Page 152 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

130 Susanne Günthner

model, deviate from it or create hybrid forms – the possibilities of variations are
manifold. In everyday interactions, we frequently meet mixtures and hybridiz-
ations of various generic models; e.g. a professor might tell a joke within her
lecture, and thus integrate a particular genre (a joke) into a more complex one (a
lecture); or she might switch within her lecture into a cermonial tone of voice
and thus transform the genre.
As historical and cultural products, communicative genres are open to
change and cultural variation. If we take communicative genres as socially con-
structed solutions which organize, routinize, and standardize the dealing with
particular communicative problems, it seems quite obvious that different cul-
tural groups may construct different solutions for specific communicative prob-
lems. Thus, the repertoire of communicative genres varies from culture to cul-
ture (Günthner 1993, 1995; Günthner and Luckmann 2001, 2002). Culture
specific ways of using and interpreting communicative genres can be located on
three levels: (i) the level of internal features, (ii) the interactional level and (iii)
the level of external features. In the following, I shall introduce these three le-
vels and present examples from research on intercultural communication to il-
lustrate possible culture specific uses of communicative genres.

2.1. The level of internal features
The internal structure of communicative genres consists of:

overall patterns of diverse elements, such as words and phrases, registers, formulas
and formulaic blocs, rhetorical figures and tropes, stylistic devices (metrics, rhyme,
lists, oppositions), prosodic melodies, specific regulations of dialogicity, repair strat-
egies and prescriptions for topics and topical areas.
Luckmann 1992: 39; (translated by Günthner and Knoblauch 1995)

Rhetorical differences concerning elements on the internal level of communi-
cative genres can lead to the interactive construction of cultural differences in
communication. An example of how differences in prosodic features in service
encounters may lead to different interpretations, and thus result in miscommuni-
cation, is discussed by Gumperz (1982). Indian and Pakistani women working
at a cafeteria of a British airport were perceived as surly and uncooperative by
British speakers of English. This interpretation was based on the Indian inton-
ation patterns used by these women: When customers in the cafeteria chose
meat, they were asked whether they wanted gravy. A British employee would
utter ‘gravy?’ using rising intonation, whereas the Indian employees used fal-
ling intonation: ‘gravy.’. This prosodic difference turned out to be relevant for
the inferences drawn by the British customers: ‘gravy.’ with a falling intonation
contour was “not interpreted as an offer but rather as a statement, which in the
context seems redundant and consequently rude” (Gumperz 1982: 173). How-