Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

LEE-WONG SONG MEI

Abstract This paper examines intercultural communication from the standpoint of language as a social phenomenon (Searle) and argues for the consideration of context as basic to this approach. Based on conversation analysis of transactional exchanges between native and non-native speakers of English, it is found that miscommunication is the result of participants applying culture-specific rules to the interpretation of a single message. The analyses of verbal repertoire and verbal behavior of non-native speakers show that interlingual transfer is a common phenomenon. Lack of speech convergence in the speech styles of both native and non-native speakers may be attributed to differing participant backgrounds in cultural and communicative conventions. There is empirical evidence to suggest that successful intercultural communication in a multilingual, cross-cultural setting is dependent, amongst other factors, on the observation that: 1. verbal politeness is culture-specific 2. speech acts are speech variety-specific 3. speech styles are influenced by interlingual transfer. 1. Introduction Theorists who hold the view of language as situated talk consider context as basic to meaning. Speech act theorists emphasize the essence of meaning as residing in human action. This view is reflected in Grices definition of meaning as the effect that a sender intends to produce as a receiver by means of a message (Grice 1975). Anthropologists such as Duranti and Goodwin (1992) in their consideration of context note the notion of the larger sociocultural context emphasized by Malinowski (1923):
Multilingua 21 (2002), 79 99 01678507/2002/021 0079 Walter de Gruyter

80

Lee-Wong Song Mei The utterance itself becomes only intelligible when it is placed within its context of situation Words (which) are uttered can never be passed over as irrelevant to the linguistic expression. the conception of context must be substantially widened, if it is to furnish us with its full utility. In fact it must burst the bonds of mere linguistics and be carried over into the analysis of the general conditions under which a language is spoken. (Malinowski 1923: 306)

Gumperz (1982) emphasizes contextualizing functions in his theory of signs in discourse strategies. Underpinning this theory is his seminal notion of contextualization cues which he defines as any feature of linguistic form that contributes to the signalling of contextual presuppositions depending on the historically given linguistic repertoire of the participants. The code, dialect and style-switching processes, prosodic phenomena as well as choice among lexical and syntactic options, formulaic expressions, conversational openings, closings and sequencing strategies can all have similar contextualizing functions. (Gumperz 1982a: 131) Using contextualization cues as a basis for the study of the inferential process of conversational analysis, Gumperz illustrated how miscommunication occurs in modern society where people from diverse communicative and cultural backgrounds do not react to a cue or are unaware of its function. It is important to note that when this happens and when a difference in interpretation is brought to a participants attention, it tends to be seen in attitudinal terms. A speaker is said to be unfriendly, impertinent, rude, uncooperative, or fail to understand (Gumperz 1982a: 132). In this paper1 we examine and identify what kinds of contextualization cues trigger intercultural miscommunication. Take, for instance, in the area of speech acts, when participants from different cultures interact, much of their communication is colored by personal beliefs and practices, for instance, what is considered appropriate or polite. As an illustration, the following voice mail left by a Chinese bilingual (English and Chinese Mandarin) Singaporean for her native English-speaking friend, raises the issue of politeness in requests: Kindly return my page. This friend was reportedly uncomfortable because she felt the speaker was putting social distance into the communication when she perceived

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

81

it as non-existent. She admitted that she would have been more comfortable with: Will you give me a ring please. Speech acts such as common requests which are considered to be inherently face-threatening because of their imposition on the addressee (Brown and Levinson 1987) often cause misinterpretation and misunderstanding between speakers from different cultural and social backgrounds. Miscommunication in intercultural communication situations such as this is not uncommon in non-native English-speaking countries where most speakers have as their first language or mother tongue a language other than English. The pragmatics of knowing the appropriate routines for requesting, complaining, agreeing, praising, and thanking is crucial to effective intercultural communication. In view of the growth of regional varieties of English in South East Asia, the level of pragmatics as an area of study has gained greater attention. That the pragmatics of speech acts should consider the identification of Global norms or standards as distinct from AmE/BrE-determined standards (Toolan 1999: 28) is certainly in line with the need to analyze Global norms in the larger sociocultural context of the conditions under which a language is spoken (Malinowski 1923: 306). Kachru (1981) emphasizes the importance of relating the appropriacy of a speech act to its context, which he describes as culture-bound. The range of verbal repertoire, which forms an essential part of communicative competence, determined by culture-bound parameters, and the concept of acceptability, appropriateness and intelligibility cannot be used independently of this context. Therefore, the appropriateness and congruence of a speech act in English has to be related to the specific variety, for example, Indian English, Nigerian English, or West Indies English. (Kachru 1981: 19, italics mine) The relationship between culture and language is similarly emphasized by Clyne (1994) in his study of intercultural communication at work. Clyne argues strongly for the concept of culture entrenched in language at the discourse level: I will argue not that language determines culture, but rather that the discourse level of language is inseparable from cultural behaviour and that, except in individuals with a high degree of biculturalism as well as bilingualism, this will determine a great deal of inter-lingual transfer at the discourse level. (Clyne 1994: 6, italics mine)

82

Lee-Wong Song Mei

Interestingly, the data for this paper support much of Clynes argument, specifically that the cultural behavior of bilinguals affects the discourse level of language, and that interlingual transfer is one of the major factors underlying verbal behavior in intercultural communication. Based on the analysis of naturally occurring data, it is argued that: (1) miscommunication between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of English in Singapore can be attributed to differences in communicative and cultural conventions: that for Singaporean NNS such differences can be traced to inter-lingual transfer at the discourse level, and for NS such differences can be attributed to rules of speaking; (2) that notions of verbal politeness in speech acts of requesting and apologizing are culture-specific and speech variety-specific. The focus in this paper is on mesolectal-basilectal (cf. Platt 1977) rather than acrolectal speakers of English in Singapore. It is assumed that speakers of this group are not likely to have a high degree of bilingualism and that interlingual transfer at the discourse level is more likely to occur and affect communication in a cross-cultural setting. 2. Background, framework and data analysis Using conversation analysis at the micro-level of individual interactions entails the use of a number of core concepts in sociolinguistics. One of the main ones, as used by ethnographers of communication, is that of communicative competence. For this study, the term communicative competence is defined more specifically than Hymes definition (1967) of having the knowledge of what, when, to whom, and what forms of language to use. Following Gumperz, communicative competence is defined in interactional terms the ability to create and sustain conversational cooperation based on a knowledge of linguistic and related communicative conventions (Gumperz 1982a: 209). Another useful concept is that of speech accommodation, which is particularly relevant in a cross-cultural setting where participants may apply different rules of speaking based on their respective linguistic and related communicative conventions. According to the theory of accommodation (cf. Giles and Powesland 1975) in a dyad consisting of speakers A and B, if A produces speech that is at least more similar than his/her normal speech would be to that of B, there is speech convergence. And if B reacts in the same way, there is mutual convergence. The lack of ability to converge would be in the Gricean sense and in Gumperzs terms described as a failure in conversational cooperation. In a cross-cultural setting, however, one would need to look beyond linguistic factors (cf. Clyne 1994).

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

83

The framework for the analysis of miscommunication established by Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1982b: 12) is considered most relevant for conversation analysis of intercultural communication. At the microlevel it largely encompasses notions of communicative competence, contextualization cues, and speech accommodation; at the macro-level it considers culture and language socialization. In other words, communicative competence, contextualization cues, and speech accommodation are determined extensively by culture and language socialization. Culture is in Kluckhohns words patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i. e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values (1951: 86). Language socialization as underlying the use of this term in this study refers to societal patterns of beliefs, practices and expectations, which consciously or unconsciously shape the acquisition and learning of the mother tongue/first/second language. The framework underpinning conversation analysis in this paper constitutes the following dimensions: a. cultural assumptions (i. e., about the situation, appropriate behavior, and speaker intentions) b. ways of structuring information in a conversation, and c. ways of speaking. The analysis of data based on this broad framework allows a direct focus on strategies that govern the actors use of lexical, grammatical, sociolinguistic and other knowledge in the production and interpretation of messages in context (Gumperz 1982a: 35). The data provided for this paper are collected from naturally occurring language of situated talk as recounted by native speakers of English (NS) and from participant-observation. The NS participants in the conversational exchanges are native speakers of English from Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. The NNS participants are ethnic Chinese bilinguals who have Chinese as their mother tongue or first language (L1) and English as their second language (L2). Data from an intracultural conversational exchange between Chinese NNS are included in this study as empirical evidence in support of the claim that ways of speaking and notions of politeness are culture-bound and speech variety-specific. The presentation of data for analysis and discussion is as follows: Conversations (1) and (3): Intercultural communication Conversations (2) and (4): Intracultural communication

84

Lee-Wong Song Mei

3. Non-accommodation and sociopragmatic variation In the following informal public exchanges, it is found that NS participants react to linguistic and extra-linguistic features which, while representative of the linguistic and social norms of NNS participants, convey negative implicatures. These are identified as: a. use of imperatives in direct requests, b. use of 2nd person pronoun in directives, c. use of prosodic contours transferred from speakers first language, and d. use of local discourse final particle code-mixing. 3.1 Direct requests and linguistic politeness: communicative and cultural conventions In the transactional exchange in conversation (1), the NS participant (J) was annoyed and frustrated by the NNS (S1). J considers the sales assistant to be impolite and uncooperative, a perception based on the abrupt and unfriendly tone permeating the speech style of S1: No more, come back after 5 oclock. Still not here. Come tomorrow. (1) Counter transaction between NS (J) and NNS (S1) First time: 1 J: Have you got any more stamps, 100 thirty-cent stamps? 2 S1: No more, come back after 5 oclock. Second time 5.15 p.m. J again asked for the stamps. 3 S1: Come tomorrow. 4 J: But you told me to come after 5, and Ive come. 5 S1: Still not here. (S checks with another sales person at the back of the shop) 6 S1: Come tomorrow. In this utterance But you told me to come after 5, and Ive come the use of but implies that J interprets the request Come tomorrow as a contradiction of her earlier request Come back after 5 oclock. She probably considers the sales assistant to have broken her promise or as being uncooperative. On the other hand, the communicative competence of the sales assistant is questionable. Whether it is because of a lack in language ability or effort, her level of directness is considered offensive

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

85

by J. Directness in public situations is likely to cause offense so that the mitigating effect of a rising or falling rising tune becomes even more important (Gumperz 1982a: 169). The directives Come back after 5 oclock and Come tomorrow were in this case spoken with a falling tone, as narrated and recalled by J. As a consequence, the illocutionary force of the imperative (IMP) Do X is intensified. The falling tone of the requests in lines 2, 3, and 6 would communicate a note of finality and non-negotiation, a clear threat to Js negative face the desire to be unimposed upon (Brown and Levinson 1987). In the absence of a polite conversational opening or any form of linguistic politeness, one can understand how direct requests can be perceived as face threats to a speaker socialized in the conventions of Western norms of conventionally indirect requests. Can you come back at 5 oclock? or Can you come tomorrow? would have been regarded as socially acceptable to J. Offering J an option as to whether she would like to make another trip would have been less imposing. The frustration of the NS participant is reflected in her use of the word but and her emphasis that she had made the trip at her request. What is significant is that in this exchange, the NNS participant, S1, did not extend an apology to J. Was her directive Come back after 5 oclock to be interpreted as a promise? One interpretation is that at the time she made the request she believed it to be possible that the stamps would arrive at 5 oclock, in which case it would be truer for her to say: We dont have any more thirty-cent stamps now. If you come back after five, we might have them. That she had not is probably more a reflection of her language proficiency at the lectal end of the scale. S1s use of the word still (Still not here) shows that she understood Js remonstrance and that it was past 5.00 p.m. However, it appears from the exchange that she did not intend to take responsibility for the fact that the stamps she thought would be available at 5 oclock had not arrived. In this exchange, where J felt the other party was letting her down, she would have felt compensated if S1 had admitted her mistake of unintentionally misleading J or shown some form of contriteness by way of an apology. That J felt she was entitled to one was understandable because the latter had promised her that the stamps would be there at 5.00 p.m. However, from the perspective of S1 the fact that the stamps had not arrived at 5.00 p.m was solely a delivery problem. Since the blame did not lie with her, to say sorry could perhaps be construed as an admission of guilt or inefficiency. According to Fraser (1981) certain beliefs must be held to be true by the S(peaker) or the apologizer:

86 1. 2. 3. 4.

Lee-Wong Song Mei S believes some act has been performed prior to the time of speaking. S believes that the act personally offended H. S believes that he was at least partly responsible for the offence. S genuinely feels regret for the act he committed.

From the sales assistants perspective, she would be inclined to believe (1) and (2), perhaps not (3) and definitely not (4). In this case an act of apology would be rather insincere and/or inappropriate. In other words, S1 had not found it necessary to apologize to J in the usual manner of ritual redress. These beliefs stipulated by Fraser vary cross-culturally according to a speakers language socialization and culture. For S1 as a Chinese bilingual, the word sorry may be reserved only for substantive rather than ritual compensation. According to Bergman and Kasper (1993) ritualistic apologies are concerned with redressing virtual offenses and substantive apologies aim at redressing actual damage inflicted on the addressee (1993: 82). The Chinese equivalent for sorry is duibuqi which is translatable as (you as offender are) not being able to look somebody in the eye. As an expression of apology it is in the strict sense of the term reserved for substantive apologies. S1s verbal behavior, to some extent may not be entirely due to a lack of communicative competence but rather to a difference in culture and language socialization. This interpretation finds support from the speech behavior of the sales assistant S2 in onversation (2). The setting is an English-speaking university campus and she appears to have a better command of English and to be more sociolinguistically competent. The apology (line 6) extended to L is better considered as ritualistic rather than substantive compensation. However, it is interesting to note that not unlike S2, she uses the imperative in line 5. (2) Telephone inquiry about a book 1 2 3 4 5 6 L: Would you have this book ? (reads out the title) S2: You go too fast. L: (Slows down and repeats the title) S2: Its a language book, isnt it? L: Yes. S2: You hold on. Hold on. (Goes away to check up on it) S2: Sorry, we dont have it.

These two speakers S1 and S2 in both transactions show interlingual features in the realization of request forms and their preference for mini-

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

87

mal language use. Such language behavior may be attributed to culture and language socialization. Generally, Singapore Chinese are considered to be collectivists who are likely to emphasize group identity/obligations over individual identity/obligations. Ting-Toomey and Chungs (1996: 239) concept of relational face which refers to the proper considerations and respect accorded to the relational partner and her or his ingroups may explain the communicative competence of S1 and S2. It can be argued that since S1 does not know J (a customer) there is no necessity for her to attend to this relational face, and politeness strategies may therefore be considered irrelevant. Pans (2000) study of business encounters shows this to be the case in Southern China. Her data show contrastive speech behaviors of two Chinese sales assistants from two different stores. In the state-run store, there was minimal verbal exchange between the sales person and the customer, for example: A: How much is this one? B: $ 98 In contrast, in the privately-owned store there was friendly involvement. Politeness perceptions and strategies according to Pan depend first on speakers knowledge of addressees and then on the situation. In other words, where social distance is large, relational face is non-existent and language behavior will accordingly reflect this social factor. The influence of relational face as a contextual factor in polite interaction may find some explanation in Gus (1990: 239) definition of limao/politeness: the notion of respectfulness (selfs appreciation of the others positive face), the notion of attitudinal warmth (selfs demonstration of kindness and consideration) and the notion of refinement (self behavior which meets certain standards). Based on these conceptualizations of politeness drawn along cultural lines, one might say that in conversation (1), the sales assistant S1, has either fallen short of limao, lacking in refinement, attitudinal warmth, and respectfulness or that she has been observing social distance in a public setting 3.2 Personal deixis in requests: focalization In addition to the use of direct requests using IMPs (to be discussed in greater detail later) the use of deixis proved to be a focal point of intercultural miscommunication. In conversation (3), miscommunication between the NS and the NNS participants involves the use of the second person pronoun pronounced as a stressed syllable (italics): You wait a minute.

88

Lee-Wong Song Mei

(3) Telephone exchange between NS (H) and NNS (R) 1 2 3 4 5 H: R1: H: R1: H: This is X (NAME) Im returning your phone call. Huh? This is XX (NAME) Im returning your phone call. You wait a minute. (Passes the call to another person) You phoned me the other day and asked me to phone back. You gave me this number. (Transferred to another line) H: This is XX (NAME) Im returning your phone call. You phoned me the other day and asked me to phone back. You gave me this number. R2: Whats the number of the invoice?

The NS participant, speaker H, reported that Wait a minute please would have been acceptable. As a vocative you as Murphy (1988) points out is considered rude, and speakers have to choose an appropriate address term. In this case if the NNS participant, R1 had used an address term: Title wait a minute, it would have communicated, by way of signaling positive face support to H, a degree of politeness even without the polite lexeme please. Let us examine these two request forms and their politeness implications: A: You wait a minute. B: Wait a minute. Utterance A may be described as speaker-based, that is, Speaker signals his/her intention of bringing the role of the Hearer into prominence. The on-record request: You do X without the on-record politeness linguistic marker please is understandably perceived to be impolite by Hearer. Utterance B in contrast, as an on-record request, does not single out Hearer as the person to carry out the instruction. Speaker assertion seems to be less strong as Speaker presence is more distant the further away from the egocentric centre, the more polite the utterance is (Koike 1989: 194). In Utterance A, the use of the second person pronoun as a point of focalization (Haverkate 1992) in the speech act rule of requesting in English, has a pragmatic effect of strong Speaker presence and assertion. Further, the use of imperative in this case does not extend to Hearer an option of refusal deemed to be a violation of R. Lakoffs (1973: 293 298) politeness rules: (1) Dont impose (2) Give options (3) Make the listener feel good

be friendly

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

89

Whereas utterance A implies I want you to do X, utterance B does not. The stress on you and the falling intonation of the request in line 4 You wait a minute further intensify the focalization of the personal deixis in this directive. Not surprisingly, the NS addressee H found the stressed 2nd person pronoun you to be offensive because she felt that she was singled out to obey an instruction, somewhat similar to a parental command, e. g., You just sit there. Dont move. 3.3 Sociopragmatic variation: request realizations In conversation (3), Js expectation of a speech model based on her own communicative convention (Wait a minute please as opposed to You wait a minute) reflects a lack of mutual convergence in speech style. This misinterpretation by J is obviously due to differences in cultural presuppositions and communicative conventions in the speech act of requesting. As a participant-observer and an addressee in conversation (2), the utterance You hold on posed no face threat to me. This non-negative reaction may be attributed to Hearers shared background knowledge of Singapore English in which expressions You wait and You hold on constitute the norms in a telephone exchange; they are invariably variety-specific request forms of Singaporeans in general. You wait a minute is a typical example of inter-lingual transfer (from L1), structurally similar to the Chinese equivalent: Ni deng yixia/You wait a minute. If we examine the range of Chinese functional equivalents of the request realizations of You wait a minute in order of increasing politeness, one can see the convergence of Chinese and English in requesting. Ni deng yixia Nin deng yixia Qing ni deng yixia Qing nin deng yixia You wait a minute Polite you wait a minute Please you wait minute Please polite you wait a minute

Alternatively, the use of second person pronoun as deixis can be omitted as in: Deng yixia Qing deng yixia Wait a minute Please wait a minute

Due mainly to phonological and semantic differences between Chinese and English, plain you/ni vs polite you/nin as a deixis, whether stressed or unstressed, unlike English, normally has no negative meaning of finger-pointing at Hearer. The production of the vowel /i/ in ni/nin is rela-

90

Lee-Wong Song Mei

tively shorter and softer than the relatively longer and harsher /u:/ in you. Thus, even when stressed, ni/nin, unlike you stressed in English, will not sound coercive or assertive. Semantically, there are perceived differences between the Chinese and the English second person pronoun. Unlike the English you, the Chinese language makes a distinction between ni and nin in the second person pronoun. The use of nin allows a speaker to extend positive politeness deference and/or distance to Hearer whereas the use of ni signals casualness and familiarity. The English democratic you, on the other hand, in Wierzbickas words, does not allow the speaker to get psychologically close to the addressee (1991: 47). This is, as she claims in contrast to languages with the T V distinction, where the speaker has the option of signaling intimacy. In Chinese, the T V distinction is largely represented by ni nin. As a consequence when an English native speaker hears You wait a minute, the hearer cues into the use of personal deixis and feels offended at being singled out. In contrast, a Chinese NNS is more likely to attend to the semantic component of waiting dont hang up the phone, rather than the vocative you. Participant observation and data evident in conversations (2) and (3) show that the request You hold on is typically used by Singaporeans. The frequency distribution of You hold on versus Hold on please is roughly in the ratio of 3:1. This request form appears to be another example of interlingual transfer. This requesting behavior of Singaporeans is not an isolated phenomenon because Trosborg (1995) found that Danish speakers of English retain their Danish requesting behavior even when they have attained an advanced level of English linguistically. 3.4 Code-mixing: Use of local discourse final particle In conversation (3) the use of a local discourse particle by the NNS participant huh, which roughly means what? or the more polite form pardon? caused initial confusion and annoyance to the NS Hearer. If we examine the opening lines of the conversation, we find that the NNSs use of a local discourse final particle huh created a communication barrier. J interpreted this lexeme as a rude remark because it sounded like a rude word to her. It would have been more appropriate if R1 had responded with the formulaic expression Yes, how can I help you? That she had not raises the question of sociolinguistic competence on the part of this speaker and the lack of cultural knowledge on the part of the Hearer. A breakdown in communication is clearly reflected by the fact that J had to resort to several repetitions to get her message across. You phoned me the other day and asked me to phone back was repeated twice and Im returning your call was repeated three times. In this

