siderable cultural variation. While learners might or might not expect
to have to participate in family mealtime conversations in the target
language, they can compare this example with their own experiences.
Do they sit around a table as a family at mealtimes? If so, which
meal(s)? What patterns of communication are evident in their own
family mealtimes? If they do not have family conversations at meal-
times, what happens – do they watch television together, or eat at
separate times?
The difficulties of using a transcription of a mealtime conversation such as this
in a traditional ‘communicative’ textbook should be clear. There are ambigu-
ities, non-sequiturs, occasional incoherence, and, above all, the amount of
actual information transferred is low. A conversation like this must be under-
stood not as an attempt to communicate information, but to negotiate cultural
positions, here among family members. The focus of attention is the son, Brad.
He is a student, and his contributions reflect a tension in his construction of his
cultural identity: he is positioned (ambivalently) as a student, but also as a
family member. To some extent, Dave and Fran’s contributions support or
challenge one or both of Brad’s cultural affiliations. Let us look in more detail
at how these negotiations are worked out in the opening exchanges. The
numbers refer to the conversational ‘turns’ as shown in the extract above:
1–6
This is an exchange between Dave and Brad. At this point in the con-
versation, Brad has been criticising his university colleagues, and
Dave seems by his question (1) to determine how Brad relates to
them. Dave shares Brad’s antipathy to university people, but Dave
pushes him on this point, resulting in Brad’s dissociation from his
university fellows (‘They’re all FREAKS’ with himself as the only
exception).
7–10
Fran intervenes at this point, apparently making a joke, that all the
‘freaks’ are coming home. This joke seems to be a humorous attempt
to prompt Brad to re-evaluate his position, to self-identify with the
students again. She seems more concerned than Dave with Brad’s
antipathy towards the other students and staff. Brad does not under-
stand her intervention at first, then ignores her when she rephrases,
and he changes the subject to a supporting example of a mad General
Studies tutor.
11–30
The conversation moves onto what is again at first sight a trivial
series of questions and answers about the curriculum Brad has to
follow. However, under the surface, the various positions are being
restated: Fran’s question diverts Brad from further elaborating on the
insanity of university staff, Dave’s questions further reveal his low
54
Intercultural Approaches to ELT
C:\Documents and Settings\Stephen Cracknell\My Documents\corbett\corbett.vp
13 August 2003 16:39:02
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
opinion of university studies (‘garbage’, ‘odds and sods’) and Brad oscil-
lates between being disparaging about university and being defensive
about it (‘Whaddya mean “odds and sods” subjects?’)
To summarise, the work of the conversation is partly for Dave to distance
Brad from the university community, and Fran to ‘reposition’ him in it,
while Brad himself is ambivalent, both a critic of and an authority on uni-
versity culture.
As Eggins and Slade point out, other aspects of the conversation are cul-
turally significant. Brad accepts his dominant role as the main participant
in the conversation, and all participants accept the fact that Brad’s univer-
sity experiences and career are a suitable topic of conversation. Most of the
interaction is between Brad and his father, Dave. Dave makes authoritative
statements and asks loaded questions, and while Brad aligns himself with
Dave at certain points, he dissociates himself from him at others. This kind
of affirmation of similarity and negotiation of difference is typical of many
conversations. To confirm his status as family member to Dave, Brad
distances himself from the university. Yet he is a university student, and his
knowledge about the curriculum gives him authority with which to contest
Dave. Fran’s contributions are least regarded in the conversation: when she
attempts to reconcile Brad with the university, she is ignored. She does,
however, manage to divert Brad away from disparaging the university by
asking questions and ‘back-channelling’, that is, echoing what Brad says,
and making responsive ‘mmming’ and ‘aahing’ noises that prompt him to
continue developing a topic. In the latter part of the extract, Fran’s contri-
butions serve to encourage Brad to take on the role of authority on
university life. The conversation, then, can be read as a shifting negotiation,
in which Brad’s status as family member and as member of another
community – the student community – is contested and redefined. The way
this contest is performed is very probably culturally specific: in other
cultures, sons might not challenge parents in this way – or swear, however
mildly, in front of them – and fathers might not demean education in front
of a child.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
