Talking about intercultural experiences
The cognitive ‘leap’ into another universe
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.
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
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, D. (1983). Where does intonation belong? Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 101–120. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (Ed.) (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deignan, A. (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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 341, 746–767. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, S. (2005). Dichte Konstruktionen. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 431, 1–30. Available at: [URL] (accessed 1 May 2018).
Günthner, S. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hayashi, M., Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.) (2013). Conversational repair and human understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M. (1992). Philosophical implications of cognitive semantics. Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 345–366. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kapp Silva, C. (2013). Code-switching na comunicação intercultural entre brasileiros e alemães. Monografia em Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, K. (2010). Sprachliche Kategorisierungsverfahren und subjektive Theorien über Sprache in narrativen Interviews. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 531, 31–57.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lee, S. (2015). Creaky voice as a phonational device marking parenthetical segments in talk. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(3), 275–302. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mondada, L. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Müller, C. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations. A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2), 219–229. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation.
Volume
1
1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation.
Volume
21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schröder, U. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Selting, M. (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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Selting, M. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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).
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). London, New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2007). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T. (2008). When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tannen, D. (2007 [1989]). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolf, H. G., & Polzenhagen, F. (2009). World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 81 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 ![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Schröder, Ulrike & Sineide Gonçalves
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.