Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:59:03.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Intercultural Teamwork via Videoconferencing Technology: A Multimodal (Inter)action Analysis

from Part IV - Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the miscommunication of an intercultural team working on a task via videoconferencing technology using English. We utilize multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, 2004, 2011, 2019, 2020) as our theoretical and methodological framework to shed new light on how participants appear to negotiate and co-construct common ground, while they in fact do not achieve conceptual convergence but, instead, produce their own actions. The data for this chapter comes from a corpus of twelve dyads working on tasks via videoconferencing technology in New Zealand. Data was collected from various English monolingual and Serbian multilinguals in various interactive constellations. In this chapter, we focus on a dyadic team with a Serbian native speaker and a monolingual New Zealand English speaker. Rajic and Norris (2018) show that Serbian native speakers’ nonverbal actions vastly differ from New Zealand English speakers’ nonverbal actions. While the difference in production of nonverbal actions is relevant in all interactions, they do not necessarily lead to intercultural miscommunications. However, as noted earlier, interactive alignment is not just a linguistic accomplishment (Pirini & Geenen 2018). Our results conflict somewhat with those of other scholars (House, 1999; Mauranen, 2006), who claim that few miscommunications occur in English as a Lingua Franca interactions. Owing to our analysis, we would like to claim that miscommunications in linguistically and culturally diverse communicative situations are more frequent than previously thought. However, many of the miscommunications that occur cannot be said to come about because of cultural differences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M. T., Simnot, M., and Broeder, P. (2014). Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geenen, J., Matelau-Doherty, T., and Norris, S. (2021) Visual transcription: A method to analyse the visual and visualise the audible in interaction. Revue française des méthodes visuelles, 5, 1–55.Google Scholar
House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Gnutzmann, Claus, ed., Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Tubingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 7389.Google Scholar
Jovanović, V. Ž. (2012) Emblematic elements of non-verbal communication with English and Serbian speakers. Collection of Papers. Language, Literature, Communication. Niš: Filozofski fakultet, pp. 452473.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a Lingua Franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 107123.Google Scholar
Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1). 93116.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123150.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (Inter)action: Introducing Multimodal (Inter)action analysis. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. (2019). Systematically Working with Multimodal Data: Research Methods in Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, S. (2020). Multimodal Theory and Methodology for the Analysis of (Inter)action and Identity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, Y. (2020). The cognitive saliency of word associations of verbs of speech in English as a Lingua Franca interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 417443.Google Scholar
Pirini, J. and Geenen, J. (2018). Gaze and posture in collaborative building: A multimodal video analysis of emergent shared knowledge. Proceedings of 32nd Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference, pp. 10251041.Google Scholar
Rajic, I. and Norris, S. (2018). Multimodality of lingua franca communication in dyadic teams in New Zealand using Skype. Paper presented at Sociolinguistic Symposium 22. Auckland, New Zealand, June 2730.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (1998) Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 113, 139183.Google Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 189195.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. (1998) Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×