LEC03
L’incompréhension dans la communication – Laurent KARSENTY
In 1872, the widely applauded French writer Gustave Flaubert – famous for his novel
Madame Bovary, wrote in a letter to an unknown female friend of his: “We are all in a
desert. Nobody understands anybody.”1
What is misunderstanding? A definition
A misunderstanding occurs as soon as when an attempt of communication fails
because what the speaker wants to express differs from what the listener believes
has been expressed (Humphrey-Jones, 1986, p.1)2.
Misunderstanding is a kind of understanding which deviates partially or totally
from what the speaker wanted to communicate (Weingand, 1999, p. 769).
Misunderstanding: a reality and no exception
We generally agree easily on the fact that intercultural communication might generate
misunderstanding (Bennett, 1998). Different communication styles, linked to different
cultures, may also generate difficulties (House, 2003), as may differences in competence
areas or in levels of competence (Enquist & Makrygiannis, 1998).
Communications occupy a central place at work (Karsenty & Lacoste, 2004). We can
infer that misunderstanding in electronic communication may arise from the poor
quality or the lack of mutual understanding in communication itself. Studies in
workplace communication ergonomics have identified three main causes for
misunderstanding (Karsenty, 2008; Falzon, 1989):
a) the absence of a common vocabulary,
b) the absence of a properly operational communication channel, and
c) an exclusive information context.
NOTES
1. In the framework of our research, we will consider that the communication
channel, intra-organizational, works properly, e.g. that the communication is not
altered by a poor local area network (LAN) or Internet and that the integrity of
the messages is preserved during the exchange. This will be guaranteed by the
proper selection of the email messages to be considered.
2. We can’t simply set aside the issue of the exclusivity of the information context.
Indeed, when exchanging professional emails with subordinates, supervisors
generally benefit from a wider perspective or a wider range of information;
colleagues sending emails to others may also have at their hand information that
1
« Nous sommes tous dans un désert. Personne ne comprend personne. »
2
Mentioned in House, Kasper & Ross (2003).
they don’t share with the latter. This issue may therefore raise ethical aspects: is
the discussion “fair” when the information context is not inclusive?
3. The absence of a common vocabulary, which is maximal when the interlocutors
don’t speak the same language, is typically an issue of concern in the framework
of this research.
According to Gumperz (1992), the main cause of misunderstanding in intercultural
communications is a poor usage of the contextualization cues. The context is not a given
status, it is dynamic, it is built a each moment of the interaction.
Understanding is facilitated when interlocutors have a mutual awareness, e.g. when they
share the context, and when they can use non-verbal resources to build and update the
shared context.
Situations which facilitate misunderstanding
-
Distance communication, when the interlocutors don’t share the same visual
perception of the physical environment.
-
Asynchronous communications, which reduce the possibilities of direct
interactions t control mutual understanding. These include all business
communications using paper or electronic media.
-
Communications between individuals with different areas and/or levels of
competence.
-
Man-machine communications.
How to facilitate mutual understanding?
The ideal would be to favor direct dialogue, e.g. synchronous and preferably face-to-face,
which allows the highest level of collaborative control. However, in interpersonal
relations, the willingness to establish a dialogue doesn’t guarantee that the dialogue will
take place. A climate of confidence and mutual respect is needed, as well as the
identification of a common objective.
In the case when synchronous communication is impossible, one should try to enhance
the sharing of contextual information.
The best attitude is the one of empathetic communication (Rogers & Kinget, 1966).
Arenas of Language Use (Clark H., 1992)
When we think of the ways we use language, we think of face-to-face conversations,
telephone conversations, reading and writing, and even talking to oneself. These are
arenas of language use--theaters of action in which people do things with language. But
what exactly are they doing with language? What are their goals and intentions? By what
processes do they achieve these goals? In these twelve essays, Herbert H. Clark and his
colleagues discuss the collective nature of language--the ways in which people
coordinate with each other to determine the meaning of what they say. According to
Clark, in order for one person to understand another, there must be a "common ground"
of knowledge between them. He shows how people infer this "common ground" from
their past conversations, their immediate surroundings, and their shared cultural
background. Clark also discusses the means by which speakers design their utterances
for particular audiences and coordinate their use of language with other participants in
a language arena. He argues that language use in conversation is a collaborative process,
where speaker and listener work together to establish that the listener understands the
speaker's meaning. Since people often use words to mean something quite different
from the dictionary definitions of those words, Clark offers a realistic perspective on
how speakers and listeners coordinate on the meanings of words. This collection
presents outstanding examples of Clark's pioneering work on the pragmatics of
language use and it will interest psychologists, linguists, computer scientists, and
philosophers.
References
Bennett, M. (1998). Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth, Maine:
Intercultural Press.
Clark H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enquist H., & Makrygiannis N. (1998). Understanding misunderstandings. Proceedings of
the 31st Hawaii International Conference on System sciences, pp. 83-92.
Falzon, Pierre (1989). L’ergonomie cognitive du dialogue. Grenoble : Presses
universitaires de Grenoble.
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualization & understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin
(eds.), Rethinking context (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House, J. (2003). Misunderstandings in intercultural university encounters. In J. House,
G. Kasper & S. Ross Eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life. London: Longman.
House J., Kasper G., & Ross S. (Eds.) (2003). Misunderstanding in Social Life. London:
Longman.
Karsenty, Laurent (2008). L’incompréhension dans la communication. Paris : Presses
universitaires de France.
Karsenty, Laurent & Lacoste, M. (2004). Communication et travail. In Pierre Falzon (Ed.),
Traité d’ergonomie. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Rogers C., & Kinget G. M. (1966). Psychothérapie et relations humaines. Louvain :
Publications universitaires (3ème éd.).
Weingand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: the standard case. The Journal of Pragmatics,
31, 763-785.