2017 | 15 | 1 | 11-36
Article title

Interlocutors-Related and Hearer-Specific Causes of Misunderstanding: Processing Strategy, Confirmation Bias and Weak Vigilance

Title variants
Languages of publication
Noises, similarities between words, slips of the tongue, ambiguities, wrong or false beliefs, lexical deficits, inappropriate inferences, cognitive overload, non-shared knowledge, topic organisation or focusing problems, among others, may cause misunderstanding. While some of these are structural factors, others pertain to the speaker or to both the speaker and the hearer. In addition to stable factors connected with the interlocutors’ communicative abilities, cultural knowledge or patterns of thinking, other less stable factors, such as their personal relationships, psychological states or actions motivated by physiological functions, may also result in communicative problems. This paper considers a series of further factors that may eventually lead to misunderstanding, and which solely pertain to the hearer: processing strategy, confirmation bias and weak vigilance.
Physical description
  • University of Seville, Spain
  • Allport, Gordon W. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.
  • Ardissono, Liliana, Boella, Guido and Rossana Damiano. 1998. A plan-based model of misunderstandings in cooperative dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48. 649-679.
  • Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Banks, Stephen P., Ge, Gao and Joyce Baker. 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles and John M. Weimann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk, 103-120. London: Sage.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2002. A New Starting Point? Investigating Formulaic Use and Input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 189-198. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002036
  • Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby. (eds.). 1992. The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bazzanella, Carla and Rossana Damiano. 1999. The Interactional Handling of Misunderstanding in Everyday Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 817-836. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7
  • Bekkering, Harold, et al. 2009. Joint Action: Neurocognitive Mechanisms Supporting Human Interaction. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 340-352. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01023.x
  • Berger, Charles R. 2007. A Tale of Two Communication Modes: When Rational and Experiential Processing Systems Encounter Statistical and Anecdotal Depictions of Threat. Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology 26 (3). 215-233. doi: 10.1177/0261927X06303453
  • Bialystok, Ellen. 1993. Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence. In Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 43-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1992. The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History,Theory and Practice, 255-279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elda Weizman. 2003. Misunderstandings in Political Interviews. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life:Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 127-128. London: Longman.
  • Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica and Bruno G. Bara. 2006. Recognition and Repair of Communicative Failures: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1398-149. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.011
  • Brown, Gillian. 1995. Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Canale, Michael. 1983. From Communicative Competence To Communicative Language Pedagogy. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication, 2-28. London: Longman.
  • Carruthers, Peter. 2009. How We Know Our Minds: The Relationship Between Mindreading and Metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (2). 121-138. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000545.
  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Dörnyei, Zoltán and Sarah Thurrell. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Modifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5. 5-35.
  • Clark, Herbert H. and Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. Speaking While Monitoring Addressees for Understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 62-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004
  • Clément, Fabrice, Koenig, Melissa and Paul Harris. 2004. The ontogeny of trust. Mind & Language 19 (4). 360-379.
  • Codó Olsina, Eva. 2002. Managing Understanding in Intercultural Talk: An Empirical Approach to Miscommunication. Atlantis 24 (2). 37-57.
  • Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. Introduction: Some Questions About Misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 753-762. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9
  • Dua, Hans R. 1990. The phenomenology of miscommunication. In Stephen H. Riggins (ed.), Beyond Goffman, 113-139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Ehrman, Madeline. 1999. Ego Boundaries and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Second Language Learning. In Jane Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning, 68-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Escandell Vidal, María V. 1998. Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11. 45-57.
  • Escandell Vidal, María V. 2004. Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together. In Rosina Márquez-Reiter and María E. Placencia (eds.), Current Trends in thePragmatics of Spanish, 347-371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ferreira, Victor S., Slevc, Robert and Erin S. Rogers. 2005. How Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguous Linguistic Expressions? Cognition 96. 263-284. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002
  • Friedrich, James. 1993. Primary Error Detection and Minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in Social Cognition: A Reinterpretation of Confirmation Bias Phenomena. Psychological Review 100 (2). 298-319. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.298
  • Furnham, Adrian and Tracy Ribchester. 1995. Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of The Concept, its Measurement and Applications. Current Psychology 14. 179-199. doi: 10.1007/BF02686907
  • Garrod, Simon and Martin J. Pickering. 2009. Joint Action, Interactive Alignment, and Dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 292-304. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x
  • Gass, Susan M. and Evangeline M. Varonis. 1991. Miscommunication in Nonnative Speaker Discourse. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles and John M. Wiemann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk, 121-145. London: Sage.
