Japanese and American Meetings

8/14/2019 Japanese and American Meetings

1/18

Pragmatics :2.721238Internatonal rasmatics ssociation

JAPANESE AND AMERICAN MEETINGSAND WHAT GOES ON BEFORE THEM:

A CASE STUDY OF CO.WORKER MISUNDERSTANDING1

Laura Miller

1. Introduction

Some genuinely lluminatingwork on interethnic nd ntercultural ommunication, ndthe esulting misunderstandings hich often occur, has been carried out by researchersin the fields of sociolinguistics nd the ethnography of communication for example.Basso 1970: Gumperz 1982: Scollon and Scollon 1981). Their empirically groundedmethodology as contributed solid nsights bout where he locus of misunderstandingin interethnic ncounters may be tbund. These scholars ave specified arious distinctcategories f communicative ehavior which are potentially problematic. Some of thesetroublesome omains are the discourse tructure of the language, ultural assumptionsabout appropriate behavior and the 'presentation of self, and norms concerning he

drstribution f talk and the exchange f speaking urns. These various ways of speakingand constructing alk may produce or contribute to two fundamental types ofmisunderstanding: ragmatic misunderstandings nd structural misunderstandings.

Structural misunderstandings re located in features of language such as itslexicon nd grammar, and are often consciously ecognized. or example, every ssueof the Japanese op culture and language earning magazine Mangajin contains a"Bloopers" olumn n which readers elate some dramatic inguistic mistake. A recentissue ad the following entry by an American man living n Japan:2

"l was working in the education department of the Shiyakusho, or City Hall. I had skipped

breakfast and went down to the little shop on the first floor, but my choice of breakfast temswas limited to mashed potatoes, sandwiches, r Coke. Upon returning to my section of the

1 This paper was presented at the Sixth Annual Meeting of t he Association of Japa neseBusiness tudies n 1993, New York. It is a revision of a section of my dissertation on "Interethniccommunication n Japan: Interactions between Japanese nd American co-workers," (UCLADepartment f Anthropology, 1988). would like to thank Linda Chance, Masakazu Iino, AdamKendon, Marcyliena Morgan, and anonymous reviewers or their comments.

2 My transcription of Japanese s orthographic (rather than phoneti c), based on the mo dified

Hepburn Rommanrzation System as used by Kenk ytsha (Masuda 1974).ln this system, ong vowels(whichare phonemic) are represented with lines over them, called macrons. rather than with doubledletters. n exception s the vowel "i" which is written as "ii ."


2/18

222 Laura Mitler

office, I wanted to say, "City Hall doesn't have a good shop, does it?" "Shiyakusho wa iibafien ga nai desu ne." Instead, I blurted out in a loud voice^Shiyakusho wa ii baishunga nai desu ne" City Hall doesn't have any good prostitutes, does it?" (Mangajin p.4).

In some Japanese and American interact ions, such as this one, par t ic ipants are able to

identify certain words or phrases hat are problematic and therefore know' that theyare misunderstanding omething. But often, participants misunderstand r misinterpretan interaction without ever realizing hat they have done so .

Pragmatic misunderstandings re hose n whichsome participants ake situatedjudgements nd nterpretations hich differ rom those of other participants. peakersanalyze hese nstances ot as pragmatic misunderstandings, ut as deficiencies n thecharacter or personality of the other, or as traits common o particular ethnic groups.Individuals n any culture nterpret what they hear depending on their definitions andassumptions concerning what sort of interaction or speech event they think is inprogress. t is conventionally understood hat when people from different culturesinteract, hey bring with them assumptions hich may result n misunderstandings ndmisinterpretations. Yet even when there is a s eemingly equivalent or shared folk-linguistic abel for a particular activity, uch as "meetings," here may still be differencesin assumptions about what that activityentails and what behavior s appropriate o it.Assumptions about the purpose of meetings, nd what one does prior to and duringone, often result in pragmatic misunderstandings.

One problem n Japanese nd American nteraction may concern differences nunderstanding and conception about how business s accomplished hrough meetingsand he activities receding hem. While past esearch as described hese differences,

the actual talk which occurs during interactions between Japanese and Americanbusinesspeople ave rarely been the focus of research r analysis. ather, there is useof self-report data such as questionnaires, nterviews and surveys. While this type ofdata does provide valuable information, t may also fall back on the repetition ofunquestioned social science concepts n order to explain hypothetical nteractions.Examrnation of actual business conversations which have been audiotaped orvideotaped may yield additional nterpretations nd findings. The intent of this paperis to look at one such aped conversation o see f anything new about Japanese ndAmerican business ommunication may be learned.

Before looking at a case-study n which we may track individual expression f

dift'eringassumptions nd expectations, e should irst review some of what we alreadyknow about Japanese nd America conceptions f meetings nd meeting preparation.

2. American meetings: Agenda and action

The rmportance of the meeting n American culture s evident n numerous eports onthe trequency with which they are held. For example, Snell (1978, p.xi) claims thatl5Vo of executive ime is spent n meetings, nd Doyle and Straus 1976:4) report thatfor middle management,35Vo f the working week s spent n meetings. Mintzberg's

(1973) mportant study also supports he view that formal meetings are integral o theway in which work gets done in American offices. Many American businesspeople


3/18

Co-worker isunderstanding 23

assume hat meetings re for the purpose f getting ome specific ctions one, whichmay nclude one or more of the fbllowing:

> present ntormation & share opinions

> make decisions> pool skillsand resources> formulate plans> assign asks & responsibilities> clarify problems & ideas> establish deadlines, lan of action> iron-out disagreements solve problems> create & stimulate deas> bargaining negotiating> promote eam spirit & give encouragement

> elicit feedback> provide guidance & training

These assumpiions bout the purpose of meetings are reflected n popularmeta-linguistic erms such as brainstorming, buzz session, head-busting, briefings,presentations, nd raining sessions. ne of the more strikingly ulture-specific spectsof the American meeting s its decision-making unction: The meeting s a decision-making body, a place of force and persuasion" Snell 7978: p.xii). Meetings aretherefore hought to be the appropriate place n which to persuade people or try tochange heir minds. The assumption hat meetings nvolve decision-making nd the

resolution f conflict hat goes with it is also seen n the numerous ooks of the "Howto.."genre which proffer advice and strategies or behavior n meetings. Examples ofthisvariety nclude: How to Wirt tlrc Meeting (Snell 1978), How to Make Meetings Work(Doyle and Straus 1976), Rurtrtittg a Meeting Tlnt Works (Miller \99I), Meetings,Meetings: ow to Manipulate Tlrcm and Make Them More Fun (Fletcher 1984).

The belief hat meetings re about problem-solving, onflict esolution nd otheractive, articipatory behavior s demonstrated y people's udgements about whatconstitutes successful eeting. or most, a "good"meeting s one n which something"got done" such as results, decisions, olutions, nd formulations. For Americans,meetings re for the presentation f facts, numbers, nd material which s given so thatdecisions an be made to direct a course of action. Decisions on what should be doneare hought o logically ollow trom the facts and material presented within the contextof a meeting.

Stewart (1976: 2) claims that Americans are concerned with matters ofprocedure nd with agenda setting. Getting things done' and having a plan of actionare ways o satisff a need o see and eel hat something s being accomplished. iventhe structure f the American workplace, his necessitates series f meetings nd heestablishment f a plan with goals and a course of action mapped out. Having a planor agenda eads o the conception f action as a chain of linear events Stewart 7916:6).This concept of action as sequential esults n a preference or tackling hings one


4/18

224 Laura Mitter

at a time. According o Graham and Herberger 1983: 164), "Americans usually attacka complex negotiation sequentially-that s, hey separate he issues nd settle hem oneat a t ime." Clyne (1981) also notes his inear orientation of Americans during businessmeetings. Koike (1988) suggests hat this habit of doing hings sequentially ften leads

to problems n negotiations with Japanese, ho work on a project as a whole or unit.Americans expect certain decisions o be made before hey can go on to the next itemon an agenda, and experience a sense of frustration when nothing is determinedsequentially. There are also explicit rules for the orderly and systematic onduct of ameeting, modeled on Parliamentary rocedure nd codified n standard eferences uchas Robert's Rules of Order (I9ll).

The systematic ature of meetings are also seen n the key role and reverencein which a meeting's agenda s held. (The importance of the agenda o an Americanmeeting has been examined by Linde, 1991). This emphasis on agenda and linearordering of activity means that preparation before a meeting s largely a matter ofscheduling. Advice on what one should do prior to a meeting s usually imited to theplanning of the meeting tself and givingadvance otice o participants. This contrastssharply with the Japanese understanding f what one should be doing prior to ameeting, and it is to this which we now turn.

