GERMAN.CHINESE TNTERACTION S DIFFBRENCE S TN

GERMAN.CHINESE TNTERACTION S DIFFBRENCE S TN

Pragmatics
3:3.283-3M
InternationalPragmaticsAssociation
GERMAN.CHINESE TNTERACTIONS
DIFFBRENCES TN CONTEXTUALTZATTONCO}IVENTIONS
AND RESULTING MISCOMMUNICATION1
SusanneGiinthner
l.Introduction
Supposeyou are working as a visiting professor at a Chinese university. One late afternoon
you are taking a walk around campus. A Chinese colleague approachesyou, saying: "Hello,
Ms. X (Mr. Y). Have you already eaten?" You would probably interpret this utterance as a
pre-sequence
to a subsequentinvitation for dinner. Full of expectationsyou answer: "No, not
yet". However, to your astonishmentyour colleague replies: "Well, then I don't want to disturb you any longer. You surely must be very hungry."2
What happened?The Chinese speaker of English translated the Chinese routine formula
for greeting Chi guo le ma? (Have you already eaten?) word for word from Chinese into
English.You, however, interpreted this formula on the basis of your cultural conventions as
an introductionto an invitation for dinncr.
The lack of knowledge of cultural conventions of comnrunication and interaction norms
can have much rnore serious consequencesthan in our exarnple, where one might have been
rather disappointed and as a result of the interaction classify the Chinese colleague as a
"strangeperson". Not seldom intercultural differences in communication determine the outcomeof economic and political negotiations,personalencountersand professional success.
2. Culturally specific patterns of interpretation and the concept of contextualization
In his phenomenologicalessay "The Stranger" Alfred Schtitz (1944) analyzes the typical situationin which "strangers"find themselvesin their attempt to interpret the cultural pattern of
a socialgroup which they approach and to orient themselveswithin it. In this situation the so
far unquestionedand taken for granted schemes fbr interpreting the social world no longer
functionas a systemof testedrecipes at hand: The hitherto available cultural recipes and their
efficiencyas well as the typical attitudesrequired by them are no longer unquestioned"matter
of course"which give both security anciassurance.Instead,the knowledge that has been taken
for granteduntil now and has provided trustworthy recipes for interpreting the social world working,on the one hand, as a precept for actions and thus serving as a scheme of expression,
and serving, on the other hand, as a scheme of interpretation - becomes unworkable and a
"crisis"arises. Strangersexperiencethat neither the schemesof interpretationand expression,
broughtfrom their culture, nor the underlying basic assumptionsconcerning the "thinking as
usual" are any longer valid within the approached group. They lack the type of knowledge
thatis requiredfor the interpretationof the new group's ways of interacting. As Schi.itz(1944:
104)states.
I I wouldlike to thankAllison Wetterlinand Jennif'erHartog fbr their commentson the English translation.
2 T h i s. ^ a * p l e s t e m sf r o m m y o w n c x p e r i e n c a
e s a l e c t u r e ra t a C h i n e s eu n i v e r s i t y .
284
SusanneGtinthner
"... the culturalpatternof the approached
groupis to the strangernot a shelterbut a field of
adventure,
nota matterof coursebuta questionable
topicof investigation,
notan instrument
for
problematic
disentangling
situations
buta problematic
situation
itselfandonehardto master."
Strangersusually find within the scheme of reference brought along from their own cultural
background some ready-made ideas of the pattern supposedly valid within the approached
group and in order to interpret the other'sbehavior they try to apply theseready-madepictures
and stereotypesof the foreign group. However, they prove their inadequacy,as the knowledge
they offer "serves merely as a handy scheme of interpreting the foreign group and not as a
guide for interaction between the two groups" (Schtitz 1944:.98).
Cultural schemesof orientation, basedon social knowledge and past experienceare important constituentsof our schemataof interpretation and consequently,conventions of interacting and culture are strongly intertwined. Culture, cultural membership and differences do not
constitute entities separatedfrom the process of interaction, but are constructed and perpetuated by the participantsin the processof interacting. Culture is thus part of the implicit knowledge we rely on to interact with others, to interpret their verbal and nonverbal activities and
thereby influences the inferences we draw in the concrete situation. Due to partly different
schemataof knowledge the negotiation of interactive meaning turns out to be more difficult in
intercultural encountersand frequently leads to systematiccommunicative misinterpretations.
The concept of contextualization, introduced by Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1976),
proves to be a very useful theoretical and methodological approachto the analysis of intercultural communication and its insistenceon empirical analysis also makes it a very powerful approach for the in-depth-analysisof intercultural miscommunication. This concept implies that
interactantsconstrue context in carrying out their interactive activities: By producing a certain
verbal or nonverbal activity the interactantsenact a context for the interpretation of this particular activity.3 This reflexive notion of context, where context is no longer taken as a given
entity, but seen as the outcome of participants'joint effort to make it available, deals with the
cognitive processesthrough which cultural and other types of knowledge are brought into the
interpretative process: Speakersdo not just produce utterancesin order to transmit referential
meaning and information, they also contextualize them and make them interpretable by the
use of certain empirically detectable features - the so-called contextualization cues.4 These
can be described as a class of verbal and nonverbal signs that serve to relate what is said on
any particular occasion to knowledge acquired through past experience.This knowledge enters into the processof conversational inference as part of the background information against
which constituent messagescan be interpreted. Contextualization cues, which are based on
syntactic, lexical, stylistic, and code-bound options, on prosody, gesture, gaze,backchannels
etc., do not have referential meaning that could be stated outside of the situated context and
the sequential placement of the cues. When the relevant cues are understood by all participants, the interpretative process is taken for granted and tends to go unnoticed. However,
when a participant is unaware of the function of certain cues, interpretations may differ and
misunderstandingsmay occur (Gumperz 1982).
What is important for the analysis of intercultural communication is, that the ways of contextualizing meaning and interpreting contextualizationcues are shapedby sociocultural conventions. In order to interpret the utterancesof my counterpartadequately,I have to recognize
the present communicative situation and the embedded contextualization cues as an instance
of typified schemata and relate them to my stored sociocultural knowledge. A common
repertoire of contextualization conventions is thus an essentialprerequisitefor communicative
cooperation and for the negotiation of interactive meaning. Interactantsin intercultural communication often do not share the same contextualrzationcues and, as my data of interactions
between Germans and Chinese will demonstrate.svstematicdifferencesin the conventions
3 C f . A u " r 1 9 8 6 ;1 9 9 0 .
4 Cf. Auer (198622-41).
German-Chinese
interactions 285
and principles evolve that guide the way a conversational intention is signalled. In this case
the use of culture-specific contextualization conventions can lead to different inferences and
renderthe common negotiation of context and meaning difficult or even impossible.5
As Auer (1986) demonstrates,the different types and layers of context evoked through
contextualizatton
cues may be subsumedunder the following five mnemotic questions:
l. Are we talking together'?
2. Who is talking to whom?
3. Whatare we doing together?
4. Whatare we talking about?
5. What social and interactional roles and what kind of mutual relationship are we
negotiating?
In order to negotiate a common interactive context the participants'answers to these questions and thus to the different layers of signalling and interpreting context have to be consistent.I shall now outline these five types of context layers and will demonstrate intercultural
problemsof negotiating meaning related to these five areas.The analysis is based on naturally
occurringinteractionsbetween Chinese speakersof German and German natives and between
Chinesenative speakersinteracting in Putonghua(Mandarin Chinese). These interactions are
partof a larger corpus of data, which consistsof:
1) 25 audiotapedconversationsin German:
a. Datacollectedin the People'sRepublic of China:
- Nine conversations among Chinese and German lecturers teaching German at different
Chineseuniversities.These participants met on social occasions("having tea together"). The
Chinese'knowledgeof German is advanced.(The trancript segmentsSU, BAO, QIN, DU and
BU stemfrom thesesituations).
- Threeconversationsduring the office-hours of German representativesof German institutionsin China. The Chinese participants are scientistswho just finished a one-year intensive
Germanclass.Their level of German can be describedas "intermediate". (The transcript segmentsZHENG and MA belong to theseinteractive situations.)
b. Datacollectedin Germany:
- Thirteeninformal conversations(coffee chats) among Chinese and German students,studying at German universities. The German of these Chinese students is fairly advanced. (The
conversationWU is part of this corpus).
2) Threeinformal interactionsbetween Chinese speakers(in Chinese).
The conversations
lastedbetween l2 and 125 minutes.
2.1.Contex tualizi ng c o nv ersatio nul i nv o lv ernent
The first questionAre we talking together? concerns the contextualization cues responsible
for the maintenanceof focussedinteraction and conversationalinvolvement. Recipient behavior turnsout to be a relevant cue in this respect.Different cultures show different conventions
in the ways of signalling and interpreting conversationalinvolvement and active listenership.6
My data show a striking difference between German and Chinese recipients' frequency of
producingminimal responsessuch as "mhm" of "ja".7
problemsbasedon dif'ferentinterpretations
cuesare of coursenot limited
5 Communication
of contextualization
to intercultural
encounters.However, they seemto show up regularily in theseencountersand can be systematicallyconnected
to differentsystemsof interactionconventions.
o Maynard(1986)points out that Japaneserecipientsproducethree times as many minimal responsesas their
Americancounterparts.
7 In theChinese-Chinesc
data there are even f'ewerminimal responses(Giinthner1993a).For similar resultson
minimalresponses
interactionsseeTao/Thompson(199l).
usedby Chineserecipientsin Chinese-American
286
Susanne Gtinthner
In the following transcript the German B tells the Chinese Su and Yao about her friend
Frau Peiper:
SUI
268:
27Su:
288:
29
die - die Frau Peiperist - von Beruf Optikerin.
Mrs. Peiper is - an optician.
ah Optik'
ah optic"
Optikerin.und hat einenLaden.
optician. and has a shop.
alsoein Geschiift.
in other words a store.
30
(0.3)
3l
und nebenherhat sie mit frinfundfrinfzigJahren
and besidesthat she startedwith fifty-five years
zu studieren.
angefangen
to studyat the universit.y.
32
a a
-)J
1 A
-)+
35
36
a 1
-)t
38
39
( 0. 8)
alsosiestudiert.
so she attends universiry.
und hat einen Optikerladen.
and has an optician's sltop.
und jetzt macht sie
and no',t' she is
zum ersten Mal in ihrem Leben drei Wochen Urlaub.
for the first time in her life on a three week-holiday-trip.
( 0. 3)
in China.
in China.
The fact that "expected" minimal responsesdo not appear at syntactically and prosodically
marked listening-responserelevant-moments(28; 29 32: 34; 35: 37), is made accountableby
B's verbal behavior: She interprets this absenceas contextualization cue for comprehension
problems and reacts by recycling and paraphrasingher own utterances,providing repetitions
and further explanations.In line 28-29 she substitutesthe term "Laden" for "Geschdft". When
still no minimal responsesshow up (line 31-33), B reducesthe degreeof complexity of her
utterance and repeatsthe propositional content on a more elementarylevel: "so she attends
university and has an optician's shop". The speaker'sreaction to the absenceof responseis
very similar to the observations of Erickson/Shultz (1982): If there are no recipients'
responsesoccurring at listening-responserelevant-moments,speakerswill not proceed to the
next unit of speaking activity but will persist in reiterating the same point. Reformulations,
hyperexplanations and lowering the level of abstraction are the communicative strategies
speakersthen apply.
The following transcript also demonstratesthe different ways of "doing listening" between
the German U and ChineseWu:
wul
5Wu:
6
1
8U:
9Wu:
a l s o i c h : h a b e( l . 5 ) ( e i n ) ( 1 . 0 ) n u r
well I: have ( I .5) (a) ( L0) only
ganz wenige Male bei einer deutschen
very few times been at a German
Familie gewesen.
Jamilv's honte.
Ja
yeah.
also ich kenne nur oberfliichlich('H'H'H'H)
German-Chineseinteractions287
l0
I lU:
l2Wu:
l3U:
l4Wu:
r5u:
l6Wu:
t1
t8u:
l9Wu:
20
ZlU:
22Wu:
so I knoyyonly superficially('H'H'H'H)
die deutsche
Familieaber
the Germanfamily but
mhm
mhm
sehreh (....)ich sehrgut miteinander
eh' zwischen
veryeh (...) I ven' good togethereh'betw,een
m h mm h m
mhm mhm
Familienmitglieder.
the members of the family.
mhm
nthnt
aberich weiBnichteh wie siehtalso
but I don't know eh what looks
eigentlichwie siehtHINTERheTdie Familie
actually w,hatthefamily looksBEHIND
der ALLTAG
the EVERYDAYLIFE
eh die die die die Beziehunszwischen
eh the the the the relationtiip burrrm
/der Familienmitglieder/odererziihlenSie mir
/the mernbersof thefcunilyy'or tell me
/mhm
mhm mhm /
/mhnt
mhm mhm/
kurz ijber die, die eh die ehm /Sache/
a little abottt the, the eh the ehrn/ntatter/
23U:
/mhm/
hnhnl
24Wu:
tiberdie (H' H') eh Familie,deursche
Familie
aboutthe (H'H') ehfamily, Gerntanfamity
zum Beispieldie (1.5)Beziehungzwischen
for examplethe ( I .5) relationshipbetvv'een
der Kinderder eh eh'zwischendem Kinder
the children the eh eh'betweenthe children
und der Eltern(H')
and the oarents(H')
25
26
27
28U:
29Wu:
30
3l
3 2U:
3 3U:
i4
35
36
aa
)t
38
mhm
mhm
insbesonderewenn der Kinder erwachsen ist.
especially when the children is grown up.
wie siehtdie Beziehuns zwischendie Kinder
what is the relatiortshil beween the chiLdren
/der/ eh und der Eltern aus'
/the/ eh and the parents like'
/mhm/
/mhm/
also, ich kenns jetzr SO aus: MEINER Erfahrune daB:
well, I can say from: MY own experience that;
d i e ( I . 5 ) e h : ( 2 . 0 ) K i n d e r ' ( 1 . 5 )s e h r ( 2 . 0 )
the ( I .5) eh: (2.0) children'(1.5) are (2.0)
eh nach SCHEMEN ERZOGEN werden, nach sewissen eh
eh BROUGHT UP according to SCHEMATA, i; order to eh
zum gewissen VERHALTEN hin (-)
show ct t'ertain BEHAVTOR (-)
also wie sie sich spiiter verhalten SOLLEN
rhat is h.ow they are SUPPOSED to or MUST
oder MUSSEN nach der Meinuns der ELTERN (-)
behove later on according to the opinion of the iingNfS
Cl
288
39
40
4l
42
43
44
45
46
4l
48
49
50
-51
52
-53
54
55
56
5l
58
Susanne Gtinthner
und daBdie Elterndann( 1.0)ihnenversuchen
and that theparents then ( 1.0) try for them
alsoden Kinderndesmitzugebenauf den Weg, (-)
I meanfor the children to give themfor their lives(-)
wie sie sich speiter
verhaltensollenwie sie sich
the modelshow they shouldbehaveor
verhaltenKONNEN in der Gesellschaft
spiiter(0.3)
CAN behavelater on in the society(0.3)
's
un:d (4.0) es eigentlichfi.irMICH jetzt schwierig
an:d (4.0) it'sactuallydfficult for ME now
jetzt waszu sagenweil ich (0.3)
dari.iber
to talk about this right now causeI (0.3)
KANN mir's auf der einenSeitenicht anders
CANnot irnagineon the one side
vorstellenwie'szum Beispiel,andersgemacht
howfor exampleit could be
werdenkcjnnte.(0.5)
done dffirentLy (0.5)
alsozum BeispieldesVerhiiltnisKinderEltern(1.8)
takefor examplethe relatiortshipbetweenchildren
also s'isteh zumindestalsobis zu
and parents( I .8) this is eh at leastuntil
DEM Zeitpunktwo die Kinder aus'mHausgehn,
THE time when the children leovehome
issesn' ERZIEHUNGSpTozeB,
da ermoglichen
until then it's a processof EDUCATING them,during thoseyears
di Ki'eh die Elternden Kindernzum Beispiel
tlte ch' eh the parentsmakeit possiblefor the childrenfor
(0.3)eh (0.3)
alsodie Schulbildung
e.rantpleto go to school (0.3) eh (0.3)
gewisseVerhaltens
eh: Schemen
un'
certain schemataeh: of how to act an'
und Mustern(-) wie siesichanzuziehen
haben
ond patterns (-) how to dress
wie sie sichzu benehmen
haben
how to behave
(0.3)
anderenMenschengegeni.iber
tovvordsotherpeople(0.3)
undsoweiterhalt.
andso on, \tou see.
