General causes of miscommunication: Defining the causes through the creation of one discourse of communication

(1)

GENERAL CAUSES OF

MISCOMMUNICATION

Defining the causes through the creation of one

discourse of communication

Kayleigh Kaak

1676431 MA Asian Studies (120)(Japan) Supervisor: Keiko Yoshioka

(2)

1

1. Introduction

In the study of communication there are various theories which try to explain how people communicate with each other. Along with this explanation, it is also common that these theories state how miscommunication occurs and how one can try to prevent these miscommunications from happening. For example, Tanaka and Fujiwara explain in their theory that social skills are the most important in communication. It is the moment when one does not have sufficient skills, that miscommunication occurs (田中 2010; 田中, 藤原 1992). On the other hand, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory states that smooth communication can be achieved by using polite expressions in order to make certain utterances like suggestions, orders, or disagreements sound softer. When one does not use these polite expressions, there is a high chance that problems will occur in communication, as the other person might feel attacked by the statement of the speaker.1

As we have seen from these two examples, different factors are said to be the problem in communication. However, when only one specific theory is used in examining these problems in communication, it is possible that the researchers will focus on that one factor specified in the theory. This causes them to miss other factors which might be the actual cause of the

miscommunication. This problem of missing the actual cause of miscommunication might even be more frequent when it comes to communication involving people who are using a second language. In these cases it often happens that theories are focusing on problems which occur as a result of the linguistical difference in a language. In Ryan’s (2015) research for example, he gives reasons for the miscommunication between the student learning a second language and the teacher who is teaching the language. However, these are examples of mispronunciation. In these examples it could also be possible that the teacher was unable to understand the words because of noise,2_{however, this was} not included as a consideration.

While it may be interesting to focus on miscommunication in second language communication, it is more important to have a theory about general communication first. Various communication theories have emerged independently in several fields causing there to be no general accepted theory of communication as of today (Craig 1999; DeVito 1971). In order to create one general theory of communication, researchers have attempted to combine the different discourses into one (Craig 1999; Littlejohn and Foss 2011). However, they have focused on the contradicting points between these discourses which made it difficult for them to come to a consent.

1_{These theories will be further explained in chapter 4} 2_{Noise will be further explained in chapter 3.1.1}

(5)

4 In this thesis I will also make an attempt to create a general discourse of communication in which causes of miscommunication can be found. However, unlike previous research, I will try to focus on the similarities of the different discourses in order to connect them. To be able to create such a discourse, I will try to answer the following question: How can we identify the causes of

miscommunication without focusing too much on the general factors? As stated before, research on miscommunication is often focused on general causes like linguistical or cultural difference, while there might also be other factors involved. In this thesis I want to create a discourse that includes these lesser known factors.

As I am trying to find the general causes of miscommunication, I will not limit myself to the means of communication, like the use of a second language, but I will also consider factors like the people participating in the conversation and the contents of the conversation. Completing this framework, it would be possible to examine miscommunication in different kinds of situations equally.

To create this framework I will first in chapter 2 explain more specifically the troubles of the study of communication which is connected to the conflict in the field. As I have mentioned before, unlike other researching subjects, which have a proper set up theory, communication still does not seem to have one coherent discourse (DeVito 1971, Redmond 2000). After all, one could look at

communication from a sociopsychological point of view, but one could also look at communication from a technical point of view in which communication is seen as information processing (Craig 1999). In chapter 3 I will dive deeper into the discourses of the different fields in which

communication theories have been constructed up until now. Chapter 4 will consist of a fresh view of the discourses, in which I will attempt to combine the discourses into one discourse of

communication. Here I will also explain how specific communication theories like the politeness theory can fit in that discourse. In the 5th_{chapter I will go into interviews with people who have} experienced miscommunication. Drawing on people’s experiences I will be able to create a realistic view of situations in which miscommunications occur. Onto these realistic situations I will be able to unleash my framework which will appoint the factors included which cause miscommunication, making it possible to identify these causes more clearly. The 6th_{chapter will contain the discussion of} the research, followed by the conclusion in chapter 7.

(6)

5

2. The difficulty of the study of communication

Communication is a confusing subject to study. There are several reasons for this. The first factor which causes confusion is the definition of communication itself. According to various dictionaries, there are several definitions of communication. It could refer to “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs or behavior” (Merriam-Webster sd), but it could also be “the act of communicating with people” or even just “a message, letter or announcement” (Cambridge Dictionary; communication n.d.). As we can see, the word communication can refer to the process, the act and even the way one is communicating. This means there could be misunderstandings through the interpretation of the word communication. In this thesis, I will focus on the process of information exchange by the use of verbal and nonverbal acts.

The second reason is because of the confusing use of the terminology in the study of

communication. Bormann (1980) states that the various uses of terms like theory, models, concepts and hypotheses make it hard for researchers to get a good overview on the discourse of

communication. For example: there are various communication models, but these cannot be accounted as theories according to Bormann, because communication models show how

communication should take place. As communication changes through time, these models are also bound to change, which means that models have a shorter life span compared to theories (Bormann 1980, 37-38). Furthermore, as there are many researchers of communication who are formulating models, there are many different models which give their own view of communication. Even though there is a core of information which can be seen in each model, there seems to be no widely

accepted model, although this could be connected to the different fields to which the different models might apply.

The third reason why communication is difficult to study, is because of the fact that

communication discourses have formed independently in several fields. Craig (1999) compared many theories of communication. As a result he found in total seven, what he calls, ‘traditions’. These are: Rhetorical, Semiotic, Phenomenological, Cybernetic, Sociopsychological, Sociocultural, and Critical traditions. These traditions are seven different discourses in different fields for which there are ideas and vocabulary to explain communication. The traditions share common grounds as well as

differences. Due to these differences, each respective tradition is “open to multiple interpretations” (Craig 1999, 150). This is why he argues that specialists of any tradition of communication should keep an open mind regarding the other traditions. Doing this, problems can be viewed from different perspectives, which might result in a wholesome discourse of communication.

(7)

6

3. Different fields of communication

We have seen that Craig (1999) found a total of seven traditions or discourses to explain communication. In the attempt to make a joint discourse out of these tradition, Craig (1999) found arguments in each tradition that would contradict parts of the other traditions. For example, in the sociopsychological tradition, the following argument exists in regard to semiotics: “Semiotics fails to explain factors that influence the production & interpretation of messages” (Craig 1999, 134). Another example of the semiotic tradition against the sociocultural theory: “Sociocultural rules, etc., are all systems of signs” (Craig 1999, 134). In other words, communication in the semiotic tradition is produced based on signs, whereas in the sociocultural tradition communication is created through the sociocultural environment. What Craig (1999) showed us by using these arguments, is that the different traditions differ in a way that communication cannot be explained by combining them into one theory. However, instead of focusing on the differences, is it not also important to look at the similarities? Doing this, Littlejohn and Foss (2011) have attempted to create a general

communication theory based on the combination of these seven traditions. In order to understand how they were able to combine these traditions, I will first explain the basic ideas of each tradition in this chapter, after which I will explain Littlejohn and Foss’s research. After that I will include research of Redmond (2000) and DeVito (1971) which will help me create a framework similar to Littlejohn and Foss’s, but better fitting my discourse. This framework will be further elaborated on in the next chapter.

3.1 Cybernetic tradition

Communication, according to the cybernetic tradition, is theorized as information processing. This means that it shows “how all kinds of complex systems, whether living or nonliving, macro or micro, are able to function, and why they often malfunction” (Craig 1999, 141). To be able to explain these kind of systems, they look at processes from a broader viewpoint. One example could be the following process about the human communication system which is shown in figure 1 (Bormann 1980; DeVito 1971). Imagine, person 1 giving person 2 a message. In this process, person 1 is the source of the message. This person has to carefully think about how they want to formulate their message in order to get the other person to understand the message how they intended it to be. This process of formulating the message is called encoding. When the message is formulated it is called a signal. This signal is then received by person 2, who is the destination of the message. In this process of receiving the signal, which is called decoding, it is possible for a person to interpret it in different ways. This interpretation can differ based on several points. First, on a semantic level; does person 1

(8)

7 formulate the message in a way that can lead to several interpretations? Second, it is possible that person 1 gives other nonverbal signals, which may cause confusion? For example, if the person states something while giving nonverbal signs which may indicate sarcasm, it will confuse the other person as to whether they are serious about their statement. Additionally, it may also happen that

nonverbal signs given by person 1 may be interpreted differently by person 2. Maude (2016, 43) wrote a story about an Indian-Japanese meeting in which the Japanese person explained something to the Indian person. When the Japanese person asked the Indian person whether they understood the explanation, the Indian person responded by saying yes, while shaking his head. The Japanese person interpreted this as them not understanding the explanation, because of the nonverbal act. However, in Indian culture both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are expressed by shaking their head. In these kind of

cases it is possible for the interpretation to be influenced by the difference in culture. Maude (2016) calls these misunderstandings of each other’s intention cultural noise.

Noise is said to be any factor which distorts, or interferes with the meaning of the message (Maude 2016, 29). However, judging from Bormann (1980) and DeVito’s (1971) Human Communication System shown in figure 1, cultural noise can be explained as a mistake in the decoding of the message. A person is prone to decode a message using the information they know,

Figure 2: Human Communication System including noise (DeVito 1971, 39) Figure 1: Human Communication System (DeVito 1971, 14-16)

(9)

8 or are most comfortable with. In a conversation with someone the hearer is close with, it is usually the case that they belong to the same subculture. This means that both people have the same language and habits of conveying a message, which means that the chance of miscommunication is low. However, when the speaker and the hearer belong to different (sub)cultures, they do not share a common way of verbally and nonverbally conveying a message, which raises the chance of

miscommunications happening, as seen in the Japanese-Indian meeting.

Aside from cultural noise, there are other kinds of noise which can interfere with the meaning of a message (Figure 2). According to Redmond (2000), there are three kinds: External noise, Internal noise, and physiological noise. The first kind is noise caused by sounds in your environment. This could be people talking, loud vehicles driving by, or even chirping from birds. These noises could interfere with you hearing the message. The internal noise is also called the psychological noise. This is when one is in thought and blocking out sounds from around them, causing them to not hear the message. It is also known as zoning out. The last kind of noise is caused by disabilities in your hearing system.

3.2 Rhetorical tradition

Communication in the rhetorical tradition is theorized as a practical art of discourse. This explains “why our participation in discourse, especially public discourse, is important and how it occurs” (Craig 1999, 135). In the SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, rhetorical

communication is described as symbolic communication which “aims to alter the beliefs, attitudes, values, or actions of its target audience” (Sullivan 2009, 450). What is important in this tradition, is the idea that wisdom and skills contribute to the effectiveness of the communication, and that these two can be nurtured by instruction and practice. Rhetorical communication comes through various channels and methods. It exists in communication offline, like between two persons or in a small group, but it also exists online on forums and mass media. Additionally, it appears in the form of speech or writing, and even in the form of performances and songs (Sullivan 2009, 450-451).

3.3 Phenomenological tradition

According to Craig (1999) communication in the phenomenological tradition is theorized as “dialogue or experience of otherness” and thus “explains the interplay of identity and difference in authentic human relationships and cultivates communication practices that enable and sustain authentic relationships” (Craig 1999, 138). In other words, in the phenomenological traditions, communication exists between people who have direct contact with each other, in order to construct a relationship. To be able to do this, it is necessary for people to experience the other person’s expressions, which in turn make them aware of each other and their differences. Looking at this

(10)

9 explanation, we can state that this definition does not apply to all kinds of communication. This statement is based on direct contact between people. This means that the use of other means of communication, like the use of media or telephones does not apply. The reason for this is that the use of non-verbal communication is very important. By experiencing non-verbal signs like gazes or expressions, a person can react more efficiently, which will affect the relationship with the other person.

3.4 Sociopsychological tradition

In the sociopsychological tradition according to Craig (1999, 143), communication is theorized as “a process of expression, interaction, and influence.” In other words, this process shows the

psychological traits and emotions of humans who influence each other through their interaction. The basic idea of this tradition is that a person’s psychological state can be influenced by any social interaction. This interaction may be face-to-face communication, but can also be any contact through technological media. Additionally, it exists in communication which is one to one, one to many and even many to many.

3.5 Sociocultural tradition

Communication in sociocultural terms is theorized as “a symbolic process that produces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns” (Craig 1999, 144). This tradition is based on the idea that the way we communicate with each other is influenced by already existing cultural patterns and social structures. On the other hand, by communicating in a way that is conform to those standards, we keep this social structure intact. In other words, we can say that the culture we grew up in, or the culture we identify ourselves with, shapes the way we communicate with other people.

This means that, inside this tradition, communication always is conducted between cultures, whether they are the same or different. A leading researcher in this field of cross-cultural communication is Hofstede. Hofstede (1980; 1997) has found a total of 4 dimensions in which (national) cultures can differ: (1) individualism- collectivism, (2) power distance, (3) uncertainty avoidance, and (4) masculinity- femininity. The first dimension explains the difference of being socially oriented or not. In places like Europe and North America, where the level of individualism is high, the society tends to be result- and achievement-oriented. On the contrary, collectivist countries like those in Asia, Africa etc. have a society which focus on social networks and family cohesiveness. The second dimension called power distance is focused on whether the society values hierarchy and the inequality that comes with it. Uncertainty avoidance is a dimension in a culture regarding the preference of uncertainty and ambiguity. Countries like Greece or Japan contain high levels of uncertainty avoidance. This means that the people in these countries would prefer strong codes of

(11)

10 behavior and formal procedures which they can abide by. The fourth dimension shows the different between masculine cultures and feminine cultures. Masculine cultures value competitiveness and define the difference between male and female roles. Feminine cultures, on the other hand, value sex equality and quality of life (Maude 2016, 7-8). Of course, these cultural dimensions give a rather black-and-white view regarding cultural differences, while in reality the spectrum of cultural

differences is far more wide and diverse. After all, a national culture does not imply that everyone in that country communicates in the same way because they have that culture. Inside a national culture it is possible to have various subcultures. These subcultures have their own values and

communication style (Maude 2016, 10). Nevertheless, it does give an idea of cultural differences which are an important factor in communication.

It is interesting to see that these kind of dimensions can be seen in the language. According to Maude (2016, 19), the degree of formality and information about the social relations can be found in for example French and German languages. This information shows the power relations between the speaker and the listener. This phenomenon can also be seen in the Japanese language. To take an example from Matsumoto (1989, 209):

(1) a. Kyoo -wa doyoobi da.

Today -TOPIC Saturday COPULA-plain “Today is Saturday

b. Kyoo -wa doyoobi desu.

COPULA-polite c. Kyoo -wa doyoobi degozaimasu.

COPULA-super polite

In this example Matsumoto takes a simple sentence and shows that the degree of formality changes depending on the copula which is being used. Where the copula da shows an equal relationship between the two speakers, desu and degozaimasu shows that the speaker is talking to someone they want to show respect to. In the case of desu it could still be possible that the two people are on equal ground, however in the case of degozaimasu it is clear that the other person has a higher social states compared to the speaker.

3.6 Semiotic tradition

In the phenomenological tradition we have seen that people make use of non-verbal signs to communicate. There is however a tradition which tries to explain communication based on signs. This is called the semiotic tradition. In this tradition, communication is explained as “intersubjective

(12)

11 tradition is based on the semiotic theory constructed by Peirce. This theory states that words are considered signs, which means that language itself is based on signs (Merrel 2006). In

communication it means that “codes and media of communication are not merely neutral structures or channels for the transmission of meanings, but have sign-like properties of their own” (Craig 1999, 137). In other words, it is possible for words to have different meanings. This can emerge in different ways. Firstly, cross-linguistic influences may cause you to interpret a word differently from the intended meaning. To illustrate, take a look at figure 3. At a first look this might seem like a rather dark picture, as it seems that the child is asking the mother to die. This is because we are reading this picture in the English language. However, this is a Dutch advertisement which translates to ‘mommy, that one, that one, that one... Please’ which is rather innocent. In communicational terms, it depends on how the message is decoded. In this case, the possibility of the picture to be read in two

languages, makes that the original message does not get across as planned.

The second reason a word can have a different meaning is when the same object or concept may refer to a different word. It is a well-known around the world that when a traffic light shows a green light, it means ‘go.’ However, in Japanese language a traffic light is referred to as ‘ao’ (青), which translates to blue. Now this does not mean that their traffic light has a different color. Rather, the reason that the term 青信号 (aoshingou = blue traffic light) is being used in Japan, is because a newspaper described the light as being blue when traffic lights were introduced. As there are more expressions in the Japanese language in which the color blue (青) is used instead of the color green (緑), the expression ‘blue traffic light’ was accepted by the Japanese people (杉浦志保 2017).

(13)

12 In both examples, we have seen that language plays an enormous part in the decoding of a signal. While in example 1, it might have only been a miss in decoding regarding language, example 2 shows that the expression was only accepted because of the history of the language. Would it then be possible for these signs to be culturally dependent? Language itself is said to express the norms and values of the culture it exists in (Coulmas 2011). On top of that, there are also various non-verbal signs which could be interpreted differently (Candra and Putri 2019).

3.7 Critical tradition

The critical tradition is based on the idea of discursive reflection. This is a social communication theory which focusses on the problems of communication which arise from “material and ideological forces that preclude or distort discursive reflection” (Craig 1999, 147). In this theory, communication is thought to be full of meanings which do not convey the truth. For example, modern technology is often used to communicate certain ideologies to the people. Using this method, it is possible to portray certain groups or ideas in a negative light, while others are shown positively (Fuchs 2016, 13). People should always be aware of this, and question any contradictory information they receive. By questioning the incoming information, the person is able to reflect on the process of communication, which brings them closer to an ideal process of communication in which people reach mutual

understanding.

This tradition is based on a strong relation between society and communication. Communication plays a big role in the creation of society, through the formation of social relations, and in the economy, in for example the communication in the market. Finally, it is also interesting to see that communication is closely connected to culture. The culture is formed through a common way of communication, but at the same time is critically reflected on, causing a change in cultural values. An example of this is the forming of the emancipation movement in order to form equal communication (Fuchs 2016, 29-31).

3.8 Following research

As Craig’s research regarding the existence of the seven traditions have been acknowledged by many researchers (Fuchs 2011; Hargie 2010; Schiavo 2013) in the communication field, they have also accepted the differences between the traditions. Because of this, although the article has been cited plenty of times, few researches give any new perspective in the creation of a general discourse of communication. One new perspective given was the hypothesis stated by Littlejohn and Foss (2011). They created their own organization of contexts (Figure 4) in which they stated how the seven traditions contributed. For example, the context Communicator is contributed by the Cybernetic, Sociopsychological, Sociocultural, Rhetorical and Critical traditions. Here the first two

(14)

13 traditions define the mechanisms of how a person thinks and acts, while the other traditions explain how the person’s identity and social relationships influences communication (Littlejohn and Foss 2011, 66).

However, locating causes of miscommunication would prove to be difficult using this model. The main reason for this difficulty is the fact that the communicators, the message, the conversation, and the relationship in the communication is seen as one context. While it is true that these four factors are the key stones in communication, I feel that most of the causes of miscommunication would be placed inside this context because of this, making it harder to actually identify the main cause of miscommunication in a situation.

While Littlejohn and Foss’s discourse is not fit for our discourse of miscommunication, we might be able to create a discourse which does fit using different contexts produced by different

researchers. After all, Littlejohn and Foss were not the only persons who created different contexts in which communication takes place. Originally, these contexts were based of different fields which were related to the process of communication. DeVito (1971) established a figure in which he combines several fields to their respective concepts which are part of communication (Figure 5). To illustrate, the thoughts of each individual are part of the psychological field. The social relation with

(15)

14 the other person are explained through sociology. Cultural relations are described through the field of anthropology, and finally natural science describes any panhuman concepts. Redmond (2000) states similar concepts which he calls ‘contexts’ of communication. According to him these contexts are different concepts for which each one of them affect communication in a way (Figure 6). When two persons communicate with each other they both have a psychological context. This context contains personal factors like needs and values. Then, there is a relational context which involves the relationship the people have. The situational context describes the purpose of the interaction. The environmental context is regarding their surroundings, specifically, adjusting and choosing the surroundings in order to communicate effectively. Finally, the cultural context makes place for different interpretations based on their cultural background (Redmond 2000, 27-41).

(16)

15 Comparing these two figures with the contexts of LittleJohn and Foss (2011) we see some interesting similarities. For example, all of the figures seem to include individual, social and cultural dimensions. However, there are quite some differences in the division of those contexts. While DeVito (1971) and Redmond (2000) describe the individual dimension clearly by the creation of a psychological context, Littlejohn and Foss (2011) include the concept of the conversation itself, as well as any relational aspect inside this context. On the other hand, Redmond (2000) separates the psychological and the relational contexts. Furthermore, Redmond and Littlejohn and Foss seem to have divided the social context into different dimensions. In the case of Redmond (2000), he has created a situational and relational context, whereas Littlejohn and Foss (2011) chose to divide this into groups, organizations and media. In other words, Littlejohn and Foss (2011) have created their contexts in regard to the dimension of the communication (interpersonal, small-group, group, mass-media), while Redmond (2000) seems to have stayed close to the original fields like DeVito (1971) has done. Furthermore, compared to the model of DeVito (1971), Redmond (2000) has added an environmental context.

While Littlejohn and Foss’ model contains various levels in regard to the method of communication and the communicators, there seems to be no attention to situational and environmental contexts. Nevertheless, their research does show that it is possible to create a new perspective by placing the traditions in contexts of communication. Additionally, while the contexts provided by Littlejohn and Foss do not seem to fit my research, the contexts provided by Redmond

(17)

16 (2000) might prove to be different. To illustrate, if I would want to find a cause of miscommunication during group communication, according to the Littlejohn and Foss’ model, it would be placed in the context ‘group.’ However, the actual cause of that miscommunication could have been a

psychological factor. For this reason, in terms of creating a discourse to examine causes of

miscommunication, the model provided by Redmond (2000) seems to be more suitable. As such, in the next chapter I will try to place the traditions as described by Craig (1999) into the contexts of Redmond (2000).

(18)

17

4. Combining the traditions

Much like I am trying to do in this thesis, Craig (1999) attempted to create a general discourse of communication by comparing these different traditions with each other, looking for similarities in the ideas. However, he soon stumbled upon contradictions between the traditions, making it hard to combining them into one discourse. For example, he states that there is a difference between intentionality versus functionality in the rhetoric and phenomenology tradition vis-à-vis the cybernetics tradition (Craig 1999, 150). However, as I have explained in chapter 3, the ideas of the traditions can also be explained as practical (rhetoric and phenomenology) and theoretical

(cybernetic). While the cybernetic tradition shows us models of how the process of communication should take place, the other two traditions show us the practical reality of communication itself, with difficulties which are hard to predict in theory. Would that then not mean that these traditions are supplementary to each other?

This is not the only point on which the traditions can be brought together. As I have mentioned before, there were researchers like Redmond and DeVito who figured out that communication exists in different fields. Additionally, Littlejohn and Foss (2011) created an organization of contexts in which they were able to place the ideas of the traditions into one or more contexts. However, their model is based on forming a general discourse on communication. In the last paragraph of chapter 3 I have explained that this model proves to be difficult to use when examining causes of

miscommunication. For this reason I would like to make a similar framework which provides a discourse on the possible factors of miscommunication. This framework, or system of ideas (Cambridge Dictionary; framework n.d.), will eventually make it easier to identify causes of

miscommunications. In order to do this, I will be using the contexts provided by Redmond (2000). In this chapter I will explain the main ideas of the contexts, while placing the traditions of Craig’s study into those contexts, based on the similarities.

4.1 Cultural context

Not only Redmond, but many other researchers take into account a cultural dimension when creating a communication theory. The reason for this is that the surrounding cultures one grew up in play a big role in communication. When two people talk to each other, there is a big chance that both parties are part of a different (sub)culture. Each (sub)culture has their own rules, ideas and meanings which are implemented in one’s speech. For this reason when two people, who have different (sub)cultures, speak with each other, it might happen that speech acts and/or vocabulary which is normally understood in their own (sub)culture, might not be understood by the other person,

(19)

18 because they do not have access to the original meaning (Maude 2016; Zashchitina en Moysyak 2017). This may not only occur between people born in different countries and thus have different culture and language, but also between people of the same country who identify with different subcultures. To take subcultures from the 80s as example; hippies had a hard time understanding people who took interest in heavy metal because of the difference in interests, values and vocabulary (Haenfler 2014, 1).

While the sociocultural tradition was fully based on this idea, we were also able to see this concept in the semiotic tradition. As explained in the first example, if both parties do not use the same language, the hearer will be unable to decode the message because it consists of words they do not understand, or the meaning of the message will change completely in the case that these words do exist in both languages while having different meanings. We have also seen this concept in Figure 1. This means that the decoding progress, as stated in the cybernetic tradition, is part of the cultural context.

However, the second example explained in chapter 3.1.6, which shows how meanings can differ between languages, is not part of the decoding process. After all, even if a Japanese language

student holds the necessary vocabulary to communicate with a Japanese native speaker, without any cultural knowledge of the use ‘blue’ instead of ‘green’ when referring to a traffic light, these

language students would call the traffic light ‘green’ when this is also the case in their native language. These cases in which the use of language is historically predestined, are culturally and linguistically determined.

4.2 Relational context

The relation between the speaker and the hearer can influence the way of communicating. For example, talking to a friend is done in a much more casual way compared to talking with someone of higher status, like your boss. This concept can be connected to a well-known theory in

communication concerning face. The first person to introduce the concept of face into the western world was Erving Goffman (1967). He describes face as an image one has of oneself or other people. Based on that image one has of themselves and others, the person acts in a way which expresses their view of the situation (Goffman 1967, 5).

Based on this notion of face, many researchers have followed him in specifying and describing the theory. One example is the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987). This theory states that there are two sides to face; an individually oriented face called the negative face which stands for freedom of action and imposition, and the positive face which is connected to social relations as it stands for the want of approval and affection. These two sides of face can be threatened by Face

(20)

19 Threatening Acts (FTAs) like suggestions, orders, criticism, disagreements etc. As our daily

conversations are full of FTAs, we use polite expressions in order to make these acts sound less (face-) threatening. In short, the politeness theory concerns practical acts which take into account the relation with the other person, in order to sustain the relationship. This concept is close to the idea of the phenomenological tradition. In other words, the phenomenological tradition fits in the relational context.

4.3 Psychological context

According to Redmond (2000, 28) the psychological context contains factors “that affect the way you interpret, analyze, encode, or decode a message.” Examples of these factors are: needs, values, beliefs, attitudes, personality, race, ethnicity, culture, age and sex (Thumiger 2017; Redmond 2000). What is interesting to see is that this definition is very similar to the definition of the rhetorical tradition which states that the aim is to alter someone else’s beliefs, attitudes, values and actions.

Among the traditions, there is another tradition for which the idea is that a person can be influenced by interaction with other people. This is the sociopsychological tradition. Whereas the rhetorical tradition is based on a deliberate change of someone’s psychological state, the

sociopsychological tradition focusses on the unwitting influence of the other person on the psychological state.

Blitvich (2013) has done research regarding how one’s identity, which is constructed by the psychological factor like beliefs and values, may be influenced. He states that the identity is

constructed mainly of emotions [Blitvich 2013, 8]. People experience emotions like happiness, anger, fear, and/or sadness when other people do not perceive the identity as they want it to be portrayed. It is also possible for (sub)cultures to have an influence in forming one’s identity. Furthermore, as it is possible for someone to be concerned with more than one (sub)culture, it is also possible for

someone to have more than one identity. Next to a personal identity, they could for example have a social identity (末田清子 2013, 21). As the surrounding influences are bound to change throughout life, identity is also said to be constantly changing.

Lastly, there is one more tradition which focusses on the psychological aspect of communication. This is the critical tradition. The idea of this tradition to focus on problems of communication by reflecting on the information they receive, shows that people should be aware of the fact that their surroundings might change their way of thinking. However, while the rhetorical tradition contains the idea of deliberately altering the attitude and beliefs of the hearer as a speaker, the critical tradition looks at this concept from the hearer’s point of view.

(21)

20

4.4 Environmental context

In which environment communication takes place also impacts the effectivity of the communication. These are mostly factors that do not concern the individual like: ”location, furnishings (and their arrangement), room size, windows, decorations, temperature, humidity, lighting, and surrounding sounds” (Redmond 2000, 39). However, a person can influence (most of) these factors. For example, one can change the arrangement of the furniture, or change the temperature or lighting in order to make communication progress effectively.

While one could exert power over these factors in order to make the environment the most efficient, there are also cases in which communication is disturbed and they cannot exert their power to change that situation. This is when noise unwillingly occurs. For example, a truck could drive by overwriting the sound of the message into a loud vehicle sound, causing you to miss the message.

4.5 Situational context

The situational context handles how interaction occurs based on the situation. For example, the same people could be communicating, but there might be a difference in power balance. Redmond (2000, 38) gives the example of a situation where a student and an instructor meet each other in a restaurant where the student works. Whereas normally the instructor is in charge of the student in regard to teaching them, in this situation the instructor is reliant on the student for taking the order correctly and bringing them their order. Basically, each speaker participating in a conversation has some expectations or motivation to participate. When the expectations differ, it can cause problems in the communication as the parties involved head to a different goal.

4.6 Completing the framework

While it is interesting to see that some traditions fit perfectly in some contexts, there are also (parts of) traditions which seem to fit in various contexts, just like in the model of Littlejohn and Foss (2011). Let us first look at the cybernetic tradition. As we have seen in this chapter, there were various aspects of this tradition that fit into different contexts. For example, while the decoding process is reliant on the cultural background and thus falls into the cultural context, the sounds from your surroundings interfering with the signal is the kind of noise that could be placed in the

environmental context. Additionally, as I have explained in chapter 3.1.1, noise could also be cultural, or even psychological. The reason for this variety of contexts to exist in this tradition is because, as explained in the introduction of this chapter, the cybernetic tradition consists mainly of theory which portray models of communication.

Next, the concept of the rhetorical tradition is to alter the beliefs, attitudes, values and actions of others. This idea is very similar to the idea of the psychological context which is why at first glance

(22)

21 this would fit there. However if you read the definition carefully, you see that there is an interaction between the speaker and the hearer. Mateus (2018) states that rhetorical communication is a form of persuasion in order to get cooperation. In this process of persuasion, while it is important to use a speech style which is attractive to the audience, it is also important to “put audiences into the appropriate emotional state” (Mateus 2018, 69). This means in some way, that the speaker needs to sustain a certain emotional level of the hearer. To be able to do this, they need to be cautious to not disturb that state. This is a process that is similar to the interaction described in the face theory; in order to not threaten the other person’s face, the speaker needs to watch their verbal and nonverbal actions. From this we can conclude that the rhetorical tradition concerns both psychological and relational contexts.

Looking at the rhetorical tradition from this point of view, wouldn’t it also be possible to state that the theory of face itself has both relational as psychological aspects? In terms of the relational aspect, a person acts in a way which has an influence on both your own face and the face of the other person. Based on the relationship you have with that person, your acts will also change. On the other hand, there are also studies that argue that this interaction influences the psychological state. Arundale (2009, 2087) states that, although face is achieved through interactional communication and thus can be seen as a relational phenomenon, it also consists of personal interpretations of the other person’s face. In regard to this matter, Haugh has made a distinction between first-order politeness and second-order politeness. In this distinction, the former is described as how “polite behavior is perceived and talked about in other by members of social groups” [Haugh 2012, 119]. This definition shows that he puts emphasis on the part which shows that behavior is perceived, or in other words, interpreted. This interpretation is a psychological progress. Haugh (2013, 59) further states that relationships and individuals are closely connected. Relationships are formed by the interaction conducted by the persons. On the other hand, people can also be influenced and change through their relationships. This is seen in the research about identity by Sueda. She was able to make a connection between face and identity. When a person is confronted with face threatening acts, they will feel emotions like shame or pride. These emotions will either strengthen or weaken one’s identity (末田清子 2013). All these articles state a connection between relational interaction and one’s psychological state. This would mean that the relational and psychological context are closely intertwined.

However this is not all. It seems like the cultural context is apparent in the other contexts as well. While one’s psychological state can be influenced by the relational interaction, we have also seen that one’s identity is formed based on the values and beliefs of the (sub)cultures they are involved

(23)

22 with (末田清子 2013, 21). This means that the psychological context is connected to the cultural context as well.

All in all we have seen that it is possible to create a framework based on the contexts provided by Redmond (2000). In this framework we were able to fit in the 7 traditions of communication which makes it possible to call this framework a discourse of communication. What makes this framework different from the discourse given by Littlejohn and Foss (2011), is the fact that my framework is created to identify causes of miscommunication whereas the latter discourse is one of

communication in general.

In the next chapter I will test this discourse in regard to real-life situations. These situations are gathered by conducting interviews with people who tell me stories in which they have experienced miscommunication.

(24)

23

5. Putting the framework into practice

Everyone who have been raised in their own environment, is part of a (sub)culture, and thus have their own values and habits. This different way of thinking makes it difficult to convey meaning, whether that be the formulation of your own thoughts, or the interpretation of the message from the other person. Because of this, it is only logical that miscommunication occurs. However, what is the main cause of this miscommunication? In this chapter I will put the discourse created above to the test by applying this discourse to actual situations gathered by interviews.

5.1 Methodology

Through placing the seven traditions in the five contexts, we were able to create one general discourse of communication in which we should be able to identify miscommunication. This discourse contains the various ideas and theories about communication, while creating dimensions which can be used as starting points in the examination of miscommunication. While we have seen that the traditions were mainly connected to the cultural, relational and psychological contexts, making it seem like the environmental and the situational context do not matter, I have decided to include these contexts in my framework. The reason for this is that these two contexts seem to focus on concepts which are not directly related to communication itself. Nevertheless, these contexts may have some influence on the occurrence of miscommunication.

To be able to find the reason of miscommunication, I will use the discourse to analyze practical situations which have occurred. These situations have been extracted from interviews with people. The reason why I have chosen to use interviews to gather the data is because I will be able to collect the most relevant data regarding miscommunication using this method. Every situation of

miscommunication is different, which makes it difficult to examine the results in a quantitative way using questionnaires. Therefore I have chosen to use interviews as a qualitative method of research.

Regarding the collection of the data, I have decided to deviate from usual practices. Normally, one would find people to interview and hold a face-to-face conversation while recording it in order to be able to listen back to the answers given. However, I found that the topic of miscommunication would pose to be difficult to interview. After all, if you ask a person “have you had any situations in which miscommunication occurred?” the chances are that the person would not be able to remember such situations on the spot. To be able to give the people some time to think about the question, while still being able to gather data, I have decided to use chatting applications for example Whatsapp, Facebook messenger, and LINE. In order to gather a wide range of people with various stories, I have used social media to find people who were willing to cooperate and tell me their stories of

(25)

24 miscommunication. Conclusively I was only able to gather 6 stories in which miscommunication occurred. The duration of the interviews vary from one day, in which the subject was actively responding to my messages, to over a week because of inactivity. The length of the interviews also vary regarding the amount of information they had to tell.

The interviews provide us with information regarding struggling moments in the communication. Examining these problems, we will be able to see whether the miscommunication is caused by psychological, relational, cultural, situational, or environmental causes. Furthermore, by doing this, we would be able to compare various situations to see whether some factors in communication define the type of miscommunication. In order to prove that this discourse can be used to examine various situations I have decided to not specify my range of topics and subjects.

In order to not miss any information I have made sure that information regarding all of the contexts is included. For the cultural context I have looked at whether there is any kind of

(sub)cultural conflict of ideals. Next to that, if there was any situation in which the message was not correctly interpreted, I would have to consider the possibility for it to be a cultural

miscommunication as well. To be able to define this, I am making sure to find out whether the participants have different cultural backgrounds, by looking at their nationality, environment they grew up with and interests. Any relational miscommunication may be caused by tension or distance between the people participating in the communication. This tension may possibly be caused by FTAs. For this context I make sure to identify the relation between the participants. In the psychological context one’s beliefs and ethics are the most important. For this reason, miscommunication may occur when signals of the other person do not conform to their own standards. While this context may be harder to examine, because of the fact that it is influenced by both relational as cultural factors, the way the interviewee tells the story might give some clues into their own thoughts about the situation. The situational context is built around the expectation of the situation. When people do not fulfill their roles in the situation the communication takes place in, miscommunication occurs. Here the reason for talking with the person is an important factor. Lastly, when any environmental factor distracts the person from receiving the message, it is part of the environmental context. Here, the place the communication took place might be a cause of miscommunication.

5.2 The interviews

5.2.1 Interview 1

The first interview was with a 28 year old Dutch male who I will refer to as interviewee 1. He had been studying Japanese at Leiden University. His experience of miscommunication was when he was

(26)

25 talking in a group with one Japanese person and two other Dutch persons. In that conversation they started talking about the difference between the Japanese and the Dutch school systems in

Japanese. Here, one of the other two Dutch people tried to explain the Dutch educational level HBO (Hoger Beroeps Onderwijs, literal translation: higher professional education) as the Japanese 短大 (tandai; defined as “junior college; vocationally oriented two or three year post-secondary education institution” (Jisho sd)). Interviewee 1 felt that this was not entirely correct. He added that he was aware of the difference in systems and that this miscommunication was based on trying to find a word in Japanese for a system which does not exist in this country. What was also a factor in this miscommunication was the fact that he had only been studying Japanese for a few months at that time. When I asked him whether he would be able to explain the concept now he has graduated from Japanese studies, he replied that he would probably be able to explain the concept more detailed, but it might still be hard to understand for someone when they are not familiar with the system.

Now we have seen the contents of the conversation, I would like to go over the situational and environmental aspects. Interviewee 1 was participating in this conversation as a part of Japanese conversational practice. In total there were 10-12 people coming together in order to practice, however at some point they happen to end up with the 4 people participating in the conversation above, while the other people were not involved. When I asked about the relationship between him and the other people, he stated that he was not at all close to them, as he had only spoken to them once or twice. The conversation itself took place in one of the university buildings. Judging from the situation, there should have been quite some noise in regards to the other people talking with each other, however there was no indication that interviewee 1 had been bothered by this.

In terms of miscommunication in this situation, he was already aware of the fact that there was no system, and thus that there was a difference in the cultural background between the two groups. Because of this, there is also the semiotic problem of having no adequate word in the second language, making it harder to convey the concept they tried to explain. Normally, one would try to explain the concept using other words, however this was also difficult because his Japanese was at beginner level at that time. However, he feels that it might still have been hard to explain even when he would have an advanced level of Japanese. This means that the main cause of miscommunication in this situation was the difference in cultural context.

5.2.2 Interview 2

The second person was a 54 year old Dutch male who I will refer to as interviewee 2. He told me that he had experienced a situation of miscommunication at work. He works as a system

(27)

26 administrator and had a situation in which part of the work was outsourced to India. To make sure the work would progress smoothly, the Indian people were invited to the Netherlands to receive training. After they went back to India, work progressed as planned, however after some time interviewee 2 and his coworkers received questions about work activities which the Indian people had received training about. He also stated that these activities were conducted correctly for a while before that. This caused some trouble and delay in the work progress, so after half a year one of the managers went to India to get to the bottom of the situation. The manager found out that the people who were trained in the Netherlands to do the job, had left that workplace to work somewhere else. In other words, interviewee 2 and his coworkers were working with people they did not know. On top of that, the people in the Indian workforce had changed and had not been trained to do the job. The reason the Dutch workers did not notice this change, was because all of the contact went through chat and an automatic alarming system. Furthermore, the Indian people who replaced the trained people were using the original accounts of the first employees. After asking for an

explanation, the Indian manager told the Dutch manager that the Indian people do not work at the same workplace for long, because they will change jobs whenever they have the opportunity to earn more money. Having to change the account for every replacing person would costs lots of time, which is why they were using the existing accounts of the persons who primarily received the training. However, as interviewee 2 explained, the company he works at has stated that having someone use the account of someone else is seen as a security breach. This rule has been clarified from the beginning when they outsourced the work. Because of this incident, the company had decided to cancel the outsourcing, and move the work activities back to the Netherlands.

This situation shows that miscommunication does not have to happen on a certain moment, but rather can also happen over time. Here interviewee 2 was working with different people than he had anticipated, making it harder to make work progress. This situation was a result of the Indian

manager not conveying/hiding the fact that the employees had shifted. Furthermore, the Dutch employees were having contact with the Indian employees mainly through automatic systems and chat which creates a situation in which the Dutch employees did not know with whom they were talking. Lastly, there might even be a cultural aspect in regard to the enablement of changing jobs easily compared to the Dutch work ethic. However, if this is a cultural aspect of the Indian culture, the Indian manager might not have been aware that this practice of people constantly changing in the workplace would pose a problem if he was not aware of the work ethic differences between the Dutch and Indian culture. This would also explain the fact why he did not report the change of people behind the accounts.

(28)

27 Whereas there might be a cultural factor involved in the situation as explained above, I also believe that this situation of miscommunication was caused based on situational factors. Both sides being unaware of the cultural work ethic differences, the Dutch employees expected to be working with the people they trained and thus know how to do their job. In other words, the replacing Indian employees were unable to fulfill their role in this situation, making this a miscommunication of situational context which was created by cultural differences.

5.2.3 Interview 3

The third interview was conducted with a 22 year old Chinese woman, interviewee 3. She told me that she has had many experiences in which there was miscommunication about her nationality. Although she was raised in China, her ancestors were born in Korea. For this reason, she holds the Korean surname Pak, which is apparently very common in Korea. Because of this, she told me that she is viewed to be Korean and receives lots of questions regarding this prejudice. For example, during her time in Japan, she was put in classes with people of different nationalities. At one point she heard someone ask her classmate: “you have a Korean person in your class right?” while that person asking the question would look at the direction of interviewee 3. Additionally, she had been asked questions about Korea at her work place as well. What is interesting, is the fact that this misunderstanding of her nationality seems to be not only based on her last name. In the first semester of her exchange in Japan, she would introduce herself as Pak (her last name). However, in the second semester, one of her classmates was Korean and also carried the surname Pak, which is why she introduced herself with her first name. However, when I asked her whether this change of name helped her decrease the number of situations in which she was seen as Korean, she answered that people in the first place still continued to view her as Korean.

In these kind of situations, we can see that there is clearly no strong relation between the people assuming that interviewee 3 is Korean, and she herself. After all, the people who asked were,

according to her, people from another class and people at work. Furthermore, the situations in which this misunderstanding occurs differ, which makes it seem that the situation has no influence on how she is viewed. What we do see, is that interviewee was brought up in a Korean family who still practice the Korean customs. We have seen that someone often takes over the habits and ideas of one’s surroundings. In this case, it is possible that her surrounding family happen to influence her own ideas and habits. Because of this, she would have a more Korean presence instead of a Chinese presence. This would explain the fact that she was still being viewed as Korean while not using her common reoccurring Korean surname.

(29)

28 In this story interviewee 3 is often misunderstood as being Korean instead of being Chinese. This misunderstanding is mostly based on situation in which not much communication occurs. In this regard one could question if this is a case of miscommunication. However, if we look at

communication as being a process of information exchange through verbal and nonverbal acts, I believe that misunderstandings are also a form of miscommunication. In the first case in which a person asks whether there is a Korean person in the class, that person would have received some kind of information (for example the name Pak) from someone, which made the person come to the conclusion that interviewee 3 is Korean.

On the other hand, when interviewee 3 changed her calling name to her first name, she was still viewed Korean. When I asked her which culture (Chinese or Korean) she was more familiar with, she answered that she felt closer to being part of the Korean culture. This means that she might have a more Korean presence instead of a Chinese presence, which also causes her to be viewed Korean. According to the dictionary, a presence is “a quality that make people notice you” (Cambridge Dictionary; presence n.d.). In other words, her nonverbal actions have caused her to be viewed Korean. This presence is created by being part of a culture, which means that this case of miscommunication is caused by cultural factors.

5.2.4 Interview 4

This interview was with a 24 year old Dutch woman who I will refer to as interviewee 4. She told me that she was in Japan with her boyfriend on vacation when she got cystitis. They went to the drug store to get some medicine. Here she was greeted by a store employee who had limited knowledge of English. Interviewee 4 tried to ask her question as simple as possible, but the employee did not understand her and brought another employee who was able to understand more English. However, even with this second employee, she was not able to get her problem across. From this moment her boyfriend, who speaks Japanese, tried to explain the problem to the employee, however as he was not knowledgeable about medical terms, he tried to search for the term ‘bladder’ using Google translate. After hearing this term and connecting this with all the explanation and gestures up to that point, the employee got the message and gave her the medicine she needed.

In this situation it is pretty clear that there is a language barrier between interviewee 4 and the Japanese employees. However, between her boyfriend who can speak Japanese, and the Japanese employee, this barrier was not as apparent. Yet, they still had some trouble getting their message across. The reason for this trouble is the fact that the boyfriend does not know the medical terms in Japanese. This means that this is a situation in which both parties do not completely share the

(30)

29 language, as we have seen in Figure 1. This causes trouble in the decoding process for the hearer. As I have explained before, this is a cultural cause of miscommunication.

5.2.5 Interview 5

This interview was conducted with a 28 year old Dutch woman, interviewee 5. She told me a story of when she was 22 years old. One year after graduating a college in Maastricht, she went to visit that school to meet some friends. There she bumped into her former teacher asking her how long she would be there. As they bumped into each other in the cafeteria/hallway it was very noisy, making it hard for interviewee 5 to hear the question. Then she asked the teacher to ask the question again, for which she answered that she would be living in Maastricht for a while. However, the teacher was asking the question in regard to that moment. In other words, the teacher asked her how much longer she would be at the college that day. While it is possible that the question was asked in an ambiguous way, according to interviewee 5, the reason why she interpreted the question as a long-term question was because, in her head, she was planning her future, which lead her to interpret the question also in regard to the future.

What is interesting, is that she told me that she had a quite close relationship with that teacher. She also knows the husband, the children, and she had been working with the teacher temporarily. This close relationship should decrease the change of having miscommunication. On the other hand, she told me that this misinterpretation might be caused by her mental disorder; autism. She said she had been diagnosed 4 years ago, which is after this situation had happened. As there are studies showing that people with Autism Spectrum Disorder have trouble reading the narrative in

communication, this might have been the problem in this situation (Brock and Arciuli 2014). Looking back she also was aware at a later point that she had been misinterpreting the question, by looking at the teacher’s reaction. According to interviewee 5, the teacher’s reacted by saying “nevermind” after which she walked off.

All in all we can see that there were two moments of miscommunication. The first moment was when she could not hear the question caused by the environmental noise. In the second moment, her misinterpretation was caused by the fact that she was thinking about her future, with the possibility of the inability of reading the narrative in that situation due to her Autism disorder. These factors place the causation of this miscommunication in the psychological context.

5.2.6 Interview 6

This following story was told by a Taiwanese woman aged 21, who I will refer to as interviewee 6. For her study Japanese, she is currently in Japan. She told me that she had a situation of

(31)

30 asked the cashier for a certain kind of snacks. However, when the cashier replied that they did not have that taste anymore, she misunderstood the cashier by thinking her order was not heard. Therefore she repeated that she wanted that kind of snack, which was followed by a troubled look from the cashier. When I asked her what caused her to misunderstand the message of the cashier she gave two reasons. First, most cashiers in Japan wear masks and keep their voice at a low level, which makes it hard for interviewee 6 to understand what the cashier is saying. Her second reason was quite surprising. She told me that she often simulates the conversation beforehand in her head, before she walks to the register. Whenever the conversation does not go as planned, she misses what the cashier says, causing the miscommunication.

This case gives several reasons which cause the miscommunication. First, there is the mask the cashier is wearing. This is an environmental factor causing the miscommunication, as the mask is an object blocking the sound of the voice of the cashier. On top of that, the cashier talks in a small voice, which might be a cultural factor. After all, it is common in Japan to use a small voice in public in order to not disturb other people around them. Finally, there is a psychological factor. Interviewee 6 was basing her actions on an idea of how the conversation would progress. Because the cashier did not act according to this idea, her mind could not keep up, causing her to miss the message. Based on this story, it seems that it is also possible for there to be several contexts involved in the situation which causes miscommunication.

(32)

31

6. General discussion

Through these interviews, we have seen that various stories hold various causes of miscommunication. We have also seen that it is possible to place the causes of these

miscommunications in one or several contexts depending on the amount of reasons given according to the interviewees. In this process I have noticed a few interesting points. First, when someone is communicating with someone who has a culture different from their own, it does not necessarily mean that the cause of miscommunication is cultural. This becomes clear when looking at the situation in which interviewee 2 communicates with his Indian coworkers. Here, the cultural differences might have had an influence in the way that the Indian society creates the situation of people frequently changing companies, which in the end lead to this situation. However, interviewee 2 stated that this behavior is not tolerated based on the regulations created by the company. In other words, even if it is acceptable to let several people use one account through Indian standards, the fact is that the Indian manager allowed this situation to happen, by keeping it a secret and not following the company regulations.

Second, we have seen two situations in which environmental factors caused miscommunication. In the first situation, interviewee 5 was quick to realize that she did not receive the message clearly, for which she asked for the speaker to repeat the question. What is interesting in these kinds of situations, is that it seems to be acceptable for a person to not hear the message and ask for verification of the message in order for the conversation to continue. The reason for this might be because the cause is not caused by either one of the persons. In any other miscommunication, the probability for the cause to be connected to either one if not both of the persons is high. This means that a change of emotions caused by the miscommunication is possible. For example, when

interviewee 5 continues her conversation she misinterpreted the question and gave, for her teacher, an unexpected answer. This changed the teachers emotions, causing them to cut off the

conversation and walk away. Compared to the environmental cause, it is harder to recover the conversations in these kinds of situations in which emotional change takes place.

Third, whenever there are several causes of miscommunication according to the interviewees, it is also possible for there to be several contexts concerned with the miscommunication situation. We have seen this case in the stories told by interviewee 2 and 6. In the first case, the primary reason there was miscommunication was situational, although the cultural context clearly had an influence on the situation. In the second case, it was even possible there were 3 contexts involved. Here the

General causes of miscommunication: Defining the causes through the creation of one discourse of communication