A group of university students consisting of native speakers of Chinese (n=63), Japanese (n=33), Korean (n=21), Indonesian (n=20), and Arabic (n=13) with relatively extensive exposure to the American university environment and a control group of 20 native English-speakers were asked to rank the social appropriateness of 104 conversation topics. Group responses were analyzed for correlation across language groups. Topics were clustered in these categories: family and family members; age (own and family); classes/grades/teachers; hearer (possessions, self, etc.); money (own/family); own possessions; life in the United States; recreation/weather/travel; self (tastes, experiences); and residence. Results show high correlation in judgments of topics pertaining to family and to classes/grades/teachers. There was less agreement about the appropriateness of topics pertaining to age, money, the hearer, personal possessions, life in the United States, recreation, self, and residence. The questionnaire and data summaries for topic clusters are appended. Contains 26 references. (Author/MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. * *********************************************************************** Pragmatic and Language Learning Monograph Series, Volume 5, 1994 TOPIC APPROPRIATENESS IN CROSS-CULTURAL SOCIAL CONVERSATIONS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION This CENTER (ERIC) document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization riginating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. e Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Eli Hinkel Xavier University A "STRACT INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
[1]
J. Laver,et al.
Communicative Functions of Phatic Communion
,
1975
.
[2]
N. Smith-Hefner.
Women and politeness: The Javanese example
,
1988,
Language in Society.
[3]
Ronald Wardhaugh,et al.
How conversation works
,
1986
.
[4]
Margaret McLaughlin,et al.
Conversation: How Talk Is Organized
,
1984
.
[5]
F. Récanati.
The Pragmatics of What is Said
,
1989
.
[6]
Roger C. Schank,et al.
Rules and Topics in Conversation
,
1977,
Cogn. Sci..
[7]
Myung-Seok Park.
Communication styles in two different cultures: Korean and American
,
1979
.
[8]
Rod Gardner.
Discourse analysis: implications for language teaching, with particular reference to casual conversation
,
1984,
Language Teaching.
[9]
Teun A. van Dijk,et al.
Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse
,
1977
.
[10]
H. Adamson,et al.
The Acquisition of Community Speech Norms by Asian Immigrants Learning English as a Second Language
,
1991,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
[11]
J. Laver,et al.
Linguistic Routines and Politeness in Greeting and Parting
,
1981
.
[12]
Klaus P. Schneider.
Small talk : analysing phatic discourse
,
1988
.
[13]
G. Yule,et al.
Discourse Analysis: Coherence in the interpretation of discourse
,
1983
.