achieving friendly interactions: a study of service encounters between koreans shopkeepers and...

http://das.sagepub.com/Discourse & Society

http://das.sagepub.com/content/16/1/79The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0957926505048231

2005 16: 79Discourse SocietyHye-Kyung Ryoo

Korean shopkeepers and African-American customersAchieving friendly interactions: a study of service encounters between

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Discourse & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://das.sagepub.com/content/16/1/79.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 2, 2004Version of Record >>

at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 20, 2012das.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://das.sagepub.com/

http://das.sagepub.com/content/16/1/79

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://das.sagepub.com/content/16/1/79.refs.html

http://das.sagepub.com/content/16/1/79.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


A B S T R A C T . This study presents an in-depth analysis of talk between Koreanimmigrant shopkeepers and their African-American customers in serviceencounters. The data were collected through 9 months of fieldwork in Koreanimmigrant-owned stores. Despite the widely publicized conflict and tensionbetween African Americans and Korean immigrants in service encounters, theresults of this study reveal frequent incidents of positive and harmoniousencounters between the participants in the stores. The study argues that adisproportionate focus toward the negative and conflictive nature of AfricanAmerican–Korean interactions is evident in existing research in the field. Thestudy claims that there exists an equally positive aspect of interactions betweenAfrican-American customers and Korean shopkeepers during serviceencounter interactions that is obscured by prevailing research. This articlefocuses on describing this positive and friendly aspect of interactions realizedthrough the participants’ use of specific rapport-building strategies.

K E Y W O R D S : African American, interethnic/intercultural communication, Koreanimmigrants, service encounters

Introduction

Among the many different ethnic groups in the USA, Korean immigrants comprise one of the fastest growing ethnic minorities in the last couple ofdecades. As they have sought ways to survive in a foreign land, they have tendedto settle in low-income African-American neighborhoods and have dominatedthe area of small businesses with local residents. Consequently, the number ofKorean-owned businesses and contacts with African-American customers hasgrown, and interactional problems and tensions between the two ethnic groupshave emerged as a serious social issue.

Despite a large body of research on African American–Korean interethnic

A RT I C L E 79

Achieving friendly interactions: a study ofservice encounters between Koreanshopkeepers and African-American customers

H Y E - K Y U N G RY O OS E O U L W O M E N ’ S U N I V E R S I T Y

Discourse & Society Copyright © 2005SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks,CA and New Delhi)

www.sagepublications.comVol 16(1): 79–105

10.1177/0957926505048231


www.sagepublications.com


conflict, some of which has claims based on observations of actual interactionsbetween the two groups (Chang, 1990; Jeon, 1993; Jo, 1992; Koch andSchockman, 1994; Lee, 1993; Min, 1996; Norman, 1994; Park, 1990, 1996;Song, 1997; Stewart, 1989), there have been few attempts at a close-up andturn-by-turn detailed analysis of talk in actual encounters.

The present study is a discourse analysis of actual talk in real-life interactionsbetween the two groups, including a turn-by-turn analysis of talk from tape-recorded interactions as well as data from interviews and observations made inthe stores. The result of the data analysis revealed ample evidence of interculturalcooperation and friendliness between African Americans and Korean immigrantsin the stores. It was found that both shopkeepers and customers not only achievedfriendly relations, but also were able to overcome communication difficultieswhen they occurred.

Therefore, this article aims at describing the participants’ interactional effortsto achieve positive and friendly service encounters, which has largely been over-shadowed by the highly profiled and publicized nature of interethnic conflict andtension. Specifically, this article focuses on examining the ways in which partici-pants achieved friendly merchant–customer relations in the stores by describingin detail the strategic means through which they built solidarity and rapport.

The article argues that the positive nature of African American–Koreaninteractions, as well as intercultural communication studies in general, should bepursued as an equally important area of research in the field. This is in line witha growing recognition in the field of intercultural communication studies thatstudies of communication among people from different cultural backgroundsshould go beyond a focus on cultural differences and miscommunication amongparticipants (Sarangi, 1994a, 1994b; Shea, 1993; Singh et al., 1988). The mainobjective of this article is to bring out the recognition of a great need to move inthe direction of focusing more on the positive and cooperative efforts of partici-pants in African American–Korean interactions to construct meanings and harmonious relations.

Theoretical background and relevant literature

An important theoretical and empirical theme that has a bearing on the presentstudy is the issue of miscommunication in intercultural encounters. The commonality of intercultural and interlingual experiences in contemporary societies has attracted much work in intercultural communication from a varietyof academic disciplines such as sociolinguistics, anthropology and second-language acquisition. However, the salient feature of intercultural communi-cation that has been the major target of investigation has been the negativenature of communication between participants from different cultural back-grounds. In fact, a great body of literature on intercultural miscommunicationproves this trend of focusing on problems caused by cultural and linguistic differences (Banks et al., 1991; Davies and Tyler, 1994; Gass and Varonis, 1989;

80 Discourse & Society 16(1)



House, 1996; Knapp and Knapp-Potthoff, 1987; Riley, 1980; Tyler, 1995; Tylerand Davies, 1990).

Early interactional sociolinguists such as Gumperz (1982a, 1982b) andTannen (1984) have strongly supported this perspective of culturally determinedways of speaking. Gumperz (1982a) introduced the notion of ‘discourse strategy’in that different interactive experiences in a certain speech community form one’sways of interaction based on different cultural assumptions. The culture-specificdiscourse strategies are claimed to transfer over when speaking one’s second language, thus, leading to frequent miscommunication.

Studies of African American–Korean interethnic relations have had a strongtendency to construe an instance of customer–shopkeeper interaction betweenthe two groups in the framework of cultural differences, thus labeling it as an‘intercultural/interethnic’ rather than ‘customer–shopkeeper’ interaction. Forexample, Bailey (1996, 1997) studied Korean immigrant shopkeepers andAfrican-American customers interacting in liquor stores. He found that thehighly publicized ethnic conflict and tension were largely attributed to disparatecommunication styles in service encounters between the two ethnic groups.Bailey (1996, 1997) raises the issue of cultural difference regarding how twoethnic groups have conflicting expectations toward the situational framework ofthe service encounter setting.

The dominant tendency of studies that have examined the negative aspects ofintercultural communication still holds true in studies of interethnic relationsbetween African Americans and Korean immigrants. The majority of studies onAfrican American–Korean immigrant interactions tend to limit their analyticalscope within the framework of the problematic and unsuccessful nature of theinteractions (i.e. Bailey, 1997; Chang, 1990; Jo, 1992; Lee, 1993; Min, 1996;Park, 1990, 1996; Stewart, 1989, 1993). Those studies all seem to agree on thecommon theme that, regardless of the different claims of each study on whatcauses the problem and conflict, frequent miscommunication and confrontationare inherent and bound to happen in interactions between Koreans and AfricanAmericans.

On the contrary, the cooperative and friendly nature of interactions betweenAfrican Americans and Korean immigrants and their interactive efforts to con-struct meanings in on-going service encounters have not gained equal attentionin the field. This may be attributed to the public frenzy and media attention toinflammatory incidents such as the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and highly publi-cized boycotts against Korean small businesses in major US cities. Racism andhate crimes have been serious social issues and disruptions caused by ethnic con-flicts have frequently taken headlines of the evening news and newspapers. As aresult, researchers might have focused their research efforts on figuring out thecauses of such presumed conflicts and problems. However, some scholars ofAfrican American–Korean relations point out the fact that the negative and con-flictive nature of interactions between the two groups has been overly emphasized(Lee, 1999; Lie and Abelmann, 1999; Park, 1999). Lee (1999: 127) claims that

Ryoo: Achieving friendly interactions 81



the merchant–customer dispute in African American–Korean relations is ‘disproportionately exaggerated and strategically racialized for the boycott’. Park(1999) specifically points out the media impact in shaping the conflictive andnegative relational stereotypes between the two groups.

