Abstract This paper sets up to show how accountability for communicative action is constructed in online journalism as an object of talk, comparing British English and Israeli Hebrew discourse communities. The analysis utilizes a discourse-pragmatic frame of reference supplemented by cognitive semantics and corpus-assisted tools. The discussion draws on data collected from the websites of The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, Ha’aretz and Ynet. Focusing on self- and other-positioning of commenters and columnists as citizens, we explore how the accountability of the elite for communicative action and the accountability of their actions to citizens are discursively constructed by ordinary persons (in their role as commenters) and by non-ordinary persons (in their role as columnists, including journalists, experts and authors). The analysis indicates conceptual similarities coupled with discursive differences between the discourse communities under study.
{"title":"The discursive construction of accountability for communicative action to citizens: A contrastive analysis across Israeli and British media discourse","authors":"Elda Weizman, A. Fetzer","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-5002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-5002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper sets up to show how accountability for communicative action is constructed in online journalism as an object of talk, comparing British English and Israeli Hebrew discourse communities. The analysis utilizes a discourse-pragmatic frame of reference supplemented by cognitive semantics and corpus-assisted tools. The discussion draws on data collected from the websites of The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, Ha’aretz and Ynet. Focusing on self- and other-positioning of commenters and columnists as citizens, we explore how the accountability of the elite for communicative action and the accountability of their actions to citizens are discursively constructed by ordinary persons (in their role as commenters) and by non-ordinary persons (in their role as columnists, including journalists, experts and authors). The analysis indicates conceptual similarities coupled with discursive differences between the discourse communities under study.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45558019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper investigates the Lebanese conversational style in relation to Lebanese cultural values. The study adopts a discourse analysis approach based on interactional sociolinguistic methodology for the analysis of audio-recordings and semi-structured interviews involving Lebanese nationals (multi-active culture) and members of linear-active cultures, in addition to participant observation. Four distinctive linguistic features characterizing the Lebanese conversational style are identified: topic (focus on personal topics and abrupt topic shift), pacing (overlap and fast pace), expressive phonology and intonation, and formulaic language. The findings of this study reveal that the Lebanese have a high-involvement conversational style as a result of their cultural values which reflect those of high-context, multi-active and collectivist cultures. Furthermore, a connection is made between cultural and communicative differences which can account for instances of stereotyping and misunderstandings between members of the two cultural groups.
{"title":"Lebanese conversational style and cultural values","authors":"Sasha G. Louis, Rana N. Khoudary","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-5001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-5001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates the Lebanese conversational style in relation to Lebanese cultural values. The study adopts a discourse analysis approach based on interactional sociolinguistic methodology for the analysis of audio-recordings and semi-structured interviews involving Lebanese nationals (multi-active culture) and members of linear-active cultures, in addition to participant observation. Four distinctive linguistic features characterizing the Lebanese conversational style are identified: topic (focus on personal topics and abrupt topic shift), pacing (overlap and fast pace), expressive phonology and intonation, and formulaic language. The findings of this study reveal that the Lebanese have a high-involvement conversational style as a result of their cultural values which reflect those of high-context, multi-active and collectivist cultures. Furthermore, a connection is made between cultural and communicative differences which can account for instances of stereotyping and misunderstandings between members of the two cultural groups.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43633691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract It has become almost a cliché to say that we live in a post-truth world; that people of all trades speak with an indifference to truth. Speaking with an indifference to how things really are is famously regarded by Harry Frankfurt as the essence of bullshit. This paper aims to contribute to the philosophical and theoretical pragmatics discussion of bullshit. The aim of the paper is to offer a new theoretical analysis of what bullshit is, one that is more encompassing than Frankfurt’s original characterization. I part ways with Frankfurt in two points. Firstly, I propose that we should not analyze bullshit in intentional terms (i.e. as indifference). Secondly, I propose that we should not analyze it in relation to truth. Roughly put, I propose that bullshit is best characterized as speaking with carelessness toward the evidence for one’s conversational contribution. I bring forward, in the third section, a battery of examples that motivate this characterization. Furthermore, I argue that we can analyze speaking with carelessness toward the evidence in Gricean terms as a violation of the second Quality maxim. I argue that the Quality supermaxim, together with its subordinate maxims, demand that the speaker is truthful (contributes only what she believes to be true) and reliable (has adequate evidence for her contribution). The bullshitter’s main fault lies in being an unreliable interlocutor. I further argue that we should interpret what counts as adequate evidence, as stipulated by the second Quality Maxim, in contextualist terms: the subject matter and implicit epistemic standards determine how much evidence one needs in order to have adequate evidence. I contrast this proposed reading with a subjectivist interpretation of what counts as having adequate evidence and show that they give different predictions. Finally, working with a classic distinction, I argue that we should not understand bullshit as a form of deception but rather as a form of misleading speech.
{"title":"Bullshit, trust, and evidence","authors":"A. Briciu","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-5003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-5003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It has become almost a cliché to say that we live in a post-truth world; that people of all trades speak with an indifference to truth. Speaking with an indifference to how things really are is famously regarded by Harry Frankfurt as the essence of bullshit. This paper aims to contribute to the philosophical and theoretical pragmatics discussion of bullshit. The aim of the paper is to offer a new theoretical analysis of what bullshit is, one that is more encompassing than Frankfurt’s original characterization. I part ways with Frankfurt in two points. Firstly, I propose that we should not analyze bullshit in intentional terms (i.e. as indifference). Secondly, I propose that we should not analyze it in relation to truth. Roughly put, I propose that bullshit is best characterized as speaking with carelessness toward the evidence for one’s conversational contribution. I bring forward, in the third section, a battery of examples that motivate this characterization. Furthermore, I argue that we can analyze speaking with carelessness toward the evidence in Gricean terms as a violation of the second Quality maxim. I argue that the Quality supermaxim, together with its subordinate maxims, demand that the speaker is truthful (contributes only what she believes to be true) and reliable (has adequate evidence for her contribution). The bullshitter’s main fault lies in being an unreliable interlocutor. I further argue that we should interpret what counts as adequate evidence, as stipulated by the second Quality Maxim, in contextualist terms: the subject matter and implicit epistemic standards determine how much evidence one needs in order to have adequate evidence. I contrast this proposed reading with a subjectivist interpretation of what counts as having adequate evidence and show that they give different predictions. Finally, working with a classic distinction, I argue that we should not understand bullshit as a form of deception but rather as a form of misleading speech.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43869060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Economic globalization has resulted in more frequent trading frictions, some of which have escalated into trade wars such as the one between China and the US. Drawing on the same corpus built by Zhang and Forceville (Zhang, Cun & Charles Forceville. 2020. Metaphor and metonymy in Chinese and American political cartoons (2018–2019) about the Sino–US trade conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition 27(2). 476–501), and complementing insights of that paper, this paper investigates how the Sino–US trade war is metaphorically and metonymically constructed in 129 Chinese and American political cartoons respectively from a synthesized perspective. Based on comparative analyses, cross-cultural similarity and uniqueness in the semiotic, cognitive, and cultural aspects can be concluded as follows: (a) at the expression level, the shared dominant mode configuration pattern of metaphor and metonymy requires extra-textual knowledge to identify the target domain/concept while the source domain/vehicle concept is pinpointed through pictorial resources; (b) at the cognition level, “us” and “them” are distinctively evaluated by using the metonymy BODILY REACTION FOR EMOTION, cultural symbols, and the Great Chain metaphor. The Chinese cartoons converge on disapproving of “them” while the American cartoons converge on disapproving of “us” and diverge on conceptualizing “them”; (c) a variety of cross-cultural default scenarios are employed in the Chinese cartoons whereas the American cartoons utilize non-default scenarios influenced by only American cultures. Both aim for persuasiveness by employing emotionally charged source domains/vehicle concepts, but to different audiences.
{"title":"The Sino–US trade war in political cartoons: A synthesis of semiotic, cognitive, and cultural perspectives","authors":"Cun Zhang","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-4003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Economic globalization has resulted in more frequent trading frictions, some of which have escalated into trade wars such as the one between China and the US. Drawing on the same corpus built by Zhang and Forceville (Zhang, Cun & Charles Forceville. 2020. Metaphor and metonymy in Chinese and American political cartoons (2018–2019) about the Sino–US trade conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition 27(2). 476–501), and complementing insights of that paper, this paper investigates how the Sino–US trade war is metaphorically and metonymically constructed in 129 Chinese and American political cartoons respectively from a synthesized perspective. Based on comparative analyses, cross-cultural similarity and uniqueness in the semiotic, cognitive, and cultural aspects can be concluded as follows: (a) at the expression level, the shared dominant mode configuration pattern of metaphor and metonymy requires extra-textual knowledge to identify the target domain/concept while the source domain/vehicle concept is pinpointed through pictorial resources; (b) at the cognition level, “us” and “them” are distinctively evaluated by using the metonymy BODILY REACTION FOR EMOTION, cultural symbols, and the Great Chain metaphor. The Chinese cartoons converge on disapproving of “them” while the American cartoons converge on disapproving of “us” and diverge on conceptualizing “them”; (c) a variety of cross-cultural default scenarios are employed in the Chinese cartoons whereas the American cartoons utilize non-default scenarios influenced by only American cultures. Both aim for persuasiveness by employing emotionally charged source domains/vehicle concepts, but to different audiences.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48712966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Song Sooho: Second language acquisition as a mode-switching process: An empirical analysis of Korean learners of English","authors":"Qinlu Zhou, Liang Chen","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-4007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46445796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article gives an overview of how ‘language’ and ‘dialogue’ are dealt with in recent approaches of philosophy, science and dialogue analysis. The philosophy of language is outlined by referring to a few selected examples. Linguistic science is mainly addressed from the perspective of attempts to structure pragmatics. The basic premise is that dialogue is the key to pragmatics. The goal of this article is to demonstrate how a theory of dialogue can be developed as a complex whole, which requires the transition from classical science to New Science. The basic guideline is the desire to arrive at the unity of philosophy and science, which can be achieved by considering philosophy as a normative component in the study of the meaning of our existence.
{"title":"Language and dialogue in philosophy and science","authors":"E. Weigand","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-4005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article gives an overview of how ‘language’ and ‘dialogue’ are dealt with in recent approaches of philosophy, science and dialogue analysis. The philosophy of language is outlined by referring to a few selected examples. Linguistic science is mainly addressed from the perspective of attempts to structure pragmatics. The basic premise is that dialogue is the key to pragmatics. The goal of this article is to demonstrate how a theory of dialogue can be developed as a complex whole, which requires the transition from classical science to New Science. The basic guideline is the desire to arrive at the unity of philosophy and science, which can be achieved by considering philosophy as a normative component in the study of the meaning of our existence.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46559879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper investigates how L2 speakers of English process conventional metaphorical expressions. While much of the literature on L2 processing of figurative expressions focuses on idioms only, the aim of this paper is to investigate how L2 speakers process conventional metaphorical expressions. The results of a cross-modal semantic priming task show that conventional metaphors have a special status in comparison to literal language in the L2 lexicon. The differences in reaction times show that L2 speakers are aware of the connections between literal primes and targets, resulting in slower reaction times, while this effect is not found in the metaphorical condition. This demonstrates that even when metaphorical language is very conventional, it can cause difficulties for L2 speakers. Furthermore, these results show that conventional metaphorical expressions can pose a semantic and pragmatic challenge for language learners, thus creating a need for explicit teaching of metaphorical meanings of polysemous words.
{"title":"The status of conventional metaphorical meaning in the L2 lexicon","authors":"Ana Werkmann Horvat, M. Bolognesi, Katrin Kohl","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-4002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper investigates how L2 speakers of English process conventional metaphorical expressions. While much of the literature on L2 processing of figurative expressions focuses on idioms only, the aim of this paper is to investigate how L2 speakers process conventional metaphorical expressions. The results of a cross-modal semantic priming task show that conventional metaphors have a special status in comparison to literal language in the L2 lexicon. The differences in reaction times show that L2 speakers are aware of the connections between literal primes and targets, resulting in slower reaction times, while this effect is not found in the metaphorical condition. This demonstrates that even when metaphorical language is very conventional, it can cause difficulties for L2 speakers. Furthermore, these results show that conventional metaphorical expressions can pose a semantic and pragmatic challenge for language learners, thus creating a need for explicit teaching of metaphorical meanings of polysemous words.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47340708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In recent years, the specter of populism has grown increasingly restless in the Western world and beyond. This new populism has been observed in different political movements in Europe; the Brexit movement in the UK, Podemos and Vox in Spain, Rassemblement National in France, Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbán’s illiberal democracy in Hungary. Inevitably, it is most commonly associated with the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA in 2016. In this paper, a pragmatic interaction theory of metaphorical utterances is applied to a corpus of speeches given by candidates during the American 2016 presidential elections. First, speeches and candidates were graded for populism according to a holistic grading method. Secondly, speeches were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate if and how active metaphorical language was used to construct the populist frame. The findings suggest that active metaphors can be useful for politicians who wish to counter the dominant conventional frames, and so can serve the ideological purposes of populists and non-populists alike. Therefore, this paper also argues that novel metaphorical concepts and active metaphorical utterances make important contributions to the communication of ideologies in political discourse and should not be overlooked by analysts.
近年来，民粹主义的幽灵在西方世界及其他地区愈演愈烈。这种新的民粹主义在欧洲不同的政治运动中都有所体现;英国的脱欧运动、西班牙的Podemos和Vox、法国的国民大议会(Rassemblement National)、荷兰的自由人民党(Partij voor de Vrijheid)，以及匈牙利维克多Orbán的非自由民主。不可避免地，它最常与2016年唐纳德·特朗普当选美国总统联系在一起。本文将隐喻话语的语用互动理论应用于2016年美国总统大选候选人的演讲语料库。首先，根据整体评分法，对演讲和候选人进行民粹主义评分。其次，采用定量和定性的方法对演讲进行分析，以调查是否以及如何使用主动隐喻语言来构建民粹主义框架。研究结果表明，主动隐喻对于那些希望对抗占主导地位的传统框架的政治家来说是有用的，因此可以服务于民粹主义者和非民粹主义者的意识形态目的。因此，本文还认为，新的隐喻概念和主动的隐喻话语对政治话语中的意识形态传播做出了重要贡献，这是分析人士不可忽视的。
{"title":"Populist discourse and active metaphors in the 2016 US presidential elections","authors":"J. Keating","doi":"10.1515/ip-2021-4004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, the specter of populism has grown increasingly restless in the Western world and beyond. This new populism has been observed in different political movements in Europe; the Brexit movement in the UK, Podemos and Vox in Spain, Rassemblement National in France, Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbán’s illiberal democracy in Hungary. Inevitably, it is most commonly associated with the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA in 2016. In this paper, a pragmatic interaction theory of metaphorical utterances is applied to a corpus of speeches given by candidates during the American 2016 presidential elections. First, speeches and candidates were graded for populism according to a holistic grading method. Secondly, speeches were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate if and how active metaphorical language was used to construct the populist frame. The findings suggest that active metaphors can be useful for politicians who wish to counter the dominant conventional frames, and so can serve the ideological purposes of populists and non-populists alike. Therefore, this paper also argues that novel metaphorical concepts and active metaphorical utterances make important contributions to the communication of ideologies in political discourse and should not be overlooked by analysts.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45612858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：