Negotiating interactional routines in the openings of intercultural first encounters

4.1 Negotiating components of openings

The openings of first encounters regularly consist of a series of actions, including becoming co-present, greetings, introducing, pleasantries (appreciating the encounter), personal state talk, settling in talk and so on (Pillet-Shore 2018, forthcoming), followed by initiation of first topic (Pillet-Shore and Haugh 2023). Accomplishing each of these actions involves selecting from among action alternatives (e.g. shaking hands versus bowing; offering one’s name or asking the other person’s name), and choosing when to initiate that action in the opening sequence (e.g. pleasantries expressed either preceding or following introductions), as well as choosing whether to initiate that action in the first place (e.g. eliding greetings or pleasantries). Kecskes (2019b) referred to this process of negotiation as “fleshing out the skeleton” of those openings, and observed that not all of the possible components of openings always occur in intercultural first encounters (see also Pillet-Shore 2011, 2018).

Echoing the findings of Kecskes (2019b), we also found that not all of these various possible components necessarily occurred across the openings in our dataset. The occurrence of these different sequences across the 32 openings in our dataset is summarised in Table 1.

Almost all of the openings included introductions (93.8 %), and the majority also included greetings (62.5 %) and pleasantries (68.8 %), but only a relatively small proportion featured personal state talk (31.%) or settling in talk (12.5 %).

We also observed that these openings varied along a continuum from compact (n = 10) through to expanded (n = 22) openings. About a third of the openings in our dataset are accomplished in a compact manner with a minimal number of components, as exemplified in the following two examples. In excerpt (2), which is from the opening of a first encounter between Jane (an Australian female) and Bonnie (a Taiwanese female), the two participants launch first topic immediately following introductions.^[4]

In this opening, Jane first offers her name (line 1), and Bonnie reciprocates in turn (line 2).^[5] Following confirmation of the latter’s name (lines 3–5), Jane then initiates first topic through a recipient-attentive, candidate question seeking confirmation that Bonnie is from Taiwan (line 6). Following a minimal response from Bonnie (line 7), she then reciprocates Jane’s question, in line 8, with a wh-question about where Jane is from (which therefore does not build in a candidate answer in the same way that Jane’s prior polar question does). A notable feature of this relatively compact opening is that there are no greetings, pleasantries or settling in talk, and following introductions they proceed directly into initiating first topic. In this case, then, the participants implicitly negotiate a compact opening through reciprocating introductions then immediately launching first topic – or what Kecskes (2019b) termed a ‘strong initiative’.

An even more compact opening can be observed in excerpt (3), between Daniel (an Australian male) and Stella (a Chinese female).

In this opening, following reciprocation of greetings (lines 1–2), the conversation briefly lapses (line 3) and Daniel appears to prompt Stella to make the next move with a standalone ‘so’ (Raymond 2004). Stella then goes on to initiate first topic with a wh-question about where Daniel is from (lines 5–6). Once again, a compact opening is implicitly negotiated by the participants through reciprocating greetings, and Daniel then prompting Stella to initiate first topic. In this case, we can observe, following Kecskes (2019b), that in intercultural first encounters participants may prioritise creating common ground over introductory formulae and other politeness markers.

Those two examples can be contrasted with the following example of an expanded opening between Carol (an Australian female) and Kaori (a Japanese female). This opening is much more extended, as it features almost all of the possible components of an opening of a first encounter.

In this excerpt, following distance salutations (Kendon and Ferber 1973) in lines 1–3, Kaori approaches Carol (line 4), and they engage in interleaving sequences of reciprocated greeting (line 5), introductions (lines 5–6), and pleasantries (lines 5–8). This is followed by settling in talk where Carol invites Kaori to sit down together with her (lines 10–11), and reciprocated personal state inquiries (lines 12–14). It is only following all of these interleaving components that first topic is finally initiated by remarking on the weather (line 15), thereby registering a neutral referent (Pillet-Shore 2021). The accomplishment of this expanded opening is implicitly negotiated through the two participants reciprocating, in turn, (distant and close) greetings, introductions, pleasantries, and personal state inquiries, before initiating first topic.

