In M. Macaulay & P. Blitvich (Eds.), Pragmatics and

In M. Macaulay & P. Blitvich (Eds.), Pragmatics and Context (pp. 249-276). Antares Press: Canada (2012).

249

10

The negotiation of conflict by Japanese and Americans: Consensus building in intercultural communication

Christopher Long Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai Japan

Keywords: Intercultural communication, Expression of conflict, Frame analysis, Japanese non-native speakers of English

1. Introduction

This chapter employs frame analysis (e.g., Goffman, 1974, 1981; Tannen, 1981, 1984, 1986; Tannen and Wallat, 1993; Watanabe, 2004, 2005) in the investigation of cross-cultural differences in the negotiation of conflict in intercultural communication. Specifically, it examines differences in the expression and justification of conflicting opinions by Japanese and Americans in a consensus building group discussion task. Analyses of discourse between two Japanese (1 male and 1 female) and two Americans (1 male and 1 female) reveal that Japanese participants more indirect strategies for expressing conflict (silence, pause, and backchannels) and disagreement (requesting further clarification) compared to Americans. These differences were also found to be the cause of misunderstanding at various points throughout the conversation. These findings are interpreted in terms of cross-cultural differences in values, which it is argued, provide a ‘context’ for the realization and interpretation of discourse. Implications are also discussed in terms of the role of English as a tool of intercultural communication.


250

2. Context as a ‘frame’ Beginning with the seminal work of Grice (1975) and Searle (1969, 1975), a fundamental tenet which has motivated pragmatic research over the years is that the meaning conveyed between interlocutors consists of more than the grammatical and lexical components of spoken utterances. Or, to borrow Searle’s terminology, there is an inevitable gap between “sentence meaning” and “speaker meaning” (Searle, 1969, 1975). Echoing this sentiment, Tannen (1986) writes that “meaning is never totally determined but rather…a joint production” (146). This idea is expressed by Brown and Yule (1983) who comment “in recent years the idea that a linguistic string (sentence) can be fully analyzed without taking ‘context’ into account has been seriously questioned” (25). They further state that “any analytical approach in linguistics which involves contextual considerations, necessarily belongs to that area of language study called pragmatics” (25). A similar sentiment is echoed by Levinson (1983) who states “pragmatics is the study of the role context plays in speaker- (or utterance-) meaning” (24). Researchers working within the theoretical framework of frame analysis view context primarily in terms of a shared set of values, beliefs and expectations regarding the management and interpretation of discourse across the gamut of speech acts and events (e.g., Goffman, 1974, 1981; Tannen, 1981, 1984, 1986; Tannen and Wallat, 1993; Watanabe, 2005). They maintain that interlocutors share complex sets of values and expectations and seek to uncover the ways in which these systems contribute to the co-creation of meaning in spoken interaction. Central to such a view is the concept of “framing” (e.g., Goffman, 1974, 1981; Tannen, 1984, 1986; Watanabe, 2005). Originally introduced by Bateson (1972) and later developed by Goffman (1974, 1981), a frame can be defined as a set of expectations, values, and beliefs associated with specific speech events (Hymes, 1972). Tannen (1984), for example, defines a frame as “a category within which meaning must be interpreted.” As such, she regards a frame as key in “signaling how any utterance is meant” (27). Working within a similar framework, Gumperz labels the vast array of verbal and non-verbal cues that signal how an utterance is interpreted as “contextualization cues” (e.g., choice of lexicon, tone, posture) (Gumperz, 1977).


251

Within such a framework, situations of intercultural communication are of particular interest. This is because interlocutors in intercultural communication potentially bring different values and expectation to similar speech events, thereby increasing the possibility of misunderstanding. As English is increasingly used as a language of communication in a variety of intercultural settings, the importance of investigating misunderstanding in such situations where English is used as the common language of communication is particularly significant. This chapter adopts this perspective in the analysis of spoken interaction between Japanese and Americans. Specifically, it investigates Japanese and American differences in the framing of group discussions, focusing on the expression of conflict in the negotiation of group consensus. As frames are both a representation and expression of values, naturally they can differ across cultures. As such, a consideration of cross-cultural differences in value systems is paramount to any analysis of intercultural communication. The following section lays the groundwork for the current analysis by reviewing significant research on cultural values particularly as it relates to the expression and management of disagreement and conflict. 3. Cultural Values Researchers in the field of intercultural communication have long recognized the influence of cultural values on a variety of patterns of human interaction including the expression of opinions and the management of conflict (e.g., Clancy, 1986; Cohen, 1997; Doi, 1974; FitzGerald, 2003; Furo, 2001; Gudykunst and Nishida, 1994; Hall, 1976, 1987; Hayashi, 1996; Lebra, 1976; Scollon and Scollon, 2001; Suzuki, 1986; Ting-Toomey 1985, 1988, 1994; Triandis, 1988, 1995; Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2003; Ueda, 1974; Watanabe, 2004, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1991; Yamada, 1989, 1997). According to Triandis (1988), the “most important dimension of cultural difference in social behavior, across the diverse cultures of the world, is the relative emphasis on individualism v. collectivism” (60). As defined by Hofstede (1980) in his now classic study, members of individualistic cultures view themselves as independent actors loosely bound by social groups


252

and thus tend to place their own individual needs before the needs of the group. In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures place a higher value on the group; they view themselves to a greater degree in terms of group membership; and, consequently, when conflict arises between group and individual needs, they tend to give precedence to the needs of the group. These general tendencies are argued to influence human behavior in a variety of ways. With regard to the expression of opinions and the managing of conflict, for example, it is argued that members of collectivist cultures tend to avoid the direct expression of opinions, particularly when they run the risk of conflicting with others (e.g., Cohen1997; Gudykunst and Nishida, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1985; 1988, 1994; Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2003; Triandis, 1995; Yamada, 1997). Ting-Toomey (1988), for example, claims that individualistic cultures (e.g., the US) tend to be more direct in the management of conflict whereas collectivistic cultures such as Japan utilize more obliging strategies of conflict resolution. She further develops these concepts into a general model of face negotiation (e.g., Ting-Toomey 1985, 1988, 1994; Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2003) and argues that Japan is a culture which values “mutual face” compared to the US which places greater emphasis on “self face.” She further claims that a focus on mutual face results in a greater avoidance of direct conflict in cultures such as that in Japan. Yamada (1997) discusses a similar distinction between what she terms the values of “independence” and “interdependence.” According to her, Japanese place a higher value on interdepence, whereas the Americans value independence to a greater degree. These tendencies, she argues, result in a variety of cross-cultural discourse management style differences. Yamada’s ideas can in many ways be seen as an extension of earlier work by Doi (1974) who claims that Japanese communication-style expresses and reinforces the cultural value of “amae” (i.e., interdependence). Another significant dimension of cultural variation is the distinction between “high” and “low context” communication style. According to Hall (1976), high context communication is characterized by a tendency to rely to a greater degree on shared context (values, beliefs, experiences, physical surroundings) in the transmission and interpretation of messages. Low context


253

communication, on the other hand, relies to a lesser degree on such shared context. This concept has informed many analyses of Japanese and American interactional patterns. Hall (1987), for example, describes Japan as a high context culture which places a high value on avoiding the explicit encoding of messages in verbal form. Rather, he claims, Japanese prefer to rely on shared contextual information (i.e., context) in the implicit communication of intended meaning (8). Likewise, according to Gudykunst and Nishida (1994), members of high context communication cultures such as Japan, tend to avoid the direct expression of opinions compared to individuals from low context cultures (e.g., the US). Ting-Toomey (1985) puts forth a similar view, arguing that high context cultures tend to employ an “evasive” and “non-confrontational” communication style (80). In addition to the above mentioned, there is a large body of research which considers the overall validity and applicability of traditional models of politeness to Japanese culture. For example, Ide (1989), in her now classic criticism of Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1989), argues that honorifics and other politeness markers in Japanese (e.g., verb endings) are determined by cultural values such as deference and are thus unrelated to the notation of face negotiation as outlined by Brown and Levinson. Following in her footsteps, a number of scholars have advanced similar claims (e.g, Fukuda and Asato, 2004; Haugh, 2005; Pizziconi, 2003).

Finally, it should be noted that, as argued by many scholars, the constructs associated with cultural value research can be problematic for a number of reasons (e.g., Ting-Toomey and Oetzel, 2003; Scollon and Scollon, 2001). For example, as argued by Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2003), although such concepts provide a general understanding of cultural context, the degree to which individuals internalize such value systems (and the resulting impact on behavior) can vary. In this sense, such concepts if applied in a simplistic fashion, can lead to over generalizations. Keeping these concerns in mind, the following section considers the effect of cultural values on behavior, focusing on cross-cultural differences in patterns of discourse.


254

4. Discourse Features Although research regarding cultural values helps to

illuminate cross-cultural differences in the ‘context’ within which discourse is realized, it does not go as far in uncovering the specific features utilized in the expression of various speech acts/events. This issue has been more thoroughly addressed by researchers working within the field of discourse analysis. One of the most widely researched features of Japanese discourse is arguably backchannels (or aizuchi). Beginning with early comparative studies (e.g., Maynard 1990; White, 1989), differences in both the frequency and distribution of backchannels in American English and Japanese discourse have been investigated. Regarding frequency, it is reported that Japanese use backchannels with twice the frequency of Americans, a difference which scholars have accounted for in terms of a difference in function (e.g., Furo, 2001; Maynard, 1990; White, 1989; Yamada, 1989; 1997). For example, Furo (2001), in her comparative analysis of group discussion in Japanese and English reports that during discourse segments in which a single floor holder dominated (what she terms a “single-person floor”), Japanese tended to use frequent backchannels to signal active listenership. In contrast, the American use of backchannels was primarily limited to the end of single-person floor segments to express an opinion and/or take the floor. Yamada (1997), who reports a similar pattern, argues that the Japanese use of backchannels reinforces the value of interdependence (for a similar interpretation, see Doi, 1974; Furo, 2001; Lebra, 1976; Wierzbicka, 1991; Yamada, 1989, 1997). Moreover, Yamada argues that because backchannels are used by Japanese to signal active listenership (rather than agreement) the use of backchannels by Japanese can cause misunderstandings in Japanese-American interactions. Regarding discourse strategies employed specifically to express conflict, Yamada (1997) reports a marked use in both pause (77-78) and laughing (100). According to Yamada, in Japanese discourse, both of these serve to express uneasiness and thus mitigate conflict. Similarly, in a study of the use of discourse strategies by Japanese in Australian university seminar classes, Nakane (2006) reports that Japanese frequently


255

used silence as a “face saving device” to mitigate conflict. Nakane further reports that the use of such a strategy was evaluated negatively by Australian university professors. Other studies of the expression of conflict in Japanese discourse include Jones (1990) who identifies nineteen strategies (see Table 1). Of particular interest to the current study are those strategies likely to be used by Japanese non-native speakers of English. These include linguistically less complex verbal and or non-verbal strategies such as “the use of discourse markers” (#8), “repetition” (#13), “laughter” (#16), “silence” (#18), and “withdrawing” (#19).

Explicit/Verbal Implicit/Verbal Implicit/Non-verbal1. Acknowledgment/Opposition 9. Veiling Opposition 15. Changing

Rhythm2. Self-disparagement 10. Ignore Conflicts 16. Frequent

Laughter3. Opposition/Explanation

11. DroppingConflicts 17. Marked Prosody

4. Opposition withApology

12. Switching SpeechStyle 18. Silence

5. Blunt Opposition 13. Repetition andParallelism

19. Withdrawingfrom Conversation

6. Compromise 14. Disfluencies7. Concession8. Discourse markersof Opposition

Table1: Strategies used in Japanese conflitcs (Jones, 1990)

(Adapted from Szatrowski, 2004, p. 8)

Other studies have investigated more general strategies employed in the management of conflict in Japanese discourse (e.g., Saft, 2004; Honda, 2002). Saft’s (2004) examines the expression of conflict in departmental-level and faculty-level meetings in a Japanese university and Honda (2002) examines conflict as it is expressed in three types of television talk show. Both of these studies document a significant range in the degree of expression of conflict across situations and in turn underscore the need to avoid stereotyping Japan as a culture in which the expression of conflict is non-existent. The current chapter adopts a similar perspective in attempting to identify differences in framing strategies of conflict between Japanese and Americans.


256

Watanabe (2004, 2005) investigates differences in the framing of group discussions by American and Japanese university students. Her research, which stems from the observation that Japanese students have difficulties engaging in group discussions in American university settings, compares general discourse management in discussions carried out by groups of Americans and Japanese. As a result of her analyses, she identifies various cross-cultural differences in the framing of discourse (e.g., pre-discussion procedural arrangements) and in turn discusses cultural values that potentially underlie such patterns (e.g., emphasis on hierarchical relations in Japan).

Although the research reviewed in this section assumes that a consideration of cultural values is essential to an analysis of discourse, some argue against such an approach. Saft (2004), for example, strongly criticizes the incorporation of what he terms “non-linguistics factors” (i.e., cultural values) within an analysis of discourse. As outlined above, following in the tradition of Gumperz (1982), Tannen (1981), Phillips (1983), Yamada (1997), Watanabe (2005), and others, my analysis treats cultural values as part of the context within which specific speech events/acts are realized. Moreover, it assumes that the specific manner in which discourse is realized both expresses and reinforces such cultural values. 5. The Current Study As noted above, the current chapter investigates cross-cultural communication between Americans and Japanese in a group discussion task in which participants are required to negotiate a group consensus in English. The following section outlines the details of the current research design. 5.1 Participants Two Americans (1 male, 1 female) and 2 Japanese (1 male, 1 female) participated as volunteers in the current study. Both Japanese participants were undergraduate university student in the Department of English at a private university in the Tohoku region of northern Japan. Both the Japanese male (JM) (21 years old) and the Japanese female (JF) (22 years old) had an English language proficiency at or above the minimal requirements for study abroad at an American university as


257

determined by their scores on the TOEFL (77 for JM) and TOEIC examination (805 for JM, 825 for the JF). JF spent the previous year studying abroad in England. JM was scheduled to begin a year abroad in the US the following semester. JM and JF met for the first time the day of their participation in this study. The American male (AM) and the American female (AF) participants were both third year undergraduate students at a private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania (US) and both were in Japan participating in a three-month study abroad program in Japan. Both were twenty-one years old and had known each other since entering college in the US (approximately three years). Both AM and AF had known JM since their arrival in Japan (approximately one month). Both met JF for the first time the day of their participation in this study. 5.2 Task Participants engaged in a modified version of the Alligator River task (Gee, 1990) in English for approximately forty minutes. For the task participants first read a brief story1 and then rank the five characters appearing in the story from the ‘least’ to the ‘most’ objectionable (participants were provided English and Japanese versions of both the story and task instructions). After this, participants were instructed to discuss their individual rankings and come up with a group ranking that all participants could agree on. Following the discussion, participants completed a questionnaire (both Japanese and English versions also provided) in which they evaluated the participation of themselves and the others, as well as their overall satisfaction with the resulting group decision. Discussions were video-recorded and transcribed according to the procedure outline in the appendix at end of the chapter. 5.3 Results: Pre-discussion Rankings The results of the initial individual rankings and final group rankings for the 5 characters are as follows.

1 The story recounts a failed love affair between two characters (Abigail and Gregory) and the actions of three acquaintances that intervene on their behalf.


