Abstract
This chapter argues that the main difference between intracultural and intercultural communication is that the latter, to some extent, shifts the emphasis from the communal to the individual. What standard pragmatics assumes about how things work in communication depends on there being commonalities, conventions, standards, and norms between speakers and hearers. This, however, may not be exactly so in intercultural communication. Commonalities, conventions, common beliefs, norms, shared knowledge, and the like, all create a core common ground on which intention and cooperation-based pragmatics is built. (Of course, there are plenty of varieties within those commonalities.) However, when this core common ground appears to be limited, as is the case in intercultural communication, interlocutors cannot take it for granted; rather they need to co-construct it, at least temporarily. So what is happening here is a shift in emphasis from the communal to the individual. It is not that the individual becomes more important than the societal. Rather, since there is limited common ground, it should be created in the interactional context in which the interlocutors function as core common ground creators rather than just common ground seekers and activators as is the case in intracultural communication.
Consequently, there seems to be a reason to take up the question of how people go about formulating utterances and interpreting them when they cannot count on or have limited access to those commonalities and conventions, and in a sense, they are expected to create, co-construct them (at least a part of them) in the communicative process. What people depend on that makes pragmatic meaning reliable within a speech community—the focus of standard pragmatic theories—becomes more visible when we see the troubles and different routes to success that may arise when those commonalities and/or conventions are missing or limited cross-culturally. This means that we may be able to see and notice things assumed and taken for granted in standard theories by working on intercultural pragmatics.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I am fully aware of the fact that the terms “native speaker” and “nonnative speaker” are not the best way to describe language proficiency. However, it is still these terms that make the distinction clearer than any other terms.
References
Arbib, Michael A., Erhan Oztop, and Patricia Zukow-Goldring. 2005. Language and the mirrorsystem: A perception/action based approach to communicative development. Cognition, Brain, Behavior 3:239–272.
Bach, Kent. 2007. Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Pragmatics (Advances in Linguistics), ed. Noël Burton-Roberts, 24–44. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Barnlund, Dean C. 1970. A transactional model of communication. In Language behavior: A book of readings in communication, ed. Johnny Akin, Alvin Goldberg, Gail Myers, and Joseph Stewart, 43–61. The Hague: Mouton.
Berg, Jonathan. 1993. Literal meaning and context. Iyyun 42:397–411.
Blommaert, Jan. 1998. Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey. Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Wirtschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28 February. http://www.cie.ugent.be/CIE/blommaert1.htm.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1:1–14.
Buber, Martin. 1955. Dialogue. In Between man and man, ed. Martin Buber. Ronald Gregor Smith (trans.), 1–39. Boston: Beacon Press.
Colston, Herbert L., and Albert N. Katz, eds. 2005. Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cooren, François. 2010. Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Coulmas, Florian, ed. 1981. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. Impoliteness: Using and understanding the language of offence. ESRC project. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/impoliteness/.
De Saussure, Louis. 2007. Pragmatic issues in discourse analysis. Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines 1.1:179–195.
Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The rules of sociological method. Trans: Wilfred Douglas Halls. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Evanoff, Richard. 2000. The concept of ‘third cultures’ in intercultural ethics. Eubios, Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 10:126–129.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. The need for a frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics 12:5–29.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
Frege, Gottlob.1884/1980. The foundations of arithmetic. Trans: John Langshaw Austin. 2nd Rev. ed. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Gairns, Ruth, and Stuart Redman. 1986. Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, James Paul. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8.3:183–206.
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grosjean, François. 1989. Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language 36.1:3–15.
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and the evolution of society. Toronto: Beacon Press.
Haugh, Michael and Kasia, M. Jaszczolt. 2012. “Speaker intentions and intentionality.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, Allan Keith and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds), 87–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.
House, Juliane. 2002. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Lingua Franca communication, ed. Karlfried Knapp and Christiane Meierkord, 245–267. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
Howarth, Peter. 1998. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19.1:24–44.
Hymes, Dell H. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Anthropology and human behavior, ed. Thomas Gladwin and William C. Sturtevant, 13–53. Washington, DC: The Anthropology Society of Washington.
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In On translation, ed. Reuben A. Brower, 232–239. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Joas, Hans. 1996. The creativity of action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32.6:605–625.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Lexical merging, conceptual blending and cultural crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1.1:1–21.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2006. On my mind: Thoughts about salience, context, and figurative language from a second language perspective. Second Language Research 22.2:219–237.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, ed. István Kecskés and Laurence R. Horn, 191–219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40.3:385–406.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1.1:50–73.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2011. Understanding the role of context in language use. In Pragmatics and Context, ed. Marcia Macaulay and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2–34. Toronto: Antares.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2012. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue 2.2:283–297.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013a. Why do we say what we say the way we say it. Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 71–84.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013b. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Is the “idiom principle” blocked in bilingual language production? In Bilingual figurative language processing, ed. Roberto Heredia and Anna Cieslicka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–53.
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui, Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition 17.2:331–355.
Kecskes, Istvan, and Tünde Papp. 2000. Foreign language and mother tongue. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keysar, Boaz, and Anne S. Henly. 2002. Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science 13.3:207–212.
King, Jeffrey C., and Jason Stanley. 2005. Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Semantics versus Pragmatics, ed. Zoltán Gendler Szabó, 111–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koole, Tom, and Jan D. ten Thije. 1994. The construction of intercultural discourse: Team discussions of educational advisers. Amsterdam: RODOPI.
Koole, Tom, and Jan D. ten Thije. 2001. The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics 33:571–589.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, ed. Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 25–46. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, Jacob. 2013. Across the abyss: The pragmatics-semantics interface revisited. Intercultural Pragmatics 10 (3): 487–494.
Miller, Jim, and Regina Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moeschler, Jacques. 2010. Is pragmatics of discourse possible? In Perspectives on language, use, and pragmatics, ed. A. Capone, 217–241. Munich: Lincom Europa
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication 5.5:191–226.
Philip, Gill. 2005. Figurative language and the advanced learner. Research News: The Newsletter of the IATEFL Research SIG 16:16–20.
Puig, Margarida Bassols. 2003. Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Noves SL Revista de Sociolingüística. http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7:289–327.
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. London: The Penguin Press.
Sinclair, John McH. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre, Wilson. 2004. Relevance theory. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Taboada, Maite, and William C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical structure theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8.3:423–459.
Tracy, Karen, and Robert T. Craig. 2010. Studying interaction in order to cultivate communicative practices: Action-Implicative discourse analysis. In New adventures in language and interaction, ed. Jürgen Streeck, 145–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2008a. Context theory and the foundation of pragmatics. Studies in Pragmatics 10:1–13.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2008b. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Violi, Patrizia. 2000. Prototypicality, typicality, and context. In Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, ed. Liliana Albertazzi, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weigand, Edda. 2010a. Language as dialogue. Intercultural Pragmatics 7.3:505–515.
Weigand, Edda. 2010b. Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921/1922. TractatusLogico-Philosophicus. Trans: Charles Kay Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wood, David. 2002. Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal 20.1:1–15.
Wray, Alison. 1999. Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32.4:213–231.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, Alison. 2005. Idiomaticity in an L2: Linguistic processing as a predictor of success. In IATEFL 2005: Cardiff Conference Selections, ed. Briony Beaven, 53–60. Canterbury: IATEFL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kecskes, I. (2016). Can Intercultural Pragmatics Bring Some New Insight into Pragmatic Theories?. In: Capone, A., Mey, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12615-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12616-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)