Culture in Communication

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

204 JOCHEN REHBEIN

Mrs S

NVK

- - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o

Mrs S

NVK

hardly perceptible nodding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o

nr. of v.fram

54:11 54:11 54:12

/46

Mrs S

NVK

o -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

o- cocks head to her side - - o

/47

nr. of v.fram

54:20

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/48a /48b

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/48c

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/49

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/48d

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive

Mrs S

NVK

glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive

/50

Mrs S

NVK

glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive

/51

Mrs S

NVK

glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/52

/53

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/54

nr. of v.fram

55:19

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - furtive glance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o

/55

205

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

nr. of v.fram

55:2055:21 55:21 55:22 55:23

/56

Mrs S

NVK

o- - - - - - - - - - looks down - - - - - - - - - - o o - - - - - - - - - stares at

Mrs S

NVK

% spreads, closes hands

Mrs S

NVK

%[opens m.% raises head

/57 /58

NVK

o- starts to lean back again

[ breathes in

nr. of v.fram

55:25 55:26 55:27 55:28

/62

Mrs S

NVK

Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o o- - - - - - looks down -

Mrs S

NVK

% spreads, closes hands

Mrs S

NVK

% assertive nodding

/59 /60 /61

nr. of v.fram

55:30 55:31 55:32 55:33 55:34 55:35

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - o o - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - o % chuckles

Mrs S

NVK

% spreads hands % closes hands

Mrs S

NVK

o - - plain assertive nodding - - o o- - - - plain

/63 /64 /65

NVK

o- chuckles-o o - - - - - - - - - - -

NVK

% turns his trunk aside and down with

nr. of v.fram

55:36 55:37

/68

Mrs S

NVK

o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

assertive nodding - - - - - o

/66 /67

NVK

- nods affirmatively - - - - - - - - - - - - nods affirmatively - - - - - - - - - - - - nods affirmatively - - - - - -

NVK

embaressement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - -

nr. of v.fram

55:41 55:42 55:43

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - -o o - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

o- indicates frame with her hands - - - - - - - o o- - moves hand

Mrs S

NVK

o- - - - looks down - - - - - - o o - - - - - - - - - - assertive nodding - - - -

/69 /70

NVK

- - - - - - nods affirmatively - - - - - - - - - - - - nods affirmatively - - - - - - - - - - - - nods affirmatively -

NVK

- - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - -

206 JOCHEN REHBEIN

nr. of v.fram

55:44 55:45 55:46 55:47 55:48 55:48 55:52

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

thoughtfully - - - o o- closes hands - o

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - assertive nodding - - - - - - - - - o

/71 /72 /73

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - nods affirmatively - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o

NVK

- - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans far back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o% takes pencil o-

[

breathes in[

loud

nr. of v.fram

55:55 56:01

Mrs S

NVK

- stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - -

/74a

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

expulsion of breath

nr. of v.fram

56:o2 56:02 56:07 56:09

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

/74b /74c /74d /75a

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[

flicks pen clip [

flicks pen clip

nr. of v.fram

56:10

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares

/75b /75c

NVK

o % points with pencil at Mrs Strothers o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - -

/76

Mrs S

NVK

at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - -

/77

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - -

nr. of v.fram

56:22 56:25 56:26

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - stares at Passmann - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mrs S

NVK

% slight shaking of head o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - slight

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

207

NTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION

nr. of v.fram

56:59 56:30 56:3256:33

/80

Mrs S

NVK

- o o- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - chuckles - - -

Mrs S

NVK

nodding - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o

/78 /79

NVK

% approaches desk

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans

Mrs S

NVK

- - - - - - - - - - o o - laughs

/81 /82 /83

NVK

back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans

NVK

back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans

/84 /85

Mrs S

NVK

back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - leans back - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o

/87 /90

Mrs S

/86 /88 /89

/91

Mrs S

/92 /93

/94 /96

Mrs S

/95

/98

Mrs S

/97

Section III

Native/non-native Interactions

Constructing Misunderstanding

as a Cultural Event

Volker Hinnenkamp

University of Augsburg

A pause in the wrong place, an intonation misunderstood, and a whole

conversation went awry.

(E.M. Forster, Passage to India, 1924: 262f.)

1. Motives

Most of the research and writing on intercultural communication can be

subsumed under two motivational approaches. One is intercultural communi-

cation according to aspects of ‘utilitarian’ motives (1) (using the term ‘utilitar-

ian’ in the way adopted and described by Scollon and Wong Scollon 1995:

94ff.); the other I would like to characterize as mainly philologically moti-

vated (2). Both labels are rather crude and in a way polemical. (1) describes

the focal raison d’être of studying intercultural communication as being

conflict driven and in need of a helping hand by intercultural communication

researchers and intercultural communication practitioners. This is the area in

which many theoretical and empirical specialists meet with appliers in the

classroom and trainers in enterprises and public offices. Their aim is to

improve analytical insights, to make instruction and language learning more

effective, and to secure smooth international business and an undisturbed

conduct with non-native clients. All this is summed up in the following

quotation: “The ability, through increased awareness and understanding, to

coexist peacefully with people who do not necessarily share our backgrounds,

beliefs, values, or life styles can not only benefit us in our own neighborhoods

but can also be a decisive factor in forestalling nuclear annihilation” (Samovar

and Porter 1988: 1f.). (2) looks more for basic criteria of what intercultural

212 VOLKER HINNENKAMP

communication is, how intercultural communication is distinct and different

from intracultural communication or those forms of communication said to be

devoid of culture. It regards intercultural communication as a form of commu-

nication in its own right and it is interested in its phenomenology, its constitu-

ency and its relevance as regards communicability and comprehensibility of

symbolic human interaction.

Of course, there are intersections. And there are motives, that should be

described in more differentiated ways. Both approaches struggle in similar

ways over that delicate ingredient called culture and how it is or becomes

linked to communication so that particular constellations and particular types

of encounters are justifiably called intercultural.

2. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication research

My own reflections are in general motivated by the philological approach, but

the utilitarian motives will serve as my point of departure. I will concentrate on

one of the most (if not the most) cited utilitarian reason for studying intercul-

tural communication, that is to say the conflicting effects of miscommunication

and ‘misunderstandings’. This perspective of intercultural communication is

well documented. Take a reader like “Analyzing Intercultural Communica-

tion” (Knapp, Enninger and Knapp-Potthoff 1987) as an example; the term

“misunderstanding” is used about 20 times (including three mentions in my

own contribution to the volume), “miscommunication” about 15 times. Both

are often accompanied by “awkward moments”, “inherent ambiguities”,

“communication conflict”, “communication breakdown” and “communicative

failure”. The literature is full of analyses of this particular aspect but there are

few, if any, critical reflections on the notion of misunderstanding itself.

2.1 Commonsense misunderstanding

The notion of misunderstanding usually does not go beyond commonsense

notions of understanding. It is used as a strictly moral category in that it figures

as a disturbing factor in communication that has to be removed in order to

guarantee or retrieve smooth conduct. Such an understanding of misunder-

standing reflects and contributes to the ethics and norms of what constitutes

‘proper’, i.e. undisturbed and ‘clean’ conversational conduct. It is here that

213

ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT

many conceptualizers of misunderstanding meet with many of those of inter-

cultural communication. It supports an idealistic view of language and com-

munication devoid of ambivalence and fuzziness. Misunderstanding, trouble,

breakdown and miscommunication in general are thus either presented as

contradictory, counterproductive and suboptimal choices within the alleged

consensual objective of talk and interaction as a cooperative and agreement-

based enterprise, or as something which is structurally intrinsic to particular

categories of encounters and situational constellations beyond such interac-

tional dimensions as intersubjectivity and negotiability.

Rarely do we come across studies on misunderstandings as a

(pragma-)linguistic phenomenon in its own right (cf. e.g. such attempts as

Zaefferer 1977; Grimshaw 1980; Dascal 1985; Mudersbach 1987; Weizman

and Blum-Kulka 1992). Even rarer are attempts at grounding misunderstand-

ing somehow empirically. Here we find case studies on lexical ambiguity in

student discussions (Loretz 1976), an experimental study on successful and

failed intention attribution (Dobrick 1985), and speech act pragmatic corpus

research into misunderstandings in fictional dialogues (Falkner 1997). Yet a

real life dialogic perspective beyond experimental and fictional settings seems

to be an absolute rarity. The title of Humphrey-Jones’ dissertation “An Inves-

tigation of the Types and Structure of Misunderstanding” (1986) tells us that

there is more to look at in a misunderstanding than unspecified trouble and

miscommunication. Humphrey-Jones’ approach is founded upon a hundred

dialogic samples of misunderstandings, most of them noted by the author as

they happened, what she calls a “diary method”. Both Falkner and Humphrey-

Jones offer precious insights into the working and origins of misunderstand-

ing, both give structural taxonomies as to possible criteria and semantic and

pragmatic sources of misunderstandability. Some in-depth analyses of a num-

ber of situated misunderstandings in real talk-in-interaction are to be found in

Selting’s microethnographic and conversation analytic study of conversa-

tional difficulties in institutional discourse between clients and social security

officers (Selting 1987).

There are very few but inspiring attempts on misun-

derstanding from within the conversation and discourse analysis tradition.

Schegloff (1987, 1992) combines misunderstanding with particular repair

positions (see below). Also Drummond and Hopper (1991) treat misunder-

standing within the repair-issue. In particular they address the “relationship

between the distance from repairable to repair-initiation. Briefly, as this

distance increases, the term ‘misunderstanding’ becomes a better and better