Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity

The Pragma-dialectical Theory (PDT), drawing from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's new rhetoric and Toulmin's argumentation theory, centers on "critical discussion"—resolving disagreements through reasoned dialogue. The Ideal Model of Critical Discussion, comprising four stages (confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding), emphasizes both logical validity and rhetorical effectiveness. However, this model's applicability to intercultural communication is limited because it doesn't adequately address the challenges posed by cultural differences in communication styles and pragmatic understanding. Intercultural communication, encompassing interactions between individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds (including subcultural variations within a society), often involves significant communicative turbulence—misunderstandings stemming from pragmatic mismatches, clashing communication styles, and differing cultural schemas. This study aims to address these limitations by modifying the PDT to better capture the dynamics of intercultural discussions and resolve communicative turbulence through negotiation and shared understanding.

Existing research extensively applies PDT to various domains like legal, medical, and political discourse, focusing on strategic maneuvering and rhetorical strategies within those contexts. Studies analyze argumentative functions of specific linguistic constructions, explore strategic maneuvering in political discourse, and examine argumentation in diverse cultural settings, including indigenous languages and non-Western cultures. While many studies apply PDT, fewer focus on refining the model itself, particularly from rhetorical and pragmatic perspectives. Some existing research highlights the shortcomings of PDT in addressing the rhetorical and pragmatic nuances of intercultural communication. Studies on intercultural communication have largely concentrated on empirical aspects such as intercultural sensitivity, competence, and the efficacy of teaching methods. The theoretical focus often examines the root causes of communicative turbulence, including symbolic power, pragmatic mismatches, and schema mismatches. These studies provide a background for the current research, but lack the specific theoretical framework proposed in this paper.

This paper adopts an exploratory approach. First, it analyzes the existing Pragma-dialectical Model, focusing on its rhetorical and pragmatic aspects. The analysis reveals inadequacies in the model's ability to account for intercultural communication. Specifically, the reliance on a single "point of departure" in the opening stage and the limitation to direct speech acts are identified as key weaknesses. The paper then proposes modifications to address these shortcomings. The rhetorical dimension is expanded by incorporating Burke's concept of "identification," emphasizing the importance of shared substance in achieving agreement. The pragmatic dimension is broadened by replacing "speech acts" with the more encompassing term "pragmatic acts," which includes direct and indirect speech acts, as well as non-verbal communication. Further, the argumentation stage is enriched by integrating the concepts of "motivation" (the discussants' desire to reach agreement) and "mediation" (intervention by a third party or self-mediation). Finally, a case study of an intercultural discussion among overseas Chinese students in a WeChat group is analyzed using the modified model to demonstrate its applicability and explanatory power. The case study illustrates how different motivations, pragmatic acts, and mediation influence the discussion's progress and outcome.

The analysis reveals that the existing Pragma-dialectical Model has limitations in handling the complexities of intercultural communication. The reliance on a single point of departure in the opening stage proves insufficient, as common ground needs to be established and maintained throughout the discussion. The restriction to direct speech acts fails to capture the nuances of indirect communication frequently observed in intercultural interactions. The modified model, incorporating Burke's concept of "identification" and the broader concept of "pragmatic acts," offers a more comprehensive framework. The case study demonstrates that the motivation of the discussants to seek common ground and the role of mediation are crucial factors in the success of intercultural discussions. The case study shows how the use of condemnation, criticism, scorn, and complaints in early stages can escalate the conflict if motivations for mutual understanding are low. The study illustrates how third-party mediation, by reminding discussants of shared values and encouraging them to find common ground, can be effective in de-escalating conflict and promoting reconciliation. The analysis of the WeChat discussion reveals how differences in cultural knowledge and communication styles can significantly impact the dynamics of intercultural discussions. Successful resolution requires a willingness to negotiate meaning, adapt communication strategies, and find common ground across different cultural perspectives.

The findings suggest that the modified Pragma-dialectical Model provides a more robust framework for analyzing intercultural discussions. The incorporation of Burke's "identification," the expanded concept of "pragmatic acts," and the inclusion of "motivation" and "mediation" significantly enhances the model's explanatory power. The case study effectively demonstrates the model's usefulness in interpreting the complexities of intercultural communication. This study contributes to a better understanding of how cultural differences shape communication styles and the strategies employed to overcome communication barriers. The significance of motivation in fostering mutual understanding and the role of mediation in facilitating agreement are highlighted. The results suggest that intercultural communication training could benefit from incorporating insights from the modified Pragma-dialectical Model, emphasizing the importance of cultural awareness, active listening, and the strategic use of both verbal and nonverbal communication. The emphasis on motivation suggests the need for fostering positive attitudes towards intercultural interaction. The importance of mediation points to the value of collaborative conflict-resolution strategies.

This study proposes a modified Pragma-dialectical Model that better accounts for the nuances of intercultural discussions. By integrating Burke's concept of "identification," expanding the scope of pragmatic acts, and incorporating motivation and mediation, the model offers a more nuanced and comprehensive framework. The case study analysis supports the model's enhanced explanatory power, highlighting the importance of shared understanding and constructive conflict resolution. Future research could further investigate the effectiveness of the model across different cultural contexts and explore the relationship between specific communication strategies and successful intercultural outcomes. Further investigations might explore the impact of various mediation techniques and the development of culturally sensitive communication training programs based on the modified model.

The study's reliance on a single case study limits the generalizability of the findings. While the case study provides rich illustrative data, additional research is needed to test the model's applicability across a wider range of intercultural communication contexts. The chosen case study focused on a specific online communication medium (WeChat) and a specific cultural group (overseas Chinese students), potentially limiting the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other communication settings and diverse cultural groups. Future research should explore the applicability of this model in different communication modes and across various cultural backgrounds to further validate its generalizability and robustness.