Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

De-escalation—A Cultural-Linguistic View on Military English and Military Conflicts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Cultural Linguistics

Part of the book series: Cultural Linguistics ((CL))

Abstract

The domain of military conflicts and operations has hitherto not been discussed from an explicitly cultural-linguistic perspective. Linguistically, this domain has primarily been the purview of Military English, as English is one of the two working languages of NATO (the other one being French) and the main lingua franca of multinational military operations and peacekeeping missions. Military English, arguably, has been mainly concerned with linguistic standards, as part of NATO Standardization (STANAG) and intelligibility problems due to different varieties and accents. Nevertheless, works on Military English also notice the importance of culture, but respective studies are functional in scope and based on a few behavioural categories and traits, partly leaning on Hofstede’s findings on national cultures. As of now, these studies do not contribute much “to better understand different world cultures and societies”. Besides, the problem of culture seems to be treated separately from the problem of English as a lingua franca, a hiatus that exists in the academic field of English as a lingua franca as well. Thus, a secondary aim of this chapter is to bridge the gap between the focus on culture and English as a lingua franca in the framework of Military English. The main purpose, however, is to introduce Cultural Linguistics as a viable approach to facilitate intercultural understanding—as a prerequisite for de-escalation—(not only) in military contexts. The analysis of three examples will serve as an illustration.

The term ‘de-escalation’ is used here in the general sense of lessening the intensity of military conflicts or interrupting their further development.

This chapter is partly based on the plenary lecture “Military English – a World Englishes perspective”, held at the English for Uniformed Forces conference, Indonesian National Defense Forces Peacekeeping Center, Bogor, Indonesia, June 26–28, 2013 and the keynote lecture “English as a lingua franca – a critical appraisal and a quest for a wider framework”, held at the Challenges 6 conference, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic, March 12–13, 2015.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Armed conflicts are often considered in the wider context of (organised) violence, which involves various parameters (see, e.g. Cooper et al. 2011, and also Pinker and Mack 2014). Depending on the quantitative measures one applies (e.g. types of fatalities, types of violence; see Cooper et al. 2011), the recorded number of conflicts may differ.

  2. 2.

    On the use of the terms intercultural and cross-cultural (communication), see Wolf (2015: 445).

  3. 3.

    For Aviation English, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a United Nations agency, has set standards of proficiency and administers respective training and tests (see ICAO, n.d.). For a recent discussion of Aviation English, see Hansen-Schirra and Maksymski (2013).

  4. 4.

    A cursory search for various randomly selected items listed in Bowyer (2004), such as adamsite, ‘a vomiting agent’, yielded zero occurrences in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davis 2015) and the British National Corpus (BNC 2015).

  5. 5.

    Also see Firth (2009) for a critique of the (implicit) assumption of ELF as an identifiable variety of English and building a pedagogy on this assumption.

  6. 6.

    For a broader view on the topic of teaching EIL or ELF, the reader may refer to three recent collective volumes (Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Marlina and Giri 2014; Matsuda 2012).

  7. 7.

    As Jenkins (2000: 1) claims, pronunciation is the “linguistic area that most threatens intelligibility”; this claim is debatable, if ‘intelligibility’ includes conceptual understanding. Arguably, misunderstandings due to different cultural models and cultural conceptualisations are more fundamental and far-reaching than immediate phonetic unintelligibility (cf. Wolf and Polzenhagen 2006).

  8. 8.

    As to the pragmatic level, if pragmatics is understood as the study of language in context, then pragmatic realisations rest on cultural conceptualisations to the same extent as context is a cultural variable. The study of pragmatics from a CL perspective is still in its infancy; for a first overview see Sharifian (2015b).

  9. 9.

    Nevertheless, one needs to mention House (2010: 367–8), who tentatively refers to an “interculture” setup in ELF interactions. Drawing on Homi Bhabha and Mikhail Bakhtin, she (2010: 382–3) makes the point for an “intercultural” or “hybrid” style of ELF user, “where different mental lexica, or in a Whorfian way, different underlying Weltanschauungen may be operative in ELF-speakers’ minds” (House 2010: 383). The idea of Weltanschauungen (‘worldviews’), of course, closely corresponds to the notions of ‘cultural model’ or ‘cultural conceptualisation’, in CL. To what extent the conceptualisations are hybrid or formed on the spot is a matter of empirical investigation (see Wolf 2015; Finzel and Wolf, in preparation).

  10. 10.

    Essens and van Loon (2008: Kn 1–7) claim that “during the Kosovo mission, the distance between junior soldiers from Germany and certainly from Turkey and their leadership was clearly much greater than in the Dutch unit”.

  11. 11.

    Hofstede’s sixth cultural dimension, indulgence, was added later (see Hofstede, n.d.).

  12. 12.

    This is not to say that Hofstede’s framework cannot be consoled with a CL perspective. It would seem that the dimensions he has identified are closely tied to underlying cultural models; for example, the individualism–collectivism dimension could be related to the African community model (see Wolf and Polzenhagen 2009) or to the social/occupational units are families conceptualisations for the Chinese culture (see Polzenhagen and Wolf 2010). It would be theoretically worthwhile to pursue the connection between Hofstede’s dimensions and cultural models/cultural conceptualisations further.

  13. 13.

    The lemma “effective” is a keyword in Febbraro et al. volume, with dozens of occurrences in each article. On the ideological background and the semantics of “effective” in pragmatics and communication studies, see Wolf (2015: 447–8).

  14. 14.

    Slingerland et al.’s (2007) findings are congruent with Wolf and Polzenhagen’s claims regarding the importance of family and family conceptualisations in Chinese culture (see Wolf and Polzenhagen 2006; Polzenhagen and Wolf 2010).

  15. 15.

    See, e.g. the module “Military English” of the Language Center of the Helmut Schmidt University, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (2015); the English Language Programs Department of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies (2016), and “English for peacekeeping forces” by the British Council (n.d.).

  16. 16.

    Within the constraints of this chapter, the respective cultural scripts chiselled out by Krijtenburg and de Volder cannot be quoted here. Krijtenburg and de Volder’s (2015: 197) approach is an ethnolexicological one that “takes salient (i.e., socially meaningful) lexical terms as its starting point for an enquiry into the cultural values that might underpin them”. This approach applies Wierzbicka’s notion of ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ and has been most prominently developed by Wierzbicka and Goddard (see, e.g. Peeters 2015 for an introduction). See Wolf and Polzenhagen (2009: 35–39) for a theoretical positioning of this approach to Cultural Linguistics and cognate fields.

References

  • Aperian Global. (2015). The army projects. http://www.aperianglobal.com/army-projects/. Accessed March 1, 2016.

  • Atechi, S. (2006). The intelligibility of native and non-native English speech. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, B., Fischer, M., & Giessmann, H. J. (2004/2011). Berghof handbook for conflict transformation. Berghof Foundation. Available at http://www.berghof-foundation.org/publications/handbook/berghof-handbook-for-conflict-transformation/. Accessed March 10, 2016.

  • Bayyurt, Y., & Akcan, S. (Eds.). (2015). Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Developments in English as a Lingua Franca [DELF] 6. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • BNC. British National Corpus. (2015). University of Oxford. Available online at http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. Accessed March 11, 2016.

  • Bowyer, R. (2004). Dictionary of military terms (3rd ed.). Oxford: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Council. (n.d.). English for peacekeeping forces. http://www.militaryenglish.com/. Accessed March 10, 2016.

  • Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London, New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, T., Merz, S., & Shah, M. (2011). A more violent world? Global trends in organised violence. http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2013/4687/pdf/cooper_etal_handbook.pdf. Accessed February 23, 2016.

  • Crossey, M. (2005). Improving linguistic interoperability. NATO Review (Summer): n.p. Available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/issue2/english/art4.html. Accessed February 24, 2016.

  • Danner, M. (2004). Torture and truth. The New York review of books, June 10. Available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/06/10/torture-and-truth/. Accessed March 10, 2016.

  • Davies, M. (2015). The corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/

  • Dzvonik, O. (2008). Cultural predispositions and psychological aspects. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee & Sh. L. Riedel (Eds.), RTO technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), 5 - 1 - 5 - 16. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Essens, P., & van Loo, R. (2008). Cultural challenges in joint and combined command: A military leader’s perspective. In RTO-MP-HFM-142—Adaptability in coalition teamwork. Brussels: NATO Science and Technology Organization. Available at https://www.cso.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-MP-HFM-142. Accessed June 6, 2013.

  • Febbraro, A. R. (2008). Leadership and command. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee & Sh. L. Riedel (Eds.), RTO technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), 3 - 1 - 3 - 28. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Febbraro, A. R., McKee, B., & Riedel, Sh. L. (Eds). (2008). RTO technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels). No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Febbraro, A. R., McKee, B., & Riedel, Sh. L. (2008b). Executive summary. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee, & Sh. L. Riedel (Eds.), RTO technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), ES 1 - EA 2. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. English Language Programs Department. http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/en/nav-pltce-eng-lang-progs-en.html. Accessed March 10, 2016.

  • Glossary of military terms and abbreviations for the Canadian Cadet Movement. (2006). Available at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/102648215/Glossary-of-Military-Terms-and-Abbreviations. Accessed April 16, 2015 (website is no longer available).

  • Hansen-Schirra, S., & Maksymski, K. (Eds.). (2013). Aviation communication: Between theory and practice. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmut Schmidt University. University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg. Language Center. (2015). Military English. Available at http://www.hsu-hh.de/sprachen/index_OLHz1EfvLKD49fIb.html. Accessed March 16, 2016.

  • Hofstede, G. (n.d.). National culture. The Hofstede Centre. http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html. Accessed March 1, 2016.

  • Holmes, P., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2016). The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, J. (2010). The pragmatics of English as lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 363–387). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICAO website. (n.d.). http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-announces-revamped-aviation-english-language-test-service-site.aspx. Accessed April 16, 2015.

  • Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston J. H., & Mangos, Ph. (2008). Measuring cultural cognitive biases in multi-national research. In RTO-MP-HFM-142—Adaptability in coalition teamwork. Brussels: NATO Science and Technology Organization. Available at https://www.cso.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-MP-HFM-142. Accessed June 6, 2013.

  • Kan, Sh. A., Best, R., Bolkcom, Ch., Chapman, R., Cronin, R., Dumbaugh, K., et al. (2001). China-U.S. Aircraft Collision Incident of April 2001: Assessments and policy implications. CRS Report for Congress. Order Code RL30946. Available at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30946.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2016.

  • Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D., & Wong, J. (2008). The international intelligibility of Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27(3/4), 77–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramsch, C. (2016). In P. Holmes & F. Dirvin, (Eds.), Review of The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. http://www.multilingual-matters.com/display.asp?K=9781783095094. Accessed March 15, 2016.

  • Krijtenburg, F., & de Volder, E. (2015). How universal is UN ‘peace’? A comparative linguistic analysis of the United Nations and Giryama (Kenya) concepts of ‘peace.’ In B. Peeters, (Ed.), Language and cultural values: Adventures in applied ethnolinguistics. Special issue of International Journal of Language and Culture, 2(2), 194–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenberg, P. (2012). Assessing proficiency in EIL. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 84–102). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangos, Ph. M., & Joanston, H. J. (2008). Applying unfolding item response theory to enhance measurement of cultural norms. In RTO-MP-HFM-142 – Adaptability in coalition teamwork. Brussels: NATO Science and Technology Organization. Available at https://www.cso.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-MP-HFM-142. Accessed June 6, 2013.

  • Marlina, R., & Giri, R. A. (Eds.). (2014). The Pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, G. H., Weaver, N. E., McDonald, D. M., van Driel, M., Hancock, P. A. (2008). Strategic perspectives on developing language, regional and cultural capabilities. In RTO-MP-HFM-142, 1 - 1 - 1-12. NATO/Science and Technology Organization Collaboration Support Office. Available at https://www.cso.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-MP-HFM-142. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • McKee, B., Febbraro, A. R., & Riedel, Sh. L. (2008). Introduction. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee, Sh. L. Riedel (Ed.), RTO Technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), 1 - 1 - 1 - 12. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • NATO Standardization Agency. (2010). STANAG 6001 NTG (Edition 4)—Language proficiency levels. Brussels: NATO Standardization Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norheim-Martinsen, P. M., & Nyhamar, T. (Eds.). (2015). International military operations in the 21st century: Global trends and the future of intervention. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSO Public Website. (n.d.). NATO terminology. http://nso.nato.int/nso/zzLinks/Terminology_Public.html. Accessed April 16, 2015.

