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

封面

如何引用文章

详细

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.

作者简介

Arto Mustajoki

National Research University “Higher School of Economics”; University of Helsinki

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: arto.mustajoki@helsinki.fi
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6609-7090

Professor Emeritus at the University of Helsinki (Finland). He works as a leading research fellow in the national research university Higher School of Economics (Moscow). His research interests include contemporary Russian, the theory of functional syntax, corpus linguistics, the Russian mentality, the causes and consequences of miscommunication and research ethics. Mustajoki has also published various teaching materials for learning Russian and popularised books for the public. He is vice-president of the International Assosiation of Teachers of Russian language and literature.

Moscow, Russia; Yliopistonkatu 4, 00100 Helsinki, Finland

参考

  1. Andor, Jozsef. 2004. The master and his performance: An interview with Noam Chomsky, Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1). 93-111.
  2. Bara, Bruno G. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental process of communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (3). 443-485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2011.020
  3. Bargh, John A. & Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54. 462-476.
  4. Blokpoel, Mark, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Pim Haselager, Ivan Toni & Iris van Rooij. 2012. Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking? Frontiers of Human Neuroscience 6, article 253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253
  5. Börjesson, Kristin. 2011. The Notions of Literal and Non-literal Meaning in Semantics and Pragmatics. Dr. Dissertation. Universität Leipzig.
  6. Bremer, Katrina & Margaret Simonot. 1996. Preventing problems of understanding. In Katharina Bremer, Peter Broeder, Celia Roberts, Margaret Simonot & Marie-Thérèse Vasseur (eds.), Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters, 159-180. London: Longman.
  7. Brennan, Susan E. & Michael Schober. 2001. How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 44. 274-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2753
  8. Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Carlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not, 175-204. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  9. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Clark, Herbert H. & Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 62-81. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004
  11. Cooney, Gus, Adam M. Mastroianni, Nicole Abi-Esber & Alison Wood Brooks. 2020. The many minds problem: disclosure in dyadic versus group conversation. Current Opinion in Psychology 31. 22-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.032
  12. Do, Monica L., Anna Papafragou & John Trueswell. 2020. Cognitive and pragmatic factors in language production: Evidence from source-goal motion events. Cognitio 205. 10477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104447
  13. Dobrick, Martin. 1985. Gegenseitiges (Miss-)Verstehen in der dyadischen Kommunikation [Mutual (mis)understanding in a dyadic communication]. Münster: Aschendorff.
  14. Epley, Nicholas. 2008. Solving the (real) other minds problem. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (3). 1455-1474.
  15. Ermakova, Olga & Elena A. Zemskaya. On constructing a typology of communicative failures on the basis of authentic Russian material. In E.A. Zemkaya (ed.), The Russian language and its functioning: a communicative-pragmatic aspect, 90-157. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
  16. Falkner, Wolfgang. 1997. Verstehen, Missverstehen und Missverständnisse: Untersuchungen an einem Korpus englischer und deutscher Beispiele [Understanding, misunderstanding and miscommunication: studies on the basis of corpus with English and German instances]. Tübingen: Niemayer.
  17. Firth, Alan. 2009. The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2). 147-170. DOI: https://10.1515/IPRG.2009.009
  18. Fiske, Susan T., Lasana T. Harris, Ann Marie Russell & Nicole Shelton. 2009. Divergent social, realities, depending on where you sit: Perspectives from the stereotypes content model. In Stéphanie Demoulin, Jacques-Philippe Leyens & John F. Dovidio (eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities, 173-189. New York & London: Routledge.
  19. Gallois, Cindy, Tania Ogay & Howard Giles. 2005. Communication Accommodation Theory: A look back and a look ahead. In William B. Gudykunst (eds.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 121-148. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  20. Gander, Anna Jia. 2018. Understanding in Real-Time Communication: Micro-Feedback and Meaning Repair in Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Intercultural Interactions. PhD Dissertation. University of Gothenburg. Dept. of Applied Information Technology.
  21. Gasiorek Jessica, Cindy Gallois, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum & Jake Harwood. 2019. Advanced theory in language, communication, and intergroup relations. In Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum & Cidy Gallois (eds.), Language, communication, and intergroup relations: A celebration of the scholarship of Howard Giles, 291-305. New York & London: Routledge.
  22. Gilbert, Daniel T., Brett W. Pelham & Douglas S. Krull. 1988. On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (5). 733-740.
  23. Gray, Heather M., Kurt Gray & Daniel M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 315, 619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475
  24. Greenwald, Anthony G. & Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitude, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102 (1). 4-27.
  25. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  26. Haugh, Michael & M. Jaszczolt Kasia. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan Keith & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87-112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Hautamäki, Antti. 2020. A New Approach to Epistemological Relativism based on the Concept of Points of View. Helsinki: Springer.
  28. Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2001. Constructing misunderstanding as a cultural event. In Aldo di Luzio, Susanne Günthner & Franca Orletti (eds.), Culture in communication: Analyses of intercultural situations, 211-243. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  29. Horton, William S. & Richard J. Gerrig. 2002. Speakers’ experiences and audience design: knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47 (4). 589-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00019-0
  30. Jucker, Andreas H. & Larssyn Staley. 2017. (Im)politeness and developments in methodology. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 403-429. Palgrave, London.
  31. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
  32. Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1 (1). 50-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
  33. Kecskes, Istvan. 2017. Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances: From lexis to discourse. In Piotr Cap & Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 201-215. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.
  34. Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (2). 331-355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec
  35. Keysar, Boaz. 2008. Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 277-296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  36. Keysar, Boaz & Anne S. Henly. 2002. Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science 13. 207-212.
  37. Killingsworth, Matthew & Daniel T. Gilbert. 2010. A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science 330. 932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192439
  38. Kruger, Justin, Nicolas Epley, Jason Parker & Zhi-Wen Ng. 2005. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6). 925-936. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
  39. Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
  40. Linell, Per. 1995. Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In Ivana Marková, Carl Graumann & Klaus Foppa (eds.), Mutualities in dialogue 176-213. Cambridge: University Press.
  41. Maass, Anne. 1999. Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 31. 79-121.
  42. Macagno, Fabricio. 2017. Evidence and presumptions for analysing and detecting misunderstandings. Pragmatics & Cognition 24 (2). 263-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17034.mac
  43. Mackenzie, J. Lachan & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.). 2019. Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  44. Martinez, Elyssa Kay V. 2018. A corpus-based analysis of tertiary students’ communication strategies. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development 3 (1). 760-766.
  45. Mazeland, Harrie. 2006. Conversation analysis. In Keith Brown (eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn., volume 3, 153-163. Oxford: Elsevier.
  46. Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. ‘Optimal relevance’ as a pragmatic criterion: the role of epistemic vigilance. UCL Working.Papers. Linguist 25. 20-45.
  47. Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. Pragmatic and epistemic vigilance: The development of sophisticated interpretative strategies. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 183-199.
  48. Mazzarella, Diana & Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2020. Pragmatics and epistemic vigilance: A developmental perspective. Mind & Language 24 (2). 263-296.
  49. Micklos, Ashley, Bradley Walker & Nicolas Fay. 2020. Are people sensitive to problems in communication? Cognitive Science 44. e12816.
  50. Mustajoki, Arto. 2006. The Integrum Database as a powerful tool in research on contemporary Russian. In Galina Nikiporec-Takigava (eds.), Integrum: tochnye metody i gumanitarnye nauki, 50-75. Moscow: Letnij sad.
  51. Mustajoki, Arto. 2012. A Speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2. 216-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus
  52. Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Risks of miscommunication in various speech genres. In Elena Borisova & Olga Souleimanova (eds.), Understanding by communication, 33-53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/39226/Risks_of_miscommunication_in_various_speech_genres.pdf?sequence=2
  53. Mustajoki, Arto. 2017a. The issue of theorizing: Object-of-study and methodology. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Language and dialogue: A handbook of key issues in the field, 234-250. New York: Routledge. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/297726
  54. Mustajoki, Arto. 2017b. Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In Istvan Kecskes & Stavros Assimakopoulos (eds.), Current issues in intercultural pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series), 55-74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274
  55. Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova. 2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse: home as a special space of interaction. Language and Dialogue 10 (3). 340-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00074.mus
  56. Mustajoki, Arto & Tatiana Sherstinova. 2017. The "Retrospective Commenting Method” for longitudinal recordings of everyday speech. In Alexey Karpov, Rodmonga Potapova & Iosif Mporas (eds.), SPECOM 2017, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10458, 1-9. NewYork: Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_71
  57. Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova & Ulla Tuomarla. 2018. Types and functions of pseudodialogues. In Edda Weigand & Istvan Kecskes (eds.), From Pragmatics to Dialogue, 189-215. Amsterdam / Philadephia: John Benjamins.
  58. Newman-Norlund, Sarah E., Matthijs L. Noordzij, Roger D. Newman-Norlund, Inge A.C. Volman, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Peter Hagoort & Ivan Toni. 2009. Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition 111. 46-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition. 2008.12.004
  59. Nickerson, Raymond S. 1999. How we know - and sometimes misjudge - what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin 125 (6). 737-759.
  60. Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2018. Pragmatic competence injustice. Social Epistemology 32 (3). 143-163.
  61. Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2020. Evidential particles and epistemic vigilance. In Agnieszka Piskorska (ed.), Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, 69-83. Amsterdam (Philadelphia): John Benjamins.
  62. Palomares, Nicholas A., Howard Giles, Jordan Soliz & Cindy Gallois. 2016. Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In Howard Giles (eds.), Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts, 123-151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Peräkylä, Anssi & Marja-Leena Sorojen (eds.). 2012. Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  64. Pierce-Grove, Ri. 2016. Conclusion: Making the new status quo: social media in education. In Christine Greenhow, Julia Sonnevend & Colin Agur (eds.), Education and Social Media: Toward a Digital Future, 239-246, Cambridge (Massachusetts), London: The MIT Press.
  65. Polikarpov, A. O. 2012. On systemic relationship in the active part of word comprehension by individuals and society. In N. D. Golev (ed.), Everyday Metalinguistic Cognition: Ontological and Gnoseological Aspects, vol. 4, 175-189. Kemorovo: Kemerovskii gos. universitet. (In Russ.)
  66. Rabagliati, Hugh & Alexander Robertson. 2016. How do children learn to avoid referential ambiguity? Insights from eyetracking. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.007
  67. Rakić, Tamara & Anne Maass. 2019. Communicating between groups, communicating about groups. In Jake Harwood, Jessica Gasiorek, Herbert Pierson, Jon F. NussBaum & Cindy Gallois (eds.), Language, Communication, and Intergroup Relations: A Celebration of the Scholarship of Howard Giles, 66-97. New York & London: Routledge.
  68. Roberts, Gareth, Benjamin Langstein & Bruno Galantucci. 2016. (In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language & Communication 47. 15-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.11.001
  69. Roßnagel, Christian. 2000. Cognitive load and perspective-taking: Applying the automatic controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology 30 (3). 429-445.
  70. Ryan, Jonathon. 2020. Under-explicit and minimally explicit reference: Evidence from a longitudinal case study. In Jonathon Ryan & Peter Crosthwaite (eds.), Referring in a Second Language: Studies on Reference to Person in a Multilingual World, 100-118. London: Routledge.
  71. Sacks, Harvey & Emmanuel A. Schegloff, 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In George Psathas (eds.), Everyday Language, 15-21. New York: Irvington.
  72. Sherstinova, Tatiana. 2015. Macro episodes of Russian everyday oral communication: Towards pragmatic annotation of the ORD speech corpus. In Alexey Ronzhin, Rodmonga Potapova & Nikos Fakotakis (eds.), Speech and computer, SPECOM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9391, 268-276. New York: Springer.
  73. Spencer-Oatey, Helen & Peter Franklin. 2009. Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Palgrave: MacMillian.
  74. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  75. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25 (4). 359-393.
  76. Stanovich, Keith E. 2018. Miserliness in human cognition. The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning 24 (3). 423-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314
  77. Stevanovic, Melisa & Anssi Peräkylä, 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (3). 297-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
  78. Tiedt, Hannes O., Felicitas Ehlen & Fabian Klostermann. 2020. Age-related dissociation of N400 effect and lexical priming. Scientific reports 10, 20291. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77116-9
  79. Todd, Andrew R., Matthias Forstmann, Pascal Burgmer, Alison Wood-Brooks & Adam D. Galinsky. 2015. Anxious and egocentric. How specific emotions influence perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 144 (2). 374-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000048
  80. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies 8. 159-176.
  81. Vogels, Jorrig, David M. Howcroft, Elli Tourtouri & Vera Demberg. 2020. How speakers adapt object descriptions to listeners under load. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35 (1). 78-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1648839
  82. Waytz, Adam, Kurt Gray, Nicholas Epley & Daniel M. Wegner. 2010. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 383-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006
  83. Weigand, Edda. 2004. Emotions: The simple and the complex. In Edda Weigand (eds.), Emotions in dialogic interaction, 3-31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  84. Weigand, Edda. 2011. Paradigm changes in linguistics: from reductionism to holism. Language Sciences 33. 544-549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031
  85. UIA 2000 Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. http://encyclopedia. uia.org/en (accessed: 25 February 2021)

版权所有 © Mustajoki A., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##