Misunderstandings in Discourse between a Native Speaker and Nonnative Speakers · 2018. 2. 9. · problems in intercultural discourse (Tyler and Davies (1990), Verschuren (1990),

41

Misunderstandings in Discourse betweena Native Speaker and Nonnative Speakers

(Received November 27, 1998)

Robert W. LONG M and Masatoshi TABUKI (Kyushu Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of negotiation in discourse between Japanese students and a native

English teacher. One aim is to identify the kinds of triggers and underlying factors that contribute

to non- or misunderstandings, specifically describing problems caused by a single element, difficulty

in content, and implicit discourse norms. A secondary aim is to examine how panicipants preventproblems in understanding, whether incomplete contributions are restructured or simplified, critical

features or discrepancies are highlighted, and interactive adjustments are made to respond to indications

of nonunderstanding. Results indicate that many of the problems resulting from a single element were

phonetic and cultural in nature whereas problems in content are often related to elliptical statements,

which do not provide enough supporting information. Misunderstandings, particularly related to implicit

discourse norms, were due to colloquial usage and oversimplification that reduced the descriptive data

needed for comprehension. In preventing problems, there were numerous instances of panicipantsmaking efforts to negotiate meaning, but a majority of the interactive adjustments tended to be either

word or phrase level and redundant in nature.

1. Introduction

In the past, researchers who were concerned with understanding the causes ofproblems in intercultural discourse (Tyler and Davies (1990), Verschuren (1990),

Gumperz and Roberts (1991)) primarily examined the level of discourse strategies.

These researchers believed that comprehension problems had more to do with a lack

of shared background than with linguistic competence. Allwood and Abelar (1984),

however, contend that most cases of non- or misunderstanding are a result of amulticausal relationship. The purpose of this initial study is twofold. First, to identify

the kinds of triggers, and underlying factors that contribute to nonunderstanding and

problems in intercultural discourse between Japanese students and one English

language teacher. However, in order to understand how underlying contextual factors

might have a role in various communicative breakdowns, it is also important to answer

the question of why something was not understood (Bremer (1996). Thus, issues in

content or context that might provide a banier to shared understanding will be

described. Besides considering the nature of topical information, we will also conduct

a microanalysis concerning the manner in which content is presented: the sequencing

42 Robert W. LONG th and Masatoshi TABUKI

of suppgrtiRg infgrmatielt, the degree gf reduxdancy, aRd the freqllency ef tepic

switches.

A secondary aim is to examine how panicipants prevented problems in understanding.

Did the ipterviewer previde chaltces fer p3nicipatigk, restructgre incgmpletecontributions, and take the necessary interactive steps needed to respond to indications

of nonunderstanding? The data in this study were taken from a larger study on teacher

-studeRt iRteractioRs. TraRscripts frgm seven igterviews (coRducted thro"ghggt 1997

between one native speaker and 15 Japanese speakers) were used. Aside from opening

and closing comments, 41 topics were identified involving an average of 46 turns. There

was a tgt31 ef l6 commgaicRtive breakdgwns. Bremer's Åql996) taxcRemy was gsed

to identify and describe the causes of communicative failure.

2. Three Causes ef MisunderstandiRg

The literature on problems in intercultural communication draws attention to non-

aRd mis=nderstandiRg. Accerding tg Bremer (l996;40), RgRgnderstaAdixg is said tc

occur, `when the listener realizes, that s/he cannot make sense of (part of) an utterance

either because too few elements in the utterance are accessible (in the extreme case,

RoRe) or because the frame of refereftce iR whick they are tg be viewed is pat clearhe

as in a sudden, unannounced topic switch'.

Nonunderstanding can vary-Allwood and Abelar (1984) describe it as a graded

pheRomeReR -however, ift the case of misgRderstandings the listener is said tc establish

his or her own interpretation that may differ from what the speaker meant. This

mismatch is soon revealed and corrected, but this depends on the degree of awareness,

sexsitivity aRd cekcern the panicipakts have fgr each ether's level gf cercprehexsioft.

In discussing the causes of miscommunication, Bremer (1996) discusses problems

triggered by a single, identifiable element; problems caused by relative degrees of

difficglty; aRd preblems ca=sed by ixdirecteess aRd iraplicit disc"urse fierms.

2.1 Preblems Caused by a Single Element

Perhaps the most common form of non-and misunderstanding is triggered by a single,

identifiable element; this would include a failure to understand a particular term, or

to iAterpret 3 lexical elemegt. DistiRg=ishiAg time, date, amognt and freqgency cax

be difficult as well as distinguishing differences between similar words. Bremer found

that lexical pro$ody does play a major role in the segmentation and recognition of

speech. There were several ex3mples ef phenetic aAd cgltural misunderstaxdings iA

the interview. In the (1) case, cat chasing is what Japanese kids might do in their

childhood, but the teacher interprets this as `throwing cats'.

Misunderstandings in Discourse between a Native Speaker and Nonnative Speakers 43

(1) S: Unnto Pursuing cat.

T: Passing catch cats?

S: Cat.

T: I don't understand.

S: Ehto, Ah. Following cat.

T: Throwing cats.

S: Following cats.

T. Meaw. Really? (laugh) How about thisJapanesenew sports. (laugh) SUGOI

qapanese). Where was the farther that you threw a cat? 5 meters 10 meters

20 meters?

S: 7 meters.

T: 7 meters. Wuhh. Do you think you can throw a cat farther today since you

are bigger and stronger? And 7 meters?

S: I escaped.

T: But do you think you can throw 8 meters or 9 meters today. IMAqap)?

S: IMA-ha (Ya) I don't do so.

(T always refers to a native teacher of English and S refers to a nonnative

student.)

Part of the problem lies in the relatively unfamiliar content for the native speaker:

the difficulty is in understanding that `following cats' would be considered as a pastime

for a Japanese youth. However, a second problem is that the supporting information

is misinterpreted and not corrected by the Japanese students. One issue could be

cultural norms: Japanese students might feel it would be inappropriate to correct a

native speaker. In the (2) example phonetic similarities cause the listener to misinterpret

and project meaning in order to provide supporting information.

(2) T: Ahh. Let's listen. Tell me about your best experience.

S: I walked 50 kilometers with GETA.

T: With your guitar?

S: Japanese shoes.

T: Singing.

S: Singing? T: Singing 50 kilometers, gozuu 50 kilometers, playing the guitar.

S: GETA. GETA-DESU qapauese). T: Ahhh. No guitar. No singing. Ah,Isee. Isee. Why? S: I was an annual Akido Club festival.Again in the (3) example, misunderstanding hinges on a cultural gap, in this case the

teacher's unfamiliarity with a particular kind of fish found in Japan and its phonetic

similarity to popular dish. The student also thinks `Karei' is an English word because

it is usually written in katakana in Japan. Analysis shows, however, that the

44 Robert W. LONGMand Masatoshi TABUKI

misuRderstaRdiRg is based on the stgdefit's assgmptiefi that the Rative speaker is

familiar with this kind of fish. The native speaker fails to understand the cultural

importance of this fish, which makes it difficult for the Japanese speaker to respond.

The gse ef Japaltese is alsg prgblem3tic.

Åq3) T: Un. What did you catch?

S: Um, small,

T: Ah. S: very small, but, aa, I, I catched KAREI.

T: Curry! Curry rice?

S: Fish. Fish. KAREI fisk. De you kxgw KAREI fish? It's very geed taste.

T: Un.

S; I,,Imade KARA, KARAAGE? KARAAGE NANKAI? gAPANESE) S: KARAAGE. Fry. S: Fry.

T: UR, 'ua.In the Åq4) example, the content proved culturally difficult for the students; having had

no experience or exposure to horseback riding as a hobby, the students associate the

word `herse' with herseracing aRd betting. While part cf the proble;;; is cultural (the

native speaker is not aware of how horseback riding might be understood in Japan),

an underlying issue is how the native speaker does not provide any supporting

infgrmatigx aRd reserts tg askiRg the s3me questiox fcgr times.

Åq4) T: Riding horses. I had my own horse. That is a good hobby. And that is

a good sport. Racing your horse. Have you gone horseback riding?

S: Yes. T: Is that better than baseball, or is baseball better than horseback riding?

S: Better. Horse racing.

T: Herse raciRg. Have yeg riddeR a h"rse?

S: Just betting.

T: Not riding. Have you ridden a horse.

S: What. T: Have you ridden a horse?

