Cover not available
Part of
A Pragmatic Agenda for Healthcare: Fostering inclusion and active participation through shared understanding
Edited by Sarah Bigi and Maria Grazia Rossi
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 338] 2023
► pp. 106–123

Chapter 4
Face-to-face intercultural communication and mediated intercultural communication as related to health communication

 | State University of New York
The chapter argues that any communication happens in a specific context composed of three aspects: individual experience-based sociocultural aspect (CA), actual situational aspect (SA), and aspect of language as a tool of communication (LA). CA refers to the attitudinal frame of reference a person develops throughout his/her life and brings into the interaction through intersubjectivity. SA includes the psychological, social and physical variables affecting common ground building. LA means the language repertoire of the individual with its conceptual knowledge. These aspects are always present but affect interaction in different degrees depending on whether it happens face-to-face or through a medium and it is situated closer to the intracultural or intercultural end of the continuum. The chapter discusses the substantiations of these aspects.
Keywords: intersubjectivity, common ground, conceptual knowledge, socio-cognitive approach, intercultural communication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intersubjectivity
    • 2.1The role of intersubjectivity
    • 2.2Intersubjectivity in mediated communication
  • 3.Common ground building
  • 4.Conceptual knowledge
    • 4.1Nature of conceptual knowledge
    • 4.2Linguistic knowledge and conceptual knowledge
    • 4.3Conceptual knowledge and different registers
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.338.04kec
References (42)
References
Baraldi, Claudio, and Laura Luppi. 2015. “Ways of Overcoming Linguistic Barriers in Healthcare Intercultural Communication.” Language and Intercultural Communication 15: 581–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Daniel G., and Fred Plog. 1980. Cultural Anthropology (2nd ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred, and Robert Schreuder. 1992. “From Concepts to Lexical Items.” Cognition 42: 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigi, Sarah, and Maria Grazia Rossi. 2020. “Considering Mono- and Multilingual Interactions on a Continuum: An Analysis of Interactions in Medical Settings.” In Multilingual Healthcare, edited by Christiane Hohenstein, and Magdalène Lévy-Tödter, 12–33. FOM-Edition. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biocca, Frank, Chad Harms, and Judee K. Burgoon. 2003. “Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria.” Presence 12: 456–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 1998. “Different Approaches to Intercultural Communication: A Critical Survey.” Plenary lecture, Lernen und Arbeiten in einer international vernetzten und multikulturellen Gesellschaft, Expertentagung Universität Bremen, Institut für Projektmanagement und Witschaftsinformatik (IPMI), 27–28 February. Retrieved from [URL].
Brooks, Emma. 2022. “Translanguaging Health.” Applied Linguistics 43 (3): 517–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2009. “Context and Common Ground.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, edited by Jacob L. Mey, 116–119. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., Robert Schreuder, and Samuel Butterick. 1983. “Common Ground and the Understanding of Demonstrative Reference.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan. E. Brennan. 1991. “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, edited by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Correa-Chávez, Maricela, and Amy L. D. Roberts. 2012. “A Cultural Analysis is Necessary in Understanding Intersubjectivity.” Culture and Psychology 18 (1): 99–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cox, Antoon, and Shuangyu Li. 2019. “The Medical Consultation through the Lenses of Language and Social Interaction Theory.” Advances in Health Sciences Education 25: 1–17.Google Scholar
Garcia, Ofelia, and Wei Li. 2018. “Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education.” Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature 11 (1): 85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, Alex, and Flora Cornish. 2010. “Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 40: 19–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis". Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 40 (1): 19–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graci, Roberto. 2023. “Towards an Extended Notion of Common Ground in Aphasiology.” Intercultural Pragmatics 20 (1): 29-49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Joseph S. 1985. “Lexical, Conceptual, and Encyclopedic Meaning.” Quaderni di Semantica 2: 254–267.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J., and Celia Roberts. 1991. “Understanding in intercultural encounters.” In The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication, edited by Blommaert Jan and Jef Verschueren, 51–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
He, Sui. 2021. “Cognitive Metaphor Theories in Translation Studies: Toward a Dual-model Parametric Approach.” Intercultural Pragmatics 18 (1): 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hildreth, Paul M., Chris Kimble, and Peter Wright. 1998. “Computer Mediated Communications and Communities of Practice.” In Proceedings of Ethicomp’ 98, March 1998, Erasmus University, The Netherlands, 275–286.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1968. “The Ethnography of Speaking”. In Readings in the Sociology of Language, edited by Joshua A. Fishman, 99–138. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: A Socio-cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Society 1 (1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Intracultural Communication and Intercultural Communication: Are They Different?” International Review of Pragmatics 7: 171–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2019b. “Impoverished Pragmatics? The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface from an Intercultural Perspective.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (5): 489–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021a. “Processing Implicatures in English as a Lingua Franca Communication.” Lingua 256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. “Sociocognitive Pragmatics.” In Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, edited by Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Marina Terkourafi, 592–615. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. “Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground: A Socio-cognitive Approach.” Pragmatics and Cognition 17 (2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1990. “Linguistic, Conceptual and Encyclopedic Knowledge: Some Implications for Lexicography.” In BudaLEX ‘88 Proceedings: Papers from the 3rd International EURALEX Congress, edited by T. Magay, and J. Zigány. Budapest.
Liu, Chen-Chung and Jia-Hsung Lee. 2005. “Prompting Conceptual Understanding with Computer-mediated Peer Discourse and Knowledge Acquisition Techniques.” British Journal of Educational Technology 36 (5): 821–837. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miranda, Shaila, Robert Bostrom, and Leslie Albert. 2004. “Communication Media and Intersubjectivity in Small Groups.” AMCIS 2004 Proceedings: 185.Google Scholar
Oh, Catherine S., Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Gregory F. Welch. 2018. “A Systematic Review of Social Presence: Definition, Antecedents, and Implications.” Frontiers in Robotics AI 5:114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan, I. 1997. “Mind, Code, and Text.” In Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, edited by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, Ji Hee, Candice R. Hollenbeck, and George M. Zinkhan. 2008. “The Value of Human Warmth: Social Presence Cues and Computer-Mediated Communications.” Advances in Consumer Research 357: 93–794.Google Scholar
Walther, Joseph. B. 1992. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective.” Communication Research 19 (1): 52–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. “Computer-mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction.” Communication Research 23 (1): 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Social Information Processing Theory (CMC).” In The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, edited by Charles R. Berger, Michael E. Roloff, Steve R. Wilson, James Price Dillard, John Caughlin, and Denise Solomon, 1–13. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar