ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

ON ‘INTERCULTURALITY’: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH APPLYING

ETHNOMETHODOLOGY TO THE STUDY OF INTERCULTURAL

INTERACTIONS.

ADAM BRANDT

Abstract

This paper discusses previous research which has applied an ethnomethodological

approach to the study of „intercultural communication‟. Particular attention is paid to

the work of Nishizaka (1995) and Mori (2003). In examining the themes and focuses

of such research, it will become apparent that „interculturality‟ tends to be

operationalised in one of two ways, as either (1) the making relevant the „foreignness‟

of one or more of the interactants, or (2) the associating of one or more interactants

with knowledge of specific national cultural items, such as food. It will be argued that

both of these operationalisations are potentially problematic. In closing, possible

similarities and differences between the work discussed and my own PhD research

will be considered.

Keywords: interculturality, intercultural communication, ethnomethodology,

conversation analysis, membership categorization analysis, identity.

205
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

1. Introduction

Research on intercultural communication (ICC) which treats culture and

„interculturality‟ as a given fact from which analyses should begin is increasingly

being questioned.

Such traditional notions of ICC are exemplified by Scollon and Scollon

(2001), who explain how individuals from different cultural groups communicate

differently as a consequence of their different worldviews and norms of behaviour.

Throughout their textbook, they provide (imaginary) examples of interactions between

Westerners (typically American) and Easterners (usually Chinese) who misunderstand

one another and miscommunicate as a result of their cultural differences.

While Scollon and Scollon acknowledge that not all intercultural encounters

go wrong, and that there are potential problems of a priori researcher bias in ICC,

others who conduct research in the area have been more careless. For example, the

editorial of a recent edition of the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research

stated that “during intercultural communication, the message sent is usually not the

message received” and that “intercultural communication necessarily involves a clash

of communicator style” (emphasis added, Neuliep 2006, p.1). When one considers the

amount of successful international/interethnic/intercultural interactions which occur

on a daily basis across the world‟s universities, businesses and streets, it is difficult to

agree with such claims.

Aside from simple inaccuracies, such positions also have major theoretical and

methodological shortcomings, as Nishizaka clearly explains:

When one uses categories like „East‟ and „West‟, „Japanese‟ and „foreigner‟ or
whatever as the starting and end point of analysis, as is usual in the case of
„intercultural communication‟ studies, the result is not only to hinder „the

206
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

human encounter‟, but to hamper the very „interculturality‟ of intercultural

communication from being investigated in its own right. (1999, p.236-237)

That is, in assuming that individuals belong to particular cultural groups, and

that such group memberships cause communicative behaviours (and subsequently,

communicative problems across groups), a researcher is not only imposing his views

upon those he is researching, but also ignoring one of the most interesting aspects of

interaction – how those involved perceive and treat it.

In fitting with the above argument, there is a body of research (e.g. Nishizaka

1995, 1999; Mori 2003; Zimmerman 2007) which examines interculturality from an

ethnomethodological position. That is, treats it not as an a priori resource for

explanation, but as a topic to be explored in itself. Such research seeks to explore how

interactants make relevant, or irrelevant, perceived cultural differences, and to

understand how and why this is achieved.

Another major problem with mainstream intercultural communication research

is its unclear, often problematic, operationalisation of „culture‟, such as the tendency

to correlate it with „nation‟ (Holliday 1999). This paper will provide a review of the

literature which adopts an ethnomethodological approach to interculturality, and

explore how the concept of „culture‟ is being considered within it. It will be argued

that there are still grey areas in how „culture‟ is being treated, and that this would

become increasingly evident were such treatments applied to other contexts, such as

that of my own PhD research, which will explore identity use in online English

language chat amongst multinational interactants.

It seems appropriate to begin by considering ethnomethodology and its

associated research methods in more detail before examining how it has been applied

to the study of intercultural communication.

207
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

2. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis

The ethnomethodological approach was first championed by the sociologist

Harold Garfinkel (e.g. 1967), and was borne of his reaction against the then-dominant

Parsonian paradigm within social research. Garfinkel argued that this dominant

paradigm treated social members as „cultural dopes‟ who do not understand their

world, and who social research „experts‟ need to investigate, understand, define and

categorise. In opposition to this, he proposed that the commonsense knowledge of the

members themselves is worthy of sociological investigation. As such,

ethnomethodology is the study of people‟s methods for (co-)constructing and

understanding the social order and their place within it. This „emic‟ perspective places

members‟ understanding and orientations at the forefront of social research. As such,

how this understanding is displayed by members in their everyday social (inter)action

is of prime importance. Two of the principal means for exploring this are the

interconnected methods of conversation analysis (CA) and membership categorization

analysis (MCA).

CA (e.g. Sacks 1992; Schegloff 2007) is the study of conversation, or rather,

talk-in-interaction. It begins with the understanding that all talk is a social action, that

something is achieved with every utterance made by an individual engaged in

interaction. In the fine detailed study of talk and its features (such as turn taking,

repair, topic organisation and floor management), conversation analysts seek to

understand how conversation is seen to be sequentially and socially organised. It is

believed that such analysis can provide insight into how those involved demonstrate

their moment-by-moment understanding of the context and interaction in which they

are involved.

208
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

Similarly, MCA is concerned with the common sense knowledge of members,

and how such knowledge is organised, demonstrated and accomplished through talk.

It is a development of Sacks‟ (1992) theory of membership category devices (MCDs),

which explained how members organise their social world through categories, which

can be understood to be linked to particular actions (category bound activities

[CBAs]) or characteristics. (For „categories‟, one can also read „identities‟, such that

MCA can seek to explore how identities can be used to achieve social functions in

interactions.)

For example, Sacks noted the difference between the „correctness‟ and the

„relevance‟ of applications of categories. Sacks pointed out while that many categories

are objectively true, only certain ones will be relevant at any given time (for example,

that I am white is correct, but it is not relevant as I write this paper). Further, when a

category is made relevant, a whole collection of related categories are subsequently

made relevant (when my whiteness becomes relevant, my interlocutor‟s ethnicity may

also).

The notion that identity is not something which one has, but is something

which one does, has gained popularity in recent years (cf. Antaki and Widdicombe

1998; Benwell and Stokoe 2006). It begins with the recognition that identities (for one

has many identities upon which to draw) are not static and fixed, determined and

determining, but are multiple and contestable, and can be made relevant or irrelevant

on a moment-to-moment basis.

From here, it should be clear that these approaches and methods can be useful

in the study of interculturality. In applying such analyses to interactions between

parties of different national, ethnic and linguistics groups, it is possible that an

209
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

understanding of how those parties perceive, orient to and treat differences and

similarities will emerge. That is, in such research, the emphasis ought not to be on

using members‟ categories or identities to explain their behaviour, or to consider how

or whether such identities lead to differences. What ought to be of interest is how,

when and why those members themselves make such categories and identities

relevant; how they achieve “doing being Japanese” (for example) or “doing cultural

differences”.

However, it must be acknowledged that it is impossible to confidently

determine exactly what participants are thinking and doing in the micro-moments of

interaction; researcher interpretation is inevitable. In other words,

ethnomethodologists can only interpret their data as they see fit, and these

interpretations are open to debate. Of the studies to be discussed here, there appear to

be two main ways in which the researchers feel interculturality is being approached by

the interactants. These two operationalisations will be discussed and debated in the

following two sections.

3. Interculturality as making ‘foreignness’ relevant

Informed by an ethnomethodological framework, Nishizaka‟s (1995) often

cited work appears to have been the first to offer a new perspective on intercultural

communication by examining and considering “how it is that the fact of being

intercultural is organized as a social phenomenon” (original emphasis, p.302).

Examining recorded radio interviews between a Japanese national host and a non-

Japanese student (from Sri Lanka), Nishizaka aimed to show how being Japanese is

achieved interactively and that „interculturality‟ is similarly achieved in the course of

210
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

interaction (1999). This, he argued, is done through the topics of talk, as well as

through the interactional features of talk.

3.1 Making ‘foreignness’ relevant through the topic of talk

Nishizaka‟s approach was inspired by Sacks‟ observations on categories,

(which were briefly outlined in section 1). While it may be expected that a national

categorization of one party would lead to the national categorization of his/her

interlocutors, Nishizaka argues that the categories in use in his data are not national

(„Japanese‟/„Sri Lankan‟), but „Japanese‟/„foreign‟. This distinction is important, since

here:

„Japanese‟ is not just a member of a collection whose members stand side by

side, but rather, together with „foreigner‟, co-constitutes a pair whose members
are contrasted to one another and related asymmetrically. (p.306)

In other words, depending upon context, Japanese and Sri Lankan may or may

not be culturally different. Cultural difference is only being made relevant by the

interviewer through his treating the student as „foreign‟. It is the category pair

„Japanese‟/‟foreigner‟, Nishizaka argues, that makes interculturality relevant to and in

the interaction.

As with subsequent research which applies this approach, Nishizaka also

demonstrates how interculturality can be made irrelevant. The below extract, in which

the interviewer (A) is asking the student (B) about their experiences of living and

studying in Japan, illustrates his point:

211
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

Excerpt 1

(adapted from Nishizaka 1995, p.308. Original in Japanese; I include only the English

gloss for reasons of brevity and clarity. The complete excerpt can be found in the

original paper‟s appendix)

1 A: well, what I definitely want to

2 ask is:

3 B: yes.

4 A: u::h studying japanese, alright?

5 B: yes.

6 A: and speaking to japanese people,

7 [alright?

8 B: [yes.

9 A: then, sometimes don’t you find

10 what they are saying difficult

11 to understand?

12 [I wonder.

13 B: [yes, I do.

14 yes, I do. sure, I do.

15 A: yes.

16 B: that is, in my company I work

16 for, and I work

17 [now.

18 A: [yes, yes.

19 B: in that company, that is a

20 construction company,

21 A: =yes.

22 B: there are used many technical

23 words.

24 A: =o, technical terms.

212
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

25 [( ), right?

26 B: [technical terms ( )

27 then, I come across a non-

28 understandable (for me) wo-

29 thing,

30 [sometimes.

31 A: [U:::::::::h

32 B: yes.

In his utterances at lines 4, 6 and 9-11, the interviewer makes Japaneseness and

foreignness relevant, by suggesting that learning Japanese and speaking to Japanese

people must be difficult for the student, as a foreigner. However, Nishizaka observes

that this relevance does not last, as the student answers the question about learning

Japanese by stating that he has had to learn “technical words” (lines 22-23) for the

work he is doing at a construction company. This, Nishizaka argues, makes irrelevant

the category pair „Japanese‟/‟foreigner‟ and makes relevant the pair „specialist‟/„lay

person‟, in which it is the (foreign) student who is more entitled to talk about

„technical terms‟ than is the (Japanese) interviewer (even though the terms in question

are Japanese). A similar phenomenon can be witnessed in a further extract, in which

the student demonstrates his knowledge of Japanese history; Nishizaka argues that

this makes relevant the category pair „specialist (in Japanese history)‟ / „lay person‟,

in which again the student can lay claim to being the „specialist‟.

It is difficult to determine whether the student is actively contesting the

„foreigner‟ label being ascribed to him by the interviewer, or whether he is simply

answering the question as he sees appropriate. However, those who have conducted

research on identity labelling (or „ascription‟) in the time since this paper was

213
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

published (e.g. Day 1998; Fukuda 2006) may interpret this excerpt differently to

Nishizaka. He suggests that the category „foreigner‟ is used, but simply does not

become relevant in this part of the interaction. The implication here is that there are

no intentions on the part of either interlocutor to ascribe or reject any identity

categories on themselves or the other; it is simply a case that the conversation moves

in a direction such that the relevance of „foreignness‟ is replaced by that of „specialist‟

(in the technical terminology in question).

