1887
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The study aims to investigate how prior experience of interlocutors interacts with actual situational context in intercultural interactions when the latter is represented by a well-known frame: getting acquainted with others. It attempts to demonstrate how the cultural frame of the target language is broken up and substituted with an emergent frame that is co-constructed from elements from prior experience with the target language, the first language and the actual situational experience.

Getting acquainted with others is a closed social situation, a cultural frame in which interlocutors usually have to follow a behavior pattern dictated by the requirements of the socio-cultural background in a given speech community. There is a ‘skeleton’ of these ‘getting to know you’ procedures that can be considered universal but is substantiated differently in every language. In each conversation in any language, ‘flesh’ is added to the ‘skeleton’ in a dynamic and co-constructed manner. However, there is a difference between how this happens in L1 and in intercultural interactions. While in L1 the ‘flesh’ on the skeleton is predetermined to a significant extent by requirements of core common ground in the given language, in intercultural encounters this ‘flesh building’ process in the target language (in this case English) is not set but is co-constructed by the interlocutors as emergent common ground relying on their prior experience with their own L1 culture, limited experience with the target culture and the assessment of the actual situational context. In this study the co-construction process, i.e. emergent common ground will be analyzed by examining the use of formulaic language and freely generated language in several discourse segments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19008.kec
2020-03-27
2020-05-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnseth, Hans Christian & Ivar Solheim
    2002 Making sense of shared knowledge. InGary Stahl (ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community, 102–110. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barr, Dale J.
    2004 Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?, Cognitive Science28(6). 937–962. 10.1207/s15516709cog2806_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2806_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar
    2005a 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. 2005b Mindreading in an exotic case: The normal adult human. InMalle, Bertram F. and Sara D. Hodges (eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others, 271–283. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berger, Charles R.
    1992 Uncertainty and social interaction. Communication Yearbook. 16(1). 491–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan
    1991 Grounding in communication. InLauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Colston, Herbert L. & Albert N. Katz
    (eds.) 2005Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Andrade, Roy & Claudia Strauss
    (eds.) 1992Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166515 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duranti, Alessandro
    1997 Universal and cultural-specific properties of greetings. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 7(1). 63–97. 10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.63
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.63 [Google Scholar]
  12. Enfield, Nicholas J.
    2008 Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. InIstván Kecskés & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 223–254. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fant, Lars & Fanny Forsberg Lundell
    2019 Keeping up appearances: Impression management in native and non-native speakers of four languages. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(1). 1–27. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Frege, Gottlob
    1884/1980The foundations of arithmetic. Austin John Langshaw (trans.), 2nd rev. edn.Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gee, James P.
    1999An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gil, José María
    2019 A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(2). 153–184. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0008 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 1967Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haugh, Michael
    2011 Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. InBethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.), Situated politeness. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haugh, Michael & Donal Carbaugh
    2015 Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua: Journal of Cross–Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 34(4). 461–493. 10.1515/multi‑2014‑0104
    https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0104 [Google Scholar]
  23. Holtgraves, Thomas
    1990 The language of self–disclosure. InHoward Giles and P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, 191–207. Chichester: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Horn, Laurence
    2019 First things first: The pragmatics of “Natural Order”. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(3). 257–287. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0013 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kecskes, Istvan
    2019English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316217832
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316217832 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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]
  27. 2015 Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?International Review of Pragmatics. 7.171–194. 10.1163/18773109‑00702002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2014Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010a The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society. 1(1). 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010b Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(11). 2889–2897. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2008 Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics. 40(3). 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003Situation–bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894035 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui, Zhang
    2009 Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition. 17(2). 331–355. 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  34. Kellerman, Kathy & Tae–Seop Lim
    1989 Conversational acquaintance: The flexibility of routinized behaviours. InBrenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe & Ellen Wartella (eds.), Rethinking communication, vol. 2, Paradigm exemplars, 172–192. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Koschmann, Timothy & Curtis D. LeBaron
    2003 Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark’s Contribution Theory in the OR. InKari Kuutti, Helena Eija Karsten, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Paul Dourish & Kjeld Schmidt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 81–98. Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kronenfeld, David
    2008 Cultural models. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5(1). 67–74. 10.1515/IP.2008.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2003 Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight!InDedre Gentner & Susan Goldin–Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1992 Activity types and language. InPaul Drew, & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 8(1). 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  40. Linell, Per & Lennart Gustavsson
    1987 Initiativ och respons: Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. SIC, 15. Universitetet i Linköping, Tema Kommunikation.
  41. Liu, Ping & Xiaoye You
    2019 Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(1). 57–78. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Maynard, Douglas W., & Zimmerman, Don H.
    1984 Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly. 47(4), 301–316. 10.2307/3033633
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ortaçtepe, Deniz
    2012The development of conceptual socialization in international students: A language socialization perspective on conceptual fluency and social identity (Advances in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schneider, Klaus P.
    1987 Topic selection in phatic communication. Multilingua, 6(3), 247–256. 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    2002 Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy. 25(5). 701–721. 10.1023/A:1020867916902
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902 [Google Scholar]
  46. Svennevig, Jan
    1999Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Usami, Mayumi
    2002Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1994 Gengo kōdo ni okeru “politeness” no nichiei hikaku [A comparative study of polite language behaviour in Japan and the United States]. Speech Communication Education7. 30–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Violi, Patrizia
    2000 Prototypicality, typicality, and context. InLiliana Albertazzi (ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.2.06vio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.2.06vio [Google Scholar]
  50. Vittengl, Jeffrey R. & Craig S. Holt
    2000 Getting acquainted: The relationship of self–disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1). 53–66. 10.1177/0265407500171003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500171003 [Google Scholar]
  51. Warner, Richard
    2019 Meaning, reasoning, and common knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(3). 289–304. 10.1515/ip‑2019‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0014 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1921/1922Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Ogden Charles Kay (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19008.kec
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.19008.kec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): actual situational context , co-construction , common ground , getting acquainted , prior context and skeleton
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