  • Peeters, B. (Ed.). (2015). Language and cultural values: Adventures in applied ethnolinguistics. Special issue of International Journal of Language and Culture, 2(2): 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S., & Mack, A. (2014). The world is not falling apart. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html. Accessed February 23, 2016.

  • Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, H. (2010). Investigating culture from a linguistic perspective: An exemplification with Hong Kong English. In Ch. Mair & B. Korte (Ed.), Special issue: Linguistics and Cultural Studies. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA), 58(3), 281–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poteet, S., Xue, P., Patel, J., Kao, A., Giammanco, Ch., & Whitely, I. (2008). Linguistic sources of coalition miscommunication. In RTO-MP-HFM-142—Adaptability in coalition teamwork. Brussels: NATO Science and Technology Organization. Available at https://www.cso.nato.int/pubs/rdp.asp?RDP=RTO-MP-HFM-142. Accessed February 25, 2016.

  • Riedel, Sh. L. (2008). Communication. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee & Sh. L. Riedel (Ed.), RTO technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), 6 - 1 - 6 - 20. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Rubinstein, R. A., Keller, D. M., & Scherger, M. E. (2008). Culture and interoperability in integrated mission. International Peacekeeping, 15(4), 540–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, R. A. (2005). Intervention and culture: An anthropological approach to peace operations. Security Dialogue, 36(4), 527–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, R. A. (2016). Peacekeeping under fire: Culture and intervention. Oxford: Routledge. First published 2008 by Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, E. (2010). Developmental patterns of English. Similar or different? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes (pp. 372–384). Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifian, F. (2009). Cultural conceptualizations in English as an International language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 242–253). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifian, F. (2013). Globalisation and developing metacultural competence in learning English as an International Language. Multilingual Education, 3(7), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifian, F. (2015a). Cultural linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifian, F. (2015b). Cultural linguistics and pragmatics. Keynote speech given at the Third International Conference on Language, Discourse, and Pragmatics. Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran. January 28–30. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o373NhYAzuM. Accessed March 15, 2016.

  • Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharifian, F., & Palmer, G. B. (Eds). (2007). Applied cultural linguistics. Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication. Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 7. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slingerland, E., Blanchard, E. M., & Boyd-Judson, L. (2007). Collision with China: Conceptual metaphor analysis, somatic marking, and the EP-3 Incident. International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. E., & Rafiqzad, Kh. (1979). English for cross-cultural communication: The question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 371–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, M. N. (1994). Cordon and search: Lessons learned in Somalia. Infantry, 84, 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, J., Deumert, A., Lillis, Th., & Mesthrie, R. (2004). A dictionary of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczepaniak-Kozak, A. (2004). Introduction to military discourse: Texts and NATO logistics. Warsaw and Poznan: ELIPSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Peacekeeping. (n.d.). http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/. Accessed February 23, 2016.

  • van Vliet, A. J., & van Amelsfoort, D. (2008). Multinational military teams. In A. R. Febbraro, B. McKee, & Sh. L. Riedel (Eds.), RTO Technical report AC/323(HFM-120)TP/225—Multinational Military Operations and Intercultural Factors (Les opérations militaires multinationals et les facteurs interculturels), 4 - 1 - 4 - 16. No place (Brussels?): NATO/Research and Technology Organization. Available at http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/TR/RTO-TR-HFM-120///$$TR-HFM-120-ALL.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.

  • Wikipedia. (2015). List of U.S. Air Force acronyms and expressions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Air_Force_acronyms_and_expressions. Accessed April 16, 2015.

  • Wikipedia. (2016a). List of number of conflicts per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_conflicts_per_year. Accessed February 23, 2016.

  • Wikipedia. (2016b). Second Battle of Fallujah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah. Accessed March 10, 2016.

  • Wiktionary. (2014). English military slang. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_military_slang. Accessed April 16, 2015.

  • Wolf, H. (2015). Language and culture in intercultural communication. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 445–459). Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, H., & Polzenhagen, F. (2006). Intercultural communication in English—Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, H., & Polzenhagen, F. (2009). World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 8). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Potsdam University, Potsdam, Germany

    Hans-Georg Wolf

Authors
  1. Hans-Georg Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Georg Wolf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Farzad Sharifian

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wolf, HG. (2017). De-escalation—A Cultural-Linguistic View on Military English and Military Conflicts. In: Sharifian, F. (eds) Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Cultural Linguistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4055-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4056-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation