Thus, co-operation is a 'winner-and- loser' game .... It also sets up an 'adjacency pair' (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). Notice A .... 73-74, 84-85, 91-92, 93-94, 98-99, 101-102, 103-104, 105-106, 109-110, 114-115, ... described in her studies of conversations among friends in the East European Jewish ..... Cambridge: CUP pp.
Interpersonal Harmony and Textual Coherence in Chinese Business Interaction
Li Wei, Zhu Hua and Li Yue
Abstract This paper focuses on the key Chinese cultural concept of ‘harmony’ and investigates how Chinese speakers endeavour to achieve interpersonal harmony in face-to-face interaction. The data on which this study is based comes from a business meeting amongst four native speakers of Mandarin Chinese in Beijing. Through a detailed Conversation Analysis of a sequence from the closing stage of the meeting, we demonstrate the ways in which the Chinese speakers work together to achieve conversational coherence which in turn contribute to the harmonious relationship they aim to build with each other, even though their business interests and objectives may be different. Implications for cross-cultural business communication are discussed.
“I’m astounded by people who want to know the Universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” Woody Allen
Introduction Cross-cultural communication has in the last two decades become something of a global enterprise, with its own investors, shareholders, regulators, market researchers, publicists, and so forth. For any enterprise, the success of the business depends on the sale of the product. And in order to sell a product to the mass market, an idea needs to be put into the consumer’s mind that one’s social, psychological and even physical condition depends on the possession of that product. This is then followed by a ‘the-answer-to-allproblems’ advertising campaign, with a catchy one-liner, promoting the particular product (Jeannet and Hennesay, 1992; Majaro, 1992; Usunier, 1996; Czinkota and Ronkainan, 1
1998). Despite the gentle but persistent warning from some of the ‘wiser folks’ that culture is not a simple and easy product to sell, the cross-cultural communication enterprise has successfully created a string of one-liners, such as ‘individualism’ versus ‘collectivism’, and ‘low-context’ culture versus ‘high-context’ culture. The market is riddled with ‘Internet-forthose-with-better-things-to-do’-style guides on how to communicate more successfully with the Chinese, the Japanese or the Koreans. More often than not, these guides are written by business-minded academics who have spent a year or two in a ‘foreign’ culture and have actually spoken to one or two Chinese, Japanese or Koreans. They use a simple logic: China (or Japan or Korea) is a collective culture; people from collective cultures communicate indirectly; Jiang is from China; he communicates indirectly. There is no doubt that the way we communicate is influenced by the culture in which we are brought up. The difficulty, however, is that culture has been viewed as including everything that is human made. Those whose academic and personal lives have thrived with the cross-cultural communication enterprise have rarely bothered to give a clear, comprehensible - let alone one-liner - definition of what they mean by ‘culture’. Bond (1991: 38) describes it as the ‘ “ghost in the machine”, trotted out by the social scientist to jump the hurdles of the behaviour differences he or she is trying to explain’. To complicate the situation further, Edward Hall, whose thinking and research on different cultures in the world have enriched our knowledge of ‘other’ peoples as well as ourselves, suggested that is communication and communication is culture’ (1959: 169; original emphasis). This, in our view, poses a tremendous methodological challenge as to how we can study cultural differences in communication. In this paper, we see culture as a meaning system, sharing a broad design and deeper principles and varying between individuals in its specificities (e.g. Hall, 1959, 1966; Geertz, 1973; Gudykunst, 1998). As a meaning system, culture is learned through social interaction and not biologically transmitted; it depends on environment and not heredity; therefore it is distinctive from race. Its ‘sharedness’ means that it is internally consistent and not random. While no individual knows all aspects of a culture, people are generally aware of the key notions and concepts in their own cultural environment. These key notions and concepts are the beliefs and values people hold as members of a particular culture, and they inform and sustain particular norms of interaction and interpretation, which in turn are
2
reflected in the communicative behaviours of individuals (Li Wei, 1996). Our aim in this paper is two-fold: we focus on one of the key concepts in the Chinese culture, namely, harmony, and demonstrate how Chinese speakers endeavour to achieve interpersonal harmony in face-to-face interaction. In the meantime, we wish to address a methodological issue and examine how textual coherence is achieved in conversational interaction involving several speakers with differing interests and objectives. We shall argue that the two aspects, interpersonal harmony and textual coherence, are closely interrelated in conversations amongst the Chinese. The paper is based on a larger study which aims to investigate the discourse strategies by Chinese businessmen when they are interacting in Chinese with other native Chinese speakers and in English with English-speaking business counterparts, and to explain how and why their style may be different from, say, that of the British businessmen. The study uses a combination of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Ethnography of Communication (EC). Transcripts of tape-recorded conversations among a group of Mandarin-speaking Chinese businessmen from mainland China and between them and their English-speaking business counterparts from Britain are the main source of data, supplemented by ethnographic observations and interviews. In the present paper, we discuss only one sequence of interaction during the closing stage of a business negotiation amongst four native Mandarin Chinese speakers in their own language. The structure of the paper is as follows: we begin with a discussion of the key Chinese cultural concept of harmony, moving onto its role in the study of pragmatics. We then discuss the database and analytic framework of the present study. A detailed Conversation Analysis of a sequence taken from the closing stage of a business negotiation between four Chinese business colleagues is then presented. The discussion of the analysis is related to both the concept of harmony and methodological issues of analysing textual coherence in conversational interaction. Implications for cross-cultural business communication are also discussed. The paper concludes with a brief summary of the findings and pointers for further research.
Harmony as a key Chinese cultural concept
3
The Chinese word for harmony is he. There is some controversy regarding the etymology of he, partly due to the fact that two different written representations were used, sometimes interchangeably, in ancient texts. One representation was (1). The component character on the left hand side referred to an ancient Chinese musical instrument, similar to the flute, particularly often used in celebratory events. The component character on the right was a phonetic radical, indicating the pronunciation of the combined character, but when used on its own it referred to ‘standing grain’ especially rice. One suggestion in Chinese philology is that this was the original, full written character for he, which was later simplified into (2), which was turned into (3) by changing the places of the two components. However, the simpler representation appeared as early in ancient Chinese texts as the more complex representation and was much more frequently used. The component character (4), originally on the left hand side (in accordance with a particular constructional pattern of many Chinese characters in which the semantic radical appears on the left and the phonetic radical on the right) and later changed to the right, refers to ‘mouth’. Whatever etymological stance they may take, most Chinese philologists agree that he means ‘making harmonious sounds’, either through musical instruments or verbally. The latter has a specific literary reference, i.e. composing poetry which has its own, very strict rhyming rules. In Modern Standard Chinese (MSC), he is most often used in disyllabic words and phrases such as he’ai (amiable), hehao (reconciliation), heju (drawn game), hemu (concord), heping (peace), heqi (friendly and polite), and hexie (harmonious). But how is the harmonious sound made? In other words, how can one achieve he? As with many other Chinese cultural beliefs and values, one has to go back to the teaching of Confucius. According to Lunyu, (The Analects of Confucius), he is the most precious virtue of all and the reason for human beings to practise politeness. In Liji (Record of Ritual), a venerated text which was reputedly edited by Confucius himself, he means ‘to measure what one says and practise the doctrine of the mean each time one utters’. And in Zhouli (The Rites of Zhou Dynasty), he is achieved by ‘echoing others’ and ‘saying the appropriate amount for the purpose and occasion’. Thus, he is explicitly linked with one’s language behaviour, and is as much about what one says as about how one says it. There were important historical reasons for the emphasis on he in the Chinese culture. The Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770-256 BC), a period during which Confucius (551-
4
479 BC) lived, was marred by social unrest and military conflict right across the nation. Instead of advocating social order which could only be imposed through violent means, Confucius and his followers urged people to accept social hierarchy as a basic condition of everyday life and to work together towards the broader, common good. What Confucius promoted was harmony and not agreement, concordance and not conformity, and sharedness and not sameness. Indeed, Confucius himself highlighted the difference between he (harmony) and tong (agreement) when he said, ‘Gentlemen live in harmony rather than agreement; petty men live in agreement but not harmony (Junzi he er bu tong, xiaoren tong er bu he)’. Hall and Ames (1987: 166) described harmony as ‘attuning’ and agreement as ‘tuning’: ‘ “Attuning” is the combining and blending of two or more ingredients in a harmonious whole with benefit and enhancement that maximises the possibilities of all without sacrificing their separate and particular identities. “Tuning” is finding agreement by bringing one ingredient into conformity and concurrence with an existing standard such that one ingredient is enhanced possibly at the expense of others’. As Young (1994: 45) comments, ‘The active pursuit of harmony ultimately aims towards a unity of differences, a synthesis of divergences, a confluence of contrast. It is an attempt to engross all while offending none. It is a unity in diversity that is both dynamic and complex, one that works by way of mutual accommodation and adjustment’.
Harmony in pragmatics One of the key concepts in the study of pragmatics is ‘co-operation’, which, according to Grice (e.g. 1981), provides the mechanism whereby speakers understand each other in conversational interaction. From a sociological perspective, co-operation can be defined as ‘acting together in a co-ordinated way at work, leisure or in social relationships, in the pursuit of shared goals, the enjoyment of the joint activity, or simply furthering the relationship’ (Argyle, 1991: 15). This seems to concur with the notion of harmony we have discussed above. Grice’s notion of ‘co-operation’ is defined with specific reference to conversational interaction. He proposed four maxims - the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner - which are observed in co-operative interactional behaviour. It is assumed that conversation participants would normally make their contribution as informative as is
5
required, no more and no less; they would say only what they believe to be true, and what they say will be directly relevant to the topic of the conversation; they would avoid obscurity and ambiguity; they would make their contribution in an orderly fashion. A detailed discussion of Grice’s co-operative principle and the associated maxims is beyond the scope of this paper. Thomas (1995: 87ff) offers a critique of Grice’s theory. What we are concerned with here is the cultural-specificity of co-operative behaviour. In a study which contrasts the so-called co-operative interactional behaviour in ‘Anglo’, Polish and Japanese cultures, Wierzbicka (1991) suggests that the following dimensions are important in formulating what she calls ‘the cultural script’ for conversational participants: - a relationship between I and YOU - a tendency either TO SAY or NOT TO SAY THINGS - an evaluation of affect (FEEL GOOD/BAD ABOUT THIS) Using introspective as well as interactional data, Wierzbicka argues that members of different cultures operationalise these dimensions of the script in interactional behaviour through the use of various discourse strategies, in particular the relatively direct versus indirect speech acts. Cultures closer to the ‘I/TO SAY/FEEL GOOD’ end of the continuum promote direct speech acts, while cultures closer to the ‘YOU/NOT TO SAY/FEEL BAD’ extreme give rise to the more indirect speech acts. In a similar vein, Ting-Toomey (1988, 1993) links co-operation with politeness, an interactional strategy whereby speakers achieve a variety of goals, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious interpersonal relations. Using the politeness theory developed by Brown and Levinson (1987), Ting-Toomey (1988) proposed three other dimensions which are at the centre of interest when investigating co-operative behaviour in cultural contexts: 1. Face Concern Orientation: is facework self-directed/other directed? 2. Face Need Is there a stronger need for autonomy or for association? 3. Mode Consequence for action: directness (say/not say), affect (positive/negative), judgement of behaviour (feel good/bad).
6
At the interactional level, conversation is felt to be harmonious when all participants try and co-operate by the use of certain communicative strategies in satisfying their own face wants as well as those of their co-participants. It should be pointed out that while ‘co-operation’ and ‘harmony’ are often used interchangeably in studies of cross-cultural pragmatics, the two concepts are nevertheless different in one important aspect, that is, personal goals. Co-operation is fundamentally an individualistic notion, in which everyone has his/her own rather different and sometime conflicting goals; co-operation is achieved by competition among the personal goals which results in one of the parties giving up, or at least suspending, his/her own goal in favour of others. In harmony, on the other hand, each and every goal of the individual involved in the interaction is achieved to some extent but seldom to the full and all parties are trying their best to find the common ground or ‘the balance point’. Thus, co-operation is a ‘winner-andloser’ game whereas in harmony everyone is happy.
The Data The database for the present study comes from a business negotiation amongst a group of Chinese businessmen. Business negotiation as a communicative event poses a pragmatic dilemma to the negotiating parties, as it involves co-operation as well as competition. It is more often than not that the different parties start off with rather different interests and objectives; negotiation is a process in which they try to reach an agreement or a compromise in mutual dependence. In intracultural business negotiations, it might seem relatively obvious what the objectives of different parties are, what can and needs to be negotiated, and what the best negotiating tact would be. In other words, all the negotiating parties share the same or a similar ‘script’ for the act of negotiating. In cross-cultural business negotiations, on the other hand, the different parties may have rather different, even conflicting, ‘scripts’ and, as a result, act rather differently and interpret each other’s acts in rather different ways. As a first step towards an understanding of how people from different cultures deal with the pragmatic dilemma of co-operation and conflict in business negotiations, we examine in this paper the ways in which native speakers of Mandarin Chinese conduct business negotiations in their own language with their own nationals. The sequence of
7
conversation we analyse here involves four native Mandarin speakers, one of whom was a woman (A) and three were men (B, C, D), all in their forties. A and C were from the same plastic shopping bags producer, A being a senior member of the marketing department and C the head of production. They were trying to market the shopping bags to supermarkets. B was the manager of a large, new supermarket in Beijing and the most senior participant of the present negotiation both in terms of age and status. D was an assistant of B’s. A and C had met B and D respectively and separately before, but it was the first time the four had met together. The conversation took place in 1993 in B’s office. B and C were sitting next to each other on a settee at one corner of the room, while A and D were sitting on separate sofas. The participants agreed to be tape-recorded during the discussion and were told that the purpose of the recording was to help a friend of ours with a linguistics assignment at college. A small microphone was placed on a long coffee table right in front of the participants, on which some business documents were also laid out. The recording was made in our absence.
Analytic Framework The analytic framework we use in the present study is that of Conversation Analysis (CA). CA’s theoretical and methodological contributions to the study of intercultural communication have been highlighted by Gumperz (1982) and more recently by Bremer, et al (1996) (see also Zhu, Li and Qian, 2000, for an example of the application of CA to the analysis of Chinese cultural communication). In very general terms, CA aims to provide an account of the mechanisms used by ordinary members of society to accomplish everyday and institutional life through fine-grained analysis of talk and non-verbal communication. Conversation analysts argue that the speaker’s ‘responsive treatment’ of the ‘prior turns’ at talk provides the best evidence of his/her interpretative process, practical reasoning, and conclusion (Schegloff, 1984); therefore the ‘causes and sources’ of understanding, nonunderstanding and misunderstanding can all be traced by a fine-grained, turn-by-turn analysis of conversation. At a methodological level, CA is often contrasted with Speech Acts Theory (see e.g. Levinson, 1983). The latter focuses on the mapping between form and function of utterances, i.e. the act accompanied by the words uttered, and uses ‘topic’ as a basic unit of
8
analysis of conversational interaction. CA, on the other hand, sees the notion of ‘topic’ as inherently problematic, because of the indeterminacy of ‘what the topic is’ even in a single sentence, let alone across several sentences or utterances. But more importantly, as Schegloff (1990) argues, ‘focusing on “the topic” of some unit of talk risks the danger of not addressing analysis to what participants in real worldly interaction are doing to or with one another with their talk [exactly the point Speech Acts Theory aimed to address - our comments], with their talk-about-something, or with particular parts of it; that is, all talk is then treated as talk-about, not as talk-that-does, a vulnerability especially of academic analysis’. Schegloff suggests that ‘sequence’ may be a better candidate type of unit for the analysis of conversational interaction, because the structure of sequences in talk-ininteraction is a source of coherence in its own right. ‘Disparate topics can occur coherently within the framework of a single, expanded sequence and achieve coherence by being framed by it. An utterance that appears to be topically coherent with preceding talk nevertheless can appear incoherent if it is structurally anomalous within the sequence it is part of. And an utterance with no obvious surface ties to either its immediate topical context or to the sequential origins to which it is responsive is nonetheless accessible to understanding by the participants, who are oriented to the pending business of the as-yet open sequence’ (Schegloff, 1990: 72). In our present analysis, we use CA terminology and transcription conventions and, following Schegloff’s suggestions, focus our attention on how conversation participants use their talk to achieve a coherent sequential organisation in a real-life interaction.
Analysis The sequence we examine is taken from the last five minutes of the meeting (A full transcript of the sequence is given in the Appendix, together with a list of transcription conventions). A and C have presented the product (plastic shopping bags) to B and D and they have discussed the design, the price, the volume of production, the supply rate, and other details. Usually by this stage, the negotiating parties would start to sum up the main points and agree a deal. We were quite astonished to see, however, that unlike most
9
business meetings we were familiar with in Britain, the participants did not go through the key points of the discussion and summarise them. The sequence begins with A's utterance 'Na nin kan (.) na zanmen zenma zhe' (What do you think we should do then?), which seems to be an invitation to sum up the discussion. It also sets up an ‘adjacency pair’ (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). Notice A not only uses the polite form of 'nin' (you) to identify B as the next turn speaker, but also the inclusive plural first person pronoun 'zanmen’ (we). With this particular choice of pronouns, she simultaneously claims her membership within the group and involves B in the interaction. B is now obliged to respond to her in the following turn. However, B's utterance, which overlaps with A's second half of her utterance, does not respond to A’s invitation directly. In fact, the utterance which does appears at Line 141 towards the very end of the present sequence, and it is produced by A who has asked the original question. In CA terms, everything that is produced between A’s first question-utterance and her eventual reply in Line 141 is ‘insertion sequence’. Our interest here is in how the participants manage to drift away from