Cover not available
Article 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. 38–62

Idioms in intercultural communication

A cognitive and pragmatic perspective

 | University of Hildesheim
This paper combines central ideas from Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics to rethink an issue that has been amply discussed in various branches of linguistics: idioms, ‘phrasemes,’ and other forms of fixed-form figurative language, when used in intercultural communication (ICC). It argues that an interaction-oriented approach needs to think beyond the description and mapping of idioms in different languages and cultures, and apply both pragmatic and cognitive linguistic approaches to explain if and how idiomatic language works (or does not work) in ICC. Methodologically, this paper relies on a combination of empirical approaches. A data-inductive analysis of authentic intercultural discourse involving native speakers of German, Afrikaans, and Zulu, who use English as a lingua franca in a project management setting provides interesting real-life examples of the pragmatic aspects of idiomatic language in authentic ICC. The results of this pragmalinguistic analysis have inspired and are accompanied by a deductive-experimental study, using questionnaires for speakers of various native languages (Arabic, German, Russian, Spanish, Turkish), testing the cross-linguistic communicability of English idioms in a ‘laboratory setting.’ These experiments show that an appreciation of both the embodied and empractic-interactional dimensions of idioms promises insights into how figurative language and fixed-form expressions are used successfully or unsuccessfully in ICC and why.
Keywords: idioms, figurative language, embodiment, English as a lingua franca (ELF), intercultural communication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1Idioms as cultural conceptualizations in a cognitive linguistic sense
    • 2.2Idioms in pragmatics
    • 2.3Combining cognitive and functionalist approaches to idioms
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Intercultural discourse
    • 3.2Experiment: Understanding idioms in a foreign language
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00026.sen
References (52)
References
Belkhir, S. (2014). Cultural influence on the use of dogs in English and Kabyle proverbs. In A. Musolff, F. Macarthur, & G. Pagani (Eds.), Metaphor and intercultural communication. (pp. 131–145) London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram & Neal R. Norrick. (2011). Introduction: the burgeoning field of pragmatics. In W. Bublitz & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, (pp. 1–20). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (2011 [1934]). Theory of language: the representational function of language. (D. F. Goodwin & A. Eschbach, Trans.). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bührig, K., & Thije, J. D. ten (Eds.) (2006). Beyond misunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. A. (2016). Irregular negatives, implicatures, and idioms. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, T. A. van. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K. (2011). Sprache und sprachliches Handeln. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Farlex idioms & slang dictionary (2017). Parteen: Farlex International.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1986). Skating on thin ice: Literal meaning and understanding idioms in conversation. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Why idioms are not dead metaphors. In C. Cacciari, P. Tabossi, & C. Cacciari (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, structure, and interpretation (pp. 57–77). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Colston, H. L. (2017). The emergence of common ground. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (Eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives (pp. 13–30). Boston, Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & O’Brien, J. E. (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 361, 35–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. (2002). Intercultural business communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glucksberg, S., & McGlone, M. S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain – metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, F. (2004). Idioms and back translation. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(4), 455–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskés, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Encyclopaedic knowledge and cultural models. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 175–197). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskés, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konerding, K.-P. (2015). Sprache und Wissen. In E. Felder & A. Gardt (Eds.), Handbuch Sprache und Wissen (pp. 57–80). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2010 [1999]). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites (Repr.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, J. (2015). Linguistic relativity: Precursors and transformations. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 18–30). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, W. S. (1994). On not missing the boat: A processual method for inter/cultural understanding of idioms and lifeworld. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(2), 141–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Musolff, A., Macarthur, F., & Pagani, G. (Eds.) (2014). Metaphor and intercultural communication. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Redder, A. (2008). Functional Pragmatics. In G. Antos, E. Ventola, & T. Weber (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 133–178). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sabban, A. (2007). Culture-boundedness and problems of cross-cultural phraseology. In H. Burger (Ed.), Phraseologie: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Phraseology: an international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 590–605). Berlin: De Gruyter Reference Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Critical observations on the culture-boundness of phraseology. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 229–241). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlickau, S. (2017). Argumentieren im Wissenschaftsumfeld: Beobachtungen aus interkultureller Projektkommunikation. In K. Bührig & S. Schlickau (Eds.), Argumentieren und diskutieren (pp. 177–190). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.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
(2021). Knowledge in intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive-functional perspective. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Senkbeil, K., & da Silva, V. (2017). Widerspruch und Widerstand: Konfliktäres sprachliches Handeln in interkulturellen Arbeitsgruppen. Eine linguistisch-kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektive. In K. Bührig & S. Schlickau (Eds.), Argumentieren und diskutieren (pp. 105–144). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Senkbeil, K., & Hoppe, N. (2016). ‘The sickness stands at your shoulder ...’: Embodiment and cognitive metaphor in Hornbacher’s Wasted: A memoir of anorexia and bulimia. Language and Literature, 25(1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2017a). Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Cultural Linguistics and linguistic relativity. Language Sciences, 591, 83–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spears, R. A. (2006). McGraw-Hills dictionary of American idioms and phrasal verbs. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thije, J. D. ten. (2003). The transition from misunderstanding to understanding in intercultural communication. In L. I. Komlosi, P. Houtlosser, & M. Leezenberg (Eds.), Communication and culture: Argumentative, cognitive and linguistic perspectives (pp. 197–214). Amsterdam: Sic Sac.Google Scholar
Thije, J. D. ten & Koole, T. (2001). The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: Methodological considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 571–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2014). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (Classic Edition). New York, London: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J., & Blommaert, J. (Eds.) (1991). The pragmatics of international and intercultural communication. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, H.-G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2006). Intercultural communication in English – arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 3(3), 285–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 247–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). life as opera: A cultural metaphor in Chinese. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 65–87). Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Irizarry Quintero, Anamari, Camille Villafañe-Rodríguez, Robyn Johnson & Linda Clarke
2024. Idioms as a Tool for Enhancing Professional Competence and Cross-Cultural Communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly DOI logo
Lavrova, Nataliya A. & Alexandr O. Kozmin
2022. Structural and semantic congruence of Bulgarian, Russian and English set expressions: Contrastive-typological research. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.