I think I need to pick up where I finished in Chapter 9. One of the main goals of this book was to broaden the scope of pragmatics through examining English as a Lingua Franca from several different perspectives. During my investigation and discussions in the different chapters, I have tried not to leave the Gricean paradigm. What I have intended to do is to add something to the Gricean way of thinking that originates in intercultural communication. My previous book, Intercultural Pragmatics (OUP 2014), was the first step on this path. This book represents the second step. I hope some more will come.

The chapter argues that ELF users do not create new modal expressions; they rely on the rich repertoire that the English language offers to them. But those English modal expressions do not necessarily reflect the mindset of ELF users with different L1s. Rather they reflect the mindset of native speakers of English. So an attempt is made to explain the interplay of these two factors in the use of modal expressions by ELF interlocutors. It is argued that modal use in ELF is motivated by three important factors: language learning experience, effect of L1 and immediate communicative needs.

Preference for semantic analyzability in ELF creates “utterer-implicatures” that usually do not implicate anything beyond what is said. But still we have kept calling them implicatures and not “implicitures” or “explicatures” as they are called in the Gricean literature because they are the results of the same mechanism as in L1. In ELF interactions there is a kind of pragmaticization of semantics which is a synchronic, one-off phenomenon in which coded meaning, sometimes without any specific pragmatic enrichment based on the target language, obtains temporary pragmatic status. ELF speakers need this online pragmaticalization because they cannot rely on pragmatic effects as in L1. So ELF users need to build up temporary frames and norms in the course of interaction. Actual situation context does not help because it is understood differently by interlocutors. So ELF users will produce and interpret a pragmatic act, including implicatures, mainly based on its semantic content that is pragmaticized not by the actual contextual effect or core common ground but by prior context and co-constructed emergent common ground. This ELF pragmatics relies not on existing norms and conventions but rather on emergent intention, innovation, emergent common ground, online frame building and one-off strategies.

This chapter takes a closer look at speaker production in ELF by introducing a dialogic approach to the analysis of a newly-established category that was called “Odd Structures”. OSs put forth contradictory or frame-breaking information. In violating particular patterns, they potentially put mutual understanding and successful communication between interlocutors at risk. However, the important thing is that OSs do not necessarily lead to non-understanding or misunderstandings between ELF interlocutors. They can be unnoticed, unreacted, or reacted as if no oddness has occurred. It is argued and demonstrated that a dialogic turn-by-turn, action–reaction approach to discourse segments will give us a better understanding of how these structures are created and deployed.

I have already written a book on Intercultural Pragmatics (Kecskes 2014). Did I not address issues on lingua franca there? Yes, I did. Then what on earth am I doing here? Well, I have been wanting to bring some pragmatic perspective into the heated debate on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF hereafter). It is not so much that there is no pragmatics in that discussion – there is! – but that it is not exactly what we, pragmaticians, call pragmatics (I shall return to this issue later). So what this book is about is most aptly characterized by the subtitle: “The Pragmatic Perspective” on English as a Lingua Franca. I do not write this book specifically for second language acquisition (SLA) scholars, applied linguists, ELF experts, or language teachers and not even only for pragmaticians.

The chapter examines the semantics–pragmatics division from the perspective of ELF communication and points out a clear dominance of semantics. The linguistic code works like common ground for ELF users and utterance production is governed by semantic analyzability. The standard pragmatic model seems to be working better in intercultural interactions than in L1 interaction based on which it was originally developed. In ELF production, speakers compose their utterances relying on the literal meaning of words rather than using figurative and formulaic language. The pragmatisized semantics that ELF interlocutors use in interactions is the result of blending their dictionary knowledge of the linguistic code (semantics) with their basic interpersonal communicative skills and sometimes unusual, not target language-based pragmatic strategies that suit them very well in their attempt to achieve their communicative goals.

The interactional competence (IC) that is put to use in ELF interactions is substantiated through the interplay of the use of the linguistic code and basic interactional competence (that may result in temporary communicative extensions) as prompted by the immediate communicative needs of the interlocutors. IC is presented as a continuum with two ends: basic interactional competence (BIC) and adapted interactional competence (AIC). In interaction, ELF users move on the continuum according to their communicative needs.

The chapter examines the relationship of three knowledges: linguistic knowledge, conceptual knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge. It is argued that within the socio-cultural background knowledge we should distinguish between conceptual knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge. According to the model described in the chapter, meaning is constructed in the dynamic interplay of actual situational context and prior context encapsulated in lexical items. The context represents the actual, present, situational, ever-changing side of socio-cultural background and the lexical item(s) used in the interaction encapsulate previous experiences and relations in the socio-cultural background.

First language is defined and ELF is related to the definition. Then the intracultural–intercultural continuum is explained. After that variables that affect movement on the continuum are discussed. These variables include proficiency, preferred ways of saying things and preferred ways of organizing thoughts, common ground, intersubjectivity and context-sensitivity.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of two influential pragmatic approaches to reference: Accessibility theory and the Givenness Hierarchy. Both accounts have been claimed to be compatible with relevance theory. However, it has also been claimed relevance theory alone cannot account for the full range of data and that these auxiliary scales of activation are necessary additions. In this chapter these claims are examined, and some objections are raised. The more general objections relate to the nature of the relevance-theoretic approach to utterance interpretation and how scales of encoded activation might fit with this. More specific objections relate to how the activation scale accounts deal with stylistic or so-called special uses of referring expressions. Finally, some examples of proper names in English are briefly discussed to illustrate how highly context sensitive the choices made by speakers can be, and to demonstrate the crucial role played by considerations of style and genre.

Chapter 5 presents a fully procedural analysis of personal pronouns in English. Pronouns, it is argued encode procedures which operate at a sub-personal level. Features including gender, number and person features function purely syntactically and do not contribute directly to the semantics of the overall message. That is, they are not conceptual. Rather, the cognitive processes triggered by use of a pronoun function to constrain potential referents to a sub-personally identifiable set. The differences in interpretation that arise when a speaker chooses to place contrastive prosodic stress on a pronoun are discussed, along with examples where the choice of pronoun does not play a role in reference resolution but contributes to other aspects of the speaker’s overall meaning. The discussion focuses specifically on the communication of expressive effects and has significance not just for our understanding of pronouns, but for our understanding of procedural meaning more generally.

Chapter 4 outlines a procedural relevance-based analysis of the definite determiner the. The definite article, it is argued, signals to the hearer that he should seek out an existing conceptual file on which to resolve reference. The indefinite article, on the other hand, instructs the hearer to open a new conceptual file. As interpretation proceeds, the hearer seeks to align the conceptual content within the nominal of the definite description with that in the target conceptual file. This approach to the contribution that definite descriptions make to speaker meaning is then applied to cases of misdescription and, it is claimed, it also offers fresh perspective on the referential–attributive distinction. Finally, stylistic effects which may arise from the choice and content of definite descriptions are discussed.