Show Less

Intercultural Miscommunication Past and Present


Edited By Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky

Miscommunication has always intrigued researchers in and outside linguistics. This book takes a different perspective from what has been proposed so far and postulates a case for intercultural miscommunication as a linguistically-based phenomenon in various intercultural milieus. The contributions address cases of intercultural miscommunication in potentially confrontational contexts, like professional communities of practice, intercultural differences in various English-speaking countries, political discourse, classroom discourse, or the discourse of the past. The frameworks employed include cultural scripts, critical discourse analysis, lexicographic analysis, glosses of untranslatable terms, and diachronic pragmatics. The book shows the omnipresence of miscommunication, ranging from everyday exchanges through classroom discourse, professional encounters, to literary contexts and political debates, past and present.


Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Communication gaps in seventeenth century Britain:Explaining legal Scots to English practitioners. Joanna Kopaczyk, Poznan


Communication gaps in seventeenth century Britain: Explaining legal Scots to English practitioners1 Joanna Kopaczyk, Pozna 1. Setting the historical background This paper identifies communication gaps in the legal domain in a seventeenth-century British setting. Can one talk about intercultural miscommunication here? The historical multicultural character of the British Isles has recently been addressed again by Edwards (2004) and Ronowicz and Yallop (2007). In both books, a short space is devoted to Scotland and its inclusion in the growing sphere of political and economic hegemony of England in the seventeenth-to-eighteenth centuries.2 Even though Britain towards the end of the seventeenth century could be broadly described as a linguistic continuum, it is justifiable to talk about intercultural communication between the two major geopolitical bodies within the island.3 Clearly, Scotland and England rose from different historical backgrounds; they had a long history of mutual conflicts and animosities; their land- scape and geography were different; their economy was different; their customs and laws were distinct; and the people practised their religion under different ideological convictions. All these aspects fall within the concept of culture, as the environment in which a given group functions becomes reflected in material and non-material culture (cf. the definition of culture in Johnson (ed.) 2000: 73-74). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005: 4) stress the fact that culture is learned and that it defines its members; it is “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”. This recognition of collective distinctiveness...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.