1. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics and CCP Research
Dr. Phalangchok Wanphet
PhD (English Language and Linguistics: Wisconsin)
1

2. Scope of Today‟s Discussion
I assume that you are well familiar with the following areas in
general pragmatics:
1. Deixis
2. Conversational implicature
3. Presupposition
4. Speech acts
5. Conversational structure
Our discussion will go beyond these subtopics
2

3. Scope of Today‟s Discussion
1. Cognitive approach to CCP
2. Politeness theory: Sociological approach to CCP
3. Pragmatic approach to cross-cultural communication
4. Conversation Analysis-based CCP research
3

4. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics
• What is of interest to CCP researchers?
• Why is it worth studying and conducting research on CCP?
4

5. “CCP aims at understandings the extent to which non-
shared knowledge affects and modifies the retrieval of
intended meaning”
• Mismatches
– Intention and interpretation
– Limited mutual understandings
– Cultural biases
5

6. The need to study CCP
“…individuals from different societies or communities
interact according to their own pragmatic norms, often
resulting in a clash of expectations and, ultimately,
misperceptions about the other group. The misperceptions
are typically two-way; that is, each group misperceives the
other.
In an age in which cross-cultural interaction is the norm not
only across societies but also within them, different rules of
speaking have the potential to cause stereotypes, prejudice,
and discrimination against entire groups of people.” 6

7. What makes you understand text and talk?
1. Language itself
2. Context (whatever comes with language)
• Non-language
• Other-than-language artifacts
7

8. Did you just say “Context”?
What is „context‟?
Context vs. understanding
For instance:
a) “No Bicycles”
b) “Could you please check the bird”
Guess what each expression means!
8

9. To sum up
Language
Understanding
Context
9

10. Culture functions as a context!
Culture
Comm.
Language
10

11. In other words, ...
1. Communication take place within a context.
2. In a transactional model of communication,
conversants reply primarily on their own culture when
communicating with other and when interpreting what
is communicated by other.
3. It is reasonable to claim that, for communication to be
successful, conversants should have as much shared
elements as possible. 11

12. Model
• Link
12

13. Again, remember seeing this slide?
“CCP aims at understandings the extent to
which non-shared knowledge affects and
modifies the retrieval of intended meaning”
• Mismatches
– Intention and interpretation
– Limited mutual understandings
– Cultural biases
13

14. Cross-cultural communication equates …
• Misunderstanding
• Unsuccessful communication
• Delayed mutual understandings
• Harder face maintenance
• Foreseen, thus avoided, problem
14

15. Aspects of CCP
Linguistic
Cognitive
CCP
Sociological
Interactional
15

16. It is all about misunderstanding!
How can we as CCP researchers tackle the intercultural
problem systematically?
1. Linguistic analysis of causes
2. Cognitive analysis of causes
3. Sociological analysis of causes
4. Interactional analysis of causes
16

17. 1. Linguistic analysis of CC misunderstanding
What is the possible cause?
“Language proficiency”
“Nature of language”
“Semantics”
“Linguistic typology”
“Metaphor”
“Culture-dependent
language use”
17

18. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
• Misunderstandings are
caused NOT by difficulty in
drawing the intended
implicature, but by lack of
access to the correct
explicature of the utterance.
18

19. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
1)
A: It‟s cold in here.
B: I can turn off the AC now.
2) Phone rings
D picks up the phone.
D: Good morning.
C: Hi, is Jeff in?
D: One sec please. 19

20. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
3) Phone rings
F picks up the phone.
F: Hello
E: Hi, is Nate there?
F: Yes, hold on
E: Oh, no, I just wanted to see where he is
F: Ohhh OK
20

21. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
1. Speaker‟s intention is crucial in this domain.
2. The addressee‟s recognition of the speaker‟s
communicative intention allows him to make inferences
in order to understand the speaker‟s informative
intention.
– Informative intention: the intention to inform an audience of
something.
– Communicative intention: the intention to inform an audience of
one‟s informative intention.
21

22. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
4)
Dad: Ben, please go and brush your teeth!
Son: Dad, I‟m not sleepy
The son‟s recognition of his dad‟s communicative
intention allows him to make inferences in order to
understand his dad‟s informative intention.
22

23. 2. Cognitive analysis of CC misunderstanding
Grice‟s Maxim of Relevance
“human cognition is attracted by relevant information
and is able to make a sharp between relevant
information and irrelevant information”.
23

24. 3. Sociological analysis of CC misunderstanding
1. Politeness theory
a) Face
b) Positive face and negative
face
c) FTA‟s
2. Preference Organization
a) Preferred (affiliative) action
b) Dispreferred (disaffliative)
action
24

25. 1. Politeness theory
a. Face
Face NOT as a physical
feature or body part!
25

26. Or as known and used in facial expressions
26

27. But face as a social and interactional concept.
27

28. Face and Face Maintenance
• Face is defined as “the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himself by the line others assume
he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman,
1959).
• Face is “the public self-image that every member want
to claim for himself” (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

