Introduction
Social scientists have long recognized the value of social networks for achieving success at work, so it is thought that international workers are disadvantaged because their social networks are not as robust—especially new arrivals to the job. Given this, many discourse studies set out to illustrate the challenges international workers face (e.g. Gunnarsson Reference Gunnarsson2009; Angouri, Marra, & Holmes Reference Angouri, Marra and Holmes2017; Schnurr & Zayts Reference Schnurr and Zayts2017), providing valuable information about how they adjust to new environments and respond to marginalizing effects of linguistic and social hegemonies.
Additionally, scholars are interested in uncovering the beneficial ways that international workers mobilize their ‘interculturality’ (e.g. Mori Reference Mori2003; Ryoo Reference Ryoo2005; Hua Reference Hua2010). This work contrasts with traditional views of interculturality that use differences in sociocultural backgrounds as an explanation for observed interactional patterns—an approach that has been critiqued for imposing cultural differences even when participants render them irrelevant within actual interaction (Nishizaka Reference Nishizaka1995). Instead, interculturality is seen as a social construct—a linguistically assembled symbol of perceived differences (Mori Reference Mori2003). Particularly in settings where participants must traverse the intricacies of linguistic and cultural diversity, their own perceptions of cultural differences are a salient means for achieving a wide range of goals.
Taking this social constructionist view of interculturality, I analyze how American student interns in Japan utilize perceptions of cultural differences when doing disagreements in Japanese language interactions. In doing so, I draw from an interdisciplinary theory of social capital used in management studies to link sociability to key workplace outcomes. As international interns, the Americans in this study exemplify individuals who lack relational histories with their colleagues and, therefore, social capital theory predicts they are restricted in access to workplace resources. The present study makes a critical examination of this prediction by using the social capital framework to highlight ways that interactional constructions of interculturality substitute for especially social ties.
Social relationships and interculturality in the workplace
Of long-standing interest to sociolinguists studying professional interactions is how linguistic devices contextualize social information in ways that facilitate identity construction, group boundary maintenance, membership categorization, rapport building, and so on (e.g. Spencer-Oatey Reference Spencer-Oatey2000; Holmes & Marra Reference Holmes and Marra2002; Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011). Much of this work traces back to the seminal work of John Gumperz, who produced what continues to be a pervasive understanding of intercultural talk: that sociocultural differences in how information is contextualized leads to misunderstanding and a reinforcement of stereotypes (Gumperz Reference Gumperz and Ross1978). American-Japanese interactions are a prototypical example of this (e.g. Miller Reference Miller1994).
A major theme from this research is that international workers not only lack established relationships, they lack the linguistic and cultural knowledge necessary for building relationships in the first place and are thus marginalized in ways that diminish trust and restrict agency. For instance, Holmes & Riddiford (Reference Holmes, Riddiford, Bhatia, Cheng, Du-Babcock and Lung2009) show that differences in social norms are not appreciated by the local majority, leading to limitations on outside workers’ participation as fully recognized professionals. Likewise, Rogerson-Revell (Reference Rogerson-Revell2007) shows that international workers’ limited proficiency in the nuances of such humor limits their integration with dominant in-groups. Other work shows that in response to marginalization, members of peripheral groups may themselves turn to humor and sarcasm to create their own in-group as a form of resistance (e.g. Tsuda Reference Tsuda2000; Holmes & Marra Reference Holmes and Marra2002). Yet, such practices strengthen social barriers by encouraging collusion rather than collaboration, making it difficult for international workers to integrate effectively.
In contrast, other work suggests that perceptions of intercultural differences can be useful for increasing access to resources. Kurhila (Reference Kurhila2006), for example, shows that second-language speakers orient to their status as linguistic novices to excuse interactional difficulty without being perceived as incompetent in institutional knowledge (see also Firth Reference Firth2009). Or, in Higgins’ (Reference Higgins, Nguyen and Kasper2009) analysis of talk between professional acquaintances, different cultural and religious identities are used to establish shared identities based on common values that, in turn, facilitate attempts to achieve professional outcomes. In service encounters as well, cultural stereotypes can be deployed in interaction to facilitate successful transactions (Ryoo Reference Ryoo2005). This work suggests that linguistic constructions of perceived interculturality can be deployed in the absence of relational histories to similar effect.
Social capital and interaction
Together, discursive perspectives on workplace interaction illustrate the dichotomous nature of globalized workplaces. On the one hand, international workers are marginalized in part because they lack in-group ties. On the other hand, by making aspects of their out-group standing relevant they are able to achieve desired outcomes. In both cases, when other social ties are absent the ‘foreign’ identity of international workers becomes highly salient. As such, it can be highly useable.
As a theory of sociability used pervasively to study workplace settings, social capital models hold that established relational ties are required for enabling action. While these models have been used widely to explain why international workers face challenges, they do not say much about what resources they do have at their disposal. Here, I discuss the symbolic use of social capital in interaction and then outline a formal model that links social ties to three key outcomes: information sharing, agency, and solidarity. This establishes a framework for a subsequent examination of how those who lack traditional social capital derive value by instead representing interculturality in efforts to achieve similar outcomes.
