1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to ask how exchange students retrospectively co-construct their first ‘culture shock’ experiences on a verbal, vocal, and visual plane. The results show that the different co-occurring levels of communication in the talk of the students offer various insights into cognitive processes: (1) Metaphorical and metonymical gestures are frequently used to represent or compress cultural dimensions in moments of high involvement and emphatic speech style. (2) Such gestures are also often historically and culturally embedded and may additionally serve to gain laughter from the co-participants in order to exaggerate the effect of cultural confrontation, underpinned by the use of prosodic cues. (3) Other prosodic means such as creaky voice may be used as a metaphorical marker for distance and represent therefore another type of cultural shock marker. (4) A dynamic understanding of blending theory might be a tool for laying cognitive processes of intercultural experiences open for the researcher.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00025.sch
2020-07-08
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, P.
    (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies (pp.57–100). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolinger, D.
    (1983) Where does intonation belong?Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 101–120. 10.1093/semant/2.2.101
    https://doi.org/10.1093/semant/2.2.101 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1986) Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cienki, A.
    (2005) Image schemas and gesture. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp.421–441). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.421
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.421 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2013) Cognitive Linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. InC. Müller, A. Cienki & E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume1 (pp.182–201). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cienki, A., & Müller, C.
    (2008) Metaphor, gesture, and thought. InR. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.029 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (Ed.) (1996) Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Introducing interactional linguistics. InM. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp.1–22). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.02cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.02cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Deignan, A.
    (2005) Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2008) Corpus linguistics and metaphor. InR. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.018 [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, A.
    (2012) How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction?Language Sciences, 34, 746–767. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goodwin, C.
    (2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gumperz, J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  16. Günthner, S.
    (2002) Stimmenvielfalt im Diskurs. Formen der Stilisierung und Ästhetisierung in der Redewiedergabe. Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 3, 59–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2005) Dichte Konstruktionen. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 43, 1–30. Available at: www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist/issues/43/index.htm (accessed1 May 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Interkulturelle Kommunikation aus linguistischer Perspektive. InH. J. Krumm (Eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch (pp.331–342). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M.
    (Eds.) (2005) Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J.
    (Eds.) (2013) Conversational repair and human understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J.
    (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. InC. E. Ford & B. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp.196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Horst, D., Boll, F., Schmitt, C.
    (2014) Gesture as interactive expressive movement: Inter-affectivity in face-to-face communication. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume2 (pp.2112–2125). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jefferson, G.
    (1979) A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptanze/declination. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.79–96). New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1992) Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 345–366. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.4.345
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.4.345 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kapp Silva, C.
    (2013) Code-switching na comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e alemães. Monografia em Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kecskes, I.
    (2014) Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. König, K.
    (2010) Sprachliche Kategorisierungsverfahren und subjektive Theorien über Sprache in narrativen Interviews. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 53, 31–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kövecses, Z.
    (2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2003) Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G.
    (1996) Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2003 [1980]) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, S.
    (2015) Creaky voice as a phonational device marking parenthetical segments in talk. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3), 275–302. 10.1111/josl.12123
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12123 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewis, M.
    (2004) Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. InM. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp.623–636). New York, London: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R.
    (2009) Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. InC. J. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.329–355). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mondada, L.
    (2013) Conversation analysis: Talk and bodily resources for the organization of social interaction. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume1 (pp.218–227). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2014) Multimodal interaction. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume2 (pp.577–589). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Müller, C.
    (2004) Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family?InC. Müller & P. Posner (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures (pp.234–256). Berlin: Weidler.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2013) Gestures as a medium of expression: The linguistic potential of gestures. In: C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume1 (pp.202–217). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Müller, C., & Cienki, A.
    (2009) Words, gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. InC. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp.297–328). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ohala, J. J.
    (1994) The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. InL. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp.325–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Palmer, G. B.
    (1996) Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Perlman, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    (2013) Sensorimotor simulation in speaking, gesturing, and understanding. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume1 (pp.512–533). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pomerantz, A.
    (1986) Extreme case formulations. A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2), 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, H.
    (1992) Lectures on conversation. Volume1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1995) Lectures on conversation. Volume2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sandig, B., & Selting, M.
    (1997) Discourse styles. InT. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. I: Discourse as structure and process (pp.138–156). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. 10.4135/9781446221884.n5
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n5 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K.
    (2009) EXMARaLDA – Creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 19, 565–582. 10.1075/prag.19.4.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.4.06sch [Google Scholar]
  50. Schröder, U.
    (2015) The interplay of verbal, vocal, and visual cues in the co-construction of the experience of alterity in exchange students’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 21–35. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2017) Die kognitiv-pragmatische Dimension der kommunikativen Gattung Rap als battle. InS. Meier & K. Marx (Eds.), Pragmalinguistik und kognitive Ansätze: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen (pp.133–155). Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Schröder, U., & Carneiro Mendes, M.
    (2019). Unterschiede im Gebrauch und in der Funktion prosodischer Merkmale im deutschen und brasilianischen Sprechen im Kontext des Transkribierens. InT. Johnen, M. Savreda & U. Schröder Eds. Sprachgebrauch im Kontext – die deutsche Sprache im Kontakt, Vergleich und in Interaktion mit Brasilien (pp.145-172). Stuttgart: ibidem.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schütz, A.
    (1976 [1944]) The stranger: An essay in social psychology. InA. Schütz. (edited and introduced byArvid Brodersen), Collected papers II. Studies in social theory (pp.91–105). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Selting, M.
    (1994) Emphatic speech style – with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 375–408. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90116‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90116-3 [Google Scholar]
  55. (1997) Interaktionale Stilistik: Methodologische Aspekte der Analyse. InM. Selting & B. Sandig (Eds.), Sprech- und Gesprächsstile (pp.9–43). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110820447.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110820447.9 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2013) Verbal, vocal, and visual practices in conversational interaction. InC. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume1 (pp.589–609). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2000) Argumente für die Entwicklung einer ‘interaktionalen Linguistik’. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 1, 76–95. Available at: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de (accessed1 May 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (Eds.) (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2015) Cultural linguistics. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.473–492). London, New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2007) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Stivers, T.
    (2008) When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tanaka, H.
    (2001) The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese conversation. Complementizers as pivotal devices. InM. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp.81–109). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.06tan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.06tan [Google Scholar]
  64. Tannen, D.
    (2007 [1989]) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tissari, H.
    (2006) Conceptualizing shame: Investigating uses of the English word shame. Selected proceedings of the 2005 symposium on new approaches in English historical lexis (HEL-LEX), Somerville, MA (pp.143–154). Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wolf, H. G., & Polzenhagen, F.
    (2006) Intercultural communication in English – Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321. 10.1515/IP.2006.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2009) World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics8Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199222
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199222 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00025.sch
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00025.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alterity , blending theory , gesture , metaphor and metonymy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error