Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T05:47:17.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Sociopragmatics and Intercultural Interaction

from Part III - Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Michael Haugh  and
Wei-Lin Melody Chang
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

Sociopragmatics encompasses the study of social, interactional, and normative dimensions of language use, while intercultural pragmatics examines how language is used in social interactions between people who have different first languages and are usually considered to represent different cultures. While there are some points of overlap between them, the main aim of intercultural pragmatics is to analyze and theorize how language is used when participants have limited common ground and do not necessarily adhere to L1 preferred ways of speaking. It is thus argued in intercultural pragmatics not only that intercultural encounters are deserving of theorization in their own right, but that theorization in intercultural pragmatics can usefully inform pragmatics more broadly. The aim of this chapter is to consider how research in intercultural pragmatics can inform work in sociopragmatics, and vice versa. Following discussion of the main theoretical foundations of sociopragmatics, a case study examining the openings of first conversations in intercultural settings is used as a springboard to consider the place of sociopragmatics vis-à-vis intercultural pragmatics, and what insights each can bring to the other. The conclusion is that sociopragmatics would benefit from building more explicitly on the important empirical and theoretical insights offered by intercultural pragmatics.

Keywords

sociopragmaticspolitenessintercultural interactionsnormscross-cultural comparative lensrelational connectionsinterpersonal dimensionsspeech routines
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 420 - 444
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allwood, J. (2000). An activity based approach to pragmatics. In Bunt, H. and Black, B., eds., Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–80.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. (2010a). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. (2010b). Relating. In Locher, M. and Graham, S., eds., Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 137–165.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. [1962] (1975). How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed., ed. Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (2017). Politeness and impoliteness. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383–399.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E., ed., Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, W. and Haugh, M. (2011). Evaluations of im/politeness of an intercultural apology. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 411–442.Google Scholar
Chang, W. and Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural communicative competence and emotion amongst second language learners of Chinese. In Kecskes, I. and Sun, C., eds., Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research. London: Routledge, pp. 269–286.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R., Reno, R., and Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on impoliteness, relational work, and power. In Bousfield, D. and Locher, M., eds., Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2015). Geoffrey Leech: The pragmatics legacy. In Östman, J-O and Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2021). Sociopragmatics: Roots and definition. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2021). Sociopragmatics and (im)politeness. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D. (eds.) (2017). Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Basingstoke: PalgraveGoogle Scholar
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.Google Scholar
Debray, C. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2019). “On the same page?” Marginalisation and positioning practices in intercultural teams. Journal of Pragmatics, 144, 15–28.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.) (1992). Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2010). Contexts in context. In Tanskanen, S., Helasvuo, M., Johansson, M., and Raitaneimi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–32Google Scholar
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259.Google Scholar
Fisher, A. and Adams, K. (1994). Interpersonal Communication: Pragmatics of Human Relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). A genre approach to the study of im-politeness. International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), 46–94.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (2008). Communication accommodation theory. In Baxter, L. and Braithwaite, D., eds., Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 161–173.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (ed.) (2016). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities across Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2010). Intercultural impoliteness and the micro-macro issue. In Trosborg, A., ed., Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer, pp. 139–166.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2012). Conversational interaction. In Allan, K. and Jaszczolt, K., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 251–273.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Intercultural pragmatics. In Kim, Y, ed., International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2021). Discourse and politeness. In Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., and Wong, L., eds., The Companion to Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 219–232.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2022). (Im)politeness in video-mediated first conversations amongst speakers of English as a lingua franca. In Walkinshaw, I., ed., Pragmatics of English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Kádár, D. (2017). Intercultural (im)politeness. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 601–632.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M. (2021a). Introduction: Directions in sociopragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M. (eds.) (2021b). Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Pillet-Shore, D. (forthcoming). First Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. and Watanabe, Y. (2009). Analysing Japanese “face-in-interaction”: Insights from intercultural business meetings. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M., eds., Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 78–95.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2018a). Sociolinguistics vs pragmatics: Where does the boundary lie? In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2018b). Negotiating the culture order in New Zealand workplaces. Language in Society, 47(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
Holmes, J., Marra, M., and Vine, B. (2012). Politeness and impoliteness in ethnic varieties of New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(9), 1063–1076.Google Scholar
House, J. (2008). (Im)politeness in English as lingua franca discourse. In Locher, M. and Strässler, J., eds., Standards and Norms in the English Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 351–66.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2017). Introduction: What is pragmatics. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. (2012). Doing being reprehensible: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, C. (2018). Uncooperative lingua franca encounters. In Jenkins, J., Baker, W., and Dewey, M., eds., Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London: Routledge, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. and Staley, L. (2017). (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In. Culpeper, M., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 403–429.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kappa, K. (2016). Exploring solidarity and consensus in English as a lingua franca interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 95, 16–33.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, K. and Jasczcolt, K., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 599–616.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015a). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?” International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 171–194.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2015b). Intercultural impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 43–47.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Context-dependency and impoliteness in intercultural communication. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019a). The interplay of prior experience and actual situational context in intercultural first encounters. Pragmatics and Cognition, 26(1), 112–134.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2019b). English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Konakahara, M. (2017). Interactional management of face-threatening acts in casual ELF conversation: An analysis of third-party complaint sequences. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 6(2), 313–343.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s’. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 13, 292–305.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1977). Language and Tact. Trier: University of Trier.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5/6), 365–399.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2010). Communication activity types as organisations in discourse and discourses in organisation. In Tanskanen, S., Helasvuo, M., Johansson, M., and Raitaniemi, M., eds., Discourses in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–59.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, S. (2011). Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and Norrick, N., eds., Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2014). Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 81–107.Google Scholar
McConachy, T. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Haugh, M., Kádár, D., and Terkourafi, M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 733–757.Google Scholar
Mead, G. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. (2010). Societal pragmatics. In Cummings, L., ed., The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 444–446.Google Scholar
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
Pullin Stark, P. (2009). No joke – This is serious!: Power, solidarity and humor in business English as a lingua franca (BELF). In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E., eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 152–177.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schank, R. and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Sifianou, M. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2017). (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., and Kádár, D., eds., Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 571–599.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–656.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Conceptualising the “relational” in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3565–3578.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2013). Relating at work: Facets, dialectics and face. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 121–137.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Kádár, D. (2021). Intercultural Politeness: Managing Relations across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. and Wang, J. (2020). Establishing professional intercultural relations: Chinese perceptions of behavioural success in a Sino-American exchange visit. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 49(6), 499–519.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005a). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237–262.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2005b). Pragmatic correlates of frequency of use: The case for a notion of ‘minimal context’. In Marmaridou, S., Nikiforidou, K. and Antonopoulou, E., eds., Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends for the 21st Century. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 209–233.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019a). Im/politeness: A 21st century appraisal. Foreign Language and Foreign Language Teaching [外语与外语教学] (Dalian University of Foreign Languages), 2019 (6), 1–17.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019b). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–1215.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ViMELF. (2018). Corpus of Video-Mediated English as a Lingua Franca Conversations. Birkenfeld: Trier University of Applied Sciences. http://umwelt-campus.de/case.Google Scholar
Walkinshaw, I. (2016). Teasing in informal contexts in English as an Asian lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(2), 249–271.Google Scholar
Walkinshaw, I. and Kirkpatrick, A. (2014). Mutual face preservation among Asian speakers of English as a Lingua Franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkinshaw, I. and Kirkpatrick, A. (2021). “We want fork but no pork”: (Im)politeness in humour by Asian users of English as a lingua franca and Australian English speakers. Contrastive Pragmatics, 2(1), 52–80.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (2015). The gains and losses of face in ongoing intercultural interaction: A case study of Chinese participant perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 89, 50–65.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2009). Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. (2021). Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 533–561.Google Scholar
Werkmann Horvat, A., Bolognesi, M., and Kohl, K. (2021). The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(4), 447–467.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×