Abstract
Abstract Cross-cultural contrastive approaches motivate research that questions the universality premise of pragmatic theories by illustrating facts of local linguistic practices from diverse geographical areas. In the spirit of my earlier studies of Japanese (e.g. Matsumoto 1988, 1989), I suggest that contrastive pragmatics can lead the field of pragmatics to addressing variations in linguistic practice that go beyond the geographical diversity of cultures and encompass other types of “atypical” discourse, such as discourse of speakers with varied cognitive conditions including persons with Alzheimer’s. This paper argues for the pragmatics of understanding, i.e. the language users’ and the analysts’ efforts (i) to understand what speakers are trying to convey in verbal interaction and (ii) to understand local pragmatic principles of verbal exchange, and thereby to encourage more inclusive studies of pragmatics.
Highlights
As numerous studies in contrastive pragmatics have made clear, the investigation of seemingly equivalent linguistic expressions or comparable pragmatic via free access acts affords a refined and nuanced understanding of how specific languages are used in context
This paper suggests that this endeavor should be extended to include investigations of communication by people with varied cognitive conditions, such as persons with dementia
1.2 Current Study – Pragmatics of Understanding In the spirit of my earlier studies of (e.g. Matsumoto 1988, 1989), I suggest in this paper that contrastive pragmatics can lead the field of pragmatics to addressing variations in linguistic practice that go beyond the geographical diversity of cultures and encompass other types of “atypical” discourse such as discourse of speakers with varied cognitive conditions including persons with the Alzheimer’s, the most common type of dementia
Summary
As numerous studies in contrastive pragmatics have made clear, the investigation of seemingly equivalent linguistic expressions or comparable pragmatic. Rosaldo (1982) challenged the universality of speech act theory through Illongot speech practices; Wierzbicka (1986) called attention to cultural variability in reference to Australian English; and Matsumoto (1988, 1989, 2003) illustrated with examples from Japanese, in contrast to the premise of Gricean principles and Brown and Levinson’s universal politeness theory, that relational information beyond the denotational and propositional content conveyed in verbal interactions is an inextricable part of the language and that such patterns of communication require understanding of local diversities and theoretical flexibility in describing conversation and politeness. The variation in repeating the same factual content shows that the essential information Yuri (the speaker) wanted to convey is interpersonal rather than propositional This and other similar examples suggest why attention to relational and interactional aspects of verbal exchanges forms a significant part of pragmatic analysis of Japanese. When the exact identity of the participants in the described event or state does not have essential bearing on the intent of the utterance, the speaker may not feel the necessity of specifying it and the listeners may accept it as indeterminate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
