- Email: [email protected]
Culture and discourse structure
J;lurnaI of Pragmatics 5 (1981) 6 l-66 e) North-Holland Publishing Company
ClJLTURE AND DISCOURSE STRUCTURE *
MICHAEL CLYNE
Recent years have seen welco.me developments in the liaguistic study of discourse. It is at the intercultural level that advances now need to be made, in the interests of successful communication. H,artmann (1980) hap devised a framework for a ‘“contrastive textology”. This covers text semantics, test syntax, and text pragmatics. There is a level of disc?urse (termed natimzl styles by ‘dartmann) which is very basic, and which is intricarely bound to culture. We have previously (Clyne 1979) studied the responses o:F60 adult first generation immigrants from each of three language backgrounds (Italian, Greek, German) and of 60 comparable .ingIo-Americans to S5 communication rules. Among the rules that proved difficult to acquire were some relating to politeness, irony/understatement, and selection of apprcnk Jiri Neustupny, Hartmut Haberland and Bob Kaplan for helpful coniments. Author’s address: Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Ar&ralia 3168. [ 1 f The griaphic method of represenbng discourse types, .however, dates back to thz 18th century writer, Laurence Sterne (Grant 1950: 389).
61
(e) ):ig. 1 (a)-(c,.
(1) Parzllel constructions. wit!1 the first idea completed in the second part (see fig. lb). (2) Circularity, with the topic looked at from different tangents (see fig. 1~). (3) Freedom to digress and to introduce “extraneous” m:lterial (see fig. 1d). (4j Swnilar to (A), but with different !engths , ;tnd parenthetical amplifications of subordinate elements (see fig le). Kaplan concentrates on writing (rather than on the relat~or1 betwl:en form and content in discourse) and restricts his study to the paragraphropriate subject and a high competence in it, because they have not been su!5cic.ntly trained 1o abide 5y formal r&s which reflect features of a culture of which they are no! part.
hf. Clyne / CuSture md discourse structure
63
(iii) The rLzyt12rnof dwour'se is more or less flexible, or structured differently, in different cultures, just as the extent of ‘“open space” permit ted in the cultures till vary. Office dooG tend to be open in the U.S. and Au:$d’ia, and shut in West Germany. Guests at a party may mogre about the furniture 1.nthe US. and Australia, bum certainly not in West Germany fMorain 19’19: 686-687). Returning to discourse rhythm, Barkcwski et oi. (1976) stress the difficulties of Turks in West IBerlinwho, accustomed to iong monologues s&h no interneptions and plerr?y of narratives, are not able to function successfully in a sock ty with short exchanges. They, and many Turks in Australia, are not used to interjecvhg and do not take advantage of non-verbal cues to take their turn. Elzinga’s (1978) Japanese-English biliaguals spoke h shorter terms and 1is:ened more in Japanese conversations than in English ones. Restrictions on discourse tempo such as hurrying up business by moving that We motion now be put” abld slowing it down by referring it to a (sub-)committee - are characteristic of meeting procedures in English-speaking countries;. They are unusual in mcst continental countries. The former routiPre is not followed by most Dutch, Italian ?nd German-Fpeaking ethnic organizations in Melbourne, and the latter is not nrlhmec! to by the 1fafi-r .wU.“L cu c11 c‘a’t ,a, d some of’ tke Lbtdlj ones (2ijme and Mhnton 1979). (iv) Some societies are more verb& others more literate. While Germa-: students (especially North German one@ anal those from many ot&r Europea&-countries and the U S. are required to project themselves verbally., many of the most capa!+ students in _4ustraUa, who write very well. are often not able c)r prepared to ehpress their thoughts verbztlly . This may be related to a “(pseudo-)egalitarian” principle in many Austr#an secondary schools by which the brighter pupirs should keep quiet arid give tJle othcrrs 3 chance. It may be partly due t9 tl,z emphasis placed on writing jn clarr and exarxinations. In West Germany, tin the other hand, academic students tend to exhibit their general knn;vIedg,e and expertise by the use of professionaJ jargon and/or by digressing from the central theme to a related one in which they have an Informationsvorsprung.This is basic to the university seminars iir;wllich staff and senior students conduct verbose discussions as part of a sort of ““linguisticgame”, which is baffling to foreign students, who feel inferior in this context. An extreme example of non-linear discourse is Fritz Schiitze’s Spr~ct;zesoai~Zogisch gt-when (1975---7), the two voiumes o F which span over more than 1000 pages. There are .ilot only digressions @L~ihrr.~),but also digressions from digressio ns. Even w’ithin the conclusion, there are digressions. Every time the author returns to the main line of argumc!nt, he has to recapitulate it bp to the noint befc)re the last dkresslon, resulting in much. repetition. This strclcture may hes% be represenbted by cooked spagh.&ti. It is also reminiscent of the formula a.pplied until recently for the ad:.lressing of envelopes in the Geman Federal Republic. The placcname, which came between :he addrassee’s name hl;d. the street, was so obscured
354
M, Clyne / Culture and dim sursestructurtp
that it had to be underlined to assist the mail sorter. Apart from the only English-language review of Schtitze’s book that I know ol (Clyne 1978), none of its critiqules comment or the discourse structure. This appar I ently passes in German! The English translation of Norbert Dittmar s book, Scm’olinguisz’ik,alhndmark in the development of sociolinguistics in We;t Germany, was described by BilIs ( 1W9) as ““chaotic” and criticized for its “lack of focus and cohesiveness”, “haphazardness of nresentation”, and “desultor~~ organization”. None of the four reviews caf tne original xvritten by scholars frorr Central European universities (Rein 1974; Geye 1974; Leodolter 19Y74:Prucha 1974) make any criticism of this kind, and the work certainly does not strike me as possessing a discours: structure that makes it difficult to read. There adpear to be some disciplines (e.g. mathematics, engineering) in which German scientists have adopted a basically liliear discourse structure. This may be conditioned by the discipline or by the leadership in the discipline of English speakers. In other fields of science (e.g. chemistry), the non-linear structure is quite cormnon in German. A study of four years of Matriculation Ex iminers’ Reports on all school subjects for the state of Victoria, examiners’ comme its on 400 history examination papers, and a small sample of essays from a number of essay-writing manuals from Englishlanguage countries, suggests that li~eutity is mandatory in essays, even in subjects other than Engiish. Digressions and repetitions are not reacted to favorably in the assessment, and the presentation of answers n examinations and class exercises 1sof paramount significance. On the other hand, essay-writing manuals and teachers in Geman-language countries tolerate digresrions and repetitions. The emphasis in non-language subjects is on testing specific and general knowledge. This is often done orally, through direct short-answer tests, or through essays on very brcbadly formulated topics, requiring little interpretation of the topic (Clyne 1980). Neustupny ( 1978: 107-- 108) has distinguished between areal, grammatical and developmental typologie; in language. In Neustupny’s (I 978: 27-29, 148-- 149, 255) :erminology, it was the “modern’ stage of socioeconomic history Ihat brought with it a more differentiated role for the individuals, as well as their abil ity to sell their produce (including knowledge). In the newest period, the “confemporary” stage, individuals enjoy greater equality in the communication situation. Most of the structures we have considerec! can be accommodated under “developmental typologies”. The longer turns taken, and granted, by Turkish speakers are probably characteristic of more traditiomtl societies, (although monologu.es may be the prerogative of higher status individuals in such societies. Shorter turns come with the modem (and contemporary) epllch. Formalism in discourre may be seen, n varying ways, as a characteristic of 50th more traditional and contemporary societies, and the emphasis on content an 1 the idealization of know1 :dge as rnodern rather than contemporary. Thus the various features ot psrraculas develo$?mental phases do not completely overlap today But certain overlapping fea,tures may con-
M. CiQme/ Culrure and discourse sr;ructure
65
tribute to the core vah.~s which, according 10 Smolicz (197?), predominate in specific cult Lres. The strong preference of English-speaking scholars and teachers for “AngloCeltic” discourse structures cs:st some doubt on the effectiveness of trainsl:rtion~ of academic publications whkh do not reorganize the discourse. The above tectative comments call for research of an interdisciplinary nitture. For instance, psycholinguists c40uld perhaps test whether linear palterns al:e universally easier to follow than non-linear ones. On the other hand, a brl::jadcross-section of academic discourse should be analyzed to ascertain whether linear patterns might encourage onessided treatment of topics. It is possible, also, that rhe emphasis on “relev we” in hstorical discourse may impede cross-reference, in!.! r>fthe most importani aspects of disCourse, If this is so, VIe should ask whether th 11s might entail the suppression oq associations, which are :n integral part of histttrical consciousness. If cultureq~ecifk discourse structurt s really p!ay an imporkmt role, they should occupy tl Frorninenll: place in teaching prc,grams ior srcond and sbrx:ignla.+lguages,including languages for special purposes.
References Barkowski, I-f., U. P,arnisch and S. Kumm. 19’76. Sprechhandlungstheorie cud Gastarbeiterdeutsch. Linguistische Berichte 45: 42-56. Bills, G.D. 1979. Review of N. Dittmirr, Soziolinguistik, Language 55: 454-4515. Clyne, M. 1978. Revlew of F. Schiitzc, Sprache sb)ziologisc:1 gesehen. Larkguage 54: 227-228. Clyne, M. 1979. Communicative competences in ;:gn::act. ITL 43: 17-37. Clyne, M. 1980. Could essay-writing requirementa be tliscrlminating agai,lst migrants? The Secondary Teacher 11 (Nov.) : 13 -16, Clyne, M. and S.1, Mallton. 1979. Routil?es for conducting meetings ir! P.il3traliia: an interethnic study. Ethnic Studies 3 (I): 25.-34. Coulmas. F. 1979. The sosiolin k :istic relevance of routir,e formulae. Journ;,l of Pragmatics 3 : 239-256. Elzmg: R.H. ;978. Temporal organization of conversation. Sociolinguistic, Newsletter 9 (2): 29--d 1. Geye, E. 1974. Review 4 f N. Dittmar, Sozlolinguistik. Mutterspr;jche 84: 243-24Cl. Grant, D., ed. 1950. Lawrence Sterne: i+e life and opinions of -Fristram Shandy. London: HartDavis. Hackman, D. 1977. Patterns in purported speech
66
M. Clyne / Culru~e and discourse structure
Smolicz,
J.J. 1979. Culture and education in a plural society. Canberra: C.D.C. Rein. K. 1974. Revie\h of N. Dittmar, Sozioiinguistik. Germanistik 15: 249.
MichdePClyne is Associate Professor of Gxman at Monas3 University (Australia). Hit; major research interests are bilingualism, second language acquisition, and sociolinguistics. He ii editor of the Journal of dnter-Cultural Studies. iunong his publications are nansference and Trig geting (196”). Perspectives on language contact (1972), Fomhungsbericht Sprachkontakt f 19?5), Austwlia talks (ed. 1976), Deutscj als Muttersprache in Australien: zur dkologie einer Einwanderenorache (in press); he has edited IJSL 28: Foreignrr talk (in press).
ClJLTURE AND DISCOURSE STRUCTURE *
MICHAEL CLYNE
Recent years have seen welco.me developments in the liaguistic study of discourse. It is at the intercultural level that advances now need to be made, in the interests of successful communication. H,artmann (1980) hap devised a framework for a ‘“contrastive textology”. This covers text semantics, test syntax, and text pragmatics. There is a level of disc?urse (termed natimzl styles by ‘dartmann) which is very basic, and which is intricarely bound to culture. We have previously (Clyne 1979) studied the responses o:F60 adult first generation immigrants from each of three language backgrounds (Italian, Greek, German) and of 60 comparable .ingIo-Americans to S5 communication rules. Among the rules that proved difficult to acquire were some relating to politeness, irony/understatement, and selection of apprc
61
(e) ):ig. 1 (a)-(c,.
(1) Parzllel constructions. wit!1 the first idea completed in the second part (see fig. lb). (2) Circularity, with the topic looked at from different tangents (see fig. 1~). (3) Freedom to digress and to introduce “extraneous” m:lterial (see fig. 1d). (4j Swnilar to (A), but with different !engths , ;tnd parenthetical amplifications of subordinate elements (see fig le). Kaplan concentrates on writing (rather than on the relat~or1 betwl:en form and content in discourse) and restricts his study to the paragraph
hf. Clyne / CuSture md discourse structure
63
(iii) The rLzyt12rnof dwour'se is more or less flexible, or structured differently, in different cultures, just as the extent of ‘“open space” permit ted in the cultures till vary. Office dooG tend to be open in the U.S. and Au:$d’ia, and shut in West Germany. Guests at a party may mogre about the furniture 1.nthe US. and Australia, bum certainly not in West Germany fMorain 19’19: 686-687). Returning to discourse rhythm, Barkcwski et oi. (1976) stress the difficulties of Turks in West IBerlinwho, accustomed to iong monologues s&h no interneptions and plerr?y of narratives, are not able to function successfully in a sock ty with short exchanges. They, and many Turks in Australia, are not used to interjecvhg and do not take advantage of non-verbal cues to take their turn. Elzinga’s (1978) Japanese-English biliaguals spoke h shorter terms and 1is:ened more in Japanese conversations than in English ones. Restrictions on discourse tempo such as hurrying up business by moving that We motion now be put” abld slowing it down by referring it to a (sub-)committee - are characteristic of meeting procedures in English-speaking countries;. They are unusual in mcst continental countries. The former routiPre is not followed by most Dutch, Italian ?nd German-Fpeaking ethnic organizations in Melbourne, and the latter is not nrlhmec! to by the 1fafi-r .wU.“L cu c11 c‘a’t ,a, d some of’ tke Lbtdlj ones (2ijme and Mhnton 1979). (iv) Some societies are more verb& others more literate. While Germa-: students (especially North German one@ anal those from many ot&r Europea&-countries and the U S. are required to project themselves verbally., many of the most capa!+ students in _4ustraUa, who write very well. are often not able c)r prepared to ehpress their thoughts verbztlly . This may be related to a “(pseudo-)egalitarian” principle in many Austr#an secondary schools by which the brighter pupirs should keep quiet arid give tJle othcrrs 3 chance. It may be partly due t9 tl,z emphasis placed on writing jn clarr and exarxinations. In West Germany, tin the other hand, academic students tend to exhibit their general knn;vIedg,e and expertise by the use of professionaJ jargon and/or by digressing from the central theme to a related one in which they have an Informationsvorsprung.This is basic to the university seminars iir;wllich staff and senior students conduct verbose discussions as part of a sort of ““linguisticgame”, which is baffling to foreign students, who feel inferior in this context. An extreme example of non-linear discourse is Fritz Schiitze’s Spr~ct;zesoai~Zogisch gt-when (1975---7), the two voiumes o F which span over more than 1000 pages. There are .ilot only digressions @L~ihrr.~),but also digressions from digressio ns. Even w’ithin the conclusion, there are digressions. Every time the author returns to the main line of argumc!nt, he has to recapitulate it bp to the noint befc)re the last dkresslon, resulting in much. repetition. This strclcture may hes% be represenbted by cooked spagh.&ti. It is also reminiscent of the formula a.pplied until recently for the ad:.lressing of envelopes in the Geman Federal Republic. The placcname, which came between :he addrassee’s name hl;d. the street, was so obscured
354
M, Clyne / Culture and dim sursestructurtp
that it had to be underlined to assist the mail sorter. Apart from the only English-language review of Schtitze’s book that I know ol (Clyne 1978), none of its critiqules comment or the discourse structure. This appar I ently passes in German! The English translation of Norbert Dittmar s book, Scm’olinguisz’ik,alhndmark in the development of sociolinguistics in We;t Germany, was described by BilIs ( 1W9) as ““chaotic” and criticized for its “lack of focus and cohesiveness”, “haphazardness of nresentation”, and “desultor~~ organization”. None of the four reviews caf tne original xvritten by scholars frorr Central European universities (Rein 1974; Geye 1974; Leodolter 19Y74:Prucha 1974) make any criticism of this kind, and the work certainly does not strike me as possessing a discours: structure that makes it difficult to read. There adpear to be some disciplines (e.g. mathematics, engineering) in which German scientists have adopted a basically liliear discourse structure. This may be conditioned by the discipline or by the leadership in the discipline of English speakers. In other fields of science (e.g. chemistry), the non-linear structure is quite cormnon in German. A study of four years of Matriculation Ex iminers’ Reports on all school subjects