YANG 31

6	Yang:	ja so. wenn wenn diese Problem gelöst, dann natürlich (0.3)
7		die andere Problem ist leichter zu (0.3) /eh zu zu DISkutieren/
8	Doris:	/ne. ne. eh ne. halt moment/
9	Yang:	eh zu VERSTEHEN. zu VERSTEHEN.
10	Doris:	ne. MOMENT. eh:m eh eh s'is für MICH kein Problem,
11		für mich is es KLAR
12	Yang:	ja.
13	Doris:	ehm FRAU UND MANN SIND NATÜRLICH GLEICH.
14		des is kein PROBLEM =
15	Yang:	=ja
16	Tan:	hihihi
17	Doris:	wenn DU allerdings sagst, eh::: die sind UN::gleich, NATÜRLICH UNGLEICH,
18		dann is es DEIN Problem, aber eh verstehst du,
19		des is nichts wo du drüber diskutieren kannst.

[English transcription]

With the production of the clustered emphatic pre-elements "no. no. eh no.", Doris indicates her direct, unmitigated dissent. The function of these dissent markers is to unequivocally signal disagreement and thus to bracket the entire utterance as polar in relation to the preceding turn.7 Yang's repair (9) "eh to UNDERSTAND. to UNDERSTAND." is a direct response to Doris' pre-elements.

Doris then uses contrastive elements and prosodic cues to mark emphasis and thus focuses on the dissent and the polarity between her utterance and the prior speaker's:

you, your	-	my
problem	-	no problem
YOUR problem	-	for ME it's no problem
WOMEN AND MEN ARE	-	WOMEN AND MEN ARE
NATURALLY UNEQUAL		NATURALLY EQUAL

The polarities are constructed by a change of deictic elements ("your" - "my"), by contrasting a referent with its negation ("problem" - "no problem"), and by confronting a lexical item with its antonym ("equal" - "unequal").

Instead of producing a simple negotiation "no" as a sign of disagreement, the German speakers thus make use of rhetorical formats which take up the prior speaker's syntactical and lexical framework, negate the statement or substitute a main element of the utterance and thus highlight the polarity between the two turns.

In contrast to the assumption of a general dispreference for disagreement, I want to argue that for the German speakers unmitigated dissent-formats are constitutive parameters to produce certain communicative activities, such as argumentations or confrontational debates. 8

4.1.2. Dissent-tying

A further strategy in the organization of dissent which is used by the German participants, is, what I shall call "dissent-tying". The speaker latches her disagreeing utterance to the prior turn and thus produces a syntactic and lexical continuation of the preceding utterance. Instead of an "unisono"-tying (in the sense of "communicational dueting" (Falk 1979)), where the second speaker reaches for the floor to produce a continuation of the prior speaker's turn and thereby demonstrates concordance and cameraderie, here the second speaker ties her utterance to the prior one and continues by demonstrating consequences which contradict the argumentative line of the first speaker.

Tan states that in her generation housework is shared by husband and wife. It is the kind of work that just has to be "done by one of them". Andrea then latches her utterance - in the form of a sentence expansion to the right - with the pre-element "yes" to the prior speaker's utterance (62).

YANG 5ff.

58	Tan:	denn (0.2) es soll auch'=
59	Doris:	= (......./...............)/
60	Tan:	/ja von einem/ von einem gemacht werden. JA'
61		entweder der MANN ODER die FRAU
62	Andrea:	ja. und wenn der MANN keine Lust hat.
63		und die FRAU hat keine Lust
64		dann muß es die Frau machen.

[English transcription]

Andrea builds up a contradiction to Tan's argument that husband and wife s(are the housework, by taking up her turn and expanding it wit( the clause-combining element "and" in a counter-argumentative direction. In order to emphasize her point, she uses rhetoric means of building up contrasts by syntactic and lexical parallelism and prosodic marking of the contrast pair (HUSBAND-WIFE):

62	Andrea:	yes. and when the HUSBAND doesn't feel like doing it.
63		and the WIFE doesn't feel like doing it
64		then the wife has to do it.

By the use of dissent-tying, Andrea at the same time achieves a "probatio" and produces a "refutatio": She supports her own argumentative line and tears down that of her the opponent.

Also in the following transcript segment Andrea ties her utterance with the conjugation "and" (99 ff.) in the form of a clause combining strategy to the prior utterance and thereby reveals consequences of the described situation which contradict Tan's argument.

The segment is embedded in a discussion on whether women in China, who do the same work, earn the same wages as men. Tan quotes Yang's girl-friend as an example that women "can even earn MORE money" than men.

YANG 28

92	Tan:	/ ja eh wie / wie kann doch. - eh
93		seine Freundin kann doch MEHR Geld
94		verdienen als /ER/
95	Yang:	/ja/ zwei/mal mehr als ich.
96	Andrea:	/(ja: ........)/
97	Andrea:	mhm.
98	Tan:	hihihihhhhhhhhhhh
99	Andrea:	und wenn ihr dann mal Kinder bekommt,
1		dann muß die Freundin TROTZDEM zu Hause
2		bleiben. wahrscheinlich.
3		(0.3)
4	Andrea:	/ normalerweise /
5	Doris:	/oder DOPPELT/ arbeiten

[English transcription]

This segment demonstrates how "turn-tying" can be used to fulfill various interactive functions: Whereas Andrea ties her turn to the prior one in order to build a cohesive attack on her opponent's argument, Doris, on the other hand, by tying her turn to the prior one (line 5), demonstrates her coalition with Andrea. She expands Andrea's turn, providing a further consequence (introduced by the conjunction "or") and, thus, joins Andrea's argumentation in form of a "duet".9

The following transcript demonstrates the antagonistic use of duet-formats:

