Category Archives: English (Intercultural Communication)

Long (2016) A Social Cognitive Account of Relational Work

Microsoft PowerPoint - 8 kg-SCT revised by Kontos.ppt [Compatibi

Image from



The 3rd English Scholars Beyond Borders (ESBB) Conference; Taichung (May 19-22, 2016 )



The 3rd ESBB conference will explore the diverse kinds of borders and boundaries that English teachers and scholars must negotiate to achieve success and to benefits learners. We invite language teaching professionals to present your conceptual work.

Web address:

Fukushima (2015) on another perspective of politeness

(Image from

This journal article discusses fresh non-linguistics aspects and perspectives on politeness such as “attentiveness” and “heart”… Read more: fukushima-s-pr-2015-0011.pdf


While politeness has been researched mainly from the perspectives
of face and identity, this conceptual paper explores another understanding of
politeness through the consideration of attentiveness, namely, a demonstrator’s pre-emptive responses to a recipient’s verbal or non-verbal cues or situations surrounding a recipient and a demonstrator, which takes the form of offering.
In this paper, it is suggested that politeness can be construed in relation to the heart; and that behavioral (non-linguistic) politeness, an understudied area in the field, should be taken into account in politeness research. With the development of interpersonal pragmatics, there has been a growing need to investigate interpersonal relationships, and great importance is placed on evaluation in the discursive approach. As attentiveness is an interpersonal notion, which involves evaluation, the consideration of attentiveness meets these demands.
In the present paper, the concept of attentiveness is clarified and it is shown how attentiveness works by presenting the process of demonstration and evaluation of attentiveness.
Keywords: politeness, attentiveness, evaluation, heart


Japanese-English “Translation”

Those of you who know Japanese will understand why these errors occur.  Interference is encountered by children, adult bilinguals and multilinguals. It is not just limited to second-language learners (Matras, 2009). The examples in this post are attempts to make communicative use of elements from the repertoire of linguistic resources (however limited) available to the language user. However, interference results in a breakdown of communication—in this case, creating some jokes, and not “enabling” the user to create “bridges” among different subsets of linguistic resources within his/her repertoire.

  1. Flappy goods

  1. I have to praise you like I should.

  1. Benzodiazepizza






4. Alright, mate, remember to attach a reminder to your oven next time.

5. What thing? What thing?

  1. Where?

  1. Happy ninety-twoth birthday!

  1. Pure Shakespeare
  2. What did the eggs do?

Source of pictures and captions (except 4):

I have replaced Caption number 4. The verb “attach” has literally been translated from the Japanese verb.  I have also removed two examples of Chinese-English translations from the source because they are not examples of Japanese-English translation errors.


Maíz-Arévalo (2015) on jockery mockery on Spanish and English Facebook communities

(Image from


Abstract: Understood as an umbrella term covering different phenomena (e.g.,
banter, teasing, jocular insults, etc.), mock impoliteness has long attracted the
attention of scholars. However, most of this research has concentrated on English
while other languages have been neglected. In addition, previous research
has mostly analyzed face-to-face interaction, generally ignoring computer-mediated
communication. This paper aims to redress this imbalance by analyzing
a particular case of mock impoliteness – i.e., jocular mockery – in two Facebook
communities (Spanish and English). More specifically, and following
Haugh’s (2010) and Haugh and Bousfield’s (2012) three inter-related dimensions,
this paper intends to answer three questions: (i) what triggers jocular
mockery in each corpus? (ii) How is it “framed”? And (iii) how do interlocutors
respond to it? To this end, two balanced datasets were gathered: one in (British)
English and one in (Peninsular) Spanish, consisting of 6,215 and 6,193 words
respectively. Results show that jocular mockery is pervasive in both datasets
and both British and Spanish users resort to it when confronted with bragging.
Likewise, both groups borrow framing strategies from face-to-face communication
but also employ other means afforded by Facebook itself. They also opt
for accepting it good-naturedly as a way to boost group rapport.
Keywords: jocular mockery, computer-mediated communication,


Norrick & Haugh (Eds.) JoP Volume 86, 1-110 (2015) Interdisciplinary perspectives on pragmatics: A Festschrift for Jonathan Culpeper

A special issue in honour of Prof Jonathan Culpeper with a lot of interesting articles. I have uploaded two of them  (including re-posting Haugh 2015 here):

Interdisciplinary perspectives on pragmatics: A festschrift for Jonathan Culpeper

Pages 1-4

Neal Norrick, Michael Haugh

Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research

Pages 5-10 

Miriam A. Locher

Modern scholars within politeness research need to carefully define the scope of their research.

Scholars studying interpersonal aspects of communication can benefit from insights within other linguistic and interdisciplinary fields of studies.

Studying (im)politeness benefits from combining methodologies from different research fields.

conventionalisation:  A new agenda for im/politeness research

Pages 11-18

Marina Terkourafi

(Un)expected behavior: Some general issues and a papal example

Pages 19-24

Claudia Caffi

Un/expectedness is the potential encompassing category with respect to im/politeness and in/appropriateness.

The choice of un/expectedness would bring two advantages.

First, the concept would not be value-laden, unlike im/politeness and in/appropriateness.

Second, it would be selected on empirical and phenomenological, rather than logical and semantic grounds.

Conceptualizing politeness in Greek: Evidence from Twitter corpora

Pages 25-30

Maria Sifianou

Twitter as a source of naturally occurring data.

The influence of the medium in the conceptualization of politeness.

Politeness is not restricted to verbal behaviour.

Direct off-record requests? – ‘Hinting’ in family interactions

Pages 31-35

Eva Ogiermann

Impoliteness and taking offence in initial interactions (Article)

Pages 36-42

Michael Haugh

Intercultural impoliteness

Pages 43-47

Istvan Kecskes

 The combining of Discourse Markers – A beginning

Pages 48-53

Bruce Fraser

Understanding vagueness: A prosodic analysis of endocentric and exocentric general extenders in English conversation

Pages 54-62

Jesús Romero-Trillo

Pragmatics of fiction: Literary uses of uh and um

Pages 63-67

Andreas H. Jucker

“Ah, pox o’ your Pad-lock”: Interjections in the Old Bailey Corpus 1720–1913

Pages 68-73

Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Chinese xiehouyu (歇 后 语) and the interpretation of metaphor and metonymy

Pages 74-79

Dingfang Shu

Lexical cloning in English: A neo-Gricean lexical pragmatic analysis

Pages 80-85

Yan Huang

Under/standing cartoons: The suppression hypothesis revisited

Pages 86-93

Ofer Fein, Sari Beni-Noked, Rachel Giora

Narrative illocutionary acts direct and indirect

Pages 94-99

Neal R. Norrick

The power of the ordinary: Quotidian framing as a narrative strategy

Pages 100-105

Yoshiko Matsumoto

Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization

Pages 106-110

Jan Nuyts


Intercultural Communication in Korea

  (Image from

“Traditionally, management researchers have not even taken into account host country language proficiency, expecting the cultural distance index (Kogut & Singh, 1988) to capture all relevant aspects of intercultural interactions […] The present study focuses on English-language teachers because, despite a sharp increase in the number of English-language teachers in East Asia, few studies have focused on them. For example, there are more than 30,000 foreigners teaching English in Korea, whereas there are only 7000 corporate expatriates (Korea Immigration Office, 2010).” Read more…  communication-teachers-ijir-2012-1.pdf