Journal of Pragmatics 39 (2007) 2358–2362

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Book review

A Cultural Approach to Discourse

Shi-Xu, Palgrave Press, Houndmills, Basingstoke, U.K., 2005, 233 pp., $75.00 (hb)

A Cultural Approach to Discourse is a challenging read by Shi-Xu, Professor of Discourse and

Cultural Studies at Zhejiang University, China. The book is a long, dense argumentation in
support of a ‘‘cultural approach to discourse (CAD)’’, ‘‘an interrelated research system’’ (p. 4)
that transcends the universalist view of culture to adopt an ‘‘in-between cultural, pragmatic form
of reflexivity’’ (p. 6). Essentially, Shi-Xu is attempting to address the conundrum of being able to
take a perspective on a subject – for example, Hong Kong’s ‘‘return’’ to China – that is non-
Western, i.e. from the point of view of the non-Western media on the topic, while avoiding
adopting the Western interpretation as a Western individual. It does not seem possible, try as one
might, to do so, to escape from the conditioning of the ways of thinking of one’s primary culture,
whether it be Western or non-Western, to adopt the ways of thinking of an oppositional
perspective of ‘‘other’’ ways of thinking. One cannot avoid taking an ideological position about
any aspect of life, from food safety, to the environment, to China’s recovery of Hong Kong from
the British. Indeed the word choice – ‘‘return’’, ‘‘ recovery’’ – forces a perspective on the speaker.
In sum, Shi-Xu’s text seeks to explain just how this intellectual endeavor can be enacted.
The book comprises an introduction and two parts: Part I, Theory and Methodology, and Part
II, Practical Studies. Part I has three chapters and Part II four. In the Introduction, the author
defines his approach to discourse, what he labels a ‘‘cultural approach,’’ which views discourse as
constructed discursively, ‘‘neither objectively given nor universally organized’’ (p. 1). This
view of discourse is similar to that in the work of Gee (2005) and Fairclough (2001), among
others. Shi-Xu elaborates at length and repetitively through the book on his stance. What is
perhaps new or particularly original is that he makes it clear from the start that he is interested in
‘‘a particular kind of cultural politics (p. 1):’’
The cultural politics here consists specifically in facilitating cultural cohesion and common
progress by deconstructing discourses of cultural repression on one hand and promoting
new discourses of cultural solidarity and prosperity on the other.
While Gee (2005) takes a similar view of the purpose of his scholarly activities, Shi-Xu makes his
political agenda more salient throughout this book. The author claims that the predominant
theory and research by the scholarly community continues to operate on the assumption of
methodological imperialism and a view of a universal and objective ‘‘reality’’ that disadvantages
subordinated groups that some researchers are trying to help. In his view, his work represents a
means to study discourse for the purpose of changing and transforming reality, in particular
regarding marginalized groups worldwide.

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.08.005
 Book review 2359

Chapter 1, ‘‘Discourse and Reality,’’ discusses two epistemological positions on linguistic

communication: the representationalist view and the reality-constitutive view. The first labels the
formal, linguistic approach to language study, which sees language as a reflection of the mind,
independent of the social, psychological or linguistic context. Language is assumed to provide
descriptions of people, events, and things that represent the ‘‘truth.’’ The second view, that of Shi-
Xu, argues that linguistic communication is ‘‘reality constitutive.’’ Meaning is constructed in the
moment-by-moment use of linguistic symbols by social actors in a local, cultural context.
‘‘Discourse,’’ he contends ‘‘is an appropriate synonym of the everyday ways of speaking’’ or
‘‘versions of event’’ (p. 20). Further, the author states that, given this reality-constitutive view of
discourse, it is a short jump to seeing discourse as ‘‘a form of social practice that has specific
goals or purposes and consequences’’ (p. 21). This statement entails his articulated interest in
discourses comprising topics such as racism, capitalism, power, and cultural diversity.
One topic introduced here that recurs through the book is that of ‘‘self and relation’’ (p. 29). In
the representationalist model of language, one of the main functions of language is to express the
individual’s thinking or identity. This interpretation of language use is challenged by Shi-Xu as a
very Western perspective on human behavior, with the emphasis on the individual. The author
maintains that such a view denies the role of language in building and maintaining relations;
discourse is thus a social process, ‘‘a means of forging, maintaining and transforming both Self
and Other, both identity and relationships’’ (p. 31). This criticism of the Western notion of
language use is seen in the work of other scholars, particularly of Asian contributors to
pragmatics research and theory building regarding politeness (Matsumoto, 1989; Gu, 1990,
among others).
In Chapter 2, ‘‘Discourse and Culture,’’ Shi-Xu considers the interconnections of discourse
and culture. Essentially, he deconstructs and challenges the view of culture as an
‘‘epiphenomenon, external to discourse’’ (p. 42), and proposes what he calls a ‘‘culturally
pluralist theory of discourse’’ (p. 43). He labels this as the ‘‘in-between-cultural stance’’ (p. 43).
The chapter goes on to deconstruct such topics as universalist discourse, aculturalism, and
cultural studies, before focusing on his notion of analyzing linguistic communication from an in-
between cultures perspective (p. 57). Some main points are that theorists must (1) take on board
non-Western intellectual traditions; (2) engage in examining racism, ethnicity and culture as
constitutive of theories; (3) include and integrate global perspectives; and (4) take responsibility
for their own backgrounds and research agendas. However, as this chapter essentially addresses
only questions of theory, the author does not explain how a theorist can act from an ‘‘in-between
cultures’’ position other than to claim that being brought up in a non-monolithic culture appears
to be a starting point. Shi-Xu reiterates his proposal: ‘‘that cultural coexistence and common
cultural prosperity be the ultimate objective of our discourse research, CAD’’ (p. 67, his italics).
Chapter 3, ‘‘Political Ethnography,’’ maps out the author’s principles regarding the
appropriate methodology (the general approach in social science) and methods (specific research
practices) for CAD. ‘‘Political ethnography’’ is the author’s term for the strategies of discourse
research that could lead to the changes in cultural harmony and prosperity he is seeking. Shi-Xu
contrasts the foundationalist position, the dominant, Western paradigm that views research as
neutral, capable of producing ‘‘true’’ knowledge, with a post-positivist, interpretative alternative
which focuses on research as a critical process. He recognizes that there is a Western
interpretative tradition, which has, nevertheless, failed as it is not engaged with non-Western
methodology or methods. Shi-Xu, however, does not elaborate on what the methodology or
methods would comprise. He states rather that cultural pluralism has not taken hold, due to
‘‘political expediency’’ (p. 84) and the asymetrical relations between the West and the ‘‘Rest’s
2360 Book review

intellectual discourses’’ (p. 84). The remedy is suggested through an example of a Chinese
description of defining knowledge and learning. This philosophical example is followed by a
schematic summary of what an in-between cultural stance might entail, combining research
strategies and goals, entitled ‘‘political ethnography.’’ These strategies, he claims, are
transformative, creating the means to attain the cultural political agenda of CAD, with the output
of the process subsequently acting as the input into the start of new projects, in a reflexive
feedback process.
Part II is devoted to ‘‘Practical Studies,’’ with Chapter 4, ‘‘Deconstructing the Other Place,’’
initiating the examples of empirical support for the author’s argument. In the first section, he
explains how the Western media construct cultural differences and discrimination. Shi-Xu argues
that there are two noticeable strategies in the Western discourse: stereotyping and contradiction.
Stereotyping has been made transparent by other scholars; a particularly salient example is the
work of Said (1994, for example; Shi-Xu cites Said frequently). Contradiction refers to the
strategy of comparing aspects of a non-Western context explicitly or implicitly so that the reader
perceives the particular context as not only different, but as somehow deficient, thus unknown,
perhaps fearful. Because the alien context does not meet the norms or expectations of how things
‘‘ought to be,’’ – it contradicts what the West views as ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘appropriate’’ – it is therefore
denigrated and marginalized. The author then provides analyses and commentaries on the
evidence of the two strategies in three data sets: (1) an excerpt of socio-political and cultural
analysis about Singapore by an American journalist; (2) two travel books on China by a Dutch
travel writer; and (3) writings on Hong Kong by Western journalists. Shi-Xu emphasizes the need
to consider the historical situations of Singapore, China, and Hong Kong, in particular their
colonial histories and the continued imperialism operative today.
Chapter 5, ‘‘Reading non-Western Discourses,’’ seeks to give voice to non-Western Others so
that those voices become a normal, integrative part of Western discourse. The author has two
goals for this chapter. First, he wants to elaborate on what constitutes non-Western discourse, in
particular how the West’s reading of such discourse can be conducted. Second, he performs a
reading of Chinese and Hong Kong discourses on the transition of Hong Kong to China. In what
he labels a ‘‘cultural-contrastive approach,’’ he reads ‘‘against a backdrop of what has been
marginalized or excluded in the relevant Western discourse’’ (p. 133). The non-Western
discourses are not neutral; they are selective and represent a way of thinking and saying about a
subject that differs from that of the West. The underlying purpose is to initiate dialogue with the
Other, to move readers beyond the taken-for-granted perspectives, so that ‘‘relations and
practices of domination, subordination, and resistance between the East and West . . . be an
important focus of attention’’ (p. 134)
Chapter 6, ‘‘Fanning the Sparks of Hope and History’’ is another case study, this time about
Northern Ireland, where Shi-Xu focuses on the construction over the past one hundred years of
the collective identities of the two communities: the Irish, Catholic nationalists and the British,
Protestant unionists. The data come from the mainstream print media; the analysis focuses on
movement from hatred to less animosity towards the relative peace that was only recently
achieved. In this chapter, the ‘‘non-Western discourses’’ refers to the marginalized Northern
Ireland discourse in the public domain.
The final chapter, Chapter 7, is entitled ‘‘Promoting New Discourses of the Other.’’ The author
has been deconstructing Western discourses and drawing attention to features of marginalized
non-Western, non-hegemonic discourses. In Chapter 6, he reconstructed the historical discourses
in Northern Ireland. Here he proposes future discourses, alternatives that he believes would work
in favor of cultural solidarity and prosperity. First Shi-Xu critiques the field of intercultural
 Book review 2361

communication and explains the role of power in blocking development of intercultural studies
towards mutual respect and recognition of the cultural Other. Second, the author makes
suggestions for an alternative pedagogy in intercultural training, emphasizing the notion that
change from the current approach in intercultural communication seminars is a high priority in an
increasingly globalized world. Finally, the new, future discourses are discussed: discourses of (1)
diversity and plurality; (2) equality; (3) common human cultural goals, and (4) critical reflection
and moral responsibility. The last one refers to his belief that human beings do recognize the need
to rethink current assumptions about intercultural communication to achieve shared freedom and
progress and to engage in dialogue with cultural others.
The argumentation sustained throughout A Cultural Approach to Discourse has been
summarized and the main points highlighted. The author is clearly well read in the field of
discourse studies and the related literature on cultural Others, exemplified by his citations of Said.
However, there are two aspects of the text that jump out at this reader, a person who has ‘‘deep’’
knowledge of at least two languages other than English and who has lived for extended periods of
time outside the U.S., and outside the West. First, the problems in intercultural studies addressed
by Shi-Xu have been researched, studied, and discussed for several decades now and it could be
argued that, in a sense, he is ‘‘preaching to the choir.’’ Most of his readers will already be familiar
with a good part of the literature and will readily take on board his premises and analyses of both
the theoretical and applied dimensions of the subject. Second, as I suggested in the introduction
to this book review, it may not be possible to develop a sustainable, neutral stance towards one’s
primary culture and other cultures with which one has deep familiarity. ‘‘Reading’’ another
culture’s texts, whether written or spoken, in the mass media or literature, cannot be a neutral
activity. Shi-Xu seems to promise at the start of his book that such a neutral act is possible and
needed; we would all, I hope, identify with his intentions. However, his readers would question
whether he has demonstrated how that behavior can in fact happen.The difficulty of taking
oneself outside one’s ways of thinking to fully involve oneself in the texts of the cultural Other
are problematic. The fact that the author himself has been educated in and continues to function
in the Western-dominated educational and research traditions compromises the face validity of
his argument. I, for one, would like to read the research and analyses of Chinese scholars who
have acquired their scholarly credentials uniquely in a Chinese context. Of course, the texts
would have to be translated into a language I can read, a process which cannot be ideologically
neutral.
Finally, Shi-Xu should not despair as there are changes in the wind. There are small acts of
integrating non-Western perspectives into the Western media. One recent example is a review of
two books in The New Yorker on the partition of India by Pankaj Mishra, a writer whose name
suggests sub-continent origins. The two books under review were written by Westerners.
Moreover, public radio staff, both in the U.S. and in the U.K, are now composed of news readers
and reporters from all over the world. These examples, I believer, are intended to make the point
that the change Shi-Xu seeks is slowly happening.

References

Fairclough, Norman, 2001. Language and Power, second ed. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.
Gee, James Paul, 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, second ed. Routledge, New York/
London.
Gu, Yuego, 1990. Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2), 237–257.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1989. Politeness and conversational universals: observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8 (2–3),
207–222.
2362 Book review

Mishra, Pankaj, 2007. Exit wounds: The legacy of Indian partition. The New Yorker August 13, 80–84.
Said, Edward W., 1994. Culture and Imperalism. Vintage Books, New York.

Dr. Virginia LoCastro is an associate professor in the Lingusitics Program and Director of the Academic Spoken English
and Academic Written English Programs at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Virginia LoCastro*
Linguistics Program, University of Florida, Turlington 4131F,
PO Box 115454, Gainesville, FL 32601, United States

*Tel.: +1 352 392 0639x226; fax: +1 352 392 8480.

E-mail addresses: locastro@lin.ufl.edu
URL: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/locastro