Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Two main notions characterize the implicit search for mutual understanding during everyday conversation: its dynamic nature and its 'dialogicity'/intersub ectivity. !ollowing a recent tradition "cf.# among others# $endler 1%%&# 'ascal 1%%%# (eigand 1%%%# )us 1%%%# !etzer *++&, understanding will be viewed as a process# and the relationship between dialogicity and understanding will be underlined in some of its aspects. Understanding# both as a cognitive and interactive social notion# is a process 1 which involves intermediate stages# and which evolves in the interactional development. * -n contrast to the traditional dichotomic view# where understanding was opposed to non. understanding# the notion of coming to understanding has been proposed by (eigand in 1%%%# specifically with reference to dialogue activities: /'ialogic action games are always interactive action games negotiating on an interactive level the general purpose of coming to understanding./ 0isunderstanding itself# which seems to be unavoidably lin1ed to human communication "cf. Taylor 1%%*,# has been seen as a possible step in the process of understanding# and a /negotiation cycle/ of misunderstanding has been proposed "see 2azzanella/'amiano 1%%%: 3*4.&,# where the dynamic features of the process have been stressed. 5s 'ascal writes in his introduction to the special issue of Journal of Pragmatics on misunderstanding:
* 6art of this research has been funded both by 0-U7 "-talian 0inistry for 8igher 9ducation and :cientific 7esearch, and by the University of Turin "-taly, for the years *++1.*++4 and *++&. *++;. Than1s are due to <ohanna 0ieczni1ows1i for her helpful comments. =ote that the aktionsart of to understand "/Understand is to be ran1ed as an achievement verb# and know as a state verb/ $endler 1%%&: 1&, underlines the dynamic nature of this process. The process of understanding involves negotiation as discourse unfolds "cf. >ee *++1: 1?+# (eigand/'ascal *++1, and is strictly intertwined with 'local' "see below in the te@t, conte@t.
"
Carla Bazzanella ABC in so far as misunderstanding is sub ect to 'negotiation' as part of an ongoing process of 'coming to an understanding' ABC# it would seem rather to be viewed as a continuum. 'ascal "1%%%: ?D;,.
The continuum view is altogether consistent with the high flexibility of human.human interaction.4 -nterlocutor/s' contributions in their entirety "imprecision and/or errors included,# are to be ta1en into ma@imal account# as 'avidson's Charity Principle suggests# and as is imposed by the dialogicity itself of understanding in conversation: the process of understanding inherits# in a sense# 'dialogicity' from the conversation itself. 5s we all 1now# face.to.face interaction# by involving two or more participants# cannot escape its dialogic or intersub ective 'nature'# which has been fittingly stressed recently "cf. e.g. many contributions in our -5'5 congresses# and several volumes on dialogue# li1e that of :tati 1%3*,. 2oth the essential intersub ectivity& in understanding# and the necessary and difficult Euest for convergence were already neatly e@pressed by 8umboldt:
=obody means by word precisely and e@actly what his neighbour does# and the difference# be it ever so small# vibrates# li1e a ripple in water# throughout the entire language. Thus all understanding is always at the same time a not.understanding# all concurrence in thought and feeling at the same time a divergence. 8umboldt "1%%%: ;4,.
Understanding in conversation concerns mainly two aspects: structure and information. Fn the structural level# it is an easily noticed fact about two.party conversations that their seEuence is alternatingG that is to say# conversational seEuence can be described by the formula ababab# "'a' and 'b' being the parties to the conversation,. Fn the information level# if we consider understanding in the interactional development# it unavoidably includes both participants# so much so that the mutuality of understanding is continually construed and reinforced in interactionG it wor1s as a common ground which allows the flow of conversation to go on. -n :chegloff "1%%*: 1*%%,'s words: /The defense of intersub ectivity is locally managed locally adapted and recipient designed ABit C is interactional and se!uential# coordinating the parties' activities in achieving a oint understanding./ "ib.: 1443#,.
&
8uman.computer interaction differs from human.human interaction with regard to difficulties in recognizing intentions and understanding via inference: while human interlocutors resort to inferential mechanisms such as implicature "Hrice 1%3%,# relevance ":perber/(ilson 1%3;,# the shared 'encyclopedia'# and mutual 1nowledge/beliefs# the artificial agent's 1nowledge is often limited to a specific domain "cf.# among others# 7eilly 1%3?# 'amiano *++*# 'anieli *++*. !or the specific case of misunderstanding in I0I# cf. 2azzanella/2aracco *++4,. /-ntersub ectivity would not# then# be merely convergence between multiple interpreters of the world ABC but potentially convergence between the 'doers' of an action or bit of conduct and its recipient# as coproducers of an increment of interactional and social reality./ :chegloff "1%%*: 1*%%,.
- will be dealing here with a particular 1ind of dialogic interaction where cooperation and understanding are more intertwined and crucial than in other everyday interactions: the 'spot the difference' dialogues.
The $Par pro%ect on spo1en -talian is an -talian 67-= pro ect "protocollo n. *++11+D1?&,# coordinated by !ederico 5lbano >eoni and funded both by 0-U7 and by the following Universities: &cuola 'ormale &uperiore di Pisa "6.0. 2ertinetto,# &econda Universit( di 'apoli "!. 6almieri,# Universit( di 'apoli )ederico $$# both )ilologia moderna "!. 5lbano >eoni, and Policlinico "9. 0arciano,# Universit( di 'apoli *rientale "0. 6ettorino,# Universit( di Perugia ">. 5gostiniani,# Universit( del Piemonte *rientale "H. !errari,# Universit( di Pisa "H. 0arotta,# Universit( di +oma ,a &apienza "T. 'e 0auro,# Universit( di &alerno "0. $oghera,# Universit( di &iena "0. $ayra,# Universit( di -orino "I. 2azzanella,# and Universit( di .enezia Ca/ )oscari "7. 'elmonte,. The $Par corpora include the so.labelled 56- corpus "0rchivio del Parlato $taliano, and the I>-6: corpus " Corpora ,inguistici di $taliano Parlato e &critto ,. The former# grounded on a preceding corpus "5$-6,# is published on '$' "cf. Irocco et. al. *++4# and available at cirassJunina.it,G the latter will be available at www.clips.unina.it in the near future. Iartoons were ta1en from a puzzle boo1.
Carla Bazzanella
"table 1, &pot the difference: -wo cartoons "$Par Pro%ect, 2oth mutual understanding and cooperation are crucial in performing the tas1 "much more than in other face.to.face interactionsG cf. 2azzanella/'amiano 1%%%,# since the two participants actively cooperate in constructing together the relevant references. The interaction focuses on what is labelled here as /the referential problem/ "see below# *.4,# and is centered around Euestions and answers on single details# and involves continuous negotiation as the discourse unfolds "see below# 4.*,.
:ee also the map3task dialogues "cf. http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.u1/dialogue/maptas1.html,# another 1ind of elicited dialogue with similar features# where the graphic conte@t plays a crucial role.
5 . to individuate the relevant referent 2 . to individuate the relevant property/properties of the ob ect referred to I . to individuate the discordant property. >et me specify these phases in further details# by mainly referring to a single dialogue ta1en from the I>-6: corpus "see note ;,# lasting 1D minutes and labelled 'Htd2+&7# between two 7oman friends who are University students3. 5. (hat are we spea1ing aboutK The relevant referent has to be pointed out by both interlocutors# by e@plicitly mentioning it and loo1ing for an agreement on the part of the interlocutor:
"1, io c'ho una barca LspM sul sul mare # NLp1N*M No? N - have a boat LspM on on the sea # NLp1N*M Have you ? N
-n this fragment# the tag.Euestion "'o567ave you5, fulfils the confirmation function# by positively answering the following Euestion: 0m $ speaking about the same ob%ect you also have in your picture5 -n some cases identification is not immediate# and le@ical matching reEuires more than one conversational e@change# as in the following fragment# which is rich in inspirations and pauses%# and where the le@ical agreement "/ s8 una specie di arco s8/, is preceded by a reEuest for clarification "in the form of a dialogic repetition1+: /arcoK/,# and a paraphrase "/O il buco dove entra dentro il bambino/,.
"*, p*N*&D: c'O una# specie di arco LlpM giusto K p1N*&;: arco K p*N*&?: sP# insomma O ilLllM buco LinspirationM LeehM dove entra dentro il NLp1N*&3M bambinoN p1N*&3: NLp*N*&?M LinspirationMN sP LspM NLp*N*&%M sP una specie di arco sP a formaN p*N*&D: NLp1N*&&M is there a # sort of arch LlpM is there K p1N*&;: arch ? p*N*&?: yes# let's say it is the LllM hole LinspirationM LeehM where the child11 NLp1N*&3M goes in #
3
1+
The same dialogue has been analyzed both from an inferential point of view "cf. 2azzanella/ 2aracco *++&, and from different perspectives# i.e. phonetic/phonological# morpho. syntactic# pragmatic# etc. "cf. 5lbano >eoni ed. forth. which constitutes a sort of prosecution of the $Par pro%ect# see note ;,. 4+Q of the pauses are distributed between silent and not silent ones "cf. 6ettorino/Hiannini forth.,. 2y dialogic repetition /the verbatim repetition of an item uttered by another spea1er# usually the previous one/ "2azzanella 1%%;: i@, is meant.
Carla Bazzanella p1N*&3: NLp*N*&?M LinspirationMN yes LspM NLp*N*&%M yes a sort of arch yes with the shapeN
2. (hat are the characteristics of the ob ect under e@aminationK -nitially the participants chec1 the e@istence of a given ob ect in their respective graphic conte@ts:
"4, p*N&?: alR il bambino LspM ce l'ha l'ombelico SLlaughM il tuo KT p1N&3: s s ce l'ha l'ombelico p*N&?: to the R has the child got LspM a navel SLlaughM your childKT p1N&3: yes, yes, he has got a navel
-n case the ob ect is uneEuivocally present in both cartoons "as is the case in 4,# another ob ect is selected for comparison "see segnetto 'small mar1' in &,:
"&, p*N&%: LehUM LspM NLp1ND+M poiLiiMN p1ND+: NLp*N&%M c'ha unN segnettoLooM poi al petto p*N&%: LehUM LspM NLp1ND+M then LiiMN p1ND+: NLp*N&%M he has aN small mar1 LooM on his chest then
(hen the properties of the ob ect under e@amination are significant# they are compared# mainly with regard to number# collocation# shape# colours# and dimension# thus passing to phase I: I. :ame or differentK 6hase I# where the relevant differences are Euestioned/pointed out# reEuires the preceding phases "5# and 2,# and includes# on the one hand# reEuests both for clarification "as in D, and for confirmation "as in ;,# and on the other hand# confirmations "as in ?, or disconfirmations "as in 3, provided by the interlocutor.
"D, p1N&*: NLp*N&1M perVN NLp*N&4M non si collegano all'altra palla L eh?MN p1N&*: NLp*N&1M butN NLp*N&4M they are not lin1ed to the other ball L are they?MN ";, p1N13*: invece il piede LspM Ltongue.clic1M l'altro piede # cioO si vede solo il pollice12 LspM p*N134: si vede solo il NLp1N13&M polliceN K
11
1*
Hiven the different word order in -talian and 9nglish# the child and goes in have been inverted in the translation. 5ctually# the -talian spea1er incorrectly uses pollice meaning 'thumb' instead of alluce meaning 'toe'.
Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues # p1N13*: instead the foot LspM Ltongue.clic1M the other foot# - mean only the toe is visible LspM p*N134: only the toe NLp1N13&M is visible1 N K "?, p1N4+: s , NLp*N41M per terra s sN p1N4+: yes , NLp*N41M on the ground yes yes N "3, p1N*&: no # io ce l'hoLooM puntata verso la nuvola che sta sopra p1N*&: no # - have it LooM pointing it towards the cloud which is above
'isconfirmations concerning a specific property which is not the same in the two cartoons# as in 3# of course reveal the searched difference and represent one step in the achievement of the goal# by opening the subseEuent phases "see below,. '. (hat are the results of the comparisonK 5fter individuating the referent and its properties and comparing their presence or absence# the result is generally made e@plicit: either the discordant property is discovered# as in % "'1,# or the property under e@amination is shared# as in 1+# and thus reveals itself as not being relevant to the tas1 "'*,:
"%, p*N*D: allora no # allora !uesta " una differen#a ed O una p1N*;: o$ay p*N*D: then no # then that is a difference and it is one p1N*;: o$ay "1+, p*N41?: LeehM LspM ci sarW un centimetro K p1N413: sP p*N41%: SAwhisperingC LehM allora niente UT p*N41?: LeehM LspM do you thin1 there is a centimeter K p1N413: yes p*N41%: SAwhisperingC LehM then nothing UT
-n both cases "'1 and '*, a new cycle is reEuired# which starts by establishing a completely new ob ect which wor1s as a topic "cf. 2ublitz 1%33,# or by establishing a new sub.topic "i.e. another property of the ob ect already focused uponG see 9 below# *.1,.
