**1. Introduction**

Conversation is, of course, not a mere disorderly chunk of speech. There are protocols that guide exchange of talk as well as when not to say anything. The exchange protocols and the time of silence rely heavily on culture and context. Culture here refers to the norms of the society that guide how the talk or silence is used, and the context refers to the setting in which the conversation holds. Trudgill [1] reported that '[in] some Caribbean communities, as among certain groups of Black American adolescents, it is perfectly normal, at least in some situations, for everyone to talk at once. Schegloff [2], however, argues that the tendency of two speakers talking at the same time appeared to be a departure from what is basically known in conversation as one-speaker-at-a-time.

Various studies have looked at silence from communicative perspective such as some studies of some tribes in Africa as among the Akan people of Ghana [3], the Igbo people of Nigeria [4]; religious silence such as among British Quakerism and British Buddhism [5]; or silence in the lawyering process [6]. Others have looked at silence in social interaction. Trudgil [7], for example, stated silence of longer than four seconds is not allowed especially among native speakers of English who are not close friends because such silence is considered as embarrassment. Similarly, Tannen [8] reported that silence was averted during conversation among some New Yorkers of East European Jewish background. These reports indicated that silence is perceived as a negative trait particularly among Europeans.

In addition, Jaworski [9] reported that one of the passengers in a 5-hour journey by train in Poland expressed disgust over their silence throughout the journey, describing the situation as if they were going to a funeral. It is of little surprise then that Scollon [10], who uses the theory of metaphor to study silence, describes silence as malfunction – 'If one assumes the engine should be running, the silences will indicate failures. Smooth talk is taken as a natural state of the smoothly running cognitive and interactional machine'. It has to be noted, however, in the situations cited above, silence is portrayed as part of the participants' preference for talk or avoidance of relationship. In all those cases, silence is non-communicative because the silence of the passengers in a train, for example, cannot be interpreted. Also, in the case of the conversation between New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers, silence was described as a boundary marking the beginning or end of speech, and the desire of the New Yorkers to continue talking. Such desire might be a tendency acquired since childhood or a personality trait of the conversational partners involved.

There is, however, another type of silence which occurs during conversation when the current speaker stops talking or when the next speaker takes the floor from the current speaker. The former is referred to as 'switching pause' while the latter as 'inturn pause' [10]. The turn exchanges is referred to as turn-taking. Some pioneering works on turn-taking in cross-cultural encounters include Basso [11] and Scollon and Scollon [12] who conducted studies on Western Apache and the Athabaskan Indians respectively. Their studies indicated variations in turn- taking habits of the Western Apache cultures and the Athabaskans with that of the 'West'. Reporting Scollon and Scollon's [12] research, Trudgill [7] stated that:

*The Athabaskans go away from the conversation thinking that English speakers are rude, dominating, superior, garrulous, smug and self-centered. The English speakers, on the other hand, find the Athabaskans rude, superior, surly, taciturn and withdrawn.*

Such perception culminated from what one of conversation partners believed to be usurping his right to the floor while the other thought his partner has relinquished such a right. Turn-taking, therefore, is not just exchange of speakership from one person to the other but how such transfer is made without violating exchange etiquette. Members of speech community know how to participate in turn-taking exchanges and how to adhere to rules that are appropriate in their community, by allowing overlap (if acceptable) to occur between utterances, and by using pause lengths that are compatible with their particular socio-cultural norms.

## **2. Role of culture in the use and interpretation of silence**

As various cultures differ in their use of silence, the interpretation of someone's silence can also be culture-dependent. Fast rate of speech, for example, is valued in European communities while in some communities such as the Navajo and Indians Athabaskans, longer silences are tolerated. Such silences have,

**127**

*The Most Powerful Thing You'd Say Is Nothing at All: The Power of Silence in Conversation*

therefore, become the feature of the speech of those communities, and therefore, not a problem. Also among the Japanese, Nakane [13] reported that 'Japanese silence stands out not only in comparison with Southern Europeans or New Yorkers but also with East Asian neighbors such as the Koreans and Chinese as well'. Silence is used more often by the Japanese in highly emotional situations such as courtship. 'Young spouses who are deeply in love, for example, often express their affection for each other by nonverbal means and silence' [9]. There was no consensus among researchers on Japanese silence. Some of the researchers – Anderson [14] and Miller [15] criticized the view that Japanese are more reserved compared to other Asians because the claim, according to Anderson, was purely intuitive, lacking any empirical backing. Anderson added that Japanese do talk, and sometimes they talk a lot, but the context of the talk is culturally sanctioned. The above arguments indicate the need to explain further the power

To some other communities, however, particularly in the west, past rate of speech is the expected trait during conversation [8]. For this reason, 'the debate over whether silence or talk should take more priority will never be settled with reconciliation across all contexts' [16]. This is obvious because silent cultures might not discard their silent practice for the voluble ones or vice versa. The Japanese, for example, might not dispose of its 'quietness' because another culture somewhere is garrulous. This is because 'cross-cultural uses of silence are rooted in the observation of different types of taboo, practical magic, and in varying beliefs as to how

Earlier, since 1771, Dinouart, cited in Perniola [17] classified silence into

ii.Artificial silence: Deliberate use of silence in order to benefit from what

iv.Teasing silence: Using silence as a means of deception to show approval while the performer of the silence act is actually deceiving the perceiver of

v.Spiritual silence: Silence used by those who believe that it (silence) is a means of spiritual connection between themselves and the divine being.

vii.Applauding silence is used to show approval in front of the person being

has nothing to express, particularly when he was alone.

viii.Contempt silence is used to show disregard towards what is said.

heard, mostly accompanied by nodding one's head.

vi.Stupid silence: In this type of silence the performer remains mute because he

iii.Courteous silence: The use of silence to show approval of something usually

i.Prudent silence: Silence use to avoid jeopardizing oneself.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97821*

of silence in conversation.

**3. Classification of silence**

others may say.

the silence act.

ten types:

much talk is necessary in a given situation' [9].

accompanied by nodding or gesture.

*The Most Powerful Thing You'd Say Is Nothing at All: The Power of Silence in Conversation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97821*

therefore, become the feature of the speech of those communities, and therefore, not a problem. Also among the Japanese, Nakane [13] reported that 'Japanese silence stands out not only in comparison with Southern Europeans or New Yorkers but also with East Asian neighbors such as the Koreans and Chinese as well'. Silence is used more often by the Japanese in highly emotional situations such as courtship. 'Young spouses who are deeply in love, for example, often express their affection for each other by nonverbal means and silence' [9]. There was no consensus among researchers on Japanese silence. Some of the researchers – Anderson [14] and Miller [15] criticized the view that Japanese are more reserved compared to other Asians because the claim, according to Anderson, was purely intuitive, lacking any empirical backing. Anderson added that Japanese do talk, and sometimes they talk a lot, but the context of the talk is culturally sanctioned. The above arguments indicate the need to explain further the power of silence in conversation.

To some other communities, however, particularly in the west, past rate of speech is the expected trait during conversation [8]. For this reason, 'the debate over whether silence or talk should take more priority will never be settled with reconciliation across all contexts' [16]. This is obvious because silent cultures might not discard their silent practice for the voluble ones or vice versa. The Japanese, for example, might not dispose of its 'quietness' because another culture somewhere is garrulous. This is because 'cross-cultural uses of silence are rooted in the observation of different types of taboo, practical magic, and in varying beliefs as to how much talk is necessary in a given situation' [9].
