Cover not available

In:Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by István Kecskés and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 9–31

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 1
Determinacy, distance and intensity in intercultural communication

An emancipatory approach

 | Lancaster University
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.02cra
Abstract
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’.
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
References (29)
References
Bara, Bruno. 2011. “Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 443–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Michael Haugh. 2009. Face, Communication and Social Interaction. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. 2004. After Theory. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond, and Markus Tendahl. 2011. “Coupling of Metaphoric Cognition and Communication: A Reply to Deirdre Wilson.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 1613–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1967/2003. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, William, Sachiko Ide, and Yasuhiro Katagiri. 2009. “Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedge. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Available at: [URL] (accessed 4 April 2016)
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Duelling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1979. “Activity Types and Language.” Linguistics 17: 365–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus and Paul Ekman. 2009. Approaches to Emotion. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1992. That’s not what I meant. London: Virago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986/2005. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 2010. Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 2008. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, Helena (ed.). 2007. The Emotions: A Cultural Reader. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Saft, Scott, Sachiko Ide & Kishiko Ueno
2021. Emancipatory Pragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 710 ff. DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2018. Intercultural Pragmatics. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 140 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 28 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue