historical context and intercultural communication: interactions between japanese and american...

7/27/2019 Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions between Japanese and American Factory Workers

1/34

Historical Context and Intercultural Communication: Interactions between Japanese andAmerican Factory Workers in the American SouthAuthor(s): Yukako SunaoshiSource: Language in Society, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 185-217Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4169414 .

Accessed: 08/10/2013 07:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLanguage

in Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 198.37.17.90 on Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:07:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4169414?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4169414?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/34

Languagein Society 34, 185-217. Printed n the United States of AmericaDOI: 10.1017/S0047404505050086

Historical context and intercultural communication:Interactions between Japanese and Americanfactory workers in the American SouthYUKAKO SUNAOSHI

Faculty of InternationalCommunicationGunmaPrefecturalWomen'sUniversity1395-1 Kaminote Tamamura-machiSawa-gun Gunma-ken370-1193, [email protected]

ABSTRACTThis article underscores he importanceof examininginterlocutors'historyin studies of intercultural ommunication. Five historical factors and fourcontextual factors are proposed and illustrated with interview and video-tapeddata, showing how each factorpredetermines he interactants'powerdynamics,thus shapingand influencing the process and outcome of inter-action.Analyzingvideotaped interactionsbetween Japanesetechnicalsup-portersand American workers on the productionfloor also demonstratesthe interlocutors'creativeutilization of available communicativeresourcesand co-constructionof meaning as interactionsunfold. This co-constructionof meaning occurs despite the severely limited knowledge of the othergroup's language and sociolinguistic norms. (Historical context, intercul-turalcommunication,workplace interaction,communicativeresources,co-constructionof meaning, Japanese-Americanprofessionalinteraction.)*

INTRODUCTION"It'sreally really important its' gotta be straight right from the startand ... you can't make a mistake with them [dies and panels], and it'ssomething other people in other departmentsare depending on, it'sgottabe communicatedreally good." (Ben, a worker at the JapanDieCompany)'

Accordingto the Gumperzianmodel (Gumperz1982, 1992a, 1992b; Gumperz& Roberts 1991), miscommunicationoccurs as a result of different contextual-ization cues that interlocutors rom two differentethnic or nationalbackgroundsbring (often unconsciously) when conversing with each other. The researchersusing this model also astutely point out that the often frustratingandunsuccess-ful outcomes of such "crosstalk" an easily be a basis for discriminationagainstC 2005 CambridgeUniversity Press0047-4045/05 $12.00 185

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIspeakerswho belong to the minority n a given society (e.g. Robertset al. 1992).Thanks to these studies, we now know a great deal about what can and oftendoes happen when a relatively fluent nonnative speaker,who often occupies avulnerable social and/or professional position, communicates with a nativespeaker.A number of researchers have conducted studies to widen the scope ofthis traditional frameworkby addressingother aspects, such as the majority'spresupposed negative attitude toward a certain ethnic group (which overridesthe minority's (in)ability to use appropriatecontextualizationcues; Meewis1994), the effect of the majority's individual motivation to accommodate ornot (Smith et al. 1991), the dilemma shared by those who are exposed to morethan one set of communicativestyles (Scollon & Scollon 1995), the minority'scapabilityto articulate their communicative strategies (Shi-xu 1994) and theirresistance to ethnification in interaction(Day 1994). Clyne's (1994) work isa valuable precedent in studying multiethnic communication in factory set-tings. In specifically referringto Japanese-American nteractions in a corpo-rate setting, Miller's (1994, 1995) works illustratehow we can (and should)deconstruct stereotypes reinforced as a result of dichotomizing "nationalcharacteristics."To add to the development of studies in intercultural ommunication,I pro-pose in this article thatwe must examine the historicalcontext thatparticipantsbringto their intercultural nteractions,andhow it affects theirnegotiationandco-creation of meaning in a situatedcontext. As Lukacs 1971 points out, wecannot understand he real nature of an event unless we understand t in "thehistoricaltotality" (p. 12).Furthermore,wo otherpoints, which have not been investigatedin previousstudies,must be addressed.First,the mismatchof contextualizationcues is oftenobserved in encounters between strangers.Whatwould happenafterthe initial"cultureshock" or a discriminatory eeling if the interlocutorsdid not have theoptionof walking away but insteadhad to worktogetherover time?Second, byfocusing on contextualizationcues, we have assumed thatpragmaticconcernsare the real andimportant nes, and thatconcerns at other evels (e.g. understand-ing of content) arenot. Consequently,nonnative speakershave been placedin a"lose-lose" situationwhere, if they arefluent, they are still trapped n theirna-tive communicativenorms,and if they are not fluent, they are not even consid-ered in the framework.Commonly, n theprevious iterature,he natureof interactions as beengreatlyasymmetrical:The native-speakernterlocutorpossesses notonly linguistic cap-ital but also institutionalpower. In contrast,the nonnative-speakernterlocutorlacks both of these. Consequently,when their interactionsresultin negativeout-comes, the burdenandresultantsanctionsare on the latter.The task to "under-stand," o comprehend he other's ntentionand(re)actaccordingly,s much moreheavily andseriously assigned to the nonnativespeaker.186 Languagein Society34:2 (2005)



4/34

HISTORICAL CONTEXT & INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Although such interactions are commonplace and deserve investigation, asrevealedby the previousliterature,a differenttype of interaction n anintercul-tural setting needs as much attention: the context in which the distributionofinterlocutors'interactionalpower differs that in from most previous research.The presentstudyanalyzes just such a situation:communication between Japa-nese technicalsupportmembersandAmericanworkers n a Japanese-owned ac-tory in theAmerican South.The other important issue to consider is the meaning of "understanding."The following statementby Wenger its well with the settingin question:"Under-standing in practice is the art of choosing what to know and what to ignorein order to proceed with our lives" (1998:41). Another useful notion, givenin Bremer et al. 1996, is that understanding s a continuum. In my data, theparticipantsstart with an attemptto clarify what is being said or what needsto be done. At the end of the interaction,they mostly manage to obtain neces-sary and crucial information,however minimal it might be, so that they cango on to thejob waitingfor them.Understandings not "all or nothing."Rather,it is a continuum on which the interactantsnegotiate its degree and focus ineach interactionbased on their necessity and, in this case, the extent and limitof their linguistic capabilities. For this reason, my focus is on the PROCESSof how they reach some necessary level of understanding,or in this case,task completion. Instead of dichotomizing "successful" cases and "failures,"I will analyzehow and why the interlocutorsmanageto have the outcome theyachieve.FIELDWORK SETTING AND DATAThe fieldwork for the present study took place in a facility of the JapanDieCompany (hereafterJDC), a wholly owned Japanese manufacturingcompanyoperated n the United States. Its headquartershereafter,the northplant) is lo-cated in a northernstate and had been operatingfor over a decade at the time ofthe fieldwork in 1997. The southplant,the main location of the fieldwork, is inthe Deep South(the southeasternmost tates) andwas preparing or its first massproductionwhen I stayedthere. Its parentcompanyis located in Japan,where itmanufacturesdies to stampcar panels. In the two U.S. plants, workers stamppanelsusing the dies andship them to a numberof automobileassembly plants.All the key employees, including managers,engineers, and technical supportmembers(specialists in modifying dies; hereafter"supporters")are sent fromJapanto the U.S. plants,where theirmainjobs are to set up and runthe plantsand trainlocal workersinexperiencedin die modification andpanelproduction.The American workersand managersat the time of the study were high schoolgraduates or had vocational training.As for the Japanese,except for a few topmanagersandengineers,they also hadhigh school education.Some of the expa-triates were on long-termassignments,stayingin the U.S. for three to fouryearsLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005) 187



5/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIwith their families. The others were on short-termassignmentsfor a periodofone to severalmonths.Similar to making origami (Japanese folding paper) into a perfect three-dimensionalshape, as one supporterput it, manufacturing ar panels from flatmetal sheets is a complex process, in which custom-madedies need to be modi-fied numeroustimes based on trial outcomes.Manyof the necessaryskills can-not be writtendown in a manual, thus the need for experiencedsupporters,whoare able to detect a dent as small as 0.1 mm simply by touchingthe surface.I was hiredas a liaison officer for fourmonths at the southplant n the middleof its start-upperiod. In exchange for working for them, I was allowed to con-duct fieldworkin my spare time. Prior to this fieldwork, I had also made a two-day visit to the north plantto learnabout their productionprocessand interviewa numberof workersandmanagers.The data are drawnfrom threesources: vid-eotapedinteractionsbetween theJapaneseand Americanworkerson the produc-tion floor, interviews,andobservation.A summaryof the interviewees'profilesis in Appendix 1. Note that the total number of interviewees in this fieldworkwas 27; however,owing to space limitations,only the ones whose inputappearsin this article (10 of them)are includedin the table.Notice thatnot all interviewswere tape-recordedbecause I did not wish to impairtheir effectiveness.2Thus,not all interview segments appearingare direct quotes. Appendix2 is a list ofvideotapedinteractions.Again, the total numberof recordingswas 15, but onlythe four relevantto this articleare included.The plantwas generallydivided into two parts:the production loor and theoffice area.The production loor had a few differentareas,each of which was inchargeof a different stageof production.The two majorareasof fieldwork wereDie and Maintenance hereafterDie) area and the Press area. In the former,Jap-anese supportersand their American coworkers workedon fixing dies. In thelatter,the modified dies were used to stamp panels. Videotapingtook place inthese two areas. Severalworkers,both American and Japanese,agreedto carryaportablemicrophone,andI followed them on thefloor with a video camerawhilethe microphonepickeduptheir voices as well as those of theirinteractants.PARTICIPANTS' COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGIESInteractantsas historical agentsA tendencyin the previousliteratureon intercultural ommunication s to focuson the interlocutor's(personal) informednessaboutthe other "culture"andhisor her willingness to engage in interaction.In otherwords, a numberof studiesovertly or covertly send a message saying, "If only we knew better about theother group'scommunicative styles, misunderstanding ould be avoided." Wecannot negate such a possibility,but the realityentails more complexity.In ad-dition, intercultural ommunicationis as much about how much one gets to beheardas abouthow much one can talkappropriately.Thatis, we wouldbe miss-188 LanguagenSociety 4:2(2005)



6/34


ing a significant point not only if I treated encounters between Japanese andAmericans as those of neutralagents,but also if I neglectedmy awareness as anindividual and as a researcherabout the often unjustdistributionof the entitle-ment to be heard.Interactantsare manifestations of their life histories, both at a macro level(e.g. nationality)and at a local level (e.g., in the presentcase, theirposition inthecompany). They are historicalagentsin the sense thatcomplex aspectsof thelives they have led so far inevitablyinfluence the process and outcome of theirintercultural nteraction.In Bourdieu'swords,"Differentagents' linguistic strat-egies arestrictly dependenton theirpositions in the structureof the distributionof linguistic capital"(1991:64). And one's linguistic capital is a historicalprod-uct based on the makeupof his or her life at all levels, from macro levels such asnationalbackground o micro levels such as one's occupation.Added to these ingredients s the pragmaticnatureof humansin (particularlyintercultural) ommunication.In otherwords, when an interlocutor s "willing"to communicate,the reasons for that often do not come from pure humanityorconscience (althoughsuch qualities would be a nice addition to aid the inter-action). I believe that interactants ypically weigh the necessity and the potentialbenefits of engaging in interaction with interlocutors who come from another(often national) culture. Because of the perceived challenge presented by thelinguistic and culturaldifferences between the two parties,a mental calculation(often done unconsciously)of the expected "return"the benefit of succeedingin the communication)becomes important.In case the interactantsdecide to en-gage in such interactions,they do so through making the most of the availablecommunicative resources. Exactly how they do so is shown in the examplesbelow.I propose that the nine items in Table 1 are of particularrelevance as influ-encing factors in this study'sinteractionsbetweenJapaneseandAmericans.Eachof the nine factors will be described below with examples from interviews.Myclaim is that the interlocutorsreachedthe outcomesof the interactionsas a resultof theirnegotiationsbetween their mmediate nteractionalgoals (i.e., what needsto happenas a result of a particular nteraction) n a given context in combina-tion with these nine factors.The following insight offered by Bourdieuapplies in analyzinginterculturalinteractions:

The position of a given agent in the social space can ... be defined by theposition he occupies in the different fields, that is, in the distributionof thepowers that are active in each of them. These are,principally,economic cap-ital (in its differentkinds), culturalcapital and social capital, as well as sym-bolic capital, commonly called prestige, reputation,fame, etc., which is theformassumedby these different kinds of capital when they are perceived andrecognized as legitimate. (1991:230)

Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 189



7/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHITABLE 1. Factors contributingto the interaction betweenAmerican and Japaneseworkers on the production loor at JDC

Historical Factors [Positioning two parties (I) Nationality:apital derivingfrom thevertically] interlocutors'nationalities(2) Vitality:Ethnolinguisticvitalityof EnglishandJapanese(3) SocialPositions: ocial positions andassociated culturalcapital the interlocutorspossessed in their communities of origin(4) Hierarchy:orporatehierarchywithinJDC(5) Skills: Skills andexperienceas legitimatecapitalwithin JDCContextual Factors[Bringingthe two parties (i) Knowledge:Shared work knowledge and

closer] content(ii) Goals: Sharedgoals andpriorities(iii) TimeTogether:Time spent together(iv) Low English: Japanese supporters' owEnglish proficiency level

In light of this observation, in the present setting there are five interrelatedfactors at the macro level to be considered as playing crucial roles in determin-ing the interlocutors' nteractionalpower vis-a-vis each other, even before theyutter a word. I call these five HISTORICALFACTORS.The first is theircapital de-riving from their nationalities(hereafter Nationality). In other words, the eco-nomicandpoliticalstatusof bothJapanand the United Statesand theirsubsequentpower relations need to be taken into account.For a Japanesecompany,settingup a plant in the United States thus means something quite different from thesame company's setting up a plantin Southeast Asia.The secondfactor,deeplyrelatedto thefirst, is the currentglobal hierarchyoflanguages: the different degrees of ethnolinguistic vitality thatEnglishandJap-anese possess in the currentglobal linguistic market(hereafterVitality). Quiteaside from the purely linguistic legitimacy and thusequalityof all languages inthe world,nativespeakersof English enjoy the mostprivileges,as is easily seenanywhere,frominternationalbusiness to second/foreign languageteaching (seePhillipson 1992, 2000 and Tsuda 2002 on "linguistic imperialism").Thus, anencounter between a nativespeakerof Englishand a nonnativespeakerexhibitsa different kind of capital distribution from one between a native speakerofanother anguage anda nonnativespeaker (especially if the nonnativespeaker salso a nativespeakerof English). Kasuya2000 states that under he unquestion-able, increasingdominance of English, nonnativespeakersare led to feel thatthey are somehow deficient if they cannot handleEnglish (at least in the Japa-190 LanguagenSociety 4:2(2005)



8/34


nese situation he examines). This leads to their"voluntary earning"of the lan-guage, which in turnaccelerates its dominance.In the present setting, English dominancemanifested in situationswheretheJapaneseexpatriates,despite their superiorstatus in the company, had to speakEnglishno matterhow poor theirability was.3 In fact, as Bourdieu 1991 pointsout with respect to the "legitimate"variety,their use of English was not evenquestioned but rathertaken for granted.Vitality influenced the degree of theJapanesesupporters'willingness to learnEnglish.Some workersput in no moreeffort than was absolutelynecessary,owing to the Japaneselanguage's high Vi-tality (though it is not as high as that of English), as expressedby Tomita:doosekaettara tsukawanee shi 'I won't use [English] once I return[to Japan]any-way)'. Othersfelt motivated to learn more not only for increasingefficiency atJDC, but also because they consideredEnglisha legitimateform of culturalandsymbolic capitalonce they were back in Japanesesociety.The third factor is the differentsocial positions the JapaneseandAmericanparticipantsoccupied in theirrespectivesocieties of origin (hereafterSocial Po-sitions), and this is linked with the first two factors as well. In the case of theJapanese,some supportersandmanagerson the one hand,andengineersandtopmanagerson the other,were equippedwithdifferent culturalcapital:The formerwere high-schooleducated,with limited exposure to English, whereasthe latterwere universitygraduateswith more solid background n English (in Japan,ed-ucationallevel is a reliable indicator of one's degree of exposure to English4).This difference placed the former in a communicativelymore disadvantageousposition in the beginningof theirstay in the United States. Incontrast,probablybecause bothJapanand the United States areeconomically advancedand stablecountries(relativeto the rest of the world), the participants' ulturalfields in thetwo countries turnedout to be not so different,sharinga numberof values andlifestyles (see Sunaoshi 2004 for the workers' use of humorthat utilized thesecommonalities).Fourth,the corporatehierarchywithin JDC (hereafterHierarchy)played animportantrole in participants'everyday interactions.Ultimately, this factor in-cludes the fact that the company is Japanese-owned,which implies that certainof its corporatepracticesare of Japaneseorigin.All Japanese, regardlessof theirpositions, were assigned a supervisoryrole over the local American workers,and noAmerican was a line managerof a Japaneseworker n JDC.Last,the fifthform of vital capital in this context was employees' skills to do the job right,especially being able to troubleshootand fix a problemon a die, a machine, andso on (hereafterSkills). The fact that the Japanese, regardless of their officialpositions, had moreexperience in JDC's varioustasks grantedthem more inter-actionalpower in the context. These last two factorsareclosely related,and thefollowing remarkby Miyata, a senior manager n the northplant,succinctly ex-presses their effects: 'In the morningmeetings, Kishi [anothermanager]and ILanguage in Society 34:2 (2005) 191