Social capital and symbolic capital
The notion of social capital is so widely used that scholars admit it is difficult to define definitively (Narayan & Pritchett Reference Narayan, Pritchett, Dasgupta and Serageldin2000). However, there is broad agreement that social capital inheres not in individuals themselves but in the ties that connect them, and it empowers individuals to achieve their own interests (Coleman Reference Coleman1988; Lin Reference Lin2001). Social capital is thus a network of relationships that can be appropriated to facilitate action (Adler & Kwon Reference Adler and Kwon2002).
Originating in the work of Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1983), the concept of social capital has been used in sociolinguistics to explain how language maintains social control (e.g. Woolard Reference Woolard1985). Bourdieu himself built on the Labovian idea that certain linguistic forms signal power differentials and by using ‘correct’ forms one signals connectedness to social privilege. That is, language symbolically represents the possession of social capital. This can be seen in the fact that even marginalized groups evaluate various linguistic forms as symbolizing social prestige even when they themselves do not use those forms. (As an example, Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1983:52) cites Labov's work on differences in the evaluation and production of the variable (r) by members of different classes in New York.)
Bourdieu's conceptualization of social capital gives rise to the notion of symbolic capital: linguistic representations of power deriving from inclusion in prestigious social networks. Under this view, linguistic actors use language as an instrument for maintaining control and pursuing their own interests. By using forms that are associated with perceptions of prestige, they gain actual prestige in the local context. The prediction follows that those unable to identify with such networks are disadvantaged due to their inability to represent social power. Thus, how such individuals respond by mobilizing other symbolic resources instead becomes a point of critical interest.
A formal model of social capital for workplace interaction
Although most studies on workplace interaction do not use social capital by name, they invoke the same genre of interaction implicated in social capital theory. This is seen in empirical investigations of how colleagues use language to construct relationships in ways that facilitate, for instance, leadership (Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011), job creativity (Holmes Reference Holmes2007), or conflict management (Angouri Reference Angouri2012). Formal theories hold that these and other outcomes are enabled because trusting social networks provide for three key features of successful workplaces: robust information sharing, ability to exercise agency, and strong group solidarity (Adler & Kwon Reference Adler and Kwon2002).
The model I use draws primarily from Adler & Kwon (Reference Adler and Kwon2002), Lin (Reference Lin2001), and Narayan & Pritchett (Reference Narayan, Pritchett, Dasgupta and Serageldin2000), who synthesize decades of prior work on social capital, including the foundational work of Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu and Richardson1986) and Coleman (Reference Coleman1988). Under this model, actors hold relationships characterized by trust that in turn facilitates action. Trusting relationships are built through careful investment over time. These relationships can then be appropriated to facilitate action in three ways. First, trust enhances information sharing as it encourages frequent and efficient communication, benefitting interconnected workers by effectively transmitting a diverse array of ideas. Second, trust empowers agency. When one's viewpoints are given more inherent credibility, that individual is more likely to have the freedom to work toward their own objectives without being hindered by those holding different opinions. Finally, trust strengthens group solidarity, the resulting in-group collegiality of which improves debate and effective collaboration. Because the underlying mechanism that brings about these outcomes—trust—is built by cultivating relationships over time, it is taken as a reflection of accumulated social capital.
Most studies examining this model empirically do so quantitatively, using measures of social network strength (e.g. surveys asking about trust between colleagues) to predict measures of workplace outcomes (e.g. frequency of disagreements). However, inherent in such approaches are descriptions of interactional processes. For instance, Adler & Kwon explain, ‘the term networks often means informal, face-to-face interaction’ (Reference Adler and Kwon2002:24, emphasis added) while Liu and Shaffer write, ‘social capital is created and sustained through exchange’ (Reference Liu and Shaffer2005:237, emphasis added). In this sense, then, trust is one aspect of relationships that can potentially be represented in interaction. Yet, formal social capital research has predominately focused on uncovering how social network size impacts measurable outcomes rather than revealing fine-grained details behind how those networks are shaped and utilized in interaction—even while scholars admit that interactional processes are crucial.
The context: Disagreements in American-Japanese interaction
Given its interactional underpinnings, the social capital model is a useful starting point for the present investigation of how international workers compensate for a lack of social ties. Ostensibly, the model carries a bleak implication for international workers: wanting in established trusting relationships, they are unable to mobilize social capital in ways that benefit information sharing, agency, and solidarity. However, sociocultural linguistic work suggests that these workers do indeed have a resource: interculturality. That is, when relationships that typify social capital are lacking, international workers may instead be able to deploy perceived intercultural differences to work toward similar goals.
As this study analyzes situated discourse in order to critically examine the prediction that international workers are disadvantaged because they lack social capital, it is first necessary to understand the specific interactional and sociocultural settings: disagreements and American interns in Japan, respectively. This setting is fertile ground for the present investigation as it encourages interactions in which both social relationships and interculturality are particularly salient.
