1. Global structure in intercultural communication
1.1. Béal & Traverso (2010)- Looked at Australian and French social visits between friends
1.1.1. Greetings and How are yous
1.1.1.1. France – Two-step greetings – Bonjour/Salut, followed by one or more adjacency pairs of health enquiries • Ca va? is never a substitute for Bonjour/ Bonjour/Salut • Kisses – How are yous – longer, more reciprocation
1.1.1.2. Australia – Brief greetings - a single adjacency pair of his or (phatic function) how are yous – How are yous – minimal, positive responses preferred, and question not reciprocated
1.1.2. Excuses and jokes
1.1.2.1. Australia
1.1.2.1.1. Indirect, humorous apologies for being early/late
1.1.2.1.2. Acceptance/teasing
1.1.2.1.3. Laughter at jokes
1.1.2.2. France
1.1.2.2.1. Less focus on time – no apologies
1.1.2.2.2. Laughter begins immediately (guest first)- not triggered by talk
1.1.3. Openings & cultural differences
1.1.3.1. Australia
1.1.3.1.1. Relation to territory and face (being late as face loss)
1.1.3.1.2. Understatement and banter – friendliness and antisentimentality
1.1.3.2. France
1.1.3.2.1. Less negative politeness (apologies etc.), indicating intimacy (lateness as a privilege of closeness)
1.1.3.2.2. Effusiveness and compliments – comfort with and compulsion to display affection
1.2. Godard (1977)
1.2.1. Looked at openings in telephone conversations in France and America
1.2.2. Interested in cultural interpretations of expected behaviour of caller/answerer
1.2.3. France
1.2.3.1. Caller has to identify him/herself- If they don’t, answerer feels like an office worker/intermediary
1.2.3.1.1. Answerer’s Hello prompts caller to identify him/herself
1.2.4. America
1.2.4.1. Caller does not have to identify • If they are asked to by the answerer, they may feel ‘filtered’
1.2.4.1.1. Caller takes answerer’s Hello? as evidence of availability
1.3. Béal (1993, 2010)
1.3.1. • Interested in questions concerning when and how to open conversation – Who can speak to whom? – Where and when? – Who speaks first?
1.3.2. • Looked at interactions in French and Australian workplaces
1.3.3. What do different openings tell us about importance of positive/negative face?
1.3.4. Openings
1.3.4.1. France
1.3.4.1.1. An open door is an invitation to enter • The occupant of the office must acknowledge the intruder’s presence immediately, and will typically initiate interaction – In a shared space, the working day consists of one long episodic conversation > no openings needed after the first one • Announcements ‘at large’ are common – If approached by a third party while engaged in interaction, they will acknowledge the newcomer immediately, and may temporarily interrupt the ongoing exchange
1.3.4.1.2. – Openings less important – availability assumed – Conversational openings less of a negative FTA
1.3.4.2. Australia
1.3.4.2.1. You only enter someone’s office if invited to do so • The intruder must wait until the occupant has finished whatever they were doing, and is expected to initiate interaction – In a shared space, each new conversation must be opened • Announcements ‘at large’ are uncommon/nonexistent – If approached by a third party while engaged in interaction, they will finish the current interaction before starting a new one, and may even ignore the newcomer’s presence until then
1.3.4.2.2. Openings more important – need to establish availability – Important to consider negative face
1.4. Scollon and Scollon (2001)
1.4.1. • Topic development in Asian and Western business communication • Interested in finding reasons for cultural stereotypes – ‘inscrutable’ Asians and ‘rude’ Westerners
1.4.2. Chinese pattern: inductive – Look at individual cases -> infer laws – Provide background –> arrive at main point
1.4.3. Anglo-American pattern: deductive – Start with general principles -> provide reasoning – State main point –> provide background
1.5. Scollon and Scollon (1991)
