According to \cite{Wolf_2006}

According to \cite{Wolf_2006}, the addition of a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics could help Functional Pragmatics overcome their limitations when it comes to studying intercultural (mis)understandings.
Before looking into the limitiations of Functional Pragmatics, I will look into the definition of it.
Functional Pragmatics is a integral linguistic theory based on the works of John L. Austin and Karl Blihler, developed by Konrad Ehlich and Jochen Rehbein.
Functional Pragmatics views language as a societal action form to which they attempt to reconstruct by analyzing language with authentic linguistic interaction \cite{redder2008}.
When it comes to investigating intercultural communication, Functional Pragmatics mainly focuses on effective functioning. This narrows their perspective on intercultural communication. This restriction causes functionalists to neglect important features that are involved in intercultural communication, such as the cause of misunderstandings in intercultural encounters. \cite{Wolf_2006}
On top of this, functionalists omit the involvement of culture in intercultural misunderstandings. \cite{Wolf_2006} notes there is “a noticeable skepticism of accepting inter-individual cultural conceptualizations at group level as a valid parameter of linguistic-pragmatic analysis.” This approach of functionalists makes it harder to investigate intercultural communication.
However, a new discipline that could explain the issues as mentioned in the previous paragraph, emerged:Cultural Linguistics. Cognitive is a branch of Cognitive Linguistics that focuses on the relationship between language and conceptualizations. Though Cognitive Linguistics also study the relationship between language and conceptualizations, they are more universal orientated in their studies (see \cite{dirven2007cognitive}), whereas Cultural Linguists focus on the role of cultural knowledge in conceptualizations (cultural conceptualizations). \citep{Sharifian_2015, Sharifian_2017}.
“Cultural conceptualizations are defined as conceptual structures such as “schemas,” “categories,” and “conceptual metaphors,” which not only exist at the individual level of cognition but also develop at a higher level of cultural cognition” \cite{Sharifian_2012}