YANG 29

22	Yang:	ich muß ja. ehm'ja. so SAGEN.
23		hihi ich finde ja auch SCHÖN
24		ehm' ANGENEHM ja. (-) eh ich denke so.
25		wenn' wenn ich später von Arbeiten nach Hause ja komme
26		also=ich=hihihi=meine=wenn später=in=Zukunft=ja
27		und dann meine' meine hihi Frau hihi ist schon zu HAUS
28		und hat das Essen vorbereitet ja.
29	Doris:	und dann ist es so RICH:TIG GEMÜTLICH.
30		und DU SETZT dich in deinen SESSEL,
31		und SIE RACKERT sich ab. (-)
32		das glaub ich [dir gern]
33	Andrea:	[hihihihi]
34	Doris:	das finden alle MÄNNER [ganz TOLL]
35	Andrea:	[klar.]

[English transcription]

With the conjunction "and" Doris ties her utterance to the prior one and continues to picture Yang's wishful thinking, by presenting more concrete details to illustrate and exaggerate his imagined scenery:

30		and YOU SIT in your chair,
31		and SHE SLAVES AWAY for you. (-)

The rhetorical contrast between "you sit in your chair" and "she slaves away" is built up by the use of syntactic parallelism and semantic oppositions (sitting - slaving away). Thus, by formally continuing his sentence and exaggerating the described scenery, Doris parodies Yang's utterance and exposes him as a typical member of the category 'men': "all MEN think this is just GREAT".

The strategy of dissent-tying reveals how participants in argumentative discourse try to build support for their own position by undermining the opponent's argument. It is an ideal rhetoric strategy to continue the opponent's logic of argumentation in an exaggerated way and thereby illustrate its untenable consequences.

4.1.3. Reported speech as a strategy of confrontation

A further technique of dissent used by the German speakers is the reproduction of the opponent's prior utterance in order to oppose it.

Reported speech can vary from word-by-word reproductions of the actual utterances to total misrepresentations and distortions of the original wordings. First I shall consider cases, where the speaker strategically distorts the original utterance. Yang argues that "the women's problem" in China is not as severe as in Germany:

YANG 19

1	Yang:	eh:m'::: ich ich ich, ich muß muß muß sagen,
2		also in Deutschland die Frauenprobleme is'
3		eh' (-) also is eh STÄRKER als in Schina.

[English transcription]

About eight minutes later Doris quotes this statement. The reported speech (69-70) demonstrates the strategic transformation of the original wordings:

YANG 24 a

67	Doris:	also /ich/ VERSTEH eigentlich nich unbedingt
68	Tan:	.../hm/
69	Doris:	WARUM du sagst eh in in Kina gibts kein Frauenproblem.
70		des Problem is eigentlich das gleiche bloß daß
71		- eh:m' daß es mehr verTUSCHT wird.
72	Yang:	* keine so stark wie hier*
73	Doris:	JA WEIL DIE FRAUEN HIER BEWUSSTER SIND.

[English transcription]

The statement:
"in Germany the women's problem is' eh' (-) well is eh is BIGGER than in China"
now becomes strategically transformed into:
" in China there is no women's problem".
Confronted with his distorted words, Yang corrects Doris' misrepresentation in a low voice "not as bad as here" (line 72).

Classical rhetoric lists this argumentative technique of exaggerating the thesis of the opponent and ignoring all his modifications and qualifications among the "dishonest argumentative strategies".

Shortly afterwards the conversation continues in the following way:

YANG 24 b

7	Tan:	und was denn nich gut?
8	Andrea:	ja ich denk, zum Beispiel
9		er sagt es gibt die Frauenprobleme nicht.
10		ich sage, es GIBT die Probleme.
11		aber die Frauen (-) tun nichts dagegen.
12		oder:' (-) oder denken nich /darüber na:ch/
13	Doris:	/es kommt nicht/ an d'Öffentlichkeit=
14	Andrea:	= ja. oder sagens nich

[English transcription]

The quoted speech (9) is again far from presenting a word-by-word reproduction of Yang's utterances (YANG 19: 1-3 and YANG 24a: 69), but contains a strategical function within the argumentative sequence: Yang, the present opponent, is now turned into a figure ("he") of Andrea's speech. Through the transformation of the original utterance: "in Germany the women's problem is´ eh´ (-) well is eh is BIGGER than in China." YANG 19) into "he says there is no women's problem." (YANG 24b), Yang's original statement receives an illegitimate exaggeration, which provides the basis for Andrea's antithesis. Bakhtin (1986) accounts for such phenomena of reported speech within his theory of "polyphony": the voices of the narrator and quoted speaker melt. "The speaker's expressivity penetrates through the boundaries" of the speaking subjects and spreads to the other's speech, by transmitting it - in our case - in a distorted and exaggerated way.

This technique of distoring the quoted utterance of one's opponent by deleting his qualifications and reservations and thus simplifying and exaggerating his argument, is a strategical device suitable to build up an antagonistic counter-position and antithesis by maximizing contrasts.

Rhetorical means of contrast (lexical repetition, syntactic parallelism, contrasting of the two speaking subjects "he" versus "I" and prosodic marking) are used here again to underline the antagonism of the two opinions:

9	he says there is no women's problem.
10	I say, there ARE problems.

The trenchant formulations and simplifications organize the utterances in such a way that contrasts are built up and the rhetoric relation of thesis and antithesis are constructed. This strategy is a further example of how participants in confrontational discourse not only present their own opinion but present it in connection with the challenging and undermining of the opponent's argument.

In the next transcript Doris confronts Yang with a word-by-word reproduction of his former statement: "why do YOU say..." (51-52). Here the argumentative function of the reported speech is not to maximize polarized positions but to force the opponent into the face-threatening position of "incompatibility" (Perelman 1982: 55):

YANG 30

45	Yang:	ich ich bin für Ihre Meinung. (-) daß die Frauen WIRKLICH also:: also:
46		nach der eh Hochschulabschluß oder (-) also: ehm:
47		schon als eine Er Erwachsene - und sie haben weniger Chancen oder weniger (-)
48		Möglichkeiten' als die Männer
49	Doris:	mhm
50	Yang:	und auch die Zukunft (0.3) ist also nich so herrlich wie die Männer.
51	Doris:	warum sagst DU,(-) daß daß du meinst eh die Frauen haben GENÜGEND Rechte.
52		es reicht. warum SA[GST DU DAS?]
53	Yang:	[(...............)hihi]

[English transcription]

Instead of mitigating the face-threatening character of this situation, Doris emphasizes it by a prosodically marked (dense accentuation, increased volume) repetition of her request ("why DO YOU SAY THIS?"). Yang's giggling is a direct response to this face-threatening situation.

Tan, when shown the transcript of this talk afterwards, interpreted the giggling in the following way:

Well this means that the situation is getting worse. The Germans, especially Doris, become very impolite, perhaps a bit impertinent in our eyes. The laughter shows this kind of insecurity on the Chinese side. Doris is too direct. (My translation, S.G.)

In conflict talk giggling is often used by the Chinese participants as a contextualization cue indicating face-threatening moments. It makes mitigations expectable, e.g. by changing the topic, giving an account or producing an excuse. German participants, however, often misinterpret this contextualization cue and take it as a sign of not been taken seriously and thus react with more aggravated strategies and thereby increase the face-threatening atmosphere. This is a systematic way, how escalations of misunderstandings are produced in intercultural communication (Günthner 1993a,b).

The analysis of the strategies used by the German participants to signal dissent demonstrates that once an argumentative or confrontational frame is established, they make use of highly aggravated forms of disagreement by employing dissent formats, distorted quotations of the opponent's utterances and forms of building up contrasts. They do not only state their disagreeing opinion but at the same time make use of the opponent's utterance in order to construct contrast and heighten the polarization. This leads to the question, what kind of techniques are used by the Chinese participants to signal dissent?

4.2. Forms of organizing dissent among the Chinese participants

A strategy continuously used by the Chinese participants is to temporarily signal formal consent and in the following turn to indicate a discordant position without formally marking it as a disagreement.

In order to analyze Yang's and Tan's strategies of disagreement, it is necessary to follow the questio "are there natural differences between women and men" over a longer sequence of talk. When Yang argues that there are "natural differences between women and men", Doris asks for specification:

YANG 15

79	Yang:	das is also von der von der traditionell? oder politische?
80		(-) oder' , die (nur) eh die schon (-) von Natur aus
81		/(...)/ so natürliche'
82	Doris:	/ja/ du glaubst es gibt eine NATÜRLICHE EINSCHRÄNKUNG?
83		(0.7)
84	Yang:	ich glau:be (-) NICHT, aber ich ((hi)) ich muß sagen, es gibt. (1.0) ein bißchen.
85	Doris:	wie meinst du das?

[English transcription]

Doris' question "do you believe there is a NATURAL LIMITATION?" (82) contextualizes by means of marked prosody (increase of volume and a rise of the intonation contour) her disagreeing position. Yang answers by producing a hesitating agreement: "I belie:ve (-) NOT" (84). However, then he utters a disagreement, introduced with "but": "but I ((hi)) I must say, there is." As no reactions follows (the pause indicates the absence of a turn selection), Yang corrects his utterance by toning it down: "a bit". After Doris asks him to provide further explanations (85), the discussion on gender differences continues, and Andrea prophylactically provides counter-examples to demonstrate that certain aspects in the life of women which might on the surface appear to be "natural differences" (jobs of lower status, caring for the children), do actually have social reasons (86 ff.). Five minutes later Doris refocuses on Yang's thesis about "natural differences" and asks him to restate his opinion:

YANG 17 ff.

