The linguistic code as basis for common ground building in English as a foreign language
-
Olga Obdalova
Abstract
This study was designed to check the validity of two intertwined hypotheses according to which linguistic code plays the role of common ground in L2 use (see Kecskes 2007, 2013) and formulaic language use is an indicator of shared core common ground (Holtgrave 2002). When common ground among participants is high and figurative language is more likely to be understood, and probably more likely to be used, while literal interpretations (linguistic code-based use) tend to be preferred when common ground is low. In order to check the validity of the hypotheses we organized conversation groups on two levels: intermediate and advanced. On each level there were two groups created. The participating groups received two topics to discuss for 20 minutes on different days. The result was four batches of datasets, each of which was transcribed. The data analysis was based on two measurements: number of formulaic units (idioms, SBUs, speech formulas) and metaphorical density (the number of words used in metaphorical sense divided by the number of words used). It will be claimed and demonstrated through qualitative and quantitative data that common ground construction in L2 EFL users is highly predetermined by the interplay between the interlocutors’ discourse design and salience as a perception quality. It will be argued that speaker’s and listener’s perspectives are attributable to the linguistic coding by the non-native communicants. We provide evidence on the role of the linguistic code as a tool of communication in common ground construction and we establish the link between shared core common ground and the nature of communicative means used. The study can deepen our understanding of cognitive processes in interactions between speakers of English as a foreign language at different levels of common ground construction.
Abstract
This study was designed to check the validity of two intertwined hypotheses according to which linguistic code plays the role of common ground in L2 use (see Kecskes 2007, 2013) and formulaic language use is an indicator of shared core common ground (Holtgrave 2002). When common ground among participants is high and figurative language is more likely to be understood, and probably more likely to be used, while literal interpretations (linguistic code-based use) tend to be preferred when common ground is low. In order to check the validity of the hypotheses we organized conversation groups on two levels: intermediate and advanced. On each level there were two groups created. The participating groups received two topics to discuss for 20 minutes on different days. The result was four batches of datasets, each of which was transcribed. The data analysis was based on two measurements: number of formulaic units (idioms, SBUs, speech formulas) and metaphorical density (the number of words used in metaphorical sense divided by the number of words used). It will be claimed and demonstrated through qualitative and quantitative data that common ground construction in L2 EFL users is highly predetermined by the interplay between the interlocutors’ discourse design and salience as a perception quality. It will be argued that speaker’s and listener’s perspectives are attributable to the linguistic coding by the non-native communicants. We provide evidence on the role of the linguistic code as a tool of communication in common ground construction and we establish the link between shared core common ground and the nature of communicative means used. The study can deepen our understanding of cognitive processes in interactions between speakers of English as a foreign language at different levels of common ground construction.
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
- Introduction 1
-
1 Understanding common ground
- The interdependence of common ground and context 7
- Understanding common ground as a cognitive object 25
- From laboratory to real life: Obstacles in common ground building 59
- Presupposition failures and the negotiation of the common ground 81
-
2 Emergent common ground
- Grounding emergent common ground: Detecting markers of emergent common ground in a YouTube discussion thread 105
- Co-constructing emergent common ground: The role of the intercultural mediator 135
- The co-construction of common ground through exemplars unique to an ESL classroom 163
-
3 Common ground building
- Mutual knowledge and the ‘hidden common ground’: An interdisciplinary perspective on mutual understanding in intercultural communication 197
- The linguistic code as basis for common ground building in English as a foreign language 219
- ELF disagreement as an interactional resource for doing interculturality 237
-
4 Common ground in different discourses
- Working offline: Common ground in written discourse 263
- Metapragmatic expressions as common ground builders in intercultural business communication 281
- Harmony and common ground: Aikido principles for intercultural training 305
- Contributors to this volume 337
- Index 339
Chapters in this book
- Frontmatter I
- Contents V
- Introduction 1
-
1 Understanding common ground
- The interdependence of common ground and context 7
- Understanding common ground as a cognitive object 25
- From laboratory to real life: Obstacles in common ground building 59
- Presupposition failures and the negotiation of the common ground 81
-
2 Emergent common ground
- Grounding emergent common ground: Detecting markers of emergent common ground in a YouTube discussion thread 105
- Co-constructing emergent common ground: The role of the intercultural mediator 135
- The co-construction of common ground through exemplars unique to an ESL classroom 163
-
3 Common ground building
- Mutual knowledge and the ‘hidden common ground’: An interdisciplinary perspective on mutual understanding in intercultural communication 197
- The linguistic code as basis for common ground building in English as a foreign language 219
- ELF disagreement as an interactional resource for doing interculturality 237
-
4 Common ground in different discourses
- Working offline: Common ground in written discourse 263
- Metapragmatic expressions as common ground builders in intercultural business communication 281
- Harmony and common ground: Aikido principles for intercultural training 305
- Contributors to this volume 337
- Index 339
