-238 Pragmatics 4:2.

721 Internatonal Prasmatics Association

JAPANESEAND AMERICAN MEETINGS AND WHAT GOES ON BEFORE THEM: A CASE STUDY OF CO.WORKERMISUNDERSTANDING1
Laura Miller

1. Introduction jlluminating Somegenuinely work on interethnic and intercultural communication, and theresulting misunderstandings which often occur,hasbeen carried out by researchers in the fields of sociolinguistics and the ethnographyof communication(for example. Basso1970:Gumperz 1982: Scollon and Scollon 1981).Their empirically grounded methodology has contributedsolid insights about where the locusof misunderstanding in interethnic encountersmay be tbund. Thesescholars have specifiedvarious distinct categories of communicative behaviorwhich are potentiallyproblematic.Some of these troublesome domainsare the discourse structureof the language, cultural assumptions aboutappropriatebehavior and the 'presentationof self, and norms concerningthe drstribution of talk and the exchange of speaking turns.Thesevarious waysof speaking and constructingtalk may produce or contribute to two fundamental types of misunderstanding: pragmaticmisunderstandings and structuralmisunderstandings. Structural misunderstandings are located in features of languagesuch as its lexicon and grammar, and are often consciously For example,every issue recognized. of the Japanesepop culture and languagelearning magazineMangajin contains a "Bloopers" columnin which readersrelatesomedramaticlinguistic mistake. A recent issue had the following entry by an American man living in Japan:2
"l was working in the education department of the Shiyakusho,or City Hall. I had skipped breakfastand went down to the little shop on the first floor, but my choice of breakfast items was limited to mashed potatoes, sandwiches,or Coke. Upon returning to my section of the

1 This paper was presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association of Japanese Business Studies in 1993, New York. It is a revision of a section of my dissertation on "Interethnic communication in Japan: Interactions between Japaneseand American co-workers," (UCLA Departmentof Anthropology, 1988). I would like to thank Linda Chance, Masakazu Iino, Adam Kendon,Marcyliena Morgan, and anonymous reviewersfor their comments. 2 My transcription of Japaneseis orthographic (rather than phonetic), based on the modified HepburnRommanrzation System as used by Kenkytsha (Masuda 1974).ln this system,long vowels (whichare phonemic) are representedwith lines over them, called macrons. rather than with doubled letters. An exception is the vowel "i" which is written as "ii."

222

Laura Mitler office, I wanted to say, "City Hall doesn't have a good shop, does it?" "Shiyakusho wa ii bafien ga nai desu ne." Instead, I blurted out in a loud voice^Shiyakusho wa ii baishun ga nai desu ne" City Hall doesn't have any good prostitutes, does it?" (Mangajin p.4).

identify certain words or phrasesthat are problematicand therefore 'know' that they misunderstand or misinterpret are misunderstanding something. But often, participants an interaction without ever realizingthat they have done so. Pragmatic misunderstandings arethosein whichsomeparticipants makesituated judgements which differ from thoseof other participants. Speakers and interpretations analyzethese instances not as pragmaticmisunderstandings, but as deficiencies in the characteror personalityof the other, or as traits common to particular ethnic groups. Individualsin any culture interpret what they hear dependingon their definitions and assumptionsconcerning what sort of interaction or speech event they think is in progress.It is conventionallyunderstoodthat when people from different cultures which may result in misunderstandings and interact, they bring with them assumptions misinterpretations.Yet even when there is a seeminglyequivalent or shared folklinguisticlabel for a particularactivity,suchas "meetings," there may still be differences in assumptions about what that activityentailsand what behavioris appropriate to it. Assumptions about the purposeof meetings, and what one does prior to and during one, often result in pragmaticmisunderstandings. One problem in Japanese and American interactionmay concerndifferencesin through meetings understandingand conceptionabout how business is accomplished preceding and the activities them. While past research hasdescribed thesedifferences, the actual talk which occurs during interactionsbetween Japaneseand American businesspeople have rarely been the focusof research or analysis. Rather, there is use of self-report data such as questionnaires, While this type of interviewsand surveys. data does provide valuable information, it may also fall back on the repetition of unquestioned social science concepts in order to explain hypotheticalinteractions. Examrnation of actual business conversationswhich have been audiotaped or videotapedmay yield additional interpretations and findings.The intent of this paper is to look at one such taped conversation to see if anythingnew about Japaneseand American business communication may be learned. Before looking at a case-study in which we may track individual expressionof dift'eringassumptions we shouldfirst review someof what we already and expectations, know about Japanese and America conceptions of meetings and meetingpreparation.

In some Japanese and American

interactions, such as this one, participants

are able to

2. American meetings:Agendaand action The rmportanceof the meeting in American culture is evident in numerousreports on the trequency with which they are held. For example,Snell (1978, p.xi) claims that l5Vo of executive time is spentin meetings, and Doyle and Straus(1976:4) report that for middle management,35Vo of the workingweek is spentin meetings. Mintzberg's (1973) important study also supportsthe view that formal meetingsare integral to the way in which work gets done in American offices. Many American businesspeople

Co-worker misunderstanding 223 assume that meetings are for the purposeof gettingsomespecific actionsdone,which mayincludeone or more of the fbllowing: > presentintormation& share opinions > make decisions > pool skillsand resources > formulateplans > assign tasks& responsibilities > clarify problems & ideas > establishdeadlines, plan of action > iron-outdisagreements & solveproblems > create& stimulateideas > bargaining & negotiating > promote team spirit & give encouragement > elicit feedback > provideguidance& training These assumpiions about the purpose of meetingsare reflected in popular meta-linguistic terms such as brainstorming,buzz session,head-busting,briefings, presentations, and trainingsessions. One of the more strikingly culture-specific aspects of the Americanmeetingis its decision-making function:"The meetingis a decisionmakingbody, a place of force and persuasion" (Snell 7978: p.xii). Meetings are therefore thought to be the appropriate place in which to persuadepeople or try to change their minds. The assumption that meetingsinvolvedecision-making and the resolution of conflictthat goeswith it is alsoseenin the numerousbooks of the "How to.."genrewhich proffer advice and strategies for behavior in meetings.Examplesof thisvariety include:How to Wirt tlrc Meeting (Snell 1978),How to Make MeetingsWork (Doyle and Straus 1976), Rurtrtittga Meeting Tlnt Works (Miller \99I), Meetings, Meetings: How to Manipulate Tlrcm and Make Them More Fun (Fletcher 1984). The beliefthat meetings are aboutproblem-solving, conflictresolution and other participatorybehavior is demonstrated active, by people'sjudgementsabout what constitutes a successful meeting. For most,a "good"meetingis one in which something "got done" such as results,decisions, solutions,and formulations.For Americans, meetings are for the presentation of facts,numbers,and materialwhich is given so that decisions can be made to direct a courseof action.Decisionson what should be done arethoughtto logicallyfollow trom the factsand material presented within the context of a meeting. Stewart (1976: 2) claims that Americans are concerned with matters of procedure and with agendasetting.'Getting things done' and having a plan of action arewaysto satisffa need to seeand feel that something is beingaccomplished. Given thestructure of the Americanworkplace, this necessitates a series and the of meetings establishment of a plan with goalsand a courseof action mappedout. Having a plan or agenda leadsto the conception of actionas a chainof linear events(Stewart 7916: 6).This conceptof action as sequential resultsin a preference for tacklingthingsone

224

LauraMitter

at a time. According to Graham and Herberger (1983:164), "Americansusuallyattack a complex negotiationsequentially-that is, they separate the issues and settlethem one at a time." Clyne (1981)also notesthis linear orientationof Americansduring business meetings.Koike (1988) suggests that this habit of doing things sequentially often leads to problems in negotiations with Japanese, who work on a project as a whole or unit. Americans expect certain decisions to be made before they can go on to the next item on an agenda, and experiencea sense of frustration when nothing is determined sequentially. There are also explicit rules for the orderly and systematic conduct of a meeting,modeledon Parliamentary Procedure and codifiedin standardreferences such as Robert's Rules of Order (I9ll). The systematic nature of meetingsare also seenin the key role and reverence in which a meeting'sagendais held. (The importanceof the agendato an American meeting has been examined by Linde, 1991).This emphasison agenda and linear ordering of activity means that preparation before a meeting is largely a matter of scheduling. Advice on what one should do prior to a meeting is usuallylimited to the planning of the meeting itself and givingadvance notice to participants. This contrasts sharply with the Japaneseunderstandingof what one should be doing prior to a meeting,and it is to this which we now turn.

3. Japanesemeetings:Activity and approval There are various types of meetingsheld in Japanese offices,and many are similar to American business meetingssuchas staff meetings, creativesessions, training sessions and presentations. In many cases, however,much of what Americans do in what they consider a proper meeting is done by Japanese prior to such a formal event in premeetinginteractions. It was proposedby Graham and Sato (1984: 127) that Japanesemeetingsthemselves are really only a type of ritual approval of what has already been decided during numerousindividual conversations during the pre-meetingperiod" There has been much written about the importanceof group cooperationand the maintenanceof harmonywithin the Japanese workplace(Alston 1986;Pascaleand Athos 1981;Graham and Sato 1984;Okabe 1983).While sucha focus on harmony and cooperation is useful for understanding Japanese behavior, it is nevertheless unreasonableto expect that Japanese businesspeople never disagreeor have conflict. Characterizations such as Kerlinger's (1951: 38) statement that Japanesereach decisionstogether "almost by a sort of empathy" and Arggle's (7982: 71) claim that decisions are "carried out by a kind of acquiescence to the will of the group" are stereotypicalimagesthat merely mystifya much more down-to-earthprocess. In contrastto thesescholarlyassessments, my own personalexperience(I spent four years in Osaka working for Japanesecompanies)and -y reseirch on business interactionshave led me to the view that Japanese do not exist in a state of constant harmony and cooperation,and that problemsassociated with power and influenceare just as real for a Japanese personas for an American person.The important difference

Co-worker ntisunderstanding 225

I

will be found in the mannerand placein which conflictand disagreement are handled. Onealternative method for ironing out disagreements and dealingwith conflict is often referred to in the businessliterature as the ingi seido 'written proposal system' (March 1982:Moran 1985;Graham and Sato 1984). The ingi slro 'consensus form' is not usedfor all business decisions, and each firm will have its own criteria (risk or monetary value) tbr determiningwhen a formal consensus form is needed.In any case, bothprior to the circulation of a form and in cases when a form is not used,co-workers will nevertheless engage in frequent one-on-one interactions with thosemost affected by a proposedproject. The busy effort involved in achievingconsensus, whether formalized on a form or not, is often seen in activitythat goes on prior to actual 'business meetings.' The tolk meta-linguistic term most often associated with this pre-meeting whichhasbeenwritten about in the pastis nernawaslri, activity which contrasts with the basic term for meeting(kaigi). Originallyusedin gardening to refer to the preparation of soiland roots betore transplanting, throughmetaphoric extension it is now usedin business to ret'erto prior preparationbefore proposinga plan or holding a formal meeting. It refersto an activitywhich in essence is a type of pre-meeting held one-onone.One functionof nemawaslri is to allow peoplethe opportunityto argueprivately, ratherthan publicly, which might entail a lossof face. Nemawasli may occur outside theworkplace, in birrs,cafes, or sports venues, wheredistinctions betweenbusiness and (1 so c ial int er ac t ion ar e b l u rre c l .3 A l s to n 9 8 6 :3 0 1 )descri bes one of the soci al functi ons it has:
"[...] discussing and ncgotiating disagrecmcnts in private means personal favors can he cxchangcd.Nentaw,ashi binds co-workers in a net of mutual debt and in an on-going exchange of favors."

In American business the most closely equivalent termswould be "spadework" or "preliminarygroundwork." Yet the purpose of American-stylespadework or groundwork is to influencedecisions and other activework which will be done during a meeting. Groundworkprovidesthe infbrmationand factsthat will be used during a meeting to add import or give conviction to arguments.Spadework otlen refersto a kind of advancelobbying to int-luence the conduct of a meeting, and therefore, can havenegativeconnotations of buttering-upor apple-polishing. These same negative connotations do not attach to rtemawaslli, however. During Japanese pre-rneeting interactions individuals can gather information, argueprivately,get ideas percolating, do some informal probing, and get reactions beforeestablishing a plan or agenda.It is preciselyin some of the most common activities associated with rrcmawashi, such as problem-identification and solving, decision-making, division of labor, sharingof opinions and ideas and resolution of disagreements, that we seea contrast with the assumptions Americans haveabout what

3 Thcre is often no clear distinction between businessand non-businesstalk within the u'orkplaceas wcll (Miller 1993a).

226

Laurn Miller

one does during what is labeleda meeting.As Zimmerman (1985:213) stated:

"trn [act, a formal meeting is usually nothing but a confirmation of what has already been decided on an informal basis...Very little is decided at such formal mcctingsl what happens is that decisionsare confirmed."

One dif-ferencebetween netnowashiand the way Americans may have informal discussions around the water cooler or in the bathroom is that nemawoshl is in no way considereda covert or extraneous activity,but is recognizedas a marked, culturallytakes appropriate process in business decision-rnaking. Despitethe fact that nemawashi place in what Americans might considerinformal contexts, it is a part of a methodical and structuredprocess. Given thesedifferences in assumptions held about the processof doing business through meetingsand pre-meetingbehavior,as well as the different opportunitiescoworkers have tor talking outside the context of meetings,it should not be surprising who work together that misunderstandings between Japanese andAmericans sometimes happen.What is more discouraging is evidence suggesting that rather than evaluating as having to do with conceptionsof speech events or these misunderstandings expectations about business procedure,interactants often assumethat the problem relates to fundamental differencesin naticlnalcharacter.As a case in point, we are cclnstantly reminded of a difference between Japaneseand Americans which is we are told, are always uncritically acceptedand habituallyrepeated: Japanese, indirect and ambiguous,while Americans are presumablyunable to be anything but and Athos 1981;Graham and Sato 1984;Okabe 1983;Hall direct and pushy(Pascale which are most commonlyelicited in data and Hall 1987).These are characterizations from intervieu'sand questionnaires, and which are then used to "explain" recurring interculturalproblems"

4. Meetings and office spacea American meetingsare held frequentlybecause they address numerousfunctional and logisticalneeds.Perhaps the fundamentalpurpose of meetingsis to establishand facilitate communication. The manner in which most workplace environmentsare structured,with individualshaving separateoffices,or at least individual desks(often with a partition or within a cubicle),meansthat meetings are the best occasion in which co-workerscan manageand accomplish work. This function is reflectedin the collective metaphor thnt meetingsare "the communicationswitchboardof every organization" ( S n e l ll 9 7 f J p : .xr). If the organization of the American workplace makes numerous meetings

Miller (1993b)discusses i n more detail the organization of space in Tokyo offices, and how this organization may reflect cultural values and assumptions about privary and identity, as well as have rmportant symbolic dimcnsions"

Co-workermisunderstanding

227

necessary, there are also proxemicreasons for the Japanese emphasis on getting things doneduringpre-meeting interactions. Japanese are physically with cooffices arranged workers sittingtogetherat desksgroupedinto working islands. rather than in individual ofticesor cubicles.This arrangementis sometimescalled 6beya seido 'open space system,'in whichdesks are groupedinto'functionorientation sections' or kakai. Below is an exampleof what an idealized office spacewould look like. Both Pascale (1978:106),and Zimmerman(1985:208)havenoted that with this useof officespace, it is much easierto exchange ideasand to solveproblemswithout to arrangea meetingin order to do so. having The structure of the Japaneseworkplace will also contribute to more verbally rather than through memos. In a study of how technical communication infbrmation is conveyedamong Japaneseand American aerospaceengineersand write fewer memosand letters scientists, tor example, researchers tound that Japanese (Kohl et al. 1993). thando their Americancounterparts

Diagram 1.

KAKAT

i 1.1, | | t-.=u ll
5 ectio|l m an a I ( of A

D e p at rm e | l t nea0

kakar B

I ta-\
i I

I ll

I r-4"

tl

Sectio|] nan69er of E

KAKAT
I

l l(J it

ttffi
Sec t I o n man a I e f nf I

228

LaurnMiller

5. Data Sociolinguisticstudies have made it clear that individuals do not consistentlygive accuratedescriptionsof their own communicative behavior and languageuse (Labov 1966; Blom and Gumperz 1972).Therefore, if we are interested in looking at how interactions, self-report understanding takes place in Japanese and American business about data may be insufficientwhen we are dealingwith behaviorsuchas assumptions awareness. In order to better meetings,which are often below a level of conscious differences that may affect interpretation,the examination understandthe unconscious of naturally occurring business talk may provide some useful insights. in conjunctionwith close This casestudy is basedon ethnographic observation The conversation was conversation. examination of talk from a naturally-occurring transcribedfrom a videotape made of an interactionbetween an American and his two Japaneseco-workersin their office in Tokyo. I spent many weeks of observation to my presence and role as a researcher. during which workers becameaccustomed Gradually I began taping daily work behavior at this firm, and although participants were initially self-conscious an aware of my activities,over time they. became more comfortable around me. At no point did I create a situationor try to elicit speechto routines that be taped. Individualswho were taped were doing their normal business they would have been doing whether I was presentor not. Becausethe burden of maintaining everyday businessoperations and procedures took priority over their concern with me and my activities,I feel that the interactions closely represent naturally occurring speech.All videotapingwas done openly,with prior knowledgeof all participants. To sateguard the rightsand privacyof thoseI taped,their namesand the name of their companywill be changed to pseudonyms.

6. Case study of co-worker misunderstanding The individualsin this case study worked for a small advertisingagency called both international and domestic accounts. This firm provided "Shinjinsha" that handles print and televisionadvertisements for numeroussmall accounts as well as some major internationalaccounts. This particularofficewasthe site of the Accounting,Advertising and Administrativesections The three participants of the company. in this conversation are two Japanese, Muramoto (M) and Aoki (A), and one American named Penn (P). All of them held the title of Account Executiveand their statuses were roughly equal, with Muramoto having had slightly more authority. Muramoto spoke fluent English, Aoki did not. At the time of the taping Penn had lived in Japan and worked for this company for a little over one year. He spoke some Japanese. This was a typically Japanese office space,with desksgroupedinto function orientationsections or kakai., as in diagram2. Penn sat in the samekakai as Aoki, and Muramoto sat at an adjacentworking island.Peoplewere constantly comingand going,and it was quite commonand normal for workers in this otfice to move around and sit at different kakai, in some of the

Co-worker ntisunderstandinE

229

unoccupied or temporarily vacant seats,to talk to other co-workers. During the course of thls particular conversationreference is made to two "A Company"(and it's product),and "B Company"(and its various hair care accounts; products). Muramoto has come over to stand next to Penn and Aoki at their kakai. In the first part of their talk Penn and Muramoto havebeen discussing A Company and Pennagrees to contactMr. Shane,an employeeof A. (Transcriptionconventionshere are, tclr the most part. patterned after Moerman, 1988. The brackets indicate overlapping talk).

Diagram2.

Ao k t

Mur a mot

0f f r c e m an a q e r

230

Laura Miller

Data segment1

1 2
3

4 5 6
7 8

P: M: P: M: P: M: P: M: P:

(.hhh) Okay (.01) alright so ( . ) alright, I will call Mr. Shanetomorrow/ lne then umm / no:wn: you understandwhat we're gonna dos More or less/yes/ Irtel um (that'sgood) Now let's talk about B company(.01) um ...lSorede(heh\l 'Then..' he /he doesn't/ Ne kore mO wakatta clesh) 'You already understand this,right?' Hai ' Y es ' /A Company/onlythey have three salesmen so they need s-some follow-up ah material lorl lrighrl

10 M 11 1 2 P:

In this first segmentof conversation we see that Penn has tried to changethe topic of conversationfrom A Company to the B Companyaccount(Line 5). His suggestion is tollowed by a pause and Muramoto continuesto discuss A Company in the following lines (6-11). This segmentof talk is tollowed by a half minute of talk about the B Company account.Although Penn'sfirst effort to bring up the subjectof B Company has failed, he tries againafter a few more minutesof talk: Data segment 2 13 P: 14 M: 15 P: 16 M: Okay n-ya know we should ltalkl about.... lSore de ttel 'Sr)then' yelahl /ahhmm/ market itself is quite na-complicated

ln this segment, we seethat Muramoto hascut off Penn'sattempt to changethe topic with her overlappingtalk (Lines 13 and 14) and her continuedfocuson A Company (Line 16). Al-ter a short time in which they continue to talk about A company,Penn tries to bring up B Companyagain:

5 Th. Japancsesentence particle r?appears throughout the transcript and has been translated as stress or as a tag question. Sentenceparticles such as ne are interesting features of Japaneselhat indicate affect and are tied to social status, gender and situation. For more on the use of ne rn its function as a listener-eliciting device,see Milter (1991).

Co-workermisunderstanding

231

Data segment3 ti P: Okay hai wakatta okayAoki-san ima (.0\ 'Okay I understand, okay Mr. Aoki now..' B Comparry desh6? 'lt's B Companyright?' So dakara ne ( . ) jLni-oku 'That's right, because, there's ( Y ) 1,200,000,000' uhl So when will we meet to talk /about B Company/? /A Company nanasenmanf 'A Company is ( Y ) 70,000,000'

18 A: 19 P: 20 A: 21 P: 22 A:

Pennindic:ates that he has understood the A Companymatter and then directs his attentionto Aokt, who displays his awarenessthat Penn wants to talk about B (Line 18). Penn bringsup the amount of moneythat is budgetedfor the B Company Company account(Line 19),which is a large sum, and then askswhen they can talk aboutB Company (Line 21). Here he is giving "facts"as a reason or justification for his interestin talking about B Company. In Line 20 Aoki begins a repair initiator ('uh?'),and in Line 22 he points out that A Companyis a different amount. It could bethat he really misunderstood Penn'sreferencein Line 19 as referring to A Company andis correctinghim. It could alsobe a strategyto turn the topic back to A Company. In anycase, the conversation continues to be about the A Companybudget (Line 22) and the dealers involved. During this part of the conversationPenn brings up B Company again,and Muramoto tells him not to worg, that they have a few months to workon it. Yet Penn is still concernedand proceedsto give reasons why he feels they needto talk about it now: Data segment4

23 P:
L+
. A

25 26 27 A: 28 M: 29 P: 30 M:

Okay:: I know that but it--even if we have a presentationits still time otf. We need time to developcreative,we need time to put togethersome solid thinking,an (.03) So we need to sit down ( . ) lan-anl lWakaralten del ( 'He) doesn'tget it' (Heh) asatte pltn$ento 'Presentationday after tomorrow' Huh'l The day after tomorrow I have another presentation

Pennexplicitly stateswhat it is that he wants to do about the B Company account (Lines 23-26).He feels they need to schedule"time for creative"which indicatesa desireto have a meeting for idea flotation and stimulation,or even a brainstorming

232

LauraMiller

session. When he saysthey need "time to put togethersome solid thinking"and "sit that usuallymean getting some tangible ideas down on down" these are expressions paper, formulating a plan and setting an agenda.Penn's concern is first met with silence,and then Aoki makesan asideto Muramoto (his gazeis directedto her) that Penn is not getting it (Line 27). (Aoki is using the Osaka dialect with the negation suffix -hen rather than the -nai suffix of standardJapanese). Despite the absenceof a pronoun, it is clear from the context that the subject of wakarahenis Penn. The "presentation" brought up by Muramoto (Line 28) is offered as a reason and justification tor stayingoff the topic of B Company.In the next segmenttalk about A Company continues: Data segment 5

31 M : 32 P: 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 M: P: M: P:

Demo wakattadesh6? Art6: A Companyno? 'ln any case,you understand, right? The A Companyone?' Yeah wakatta 'l understand' You rememberthe name of Sano-san: :Ah hah You remember the name of the company-"A Company"? Ah hah-but l-but A Company but I don't understandwhy if A Company is this much lP wites a numberl and B Company is (.2) this much lP wites a nttmber]*hy we're not spendingmore time with this right now (.03)

We begin to see Penn'sincreasing trustrationas indicatedby perturbationsin his talk hah-but l-but A Company but I..." in Line 36) that indicatehe is having some 1"Ah communicativedifficulty. Penn points out the differencesin the budgets,which he writes out on paper. Here, the activityof writing is being used to enable and buttress a comparison,to point out the importanceof discussing the account.6 He is using a strategyof comparingthe larger amount of the B Companyaccountwhich he stresses with "this" to the smaller A Company accountas a logical reasonfor devoting more time and energyto B Company(Lines36-39). For Penn,it is obviousthat they should want to have meetingsabout B Company,giventhe sizeof its account.During this part of the conversation,both Aoki and Muramoto begin to show their own increasing with Penn.Muramoto standsup and juts her hip out in a trustrationand impatience defiantpose.Aoki beginspacingbehindhis desk.When Pennlooksup from writing the numbers both Muramoto and Aoki turn away from him, avoiding eye contact. Penn continuestalking:

6 Streeck (1993) has discussecl the way doodles and writing such as this are useclsymbolically in the same way that gesture may function.

Co-worker ntisunderstanding

233

Data segment 6 40 P: 4l 42 M: 43 P: 44 M: 45 P: 46 47 48 49 M: 5 0 P: 51 Than playingaround-Imean this is fine I will call himthat's done. But now we must talk about B Company NIA trc sore wakultu wukctttn 'well, okay I got that, I got it' An lifl lWakattal [Holds both hands up] 'I got it' Because (.01) we have to decidewho will do what and what directionwe are going to take. After we decidethat peopother peop- people can do their own work, like Tanaka-san, whoever ( . ) right? Kaga-san, um (Aoki shakes his head and arm from side to side) no no no no see an ( . ) the longerwe wait (.01) I think the lesstime we're gonna have to think

explains that he will call the A Companypersonand "that'sdone," Pennemphatically "now we should talk about B he does not want to talk about it anymorebecause (Line 41). His use of "than playingaround"in Line 40 to describe what he company" of the nature of their seesMurasaki and Aoki doing indicates his unawareness nemawaslti activities. Muramoto's tast-pacedwakatta'sare equivalentto her saying "that's enough already" likewiseindicatesher impatienceand misinterpretation of eagerness. Penn's Penn continuestalking and is interrupted(overlap of Line a\ by wakattatrom Muramoto.This time sheaccompanies another it with two handsheld up in front of herself as if to t'endotf Penn'sremarks. Penn goes on to express concernand worry over the detailsof the B Company (Lines 45 to 48). He wants to do typical American meeting activitiessuch as account tasks("who will do what") and setgoalsand policy("whatdirectionwe are going assign to take").These are potentially face-threatening activities,and also activitiesrich in which Japanesewould be for the exchangeof t-avors and obligations, opportunities interactions. Earlier in the conversation, both moreiikely to do during pre-meeting with Penn by taking into account Muramotoand Aoki have done a bit of nemawaslri some of his concerns. Now their hesitation to continuethis discussion demonstrates a desire to go on with nemawaslri activitieswith other co-workers,on other occasions, of the type that Penn is advocating. As Penn is talking, beforemaking decisions which she carries walks over to anotherdeskto get a large glossy Muramoto magazine, back to the desk next to Penn.Sheplopsit down and beginsto flip throughthe pages, eye-contact with Penn.When Penn adds"right'to the end of his turn in Line avoiding is to shakehis head horizontallyseveraltimes and wave 48.Aoki's nonverbalresponse "no no no no" in Line hisarm back and forth. Penn then verbalizes Aoki's nonverbal 50.After a minute of silence, Muramoto tells Penn that he will get more information on the A Companyaccount,and then Penn makesa last effort to direct the talk to B Company:

234

Laura Miller

Data segment 7 52 53 54 55 ,s6 57 P: M: P: M: P: So wh-okay lsorryl ftle wilU give you full information on A Company Okay no /that'sgood thank you lNel Now when can we talk about B company? B company! B company!

Muramoto tells Penn he will get informationon the A companyaccount,and Penn brings up B Company again(Lines 56-57).This time Penn'sfrustrationis being overtly expressed verbally and non-verbally. As he repeats"B company"(Line 57) he taps his desk with both hands.Both Aoki and Muramoto ignorethis and go on to talk about thingsother than B company. During the remainder of the workingday Penngrumbled off and on about his co-worker's uncooperativeattitude for not wanting to have a meetingabout the B companyaccount.

7. Consequences of misunderstanding The American in this situation appeared frustrated by the fact that there was no specific plan of action, no written-out agenda for the B Company account. He attempted to propose a meeting,in the American sense, in order to block out the detailsof the campaign, and indicatedthat sucha meetingshouldtake place as soon as possible.He contrastedthe numbersfbr the two accountsas a method of pointing out the greater importanceof the B companyaccount.He assumed that, logically,the acknowledgement of suchan impressive amountwouldresultin observable actionbeing taken. Given the "f'acts" Penn did not understand why Aoki and Muramoto did not agree to begin planning and meetingabout B Companyimmediately. His desire to promptly hold a meeting also demonstratedenthusiasmand initiative, traits highly valued in American business. He did not expectthat any usefulaction could be possible until atler a meetingwas held and an agendaestablished. For Penn,the purposeof a business meetingis to establish agendas, work-outsolutions and iron-outdisagreements. Penn later aired his opinion that his co-workers were being too indecisive and were attemptingto excludehim from participation in planninga meeting.In this case,he interpreted his co-workers'putting him off becausethey desired to continue with pre-meetingnem(twaslri with othersas hedging, indecisiveness, ambiguityanclrejection. In contrast to this, Penn'stwo Japanese colleagues treated his questionsand concerns as premature untilthey couldconductadditional spadework activities, finding out what others felt about the account,what tasksand responsibilities people had in mind, and blockingout some of the outlinesfor a plan of action prior to scheduling a meeting. All this activity takes time, and they felt they had plenty of time to do ii before a 'meeting'wasneeded.Penn'sinsisting that they "sit down" and "put together solnesolid thinking"was seenas embryonic, and is the type of behaviorthat led them