  • Grimshaw, Allen D. 1980. Mishearings, Misunderstandings, and Other Nonsuccesses in Talk: A Plea for Redress of Speaker-Oriented Bias. Sociological Inquiry 40. 31-74.
  • Hartman, Ernest. 1991. Boundaries in the Mind: A New Psychology of Personality. New York: Basic Books.
  • Hays, Robert B. 1984. The Development and Maintenance of Friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1. 75-98. doi: 10.1177/0265407584011005
  • Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Misunderstandings: Interactional Structure and Strategic Resources. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life:Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 57-81. London: Sage.
  • House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele and Steven Ross. 2003. Misunderstanding Talk. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life: DiscourseApproaches to Problematic Talk, 1-21. London: Sage.
  • Hymes, Dell H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In John B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings, 269-293. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
  • Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness. Multilingua 8 (2-3). 223-248. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223
  • Janicki, Karol. 2010. Lay People’s Language Problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20 (1). 73-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00229.x
  • Jucker, Andreas H., Smith, Sara W. and Tanja Ludge. 2003. Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1737-1769. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)0018-1
  • Kataoka, Kuniyoshi. 1995. Affect in Japanese Women’s Letter Writing: Use of Sentence-Final Particles Ne and Yo and Orthographic Conventions. Pragmatics 5 (4). 427-453. doi: 10.1075/prag.5.4.02kat
  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Editorial: Lexical Merging, Conceptual Blending, and Cultural Crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1). 1-26. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2004.005
  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385-406. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The Paradox of Communication. Socio-cognitive Approach to Pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1 (1). 50-73. doi: 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
  • Kecskes, Istvan and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground. Pragmatics & Cogniton 17 (2). 331-355. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
  • Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and Miscommunication: the Role of Egocentric Processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (4). 71-85. doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.004,
  • Keysar, Boaz and Anne S. Henly. 2002. Speakers’ Overestimation of Their Effectiveness. Psychological Science 13 (3). 207-212. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00439
  • Klayman, Joshua. 1995. Varieties of Confirmation Bias. In Jerome Busemeyer, Reid Hartie and Douglas L. Medin (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. The Psychology ofLearning and Motivation, 385-418. Vol. 32. New York: Academic Press.
  • Kunda, Ziva. 1999. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Boston: MIT Press.
  • Márquez-Reiter, Rosina. 1997. Politeness Phenomena in British English and Uruguayan Spanish: The Case of Requests. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 18. 159-167.
  • Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber. 2009. The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance Towards Deception. Cognition 112 (3). 367-380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
  • Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. ‘Optimal Relevance’ as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 20-45.
  • Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Deployment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 183-199.
  • Medina, José. 2011. The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary. Social Epistemology: AJournal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 25 (1). 15-35. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2010.534568
  • Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber. 2011. Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2). 57-111. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
  • Michaelian, Kourken. 2013. The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty and the reliability of communication. Episteme 10 (1). 37-59. doi: 10.1017/epi.2013.2
  • Miller, Michael and Donald. Perlis. 1993. Presentations and this and that: Logic in action. In Martha C. Polson (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive ScienceSociety, 83-88. Boulder: Psychology Press.
  • Mustajoki, Arto. 2012. A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2 (2). 216-246. doi: 10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus
  • Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2 (2). 175-220.
