Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp.263–296

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings

 | IFILNOVA, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17034.mac
Abstract
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 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
References (70)
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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla & Rossana Damiano. 1999. The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6). 817–836. [URL].
Bench-Capon, Trevor & Henry Prakken. 2010. Using argument schemes for hypothetical reasoning in law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18(2). 153–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2011. The persuasive role of ethos in doctor–patient interactions. Communication and Medicine 81. 67–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaiken, Shelly & Yaacov Trope (eds.). 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo & Isidoro Berenstein. 1987. Two modes of understanding: Comprehending and grasping. Language & Communication 7(2). 139–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewey, John. 1938. Logic – The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijk, Teun van & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan. 2003. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(10). 454–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Humphreys-Jones, Claire. 1986. An investigation of the types and structure of misunderstandings. Newcastle University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(1). 93–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11). 2889–2897. [URL].
. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics 71. 171–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2011. The presumptions of meaning: Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic 31(4). 367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 1171. 280–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Assessing relevance. Lingua 210–211. 42–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017a. Understanding misunderstandings: Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor–patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 49–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017b. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2). 148–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting straw man argumentation: The pragmatics of quotation and reporting. Amsterdam: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1771. 123–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2004. Intercultural pragmatics: A cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1). 49–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2008. Modelling of (mis)communication. Prikladna lingvistika ta ligvistitshni tehnologii Megaling-2007, 250–267. Kiev: Dovira.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2002. Does linguistic communication rest on inference? Mind and Language 17(1–2). 105–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Jefferson & Gail Schegloff. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sayer, Inaad Mutlib. 2013. Misunderstanding and language comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 701. 738–748. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, Roger & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Some sources of understanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 251. 201–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Izchak & Sharon Hurvitz. 2008. The structure of misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition 16(3). 568–585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 41. 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Uleman, James, Adil Saribay & Celia Gonzalez. 2008. Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology 59(1). 329–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1994. Understanding misunderstanding. In Dale Jamieson (ed.), Language, mind, and art, 9–21. Amsterdam: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verdonik, Darinka. 2010. Between understanding and misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 42(5). 1364–1379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Fabrizio Macagno. 2016. Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic 36(4). 523. [URL].
Walton, Douglas & Chris Reed. 2008. Evaluating corroborative evidence. Argumentation 22(4). 531–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 311. 763–785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. [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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1977. Understanding misunderstanding: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics 1(4). 329–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

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
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
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
Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi
2019. Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue