Features : perspectives on a key notion in linguistics
Narrog Eds. London: Oxford University Press, — In Kaplan, R. Corder, Stephen Pit. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Hamrondsworth: Penguin. English , Kathryn. ASp , — London: Continuum. Gledhill, Christopher. Collocations in Science Writing. Gledhill , Christopher. In Depraetere, I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 71— ASp 59, 5— Granger , Sylviane The Learner Corpus: a revolution in applied linguistics. Grey , Bethany. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Corpora, Grammar and Discourse. In honour of Susan Hunston. Gross , Gaston.
Paris: Ophrys. Introduction to Functional Grammar 4th Edition. London: Routledge. Hanks , Patrick. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. London: Oxford University Press. Current Issues in Phraseology. Hunston, Susan. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Williams, G.
Veissier Eds. In Zanettin , F. Stewart Eds. Manchester: St. Jerome, 25— In Frankenberg-Garcia, A. Aston Eds. London: Continuum, 62— In Boulton , A. Rowley-Jolivet Eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, — ASp 63,— Lerat , Pierre. ASp ,1— Loock , Rudy. In Bolasco , S. Giuliano Eds.
Louw , Bill. In Baker , M. Tognini-Bonelli Eds. Maia, Belinda. Jerome, 43— Maingueneau , Dominique. In Charaudeau , P. Paris: Seuil, — Matthiessen , Christian.
In Ghadessy, M. London: Pinter, — Mossop, Brian. Revising and Editing for Translators. Partington , Alan. Patterns and Meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pearson, Jennifer. Terms in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelpha: John Benjamins. Pecman , Mojca. Peraldi , Sandrine. ASp 62, 5— ASp 63, 75— Resche , Catherine.
ASp , 67— ASp 26, — Resche, Catherine ASp , ASp , 93— Resche , Catherine ASp 64, 29— Sinclair, John. Sinclair , John. Textus 9, 75— Sockett, Geoffrey. ASp 60, 5— Stewart, Dominic. In Beeby , A. Sanchez-Gijon Eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29— Stubbs, Michael. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Swales, John. Genre Analysis.
English in Academic and Research Settings. Thelen , Marcel. Linguistica Antverpiensia 1, — Williams , Geoffrey. ASp , 91— In Tutin, A. Grossman Eds. Amsterdam: de Werelt, 33— Corpora in Translator Education. Appendix 1. Authors of linguistics-related articles in ASp Authors listed alphabetically. Total Articles.
- Stochastic games with finite state and action spaces.
- The Foundations of Analysis: A Straightforward Introduction: Book 2: Topological Ideas.
- Naval Architecture for Marine Engineers.
Appendix 2. Features analysed in linguistics-related articles in ASp Bundles, clusters, collocations, lexical phrases, phraseological units. Metaphor, conceptual metaphor cognitive approach. Morphology in terminology abbreviation, affixing, blending, composition, derivation. Terminology in translation, translation problems false friends.
Cohesion across a whole text. Clause-level structure if-conditionals, clefts, extraposition, coordination. Lexical association, complexity, density, comprehension, reading level, AWL. Translation processes, specialised translation. Grammatical metaphor. Multimodal aspects of oral and written interaction images, symbols, non-verbal gestures, etc.
Verbal group syntax, causatives, phrasal verbs. Verbal semantics process types — participant roles, transitivity. Adverbs of intensity, modal adjuncts. Aphoristic phrases, formulaic language, speech acts, sequences with specific rhetorical functions. Denomination, proper nouns, names. Nominal group, adjectival group compound pre-modifiers. Pronouns, relative pronouns. Citations, quotations. Collocational networks. Intercultural rhetoric, politeness.
Non-standard language slang. Appendix 3. In any formal, written context, only standard English is accepted. Let me quote a letter-writer to the Scotsman newspaper last year, complaining about declining linguistic standards. Why has linguistics failed to counteract this discrimination? Chomsky's theories were based on his ingenious explanation for the phenomenon that is children's language acquisition. Brilliant — but wrong. The case against Chomsky is conclusive. The new empirical "connectionist" school and the various branches of cognitive linguistics have brought the subject back to scientific principles.
There is still little research being carried out on, for example, environmental influences on children's language acquisition. Most pressingly of all, too little work is being done to record the languages currently facing extinction. Recording these should have been a priority. CLYNE agrees with the notion of sociopragmatic interaction parameters stating that universal underlying values will influence people's interaction.
