Cover not available
Article published In:
Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics
Edited by Ulrike Schröder, Milene Mendes de Oliveira and Hans-Georg Wolf
[International Journal of Language and Culture 7:1] 2020
► pp. 15–37

Talking about intercultural experiences

The cognitive ‘leap’ into another universe

 | Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG
The aim of this paper is to ask how exchange students retrospectively co-construct their first ‘culture shock’ experiences on a verbal, vocal, and visual plane. The results show that the different co-occurring levels of communication in the talk of the students offer various insights into cognitive processes: (1) Metaphorical and metonymical gestures are frequently used to represent or compress cultural dimensions in moments of high involvement and emphatic speech style. (2) Such gestures are also often historically and culturally embedded and may additionally serve to gain laughter from the co-participants in order to exaggerate the effect of cultural confrontation, underpinned by the use of prosodic cues. (3) Other prosodic means such as creaky voice may be used as a metaphorical marker for distance and represent therefore another type of cultural shock marker. (4) A dynamic understanding of blending theory might be a tool for laying cognitive processes of intercultural experiences open for the researcher.
Keywords: metaphor, metonymy, gesture, alterity, blending theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical-methodological framework
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1I’m German – you are in France now
    • 3.2For Germans the body is a natural thing
    • 3.3Totally backward
    • 3.4It was awful but it was too very funny
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00025.sch
References (67)
References
Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies (pp. 57–100). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983). Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2005). Image schemas and gesture. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–441). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In C. Müller, A. Cienki & E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 11 (pp. 182–201). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Jr. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Ed.) (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 280–294). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 341, 746–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2002). Stimmenvielfalt im Diskurs. Formen der Stilisierung und Ästhetisierung in der Redewiedergabe. Gesprächsforschung. Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 31, 59–80.Google Scholar
(2005). Dichte Konstruktionen. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 431, 1–30. Available at: [URL] (accessed 1 May 2018).
(2011). Interkulturelle Kommunikation aus linguistischer Perspektive. In H. J. Krumm et al. (Eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch (pp. 331–342). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M. (Eds.) (2005). Syntax and lexis in conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.) (2013). Conversational repair and human understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E. Ford & B. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horst, D., Boll, F., Schmitt, C. et al. (2014). Gesture as interactive expressive movement: Inter-affectivity in face-to-face communication. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 21 (pp. 2112–2125). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptanze/declination. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 79–96). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 345–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapp Silva, C. (2013). Code-switching na comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e alemães. Monografia em Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
König, K. (2010). Sprachliche Kategorisierungsverfahren und subjektive Theorien über Sprache in narrativen Interviews. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 531, 31–57.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (2015). Creaky voice as a phonational device marking parenthetical segments in talk. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3), 275–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. (2004). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 623–636). New York, London: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mittelberg, I., & Waugh, L. R. (2009). Metonymy first, metaphor second: A cognitive-semiotic approach to multimodal figures of thought in co-speech gesture. In C. J. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 329–355). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013). Conversation analysis: Talk and bodily resources for the organization of social interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 11 (pp. 218–227). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2014). Multimodal interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 21 (pp. 577–589). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case of a gesture family? In C. Müller & P. Posner (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures (pp. 234–256). Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
(2013). Gestures as a medium of expression: The linguistic potential of gestures. In: C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 11 (pp. 202–217). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Cienki, A. (2009). Words, gestures, and beyond: Forms of multimodal metaphor in the use of spoken language. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphor (pp. 297–328). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 325–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., & Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2013). Sensorimotor simulation in speaking, gesturing, and understanding. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 11 (pp. 512–533). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations. A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2), 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Volume 1 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1995). Lectures on conversation. Volume 21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandig, B., & Selting, M. (1997). Discourse styles. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Vol. I: Discourse as structure and process (pp. 138–156). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T., & Wörner, K. (2009). EXMARaLDA – Creating, analysing and sharing spoken language corpora for pragmatic research. Pragmatics, 191, 565–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, U. (2015). The interplay of verbal, vocal, and visual cues in the co-construction of the experience of alterity in exchange students’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 811, 21–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Die kognitiv-pragmatische Dimension der kommunikativen Gattung Rap als battle . In S. Meier & K. Marx (Eds.), Pragmalinguistik und kognitive Ansätze: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Analysen (pp. 133–155). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schröder, U., & Carneiro Mendes, M. (2019). Unterschiede im Gebrauch und in der Funktion prosodischer Merkmale im deutschen und brasilianischen Sprechen im Kontext des Transkribierens. In T. Johnen, M. Savreda & U. Schröder (Eds.), Sprachgebrauch im Kontext – die deutsche Sprache im Kontakt, Vergleich und in Interaktion mit Brasilien (pp. 145-172). Stuttgart: ibidem.
Schütz, A. (1976 [1944]). The stranger: An essay in social psychology. In A. Schütz. (edited and introduced by Arvid Brodersen), Collected papers II. Studies in social theory (pp. 91–105). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1994). Emphatic speech style – with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 221, 375–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Interaktionale Stilistik: Methodologische Aspekte der Analyse. In M. Selting & B. Sandig (Eds.), Sprech- und Gesprächsstile (pp. 9–43). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Verbal, vocal, and visual practices in conversational interaction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke et al. (Eds.), Body – language – communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 11 (pp. 589–609). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2000). Argumente für die Entwicklung einer ‘interaktionalen Linguistik’. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 11, 76–95. Available at: [URL] (accessed 1 May 2018).
(Eds.) (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2007). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. (2001). The implementation of possible cognitive shifts in Japanese conversation. Complementizers as pivotal devices. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 81–109). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (2007 [1989]). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tissari, H. (2006). Conceptualizing shame: Investigating uses of the English word shame. Selected proceedings of the 2005 symposium on new approaches in English historical lexis (HEL-LEX), Somerville, MA (pp. 143–154). Sommerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Wolf, H. G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2006). Intercultural communication in English – Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 81 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Poortinga, Ype H.
2024. An approach to intercultural training deemphasizing cross-cultural differences. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 30:3/4 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Schröder, Ulrike & Sineide Gonçalves
2024. Embodied interaction with face masks and social distancing. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.