Certain limitations

Procedures are ready schemes, and are easy to use. As such, the procedure core, its evocation circumstances and goals are basically constant. While certain procedure details may be prone to changes or further interweaving and merging – as the exceptions from procedures may constitute further procedures, the basics may be defined easily, with simple labels.

At the same time, procedures are nothing more than schemes. Research-ing them does not equal predictResearch-ing or automatResearch-ing human behavior. Not every-thing is communicable and not everyevery-thing is predictable. In some instances, communication on the level of procedures may prove impossible, due to the lack of phatic scaffolding for interaction.

Furthermore, in some cases, the very context of ICC may foster unex-pected procedure alterations (i.e. the very presence of heterogeneous elements on the scene of an exchange may influence its actual content). The actual instances of ICC may be further influenced by certain properties of context, also related to communication logistics through the idiosyncratic properties and attitudes of its parties.

5. (Instead of) conclusions

ICC does not differ from non-ICC in terms of being embedded in a specific con-text. They are both related to the (phatic) readiness and motivation of parties to communicate, as well as to the projected (intended) results and recognized schemes of social relations (social deixis). The research on ICC acts (intention-ally described above in terms of intercultural honorifics) may be performed only on a suitable level of abstraction.

The acts of ICC cannot be translated/interpreted in an automatic man-ner outside a certain context frame. Although their linguistic content may probably be rendered (with necessary approximation), specific properties of communication context are usually multi-layered and difficult to process out-side their primary source interpretation frame. Neither the actual presence of a translator/interpreter nor the process of globalization change this fact.

Procedures (not only those related to actual communication, but includ-ing the pre- and after-communication convictions and projection of potential results) are predictable entities in the first place. They are easy to label, which is convenient, although certain precautions should be observed: simple labels may also be subject to translation/interpretation, with all related consequences.

The actual meanings of procedure constituents may be defined and the result of their implementation verified only in actual (IC)C contexts. Thus simple labels of expressing oneself, displaying one’s feelings or feeling something good/bad may, quite unexpectedly, prove to be culturally biased. As such, they may be inef-fective or even counter-efinef-fective in explaining context-embedded ICC patterns.

References

AUSTIN, J. L. (1962): How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

COULMAS, Florian (1981): ’Poison to Your Soul’ Thanks and Apologies Con-trastively Viewed. In: Florian COULMAS (ed.): Conversational Routine:

Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepat-terned Speech. The Hague: Mouton, 69-91.

DĄMBSKA-PROKOP, Urszula (ed.) (2000): Mała encyklopedia przekładoznaw-stwa. Częstochowa: Educator.

DUSZAK, Anna (1998): Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa.

Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

EELEN, Gino (2001): Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchaster:

St. Jerome Publishing.

GARFINKEL, Harold (1972): Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities. In: David SUDNOW (ed.): Studies in Social Interaction, New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 1-30.

GEIS, Michael, E. (1995): Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

GODDARD, Cliff, WIERZBICKA, Anna (1997): Discourse and Culture.

In: Teun A. VAN DIJK (ed.): Discourse as Social Interaction. London:

Sage Publications, 231-259.

GRICE, Paul (1989): Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

HIDA Shūichi (1990): Ibunka rikai no kōzō. In: Fumio KAKEHI, Shūichi HIDA (eds.): Kokusaika to ibunka rikai. Kyōto: Hōritsu bunkasha, 3-24.

HIDASI, Judith (1999): Cases of Miscommunication between Europeans and Japanese. In: Agnieszka KOZYRA, Romuald HUSZCZA (eds.): Pro-ceedings of Warsaw Symposium on Japanese Studies 23-26 November 1994. Warszawa: Dialog, 275-284.

HEJWOWSKI, Krzysztof (2004): Kognitywno-komunikacyjna teoria przekładu.

Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

HYMES, Dell (1974): Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach.

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pensylvania Press.

JABŁOŃSKI, Arkadiusz (2007): Honorific Modification in a Layered Model of Communication. Lingua Posnaniensis, XLIX, 51-67.

JABŁOŃSKI, Arkadiusz (2010): Terms and Phenomena – Metalanguages Serv-ing the Cross-Cultural LServ-inguistics. LServ-ingua Posnaniensis, LII (2), 43-50.

JABŁOŃSKI, Arkadiusz (2012): Honoryfikatywność japońska. Semiotyka a pragmatyka. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.

JABŁOŃSKI, Arkadiusz (2013): Homeostaza tekstu. Tłumaczenie i komunikacja międzykulturowa w perspektywie polsko-japońskiej. Poznań: Wydawnic-two Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.

JAKOBSON, Roman (1960): Linguistics and Poetics. In: Thomas A. SEBEOK (ed.): Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 350-377.

MARTIN, Samuel E. (1964): Speech Levels in Japan and Korea. In: Dell HYMES (ed.): Language in Culture and Society. New York, NY/ Evanston, IL/

London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 407-415.

LEECH, Geoffrey N. (1983): Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York:

Longman.

LEVINSON, Stephen C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

PIEŃKOS, Jerzy (2003): Podstawy przekładoznawstwa. Kraków: Zakamycze.

SAPIR, Edward, transl. STANOSZ, Barbara, ZIEMAND, Roman (1978):

Kultura, język, osobowość. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.

STEINER, George (1975): After Babel. New York, NY/London: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

SUGIYAMA-LEBRA, Takie (1976): Japanese Patterns of Behavior. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

WIERZBICKA, Anna (1991): Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

YNGVE, Victor H. (1975): Human Linguistics and Face-to-Face Interaction.

In: Adam KENDON, Richard M. HARRIS, Mary Ritchie KEY (eds.):

Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction. The Hague/ Paris:

Mouton Publishers, 47-62.

ZAPOROWSKI, Andrzej (2006): Czy komunikacja międzykulturowa jest moż-liwa? Strategia kulturoznawcza. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uni-wersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.