The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity
Abstract
The core idea of Pragma-dialectical Theory is critical discussion which means resolving disagreement via argumentative dialogues. The Pragmatic-dialectic Model describing critical discussion has not only reasonableness and validness in logic, but also rhetorical effectiveness and pragmatic properties in intra-cultural context. However, the model cannot appropriately describe intercultural discussion since the discussants try to negotiate both in meaning and in divergence. People from different cultures do not necessarily behave pragmatically in the same way. In order to better describe the process of intercultural discussion, an exploratory approach was taken to first propose modifications of the model and then to confirm the modified model in a case study. The modifications include two aspects: first, its rhetorical and pragmatic properties can be expanded by taking Burke’s “Identification” and by replacing “speech acts” with more comprehensive “pragmatic acts”; second, the argumentation stage can be explored further with “motivation” and “mediation” added to the model. The case study reveals that the discussants with the motivation to seek common substances could take proper pragmatic acts to negotiate on certain substances, and that the mediation by the third party and by the discussants exerted influence both on the motivation and on the pragmatic acts. The modified model is expected to broaden the application scope of Pragma-dialectical theory to intercultural communication, and to better explain many kinds of intercultural discussions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Bernstein B (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Ideology: Theory Research Critique. Taylor and Routledge, London
- Burke K (1969) A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press, Berkeley · DOI · Paper page
- Crusius TW (1986) A Case for Kenneth Burke’s Dialectic and Rhetoric. Philosophy Rhetoric 19(1):23–37
- Ehrlich SZ, Blum-Kulka S (2010) Peer talk as a “double opportunity space”: the case of argumentative discourse. Discourse Soc 21(2):211–233 · DOI
- Giles H (1973) Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropol Linguist 15:87–105
- Giles H, Coupland J, Coupland N (eds (1991) Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI · Paper page
- Gonçalves G, Sousa C, Arasaratnam-Smith LA, Rodrigues N, Carvalheiro C (2020) Intercultural communication competence scale: invariance and construct validation in Portugal. J Intercult Commun Res 49(3):242–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1746687 · DOI
- Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P and Morgan JL (eds) Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3). Academic Press, New York, p 41–58 · DOI · Paper page
- Ju Y (2011) Socio-cognitive Rhetoric: Theory and Practice. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing
- Karras I (2017) The Effectiveness of an Intercultural Communication Course in Increasing International and European Studies Students’ Intercultural Sensitivity. Intercult Commun Stud 26(2):96–118
- Kim YY (2018) Intercultural communication: taking stock of the domain. Commun Stud 69(4):341–349 · doi:10.1080/10510974.2018.1472121
- Kramsch C (2016) The multiple faces of symbolic power. In Zhu H, Kramsch C (eds) Symbolic Power and Conversational Inequality in Intercultural Communication. A special issue of Applied Linguistics Review 7(4):517–529 · doi:10.1515/applirev-2016-0023
- Liu Y (2020) Critical discussion and the introduction of pragma-dialectical theory. Contemporary Rhetoric 4:1–14
- Liu D, Yang Y (2020) Exploring the identification in critical discussion model. Hu F, Ju Y (eds) China Rhetoric 2019. Xuelin Press, Shanghai: 43–49
- Liu D (2021) A Study on rhetorical and pragmatic properties of Pragma-Dialectical Theory. Contemporary Rhetoric 5:79–86
- Lloyd K (2021) What “Comparative World Rhetorics” has to offer intercultural communication studies. Intercultural Communication. Studies 1:1–15
- Mauranen A (2006) Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. Int J Sociol Lang 177:123–150
- Perelman CH, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The New Rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
- Ramsay G (2012) Online arguments against Al-Qaeda: an exploratory analysis. Perspect Terror 6(1):54–69
- Schnell Z, Podeschi C (2022) A novel methodology of international discourse: online joint course across cultures. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01233-1 · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01233-1
- Schnell Z, Ervas F (2022) Intercultural discussion of conceptual universals in discourse: joint online methodology to bring about social change through novel conceptualizations of Covid-19. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01230-4 · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01230-4
- Uzelgun MA, Mohammed D, Lewiński DM, Castro P (2015) Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: an argumentative analysis. Discourse Stud 17(4):467–484 · doi:10.1177/1461445615578965
- Van Eemeren FH, Henkemans AFS (2017) Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. Routledge, New York
- Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1982) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A theoretical model for the Analysis of Discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Faris Publications, Dordrecht
- Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans AFS (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah · DOI · Paper page
- Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst RA (2004) Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P (1999) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Stud 1(4):479–497 · DOI
- Van Eemeren FH, Wu P (eds) (2017) Contextualizing Pragma-dialectics. John Benjamins Publishing Company · doi:10.1075/aic.12
- Wu P (2017) Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks at press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In: Van Eemeren FH, Wu P (eds) Contextualizing Pragma-dialectics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, p 225–254 · doi:10.1075/aic.12.13wu
- Wu P, Xiong M (2015) Strategic Maneuvering: a Rhetorical Extension of Pragma-Dialectics. Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 3:64–69
- Xenitidou M, Morasso SG (2014) Parental discourse and identity management in the talk of indigenous and migrant. Discourse Soc. 25(1):100–121 · DOI
- Yan L, Xiong M (2019) Refutational strategies in Mencius’s argumentative discourse on human nature 33: 541–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09495-x · doi:10.1007/s10503-019-09495-x
- Zappen JP (2009) Kenneth Burke on Dialectical-Rhetorical Transcendence. Philosophy Rhetoric 42(3):279–301 · doi:10.2307/25655358
- Zhang C, Xu C (2018) Argument by multimodal metaphor as strategic maneuvering in TV commercials: a case study. Argumentation 32:501–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9455-0 · DOI
- Zhu H (2018) Exploring Intercultural Communication: Language in Action. Taylor & Francis Group, London
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, D.
- Venue
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Published
- 2023-11-30
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2662-9992
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (tdm)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (vor)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1057/s41599-023-02319-0
- The paper
- Liu, D. (2023). Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02319-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