the first part of an adjacency pair for so long and get around to it in the end, and at the same time how B and the other participants manage to carry on with the conversation without responding to A directly, and then make A produce the second pair part herself. Notice, first of all, that B’s utterance in Line 2 took the form of what is known as a ‘pre-sequence’ in CA, that is, it sets up a conditional relevance which pre-figures an upcoming action. In doing so, B gains ‘ratified access’ (Levinson, 1983: 349) to an extended turn-at-talk. B also uses the first person singular ‘wo’ (I/me) in contrast to A’s inclusive plural ‘zanmen’ (we/us) and the ordinary ‘ni’ (you/tu) rather than the polite form nin’ (you/vous). As a result, B has taken over as the main speaking-right holder (Wilson, 1989). Indeed, B uses similar strategies several times throughout the sequence and acts as the leading speaker in the conversation. We can pick out B’s utterances at Lines 6, 19, 22, 55, 71, 91,114, and finally 138 and 140, which seem to provide the main structure of the story-line. This story-line centres around a different supermarket and its manager. Exactly what they have to do with the current discussion of the product A and C are trying to sell to B and D (i.e. the ‘topic’ of the conversational exchange) is not immediately apparent. What is clear though is that all four speakers become deeply involved in the collaborative
10
construction of the story-line. When new information is given, it is elaborated upon by all the participants. For example, B first introduces the manager of the supermarket in Line 6 by telling the others that he went to see him the other day, thus indicating that he knows the man in person. But before he has a chance to explain why he went to see the man and what that visit has to do with the current topic of discussion, C invites B to confirm that man’s name, implying that he (C) too knows the person. B gives the confirmation in Line 17, but as if to compete with C as to how well he knows the man, B elaborates on the information about this supermarket manager in Line 19 by saying that they have known each other from the days when they (B and the manager in question) were both working for a different retail business. When C says to A (Line 21) that she might not know the man they are talking about, B immediately offers to introduce her to him (Line 22). D, a colleague of B’s, reinforces B’s claim that he knows the manager in question well in Line 23, which gives B an opportunity to expand further on how they have got to know each other in subsequent turns. We can see that the story-line moves gradually from ‘how well B knows the supermarket manager’ to ‘how clever the man is’ (from Line 61), then to a new queuing system introduced by that manager in his supermarket (from Line 71). B then repeats his promise to introduce A and C to the man (from Line 91), before finally returning to A’s original question (Line 138). Although we can identify certain topic-oriented ‘episodes’ within the sequence, the move from one episode to another is not ‘visible’, i.e. there are no clear-cut boundaries between the episodes. This is partly due to a large number of contiguous utterances, where there is no interval between adjacent pair parts, the second being latched immediately to the first without overlapping it (e.g. Lines 4-5, 15-16, 21-22, 31-33-33, 34-35, 42-43, 47-48, 55-56, 59-60, 64-65, 68-69. 73-74-75-76, 79-80, 8889, 94-95, 96-97, 100-101, 104-105, 108-109, 116-117, 120-121, 122-123, 127-128, 129-130, 135-136, 141-142, 145-146), as well as simultaneous utterances (e.g. Lines 8-9, 17-18, 38-39, 44-45, 57-58, 67-68, 82-83, 86-87, 124-125). We also see frequent overlaps (e.g. Lines 1-2, 6-7, 13-14, 22-23, 24-25, 27-28, 28-29, 40-41, 50-51, 69-70, 73-74, 84-85, 91-92, 93-94, 98-99, 101-102, 103-104, 105-106, 109-110, 114-115, 118-119, 131-132, 138-139, 140-141).
11
Furthermore, there are ample examples of repetition. It is sometimes done by the same speaker, either in the same speaking turn or in different turns (e.g. Lines 2 and 6 by B, 11 and 14 by C, 19 and 24 by B, 46 and 48 by B, 71 and 79 by B, 108 and 110 by C, 112 and 118 by B, 137 and 139 by A, and 143 and 145 by D); other times by two or three speakers repeating each other's words and phrases (e.g. Lines 11, 13 and 14 by C and B, 23 and 32 by D and B, 35, 36, 37 and 39 by B, A and C, 43, 44 and 45 by A, B and C, 53 and 58 by B and A, 73, 75, 76, 78 by B and C, 84, 86 and 87 by B and A, 93 and 94 by B and C, 99, 101, 102, 104 and 107 by all four participants, 120 and 121 by B and A, 129, 131 and 133 by B and A, 128 and 135 by C and D). The latter often occurs after several turn-exchanges have taken place, thus linking the later parts of the conversation with earlier parts and making the sequence structurally coherent as a whole, even though the speakers were talking about quite different things at the time. Another noticeable feature in the present sequence of conversation is the frequent use of the discourse marker ‘shi-bu-shi’ (literally BE + not + BE) (e.g. Lines 9, 20, 27, 38, 42, 69). Although it looks on surface very similar to the English tag question ‘isn’t it?’, and indeed is often translated as such, its chief function seems to be describable only in interactional terms. It is used simultaneously to mark continuing attention to and interest in the current speaker’s contribution and as a repair initiator for the current speaker to reiterate, reinforce or elaborate on what has been said. It helps to maintain the speakership of the current turn holder, although potentially (i.e. if the current speaker fails to repair, reinforce or elaborate as expected) it also prepares the ground for speaker transition. Similarly, there are other discourse markers, such as ‘dui/duidui’ (right), ‘shi/jiushi’ (yes/that’s right), ‘haohao’ (good), and the non-lexicalised ‘ai/ei’. They are mainly used as recipient tokens (Clark and Schaefer, 1987) to indicate continuing acceptance of the current speakership. The sequence as a whole is an interlocking of embedded-episodes, the transition between which is frequent and seamless. Potential problems are ignored or smoothed over very quickly; for instance, B in Line 126 says ‘wo bu gan qu ta nar’ (I dare not go to his place). This seems to be somewhat ‘out of place’. Apparently nobody understands the meaning and intention of this particular utterance, as suggested by the 1.2-second silence. But A and C promptly and simultaneously react with response tokens: the semantically
12
empty ‘ei’ and referentially unspecified or ambiguous ‘jiu shi’ (that’s right). B then does a self-initiated self-repair in Line 129. No specific attention is given to the problem, and the conversation carries on as normal in subsequent turns. The interlocking of the embedded-episodes and the rapid and smooth transition between them give an overall friendly and warm feeling about the sequence as a whole, which is very much the same in nature to the ‘high involvement style’ Tannen (1984) has described in her studies of conversations among friends in the East European Jewish community in New York City. Further evidence of the friendly involvement can be seen in the collaborative building of sentences in Lines 33-34, 48-50-51, 73-75, 86-87, 102-104, 131-132-133, in which various participants anticipate what the others want to say and ‘speak on their behalf’.
Speaker roles and rights Throughout the sequence, we can see that B plays a leading part, while C and D seem to be playing the supporting role. C and D also seem to act as the “go-between” for A and B (e.g. Line 21 by C). We have mentioned earlier that B is the most senior member of the present discussion. It is perhaps natural for him to adopt the leading role. Yet, B does not give an impression of being overtly dominating. In fact, he is especially skilful in leading the story-line of the sequence while giving all the participants a chance to contribute their share. His repeated use of insertion sequences allows him to delay his response to the others and to redirect the questions to them later. The eventual response by A in Line 141 to her own initial question in Line 1 is a result of an extended insertion sequence initiated by B. One of the fundamental principles of Conversation Analysis is that extra-linguistic factors such as age, gender and social status are not simply ‘brought in’ by the participants to determine what they do in a conversational interaction. In fact, the speakers share basically equal rights to speak in spontaneous interaction, which gives conversation its defining character from, say, a board meeting or a lecture. Nevertheless participants manipulate their rights through skilled use of conversational strategies, in order to ‘bring about’ their perceived and projected roles. The task of the conversation analyst, therefore, is to demonstrate ‘procedural consequentiality’ (Schegloff, 1992), i.e. how the speakers’
13
roles and status were ‘brought about’ by the sequential organisation of conversational structures (see also Li Wei, 1998). In the present sequence, B’s use of repetition, reiteration and reinforcement of what he has said in previous turns ‘brought about’ his seniority and showed off his social connections, while C and D played a supporting role by providing confirmation and additional information or opportunities for B to elaborate and expand. In the meantime, A acted as the spokeswoman for C, a role suitable for the present negotiation as well as her relationship with C. In terms of turn distribution, A occupies 40 turns, B 56, and C and D 27 and 23 respectively.
Discussion One of our initial questions when analysing the present sequence was a fairly straightforward, practical one: was the negotiation successful? Looking at the sequence as non-participant analysts, we were not at all sure what exactly had been agreed between the two parties and how they would proceed from there. Nevertheless, when we interviewed the four participants individually following the meeting, all of them said that the discussion was ‘highly successful’. All of them remarked upon the friendliness and warmth the other party had shown, which they took as a good indicator for success. A and C were very confident that B’s supermarket would contract their company to produce large quantities of plastic shopping bags. B and D confirmed they would indeed do so. When asked why they did not raise the issue of ordering specifically in the discussion, they said that there was no need to do so. They pointed out that the aim of the meeting was to establish and enhance harmony between the two negotiating parties. This, they felt, was much more important than following a fixed agenda, going through each item, and agreeing on a written contract. C said, ‘As long as our relationship is good, we can do any business’. Graham and Herberger (1983) identified four stages of business negotiation which they argued had varying importance in different cultures. The four stages are: Stage 1: Non-task relationship creation; Stage 2: Task-related exchange of information; Stage 3: Persuasion; Stage 4: Concession and agreement.
14
Graham and Herberger (1983) suggest that in cross-cultural business negotiations, AngloAmericans are over-eager to get to what they perceive to be the heart of the matter, and rush through to Stage 3, whereas the East Asians emphasise rapport building and understanding of mutual advantage in doing a deal, and take much longer on the first two stages. Similarly, Mead (1993) suggests that in the so-called low-context cultures (such as Germany and Switzerland) initial relationship creation may be passed over fairly rapidly, perhaps assuming greater significance when the deal has been signed. In high-context cultures (e.g. Arab and East Asian), non-task relationship creation is a very important function throughout the process; that is, the decision whether or not to sign a deal may depend very largely on the capacity of the counterparts to project sympathetic and reliable personabilities. These apparent differences in negotiation strategies are, to a large extent, due to different ideologies. Scollon and Scollon (1995) describes business negotiations in the Anglo-American culture as part of the so-called ‘corporate discourse systems’. Corporate discourse systems are driven by the Utilitarian ideology: they are goal-oriented, focused, anti-rhetorical, and deductive. They contrast sharply with the East Asian discourse systems, which are influenced by the Confucian ideology of face relationships and interpersonal harmony. We have suggested earlier in this paper that the main objective of communication under Confucian ideology is to initiate, develop, and maintain social relationships. There is a strong emphasis on the kind of discourse strategy that promotes such relationships. Other researchers have suggested, for instance, that it is very important for the Chinese (and for the East Asians generally) to engage in small talk and to communicate personalised information, especially information that would help place each person in the proper context, along with discussions of the business matter (Young, 1994). Conversational interaction becomes an infinite and on-going process of relationship building. Viewed from this particular perspective, communication has a long-term goal, and is not narrowly focused on the task at hand. For this reason perhaps, the present sequence, taken from the end of a business negotiation, does not contain a summary of the main points, nor any specific mention of a contract. It has, instead, created a co-operative and harmonious relationship between the two negotiating parties, on which a future business partnership can be built. The sequence as a whole resembles a casual conversation among
15
friends, rather than a business negotiation. Through the use of a variety of collaborative discourse features, such as the inclusive first person plural pronoun ‘zanmen’ (we/us), contiguous and simultaneous utterances, overlap, repetition, self-repair, and the discourse markers of ‘shi-bu-shi’, ‘duidui’, ‘haohao’ etc., the four participants show a high degree of personal involvement, which in turn creates a harmonious atmosphere for the interaction.
Conversational Coherence In the present analysis, we have followed the procedures of Conversation Analysis, which we believe has the advantage of revealing in fine detail the strategies whereby participants, especially in multi-party interaction, achieve textual coherence out of apparently unrelated and often incomplete utterances. An important feature of ordinary conversation is its improvised nature. Yet, speakers can normally get through a conversation without too much trouble. The notion of ‘topic’ has frequently been invoked as a resource for giving an account of how conversational coherence is achieved. However, as we have mentioned earlier in the paper, conversation analysts have criticised the traditional reliance on the notion of ‘topic’ as an analytic tool as being vulnerable to a number problems. For instance, Schegloff and Sacks (1973) point out that the common practice of topic shading (or stepby-step transition, Sacks, 1987 [1973]; Jefferson, 1984), by which participants gradually shift the topical thrust of the talk, renders any ‘topic’ of a segment of the talk equivocal even if the “topics” of its several component sentences or clauses, each taken in isolation, could be rendered unequivocally. Accordingly, while it may be analytically feasible to characterise some talk as “on-topic” with some other (ordinarily immediately prior) talk (e.g. Dorval & Echerman, 1984), it is quite a different matter to characterise discretely what that topic is, or to develop the notion of “a topic” as an organising unit for talk-in-interaction. The sequence we have presented in this paper is a good example of the kind of difficulties that are associated with the notion of ‘topic’ in analysing conversational data. While it may be possible to identify a ‘story-line’ of the sequence, it is not at all easy to say what exactly the topic of the sequence is. In fact, the focus of the story-line changes with every move the participants make. Nevertheless, the sequence as a whole seems coherent, and despite the fact that A’s initial question was not responded to immediately or directly, the participants did eventually return to it and brought the sequence to a seemingly
16
satisfactory closure. The CA procedures which we have followed in the analysis have helped to reveal what the participants did to or with one another with their talk in achieving this coherence, which in turn contributes to the interpersonal harmony the participants so desired.