Disagreements and social capital
A wealth of research illustrates both the value of relational histories for managing potential conflict and their importance in workplace settings generally. Linguistically, disagreements are identified by their sequential organization and the use of devices signaling contradictory content. Sequentially, Pomeranz (Reference Pomerantz, Atkinson and Heritage1984) describes them as a ‘dispreferred’ second part of a two-part exchange where the initial proffering of an assessment invites a particular response but the actual response differs. In terms of form, disagreements range from direct opposition (e.g. ‘You're wrong’), to mitigated replies (e.g. ‘You have a point, but…’), to implicit, off-record responses (e.g. ‘Well, if that's what you think, then fine’) (Rees-Miller Reference Rees-Miller2000). Which form is expected or appropriate is a function of context, including relational histories, the severity of the disagreement, and the nature of the social activity.
Yet, while they are often described in terms of conflict, disagreements also benefit relationship building and are a normative practice in workplaces (Angouri Reference Angouri2012; Sifianou Reference Sifianou2012). Indeed, disagreements deploy a wide range of devices that contextualize social bonds and do relational work. For example, Habib (Reference Habib2008) finds that friends from different cultural backgrounds but with established relationships use jocular disagreements to build shared identities, raise awareness of sociocultural differences, and exchange information about social values. That is, they contextualize friendships as a means of strengthening information sharing and solidarity. Schiffrin (Reference Schiffrin1984) calls such interactions ‘sociable arguments’ and this is why, as Sifianou (Reference Sifianou2012) contends, the relational history of participants is critical to understanding the function of disagreements.
Given that they make use of social bonds, disagreements can be seen as one of many interactional mechanisms for mobilizing social capital. For example, disagreements are associated with better decision-making because they encourage information sharing and collaborative decision-making (Holmes & Marra Reference Holmes and Marra2004; Angouri & Bargiela-Chiappini Reference Angouri and Bargiela-Chiappini2011). Additionally, they are a means of asserting agency in order to influence work activities and establish empowered identities (Locher Reference Locher2004; Schnurr & Chan Reference Schnurr and Chan2011). Disagreements also use devices that contextualize intimacy to both mitigate conflict and strengthen group cohesion (Marra Reference Marra2012). Thus, interactional studies of disagreements find they facilitate outcomes similar to those theorized in formal social capital models.
As for international workers, however, it is no surprise that even in the doing of disagreements they are disadvantaged. This is illustrated by Marra (Reference Marra2012) who finds that migrant workers in New Zealand lack sociopragmatic knowledge for how to appropriately express opposing views in the local context. Then, when they attempt to disagree, their colleagues will interpret it as linguistic trouble instead of disagreement, thereby thwarting the disagreements and consequently restricting the migrant's agency. As such, focusing the present study on the interactional context of disagreements naturally draws out tensions associated with the existence or nonexistence of established social bonds.
Americans in Japan
The social context of American interns in a Japanese workplace also gives rise to important intersections between relationships and interculturality. For instance, it is commonly agreed that interpersonal networks are highly valued in Japanese professional circles, are built and maintained over a long period of time, and those who cultivate them enjoy greater influence (Yoshimura & Anderson Reference Yoshimura and Anderson1997). This makes it difficult for newcomers—foreigners in particular—to enter Japanese professional networks, especially over a short period of time. Thus, the international interns of the present study are not likely to have much, if any, useable social capital.
Additionally, as Americans, the interns also face certain broad ideologies that circulate in the milieu of Japanese society. While the term for foreigner, gaijin, ostensibly refers to any non-Japanese national, it is strongly associated with an ideological image of a Caucasian English-speaker, particularly one who is ignorant of Japanese social workings and unable to access Japanese language and culture (Cook Reference Cook, DuFon and Churchill2006; Suzuki Reference Suzuki, Nguyen and Kasper2009). However, given that English skills are strongly emphasized in Japanese companies and society at large (Seargeant Reference Seargeant2009), this ideological image can also benefit foreigners fitting a gaijin image as it enables them to claim expertise over something of value to many companies.
Thus, in the context of this study, American workers may face challenges entering established social circles, but their interculturality may help compensate to the extent that it allows them to claim power via, for instance, English expertise. Hence this context is one in which cultural differences are likely to be salient and useable. Whereas the interns may not be able to use interpersonal trust to gain information, combat restrictions on their agency, and create common identities, they may be able to deploy ideologies regarding their foreign identities to realize similar outcomes.
Data and methods
The data come from close observations of three American students participating in an internship program sponsored by a large private university in the United States. As all three are Caucasian native speakers of English, they fit the ideological image of gaijin described above. They also spoke Japanese relatively well, and had resided in Japan for several years prior to the internship: one living with family, one as part of an exchange program, and one for volunteer activities.
Two of the interns (‘David’ and ‘Ethan’) worked for the same engineering company near Tokyo but during different summers. The third (‘Joe’) worked for a robotics company near Nagoya. Both companies host interns each year as part of an agreement with the students’ university. The interns are assigned to a workgroup and given tasks that usually involve testing prototypes and preparing design schematics. Occasionally, they are also asked to translate technical specifications into English, interpret for English-speaking clients, and teach English conversation to colleagues. However, the linguistic environment is predominately Japanese and the interns are the only foreigners in their workgroups.
Audio recordings were made during a two-day observation of each intern. The interns wore a lapel recorder while the researcher shadowed them throughout their daily routine that consisted of collaboration on projects, meetings, and social talk during breaks. The researcher also took field notes and interviewed the interns and their colleagues to capture data on participants’ perceptions of sociocultural ideologies.
The analytical methodology follows interactional sociolinguistics, which links micro-level discursive interaction to macro-level ideologies via contextualization cues (Gumperz Reference Gumperz, Sarangi and Roberts1990). First, recordings were examined to find any interaction involving disagreements, defined broadly as any expression of a different assessment, opinion, or belief in a turn following some initial assessment by an interlocutor (see Pomerantz Reference Pomerantz, Atkinson and Heritage1984). Then, transcripts of these episodes were analyzed to identify the resources used to disagree and how those resources contextualize interpersonal relationships and social ideologies. Following this initial analysis, disagreements were grouped based on similarities in form and function and analyzed again in light of the social capital model by looking for evidence of whether or not the participants orient toward objectives related to information sharing, agency, and solidarity. If and when such evidence could be found, I then examined the surrounding discourse and field notes to determine the participants’ apparent objectives and what social information they seem to draw from in achieving those objectives.
Analysis: Interculturality as social capital in disagreements
Despite using a broad definition, disagreements were not especially common, with just twenty-eight instances in a sample of fifteen hours. This infrequency is not surprising given the context. For instance, if interns lack competencies to disagree, they may simply avoid them. They also occupy a low institutional position from which it is difficult to assert contrary opinions. Furthermore, because they are participating in an experiential learning program, interns are expected to observe and learn rather than contribute. Accordingly, they tend to take instruction without debate, and even when they did express differing opinions it was often when posing questions to correct misunderstandings rather than disagreeing per se.
After categorizing and analyzing the interactions, I found three ways that interculturality is mobilized to achieve outcomes that social capital theory otherwise links to the possession of strong interpersonal relationships: (i) aspects of the interns’ foreign identities can reverse the flow of information by allowing them to claim expertise over certain topics, (ii) interns contextualize gaijin ideologies in sarcastic ways that complain about limitations stemming from lack of trust, and (iii) interns’ foreignness is used to generate humor in ways that create shared experiences. That is, interactional constructions of interculturality, rather than contextualization of relational histories, are used to achieve social capital outcomes.
Reversing the flow of information: Interculturality to claim expertise
The first set of disagreements is characterized by how interculturality reverses typical flows of information. Perhaps the most salient feature of interactions between foreign interns and local workers is the inherent power differential. Interns, unfamiliar with local sociocultural practices, are generally not expected to contribute meaningfully. Thus their colleagues take up ‘teacher’ roles and, as a result, information flows from local workers to foreign interns but generally not in reverse. This is illustrated in excerpt (1) where an intern, Ethan, is discussing a technical diagram with his colleague, Miyazaki.
(1) ET: Ethan, MI: MiyazakiFootnote 1
In line 1, Ethan suggests that a metal component should be bent fifty degrees. Miyazaki reacts in line 2 with a change-of-state marker, aa, and then rephrases Ethan's claim with the nominalizer n da which marks ‘it’ as containing new or unassimilated information (Iwasaki Reference Iwasaki2013:305) thereby signaling that Ethan's assessment was unexpected. Ethan tries to elaborate but encounters linguistic difficulty (lines 3 and 5) and Miyazaki takes a ‘teaching’ role in response. First, Miyazaki inspects the component and observes that it is actually straight, using deshoo ‘right?’ (line 7) to seek alignment (Iwasaki Reference Iwasaki2013:304). Ethan agrees but uses kedo ‘but’ (line 8) to pivot back to his contrary belief that it should be bent, appealing to the diagram for support. Miyazaki then counters by claiming Ethan misread the diagram, orienting to Ethan's claim with soo shitara ‘in that case’ but negating it with janakute ‘it's not that, but (rather)…’ (line 9).
In framing Ethan's contrary assessment as a misunderstanding, Miyazaki plays the role of an instructor teaching Ethan to properly read the diagram. Ethan consequently takes the role of ‘learner’ by deferring to Miyazaki (in line 10) and requesting instruction on how to proceed (line 12). At this point, the interaction is no longer a disagreement but an instructional situation with Miyazaki as ‘information-giver’ and Ethan as ‘information-receiver’—roles that mirror their institutional positions. This establishes a unidirectional flow of information in which it would be difficult for Ethan to continue to disagree. In fact, Ethan admitted in an interview that he often defers even when he does not agree because, “they know more and I'm just an intern”. Thus, by taking a teaching role, Miyazaki contextualizes power differences in ways that restrict Ethan's ability to disagree.
The unidirectional flow of information is further illustrated in excerpt (2) where Ethan entirely abandons an attempt to provide a contrary opinion.
