Page 155 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Intercultural communication and communicative genres 133

nel’ activities in different cultural groups reveals that recipients’ reactions
differ in at least two respects: the frequency of producing ‘backchannel’ sig-
nals and the types of verbal elements employed in specific communicative
genres (Clancy et al. 1996, Günthner 1994). Erickson and Schultz’ (1982)
analysis of interactive strategies used by Black and White students and coun-
sellors in counselling sessions in American colleges also demonstrates cul-
ture-specific ways of showing that one is listening attentively in these institu-
tional contexts. White speakers employ specific syntactic and prosodic means
to signal ‘listening-response relevant-moments’ and thereby demonstrate that
they expect recipient reactions. Their White co-participants understand these
contextualization cues and produce the expected recipient reactions at the
‘right’ moments. Black speakers, however, who are not familiar with the
White speaking style, do not understand these cues and refrain from produc-
ing recipient signals. The absence of expected reactions leads the White
speakers to reformulate and recycle their utterances, give hyperexplanations
and ‘talk down’ (Erickson and Schultz 1982: 132). White recipients also tend
to show more explicitly than Black recipients that they are listening attent-
ively by applying verbal and non-verbal cues. Consequently, White speakers
do not notice the subtle signals of Black recipients and provide further expli-
cations, repetitions, etc. This leads to the interpretation of the Black partici-
pants that their White co-participants are ‘talking down’ and are not taking
them seriously.
Concerning preference organization in communicative genres, various
cultural differences are to be observed. Schiffrin’s (1984) analysis of Phila-
delphian Jewish argumentative styles demonstrates that there is a preference
for the production of disagreement. In German argumentation, direct dis-
agreement also seems to be preferred (Kotthoff 1993). In intercultural argu-
mentation, however, different preference systems concerning specific genres
may lead to irritation. As Naotsuka and Sakamoto (1981: 173–174) remark, in
Japanese argumentation direct confrontation is avoided in favor of communi-
cative harmony. Europeans’ way of showing direct opposition is considered to
be ‘rude’. 11
Culturally different preference structures may also show up in reactions to
compliments. As Pomerantz (1984) points out, – in observation of the principle
that self-praise is to be avoided – reactions to compliments (in Western cultures)
usually downgrade the compliment, shift referent, return the compliment or use
appreciation tokens (e.g. ‘thanks a lot’). Thus, the response to a compliment for
an excellent dinner may contain downgrading (e.g. ‘The vegetables were over-
cooked’), a referent shift (e.g. ‘It’s a recipe John gave me’) or an appreciation
(e.g. ‘Thank you’). In the Chinese context, however, accepting a compliment
with ‘feichang xie xie’ (‘thanks a lot’) would be considered inappropriate and
be interpreted as a sign of arrogance or ‘modern Western ways of speaking’. In-