Ambiguity, indeterminacy, and the interactional cycle of misunderstanding – a sketch (Table ronde à l'Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre, Ambiguïtés et malentendus dans l'activité langagière, 12 décembre 2014) (original) (raw)
Related papers
In this paper, we discuss borderline examples of (mis)understanding where it is not clear whether or not a misunderstanding has occurred, whether or not communication was successful, and where the participants do not try to negotiate an understanding, even though different interpretations are very likely to exist. By analyzing real data, we point out various types of such borderline examples of (mis)understanding, attempt to analyze their source and explain why they are a normal constitute of process of coming to an understanding. Using discourse comprehension theory, we define the level of propositional strategies, local coherence strategies, strategies for the use of knowledge, and interactional and pragmatic strategies as the main sources of reduced understandings. In spite of the fact that there is no complete understanding, and, consequently, some level of differences in understanding can be perceived as ‘normal’, we discuss other possible reasons why discourse participants do not explicitly negotiate an understanding.
Misunderstanding and language comprehension
This paper studies the relationship between misunderstanding and language comprehension. A misunderstanding is This faulty interpretation can be ascribed to the inconsistencies that occur during the comprehension of a linguistic message and to the interference of emotions with that comprehension. This paper tries to identify these inconsistencies and to explain their relationship to misunderstanding. It also tries to find evidence of the interference of emotions with language comprehension and its contribution to misunderstanding.
The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations
Journal of Pragmatics, 1999
In this paper, we will deal with the handling -within the conversational interaction -of linguistic misunderstanding, on the basis of an Italian corpus. The following aspects of this process will be analyzed: the author of the repair, the phases of negotiation (i.e. "the negotiation cycle of misunderstanding"), the collocation of the repair (third and fourth turn repairs are the most common patterns), linguistic and non-linguistic misunderstanding.
The Variability of Communicative Understanding
2012
An attempt to create a model for cultural understanding based on the ideas of Habermas' communicative rationality and Derrida's free play. Rationality must be variable in order to most adequately reflect the infinitely variable opinions throughout a culture.
in Enactive Cognition at the Edge of Sense-making. Massamiliano Cappuccio and Tom Froese, eds. Palgrave McMillan. forthcoming.
This chapter considers the ethical and epistemological consequences of the enactive notion of 'languaging' as whole-bodied, intersubjective sense-making. Making sense in language is defined as a process of moving from stable, shared sense, through idiosyncratic non-sense, to a locally produced, co-available or interactively afforded sense. Enactive concepts of autonomy, autopoiesis, adaptivity, and precariousness imply radical idiosyncrasy in how individuals incorporate the means and moves needed to cope in enlanguaged environments. Differences in sense-making styles predict misunderstanding in social interactions. How do participants of linguistic sense-making share meaning? Presenting meaning as a consequence of mindfulness and misunderstanding, this chapter attempts to include the interiority and variety of experience in descriptions of linguistic participatory sense-making. It gives semantic weight to particularity without losing sight of interactional sources of normativity and intentionality.
Language and Meaning: From Understanding to Misunderstanding
ABSTRACT This study has examined the problematic issue of relationship between language and meaning. It is a problem that has always been a controversial issue; moreover, it is constantly present in philosophical, linguistic and social thought because of it has a close relationship with human understanding and it is supposed to lead to the effective interaction. Although this issue has received many studies presented by intellectuals, humanitarians, grammarians and linguists, it remains an important challenge that requires additional efforts to illuminate and clarify its different aspects. The researcher discussed the most important linguistic and philosophical attempts made by philosophers, scholars and well-known linguists to propose a solution to the problem under discussion, referring to their efforts which might include a mixture of positive elements and weaknesses. As a result, the researcher concluded that language is, in itself, a tool of misunderstanding as much as an instrument of understanding. The study included theoretical and applied aspects in English and Arabic. It has been rounded off with a number of conclusions and recommendations. Key Words: (language, meaning, significance, grammar, linguistics, understanding, misunderstanding, misreading)
Beyond Misunderstanding — Introduction
2006
This volume challenges two tacit presumptions in the field of intercultural communication research. Firstly, misunderstandings can frequently be found in intercultural communication, although, one could not claim that intercultural communication is constituted by misunderstandings alone. The main purpose of the contributions to this volume is to reconstruct intercultural understanding linguistically. Secondly, intercultural communication is not solely constituted by the fact that individuals from different cultural groups interact. Each contribution of this volume analyses to what extent instances of discourse are institutionally and/or interculturally determined. This volume shows how new perspectives on linguistic analyses of intercultural communication go beyond the analysis of misunderstanding. In fact, the volume documents a shift in the research focus towards the question as to what extent different linguistic means contribute to intercultural understanding. Edward T. Hall (1959, 1981) is considered to be the first scholar, who used the notion of 'intercultural communication' in order to denote the specific communication constellation that occurs when people from different cultural backgrounds meet. His statement 'culture is communication' inspired many scholars from anthropology, ethnography, cultural psychology and communication studies to attempt to offer causal explanations of communicative failure and success in intercultural contact. In actual fact, these analyses focus on psychological, cultural and communicative differences across cultures (cf.
Towards a pragmatic taxonomy of misunderstandings
The increasing emphasis given to the pragmatic perspective in the studies of everyday conversation over the last few decades has uncovered the reality which lies behind everyday conversation: the fact that communication is subject to risk and effort, and that we understand each other through continuous fallible hypotheses about our interlocutor’s intended interpretation. In this study, I address misunderstandings from a pragmatic (mainly relevance-theoretic) approach and analyse the reasons why they occur in face-to-face interaction. The main hypothesis underlying this paper is that all the possible varieties of misunderstanding can be accounted for in the outcome of the combination of three preliminary continua: intentional vs. unintentional; verbal vs. nonverbal; and explicit vs. implicit, which yields a taxonomy of twelve possible cases.