Dialogue in and between Different Cultures - International ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 Jagdish Kaur verification at this point. The initiation of repair through the use of an open class repair initiator results in a repetition of the trouble source turn. The repetition is however uncompleted in this case as L realizes the error in the detail he has provided as suggested by the cut-off in line 9 and the subsequent correction in line 11. The final example comes from a discussion between K (Korean), M (Burmese) and D (Indonesian) who are preparing for a group presentation on a topic about the strategies that an SME, i.e. small-medium enterprise, should deploy in order to adopt e-trade. (10) [T16/SB/C4-K(KOR):M(BUR):D(IND)/331-340] 01 K: actually infrastruc[ture can they 02 M: [infrastruct- and then 03 K: a-actually infrastructure can be strategy {stratij}? 04 D: → huh? 05 K: → can be strategy {stratij}? 06 D: strategies? 07 K: yeah In this extract M, D and K are debating whether setting up the infrastructure necessary for e-trade constitutes a strategy in the context of the topic. In line 3, K raises this question, incorrectly pronouncing ‘strategy’ as {stratij}. D, in line 4, initiates repair on K’s turn, producing a simple ‘huh’ in rising intonation. This repair initiator does not indicate the problem that D is having with the prior turn but merely signals that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. In response, K produces a partial repeat of his original utterance (line 5), still incorrectly pronouncing ‘strategy’ as {stratij}. The repetition however has enabled D to establish the exact word that is represented by {stratij}. In line 6, D seeks confirmation of this, pronouncing the word ‘strategies’ correctly in a questioning intonation. This confirmation request evidences that it was K’s incorrect pronunciation of that particular word that D found problematic in line 3. 4. Discussion The two sets of examples above serve to illustrate the practice of repeating in two specific contexts, namely after overlap and after an open class repair initiator. In the first case, repetition is employed after an overlap possibly as a means of addressing “the possible impairment of a turn component by virtue of its having been in overlap” (Schegloff 1987:76). The participants in this study appear to be orientating to the fact that talk produced in overlap may not have been heard or understood adequately by the recipient and thus employ repetition as a means of providing the recipient with another opportunity at hearing that segment of talk. Rather than resolving an actual problem of understanding, this move seeks to preempt any real problem of understanding. As Schegloff states, “simultaneous talk
The Practice of Repeating in English as a Lingua Franca 11 does not necessarily impair the hearing or understanding of any of its components” (1987:75f). The practice of repeating a segment of talk that is produced in overlap thus provides evidence of participants’ orientating to the “possible impairment” (ibid) of hearing or understanding as a result of overlapped talk. All the examples examined in section 3.1 above suggest that repeating after an overlap is a practice that participants in dialogue adopt in a move to facilitate the recipient’s understanding of overlapped talk and concomitantly to provide for shared understanding. In the second case, repetition is employed by the speaker after a move on the part of the recipient to initiate repair through the use of an open class repair initiator. As discussed above, this group of repair initiators fails to pinpoint the exact nature of the problem that the recipient is having with the prior turn. While the speaker has several options at hand, close examination of the data reveals that repetition is frequently the preferred mode of repair in such cases. The practice of repeating after an open class repair initiator suggests that the speaker perceives the recipient’s problem as one having to do with incomplete hearing or understanding of the trouble source turn, which may be adequately addressed through repetition of that turn. The practice of repeating, both in its role to pre-empt as well as to resolve problems of understanding, was employed by the participants of the study irrespective of their lingua-cultural background, as the examples above show. This finding supports Neil’s claim that repetition may in fact be “a universal rhetorical device rather than a discourse feature which is characteristic of any cultural style” (1996:138). Gramkow’s (2001) findings further corroborate those of Neil’s. Both studies examined the issue of collaboration and joint text production in intercultural discourse where repetition was one of the procedures used