On Miscommunication

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 miscommunication

In 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 prefixes

A 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 words

In 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!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Peek-a-Boo and Leadership

Great leaders know what to say, what not to say, and when to say or not say it, sometimes with stunning effect. Consistently effective leadership requires superior empathy skills. Here are some things to do to improve your empathy skills.

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: I

In tense situations, one person might question another. As the respondent replies, the questioner interjects, "That was a yes-or-no question." The intent is to trap the respondent. How does this work, and how can the respondent escape the trap?

Interrupting Others in Meetings Safely: I

In meetings we sometimes feel the need to interrupt others to offer a view or information, or to suggest adjusting the process. But such interruptions carry risk of offense. How can we interrupt others safely?

Columbo Tactics: II

This is Part II of a series showing how the less powerful can adapt the tactics of TV detective Lt. Columbo when they're interacting with the more powerful.

When Retrospectives Turn into Blamefests: I

An interactive group exercise known as a retrospective is widely recognized as a reliable tool for fostering organizational learning. But it can degenerate into blaming and retaliation if not conducted so as to manage the risk of toxic conflict.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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