There are too many other complexities that may be responsible for initiating miscommunication. Gomperz and Cook-Gomperz (2008) distinguish between socio-linguistics and linguistic anthropology but Sarangi concludes that: "A selective characterization of a communicative situation on the basis of different cultural attributes of the-participants can only serve to reify cultural differences in an essentialist way." (424). Rather what is needed is the application of discourse analysis to speech since discourse analysis functions as a two-pronged approach: on the one hand it traces individual communication to cultural background, and, on the other hand, it sources that same communication to societal and institutional role-relationships. 'Culture' may be a concept that has become exaggerated in research. On the one hand, some strive to see a 'unified' culture arguing that cultural differences...

On the other hand, some try to account for 'intercultural' miscommunication. Sarangi (1994) argues that culture should be understood for what it is, whilst simultaneously recognizing its shifting existence in life encounters and the intrusion of other elements.
Sources

Chan, B. (2004). Beyond" Contextualization:" Code-Switching as a" Textualization Cue" Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 7-27

* Gumperz, J. Contextualization conventions

Gumperz, John & Cook-Gumperz, J (2008) Studying language, culture, and society: Sociolinguistics or linguistic anthropology, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 532-545

Halliday, M.A.K. (2005). On matter and meaning: the two realms of human experience. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 1, 1.

Sarangi, S. (1994) Intercultural or not?…