1
21.10.2014. LESSON 4 (FOLLOWING KRAMSCH, PP. 25-36, CHAPTER 3: “MEANING AS ACTION”)
In the previous two lessons we looked at semantic meanings such as denotation, connotation, iconicity and metaphor. These meanings are encoded in the language: they are known, accepted and shared by members of the speech community and they influence, although they do not determine, the way they think. Today, following Kramsch chapter 3, we look at how meaning is not only encoded in the language but is also a question of action, verbal action. What are people doing with their words in a particular context?
- 1) Context of situation, context of culture
- 2) Structures of expectation
- 3) Contextualisation cues, situated inferences
- 4) Pragmatic coherence
1) CONTEXT OF SITUATION, CONTEXT OF CULTURE (Kramsch 25>)
The anthropologist Malinowski studied the language and the behaviour of people living in the Trobian Islands. (Kramsch 26): “One had to understand why they said what they said and how they said it to whom in a specific context of situation. In addition, one had to link their words, beliefs and mindsets to a larger context of culture”.
Watch the first 2 minutes of this video of Mr Bean (click on the link). What’s the context of situation and what’s the context of culture?
2)STRUCTURES OF EXPECTATION (Kramsch 26>)
Communication is often (if not always) dialogic. It can require a response that is predictable and expected. But these structures of expectation are culturally specific; i.e., they can change according to the culture:
EXAMPLES:
(i) MECHANICAL COMUNICATION red traffic lights. Response? Exceptions?
(ii) NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION.
Handshake. Universal? Other examples of non-verbal communication are gaze and eye contact, gestures, body posture, smile.
Eye contact. 1) What can eye contact in a conversation communicate in western culture?
+ Confidence and honesty of the speaker, interest and attention of the listener.
- rudeness and invasiveness
2) What can LACK of eye contact in a conversation communicate in western culture?
+ respect, being thoughtful, concentration
- boredom, dishonesty, lying, embarrassment
“In our [western ] culture eye contact is very important since it can tell us so much. Just think how much more difficult it is to communicate with somebody wearing sunglasses. Usually eye contact or lack of eye contact is culturally determined and therefore difficult to change. It is clear that there are large margins for error in interpreting eye contact or absence of eye contact. The interpretation will usually depend on one’s own cultural background and could therefore easily be incorrect. Eye contact is just one, although highly important, aspect of non-verbal communication. It is evident that this whole area is fraught with difficulties and has the potential for generating many misunderstandings. If you are interested in pursuing this area further, just think of the possible interpretations of a smile in different cultures.”Read more of this text. Click here:
(iii) PARA-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Stress, intonation (see next section), tempo, laughter
(iv) VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Service encounters. Buying something in a shop. In some cultures you simply pay the stated price. In other cultures you negotiate the price.
The general structures of expectation established in people’s minds by the culture they living have been variously called frames or schemata. (Kramsch 27)
3) CONTEXTUALISATION CUES, SITUATED REFERENCES (Kramsch 27>)
“The words people exchange in verbal encounters are linked in a myriad of ways to the situational and cultural context in which they occur…. [B]eyond the semantic meaning of A’s individual words, B has to understand how these words relate to the pragmatic context of that utterance.” Verbal, para-verbal and non-verbal information (see previous section) “hints at or clarifies or guides the listener’s interpretation of what is meant among the infinite range of potentially relevant factors of the context.” These contextualisation cues “help listeners to make the relevant situated inferences, i.e. evoke the cultural background and social expectations necessary to interpret speech” (Kramsch 27).
Example: INTONATION. It allows us to “supplement the meanings of the words we use with signals concerning our own moods and intentions as well as how we expect other people to receive our message“ (Buckledee 2007: 39).
Consider the use of the following five basic tone patterns:
1. Falling2. Rising 3. Level4. Rise-Fall 5. Fall-Rise
to say the following words or discourse particle:
1. No2. Yes3. Well 4. Hmm
What different meanings are communicated? Imagine the context of situation.
Falling / Rising / Level / Rise-Fall / Fall-RiseNo / - Short:
agreement
- Long:
surprise / - Scolding
Disagreement / - Agreement
Confirmation of listening on phone / - Annoyance
(I’ve told you before) / - Sarcasm
(I’ve told you before)
Yes / - Sympathy
- Solidarity
- Agreement / - Insistence
- Annoyance / - Agreement
Confirmation of listening / - Excitement
- Discovery
- Guess what! / Sarcasm
(I’m being patient but you’re stupid)
Well / Disagreement
- There’s more to say / Listen!
This is interesting gossip / - I’ll tell you
- Matter of fact / - Not nice but I’ll tell you
- There’s more to say / - Listen to this gossip
Hmm / - I need to think about it. Disagreement / - Interest
- Curiosity / - Agreement
Confirmation of listening on phone / Very interesting
Very nice / Tell me more!
4) PRAGMATIC COHERENCE (+ LACK OF PRAGMATIC COHERENCE)
“Efforts to make the words uttered meaningful within the situational and cultural context of the exchange are efforts to establish pragmatic coherence. Coherence is not given in speakers’ utterances, it is created in the minds of speakers and hearers by the inferences they make based on the words they hear.” (Kramsch 28)
(i) INCLUSIONARY EFFECTS/SOLIDARITY
“The speaker’s efforts to establish pragmatic coherence through the use of contextualisation cues can have an inclusionary effect (Kramsch 28) Example: Conversation about British versus American accents. Click on this link:
The two speakers here have very different English accents. But “[t]hrough a remarkable criss-cross of lexical and phonological repetitions […] the speakers reinforce each other’s cues. […] The way they echo each other, piggyback on each others’ words and phrases, continue each other’s sentences, leads each one to infer that what is important in this conversation is not so much the information their words convey […], but their sense of being on the same conversational wavelength. (Kramsch 28-29).
(ii) COHERENCE BREAKDOWNS IN CROSS-CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS
Failure to infer the correct inferences from contextualisation cues can lead to coherence breakdowns in cross-cultural encounters:
Example1: giving and responding to compliments.
A: “I really like your shoes”
B: responds but how? silence? denial? acceptance? agreement? something else?
Example 2: asking and responding to the ambiguous question “Where are you from?” (“Where were you born?” versus “What’s your ethnicity?”)
Clink on the link:
“The system of signs that constitute culture is actively constructed through the verbal actions taken by sign makers in interaction with one another” (Kramsch 35)
“Meaning is never achieved once and for all, it must be conquered anew in every utterance through the verbal actions and interactions of speakers and hearers, writers, and readers”. (Kramsch 25). In this sense, use of language is “performative”.
END
NOW PLEASE READ
THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF KRAMSCH
IN ORDER TO DEEPEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE FIRST FOUR LESSONS OF THIS COURSE