1.5.1. Asian inductive approach – leaves Westerners confused about what the topic is, making Asian speakers seem evasive or ‘inscrutable’
1.5.1.1. Pay special attention to what comes last • Place small talk at the beginning, following initial greetings – Summons Summons – Answer – Face work Face work - Topic – Related to negative politeness/considerateness
1.5.2. Western deductive approach – strikes Asians as abrupt or rude (the ‘frank’ Westerner)
1.5.2.1. Pay special attention to what comes first • Place small talk at the end of the exchange, prior to terminal greetings – Related to positive politeness/involvement
1.5.3. Closings
1.5.3.1. Idealised structure of closings = two adjacency pairs in orderly sequence – [Closing-implicative topic] – Passing turns = pre-closings – (Typing of encounter) – Terminal greetings
1.5.3.1.1. English
1.5.3.1.2. Chinese
1.6. Béal (1993, 2010)
1.6.1. Closings
1.6.1.1. French
1.6.1.1.1. – Closings tend to be fairly elaborate – Frequently include a typing of the encounter, e.g. ‘I’m glad we had this discussion’ – Frequently the exchange is reopened at a more personal level – More like ordinary conversation
1.6.1.2. Australian
1.6.1.2.1. – Closings tend to be quick, and take place without much preparation • May even be absent – Frequent use of formulae like ‘Thanks for your time’
1.6.1.3. Greek telephone calls – Pre-closings are performed using agreement markers repeated over several turns – Terminal greetings are frequently repeated over several turns
1.6.1.3.1. – Mitigation of potential feelings of rejection • Greeks seek agreement on closure • Important to make sure interactants are happy that conversation is finishing
1.6.1.4. German telephone calls – Between pre-closings and terminal greetings, one typically finds (possibly formulaic) references to future contact, the expression of a wish for the interlocutor and/or regards to third parties
1.6.1.4.1. Germans acknowledge that future contact will take place • Important to make sure that interactants are happy they will speak in the future
1.7. • ‘Rules’ for global structure can indicate cultural values – US - callers do not self-identify (have ‘the rights’) -> telephone conversations are less of a ‘big deal’, assumption of desire to talk – Australia – desire not to impinge (negative face) -> importance of opening conversation (albeit briefly!)
1.7.1. Close interlinking with face – English phone closings – recognition of other’s negative face wants/threats to own positive face – Chinese inductive pattern – building up to topic = negative face work (‘testing water’ before coming to main topic)
2. Turn Taking in intercultural communication
2.1. Overlap: Any instance of simultaneous speech by two or more interactants
2.2. Interruption: S2 deliberately takes the floor although S1 clearly hasn’t finished their turn
2.3. Types of interruption
2.3.1. Mutual aid - Positive function: They're not really erm... B: Your type of thing?
2.3.2. Cooperative - mark agreement and/or active participation
2.3.3. Non-cooperative, but justified
2.3.4. Negative function- non-justified
2.4. "Did you have a good weekend?"- Béal, Christine
2.4.1. French
2.4.1.1. Tends to be a genuine question
2.4.1.2. Ask to fewer people. People to whom you are closer
2.4.1.3. Less predictable and a more detailed answer
2.4.1.4. Be entertaining: focus on memorable moments
2.4.1.5. Give opinions, describe your feelings, be ‘sincere’
2.4.1.6. Display knowledge of relevant people and places in each other’s lives (showing intimacy and solidarity)
2.4.1.7. Conversational style showing involvement (overlaps, longer answers)
2.4.2. Australian
2.4.2.1. Tends to be a politeness routine
2.4.2.2. Importance to be nice -> reciprocating questions, asking everyone
2.4.2.3. Showing that they respect other people’s territory / the listeners’ responsibility to hear out the speaker -> prefers a stricter turn-taking system
2.4.2.4. Preserve social harmony -> keeping emotions and opinions toned down
3. Sequential structure
3.1. Goals
3.1.1. Transactional goal: Extralinguistic- To get things done: "Can you help me out please?"
3.1.2. Interactional goal: Maintaining social relationship- phatic function: How are you?
3.1.3. Can overlap/ conflict
3.1.4. Can change during the course of a conversation (may not be the right time/ inappropriate etc.)
3.2. Turn taking
3.2.1. Turns are organised to be coherent and orderly
3.2.2. Relationship between turns is meaningful
3.3. Adjacency pairs: Pairs of utterances produced by different speakers, with one action making another action relevant
3.3.1. Question- answer
3.3.2. Request- acceptance/refusal
3.3.3. Greeting- greeting
3.3.4. Thanking- response
3.3.5. The first part of an AP constrains what S2 can do next- accountably implemented
3.3.6. If S2 moves away from the expected second pair part, this will be considered as meaningful
3.3.7. The pair doesn't have to be literally adjacent- insertion sequence can be used
3.3.7.1. Through interruption
3.3.7.1.1. A: Do you want a coffee? B: Do you have any milk? A: Yes, we do. B: Yes please, I'll have a drop of milk in mine.
3.3.7.2. Through intertwining
3.3.7.2.1. A: Excuse me (apology), how old are you?(Q) B: Not to worry (acc.), I'm 28 (answ)
3.3.8. ADJ pairs have much more constraining second turns
3.4. Action sequences
3.4.1. Given a particular kind of preceding turn, a particular kind of next turn typically occurs, but is not strictly required
3.4.1.1. Assessment – (dis)agreement
3.4.1.2. Compliment acceptance/rejection or
3.4.1.3. (dis)agreement with complimenting assertion
3.4.1.4. Question – answer – evaluation
3.5. Preference structure
3.5.1. The possible ways in which conversational action may be accomplished: Not to do with personal wishes, more to do with how to make the conversation flow the easiest
3.5.1.1. Preferred seconds: most conducive to the achievement of interactional and transactional goals- Produced quickly and smoothly
3.5.1.2. Dispreferred seconds: Structurally unexpected- Produced with delays, prefaces, accounts, mitigated/indirect declinations
3.5.1.2.1. If the first part is met with silence, we tend to interpret this silence as an indication of a dispreferred response.
3.5.1.2.2. If a dispreferred second appears to be forthcoming, the first turn may be adapted, in an attempt to get a preferred second after all
3.5.1.2.3. People that know each other there will be fewer elaborate dispreferred responses
3.5.1.2.4. Amount of talk employed in a social action depends on the relative distance between participants
3.6. Pre-sequences
3.6.1. Seek to establish whether the preconditions for a projected action are in place
3.6.1.1. Pre-requests: Have you got a pen?
3.6.1.2. Pre-invitations: What are you doing next week-end?
3.6.1.3. Pre-announcements: Do you know who Prince Harry’s dating these days?
3.6.1.4. Story prefaces: Guess what happened to me today!
3.6.2. The response to a pre-sequence may short-circuit the projected sequence
3.6.2.1. By prompting the abortion of the sequence
3.6.2.1.1. • A: Are you going there by car? [pre-request] • B: No, I’m taking the tram • A: [request not made]
3.6.2.2. By prompting a more preferred sequence
3.6.2.2.1. • A: Are you going there by car? [pre-request] • B: Yes, you want a ride? [pre-invitation]
3.7. Repair
3.7.1. Problems in talk
3.7.2. Those problems are dealt with through different types of repair
3.7.2.1. Self-initiated self-repair
3.7.2.1.1. – That man has powerful friends who are determined to destroy him – I mean powerful enemies
3.7.2.2. Other-initiated self-repair
3.7.2.2.1. – Next-turn repair initiator (NTRI) – A: That man has powerful friends who are determined to destroy him – B: Powerful friends?
3.7.2.3. Other-initiated other-repair
3.7.2.3.1. – A: That man has powerful friends who are determined to destroy him – B: You mean powerful enemies
3.7.2.4. Preference for self-repair, and for self-initiation
3.7.3. Problems are not necessarily ‘errors’
3.7.4. Other-initiated repair is an important tool for negotiating meanings
3.7.5. Self-repair: may be used for fine-tuning meanings, rather than correcting factual/linguistic errors
3.8. Turn Design
3.8.1. We design utterances in communication with one or more specific hearers and a specific sequential placement in mind
3.8.2. We take into account the presumed knowledge state of our hearer(s)
3.8.3. We take into account the current state of the conversation
3.8.3.1. Utterances can display coherence and cohesion with a prior turn
3.8.3.1.1. • A: hhhh Is there any place around here that u-has those Sue do yih know • B: A::krun’s I think the only place that I know
3.8.3.2. Utterances can be marked as disjunctive with immediately preceding turns
3.8.4. We can design an utterance to fit specific sequential environments
3.8.4.1. Conditional
3.8.4.1.1. Used if the interaction has been initiated by the speaker in order to make the offer (reason for calling)
3.8.4.2. Declarative
3.8.4.2.1. Used if the hearer has just quite explicitly mentioned a problem they have
3.8.4.3. Do you want-interrogative
3.8.4.3.1. Used if there has been related talk implying a problem some time earlier in the conversation, but NOT in the immediately preceding turns
3.9. Negotiation of contexts, meanings and understandings
3.9.1. Fundamental to conversational interaction
3.9.2. The contents of any turn display the speaker’s understanding of the context, including previous discourse
3.9.3. Unless special techniques are applied, a turn will be heard as directed at the previous turn
4. Global Structure
4.1. Openings
4.1.1. Accomplish 3 different tasks
4.1.1.1. Gatekeeping
4.1.1.1.1. 'Letting on to someone'
4.1.1.2. (Re)constituting a relationship
4.1.1.2.1. Participants display their understanding not just of whom they are speaking to, but also what their relationship to their interlocutor(s) is. 'Hiya, mate' vs. 'hello, professor'
4.1.1.3. Establishing what will be talked about
4.2. First topic- free from constraints
4.2.1. After the first topic, linked/ stepwise transitions are preferred
4.2.1.1. Stepwise Topic Transition
4.2.1.1.1. Topical pivot
4.2.1.2. Non-stepwise topical shift
4.2.1.2.1. At the opening of a conversation or at any point where the previous topic has been closed
4.2.1.2.2. Topic-initial elicitor- doesn't restrict the topic
4.2.1.2.3. Topic nomination- restricts the topic to some newsworthy item
4.2.1.2.4. New announcement- speaker presents newsworthy item
4.2.1.2.5. Abrupt topic shift- may take when a current topic has not yet been exhausted OR to reopen the conversation during the closing sequence
4.2.2. Topic coherence- Constructed and negotiated in context through participants’ collaboration
4.2.2.1. To do with mental representation rather than language
4.2.2.2. Transaction coherence
4.2.2.2.1. Like a teacher teaching something
4.2.2.3. Interactional coherence
4.2.2.3.1. Maintain relationships
4.3. Storytelling in conversation
4.3.1. A variety of conversational topics are (partially) dealt with in the form of narratives
4.3.1.1. Require an extended turn at talk
4.3.2. Narratives must be projected and projections must be recognised as such in order to temporarily suspend the turn taking system
4.3.3. It must also be projected what it’ll take for their narrative to be heard as complete, so that normal turn taking can be resumed
