Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:34:15.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Coconstruction of Cross-Cultural Miscommunication

Conflicts in Perception, Negotiation, and Enactment of Participant Role and Status Andrea Tyler

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Andrea Tyler
Andrea Tyler
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the sources of miscommunication in a videotaped tutoring session involving a native speaker of Korean and a native speaker of U.S. English. Analysis revealed an initial nonmutual interpretation of participant role and status. These divergent interpretations appear to have resulted from the Korean tutor's transfer of a Korean conversational routine, which he defined as involving polite speaker modesty, to the U.S. English context. The initial conflicting interpretations are maintained and solidified by additional mismatches in discourse management strategies, schema, and contextualization cues. The cumulative effect of these mismatches was the judgment on the part of each of the interlocutors that the other was uncooperative.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1995, pp. 129 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agar, M. (1985). Institutional discourse. Text, 5, 147–168.Google Scholar
Arthur, B. Weiner, R., Culver, M., Lee, Y. J., & Thomas, D. (1980). The register of impersonal discourse to foreigners: Verbal adjustments to foreign accent. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 57–73). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz' approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. & di Luzio, A. (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 1–37). Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1990). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40, 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). The language of comembership. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 227–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. (1967). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1932)Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballentine Books.Google Scholar
Beebe, L., & Giles, H. (1984). Speech-accommodation theories: A discussion in terms of second-language acquisition. InternationalJournal of the Sociology ofLanguage, 46, 5–32.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Eggington, W. (1987). Written academic discourse in Korean: Implications for effective communication. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 153–168). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Roberts, C. (1987). Two approaches for investigating second language acquisition. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 3–30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Erickson, F., & Schultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fiskdal, S. (1989). Framing uncomfortable moments in crosscultural gatekeeping interviews. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 190–207). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Rules and regulations. In Fowler, R., Kress, G., Trew, A., & Hodge, R. (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 26–45). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gaies, S. (1982, 03). Modification of discourse between native and nonnative speaker peers. Paper presented at the Sixteenth Annual TESOL Convention, Honolulu.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to nonnative speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E. (1981, 08). Discourse analysis and language learning. Paper presented at the AILA Congress, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 113–127). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, N., & Mehan, H. (1981). Sense and ritual in the classroom. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 171–191). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). Rethinking context (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., Jupp, T., & Roberts, C. (1977). Crosstalk: A study of cross<ultural communication. London: National Center for Industrial Training.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Closing the conversation: Evidence from academic advising sessions. Discourse Processes, 15, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, A. (1993). Exploring modality in institutional interactions: Cases from academic counseling encounters. Text, 13, 503–528.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
lran-Nejad, A. (1987). The schema: A long-term memory structure of a transient structure phenomena. In Tierney, R., Anders, P., & Mitchell, J. (Eds.), Understanding a reader's understanding (pp. 109–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1988). The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C, & Camden, C. (1983). A new look at interruption. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 289–304). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lee, H. G. (1992). The pragmatics and syntax of pragmatic morphemes in Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Meyer, B. (1987). Following the author's top-level organization: An important skill for reading comprehension. In Tierney, R., Anders, P., & Mitchell, J. (Eds.), Understanding a reader's understanding (pp. 59–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor—A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rummelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In Bobrow, D. G. & Collins, A. M. (Eds.), Representations and understanding (pp. 211–236). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. In Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R., & Higa, C. (1982). Input and age differences in second language acquisition. In Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., & Long, M. (Eds.), Child-adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schegloff, M. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observations and understanding (pp. 135–158). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1983). Face in interethnic communication. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 156–190). Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1991). Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes, 10, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P., & Bailey, K. (1990). Cultural differences in academic settings. In Scarcella, R., Anderson, E., & Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 317–328). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J., & Coulthart, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, R., Lele, J., & Martohardjono, G. (1988). Communication in a multilingual society: Some missed opportunities. Language in Society, 17, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1979). ‘What's in a frame?’ In Freedle, R. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 137–181). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schema in interactions: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen, D (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, T., & Cameron, D. (1987). Analyzing conversational rules and units in the structure of talk. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as ‘unequal encounter’: Toward a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Davies, C. (1990). Cross-cultural communication missteps. TextJO, 385–411.Google Scholar
West, C, & Zimmerman, D. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., & Henley, N. (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 103–117). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wilson, P., & Anderson, R. C. (1986). What they don't know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In Oransanu, J. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 31–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Woken, M., & J., Swales (1989). Expertise and authority in native-non-native conversations: The need for a variable account. In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989). Performance variation in NS-NNS interactions: Ethnolinguistic difference or discourse domain? In Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 228–243). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Zuengler, J., & Bent, B. (1991). Relative knowledge of content domain: An influence on native-non-native conversations. Applied Linguistics, 12, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar