Pragmatics4:3.409 -427 InternationalPraematics Association

INTERCULTURAL OR NOT? BEYONDCELEBRATION OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCESIN MTSCOMMUNTCATIONANALYSTS1

SrikantSaransi

1. Introduction

The basicquestion this paper addressesis: What shouldbe the underlyingpurpose of interculturalanalysis? Is the purpose to explain conversationalmismatches in termsof cultural differencesin an abstractedway? Or is the purpose to make an attempt to understand the complex institutionalprocesses in which the shifting 'culture' natureof is embedded?As the main title suggests,I primarily addressthese issuesby focusing on what characterisesintercultural communication as '(not) intercultural'.The subtitle-'celebration of culturaldifferences in miscommunication analysis'- appliesto two aspectsof interculturalanalysis: (i) how 'culture' is used asan analyticconstruct to studymiscommunication, and (ii) how certainresearchers 'analytic indulge in the stereotyping' of intercultural encounters as mainly characterisedby the cultural differencespresent.2 The first part of this paper (comprisingsection 2) offers a by no means exhaustivecritical review of two specific types of intercultural communication analysis,i.e., one that can be situatedwithin culturalanthropology and anotherwith a more sociolinguisticand pragmaticorientation. By pointing at a dominant trend 'thematisation of of cultural differences',I offer a critiqueof an essentialistview of 'culture' in these Vpes of intercultural analysis,thus extendinga position taken earlier(Roberts & Sarangi1993). The secondpart of the paper (comprisingsections 3, 4, and 5) startswith a call for a discourseorientation to the analyticconcept of 'culture', which is followed by an analysisof situated intercultural data in the gatekeepingsituation of selectioninterviews. This leadsme to revisit the notion of 'interculturality' from a cultural-theoreticperspective, with particular referenceto migrants'experience in contemporarymulticultural societies.

' A condensedversion of this paper was first presentedat the fourth International Pragmatics 'Beyond Conference,Kobe, July 1993, under the title celebration of miscommunication: critical perspectiveson intercultural communication'. I am very thankful to Jan Blommaert, Michael Meeuwis,and Stef Slembrouck for their suggestionson an earlier draft.

r 'analytic Elsewhere (Sarangi lgg}) lelaborate this notion of stereotyping'with reference to the study of native-nonnative discourse, where misunderstandings are explained by appealing to the linguistic deficiency on the part of the nonnative speakers. 4I0 Sikant Sarangi

2. Miscommunication and culture as representedin two traditions

2.I. Intercultural analysisIrom a cultural-anthropologicalperspective

'Intercultural communication' is the preferred term among some cultural anthropologiststo describethe study of interaction- generallyin the face-to-face informal setting- betweenindividuals representing ditferent 'cultures' (e.g., Asante & Gudykunst 1989;Brislin 1981;Casmir 1978;Condon & Yousef 1975;Gudykunst 1983,1997; Gudykunst & Kim 7984,1988;Prosser 1978a,1978b; Samovar & Porter 1997; Samovar et al. 1981). Asante et al. (1979) divide this tradition into two categories on the basis of the preferred research goals. The first group of researchers,whom they label 'cultural dialogists',emphasise the need to develop a humanisticview of communicationtheory and practicethat would promote world understanding.The secondschool, referred to as'culturalcriticism', is guidedby the principle of conflict and tries to identify points of conflict between individual culturesas researchableissues. These two schools,in my view, are not exclusiveto one another as both of them share an interest in the study of 'differencesacross cultures'. Although these studies acknowledge the role of language in the manifestation of cultural differences,the underlyingassumption is that cultural problemsare more significantthan linguisticproblems. As Prosser(1978a: 102) maintains:

"Actually, though the individual languageand culture are tightly linked, and therefore do cause important barriers for intercultural communication and for cultural spokespersons, the language problems may be less severe than other cultural barriers; for example, perceptions,attitudes, stereotypes, prejudices, beliefs, values, and thought-patterning itself."

This view suggests,on the one hand, that there is a link between culture and 'language' languagein a Whorfian sense,but on the other hand, that is to be kept analyticallyseparate from'culture'. These two assumptionsamount to sayingthat languageis contained within and reducible to culture, thus denying languageits reality-constructingrole (as will also be made clear in section3.1). Moreover, individual'cultures'areseen as unified and homogeneousentities, and, by extension,communicative difficulties are invariablyexplained in terms of cross-culturaldifferences. By equating'culture'with thoughts,feelings, values, and beliefs of individuals,and by assumingthat it existsin the headsof individuals,this notion of culture missesthe dynamicsof sociallife. According to Wuthnow et al. (1984:4), in this tradition of analysis,'culture' comes to be treated as the least observablecategory of non-behaviour:

"Culture is that residual realm left over after all forms of observable human behaviour have been removed. It consists of the inner, invisible thought life of human beings either as individuals or in some difficult-to-imagine collective sense, as in notions of 'collective 'intersubjective purpose', 'shared values',and realities'.What people actually do, how they behave, the institutions they construct [...] however,are not a part of culture."

This tradition can thus be said to neglectthe complexand multi-layered'cultural' outlook of individual interacting participants.Also, with its heavy reliance on examplesdrawn from hypotheticalcontact situations, it can offer very little insight Intercultural or not? 4Il

into what reallygoes on in the contextof situateddiscourse. Although thesestudies claimto be concernedwith interactionsat the situatedlevel, they themselvesrather run the risk of giving rise to cultural stereotypesby overlooking individual differences and other situational variables surrounding the intercultural communicationevent. In other words,in thesestudies the individualparticipants are consideredto representtheir respective'cultures' and thus ceaseto be individuals in their own right.3Consequently, while the analysisof the intercultural event is made on a collectivescale, the creation of a hypotheticalindividual is a means towardarriving at generalisationsabout 'cultures'.