While there insufficient evidence within the extract to determine exactly how

the interactants themselves understood such identity work (remembering that

ethnomethodology follows a strictly emic perspective), it could be argued that there is

a power struggle at play here; that the identity of „foreigner‟ is being contested by the

student, or being made irrelevant. Although Day‟s research (1994; 1998) does not

explicitly outline its interest as „interculturality‟, it certainly has similar themes to that

of Nishizaka. In examining interaction amongst workers in multicultural workplaces

in Sweden, Day considers the process of making relevant another‟s ethnic identity.

Further, Day explains how this ethnification can intentionally be contested by the

party being labelled. He suggests that the following example – in which Lars, Rita and

Xi (who is ethnically Chinese) discuss plans for a work party – illustrates this

succinctly:

Excerpt 2

(adapted from Day 1998, p.162. Original in Swedish; again, I include only the English

translation)

1 L: don’t we have something that,

2 one can eat that, China or

214
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

3 R: Chinese food is really pretty

4 good

5 X: haha ( ) it doesn’t matter, I’ll

6 eat anything

7 R: ah (that’s [what I that)

8 L: [yeah, but this

9 concerns everyone doesn’t it?

In lines 1-4, Lars and Rita raise the possibility of eating Chinese food at the

work party. Here again the emic perspective becomes relevant. It is impossible to

know for sure whether or not the suggestion of Chinese food is made relevant by Lars

and Rita because of Xi‟s Chinese ethnicity. However, Day argues that Xi must

perceive that to be the case, as she treats it as such. Further, in stating that she will

„eat anything‟, which is preceded by laughter (lines 5-6), Xi is denying the relevance

of the category which Lars and Rita have ascribed her to.

The implications of these findings and how/if they might apply to different

contexts will be considered further in the final sections. But it is now necessary to

consider further Nishizaka‟s work, to outline how „foreignness‟ can also be made

relevant through the features of talk.

3.2 Making ‘foreignness’ relevant through the features of talk

In outlining the second aim of his research, Nishizaka argues that:

interaction takes a particular form as a consequence of the embodiment in it of

an expected relationship between the participants, i.e., a relationship bound to
the ownership of the language, and therefore bound to the category pair.
„Japanese‟/‟foreigner‟. (p.315)

215
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

That is, there are interactional features (such as overlap, and „grasp claims‟, both used

more extensively by the interlocutor whose first language is being used) which

demonstrate the relevance of the interculturality of the interaction. Nishizaka argues

that the asymmetrical use of overlap and grasp claims illustrate how the Japanese

interviewer is claiming language ownership and, by consequence implying „non-

ownership‟ on the part of the student. This making relevant the „native speaker‟ (NS) /

„non-native speaker‟ (NNS) nature of the interaction further exemplifies the

„Japanese‟/‟foreigner‟ nature of it.

Other studies support this suggestion by similarly examining the nature of NS-

NNS interaction using conversation analysis. For example, Kurhila‟s (2006)

monograph examines in detail institutional interactions between NSs and NNSs of

Finnish; she illustrates how repair, other correction and reformulations (for example)

are organised in such interactions, suggests that the organisation is different than is

typically noted when all parties are using their first language, and argues that the

participants are orienting to their perceived asymmetrical linguistic competencies.

However, there is also some controversy among applied linguists regarding

the accuracy of the terms NS and NNS (e.g. Firth and Wagner 1997), not to mention

the notion of linguistic competence equating to „foreignness‟. Returning to

Nishizaka‟s work, I do not wish to comment on his arguments in relation to the

Japanese context of which he speaks, but it does seem necessary to point out that this

argument would seemingly not hold with regards to interactions conducted in English,

whose position as the world‟s lingua franca means that ownership claims are

controversial and contestable. This is an issue which will be elaborated upon in the

discussion section.