for the state of Victoria, examiners’ comme its on 400 history examination papers, and a small sample of essays from a number of essay-writing manuals from Englishlanguage countries, suggests that li~eutity is mandatory in essays, even in subjects other than Engiish. Digressions and repetitions are not reacted to favorably in the assessment, and the presentation of answers n examinations and class exercises 1sof paramount significance. On the other hand, essay-writing manuals and teachers in Geman-language countries tolerate digresrions and repetitions. The emphasis in non-language subjects is on testing specific and general knowledge. This is often done orally, through direct short-answer tests, or through essays on very brcbadly formulated topics, requiring little interpretation of the topic (Clyne 1980). Neustupny ( 1978: 107-- 108) has distinguished between areal, grammatical and developmental typologie; in language. In Neustupny’s (I 978: 27-29, 148-- 149, 255) :erminology, it was the “modern’ stage of socioeconomic history Ihat brought with it a more differentiated role for the individuals, as well as their abil ity to sell their produce (including knowledge). In the newest period, the “confemporary” stage, individuals enjoy greater equality in the communication situation. Most of the structures we have considerec! can be accommodated under “developmental typologies”. The longer turns taken, and granted, by Turkish speakers are probably characteristic of more traditiomtl societies, (although monologu.es may be the prerogative of higher status individuals in such societies. Shorter turns come with the modem (and contemporary) epllch. Formalism in discourre may be seen, n varying ways, as a characteristic of 50th more traditional and contemporary societies, and the emphasis on content an 1 the idealization of know1 :dge as rnodern rather than contemporary. Thus the various features ot psrraculas develo$?mental phases do not completely overlap today But certain overlapping fea,tures may con-
M. CiQme/ Culrure and discourse sr;ructure
65
tribute to the core vah.~s which, according 10 Smolicz (197?), predominate in specific cult Lres. The strong preference of English-speaking scholars and teachers for “AngloCeltic” discourse structures cs:st some doubt on the effectiveness of trainsl:rtion~ of academic publications whkh do not reorganize the discourse. The above tectative comments call for research of an interdisciplinary nitture. For instance, psycholinguists c40uld perhaps test whether linear palterns al:e universally easier to follow than non-linear ones. On the other hand, a brl::jadcross-section of academic discourse should be analyzed to ascertain whether linear patterns might encourage onessided treatment of topics. It is possible, also, that rhe emphasis on “relev we” in hstorical discourse may impede cross-reference, in!.! r>fthe most importani aspects of disCourse, If this is so, VIe should ask whether th 11s might entail the suppression oq associations, which are :n integral part of histttrical consciousness. If cultureq~ecifk discourse structurt s really p!ay an imporkmt role, they should occupy tl Frorninenll: place in teaching prc,grams ior srcond and sbrx:ignla.+lguages,including languages for special purposes.
References Barkowski, I-f., U. P,arnisch and S. Kumm. 19’76. Sprechhandlungstheorie cud Gastarbeiterdeutsch. Linguistische Berichte 45: 42-56. Bills, G.D. 1979. Review of N. Dittmirr, Soziolinguistik, Language 55: 454-4515. Clyne, M. 1978. Revlew of F. Schiitzc, Sprache sb)ziologisc:1 gesehen. Larkguage 54: 227-228. Clyne, M. 1979. Communicative competences in ;:gn::act. ITL 43: 17-37. Clyne, M. 1980. Could essay-writing requirementa be tliscrlminating agai,lst migrants? The Secondary Teacher 11 (Nov.) : 13 -16, Clyne, M. and S.1, Mallton. 1979. Routil?es for conducting meetings ir! P.il3traliia: an interethnic study. Ethnic Studies 3 (I): 25.-34. Coulmas. F. 1979. The sosiolin k :istic relevance of routir,e formulae. Journ;,l of Pragmatics 3 : 239-256. Elzmg: R.H. ;978. Temporal organization of conversation. Sociolinguistic, Newsletter 9 (2): 29--d 1. Geye, E. 1974. Review 4 f N. Dittmar, Sozlolinguistik. Mutterspr;jche 84: 243-24Cl. Grant, D., ed. 1950. Lawrence Sterne: i+e life and opinions of -Fristram Shandy. London: HartDavis. Hackman, D. 1977. Patterns in purported speech
66
M. Clyne / Culru~e and discourse structure
Smolicz,
J.J. 1979. Culture and education in a plural society. Canberra: C.D.C. Rein. K. 1974. Revie\h of N. Dittmar, Sozioiinguistik. Germanistik 15: 249.
MichdePClyne is Associate Professor of Gxman at Monas3 University (Australia). Hit; major research interests are bilingualism, second language acquisition, and sociolinguistics. He ii editor of the Journal of dnter-Cultural Studies. iunong his publications are nansference and Trig geting (196”). Perspectives on language contact (1972), Fomhungsbericht Sprachkontakt f 19?5), Austwlia talks (ed. 1976), Deutscj als Muttersprache in Australien: zur dkologie einer Einwanderenorache (in press); he has edited IJSL 28: Foreignrr talk (in press).