Dynamic Nature of Boundaries of Speech Communities: Learning and Negotiating Codes in Intercultural Communication

Abstract

Using the ethnography of communication and speech codes theory, this study aims to capture instances in which individuals’ views of appropriate conduct and cultural boundaries are undergoing change in intercultural interactions. The paper proposes a way of describing such instances by illustrating Japanese speakers’ experiences of encountering unfamiliar codes in problematic situations with English speakers in the United States, recognizing boundaries, negotiating contrasting codes, and revising their perceptions of codes and boundaries as a result of engaging in remedial episodes. The study illuminates the dynamic nature of the boundaries of speech communities and adds an ethnographic exploration of intercultural communication.

Keywords:

• Boundaries
• ethnography of communication
• intercultural interaction
• remedial episodes
• speech codes
• speech communities

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Gerry Philipsen for his invaluable support and encouragement.

Notes

1. Speech codes theory offers six propositions on the distinctiveness, multiplicity, substance, meanings, site, and force of speech codes (for details, see Philipsen, 1992, 1997, 2015; Philipsen & Coutu, 2005).

2. Gumperz (1982a, 1982b, 1999) did not use the term “speech codes” to refer to the shared resources that members of a speech community use to interpret each other’s actions. Instead, he used such phrases as “background knowledge” and “cultural assumptions” to refer to such resources. Nevertheless, his characterizations of these concepts apply to speech codes.

3. In a way, this approach is similar to Basso’s (1979) study, which described, from the Western Apache’s perspective, contrasting codes of speaking between them and Anglo-Americans in their joking portrayals of “the Whiteman.” In this paper, I describe, from the Japanese speakers’ perspective, contrasting codes between them and English speakers in their talk about problematic situations with “Americans.”

4. The difficulty or impossibility of drawing a line around the boundaries of speech communities owing to the variations within a speech community, as well as commonalities across communities, has been well documented since Bloomfield (1933/1984) introduced the concept of speech community, although he defined it in terms of linguistic variety, not in terms of rules of speaking as Hymes (1974) did. In this paper, therefore, I address how the participants saw the boundaries, rather than trying to draw a line from an objective viewpoint.

5. I use pseudonyms to protect the participants’ privacy.