In the first part of the transcript, U, who then has the interactive role of the recipient, produces
his minimal responses "mhm", "rnhm mhm" and 'Ja" on a very regular rhythmic basis after
informational phrasesa18; 28,64.66). In line 33 the participation framework changes and U
takes over the speaker'srole. Then, however, the interactive rhythm changes:frequent pauses
appear and hardly any minimal responsesare produced. The flow of talk stagnates,and U
keeps on recycling parts of his utterances,providing explanations (40-42), offering examples
(46-48; 55-57) and initiating repairs. In line 35, he changes the terminology from
"BROUGHT UP accordins to SCHEMATA" to "show a certain BEHAVIOR". Still not having received any recipient ieaction after the pause (-), he reformulates his utteranceat a lower
level of abstraction: "that is how they are SUPPOSED to or MUST behave later on according
to the opinion of the PARENTS" (line 37-38). In line 49-51, Uformulates the thesis that
"until THE time when the children leave home.. it's a processof EDUCATING them". When
he receives no backchannel signals, he goes on by providing examples to concretize this thesis: "the parentsmake it possiblefor the children for example to got to school "(51-53). After
"Infonnationalphrases"are definedas
8 The term "informationalphrase"is basedon Gumperz/Berenz(1990:-5).
s y n t a c t i c a l l yp, r o s o d i c a l l ya n d s e m a n t i c a l lryn a r k e du n i t so f t a l k .
Gemtan-Chineseinteractions289
still not receiving any minimal response,he even goes more into details "how to dress how to
behavetoward other people". Thus, informational phrasesare produced without being met by
signsof "continuers".
The striking difference in frequency of minimal responses between the German and
Chineseparticipants cannot be explained by possible comprehension problems, because the
Chineseparticipantsin both interactions (SU and WU) speak German fairly well (Su is lecturerof German at a Chinese universitv and Wu is studvins at a German universitv). Furthermore, when we look at Chinese-Chineseconversations,rjcipient responses(such as "en, ai,
jiushi, dui") are seldomly found. We often find longer passagesof one speaker talking
without receiving any backchanneltoken from the recipient.
The following transcript segment, taken from an informal conversation between the two
ChineseLiang and Zhang, will illustrate this "absence"of minimal responsesin Chinese
interactions:
LIANG I
ttffl E if tffi'rt
frft#1ffi'fr
5liang:
wo juede ma, xiang women zai zhe ge difang
I mean (part.), like us at this place
6
0feE,
+7-+
xuele yi nian de deyu,
we learnt Germanfor one year,
7
E*ft-+
il+7 ls+ftfilft.E
suiran shi yi nian guoqule danshi women juede
we think
although one year passed but
8
6igE-, lEiE igE-,
*fnil#0!eErF+
women xianzai de deyu shuiping hai meiyou, yuanyuan meiyou,
our present level of German
still has not, is still far far from
e
iASrJ
* lfl = tr'JFf gE €. 'R 60il+ t,+
dadaowomen dangshi suo neng xiangxiang de neige shuiping.
the level we formerly
imagined we could reach.
r0
D/ilJU ilA
ffi-E-
fr!eE#+
erqie yi women xianzai de deyu shuiping
besides,with the level of our German now
n
sJ eH + +>J 464 ExE ffi, J(
dao deguo qu xuexi, keneng kunnan hen da.
if we go to Germany to study perhaps the problems will be very big.
t2
lfri\fi
tr^L /F
ni renwei zenme yang?
what do you thittk?
t3zhang:
H-t,
t4
* fr# il+ EE- lF + igE- ]|tE SU
di yige, wo juede zhegeyuyan ma shi meiyou zhijing de.
first of all I think this language (part.) has no limits.
iliE lttt ilJL & + ++
jiushi m zai zher duo xue bannian
evenwhen you still study herefor another half a year
15 weT Hu.ift, ff sJtrtrE ltH
ni ye bu neng shuo
*77
ni de deyu shi feichang haole.
290
SusanneGtinthner
you still cannot say
16 EulHe
your Gennan is very good.
EeH -H trtr dl igE-
keyi wanquan zai deguo yidiankunnanye meiyou.
thenstill it won'tbe thatyou haveno problemswhenyouare in Germany.
n
ifiA +E fu Si*
H,
jinru xuexi he shenghuo,en,
concenting going there, stud-virtgand livirtg there, lmt,
18
H:tgE, lt ffF' R' 6'!rRtiSU ft
wo juede, en, ze, ruguo ni dao shi
di erge ne,
secondly (part.), I mean, eh, cih, when you
19
H,,3J E Ef+ +E IEI,€E BE,
en, dao deguo qu xuexi, en, deyu ne,
hm, go to Germany to learn German (part.),
20
}'+
ft Jil if -.{! Bfr' *iF
rril ff L
0f
zhuyao shi yingfu yixie richang huihua a
shenme de.
it is important to be able to communicate in everyday life (part.) and so on.
2t
fH*r Fit
t-
8t lt,
E ft fSSSeEf
#,,
'"ii:z:"12,Hi;,,i!ffi01,",!;:;,;;;iT,I',';,f:l;;;"?,lz,,n
enough,
o,isnot
There oi. no minimal responsesshown after the completion of intonational and informational
p h r a s e s( s u c ha s 6 , 9 , I l , 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 1 , 2 0 ) .
As both the German-Chineseand Chinese-Chineseconversationsin my data suggest,German and Chinese recipients display different styles of signalling active listenership,which
lead to misinterpretations and disturbancesduring such intercultural conversations:The German recipients regularly provide backchanneltokens in the function of "continuers"9which
serve to encouragethe speakerto continue. Chinese recipients,by contrast,hardly ever use
backchannel tokens in the function of "continuers", but produce them as signals of agreement,
understandingor of their willingnessto take over the floor.l0
In their study of backchiinnelsin Mandarin conversationsTao/Thompson(1991) report a
similar observation concerning the differences in providing backchannelsin English and
Mandarin:
"Our first findingwas a strikingdifference
betweenMandarinandEnglishin frequency
of
backchannels.
Countingspeaker
whetherin overlapor not,
changes
asanychangein speakership,
we foundthat63 out of 27| (25Eo)
of thespeaker
in theEnglishdatawerebackchannel
changes
r e s p o n s e s , w h i l e i n t h e M a n d a r i n d a lt0aoountl oy f l l 9 ( 8 V o )o f t h e M a n d a r i n s p e a k e r c h a n g e s
werebackchannel
responses.
Thesefindingsstronglysuggest
thatEnglishmakesmuchmoreuse
(Tao/Thompson
of backchannels
asa conversation
strategy
thandoesMandarin."
199l:21I )
Another difference in the ways of contextualizing conversationalinvolvement includes what I
call "recipient echos". These.other-repetitions,which prosodically and lexically imitate the
previous speaker'sutterance,are only employed by the Chinese recipients.
The following segment is taken from an interaction between the Chinese Fan and her
German collegue S. They are talking about the situation of women in China and Germany:
e S c h e g l o f(f l 9 8 l ) .
l0 For a detailled discussionot'dif'fbrencesin backchannelbehaviorbetwecnGerman and Chineserecioients.
s e eG i j n t h n e r( 1 9 9 3 b ) .
German-Chinese
interactions 291
FAN 5
l35:
l4Fan:
r5s:
l6
l 1
t l
l8
I 9Fan:
ja wissenSie in Deutschrand
ist es schonsehrscHWIERIG.
-'
=
you know^in_Germany
it '"
is ve4,
" DIFFICULi.:
= sehrSCHW.IERIG:
- very DIFFICULT
ja. wennale Piau ein Kind hat.
1,es.whena womanhas a chikJ.
(0.5)
hh'esgibt einfachzu wenigKinderein'Kinderbetreuungsplzitze.
toofe*. ,hitdri, chitd car) pii,;;. """"'.''"
!!',rtyre^are.iust
unod,reReglerungmachtNICHTS.
ond ilrc govermentisn't doing ANYTHING about
it.
machtNICHTS.
isn't doing ANYTHING about ir.
The echos(line l4 and l9), which do not only
repeatlexically, parts of the prior turn but also
duqricate
thefocussed
erementi
unt tnur.tr,._.i,qilti.#r.n,) partof theprer:::9i::!1,
cedrng
urrerance
("veryDIFFICULT";"doesn'r
do ANyTHrryc
"b;;;'il;t-wirla;.pfiiii""
u.i*.t"ao,rni"iu.1i".ii
L,t,uri,r,.a
inJ'pu.t
Silf:i:ffijil ;ffil;i:t:lg,X;:'"lt'.un-no*
The following transcript is part of an office-hour
conversationbetween F, the German representativeof a German institulion and zheng,
a-irri*r. studentof German:
ZHENG7
lF:
2
3Zheng:
4F:
5Zheng:
H'die pNdS ist einepnifune,auf die
H'the pNdSis an exam,for"which
mu8man sich geZIELT vorbereiten
,-ouhave to prepare THROUGHtv
geZIELT vorbereiren=
prepore THROUGHIy=
=ja. ja. - und dasdafert Zeit _ ne'
= yeah.yeah._and this tokestinte_ right,
dauertZeit ne'
takestime right,
37F:
ehm(0.7)ehm (0.5)und miissen
ehm(0.7)ehm (0.5)and must
38
dannWIEDERGEBEN,was in dem TEXT ist
tlrcn REpEAT, what is in the TEXT
39Zheng: ja. - nur lhauptsiich/Iich
yeah.- only /the main poirtts/
40F:
/und zwar/mSglic-frst
ALLES
ALL
4tzhens: mogrichof;#{,'"ssibte
if possibleA/LU
Similarrecipientechos are being employed in the
Chinese data as well.
In the conversationHAN t*5 cnin.ie native
rp.o[.ir (Han and Fan) interactin chinese:
HAN 2
rHan: €-tr SfE/'iftrtE6ftrftE
2
ge.zhongde guorenzhege t"nnrilo.-riil6u'v,henseyeralpeople rull rcgether
tTe+S
dadeshoushi
nnke gestures
292
Susanne Gtinthner
3Fan:
tTh9+4
dadeshoushi
make gestures
4Han:
tI SJ+4 4 - /F
dadeshoushibu yiyang
makegesturesnot the same
5Fan:
r-F
bu yiyang.
not the some.
Such echo-strategiesare to be interpreted in the context of Chinese facework-strategies:They
signal - as my Chinese informants point out - deference,politeness,and respectfor the previEI lsubous speaker. They are a rhetoric strategy of what is called "di san xia si" lE=T
missive, humble)-behavior, symbolizing a conversational "koutou" (kowtow) to one's conversational partner. Through imitative repetition more sequential weight is put on the utterance
of the interlocutor and it is thereby reflected as being very important.
2.2. C o nt ex tual izin g p artic ular p artic ip a nt c o n st ellatio ns
The second question "Who is talking to whom?" subsumescontextualizationcues evoking the
context of particular "participant constellations". Besides the choice of linguistic code,
dialect, or register, the aspect of recipient designI I also belongs to this category, that is, the
design of the utterance with an orientation to the background knowledge and cognitive state
of the recipients. Speakersusually model their utteranceson what they assume to be the
recipients' knowledge and thereby take into considerationwhat information is given and what
is new. Speakersare normally - as Bachtin (1979 175) points out - endeavoredto "orient
their word with its specific horizon to the horizon of the recipient". For participants in
intercultural communication, who often come from very different life-worlds, it is difficult to
assesswhat kind of social knowledge can be presupposedand what needsfurther explanation.
The limits of commonly shared patterns of experience have to be continually investigated,
since in intercultural communication the idealization of "the assumption concerning the
congruence of relevance systems" (Schiitz&Luckmann 1979) due to similar experiences
might turn out to be problematic. The design of the utterancecan be inadequatein two ways:
the speaker might over- or underestimatethe sharedknowledge and thus the utterancemay be
either not informative enough or too elaborate. In the case of an overestimation the
interactantsinitiate a repair sequence.
In following segment is taken from a conversationbetween the German lecturer S and
Bao, a teacher of German at a Chinese university:
BAO 5
lBao:
2
35:
4Bao:
55:
68ao:
wir Schinesendenken,eineeineja Frau an der Macht
we Chinesethink,a a yeahe vtonrunin power
ist nicht gut. Sie sehenwie zum Bei zum BeispielZIQL
is rtot good. you see likefor exfor e.ratnpleZIQI .
ja? wer istZi? ehZiqi? wer ist das?
ja? who is Zi? eh Ziqi? who is that?
kennsteh kennenSie nicht ZIQI?
don't you know ZIQI?
n e i : n .Z i : q i ?n e i n .
no:. Zi:qi? no.
siewar die ja Kaiserwit'Kaiserwitweausderja QING Dynastie
she was theja king'swid' king'swidow during theja QING dynasty
(19'74:121).
I 1 Cf. Sacks/SchcgloftTJefferson
Gemtan-Chineseinteractions
75:
293
wannhat sie denngelebt?
whendid shelive?
The following transcript segment - which is part of an interaction between the German M,
who has already spent nine months in China and the Chinese Qin - presentsan underestimation of the recipient'sbackground knowledge:
QrN l
l6Qin:
l7M:
lSQin:
l9
20M:
2lQ:
22M&Q:
23M:
24Qin:
25
26
auchdie Studienreform.
also the reform of the universiq-.
mhm.
ich glaubevor der Kulturrevolution'
I believebeforethe cultural revolution'
++jaSie wissensicher++die Kulturrevolution?
++ yeahyousurelyknow++ the cultural revolution'l
((HI)) Thema((HI))/
haha/haein weit ((HI)) verbreitetes
haha/hao very ((HI)) contnon ((HI)) topic ((HI))/
lhi hahahahahahahahahahahhhhhhaha/
hahaahahahahahahahhhahahahahah
/wenn man/
/whenyou/
lja vorl der Kulturrevolutionja, dann
/yeahbefore/the cultural revolutionyeah,then
werdenja auchdie Absolventenausder
the graduatesfrom middle SCHOOL were sent
MiteISCHULE ja direkr- zur Universitritgeschickt
yeahdirectly - to university
Qin'sinquiring about the "cultural revolution" (18-19), which is prosodically marked by an
increaseof tempo "++ yeah you surely know++ the cultural revolution?", demonstrateshis
uncertaintyregarding the repertoire of knowledge of his German partner. M reacts to this
over-explicitnessby laughing. For Germans who are interested in China and especially for
thosewho live there, the assumptionthey might not know about the "cultural revolution"
seemsrather "absurd". For Qin, however, the fact that a foreigner living in China knows
aboutthe cultural revolution does not seem to be taken for granted. Underestimating the
knowledgeof the recipient and consequentlyemploying "talking-down"-techniquesmight
tum out to be more face-threateningthan overestimatingtheir knowledge.
2.3. Cont ex tualizi ng c onv ers atio nal activ ity typ es
The third question "What are we tloing rogether?" concerns the activity types presently relevant for the interaction. Contextualization cues working on this layer of context may evoke
specificsequentialformats (adjacency pairs etc.) or larger speech activities and genres (such
as argumentation,narrative, gossip). In addition, this questions deals with cues that establish
the "key" of an utterance,for example if an utterance is supposedto be interpreted as joking,
ironic,seriousetc.
In interculturalcommunication differences in the function, structure and stylistic assessment
of particulargenrescan clash. The choice of a genre that might be used to serve a certain interactivefunction in our culture, might turn out to be inadequatein a different cultural setting.
In my data Chinesespeakersfrequently refer to proverbial sayings in order to back up their
arguments.l2
t r S e e G i i n t h n e r ( 1l9) o9n t h e u s e o f p r o v e r b i asl a y i n g s i n C h i n e s e i n t e r a c t i o n s .
