Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation, and intercultural communication

Abstract

Readers of this journal have recently witnessed a discussion between Kanavillil Rajagopalan and Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber on the role of the social aspects in pragmatics. I would like to touch on this issue from another point of view, focusing on intercultural (contrastive, crosscultural, and interlanguage) pragmatics. Over the past twenty years this field has made substantial contributions to the extension of linguistic models and the understanding of the relation between language and culture, as well as expanding the basis for second language studies and language curriculum materials. The scope of this journal offers wonderful opportunities for interaction and collaboration between scholars researching and applying pragmatics in different ways interculturally. I would like to draw attention to some dimensions which, to my knowledge, have so far been on the margins of the field, focusing first on the speech act of introduction, the very beginning of interpersonal interaction, which I will show varies even within speakers of German. This example raises the issue of variation in intercultural pragmatics and to pluricentric languages, ones with ‘several interacting centres, each of which provides at least some of (their) own (codified) norms’ (Clyne 1992: 1). Different national varieties are linked to specific norms of expression and cultural values. Central to the discussion is the issue of what pragmatic norms should be expected of second language learners. In discussion of English, the most pluricentric and international of all languages, the power of the pragmatics and discourse of the ‘native speaker’ of particular varieties is critiqued within the context of certain cultural parameters.