Interlanguage/Interculture in Australian-Japanese Business Communication

Interlanguage/Interculture in Australian-Japanese Business CommunicationAuthor(s): Helen MarriottSource: The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 1993),pp. 161-175Published by: American Association of Teachers of JapaneseStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488923 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 06:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Japanese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:09:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=atj

http://www.jstor.org/stable/488923?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese

INTERLANGUAGE/INTERCULTURE IN AUSTRALIAN-JAPANESE BUSINESS

COMMUNICATION

Helen Marriott

1. Introduction Migration, international business and tourism are three

conspicuous forms of intercultural contact in the post-war decades, the result of which has increased interest in intercultural communication in a variety of disciplines: sociology, psy- chology, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and business man- agement, among others. Applying a broad sociolinguistic approach, this discussion focuses upon communication between Japanese and Australians in the business domain, and aims to describe some of the features which are specific to situations of actual contact. Research on interaction between members of totally disparate cultures-such as Japan and English-speaking cultural communities-allows us to understand better not only the communication processes which characterize intercultural contact between members of specific cultural communities, but also the processes of intercultural communication in general.

In-depth inquiry into communication problems in Austra- lia-Japan contact situations was pioneered by Neustupny (1973, 1982, 1985a, 1985b, 1987) and has been confirmed in subsequent studies (Asaoka 1987; Marriott 1988a, 1990, 1991a, 1991b; Yoshi- mitsu 1986). This paper reports on a study of etiquette in Aus- tralian-Japanese business interaction, based on video-recordings of naturally occurring business situations in Melbourne: eight business meetings and two business luncheons. The data ob- tained from these recordings were supplemented by interviews with approximately 100 Australian and Japanese businessmen in Melbourne and Tokyo. The analysis makes use of Neustup- ny's (1989:6) model of interaction which embraces socio-cultural/socio-economic competence, and communicative compe-

161



Volume 27, Number 2

tence which, in turn, consists of linguistic and sociolinguistic competence (Figure 1). Here, sociolinguistic competence is used to include the various factors of communication proposed by Hymes (Hymes 1972; Neustupny 1973).

Figure 1 MODEL OF INTERACTIVE COMPETENCE

INTERACTIVE COMPETENCE

SOCIO-CULTURAL/ COMMUNICATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC

SOCIOLINGUISTIC LINGUISTIC

In his inquiry, Neustupny (1985a, 1985b) has shown special interest in the norms which are found in contact situations and, concomitantly, in deviations from these norms. His con- tention, which is corroborated here, is that, apart from the application of target rules, we can identify three processes which account for the deviations found in contact situations (Neustupny 1985b): transference, pidginization and interculture. Following is an explanation of these processes, taking English as the base communicative system (Neustupny 1973, 1985a, 1985b; Marriott 1988a). The term "base" is used here as a neutral term which is appropriate in analyzing all parties in the interaction. The term can sometimes be used interchangeably with the notion of "target," although this latter term tends to imply that the main focus of interest is the non-native participant. In this data, English is the language used; indeed, it is generally the principal language of communication between Australian and Japanese business personnel, regardless of whether the setting is Australia or Japan.

Firstly, transference involves the application of non-base norms (in this data, Japanese), and to date it is a process which has received wide recognition in accounting for deviations of conduct in intercultural contact situations. I prefer to avoid the alternative term interference because of the evaluative conno-

162




tations it carries. Transference explains the act of a Japanese bowing (a Japanese norm) during an introduction, even though the language of communication is English. Continuation of gift-giving, even to non-Japanese recipients, also exemplifies transference. Strictly speaking, this process may be best described as the application (rather than transference) of non-base norms, since it is observable not only in the conduct of Japa- nese, but also to some extent in the behaviour of some Australians.

The second process is pidginization, which, although it accounts for deviations in verbal behaviour, was extended by Neustupny (1982) to account for a whole range of sociolinguistic and socio-cultural deviations from the norm. He has also correctly emphasized the vast number of deviations in contact situations which are due to this process. Pidginization involves neither adoption of nor movement towards the target system, but rather loss of control or perhaps movement toward more "natural" rules. Pidginized behaviour can be observed when Australian businessmen in Japanese restaurant settings use their chopsticks unskillfully or engage in extreme slouching while eating, behaviour which is not appropriate in either the Japanese or Australians systems. Similarly, some Australians commonly lack the rules needed in a Japanese restaurant setting and may fail to raise small dishes which should be lifted off the table when eating. The simplification of topics during dis- course in contact situations is another form of pidginization.

Finally, Neustupny recognized the existence of interlanguage as a further main process to account for norm deviations. The concept of interlanguage refers to the adoption of a rule which moves toward the target system but does not reach it. Because this notion often refers to phenomena beyond the linguistic level, I have chosen to use the term "interculture" which, of course, is inclusive of interlanguage.

As a principal concept found in the theories of second or foreign language acquisition over the past two decades, the term interlanguage was originally coined by Selinker (1969, 1972) in reference to "a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner's attempted production of a TL (Target Language) norm" (Selinker 1972:

163



Volume 27, Number 2

214). Although other similar notions had been advanced to describe the interim rule system that learners develop in the process of acquiring a foreign language, namely "transitional competence" and "idiosyncratic dialects" by Corder (1967, 1971) and "approximative system" by Nemser (1971), it is the term interlanguage which has come to receive most prominence. However, there has been some terminological confusion with two general usages of the term. Certain authors use it broadly in reference to all the processes which are identifiable in foreign language acquisition: transference and pidginization as well as interlanguage. Interlanguage is also used in the narrow sense of the learner's interim rule system. It is only this narrow version of the term which is employed here.

Studies on interlanguage have focussed upon linguistic norms (Davies, Criper and Howatt 1984; Ellis 1986), although with the recent attention given to other communicative features in native as well as in intercultural situations, it is not surprising that the notion of interlanguage has been extended to include discoursal and other communicative features (James 1980; Faerch and Kasper 1983; Wolfson and Judd 1983). Neu- stupny (1982:62, 1985a:49, 1987:203) was the first to identify the fact that interlanguage represents a major process in Austra- lian-Japanese interaction and he further extended the concept to encompass other aspects of communicative and sociocultural behaviour, using it to cover the participants of both languages.

Neustupny proposed that one of the reasons for variations in norms in contact situations is due to the adaptation of norms.

Since speakers have not yet correctly acquired all rules needed, for the sake of communicative efficiency they adapt rules which they already possess and use them as substitutes (interlanguage). This means that rules alien to both the foreign and the native speaker's norms appear in contact situations. (1985b:164)

He indicated that in some cases where English is the base norm, certain Japanese speakers themselves realize that adapted norms are deviations from appropriate English norms, while on other occasions, speakers may remain unaware that cases of

164




norm adaptations are in fact deviations from English norms. In such circumstances, an alternative new norm is created.

The speakers in question monitor the application of such adapted rules in their own behaviour and in the behaviour of other foreign speakers in contact situations, and use such monitoring for evaluation and (self-)corrective adjustment. In still other cases Japanese speakers produce rule adaptations which are not normative at all. (1985b: 164)

Neustupny also noted that native participants, too, adapt their behaviour in contact situations.

The term interculture has in fact already been coined, although it is used in the wider sense of the total acquisition process (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1983). Here, interculture refers to movement toward the target system without really reaching it. This concept must be used to cover a broad range of sociolinguistic and sociocultural norms, and it is also necessary to extend the applicability of the concept to native as well as to non-native speakers. Finally, the role of interculture in explaining not only the generative behaviour of participants, but also their evaluative conduct, is essential. 2. Interculture as a Central Process

Along with transference and pidginization, interculture is a central process which accounts for deviations from the norm in contact situations. One assumption which pervades previous studies on interlanguage is that it is an interim system in which movement is typically in the direction of another (or target) communicative system (in the present data, English) (Corder 1978:33). The argument is frequently made that, as learning proceeds, the interlanguage system will become more respon- sive to the target language. A traditional approach such as this is inadequate in explicating the behaviour of participants in actual situations of contact. Far from being an interim or transitional phase, interculture can be clearly identified as one of the central processes in the contact situation, and not only for a transitory period. The following section illustrates how interculture is observed in the conduct of both Japanese and English participants. It also includes examples which show the broad application of the concept.

165



Volume 27, Number 2

3. Interculture in the Behaviour of Japanese and Non-Japanese There is abundant evidence in the data to corroborate the

claim that interculture characterizes the behaviour of both the non-native and the native participants. Interculture is not only a feature of the Japanese participants' behaviour; it is a charac- teristic of the conduct of Australians as well. This is an important finding, for hitherto the concept has been applied only to the non-native speaker.

First, let us examine some instances of interculture for the Japanese side. Handshaking according to Australian norms is something which most Japanese businessmen regularly attempt to acquire. However, in my video-recorded data sometimes the handshaking was too intense, or alternatively, commenced too soon. Such a finding is consistent with the results of other research (Murie 1976; Asaoka 1987).

Interculture was also observed in the spatial arrangements in the Melbourne offices of some Japanese superordinates. Adhering to the Japanese norm of utilizing a separate spatial area for meetings, Japanese superordinates frequently incorporate in their individual offices a Japanese-style meeting area. While the use of individual offices represents the adaptation of an Australian norm, the inclusion in these offices of separate space which invariably is used for meeting business guests suggests the influence of interculture. That is to say, they are mov- ing toward the Australian norm of using a personal office as the venue for a meeting, but never do they themselves remain seated at their own desk, as do some Australians when involved in a meeting with a guest. In other words, some com- ponents of the Japanese pattern are still retained.

With regard to address and reference rules, the selection by Japanese businessmen of anglicized first names is an exemplifi- cation of interculture. As there is severe disparity in cultural norms concerning the use of names, Japanese businessmen endeavour to adjust to the Australian pattern of first name usage. They achieve this, not through use of their own Japanese first name, but by means of selecting an English name. Such adjustment assists his Australian interactant and also eliminates any embarrassment which could be felt by the Japanese if his actual Japanese first name were used as an address form (Neustupny

166




1987:98). The formation of these anglicized names very frequently involves a kind of rationalization where the first letter of the new first name is identical with that in the Japanese first name, for instance, Alex for Atsushi, Mike for Masatake, Henry for Hiroshi, Sam for Satoru, and Tom for Tsutomu (Marriott 1988b:11). Nevertheless, there is some evidence to suggest that the Japanese participant does not himself use first names very much. Among the 22 Australians and 19 Japanese in the video tape-recorded data, Australians used an anglicized first name for four Japanese addressees, whereas only one Japanese used his Australian addressee's name, and this occurred on only one occasion. The example suggests then, that even though interlanguage is present, the Japanese speaker's own cultural restric- tion on first name usage remains very strong.

Next, we will examine in more depth ways in which the Australians, as the native participants in the situation, adapt their norms through interculture. One of the predominant features of Australian-Japanese business contact situations is use by the Australians of the suffix "san" after the surname of the Japanese interactants. Since employment of the English suffix "Mr" in conjunction with a surname is a distancing device in English, the Australian businessman not infrequently selects a variant derived from the Japanese system. While most instances of use are the result of adoption of the Japanese norm and so are representative of transference, there are also occasions where it is clear that the Australian does not vary his usage according to the addressee and frequently persists in addressing superordinates and other Japanese whom they are meeting for the first time using this pattern. Such usage con- travenes the Japanese norm where more formal forms of address are obligatory in such contexts. (In situations like the above where English is the language of communication, use of the English title of Mr seems to be the most appropriate variant.) The aim of the Australians is to adopt the Japanese norm, but they are unsuccessful in adopting it in full and hence their usage remains as an interculture form. In cases like this, it is not uncommon for the usage to become fossilized (as will be discussed below).

167



Volume 27, Number 2

One norm which some Australian businessmen borrow from the Japanese cultural system is the presentation of business cards according to a Japanese set of ritualized rules (Marriott 1985). However, when the exchange is examined carefully on video it is apparent that the acts of many Aus- tralians are a form of interculture: they attempt to adopt the Japanese norm, but they do not attain it. For instance, when presenting their cards some Australians do not engage in a regular bow, and although they may hold out their cards to exchange, rather than delivering the card into the hand of the Japanese recipient they may wait for the Japanese to actually take the card (Marriott 1988a:115-116).

Also, we can argue that interculture exists with regard to the production of business cards. Australians often attempt to approximate the format of the business cards used by Japanese businessmen in contact situations in Japan, and do so by translating the full English message, including the Australian address, into Japanese. Notably, the cards of Japanese businessmen resident in Australia do not carry a Japanese translation of their Australian addresses.

There is evidence to confirm that some Australians, who have had experience in contact situations, also endeavour to apply Japanese cultural rules pertaining to the presentation of drinks in hospitality situations. However, careful observation of the video-recorded data shows that instead of correctly acquiring all or some of the composite rules, there is merely movement in that direction. For example, in the recording, when the Japanese interactants poured beer for the Australians who had extensive experience in contact situations, the latter invariably held their glass on a slant, rested on the table. This contrasts with the rule applied by the Japanese which consists of holding the glass slightly off the table, in a vertical position. Furthermore, such raising of the glass by the Japanese only occurred when the drink was being poured by an Australian interactant and not if the service was performed by the waitress. Neither of the two Australians in the video-recorded data dis- tinguished between the providers of the service in this mann2r. Seen in detail, then, such activities as the presentation of business cards and of beverages actually indicate the presence of

168




interculture, even if perfect learning-transference-also at times occurs (Marriott 1991a).

Australian businessmen who are resident in Tokyo frequently become aware of the discrepancy between Japanese and Australian norms pertaining to setting. I have observed settings where the Australians have successfully adopted the type of venues used for business meetings by the Japanese. However, I have also noticed that numerous attempts either to incorporate a meeting area within an Australian superordinate's room or else to create a separate meeting room are rather forms of interculture, not the application of Japanese norms. Invariably, the furniture is placed in positions which are dissonant with the Japanese norm; for example, the sofa is likely to be placed against a wall. In the case of the branch of one Australian bank, the sofa was placed right next to the door of a separate meeting room, despite instruction from a senior Japanese manager at the bank that such positioning was incorrect according to the Japanese norm.

Another very conspicuous Japanese norm which some Australian businessmen attempt to adopt is gift-giving. Gift- giving is clearly not a component of the Australian business culture, and while we can observe some application of the Japa- nese norm by Australians, others achieve an inter-stage. This inter-stage is characterized by problems with the type of gift, its variability depending on the status of the recipient, the timing of the presentation, and even the selection of the recipient of the gift. 4. Interculture for Generation and Evaluation

As for the processes of transference and pidginization, the feature of interculture is used, then, not only for the generation of behaviour-as seen in the examples given above-but also as the object of evaluation. Research techniques such as in- depth interviews, particularly follow-up interviews, allow a participant's evaluation of another's conduct to become known (Neustupny 1990).

In the course of interviewing, I learned that the chief superordinate for a Japanese bank, who was temporarily resident in Melbourne, negatively evaluated Australian business personnel for neglecting to initiate adequate hospitality invitations.

169



Volume 27, Number 2

He hosted several elaborate dinner engagements at his private residence in Melbourne, inviting the chief superordinates of large Australian corporations, these being the personnel with whom he interacted within the business domain. To his grave dissatisfaction, indicating a strong marking of inadequacy, these invitations were reciprocated by business luncheons at public venues rather than by complimentary private-based weekend invitations as he had anticipated. Obviously, the Japanese businessman over-generalized an Australian cultural norm: he extended the rule that Australian business personnel sometimes host business partners at their private residences to cover all Australians, including chief superordinates. The Japanese businessmen displayed no consciousness of norm variability, particularly involving the status of personnel involved in this instance. The fact that chief superordinates possibly refrain from issuing invitations of private hospitality, particularly to non-intimates of interacting business networks, was not in- cluded in his new rule of interaction. There are many features of interest in this particular case, but of relevance here is the new interculture rule which allowed the Japanese interactant to establish a dinner engagement on the weekend at his private residence to which he invited Australian chief superordinates. This new inter-stage rule had its source in the Australian cultural system, although it was not equivalent to an Australian norm which does not typically encompass individuals of con- siderably higher status than oneself. The fact that the Austra- lian recipients of the invitations did not reciprocate utilizing the same category of encounter, but rather invited him to a business luncheon, indicated the negative evaluation which they placed upon the original selection undertaken by the Japanese businessman. 5. Fossilization

Any consideration of interlanguage must acknowledge the existence of fossilization, a concept which was early discussed by Selinker (1972) and Selinker and Lamendella (1979). As a result of fossilization, some interculture forms do not remain as transitory or interim features but can become permanent forms. The selection by Japanese businessmen of anglicized first names, described above, appears to be an instance of fossiliza-

170




tion. There is movement towards the English system of first name usage without really reaching it, and the inter-stage is fossilized. Also mentioned was the fact that the use of the suffix "san" in address and reference by Australians does not always result in their perfect acquisition of the full Japanese rule, and in particular, appropriate variations are not made according to the addressee and the context. This usage becomes fossilized for some Australians. A stage of interculture had also been achieved in the business luncheon attended by the two Aus- tralians who had had many years of experience in eating Japa- nese-style meals. In this case, even when their knowledge of the meal items was inadequate and they were uncertain about how to eat certain foods, there was a very strong tendency for them to avoid asking for assistance, that is, for correction from their Japanese partners. In other words, they attained a stage of interculture and then their knowledge fossilized and so they did not seek further correction.

The existence of fossilized behaviour in contact situations represents a serious problem, particularly when it involves behaviour which is negatively evaluated by the other party. The poor eating behaviour of Australian businessmen in Japanese- style restaurants is noted by their Japanese interactants who, not surprisingly, evaluate such conduct negatively. One of my Japa- nese informants clearly revealed this kind of evaluation when he described Australian businessmen's eating behaviour in Japan as "child-like." Likewise, the deviant use of "san" by Aus- tralians was negatively evaluated by certain Japanese business personnel. The gravity of the problem is due to the fact that interactants with fossilized behaviour remain permanently at this stage and do not seek correction which could enable them to move towards the target system. 6. Concluding Discussion

One important issue to emerge from this study is the rela- tionship of the base and the non-base interactive systems in the contact situation. Although it is a common assumption that the base system is the one against which deviations are gauged, the pre-eminent position which certain Japanese norms took in the business data (where English was the base) suggests that, in some interactive contexts, the non-base norm may, in fact, be

171



Volume 27, Number 2

the most influential one in the contact situation. Interestingly, the acceptance of certain Japanese norms as being "correct" for the contact situation is shared by Japanese speakers and their non-Japanese interactants.

Another finding concerns the difficulty which actual participants of contact situations have in identifying the presence of interculture, including fossilized rules, in their own behaviour. Very commonly Australian businessmen believe that they have acquired a Japanese pattern of behaviour when, in fact, their own performance is very strongly indicative of interculture rather than the application of a Japanese norm. Similarly, Japanese businessmen frequently believe that their conduct applies an Australian norm when, in many cases, this is not the case.

Given the amount and importance of interaction which occurs in the business domain, there is need for more research into business communication in both native and intercultural contact situations based on actual data. In order to deepen our understanding of behaviour in situations of intercultural contact, it is important to analyse actual data from audio and video recordings, and suppplement that with interviews in order to learn more about the concomitant evaluative or decodiitg behaviour. Only then can we adequately define norms which regulate the behaviour of participants.

This study carries a number of important pedagogical impli- cations. Obviously there is a need for our training courses to provide more instruction on communicative and sociocultural norms appropriate in contact situations. In many, if not all, of the examples encompassing deviant behaviour quoted in this paper, the participant lacked access to the norm which was appropriate in the situation. Clearly, much work remains to be done in specifying sociolinguistic and sociocultural norms both for native as well as for the more complex intercultural contact situations. Hymes's framework of interaction is useful in this regard, because it allows us to consider a wide range of factors. However, in addition to greater delineation of norms, there is also a need to include in training courses a large amount of practice exercises (cf. Kataoka 1991). In the teaching of linguistic, and to a lesser extent, sociolinguistic rules, our courses always

172




encompass practice exercises. However, more exercises need to be devised to teach a range of sociolinguistic as well as sociocultural norms. Because of the strength of our native norms, in reality it is often extremely difficult to apply non-native norms of behaviour which are appropriate in the contact situation, and hence much practice is essential.

More attention should also be placed in our training courses on issues relating to intercultural communication in general. The belief that it is the target norm which is the norm of the intercultural contact situation is overly simplistic, a fact which has been stressed in this paper. While this may often be the case, at other times the non-base norm is acceptable to, or even desired by, both parties in the situation, as in the presentation of business cards following the Japanese-style. On occasions, interculture may even become the norm, as appears to be the case with Australians translating their business cards into Japa- nese. Sometimes participants may be comfortable with some forms of interculture, as in the Japanese adoption of anglicised first names for themselves, but in other instances the interculture rule may attract a negative evaluation from one of the parties.

More extensive training in appropriate communicative and sociocultural behaviour needs to be made available for participants of intercultural contact situations. Even though much has been achieved in the past couple of decades in developing the teaching of Japanese language, more development lies ahead if we are to raise the competence of individuals to inter- act in a broad range of situations.

REFERENCES

Asaoka, T. 1987. Communication Problems between Japanese and Aus- tralians at a Dinner Party. Working Papers of the Japanese Studies Centre, No. 3. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre.

Corder, S. P. 1967. "The Significance of Learner's Errors." International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL) 4, pp. 161-70.

Corder, S. P. 1971. "Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis." IRAL 9, pp. 147-59.

Corder, S. P. 1978. "Language Learner Language." In J. Richards, ed., Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, pp. 71-93.

173



Volume 27, Number 2

Davies, A., C. Criper and A. P. R. Howatt. 1984. Interlanguage. Edin- burgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. H. 1972. "On communicative competence." In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes, eds., Sociolinguistics. England: Penguin, pp. 269-93.

Faerch, C. and G. Kasper, eds. 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Com- munication. New York: Longman.

James, C. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. Essex: Longman. Kataoka, H. 1991. Japanese Cultural Encounters. Lincolnwood, IL:

National Textbook Company. Marriott, H. E. 1985. Introductions in Australian-Japanese Contact

Situations. Working Papers of the Japanese Studies Centre, No. 4. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre.

Marriott, H. E. 1988a. "Etiquette in Australian-Japanese Business Inter- action: A Study of a Meal Situation." Ph.D. dissertation, Monash University.

Marriott, H. E. 1988b. Japanese Business and Social Etiquette. Working Papers of the Japanese Studies Centre, No. 13. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre.

Marriott, H. E. 1990. "Intercultural Business Negotiations: The Problem of Norm Discrepancy." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics S:7, pp. 33-65.

Marriott, H. E. 1991a. "Etiquette in Intercultural Situations: A Japanese Business Luncheon." Intercultural Communication Studies 1:1, pp. 69-94.

Marriott, H. E. 1991b. "Native Speaker Behaviour in Australian- Japanese Business Communication." International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 92, pp. 87-117.

Murie, A. 1976. "Communication Problems in Australian-Japanese Business Relations." Honours dissertation, Monash University.

Nemser, W. 1971. "Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learn- ers." IRAL 9, pp. 115-23.

Neustupny, J. V. 1973. "Sociolinguistics and the Language Teacher." In M. Rado, ed., Language Teaching: Problems and Solutions. Bundoora: La Trobe University, pp. 31-66.

Neustupny, J. V. 1982. Gaikokujin to no komyunikeishon (Communicat- ing with foreigners). Iwanami Shoten.

Neustupny, J. V. 1985a. "Problems in Australian-Japanese Contact Situ- ations." In J. B. Pride, ed., Cross-cultural Encounters: Communication and Mis-communication. Melbourne: River Seine, pp. 44-64.

174




Neustupny, J. V. 1985b. "Language Norms in Australian-Japanese Con- tact Situations." In M. G. Clyne, ed., Australia, Meeting Place of Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 161-70.

Neustupny, J. V. 1987. Communicating with the Japanese. Japan Times. Neustupny, J. V. 1989. Strategies for Asia and Japan Literacy. Papers of

the Japanese Studies Centre, No. 15. Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre.

Neustupny, J. V. 1990. "The Follow-up Interview." Japanese Studies Association of Australia Newsletter 10:2, pp. 31-34.

Ozaki, A. 1985. Requests for Clarification: A Study of Correction Strategies. Working Papers of the Japanese Studies Centre, No. 2. Melboure: Japanese Studies Centre.

Selinker, L. 1969. "Language Transfer." General Linguistics 2, pp. 67-92. Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage." IRAL 10:3, pp. 209-31. Selinker, L. and J. T. Lamendella. 1979. "The Role of Extrinsic Feedback

in Interlanguage Fossilization." Language Learning 29:2, pp. 363-76. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and R. Phillipson. 1983. "Intercommunicative and

Intercultural Competence." Rolgi-papir 28, pp. 43-77. Roskilde Univiersitets Centre.

Wolfson, N. and E. Judd 1983. Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisi- tion. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Yoshimitsu, K. 1986. "Communication in Japanese Business Organiza- tions in Melbourne." Masters dissertation, Monash University.

175



Documents

Interlanguage/Interculture in Australian-Japanese Business Communication