  • Origgi, Gloria. 2013. Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 26 (2). 221-235. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652213
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2005. Towards new politeness systems. In Juan J. Calvo Garcia de Leonardo et al. (eds.), Actas del XXVIII Congreso Internacional de AEDEAN, 385-396. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2012. Epistemic vigilance, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding. Research in Language 10 (4). 365-386. doi: 10.2478/v10015-011-0040-y
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013a. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. International Review of AppliedLinguistics in Language Teaching 51 (1). 23-54. doi: 10.1515/iral-2013-0002
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013b. Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal ofPragmatics 59 (A). 117-135. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2014. Pragmatic Failure, Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Vigilance. Language & Communication 39. 34-50. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.002
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2015. On the Role of Vigilance in the Interpretation of Puns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 28 (3). 469-490. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0068
  • Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2016. Vigilance Mechanisms in Interpretation: Hermeneutical Vigilance. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1). 21-29. doi: 10.4467/20834624SL.15.001.4890
  • Perlis, Donald, Purang, Khemdut and Carl Andersen. 1998. Conversational Adequacy: Mistakes are the Essence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48. 553-575. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1997.0181
  • Reynolds, Mike. 1995. Where the Trouble Lies: Cross-cultural Pragmatics and Miscommunication. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 30. 5-15.
  • Ryan, Jonathon and Roger Barnard. 2009. “Who Do You Mean?” Investigating Miscommunication in Paired Interactions. The TESOLANZ Journal 17. 44-62.
  • Sebanz, Natalie and Guenther Knoblich. 2009. Prediction in Joint Action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 353-367. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x
  • Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar. 2009. Less is More: A Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 260-273. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01018.x
  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. 1996. Reconsidering Power and Distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1-24. doi: 10.1016/0379-2166(95)00047-X
  • Sperber, Dan. 1994. Understanding Verbal Understanding. In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What Is Intelligence?, 179-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Sperber, Dan. 1997. Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs. Mind & Language 12 (1). 67-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1997.tb00062.x
  • Sperber, Dan. (ed.). 2000. Metarepresentations. A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sperber, Dan. 2013. Speakers are Honest Because Hearers are Vigilant. Reply to Kourken Michaelian. Episteme 10 (1). 61-71. doi: 10.1017/epi.2013.7
  • Sperber, Dan and Hugo Mercier. 2012. Reasoning as a Social Competence. In Helene Landemore and Jon Elster (eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, 368-392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond Speaker’s Meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 117-149.
  • Sperber, Dan et al. 2010. Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language 25 (4). 359-393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x
  • Tannen, Deborah. 1984. The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics 5 (3). 188-195. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.189
  • Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand. Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago Press.
  • Tannen, Deborah. 1992. That’s not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. London: Virago Press.
  • Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. Women and Men at Work: Language, Sex and Power. London: Virago Press.
  • Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2). 91-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
  • Todd, Andrew R. et al. 2011. When Focusing on Differences Leads to Similar Perspectives. Psychological Science 22 (1). 134-141. doi: 10.1177/0956797610392929
  • Verdonik, Darinka. 2010. Between Understanding and Misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1364-1379. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.00710.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.007
  • Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The Standard Case. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 763-785. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X
  • Weizman, Elda. 1999. Building True Understanding Via Apparent Miscommunication: A Case Study. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 837-846. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00057-4
  • Wells, John C. 1996. Accents of English 1: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. Cross-cultural Communication and Miscommunication: The Role of Cultural Keywords. Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (1). 1-23. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.001
  • Wilson, Deirdre. 1999. Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 127-161.
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2002. Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 249-287.
  • Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Larry Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Yus Ramos, Francisco. 1999a. Towards a Pragmatic Taxonomy of Misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38. 217-239.
  • Yus Ramos, Francisco. 1999b. Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication. Pragmatics 9 (4). 487-517. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus
  • Yus Ramos, Francisco. 2000. On Reaching the Intended Ironic Interpretation. International Journal of Communication 10 (1-2). 27-78.
  • Zamborlin, Chiara. 2007. Going Beyond Pragmatic Failures: Dissonance in Intercultural Communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (1). 21-50. doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.002
  • Žegarac, Vladimir. 2009. A Cognitive Pragmatic Perspective on Communication and Culture. In Helen D. Spencer-Oatey and Peter Franklin (eds.), Intercultural Interaction: AMultidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication, 31-53. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.