Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by István Kecskés and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 181–206

Chapter 8
The interactive (self-)reflexive construction of culture-related key words

| Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais

Based on two film shootings with Brazilian and German exchange students, this paper examines the role of metacommunication for the joint construction of key words used to draw a line between the own and the other culture. The filmed discussions were elicited by cards asking participants to talk about the expected and already experienced differences between the target country and their country of origin regarding university, society, religion, family, friendship, relationships, conflicts, styles and language. The results revealed how metacommunicative acts serve as strategies for constructing and reflecting on key concepts like ‘being direct/indirect’, ‘individualism/collectivism’ or ‘time’. One pivotal point is the crucial role of metacommunication in calibrating cultural evaluations with regard to recipient design.

Keywords: otherness, culture-related key words, interaction, metacommunication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical anchoring
  • 3.Empirical data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Punctuality
    • 4.2Openness
    • 4.3Directness
    • 4.4Individualism
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • ?ack?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.09sch
References

References

Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1930/1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baptista de Morais, Armindo José
2010 Narrativas conversacionais: a introdução de enunciados narrativos em situação de interacção oral [Conversational narratives: the introduction of narrative statements in situations of oral interaction]. Tese de Doutoramento em Linguística, Universidade Aberta. Available at: [URL]. (accessed: 4 April 2016)
Bateson, Gregory
1955/1972 “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, ed. by Jürgen Ruesch, and Gregory Bateson, 177–193. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Bennett, Milton J.
1998 “Intercultural Communication: A Current Perspective.” In Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings, ed. by Milton J. Bennett, 1–34. Boston/ London: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1978/1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram, and Axel Hübler
(eds.) 2007 Metapragmatics in Use. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1934/2011 Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Marília G., and Lino Trevisan
2003 “Relações interculturais entre trabalhadores Brasileiros e Alemães na VW-Audi de S. José dos Pinhais [Intercultural relations between Brazilian and German workers in VW-Audi at S. José dos Pinhais].” Revista Educação & Tecnologia 7: 68–86.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1994 Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Alan Page
2010 “Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures – a Critique of the Validity and Measurement of the Constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).” In Intercultural Communication. Volume II: Studying Intercultural Communication, ed. by Deborah A. Cai, 199–222. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: Sage.Google Scholar
Foley, William A.
1998 Anthropological Linguistics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
1999a “Thematisierung moralischer Normen in der interkulturellen Kommunikation.” In Kommunikative Konstruktion von Moral. Band 1: Struktur und Dynamik der Formen moralischer Kommunikation, ed. by Jörg Bergmann, and Thomas Luckmann, 225–251. Opladen: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
1999b “Polyphony and the ‘Layering of Voices’ in Reported Dialogues: An Analysis of the Use of Prosodic Devices in Everyday Reported Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 685–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Stimmenvielfalt im Diskurs: Formen der Stilisierung und Ästhetisierung in der Redewiedergabe.” Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 3: 59–80.Google Scholar
2008 “Negotiating Rapport in German-Chinese Conversation.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 207–226. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hall, Edward T.
1959 The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
1983 The Dance of Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko
2002 “Kommunizierte Fremdheit: Zur Konversationsanalyse von Zugehörigkeitsdarstellungen.” In Kultur(en) im Gespräch, ed. by Helga Kotthoff, 25–59. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell
2013 “Conversational Repair and Human Understanding: An Introduction.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
(ed) 1997 Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert
1983 “National Culture in Four Dimensions: A Research-based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations.” International Studies of Management and Organization 13: 46–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
2003 “Misunderstanding in Intercultural University Encounters.” In Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, ed. by Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross, 22–56. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2010 “Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural Encounters in Everyday and Institutional Talk.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7–4: 561–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German.” In Conversational Routine, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 157–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel
2011 “Metapragmatics.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, and Neal R. Norrick, 107–136. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huseby, Stine
2010 Las Funciones de tipo como marcador del discurso en el lenguaje juvenil de Buenos Aires: un estudio descriptive [Type functions as markers of speech in the language of youngers in Buenos Aires: a descriptive study]. Tesis de Maestría Spansk språk og latinamerikastudier, Universitetet i Bergen. Available at: [URL] (accessed: 4 April 2016)
Inoue, Kazuko
1974 “Innovating Uses of Japanese Honorifics and Polite Forms.” Papers in Japanese Linguistics 4: 19–41.Google Scholar
Kapp Silva, Carlota
2013 Code-switching na comunicação intercultural entre Brasileiros e Alemães [Code-switching in intercultural communication between Brazilians and Germans]. Belo Horizonte: Monografia em Letras da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Kluckhohn, Florence R., and Fred L. Strodtbeck
1961 Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
König, Katharina
2010 “Sprachliche Kategorisierungsverfahren und sprachliche Theorien über Sprache in narrativen Interviews.” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 53: 31–57.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert
1999 A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist or How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Loenhoff, Jens
2008 “Zu einem reflexiven Konzept interkultureller Kompetenz.” In Audiatur et alter par: Kommunikationswissenschaft zwischen Historiographie, Theorie und empirischer Forschung. Festschrift für H. Walter Schmitz, ed. by Achim Eschbach, Mark A. Halawa and Jens Loenhoff, 98–117. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A.
1993 “Reflexive Language and the Human Disciplines.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John A. Lucy, 9–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Alzria Tavares de, and Giselle M. de Oliveira Silva
1996 “Análise sociolingüística de alguns marcadores conversacionais [A sociolinguistic analysis of some conversational markers].” In Variação e discurso [Variation and discourse], ed. by Alzira T. Macedo, Maria C. de Magalhães Mollica, and Cláudia Roncarati, 11–49. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.Google Scholar
Marcário Lopes, Ana Cristina
2008 “Enfim.” Estudos Linguísticos/ Linguistic Studies 2: 61–76.Google Scholar
Markowsky, Richard, and Alexander Thomas
1995 Studienhalber in Deutschland: Interkulturelles Orientierungstraining für amerikanische Studenten, Schüler und Praktikanten. Heidelberg: Asanger.Google Scholar
Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama
1991 “Culture and Self: Implication for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98: 224–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard
1978 “Aspekte der Analyse metakommunikativer Interaktionen.” In Sprachen – Handeln – Interaktion. Ergebnisse aus Bielefelder Forschungsprojekten zu Texttheorie, Sprechakttheorie und Konversationsanalyse, ed. by Reinhard Meyer-Hermann, 103–142. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Meireles, Selma Martins
2001 “A negação sintática em diálogos do alemão e do português do Brasil [Syntactic negation in dialogues of German and Portuguese in Brazil].” Pandaemonium Germanicum 5: 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia
2008 “What Gestures Reveal about the Nature of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Gesture, ed. by Alan Cienki, and Cornelia Müller, 219–245. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Philburn, Rob
2011 “Aspects of English and German Sociable Selfhood.” In Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges, Evaluations, ed. by Arnd Witte, and Theo Harden, 411–435. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures in Social Action, ed. by John Atkinson, and J. Maxwell Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Edited by G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Thomas, and Kai Wörner
2009 “EXMARaLDA – Creating, Analysing and Sharing Spoken Language Corpora for Pragmatic Research.” Pragmatics 19: 565–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, Ulrike
2003 Brasilianische und deutsche Wirklichkeiten. Eine vergleichende Fallstudie zu kommunikativ erzeugten Sinnwelten. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a “Der Einfluss kultureller und kontextueller Faktoren bei der Konstruktion integrierter Netzwerke in metaphorischen Blends .” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 1: 81–102.Google Scholar
2010b “Speech Styles and Functions of Speech from a Cross-cultural Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 466–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012a Kommunikationstheoretische Fragestellungen in der kognitiven Metaphernforschung. Eine Betrachtung von ihren Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2012b “Applying Conceptual Metaphor and Blending Theory to Culture-specific Speech Functions in Rap Lyrics.” Text & Talk 32: 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silva, Diogo H. A.
2015 A construção do conceito de ‘Heimat’ (Alemanha) / ‘Pátria’ (Brasil) em âmbito intercultural. Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Schröder, Ulrike
2014a “The Interplay of Politeness, Conflict Styles, Rapport Management and Metacommunication in Brazilian-German Interaction.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11: 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b “Interkulturelle Kommunikation zwischen Deutschen und Brasilianern im Lichte von Strategien der (Un-)höflichkeit, divergierenden Konfliktstilen und Formen des Beziehungsmanagements.” In Interkulturalität unter dem Blickwinkel von Semantik und Pragmatik, ed. by Csaba Földes, 207–224. Tübingen: Narr, Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
2015 “The interplay of verbal, vocal, and visual cues in the co-construction of the experience of alterity in exchange students’ talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 81: 21–35.Google Scholar
2017 “Zur Funktion von Metakommunikation in der dialogischen Konstruktion von Alterität.” Linguistische Berichte, in press.Google Scholar
Schröder, Ulrike, and Mariana Carneiro Mendes
2015 “A utilização da metáfora CULTURA É UM CONTÊINER e sua contextualização multimodal em uma interação intercultural: uma análise a partir das perspectivas comunicativas e extracomunicativas.” Antares 7(14): 107–128.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred
1944/1976 “The Stranger: An Essay in Social Psychology.” In Collected Papers II: Studies in Social Theory, ed. by Alfred Schütz and Arvid Brodersen, 91–105. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
1970 Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
1971 Gesammelte Ausätze I. Das Problem der sozialen Wirklichkeit. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff .Google Scholar
Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1994 “Honorifics.” In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ronald E. Asher, and James M. Y. Simpson 1600–1608 Oxford/ New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Malden/ Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2008 “Face, (Im)Politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Techtmeier, Bärbel
2001 “Form und Funktion von Metakommunikation im Gespräch.” In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik: Ein Internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. 2. Halbband. Gesprächslinguistik, ed. by Klaus Brinker et al. 1449–1463 Berlin/ New York: de Grutyer.Google Scholar
Triandis, Harry C.
1995 Individualism and Collectivism, Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
2002 “Generic Individualism and Collectivism.” In The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management, ed. by M. J. Gannon, and K. L. Newman, 16–45. Oxford: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
Viterbo Lage, Caroline de
2013 Comunicação interpessoal e intercultural entre Brasileiros e Alemães: análise dos momentos de conflito [Interpersonal and intercultural communication between Brazilians and Germans: an analysis of instances of conflict. Dissertação de Mestrado, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Welsch, Wolfgang
1999 “Transculturality – the Puzzling Form of Cultures Today.” In Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World, ed. by Mike Featherstone, and Scott Lash, 194–213. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2003 Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Kecskes, Istvan
2018. Intercultural Pragmatics. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Schröder, Ulrike
2019. Comunicação (inter)cultural em interação: Um grupo de pesquisa na interface dos estudos da fala-em-interação e da linguística cultural. In Comunicação (inter)cultural em interação, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Schröder, Ulrike
2022. Face as an interactional construct in the context of connectedness and separateness. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 547 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 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.