Intercultural Communication in English As A Lingua Franca - Some Sources of Misunderstanding

Intercultural Pragmatics 8-1 (2011), 93116 1612-295X/11/0008-0093
DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004 Walter de Gruyter

Abstract
Intercultural communication is perceived as being somewhat problematic,
given the varied cultures that come into contact with one another. Misunder-
standing and communication breakdown are said to mark manv intercultural
encounters as participants relv on the norms of their mother tongue and native
culture to interpret meaning. This paper reports on the hndings of a studv con-
ducted to identifv and explain the sources and nature of misunderstanding in
intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca. Fine-grained anal-
vses of 15 hours of naturallv occurring spoken interactions in ELF reveal that
none of the misunderstandings occurring in this tvpe of intercultural commu-
nication can be attributed to differences in the participants cultural back-
ground. While a few misunderstandings are language-related, the source of
manv of the misunderstandings can be traced to ambiguitv in the speakers
utterances. Other reasons for misunderstanding include mishearing and lack
of world knowledge, namelv, factors that also contribute to misunderstanding
in intracultural communication. It is suggested that the diminished role of cul-
ture in such interactions stems from the lingua franca context of the interac-
tion. Intent on arriving at mutual understanding in a language that is native to
none of the participants, cultural differences are tolerated and often over-
looked as the participants negotiate and co-construct understanding in the
lingua franca.
1. Introduction
The subject oI intercultural communication has never been oI greater relevance
than it is today, given the Irequency and extent to which such communications
are conducted on a daily basis all over the world. Fast-paced developments in
telecommunication systems and transportation technology mean that a greater
Intercultural communication in English
as a lingua franca:
Some sources of misunderstanding
JAGDISH KAUR
(INDESIGN) WDG (155x230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2391 IPRG, 8:1 PMU: WSL 09/12/2010 AC1:(KN/)24/1/2011 pp. 93116 2391_8-1-04 (p. 93)
number oI people oI diverse language and cultural backgrounds are interacting
with each other in ways and Ior reasons that were unimaginable decades ago.
As international contacts and dealings become commonplace, and as busi-
nesses go global, courses and programs designed to increase intercultural
awareness and enhance intercultural competence are growing in demand. What
the latter trend suggests is that communication between people oI diIIerent
cultural groups, unlike intracultural communication, requires added or perhaps
diIIerent skills and competences.
The commonly held belieI that intercultural communication is more Iragile
and thus pre-disposed to problems stems Irom the assumption that the diIIer-
ences in norms, values and belieIs between participants oI diIIerent cultural
backgrounds are likely to hamper attempts at achieving successIul communi-
cative outcomes. As Scollon and Scollon explain, 'When we are communicat-
ing with people who are very diIIerent Irom us, it is very diIfcult to know how
to draw inIerences about what they mean, and so it is impossible to depend on
shared knowledge and background Ior confdence in our interpretations
(1995: 22). In Iact, this lack oI common experiences and assumptions is said to
contribute to the greater incidence oI misunderstanding and miscommunica-
tion in intercultural communication. Samovar and Porter make this point when
they say that, 'the chieI problem associated with intercultural communication
is error in social perception brought about by cultural diversity that aIIects the
perceptual process and later add that 'unintended errors in meaning may arise
because people with entirely diIIerent backgrounds are unable to understand
one another accurately (1991: 21).
While researchers working in the feld oI intercultural communication con-
tinue to emphasize the role oI culture in miscommunication and misunder-
standing Ior the reasons indicated above, others interested in a specifc type oI
intercultural communication, namely, in English as a lingua Iranca (henceIorth
ELF), are making claims to the contrary. Findings Irom studies on intercultural
communication in ELF reveal that the occurrence oI misunderstanding and
miscommunication is not as widespread as initially thought and the misunder-
standings that do occur cannot in Iact be attributed to diIIerences in the par-
ticipants` cultural background (House 1999; Mauranen 2006). These fndings
suggest that the lingua Iranca context exerts some infuence on the interaction
taking place between participants oI diIIerent cultural groups. To shed Iurther
light on the matter, it is necessary to examine in greater detail the sources oI
misunderstanding in intercultural communication in ELF by conducting fne-
grained analyses oI naturally occurring ELF data. This paper reports on the
fndings oI a study that was conducted with the above in mind using conversa-
tion analytic procedures.
94 Jagdish Kaur
(INDESIGN) WDG (155x230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2391 IPRG, 8:1 PMU: WSL 09/12/2010 AC1:(KN/)24/1/2011 pp. 94116 2391_8-1-04 (p. 94) (INDESIGN) WDG (155x230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2391 IPRG, 8:1 PMU: WSL 09/12/2010 AC1:(KN/)24/1/2011 pp. 95116 2391_8-1-04 (p. 95)
2. Dening misunderstanding`
While there exist numerous terms to describe all the things that can go wrong
in communication, there is lack oI consistency in the use oI these terms.
1
As
Gass and Varonis explain, 'diIIerent researchers are using diIIerent terms Ior
the same phenomenon, on the one hand, and the same term Ior diIIerent phe-
nomena, on the other (1991: 123). In this regard, two terms that are oIten used
interchangeably but can reIer to quite separate phenomena are misunderstand-
ing and non-understanding. A random survey oI the analysis section oI re-
search articles on misunderstanding reveals that phenomena like partial or
non-understanding, perIormance errors including speech perturbations and the
like are sometimes labeled as misunderstanding. Mauranen (2006: 132), Ior
instance, when discussing the practices participants use to signal misunder-
standing, provides the Iollowing example:
S1: yeah well i tried to explain that by center periphery
S1: yeah you tried |yeah|
S6: |but it`s| i mean i`m not a Finn so i (xx) so much in-
sight that`s the problem
S3: but that`s an asset
S1: hm?
S3: that`s an asset that you`re not a Finn in this in this topic i think
S1: what does an asset mean?
S3: it`s an advantage
S1: ok yeah (.) well (.)
The italicized question Iorms above, identifed by Mauranen as signaling mis-
understanding, in the context oI the present study would be seen as suggesting
non-understanding given the apparent lack oI understanding on the part oI S1.
Claims put Iorward by researchers concerning the Irequency and gravity oI
misunderstanding in particular types oI interaction thereIore need to be treated
with caution. There is the obvious risk oI overstating the problem oI misunder-
standing iI communicative behaviors that do not in Iact maniIest misunder-
standing are taken to represent the phenomenon.
In order to demarcate misunderstanding Irom non-understanding, the defni-
tions provided by Bremer et al. are adopted, namely, 'non-understanding
occurs when the listener realizes that s/he cannot make sense oI (part oI) an
utterance (as in the example above), while misunderstanding reIers to the
situation where 'the listener achieves an interpretation which makes sense to
her or himbut it wasn`t the one the speaker meant (1996: 40), as below:
Waiting Ior salesman to return; phone is ringing
Jose: Should we get those rings?
Rachel: Would we be able to give them any inIormation?
Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca 95
Jose: |long pause| I mean the napkin rings.
(Varonis 1981, as cited in Varonis and Gass 1985a: 330)
The distinguishing Ieature thereIore lies in the recipient`s own awareness oI
the problem. In the case oI non-understanding, the recipient, conscious oI his
or her inability or Iailure to understand, wholly or partially, has the option oI
either making the problem known to the speaker or 'letting-it-pass (Firth
1996). In the above example provided by Mauranen (2006: 132), the recipient
opts Ior the Iormer and uses frst, a 'minimal incomprehension signal and
then, a direct request Ior clarifcation, to indicate his or her inability to under-
stand. In the case oI misunderstanding, on the other hand, the recipient is un-
aware that he or she has misinterpreted the speaker`s meaning; regardless oI
the recipient`s (initial) lack oI awareness oI the problem, the misunderstanding
may reveal itselI in the recipient`s next turn or in a subsequent turn, 'typically
through an incoherent` answer to the misunderstood question (Bremer et al.
1996: 40) as in the example Irom Varonis and Gass (1985a). Overt or displayed
misunderstandings not only allow the speaker to take necessary reparative ac-
tion, but they also allow the analyst to identiIy the possible source(s) oI the
understanding problem.
While an attempt is being made to explicitly distinguish misunderstanding
Irom non-understanding, this distinction is neither absolute nor clear cut. As
Bremer et al. (1996) explain, some problems oI understanding cannot solely be
attributed to either one oI the two categories; in Iact misunderstanding can re-
sult Irom partial or non-understanding oI a prior utterance. Furthermore, diIf-
culty can arise in determining the recipient`s level oI awareness oI the uncer-
tainty oI his or her interpretation oI the speaker`s meaning. For instance, while
a confrmation request may bring to light the recipient`s misinterpretation oI
the speaker`s meaning, it can at the same time suggest some degree oI aware-
ness on the part oI the recipient that the understanding achieved may not be
accurate. Despite the possible presence oI awareness, such instances cannot be
categorized as non-understanding given that a Iorm oI understanding has been
achieved, albeit the wrong one. Whether the move to check the accuracy oI
the understanding achieved is triggered by an awareness oI an understanding
problem or simply refects an attempt to preempt a problem Irom the outset
(Mauranen 2006, Kaur 2009) is diIfcult to determine. For this reason, in-
stances oI misinterpretation oI meaning made public in confrmation requests
will also be categorized as misunderstanding. This is in keeping with Bazzanella
and Damiano`s suggestion that 'misunderstanding, as a Iorm oI understand-
ing . . . not be seen as a polar process . . . but, rather, as a continuum (1999:
817) and Dascal`s conception oI misunderstanding as being multi-leveled in
character with 'each level displaying its own criteria oI correctness` oI under-
standing (1999: 756).
96 Jagdish Kaur
3. Misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca
For communication to be successIul, shared understanding between the inter-
acting parties is essential. However, the reality is that mutual understanding is
not always achieved in the frst instance and sometimes, not at all. Partial
understanding, non-understanding and even misunderstanding can result as
participants attempt to get meaning across. In this regard, communication in
English as a lingua Iranca is perceived as being particularly problematic given
that the speakers are not only oI diIIerent cultural backgrounds but are also
non-native speakers oI the language in question (Mauranen 2006, 2007).
Although English Iunctions as a medium oI communication in interactions
between its native speakers and other non-native speakers, researchers work-
ing in the area oI ELF tend to confne their investigations to interactions in
which English 'is not the native language oI either |participant| (SeidlhoIer
2001: 146). Participants in an ELF interaction thereIore not only have to con-
tend with lack oI shared knowledge and assumptions but also with diIIerent
varieties oI English and levels oI competence, all oI which can heighten the
risk oI misunderstanding.
Notwithstanding the aIorementioned challenges, fndings Irom studies on
ELF suggest that the problem oI misunderstanding is Iar Irom critical. House,
Ior instance, who examines a 30-minute interaction between Iour ELF speakers,
notes the 'paucity oI misunderstandings (2002: 251) in her data; while speech
perturbations, poorly managed turn-taking and 'non-aligned, parallel talk`
(House 1999: 80) are common, open or overt misunderstandings cannot be
detected. Meierkord similarly comments on the lack oI misunderstanding in
her dinner-table ELF talk and concludes that communication in ELF is 'a Iorm
oI intercultural communication characterized by cooperation rather than mis-
understanding (2000: 11).
The above views are to some extent shared by Firth (1990, 1996) and
Gramkow (2001), who work within a Conversation Analysis Iramework.
Although there is displayed use oI non-standard Iorms in addition to various
other linguistic anomalies in their ELF data, open or overt misunderstandings
are rare. The near absence oI misunderstanding, however, cannot be attributed
to the let-it-pass strategy, which the participants are said to employ to deal with
ambiguities and problems oI understanding (see also House 2002). Given
the recipient`s own lack oI awareness oI his or her misunderstanding oI the
speaker`s utterance, unless pointed out by the speaker in the next turn, it would
be erroneous to suggest the conscious application oI a strategy by the recipient
to downplay the problem. Thus, while let-it-pass may explain the lack oI overt
displays oI non-understanding by the recipient, it cannot likewise be attributed
Ior the absence oI open displays oI misunderstanding.
Others who observe Iew instances oI misunderstanding in their ELF data
include Mauranen (2006), who attributes this to eIIorts by the participants
themselves to prevent or preempt such problems Irom the outset. In addition to
selI-repairs, other preemptive measures include the use oI various interactional
practices such as repetition, confrmation and clarifcation requests and the
like, which allow the participants to check, monitor and clariIy understanding
(see also Kaur 2009). A more signifcant fnding than the non-prevalence oI
misunderstanding in her data, however, relates to the source(s) oI misunder-
standing, as indicated below:
I Iound no clear evidence oI culture-based comprehension problems . . . Apart Irom the
most surIace-level misunderstandings concerning the linguistic meaning oI items, the
other types are not specifc to lingua Iranca communication, but likely to occur else-
where independently oI the speakers` native languages. (Mauranen 2006: 144)
While much oI the work in intercultural communication continues to attribute
misunderstanding to cultural diIIerence, the above fnding highlights the need
to reIrain Irom treating the link between culture and misunderstanding as a
given.
Like Mauranen, House (1999) Iailed to fnd a causal link between culture
and the understanding problems she detected in her data. House, who specif-
cally set out to test the hypothesis that 'misunderstandings in ELF interactions
are largely caused by diIIerences in L1-based cultural knowledge Irames and
interactional norms (1999: 75), Iound no supporting evidence Ior this in the
data. Instead, she attributes the participants` problems oI understanding to their
lack oI fuency, both linguistic and pragmatic. House in Iact goes so Iar as to
suggest that it is not the participants` intercultural competence that requires
enhancement, rather it is their linguistic and pragmatic competence that de-
serves attention iI intercultural misunderstanding is to be avoided.
The fndings oI the two aIorementioned studies suggest that interaction in
ELF, while constituting one type oI intercultural communication, has Ieatures
that are unique to it that may cause some other Iactor to take precedence over
cultural diIIerence as the main source oI misunderstanding.
4. Methodology
To gain deeper insight into the nature oI misunderstanding in ELF communica-
tion, it is necessary to examine 'real-liIe interaction, which depicts 'actual
instances oI human behaviour (WooIftt 2005: 40). For this reason, 15 hours
oI naturally occurring spoken interaction in English as a lingua Iranca was
audio recorded Ior analysis.
2
An academic institute set up within a university
in Kuala Lumpur was chosen as the research site as the institute oIIered 'a
98 Jagdish Kaur
range oI International Masters degree programmes . . . to students Irom Asia,
Europe and the rest oI the world (course prospectus, 20042005). In addition,
teaching staII at the chosen site mainly comprised experts in the feld Irom
various parts oI the world. Given the international nature oI both the student
and staII population, English was the established medium oI communication
and instruction Ior all concerned at the institute.
The participants, numbering 22 in total, are oI 13 diIIerent frst-language
and cultural backgrounds (see Appendix 1). Sixteen oI the participants con-
sisted oI postgraduate students, while the rest comprised Iour members oI staII
and two research students. For all the participants, English is a second or Ior-
eign language. The English-language entry requirement Ior the master`s pro-
gram was a TOEFL score oI 550 and above in the paper-based test or an IELTS
score oI Band 5 and above. Although the majority oI participants appeared
Iairly profcient in English, a couple oI the students displayed profciency
levels that tended toward the lower-intermediate. The members oI staII and the
research students, on the other hand, seemed highly profcient in the language.
Given the varied lingua-cultural backgrounds present and the diIIerent vari-
eties oI English spoken at varying levels oI profciency, the participants can
be said to typiIy ELF users the world over.
To ensure the naturalness oI the data, the participants recorded themselves
without the presence oI the researcher. Randomly selected participants were
provided with cassette recorders and instructed to record their interactions at
the locations in which the interactions would have taken place regardless oI
whether they were being recorded. Thus, interactions that took place outside
the classroom, Ior instance when the participants discussed group assignments
and projects were recorded, as were their consultations with staII and Iellow
course-mates. Recordings oI casual conversations between the participants
also Iormed part oI the data as they constitute a large part oI the communi-
cation that takes place in this setting. Although none oI the interactions were
artifcially created or acted out Ior the purpose oI the study, the initiation oI
some oI the earlier recorded conversations did seem somewhat contrived.
These, however, rapidly developed into very real conversations as the partici-
pants proceeded to discuss matters oI concern to them. However, in trying to
ensure that the interactions recorded were naturally occurring, the sound qual-
ity oI some oI the recordings was to some extent compromised. Nevertheless,
recordings oI interactions continued to be made in their natural surroundings as
a preliminary hearing oI the recordings convinced the researcher that the back-
ground noise would not pose a major obstacle to transcribing the data.
The recordings were then transcribed using a slightly adapted version oI the
notation system devised by Gail JeIIerson (see Appendix 2). The system, Ia-
vored by conversation analysts, provides not only Ior the details oI what is said
to be included in the transcripts but also how it is said. Thus, Ieatures oI talk
like pauses, sound stretches, latching, overlap, cut oIIs, and hesitation markers
are indicated in the transcripts to allow Ior greater accuracy in reading the data.
5. Analysis
A fne-grained analysis oI the data revealed a total oI 33 displayed misunder-
standings in the 15 hours oI transcribed ELF spoken interactions.
3
For pur-
poses oI identifcation, the participants` perspective is taken into consideration,
namely, that the participants orientate to the talk as being problematic. Or as
SchegloII puts it, 'the parties themselves address the talk as revealing a misun-
derstanding in need oI repair (1987: 204). Misunderstandings thus come to
light when the speaker is seen to make a move to correct the understanding
arrived at by the recipient, as displayed in the response given by the recipient
to an inquiry or in a request Ior confrmation oI understanding put Iorward
by the recipient. It is the repairs, thereIore, that 'anchor the analysis as mis-
understandings and . . . show what the participants treat as sources oI the mis-
understanding as well (SchegloII 1987: 204). Also, by taking into account the
participant`s perspective, phenomena other than misunderstanding, such as
non-understanding, perIormance errors, and the like, can be eliminated Irom
the analysis.
All instances oI overt misunderstanding were then examined in detail to
determine the source oI the problem. While it appears at frst glance that the
misunderstandings identifed can be attributed to a range oI diverse sources,
closer analysis reveals that in the main, the sources include the Iollowing: per-
Iormance-related, language-related, ambiguity, and gaps in world knowledge.
However, this categorization in no way suggests that there is always one clearly
identifable source oI a misunderstanding. Frequently, several Iactors can be
seen to contribute to the problem, each interacting with the other(s) in complex
ways (see also House 1999, Weigand 1999, Bazzanella and Damiano 1999). It
is Ior this reason also that Bremer et al. suggest that 'a constellation oI several
causal Iactors (1996: 38), rather than that a single cause, be considered when
investigating the data. While the analysis that Iollows attempts to describe all
the observable causes oI each misunderstanding, the misunderstandings are
classifed according to the Iactor that can be seen to impact the recipient`s (mis)
understanding the most.
5.1. Performance-related misunderstanding
Some oI the misunderstandings in the data are clearly the result oI perIormance
problems such as mishearing and slips oI the tongue. Bremer et al., however,
caution that a misunderstanding which is attributed to Iaulty hearing may have
100 Jagdish Kaur
been 'reinIorced by another Iactor such as the utterance having been spoken
quickly and/or unclearly (1996: 38). This is certainly relevant in many ELF
interactions where the participants speak diIIerent varieties oI English with
some variation in pronunciation and accent that can impinge on the clarity and
intelligibility oI sound segments (Jenkins 2000). Inability to identiIy the pho-
nological sequence oI a word or phrase can cause the recipient to 'come to a
Ialse identifcation (Weigand 1999: 775) resulting in misunderstanding. While
mishearing constitutes a problem at the perception level, this translates into
misunderstanding at the comprehension level (Dua 1990, as cited in House et
al. 2003). Thus, incorrect understanding is achieved on account oI the incor-
rectly heard word or phrase.
In (1) below, D hears the word 'gender as 'general, and incorrectly under-
stands the topic oI M`s research proposal to pertain to something general.
(1) D and M are talking about a research proposal they have to write.
01 D: and how about the: Halimah . . .(1.2) proposal |((mumbles))
02 M: |uh no-no-no: idea at
03 all. it`s quite diIfcult? so I was thinking I write gender
04 (1.5)
05 D: general:
06 M: er gender
07 D: oh uh gender?
08 M: yeah gender issues
D`s mishearing oI the word 'gender is displayed in the next turn, in line 5, in
what is meant to be a repeat oI the word. D`s (incorrect) repeat comes aIter a
1.5-second pause, which suggests that D fnds the word 'gender in M`s prior
utterance problematic. Since D appears to have heard the word 'general in-
stead oI 'gender, '. . . I write (on) general is syntactically incomplete as it is
missing a noun Iollowing the attributive adjective 'general. D orientates to
this incompleteness by withholding an immediate response. When M Iails to
produce additional talk, however, D takes up the next turn to repeat the prior
incorrectly perceived word. The repeat, produced with a sound stretch, appears
designed to elicit a clarifcation or a completion oI the prior utterance, but it
also alerts M to the problem. M`s repair in the Iorm oI a simple repeat oI the
problematic item in line 6 is oh-receipted, suggesting 'a change oI state oI
knowledge or inIormation (Heritage 1984: 309), in this case a change in the
understanding achieved. The questioning repeat that Iollows the particle oh
(line 7) allows D to check that the understanding now achieved is in Iact cor-
rect, which M confrms in the next turn.
Extract (2) below provides another example oI a misunderstanding that can
be attributed to Iaulty hearing.
(2) S and M are talking about the political situation in Myanmar.
01 S: and . . .(0.6) so your country right now is the: (communicative)
02 one?
03 M: yeah
04 S: uhhuh no no election?
05 M: no religion huhh
06 S: no no election?
07 M: no?
08 S: election?
09 M: no election election was- was in: . . .(0.7) (eighty nine or ninety
10 |nine)
M makes her misunderstanding oI S`s inquiry in line 4 public when she re-
sponds to it in the next turn (line 5). M`s response, which seems designed to
provide confrmation to S`s inquiry, displays that she has misheard election as
religion which then prompts S to initiate repair in the Iollowing turn. A simple
repeat oI the prior question, however, Iails to resolve the misunderstanding in
the frst instance (line 6). It takes another repeat oI the problematic word to
eventually restore understanding as evidenced by M`s response in lines 9 and
10.
In extract (3), a slip oI the tongue by the speaker in an earlier utterance is
very likely the cause oI the misunderstanding that reveals itselI a couple oI
turns later.
(3) A wants to know iI R he has started working on a particular essay.
01 A: you already started with the::: . . .(1.3) the frst assignment
02 eh the- the third assignment?
03 R: yeah
04 A: do all the tables, the graphs everything?
05 R: the frst assignment?
06 A: no the third the third.
A`s inquiry as to whether R has started to work on the third assignment Ior a
particular course is problem-marked as indicated by the sound stretch, the
1.3-second pause and the move to selI-correct (lines 1 and 2). Following a re-
sponse in the aIfrmative, A inquires Iurther iI R has also completed the neces-
sary graphs and tables Ior the essay. R in turn employs a questioning repeat to
check that A`s second inquiry, in line 4, pertains to the frst assignment. This
elicits a correction Irom A in the next turn (line 6).
The extract is signifcant in that it illustrates a case oI misunderstanding that
may have passed undetected iI R had not made a move to check on the accu-
racy oI his understanding in line 5. The acknowledgement that R provides in
102 Jagdish Kaur
line 3 is in all likelihood made with reIerence to the frst essay rather than the
third, as the request Ior confrmation suggests. A`s subsequent question about
graphs and tables, however, alerts R to a problem, prompting him to check that
A is in Iact still talking about the frst essay. The misunderstanding has no
doubt come about as a result oI A`s earlier slip oI the tongue in line 1. However,
some degree oI inattentiveness on the part oI R may have also contributed to
the problem.
The kinds oI misunderstanding examined above are to be expected in every-
day speech regardless oI whether the participants in interaction are mono-
cultural or multicultural. While incorrect identifcation oI the phonological
sequence oI a wordi.e., mishearingis presumed to be more Irequent in
ELF talk, given the greater variation in pronunciation and accent, there is
no evidence to support this in the data. Only Iour oI the 33 misunderstand-
ings identifed could in Iact be attributed to Iaulty hearing on the part oI the
recipient. Unusual pronunciation oI words tends to be Iollowed by requests
Ior repetition or clarifcation, suggesting non-understanding rather than
misunderstanding.
5.2. Language-related misunderstanding
Some oI the misunderstandings Iound in the data can be attributed to language
problems on the part oI one or both oI the participants in interaction. That some
oI the participants Iace problems in their use oI the language is evidenced by
the many ungrammaticalities and disfuencies detected in the data. For the
most part, however, these linguistic anomalies do not pose an obstacle to
achieving successIul communicative outcomes. In Iact fndings Irom research
into ELF show that non-native speakers oI English are adept in their use oI
communication strategies and interactional practices to negotiate meaning and
arrive at mutual understanding (see, e.g., Pitzl 2005, Watterson 2008, Kaur
2010). Nevertheless, some oI the misunderstandings in the data can be traced
to the speaker`s non-standard use oI lexical items, while others are triggered by
the lack oI coherence in the speaker`s utterances.
In extract (4), D`s non-standard use oI the verb 'make, as in, 'make plagia-
rism, may have contributed to S`s misunderstanding oI D`s utterance.
(4) D tells S about a case oI plagiarism he had read on the Internet.
01 D: and I Iound that . . .(1.1) in internet the::: . . .(1.5) the news about
02 . . .(2.5) a very: high level: case oI . . .(0.8) plagiarism one oI
03 assistant proIessor at harvard or something like that
04 S: yeah
05 D: er they say that they admit make a::
06 S: plagiarism?
07 D: yes
08 S: oh he-he allow plagiarism?
09 D: no he o he he make- he-he do he do
10 S: he-he-he did the plagiarism?
11 D: he did the plagiarisms
In line 5, D uses the expression 'they admit make a, which S correctly com-
pletes with the noun 'plagiarism (line 6) when D displays diIfculty in fnding
the relevant next word. Although D incorrectly uses the third-person plural
pronoun instead oI the singular one, it is his use oI the expression 'admit make
a plagiarism that is misinterpreted by S, as revealed in his request Ior con-
frmation in line 8. S understands D`s use oI 'admit make to mean 'allow.
That S`s inquiry is oh-preIaced seems to refect S`s own surprise at discovering
this (incorrect) piece oI newsnamely, that an assistant proIessor had con-
doned the act oI plagiarism. This suggests that S`s use oI the word 'allow is a
display oI genuine misunderstanding and is not the result oI an incorrect choice
oI word. D`s switch to the word 'do in line 9 indicates that he is probably
aware oI the inadequacy oI the verb 'make in conveying his meaning; his use
oI the verb 'do refects an attempt to drive home the point that the lecturer
concerned was in Iact the perpetrator oI the act.
In the next extract, the misunderstanding may be attributed to the incoherent
nature oI R`s utterance, which renders meaning unclear.
(5) R seeks suggestions Irom S and V on the steps a country could take to
promote its diplomatic standing in the international arena.
01 R: that`s diIIerent. . . .(1.1) and the second topic I:: think er how to::::
02 . . .(1.8) er: . . .(0.8) improve the:: . . .(1.3) diplomatic? . . .(0.7) you
03 know diplomatic . . .(0.8) go o:n show, to-to show on in the
04 international: stage
05 (1.9)
06 V: qah more general (this one)q
07 (1.7)
08 R: what- what do we |think about this?
09 S: |now-
10 now could you tell me once more
11 (1.9)
12 S: |I-
13 R: |how to show on: ho:w diplomatic on the international stage
14 (2.6)
15 S: you mean er . . .(1.2) you mean what`s the role oI the
16 government in laos to have the international
17 R: no I-I mean: . . .(0.9) not also in laos I mean . . .(0.6) a:ll country
104 Jagdish Kaur
18 . . .(0.6) in asia or:: . . .(1.6) is a . . .(0.7) ten . . .(0.8) ten country in
19 the asia:::
R`s utterance in lines 1 to 4 is marked by ungrammaticalities and disfuencies
in the Iorm oI sound stretches, lengthy pauses, and hesitation markers, which
result in a generally incoherent utterance. S`s Iailure to understand is made
public when he makes a direct request Ior a repeat oI the utterance in line 10.
While R does not produce a verbatim repeat oI the original, the absence oI
substantial rewording oI the utterance in line 13 suggests that it is a repeat Ior
all intents and purposes. The repetition is Iollowed by a pause oI 2.6 seconds
beIore S attempts a response; the pause suggests that S`s problem in under-
standing R`s prior utterance has not been Iully addressed by the repeat. S
clearly expects more by way oI an elaboration, as indicated by the 2.6-seconds
pause. R, however, has taken S`s 'could you tell me once more literally and
proceeds to wait Ior a response aIter producing the repeat in line 13. That S`s
Iailure to understand R`s inquiry, in lines 1 to 4, has not been resolved by the
repetition is evidenced by the misunderstanding that reveals itselI in S`s (in-
complete) request Ior confrmation in lines 15 and 16. While S has understood
R`s question to pertain to Laos, the country oI R`s origin, R`s query is in Iact
intended to be more general, as he later clarifes.
The above extract illustrates the kinds oI understanding problems that can
develop as a result oI the speaker`s inability to put ideas into words due to lack
oI competence in the language. In this instance, S misinterprets the scope oI
R`s inquiry because oI incomplete understanding oI the question. In Iact, the
example above provides support Ior the observation made by Bremer et al. that
'misunderstanding is oIten the result oI a hypothesis Iormed . . . as a response
to non-understanding (1996: 69). Thus, while the two types oI understanding
problems are to some extent separate, the Iormer can develop as a result oI the
latter, as evidenced in the extract above.
5.3. Ambiguitv
A major source oI misunderstanding in the data pertains to the ambiguity in-
herent in many oI the speakers` utterances. This constitutes a common source
oI misunderstanding even in intracultural communication (Bazzanella and
Damiano 1999). Ambiguity itselI can be traced to various sources but the most
common is the lack oI explicitness on the part oI the speaker. Weigand explains
that 'Not everything is explicitly said in communication . . . because oI time-
economical reasons and because we are not always aware oI every piece oI
inIormation that would be necessary Ior clear understanding (1999: 777). As
a consequence, the recipient is oIten leIt to inIer meaning and Irequently may
draw the wrong inIerence and misunderstand the speaker`s utterance.
According to SchegloII, problematic reIerence constitutes 'a commonly
recognized potential source oI ambiguity (1987: 205) in communication. For
instance, Iailure to make the connection between a pro-term and its reIerent is
likely to result in an 'interpretive error (SchegloII 1987: 205), which mani-
Iests itselI as a misunderstanding. This is the case in extract (6) below where S
wrongly identifes the reIerent oI the object pronoun it in line 8.
(6) S and K are talking about an essay they have to write Ior a course when S
switches the topic to inIorm K about a change in the timetable Ior the
course in question.
01 S: yeah. anyway you know the . . .(1.3) the time maybe change . . .
02 (0.7) on monday we-we start class at nine . . .(0.9)
03 K: |yes
04 S: |you know?
05 K: I know.
06 S: yes and maybe we- we wake up early hahhahhahhahhahhah|hah
07 K: |okay
08 so you have er:::: . . .(0.9) y- . . .(1.4) you worry about it? huhh
09 huhhuh
10 S: yeah I worry about the long paper oI the:
11 K: no no no you worry about the:: . . .(1.0) waking up so early? huhhh
12 |huhhuhhuh
13 S: |no I just joking hahhahhah
S`s topic switch in line 1 is announced through his use oI a misplacement
marker in the Iorm oI 'anyway, which makes public the Iact that what is to
Iollow is disconnected Irom what has come beIore (SchegloII and Sacks 1973).
In line 6, S remarks that they would have to rise early as a result oI the earlier
time slot. The laugh tokens that Iollow suggest that the comment is being made
in jest. When K inquires, in the next turn, iI S is worried about 'it, S admits to
being worried about the essay they have to write Ior the course (line 10). The
exchange just prior to the extract above was in Iact about the essay in question.
Given the ambiguity oI the reIerent oI the pro-term 'it, S incorrectly identifes
the reIerent as the earlier-mentioned essay. It is possible that to S, the link be-
tween 'worry and the previously discussed topic oI the essay is more logical
than the matter oI rising early, which was said in jest. The displayed misunder-
standing causes K to execute repair in the next turn by clariIying the reIerent
oI the pro-term.
Besides ambiguous reIerence, misunderstanding can result Irom ambigu-
ous semantics. In the case oI the latter, the meaning oI an utterance is open to
diIIerent interpretations. Misunderstanding results when the interpretation
achieved by the recipient is not the one intended by the speaker, as in the case
oI the next extract:
106 Jagdish Kaur
(7) D, citing an article, inIorms S that most American students admit to
plagiarizing at least once in their liIetime.
01 D: er they say . . .(1.4) most oI a: american students
02 S: yeah
03 D: they admit they:: that they iI- they- . . .(0.6) once oI their liIe time
04 S: yeah
05 D: cheats: in the school.
06 S: wa-once |oI what? once oI what?
07 D: |cheat
08 once oI in their:: er: . . .(1.3) in their educations
09 S: yeah
10 D: in their er::: school time
11 S: yeah
12 D: they cheat once.
13 S: you mean er they don`t cheat really er a lot-a lot?
14 D: no
15 S: they
16 D: the-just the- the Iacts that er . . .(0.6) it`s common Ior everybody
17 that (yes)
18 S: it`s common Ior everyone to cheat?
19 D: yes
D`s remark that most American students claim to have cheated at least 'once oI
their liIe time (line 3) elicits a request Ior recapitulation in line 6. In response,
D substitutes 'liIe time with 'educations and 'school time (lines 8 and 10,
respectively) as a means oI addressing S`s displayed problem. In line 13, S
makes a move to check his understanding oI D`s comment; S, it appears, has
understood D`s utterance to mean that American students rarely cheat in
school. This interpretation is clearly based on the point that D has made about
the students cheating once in their liIe time or school time. D`s move to exe-
cute repair in lines 16 and 17, however, succeeds in disambiguating the mean-
ing oI his prior utterance. The message D was trying to get across, contrary to
S`s interpretation, pertains to the point about most American students cheating
in school, thus making it a common phenomenon. In seeking to veriIy the ac-
curacy oI his understanding oI D`s prior turn, S reveals his misinterpretation oI
D`s claim, which subsequently leads to a repair sequence in which the problem
is addressed.
