Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and its Interfaces as related to the Expression of Intention
Edited by István Kecskés
[Pragmatics & Cognition 26:1] 2019
► pp. 135–165

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

The use of indexicals to co-construct common ground on the continuum of intra- and intercultural communicative contexts

 | State University of New York, Albany
Published online: 27 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19005.din
Abstract
This paper examines the roles of indexicals in explicating speakers’ intentions and constructing common ground (CG) in the context of a continuum with two extreme endpoints, the intracultural at one end, and the intercultural at the other, within the framework of the socio-cognitive approach proposed and developed by Kecskes (. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3), 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. Thirteen participants from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds were recruited to represent varying degrees on the intra- and intercultural continuum. They were divided into three groups: American English speakers, speakers from Asian countries (Korea, China, and Vietnam), and a group of speakers (China, Vietnam, Brazil, and America), each of whom represents linguistically and culturally different countries. Eight extracts were drawn from the data of up to three hours of recordings, including discussions on one topic, and retrospective interviews retrieving the speakers’ intentions for using deixis. The results reveal that the closer the interlocutors were towards the intercultural communicative context endpoint on the continuum, the more they employed four types of indexicals (person, location or spatial, temporal, and discourse deixis) as common ground construction strategies. Those strategies included the explicit manifestation of intentions, clarification, and confirmation of referent identification in actual situational context, elicitation of information, disambiguation and explanation of similar salient specifics in their home culture in an effort to sustain cooperative communication. This study enhances our understanding of different functions of indexicals in interactions on the intra- and intercultural continuum, which resulted from different levels of context interpretation and common ground.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Context and common ground co-construction in the framework of SCA
    • 2.2Indexicals: Linguistic markers to demonstrate how contextuality and common ground co-construction work on the continuum
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Data collection and description
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1The use of indexicals on the intra- and intercultural communication continuum
    • 4.2The functions of indexicals in context comprehension and common ground co-construction across the intra- and intercultural communication continuum
      • 4.2.1Deixis use in the intracultural control group
      • 4.2.2Deixis use in intercultural group 1
      • 4.2.3Deixis use in intercultural group 2
      • 4.2.4A summary of the functions of indexicals on the continuum
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (48)
References
Bach, Kent. 2014. Context dependence. In Manuel García–Carpintero & Max Kolbel (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to the philosophy of language, 153–184. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. The semantics–pragmatics distinction: What it is and why it matters. Linguistische Berichte 81 [Special issue: Pragmatik , ed. by Eckard Rolf]. 33–50. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar. 2005. Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Herbert L. Colston & Albert N. Katz. (eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 21–43. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1996. How much space gets into language? In Paul Bloom, Merrill F. Garrett, Lynn Nadel & Mary A. Peterson (eds.), Language and space: Language, speech, and communication, 3–35. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1982. The deictic field of language and deictic words. In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies on deixis and related topics, 9–30. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1). 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics 40(6). 997–1018. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Towards a theory of deixis. The PCCLLU Papers 3(4). 219–241. Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2009. Fieldwork on deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(1), 10–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The semantics-pragmatics boundary in philosophy, 83–108. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. (forthcoming). English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2018. How does intercultural communication differ from intracultural communication? In Andy Curtis & Roland Sussex (eds.) Intercultural communication in Asia: Education, language and values, 115–135. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics 71. 171–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In Jane Jackson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication, 67–84. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3), 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2009. Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on stance, 171–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Norms of sociocultural meaning in language: Indexicality, stance, and cultural models. In Scott F. Kiesling & Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.), Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings, 92–104. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F., & Christina Bratt Paulston (eds.). 2005. Intercultural discourse and communication: The essential readings. Malden: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1995. Cognitive anthropology. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman & Jan Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics manual, 100–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John 1977. Deixis as the source of reference. In Edward L. Deenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1968. An introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malvern, David & Brian Richards. 2002. Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mei, Lee-Wong Song 2002. Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices. Multilingua, 21(1), 79–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez, Francisco Javier Díaz. 2006. Deixis and verbal politeness in request production in English and Spanish. Cultura, Language, Representación/Culture, Language and Representation, 3(3), 161–176.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prodromou, Luke. 2008. English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. Edinburg: A&C Black.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, Lyn. 2014. Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert E. 1986. Sperber Dan and Wilson Deirdre, Relevance: Communication and cognition. Language in Society, 17(4), 604–609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2006. How we look from where we stand. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 161. 269–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. “Cultural” concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology 451. 621–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1999. Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Dax. 2005. Type-token ratios in one teacher’s classroom talk: An investigation of lexical complexity. United Kingdom: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei-Ming, Tu. 1996. Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 50(2), 12–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 15(2). 273–291.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn, Handbook of pragmatics, 1–38. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. On defining relevance. In Richard E. Grandy & Richard Warner (eds.), Philosophical grounds of rationality: Intentions, categories, ends, 243–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yum, June Ock. 1988. The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in East Asia. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 374–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Shirong, Xiuxiu Wu & Yue Feng. 2013. An analysis of cultural differences in Chinese and English first-person Deixis from the perspective of pragmatic empathy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1868–1872. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kasim, Nuraeni & Sueb
2024. Speech Acts, Politeness, and Pragmatic Failures in Intercultural Contexts. Lingua : Journal of Linguistics and Language 2:3 ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Li, Chengtuan
2022. A study of linguistic manipulations of activating, seeking and creating common ground in intercultural business communication. Pragmatics and Society 13:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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