Most metaphors are highly conventionalized expressions that are typically read and understood by native speakers effortlessly. For instance, while reading the brightest child in the classroom native speakers naturally understand that the speaker is not referring to a child who is literally shiny, but rather, a smart child.

Non-native speakers and language learners, however, may find some metaphoric expressions difficult to understand, if expressed in a language that they do not master fluently. Moreover, they may try to use conventional metaphoric expressions translated directly from their own native or first language, into another language. This can create problems in intercultural settings, where the expression may sound unheard before, and possibly unclear. For instance, the arguably unclear expression climbing up on mirrors is actually a direct translation of a highly conventional Italian metaphoric expression, frequently used to say “finding excuses”. In this chapter I elaborate on the way in which metaphoric expressions are understood, and how such comprehension processes vary in relation with metaphor conventionality, aptness and deliberateness. I then take these observations into the field of intercultural communication, explaining how the pragmatics of metaphor comprehension may be affected by intercultural settings.

Political and economic globalization, together with constant technological advances, has resulted in unprecedented levels of international human mobility. As a result, societies are increasingly intercultural. Nowhere is this interculturality more pervasive than in digital discourse (traditionally known as computer-mediated communication or CMC), where interlocutors from different cultural backgrounds may interact on global platforms and social networking sites such as Twitter, Instagram, or YouTube, to name but a few. Intercultural communication, however, poses interlocutors with serious challenges to overcome, such as differences in their value systems, and diverging communication styles and behaviours. All of them can easily lead to miscommunication and conflict between cultural groups, both within and across societies, as well as the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes. Yet, most research on CMC to date has focused on monocultural studies or cross-cultural comparisons while intercultural communication in CMC is still rather under-researched. Keeping the above in mind, the present chapter aims to review the research that has been carried out so far in the field of digital discourse with a special focus on intercultural communication, as well as to provide readers with avenues for future research in this burgeoning field.

Business communication is becoming increasingly intercultural and much more complex in the face of the globalized business arena and workforce diversity (Varner, 2000; Yuan, 1997; Zaidman, 2001). This trend has highlighted the need for understanding the role of culture and language use in business communication. It deserves a close look at how people from different linguacultural backgrounds come into contact and achieve successful interaction with one another in business communication. This chapter aims to survey the research on business communication and discuss its various aspects to help us better understand business communication from an intercultural pragmatics perspective. It consists of three sections after a general introduction and before a conclusion: (1) business communication and culture; (2) major business communication genres (i.e. business meetings, call center exchanges, emails and social media platforms); (3) main research areas and topics.

The notion of common ground entails that prior to a conversation, mutually shared knowledge is available to interlocutors by virtue of the situational context or a shared cultural background. Within linguistic pragmatic theories, recipient design is a determining factor for cooperation in interaction. The socio-cognitive approach to communicative interaction acknowledges the importance of cooperation and common ground but maintains that interlocutors tend to adhere to their individual background knowledge and experience for production and comprehension. The shared knowledge base may therefore not be fully available prior to the exchange but, rather, established dynamically and interactively in the course of the conversation. Discussing internet memes, it will be shown that stable core common ground and dynamic emergent common ground are fundamental assets for the description of contemporary and future phenomena in digital communication. I will argue that internet memes represent a kind of communication where emergent common ground is aspired to rather than resorted to as an emergency solution when core common ground is lacking.

Intercultural pragmatics is a relatively new field of inquiry that is concerned with the way in which the language system is put to use in social encounters between human beings who have different first languages but communicate in a common language, and, usually, represent different cultures (see Kecskes 2004, 2013). The main focus of research in this field is on intercultural interactions. In these encounters, the communicative process is synergistic, in the sense that existing pragmatic norms and emerging co-constructed features are present to a varying degree. The innovative feature of the field is that it provides an alternative way of thinking about interaction by shifting the attention of researchers from first language (L1) communication to intercultural communication. In Gricean pragmatics everything is about native speakers (mainly native speakers of English) of a language who are members of the same, although diverse and relatively definable, speech community, who have preferred ways of saying things and preferred ways of organizing thoughts, who share core common ground, conventions, norms, and distributed collective salience. This gives them a relatively firm basis for understanding each other.

The concept of context has undergone some fundamental rethinking in the scientific community. Rather than being considered an external constraint on linguistic performance, context is analyzed as a product of language use and thus as an interactional achievement, which is negotiated and co-constructed, imported and invoked. Context and contexts are analyzed from the perspectives of interlocutors, considering contextualization, recontextualization and decontextualization, and entextualization. The complexity, multilayeredness and dynamics of context have far-reaching implications on its role in intercultural pragmatics with interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds having diverging meaning-making processes, diverging contextualization conventions, and thus diverging constructions of context. Intercultural pragmatics thus calls for context-sensitive particularizations of the fundamental premises of cooperation, contextualization, meaning-making process, and negotiation of discourse common ground.