Consequently, people from different cultures will differ in the degree to which they take some ends of these dimensions as normative ideals to follow. However, according to her approach, these values are completely culture-specific and cannot be categorized into supra-cultural dimensions or scales. Primordial approaches assume that culture is something that already exists when people get involved in interaction and that culture will in some different ways influence the way people communicate.
Intercultural communication may thus be taken as prone to an increase of communicative misunderstandings to occur. Communicating in a culturally competent way will thus require interlocutors to learn about the ways culture influences communicative utterances of individuals concerned. Other scholars accept the primordial view on culture but they question culture's inevitable control on people's interaction. Instead, whether cultural differences will take effect or not depends much more on the degree to which people feel irritated from interaction on a subjective basis.
Besides of constructionist approaches building upon a primordialist notion of culture in general, others adopt fields and topics of research from primordialist intercultural research and then try to describe and explain the same problems on the basis of the assumption that culture is situationally produced by interactants. Of course, still a vast field of approaches tries to completely override primordialist roots and thoughts.
According to them, especially structuralist notions of culture so far have on the one side made linguistics, especially semiotics, an ideal discipline for the analysis of culture. On the other hand, the notion of culture could not override its structuralist paradigms focusing especially on people's minds and their thinking, and neglecting people's real action. Instead of emphasizing aspects that predetermine individuals' action, approaches from practice theory tend to concede that it is individuals themselves who shape their action.
However, this notion of culture as an interplay may then again blur the search for culture's actual location and function in interaction processes. Even in constructionist research however, most authors still rather tend to focus on one single perspective, either on people's minds or on their action.
Analyzing individuals' forms of adjustment will thus mean looking at changes of their subjective perceptions and evaluations of their surroundings. From the perspective of this distinction, research on aspects of how people construe processes of intercultural adjustment see also BRISLIN, definitely have been much more common than looks at their adaptation.
At a very early stage of intercultural research, scholars identified aspects of individual adjustment in terms of stereotypes LIPPMANN, that until today form one significant strand of intercultural research A. According to him, researchers looking at individuals' affiliations to different cultures will always have to take in a single perspective from which they construe what they see.
According to them, the way culture influences social interaction primarily depends on individuals' cultural worldviews that can be put into a successive series of stages. Here, cultural worldviews specify the degree and the quality to which individuals consider culture to be relevant to their interaction. For the discipline of cultural anthropology, BARTH stated that actually any cultural differences will necessarily have to be taken as social constructions as a basic principle.
Research on individuals' adaptation to new cultural contexts in contrast has rather been neglected. Some approaches are basing on the notion that boundaries between social groups have grown in history and that on this basis, individuals' action is characterized by separation BRABANT et al. Most disciplines even seem to lack of adequate empirical methods to capture and to describe people's action in intercultural settings on the basis of constructionist theories.
Like with primordialist approaches to the description of cultural influences, it makes sense to distinguish approaches taking culture as knowledge vs. Here, some approaches assume that cultural knowledge has been existing beforehand and that interactants may deliberately make use of it. Other approaches claim that cultural knowledge does not come into being but until people activate it in a relevant situation.
People perceive their life-worlds in terms of symbolic orders that they interpret in similar ways since among their group they share some knowledge on so-called interaction patterns, i. Cultures in this context may thus be defined as an inventory of knowledge shared and reproduced by the use of interpretation patterns.
In this way, individuals even share definitions of what culture itself is supposed to be. The outermost sphere cannot be accessed directly by individuals but is mediated symbolically. Another critical point in sociology of knowledge's approach to the description of intercultural communication may be seen in the relatively broad account of its results: The identification and the description of interaction patterns so far has largely been used to show how individuals and groups construct and maintain social and cultural boundaries.
Beyond this however, it seems that this method cannot help to reveal the assumed nature of cultural differences on both sides of these boundaries, i. Beyond this, scholars on this method rather tend to neglect to look at how people's construction and perception of boundaries might influence the quality of their action. Whereas earlier scholars had confined themselves to the mere description of people's culture-specific knowledge, authors like GUMPERZ a in interactional sociolinguistic claimed that they bring together both culture-specific knowledge and its manifestation in conversation.
According to this approach, at the level of speech events people integrate culturally loaded context into their utterances to create meaning by using so-called contextualization cues. Regarding this situational referencing, interlocutors are said to be able to create culturally relevant knowledge during their interaction. In contrast, scholars would not be able to list a certain number of fixed contextualization cues that might be characteristic to one culture. Some parts of this contextual knowledge may be termed as cultural although distinctions between mere contextual vs. One critical point in this methodology may be seen in the fact that in the end, researchers themselves will need to spot and to declare cultural influences by themselves: In a repeated process they will need to identify frequently occurring linguistic utterances with constant co-occurring contexts , p.
