Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity

The paper addresses how Pragma-dialectical Theory (PDT)—whose core is resolving conflicts of opinion through critical discussion—can be better adapted to intercultural communication, where interlocutors must negotiate both meanings and divergences across cultural schemas. While PDT has evolved beyond its Ideal Model to include flexible staging, speech acts, and strategic maneuvering, the author argues it remains limited for intercultural contexts due to insufficient rhetorical and pragmatic specificity. The study’s purpose is to modify the model to capture intercultural dynamics by expanding its rhetorical dimension via Burke’s identification and dialectical substances and by broadening its pragmatic dimension from speech acts to context-sensitive pragmatic acts. It further proposes enriching the argumentation stage with the roles of motivation (to seek common substances) and mediation (by third parties or selves), aiming to improve explanatory power and applicability in intercultural discussions.

The paper reviews applications of PDT across legal, medical, political, media, and developmental contexts, highlighting strategic maneuvering and discourse-level analyses (e.g., personal attacks in press conferences; concessive constructions; online debates; parental positioning; preschool argumentation). It also surveys work applying PDT to non-Western contexts and indigenous languages (e.g., Mencius’s argumentative discourse; multimodal metaphor in Chinese commercials). In intercultural communication research, empirical studies on sensitivity, competence, and pedagogy are noted, alongside theoretical accounts of communicative turbulence (misunderstandings, breakdowns) driven by symbolic power, pragmatic mismatch, style clashes, and schema/contextualization mismatches. Prior solutions include accommodation and negotiation. The author critiques PDT’s rhetorical point of departure as overly confined to the opening stage and its strategic maneuvering as device-level rather than discourse-level; and its pragmatic reliance on direct speech acts and a restrictive mapping of speech acts to stages as ill-suited to intercultural practice where indirectness and non-verbal cues are prevalent. Burke’s identification and dialectical substances are proposed to strengthen rhetorical grounding; Mey’s pragmatic acts are proposed to capture direct, indirect, implicit, and non-verbal behaviors.

The study employs an exploratory approach in two steps: (1) theoretical modification of PDT for intercultural discussions and (2) a qualitative case study to illustrate and corroborate the modified model. The theoretical modification expands the rhetorical dimension by importing Burke’s identification and the notion of dialectical substances (geometric, familial, directional) as ongoing shared bases across all stages, and replaces speech acts with Mey’s pragmatic acts to encompass direct, indirect, implicit verbal, and non-verbal behaviors, emphasizing context-sensitivity and flexibility. The argumentation stage is further articulated to foreground the roles of motivation (to seek common substances) and mediation (by third parties or self-mediation), which shape pragmatic acts and progression toward agreement. The empirical illustration analyzes a real-world WeChat group discussion among Chinese overseas students: two interlocutors (A1, A2) versus one (B), with multiple third-party participants (C1–C5) acting as mediators. The transcript (provided in supplementary materials) is examined for stages (opening/confrontation/argumentation/conclusion), pragmatic acts (e.g., condemn, criticize, scorn, complain, explain, compromise), invocations of dialectical substances (familial solidarity; directional goals; conventional norms), motivation shifts, and mediation moves (reminders of rules/law, appeals to common substances, face-saving steps).

• The modified model, incorporating identification and dialectical substances across stages, better captures intercultural discussions where shared premises must be continually negotiated rather than fixed at the opening stage.
• Replacing speech acts with pragmatic acts accounts for indirectness, implicitness, and non-verbal behaviors commonly used in intercultural settings, providing a more accurate pragmatic description.
• In the argumentation stage, motivation to seek common substances is pivotal: higher motivation aligns with the use of more conciliatory pragmatic acts (e.g., explanations, complaints) and movement toward agreement; low motivation correlates with symbolic power plays and stalled progress.
• Mediation (by third parties or self-mediation) influences both motivation and pragmatic act selection, helping prevent escalation, reorienting parties to dialectical principles, and facilitating face-saving compromises.
• Case study outcomes: third-party mediators repeatedly invoked common familial and directional substances (shared identity abroad; being considerate; practical solutions), reminded participants of rules and legal boundaries, and provided steps to de-escalate. This shifted pragmatic acts from condemnation and personal attacks to explanation and compromise, culminating in apology and reconciliation.
• The model accommodates non-linear, cyclic progression, with parties occasionally reverting to confrontation when common substances are lacking, consistent with intercultural turbulence observed in the examples.

The findings indicate that enriching PDT with Burkean identification and dialectical substances, alongside Mey’s pragmatic acts, directly addresses limitations of the original model in intercultural contexts. Continuous negotiation of shared substances throughout all stages better reflects how interlocutors from different cultures establish common ground. Accounting for indirect, implicit, and non-verbal pragmatic acts captures communicative practices crucial to preventing and repairing turbulence. Emphasizing motivation and mediation within the argumentation stage explains why discussions stall or advance: motivation energizes pragmatic choices oriented to understanding, while mediation by third parties or self-reflection re-anchors interaction in shared substances and dialectical rules. The case study demonstrates the model’s explanatory power, showing how appeals to shared familial/directional substances and reminders of norms/law transform confrontational exchanges into conciliatory outcomes. Collectively, these results suggest an expanded applicability of PDT to intercultural communication and offer a more nuanced account of how agreement is pragmatically achieved across cultural divides.

The study proposes a modified critical discussion model for intercultural communication with two main contributions: (1) rhetorical and pragmatic reinforcement by integrating Burke’s identification and dialectical substances across stages and replacing speech acts with context-sensitive pragmatic acts that include indirect and non-verbal behavior; and (2) elaboration of the argumentation stage to include motivation to seek common substances and the role of mediation (third-party or self) in shaping motivation and pragmatic behavior. The model more effectively explains how intercultural discussions progress, stall, and resolve, as illustrated by the WeChat case culminating in reconciliation through mediated appeals to shared substances and face-saving steps. The work is intended to broaden PDT’s application scope and to stimulate further research in diverse intercultural settings and communicative activity types.