Introduction

Definitions of the key terms

Influenced by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s new rhetoric theory and Toulmin’s argumentation theory, van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1982) formulated their Pragma-dialectical Theory which combines empirical description in pragmatics and dialectical prescription in argumentation. This theory has been developed and improved by van Eemeren and his colleagues (Van Eemeren et al., 1996, 2004; Van Eemeren and Henkemans, 2017). The core part of the theory is “critical discussion” which means solving conflicts and reaching agreement through argumentative conversation. The Ideal Model of Critical Discussion is the initial work of Van Eemeren et al. (1996). Improvement and complement have been made in their later works, such as flexible sequence of the four stages, speech acts, and strategic maneuvering (Van Eemeren et al., 2017). Thus, critical discussion is no longer limited to the ideal model, but has developed into Pragma-dialectical Theory (Liu 2020, pp. 3).

Intercultural communication is the mechanism whereby people of different groups perceive and try to make sense of one another (Lloyd, 2021). Early studies of intercultural communication aimed mainly at generating knowledge, helping individuals understand the challenges of cultural differences across societies and finding ways to enhance the quality and efficacy of intercultural interaction. The domain of intercultural communication has expanded beyond the interface of individuals in international contexts. Nowadays intercultural communication activities involve individuals of differing domestic subcultural backgrounds such as different classes, ages, genders, and times (Kim, 2018). In this paper, we talk about the expanded intercultural communication.

Pragma-dialectical theory and its application

Due to its strong power of accountability, Pragma-dialectical Theory has been applied to many areas other than formal logic, like institutional discourse analysis concerning politics, law, medicine, news, and even discourses of people of different ages. The major application lies in critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology. These studies share some notions or rhetorical strategies, such as positioning a speaker in a favorable way and framing an issue in an acceptable way for the audience. Van Eemeren and Wu (2017) edited a book on contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics including a selection of 18 articles in legal, medical and political contexts. For example, Wu (2017) analyzed the use and strategic function of personal attacks at regular press conferences of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and discussed how the spokespersons’ strategic maneuvering by personal attacks instrumentally achieved their primary aim.

There are more other related studies. Uzelgun et al. (2015) examined the argumentative functions of concessive “yes, but…” constructions. They developed an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis within the framework of pragma-dialectics. The speakers were found to raise different types of criticism such as sufficiency, relevance, and acceptability. Ramsay (2012) took the pragma-dialectic perspective of argumentation theory and made a detailed analysis of one set of the arguments between the supporters and critics of Al-Qaeda in a debate between late 2009 and early 2010. He contends that the need for a credible messenger might matter less in mass media campaigns because of the use of pseudonyms and the textual nature of these media. Xenitidou, Morasso (2014) drew on pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation and integrated it with discursive psychology to explore the regularities in two sets of data. They discussed the parental positioning and topicalization, and identified the initial regularity in voicing strong views about “others” from ethnic, cultural, and racial backgrounds other than those of the speakers. Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka (2010) treated argumentation as a dialogic activity and found that the preschoolers used well-formed and convincing arguments to express their viewpoints in a rational and coherent way. The young children managed negotiation in such sophisticated ways as those found in adult discourse.

Another line of application of Pragma-dialectical theory consists in the analyses of the discourse written in indigenous languages in non-western cultures. Yan and Xiong (2019) adopted pragma-dialectical approach to reconstruct Mencius’s argumentative discourse on human nature, to explore how Mencius refuted his opponents strategically and realize both dialectical and rhetorical aims. Zhang and Xu (2018) investigated the conceptual metaphor used by Liqun Commercial in Hangzhou and highly accepted by the Chinese target audience. The use of metaphorical arguments involves such strategic maneuvering as evading sanctions for ignoring institutional constraints imposed upon the communicative activity type.

Major concerns of intercultural communication in this study

For decades a considerable number of empirical studies have explored intercultural communication sensitivity, competence, and the effectiveness of certain teaching methods. For example, Karras (2017) examined the intercultural sensitivity of the students majoring in international and European studies as well as the effectiveness of an intercultural communication course. Gonçalves et al. (2020) investigated the psychometric validation of an Intercultural Communication Competence (ICC) scale by performing three studies. Their scale proved to be a predictor of intercultural contact but showed non-invariance between genders. Schnell and Podeschi (2022) and Schnell and Ervas (2022) explored a novel methodology in the globalized classroom to tackle new challenges across cultures. The novel methodology built on the open-minded integration of different cultural values. They tried to enable the students to perceive the harmonization or the clash of different cultural values and understand universal traits of human cognition as well as differences in culture embodied the discourse.

On the other hand, the theoretical studies analyze the problems and deeply rooted causes in intercultural communication, such as communicative turbulence, a frequent occurrence in intercultural communication. It is defined as misunderstanding or even breakdown in communication and consequences of confusion, disagreement, or feelings of resentment (Mauranen, 2006; Zhu, 2018). Zhu (2018) summarizes the causes as symbolic power, pragmatic mismatch, clash of styles, mismatch in schemas and mismatch in contextualization and framing. Zhu puts forward some ways to solve communicative turbulence such as accommodating toward the audience and negotiating as a way of engagement. However, we contend that negotiation is not only a way of engagement but also an activity to seek some common dialectical substances and clear up misunderstandings. Negotiation is a general term consisting of many specific pragmatic acts. Accommodation in intercultural communication derives from “Speech Accommodation Theory” (Giles, 1973) and “Communication Accommodation Theory” (Giles et al., 1991). The speakers adjust their speech at non-verbal and discursive levels consciously or unconsciously according to the context. In this paper, we talk about conscious accommodation in intercultural discussion since unconscious accommodation mainly pertains to second language acquisition. Nevertheless, accommodation is a psychological term lacking rhetorical features. The concept of “identification” proposed by Burke (1969) may be more powerful in description and its rhetorical feature is closer to Pragma-dialectical theory. All in all, no matter what way the discussants take in an intercultural discussion, the fundamental factor is motivation to reach agreement.

Despite a great number of studies concerning the application of Pragma-dialectic theory, studies on the model itself are not abundant, especially from the rhetorical and pragmatic perspective. As is noticed by some studies (Liu, 2021; Wu and Xiong, 2015), the rhetorical and pragmatic features of the model are not as strong as Van Eemeren et al. claim, which restricts its application to broader contexts. Thus, the model can be improved and even be applied to discussions in intercultural communication. This paper tries to do such an exploration to broaden the scope of Pragma-dialectic theory. “Rhetorical and pragmatic properties of Pragma-dialectical Theory” analyzes the rhetorical and pragmatic properties of this theory and then points the inadequacies in the two aspects. “Proposed modification on the model in intercultural communication” proposes some modification on the model and contextualizes it to adapt to intercultural communication. “Application of the revised model to intercultural discussion” applies the contextualized model to a case study in intercultural discussion. “Conclusion” section serves the conclusion.

Rhetorical and pragmatic properties of Pragma-dialectical Theory

Four stages in critical discussion

Pragma-dialectical Theory combines pragmatic description with dialectical prescription. According to this theory, the purpose of argumentation is to eliminate divergence of opinion by means of critical discussion. It differs from dispute solution which relies on the power or arbitrariness of the third party like a judge or a referee. To bleach out a conflict of opinion, the two parties have to reach agreement on a certain view. In the end either one party is convinced or the other party realizes the weakness of his own opinion and give it up. It usually takes four stages to bleach out a conflict: (1) confrontation stage, (2) opening stage, (3) argumentation stage and (4) concluding stage. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) put forward ten dialectical principles to guarantee the reasonableness and validness of the discussion.

In the confrontation stage the two parties of discussants confirm the divergence, express their own standpoints and reject the opposite standpoint. The discussants cannot prevent their opponent from expressing opposite views or from raising questions. Critical discussion cannot be carried on if there is no conflict of opinion. In the opening stage, the two parties decide on their starting point and the procedure of discussion so as to solve the divergence. It means that they acknowledge the dialectical principles. In the argumentation stage, the two parties offer valid and related evidence to defend their own standpoint. Questions or criticisms must be directed to explicitly expressed views and premises rather than implicit ones. Incorrect premises must not be used and universally accepted correct premises cannot be negated. In the concluding stage, the two parties should explicate whether the divergence has been bleached out. Otherwise, the discussion is not ended and a new discussion will continue.

Properties of Pragma-dialectical Theory

The discussants have both rhetorical aim—to win, and dialectical aim—to keep reasonable. They must keep balance between the commitment to reasonableness and being effective. That entails maneuver strategically in all moves in a critical discussion. Thus, the pragma-dialectical model bears some rhetorical properties besides dialectical ones. First, the influence of new rhetoric is revealed in the name of the model—“discussion” instead of “debate”, based on the distinction of the two terms in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). The former is heuristic and the latter is polemic. The core idea of this theory is to eliminate divergence and reach agreement through discussion. Second, the “point of departure” in the opening stage also comes from Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) new rhetoric. Premises may serve as the starting point or point of departure for argumentation. The most prominent rhetorical property is strategic maneuvering including topical potential, audience demand and presentational device. The discussants “may choose the material they find easiest to handle; they may choose the perspective most agreeable to the audience; and they can present their contribution in the most effective wordings” (Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 1999, pp. 485).

The pragmatic property lies in the speech acts in the four stages. Van Eemeren et. al. (1996; 2017) adopted Searle’s (1969) classification of speech acts: assertive, directive, commissive and usage declaratives. Usage declarative and directive may appear in the four stages but the other speech acts can only appear in certain stages. Usage declarative is a special kind of declarative, used to clarify the meaning such as making definition, specifying meaning and explanation. Directive is used to request the opponents to employ usage declarative to clarify their meaning. All the four speech acts can be used in the confrontation stage. Besides usage declarative and directive, assertive claims one’s standpoint and commissive expresses accepting or rejecting the opposite standpoint. The opening stage involves directive and commissive. The former can be used to question and challenge besides requesting clarifying meaning while the latter to accept the challenge, agree to discuss and approve of the dialectical principles. Assertive, commissive and directive can be used in the argumentation stage. The discussants present evidence by assertive, ask the opponents for evidence and for clarification by directive, and accept or reject the evidence by commissive. The concluding stage involves assertive and commissive. Assertive expresses clinging on a standpoint or taking back the challenge to a standpoint. Commissive expresses the acceptance or rejection of the opposite standpoint. According to Van Eemeren et al. (1996; 2017), performative verbs correspond to certain speech acts; hence only direct speech acts are involved.

Inadequacies in the application to intercultural communication

Rhetorical dimension

Although Pragma-dialectical model has both rhetorical and pragmatic properties, those properties are not enough to support its accountability and application to intercultural communication. Intercultural communication usually proceeds less smoothly than intracultural communication since communicative turbulence occurs more frequently. Accordingly, accommodation is badly needed. The discussants must know each other’s culture, i.e., the convention, belief, custom or folkway, so as to establish the common premise and finally converge in the communication.

The first inadequacy in rhetorical dimension lies in the point of departure at the opening stage on which the two parties of discussants base their agreement and which is considered as the only point of common sense. That seems narrow in actual discussions. In fact, the two parties must share some common premises during the whole process of discussion instead of solely at opening stage. Otherwise, it is impossible to carry on challenging, defending or refuting. Take as an example the conversation between a Chinese woman (C) and an American woman (A), a popular conversation on internet (http://www.dahunet.com).

Confrontation stage:

C: My son is unfilial. He asked me whether I’d like to live in the senior apartment.

A: The senior apartment is a nice place. I live there.

Argumentation stage:

C (her eyes are wide open): Alas! You live in that place! Only old people without family have to go there. If I live there, my relatives will laugh at me. What a shame!

A: Is it? It is very convenient for old people to live in these apartments. Other people make no sense to laugh at you.

C: When people are getting old, they should live with their children and grandchildren enjoying family happiness.

A (shaking her head): To live with children, oh, no. I cannot bear to live with my children for more than two weeks.

……

Concluding stage:

C: I see. You drove your children out of home when they were young and didn’t look after your grandchildren. You are so selfish to think of only yourself. That’s why you have to live in the senior apartment.

A: I’m confused. You have done so much for your children and grandchildren without living your own life. All of that is just for preparing for your old age!

In this conversation there is no obvious opening stage, for the two women did not share the same point of departure. The Chinese woman complained of her son because he proposed her going to a terrible place, the senior apartment. She expected agreement and sympathy of the American woman. But her interlocutor disagreed to her view on senior apartment. In the confrontation stage the two women’s views are clear. In the argumentation stage they presented their evidence to support their views. However, their evidence in different cultures was not based on the same premise. They ignored the conventions in other cultures and just focused on their own standpoints, i.e. whether the senior apartment is good or bad, whether to live with their children, etc. Consequently, the two women diverged greatly in the concluding stage. The intercultural communication fails because in the whole process of the conversation there is no common premises or starting points and the two discussants refused identifying with each other by accepting different cultural schemas.