2.2.Intercultural analysisIro* sociolinguisticand pragmatic perspectives

2.2.I. The in t era c t ion aI -s o c i olingtis tic p erspe c tiv e

Works by, among others, Gumperz (1978, 1982); Gumperz & Tannen (1979); Scollon& Scollon (1980, 1983)can be seenas a reactionto the above mentioned cultural-anthropologicaltradition which paysvery little attention to linguisticand interactionaldata. Two of the key assumptionswhich underlie the interactionalist researchtradition are: (i) ethnicity and different cultural backgroundsdetermine speakers'discourse strategies (different ways of speaking, different ways of structuringinformation, etc.); (ii) different discoursestrategies and communicative stylescan lie at the heart of interethnicmisunderstandings. With regard to thesekey assumptions,we notice strongresonances between this tradition and the cultural-anthropologicaltradition reviewedin section2.1, as theycontinue to sharea belief that communicativeproblems can be accountedfor in terms of cultural differences.But unlike the cultural-anthropologicaltradition which hypothesisesabout potential problems on the basis of cross-cultural differences, the interactional-sociolinguistictradition locates communicative problemsin observedlinguistic data. This tradition thus deservescredit for having producedfine-grained analyses of naturallyoccurring intercultural encounters. It is beyondthe scopeof this paper to reviewthe accusationsof ethnocentric analyticbias hauled againstthe Gumperziananalysis of miscommunication.aWhat concerns me more is the way in which this framework overemphasisesthe explanatorypower of 'contextualisationcues' in relation to understanding'culture'. Consider what Gumperz (1992: 5I-52) writes in a recent paper titled 'Contextualisation revisited':

' 'how A related paradox arises, however, as these studies lead to a proliferation of to' literature 'intercultural 'adaptation emphasising adjustment', through awareness' etc. aimed at real-life individuals.

o Singh et al. (1988) and Kandiah (1990) allege that there is a strong ethnocentric bias in the interactional-sociolinguistic tradition. My impression, however, is that these critics' alternative 'cultural 'cultural explanations from the viewpoint of the other' maintain a generic principle' (for a fuller discussion, see Sarangi 1994). 4I2 Srikant Saransi

"The notion of contextualizationhas significantimplications for our understandingof what culture is. Traditionally, anthropologists speak of culture in terms of shared meaning or shared interpretive practices or shared cognitive structures.Our discussion points to the importance of shared typifications that enter into the signaling and use of activity types in interaction, as well as systems of contextualization conventions. In contrast to the established,commonly acceptedidealizations, such interactivelydefined notions of culture can be studied by empirical means [...]."

This view no doubt highlights the importance of framing encounters through 'contextualisation cues' on the one hand, and the fluid nature of social/cultural identity in discoursalsettings on the other. While not denyingthe significantrole contextualisationcues play in the constructionof an interactionalcontext, I envisage insuperable problems in assigning contextualisation cues an overpowering explanatoryvalue when it comesto interpretingparticipants' cultural identitiesin an intercultural encounter.The problem stemsfrom the fact that there is more to 'contextualisation cues'than 'culture'.As Shea(this volume) shows,inferences and contextualisationstrategies are also mediatedby situationaland societalstructures, and this makes it particularlydifficult to isolatethe 'cultural' in contextualisations.

2.2.2. The cross-culturalpragmatic perspective

Staying close to the contrastive-linguistictradition, studiessuch as Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (198a);Brown & Levinson(1987); Blum-Kulka et al. (1989)focus on how normative patterns for linguistic activities contrast across cultures. These cross-culturalcomparisons have been carried out in two ways.First, some authors investigatehow a specific linguistic activity is carried out in culturally different speech communities. Brown & Levinson's (1987) comparative account of how politeness strategies are realised differently_in different languagesis a classic example of this kind of cross-culturalenquiry.5 Secondly, some studieslook at the different realisationsof, for example,a particularspeech act in a secondlanguage by learnerswith different mother tongues.The Cross-CulturalStudy on the Speech Act RealizationPatterns project, as reported by Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1984),is a casein point as it attempts to establishthe similaritiesand differencesbetween native and nonnativerealisation patterns of 'requests'and 'apologies'.The problem is that dealingwith cultural differencesin doingcross-cultural comparisons does not get one nearer to the point of interculturalcontact'. Moreover, such a comparative analysis does not help to explain potential sources of intercultural miscommunication'. Outside the realm of contrastivepragmatics is the work by Thomas (1983), who suggeststhat mismatchesin interculturalsettings can be categorisedas either 'pragmalinguistic'(the inappropriatetransfer of speechact strategiesfrom first to 'sociopragmatic' target language)or (cross-culturallydifferent assessmentsof social parameters affecting linguisticchoice). These categoriesare self-explanatoryand

t It is worth pointing out that 'cross'often presupposesan oppositionaltrend. It asksthe questionas to how-r differsacross cultures, i.e., how r is manifestedin a numberof separatecultures with n numberof differencesand n' numberof similarities. Intercultural or not? 4I3

thereforehelptul, but a pragmaticanalysis of this kind, in much the same way as interactional-sociolinguisticanalyses, takes'culture'for granted, forges a stronglink between'languageuse'and'culture', and therefbrepays little attentionto individual variations.6

2,3. Theburden of 'cultural dffirences' in miscommunicationanalysis

Wittgensteinonce said, when put on an unbalanceddiet of examplesphilosophy suffersfrom deficiencydiseases. This medicalmetaphor can be extendedto describe quiteaptly the deficiencysyndrome in the typesof interculturalresearch reviewed above.The deficiencyI allude to relates to these analysts'preoccupation with diagnosingand treatingmiscommunication among individuals in'cultural' terms.In theremainder of this paper my main concernwill be with what particulargoals this type of analysis of miscommunication serves, and with suggesting possible alternatives. In communicationresearch generally, there seemsto be some agreement amongresearchers that it is through the studyof communicativebreakdown that we understandhow successfulcommunication happens (Gumperz & Tannen 7979; Stubbs1983). lndeed, in a recentvolume titled'Miscommunication and Problematic 'miscommunication' Talk'Couplandet al. (1991:2) undertaketo "rescue from its theoreticaland empirical exile, and explore its rich explanatorypotential in very diversecontexts".' Applied to the context of intercultural miscommunication, however,this heuristic value attached to miscommunicationseems to take on a peculiarshape. Rather than studyingmiscommunication in its own terms or for the undoubtedlyvaluable sake of coming to grips with communicativesuccess, studies 'miscommunication' of the type identified in the previoussubsections use to leify cultural differences. Put very strongly, it is through the occurrence of miscommunicationthat cultural differencesbecome real and take on a life of their 'analytic own.This leadsto what I call stereotyping'of interculturalevents. Analysts operatewith a prior definition of the situationand its participantsas (inter)cultural and subsequentlyplay upon a principle of cultural differencesin accountingfor instancesof miscommunication.oThe risk of circularitv attached to this analvtic

