The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse

Mustajoki, Arto; Baikulova, Alla N.

doi:10.1075/ld.00074.mus

Cited by 4 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not a "broken telephone" story because the message as such has not changed during the conversations. Thus, the cause of the communication failure is not mishearing or poor concentration on interaction, which are typical in everyday communication (Mustajoki & Baikulova 2020). The misunderstanding derives from the conceptual differences between the interlocutors.…”

Section: Methodological Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another technical obstacle is the distance between interlocutors, which hinders understanding in settings where the speaker does not realise that the recipient is no longer or not yet in a place where he can hear the speaker. This frequently happens in domestic environments (Mustajoki & Baikulova 2020).…”

Section: Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides pronouns (he, they, that), included in these phrases are other deictic words (here, now), all common nouns (a chair, a ball, my colleague) and proper nouns (Joan, Browns). Misreference is one of the most frequent causes of miscommunication, especially in circumstances where people speak of very practical and situation-bound matters, as in family discourse (Mustajoki & Baikulova 2020).…”

Section: The Recipient's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication

Mustajoki

2021

Russian Journal of Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction between people is a cornerstone of being human. Despite huge developments in languages and communicative skills, interaction often fails, which causes problems and costs in everyday life and work. An inability to conduct dialogue also produces conflicts between groups of people, states and religions. Therefore, there are good reasons to claim that miscommunication and failures in interaction are among the most serious problems in the world. Researchers from different fields - linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, brain research, philosophy - have tried to tackle this complex phenomenon. Their method-driven approaches enrich our understanding of the features of interaction in many ways. However, what is lacking is an understanding of the very essence of interaction, which needs a more holistic, phenomenon-driven approach. The aim of this paper is to show that the only way to reach this goal is multidisciplinarity, that is, using the results and methods of different fields of research. This is not an easy goal and task because the way of thinking and doing research varies greatly discipline-wise. A further obstacle is the researchers training, which, as a rule, focuses on the tradition of only one field of research. The Multidimensional Model of Interaction provides a good framework for a more holistic approach to interaction by viewing the complex phenomenon from different angles. The model includes various phases of the process of interaction, beginning with the choice of the topic by the speaker and ending with identification of the reference by the recipient, as well as the mental worlds of the interlocutors (knowledge, attitudes, values, emotional state etc.), recipient design (accommodation of speech) and external circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Recipient's Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication

Mustajoki

2021

Russian Journal of Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Naturally, the composition of families and the way interaction takes place in them vary widely, as shown for example within Family Communication Pattern Theory (Hesse et al, 2017; Koerner and Fitzpatrick, 2006). Despite these differences, the family sphere has some regular features which may occasionally emerge in other communicative settings but are nowhere as fundamental as in FD (see in more detail Mustajoki and Bajkulova, 2020).…”

Section: Home As a Special Place Of Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multidimensional model of interaction (cf. earlier versions inMustajoki, 2012Mustajoki, , 2017Mustajoki, , 2021Mustajoki and Bajkulova, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance of cognitive efforts as a risk factor in interaction

Mustajoki

Baikulova

2022

Discourse Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ordinary interaction, communicants have various, mostly unconscious goals which reflect their interactional, social and personal needs. In these interactions, people’s minds try to find a balance between reaching these goals and consuming cognitive energy. If a speaker puts too little effort into speech production, she risks not achieving her communicative goals. This is especially typical when the atmosphere is relaxed, a good example of which is family discourse. An analysis of recorded conversations shows that there are certain regular manifestations of risk-taking in family discourse, such as expressing immature thoughts, raising a large variety of topics and overguessing. A substantial amount of risk-taking in family discourse is in one way or another connected with false confidence in the interlocutors’ common ground. Family members know each other well, which results in an overestimation of the similarity of their understanding of words and objects. This attitude leads them to use cryptic, hard-to-comprehend speech. Quick, everyday interactions are mostly automated, and the speakers do not recognise that their speech is full of implicitness and underdeterminacy.

show abstract

Easy and plain languages as special cases of linguistic tailoring and standard language varieties

Leskelä

Mustajoki²,

Piehl³

2022

Nord J Linguist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to introduce new insights to further the understanding of easy language (EL) and plain language (PL) as examples of tailored language and place them within a broader context of linguistic varieties. We examine EL and PL in relation to standard language, and we consider the degree of conscious effort required in tailoring and the compliance with the codified norms of standard language. Both EL and PL are used in asymmetric communication: PL to mediate between specialists and the general public and EL in communication with people with language barriers. We argue that while these varieties have similar purposes and methods, they also have significant differences; for example, the tailoring moves in opposite directions, as PL seeks general comprehensibility and EL aims to reach special and vulnerable groups. The differences between PL and EL are primarily linked to social prestige and the potential risk of stigma related to their use.

show abstract

The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse

Cited by 4 publications

References 79 publications

A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication

A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication

Avoidance of cognitive efforts as a risk factor in interaction

Easy and plain languages as special cases of linguistic tailoring and standard language varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About