Response to CALL Readings for July 9, 2010

Response:
Toward an Intercultural Stance: Teaching German and English through Telecollaboration

Paige Ware and Claire Kramsch, Modern Language Journal (2005) 89 (2), 190–205.


Summary
Ware and Kramsch use a real-world case of linguistic miscues and misunderstandings on a German-English Internet discussion board to examine how ESL teachers will have to adopt what they call “an intercultural stance” when dealing with students online.

The authors collaborated on an online language instruction program that taught both English and German, to students in Germany and the U.S, respectively. Using the class management program, Blackboard, students were required to respond to class assignments using the program's discussion board feature. Responses alternated between English and German so that students in both countries could take turns using L1 and L2.

An American male student, “Rob,” (a pseudonym), exchanged a series of messages with a German female student, “Marie,” (also a pseudonym), that ultimately ended in miscommunication, hurt feelings, and some consternation among the other students and the authors. The precipitating event was an off-topic response by Rob that led to a 2-way exchange with Marie only. The resulting melange of ambiguous, stream-of-consciousness postings from Rob prompted Marie to respond overtly, literally, and in good faith, to all of Rob's comments. In turn, Rob seemed to take offense at some of the words and phrases that Marie used. This caused Marie to become somewhat apologetic yet seemingly judgmental in her responses. Finally, Rob simply stops the exchange.

The authors were mortified by this exchange and decided to try to analyze the causes of the miscommunication. The authors reached the conclusion that several dynamics had been at work: the nature of the subject matter, the conditions of cross-linguistic exchanges, and the nature of language as discourse. They then examine how instructors might help students to avoid ambiguity in their online writing, to negotiate meaning more skillfully, and always to remember that online writing lacks the non-verbal cues that help understanding in face-to-face exchanges. If both teachers and students strive to be as precise and courteous as possible, then such “Rob vs. Marie” exchanges can be avoided.

Commentary
If there is one lesson to be learned from this article – by both teachers and students alike – it is this: stay on topic and be precise. If Rob had followed these precepts, the sorry exchange with Marie would never have happened. Nevertheless, because of disinterest or fatigue, Rob decided to launch into the stream-of-consciousness riff that began the debacle. Marie, in turn, made a good faith effort to reply earnestly and factually to all of Rob's questions and comments, which Rob interpreted, at least in part, to be snarky and preachy. Even though Marie seems to want to continue the exchange, Rob doesn't respond to her next post.

To avoid such uncomfortable situations, we would all do well to follow Grice's (1975) conversational maxims (especially when writing in online discussion boards): quantity (be concise), quality (be sincere), relevance (be relevant), and manner (be clear). We rely so much on the second channel of information that is available in the non-verbal communication that is independent of the language being spoken. The misunderstandings between Rob and Marie would probably not have happened in a face-to-face conversation. Thus, while Grice's maxims certainly apply to conversation, they apply much more forcefully to written exchanges online.

In addition, the authors also mention Lakoff's (1973, 1990) maxims of politeness: distance (be courteous), deference (avoid conflict by ceding terrain or removing speaker from the interaction), and camaraderie (be nice). If a teacher spends a little time explaining Grice and Lakoff before opening the gates to an online forum, the chances for an exchange devolving to the level of Rob and Marie are greatly reduced.