Apart from the problem of starting point, strategic maneuvering does not seem strong enough to support the rhetorical property of the Pragma-dialectical model, although it enables the model to be applied to actual contexts. The general and vague description of three aspects renders the application and analysis of strategic maneuvering restricted to rhetorical devices and tactics, neglecting the rhetoric at a higher level—discourse level (Wu and Xiong, 2015).

Pragmatic dimension

In pragmatic dimension the Pragma-dialectical model reveals its inadequacy as well. All the four kinds of speech acts involved in this model are direct speech acts. However, speech acts are not direct ones in actual discussions, debates, and other conversations. For example, in the argumentation stage of the conversation between a Chinese and an American women in 2.3.1, the Chinese woman opened her eyes wide, and said “Alas! You live in that place!” to express her standpoint. The American woman shook her head to express her opposition. They used indirect speech acts. Although van Eemeren and Henkemans (2017) mention indirectness in speech act when they discuss unexpressed standpoints and premises, their indirectness is limited to expressing standpoints and premises in the opening stage. Meanwhile, they propose “Communication Principle” quite similar to Cooperative Principle of Grice (1975), so as to restrict the discussants’ attitude and manner and to avoid ambiguity in communication. Nevertheless, Communication Principle conveys less detailed information than Cooperative Principle in the description of the four rules. The fourth rule—“keep to the point”—seems excluding indirectness of speech acts, although they mention that conversation implicature may be generated by violating or appearing to violate the rules since the violation means “something different or something more than what they are saying” (van Eemeren and Henkemans, 2017, pp. 46). Unfortunately, indirectness of speech acts is not explicitly and fully described. In fact, some indirectness will not necessarily cause different meaning. For example, in the Chinese-American women’s conversation, their gestures and facial expressions denote indirectness in speech act but convey the same meaning as their words. Such indirectness is quite common and should be taken into account in intercultural communication.

Moreover, the four kinds of speech acts are prescribed to be used and to perform their functions in the four different stages. The inflexible arrangement might be not much conducive to actual discussions. Take the speech act of assertive as an example. Van Eemeren et al. (1996) contend that one of the functions of assertive is to present claims in the confrontation stage and concluding stage. However, the discussants usually use assertive to express their standpoints in the third stage in actual discussions. It might weaken the pragmatic description of the model if the expression of the usage and functions of speech acts are influenced or even restricted by logic rules.

Proposed modification on the model in intercultural communication

Rhetoric and pragmatic reinforcement

“Audience demand” in strategic maneuvering proposed by Van Eemeren et al. (2017) approximates the idea of “identification” advocated by Burke (1969). They both recognize that the ultimate purpose is to reach agreement and that audience’s interest must be considered to achieve that purpose. According to Burke, only by speaking the same language in the same way, by identifying with the audience in gesture, tone, sequence, image, attitude and thinking, can the speaker persuade the audience. Identification expands the field of rhetoric well beyond persuasive discourse, to argumentative discourse. Accordingly, his theory of rhetoric can also be applied to argumentative discourse that bears both dialectical and rhetorical features. Crusius (1986) highly praises Burke in his development of dialectic and rhetoric. “Burke is the first notably original theorist since Aristotle to develop a complete dialectic and a complete rhetoric and to relate them as counterparts; and that, for philosophical and hermeneutical purposes, Burke’s conception of dialectic and rhetoric offers many advantages over Aristotle’s” (Crusius, 1986, pp. 31).

For Burke to identify is to share dialectical substance (i.e. motivational essence) with someone. It is the affair of dialectic to study substance, while it is the affair of rhetoric to study tactics for achieving identification (or consubstantiality). Zappen (2009) contends that the dialectical processes are in general the “processes of merger and division, which permit and enable the emergence of transcendent perspectives through linguistic abstractions and transformations” (pp. 286) and these dialectical processes “are reflected in the development from merger to division to a new merger that offers both the possibility of transcendence and the possibility of a new division” (pp. 286). Based on this view, Liu and Yang (2020) divide the process of discussion into the following four stages: confirming division, establishing identification, reconstructing identification and renewing identification. Although Burke’s identification is infused into the model to reinforce its rhetoric property, they eliminate the pragmatic dimension. The modification of pragma-dialectic model should keep its original terms and meaning as much as possible.

