Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans1

Oliveira, Milene Mendes de

doi:10.1590/1984-6398201610955

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. bras. linguist. apl. 17 (02) • Apr-Jun 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6398201610955 copy

Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans¹ 1 This article uses data from the research project described in Mendes de Oliveira (2013). The supervisor of this project was Prof. Dr. Ulrike Agathe Schröder.

A falha sociopragmática revisitada: o caso da comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e americanos

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This article aims to discuss the concept of sociopragmatic failure (THOMAS, 1983) by focusing on American interviewees’ perceptions of the phenomenon as arising from utterances spoken by Brazilian learners of English. To achieve this aim, interviews were conducted with three American teachers working in Brazil. After watching video excerpts from previously recorded English classes, interviewees pointed out which utterances sounded inappropriate to them and commented on their perceptions of learners featured in the video, as well as on their experiences with Brazilian learners in general. Their responses were used as evidence for the hypothesis that different types of linguistic asymmetry - namely, structural, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and discourse-related - can lead to sociopragmatic failure.

KEYWORDS:
Intercultural Communication; Intercultural Pragmatics; Pragmatic failure; Sociopragmatic failure

Sequencial Structure
[ ]	Simultaneous speech
=	immediate or fast continuation with a new turn or segment
Pauses
(.)	Micropause
(-), (--), (---)	short (0.2-0.5 sec.), intermediate (0.5-0.8 sec.), and long pause (0.8-1.0 sec.), respectively.
:, ::, :::	short (0.2-0.5 sec.), intermediate (0.5-0.8 sec.), and long lengthening (0.8-1.0 sec.), respectively.
ah, eh, ahn	hesitation markers
Accentuation
acCENT	focus accent
ac!CENT!	extra strong accent
Final Pitch Movements of Intonational Phrases
?	rising to high
,	rising to mid
-	level
;	falling to mid
.	falling to low
Other conventions
((cough))	description of non-vocal actions
<<coughing> > >	description of non-verbal and paralinguistic actions with indication of scope (e.g., she was <<coughing> on the bus> at that time)
<<surprised> >	interpretive comment with scope (<<surprised> it is not POSsible>)
(xxx xxx)	part that was not comprehended by the transcriber. Each xxx stands for a syllable
(house)	supposed word
(house/mouse)	possible alternatives or supposed words
((...))	omission in the transcription
Pitch change
↑	upwards
↓	downwards
Loudness and tempo changes, with scope
<<f> >	= forte, loud
<<ff> >	= fortissimo, very loud
<<p> >	= piano, low
<<pp> >	= pianissimo, very soft
<<cresc> >	= crescendo, increasingly louder
<<dim> >	= diminuendo, increasingly lower
In and out-breaths
ºh, ºhh, ºhhh	In-breath according to duration
hº, hhº, hhhº	Out-breath according to duration

Faculdade de Letras - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Faculdade de Letras, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627 4º. Andar/4036, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte/ MG/ Brasil, Tel.: (55 31) 3409-6044, Fax: (55 31) 3409-5120 - Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rblasecretaria@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * milene.mendes.de.oliveira@uni-potsdam.de

49	S1	strange LANDings?
50	T	yes.

01	T	there you GO.
02		(0.6)
03	S1	((reading a question on the board) who is the young MAN?
04	S1	is a DEAD man.
05	T	((laughs))
06	S2	((laughs))
07	T	<<looking at the board> you think he’s a
08	S1	DEAD man?>
		((laughs))
09	S1	<<pointing to the board>
		he’s a (xxx xxx) of NATure> maybe,
10	S2	he’s a: HORse man,
11	S1	((laughs))
12	T	<<pointing to the board with a doubtful look> HORse man?>

01	T	the reason they pick TUESday (-)is becau:se ah: when this was decided (.) they couldn’t pick sunday, like here in brazil, because sunday was the LORD’s day way back then everybody went to church and prayed (.) right,
02	T	ah MONday was (-) ah: (.) some sort of working da:y I don’t remembe:r really:
03	T	WEDnesday was the market day people went to the marke:t I don’t know what happened to thursday and friday but for some reason tuesday was the only day that people could vote.
04	T	so that’s what it is and it’s been THAT way.
05	T	(0.6)
06	T	ah how the vote [(xxx)]
07	S1	[was] was yesterday a regular business day in the United States or (.) did people go to work yesterday or
08	S1	everything STOPped?
09	T	ye:s
10	T	hh states can CHOOse if they want to make election day a <<doing the quotation gesture with hands> holiday;>
11	T	states can CHOO:se to say that (.) this a holiday no work <<pointing arm to the door> everybody go home.>
12	T	MOSTly that doesn’t happen.
13	T	americans are workahOLICS right?
14	T	they probably work MORE and have less vaCAtion (.) than any other country in the world.
15	T	It’s ahm (.) it’s actually really SAD (.) <<dim> very sad.>

01	T	mitt romney on the other hand ah: is a republican and in general the republicans are much more conSERvative.
02	T	they want to keep things the same and they are to the RIGHT, okay?
03	T	ºhh republicans generally want to spend less money from the federal government directly HELping the people
04	T	what that means is that they have less influence on people’s daily lives and the STAtes (.) make more decisions.
05	T	so the federal government doesn´t spend money and say ALL the states have to do this for all the people-
06	T	republicans say EACH state knows what’s good for people in each state
07	T	does THAT make sense?
08	S2	i didn’t understand what it means eh:: RIGHT.
09	T	AH okay.
(...)
10	T	that kind of thinking is moderate is coming into the MIDdle.
11	T	RIGHT?
12	T	<<pointing to the board where it was written ‘Republicans’ and ‘Democrats’> so tha:t a LEAder takes a little bit from here and a little bit from here>
13	T	oKAY?
14	T	do you undersTAND [that?]
15	S2	yes.
16	S1	yeah.
17	T	we don’t want the exTREMES left right or-
18	T	yeah LEFT right ((laughs))
19	T	We WANT <<bringing hands together in front of her chest> that.>

Brasil

Brasil

Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans1 1 This article uses data from the research project described in Mendes de Oliveira (2013). The supervisor of this project was Prof. Dr. Ulrike Agathe Schröder.

A falha sociopragmática revisitada: o caso da comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e americanos

ABSTRACT

Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural communication between Brazilians and Americans¹ 1 This article uses data from the research project described in Mendes de Oliveira (2013). The supervisor of this project was Prof. Dr. Ulrike Agathe Schröder.