S: No. T: Bcth cf ygg have Rever riddeR a hgrse?

S: Yes.While these misunderstandings primarily are based on the interpretation of one lexical

elemeRt, mgch ef the preblem is tied to a lack ef sllppgniRg infermatiex-details,

examples, analogies, facts, and references. The same kind of response is also noted

in the fifth example in that the name of a famous Japanese group is repeated but


not elaborated on. Again, there is a misunderstanding of `Tube' and `Two' as well

as the nonunderstanding of what is meant by a `natural singer'.

(5) T: Nn. So so so so. S: (laugh)

T: Tube? S: Two? T: Tube? I don't know. .S: Tube? T: Tube Tube Tube. S: Tube. Ahhh! T: Natural singer, or so so?

S: Nnnn. T: MA MA (Japanese)? M: MA MA qapanese). S: So so.

T: Nn. S: It's a problem, Ne.

T: Ah. In four other cases, triggers were either phonetic in nature (`Thai food' is understood

as `Taihu' whereas the word àll' is misinterpreted as òld'), or semantic in nature.

While repetition and adjustment was rapid with the phonetic triggers, many interactive

adjustments had to be made to respond to semantic misunderstandings. Nonetheless,

the responses tended to be word-level and failed to provide for extended participation

as can be noted in the (6) example which involves the meaning and use of ttone."

(6) T: Really. What's your favorite song?

S: Favorite song?

T: Nh. S: My favorite song is pop, popular music?

T: No, which one?

S: One? T: Yeah, name.

S: Name? T: Nn. S: Ah, many many many. T: `Many Many' is the name of the song?

S: No No No. T: Which one? S: Ah! (laugh) Ah.... I like DRECOME.

46 Robert W. LONGXand Masatoshi TABUKI

2.2 Preblems Caused by RÅílative Degrees ef Diffieulty

Increased difficulty in ideational content can lead to comprehension problems in

varieus ways, but 3s Dietrick aRd Klien (1986:ll3) ceRvinciRgly argge the cemplexity

of content can not be separated from that of content.

. . . the simplicity of a text-given a certain content-is not just a matter

ef simple stircictural pr"penies sgch as shgrt words, shert senteRces, and

`regular' word order, rather it depends on a complex interplay of its

components: the structural properties of the language used; adaptation to

the way iA which the h=mag mind prgcesses laAggage; ReRtextKal knowledge on the part of the listener, that is all information (including

expectations, assumptions and the like) which the listener may have

iRdepeRdept gf what is sard in the text.

Bremer (1996) specifically discus$es three dimensions of discourse: (a) how it is

formulated and relates to the subject matter, (b) adaptation to processing needs, (c)

hgw it links with cgRtextgal kRewledge ef the addres$ee. ORe ceRsideratiok with the

formulation of subject matter in intercultural discourse are the assumptions that

participants have regarding each other's background knowledge. The assumptions

ggide the panicip3Rts in hgw deRse and clear tc make the topical ceRteat.

Relating to the subject matter can be difficult by complex syntax, fast or slurred

speech, restarts, self-repairs, or accumulative use of particles. On the ideational level,

3bstract 3kd hypethetical iss=es might req#ire mere familiarky with vecabglary. If

the speaker is from another culture, then the speaker's values, logic and discourse

norms could be problematic. Bremer notes that the asymmetry between the interactants

will influence gRderstagdixg. It i$ very likely that JapaAese stgdexts will previde the

answer that they think the interviewer desires, thereby compromising the negotiation

of meaning.

Adapt3tieR to keeds of the addressee will be iftfluenced by the speaker'$ awarexe$s

and ability to simplify information to the listener's linguistic competence. Sources

of difficulty can however occur when there are too many elliptical statements that

reqgire 3 great de31 cf ixferexciRg. Evenif the mative speaker is attuRed te the linguistic

and social competency of the nonnative speaker, there is a tendency for "hyper-

explanation" (Erickson (1982)) overwhelming the nonnative speaker. Bremer notes

that the reverse case of elliptical utteraxce$, in which the mative speaker assxmes

competency or familiarity with the subject matter, can be panicularly problematic in

contextualizing information. Nonnative participants are dependent on greaterexplicitness, panicglarly iR traRsitigRs te a Aew topic. MisunderstaxdiRgs can al$c

arise from the way panicipants attend to or empha$ize certain topics.

The cultural differences between NNSs and NSs may pose problems in understanding


how particular values, beliefs and ideas shape the contextual knowledge underlying

various issues. Bremer (1996:56) observes, `The more limited the knowledge from

contextual sources such as immediate situation or world knowledge, the greater the

dependency on lingriistic information is, and thus the greater the degree of difficulty

for the participant with a different cultural and language background'. Furthermore,

interpreting the speaker's perspective even on familiar topics may be compromised

by the speaker's intonation, hesitations, discourse markers, signaling, the flow of speech,

and nonverbal cues. Many of these communicative aspects also project the speaker's

underlying motives, feelings, or attitudes. Failing to understand these cues may

influence how the speaker develops and switches between topics.

In the (7) example, the interviewer's motive is in obtaining an opinion about the OJ.

Simpson trial that had previously occurred. Besides the misunderstanding based on

the word `trial', nonunderstanding seems to occur with the Japanese student's digression

into OJ. Simpson's wife, and the elliptical statement of `no crime'.

(7) T: Do you know about the OJ. Simpson trial

S: OJ. Simpson, t? T: Trial.

S: Tri al ?

T: Uhu. S: Ticket.

S: Ahh.

T: un. n. n. Very interesting case.

S: Ah. Ah. T: What do you think about O.J. Simpson trial?

S: Ah, I think he cute, his wife, but

T: But.

S: Ah, MUZAI qapanese) T: But. S: But, TSUMI gapanese) But, he is, he was, aaa, he was,

T: Nhu. S: MUZAI, MUZAI HA, No crime, S: No crime.

T: Mn. Mn. S: No crime.

T: No crime. Mn. Has there been anything interesting in Japan? Lately? Any

interesting events?

One problem with this exchange was that the native speaker did not attempt to establish

how much the Japanese students knew about the topic, demonstrate what others had

thought about the trial, or to give his own opinion. The open-ended question, and


werd level reply proved tcg difficult fgr the JapaRese stttdegts. Likewise iR the (8År

exchange, the communicative breakdown occurs at the contextual level. The students,

while familiar with Miyajima, are seemingly not aware of the presence of a cable car

there. Thus, beca=se the n3tive teacher fails tg respeRd te the gRderlyiAg iktent ef

the question `Cable?', the topic of Miyajima is not developed.

(8) S: Do, Do you when, ah, Did you, Did you go, Miyajima?

T: Yeah, three times.

S: How do you feel? T: Up the mountain? It is OK. Very beautiful. I think you should go swimrning

gR the other side ef the Island,

S: Ah.

T: Very nice.

S: Nft. SOKA qapaneseÅr.

T: Yeah, across to run up the mountain, take the cable car, Cable car.'

S: Cable? T: Yeah, the cable c3r ride is very Rice.

S: Did you go Sarakura? T: Not yet! I actually may do that, ah, next week. Is it nice?

IR the (9År example, the complexity lie$ iR the mative speaker's use gf a `why' questieA.

For the Japanese the question `why is baseball intere$ting' would probably never be

asked since most everyone in Japan-at one time or anotherwnhas played it anduRder$takds it. The Jkpaxese studeRt respoRds by sayixg that his iRterest really lies

in watching ba$eball. There is an example of hyper-explanation in the reference and

interest to bullfighting that confuses the Japanese listener.

(9År T: Ah. Why is baseball ixteresting?

S: Ummm. I can't play ba$eball. T: No, No. No. Why is baseball fun and interesting? I don't understand. Do

yoK wnderstand. Tgkita doesk't xRderstagd. S: I I can't play baseball, but I watching...I watch baseball.

T: For example. Bullfighting. Bullfighting in Spain. Bullfighting. My favorite

sperts and Tekita's spgrts. We bgth love bgllfighting. Nc? Bgll$ cgme and

lift up the cape and sometimes (guh) the bull fighters dies. Interesting, So

why is baseball fun? S; ...gapaxeseÅr..Vmm l deR't kftew.(ne)

While the native speaker does link his ideas to the context, he fails to adapt to the

processing needs of the student.


2.3 Problems Caused by Indirectness and Implicit Discourse Norms

Thomas (1983) terms this kind of problem as being either pragmatic or sociopragmatic

failure from a lack of shared schema and frame. Appel and Muysken (1987:146) discuss

that many problems in native-nonnative interaction are due to the fact that interlocutors

use different sets of interaction rules: `The term interaction rule is used here to refer

to all kinds of rules in addition to rules of grammar, semantics, and phonology (the

formal linguistic rules) that specify which (sequence of) utterances and which typeof nonVerbal behaviour are considered appropriate in certain situations'. Bremer notes

that there is a difference between linguistic ambiguity and pragrnatic t{opacity,"

especially since a `lack of understanding on this level usually results in inappropriate

(e.g. impolite) behavior on the second Ianguage learner's part which is held to be of

graver nature than a ttmere" linguistic problem. Misinterpretation on a pragmatic level

is often far more face-threatening to both sides and the client's response is attributed

to an intentionality which it does not, by design, have' (p.59). Because the listener

fails to respond to the intentionality of a question, this kind of communicative

breakdown is viewed more as a problem of behavior and not of language (see Goffman

(1974), Gumperz (1982a and b)). Because of a difference in cultural conventions

governing discourse, confusion may stem from why a question is being asked, or to

its relevancy. Bremer specifically discusses issues concerned with the formulaics in

openings and closings such as register, and to the amount and type of relevantinformation: A greeting that is too formal can be as disturbing as one that is overly

informal. Only with actual strategic interactions, can a NNS be able to recognize and

respond appropriately to pre-closings and to understand (and monitor) how his or

her own hesitations might be interpreted. In the (10) example, the Japanese failure to

comprehend the colloquial Ìt's been nice talking to you' as a pre-closing convention

leads to a rather abrupt communicative breakdown. (10) T: Well It looks like it's time to go but it's been nice taking to you. Umm.

S: Then? T: It's time to go. But it's been nice talking to you.

T: Talking to you? (UmUm) It's been nice. (Nice?) Nice. Superb. Good.

Talking to you. (laugh) S: Please tell me once more (laugh)

T: IVs been, it has been-nice-talking-to you. Ihave to go bye bye. Do you

understand ?

S: No. T: Do you understand? S: Nantonaku gap) T: We have to go. We have to go. Ihave to go. OK? But thank you. Thank

you. OK OK. ByeBye. OK


The Rative speaker fails tg previde the metadisceurse markers (either verbally er

nonverbally) $o the conversation came to an abrupt end. While some adjustment is

made with the speaker defining the expression such as Ì have to go bye bye' and

askiAg if this is xRder$tood, the ltative speaker apparently is caught gff guard by the

Japanese student not understanding this discourse convention. In the (11) example,

because of the confusing and indirect nature of the Japanese student asking about

the sok's residence, the Rative speaker reformulates the qgestieR ixtg what weuld be

a more logical and appropriate question.

(11) T: Now I do. I got my first child last year. I've been married seven years.

S: SeveR years.

S: Nn. Where did he, he live?

T: Oh, where was he born? S: Bgm. T: Ah, he was born in Tobata, hospital right over there.

S: Nn.mThe last example ÅqIX is related te time. Tkis area caR be especially prgblematic iRsefar

that Japanese have two calendarsmpone that is based on the Japanese Emperor, and

the other on the Gregorian calendar. The native speaker's expression of shock about

the stgdept taking a trip iR l998 is dge te the iRterview beiAg ceRdgcted sg early ix

the year. Again, interactive adjustments are word or phrase-level.

(12) T: Italy, Ne! Wow! When?

O: N? T: When did you go? O: ...Twenty, 1998.

T: l998. Ha? KOL: (laugh) O: Ah, (long silence)

T: Last year?

O: IMANANNEN? gapanese) K: 1997.

O: SeveR.

T: Nn. O: Nn. 1998. K: (laggh) l99e.

T: 1990.


3. Conclusion

In determinikg the complexity of content, the first aim, it seems that the tepics that

both Japanese students and the native English teacher presented were generic andconcrete (hobbies, music, one's children, food, places, people, vacations, past-times,

family, sports); the one exceptiofi that could be labeled difficult would be the O.J.

Simpson trial since it involved an isolated and complex situation that took place over

two years ago. In reviewing the transcripts, it seems apparent that while there is enough

reduRdancy, there is a teRdency in beth the NS and NNS to limit crucial suppertiRg

data. Examples are rarely given, and when they are, they tend to be overly extended

and complex. Because the native speaker is trying to simplify the information that

he is presentiRg te theJapaRese students, crucial supportiRg data-opinions, quotatioRs,

facts, detail$, paraphrasingmare not presented. In the end, simplification reduces the

descriptive data needed for comprehension. Bremer and Simonot (1996) suggest making

new topics salieRt and their cofttent expectable so as to reduce the complexity.

The secondary aim in determining how panicipants prevented problems andresponded to indications of non- or mi$communication shows that there were many

efforts te negetiate meaRing. Examining the transcripts as a whole, there were 71

instances of data being simplified (repeated, translated or reformulated); 54 of these

being teacher initiated and 17 being student initiated. As for highlighting critical

features or peiRtiRg out discrepancies betweeR what was stated afid understeod, there

were 43 instances of confirmation checks, corrections and restatements. As for the

five cases in which Japanese $tudents could not express themselves adequately and

became anxious, the native speaker did not explicitly minimize concern or seothe the

panicipant but resorted to redirecting attention to another student or by switching

topics. What is particularly interesting to note is that the interviewer did not adjust

his ievel of understandability with students who were less preficient. While it is

extremely difficult to make any conclusive claims regarding the structural asymmetries

in disceurse betvveen Japanese students and an English teacher, there is an indicatien

of passivity: Students only initiated fewer than one-third of all the topics.

This article has provided some evidence that the interactive adjustrnents needed to

prevent non- and misunderstandings between a native English teacher and Japanesestudents tend to be brief, (word or phrase-level) and redundant in nature; all of the

participant$ failed to restructure incomprehensible input to the degree that was needed.

The next step iR the research project, after determining if discourse between JapaRese

and other native English teachers yields similar data, is te establish how to best prevent

miscommunication and to increase student confidence and participation.


References

Allwood J. & Abelar Y. (1984) `Lack of understanding, misunderstanding and adult language acquisition'

in G.Extra aRd M. Mittner (eds), pp. 27-55.

Appel, R. & Muysken, P. (l987), Language centact and biiingualism, Baltimere, MarylaRd: Edvvard Arnold

Publishers Ltd.Bremer, K. (1co4) `Causes of understamding problems' in Achieving understanding Discourse in iRtercptlinral enceasnters, pp. 37-64.

Bremer, K. & Simonot, M. G996) `Preventing problems of understanding' in Achieving understanding

Discourse in intercultural encounters, 159-179.

Dietrick, R. & Klien, W. (1986) `Simple Language', Interdisciplinary Science Review 11/2, 110-18.

Ericksen, F. Åql982) `Talkiltg-dgwR: sorce c=kgral s"urces ef miscemraukicatieR in iRter-racial interviews', in A. Wolfgang (ed.),

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: an essay on the organisation of exPerience. New York; Harper and

Row.Gumperz, J. Åql982a) `CgktexÅíualization Revisited', iR P. Auer and A. Di Luzic (eds).

Gumperz, J. (1982b) `Contextualization and Understanding', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds),

pp. 229-52.Gumperz, J. & Roberts, C. (l991År Ùnderstanding in intercultural encouRters', in J. Blommaert and J.

Verschueren Åqeds), pp. 51-9(}.

Tabuki, M. & Okuda, Y. (199n `Functional and Phonetic Analyses of Connective Words between Japanese

Students and Native Teachers of English', The Foreign Language Education and Technology M (FLEAT IIIÅr ProceediRg$ pgbli$hed iR UVIC, Canada, pp. 375-389.Thomas, J. (19es) `Cross-cuitural pragrnatic failure', Applied Linguistics 4, 91-112.

Tyler, A. & Davies, C. (1990) `Cross-linguistic communication missteps', Text 10, 385-411.

Verschuren,J. (1990) Ènglish as object and medium of (mis) understanding', in O. Garcia and R. Otheguy

(eds), Escglisk eseptess czaltares.

Documents

Misunderstandings in Discourse between a Native Speaker and Nonnative Speakers · 2018. 2. 9. · problems in intercultural discourse (Tyler and Davies (1990), Verschuren (1990),