Literary Interdisciplinary Research

Delving into "Deliberate Misunderstanding" in Mystical Language: A Pragmatic Perspective

Document Type : Original Article

Author

zeinab akbari

Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran

10.30465/lir.2025.49409.1893
Abstract
1. Introduction
Dominant theories in pragmatics emphasize the "Cooperative Principle" as essential for effective communication, viewing it as a purposeful act where interlocutors recognize each other's intentions. Grice's "Maxims" outline rules for speech production to ensure cooperation and optimal understanding. Traditional approaches focus on positive aspects of speech acts, such as cooperation and politeness, where speakers design utterances considering context, while listeners strive to comprehend intentions. However, communication is not always smooth; misunderstandings can arise when interlocutors lack sufficient cooperation.Under specific conditions, listeners may deliberately respond in unexpected ways despite an initial shared understanding, pursuing distinct communicative goals. This phenomenon is termed "deliberate misunderstanding." The socio-cognitive approach (SCA) critiques idealized views of communication that overlook its complexities and emphasizes individual experience and two key factors: "egocentrism" and "salience." This research aims to analyze deliberate misunderstanding in mystical language through this framework.The study addresses the lack of attention to deliberate misunderstanding as a communicative strategy in mysticism, where it serves to challenge established beliefs, foster critical thinking, and deepen understanding. The main objective is to explore the linguistic and cognitive mechanisms involved in deliberate misunderstanding and its implications for mystics' interactions.

2. Materials & Methods
In traditional pragmatics, misunderstanding is often perceived as a "mistake" in communication that individuals should avoid. However, in everyday life, particularly in informal conversations, misunderstandings appear to be pervasive and unavoidable. Researchers in the field of verbal communication have primarily focused on four distinct areas to explain the roots of deliberate misunderstanding: discourse origins (Schegloff, 1987; Verdler, 1994), context-based origins (Richard, 1964; Taylor, 1992), psychological origins (Keysar, 2008; Sperber & Wilson, 1995), and social origins (Gumperz, 1982; Tannen, 1990). Recently, some scholars have sought to explore the roots of misunderstanding more deeply by adopting a comprehensive or intercultural approach. They have analyzed the impact of psychological factors on pragmatic inference within the framework of an ideal communication model and argued from a philosophy of language perspective that the inherently ambiguous and context-dependent nature of expressive language, coupled with the mindset and psychological tendencies of communicative actors, creates a potential for misunderstanding that makes it almost inevitable (Wu, 2012). For instance, Fisher introduces the concept of "misunderstanding strategy" in his work "Interpersonal Communication: The Pragmatics of Human Relationships" (1987), describing it as a deliberate communicative action where one party pretends not to understand a message despite fully grasping it. This strategy can be employed in various situations to avoid conflict, maintain privacy, or control the conversation. By feigning misunderstanding, the speaker can evade commitment to continue the dialogue and facilitate the conclusion of the interaction.
Daskal distinguishes between "unintentional misunderstanding" and "deliberate misunderstanding" based on Fisher's earlier concept. Unintentional misunderstanding is an unexpected and involuntary phenomenon that occurs despite both parties’ efforts to accurately understand the message due to various factors such as environmental noise, message complexity, or cultural differences. In contrast, deliberate misunderstanding arises from purposeful actions by one party aiming for specific goals like controlling dialogue or avoiding conflict.
3. Discussion & Result
In this study, the examination of deliberate misunderstanding highlights its distinction from ambiguities in implicit speech acts within mystical language. While implicit discourse conceals the speaker's true intention behind intentional ambiguity, requiring significant cognitive effort from the listener, deliberate misunderstanding aligns with an expected "common ground." This common ground is clear, and misunderstandings arise when listeners emphasize their perspectives to achieve specific communicative goals.The stages of deliberate misunderstanding include:
1. Initial Consensus Establishment: Both parties reach a shared understanding of the message's meaning, forming a foundation for effective communication.
2. Emergence of Listener Egocentrism: The listener intentionally disrupts coherence by providing unexpected responses, prioritizing personal goals.
3. Deliberate Failure in Common Ground Co-construction: The listener's unexpected response disrupts mutual understanding, which is typically constructed through implicit negotiation.
4. Potential Ambiguity in the Speaker's Utterance: Some degree of ambiguity in the speaker's message allows for unexpected interpretations by the listener.
An anecdote from "Masnavi" exemplifies deliberate misunderstanding in mystic-rationalist interactions. This analysis will explore these interactions through socio-cognitive linguistics, focusing on the components involved in the process of deliberate misunderstanding.
4. Conclusion

This research, utilizing the innovative framework of Socio-Cognitive Pragmatics (SCA), provides a comprehensive examination of the phenomenon of deliberate misunderstanding in mystical language. Throughout this recurring phenomenon in mystical texts, the mystic, relying on two fundamental components—egocentrism and salience—deliberately offers unexpected and contradictory responses to the speaker's intent, despite an initial understanding of the common ground, in order to achieve specific communicative goals. This strategy, unlike everyday communication, not only does not lead to a breakdown in communication but can also deepen dialogue, convey complex mystical concepts, facilitate spiritual transformation in the audience, and even enable social critique.
The findings indicate that this phenomenon transcends mere communication errors; it serves as a strategic tool for mystics to attain particular educational and communicative objectives. Deliberate misunderstanding in mystical language arises from a complex interplay of "linguistic," "cognitive," and "social" factors. Linguistic factors include polysemy, resonance, and the inherent ambiguity of language that mystics utilize to express profound and subtle concepts. Cognitive factors refer to differences in levels of understanding, presuppositions, and beliefs between the mystic and the audience, while social factors encompass goals and intentions, socio-cultural positioning, and power relations. The two key components of egocentrism and salience play a crucial role in shaping this phenomenon. Deliberate misunderstanding in mystical language is multifaceted, significantly impacting the processes of communication and mystical education, enhancing our understanding of mystical texts and the mechanisms for conveying deep spiritual meanings.

Keywords

Deliberate misinterpretation
pragmatics
egocentrism
salience
mystical language
Subjects
Aflaqi, Ahmad bin Akhi Nator. (1959). Manaqib al-‘Arifin. Edited with annotations and commentary by Tahsin Yazıcı. [In Persian]
Behnam, Mina. (2023). Semantics of Love in Re-reading Mystical Texts Based on the Theory of Connection. Literary Studies in Mysticism, 16(36), 1-21. [In Persian]
Jami, Abdulrahman bin Ahmad. (1858). Nafahat al-Ans. Calcutta: Lisy Press. [In Persian]
Jami, Nur al-Din Abdulrahman. (1991). Nafahat al-Ans from the Presence of Holiness. Edited by Mahmoud Abedi. Tehran: Ettelaat. [In Persian]
Dabirmoghadam, Mohammad; Yusefi-Rad, Fatemeh; Shaqaqi, Vida; Motashari, Seyed Mahmoud. (2018). Social Cognitive Linguistics: A New Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Variations. Journal of Social Linguistics, 1(4), 20-29. [In Persian]
Rastgo, Mohammad. (2003). The Art of Eloquence (Figures of Speech). Tehran: Organization for the Study and Compilation of University Humanities Books (SAMT). [In Persian]
Sarraj Tusi, Abu Nasr. (2003). Al-Luma‘ fi al-Tasawwuf. Edited and annotated by Reynold A. Nicholson. Translated by Mehdi Mohammadi. Tehran: Asatir. [In Persian]
Shafiei-Kadkani, Mohammadreza. (2005). "Mind and Language in Poetry". Hafez, (14), 9-10. [In Persian]
Shafiei-Kadkani, Mohammadreza. (2013). The Language of Poetry in Sufi Prose: An Introduction to the Stylistics of Mystical Perspective. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian]
Sadraei, Rogheyeh. (2022). Examination of Speech Acts in the "Kashf al-Mahjub" of Hujwiri Based on Searle's Theory. Journal of Mysticism Studies, 13(26), 133-166. [In Persian]
Attar, Sheikh Farid al-Din. (2007). Masiatnama. Introduction, editing, and commentary by Mohammadreza Shafiei-Kadkani. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian]
Attar, Mohammad bin Ibrahim. (2009). Mantiqu al-Tayr. Introduction, editing, and commentary by Mohammadreza Shafiei-Kadkani. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian]
Attar, Mohammad bin Ibrahim. (1905). Tadhkirat al-Awliya. Edited by Reynold Nicholson. Leiden: Leiden Press. [In Persian]
Ghazali, Abu Hamid Mohammad. (2007). Ihya’ Ulum al-Din. Translated by Moayed al-Din Mohammad Khwarazmi. Edited by Hossein Khadyoojam. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications Company. [In Persian]
Qushayri, Abdul Karim bin Hawazin. (1995). Risala al-Qushayriyya. Translated by Abu Ali Hassan bin Ahmad Osmani; edited and supplemented by Badi’ al-Zaman Furuzanfar. Tehran: Scientific and Cultural Publications Company. [In Persian]
Mohammad bin Manwar. (2002). Asrar al-Tawhid fi Maqamat al-Sheikh Abu Said Mihani. Introduction, editing, and commentary by Mohammadreza Shafiei-Kadkani. Tehran: Agah. [In Persian]
Mirzaei, Batool; Sarfi, Mohammadreza; Moeinoddini, Fatemeh; Koupa, Fatemeh. (2011). Structural-Communicative Model of the Stories in "Hadiqa". Textology of Persian Literature, 3(1), 55-74. [In Persian]
Najafi, Maryam; Yazdani, Hossein; Mirbagherifard, Ali-Asghar; Koupa, Fatemeh. (2018). The Etiquette of Human Conversation with God Based on David Berlo's Communication Model and Jakobson's Theory (Focusing on Mystical Prose Works Up to the 7th Century). Literary-Quranic Studies, 14(50), 267-293. [In Persian]
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dascal, M. (1999). Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 753-762.
Fisher, B. A. (1987). Interpersonal Communication: Pragmatics of Human Relationships. New York: Random House.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirhashemi,T. (2025). The Process of Persuasion in the Book Kimiya-i-Sa'adat (Based on Carl HoVland's Persuasion Model). Literary Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2), 83-116.
Keysar, B. (2008). Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In I. Kecskes & J. Mey (Eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer (pp. 277-296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics & Society, 1(1), 50-73.
Piaget, J. (1980). Child Psychology. (F. Wu, Trans.). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Richard, L. A. (1964). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London: Oxford University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Some sources of misunderstanding in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics, 25, 201-218.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Taylor, T. J. (1992). Mutual Misunderstanding: Scepticism and the Theorizing of Language and Interpretation. Durham: Duke University Press.
Verdler, Z. (1994). Understanding misunderstanding. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), Language, Mind, and Art (pp. 9-21). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wu, Y. (2012). The potentiality of speech misunderstanding: Philosophical thinking. Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology, 6, 17-21.
Zong, S. (2003). On the social psychological roots of misunderstanding. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 266-274.
 

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us