Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper examines the roles of indexicals in explicating speakers’ intentions and constructing common ground (CG) in the context of a continuum with two extreme endpoints, the intracultural at one end, and the intercultural at the other, within the framework of the socio-cognitive approach proposed and developed by Kecskes (200820102014) and Kecskes and Zhang (2009). Thirteen participants from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds were recruited to represent varying degrees on the intra- and intercultural continuum. They were divided into three groups: American English speakers, speakers from Asian countries (Korea, China, and Vietnam), and a group of speakers (China, Vietnam, Brazil, and America), each of whom represents linguistically and culturally different countries. Eight extracts were drawn from the data of up to three hours of recordings, including discussions on one topic, and retrospective interviews retrieving the speakers’ intentions for using deixis. The results reveal that the closer the interlocutors were towards the intercultural communicative context endpoint on the continuum, the more they employed four types of indexicals (person, location or spatial, temporal, and discourse deixis) as common ground construction strategies. Those strategies included the explicit manifestation of intentions, clarification, and confirmation of referent identification in actual situational context, elicitation of information, disambiguation and explanation of similar salient specifics in their home culture in an effort to sustain cooperative communication. This study enhances our understanding of different functions of indexicals in interactions on the intra- and intercultural continuum, which resulted from different levels of context interpretation and common ground.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bach, Kent
    2014 Context dependence. InManuel García–Carpintero & Max Kolbel (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1997 The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. Linguistische Berichte8 [Special issue: Pragmatik, ed. byEckard Rolf]. 33–50. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11116‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar
    2005 Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. InHerbert L. Colston & Albert N. Katz. (eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 21–43. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1996 How much space gets into language?InPaul Bloom, Merrill F. Garrett, Lynn Nadel & Mary A. Peterson (eds.), Language and space: Language, speech, and communication, 3–35. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bühler, Karl
    1982 The deictic field of language and deictic words. InRobert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies on deixis and related topics, 9–30. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen, Jacob
    1960 A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1). 37–46. 10.1177/001316446002000104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cornish, Francis
    2008 How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics40(6). 997–1018. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cruse, Alan
    2000Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1985Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2004Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.121
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1971 Towards a theory of deixis. The PCCLLU Papers3(4). 219–241. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Giora, Rachel
    2003On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hanks, William F.
    2009 Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 10–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. 1992The indexical ground of deictic reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaplan, David
    1989 Demonstratives. InMaite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The semantics-pragmatics boundary in philosophy, 83–108. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kecskes, Istvan
    . (forthcoming). English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2018 How does intercultural communication differ from intracultural communication?InAndy Curtis & Roland Sussex (eds.) Intercultural communication in Asia: Education, language and values, 115–135. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69995‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69995-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2015 Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?International Review of Pragmatics7. 171–194. 10.1163/18773109‑00702002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2014Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2012 Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. InJane Jackson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication, 67–84. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang
    2009 Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiesling, Scott F.
    2009 Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation?InAlexandra Jaffe (ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on stance, 171–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005 Norms of sociocultural meaning in language: Indexicality, stance, and cultural models. InScott F. Kiesling & Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings, 92–104. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758434.ch7
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758434.ch7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kiesling, Scott F., & Christina Bratt Paulston
    (eds.) 2005Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings. Malden: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758434
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758434 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2004 Deixis. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1995 Cognitive anthropology. InJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman & Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics manual, 100–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/hop.m.cog1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m.cog1 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lyons, John
    1977 Deixis as the source of reference. InEdward L. Deenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1968An introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165570
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165570 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malvern, David & Brian Richards
    2002 Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. 10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa [Google Scholar]
  34. Mei, Lee-Wong Song
    2002 Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices. Multilingua, 21(1), 79–100. 10.1515/mult.2002.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2002.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pérez, Francisco Javier Díaz
    2006 Deixis and verbal politeness in request production in English and Spanish. Cultura, Language, Representación/Culture, Language and Representation, 3(3), 161–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Prodromou, Luke
    2008English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. Edinburg: A&C Black.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Richards, Lyn
    2014Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sanders, Robert E.
    1986 Sperber Dan and Wilson Deirdre, Relevance: Communication and cognition. Language in Society, 17(4), 604–609. 10.1017/S004740450001318X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001318X [Google Scholar]
  39. Silverstein, Michael
    2006 How we look from where we stand. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology16. 269–278. 10.1525/jlin.2006.16.2.269
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2006.16.2.269 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 “Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology45. 621–652. 10.1086/423971
    https://doi.org/10.1086/423971 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1999Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford Press. 10.1093/0198237073.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomas, Dax
    2005Type-token ratios in one teacher’s classroom talk: An investigation of lexical complexity. United Kingdom: University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Wei-Ming, Tu
    1996 Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 50(2), 12–39. doi:  10.2307/3824246
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3824246 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilson, Deirdre
    2003 Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica15(2). 273–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    2002 Relevance theory. InG. Ward & L. Horn, Handbook of pragmatics, 1–38. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1986 On defining relevance. InRichard E. Grandy & Richard Warner (eds.), Philosophical grounds of rationality: Intentions, categories, ends, 243–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Yum, June Ock
    1988 The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 374–388. 10.1080/03637758809376178
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376178 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, Shirong, Xiuxiu Wu & Yue Feng
    2013 An analysis of cultural differences in Chinese and English first-person Deixis from the perspective of pragmatic empathy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1868–1872. 10.4304/tpls.3.10.1868‑1872
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.10.1868-1872 [Google Scholar]

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