3. Japanese meetings: Activity and approval

There are various ypes of meetings held in Japanese ffices, and many are similar toAmerican business meetings uch as staff meetings, reative sessions, raining sessionsand presentations. n many cases, owever, much of what Americans do in what theyconsider a proper meeting s done by Japanese rior to such a formal event n pre-meeting nteractions. t was proposed y Graham and Sato (1984:127) that Japanese meetings hemselves re really only a type of ritual approval of

what has already been decided during numerous ndividual conversations uring thepre-meeting eriod"

There has been much written about the importance of group cooperation andthe maintenance of harmony within the Japanese orkplace Alston 1986; Pascale ndAthos 1981; Graham and Sato 1984; Okabe 1983).While such a focus on harmony andcooperation is useful for understanding Japanese behavior, it is neverthelessunreasonable o expect hat Japanese usinesspeople ever disagree or have conflict.Characterizations uch as Kerlinger's (1951: 38) statement hat Japanese eachdecisions ogether "almost by a sort of empathy" and Arggle's (7982: 71) claim thatdecisions are "carried out by a kind of acquiescence o the will of the group" arestereotypical mages hat merely mystify a much more down-to-earth process.

In contrast o these scholarly ssessments, y own personal experience I spentfour years n Osaka working for Japanese ompanies) and -y reseirch on businessinteractions have led me to the view that Japanese o not exist n a state of constantharmony and cooperation, and that problems associated ith power and influence are

just as real for a Japanese erson as or an American person. The important difference


5/18

I

I

Co-worker tisunderstanding 25

willbe ound n the manner and place n which conflictand disagreement re handled.One alternative method or ironing out disagreements nd dealing with conflict s oftenreferred o in the business iterature as the ingi seido written proposal system'(March 1982: Moran 1985; Graham and Sato 1984). The ingi slro consensus form'

is not used or all business ecisions, nd each irm will have ts own criteria (risk ormonetary alue) br determining when a formal consensus orm is needed. n any case,both prior o the circulation f a form and n cases hen a form is not used, o-workerswillnevertheless ngage n frequent one-on-one nteractions ith those most affectedby a proposed project. The busy effort involved n achieving consensus, hetherformalized n a form or not, is often seen n activity hat goes on prior to actual'businessmeetings.'

The tolk meta-linguistic erm most often associated ith this pre-meetingactivity hich has been written about n the past s nernawaslri, hich contrasts ith thebasic erm or meeting(kaigi). Originally sed n gardening o refer to the preparation

of soiland roots betore ransplanting, hrough metaphoric xtension t is now used nbusiness o ret'er o prior preparation before proposing plan or holding a formalmeeting. t refers o an activity which n essence s a type of pre-meeting eld one-on-one. One unction of nemawaslri s to allow people he opportunity o argue privately,rather han publicly,which might entail a loss of face. Nemawasli may occur outsidethe workplace, n birrs, afes, r sports enues, here distinctions etween usiness ndsocialnteract ion re blurrecl .3Alston1986:301) escribes ne of the social unct ionsit has:

"[. . .] discussing and ncgotiating disagrecmcnts in private means personal favors can he

cxchangcd. Nentaw,ashi binds co-workers n a net of mutual deb t and in an on-going exchangeof favors."

In American business he most closely quivalent erms would be "spadework"or "preliminarygroundwork." Yet the purpose of American-style padework orgroundwork s to influence ecisions nd other active work which will be done duringa meeting. roundwork provides he infbrmation and facts hat will be used during ameeting o add import or give conviction o arguments. Spadework otlen refers o akind of advance obbying o int-luence he conduct of a meeting, and therefore, canhave negative onnotations f buttering-up r apple-polishing. hese same negativeconnotations o not attach to rtemawaslli, owever.

During Japanese re-rneeting nteractions ndividuals an gather nformation,argue privately, get ideas percolating, o some nformal probing, and get reactionsbefore establishing plan or agenda. t is precisely n some of the most commonactivities ssociated with rrcmawashi, uch as problem-identification nd solving,decision-making, ivision of labor, sharing of opinions and ideas and resolution ofdisagreements,hat we see a contrast with the assumptions mericans ave about what

3 Thcre is often no clear distinction between business and non-business alk within the

u'orkplace s wcll (Miller 1993a).


6/18

226 Laurn Miller

one does during what is labeled a meeting. As Zimmerman 1985: 213) stated:

"trn act, a form al meeting is usually nothing but a confirmation of what ha salready been decided on an infor mal b asis... Very little is decided at suchformal mcctingsl what happens s that decisions are confirmed."

One dif-ference between netnowashi and the way Americans may have informaldiscussions round the water cooler or in the bathroom s that nemawoshl s in no wayconsidered a covert or extraneous ctivity, but is recognized s a marked, culturally-appropriate process n business ecision-rnaking. espite he fact that nemawashi akesplace n what Americans might consider nformal contexts, t is a part of a methodicaland structured process.

Given these differences n assumptions eld about he process f doing businessthrough meetings and pre-meeting behavior, as well as the different opportunities co-workers have tor talking outside he context of meetings, t should not be surprisingthat misunderstandings etween apanese ndAmericans ho work together ometimeshappen. What is more discouraging s evidence uggesting hat rather than evaluatingthese misunderstandings s having to do with conceptions of speech events orexpectations bout business rocedure, nteractants ften assume hat the problemrelates to fundamental differences n naticlnal character. As a case n point, we arecclnstantly reminded of a difference between Japanese and Americans which isuncritically accepted and habitually epeated: Japanese, e are told, are alwaysindirect and ambiguous, while Americans are presumably unable to be anything butdirect and pushy Pascale nd Athos 1981; Graham and Sato 1984; Okabe 1983; Hall

and Hall 1987). These are characterizations hich are most commonly elicited n datafrom intervieu's and questionnaires, nd which are then used to "explain" ecurringintercultural roblems"

4. Meetings and office spacea

American meetings are held frequently because hey address umerous unctional andlogistical needs. Perhaps he fundamental purpose of meetings s to establish andfacilitate communication. he manner in which most workplace environments are

structured, with individuals having separate offices, or at least ndividual desks oftenwith a partition or within a cubicle), means hat meetings re the best occasion n whichco-workers an manage and accomplish ollectivework. This function s reflected n themetaphor thnt meetings are "the communication witchboard of every organization"(Sne l l 97 f J : . x r ) .

If the organization of the American workplace makes numerous meetings

q Miller (1993b) discusses nthis organizatio n may reflect culturalhave rmportant symbolic dimcnsions"

more detail the organization of space n Tokyo offices, and howvalues and assumptions about privary and identity, as well as


7/18


8/18

228 Laurn Miller

5. Data

Sociolinguistic tudies have made it clear that individuals do not consistently giveaccurate descriptions of their own communicative ehavior and language use (Labov

1966; Blom and Gumperz 1972). Therefore, f we are interested n looking at howunderstanding akes place n Japanese nd American business nteractions, elf-reportdata may be insufficient when we are dealing with behavior such as assumptions boutmeetings, which are often below a level of conscious wareness. n order to betterunderstand he unconscious ifferences hat may affect nterpretation, he examinationof naturally occurring business alk may provide some useful nsights.

This case study s based on ethnographic bservation n conjunction with closeexamination of talk from a naturally-occurring onversation. he conversation wastranscribed rom a videotape made of an interaction between an American and histwo Japanese o-workers n their office n Tokyo. I spent many weeks of observation

during which workers became accustomed o my presence nd role as a researcher.Gradually I began taping daily work behavior at this firm, and although participantswere initially self-conscious n aware of my activities, over time they. became morecomfortable around me. At no point did I create a situation or try to elicit speech obe taped. Individuals who were taped were doing their normal business outines thatthey would have been doing whether was present or not. Because he burden ofmaintaining everyday business operations and procedures ook priority over theirconcern with me and my activities, feel that the interactions closely representnaturally occurring speech. All videotaping was done openly, with prior knowledge ofall participants. o sateguard he rights and privacyof those taped, heir names andthe name of their company will be changed o pseudonyms.

6. Case study of co-worker misunderstanding

The individuals n this case study worked for a small advertising agency called"Shinjinsha" hat handles oth nternational nd domestic ccounts. his firm providedprint and television advertisements or numerous mall accounts s well as some majorinternational accounts. his particular officewas he site of the Accounting, Advertisingand Administrative sections f the company. he three participants n this conversationare two Japanese, Muramoto (M) and Aoki (A), and one American named Penn (P).All of them held the title of Account Executive and their statuses were roughly equal,with Muramoto having had slightly more authority. Muramoto spoke fluent English,Aoki did not. At the time of the taping Penn had lived in Japan and worked for thiscompany for a little over one year. He spoke some Japanese. This was a typicallyJapanese ffice space, with desks grouped nto function orientation sections r kakai.,as n diagram 2.

Penn sat n the same kakai as Aoki, and Muramoto sat at an adjacent workingisland. People were constantly oming and going,and t was quite common and normal

for workers in this otfice to move around and sit at different kakai, in some of the


9/18

Co-worker ntisunderstandinE 229

unoccupied r temporarily vacant seats, o talk to other co-workers.During the course of thls particular conversation eference s made to two

accounts; A Company" and it's product), and "B Company" and its various hair careproducts).Muramoto has come over to stand next to Penn and Aoki at their kakai.In the irst part of their talk Penn and Muramoto have been discussing Company andPenn agrees o contact Mr. Shane, an employee of A. (Transcription conventions ereare, tclr the most part. patterned after Moerman, 1988. The brackets indicateoverlapping alk).

