Annotated Bibliography
Nakane, I. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1811-1835. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.005
This article examines the ways in which silence is used and perceived with respect to politeness in a naturally occurring, intercultural-communicative seminar setting. More specifically, this article addresses the ways in which students from a Japanese background use silence as politeness strategies in an Australian university seminar and how this is assessed by their Australian peers and lecturers.
Data for this investigation was gathered across 2 Australian universities through three different modes: firstly, through semi-structured interviews with 19 Japanese students; secondly, through the questionnaire responses of 34 Australian university lecturers; and lastly, through the analysis of both the audio and video recordings of seminar-interactions of three Japanese students, their Australian peers, and lecturers, who were then also interviewed about these interactions.
From this investigation, the author found that silence is used by Japanese students in a seminar-type settings as face-saving strategies, and also that the assessment and use of silence in this manner is not reciprocated by Australian students or lecturers. For the Japanese students, silence is used to maintain positive face of the self as a result of their personal perceived lack of language proficiency and/or their weak knowledge on the topic of discussion – resulting in the possibility of being negatively perceived by the lecturer. Silence is also used to avoid the face-threatening acts criticism and disagreement in an effort to save the addressee’s face. And finally, for these students, self-elected silence when nominated in an interaction may be used as an off-record strategy.
This use of silence as politeness-strategies by these students was, contrariwise, negatively perceived by lecturers and regarded as a highly-face threatening act. The author found that the appropriateness of silence was assessed individually by both students and lecturers depending on their interpretations of contextual parameters. Thus, the cross-cultural sociopragmatic failure that occurred in the settings outlined in this investigation are thought to be a result of the different cultural expectations regarding appropriate classroom behaviour, and, in-turn, the difference in politeness orientation between the students and the lecturers.
332 Words
Tatar, S. (2005). Why Keep Silent? The Classroom Participation Experiences of Non-native-English-speaking Students. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(3), 284-293. doi: 101.1080/14708460508668902
This article addresses the role and function of silence as communicative means in the classroom-participation experiences of non-native English speaking students studying in America. To do this, the author investigated a sample group comprised of four Turkish students who were enrolled in standard graduate programs at an American university to determine the ways in which they employ silence, and also the relationship between this use of silence and the students’ perceptions of their non-native speaker positions in an English-speaking environment.
Qualitative data for this investigation was gathered through a multi-case study approach consisting of transcripted interviews that were conducted weekly and bi-weekly throughout an academic semester with the sample group; field notes from 48 classes; the transcript of a focus group interview conducted at the end of the semester; and also, course-related documents.
From this investigation, the author found that silence was used by these students in a number of ways, including: as face-saving strategies; as participation strategies; as a product of lacking language skills; and finally, as a sign of respect for the relevant authority – in these cases the lecturer – and their cohort. The author also found that the Turkish students’ held negative perceptions of their American peers’ lack of silence in an educational environment, and also that these negative perceptions are a result of the opposition to their own instilled cultural educational vlaues that the American’s behaviour and attitudes pose.
Due to the limitations of the current study and also the overall lack of research on the use of silence in interactions surrounding non-native speakers in inter-cultural settings, the author suggests that further research needs to be conducted in a wider range of institutions, disciplines and from more perspectives to gain a more in-depth understanding of this phenomenon.
290 Words
Essay
The core focus of these two articles is the concept of silence and its relation to politeness in communication – focused specifically within the experiences of non-native English speaking students from collectivist-oriented countries in an English-dominant university setting. Both draw similar conclusions regarding the non-native English users’ considerations and attitudes towards the appropriate use of silence, despite their differing methodologies and sample groups, and provide insight into the ways in which cultural politeness-orientation disalignments can produce negative perceptions of other cultures in an inter-cultural environment.
Tatar (2005) focussed particularly on the experiences of Turkish graduate students in an American university, their beliefs about silence and talk in an educational context, and how these beliefs influenced their in-class participation. Nakane (2006) however, broadens their approach and considers not only the perceptions of non-native English speaking, Japanese university students in regards to the appropriate use of silence in these contexts, but also the perceptions of these students by their Australian peers and lecturers.
Both studies incorporate a wide range of data sources, including transcripted interviews and ethnographic observations of real interactions in these educational environments, which allowed the investigations to account for possible deviations in their sample groups. A qualitative, multi-case approach was suitably adopted by the investigators, which allowed the attitudes and perceptions of the participants to be thoroughly explored.
One issue, however, that may arise in Tatar’s investigation is the relatively limited sample group in terms of quantity and demographic. Tatar’s sample only included a very specific range of student in terms of age, education, and time spent in an inter-cultural environment; thus, only including 4 participants in total. This limitation, although indicative of certain trends, is not comprehensive in terms of considering the attitudes and practices in a wide, nation-bound cultural context – as per the considerations of the discussion and findings. Comparatively, Nakane’s broader scope and larger number of participants included both native- and non-native speakers allowed the practices and attitudes towards silence to be more comprehensively investigated in terms of the different perspectives within these specific, inter-cultural environment parameters.
The findings of the studies showed express similarities between the practices and attitudes of the participants from the collectivist-oriented countries: Japan and Turkey. In these findings, silence was actively used by these students as politeness strategies in intercultural, university settings. One interesting point that Takane’s investigation singled out was that, although used in an attempt to maintain polite behaviour, silence had the opposite effect on the perceptions of the lecturers who found it to be particularly confronting. This is in keeping with Sifianou (1992)’s claim that silence can be both positively polite whilst also holding the possibility of being the dispreferred politeness strategy as a result of the demands then placed on the other participants.
When considering this in terms of culture, the studies show that the ways in which different cultures have socialised ‘appropriate’ use of silence in an educational setting and also the different culture’s educational values may contribute to sociopragmatic failures between participants. This is interesting to consider per my own experiences; as an Australian student in a cohort of almost complete foreign or international students, majorly from China, I have keenly noticed the differences between myself and the rest of my cohort in regards to the politeness-orientation (Gof silence in the classroom. Although studying in a mainstream course at an Australian university, I have been made aware, on a number of occasions, of how the way in which I attempt to actively engage in class discussions – something I would consider to be appropriate behaviour as per my previous studies in a majority Australian cohort – is perceived negatively by my international classmates. Although I had considered that this type of interaction is something that may not occur in different cultures, I was personally confronted by the way in which my behaviour was considered so negatively by my intercultural classmates since joining the cohort; as such, I have since tried to adjust my behaviour to suit. Relatively, both Nakane and Tatar show how the negative attitudes that result towards the behaviour of a different culture that misaligns with a particular cultures’ own orientation to moral order can expressly contribute to the socio-pragmatic failures that arise in a speaker’s assumption that the same moral order is shared cross-culturally and, therefore, the realisation that a persons’ use, or lack thereof, of silence is not always considered to be appropriate in certain situations.
As such, considering the inextricable relationship between silence and politeness, this area of research is of significant relevance to the field of inter-cultural communication. Nakane and Tatar give valuable insights into the necessity for awareness of different cultural values and their resultant expectations regarding politeness-strategies in communication. Furthermore, as both studies made clear, raising this awareness is of significant importance in an intercultural class-room setting as it fosters consideration of different cultural needs and practices, and, as a result, may reduce the communicative-tension between participants.
817 Words
1,439 Words (Total)
Excluding titles and reference details