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

91

telephone conversation R1 appears to be reluctant to clarify the purpose of the call. There was an inability in Gumperzs terms to create and sustain conversational cooperation (1982), triggered in part by a misunderstanding of a local lexeme huh. This lexeme is one of the many Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) particles, similar to lah, ah, hor, what (Gupta1997: 129). These final discourse particles and others ho, lo and le are markers of informality and familiarity used by Chinese speakers commonly down the lectal scale. (Platt and Ho 1989: 2200). As evident in conversation (4), the discourse final particle -lah marks ingroupism. Discourse particles, which signal camaraderie between intragroup participants in Singapore are in reality the contextualization cues that are crucial to speech convergence and to sustaining a conversation. 4. Speech convergence and social identity Conversation (4) shows that contextualization cues misinterpreted by J in conversation (3) are effectively exploited as discourse strategies in intracultural communication. This demonstrates the importance of speech convergence, a phenomenon which is more likely to occur when participants are socialized by a common set of speech act rules and share common norms of verbal politeness at the discourse level. In this telephone exchange, participant A is an ethnic Chinese bilingual male undergraduate who, on behalf of another person, rang his excolleague in a travel agency for information on a flight itinerary. Participant B, an ethnic Chinese bilingual whose mother tongue is Hokkien, a Southern Chinese dialect, is best described as a speaker of English at the lectal end of the scale. The discourse strategies employed by A were, as he admitted, aimed at approximating his speech style to that of Bs. In his view to speak Standard English (the upper end of the continuum) would signal social distance. The speech style he adopted represents what the theory of accommodation terms speech accommodation an attempt on the part of the speaker to modify or disguise his persona in order to make it more acceptable to the person addressed The more the sender reflects the receivers own mode of communication, the more easily will his message be understood (Giles and Powesland 1975: 158, 159, italics mine). Conversation (4) illustrates the type of casual exchanges that normally take place between in-group members. Code choices, constantly switched and mixed, comprise the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. use use use use of of of of acrolectal variety of English (close to Standard English] basilect (typical of Singapore Colloquial English) dialect [in italics] local discourse final particle [DFP]

92

Lee-Wong Song Mei

Requests are structured in the form of imperatives: You IMP. Participant As input to the telephone exchange is presented together with readings of: (1) his speech variety, and (2) Speaker intention. Participant Bs input is not available for analysis as the exchange was noted by an observer who was present as a third party with Participant A. (4) Negotiating for a better deal 1. A: Whos this speaking? B: (Identifies himself) 2. A: (Identifies himself) Chinese airline, ah August ah B: 3. A: You sure dont have? But I like the Company. B: 4. A: But I think it does fly. Speech variety Intention Acrolect To establish identity of hearer.

DFP " Basilect Acrolect

Shift to signal familiarity.

Converge to accommodate B Diverge signals his difference. Diverge expresses his opinion. Converge asks for information. Converge echoes air fare quoted. Converge confirms current fare. Converge price. Converge checks on

"

B: 5. A: How much XX? Basilect (name of airline) B: 6. A: Gao ba gua ($ 900 plus) Dialect B: 7. A: Current one lak ba poi Code-mixing ($ 680) B: . 8. A: This is net or mark up? Basilect B: 9. A: You give me the cheapest " lah Give me the cheapest lah. B: .

persuades

addressee to reduce airfare.

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices 10. A: Depends on price. Not decided. B: 11. A: Ei sai (possible) B: 12. A: 3 days in advance. " " Diverge gives information to travel agent

93

Dialect

Converge continues to persuade. Diverge echoes a condition of airlines. Converge contributes information. Converge I know market practice. Converge persuades B to lower fare. Diverge gives information. Converge persuades

Acrolect

B 13. A: But this one, once re- Basilect serve must 3 day ticket Mark up cheap lah B: 14. A: *Ei sai bei (Is it ok?) B: 15. A: No fixed date B: 16. A: Lak ba poi ($680) negotiable dan bo (a little) a little (to $ 680) B: . 17. A: You check the schedule for me. B: 18. A: *Ei sai bei (Is it ok?) B: 19. A: Ok lah.

"

Acrolect

Code-mixing

B to reduce fare

Basilect

Converge makes a direct request Converge B to agree persuades

Dialect

DFP

Converge persuades B to agree to the fare reduction. Converge continues to persuade.

B: 20. A: Can lah.

"

From the utterances and the moves in this exchange, it can be seen that the frequency occurrences of converging far exceed those of diverging.

94

Lee-Wong Song Mei

It is interesting to note that when Speakers intent is to persuade, the switch is invariably to that of a dialect, a basilect and use of a local discourse particle -lah. Persuasion is also non face-threateningly communicated through the use of direct requests using imperatives. Throughout this telephone exchange there is a marked absence of verbal politeness such as thanking or the use of explicit politeness markers such as please. The communicative style of these two Singapore English speakers suggests that direct talk is a socially accepted norm. Note the code, dialect, and style switch in (5) and (6). Comparing these two requests, one notes the discerning use of -lah. In request (5) Hearer obligation to comply is not as obligatory as that in (6). (5) You give me the cheapest lah. You ticle (6) You check the schedule for me. You IMP IMP local discourse par-

That -lah is perceived to be a more appropriate contextual cue to communicate casualness and solidarity shows the important role played by contextualization cues defined by socio-cultural norms. Solidarity rather than verbal politeness is emphasized in this exchange. According to Lakoffs definitions of politeness, Speaker A has observed only one of the three rules because he: 1. Imposes (You do X) 2. Does not give options 3. Makes the listener feel good

be friendly

The politeness strategies of Speaker A seem to be concentrated on engagement or politeness strategies of involvement (Scollon and Scollon 1995: 45); Basso (1992: 255) describes this as the emotional quality of interpersonal contact. This interpersonal involvement is clearly manifested in the convergence of speech style when Speaker A codeswitches to a basilect and a dialect to accommodate Speaker Bs speech style. 5. A reconsideration of polite requests The Western conceptualization of polite requests is encapsulated in Searles principle: In directives, politeness is the chief motivation for indirectness (Searle 1975: 64). This is confirmed by subsequent studies of requesting in English. Rintells (1981: 26) study of forms of request and deference as used and perceived by adult speakers in English and Spanish found that according to a deference scale postulated in perform-

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

95

ing the speech act of requests, the imperative was at the lowest end of the deference scale. Imperative I need / can you / could you / would you elaborated would you mind increasing deference Further, in their study they found that each utterance (requestive) was preceded by some presence of a conversational opening such as please excuse me; greeting; vocative; and pre-request. It was also found that: (1) the forms could you and maybe you could were more frequent in the mid- and high-deference groups; (2) when please was added to a request sentence, the level of deference of the request seemed to be raised; and (3) imperatives were most frequent in the group of utterances with the lowest deference scores, disappearing entirely in the high-deference group (Rintell 1981: 23). Similarly, in Fraser and Nolens (1981) study of the association of deference with linguistic forms, it was found that in their 25 English sentences of requesting forms, those using imperatives were rated the lowest in the ranking of deference. According to these Western communicative conventions of linguistic politeness, all the speakers in the four conversational extracts have violated perceived norms of politeness and deference. Australians who prefer indirectness (Blum-Kulka and Kasper 1989) will have cause for complaints against a lack of verbal politeness when interacting with Singaporeans, as has occurred in the above communication situations. In contrast, it has been found that Chinese speakers using Putonghua in China and Singapore prefer direct requests using imperatives (Lee-Wong 2000). Emphases were placed on sincerity, directness, and respect, which are signaled by the use of appropriate address terms rather than linguistic politeness and indirectness (Lee-Wong 1994). Obviously, cultural variability dictates and determines norms of verbal behavior and politeness. In Watts (1992) terms, politeness is considered in terms of politic behavior, i. e. in an interactive framework cultural restraints such as cultural expectations need to be woven into the fabric of social equilibrium. In Singapore, the inter-language features evident in the speech styles of Chinese bilinguals show that language use is susceptible to influences from the use and socialization of the first language (Chinese Mandarin) or mother tongue (Chinese dialect). It is not surprising that at the discourse level of interaction speech act rules on apologizing and requesting differ vastly from those of native English speakers. The fact that English is a dominant language, used extensively as a lingua franca, in no way suggests that a speaker is socialized in the same social rules or to the same degree as a native speaker. On the contrary, evidence from the data

96

Lee-Wong Song Mei

suggests substantial influence from L1 or mother tongue. Results from a survey on adult Chinese bilinguals (Xu et al. 1997), show that 90 percent of adult Chinese bilinguals feel a closeness towards Mandarin that they do not feel towards English. The preference for directness in routine requests shown in this study suggests that these Chinese speakers of English are transferring not only their linguistic patterns but also their culturally socialized norms of preference. 6. Conclusion This study shows support for the claim that in intercultural communication, the wider sociocultural context plays a pivotal role in the way one interprets language use and language behavior. Data provided in this paper clearly indicate that participants from different cultural backgrounds, operating from their respective cultural norms and rules of appropriacy in speech style, attach different meanings to the same message. Contextualization cues, which include prosodic features (falling tone), linguistic forms (deixis) and syntactic choices (imperatives) are evidently used and interpreted differently by native and non-native speakers of English. This has led to perceptions of impoliteness and a lack of cooperation by native speakers in an intercultural communication situation. Theoretical considerations based on the concepts of indirectness and politeness, largely derived from British analytical logic and North American social psychology (Held 1989: 168) will stand to benefit from a reconsideration of language as variety-specific and culturebound; How do we know that the categorization in terms of directness carries cross-culturally equivalent social meanings? (Blum-Kulka 1987: 133). The empirical evidence in this paper suggests that categorization of directness does not carry cross-culturally. Neither does the categorization of speaker beliefs on apologies and requests. A level of awareness of interlingual transfer and a degree of sensitivity to culture-specific verbal politeness and speech-variety specific speech acts are essential for effective communication across cultures. If one is to move away from AmE/BrE/AuE-determined norms of politeness in speech act rules, new parameters will have to be drawn and defined in social and culture-specific terms. Given that English is extensively used as a lingua franca in many parts of the world and that the minority speakers are surprisingly the native speakers (Leitner 1992: 177), intercultural communicative competence (ICC) rather than communicative competence should be stressed. In Kims words, ICC must be anchored within a person as his or her capacity to manage the varied contexts of the intercultural encounter regardless of the specific cultures involved (Kim 1991: 265).

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

97

Researching language from the perspective of social meaning in intercultural communication, cultural adaptation and speech accommodation are found to be integral to the analysis of both intra- and intercultural encounters. As opportunities for intercultural communication are set to increase in view of accelerating globalization, the localization of language and language use must of necessity generate and augment nonnative varieties. How these co-exist with native varieties and how they, for instance, influence speech acts and speech styles will undoubtedly continue to raise questions of what constitutes acceptable norms for both native and non-native speakers of English. Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University Note
1. I wish to thank native and non-native English-speaking informers for their contribution of data.

References
Basso, Ellen B (1992). Contextualization in Kalapalo narratives. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (ed.), Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bergman, M. L. and G. Kasper (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In Kasper, G. and S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 82 107. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11, 131 146. Blum-Kulka, S. and J. House (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour. In Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.), Crosscultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, 1 34 Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, Michael (1994). Intercultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.) (1992). Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraser, Bruce and William Nolen (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of Sociology of Language 27, 93 109. Giles, Howard and Peter F. Powesland (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41 58. Gumperz, John J. (1982a). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, John J.and Jenny Cook-Gumperz (1982b). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In Gumperz, J. (ed.), Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

98

Lee-Wong Song Mei

Gupta, Anthea Fraser (1997). A framework for the analysis of Singapore English. In Gopinathan, P., Anne Pakir, Ho Wah Kam, and S. Vanithamani (eds.), Language, Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 123 140. Haverkate, Henk (1992). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Journal of Pragmatics 2 (4), 505 522. Held, Gudrun (1989). On the role of maximization in verbal politeness. Multilingua 8, 167 206. Hymes, Dell (1967). On communicative competence. In Huxley R. and E. Ingram (eds.), Mechanisms of Language Change. New York: Academic Press. Kachru, Braj B. (1981). The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. In Smith, L. (ed.), English for Cross-cultural Communication. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press, 15 39. Kim, Young Yun (1991). Intercultural communication competence a systemstheoretic view. In Ting-Toomey, S. and F. Korzenny (eds.), Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication. California: Sage, 259 273. Koike, Dale April (1989). Requests and the role of deixis in politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 13, 187 202 Kluckhohn, C. (1951). The study of culture. In Learner, D. and H. D. Lasswell (eds.), The Policy of Sciences. Stanford University Press. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: on minding your ps and qs. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society, 292 305. Lee-Wong, Song Mei (1994). Address forms in modern China: changing ideologies and shifting semantics. Linguistics 32, 299 324. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag. Leitner, Gerhard (1992). English as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, M. (ed.), Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 179 237. Malinowski, Bronislaw (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages In Ogden, C. K. and I. A. Richards (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 451 510. Murphy, Gregory L. (1988). Personal reference in English. Language in Society 17, 317 349. Pan, Yuling (2000). Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Volume LXVII Advances in Discourse Processes. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Platt, John (1977). The sub-varieties of Singapore English: Their societal and functional status. In Crewe, William (ed.), The English Language in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Platt, John T. and Ho Mian Lian (1989). Discourse particles in Singaporean English: substratum influence and universals. World Englishes 8 (2), 215 221. Rintell, Ellen (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of Sociology of Languages 27, 11 34. Scollon, R. and S. W. Scollon (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and J. Morgans (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59 82. Ting-Toomey, S. and L. Chung (1996). Cross-cultural interpersonal communication: theoretical trends and research directions. In Gudykunst, W. B., S. Ting-Toomey and T. Nishida (eds.), Communication in Personal Relationships Across Cultures. California: Sage, 237 261. Toolan, Michael (1999). Linguistic assets. English Today 58 (15, 2), 28 29. Trosborg, Anna (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Mouton: Berlin.

Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices

99

Watts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In Watts, R. J., S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Berlin: Mouton, 43 69. Wierzbicka, Anna (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton: Berlin. Xu Daming, Chew Cheng Hai and Chen Songcen (1994, 1998). Language use and language attitudes in the Singapore Chinese community. In Gopinathan, S., A. Pakir, Ho, W. K. and V. Saravanan (eds.), Language, Society and Education in Singapore. Times. Academic Press: Singapore, 133 154.

Copyright of Multilingua is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.