Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:2 (2022) ► pp.169–192

A study of linguistic manipulations of activating, seeking and creating common ground in intercultural business communication

| Guangdong University of Foreign Studies

Previous studies on common ground (CG, for short) have mainly focused on its definition and functions in various daily interactions. Few studies explore the linguistic manipulations of CG in cross-cultural business interactions. This paper aims to fill in this gap by examining how sellers and buyers manipulate linguistic actions of activating, seeking and creating CG to make a deal. This study instantiates and develops Kecskes’ (2013) CG model. Based on qualitative analysis of data collected from email interactions between Chinese sellers and Australian buyers, I find that (1) Interlocutors often activate their core CG through manipulating frequency markers such as “again”, and epistemic markers such as “I knew”, “you know”, “might”; (2) Interlocutors seek core CG and emergent CG by manipulating epistemic markers such as “I’m sure”; (3) Interlocutors often bring the third party or element into the communication to create emergent CG by using question markers such as “you see?”, imperative markers such as “Do you understand!”, and narrative markers like “I tell you” and “once” or “before”; (4) The interpersonal manipulations of CG construction contribute to business integrity and reliability because the more efforts interlocutors make to activate, seek, and create CG, the more clarified and acceptable their business relations become in business communication. For the purpose of validating what I have found, I conduct a quantitative study of linguistic means of constructing CG in the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE), and summarize the typical linguistic means of activating, seeking, and creating CG in various settings.

Keywords: linguistic manipulation, common ground, intercultural communication, business integrity, SBCSAE
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data collection and theoretical framework
  • 3.Linguistic manipulations of CG in business communication
    • 3.1Activating CCG
    • 3.2Seeking CCG and ECG
    • 3.3Creating ECG
  • 4.A model of manipulating CG in business communication
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 23 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19022.li
References (42)
Alm, Maria, and Helena Larsen
2015 “Modal particles indexing common ground in two different registers.” Constructions & Frames 7(2): 315–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnseth, Hans Christian, and Ivar Solheim
2002 “Making sense of shared knowledge”. In Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, ed. by Gerry Stahl, 102–110. Boulder, Colorado: ACM Digital Library. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale. J.
2004 “Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?” Cognitive Science 28 (6): 937–962. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar
2005 Mindreading in an exotic case: The normal adult human. In Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide between Self and Other, ed. by Bertram F. Malle and Sara D. Hodges, 271–283. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2016 Pragmatic Markers in British English. Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buysse, Lieven
2017 “The pragmatic marker you know in learner Englishes.” Journal of Pragmatics 1211: 40–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert
1996 Using Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Susan Brennan
1991 “Grounding in communication”. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by L. Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Gregory L. Murphy
1982 “Audience Design in Meaning and Reference”. Advances in Psychology 91:287-299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colston, Herbert, and Albert N. Katz
(Eds.) 2005 Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia, and Martin Dewey
2012 Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Davidson, Brad
2002 “A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1273–1300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diskin, Chloé
2017 “The use of the discourse-pragmatic marker ‘like’ by native and non-native speakers of English in Ireland.” Journal of Pragmatics 1201: 144–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, Susanne
2016 “English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business contexts: key issues and future perspectives.” In Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts, ed. by Kumiko Murata, 133–155. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J.
2008 “Common ground as a resource for social affiliation.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob L. Mey, 223–254. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2007 “Grounding and common ground: Modal particles and their translation equivalents.” In Lexical markers of common grounds, ed. by Anita Fetzer & Kerstin Fischer, 47–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills
2013 “Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 581: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton, William S.
2008 “A memory-based approach to common ground and audience design”. In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes & Jacob L. Mey, 189–222. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Sara W. Smith
1996 “Explicit and implicit ways of enhancing common ground in conversations.” Pragmatics 6 (1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2000 “A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(6): 605–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Why do we say what we say the way we say it?” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 71–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Jacob L. Mey
2008 Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang
2009 “Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, Timothy, and Curtis D. LeBaron
2003 “Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark’s contribution theory in the OR.” In Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work, ed. by K. Kuutti, E. H. Karsten, G. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish and K. Schmidt, 81–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Benny P. H.
2001 “Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (1): 21–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Chengtuan
2009 “A study of the pragmatic functions of the discourse marker You see .” Foreign Language Teaching 51: 15–21.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Ida, Richard Hirsch, and Peter Berggren
2007 “It takes three points to define a common ground: breathing apparatus fire-fighters’ communication during rescue operations.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1482–1502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Ping, and Huiying Liu
2017 “Creating common ground: the role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071:1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Sage Lambert Graham
2010 “Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam A. Locher, and Sage L. Graham, 1–13. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
2013 “Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 581:138–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ӧstman, Jan-Ola
1981 You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara
2009 “Common Ground and Different Realities: World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.” World English 28 (2): 236–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “ELF: English in a global context.” In Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts, ed. by Kumiko Murata, 17–28. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbe, Maria, and Janet Holmes
1995 “You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English.” Language & Communication 15 (1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna
2018 “Resisting an action in conversation by pointing out epistemic incongruence: Mä tiedän ‘I know’ responses in Finnish.” Journal of Pragmatics 1231:192–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zafifiu, Rodica
2018 “Epistemic and evidential markers in the rhetorical context of Concession.” Journal of Pragmatics 1281: 116–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Man, Weiwei Sun, Huan Peng, Qiong Gan, and Bo Yu
2017 “A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171:106–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Nesterova, Marja, Agostino Portera & Marta Milani
2022. DIVERSITY AND INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 8:5 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.