258

Individual rankings (from least=1 to most=5 objectionable) American Male (AM): (1) Ivan, (2) Gregory, (3) Sinbad,

(4) Abigail, (5) Slug American Female (AF): (1) Ivan, (2) Gregory, (3) Slug,

(4) Sinbad, (5) Abigail Japanese Male (JM): (1) Gregory, (2) Abigail, (3) Ivan,

(4) Slug, (5) Sinbad Japanese Female (JF): (1) Gregory, (2) Abigail, (3) Slug,

(4) Ivan, (5) Sinbad Final group ranking: (1) Gregory, (2) Ivan, (3) Slug,

(4) Sinbad, (5) Abigail As can be seen above, there are striking within-group similarities for the individual rankings. For example, the American male (AM) and female (AF) have identical rankings for the two least objectionable characters (#1 Ivan, #2 Gregory). Moreover, they ranked Sinbad and Abigail in the same relative position, as fourth and fifth, and third and fourth. The biggest difference in opinion for the American participants regards Slug, whom the American male ranked as most objectionable, and the female ranked as third most objectionable. Likewise, the Japanese participants share similar ranking preferences. They have identical rankings for the two least objectionable characters (#1 Gregory and #2 Abigail), as well as the most objectionable character (Sinbad). Moreover, they placed the same characters in third and fourth position, only in reverse order. Although these within-culture similarities in individual ranking are interesting and potentially provide a promising subject of analysis, it is the differences in rankings which serve a greater purpose for the current study. Specifically, cross-cultural differences in individual rankings can be used to identify conflicts in opinion, and thus provided a focus for the current analysis. Moreover, differences between initial individual and final group rankings indicate the degree to which individual opinions were successfully negotiated and incorporated into the final group consensus, thereby providing an assessment of power imbalances in the interaction.


259

One of the most striking cross-cultural differences in initial individual ranking concerned the character Abigail. Both American participants ranked Abigail as one of the most objectionable characters in the story. The American male ranked Abigail in second to last position and the American female ranked her last. In contrast, both Japanese placed Abigail in a relatively high position (second to the top) rating her as one of the least objectionable characters. Another striking difference concerns the ranking of Ivan. Both the male and female American ranked Ivan as the least objectionable, placing him in the top position; whereas the Japanese male ranked Ivan as second to worst and the Japanese female ranked him third, in the middle position. In order to illuminate differences in the expression and negotiation of conflicting opinions, the qualitative analyses focused on segments in the discourse regarding these two characters. 5.6 Results: Discourse Analyses Analyses indicate that of the overall flow of discourse followed a four-phase cyclical pattern (shown below). 1. Clarification

request clarification of ranking from others provide clarification of own ranking to others

2. Justification request reasons/justifications from others provide own reasons/justifications to others

3. Negotiation express agreement/disagreement with justifications of

others adjust own ranking/request adjustment of others

ranking 4. Finalization

summarize group consensus regarding ranking express agreement/disagreement with group consensus

regarding ranking

Other than one episode in which the Japanese participants misunderstood and provided reversed rankings, there were no significant misunderstandings in any of the clarification phases


260

that occurred throughout the discourse. However, analyses of the remaining three phases in the discourse segments on Ivan and Abigail revealed significant differences in the framing of discourse as well as misunderstandings that were directly related to such differences. Specifically, it was found that framing strategies employed by the American and Japanese participants differed in the following three ways: (1) the justification of opinions; (2) the use of supportive feedback in response to contrary opinions; and (3) the expression of opinions relative to the ongoing discussion/final group consensus. Each of these is taken-up in the sections that follow. Justification of opinions: Regarding the justification of opinions, analyses revealed that, compared to the American participants, the Japanese participants provided less justification for their rankings, particularly when rankings were in conflict with others. The following segment (Transcription Segment 1) illustrates this point, by demonstrating the use of silence by the Japanese in response to a direct request for justification of a conflicting opinion. It also shows the resulting frustration on the part of the American participants (particularly the American male).

Transcription Segment 1:

JapaneseMale

American Female JapaneseFemale

AmericanMale

293 「so why, so why 's he bad? that ones tough「then

294295 hmm296 mmm297298 mmm299 he's certainly not good. I'd be

mad at him300 yeah301302 「@@@ 「@@@303304 @@@305 yeah what's-

what's, what's SObad about Ivan?

