CC BY
6УДК 32.019.5
ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНОЙ И КРОСС-КУЛЬТУРНОЙ ПРАГМАТИКИ В ИЗУЧЕНИИ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ДИСКУРСОВ
Аспирант кафедры английского языка, Факультет литературы и гуманитарных наук, 1-й университет Мохаммеда, Уджда, Марокко.
Фатима Зохра Алауи Махрез
Web of Science Researcher ID: AAG-7856-2021 falaouimahrez@gmail. com
Аннотация
Цель. Изучение парадигм межкультурной прагматики и обсуждение их важности в изучении политических дискурсов в свете межкультурной коммуникации, что важно для взаимопонимания в глобализованном мире.
Методы. Политические дискурсы формируются на стыке языка, коммуникации и политики, межполитические дискурсы, которые формируются на стыке разных языков, стилей общения, предполагают знание законов межкультурной коммуникации. Для этого в настоящем исследовании обсуждаются теории политической коммуникации, межкультурной коммуникации, межкультурной прагматики, указывается взаимосвязь между всеми этими теориями и анализом политического дискурса. Кроме того, кросс-культурные речевые акты в политическом дискурсе рассматриваются с использованием примеров, которые показывают, как культура влияет на политику и как политики используют различные языковые паттерны (речевые акты).
Результаты. Научная новизна. Практическая значимость. Мы приходим к выводу, что в политическом дискурсе большую роль играет непонимание, возникающее в результате межкультурного взаимонепонимания. Анализ межкультурной прагматики стал необходимым в исследованиях политических дискурсов.
Ключевые слова: политический дискурс; межкультурная прагматика; межкультурная прагматика; культурные измерения; межкультурная вежливость; межкультурные речевые акты.
Конфликт интересов: не заявлен.
INTEGRATING INTERCULTURAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS IN THE STUDY OF POLITICAL DISCOURSES
PhD student of the Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Mohammed 1st University, Oujda, Morocco.
Fatima Zohra Alaoui Mahrez Web of Science Researcher ID: AAG-7856-2021 [email protected]
Abstract
Objective. The aim of this article is to explore intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics paradigms and discuss their importance in the study of political discourses in the light of intercultural and cross-cultural communication.
Methods. Political discourses, as situated at the intersection of language, communication and politics, entail the contribution of pragmatics; similarly, cross-political discourses which involve different cultures, different first languages and different communication styles require intercultural and cross-cultural pragmatics. This paper tries also to add to the literature of intercultural pragmatics a new angle of studding political conversations so as to understand each other in our globalized world. To do so, this research discusses theories of political communication, intercultural communication, pragmatics, cultural dimensions and intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics, and it states the relationship and intersection between all these theories and political discourse analysis. Additionally, cross-cultural politeness and cross-cultural speech acts in political discourse are examined using some examples that show how culture affect doing politics and how politicians use different linguistic patterns (speech acts) to show politeness according to their cultural backgrounds.
Results. Scientific novelty. Practical significance. Therefore, this paper ends up by claiming that the main intercultural misunderstandings are resulted from the lack of the access to the right and correct explicature of the utterance rather than only the implied meanings. It also concludes that intercultural pragmatics analysis has become required in political discourses studies.
Keywords: Political Discourse; Intercultural Pragmatics; Cross-Cultural Pragmatics; Cultural Dimensions; Cross-Cultural Politeness; Cross-Cultural Speech Acts.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by the authors.
Introduction
Political discourse, like any other discourse, is produced differently according to different socio-cultural backgrounds, and for the same reason it is perceived and understood differently. Since globalization has catapulted people representing different cultures and speaking different first languages, misunderstandings are bound to occur resulting in conflict and disagreements. The reason why we do not understand each other properly is determined by how we perceive the world and how we believe it should be, and this is determined by our cultural norms, beliefs, traditions and values.
Those who claim that politics and political speeches and norms are far from all what is cultural they should rethink their opinions. Through history, individuals of any community have established different ways of communication and social relations
50
according to different factors such as religion, inherited traditions, historical experiences and environment [Nakayama & Halualani, 2010]; thus, their political exercises and norms differ from one community to another; and therefore, they produce and understand political speeches depending on their own cultures.
The access to transportation, international media, technology and other means of international and intercultural communication have facilitated the spread of cross-cultural and international political discourses, the fact that increased the emergency of studding these discourses using different paradigms such as Critical Discourse analysis, Intercultural Pragmatics and Cross-Cultural Pragmatics [Wodak, 2009; Van Dijk, 1997; Pan, 2019; Kecskes, 2013; Wierzbicka, 2003; Mey, 2004].
This article aims to add to studies already conducted the issues of intercultural and cross cultural pragmatics by presenting and emphasising the need of these paradigms in the study of political discourses. The paper focuses on the theoretical aspect of the subj ect to argue for the relevance of these fields of investigation in the pragmatic analysis of cross-cultural and intercultural political speeches and conversations. Therefore, it started by the discussion of relative themes such as the intersection of language, communication and politics, then it tackles the relevance of political discourse to pragmatics in order to set the ground to the discussion of intercultural pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics and speech acts and politeness across cultures.
Language, Communication and Politics
The intersection of language, communication and politics is by no means a new phenomenon. Yet, the debate of intercultural communication in world politics and the study of political discourses across cultures have increased immensely in last few decades. In this sense, key concepts like Language, Communication and Politics were not chosen randomly in this article since it has been found that the three concepts overlap in modern political communication studies.
This overlap between the three concepts lies in the fact that language is the medium through which we form knowledge about ourselves, others and the world, and as it is the medium through which we communicate this constructed knowledge. Second, communication is the process of transferring a message from one person to another through a channel or medium. Third, politics is "the theory and practice of governing a country's local politics or national politics" [the Dictionary of Politics and Government] and which includes also "the resolution of conflict" [Hoffman, 2007, p. 143]. In this sense, since politics "must involve compromise, negotiation and arbitration" [Hoffman, 2007, p. 144] it needs effective use of communicative persuasion.
In this context, language is the major medium through which political discourses are communicated and negotiated. Hence, this article opens by a discussion on the dialectical relation between language and politics, followed by some definitions of political communication, the pragmatics of political discourse and intercultural and cross-cultural pragmatics of political discourse.
1.1. Language and Politics
The dialectical relation between language and politics has been rooted in history since traditional rhetoric in ancient Greek and Rome and is of growing interest in modern studies mainly Critical Discourse Analysis, pragmatics and political studies [Wodak, 2009; Bryant, 1968; J. Hall, 2007; Joseph; 2009, Fetzer, 2013]. As such, rhetoric was defined as "the, faculty of observing in any given case the available
means of persuasion" [Bryant, 1968, p. 15]. The art of persuasion was well known and widely practiced thousands of years ago by Greek and Roman philosophers, teachers and politicians. Rhetoric was studied as a subject in order to grasp the talent of persuasion [J. Hall, 2007]. Therefore, politicians and philosophers tried to investigate methods to understand how human language behaviours can be used to persuade others [Bryant, 1968].
After the Second World War, diverse researchers investigated the field of language and politics wherein themes such as the intrinsic relation between language and politics, rhetoric and political communication were studied in the works of Harold Lasswell and Nathan Leites in 1949, and Friedrich Von Hayek in 1968 [as cited in Wodak, 2009, p. 580]. In late 1960s, Political Linguistics emerged as a new sub-discipline of general linguistics, which critically studied political discourses and speeches [Wodak, 2009]. In this regard, Political Linguistics is a multidisciplinary science, which draws its materials and theories from different disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, rhetoric, anthropocentrism, etc. In this sense, the main purpose of Political Linguistics is to study the connection between language and political activities.
Since politics includes the art of persuasion, rhetoric and sometimes sophism, politicians try to choose attentively their discursive strategies and tactics in order to make their speeches more influential and powerful. Hence, Critical Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics have emerged in order to study and analyse the choice and use of these devices and tactics in political speeches, and to inquire how language can be used to influence human behaviour without using hard power [Wodak, 2009; van Dijk 1997] and also to examine how language is perceived and understood by the receivers [Fetzer, 2013]. Accordingly, Wodak (2009) maintains "critical researchers describe and construct which devices are used in which function and in which way, where and when, and possibly why" [p. 578].
Human language is one of the most complicated and mysterious subjects in human sciences studies. In this sense, the system of signs that we use every day, their denotations and connotations and their implied meanings are all subjects of inquiry. Language is the medium through which social constructions are transmitted from one person to another, and a privilege through which institutionalized meanings are negotiated. Hence, Political discourse is viewed as ideological expressions through which institutional text and talk are formulated and transmitted [Wodak, 1989; Van Dijk, 1997; Fetzer, 2013]. In the same vein, Fetzer (2013) claimed that "Political discourse has been classified as institutional discourse, taking place in institutional settings and being thus constrained by particularized contextual requirements" [p. 1].
The study of political discourse analysis has gained a lot of attention recently [Fetzer, 2013; Pan, 2019]; hence, modern studies of language and politics have invested more efforts in studying political communication in its broader sense involving strategies used in policy making i.e. scholars tend to know how politicians manage to persuade people to act in a given way or hold opinions using only linguistic devices.
1.2. Political Communication
A fixed definition of political communication can be hard to reach since it has been defined differently. Brian McNair in his book "An Introduction to Political Communication" (2011) tried to collect the main definitions that were introduced in the field. Thus, according to Denton and Woodward, political communication is "pure
discussion about the allocation of public resources (revenues), official authority (who is given the power to make legal, legislative and executive decision), and official sanctions (what the state rewards or punishes)" [as cited in McNair, 2011, p. 3]. In this vein, political communication is a process through which political issues are communicated including political decisions, and national and international affairs. It is also an interaction between politicians who tackle political issues in a political context locally or internationally.
Moreover, political communication is about what linguistic devices political communicators use, how they use them and for what purposes. In more specific words, Denton and Woodward argue that "the crucial factor that makes communication 'political' is not the source of a message, but its content and purpose" [as cited in McNair, 2011, p. 4]. Consequently, politicians use all factors of communication including verbal and nonverbal communication so as to achieve specific purposes and objectives.
Another definition introduced by McNair claims that political communication can be achieved only in the presence of three major elements namely: the political actor, the receiver and the medium. Political actors are "those individuals who aspire, through organisational and institutional means, to influence the decision-making process" [McNair 2011, p. 5], the receiver, which is the main element of political communication, is the targeted person to be influenced. Finally, the medium is the means by which and the channel through which the act of communication is achieved. Nevertheless, feedback is of paramount importance in the study of political communication since it reveals whether political actors succeeded in persuading the audience or not.
Nowadays, media is playing a crucial role in producing and constructing political opinions around the globe. Politicians are relying on public spheres represented in media in order to communicate their ideas and transfer their messages to the public. Thus, during the increase of globalization, technology and international media, "political discourse has been categorized as media discourse" [Fetzer, 2013, p. 1], and politicians have exceeded their local audiences aiming to address people from diverse nations and cultures. Because of its multi-layered nature, a growing attention has become devoted to political discourse (communication) analysis in pragmatic studies.