216
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

3.3 Summary

In a later publication, Nishizaka has argued that the participants in the radio

interviews “are, so to speak, „doing being a Japanese (or a foreigner)‟ and „doing

cultural differences‟ within interactions” (1999, p.237). While his first point is well

argued, it is debatable that there is strong evidence of the interlocutors „doing cultural

differences‟.

In this conceptualisation of interculturality, it seems that one party is being

defined in terms of the other, i.e. what they are not, rather than of what they are.

Nishizaka argues that interculturality is being achieved when an interlocutor is being

treated as a cultural „other‟. Fukuda (2006) found similar when examining a mealtime

discussion between a Chinese student studying in Japan and a Japanese family. It is

noted that the Japanese hosts discursively create categorizations, such as „developing

nation‟ vs. „developed nation‟, „NS‟ vs. „NNS‟, and „Japanese cultural novice‟ vs.

„Japanese cultural expert‟. This process is described by Fukuda as „exoticisation‟. The

similarities with Nishizaka‟s research are clear to see, not least that in both cases, the

minority is being created as an „other‟.

There is another largely influential study of „interculturality-in-interaction‟, in

which it is more apparent that the interactants are orienting to differences between

cultures (rather than orienting to „foreignness‟). However, in now considering this

work, it will hopefully become clear that the researcher‟s arguments that her

participants are „doing cultural differences‟ are, again, somewhat unconvincing.

217
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

4. Interculturality as making national cultural knowledge relevant

Mori (2003) investigated how Japanese and American students initiate and

organise topical talk while doing „getting to know you‟ in an initial encounter. The

main focus being on sequential development and participation structure, which at

times “reflect the social identities defined by the participants‟ affiliations with

different cultures” (p.149).

Mori‟s research is heavily influenced by Maynard and Zimmerman‟s (1984)

work on unacquainted pairs, in which they observed that pairs who do not share a

previous history of interaction will often engage in topical talk through questions and

answers in order to determine common territories.

The researcher deliberately chose a setting in which two „national teams‟ of

students are doing „getting to know eachother‟, in order to see how each team would

use cultural products of their respective nations as a means of finding common

ground. This, Mori argues, is making cultural differences relevant (and then later

irrelevant).

4.1 Making interculturality relevant

The questions asked by Mori‟s participants concern visiting one another‟s

countries, and experiences and opinions of food and movies from those countries.

Mori argues that by asking such questions, the participants are attempting to discover

shared experiences and/or knowledge across cultural boundaries, which may lead to

effectively extend topical talk. Further, she believes that the very:

nominations of topics concerning things Japanese or things American, and the

allocations of the turns that are evoked by these topics, make visible the
participants‟ orientation to the interculturality of the interaction. (p.152)

218
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

For example, when asking “have you seen any Japanese movies?”, by

specifically referring to Japan, the Japanese student is (1) evoking the division

between the Japanese and non-Japanese interactants and (2) implicitly directing the

question at those non-Japanese interactants. It is taken for granted that the Japanese

interactants will have seen some movies from their home country. So it is the

alignment of participants as possible respondents when asking questions about

cultural items which demonstrates that this interaction is being treated as an

intercultural one.

Mori also suggests that the organization of participation in discussions once

topics have been established demonstrates further the intercultural nature of the

interaction. More specifically, the formation of teams in order to seek help for

misunderstandings or knowledge gaps are further instances in which interculturality is

being made relevant by the interactants:

By addressing a request for assistance to a particular coparticipant, the

participant who has encountered a problem treats the coparticipant as someone
who shares the knowledge and resources for solving the problem, Such an
assumption demonstrated through verbal and nonverbal conduct also reveals
how the participants tend to make visible the relevance of interculturality at
particular moments in interactions. (p.161)

For example, in discussing American food items, Toru (one of the Japanese

students) finds himself as the only one of the four interactants not to know what

oatmeal is. Mori argues that, in selecting his fellow Japanese for assistance, rather

than one of the American students (who he may presume would have the most

„authentic‟ knowledge of oatmeal), Toru is demonstrating that it is the assumption of a

shared knowledge base and shared experiences which are more critical in the prompt

reaching of understanding.

219
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

Unlike in the data presented by Nishizaka and Fukuda, there is little evidence

of „foreignerising‟ in Mori‟s data. This may well be due to context, since this

interaction is between university peers who are attempting to get acquainted, i.e. find

common ground. However, like Nishizaka, Mori argues that there is evidence of the

participants treating interculturality as irrelevant in her data.

4.2 Treating interculturality as irrelevant

Mori also shows how there are times in the interaction between the Japanese

and American students when the formation of „cultural teams‟ is rejected, when

members of the other group interject to offer assistance when group members cannot

assist one another. Mori argues that this is an example of making interculturality

irrelevant.

Mori suggests that once a cultural item is recognised by all parties, then this

discovery of shared knowledge and experience across cultural boundaries can serve to

facilitate topical talk which deconstructs the formation of cultural teams.

Much of the arguments Mori put forward are reflected in a recent study by

Zimmerman (2007), in which she uses MCA to examine claims to cultural expertise

about cultural items and practices made among Korean and Japanese participants in

Japan. The Koreans in question are described as advanced users of the Japanese

language, appear to have been living in Japan for some time, and are obviously very

familiar with national cultural practices and items.

Zimmerman argues that her research challenges many assumptions about

intercultural conversation, by showing (1) interculturality is not always made relevant

by interlocutors who do not share the same home country or first language, (2) that

220
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

cultural expertise can be demonstrated by „non-members‟ of that culture and (3) that

presumed cultural experts do not always enact their cultural memberships.

Zimmerman‟s first point reflects that made by Mori, but second and third points take

Mori‟s arguments further, and are worth briefly considering.

In a discussion on the differences and similarities of certain Japanese and

Korean food items, the Japanese participants often enact the identity of Korean

cultural expert. Zimmerman suggests that here the participants are enacting

ethnic/national identities which do not align with their prima facie

ethnicity/nationality. This argument is weak; while the Japanese participants are

displaying an identity as a „knowledge-bearer of Korean cultural practices‟, there is

little evidence that they are doing „being Korean‟, which would obviously be quite

different. Zimmerman proposes “that interculturality is dependent upon the

orientation to, or lack of orientation to, the identity of „cultural expert‟” (p.91), but

surely cultural expert does not necessitate cultural member (whatever that may be or

entail).

Similarly, Zimmerman also believes that the most interesting finding in her

study is that, in aligning with negative assessments about their own cultures, they are

creating ambiguous cultural identities. Again, this argument is debatable at least.

Although Zimmerman does not consider it in much detail, her data suggests that the

interpersonal and institutional relationships may affect participants‟ abilities to claim

cultural expertise, or at least to challenge negative assessments of their own culture.

However, it could also be that members of a culture simply agree with negative

assessments of that culture; surely one does not have to hold a positive view of a

culture in order to consider oneself a member of it.

221
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

4.3 Summary

Zimmerman‟s paper illustrates the difficulty in operationalising

interculturality as the possession of knowledge of one‟s national cultural items and

practices. Similarly, Mori claims that her study “explicates how the participants

utilize their cultural differences as a resource for organizing their participation”

(p.143-144). However, there is possibly some confusion here with regards to what

„cultural differences‟ (which implies difference between the nation members which

are based upon their respective cultures) are. It seems apparent that the participants

are simply checking one another‟s knowledge of cultural items; in doing so, they are

seeking common ground, while doing „getting to know you‟. As Mori shows, once

this common ground has been established, it is difficult to see interculturality being

treated as relevant.

In the closing sections, some issues addressed so far will be discussed.

Included will be a consideration of the context which my PhD research will examine –

multinational interactions conducted in the world language of English.

5. Discussion

In examining the research which has applied conversation analysis to the study

of interculturality, two main ways of operationalising interculturality have been

identified: (1) as the making relevant the „foreignness‟ of one or more of the

interactants and (2) the making relevant the differences in national cultural items and

practices. It has been argued that there are some potential problems and pitfalls in

operationalising culture in these ways, as have been demonstrated in some of the

research.

222
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

It also seems largely apparent that context plays a large role in the studies

examined. In this section, it seems appropriate to briefly consider how these

operationalisations might be even more problematic in the context of multinational

English language interactions.

Nishizaka argues that his data demonstrates the interlocutors‟ relationship as a

one “bound to the ownership of the language, and therefore bound to the category

pair, „Japanese‟/„foreigner‟” (1995, p.315). Similarly, Kurhila (2006) has considered

how the features of interactions conducted in Finnish differ when one party is using

the language as an L2. However, Mori has argued against this, stating that her data

does not support Nishizaka‟s arguments (2003). This is not the place to discuss issues

of NS and NNS status with regards to these particular contexts, but it should be

pointed out that notions of language ownership, while controversial here, are even

more so when applied to English language interactions.

It is impossible to suggest who would have rights to claim ownership of

English in an interaction between two parties who are using it as an additional

language, or between two parties who use it as a first language, albeit very differently.

Firth (2007) has shown how ownership between L2 users of English can be

contestable and contested; when this is the case, when there appears to be no linguistic

minority, it is surely not possible to argue that ownership of a language is bound to a

category pair of „native‟/„foreigner‟.

Similarly, in Nishizaka‟s work, as with the study by Fukuda and Day,

national/ethnic minority status appears to be fairly easy to ascribe. In the former, the

non-native student is being interviewed on a radio station whose focus is on the

experiences of foreign students. In Fukuda‟s research, it is again a foreign student

223
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

being quizzed about foreigner problems by a native host. While in Day‟s work, a

Chinese worker is interacting with Swedish workers in a Swedish workplace. In all of

these contexts, minority status is somewhat clearer than in a multinational context,

where no (or all) interactants may be in the contextual minority. This would seemingly

be especially true if such multinational interactions were occurring online, which

could serve as a kind of national and ethnic „neutral territory‟.

To my knowledge, no research has been conducted which has examined

„foreignerising‟ or „otherising‟ amongst parties in which there is no clear minority

party. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to suppose how or why such

processes would occur. Would this mean that interculturality would not be made

relevant? Following Nishizaka‟s operationalisation, perhaps not.

Finally, with regards to the consideration of interculturality put forward by

Mori (2003) and, later, Zimmerman (2007), there appear to be problems in

understanding the discussion of national cultural items and practices as making

interculturality relevant. Were the parties from different parts of the same nation, and

discussing food items from their respective home towns, could this be considered as

making interculturality relevant? If we are to avoid considering culture as purely

national, then surely it must be. The problem then lies in determining what is not

intercultural – two parties discussing similarities in their different professions,

families discussing their habits within their homes, students discussing their

respective university‟s protocols – everything can be considered as the making

relevant differences in cultural practices or items.

As addressed briefly earlier, Zimmerman‟s work appears to further exemplify

the potential pitfalls in analysing cultural identities. When her participants enact an

224
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

identity of „Korean cultural expert‟, are they “challenging essential notions of

ethnic/national identity that presumes a perfect correlation between cultural identity

and race or nationality”, as she suggests (2007, p.76)? It seems here that the

implication is that to demonstrate knowledge of cultural practices is to enact cultural

membership; this is surely not so. However, if that is accepted to be the case, it raises

further complications in operationalising interculturality. If, in an English language

interaction among multinational participants, a Japanese national enacts a „Korean

cultural expert‟ identity when discussing Korean practices with a Japanese

interlocutor, could that be considered intercultural? Or could it if an American and a

Thai discuss French food? Or if two Americans discuss Thai food? Once again, many

interactions will then be considered intercultural.

6. Conclusion

Throughout this literature review, I have attempted to problematise the

operationalisations of interculturality as have been applied in studies on the subject

which adopt a CA methodology. Further, I have argued that such operationalisations

may well prove even more problematic when applied to the complex interactional

context of multinational ELF conversations.

