Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, Written by Juliane House and Dániel Z. Kádár
Yansheng Mao,Yihang Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10067
2022-01-01
Contrastive Pragmatics
Abstract:In line with the increasing understanding of language use as a culturally situated resource for social interaction, Juliane House and Dániel Kádár draw on their research interests in the contrastive study of language use to produce an intriguing and enlightening analysis of cross-cultural issues through the lens of pragmatics.After offering an overview of theory and practice in cross-cultural pragmatics, they provide a ground-breaking, language-anchored, strictly empirical and replicable framework for the study of different data types and situations.This framework is illustrated with case studies drawn from a variety of linguacultures, such as English, Chinese, Japanese, German and Hungarian, allowing the authors to conduct contrastive analyses of language use in important contexts such as globalised business, politics and classroom settings.The book is divided into three parts, with a total of fourteen chapters, and offers thought-provoking insights for reinvigorating the field of cross-cultural pragmatics that was pioneered by the CCSARP Project (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), by going back to the Politeness Principle and the Cooperative Principle, and integrating these principles into present-day pragmatic theories and practice.First, Chapter 1 offers definitions of key terms, the criteria for engaging in cross-cultural pragmatics and the rationale for the research.Part I (Chapters 2-5) is then devoted to an overview of the foundations of the field.Specifically, Chapter 2 provides a reader-friendly overview of the chronological background of cross-cultural pragmatics, while revisiting the ground-breaking CCSARP Project (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989) as well as its developing connection with present-day cross-cultural pragmatics, with both practical and ethical challenges being highlighted.Chapter 3 offers a useful discussion on the issues surrounding the scope of the data, by arguing that not everything can be contrastively examined.The term tertium comparationis deserves a special