The negotiation of the timing or type of action that is selected in the course of the opening can also be implicitly accomplished through self-initiated self-repair, alongside reciprocation. This can be observed in the following example of an opening between Kath (an Australian female) and Sunnie (a Taiwanese female). In this excerpt, in addition to labelling the opening components that are negotiated in the course of this opening, two examples of self-repair/correction are also highlighted in bold.

Following an overlapping greeting by Sunnie (line 1) and self-introduction by Kath (line 2), Sunnie confirms Kath’s name and then reciprocates by offering her name (line 3). However, inserted between this other-name confirmation and self-name offer, Sunnie also initiates but then abandons a pleasantry (“nice t-”). This pleasantry is subsequently redone, in line 7, following conclusion of the sequence of reciprocated introductions (lines 3–6). The second case of self-correction occurs when Kath initiates first topic through a self-attentive declaration that she has already had another first conversation with someone else (lines 10–11), but then treats initiating a self-attentive topic to which Sunnie cannot contribute much as in need of interactional remediation through an apology followed by a so-prefaced recipient-attentive, candidate question seeking confirmation that Sunnie is from Taiwan (lines 14–15). Through these two respective cases of self-repair both participants implicitly negotiate when a particular action and what action type should be accomplished in this opening. In the first instance of self-repair, Sunnie implicitly positions pleasantries as more properly done following completion of introductions. In the second instance, Kath implicitly treats initiating a recipient-attentive first topic as more appropriate than initiating a self-attentive one.

Overall, then, it becomes clear that while the openings of intercultural first encounters draw on a constrained set of components (and action alternatives within those components), these openings are in no way fixed or invariable despite being routinely accomplished (Schegloff 1986). Complementing prior claims by Kecskes (2019b) that in intercultural settings the components of openings are fleshed out according to “the immediate need[s] that emerged in the course of interaction” (Kecskes 2019b: 130), we also observed that the interactional routines through which these openings are co-constructed are “adapted in situ to contingencies of the situation” (Schmidt and Deppermann 2023: 275). This resulted in a range of different openings, some of which were relatively compact (n = 10) and others that were more expanded (n = 22). The more compact openings we observed were similar to what Kecskes (2019b) referred to as ‘strong initiative’, that is, where participants were “getting right down to business: to create some common ground that could be used for further interaction” (p.126). As we have observed, these compact through to expanded openings are co-constructed through participants initiating particular actions and reciprocating (or not) the actions in question, thereby “spontaneously coordinating their selections vis-à-vis one another” (Pillet-Shore forthcoming: 2), and by initiating self-initiated self-repair (through which they signal they are changing those selections). While these selections are largely implicitly negotiated, they can be explicitly negotiated in some cases, as we shall go on to discuss.

4.2 Negotiating greetings

In intercultural settings, co-participants not only have choices to make with respect to what interactional routines are accomplished in openings of first encounters, but also have a wider range of action and format alternatives available to them in accomplishing those routines, as they can draw from interactional routines in L1, L2 or even something between. The wider range of action and format alternatives available to participants in intercultural settings affords a greater degree of flexibility in negotiating these alternatives. One of the interactional routines where this wider range of alternatives surfaces in negotiating openings is when participants are greeting each other. Greetings can be accomplished either verbally (e.g. saying ‘hello’ or ‘hey’) or nonverbally (e.g. shaking hands or bowing), or both.

A relatively constrained set of verbal greetings were drawn upon by participants in our collection of intercultural openings (‘hi’, ‘hello’, ‘hey’, ‘g’day’, and so on) (n = 20). These greetings were largely reciprocated (n = 17, 85 %). These reciprocated greetings occurred either consecutively or in overlap, as illustrated in examples (6) and (7), respectively.

In excerpt (6), a greeting from Sam (an Australian male), in line 1, is subsequently reciprocated by Ta’e (a Korean female), in line 2. In contrast, the greetings in the opening between David (an Australian male) and Joey (a Taiwanese male), in excerpt (7), are accomplished simultaneously in overlap (in lines 1–2).

Cases in which greetings were not reciprocated (n = 3, 15 %) arose due to localised contingencies in the interaction in progress. In excerpt (8), for instance, from an opening between Melena (an Australian female) and Kevin (a Taiwanese male), Kevin offers his name (line 2) in overlap with a greeting by Melena (line 1).^[6]

In this case, reciprocating Melena’s greeting is interactionally foreclosed by Kevin launching a self-introduction almost simultaneously with Melena’s greeting.

There were also cases in which reciprocation of a greeting was delayed due to other kinds of local interactional contingencies. In excerpt (9), a greeting from Ian (an Australian male) is not initially reciprocated by Akiko (a Japanese female). This is arguably a function of Mariko (who has just previously met Ian and is long-time friends with Akiko) mediating the introduction between the two of them.

While Mariko greets them both (line 1), Ian initially directs his greeting to Akiko (line 2). Mariko and Ian subsequently apologise in overlap (lines 3–4). In so doing, they are orienting to their mutual misalignment with respect to Mariko’s normatively expected role as a third party mediator (Pillet-Shore 2011); that is, it is expected Mariko will introduce the two of them, and so greetings should be delayed until those mediated introductions have occurred. Following Mariko’s introduction of Akiko to Ian (line 5), Akiko then reciprocates Ian’s earlier greeting (line 7), orienting to this normative expectation.

Unlike verbal greetings, there is a wider range of systematic alternatives when it comes to nonverbal greetings in intercultural first encounters, as possible action alternatives include shaking hands, head nods, eyebrow raises, (close) waving, and bowing.^[7] In some cases, co-participants are able to smoothly coordinate their selections of nonverbal greetings. In the following example of an opening between Hank (an Australian male) and Hyunnah (a Korean female), verbal greetings are accompanied by the two of them shaking hands. The stepwise accomplishment of this handshake is highlighted in bold.

In this excerpt, Hank offers his hand at the same time as he greets Hyunnah (line 1), with the handshake itself overlapping with Hyunnah reciprocating that verbal greeting (line 2) and Hank subsequently offering his name (line 3). Hyunnah then reciprocates by offering her name (line 4), although she chooses an Anglicised version of her name (‘Hannah’) rather than her Korean name (‘Hyunnah’).^[8]

In other cases, however, while the co-participants may be able to coordinate their selection of nonverbal greeting among different action alternatives, there can be a degree of misalignment in how that action alternative is implemented. In the following excerpt, for instance, Mark (and Australian male) and Mariko (a Japanese female) reciprocate bows to each other.

In this excerpt, following reciprocated verbal greetings that are interleaved with a (non-reciprocated) personal state inquiry (lines 1–2), Mariko introduces herself and Mark reciprocates in turn (lines 3–8). Following Mark introducing himself, Mariko bows deeply while confirming his name through a name-repeat (line 10). Mark confirms his name, in turn, while also simultaneously bowing (line 12). However, while the bowing of torso and head is reciprocated in this opening, Mark’s bow is visibly more shallow than Mariko’s bow. In this case, then, while the nonverbal greeting is reciprocated the quality of it is subtly misaligned.

In yet other cases, misalignment in nonverbal greetings may be more pronounced due to non-reciprocation of said greeting. We can observe a case of this in the following example of an opening between Leo (an Australian male) and Hayley (a Chinese female).

In this excerpt, Leo starts with a verbal greeting (line 1), which Hayley reciprocates, alongside a simultaneous close wave (line 2). This close wave is not, however, reciprocated by Leo, who goes on to introduce himself (lines 4–5).

Finally, misalignment arising due to non-reciprocation of nonverbal greetings may be remediated through subsequent reciprocation of a different action alternative, as can be observed in the following example of an opening between Rachel (an Australian female) and Hyunshik (a Korean male).^[9]

In this excerpt, Shik initiates a verbal greeting (line 1), which is reciprocated by Rachel alongside a simultaneous head bow (line 2). Shik, however, does not reciprocate the head bow, but instead goes on to express a pleasantry (line 5), which Rachel reciprocates followed by a latched self-introduction (line 6). After Shik reciprocates the self-introduction (line 8), Rachel does a name confirmation repeat followed by a redoing of a pleasantry while also extending out her hand (line 9). Shik shakes hands with her as he reciprocates the pleasantry (line 10). In this example, then, a non-reciprocated head bow is subsequently remediated through accomplishing a handshake.

Overall, we can observe that while greetings can be accomplished quite smoothly without interactional hitches in the openings of intercultural first encounters, the fact that co-participants have a relatively wide range of action alternatives available for nonverbal greetings can sometimes lead to greater difficulty in coordinating those interactional routines in intercultural settings like this. This suggests that the greater the number of action alternatives that are available the more challenging it becomes for co-participants to smoothly coordinate the accomplishment of those interactional routines. The non-reciprocation of nonverbal greetings in some cases also suggests that there is considerable variance in the uptake of attempts to accommodate to (perceived) culturally-bound nonverbal greeting interactional routines.

4.3 Negotiating introductions

Another interactional routine negotiated by participants in intercultural first encounters is how they should go about initiating introductions of names. If introductions not mediated by a third party, participants have to select whether to introduce themselves or request an other-introduction, or to do neither (Pillet-Shore 2011). In our collection, introductions were mediated by a third party in the openings of three first encounters, while in the remaining 29 cases introductions were initiated by the participants themselves through introducing themselves (‘offer name’), asking the other person for their name (‘request name’), or asking the other person to confirm their name (‘name reminder’). The occurrence of these different introduction action alternatives across the 32 openings in our dataset are summarised in Table 2.

While the majority of introductions were accomplished through self-initiated offers of name offers (68.8 %), there was nevertheless a significant number of instances in which names were requested either outright (15.6 %) or requested in the context of name reminder sequences (6.2 %). The latter echoes the findings of Kecskes (2019b), who argued that in intercultural first encounters, there is greater variation in how interactional routines are accomplished.^[10]

In example (14), for instance, in an opening between Melena (an Australian female) and Johnny (a Taiwanese male), following reciprocated introductions, Johnny requests Melena’s name.

A similar pattern can be observed in example (15), in which Scott (an Australian male) asks Janet (a Chinese female) to give her name.

These findings suggest that there is greater flexibility in relation to the attested preference for offers over requests for names in introduction sequences (Pillet-Shore 2011) in the case of intercultural first encounters.

There is also a wider range of systematic alternatives when it comes to introductions, as possible person reference format alternatives include offering full name (i.e. first name and surname), first name only, a shortened version of one’s first name, an alternative (English) name, or an Anglicised or original pronunciation of non-English names. In many cases these selections are implicitly negotiated. In the following two examples, for instance, an alternative English name is given instead of the L2 English speaker’s given name, a practice that is common among Chinese and Taiwanese speakers of English (Gordon et al. 2020; Yan 2024). In example (16), Bryan (an Australian male) offers his first name, to which Zihan (a Taiwanese male) responds by reciprocating with an alternative English name (Kevin), while in example (17), Jingping (a Chinese female) offers an alternative English name (‘Natalie’), following which Samuel reciprocates by offering his first name.

Participants may also elect to offer shortened versions of their name, as previously seen in example (13), a part of which is repeated here for convenience in excerpt (18).

In this example, Rachel (an Australian female) introduces herself as “Bec” (line 7), while Hyunshik (a Korean male) introduces himself as simply “Shik” (line 9).

The pronunciation of the names of co-participants may also be implicitly negotiated in the course of name confirmation sequences or explicitly negotiated through assessments of the ‘correctness’ of the other co-participant’s pronunciation of their name. In the following example, subsequent to reciprocated greetings and settling in talk (data not shown), Ian (an Australian male) initiates a self-introduction (line 1), which is reciprocated, in turn, by Mariko (a Japanese female) (line 2).

Following reciprocated pleasantries (lines 3–4), Ian initiates a name confirmation check in line 5. Mariko repeats her name (line 6), which Ian then repeats back (line 7). Notably, there is hearable attempt by Ian to pronounce Mariko’s name following standard Japanese pronunciation in his repeating back of her name (line 7), rather than the Anglicised pronunciation of it. In that way he implicitly negotiates a preference for Japanese pronunciation of Japanese names. Despite this (or perhaps because of it), Mariko then goes on to tease Ian about whether he is able to pronounce her name properly (line 10). However, the non-serious valence of this tease is not picked up on by Ian who (seriously) checks whether he did not pronounce her name correctly (lines 11–13).^[11] In this case, an implicit attempt at negotiating a person reference is subsequently the target of explicit (joking) negotiation.

In the next example, which we briefly looked in the previous section (see excerpt 9), Ian (an Australian male) is being introduced to Akiko (a Japanese female) by a mediator, Mariko.

In this except, following a mediated introduction (Pillet-Shore 2011) by Mariko who introduces Akiko to Ian (line 5), Ian implicitly negotiates the ‘correct’ pronunciation of Akiko’s name through a name confirmation sequence (lines 8–11). Notably, in the course of this sequence, Akiko implicitly corrects Ian’s pronunciation of her name in line 8, by shifting the stress from Akiko to Akiko (line 9), a stress that Ian subsequently gets partially correct (line 10). Mariko then proceeds to introduce Ian to Akiko (line 12). While Ian responds with a pleasantry (line 14), Akiko initiates a (reciprocal) name confirmation sequence (line 15). While this is directed at Mariko, both Mariko and Ian respond in overlap with confirmation (lines 17–18). Ian then further responds with a positive evaluation of Akiko’s pronunciation of his name (line 20). We can thus observe in this example how participants can both implicitly (lines 8–11) and explicitly (lines 12–20) negotiate the preferred way in which their co-participant pronounces their name.

Yet while pronunciation of the names of co-participants may be implicitly negotiated through embedded corrections in the course of name confirmation sequences or explicitly negotiated through teases or assessments, participants may also decline to do so, as can be observed in the following example between Jack (an Australian male) and Soheon (a Korean female).

In this excerpt, while Jack hearably mispronounces Soheon’s name in his subsequent name confirmation repeat (line 4), Soheon appears to ‘let it pass’ (Firth 1996) in favour of adding where she is from (line 5). The same pattern is notably reciprocated when Jack offers his name (lines 8–10).

In some cases the selection of preferred name among alternatives, or responses to them, may itself also be explicitly negotiated. In the following excerpt, between Leo (an Australian male) and Hayley (a Chinese female), we can observe that not only is offering alternative names not restricted to L2 speakers of English, but that participants can sometimes explicitly offer a choice to their co-participant as to how to address them.

In this excerpt, following reciprocated greetings, Leo introduces himself by offering an alternative to his given name, Matthew (lines 4–5). Following a name reminder request^[12] (line 7), Hayley goes on to explain her given name (line 8), describing how people usually refer to her (line 10), along with an account for that (line 12), followed by offering an explicit alternative English name by which Leo can address her (line 14).

Finally, in some cases, offering alternative English can be followed by fairly extended, if not overwrought, accounts for those alternative names in intercultural first encounters, as illustrated in the following example between Simon (an Australian male) and Kevin (a Chinese-Taiwanese female). The excerpt begins, following a brief preamble about being brought together by the researcher (data not shown), with Kevin asking Simon his name (line 1). Kevin then offers her name in turn (line 6).

Following a name confirmation sequence (lines 8–9), Simon positively evaluates her name (line 10). Kevin then goes on to produce an extended account as to why she is called Kevin (lines 11–26). The account is framed as orienting to the presumption that Kevin is usually understood to be a name exclusively used to refer to males.^[13]

Overall, while introductions are generally achieved without interactional troubles in the openings of intercultural first encounters, there are a wider range of interactional routines drawn upon by participants in accomplishing those introductions. This is due, in part, to an apparent loosening in the preference for offers over requests of self-identifying information in intercultural first encounters. It is also due, however, to the wider range of person reference format alternatives available to co-participants in intercultural first encounters. The greater range of alternatives affords both implicit and explicit negotiation of those alternatives, as participants cannot necessarily assume which alternative name (or pronunciation of their name) that their co-participant may favour. This results in a “synergetic and blended” form of interculturality (Kecskes 2020: 142) in which co-participants are introducing themselves in ways that are not exclusively centred in either their L1 or L2. In that sense, then, our findings echo the claim by Kecskes (2019b) that in intercultural settings, there is less reliance on standard assumptions about how we should go about introducing ourselves, and instead a greater reliance on emergent common ground that is accomplished in the course of those introductions.