14
<
Carla Bazzanella
-n 1*# which follows fragment 11# the spea1er p*# though stic1ing to the child topic# switches from the child's attitude "laughing or crying5, to the presence of his eyebrow# that is another property of the same topic:
"1*, p1N;;: triste p*N;?: LehM e pure a me Linspiration% il sopraciglio ce l'haLaaM K p1N;;: sad p*N;?: LehM in mine too LinspirationM has the child got an eyebrow LaaM K
5 more or less prolonged series of recurrent cycles "from 5 to 9, is reEuired# depending on the number of differences between the two graphic conte@ts# before the goal of discovering them is fulfilled "phase !,# as is shown in the following flow.chart# which is to be understood as a simplified representation of the conversational cycle. (hen the reEuested differences are all discovered and agreed upon by the two participants# the tas1 and the recorded interaction are both accomplished.
>?
&
Carla Bazzanella
'
)1
)2
>>
Iooperation is high both with regard to the construal1& of meaning "which is grounded on the shared goal# and is undoubtedly a co.construction# much more than in other everyday interactions# cf. 'uranti 1%3;,# and with regard to the conversational and pragmatic modalities: see# e.g.# the common 'supportive' 1D interruptions# the use of irony# and the satisfaction in achieving the goal "cf. 2azzanella/2aracco *++&,. The specific goal of this highly cooperative interaction coincides# in a way# with mutual understanding# which is not only a reEuisite# as in any other interaction# but constitutes an unavoidable step in the tas1 fulfilment# i.e. to find the differences. 5s >ee "*++1: 1?+, claims in general# /ABC communication will be successful to the e@tent that participants succeed in aligning their construals/# the more so in this particular 1ind of dialogue# characterized by an e@perimental setting# where participants# in order to solve the dialogic tas1# cooperate in constructing reference and achieving mutual understanding# by passing through several stages of a continuum# including possible failures in communication.
7eferences
51man# $.# 2azzanella# I. "*++4,: The comple@ity of conte@t. :pecial -ssue Fn conte@t. X Journal of Pragmatics 4D "4,# 4*1.4*%. 5lbano >eoni# !. "*++4,: Tre progetti per l'italiano parlato. X -n: =. 0araschio# T. 6oggi :alani "eds.,: -talia linguistica anno 0ille. -talia linguistica anno 'uemila# ;?D.;34. 7oma: 2ulzoni. 5lbano >eoni "forth.,: -ntroduzione. X -n: !. 5lbano >eoni# 7. Hiordano "eds.,: -taliano parlato. 5nalisi di un dialogo. =apoli: >iguori. 5uer# 6. "1%3&,: 7eferential problems in conversation. X Journal of Pragmatics 3 ;*?.;&3. 2azzanella# I. "1%%1, >e interruzioni 'competitive' e 'supportive'. $erso una configurazione complessiva. X -n: :. :tati# 9. (eigand# !. 8undsnurscher "eds.,: 'ialoganalyse ---# *34.*%*. TYbingen: =iemeyer. X "1%%;,: -ntroduction. X -n: I. 2azzanella "ed.,: 7epetition in 'ialogue# vii.@vii. TYbingen: =iemeyer. X "1%%3,: Fn Ionte@t and 'ialogue. X -n: :. Ime r1ovW et al. "eds.,: 'ialogue in the 8eart of 9urope# &+?.&1;. TYbingen: =iemeyer. X "*++D,: 6arlato dialogico e contesti di interazione. X -n: Z. 8[l1er# I. 0aa\ "eds.,: 5spetti dell'italiano parlato# 1.**. 0Ynster# 8amburg# >ondon: >-T.$erlag. X "forth.,: :egnali discorsivi e sviluppi conversazionali. X -n: !. 5lbano >eoni# 7. Hiordano "eds., -taliano parlato. 5nalisi di un dialogo. =apoli: >iguori.
1&
1D
/Iognitive >inguistics assigns a crucial importance to the notion of construal in linguistic coding. The idea that everyday social tal1 involves an ongoing process of construal raises a number of Euestions for the analysis of discourse./ >ee "*++1: 1?+,. If. 2azzanella 1%%1's distinction between supportive and competitive interruption# and the proposed notion of overall configuration.
>"
Carla Bazzanella
X # 'amiano# 7. "1%%%,: The -nteractional 8andling of 0isunderstanding in 9veryday Ionversations. X Journal of Pragmatics 41 ";,# 31?.34;. X # 2aracco# 5. "*++4,: 0isunderstanding in -7I "$nternet +elay Chat,. X -n: 0. 2ondi# :. :tati "eds.,: 'ialogue 5nalysis *+++# 11%.141. TYbingen: =iemeyer. X # 2aracco# 5. "*++&,: Iontesto# inferenze e sviluppo dialogico. X -n: !. 5lbano >eoni# !. Iutugno# 0. 6ettorino# 7. :avy "eds.,: -l 6arlato -taliano# 1.1%. =apoli: ''5uria. 2ublitz# (. "1%33,: :upportive !ellow.:pea1ers and Iooperative Ionversations. X 5msterdam/6hiladelphia: 2en amins. 2ybee# <. >.# 8opper# 6. "*++1,: !reEuency and the emergence of linguistic structure. X 5msterdam/6hiladelphia: 2en amins. 'amiano# 7. "*++*,: 0odelli teorici del dialogo persona.macchina. X -n: I. 2azzanella "ed.,: :ul dialogo. Iontesti e forme di interazione verbale# **4.*4D. 0ilano: Huerini e associati. 'anieli# 0. "*++*,: -l dialogo persona.macchina: applicazioni. X -n: I. 2azzanella "ed.,: :ul dialogo. Iontesti e forme di interazione verbale# *4?.*D1. 0ilano: Huerini e associati. 'ascal# 0. "1%%%,: -ntroduction: :ome Euestions about misunderstanding. X Journal of Pragmatics 41 ";,# ?D4.?;*. 'uranti# 5. "1%3;,: The audience as co.author: 5n introduction. X -ext ; "4,# *4%.*&?. !etzer# 5. "*++&,: 7econte@tualizing Ionte@t. Hrammaticality meets appropriateness . X 5msterdam: 2en amins. 6ettorino# 0.# Hiannini# 5.# "forth.,: 5nalisi delle disfluenze e del ritmo di un dialogo romano. X -n: !. 5lbano >eoni# 7. Hiordano "eds., -taliano parlato. 5nalisi di un dialogo. =apoli: >iguori. Hrice# 8. 6. "1%3%,: :tudies in the (ays of (ords. X Iambridge: Iambridge University 6ress. 8opper# 6. "1%3?,: 9mergent Hrammar. X Bls 14# 14%.1D?. 8umboldt# (. von "1%%%,: Fn >anguage "Fn the 'iversity of 8uman >anguage# Ionstruction and its -nfluence on the 0ental# 'evelopment of the 8uman :pecies,# ed. by 0. >osons1y# transl. by 6. 8eat. X Iambridge: Iambridge University 6ress. >ee# '. "*++1,: Iognitive >inguistics. 5n -ntroduction. X F@ford: F@ford University 6ress. 7eilly# 7. H. "1%3?,: Iommunication failure in dialogue and discourse. X 5msterdam: =orth 8olland. :chegloff# 9. 5. "1%%*,: 7epair after ne@t turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersub ectivity in conversation. X 0merican Journal of &ociology %? "D,# 1*%D.14&D. :perber# '.# (ilson# '. "1%3;/1%%4,: 7elevance. X Iambridge# 0ass.: 8arvard University 6ress. :tati# :. "1%3*,: -l dialogo. Ionsiderazioni di linguistica pragmatica. X =apoli: >iguori. Taylor# Talbot <. "1%%*,: 0utual misunderstanding: :1epticism and the theorizing of language and interpretation. X >ondon: 7outledge. $endler# ]. "1%%&,: Understanding misunderstanding. X -n: '. <amieson "ed.,: >anguage# 0ind and 5rt# %.*1. 'ordrecht: Zluwer. (eigand# 9. "1%%%,: 0isunderstanding: the standard case. X Journal of Pragmatics 41 ";,# ?;4.?3D. X # 'ascal# 0arcelo "*++1,: =egotiation and 6ower in dialogic interaction . X 5msterdam/6hiladelphia: 2en amins. )us 7amos# !. "1%%%,: Towards a pragmatic ta@onomy of misunderstanding. X +evista Canaria de @studios $ngleses 43# *1?.*4%.