Page 19 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

6 Silence in Intercultural Communication

The smallest units of silence which will be discussed in this book are switch-
ing pauses and inturn pauses (cf. Sacks et al. 1974; Walker 1985) in interaction.
Following definitions in psychology, Walker (1985) states that switching pauses
“occur at margins of speakers’ turns” while inturn pauses “take place during the
utterance of a single speaker only” (p. 61). On the other hand, Sacks et al. (1974)
list different types of silences in conversation from a conversation analytical per-
spective. In their terms, silence within a single turn is a “pause,” and silence which
occurs at a transition relevance place (TRP) where speaker change is relevant is
a “gap” (p. 715). Silence at a TRP where no one claims the floor and “the ensuing
space of non-talk constitutes itself as more than a gap” is described as a “lapse” or
discontinuation of talk (p. 714–715). This type of silence is similar to what Goff-
man (1967: 36) called a “lull” which occurs when participants in conversation do
not have anything more to say. However, as Tannen (1985) points out, it is likely
that “how much silence” is perceived as a “lull” can vary (p. 96) and could be a
source of negative stereotyping.
When a gap becomes a more extensive silence, it can often be interpreted or
intended as a ‘silent response,’ which itself can perform a speech act in an indirect
manner. Below is an example of this from Levinson (1983):
(1) (Levinson 1983: 320)
A: So I was wondering would you be in your office on Monday (.)
by any chance?
→ (2)
A: Probably not
In the above exchange, A interpreted the silence of two seconds after the question
as a ‘silent response’ meaning ‘no.’ This type of silence can be differentiated from a
switching pause or a gap which does not carry illocutionary force or propositional
meaning in that it can function as a ‘turn’ without words. It is however crucial to
recognise the possibility that the nominated speaker has the intention to speak
but is taking time, whereas the nominating speaker or other participants may
interpret the silence as intended to perform the illocutionary act on its own.
Finally, one other form of silence which is not as explicit as the above-men-
tioned types is ‘hidden’ silence. According to Blimes (1997), this refers to what
remains ‘untold’ in discourse, and is often associated with power. This type of
silence does not have a recognisable ‘form’ itself, but it can be noticed or even
“created by the analyst” (Blimes 1994: 84). In Jaworski’s (2000) terms it can be
described as “an absence of something that we expect to hear on a given occasion,
when we assume it is ‘there’ but remains unsaid” (p. 113). An absence of informa-
tion through censorship, as discussed by Jaworski & Galasiński (2000) regarding