Some oI the ambiguities that lead to misunderstanding can be attributed to
the speaker`s Iailure to provide suIfcient detail or context in the frst place.
Given the lack oI inIormation provided, the recipient is leIt to inIer meaning.
Under-specifed utterances are obviously open to various interpretations and
can result in misunderstanding. The next extract is a case in point:
(8) S and R are talking about post-modern consumerism when S gives an
example to clariIy his point.
01 S: it explain the: characteristic oI this . . .(0.9) er: consumption
02 platIorm. . . .(1.6) so: Ior someone is like . . .(1.2) in thailand
03 Ior example you know iI you have very nice number
04 R: mm . . .(0.6) car number ah?
05 S: mobile phone |number
06 R: |ah ah ah
In lines 1 to 3, S gives the example oI how 'nice numbers have a higher value
attached to them in Thailand. He does not, however, provide suIfcient detail to
enable R to link the example to a concrete object. Consequently, R inquires iI
S`s example pertains to car license numbers (line 4). The request Ior confrma-
tion reveals that the inIerence drawn by R is the wrong one in this case. The
correction S provides in line 5 displays that he had mobile phone numbers in
mind when making the earlier comment.
Misunderstandings that stem Irom lack oI detail and inIormation in the
speaker`s utterance are common in the data. Extract (9) below provides another
example oI this type oI misunderstanding. In this case, the invitation put Ior-
ward by W, which is under-specifed, leads to a misunderstanding on S`s part,
as displayed in his request Ior confrmation in line 2.
(9) W invites S and some others to go on a trip to a nearby island
01 W: so I wanted to: ask iI anyone wants to go
02 S: er during this week?
03 W: no:: next time
04 S: next time yeah
W`s Iailure to speciIy when exactly she intends Ior the trip to take place leads
S to inIer this. However, given the lack oI detail provided, the inIerence drawn
is incorrect. Misunderstandings oI the type illustrated in (8) and (9) above gen-
erally reveal themselves when the recipient attempts to check on the accuracy
oI the understanding achieved based on the limited inIormation provided in the
speaker`s prior turn. Such problems oI understanding, however, are easily re-
solved as the examples above display.
Ambiguity in the speaker`s utterance appears to be the main source oI mis-
understanding in the ELF data examined. As discussed above, various Iactors
contribute to this ambiguity, which include problematic reIerence, ambiguous
semantics, and lack oI specifcity. The misunderstandings that result in such
contexts are not specifc to ELF communication Ior they occur regularly in all
types oI communication. Vendler, when reIerring to an ambiguity-related mis-
understanding, confrms this when he says that 'misunderstandings thrive in
communicative situations (1994: 19).
108 Jagdish Kaur
5.4. Gaps in world knowledge
Some oI the misunderstandings that occur in the data can be attributed to gaps
in the recipient`s knowledge oI the world. Such misunderstandings thus pertain
to content rather than language. However, as the examples below show, the
speaker`s lack oI competence in the language can, to some extent, exacerbate
the problem. EIIorts to clariIy meaning in such cases are not always successIul
as the speaker may lack not only suIfcient knowledge oI the topic in question
but also the necessary linguistic resources.
In excerpt (10) below, M`s attempts to explain a lecturer`s medical condition
i.e., Parkinson`s diseaseresults in misunderstanding, as displayed in K`s
request Ior confrmation in line 23.
(10) M is telling K and S about a lecturer who suIIers Irom Parkinson`s
disease.
01 M: so whenever he er: he came here Tim: Tim help him because he`s
02 got parkison, you know parkison disease?
03 K: hu:h
04 S: what`s that?
05 M: where he`s shaking all the time
06 S: uhhuh
07 M: and then er beIore he: got up er: er Tim have to do timing one:
08 two: three and then pull him.
09 S: oh
10 M: really hhh
11 K: ( ) pull his hand?
12 M: yeah er er you know he`s shaking his muscle is shaking
13 K: mm
14 M: and: and then in the class Ior him er: er they have to arrange
15 microphone
16 K: mm
17 M: Irom diIIerent . . .(0.6) diIIerent you know corner
18 K: huh
19 M: so: so that we can hear. . . .(2.0) so he-he- i- he`s coming in
20 Iebruary I think.
21 K: Iebruary?
22 M: yeah.
23 K: oh Irom Irom pakistan huh?
24 M: er n-no no he`s er not er: er pakistan . . .(0.6) er parkison disease
25 he`s having.
26 K: mm
27 M: mister sin- I think- I- I`m not sure where is- where is he Irom
28 . . .(1.1.) so huhhuhhuh
29 K: very strange |teacher that we have here.
30 M: |huhhuhhuhhuhhuh
The misunderstanding above can be attributed to various interacting sources.
In the frst place, M pronounces the word 'parkinson`s as 'parkison. This
does not appear to be a mere slip oI the tongue as she consistently and system-
atically produces the word as such in the extract above (lines 2 and 24). In re-
sponse to S`s request Ior clarifcation in line 4, M manages to describe only one
physical symptom oI the disease, i.e., 'he`s shaking all the time. Thus, in
addition to K`s and S`s own lack oI knowledge oI the subject, M herselI dis-
plays gaps in her knowledge oI the matter; M Iails to provide adequate clarif-
cation oI the disease and its symptoms. In line 23, K seeks confrmation that
the lecturer in question is Irom 'pakistan. K has clearly misunderstood 'parki-
son to mean 'pakistan in spite oI the explanation provided by M Iollowing
S`s request Ior clarifcation. The repair that M perIorms Iollowing K`s dis-
played misunderstanding does little to shed light on the matter. K`s remark re-
garding the strangeness oI the lecturer (line 29) indicates that understanding
has not been achieved. While there are several Iactors contributing to the mis-
understanding above, it is the lack oI knowledge oI the subject in question on
the part oI the recipient and the speaker, to some extent, that is most signifcant.
Extract (11) illustrates Iurther how the recipient`s lack oI world knowledge
leads to misinterpretation oI the speaker`s message. However, as in the case
above, the matter is hardly straightIorward or simple; various other Iactors can
be seen to exacerbate the problem.
(11) S inquires iI V knows oI the Tran-Siberian railway.
01 S: you know transiberia?
02 V: uhhuh in myanmar
03 S: no transiberia is the: railway
04 V: o::h
05 S: china go to russias
06 V: o::h
07 S: (good size lah)
08 V: is it an airline?
09 S: sorry?
10 V: is it an airlines?
11 S: no: it`s a::: landlocked
12 V: o::h
13 S: country. how come you don`t know Irom where? you know
14 Genghiz Khan?
15 V: uh|huh
16 S: |Kublai Khan?
110 Jagdish Kaur
17 V: uhhuh
18 S: those people are mongol.
19 V: o:::h okay okay okay okay
V`s response to S`s inquiry, in line 2, reveals a misunderstanding as evidenced
by S`s move to execute repair in the next turn. However, V`s response gives
little indication as to the nature oI the misunderstanding. S`s subsequent clari-
fcation in lines 3 and 5 is met with a request Ior confrmation that reveals yet
another misunderstanding (line 8). Following the displayed misunderstanding,
S does not exactly explain 'transiberia, but instead shiIts to a matter con-
nected to the region in question. In addition to V`s obvious lack oI knowledge
oI the subject in question, the speaker himselI can be seen to contribute to the
problem. S`s initial question is vague, as it does not speciIy the topic, namely,
the tran-siberian railway or railroad. Although S does attempt to clariIy mean-
ing in lines 3 and 5, it appears that V Iails to perceive the crucial detail here,
i.e., 'railway, in spite oI the minimal responses produced in lines 4 and 6. S`s
shiIt to a related topic aIter Iailing to address V`s inquiry in lines 8 and 10 sug-
gests that S himselI may lack suIfcient knowledge to explicate the matter and
Iacilitate understanding Ior V. It is unlikely that shared understanding is fnally
achieved regardless oI V`s emphatic display oI understanding in line 19.
The above two extracts are similar in that mutual understanding seems not
to have been achieved despite the attempts made to address the misunderstand-
ing. In both cases, various Iactors can be seen to contribute to and complicate
the misunderstanding. It appears that lack oI world knowledge on the part oI
the recipient and gaps in the knowledge oI the speaker can lead to misunder-
standings that are irreparable. It is also possible that M and S in (10) and (11),
respectively, may have been hampered in their eIIorts at clariIying meaning
due to the lack oI relevant vocabulary, as the disfuencies in the repair turns
suggest. The hesitation markers in lines 24 and 25 in extract (10) and the
stretched sounds in line 11 in extract (11) point to some Iorm oI trouble, in
this case a possible word search in progress. The absence oI hesitation in the
earlier turns to the extent displayed in the repair turn, and the switch in topic
Iollowing the unsuccessIul repair attempt in both examples does seem to sug-
gest diIfculty in fnding the words needed to clariIy meaning. It is there-
Iore conceivable that some limitations oI vocabulary on the part oI the
speakers may have also contributed to their inability to successIully repair the
misunderstandings.
6. Discussion and conclusion
The above analysis oIIers some insight into the sources oI misunderstanding in
one type oI intercultural communication, namely, in ELF communication. By
taking into account the local context and the orientations oI the participants as
well as the repair moves that Iollow the displayed misunderstanding, a more
comprehensive picture oI the nature oI misunderstanding in this type oI inter-
action is obtained. Generally, the misunderstandings that occur can be attrib-
uted to either one oI the sources listed above or to a combination oI these Iac-
tors. These sources, with the exception oI the language-related one, have also
been observed to contribute to misunderstanding in communication between
people oI similar lingua-cultural backgrounds. For instance, Bazzanella and
Damiano, who examine intracultural interactions in Italian, state that, 'ambi-
guity seems to play a major role in generating misunderstanding and attribute
66 oI the misunderstandings in their data to this Iactor (1999: 818). Although
a quantitative analysis oI the data was not conducted Ior the present study, the
most common source oI misunderstanding does appear to be ambiguity in the
speaker`s utterance.
In addition to ambiguity, mishearing, and lack oI world knowledge, among
others, have also been identifed as common causes oI misunderstanding in
intracultural interactions (Weigand 1999). The analysis above evidences the
role these same Iactors play in the creation oI misunderstanding in ELF inter-
action. Notwithstanding the aIorementioned similarities, the language ability
and competence oI the participants in interaction set the two apart. Linguistic
diversity, which is a key Ieature oI ELF use, results Irom what Mauranen terms
as 'variable learning (2003, cited in Mauranen 2007: 245). As Mauranen ex-
plains, participants in an ELF situation, who have acquired the language 'in
diverse circumstances in diIIerent parts oI the world and 'are likely to have
had very diIIerent experiences with it, maniIest a wide range oI profciency
levels (Mauranen 2007: 245). In spite oI this diversity, misunderstanding is
said to be uncommon as participants collaboratively employ strategies to pre-
vent them. Certainly there were Iew misunderstandings in the data that could
be traced directly to a language problem on the part oI a participant. Neverthe-
less, language inadequacies can exacerbate problems associated with (mis)
hearing, ambiguity and lack oI world knowledge. While the role oI language
has, to a large extent, been ignored in research into intercultural misunder-
standing, the above observations underscore the need to reconsider the matter.
Another related fnding oI the study pertains to the role oI cultural diIIerence
in intercultural misunderstanding. Much oI the research conducted on inter-
cultural and interethnic communication, regardless oI whether it is Irom a
cultural-anthropological perspective, an interactional-sociolinguistic perspec-
tive, or a cross-cultural pragmatic perspective (see Sarangi 1994), attribute the
misunderstandings that occur to the diIIerences in the participants` cultural
backgrounds. The lack oI shared assumptions and belieIs among the partici-
pants, together with their use oI diIIerent discourse strategies and communica-
tive styles, is said to render such communications diIfcult and problematic.
112 Jagdish Kaur
The present research, conducted within a Conversation Analysis Iramework,
however, fnds no evidence oI the above. None oI the misunderstandings in the
data can be traced to diIIerences in the participants` cultural background, as
previously noted by House (1999) and Mauranen (2006).
A possible explanation Ior the above lies in the status oI the participants in
interaction. Many studies on cross-cultural or intercultural communication
Iocus on interactions between majority and minority speaking participants oI a
language, where there is obvious aIfliation among the majority speakers to the
dominant culture and language. The absence oI similar aIfliation among the
minority speakers to the norms and values oI the dominant group may in Iact
be the reason Ior some oI the culture-based misunderstandings that are said
to plague such encounters. Thus, it may not simply be a matter oI cultural diI-
Ierence but rather the Iailure oI the minority speaker to adhere to the norms,
both cultural and linguistic, oI the majority group that leads to communication
problems.
In ELF communication, the participants, while oI diIIerent lingua-cultural
backgrounds, share certain commonalities: that oI being non-native speakers
oI the language and possibly a 'shared incompetence (Varonis and Gass
1985b: 71) in the language. As many oI the examples above show, the threat oI
communication breakdown is a very real one when participants are compelled
to use a medium oI communication that is not their native language. It is pos-
sible, then, that the lingua Iranca context causes participants to be less Iocused
on matters oI cultural diIIerence as they need to grapple with the medium oI
communication in their eIIorts to achieve shared understanding and successIul
communicative outcomes. The fndings above in Iact oIIer some support Ior
'the Culture Irrelevance Hypothesis put Iorward by House, which highlights
'the non-infuence oI ELF speakers` native linguaculture (1999: 84) in ELF
interaction. While House suggests that 'national and native language and cul-
ture adherence is eclipsed because oI 'a Iocus on interpersonal and individual
concerns (House 1999: 84), the present study oIIers an alternative explanation
Ior the diminished role oI culture, namely, a concern with achieving mutual
understanding in the lingua Iranca.
Correspondence address. jagdishum.edu.my
Notes
1. Tzanne (1999: 3334) oIIers a Iairly in-depth review oI the range oI terminologies used in the
literature to reIer to the various problems oI communication.
2. The data was collected Ior my doctoral research on The Co-Construction of Understanding in
English as a Lingua Franca (2008).
3. Given the absence oI other corpora oI similar size and the unavailability oI inIormation on the
number oI misunderstandings noted in other studies, it is diIfcult to say with certainty iI these
33 instances constitute a large or small number oI misunderstandings. While Bazzanella and
Damiano (1999) noted 63 misunderstandings in the data they examined, the size oI their cor-
pora is unavailable.
References
Bazzanella, Carla and Rossana Damiano. 1999. The interactional handling oI misunderstanding in
everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31(6). 817836.
Bremer, Katharina, Celia Roberts, Marie-Therese Vasseur, Margaret Simonot, and Peter Broeder.
1996. Achieving Understanding. Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. London: Longman.
Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Prag-
matics 31(6). 753762.
Dua, Hans R. 1990. The phenomenology oI miscommunication. In Stephen Harold Riggins (ed.),
Bevond Goffman. Studies on Communication, Institution and Social Interaction, 113139.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Firth, Alan. 1990. Lingua Iranca` negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World
Englishes 9(3). 269280.
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment oI normality: On lingua Iranca` English and
conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237259.
Gass, Susan and Evangeline Varonis. 1991. Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In
Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles, & John M. Wiemann (eds), Miscommunication and Problem-
atic Talk, 121145. London: Sage.
Gramkow, Karsten. 2001. The Joint Production of Conversation. Aalborg: Centre Ior Languages
and Intercultural Studies, Aalborg University.
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-oI-state token and aspects oI its sequential placement. In John
Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation
Analvsis, 299345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House, Juliane. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as
lingua Iranca and the myth oI mutual intelligibility. In Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), Teaching and
Learning English as a Global Language, 7389. Tubingen: StauIIenburg.
House, Juliane. 2002. Communicating in English as a lingua Iranca. In Susan Foster-Cohen, Tanja
Ruthenberg, & Marie Louise Poschen (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 2, 243261. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
House, Juliane, Gabriele Kasper, and Steven Ross. 2003. Misunderstanding talk. In Juliane House,
Gabriele Kasper & Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse Approaches
to Problematic Talk, 110. London: Longman (Pearson).
Jenkins, JenniIer. 2003. World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2008. The Co-Construction of Understanding in English as a Lingua Franca.
Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University PhD dissertation.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2009. Pre-empting problems oI understanding in English as a lingua Iranca. In Anna
Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca. Studies and Findings, 107125.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2010. Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes 29(2).
192208.
Mauranen, Anna. 2003. The corpus oI English as a lingua Iranca in academic settings. TESOL
Quarterlv 37. 513527.
114 Jagdish Kaur
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua Iranca
communication. International Journal of the Sociologv of Language 177. 123150.
Mauranen, Anna. 2007. Hybrid voices: English as the lingua Iranca oI academics. In Kjersti
Flottum (ed), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, 243259. New-
castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successIul lingua Iranca interaction. An analysis oI
non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online 5. 1/00. http://
linguistik-online.com (accessed 21 October 2004).
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2005. Non-understanding in English as a lingua Iranca: examples Irom a busi-
ness context. Jienna English Working Papers 14. 5071. http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/
Views0502mlp.pdI (accessed 28 September 2008).
Sarangi, Srikant. 1994. Accounting Ior mismatches in intercultural selection interviews. Multi-
lingua 13(1/2). 163194.
SchegloII, Emanuel. 1987. Some sources oI misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics
25. 201218.
SchegloII, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7. 289327.
Scollon, Ron. and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication. OxIord: Blackwell
Publishers.
SeidlhoIer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case Ior a description oI English as a
lingua Iranca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133158.
Tzanne, Angeliki. 1999. Talking at Cross-Purposes. The Dvnamics of Miscommunication. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Varonis, Evangeline. 1981. A sociolinguistic analysis oI crosscultural misunderstanding. Paper
presented at NWAVE X. Philadelphia.
Varonis, Evangeline and Susan Gass. 1985a. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation.
Language in Societv 14. 327343.
Varonis, Evangeline and Susan Gass. 1985b. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model Ior
negotiation oI meaning. Applied Linguistics 6(1). 7190.
Vendler, Zeno. 1994. Understanding Misunderstanding. In Dale Jamieson (ed.), Language, Mind
and Art, 921. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Watterson, Matthew. 2008. Repair oI non-understanding in English in international communica-
tion. World Englishes 27(3/4). 378406.
Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 763785.
WooIftt, Robin. 2005. Conversation Analvsis and Discourse Analvsis. A Comparative and Criti-
cal Introduction. London: Sage.
Appendix 1
Table 1: Participants According to Ethnicitv, Mother Tongue, and Role (Kaur 2008)
Ethnicity Mother Tongue Role No.
1. Burmese Burmese Student 1
2. Cambodian Cambodian Student 2
3. Filipino-Chinese Chinese Lecturer 1
4. Indonesian Indonesian Student 1
5. Italian German Research Student 1
6. Korean Korean Student 2
7. Laotian Lao Student 1
8. Malaysian-Malay Malay 2 Students, 1 Lecturer 3
9. Malaysian-Chinese Chinese 3 Students, 1 Research Student 4
10. Malaysian-Indian Tamil Research Fellow 1
11. Nigerian Igbo Student 1
12. Spanish Spanish Lecturer 1
13. Sri Lankan Sinhala Student 1
14. Thai Thai Student 1
15. Vietnamese Vietnamese Student 1
Appendix 2
The transcription notations used in the paper are as Iollows:
| a leIt square bracket marks the onset oI overlap
| a right square bracket marks the end oI overlapping talk; this Iea-
ture, however, is only indicated when it can be accurately discerned
an equal sign marks latching
- a hyphen marks a cut oII
. . .(0.6) a numeral placed within parentheses Iollowing three dots marks a
pause oI 0.6 seconds and above
: a colon marks a stretched sound
? a question mark marks rising intonation
. a Iull stop marks Ialling intonation
, a comma marks continuing intonation
.hhh a series oI h`s preceded by a dot marks audible inhalation
hhh a series oI h`s not preceded by a dot marks audible exhalation
soIt degree signs mark speech that is relatively soIter than the surround-
ing talk
( ) words within parentheses mark the transcriber`s uncertainty oI the
actual words produced
( ) empty parentheses represent segments oI talk that could not be tran-
scribed
(( )) double parentheses enclose the transcriber`s comments
116 Jagdish Kaur
(INDESIGN) WDG (155x230mm) TimesNewRoman J-2391 IPRG, 8:1 PMU: WSL 09/12/2010 AC1:(KN/)24/1/2011 pp. 116116 2391_8-1-04 (p. 116)

Intercultural Communication in English As A Lingua Franca - Some Sources of Misunderstanding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intercultural Communication in English As A Lingua Franca - Some Sources of Misunderstanding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intercultural Pragmatics 8-1 (2011), 93116 1612-295X/11/0008-0093

DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004 Walter de Gruyter

You might also like