Intercultural communication in English as a lingua ... - UM Repository

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR

Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding Jagdish Kaur

Abstract Intercultural communication is perceived as being somewhat problematic, given the varied cultures that come into contact with one another. Misunderstanding and communication breakdown are said to mark many intercultural encounters as participants rely on the norms of their mother tongue and native culture to interpret meaning. This paper reports on the findings of a study conducted to identify and explain the sources and nature of misunderstanding in intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca. Fine-grained analyses of 15 hours of naturally occurring spoken interactions in ELF reveal that none of the misunderstandings occurring in this type of intercultural communication can be attributed to differences in the participants’ cultural background. While a few misunderstandings are language-related, the source of many of the misunderstandings can be traced to ambiguity in the speaker’s utterances. Other reasons for misunderstanding include mishearing and lack of world knowledge, namely, factors that also contribute to misunderstanding in intracultural communication. It is suggested that the diminished role of culture in such interactions stems from the lingua franca context of the interaction. Intent on arriving at mutual understanding in a language that is native to none of the participants, cultural differences are tolerated and often overlooked as the participants negotiate and co-construct understanding in the lingua franca.

1. Introduction The subject of intercultural communication has never been of greater relevance than it is today, given the frequency and extent to which such communications are conducted on a daily basis all over the world. Fast-paced developments in telecommunication systems and transportation technology mean that a greater Intercultural Pragmatics 8-1 (2011), 93–116 DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004

1612-295X/11/0008-0093 © Walter de Gruyter



94 Jagdish Kaur number of people of diverse language and cultural backgrounds are interacting with each other in ways and for reasons that were unimaginable decades ago. As international contacts and dealings become commonplace, and as businesses go global, courses and programs designed to increase intercultural awareness and enhance intercultural competence are growing in demand. What the latter trend suggests is that communication between people of different cultural groups, unlike intracultural communication, requires added or perhaps different skills and competences. The commonly held belief that intercultural communication is more fragile and thus pre-disposed to problems stems from the assumption that the differences in norms, values and beliefs between participants of different cultural backgrounds are likely to hamper attempts at achieving successful communicative outcomes. As Scollon and Scollon explain, “When we are communicating with people who are very different from us, it is very difficult to know how to draw inferences about what they mean, and so it is impossible to depend on shared knowledge and background for confidence in our interpretations” (1995: 22). In fact, this lack of common experiences and assumptions is said to contribute to the greater incidence of misunderstanding and miscommunication in intercultural communication. Samovar and Porter make this point when they say that, “the chief problem associated with intercultural communication is error in social perception brought about by cultural diversity that affects the perceptual process” and later add that “unintended errors in meaning may arise because people with entirely different backgrounds are unable to understand one another accurately” (1991: 21). While researchers working in the field of intercultural communication continue to emphasize the role of culture in miscommunication and misunderstanding for the reasons indicated above, others interested in a specific type of intercultural communication, namely, in English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF), are making claims to the contrary. Findings from studies on intercultural communication in ELF reveal that the occurrence of misunderstanding and miscommunication is not as widespread as initially thought and the misunderstandings that do occur cannot in fact be attributed to differences in the participants’ cultural background (House 1999; Mauranen 2006). These findings suggest that the lingua franca context exerts some influence on the interaction taking place between participants of different cultural groups. To shed further light on the matter, it is necessary to examine in greater detail the sources of misunderstanding in intercultural communication in ELF by conducting finegrained analyses of naturally occurring ELF data. This paper reports on the findings of a study that was conducted with the above in mind using conversation analytic procedures.



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 95 2. Defining ‘misunderstanding’ While there exist numerous terms to describe all the things that can go wrong in communication, there is lack of consistency in the use of these terms.1 As Gass and Varonis explain, “different researchers are using different terms for the same phenomenon, on the one hand, and the same term for different phenomena, on the other” (1991: 123). In this regard, two terms that are often used interchangeably but can refer to quite separate phenomena are misunderstanding and non-understanding. A random survey of the analysis section of research articles on misunderstanding reveals that phenomena like partial or non-understanding, performance errors including speech perturbations and the like are sometimes labeled as misunderstanding. Mauranen (2006: 132), for instance, when discussing the practices participants use to signal misunderstanding, provides the following example: S1: yeah well i tried to explain that by center periphery S1: yeah you tried [yeah] S6: [but it’s] i mean i’m not a Finn so i (xx) so much in sight that’s the problem S3: but that’s an asset S1: hm? S3: that’s an asset that you’re not a Finn in this in this topic i think S1: what does an asset mean? S3: it’s an advantage S1: ok yeah (.) well (.) The italicized question forms above, identified by Mauranen as signaling misunderstanding, in the context of the present study would be seen as suggesting non-understanding given the apparent lack of understanding on the part of S1. Claims put forward by researchers concerning the frequency and gravity of misunderstanding in particular types of interaction therefore need to be treated with caution. There is the obvious risk of overstating the problem of misunderstanding if communicative behaviors that do not in fact manifest misunderstanding are taken to represent the phenomenon. In order to demarcate misunderstanding from non-understanding, the definitions provided by Bremer et al. are adopted, namely, “non-understanding occurs when the listener realizes that s/he cannot make sense of (part of ) an utterance” (as in the example above), while misunderstanding refers to the situation where “the listener achieves an interpretation which makes sense to her or him—but it wasn’t the one the speaker meant” (1996: 40), as below: Waiting for salesman to return; phone is ringing Jose: Should we get those rings? Rachel: Would we be able to give them any information?



