Culture in Communication
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
224 VOLKER HINNENKAMP
locutor corrects it immediately to “ENTfristet (UNlimited)” (thereby of
course demonstrating “immediate recognition”) followed by the
misunderstander’s correct (and maybe astonished) repetition, thus ratifying
the correct version. This again is followed by confirmation of the correct
uptake “Entfristet, mhm (Unlimited, ya)”. That is, there is a reciprocal reas-
surance of the correct item before returning to the status quo ante. Both
interlocutors have been involved in this process, both have followed the rules
of a corrective cycle, both have created a corrective context, and thereby have
guaranteed that “What we are talking about to each other (right now)” is
actually the very same thing (again).
The momentary mismatch of topic may, however, affect other contexts as
well. As we can see in the “Canvassing” example, the interrogation of the
Viet-namese client becomes quite harsh and it is only by virtue of V’s
initiative of specifying IT’s question “The place in (+) in (+) down near
Fremantle?” (line 21) by “In West O’Connor” (line 22) that communication
returns to its normal course (in the cooperative sense). Because so far not only
the thematic “What are we talking about to each other (right now)?” was
available but also the schema of what kind of activity they were involved in
(“What are we (just) doing with one another?”) and indeed also the schema of
power, the unequal distribution of interactional rights and obligations (cf. “On
what footing are we on (right now)?”).
4. Being on the wrong track: When a misunderstanding is (not) an
intercultural one
4.1 Putting threads together
So far I have developed a typology of misunderstandings by macrosequential
criteria and ordered them into three basic types which I have labelled in
accordance with Linell (1995) “overt”, “covert” and “latent”. I have also
described misunderstanding as an event in its own right, which very often has
a clearly identifiable beginning and end, and which always has — unless it is
latent — its own trajectory, sometimes closed and sometimes open, i.e. open
ended or transformed into a new subject of its own. Misunderstanding as event
has a core, which is sometimes retrospectively localized or identified. It has a
frame or trajectory, which is the subsequent side sequence or even subdia-
225
C
ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT
logue by virtue of the treatment or negotiation of the core misunderstanding.
The less identifiable the core, the more likely is an extended negotiation
phase. Ideally, the end of a misunderstanding event is constituted by an uptake
of the prior thread of conversation, now cleared, of course, of its misunder-
standability. I have named this the return to status quo ante. Finally I have
argued that misunderstanding as an event in its own right brings about its own
conventionalized context, that is one of remedial action, initiating a sequence
of acts best described by the Goffmanian term “corrective cycle” (cf. Goffman
1971).
The problem of remedial attempts as part of the misunderstanding event
has been alluded to by John Gumperz’ statement that “Lack of shared back-
ground knowledge leads initially to misunderstandings, but since contextual-
ization conventions are not shared, attempts to repair these misunderstandings
fail and conversational cooperation breaks down” (Gumperz 1995: 120).
Here I will follow a different line of argumentation by showing that at least
some remedial practice of misunderstanding may be based on shared back-
ground knowledge. Lack of shared background knowledge — for example as
to cultural praxis — may well be repaired by relying on a common stock of
conventionalized routine, which we might label in contrast to cultural praxis
‘institutionalized discourse praxis’.
After starting this essay with a critique of the uncritical blending of
misunderstanding and intercultural communication, I will now put the differ-
ent threads of my findings and argumentation together and — armed with a
much more differentiated notion of misunderstanding — will show that the
bringing about of interculturality solely by virtue of connecting cultural
different background of interlocutors with a misunderstanding cannot be
taken for granted anymore.
4.2 A case study of a full-fledged misunderstanding event with no words
In the remaining section I will concentrate on one particular example of
misunderstanding in order to elaborate on some of these last points. I will try to
show three things: (1) How a misunderstanding creates a fully developed
corrective cycle as part of the misunderstanding event. (2) How a misunder-
standing may create a subdialogue without affecting the main dialogue. And (3)
how a misunderstanding event may be linked to interculturality — or how not.
This last point, in particular, aims at deconstructing intercultural communica-
tion along the lines of an undefined notion and concept of misunderstanding.
226 VOLKER HINNENKAMP
4.2.1 Transcript “The vanishing cup”
The transcript below (Example 3) shows a videographed sequence of 18
seconds from a university workshop on “Intercultural Communication”. Ver-
bal and nonverbal data are presented in parallel columns. The nonverbal
activity is further illustrated by pictures of ten video frames focussing on the
two main interactants of the sequence. What the pictures do not show (but the
video does) is the situative embedding. Fourteen students and one teacher sit
in a semicircle. B is a male student, to his left sits the male teacher F. B is about
one head taller than F. To the left of F there are 5 students, to the right of B 8
students, among whom is the male participant A. The composition of the
seminar is multinational. The subject of the workshop is taboos.
Example 3: “Der entschwindende Becher” (The vanishing plastic cup)
Sec. Pict
No.
Speaking turns Commentary line for F Commentary line for B
00
01
02
1
F: Also jetzt sieht
man wenn man eine
Sache-
F: Well, now you
see, if you know
one-
wenn man eine
Sache weiß + (+)
dann gehn alle an-
so if you know one
thing + then (+) all
the oth-
F gesticulates with his
left hand at shoulder
height, holding the
plastic cup in his right
hand chest high.
Legs are stretched out.
The left leg lies
slightly angled on the
right thigh so that the
legs are slightly
crossed at the bottom.
F's eyes are turned in
the direction of the left
semicircle of the
group.
F puts plastic cup from
his right into his left
hand.
B looks at F's face, his
arms folded over his
chest with hands hidden
under upper arms.
His right leg is stretched
out towards F, his left
leg drawn back, slightly
bent to the left.
227
C
ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT
03
04
05
2 also wenn-
so if-
ham ganz viele
andre Sachen ham
plötzlich n (h)(h)
Zusammenhang
quite a lot of other
things stand all of a
sudden just stand in
context
With his left hand F
puts plastic cup right
between his thighs on
the chair.
He crosses his legs a
bit more tighty, thus
enclosing the cup with
his thighs more
closely.
B lowers his gaze and
follows the movement
of F's hand with the
plastic cup.
Arms and legs remain in
the same position.
06 3
=sie stehn im
Zusammenhang
=they're somehow
connected
F has both his hands
raised to chest height,
still looking at the
participants on the left,
while the plastic cup
rests between his
thighs.
B changes the position
of his arms. His right
arm stretches out in the
direction of the plastic
cup between F's thighs,
where his left arm
retreats fist downward
angled at stomach
height.
With his right hand he
grabs the cup by its rim
and starts lifting it from
between F's thighs.
07 4 F lowers his right hand
and reaches for the
plastic cup in B's left
hand. His eyes remain
directed at the left
semicircle. With both
hands he takes hold of
the cup.
B holds the cup at its
upper rim with his left
hand from above at F‘s
belt height.
08 5
[A lifts/raises his
right hand]
F turns his gaze in the
direction of B's face,
laughing. His right
hand releases the cup.
By moving his right
foot to the outside the
left leg is released
from its crossed
position.
B draws his hand back
and turns his upper body
slightly to the left. The
palms of his hands face
downwards. His face
looks down to the left.
228 VOLKER HINNENKAMP
09 6 F laughs, his gaze
oriented in the
direction of B. He
holds the cup with
both hands at stomach
height. Legs are now
parallell and bent, the
feet rest on the outside
edge of his shoes.
B puts his right hand on
the right thigh of his
stretched out leg and
leaning his upper body
forward he cups his face
in the inner side of his
left hand, thus covering
his turned down upper
face with the hand. The
elbow of the left arm is
supported on his left
knee.
09
10
11
[All: Gentle
laughter comes up
among other
participants, some
scraps of talk can
be discerned.
As the talking
fades, A points the
forefinger of his
right hand up and
begins talking:]
B turns his face briefly
back to the left
semicircle and then
turns towards A.
11 7 A: Ganz kurz bloß
was +
A: Just for a tiny
moment +
F: [towards A] Ja
F: Yes
Still holding the
plastic cup in his right
hand, F stretches his
left hand over in the
direction of B's right
thigh and moves it up
and down twice
without touching or
coming too close to
B's thigh.
F keeps on looking
towards A. His feet are
facing outwards
B straightens up his
upper body and turns to
F releasing his left hand
from his face. With his
right hand and
supported by his body
slightly leaning towards
the right, he points to
the space between his
and F's chair.
His eyes follow the
movement of his right
hand towards the
bottom right.
229
C
ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT
12
13
8
A: und zwar
wegen- in Italien ist
es halt so
A: it's 'cause of-
well in Italy it's like
this
F leans with both
elbows on his thighs.
The left forearm is
hanging at crutch
height, crossed by the
right hand which holds
the plastic cup tightly.
F continues to look
towards speaker A.
B puts both his hands
with fingers spread out
on his thighs. He laughs
and starts looking
towards speaker A.
14
15
16
17
9
dass man also
>wegen der Rech-
nung kurz ne< äh
that one
°
well
°
>the bill I mean<
uh
da wird das eben
alles
zusammengerechne
t
there you add it all
up and
F turns his head a bit
further in A's
direction.
F remains in the same
position.
F remains in the same
position.
B puts his arms back
behind the chair. His
upper body is in an
upright position, nearly
a head taller than F. He
turns his head more
sharply in the speaker's
direction.
B puts his arms to the
front and leans forward.
With his right hand he
grasps the back of his
left hand.
He looks at A.
He moves his left leg
from the slightly
stretched out position to
the right leg's angled
position.
B leans forward even
further. His left foot
adopts the right foot's
position so that they
stand exactly parallel to
each other.
18 10 das machen wir
dann unter
Freunden aus
then we figure that
out among friends
F nods his head in A's
direction.
B finally sits parallel to
F., i.e. same height,
same angle and same
gaze direction.
alles zusammen-
gerechnet
230 VOLKER HINNENKAMP
Picture sequence 1–10
Picture 1 Picture 2
Picture 3 Picture 4
Picture 5 Picture 6
231
C
ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT
Picture 7 Picture 8
Picture 9 Picture 10
“The vanishing plastic cup” in speaking turns
F: Also jetzt sieht man, wenn man eine Sache- wenn man eine Sache weiß + dann (+) gehn
Well, now you see, if you know one- so if you know one thing + then
alle an- also wenn- ham ganz viele andre Sachen ham plötzlich n (h)(h)Zusammenhang
all the oth- so if- quite a lot of other things stand all of a sudden just stand in context
=sie stehn im Zusammenhang
=they’re somehow connected
[A lifts/raises his right hand]
[All: Gentle laughter comes up among other participants, some scraps of talk can be
discerned. As the talking fades out, A points the forefinger of his right hand up and
begins talking:]
A: Ganz kurz bloß was
Just for a tiny moment +
F: [zu A] Ja
[to A] Yes
A: und zwar wegen- in Italien ist es halt so, dass man °also° >wegen der Rechnung kurz
ne< äh
232 VOLKER HINNENKAMP
it’s ‘cause of- well in Italy it’s like this that one °well° >the bill I mean< uh
da wird das eben alles zusammen gerechnet, das machen wir dann unter Freunden aus.
there you add it all up and then we figure that out among friends
4.2.2 Narrating the transcript
Obviously there is a conflict here between the cup holder F and his neighbour
B. The misunderstanding is purely nonverbal. As a simple narrative one could
tell it like this: F tries to say something but is somehow hindered by the plastic
cup in his hand (Picture 1). He changes it from one hand to the other and
finally places it on the chair between his thighs (Picture 2).
15
His neighbour B
tries to be helpful by taking it away from F’s crotch in order to place it on the
floor between the two chairs (Picture 3). But before he is in a position to
realize this, F has taken the cup away from B (Picture 4), obviously insinuat-
ing some other intention (or he just avoids physical contact with his private
parts). B first retreats (Picture 5), puts his head into his hand as if he were
ashamed (Picture 6). Then B starts to explain nonverbally what he had
intended all long while F signals to him that he should not be bothered (Picture
7). B then puts his hands ostentatiously on his thighs whereas F turns his
attention back to the discussion (Picture 8). B folds his hands behind his back
(Picture 9), moves them back to the front again and puts himself into a listener
position, parallel in height, gaze and position to F (Picture 10). Note that this
part of the story is a reconstruction of the nonverbal account given by B.
Without his explanantion we would have no indication of what he had
intended.
16
The core misunderstanding lies in the contingent acts of grasping the cup
from between F’s thighs and F’s defensive (and actually reconquering) reac-
tion to it. But we now know that the trajectory of the misunderstanding
comprises much more. It also includes the whole corrective cycle to follow
and it is terminated by the renormalization of a very special and very short-
term relationship between B and F, which is based solely on the conflict over
the plastic cup’s position. The example is of the extended MU 1-type of
misunderstanding: “The misunderstood segment may be reconstructed by
virtue of identifying or localizing it as such and may even become explicated
by an explicit ‘diagnosis’ (…) or ‘anamnesis’ (…) of the misunderstanding’s
trajectory” (cf. above). There is certainly no explicit diagnosis here but the
anamnesis is as explicit as a nonverbal one can be. It includes what B actually
intended to do and is of the kind: “No, what I actually meant is this etc.”
233
C
ONSTRUCTING MISUNDERSTANDING AS A CULTURAL EVENT
4.2.3 Healing misunderstanding by remedial work
Now let us look at some of these issues in more detail. The above transcript is
a wonderful example of how a misunderstanding creates a fully developed
corrective cycle as part of the misunderstanding event. It is only after F turns
his gaze towards B’s face, laughing for a moment (Picture 5), that B com-
mences his remedial work in the classical way by indicating regret or repen-
tance by expressing shame (Picture 6), followed by an explanatory and
apologetic account (Picture 7). F responds almost at the same time with a
soothing release by stretching his left hand towards B’s right thigh, moving it
slightly up and down twice without touching B’s thigh, thus symbolically
performing a light thigh slap (Picture 7). This gesture is well conventionalized
as a nonverbal device for people sitting next to each other, at least among same
sex interactants or good friends. Its function is friendly, non aggressive, often
positively supportive and soothing. It may even be culturally conventional-
ized.
17
B continues his repair by putting his hands very pointedly on his thighs
as if he wanted to display his disciplined hands (Picture 8). Putting his hands
back then is both a further demonstration of discipline and also of a transi-
tional phase of regaining possession of his hands (Picture 9), which is fol-
lowed by the full adaptation to the ‘standard’ listener position (Picture 10). It
is this repositioning that puts a definite end to the misunderstanding event. B
now has fully returned to the main interactional focus, his reintegration marks
the end of a nonverbal subdialogue.
Chart 1 recapitulates the sequence as a full-fledged misunderstanding
event.