9/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIspeak. Our grammar s no good, but you know what?They listen very hard.'Tomita, a supporter n the Die area,could affordto learn only minimalEnglish(mostly noun phrasesfor names of tools andtroubleshootingactivities, as wellas praise-givingsuch as good job and OK), as he himself admitted.This was sobecause he was in an advantageousposition relativeto his Americancolleaguesin terms of Skills.While Nationality and Vitalityobviously placed the Americans in an advan-tageous position,Hierarchy nd Skillsgave theJapanesemore nteractional ower,andthe two sides' relativelysimilarSocial Positionsprovidedcommonalities, anaidto betterunderstanding.n the JapaneseandAmericanworkers'communica-tion, these HistoricalFactorstended to function as backgroundsor as underlyingfacts rather handirect reasons for particular nteractionaloutcomes.These fac-torsmostly focus on interlocutors'powerdynamics;thatis, the factorsplace thetwo parties vertically, based on differential power.Although the Japanese andAmericans were not necessarily awareof all five factors, as Bourdieuremindsus, the participantscould neverescape fromthem.At a different, more local level, another groupof factors, which derived di-rectlyfromthe participants' ituatedcontexts, also contributed o the outcome oftheircommunication,which was generallypersistent, patient,andcollaborativein nature.I call these ContextualFactors. Unlike the HistoricalFactors,theCon-textualFactorsfocus on collaborationandsharing and are relatedto how muchinterlocutorsare able to and want to accommodate each other.In other words,the morefactors that arepresent, the morethey bring the two sides closer.First,theJapaneseandAmericanworkerssharedsimilar workknowledgeandcontent (hereafterKnowledge; cf. Hatch 1983). Although theirknowledge lev-els and skills differed, they nonethelessworkedtogetheron the samedie issuesand problemsevery day. Second, they were in a highly goal- and task-orientedenvironment, sharing goals andprioritiesat work(hereafterGoals). They werecontinually pressedby deadlines andemergencysituations,which neededto betaken careof immediatelyfor production o continue.

Third,the time spentin dealingwith workersfrom the othergroupin general(the Americansdealing with the Japaneseandvice versa) helped themimprovetheircommunicationwith each other (hereafterTime Together).The planthadstartedoperationeight monthspriorto the fieldwork.It can be said thattheJap-anese andAmerican workers'communicativecompetencewith each otherwasproportionate o Knowledge, Goals, and Time Together.Thus, among the par-ticipants of this study,the threeAmericanworkersin the Die area(Rob, Keith,andRick),who hadmostfrequentcontactswithJapanese upporters,wereamongthe most experiencedlocal communicators n the southplant.In response to my question whetherhis supporterWakamiya'sEnglish hasimproved,Alex in Equipmentstated, Well,maybeover time.I've become betterat understandingor WakamiyasEnglishhas improved,orprobablya littlebitofboth. Thesame thing happenedthoughwhenI moveddownhere[fromthe Mid-192 LanguagenSociety34:2 2005)



10/34


west], withthepeople and language in [nameof thestate], differentslang wordsandstuff.And over time, itgot better.Obviously, whatAlex describedmost likelyimplied different levels of issues, and linguistic and culturaldifferences defi-nitely complicated the Americans' and Japanese's communication with eachother.5However, these differences were not the ONLY factorsinvolved.A few Americanmid-level managers6had had years of experience workingwith Japaneseon the floor; they were able to articulate their interactionalstrat-egies elaborately.Ken, now the south plant'splantmanagerand one of the firstten Americanemployees at the northplant,quicklyadmitted hatthoughhe doesnot know Japanese,I picked up enough words to know the subjects when Japa-nese colleagues were discussing something in Japanese.He gave me examplesof his strategies, such as stick to whatyou're tryingto say and be direct, stay tothe subject, but he is also clear thatother than that, we are talking about dies,assembly, etc., so they can eventually understandeach other.Inui, a temporarysupporterandalso a world travelerwho has supporteddie modificationsin sev-erallocations,similarlyarticulatedhisview: kaguyaikebakagu hoshii tte mukoomo wakarushine 'if you go to a furniture toretheshopattendantnaturallyknowsyou want some furniture'.These statementsderivefrom theirunderstandinghatKnowledge and Goals can supersedelanguage barriers,and the understandinghas become a strongconviction after Time Together.

The otherfactor thatcontributed o the Americans'patience is the Japanese'slow level of Englishproficiency(hereafterLow English).It seems thatthe lowerthe nonnative speaker'scompetence level, the more tolerant a native-English-speaker interlocutorcan be with the nonnative speaker's mistakes. The infor-mantson the floor rangedfrom low to intermediate evels of English, roughlyspeaking, so their American interlocutorscould be more toleranttoward theirnonstandard, naccurate,or inappropriateuse of English. This, in turn, mighthavehelpedtheJapanese o avoidfollowing theAmericans'communicativerules.Of course,theJapanese's ack of English linguisticcompetencewas a challenge,but the samedisadvantageworked to theJapanese'sadvantageso thattheycouldconcentrate on their work and goals, instead of using energy in trying to speakappropriately.7Of course, the Americans' patience in this regard was largely inresponseto Japanesedominance in Hierarchyand Skills.Besides these Historical and Contextualfactors, an importantaspect of theworkers' stories was that their view of differences came directly from theirexperiences in specific jobs instead of fromabstract, ntellectualizedJapanese/Americanor East/West oppositions. Such intellectualized notions of Japanese-ness and Americanness often come fromanthropological,cultural, andbusinesstexts, which are usually accessed more by those of high educational back-groundin related fields. In the presentcase, bothAmericanandJapanesework-ers came from similarsocioeconomicbackgrounds,wherethey were morelikelyto be "deprived"of that type of cultural capital. Ironically and interestingly,this very lack of capital made them rely almost solely on their direct experi-Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 193



11/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIence when forming opinions of each other. Therefore, though Japanese andAmericans are stereotypicallydepicted in dichotomies such as "hierarchical/egalitarian," "reserved/outgoing," and "indirect/direct," the interviewees'remarksoften and spontaneouslycontradictedsuch assumed notions. In fact,some remarkswere counterintuitive o what (we) "intellectuals"endto assumeaboutcultural differences and communication.To list a few examples, Miyata, reviewing what he thinks aboutAmericanworkersfrom a manager'sperspective,said Bei-jin wa jouge kankeiga hakkirishiteru kara 'Americans are hierarchy-conscious[lit. clear about vertical rela-tionship] more so than us Japanese'.He was referring o the fact thatto Ameri-cans, what their direct boss says is an absolute order, whereas the Japaneseworkerswould not be so rigid. Jack, with eight years' experience in the northplant,pointedout, referringto occasional karaokenights he had with his Japa-nese colleagues: I just watch.... they[Japanese] don't have to feel shy in frontof people, unlikeAmericans, who are not confident.InuicomparedJapaneseandAmerican attitudestowardwork, and said that Americanswork hardduring thehours they are supposedto, whereassometimesJapaneseend up smoking ciga-rettes all day. When there is one morehourleft, Japanesewould say ma, iiya 'ohwell, this is enough', whereasAmericanswouldsay Let'sdo it! Alex, even thoughhe could not necessarily talk much with the supporters,remarked:They have agood sense of humor.I thinkhumor s thebiggestcommonground see Sunaoshi2004 on this point).Some elements of the traditionallydiscussed "Japanese ndirectness"werenoticed, and practicallyandpragmaticallyhandledby these Americanworkers.Stu mentioned Fujimi, an engineerof assembly machines.He uses maybea lot;however,over time Stu learnedthatFujimi seemed confident, andhis work wasgood, so he could tell that Fujimiwas confident even when he said maybe.Thisis an example where Fujimi's expertise (Skills) overrode his linguistic limita-tions andbroughtmore patienceon the partof Stu as thetwo sharedKnowledge,Goals, and Time Together.Bill, in the northplant, said that he was never com-pletely sure if the Japanesehad understoodwhen they said yeah. In that case,either he would go with his instinct,or if it was followed by an immediateactionand if what they were doing was not right, he would come up and tell them.Owing to Goals, Bill could not affordto leave misunderstanding r nonunder-standinguncorrected.In contrastto proactive Americans,a typical responsethe Japanesegave meregardingcommunicationissues on the floor was how much their Americaninterlocutors were accommodatingto them, ratherthanwhat kind of commu-nicative strategies they themselves would use to improve the situation,as thiscomment from an engineer from a vendor,Tsuchida,indicates:

WhenI talk I translate rom Japanese into English [in my head],butpeoplehere [in the Press areaof the south plant]kindlyunderstandme if I try very194 LanguagenSociety 4:2(2005)



12/34

HISTORICAL CONTEXT & INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONhard. A hotel of a certain level is still OK,but when I go to a place like Wal-Mart, theyspeak with the assumption that I understand,so I (shrugs).Toexpresshis confusioncomically,he mimics anAmericangestureof shrug-ging at the end of the excerpt. The reasonTsuchida andothers were thankfultothose who spoke in an intelligible mannercan be explainedby NationalityandVitality; that is, English is the "natural" ode choice at JDC. At the same time,owing to the Japanese'shighercorporatepositions and/or more advanced skillsin car panel production(Hierarchyand Skills), they could afford to be ratherpassive in communication.The "kind"Americans Tsuchidamentions tendedtobe experienced ones with regardto Knowledge, Goals, andTime Together.Fur-ther,althoughLow Englishworkednegatively outside the plant,as in Wal-Mart,it evidently did not with the "kind" nterlocutorsat JDC.An interview with Miyatareveals thatgood or bad, the company'spolicy onthe language issue was expressedasjissen arunomi 'justdo it', a common Jap-anese idiomaticexpression.8The Japanesewere confident thatthey were moreskilled andexperiencedthantheirAmericancoworkers.Thus, it was quickerandeasier to demonstratewhat they could do than trying to use theirbad English:heta ni shaberu yori wa yatta hou ga hayai 'it's quicker to do [the work] [toconvince the Americans] than speaking sloppy [English]'. At one level, JDC

could afford to pursue the motto 'just do it' because of Hierarchyand Skills,leavingresponsibilityforcomprehending o theAmericans.This mentality,prac-tical andpragmaticwithoutintellectualizingproblems, also seems to be relatedto the Social Positions thatthe majorityof employees atJDC occupied.This section has introducednine Historical and Contextualfactors thatcon-ditioned the ways in which the JapaneseandAmericanworkers would interactwith each other,accompaniedby examples drawn from the interviewdata. Thefollowing section illustratesexactly how interactionon the production loor un-folds and how it is linked with the factors outlinedabove.Utilizingavailable communicativeresourcesFirst, three segments are analyzed that illustratethe range of communicativestrategies the participantsused. The common underlyingassumption in studiesof communicativestrategies (see Domyei & Scott 1997 for a review) is thatinteractionsinvolving nonnativespeakers create a limitation,and interlocutorscome up with variousstrategiesto compensatefor it. The strategiestend to bepresented as a formof taxonomybased on extraction of isolatedlinguistic strat-egies. Here, however, the focus is the process of their creative co-construction,where we can see the dynamicuse of the most available, appropriate,andeffi-cient communicativeresources as each interactionprogresses with respect to aparticularssue or incident.Each transcriptis given with a brief overview of its flow, followed by adetailed analysis. The first segment is an example in which the interlocutorsLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005) 195



13/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIutilize a combinationof availablecommunicativeresourcesin a complex man-ner: linguistic andparalinguisticelements, gaze, gesture, body positioning,andan object. Restrictedlinguistic resources are compensatedfor by creative useof the other resources.The interlocutors'eagerness and perseverance n mak-ing the interactionwork is illustrated n the detailedanalysis.The second seg-ment illuminates how Time Togetherand Knowledge can make an interactionpossible withoutmany verbalcues. Finally,the thirdsegmentdemonstrateshowwhat I call "mediators"work to facilitate an outcome of interaction n case itstagnates.Last, two shortinstancesare examinedas examples of cross-usageof contex-tualizationcues. Stubbornlyappearingcontextualizationcues in the use of a for-eign (majority)languagecan be detrimental o minoritynonnative speakers,asGumperzand others have convincingly revealed. However, in the presentsitua-tion, it was observedthatAmericanworkers adaptedsome Japanesecontextual-izationcues when speakingin English.

Interplay of gaze, gesture,positioning and object. Excerpt(1) is the begin-ningof aninteractionbetweenHashida,a long-termsupporter, nd Rob,a workerin the Die area.Robbrings upthetopicof orderinggrindwheels because there sonly one left and they urgentlyneed more. Rob reportsto Hashidathat Glen inthe Tools department aid it would take one month for them to arrive.Rob alsoknows that Okano, the teamleader of the Die area,has perhapsorderedmoreaswell. Since one monthis obviously unacceptable,they decide to ask Okanotoorderthem directly from the vendor,who can ship them morequickly.The ex-cerpt continues up to the point where Hashida finds out that it will take onemonth and shareshis disbelief with Rob:(I) When do we get moregrindwheels? [FromC-1)]

I R: grind wheels?2 H: yeh3 R: uh: Glen ordered+ two hundred.4 H: two hundred?5 R: {yesterday}6 H: a: yesterday?7 R: (yesterday)( ). + today maybeOkanoorder also.8 H: (Iuh + four/ fourhundred?9 R: I don' know I'll talk to Okano-san['Mr'],10 H: (eh)11 R: see how manyhe ordered12 H: uh: + {ha:[yeahl). (ha:[yeah]). + but: fromJapan?=13 R: =from Japanmaybe. he says one month.14 H: ahone mon[th?15 R: [one mo/ (I know)( ){ ))I said eh no good we only have one16 H: yeah oh yeah196 Languagein Society 34:2 (2005)



14/34


FIGURE 1: Hashida asks "twohundred?"while Rob holds up a grind wheel (Ex-ample 1, line 4)

Analysis of (1). Rob and Hashida had been talking about moving a die, thenthere was a brief pause right before the beginning of line 1. Up to this point, theypositioned themselves side by side, looking ahead toward the die in question.Then, duringthe pause, Rob shifts his body so that it is facing Hashida. Rob liftshis righthand,which is holding a grind wheel (hereafterGW), to his belly height.His shift of body alignment and lifting up of what will be the key object indi-cates that the topic is about to change and the object has to do with the maintopic. Throughout heexcerpt, as shown below, this grind wheel works as a pivot,or a reference point - a physical manifestation of the core theme of the inter-action.As discussed in Sunaoshi 2000, 2002, it is crucial for participants o se-cure and keep track of the main topic of conversation because of their linguisticlimitations and the serious consequences of misunderstanding.Line 1 functions as the initiator Rob's presentationof the new topic and hisobtainingHashida'sattentionto it. Rob's utterancegrindwheels works as a maintopic presentationand a summons, with the "storytelling and more to come"final intonation.As Rob says grind, his gaze goes to the GW in his hand;then, ashe says wheels, his gaze shifts to Hashida. Line 2 is Hashida's responseto Rob'ssummons, recognizing the newly presented topic and indicatinghis readiness tobe engaged. Hashidarecognizes andstabilizes his gaze onto the GW,then uttersyeh. His intonationandpitchhave gone lower and his pronunciationmoreclippedcomparedto previous turns, which employed intonation typical of demonstra-tion andexplanation n discussing moving a die. As he uttersyeh, his body movesslightly closer (10 cm or so), drawn to the GW, thereby indicatingthat his atten-tion is now directedtoward the upcoming new topic.Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 197



15/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHI

FIGURE 2: Hashida steps back from the 'core' (grind wheel) as he utters 'onemonth'(Example 1, line 14)

In line 3, Rob begins by presenting three pieces of importantinformationregarding grind wheels: The ordering took place, Glen ordered them, and thequantitywas two hundred. While he says Glen, Rob's gaze is on the GW (theobject of the sentence), then it moves to Hashida as he says ordered.In the briefpauseafter that, Hashida's gaze comes to Rob; upto this point it was on the GW.After gaining Hashida's gaze, Rob finishes by saying two hundred. Notice thathis gaze goes back and forth between Hashidaand the GW, securing both theinterlocutor'sattention and the maintheme. Likewise, Hashida's gaze shifts be-tween the GW and Rob.Hashidapicks up the quantityto confirm (line 4) with a questioning, risingintonation.He accompanies this with an iconic gesture, pointing his index andmiddle fingers upward, palm facing himself, holding his hand upright, at thesame heightas the GW that Rob is holding (see Fig. 2). The pointing fingers arespatially alignedwiththeobject, bringingthequantity nto the"spotlight."Hash-ida's use of the iconic gesturehere is hardlyredundant cf. Goodwin 2000); rather,his synchronized ndication of 'two hundred'bothverballyandphysicallyunder-scores the importanceof accuratelyunderstandinghe quantity, herebysuccess-fully moving along in the interaction.As soon as Hashida's two open fingers reach the height of GW,Rob gives anod, and meanwhile says yesterday along with the downwardpartof the nod,followed by another brief nod (line 5). Here Rob is (i) giving confirmationand(ii) presenting an additionalpiece of information:when the grind wheels wereordered. Hashida'saa in line 6 is uttered with high pitch, and as he says it, he198 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)



16/34


rotates his body 450 or so, with the GW as the pivot, all the while keeping histwo fingers up. He says yesterdaylouder andwith rising intonation.This combi-nationof his most prominentvocal qualityandthe shift of body orientation howsthat he is questioning in surprise (i.e., 'just yesterdaywhen we only have oneleft?'). This tilted positioning by Hashida continueswhile Rob talks in line 7.In line 7, afterconfirming he date and endingthis sequence,in the brief pause,Rob's gaze quickly goes to the GW and then back to Hashida.At today, Hashi-da's gaze goes to the GW. Rob's gaze-shift successfully guides Hashida's gazebackto thereference point,theGW.Insayingtoday,Rob'svoice is louderagain,with a flat intonation,bothof which indicateinitiation of a new (sub)topic,as ifsaying "new information s now coming."Here, as Rob says today, he flips theGW 900, then flaps it once. With Okanoordered,he flaps the GW a few moretimes. While the GW always stays in the "core"of the conversation,Rob'srota-tion of it brings a renewedattentionto the "core".By flapping it several timesalong with his speech, he makes the physicality of GW functionas supplemen-taryto speech; that is, Rob does not have to say a full sentence such as "MaybeOkanoorderedsome grindwheels also."Still with the tilted positioning, as Hashidautters our (line 8), he adds hisring and little fingers to the first two to mean 'four hundred',and slightly liftsandextends the fingersclose to the GW,thereby indicatingthe referringobject.As Rob says Okano-san,he loosely flaps the GW with the intonation meaning"*moreo come." In line 11,as Rob finishes saying orderedwith the intonationofending and closure, Hashida'sgaze goes to the GW. In line 12, at the micropauseafteruh haa haa, Hashida'sindex finger points to the GW, andas he saysfrom Japan, he points again at the GW by lifting and lowering his index fingerbackto it. Here, again,the GWworks as a (pro)nounas well as the securedmaintheme.Inline 13, as Rob says maybe,he rotatestheGW 900 again,signaling the nextpiece of information o come. Here, right aftermaybe, Hashida reacts by sayingah (line 14) in a voice of surpriseas he opens his armswide. This gesturecouldbe Hashida's indicationof the distancebetween Japanand the United States,orit could also be his comically dramatic reaction.As Rob says one month(line13), with theGWin his righthand, he moves it acrosshis belly, pointing quicklytwice in the direction of Glen's office. Here, Rob's combined use of the handmovementandGW invites attentionsimultaneouslyto the object in question andto nonverbaldeixis (the subjectof the sentence, he = Glen).In line 14, one month is utteredemphaticallyby Hashidawith a definite toneof surprise,accompaniedby a surprised xpression,and at theend of it he breaksinto laughter.As he laughs,he lets his opened armsbackdown and takes a fewsteps back, distancing himself from the "core"(the GW), thereby effectivelydemonstratinghis disbelief and detachment (as if to say 'I can't believe it, Idon't want to deal with the issue') (see Fig. 3). The last bit of the utterancebyHashida s latchedwith Rob'sone mo/(line 15), which ends with a briefburst ofLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005) 199



17/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHI

FIGURE 3: Keith points at the area of concern and looks up to secure Ishige'sgaze, who is looking at something over Keith's head (Example 2,(3)-iii&iv)

laughter, at which point Rob drops his hand with the GW slightly. As Hashidalaughs, for about 2.5 seconds, Rob goes with it by nodding and smiling. To-gether with his laughter and smile, Rob's dropping of the GW indicates a mo-mentaryrelease of tension/attention from the theme.Continuingon in line 15, before the onset of I said, Rob lifts the GWbacktothe original position, indicating 'we are back to business'. Also recovering fromthe shock and tension release, Hashida momentarily starts walking back towardRob and the GW. As Rob says eh, his gaze goes to the GW, then he once morerotates the GW, signaling another piece of information to come. Hashida, as hesays yeah (line 16), gazes at the GW as well.Let us now examine how this interactioncan be related to the Historical andContextual actors.First,the code choice, English, is due to NationalityandVital-ity. In this interaction,Rob is in the position of reportingto Hashida on orderinggrind wheels and its possible delay. In other words, because of Skills, Hashida isin thepositionof being reported o. As aresult,the burdenof makinghimself clearis more on Rob. The currentexample clearly demonstrates he two interlocutors'complex utilization of multiple available resources in communication. The flowof interaction s smooth, considering their inguistic limitations.This relative easecan be attributed o theirTime Together,as well as Knowledge andGoals.If we look at certainparts of the excerpt, we can make a few more observa-tions. First of all, we can see thatthey both share a greatdeal of "common sense"regarding grind wheels: Two hundred is a reasonable number to order at once200 Language in Society 34:2 (2005)



18/34

HISTORICAL CONTEXT & INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION(lines 3-4), there are two people who can order them (lines 3-11), they can beshippedfrom Japan (but this is obviously not the fastest choice) (lines 12-13),and they just cannot wait for one month when only one is left (lines 13-17).These pieces of common sense have been learned and sharedover the pasteightmonths nTimeTogether,and havetumedintoKnowledge.Becauseof this sharedknowledge, they did not have to questionorexplainthevalidityof these matters.Rob'suse of the Japanesetitle -san (equivalent to 'Mr.',but it can be used forbothgenders)in line 9 must be a result of HierarchyandSkills, andpossibly thefact thatthe plant is located in the South. At JDC, it was not uncommonto hearAmericanworkers,especially those in the Die and Press areas, use -san whenreferring o or addressingJapanese,especially those who were senioror in man-agerialpositions. The Americans musthave pickedit upby hearingtheJapaneseaddressingandreferring o each other.SomeAmericanstold me thatthey didnotthink it was strange, as they thoughtit was similarto their use of sir.In lines 14 and 15, Hashidagave a dramaticand even slightly humorous re-action to the informationone month,and Rob can immediatelychime in by ex-pressing a cynical, joking attitude.Again, this is possible owing to Knowledgeand Goals.Overall, t can be saidthatRob's and Hashida'sspeech,especiallytheformer's,is simplifiedsyntacticallyand exically, yetelaborate n otheraspectsto make suretheyreachsufficientunderstanding.By "elaborate," mean theircreativelycom-bining various resources at hand as the interactionunfolds. Of the variouskindsof communicativeresources,what is mostnoteworthy s themultipleand crucialfunctions Rob andHashidaassign to the grindwheel Rob holds. They co-createthese functionsby positioningor moving it in variousways andplacing it in thecore position, as well as timing these movementstogether with otherlinguisticandparalinguisticelements. In fact, because the interlocutorsskilfully combinemultipleelements,their interactionbecomes nonlinearand thusmore efficient insome ways thancommunication hat relies moreheavily on verbal elements.

Getting attentionand troubleshootingin nonverbal interaction. In (2) be-low, Ishige, a long-termsupporter,andKeith,a young worker, nteract n theDieareain essentially a nonverbalmanner.As the verbalpart of theirinteraction sbrief, a descriptionof the interlocutors'nonverbalmovements is included in theexampleitself. Inthissetting,Keith is polishinga part.Ishige is by Keith,watch-ing andsupervising.As Keithpolishes the part,he seeks checking from Ishige,nonverbally.Ishige immediately responds, then they both startexamining thepart.Everythingis all right. Keith resumes his polishing work.(2) Pin Hole [FromF-5]]

(i) Both aresquattingdeeply-a normalpositionto takewhenworkingon apart, whichis placed on the ground. Their bodies are facing each other in proximity. Keithcrouches deeply down toward the part, moving his righthandandpolishing it. Ish-ige keeps his gaze at Keith, half crouching.Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 201



19/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHI

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

FIGURE4: Both Ishige and Keith touch the area of concern on the part (Exam-ple 2 (4))

(ii) Keithhasbeenpolishing hepart hythmically.ossiblyriggered y a buzzer oingoff from he Pressarea behind hem), shige urnshis head o therearandstraight-ens his backas if checking ut something verthere.(iii) (a) Keith lowsdownhis polishingmovement,lowlypolishes hearea wice.Thenhe lifts his upper odyhalfway(*),whilesecuring is righthandon the area.(b) Simultaneouslyfromthe point markedwith * above), Ishige'sgaze slowlyrotatesback450 or so (i.e., his head is facing in the directionof his leftshoulder).(c) Immediatelyfter hat,Keith traightens is backandhead odirecthisgazetoIshige,meanwhileeleasing isrighthand,andpointing o theareaof concernwith he ndex ingerof his left hand see Fig. 4).(d) An instantbefore Keith'sgaze straightensoward shige, Ishige'sgaze sug-gestedhe wastrying o look atsomething verKeith'shead see Fig. 4). How-ever,the momentKeith'sgaze is secured nto Ishige,Ishige nstantlynoticesandnods, henas his headnodsdown,he crouches own o see Keith's reaofconcern, xtending isrighthand o the area o securehisgazeto it. SincethemomentKeithobtainedshige'sattention,Keithhas been ookingat theprob-lematicarea.Thus,now bothare ookingat the areaof concern.(v) Ishige tarts ouching he areawhilegivinga quicknod.(iv) (see Fig. 5)1 K: (uh:here)(touching urface)2 IS: (I sec)uhpin hole,(keeps ouching urface)3 K: pinholeBothexamine nd ouch,3 sec.4 K: maybeok=5 IS: =(detacheshands) ) ok

202 Language in Society 34:2(2005)



20/34


Die area

FIGURE5: Positioning of interlocutors n the interaction"Discussing die finish-ing time"

As soon as Keith utters OK in line 4, Ishige detaches his right handfrom thearea and slightly straightens his back and quickly nods. Immediately followingIshige's affirmation,Keith resumes polishing at a somewhatslower pace. Afterabrief nod, Ishige says OK (line 5), which is immediately followed by Keith'sfast-paced polishing. In the next 30 seconds or so, Keith's polishing continuedand the recordingwas completed.Analysis of (2). Many supportersattested that touchingis of paramount mpor-tance in repairing die parts. Touching by a skilled hand reveals tiny faults thateven the latest machines cannot detect. Thus, teachingand learninghow to touchdies is essential. Inthis example, too, touching appearsas the method of trouble-shooting.Inaddition o this practiceof a nonverbalnature,Keith successfully gainsIshige's attention and Ishige quickly and accurately attendsto the concern Keithhas. Meanwhile, they do not utter a single word. In particular, rom the momentKeithstraightensup his head until the momentIshige crouchesdown (at (iii)(c)and(d)), the sequence is very smooth, without a pauseor hesitation.How was such communication possible? In the presentcase, it can be partlyexplained as a result of Time Together (backed up by Knowledge and Goals).Furthermore,owing to Skills, Ishige is the one to teach and supervise Keith. Inaddition,the natureof the skill requiredfor thejob in hand- detecting faults bytouching - is mostly nonverbal and to be learned largely through experienceanyway. Consequently,the interlocutors'use of verbal means was keptto a min-imum, employed only for Keith's confirmation of the exact location of his con-cernaboutthepart (line 1), Ishige'sidentificationof Keith's concern,and Keith'sconfirmation(lines 2 and 3), and verification from both sides that nothing waswrong and Keith could proceed with his work (lines 4 and 5).Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 203



21/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIThis example undoubtedlydemonstratesan interactionbetween two peoplewho know each other well in the working context. This is the overwhelmingimpression that came to the fore when I witnessed andthen analyzedthe inter-action. Whether the limited use of verbal meansof communicationcame fromtheir TimeTogetherandKnowledge,orfrom theirlinguistic limitations,orboth,is no longer clear. It is in this kind of situation where we can observe the multi-plicity of influencing factors in humancommunication,and it certainly remindsus that differencesin nationality(or ethnicity, gender,etc.) cannot be singled outas the sole dominantvariable nfluencing a particular"intercultural"nteraction.Interactionalmediators. Besides utilizingvariouslinguisticandnonlinguis-tic communicativeresources,which was mostly a joint effort by the interlocu-tors in a particular nteraction, herewas sometimes one personin an interactionwhom the workersperceivedto be thebest spokesperson(see Goldstein 1996 ona somewhat similarrole, "languagebroker"). nJDC, everyoneI observed in theDie and Press areas was capable of participating n American-Japanesenter-actions, if it was necessary.And in those mostly one-to-one interactions,theyusually managedto function and reach sufficientunderstandingwithoutseekinghelp from someone else (e.g. the researcher). However, when the issue beingdiscussed involved more than two speakers,I commonly observed that one of

the Americansand the Japanese,or both of a pair,chose one person to take a roleto enhance communication.In this section, I discuss what those chosen ones did in interactions. I callthem the "mediators"here, considering the kind of role they played in inter-actions. I said the workers "chose" a mediator,but this is by no means an overtassignmentof the role to a person. In fact, the mediatorwas partially predeter-mined, but such a role simultaneously emerged as a particular nteractionun-folded. In other words, the role of mediator was constructed and reinforcedinthe process of interaction n order to make it more effective. The main criteriafor a Japanese mediator seemed to be English fluency and technical skills, andfor anAmerican mediator,experiencein interactingwith theJapaneseand suffi-cient technical knowledge to understand he interaction.These criteriawere ap-plied to the participants n a particular nteraction,and the one(s) most suitablebecame the mediator.Rob, who undertook his informaldutyseveral times dur-ing my observation, was awareof his role, andonce after a problem (not shownhere) occurredand he was called, he confessed to me that this was when he feltstretched n both directions.An interaction hatexhibits a striking example of mediators s (3), "Discuss-ing die finishingtime." The interlocutors n this interactionare a supporter, sh-ige, a short-termsupporter,Hiki, Rob, Ken (plant manager),and Dick (Pressareamanager).The interactionoccurred nthe Die area,and thedrawing n Fig. 5indicates the interlocutors'approximate ocations in relation to one another.In204 Languagein Society34:2 (2005)



22/34


this interaction, Rob plays a mediator role between the supportersand the twoAmericanmanagers.Simultaneously, shige plays a mediator'srole between Hikiand the two managers.A brief summaryof the incidentis as follows. The managers on the produc-tion side (Dick and Ken)come to confirmwith the supporters Ishige andHiki)when a particularset of dies9 will be ready.There is a sense of urgency on themanagers'side. It turns out that one of the five necessary pairsis not scheduledto be fixed until Thursday (the interactionis taking place on Monday). WhileDick keeps asking if it is really not ready yet, Ishige keeps telling Dick it is onthe schedule and there is no delay. The interactionends up taking many turnswithout developing further.Finally, Ken mentions that the user does not havepanels forWednesday'sproduction,and that is why the managersarein a hurry.The interactiondevelops quickly from there,moving the die modification dateforwardto Tuesday,and the case is settled. Because of space limitations, only ashortexcerpt,the last part,of the incident is shown and analyzed here.Hiki has the least experience with the work among the Japanese supportersand has been in chargeof the set of dies in question.Ishige is in a superiorposi-tion in terms of skills and overall responsibilityon dies. Throughoutthe inter-action, in the middle of the managersand the supportersis Rob from the Diearea (but he is not directly involved in this problem).He places himself in be-tween the two sides, not only physically but also in terms of communication.

(3) Discussing die finishing time [From E-4)](7 seconds)58 I: schedule,(turnsto D, a little smile) (drawsa rectangle w/ both hands then makes"bullets"on it with index finger)59 D: (looks at I, doesn't get it, looks at R)60 R: evidently it's on the sche/ some kinda(turnsto D) (looks at 1)+ + + (where is) Ken, is it on schedule of running(looks at 1) (turnsto K)that tomorrow?61 K: no.62 R: oh OK63 K: EuroCar(doesn't) have partsfor Wednesday64 R: Euro Car does not have parts.(turns to I) (points to the die)+ + forWednesday. @clearer voice than K)65 1: + I don't know. { I ( I(stares at R) (shakes head)66 R: I} IKen says + don't/ no partsEuro Car(points to K) (shakes head)67 1: (looks down, turnsaround,thinking (7 sec))ashita-noyakinka ['How abouttomorrow'snight-shift?'](turnsto H, "still wondering" ace)

Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 205



23/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHI68 H: kanaa ['maybe so'].69 I: aa ['yeah']. (turnsto D)tomorrow: omorrowsecond shift, (points to H)70 K: yeah71 D: second shift?72 R: ((meanwhile, looking at 1, paying attention))73 I: (xxx) a ohirumadedemo ika ['oh by noon'd be OK'](turnsto H)74 H: ohiru made { ) iissu yo ['by noon, it's fine with me']75 1: { I tomorrow unch/ lunchtime,(turns to D & K)

finished('finished')76 K: OK= ( ) that would work77 I: =all day (xxx)78 K: tomorrow, that'sgood("thumbup",satisfiedexpression)79 D: ( (80 I: (1 (1 (steps back)(4 sec)81 R: is that allright?(turnsto K)82 I: { )( I83 D: (OK)= =thank you("thumbup")84 K: =yeah very good=They all go back to work in their own areas.

Analysis of (3). This example starts after the managers have come to under-stand that one pair of dies will not be ready for a few days, but being still unsat-isfied, they will not let go of the topic. There is a 7-second pause. Then, in anattempt to convey one more time that they are simply following the schedule andthus are not behind, in line 58, Ishige draws a big rectangle in the air with bothhands, supposedly a shape of their schedule (see Fig. 6). He makes typographic"bullets" by placing several "dots" in the air with his right index finger. Notethat this is the third time Ishige has attempted to tell Dick and Ken that every-thing is normal. However, from these gestures and Ishige's utterance, schedule,Dick does not understand what Ishige is trying to say.In line 59, Dick looks at Ishige first with a "don't get it" expression, thenimmediately looks at Rob, who stands in between Dick and Ishige and has beencarefully observing their exchange. He has been silently paying attention so far(see Fig. 6) but now comes in to help Dick understand Ishige's intent. Rob un-derstands what Ishige is trying to say, though he himself is not familiar with thecontent or status of the schedule. He starts explaining in line 60, Evidently it's onthe schelsome kinda..., all the while looking alternately at Dick and Ishige (line61). This shift of gaze shows his simultaneous attention to both sides. Rob'sattempted paraphrasing of Ishige's utterance here indicates Rob's accurate as-206 Languagein Society34:2 (2005)



24/34


FIGURE 6: Ishige drawsa rectanglewith both hands in the air (a sheet of sched-ule) as he utters "schedule" (Example 3, Line 58; Note that Ken istemporarilyout of the frame)

sessment of Ishige's Low English. Also, what makes Rob intervene and helpright herein this manner s Knowledge and TimeTogether.He then turns to Ken,who he believes is familiar with the schedule, and asks Is it on schedule of run-ning thattomorrow?Ken, who has also been more or less a bystanderup to now,replies no and, in line 63, finally gives the reason why they have been so eager tohave the dies for production:Euro Car doesn't have parts for Wednesday.EuroCaris the user to whom they shipped theirpanels. As a supplier, JDC'sprioritywas to satisfy the user,and this was shared and understoodby everyonein theplant (Knowledge andGoals). Ken is facing Dick while uttering ine 63, towhich Rob pays attention by looking at Ken. However, Ishige is looking awayand Hiki looking down. Rob immediatelyturnsto Ishige andrepeats Ken's state-ment with a few modifications in line 64. Ken's utterance sounded "normal"thatis, withoutany notable adjustments or Ishige, which led to Rob's utterance.He untruncates he auxiliary negative doesn't to does not, accompanies visualinformationby pointing to the die, and produces theentire utterancewith clearerpronunciationandclearerpausingbetween words.However, Ishige respondsin-appropriately n line 65; he first stares at Rob, then says I don't know, whichshows his misunderstanding.Rob first quietly nods along with Ishige, then im-mediately simplifies his utterance.His calm reaction and subsequentswift ac-commodationby paraphrasinguggeststhat he is used to thistypeof initial failurein comprehension,after which he is instantaneouslyready to try again (LowEnglishandTimeTogether).He says, Kensays don't/no parts Euro Car. On topLanguage in Society 34:2 (2005) 207



25/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIof simplifying, he topicalizes no parts. He uses his pointing gestureto clarifythesource of the utterance,Ken, and then self-repairsandchangesthe utterance othe simple no parts Euro Car, as he shakeshis head, which doubly conveys themeaning of negation.Interestingly,plant manager Ken was one of the most competentAmericansin terms of comprehending he Japanese imitedEnglish and using similar utter-ances with them. Nevertheless, in this interaction,he leaves the talking to Dickand the mediatorjob entirely to Rob, and he does not take responsibilityforclarifying for Ishige and Hiki. As this was a matterbetween the Die and Pressareas, it was probablythe case thatKen left most of the interactionup to Dick,who is in charge of the Press area.Rightafter Rob's modified utterance n line 66, Ishige looks down and thinksfor 7 seconds. Interestingly,withoutgettingverbal confirmationor acknowledg-ment fromIshige, Rob seems to know thatIshige understands t this time. Robattemptsno moreclarification and waits. Finally, Ishige turnsto Hiki and with a"still wondering" expression, asks him ashita no yakin ka 'how about tomor-row's night shift', suggesting a possible changeto tomorrow's Tuesday's) nightshift (line 67). This utteranceconfirms Ishige's understandingof Rob's utter-ance in line 66. In the entire interactionHiki never talks directly with anyoneexcept Ishige, andIshige translatesandnegotiateson his behalf.Note, however,that Hiki respondskanaa 'maybe so' in line 68 without asking the content ofKen and Rob's utterance.This suggests that Hiki is capableof understandingwhat Rob (or even Ken) has said; yet he allows Ishige to be the go-betweenduring the entire interaction. This is understandable onsidering that Ishige'sEnglishis betteroverall,and he has more decision-makingauthority n die mod-ification than Hiki has.In line 69, afterconfirmingthe revised plan with Hiki by saying aa 'yeah',Ishige tells Dick and Ken thatthey can do it duringtomorrow's second (night)shift, saying tomorrowsecond shift while his pointing at Hiki indicates theaction's subject.Inresponse,both Ken (line 70) and Dick (line 71) soundhope-ful and await confirmation.Ishige quickly rethinksin line 73, saying to Hikithatthey can probablydo thejob tomorrowmorning.Once he realizes that thesource of the problemis the user,he quickly reacts and modifies the die mod-ification schedule, which indicates all the members' shared Goals. Hiki agreeswith the change, without arguing, in line 74. In line 75, Ishige looks at bothDick and Ken and says the dies will be fixed by tomorrownoon. His utteranceis truncatedbutsufficiently conveys necessaryinformation.First he secures hisinterlocutors,Dick and Ken, with his gaze, and then he utters the newly pro-posed time: tomorrow lunch! lunch time, the crucial piece of information forthis incident to settle. Ishige's utterance inished is accompanied by an iconicgesture, where he quickly moves and stops his downward-facing right palm.This fast turn of the direction of the conversationquickly solves both sides'208 LanguagenSociety4:2 2005)



26/34

HISTORICAL CONTEXT & INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIONfrustrationand needs. Of course, what kind of schedule change would be pos-sible, preferred,and necessary in a case of emergency has been sharedby allparties present(Knowledge and Goals) as background nformationor commonsense.Inresponseto Ishige'sconfirmation hat the die will be finished by tomorrownoon,Kenimmediatelygives positive feedback n line 76 - OK,thatwouldworkandthen in 78, tomorrow, hat'sgood. Dick nods in line 79, therebyindicatingthatthis long negotiation of the die finishing time hasfinally reached a satisfac-toryresult.Ishige nods simultaneouslywith Dick in line 80, followed by a pause.Afterthat,there is silence for 4 seconds, duringwhich time Ishige walks away afew steps. The pauseandstepping away function as pre-pre-closing.Then Rob,who has been listening, asks Ken and Dick Is it all right?to make sure thattheyare satisfied now. This pre-closing by Rob, the mediator, eads to the closing inlines 83 and 84, Ken and Dick's positive acknowledgmentand expression ofgratitude,and all leave to go back to their work areasimmediatelyafter that(seethe next section for more analysis).As seen, the two mediators,Ishige and Rob, played importantroles for effec-tive communication n this interaction.That s, perhaps hecomrnunicationwouldhave survived withoutthem,but themediatorsdefinitelycontributed o the moreefficient outcome of the interaction. In the case of Ishige, he constantlyplayedthe role of a spokesperson for Hiki, as Ishige excelled Hiki both linguisticallyandtechnically.Rob'sjob, on the otherhand,was not to interpret. nstead,whena misunderstanding ccurredor the interactional low was impeded,he came inand helped reestablishcommunication. Toward the end of the interaction,hehelped the other participantsreach closing by checking if the managersweresatisfied,as well as offeringa pre-closing.Inessence, themediatorswere able tofill the linguistic, pragmatic,and technicalgaps between theJapaneseand Amer-ican sides in a given interaction.In the light of the nine factors,I observe that the mediator s a manifestationof the two sides' willingness and determination o come closer for effective com-munication. That is, the participantswere principallymotivatedby ContextualFactors, where the backgroundpower dynamics have been predeterminedbyHistoricalFactors;that is, the language to use is English, and productionde-pends on the supporters'work.

Negotiating contextualizationcues: Topic shift and request or clarification.In the Gumperzianmismatchmodel, it is assumed that nativespeakerscan neverget awayfrom theiroriginalcontextualizationcues, no matterhow fluenttheyare(or maybe such adaptationshave not been a focus of research).This assumptionunderestimates he agent's ability to learn andchange over time (see Shea 1994on mediated contextualizationcues in the presence of cooperative native speak-ers). Despite the verydifferentcommunicativenormsthey originallybrought n,Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 209



27/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIinstanceswere observedwhere some of the Americanworkers n theDie andPressareasadoptedsome of theJapanesecontextualization ues whennecessary:whengiving a cue for a topic shift, andwhen requestingclarification.Accordingto Yamada1992, 1997, JapaneseandAmericans typically use dif-ferentstrategieswhenendingthe topic underdiscussionand/or wanting to shiftto another. Based on her tape-recordeddataof business meetings among Japa-nese and amongAmericans, she found that the Americans used explicit verbalclosures such as That'sall, That's t in orderto marka topic endingorshifting.Incontrast,the Japanese used long pauses in order to signal their topic shifts. Fur-ther, the pause was shared by all the participants, he co-creatorsof the flow ofthe conversation.An example follows (the dialogue was originally in Japanese,and below is Yamada'sEnglish translation):

Ikeda: Because in Japan t's a week at the mostShimizu:Mhm, it's a week(8.2 sec. pause)Tanaka:This talk is completely different but,'0next time there is againgoing to be a regional meeting aroundAugust(1997: 76-77)In interactions mong the Japaneseat JDC,similar ong pauses were observed.

The following example demonstrateshow Rob participated n co-constructingpauses as a signal to shift topics. It is shown in lines 78-85 at the end of (3).Not only did he mediate the content of the two sides' claims, but he also medi-ated different contextualization cues at the end of the interaction. When Kengives positive evaluation(line 78) and Dick nods (line 79), Ishige's synchro-nized nods with these turnsare a closing signal at least for Ishige;afterattempt-ing (most likely) to supply additional information on the newly proposedschedule (line 77), he has not added information or responded to Ken andDick's positive reactions. Rather, he simply nodded and now stays silent; inaddition,he steps away from the interactionalcircle. All of these actions indi-cate that he is readyto end this topic. After a pause of 4 seconds, in line 81,Rob, who has been looking at Ishige and Hiki, turns to Ken and Dick and asksIs it all right? as an explicit query to check if the topic is readyto be closed.Dick and Ken immediately respond by thankingIshige and Hiki in lines 83 and84, which closes the whole interaction.Ishige and Hiki give no more verbalresponses,but they are likewise satisfied. They all startwalking to where theywork.This final sequence points to the fact that Rob appropriately nterpretedandparticipated n the 4-second pause as a signal of topic shift from the support-ers' side. Given his frequentcontacts with the Japanese in the Die area andhis regularrole as a mediator, t is understandablehe had acquiredthis knowl-edge (though it might not be conscious). Nevertheless, it is an interesting phe-210 Languagein Society 34:2 (2005)



28/34


nomenon because, although the language they used was English, not only didthe Japanese continue to use their contextualization cue of topic shift pauses,but also Rob adapted to the Japanese way of using pauses when necessary.When he was placed in the middle as a mediator,he contributed o the smoothending by accommodating to both sides. That is, he was able to recognizethe silence as a closing signal from the Japanese participants' point of view,and he translatedt for the Americanmanagersandinitiateda pre-closing,whichexplicitly asked the managers to give an assessment of the outcome of thenegotiation.The second contextualizationcue to be examined is a common way for theJapanese o seek clarification.TheJapaneseparticipants requentlyused theges-tureof puttingtheirear(the one closer to the interlocutor) orwardtogetherwithan "I don't get it" expression,either without any verbalcue or with a minimalutterancesuch as a? or e? An example is shown below.

(4) Hard to get running[ExcerptfromE-1)-iv)]22 M: this job is hard to get running?("running"with right hand)23 T: (keeps paying attention)24 M: thisjob + this job, hardto get running?("rolling"with hand)25 T: (puts his ear closer to M)

The interactantsareTsuchida, he vendorof pressmachines,andMax, a workerin Press area. In line 22, Max's original message is conveyed: this job is hard toget running, referring to the trouble press machines are having these days.Tsuchida does not respond verbally or nonverbally, and simply keeps payingattentionto Max (line 23), which signals Tsuchida'snoncomprehension.In line24, Maxparaphrases is original message by repeating he subject this ob, omit-ting the copula is, and emphasizingthe utteranceby speaking more loudly. Tothis second attempt by Max, Tsuchidaresponds by moving his left ear towardsMax, indicatinghis nonunderstanding nd requestingclarification.This reactionby Tsuchidashown in line 25 is an instance of the "ear-forward" esture as aclarificationrequestin Japanese.As predicted by Gumperz,Tsuchida used thisfamiliar contextualizationcue even in an interaction n English.Frommy native intuition,I can say thatthis is one of the most common waysfor Japanese speakersto ask for clarification. On the other hand, giving an ex-plicit verbalcue such as Pardon?or What's hat?is a commonway of asking forclarification in American English. Occasionally, however, Americans - espe-cially those who had regularcontacts with the Japanese- used the gesture ofputtingan ear forward.An example is shown in an earlier segment from E-4)"Discussingdie finishing time."The excerpt is shown in (5) below, where Dicktries to understandwhat Ishige is talkingabout.Language in Society 34:2 (2005) 211



29/34

YUKAKO SUNAOSHIPrior to line 32, Dick asked the supportersIshige andHiki if the dies wouldbe ready for tomorrow's(Tuesday's) production.Ishige thenrelayed Hiki's neg-ative response. In line 32, Hiki confirms with Ishige in Japanese hat the dies inquestion are scheduledto be fixed on Thursday.On this Ishige agrees in Japa-nese in line 33. He then immediately turnsto Dick, switches to English, andattemptsto convey the message by "spelling out":he says, Tuesday,Wednesday.This spelling out by Ishige must be partly due to his awarenessthat at this pointDick does not seem to understand he current cheduleof die modification.How-ever, Dick does not understandwhat Ishige is trying to convey, so in line 34,without any verbal cue, he moves his right ear (and his whole body) toward

Ishige. Inresponseto this, using thesamespell-out strategybut morethoroughlyby startingfrom today (Monday) up to the scheduled day (Thursday), Ishigeclarifies his previousutterance.Althoughthe interaction ook place in English,Dick, who had regularcontact with supporters,usedaJapanesecue fornonunder-standingandclarification request.(5) When will the dies be ready? [From E-4]J

32 H: (to I) are yotei dewa mokuyou a nainsuka[isn't thatone scheduled for Thursday]33 I: naa naa ['rightright'] he says(looks at D)(Tuesday) Wednesday(counting days with fingers)34 D: (approaches I, putting his ear forward)35 I: Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,+ + Thursday.(counting days with fingers)he says Thursday.(points to H) (points to the die)

The two instances of Ameficans' use of Japanese contextualizationcues inEnglish can be seen as a manifestationof several HistoricalandContextualfac-tors.The background ondition was determined hroughcompetingfactors:Na-tionalityandVitality on theone hand, and HierarchyandSkills on the other.Theformerpair grantsAmerican workers more interactionalpower, and the latterpairgrantsJapaneseworkersmore.ContextualFactorscontribute o thetwo sides'collaborative attitude.The end resultis, as shown, thatthe dominant anguageisstill English, but some leakage (adaptation)of contextualizationcues from theminority languageto the majority anguagetook place.C O N CL U S Io NThis article first called attention to the necessity of examining the historicalcontext of participants n orderto make sense of their interaction n the inter-cultural context. I proposedfive Historical FactorsandfourContextualFactorsthat shaped the blueprintof communication between the American and Japa-nese workers. Next, I examined exactly how communicationwas managedon212 Languagein Society34:2 (2005)



30/34


the productionfloor by focusing on five examples, each of which elucidateddifferent aspects of communicative strategies the interlocutorsemployed. Insum, the interlocutorsin the first segment demonstratednonlinear, dynamicutilizationof available communicativeresources, especially a physical object,gaze, andbody positions. Analysis of the second segmentrevealed how "mostlyrelying on nonverbalresources"becomes possible, anddeterminingwhat madeit possible can be elusive. I believe, however, that it was mainly a function ofboth Time Together and the linguistic limitation. Use of interactionalmedia-tors was ultimately about relying on sociolinguistically and technically moreskillful participants,and about efficiently utilizing abilities for the commongood. Finally, Americans'adaptationof some of Japanesecontextualizationcuesreveals that even the supposedly obstinateelement of one's sociolinguisticcom-petence is a potential communicativeresourceto enhance intercultural ommu-nication. These American participants showed in action that they indeedunderstoodthe importanceandsignificance of the correct use of such commu-nicative norms.It is tempting to automatically focus on our "national character

historical context and intercultural communication: interactions between japanese and american...

Documents