294
SusanneGtinthner
In the following transcript excerpt of a conversationbetween Du and the two German
speakersE and A a kind of behavior is at stake which varies from culture to culture:
DUII
IE:
z
3
A
+
5Du:
6E:
7Du:
8E:
9Du:
l0
ll
12
13
t4
l5E:
16
1 7A :
l8E:
l9
20Du:
21
224
und zum Beispielwenn Frauenverheiratetsind
andfor examplewhen womenare married
(-) und unglticklichsind,oderSchwierigkeiten
haben,
- and are unhappl,or when they haveproblems,
sprechen
siedannmit ihren
would theythen
Freundinnendaniber?
consulttheir women friends?
*j a.*
dasschon'
theywould'
*dasschon.*
*they would.*
und auchmit ihr/em (Mann)/
and also the/ir (husbands)/
/aberauch/nichtsehrviel
/but/ not too much
w e i l b e i u n ss a s tm a ne h : : : : '
'
becausewe sal eh::::
JIACHOU BU KE WAIYANG. (0.5)
(0.5)
JTACHOUBU KE WATYANG.
dasheiBteh'- die schlimmeSachen
thismeanseh' - the bad tltirtgs
in der Farniliekannman nicht
of thefamilv shouldnot
eh ja RAUS sa/gen/
eh yeah be told OUT/SIDE/
/mhm/ so ein Sprichwort
/mhn/ we used
gabsbei uns friiherauch(....).
to hov'ea proverblike thistoo (...).
a hj a ?
ah ja?
jajaja. bei uns. bei meinen GroBeltern (frtiher ja). mhm.
jajaja. w'e dicl. at my grotulparents (sonte time ago ja). mhm.
fl.0)
weil nran (-) man Angst hat,daBdie andere'eh
because one - one is afraid, that the others'eh
Leute eh riber sie lach/en/
people eh will laugh ot /them/
/mhm/
The explanationDu gives for her assessment"but not too much" (line 9) and at the same time
the explanation for the behavior of Chinese women in general is provided by quoting the
Chinese proverb "JIACHOU BU KE WAIYANG" (11) and prefacing it with "because".By
reproducing a collectively sharedopinion - a folk wisdom - Du contextualizesthe fact that the
norm encoded in the saying is still valid to date. Experience of the cultural past becomes the
model for present action and at the same time the German participants are presentedwith behavior maxims of another cultural community packagedin a particular genre. The quoted
proverb is marked off from the neighboring discourse context by means of increasedvolume
and a particular rhythm (an alternation between stressedand unstressedsyllables: JIA CHOU
BU KE WAI YANG) and short pauses before and after the saying. Thus, the "reported
speech" is set into the running discoursetext as a montage,thereforeyielding various layers
of text (German-Chineseas well as particular rhythmic and prosodic features)(12).
Gemtan-Chinese interactions
Zg5
Studieson chinese-rhetorics,report
that proverbialsayings- Chengyu
traditionallv
in particularusedto suppo'rtont'' i.gument,
as the power to-convince-traditionaily are
analogies
and on citati'J'sti r.."t;ir;;
rerieson
;;il;iiii5.
anecdores
and fabres(Graner1985.
Gtinthner
l99l). u-l,,..loi:rr"r-,ffi::
"ornaments"
offifio* senres
whichareconsidered
in scientific-as-weTl
as
as lghiy
sequences,
the speakersdemonstrate
theirgoodeducationand showirrlii in argurirentativE
,t-ng-links
wiih traoitionarnorm, u'noforms
In their use of oro"vlruiaf
of wisdom.
clin;s. ;;;u[irr".ore
l.l.;;
close ro the idearsof chinese
rhetoric:insteadof expressing-in-JiuiJ;;i
ii"y gr919curturailyvarid patrerns
present
theirown asseriions
and
uJu.ing partof^;fit"*
traoltionailndstill valid collective
In everydayconversationi-cerm?n.speakers
wisdom.
,o-"ti-r,
arsousesayings,but in a German
contex*hefunctionof sayingsis
uiually 6 ;;il;;;
atopiqr3
andnottosupport
an
a'gumeru.
Besides,
in'cffi::i1Jffl;Jn:ii*i#,*::
- withtt empfiari,on-;iniiiryfJC;;*;^:
leduals
opinionandoriginality,,,
" wisdol;^in
rngof "unquesrioned
?"r.
prou".b,,""*i ratherdispreferied. theieveat_
"r
probrems
arise
duerotheconrextuarization
',,.llJl1'".'?lt3illj5-'1#l:TiJ,'$?,ffiff*tion
or
The Chinese Zheng comes to
see F, a rgpre-sentativeof a German
office hours in order io talk
institution, during her
to tt.i uuout the rorth.o.ing.German
language exam (pNds-
'itt, iiii."ft;;fi;.i,in,ron,hepropdses
;;:T].ffi3i:i3J:: probrems
rosmussre
ina
ZHENG9
l2Zheng:
l3
t4
r5F:
l6Zheng:
l 7 F:
itpt
22
IJ
Z4Zhenl:
25F:
i6zhrng,
37F:
38Zheng:
39F:
'r
S , t i r n m ea) b
) e r . i ce
h i n e( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(! !hl i:ghh, "p i r c h ) )b m I a ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ) e h i c h
) e ht
Konnteerneeh (ntini)taperecorder
coutdtakealortga eh lmini) tdperecorder
Kassetrenrekordtr
.t nu.f.r.t',i"ri,".f,il." =
tape recorrler =
=((schnel
I)) zur pnifuns?
=((fast))to the eram? "
ja'hh
((hoheStimme))Sryp
Jg,pESWAHNSTNN?
((hishpitch)) ent yOUf UTD!:
Sie drirfenkeineneh'hbei der
you are not allowedto
eh,et the
PnifungwissenSie,SieO.iJ"o_
exent|ou knov., \.ottare
NU:R einen- Stih zum Schreiben
mitbringen
oN:LY attotyedro brins
,o write wittt
"t;;;:;;i),,"r'ii
Ja
undsonsr- NICHTS
ond - NOTHING else
ha /aber ich kcinneeine SEFIRKLEINE/
ha/ bur Icould a VERy SNAelV
/Siedtirfen
nUn eri.rEr.T
s,irv
/vou are.ONL-yallowedtoUiing
ONE penciU
SaHn
eh hihihihier/hhhh/
VERY {IFINE;"A"f#,"e
SMALL eh tape.r, ntr,ir,ih'";)iH;1,,.
/jal
Q u a s t h o t1f 9 7 8 'S c h e g l o f f / s a c k(s1 9 1 4 : 3 0 6 ) l i s t
p r o v e r b i a fl o r m u r a t i o n o
s f c o n v e n t i o n awr i s d o m
for "topic-bounding';.
asone of
sr.. ,J.r, rbrmurations'";;;';"
agrcedon,,, rhcy can be appriedro
:T-T:',Hffs
crose
296
SusanneGtinthner
40F:
4l
42
43
44
45Zheng:
46F:
47F:
4SZheng:
49F:
50
51
wissenSie daBdas wissenSie,daBdasaufflillt',
you know that, you know, that someonemight notice it
in dem Moment eh eh sind SEHR strengeKontrollen',
at that momenteh eh they have VERYstrict controls',
in dem Moment,wo man Sie erwischt,sind Sie
the moment,they catchyou, you' ve
DURCHGEFALLEN, fertig.keineDiskuSSION.
FAILED, finished. no discuSSION
(0.5)
DAS weiBnichthihihihihhh/hhhihhh/
THIS I don't knoyvhihihihi hhUhhhihhU
/glauben/
/believe/
/Sie es mir. glauben Sie es mir./
/me. believeme./
/das ist nur ne das ist nur eine SpaB/
/this is only ne this is only a joke/
glaubenSie es mir, ich habehier in
believeme, I already e.rperienced
Wuhanzweieh - PNdS:::eh Prtifunsen
two eh - PNdS:::eh exams
MlTerlebt ne
here in Wuhan
The source of misunderstandinghere is how the utterancesare to be taken - as a joke or as serious. F's reaction clearly shows that she interpreted Zheng's proposal (12-14) as being serious. As Sacks (1972) points out, the determination of the features "joke-serious" is deeply
consequential for the analysis of what a speaker is doing and what that implicates for the recipient in the next turn. The interpretation "joke" makes laughing a relevant next action. In
our case, however, F demonstratesher indignation and refers to the regulations of the exam.
In line 36 Zheng brings up his proposal again by slightly modifying and accentuatingit with
laugh tokens: "a VERY SMALL VERY SMALL eh tape eh hihihi". F again interprets this utterance as a serious attempt without perceiving the joking modality contextualizedby Zheng.
Finally in line 48 Zheng provides the explicit explanation, commenting on the interactive
modus: "this is only ne this is only a joke". The reasonfor this miscommunication is based on
F's misinterpretation of Zheng's contextualizationcues (high pitch, giggling etc.la) and different conventions of when to joke on what topic with whom.
2.4. Contextualizing
topicality and the organization of information
management
The fourth question"What are we talking about?" concerns the organization of discourse
pragmatic information. The negotiation of pragmatic meaning affects the interactants'ways of
signalling and interpreting the discourse features such as: What is the main point of the message and what is only subsidiary? What knowledge is assumedto be shared?What information is old and what is new? What is the speaker'spoint of view?
While German and American discourseconventions demand a certain kind of directnessconcerning the development of the topic, in other rhetoric traditions (such as Chinese) there is
much more emphasis on conversational indirection and moving slowly in a rather circular
way towards the main statement.From the Chinese perspectivethe direct way of stating one's
opinion in situations where we would expect such a direct statement,is often considered inconsiderate and rude. Instead of directly aiming for the main point, a strategy referred to in
Chinese rhetorics as "KAI MEN JIAN SHAN" ("You open the door and are confronted with
the mountains"), Chinese speakersprefer a pattern of organizing information, where first of
all a common framework of information becomes established,before the speakersutter their
l4 To what extentZhens.usesnonverbalcontextualization
cuescannotbe takcn into consideration.
German-Chinese
interactions 297
main statement.i5 This technique of structuring information is in tune with the rhetoric principles of "HUA LONG DIAN JING" ("When you paint a dragon, you put in the eyes at the
end." Or: "You add the finishing touch to the composition"): First you should paint the
outlinecontours before you get to the most precious part. If you paint in the eyes before, the
dragonwill fly off - and your argument is lost. German interactants, however, often show
signsof impatience when they are confronted with Chinese rhetoric conventions: Beating
aroundthe bush, not being able to find out what the Chinese are trying to get at... such are the
commentsGerman interactantsmade after listening to their tapes.
In the following segment of a conversation the German D asks the Chinese Bu, whether
shethinks life in China is harder for women than for men:
BUI
6Bu:
7D:
8Bu:
9
l0
II
12
l3D:
l4Bu:
15
16
lT
l8D:
19
20
21
22
ja. WIRKLICH
yes.INDEED
und inwiefern?
and in what way?
WEI:::L in Schinawar friiher feudalistisch
BE:::CAUSE in China was formerlv-feudalistic
undso vieleschlechte
Situationfllr
and lots of bad situationfor
die Frauendamals.und man kann
womenat thosetimes.and one can
jetzt - ich glaubernankannjetzt nicht
now - I beLieve
one cannot saynow
so sagenalsojetztschon
thatnowadavs
mhm
fastganzganz(0.5)also'- eh'anderes
nearlyeverythinghas becomevery very (0.5)well- eh'dffirent
gewordenals fniher. kann man auch
than before.one cannotsay
nichtSO sagen.es gibt so vieleNachfolge
THAT.thereis still so muchleft
von Feudalismus
from feudalism
mhm
DESHALB alsodie Sch die Frauenbesonders
THEREFOREthe Sch ths ,psmsnespecially
die alsodie eh:mein biBchenemanzipiertoder
thosewho eh:m are a bit enancipatedor
so kannman sagenes gibt verschiedene
Bedingungen.
one can say thereare dffirent conditions
die sehrschwierigsindftir dieseFrauen
which are very difficult for thesewomen.
Insteadof answering D's question right away, Bu first of all provides the necessary backgroundinformation - starting with the conjunction "weil" (because)(8-17). Finally in line 19
shestates- introduced with "DESHALB" (therefore) - the answer, which we would have expectedto get at the beginning rather than at the end. The way Bu presentsher arguments are
rathercommon among Chinese speakers:The opening lines do not provide a preview statement indicating the direction of the information to come (such as "first of all, you have to
knowthat...").16
The connectivepair "because... therefore"("yinwei... suoyi") here, works as
l5 Yorng (1982) makesthe same observationin her analysisof diff'erencesbetweenChineseand American
discourse
strategies.
l6 SeealsoYoung's( 1982)analysisof Chinesediscoursestructures.
298
Susanne Gilnthner
an indication that the speakeris now going to build up the framework (the "but"-part), before
she will introduce the main argument (the "therefore"-part).These connectives can, however,
be deleted, as is commonly the case in Chinese discourse.
German recipients often have problems with the Chinese way of organing discourse: The
answers of the Chinese participants seem to have no direct relationship to the preceding questions and do not overtly respond to what the questioner wants to know. They instead provide
a list of facts which are only loosely connectedwith the topic.
When contextualization conventions in the area of discourse pragmatics are not shared, participants are unable to agree on what communicative task is being enactedand thus are unable
to predict where the conversation is going or how to integrate what is said into a coherent
activity.
The following transcript is part of an interaction between the Chinese Ma and the German
T. Ma consults T, a representativeof a German institution during her office hours. Ma works
hard at trying to persuadeT that she should intervene at her institution so that Chinese scientists would get Ph.D. scholarships.After eight minutes of arguing T emphasizesthat she sees
n o p o s s i b i l i t yo f i n t e r v e n i n g :
MA3
lT:
2Ma
3
A
T
.,
6
7
8
9
|0
II
12
l3
14
l5
|6
17
l8
19
da bin ich ganzsicher.
I am very sureabout this.
eh:m.zur Zeitegibt es ehm:(0.3)
eh:m.at the momentthereare ehm: (0.3)
((Riiuspern))gibt es verschiedene
((clearsltisthroat))thereare dffirent
ehm: (0.4) auskindeh auslf,ndische
elun: (0.4)forei ehforeign
StudentenoderGasteh Wissenschaftler
studentsor visitingeh scholars
e h m ( ( R i i u s p e r n ) )z u B e i s p i e l e h m
ehm ((clears his throat))for example ehm
wie wie uns ehm - w wir wir brauchen ehm
like like us ehm - w we v'e w'e need ehm
G e l d w i r b r a u c h e nG e l d v o n e h m ' money we need mone,-from ehm'unsere Legierung - unde a:ndere Leute ehm'
oLtr government - ande o:ther people ehnt'
(0.3) hab ha hat habenehm (0.3) hav ha has have ehm e i g e n e n G E L D e i g e n ' e i g e nG e l d .
own MONEY ov'rt'or\)n money.
eh - ehm der erst eh die erstdie
eh - ehm the first eh the first the
e r s t e nG r u p p M M e n s c h e n h e i B t e h m f rst group of p people is called ehnt gongt-eigongpai. und eh zweitens eh
gongfei gongpai. and eh second eh
Grupp eh - ehrn' Menschen heiBt
group eh - ehm'people is called
zifei, zifei gongpai. unde ehm die
ztki, zifei gongPai. ande ehm the
Unterschiede ((R[uspern)) zwischen
differences ((clears his throat)) between
dieseehm h Gruppen ehm ist:eHAUPTSACHLICH
these ehrn h groups ehm is:e MAINLY
ehm'Geld . (-) GELD.
ehnt'monev. (-) MONEY.
German-Chineseinteractions
20T:
2lMa:
30T:
ia.
ja. ehm((Riiuspern))
weil ehm von
yeah.ehm ((clears his throat)) becauseehmfrom
(?) zweiteGruppeMenschen(-)
(?) secondBroupof people(-)
ehm:::ka kcinnensie(-) ehm' lang
ehm:::ca can they(-) ehm' long
liingeralsJahre'alsEIN Jahroder
longerthanyears' than ONE year or
ehmeinigeeh ein paarJahreehm
ehmsomeeh a few yearsehm
bleiben.
.rlo,y.
ja, aberSIE gehorenzur ERSTEN
yeah,but YOU belongto the FIRST
Gruppe=
Sroup
=ja=
-yeah-=derRegierungsstipendiaten
3lMa:
= of the people who get their scholarship from the governtent
ja.ja.
22
23
24
25
26
2TT:
28
29Ma:
32T:
33
34Ma:
35Ma:
36
37
299
yeah.t'eah.
Sie mir hier nichts
und re erzzihlen
and don't re tell me anytling
/von der zweitenGruppe/sondernvon sich
/about the seconrlgroup/ but about t'ourself
/ w e n ne h w e n n i : u : /
/ tf eh if I: u:/
ja. wennehm:ich KEINE eh KEIN
yeah.if ehm: I don't getseh get
Geldeh (-) bekommeneh bekomme,
ANYONEeh ANYmoneyeh
dannmuBich:esofortzurtickkommen,
thenI nrustcomeback immediately
This transcripthas been presentedat some length in order to show the interactional dynamics
of the encounter:The interactantsfail to negotiatea suitableway of signalling the statusof
the provided information. Ma's strategiesreflect Chinese discourse conventions: First he
unrolls the necessarybackground information to establish the situational framework for his
main argument, before this argument is actually presented.In this segment part of the
backgroundinformation is the explanation about the two different groups of Chinese
academics.However, T's impatience and her interruption (27) make it impossible for Ma to
get to his main point. T's intervention (27-33) demonstrateswhat she treats as being the
sourceof the trouble: She explicitly articulatesher annoyanceabout Ma's seemingly failure to
cometo the point, and demonstratesthat she doesn't see the relevanceof his long explanation
andthus his orientation work: "ja, but YOU belong to the FIRST group of the people who get
the scholarshipfrom the government and don't re tell me anything about the second group but
aboutyourself" (27-33). T thus explicitly demands that Ma gets to his point instead of telling
her seeminglyirrelevant background information. As Goffman ( 1983) points out, thematic tying is an important discoursestrategy,through which the speakerconnectsherftrisutteranceto
the given context and orients her/his presentationof information to the cognitive state of the
recipient.Here however, Ma unrolls the background information without signalling its
relationshipto the discourse topic. In line 2 he starts with an apparently incoherent utterance,
which doesnot seem connectedto the point at issue.
300
SusanneGtinthner
A Chinese informant, who listened to this text segment,provided the following interpretation:
"Ma triesto be polite.He wantsto explainthewholebackground.
But T just doesn'tgivehim a
chance,
to getto hispoint.Sheinterrupts
him,beforehecanpresent
hismainidea."
2.5. Contextualizing social and interactional roles
The fifth question "What social and interactional roles are we negotiating?" refers to the negotiation of the mutual relationship and to ritual work (such as face-work) in general. Cultural
differences in contextualization may result in face-threateningactivities and lead to miscommunication. The Chinese laughter accompanying face-threateningactivities serves as an example. Almost every Chinese travel-story and "survival kit" mentions the Chinese laughter as
part of an "exotic encounter".lT
In the following transcript segment (taken from the same conversation as MA 3) the
Chinese participant Ma uses laugh tokens during aggravatedargumentativesequencesas contextualization cues for the face-threateningsituation. But instead of ending the confrontation
by applying face-work techniques or change of topic strategies,the German participant T reinforces the confrontation by repeating the disagreementand prosodically focussing on the
dissentelements.
MA4
35Ma:
39
ja. wenn ehm: ich KEINE eh KEIN
yeah. if ehm: I don't get eh get
Geld eh (-) bekommeneh bekomme,
ANYeh (-) ANYmoneyeh
dannmuB ich:esofortzuriickkommen,
then I must comeback immediately
aberwenn ich (-) ehm (-) GELD von deutschen
but whenI (-) ehm (-) SetMONEYfrom a German
ProfesSORbekomme,dannkann ich eh
40
f:I?f&:,:o!.!f'r[\iry,ult,.n..
36
37
38
4lT:
42Ma:
43T:
44
45Ma:
.
54Ma:
55
56
57
58
stay (-) there.(0.3)ja. surely.
eh::' Herr Ma ich glaubees NICHT
eh::' Mr Ma I do NOT believethis
((kichert)) ach
((giggles))ach
Herr Ma, ICH muB Ihnenleider
Mr Ma, sorry but I hnve to telLyou
sagen,ICH glaubedasnicht,ne'
I do not believethis, ne'
ah ja. ((kichert))
ah yes.((giggles))
ifn nuU"gehcirt,daBder DAAD ehm
I heard that the DAAD ehm
dem ProfesSORSAGEN WIRD ehm,der
WILLTELL the profesSoRehm, this
Studenteaus Schinaist ist: eh ein
studentfrom China getsgets: eh a
Stipendietehm:: (-) brauchenSie,brauchen
scholarshipehm:: (-) you need,need
oder mtissenSie ehm IHN eh GELD GEBEN.
l 7 B o n a v i a( 1 9 8 1 : 1 4 f.f) .
German-Chinese interactions
59
60
6lT:
62Ma:
63T:
64Ma:
65T:
66Ma:
67T:
68
69Ma:
70T:
Tl M a:
72T:
301
or haveto give ehm HIM eh MONEY.
(0.5)
n nicht eh KEIN Geld seben.
n not eh NO moneygiie.
wo habenSiedasgehort(.....)?
wheredid you hear this (....)?
ehm:ehmjemandeh von jemand
ehm:ehmsomeoneeh from someone
+ VONWEM?+
+ FROMWHOM?+
hahaihihi
++ VON WEM?++
++ FROM WHOM?++
eh VIELE LEUTE (-) eh (......)
eh MANY PEOPLE(-) eh (....)
ICH MOCHTE NAMEN. SAGEN SIE MIR
I WANTNAMES. TELL ME
VON WEM.
FROM WHOM.
hahahihihihi(von wem?)hihi vie((hi))le hihi Leutehihi
hahahihihihi(from whom?)hihi ma((hi))ny hihi peoplehihi
++ VON WEM?++ NAMEN BITTE.
++ FROM WHOM? ++ NAMES PLEASE.
Namenbitte?
NAMESPLEASE?
ja von WEN habenSiedasGEHORT?
ja from WHOM did you HEAR this?
The moment T confronts him with strongly face-threateningutterancesand steps beyond the
limits of ritual politeness(line 63; 67),Ma reactsby giggling. T's answer to Ma's laughing demonstratesher interpretation:she takes the laugh tokens as a sign that her request is not taken
seriously.This interpretation leads to interactional moves which diametrically oppose Ma's
intention:T insists on her requestsand repeatsit with marked aggressivenessin her voice.
Now let me present a second example, where contextualization cues meant to indicate a
face-threatening
situation, but due to misinterpretation of the contextualization cues at hand,
the incident becomesmore and more embarrassing.The transcript is part of a longer conversationbetweenthe Chinese Bao and the German F and A:
BAO2
IF:
2
J
A
+
5
6
7
8
98ao:
l0F:
nu: wa wasbedeutetdesftir dich, du warst
well: wha what doesit meanfor you,
dochbevordu verheiratetwarstsicherlich
I assumeyou were beforeyou got married you sureLy
auchmit irgendeinemandernMann noch
had anotherman before
(-)
zusammen
that(-)
oder?
didn't you?
(0.s)
oderoderbist du oderist ER dein
or or areyou or is HE your
ersterMann?
first man?
ja
yea
((hoheStimme))ER ist dein ersterManln?l
((highpitch))HE is your first ma/n?/
302
SusanneGtinthner
I lBao:
12
(0.6)
lja/
lYes/
By keeping silent and making the absenceof a sequentially relevant answer accountable,Bao
contextualizesthat F's question has gone beyond the limits of intimacy. The situation is becoming increasingly.embarrassing.From a sequentialpoint of view ii is striking that Bao's
utterance, in which she makes clear that she has not hadanother man (line 9), is not produced
immediately after F's question, but delayed by dilferent means: Bao does not react tb F's first
question (line l-4) and-a short pause occurs. F's further attempt to elicit a responseby adding
a subsequent"oder?" does not bring the expectedanswer. Bao's minimal re^action'ia" indicates her unwillingness to expand on this topic. F's further expansion of the topic demonstrates that she does not realize the embarrassmentof the situation. F did not interpret Bao's
s.ilenceas a respo^nseto her first pair part (question). As my Chinese informants pointed out,
the -productionof silence as a responseto a question,indicatesthat the participant does not
wish to persue the topic at issue.Here we have an example for what Ba^teson(tqSS) calls a
"complementary schismogenesis"in the situation of inteicultural contact. The interaction of
the two subsystemskeeps on producing a progressively growing difference and distance belween the interactants. While Bao tries to indicate the face-threateningsituation by keeping
silent, F interprets the absenceof the second pair part as an indication of an understanbing
problem and thus reformulates the face-threateningquestion.
