When we communicate with each other — by voice, by text, or by image — we sometimes misunderstand what others are trying to tell us. And sometimes we mistakenly believe that others understand what we have said, when they actually have not. Some of the sources of miscommunication are the grammatical structures we use to carry our meaning. And two examples of problematic structures are homonyms and multiple negations.
Homonymic miscommunicationIn human language, the meanings of some words depend on the contexts in which they appear. Such words are called homonyms. An example is the word bark, as in "tree bark" or "dog bark." Using or interpreting a homonym in one context with a meaning from another context is certain to cause trouble. In English, responsible is one such word. If responsible is used in one context, and if it's interpreted as if it were in some other context, trouble can erupt. And not just minor trouble. The trouble can be serious enough to damage projects, careers, and even the entire enterprise. [MotaWord 2023] Suppose Cathy In exchanges in which several homonyms appear,
or more than one negation appears, one error can
build on another, deepening the miscommunication,
until toxic conflict is inevitablehas asked the question, "Who's responsible for code inspections?" And suppose Kevin wants to respond, "Les isn't responsible for code inspections." To answer in everyday speech, for brevity, Kevin might say, "Les isn't responsible." But if Maggie hasn't heard Cathy's question, Maggie might interpret Kevin's abbreviated response as, "Les is not a reliable or trustworthy individual." This happens because in English, and particularly in business English, the word responsible plays multiple roles. In the organizational context, to be responsible for a result R can have two meanings. The first meaning is what Chockler and Halpern call all-or-nothing. [Chockler 2004] Person P is organizationally responsible for a result R if there is an agreement with management (explicit or implicit) that Person P will take appropriate steps to ensure that R comes about. In our example, Kevin is saying that, in this sense, Les is not responsible for code inspections. The second meaning of responsible is subject to more degree-specific considerations. It relates to determining how result R was produced. If Person P took steps (or failed to take steps) that led (or would have led) to result R, then, to some degree, P is responsible for having produced (or for having failed to produce) R. It is this sense of the word responsible that Maggie is using to produce the meaning that "Les is not a reliable or trustworthy individual." With Maggie's interpretation, Kevin's innocent statement becomes a criticism — a negative assessment of Les's character. And with that interpretation we're well on the way to toxic conflict.
Miscommunication due to multiple negations involving prefixesA multiple negation is a grammatical structure that includes more than one negation of a concept. If there are two negations, we might call it a "double negative." An example is the statement, "We don't need no stinking badges." An example of a multiple negation involving a prefix is, "Kevin is not unfamiliar with the code inspection process." The positive form of the statement would be, "Kevin is familiar with the code inspection process." In the multiple negation form of the statement, what's being negated (twice) is Kevin's familiarity with the code inspection process. It's negated once by the negation prefix "un-" in the word unfamiliar. And it's negated for a second time by the word not. So the statement is a double negation using the prefix "un-". Multiple negations of higher orders are possible, but orders higher than second order are rare. Other prefixes of negative polarity are "ir-", "in-", and "non-". Examples: "Kevin is not irresponsible," "Kevin is not indispensible," and "Kevin is not nonbelligerent." Even though the positive form of a multiple negation might be logically equivalent to the multiple negation form, the implications of the two statements usually differ. In this example, the implication of the multiple negation is, "Kevin is somewhat familiar with the code inspection process, but he isn't an expert." The positive form is consistent with that implication, but the negative form carries the implication more clearly. But consider the context in which someone has just said, "Kevin is unfamiliar with the code inspection process. In that context, there is no implication — only a direct refutation. Using multiple negations is risky because listeners or readers might make one of two kinds of errors. First, they might fail to construct the logically equivalent positive structure. The result can be that they hear or read only the negated form: "Kevin is unfamiliar with…" And second, they might fail to notice the implication: "Kevin is no expert." In either case, the speaker or writer believes that an accurate message was sent, but the recipient receives the opposite message. From that point, toxic conflict is only a few steps away.
Last wordsIn exchanges in which several homonyms appear, or more than one negation appears, as their number grows, the number of combinations of possible mistakes of usage and interpretation grows faster than exponentially — it grows combinatorially. One error can build on another, deepening the miscommunication, until toxic conflict is inevitable. Top Next Issue
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Effective Communication at Work:
- Can You Hear Me Now?
- Not feeling heard can feel like an attack, even when there was no attack, and then conversation can
quickly turn to war. Here are some tips for hearing your conversation partner and for conveying the
message that you actually did hear.
- See No Evil
- When teams share information among themselves, they have their best opportunity to reach peak performance.
And when some information is withheld within an elite group, the team faces unique risks.
- When Stress Strikes
- Most of what we know about person-to-person communication applies when levels of stress are low. But
when stress is high, as it is in emergencies, we're more likely to make mistakes. Knowing those mistakes
in advance can be helpful in avoiding them.
- Four Overlooked Email Risks: I
- Working together to resolve issues or make decisions in email is fraught with risk. Most discussions
of these risks emphasize using etiquette to manage emotional content. But email has other limitations,
less-often discussed, that make managing email exchanges very difficult.
- Chronic Peer Interrupters: II
- People use a variety of tactics when they're interrupted while making contributions in meetings. Some
tactics work well, while others carry risks of their own. Here's Part II of a little survey of those tactics.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info