Interlocutors-Related and Hearer-Specific Causes of Misunderstanding: Processing Strategy, Confirmation Bias and Weak Vigilance

Cruz, Manuel Padilla

dc.contributor.author	Cruz, Manuel Padilla	en
dc.date.accessioned	2017-07-20T10:10:26Z
dc.date.available	2017-07-20T10:10:26Z
dc.date.issued	2017-05-17	en
dc.identifier.issn	1731-7533	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/22289
dc.description.abstract	Noises, similarities between words, slips of the tongue, ambiguities, wrong or false beliefs, lexical deficits, inappropriate inferences, cognitive overload, non-shared knowledge, topic organisation or focusing problems, among others, may cause misunderstanding. While some of these are structural factors, others pertain to the speaker or to both the speaker and the hearer. In addition to stable factors connected with the interlocutors′ communicative abilities, cultural knowledge or patterns of thinking, other less stable factors, such as their personal relationships, psychological states or actions motivated by physiological functions, may also result in communicative problems. This paper considers a series of further factors that may eventually lead to misunderstanding, and which solely pertain to the hearer: processing strategy, confirmation bias and weak vigilance.	en
dc.publisher	Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	Research in Language;15	en
dc.rights	This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0	en
dc.subject	misunderstanding	en
dc.subject	processing strategy	en
dc.subject	confirmation bias	en
dc.subject	epistemic vigilance	en
dc.subject	hermeneutical vigilance	en
dc.title	Interlocutors-Related and Hearer-Specific Causes of Misunderstanding: Processing Strategy, Confirmation Bias and Weak Vigilance	en
dc.page.number	11-36	en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	University of Seville, Seville, Spain	en
dc.identifier.eissn	2083-4616
dc.references	Allport, Gordon W. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.	en
dc.references	Ardissono, Liliana, Boella, Guido and Rossana Damiano. 1998. A plan-based model of misunderstandings in cooperative dialogue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48. 649-679.	en
dc.references	Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Banks, Stephen P., Ge, Gao and Joyce Baker. 1991. Intercultural Encounters and Miscommunication. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles and John M. Weimann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk, 103-120. London: Sage.	en
dc.references	Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2002. A New Starting Point? Investigating Formulaic Use and Input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 189-198. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002036	en
dc.references	Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby. (eds.). 1992. The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Bazzanella, Carla and Rossana Damiano. 1999. The Interactional Handling of Misunderstanding in Everyday Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 817-836. doi: doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7	en
dc.references	Bekkering, Harold, et al. 2009. Joint Action: Neurocognitive Mechanisms Supporting Human Interaction. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 340-352. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01023.x	en
dc.references	Berger, Charles R. 2007. A Tale of Two Communication Modes: When Rational and Experiential Processing Systems Encounter Statistical and Anecdotal Depictions of Threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26 (3). 215-233. doi: doi: 10.1177/0261927X06303453	en
dc.references	Bialystok, Ellen. 1993. Symbolic Representation and Attentional Control in Pragmatic Competence. In Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics, 43-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1992. The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, 255-279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Elda Weizman. 2003. Misunderstandings in Political Interviews. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 127-128. London: Longman.	en
dc.references	Bosco, Francesca M., Bucciarelli, Monica and Bruno G. Bara. 2006. Recognition and Repair of Communicative Failures: A Developmental Perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1398-149. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.011	en
dc.references	Brown, Gillian. 1995. Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Canale, Michael. 1983. From Communicative Competence To Communicative Language Pedagogy. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication, 2-28. London: Longman.	en
dc.references	Carruthers, Peter. 2009. How We Know Our Minds: The Relationship Between Mindreading and Metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (2). 121-138. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0140525X09000545.	en
dc.references	Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Dornyei, Zoltan and Sarah Thurrell. 1995. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Modifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 5. 5-35.	en
dc.references	Clark, Herbert H. and Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. Speaking While Monitoring Addressees for Understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 50. 62-81. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2003.08.004	en
dc.references	Clément, Fabrice, Koenig, Melissa and Paul Harris. 2004. The ontogeny of trust. Mind & Language 19 (4). 360-379.	en
dc.references	Codó Olsina, Eva. 2002. Managing Understanding in Intercultural Talk: An Empirical Approach to Miscommunication. Atlantis 24 (2). 37-57.	en
dc.references	Dascal, Marcelo. 1999. Introduction: Some Questions About Misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 753-762. doi: doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00059-9	en
