The Problem

Several studies on intercultural interactions (e.g. Cieslicka 2006; House 2003; Howarth 1998; Kecskes 2007, 2015; Metsä-Ketelä 2016; Ortactepe 2012; Philip 2005) concluded that interlocutors prefer semantic transparency to pragmatic inference and rely mainly on literal meaning of expressions in their language production and comprehension. This significantly differs from what happens in L1 communication.

 

Objective

The presentation makes an attempt to shed new light on the semantics/pragmatics distinction debate by analyzing the results of those studies (see above) to explain how semantically incomplete (see pragmatic theories) sentences are uttered to convey complete meaning, and how they are interpreted.

 

Methods

Analysis focused on the use of formulaic language, modality and vague language in intercultural interactions in the above-mentioned studies.

 

Results

- Linguistic code seems to play the role of core common ground.

- Literal semantic content and compositionality dominates both expressing intention and recognizing it.

- Contextual support is not significant.

- Pragmatic intrusion is minimal and represents general rather than language specific features.

- What is said is usually equals or close to what is communicated.

 

References

Cie´slicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22 (2),115-144.

House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk, J. House, G. Kasper, & and Ross, S. (Eds.), Misunderstanding in social Life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk, (pp. 22-56). London: Longman.

Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19, 24-44.

Kecskes, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes & Horn, L. R (Eds.), In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (pp. 191-219). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kecskes, I. (2015). “Is the Idiom Principle Blocked in Bilingual L2 Production?” Chapter 2. In Roberto Heredia and Anna Cieslicka (eds.) Bilingual Figurative Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 28-53.

Metsä-Ketelä, Maria. (2016). Pragmatic vagueness: Exploring general extenders in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics. Vol. 13 No. 4: 325-353.

Ortaçtepe, D. (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.

Philip, G. (2005). Figurative language and the advanced learner.  Research News: The Newsletter of the IATEFL Research SIG 16, 16-20.