Whether a co-occurrence may be taken as significant or not, for which group it is relevant and whether a context may be taken as constant will need to be stated by researchers from their own cultural perspective. Regarding society's perceived intricacy of intercultural communication, GUMPERZ concedes that people's mere lack of knowledge on cultural contextualizations of communication cannot account for any complete communication breakdown. Instead, individuals tend to substitute lacking contextual knowledge by negative stereotyping. Normally, these stereotypes are taken from society's ideological discourse and they provide a basis for individuals' interpretation and action in intercultural contexts.
These orientations from discourse may be taken as value-based: Discourse in these contexts defines desirable as well rejectable issues as values and norms. When scholars look at culture as values from a constructionist perspective, their approaches may differ in the degree to which they assume that individuals will consciously decide whether or not they want to stick to existing values or whether even they will be able to produce and agree upon new values of a cultural character in a given situation. Most of the research referred on cross-cultural stereotyping in Section 3.
Social scientists additionally developed the notion of discourse assuming that all communication is based on underlying ideology through which individuals interpret the world. Discourse theories from the social sciences laid the ground in particular for linguists and literary scholars to develop empirical methods of discourse analysis to uncover the influence of ideological discourse on communication.
Considering that academic research will always be goal-driven and that it will never be able to be carried out from a completely neutral social stance, many discourse analysts declared critical discourse analysis as a political project. Most authors in this field try to uncover social inequalities and forms of discrimination. While the former approaches assume that individuals may actively refer to cultural norms that they interpret as given, other authors go even further and try to uncover how interactants construct and agree upon newly created norms.
By means of discourse and conversation analyst methods, KOOLE and TEN THIJE reveal how interactants in intercultural contact attribute each other different discourse positions making each other experts and representatives for their respective cultures that remain acknowledged and unquestioned for the respective situation. The preceding paragraphs have demonstrated that research on intercultural communication in the last five decades has compiled a vast variety of theoretical and methodological approaches to its central object of study, and this observation may contribute one additional viewpoint to the current paragraph's category: Accordingly, it should not be neglected that in parallel, intercultural communication has also been an issue of discourse in people's everyday life in Western societies, all the time.
Many people are used to permanently integrate aspects of cultural or ethnic belongings as well as assumed cultural or ethnic characteristics into their thinking and into their interpretations of their surroundings. In parallel to academic approaches to culture and intercultural communication, it may be assumed that individuals have their own notions of what culture means to them and in what ways culture plays a role in their everyday interaction.
Individual experiences, but primarily as well receptions of social discourse, mass media reception and even parts of academic theories that have found their ways into social discourse may contribute to these individual notions of culture. Compared to academically derived notions of culture, these individual notions may be assumed to considerably influence these individuals' social interaction. The idea of making use of individuals' subjective notions of culture for analyzing intercultural communication so far has largely been neglected. However, empirical research on these notions may provide a new framework for additional fruitful insights into how interplays between culture and social interaction may be conceived BUSCH, a.
As one crucial point of departure to this approach, researchers will need to keep in mind the fact that their own object of study, i. From this perspective, the fact that academics explore aspects of intercultural communication is one precondition for the subject to come into being, at all. This insight into the constructivist character of one's own objects of study has been developed much further in the field of gender studies.
Here, according to BUTLER , , the mere idea that sex exists as a given natural category before individuals get socialized according to social notions of gender, needs to be taken as part of social discourse on gender itself. Some scholars have started to hint at a number of parallels between objects of study in gender studies and intercultural communication research as academic disciplines MAE, , p.
Transferring the notion of a constructed basis from gender studies to intercultural research may lead to the insight that similar to sex and gender, the notion of an a priori existence of culture before producing discourse on it must be taken as part of this discourse itself. Butler discusses the hegemonic dichotomization between males and females in Western societies and wants to break it on a political level. According to Butler, materializations result from a permanent iteration of norms.
Here, Butler does not take iterations of norms as completely constant and static but as changing and as a result of congealed memories of the past BUTLER, , p. Materializations will thus also include processes of permanent change. Accordingly, individuals in intercultural contact may be seen as iterating social norms on how to deal with culture as a potential issue.
According to this approach, individuals by interaction put people and objects into different constructed categories membership categorization. Devices from the perspective of MCD are higher-ranking units helping individuals to interrelate several categories into meaningful context. Categories in this concept may additionally be specified by corresponding "category-bound activities" SACKS, , p. Individuals take these activities as characteristic for people or objects from a certain category.