2. Pragmatics of Political Discourse
Language is the core element of any political activity. Even though other factors; such as non-verbal behaviours, can affect the doing of politics, language still predominating. Politics requires the use of language in order to communicate meanings and transmit ideologies [Fetzer, 2013; Fetzer & Lauerbach, 2007]. Language can specify and determine if the utterance produced is political or not and to what extent it is perceived as a political action. However, doing that needs specific analysis depending on pragmatics study.
Pragmatics is said to be the study of the use of linguistic signs, words and sentences, in actual situations. It looks beyond the literal meaning of an utterance and considers how meaning is constructed as well as focusing on implied meanings. It considers language as an instrument of interaction, what people mean when they use language and how they communicate and understand each other. In other words, pragmatics is concerned with what the speaker or the writer intends to convey and how the hearer manages to understand the message conveyed. Hence, Mey (2004) claims that the backbones of pragmatics are the acts of understanding and cooperation. Another
definition used by the Cambridge dictionary claims that pragmatics is "the study of how language is affected by the situation in which it is used, of how language is used to get things or perform actions, and of how words can express things that are different from what they appear to mean". Consequently, pragmatics deals with language as a concept being actively used.
Unlike semantics which is interested in the relation between sings and their denotations, pragmatics focuses on the relation between signs and interpreters. It is then, the study of meanings; how words and language structures are used in a socio-cultural context, and how the speaker and interpreter manipulate language to communicate [Kecskes, 2014; Morris, 1938; Wilson, 2003]. In the same context, another definition by Mey states that pragmatics is "the study of the use of language in the human communication as determined by the conditions of society" [2004, p. 36-37]. Pragmatics is the interaction of: first, the linguistic code which is the medium through which meanings are transmitted, second, the producer of the speech and the interpreters, and third, the socio-cultural context in which meanings are shaped and communicated [Kecskes, 2014].
Since pragmatics is concerned with reference and inference, discourse structure, implicated and explicated inferences, interpretation, decoded and encoded meanings, speech acts, contextual meanings and extra-grammatical functions on the one hand, and politeness, stance, speech styles, sociocultural contextual meanings, power and cross-cultural meanings on the other hand [Yule, 1996; Ariel, 2010; Archer et al., 2012 as cited in Pan, 2019], it has become a primary paradigm in the study of political discourse. Additionally, the study of pragmatics in political discourse is of paramount importance to bridge the gap between political discourse production and reception, to explore the role of context in producing and understanding the discourse and to examine the sociocultural impact of the discourse on the communicative event.
Both pragmatics and political discourse studies are concerned with language use in its context since language is used to communicate thoughts and therefore transmit ideologies. According to Pan (2019), the pragmatics framework of political discourse analysis should include three interrelated layers of analysis namely: the meaning of meaning, the structure of meaning and the meaning in extended spheres [p. 254-255].
The first layer the Meaning of Meaning lies for the analysis of the explicit and implicit meanings of political discourse use. It is devoted to question the linguistic choices of the speakers (politicians), and the interpretation of the hearers (the public). Therefore, it looks for the analysis of speech acts and language patterns such as the use of modality, pronouns etc. in order to elicit the conveyed meanings and probable interpretations. The second layer is concerned with the Structure of Meaning. "Analysis at this layer relates to the organization of (intended / implied) meaning at a text and discourse level, based on the study of texts and speeches produced in different political settings" [Pan, 2019, p. 255]. This includes the study of conversation, preference structure, discourse structure, topicality, functional syntax and pragmatic markers, etc. The third layer the Meaning in Extended Spheres combines and studies the previous layers in an extended level in which culture, society and history are included in the analysis of political discourse. This study examines politeness and facework, power and pragmatics, historical pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics and intercultural pragmatics [Kecskes, 2014; Fetzer, 2013; Pan, 2019].
Recently, academic studies have been inclined to study the third layer due to the increase of globalization and intercultural communication. Researchers have tried to
go beyond the literal meaning to include other aspects that were involved in shaping the meaning. Consequently, they have devoted special attention to the study of culture and intercultural communication in cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics of political discourse [Kecskes, 2013; 2011; Fetzer & Lauerbach, 2007; Moeschler, 2004; Shardakova, 2005; Wierzbicka, 2003].
3. Culture and Interculturality of Political Discourse
A key idea in pragmatics is that culture shapes the way language is used, and the way language is used creates culture. The term culture is "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language" [Williams, 1983, p. 87]. However, Ting-Toomey (1999) mentions that "the study of culture has ranged from the study of its external architecture and landscape to the study of a set of implicit principles and values to which a large of members in a community subscribe" [p. 9]. In this behalf, culture is a set of values, norms, traditions and beliefs that are transmitted from one generation to another and capable to distinguish one group from another. Nevertheless, there are two broad approaches of defining culture; namely, the anthropological approach and the critical approach.
The anthropological approach views culture as a system of shared meanings that are inherited through generations [Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952; Tylor, 1920; Geertz, 1973; Smith and Bond, 1994; Stella Ting-Toomey, 1999]. According to this approach culture is claimed to be a static constructed system of inherited knowledge expressed in symbolic forms through which human beings communicate in a particular group [Geertz, 1973]. On the other hand, the critical view of culture evaluates it as a dynamic site of contested meanings [Halualani and Nakayama, 2010]. This approach criticizes the essentialist view of culture, which claims that it is a system of inherited shared meanings, and argues that culture is socially constructed within society and ruled by power relations.
The dilemma of defining culture has led scholars to look for other definitions and conceptualizations of the concept so as to find a middle definition that can combine both anthropological and critical views of culture. Martin and Nakayama developed a dialectical approach or "a transparadigmatic way to conduct research" [Martin & Nakayama, 2010, p. 69] which views culture as shared and learned and also as a site of contested meanings. Martin and Nakayama (2010) adds that "a dialectic approach accepts that human nature is probably both creative and deterministic; that research goals can predict, describe, and change; that the relationship between culture and communication is, most likely, both reciprocal and contested" [p. 65]. Culture is a set of abstract and concrete elements that are communicated through verbal and nonverbal communication. Thus, culture functions as communication and communication functions as culture [Ting-Toomey 1999, p. 14] since all cultural practices, norms, values, styles, beliefs, etc. are communicated within a community. Cultural communication is then the ability to share and understand smoothly a set of ideas in a particular community where people share the same cultural knowledge.
Language is the bearer of culture and a medium through which sociocultural meanings are produced, negotiated and communicated. Accordingly, the pragmatics of political discourse tries to explore how speakers (politicians) and receivers (the public) stick to their cultural structures in the production and interpretation of meanings. Meaning is meaningful only when it is encoded and decoded appropriately in a cultural context. In this sense, the members of any community should adhere to their
cultural properties in order to effectively communicate with each other. Members of any community share the same linguistic knowledge, pragmatic principles, social practices (including verbal interaction) and the denotation and connotation of verbal and non-verbal signs. All these elements are involved in the politeness strategies, social tact and facework which are implied in the choice of speech acts and other linguistic elements [Fetzer, 2013].
The pragmatics of political discourse examines what linguistic devices politicians use to produce a political speech which is constructed by a sociocultural context, and how the public manages to interpret that speech in the same context. In other words, politicians and the public as members of a culture intend to choose the appropriate verbal and non-verbal means of communication for the production and interpretation of conversations and speeches. In this regard, politicians during elections try to be attentive in the selection of their discourses in order to succeed in the persuasion of their community; otherwise, they may fall into miscommunication-misinterpretation. However, when the communicative situation includes members introducing different cultural backgrounds and different first languages, the situation may be worst since they do not share the same cultural meanings. Consequently, intercultural communication competence is needed in these situations.
The term intercultural communication was first introduced by Edward Hall in his book "The Silent Language" (1959) and he related it to the urgent need of intercultural competence in the field of diplomacy. However, Lustig and Koester define intercultural communication as "a symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process, in which people from different cultures create shared meanings" [as cited in Linh Chi thesis, 2016, p. 9]. A more expressive definition is introduced by Ting-Toomey (1999), in which she highlighted the main characteristics of the concept "Intercultural communication is defined as the symbolic exchange process whereby individuals from two (or more) different cultural communities negotiate shared meanings in an interactive situation" [p. 16-17].
Intercultural communication occurs when we: first, exchange verbal or nonverbal symbols, second, when those symbols are encoded and decoded by the participants, who, third, belong to different national cultural groups, or ethnic groups and hold different values, traditions, norms, beliefs, and behaviours. Fourth, when those participants culturally understand each other "when the interpretation of the meaning of the message overlaps significantly with the intention of the meaning of the message" [Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 19], and fifth, when those participants share meanings in an interactive situation or context, which includes "concrete features such as place and time and psychological features such as perceived formal or informal dimensions" [Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 20].
Nevertheless, misunderstandings often beset the process of intercultural communication, usually because participants lack deep understanding of their interlocutor's culture. Thus, conflicts are bound to occur in such situations. Within this context, effective communication in an intercultural situation needs intercultural communication competence based on a solid knowledge of the world's different cultural dimensions [Kim, 1991; Hall, 1990; Hofstede, 2010].
3.1. Cultural Dimensions: Barriers in Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Communication
Cultural dimensions differ from one culture to another according to its historical exercise of cultural norms, believes, traditions, etc. and these differences affect the way in which language is produced and interpreted. Some scholars like Edward T. Hall and Gert Jan Hofstede tried to state some universal dichotomies of cultural dimensions.
The first dichotomy introduced by Hall (1959) is High-context cultures vs. Low context cultures. In High- context cultures meaning is derived from the context and the members of these cultures use a high level of non-verbal communication, silence, implied meanings and indirect speech acts. Decisions and activities in this type of cultures focus around personal face-to-face relationships, often around a central person who has authority. On the other hand, members of Low-context cultures intend to use high-level of verbal messages, direct speech acts, and high level of explicit speeches and detailed information. Decisions and activities focus around what needs to be done; hence, they tend to divide responsibilities among the group members [Hall, 1959; Samova et al., 2013].
Hofstede (2010) also mentioned five cultural dimensions that are relevant to Hall's cultures types; namely, Social Orientation, Power Orientation, Uncertainty Orientation, Goal Orientation and Time Orientation. The first dimension is concerned with the dichotomy of collectivism and individualism which revolves around the degree to which individual autonomy is valued over group cohesion. In the individualistic cultures, focus is on the individual & self-promotion. Members of these cultures are more independent and they temporary or voluntarily keep ties with other group (social) members. In the contrary, in the collectivistic cultures focus is on the group /a ffiliations & self-criticism and interdependency in relationship is dominant in doing tasks. Members of these cultures have strong group and social ties and they believe in the in-group notions, hence, they give importance to the beliefs shared by the community and obey the group instructions.