There is an urgent need to reconsider preconceived and taken-for-grantednotions that interactions between Korean immigrants and African Americans areinherently problematic and full of conflicts. Sarangi (1994a) points out the prob-lem of overemphasizing the problematic nature of intercultural communicationby claiming that:

. . . intercultural communication is as much about miscommunication, as it is aboutcommunication . . . Future research will do well to pay adequate attention to the posi-tive face of intercultural communication. Put simply, intercultural communicationstudies, in their search for a comprehensive theory, must go beyond celebration ofmiscommunication.

(pp. 190–1)

Bailey (1997), although he put his analytical emphasis on the problematicnature of interactions between the two groups, readily acknowledged the perva-siveness of positive interactions in his data as follows:

The overwhelming majority of African-American customers and immigrant Koreanretailers get along. Not only are relations generally harmonious, but also relationsbetween regular customers and retailers are often very positive.

(p. 106)

The present study approaches the issue of African American–Korean interac-tions not with the question of what caused the problems, but what is going on inactual face-to-face interactions between the two groups. It readily acknowledgesthe overly emphasized nature of interethnic conflict between the two groups andraises an issue of the unbalanced research focus in the field. In this respect, thepresent study can provide additional insight into the nature of AfricanAmerican–Korean interethnic relations as a significant step toward more balanced views in the field.

Ethnographic background and methodsFIELD SITES

The present study analyzed customer and shopkeeper interactions in two Koreanimmigrant-owned stores in a US Midwestern city with a population of 572,002(US Bureau of the Census, 2000). The most recent data of the ethnic breakdownof the city show that 36.1 percent (305,673) of the total population of the city isAfrican American, whereas Koreans comprise about 0.08 percent (477) (USBureau of the Census, 2000).

According to the chairman of the Korean Association in the city, there wereabout 120 Korean immigrant-owned small businesses throughout the city andthe types of business varied being beauty supply stores, garment stores, jewelry




stores, general merchandise, and so on. Unlike large cities such as Los Angelesand New York where frequent violent crimes and boycotts are reported, the par-ticipants in the present study stated that there had been no such major incidentsagainst Korean immigrants in the city except for some petty shoplifting in individual stores.

Two Korean immigrant-owned stores participated in this study. One was abeauty supply store that carried mostly wigs, hair products, cosmetics, and somegeneral merchandise. The other was a jewelry store that sold relatively high-priced fine jewelries such as gold and diamonds, as well as provided repair andcleaning services. Each store was located in a different African-American neigh-borhood in the city. The beauty supply store was located in an African-Americanneighborhood on the west side of the city that was considered both by the storeowner and the customers as an upper-middle class neighborhood.

The jewelry store was located in a large two-story shopping mall in the hub ofa low-income African-American neighborhood in the city. Residents interviewedin the present study described the neighborhood as a ghetto where low-incomeAfrican Americans formed an ethnic niche and a lot of gang activities and drugdealings were going on.

DATA-COLLECTING PROCEDURE

About two visits per month to each store were made during the nine-month studyperiod. A total of 15 visits to each store was made. In the beauty supply store, an8-mm video camera was set up in a place that could capture an overall view ofcash register interactions, and an audiotape recorder was placed on the cash register counter to record verbal interactions between participants. The recordingequipment was placed in position within clear view of the customers.

The data-collecting procedure was slightly more difficult in the jewelry storebecause it lacked an appropriate spot to set up recording equipment.Furthermore, the customers and shopkeepers were often moving around to lookat jewelry in different showcases throughout the store, making a fixed set-upinconvenient. Therefore, the recording equipment was hand-carried by theresearcher and each customer was asked for oral permission to have his or herinteraction with the shopkeeper recorded.

In addition to the video- and audio-recording of interactions, ethnographicmethods of observations and interviews were employed to complement the primary data of tape-recorded interactions. Observations were made while tapingthe interactions and detailed field notes were taken. Ethnographic interviewing ofthe participants (both with Korean immigrant shopkeepers and African-American customers) was conducted as well.

Video- and audiotapes were reviewed immediately after collection. It was truethat many interactions over the counter were routine service encounter interac-tions, which were relatively short and conventionalized with the basic organiz-ation of Attendance-Allocation, Service (a request for goods and quoting of price),Goods-Handover, Pay, and Closing (Ventola, 1995).




Upon viewing all the recorded materials, the researcher selectively transcribedonly the interactions that lasted longer than just brief routine activities. The selection criteria were based on those encounters that included interactionalelements contributing to the positive and cooperative nature of overall interactions.1

Achieving friendly and harmonious interactions

Goffman (1963) claims that a service encounter is a face engagement in which par-ticipants with specific goals conduct a mutual activity through the use of variouscommunicative means. It has been a widely held belief in early studies of serviceencounters that interactions in service encounters primarily consist of simplebusiness transactions, which involve the transmission of information such as theavailability or prices of merchandise (Merritt, 1976; Mitchell, 1957).

However, consenting claims of more recent studies hold that interactions inservice encounters not only display the transactional and business-orientedaspect of language, but also exhibit the interactional aspect of language.2 Manystudies of service encounters (Avedon, 1996; James, 1992; Kalaja, 1989;Lamoureux, 1988; Ventola, 1987) have provided ample evidence that interac-tions in service encounters do have a dynamic and complex aspect in that theneeds of the customers must be satisfied by and balanced with the abilities of theservice provider or seller. Many studies show that service encounters indeed provide participants with opportunities to forge interpersonal and interactionalrelationships during the encounters (Aston, 1988a, 1988b; James, 1992;Lamoureux, 1988). Lamoureux (1985) claims that service encounter discoursehas multiple functions of indexing, instantiating, and reinforcing the personalrelationships between shopkeepers and customers.

Although it was true that many of the interactions found in the present studywere routine service encounters, other interactions often went beyond simpleexchanges of greetings and goods; often, elaborate exchanges of friendly remarkswere involved. Overall, the discourse data collected in the present study exhibiteda frequent occurrence of friendly service encounters.3

One significant observation from the data analysis in the present study is theextent to which interactional patterns are considerably different from what hasbeen claimed in the majority of the studies on interethnic relations. In fact,David’s work (1999) on interactions between Arab shopkeepers and theirAfrican-American customers is another study that takes notice of this point.David (1999: 195) claims that:

Most interactions in the store are unproblematic. It is interesting to see that in spite ofall the negative attention given to the convenience stores, the interactions withinthem are generally non-problematic in the sense that there are discernible signs oftrouble. Of course this does not mean that various types of interactions do not troublethe customer or the worker. But it is rare for interactional difficulties to actually man-ifest themselves interactionally.




From the detailed analysis of talk in the present study, it has been found that theparticipants exerted a considerable positive effort to instigate and sustain socialand personal relations. The participants seemed to possess a basic concern fortheir interlocutors’ face as well as their own behind the interactional efforts ofparticipants. Whether it is inter- or intra-ethnic encounters, face concern has beenclaimed to be the most fundamental and universal need addressed by peoplewhen they interact with each other (Goffman, 1959). This basic interactionalconcern has generated a considerable amount of work on human interaction andpoliteness in different areas of studies (Basso, 1979; Brown and Levinson, 1987;Haviland, 1977; Hills et al., 1986; Leech, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey and Cocroft, 1994). It has long been believed that face is a basic elementof social interactions and face concern is an important aspect of interactions in asociety (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1963; Leech, 1983). In the pres-ent study, participants’ concern for their interlocutors’ face was an importantfactor that contributed to non-confrontational and positive encounters betweenshopkeepers and customers.

The data of the present study demonstrate a number of specific ways in which participants achieved this interactional goal. They were: (i) using ingroupidentity markers, (ii) solidarity building by sharing attitudes, (iii) using the speechact of compliment, (iv) initiating personal communication, and (v) joking andlaughing. Each strategy is presented with excerpts from the data and the analysisfocuses on showing how those specific interactional and rapport-building movesused by participants constantly created positive situational frames.