Accordingly, BUTLER's notion of performative action basing on discursive materializations may be integrated into the concept of membership categorization: Membership categorization from this perspective may help individuals to decide according to which materialization to treat people in their surroundings—and in intercultural contact.
While primordialist approaches come to the conclusion that people in intercultural contact will need to put additional effort into understanding their foreign partners in a conversation, constructionist approaches resume that people instead will need to struggle to agree upon a common perspective onto the role and the relevance of culture to their interaction. Regarding the approach last mentioned, individuals should learn about the constructionist character of the idea of culture itself.
On this basis, they may learn to re-consider their scope of action in a given situation. The survey in this paper may reveal that firstly, research concepts on intercultural communication are based on a multitude of different notions of what culture is supposed to be. As a consequence, the approaches mentioned claim different points and different ways in which culture as defined is supposed to influence people's interaction.
Primordialist concepts of culture assume that culture exits prior to a given situation. People's interaction will thus be influenced by culture in different ways that are outside their awareness and their scope of action. Constructionist approaches instead assume that culture and its influence on interaction are constituted in different ways within a given situation.
Accordingly, individuals are agreed different scopes on how to deal with culture. Another relevant distinction may be seen in whether scholars roughly conceive culture as knowledge or as norms and values: Taking culture as a form of knowledge encourages theories expecting people to be able to learn and then apply the knowledge of a new culture.
This process may come out to be more complicated if culture is seen as a form of values or norms: Culture then will play a role that tends to be unaware to individuals. Additionally, cultural affiliation then turns into an issue that is subject to people's arbitrary assessment and evaluation, e. This large variety of concepts may be taken as a great gift to intercultural communication research: it may help to shed light onto aspects of intercultural communication that may play a role in extremely different contexts of human life.
Besides of that, intercultural communication research frequently serves as a basis for education: On the basis of research findings, individuals are supposed to be taught and to learn how to interact in more competent ways when cultural aspects may be at issue. Depending on the underlying theory, evaluations of what people are able to do or what they are able to learn to better manage intercultural interaction may vary significantly BUSCH, b. From this perspective, research and education on intercultural communication as well as on intercultural competence may improve even further if the strong bias of underlying theory will be assessed in an even more critical way.
Altmayer, Claus Guest editorial: The predicament of difference. Ethnicities , 5 3 , Appadurai, Arjun Modernity at large. Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Three ways of analysing communication between East and West Germans as intercultural communication. Auernheimer, Georg Notizen zum Kulturbegriff unter dem Aspekt interkultureller Bildung. Weinheim: Juventa. Kultur, Lebenswelt, Diskurs—drei konkurrierende Konzepte. Tertium Comparationis , 8 2 , Barinaga, Ester A performative view of language—methodological considerations and consequences for the study of culture. Barth, Fredrik Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference.
Boston: Little Brown. Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, Milton J. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Michael R. Paige Ed. Lanham: University Press of America. Berry, John W. On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology , 4 , Psychological acculturation of immigrants. Gudykunst Eds. Newbury Park: Sage. Black, J. Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research.
Academy of Management Review , 15 1 , Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. Bourdieu, Pierre La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Ed. Psychological perspectives: Social psychology, language, and intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bredella, Lothar The significance of intercultural understanding in the foreign language classroom. Oxford: Lang. Wie ist Fremdverstehen lehr- und lernbar? Brislin, Richard Understanding culture's influence on behavior.
Some universals in language usage. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache.
Discourse: Definition and Examples
Stuttgart: Fischer. Busch, Dominic a. Wie kann man Vertrauensbildungsprozesse in sprachlicher Interaktion beobachten und beschreiben? In Elias Jammal Ed.
Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Busch, Dominic b. Professionalisierung interkulturell kompetenter Kommunikation—am Beispiel interkultureller Trainings und interkultureller Mediation. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache , 34 , Butler, Judith Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". Casmir, Fred L. A multicultural perspective of human communication. In Fred L. Casmir Ed. Third-culture-building: A paradigm-shift for international and intercultural communication.
Communication Yearbook , 16 , Chick, Gary Culture-bearing units and the units of culture: An introduction. Cross-Cultural Research , 35 2 , Clyne, Michael Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. Condon, John C. An introduction to intercultural communication. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril. Communities of practice in the analysis of intercultural communication. D'Andrade, Roy G. The development of cognitive anthropology. Among the interculturalists.
Discourse: Definition and Examples
An emergent profession and its packaging of knowledge. Stockholm: Department of Social Anthropology. Culture in communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dirscherl, Klaus