Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics
Edited by Ulrike Schröder, Milene Mendes de Oliveira and Hans-Georg Wolf
[International Journal of Language and Culture 7:1] 2020
► pp. 1–14
Introduction

Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics

 | Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG
 | University of Potsdam
 | University of Potsdam
Article outline
  • 1.From Cognitive to Cultural Linguistics: Going beyond the individual
  • 2.From Cross-Cultural to Intercultural Pragmatics: Going beyond linguistic function
  • 3.Politeness and face
  • 4.World Englishes and English as lingua franca
  • 5.The contributions
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00024.int
References (52)
References
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2078–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 581, 108–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2009). Cultural turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of tolerance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bravo, D. (2008). (Im)politeness in Spanish-speaking socio-cultural contexts: Introduction. Pragmatics, 28(4), 563–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busch, D. (2015). Culture is leaving conversation analysis, but is it really gone? Journal of Intercultural Communication, 391, [URL]
Chang, W.-L. M. (2016). Face and face practices in Chinese talk-in-interaction. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Charlebois, J. (2006). Community of practice involvement obligations. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 121, [URL]
Covarrubias, P. O. (2002). Culture, communication and cooperation: Interpersonal relations and pronominal address in a Mexican organization. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dreher, J. (2007). Konstitutionsprinzipien ‘kultureller Differenz’: Zur Analyse der Konstruktion kultureller Grenzbestimmungen in grundlagentheoretischer Absicht. In J. Dreher & P. Stegmaier (Eds.), Zur Unüberwindbarkeit kultureller Differenz. Grundlagentheoretische Reflexionen (pp. 129–151). Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, J. W. (1991) (Ed.). Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Földes, C. (2003). Interkulturelle Linguistik. Vorüberlegungen zu Konzepten, Problemen und Desiderata. Wien: Universitätsverlag Veszprém.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 527–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). Emic conceptualisations of (im)politeness and face in Japanese: implications for the discursive negotiation of second language learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 657–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Intercultural (im)politeness. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness (pp. 601–632). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The relationship between conceptual metaphor and culture. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(2), 315–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskés, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Language, culture, and context. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 113–128). Oxford, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016). Deliberate creativity and formulaic language use. In A. Keith, A. Capone & I. Kecskés (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology (pp. 3–20). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture. Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mendes de Oliveira. (2020). Business negotiations in ELF from a cultural linguistic perspective. [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 43]. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oksaar, E. (2003). Zweitspracherwerb. Wege zur Mehrsprachigkeit und zur interkulturellen Verständigung. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, N. (1991). The cultural basis of metaphor. In J. W. Fernandez (Ed.), Beyond metaphor: The theory of tropes in anthropology (pp. 56–93). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schröder, U. (2012). Kommunikationstheoretische Fragestellungen in der kognitiven Metaphernforschung. Eine Betrachtung von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
(2015b). Metaphorical blends and their function in discourse on society. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 50–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). Jeitinho as a cultural conceptualisation in Brazilian Portuguese: a cultural linguistics' approach to talk-in-interaction. In Neele Mundt & Arne Peters (Eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Schröder, U., & Carneiro Mendes, M. (2018). ‘The game is rigged’: Framing real life metaphorically in the TV-epic ‘The Wire’. Text & Talk, 38(1), 47–68.Google Scholar
Senkbeil, K. (2017). Figurative language in intercultural communication – a case study of German-Southern African international academic discourse. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(4), 465–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Cultural Linguistics and intercultural communication. In F. Sharifian & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Language and Intercultural Communication in the new era (pp. 60–79). New York, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cultural Linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017). Cultural pragmatic schemas, pragmemes, and practs: A Cultural Linguistics perspective. In K. Allan, A. Capone & I. Kecskés (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use (pp. 505–519). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind. Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp. 11–47). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ten Thije, J. D. (2006). The notion of ‘perspective’ and ‘perspectivising’ in intercultural communication research. In K. Bührig & J. D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyond misunderstanding. The linguistic analysis of intercultural communication (pp. 97–153). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1998). German ‘cultural scripts’: Public signs as a key to social attitudes and cultural values. Discourse & Society, 9(2), 241–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003 [1991]). Cross-cultural pragmatics. The semantics of human interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H.-G. (2015). Language and culture in Intercultural Communication. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 445–459). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolf, H-G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2006a). Intercultural communication in English: Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H.-G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2006b). Intercultural communication in English – A cognitive linguistic focus on neglected issues. Essen: LAUD 2006, Paper No. 683, Universität Duisburg-Essen, [URL], 1–31.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Schröder, Ulrike
2024. “Open and Closed People” as and in containers: Breaking Down Cultural Conceptualizations in Multimodal Communication. In The Handbook of Cultural Linguistics [Springer Handbooks in Languages and Linguistics, ], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Wolf, Hans-Georg, Denisa Latić & Anna Finzel
2021. Introduction. In Cultural-Linguistic Explorations into Spirituality, Emotionality, and Society [Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts, 14], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.