4.3.4. Narratives as first actions
4.3.4.1. Story prefaces
4.3.4.1.1. Frequently project what type of response to the narrative might be appropriate
4.3.4.1.2. Frequently provide a setting for the narrative
4.3.4.1.3. Attempt to determine whether the story will be of interest to the hearer
4.3.5. Narratives as responsive actions
4.3.5.1. Someone asks for a story- Tell me what happened today
4.4. Closings
4.4.1. Interactionally sensitive
4.4.1.1. How to terminate the conversation without offending any of the participants?
4.4.1.2. How to wind down the turn taking system?
4.4.1.3. How to provide for possible future interaction?
4.4.2. Closing-implicative topic
4.4.2.1. end of first topic, making arrangements, giving regards to family members
4.4.3. Passing turns = pre-closings (no topic)
4.4.3.1. A: Ok, then. B: Yeah
4.4.3.2. Possibility of placing unrelated topics here: ‘Oh, by the way…’
4.4.4. Typing of encounter
4.4.4.1. Well, I’m glad we had this discussion/ It was nice chatting with you, Jane
4.4.5. Terminal greetings
4.4.5.1. Bye, cheers pal
4.5. Helps distinguish between
4.5.1. Conversational activity
4.5.1.1. The 'bits'
4.5.1.1.1. Exchanging greetings with a colleague in the corridor
4.5.1.1.2. Exchanging insults with someone on the train
4.5.1.1.3. No conversational activity in a lecture or a sermon for instance
4.5.2. Conversation
4.5.2.1. involves openings, closings, storytelling, turn-taking, adjacency pairs
4.5.2.1.1. Meeting a colleague for a drink at the pub
4.5.2.1.2. Discussing your abusive behaviour with a policeman
4.6. Can help us understand why interaction can seem ‘faulty’ or ‘difficult’
5. Speech acts
5.1. Three types of acts
5.1.1. Locutionary
5.1.1.1. Uttering a particular meaningful sentence
5.1.1.1.1. A: Will you [=B] marry me [=A]?
5.1.2. Illocutionary
5.1.2.1. The act the speaker intends the utterance to perform in relation to the addressee. In control of the speaker. Implicitly or explicitly expressed.
5.1.2.1.1. A mariage proposal
5.1.2.2. Rely on intention-recognition. However we can’t recognise intentions, only attribute them to someone (assume their reaction)
5.1.3. Perlocutionary
5.1.3.1. The actual effect that the utterance has on the addressee
5.1.3.1.1. delight on the part of B / horror on the part of B / grudging acceptance of one’s fate on the part of B
5.1.3.2. Non-conventional, never fully predictable
5.2. Classifications
5.2.1. Declarations
5.2.1.1. Words change the world
5.2.1.1.1. Referee: You’re off!
5.2.1.1.2. Priest: I pronounce you man and wife.
5.2.2. Representatives
5.2.2.1. Words fit the world
5.2.2.1.1. Manchester City are the Premier League champions.
5.2.2.1.2. The door is shut.
5.2.3. Expressives
5.2.3.1. Words fit the speaker’s world
5.2.3.1.1. "Ow that hurts"
5.2.4. Directives
5.2.4.1. Make the world fit words (hearer’s actions)
5.2.4.1.1. Could you lend me your book?
5.2.4.1.2. Don’t talk that loud.
5.2.5. Commissives
5.2.5.1. Make the world fit words (speaker’s actions)
5.2.5.1.1. I refuse to watch Game of Thrones.
5.2.5.1.2. I pledge to do the washing up tonight if you turn this TV off
5.3. Direct Speech acts
5.3.1. A direct match between a sentence type and the illocutionary force.
5.4. Indirect speech acts
5.4.1. Some utterances can have more than one illocutionary force.
5.4.2. They rely on Grice’s Maxims for their interpretation.
5.4.3. Some forms may become conventionalised within a particular speech community.
6. Grice's Maxims
6.1. Relation
6.1.1. Being relevant (yes or no)
6.2. Quality
6.2.1. Saying what you believe to be true
6.3. Quantity
6.3.1. Make your contribution as informative as is required
6.4. Manner
6.4.1. Trying not to be ambiguous
6.5. Not observing the maxims
6.5.1. Infringing
6.5.1.1. Unintentionally not observing a maxim
6.5.2. Violating
6.5.2.1. Covertly not observing a maxim “Father Christmas lives in Lapland (lying)
6.5.3. Flouting
6.5.3.1. Overtly not observing the maxims in order to generate a conversational implicature
7. Implicature
7.1. Generalised Impliactures
7.1.1. Do not require specific knowledge to be inferred
7.1.2. Cannot arise from flouts of Quality or Relation
7.2. dependent on context and the speaker’s perceived intentions
7.3. Particularised Implicatures
7.3.1. Need particular info to infer intended meaning
8. Politeness
8.1. Face
8.1.1. Positive Face
8.1.1.1. Our desire to be liked and accepted by others
8.1.2. Negative Face
8.1.2.1. Our wish for freedom and independence and to be unimpeded by others
8.2. Face saving act
8.2.1. Positive
8.2.1.1. Showing solidarity, showing that Sp and hearer share the same goal
8.2.2. Negative
8.2.2.1. Showing deference, respect; emphasising the importance of the hearer’s time and concerns
8.3. FTA
8.3.1. Performin: Off-record
8.3.1.1. Be indirect.
8.3.2. Performing: With redressive action
8.3.2.1. positive politeness
8.3.2.1.1. Protecting another individual's positive face
8.3.2.2. negative politeness
8.3.2.2.1. Protecting another individual's negative face
8.3.3. Bald on-record
8.3.3.1. Being direct
8.3.3.1.1. Use of imperatives
8.3.3.1.2. unmitigated expressions of disagreement
8.4. Pre-sequences
8.4.1. Used to give the hearer the opportunity to halt the FTA before it is stated
8.4.2. These can precede requests, criticism, invitations, threats etc.
8.4.3. Face is at risk when one person needs to accomplish something involving another
8.5. How to choose a strategy
8.5.1. Based on the weight (W) of the FTA. The more threatening an FTA is, the more polite strategy one must use.
8.5.2. Three factors
8.5.2.1. The hearer’s power over the speaker = P(H,S)
8.5.2.2. The social distance between speaker and hearer = D(S,H)
8.5.2.3. The ranking of the imposition in the particular culture = R(x)
9. Turn Taking
9.1. TCU
9.1.1. A single contextually complete message
9.2. TRP
9.2.1. A recognisable end of a turn, found at the end of a turn
9.3. Ordered rules
9.3.1. 1. At the first available TRP, S1 may select S2 to speak next. 2. If (1) does not apply, any other speaker may self-select. 3. If neither (1) nor (2) applies, S1 may self-select for another TCU.
9.4. Silences
9.4.1. Non-attributable silences
9.4.1.1. A silence once exchange of turns is complete (end of topic, convo could stop there)
9.4.2. Attributable silences
9.4.2.1. A silence where a certain speaker is expected to speak
9.5. Overlaps
9.5.1. Interruption
9.5.1.1. Speaker change not pertinent
9.5.2. Problematic overlap (miscue)
9.5.2.1. Speaker B believes speaker A has finished
9.5.3. Unproblematic overlap
9.5.3.1. Shows agreement (used a lot by French speakers)
9.6. Backchanneling
9.6.1. Yes, hmm, okay...
9.6.2. Don't have the status of turns- the speaker is not trying to take the floor
9.6.3. Show engagement
9.7. Competion
9.7.1. Two speakers self-select at the same time
9.7.1.1. OPTION A: Both speakers stop; one of them explicitly yields the floor to the other
9.7.1.2. OPTION B: Competition ensues
9.7.1.2.1. B1: Increased loudness
9.7.1.2.2. B2: Recycling of overlapped turn begins
9.7.1.2.3. B3: Discourse markers (well, anyway, etc)
9.7.1.2.4. B4: Left-dislocation (Moving information from later on in the sentence to near the beginning as well as where it is from)
9.8. Genres of interaction
9.8.1. In a mundane conversation, turn taking is locally managed- not A,B,A,B- unlike institutional talk
9.8.2. Can be used to manipulate speech events- Small talk before an interview to make the interviewee at ease