Intercultural Misunderstandings in the Conversation in English between a Spanish and

a Pakistani Elena Merino (UPF)

1. Background

2. Objectives

3. Methodology

4. Results

5. Conclusions

1.Background1.1. Barcelona Today

1. Background1.2. Theoretical frame

• Conversation Analysis (Calsamiglia and Tusón 1999, Cestero 1994, Pomerantz and Ferh 2001, Tusón 1997)

• Intercultural Pragmatics and Interactional Sociolinguistics (Codó 1999, 2003; Gumperz 1991, Hernández Sacristán 1999; Hinnenkamp 2001; House 2007; House, Kasper and Ross 2003)

• Discourse Studies(Martin Rojo 2003, van Dijk 1985, 2003, 2004, 2007)

• L2 teaching(Beyrich and Borowski 2000; Corros 2005; Hernandez and Villalba,

2008; Miquel 1995, 1997; Miquel and Sans 2004; Oliveras 2000)

1.2. ConceptsInterpragmatic interferences Miscommunication/

Communicative Mistmatches, Sarangi 1996Instances of interculture in NS-NNS interaction, cross-cultural

interaction, foreign language interaction , see Codó (1999)

• Non-understanding: misuses of lexicogrammatical rules (House 2007): syntactic, lexical and phonological

• Misunderstanding: it ‘occurs when a communication attempt is unsucessful because what the speaker intends to express differs from what the hearer believes to have been expressed’, Humphrey-Jones (1986).

Intercultural misunderstanding: wrong interpretation of ‘mental representations’ and those meanings hidden behind elements and discursive structures of the Other, House (2007).

Ideologies: ‘general systems of basic ideas shared by the members of a social group — ideas that influence their interpretation of social events and situations and that control their discourse and other social practices as group members’, van Dijk (en prensa).

2. Objectives

• To describe the conversational patterns of both Pakistani and Spanish speakers

• To reveal the types of miscommunication that emerge between a Pakistani and a Spanish person during their conversation in English

• To provide instances of communication troubles to be used in L2 teaching for adult immigrants in Spain

3. MethodologyCorpus: 3 audio-taped semi-structured interviews in a

foreign language (English) between the Spanish female researcher (I) and the Pakistani male informant (AG).

Setting The informant´s house

A bar terrace A park

Duration 1 h 24 min 1 h 19 min 1 h 42 min

Date July 2009 July 2009 August 2009

Goal Establish the rapport, learn about AG’s daily life

Learn about AG’s past life

Learn about AG’s communicative issues in the C2

Interview 1(AG 001)

Interview 2(AG 002)

Interview 3(AG 003)

4. Results I. Non-verbal behavior

Pakistani informant (AG): native speaker of Punjabi and Urdu

POLITENESS

* Invites I to his house after their first (informal) encounter.

* At home, without asking I, AG stands up a few times and brings food and drinks for I.

* Gives I presents for no reason (a pair of sunglasses and a necklace) and tries to pay for coffees when they meet.

GREETING CONVENTIONS

* Shakes his hand when he meets I as a sign of respect for his wife.

Spanish researcher (I): native speaker of Spanish

* Never invites AG to her house even if AG has asked to be invited several times.

* Uses social lies (“I’ll call you to go to the cinema”, “ I’ll call you this week”, etc.)

* Never gives AG presents although she tries to pay for coffees when they meet.

* Shakes her hand because of the formality of encounter (interview).

Results II. Conversation Patterns iPakistani informant (AG): native speaker of Punjabi and Urdu

CODE SWITCHING

Introduces words in Spanish during his discourse in English. He also introduces some words in Arabic to refer to abstract concepts.

ANSWERING Q

Very often answers I’s questions with a negative adverb (no) with emphasis or rising intonation. This negative particle is used in different ways: 1) to deny something, 2) to take the turn (even if the answer is positive).

Evades I’s questions and makes his answers long with metaphors and past stories, sometimes changing topics within the same story.

Frequently starts answering I’s questions by saying “ok I tell you”.

Spanish researcher (I): native speaker of Spanish

Never introduces words in Spanish except for correction purposes or when I is rephrasing AG’s words.

Hardly ever answers questions due to the nature of the conversation (interview).

Repeats questions over and over. For each new time I repeats a question, she extends her discourse, exceeding the appropriate amount of quantity needed to make herself clear.

I is asked some questions to which she gives short/long answers depending on the questions, although she tends to give long explanations.

Results II. Conversation Patterns iiINTERRUPTIONS/OVERLAPPING

Interrupts I when he does not agree with her words, sometimes obtaining the turn some others not.

Overlaps I’s words or interrupts in appropriate and inappropriate places.

Sometimes finishes up I’s sentences whenever there is a lengthening of a previous word or a pause.

TONE/EMPHASIS

AG’s speech is predominantly characterized by rising intonation and emphatization not only at the end of whole propositions but also in single words. AG raises his voice with certain topics. He doesn’t have a connected speech.

CONTRIBUTION SIGNS

Only uses contribution signs (hm, ok, yes, yeah) in very low voice , whenever I is asking a new question or when I is answering something he asked.

Interrupts AG when she does not agree with his words, sometimes obtaining the turn some others not.

Overlaps AG’s words or interrupts in appropriate and inappropriate places.

Sometimes finishes up AG’s sentences whenever there is a lengthening of a previous word or a pause.

I’s speech is characterized by rising intonation and high pitch, which she uses sometimes to emphasize words, to make herself understood or to obtain the turn. She doesn’t have a connected speech.

A lot of continuing or contribution signs (especially hm) whenever AG is speaking, and normally after AG’s sentences or words in rising intonation.

Results II. Conversation Patterns iii

LAUGHTER

Only laughs while telling a story but few isolated laughter.

COMPREHENSION CHECKS

Checks comprehension sometimes with questions such as “ok?”, or expressions such as “perhaps you understand”, “perhaps I talk to rapidly” “perhaps you don’t understand my words” whenever few contribution signs (hm) by I appear or whenever I has not agreed with him on some topic.

TOPIC SEQUENCES

Finishes up topics whenever I does not elaborate much on his words.

Stops talking about a controversial/emotional topics.

Takes formulaic expressions literally. In the closing sequence, I offers help (formulaic expression) and AG brings up new topics.

Very often laughs when AG’s is telling a “funny” story whether AG laughs or not. I also laughs while saying/asking something (to release tension—e.g. when she’s asking something for the n time).

Checks comprehension very often with questions such as “do you understand?”, “right?” “ok?”

Finishes up topics by asking other questions or by explicitly saying that the conversation is over.

Talks about anything, no matter the topic.

Closes the conversation by offering help (formulaic expressions).

Results II. Conversation Patterns ivOFFERING SOMETHING

Uses the imperative form to offer something (a drink, to see something).

HYPOTHESIS

Has a hard time imagining things or thinking in abstract terms. AG normally refers to stories down to earth that either happened to him or to someone he knows.

PAUSES/SILENCES

Sometimes, there are pauses/silence after I’s questions.

Uses modals whenever she offers something (a class in Spanish, an invitation to go to somewhere): “we can/could do X”, however, some of them are social lies.

Works a lot with hypothetical situations, using conditionals and sentences beginning with “Imagine that…”

Except for one or two occasions, I never allows for silence and if she perceives it, she fills it up with more discourse, questions, etc.

Results III. Typical miscommunication problems. CausesCauses, solutions and consequences

NON-UNDERSTANDINGS• L2 competence

(phonetics, syntax, semantics) • Code switching (English &

Spanish)• Different degree of cooperation• Violations of Gricean maxims

(ambiguous info, conversation thread, veracity, etc.)

IDEOLOY CLASH• World views• Assumptions

INTERCULTURAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS

• Men-women relationship• Strategic Misunderstanding (on

purpose)• Greeting conventions• Management of topics• Speech acts existent in both L, but

differently used (offering something, inviting, jokes)

• Background information• Metaphors• Laughter, silence• Social lies• Assumptions• Contextualization cues (Gumperz)• Implicitness, roundabouts,

euphemisms• Conceptualization of ideas• Habits

Results III. Typical miscommunication problems. Causes, solutionssolutions and consequences

1st step: one of the interlocutors identifies the problem with formulations such as: do you mean…?; I don’t understand, what’s the meaning of that?; or one speaker repeats his/her interlocutor’s previous proposition in rising intonation.

2nd step: one or both interlocutors try to repair the problem. There are several means, depending on the type of miscommunication:

PROBLEM SOLUTION

Phonetics, semantics, code switching

Repetition, context of the word, examples, spelling, definition, translation

Syntax Unsolved (mismatch btw Q & A, change of topic) or solved (repetition, explanation)

Ideology One interlocutor surrendersStrategic Explanation

Metaphors Explanation

Transgression of maxims Explanation

Politeness Unsolved

Assumptions Explanations

Implicitness Unsolved or solved after long explanationsDifferent conceptualizations

Explanation

3rd step: once the problem has been identified and repaired:

a) Speaker 1 checks comprehension: do you understand?; Ok?

b) Speaker 2 shows s/he finally understood: ok yeah, oh yes, ah ok, yeah I get it, ok I didn’t understand, ok, we could consider that.

Results III. Typical miscommunication problems. Causes, solutions and consequencesconsequences

(-)• Communication breaks down

(change of topic, mismatch between Q & A, questions remain unanswered)

• Stereotyping, negative effect (social image), face threatening

• Awkward moments, surprise• Interruptions in conversation,

long digressions, very long turns, losing the thread

• Surrendering• Uncomfortable moments,

impatience• Hurting the other’s feelings

(+)• Fun, laughs• Short interruptions• Learning about others’

opinions• Gaining cultural knowledge• Learning how to present your

arguments / defend your opinions

• Learning to distinguish between important and less important miscommunication problems

• Using other words to make yourself understood (L2 competence)

• Learning vocabulary, phonetics or the right way of saying things

5. Conclusions. L2 teaching implications

• The most dangerous misunderstandings have their root in cultural or ideological issues. Other causes such as prejudices or assumptions may also have a very negative effect on social relations. As teachers, we need to bring them up in class, and explain them in order to buffer the clash.

• Teachers also need to be aware of the symbolic power they, willingly or unwillingly, have due to the institutional context in which they are using their words.

• The best way to learn the L2 is by experiencing it. Teachers have to encourage their students to use the L2 even if they know there will be communication problems sometimes.

• As seen in the results, some of the non-understandings/misunderstandings have a positive effect: they not only help in the acquisition of the L2 (vocabulary, pronunciation, syntax, etc.) but they also help to learn about other ways of thinking and to defend one’s opinions when they are not shared.

• It is also necessary that professionals teach the students to metacommunicate (Rodrigo Alsina 2000), that is, being able to say what you intend, and that they provide the students with strategies to negotiate meaning (Lakoff and Johnson 1980-1991).

•