Analyzing Misunderstanding in Communication

I. Introduction
1.1 Background
There are many things to do when students are having time together with their friends. They can share thoughts and feelings with each other or discuss homework, lessons and so forth. Topics will flow naturally when “comfortable zone” in the communication have been reached. Those are some of evidences which show that people communicate with others.

Communication is an exchange of ideas, knowledge, etc. between individuals by using language in which all parties understand the language they use.

Communication certainly involves more than one person, which means that there are more than one thought involved in the communication because everyone has different backgrounds, experiences, etc. There are two positions in communication, they are as a sender and as receiver and they will take turn to these positions. “All communication has two parts: a sender and a receiver. The sender has a message he or she intends to transmit, and s/he puts it in words, which, to her/him, best reflect what s/he is thinking.

But many things can intervene to prevent the intended message from being received accurately.” (Burgess, 2013).

Read more: Different reasons why people communicate essay

Misunderstandings sometimes occur in this exchange of ideas in communication. The receiver hears but he does not listen. He does not absorb the points being made. It may because the receiver does not focus on what the sender or speaker has said. “… a few misunderstandings are language-related, the source of many of the misunderstandings can be traced to ambiguity in the speaker’s utterances.

Other reasons for misunderstanding include mishearing and lack of world knowledge, namely, factors that also contribute to misunderstanding in intracultural communication.”, (Kaur: 2011). There are some other factors which we will find that can cause misunderstanding in communication if we analyze our experiences in having communication with others.

1.2 Purpose of writing
The purposes of this writing are:
a) To find out the factors cause misunderstanding in communication, especially in the conversation which will be shown by the writer in the retrospective data section.
b) To show what students usually talk about when they are gathering with their friends.

II. Retrospective Data
Everyone certainly has experienced misunderstanding when have communication with others; friends, relatives, teachers, etc. Misunderstanding not only occurs in communication involving different languages, cultures, etc. People communicate with other who has the same language can also experience misunderstanding in which. It happened to me, I communicated with my friends by using same language but I still have misunderstanding in the communication. Thus, in this paper, I try to analyze misunderstanding in communication that I have experienced with my friends.

At that time, we were going to play card (bridge) while talking about the latest Korean movie. Everyone already had their cards that had been dealt. There three players in this game, namely, I, Ima and Anthi. Ima: “Apa film korea terbaru sekarang teman-teman?” (what is the latest Korean movie, guys?) I and Anthi: “Emergency Couple!”

Ima: “Iiih mau!” (Can I have the copy?)
Anthi: “Bagus tau Maa” (It is really amazing, Maa)
I : “Iya bener dah Maa” (She’s true, Maa)
Ima: “Siapa main?” (Who is the cast?)
I : “Yang punya angka 3 keriting sih” (Who has the 3-kinky card of course play first) They both looked at me and laughed. I thought for a moment about why they laughed at me and I just need a few minutes to understand why they did it. I : “Oooh..” (I see)

I and Anthi: “Ji Hyo yang maiiin” ( Ji Hyo is main character/ one of the casts)

III. Analysis/Discussion
Communication is a complex human activity that is successful most of the time. This, however, does not mean that understanding is granted or that it is always the case. Misunderstanding is a regular non-extraordinary feature of human interaction, whether communicative interaction is cross-cultural or not (Dascal 1985; Brown 1995 in BOU-FRANCH, Patricia (2002)).

The data is one of examples which shows that the misunderstanding could still exist even all the parties in the communication have the same culture, language and age. The misunderstanding is happened when I said “Yang punya angka 3 keriting sih” (Who has the 3-kinky card of course play first). I said that because I thought my friend, Ima, asked who played first or who had turn to start the game. I thought in that way because at that time I had just set my card and had ready to start playing the game and because I had the 3-kinky card. What is the importance of having the 3-kinky card? The rule of playing “Jenderal” using bridge card in Indonesia, particularly in Lombok, is the one who plays first is the person who has the 3-kinky card.

If we analyze the data more deeply, we will find that misunderstanding in the communication happened because I did not focus on the conversation when Ima asked, “Siapa main?” (Who is the cast?. I still focus on what we were talking about at the first talk but for the next I did not. It was not caused by lack of world knowledge because we can see from the conversation that at the end I understood or recognized that I had misunderstanding then I fixed it.

IV. Conclusion
In conclusion, misunderstanding is a common thing that can happen in whether communicative interaction is cross-cultural or not. Misunderstanding caused by many factors such as ambiguity in the speaker’s utterances, lack of world knowledge, mishearing, etc. The data shows that the other factor that can cause misunderstanding in communication is being not focus on the conversation. Besides that, the data also shows one of what students usually talk about when they are gathering with their friends is the latest movie.

V. References

BOU-FRANCH, Patricia (2002) “Misunderstandings and Unofficial Knowledge in Institutional Discourse”, in David Walton & Dagmar Scheu (eds) Culture and Power: Ac(unofficially)knowledging Cultural Studies in Spain, Bern: Peter Lang. (pp. 323-341)

Burgess, Heidi. “Misunderstandings.” Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 . s

Kaur, Jagdish. Intercultural Pragmatics. Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 93–116, ISSN (Online) 1613-365X, ISSN (Print) 1612-295X, DOI: 10.1515/IPRG.2011.004, February 2011