Co-worker n'tisunderstanding 235

to evaluate Penn as pushyand aggressive. For Muramoto and Aoki, the meetingwould be the culmination of advzrnce planningand talking.Penn's showing enthusiasm to hold a meeting right awayis a type of behavior couldlogically,based that theseparticipants on their own culturally-based reasons, interpretas overly aggressive and direct. The of Penn,Muramoto and Aoki is not unlike many of the interactions found in my case dataon Americanand Japanese business conversation, amongwhich are other cases wherethe same misinterpretations concerning the purposeor nature of a meeting results in a pragmaticmisunderstanding. As is clearfrom this example, one unconscious and culturallyinfluencedaspect of communicaticln is the participants'understanding of the purpose or gclal of a particular speechevent. Researchers in the "ethnography of communication" have stressed the significance of describingthe cultural values,norms and expectations individuals haveand make aboutspecific actsand events speech (suchas Gumperzand in the above Hymes1972: Bzruman and Sherzer1914and others). All the participants working dailywith the other.Penn had read many of the conversation had experience witlt the Japatrcse" numerous popular "How to Do Business books,and was otien seen making conscic'rus efforts to behave in what he hoped were appropriate ways; nevertheless, he was still operatingalongthe Americanmodel of business meetings in this situation.The Japanesestatf had likewisebecome informed about American valuesand behavior, cultural but did not recclgnize that Pennwas actingon American assumptions meetings. Yet desprte training,which was concerning their background with an abundanceof goodwill and group spirit, their unconsciously coupled held assumptions a particulartype of speech concerning eventnevertheless had unforeseen consequences. Prevalentin bcith academicand popular writing are forceful and influential descriptions as indirect, of Americansas forthright,direct and clear,and Japanese non-verbal and ambiguous(Doi 1974;Okabe 1983:Graham and Sato 1984:Alston 1 9 8 6; M ar c h 1982) . ' Pe rh a pth s ese c h a ra c te ri z a ti ons and stereotypes are not the resul t of a simple dichotomy in communicative behavior,but are based on more subtle pragmatic misunderstandings. observed here The type of pragmatic misunderstanding interactions mayalsooccur in American-American interactions, or Japanese-Japanese aswell. An importantditference, however, is that when they do occur,participants are apt to ascribe the problem to individualor personalitytraits, while in interethnic encounters the problem is sometimes assigned to often polarizedethnic attributes. When presenting and business this rescarch to variousgroupsof both academic people, I am ofien askedwhy the participants didn't simply start out by explaining to other u,hztt they were doingor what their assumptions were^Why didn't Penn,for each just tell his co-workers example, what he telt er"meeting" is for and what one diles in one ? Why didn't Muramotojust tell Pennthat shewantedto do somemore nemawasli befbremaking any decisions? It may seemobviousto us, armed with transcripts and

' For a discussionof the linguistic and pragmatic basesfor indirectnessand interpretations , ee Miller (1991) o f d i r e c t n c s ss

236

LauraMiller

re-playable video equipment, that there are things that can be done to facilitate understanding. Yet to the participants in ongoing interethnic interactions suchas these, it is preciselythe nature of assumptions and cultural knowledgesuch as this, the way it is taken for granted and unconsciously accepted as the norm, that lead us to feel that there is no necessity for explanation,and which will consequently lay the ground for recurring misinterpretation. which Many studies of Japanese and Americaninteraction, are based on consciously elicited observations may in fact represent and explanations, a collectionof mis-interpretations of a pragmaticnaturewhich are themselves identified as the locus of misunderstanding. Perhapswhen we begin to focus on more naturallyoccurring interactionswe will be able to locate other examplesof insidiousand unrecognizedpragmaticmisunderstandings.

