Page 200 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

178 Helga Kotthoff

study of German–Chinese interactions, Günthner (1993, 2000b) reports on dif-
fering stylistic conventions with respect to differing uses of recipiency tokens
like “mhm” or “uhu” by Chinese and German native speakers, differing uses of
proverbial sayings, differing levels of directness in topic development and dif-
ferent strategies in handling disagreement. In most Asian cultures disagreement
is expressed rather indirectly (Yamada 1997). Levels of directness and tenden-
cies concerning how to support the negative or the positive face have often been
identified as significantly different cross-culturally (Foley 1997; Spencer-Oatey
2000b). Sifianou (1992) notes a difference between England and Greece in the
significance accorded to the two aspects of face. The English place a higher
value on privacy and individuality (negative face), while the Greeks emphasize
group involvement and ingroup relationships (positive face). The limits to per-
sonal territory among Greeks include all those who belong to the same ingroup,
defined as someone concerned with one’s welfare. Positive face extends to
cover these, so that there is a strong desire that one’s companions are also liked
and approved. Positive face is, thus, defined over the group of ingroup associ-
ates, not with reference to isolated individuals, as is largely the case in England.
We will later notice some similarities in the facework strategies of Greeks and
Georgians.
Kotthoff (1991a) also demonstrates stylistic differences in dealing with dis-
agreement in German and American office-hour conversations at universities.
To a much greater extent than the Germans, the American participants framed
their dissent as proposals or suggestions, thereby mitigating the level of direct-
ness. Within the United States, Tannen (1984) and Erickson and Shultz (1982)
found considerable differences among social groups (ethnic and regional) in the
ways conversational signals are perceived. New Yorkers interpret quick, short
queries, “machine gun questions,” as encouragement to the story-teller to tell
more, thus as signs of “high involvement” (Tannen 1984). Californians, on the
other hand, interpret them as a signal to the teller to come to the end.
A speech style also creates a certain keying. Following Goffman (1974) and
Hymes (1974), keying signifies a process which regulates the particular reality
and coherence relations of utterances (Kotthoff 1999b). In humor the relation-
ship to reality is loosened and special inferences are needed to create “sense in
nonsense,” to use Freud’s expression (1985). Loosening the relationship be-
tween statement and reality means widening the possible scope of imagination.
Laughter particles in utterances are important keying markers; they often in-
dexicalize that a text is to be interpreted as humorous (see Marra and Holmes in
this volume for cultural differences in humor). Pathos is another example of
keying. It is important in toast rituals. We will show its stylistic markers and dif-
ferent evaluations.
In the conventional understanding of Western cultures, pathos is associated
with emotionally laden words, stilted phrases, ponderous speech meant to be