86	Doris:	des is kein natürlicher Unterschied in meinen /Augen/
87	Yang:	/mhm ja./ mhm
88	Doris:	wo siehst DU denn die NATÜRLICHEN Unterschiede? (-)
89		weil du hast was von natürlichen Unterschieden gere/det/
90	Yang:	/viel/leicht
91		ich habe diese eh: (1.0) eh schwer zu sagen
........
8	Doris:	/du/ meinst rein körperlich, jetzt?
9	Yang:	nein körperlich eh jetzt also
10	Doris:	von der Kraft her? *oder wie meinst du?*
11	Yang:	(nich klar) zum Beispiel die also Polizei
12	Doris:	POLIZEI?
13	Yang:	KRIMINALpolizei. das ist nicht körperlich.
14	Doris:	ne. das is NICH körperlich. das hat allerdings etwas damit zu tun',
15		was für'n Status Frauen in der Gesellschaft habn.
16		MÄNNER, werden in der Gesellschaft schon mal als Autoritätspersonen
17		dargestellt die MEHR zu sagen haben als FRAUEN.
18	Yang:	ja.
19	Doris:	und we' DANN wirds n' natürlich problematisch
20		wenn so'n UNgleiches Gesellschaftsbild da ist,
21		da dann dann is es auch schwierig auf einmal die FRAU in die gleiche Rolle
22		zu setzen wie der Mann (meist) aber wenn normalerweise
23		der Mann und die Frau eine gleiche Rolle hätten
24	Yang:	ja.
25	Doris:	daß eh'wenn ne Frau was sagt, das GENAUSO (-) AUTORITÄT angesehen wird,
26		autoritär angesehen wie en Mann
27	Yang:	ja.
28	Doris:	dann wär das kein Problem.
29		des is ein GESELLSCHAFTLICHER Unterschied
30		und kein (-) NATÜRLICHER.
31	Yang:	ja'hh((hi))'hh
32	Doris:	ja. denk ich schon. also des is kein Unterschied.
33		was was vielleicht stimmen könnte
34		/oder was/
35	Yang:	/un und auch ein/ eh eh ich meine auch
36		DENKWEISE von Frauen und von Männern
37	Doris:	versuch eh was fürn Unterschied
38		is /das?/
39	Yang:	/Denk/weise.
40	Doris:	was is das fürn Unterschied? (0.6)
41	Doris:	wie denken Frauen, /wie denken (...) Männer?/
42	Yang:	/(.......................................)/
43	Tan:	/ ich glaube das /
44		schon (-) auch (-) eh: wegen der Tra' dition wegen DIE Tradition ++oder so was++
45	Doris:	also /ich/
46	Yang:	/viel/leicht wegen /die Tradition/
47	Andrea:	/ also die / Frauen
48	Andrea:	können also die Frauen sind doch nich dümmer als die Männer.
49	Yang:	nein.( - ) / das is richtig /
50	Doris:	/oder denken anders/
51	Andrea:	du meinst die denken mehr mit Ge/FÜHL oder/
52	Yang:	/ich glaube eh/
53	Yang:	manchmal in in eine bestimmte Bereich ja besser als die Männer.
54		und die MÄNNER arbeiten in eine bestimmte Bereichen
55		besser als /d' / Frauen
56	Andrea:	/mhm/
57	Doris:	aber des is doch auch etwas was
58		UNHEIMLICH von der Tradition bestimmt ist
59		wenn Frauen nun mal IMMER in dem Bereich gearbeitet habn,
60		dann tun sie ihre Fähigkeiten in diesem Bereich entWICKELN.
61		wenn ich als FRAU immer in einem MÄNNERberuf gearbeitet hab,
62		dann entwickle ich meine Fähigkeiten,
63		die zu diesem MÄNNERBERUF gehören =
64	Yang:	= un ich ich muß sagen, für die MÄNNER es gibt keine Grenze
65		für die, für die Arbeit. für die Arbeiten. für die Frauen es gibt Grenze.
66	Doris:	welche Grenze?
67	Yang:	zum Beispiel die (0.3) körperliche

[English transcription]

We shall first concentrate on Yang's strategies to support his position. First of all, Doris rejects his example of the "CRIMINAL investigators" as a socially constructed difference between women and men. Yang's recipient signals, which are produced while Doris holds the floor, are interpreted by her as "continuers": She thus proceeds with her utterance. His "yes'hh" and the giggling in line 31 initiates a repair on Doris' side: First she reconfirms her opinion "yes. I do think so. so. this is no difference then.", then she starts to formulate a possible qualification of her statement. Instead of signalling his dissent directly and marking it formally as a disagreement, Yang just provides a semantic discordant statement (35-36). His disagreeing utterance is tied to the prior one, indicating a concordant evaluation:

35	Yang:	[and and also] I also think the
36		WAY OF THINKING of women and of men

Instead of taking up parts of the prior turn and opposing it, Yang lists further aspects of his position. The additive conjunction "and" as well as the particle "also" suggest consent.

This phenomena of producing an utterance that demonstrates dissent on the content level without formally marking it as disagreement can also be found in line 52-55:

52	Yang:	[I believe eh ]
53		sometimes in certain areas they are better than men.
54		and the MEN work better in certain areas
55		than [wo] men

Doris' counter-argument (about the influence of tradition) is met by a disagreement on Yang's part, however, he contextualizes a thematic progression of Doris' statement:

64	Yang:	= and I I must say, for MEN there is no limit
65		for the, for the work. for the jobs. for women there is a limit.

Yang neither reproduces parts of his co-participants' prior turns in order to attack or de-construct them, nor does he quote their utterances in order to explicitly distance himself from them.

The Chinese and German participants make use of different argumentative styles and different ways of signalling dissent (Günthner 1993b). With their avoidance of direct confrontation and antagonistic argumentative strategies the Chinese participants come close to the ideals of Chinese rhetoric. The "Book of Rites" (LIGI) describes the preservation of interpersonal harmony as the essential principle of Chinese rhetorics: Instead of teaching what rhetoric techniques are to be used to persuade the opponent, the reader is taught methods to avoid disharmony and face-threatening situations (Oliver 1971: 157). Open confrontation and an antagonistic style are said to show "poor education and personal immaturity", as they threaten one's own and the other's face.10

In their study of cultural differences in interactions between the various ethnic groups in Hawaii, Cher/Tseng/Lum/Hsu (1980: 61) also mention the Chinese indirect way of disagreement:

A frequent misconception about the traditional Chinese is that they say 'yes' when they mean 'no' and vice versa. The Chinese consider it impolite to deny or refuse a request directly, and, if it is necessary to say 'no', they seek to convey the message subtly and indirectly. For anyone versed in Chinese culture there is no problem understanding the message, but for those who are unfamiliar with the culture the result is often distortion and misunderstanding.

5. Strategies to end the confrontational frame

With the exception of the first 35-minutes of small-talk, the conversation is characterized by a confrontational frame. Verbal conflict ends when the oppositional turns cease and other activities are taken up (Vuchinich 1990: 118). As Schegloff and Sacks (1973) point out, when one speaker signals his intend to close the topic, his co-participant can demonstrate in his next turn "that he understood what a prior (speaker) aimed at, and that he is willing to go along with that" (Schegloff/Sacks 1973: 297). The termination of verbal conflict also requires a consensus of the partcipants to go along with the closing down and the change of the speech activity. Whereas Yang and Tan continuously employ techniques to close the verbal conflict, their German co-participants do not join these attempts, and thus the argumentation continues. We shall now consider the strategies used by the Chinese speakers to close the confrontational frame.

