Page 51 - Silence in Intercultural Communication

38 Silence in Intercultural Communication

a foundation for organising information in the mind. However, here, knowledge
schema specifically refers to background knowledge which allows students to
make sense of what they read, hear or see in their learning, and in this sense, it can
be described as ‘content schema’ discussed by Barnett (1989) and Carrell (1987).
What is important here is to distinguish it from sociocultural schema – accu-
mulated knowledge shaping views of how social relationships are constructed or
maintained – since sociocultural schema shares characteristics with the politeness
orientation factor. Individuals vary in their level of knowledge in different fields,
and thus in their knowledge schema, a factor which is likely to influence partici-
pation. Knowledge schema also involves the repertoire of vocabulary and other
linguistic knowledge and therefore covers the cognitive and linguistic domains.
In the cognitive domain, the speed of reaction required for securing speak-
ing turns in a specific classroom context is a key aspect of communication at the
situational level. Pauses in and between turns are related to cognitive processing
(cf. Chafe 1985), and the negotiation of pacing of such processing among the
participants may have an impact on the distribution of silence and talk. In some
classroom situations, students may be given time to organise the content of their
speech, while in others, they may be required to react immediately.
Another factor in the cognitive domain, on which a substantial amount of
discussion will be presented in this book, is topics covered. As we will see later, the
participation of the same individual may vary depending on the topics for discus-
sion. Thus, it is an important factor at the situational level of social organisation.
At the sociocultural level in the cognitive domain, norms of speed of interac-
tion, shared knowledge and norms of relevance are included. It has been shown
that members of a community often share norms of speed of interaction (e.g.
Scollon 1985; Tannen 1985), and when people from different communities inter-
act, different norms of interaction speed may lead to the silence of one group and
the dominant participation of another.
Another variable in this category is shared knowledge. People from the same
community have shared knowledge to a certain degree, and such knowledge can
contribute to patterns of communication. Lack of shared knowledge in intercul-
tural communication may result in a lack of rapport and thus in silence. Knowl-
edge also includes language knowledge, and therefore is a factor extending across
to the linguistic domain.
Lastly, among members of a community, norms of relevance in interaction
are also shared to a certain degree. The relevance can be understood in two ways:
relevance in terms of interpersonal relationships and appropriate choice of silence
and talk, and relevance in terms of what is considered appropriate to speak about
in a specific context of interaction. In either case, gaps in norms of relevance
in intercultural communication may result in perceptions of marked silence or