Speech Acts, Politeness, and Pragmatic Failures in Intercultural Contexts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/lingua.v2i3.1032Keywords:
Intercultural Pragmatics, Pragmatic Competence, Speech Acts, Intercultural Communication, Pragmatic Failures, Language Education, Technology-Enhanced LearningAbstract
Pragmatics plays a fundamental role in mediating meaning and facilitating effective communication across cultural boundaries. This narrative review aims to examine the role of pragmatic competence in intercultural communication by synthesizing theoretical and empirical evidence from diverse contexts. Literature was systematically collected from databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar using keywords such as “intercultural pragmatics,” “speech acts,” and “pragmatic competence.” Studies were included based on relevance, methodological rigor, and empirical contribution, encompassing research from educational, professional, and societal settings. The results highlight five key themes: speech acts and politeness strategies, pragmatic failures and communication barriers, technology in pragmatic learning, cultural and religious pragmatics, and teacher and curriculum integration. Findings reveal that pragmatic competence is culturally contingent, with speech acts and politeness norms varying widely across societies. Pragmatic failures are shown to disrupt communication and, in high-stakes domains such as aviation and healthcare, may have critical consequences. Technology-enhanced learning, particularly through AI and gamification, demonstrates potential in fostering pragmatic competence, while culturally embedded expressions and religious idioms illustrate the importance of contextual awareness. The integration of pragmatics into teacher education and curricula emerges as essential for preparing learners to navigate intercultural interactions effectively. This review concludes that systemic reforms, policy innovations, and targeted pedagogical strategies are required to address persistent gaps in pragmatic education. Future research should examine long-term pragmatic adaptation and digital communication contexts to further advance understanding and practice. These findings emphasize the urgent need for pragmatic competence as a core dimension of intercultural communication.
References
Amine, D. (2024). Using relevance theory to enhance students’ pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic competencies in translation: a theoretical perspective. Dirasat Human and Social Sciences, 51(5), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v51i5.5184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v51i5.5184
Altakhaineh, A., Hasheish, M., & Hamaydeh, D. (2024). Pragmatic failures in intercultural communication: evidence from Jordan. Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 38-62. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2024-36-2-38-62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2024-36-2-38-62
Camiciottoli, B. (2014). Pragmatic uses of person pro-forms in intercultural financial discourse: a contrastive case study of earnings calls. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0023
Concu, V., & Raffo, C. (2024). Exploring emoji usage in intercultural CMC: insights from Colombian and Argentinian learners of German. Intercultural Pragmatics, 21(5), 621-645. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-5002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-5002
Dinh, H. (2019). The use of indexicals to co-construct common ground on the continuum of intra- and intercultural communicative contexts. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(1), 135-165. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19005.din DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19005.din
Erdogan, N., & Kitson, C. (2025). Integrating AI in language learning: boosting pragmatic competence for young English learners. LatIA, 3, 115. https://doi.org/10.62486/latia2025115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62486/latia2025115
Fischer, K., & Prondzinska, A. (2020). Experimental contrastive pragmatics using robots. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1(1), 82-107. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-BJA10004
Hlavač, J., Xu, Z., & Xiong, Y. (2015). Intercultural pragmatics at work: (self-)perceptions of intercultural behavior of Chinese and English speakers and interpreters in healthcare interactions. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0004
Kale, U., Herrera, M., & Nagy, A. (2021). Examining pragmatic failure and other language-related risks in global aviation. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 93(8), 1313-1322. https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat-03-2021-0081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-03-2021-0081
Kim, K., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2020). Metapragmatic comments on relating across cultures. Pragmatics Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPRA), 31(2), 198-224. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20004.kim DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20004.kim
Macagno, F., & Rossi, M. (2019). Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010
Matsukawa, C. (2024). A contrastive pragmatics study of invitations in British English and Japanese. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-bja10113
Naiditch, F. (2011). Friends or foes? Communicating feelings through language in cross-cultural interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2011(208). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2011.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2011.013
Qub’a, A., Eid, O., Guba, M., & Altakhaineh, A. (2025). The pragmatic functions of Allah-centred expressions in Jordanian spoken Arabic. Forum for Linguistic Studies. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i4.8812 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i4.8812
Upadhyay, R. (2020). Heterogeneous learning environment and languaging in L2. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (pp. xx–xx). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3903-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3903-9