306 Ivan?307 「@@@ 「@@@ 「@@@308309 mmm

2 sec

8 sec

5 sec

2 sec

2 sec


261

Transcription segment 1 picks up in the middle of an ongoing discussion regarding Ivan. In two previous sections of discourse (transcription lines 55-85 and 281-292), the Americans offer justification for their ranking of Ivan as the least offensive by explaining “he didn’t do anything” (line 61) and “he did the least out of everyone” (line 70). Up to this point, however, the Japanese participants have offered no justification for their ranking of Ivan as highly offensive. The segment begins with the American female directly requesting justification from the Japanese participants on line 293. Her request is followed by a two second pause, brief vocal responses from the Japanese male (“hmm”) and Japanese female (“mmm”), a longer eight second pause, and another brief vocalization (“mmm”) by the Japanese female. On line 299, the American female offers her own interpretation of the Japanese participants ranking (“he’s certainly not good, I’d be mad at him”), to which the Japanese female expresses agreement with a backchannel (line 300). Following another five second pause, the two Americans laugh (line 302), followed by another pause. This is followed be a restatement of the request for justification by the American male (line 305). This short segment illustrates a recurring pattern of difference found in the American-Japanese expression of justification. On the one hand, the Americans request and provide clear verbal justification of controversial rankings. In contrast, the Japanese fail to provide clear justification, and respond to direct requests with silence and laughing. Of course it is not clear to what degree these communication strategies are a result of the Japanese participants’ English proficiency. For example, it is highly probable that limited language ability magnifies these tendencies. The point of this chapter is not to deny such effects. Rather, it appears that pre-existing cultural patterns may become exaggerated under certain conditions. Specifically, linguistically less complex strategies for dealing with conflict are likely to be utilized to a greater degree in intercultural communication involving an L2. In the above analyses, this was found to be the case regarding the use of silence and laughter. In addition to the avoidance of direct expressions of conflict, another difference in American and Japanese expression of


262

justification is seen in line 300 of the above transcription segment. Here, the Japanese female backchannels the American female as a show of agreement thereby indirectly expressing a controversial opinion (i.e., her justification for the ranking of Ivan). This strategy is also listed in Jones (1990) (Table 1, above) as an indirect method of expressing conflict in Japanese. A similar example is found on line 465 of the following segment (Transcription Segment 2) when the Japanese female backchannels the American male’s speculations about the Japanese participants’ justifications for their ranking of Abigail. In line 460, the American male begins a segment in which he provides his own interpretation of the Japanese participants’ justification for the relatively high ranking of Abigail. In response to his statement, in line 460 (“but she didn’t DO anything XX”), the American female expresses surprise and disagreement (“WHAT!”). The American male, however, continues his own interpretation (“and she felt very, maybe she felt very, passionate”), to which the Japanese female links with an expression of agreement (“>yea:::h”). It should be noted that this segment occurs fairly late in the discussion of Abigail and is one of the few expressions of a reason by the Japanese female to justify her ranking of Abigail.


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

460 >that's te「rri- 「but she didn't DOanything XX>

461 >WHAT!462 and-463 「@@@ 「@@@ 「@@@464 and she felt very,

maybe she feltvery, passionate>

465 >yea:::h466 like a crime of

pasion and shedidn't even doanything so>

467 >((COUGHING)468 yeah but469 ((COUGHING))470 can you get the 「XX 「@@471 but in the end she get's so much

「worse「@@

472 yeah she does getmuch worse


263

In other words, the justification of conflicting opinions was framed differently by the Japanese and American participants. On the one hand, the American participants exhibited a tendency to clearly verbalize justification for opposing opinions. The Japanese participants, on the other hand, tended to avoid the direct expression of such opinions. Rather they employed the indirect strategies of silence, repetition, and expressing agreement through backchannels. These differences also resulted in instances of misunderstanding between interlocutors, as is further illustrated below. Again, we cannot overlook the effect language ability when considering these data. As with the use of silence and laughter, limited language proficiency likely contributes to Japanese participants’ reliance on backchannels as an indirect means of expressing opinions. However, also as noted above, this finding is significant in that it suggests that the transfer of strategies from L1 to L2 is mitigated by the degree of linguistic complexity (or non-complexity) of a particular strategy. As with silence and laughing, a linguistically non-complex strategy for the managing of conflict is used. Moreover, as the following analyses further indicates, the use of such strategies caused misunderstanding between participants at various points throughout the discourse. Supportive feedback to opposing opinions: In addition to differences in the justification of conflicting opinions, cross-cultural differences in the use of supportive feedback were noted. Specifically, the use by the Japanese participants of unqualified supportive feedback (e.g., “yeah,” “I know,” “that’s right”) in response to opinions in conflict with their own stood in contrast to the American participants use of qualified expressions (e.g., “yeah, but,” “that’s true, but”). The following segment (Transcription Segment 3) illustrates this point and demonstrates how this difference also led to misunderstanding among the participants.


264


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

194 Why do you- how come youguys have Abigail as numbertwo?195 @@@

196 <@clearly, 「in my opinion@> 「@@@

198 「she's a「「<@horrible person@> 「@@@ 「「<@she is@>

199 She's laughing when bad thingshappen to other peope and she'skind of a slut

200 「@@@ 「yeah>

201 >I know I know

202 ahh!>

203 >yeah

204 Abigail is down

205 「@@@ 「@@@ 「@@@ 「@@@

206 「really down 「that's right

207 she laughed

208 yeah, last, I mean

209 yeah

As noted above, both Japanese participants rated Abigail as second best, compared to the Americans who ranked her as worst and second to worst. The segment begins with the American female requesting justification from the Japanese participants for their ranking of Abigail. To this, the Japanese female responds with laughter, also noted by Jones (1990) and Yamada (1997) as a common strategy used in response to conflict in Japanese discourse. This response is followed by that of the American female who provides justification of her own ranking (line 196). This pattern is familiar. That is, when the Japanese participants provide no justification, the Americans offer justification of their own ranking. In line 201, the Japanese female uses supportive feedback (“I know, I know”) in response to the American female’s justification (lines 196-199). In line 204, the Japanese male expresses agreement with the American female by suggesting Abigail should in fact be moved down in the group ranking. In response to this the Japanese female again offers supportive feedback (lines 206-208).


265

From this exchange, it appears that both Japanese participants have agreed with the American female’s opinion and a group consensus is in the process of being formed. However, based on the following segment (Transcription Segment 4), it is clear that in fact this is not the case. The Japanese participants have not changed their position. Their use of unqualified supportive feedback only creates this impression.


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

425 I don- I have ab-where doeseveryone haveAbigail?

426 Abigail?427 two>428 >two>>429 >>two?430 「@@@ @「@@431 where do XX?432 four>433 >four>>434 「she's FIVE! >fo「ur435 「@@@ 「@@@ 「@@@436 what about you?437 yeah438 where?439 two>440 >two?>>441 <@ohh@> >>442 >>two443 ohh noo

Segment 4 begins in line 426 with the American male requesting clarification regarding Abigail’s ranking (“I don- I have Ab- where does everyone have Abigail?”). When the Japanese male (line 427) and Japanese female (line 428) re-state their original positions, the American male responds by repeating their response with rising inflection, indicating surprise. This is followed by simultaneous laughter by the Americans participants. The segment ends with the American male saying “ohh noo” (line 443), in an apparent expression of frustration. Based on the analysis of Transcription Segment 4, it is clear that Japanese use of supportive feedback in Transcription Segment 3 does not indicate agreement with the opposing opinions expressed by the American participants. However, because such comments are unqualified (i.e., do not explicitly


266

expresses the disagreement which in fact remains), they lead to misunderstanding which can be inferred from the simultaneous laughter on the part of the American participants (line 430) and the verbal expression of frustration by the American male on line 443 (“ooh noo”). In contrast to the use of unqualified supportive feedback by the Japanese participants, the following transcription segment (Transcription Segment 5) illustrates the use of qualified supportive feedback by the Americans.


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

444 why is she good? she doesnothing go「od in the story?>

「because

445 >she she's very,ahh, she's been ina sa- sad

446 that's true447 yeah448 hmm449 「that's true but> 「@@450 「she still「「@@ 「「@@ >it's sad but, 「uh451452 I mean- I mean you find out so

much more when she, wasoverjoyed at the sight ofGregory getting his due

453 @@454 「@@@ and, and her 「LAUGHING at

gregory being poorly beaten, onthe 「「side of the road

「@@@ 「@@@ 「「@@

455 by a guy namedSLUG

In response to the American female’s request for justification of Abigail’s ranking, the Japanese female begins to offer an explanation, but is cut off by the Japanese male who continues in her place. In response to his justification that Abigail was put in a sad situation (line 445), both the American female (line 449) and the American male (line 450) offer supportive feedback. It is notable, however, how in contrast to the Japanese participants, in both cases the American participants qualify their feedback with the use of “but.” They then follow up with additional explanation of their position. A similar use of qualified supportive feedback can be seen on line 468 of Transcription Segment 2 presented above.


267

Expressing Position Relative to Group Consensus: Finally, a difference was noted regarding the framing of position relative to the ongoing development of the group consensus. Specifically, the American participants consistently used a strategy whereby they offered explicit clarification of their position relative to the developing group consensus. This was particularly the case regarding disagreement with new proposals. The Japanese male offered clarification of his position in the case of agreement with the group consensus, but offered no verbalization of disagreement. The Japanese female offered no direct expressions of agreement or disagreement with developing group decisions. In the case of the Japanese female, opposition to a group consensus was expressed by (1) revisited topics at a latter point in the discussion and (2) repeating requests for justification to other group members (both strategies discussed by Jones, 1990 and Yamada, 1997). These differences in discourse strategy also resulted is misunderstandings and seeming frustration, as is illustrated in Transcription Segment 6 and 7 below.


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

504 Abigail, mmmTHREE!

505 three?506 three 「or four 「xxx507 「yeah..three or

fourAbigail maybe 「XX

508 that'd make mehappy

509 @@「@ 「me too, four would make mehappy

510 @@ @@「@ 「okay so we haveAb- we have Slugand Abigailaround four

511 「um um 「hm

As seen in segment 6, three of the participants (American male, American female, and Japanese male) are actively involved in negotiating the position of Abigail in the final group ranking. In line 504, the Japanese male suggests position three. The American male responds by repeating the Japanese male’s proposal with a rising inflection. To this, the Japanese male


268

responds by amending his proposal in line 506. The American male expresses agreement in line 508 (“that’d make me happy”), as does the American female in line 509 (“me too, that’d make me happy”). The American male summarizes the newly arrived at group consensus in line 510 (“okay so we have A- we have Slug and Abigail around four”), to which the Japanese male and female offer overlapping backchannels (line 511). From Transcription Segment 6, it would appear that a group consensus has been reached regarding the group ranking of Abigail. However, in line 769 of Transcription Segment 7, the Japanese female asks the American male for his opinion of Abigail. This serves to reintroduce the issue of Abigail’s group ranking and thus acts as a challenge to the group decision arrived at in the previous segment. This interpretation is confirmed by the American male’s response (a rapid, monotone recapitulation of the previous points) which seems to express mild irritation at the reintroduction of this topic by the Japanese female. Interestingly, the ranking of Abigail remains unresolved throughout the entire discussion and is ultimately decided in the final seconds of the discussion by a group vote.


JapaneseMale


AmericanMale

769 so what what do youthink about Abigail?

770 「un Abigail hmm, let'ssee, she was, shewas in love withhim

771 mm772 she did a LOT for

him773 「huun yea::h774 she crossed the

man-eatingalligator, shores

775 @@776777 but she slept with

Sinbad778 1 sec


269

6. Summary and Conclusions The current analyses revealed cross-cultural differences in the framing of conflict by the Japanese and American participants regarding (1) the justification of conflicting opinions; (2) the use of supportive feedback in response to conflicting opinions; and (3) the ratification of an ongoing group consensus. Moreover, it was determined for each of these that the Japanese participants used less direct strategies compared to the American participants. These findings support trends reported in previous research (e.g., Gudykunst and Nishida, 1994; Jones, 1990; Maynard, 1990; Nakane, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 1988; White, 1989; Yamada, 1997) and suggest that cross-cultural differences in framing, and related differences in context (i.e., cultural values), contribute to misunderstandings in cross-cultural encounters. For example, the finding that the Japanese participants responded to a direct request for justification of conflicting opinions with extended pauses and laughter corroborates the findings of Yamada (1997) and Nakane (2006), both of whom interpret such strategies as face-saving devises used to mitigating conflict.

In a similar fashion, the frequent use of unqualified agreement in response to conflicting opinions parallels the findings of previous research regarding Japanese use of backchannels (Maynard, 1990; White, 1989; Yamada, 1997). According to this research, the primary function of backchannels in Japanese is to express listenership, not opinions. Moreover, the frequent use of this strategy in Japanese reinforces the value of interdependence at the discourse level. The use of unqualified agreement (e.g., “yeah,” “I know,” “that’s right”) by the Japanese participants in the discourse analyzed for the current study appears to have serve a similar function.

The finding regarding the reintroduction of topics is also corroborated by the findings reported in Yamada (1997) which indicate, particularly in the case of contentious topics, Japanese use few overt verbal closures (i.e., direct statements of position relative to issue). Rather, such topics are reintroduced at a latter stage in the discussion as a way to indirectly indicate disagreement with a previous group consensus.


270

It should be stressed that although the current findings indicated Japanese participants used less direct strategies in the framing of conflict, it should not be concluded that Japanese do not express conflict or that they are somehow poor at expressing conflict. An unfortunate consequence of having English (or any other language) as a tool of intercultural communication is that the communicative norms associated with native speakers of that language often become viewed as the standard for intercultural communication. Under such an assumption, speakers employing styles which differ from this norm run the risk of being evaluated negatively (e.g., as incompetent) (for a similar interpretation see Tannen, 1981 and Phillips, 1983). The point of the current analyses has been to identify cross-cultural differences in the framing of conflict and show how these differences can lead to misunderstanding in situations using English as a language of intercultural communication. It has not been to deny the expression of conflict by the Japanese participants in the current study or speakers of Japanese in general.

It could be argued that the current findings are largely a result of the English proficiency level of the Japanese participants. Certainly the role of English cannot be overlooked when interpreting the current findings. Quantitative analyses of the amount of speech, for example, revealed that the discourse was overall dominated by the American participants who spoke 80% of the total words uttered (male 49%, female 31%). The point of the current analyses, however, is not to deny the effects of language ability. Rather this chapter has argued that under certain circumstances (i.e., proficiency limitations of L2) specific framing strategies (i.e., linguistically less complex) are more likely to be used and that an over dependency on such strategies can lead to misunderstanding in settings involving English as a language of cross-cultural communication. In the case of the current analyses, among the nineteen Japanese conflict management strategies noted in Jones (1990), linguistically less-complex strategies were found to be used by the Japanese participants. In this way, the current findings reveal an interaction between (1) linguistic ability and (2) pre-existing cultural tendencies. In other words, they provide evidence of the tendency of Japanese speakers to rely on


271

linguistically less-complex strategies that are common in their L1 in the management and expression of conflict when speaking English. Whether or not a similar tendency exists in more advanced Japanese ESL speakers remains to be seen. It is seems likely that if it does, it would exist along side a tendency to use linguistically more complex framing strategies as well. However, the nature such tendencies, as well as the effects on cross-cultural communication, remain a topics for future investigation. It is interesting to note that the initial individual ranking of the two American participants is nearly identical to the final group ranking. In other words, the Americans were more successful in achieving a final outcome that closely reflected their initial opinions. Or, stated in reverse, the Japanese compromised their initial rankings to a greater degree compared to the American participants. Analyses of the post-discussion questionnaire, however, revealed no negative evaluations of the overall task or of any individual participants. In other words, the imbalances in the final group-ranking as well as the misunderstandings identified in the analyses had little negative impact on the participants’ subjective evaluations. Given that there are no negative consequences associated with the outcome of the task employed in the current study, this finding is not entirely surprising. In real-life situations, however, power imbalances and misunderstandings often entail negative consequences which can emotionally influence interlocutors. Thus, the findings of the post-discussion questionnaire should be interpreted somewhat cautiously and further research into the effects of differences in framing (and any resulting misunderstanding) is necessary. Finally, it should be noted that as the current research is based on the analysis of a single discussion among four participants, it is not clear the degree to which these findings reflect individual tendencies or larger cultural patterns. As such, any application of these findings also should be made with caution. Keeping these limitations in mind, however, the current findings reveal a number of patterns which, when considered alongside the findings of previous research, provide insight into the different ways conflict is potentially framed by Americans and Japanese and, more importantly, the ways in


