Web Activity 12.1 Communication lapses

Opportunities for miscommunication come from a variety of sources: inherent ambiguity in language, noise in the production system that leads to speech errors, noise in the comprehension system, and hearers’ failures to compute the inferences or specific message intended by the speaker. Some lapses arise from a failure to produce or decipher the correct linguistic code, while others come about because of failures to appreciate the communicative intent that motivated the speaker to use a particular bit of linguistic code.

Over the coming week, keep a log of communication failures that you observe. Exactly what went wrong in the communicative exchange? Identify whether the error involved aspects of the linguistic code, aspects of recovering the speaker’s intent, or a combination of both. Did the error persist or was the miscommunication quickly repaired? Identify the cognitive processes and situational factors that may have contributed to its persistence or repair.

Some examples are provided below.

Example 1

The following exchange occurred at a news conference on April 8, 1997, held by U.S. president Bill Clinton and Canadian prime minister Jean Chrétien (Chrétien is a native speaker of French, and speaks English as a second language):

Q: Sir, this is a question for both of you. The records show that there are far more drugs coming over the border from Canada into the United States now than ever before. Can you look into that and maybe do something about it, both of you?

PM Chrétien: It’s more trade. [Laughter]

Q: More drugs coming in from Canada to the United States.

President Clinton: More drugs, she said.

PM Chrétien: More drugs—I heard “trucks.” [Laughter] I’m sorry.

President Clinton: I’m glad we clarified that, or otherwise he’d have to delay calling the election. [Laughter]

Discussion

Prime Minister Chrétien confused the word drugs with the phonologically similar word trucks, indicating a failure to activate the correct word and suppress phonological competitors, perhaps exacerbated by the fact that English is not his native language. However, the error did not linger, due to successful mindreading processes by the reporter and President Clinton. Both the reporter and Clinton recognized that Chrétien’s approving response to the question of increased drug traffic across the border was highly anomalous for a national leader, and likely resulted from a comprehension failure. The reporter and Clinton may also have considered that a failure to recognize words correctly would be more probable for a non-native speaker of English, leading both of them to repeat the critical message.

Example 2

The following is a domestic exchange involving A, who is cooking dinner in a noisy kitchen while in a harried mood, and B, who has just walked into the room:

B: What’s in the pot?

A: Fine! You cook dinner, then!

B: (bewildered) What?!?

Discussion

After further conversation, it was determined that A had initially thought that B had asked her, “Want some pot?” This misunderstanding involved a failure to recover the correct meaning of the ambiguous word pot, in addition to failing to correctly identify the first words of the question, which would have helped to provide disambiguating contextual information. But based on this initial error, A then proceeded to generate some guesses as to why B would be asking her if she wanted some marijuana, since neither of them were in the habit of consuming it. She concluded that his intent was to comment disapprovingly on her mood by hinting that she needed to mellow out. Her own response was meant to suggest that she might be in a better mood if she weren’t burdened with dinner preparation.

Here, the original source of the error was a failure to recover the correct linguistic code; however, because A was able to make a reasonable inference about why the speaker might have uttered the misperceived question, mindreading processes served to perpetuate, rather than “catch” the initial miscommunication. However, a repair process was triggered by B, who recognized A’s response as odd in the context of his initial question.

Example 3

In 1990, Avianca Flight 52 ran out of fuel in approaching John F. Kennedy International Airport, and crashed while waiting for clearance to land from air traffic control during a period of high air traffic congestion. The flight crew had requested a “priority landing,” explaining that it was “low on fuel.” However, air traffic control did not interpret this request as an indication that the plane was critically low on fuel, and failed to clear the plane for landing in time.

Discussion

The flight reports indicate that air traffic control (ATC) failed to hear some of the transmissions of the flight crew which may have provided some additional helpful context. However, ATC did successfully receive the request for a priority landing, along with its explanation. The main source of the communication error was that ATC believed that if the flight crew had intended to convey the urgency of the situation, they would have used stronger words, such as “Mayday” or “emergency,” rather than “priority.” The source of the error was mainly in drawing an incorrect inference about the message that the flight crew intended to convey in using a somewhat imprecise set of linguistic expressions, rather than in failing to recover the correct linguistic code. Neither party became aware in time of the faulty inference about the flight crew’s intended message.