As mentioned in the previous section, treating premise as a starting point only limited to the opening stage might not accommodate actual conversations. For Burke, dialectical substance can be of various kinds: Geometric Substance, Familial Substance and Directional Substance. Geometric Substance refers to geographical features specific to certain places. Familial Substance includes not only such biological notions as origin and family, but also spiritual ones like belief, value, philosophy of life, and even specific ones like conventions and habits. Directional Substance involves direction, goal, tendency and motivation (Ju, 2011). To illustrate, suppose a leader in China said to the people, “We should get united to fight and defeat COVID-19”. He was using directional substance. If the leader says to the migrant workers, “I also came from the countryside and I’m a son of peasants”, he is using familial substance. If he says to the audience in Nanjing, “I lived in Nanjing for more than ten years”, he is using geometric substance to show something specific to the local people. The notion of dialectical substance can replace that of premise in the model due to its more powerful accountability than premise. In the whole process of discussion, the discussants share certain kinds of substance and differ in other kinds of substance. As their ultimate goal is to reach agreement, they have to seek the same substance, use it as the basis to narrow the divergence and to converge in the end.

To diminish divergence and reach consistency entails a series of speech acts, not only direct speech acts but also indirect ones. The term “Pragmatic Act” (Mey, 2001) can better generalize and depict directness and indirectness. Pragmatic Act includes all the communication acts which accommodate the speaker/writer to the context or adjust the context to the speaker/writer. It is an umbrella term that can even include some acts more implicit than indirect speech acts. These implicit acts cannot be expressed by appropriate verbs or sentences but they rely heavily on contexts. For example, when your flat refusal is sure to undermine the relationship with your colleague, you may change the topic, such as “would you like more tea?” The interrogative sentence seems to be an offer but expresses the speaker’s attitude in an implicit way. Moreover, silence, facial expression, gestures and other non-verbal acts belong to Pragmatic Act as well. They are indirect but not indirect speech acts. Figure 1 illustrates Pragmatic Act.

Fig. 1: Categories of Pragmatic Acts.
figure 1

The figure displays that Pragmatic Act as an umbrella term, include not only direct speech acts but also some implicit, indirect speech acts.

Full size image

Mey (2001) argues that most of our speech acts are indirect. In a discussion, especially in an intercultural background, the two parties are supposed to take moderate tones and have high motivation to seek mutual knowledge and understanding rather than defeating the opponents. As a result, indirectness of pragmatic act may be of common occurrence. It should be noted that pragmatic acts are flexible and cannot be defined or restricted by logic rules, differing from dialectical rules that are clearly defined by van Eemeren et al. (1996), van Eemeren and Henkemans (2017). Pragmatic acts are context-sensitive. A pragmatic act can only be correctly interpreted in a certain context.

Van Eemeren et al. (1996, pp. 101) define the argumentative activity as “discussion” instead of “debate” in order to stress “heuristic dialogues”. The discussants seek to convince their interlocutors who are “treated as an embodiment of the universal audience”. Contrarily, arguers in a debate seek to persuade their opponents who are considered “as a particular audience”. Just because the audience in a discussion are universal, they may not only be the interlocutors, but also a third party who audit, mediate, make judgements or comments. The modified model of Liu (2021) reveals both Burke’s identification and pragmatic acts as shown in Fig. 2. Dialectical principles exert influence on every stage. Otherwise, it is not a discussion but is likely to become a quarrel.

Fig. 2: Pragma-dialectic model (Liu, 2021 pp. 25 revised).
figure 2

The figure describes the modified model of Liu (2021) which reveals both Burke’s identification and pragmatic acts.

