Communication Failure

Communication Failure

Francesca M. Bosco and Maurizio Tirassa

Università

di Torino

Dipartimento di Psicologia & Centro di Scienza Cognitiva

via Po, 14

10123 Torino (Italy)

email bosco@, tirassa@

Successful

communication

is

to

be

defined

in

terms

of

the

partner’s

recognition

of

a

particular set of mental states of the speaker, in whom there is the intention to achieve such an

effect

on

the

partner

(

Grice

1989).

Within

this

perspective,

communication

failure

may

be

define

d as an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the speaker to modify the partner’s mental

states

in

the

desired

way.

Failure

repair

then

is

a

new

attempt

to

produce

the

intended

communicative

effect.

Traditionally,

a

major

research

perspective

on

the

topic

has

been

conversation

analysis

(CA).

However,

communication

failures

have

received

little

attention in recent years.

Within a CA perspective, Schegloff et al. (1977) showed that a structural-based preference

for self- versus other- initiation of repair exists in turn- taking

after a breakdown (see also Zahn

1984). Friedland and Miller (1998) also found that in brain-injured patients over 80 per cent

of repairs were self-initiated. Fox and Jasperson (1995) classified different types of self-repair

based on the operation included: repeating or recycling, replacing or substituting, adding or

inserting,

and

abandoning

or

restarting.

Self-repair

is

preferably

initiated

in

the

same

turn

where the trouble has occurred or in the ‘third turn to the trouble source turn’,

i.e. the turn

subsequent to the one which follows the trouble source (Schegloff et al. 1977; but see also

Schegloff 1992, 1997a). Self- repair

may be carried out in response to other-initiation of repair

(Schegloff 2004). When the repair is initiated by the partner, it is almost always initiated in

the

turn

that

follows

the

trouble

source

(Schegloff

1997b).

Robinson

(2006)

has

argued

that

the

‘meaning’

of

other

-

initiated

forms

of

repair

can

affect

the

speaker’s

response.

For

example,

if

the

trouble-source

speaker

understands

himself

to

be

blameworthy

for

the

breakdown, he is more likely to correct, rather than merely repeat, the trouble source, and to

engage in other types of accounting behaviours, such as apologizing.

CA

aims

at

a

descriptive

analysis

of

communication

failures,

which

it

views

as

breakdowns

or

trouble

occurring

during

conversation

.

More

recently,

some

authors

have

proposed that a specific case of communication failure,

misunderstanding

, be viewed as an

integral

part

of

the

comprehension

process

rather

than

just

a

breakdown

(Dascal

1985;

Weigand

1999).

In

line

with

such

a

perspective

Bosco

et

al.

(2006)

have

claimed

that

all

communication

failures,

not

only

misunderstanding,

integrally

belong

to

the

cooperative

process (Grice 1957) in which agents are involved during communication. Within

a

cooperative

model

of

communication,

the

replies

received

from

a

partner

provide

the

speaker

with

the

grounds

on

which

to

realize

that

a

communicative

attempt

has

failed.

Recognizing

that

a

failure

has

occurred

provides

in

its

turn

a

starting

point

for

repair.

Focusing

on

the

complexity

of

the

cognitive

processes

involved

in

failure

recognition

and

repair

and

following

the

assumptions

of

cognitive

pragmatics

theory

(Airenti

et

al.

1993;

Bara 2008), Bosco et al. (2006) have proposed a taxonomy of the types of failures that may

occur

in

communicative

interaction.

These

are

failure

of

the

literal

meaning,

failure

of

the

speaker’s

meaning,

and

failure

of

the

communicative

effect

(i.e.

the

partner’s

refusal

to

accept a

partner’s communication act). A failure may also involve a combination of two or all

of these types. In order to achieve his or her communicative goal, and depending on the kind

of failure that has occurred, a speaker may employ different repair strategies. A speaker may

simply repeat what

he

or she

said (in the case of failure of the expression act), reformulate

what he or she said (in the case of failure of the speaker’s meaning) or change the content of

what

he

or

she

said

(in

the

case

of

failure

of

the

communicative

effect).

This

taxonomy

allowed Bosco et al. (2006) to generate empirical hypotheses about the relative difficulty of

recognizing and repairing different kinds of failure that were confirmed by empirical evidence

obtained

from

3-

to

8-year-old

children.

In

particular,

it

was

found

that

it

was

easier

for

children

to repair a

failure

of

literal

meaning

than

a failure

of speaker’s

meaning,

whereas

repair of communicative effect was the most difficult.

From

a

cognitive

and

developmental

pragmatics

perspective

it

is

useful

to

keep

in

mind

children’s

performance,

since

it

can

offer

suggestions

on

the

increasing

difficulty

in

the

production

of

a

specific

pragmatic

task.

Direct

observations

of

children

show

that

in

the

prelinguistic

phase

their

recovery

strategy

is

essentially

to

persist

in

repeating

the

failed

communicative act (Alexander et al. 1997). Use of this strategy tends to decrease as the child

gets older (Garvey 1984) and becomes capable of distinguishing different types of failure and

of adopting a fitting repair strategy (Marcos 1991). During the second year of life children

become able to perform two different kinds of verbal repair: repetition and modification. In

particular, they just repeat their request when the adult replies with a neutral query. They give

a

more

specific

version of it in response to a specific query from the adult (Anselmi et al.

1986) and reformulate it when the adult replies with a simple declarative comment (Wilcox

and

Webster

1980).

Children

also

appear

to

adopt

a

repair

strategy

suitable

to

the

type

of

failure that has occurred. When their mother misunderstands a request (rather than refuses to

comply

with

it),

children

try

to

clarify

it

rather

than

simply

repeat

it

(Marcos

and

Kornhaber-le

Chanu

1992).

Thus,

while

repetition

appears

to

be

the

easiest

strategy

for

recovery,

the

use

of

more

sophisticated

and

appropriate

strategies

appears

to

be

an

early

acquisition.

A very early version of communication failure, rooted more in the failed realization of the

infant’s e

xpectation of a certain action on the part of the mother than in the actual failure of a

communicative

attempt

on

the

part

of

the

infant,

has

been

claimed

to

play

a

role

in

the

development of

theory of mind

(ToM) and Gricean communication (Tirassa et al. 2006). In

general,

the

possible

relation

between

ToM

and

the

ability

to

recognize

and

repair

communication failures

appears

to be a particularly interesting topic. It has been suggested

that when an agent

–

be it a young child (Golinkoff 1986, 1993) or an adult (Feldman and

Kalmar 1996)

–

repairs a communication failure, he or she usually adapts his or her strategy

to

take

the

partner’s

perspective

into

account.

In

line

with

this

hypothesis,

children

with