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. 112–134

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

The interplay of prior experience and actual situational context in intercultural first encounters

 | State University of New York, Albany
Published online: 27 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19008.kec
Abstract
The study aims to investigate how prior experience of interlocutors interacts with actual situational context in intercultural interactions when the latter is represented by a well-known frame: getting acquainted with others. It attempts to demonstrate how the cultural frame of the target language is broken up and substituted with an emergent frame that is co-constructed from elements from prior experience with the target language, the first language and the actual situational experience.
Getting acquainted with others is a closed social situation, a cultural frame in which interlocutors usually have to follow a behavior pattern dictated by the requirements of the socio-cultural background in a given speech community. There is a ‘skeleton’ of these ‘getting to know you’ procedures that can be considered universal but is substantiated differently in every language. In each conversation in any language, ‘flesh’ is added to the ‘skeleton’ in a dynamic and co-constructed manner. However, there is a difference between how this happens in L1 and in intercultural interactions. While in L1 the ‘flesh’ on the skeleton is predetermined to a significant extent by requirements of core common ground in the given language, in intercultural encounters this ‘flesh building’ process in the target language (in this case English) is not set but is co-constructed by the interlocutors as emergent common ground relying on their prior experience with their own L1 culture, limited experience with the target culture and the assessment of the actual situational context. In this study the co-construction process, i.e. emergent common ground will be analyzed by examining the use of formulaic language and freely generated language in several discourse segments.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Understanding context
  • 3.‘Getting acquainted with others’ in the first language
    • 3.1Prior studies
    • 3.2Common features of the frame in L1
  • 4.The intercultural study
  • 5.Methodology
    • 5.1Data collection
    • 5.2Data analysis and discussion
      • 5.2.1Research question 1
      • 5.2.2Research question 2
      • 5.2.3Research question 3
        • Power of actual situational context
        • Convergence in intercultural interactions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Arnseth, Hans Christian & Ivar Solheim. 2002. Making sense of shared knowledge. In Gary Stahl (ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL community, 102–110. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. 2004. Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?, Cognitive Science 28(6). 937–962. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. & Boaz Keysar. 2005a. 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
. 2005b. Mindreading in an exotic case: The normal adult human. In Malle, Bertram F. and Sara D. Hodges (eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others, 271–283. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, Charles R. 1992. Uncertainty and social interaction. Communication Yearbook. 16(1). 491–502.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L. & Albert N. Katz (eds.). 2005. Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Andrade, Roy & Claudia Strauss (eds.). 1992. Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Universal and cultural-specific properties of greetings. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 7(1). 63–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. 2008. Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In István Kecskés & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 223–254. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fant, Lars & Fanny Forsberg Lundell. 2019. Keeping up appearances: Impression management in native and non-native speakers of four languages. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(1). 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1884/1980. The foundations of arithmetic. Austin John Langshaw (trans.), 2nd rev. edn. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gee, James P. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gil, José María. 2019. A relational account of communication on the basis of slips of the tongue. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(2). 153–184. 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
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2011. Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In Bethan L. Davies, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison (eds.), Situated politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Donal Carbaugh. 2015. Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua: Journal of Cross–Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 34(4). 461–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 1990. The language of self–disclosure. In Howard Giles and P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, 191–207. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2019. First things first: The pragmatics of “Natural Order”. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(3). 257–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2019. English as a lingua franca: The pragmatic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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
. 2010b. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(11). 2889–2897. 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
. 2003. Situation–bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui, Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition. 17(2). 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellerman, Kathy & Tae–Seop Lim. 1989. Conversational acquaintance: The flexibility of routinized behaviours. In Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe & Ellen Wartella (eds.), Rethinking communication, vol. 2, Paradigm exemplars, 172–192. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koschmann, Timothy & Curtis D. LeBaron. 2003. Reconsidering common ground: Examining Clark’s Contribution Theory in the OR. In Kari Kuutti, Helena Eija Karsten, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Paul Dourish & Kjeld Schmidt (eds.), Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 81–98. Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, David. 2008. Cultural models. Intercultural Pragmatics. 5(1). 67–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin–Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew, & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 8(1). 339–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per & Lennart Gustavsson. 1987. Initiativ och respons: Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. SIC, 15. Universitetet i Linköping, Tema Kommunikation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Ping & Xiaoye You. 2019. Metapragmatic comments in web-based intercultural peer evaluation. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(1). 57–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., & Zimmerman, Don H. 1984. Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly. 47(4), 301–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortaçtepe, Deniz. 2012. The development of conceptual socialization in international students: A language socialization perspective on conceptual fluency and social identity (Advances in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. 1987. Topic selection in phatic communication. Multilingua, 6(3), 247–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy. 25(5). 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 1999. Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interactions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Usami, Mayumi. 2002. Discourse Politeness in Japanese Conversation: Some Implications for a Universal Theory of Politeness. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Gengo kōdo ni okeru “politeness” no nichiei hikaku [A comparative study of polite language behaviour in Japan and the United States]. Speech Communication Education 71. 30–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Violi, Patrizia. 2000. Prototypicality, typicality, and context. In Liliana Albertazzi (ed.), Meaning and Cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vittengl, Jeffrey R. & Craig S. Holt. 2000. Getting acquainted: The relationship of self–disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1). 53–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner, Richard. 2019. Meaning, reasoning, and common knowledge. Intercultural Pragmatics. 16(3). 289–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921/1922. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Ogden Charles Kay (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Chang, Wei-Lin Melody
2025. “Being your son is rather tiring”: Assessments and assessment responses in initial interactions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 235 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Graci, Roberto & Alessandro Capone
2025. A pragmatic view on referential acts in aphasia. Language and Health 3:1 ► pp. 100050 ff. DOI logo
Kecskés, István & Hanh Dinh
2025. “ChatGPT for intercultural pragmatic learning? potentially, but not yet” – The question of using AI to develop students’ intercultural pragmatic competence. Intercultural Pragmatics 22:2 ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
Li, Min & Yingying Chen
2025. How to Open Conversations? A Generic Study of the Grammatical Forms, Sentential Types, Semantic Categories, and Social Actions of English Conversation Openings. SAGE Open 15:3 DOI logo
Tincheva, Nelly
2025. Political language gaffes and the importance of Hearer’s meaning. Pragmatics and Society 16:3 ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo
Zuo, Baiyao
2025. Why not focus on combating the virus?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 35:3 ► pp. 448 ff. DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2023. The Socio-Cognitive Approach as a Theoretical Framework. In The Socio-Cognitive Approach to Communication and Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 33], ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2023. Language variation and temporary norm development in intercultural interactions. Pragmatics & Cognition 30:2 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Fan & Li Wang
2023. The “Kuakua” fever: Proactively requesting praise on Chinese social networking sites. Journal of Pragmatics 205 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Yuqi
2022. Theoretical Foundation. In L2 Pragmatic Competence in Chinese EFL Routines [SpringerBriefs in Education, ], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael & Valeria Sinkeviciute
2021. The pragmatics of initial interactions: Cross-cultural and intercultural perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics 185 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Sinkeviciute, Valeria & Andrea Rodriguez
2021. “So… introductions”: Conversational openings in getting acquainted interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 179 ► pp. 44 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