Full size image

What should be noted is that in actual discussions the procedure of development displays non-linear, repetitive, and cyclic features. If the discussants find they cannot share same dialectical substance, they are likely to go back to the opening stage or confrontation stage. In the conversation between the Chinese and American women in “Rhetorical dimension”, the two women from two different cultures could not start from the same premise or they had low motivation to seek the same substance; hence they disagreed in everything and went back to the confrontation stage whenever they tried to move on in the argumentation stage. To be specific, in the confrontation stage, the debating point is whether the senior apartment is a nice place. However, the argumentation stage is not a complete one. The two changed their debating point for several times: from the first debating point to other people’s attitude, and then to whether to live with children. Every change means going back to the confrontation stage. Why the discussants fail to move on in the argumentation stage? What propels the discussants to move on? However, Liu’s (2021) modification fails to explore further in the argumentation stage. The complexity of the argumentation stage needs to be clarified so as to facilitate intercultural communication.

Argumentation stage in intercultural communication

In an intercultural discussion, especially in the third stage argumentation stage, besides assertive which is frequently used to present proof or evidence to convince the audience, it must be taken into consideration the two parties’ pragmatic acts of seeking mutual understanding and the third party’s mediation. Seeking mutual understanding is “negotiation as an activity” (Zhu, 2018, pp. 145). Each party involved, takes a position and seeks resolutions to matters of conflict of interest. Negotiation is propelled by the motivation of seeking common dialectical substances. Pragmatic acts consist of a series of acts from the harshest to the most moderate (e.g. condemn, criticize, scorn, complain, explain, etc.). All of that serves the purpose of tackling the different dialectical substances to reach consistency. What makes a difference is motivation as the basis of successful discussion. Low motivation might cause the discussants to use strategically misunderstanding or “symbolic power” (Kramsch, 2016, pp. 524) and thus ruin the discussion. The hearer usually avoids negotiation for meaning or agreement and rejects the positioning by the speaker. In Bernstein’s (1996) example, the English-speaking boy Tommy had low motivation to negotiate and he used symbolic power explicitly to divert the teacher (Lucia)’s attention so as to escape from the problem. In the Chinese-American women dialogue mentioned above, the two women also had low motivation to identify with the interlocutor. They actually employed implicit symbolic power to reject negotiation.

Turkish girl: (pointing) Look she did her paper this! Tommy this her paper did this! She did her paper all this! Tommy did all milk. Miss Lucia! Miss Lucia!

Teacher: (comes closer)

Turkish girl: No more in here liquid! She’s there. All mixed up. And she’s eating. Tommy all milk. She drink it. Now she drink it! No more orange!

Teacher: Alright thanks, Hande

Boy: (interrupts) No, I’m NOT a girl. I a boy!

Teacher: Tommy, finish your snack.

Boy: She called me a girl!

Teacher: She gets mixed up, that’s all. It’s okay.

Boy: (to the Turkish girl) YOU called me girl. (to the teacher) SHE did. She DID that to me.

Teacher: (to Tommy) Alright sweetheart, want to eat some of your bread and jelly?

(Bernstein 1996, pp. 487–488, revised)

Another factor worth noting is the mediation by the third party or by the two parties themselves. The mediation act promotes or accelerates reaching agreement. The mediation can serve as a reminder of the two parties’ original goal, common dialectical substances or dialectical rules, or as a ladder for them to come down to the ground (i.e. face-saving device). While the third party’s mediation can cause the two parties to examine their own language and behavior, sometimes the two parties of discussants can mediate by themselves. They introspect and remind themselves of the goal and the dialectical rules. The mediation increases their motivation to seek common substances and also adjust their pragmatic acts of seeking mutual understanding. Figure 3 displays the complement of argumentation stage in the pragma-dialectic model to accommodate intercultural communication.

Fig. 3: Argumentation stage in intercultural communication.
figure 3

The figure displays what happens at argumentation stage in the pragma-dialectic model during intercultural communication.

Full size image

Application of the revised model to intercultural discussion

Take an intercultural discussion for example (see Supplementary information). It is a discussion in a WeChat group of Chinese oversea students. One reason for selecting it as a representative case is that Chinese young people prefer to use WeChat to communicate with one another and solve problems. The other reason is Chinese young people embody a mixture of different cultures, especially the oversea students. Different degree of acculturation can be seen in their discourse in WeChat groups. In this case, one party consists of two students (A1 and A2) and the other is one (B). The third party are the students who want to mediate (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5). A1 and A2 were friends living in different apartments. A1 and B lived in the same apartment. A2 frequently came to A1’s apartment and talked loudly. B was annoyed and protested by first treating them coldly, and then warning them and finally calling the police. A1 and A2 thought making noises was a trifle in daily life but B’s calling the police was serious for them. They felt B bullied them just because they were his countrymen and newcomers. They hoped B would apologize for his drastic behavior. But they couldn’t find B in his room. They were angry and made this dispute public in the oversea students’ WeChat group. B came online and condemned their inconsiderateness. Then both parties showed some evidence about the impoliteness of the opponents and refuted each other. Obviously, these assertive acts could not convince the opponents and the other audience, but pushed the relationship to the worst extreme until the third party offered more mediation.

Opening stage and confrontation stage

A1: You only dare to bully Chinese! Do you think you are reasonable? [Condemn, Criticize]

C1: What’s up?

A1: My friend came at 11am. You hated the noise and called the police! You did such an awful thing just because we are Chinese? You didn’t have a nap at noon and we didn’t make loud noises. You are bullying Chinese. [Present evidence and Condemn]

C2: Hehe

A1: Don’t you have any friend? Cannot you feel the happiness from friends? [Scorn]

A2: @B Buddy, you haven’t taken a good attitude to solve the problem. I went to my friend’s room to make a phone call. You came to knock our door and talked with a long face just because of the phone call. You did that more than once. I went to my friend’s room at 11am, not early morning as you claimed. We didn’t take a good attitude to solve the problem? It is you who showed a long face at the very beginning. A phone call could stimulate you to knock at our door heavily. If you talked to us calmly, would we have treated you in this bad manner? [Present evidence]

C3: As it is, settle it quickly

A1: Bully Chinese, bully countrymen. That’s why I’m angry. If we were foreigners, he wouldn’t dare to say anything. We Chinese away from our country are supposed to care about each other. He made trouble to us! [Seek common familial substance]

A2: We want to talk with him sincerely and make this unhappiness pass by. [Express his good will to support A1’s act]

C1: This is a small thing.

A2: I went to his door trying to talk with him. But he ignored us and locked his door inside. [Complain]

C2: Where is the CON? We need the testimony of the two parties.

C4: [gif emoji expecting]

C4: Find him and give him a good beat.

C3: Don’t say such things, buddy. [Remind of the rules and law; Mediate]

A1: We dare not do that. [Accept the reminder and mediation]

A2: Don’t do it! [Accept the reminder and mediation]

C4: Harmony brings wealth. [Mediation by seeking the common familial substance]

B: I’ve seen the messages just now. I was not in the room.

Argumentation stage

A1: Let me show you the chat messages in a small group.

[pictures of chat messages]

B: Buddy, why did you select a small part of the conversation? Why not the whole picture?

A2: Okay, let’s talk privately. [Moderate the tone]

B: Why not talk here? Are you afraid of my presenting proofs?

[pictures of chat messages]

A1: Ha, you pounded our door and called it polite and friendly!

C4: Don’t turn a small thing into a bigger one! Mind your boundary. [Remind of the dialectical principle and the law] Even if you two parties are too unreasonable, don’t commit a crime. We are far from our country and have no relatives to rely on. Better not involve the foreign police into this thing. [Mediate by seeking the common familial substance]

B: I pounded your door? Why not examine your behavior? How did you come to our apartment every day? Did you pound our apartment door? Why not make a phone call to your friend?

A2: That’s 11am at weekend. [Explain]

B: How many times? You came to our apartment every day. I only talked to you twice.

A1: You’ve no friend and don’t know what’s it like to be with friends. You talked to us with a long face.

B: Let’s install a monitor to see our behavior. You’ve come here (WeChat group) to gossip. If you don’t want to solve the problem, tell me. I’ll tell the police.

C1: Don’t get the police involved! [Comment and Criticize B]

B: @C1 I told the police they gave me nothing but foul language this morning. [Complain of their impoliteness]

C2: Please don’t upgrade to personal attack, buddies. [Remind of the dialectical principles]

A1: The key point is we didn’t make noises at midnight. Just a friend came to ask me to dine out together. He upgraded the affair to calling the police. [Complain of B’s calling the police]

C3: I see, you guys are trying to figure out who must be responsible.