5.1. Concessions

A verbal conflict may be terminated when one participant "gives in" and accepts the opponent's position. As confessions signal that the speaker is not able to defend her/his position, they are potential face-threatening acts. If the opponent accepts the concession, the conflict ends. In YANG, the German participants, however, take the concessions of the Chinese speakers as an opportunity to focus on the contradiction between the conceeding utterance and the former position of the opponent:

YANG 30

45	Yang:	ich ich bin für Ihre Meinung. (-) daß die Frauen WIRKLICH also:: also:
46		nach der eh Hochschulabschluß oder (-) also: ehm:
47		schon als eine Er Erwachsene - und sie haben weniger Chancen oder weniger (-)
48		Möglichkeiten' als die Männer
49	Doris:	mhm
50	Yang:	und auch die Zukunft (0.3) ist also nich so herrlich wie die Männer.
51	Doris:	warum sagst DU,(-) daß daß du meinst eh die Frauen haben GENÜGEND Rechte.
52		es reicht. warum SA[GST DU DAS?]
53	Yang:	[(...............)hihi]

[English transcription]

Yang (line 45 ff.) agrees with Doris' position. She, however, does not accept his concession but uses it to point out the contradiction to his former position and to bring him into the situation of incompatibility. Instead of participating in the process of closing the confrontational frame, Doris thus takes the concession as an oportunity to challenge their opponent.

5.2. Compromises

Providing a compromise is another technique to close off a verbal conflict. Here, the speaker offers "a position that is between the opposing positions that define the dispute" (Vuchinich 1990: 126). Instead of giving in to the opponent's thesis, the speaker moves towards the other party's position and proposes a possible "middle ground". As s/he neither accepts the opponent's position totally nor completely gives up her/his former opinion, compromises turn out to be less face-threatening than concessions. The opposing party can either accept the proposed compromise and thus the verbal conflict ca. be brought to an end, or s/he can reject the compromising offer.

In the following transcript segment, Yang offers a compromise between his former position, that "in Germany the women's problem is bigger than in China" and his opponents' argument that "women in China are just not conscious about their discrimination". He now states that "women and men in China have little thought about these issues so far":

Yang 33

4	Yang:	sie haben auch sehr wenig darüber gedacht ++überlegt++ DESHALB
5		es gibt vielleicht in Schina ein bißchen (ruhig)
6		in diese Problem. in die Frauen Problem.
7		das kann sein. (0.2) wir eh das' meine /zweite/
8	Andrea:	/mhm/
9	Yang:	zweite zweite Meinung. dass heißt wir können
10		noch viel viel tun. viel viel besser tun als /jetzt/
11	Andrea:	/mhm/
12		(0.5)
13	Doris:	mhm. also ich find es probleMATISCH ehm: ich
14		eh: weil ich eh es is ne' also du denkst vielleicht
15		Emanzipation bedeutet (-) Frau und Mann angleichen
16		und daß Frau und Mann gleich SEIN
		SOLLEN, aber Emanzipation bedeutet nicht (-) DAS
18		für mich. Emanzipation bedeutet

[English transcription]

Yang's statement (6) moves towards his opponents' position. However, instead of accepting Yang's compromising offer, Doris expands the argumentation by providing a disagreement.

5.3. Change of the activity

Informal discussions can be #onsidered as a communicative aggregate, incorporating many other activities, such as narrations, teaching sequences, joking utterances, reproaches, requests for information, examples etc. (Knoblauch 1991).

One further technique to end the confrontational frame is to introduce a 'frame break' (Goffman 1986) and focus on a new verbal activity. One can achieve this e.g. by focussing on the local situation at hand (by e.g. inquiring on "what kind of tea is this?") or by focusing on a background aspect of the prior utterance. In the following example Tan initates a frame break (4) by asking for personal information and thus focussing on a background aspect of the prior speaker's turn:

YANG 19

91	Andrea:	oder müssen hh' (-) eh ++ ich habs in Tibet
92		gesehn++, sie müssen Steine gießen,
93		Ziegelsteine oder'(-) GENAU die gleiche
94		Arbeit wie die Männer.
95		(0.3)
96		wenn man die Arbeitkraft BRAUCHT,
97		dann sagt man die Frauen können
98		das AUCH. (-) und wenn man sie
99		nich /WILL/ dann sagt man sie haben
1	Tan:	/mhm/
2	Andrea:	keine KRAFT. es (-) eh du siehst an anderen
3		/Ländern/
4	Tan:	/WARST/ DU SCHON MAL IN TIBET?
5	Andrea:	ja.
6		(0.2)
7		un in Kina.
8	Tan:	eh hi/hi/
9	Yang:	/ahja/ (-) wie heißt du?
10	Andrea:	Andrea.
11	Yang:	Andrea. ah.
12		(0.2)
13	Andrea:	mhm. ich HAB ES gesehn daß daß es immer darauf ankommt,
14		wenn (0.2) wenn in ei'm Land eh viel harte Arbeit zu machen is
15		vom Klima her oder so, dann müssen alle Menschen zusammen
16		JEDE Arbeit machen.

[English transcription]

For a frame break to succeed, all participant have to orient their activities to this change of framing. In this case, the frame break is only successful for a short while: Andrea accepts it temporarily, and returns in line 13 to the argumentation. The change from the confrontational to the private frame is accompanied by Yang's change of the German address terms from the formal "Sie" to the informal "du" (line 9). With the reactivation of the confrontational frame he returns to the "Sie".

