Social Interaction in a Multicultural Group: How People from Different Cultural and Linguistic Background Negotiate Communication and Establish Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a wealth of studies that explore the interplay between culture and communication. However, many of these investigations tend to focus disproportionately on misunderstanding, communication breakdowns and failures. Indeed, it can be argued that the problematic nature of communication among individuals from different cultural backgrounds has turned intercultural communication research into a “celebration of miscommunication” (Sarangi & Roberts 1993). This is not to underestimate the potential challenges and difficulties that might arise in encounters among individuals from different cultures; but rather to narrow the gap between the failures and the successesThe present investigation seeks to bring out the recognition of the need to move in the direction of paying more attention to communication successes. Drawing from pragmatics, discourse analysis and ethnography, this research analyzes naturally occurring audio-recorded data and interviews taken from a 12-week ethnographic study of an employment preparation program for Canadian immigrants where English is used as a common language. Research participants consist of teachers and adult students who come from different national and ethnic origins. Preliminary findings illustrate how group members subvert institutional classroom discourse, challenge (im) politeness conventions and create new rules for negotiating meaning while at the same time maintaining solidarity and harmony. As Blommaert (1998) argues, when members of different cultures meet, “people shift into a medium which is no one's property,” and “cultural conventions get sacrificed in a split second.” BLOMMAERT, J. (1998) Different approaches to intercultural communication: a critical survey. Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung. University of Bremen.ROBERTS, C. & SARANGI, S. (1993) "Culture" revisited in intercultural communication. IN BOSWOOD, T., HOFFMAN, R. & TUNG, P. (Eds.) Perspectives on English for international communication. Hongkong, Hongkong City Polytechnic.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".