, have stated sent ea o (Get veal xcs) 2) doeaang s detbente wither stomata (rang va exchange) iy gts ep her tan te go, uote vended (2) saqusig someting om parting op in lend poston Somooeserequeingsomsone (eg ar ep. may ree rgu) ‘onoseneting ‘ath toohng thst far (6) sendin toa requt (5) pst pontine oa sc cement fg a ates ‘wlancing pole = dont watt toa preg or down xcsely (6) epatve spoding to ‘adancng problem = dont watt © ease pater po down exeely that Chinese and Vietramese neighbours are “rude”, “cliquey”, and “Suy” end had no desire o make contact when, i fet, the others felt tht thelr cultural norms forbade them 0 act otherwise Frequently, the nom interlocutor may us inappropriate engaging strteie, judged by the Eystem. For example some ES- and NE- {nterlocuors, using a routine from their Chinese communicative system, are ai tines inclined to greet their Enterlocators with Have you eaten yor? hich, spat fom being ingppropriately interpreted by the recipients ss an invitation to Tanch or Siner, ay aso cause temporary com- ‘unzative breakdown, e& [NBpeaker A greeting colleague B (of equal status) in the condor 10 minutes before B's lunch hour was duet stat‘A: Hallo. Have you eaten yet? B: (angly, on the defensive): ‘Course not! Te been very busy sll moming. Actually Tonly came out to gt drink of water. B had, in fact, wanted to start anc early. He felt ‘aught out and also nary that A, who isnot bis superior in rank, should, ashe felt, "gues- ‘on him in hi fashion” ‘Concepts of ‘pevacy” vary between cultures, Hu (1985) remarks ‘hat "questions about a person's age, salary oF the price of an item te perfectly acceptable nt Chizeso culture, but they ae notin Western ‘alture.” ESapeakers of a Chinew bicksround may use engagement Stratepos such as ‘Where are you from", “Are you an Australian?” “Where are you going?” and, particularly after an inital gesting routine, they may ste sich strategie as “AA, [ke your watch How mach you sy fort” asa friendly approach. ‘Sina stateries maybe wed by ES speakers fom Indonesia, where yon may ask strangers about ther fame, number of chen, abe ff children, ee, Indonesians who most frend in hosp waltng- ‘oom would ask questions sachs "Who is” or at an aisport "Who fre you waiting for” whereas an oqulalent strategy used by P-inter- Tocutors would be more indict, eg. ‘Fancy meeting you here!” oF simply “Hello!” (wth arise intonation), with the expectation that ‘the other ane wil supply the reason for being that particular place Ta the culture of the ES/NEspeakes, the more direct strategies are meant, according 10 thew speaker, to be "a fendly concern", “Trying to be polite by showing an interest in the other one,” ete Einterocutors who were the rosplens of the ES-pesken” direct ‘question striesios tally iterproted them by their Eystem rules {ind Judd thom at (a) an attempt at “upping” of the alter eb, “What does he think es, questioning me ike that!” or (b) an attempt to increase the degree of intimacy, “too pusy”, “I hardly know hint”, "None of her business ~ she's nota fiend of mine” in the context of Chines culire, it appears Unnecessary, when resting the same peron several tines inthe same day, to indulge each tne ia pretingrotine before coming tothe tople (Ho 1988). Tas Convention i fiequenty applied by ES/NE-speakers i an E-oatext, fren if meetings are spaced ou. Bspeakers, who generally use a brief feetig routine, verbal or non-eral, such as «sme oF a nod, ae faclined fo judge someone who suddenly lurches into the topic mote ‘negatively tha the intention ofthe interlocutor Warrant, Some tpt of commana ae aoncaes 2 Door to lecturer’ office ope, Student, who has an appointment enters and tart Te had a probe with my data ‘The Electurer, decoding this behaviour, judged the omission of any freeting routine and the direct approach as (a) rather mde and (6) a ‘irepard of fixed status relationships. Tan interpersonal exchange the fst move may be nonverbal. In certain service encounter, eg. in some shops, a the enguly desks of some office, the customer comes up to the counter and, by the proach, signal the besinning of an engagement. Unies the one 'spprooching initiates the verbal exchange by stating hisfher business, the fst verbal move would be up to the penton behind the counter. “The usa, expected strategy in an Eaystem would bes polite question ‘such as ‘What can do for you? ‘May Thelp you", ee. "Ia some NEaystems, eg Singapore, the usual rection is often a brief “Yee? with a sharp sein pitch. This i uttered by basally flendly individuals and is intended as « strategy to “get down to Dusiness quickly without wasting words” Its part ofa general prat- raticlly conditioned communicative system which messes tne by Imoney and ignores, to some extent, subtle interpersonal relationships [NEspeakers, who do not expect more, interpret ias “an eeceplable ‘opening routine”; Edqtecutors, however, are inclined to eect it (wrong treatment ofthe customer, ie an attempt to push down, {heir ego and (b) lack of courtesy ona personal level, Le. an unneces- sary distancing bythe alter eg. ’An example of where genuine attempts of courtesy and politeness sare misinterpreted is the use of styles when staring @ conversation, NEspeakers eg Singaporeans and Malaysians offen fel that ® more formal style will asst in stanaling respect 10 the outer, the E speaker, although this Espeaker may be an acquaintance ora frend “This & done even when the Eintelocutr nites the convertion ‘with an informal greeting strategy Bapaaker: Hi Doris. How are thins? NNé-speaker: Oh, itis nce to meet you agin, Monica I sincerely hope you had avery pleasant Journey. “To the Einterloctor this amwer appeared asa doliberete distancing strategy by theater ea.22 sol Pat @ Disengaging By initiating the termination of «verbal exchange the ego automata 'y pote him/herself higher than the alter eg. In Eaystems, stresses aie usally employed to ‘cushion’ ths effect, eg by giving restons {or the termination: {really must push off now, because ‘Oh, look at the tine! [should be orby showing (apparent) concern for dtalning the other one 1 relly mst fet you gt on with your work 1 mute keep you In Ausrlan shop, particularly in smaller shops, weather comer. sation may be tod ar dwengapement strategies, It usually occurs ater the money has changed fds and & intated by the shopkeeper or tsistant 10 signal tht be/she was not oaly after the sale but also ‘wants finaly relationship with the estomer,¢8 Sales Assistant: Hasn't boen too bad today. CGastomer: No ~ rather ance doy SA: Stil nippy outside? (Co Yea rather “The final disengagement routine in many shops and department sores in Australia isan exchange of ‘thank you", which seems to have Durty replaced other form offreweling such as'woodbye. Tn an investigation of 50 verbal interchanges in Inge stores and smaller shops im Melboume, Australia” the most common disensnee ‘nt routine was found to be AA: Thank youfthanks BB Thank yourthanks “This was wed in mone than SOF; of esses. Other, lesser used routines AA: Thank youbye 2B: Bye Some perf commana tele acroeuties 23 [A See you ater B: Righto “The reuls show tha once the transition had conelnded, conversation Initiated by the shop astant was more Healy to occur in smaller Shops than in larger stores (62% ss compared with 4). Preclsing Strteries(f.SeheglofY and Sacks 1975) vaied fom topic related t0 weather related 0 SA: Tm sure you'l be stiied. Ifyou can't remember whit to do, jit come bck ce Yes, Tv think you ‘SA: Wsboen a beautiful day Ce Yes thas A group of 20 NE-speaker (Singaporean Chinese) with whom these isengagement strtepes were discussed in interviews all considered thom excasive and tnnecemiry. They claimed that i thelr culture Stem, once # tansation war over, there was no need for further tors ‘Thisu borne out by the behaviour of Singapore shop assistants, Whether in large stores of smaller shops, who move on t0 the next Sistomer immediatly the tamsaction i finsbed or, IF there are no further customers jst farm around or move aay. THowerer. 16 of the 20 NE-peakers with whom we dscused these isengagement strategies seterpret the ‘hank you’ routines al the od of the exchanges asa genuine “ging of thanks” and stated that ‘these Ausraians appeared to be very polite because they were thanking ach other all the tine, eyen in cues where i was quite unnecesary, Se. on lsaving shop. The Tour otber speakers felt that i was not [Buine and therefore hat wa nsincere TES" and NEspeakets also occasionally Inappropritely interpret aystem dengagement routines sich as ‘See You Tater ‘We Keep in touch, ‘See you soon” as genuine statements and judge the speaker 2 insincere if what they interpret a8 promised event doesnot even- fate, Wolfion (1983:7S), whan dicssng ieitations in an American Contest shows that there are certain cues which dtnguish gensine {ivitations from thoes which she considers as often beng “statements ff good intent» iting a possible negotiation for an invitation.” However, inthe Esyrem of Australian speakers mumber of utterances2 Jom Paar ‘hat refer to rather vaguely famed invitations and visits are really Gizeneagement scstesies that avo! an overabrupt ending 10 an txchangs or moving and ae designed to cushion the ‘putting down ‘of the alter ego, particulary ifthe speaker attempts to get sid of his fntsiocator fay speedy ‘As part of 4 lrgr investigation, Santhe Thanasingam (1985) asked «group of Singaporean und Malaysian who were students in Australis, AL NEspeaker, the reactions to 2 number of communiction Strategies commonly used in Australia, How are you? Seeyou (ten! ‘Are You ll) Haht? (engagement strategy by sales assistants to customers in certain shops instead of "May T help you?) How'd you ket? (ake by bank teller before handing out money) She had interesting responses, particularly tothe ast two strategies, ‘Are you (all right? 40% ofthe interviewees admitted that they ad been puzzed at being asked this question, Thay had decoded it as an inguzy about their hralth or ther ability to find ther way around in Australia. None Gf thor questioned had recognized it a+ possibly indieating the shop 1s being of «lower satus ar compared with the more polite strategy "May Thelp you" How'd you iki? More than 70% of the interviewees adnitted that they had been puzied when they were asked this question. They had decoded it 5 Uther an inquiry about how they liked Austala cr as being in some tray connected with king money. This outine question f notin thet Nesystem, as Singaporean and Malsysin bank teers 60 not sve ‘customers the opportnity to choose what denominations of currency they would ike, eg fie, tens, ities. (6) Requesting Asking someone a favour may make one's ego more vulnerable asthe ‘other person may refse. However, voquesting ay aso invohe a “cieat" tthe alter eg, This is move stronaly felt in many Asian Some typeof commana sass soos eanes 25 cultures, Richards and Sokwinat (1983:121) comment that “inthe ‘ise where A wants a favour from B, the prefered sttegy for a Tha} 4 to hint and tak eround the topic.” The same type of stateny is ted in Chinese and Indonesian cultures. When practised by ES- and NB‘nterocutors in an E-sting, it may enuse inappropriate inter pretations, The rection of # mamber of Einterlocuors seems to be reget, eg. “itis devious”, "always think san attempt to manipo> Inte me’, "Twas geting iittod ~ she was so longwinded — jst to tank for 8 szall favour", "Twas so busy, he was taking up too much ‘of my time.” However, in some NE-setings where new communicate sub- systems are evolving, eg. in Singapore, Asan conventions are giving fy in certain situations to a more dzect approach, far more dret {han thos used typieally by Edntrlocutors, og Singaporean student o lecturer (without preamble) You have to sign tis form forme ~ here! Inthe Singspore NE-ystem, oro are used frequently where the Bester would usually require indirect requests, «8 Bank teller to customer: Sign here! CCistomer to walter in Ibunge of lrg international hotel: Give [NE-peaker to vitor, teling her which way to proceed Come, come! Reactions of Epeakers are often negative, eg interpreting it asthe speaker’ attempt fo push up his ego and downgrade the other one of {dging the speaker at belonging to lower socal cls or beng rather ride spd not very pleasant. ‘An investigation fate croscultural communication in a Melbourne hospital Between ES- and E-nuses and nursing sides (Officer 1985) found snr neptve reactions, usually itt, by Eintelocutos when BSspeaker of equal rank used direct imperatives instead of Induct requests e. (Get theta trolley! ‘You wil do tea. That i your duty today. Bat in many of these cases the inappropriate sratery speared to be dive fo lack of fuoney in English rather than toa diferent communi cativesystem,26 So Pe (4) Acceding to request ystems usually equte that someone who is requested to do some thing should yerbalisehsberaproement (© some extent at least, OK Righto Don't worry, Fl doi straight away! ‘us geting around to it “This i particulaly the cate if an setion i requested where the one ‘eating bs {0 walt or the “roquetes’ hat to absent him/bersell temporal from the place where the request was made, ©. get him Just ake a seat! | wont be moment, aay take about ten minutes, Would you care to wat? It is in this arn where NE-peaker of some cultures, eg. Singa- poreans, Jo not considar that itis necesary to verbalize their willing fessor abilty to execute the requestor fo inform the roquester of the approximate time ® wil take (0 cary out the task. This non ‘etblzing has no connection with low competence in Eaglsh. Ia {Ml eases observed the inteiotors were Mient speakers of NE, i his ‘ase Singapore Enalsh. The reason was tat the NEnteiocutor feels tat words aze onneceiry as long. as the task 4s satisfactorily ‘completed. Forexampi (4) (ina Singapore offic) Evntedocutor. Ta tke same of these pages photocopied, plas. Gilat the counter, silently and without a smile, takes the Pages, ‘nalks off and rum five minutes later with the photocopies ‘which she hands over sent. (B) (Ata Singapore solicitors office) [interlocutor (ogi who isting near the counter typing) Ta ike to speak to Mr Banner please Git Somry, Mr Banner out for lunch ~ back afer two. Entrloitor returns at five minutes past two. As be approaches the ‘ouster the git gots up slently and moves off into an adjoining oom. Aftersome time she returns wth Mr Banner}. Some typeof communicative utes acosseltoes 27 ‘The Binterocutor had been puzzled and uncertain, Had the gi remembered him and had she gone to fetch Mr Bann Or had she fot remembered him and had just gone somewere else? The gi, fo the other hand, had felt It quite unneceary to talk to the eller tein, She knew whore wanted and a the person was i, sho Went ss quickly as possible to get him. ‘Those are mot isolated examples but its common for Singaporeans copersting within an. NEzystem to use nonerbal behaviour Where ‘ome Sot of verbal strategies would be expected within an E-ystem, (6) Accepting an offeror invitation In the ara of accepting offers or invitations, various strategies operate Most invitations ave. as one of thelr properias "a request for @ response” (Wolfioa et al 1983116) I fee there i also, based on the siution and the fixed statue relationships of the partisipants, ‘band of acceptability within whic the ego and alter ego may operate jn ther balancing of interpersonal temporary role relationship and intimacy negotiations. When the invitation sve, for example among ule, the aver shy lowers his go and ifs theater ego, Srateles which ae usd in the acceptance of a offeror invitation are designed {o restore tho balince by slightly Towering one's own ego and rasing the alter ego, eg aocepting With thanks, indicating pleasure atthe lnvtation (verbally and by facial expresions), mildly foreshadowing Anticipated plesures”"Howerer, an exoemive lowering oF raing of the ego would seve to dorent the other interocutors. Speakers of a Korean communicative sytem are sometimes inlined to taneter ther own cultural stateges to an Esituation. ‘That, they set thelr acceptance info an elaborate famework, pe tong at it to refs: ‘You should not have done it Itistoo much work is too expensive and then gradually accept. This often puts the Einteriocutos in a ‘Somewhat embatsting postion, They fel their oo raed unnece Ssnly by the other peson and, a one Ednterloctor stated: “It makes you wonder whether they're jst having you on and whether they Sant to come at all” “The Indonesian culture system, on the other hand, stipules tht28 soe Pie fone should not sound over eager when accepting imitations as it may Appear rather ready. This sometines results in ESspeakers of ths altar accepting endl invitations i a athe ofFhand way. Becase ofthese strategies, Papeakers may judge the ESspeakers as untiendly fr not wanting to have a clos social relationship with the invite, tin the