Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions Between Japanese and American Factory Workers in The American South

Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions between Japanese and American Factory Workers in the American South
Author(s): Yukako Sunaoshi Source: Language in Society, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 185-217 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4169414 . Accessed: 08/10/2013 07:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 198.37.17.90 on Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:07:56 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Language in Society 34, 185-217. Printedin the United States of America DOI: 10. 1017/S0047404505050086
Historical context and intercultural communication: Interactions between Japanese and American factory workers in the American South
YUKAKO SUNAOSHI Faculty of InternationalCommunication GunmaPrefectural Women'sUniversity 1395-1 KaminoteTamamura-machi Sawa-gun Gunma-ken370-1193, Japan ysunaoshi@gpwu.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
This article underscoresthe importanceof examining interlocutors'history in studies of interculturalcommunication. Five historical factors and four contextual factors are proposed and illustrated with interview and videotaped data, showing how each factor predeterminesthe interactants'power dynamics, thus shaping and influencing the process and outcome of interaction. Analyzing videotaped interactionsbetween Japanesetechnical supporters and American workers on the production floor also demonstrates the interlocutors'creative utilization of available communicative resources and co-constructionof meaningas interactionsunfold. This co-construction of meaning occurs despite the severely limited knowledge of the other group's language and sociolinguistic norms. (Historical context, interculturalcommunication,workplace interaction,communicativeresources, coconstructionof meaning, Japanese-American professional interaction.)*
INTRODUCTION
"It's really really importantits' gotta be straight right from the start and ... you can't make a mistake with them [dies and panels], and it's something other people in other departments are depending on, it's gotta be communicatedreally good." (Ben, a worker at the JapanDie Company)' According to the Gumperzianmodel (Gumperz 1982, 1992a, 1992b; Gumperz & Roberts 1991), miscommunicationoccurs as a result of different contextualization cues that interlocutorsfrom two differentethnic or nationalbackgrounds bring (often unconsciously) when conversing with each other. The researchers using this model also astutely point out that the often frustratingand unsuccessful outcomes of such "crosstalk"can easily be a basis for discriminationagainst
C 2005 CambridgeUniversity Press 0047-4045/05 $12.00 185
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
speakerswho belong to the minorityin a given society (e.g. Robertset al. 1992). Thanks to these studies, we now know a great deal about what can and often does happen when a relatively fluent nonnative speaker, who often occupies a vulnerable social and/or professional position, communicates with a native speaker. A number of researchers have conducted studies to widen the scope of this traditionalframeworkby addressing other aspects, such as the majority's presupposed negative attitude toward a certain ethnic group (which overrides the minority's (in)ability to use appropriatecontextualization cues; Meewis 1994), the effect of the majority's individual motivation to accommodate or not (Smith et al. 1991), the dilemma sharedby those who are exposed to more than one set of communicative styles (Scollon & Scollon 1995), the minority's capability to articulate their communicative strategies (Shi-xu 1994) and their resistance to ethnification in interaction (Day 1994). Clyne's (1994) work is a valuable precedent in studying multiethnic communication in factory settings. In specifically referring to Japanese-Americaninteractions in a corporate setting, Miller's (1994, 1995) works illustrate how we can (and should) deconstruct stereotypes reinforced as a result of dichotomizing "national characteristics." To add to the development of studies in interculturalcommunication,I propose in this article that we must examine the historical context that participants bring to their interculturalinteractions,and how it affects their negotiation and co-creation of meaning in a situated context. As Lukacs 1971 points out, we cannot understandthe real nature of an event unless we understandit in "the historical totality"(p. 12). two other points, which have not been investigated in previous Furthermore, studies, must be addressed.First,the mismatchof contextualizationcues is often observed in encounters between strangers.What would happen after the initial "cultureshock" or a discriminatoryfeeling if the interlocutorsdid not have the option of walking away but instead had to work together over time? Second, by focusing on contextualizationcues, we have assumed that pragmaticconcerns are the real and important ones, and thatconcernsat otherlevels (e.g. understanding of content) are not. Consequently,nonnative speakershave been placed in a "lose-lose" situation where, if they are fluent, they are still trappedin their native communicative norms, and if they are not fluent, they are not even considered in the framework. the natureof interactions has been greatly Commonly,in the previousliterature, asymmetrical:The native-speakerinterlocutorpossesses not only linguistic capital but also institutionalpower. In contrast,the nonnative-speakerinterlocutor lacks both of these. Consequently,when their interactionsresult in negative outcomes, the burdenand resultantsanctions are on the latter.The task to "understand,"to comprehendthe other'sintentionand (re)actaccordingly,is much more heavily and seriously assigned to the nonnative speaker.
186 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
Although such interactions are commonplace and deserve investigation, as revealed by the previous literature,a different type of interactionin an intercultural setting needs as much attention: the context in which the distributionof interlocutors'interactionalpower differs that in from most previous research. The present study analyzes just such a situation:communicationbetween Japanese technical supportmembersandAmericanworkersin a Japanese-ownedfactory in the American South. The other important issue to consider is the meaning of "understanding." The following statementby Wengerfits well with the setting in question:"Understanding in practice is the art of choosing what to know and what to ignore in order to proceed with our lives" (1998:41). Another useful notion, given in Bremer et al. 1996, is that understandingis a continuum. In my data, the participants start with an attempt to clarify what is being said or what needs to be done. At the end of the interaction,they mostly manage to obtain necessary and crucial information, however minimal it might be, so that they can go on to the job waiting for them. Understandingis not "all or nothing."Rather, it is a continuum on which the interactantsnegotiate its degree and focus in each interactionbased on their necessity and, in this case, the extent and limit of their linguistic capabilities. For this reason, my focus is on the PROCESS of how they reach some necessary level of understanding, or in this case, task completion. Instead of dichotomizing "successful" cases and "failures," I will analyze how and why the interlocutorsmanage to have the outcome they achieve.
FIELDWORK SETTING AND DATA
The fieldwork for the present study took place in a facility of the Japan Die Company (hereafter JDC), a wholly owned Japanese manufacturingcompany operatedin the United States. Its headquarters(hereafter,the north plant) is located in a northernstate and had been operatingfor over a decade at the time of the fieldwork in 1997. The south plant, the main location of the fieldwork, is in the Deep South (the southeasternmoststates) and was preparingfor its first mass productionwhen I stayed there. Its parentcompany is located in Japan,where it manufacturesdies to stamp car panels. In the two U.S. plants, workers stamp panels using the dies and ship them to a numberof automobile assembly plants. All the key employees, including managers, engineers, and technical support members (specialists in modifying dies; hereafter "supporters")are sent from Japanto the U.S. plants, where their main jobs are to set up and run the plants and trainlocal workersinexperienced in die modification and panel production. The American workers and managersat the time of the study were high school graduatesor had vocational training.As for the Japanese, except for a few top managersand engineers, they also had high school education. Some of the expatriateswere on long-term assignments, staying in the U.S. for three to four years
Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
187
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
with their families. The others were on short-termassignments for a period of one to several months. Similar to making origami (Japanese folding paper) into a perfect threedimensional shape, as one supporterput it, manufacturingcar panels from flat metal sheets is a complex process, in which custom-madedies need to be modified numeroustimes based on trial outcomes. Many of the necessary skills cannot be writtendown in a manual,thus the need for experienced supporters,who are able to detect a dent as small as 0.1 mm simply by touching the surface. I was hired as a liaison officer for four monthsat the south plantin the middle of its start-upperiod. In exchange for working for them, I was allowed to conduct fieldwork in my spare time. Priorto this fieldwork, I had also made a twoday visit to the north plant to learn about their productionprocess and interview a numberof workersand managers.The data are drawnfrom three sources: videotaped interactionsbetween the JapaneseandAmericanworkerson the production floor, interviews, and observation.A summaryof the interviewees' profiles is in Appendix 1. Note that the total numberof interviewees in this fieldwork was 27; however, owing to space limitations,only the ones whose input appears in this article (10 of them) are included in the table. Notice thatnot all interviews were tape-recordedbecause I did not wish to impair their effectiveness.2 Thus, not all interview segments appearingare direct quotes. Appendix 2 is a list of videotaped interactions.Again, the total numberof recordingswas 15, but only the four relevant to this article are included. The plant was generally divided into two parts: the productionfloor and the office area.The productionfloor had a few differentareas,each of which was in charge of a differentstage of production.The two majorareas of fieldwork were Die and Maintenance(hereafterDie) area and the Press area. In the former,Japanese supportersand their American coworkers worked on fixing dies. In the latter, the modified dies were used to stamp panels. Videotaping took place in these two areas. Several workers,both Americanand Japanese,agreedto carrya portablemicrophone,and I followed them on the floor with a video camerawhile the microphonepicked up their voices as well as those of their interactants.
PARTICIPANTS' COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGIES
Interactantsas historical agents communicationis to focus A tendency in the previous literatureon intercultural on the interlocutor's(personal) informedness about the other "culture"and his or her willingness to engage in interaction.In other words, a numberof studies overtly or covertly send a message saying, "If only we knew better about the other group's communicative styles, misunderstandingcould be avoided." We cannot negate such a possibility, but the reality entails more complexity. In adcommunication is as much about how much one gets to be dition, intercultural That is, we would be missheardas about how much one can talk appropriately. 188
in Society 34:2 (2005) Language
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
ing a significant point not only if I treated encounters between Japanese and Americans as those of neutralagents, but also if I neglected my awarenessas an individual and as a researcherabout the often unjust distributionof the entitlement to be heard. Interactantsare manifestations of their life histories, both at a macro level (e.g. nationality) and at a local level (e.g., in the present case, their position in the company). They are historicalagents in the sense thatcomplex aspects of the lives they have led so far inevitably influence the process and outcome of their interculturalinteraction.In Bourdieu'swords, "Differentagents' linguistic strategies are strictly dependenton their positions in the structureof the distribution of linguistic capital"(1991:64). And one's linguistic capital is a historical product based on the makeupof his or her life at all levels, from macro levels such as national backgroundto micro levels such as one's occupation. Added to these ingredientsis the pragmaticnatureof humans in (particularly intercultural)communication.In other words, when an interlocutoris "willing" to communicate, the reasons for that often do not come from pure humanityor conscience (although such qualities would be a nice addition to aid the interaction). I believe that interactantstypically weigh the necessity and the potential benefits of engaging in interaction with interlocutorswho come from another (often national) culture. Because of the perceived challenge presented by the linguistic and culturaldifferences between the two parties, a mental calculation (often done unconsciously) of the expected "return" (the benefit of succeeding in the communication)becomes important.In case the interactantsdecide to engage in such interactions,they do so through making the most of the available communicative resources. Exactly how they do so is shown in the examples below. I propose that the nine items in Table 1 are of particularrelevance as influencing factors in this study's interactionsbetween JapaneseandAmericans.Each of the nine factors will be described below with examples from interviews. My claim is that the interlocutorsreachedthe outcomes of the interactionsas a result of theirnegotiationsbetween theirimmediateinteractionalgoals (i.e., what needs to happen as a result of a particularinteraction)in a given context in combination with these nine factors. The following insight offered by Bourdieu applies in analyzing intercultural
interactions:
The position of a given agent in the social space can ... be defined by the position he occupies in the different fields, that is, in the distributionof the powers that are active in each of them. These are, principally,economic capital (in its different kinds), culturalcapital and social capital, as well as symbolic capital, commonly called prestige, reputation,fame, etc., which is the form assumed by these differentkinds of capital when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate. (1991:230)
Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 189
YUKAKO
TABLE 1.
SUNAOSHI
Factors contributingto the interaction betweenAmericanand Japanese workerson the productionfloor at JDC
(I) Nationality: Capital deriving from the interlocutors'nationalities (2) Vitality:Ethnolinguisticvitality of English and Japanese Social positions and (3) SocialPositions: associated culturalcapital the interlocutors possessed in their communities of origin (4) Hierarchy: Corporatehierarchywithin JDC (5) Skills: Skills and experience as legitimate capital within JDC (i) Knowledge:Shared work knowledge and content (ii) Goals: Sharedgoals and priorities (iii) TimeTogether:Time spent together (iv) Low English: Japanesesupporters'low English proficiency level
Historical Factors [Positioning two parties vertically]
Contextual Factors [Bringing the two parties closer]
In light of this observation, in the present setting there are five interrelated factors at the macro level to be considered as playing crucial roles in determining the interlocutors'interactionalpower vis-a-vis each other, even before they utter a word. I call these five HISTORICALFACTORS.The first is their capital deriving from their nationalities (hereafter Nationality). In other words, the economic and political statusof bothJapanandthe United Statesandtheirsubsequent power relations need to be taken into account. For a Japanesecompany, setting up a plant in the United States thus means something quite different from the same company's setting up a plant in Southeast Asia. The second factor,deeply relatedto the first, is the currentglobal hierarchyof languages: the differentdegrees of ethnolinguistic vitality that English and Japanese possess in the currentglobal linguistic market(hereafterVitality). Quite aside from the purely linguistic legitimacy and thus equality of all languages in the world, native speakersof English enjoy the most privileges, as is easily seen business to second/foreign languageteaching (see anywhere,from international Phillipson 1992, 2000 and Tsuda 2002 on "linguistic imperialism").Thus, an encounterbetween a native speakerof English and a nonnativespeakerexhibits a different kind of capital distribution from one between a native speaker of anotherlanguage and a nonnativespeaker(especially if the nonnativespeakeris also a native speakerof English). Kasuya 2000 states that underthe unquestionable, increasing dominance of English, nonnative speakers are led to feel that they are somehow deficient if they cannot handle English (at least in the Japa190 in Society 34:2(2005) Language
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
nese situation he examines). This leads to their "voluntarylearning"of the language, which in turnaccelerates its dominance. In the present setting, English dominance manifested in situations where the Japaneseexpatriates,despite their superiorstatus in the company, had to speak English no matterhow poor their ability was.3 In fact, as Bourdieu 1991 points out with respect to the "legitimate"variety, their use of English was not even questioned but rather taken for granted. Vitality influenced the degree of the Japanesesupporters'willingness to learn English. Some workers put in no more effort than was absolutely necessary, owing to the Japanese language's high Vitality (though it is not as high as that of English), as expressed by Tomita:doose kaettara tsukawanee shi 'I won't use [English] once I return [to Japan] anyway)'. Others felt motivated to learn more not only for increasing efficiency at JDC, but also because they considered English a legitimate form of culturaland symbolic capital once they were back in Japanese society. The third factor is the different social positions the Japanese and American participantsoccupied in their respective societies of origin (hereafterSocial Positions), and this is linked with the first two factors as well. In the case of the Japanese,some supportersand managerson the one hand, and engineers and top managerson the other,were equipped with differentculturalcapital:The former were high-school educated, with limited exposure to English, whereas the latter were university graduateswith more solid backgroundin English (in Japan,educational level is a reliable indicator of one's degree of exposure to English4). This difference placed the former in a communicatively more disadvantageous position in the beginning of their stay in the United States. In contrast,probably because both Japanand the United States are economically advanced and stable countries (relative to the rest of the world), the participants'culturalfields in the two countries turnedout to be not so different, sharing a numberof values and lifestyles (see Sunaoshi 2004 for the workers' use of humor that utilized these commonalities). Fourth, the corporatehierarchywithin JDC (hereafter Hierarchy)played an importantrole in participants'everyday interactions.Ultimately, this factor includes the fact that the company is Japanese-owned,which implies that certain of its corporatepractices are of Japaneseorigin. All Japanese,regardlessof their positions, were assigned a supervisory role over the local American workers, and no Americanwas a line managerof a Japaneseworkerin JDC. Last, the fifth form of vital capital in this context was employees' skills to do the job right, especially being able to troubleshootand fix a problemon a die, a machine, and so on (hereafter Skills). The fact that the Japanese, regardless of their official positions, had more experience in JDC's various tasks grantedthem more interactional power in the context. These last two factors are closely related, and the following remarkby Miyata, a senior managerin the north plant, succinctly expresses their effects: 'In the morning meetings, Kishi [anothermanager] and I
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
speak. Our grammaris no good, but you know what? They listen very hard.' Tomita, a supporterin the Die area, could afford to learn only minimal English (mostly noun phrases for names of tools and troubleshootingactivities, as well as praise-giving such as good job and OK), as he himself admitted.This was so because he was in an advantageousposition relative to his Americancolleagues in terms of Skills. While Nationality and Vitality obviously placed the Americans in an advantageousposition, Hierarchy and Skills gave the Japanesemoreinteractional power, and the two sides' relatively similar Social Positions providedcommonalities,an aid to betterunderstanding. In the Japaneseand Americanworkers'communication, these HistoricalFactorstended to function as backgroundsor as underlying facts ratherthan direct reasons for particularinteractionaloutcomes. These factors mostly focus on interlocutors'power dynamics;that is, the factors place the two parties vertically, based on differential power. Although the Japanese and Americans were not necessarily aware of all five factors, as Bourdieu reminds us, the participantscould never escape from them. At a different, more local level, anothergroup of factors, which derived directly from the participants'situatedcontexts, also contributedto the outcome of their communication,which was generally persistent,patient,and collaborative in nature.I call these ContextualFactors.Unlike the HistoricalFactors,the Contextual Factors focus on collaborationand sharing and are related to how much interlocutorsare able to and want to accommodate each other. In other words, the more factors that are present, the more they bring the two sides closer. First,the JapaneseandAmericanworkerssharedsimilarwork knowledge and content (hereafter Knowledge; cf. Hatch 1983). Although their knowledge levels and skills differed, they nonetheless worked together on the same die issues and problems every day. Second, they were in a highly goal- and task-oriented environment,sharing goals and priorities at work (hereafterGoals). They were continually pressed by deadlines and emergency situations, which needed to be taken care of immediately for productionto continue. Third,the time spent in dealing with workersfrom the other group in general (the Americans dealing with the Japaneseand vice versa) helped them improve their communication with each other (hereafterTime Together).The plant had startedoperationeight months priorto the fieldwork. It can be said that the Japanese and American workers' communicative competence with each other was proportionateto Knowledge, Goals, and Time Together.Thus, among the participants of this study, the three American workers in the Die area (Rob, Keith, and Rick), who had most frequentcontactswith Japanesesupporters, were among the most experienced local communicatorsin the south plant. In response to my question whether his supporterWakamiya'sEnglish has improved,Alex in Equipmentstated, Well,maybe over time. I've become better at understandingor Wakamiya 'sEnglish has improved,or probablya little bit of both. The same thing happened though when I moved down here [from the Mid-
192
inSociety34:2(2005) Language
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
west], with the people and language in [name of the state], differentslang words and stuff.And over time, it got better.Obviously, whatAlex describedmost likely implied different levels of issues, and linguistic and cultural differences definitely complicated the Americans' and Japanese's communication with each other.5However, these differences were not the ONLY factors involved. A few American mid-level managers6had had years of experience working with Japanese on the floor; they were able to articulatetheir interactionalstrategies elaborately.Ken, now the south plant's plant managerand one of the first ten Americanemployees at the northplant, quickly admittedthat though he does not know Japanese, I picked up enough words to know the subjects when Japanese colleagues were discussing something in Japanese. He gave me examples of his strategies, such as stick to what you're trying to say and be direct, stay to the subject, but he is also clear that other than that, we are talking about dies, assembly, etc., so they can eventually understandeach other. Inui, a temporary supporterand also a world travelerwho has supporteddie modifications in several locations, similarlyarticulatedthis view: kaguya ikeba kagu hoshii tte mukoo mo wakarushine 'if you go to a furniturestorethe shop attendantnaturallyknows you want some furniture'.These statementsderive from their understandingthat Knowledge and Goals can supersede language barriers,and the understanding has become a strong conviction after Time Together. The other factor that contributedto the Americans'patience is the Japanese's low level of English proficiency (hereafterLow English). It seems that the lower the nonnative speaker's competence level, the more tolerant a native-Englishspeaker interlocutorcan be with the nonnative speaker's mistakes. The informants on the floor ranged from low to intermediatelevels of English, roughly speaking, so their American interlocutorscould be more tolerant toward their nonstandard,inaccurate, or inappropriateuse of English. This, in turn, might have helped the Japaneseto avoid following the Americans'communicativerules. Of course, the Japanese'slack of English linguistic competence was a challenge, but the same disadvantageworkedto the Japanese'sadvantageso thatthey could concentrateon their work and goals, instead of using energy in trying to speak appropriately.7 Of course, the Americans' patience in this regardwas largely in response to Japanesedominance in Hierarchyand Skills. Besides these Historical and Contextual factors, an importantaspect of the workers' stories was that their view of differences came directly from their experiences in specific jobs instead of from abstract,intellectualized Japanese/ American or East/West oppositions. Such intellectualized notions of Japaneseness and Americanness often come from anthropological,cultural, and business texts, which are usually accessed more by those of high educational background in related fields. In the present case, both American and Japanese workers came from similarsocioeconomic backgrounds,where they were more likely to be "deprived"of that type of cultural capital. Ironically and interestingly, this very lack of capital made them rely almost solely on their direct experiLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005)
193
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
ence when forming opinions of each other. Therefore, though Japanese and Americans are stereotypically depicted in dichotomies such as "hierarchical/ egalitarian," "reserved/outgoing," and "indirect/direct," the interviewees' remarks often and spontaneously contradicted such assumed notions. In fact, some remarkswere counterintuitiveto what (we) "intellectuals"tend to assume about cultural differences and communication. To list a few examples, Miyata, reviewing what he thinks about American workers from a manager'sperspective, said Bei-jin wa jouge kankei ga hakkiri shiteru kara 'Americansare hierarchy-conscious[lit. clear about vertical relationship] more so than us Japanese'. He was referringto the fact that to Americans, what their direct boss says is an absolute order, whereas the Japanese workers would not be so rigid. Jack, with eight years' experience in the north plant, pointed out, referringto occasional karaoke nights he had with his Japanese colleagues: I just watch.... they [Japanese] don't have to feel shy in front of people, unlikeAmericans, who are not confident.Inui comparedJapaneseand American attitudestoward work, and said that Americans work hardduringthe hours they are supposed to, whereas sometimes Japaneseend up smoking cigarettes all day. When there is one more hour left, Japanesewould say ma, iiya 'oh well, this is enough', whereasAmericanswould say Let'sdo it! Alex, even though he could not necessarily talk much with the supporters,remarked:Theyhave a good sense of humor.I thinkhumoris the biggest commonground(see Sunaoshi 2004 on this point). Some elements of the traditionallydiscussed "Japaneseindirectness"were noticed, and practically and pragmaticallyhandled by these American workers. Stu mentioned Fujimi, an engineer of assembly machines. He uses maybe a lot; however, over time Stu learnedthat Fujimi seemed confident, and his work was good, so he could tell that Fujimi was confident even when he said maybe.This is an example where Fujimi's expertise (Skills) overrode his linguistic limitations and broughtmore patience on the partof Stu as the two sharedKnowledge, Goals, and Time Together.Bill, in the north plant, said that he was never completely sure if the Japanese had understoodwhen they said yeah. In that case, either he would go with his instinct, or if it was followed by an immediateaction and if what they were doing was not right, he would come up and tell them. or nonunderOwing to Goals, Bill could not afford to leave misunderstanding standinguncorrected. In contrastto proactiveAmericans, a typical response the Japanesegave me regarding communication issues on the floor was how much their American interlocutorswere accommodating to them, ratherthan what kind of communicative strategies they themselves would use to improve the situation, as this comment from an engineer from a vendor, Tsuchida, indicates: WhenI talk I translatefrom Japanese into English [in my head], but people here [in the Press area of the south plant] kindly understandme if I try very
194 in Society 34:2 (2005) Language
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
hard. A hotel of a certain level is still OK, but when I go to a place like WalMart, they speak with the assumption that I understand,so I (shrugs). To express his confusion comically, he mimics an Americangesture of shrugging at the end of the excerpt. The reason Tsuchidaand others were thankfulto those who spoke in an intelligible mannercan be explained by Nationality and Vitality; that is, English is the "natural" code choice at JDC. At the same time, owing to the Japanese'shigher corporatepositions and/or more advanced skills in car panel production (Hierarchy and Skills), they could afford to be rather passive in communication.The "kind"Americans Tsuchidamentions tended to be experienced ones with regardto Knowledge, Goals, and Time Together.Further,althoughLow English worked negatively outside the plant, as in Wal-Mart, it evidently did not with the "kind"interlocutorsat JDC. An interview with Miyata reveals that good or bad, the company's policy on the language issue was expressed as jissen arunomi 'just do it', a common Japanese idiomatic expression.8 The Japanese were confident that they were more skilled and experiencedthantheirAmericancoworkers.Thus, it was quickerand easier to demonstratewhat they could do than trying to use their bad English: heta ni shaberu yori wa yatta hou ga hayai 'it's quicker to do [the work] [to convince the Americans] than speaking sloppy [English]'. At one level, JDC could afford to pursue the motto 'just do it' because of Hierarchy and Skills, leaving responsibilityfor comprehendingto the Americans.This mentality,practical and pragmaticwithout intellectualizing problems, also seems to be related to the Social Positions that the majorityof employees at JDC occupied. This section has introducednine Historical and Contextual factors that conditioned the ways in which the Japanese and American workers would interact with each other, accompanied by examples drawn from the interview data. The following section illustratesexactly how interactionon the productionfloor unfolds and how it is linked with the factors outlined above. Utilizing available communicativeresources First, three segments are analyzed that illustrate the range of communicative strategies the participantsused. The common underlyingassumption in studies of communicative strategies (see Domyei & Scott 1997 for a review) is that interactions involving nonnative speakers create a limitation, and interlocutors come up with various strategies to compensate for it. The strategies tend to be presentedas a form of taxonomy based on extractionof isolated linguistic strategies. Here, however, the focus is the process of their creative co-construction, where we can see the dynamic use of the most available, appropriate,and efficient communicative resources as each interactionprogresses with respect to a particularissue or incident. Each transcript is given with a brief overview of its flow, followed by a detailed analysis. The first segment is an example in which the interlocutors
195
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
utilize a combination of available communicativeresources in a complex manner: linguistic and paralinguisticelements, gaze, gesture, body positioning, and an object. Restricted linguistic resources are compensated for by creative use of the other resources. The interlocutors'eagerness and perseverancein making the interactionwork is illustratedin the detailed analysis. The second segment illuminates how Time Together and Knowledge can make an interaction possible without many verbal cues. Finally, the thirdsegment demonstrateshow what I call "mediators"work to facilitate an outcome of interactionin case it stagnates. Last, two short instances are examined as examples of cross-usage of contextualizationcues. Stubbornlyappearingcontextualizationcues in the use of a foreign (majority)language can be detrimentalto minority nonnative speakers, as Gumperzand others have convincingly revealed. However, in the presentsituation, it was observed thatAmericanworkersadaptedsome Japanesecontextualization cues when speaking in English. Interplayof gaze, gesture, positioning and object. Excerpt (1) is the beginand Rob, a worker ning of an interactionbetween Hashida,a long-termsupporter, wheels because thereis grind Rob the of ordering topic brings up in the Die area. that Glen in Rob to Hashida need more. reports only one left and they urgently Rob also to arrive. month for them the Tools departmentsaid it would take one more as has ordered perhaps knows that Okano, the team leader of the Die area, ask to Okano decide to they well. Since one month is obviously unacceptable, exThe them more quickly. order them directly from the vendor, who can ship cerpt continues up to the point where Hashida finds out that it will take one month and shares his disbelief with Rob:
