1887
Volume 27, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The phenomenon of is a recurrent feature of everyday life – sometimes a source of frustration, sometimes a site of blame. But misunderstandings can also be seen as getting interactants out of (as well as into) trouble. For example, misunderstandings may be produced to deal with disaffiliative implications of ‘not being on the same page,’ and as such they may be deployed as a resource for avoiding trouble. This paper examines misunderstanding as a pragmatic accomplishment, focusing on the uses to which it is put in interactions as a practice for dealing with threats to : the extent to which persons are aligned in terms of a current referent, activity, assessment, etc. A multimodal discourse analysis of audio and video recordings of naturally-occurring talk inspects moments in which misunderstandings are purported or displayed (rather than overtly invoked) as well as how such misunderstandings are oriented to as simply-repairable references, versus inferential matters more misaligned and potentially fraught. Rather than being a straightforward reflection of an experience of trouble with understanding, misunderstanding may also be collaboratively produced to manage practical challenges to intersubjectivity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob
2017-02-06
2019-11-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.27.1.03rob.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Antaki, Charles
    2012 “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.”Discourse Studies4: 531–547. doi: 10.1177/1461445612454074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454074 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, Benjamin
    2000 “Communicative Behavior and Conflict between African-American Customers and Korean Immigrant Retailers in Los Angeles.”Discourse & Society11: 86–108. doi: 10.1177/0957926500011001004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926500011001004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, Jack
    1993 “Ethnomethodology, Culture, and Implicature: Toward an Empirical Pragmatics.”Pragmatics3: 387–409. doi: 10.1075/prag.3.4.02bil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.3.4.02bil [Google Scholar]
  4. Bocéréan, C. , and M. Musiol
    2009 “Mutual Understanding Mechanism in Verbal Exchanges between Carers and Multiply-disabled Young People: An Interaction Structure Analysis.”Pragmatics19: 161–177. doi: 10.1075/prag.19.2.01boc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.2.01boc [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolden, Galina B. , Jenny Mandelbaum , and Sue Wilkinson
    2012 “Pursuing a Response by Repairing an Indexical Reference.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 137–155. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.673380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.673380 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bransford, John D. , and Marcia K. Johnson
    1972 “Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some Investigations of Comprehension and Recall.”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior11: 717–726. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(72)80006‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Buttny, Richard
    2012Talking Problems: Studies of Discursive Construction. New York: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameron, Deborah
    1998 “Is There Any Ketchup, Vera?’: Gender, Power and Pragmatics.”Discourse & Society9: 437–455. doi: 10.1177/0957926598009004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009004002 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2001Working with Spoken Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Craig, Robert T.
    2008 “The Rhetoric of ‘Dialogue’ in Metadiscourse: Possibility-impossibility Arguments and Critical Events.”InDialogue and Rhetoric, ed.byEdda Weigand, 55–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.2.06cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.2.06cra [Google Scholar]
  11. Craig, Robert T. , and Karen Tracy
    1995 “Grounded Practical Theory: The Case of Intellectual Discussion.”Communication Theory5: 248–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.1995.tb00108.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00108.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Dingemanse, M. , S.G. Roberts , J. Baranova , J. Blythe , P. Drew , S. Floyd , R.S. Gisladottir , K.H. Kendrick , S.C. Levinson , E. Manrique , and G. Rossi
    2015 “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.”PloS one10: e0136100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136100
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drew, Paul
    1997 “‘Open’ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation.”Journal of Pragmatics28: 69–101. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 “What Drives Sequences?”Research on Language & Social Interaction45: 61–68 doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646688 [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois , John W.
    2011 “Co-opting Intersubjectivity: Dialogic Rhetoric of the Self. InThe Rhetorical Emergence of Culture, ed.byC. Meyer, and F. Girke, 53–83. Oxford, UK: Berghahn.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Duranti, Alessandro
    2008 “Further Reflections on Reading Other Minds.”Anthropological Quarterly81: 483–494. doi: 10.1353/anq.0.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.0.0002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Finlay, Linda
    2009 “Reflexive Embodied Empathy: A Phenomenology of Participant-researcher Intersubjectivity.”The Humanist Psychologist33: 271–292. doi: 10.1207/s15473333thp3304_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473333thp3304_4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ekberg, Stuart
    2012 “Addressing a Source of Trouble Outside of the Repair Space.”Journal of Pragmatics44: 374–386. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Edwards, Derek
    2000 “Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral.”Research on Language and Social Interaction33: 347–373. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_01 [Google Scholar]
  20. Edwards, Derek , and Jonathan Potter
    1992Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eriksson, Mats
    2009 “Referring as Interaction: On the Interplay between Linguistic and Bodily Action.”Journal of Pragmatics41: 240–262. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fox, Barbara
    1999 Directions in Research: Language and the Body. Research on Language and Social Interaction32: 51–60. doi: 10.1080/08351813.1999.9683607
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1999.9683607 [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gillespie, Alex , and Flora Cornish
    2010 “Intersubjectivity: Toward a Dialogical Analysis.”Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior40: 19–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.2009.00419.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00419.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    1978 “Response Cries.”Language54: 787–815. doi: 10.2307/413235
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413235 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Action.”Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodwin, Marjorie. H.
    1983 “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations.”Journal of Pragmatics7: 657–677. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90089‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90089-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haddington, Pentti
    2006 “The Organization of Gaze and Assessments as Resources for Stance Taking.”Text & Talk26: 281–328. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, Barbara
    2010 “Interaction is Insufficient: Why we Need Intersubjectivity in Course Room Discourse.”Journal of eLearning and Online Teaching1: 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Harwood, Irene N.H. , Walter Stone, Walter , and Malcolm Pines
    2012Self Experiences in Group, Revisited: Affective Attachments, Intersubjective Regulations, and Human Understanding. London, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Haselow, Alexander
    2012 “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Negotiation of Common Ground in Spoken Discourse: Final Particles in English.”Language & Communication32: 182–204. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hayashi, Makoto
    2003 “Language and the Body as Resources for Collaborative Action: A Study of Word Searches in Japanese Conversation.”Research on Language and Social Interaction36: 109–141. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hayashi, Makoto , Geoffrey Raymond , and Jack Sidnell
    2013 “Conversational Repair and Human Understanding: An Introduction.”InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed.byM. Hayashi, G. Raymond, and J. Sidnell, 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heath, Christian
    2002 “Demonstrative Suffering: The Gestural (Re)embodiment of Symptoms.”Journal of Communication52: 597–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02564.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02564.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Hepburn, Alexa , Sue Wilkinson , and Rebecca Shaw
    2012 “Repairing Self- and Recipient Reference.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 175–190. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.673914
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.673914 [Google Scholar]
  36. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.”InStructures of Social Action, ed.byJ.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1987 “Ethnomethodology.”InSocial Theory Today, ed.byAnthony Giddens, and Jonathan Turner, 224–272. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.”InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, ed.byN. J. Enfield, and T. Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 “The epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    2008Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jacquemet, Marco
    2005 “Transidiomatic Practices: Language and Power in the Age of Globalization.”Language and Communication25: 257–277. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “Transcription Notation.”InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed.by J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage , ix–xi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Johansson, Eva
    2007 “Empathy or Intersubjectivity? Understanding the Origins of Morality in Young Children.”Studies in in Philosophy and Education27: 33–47. doi: 10.1007/s11217‑007‑9046‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9046-2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Johnson-Laird, P.N. , and Ruth M.J. Byrne
    2002 “Conditionals: A Theory of Meaning, Pragmatics, and Inference.” Psychological Review109(4) 646-678. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.109.4.646
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.646 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2007 “Stance Taking in Conversation: From Subjectivity to Intersubjectivity.”Text & Talk26: 699–731. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kataoka, K. , and Y. Asahi
    2015 “Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in the Use of Spatial Frames of Reference: An Analysis of Japanese Route Instruction.”Journal of Sociolinguistics19: 133–160. doi: 10.1111/josl.12116
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12116 [Google Scholar]
  48. Katriel, Tamar , and Gerry Philipsen
    1981 “‘What we Need is Communication’: ‘Communication’ as a Cultural Category in some American Speech.”Communication Monographs48: 301–317. doi: 10.1080/03637758109376064
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758109376064 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kim, Kyu-Hyun
    2001 “Confirming Intersubjectivity through Retroactive Elaboration: Organization of Phrasal Units in Other-initiated Repair Sequences in Korean Conversation.”InStudies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, ed.byM. Selting, and E. Couper-Kuhlen, 345–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.10.16kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.16kim [Google Scholar]
  50. Koschmann, Timothy
    2011 “Guest Editorial: Understanding Understanding in Action.”Journal of Pragmatics43: 435–437. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kvale, Steinar
    1983 “The Qualitative Research Interview: A Phenomenological and a Hermeneutical Mode of Understanding.”Journal of Phenomenological Psychology14: 171. doi: 10.1163/156916283X00090
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156916283X00090 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lerner, Gene H. , Galina B. Bolden , Alexa Hepburn , and Jenny Mandelbaum
    2012 “Preference Calibration Repairs: Adjusting the Precision of Formulations for the Task at Hand.”Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 191–212. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.674190
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.674190 [Google Scholar]
  53. Levinson, Stephen
    2006 “Cognition at the Heart of Human Interaction.”Discourse Studies8: 85–93. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059557
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059557 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lynch, Michael
    2011 “Commentary: On Understanding Understanding.”Journal of Pragmatics43: 553–555. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.018 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mikesell, Lisa
    2014 “Conflicting Demonstrations of Understanding in the Interactions of Individuals with Frontotemporal Dementia: Considering Cognitive Resources and their Implications for Caring and Communication.”InDialogue and Dementia: Cognitive and Communicative Resources for Engagement, ed.ByRobert W. Schrauf, and Nicole Müller, 147–180. Abingdon, UK: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.”Journal of Pragmatics41: 1977–1997. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.”Journal of Pragmatics43: 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  58. Mundy, Peter , Connie Kasari , and Marian Sigman
    1992 “Nonverbal Communication, Affective Sharing, and Intersubjectivity.”Infant Behavior and Development15: 377–381. doi: 10.1016/0163‑6383(92)80006‑G
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(92)80006-G [Google Scholar]
  59. Muntigl, P. , and K.T. Choi
    2010 “Not Remembering as a Practical Epistemic Resource in Couples Therapy.”Discourse Studies12: 331–356. doi: 10.1177/1461445609358516
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609358516 [Google Scholar]
  60. Osman, Gihan , and Susan C. Herring
    2007 “Interaction, Facilitation, and Deep Learning in Cross-cultural Chat: A Case Study.”The Internet and Higher Education10: 125–141. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  61. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes.”InStructures of Social Action, ed.byJ.M. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Robles, Jessida
    2011The Interactive Achievement of Morality in Everyday Talk: A Discourse. Analysis of Moral Practices and Problems in Interpersonal Relationships. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Robles, Jessica
    2012 “Culture in Conversation.”InInter/cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture in Everyday Interaction, ed.byAnastacia Kurylo, 89–114. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Rochat, Phippe , Cláudia Passos-Ferreira , and Pedro Salem
    2009 “Three Levels of Intersubjectivity in Early Development.”InEnacting intersubjectivity: Paving the Way for a Dialogue between Cognitive Science, Social Cognition and Neuroscience, ed.byAntonella Carassa, Francesca Morganti, and Guiseppe Riva, 173–190. Lugano, Switzerland: International Workshop.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sadler, Misumi
    2010 “Subjective and Intersubjective Uses of Japanese Verbs of Cognition in Conversation.”Pragmatics20: 109–128. doi: 10.1075/prag.20.1.06sad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.1.06sad [Google Scholar]
  67. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1987 “Some Sources of Misunderstanding in Talk-in-Interaction.”Linguistics25: 201–218. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201 [Google Scholar]
  68. 1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.”American Journal of Sociology97: 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  70. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.”Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  71. Scobbie, James M. , Sonja Schaeffler , and Ineke Mennen
    2011 “Audible Aspects of Speech Preparation.”Proceedings of 17th ICPhS, Hong Kong, 1782–1785.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Senft, Gunter
    2016 ““Masawa – bogeokwa si tuta!”: Cultural and Cognitive Implications of the Trobriand Islanders’ Gradual Loss of Their Knowledge of How to Make a Masawa Canoe.”Ethnic and Cultural Dimensions of Knowledge, 229–256. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑21900‑4_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21900-4_11 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sidnell, Jack
    2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.”InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed.byN.J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, and J. Sidnell, 364–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  74. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steenstig
    2011The Morality of Knowledge in Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Streeck, Jürgen
    1988 “Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of so and like.”Journal of Communication52: 581–596. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  76. Svennevig, Jan
    2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.”Discourse Studies6: 489–516. doi: 10.1177/1461445604046591
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046591 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2008 “Trying the Easiest Solution First in Other-Initiation of Repair.”Journal of Pragmatics40: 333–348. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  78. Wilkinson, Ray
    1999 “Sequentiality as a Problem and Resource for Intersubjectivity in Aphasic Conversation: Analysis and Implications for Therapy.”Aphasiology13: 327–343. doi: 10.1080/026870399402127
    https://doi.org/10.1080/026870399402127 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wootton, Anthony J.
    1994 “Object Transfer, Intersubjectivity and Third Position Repair: Early Developmental Observations of One Child.”Journal of Child Language21: 543–564. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900009454
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900009454 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.1.03rob
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Discourse analysis , Inference , Intersubjectivity , Misunderstanding , Reference and Repair
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