Between understanding and misunderstanding

In this paper, we discuss borderline examples of (mis)understanding where it is not clear whether or not a misunderstanding has occurred, whether or not communication was successful, and where the participants do not try to negotiate an understanding, even though different interpretations are very likely to exist. By analyzing real data, we point out various types of such borderline examples of (mis)understanding, attempt to analyze their source and explain why they are a normal constitute of process of coming to an understanding. Using discourse comprehension theory, we define the level of propositional strategies, local coherence strategies, strategies for the use of knowledge, and interactional and pragmatic strategies as the main sources of reduced understandings. In spite of the fact that there is no complete understanding, and, consequently, some level of differences in understanding can be perceived as ‘normal’, we discuss other possible reasons why discourse participants do not explicitly negotiate an understanding.