(2) ET: Ethan, TA: Tanaka
Ethan was testing electric motors and when one failed he asked a supervisor, Tanaka, for help. While walking to the test area, Ethan used an interrogative (lines 1 and 3) to begin from a position of deference and set the stage for asserting his belief that the test conditions are too strict. When Tanaka admits the conditions are strict (line 5), Ethan makes his opinion explicit by grabbing Tanaka's kibishii ‘strict,’ upgrading it to kibishi-sugiru ‘too strict’ (line 6), and then further expanding to argue that the test is not realistic, using the particle ne to seek alignment (see Cook Reference Cook1992). Tanaka aligns with soo ne ‘yeah’ (line 7), but uses demo ‘but’ to pivot to an opposing view that he prefaces with hontoo wa ‘actually’. This preface frames Tanaka's opinion as an instruction rather than a proffering of assessment for equal debate and thus contextualizes Tanaka's position as a ‘teacher’ relative to Ethan. As such, it positions Ethan as a receiver, not a source, of information. Indeed, Ethan accepts Tanaka's explanation without challenge by acknowledging it (line 8) after which several minutes of silence ensued as Ethan watched Tanaka inspect the failed motor.
In social capital terms, these two samples show how institutional power differences create interpersonal relationships that empower Ethan's colleagues, but not Ethan, with the ability to disagree. Items such as janakute ‘it's not that, but rather…’ (excerpt (1), line 9) or demo hontoo wa ‘but actually’ (excerpt (2), line 7) are forms that directly negate another position (i.e. disagree), and function to provide Ethan with information about his job duties, which he readily accepts. While expected given the institutional relationship, the resulting flow of information restricts his ability to make assessments that are valued by others. Therefore, similar to Marra's (Reference Marra2012) findings, power imbalances lead to disagreements being used by those in high-power positions to instruct those in low-power positions.
However, at times the interns’ intercultural background allows them to temporarily claim expertise in ways that reverses this typical flow of information. Excerpt (3) illustrates. Here, Ethan had brought an American beverage, root beer, to share with his colleagues, Nakata and Ootsuka, during a break.
(3) ET: Ethan, NA: Nakata, OO: Ootsuka
The participants in this interaction draw from an ideology that root beer is a strange, foreign drink in Japan—an ideology that Ethan challenges. After trying a sip, Nakata offers some to Ootsuka (line 1) who declines (line 3). In response, Ethan laughs and asks if he does not like it. Ethan's use of yappa ‘as expected’ (line 5) points to the belief that Japanese do not like root beer, and Nakata confirms this by claiming root beer does not fit typical Japanese tastes (line 7). However, Ethan challenges Nakata by countering that everyone in Okinawa drinks root beer (line 8), a claim to which he has authority based on his sociocultural background: Ethan had lived on an American military base in Okinawa, but his colleagues had never been to Okinawa. Because Okinawans are politically Japanese, and most are ethnically Japanese, they form a subset of the category of nihonjin ‘Japanese’ that Nakata referenced. So, by claiming that Okinawans drink root beer, Ethan asserts a contradictory opinion. Given Ethan's history and Nakata's lack of knowledge of root beer and Okinawa, it is difficult for Nakata to disagree. Indeed, Ethan signals his authority in line 8 by using the mutual alignment particle ne to draw Nakata's attention to Okinawa and then the particle yo to claim epistemic primacy (Hayano Reference Hayano, Stivers, Mondada and Steensig2011). Nakata, in turn, indicates the information is new to him (ah hontoo ‘oh, really’ in line 9) and accepts it without debate (he ‘huh’ in line 11).
This interaction is similar to the prior two, but with roles reversed as Ethan's identity as an American who lived in Okinawa gives him authority over knowledge of root beer culture in Okinawa. As a result, he takes the role of ‘teacher’ in dispelling the notion that root beer is an exclusively American taste. A critical point, however, is that his claim to expertise is possible because his intercultural background has been made relevant to the topic at hand. Thus, while interactions such as excerpt (3) are useful for challenging sociocultural ideologies, they are exceptional and do not necessarily empower interns within the scope of their work duties.
That said, on occasion the interns’ use of their sociocultural background did give them the ability to disagree on a narrow range of job-related topics. For instance, because English abilities are emphasized in many Japanese companies as a means of accessing global markets, the companies value interns for their English knowledge. This can be seen in the fact that, despite occupying an institutionally marginalized position, interns were asked to translate critical documents, teach English to managers, and to interpret for important international clients. Given this positioning, interns enjoy expertise on English-related questions. Excerpt (4) illustrates.
(4) TA: Tanaka, JO: Joe, TS: Tsuda
In this brief exchange, Joe is in a meeting with two colleagues, Tanaka and Tsuda, who are talking about an English class the company requires them to attend. Tanaka asks how to say hatsuon ‘pronunciation’ in English and Tsuda suggests ‘intonation’ (hatsuon was on a vocabulary list they were studying). Overhearing this, Joe directly disputes Tsuda's suggestion, using iya ‘no’ to signal disagreement and then offering ‘pronunciation’ as the correct translation (line 3). Tanaka acknowledges by repeating Joe's correction twice and then accepts it with sokka ‘I see’ (line 4). In this way, local workers readily take instruction from interns in matters related to English. Moreover, because this company considers scores on English exams for performance reviews and promotion decisions, knowing correct dictionary translations of words is a high-stakes piece of knowledge. Thus, Joe has power with respect to information that is relevant to his colleague's institutional standing due to his identity as an English speaker.