Conclusion The study on which this paper is based draws attention to the key Chinese cultural concept of harmony. Harmony is seen both as an ideal for society and social relationships and as the means through which people come together and attain their goals. The Chinese tend to value acts which generate greater harmony among different participants with diverse interests. We have shown, through a conversation analysis of a sequence of a business negotiation among four native Mandarin Chinese speakers, the kinds of discourse strategies they would employ to achieve interpersonal harmony. In particular, we have demonstrated the various ploys conversation participants use to achieve textual coherence amid apparently disorderly talk. The two aspects, interpersonal harmony and textual coherence, are closely interrelated to each other. While the overall goal of communication among Chinese speakers remains as always the development of harmonious personal relationships, the immediate objective in a given interactional context is to achieve conversational coherence. Without the textual-level coherence, one cannot achieve the interpersonal level harmony. It has to be said that there is nothing inherently Chinese or Anglo-American about any of the linguistic features revealed in the present sequence. Linguists, psychologists, anthropologists, and communication theorists have tried for many years in vain to find uniquely Asian or uniquely European ways of speaking. They all agree, however, that language has many functions. In particular, language can simultaneously have both an information function and a relationship function. That is to say, when we communicate with others, we not only convey certain amount of information but also indicate our current expectations about the relationship between or among participants. Interpersonal relationships cannot be built without language, whatever form the language may take. Nevertheless, different cultures are often different from each other in how much importance they attach to one function of language over the other. Scollon and Scollon ( 1995), for example, suggest that the Confucian cultural tradition places a very high value on the
17
communication of subtle aspects of feeling and relationship and a much lower value on the communication of information, whereas the Anglo-American cultural tradition places a higher premium on clear exposition of facts. International business culture, especially since the introduction of nearly instant global computer communications, seems to be more congenial to the information-oriented cultural tradition. We hope to have demonstrated in this paper that as far as the Chinese are concerned, business agreement represents not just a mutually beneficial contract, but rather the negotiated achievement of the greater cultural ideals of interpersonal co-operation and harmony. While we do not suppose that the Chinese would let the possibility of a good business deal slip by just for the sake of a harmonious feeling, we do believe that the cultural differences in assumptions about the functions of language and communication will have significant effect on intercultural discourse involving people from different traditions. Centre for Research in Linguistics, Department of Speech University of Newcastle upon Tyne Business School, University of Nottingham
Acknowledgements: The data upon which this paper is based was collected by the third author while working for United Biscuits (UK). We are particularly grateful for the support and cooperation from her colleagues and from the business people who allowed us access to their meetings. The transcription and much of the analysis was done by the second author. Earlier versions of the paper were presented by the first author at the 5th International Pragmatics Conference in Mexico City and the 11th Sociolinguistics Symposium at Cardiff, Wales. We are grateful for the constructive comments from the participants of these conferences. We are grateful also to Brigid O’Connor who proofread the manuscript.
18
Chinese Characters: 1
2
3
4
References Argyle, Michael 1991
Co-operation. London: Routledge
Bond, Michael 1991
Beyond the Chinese Face. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press
Bremer, Katharina, Roberts, C., Vasseur, M.-Th., Simonot, M. and Broeder, P. 1996
Achieving Understanding: discourse in intercultural encounters Harlow: Longman
Clark, Herbert H. and Schaefer, E.F. 1987
Collaborating on contributions to conversation. Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 19-41
Czinkota, MichaelR. and Ronkainan, Ilkka A. 1998
International Marketing (5th edition) Fort Worth: Dryden Press
Dorbal, B. and Echerman, C.O. 1984
Developmental trends in the quality of conversation achieved by small groups of peers. SRCO Monographs No. 206
Geertz, Clifford
19
1973
The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books
Graham J.L. & Herberger, R.A. 1983
Negotiators abroad - don’t shoot from the hip. Harvard Business Review, July/August, p. 163
Grice, H. P. 1981
Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223-43
Gudyhunst, William 1998
Bridging Differences: effective intergroup communication (3rd edition) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Gumperz, John J. 1982
Discourse Strategies Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hall, Edward 1959
The Silent Language Garden City, NY: Doubleday
1966
The Hidden Dimension Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Hall, David and Ames, Roger 1987
Thinking Through Confucius Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Jeannet, Jean-Pierre, Hennessay, H.D. 1992
Global Marketing Strategies (2nd edition) Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Jefferson, Gail 1984
On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-222
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983
Pragmatics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
1996
Chinese language, culture and communication: a non-contrastive
Li Wei
approach. In Li Wei (ed.) Chinese Language, Culture and Communication. Special double issue of Journal of Asian Pacific
20
Communication. 7.3/4: 87-90 1998
The “why” and “how” questions in the analysis of conversational codeswitching. In Auer, P. (ed.) Code-Switching in Conversation, London: Routledge, pp 156-176
Majaro, Simon 1992
International Marketing: a strategic approach to world markets (revised edition) London: Routledge
Mead, Richard R. 1993
Cross-Cultural Management Communication. Chichester: Wiley
Sacks, Harvey 1987 [1973]
On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences
in conversation. In Button, G. and Lee, J.R.E. (eds) Talk and Social Organisation Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54-69 Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984
On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: CUP pp. 266-96
1990
On the organisation of sequence as a source of “coherence” in talk-ininteraction. In Dorval, B. (ed.) Conversational Organisation and Its Development, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 51- 77
1992
Reflections on talk and social structure. In Heritage, J. and Drew, P. (eds) Talk at Work. Cambridge: CUP pp. 44-70
Schegloff, E. and Sacks, H. 1973
Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289-327
Scollon, Ron. and Scollon, Susanne Wong. 1995
Intercultural Communication Oxford: Blackwell
Tannen, Deborah. 1984
Conversational Style: Analysing talk among friends Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Thomas, Jenny 1995
Meaning in Interaction: an introduction to pragmatics Harlow: Longman
21
Ting-Toomey, Stella 1988
A face negotiation theory. In Kim, Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication Newbury Park, CA: Sage
1993
Communicative resourcefulness. In Wiseman, R. and Koester, J. (eds) Intercultural Communication Competence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 72-111
Usunier, Jean-Claude 1996
Marketing Across Cultures (2nd edition) New York: Prentice Hall
Wierzbicka, Anna 1991
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Berlin: Mouton
Wilson, John 1989
On the Boundaries of Conversation Oxford: Pergamon
Young, Linda.W.L. 1994
Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press Zhu Hua, Li Wei and Qian Yuan 2000
The sequential organisation of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 81-103
22
Appendix Transcription Conventions: [ onset of overlap = latching or contiguous turns, where there is no gap between two utterances (0.0) elapsed time in silence by tenth of seconds word some form of stress, via pitch and/or amplitude :: prolongation of the immediately prior sound; multiple colons indicate a more prolonged sound shifts into higher or lower pitch in the utterance-part immediately following the arrow .hhh in-breath Transcript of Data (in Pingyin): 001 A: na nin kan (.) na zanmen zenme zhe CON you see CON we how work 002 B: e wo gen ni ↓shuo a PA I PREP. you say PA 003 A: mm 004 B: shi zheyang= BE such 005 A: =eh 006 B: ni kan a (.hh) neitian wo dao SS {Name} qu zhao tamen jingli you see PA that day I arrive go find their manager 007 A: mm 008 B: ei: 009
A:
010
B:
011
C:
012 013
A: B:
014
C:
015 016
A: D:
017
B:
018 019
A: B:
020
D:
shibushi isn’t it houlai le later lao S {Name} shi ba old BE PA (0.7) mm ↓ dui lao S {Name} (.) jiu shi right old ADV BE oh lao S {Name} duile lao S {Name} old right old ah= =jiushi neige cong SS {Name} diao guoqu de nage it’s that one from move over PA that one duidui right oh wo ne ↑shenme (.) wo zai SS {Name} de shihou jiu rende ta:: I CON what I at PA time ADV know him shibu shi
23
021
C:
022
B:
023
D:
024
B:
025 026
A: B:
027
C:
028
D:
029 030
A: B:
031
A:
032
B:
033
C:
034 035
D: B:
036
A:
037
B:
038
D:
039
C:
040
B:
041 042
C: D:
043
A:
044
B:
045
C:
isn’t it (To A) ni keneng bu rende= you maybe not know =na mei wenti (.) wo huitou dai ni qu CON no problem I later take you go S {B’s Name} jingli gen ta ting shou de manager PREP him quite familiar PA na shi a: women zai nei nar de shihou (.) that BE we at that where PA time ah zai yikuar guo at together PERF ↓shibu shi a isn’t it PA o neige shihou nin jiu rende that time you ADV know oh duiya:: nei shihou women zai yikuar laizhe right that time we at together PERF lao tongshi le na nin shi= old colleague PA CON you BE = hai shou ↑ji la= familiar extremely PA =houlai ta dao nar le nei shenme later he go where PA that what SSSS {Name}= =bububu! na shi you houlai le no no no that BE again later PA (laugh) you houlai le again later PA ei you houlai le again later PA shibushi isn't it you houlai le a again later PA ta xian shi zai nei nar (.) zai SS {Name} neige SS {Name} he first BE at that where at that oh shibushi= isn't it =na xianzai yijing meila shi ba CON now already have no BE PA ei za ;o meila long ago have no meila meila
24
046
B:
047
A:
048
B:
049 050
D: C:
051
B:
052 053
A: B:
054 055
D: B:
056 057
D: B:
058
A:
059
B:
060
C:
061
B:
062 063 064
A: D: B:
065
A:
066
B:
067
C:
068
B:
069
A:
070 071
D: B:
have no have no ↓chai le pull down PERF a na nin nei shihou jiu renshi= CON you that time ADV know =dui ya::: ta chai le yiqian jiu diao chuqu le right he pull down PA before ADV move out PERF oh:: houlai jiu zai SS {Name} shi ba later ADV at BE PA jiu zai SS {Name} la duiya duiya ADV at PERF right right oh houlai women you yiduar ↓tai yuan le later we have while too far PA mm you shihou dada dianhua= have time make call telephone =mm ta gei wo wo gei ta he PREP me I PREP him tai yuan shi a too far BE PA houlai jian de buduo= later see PERF not much =jiu shi ADV BE ta zheige ren ting congming de he this person quite clever PA oh mm ting neng gan= quite able work =shi ba BE PA ei ting you zhuyi de quite have idea PA dui ba right PA suoyi wo shuo ne= therefore I say PA =shibu shi isn't it oh: ni kan neige chou hao guitai? you see that draw number counter
25
072 073
A: B:
074 075
D: C:
076
B:
077 078
A: C:
079
B:
080 081
A: D:
082
B:
083 084
A: B:
085 086
C: B:
087
A:
088
D:
089
C:
090
A:
091
B:
092
A:
093
B:
094
C:
095
A:
096
B:
097 098
A: B:
oh jiu shi ADV BE
ta nar= he there mm =oh jiu shi tamen nar ma= ADV BE them there PA =jiu shi ta xian qilai de ma ADV BE he first up PA PA oh:: ↓dui jiu shi ta nar right ADV BE he there ↓ei chouhaor guitai= draw number counter =mm nei shi zhen bucuo that BE really not bad shia shia! yes yes mm ni keyi yibiar mai dongxi yibiar deng ma you can while buy things while wait PA ei yibiar paidui= while queue yibiar deng yibiar pai zhe while wait while queue PA shi ting hao= BE quite good =guke hao a:: customer good PA sheng shi↑jian save time suoyi wo shuo nei tian dai nimen therefore I say when day take you ei hao lei good PA ni ni gen xiao S {Name} wo dai nimen you you PREP young I take you jiu shi ni gen xiao S {Name}= ADV BE you PREP young =dui right ni gen wo qu ↓kankan ta qu= you PREP I go see him go =ai kankan tamen nar yaobuyao
26
see 099
A:
100
C:
101
B:
102
A:
103
B:
104
D:
105
B:
106
A:
107
B:
108
C:
109
B:
110
C:
111
A:
112
B:
113
D:
114
B:
115 116
C: D:
117
A:
118
B:
119
C:
120
B:
them there
want not want na xing na mei wenti CON ok CON have no problem huitou ni gei S{B’s Name} jingli dage dianhua= later you PREP manager make call telephone =ei mei wenti have no problem na huitou wo gei nin zai dage ↑dianhua CON later I PREP you again make call telephone
huitou wo later I
kankan see dage dianhua jiu xing= make call telephone ADV ok =nei shenma there what xing ok huitou wo xian gei ta dage dianhua later I first PREP he make call telephone haohao= good good =huitou wo kankan ta shenme shihou you kong later I see he what time have free haohao good good ↓dui ye kan rejia youmeiyou shi↑ jian right also see other have not have time ei mei wenti have no problem huitou dage dianhua later make call telephone suoyi shuo nimen zheige xiangfa a: therefore say you this idea PA ei jiu shi= ADV BE =na nin gen ta shuoshuo CON you PREP he say ei mei wenti have no problem xing ok women shou= we familiar
27
121
A:
122
B:
123
D:
124
A:
125
C:
126
B:
127 128
A: C:
129
B:
130
D:
131
A:
132
C:
133
B:
134 135
A: D:
136
B:
137
A:
138
B:
139
A:
140
B:
141
A:
142
B:
143
D:
=nin gen ta shou shi a you PREP he familiar BE PA ei women renshi haoduo ↑nian le= we know good many year PA =mei wenti have no problem na xing CON ok haohao good good wo bu gan qu ta nar I not dare go he there
(1.2)
ei jiu shi ADV BE qu ↓kankan ta nar= go see he there =dui right duidui qu kankan ta nar right right go see he there kankan kankan see see kankan ting hao see quite good mm jiu shi= ADV BE =tamen nar bucuo their there not bad na xing CON ok na (.) zenme ↑zhe CON how PA na xing CON ok ni kan you see na jiu xian zhenme= CON ADV first such =haohao good good ei zai he diar cha again drink some tea
28
144
B:
145
D:
146
C:
hai youmeiyou= still have not have =he diar he diar= drink some drink some =ei xing le xing le ok PA ok PA
29
English Translation: 001
A:
what do you think we should do then
002
B:
let me tell you something
003
A:
mm
004
B:
it's like this
005
A:
eh
006
B:
you see I went to see their manager the other day
007
A:
mm
008
B:
ei
009
A:
isn't it
010
B:
later
011
C:
was it old S
012
A:
(0.7) mm
013
B:
that's right, it was old S
014
C:
old S, that's right, old S
015
A:
ah
016
D:
it's the one who transferred from SS
017
B:
yes yes
018
A:
oh
019
B:
I got to know him when I was at SS
020
D:
is that right
021
C:
(to A) you may not know him
022
B:
no problem, I'll take you (to meet him)
023
D:
manager S knows him quite well
024
B:
of course, when I was at
025
A:
ah
026
B:
(we were) together
027
C:
is that right
028
D:
you got to know him then
029
A:
oh
030
B:
that's right, we were together then
30
031
A:
you are old colleagues then
032
B:
(we know each other) extremely well
033
C:
where (did he) go after that
034
D:
SSSS
035
B:
no no no, that's even later
036
A:
even later
037
B:
even later
038
D:
is that right
039
C:
even later
040
B:
he first (worked) at SS
041
C:
oh
042
D:
is that right
043
A:
it's no longer there, is it
044
B:
it disappeared a long time ago
045
C:
not there (any more) not there (any more)
046
B:
(it's been) pulled down
047
A:
so you knew him then
048
B:
that's right, he was transferred before it was pulled down
049
D:
oh
050
C:
he was then at SS, wasn't he
051
B:
(he was) at SS, that's right, that's right
052
A:
oh
053
B:
we were for a while too far away (from each other)
054
D:
mm
055
B:
sometime (we) made telephone calls
056
D:
mm
057
B:
he rang me (and) I rang him
058
A:
it was too far away, wasn't it
059
B:
we didn't see each other much after that
060
C:
that's right
061
B:
he was quite a clever person
31
062
A:
oh
063
D:
mm
064
B:
quite capable
065
A:
is that right
066
B:
(he) had ideas
067
C:
is that right
068
B:
that's why I say
069
A:
is that right
070
D:
oh
071
B:
you know the counter with the ticket dispenser
072
A:
oh
073
B:
it was his place
074
D:
mm
075
C:
oh, it was his place
076
B:
it was him who started it
077
A:
oh
078
C:
that's right, it was his place
079
B:
the counter with the ticket dispenser
080
A:
mm
081
D:
that's really good
082
B:
yes yes
083
A:
mm
084
B:
you can buy other things while waiting
085
C:
ei
086
B:
while you are queuing
087
A:
you wait while queuing
088
D:
that's quite good
089
C:
it's good for the customers
090
A:
(it) saves time
091
B:
that's why I say I'll take you some day
092
A:
good
32
093
B:
I'll take you and young S
094
C:
that's right, you and young S
095
A:
right
096
B:
go and meet him with me
097
A:
ai
098
B:
see if they want (any bags) there
099
A:
that's fine, no problem
100
C:
you can give manager S a ring later
101
B:
no problem
102
A:
I'll give you a ring later
103
B:
I'll see
104
D:
a telephone call will do
105
B:
there
106
A:
that's fine
107
B:
I'll give him a call first
108
C:
good good
109
B:
I'll see when he is free
110
C:
good good
111
A:
yes, (we need to) see if he has time too
112
C:
no problem
113
D:
make a call later
114
B:
that's why (I) say this idea of yours
115
C:
ei
116
D:
that's right
117
A:
you have a word with him then
118
B:
no problem
119
C:
fine
120
B:
we know each other well
121
A:
you know him well, don't you
122
B:
we've known each other for years
123
D:
no problem
33
124
A:
that's fine
125
C:
good good
126
B:
(?) I dare not go to his place
127
A:
ei
128
C:
that's right
129
B:
go and see his place
130
D:
that's right
131
A:
right right, go and see his place
132
C:
(go and) see (go and) see
133
B:
it's nice to see it
134
A:
mm
135
D:
that's right
136
B:
it's not bad there
137
A:
that's fine
138
B:
so what do you think
139
A:
that's fine
140
B:
you see
141
A:
in that case, we'll (leave it) like this
142
B:
good good
143
D:
have some more tea
144
B:
is there any more
145
D:
have some more tea
146
C:
that's OK, that's OK
34
