Cultures, Contexts, and World Englishes

Yamuna Kachru, Larry E. Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781135704636
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This volume aims to familiarize readers with the varieties of world Englishes used across cultures and to create awareness of some of the linguistic and socially relevant contexts and functions that have given rise to them. It emphasizes that effective communication among users of different Englishes requires awareness of the varieties in use and their cultural, social, and ideational functions. Cultures, Contexts and World Englishes:

• 
  
  

• demonstrates the rich results of integrating theory, methodology and application

• 
  
  

• features critical and detailed discussion of the sociolinguistics of English in the globalized world

• 
  
  

• gives equal emphasis to grammar and pragmatics of variation and to uses of Englishes in spoken and written modes in major English-using regions of the world.

Each chapter includes suggestions for further reading and challenging discussion questions and appropriate research projects designed to enhance the usefulness of this volume in courses such as world Englishes, English in the Global Context, Sociolinguistics, Critical Applied Linguistics, Language Contact and Convergence, Ethnography of Communication, and Crosscultural Communication.

PART I

VERBAL INTERACTION AND INTELLIGIBILITY

INTRODUCTION

There is no agreement about the relationship between language, culture, and society. Whether language is an autonomous system irrespective of its role as a means of human communication or whether it is primarily a medium of communication and therefore has a crucial role in social organization has also been a matter of vigorous debate. Credible arguments have been advanced on both sides of the debate. There is a vast body of literature that claims, following Chomsky’s theory, that language is innate, biologically determined, species-specific; it is a biological entity, a mental organ (see, Anderson and Lightfoot, 2002). There is an equally impressive corpus of research that contends that language shapes and is shaped by social interaction (see, Halliday, 1973, 1978; Hymes, 1964, 1974; Labov, 1972b).

In this book we are interested in the use of various Englishes around the world, especially on how Englishes function in various communities to further their communicative goals. We, therefore, draw upon methodologies of research based on the latter view of language.

The aim of the first three chapters in this part of the book is to focus on the interaction of cultural assumptions, social configurations, and linguistic resources that manifests themselves in linguistic interchanges between users of English. The following chapter, Chapter 4, deals with issues of intelligibility in view of the discussions in the first three.

THEORETICAL APPROACH TO VERBAL INTERACTION

The first chapter briefly discusses the theoretical concepts of linguistic pragmatics (speech acts, cooperative principle, and politeness), conversation analysis (structure of conversation in terms of turns, adjacency pairs, floor, backchannel cues, etc.), and sociolinguistics (e.g. context of situation, conventions of speaking, writing, the role of silence and non-verbal cues in interaction, etc.).

The second chapter focuses on the interrelationship of culture and language and discusses language use. The chapter demonstrates one way of constructing the sociocultural bases of verbal interaction by utilizing components of context of situation from sociolinguistics, and structure of background knowledge from psychology and artificial intelligence. It also presents briefly the findings of interdisciplinary research on conventions of speaking and writing in various societies.

The third chapter presents various views of what it means to be polite in a variety of sociocultural settings. In one culture, it may be considered a violation of privacy to ask questions about one’s marital status or how many children one has in casual encounters. In another, it may be a marker of one’s effort to be sociable and friendly even if the encounter is short-lived, as in a train journey. In South Asia, it is quite common for passengers in the same compartment to ask such questions of each other in addition to sharing food and drinks. Koreo (1988, p. 19) recounts an anecdote about his experience of showing a group of Western scientists around soon after the end of World War II. After a day of walking about, he asked the visitors, “Aren’t you tired?” He was surprised when, contrary to his expectations, one of them answered in the affirmative. When the following suggestion, “You must be hungry” was again followed by “Yes, I am,”] Koreo admits he was “taken aback.” The unpleasant surprise was due to violation of expectations regarding polite behavior. According to Japanese norms, it is inconsiderate “to admit fatigue to a person who has acted as their guide all day” and in answer to the question about being hungry, it is polite to say something such as “just a little” or “I always have a late supper” to avoid worrying the host.

The strategies of politeness in verbal interaction may also differ across communities and cultures. Scollon and Scollon (1994, pp. 144–145) quote the following recommendation from Li Chi, dating from before Confucius: “When the elder asks a question, to reply without acknowledging one’s incompetency and (trying to) decline answering is contrary to propriety.” In many cultures, refusing to answer may be considered quite impolite.

