Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

Carla Bazzanella

Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues*

1. The process of understanding in conversation and its dialogic nature

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*%%,.

Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues #

- 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.

*. Understanding reference in spot the difference dialogues


*.1. The corpus
The 'spot the difference' dialogues to which - am referring are included in the $Par pro%ect "cf. 5lbano >eoni *++4# *++&,.D The corpus analyzed here and the e@amples provided refer only to the interactions about spot the difference where reciprocal understanding is crucial in achieving the goal. The dialogue is elicited with the techniEue of spot the difference# one of those games which were used in the $Par pro%ect in order to stimulate the production of spo1en language: in this game the two participants# unaware of the devised linguistic aims and sitting at two opposite tables separated by a low partition# are as1ed to find the discordances between the cartoons; which each of them has been given "see table 1,.

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.*,.

*.*. The role and interplay of conte@ts


Three 1inds of conte@ts can be pointed out in the dialogues under e@amination: global# local "cf. 2azzanella 1%%3# 51man/2azzanella *++4,# and graphic "cf. 2azzanella *++D,. 2lobal /refers to the given e@ternal components of the conte@t. -t includes 1nowledge and beliefs# and the general e@perience resulting from the interplay of culture and social community/ "51man/2azzanella *++4: 4*&,G local /is related to the structural environ. ment. -t is activated and constructed in the ongoing interaction as it becomes relevant to it "cf. :perber/(ilson 1%3;,# and is eventually shared by interactants./ "ib.,. (hile both global and local conte@ts are present in every interaction# the graphic conte@t is peculiar to this particular 1ind of interaction ?. The goal of the dialogue derives specifically from the difference between 5's and 2's graphic conte@ts "i.e. the cartoons,: while both global and local conte@ts are shared a priori# the graphic conte@t will be shared a posteriori# on the grounds of the conversational e@change which will reveal the relevant discordances.

*.4. The 'referential problem'


-n our dialogues# reference is crucial in the process of understanding# more than in other 1inds of dialogue# since both the entire e@change and the tas1 itself focus on it. The 'referential problem' "cf. 5uer 1%3&, can be subdivided into three phases:
?

: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.

Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues #

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

:ee note 11 for the word order in the translation.

<

Carla Bazzanella

4. Ionversational structure and dialogic cooperation


4.1. Ionversational cycles and coming to an understanding
The structure of conversation# undoubtedly emergent "cf. 8opper 1%3?# 2ybee/8opper *++1,# both triggers and mar1s the process of coming to an understanding. Fn the one hand# the conversational e@change favors comprehension since it provides the relevant information. Fn the other hand# the on.going process of comprehension is shown via at least three 1inds of devices activated during the conversation: conversational moves# linguistic devices# cognitive devices. - will not deal here neither with the linguistic resources "such as dialogic repetition and discourse markers, that are commonly used by interlocutors in order to perform their interactional tas1s and to signal the progression of the understanding process "cf. 2azzanella forth. with specific regard to discourse mar1ers in 'spot the difference' dialogues,# nor with cognitive devices# such as inferences about the hearer's current belief.and.intention states "cf. :perber/(ilson 1%3;G cf. 2azzanella/ 2aracco *++& with regard to the inferential processes in the same dialogues,. >et us rather focus on conversational moves: once the interlocutors have gone through the phases of the referential problem concerning a given ob ect and/or property "see above,# a change of "sub.,topic is reEuired# thus mar1ing the transition to phase 9# which starts again another cycle: (hich ob ect shall we e@amine nowK "see 5,. (hich property of the same ob ect shall we e@amine now "see 2,K Iomparison on this new "sub.,topic starts "see I,# even in the same turn# as in 11# where the papera 'the duc1' closes phase '# and il bambino 'the child' opens another phase 9 ">et's change the ob ect referred to,# by switching to another topic.
"11, p*N;D: allR LspM la paperaLaaM / il bambino ride o piange K LspM cioO o O triste K p*N;D: thR LspM the duc$ L11M / is the child laughing or crying K LspM - mean is he sadK

-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

Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues #

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

"flow.chart, -he conversational cycles in /spot the difference/ dialogues

4.*. Ionstrual# cooperation# and mutual understanding


-n these dialogues# cooperation and mutual understanding are highly significant# since both of them are crucial in performing the common tas1# i.e. in constructing relevant references.

Understanding reference and dialogic cooperation in spot the difference dialogues #

>>

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%.

S-ar putea să vă placă și