1887
A closer look at cultural difference
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper takes a critical interactional sociolinguistic approach to examine the construction of (e.g., Nishizaka 1995; Mori 2003) through the use of vocatives in the discourse of a multi-cultural graduate student project group at a large American university. Interviews and descriptive information contextualize the analysis to demonstrate that the use of vocatives achieves a tight linking of inclusion but also inequality in the group talk that involves the Japanese member. The group’s vocatives show a shared interest in bringing the Japanese member into the interaction, but they also construct unequal rights to the floor. They contribute to an interculturality of subordination and an artificial sense of intimacy, characteristics consistent with the institutional setting of the group and attitudes members held about each other. In this environment, the status quo of power identities and a deficit view of the Japanese member goes largely uncontested and limits the ability of American members to learn from their Japanese partner.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.1.04axe
2007-01-01
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Axelson, E
    (2003) A longitudinal study of intercultural discourse in a master’s thesis project group. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
  2. Ainsworth-Vaughn, N
    (1998) Claiming power in doctor-patient talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aston, G
    (1993) Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 224-250.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, M.M
    (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barton, E
    (2002) Inductive Discourse Analysis: Discovering rich features. In E. Barton , & G. Stygall (eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 19-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Becker, A.L
    (1995) Beyond translation: Essays toward a modern philology. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Behar, R
    (1996) The Vulnerable observer: Anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. , S. Johansson , G. Leech , S. Conrad , and E. Finegan
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P. , and S.C. Levinson
    (1978) Politeness: Some universals in language use (1987 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cantor, N
    (2000) Reinvention: Why now? why us? A second anniversary retrospective on the Boyer Commission report [speech]. State university of New York, Stony Brook, April 28, 2000. Retrieved, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.umich.edu/~provost/speeches.htm.
  11. Day, D
    (1994) Tang's dilemma and other problems: Ethnification processes at some multicultural workplaces. Pragmatics 4.3: 315-336.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Edelsky, C
    (1993) Who's got the floor. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eggins, S. , and D. Slade
    (1997) Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C.J
    (1994) Humor in academic discourse. In A. Grimshaw (ed.), What's going on here? Complementary studies of professional talk, Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing, pp. 271-310.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Green, J.L. , and C. Wallat
    (1981) Mapping instructional conversations - a sociolinguistic ethnography. In J.L. Green & C. Wallat (eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing, pp. 161-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gumperz, J.J
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1992) Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229-252.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gurin, P
    (2000) The compelling need for diversity in higher education [expert report]. University of Michigan. RetrievedOctober 17, 2000, from the World Wide Web: www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html
  19. Hook, D.D
    (1984) First names and titles as solidarity and power semantics in English. IRAL 22.3: 183-189. doi: 10.1515/iral.1984.22.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1984.22.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaworski, A. , and D. Galasinski
    (2000) Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies2.1: 35-53. doi: 10.1177/1461445600002001002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002001002 [Google Scholar]
  21. Koole, T. , and J.D. ten Thije
    (2001) The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics33.4: 571-587. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00035‑7
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00035-7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kramsch, C
    (1993) Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, G
    (1999) The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English Conversation. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 107-118.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leki, I
    (2001) "A narrow thinking system": Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 35.1: 39-66. doi: 10.2307/3587859
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587859 [Google Scholar]
  25. Levinson, S.C
    (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics17.5-6: 356-399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindemann, S
    (2001) Non-native speaker 'incompetence' as a construction of the native speaker: Attitudes and their relationship to perception and comprehension of Korean-accented English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Loveday, L
    (1986) Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.vii.1
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.1 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maynard, S.K
    (2001) Expressivity in discourse: Vocatives and themes in Japanese. Language Sciences 23.6: 679-705. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00024‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00024-3 [Google Scholar]
  30. McCarthy, M.J. , and A.O. O'Keeffe
    (2001) What's in a name? Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls. Paper presented atthe The Third North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching, Boston.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Meeuwis, M. , and S. Sarangi
    (1994) Perspectives on intercultural communication: A critical reading. Pragmatics4.3: 309-313.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Merriam, S.B
    (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mori, J
    (2003) The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters between Japanese and American students. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36.2: 143-184. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_3
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Morita, N
    (2004) Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly 38.4: 573-603. doi: 10.2307/3588281
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588281 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nishizaka, A
    (1995) The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a Japanese with words. Human Studies18.2-3: 301-326. doi: 10.1007/BF01323214
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323214 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ostermann, A.C
    (2000) Reifying and Defying Sisterhood in Discourse: Communities of practice at work at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention center in Brazil. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Psathas, G
    (1995) Conversation Analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Scotton, C.M. , and W. Zhu
    (1983) Tongzhi in China: Language change and its conversational consequences. Language in Society12.4: 477-494. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010204
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010204 [Google Scholar]
  39. Shea, D.P
    (1994) Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics 4.3: 357-389.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Spradley, J.P
    (1979) The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Swales, J.M
    (2004) Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
  42. Taniguchi, Y
    (2001) An additional dimension: Use of address forms and foreign language learning. Unpublished manuscript.
  43. Tannen, D
    (1984) Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tracy, K
    (1995) Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology14.1-2: 195-215. doi: 10.1177/0261927X95141011
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X95141011 [Google Scholar]
  45. Troemel-Ploetz, S
    (1994) "Let me put it this way, John": conversational strategies of women in leadership positions. Journal of Pragmatics 22.2: 199-209. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90067‑1
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90067-1 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wood, L.A. , and R.O. Kroger
    (1991) Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology10.3: 145-168. doi: 10.1177/0261927X91103001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X91103001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zuengler, J
    (1993) Explaining NNS Interactional behavior: The effect of conversational topic. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 184-195.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zwicky, A.M
    (1974) Hey, whatsyourname!Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society10: 787-801. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.1.04axe
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error