A Chinese informant cornrnentsthis segmentof data as follows:
"Well,it is quiteembarrassing
fbr herto answer.
That'swhy shekeepsquiet.We Chinese
undcrstandhersilencerightaway.Shcdoesn'twantto talkaboutit. But theGermanoftendon'tunderstandthiskindof silcnce
andthentheykeepon asking
andasking,
whichrnakes
it evenmoreem"
barrassing.
3. Conclusion
As my data show even Chinesewith a good command of the German languagerely on their
own contextualization conventions, which are partly different from the German ones.
Contextualizationconventionsare sensitiveto participants'understandingof the goals of the
particularinteractionand a lack of sharedconventionscan prevent interactantsfrom negotiating a mutual understandingof the situation at hancl.
. ^Culturally specific contextualizationcues can as the data have shown - operateon several
different layers of context:
I ) Different conventionsof signalling active listenershipand conversationalinvolvement may
render focussed interaction more difficult or partly impossible.
2) Due to differences in the social repertoire of knowledge the design of an utterance often
turns out to be inadequatein its orientationtoward the recipients.
3) Participants of intercultural communication are furthermore frequently confionted with different conventions to signal interactive modi and activity types.
4) The choice of a specific communicative genre which in one culture is commonly used to
solve certain communicative problems can turn out to be inadequatein another cultuie.
-5)A further layer of context that can be affected by differences in contextualization conventions is related to discourse pragmatics: Different linguistic and paralinguistic cues to signal
background and main information, to indicate focussedinformaiion and discoursecoheiion
may be employed.
6) Finally different contextualizationconventionsconcerningfacework techniques,indicating
social relationshipsand other aspectsof the "ritual order" (Goffman) might cllsh and lead t6
misinterpretation, communicative failure and mutual frustration
As Schtitz (1944) points out, in intercurlturalencounters,orientation patterns,which are
habitually, automatically and half-consciouslyavailable to the interactanisand used to pro-
Gemtan-Chinese interactions
303
vide typical solutions for typical problems, now turn out to be problematic. The standardized
scheme of cultural pattern. handed down to members of a cultural group by their ancestors,
t e a c h e r s .a u t h o r i t i e s e t c . a s a n u n q u e s t i o n e d a n d u n q u e s t i o n a b l e - e u i d e f o r h a n d l i n g e v e r y d a y
interactions suddenly turn out to be insufficient or even misleading. The flow ol habii becomes interrupted and gives rise to uncertainty, stereotyping and crises.
References
Auer,Peter( l9il6) Kontextualisierung.
StudiumLinguistik 19:22-41.
Auer.Pcter( 1990)On con[exlualizinglangua-ue.
KontRI, FachgruppcSprachrvissenschali,
Universitiit
Konstanz.
B a t e s o nG.r e g o r y( 1 9 8 .15( ) k t h , g i et t e sG e i s t e . sF.r t n k f ' u r rS
: uhrkarrrp.
B a c h t i nM, i c h a i l M . ( 1 9 7 c tD i e A s t h e t i kJ e s W o r t e sF
. r a n k f u r rS
: uhrkamp.
Bonavia,David ( 1987)The Chinese.Harmondsrvorth:
Penguin.
Cook-Gumperz,
Jcnny& JohnJ. Gumperz(1976)Contextin children'sspeech.Paperson languagecutdcontext.
WorkingpapersNo. 46. Berkeley:LanguagcBchaviorResearch.
Erickson,
Frederick& Jelfrey Shultz( 1982)I-hec'ouncelorctsgetekeeper.New York: AcademicPress.
Granet.Marccl ( 198-5)
Dos chirtesische
Denkcn.Frankl'urt:Suhrkarnp.
G o f f m a nE, r v i n g( 1 9 8 3 )F c l i c i t y ' sC o n d i t i o n J. o u r n a lo l S o c i o l o g t '8 9 ( l ) : l - 5 3 .
G u m p e r zJ,o h nJ . ( 1 9 8 2 )D i s c o u r s es t r a t e g i e sC
. a m b r i d g eC
: a m b r i d g eU n i v c r s i t yP r c s s .
Gumperz,
John& Norine Berenz(1990) Trutsc'ribingConversutionalE,rchonges.
Unpublishedmanuscript.
U n i v .o f C a l i t b r n i aB
, erkeley.
G i . i n t h n e r , S u s a n n el () 1 '9A9l a n g u a g e w i t h t a s t cU' :s c s o l ' P r o v e r b iS
aa
l y i n g s i n l n t c r c u l t u rCaol m m u n i c a t i o n .
T E X T3 : 3 9 9 - 4 1 8 .
Gi.inthner,
Susanne(199-la)Diskursstrategien
in der interkulturellenKonmtunikatlor.TLibingen:Niemeycr.
G i i n t h n eS
r .u s a n n(c1 9 9 3 b :i n p r e s s )C u l t u r a lD i l ' f ' e r e n c c sRi ne c i p i e nA
t c t i v i t i e s :I n t e r a c t i o nbse t w e e nG e r m a n s
andChinese.In: Vandcrmcercn.S. (ed\: lnterculturulCctnntttnication.
Frankfurt:Pctcr Lang.
M a y n a r dS, e i k o( 1 9 8 6 )O n b a c k - c h a n n eble h a v i o ri n J a p a n e saen d E n g l i s hc a s u a cl o n v e r s a t i o nL.i n g u i . s t i c s2 4 :
r 0 7 9 -1
r 08.
Uta ( 1978)The Uscsof Stcrcotypein EverydayArgument.Journal tlf Prugnntics 2: I -48.
Quasthofl-,
S a c k sH, a r v e yE
, m a n u cS
l c h c g l o f f& G a i l J e t ' f ' e r s o( 1n 9 7 4 )A s i r n p l i c sst y s t e m a t i clsb r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o o
nf - t u r n t a k i n gf o r c o n v e r s a t i o n
k t. n g u a g e 5 0 : 6 9 6 - 7 3 5 .
S c h e g l o iE
f ' n, t a n u eAl . ( 1 9 8 2 )D i s c o u r s ea s a n I n t c r a c t i o n aAl c h i e v e m e n tS: o m eU s e so f ' u h h u h ' a n do t h e r
t h i n g st h a tc o m eb e t w c e ns e n t e n c e sI n. : T a n n e n ,D . ( e d ) :A n a l t ' z i t t gD i s c ' o u r s eW. a s h i n g t o nD, . C . : G e o r g e t o w nU n i v c r s i t yP r e s s1. l - 9 3 .
S c h e g l o fEl ' , n r a n u &
e l H a r v e yS a c k s( 1 9 7 - l )O p c n i n gu p C l o s i n g s .S e n i o t i c a Y I I I : 2 8 9 - 3 2 7 .
304
Susanne Gtinthner
Schuetz,Alfred (1944) The stranger:an essayin socialpsychology.TheAmericanJournal of Sociology Vol.
XLIX:499-512.
A casestudy of suin Mandarinconversations:
Tao, Hongyin & SandraThompson(1991) English backchannels
J o urnal of P ragmatics 16: 209-223.
perstratumpragmatic'inf-erence'.
Young, LinclaW.L. (1982) Inscrutabilityrevisisted,in: John J. Gumperz(ed.),Innguageand social identitl'.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,72-84.
Appendix: Transcription SystemKey
/ja das/ finde ich auch
/du abi
overlap
conversational
(0 5)
pausesof indicatedlength(in seconds)
(-)
pausesshorterthan 0.3 seconds
('l'l'l)
text
unintelligible
(gestern)
a guessat an unclearword
contlnuousutterances
'l
high rise tone
l o w r i s et o n e
low fall tone
lightrise
a:
lengthcned
segmcnts
xleise*
low volume
x x s e h rl c i s c * *
verylow volume
NEIN
e x t r ap r o m i n e n c c
+schneller+
acccleratedtempo
++viel schneller++
very accelerated
tempo
mo((hi))mentan
laugh particleswithin the utterance
HAHAHA
loud laughter
hihi
giggling
((hustet))
n o n l e x i c apl h e n o m e n (ae . g . c o u g h i n g ) .