1887
Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Based on a large dataset of Russian material, the paper presents these general features of the home: a place to spend leisure time containing a long-established group of different ages and sexes free to move about in their environment These factors lead to tension between communicants and a diversity of topics of conversation. Inadequate recipient design is an overarching trigger for misunderstanding caused by the speaker. It derives from poor concentration on interaction and the common ground fallacy, and leads to the frequent use of indirect and elliptical expressions. Inadequate concentration causes the recipient to non-listen and overguess. Finally, misunderstandings occur because of mishearings, misinterpretations and misreferences. Misinterpretation may concern the content, intention or mode of the message.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00074.mus
2020-12-04
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anokhina, Viktoria
    2008 “Strategii i taktiki kommunikativnogo povedeniia v maloi sotsial’noi gruppe (sem’e)” [Strategies and tactics of communication behaviour v small social groups (family)]. Vestnik Staropol’skogo gоsudarstvennogo universiteta56, 64–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anokhina, Viktoria and Oksana Kravtchenko
    2017 ”Povsednevnaia kommunikatsiia v strategiiakh i taktikakh obikhodno-bytovogo obshcheniia (na materiele semeinoi rechi)” [Everyday communication in strategies and taktics of mundane interaction (on a material of family talk)]. Taganrog: Izd. Voloshina O.I.
  3. Baikulova, Alla
    2012Neofitsial’noe obshchenie i ego raznovidnosti: kriterii vydeleniia i real’noe funktsionirovanie [Unofficial interaction and its varieties: criteria for selection and actual functioning]. Saratov: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2014Ustnoe neofitisal’noe obstshenie i ego raznovidnosti: povsednevnaia rech’ gorozhan” [Oral unofficial interaction and its varieties: everyday speech of citizens]. Saratov: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2016 “Kommunikativnye riski v sfere neofitsial’nogo obshcheniia” [Communication risks in unofficial discourse]. InRiskogennost’ sovremennoi kommunikatsii i rol’ kommunikativnoi kompetentnosti v eë preodoleniia [Susceptibility to risk of contemporary communication and the role of communicative competence in competing with it], ed. byO. B. Sirotinina and M. A. Kormilitsyna. 99–113. Saratov: Izd. Saratovskogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Benjamin Michael Alex
    2019 ““We’re just family, you know?” Exploring the discourses of family in gay parents’ relational talk.” Journal of Family Communication19(3): 213–227. 10.1080/15267431.2019.1590365
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1590365 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand
    1999 “The unbearable automaticity of being.” American Psychologist54(7): 462–476. 10.1037/0003‑066X.54.7.462
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazzanella, Carla
    2019 “The compex process of mis/understanding spatial feixis in face-to-face interaction.” soprag (Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics)7(1): 1–18. 10.1515/soprag‑2019‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2019-0004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergman, Mats
    2001 “Misunderstanding, and successful communication.” Acta Philosophica Fennica69: 67–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beukeboom, Camiel J. and Elisabeth M. de Jong
    2008 “When feelings speak: How affective and proprioceptive cues change language abstraction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology27(2): 110–122. 10.1177/0261927X080270020301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X080270020301 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blokpoel, Mark, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Pim Haselager, Ivan Toni, and Iris van Rooij
    2012 “Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking?” Frontiers of Human Neuroscience6, article 253. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolden, Galina B.
    2017 “Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation.” InImperative Turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. byMarja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 175–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.06bol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.06bol [Google Scholar]
  13. Bova, Antonio
    2019 “Parental strategies in argumentative dialogues with their children in mealtimes.” Language and Dialogue9(3): 444–470. 10.1075/ld.00048.bov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00048.bov [Google Scholar]
  14. Braithwaite, Dawn O. and Leslie A. Baxter
    (eds.) 2006Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brennan, Susan E. and Michael Schober
    2001 “How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech.” Journal of Memory and Language44(2): 274–296. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, Gillian
    1995Speakers, listeners and communication: Explorations in discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620942
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620942 [Google Scholar]
  17. Canary, Daniel J. and Heather E. Canary
    2014 “Conflict in close relationships.” InInterpersonal communication, ed. byChares R. Berger. 177–199. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110276794.177
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276794.177 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carling, Gerd, Lenny Lindell, and Gilbert Ambrazaitis
    2014Scandoromani: Remnants of a Mixed Language. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004266452
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266452 [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan
    1991 “Grounding in communication.” InPerspectives on socially shared cognition, ed. byLauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley. 127–149. Washington, DC: APA Books. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Côté, Isabel and Kévin Lavoie
    2019 “A child wanted by two, conceived by several: Lesbian-parent families negotiating procreation with a known donor.” Journal of GLET Family Studies15(2): 165–185. 10.1080/1550428X.2018.1459216
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2018.1459216 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dascal, Marcelo
    1999 “Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding.” Journal of Pragmatics31(6): 753–762. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00059‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Demorest, Amy, Lisa Silberstein, Howard Gardner, and Ellen Winner
    1983 “Telling it as it isn’t: Children’s understanding of figurative language.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology1: 121–134. 10.1111/j.2044‑835X.1983.tb00550.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1983.tb00550.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2015 “When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity” Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion Ausgabe16: 63–101. www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2015/ga-deppermann.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dijksterhuis, Ap
    2004 “Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(5): 586–598. 10.1037/0022‑3514.87.5.586
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dragojevic, Marko and Howard Giles
    2014 “Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics.” InInterpersonal communication, ed. byChares R. Berger. 29–51. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110276794.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276794.29 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dragojevic, Marko, Jessica Gasiorek, and Howard Giles
    2016 “Accommodative strategies as core of the theory.” InCommunication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts, ed. byHoward Giles. 36–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316226537.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Epley, Nicholas
    2008 “Solving the (real) other minds problem.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass2(3): 1455–1474. 10.1111/j.1751‑9004.2008.00115.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00115.x [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]. InRusskii iazyk i ego funktsionirovanie: kommunikativno-pragmaticheskii aspect [The Russian language and its functioning: a communicative-pragmatic aspect], ed. byElena A. Zemskaia. 90–157. Moscow: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. EUROSTAT
    EUROSTAT 2018People in the EU – statistics on household and family structures. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_in_the_EU_-_statistics_on_household_and_family_structures#Familiesretrieved15.03.2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Falkner, Wolfgang
    1997Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an einem Korpus englischer und deutscher Beispiele [Understanding, misunderstanding and miscommunication: studies on the basis of corpus with English and German instances]. Tübingen: Niemayer. 10.1515/9783110929638
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110929638 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ferreira, Victor S., L. Robert Slevc, and Erin S. Rogers
    2005 “How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?” Cognition96(3): 263–284. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  33. Firth, Alan
    2009 “The Lingua Franca factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics6(2): 147–170. 10.1515/IPRG.2009.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.009 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gander, Anna Jia
    2018Understanding in real-time communication: Micro-feedback and meaning repair in face-to-face and video-mediated intercultural interactions. PhD dissertation. University of Gothenburg, Dept. of Applied Information Technology. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/56223/1/gupea_2077_56223_1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gauker, Christopher
    1992 “The Lockean theory of communication.” Noûs26 (3). 10.2307/2215956
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2215956 [Google Scholar]
  36. Giles, Howard
    (ed.) 2016Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316226537
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gordon, Cynthia
    2009Making meanings, creating family: Intertextuality and framing in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373820.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grebenshchikova, Tatiana V. and Irina A. Zachesova
    2014Psikhologiia povsednevnogo diskursa: Intentsional’nyi aspect [Psychology of everyday discourse: Intentional aspect]. Moscow: Izd. “Institut psikhologii RAN”
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and conversation”. InSyntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. byPeter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gu, Yueguo
    1994 “Pragmatics and rhetoric: A collaborative approach to conversation.” InPretending to communicate, ed. byHerman Parret. 173–195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110847116.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847116.173 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hesse, Colin, Emily A. Rauscherb, Rebecca Budesky Goodman, and Monica A. Couvrette
    2017 “Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in Family Communication Patterns Theory”. Journal of Family Communication17(4): 319–337. 10.1080/15267431.2017.1347568
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1347568 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hinnenkamp, Volker
    2003 “Misunderstandings: Interactional Structure and Strategic Resources.” InMisunderstandings in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, edited byJuliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross. 57–81. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Honghui, Zhou and Chen Dongchun
    2019 “Understanding misunderstandings from socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics.” International Journal of Language and Linguistics7 (5): 194–201. 10.11648/j.ijll.20190705.13
    https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20190705.13 [Google Scholar]
  44. House, Juliane, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross
    2003 “Misunderstanding talk”. InMisunderstandings in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk, ed. byJuliane House, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross. 1–21. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Huang, Li-Ning
    1999 “Family communication patterns and personality characteristics.” Communication Quarterly47(2): 230–243. 10.1080/01463379909370136
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379909370136 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hummert, Mary Lee
    2019 “Intergenerational communication”. InLanguage, communication and intergroup relations, ed. byJake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum, and Cindy Gallois. 130–161. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kecskes, Istvan
    2010 “The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics and Society1(1): 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017a “Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances: From lexis to discourse.” InImplicitness: From lexis to discourse, ed. byPiotr Cap and Marta Dynel. 201–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.276.09kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.09kec [Google Scholar]
  49. 2017b “Sequential structure of discourse segments shaped by the interplay of recipient design or salience.” InFormal models in the study of language, ed. byJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman-Tame, and Christopher Laenzlinger. C. Chan: Springer Moescher. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_13 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kecskes, Istvan and Monika Kirner-Ludwig
    2019 “«Odd structures» in English as a lingua franca discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics151: 76–90. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kecskes, Istvan and Fenghui Zhang
    2009 “Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition17(2): 331–355. 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec [Google Scholar]
  52. Kemper, Susan
    1994 “«Elderspeak»: Speech accommodation to older adults.” Aging and Cognition1(1): 17–28. 10.1080/09289919408251447
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09289919408251447 [Google Scholar]
  53. Keysar, Boaz
    2007 “Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics4(1): 71–85. 10.1515/IP.2007.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Keysar, Boaz and Anne S. Henly
    2002 “Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness.” Psychological Science13: 207–212. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00439
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00439 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kildare, Cory A. and Wendy Middlemiss
    2017 “Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review.” Computers in Human Behavior75: 579–593. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Klushina, Natalia I., Anna V. Liulikova, Anastasia V. Nikolaeva, Larisa V. Selezneva, Elena Yu. Skorokhodova, and Irina A. Tortunova
    2019 “Language use nowadays in Russian communication: Specifics and trends.” Language and Dialogue9(3): 444–470. 10.1075/ld.00051.klu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00051.klu [Google Scholar]
  57. Klötzl, Svitlana
    2014 “«Maybe just things we grew up with»: Linguistic and cultural hybridity in ELF couple talk.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca3(1): 27–48. 10.1515/jelf‑2014‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2014-0002 [Google Scholar]
  58. Koerner, Ascan F.
    2014 “Family communication.” InInterpersonal Communication, ed. byChares R. Berger. 177–199. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110276794.419
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110276794.419 [Google Scholar]
  59. Koerner, Ascan F. and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick
    2002 “Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation.” Annals of the International Communication Association26(1): 36–65. 10.1080/23808985.2002.11679010
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2002.11679010 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2006 “Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach.” InEngaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives, ed. byDawn O. Braithwaite and Leslie A. Baxter. 50–65. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781452204420.n4
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204420.n4 [Google Scholar]
  61. 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 Psychology89(6): 925–936. 10.1037/0022‑3514.89.6.925
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 [Google Scholar]
  62. Linell, Per
    1995 “Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication.” InMutualities in Dialogue, edited byIvana Marková, Carl Graumann, and Klaus Foppa. 176–213. Cambridge: University Press 1995.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2010 “Communication activity types as organisations in discourse and discourses in organisations”. InDiscourses in interaction, ed. bySanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, and Mia Raitaniemi. 33–59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.203.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.203.05lin [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 “Mishearings are occasioned by contextual assumptions and situational affordances.” Language & Communication40: 24–37. 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  65. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2017 “Evidence and presumptions for analysing and detecting misunderstandings.” Pragmatics and Cognition24(2): 263–296. 10.1075/pc.17034.mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17034.mac [Google Scholar]
  66. Mazarella, Diana and Nausicaa Pouscoulous
    2020 “Pragmatics and epistemic vigilance: A developmental perspective.” Mind & Language, 1–22. 10.1111/mila.12287
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12287 [Google Scholar]
  67. Mustajoki, Arto
    2011 “Pochemu obshchenie na lingua franca udaetsia tak khorosho.” [Why interaction in a lingua franca is so successful]. InIazyki sosedej: mosty ili bar’ery? [Languages of neighbours: bridges or obstacles?], ed. byNikolai B. Vakhtin. 10–31. St. Petersburg: Izd. Evropeiskogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2012 “A Speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue2(2): 216–242. 10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus [Google Scholar]
  69. 2013 “Risks of miscommunication in various speech genres.” InUnderstanding by Communication, ed. byElena Borisova and Olga Souleimanova. 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ. hdl.handle.net/10138/39226
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2017a “The issue of theorizing: Object-of-study and methodology.” InLanguage and dialogue: A handbook of key issues in the field, ed. byEdda Weigand. 234–250. New York: Routledge. hdl.handle.net/10138/297726
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2017b “Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation?” InCurrent Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series), ed. byIstvan Kecskes and Stavros Assimakopoulos. 55–74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.274.04mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.04mus [Google Scholar]
  72. 2020 “The democratization of Russian.” InThe soft power of the Russian language: Pluricentricity, politics and policies, ed. byArto Mustajoki, Ekaterina Protassova, and Maria Yelenevskaya. 21–34. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Mustajoki, Arto and Tatiana Sherstinova
    2017 “The ‘Retrospective Commenting’ Method for longitudinal recordings of everyday speech.” InSpeech and Computer. SPECOM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.10458, ed. byAlexey Karpov, Rodmonga Potapova, Iosif Mporas. 1–9. Heidelberg: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova, and Ulla Tuomarla
    2018 “Types and functions of pseudodialogues.” InFrom Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes. 189–215. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31.10mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.10mus [Google Scholar]
  75. Newman-Norlund, Sarah E., Matthijs L. Noordzij, Roger D. Newman-Norlund, Inge A. C. Volman, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Peter Hagoort, and Ivan Toni
    2009 “Recipient design in tacit communication.” Cognition111(1): 46–54. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  76. Penderi, Efthymia and Galini Rekalidou
    2016 “Young children’s views concerning distribution of clean-up duties in the classroom: Responsibility and self-interest.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal24(5): 734–747. 10.1080/1350293X.2016.1213566
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2016.1213566 [Google Scholar]
  77. Peräkylä, Antti and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    (ed.) 2012Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  78. Pickering, Martin J. and Chiare Gambi
    2018 “Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review”. Psychological Bulletin144(10): 1002–1044. 10.1037/bul0000158
    https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158 [Google Scholar]
  79. Pietikäinen, Kaisa S.
    2016 “Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk.” Applied Linguistics, 1–26. 10.1093/applin/amw005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw005 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2017English as a lingua franca in intercultural relationships : Interaction, identity, and multilingual practices of ELF couples.” University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/225905/Englisha.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Pitts, Margaret Jane and Jake Harwood
    2015 “Communication accommodation competence: The nature and nurture of accommodative resources across the lifespan.” Language and Communication41: 89–99. 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  82. Protassova, Ekaterina and Maria D. Voeikova
    2007 ”Diminutives in Russian at the early stages ofacquisition.” InThe acquisition of diminutives: Across-linguistic perspective, ed. byIneta Savickiene and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 43–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lald.43.03pro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.43.03pro [Google Scholar]
  83. Ringblom, Natalia and Sviatlana Karpava
    2020 “Family language policy, Russian language use, maintenance, and transmission in Cyprus and Sweden.” InThe soft power of the Russian language: Pluricentricity, politics and policies, ed. byArto Mustajoki, Ekaterina Protassova, and Maria Yelenevskaya. 237–245. London, New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429061110‑20
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429061110-20 [Google Scholar]
  84. Ritter, Anna
    2017 “What is a family language? Bilingual and/or monolingual speech in Russian-German immigrant families in Germany.” InProceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, ed. byElena Babatsouli. 244–250. Chania, Greece: Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech. ismbs.eu/data/documents/ISMBS-2017-Proceedings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Salavirta, Anna
    2019 “Lingvistichheskii kubik Rubika: Perekljuchenie koda v trëkhiazychnoj sem’e kak sposob kommunikatsii.” [Linguistic Rubik’s cube: code switching as a means of communication in a trilingual family]. InSlavica Helsingiensia52, ed. byAhti Nikunlassi and Ekaterina Protassova. 287–301. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/slavica-helsingiensia/files/2019/11/sh52-21.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar
    2009 “Less is more: a minimalist account of joint action in communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science1(2): 260–273. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2009.01018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01018.x [Google Scholar]
  87. Sarangi, Srikant K. and Stefaan Slembrouck
    1992 “Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics17(2): 117–154. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90037‑C
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90037-C [Google Scholar]
  88. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    (ed.) 2012Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214215 [Google Scholar]
  89. Segrin, Chris and Jeanne Flora
    2005Family communication. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Speer, Rebecca B., Howard Giles, and Amanda Denes
    2013 “Investigating stepparent-stepchild interactions: The role of communication accommodation.” Journal of Family Communication13(3): 218–241. 10.1080/15267431.2013.768248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.768248 [Google Scholar]
  91. Soliz, Jordan and Kaitlin E. Phillips
    2018 “Toward a more expansive understanding of family communication: Considerations for inclusion of ethnic-racial and global diversity.” Journal of Family communication18 (1): 5–12. 10.1080/15267431.2017.1399890
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1399890 [Google Scholar]
  92. Soliz, Jordan, Allison R. Thorson, and Christine E. Rittenour
    2009 ”Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families.” Journal of Marriage and Family71(4): 819–832. 10.1111/j.1741‑3737.2009.00637.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00637.x [Google Scholar]
  93. Stalnaker, Robert C.
    1978 “Assertion.” InSyntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. byPeter Cole. 315–332. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  94. Taylor, Talbot J.
    1992Mutual misunderstanding: Scepticism and the theorizing of language and interpretation. Durban, London: Duke University Press. 10.1215/9780822383000
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383000 [Google Scholar]
  95. Todd, Andrew R., Matthias Forstmann, Pascal Burgmer
    2015 “Anxious and egocentric: How specific emotions influence perspective taking.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, General144(2): 374–391. 10.1037/xge0000048
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000048 [Google Scholar]
  96. Todd, Andrew R., Karlene Hanko, Adam D. Galinsky, and Thomas Mussweiler
    2011 “When focusing on differences leads to similar perspectives.” Psychological Science22(1): 134–141. 10.1177/0956797610392929
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392929 [Google Scholar]
  97. Tzanne, Angeliki
    2000Talking at cross-purposes: The dynamics of miscommunication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.62
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.62 [Google Scholar]
  98. van Brakel, Jaap
    2006 “De-essentialising across the board no need to speak the same language.” Rechtstheorie & Rechtspraktijk35: 263–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. van Mensel, Luk
    2018 ”“Quiere koffie?” The multilingual familylect of transcultural families.” International Journal of Multilingualism15(3): 233–248. 10.1080/14790718.2018.1477096
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1477096 [Google Scholar]
  100. Vendler, Zeno
    1994 “Understanding misunderstanding.” Language, mind, and art: Essays in appreciation and analysis in honor of Paul Ziff, ed. byDale Jamieson. 9–21. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8313‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8313-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  101. Vepreva, Irina
    2005 “Kommunikativnye poraženiia na semejnom fronte.” [Communicative defeats on a family front]. InSem’ia: meždu nasiliem and toleranatnost’iu [Family: between violence and tolerance], ed. byMaria A. Litovskaia and Olga V. Shaburova. 360–365. Ekaterinburg: Izd. Ural’skogo universiteta.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Verdonik, Darinka
    2010 “Between understanding and misunderstanding.” Journal of Pragmatics42(5): 1364–1379. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  103. Weigand, Edda
    1999 “Misunderstanding: The standard case.” Journal of Pragmatics31(6): 763–785. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  104. 2004 “Emotions: The simple and the complex.” InEmotions in dialogic interaction, ed. byEdda Weigand. 3–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.248.03wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.248.03wei [Google Scholar]
  105. 2011 “Paradigm changes in linguistics: from reductionism to holism.” Language Sciences33(4): 544–549. 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ylänne-McEwen, Virpi and Nicolas Coupland
    2000 “Accommodation Theory: A conceptual resource for intercultural sociolinguistics.” In: Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk across Cultures, ed. byHelen Spencer-Oatey. 191–214. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Yus, Francisco
    1999 “Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication.” Pragmatics9(4): 487–517. 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus [Google Scholar]
  108. Zanadvorova, Anna
    2001Finktsionirovanie russkogo iazyka v malykh sotsial’nykh gruppakh (rechevoe obshchenie v sem’e). [Functioning of the Russian language in small social groups (oral interaction in a family)]. PhD dissertation. Moscow.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Zhang, Yan Bing and Margaret Jane Pitts
    2019 “Interpersonal accommodation.” InLanguage, Communication and Intergroup Relations, ed. byJake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum and Cindy Gallois. 192–216. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00074.mus
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00074.mus
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error