While English is the most salient work-relevant topic over which the interns hold relative expertise, there were also a few occasions where their foreign knowledge was relevant for other issues. For instance, in excerpt (5) Joe noticed that his supervisor, Sato, had incorrectly addressed a letter to an American business contact.
(5) JO: Joe, SA: Sato
Joe walked past Sato's desk and saw an envelope that Sato had addressed to a contact in Dallas by writing ‘Dallas City’. While it is obligatory to include the word ‘city’ after city names in Japanese addresses, this is not so for American ones. Joe notices the error and stops to tell her not to write ‘City’ (line 1). Sato responds by signaling she was unaware (line 2), Joe provides additional information (line 3), and Sato accepts it (line 4). Although this does not involve a direct conflict of opinions, Joe is disagreeing with how Sato wrote the address. Then, despite Sato's organizationally superior position, she defers to Joe. This is expected, however, because Joe has relative authority over knowledge of American address systems. Thus, as with the two prior examples, Joe is able to become an information-provider if and when he is seen to hold some specific expertise.
Empowering agency: Interculturality to challenge perceived lack of trust
In addition to directing the flow of information, disagreements also interface with issues of trust and agency—another important facet of social capital. Opposing views are more likely to be given more sincere consideration when interlocutors trust each other. Trust is built over time, however. Given the transient nature of interns, relationships with colleagues are not usually built on long-established trust and this, in turn, influences the shape of disagreements in ways that restrict agency. To illustrate, consider excerpt (6). Here, David needed to place a mechanical assembly in a temperature-controlled chamber for testing, but limited space in the chambers must be negotiated with others. When Suzuki found David a chamber with unoccupied space, David believed it was too small.
(6) SU: Suzuki, DA: David
In this interaction, Suzuki insists on confirming David's assessment of the chamber's size himself, an action that could signal lack of trust. In response to an inquiry from David, Suzuki identified open space in a small chamber (line 1). David then gives a contrary assessment, wondering if it will fit (line 2). His use of ki ga suru ‘(I) have a feeling’ mitigates the force of his opposition, but he also uses ne emphasized in a way that asserts his view and seeks alignment. Suzuki, however, questions David's claim with soo ‘really?’ (line 3) and suggests there is room if David rearranges items in the chamber. Then, before David responds, Suzuki attempts to place the assembly in the chamber himself, apparently discounting David's assessment by arbitrarily acting on his own personal belief.
However, Suzuki soon realizes the assembly does not fit because it is too tall and indicates this by asking takasa-teki ni? ‘in terms of height?’ (line 5). This frames the prior interaction as a miscommunication rather than a conflict of opinions: Suzuki based his belief on available floor space but David was referring to height. David aligns to this framing by providing supporting evidence, pointing out a component that adds additional height (line 6). Suzuki gives a change-of-state response indicating he now understands David's original assessment (lines 7 and 9), David confirms (line 10), and Suzuki ultimately agrees by assessing the situation as muri ‘impossible’ (line 11).
Note that Suzuki did not accept David's view until after he gained first-hand evidence, an action that restricts David's agency in the sense that David's opinion must be verified before acted on. David perceives this as originating from a lack of trust. For example, David repeats Suzuki's assessment of muri ‘impossible’ but with a strongly emphasized ne and a prosodic quality that reads sarcastic, as if to remind Suzuki that he was correct in his first assessment. Furthermore, in interviews David explicitly linked lack of trust to his identity as a foreigner, one time remarking that, “no one trusts the gaijin and so they don't let me do as much as other people”.
In other instances, David's explicitly links perceived lack of trust to his foreignness. This is illustrated in excerpt (7) where he is looking for a specific tool.
(7) DA: David, SH: Shin
Here, David connects his limited ability to disagree to a lack of trust. When David asks for a tool (line 1) Shin offers one (line 3). However, prior to the interaction David had already tried that particular tool and knew it was too big. He claimed this in line 5, but rather than accepting this assessment, Shin—like Suzuki—questions with soo ‘really?’ and proceeds to test it himself (line 6). While Shin does this, David continues to insist he has tried all of the tools (lines 7 and 9), using yo to mark epistemic primacy (Hayano Reference Hayano, Stivers, Mondada and Steensig2011). That is, David claims he has knowledge that Shin lacks—namely, that he tried the tool already—even as Shin discounts David's claim. Shin soon realizes the tool is too big and concedes by laughingly saying wakarimashita ‘I understand’ (line 10).
In response, David explicitly links this apparent lack of trust to his foreign identity. The framing of Shin's concession is playful, with exaggerated prosodic contours and laughter. David uses this playful frame to complain with shinrai shite kure yo:::: ‘trust me!’ (line 11). Although this turn uses a blunt command form, kure, it is produced with a playful tone. David then takes it further, referring to himself as baka na gaijin ‘stupid foreigner’ (line 13). The collocation of baka ‘stupid’ with gaijin ‘foreigner’ contextualizes stereotypes regarding the incompetence of foreigners, but David downgrades this by saying he's ‘not that stupid’. Thus, David leverages his foreign identity to make an explicit, though playfully mitigated, complaint.
Excerpts (6) and (7) illustrate how interculturality can be a tool for contesting perceived lack of trust. The disagreements in both are structured similarly: David initially offers a contrary assessment, his colleagues act in accordance with their own beliefs anyway, and David interprets this as a dismissal of his opinion. In the latter excerpt, he explicitly links the dismissal to his foreign identity. At other times, including in interviews, David complained about lack of trust and admitted to responding accordingly. Once, he said he felt he had to “own [his] gaijin-ness” by accepting his marginalized position and trying to use it to his advantage by “doing what gaijin do”. In fact, all of the interns said that, to some extent, they felt being a foreigner resulted in less trust. Although it is possible that in reality low levels of trust stem from the transitory nature of the interns rather than their cultural background, the point is the interns believed their foreignness was largely responsible. As a result, they harness stereotypical ideologies that frame gaijin as incompetent to create playful spaces in which to mount serious complaints.
Building solidarity: Interculturality to facilitate sociable disagreements
A third way interculturality is used in disagreements relates to how it generates humor. Humor mitigates conflict while simultaneously defining group boundaries by building on shared cultural values and in-group identification (Holmes & Marra Reference Holmes and Marra2002; Marra & Holmes Reference Marra, Holmes, Kotthoff and Spencer-Oatey2007; Rogerson-Revell Reference Rogerson-Revell2007). Because they lack shared identities, international interns are limited in their ability to harness the conflict-mitigating and solidarity-building effects of humor. Contextualization of foreign identities, however, co-occurs with playfulness in ways that facilitate sociable disagreements, and this may help create shared experiences and redefine group boundaries. To illustrate, consider excerpt (8). Part of Ethan's work assignments included holding occasional English conversation classes. During a break, Ethan's colleagues talked extensively about Ethan's classes and in response Ethan jokingly requested that his colleagues provide a Japanese class as compensation.
(8) ET: Ethan, NI: Nishiguchi, TO: Toda
This playful disagreement is characteristic of Schiffrin's (Reference Schiffrin1984) ‘sociable disagreements’. Ethan's request in line 1 is initially framed as a joke by a laughing tone. Nishiguchi responds in that frame by evaluating Ethan's suggestion positively (line 2) and joking that the class be named after him (line 4). Next, Toda, another colleague, bluntly interjects to mock Nishiguchi's suggestion by saying there is no need for such a class (line 5). Ethan latches to Toda's turn with a similarly blunt contradiction, saying he does need it (line 6). Grammatically, Ethan's assessment is an explicit, on-record disagreement as it repeats Toda's hitsuyoo ‘need’ with the copula changed from a negative nai ‘do not’ to a non-negative desu ‘do’. Because both Toda and Ethan's bluntness is pragmatically too strong in this context, it reads as playful.
Next, Ethan inserts his foreignness by performing an over-exaggerated persona of a foreigner who cannot speak Japanese, using a distorted conglomeration of English and poorly pronounced Japanese (line 8). For instance, rather than nihongo ‘Japanese’ he says Japan-go which appends the English word ‘Japan’ to the Japanese suffix go ‘language’. He also distorts wakarimasen ‘don't understand’ by changing the /r/ from the Japanese alveolar tap [ɾ] to an overemphasized English liquid [ɹ] and the closed front vowel [i] to an English schwa. The result is an intentional mispronunciation that elicits further laughter and a negative evaluation from Toda (line 10). Ethan concludes by jokingly pleading for help (line 11).
Ethan's performance supports the playful nature of his disagreement while creating a shared experience and shifting group boundaries. By exaggerating his poor linguistic skills, Ethan uses stereotypes of foreigners’ linguistic skills to contradict Toda's assessment by offering fabricated evidence for why he needs a Japanese class. The result is shared laughter as Ethan mocks his own foreignness. Yet, in reality, Ethan does teach English classes to these same colleagues—a context in which they are language learners. Thus, Ethan's performance contextualizes their different linguistic identities to create a shared identity as language learners.
That interculturality is salient for creating shared humor in disagreements where other interpersonal bonds are lacking is further illustrated in excerpt (9). During lunch with a few colleagues, David's colleagues were discussing the Japanese word undookai, which was translated as ‘athletics meeting’ in an English textbook produced by their company. However, David felt this was a pragmatically odd rendition and, prior to the following excerpt, Miyazaki offered ‘sports festival’ as a better translation.