USING INGROUP IDENTITY MARKERS

The first aspect of interactional moves that incorporated the face concern ofparticipants was realized in the address terms. Spencer-Oatey (2000) discusses anumber of domains of rapport management strategies and categorizes the choiceof terms of address or honorifics within the stylistic domain. She claims that thestylistic aspect of rapport management should be appropriately managed toachieve harmonious relations in an interaction. Brown and Levinson (1987)consider the use of ingroup address terms as motivated by a concern for the otherparty’s positive face want and they are used to build up solidarity and closenessbetween participants.

By using ingroup markers to address the interlocutors, participants implicitlyclaimed a common ground with their interlocutors to attend ingroup member-ship. The following extract is an example of the ingroup address terms used by theshop owner.

Extract 1

Beauty supply store 100401ThV2:0:06:44 AA2:262The shop owner (SO) is standing by the cash register area when two customers, a male anda female (C2 and C1), come into the store.




1 C1: can I get two sets of these keys,2 how much does it cost; each key made.3 SO: key made?4 C1: yea.5 SO: hundred dollar,6 C1: a hundred,7 SO: uh huh,8 C1: (that ain’t that bad?)9 SO: [yea, I can-

10 C2: [a hundred dollars for key make;11 SO: fourteen karat gold.12 C1: key?13 SO: uh huh,14 C1: a key.15 SO: key. (-) uh huh, (.) fourteen karat gold copy;16 C1: uh huh ( ?)17 SO: ((looks at C1 and smiles))18 one dollar,19 C1: uh uh.20 [give hihihi me;21 C2: [hihihi22 C1: give me- hihihi two sets of each23 SO: two sets two sets.24 C1: yea.25 SO: okay (.) gottyou, baby.26 ((pats C1’s shoulder))

In this example, the shop owner made a joke about the price the customer shouldpay to make extra keys in l. 5. He intentionally exaggerated the cost of making thekeys and the customer acknowledged it as a joke shown in l. 8. Then, the shopowner extended the joking activity by extravagantly exaggerating that the keywas made of real gold in l. 11, which was taken seriously by the customer thistime as shown in a series of turns by the customer repeatedly confirming theinformation she had just heard (ll. 12, 14, 16). Finally, the shop owner chose tostop joking and continue with the business at hand in l. 18 by quoting the actualprice of making the key. The series of exchanges involving the shop owner’sjoking and customers’ cooperative responses (i.e. witty response to the joke in l. 8and laughing) set the friendly mood and positive interactional frame that couldsupport the use of the ingroup marker by the shop owner in l. 25 when headdressed the female customer as ‘baby’. The following non-verbal behavior ofthe shop owner (patting the female customer on her shoulder) strengthened thefriendly mood that was already set up by the jokes and the address term used bythe shop owner.

The following extract is another example of using ingroup identity markers,this time by the customer.




Extract 2

Beauty supply store 070201MV2:0:20:42 (VHS2:1:11:26)A male African-American customer (C) comes into the store and looks at a bandana. Theshop owner (SO) is standing by the vending machine filling it with cans of soda. The cus-tomer picks out a bandana and approaches the shop owner.

1 C: ((showing a bandana to SO)) you got in blue and black?2 SO: blue and black?3 ((approaches the place where the bandanas are))4 right here this royal blue.5 you wanna this color?6 C: yep,7 SO: how many.8 C: one.9 SO: okay- (-) and what color too; black?

10 C: how much are they,11 SO: one dollar.12 C: yea.13 this- that’s gonna (be it right there.?)14 SO: this one?15 C: yea,16 ((puts bandana on the counter))17 [(I’ll be back ?)18 SO: [O::kay take your time.19 eight o’clock close.20 C: hihihi that’s my man.

The customer in this extract was a young male who was looking for a bandanaand picked one out that he liked with the help of the shop owner. Then, the customer wanted to do some more shopping as shown in l. 17 and the shopowner made a joking remark to the customer in l. 19 (meaning you can be in thestore shopping until 8 o’clock when the shop closes). The shop owner’s utterancein l. 19 was acknowledged by the customer as a joke as shown in the customer’slaughing and use of the ingroup marking expression ‘that’s my man’ in l. 20. Thecustomer’s final utterance ‘that’s my man’ was a cooperative move toward theshop owner’s joke in the previous turn. However, it also played a role of evokingcloseness between the participants, which was motivated by the shop owner’sfriendly joke.

From looking at the two examples of ingroup identity markers used by boththe shop owner and the customer, we not only see the positive effect of the strategic use of linguistic markers on the relational and interactional aspect ofthose particular encounters, but also how they were creatively constructed andcooperatively managed by the participants. An ingroup marker has little inherentmeaning and its interpretation largely depends on the context in which it is used.4

That is, it is hardly the case that an ingroup marker has its positive interactionalfunction in and of itself. In the first example above, the previous positive




situational frame that was evoked by the cooperative alignment of the jokebetween participants provided the subsequent situational framework for the positive interpretation of the address term.

As shown in the earlier examples, participants’ choices of ingroup markersdepended on contextual factors such as the age and relative closeness of partici-pants.5 However, we can now see that they also came out of the situational frame-work where the cooperative interactional work of both participants contributedto the conversation’s friendly mood.

SHARING ATTITUDES AND GIVING SUPPORT

The second aspect of interactional talk between shopkeepers and customers wasthe way in which they shared attitudes and supports. Aston (1988a) presents twodifferent dimensions of sharing attitudes: one is through showing agreement andsupport about the objects or reality they both possessed and experienced in theworld, which he calls solidary affect. The other dimension of sharing attitudes iswhat Aston (1988a) calls supportive affect, which is the case where one partici-pant shows affective support to the other party’s state or experience. The follow-ing example is an illustration of the first aspect of sharing attitudes, solidary affect,realized by the customer’s showing sympathy to the shopkeeper’s state, which inturn, she has experienced also.

Extract 3

Beauty supply store 080701TV2:1:09:51 AB2:212The shopkeeper (SK) is a female Korean employee in her early 40s. She is helping cus-tomers check out at the cash register. The customer is a female African American (C) wholooks to be in her early 40s also and approaches the counter with some items to check out.

1 C: [hi;2 SK: [okay,3 hi, how are you today,4 C: oh not bad;5 how about yourself=6 SK: =oh I’m okay;7 [and;8 C: [good.9 SK: cleaning; working; [hihihi

10 C: [hihihi yes I understand.11 SK: yea.12 C: whoo::: ((sighs))13 SK: uh okay, that all?14 C: yea that’s it.15 SK: okay?16 two dollar ten cents please?17 C: okay.18 SK: uh huh,19 ((C pays money and SK punches the keys))




20 C: yea I’m a schoolteacher so; (.) I might ( ?) too (.)21 so we started (.) yesterday.22 so our kids are just- (-) w:::oo23 SK: o:h yea.24 C: hihihi25 so I’m kind of tired.26 SK: yea hihihi27 two dollar ninety cents [thank you.28 C: [okay;29 thank you hihi.

The initial part of this conversation (ll. 1–5) consisted of a routine greetingbetween the participants where the shopkeeper and the customer exchanged conventionalized greetings with each other. Greetings are considered to be a rep-resentative case of phatic talk in that people inquire about the other party’s well-being, oftentimes without serious concern or sincerity (Coupland et al., 1992).The shopkeeper, in greeting back to the customer, however, chose to be morespecific about telling her well-being in l. 9 by elaborating in her response her dailychores in the store (‘cleaning, working’). In response to the shopkeeper’s ratherelaborated greeting, the customer provided a supportive uptake in l. 10 (‘yes Iunderstand’) which showed her sympathy toward the shopkeeper’s hard work inthe store. The customer’s supportive moves did not end here but reappeared in ll.20–22 where she showed empathy by sharing her personal experience as a schoolteacher and difficulty being with kids because school had just started. In l. 25 thecustomer told the shopkeeper about her state of being tired from work, implyingthat she also had a busy day like the shopkeeper. The customer’s revealing herpersonal experience paralleled the shopkeeper’s initial utterance about her work-load in the store and was motivated by a supportive attitude toward the shopkeeper, showing her empathy toward an experience she also shared.

The following example is an illustration of the second aspect of sharing attitudes, supportive affect, realized by the shop owner’s sharing agreement of thecustomer’s assessment on the price of a product.

Extract 4

Beauty supply store 073001MV1:0:59:30A female African-American customer (C) in her early 40s is looking for a hairpiece withthe help of the shop owner (SO). The shop owner presents a couple of hairpieces to the cus-tomer to choose. The customer is looking closely at the hairpieces and asks the shop ownerfor the price. The conversation starts when the shop owner answers the customer’s ques-tion by quoting the price of a hairpiece.

35 SO: twenty six ninety nine.36 C: °twenty six expensive.°37 SO: uh huh,38 Beverly Johnson is [very expensive.39 C: [yea; I like Beverly Johnson.40 do you have u:hm (-) do you have a lighter color than that.




41 SO: lighter color is number six na eight.42 C: okay, let me see number ( ?)43 SO: ((finds the hairpiece and shows it to C))44 number six medium (.) light brown.45 C: I like this. (-)46 medium light brown,47 SO: uh huh,

In l. 35 the shop owner informed the customer of the price of a hairpiece that thecustomer inquired about. This was immediately followed by the customer’sassessment of the price in l. 36 where she said it was expensive. Of particularinterest to the analysis of Extract 4 is the shop owner’s reaction to this customer’sassessment. In ll. 37 and 38, rather than justifying explicitly why he had tocharge the price he offered, the shop owner provided a positive uptake (‘uh huh’).Furthermore, in his next turn, he agreed with the customer’s assessment whileadding the intensifying marker ‘very’ and providing a particular brand name ofhairpieces.

According to Aston (1993), supportive affect is realized when one participantprovides a supportive and positive comment on an experience or state in whichthe other person has. The shop owner’s turns in ll. 37 and 38 are good exampleswhere one party gave a positive support by agreeing with (‘very expensive’) theother’s negative assessment of the cost of the hairpiece (‘expensive’). By statingthat the particular brand of hairpieces was expensive, the shop owner claimedthat the particular brand of product was supposed to be expensive. Other thanproviding an excuse for the high price of the product, this particular utterance ofthe shop owner in l. 38 played an additional role of building solidarity by sharingthe attitude with the customer.6 As shown in Extract 4, solidary affect was a jointaccomplishment of sharing attitudes that was realized by displaying an identicalpoint of view to support the other party’s contribution and assessment.

From Extract 4, it is shown that participants actively shared their attitudesand experiences and responded to each other with support and agreement, whichfacilitated a more positive and solidarity building relationship between the participants and created a friendly experience throughout the interaction.

SPEECH ACT OF COMPLIMENT

Another interactional pattern that was commonplace in service encounters wasthe speech act of compliment. Brown and Levinson (1987: 103) categorize compliment as a positive politeness strategy and claim ‘S (speaker) should takenotice of aspects of H’s (hearer) condition (noticeable changes, remarkable pos-sessions, anything which looks as though H would want S to notice and approveof it)’. Compliment has been one of the speech acts that has gained much atten-tion in the field (Herbert, 1989; Holmes, 1988; Manes and Wolfson, 1980;Spencer-Oatey et al., 2000; Wolfson and Manes, 1980; Wolfson, 1981). As forthe functions of compliments in discourse, Wolfson and Manes (1980) claim thatthey fulfill a basic social function by expressing a speaker’s common interest with




the hearer and maintaining/creating solidarity. Spencer-Oatey (2000) also con-siders compliments as face-enhancing speech acts in that they contribute to positiverelationships between people by enhancing their positive face.

One of the aspects of compliments that drove the participants to frequentlyemploy them in service encounters was that they could provide a neutral andrelatively safe topic for a brief friendly conversation without disclosing much personal information. Therefore, participants who were often strangers or mereacquaintances in service encounters found compliment a relatively easy strategyto evoke a friendly relationship and a sense of rapport. The next example showshow compliments were realized in discourse and how they played a positive rolein building up solidarity.

Extract 5

Beauty supply store 080701TV2:1:10:57 AB2:228A female African-American customer (C) who looks to be in her late 20s enters the storewith a little boy (B; apparently her son). She shops around the store for a while and comesto the cash register to check out. The little boy seems to want his mother to buy him some-thing and asks for it.

1 C: ((to her boy)) I don’t have no money to pay for2 SK: ((punches the keys))3 three dollar fourteen cents.4 B: ( ?)5 C: [((to her son)) I don’t have no money.6 SK: [oh you have nice comfortable dress.7 C: thank you.8 it feels good.9 SK: yeah I think that is nice yea?10 C: yeah thanks.11 SK: okay,12 ((to the little boy by the customer)) you be good boy,13 okay I give to you one sucker for you, and-14 C: she has something for [you.15 SK: [yes.16 SK: you be nice and we give to good boy.17 C: [say thank you.18 SK: [and candy.

The shopkeeper helped the customer check out her purchases and initiated acompliment in l. 6 by commenting on the customer’s dress. The strategy of per-forming compliments seemed to be a relatively easy way for the shopkeepers toenhance the positive aspect of relations with customers because of the flexiblenature of its occurrence and its largely conventionalized formulaicity (Wolfsonand Manes, 1980). The shopkeeper in Extract 5 complimented the customer onher dress, which was totally irrelevant to the business transaction of the serviceencounter. The customer responded to the compliment by thanking the shop-keeper in l. 7 and providing agreement in l. 8. Then, the shopkeeper took another




turn to agree on the customer’s comment (‘it feels good’) by providing an agree-ment token ‘yeah’ and repeating the compliment in l. 9, which was followed bythe customer’s short acknowledgement and repeated thanking in l. 10.

In Extract 5 we can see that compliments and compliment responses werelinked as a pair and embedded in the stretch of service talk between the shop-keeper and customer as a separate unit of speech event. The function of compli-ments by the shopkeeper here seemed to be relatively straightforward in that theywere aimed at establishing solidarity with the customer as a friendly move, whichwas also shown in her giving out a treat to the customer’s baby boy later in theinteraction. The compliments in Extract 5 were not a must-have element in the service encounter. They are rather an extra interactional effort consciouslyinitiated by the participants to lubricate momentary interpersonal relations. It isclear that these extra efforts by the participants enhanced a feeling of solidaritybetween them and positively contributed to the creation of rapport.

INITIATING PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Spencer-Oatey (2000), in her analytical framework of rapport management, discusses the discourse domain of rapport management that concerns the propermanagement of content and topic of discourse. Initiation of personal communi-cation in service encounters is one of the strategies included in this discoursedomain of rapport management. Personal communication is an active way bywhich participants in service encounters attend to the interactional and relational aspects of interchanges.

The representative case of personal talk is what has been called phatic com-munion first introduced by Malinowski (1923). Malinowski (1923: 315) defines itas ‘a type of speech in which ties of union are created by a mere exchange ofwords’. Malinoswki (1923: 316) further added that the functional aspect ofphatic communion was a form of action serving ‘to establish bonds of personalunion between people brought together by the mere need of companionship’. Ina recent study of phatic communication, Zegarac (1998: 330) emphasizes theinteractional and interpersonal aspect of phatic communication by defining it as‘an utterance whose main implicit import has to do with the speaker’s dispositiontowards establishing and/or maintaining a social relationship with the hearer’.

Phatic communion includes exchanges of talk with the social function ofbinding individuals without the specific goal of transferring information orthought (Coupland et al., 1992). One of the specific realizations of this phatic useof talk in interactions can be so-called small talk where participants share personal feelings and attitudes in order to establish and maintain interpersonaland social relationships. Brown and Levinson (1987) also discuss gossip andsmall talk as positive politeness strategies that are aimed at marking friendship orpersonal interest toward each other.

Bailey’s (1996, 1997) study on service encounters between Korean immi-grant retailers and African-American customers in the Los Angeles area focuseson this interactional aspect of interactions between two ethnic groups. Bailey




(1996) makes a distinction between socially expanded service encounters andsocially minimal service encounters. Socially expanded service encounters includetalk that is not directly tied to the business transaction at hand and socially minimal service encounters mostly consist of talk focusing only on the businesstransactions. He claims that interethnic tension and conflicts between the twogroups were caused by differing expectations with regard to the frame of serviceencounters where Koreans showed a preference for the socially minimal type,whereas African Americans preferred the socially expanded type. That is,whereas African-American customers tended to initiate topics of personal con-versation such as jokes and story telling, Korean immigrant workers in storesshowed strictly business-oriented attitudes toward their interactions, which wasperceived as disrespectful and rude to their customers.

The data collected for the present study show a quite different picture fromthat Bailey (1996) found in his data. Small talk and personal communicationwere quite common between the two participants in the present study.Furthermore, they were frequently initiated by the Korean employees and store-owners. Instances of phatic communion or small talk found in the data analysiswere frequently extended to rather lengthy stretches of talk. It has been foundthat shopkeepers and customers often engaged in personal exchanges or talk ontopics such as weather or children that were not really related to the current business transactions. David (1999) also found that small talk was a commoninteractional feature in service encounters in his data. He found that introducinggeneral topics such as the weather or sports were common and facilitated friendlytalk between workers and customers who were often strangers.

One example of small talk in the data was about ‘weather’. Weather haslargely been considered as the most typical and relatively safe topic of casual conversation between interactants who do not share much of a common agendaor experience (Laver, 1975). Extract 6 is a good example of phatic communionbetween a customer and shop owner about the current weather condition.

Extract 6

Beauty supply store 072001FV1:0:57:59 AA1:055The shop owner (SO) is standing at the cash register area and a female African-Americancustomer (C) approaches the register to check out.

1 C: ((putting down a facial cream on the counter))2 hey.3 SO: ((punches the keys on the register)) two ten,4 ((putting the cream in a bag)) very hot today,5 C: very hot today. ((takes out paper bills from her pocket and counts them))6 (1.2)7 C: ((hands over the money to SO)) but I love it.8 SO: you LOVE it.9 C: oh yea.

10 oooo::h I don’t want to be cold.




11 ((takes out some change from her pocket))12 SO: I like the (winter?); (-) cold is fine.13 C: cold is good. ((hands over the coins to SO))14 SO: HIHIHI15 C: hihihi; we’re gonna put it right in the middle; (.) fall.16 SO: thank (hihi) you so much lady.17 C: hihi yea,18 ((SO hands over the receipt to C))19 thank you.20 SO: have a nice day,21 C: you too.

In l. 4, the shop owner initiated phatic communion by commenting on the cur-rent weather and the customer agreed with him by repeating the same sentencein l. 5 as the shop owner’s previous turn. The phatic communion might haveended here with the customer’s brief response to the initiation of weather talk.However, it went on to a rather elaborated small talk by the customer’s move toprovide an additional statement of personal preference of hot weather in l. 7.Upon hearing the remark from the customer, the shop owner showed his curios-ity about the unexpected comment (the customer said she liked hot weather) in l. 8 by repeating the customer’s previous turn with emphasis on the word ‘love’ inorder to confirm it. Then, the customer responded to the shop owner’s request forconfirmation in l. 9 and provided an account of why she liked hot weather in l. 10. The shop owner, as the customer did in l. 7, responded to the customer’sturn by contrasting his preference of rather cold weather in l. 12. In l. 13, the customer showed her involvement and acknowledgement in the shop owner’sprevious turn by repeating the utterance. In addition, she also made a wittyremark in l. 15 that it’s better in the fall, a middle ground between hot and cold.The general atmosphere of the service encounter in Extract 6 was very positiveand harmonious one with lots of laughter and support toward each party’s utter-ances. Also, we can see a cooperative alignment of talk where both participants’contributions were congruent and balanced with many positive uptakes andagreement even though they did not agree on the weather they liked.

There are many other incidents in the data where the shop owner initiatedsmall talk and the customer revealed his or her personal information and experi-ence in interactions. The presence of this personal talk implies that the partici-pants were willing to be engaged in a more personally involved interaction andthus to build up rapport and solidarity. The following encounter (Extract 7) is agood example of personal talk that shows its positive relational function.

Extract 7

Beauty supply store 080701TV1:1:09:27The female Korean shopkeeper (SK) who is in her mid-40s helps a female African-American customer (C) in a white uniform. The customer comes into the store to shop forhair products including hairpieces. The shopkeeper shows some hairpieces to the customer




by taking them out of their plastic bags. The customer looks at the hairpieces closely bytouching them. She picks out two of the hairpieces she has looked at.

37 C: I think I’m gonna try this one, (-) a:nd that one.38 SK: THat one.39 [okay.40 C: [yes. ((tries to put the hairpiece into the bag))41 SK: easy for the (.) you know you hihi can-42 C: I can just stick it in here that’ll be fine,43 SK: yea. oh okay.44 C: thank you.45 SK: thank you too.46 C: and I have whole bunch of other stuff.47 SK: yea.48 C: [(over here?) ((puts other purchases on the counter))49 SK: [uh huh,50 I like your uniform; what is it.51 C: u:h it’s Navy uniform;52 SK: o:::h I see.53 C: I work right next door I finally got a chance to get home;54 SK: o::h (0.2) you working next door?55 C: uh huh,56 SK: o::h [I see.57 C: [(?) here for three years.58 SK: o::h nice uniform.59 C: thank you.60 ((SK rings up the purchases on the register and bags them))61 actually I think I’m gonna leave this one here,62 SK: yea [okay,63 C: [(cause I?) try and perm my hair regular.64 SK: yes okay,65 and that’s all,66 C: that’ll be it.67 SK: yes.68 thirty dollar fifty six all total, ((puts the bag on the counter))69 C: okay,70 ((looks into her purse))71 actually you know what, (.) give it to me.72 SK: ((shows the cream to C)) uh [this one?73 C: [I’m gonna try.74 yea give me that.75 SK: yes.76 C: thank you.77 SK: thank you too,78 C: ((gives her credit card to SK and SK processes the card on the machine))79 it’s too bad you guys are right next door I’m gonna shop here all the time.80 SK: o:h hihi81 C: spend all my money. ((put her signature on the form))82 SK: o::h yea hihihi.83 ((hands over the receipt to C))




84 C: thank you [you have great day.85 SK: [thank you.86 you do same thing [thank you.87 C: [I appreciate you helping me out.88 SK: o:h hihi you’re welcome anytime.89 C: thanks a lot.90 SK: yea thank you.91 C: bye bye.92 SK: okay bye bye,

In l. 50 the shopkeeper initiated a conversation by complimenting the customeron her uniform and asking about it. In l. 51, the customer explained what it wasand the shopkeeper showed her uptake in l. 52. The conversation might haveended here with a simple exchange of compliment and compliment response.However, the customer provided further information about her job related to thelocation of her work in l. 53. The shopkeeper’s response (‘working next door’),which was a repetition in l. 54 of partial elements of the customer’s previous turn(‘I work right next door’) in l. 53, played a role of showing her interest andinvolvement in the conversation, which in turn motivated the customer to revealmore of her personal life as shown in l. 57. In ll. 79 and 81, the customer evenmade a witty remark that she would spend all her money shopping in the storebecause it was right next to her work. From Extract 7 we can see an example offriendly small talk as well as supportive uptake beyond mere exchanges of trans-actionally oriented talk through which participants showed their personalinterest and built up a friendly and positive atmosphere in the encounter.