96 Jagdish Kaur Jose:

[long pause] I mean the napkin rings. (Varonis 1981, as cited in Varonis and Gass 1985a: 330)

The distinguishing feature therefore lies in the recipient’s own awareness of the problem. In the case of non-understanding, the recipient, conscious of his or her inability or failure to understand, wholly or partially, has the option of either making the problem known to the speaker or “letting-it-pass” (Firth 1996). In the above example provided by Mauranen (2006: 132), the recipient opts for the former and uses first, a “minimal incomprehension signal” and then, a direct request for clarification, to indicate his or her inability to understand. In the case of misunderstanding, on the other hand, the recipient is unaware that he or she has misinterpreted the speaker’s meaning; regardless of the recipient’s (initial) lack of awareness of the problem, the misunderstanding may reveal itself in the recipient’s next turn or in a subsequent turn, “typically through an ‘incoherent’ answer to the misunderstood question” (Bremer et al. 1996: 40) as in the example from Varonis and Gass (1985a). Overt or displayed misunderstandings not only allow the speaker to take necessary reparative action, but they also allow the analyst to identify the possible source(s) of the understanding problem. While an attempt is being made to explicitly distinguish misunderstanding from non-understanding, this distinction is neither absolute nor clear cut. As Bremer et al. (1996) explain, some problems of understanding cannot solely be attributed to either one of the two categories; in fact misunderstanding can result from partial or non-understanding of a prior utterance. Furthermore, difficulty can arise in determining the recipient’s level of awareness of the uncertainty of his or her interpretation of the speaker’s meaning. For instance, while a confirmation request may bring to light the recipient’s misinterpretation of the speaker’s meaning, it can at the same time suggest some degree of awareness on the part of the recipient that the understanding achieved may not be accurate. Despite the possible presence of awareness, such instances cannot be categorized as non-understanding given that a form of understanding has been achieved, albeit the wrong one. Whether the move to check the accuracy of the understanding achieved is triggered by an awareness of an understanding problem or simply reflects an attempt to preempt a problem from the outset (Mauranen 2006, Kaur 2009) is difficult to determine. For this reason, instances of misinterpretation of meaning made public in confirmation requests will also be categorized as misunderstanding. This is in keeping with Bazzanella and Damiano’s suggestion that “misunderstanding, as a form of understanding . . . not be seen as a polar process . . . but, rather, as a continuum” (1999: 817) and Dascal’s conception of misunderstanding as being multi-leveled in character with “each level displaying its own criteria of ‘correctness’ of understanding” (1999: 756).



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 97 3. Misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca For communication to be successful, shared understanding between the interacting parties is essential. However, the reality is that mutual understanding is not always achieved in the first instance and sometimes, not at all. Partial understanding, non-understanding and even misunderstanding can result as participants attempt to get meaning across. In this regard, communication in English as a lingua franca is perceived as being particularly problematic given that the speakers are not only of different cultural backgrounds but are also non-native speakers of the language in question (Mauranen 2006, 2007). Although English functions as a medium of communication in interactions between its native speakers and other non-native speakers, researchers working in the area of ELF tend to confine their investigations to interactions in which English “is not the native language of either [participant]” (Seidlhofer 2001: 146). Participants in an ELF interaction therefore not only have to contend with lack of shared knowledge and assumptions but also with different varieties of English and levels of competence, all of which can heighten the risk of misunderstanding. Notwithstanding the aforementioned challenges, findings from studies on ELF suggest that the problem of misunderstanding is far from critical. House, for instance, who examines a 30-minute interaction between four ELF speakers, notes the “paucity of misunderstandings” (2002: 251) in her data; while speech perturbations, poorly managed turn-taking and “non-aligned, ‘parallel talk’ ” (House 1999: 80) are common, open or overt misunderstandings cannot be detected. Meierkord similarly comments on the lack of misunderstanding in her dinner-table ELF talk and concludes that communication in ELF is “a form of intercultural communication characterized by cooperation rather than misunderstanding” (2000: 11). The above views are to some extent shared by Firth (1990, 1996) and Gramkow (2001), who work within a Conversation Analysis framework. Although there is displayed use of non-standard forms in addition to various other linguistic anomalies in their ELF data, open or overt misunderstandings are rare. The near absence of misunderstanding, however, cannot be attributed to the let-it-pass strategy, which the participants are said to employ to deal with ambiguities and problems of understanding (see also House 2002). Given the recipient’s own lack of awareness of his or her misunderstanding of the speaker’s utterance, unless pointed out by the speaker in the next turn, it would be erroneous to suggest the conscious application of a strategy by the recipient to downplay the problem. Thus, while let-it-pass may explain the lack of overt displays of non-understanding by the recipient, it cannot likewise be attributed for the absence of open displays of misunderstanding.



98 Jagdish Kaur Others who observe few instances of misunderstanding in their ELF data include Mauranen (2006), who attributes this to efforts by the participants themselves to prevent or preempt such problems from the outset. In addition to self-repairs, other preemptive measures include the use of various interactional practices such as repetition, confirmation and clarification requests and the like, which allow the participants to check, monitor and clarify understanding (see also Kaur 2009). A more significant finding than the non-prevalence of misunderstanding in her data, however, relates to the source(s) of misunderstanding, as indicated below: I found no clear evidence of culture-based comprehension problems . . . Apart from the most surface-level misunderstandings concerning the linguistic meaning of items, the other types are not specific to lingua franca communication, but likely to occur elsewhere independently of the speakers’ native languages. (Mauranen 2006: 144)

While much of the work in intercultural communication continues to attribute misunderstanding to cultural difference, the above finding highlights the need to refrain from treating the link between culture and misunderstanding as a given. Like Mauranen, House (1999) failed to find a causal link between culture and the understanding problems she detected in her data. House, who specifically set out to test the hypothesis that “misunderstandings in ELF interactions are largely caused by differences in L1-based cultural knowledge frames and interactional norms” (1999: 75), found no supporting evidence for this in the data. Instead, she attributes the participants’ problems of understanding to their lack of fluency, both linguistic and pragmatic. House in fact goes so far as to suggest that it is not the participants’ intercultural competence that requires enhancement, rather it is their linguistic and pragmatic competence that deserves attention if intercultural misunderstanding is to be avoided. The findings of the two aforementioned studies suggest that interaction in ELF, while constituting one type of intercultural communication, has features that are unique to it that may cause some other factor to take precedence over cultural difference as the main source of misunderstanding.

4. Methodology To gain deeper insight into the nature of misunderstanding in ELF communication, it is necessary to examine “real-life interaction,” which depicts “actual instances of human behaviour” (Wooffitt 2005: 40). For this reason, 15 hours of naturally occurring spoken interaction in English as a lingua franca was audio recorded for analysis.2 An academic institute set up within a university in Kuala Lumpur was chosen as the research site as the institute offered “a



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 99 range of International Masters degree programmes . . . to students from Asia, Europe and the rest of the world” (course prospectus, 2004–2005). In addition, teaching staff at the chosen site mainly comprised experts in the field from various parts of the world. Given the international nature of both the student and staff population, English was the established medium of communication and instruction for all concerned at the institute. The participants, numbering 22 in total, are of 13 different first-language and cultural backgrounds (see Appendix 1). Sixteen of the participants consisted of postgraduate students, while the rest comprised four members of staff and two research students. For all the participants, English is a second or foreign language. The English-language entry requirement for the master’s program was a TOEFL score of 550 and above in the paper-based test or an IELTS score of Band 5 and above. Although the majority of participants appeared fairly proficient in English, a couple of the students displayed proficiency levels that tended toward the lower-intermediate. The members of staff and the research students, on the other hand, seemed highly proficient in the language. Given the varied lingua-cultural backgrounds present and the different vari eties of English spoken at varying levels of proficiency, the participants can be said to typify ELF users the world over. To ensure the naturalness of the data, the participants recorded themselves without the presence of the researcher. Randomly selected participants were provided with cassette recorders and instructed to record their interactions at the locations in which the interactions would have taken place regardless of whether they were being recorded. Thus, interactions that took place outside the classroom, for instance when the participants discussed group assignments and projects were recorded, as were their consultations with staff and fellow course-mates. Recordings of casual conversations between the participants also formed part of the data as they constitute a large part of the communi cation that takes place in this setting. Although none of the interactions were artificially created or acted out for the purpose of the study, the initiation of some of the earlier recorded conversations did seem somewhat contrived. These, however, rapidly developed into very real conversations as the participants proceeded to discuss matters of concern to them. However, in trying to ensure that the interactions recorded were naturally occurring, the sound quality of some of the recordings was to some extent compromised. Nevertheless, recordings of interactions continued to be made in their natural surroundings as a preliminary hearing of the recordings convinced the researcher that the background noise would not pose a major obstacle to transcribing the data. The recordings were then transcribed using a slightly adapted version of the notation system devised by Gail Jefferson (see Appendix 2). The system, favored by conversation analysts, provides not only for the details of what is said to be included in the transcripts but also how it is said. Thus, features of talk



100 Jagdish Kaur like pauses, sound stretches, latching, overlap, cut offs, and hesitation markers are indicated in the transcripts to allow for greater accuracy in reading the data. 5. Analysis A fine-grained analysis of the data revealed a total of 33 displayed misunderstandings in the 15 hours of transcribed ELF spoken interactions.3 For purposes of identification, the participants’ perspective is taken into consideration, namely, that the participants orientate to the talk as being problematic. Or as Schegloff puts it, “the parties themselves address the talk as revealing a misunderstanding in need of repair” (1987: 204). Misunderstandings thus come to light when the speaker is seen to make a move to correct the understanding arrived at by the recipient, as displayed in the response given by the recipient to an inquiry or in a request for confirmation of understanding put forward by the recipient. It is the repairs, therefore, that “anchor the analysis as mis understandings and . . . show what the participants treat as sources of the mis understanding as well” (Schegloff 1987: 204). Also, by taking into account the participant’s perspective, phenomena other than misunderstanding, such as non-understanding, performance errors, and the like, can be eliminated from the analysis. All instances of overt misunderstanding were then examined in detail to determine the source of the problem. While it appears at first glance that the misunderstandings identified can be attributed to a range of diverse sources, closer analysis reveals that in the main, the sources include the following: performance-related, language-related, ambiguity, and gaps in world knowledge. However, this categorization in no way suggests that there is always one clearly identifiable source of a misunderstanding. Frequently, several factors can be seen to contribute to the problem, each interacting with the other(s) in complex ways (see also House 1999, Weigand 1999, Bazzanella and Damiano 1999). It is for this reason also that Bremer et al. suggest that “a constellation of several causal factors” (1996: 38), rather than that a single cause, be considered when investigating the data. While the analysis that follows attempts to describe all the observable causes of each misunderstanding, the misunderstandings are classified according to the factor that can be seen to impact the recipient’s (mis) understanding the most. 5.1. Performance-related misunderstanding Some of the misunderstandings in the data are clearly the result of performance problems such as mishearing and slips of the tongue. Bremer et al., however, caution that a misunderstanding which is attributed to faulty hearing may have



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 101 been “reinforced by another factor such as the utterance having been spoken quickly and/or unclearly” (1996: 38). This is certainly relevant in many ELF interactions where the participants speak different varieties of English with some variation in pronunciation and accent that can impinge on the clarity and intelligibility of sound segments (Jenkins 2000). Inability to identify the phonological sequence of a word or phrase can cause the recipient to “come to a false identification” (Weigand 1999: 775) resulting in misunderstanding. While mishearing constitutes a problem at the perception level, this translates into misunderstanding at the comprehension level (Dua 1990, as cited in House et al. 2003). Thus, incorrect understanding is achieved on account of the incorrectly heard word or phrase. In (1) below, D hears the word “gender” as “general,” and incorrectly understands the topic of M’s research proposal to pertain to something general. (1) D and M are talking about a research proposal they have to write. 01 D: and how about the: Halimah . . .(1.2) proposal [((mumbles)) 02 M: [uh no-no-no: idea at 03 all. it’s quite difficult? so I was thinking I write gender 04 (1.5) 05 D: general:= 06 M: =er gender 07 D: oh uh gender? 08 M: yeah gender issues D’s mishearing of the word “gender” is displayed in the next turn, in line 5, in what is meant to be a repeat of the word. D’s (incorrect) repeat comes after a 1.5-second pause, which suggests that D finds the word “gender” in M’s prior utterance problematic. Since D appears to have heard the word “general” instead of “gender,” “. . . I write (on) general ” is syntactically incomplete as it is missing a noun following the attributive adjective “general.” D orientates to this incompleteness by withholding an immediate response. When M fails to produce additional talk, however, D takes up the next turn to repeat the prior incorrectly perceived word. The repeat, produced with a sound stretch, appears designed to elicit a clarification or a completion of the prior utterance, but it also alerts M to the problem. M’s repair in the form of a simple repeat of the problematic item in line 6 is oh-receipted, suggesting “a change of state of knowledge or information” (Heritage 1984: 309), in this case a change in the understanding achieved. The questioning repeat that follows the particle oh (line 7) allows D to check that the understanding now achieved is in fact correct, which M confirms in the next turn. Extract (2) below provides another example of a misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty hearing.



102 Jagdish Kaur (2) S and M are talking about the political situation in Myanmar. 01 S: and . . .(0.6) so your country right now is the: (communicative) 02 one? 03 M: yeah 04 S: uhhuh no no election? 05 M: no religion huhh= 06 S: =no no election? 07 M: no?= 08 S: =election? 09 M: no election election was- was in: . . .(0.7) (eighty nine or ninety 10 [nine) M makes her misunderstanding of S’s inquiry in line 4 public when she responds to it in the next turn (line 5). M’s response, which seems designed to provide confirmation to S’s inquiry, displays that she has misheard election as religion which then prompts S to initiate repair in the following turn. A simple repeat of the prior question, however, fails to resolve the misunderstanding in the first instance (line 6). It takes another repeat of the problematic word to eventually restore understanding as evidenced by M’s response in lines 9 and 10. In extract (3), a slip of the tongue by the speaker in an earlier utterance is very likely the cause of the misunderstanding that reveals itself a couple of turns later. (3) A wants to know if R he has started working on a particular essay. 01 A: you already started with the::: . . .(1.3) the first assignment 02 eh the- the third assignment? 03 R: yeah 04 A: do all the tables, the graphs everything? 05 R: the first assignment?= 06 A: =no the third the third. A’s inquiry as to whether R has started to work on the third assignment for a particular course is problem-marked as indicated by the sound stretch, the 1.3-second pause and the move to self-correct (lines 1 and 2). Following a response in the affirmative, A inquires further if R has also completed the necessary graphs and tables for the essay. R in turn employs a questioning repeat to check that A’s second inquiry, in line 4, pertains to the first assignment. This elicits a correction from A in the next turn (line 6). The extract is significant in that it illustrates a case of misunderstanding that may have passed undetected if R had not made a move to check on the accuracy of his understanding in line 5. The acknowledgement that R provides in



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 103 line 3 is in all likelihood made with reference to the first essay rather than the third, as the request for confirmation suggests. A’s subsequent question about graphs and tables, however, alerts R to a problem, prompting him to check that A is in fact still talking about the first essay. The misunderstanding has no doubt come about as a result of A’s earlier slip of the tongue in line 1. However, some degree of inattentiveness on the part of R may have also contributed to the problem. The kinds of misunderstanding examined above are to be expected in everyday speech regardless of whether the participants in interaction are mono- cultural or multicultural. While incorrect identification of the phonological sequence of a word—i.e., mishearing—is presumed to be more frequent in ELF talk, given the greater variation in pronunciation and accent, there is no evidence to support this in the data. Only four of the 33 misunderstandings identified could in fact be attributed to faulty hearing on the part of the recipient. Unusual pronunciation of words tends to be followed by requests for repetition or clarification, suggesting non-understanding rather than misunderstanding. 5.2. Language-related misunderstanding Some of the misunderstandings found in the data can be attributed to language problems on the part of one or both of the participants in interaction. That some of the participants face problems in their use of the language is evidenced by the many ungrammaticalities and disfluencies detected in the data. For the most part, however, these linguistic anomalies do not pose an obstacle to achieving successful communicative outcomes. In fact findings from research into ELF show that non-native speakers of English are adept in their use of communication strategies and interactional practices to negotiate meaning and arrive at mutual understanding (see, e.g., Pitzl 2005, Watterson 2008, Kaur 2010). Nevertheless, some of the misunderstandings in the data can be traced to the speaker’s non-standard use of lexical items, while others are triggered by the lack of coherence in the speaker’s utterances. In extract (4), D’s non-standard use of the verb “make,” as in, “make plagiarism,” may have contributed to S’s misunderstanding of D’s utterance. (4) D tells S about a case of plagiarism he had read on the Internet. 01 D: and I found that . . .(1.1) in internet the::: . . .(1.5) the news about 02 . . .(2.5) a very: high level: case of . . .(0.8) plagiarism one of 03 assistant professor at harvard or something like that 04 S: yeah 05 D: er they say that they admit make a:: 06 S: plagiarism?



104 Jagdish Kaur 07 08 09 10 11

D: yes S: oh he-he allow plagiarism? D: no he o he he make- he-he do he do= S: =he-he-he did the plagiarism? D: he did the plagiarisms

In line 5, D uses the expression “they admit make a,” which S correctly completes with the noun “plagiarism” (line 6) when D displays difficulty in finding the relevant next word. Although D incorrectly uses the third-person plural pronoun instead of the singular one, it is his use of the expression “admit make a plagiarism” that is misinterpreted by S, as revealed in his request for con firmation in line 8. S understands D’s use of “admit make” to mean “allow.” That S’s inquiry is oh-prefaced seems to reflect S’s own surprise at discovering this (incorrect) piece of news—namely, that an assistant professor had condoned the act of plagiarism. This suggests that S’s use of the word “allow” is a display of genuine misunderstanding and is not the result of an incorrect choice of word. D’s switch to the word “do” in line 9 indicates that he is probably aware of the inadequacy of the verb “make” in conveying his meaning; his use of the verb “do” reflects an attempt to drive home the point that the lecturer concerned was in fact the perpetrator of the act. In the next extract, the misunderstanding may be attributed to the incoherent nature of R’s utterance, which renders meaning unclear. (5) R seeks suggestions from S and V on the steps a country could take to promote its diplomatic standing in the international arena. 01 R: that’s different. . . .(1.1) and the second topic I:: think er how to:::: 02 . . .(1.8) er: . . .(0.8) improve the:: . . .(1.3) diplomatic? . . .(0.7) you 03 know diplomatic . . .(0.8) go o:n show, to-to show on in the 04 international: stage 05 (1.9) 06 V: °ah more general (this one)° 07 (1.7) 08 R: what- what do we [think about this? 09 S: [now10 now could you tell me once more 11 (1.9) 12 S: [I13 R: [how to show on: ho:w diplomatic on the international stage 14 (2.6) 15 S: you mean er . . .(1.2) ºyou meanº what’s the role of the 16 government in laos to have the international 17 R: no I-I mean: . . .(0.9) not also in laos I mean . . .(0.6) a:ll country