towards this end. It is also the case here that in qualitative terms there are no discernible differences in the way in which the practice is employed across language and cultural groups when English is used as the medium of communication. As seen above, the participants make strategic use of repetition to facilitate understanding when it is threatened by overlap and to enhance understanding when there are signs of possible non-understanding. The participants’ linguistic and cultural background thus appears to have little or no bearing on the way in which the practice is applied. The assumption generally held with regard to the practice of repeating in cross-cultural dialogue is that it is to a large extent influenced by the participant’s cultural background. Tannen for instance says that it is to be expected that “degree and type of repetition differ with cultural and individual style” (1987:599). Studies that have for example investigated the frequency with which certain kinds of repetitions are employed across cultural groups in cross-cultural dialogue have found culture to be a determining factor (Murata 1995). The participant’s socio-cultural values towards the act of repeating are said to influence his or her use of the procedure. While cultural background may
Page 2 and 3: iada.online.series Volume 1/08 Dial
Page 4 and 5: Edited by Marion Grein Dialogue in
Page 7 and 8: Introduction The core of this first
Page 9 and 10: The Practice of Repeating in Englis
Page 17: The Practice of Repeating in Englis
Page 21: The Practice of Repeating in Englis
Page 24 and 25: 16 Marion Grein sympathisch empfund
Page 26 and 27: 18 Marion Grein 4. Funktionen des S
Page 28 and 29: 20 Marion Grein 6. Frequenz von Kom
Page 30 and 31: 22 Marion Grein 4 You did a [INT] A
Page 32 and 33: 24 Marion Grein 6 Metaphorische Ans
Page 34 and 35: 26 Marion Grein betreffen hier posi
Page 36 and 37: 28 Marion Grein denen man ein Kompl
Page 38 and 39: 30 Marion Grein Japan (Barnlund&Ara
Page 40 and 41: 32 Marion Grein Goffman, Erving. 19
Page 42 and 43: 34 Yana Tregubova kultureller Aspek
Page 44 and 45: 36 Yana Tregubova speziell in Auffo
Page 46 and 47: 38 Yana Tregubova Warum wird die Ge
Page 48 and 49: 40 Yana Tregubova zählt, sollte es
Page 50 and 51: 42 Yana Tregubova Betrachten wir ex
Page 52 and 53: 44 Yana Tregubova Dienste der illok
Page 54 and 55: 46 Yana Tregubova merksamkeit viel
Page 56 and 57: 48 Yana Tregubova 10. Umgang mit En
Page 58 and 59: 50 Yana Tregubova noch um Verständ
Page 61 and 62: The Impact of Socio-Cultural Aspect
Page 69 and 70:
The Impact of Socio-Cultural Aspect
Page 71:
The Impact of Socio-Cultural Aspect
Page 74 and 75:
66 Elena Xeni including slang, argo
Page 76 and 77:
68 Elena Xeni − in cases where it
Page 78 and 79:
70 Elena Xeni Conventions and norms
Page 81 and 82:
Cultural Dialogue between France an
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
9. Translating the term «Contrat P
Page 93:
Page 96 and 97:
88 Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak Consequen
Page 98 and 99:
90 Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak to make c
Page 100 and 101:
92 Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak readers c
Page 102 and 103:
94 Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak are unifo
Page 105 and 106:
Religiöse Euphemismen im Griechisc
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Deutsche Euphemismen: Religiöse Eu
Page 115 and 116:
Deutsche Euphemismen: Religiöse Eu
Page 117 and 118:
- Begraben werden: seine letzte Ruh
Page 119 and 120:
Politeness and Social Dynamics in C
Page 121 and 122:
Politeness and Social Dynamics in t
Page 123 and 124:
(2) Example (recording 19_15.09.01
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural Some a
Page 135 and 136:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 127 of
Page 137 and 138:
3.2 Netiquette Chat Behaviour Inter
Page 139 and 140:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 131 di
Page 141 and 142:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 133 ba
Page 143 and 144:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 135 Sn
Page 145 and 146:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 137 (8
Page 147 and 148:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 139 di
Page 149 and 150:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 141 (1
Page 151 and 152:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 143 Ve
Page 153 and 154:
“BillyBoy: Hey freche Liesl! =) F
Page 155 and 156:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 147
Page 157:
Chat Behaviour Intercultural 149 Th
Page 160:
152 List of Contributors Dr. Neelak
show all

Dialogue in and between Different Cultures - International ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?