INTELLIGIBILITY

The fourth chapter, as mentioned before, examines what is meant by intelligibility in the context of the discussions in the previous three chapters. The concept as discussed here differs from the popular use of the familiar term. It is analyzed into its component parts and related to pronunciation, grammar, and sociocultural conventions of language use to see why verbal interaction between culturally different interlocutors is not always efficient and successful. That any interaction can lead to misunderstanding and frustration is true of both conversation and writing; it is more so when the interlocutors do not share a common sociocultural background and a set of conventions of verbal interaction. The chapter presents a characterization of the nature of intelligibility, analyzes sources of complexity and suggests strategies to resolve difficulties to achieve communicative success across world Englishes.

The suggestions for further reading, recommendations for continuing discussions and small-scale research projects are intended to stimulate debates and exchanges on issues that arise due to the worldwide spread and use of English. The field of English studies is fraught with controversies and all users of English, teachers and learners included, have a stake in how some of the questions are answered and the answers in turn are implemented. It is our hope that what is presented in these chapters will inspire active participation of those who use English all across the Three Circles, whether in the fields of administration, business, commerce, diplomacy, education, finance, law, or media.

Chapter 1
Interaction as Cooperation

INTRODUCTION

Communicating through language—whether spoken or written—is a remarkably skilled social behavior. There are two major modes of using language for communication, spoken and written. The written mode is not universal, there are many languages in various parts of the world that are spoken, but not written. Written language, where it exists, imposes a severe restriction on channels through which participants communicate with each other. The spoken mode, on the other hand, allows for a number of channels to be utilized. We speak with our vocal organs, but we converse and communicate with our entire bodies. Obviously, the written mode cannot utilize the channels of gesture, body posture, facial expression, etc. to the same extent, though there are some symbols devised for (informally) indicating smile, frown, etc.

These differences notwithstanding, a broad generalization in terms of spoken vs. written mode of linguistic interaction is possible, since the dichotomy spoken vs. written is not discrete, e.g. a phone conversation utilizes the spoken channel, but does not share all the features of face-to-face conversation. In a phone conversation the speaker and hearer are unable to see each other’s body posture, facial expressions, gestures, and other nonverbal cues. The technology is not widely available as yet for the participants in a conversation to see each other as they speak, hence, facial expression, gesture, body posture, etc. are not transmitted in phone conversations. For our purposes, we will, for the most part, concentrate on features common to the spoken and the written modes. Most of what we have to say about verbal interaction in this chapter apply to both the modes.

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

In both the spoken and the written modes, participants exchange three types of information. The first may be termed conceptual information, i.e. the purely factual content of linguistic signals exchanged. “Factual” does not mean “true”; the sentence, “The Fairy Godmother transformed Cinderella into a princess by a wave of her magic wand,” has a cognitive content, and therefore, conveys a certain “factual information,” although it is not “true” in the real world.

The second type of information exchanged is what Abercrombie calls indexical information (Abercrombie, 1967, p. 6), i.e. information about the speaker/writer himself/herself. Listeners/readers use this information to draw inferences about the speaker/writer’s identity, attributes, attitudes, and mood. For instance, the utterance, “It is clear that Jeremy is the culprit” makes it obvious that the speaker is making a firm assertion, whereas the utterance, “I think Herbert was fired” indicates that the speaker is not sure of his/her facts.

The third type of information exchanged is what has been called interaction-management information (Laver and Hutcheson, 1972, p. 12), i.e. information that enables participants to initiate or terminate an interaction, indicate transitions, control time-sharing, etc., in an acceptable way in the spoken mode, or signal cohesion, coherence, etc., in the written mode. For instance, the utterance, “That’s all I have to say about it” signals explicitly to other participants in the conversation that the speaker has completed his/her turn and is ready to give a chance to someone else to claim a turn. Similarly, the utterance of “Did you hear what happened to Margie?” provides a clear signal to the participants in the conversation that the speaker wishes to narrate a significant event. Similarly, expressions such as “It is claimed in this study that…” and “I will argue in this paper that…” clearly signal academic argumentative writing. More about such devices in the spoken and written modes are pointed out in Chapters 8 and 9. Here, we will focus on some concepts that are crucial in analyzing verbal interaction.

