Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
had just been talked about, or using what House termed 'outcome checks' to reiterate the details of the preceding talk. On the whole, German speakers were shown to favour non-routinised ideational discourse over the formulaic interpersonal exchanges found in the English data. Yet more evidence for these salient differences in communicative style was provided House's (1 982b) consideration of how German and English speakers variously employed a range of conversational strategies prophylactically to both achieve conversational goals and avoid threatening the face of one's interlocutor. German speakers were demonstrated to prefer what were classed as content-oriented to person-oriented conversational strategies, tending to 'underscore', 'expand', and strategically focus on the propositional contents of their utterances in pursuit of their conversational goals. Conversely, as might be expected from House's previous studies, English speakers employed more hearer-supportive and co-operative strategies to support their particular central speech act. In addition, German speakers were also shown to make more frequent and explicit reference to themselves (e. g. 'Can I_') as opposed to fellow interlocutors (e. g. Would you like me to ... ? ). Finally, similar communicative tendencies were shown to exist in the realisation of conversational 'gambits' (House 1982c). Whereas German speakers tended to use more utterances designed to show awareness and understanding of a fellow conversationalist (e. g. 'ja', [yeah] 'hmm') and to call for hearer's sign of agreement and understanding (e. g. 'nicht' [is it not]), English speakers favoured what were termed 'clarifiers' (e. g. 'you see', e. g. 'to tell the truth', 'the thing is'), the key function of which, according to House, was to 'dienen dazu, die Harmonie und Kooperation zwischen Sprecher und Hörer zu etablieren, erhöhen oder wiederherzustellen') [ ... serve to establish, increase, or re-establish harmony and cooperation between speaker and hearer. ] (11 982c, 129). Additional more recent work by House has demonstrated such differences not to be restricted to spoken discourse. For example, in more recent work focusing on English-German / German-English translation of various texts (e. g. film titles and subtitles), House (1 998a) has noted similarly 5n
salient differences. For example, German translations of English were shown to be more direct, explicit, content and ideationally oriented and with weakened interpersonal components which would essentially have made the readerfeel good' (ibid, 67). Conversely, English translations of German texts displayed more marked interpersonal components, and appeared less formal than the German original. Again, House again attributes this to what she terms differing 'communicative preferences' operating in the two cultures, suggested in earlier studies. Further corroboration and insight into these differences has been provided by addressing interlocutor expectations about conversational interaction. Recently turning to informant interview data, House has shed light on both cross-cultural perceptions and the normative expectations brought to conversational encounters: The basic problem is that Germans normally believe what you say and take it at face value, ... where people in an English speaking situation wrap up their comments or use throw-away phrases which indicate that they don't really mean it. Informant data taken from House (1996,356). Germans, House tells us favour clarity of expression and sincerity, preferring to be able to tell what people really mean rather than be faced with a great difference between "dem Ausgesprochenen und dem Gemeinten", ' [What is said and what is meant] (House 1996,357). This is illustrated by further informant data: Ich finde es viel besser doch direkt und aufrichtig zu sein... zu sagen, was man auch meint, nicht dieses Höflich-Freundliche. [I find it much better to be direct and truthful ... to say what one means, not this being polite and friendly] Informant data taken from House (1996,357-358) 51
- Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgments Acknowledgements se
- Page 11 and 12: The 'Research Problem' Introduction
- Page 13 and 14: Taking these problematics as a star
- Page 15 and 16: At the time, this proposal seemed e
- Page 17 and 18: the self and its relationship to on