(9) DA: David, MI: Miyazaki
Again, this disagreement is sociable and plays on David's identity as an English speaker. Prior to this excerpt there was lengthy discussion among the local workers about Miyazaki's suggestion to translate undookai as ‘sports festival’. Eventually, David interjected by saying he thinks ‘sports festival’ is best (line 1), but the illocutionary force is ambiguous: it could be an agreement with Miyazaki's suggestion or a proffering of a new one. Playing on this ambiguity, Miyazaki interprets it as the latter and counters with an imperative, ordering David to not imitate him (line 2). This elicits laughter from onlookers and a contradiction from David (line 4). Nevertheless, Miyazaki continues the disagreement by claiming ownership over the suggestion of ‘sports festival’ (line 5). David then tries to disambiguate his original interjection by explicitly declaring it to indicate agreement with Miyazaki (line 6). The sparring continues one more round (lines 7 and 8) after which David's foreignness is made relevant when Miyazaki teasingly tells him to be original, using a blunt command form, dase ‘show’ (line 9). This implies that, as an English speaker, David should be able to offer a more innovative translation. In response, David mockingly apologizes (line 10) and sarcastically concedes the argument (line 11) by switching to an exaggerated honorific speech style, using the title sama and the verb osshatta ‘to say’ in reference to Miyazaki, both of which index someone of a higher social position (Iwasaki Reference Iwasaki2013).
In this playful disagreement, both Miyazaki and David draw on power and cultural differences in ways that may help construct a common identity. Miyazaki marks his institutional superiority by issuing a blunt command. Yet, the content is to tell David to be more original in his English use, which ironically contextualizes David's superior position vis-à-vis the topic of conversation. Also, David's abrupt switch from the very casual style that pervades the interaction to an exaggerated honorific style mocks their power differential by playing the role of a subordinate in deference to an irreproachable superior. This strengthens the irony by further positioning David as inferior regarding a topic to which he has more intrinsic authority, and Miyazaki's urging him to be more original implicitly admits that David is the expert. The irony dynamically reconstructs expert/novice relationships while simultaneously creating a style of humor that is shared by everyone in the group. In a sense, they are using differences to create solidarity by mocking those differences (see Habib Reference Habib2008). In fact, in interviews several of David's colleagues cited their mutual teasing as evidence for how well they got along.
In this way, then, because the interns and their colleagues do not have established personal relationships to draw from, they instead play on salient perceived differences to build a mutual in-group. As a result, interculturality becomes a resource for doing sociable disagreements that result in shared experiences and enhance group solidarity. By drawing from larger ideologies of foreigners, participants renegotiate boundaries in which all share in the joke.
Conclusion
The analysis presented here adopts a formal social capital model to illustrate how American interns and their Japanese colleagues work toward various outcomes. Specifically, the model predicts that social relationships can be leveraged to enhance information sharing, agency, and solidarity. Given the emphasis of work in both sociolinguistics and management studies on the value of interpersonal bonds in achieving these outcomes, it might be predicted that international workers are disadvantaged to the extent that they lack relational histories. The present study challenges this prediction by illustrating ways that participants use perceptions of interculturality to impact these same outcomes. Thus, in the context of the present study, interculturality is an asset, not a liability.
Using data from disagreements, which are seen as mechanisms for mobilizing relationships in ways that increase agency, the study shows how representations of interculturality relate to outcomes predicted by the social capital model. First, given their position in the company, interns usually defer to colleagues when opposing opinions arise. When they are able to leverage their interculturality as a claim to expertise, however, they become the source of information, thereby reversing the usual flow of information. Second, when interns felt their opinions were dismissed, some (such as David) responded sarcastically by referencing ideologies of foreigners in order to challenge perceived lack of trust and assert the correctness of their own position. Finally, representations of interculturality are used to engage in ‘sociable disagreements’ (Schiffrin Reference Schiffrin1984) in ways that create shared humor and construct common identities.
Representations of interculturality, however, are a more limited asset than traditional forms of social capital. First, the interns are only a source of information when their claim to expertise derives from related sociocultural identities. Even when interns have more knowledge through experience, such as when David tried the tools first, their opinions still tend to be discounted. Second, while the interns use intercultural ideologies to sarcastically challenge limitations on their agency, it is not clear that this actually empowers them; for instance, there is no evidence in the data that complaining about marginalization increases trust in subsequent disagreements. Finally, while jokes related to identities can enhance feelings of solidarity, they do this by simultaneously foregrounding perceived differences. While this may be inclusive solidarity in the moment, it may also reinforce sociocultural barriers.
The application of a social capital framework aligns what we know about how individuals use symbolic representations of social constructs with what is known about why social relationships are beneficial in professional settings. In many ways, the results here are expected. Naturally, in intercultural settings cultural ideologies and stereotypes are highly salient and thus it is no surprise that participants would draw on them to manage the complexities of linguistic and cultural diversity. What this study does is attempt to position socially constructed representations of interculturality within a broader theoretical account of the potentially many other forms of symbolic ‘capital’ that enable action. Accumulations of social capital, like any other form of capital, are assets that are built by investing over time. Using perceptions of cultural differences, however, does not require such investments—it simply exists in the ideological discourses that surround perceived cultural differences. Thus, interculturality is not a ‘capital’ in its own right even while it is an asset with utility similar to that of other forms of capital. This implies that the theoretical notion of ‘capital’ may be too limited. Is it the existence of investments in relationships over time that empowers individuals, or is it a more general ability to construct and represent social meanings from a diverse range of sources—of which social capital and interculturality are particular types of assets—that truly enables action? While both undoubtedly have value, this study highlights some specific utilities of the latter.
Appendix: Transcription conventions
Symbols used in direct transcriptions:
Abbreviations used in interlinear glosses:
