Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by István Kecskés and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 55–74

Chapter 3
Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation?

| University of Helsinki
This paper tries to find explanations for the controversial observation that there are more cases of miscommunication in everyday than in lingua franca conversation. Besides reasoning related to language, attention is paid to communicative, mental, and psychological factors. The argument pursued is that the differences in the communicants’ mental worlds in cross-cultural encounters are usually compensated by intensive concentration on communication and appropriate recipient design. In encounters with people we know well, on the other hand, there is a higher risk of common ground fallacy, which leads to underestimation of differences in mental worlds, especially those in recent experience. A further factor to consider here is the inherent limitations of human cognition which cause people to avoid cognitive efforts when appropriate.
Keywords: miscommunication, lingua franca, everyday conversation, recipient design, common ground fallacy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The mental worlds of communicants
  • 3.Features of everyday and lingua franca conversation
    • 3.1Everyday conversation
    • 3.2Lingua franca conversation
      • 3.2.1Intensive concentration on communication but not on the tool of interaction
      • 3.2.2Linguistic simplification of speech
      • 3.2.3Reduction of the goals of communication
      • 3.2.4Proper use of recipient design
  • 4.Process of communication
    • 4.1The starting point: what the Speaker wants to say
    • 4.2Which Form will be chosen for the Meaning?
    • 4.3What happens when articulating the utterance?
    • 4.4Does the utterance reach the Recipient?
    • 4.5Failures in the interpretation of Meaning
    • 4.6Misreference
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.04mus
References (50)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [Translation of Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva]. Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Banks, Stephen P., Gao Ge, and Joyce Baker. 1991. “Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication.” In “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk, ed. by Nicolas Coupland, Howard Giles, and John M., 103–120. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54: 462–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., and Boaz Keysar. 2005. “Making Sense of how we Make Sense: The Paradox of Egocentrism in Language Use.” In Figurative Language Comprehension, ed. by Herbert L. Colston, and Albert N. Kayz, 21–43. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berger, Charles R. 2007. “A Tale of Two Communication Modes: When Rational and Experiential Processing Systems Encounter Statistical and Anecdotal Depictions of Threat.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26: 215–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., and Michael Schober. 2001. “How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech.” Journal of Memory and Language 44: 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian. 1995. Speakers, Listeners and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürig, Kristian and Jan D ten Thije (eds). 2006. Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiera, Alessandra. 2014. “Language in Interaction: The Role of Conscious Processes in Conversation.” Academic Journal of Modern Philology 3: 7–16.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2003. “Language and Representations.” In Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, ed. by Dedre Gentner, and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 17–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cogo, Alessia and Martin Dewey. 2006. “Efficiency in ELF Communication: From Pragmatic Motives to Lexico-grammatical Innovation.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 5: 59–93.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2004. “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87: 586–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrick, Martin. 1985. Gegenseitiges (Miss-)Verstehen in der dyadischen Kommunikation. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
Dostoyevsky, F. M. 1989. Sobranie sochinenii v 15 tomakh (tom 4) [Selected writings in 15 volumes (vol. 4)]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Epley, Nicholas. 2008. “Solving the (Real) Other Minds Problem.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/3: 1455–1474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ermakova, Olga P., and Elena A. Zemskaia. 1993. “K postroeniiu tipologii kommunikativnykh neudach (na materiale estestvennogo russkogo iazyka)” [On constructing a typology of communicative failures on the basis of authentic Russian material]. In Russkii iazyk i ego funktsionirovanie: kommunikativno-pragmaticheskii aspekt [Russian language and its functions: communicative-pragmatic aspects], ed. by E. A. Zemskaia, 90–157. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Falkner, Wolfgang. 1997. Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an Einem Korpus Englischer und Deutscher Beispiele. Tübingen: Niemayer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., L. Robert Slevc, and Erin S. Rogers. 2005. “How Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguous Linguistic Expressions?” Cognition 96: 263–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freed, Barbara F. 1981. “Foreigner Talk, Baby Talk, Native Talk.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 28: 19–39.Google Scholar
Goel, Vinod, and Raymond Rolan. 2003. “Explaining Modulation of Reasoning by Belief.” Cognition, 87: B11–B22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundacker, Julia. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca between Couples: Motivations and Limitations. Diplomarbeit, Unversität Wien.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. “Diverging Interpretations Associated with Perspectives of the Speaker and Recipient in Conversations.” Journal of Memory and Language 53: 551–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross. 2003. “Misunderstanding Talk.” In Misunderstandings in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, ed. by Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross, 1–21. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2009. “‘We don’t take the right way, we just take the way that we think you will understand’ — The Shifting Relationship between Correctness and Effectiveness in ELF.” In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, ed. by Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta, 323–347. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing,Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2003. “Rethinking Linguistic Creativity.” In Rethinking Linguistics, ed. by Hayley G. Davis, and Talbot J. Taylor, 121–150. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. ”Intercultural Communication in English as a Lingua Franca: Some Sources of Misunderstanding.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1: 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. “Communication and Miscommunication: The Role of Egocentric Processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4: 71–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, and Anne S. Henly. 2002. “Speakers’ Overestimation of their Effectiveness.” Psychological Science 13: 207–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Justin, Nicolas Epley, Jason Parker, and Zhi-Wen Ng. 2005. “Egocentrism Over E-mail: Can we Communicate as Well as we Think.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 925–936. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2015. “Mishearings are Occasioned by Contextual Assumptions and Situational Affordances.” Language & Communication 40: 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2010. “Features of English as a Lingua Franca in Academia.” Helsinki English Studies 6: 6–28.Google Scholar
. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna, and Elina Ranta (eds). 2006. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2010. “Types of Non-standard Communication Encounters with Special Reference to Russian.” In Language Ideologies in Transition Multilingualism in Russia and Finland, ed. by Mika Lahteenmaki and Marjatta Vanhala-Aniszewski, 35–55. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Pochemu obshchenie na lingua franca udaetsia tak khorosho [Why interaction in a lingua franca is so successful].” In iazyki sosedei: Mosty ili bar’ery? Problemy dvuiazychnoi kommunikatsii [Language neighbours: bridges or barriers? Bilingual communication problems], ed. by Nikolai Vakhtin, 10–31. St Petersburg: Institut ligvisticheskikh issledovanii RAN, Evropeiskii universitet.Google Scholar
. 2012. “A Speaker-oriented Multidimensional Approach to Risks and Causes of Miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue 2: 216–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Risks of Miscommunication in Various Speech Genres.” In Understanding by Communication, ed. by Elena Borisova, and Olga Souleimanova, 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E, Kaiping Peng, Incheol Choi, and Ara Norenzayan. 2001. “Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic versus Analytic Cognition.” Psychological Review 108: 291–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, Robert 2003. English-only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polikarpov, A. O. 2012, “O sistemnom sootnoshenii aktivnoi chasti slovarnogo soznaniia indiviiduma i obshchestva. [On the systemic relationship of the active part of word comprehension by individuals and society].” In Obydennoe metaiazykovoe soznanie: ontologicheskie i gnoseologicheskie aspekty (vol. 4) [Everyday metalinguistic consciousness: ontological and epistemological aspects (vol. 4)], ed. by N. D. Golev, 175–189. Kemorovo: Kemerovskii gos. Universitet.Google Scholar
Roziņa, Gunta. 2011. “Cross-cultural Pragmatics of Interactional Competence.” Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 1: 53–60.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. “Towards Making ‘Euro-English’ a Linguistic Reality.” In: World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Volume III, ed. by Kinsley Bolton, and Braj B. Kachru, 47–50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smokotin, Vladimir M., Anna S. Alekseyenko, and Galina I. Petrova. 2014. “The Phenomenon of Linguistic Globalization: English as the Global Lingua Franca (EGLF).” Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154: 509–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse, Context and Cognition.” Discourse Studies 8:159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1994. “Understanding Misunderstanding.” In Language, Mind, and Art: Essays in Appreciation and Analysis in Honor of Paul Ziff, ed. by Dale Jamieson, 9–21. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2003. Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und Kommunikative Grammatik (2nd edn). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

De Malsche, Fien, Els Tobback & Mieke Vandenbroucke
2024. Multilingualism in performance appraisal interviews: strategies to bridge language gaps. Frontiers in Communication 9 DOI logo
Thongphut, Aonrumpa & Jagdish Kaur
2024. Multiple repair solutions in response to open class repair initiators (OCRIs) in next turn. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Ryan, Jonathon
2023. Miscommunicated referent tracking in L2 English: a case-by-case analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:4 ► pp. 1543 ff. DOI logo
Ryan, Jonathon
2024. The big global issues: Applied linguists and transdisciplinarity beyond SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Sarkisov, Emil, Sergey Nikolaev & S.G. Eremeev
2021. Role and significance of global bilingualism in the convergence of real and virtual spaces (within their communicative segment). E3S Web of Conferences 311 ► pp. 06005 ff. DOI logo
Branets, Anna, Daria Bahtina & Anna Verschik
2020. Mediated receptive multilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10:3 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Hautamäki, Antti
2020. Conditions of a Philosophical Discussion. In Viewpoint Relativism [Synthese Library, 419], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2022. Avoidance of cognitive efforts as a risk factor in interaction. Discourse Studies 24:3 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo
Bazzanella, Carla
2019. The Complex Process of Mis/Understanding Spatial Deixis in Face-To-Face Interaction . Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hanusková, Magdalena
2019. Interactive repair among English as a lingua franca speakers in academic settings. Brno studies in English :2 ► pp. [35] ff. DOI logo
Kecskes, Istvan
2018. Intercultural Pragmatics. In Handbuch Pragmatik, ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova & Ulla Tuomarla
2018. Types and functions of pseudo-dialogues. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31], ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.