Social domain theory: interpreting intercultural communication
The domain of situated activity
In her analysis of this situation, Boas draws on the concepts and theories of several commentators on intercultural communication and miscommunication. One area of research which is often used to explicate the source of dissatisfaction such as that described by Joanne is cross-cultural pragmatics. This is most helpful within the domain of situated activity, where human beings draw on their 'practical knowledge of how to go on in social situations' (Layder 1997: 52), and where 'collective agreements and shared understandings are created during the encounter that influence the subsequent proceedings' (ibid.: 85). Several writers point out that, although this practical knowledge may be a resource which is — in a generic sense — shared by all human societies, the forms it takes may be different. Thus 'intercultural communicative competence', according to Byram (1997: 51), involves developing the procedural knowledge '... of social groups and their products and practices in one's own and in one's interlocutor's country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction'. 'Reading' and practicing competently this kind of procedural knowledge involves handling highly context-specific variables. As Meier (1997: 24) puts it:
What is perceived as a formal context in one culture may be seen as informal in another. What is considered in one culture to be a normal amount of complimenting may seem excessive in another. What may be viewed as accepted topics of phatic communion (i.e. small talk) in one culture may be perceived negatively in another.
In relation to our current example, Boas, who has herself lived in Germany for several years, suggests that the directness displayed by the student who thought Joanne would be bored in her group may have been an indication, not of any intention to reject or offend Joanne, but rather of truthfulness and sincerity.
This example illustrates an aspect of intercultural communication which relates to the propositions of the cultural system as they are realized in specific instances of communication. Early work on the idea of 'politeness' and 'face' suggested that there is a tension between human beings' need to feel 'separate' (unimpeded, individual, private), and their need to feel 'connected' (approved of, involved, social) which is universal (Brown and Levinson 1978; Goffman 1971). Later critics have pointed out the danger of ethnocentrism if this claim is interpreted with reference to the ways in which the tension is managed only in certain societies or 'speech communities' (principally anglophone societies). In particular, the suggestion that 'politeness' equates with 'indirectness' has been questioned, to leave room for the possibility that speakers who eschew hedges and oblique indications of their desires (when making requests, for example) may be demonstrating politeness (in the sense of respect for the other's face), valorizing directness as honest and open (Meier 1997; Wierzbicka 1985, 1991). House (1989, 1996) proposes that one aspect of what we would designate 'procedural knowledge' in the 'domain of situated activity' which is likely to differ between native speakers of German and of English is the relative weight given to the proposition under discussion (the ideational aspect of the interaction) and the face of the addressee (the interpersonal aspect). She also maintains that Germans are likely to give greater weight to the protection of negative than of positive face. In other words, Joanne's colleagues might be expected to show consideration for her by avoiding imposing on her and her right to self-determination in her free time. This would account for the German students smiling less than Joanne expects them to.
We have sketched out some aspects of how Joanne and her fellow students negotiate the domain of situated activity, and have drawn attention to points of similarity and difference between the kinds of knowledge, particularly procedural knowledge, on which people from two different parts of the world might draw in order to do this. We see this as only a partial explanation, however, of what happened to these particular social actors.