Diagram .

A o k t

0 f f r c e

m a n a q e r

Mu a mo


10/18

P :M :

P:M :P:M :

P :M :

78

P :

M

P:

230

123456

9

101 11 2

1 3 P :1 4 M :

1 5 P :1 6 M :

Laura Miller

Data segment

(.hhh) Okay (.01) alright so ( . ) alright, will call Mr. Shane omorrow/lne then umm / no:wn: you understand what we're gonna dos

More or less yes/Irtelum (that's good)Now let's alk about B company .01)um ...lSore de(heh\l

'Then.. '

he /he doesn't/Ne kore mO wakatta clesh)'You already understand his, ight?'

Hai'Yes '

/A Company/only hey have hree salesmen o they need s-somefollow-up ah material or llrighrl

Data segment

Okay n-ya know we should ltalkl about....lSore de ttel'Sr) then'yelahl/ahhmm/ market tself s quite na-complicated

In this first segment of conversation we see hat Penn has ried to change he topic ofconversation rom A Company o the B Company account Line 5). His suggestion stollowed by a pause and Muramoto continues o discuss A Company n the followinglines (6-11). This segment of talk is tollowed by a half minute of talk about the BCompany account. Although Penn's irst effort to bring up the subject of B Companyhas ailed, he tries again after a few more minutes of talk:

ln this segment, e see hat Muramoto has cut off Penn's ttempt o change hetopicwith her overlapping alk (Lines 13 and 14) and her continued ocus on A Company

(Line 16). Al-ter a short time in which they continue o talk about A company, Penntries to bring up B Company again:

5 Th. Japancse sentence particle r?appears hroughout the transcript and has beentranslated as stress or as a tag question. Sentence particles such as ne are interesting features ofJapanese hat indicate affect and are tied to social status, gender and situation. For more on the useof ne rn its function as a listener-eliciting device, see Milter (1991).


11/18

Co-workermisunderstanding 231

Data segment 3

ti P: Okay hai wakatta okayAoki-san ma (.0\'Okay I understand, kay Mr. Aoki now..'

18 A: B Comparry esh6?'lt 's B Company ight?'19 P: So dakara ne ( . ) jLni-oku'That's right, because, here's ( Y ) 1,200,000,000'20 A: uhl21 P: So when will we meet to talk /about B Company/?22 A: /A Company nanasenmanf'A Company s ( Y ) 70,000,000'

Penn ndic:ates hat he has understood he A Company matter and then directs his

attention o Aokt, who displays his awareness hat Penn wants to talk about BCompany Line 18). Penn brings up the amount of money hat is budgeted or the BCompany ccount Line 19), which s a large sum, and then asks when they can talkabout B Company (Line 21). Here he is giving "facts"as a reason or justification forhis nterest n talking about B Company. n Line 20 Aoki begins a repair initiator('uh?'), and in Line 22 he points out that A Company s a different amount. It couldbe hat he really misunderstood enn's eference n Line 19 as referring o A Companyand s correcting him. It could also be a strategy o turn the topic back to A Company.In any case, the conversation ontinues o be about the A Company budget (Line 22)and the dealers involved. During this part of the conversation Penn brings up B

Company gain, and Muramoto tells him not to worg, that they have a few months toworkon it. Yet Penn s still concerned nd proceeds o give reasons why he feels heyneed o talk about t now:

Data segment 4

P: Okay:: I know that but it--even f we have a presentation tsstill time otf. We need time to develop creative, we needtime to put together ome solid hinking, an (.03)So we need to sit down ( . ) lan-anl

A: lWakaralten del( 'He) doesn't get it '

M: (Heh) asatte ltn$ento'Presentation day after tomorrow'

P: Huh'lM: The day after tomorrow I have another presentation

Penn explicitly states what it is that he wants to do about the B Company account(Lines 23-26). He feels they need to schedule time for creative" which indicates adesire o have a meeting for idea flotation and stimulation, or even a brainstorming

23. AL+

252627

28

2930


12/18

232 Laura Miller

session. When he says hey need "time to put together some solid hinking" and "sitdown" these are expressions hat usually mean getting some tangible deas down onpaper, formulating a plan and setting an agenda. Penn's concern s first met withsilence, nd then Aoki makes an aside o Muramoto (his gaze s directed o her) that

Penn is not getting it (Line 27). (Aoki is using he Osaka dialect with the negationsuffix -hen rather than the -nai suffixof standard Japanese). Despite he absence f apronoun, it is clear from the context that the subject of wakarahen s Penn. The"presentation" brought up by Muramoto (Line 28) is offered as a reason andjustification tor staying off the topic of B Company. n the next segment alk about ACompany continues:

M :1

Data segment

Demo wakatta desh6? rt6: A Company no?'ln any case, ou understand, ight? The A Company one?'Yeah wakatta

'l understand'You remember he name of Sano-san::Ah hahYou remember he name of the company- A Company"?Ah hah-but -but A Company but I don't understand why if ACompany s this much lP wites a numberl and B Company s(.2) this much lP wites a nttmber] hy we're not spending moretime with this right now (.03)

32 P:

3 3 M :34 P:3 5 M :36 P:373839

We begin to see Penn's ncreasing rustration as ndicated by perturbations n his talk1"Ah hah-but -but A Company but I..." n Line 36) that indicate he is having somecommunicative difficulty. Penn points out the differences n the budgets, which hewrites out on paper. Here, the activity of writing is being used o enable and buttressa comparison, o point out the importance f discussing he account.6 e is using astrategy of comparing he larger amount of the B Company account which he stresseswith "this" to the smaller A Company account as a logical reason or devoting moretime and energy o B Company Lines 36-39). or Penn, t is obvious hat they shouldwant to have meetings about B Company, given he size of its account.

During thispart

of the conversation, both Aoki and Muramoto begin to show their own increasingtrustration and impatience with Penn. Muramoto stands p and uts her hip out in adefiant pose. Aoki begins acing ehind his desk. When Penn ooks up from writing henumbers both Muramoto and Aoki turn away rom him, avoiding eye contact. Penncontinues alking:

6 Streeck (1993) has discussecl he way doodles and writ ing such as this are usecl symbolicallyin the same way that gesture may function.


13/18

Co-worker ntisunderstanding 233

Data segment

40 P: Than playing around-I mean his s fine I will call him-4l that's done. But now we must alk about B Company

42 M: NIA trc sore wakultu wukctttn'well, okay I got that, I got it'43 P:44 M:

4546474849

505 1

An lifllWakattal [Holds both hands up]'I got it '

P: Because .01) we have o decide who will do what and whatdirection we are going o take. After we decide hat peop-other peop- people can do their own work, ike Tanaka-san,Kaga-san, whoever ( . ) right?

M: um (Aoki shakes is head and arm from side o side)

P: no no no no see an ( . ) the longer we wait (.01) think the less imewe're gonna have o think

Penn mphatically xplains hat he will call he A Company person and "that's done,"he does not want to talk about it anymore because now we should talk about Bcompany" Line 41). His use of "than playingaround" n Line 40 to describe what hesees Murasaki and Aoki doing indicates his unawareness f the nature of theirnemawaslti ctivities. Muramoto's tast-paced wakatta's are equivalent o her saying"that's nough already" likewise ndicates er impatience and misinterpretation fPenn's agerness. enn continues alking and is interrupted overlap of Line a\ byanother akatta rom Muramoto. This ime she accompanies t with two hands held upin front of herself as if to t'end otf Penn's emarks.

Penn goes on to express oncern and worry over the details of the B Companyaccount Lines 45 to 48). He wants o do typical American meeting activities such asassignasks "who will do what") and set goals and policy "what directionwe are goingto take"). These are potentially ace-threatening ctivities, and also activities ich inopportunities or the exchange of t-avors nd obligations, which Japanese would bemore ikely to do during pre-meeting nteractions. arlier in the conversation, othMuramoto and Aoki have done a bit of nemawaslri ith Penn by taking into accountsome f his concerns. ow their hesitation o continue his discussion emonstratesdesire o go on with nemawaslri ctivities with other co-workers, on other occasions,before making decisions f the type that Penn s advocating. s Penn is talking,Muramoto walks over to another desk o get a large glossymagazine, which she carriesback o the desk next o Penn. She plops t down and begins o flip through he pages,avoiding ye-contact ith Penn. When Penn adds right' o the end of his turn in Line48.Aoki's nonverbal esponse s to shake his head horizontally everal imes and wavehisarm back and forth. Penn hen verbalizes oki's nonverbal no no no no" in Line50.After a minute of silence, Muramoto ells Penn hat he will get more informationon he A Company account, nd then Penn makes a last effort to direct he talk to BCompany:


14/18

234 Laura Miller

52 P:53 M:

54 P:55 M:,s6 P:5 7

Data segment

So wh-okay sorrylftle wilUgive you full information on A Company

Okay no /that's good thank youlNelNow when can we talk about B company?B company B company

Muramoto tells Penn he will get information on the A company account, and Pennbrings up B Company again Lines 56-57).This time Penn's rustration s being overtlyexpressed erbally and non-verbally. s he repeats B company" Line 57) he taps hisdesk with both hands. Both Aoki and Muramoto gnore his and go on to talk aboutthings other han B company. During he remainder f the working day Penn grumbledoff and on about his co-worker's uncooperative attitude for not wanting to have ameeting about the B company account.

7. Consequences f misunderstanding

The American in this situation appeared rustrated by the fact that there was nospecific plan of action, no written-out agenda or the B Company account. Heattempted o propose a meeting, n the American sense, n order to block out thedetails of the campaign, nd indicated hat such a meeting hould ake place as soonas possible. He contrasted he numbers br the two accounts as a method of pointingout the greater mportance of the B company account. He assumed hat, logically, heacknowledgement f such an mpressive mount would esult n observable ctionbeingtaken. Given the "f'acts" enn did not understand hy Aoki and Muramoto did notagree o begin planning and meeting about B Company mmediately. His desire opromptly hold a meeting also demonstrated enthusiasm nd initiative, traits highlyvalued n American business. e did not expect hat any useful action could be possibleuntil atler a meeting was held and an agenda stablished. or Penn, he purpose of abusiness eeting s o establish gendas, ork-out olutions nd ron-out disagreements.Penn later aired his opinion that his co-workers

ere being oo indecisive nd wereattempting o exclude him from participation n planning a meeting. n this case, heinterpreted his co-workers' putting him off because hey desired o continue withpre-meetingnem(twaslri ith others as hedging, ndecisiveness, mbiguityancl ejection.

In contrast o this, Penn's wo Japanese olleagues reated his questions andconcerns s premature untilthey could conduct dditional padework ctivities, indingout what others felt about the account, what tasks and responsibilities eople had inmind, and blocking out some of the outlines or a plan of action prior to schedulinga meeting. All this activity akes time, and they felt they had plenty of time to do iibefore a 'meeting'was needed. Penn's nsisting hat they "sitdown" and "put together

solne solid hinking"was seen as embryonic, nd s the type of behavior hat led them


15/18


16/18

236 Laura Miller

re-playable video equipment, that there are things that can be done to facilitateunderstanding. et to the participants n ongoing nterethnic nteractions uch as hese,it is precisely he nature of assumptions nd cultural knowledge such as this, the wayit is taken for granted and unconsciously ccepted s he norm, that lead us to feel that

there is no necessity or explanation, nd which will consequently ay the ground forrecurring misinterpretation. any studies f Japanese nd American nteraction, hichare based on consciously licited observations nd explanations, may in fact representa collection of mis-interpretations f a pragmatic ature which are themselves dentifiedas the locus of misunderstanding. erhaps when we begin o focus on more naturally-occurring interactions we will be able to locate other examples of insidious andunrecognized pragmatic misunderstandings.

References

Alston, Jon P. (1986) The Anrcican sanurai: Blending Anteican and Japanese nnnageial practices. NewYork: Walter de Gruyter.

Arggle, Michael (1982) Inter-cultural communicalion. In S. Bochner (ed.), Cultures n contact: Studiestn cross-culntral interactlon. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 6I-79.

Basso, Keith (1970) 'To give up on words': Silence in Western Apachc culture. Southwestern ournal ofAnt hropo I ogt 26: 213-230.

Bauman, Richard, and Joel Shcrzcr (cds.) ( 1974) Erplorations in the erhnography f speaking. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Blom, Jan-Peter, and John Gumperz (1972) Social meaning n linguistic structure. In J. Gumperz andD. Hymes (eds.), Dircctions in sociolinEtistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 4O7-434.

Clyne, Michael (1981) Culture and discourse structure. Joumal of hagmatics 10: 373-386.

Doi, Tak co (197 4) Some psvchological hemes n Japanesc human relationships. n J. Condon rdM. Saito (eds.), Intercuhurol encounters with .lapon: Contnrunication-contact and conflict. Tokyo: TheSimul Press" pp. I7-26.

Doyle, Michael, and David Straus (1976) How to ntake meetings work. New York: Wyden Books.

Fletcher, Winslon (1984) Meetings, nrcetings: How to nrcnipulate thent and ntake thent more fun. NewYork: Wiltiam Morrow and Company.

Graham, John, and Roy Hcrberger (1983) Negotiators abroad: Don't shoot from the hip. HarvardBusiness Rev,iew uly-August: 160-168.

Graham, John, and Yoshihiro Sato (1984) Snnrt bargaining: Doing business with the Japanese.Cambridgc: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Gumperz, John (cd.) (1982) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


17/18

Co-workerntisunderstanrling 237

Gumperz. John, ancl Dcll Hymes (eds.) (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of

conmunrcafir)n. ew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston-

Hall, Etlward T., and Mildrecl Rced Hall (19871 Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese.

Garden City: Anchor Press\Doubleday

Kerlingcr, Fretl (1951) Dccision-making n Japan. Social Forces 30: 36-41.

Kohl, John, Rebecca Barclay, Thomas Pinelli , Michacl Keene, and John Kennedy (1993) The impact of

languagc nd culturc on technical communication n Japan. n Technical Contntunicotion First Quarter,

62-13.

Koike, Shohei (1988) What is business Japancse? Designing a Japanese course for business

communication. Papcr prescntcd at the Seventh Annual Conference on Language and Communication

for World Busincss and thc Profcssions.

Latrov,William (1966) The social sfratilication of English in New'York City. Washington D.C.: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Linde,Charlorlc ( 199 ) What's ncxt? The social antl technological management of meetin gs.Prognatics

1.3:297 317

Mnngajin 1992\ Bloopers column. June, 18:4.

March,Robert ( 19SZ)Business egotiations as cross-cultural ommunication: he Japanese-Western ase.

Cross Cunents 9.1: 55-65.

Masuda, K0 (ecl.) (1974) Kentqfisha's new, apanese-English dictionary. Tokyo: Kenky0sha.

Miller, l-aura (1991) Verbal listening behavior in conversations between Japanese and Americans. In

Blommaert and Verschucrcn (ecls.), The pragmatics of interculrural and international contntunication.

Amsterdam: ohn Benjamins, pp. 110-130.

Millcr, l-aura (1993a) Constructing group identity in a bicultural workplace. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C'

Miller, l-aura (1993b) Viewing Tokyo's corporate landscape. Paper Presented at thc Visual Research

Conference, Annual Mccting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D"C-

Miller, Laura (1994) Japanese and American inclirectncss. n Journal of Asian and PacificContmunrca-

rion. In press.

Millcr, Robert F. (1991) Runntng a nteeting hat works. New York: Barron's.

Mintzbcrg, Hcnry (1973) The nature of nnnagerial work. New York: Harper and Row.

Moerman, Michacl ( 19SS) Talking culture: Ethnography and conv'ersation nalysis.Philadelphia: Universi ty

rrfPcnnsylvania Press.

Moran, Rcrbert (1985) Gerring yoLtr yen's w,orth: How to negotiate with Japan. Inc. Houston: Culf

Publishing Company.


18/18

238 Laura Mitter

Okabe, Ryoichi (1983) Cultural assumptions East and West: Japan and the United States. In W.Gudykunst (ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Cunent perspectives. Beverly Hills: SagePublications, pp. 2l-44.

Pascale, Richard Tanner (1978) Communication and decision making across cultures: Japanese and

American comparison s. Adntinistrativ e Science u arterly 23: 9 -l09.

Pascale, Richard Tanner, and Anthony G. Athos (1981) The art of Japanese management: Applications

for Anterican executives. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Richardson, Bradley, and Taizo Ueda (eds.) (1981) Business and sociely in Japan: Fundantentals forbusinessmen New York: Praeger Publications.

Robert, General Henry M. (1977) Rules of order. Guide and commentary by Rachel Vixman. New York:Jove Publications.

Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Scollon (1981) Nanative, literacy and face in interethnic communication.Norwood: Ablex.

Snell, Frank (1978) How to win the meeting. New York: Hawthorne Books, Inc.

Stewart, Edward C. (1976) American assumptions and values: Orientation to action. In E. Smith andL. Luce (eds.). Toward intemationalization: Readings n cross-cultural communication. Rowley: NewburyHouse, pp. l-22"

Streek, Jiirgen (1993) Beyond gesture: The continuum of symbolization. Paper presented at the PARRSSeminar on the Organizat ion of Interaction, University of Pennsy lvania, Philadelphia.

Zimmerman. Mark (1985) How to do business with the lapanese: A strategt for success. New York:Random House.

Documents

Japanese and American Meetings