Page 100 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

Chapter 4. Perceptions of silence 87

as a risky act. As we saw above Australian students’ participation was criticized
by a number of Japanese students for its carelessness and irrelevance. For Austra-
lian students, on the other hand, it is possible that in the classroom, learning is
seen as being achieved through negotiation of ideas, and therefore quantity of talk
matters. The ideologies and theories of education in Australia encourage student-
centred classroom practice; classroom participation is often given weight as part
of assessment, and active participation is often seen as indicating engagement
and willingness to learn (Ballard 1996; Ballard & Clanchy 1991; Milner & Quilty
1996). In such contexts, silence may be interpreted as unsuccessful learning (Ja-
worski & Sachdev 2004) rather than as a fear of saying something wrong. This
may be one of the driving forces for Australian students’ volubility.

4.3.2 Silence to save the other’s face: ‘Don’t do the FTA’ strategy

Another socio-psychological factor which seems to impact on Japanese students’
perceived silence concerns power, social distance and level of face-threat. When
Japanese students refrain from expressing disagreement with the lecturer, silence
is being used as a ‘Don’t do the FTA’ strategy in a classic sense (cf. Brown & Levin-
son 1987; Sifianou 1997). Criticism and disagreement are acts which are ‘dispre-
ferred seconds’ (Levinson 1983; Pomeranz 1984; Sacks 1987), and are in general
also highly face-threatening for the addressee (Brown & Levinson 1987). The use
of silence, instead of the verbal expression of critical views or disagreement, can
be identified as the superstrategy of ‘Don’t do the FTA’. This type of silence is il-
lustrated in the Japanese students’ comments, below:
(33) I don’t really challenge lecturers. ... There were times when I didn’t understand
what was wrong with the way I was working, but I didn’t particularly challenge
the lecturers. I didn’t change the way I had been working. I continued the work
the way I wanted to anyway. [7:24 M4]

(34) As you know, because Australians particularly have their own stance and sort
of never compromise, the lecturers would get them to justify their positions.
As for me, I accept what the lecturers say at once, like ‘Oh, I see.’ (laugh).
[5:88 M3]

These comments imply the students’ preference for deferential silence over ‘dis-
preferred’ seconds or responses (Levinson 1983; Pomeranz 1984; Sacks 1987)
such as criticism or disagreement, which threaten the face of the listener. It is
interesting to note that, in the first comment, the student’s silence was not ac-
ceptance of the teacher’s advice but rather avoidance of confrontation, or even
resistance beneath a surface acceptance, since he continued with his own way of