Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 10:3 (2020) ► pp.340–368

The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse

Home as a special space of interaction

| National Research University Higher School of Economics , Russia | University of Helsinki , Finland
| Saratov State University , Russia
Based on a large dataset of Russian material, the paper presents these general features of the home: a place to spend leisure time containing a long-established group of different ages and sexes free to move about in their environment These factors lead to tension between communicants and a diversity of topics of conversation. Inadequate recipient design is an overarching trigger for misunderstanding caused by the speaker. It derives from poor concentration on interaction and the common ground fallacy, and leads to the frequent use of indirect and elliptical expressions. Inadequate concentration causes the recipient to non-listen and overguess. Finally, misunderstandings occur because of mishearings, misinterpretations and misreferences. Misinterpretation may concern the content, intention or mode of the message.
Keywords: family discourse, miscommunication, common ground fallacy, overguessing, recipient design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.General features of FD
  • 3.Reflections of the general features in interaction
  • 4.Triggers for miscommunication
  • 5.Species of misunderstanding
  • 6.Analysis of the material
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00074.mus
References (109)
References
Anokhina, Viktoria. 2008. “Strategii i taktiki kommunikativnogo povedeniia v maloi sotsial’noi gruppe (sem’e)” [Strategies and tactics of communication behaviour v small social groups (family)]. Vestnik Staropol’skogo gоsudarstvennogo universiteta 561, 64–71.Google Scholar
Anokhina, Viktoria and Oksana Kravtchenko. 2017. ”Povsednevnaia kommunikatsiia v strategiiakh i taktikakh obikhodno-bytovogo obshcheniia (na materiele semeinoi rechi)” [Everyday communication in strategies and taktics of mundane interaction (on a material of family talk)]. Taganrog: Izd. Voloshina O.I.Google Scholar
Baikulova, Alla. 2012. Neofitsial’noe obshchenie i ego raznovidnosti: kriterii vydeleniia i real’noe funktsionirovanie [Unofficial interaction and its varieties: criteria for selection and actual functioning]. Saratov: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 2014. Ustnoe neofitisal’noe obstshenie i ego raznovidnosti: povsednevnaia rech’ gorozhan” [Oral unofficial interaction and its varieties: everyday speech of citizens]. Saratov: Nauka.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Kommunikativnye riski v sfere neofitsial’nogo obshcheniia” [Communication risks in unofficial discourse]. In Riskogennost’ sovremennoi kommunikatsii i rol’ kommunikativnoi kompetentnosti v eë preodoleniia [Susceptibility to risk of contemporary communication and the role of communicative competence in competing with it], ed. by O. B. Sirotinina and M. A. Kormilitsyna. 99–113. Saratov: Izd. Saratovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Baker, Benjamin Michael Alex. 2019. ““We’re just family, you know?” Exploring the discourses of family in gay parents’ relational talk.” Journal of Family Communication 19(3): 213–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The unbearable automaticity of being.” American Psychologist 54(7): 462–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2019. “The compex process of mis/understanding spatial feixis in face-to-face interaction.” soprag (Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics) 7(1): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Mats. 2001. “Misunderstanding, and successful communication.” Acta Philosophica Fennica 691: 67–89.Google Scholar
Beukeboom, Camiel J. and Elisabeth M. de Jong. 2008. “When feelings speak: How affective and proprioceptive cues change language abstraction.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(2): 110–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blokpoel, Mark, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Pim Haselager, Ivan Toni, and Iris van Rooij. 2012. “Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking?” Frontiers of Human Neuroscience 61, article 253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2017. “Requests for here-and-now actions in Russian conversation.” In Imperative Turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 175–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bova, Antonio. 2019. “Parental strategies in argumentative dialogues with their children in mealtimes.” Language and Dialogue 9(3): 444–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, Dawn O. and Leslie A. Baxter (eds.). 2006. Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan E. and Michael Schober. 2001. “How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech.” Journal of Memory and Language 44(2): 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Gillian. 1995. Speakers, listeners and communication: Explorations in discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canary, Daniel J. and Heather E. Canary. 2014. “Conflict in close relationships.” In Interpersonal communication, ed. by Chares R. Berger. 177–199. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carling, Gerd, Lenny Lindell, and Gilbert Ambrazaitis. 2014. Scandoromani: Remnants of a Mixed Language. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. “Grounding in communication.” In Perspectives on socially shared cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley. 127–149. Washington, DC: APA Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Côté, Isabel and Kévin Lavoie. 2019. “A child wanted by two, conceived by several: Lesbian-parent families negotiating procreation with a known donor.” Journal of GLET Family Studies 15(2): 165–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. “Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding.” Journal of Pragmatics 31(6): 753–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demorest, Amy, Lisa Silberstein, Howard Gardner, and Ellen Winner. 1983. “Telling it as it isn’t: Children’s understanding of figurative language.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 11: 121–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2015. “When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity” Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion Ausgabe 161: 63–101. [URL]
Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2004. “Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(5): 586–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, Marko and Howard Giles. 2014. “Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics.” In Interpersonal communication, ed. by Chares R. Berger. 29–51. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, Marko, Jessica Gasiorek, and Howard Giles. 2016. “Accommodative strategies as core of the theory.” In Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts, ed. by Howard Giles. 36–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epley, Nicholas. 2008. “Solving the (real) other minds problem.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(3): 1455–1474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 aspect [The Russian language and its functioning: a communicative-pragmatic aspect], ed. by Elena A. Zemskaia. 90–157. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
EUROSTAT 2018. People in the EU – statistics on household and family structures. [URL] retrieved 15.03.2020.
Falkner, Wolfgang. 1997. Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an einem Korpus englischer und deutscher Beispiele [Understanding, misunderstanding and miscommunication: studies on the basis of corpus with English and German instances]. Tübingen: Niemayer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., L. Robert Slevc, and Erin S. Rogers. 2005. “How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions?” Cognition 96(3): 263–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, Alan. 2009. “The Lingua Franca factor.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2): 147–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gander, Anna Jia. 2018. Understanding in real-time communication: Micro-feedback and meaning repair in face-to-face and video-mediated intercultural interactions. PhD dissertation. University of Gothenburg, Dept. of Applied Information Technology. [URL]
Gauker, Christopher. 1992. “The Lockean theory of communication.” Noûs 26 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard (ed.). 2016. Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia. 2009. Making meanings, creating family: Intertextuality and framing in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grebenshchikova, Tatiana V. and Irina A. Zachesova. 2014. Psikhologiia povsednevnogo diskursa: Intentsional’nyi aspect [Psychology of everyday discourse: Intentional aspect]. Moscow: Izd. “Institut psikhologii RAN”Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation”. In Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1994. “Pragmatics and rhetoric: A collaborative approach to conversation.” In Pretending to communicate, ed. by Herman Parret. 173–195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hesse, Colin, Emily A. Rauscherb, Rebecca Budesky Goodman, and Monica A. Couvrette. 2017. “Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in Family Communication Patterns Theory”. Journal of Family Communication 17(4): 319–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. “Misunderstandings: Interactional Structure and Strategic Resources.” In Misunderstandings in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, edited by Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross. 57–81. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Honghui, Zhou and Chen Dongchun. 2019. “Understanding misunderstandings from socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics.” International Journal of Language and Linguistics 7 (5): 194–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Huang, Li-Ning. 1999. “Family communication patterns and personality characteristics.” Communication Quarterly 47(2): 230–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hummert, Mary Lee. 2019. “Intergenerational communication”. In Language, communication and intergroup relations, ed. by Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum, and Cindy Gallois. 130–161. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. “The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. “Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances: From lexis to discourse.” In Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, ed. by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel. 201–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. “Sequential structure of discourse segments shaped by the interplay of recipient design or salience.” In Formal models in the study of language, ed. by Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman-Tame, and Christopher Laenzlinger. C. Chan: Springer Moescher. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan and Monika Kirner-Ludwig. 2019. “«Odd structures» in English as a lingua franca discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 1511: 76–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. “Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2): 331–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemper, Susan 1994. “«Elderspeak»: Speech accommodation to older adults.” Aging and Cognition 1(1): 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2007. “Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1): 71–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz and Anne S. Henly. 2002. “Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness.” Psychological Science 131: 207–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kildare, Cory A. and Wendy Middlemiss. 2017. “Impact of parents mobile device use on parent-child interaction: A literature review.” Computers in Human Behavior 751: 579–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klushina, Natalia I., Anna V. Liulikova, Anastasia V. Nikolaeva, Larisa V. Selezneva, Elena Yu. Skorokhodova, and Irina A. Tortunova. 2019. “Language use nowadays in Russian communication: Specifics and trends.” Language and Dialogue 9(3): 444–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klötzl, Svitlana. 2014. “«Maybe just things we grew up with»: Linguistic and cultural hybridity in ELF couple talk.” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1): 27–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, Ascan F. 2014. “Family communication.” In Interpersonal Communication, ed. by Chares R. Berger. 177–199. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koerner, Ascan F. and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. 2002. “Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation.” Annals of the International Communication Association 26(1): 36–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach.” In Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives, ed. by Dawn O. Braithwaite and Leslie A. Baxter. 50–65. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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(6): 925–936. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1995. “Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication.” In Mutualities in Dialogue, edited by Ivana Marková, Carl Graumann, and Klaus Foppa. 176–213. Cambridge: University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Communication activity types as organisations in discourse and discourses in organisations”. In Discourses in interaction, ed. by Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, Marjut Johansson, and Mia Raitaniemi. 33–59. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Mishearings are occasioned by contextual assumptions and situational affordances.” Language & Communication 401: 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. “Evidence and presumptions for analysing and detecting misunderstandings.” Pragmatics and Cognition 24(2): 263–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazarella, Diana and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2020. “Pragmatics and epistemic vigilance: A developmental perspective.” Mind & Language, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2011. “Pochemu obshchenie na lingua franca udaetsia tak khorosho.” [Why interaction in a lingua franca is so successful]. In Iazyki sosedej: mosty ili bar’ery? [Languages of neighbours: bridges or obstacles?], ed. by Nikolai B. Vakhtin. 10–31. St. Petersburg: Izd. Evropeiskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
. 2012. “A Speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue 2(2): 216–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Risks of miscommunication in various speech genres.” In Understanding by Communication, ed. by Elena Borisova and Olga Souleimanova. 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ. [URL]
. 2017a. “The issue of theorizing: Object-of-study and methodology.” In Language and dialogue: A handbook of key issues in the field, ed. by Edda Weigand. 234–250. New York: Routledge. [URL]
. 2017b. “Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series), ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Stavros Assimakopoulos. 55–74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “The democratization of Russian.” In The soft power of the Russian language: Pluricentricity, politics and policies, ed. by Arto Mustajoki, Ekaterina Protassova, and Maria Yelenevskaya. 21–34. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto and Tatiana Sherstinova. 2017. “The ‘Retrospective Commenting’ Method for longitudinal recordings of everyday speech.” In Speech and Computer. SPECOM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 104581, ed. by Alexey Karpov, Rodmonga Potapova, Iosif Mporas. 1–9. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova, and Ulla Tuomarla. 2018. “Types and functions of pseudodialogues.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes. 189–215. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman-Norlund, Sarah E., Matthijs L. Noordzij, Roger D. Newman-Norlund, Inge A. C. Volman, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Peter Hagoort, and Ivan Toni. 2009. “Recipient design in tacit communication.” Cognition 111(1): 46–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penderi, Efthymia and Galini Rekalidou. 2016. “Young children’s views concerning distribution of clean-up duties in the classroom: Responsibility and self-interest.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 24(5): 734–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Antti and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (ed.). 2012. Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Chiare Gambi. 2018. “Predicting while comprehending language: A theory and review”. Psychological Bulletin 144(10): 1002–1044. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietikäinen, Kaisa S. 2016. “Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk.” Applied Linguistics, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. English as a lingua franca in intercultural relationships : Interaction, identity, and multilingual practices of ELF couples.” University of Helsinki. [URL]
Pitts, Margaret Jane and Jake Harwood. 2015. “Communication accommodation competence: The nature and nurture of accommodative resources across the lifespan.” Language and Communication 411: 89–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Protassova, Ekaterina and Maria D. Voeikova. 2007. ”Diminutives in Russian at the early stages ofacquisition.” In The acquisition of diminutives: Across-linguistic perspective, ed. by Ineta Savickiene and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 43–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringblom, Natalia and Sviatlana Karpava. 2020. “Family language policy, Russian language use, maintenance, and transmission in Cyprus and Sweden.” In The soft power of the Russian language: Pluricentricity, politics and policies, ed. by Arto Mustajoki, Ekaterina Protassova, and Maria Yelenevskaya. 237–245. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Anna. 2017. “What is a family language? Bilingual and/or monolingual speech in Russian-German immigrant families in Germany.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual Speech, ed. by Elena Babatsouli. 244–250. Chania, Greece: Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual Speech. [URL]
Salavirta, Anna. 2019. “Lingvistichheskii kubik Rubika: Perekljuchenie koda v trëkhiazychnoj sem’e kak sposob kommunikatsii.” [Linguistic Rubik’s cube: code switching as a means of communication in a trilingual family]. In Slavica Helsingiensia 521, ed. by Ahti Nikunlassi and Ekaterina Protassova. 287–301. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [URL]
Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar. 2009. “Less is more: a minimalist account of joint action in communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1(2): 260–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant K. and Stefaan Slembrouck. 1992. “Non-cooperation in communication: A reassessment of Gricean pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 17(2): 117–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.). 2012. Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segrin, Chris and Jeanne Flora. 2005. Family communication. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.Google Scholar
Speer, Rebecca B., Howard Giles, and Amanda Denes. 2013. “Investigating stepparent-stepchild interactions: The role of communication accommodation.” Journal of Family Communication 13(3): 218–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soliz, Jordan and Kaitlin E. Phillips. 2018. “Toward a more expansive understanding of family communication: Considerations for inclusion of ethnic-racial and global diversity.” Journal of Family communication 18 (1): 5–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soliz, Jordan, Allison R. Thorson, and Christine E. Rittenour. 2009. ”Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71(4): 819–832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. “Assertion.” In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole. 315–332. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. 1992. Mutual misunderstanding: Scepticism and the theorizing of language and interpretation. Durban, London: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todd, Andrew R., Matthias Forstmann, Pascal Burgmer et al.. 2015 “Anxious and egocentric: How specific emotions influence perspective taking.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, General 144(2): 374–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todd, Andrew R., Karlene Hanko, Adam D. Galinsky, and Thomas Mussweiler. 2011. “When focusing on differences leads to similar perspectives.” Psychological Science 22(1): 134–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzanne, Angeliki. 2000. Talking at cross-purposes: The dynamics of miscommunication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Brakel, Jaap. 2006. “De-essentialising across the board no need to speak the same language.” Rechtstheorie & Rechtspraktijk 351: 263–284.Google Scholar
van Mensel, Luk. 2018. ”“Quiere koffie?” The multilingual familylect of transcultural families.” International Journal of Multilingualism 15(3): 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1994. “Understanding misunderstanding.” Language, mind, and art: Essays in appreciation and analysis in honor of Paul Ziff, ed. by Dale Jamieson. 9–21. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vepreva, Irina. 2005. “Kommunikativnye poraženiia na semejnom fronte.” [Communicative defeats on a family front]. In Sem’ia: meždu nasiliem and toleranatnost’iu [Family: between violence and tolerance], ed. by Maria A. Litovskaia and Olga V. Shaburova. 360–365. Ekaterinburg: Izd. Ural’skogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Verdonik, Darinka. 2010. “Between understanding and misunderstanding.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(5): 1364–1379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1999. “Misunderstanding: The standard case.” Journal of Pragmatics 31(6): 763–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Emotions: The simple and the complex.” In Emotions in dialogic interaction, ed. by Edda Weigand. 3–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Paradigm changes in linguistics: from reductionism to holism.” Language Sciences 33(4): 544–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ylänne-McEwen, Virpi and Nicolas Coupland. 2000. “Accommodation Theory: A conceptual resource for intercultural sociolinguistics.” In: Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk across Cultures, ed. by Helen Spencer-Oatey. 191–214. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 1999. “Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication.” Pragmatics 9(4): 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zanadvorova, Anna. 2001. Finktsionirovanie russkogo iazyka v malykh sotsial’nykh gruppakh (rechevoe obshchenie v sem’e). [Functioning of the Russian language in small social groups (oral interaction in a family)]. PhD dissertation. Moscow.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yan Bing and Margaret Jane Pitts. 2019. “Interpersonal accommodation.” In Language, Communication and Intergroup Relations, ed. by Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum and Cindy Gallois. 192–216. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Leskelä, Leealaura, Arto Mustajoki & Aino Piehl
2022. Easy and plain languages as special cases of linguistic tailoring and standard language varieties. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 45:2 ► pp. 194 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.