Cover not available
Part of
Evaluation in Context
Edited by Geoff Thompson † and Laura Alba-Juez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242] 2014
► pp. 137–152

The evaluative function of situation-bound utterances in intercultural interaction

ORCID logo
This chapter aims to examine the evaluative function of situation-bound utterances in intercultural interactions. The subject of inquiry is a unique formula whose use is tied to certain reoccurring situations. Situation-bound utterances (SBU) are frequently used in any language because these expressions serve as interactional patterns and rituals that usually mean the same to all speakers of a particular speech community. In a way, SBUs are reflections of the way native speakers of a language think. But what happens if the users of SBUs belong to different speech communities having a variety of L1s other than English? Will SBUs still keep their evaluative function (if any) when used in intercultural communication? These questions are very important if we accept that evaluative functions of language are culture- and language-specific. In order to answer the questions the chapter sets out to discuss the role of context in which situation-bound utterances are used.
Published online: 4 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.07kec
References (32)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines. Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1993. “Challenging assumption about concepts”. Cognitive Development 8: 169–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. “Perceptual symbol systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communicative Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-063-27-0015. Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2004. “The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multilinguals.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25 (2/3): 204–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyv. 2006. “Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4): 491–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. “What are discourse markers?” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7): 931–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1980 [1884]. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Trans. J.L. Austin. Second Revised Edition. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Fónagy, Ivan. 2001. Languages within Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 2002. “Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca.” In Lingua Franca Communication, Karlfried Knapp and Christiane Meierkord (eds), 245–267. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2003. “Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters.” In Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross (eds), 22–56. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jay, Timothy and Janschewitz, Kristin. 2008. “The pragmatics of swearing.” Journal of Politeness Research 4: 267–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. “A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (6): 605–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Formulaic language in English Lingua Franca.” In Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, Istvan Kecskes and Laurence Horn (eds), 191–219. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008. “Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (11): 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan and Zhang, Fenghui. 2009. “Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1985. “How to account for situational meaning?” Quaderni di Semantica 2: 288–288.Google Scholar
1995. “Situational utterances.” Keynote presented to the 5th International Pragmatics Conference at Brighton, UK. (Manuscript).Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. “Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight!” In Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition, Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds), 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, James R. and Jeanette S. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philip, Gill. 2005. “Figurative language and the advanced learner.” Research News: The Newsletter of the IATEFL Research SIG 16: 16–20.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Piyale, C. Oztek. 1981. “Health to our mouths. Formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek.” In Conversational Routine, Florian Coulmas (ed.), 516–534. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff and Hunston, Susan. 2000. “Evaluation: An introduction.” In Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds), 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Violi, Patrizia. 2000. “Prototypicality, typicality and context.” In Meaning and Cognition, Liliani Albertazzi (ed.), 103–123 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. C.K. Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Scianna, Caterina
2023. When children acquire irony: The role of epistemic vigilance. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:3 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Conti, Sergio & Carmen Lepadat
2021. Situation-bound utterances in Chinese as a foreign language: the effectiveness of the identification task. Chinese as a Second Language Research 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Evtyugina, Alla, Aizhanna Zhuminova, Elena Grishina, Irina Kondyurina & Marina Sturikova
2020. Cognitive-Conceptual Model for Developing Foreign Language Communicative Competence in Non-Linguistic University Students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education 8:Special issue ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Klassen, Elena V., Olga A. Obdalova & Svetlana Yu. Averina
2015. Lost in Translation: Case Study of Interpreting American SBUs by Russian EFL Learners Majoring in Linguistics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 200 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Minakova, Ludmila Yu. & Svetlana K. Gural
2015. The Situational Context Effect in Non-Language-Majoring EFL Students’ Meaning Comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 200 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.