29. Face
Positive face
“the positive consistent self-
image or personality
(crucially including the desire
that this self-image be
appreciated and approved of)
claimed by interactants”.
Keywords: Being valued,
recognized, considered part of
the group
29

30. Threats to positive face (H)
• Expressions of approval, criticism, complains,
reprimands, insults, accusations,
• Contradictions or disagreements, challenges
• Expression of violent emotion
• Mention of taboo topics
• Bringing bad news about hearer
• Raising about dangerously emotional or divisive topics
• Blatant non-cooperation in an activity
30

31. Threats to positive face (S)
• Apologies
• Acceptance of compliment
• Breakdown of physical control over body
• Self-humiliation
• Confessions
• Emotion leakage
31

32. Face
Negative face
“the basic claim to
territories, personal
preserves, rights to non-
distraction, i.e., to freedom
of action and freedom from
imposition”
Keywords: Independence,
freedom, lack of restrictions
32

33. Threats to negative face (H)
• Orders and requests
• Suggestions, advice
• Remindings
• Threats, warnings, dares
• Offers
• Promises
• Compliments, expressions of envy or admiration
• Expression of strong emotions toward H
33

34. Threats to negative face (S)
• Expressing thanks
• Acceptance of H‟s thanks or apology
• Excuses
• Acceptance of offers
• Unwilling promises and offers
34

35. Maximizing both faces
• When we are engaged in social encounters, we do face
activities unavoidably.
• Participants want both positive face and negative face to
be maintained and mitigated.
• We can damage not only our own positive face but
negative face also.
• Some acts can damage both positive face and negative
35
face.

36. Diagram proposed by Brown and Levinson
36

37. 2. Preference Organization
1. Preferred (affiliative) action
2. Dispreferred (disaffiliative) action
37

38. Adjacency Pairs
Acceptance
Invitation
Denial
38

39. Adjacency Pairs
Agreement
Assessment
Disagreement
39

40. Adjacency Pairs
Acceptance
Offer
Denial
40

41. Adjacency Pairs
Acceptance
Permission
Refusal
41

42. Adjacency Pairs
Granting
Request
Rejection
42

43. Extracts
A: T‟s-tsuh beautiful day out isn‟t it?
B: Yeh it‟s just gorgeous…
Q: Why don‟t you come and see me some tim e
R: I would like to.
B: Do you want a ride? It is snowin badly out there!
D: That w‟d be great, thanks.
43

44. Extracts
A: You coming down early?
B: Well, I got a lot of things to do before gettin
cleared tomorrow. I don‟t know . I w- probably
won‟t be too early.
P: How about going out for a drink tonight?
R: (0.2) tuh-uh sorry b‟d I can‟ make it = c‟z Jill has
invoted some‟ve her friends over. Perhaps some
other time.
44

45. Extracts
A: Uh if you‟d care to come over and visit a little
while this morning I‟ll give you a cup of coffee.
B: hehh Well that‟s awfully sweet of you,
I don‟t think I can make it this morning
Hh uhm I‟m running an ad in the paper and-and
uh I have to stay near the phone.
45

46. Extracts
P: God izn it dreary.
(0.6)
R: Y‟ know I don‟t think-
P: hh it‟s warm though,
46

47. 4. Interactional analysis of CC misunderstanding
47

48. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
Some misunderstandings may not be predicted
in advance. The chance is greater when one
does not follow conversational routines other
follow. Several studies claims that
conversational routines are culture-specific.
48

49. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
1. When to talk
a) Silence can be highly valued.
b) Some culture believe it inappropriate to strangers.
c) Familiarity vs. chance and amount of talk.
d) Some don‟t talk when expected to by other
groups.
e) Stereotype of „other‟
a) Talking „other‟
b) Quiet „other‟
49

50. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
2. What to say
a) Some culture never ask question „why”.
b) Some culture rarely ask questions.
c) Talk and learn through story telling.
d) (Not) Talking about personal experience or emotional
involvement
e) Downplaying and upgrading utterance
50

51. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
3. Pacing and pausing
1. Speed rate
2. Wait time to be the next speaker before concluding
the previous one has more to say
3. Wait time between turns
51

52. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
4. Listenership
1. Eye gaze used and broken by speaker and listener
2. Steady eye contact during the talk
3. Showing attention and encouragement
52

53. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
5. Intonation
1. Intention and Interpretation
2. Rudeness
3. Stereotyping
53

54. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
6. Formulaicity and poetic usage
– Frequency
– Meaning
– Cultural context
54

55. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
7. Indirectness
“ideally, people should say what they mean and
people should be accountable only for what they say in
words”.
1. Straight to the point
2. Necessity of small talk
3. Never-say-NO talk
55

56. Misunderstandings in CC interaction
8. Cohesion and coherence
1. Repetition
2. Syntactic position of main point.
3. Location of new information and old information
56