Cover not available
Article published In:
Applied Pragmatics
Vol. 4:1 (2022) ► pp.92–118

Pragmatic manipulation of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings

ORCID logo | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
ORCID logo | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
This article explores the function of metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) as pragmatic manipulation during Business English as a lingua franca (BELF) meetings within the framework of the socio-cognitive approach (SCA), with special attention to how MPEs in the chair’s utterances reveal their way of using institutional power to accomplish communicative tasks. Drawing on data from three BELF meetings from the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, four types of MPEs are identified in the chair’s utterances. Their pragmatic manipulation is examined in three dimensions: information-oriented, procedure-oriented, and interpersonal relationship-oriented. Data analysis reveals that MPEs are intended to activate shared senses (e.g., shared experiences, mutual knowledge, and common interests) and current senses (e.g., personal judgments, evaluations, and opinions). The activation of these senses supports the creation of emergent common ground to control and shape ongoing interactions, which leads towards task accomplishment. The findings shed light on English language teaching and professional training.
Keywords: metapragmatic expressions, socio-cognitive approach, pragmatic manipulation, emergent common ground, business English as a lingua franca
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Defining MPEs and pragmatic manipulation
    • 2.2ELF and BELF
    • 2.3The socio-cognitive approach to BELF interactions
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Procedure
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1MPEs in the chair’s utterances
    • 4.2Pragmatic manipulation of MPEs in BELF meetings
      • 4.2.1Information-oriented manipulation
      • 4.2.2Procedure-oriented manipulation
      • 4.2.3Relationship-oriented manipulation
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 9 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.19014.liu
References (72)
References
Angouri, J., & Marra, M. (2009, July 12–17). Don’t you know who I am? Corporate meetings and professional identity [Paper presentation]. The 11th International Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
(2010). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30(6), 615–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: Modeling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), 197–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Culture and identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Water de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, N., & House, J. (2010). I think and I don’t know in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 1184–1200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilbow, G. (2002). Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 401, 287–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birlik, S., & Kaur, J. (2020). BELF expert users: Making understanding visible in internal BELF meetings through the use of nonverbal communication strategies. English for Specific Purposes, 581, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, C. (1984). Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 433–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Metapragmatics. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 2461–2466). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 911, 923–939. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. (2007). Language matters in global communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 260–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, L. (2005). Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics: Preliminary hypotheses. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind (pp. 113–146). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, S. (2010). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication, 471, 408–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business contexts: Key issues and future perspectives. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (pp. 135–155). Routledge.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. (2008). Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 223–254). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversational analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. K., & Butler, E. R. (2017). The shifting role of a document in managing conflict and shaping the outcome of a small group meeting. Text & Talk, 37(5), 615–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2016). The role of English as a scientific metalanguage for research in pragmatics: Reflections on the metapragmatics of “politeness” in Japanese. East Asian Pragmatics, 11, 39–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (1999). The community of practice: Theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society, 281, 173–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. Pearson.Google Scholar
Hongladarom, K. (2007). “Don’t blame me for criticizing you …”: A study of metapragmatics comments in Thai. In W. Büblitz & A. Hübler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 29–47). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, A. (2011). Metapragmatics. In W. Büblitz & N. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics (pp. 107–136). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hübler, A., & Bublitz, W. (2007). Introducing metapragmatics in use. In W. Büblitz & A. Hübler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 1–26). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Routledge.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2013). What language does global business speak? – The concept and development of BELF. Ibérica, 261, 17–34.Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 380–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimzad, F. (2020). Metapragmatics of normalcy: Mobility, context, and language choice. Language & Communication, 701, 107–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. (2018). ELF in spoken genres in the international university: Of contextual factors and non-linguistic resources. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(2), 403–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 191–218). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 401, 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In M. de Ponte & K. Korta (Eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language (pp. 238–273). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 375–396). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, S., & Bös, B. (2015). Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics, 25(1), 47–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytölä, S., & Westinen, E. (2015). ‘‘I be da reel gansta” – a Finnish footballer’s Twitter writing and metapragmatic evaluations of authenticity. Discourse Context Media, 81, 6–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, P., & Liu, H. (2017). Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1071, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, P., & Ran, Y. (2016). The role of metapragmatic expressions as pragmatic manipulation in a TV panel discussion program. Pragmatics and Society, 7(3), 463–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global business context: The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(3), 244–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louhiala-Salminen, L. M., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, C. A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24(4), 401–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, I. (2014). English as a lingua franca: Theorizing and teaching English. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. (1993/2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2008). “Impeach of exorcise?” Or, what’s in the (common) ground? In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 255–275). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M., & Yule, G. (2001). Formulaic disclaimers. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Passera, S., Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2017). Diagrams in contracts: Fostering understanding in global business communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(2), 118–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penz, H. (2007). Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In W. Bublitz & A. Hubler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 263–292). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Denvir, P. (2007). Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 31–51). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence: Lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 471, 455–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E. (2005). Towards a typology of manipulative processes. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind (pp. 61–83). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 241, 209–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016). ELF: English in a global context. In K. Murata (Ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts (pp. 17–28). Routledge.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning and anthropology (pp. 11–56). The University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In L. John (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Juggling identities in interviews: The metapragmatics of ‘doing humour’. Journal of Pragmatics, 1521, 216–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. W., & Liang, X. (2007). Metapragmatic expressions in physics lectures. In W. Büblitz & A. Hubler (Eds.), Metapragmatics in use (pp. 167–197). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, H.-Y. (2019). The metapragmatics of Taiwanese (im)politeness: Conceptualization and evaluation of limao. Journal of Pragmatics, 1481, 26–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2012a). The agenda as resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 53–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 141, 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, E., & Zhu, H. (2010). Accommodating toward your audience. Do native speakers of English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward non-native speakers of English? Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), 477–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tunmer, W. E., & Herriman, M. L. (1984). Metalinguistic awareness in children. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(2), 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some explanatory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999/2000). Understanding pragmatics. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
(2000). Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics, 10(4), 439–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Y. (2011). Building intercultural alliances: A study of moves and strategies in initial business negotiation meetings. Text & Talk, 31(1), 101–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar