Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp.263–296

Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings

| IFILNOVA, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa

The detection and analysis of misunderstandings are crucial aspects of discourse analysis, and presuppose a twofold investigation of their structure. First, misunderstandings need to be identified and, more importantly, justified. For this reason, a classification of the types and force of evidence of a misunderstanding is needed. Second, misunderstandings reveal differences in the interlocutors’ interpretations of an utterance, which can be examined by considering the presumptions that they use in their interpretation. This paper proposes a functional approach to misunderstandings grounded on presumptive reasoning and types of presumptions, in which incompatible interpretations or interpretative failures are examined as defaults of the underlying interpretative reasoning, caused by overlooked evidence or conflicting presumptions. Moreover, it advances a classification of the types and the probative weights of the evidence that can be used to detect misunderstandings. The proposed methodology and its implications are illustrated through the analysis of doctor–patient communication in diabetes care.

Keywords: misunderstanding, interpretation, pragmatics, presumption, intercultural communication, intra-cultural communication, interpretative reasoning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defining misunderstanding
  • 3.Explaining misunderstandings
  • 4.Misunderstandings as problematic presumptive reasoning
    • 4.1Defaulting presumptions
    • 4.2Conflicting presumptions and lack of evidence
    • 4.3Conflicting presumptions and overlooked evidence
    • 4.4Conflicting and equivalent presumptions
  • 5.Presumptions and intercultural communication
  • 6.Evidence of misunderstandings
  • 7.Misunderstandings in doctor–patient communication
    • 7.1Meta-dialogical direct evidence
    • 7.2Meta-dialogical indirect evidence
    • 7.3Dialogical indirect evidence
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17034.mac
References
Allwood, Jens & Yanhia Abelar
1984 Lack of understanding, misunderstanding and language acquisition. In Guus Extra & Michèle Mittner (eds.), Studies in second language acquisition by adult immigrants, 27–55. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay David & Stephen Levinson
1981 It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla & Rossana Damiano
1999 The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6). 817–836. DOI logo [URL].
Bench-Capon, Trevor & Henry Prakken
2010 Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2). 153–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bigi, Sarah
2011 The persuasive role of ethos in doctor–patient interactions. Communication and Medicine 81. 67–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. In Giovanni Riva, Paolo Ajmone Marsan & Claudio Grassi (eds.), Active ageing and healthy living: A human centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life, 193–203. Amsterdam: IOS Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain
1986 Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8(2). 165–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan & Herbert Clark
1996 Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(6). 1482–1493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly & Yaacov Trope
(eds.) 1999 Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Susan Brennan
1991 Grounding in communication. In Lauren Resnick, John Levine & Stephanie Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo
2003 Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo & Isidoro Berenstein
1987 Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language & Communication 7(2). 139–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John
1938 Logic – The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun van & Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan
2003 In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(10). 454–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
2017 The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol 32(1). 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Allen D.
1980 Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 31–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John
1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John & Deborah Tannen
1979 Individual and social differences in language use. In Charles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 305–325. New York: Academic Press New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard
1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Humphreys-Jones, Claire
1986 An investigation of the types and structure of misunderstandings. Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Kaur, Jagdish
2011 Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(1). 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2008 Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 2889–2897. DOI logo [URL].
2013 Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics 71. 171–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang
2009 Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2012 Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 169–190. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1992 Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio
2011 The presumptions of meaning: Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic 31(4). 367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 1171. 280–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Assessing relevance. Lingua 210–211. 42–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi
2017a Understanding misunderstandings: Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor–patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 49–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2). 148–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2017 Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
2006 Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771. 123–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley
1984 Comprehension and context: Successful communication and communicative breakdown. In Peter Trudgill (ed.), Applied sociolinguistics, 7–31. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2004 Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1). 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The role of explicature in intercultural communication. In Istvan Kecskes & Laurence Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 73–94. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto
2008 Modelling of (mis)communication. Prikladna lingvistika ta ligvistitshni tehnologii Megaling-2007, 250–267. Kiev: Dovira.Google Scholar
2012 A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2(2). 216–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François
2002 Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language 17(1–2). 105–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
2006 Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Elizabeth Lenn
2011 Do you “(mis)understand” what I mean? Pragmatic strategies to avoid cognitive maladjustment. Journal of English Studies 91. 223–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Jefferson & Gail Schegloff
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sayer, Inaad Mutlib
2013 Misunderstanding and language comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 701. 738–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson
1977 Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel
1987 Some sources of understanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 251. 201–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks
1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak & Sharon Hurvitz
2008 The structure of misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition 16(3). 568–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2003 An outline of the role of context in comprehension. In Ewald Mengel, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Michael Steppat (eds.), Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth. Proceedings, 435–445. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny
1983 Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 41. 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzanne, Angeliki
2000 Talking at cross-purposes: The dynamics of miscommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uleman, James
1999 Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation. In Shelly Chaiken & Yaacov Trope (eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, 141–160. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Uleman, James, Adil Saribay & Celia Gonzalez
2008 Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology 59(1). 329–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1994 Understanding misunderstanding. In Dale Jamieson (ed.), Language, mind, and art, 9–21. Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verdonik, Darinka
2010 Between understanding and misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1364–1379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Edward H., Brian T. Austin, Connie Davis, Mike Hindmarsh, Judith Schaefer & Amy Bonomi
2001 Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs 20(6). 64–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
2002 Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Fabrizio Macagno
2016 Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic 36(4). 523. DOI logo [URL].
Walton, Douglas & Chris Reed
2008 Evaluating corroborative evidence. Argumentation 22(4). 531–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda
1999 Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 311. 763–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinstock, Charles B., John B. Goodenough & Ari Z. Klein
2013 Measuring assurance case confidence using Baconian probabilities. 2013 1st International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-Intensive Systems (ASSURE), 7–11. San Francisco: IEEE. DOI logo [URL].
Wyner, Adam & Trevor Bench-Capon
2007 Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. In Arno Lodder & Laurens Mommers (eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The twentieth annual conference, 139–149. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
1999 Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication. Pragmatics 9(4). 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaefferer, Dietmar
1977 Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics 1(4). 329–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Bigi, Sarah & Maria Grazia Rossi
2020. Considering Mono- and Multilingual Interactions on a Continuum: An Analysis of Interactions in Medical Settings. In Multilingual Healthcare [FOM-Edition, ], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio
2022. Coding relevance. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 36 ► pp. 100349 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio, Chrysi Rapanta, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus & Mercè Garcia-Milà
2022. Coding empathy in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 192 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi
2019. Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151 ► pp. 103 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
Rossi, Maria Grazia & Fabrizio Macagno
2020. Coding Problematic Understanding in Patient–provider Interactions. Health Communication 35:12 ► pp. 1487 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 2023. 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.