Page 23 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

10 Silence in Intercultural Communication

dent can reverse the situation by refusing to give a response. Gilmore (1985) dis-
cusses this silence for negotiation of power in his study of students’ silent sulking
in response to the teacher’s reprimand. Watts (1991, 1997) also showed how vari-
ous pauses can be used for manipulation of status in conversation in his analysis
of family interaction at dinner. Watts (1997) shows that by not taking up a topic
presented by one participant but instead leaving a silent pause, the topic-suggest-
ing speaker’s status in discourse can be lowered. On the other hand, this type of
silence can be challenged by persistence in talk despite the silence of recipients.
One of the important functions of silence in social interaction is as a polite-
ness strategy. Silence can be used to avoid unwanted imposition, confrontation or
embarrassment in social encounters which may have not been avoided if verbal
expressions had been used (Brown & Levinson 1987; Jaworski 1993, 1997; Jawor-
ski & Stephens 1998; Sifianou 1997). However, surprisingly, Brown & Levinson
(1987), the founders of the politeness theory, do not recognise the significance of
silence in politeness phenomena (Sifianou 1997). In their framework of polite-
ness strategies, almost all the communicative acts are face-threatening, and thus
can be labelled as face-threatening acts (FTAs). To perform FTAs without causing
conflict in social relationships, there are strategies to be employed which are grad-
able depending on the level of threat to face (see Figure 2.1 below).
When the risk of threat to face is too great, one may decide not to perform
that FTA at all, and this is called the strategy of ‘Don’t do the FTA’ (Brown &
Levinson 1987). Therefore, the assumption is that silence would be the equivalent
of this ‘Don’t do the FTA’ strategy.
However, Sifianou (1997) argues that silence can be used as a positive polite-
ness strategy when it functions as a sign of solidarity and good rapport, while it
can also be a negative politeness strategy if it functions as a distancing tactic. In
addition, it is also possible to use silence as an off-record strategy when it functions
as the most indirect form of speech act (Saville-Troike 1985; Tannen 1985). It is
worth noting that Sifianou (1997) claims that while silence has a positive value in

Lesser on record 1. without redressive action,
baldly
2. positive
Estimation of risk of face loss Do the FTA 4. o record with redressive action politeness
3. negative
politeness
5. Don’t do the FTA

Greater

Figure 2.1 Strategies for doing FTAs (form Brown & Levinson 1987: 69)