272

which such differences can lead to misunderstanding in cross-cultural encounters. Appendix Following Hayashi (1996), the conversation was transcribed such that each speaker is represented by a vertical column with simultaneous utterances captured on a single horizontal row. This technique was employed because, as noted in Hayashi (1996), it offers a clearer representation of the flow of discourse in multi-interlocutor interactions. Major transcription symbols used include the following. Major transcription symbols Overlapping speech indicated on single line and marked at

start with:「 Linked utterances marked at end and beginning with: >,>>,

>>>, etc Laughing marked with: @, @@, etc. Speaking while laughing enclosed by: <@ @> Emphasized speech in shown in capitals Unclear utterances marked with: X, XX, etc. Rising inflection indicative of interrogative marked with: ? Stretched vowels marked with :, ::, :::, etc. Incomplete, cut-off, utterances marked with: - Pauses under 1 second marked with: , Pauses 1 second or more given own line with length

indicated: 1 sec. 2 sec, etc. Comments shown in capitals, enclosed in double parenthesis:

(( )) 7. References Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York:

Ballantine. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in

Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Clancy, P. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in

Japanese. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language


273

Socialization across Cultures (pp. 214- 249). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Doi, T. (1974). The Anatomy of Dependence. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

FitzGerald, H. (2003). How Different Are We?-Spoken Discourse in International Communication. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Fukuda, A. & Asato, N. (2004). Universal politeness theory: application to the use of Japanese honorifics. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1991-2002.

Furo, H. (2001). Turn-taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in Grammar, Intonation and Semantics. : New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. Hampshire: The Falmer Press.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Grice, J. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-59). New York: Academic Press.

Gudykunst, W. & Nishida, T. (1994). Bridging Japanese/North American Differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gumperz, J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and Anthropology (pp. 191-211). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Random Books. Hall, E. (1987). Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the

Japanese. New York: Random Books. Hayashi, R. (1996). Cognition, Empathy, and Interaction: Floor

Management of English and Japanese Conversation. New Jersey: Ablex.


274

Hofstede, D. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Honda, A. (2002) Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 573–608.

Haugh, M. (2005). The importance of ‘place’ in Japanese politeness: Implications for cross-cultural communication and intercultural analysis. Intercultural Pragmatics 2(1), 41-68.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life (pp. 35-71). In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ide, R. (1998). ‘Sorry for your kindness’: Japanese interactional ritual in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 509-529.

Jones, K. (1990). Conflict in Japanese Conversations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Lebra, T. (1976). Japanese Patterns of Behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maynard, S. (1990). Conversation management in contrast: Listener responses in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 397-412.

Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1811-1835.

Phillips, S. (1983). The Invisible Culture: Communication in Classroom and Community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Long Grove: Waveland Press.

Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1471-1506

Saft, S. (2004) Conflict as interactional accomplishment in Japanese: arguments university faculty meetings. Language in Society, 3, 549–584.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Blackwell: Malden, MA.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax.and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.


275

Szatrowski, P. (2004). Hidden and Open Conflict in Japanese Conversational Interaction. Tokyo: Kurioso.

Suzuki, (1986). In T. Lebra & W. Lebra (Eds.), Japanese Culture and Behavior: Selected Readings. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Tannen, D. (1981). New York Jewish conversational style. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 30, 133-149.

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1986). Discourse in cross-cultural communication. Text 6(2), 143-151.

Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in Discourse (pp. 57-67). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Towards a theory of conflict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, and S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, Culture, and Organizational Processes (pp. 71-86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face negotiation system. In Y. Kim and W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories of Intercultural Communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar and R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (7th ed.) (pp. 360-372). Belmont, CA: Longman.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2003). Cross-cultural face concerns and Conflict Styles. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication (pp. 127-147).

Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: A reconceptualisation of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In G. Verma and C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition (p. 60-95). Hong Kong: Macmillan Press.

Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.

Ueda, K. (1974). Sixteen ways to avoid saying “no” in Japan. In J. C. Condon & M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural Encounters with


276

Japan: Communication-Contact and Conflict (pp. 184-192). Tokyo: Simul.

Watanabe, S. (2004). Conflict management strategies in Japanese group discussions. In P. Szatrowski (Ed.), Hidden and Open Conflict in Japanese Conversational Interaction (pp. 65-93). Tokyo: Kurioso.

Watanabe, S. (2005). Cultural Differences in Framing: American and Japanese Group Discussions. In, S. Kiesling & C. Bratt (Eds.), Intercultural Discourse Communication: The Essential Readings, (pp. 226-247).

Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter: New York.

White, S. (1989). Backchannels across cultures: A study of Americans and Japanese. Language and Society, 18, 59-76.

Yamada, H. (1989). American and Japanese Topic Management Strategies in Business Meetings. Doctoral dissertation in Linguistics, Georgetown University.

Yamada, H. (1997). Different Games, Different Rules: Why Americans and Japanese Misunderstand Each Other. Oxford University Press: New York.

Documents

In M. Macaulay & P. Blitvich (Eds.), Pragmatics and