The 4E Encounter

  • Victoria OrangeEmail author


In this chapter, the complex adaptive system Encounter is explored. It is demonstrated that Encounter is an integral part of the interaction supercomplex adaptive system as it is the system that has the role of positioning and determining interaction in relation to its environment. To fully understand this role, it is essential to take a look at its three sub-systems; event, context and enjeux, and how they interconnect in this system. Enjeux is a French term that is used to mean stakes or power relations. At the end of the chapter, there is an explanation of why this sub-system can be considered to be a complex adaptive system and what its role in the overarching system is. Once again a detailed example is included in order to see how this system is transposed into everyday life.


Encounter Environment Event Context Enjeux 


  1. Arar, Nedal H., Chen-Pin Wang, and Jacqueline A. Pugh. 2006. Self-care communication during medical encounters: Implications for future electronic medical records. Perspectives in Health Information Management 3:3.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P., and L. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology, 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brownlie, S. 2017. Using cultural categories for opposition and brokering in conflict mediation. Language and Intercultural Communication 18 (1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, J., and R. Blot. 2003. Literacy and literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Saussure, Cahiers Ferdinand. 2005. Cahiers Ferdinand De Saussure, No. 58, pp. 5–19. JSTOR.
  6. Duranti, A. 1988. Ethnography of speaking: Toward a linguistics of the praxis. In Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. VI: Language—The socio-cultural context, ed. F. J. Newmyer, 210–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Italian transl. in Barbara Turchetta, Ed., Introduzione alla linguistica antropologica. Milano: Mursia, 157–180].Google Scholar
  7. Edgerton, J., and L. Roberts. 2014. Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality. School Field 12 (2): 193–220.Google Scholar
  8. Formentelli, M. 2017. Taking stance in English as a lingua franca. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Ghanbarpour, M. 2016. Willingness to communicate, linguistic self-confidence, and language-use anxiety: The Iranian EFL context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6 (12): 2265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grundy, P. 1995. Doing pragmatics. London and New York: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  11. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization 10 (4): 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede Insights. 2019. National Culture—Hofstede Insights. [Online] Available at Accessed 26 March 2019.
  13. Hummelen, J., and T. Rokx. 2007. Individual–context interaction as a guide in the treatment of personality disorders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 71 (1): 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hymes, D.H. 1964. Language in culture and society. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Hymes, D.H. 1972. On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings, ed. J.B. Pride and J. Holmes, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin (Part 2).Google Scholar
  16. Kissane, Dylan. 2008. Thinking about power in a complex system. 2nd Global International Studies Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, July 25. Available at SSRN;
  17. Larousse. 2019. Définitions: enjeu - Dictionnaire de français Larousse. [Online] Available at Accessed 26 March 2019.
  18. Larsen-Freeman, D., and L. Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Liu, P., and Y. Ran. 2016a. Creating meso-contexts: The functions of metapragmatic expressions in argumentative TV talk shows. Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (2): 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu, P., and Y. Ran. 2016b. The role of metapragmatic expressions as pragmatic manipulation in a TV panel discussion program. Pragmatics and Society 7 (3): 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lloyd, E. 2012. Language Learners’ “willingness to communicate” through Alsic [En ligne] 15 (1), mis en ligne le 30 mars 2012, Consulté le 14 octobre 2019. Available at;
  22. Macintyre, P.D. 1994. Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis. Communication Research Reports 11: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macintyre, P., R. Clément, Z. Dörnyei, and K. Noels. 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82 (4): 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison, Keith. 2005. Structuration theory, habitus and complexity theory: Elective affinities or old wine in new bottles? British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(3): 311–326. Scholar
  25. Najar, U. 2015. The ‘intercultural field’: Interrogating context in intercultural education. Language and Intercultural Communication 16 (2): 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Navarro, Z. 2006. In search of a cultural interpretation of power: The contribution of Pierre Bourdieu. IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OpenLearn. 2019. An introduction to interaction design. [Online] Available at Accessed 26 March 2019.
  28. Oxford Dictionaries | English. 2019. Context | Definition of context in English by Oxford Dictionaries. [Online] Available at Accessed 24 May 2019.
  29. Philosophy and Philosophers. 2019. Michel Foucault and power. [Online] Available at Accessed 26 March 2019.
  30. Phipps, A., and M. Gonzalez. 2004. Teaching and learning modern languages, literatures and cultures. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Ranney, S. 1992. Learning a new script: An exploration of sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 13 (1): 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saville-Troike, M. 1989. The ethnography of communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Sun, L., K. Axhausen, D. Lee, and X. Huang. 2013. Understanding metropolitan patterns of daily encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (34): 13774–13779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wälivaara, B., S. Sävenstedt, and K. Axelsson. 2013. Encounters in home-based nursing care—Registered Nurses’ experiences. The Open Nursing Journal 7: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Witczak-Plisiecka, I. 2010. Pragmatic perspectives on language and linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  36. Yashima, T., P. MacIntyre, and M. Ikeda. 2016. Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research 22 (1): 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhuang, B., L. Liu, C. Shen, and I. Reid. 2019. Towards context-aware interaction recognition. [Online] Available at Accessed 26 March 2019.
  38. Zimmerman, D. 2008. Identity, context and interaction. Identities in Talk. London: Sage, 88–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Language and Global StudiesUniversity of Central LancashirePrestonUK

Personalised recommendations