The Notion of Misunderstanding in Intercultural Communication
Abstract
Misunderstanding (MU) is a central working category in Intercultural Communicaton (ICC) studies. Generally speaking, MUs have gained the role of a raison-d'être for studying ICC, in particular under the premise that the communication in question is between cultural others, thus transforming MU into intercultural MU. In other studies, conflicts, uncomfortable moments, and miscontextualization in terms of sociocultural knowledge become indicative for ICC. Thus making MU criterial for ICC. Both positions are somehow biased and leave MU mystically underdefined. In order to escape such uncritical allround function of MU, all MUs should be of a comparable kind - under all premises.
Full text article
References
Agar, Michael 1993. Language Shock. Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Agar, M. (1994). The intercultural frame. International journal of intercultural relations, 18(2), 221-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90029-9
Allwood, Jens / Abelar, Yanhia 1989. Lack of Understanding, Misunderstanding and Language Acquisition. In: Extra, G. / Mittner (eds.) Proceedings of the AILA-conference in Brussels 1989.
Also in Swedish in: Proceedings of the Fourth ScandinavianSymposium on Bilingualism, Uppsala, July, 1984.
Auer, Peter 1986. Kontextualisierung. In: Studium Linguistik 19, 22-47.
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’approach to contextualization. In The contextualization of language (p. 1). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.03aue
Banks, Stephen P. / Ge, Gao / Baker, Joyce 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication. In: Coupland, N. / Wiemann, J.M. / Giles, H. (eds.) "Miscommunication" and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, 103-120.
Bilmes, Jack 1992. Mishearings. In: Watson, G. / Seiler, R.M. (eds.) Text in Context. Contributions to Ethnomethodology. Newbury Park CA etc.: Sage, 79-98.
Cushing, Steven 1994. Fatal Words. Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.
Dascal, Marcello 1985. The Relevance of Misunderstanding. In: Dascal, M. (ed.) Dialogue - an interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.1.39das
Dobrick, Martin 1985. Gegenseitiges (Miß-)Verstehen in der dyadischen Kommunikation. Münster: Aschendorff.
Drummond, Kent / Hopper, Robert 1991. Misunderstanding and Its Remedies: Telephone Miscommunication. In: Coupland, N. / Wiemann, J.M. / Giles, H. (eds.) "Miscommunication" and Problematic Talk. London: Sage, 301-314.
Erickson, Frederick / Shultz, Jeffrey 1982. The Counselor as Gatekeeper. Social Interaction in Interviews. New York etc.: Academic Press.
Falkner, Wolfgang 1997. Verstehen, Mißverstehen und Mißverständnisse. Tübingen: Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110929638
Goffman, Erving 1971. Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper & Row.
Grice, H. Paul 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P. / Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York etc. 1975, 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
Grimshaw, Allen D. 1980. Mishearings, Misunderstandings, and Other Nonsuccesses in Talk: A Plea for Redress of Speaker-Oriented Bias. In: Sociological Inquiry 50 (3 / 4), 31-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00016.x
Gumperz, John J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, John J. 1989a. Contextualization Cues and Metapragmatics: The retrieval of cultural knowledge. In: Music, B. / Grascyk, R. / Wiltshire, C. (eds.) CLS 25, Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part Two: Parasession on Language in Context. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 77-88.
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’approach to contextualization. In The contextualization of language (p. 1). John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (Vol. 11, pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-------- 1995. Mutual inferencing in conversation. In: Marková, I. / Graumann, C.F. / Foppa, K. (eds.) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-123.
Gumperz, John J. / Roberts, Celia 1991. Understanding in intercultural encounters. In: Blommaert, J. / Verschueren, J. (eds.) 1991. The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17-22, 1987, Volume 3, and the Ghent Symposium on Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 51-90. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.6.3.05gum
Hinnenkamp, Volker 1990. Wieviel und was ist "kulturell" in der interkulturellen Kommunikation? - Fragen und Überblick. In: Spillner, B. (ed.) Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Kongreßbeiträge zur 20. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik GAL e.V. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 46-52.
-------- 1995. Intercultural Communication. In: Verschueren, J. / Östman, J.-O. / Blommaert, J. (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics 1995. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
-------- 1998. Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Humphrey-Jones, Claire 1986. An Investigation of the Types and Structure of Misunderstandings. Dissertation University of Newcastle Upon Thyne, England UK.
Knapp, Karlfried / Enninger, Werner / Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie (eds.) 1987. Analyzing Intercultural Communication. The Hague / Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874280
Linell, Per 1995. Troubles with mutualities: towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In: Marková, I. / Graumann, C.F. / Foppa, K. (eds.) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 176-213.
Loretz, Niklaus 1976. Verständigung und Missverstehen: Versuch einer semantisch-pragmatischen Analyse an schweizerdeutschen und hochsprachlichen Texten. Frauenfeld / Stuttgart: Huber.
Mudersbach, Klaus 1987. Kommunizieren als Übersetzungsproblem. Über Mißverständnisse und deren Verhinderung. In: Liedtke, F. / Keller, R. (eds.) Kommunikation und Kooperation. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 239-247. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357713.35
Roberts, Celia / Davies, Evelyn / Jupp, Tom 1993. Language and Discrimination. A Study of Communication in Multi-Ethnic Workplaces. London / New York: Longman.
Samovar, Larry A. / Porter, Richard E. (eds.) 19885. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1987. Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. In: Linguistics 25, 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.201
-------- 1992. Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation. In: American Journal of Sociology 97, No. 5, 1295-1345. https://doi.org/10.1086/229903
Schwartz, Howard 1977. Understanding Misunderstanding. In: Analytic Sociology 3 [quoted by Humphrey-Jones 1986].
Selting, Margret 1987. Verständigungsprobleme. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Bürger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357669
Weizman, Elda / Blum-Kulka, Shoshana 1992. Ordinary Misunderstanding. In: Stamenov, M. (ed.) Current Advances in Semantic Theory. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 417-432. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.73.34wei
Williams, Terry 1985. The Nature of Miscommunication in the Cross-Cultural Employment Interview. In: Pride, J.B. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Encounters. Communication and Mis-Communication. Melbourne: River Seine, 165-175.
Zaefferer, Dietmar 1977. Understanding Misunderstanding: A Proposal for an Explanation of Reading Choices. In: Journal of Pragmatics 1, 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(77)90027-3
Authors
Copyright (c) 1999 Volker Hinnenkamp
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate and free open access to all its content and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means readers are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as proper attribution is given. This policy is consistent with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.