References Alston, Jon P. (1986) The Anrcican sanurai: Blending Anteican and Japanesennnageial practices. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Arggle, Michael (1982) Inter-cultural communicalion. In S. Bochner (ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies tn cross-culntral interactlon. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 6I-79. 'To give Basso, Keith (1970) up on words': Silence in Western Apachc culture. SouthwesternJournal of Ant hropo Iogt 26: 213-230. Bauman, Richard, and Joel Shcrzcr (cds.) ( 1974) Erplorations in the erhnographyof speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blom, Jan-Peter, and John Gumperz (1972) Social meaning in linguistic structure. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Dircctions in sociolinEtistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 4O7-434. Clyne, Michael (1981) Culture and discoursestructure.Joumal of hagmatics 10: 373-386. Doi, Takco (1974) Some psvchologicalthemes in Japaneschuman relationships. In J. Condon ard M. Saito (eds.), Intercuhurol encounters with .lapon: Contnrunication-contact and conflict. Tokyo: The Simul Press"pp. I7-26. Doyle, Michael, and David Straus (1976) How to ntake meetings work. New York: Wyden Books. Fletcher, Winslon (1984) Meetings, nrcetings:How to nrcnipulate thent and ntake thent more fun. New York: Wiltiam Morrow and Company. Graham, John, and Roy Hcrberger (1983) Negotiators abroad: Don't shoot from the hip. Harvard Business Rev,iew July-August: 160-168. Graham, John, and Yoshihiro Sato (1984) Snnrt bargaining: Doing business with the Japanese. Cambridgc: Ballinger Publishing Company. Gumperz, John (cd.) (1982) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Co-workerntisunderstanrling

237

Gumperz. John, ancl Dcll Hymes (eds.) (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winstonconmunrcafir)n. Hall, Etlward T., and Mildrecl Rced Hall (19871 Hidden differences:Doing business with the Japanese. GardenCity: Anchor Press\Doubleday Kerlingcr,Fretl (1951) Dccision-making in Japan. Social Forces30: 36-41. Kohl, John, RebeccaBarclay,Thomas Pinelli, Michacl Keene, and John Kennedy (1993) The impact of and culturc on technical communication in Japan. ln TechnicalContntunicotion First Quarter, languagc 62-13. Koike, Shohei (1988) What is business Japancse? Designing a Japanese course for business Papcr prescntcd at the Seventh Annual Conferenceon Languageand Communication communication. for World Busincssand thc Profcssions. Latrov,William (1966) The social sfratilication of English in New'York City. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Linde,Charlorlc ( 199I ) What's ncxt? The social antl technologicalmanagementof meetin gs.Prognatics . 1.3:297-317 Mnngajin(1992\ Bloopers column. June, 18:4. case. communication:the Japanese-Western Businessnegotiationsascross-cultural March,Robert ( 19SZ) CrossCunents 9.1: 55-65. Masuda, K0 (ecl.) (1974) Kentqfisha's new,lapanese-Englishdictionary. Tokyo: Kenky0sha. Miller, l-aura (1991) Verbal listening behavior in conversationsbetween Japaneseand Americans. In Blommaert and Verschucrcn (ecls.), The pragmatics of interculrural and international contntunication. J o h n B e n j a m i n s ,p p . 1 1 0 - 1 3 0 . Amsterdam: Millcr, l-aura (1993a) Constructing group identity in a bicultural workplace. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C' Miller, l-aura (1993b) Viewing Tokyo's corporate landscape.Paper Presentedat thc Visual Research Conference,Annual Mccting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D"CIn Journal of Asian and Pacific ContmunrcaMiller, Laura (1994) Japaneseand American inclirectncss. rion. In press. Millcr, Robert F. (1991) Runntng a nteetingthat works. New York: Barron's. Mintzbcrg, Hcnry (1973) The nature of nnnagerial work. New York: Harper and Row. analysis. Philadelphia: Universi ty Moerman, Michacl ( 19SS)Talking culture: Ethnographyand conv'ersation rrf PcnnsylvaniaPress. Moran, Rcrbert (1985) Gerring yoLtr yen's w,orth: How to negotiate with Japan. Inc. Houston: Culf Publishing Company.

238

Laura Mitter

Okabe, Ryoichi (1983) Cultural assumptions East and West: Japan and the United States. In W. Gudykunst (ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Cunent perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 2l-44. Pascale,Richard Tanner (1978) Communication and decision making across cultures: Japanese and American comparison s. Adntinistrativ e Sciencefu arterly 23: 9 | -l09. Pascale, Richard Tanner, and Anthony G. Athos (1981) The art of Japanesemanagement: Applications for Anterican executives.New York: Simon and Schuster. Richardson, Bradley, and Taizo Ueda (eds.) (1981) Business and sociely in Japan: Fundantentals for businessmen New York: Praeger Publications. Robert, General Henry M. (1977) Rules of order. Guide and commentary by Rachel Vixman. New York: Jove Publications. Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Scollon (1981) Nanative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood: Ablex. Snell, Frank (1978) How to win the meeting. New York: Hawthorne Books, Inc. Stewart, Edward C. (1976) American assumptionsand values: Orientation to action. In E. Smith and L. Luce (eds.). Toward intemationalization: Readings in cross-cultural communication. Rowley: Newbury House, pp. l-22" Streek, Jiirgen (1993) Beyond gesture:The continuum of symbolization.Paper presentedat the PARRS Seminar on the Organization of Interaction, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Zimmerman. Mark (1985) How to do business with the lapanese: A strategt for success. New York: Random House.