The power orientation dimension focuses on the distinction between low power distance cultures and high power distance cultures which is devoted to the appropriateness of power / authority within organizations. According to low-power distance countries, relationships are horizontal, subordinates are consulted and equality is expected. On the second hand, high power distance prefer vertical relationships, subordinates tend to be afraid of their bosses and bosses tend to be paternalistic and autocratic. The third dimension uncertainty orientation studies the extent to which cultures avoid or accept change and challenge. Cultures that have high uncertainty avoidance tend to perceive unknown situations as threatening and so avoid them, while cultures that have low uncertainty avoidance feel less threatened by unknown situations, so they are more open to innovations, risk, change, etc.
The fourth dimension goal orientation is about what motivates people to achieve different goals, and this dichotomy differentiates between masculinity and femininity towards cultures. Masculinity is about the extent to which dominant values in society are male oriented. These cultures are associated with such behaviours as ambition, differentiated sex roles, achievement, the acquisition of money, and signs of manliness. In the contrary, femininity is about stress caring and nurturing behaviour. A feminine world view maintains that people need not be aggressive and that men and women can assume nurturing roles; it also promotes sexual equality and holds that
people and the environment are important, and gender roles are more fluid. Finally, the last dimension is the Time orientation and is concerned with the extent to which members of a culture adopt a long-term or a short-term outlook on work and life [Hof-tede, 2010; Samova et al., 2013].
However, there are other cultural dimensions that affect communication among people from different cultural backgrounds such as high and low face concerns and social distance. In high-face concerns cultures conflict and disagreements are not preferred by the members of the society. Hence, whenever there is a conflict situations people tend to avoid direct speech in order to save the other face. Cultures that have low-face concerns prefer direct discussions in conflict situations and prefer self-face concerns [Samova et al., 2013; Ting-Toomey, 2010; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003].
Linguistically speaking, all these cultural dimensions and styles affect the way in which linguistic and para-linguistic patterns are used in the communicative situations, and when the interactive situation holds members from different communities, these cultural dimensions could be perceived as barriers that hamper their interactions. For that reason, the appropriate paradigms to study intercultural interactions (members from different cultures using common language) and cross cultural speeches and conversations are intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics respectively.
4. Intercultural Pragmatics and Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Some Definitions
Intercultural pragmatics has recently emerged as a very important field of investigation in linguistic studies. The increase of globalization, technology and international media has catapulted and amalgamated people from different cultural backgrounds who speak different first languages to interact and communicate in virtual and / or real situations. These contextual interactions are bound by the communicators' cultural norms, believes, speech styles and preferences. When members of different cultural backgrounds interact with one another they often find it difficult to understand each other because of their cultural differences, the fact that leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which turns the interaction into a failure. Intercultural pragmatics is then the sociolinguistic field of study that examines the issues related to intercultural communication.
While pragmatics is the study of spoken language; its actual practice, use, conventions, and how meaning is created in everyday interaction, intercultural pragmatics focuses on intercultural interactions and investigates the nature of the communicative process among people from different cultures, speaking different first languages. Hence it is interested in what happens when representatives of different first languages and cultures communicate using a common language and how their language use is influenced by their culture and other cultures [Mey, 2004; 2006; Kecskes, 2013; 2011].
According to Kecskes (2013; 2011) intercultural pragmatics analyses: first, interactions between native speakers and non-native speakers, second, non-native speakers using lingua franca in communicative situations, third, multilingual discourses, and fourth the language use and development of members who use more than one language [2011, p. 67]. Additionally, Mey (2004; 2006) tried to shed light on the relationship between culture and pragmatics in order to discover new and appropriate middle solution for the debate about intercultural aspects of human behaviour in our globalized world and he focused on the daily interactions of immigrants while using foreign
languages in their communicative situations. Hence they focus on how language and culture intersect to create meanings bound by cultural constructions.
However, even though intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics are used interchangeably in most occasions, there is a clear difference between the two concepts. As we mentioned before, intercultural pragmatics is a field of study that has emerged in the 2000s to examine any interaction between two or more people representing different cultures and speaking in the same language which (in most times) does not stand for their first language, or any conversation between native and non-native speakers of a given language. These situations entail the study of the use of linguistic patterns effectively or ineffectively during conversation, and how the receiver perceives the speech [Kecskes 2013; 2011].
On the other hand, the study of cross-cultural pragmatics has flourished in 1980s and 1990s and it focuses on the similarities and differences of language use according to different cultural norms [Kecskes, 2013; 2011; Wierzbicka, 2003]. This field of investigation conducts a comparative analysis of different linguistic realisations according to different cultural contexts [Kasper & Schmidt, 1996]. According to Anna Wierzbicka (2003), in different societies and different communities, people speak differently; these differences in ways of speaking are profound and systematic, they reflect different cultural values, or at least different hierarchies of values; different ways of speaking, different communicative styles, can be explained and made sense of in terms of independently established different cultural values and cultural priorities [p. 69].
In this regard, cross-cultural pragmatics main concern is the use of speech acts, politeness and explicit and implicit meanings across cultures and tries to compare their similarities and differences, unlike intercultural pragmatics which focuses on interactional situations in which the interlocutors represent different cultural backgrounds [Wierzbicka, 2003; Kecskes, 2013; 2011].
However, both intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics are relevant to the study of political discourse in a globalized world. Intercultural pragmatics is an appropriate paradigm to study political conversations in media, mass media and intercultural daily situations in which members representing different cultural norms and different first languages negotiate political subjects. On the second hand, cross-cultural pragmatics is of paramount importance to show the main similarities and differences of producing and interpreting a political discourse according to different cultural norms and communicative styles. Hence, this framework sheds light on how what is considered as polite in one culture is viewed as impolite in other cultures, and how each politician uses speech acts referencing to his / her cultural dimensions.
4.1. Politeness is Cross-Cultural Communication
Pragmatists have investigated a lot of effort in examining the context for and within which language is produced; accordingly, they focused on several cultural behaviours and acts that are expressed through the medium of language. Politeness in speech, for instance, has been examined and defined differently by a number of scholars. Gumperz [as cited in Brown & Livinson, 1988] considers it as "basic to the production of social order and a precondition of human cooperation" [p. xiii], and Lakoff and Ide (2005) claim that people tend to be polite so as to reduce friction in personal interaction. Consequently, politeness is concerned with affective aspects of
communication as a means of expressing friendship and respect. It can be expressed through language, facial expressions, body movements and gestures.
Moreover, politeness is usually associated with respect towards other people. People tend to respect others' feelings, opinions, their social situation, etc. Politeness is perceived differently around the world and its different norms obviously influence the use of language. Some linguists suggested general rules and strategies of politeness theory. Lakoff (2005) suggested three rules that make an utterance polite. First, the speaker needs not to impose hard requests on the addressee. In order to be polite in a formal relationship, the speaker should not impose unbearable requests. Second, the speaker should offer the hearer options in order to have the chance to choose between two or more things. For example the speaker may say "if you want you can change the place with me" rather than "change the place with me". And third, the speaker should show feelings of brotherhood and camaraderie in order to express intimate politeness. Such as:
A: I feel that I performed badly"
B: By contrast! You were awesome.
On the other hand, Leech (2014) defined politeness in terms of maxims. First, the tact maxim is the act of being tactful during the conversation so as to minimize cost and maximize the benefit. However, this maxim can be achieved in three cases when issuing a request to reduce the cost to other, to offer options, and to maximize benefit to other. Second, the generosity maxim entails the use of special utterances in order to minimize the expression of benefit to self and maximize the expression of cost to self. Third, the approbation maxim happens when the speaker minimizes the dispraise of other and maximizes praise of other by avoiding unpleasant utterances. Fourth, as opposite to the approbation maxim, the modesty maxim tends to minimize the expression of praise of self and maximize the expression of dispraise of self. And finally, the agreement maxim comes to minimize disagreement between self and other and maximize agreement by using soft expressions. Furthermore, a more elaborated definition of politeness theory is the one adopted by Brown and Livinson (1988) which aims at developing a cross-cultural model capable of accounting for any instance of politeness. Thus, they focus on the notion of face or face threatening acts in order to establish a universal model.
Cross-cultural pragmatics has emerged to examine the use of politeness across cultures. It has been claimed that different cultures have different perceptions of being polite, thus, what could be viewed as polite in one culture could be seen impolite in other cultures [Kecskes, 2011; 2015]. For instance, people in high-context cultures which are considered as collectivistic tend to address personal questions to show solidarity, brotherhood and group unity and these acts are perceived as being polite, while in low-context cultures, which are perceived as individualistic, these questions are viewed as impolite since individual privacy is sacred. Moreover, taboos are understood differently in each culture. For example, in high-context cultures it is not preferred to speak about taboos in public spaces while it is not the case in low-context cultures.
Intercultural political conversations and cross-cultural political speeches also fall in this dilemma since the interlocutors may use inappropriate utterances that are considered as impolite. Also political speeches may differ in their structure according to the politician cultural politeness principles. For more clarification, the following introductory speech delivered by Mr. Saad-Eddine El Othmani, Head of Government of
the Kingdom of Morocco, in the 73rd session of the General Assembly of the UN shows the use of linguistic devices according to the Moroccan culture:
"In the Name of God the most grace the most merciful. Madam President, it is a pleasure for me first of all to congratulate the president of the 73rd session of the general assembly Miss Maria Fernanda Espenoza Garsess upon her election, and I wish her every success in her noble mission. I also extend my congratulations of the exemplary work of the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in the era of reform he has launched a vast reform process in the United States which aims to strengthen its role and to achieve its noble objectives. Morocco fully supports you and all of your initiatives in particular in the era of peace building and peace keeping..."
It was noticed that all Moroccan representatives who deliver a speech in international occasions start by a long introduction of acknowledgment, salutation and gratitude. This is rooted in the cultural norms of Morocco which uses an extensive amount of words and high-face concerns to show politeness to others. On the other hand, the speech of Mr. Heiko Maas, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany in the 74th session of the General Assembly of the UN, shows another type of political discourse:
"Mr. president, ladies and gentlemen,
here in New York over the past few days, we have all heard a great many speeches - at the Climate Action Summit, the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, the countless side events, and of course here at the speech-making marathon known as the general debate."
The German minister used a direct and to the point speech without any introduction. This reflects the cultural background of Germany which is considered as a low-context individualistic culture in which discourse is direct and face-concerns are low.
In a nutshell, the study of politeness across cultures and intercultural politeness is of paramount importance in the analysis of political discourses and conversations since the cultural differences of expressing politeness may cause intercultural misunderstandings and misinterpretations. However, the same problems could occur with the use of speech acts across-cultures.
4.2. Speech Acts in Cross-Cultural Communication
Speech act theory was first introduced by Austin in the sixties in his book "How to Do Things with Words" (1962) and then developed by his student John Searle. The theory made a big revolution in the world of language and philosophy since it sheds light on hidden messages that are intended by the speaker and understood by the hearer. Moreover, Austin argued that we are always using words to get things done; sometimes it is to convey emotions or to get others to perform a task. Thus, when we use words we are trying to get things accomplished [Austin, 1962, p. 149-152].
Furthermore, one of the main contributions of Austin in speech act theory is the clear division between constatives and performatives [Austin, 1962, p. 68-91]. Con-statives are utterances that describe something as being true or false; which are most of the time declarative sentences like the sentence "it is crying" or "the door closes at 8 p.m." Thus, these sentences declare information that can be true or false. On the other hand, performatives are utterances that denote an action. In other words, performatives are sentences that do things in the world or incite actions not only describe them. The actions that are performed by words are; for instance, ordering, apologizing, promising, requesting, and marring.
These acts shed light on the effects of utterances on the behaviour of speaker and hearer through the use of threefold distinctive acts; namely locutionary acts, illocu-tionary acts, and prelocutionary acts. The locutionary aspect of utterance lies in the words that make up the sentence "which is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to 'meaning' in the traditional sense", the illocutionary aspect refers to the force or the intention behind uttering the words "such as informing, ordering, warning, undertaking, etc., i.e. utterances which have a certain (conventional) force", while the prelocu-tionary aspect indicates the social or psychological effects that it brings about "what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring, and even, say, surprising or misleading" [Austin, 1962, p. 108]. Hence, since the illocutionary act has a communicative force, and as the reaction of the receiver is not usually provided in every text, most of speech act analysis relies on it.
Despite the fact that Austin was one of the founding fathers of the speech act theory, his classification of speech acts received criticism for being too broad to capture the multiplicity of the functions that speech acts perform in communication. Jackobson [as cited in Danesi, 2004, p. 107-110] provided seven functions of speech acts. First, "emotive" when they communicate the emotions of the speaker. Second, conative when they aim at affecting the receiver via the selection of specific words or tones. Third, they can be referential when they primarily transfer information. Fourth, they can be poetic when they try to rhyme. Fifth, phatic when they establish or reinforce social structures. Sixth, mystical when they discuss the supernatural and finally economizing when they rely on abbreviated codes.
In the same vein, Searle [as cited in Johansen & Larsen, 2002, p. 76] made a taxonomy of the illocutionary acts that consists of five types. First, speech acts can be assertive as long as they are committed by the speaker in varying degrees, to the truth of a proposition in order to convince the receiver. Second, they can act as directive when they are directed to the hearer to do something. Third, they can serve as com-missive when the speaker tends to guarantee, promise, vow, offer, etc. Fourth, they can be expressive or evaluative when they express an attitude about a state or affair. And fifth, they function as declarative when they declare something that changes the object of a situation.
In discourse, the categorization of speech acts is not always obvious and not always expressed with one sentence. On the one hand, the illocutionary act can be expressed either through direct and indirect utterances [Fairclough, 1993, p. 82]. Additionally, in many cases a speech act can express fragments of the illocutionary intention at the level of sentences, while the totality of its meaning can only be understood after reading the whole text. In the same vein, "we may utter several sentences and thereby, at least at a more global level, accomplish one speech act" [Van Dijk, 1997, p. 99].
Moreover, a sentence can be unsuccessful when we mispronounce it or produce an ungrammatical utterance. Even a well-formed sentence can go wrong in the sense that it is situationally inappropriate. Therefore, in order to be logical, a speech act needs to be performed along certain types of conditions or as named by Austin felicity conditions.
Accordingly, the first condition is ruled by two characteristics; first, there must be a conventional procedure which has a conventional effect. In other words, the utterance must be culturally accepted or inherited and agreed upon. Second, the
circumstances and persons must be appropriate. Moreover, the second condition entails the correctness and completeness of the procedure in order to be meaningful. And finally, the third condition is split into two main characteristics; first, the persons must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions; that is to say, participants should agree upon the procedure in order to be fulfilled. Second, participants should do the act if the consequent conduct is specified [Searle, [n.d], p. 2-15].
During 1980s and 1990s, academic studies have questioned the validity of the claim of Searl of the universality of speech acts theory, and researchers started to think about cross-cultural speech acts. In this regard, Wierzbicka (2003) claimed that speech genres and speech acts are not the same across cultures and she suggested a semantic metalanguage for the cross-cultural comparison of speech acts [Kachru, 1998]. Therefore, as much as cultures differ in their values, norms, ethics and traditions as much as they differ in using speech acts in their communicative situations [Wierzbicka, 2003; Kachru, 1998].
The use of speech acts is determined by the cultural dimensions we mentioned before. In high-context cultures it is not appropriate to produce direct orders to others as it is considered as impolite, while in low-context cultures it is not the same. Furthermore, in some Asian countries like Japan there is an extensive use of honorific titles the fact that shapes the way in which requests and orders are addressed. Political speeches also are produced differently including the use of speech acts. Hence, sometimes people from one culture may misunderstand the implicit meanings (and sometimes also the explicit meanings) of a political speech act. An example of a Moroccan political speech can illustrate this situation.
In his capacity as the Leader in charge of migration issues within the African Union, and part of the chairmanship of the Global Forum on Migration and Development; alongside Germany, for 2017-2018, King Mohammed VI used directive speech acts so as to suggest future plans and reform for African migration in the 5th African Union-European Union Summit in Abidjan:
"The 21st century will be a century of large-scale human intermingling. This common sense conclusion means we should refrain from giving any ideological, emotional or even xenophobic twist to the discourse on migration. Today, a new vision is needed: we ought to turn immigration into a subject of peaceful debate and constructive exchange.
This extract shows the use of an indirect directive speech act through the use of in-group pronoun "we" in order to politely and implicitly address orders. The use of the pronoun "we"; in its implicit meanings, does not include Morocco in the speech act because simply it is not concerned with the speech addressed to some African and European countries who do not use the humanitarian approach to global migration. Therefore, this pronoun is only used to show politeness and to save face concerns.
As we mentioned before, Morocco is a high-context culture, so politicians tend to be implicit and contextual in their speeches and they rarely produce direct orders. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the use of speech acts in political speeches is not bound by the cultural context only but also by the occasion in which the political speech occurs. In this regard, other elements such as power, status and relevance are of paramount importance in the study of political speech acts.
Conclusion
Intercultural pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics have become required paradigms in the study of political discourses since the world is witnessing an immense increase of international media, international politics and global interests / crises. The main intercultural misunderstanding and misinterpretations are resulted from the lack of the access to the right and correct explicature of the utterance rather than only the implied meanings.
Consequently, in order to successfully understand and produce cross-cultural and intercultural political speeches in their socio-cultural context politicians, activists, as well as politics scholars, students and researchers need to wider their intercultural communication skills. However, because of the limitation of the author, this paper has not collected data to extensively analyse the differences of cultural dimensions in the pragmatic analysis of political utterances which may be covered in researches afterwards.
References
1. Austin J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. - Oxford: The Clarendon press.
2. Brown P. & Levinson S.C. (1988). Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage. - New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bryant D.G. (1968). Ancient Greek, and Roman-Rhetoricians. A. Missouri: The Artcraft Press.
4. Chi D.L. (2016, December). Intercultural Communication: Differences between Western and Asian perspective. Thesis. Centria University of Applied Sciences Business Management.
5. Danesi M. (2004). Messages, Signs, and Meanings: A Basic Textbook in Semiotics and Communication (3 ed., Vol. 1). - Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.
6. Fairclough N. (1993). Discourse and social change. - Cambridge: Polity Press.
7. Fetzer A. (2013). The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: Explorations across cultures. - Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
8. Fetzer A. & Lauerbach G.E. (2007). Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural perspectives. - Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
9. Hofstede G.J., Hofstede G., & MinkovM. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software ofthe Mind. - McGraw-Hill.
10. Geertz C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. - New York: Basic Books, Inc, Publishers.
11. HallE.T. (1959). The Silent Language. - New York: DoubleDay.
12. Hall E.T. (1990). The Hidden Dimension. - New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: AnchorBooks DoubleDay.
13. Hall J. (2007). Persuasion in Ancient Greece and Rome. ADR Bulletin,
1-5.
14. Hoffman J. (2007). A Glossary of Political Theory. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
15. Hofstede G.J. (2010). Cultures and Organizations; Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. - New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Holsti K. (1995). International Politics: A Framework for Analysis; Seventh Edition. - United States: Prentice-Hall International.
17. Johansen J. & Larsen S.E. (2002). Signs in Use: An introduction to semiotics. (D. Gorlee, & J. Irons, Trans.). - London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
64
18. Joseph J.E. (2009). Language and Politics: Major Themes in English studies. - Edinburgh, UK: Routledge.
19. Kachru Y. (1998). Culture and Speech ActS: Evidence from Indian and Singaporean English. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 79-98.
20. Kasper G. & Schmidt R. (1996). Developmental Issues in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 149-169.
21. Kecskes I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. - The United States of America: Oxford University Press.
22. Kecskes I. (2015). Intercultural Impolitness. Journal of Pragmatics, 43-47.
23. Kecskes I. (30 Nov. 2011). Interculturality and Intercultural Pragmatics. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, 67-84.
24. Kim Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural Communication Competence: A systems Theoretic View. In S. Ting-Toomey, & F. Korzenny, Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Communication (p. 259-275). - Newbury: Park, CA: Sage.
25. Kroeber A.L. & Klucichohn C. (1952). Culture a Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: the Museum.
26. Lakoff R.T. & Ide S. (2005). Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. - Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
27. Leech G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. - New York: Oxford University Press.
28. McNair B. (2011). An Introduction to Political Communication. - Abingdon: Routledge.
29. Mey J. (2006). Focus-on issue: Intercultural pragmatics and sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 1793-1794.
30. Mey J.L. (2004). Between Culture and Pragmatics: Scylla and Charyb-dis? The Precarious Condition of Intercultural Pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 1-1, 27-48.
31. Moeschler J. (2004). Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1-30.
32. Morris C.W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory. In International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Vol 1, No. 2. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Nakayama T. & Halualani R. (2010). The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication. - UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
34. Oetzel J. G. & Ting-Toomey S. (2003). Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory. Communication Research, 599-624.
35. Pan J. (2019). The Pragmatics of Political Discourse: An Analytical Framework and a Comparative Study of Policy Speeches in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Bandung Journal of the Global South, 252-284.
36. Samovar L.A., Porter R.E., McDaniel E.R. & Carolyn S., Roy R.S. (2013). Communication Between Eighth Edition. - USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
37. Searle J. (n. d.). What is a Speech Act? In [n.d], Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis and Socio Linguistics (p. 1-16).
38. Shardakova M. (2005). Intercultural Pragmatics in the Speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 423-451.
39. Smith P.B. & BondH. (1994). Social Psychology Across-Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives. - Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
40. Toomey S.T. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. - New York: Guil-ford Press.
41. Tylor E.B. (1920). Primitive Culture: Esearches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and custom. London: John Murray, Albemarle street, W.
42. Van Dijk T. (1997). What is Political Discourse Analysis? In Belgian. Journal of Linguistics, 11-52.
43. WierzbickaA. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. - Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
44. Williams R. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society [revised edition]. - New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Wilson D. (2003). Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 15.2: 273-291.
46. Wodak R. (2009). Language and Politics. In F.K.J. Culpeper, English Language: Description, Variation and Context (p. 576-593). - Basingstoke: Palgrave.