The continuous efforts of Yang and Tan to change to a more personal conversation fail due to the lack of cooperation of their German participants. They repond to the concessions by focussing on the contradiction, reject the offers of compromise and only temporarily accept the change of activities.

6. Rhetorical devices in discourse organization

Here I shall outline some further systematic discourse strategies of the Chinese and German participants which lead to problems in the negotiation of meaning in intercultural situations. The following transcript segment will demonstrate the clash of different rhetoric styles and contextualization conventions among the Chinese and German participants.

YANG 30-32

1	Yang:	ZUERST müssen wir über DIESE Problem diskutieren=
2	Doris:	= also ich würde sagen, es gibt eine natür/ liche Gleich/ heit
3	Yang:	/und diese Problem/
4	Yang:	eh. natürlich Gleichheit.
5	Doris:	GLEICHHEIT.
6	Yang:	ja so. wenn wenn diese Problem gelöst, dann natürlich (0.3)
7		die andere Problem ist leichter zu (0.3) /eh zu zu DISkutieren/
8	Doris:	/ne. ne. eh ne. halt moment/
9	Yang:	eh zu VERSTEHEN. zu VERSTEHEN.
10	Doris:	ne. MOMENT. eh:m eh eh s'is für MICH kein Problem,
11		für mich is es KLAR
12	Yang:	ja.
13	Doris:	ehm FRAU UND MANN SIND NATÜRLICH GLEICH.
14		des is kein PROBLEM =
15	Yang:	=ja
16	Tan:	hihihi
17	Doris:	wenn DU allerdings sagst, eh::: die sind UN::gleich, NATÜRLICH UNGLEICH,
18		dann is es DEIN Problem, aber eh verstehst du,
19		des is nichts wo du drüber diskutieren kannst.
20		MÄNNER BEHAUPTEN /h' s/ie wären un' MOMENT, Männer behaupten,
21	Yang:	/(i:s)/
22	Doris:	sie wären UNgleich nämlich die Na' Frauen haben au aus natürlichen Gründen
23		eh von von Natur aus können die bestimmte Dinge NICH oder andere BESSER,
24		und damit BEGRÜNden sie, daß sie einfach F Frauen im: einfach
25		die Rech' eh ihre (-) einfach in bestimmten Gebieten ihre Rechte beschNEIDEN
26		(1.0)
27	Yang:	also:: i: i: ich glaube, ich habe - DIESE Meinung
28		- und eh ich ich glaube AUCH die andere Leute haben AUCH,
29		vielleicht auch diese Meinung
30	Doris:	welche Meinung? daß daß Menschen,
31		daß Frau und Mann /un na/türlich
32	Yang:	/ich glau/
33	Doris:	ungleich sind?
34	Yang:	natürlich es gibt natürlich Ungleich Ungleichheit.
35		(0.3) es gibt zum Beispiel sportlich (0.3)
36		die die die eh die die Frauen - rekorde Weltrekorde
37		und die die Männerrekorde ist unterschiedlich
38		/das ist (.................körperlich körperlich möglich körperlich)
39	Doris:	/also ES GIBT - ich meine ein weiblicher Körper und
40		ein männlicher Körper sind meistens verschieden
41	Yang:	ich GLAUBE wir wissen schon, daszlig; die die die Unterschiede zwischen also
42		die MÄNNLICHE Körper und eh' die frauliche weibliche Körper.
43		das wissen wir schon. -
44		ich glaube vielleicht es gibt noch ANDERE Unterschied
45	Andrea:	ja geistige? /daß sie/
46	Yang:	/geistige/ oder so was
47	Andrea:	aber - /(ich mein)/
48	Yang:	/ und / eh eh n zum Beispiel (ich will) vielleicht hihi
49		Sie werden so so Sie werden vielleicht sagen, ich bin sehr k konservat((HI))iv
50		/((HI))und/
51	Doris:	/ich/ werde sagen ein MANN / und sehen das aus /
52	Yang:	/das ist Ihre Meinung/
53	Doris:	Ihrer MÄNNLICHEN SICHT.
54	Yang:	ja.
55	Doris:	*sag ich jetzt.*
56	Yang:	hihihihihi
57		(0.3)
58	Yang:	und(-)eh'(0.3) ich meine also die::zum Beispiel eh die die Weibliche IN DER WELT
59		bei uns sagt, - eh die Frau ist die Halbs Halbe Himmel eh Halbes Himmel.
60		die Männer halbes Himmel. -
61		das is eh das is Bild
62		die diese Welt ist kordiniert. mu muß kordiniert,
63		dann können wir eine GUTE Leben, also gut also die::: gute Zukunft
64	Doris:	mhm
65	Yang:	haben. das ist also ich glaube das ist Grund auch von NATÜRLICH aus.
66		das ist eine von NATÜRLICH aus eine Prinzip
67	Doris:	mhm
68	Yang:	DESHALB muß ich sagen wenn die Männer und die Frauen sind GANZ gleich.
69		(0.3) das ist (0.5) un/denkbar./
70	Andrea:	/nein aber/ es geht ja darum daß eh

[English transcription]

At the beginning of the transcript we can observe how two different discursive styles with different strategies to signal dissent meet: While Doris proceeds in a very confrontational and direct way with her argumentation, by explicitly marking contradictions (line 8), strengthening her position, attacking Yang's arguments and rejecting his proposal as not discussable (19), Yang uses a very cooperative and consent-oriented style with many concessions. Towards Doris' argument concerning men's assessment of women's inequality (17ff.), he reacts with an indirect dissent. The strategy of embedding one's position in that of the general public - either in form of quotings sayings of wisdom (f.e. by use of proverbial sayings) or with reference to the general acceptance of the argument ("well:: I- I- I believe, I have THIS opinion (-) and eh eh I believe ALSO the other people ALSO perhaps have this opinion " (27-29)) - is frequently used by the Chinese participants in argumentative sequences (Günthner 1991). The stated position is portrayed as anchored in the commonly accepted attitude and thus not presented as an individual opinion.

Instead of providing his main argument right away, Yang then tries to introduce information which serves to establish a common background. Doris, however, becomes impatient and interrupts his presentation, demanding the main thesis ("which opinion....?" (30-31)). However, Yang continues with providing general known differences concerning "the women' s (-) records world records and the the men's records are different "(36-37). He then proceeds by unravelling further information "I THINK we all know, that the the the differences between well the MALE body and eh' the womanly female body. (-)" (41-42) and thereby explicitly refers to the shared knowledge of this presentation ("we all know this."). After the "disclaimer" (48-50) Yang refers to a Chinese expression, which Mao Zedong made famous: "I mean also the:: for example eh the the female IN THE WORLD we say (-) eh the WOMAN is halfs HALF SKY eh HALF THE SKY. the MEN HALF THE SKY. " (58-63) and thus provides evidence for his thesis to follow by referring to a collectively accepted piece of wisdom. In his use of the proverbial saying, Yang comes close to the ideals of Chinese rhetoric: instead of expressing individual opinions the speaker is supposed to quote culturally valid patterns or present his own assertions as being part of traditional and still valid collective wisdom.11 Following this collective saying Yang finally presents - announced with "therefore"- his own opposing opinion: "therefore I must say if men and women are TOTALLY alike. (-) this is (0.5) unthink[able.]" (68-69).

Thus, instead of confronting his co-participants with his main argument, Yang displays a discursive style of building up commonly shared information before arriving at the important argument: He first introduces background information, provides evidence by outlining shared knowledge and by referring to general sources of wisdom and only then aims at his main thesis. This kind of slowly unrolling of background information and the construction of a shared framework of information before presenting the main argument, represents a central aspect of Chinese rhetoric: Instead of immediately confronting the co-participants with the main argument, the speaker aims at making sure that the co-participants are on the same track and can follow the argumentative line and thus the main thesis. German participants, however, who are used to receiving a thesis or a preview statement at the beginning, signalling where the argument is leading to, often react to this kind of listing common background information with impatience and start to interrupt their Chinese co-participants, before they reach their main argument.

In her analysis of Chinese-English conversations Young describes a similar observation:

The Chinese tend to arrive at the main message after first describing circumstantial factors that, to an American, may not appear to be directly relevant. (Young 1986: 68)

According to Young (1982: 83) the Chinese style demonstrates a genuine concern that the ability to retain the listener's attention not be jeopardized:

Such a task is accomplished in Chinese discourse, then, by a deliberate maneuvering in the direction of a less aggressive and more concensual appearance, with the intent to create and maintain a receptive environment for one's remarks. Simultaneously, respect for the listener is insinuated by the 'laying out' of information - revealing the manner of one's thinking, so to say - to elicit the listener's judgment. The speaker and the listener become bonded in a cooperative endeavor. In view of this, the high Chinese preminum placed on the avoidance of an immediate stance becomes transparent.

Chinese natives, to whom I presented segments from the conversation YANG, gave the following comments:

Yes this is the Chinese style. One first gives the reasons and then the main thesis. This appears as more polite. Of course you can also do it the other way round - uttering the main statement first and then providing the reasons. However, then it is more direct. We would say it is then "KAI MEN JIAN SHAN", this means to open the door and then you already see the mountain. Of course one can also do it this way. However, we would not consider this as being very polite.


It is a question of style. In Chinese it is common to first provide the reasons and then draw the conclusion. Often one just presents the reasons and lets the other persons draw the conclusion themselves. Of course, you can also tell your opinion straight away and then tell the reasons, but this appears as 'ting aoqi', this means arrogant. Among Chinese it is important to appear modest, therefore one provides the reasons first and then the conclusion. This is the best style. (My translation, S.G.)

Even when this kind of informational structuring is not totally strange to us, there is still the preference in Western rhetoric to first present the argument and then providing evidence or warrants for it.12

German co-participants tend to interpret the Chinese way of discourse structuring as "evading", "long-winded" and "beating around the bush". Andrea remarks about Yang's style: "I always had the impression he doesn't quite get to the point". Another German informant, listening to the taped conversation, observed: "You never really know, what he is trying to get at." English natives confronted with the Chinese discourse seem to have similar problems - as Young (1982: 79) shows: They miss a clear and concise statement of what is to be discussed and criticize the "lack of precision and the failure to adress the point". Chinese participants, on the other hand, consider the same discourse as "smooth" and do not show any problems of understanding (Young 1986).

The fact that 'Western' speakers in informal contexts among acquaintances and in formal contexts among business partners (Young 1986) prefer the direct style of argumentative organization and Chinese speakers tend to prefer the indirect style does not mean that there are no overlaps in styles between the two ethnic groups. Of course, Chinese speakers also have the direct style at their disposition. However, it is essential to ask in what communicative contexts do they use which strategies and contextualization cues.

7. The interactive encounter of different communicative cultures

The exemplary analysis demonstrates that in informal meetings between German and Chinese students different communicative cultures with diverging rhetoric traditions, different confrontational styles and expectations concerning the communicative event meet.

