Directness/Indirectness in conversation

We also observed above that there are rules for the conduct of conversations, which ensure that only one speaker speaks at a time. Studies in the ethnography of speaking, however, show that there are some cultures where this is not necessarily the case at all. In some Caribbean communities, as amongst certain groups of Black American adolescents, it is perfectly normal, at least in some situations, for everyone to talk at once. There are also many societies where it is quite normal for conversational silences to continue for much longer than four seconds. Some American Indian groups, such as Navajo and Apache, have traditionally held to the norm that one does not speak unless one actually has something non-trivial to say.

One can imagine that differences of this type between cultures can often lead, in cross-cultural communica­tion, to misunderstanding and even hostility. When the cultures concerned are not very different, still difficulties can arise. Northern Europeans, for instance, often feel that Ameri­cans are noisy and dominating simply because the norms for how loudly and how much they talk differs between the two areas. And where the cultural differences are greater, the misunderstandings can be greater, too.

In Western Canada, for example, communication difficulties arise in interactions between English-speaking people of European origin and people who are speakers of a group of North American Indian languages known as Athabaskan. One cru­cial difference between the two ethnic groups is that the Whites use language to establish social relations. They speak to people in order to get to know them, and in order to find out how they stand relative to each other. Among Athabaskan groups, on the other hand, speech is avoided if there is doubt about social relationships and about how one should behave. And quite lengthy silences are readily tolerated.

In the interethnic com­munication there, English speakers start the conver­sation by introducing the topic because they want to set about establishing social relations and because the Athabaskans have remained silent. When there is a pause, they feel uncomfortable before the Athabaskans start speaking again.

The result is that English speakers hold the floor and control the topics of conversation for most of the time. The Athabaskans go away from the conver­sation thinking that English speakers are dominating, superior, garrulous (болтливый, словоохотливый), smug (чопорный) and self-centred. The English speak­ers, on the other hand, find the Athabaskans rude, surly (угрюмый, сердитый), taciturn (молчаливый) and withdrawn (замкнутые). In fact, hostility arises simply as a result of a failure by both parties to recognize that different groups of people have different norms concerning when and how language is to be used.

In fact, this can even happen within the same society. The American sociolinguist Deborah Tannen has suggested that in many respects communication between men and women can be regarded as cross-cultural communication, at least in North America, in Europe and elsewhere. She has suggested that men and women often fail to understand one another properly in interaction, and that such misunderstandings can lead to friction and tension in relation­ships. In fact, some Americans who have read her books on this subject have written to her to say that sociolinguistics has saved their marriages.

One aspect of communication that may cause problems of this type is the relationship between directness and indirectness. None of us say exactly what we think at all times - the world would be an even more antagonistic place than it already is if we did - and directness is something what the speakers in all cultures tend to be very careful about. Direct questions, for example, can be particularly threatening, and in many English-speaking societies some direct questions of the type - How much money do you earn? - are hardly ever asked. While other questions will typically be accompanied by some overt recogni­tion that this is a problematical linguistic activity: How old are you - if I may ask? How much did you pay for it - if you don't mind telling me? Do you mind if I ask if you're married?

Indirectness is used as a conversational strategy much more frequently in some cultures than others. In India, for example, people admiring a particular object belonging to someone else may find themselves being given it as a present. There may be many reasons for this - Indians are perhaps especially hospitable and generous - but one interpretation is that compliments may be perceived, by people who are sensi­tive to indirect hints being employed rather than direct re­quests, as if they were requests, whether this was actually intended or not.

Even within Europe, the use of indirectness may vary considerably from one culture to an­other. Northern Europeans living in rural Greece, for exam­ple, eventually learn to say not Who's that person standing over there^? but I've never seen before that person who is standing over there. The point is that direct questions impose an obligation on interlocutors to provide an answer. Indirectness leaves them with a choice.

Tannen reports that when a young Greek woman who was still living with her parents was asked why she was not going to a party, after she had asked her father if she could go and he had replied 'yes,' she explained that her father had not really wanted her to go because, if he had, he would have replied 'Yes, of course, go, and have a really wonderful time.'

It is possible that indirectness is used more in societies which are heavily hierarch­ical in structure. If you want to avoid giving offence to the people in authority over you, or if you want to avoid intimidating people lower in social hierarchy than yourself, then indirectness may be an important strategy.

Men use indirectness signifi­cantly less often in stating their goals, beliefs and intentions than women do, and therefore run the risk of being perceived by women as being tactless, dominating and impolite. Because they use indirectness less, they are also not sufficiently sensi­tive to its use by women, and may not realize when women have indirectly made a request or given an opinion. Women may therefore interpret men as being insensitive and self-absorbed.

Women, on the other hand, because of their relative lack of directness, may be perceived by men as being evasive (уклончивые) and indecisive. Because they are not sufficiently direct in what they say, moreover, they may be perceived by men as being uncommunicative. If misunderstandings are discussed after the event, men may say 'if that's what you think, why didn't you say so?' while women may reply 'I did say so, but you wouldn't listen to me!'

The British sociolinguist Jennifer Coates has suggested that men and women may differ conversationally in at least some other way too. In certain sections of British society, and at least in certain situations, men seem more inclined to prefer a more competitive kind of discourse, whereas women seem to feel on the whole more comfortable with a more cooperative style. Men, for example, may interrupt each other more, and take pleasure in argumentation and point-scoring.

Women, on the other hand, especially amongst groups of friends, may also go against the norm that only one person speaks at once, but in a rather different way. They may, as it were, interrupt another speaker to agree with her, or to supply corroboration, or to finish off what she was going to say for her, in a kind of supportive discourse style in which everyone combines to produce a form of joint monologue. This kind of difference can sometimes cause friction and misunderstanding, as when women participants in mixed-sex conversations complain that men are always interrupting them. Interestingly, Coates's research shows not only that men interrupt more than women, but also that women allow themselves to be interrupted more than men.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11