Are differences in discourse patterns relevant for the participants of interactions in English as a lingua franca?

• Authors: Agnieszka Nowicka

Abstracts

EN

Intercultural differences in discourse patterns have been considered the most important cause of communication problems. It is less certain if these differences are relevant for talk participants in handling communication problems in intercultural interactions. The aim of the case study presented in this paper is observing if talk participants orient to intercultural differences in discourse patterns and what knowledge of these differences they have. I use ethnomethodological approach in analyzing the interaction of Polish students with their Chinese interlocutor. The interactions is an interview conducted in English as a lingua franca. I also conduct an ethnographic interview with the Polish speakers to study their knowledge concerning communication problems which appeared in their interactions with the Chinese speaker. Analyzing the ethnographic interview as interaction, I focus on the content co-construed by the interview participants.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Investigationes Linguisticae
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 40
• Pages: 12-24

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Agnieszka Nowicka

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza

References

• Garfinkel, Harold. 1967 (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Malden, Mass: Polity/Blackwell Publishing.
• Gumperz, John J. 2005. “Interethnic communication”, in: Scott F. Kielsing and Chrisitina Bratt Paulston (eds.), 2005. Intercultural Discourse and Communication. The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 33–44.
• Dorodnych, Anatolij. and Anna Kuzio. 2012. “The role of cultural scripts and contextualization cues in intercultural (mis)communication”, in: Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky (ed.), Intercultural Miscommunication past and present. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 77-99.
• Firth, Alan. 1996. “The discursiveness accomplishment of ‘normality’: On conversation analysis and ‘lingua franca”, Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237-259.
• Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction”, in: Gene H. Lerner (ed.). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–23.
• Kiesling, Scott F. and Chrisitina Bratt Paulston (eds.). 2005. The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication. The Essential Readings. Boston: Blackwell.
• Sarangi, Srikant. 2004. “Institutional, Professional, and Lifeworld Frames in Interview Talk” in: Harry van den Berg, Margaret Wetherell, and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing Race Talk. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview. New York: Cambridge University Press, 64–84.
• Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication: a Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. “Whose text? Whose context?”, Discourse and Society 8, 2: 165–187.
• Wetherell, Margaret. 2003. “Racism and the analysis of cultural resources in interviews”, in: Van den Berg, Harry, Margaret Wetherell and Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.). Analyzing Race Talk. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Research Interview. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Widdicombe, Sue. 2015. “‘Just like the fact that I'm Syrian like you are Scottish’: Ascribing interviewer identities as a resource in cross-cultural interaction”, British Journal of Social Psychology 54: 255-272.
• Wilczyńska, Weronika, Libuse Liskova, Sigurbjörg Eðvarðsdottir and Hermine Speitz. 2004. “Hospitality in intercultural training”, in: Geneviève Zarate, Aline Gohard-Radenkovic, Denise Lussier and Hermine Penz. (eds.), Cultural Mediation in Language Learning and Teaching. Strasbourg, Cedex: Council of Europe Publishing, 133–152.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/il.2018.40.2

Biblioteka Nauki

1036482