# data[].attributes.body
Our text is a 1986 American comedy film named Gung Ho (released in Australia and New Zealand as Working Class Man). The story portrays the takeover of an American car factory by a Japanese corporation.

Summary of “Gung Ho” (1986) Movie Plot：

Setting：

In a small town in Pennsylvania, USA, a local car factory shut down because of poor management, leaving many workers unemployed. The main character, Hunt Stevenson, a former union representative at the factory, travels to Japan and tries to convince a company, Assan Motors, to buy and reopen the factory.

Cultural conflicts:

1. Japanese management introduces new work practices: no unions, lower wages, job rotation, and strict efficiency standards.

2. American workers struggle with new cultural elements like group calisthenics and Japanese eating habits.

3. American workers display poor work ethic and lack of quality control.

# data[].attributes.body
In this section, we will discuss how face, sociality rights & obligations and interactional goals affect the rapport.

Face

Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed the concept of Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) in their politeness model. It refers to behaviors that threaten the face of the interlocutor. In this video, Hunt bluntly expressed his dissatisfaction with his Japanese leader. His honest performance make his leader annoyed.

There is a strict hierarchy in Japanese work culture. It means employees cannot criticize or educate their leaders directly. For Japanese managers, Hunt's criticism made him feel embarrassed and ashamed. Therefore, the decision of firing him is a way to save face, that is, to re-establish a sense of majesty.

Interactional goals

Next, the Japanese manager expressed his anger to Hunt. He was angry that the American workers were too free and did not put the interests of the company first.

We can explain it with the concept of interactional goals. Obviously, his transaction goal was to build an efficient, high-quality Japanese factory. This goal can be achieved through proper management of relationship goals (Jung, 2009), that is, handling the relationship between American employees and the Japanese management team. However, in the early communication, the resistance of the employees hindered the achievement of this goal. It annoyed the Japanese manager and also affected his perception of rapport.

Sociality rights & obligations

Finally, an interesting topic is about working overtime. Japanese managers proposed that employees in Japan can work overtime unconditionally, while Hunt and his wife disagree.

Spencer Oatey (2010) believes that people have the ability to perceive the rights and obligations related to themselves. When this perception is challenged, they will feel offended and dissatisfied. In the video, American workers believe that uncompensated overtime working violates their sociality rights. In-depth, it is due to the different work motivations brought about by cultural backgrounds. Americans work for themselves, while Japanese work for their company.

# data[].attributes.headline
The three main elements of the politeness system

# data[].attributes.subject
The three main elements of the politeness system

# data[].attributes.body
In both videos, the interactions between American workers, Japanese management, Hunt, and Japanese managers reflect different communication styles, and it involves how power, distance, and weight of imposition affect communication strategies.

# data[].attributes.body
We analyzed the 1986 film "Gung Ho" through the lens of transcultural communication in the workplace. It focuses on two main concepts: Politeness options and Rapport Management. The analysis uses theories from Scollon et al. (2011) on power, distance, and weight of imposition in communication, and Spencer-Oatey's (2010) rapport management framework, which includes face, sociality rights and obligations, and interactional goals. We examined specific scenes from the film to illustrate how these concepts play out in the cultural clash between American workers and Japanese management. It highlights the complexities of transcultural communication and management in a globalized work environment.

Questions:

Q1: Do you think good rapport management is helpful to reduce cultural conflicts in the workplace? Why?

Q2: Could you  explain how P(power), D(distance), and W(weight of imposition) affect (Im)politeness options in communication? Please give an example.

# data[].attributes.body
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.

Gang Ho(1986), https://www.mcoun.com/vodplay/60764-1-1.html

Holmes, J., & Schnurr, S. (2017). (Im) politeness in the Workplace. The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im) Politeness, 635-660.

Jung, Y. (2009). A review of theory of rapport management. The Ascent of International Business Communication, 115.

Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2011). Interpersonal Politeness and Power. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (pp. 45–68). Wiley-Blackwell.

Spencer Oatey, H. (2010). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. Face, (im)politeness and rapport (pp.11-47). London: Bloomsbury.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International journal of intercultural relations, 22(2), 187-225.

# data[].attributes.body
In the first case, there is no politeness system, where both parties do not recognize and respect cultural differences. Japanese management believed they had more power than American workers and expected them to follow orders without question, because hierarchy and obedience were core values of Japanese corporate culture. The American workers did not approve of the Japanese management style and quarreled with him. The distance between Japanese management and American workers, with their different cultural backgrounds and little personal connection, was also greatly increased by the formal and independent communication style of the Japanese. The weight of imposition is high because it requires American workers to change deeply ingrained work habits and attitudes.

The second is the solidarity politeness system. Hunter Stevenson, though also in management, was seen as a peer rather than an authority figure. Hunter has the same cultural background, communication style and work experience as American workers. In this interaction, the two parties have relatively equal power and a small distance. Hunt is not asking staff to make changes, and the weight of imposition is low.

# data[].attributes.body
The third is the hierarchical politeness system. Japanese managers have more power in a hierarchical structure. The weight of imposition is high because Hunt is trying to persuade Japanese managers to take a more flexible approach to management. The stakes for both sides are high. Scollon argues that people who use intrusive language strategies tend to be more powerful than those who use independent language strategies(2011). In the segment, Hunter uses engaging language strategies, such as asking about the manager's family and complimenting the manager's haircut. The manager employed independent language strategies, such as refusing to answer family-related topics by using 'I didn't ask'. But this does not mean that Hunt has more power than the manager, just because of the cultural differences between the two sides.

# data[].attributes.headline
Please leave your answers and comments here

# data[].attributes.subject
Please leave your answers and comments here

# data[].attributes.body
1. Spencer Oatey (2010) pointed out 3 factors of rapport management:

• Face: sense of worth, dignity and identity; related to individual, group, relational identities (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998)

• Sociality rights and obligations: roles and social positions, conventions, styles and protocols, contractual/legal requirements

• Interactional goals: relational & transactional goals

2. Scollon et al. (2011) pointed out three factors affecting

politeness options:

• P: Power: Refers to the vertical disparity between participants in a hierarchical structure. + P or - P

• D: Distance: Refers to the social distance or closeness between participants. + D or - D

• W: Weight of imposition: Refers to the topic's importance or seriousness. + W or – W