Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:2 (2022) ► pp.169–192

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

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

 | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 23 June 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19022.li
Abstract
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. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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.
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
References (42)
References
Alm, Maria, and Helena Larsen. 2015. “Modal particles indexing common ground in two different registers.” Constructions & Frames 7(2): 315–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. 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. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English. Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2017. “The pragmatic marker you know in learner Englishes.” Journal of Pragmatics 1211: 40–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Gregory L. Murphy. 1982. “Audience Design in Meaning and Reference”. Advances in Psychology 91:287-299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert, and Albert N. Katz (Eds.). 2005. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia, and Martin Dewey. 2012. Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Brad. 2002. “A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1273–1300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Sara Mills. 2013. “Interpersonal pragmatics: Issues and debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 581: 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Sara W. Smith. 1996. “Explicit and implicit ways of enhancing common ground in conversations.” Pragmatics 6 (1): 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. “A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(6): 605–625. 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
. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Why do we say what we say the way we say it?” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 71–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Jacob L. Mey. 2008. Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and 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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Chengtuan. 2009. “A study of the pragmatic functions of the discourse marker You see.” Foreign Language Teaching 51: 15–21.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Ping, and Huiying Liu. 2017. “Creating common ground: the role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 1071:1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2013. “Relational work and interpersonal pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 581:138–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ӧstman, Jan-Ola. 1981. You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. “Common Ground and Different Realities: World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.” World English 28 (2): 236–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zafifiu, Rodica. 2018. “Epistemic and evidential markers in the rhetorical context of Concession.” Journal of Pragmatics 1281: 116–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 30 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