Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Creating meso-contexts: The functions of metapragmatic expressions in argumentative TV talk shows

  • Ping Liu is Associate Professor at the School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China. Her research interests include metapragmatics, intercultural pragmatics, and ELF.

    and

    Yongping Ran is Professor at the Centre for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China. He is Editor-In-Chief for Xiandai Waiyu (Modern Foreign Languages), a top journal of linguistics and applied linguistics in China, and he is the vice chairman of China Pragmatics Association. His present research interests include im/politeness, conflict speech, and interpersonal pragmatics.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: June 7, 2016
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Metapragmatic expressions (MPEs) show the speaker’s reflexive awareness of language use. Drawing on an argumentative TV talk show, this article explores the functions of MPEs in the host’s utterances from the sociocognitive approach (SCA). It argues that MPEs are employed to create “meso-contexts” so as to ensure the progression of the interactions as intended. The data analysis indicates that different types of MPEs activate prior contexts conventionally tied to them, and an interplay between prior contexts and emergent actual situations results in the construction of meso-contexts, which adjust the situational salience of relevant senses to direct the ongoing of interaction.

About the authors

Ping Liu

Ping Liu is Associate Professor at the School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China. Her research interests include metapragmatics, intercultural pragmatics, and ELF.

Yongping Ran

Yongping Ran is Professor at the Centre for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, P.R. China. He is Editor-In-Chief for Xiandai Waiyu (Modern Foreign Languages), a top journal of linguistics and applied linguistics in China, and he is the vice chairman of China Pragmatics Association. His present research interests include im/politeness, conflict speech, and interpersonal pragmatics.

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the project (15BYY045) about the pragmatics of media discourse in the context of crisis funded by the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Sciences, P.R. China. Much gratitude also goes to the Center for Business and Legal Discourse Studies at GDUFS.

References

Antonova, Tatiana G. 2014. Social conflict through conceptual metaphor in media discourse. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 154. 368–373.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.165Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia. 1984. Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 433–435.10.1163/9780080466224_003Search in Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia. 1993. Metapragmatics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2461–2466. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia. 2006. Metapragmatics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 82–88. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00317-5Search in Google Scholar

Catalano, Theresa & Aleidine J. Moeller. 2013. Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration. Discourse, Context and Media 2. 165–174.10.1016/j.dcm.2013.09.001Search in Google Scholar

Ciliberti, Anna & Laurie Anderson. 2007. Metapragmatic comments in institutional talk: A comparative analysis across settings. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 143–166. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.11cilSearch in Google Scholar

Van Eemeren, Frans H.& Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Fukushima, Saeko & Michael Haugh. 2014. The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 74. 165–179.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.004Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Christopher. 2013. Argumentation meets adapted cognition: Manipulation in media discourse on immigration. Journal of Pragmatics 59. 200–209.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.005Search in Google Scholar

Hongladarom, Krisadawan. 2007. “Don’t blame me for criticizing you…”: A study of metapragmatics comments in Thai. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 29–47. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.04honSearch in Google Scholar

Hübler, Axel. 2011. Metapragmatics. In Wolfram Bublitz & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 107–136. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214260.107Search in Google Scholar

Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz. 2007. Introducing metapragmatics in use. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 1–26. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165Search in Google Scholar

Kádár, Dániel Z. & Yongping Ran. 2015. Ritual in intercultural contact: A metapragmatic case study of heckling. Journal of Pragmatics 77. 41–55.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.011Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 1997. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Paper presented to the Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, 7 March.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. A cognitive-pragmatic approach to situation-bound utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 32(6). 605–625.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894035Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6). 2889–2897.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Lecture delivered at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China, 13 June 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355.10.1075/pc.17.2.06kecSearch in Google Scholar

Kleinke, Sonja & Birte Bös. 2015. Intergroup rudeness and the metapragmatics of its negotiation in online discussion fora. Pragmatics 25(1). 47–71.10.1075/prag.25.1.03kleSearch in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lucy, John A. 1993. General introduction. In John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621031Search in Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob. 1998. Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Penz, Hermine. 1996. Language and control in American TV talk shows: An analysis of linguistic strategies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Penz, Hermine. 2007. Building common ground through metapragmatic comments in international project work. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 263–292. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.17penSearch in Google Scholar

Pizziconi, Barbara. 2007. Facework and multiple selves in apologetic metapragmatic comments in Japanese. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 49–71. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.05pizSearch in Google Scholar

Ran, Yongping. 2013. The metapragmatic negation as a rapport-oriented mitigating device. Journal of Pragmatics 48. 98–111.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.012Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In John A. Lucy (ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004Search in Google Scholar

Smith, Sara W. & Xiaoping Liang. 2007. Metapragmatic expressions in physics lectures. In Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 167–197. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.165.12smiSearch in Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2011. Conceptualising “the relational” in pragmatics: Insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 3565–3578.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.009Search in Google Scholar

Timberg, Bernard M. 1994. The unspoken rules of talk television. In Horace Newcomb (ed.), Television: The critical view. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jeff. 2000a. Notes on the role of metapragmatic awareness in language use. Pragmatics 10(4). 439–456.10.1515/9783110907377.53Search in Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jeff. 2000b [1999]. Understanding pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Wortham, Stanton & Michael Locher. 1999. Embedded metapragmatics and lying politicians. Language & Communication 19. 109–125.10.1016/S0271-5309(98)00021-4Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-6-7
Published in Print: 2016-6-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 5.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ip-2016-0011/html
Scroll to top button