RELEVANT CONCEPTS

In order to understand how successful communication through language is achieved by conveying the three types of information mentioned above, it is useful to look at several areas of study. The linguistic-philosophic-semantic discussions of speech acts (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969) and cooperative principle (Grice, 1975) are useful in providing a great deal of insight into language use in general. The research on face-to-face interaction, including conversation, with a social science bias is extremely helpful in structuring conversation. The structure of conversation is looked at in terms of units such as turn (distribution of talk across participants; Sacks et al., 1974), exchange (response by one participant to another), and adjacency pair (paired utterances by two different participants, e.g. question–answer, compliment–response, apology–minimization). Social scientists such as Goffman have also looked at face-to-face interaction as ritualistic behavior (Goffman, 1955, 1967) and discussed face as an important concept in characterizing the image that people attempt to project, negotiate, and maintain in such interaction. The concept face is inextricably linked with the concept of politeness as well as the concept of cooperation in Gricean terms. The contribution of sociolinguistics and ethnography of communication in structuring the social context of language use is as relevant as that of artificial intelligence and psychology: the former provides the concept of context of situation or context, the latter several constructs for structuring background knowledge or sociocultural knowledge essential for analyzing conversation or discourse structure. They are discussed in relation to crosscultural communication through English in the following pages.¹

In this chapter, we will discuss some of the concepts mentioned above in some detail. We will look at two instances of a conversation and analyze them in terms of speech acts, Gricean cooperative principle, and conversation analysis, taking into account sociocultural context and background knowledge.

Consider the following verbal interaction between a Vietnamese (A), a recent immigrant to the USA, and an American college student (D) in the college lounge (Take Two, 1983, pp. 94–95). Both are women and have heard the teacher pronounce their names, which may not be enough in case of unfamiliar names.

1. 1.D: Hi Ann, How ya doin’?
   A: Oh hi. Uhm, I’m reading.
   D: Mind if I sit down?
   A. Please.
   D: Thank you. You getting ready for class?
   A: Yes.
   D: I was wondering–you’re from Vietnam, aren’t you?
   A: Yes.

From the point of view of interaction management, this conversation does not seem to be going well. The addressee, addressed as Ann, is not very communicative. Out of the four exchanges, she replies in monosyllables in three. Now compare the above with the following interaction (Take Two, 1983, pp. 109–110):

1. 2.D: Hi Ann. How ya doin’?
   A: Oh, hi. How are you?
   D: Fine, thanks. You mind if I sit down?
   A: Oh, have a seat.
   D: Thanks. Getting ready for class?
   A: Yes, I’m prepared. (A: slight laugh)
   D: Your name is “Ann”, isn’t it?
   A: Uh, no, it’s “Anh”, A—N—H. In Vietnamese, it’s “Anh”.

It is obvious that this interaction has a better chance of succeeding in establishing some social relationship between the participants. Anh is more forthcoming and does not confine herself to monosyllables. A more detailed look at (1) and (2) in terms of speech acts, Gricean cooperative principle, and conversational analysis is helpful in understanding the nature of interaction exemplified by these texts.

Speech Acts

The notion of speech acts is a simple one: uttering a string of meaningful sounds is not only performing the act of speaking, but also performing a variety of acts such as informing, questioning, ordering, etc. via the act of speaking. These latter are the subject matter of the field of research known as speech acts. Philosophers and linguists have been aware of the fact that in discussing meaning in natural languages, determining the truth or falsity of utterances is not enough, since some utterances such as questions or requests are neither true nor false; they are the means of performing acts that may be appropriate or inappropriate in a given context. For instance, if one utters the example in (3), depending upon a number of conditions, the request may be judged appropriate or inappropriate, but not true or false:

1. 3.Open the door!

The request is appr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• List of symbols
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction: World Englishes and Cultural Contexts
• Part I: Verbal Interaction and Intelligibility
• Part II: Sound, Sentence, and Word
• Part III: Conversational and Writing Styles
• Conclusion: World Englishes: Legacy and Relevance
• References