Intercultural interactions in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) are increasingly becoming the norm as speakers of diverse first languages and cultures find themselves needing to communicate in both personal and professional domains for any number of reasons. The chapter provides an overview of ELF pragmatics research that is focused on how multilingual, multicultural speakers in real-world settings achieve mutual understanding through the effective use of ELF. Specifically, the chapter examines the pragmatic strategies that speakers deploy to preempt misunderstanding as they conjointly negotiate and construct shared meaning. Practices that enhance explicitness and clarity, such as repetition, rephrasing, topic negotiation, and the insertion of a parenthetical remark that provides additional information, reveal how speakers who anticipate difficulty in understanding, possibly arising from linguistic variability and cultural difference, increase efforts to minimize mis/non-understanding. Using data extracts from relevant ELF studies, the chapter illustrates how speakers in these intercultural interactions accommodate their interlocutors and the context of communication to arrive at shared understanding.

In the vast literature on evidentiality, empirical and theoretical focus has mostly been on propositional evidentiality, i.e. evidentials that scope over propositions. In this work, we undertake a crosslinguistic comparative study of propositional and nominal evidentiality, i.e. evidentials that scope over nominals, and are fused with the determiner/demonstrative systems or with nominal tense markers. I demonstrate that there are cohesive parallels in how flavors of both propositional and nonpropositional evidentiality interact with verbal and nominal tense and aspect. I use tools from modal logic to show that we can (i) unify the subdomains of evidentiality using modal accessibility relations while also preserving important distinctions between them, (ii) use the same tools to compositionally capture the interaction between evidentials and tense and aspect, and (iii) have the representation of an agent’s certainty of belief be reflected in quantificational force. Concretely, directly encoding the subtype of evidence in the semantics, I argue that three distinct evidential flavors embody three distinct spatio-temporal modal accessibility relations: direct (sensory) evidentials are temporally-sensitive historical necessity relations (yielding the factive nature of perception); inferential evidentials of pure reasoning are epistemic accessibility relations; inferential evidentials of results are a combination of the above two.

Arguments have always played a central role within logic and philosophy. This chapter overviews recent work on the semantics and pragmatics of argumentative discourse, with particular attention to work on the semantics of argument connectives such as ‘therefore’ in discourse coherence theory and in dynamic semantics, as well as on modal analyses of ‘therefore’. A dynamic analysis of the semantics of ‘therefore’ is described, that captures both uses of ‘therefore’ in categorical arguments as well as its uses in suppositional and complex arguments. In the final section, I overview some issues that arise on the pragmatics of arguments, such as how we are to characterize the distinctive utterance force of arguments versus explanations.

This chapter presents the most influential linguistic approaches to presupposition. Going beyond the traditional analyses of the problem of presupposition projection, it also considers recent developments in linguistics that link the analysis of presuppositions to general processes of cognition and reasoning, such as attention, probabilistic reasoning, theory of mind, information structure, attitudes and perspectival structure. I discuss some outstanding questions: whether presuppositions form one coherent group or should be thought of as different types of phenomena, why we have presuppositions at all, and why we see the presuppositions that we see (aka the triggering problem). Overall, the chapter stresses the need to consider the intricacies of the interaction of presuppositions with the broader discourse context.

The goal of this paper is to discuss which basic semantic entities we should include in our formal semantic ontology, and on which principles we should include them (cf. Bach 1986b). The vast majority of formal theories employ individuals as a basic type; they represent quantification over, modification of, and reference to individuals. But many theories include additional types or entities, including possible worlds, but also less common ones like vectors. Some papers have argued that types should be constrained or reduced; others that they should be proliferated. I present some representative arguments on both sides and suggest a path forward in evaluating them against one another.

Linguistics, like all sciences, is deep-rooted in philosophy. Perhaps the most obvious example is that linguistic meaning has been at the center of philosophic inquiry for as long as philosophic discourse has been documented.1 Nevertheless, among the current subfields in linguistics (including phonetics, phonology, and syntax), formal semantics was the latest bloomer.2 As noted in the Preface, it was not until the mid-1980s that formal semantics began to develop as an autonomous field within linguistics. And it was not until the 1990s that it became solidified as such, with the founding of the journal Natural Language Semantics and the conference Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT).3 These venues welcomed philosophers, but their aims and scope were largely linguistic.4

Tenses are one of the main devices for encoding time in language. Philosophers’ interest in tense goes back at least to Aristotle who discusses in his De Interpretatione whether or not sentences about the future have a truth value. While philosophers were originally mainly interested in the future tense, work in semantics has shown in the last decades that the present tense poses many challenges as well, challenges that are interesting for linguists and philosophers alike. This paper discusses two particularly complex present tense phenomena: the present tense in complements of indirect speech and attitude reports, and the historical present. It argues that a holistic understanding of the present tense would require collaboration between formal semantics and other fields of language study, such as psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, philosophy of language, mind and fiction, literature study and narratology.

This chapter offers a synoptic survey of work on the discourse dynamics of vague language. It starts by briefly introduction to the traditional philosophical puzzles of vagueness, to do with indeterminacy and tolerance. From there, it turns to evidence that vague language exhibits nontrivial discourse dynamics. Different approaches to the discourse dynamics of vagueness are taxonomized and critically evaluated. The chapter concludes by considering the prospects of leveraging an account of the dynamics of vague language to provide a solution to the traditional puzzles of vagueness.