(I) When do we get more grind wheels? [From C- 1)] I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 R: H: R: H: R: H: R: H: R: H: R: H: R: H: grind wheels? yeh uh: Glen ordered+ two hundred. two hundred? {yesterday} I a: yesterday? (yesterday) ( ). + today maybe Okano order
also.
(I
uh + four/ four hundred? I don' know I'll talk to Okano-san ['Mr'], (eh) see how many he ordered uh: + { ha:[yeahl). (ha:[yeah]). + but: from Japan?= =from Japanmaybe. he says one month. ah one mon[th? [one mo/ (I know)( ){ )) 15 R: no good we only have one I said eh oh yeah 16 H: yeah 196 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
FIGURE 1:
Hashida asks "two hundred?"while Rob holds up a grind wheel (Example 1, line 4)
Analysis of (1). Rob and Hashida had been talking about moving a die, then there was a brief pause right before the beginning of line 1. Up to this point, they positioned themselves side by side, looking ahead toward the die in question. Then, duringthe pause, Rob shifts his body so that it is facing Hashida. Rob lifts his righthand,which is holding a grindwheel (hereafterGW), to his belly height. His shift of body alignment and lifting up of what will be the key object indicates that the topic is about to change and the object has to do with the main topic. Throughoutthe excerpt, as shown below, this grind wheel works as a pivot, or a reference point - a physical manifestation of the core theme of the interaction. As discussed in Sunaoshi 2000, 2002, it is crucial for participantsto secure and keep trackof the main topic of conversation because of their linguistic limitations and the serious consequences of misunderstanding. Line 1 functions as the initiator Rob's presentationof the new topic and his obtainingHashida'sattentionto it. Rob's utterancegrind wheels works as a main topic presentation and a summons, with the "storytelling and more to come" final intonation.As Rob says grind, his gaze goes to the GW in his hand;then, as he says wheels, his gaze shifts to Hashida. Line 2 is Hashida'sresponse to Rob's summons, recognizing the newly presented topic and indicating his readiness to be engaged. Hashida recognizes and stabilizes his gaze onto the GW, then utters more clipped yeh. His intonationand pitch have gone lower and his pronunciation compared to previous turns, which employed intonation typical of demonstration and explanationin discussing moving a die. As he uttersyeh, his body moves slightly closer (10 cm or so), drawn to the GW, thereby indicating that his attention is now directed toward the upcoming new topic.
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
FIGURE
2: Hashida steps back from the 'core' (grind wheel) as he utters 'one month' (Example 1, line 14)
In line 3, Rob begins by presenting three pieces of important information regarding grind wheels: The ordering took place, Glen ordered them, and the quantity was two hundred.While he says Glen, Rob's gaze is on the GW (the object of the sentence), then it moves to Hashida as he says ordered. In the brief pause after that, Hashida's gaze comes to Rob; up to this point it was on the GW. After gaining Hashida's gaze, Rob finishes by saying two hundred.Notice that his gaze goes back and forth between Hashida and the GW, securing both the interlocutor'sattention and the main theme. Likewise, Hashida's gaze shifts between the GW and Rob. Hashida picks up the quantity to confirm (line 4) with a questioning, rising intonation. He accompanies this with an iconic gesture, pointing his index and middle fingers upward, palm facing himself, holding his hand upright, at the same height as the GW that Rob is holding (see Fig. 2). The pointing fingers are spatially aligned with the object, bringingthe quantityinto the "spotlight."Hashida's use of the iconic gesturehere is hardlyredundant (cf. Goodwin 2000); rather, his synchronizedindicationof 'two hundred'both verbally and physically underscores the importanceof accuratelyunderstandingthe quantity,thereby successfully moving along in the interaction. As soon as Hashida's two open fingers reach the height of GW, Rob gives a nod, and meanwhile says yesterday along with the downward part of the nod, followed by anotherbrief nod (line 5). Here Rob is (i) giving confirmation and (ii) presenting an additional piece of information:when the grind wheels were ordered. Hashida's aa in line 6 is uttered with high pitch, and as he says it, he
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
rotates his body 450 or so, with the GW as the pivot, all the while keeping his two fingers up. He says yesterday louder and with rising intonation.This combinationof his most prominentvocal qualityand the shift of body orientationshows that he is questioning in surprise (i.e., 'just yesterday when we only have one left?'). This tilted positioning by Hashida continues while Rob talks in line 7. In line 7, afterconfirmingthe date andending this sequence, in the brief pause, Rob's gaze quickly goes to the GW and then back to Hashida.At today, Hashida's gaze goes to the GW. Rob's gaze-shift successfully guides Hashida's gaze back to the referencepoint, the GW. In saying today, Rob's voice is louder again, with a flat intonation,both of which indicate initiation of a new (sub)topic, as if saying "new informationis now coming." Here, as Rob says today, he flips the GW 900, then flaps it once. With Okano ordered, he flaps the GW a few more times. While the GW always stays in the "core"of the conversation, Rob's rotation of it brings a renewed attentionto the "core".By flapping it several times along with his speech, he makes the physicality of GW function as supplementary to speech; that is, Rob does not have to say a full sentence such as "Maybe Okano orderedsome grind wheels also." Still with the tilted positioning, as Hashida uttersfour (line 8), he adds his ring and little fingers to the first two to mean 'four hundred', and slightly lifts and extends the fingers close to the GW, thereby indicating the referringobject. As Rob says Okano-san, he loosely flaps the GW with the intonation meaning "*more to come." In line 11, as Rob finishes saying orderedwith the intonationof ending and closure, Hashida's gaze goes to the GW. In line 12, at the micro pause after uh haa haa, Hashida'sindex finger points to the GW, and as he says from Japan, he points again at the GW by lifting and lowering his index finger back to it. Here, again, the GW works as a (pro)nounas well as the secured main theme. In line 13, as Rob says maybe, he rotatesthe GW 900 again, signaling the next piece of informationto come. Here, right after maybe, Hashida reacts by saying ah (line 14) in a voice of surpriseas he opens his arms wide. This gesture could be Hashida's indication of the distance between Japanand the United States, or it could also be his comically dramaticreaction. As Rob says one month (line 13), with the GW in his right hand, he moves it across his belly, pointing quickly twice in the direction of Glen's office. Here, Rob's combined use of the hand movement and GW invites attentionsimultaneouslyto the object in question and to nonverbaldeixis (the subject of the sentence, he = Glen). In line 14, one month is utteredemphaticallyby Hashida with a definite tone of surprise,accompaniedby a surprisedexpression, and at the end of it he breaks into laughter.As he laughs, he lets his opened arms back down and takes a few steps back, distancing himself from the "core" (the GW), thereby effectively demonstratinghis disbelief and detachment (as if to say 'I can't believe it, I don't want to deal with the issue') (see Fig. 3). The last bit of the utteranceby Hashidais latched with Rob's one mo/(line 15), which ends with a brief burstof
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
FIGURE
3: Keith points at the area of concern and looks up to secure Ishige's gaze, who is looking at something over Keith's head (Example 2, (3)-iii&iv)
laughter, at which point Rob drops his hand with the GW slightly. As Hashida laughs, for about 2.5 seconds, Rob goes with it by nodding and smiling. Together with his laughter and smile, Rob's dropping of the GW indicates a momentaryrelease of tension/attention from the theme. Continuing on in line 15, before the onset of I said, Rob lifts the GW back to the original position, indicating 'we are back to business'. Also recovering from the shock and tension release, Hashida momentarilystarts walking back toward Rob and the GW. As Rob says eh, his gaze goes to the GW, then he once more rotates the GW, signaling anotherpiece of informationto come. Hashida, as he says yeah (line 16), gazes at the GW as well. Let us now examine how this interactioncan be related to the Historical and Contextualfactors. First,the code choice, English, is due to Nationalityand Vitality. In this interaction,Rob is in the position of reportingto Hashida on ordering grind wheels and its possible delay. In other words, because of Skills, Hashida is in the position of being reportedto. As a result,the burdenof makinghimself clear is more on Rob. The currentexample clearly demonstratesthe two interlocutors' complex utilization of multiple available resources in communication.The flow of interactionis smooth, consideringtheirlinguistic limitations.This relative ease can be attributedto their Time Together,as well as Knowledge and Goals. If we look at certain parts of the excerpt, we can make a few more observations. First of all, we can see thatthey both share a great deal of "commonsense" regarding grind wheels: Two hundred is a reasonable number to order at once
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
(lines 3-4), there are two people who can order them (lines 3-11), they can be shipped from Japan (but this is obviously not the fastest choice) (lines 12-13), and they just cannot wait for one month when only one is left (lines 13-17). These pieces of common sense have been learnedand sharedover the past eight monthsin Time Together,andhave tumed into Knowledge.Because of this shared knowledge, they did not have to question or explain the validity of these matters. Rob's use of the Japanesetitle -san (equivalentto 'Mr.', but it can be used for both genders) in line 9 must be a result of Hierarchyand Skills, and possibly the fact that the plant is located in the South. At JDC, it was not uncommon to hear American workers, especially those in the Die and Press areas, use -san when referringto or addressingJapanese,especially those who were senior or in managerial positions. The Americansmust have picked it up by hearingthe Japanese addressingand referringto each other.Some Americanstold me thatthey did not think it was strange, as they thought it was similar to their use of sir. In lines 14 and 15, Hashida gave a dramaticand even slightly humorous reaction to the informationone month, and Rob can immediately chime in by expressing a cynical, joking attitude.Again, this is possible owing to Knowledge and Goals. Overall,it can be said thatRob's andHashida'sspeech, especially the former's, is simplified syntacticallyandlexically, yet elaboratein otheraspects to make sure they reach sufficient understanding. I mean theircreatively comBy "elaborate," bining various resources at hand as the interactionunfolds. Of the various kinds of communicativeresources,what is most noteworthyis the multiple and crucial functions Rob and Hashida assign to the grind wheel Rob holds. They co-create these functions by positioning or moving it in various ways and placing it in the core position, as well as timing these movements together with other linguistic and paralinguisticelements. In fact, because the interlocutorsskilfully combine multiple elements, their interactionbecomes nonlinearand thus more efficient in some ways thancommunicationthat relies more heavily on verbal elements. Getting attention and troubleshooting in nonverbal interaction. In (2) below, Ishige, a long-termsupporter,and Keith, a young worker,interactin the Die area in essentially a nonverbalmanner.As the verbal part of their interactionis brief, a descriptionof the interlocutors'nonverbalmovements is included in the example itself. In this setting, Keith is polishing a part.Ishige is by Keith, watching and supervising.As Keith polishes the part, he seeks checking from Ishige, nonverbally. Ishige immediately responds, then they both start examining the part. Everything is all right. Keith resumes his polishing work.
(2) Pin Hole [From F-5]] (i) Both are squattingdeeply-a normalposition to take when workingon a part,which is placed on the ground. Their bodies are facing each other in proximity. Keith crouches deeply down toward the part, moving his right hand and polishing it. Ishige keeps his gaze at Keith, half crouching.
201
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
4R
FIGURE 4:
Both Ishige and Keith touch the area of concern on the part (Example 2 (4))
triggered by a buzzer going (ii) Keithhasbeenpolishing thepartrhythmically. Possibly his headto therearandstraightoff fromthePressarea(behind them),Ishigeturns ens his backas if checking out something overthere. (iii) (a) Keithslowsdownhis polishing movement, slowlypolishestheareatwice.Then his righthandon thearea. he lifts his upper bodyhalfway(*), whilesecuring (b) Simultaneously (fromthe point marked with * above),Ishige'sgaze slowly rotatesback 450 or so (i.e., his head is facing in the directionof his left shoulder). (c) Immediately afterthat,Keithstraightens his backandheadto directhis gazeto his righthand,andpointing to the areaof concern Ishige,meanwhile releasing withtheindexfingerof his left hand(see Fig. 4). (d) An instantbeforeKeith'sgaze straightens towardIshige, Ishige'sgaze sugoverKeith's head(see Fig. 4). Howgestedhe was tryingto look at something notices ever,the momentKeith'sgaze is securedonto Ishige,Ishigeinstantly andnods,thenas his headnodsdown,he crouches downto see Keith'sareaof his righthandto the areato securehis gaze to it. Sincethe concern, extending Keithobtained Keithhas beenlookingat the probmoment Ishige'sattention, lematicarea.Thus,nowbotharelookingat theareaof concern. (v) Ishigestarts touching theareawhilegivinga quicknod. (iv) (see Fig. 5) 1 K: (uh:here) (touching surface) 2 IS: (I sec) uhpin hole, (keepstouching surface) 3 K: pinhole Bothexamine andtouch,3 sec. 4 K: maybeok= 5 IS: =(detaches hands){ ) ok
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
Die area
FIGURE 5:
Positioning of interlocutorsin the interaction"Discussing die finishing time"
As soon as Keith utters OK in line 4, Ishige detaches his right hand from the area and slightly straightenshis back and quickly nods. Immediately following Ishige's affirmation,Keith resumes polishing at a somewhat slower pace. After a brief nod, Ishige says OK (line 5), which is immediately followed by Keith's fast-paced polishing. In the next 30 seconds or so, Keith's polishing continued and the recording was completed. Analysis of (2). Many supportersattestedthattouching is of paramountimportance in repairingdie parts. Touching by a skilled hand reveals tiny faults that even the latest machines cannot detect. Thus, teaching and learninghow to touch dies is essential. In this example, too, touching appearsas the method of troubleshooting.In additionto this practiceof a nonverbalnature,Keithsuccessfully gains Ishige's attentionand Ishige quickly and accurately attends to the concern Keith has. Meanwhile, they do not utter a single word. In particular,from the moment Keith straightensup his head until the moment Ishige crouches down (at (iii)(c) and (d)), the sequence is very smooth, without a pause or hesitation. How was such communication possible? In the present case, it can be partly explained as a result of Time Together (backed up by Knowledge and Goals). Furthermore,owing to Skills, Ishige is the one to teach and supervise Keith. In addition, the natureof the skill requiredfor the job in hand - detecting faults by touching - is mostly nonverbal and to be learned largely through experience anyway. Consequently,the interlocutors'use of verbal means was kept to a minimum, employed only for Keith's confirmation of the exact location of his concern aboutthe part (line 1), Ishige's identificationof Keith's concern, and Keith's confirmation (lines 2 and 3), and verification from both sides that nothing was wrong and Keith could proceed with his work (lines 4 and 5).
203
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
This example undoubtedlydemonstratesan interactionbetween two people who know each other well in the working context. This is the overwhelming impression that came to the fore when I witnessed and then analyzed the interaction. Whether the limited use of verbal means of communicationcame from theirTime Togetherand Knowledge, or from their linguistic limitations,or both, is no longer clear. It is in this kind of situationwhere we can observe the multiplicity of influencing factors in humancommunication,and it certainly reminds us thatdifferences in nationality(or ethnicity,gender,etc.) cannot be singled out as the sole dominantvariableinfluencing a particular"intercultural" interaction. Interactionalmediators. Besides utilizing various linguistic and nonlinguistic communicative resources, which was mostly a joint effort by the interlocutors in a particularinteraction,there was sometimes one person in an interaction whom the workersperceived to be the best spokesperson(see Goldstein 1996 on a somewhat similar role, "languagebroker").In JDC, everyone I observed in the Die and Press areas was capable of participatingin American-Japaneseinteractions, if it was necessary. And in those mostly one-to-one interactions,they without seeking usually managedto function and reach sufficient understanding help from someone else (e.g. the researcher).However, when the issue being discussed involved more than two speakers, I commonly observed that one of the Americansand the Japanese,or both of a pair,chose one personto take a role to enhance communication. In this section, I discuss what those chosen ones did in interactions. I call them the "mediators"here, considering the kind of role they played in interactions. I said the workers"chose" a mediator,but this is by no means an overt assignment of the role to a person. In fact, the mediatorwas partially predetermined, but such a role simultaneously emerged as a particularinteractionunfolded. In other words, the role of mediatorwas constructedand reinforced in the process of interactionin order to make it more effective. The main criteria for a Japanese mediatorseemed to be English fluency and technical skills, and for an Americanmediator,experience in interactingwith the Japaneseand sufficient technical knowledge to understandthe interaction.These criteriawere applied to the participantsin a particularinteraction,and the one(s) most suitable became the mediator.Rob, who undertookthis informalduty several times during my observation,was aware of his role, and once after a problem(not shown here) occurredand he was called, he confessed to me that this was when he felt stretchedin both directions. An interactionthat exhibits a strikingexample of mediatorsis (3), "Discussing die finishing time."The interlocutorsin this interactionare a supporter,Ishige, a short-termsupporter,Hiki, Rob, Ken (plant manager), and Dick (Press areamanager).The interactionoccurredin the Die area,and the drawingin Fig. 5 indicates the interlocutors'approximatelocations in relation to one another.In 204
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
this interaction,Rob plays a mediatorrole between the supportersand the two Americanmanagers.Simultaneously,Ishige plays a mediator'srole between Hiki and the two managers. A brief summaryof the incident is as follows. The managerson the production side (Dick and Ken) come to confirm with the supporters(Ishige and Hiki) when a particularset of dies9 will be ready. There is a sense of urgency on the managers'side. It turnsout that one of the five necessary pairs is not scheduled to be fixed until Thursday (the interaction is taking place on Monday). While Dick keeps asking if it is really not ready yet, Ishige keeps telling Dick it is on the schedule and there is no delay. The interactionends up taking many turns without developing further.Finally, Ken mentions that the user does not have panels for Wednesday'sproduction,and that is why the managersare in a hurry. The interactiondevelops quickly from there, moving the die modification date forwardto Tuesday,and the case is settled. Because of space limitations, only a short excerpt, the last part, of the incident is shown and analyzed here. Hiki has the least experience with the work among the Japanese supporters and has been in charge of the set of dies in question. Ishige is in a superiorposition in terms of skills and overall responsibility on dies. Throughoutthe interaction, in the middle of the managers and the supportersis Rob from the Die area (but he is not directly involved in this problem). He places himself in between the two sides, not only physically but also in terms of communication.
(3) Discussing die finishing time [From E-4)] (7 seconds) 58 I: schedule, (turns to D, a little smile) (draws a rectangle w/ both hands then makes "bullets"on it with index finger) (looks at I, doesn't get it, looks at R) evidently it's on the sche/ some kinda (looks at 1) (turns to D) + + + (where is) Ken, is it on schedule of running (turnsto K) (looks at 1) that tomorrow? no. oh OK Euro Car (doesn't) have parts for Wednesday Euro Car does not have parts. (turnsto I) (points to the die) + + for Wednesday.(@clearer voice than K) + I don't know. { I ( I (stares at R) (shakes head) I} I Ken says + don't/ no parts Euro Car (points to K) (shakes head) (looks down, turns around,thinking (7 sec)) ashita-no yakin ka ['How about tomorrow'snight-shift?'] (turnsto H, "still wondering"face)
59 60
D: R:
61 62 63 64
K: R: K: R:
65 66
1: R:
67
1:
205
YUKAKO 68 69
SUNAOSHI
H: kanaa ['maybe so']. I: aa ['yeah']. (turns to D) tomorrow:tomorrowsecond shift,
(points to H) K: yeah D: second shift? R: ((meanwhile, looking at 1, paying attention)) I: (xxx) a ohiru madedemoiika ['oh by noon'd be OK'] (turnsto H) 74 H: ohiru made { ) iissu yo ['by noon, it's fine with me'] 75 1: { I tomorrowlunch/ lunch time, (turnsto D & K) finished ('finished') ( ) that would work 76 K: OK= 77 I: =all day (xxx) 78 K: tomorrow, that's good ("thumbup", satisfied expression) 79 D: ( ( 80 I: (1 (1 (steps back) (4 sec) 81 R: is that allright? (turnsto K) 82 I: { )( I 83 D: (OK)= =thank you ("thumbup") 84 K: =yeah very good= They all go back to work in their own areas. 70 71 72 73
Analysis of (3). This example starts after the managers have come to understand that one pair of dies will not be ready for a few days, but being still unsatisfied, they will not let go of the topic. There is a 7-second pause. Then, in an attempt to convey one more time that they are simply following the schedule and thus are not behind, in line 58, Ishige draws a big rectangle in the air with both hands, supposedly a shape of their schedule (see Fig. 6). He makes typographic "bullets" by placing several "dots" in the air with his right index finger. Note that this is the third time Ishige has attempted to tell Dick and Ken that everything is normal. However, from these gestures and Ishige's utterance, schedule, Dick does not understand what Ishige is trying to say. In line 59, Dick looks at Ishige first with a "don't get it" expression, then immediately looks at Rob, who stands in between Dick and Ishige and has been carefully observing their exchange. He has been silently paying attention so far (see Fig. 6) but now comes in to help Dick understand Ishige's intent. Rob understands what Ishige is trying to say, though he himself is not familiar with the content or status of the schedule. He starts explaining in line 60, Evidently it's on the schelsome kinda..., all the while looking alternately at Dick and Ishige (line 61). This shift of gaze shows his simultaneous attention to both sides. Rob's attempted paraphrasing of Ishige's utterance here indicates Rob's accurate as206 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
FIGURE
6: Ishige draws a rectangle with both hands in the air (a sheet of schedule) as he utters "schedule" (Example 3, Line 58; Note that Ken is temporarilyout of the frame)
sessment of Ishige's Low English. Also, what makes Rob intervene and help right here in this manneris Knowledge and Time Together.He then turnsto Ken, who he believes is familiar with the schedule, and asks Is it on schedule of running that tomorrow?Ken, who has also been more or less a bystanderup to now, replies no and, in line 63, finally gives the reason why they have been so eager to have the dies for production:Euro Car doesn't have parts for Wednesday. Euro Car is the user to whom they shipped their panels. As a supplier,JDC's prioritywas to satisfy the user, and this was sharedand understoodby everyone in the plant (Knowledge and Goals). Ken is facing Dick while utteringline 63, to which Rob pays attention by looking at Ken. However, Ishige is looking away and Hiki looking down. Rob immediately turnsto Ishige and repeats Ken's statement with a few modifications in line 64. Ken's utterance sounded "normal"that is, without any notable adjustmentsfor Ishige, which led to Rob's utterance. He untruncatesthe auxiliary negative doesn't to does not, accompanies visual informationby pointing to the die, and producesthe entire utterancewith clearer pronunciationand clearer pausing between words. However, Ishige responds inappropriatelyin line 65; he first stares at Rob, then says I don't know, which shows his misunderstanding.Rob first quietly nods along with Ishige, then immediately simplifies his utterance. His calm reaction and subsequent swift accommodationby paraphrasing suggests thathe is used to this type of initial failure in comprehension, after which he is instantaneously ready to try again (Low English and Time Together).He says, Ken says don't/no parts Euro Car. On top
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
of simplifying, he topicalizes no parts. He uses his pointinggestureto clarify the source of the utterance,Ken, and then self-repairsand changes the utteranceto the simple no parts Euro Car, as he shakes his head, which doubly conveys the meaning of negation. Interestingly,plant manager Ken was one of the most competentAmericans in terms of comprehendingthe Japaneselimited English and using similar utterances with them. Nevertheless, in this interaction,he leaves the talking to Dick and the mediatorjob entirely to Rob, and he does not take responsibility for clarifying for Ishige and Hiki. As this was a matterbetween the Die and Press areas, it was probablythe case that Ken left most of the interactionup to Dick, who is in charge of the Press area. Right after Rob's modified utterancein line 66, Ishige looks down and thinks for 7 seconds. Interestingly,without getting verbalconfirmationor acknowledgment from Ishige, Rob seems to know that Ishige understandsit this time. Rob attemptsno more clarificationand waits. Finally, Ishige turnsto Hiki and with a "still wondering"expression, asks him ashita no yakin ka 'how about tomorrow's night shift', suggesting a possible change to tomorrow's(Tuesday's) night shift (line 67). This utteranceconfirms Ishige's understandingof Rob's utterance in line 66. In the entire interactionHiki never talks directly with anyone except Ishige, and Ishige translatesand negotiates on his behalf. Note, however, that Hiki responds kanaa 'maybe so' in line 68 without asking the content of Ken and Rob's utterance.This suggests that Hiki is capable of understanding what Rob (or even Ken) has said; yet he allows Ishige to be the go-between during the entire interaction.This is understandableconsidering that Ishige's English is betteroverall, and he has more decision-makingauthorityin die modification than Hiki has. In line 69, after confirming the revised plan with Hiki by saying aa 'yeah', Ishige tells Dick and Ken that they can do it during tomorrow'ssecond (night) shift, saying tomorrow second shift while his pointing at Hiki indicates the action's subject. In response, both Ken (line 70) and Dick (line 71) sound hopeful and await confirmation. Ishige quickly rethinks in line 73, saying to Hiki that they can probablydo the job tomorrowmorning. Once he realizes that the source of the problem is the user, he quickly reacts and modifies the die modification schedule, which indicates all the members' shared Goals. Hiki agrees with the change, without arguing, in line 74. In line 75, Ishige looks at both Dick and Ken and says the dies will be fixed by tomorrownoon. His utterance is truncatedbut sufficiently conveys necessary information.First he secures his interlocutors,Dick and Ken, with his gaze, and then he utters the newly proposed time: tomorrow lunch! lunch time, the crucial piece of information for this incident to settle. Ishige's utterancefinished is accompanied by an iconic gesture, where he quickly moves and stops his downward-facingright palm. This fast turn of the direction of the conversation quickly solves both sides'
208
inSociety 34:2(2005) Language
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
frustrationand needs. Of course, what kind of schedule change would be possible, preferred,and necessary in a case of emergency has been shared by all parties present (Knowledge and Goals) as backgroundinformationor common sense. In response to Ishige's confirmationthatthe die will be finished by tomorrow noon, Ken immediatelygives positive feedbackin line 76 - OK,that wouldworkand then in 78, tomorrow,that's good. Dick nods in line 79, thereby indicating that this long negotiation of the die finishing time has finally reached a satisfactory result. Ishige nods simultaneouslywith Dick in line 80, followed by a pause. After that, there is silence for 4 seconds, during which time Ishige walks away a few steps. The pause and stepping away function as pre-pre-closing.Then Rob, who has been listening, asks Ken and Dick Is it all right? to make sure that they are satisfied now. This pre-closing by Rob, the mediator,leads to the closing in lines 83 and 84, Ken and Dick's positive acknowledgment and expression of gratitude,and all leave to go back to their work areas immediately after that (see the next section for more analysis). As seen, the two mediators,Ishige and Rob, played importantroles for effective communicationin this interaction. Thatis, perhapsthe comrnunication would have survivedwithout them, but the mediatorsdefinitely contributedto the more efficient outcome of the interaction.In the case of Ishige, he constantly played the role of a spokesperson for Hiki, as Ishige excelled Hiki both linguistically and technically. Rob's job, on the other hand, was not to interpret.Instead,when a misunderstanding occurredor the interactionalflow was impeded, he came in and helped reestablish communication. Toward the end of the interaction, he helped the other participantsreach closing by checking if the managers were satisfied, as well as offering a pre-closing. In essence, the mediatorswere able to fill the linguistic, pragmatic,and technical gaps between the Japaneseand American sides in a given interaction.
In the light of the nine factors, I observe that the mediatoris a manifestation of the two sides' willingness and determinationto come closer for effective communication. That is, the participantswere principally motivated by Contextual Factors, where the backgroundpower dynamics have been predeterminedby Historical Factors; that is, the language to use is English, and production depends on the supporters'work. Negotiating contextualizationcues: Topicshift and requestfor clarification. In the Gumperzianmismatchmodel, it is assumed that native speakerscan never get away from theiroriginalcontextualizationcues, no matterhow fluent they are (or maybe such adaptationshave not been a focus of research).This assumption underestimatesthe agent's ability to learn and change over time (see Shea 1994 on mediatedcontextualizationcues in the presence of cooperative native speakers). Despite the very differentcommunicativenormsthey originally broughtin,
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
instanceswere observedwhere some of theAmericanworkersin the Die andPress areasadoptedsome of the Japanesecontextualizationcues when necessary:when giving a cue for a topic shift, and when requestingclarification. According to Yamada1992, 1997, Japaneseand Americans typically use different strategies when ending the topic underdiscussion and/or wanting to shift to another.Based on her tape-recordeddata of business meetings among Japanese and among Americans, she found that the Americans used explicit verbal closures such as That'sall, That'sit in orderto marka topic ending or shifting. In contrast,the Japaneseused long pauses in order to signal their topic shifts. Further, the pause was sharedby all the participants,the co-creatorsof the flow of the conversation.An example follows (the dialogue was originally in Japanese, and below is Yamada'sEnglish translation): Ikeda: Because in Japanit's a week at the most Shimizu:Mhm, it's a week (8.2 sec. pause) Tanaka:This talk is completely differentbut,'0 next time there is again going to be a regional meeting aroundAugust (1997: 76-77) In interactions among the Japaneseat JDC, similarlong pauses were observed. The following example demonstrateshow Rob participatedin co-constructing pauses as a signal to shift topics. It is shown in lines 78-85 at the end of (3). Not only did he mediate the content of the two sides' claims, but he also mediated different contextualization cues at the end of the interaction. When Ken gives positive evaluation (line 78) and Dick nods (line 79), Ishige's synchronized nods with these turnsare a closing signal at least for Ishige; after attempting (most likely) to supply additional information on the newly proposed schedule (line 77), he has not added information or responded to Ken and Dick's positive reactions. Rather, he simply nodded and now stays silent; in addition, he steps away from the interactionalcircle. All of these actions indicate that he is ready to end this topic. After a pause of 4 seconds, in line 81, Rob, who has been looking at Ishige and Hiki, turns to Ken and Dick and asks Is it all right? as an explicit query to check if the topic is ready to be closed. Dick and Ken immediately respond by thankingIshige and Hiki in lines 83 and 84, which closes the whole interaction. Ishige and Hiki give no more verbal responses, but they are likewise satisfied. They all start walking to where they work. This final sequence points to the fact that Rob appropriatelyinterpretedand participatedin the 4-second pause as a signal of topic shift from the supporters' side. Given his frequent contacts with the Japanese in the Die area and his regularrole as a mediator,it is understandable he had acquiredthis knowledge (though it might not be conscious). Nevertheless, it is an interestingphe210
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
nomenon because, although the language they used was English, not only did the Japanese continue to use their contextualization cue of topic shift pauses, but also Rob adapted to the Japanese way of using pauses when necessary. When he was placed in the middle as a mediator,he contributedto the smooth ending by accommodating to both sides. That is, he was able to recognize the silence as a closing signal from the Japanese participants'point of view, and he translatedit for the Americanmanagersand initiateda pre-closing, which explicitly asked the managers to give an assessment of the outcome of the negotiation. The second contextualizationcue to be examined is a common way for the Japaneseto seek clarification.The Japaneseparticipantsfrequentlyused the gesture of puttingtheir ear (the one closer to the interlocutor)forwardtogetherwith an "I don't get it" expression, either without any verbal cue or with a minimal utterancesuch as a? or e? An example is shown below.
(4) Hardto get running[Excerptfrom E-1)-iv)] 22 M: this job is hardto get running? ("running"with right hand) 23 T: (keeps paying attention) 24 M: this job + this job, hardto get running? ("rolling"with hand) 25 T: (puts his ear closer to M)
The interactantsare Tsuchida,the vendor of press machines, and Max, a worker in Press area. In line 22, Max's original message is conveyed: thisjob is hard to get running, referring to the trouble press machines are having these days. Tsuchida does not respond verbally or nonverbally, and simply keeps paying attentionto Max (line 23), which signals Tsuchida'snoncomprehension.In line his original message by repeatingthe subject thisjob, omit24, Max paraphrases ting the copula is, and emphasizing the utteranceby speaking more loudly. To this second attemptby Max, Tsuchidaresponds by moving his left ear towards Max, indicatinghis nonunderstanding and requestingclarification.This reaction by Tsuchida shown in line 25 is an instance of the "ear-forward" gesture as a clarification request in Japanese.As predicted by Gumperz,Tsuchida used this familiar contextualizationcue even in an interactionin English. From my native intuition, I can say that this is one of the most common ways for Japanese speakers to ask for clarification. On the other hand, giving an explicit verbalcue such as Pardon? or What'sthat? is a common way of asking for clarification in American English. Occasionally, however, Americans - especially those who had regular contacts with the Japanese - used the gesture of putting an ear forward. An example is shown in an earlier segment from E-4) "Discussing die finishing time." The excerpt is shown in (5) below, where Dick tries to understandwhat Ishige is talking about.
211
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
Prior to line 32, Dick asked the supportersIshige and Hiki if the dies would be ready for tomorrow's(Tuesday's) production.Ishige then relayed Hiki's negative response. In line 32, Hiki confirms with Ishige in Japanesethat the dies in question are scheduled to be fixed on Thursday.On this Ishige agrees in Japanese in line 33. He then immediately turns to Dick, switches to English, and attemptsto convey the message by "spelling out":he says, Tuesday,Wednesday. This spelling out by Ishige must be partly due to his awarenessthat at this point Dick does not seem to understand the currentschedule of die modification.However, Dick does not understandwhat Ishige is trying to convey, so in line 34, without any verbal cue, he moves his right ear (and his whole body) toward Ishige. In response to this, using the same spell-out strategybut more thoroughly by starting from today (Monday) up to the scheduled day (Thursday), Ishige clarifies his previous utterance.Although the interactiontook place in English, Dick, who had regularcontactwith supporters, used a Japanesecue for nonunderstandingand clarificationrequest.
(5) When will the dies be ready? [From E-4]J 32 H: (to I) are yotei dewa mokuyou ja nainsuka[isn't that one scheduled for Thursday] he says 33 I: naa naa ['right right'] (looks at D) (Tuesday) Wednesday (counting days with fingers) 34 D: (approaches I, putting his ear forward) 35 I: Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,+ + Thursday. (counting days with fingers) he says Thursday. (points to H) (points to the die)
The two instances of Ameficans' use of Japanese contextualizationcues in English can be seen as a manifestationof several Historicaland Contextualfactors. The backgroundcondition was determinedthroughcompeting factors:Nationality and Vitality on the one hand, and Hierarchyand Skills on the other.The former pair grants American workers more interactionalpower, and the latter pairgrantsJapaneseworkersmore.ContextualFactorscontribute to the two sides' collaborativeattitude.The end result is, as shown, that the dominantlanguage is still English, but some leakage (adaptation)of contextualizationcues from the minority language to the majoritylanguage took place.
C O N C L U S Io N
This article first called attention to the necessity of examining the historical context of participantsin order to make sense of their interactionin the interculturalcontext. I proposed five Historical Factors and four ContextualFactors that shaped the blueprint of communication between the American and Japanese workers. Next, I examined exactly how communicationwas managed on
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
the production floor by focusing on five examples, each of which elucidated different aspects of communicative strategies the interlocutors employed. In sum, the interlocutors in the first segment demonstrated nonlinear, dynamic utilization of available communicative resources, especially a physical object, gaze, and body positions. Analysis of the second segment revealed how "mostly relying on nonverbalresources"becomes possible, and determiningwhat made it possible can be elusive. I believe, however, that it was mainly a function of both Time Together and the linguistic limitation. Use of interactional mediators was ultimately about relying on sociolinguistically and technically more skillful participants, and about efficiently utilizing abilities for the common good. Finally,Americans'adaptationof some of Japanesecontextualizationcues reveals that even the supposedly obstinateelement of one's sociolinguistic competence is a potential communicative resource to enhance interculturalcommunication. These American participants showed in action that they indeed understoodthe importance and significance of the correct use of such communicative norms. It is tempting to automatically focus on our "national characteristics" when examining "intercultural" communication. However, ultimately we should not forget that "intercultural"communication is another instance of human interaction, in which all relevant influencing factors as well as the interaction itself must be carefully examined. The participants in this study have taught us that it may be we, the researchers, who tend to be trapped in intellectualized notions of how "We" and "They" speak. Through everyday workplace interaction, the participants dynamically demonstrated to us that speakers are not innocent victims of sociolinguistic and cultural conditioning. Rather, given sufficient motivation and appropriatecontext, participants are capable of continuously co-creating and assigning new meanings to available communicative resources in and around them (cf. Goodwin et al. 2002). Finally, I end this article with a word of caution. Although I focused on the collaborative side of the American and Japaneseworkers in this article, the use of English itself - as is always the case for a minority - was a more complex issue for the Japanesethan for the Americans. For the Americans, it was mostly a matterof increasing their tolerance, motivated by practical necessity, power dynamics, and goodwill. For the Japanese, however, more had to be considered. First, using English meant acquiring (however little it might be) a typologically very different language from their mother tongue, especially when most of the supporters were not academically inclined. What this implies is that a significant level of investment was requiredin acquiringthe language in additionto performingtheir demandingwork. Second, in the U.S. context, their communicative proficiency did not determine but definitely influenced their performance and outcome. Proficiency also possibly helped their authorityLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005)
213
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
building. Third, each supporter had to determine how much value he would place on the cultural capital called English. Some were geared toward their local living and working environmentback in Japan,where English simply did not add much convenience or prestige to their social position. Others,by being exposed to the forefront of globalization, gained a consciousness that English is a valuable internationalcurrency.In short, interlocutorsconstantly learn and change in the complex process of meaning-makingand recurringinteractions with each other. Through this article, I hope to have contributed to lessening a negative byproduct of interculturalcommunication research: inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes, which leads to further separation. Instead, the diversity and the uniqueness of human interaction,be it "intercultural" or not (though ultimately every interactionis), is to be celebrated and respected as an opportunityfor us to come closer to one another.
APPENDIX I
AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS INTERVIEWEES Location (N/S)' S N
Pseudonym Alex Ben
Position2 Maintenance(A) Assistant manager (A)(F) Machine shop (A) Supporter(J) Facilitator(A) Manager(A) (F) Manager(J)(F)
Assignment3 8 months 6-7 years
Formof interview4 30 min (indiv.) 2 hrs (multi) 1 hr (multi) Lunch (multi) memo I hr (lndiv.) 1 hr (multi) 30 min (indiv., memo) (RE) 90 min (indiv.) I hr (multi) Lunch (multi) memo memo memo, (RE)
N-S N N N-4S N
Bill Inui Jack Ken Miyata
9 years S ('world traveller') 8 years 11 years 5 years (P)
S S S
Stu Tomita Tsuchida
Quality control (A) Supporter(J) Vendor(J)
8 months 8 months (L) 6 months
'Whetherthe person is based in the north plant (N) or the south plant (S). N-4S = relocated to the south plant when it opened eight months previously. N+-*S= usually based in the north plant but is currentlyon a 1-2 week short-termassignment to assist the south plant's start-up. 2J=Japanese; A=American. F denotes the one currentlyin a managerialposition entered the company as a floor worker. 3The length of time already spent in JDC's US plant(s). All are full-time employees. L = on a longS = on a term assignmentof 4-5 years. P = the assignment in the U.S. has become semi-permanent. short-termassignment of 1-6 months. 4Indiv = one-on-one interview; multi = multi-party interview; memo = the interview was conducted in a form of a chat and a note was taken on Post-it pads; RE = the person also took part in video-recordedinteractions.
214
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
APPENDIX
CONTENTS OF THE SETTINGS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS Setting # and Title C-I) More grinder wheels Interlocutorsand Location Hashidaand Rob in Die area Summaryof the content They are runningout of grind wheels. Hashidaand Rob are discussing to push Okano instead of Glen to have the wheels delivered more quickly. The Press machines still need a lot of work. Max tells Tsuchidathe problem they just had. Ken and Dick want certain dies for stamping tomorrowand want to check the schedule with Hiki and Ishige. After a long interactionamong them, they finally reach an agreement,understandingthe pressurefrom the user. Keith is polishing a die part. He draws attentionfrom Ishige to the area of concern.
E-1)-iv) Panel Split
Max and Tsuchidain Press area Ishige, Hiki, Rob, Ken, and Dick in Die area
E-4) Discussing die finishing time
E-5) Pin hole
Keith and Ishige in Die area
APPENDIX
Transcription conventions
A: he said A's utteranceoccurs simultaneously with his gesture (points to H) 'pointing to H'. A: yeah Simultaneousutteranceby A and B B: what 'Press') Gesture indicating a particularstage of production.In case of 'Press', e.g., workerscommonly pushed a hand downward. +, + +, +++ Short, medium, and long pauses cannot Stress on underlinedwords Head nod I Simultaneous occurrenceof a head nod and utterance right) Inaudiblepartsof utterance (xxx) Inaudibleparts of utterancewith the transcriber'sbest guess (can) today. Falling intonation today? Rising intonation but: Elongated sound A: aaa= Indicates where the channels are simultaneously allocated to B: = bbb speakersA and B Aa ['yeah'] Use of Japanese and its English gloss
NOTES
* I thank all the study participantsat JapanDie Company,who spent their precious time for my research.I am indebtedto Miyako Inoue, Elizabeth Keating, Keith Walters,and Tony Woodburyfor providing me with useful comments, insights, and encouragement,and Ellen Nakamurafor proofreading the text. Thanks also to the School of Asian Studies at the University of Auckland, New Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
215
YUKAKO
SUNAOSHI
Zealand, for supportingmy writing of this article. Earlierversions of this projectwere presentedat StanfordUniversity, Nagoya University, and RitsumeikanAsia Pacific University,and I appreciate the audiences' valuable feedback. 1 All the individual and organizationnames appearingin this article are pseudonyms. 2 The workersat JDC had long hours. In addition, in pilot interviews, it turnedout that sitting at a table with a tape recorderwas too artificial and formal for them to talk spontaneously.Thus, with a numberof workers, I joined their 10-minute break, when many of them smoked a cigarette outside the plant. Casually asking questions and taking notes worked well. 3In contrast, a numberof supporterstold me that when they had gone on assignments in Asia, they found locals eagerly learning Japanese, which placed them in an advantageousposition in the company, freeing them from learningthe local languages. 4 Although more exposure does not automaticallyguaranteehigher competence, coupled with their tendency to be inclined to academic achievement,universitygraduateswould normallyhave at least bettergrammaticalknowledge of English. This was definitely the case amongJapaneseemployees at JDC. s See Sunaoshi 1999 for moredetailed discussion of complicationsand challenges thatthe workers faced. 6 The north plant had a history of 12 years, long enough to train some American workers well enough to be supporters.Some of them regularlycame to the south plant for assistance. 7This observation is partly based on my own experience in the U.S. That is, when I was less fluent, conveying my intent was sufficient and acceptable to my local interlocutors.However, as my English improved, I had to pay more attentionto being pragmaticallyappropriate. 8This motto seems to prevailin the JDC workers'overall attitudes,beyondjust English-language issues. 9 Five pairs of dies (where each pairconsists of upperand lower dies) are necessaryto stampone part, e.g. a right reardoor. '0 Here, Tanaka'sphrase This talk is completely differentbut can also be regardeda topic shift. is thatYamadaonly paid attentionto closures of the previous topic (the However, my understanding first of the two topics involved) as topic shift markers.
REFERENCES UniversityPress. Bourdieu,Pierre.(1991). Languageand symbolicpower. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Bremer, Katharina;Roberts, Celia; Vasseur,Marie-Therese;Simonot, Margaret;& Broader,Peter (1996). Achieving understanding:Discourse in interculturalencounters. London:Longman. Clyne, Michael G. (1994). Inter-culturalcommunicationat work:Culturalvalues in discourse. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Day, Dennis (1994). Tang's dilemma and other problems:Ethnificationprocesses at some multiculturalworkplaces. Pragmatics 4:315-36. Dornyei, Zoltdn, & Scott, Mary Lee (1997). Communicationstrategies in a second language:Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning47:173-2 10. Goldstein,Tara(1996). Twolanguages at work:Bilingual life on theproductionfloor.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Goodwin, Charles (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.Journal of Pragmatics 32:1489-1522. ,Goodwin, MarjorieH.; & Olsher, David (2002). Producingsense with nonsense syllables: Turn and sequence in conversations with a man with severe aphasia. In Cecilia E. Ford et al. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 56-80. New York:Oxford University Press. Gumperz,John (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. (1992a). Contextualizationand understanding.In Alessandro Duranti& Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinkingcontext: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229-52. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. situations. In Paul Drew & John Heritage(eds.), Talk (1992b). Interviewingin intercultural at work: Interactionin institutionalsettings, 302-27. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. , & Roberts, Celia (1991). Understandingin intercultural encounters. In Jef Verschueren& Jan Blommaert(eds.), Thepragmatics of interculturaland internationalcommunication:Selected 216 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)
HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
& INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
papers of the InternationalPragmatics Conference,Antwerp,August 17-22, 1987 (Volume3), and the Ghent Symposiumon interculturalcommunication, 1-12. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Hatch,Evelyn M. (1983). Psycholinguistics:A second languageperspective.Rowley: NewburyPress. Kasuya, Keisuke (2000). Gengo hegemonii: "jihatsuteki doui" o soshiki suru kenryoku [Linguistic hegemony: Power that sets up "voluntaryagreement"]. In Nobutaka Miura & Keisuke Kasuya (eds.), Gengo teikokushugi towa nanika [What is linguistic imperialism?], 275-92. Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten. Lukacs, Georg (1971). History and class consciousness. Merlin Press. Meewis, M. (1994). Leniency and testiness in interculturalcommunication: Remarks on ideology and context in interculturalsociolinguistics. Pragmatics 4:391-408. Miller, Laura(1994). Japaneseand Americanindirectness.Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 5:37-55. (1995). Two aspects of Japanese and American co-worker interaction:Giving instructions and creating rapport.Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences 31:141-61. Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic imperialism.Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2000). English linguistic imperialism,past and present. In NobutakaMiura& Keisuke Kasuya (eds.), Gengo teikokushugi towa nanika [What is linguistic imperialism?], 95-110. Tokyo: FujiwaraShoten. Roberts, Celia; Davies, Evelyn; & Jupp,Tom (1992). Language and discrimination:A study of communication in multiethnicworkplaces. London: Longman. communication. Scollon, Ronald,& Scollon, SuzanneW. (1995). Intercultural Cambridge:Blackwell. Shea, David P. (1994). Perspective and production:Structuringconversationalparticipationacross culturalborders.Pragmatics 4:357-89. Shi-xu (1994). Discourse attributionsand cross-culturalcommunication.Pragmatics 4: 337-55. Smith, S. W.; Scholnick, N.; Crutcher,A.; Simeone, M.; & Smith, W. R. (1991). Foreigner talk revisited: Limits on accommodationto nonfluent speakers. In Jef Verschueren& Jan Blommaert (eds.), Thepragmatics of interculturaland internationalcommunication, 1-12. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Sunaoshi, Yukako(1999). Collaborationon reachingunderstanding: Interactionsand negotiations in Japanesemanufacturingplants in the US. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. (2000). Gesture as a situated communicative strategy at a Japanese manufacturingplant in the US. Ninchi Kagaku[Cognitive Science] March:78-85. (2002). Ibunkakankomyunikeeshon ni jesuchaa ga hatasu yakuwari:aru nikkee koojoo ni okeru nichibeejuugyoo-in kan deno ishisotsuu no jiree [Roles of gesture in cross-culturalcommunication: A case study of interactions between Japanese and American workers in a Japaneseowned plant]. In Hirofumi Saito & Sotaro Kita (eds.), Jesuchaa, kooi, imi [Gesture, action, and meaning], 160-82. Tokyo: Kyoritsu. (2004). "This is what we have in common":Use of humorbetween Japaneseand American factory workers. In Wai Fong Chiang et al. (eds.), Proceedings of SALSAXI (the j lth Symposium About Language and Society-Austin). (http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/salsaproceedings/ salsal /salsal lcontents.htm) Accessed 20 September,2004. Tsuda,Yukio (2002). "Eigo = Kokusaikyoutsuugo"e no gimon: Eigo shihai no mondaitento kotoba no ecorogii [Question on "English = internationalcommon language":Problemsof English domination and language ecology]. In Yukio Tsuda & Hisao Sekine (eds.), Guroobarukomyunikeeshon ron: Tairitsukara taiwa e [Global communicationtheory:from conflict to dialogue], 45-60. Kyoto: NakanishiyaShuppan. Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communitiesof practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Yamada,Haru (1992). American and Japanese business discourse: A comparison of interactional styles. Norwood: Ablex. (1997). Differentgames, differentrules: WhyAmericans and Japanese misunderstandeach other. New York:Oxford University Press. (Received 31 March2003; accepted 9 September2003; final revision received 28 September2004)
217

Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions Between Japanese and American Factory Workers in The American South

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions Between Japanese and American Factory Workers in The American South

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions between Japanese and American Factory Workers in the American South

Historical Factors [Positioning two parties vertically]

Contextual Factors [Bringing the two parties closer]

Positioning of interlocutorsin the interaction"Discussing die finishing time"

Language in Society 34:2 (2005)

H: kanaa ['maybe so']. I: aa ['yeah']. (turns to D) tomorrow:tomorrowsecond shift,

inSociety 34:2(2005) Language

AND THEIR DESCRIPTIONS INTERVIEWEES Location (N/S)' S N

Pseudonym Alex Ben

Assignment3 8 months 6-7 years

Bill Inui Jack Ken Miyata

9 years S ('world traveller') 8 years 11 years 5 years (P)

Stu Tomita Tsuchida

Quality control (A) Supporter(J) Vendor(J)

8 months 8 months (L) 6 months

Language in Society 34:2 (2005)

E-1)-iv) Panel Split

E-4) Discussing die finishing time

E-5) Pin hole

Keith and Ishige in Die area

Language in Society 34:2 (2005)

Potrebbero piacerti anche