Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by Istvan Kecskes and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 9–31

Chapter 1
Determinacy, distance and intensity in intercultural communication

An emancipatory approach

| Lancaster University
This paper seeks to make the case for a more empirical, situation-based approach to pragmatic analysis. It forms part of the recent move in pragmatics research away from the cross-cultural comparison of speech acts and neo-Gricean theoretical debates towards an analysis of real-life data based on the socio-cognitive and affective implications of inter-lingual conversational exchange. This approach is represented as ‘emancipatory’ in that it is highly contextually grounded and considers meaning from an ‘emergent’ perspective in which attempts at achieving mutual understanding are more or less effectively negotiated between participants. The notion of intention is called into question and emphasis is placed on the importance of metalinguistic commentary by interlocutors as an essential aid to interpreting transcriptions of previous exchanges. Close attention is given to linguistic features which define the attitudes and relationships between the participants: in this case, markers of ‘determinacy’, ‘distance’ and ‘intensity’.
Keywords: activity type, affect, distance, intensity, intention, relevance
Article outline
  • 1.Pragmatics’ socio-cognitive turn
    • 1.1The significant unit of conversational discourse is the ‘event’ or ‘episode’
    • 1.2Meaning is not vested in intention
    • 1.3Lexical meaning too is negotiated in context
    • 1.4Co-operation and rapport are not universal principles
    • 1.5The evidence lies in the data
  • 2.The case study
    • 2.1Methodology
    • 2.2The data
      • 2.2.1The entretien
        • 2.2.1.1Determinacy
        • 2.2.1.2Power/distance
      • 2.2.2The témoignage
        • 2.2.2.1Determinacy
        • 2.2.2.2Power/distance
        • 2.2.2.3Intensity
      • 2.2.3The Journal
        • 2.2.3.1Intensity
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.02cra
References
Bara, Bruno
2011 “Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 443–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Michael Haugh
2009 Face, Communication and Social Interaction. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Crawshaw, Robert, Jonathan Culpeper, and Julia Harrison
2010 “Wanting to be Wanted: A Comparative Study of Incidence and Severity in Indirect Complaint on the Part of French and English Language Teaching Assistants.” Journal of French Language Studies 20: 75–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2011 Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, Terry
2004 After Theory. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond, and Markus Tendahl
2011 “Coupling of Metaphoric Cognition and Communication: A Reply to Deirdre Wilson.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 1613–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1967/2003 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael
1973 Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, William, Sachiko Ide, and Yasuhiro Katagiri
2009 “Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2007 “The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research: An Interactional Alternative.” Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 3: 295–317.Google Scholar
Hedge
(n.d.). In Wikipedia. Available at: [URL] (accessed 4 April 2016)
Kecskes, Istvan
2013 Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Duelling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1979 “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17: 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislav
1923/1993 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” In Language and Literacy in Social Practice: A Reader, ed. by Janet Maybin, 1–10. Bristol: Multilingual Matters/ Open University.Google Scholar
Meier, Ardith
2010 “Culture and its Effect on Speech Act Performance.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Alicia Martínez-Flor, and Esther Usó-Juan, 75–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2012 “L’organisation Émergente des Ressources Multimodales dans l’Interaction en Lingua Franca: Entre Progressivité et Intersubjectivité.”, Bulletin VALS-ASLA 95: 97–121.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus and Paul Ekman
2009 Approaches to Emotion. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2011 “Conceptualising ‘The Relational’ in Pragmatics: Insights from Metapragmatic Emotion and (im)Politeness Comments.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3565–3578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1992 That’s not what I meant. London: Virago.Google Scholar
1986/2005 Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang
2010 Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny
1995 Meaning in Interaction. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun
2008 Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
(eds.) 2009 Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wulff, Helena
(ed.) 2007 The Emotions: A Cultural Reader. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Kecskes, Istvan
2018. Intercultural Pragmatics. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Saft, Scott, Sachiko Ide & Kishiko Ueno
2021. Emancipatory Pragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 710 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 567 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 november 2023. 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.