case of the Indonesian who, applying his tations com Imunicate. system, searched. for 2 stable E-equivalent for is traditional mye Ail (God wiling) and came up with “Hopefilly” His EAnteocutor was not arsed! (©) Negative responding 1 requests offers or invitations Even more sensthe than acceptance situations are those in which offers or invitations need to be refsed for one reason or another. Here, the alter ego mst not be pushed down excessively bythe refusal snd various cusboning” strategies are necessary. Ta many Asan cultures, eg Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, tis considered rude to pve asrightforvard “20 o invitations and offers. Strategie would be to talk around the subject and avoid a dret refs if at all possible, or to wow! refusing, test on that occasion, snd fo give negative reply ater on. Some of thee strategies, when ‘sed In ES/NEsnteractions with Enterlocutors may case consider ‘he confusion and inappropriate decoding. For example, some ESYNE> ina stratenes which may eventually lead up to negative replies to ‘Yes (meaning: Yes, have received your message) ‘Thank you (meaning: Thank you for invting me) Since and «sil (meaning: Thank you fr inviting me) {All tree would usualy be inappropriately interpreted by the E-msitr bean acceptance ofthe invitation. Otter stratepes woul be: (@) an involved and sometimes rather improbable reason for the invitees inability to accept. However, nowhere in the narrative twould there bee downright refs althouph an eventual reosa intended () rather nomsequitur account of something ee that appears to have no bearing on the ivitston ~ often in an attempt to sde- ‘tack the invite. Some yet of communicative sates srs cules 79 ‘A. tecond, more explicit and upg invitation by the Eintertoutor js then necesry to obtain a relitantly given refusal from the ES- or NEspoaker In many aie, the Einterocutor, who judges by his own syste, ocodes tte strategies a insincere”, "devious and “inconsiderate” ‘Some ES- and NB- speaker, however, are offen offered by the spparent rodenes and bluntnes of the Epeake's dret refusal of trellaneant offers and invtstions. They feel tat thei go is unneces- Saniy lowered and thatthe Eaterlocutor sks to voi any type of ‘elatinsip with thom by dongs. 4, Conclusions In the above dicuaion of sensitivity area in ¢ cros-ultural por spective general interference pattern seems 10 emer that shows ‘tse of communicative suategis which contrary to the other intr- locators expectations and whic, nevrthels, the other interlocutor interprets according to the noms he/she woul! hve applied to the ‘apected strategies, had they occur. Notes 1. Some ofthe seach wa opt by ARGS at No.A2901S239.1 ako wish {otk Buiven US, Eines Symone, Imope ¥C. Che, 1 Neg Seip, Vani Suan, Zu an Joe Song Song rth aie on ‘aso pects ts paper 2. eit toh Bet Hes for standing patently x many shop ad stor ‘mien orto colt hs at} English as object and medium of (mis)understanding Jef Verschueren Abstract ‘The author argues tht the view according to which the pervasive we ‘of Engh ae 8 hnguage of wider communication i a major source ‘of communicate inequality, tends to divert attention from some Fndamental sues of erosealtual understanding, Without ignoring the facts on which that view i based, 1 more balanced picture i Dreented of a work in which Englsh is oth medium and object Of undentanding and both medium and object of misunderstanding. Iustations are adduced from the are of intemationl news reporting December 1984, Michal Gorbachey, already reared as likely succes srt the supposedly il Chermenko, visits London. The first comments ‘om his mestings with Brith statesmen have hardly been published ‘then the BBC television news offers comparison of press reactions Jn Londoo with thove in Moscow, According to British papers the talks Tad been rend while the. Sovet_prese reports & "businesslike Atmosphere, The BHC interpretation of the dserepancy: the Kremlin ‘lena it intention to remain ata distance "Some insight inthe functioning of lexical meaning, and a vatve famiarty with Britzh and Russian Ufestles and culture are su {lent fo cast doubt on the vay of the BBC's conclusion. “Busines lke" inay indeed sound negate if opposed to “iendly” But the ‘opposition, and hence the renting connotation, did not occur in the Soviet sources and derived is existence solely from the comparative ‘activity in the British reporter's mind (which bred the 1,500 mies ‘andthe vst clfural gap between London and Moscow). Moreover, “Pusieslce’ mart have been 2 Wansation for the Rusian delovoj — hich happeas to be a quite complimentary term: people are delovor TF they show good deal of pracil sense and energy, and if you can32 ep Vesehurn ‘count on them: talks are deovo if they are ficiently conducted and fo the point, Ceraily, this attribute dors not exclude Englshstyle {iendines, for which the requements are rected to 2 courteous attitude, « halfviible smile, and some welFintentioned hum. It Snot unlikely that this very friendliness communicates standoffs rss to. Rusians sod to exuberance in the expresion of emotions ‘There is no better ustation than Hedrick Smith's account of re ction othe sereening of Doctor Zhbago in» Rusian home ‘What suck in my mind was the moment when everyone, foreizners land Russians alike, broke out laughing at the meek, milquetnst twelome gen by youns Zhitago and his stepparents to his step- ‘Str returning €© Moscow by train from Pars It was abrupt and ool, 4 quick Hat, unemotional Western peck on the check and a handshake, obviously dicted and acted by people unaware of the ‘fv, emotional outpouring that occurs when Russians gret or part at varoad station, (197651364137) In view of such considerations, one may safely asume that fendly and delov) were both accurte dseiptions of the same property fof the interiction that had taken place. Thus there was no discrepancy Tobe explained 1. The dialectic of language inequality “The introductory aneedot is somewhat ditubing. Th rather innocent Communication ctor in qstion depends solely on the relatively Simpl lve of cultrereated word meaning, which may lead to the Tous of semantic festues and the emergence of new connotations in translation ~ expecially in tration taken out of context If this ‘esyouindertand proces produces interpretive bhndes even among the BBC's knowledgeable experts in imeratinal communication, problems resting from subtler ~ and les noticeable — habits of com Snicative ye, or even in tats of cultural or ethnic identity, most belesion ‘The chain of communkstive process which constitute aemational news reporting represent only oe of the areas of human interaction ‘sceptble to inferultral interpretation problems. Obviously, ner rational relations and diplomacy are influenced ~ and here we toch {he problem of the century: modern weapons of mass destruction, EIRP repre rEg gh ect and da of rihndentang 33 ‘both conventional and muclesr, mrtow the gap between human civ Tiation snd the realm ofthe dinosaurs; whether, abd bow, manity ‘wll sive into the 21st century, will epend largely on our ability to cope with the quicksand of latercaltural an inferational com- ‘munication. Especily in urban areas ~ but not ony there ~ everyday Ife is fl of ovesions where members of different culture and citens of éifferet counts mest and depend on each other forthe success ful performance of their daly dates. Thus buses affected not fnly at the executive level But ato at the level of facecofac iter Scion between employees within companies and between management tnd employees. And educarion & increasingly confronted with con ‘munleate incompatbilites, not only beease ofits growing ite ‘tioalietion (certainly im higher education), but also due to the [neverible derision of urban population cnters™ “Ths the wellknown content in which interatonally and intran- tionally sed languages of wider communication, with Eaglsh as Drinus inter pares, are required to function and can often be ob- Served — ingritably ~ to malfunction. The rough edges ~ or outright Faire — of the renting toca intercourse are often blamed on the language rather thin on the complexities of the interaction isl ‘The Engh bas bocome lable to certain degree of contempt based ton the view that it 4 tool forthe Lcentious exec of inert fnctnations. The quastuniversal use of English, the argument goes, produces communicate inequshiy. AIL aow-sative speakers are at 2 isndvantage, Not oly are they obliged to spend their precious tine trying to seqire proficiency ina Toreign language, They will always ‘oe swimming n'a rneoat, whether engaged in Busines negtitions forina sce discussion during am atemationl conference” No doubt, the promotion of English as a world langage doer ln with ceten geopolitical visions. It snot the intention ofthis paper to ‘upute some of the basic facts that have spurred anti-Western resentment. The paper i iatonded, however, aa dlsletic footnote fo the grounds for this resentment, as applied to English asthe major language of wider commoniation. The gt wil be thatthe application of ths resentment to Engink ~ though quite understandable ~ moves in concent circles around a sage aspect ofthe truth, to the neglect Of other, and diverts the attention from the fundamental, many-sided (Gather than jst Pontagon-shaped), sue of crosscolturl understanding "To begin with, critic neuly always centers sround English 2 & ‘medium of misunderstanding ~ 8a tho introductory anecdote.34 ep Vere 1 tends to be oblivious tothe fact thatthe actual geographical and funtionl spread of English? accords thls lnguage the satus of an ‘extremely uefa medium of underanding across cultural, Ungustic, ‘and national boundaries. It is by virtue of tis satus that business ‘opotstions, diplomatic missions, cultural exchanges, and the di ‘ribotion of scientific Knowledge and technological knowhow are as efficient as they ae today. And its by virtue of ts being powerful ‘medium of understanding, heavy relied on for many purposes and ‘under many ccumstance, that English has become 2 medium of regrettable mindertandings at well. A more euborat istration, pointing at the hidden dangers of unreflective reliance on English fo dascrbe events to be interpreted in terms of now Anglo-American ‘tural premises, wl be offered in section 3. ‘Beings native speaker of English is indeed a tremendous advantage. ‘The comfort involved i being able to find poople one can talk to In ‘one's own language on 2 slobal scale can hardly be exaggerated. There ts, homer, some drawbacks 100. rst, the darkside of comfort lost of adaptability or Neabity ‘This may make those speakers of English who have never been in postion to function in a diferent language patculaty prone 0 rmigudement Second, misunderstanding may be as detrimental tothe interpreting sto the misunderstood party ‘Third, speakers of English are generally deprived of the power that, gost with the ality t0 exclude other fom communication. Such ower i actively usd, for instance, by some Jepanese manages in ‘hor interaction with local employees in establishments of thei fms broad, Fourth, not having 2 language to hide in, Englishspeaking com: munities attract an inordinate amount of attention as univer objects of understanding and become, by the sme token, common objects (of misunderstanding. 1s this rately studied process that I want 10 tm to inthe following section ‘Note thatthe topic of thin article & not a symmetrical ast ie and this ble Introduction ofthe Key notions would suggest. In aking bout English as medium of (mishunderstanding the language itself Js focused upon ints capacity of mediator between an interpreter Sand an interpreted state of alae, event, society o culture. AS object (of (misjundertanding, the languages approached as an inseparable fepect of the interpreted sociocultural realty, aot Jas asthe instr ret erobect ond mad of misnderiong 35 ‘ment mediating interpretation (though, of cous, tail us this function ae wel. Titi why the dieusion may at tines be in terms of the (nishunderstanding of events or societies directly, rather than Of the language as auch. This iv abo why, in this paper, English is fesimed to the category “object” of (misunderstanding only in cases where Englch isthe native or predominant means of communication in the interprated wold or context. 2. Rocks—just layin’ around “The Anglo-American dominance ofthe world news, and ofthe media in seven, B often atrbutd exchnvely to aggresive imperialist fttompts fo forse media products onto the rest of the world. Cis fend fo ignore that at last two other factors play a decisive role the remarkable — maybe unigue ~ dapee of openness of American ‘Society, abo reflectod inthe contents ofthe media (ough ths, of| oure, does not fee them of bias); andthe actual spread of Ensih Shieh makes the Anglo-American media more widely accessible than {ny of the other, "The resulting inequality i the low of Information, blamed maity con the fst of these thre factor, hat led to UNESCO's wellknown fnd disputed wedi declaration in 1978. No doubt this inequality favors Engshspeaking communities, Wht happeas in them is more thoroughly “covered, and since the reporting i primarily dvected fat an Englshspeaking audience (and only indretty a the global ‘Community, the world view prevaling among them is — inevitably ~ ‘oiced more freefall. ‘Without trying to detract from the advantages volved for speakers of English in the statu of ther language 26 a quasbuniveal object, Of understanding and the related dominance of the Anglo-American ‘edi, it would be hardy justifiable to turn a Bind eye to the revere Side of the medal. Givea the wide dirbution of Englsh media Dreducts one would expect Englishspeaking communis to be beter derstood than mom others Yet even in Western Europe, where the dbtnbutin i probably the mos efficent and the Hnguistic and Cultural barmers are the smallest, the number of misconceptions, Cspecilly about Ameccans, remains impresive. Particularly striking (SPtie frequently expressed Eiropean vow of American culture as fither soneistent or shallow, and of Americans as superficial, This36 ef Vercacree jndgment, however, is based on whatever products of American society are realy accesible to. Europeans. And accessbiity is laely ‘determined by» mechani aptly captured in Toynbee's dictum that the power of a cultural phenomenon to spread i inversely pro- portional to Re depth But since consumers ae atleast pally respon. [ble for their choice of products, superiiality shoul refect at badly ‘on the consumers as on the produces. Intention to such a base {ruth sure sign of sallow thinking ’A futher exploration of this phenomenon would lead us too far afield Here 1 would lke to focason a ferent, though elated, espect fof English as an objec of misindersanding Due to the widespread Understanding of English, socalcommunicatve events taking pace in Englspeakng (ubjealturessequie xtra silty, making them siseptble t0 various forms of intercultural and international mis: ‘understanding. 'A common source of interpretive touble Is the fact that those ‘vents ae approuched with koowledge of some standard educational orm of Eogsh asa freien language and with a stereotypic pattern cof cultural expectations, which alow aelther for the fundamental Implications of lngitevaribility.* nor forthe existence of markedly ferent, often etnicty. based, caltures and subcultures. Knowledge ‘Of English accompanied by inulliiet knowledge of Enishpeskine ‘ovieios and cultures, may add to the danger of cosseulutal mis tindertanding by creating an iluson of easy inteligbility. In the following pases, thie wil be istrated in detall with reference to "aropean reactions to Jesse Jackson's political spech tye. ‘Tn January 1984, the Bekian Radio and Television broadcasted Swish newsreel (15 “Panorama” program) devoted to the election campaign of the bisck democratic candidate Jese Jackson during the ‘Amarian presidential primaries? For forty minutes, the Flemish ‘ulience was able to follow fis tail from town fo town, ffom state {0 state, Altetely, fragments were shown from ineriews, res ‘onferenots, and political speches and rallis. Av alvaysin the Nether funds and the Flemish par of Belgium, the orginal sound tack ~ tvhich did not contain sny commentator’ remarks, bat only docs Imentary date of the types mentioned ~ was Kept intact, and the [Enalish was aecompanod by Dutch subtle. “One yea intr, 2 video recotding of the program was shown to 4 number of Flemish students, after which thelr eactions wore tested The students were all thizd- or fourhyesr undergraduates in the ng obect ond math of rishnderdng 31 Iumanites and (exceptionally) socialsciences, with 2 proficiency in English ranging from good to excllent. They were al enrolled for + ‘course om crosscultarsl communication, an option betraying at least Some degre of openness to tects of ethiceultual variability. The factions were tested with the help of 4 fvepuge questionnsie Containing purely aftudina or evaluative questions (to be answered in terms of scalar values Between opposite poles) ia addition to ‘questions conceming the interpretation oF certain pasages and mote ‘penned questions in general responses showed a clear pattern of uncasiness with Jes Jackson sea presidential candidate, Dtalsof the students judgments looked e follows. Personalty tats were described almost exclusively in postive terms, Thus Jackson appeared to be dociedly friendly, sensitive Strong, enerstic, and loi vather trustworthy, intligen, wise, and tolerant; but sho somewhat aggresive (not neceuarly intended as 2 hegitne trait given the context In which aggresivenes is spoken {bout as 4 postive fore or even a ecesity), and somewhat aroga ‘Abo his Bngustc wage was characterized postvely as compelling “nd enjoyable; rather ech, beautiful, elevated, sysh and pleut bot also as exaggerated rather than wellbalance. In connection with {ndivdoat panage, students were predominantly of the opinion that they were not boartfl or pretentious, that they were not threstening honest rather than demagopel and that the ued imagery was relevant rather than empty. In spite of such postive impressions, in spite of the high leadership qualities that were attted to him, and though as potential president {he tendency wast find him good rather than ba, trustworthy eather then dangerous Jewe Jackion would not have obtained « majoniy ff the votes among this group of students. How do we explain the Alscrepaney between the expremed stiudes and the voting behaviour? ‘A taking aopeetof this “ontradiction’ was, for lstance, tht in ‘Ssoing he qualities ay posable president, Jackson appeared — {hough predominantly trostworthy ~ ess trustworthy than in Jud mneats of his pesolty trae; yet the oppose pole offered on the presenta scale wat “dangerous, while onthe personality sale it was ‘he mich weaker "untrustworthy. “The general problem is thi” How do we account for the clearly transparent sense of uneasiness with the prespct of seing Jackson 1 the head of stale of powerful nation in the face of the over38 Jef Vereen ‘whetniagly postive opinions sbout the candidate sa pert, about ‘the quality of his performances, and about the content of individual ‘passgesffom his campaign speeches and (Tom interviews? Or, what [5 the remaining uneasines basod on iff cannot be pinned down on sttitudinal particulars? 'An explanation emerge from the reasons presented by students for their voting behavior. Abstentios were jusifed with reference tos meaure of dstust: “I would like to know more about him.” ‘Ali Yesvotes were almost always accompanied by an expression ‘of dovbt, In some cates, the doubtfulness was Wrapped in 2 nepative ‘motivation: "Things cannot get worse than they are; or “He seems Tike the only allermative to Reagea that doesnot look too much ike 4 jellyfish” Sometimes itis exprested unambiguoudy: “He lols Tete too demagogical, able to manipulate — which canbe dangerous ‘or “IT were a white American, I woul fel abit threatened.” Doubt ‘ko radiates from its negation: “My hestaton about Jackson, the limpresion that he might be an undiluted demagogue like Hitler, ‘who wed sinilar lngusge, was undone by the pictures showing hi {i Martin Lather Kings se" Note that, wheres individual passages ‘were mainly judged to be honest rather than demagogial, sugsestions (Of possible overall demapoguery are voiced eren by some of thos ‘who would have voted for Jackson, and even 2 fistsipht comparison ‘th Hitler is volunteered. “The motivations ven for votes aint speak for themselves The habit of making the audience repeat his words seems rater Aitatora 1 would never vote for someone who bases his election campaign Jargely on the hypnotizing shythm of @ certain type of musi and tlopans. Jee Jackson may be an impreave figure ~ but he and his “followers pve me the crepe. He appear to be an abe leader, but of the sae type as Baghwan ~ fora group of people who have shandoned everything and desperately want to believe in a leader ‘who thereby becomes a dangerous free 1 do not deem Jackson competent enough to engage in politics tthe highest level. I guoss that he Tacks the onniationa talent Sand the degre of impertubabiity ncesary fo be w good president. Jackson isa man of emotions and ieab. Los sense hes too ysca ‘snd lacks, cording to me, «basic pragmatic atitude. Sere eee ee me eae ee ce ere eee Blot and mation of iminertng 38 [A faal question, aod at tho very end of the seson to ensure that it would not bias other responses in any way, was intended (0 bubs the students opinion tegsred bythe folowing remark (made by an Amernzan of German descent, aftr seeing pictures of Jackson's ‘mpaiza sposches): "We've had Hider already; 50, who needs Jesse Jackson?” Only couple of students thought the comparison was preposterous, A majority was largely in agreement with its conten {hough the need was felt to point a a diference in ieology. Those tno fended not Yo sere, ako felt the n0ed to express reservations ‘whic, for them, made it quite intelighle why someone could make Such ¢ remark, Brel, almost ereryone sw va pots of comparison between Tests Jackson and Hier with regard to demagosial ro- pete and rhetoric. Here isan anthology fom the restons: ‘A cettin deeee of sgqresvenes sppear fom Jackson's speeches, fd his use of lavas is manipulative he veems ike the kind of Fure many people would follow blindly. “There are parallel: mass hysteria, stiniag up with slogan, em Diascing one's own central, the accompanying aggressiveness, “The way in which he makes people repeat his words reminds me of iter. Understandable, since Jackson — just Uke iter ~ seems capable of stiving up the masses and manages {0 make them shout, sing along. et, Jackson & comparable to Hitler with respect to the agitating use ‘of language, the Obermensch ides, the ide of his cosmopolitan ‘alin, the inating Fa kindof mas hysteria, “The average black American has nt yet reached the stage in which ‘the danger could become seute, But its potently ther Way thie elaborte report of the impression made bys political figure sch a8 Jese Jeckeon on an audience of students? Because {het impression seem typical for the average intelectual in Finders. ‘Avsimilar distrust and an idetieal judgment of demagoguery, i sus- fisted by the "Pinorama’” team of the Balan Radio and Television fetwork, in is introduction to the Swedish newsreel. Thus Jackson Js described ~ already inthe tile of the program — as een Riri60. Jef Vorctaron Aandideat ‘x colorful candidate (read: certainly facinating, bat a te out of place) with a considerable dow of ‘oratorcal talent” Farther: ‘Met typisch Amerkaanse predantenimasks weet hij iim volge Ingen on vervoering te Bren. “With typically American evangalistic ticks, he manages to bring his followers toa sate of ecstasy.” “The formulation may be sofler, but infact ~ a inthe judgment of the students (who had, of course, nor been allowed to liste tothe into- duction by the “Panorama” porter) — this alles to 2 form of ‘mass hyseria® brought about by means of “demagogea trickery” reminiscent of the rhetorical syle of religious cult leaders. One should Wonder, however, whether such a characterization iat all suitable ‘The question is threfold. Fist, are we conttoted with rypialy “American evengeltic wicks? Secoad, te we justified in talking about ‘range tricks? Finally, are we ely witnesing the use of rick? ven a superficial analysis imposes tentative ‘no’ in response to the fist pat of the problem. Considering the variety of English spoken by Jackson, we note that sometimes he cealy ures version of Standard American, nd sometimes «typical form of Black Eaglsh Fe codeswitching from Standard to Black i a textbook example of how tho altemate se of diferent codes can serve a ceri symbolic function to reinforce his Wentication and solidarity with the black community. We farther note that exactly those pastagcs which lead ‘most strongly 10 vislons of demagopiery show most propetis of Black Ernaish, Hence we cannot avoit the iaue of whether those vows were not partly induced by a defective famibrty with sy Isle, If not Ungustc, properties of language wse commen among ‘lack Americans In any case, it becomes immediately doubtful whether one is justified in speaking of typically American rhetorical rates. "The tenlativeness of this response is removed by the realization that what pases for Jackion's evangelistic style i fact reposts tan etlnic style. As shown by Kochman (1981) and many other re Searchers, a system of culturally determined norms and conventions Separates the norm of Afte-Amercan language use from that of the white majority (though, srctly speaking. they communicate in the Same language and many can codeswitch succesfully between rg ob and mod of risundertanig 41 varieties). Expresvty and vitality are of primary importance for tnos bck Americans. Morcover, styishness isan sbolute require tent for the expression of thoughts and emotions, as for other forms fof behavior (sich as sports, clothing. etc.) Speech is practiced 8 an re As eres, converstons among Backs tend not to be dull and ‘aay speaking tam betray a form of shurp-witednes. Imagery and fnypebole are omuipresnt, And two types of tll tak boasting 484 source of humor and “brageag, to attct attention are cultraly Ahefined and completely accepted verbal means ‘The language of black preachers in its most typical form, is but one instanceof thie ethnic communicative syle, enriched. with Thetoeal properties derived from an agoold tradition, Therefore {tie hardly surprising that a comparable syle characterizes political thetore, whether the politician is himeif a zlious leader or nt. "The tation in. question, as descibed by Gumpere (1982: chapter 3), shows more simlarties with the selglous rites among. blacks {hioughowt the Caribbean and Bray than with those of white Fundamentaist Chitanity i the South of the United States, and has its roots in West Afcan sites stil performed among the Yoruba and Akan popaations “Tne base character of tho een, oth originally and in the form of the modern Afro-American “sermon, i “a dramatic interchange between speaker and audience” (Gumperz 1982:189). By systematically modulating his perfomance, sometimes atenately Singing and spesking,o, more frequently, shifting tye, the minster Speaks with altemaely hs own voice, that of the Lord, and tat ofthe consezation. (189-190) In allthis, the active participation of the audience is of the utmost ‘Maportance and “can materially affect the cours of the service" (190) "The most vile apex of the back orstor’s modulation of his soeech ie the symbolic switching from (prosodically distinguishable) Siyles wing Standard American to ¢ Black English Yok sys (phiono- Togcaly, lexically, grammatically, and prosodically ditined). Partly ‘because the broadcast on Jene Jackson's eampaign did not show a speech completely, and portly because the emplss was entirely on the most captivating pasges in a typical ‘folk styl’, the symbolic ‘alu ofthe switching could not be appreciated by th avenge views, Ihe result the black ethnic character of Jackson's style beame even fess congpicnous thant Would already have been otherwise for an