Difference between revisions of "Pietikainen2018"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Clair-AntoineVeyrier moved page Pietikainen2016 to Pietikainen2018 without leaving a redirect)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Kaisa S. Peitikäinen
 
|Author(s)=Kaisa S. Peitikäinen
 
|Title=Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk
 
|Title=Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Misunderstandings; Repair; Lingua franca; In Press
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Misunderstandings; Repair; Lingua franca
 
|Key=Pietikainen2018
 
|Key=Pietikainen2018
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018

Revision as of 01:37, 17 October 2019

Pietikainen2018
BibType ARTICLE
Key Pietikainen2018
Author(s) Kaisa S. Peitikäinen
Title Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Misunderstandings, Repair, Lingua franca
Publisher
Year 2018
Language English
City
Month
Journal Applied Linguistics
Volume 39
Number 2
Pages 188–212
URL Link
DOI 10.1093/applin/amw005
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Although misunderstandings as such have been extensively studied, the ways in which problems of understanding are avoided—especially in cross-cultural communication—have so far received limited attention. This article examines over 24 h of private conversation data from seven established, intercultural couples who use lingua franca English as their ‘couple tongue’. Thorough conversation analysis reveals that these couples utilize a remarkably diverse range of strategies to pre-empt misunderstandings and to construct shared understanding, all the while enforcing their ‘couplehood’. Misunderstandings are not very frequent, and when they do occur, they mainly seem to derive from the ‘common ground fallacy’, the expectation to achieve shared understanding from fewer cues. Compared with findings from less private English as a lingua franca (ELF) encounters, ELF couples resort to direct clarification requests more often but avoid imposing on the partner with word suggestions. They are also found to use innovative extralinguistic means such as pointing, showing, drawing, acting, deixis, and onomatopoeia. It is suggested that the stage of familiarity of speakers should be regarded as one key factor when examining language in interaction and understanding.

Notes