There is increasing acknowledgement by psychologists and interculturalists that the ways in which culture influences people’s behaviour are likely to be affected by characteristics of the situation. Over 15 years ago, Smith (2003, p. 68) called for a greater focus on context, arguing: “If the context within which one works with a person from another culture elicits different types of behaviour, then cultural maps will be a poor guide to what happens in such circumstances. […] a sharper focus on more specific settings, events and contexts and indeed the passage of time is needed.” He recently (Smith, 2015, p. 1312) reiterated this call for greater attention to be paid to context. Others have made similar arguments. For example, Leung and Morris (2015) have proposed a ‘situated dynamics framework’ that incorporates the role of the situation and integrates values, schemas and norms in the culture–behaviour nexus. In line with this, researchers (Morris, Hong, Chiu, & Liu, 2015; Zou & Leung, 2015) have drawn attention to the importance of norms and the role they play in linking culture and behaviour. In terms of culture, Leung and Morris (2015, p. 1042) have further argued that the situation is an ”integral part of culture because situations are nested within culture, and the influence of culture cannot be fully understood without considering the situation.” In this special issue we follow up on this trend from a multidisciplinary perspective, with a focus on contexts (especially communication contexts), the norms associated with people’s assessments of those contexts, and their impact on behaviour. More specifically, we aim to introduce sociolinguistic/pragmatic perspectives and insights to move the debate forward. Our approach and perspective is thus very different from that of Zou and Leung (2015) in their special issue on intersubjective norms. Our goal of gaining multidisciplinary insights into the culture–behaviour nexus by integrating concepts and findings from the different fields proved much more challenging than we initially anticipated. Concepts, terms, theoretical starting points, academic goals, and ‘acceptable’ research methodologies all turned out to be different, and researchers from the different disciplines (including within our editorial team!) sometimes had difficulty appreciating the perspectives and contributions of work from the ‘other’ discipline. It turned out to be an intercultural endeavour in its own right. In this introduction, therefore, we not only introduce the articles in this special issue, but we attempt to explain the different conceptual approaches with social psychology and sociolinguistics/pragmatics to key facets of the culture–behaviour nexus, particularly context/situation, norms and behaviour. We start by considering the concepts of contexts and communicative situation.

中文翻译：

---

文化，规范和交流情境的评估：多学科视角

心理学家和跨文化主义者越来越认识到，文化影响人们行为的方式很可能会受到情况特征的影响。15年前，史密斯（Smith，2003年，第68页）呼吁更加关注上下文，他说：“如果一个人与另一种文化的人一起工作的上下文引起了不同类型的行为，那么文化地图将是一个穷人。指导在这种情况下会发生什么。[…]更加专注于更具体的设置，事件和上下文，确实需要时间的流逝。” 他最近（史密斯（Smith），2015年，第1312页）重申了这一呼吁，即要更加重视语境。其他人也提出了类似的论点。例如，Leung和Morris（2015）提出了一个“情境动力学框架”，该框架结合了情境的作用，并在文化－行为联系中整合了价值，图式和规范。有鉴于此，研究人员（Morris，Hong，Chiu和Liu，2015年； Zou和Leung，2015年）引起了人们对规范重要性的关注以及它们在将文化与行为联系起来方面的作用。在文化方面，Leung和Morris（2015，p。1042）进一步认为，情况是“文化的组成部分，因为情况嵌套在文化中，如果不考虑情况就无法充分理解文化的影响。” 在本期特刊中，我们从多学科的角度对这一趋势进行了跟进，重点是情境（尤其是交流情境），与人们对这些情况的评估有关的规范及其对行为的影响。更具体地说，我们旨在介绍社会语言/务实的观点和见解，以推动辩论的进行。因此，我们的方法和观点与邹和梁（2015）关于主体间规范的特刊有很大不同。我们的目标是通过整合不同领域的概念和发现来获得对文化与行为联系的多学科洞察力，这比我们最初预期的要困难得多。事实证明，概念，术语，理论起点，学术目标和“可接受的”研究方法都是不同的，并且来自不同学科的研究人员（包括我们的编辑团队！）有时很难理解“其他”学科的工作观点和贡献。事实证明，这本身就是一种跨文化的努力。因此，在本导言中，我们不仅介绍本期特刊的文章，而且尝试用社会心理学和社会语言学/语用学来解释文化-行为联系的不同方面的不同概念方法，尤其是上下文/情况，规范和行为。我们首先考虑上下文和交际情境的概念。但是我们尝试用社会心理学和社会语言学/语用学来解释文化-行为联系的不同方面的不同概念方法，尤其是背景/情况，规范和行为。我们首先考虑上下文和交际情境的概念。但是我们尝试用社会心理学和社会语言学/语用学来解释文化-行为联系的不同方面的不同概念方法，尤其是背景/情况，规范和行为。我们首先考虑上下文和交际情境的概念。