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 105 18 . . .(0.6) in asia or:: . . .(1.6) is a . . .(0.7) ten . . .(0.8) ten country in 19 the asia::: R’s utterance in lines 1 to 4 is marked by ungrammaticalities and disfluencies in the form of sound stretches, lengthy pauses, and hesitation markers, which result in a generally incoherent utterance. S’s failure to understand is made public when he makes a direct request for a repeat of the utterance in line 10. While R does not produce a verbatim repeat of the original, the absence of substantial rewording of the utterance in line 13 suggests that it is a repeat for all intents and purposes. The repetition is followed by a pause of 2.6 seconds before S attempts a response; the pause suggests that S’s problem in understanding R’s prior utterance has not been fully addressed by the repeat. S clearly expects more by way of an elaboration, as indicated by the 2.6-seconds pause. R, however, has taken S’s “could you tell me once more” literally and proceeds to wait for a response after producing the repeat in line 13. That S’s failure to understand R’s inquiry, in lines 1 to 4, has not been resolved by the repetition is evidenced by the misunderstanding that reveals itself in S’s (incomplete) request for confirmation in lines 15 and 16. While S has understood R’s question to pertain to Laos, the country of R’s origin, R’s query is in fact intended to be more general, as he later clarifies. The above extract illustrates the kinds of understanding problems that can develop as a result of the speaker’s inability to put ideas into words due to lack of competence in the language. In this instance, S misinterprets the scope of R’s inquiry because of incomplete understanding of the question. In fact, the example above provides support for the observation made by Bremer et al. that “misunderstanding is often the result of a hypothesis formed . . . as a response to non-understanding” (1996: 69). Thus, while the two types of understanding problems are to some extent separate, the former can develop as a result of the latter, as evidenced in the extract above. 5.3. Ambiguity A major source of misunderstanding in the data pertains to the ambiguity inherent in many of the speakers’ utterances. This constitutes a common source of misunderstanding even in intracultural communication (Bazzanella and Damiano 1999). Ambiguity itself can be traced to various sources but the most common is the lack of explicitness on the part of the speaker. Weigand explains that “Not everything is explicitly said in communication . . . because of timeeconomical reasons and because we are not always aware of every piece of information that would be necessary for clear understanding” (1999: 777). As a consequence, the recipient is often left to infer meaning and frequently may draw the wrong inference and misunderstand the speaker’s utterance.



106 Jagdish Kaur According to Schegloff, problematic reference constitutes “a commonly recognized potential source of ambiguity” (1987: 205) in communication. For instance, failure to make the connection between a pro-term and its referent is likely to result in an “interpretive error” (Schegloff 1987: 205), which manifests itself as a misunderstanding. This is the case in extract (6) below where S wrongly identifies the referent of the object pronoun it in line 8. (6) S and K are talking about an essay they have to write for a course when S switches the topic to inform K about a change in the timetable for the course in question. 01 S: ºyeah.º anyway you know the . . .(1.3) the time maybe change . . . 02 (0.7) on monday we-we start class at nine . . .(0.9) 03 K: [yes 04 S: [you know? 05 K: I know. 06 S: yes and maybe we- we wake up early hahhahhahhahhahhah[hah 07 K: [okay 08 so you have er:::: . . .(0.9) y- . . .(1.4) you worry about it? ºhuhh 09 huhhuhº= 10 S: =yeah I worry about the long paper of the: 11 K: no no no you worry about the:: . . .(1.0) waking up so early? huhhh 12 [huhhuhhuh 13 S: [no I just joking hahhahhah S’s topic switch in line 1 is announced through his use of a misplacement marker in the form of “anyway,” which makes public the fact that what is to follow is disconnected from what has come before (Schegloff and Sacks 1973). In line 6, S remarks that they would have to rise early as a result of the earlier time slot. The laugh tokens that follow suggest that the comment is being made in jest. When K inquires, in the next turn, if S is worried about “it,” S admits to being worried about the essay they have to write for the course (line 10). The exchange just prior to the extract above was in fact about the essay in question. Given the ambiguity of the referent of the pro-term “it,” S incorrectly identifies the referent as the earlier-mentioned essay. It is possible that to S, the link between “worry” and the previously discussed topic of the essay is more logical than the matter of rising early, which was said in jest. The displayed misunderstanding causes K to execute repair in the next turn by clarifying the referent of the pro-term. Besides ambiguous reference, misunderstanding can result from ambiguous semantics. In the case of the latter, the meaning of an utterance is open to different interpretations. Misunderstanding results when the interpretation achieved by the recipient is not the one intended by the speaker, as in the case of the next extract:



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 107 (7) D, citing an article, informs S that most American students admit to plagiarizing at least once in their lifetime. 01 D: er they say . . .(1.4) most of a: american students 02 S: yeah 03 D: they admit they:: that they if- they- . . .(0.6) once of their life time 04 S: yeah 05 D: cheats: in the school. 06 S: wa-once [of what? once of what?= 07 D: [cheat 08 =once of in their:: er: . . .(1.3) in their educations 09 S: yeah 10 D: in their er::: school time 11 S: yeah 12 D: they cheat once.= 13 S: =you mean er they don’t cheat really er a lot-a lot? 14 D: no 15 S: they 16 D: the-just the- the facts that er . . .(0.6) it’s common for everybody 17 that (yes)= 18 S: =it’s common for everyone to cheat? 19 D: yes D’s remark that most American students claim to have cheated at least “once of their life time” (line 3) elicits a request for recapitulation in line 6. In response, D substitutes “life time” with “educations” and “school time” (lines 8 and 10, respectively) as a means of addressing S’s displayed problem. In line 13, S makes a move to check his understanding of D’s comment; S, it appears, has understood D’s utterance to mean that American students rarely cheat in school. This interpretation is clearly based on the point that D has made about the students cheating once in their life time or school time. D’s move to execute repair in lines 16 and 17, however, succeeds in disambiguating the meaning of his prior utterance. The message D was trying to get across, contrary to S’s interpretation, pertains to the point about most American students cheating in school, thus making it a common phenomenon. In seeking to verify the accuracy of his understanding of D’s prior turn, S reveals his misinterpretation of D’s claim, which subsequently leads to a repair sequence in which the problem is addressed. Some of the ambiguities that lead to misunderstanding can be attributed to the speaker’s failure to provide sufficient detail or context in the first place. Given the lack of information provided, the recipient is left to infer meaning. Under-specified utterances are obviously open to various interpretations and can result in misunderstanding. The next extract is a case in point:



108 Jagdish Kaur (8) S and R are talking about post-modern consumerism when S gives an example to clarify his point. 01 S: it explain the: characteristic of this . . .(0.9) er: consumption 02 platform. . . .(1.6) so: for someone is like . . .(1.2) in thailand 03 for example you know if you have very nice number 04 R: mm . . .(0.6) car number ah? 05 S: mobile phone [number 06 R: [ah ah ah In lines 1 to 3, S gives the example of how “nice” numbers have a higher value attached to them in Thailand. He does not, however, provide sufficient detail to enable R to link the example to a concrete object. Consequently, R inquires if S’s example pertains to car license numbers (line 4). The request for confirmation reveals that the inference drawn by R is the wrong one in this case. The correction S provides in line 5 displays that he had mobile phone numbers in mind when making the earlier comment. Misunderstandings that stem from lack of detail and information in the speaker’s utterance are common in the data. Extract (9) below provides another example of this type of misunderstanding. In this case, the invitation put forward by W, which is under-specified, leads to a misunderstanding on S’s part, as displayed in his request for confirmation in line 2. (9) W invites S and some others to go on a trip to a nearby island 01 02 03 04

W: so I wanted to: ask if anyone wants to go S: er during this week? W: no:: next time S: next time yeah

W’s failure to specify when exactly she intends for the trip to take place leads S to infer this. However, given the lack of detail provided, the inference drawn is incorrect. Misunderstandings of the type illustrated in (8) and (9) above generally reveal themselves when the recipient attempts to check on the accuracy of the understanding achieved based on the limited information provided in the speaker’s prior turn. Such problems of understanding, however, are easily resolved as the examples above display. Ambiguity in the speaker’s utterance appears to be the main source of misunderstanding in the ELF data examined. As discussed above, various factors contribute to this ambiguity, which include problematic reference, ambiguous semantics, and lack of specificity. The misunderstandings that result in such contexts are not specific to ELF communication for they occur regularly in all types of communication. Vendler, when referring to an ambiguity-related misunderstanding, confirms this when he says that “misunderstandings thrive in communicative situations” (1994: 19).



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 109 5.4. Gaps in world knowledge Some of the misunderstandings that occur in the data can be attributed to gaps in the recipient’s knowledge of the world. Such misunderstandings thus pertain to content rather than language. However, as the examples below show, the speaker’s lack of competence in the language can, to some extent, exacerbate the problem. Efforts to clarify meaning in such cases are not always successful as the speaker may lack not only sufficient knowledge of the topic in question but also the necessary linguistic resources. In excerpt (10) below, M’s attempts to explain a lecturer’s medical condition —i.e., Parkinson’s disease—results in misunderstanding, as displayed in K’s request for confirmation in line 23. (10) M is telling K and S about a lecturer who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. 01 M: so whenever he er: he came here Tim: Tim help him because he’s 02 got parkison, you know parkison disease? 03 K: hu:h= 04 S: =ºwhat’s thatº?= 05 M: =where he’s shaking all the time 06 S: uhhuh 07 M: and then er before he: got up er: er Tim have to do timing one: 08 two: three and then pull him. 09 S: oh 10 M: really hhh 11 K: ( ) pull his hand? 12 M: yeah er er you know he’s shaking his muscle is shaking 13 K: mm 14 M: and: and then in the class for him er: er they have to arrange 15 microphone 16 K: mm 17 M: from different . . .(0.6) different you know corner 18 K: huh 19 M: so: so that we can hear. . . .(2.0) so he-he- i- he’s coming in 20 february I think. 21 K: february? 22 M: yeah.= 23 K: =oh from from pakistan huh? 24 M: er n-no no he’s er not er: er pakistan . . .(0.6) er parkison disease 25 he’s having. 26 K: mm 27 M: mister sin- I think- I- I’m not sure where is- where is he from 28 . . .(1.1.) so huhhuhhuh=



110 Jagdish Kaur 29 K: =very strange [teacher that we have here. 30 M: [huhhuhhuhhuhhuh The misunderstanding above can be attributed to various interacting sources. In the first place, M pronounces the word “parkinson’s” as “parkison.” This does not appear to be a mere slip of the tongue as she consistently and systematically produces the word as such in the extract above (lines 2 and 24). In response to S’s request for clarification in line 4, M manages to describe only one physical symptom of the disease, i.e., “he’s shaking all the time.” Thus, in addition to K’s and S’s own lack of knowledge of the subject, M herself displays gaps in her knowledge of the matter; M fails to provide adequate clarification of the disease and its symptoms. In line 23, K seeks confirmation that the lecturer in question is from “pakistan.” K has clearly misunderstood “parkison” to mean “pakistan” in spite of the explanation provided by M following S’s request for clarification. The repair that M performs following K’s displayed misunderstanding does little to shed light on the matter. K’s remark regarding the strangeness of the lecturer (line 29) indicates that understanding has not been achieved. While there are several factors contributing to the misunderstanding above, it is the lack of knowledge of the subject in question on the part of the recipient and the speaker, to some extent, that is most significant. Extract (11) illustrates further how the recipient’s lack of world knowledge leads to misinterpretation of the speaker’s message. However, as in the case above, the matter is hardly straightforward or simple; various other factors can be seen to exacerbate the problem. (11) S inquires if V knows of the Tran-Siberian railway. 01 S: you know transiberia? 02 V: → uhhuh in myanmar 03 S: no transiberia is the: railway 04 V: o::h= 05 S: =china go to russias 06 V: o::h 07 S: (good size lah) 08 V: is it an airline? 09 S: sorry? 10 V: is it an airlines? 11 S: no: it’s a::: landlocked 12 V: o::h= 13 S: =country. how come you don’t know from where? you know 14 Genghiz Khan? 15 V: uh[huh 16 S: [Kublai Khan?



