In:Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics
Edited by István Kecskés and Stavros Assimakopoulos
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 274] 2017
► pp. 55–74
Chapter 3Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation?
Published online: 14 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.04mus
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.04mus
Abstract
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.
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
References (50)
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [Translation of Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva]. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
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.
Bargh, John A., and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54: 462–476.
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.
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.
Brennan, Susan E., and Michael Schober. 2001. “How Listeners Compensate for Disfluencies in Spontaneous Speech.” Journal of Memory and Language 44: 274–296.
Brown, Gillian. 1995. Speakers, Listeners and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bürig, Kristian and Jan D ten Thije (eds). 2006. Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chiera, Alessandra. 2014. “Language in Interaction: The Role of Conscious Processes in Conversation.” Academic Journal of Modern Philology 3: 7–16.
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.
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.
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.
Dobrick, Martin. 1985. Gegenseitiges (Miss-)Verstehen in der dyadischen Kommunikation. Münster: Aschendorff.
Dostoyevsky, F. M. 1989. Sobranie sochinenii v 15 tomakh (tom 4) [Selected writings in 15 volumes (vol. 4)]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Epley, Nicholas. 2008. “Solving the (Real) Other Minds Problem.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/3: 1455–1474.
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.
Falkner, Wolfgang. 1997. Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an Einem Korpus Englischer und Deutscher Beispiele. Tübingen: Niemayer.
Ferreira, Victor S., L. Robert Slevc, and Erin S. Rogers. 2005. “How Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguous Linguistic Expressions?” Cognition 96: 263–284.
Freed, Barbara F. 1981. “Foreigner Talk, Baby Talk, Native Talk.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 28: 19–39.
Goel, Vinod, and Raymond Rolan. 2003. “Explaining Modulation of Reasoning by Belief.” Cognition, 87: B11–B22.
Gundacker, Julia. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca between Couples: Motivations and Limitations. Diplomarbeit, Unversität Wien.
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2005. “Diverging Interpretations Associated with Perspectives of the Speaker and Recipient in Conversations.” Journal of Memory and Language 53: 551–566.
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.
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,
Joseph, John E. 2003. “Rethinking Linguistic Creativity.” In Rethinking Linguistics, ed. by Hayley G. Davis, and Talbot J. Taylor, 121–150. London: Routledge.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. ”Intercultural Communication in English as a Lingua Franca: Some Sources of Misunderstanding.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8: 93–116.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. “Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406.
. 2010. “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1: 50–73.
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. “Communication and Miscommunication: The Role of Egocentric Processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4: 71–85.
Keysar, Boaz, and Anne S. Henly. 2002. “Speakers’ Overestimation of their Effectiveness.” Psychological Science 13: 207–212.
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.
Linell, Per. 2015. “Mishearings are Occasioned by Contextual Assumptions and Situational Affordances.” Language & Communication 40: 24–37.
Mauranen, Anna. 2010. “Features of English as a Lingua Franca in Academia.” Helsinki English Studies 6: 6–28.
. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, Anna, and Elina Ranta (eds). 2006. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
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.
. 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.
. 2012. “A Speaker-oriented Multidimensional Approach to Risks and Causes of Miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue 2: 216–242.
. 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.
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.
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.
Roziņa, Gunta. 2011. “Cross-cultural Pragmatics of Interactional Competence.” Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture 1: 53–60.
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.
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.
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.
Weigand, Edda. 2003. Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und Kommunikative Grammatik (2nd edn). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
Thongphut, Aonrumpa & Jagdish Kaur
2025. Multiple repair solutions in response to open class repair initiators (OCRIs) in next turn. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 35:2 ► pp. 285 ff.
De Malsche, Fien, Els Tobback & Mieke Vandenbroucke
Ryan, Jonathon
Ryan, Jonathon
Sarkisov, Emil, Sergey Nikolaev & S.G. Eremeev
Branets, Anna, Daria Bahtina & Anna Verschik
Hautamäki, Antti
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
Bazzanella, Carla
Hanusková, Magdalena
Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova & Ulla Tuomarla
2018. Types and functions of pseudo-dialogues. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31], ► pp. 189 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 2025. 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.
