1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article analyses a Romanian corpus of intercultural dialogues recorded in natural settings during language proficiency examinations and discusses the usages of the frequently occurring word (Rom. ). The framework is provided by the Mixed Game Model (Weigand 2009201020172018, among others) intersected with the socio-cognitive approach to intercultural communication (Kecskes 2007200820102013, among others). Beyond the analysis of a single lexical unit in a limited collection of texts, the author aims to demonstrate how a particular word of the lexicon becomes a culturally-socially-cognitively-discursively-rhetorically situated utterance that acquires specific functions when it is used by interlocutors who negotiate their communicative agendas to come not only to mutual understanding but also to achieve their convergent-divergent institutional purposes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00160.vas
2023-09-18
2024-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agar, Michael
    1994Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin
    2002 “Interjections in a Contrastive Perspective”. InEmotion in Dialogic Interaction, ed. byEdda Weigand, 99–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Airenti, Gabriella, Bruno G. Bara, and Marco Colombetti
    1993 “Conversation and Behavior Games in the Pragmatics of Dialogue.” Cognitive Science17(2): 197–256. 10.1207/s15516709cog1702_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1702_2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Avram, Mioara
    1986Gramatica pentru toți. București: Editura Academiei.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bara, Bruno
    2011 “Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics8(3): 443–485. 10.1515/iprg.2011.020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.020 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloomfield, Leonard and Charles F. Hockett
    1984Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke, Kenneth
    1969A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fonagy, Ivan
    2001Languages Within Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/fos.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.13 [Google Scholar]
  10. Foss, Sonja
    2008Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, 2nd edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GLR – Guţu-Romalo, Valeria
    (ed.) 2005/2008Gramatica limbii române/ Grammar of Romanian. I – II. București: Editura Academiei Române.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, vol.31: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Haegeman, Liliane and Weir, Andrew
    2015 “The cartography of yes and no in West Flemish.” Discourse-oriented Syntax2261: 175. 10.1075/la.226.08hae
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.226.08hae [Google Scholar]
  14. Holmberg, Anders
    2015The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701859.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kecskes, Istvan
    2007 “Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca.” Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, ed. byIstvan Kecskes and Larry Horn, 191–219. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198843.3.191
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843.3.191 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2008 “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics40(3): 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010 “The Paradox of Communication: A Socio-Cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Society1(1): 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015 “Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?” International Review of Pragmatics7(2): 171–194. 10.1163/18773109‑00702002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016 “A Dialogic Approach to Pragamtics”. Russian Journal of Linguistics20 (4): 26–42. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2016‑20‑4‑26‑42
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-26-42 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2017 “From Pragmatics to Dialogue.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 78–92. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (ed.) 2022The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108884303
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108884303 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mazziotta, Nicolas and Sylvain Kahane
    2016 “Le «mot-phrase» dans les conceptions syntaxiques de Lucien Tesnière.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris111(1): 71–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1978 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. byJim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sæbø, Kjell Johan
    1988 “A cooperative yes-no query system featuring discourse particles.” Coling Budapest 1988 Volume 2: International Conference on Computational Linguistics 1988 Available athttps://aclanthology.org/C88-2116.pdf. 10.3115/991719.991752
    https://doi.org/10.3115/991719.991752 [Google Scholar]
  26. Scollon, Ron, Suzane Wong Scollon
    2001 “Discourse and Intercultural Communication.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Shiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, 537–547. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  28. Simon, Herbert A.
    1962 “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society1061: 467–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Squartini, Mario
    2013 “From TAM to Discourse. The Role of Information Status in North-Western Italian già ‘already’”. InDiscourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description, ed. byLiesbeth Degand, Bert Cornilie, and Paola Pietrandrea, 163–190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.07squ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.07squ [Google Scholar]
  30. Sweet, Henry
    1900A New English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Vasilescu, Andra
    2016 “Towards a “Theory of Everything”.” InPragmemes and Theories of Language Use in Human Communication, ed. byKeith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 305–334. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑43491‑9_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_17 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2022 “Subspecificare și polifuncționalitate. Studiu de caz: frumos.” InActele celei de a 21-a Conferințe a Departamentului de Lingvistică, ed. byIsabela Nedelcu, Irina Paraschiv, and Andra Vasilescu, 553–563. București: Editura Universității din București.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Watts, Richard J.
    1986 “Generated or Degenerate?In Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, ed. byDieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek, Barbara Płoczińska, and Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Weigand, Edda
    2009Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2017 “The Mixed Game Model. A Holistic Theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 174–194. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2018 “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” InFrom Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31.02wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.02wei [Google Scholar]
  38. Constantinescu, Mihaela-Viorica, Stoica, Gabriela
    2022Româna ca limbă străină. București: Editura Universității din București.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00160.vas
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00160.vas
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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