Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 12:1 (2021) ► pp.132–145
Why does Lee say what he says the way he says it?
A socio-cognitive approach to understanding the Chinese character in East of Eden
Published online: 2 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19071.zen
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.19071.zen
Abstract
This paper employs Kecskes’ socio-cognitive approach to analyze the varied speech styles and cognitive dynamics of the
Chinese character (Lee) in John Steinbeck’s East of Eden. The discussion of the novelistic dialogue segments has shown that
the Chinese interlocutor’s verbal strategies vary from pidgin to English or a combination of the two, which are predominantly
hearer-centered and marked by deliberate and conscious attempts on the part of the speaker to meet the cooperation principle. Lee’s movement
between different communication modes is partly predetermined by the disparate power relations between the interlocutors and partly
determined by his own communicative needs, thus producing a unique pattern that governs his language use in the given intercultural
communicative process. In particular, pidgin is used as a self-protection mechanism, a buffer and a way of identification by the Chinese
character, which informs the wider socio-historical context of Chinese immigrants’ victimization of racial discrimination in the American
society at the turn of the twentieth century. Just like his shifting verbal strategies in intercultural communication, Lee’s cultural
identity is also characterized by fluidity in the in-between space of two cultures.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Why is the socio-cognitive approach relevant?
- Why does Lee say what he says the way he says it?
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (24)
Blommaert, Jan. 1998. “Different approaches to intercultural communication: A critical survey.” Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Wirtschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28 February.
Bolton, Kingsley. 2000. “Language and Hybridization: Pidgin Tales from the China Coast.” Interventions 2 (1): 35–52.
Burke, Thomas. 2012 [1916]. “The Chink and the Child.” In Limehouse Nights, 15–37. London: Forgotten Books.
Dawson, Raymond. 1967. The Chinese Chameleon: An Analysis of European Conceptions of Chinese Civilization. London: Oxford University Press.
Goldsmith, Oliver. 1904 [1794]. Letters from a Citizen of the World to His Friends in the East. London: Wells Gardener, Darton & Co.
Hymes, Dell. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor and Francis.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. “Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural crossing.” Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–26.
. 2010. “The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1 (1): 50–73.
. 2012a. “Intercultures, Encyclopaedic Knowledge, and Cultural Models.” Journal of Zhejiang University 42 (4): 71–86.
. 2012b. “Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker?” Language and Dialogue 2 (2): 283–297.
Kuhn, Philip A. 2008. Chinese Among Others: Emigration in Modern Times. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Lynn, Shane. 2015. “‘A room of experience into which I cannot enter’: John Steinbeck on Race.” Steinbeck Review 12 (2): 149–158.
Mildorf, Jarmila. 2013. “Reading Fictional Dialogue: Reflections on a Cognitive-Pragmatic Reception Theory.” Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 24 (2): 105–116.
Shipman, Samuel and John B. Hymer. 1918. East Is West: A Comedy in Three Acts and A Prologue by Samuel Shipman and John B. Hymer. New York: Samuel French.