" A possible alternative (suggestedin Sarangi 1994) focuseson lrvinson's (1979) notion of 'activity type' in order to show how the existence of layers of normative rules in gatekeeping situationsmakes communicative breakdowns possible,whether or not participants share the same 'cultural'norms. This implies a shift from 'culturally-determined'discoursestrategies (in the heads 'socio-culturally' 'activity of people) to governed types'.

t For a detailed discussionof several interpretations of the notion 'miscommunication' and its manyvariants, see Coupland et al. I99L.

8 Consider here the analytic basisof intercultural studiescarried out in the workplace setting (for example, Moran & Harris 1991 and Moran & Riesenberger 1994). Unlike in the anthropologically oriented work reviewed, the focus is on the denial of a problem by claiming that cultural differences do not necessarily mean barriers; they can become bridges to understanding and to the enrichment of our lives. By contrast with its metaphorical use in this paper, these workplace studies realise the 'celebration of cultural differences'in a literal way. 4I4 Sikant Sarangi practice should be clear: If we define,prior to analysis,an interculturalcontext in 'cultural' terms of attributes of the participants,then it is very likely that any miscommunicationwhich takesplace in the discourseis identifiedand subsequently 'cultural explainedon the basisof differences'.eThis mode of analysis,which torces an analytic separationbetween languageand culture, also presupposesthat there are clearly demarcatedboundaries which divide one homogeneouscultural group from another. Such a unified, monolithicview of 'culture' goeshand in hand with the thematisationof cultural differences.

3. Rethinking'culture' in multicultural societies

3.1. A discourseorientation to the analytic conceptof 'culture'

The discussionin the foregoingsection makes clear the needfor an orientationthat can overcome the analytic separatenessbetween languageand culture. In this respect Sherzer's(1987) discourse-centredapproach to languageand culture is a very appealingalternative. As he points out, discoursehas to be consideredas the concreteexpression of the language-culturerelationship, because it is discoursethat "creates,recreates, focuses, modifies, and transmitsboth culture and languageand their interaction" (1987: 295).Sherzer's view is able to offer seriousadvantages if applied to analysingintercultural encounters.It allows to move away from the tradition of identifying' miscommunicationat the 'linguistic' level, and then 'explaining'the phenomenonof miscommunicationat the 'cultural' level. Critical discourseanalysis (Fairclough 1985, 1988) seems very apt to offer the toolsfor implementingthe discourse-centredapproach in the contextof intercultural studies. Critical discourse analysis pays adequate attention to the dialectic relationshipsbetween social structuresand linguisticpractices. It holds that discoursehas effectsupon socialstructures, and is at the sametime determinedby them. This has implicationsfor the studyof encountersin multicultural settingsin the sensethat these settirrgsare a typical locus where the micro and the macro levels intersect. Critical discourseanalysis also draws attention to how actual discourse is determined by 'orders of discourse' (Foucault 1984), which are ideologicallyshaped by power relationsin socialinstitutions and societyas a whole. Consider,for instance,any modern westernsociety with its unique history of the migrant phenomenon and the accompanying discourses of 'racism' and 'discrimination' to mark the changing nature of social relationships between members of the minority and majority groups. In the context of intercultural 'racism' analysis,then, one will be able to addressthe questionas to how issueslike and 'discrimination', which are connected to such institutionalisedorders of discourse,can become conversationaltopics in situatedtalk between members of minority and majority groups.For purposesof analysingmy interculturaldata in the institutional setting (see section4), I shall adopt an integratedframework which

' This line of critiquehas also been taken up by Blommaert(1991), and it is similarto what Henley& Kramarae(1991) refer to as the 'two cultures'approach to languageand gender studies. For Henley & Kramarae,such an approachexplains away the inherent power strugglein cross-gendercommunication as'mere' cornmunicative differences. Intercultural or not? 4I5

bringstogether the micro-macroconcerns of criticaldiscourse analysis and Sherzer's view about the language-culturerelationship.

3.2,From \vhat is culture'to \vhat we do with culture'

Nextto overcomingthe culture-languageanalytic separateness and being aware of thesignificance of the structure-agencyrelationships, we are now facedwith tackling 'culture'. an essentialistview of The conceptualisationof culture as people embodyinga unified belief or value systemis increasinglybeing regarded as a myth, sinceit misleadinglyportrays social groups as 'ideationalislands'. Partly fuelled by a sociologicalcritique, there is now a senseof uneasinessamong some contemporary anthropologistsregarding 'what culture is', addressingthe related problem "of whetherthe concepthas any real analyticimportance, and of how to recognisethe existenceand boundariesof distinct cultures"(Drummond 1986:2I5). Clifford & 'culture' Marcus(1986: 19), for instance,point out that cannotbe representedas a "unified corpus of symbols and meaningsthat can be definitely interpreted".l0 Implied here is a critique of the traditional anthropologicalpreoccupation with searchingfor cultural sharednessat the expenseof diversity and contradictions withina given society.Barth's (1989: I22) recentstudy of Bali 'culture',which exposesthe 'multiplicity of partial and interfering patterns', raises fundamental questionsabout the nature of cultural coherence:

"lnstead of trying to make our theories embrace what is there, we are led to picking out some small, distinctive pattern in this confusing scene, and applying our ingenuity to salvaginga (functionalist) holism by constructing(structuralist) isomorphies and inversions of this randomly chosen pattern, as if it encoded a deeper connectedness."

Barth hereby warrants that anthropologyneeds to reshapeits assumptionsabout 'culture',particularly in responseto recentreflexive and deconstructionistcritiques. A promisingalternative lead comesfrom Thornton (1988:26) who, likewise rejectingthe notion of a fixed inheritanceof sharedmeanings, suggests to ask not 'whatculture is'but'what culturedoes':

"Part of the problem that besetsour current efforts to understand culture is the desire to define it, to say clearly what it is. To define something means to speci$ its meaning clearly enough so that things which are like it can be clearly distinguishedfrom it." 'culture' 'verb' Takingthis line of thinking further, Street(7993:25) treats as a and pointsout how people put 'culture' to different uses:

t0 'culture' Gramsci (1981: 193) has drawn our attention to the danger inherent in a view of as 'memory' when he says: "We need to free ourselves from the habit of seeing culture as an encyclopaedicknowledge, and men [sic] as mere receptacles to be stuffed full of empirical data and a mass of unconnected raw facts, which have to be filed in the brain as in the columns of a dictionary,enabling their owner to respond to the various stimuli from the outside world." 476 Sikant Sarangi

'culture' "Indeed, the very term itself ... changes its meanings and serve different often competing purposesat different times. Culture is an active processof meaning making and contest over definition, including its own definition."

In a similar vein, Eisenstadt(1989) addresses the issueof the mutual determination 'culture', 'social 'social of structure' and behaviour'. This view opposes the 'order-maintaining' 'order-transforming' and functionsof culture.Eisenstadt quotes Peterson(1979:159):

"While it [culture] was once seen as a map o/ behaviour it is now seen as a map /or behaviour. In this view, people use culture the way scientistsuse paradigms [...] to organise and normalise their activity. Like scientific paradigms, elements of culture are used, modified, or discarded depending on their usefulnessin organising reality [. .] as nearly equivalent to the term ideology, but without the latter's pejorative connotations [...] Sociologistsnow recognisethat people continually chooseamong a wide range of definitions of situations or fabricate new ones to fit their needs."(original emphasis)

'culture' A non-essentialistand action-orientedperspective on enables analysts interested in intercultural miscommunicationto take on board the complexities 'culture' related to the uses and functions of in contemporary societies (.f 'culture' discussionsin Hall 1981,1990). The notion of is very much a contestedone in many modern societies,as both dominant and dominatedgroups often resort to the culture card in managingtheir power-maintainingand power-acquiringpurposes. So, in analysingencounters between the dominant and dominated groups in a multicultural society,we need to subscribeto a dynamicview of 'culture'. Rather than attribute communicativebreakdown to culturaldifferences in an unproblematic way, the analysisof interculturalencounters should aim at comingto grips with the 'culture' workings of in individuals'discourse practices, as will be attempted in the data analysesin the following section.

4. Intercultural miscommunicationanalvsis: Towards a dvnamic model

In this sectionI shall illustratethe discussionsin section,, und 3 by presenting some situateddata and by evaluatingcompeting lines of explanation.The data I analyse below concern gatekeeping situations of selection interviews. The intervieweescan be characterisedas younger Asian migrants who are typically 'first' 'second' different from the or generation migrants in terms of socio-educationalbackground, professional ambitions, etc. The first exampleis taken trom a selectioninterview for a motor mechanicstraining course.The interviewer (I) is British and the interviewee(R) is of Asian origin. What I havejust provided is an identificationof the contextin terms of its interculturaldimension, highlighting the different cultural attributes of the participants.But such a characterisationof thisdiscourse situation is selectivesince the participants'identities are fundamentally multi-faceted.The intervieweeis not only a memberof the minority culture,he also 'interview enjoys less situational power as far as the game' is concerned,and, moreover, as a nonnative speaker of English, he may be lacking in linguistic knowledge.By contrast,the intervieweris not only a native speakerof English,he is also a member of the majority culture, and has the situational power in the Intercultural or not? 4I7 interviewcontext. Thus, an alternativeto the interculturalcharacterisation of this discoursesetting is a characterisationwhich foregroundsthe linguisticand situational asymmetries.Let us now considerexample (1), and assessthe different lines of explanationthese alternative characterisations of the settingcan offer.11

Data Example 1

01 right mhm hm what kind of driving have you been doing in England 02 R: uhm [ong pause]it's very good 03 I: what kind of what kind of driving though big truck or small I truck in factories 04 R: I eh no no no I have licenceonly car 05 I: you have a car licence 06 R: licenceright 'cultural' Whatwould a explanationaccounting for R's minimal responsein turn 2 look like? Bringing R's ethnic and cultural origin to the forefront of analysis,it would invoke the cultural stereotype of Asians as submissive and non-confrontational.But such a readingis difficult to justify when the questionto which turn 2 responds is itself not confrontational. An alternative line of explanation,looking at the linguisticand situationalasymmetries, is certainlymore sophisticated.We could attribute R's failure to understandthe force of I's question in turn 1 to his inadequatelinguistic knowledge. This seemsconvincing as, in turn 'R' 2,we see providing a minimal responsewhich is punctuatedwith a long stretch of silence.This responseis judged unsatisfactoryby the interviewer, as can be noticedin turn 3 where the questionis paraphrasedfor the benefit of 'R'. This suggests'I'recognisesthat R's problem is a linguisticone, and this is confirmedlater as'R' offers an acceptableanswer in responseto the reformulatedquestion. 'miscommunication' Should we decide to take our analysisof a bit further, it is possibleto argue that the communicativeproblem does not squarelylie with 'R'. 'I' can be held partly responsiblefor the way he phrasesthe question.The ambiguitysurrounding the questionrelates to'driving', which occupiesthe subject position.It could therefore be taken to mean either 'quality of driving' or 'driving certaintypes of vehicle' - the latter being the most preferred reading under the circumstances.Is this failure on the part of the interviewerto disambiguatethe force of his questionalso a matter of linguisticincompetence? Perhaps the choiceof the 'type', 'kind', term rather than could have made it comprehensible.Perhaps an alternativephrasing such as 'what kind/type of vehicle have you been driving?' would have been more straightforward.

" In the data represented here, the following transcription conventions are used: inaudible speech 'pause', extralinguistic details such as 'laughter', etc. overlaps 418 SrikantSarangi

We know that in the contextof selectioninterviews questions often have a hidden purposewhich the candidatehas to work out for him/herself.Under suchan 'indirect' assumption, the present interviewer's questioning behaviour can be legitimatedor at leastapprehended. But giventhat 'R'has problemswith decoding the linguistic structure in this instance,why does he go on to provide an answer instead of making a request for clarification? There are several competing explanations.In situationalterms, it meansthat all interviewsettings are marked by a proceduralpower differential,where to askquestions of the powerfulparticipant can be seen as tace-threatening.Additionally, because it is an interview situation involving a nonnative speaker of English, to indicate non-comprehensioncan potentially lead to a negativeevaluation of 'R'. At another level, it is theoreticallyviable to assumethat an intervieweein fact understandsthe question but decidesto 'flout' (in the Gricean sense) the conventionsof the interviewgame. This explanationis not tenablein the caseunder discussion,however, as two turns later (in turn 4) 'R' doesprovide an 'acceptable' response.The point I want to make is that if a memberof the majority group were to providea responsesimilar to that of 'R', thiswould mostlikely be interpretedas 'flouting' rather than as evidenceof linguisticincompetence or unfamiliarity with interview norms. This begs the question: why should an instance of miscommunication,when it involves participants trom different ethnic/cultural backgrounds,be treated as resultingfrom culture-specificbehaviour whereas the same instanceof mismatch,when it involvesparticipants from the same 'culture', become labelled as a challenge?The problem, as I seeit, is not just related to the relative weighting of one framework over another, it also concerns the set of explanatory presumptions which researchers entertain when dealing with monocultural and interculturalcommunicative settings. lrt me take this issue further by re-interpreting a familiar case study (example 2) taken from Gumperz et al. (1979),followed by a comparisonwith a parallel situation in my own data (examples3 and 4). Example 2 involvesSandhu (SN) who arrived in Britain in the early sixtiesand had severalmanual jobs in factories,worked as a bus conductor,and at the time of the interviewis working in a training resourcecentre. He has now appliedfor a post of assistantlibrarian and in the interview is askedwhat his presentjob is about.Apart from the interviewee Sandhu,the extract representedhere involvestwo interviewers,12 and 13.

Data Example 2

01 12: You sayyou're very busy eh in your presentjob [pause]what exactlydo you do [pause]I mean what are your duties day by day 02 SN: Well we've to eh receivethe visitors[pause] show them around and then we have to go out eh to the factoriesyou know [pause]eh sometimesto attendthe classes[pause] eh how to do erm cataloguingclassification 03 12: Erm what are you familiar within the field of cataloguingand classification Intercultural or not? 4I9

04 SN: Well it it dependson what sort of eh classificationcollege is using and [pause]I'm sure erm this Middleton Collegewill be using the decimalclassification uhm which I've done you know in the college 05 13: Can I move on to the questionof handlinger library users[pause] this is mentionedlittle bit in the job descriptionerm [pause]how well do you get on with people mister Sandhu[pause] I mean how much experiencehave you got of gettingon with people generally 06 SN: Well I I think I'm very good so far as gettingwith the other people I'm very very good particularlywith the students[...]

FollowingGumperz et a\.,,one could accountfor the miscommunicationin turn 2 in termsof culture-specificways of structuringinformation. I would like to suggest 'activity-specific' to look at it as a caseof mismatchin the sensethat interview talk can go wrong, whether or not participantsare culturally different. This is not to denythat interviewsare shapedand influencedby culture-specificpreferences, but it is possibleto arguethat evenin caseswhere interviewee and interviewerhave the samecultural background, perceptionsabout what is (not) 'acceptable' in the interviewcontext may differ. What Sandhudoes, it seemsto me, is follow the rules of the interview game, as he presentshimself favourablyboth in relation to how knowledgeablehe is with regard to cataloguingand classificationand in relation to how good he is in human relationships. As in example 1, we should recognisehow this instanceof mismatch in example2 is jointly constructed.For instance,we could point at the lack of clarity in the manner in which the interviewerconflates two different questions(turns 1 and 5), which result in Sandhusupplying incomplete responses. The first question (turn 1) hasa two-fold function,but Sandhuchooses to focuson one aspect-'what exactlydo you do'- while answeringthe secondaspect of the interviewer'squestion -'what are your dutiesday by day'- only marginally.In turn 3, the questionabout cataloguingand classificationis asked in order to enable Sandhu to display his technicalknowledge about the job of librarianship.Given this hidden purpose,the 'what question- are you familiar with'- is fairly general and is open to several interpretations.Again, Sandhuanswers the questionmarginally and it is not clear why he starts his answer by saying 'it depends'.In turn 5, the question about handlinglibrary users again has two aspects:'how good' he is and 'how much experience'hehas. Sandhu's answer is partial in that his answeris about'how good' he is, completelyoverlooking the other aspectof the question.Even in answering the tirst part, he makes no referenceto his actual experience. Let us now consideran excerptfrom my own data which involvesa situation parallelto example2. Samal(SL) is interestedin joining the British SocialSecurity department as a clerical assistant.Before arriving in Britain he worked in Bangladeshas a schoolteacher and as an assistantclerk in an insurancefirm. His previousemployment in Britain includestwelve years in the Bradford City Transport Companyand, subsequently,a job as a machineoperator. The excerptbegins with the interviewer(I1) askingthe candidatea questionabout the presentjob. 420 Sikant Saransi

Data Example 3

01 I1: Erm you worked as an assistantclerk for a few months in an insurance I company A2 SL: I Yeah yes I did 03 11: What did that job entail 04 SL: Erm [pause]I had to copy sometimeser eh the letters sending somewhere[pause] and also quite a bit er eh recordsand so on [pause]sometimes I work in wagesdepartment 05 11: Yes I see [pause]did you do that job after the schoolteaching 06 SL: Eh yes I after teaching 07 11: I Yes erm did you find anythingin about the job particularlyinteresting 08 SL: Erm in my that job 09 11: Mhm hm 10 SL: Well eh job yes [pause]the clericaljob was very interesting[aughs] but in educationdepartment [pause] eh is is also inte interesting [pause]but clericaljob was rnore interestingthan the teaching 11 11: What was it about the clericaljob that you found interesting 12 SL: Erm to [pause]eh almost everythingI did er interesting 13 11: You found the the whole job interestingitself 74 SL: Yeah 15 11: Right then I would like to introduceyou [...]

We can notice the casual-conversationalstyle of the interview,manifested in the turn-taking system,interruptions initiated by SL and the use of back-channelling. This conversationalstyle overlapswith the contentof Samal'sresponse. Instead of providing a specific judgemental answer when asked about which of the two previousjobs he liked most and why, Samalresponds with a factual accountwhich offers no comparativeevaluation of the two jobs. Maintaining that he liked both jobs equally well, he gives the impressionthat it was not a dissatisfactionwith teachingwhich led to a shitl in career.In turns 11 and 13, the interviewertries to delve into the actual nature of the clerical job, but in both casesSL provides minimal responses.In both examples2 and 3, questionsabout the current job are asked.In the context of selectioninterviews in general,an interviewerexpects the candidateto offer a responsewhich includesthose bits of work from amongthe host 'interesting' of other things,which are not only but also'relevant' to the prospective job in question.At a lessabstract level, there is the expectationthat the candidate will touch upon the transferableskills s/he could bring to the new job. Both SN and SL do not offer 'satisfactory'responses to theseexpectations, which can be partly seen in the way the interviewersin both casesstay on the topic for a while and make the implicit expectationstransparent. lrt us now turn to anotherfocal aspectof job interviews,i.e. how candidates' profiles can be constructednegatively. In example 4 below, which also involves Samal (SL), the interviewer(I2) asksa questionof the followingtype: "Why did you 'x' do before and why do you want to do 'y' now?" Interculturalor not? 421

Data Example 4

01 12: Well mister Dixon startedtalking to you about jobs [pause]what I would like to ask you is some questionsrelating particularlyto this job that you've applied for [pause]so the first questionI would like to ask you is [pause]why haveyou applied for this job when when previouslyas I understand(unclear) you've been doing manual work for the last well for few years 02 SL: Yeah er [pause]I cameto almostit's not particularlymyself I have seensome of my friendsalso in in similarsituation [pause] erm I did try myself so so many placesto get similarjob in clerical or in officejob or anythinglike that [pause]but could not succeedin [pause]and you know after all I applied in Bradtbrd city transport and got a job and I was there about eleventwelve years I think [pause]and in sixtynine I had to go to Bangladeshand I left the job [pause]erm when I came back erm I registeredmyself in the job centreand they erm sendme a letter to go to (unclear) becauseI had a bit experienceabout the machineoperating so I went there and I had a job you know and it was a very good job 03 12: Oh yes but 04 SL: In er somethingelse besideis [pause]while there applied and the the factory you know internationalfactory is closedat eighty two 05 12: Mhm 06 SL: Closedown so I had no job so this in eh (unclear)there is community collegeand they are running the course[pause] A B L E courseaccess to bilingual employment[pause] which means alreadyyou know no eh eh two languagesthey will improve ehm your skill [pause]and I appliedthere and I was eh er I almost almost finish [pause]the courseis almost finished [pause]so I have got some weeks more extra experienceto getting a new job you know 07 12: Having been to (unclear)you sayyou're bilingual erm is there a particular skill that you feel would help you in the job and if so how 08 SL: Ehm [pause]they they teach there er about about various organisation[pause] how does it run and so on you know (unclear) [pause]and also er teach English [pause]I think my English has erm improve a lot than I have before [pause]and also how to do the er from English to Bengali [pause]Bengali to English [pause] and how to er translateand everything[pause] they do try to develop [coughs]

Rather than giving a profile of himself to show convincinglyhow he would fit into the job he is applying for, SL offers a narrative of past experience.He opts for 'telling' 'selling'- - not the story of his work life, evento the extentof interrupting the interviewer (turns 3-4). The interviewertakes on the role of a passivelistener I until turn 7, where he dismissesthe story-tellingand reassertshis authority to ask 'relevant I questions to the interviewsituation'. Once again,though, in turn 8, SL l I l. 422 Sikant Sarangi resortsto the story-tellingmode as he offersa somewhatdetailed description of the coursecontent, insteadof specifyinga set of 'learned'skills which are transferable" The aboveanalysis, in sum,shows that althoughthese interview situations can from one analytic angle straightfonwardlybe labelled and interpreted as intercultural, many of the communicativedifficulties that occur in these situations do not easilylend themselvesto an explanationexclusively based on the principle of cultural differences.A situationalreading of the data seemsto capture more closelythe complexities- institutionaland otherwise- involved in these contact situations.

5. Migrant 'culture' in multicultural societies: from problem of 'difficulty' to politics of 'difference'

The institutionaland other complexitiesof the contactsituations analysed above can at the societal level be traced in the discursiveperformances of first generation younger migrants such as the ones involved in the data. External forces such as underemployment among minority groups, perceived and real discriminatory tendenciesin the job market, etc. seem to have partially shaped migrants' life experiencesin multicultural societies.In light of this, rather than treat mismatches as exclusivelyresulting from 'cultural differences'or 'linguisticinadequacies', we need to consider how they reflect, following Bourdieu (1991),a kind of 'habitus' which is rooted, generally,in theselife experiences.This comesout in the way the intervieweesin my corpus chooseto narrate believablestories in preterence to conforming to the norms of the job interview format. As Bourdieu (1976: 654) points out:

"A speaker's linguistic strategies (tension or relaxation, vigilance or condescension,etc.) are oriented (except in rare cases) not so much by the chances of being understood or misunderstood (communicative efficienry or the chancesof communicating), but rather by the chances of being listened to, believed, obeyed, even at the cost of misunderstanding (political efficiency or the chances of communicating)."

If some migrants share the featuresof a life history,having been through similar discontinuitiesin their employmentpatterns, it is quite possiblethat they will draw on their life historiesin suchgatekeeping encounters. So, when we detect a pattern in their talk, it may not simplybe a questionof structuringof information according to culture-specificnorms, but rather a matter of what Raymond Williams (1981) 'structures calls of feeling'- how people narrate lived experiences.In my analysis, this type of explanation takes into account the potential structurednessof interindividually similar experiences,but at the same time reaffirms individual diversities. It also leads us to move awayfrom homogenisingthe migrant communities 'other'. in terms of the significant Some accountsof migrantsdo problematisethe representationof migrant communitiesas homogeneousentities, but they do so along hypothetical lines. Cicourel (1982), for instance, takes it as a general characteristicof the situation of migrant workers that they have to live in two cultures. The resultant strain between the 'old self and the 'new' is said to be Interculturalor not? 423

manifestedin problemsof identity,social ambivalence, alienation and rejection.In thisrespect, Cicourel describes their situationas a 'no man'sland'which is neither that of the migrant'scountry of origin nor that of his/hercountry of employmentor residence.Similarly, Parris (1982 4) summarisesthe migrantworker's position as fbllows:

"On the whole his (sic) existence is organised around two poles: his family and fellow countrymen, in a cultural environment resembling that of the country of origin; and his work and public life, in a culture unfamiliar to him or her."

This, for me, is an unsatisfactoryaccount of a migrant's life world. The actual dichotomybetween these two cultural environmentsis much more complex than what Parris seemsto suggest.Only from an essentialistviewpoint can the two 'worlds' be held separatefor one particulargroup of migrant workers.In addition, the interrelationshipbetween these two 'worlds' will vary from one group to another.Moreover, the problems of identity, social ambivalence,alienation and rejectionare just as well problemsof the non-migrantpopulation. In this sensethe analyticconcept of a homogeneous'culture' is just as perilousfor the non-migrant populationwhich in interculturalstudies tends to featureas 'culturallyintegrated individuals',and thereby otlen simply remainsunnoticed. It is worth pointing out that diff'erentnotions developed within the existing literatureon migrant communitiesare inadequatein their attempt to describethe situation of many different categoriesof migrants in a relatively similar way. Ekstrandet al. (1981),tor instance,propose the notionof interculture'to refer to an intermediateculture which sharesproperties of both home culture and host culture, independent of whether those properties are shared between the cultures-in-contact.This notion of interculture'isvery similarto the linguisticnotion of interlanguage'(as proposedby Selinker 1972)referring to sharedfeatures of a speaker'snative and target languages.But, as Skutnabb-Kangas& Phillipson(1983: 'interlanguage'can 71)point out, while be typicallyseen as a transitorystate with the target languageas a goal, the notion of interculture'implies a rather stable statewith none of the culturesin contactas a goal. Neither of the aboveconstructs - 'living in two cultures'or 'interculture'- is powerfulenough to capturethe migrants'fluididentities. I hope my analyseshave shown that it may however be possible to reconceptualisethe notion of 'interculture', not alongsidethe concept of interlanguage',but in a way which capturesthe multi-facetedidentities and diversifiedlived experiencesof specific migrantgroups. In order not to fall trap to the binarybias and the homogenisation 'cultural' of a group's practices,we need to take into account further markings 'intercultures' within suchas 'urbanyouth culture','younger migrant culture', etc.. 'migrant The intervieweesin the data presentedin this paper,in this sense,share a outlook', but this outlook (values,interactive styles, etc.) cannot be captured by referenceto either their 'cultureof origin' or the 'cultureof non-migrants'.

I

I I I I tI I I L 424 Sikant Saransi

6. Conclusion

'cultural' In this paper I have raisedquestions about the emphasisin intercultural miscommunicationanalysis. Through analysesof intercultural data, I have shown how a selective characterisationof a communicativesituation on the basis of different cultural attributes of the-participants can only serve to reify cultural differencesin an essentialistway. As an alternative,I have argued in favour of a discourse-analyticapproach to the study of intercultural miscommunicationas it allows us to interpret specificdiscursive practices of individualinteractants both in terms of their cultural attributesand in the contextof their societaland institutional role-relationships.One consequenceof this is that interculturalanalysis should not only aim at explicating the role which cultural differencesplay in intercultural 'culture' miscommunication, but also at tackling the shifting nature of in contemporarysocieties and what peopleactually do with culturaldifferences in real- 'culture' life encounters. To conclude, the use of a unified view of and, correspondingly,the thematisationof culturaldiff'erences in accountingfor instances of intercultural miscommunication',both run the risk of stereotypingthe field of intercultural communicationresearch.

References

Asante, M.K., E. Newmark, and C.A. Blake (eds.) (1979) Handbook of interculrural contnunication. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Asante, M.K. and, W.B. Gudykunst (eds.) (1939) Handbook of international and intercultural communication. I-nndon: Sage.

Barth, Fredrik (1989) The analysis of culture in complex societies. Ethnos saQl\: l2O-142.

Bennett, Tony, Graham Martin, Colin Mercer, and Janet Woollacotr (eds.) (1981) Culture, ideologt and social processes.London: Batsford (in association with The Open University Press).

Blommaert, Jan (1991) How much culture is there in intercultural communication? In J. Blommaert, and J. Verschueren (eds.), The pragnatics of intercultural and international contmunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Blum-Kulka, S.,and E. Olshtain (1984) Requestsan

Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.) (1939) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requestsand apologies. Nonwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1g76) The economics of linguistic exchan ges. Social ScienceInformation 16(6): &5-66,8.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and symbolicpower. Edited and introduced by John B. Thompson; Translated by Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, Mass: Polity Press.

Brislin, R. (1981) Cross-cultural encounters.New York: Persamon. Intercultural or not? 425

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen lrvinson (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Casmir,F.L. (ed.) (1978) Intercultural and international communication. Washington D.C.: University Pressof America.

Cicourel, A.C. (1982) Living in two cultures: The everydayworld of immigrant workers. In UNESCO: Living in two cultures: The socio-culnral siruation of migrant workers and their families. Paris: The UnescoPress, l7-66.

Clifford, J., and G.E. Marcus (1986) Witing culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

C,ondon,J.C., and F. Yousef (1975) An introduction to intercultural communication. lndianapolis, Indiana:The Bobbs-Merill Company.

Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles, and John Wiemann (eds.) (1991) "Miscommunication" and problematic ralk. Newbury Park: Sage.

Drummond, tre (1986) Are there cultures to communicate across? An appraisal of the 'culture' concept from the perspective of anthropological semiotics. In Simon P.X. Battestini (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Langtages and Lingulitics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Pr ess,215 -225

Eisenstadt,S.N. (1989) Introduction: Culture and social structure in recent sociologicalanalysis. In H. Haferkamp (ed.), Social stntcture and culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 5-11

Ekstrand, l^ars Heneric, Sis Foster, Eva Olkiewicz, Miodrag Stankovski (1981) Interculture: Some concepts for describing the situations of Immigrants. Joumal of Multilingual and Multicultural Developntent 2(): 269-293.

Fairclough,Norman (1985) Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis.Journal of hagmatics 9:739-793.

Fairclough,Norman (1988) Michel Foucault and the analysisof discourse.CLSL ResearchPaper No. 10. Iancaster University.

Foucault, Michel ( 1984) The order of discourse. In M. Shapiro (ed.), Language and politics. [,ondon: Basil Blackwell.

Gramsci,Antonio (1981) Culture. In Tony Bennett er a/. (eds.), 193-197.

Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.) (1983) Intercultural communication theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1991) Bndgtng dffirences: Effecti+,eintergroup communicarlon. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B., and Y.Y. Kim (1984) Communicating with strangers:An approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House.

Gudykunst, W.B., and Y.Y. Kim (eds.) (1988) Theoies in intercultural communicalion. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.

Gumperz, John (1978) The conversational analysisof interethnic communication. In E. Lamar Ross (ed.), Interethnic communication. Southern Anthropological Society, 13-31. 426 Sikant Sarangi

Gumperz, John (1982) Discourse strategies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, John (1992) Contextualisation revisited. In Peter Auer, and Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39-54.

Gumperz, John, and Deborah Tannen (1979) Individual and social differences in language use. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. Wang (eds.),Individual dffirences in languageability and language behaviour. London: Academic Press.

Gumperz, John, Tom Jupp, and Celia Roberts (1979) Crosstalk.Southall: National Council for Industrial language Training.

Hall, Stuart (1981) Cultural studies:Ttvo paradigms.In Tony Bennett et al. (eds.), 19-38.

Hall, Stuart (1990) Cultural identity and diaspora. In Jonathan Rutherford (ed.), ZZZ-237.

Henley, Nancy, and Cheris Kramarae (1991) Gender, power and miscommunication.In N. Coupland et al. (ed.),18-43.

Kandiah, Thiru (1991) Extenuatory sociolinguistic.s:Diverting attention from issuesto symptoms in cross-cultural communication studies. Multilingua 10(4): 345-379. lrvinson, Stephen (1979) Activity type and language. Linguistics l7:365-399.

Moran, Robert T., and P. Harris (1991) Managingcultural dffirences. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

Moran, Robert T., and John R. Riesenberger (1994) Making globalization work.lnndon: McGraw Hill.

Parris, R.G. (1982) General Introduction. In UNESCO: Living in wo cultures: The sociocultural situation of nigrant workers and their fanilies. Paris: The Unesco Press, l-14.

Peterson, R. (1979) Revitalising the culture concept.Annual Reviewof Sociologt 5: 137-166.

Prosser, M.H. (1978a) Intercultural communication theory and research: An overview of major mnstructs. In B.D. Ruben (ed.), Contntunication yearbook volume 1/. New Jersey: ICA-Transaction Books.

Prosser, M.H. (1978b) The culrural dialogue: An introduction to intercultural comntunication. Washington: Houghton Miflin Company.

Roberts, Celia, and Srikant Sarangi (1993) 'Culture' revisitedin intercultural communication. In T. Boswood, R. Hoffman, and P. Tung (eds.), Perspectiveson English for professional comntunication. Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.

Rutherford, Jonathan (1990) Identity: Community, culture,dffirence.London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Samovar, L.A., and R.E. Porter (eds.) (1991) Interculrural conmtunication: A reader. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth.

Samovar, L.A., R.E. Porter, and N. Jain (1981) Understandingintercultural communicalion. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth.

Sarangi, Srikant (1992) Power asymmetries in the study of NS-NNS discourse. Paper presented at PALA Conference, University of Gent, Belgium. Intercultural or not? 427

Sarangi,Srikant (1994) Accounting for mismatches in intercultural selection interviews. Multilingua 13(12):163-194.

Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne B.K. Scollon (1980) Linpistic convergence:An ethnographyof speaking at Fort Chipweyan.New York: Academic Press.

Scollon,Ron, and Suzanne B.K. Scollon (1983) Face in interethnic communication. In Jack C. Richards, and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Langtage and Comntunication. London: l-ongman, 157-188"

Selinker, l-arry Q972) Interlanguage. Intemational Review of Applied Linguistics l0: 209-23I.

Sherzer,Joel (1987) A discourse-c€nteredapproach to languageand culture. Ameican Anthropologist 89:295-309.

Singh,Rajendra, Jayant lrle, and Gita Martohardjono (1988) Communication in a multilingual society:Some missed opportunities. Language in Society 17: 43-59.

Skutnabb-Kangas,T., and R. Phillipson (1983) Intercommunicative and intercultural competence. Rolig-Papir28. Roskilde Universitets Center.

Street,Brian V. (1993) Culture is a Verb: Anthropological aspectsof language and cultural process. t In David Graddol, Linda Thompson, and Mike Byram (eds.),Language and culture. Clevedon: BAAL I and Multilingua Matters, 23-43. i Stubbs,Michael (1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguisticanalysis of narural language. Oxford: I Basil Blackwell. I t, Thomas,Jenny A. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(7):9I-ll2- l, Thornton, R (1988) Culture: A contemporary definition. E. Boonzaeir, and J. Sharp (eds.),Keywords. t; CapeTown: David Philip. li l* Williams,Raymond (1981) The analysisof culture. In Tony Bennett et al. (ed.),43-52. tt lL 'tr Wuthnow, R., J.D. Hunter, Albert Bergesen,and Edith Kurzweil (1984) Culural anatysis: The work l$ of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault and Jurgen Habermas. London: Routledge and tfr KesanPaul. !g