Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allwood, Jens & Yanhia Abelar
    1984 Lack of understanding, misunderstanding and language acquisition. InGuus Extra & Michèle Mittner (eds.), Studies in second language acquisition by adult immigrants, 27–55. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Atlas, Jay David & Stephen Levinson
    1981 It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bazzanella, Carla & Rossana Damiano
    1999 The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics31(6). 817–836. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00058‑7linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378216698000587.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bench-Capon, Trevor & Henry Prakken
    2010 Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law18(2). 153–174. 10.1007/s10506‑010‑9094‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9094-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bigi, Sarah
    2011 The persuasive role of ethos in doctor–patient interactions. Communication and Medicine8. 67–75. 10.1558/cam.v8i1.67
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v8i1.67 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2014a Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. InGiovanni 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. 10.3233/978‑1‑61499‑425‑1‑193
    https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-425-1-193 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain
    1986 Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition8(2). 165–179. 10.1017/S0272263100006069
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100006069 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brennan, Susan & Herbert Clark
    1996 Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition22(6). 1482–1493. 10.1037/0278‑7393.22.6.1482
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaiken, Shelly & Yaacov Trope
    (eds.) 1999Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, Herbert & Susan Brennan
    1991 Grounding in communication. InLauren Resnick, John Levine & Stephanie Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. Washington: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dascal, Marcelo
    2003Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.120 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dascal, Marcelo & Isidoro Berenstein
    1987 Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language & Communication7(2). 139–151. 10.1016/0271‑5309(87)90004‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(87)90004-8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dewey, John
    1938Logic – The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dijk, Teun van & Walter Kintsch
    1983Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Evans, Jonathan
    2003 In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(10). 454–459. 10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  17. Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti & Ofer Fein
    2017 The role of defaultness in affecting pleasure: The optimal innovation hypothesis revisited. Metaphor and Symbol32(1). 1–18. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1272934 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grimshaw, Allen D.
    1980 Mishearings, misunderstandings, and other nonsuccesses in talk: A plea for redress of speaker-oriented bias. Sociological Inquiry50(3–4). 31–74. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00016.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00016.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Gumperz, John
    1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gumperz, John & Deborah Tannen
    1979 Individual and social differences in language use. InCharles Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 305–325. New York: Academic Press New York. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑255950‑1.50024‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50024-X [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamblin, Charles Leonard
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Humphreys-Jones, Claire
    1986An investigation of the types and structure of misunderstandings. Newcastle University.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kaur, Jagdish
    2011 Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics8(1). 93–116. 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kecskes, Istvan
    2008 Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics40(3). 385–406. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010a The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society1(1). 50–73. 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010b Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics42(11). 2889–2897. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378216610001803.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2015 Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different?International Review of Pragmatics7. 171–194. 10.1163/18773109‑00702002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kecskes, Istvan & 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]
  30. Kissine, Mikhail
    2012 Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. InKeith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 169–190. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Levinson, Stephen
    1992 Activity types and language. InPaul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  32. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2011 The presumptions of meaning: Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic31(4). 367. 10.22329/il.v31i4.3326
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i4.3326 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017 Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics117. 280–290. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2018 Assessing relevance. Lingua210–211. 42–64. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi
    2017a Understanding misunderstandings: Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor–patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics14(1). 49–75. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0003 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2017b Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies19(2). 148–168. 10.1177/1461445617691702
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702 [Google Scholar]
  37. Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
    2017Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑62545‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mauranen, Anna
    2006 Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language177. 123–150. 10.1515/IJSL.2006.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IJSL.2006.008 [Google Scholar]
  39. Milroy, Lesley
    1984 Comprehension and context: Successful communication and communicative breakdown. InPeter Trudgill (ed.), Applied sociolinguistics, 7–31. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moeschler, Jacques
    2004 Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics1(1). 49–70. 10.1515/iprg.2004.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2007 The role of explicature in intercultural communication. InIstvan Kecskes & Laurence Horn (eds.), Explorations in pragmatics: linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects, 73–94. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mustajoki, Arto
    2008 Modelling of (mis)communication. Prikladna lingvistika ta ligvistitshni tehnologii Megaling-2007, 250–267. Kiev: Dovira.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2012 A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue2(2). 216–243. 10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus [Google Scholar]
  44. Recanati, François
    2002 Does linguistic communication rest on inference?Mind and Language17(1–2). 105–126. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00191
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00191 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rescher, Nicholas
    2006Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511498848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848 [Google Scholar]
  46. Romero-Trillo, Jesús & Elizabeth Lenn
    2011 Do you “(mis)understand” what I mean? Pragmatic strategies to avoid cognitive maladjustment. Journal of English Studies9. 223–241. 10.18172/jes.173
    https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.173 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Jefferson & Gail Schegloff
    1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4). 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sayer, Inaad Mutlib
    2013 Misunderstanding and language comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences70. 738–748. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.118
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.118 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson
    1977Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1987 Some sources of understanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics25. 201–218. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sacks
    1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2). 361–382. 10.2307/413107
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413107 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schlesinger, Izchak & Sharon Hurvitz
    2008 The structure of misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition16(3). 568–585. 10.1075/pc.16.3.07sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.07sch [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2003 An outline of the role of context in comprehension. InEwald Mengel, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Michael Steppat (eds.), Anglistentag 2002 Bayreuth. Proceedings, 435–445. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Thomas, Jenny
    1983 Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics4. 91–112. 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 [Google Scholar]
  56. Tzanne, Angeliki
    2000Talking at cross-purposes: The dynamics of miscommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.62
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.62 [Google Scholar]
  57. Uleman, James
    1999 Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation. InShelly Chaiken & Yaacov Trope (eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, 141–160. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Uleman, James, Adil Saribay & Celia Gonzalez
    2008 Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology59(1). 329–360. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707 [Google Scholar]
  59. Vendler, Zeno
    1994 Understanding misunderstanding. InDale Jamieson (ed.), Language, mind, and art, 9–21. Amsterdam: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8313‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8313-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
  61. Wagner, Edward H., Brian T. Austin, Connie Davis, Mike Hindmarsh, Judith Schaefer & Amy Bonomi
    2001 Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs20(6). 64–78. 10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64
    https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64 [Google Scholar]
  62. Walton, Douglas
    2002Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Walton, Douglas & Fabrizio Macagno
    2016 Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic36(4). 523. 10.22329/il.v36i4.4586ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/4586.
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586 [Google Scholar]
  64. Walton, Douglas & Chris Reed
    2008 Evaluating corroborative evidence. Argumentation22(4). 531–553. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9104‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9104-0 [Google Scholar]
  65. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  66. Weigand, Edda
    1999 Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics31. 763–785. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  67. 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. 10.1109/ASSURE.2013.6614264ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6614264/.
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ASSURE.2013.6614264 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wyner, Adam & Trevor Bench-Capon
    2007 Argument schemes for legal case-based reasoning. InArno 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]
  69. 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]
  70. Zaefferer, Dietmar
    1977 Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics1(4). 329–346. 10.1016/0378‑2166(77)90027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90027-3 [Google Scholar]

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