JOKING AND LAUGHING

Joking, as with the small talk discussed earlier, is considered by Brown andLevinson (1987) as a strategy to address the positive face concern of participantsand is often used to make the participants feel at ease. Joking and laughing werecrucial parts of a positive and rapport-building interaction between shopkeepersand customers in the present study. Norrick (1994: 409) defines joking as ‘allthose forms or strategies such as word play, teasing, and anecdotes designed toelicit laughter from listeners’. He further claims that conversational joking isassociated with rapport and intensifying cohesion even though it may disruptconversation. Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) claim that conversational jokingevokes a play frame that emerges in the situation based on in-group knowledge.Even with varying definitions of jokes, most studies of joking agree on the factthat joking is a social behavior and an interactional activity created and sharedby participants in conversations (Boxer and Cortes-Conde, 1997; David, 1999).

The primary function that joking plays in interactions is its creation of a situ-ational frame of a lighthearted, amusing nature rather than a serious, sober one.However, in order for that to happen, jokes should be recognized and accepted bythe participants with a consequence of enhanced rapport and positive relations.Norrick (1994: 429) claims that joking is a word play that serves a function to




‘modulate involvement in the immediate context’ and ‘promote rapport’. The success of joking in a conversation is displayed by the recipient’s reaction to thejokes through various uptakes such as laughs or verbal acknowledgements show-ing his or her understanding of the joke. Gavioli (1995) claims that laughter is apreferred next turn created by the recipient or audience, which should come rightafter a joke is told. The success of a joke in terms of the recipient’s acknowledge-ment and response reflects the interactional aspect of joking as a speech activitythat participants jointly construct.

Joking in the service encounters of the present study was common in spite ofthe fact that participants were usually strangers who knew that the interactionwas temporary and it was unlikely that a genuine personal relationship would beformed out of it. Boxer and Cortes-Conde (1997) claim that strangers use jokes toshow that they have ‘a sense of wit’ and create ‘a momentary bond’ in interac-tions. The shop owner in the beauty supply store often initiated jokes to customers. The most frequent tactic he used to make a joke was exaggeration,which is defined as ‘a verbal action to exaggerate the idea or information to makeit unreal and to evoke laughter’ (Goodman, 1983: 13). The specific strategy usedby the shop owner was to exaggerate the total price of a purchase the customershould pay (e.g. $100 for an item worth $1). It seemed that the shop owner stuckto a relatively safe topic, the price of products, to joke about because oftentimes heand the customers were strangers and did not have much shared experience andcommon denominators in their lives. In that sense, joking about the price ofgoods was relatively safe because it was relevant to the current activity of thebusiness transaction and could easily be discerned as an exaggeration rather thana deceptive business practice (because he did this only for products that were notexpensive).

Extract 8 is an example of joking about prices of merchandise that were exag-gerated for the purpose of humor and fun. Of particular interest about theseexamples is how joking was cooperatively constructed by a joint participation ofboth the shop owner and customer.

Extract 8

Beauty supply store 121801TV1:0:55:14 (only the audio is available in the video, interactions happened outside of thecamera angle)The shop owner (SO) is on the ground level taking some newly arrived merchandise out ofboxes. A female African-American customer (C) approaches with an item (not visible fromthe tape).

1 C: how much are these; I like [( ?)2 SO: [hundred dollar,3 C: okay I want it for free (.) now.4 SK: [hihihi5 C: [hihihi6 (1.2)7 I just hope this is enough; (.) how much are the other ones like-




8 SO: small pack is ninety nine cents; (0.2)9 C: and a big bag [is-10 SO: big bag is dollar ninety nine,11 (0.7)12 C: okay I hope this is enough; (.) okay.13 SK: that’s it?14 C: sure.

The interaction started off as an ordinary inquiry by the customer asking theprice of the merchandise in l. 1. The shop owner in answering the customer’squestion exaggerated the price by saying ‘hundred dollar’ in l. 2. The item the customer was referring to was not clearly identified because it was out of thecamera’s angle. However, it can be assumed that it was far less than $100. The shop owner’s initiation of the joke in l. 2 provided a situational framework toevoke a play frame for the subsequent turns (Norrick, 1994).

The customer acknowledged this newly evoked frame of joking and showedher cooperative action by striking back at him with another joke in l. 3. Therefore,it was not only the degree of exaggeration that made the shop owner’s utterancein l. 2 a joke but also the customer’s response to the utterance. The success of thecustomer’s joke was confirmed by the laughter that ensued as a result.Subsequently, the shop owner and customer resumed serious discussions of theprice in ll. 8–10. In Extract 8 we can see the balanced and cooperative alignmentof talk between the two parties through one party’s initiation of a joke and theother’s response with another joke. The second notable aspect of the jokes pro-duced in this encounter is their ‘cooperative alignment of teller and listener’(David, 1999: 257) in that the teller initiated a joke clearly and the listener showedhis or her cooperative moves by laughing or joining in with additional jokes.

Finally, there is another important aspect of the way in which the shopowner’s jokes were produced. The strategy to exaggerate the price of merchandiseor the total price was a tactful interactional strategy by the shop owner to com-bine the transactional and interactional aspects of service encounters. The shopowner’s exaggeration of the original price did not completely lose its transac-tional function because the customer often knew beforehand the price he or shehad to pay and the realization of the joke subtly reinforced this preconception ofthe actual price. In this way, the shop owner used a strategy of initiating a jokeand performing a business transaction simultaneously. This is one example of acase in which the boundary between the interactional and transactional dimen-sions is murky and the two aspects merge in an utterance.

In general, as shown in Extract 8, jokes and humor play a positive interac-tional function to make it possible for participants to have a pleasant experiencein the store. Often times, a joke led to another joke and participants shared laughter and built positive buyer–seller relations. This positive interactional out-come achieved by a joking activity was only possible by both participants’ activeinvolvement by taking turns in making contributions to the humorous frame-work, which in the long run enhanced rapport and harmony between them.




Conclusion and implications of the study

This article discussed participants’ interactional efforts that have contributed tothe positive outcome of interactions based on the analysis of empirical evidencefound in the data. Specifically, it has described some of the solidarity and rapport-building strategies that may operate in actual encounters between the twogroups. The strategies used by participants were characterized by their focus onthe interactional rather than transactional aspect of service encounters.

The findings from this study are largely in contrast with what the majority ofstudies of African American–Korean interethnic relations have found. However,the present study is not an attempt to downplay difficulties and problems ininterethnic relations between Korean immigrants and African Americans.Neither is it an attempt to nullify the fact that there was a level of tension andconflict between the shopkeepers and customers. Also, it is not the intention ofthis article to claim that many previous studies that have described negative and confrontational interactions between the two ethnic groups are wrong ormisguided.

The analytical focus of the present study on the positive and harmoniousaspects should not be taken to imply that the participants never had any problemsor troubles in the store. In fact, there were some unpleasant incidents where theshopkeepers and customers argued over the refunds and exchanges in the stores.Interviews with participants also revealed that the African-American customersand Korean shopkeepers had certain negative stereotypes and attitudes towardeach other, which may have influenced the nature of the relationship. The contrasting findings from the present study with most of the other studies ofAfrican American–Korean interethnic relations may be partially explained in the situational differences surrounding the stores. Most of the studies were con-ducted in large urban cities such as Los Angeles and New York, whereas thisstudy was conducted in a comparatively small Midwestern city with lower poverty and crime rates.

This study is mainly a close description of some of the strategies that may havecontributed to the positive outcome of the interactions. However, it implicatesnew possibilities and perspectives to approach the issue of interactions betweenAfrican-American customers and Korean immigrant shopkeepers. The primarygoal of this article is to draw attention to the fact that there surely are positiveaspects of communication where African Americans and Koreans are able to goabout their businesses in the store without negative and problematic interac-tional outcomes. This positive nature has largely been understated in the studiesof the African American–Korean relations.