One of the key tenets behind CA research is the emic perspective, which

allows the participants to demonstrate for themselves what is relevant, and how. It

seems necessary then to explore multinational interactions and to carefully explicate if

(and how) the interactants involved are orienting to any form of interculturality, be it

through making foreignness relevant, through making national cultural practices

relevant, or through some other means. It is possible that such research will uncover a

225
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

new operationalisation of interculturality. It is similarly possible that such research

will add further weight to the argument that interculturality is too slippery, and

incomplete, a concept to ever convincingly demonstrate.

References

Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S., 1998. Identities in talk. London: Sage.

Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E., 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Day, D., 1994. Tang‟s dilemma and other problems: Ethnification processes at some
multicultural workplaces. Pragmatics, 4 (3), 315-336.

Day, D., 1998. Being ascribed, and resisting, membership of an ethnic group. In:
Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S., eds. Identities in talk. London: Sage, 151-170.

Firth, A. and Wagner, J., 1997. On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental
concepts in SLA research. Modern language journal, 81 (3), 285-300.

Firth, A., 2007. Doing not being a foreign language learner: Working in English as a
„lingua franca‟. Paper given at University of Birmingham, 27 November 2007.

Fukuda, C., 2006. Resistance against being formulated as cultural other: The case of a
Chinese student in Japan. Pragmatics, 16 (4), 429-456.

Garfinkel, H., 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cornwall: Polity.

Holliday, A., 1999. Small Cultures. Applied linguistics, 20 (2), 237-264.

Kurhila, S., 2006. Second language interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Maynard, D.W. and Zimmerman, D.H., 1984. Topical talk, ritual and the social
organization of relationship. Social psychology quarterly, 47, 301-316.

Mori, J., 2003. The construction of interculturality: A study of initial encounters

between Japanese and American students. Research on language and social
interaction, 36 (2), 143-184.

Mori, J., 2007. Reconstructing the participants‟ treatments of „interculturality‟:

Variations in data methodologies. Pragmatics, 17 (1), 123-141.

Neuliep, J.W., 2006. Editorial welcome. Journal of intercultural communication

research, 35 (1), 1-2.

226
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

Nishizaka, A., 1995. The interactive constitution of interculturality: How to be a

Japanese with words. Human studies, 18, 301-326.

Nishizaka, A., 1999. Doing interpreting within interaction: The interactive

accomplishment of a “henna gaijin” or “strange foreigner”. Human studies, 22, 235-
251.

Sacks, H., 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil.

Schegloff, E., 2007. Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation

analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W., 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse

approach. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tomoko, I., 2005. The interactional achievement of being "native" and "nonnative"
speakers: An analysis of multiparty interactions between Japanese and international
students. CLIC: Crossroads of language, interaction, and culture, 6, 60-79.

Zimmerman, E., 2007. Constructing Korean and Japanese interculturality in talk:

Ethnic membership categorization among users of Japanese. Pragmatics, 17 (1), 71-
94.

227
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

Transcription conventions

[ A square bracket indicates the onset of overlapping speech.

= An equal sign indicates „latching‟ by a speaker, i.e. the

beginning of an utterance immediately following their

interlocutor‟s utterance, without any gap.

Stre::::tch Colons indicate that the speaker has stretched the preceding

sound. More colons indicate a longer sound stretch.

(guess) A word inside brackets indicates a transcriber‟s best guess to

identify an unclear utterance.

( ) Empty brackets indicate a sound or word which can not be

identified by the transcriber.

N.B. please note that traditional CA uses of (for example) commas and full stops do

not apply in the cases of the excerpts used in this article. This is at the discretion of the

researchers who originally published them. Transcripts have not been altered from

those originally published, although aspects (such as original language) have been

omitted.

228
ARECLS, 2008, Vol.5, 205-229.

About the author

Adam Brandt is a second year PhD student in Newcastle University‟s School of

Education, Communication and Language Sciences. Any questions or comments

relating to this paper will be gratefully received by him at: [email protected]

229