Fwd: Non-member submission -RT and misunderstanding - from [SABINE BRAUN <euv-6874@student.euv-frankfurt-o.de>]

From: Nicholas Allott (n.allott@ucl.ac.uk)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 23:39:20 GMT

  • Next message: Christoph Unger: "RE: RT and misunderstanding"

    > From: SABINE BRAUN <euv-6874@student.euv-frankfurt-o.de>
    > Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:48:40 +0200 (MEST)
    > Subject: RT and misunderstanding
    >
    >
    > Dear all,
    >
    > my name is Sabine Braun and I am a student of linguistics at European
    > University Frankfurt (Oder) / Germany. In my final thesis I am working
    > on
    > comprehension processes in verbal communication (comprising cases of
    > understanding, misunderstanding and non-understanding in dyadic verbal
    > interaction).
    >
    > The RT-approach is supposed to be at the heart of my considerations.
    > Concerning this I have a question to ask you as RT-specialists and
    > -enthusiasts.
    >
    > The phenomenon of verbal misunderstanding is not really considered
    > within
    > RT. I could find only one single remark in Sperber & Wilson's
    > Relevance.
    > Communication and Cognition (1995) concerning the failure of
    > communication, i.e. the occurring of misunderstandings (p. 16):
    >
    > "A speaker who intends an utterance to be interpreted in a particular
    > way
    > must also expect the hearer to be able to supply a context which allows
    > that interpretation to be recovered. A mismatch between the context
    > envisaged by the speaker and the one actually used by the hearer may
    > result in a misunderstanding"
    >
    >
    > This short comment just mentions one possible reason for the occurring
    > of
    > misunderstandings but does not go any deeper.
    >
    > Why is unsuccessful communication neglected within RT? Is not it as
    > much
    > worth explaining as successful communication? Isn't an approach which
    > claims to provide a theory for successful comprehension processes also
    > supposed to deal with the opposite phenomenon? That is to say that the
    > possibility of failure of verbal interaction should be automatically
    > incorporated within a theory of successful communication (= RT). It
    > seems
    > to me that these are two sides of the same coin.
    >
    > I'd really appreciate your comments on this.
    >
    > Maybe in your opinion this is not a question worth raising. If that is
    > the
    > case I am even more interested in your comments.
    >
    > Thanks very much in advance.
    >
    > Best wishes
    >
    > Sabine Braun.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sabine Braun
    > Richard-Sorge-Str. 63
    > 10249 Berlin
    > ratzfatz@gmx.li
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 23:36:52 GMT