Algerian Students’ Perceptions of Common Ground in Building Intercultural Communication: A Case Study in Hungarian Universities

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15584/sar.2025.22.13

Keywords:

Intercultural communication, Algerian, mixed-method, common ground

Abstract

In the context of the increasing cultural diversity in Hungary, common ground remains largely unidentified, thereby hindering the development of strategies that create a meaningful intercultural communication between Algerians and Hungarians. The current research investigated how shared experiences, values, and cultural practices are perceived to shape interactions. Drawing on the results of a questionnaire distributed to 40 Algerian individuals studying in Hungary, and through a mixed-method approach, the collected data were treated using SPSS and MAXQDA software. Additionally, via thematic analysis, the study examines instances of cultural convergence and divergence, stereotypes, and practices for overcoming communicative challenges. The findings accentuated the significance of identifying and leveraging shared understanding as a foundation for fostering empathy and mutual respect. However, they ascertained that language barriers are not the main factor affecting intercultural communication virtuosity. Eventually, this research elaborates on the complex interplay between identity and strategy where embracing diversity is a proof of existence of both core and emergent common ground conceptions. To sum up, it provides valuable insights into the cultivation of cross-cultural comprehension across diverse contexts for further discussion.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahmed, S. K. (2025). Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, definitions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171

Allan, K. (2023). The interdependence of common ground and context. In I. Kecskes (Ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction (pp. 7-24). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110766752-002

Bajzát, T. (2023). International students’ intercultural challenges in Hungary. Multidiszciplináris tudományok, 13 (3). 148-158 https://doi.org/10.35925/j.multi.2023.3.16

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521561582

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Diedrichsen, E. (2023). Grounding emergent common ground: Detecting markers of emergent common ground in a YouTube discussion thread. In I. Kecskes (Ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction (pp. 105-134). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110766752-006

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606525

Geurts, B. (2018). Convention and common ground. Mind & Language, 33(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12171

Kada Zair, M. A. (2025). Cultural Awareness, stereotypes and communication skills in intercultural communication: The Algerian participants perspective. 10.48550/arXiv.2511.12369.

Karasz, A., & Singelis, T. M. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods research in cross-cultural psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 40(6), 909–916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109349172

Kecskes, I. & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: a socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(2):331-355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec

Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1, 50-73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec

Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001

Kim, E. (2023). The co-construction of common ground through exemplars unique to an ESL classroom. In I. Kecskes (Ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction (pp. 163-194). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110766752-008

Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (4th ed). Sage Publications Limited.

Lee-Wong, S. (2002). Contextualizing intercultural communication and sociopragmatic choices. Multilingua, 21(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2002.005

Michael, B.H. (2017). Intercultural misunderstandings: causes and solutions. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21, 885-909. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-4-885-909

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Community Abroad. (2023). Home. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Community Abroad. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.dz/

Mustajoki, A. (2023). From laboratory to real life: Obstacles in common ground building. In I. Kecskes (Ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction (pp. 59-80). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110766752-004

Ningsih, L. F. Y. (2019). Conversation analysis: Communication across cultures. Avesina: Media Informasi Ilmiah Universitas Islam Al-Azhar, 13(2), 29-35.

Nolan, B. (2023). Understanding common ground as a cognitive object. In I. Kecskes (Ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction (pp. 25-58). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110766752-003

Sarkadi, Z. (2024). Budapest: a multicultural city – Census 2022 results - Helpers Hungary. Helpers Hungary. https://helpers.hu/residence-permit/budapest-a-multicultural-city-census-2022-results/

Shea, D. P. (1994). Perspective and production: Structuring conversational participation across cultural borders. Pragmatics, 4, 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.3.06she

Urhan Torun, B. (2016). Intercultural communication: A literature review. İnönü Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi (İNİF E-Dergi), 1(1), 139-151.

Zhou, X. (2023). [Review of the book The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics by Istvan Kecskes. Discourse Studies, 25(5), 727-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231166231

Downloads

Published

2025-12-31

How to Cite

Zerouali, H. (2025). Algerian Students’ Perceptions of Common Ground in Building Intercultural Communication: A Case Study in Hungarian Universities . Studia Anglica Resoviensia, 22, 187–205. https://doi.org/10.15584/sar.2025.22.13

Issue

Section

Articles