I admit that future research of African American–Korean interactions shouldgo beyond mere description of interactional patterns in service encounters. Morestudies should be conducted to examine in detail communicative behaviors andpatterns in major US cities with equal focus on the positive aspect of interactions.There is a great need for developing more systematic tools to analyze what is




really going on in actual interactions between African-American customers andKorean immigrant shopkeepers.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T

Portions of the analysis in this article were presented at the 8th Conference on Language,Interaction, and Culture (CLIC) in University of California, Los Angeles, 23–25 May 2002.

N O T E S

1. The interactional elements here are specific rapport and solidarity building communi-cation strategies such as ‘small talk’, ‘joking’, etc. These specific strategies are intro-duced in detail later in this article.

2. Brown and Yule (1983) present the dichotomy of transactional and interactionalfunctions of discourse by claiming that the first is related to ‘the expression of content’and the latter to ‘expressing social relations and personal attitudes’ (p. 1). They claimthat language can be used primarily for a transactional purpose in that it is used todeliver factual and informational content of utterances whereas language used for aninteractional purpose is primarily aimed at establishing and maintaining a socialrelationship. There are some studies that made a distinction between two differentaspects of language in the speech event of service encounters (Aston, 1988a, 1988b,1993; Ciliberti, 1988; James, 1992; Kalaja, 1989; Lamoureux, 1985, 1988;Mansfield, 1988). These studies have recognized the different functions of languageuse in service encounters; one aspect of language use is mainly used for business trans-actions (e.g. talking about the availability and prices of goods) and another function isto manage interpersonal relationships (e.g. interchanging small talk, using politeaddress terms). It also should be noted that the boundary between the interactionalaspect of service encounter that is realized in phatic or small talk and the transactionalaspect of buying and selling is not a clear-cut matter. In fact, there were many incidentsfound in the data that display a merge of the two aspects of interaction. It would befruitful for future work to see how participants tactfully concentrate on the business (inthe case of service encounters) or transactional matter at hand and simultaneouslyachieve the interactional goal of rapport and solidarity building.

3. I have received many comments demanding quantification of the data, for example,what percentage of the interactions were typical service exchanges or how manyexchanges in the data were categorized as so-called ‘friendly type’. However, it is prac-tically not feasible to quantify these types of interactional data with definite categoriesbecause, first of all, there is no truly objective method of categorizing a certainexchange as a certain type; and second, the present study does not aim at quantifyingthe data and making statistical predictions. The present study is strictly a qualitativeapproach to the interactions within an ethnographic research framework.

4. In fact, ingroup markers can sometimes be considered rude and inappropriate whenthey are not used properly considering the situational context. Some customers whowere interviewed in the present study told me that they were sometimes offended by theingroup address terms such as ‘baby’, ‘mama’, etc. used by Korean shopkeepers (notnecessarily the shop owner in this particular store).

5. The customer’s age and relative distance (i.e. whether s/he was a regular customer orfirst comer) served as significant factors that guided the Korean shopkeepers’ use of dif-ferent address terms. For example, the shopkeepers tended to use ingroup markers suchas ‘baby’, ‘friend’, and ‘buddy’ to address the customers who were regular and looked




to be younger than themselves, whereas they used honorific address terms such as ‘sir’,‘ma’am’, and ‘lady’ to first comers and customers who looked to be older than them-selves.

6. This is one example of the case in which transactional and interactional aspects ofservice interaction have merged. Giving support to the customer’s assessment of theprice can be an ‘interactional’ move by the shop owner. However, providing the customer with a justification for why the product was supposed to be expensive can alsohave a transactional function in the interaction.

R E F E R E N C E S

Aston, G. (ed.) (1988a) Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters.Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice.

Aston, G. (1988b) ‘Interactional Speech in Service Encounters’, in G. Aston (ed.)Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters, pp. 73–97. Bologna:Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice.

Aston, G. (1993) ‘Notes on the Interlanguage of Comity’, in G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka(eds) Interlanguage pragmatics, pp. 224–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Avedon, M.C. (1996) ‘It’s More Than Plane Talk: An Analysis of Service Encounters in anIsland Airport’, unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Carolina.

Bailey, B.H. (1996) ‘Communication of Respect in Service Encounters Between ImmigrantKorean Retailers and African-American Customers’, unpublished master’s thesis,University of California, Los Angeles.

Bailey, B.H. (1997) ‘Communication of Respect in Interethnic Service Encounters’,Language in Society 26: 327–56.

Banks, S., Ge, G. and Baker, J. (1991) ‘Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication’,in N. Coupland, H. Giles and J. Wiemann (eds) ‘Miscommunication’ and Problematic Talk.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Basso, K. (1979) Portraits of the Whiteman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Boxer, D. and Cortes-Conde, F. (1997) ‘From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and

Identity Display’, Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–94.Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Chang, E.T. (1990) ‘New Urban Crisis: Korean Black Conflicts in Los Angeles’, unpublished

PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Ciliberti, A. (1988) ‘Strategies in Service Encounters in Italian Bookshops’, in G. Aston

(ed.) Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters. Bologna:Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice.

Coupland, J., Coupland, N. and Robinson, J.D. (1992) ‘How Are You?: Negotiating PhaticCommunion’, Language in Society 21: 207–30.

David, G. (1999) ‘Intercultural Relationships Across the Counter: An InteractionalAnalysis of In-Situ Service Encounters’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, WayneState University, Detroit.

Davies, C. and Tyler, A. (1994) ‘Demystifying Cross-Cultural (Mis)Communication:Improving Performance Through Balanced Feedback in a Situated Context’, in C. Madden and C. Myers (eds) Discourse and Performance of International TeachingAssistants, pp. 201–21. Alexandria, GA: TESOL.

Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1989) ‘Incorporated Repairs in NNS Discourse’, in M. Eisenstein(ed.) The Dynamic Interlanguage, pp. 71–86. New York: Plenum.




Gavioli, L. (1995) ‘Turn-Initial Versus Turn-Final Laughter: Two Techniques for InitiatingRemedy in English/Italian Bookshop Service Encounters’, Discourse Processes 19:369–84.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gathering.

New York: Free Press.Goodman, J. (1983) ‘How to Get More Smileage Out of Your Life: Making Sense of Humor,

Then Serving It’, in P. E. McGhee and J. H. Goldstein (eds) Handbook of Humor Research.New York: Springer.

Gumperz, J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gumperz, J. (1982b) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Haviland, J.B. (1977) Gossip, Reputation and Knowledge in Zinacantan. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Herbert, R.K. (1989) ‘The Ethnography of English Compliments and Compliment

Responses: A Contrastive Sketch’, in W. Oleksy (ed.) Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Hills, G., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986) ‘Universals of LinguisticPoliteness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese and American English’, Journal ofPragmatics 10: 347–71.

Holmes, J. (1988) ‘Compliments and Compliment Responses in New Zealand English’,Anthropological Linguistics 28: 485–508.

House, J. (1996) ‘Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case ofGerman and English’, in M. Hellinger and U. Ammon (eds) Contrastive Sociolinguistics,pp. 345–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

James, T.H. (1992) ‘Facework, Power Displays, and Transaction Activities in a PublicService Encounter’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Carolina.

Jefferson, G. (1979) ‘A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination’, in G. Pasthas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 79–96. New York: Irvington.

Jeon, G.C. (1993) ‘The “Korean–Black Conflicts”: A Critical Communication Approach’,unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Jo, M.H. (1992) ‘Korean Merchants in the Black Community: Prejudice Among theVictims of Prejudice’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 15: 395–411.

Kalaja, P. (1989) ‘Service Encounters: Towards Successful Negotiations from thePerspective of Customers’, unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University.

Knapp, K. and Knapp-Potthoff, A. (1987) ‘Instead of an Introduction: Conceptual Issuesin Analyzing Intercultural Communication’, in K. Knapp, W. Enninger and A. Knapp-Potthoff (eds) Analyzing Intercultural Communication, pp. 1–13. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Koch, N. and Schockman, H.E. (1994) ‘Riot, Rebellion or Civil Unrest? The KoreanAmerican and African American Business Communities in Los Angeles’, in G.O. Tottenand H.E. Schockman (eds) Community in Crisis: The Korean American Community Afterthe Los Angeles Civil Unrest of April 1992. Los Angeles: University of SouthernCalifornia, Center for Multiethnic and Transnational Studies.

Lamoureux, E.L. (1985) ‘An Analysis of Conversation in Service Encounters’, unpublishedPhD thesis, University of Oregon.

Lamoureux, E.L. (1988) ‘Rhetoric and Conversation in Service Encounters’, Research onLanguage and Social Interaction 22: 93–114.

Laver, J. (1975) ‘Communicative Functions of Phatic Communion’, in A. Kendon, R.M.




Harries and M.R. Key (eds) The Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction. TheHague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lee, H.C. (1993) ‘Black–Korean Conflict in New York City: A Sociological Analysis’,unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York.

Lee, H.C. (1999) ‘Conflict Between Korean Merchants and Black Customers: A StructuralAnalysis’, in K.C. Kim (ed.) Koreans in the Hood: Conflict with African Americans, pp.113–30. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Lie, J. and Abelmann, N. (1999) ‘The 1992 Los Angeles Riots and the “Black–Korean

Conflict” ’, in K.C. Kim (ed.) Koreans in the Hood: Conflict with African Americans, pp.75–87. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923) ‘The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages’, in C.K. Ogdenand I.A. Richards (eds) The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Manes, J. and Wolfson, N. (1980) ‘The Compliment Formula’, in F. Coulmas (ed.)Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mansfield, G. (1988) ‘The Supportive Role of Intonation in Service Encounters’, in G.Aston (ed.) Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters. Bologna:Cooperative Libraria Universitaria Editrice.

Merritt, M. (1976) ‘On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters’, Language inSociety 5: 315–57.

Min, P.G. (1996) Caught in the Middle: Korean Merchants in America’s Multiethnic Cities.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mitchell, T.F. (1957) ‘The Language of Buying and Selling in Cyrenaica: A SituationalStatement’, Hesperis 44: 31–71.

Norman, A.J. (1994) ‘Managing Ethnic Conflict with a Community Context: Black KoreanRelations in an American City’, Community Development Journal 29: 169–76.

Norrick, N.R. (1994) ‘Involvement and Joking in Conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics 22:409–30.

Park, K.Y. (1990) ‘The Korean American Dream: Ideology and Small Business in Queens,New York’, unpublished PhD thesis, The City University of New York.

Park, K.Y. (1996) ‘Use and Abuse of Race and Culture: Black–Korean Tension in America’,American Anthropologist 98: 492–9.

Park, K.Y. (1999) ‘The ICAS Lectures: The Cultivation of Korean Immigrants on AmericanSoil: The Discourse on Cultural Construction’, available [accessed 14 December 2000]:http://www.dvol.com.

Riley, P. (1980) ‘When Communication Breaks Down: Levels of Coherence in Discourse’,Applied Linguistics 1: 201–16.

Sarangi, S. (1994a) ‘Accounting for Mismatches in Intercultural Selection Interviews’,Multilingua 13(1/2): 163–94.

Sarangi, S. (1994b) ‘Intercultural or Not? Beyond Celebration of Cultural Differences inMiscommunication Analysis’, Pragmatics 4: 409–27.

Shea, D. (1993) ‘Situated Discourse: The Sociocultural Context of Conversation in aSecond Language’, in L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (eds) Pragmatics and Language LearningVol. 4, pp. 28–49. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as anInternational Language.

Singh, R., Lele, J. and Martohardjono, G. (1988) ‘Communication in Multilingual Society:Some Missed Opportunities’, Language in Society 17: 43–59.

Song, K. (1997) ‘Two Tales of an American City: Portrayal of African American andKorean American Relations in Two Ethnic Newspapers Between 1991 and 1993,




the Los Angeles Sentinel and the Korea Times’, unpublished PhD thesis, University ofKansas.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000) ‘Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis’, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk AcrossCultures, pp. 11–46. New York: Continuum.

Spencer-Oatey, H., Ng, P. and Dong, L. (2000) ‘Responding to Compliments: British andChinese Evaluative Judgments’, in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.) Culturally Speaking: ManagingRapport Through Talk Across Cultures. New York: Continuum.

Stewart, E. (1989) ‘Ethnic Cultural Diversity: An Interpretive Study of Cultural Differencesand Communication Styles Between Korean Merchants/Employees and Black Patronsin South Los Angeles’, unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, LosAngeles.

Stewart, E. (1993) ‘Communication Between African American and Korean Americans:Before and After the Los Angeles Riots’, Amerasia Journal 19: 23–53.

Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) ‘Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-Negotiation Theory’, in Y. Kim

and W. Gudykunst (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Ting-Toomey, S. and Cocroft, B. (1994) ‘Face and Facework: Theoretical and Research

Issues’, in S. Ting-Toomey (ed.) The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural andInterpersonal Issues. New York: State University of New York Press.

Tyler, A. (1995) ‘The Coconstruction of Cross-Cultural Miscommunication’, Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 17: 129–52.

Tyler, A. and Davies, C. (1990) ‘Cross-Linguistic Communication Missteps’, Text 10:385–411.

US Bureau of the Census. (2000) Supplementary Survey Profile. Washington, DC: USGovernment Printing Office.

Ventola, E. (1987) The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics ofService Encounters. London: Frances.

Ventola, E. (1995) ‘Generic and Register Qualities of Texts and Their Realization’, in P. Friesand M. Gregory (eds) Discourse in Society: Systemic Functional Perspectives, pp. 3–28.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wolfson, N. (1981) ‘Invitations, Compliments, and the Competence of the Native Speaker’,International Journal of Psycholinguistics 8: 7–22.

Wolfson, N. and Manes, J. (1980) ‘The Compliment as a Social Strategy’, InternationalJournal of Human Communication 13: 410–53.

Zegarac, V. (1998) ‘What is Phatic Communication?’, in V. Rouchota and A. H. Jucker (eds)Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.

A P P E N D I X

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONSTranscription conventions are adapted from Jefferson (1979) and Spencer-Oatey (2000).Identity of speakersC: CustomerSO: Shop ownerSK: Shopkeeper (employee)

Simultaneous utterances[ Simultaneous, overlapping talk by two speakers




Contiguous utterances= No interval between the end of one speaker’s turn and the

beginning or the next speaker’s turnIntervals within and between utterances(0.0) Intervals in the stream of talk timed in tenths of a second either

within an utterance or between utterances.(.) Micro pause(-) Brief pause

Characteristics of speech delivery- A halting, abrupt cutoff° ° Lower amplitude: sound that is quieter than surrounding talkhihihi Laughter tokensUnderline Underlined type indicates marked stressCapital letters Capitals indicate increased volume, Low rising intonation; Slightly falling or a continuing intonation. Low falling intonation? High rising intonation, not necessarily a question:: Lengthened syllable

Commentary in the transcript(( )) Non-verbal behaviors and descriptive comments( ?) Unintelligible text{ } English translation of utterances in Korean

H Y E - K Y U N G RY O O is teaching at Seoul Women’s University in Seoul, Korea. She receivedher PhD in Applied English Linguistics from University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2002.Her research interests are native–nonnative speaker interactions, interlanguage discourseanalysis, and intercultural communication. A D D R E S S : Department of English Languageand Literature, Seoul Women’s University, 126 Kongnung 2-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul139–144, Korea. [email: [email protected]]




achieving friendly interactions: a study of service encounters between koreans shopkeepers and...

Documents

friendly interactions

korean shopkeepers

study of service encounters

african americans

korean immigrants

friendly service encounters

service encounter interactions

discourse society http