Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T04:44:01.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Intercultural Communication in Computer-Mediated Discourse

from Part IV - Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2022

By
Carmen Maíz-Arévalo
Edited by
Istvan Kecskes
Istvan Kecskes
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

Political and economic globalization, together with constant technological advances, has resulted in unprecedented levels of international human mobility. As a result, societies are increasingly intercultural. Nowhere is this interculturality more pervasive than in digital discourse (traditionally known as computer-mediated communication or CMC), where interlocutors from different cultural backgrounds may interact on global platforms and social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram, or YouTube, to name but a few. Intercultural communication, however, poses interlocutors with serious challenges to overcome, such as differences in their value systems, and diverging communication styles and behaviours. All of them can easily lead to miscommunication and conflict between cultural groups, both within and across societies, as well as the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes. Yet, most research on CMC to date has focused on monocultural studies or cross-cultural comparisons while intercultural communication in CMC is still rather under-researched. Keeping the above in mind, the present chapter aims to review the research that has been carried out so far in the field of digital discourse with a special focus on intercultural communication, as well as to provide readers with avenues for future research in this burgeoning field.

Keywords

online interactionmediated discoursetelecollaborationmultilingual awarenessmultilingual analysis
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 588 - 611
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atifi, S., Mandelcwaijg, S., and Marcoccia, M. (2011). The co-operative principle and computer-mediated communication: The maxim of quantity in newsgroup discussions. Language Sciences, 33(2), 330–340.Google Scholar
Bardovi‐Harlig, K. and Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233–259.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Sprouse, R. A. (2018). Negative versus positive transfer. In Lionitas, J. I., ed., The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Indianapolis: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Belz, Julie A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, P. (2015). Commenting to learn: Evidence of language and intercultural learning in comments on YouTube videos. Language Learning and Technology, 19(3), 88–105.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., House, J., Kasper, G., and Wagner, J. (2008). Intercultural pragmatics, language and society. In Piet, van Sterkenburg, ed., Unity and Diversity of Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Authorial engagement in business emails. Engagement in Professional Genres, 301, 47.Google Scholar
Choi, S. M., Kim, Y., Sung, Y., and Sohn, D. (2011). Bridging or bonding? A cross-cultural study of social relationships in social networking sites. Information, Communication and Society, 14(1), 107–129.Google Scholar
Chun, D. (2011). Developing intercultural communicative competence through online exchanges. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 392–419.Google Scholar
Cirillo, V. (2012). The pragmatics of virtual environments: Compliment responses in second life. Lingue e Linguaggi, 7, 37–58.Google Scholar
Coats, S. (2016). Grammatical feature frequencies of English on Twitter in Finland. English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change, 93, 179–209.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2014). The development of pragmatic competence through telecollaboration: An analysis of requesting behavior. Doctoral dissertation: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. (2016). Request modification in synchronous computer‐mediated communication: The role of focused instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2): 484–507.Google Scholar
Darics, E. (2010). Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 6(1), 129–150.Google Scholar
Davies, G. (2016). CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning). www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/61 (retrieved in June 2020].Google Scholar
Dirlik, A. (1987). Culturalism as hegemonic ideology and liberating practice. Cultural Critique, 6, 13–50.Google Scholar
Dooly, M. A. (2011). Crossing the intercultural borders into 3rd space culture (s): Implications for teacher education in the twenty-first century. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(4), 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresner, E. and Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.Google Scholar
Eleta, I. (2012). Multilingual use of twitter: Social networks and language choice. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 363–366.Google Scholar
Feng, W. and Ren, W. (2020). Impoliteness in negative online consumer reviews: A cross-language and cross-sector comparison. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2010). The YouTubification of politics, impoliteness and polarization. In Taiwo, R., ed., Handbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 540–563.Google Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., and Bou-Franch, P. (2013). Relational work in anonymous, asynchronous communication: A study of (dis) affiliation in YouTube. In Kecskes, I. and Romero-Trillo, J., eds., Research Trends in Intercultural Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 343–366.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020a). Learning through WhatsApp: Students’ beliefs, L2 pragmatic development, and interpersonal relationships. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–19.Google Scholar
García-Gómez, A. (2020b). Intercultural and interpersonal communication failures: Analyzing hostile interactions among British and Spanish university students on WhatsApp. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(1), 27–51.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A. M. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic development in native speaker/nonnative speaker participatory online environments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A. (2013). Rapport Management and Online Learning: L2 Socialization in Livemocha. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 219–238.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, M. (2009). CA for computer-mediated interaction in the Spanish L2 classroom. In Nguyen, H. and Kasper, G., eds., Talk-in-Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives. Honolulu, HI: NFLRC and University of Hawaii Press, pp. 281–316.Google Scholar
González-Lloret, Marta. (2015). Conversation analysis in computer-assisted language learning. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 569–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. L. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 742–759.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2004). Online communication: Through the lens of discourse. In Consalvo, M., Baym, N., Hunsinger, J., Jensen, K. B., Logie, J., Murero, M., and Shade, L. R., eds., Internet Research Annual, Vol. I. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2019). The coevolution of computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis. In Bou-Franch, P. and Blitvich, P. Garcés-Conejos, eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–67.Google Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., and Virtanen, T. (eds.) (2013). Handbook of Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. and Johns, T. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Highfield, Tim, Harrington, Stephen, and Bruns, Axel (2013). Twitter as a technology for audiencing and fandom: The Eurovision phenomenon. Information, Communication and Society, 16(3), 315–339.Google Scholar
Hirotani, M. and Fujii, K. (2019). Learning proverbs through telecollaboration with Japanese native speakers: Facilitating L2 learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4 (1), 5.Google Scholar
Hockly, N. (2015). Online intercultural exchanges. ELT Journal, 69(1), 81–85.Google Scholar
House, J. (2000). How to remain a non-native speaker. In Riemer, C., ed., Cognitive Aspects of Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 101–118.Google Scholar
Ivković, D. (2013). The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes. Language@Internet, 10. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2013/Ivkovic.Google Scholar
Ishihara, N. and Takamiya, Y. (2019). Pragmatic development through blogs: A longitudinal study of telecollaboration and language socialization. In Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 829–854.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. (2012). Playing “nice”: What online gaming can teach us about multiculturalism. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 32–44.Google Scholar
Jandt, F. (2013). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenks, C. J. and Brandt, A. (2013). Managing mutual orientation in the absence of physical copresence: Multiparty voice-based chat room interaction. Discourse Processes, 50(4), 227–248.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. H. and deHaan, J. (2013). Strategic Interaction 2.0: Instructed intercultural pragmatics in an EFL context. International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications (IJSITA), 4(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2016). Can intercultural pragmatics bring some new insight into pragmatic theories? In Capone, Alessandro and Mey, Jacob L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 43–69.Google Scholar
Kecskes, I. (2017). Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics. In Huang, Yan, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.001.0001.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2020). Using telecollaboration 2.0 to build intercultural communicative competence: a Spanish-American exchange. In Information Resources Management Association, Language Learning and Literacy: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 575–593.Google Scholar
Lenkaitis, C. A., Calo, S., and Venegas Escobar, S. (2019). Exploring the intersection of language and culture via telecollaboration: Utilizing videoconferencing for intercultural competence development. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(2), 102–115.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Blitvich, P. G. C., and Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2578–2593.Google Scholar
Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014). Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 199–224.Google Scholar
Maíz Arévalo, C. (2016). Emoticons in transactional and interactional exchanges: Social networking chitchat versus working negotiation. Odisea, 17, 19–35.Google Scholar
Nastri, J., Pena, J., and Hancock, J. T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), 1025–1045.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2016). Learning from the past and looking to the future of online intercultural exchange. In O’Dowd, R. and Lewis, T., eds., Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 273–293.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. and Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with “failed communication” in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642.Google Scholar
Pang, Yang. (2020). The cognitive saliency of word associations of verbs of speech in English as a Lingua Franca interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(4), 417–443.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. and Milner, R. M. (2017). The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Piri, S., and Riahi, S. (2018). Cross-cultural perspectives on technology-enhanced language learning: A review of research. In Tafazoli, Dara, Elena Gomez Parra, M., and Huertas-Abril, Cristina A., eds., Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Technology-Enhanced Language Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Rafieyan, V., Rafieyan, A., Rafieyan, N., Rafieyan, S., Rafieyan, P., and Rafieyan, M. (2015). Effect of developing pragmatic competence through telecollaboration on improving English as foreign language learners’ writing proficiency. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(27), 121–131.Google Scholar
Rive, P. B. (2016). Virtual design teams in virtual worlds: A theoretical framework using second life. In Baggio, Bobbe Gaines, ed., Analyzing Digital Discourse and Human Behavior in Modern Virtual Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 60–86.Google Scholar
Rive, P. and Thomassen, A. (2012). International collaboration and design innovation in virtual worlds: Lessons from second life. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 429–448.Google Scholar
Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication and Society, 18(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18–33.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. and Engelmann, T. (2010). Knowledge and information awareness for initiating transactive memory system processes of computer-supported collaborating ad hoc groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1701–1709.Google Scholar
St. Amant, K. (2012). Considering computer-mediated Communication across Cultures: The Global Nature of Cyberspace. In Amant, Kirk St. and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (ISR)-IGI, pp. xiv–xxiii.Google Scholar
Timpe-Laughlin, V. and Dombi, J.. (2020). Exploring L2 learners’ request behavior in a multi-turn conversation with a fully automated agent. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(2), 221–257.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.Google Scholar
Tsai, M.-H., and Kinginger, C. (2014). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 82–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergriff, I. (2014). A pragmatic investigation of emoticon uses in nonnative/native speaker text chat. Language @ Internet, 11. www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2014/vandergriff.Google Scholar
Ware, P. D. and Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205.Google Scholar
Waugh, E. (2013). Teaching pragmatics and intercultural communication online. TESL Canada Journal, 30(7), 98–98.Google Scholar
Yang, P. (2012). Knowing through asynchronous time and Space: A phenomenological study of cultural differences in online interaction. In St. Amant, Kirk and Kelsey, Sigrid, eds., Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2013). Exploring students’ language awareness through intercultural communication in computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 325–342.Google Scholar
Yus, F. (2010). Cyberpragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zamborlin, C. (2007). Going beyond pragmatic failures: dissonance in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 21-50.Google Scholar
Zheng, D., Young, M. F., Wagner, M. M., and Brewer, R. A. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in game‐based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 489-511.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×