- Page 19 and 20: activity of sociable conversation,
- Page 21 and 22: including the application of the fa
- Page 23 and 24: CHAPTER I FACE AND FACEWORK: CONCEP
- Page 25 and 26: 1.1 Foundational Texts In order to
- Page 27 and 28: communicative action could be seen
- Page 29 and 30: Fig. 1.1 Goffman's Model of Ritual
- Page 31 and 32: distribution of his feelings, and t
- Page 33 and 34: empirically difficult' phenomenon (
- Page 35 and 36: etween self and other). Conversatio
- Page 37 and 38: allowing in effect a speaker to cri
- Page 39 and 40: as an equilibric practice, allowing
- Page 41 and 42: universality, particularly in studi
- Page 43 and 44: Table 1.3 Individualist (LCC) and C
- Page 45 and 46: Morisaki and Gudykunst (1994) emplo
- Page 47 and 48: Mao (1994) addresses this tension b
- Page 49 and 50: Tannen's work (1981 a; 1981 b) perh
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3 Culture, Facework, Equilibrium
- Page 53 and 54: facework operates on an underlying
- Page 55 and 56: CHAPTER 2 ANGLO-SAXON CHALK AND TEU
- Page 57 and 58: impolite. However, I soon came to r
- Page 59: in potential or actual conflict sit
- Page 63 and 64: Watts observed that German conversa
- Page 65 and 66: Finally, although Watts argued that
- Page 67 and 68: elatively little overlap, and a gen
- Page 69 and 70: contributions, with the former set
- Page 71 and 72: fully and substantively, what was r
- Page 73 and 74: oriented to unmitigated disagreemen
- Page 75 and 76: 2.3 Communicative Underpinnings The
- Page 77 and 78: service but by more confrontational
- Page 79 and 80: Finally, additional explanatory dim
- Page 81 and 82: specific communicative practices, a
- Page 83 and 84: Brown and Levinson (1987). Indeed,
- Page 85 and 86: Notes to Chapter 2 11 use the term
- Page 87 and 88: This chapter then can be regarded a
- Page 89 and 90: asic irreducible sociological varia
- Page 91 and 92: Fraser (1990) who, in also attempti
- Page 93 and 94: particularly amenable to such a heu
- Page 95 and 96: identify certain underlying dynamic
- Page 97 and 98: In fact, these two opposing orienta
- Page 99 and 100: at any given point in the flow of c
- Page 101 and 102: orderly and meaningful conversation
- Page 103 and 104: locally managed and constantly in d
- Page 105 and 106: Poles of Alignment Fig. 3.6 Sociabl
- Page 107 and 108: toward a clearer understanding of w
- Page 109 and 110: Notes to Chapter 3 1 See also Brown
salient differences. For example, German translations <strong>of</strong> English were shown to<br />
be more direct, explicit, content and ideationally oriented and with weakened<br />
interpersonal components which would essentially have made the readerfeel<br />
good' (ibid, 67). Conversely, English translations <strong>of</strong> German texts displayed<br />
more marked interpersonal components, and appeared less formal than the<br />
German original. Again, House again attributes this to what she terms differing<br />
'communicative preferences' operating in the two cultures, suggested in earlier<br />
studies.<br />
Further corroboration and insight into these differences has been<br />
provided by addressing interlocutor expectations about conversational<br />
interaction. Recently turning to informant interview data, House has shed light<br />
on both cross-cultural perceptions and the normative expectations brought to<br />
conversational encounters:<br />
The basic problem is that Germans normally believe what you say and<br />
take it at face value, ... where people in an English speaking situation<br />
wrap up their comments or use throw-away phrases which indicate<br />
that they don't really mean it.<br />
Informant data taken from House (1996,356).<br />
Germans, House tells us favour clarity <strong>of</strong> expression and sincerity,<br />
preferring to be able to tell what people really mean rather than be faced with a<br />
great difference between "dem Ausgesprochenen und dem Gemeinten", ' [What<br />
is said and what is meant] (House 1996,357). This is illustrated by further<br />
informant data:<br />
Ich finde es viel besser doch direkt und aufrichtig zu sein... zu sagen,<br />
was man auch meint, nicht dieses Höflich-Freundliche.<br />
[I find it much better to be direct and truthful ... to say what one means,<br />
not this being polite and friendly]<br />
Informant data taken from House (1996,357-358)<br />
51
Change language