Intercultural Pragmatics and Its Implications for Semantic Meaning

FORMOSA NEWS

Same Words, Different Meanings: UNIMED Study Reveals Challenges in Intercultural Communication

Cultural differences can significantly reshape the meaning of language—even when the words themselves are understood. This is the central finding of a recent study by Muhammad Natsir, along with Redikson Caesar Manullang, Naufal Afif Malay, Yansen Partogi Saragih, and Fadilla Husin Aruan from Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED). Published in 2026 in the International Journal of Integrative Research, the study explores how meaning is interpreted and negotiated in intercultural communication, and why misunderstandings frequently occur despite grammatically correct language. These findings are particularly relevant in an era of increasing global interaction—across multicultural classrooms, international workplaces, and digital communication—where people often share a common language but not necessarily a shared meaning.

Background: Same Language, Different Meanings

In the context of globalization, intercultural communication is becoming more intensive. However, the study shows that understanding the literal meaning of words is not enough to grasp the intended message. Differences in social norms, cultural values, and life experiences shape how individuals interpret messages. As a result, even simple expressions can lead to confusion, awkwardness, or social conflict. For example, the phrase “That’s interesting” may be perceived as praise in one culture but as subtle criticism in another.

Methodology: Exploring Real Experiences in Multicultural Settings

The research employed a qualitative approach focusing on individuals’ lived experiences in intercultural communication. A total of 12–15 participants from diverse cultural backgrounds took part in the study. They included students and educators actively engaged in multicultural educational environments.
Data were collected through:

-in-depth interviews

-limited observation in real communicative situations

-document analysis, including conversations and reflective notes

This approach allowed the researchers to examine how meaning is constructed, experienced, and negotiated in everyday life.

Key Findings: Three Patterns of Meaning Misunderstanding

The study identified three main patterns explaining why intercultural communication often leads to misinterpretation:
Tension Between Literal Meaning and Social Meaning

Many participants reported understanding the words used but still feeling uncertain about the intended meaning.

The findings show that:

-Literal meaning does not always reflect social intent

-Uncertainty arises from differences in cultural norms

-Ambiguity often leads to emotional discomfort

One participant stated, “I understand the words, but I don’t know whether it’s praise or criticism.”

Meaning Negotiation as an Emotional Process

Meaning is not simply interpreted—it is negotiated socially and emotionally.

The study found that:

-Individuals often adjust their responses to maintain harmony

-Strategies such as silence or avoidance are commonly used

-These adjustments can lead to emotional fatigue

This highlights that intercultural communication involves not only language but also emotions and social relationships.

Fragile and Shifting Common Ground

Shared understanding, or common ground, is not stable in intercultural interaction.

The findings indicate that:

-Mutual understanding must be continuously rebuilt

-Misunderstandings can occur even with positive intentions

-Individuals may adapt excessively and feel a loss of authenticity

One participant noted becoming more cautious in communication but feeling less like themselves.

Implications: The Need for Pragmatic Literacy and Cultural Sensitivity

This study has important implications for education, public policy, and global communication. Muhammad Natsir from Universitas Negeri Medan emphasizes that misunderstandings in intercultural communication often stem not from language errors, but from differences in interpreting meaning.
Key implications include:

For education:

Language curricula should incorporate pragmatic literacy—the ability to understand meaning within social and cultural contexts.

For global society:

Recognizing that meaning is relative can help reduce conflict and promote tolerance.

For policymakers:

Communication policies should be culturally sensitive, especially in multicultural environments.

The study also highlights the importance of addressing the emotional dimension of intercultural communication, particularly for minority and migrant communities who often face adaptation pressures.

Academic Insight
Muhammad Natsir and his team from Universitas Negeri Medan conclude that language meaning “is not purely cognitive, but deeply intertwined with identity, emotion, and social relationships.”

Author Profiles

-Muhammad Natsir – Lead researcher, Universitas Negeri Medan; expert in pragmatics and intercultural communication
-Redikson Caesar Manullang – Researcher, Universitas Negeri Medan; social linguistics

-Naufal Afif Malay – Researcher, Universitas Negeri Medan; multicultural communication

-Yansen Partogi Saragih – Researcher, Universitas Negeri Medan; language and education

-Fadilla Husin Aruan – Researcher, Universitas Negeri Medan; linguistics and culture

Source

Natsir, M., Manullang, R. C., Malay, N. A., Saragih, Y. P., & Aruan, F. H. (2026). Intercultural Pragmatics and Its Implications for Semantic Meaning. International Journal of Integrative Research (IJIR), Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 177–184.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59890/ijir.v4i3.155

https://mrymultitechpublisher.my.id/index.php/ijir