Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation
Abstract
In this paper we discuss miscommunication in exchanges between native speakers and nonnative speakers of a language, focusing on an analysis of a service encounter telephone conversation between a nonnative speaker and a native speaker television repair shop employee. We present a goal-based model of conversation and a coding system for interpreting utterances, both of which are necessary for understanding the type of miscommunication which occurred in the conversation described herein. We argue that the lack of shared background on the part of the interlocutors interacted with their lack of shared linguistic code. In general, such interactions hinder successful communication and increase the probability that the miscommunication will not be recognized and thus not easily resolved. We show that a complete analysis of native/nonnative conversations must minimally invoke notions of correct interpretation, confidence in interpretation, goals of a conversation, shared beliefs, and linguistic as well as cultural systems. (Sociolinguistics, nonnative interactions, conversational analysis, American English)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Peer interaction can be a good forum for obtaining input necessary for acquisition.
“As early as 1985, Varonis & Gass (1985) concluded that peer interaction can be 'a good forum for obtaining input necessary for acquisition' (p.83).”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Varonis & Gass 1985
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350 · see citing works
Errors, Interaction, and Correction: A Study of Native-Nonnative Conversations
Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586471 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interaction and instructed second language acquisition
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444818000125 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
- Authors
- Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- ORCID
- Gass, Susan M.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1985-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 327-343
- ISSN
- 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8013
- OpenAlex
- W2126139239
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 32.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language in Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Language, Communication, and Linguistic Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- miscommunication, interlanguage, service encounters, telephone conversation, shared beliefs, cultural systems, American English
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review