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 111 17 V: uhhuh 18 S: those people are mongol. 19 V: o:::h okay okay okay okay V’s response to S’s inquiry, in line 2, reveals a misunderstanding as evidenced by S’s move to execute repair in the next turn. However, V’s response gives little indication as to the nature of the misunderstanding. S’s subsequent clarification in lines 3 and 5 is met with a request for confirmation that reveals yet another misunderstanding (line 8). Following the displayed misunderstanding, S does not exactly explain “transiberia,” but instead shifts to a matter connected to the region in question. In addition to V’s obvious lack of knowledge of the subject in question, the speaker himself can be seen to contribute to the problem. S’s initial question is vague, as it does not specify the topic, namely, the tran-siberian railway or railroad. Although S does attempt to clarify meaning in lines 3 and 5, it appears that V fails to perceive the crucial detail here, i.e., “railway,” in spite of the minimal responses produced in lines 4 and 6. S’s shift to a related topic after failing to address V’s inquiry in lines 8 and 10 suggests that S himself may lack sufficient knowledge to explicate the matter and facilitate understanding for V. It is unlikely that shared understanding is finally achieved regardless of V’s emphatic display of understanding in line 19. The above two extracts are similar in that mutual understanding seems not to have been achieved despite the attempts made to address the misunderstanding. In both cases, various factors can be seen to contribute to and complicate the misunderstanding. It appears that lack of world knowledge on the part of the recipient and gaps in the knowledge of the speaker can lead to misunderstandings that are irreparable. It is also possible that M and S in (10) and (11), respectively, may have been hampered in their efforts at clarifying meaning due to the lack of relevant vocabulary, as the disfluencies in the repair turns suggest. The hesitation markers in lines 24 and 25 in extract (10) and the stretched sounds in line 11 in extract (11) point to some form of trouble, in this case a possible word search in progress. The absence of hesitation in the earlier turns to the extent displayed in the repair turn, and the switch in topic following the unsuccessful repair attempt in both examples does seem to suggest difficulty in finding the words needed to clarify meaning. It is therefore conceivable that some limitations of vocabulary on the part of the speakers may have also contributed to their inability to successfully repair the misunderstandings. 6. Discussion and conclusion The above analysis offers some insight into the sources of misunderstanding in one type of intercultural communication, namely, in ELF communication. By



112 Jagdish Kaur taking into account the local context and the orientations of the participants as well as the repair moves that follow the displayed misunderstanding, a more comprehensive picture of the nature of misunderstanding in this type of interaction is obtained. Generally, the misunderstandings that occur can be attributed to either one of the sources listed above or to a combination of these factors. These sources, with the exception of the language-related one, have also been observed to contribute to misunderstanding in communication between people of similar lingua-cultural backgrounds. For instance, Bazzanella and Damiano, who examine intracultural interactions in Italian, state that, “ambiguity seems to play a major role in generating misunderstanding” and attribute 66% of the misunderstandings in their data to this factor (1999: 818). Although a quantitative analysis of the data was not conducted for the present study, the most common source of misunderstanding does appear to be ambiguity in the speaker’s utterance. In addition to ambiguity, mishearing, and lack of world knowledge, among others, have also been identified as common causes of misunderstanding in intracultural interactions (Weigand 1999). The analysis above evidences the role these same factors play in the creation of misunderstanding in ELF interaction. Notwithstanding the aforementioned similarities, the language ability and competence of the participants in interaction set the two apart. Linguistic diversity, which is a key feature of ELF use, results from what Mauranen terms as “variable learning” (2003, cited in Mauranen 2007: 245). As Mauranen explains, participants in an ELF situation, who have acquired the language “in diverse circumstances in different parts of the world” and “are likely to have had very different experiences” with it, manifest a wide range of proficiency levels (Mauranen 2007: 245). In spite of this diversity, misunderstanding is said to be uncommon as participants collaboratively employ strategies to prevent them. Certainly there were few misunderstandings in the data that could be traced directly to a language problem on the part of a participant. Nevertheless, language inadequacies can exacerbate problems associated with (mis) hearing, ambiguity and lack of world knowledge. While the role of language has, to a large extent, been ignored in research into intercultural misunderstanding, the above observations underscore the need to reconsider the matter. Another related finding of the study pertains to the role of cultural difference in intercultural misunderstanding. Much of the research conducted on inter cultural and interethnic communication, regardless of whether it is from a cultural-anthropological perspective, an interactional-sociolinguistic perspective, or a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective (see Sarangi 1994), attribute the misunderstandings that occur to the differences in the participants’ cultural backgrounds. The lack of shared assumptions and beliefs among the participants, together with their use of different discourse strategies and communicative styles, is said to render such communications difficult and problematic.



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 113 The present research, conducted within a Conversation Analysis framework, however, finds no evidence of the above. None of the misunderstandings in the data can be traced to differences in the participants’ cultural background, as previously noted by House (1999) and Mauranen (2006). A possible explanation for the above lies in the status of the participants in interaction. Many studies on cross-cultural or intercultural communication focus on interactions between majority and minority speaking participants of a language, where there is obvious affiliation among the majority speakers to the dominant culture and language. The absence of similar affiliation among the minority speakers to the norms and values of the dominant group may in fact be the reason for some of the culture-based misunderstandings that are said to plague such encounters. Thus, it may not simply be a matter of cultural difference but rather the failure of the minority speaker to adhere to the norms, both cultural and linguistic, of the majority group that leads to communication problems. In ELF communication, the participants, while of different lingua-cultural backgrounds, share certain commonalities: that of being non-native speakers of the language and possibly a “shared incompetence” (Varonis and Gass 1985b: 71) in the language. As many of the examples above show, the threat of communication breakdown is a very real one when participants are compelled to use a medium of communication that is not their native language. It is possible, then, that the lingua franca context causes participants to be less focused on matters of cultural difference as they need to grapple with the medium of communication in their efforts to achieve shared understanding and successful communicative outcomes. The findings above in fact offer some support for “the Culture Irrelevance Hypothesis” put forward by House, which highlights “the non-influence of ELF speakers’ native linguaculture” (1999: 84) in ELF interaction. While House suggests that “national and native language and culture adherence is eclipsed” because of “a focus on interpersonal and individual concerns” (House 1999: 84), the present study offers an alternative explanation for the diminished role of culture, namely, a concern with achieving mutual understanding in the lingua franca. Correspondence address: [email protected]

Notes 1. Tzanne (1999: 33–34) offers a fairly in-depth review of the range of terminologies used in the literature to refer to the various problems of communication. 2. The data was collected for my doctoral research on The Co-Construction of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca (2008).



114 Jagdish Kaur 3. Given the absence of other corpora of similar size and the unavailability of information on the number of misunderstandings noted in other studies, it is difficult to say with certainty if these 33 instances constitute a large or small number of misunderstandings. While Bazzanella and Damiano (1999) noted 63 misunderstandings in the data they examined, the size of their corpora is unavailable.

References Bazzanella, Carla and Rossana Damiano. 1999. The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6). 817–836. Bremer, Katharina, Celia Roberts, Marie-Therese Vasseur, Margaret Simonot, and Peter Broeder. 1996. Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. London: Longman. Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6). 753–762. Dua, Hans R. 1990. The phenomenology of miscommunication. In Stephen Harold Riggins (ed.), Beyond Goffman: Studies on Communication, Institution and Social Interaction, 113–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Firth, Alan. 1990. ‘Lingua franca’ negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes 9(3). 269–280. Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237–259. Gass, Susan and Evangeline Varonis. 1991. Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles, & John M. Wiemann (eds), Miscommunication and Problematic Talk, 121–145. London: Sage. Gramkow, Karsten. 2001. The Joint Production of Conversation. Aalborg: Centre for Languages and Intercultural Studies, Aalborg University. Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In John Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. House, Juliane. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language, 73–89. Tubingen: Stauffenburg. House, Juliane. 2002. Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In Susan Foster-Cohen, Tanja Ruthenberg, & Marie Louise Poschen (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 2, 243–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. House, Juliane, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross. 2003. Misunderstanding talk. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper & Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 1–10. London: Longman (Pearson). Jenkins, Jennifer. 2003. World Englishes. London: Routledge. Kaur, Jagdish. 2008. The Co-Construction of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University PhD dissertation. Kaur, Jagdish. 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, 107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kaur, Jagdish. 2010. Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes 29(2). 192–208. Mauranen, Anna. 2003. The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37. 513–527.



Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 115 Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123–150. Mauranen, Anna. 2007. Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Kjersti Flottum (ed), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, 243–259. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online 5. 1/00. http:// linguistik-online.com (accessed 21 October 2004). Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2005. Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14. 50–71. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/ Views0502mlp.pdf (accessed 28 September 2008). Sarangi, Srikant. 1994. Accounting for mismatches in intercultural selection interviews. Multi lingua 13(1/2). 163–194. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25. 201–218. Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7. 289–327. Scollon, Ron. and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133–158. Tzanne, Angeliki. 1999. Talking at Cross-Purposes: The Dynamics of Miscommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Varonis, Evangeline. 1981. A sociolinguistic analysis of crosscultural misunderstanding. Paper presented at NWAVE X. Philadelphia. Varonis, Evangeline and Susan Gass. 1985a. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society 14. 327–343. Varonis, Evangeline and Susan Gass. 1985b. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6(1). 71–90. Vendler, Zeno. 1994. Understanding Misunderstanding. In Dale Jamieson (ed.), Language, Mind and Art, 9–21. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Watterson, Matthew. 2008. Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication. World Englishes 27(3/4). 378–406. Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 763–785. Wooffitt, Robin. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.



116 Jagdish Kaur Appendix 1 Table 1: Participants According to Ethnicity, Mother Tongue, and Role (Kaur 2008)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Ethnicity

Mother Tongue

Role

No.

Burmese Cambodian Filipino-Chinese Indonesian Italian Korean Laotian Malaysian-Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Nigerian Spanish Sri Lankan Thai Vietnamese

Burmese Cambodian Chinese Indonesian German Korean Lao Malay Chinese Tamil Igbo Spanish Sinhala Thai Vietnamese

Student Student Lecturer Student Research Student Student Student 2 Students, 1 Lecturer 3 Students, 1 Research Student Research Fellow Student Lecturer Student Student Student

1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Appendix 2 The transcription notations used in the paper are as follows: [ ]

a left square bracket marks the onset of overlap a right square bracket marks the end of overlapping talk; this feature, however, is only indicated when it can be accurately discerned = an equal sign marks latching - a hyphen marks a cut off . . .(0.6) a numeral placed within parentheses following three dots marks a pause of 0.6 seconds and above : a colon marks a stretched sound ? a question mark marks rising intonation . a full stop marks falling intonation , a comma marks continuing intonation .hhh a series of ‘h’s preceded by a dot marks audible inhalation hhh a series of ‘h’s not preceded by a dot marks audible exhalation ºsoftº degree signs mark speech that is relatively softer than the surrounding talk ( ) words within parentheses mark the transcriber’s uncertainty of the actual words produced ( ) empty parentheses represent segments of talk that could not be transcribed (( )) double parentheses enclose the transcriber’s comments