C4: I think, there should be a principle. First is the volume of sound. Is it very loud or just because of poor insulation? The PRON said it was only the sound of speaking over phone and the CON didn’t object to it. Second is the time. If it is 11 pm, it is really inappropriate for many people to come to the room. However, if it is 11am, it is not the time for napping or sleeping. If you don’t allow the others to make noises when you sleep at any time, it seems unreasonable. [Mediate and resort to the common familial substance (convention)]

C1: It is not worthwhile for you to quarrel for such a small thing. [Mediate]

C3: The key point is calling the police. It is very serious in America to call the police. The policemen come indoors with a gun. [Mediate]

C4: [gif emoji terrible] [Comment]

C1: You should not have involved the police. [Comment]

C5: We are all far away from our country. We should be more considerate to each other in a foreign country. [Remind of the same familial substance] Those who visit their friends should be consider the roommates living together, and try to keep the voices as low as possible. The roommates should respect the others’ social relationship instead of showing a long face. We have many solutions to a problem. But we must not upgrade the problem or intensify the conflict. [Mediate by resorting to common directional substance]

A1: A wise person! [compromise, find a step to come down]

B: Sure [Compromise, find a step to come down]

C3: Now that such a thing has happened and the police has come and gone, better let unhappiness pass by. Calm down and communicate peacefully. [Mediate by giving suggestions]

Concluding stage

B: We are peaceful. I apologize to the buddies. I was not polite at the very beginning. It is my fault.

A1: It is okay. We don’t mind now. Let’s be friends. You may come to join us.

A2: Solved, loved ones. Happy ending!

The opening stage and the confrontation stage are almost mixed together, the former quite long and the latter rather short beginning and ending with B’s appearance in the group. The two As narrated the whole event and presented both parties’ standpoints in the opening stage. In the meantime, the third-party Cs helped clarify the dialectical principles and the law. In the argumentation stage, the two parties presented their evidence, defending, refuting and even quarrelling. A2 had the intention of settling down the conflict peacefully and suggested negotiating privately. But A1 and B were irritated by each other. Cs tried to prevent the conflict from upgrading into a big fight. On one hand, they reminded them of the dialectical principles and the law to keep the discussion on track. On the other hand, Cs mediated by resorting to common familial substance and directional substance. Their comments, criticize and especially the frequent use of common dialectical substances motivated the two parties to retrospect their own behavior and language. Thus, their pragmatic acts downgraded from the fierce condemning to the moderate explaining and complaining. In the end, C5 reminded the two parties of the same familial substance—being considerate to each other in a foreign country, and called on them to attend to the common directional substance by giving suggestions to them. This functions as the final key step offered to the two parties to come down from the peak of conflict. This face-saving act directly leads to the concluding stage. The two parties compromised and reconciled immediately.

In the intercultural background the discussants had different knowledge of the target culture and thus diverged in rhetorical practice. B was more accommodated in the target culture than the As and the Cs. He stressed his privacy and rights. When he found the conflict couldn’t be solved peacefully, he called the police. During the discussion, he never sought any common familial substance although he acknowledged such common substances and was affected by them. Despite his lower motivation, B was propelled by the third party to introspect and finally apologized. It was Cs and As who resorted to common familial substance to reach agreement or achieve mediation effect. The discrepancy in knowledge and rhetorical practice renders the intercultural discussion more intricate in rhetorical strategy use than intracultural discussion.

Conclusion

In this paper, a modified model of critical discussion is proposed so as to accommodate broader contexts in intercultural communication. The first modification is the rhetorical and pragmatic properties of the model. The rhetorical aspect has been expanded to discourse level by adopting Burke’s (1969) notions of “identification” at macro-level and “dialectical substances” at medium-level. The whole discussion process is a negotiation about different substances, which uses the same dialectical substances as bases and reaches identification in the end. Moreover, speech act is replaced with “pragmatic act” (Mey, 2001) which can describe many kinds of indirect, non-verbal phenomena in different cultures. The context-sensitive pragmatic acts reinforce the pragmatic properties of the model.

The second modification lies in the argumentation stage. Motivation to seek common substances and enhance mutual understanding plays a role in an intercultural discussion. The discussants are motivated to use some pragmatic acts to negotiate on certain substances. Without such motivation, an intercultural discussion cannot proceed or will encounter quickly communication turbulence. At this stage mediation from the third party or self-mediation of the discussants have influence both on the motivation and on the pragmatic acts. The modified model can be more effective in explaining some discussions in intercultural communication.

This study is expected to be conducive to broadening the application scope of Pragma-dialectical theory and will stimulate further research in intercultural discussion.