Whereas for Chinese participants getting involved in an openly confrontational discourse among acquaintances is considered face-threatening and as a lack of 'limao'('knowledge of etiquette'), in certain German contexts, however, antagonist argumentations and confrontational debates are considered to be intellectual challenges and can be seen as "good and profound talks", where one shows that s/he has an opinion and is ready to defend it. Within academic circles controversial argumentations, where different positions clash, participants attack each other and the discussion comes close to an intellectual game, are considered to be an interesting way to spend an evening and to get to know each other.13

The fact that certain communicative cultures - such as the Chinese - do not consider this kind of antagonistic debating as a pleasant and interesting social event, is demonstrated in the data as well as stated in treatises on Chinese rhetoric, which concentrate on the preservation and restoration of conversational harmony, on strategies to minimize and avoid confrontation in formal social relationships and not on techniques to persuade the listeners. Further evidence for the thesis that confrontational discourse has different functions and meets different evaluations in various communicative cultures comes from the interviews I made with the participants of the interaction: Yang and Tan emphasized "the much too strong willingness of the Germans to argue". Tan explained that in China a conversation between people who meet for the first time and want to get to know each other would look totally different. One would talk about oneself and the family and ask the others about their families, instead of "discussing and contradicting each other all the time". One would "give more explanations and not confront the other with one's opinion". However, Tan emphasized that she and also Yang are considered to be "very very open" for Chinese standards. This was also the reason, why the discourse style of the two Germans "was not too much of a problem" to them. Doris and Andrea thought the conversation "was not very interesting", their co-participants "don't really have own opinions", and therefore it was rather "akward and dragging".

Can we now conclude that the Chinese discourse style is more harmonious and indirect as the German style? Although my data, stemming from informal discussions among colleagues and acquaintances, seems to confirm this, it would be as simplified to postulate, in a context-free manner, a general indirectness and avoidance of open confrontation among Chinese speakers, as it would be to proclaim that German speakers always use very direct strategies and are openly confrontative. There are of course also contexts, where Chinese participants demonstrate high directness, which for German participants is considered as inadequate (e.g. personal questions about one's income, one's marital status or asking for reasons why the German acquaintances "do not have children"). Furthermore, for Chinese interactants who do not 'share human feelings' (ganqing , renqing), that is, who are not relatives, friends, acquaintances or do not belong to the same 'unit' (danwei), other discourse conventions, directness strategies and face-work-rules apply (Pieke 1992).

Thus, when analyzing communicative activities, the interactive setting (non/institutional setting, degree of formality, interactive roles etc.), the communicative activity or genre (in/formal discussion, political debate, small talk, quarrelling among friends...) as well as the particular speech activity (disagreement, stating an opinion, presenting a personal question etc.) have to be taken into account.

8. Concluding remarks

The analysis of an exemplary conversation demonstrates how diverging discursive practices can influence social contact situations. The four students who were very willing to meet each other were confrontated with different conversational conventions and social expectations. Furthermore, the subtle and mostly unnoticed ways in which linguistic, rhetoric and socio-cultural knowledge interact in conversations and can lead to social consequences for participants coming from different communicative cultures could be shown in some details. The analysis further reveals that cultural schemes of orientation, based on social knowledge and past experience are important constituents of our schemata of interpretation and consequently, conventions of interacting and culture are strongly intertwined. Culture, cultural membership and differences do not constitute entities separated from the process of interaction, but are constructed and perpetuated by the participants in the process of interacting. Culture is thus part of the implicit knowledge we rely on to interact with others, to interpret their verbal and nonverbal activities and thereby influences the inferences we draw in the concrete situation.

Notes

1 Such as the "Sprachinhaltsforschung" in German linguistics. Cf. Gipper (1972: 215-279).

2 Quoted in Gipper (1972: 230).

3 As these Chinese are either teachers of German at Chinese universities or Chinese students studying at German universities their German is at an advanced level.

4 These strategies, which shall be outlined in some detail, are also found in the other conversations; cf. Günthner (1993b), where I analyzed three argumentative conversations between Germans and Chinese and two between Chinese.

5 As Europeans we often made the experience in China that it took months or even years and many common dinner-invitations including lots of "small-talk" and exchange of family information, such as number of sisters and brothers, profession of the parents, showing of family photos etc., until we got to know personal opinions of our Chinese acquaintances and colleagues and until we could have real discussuions and argumentations on social and political issues. See also Scollon/Wong-Scollon (1991) about "small talk" as ! central facework-strategy in Chinese telephone calls.

6 This finding is somewhat contrary to the hypothesis stated by Goodwin (1983), that aggravated forms of disagreement only appear in children's conversations, whereas adult conversations show much more mitigated forms of disagreement.

7 Cf. Goodwin (1983:669) for children's aggravated forms of arguing.

8 Cf. also Kotthoff (1991; 1992).

9 As Falk (1979:22) states, "duet partners are speaking as if they were one person. The second's utterance is often even syntactically, lexically and prosodically a continuation of the first's".

10 In order to avoid open confrontation often a 'third' person(tiaojie ren) is employed to act as an "intermediary" between the opposing parties and tries to resolve the conflict.

11 Cf. Günthner 1991, where I analyzed part of this transcript to show the use of proverbial sayings in intercultural communication.

12 See Quintillian's treaty on the "dispositio". In order to meet the expectations of the listeners, one is to present the strongest argument first. Cf. Ueding (1976: 206-207). Perelman (1980: 148ff.) shows that both forms of organizing arguments are possible: (a.) first to present the argument and then the evidence; (b.) first to provide the evidence and then the argument. However, he emphasizes that usually (a) is chosen, when the speaker aims at persuading the listeners, while he might chose (b), when he wishes to "move" the audience.

13 Sociable functions argumentations have in certain communities is also mentioned by Schiffrin (1984) in her study of Jewish argumentative style, and she argues that there are cultural differences in the overall predisposition to open disagreement.