dc.references	Dua, Hans R. 1990. The phenomenology of miscommunication. In Stephen H. Riggins (ed.), Beyond Goffman, 113-139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Ehrman, Madeline. 1999. Ego Boundaries and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Second Language Learning. In Jane Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning, 68-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Escandell Vidal, Maria V. 1998. Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11. 45-57.	en
dc.references	Escandell Vidal, Maria V. 2004. Norms and Principles. Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together. In Rosina Marquez-Reiter and Maria E. Placencia (eds.), Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, 347-371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.	en
dc.references	Ferreira, Victor S., Slevc, Robert and Erin S. Rogers. 2005. How Do Speakers Avoid Ambiguous Linguistic Expressions? Cognition 96. 263-284. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.002	en
dc.references	Friedrich, James. 1993. Primary Error Detection and Minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in Social Cognition: A Reinterpretation of Confirmation Bias Phenomena. Psychological Review 100 (2). 298-319. doi: doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.298	en
dc.references	Furnham, Adrian and Tracy Ribchester. 1995. Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of The Concept, its Measurement and Applications. Current Psychology 14. 179-199. doi: doi: 10.1007/BF02686907	en
dc.references	Garrod, Simon and Martin J. Pickering. 2009. Joint Action, Interactive Alignment, and Dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 292-304. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x	en
dc.references	Gass, Susan M. and Evangeline M. Varonis. 1991. Miscommunication in Nonnative Speaker Discourse. In Nikolas Coupland, Howard Giles and John M. Wiemann (eds.), “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk, 121-145. London: Sage.	en
dc.references	Grimshaw, Allen D. 1980. Mishearings, Misunderstandings, and Other Nonsuccesses in Talk: A Plea for Redress of Speaker-Oriented Bias. Sociological Inquiry 40. 31-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00016.x	en
dc.references	Hartman, Ernest. 1991. Boundaries in the Mind: A New Psychology of Personality. New York: Basic Books.	en
dc.references	Hays, Robert B. 1984. The Development and Maintenance of Friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 1. 75-98. doi: doi: 10.1177/0265407584011005	en
dc.references	Hinnenkamp, Volker. 2003. Misunderstandings: Interactional Structure and Strategic Resources. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 57-81. London: Sage.	en
dc.references	House, Juliane, Kasper, Gabriele and Steven Ross. 2003. Misunderstanding Talk. In Juliane House, Gabriele Kasper and Steven Ross (eds.), Misunderstanding in Social Life: Discourse Approaches to Problematic Talk, 1-21. London: Sage.	en
dc.references	Hymes, Dell H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In John B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings, 269-293. Baltimore: Penguin Books.	en
dc.references	Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness. Multilingua 8 (2-3). 223-248. doi: doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223	en
dc.references	Janicki, Karol. 2010. Lay People’s Language Problems. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20 (1). 73-94. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00229.x	en
dc.references	Jucker, Andreas H., Smith, Sara W. and Tanja Ludge. 2003. Interactive Aspects of Vagueness in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1737-1769. doi: doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)0018-1	en
dc.references	Kataoka, Kuniyoshi. 1995. Affect in Japanese Women’s Letter Writing: Use of Sentence-Final Particles Ne and Yo and Orthographic Conventions. Pragmatics 5 (4). 427-453. doi: doi: 10.1075/prag.5.4.02kat	en
dc.references	Kecskes, Istvan. 2004. Editorial: Lexical Merging, Conceptual Blending, and Cultural Crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (1). 1-26. doi: doi: 10.1515/iprg.2004.005	en
dc.references	Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Dueling Contexts: A Dynamic Model of Meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 385-406. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004	en
dc.references	Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The Paradox of Communication. Socio-cognitive Approach to Pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1 (1). 50-73. doi: doi: 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec	en
dc.references	Kecskes, Istvan and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground. Pragmatics & Cogniton 17 (2). 331-355. doi: doi: 10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec	en
dc.references	Keysar, Boaz. 2007. Communication and Miscommunication: the Role of Egocentric Processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (4). 71-85. doi: doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.004,	en
dc.references	Keysar, Boaz and Anne S. Henly. 2002. Speakers’ Overestimation of Their Effectiveness. Psychological Science 13 (3). 207-212. doi: doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00439	en
dc.references	Klayman, Joshua. 1995. Varieties of Confirmation Bias. In Jerome Busemeyer, Reid Hartie and Douglas L. Medin (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 385-418. Vol. 32. New York: Academic Press.	en
dc.references	Kunda, Ziva. 1999. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Boston: MIT Press.	en
dc.references	Márquez-Reiter, Rosina. 1997. Politeness Phenomena in British English and Uruguayan Spanish: The Case of Requests. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 18. 159-167.	en
dc.references	Mascaro, Olivier and Dan Sperber. 2009. The Moral, Epistemic, and Mindreading Components of Children’s Vigilance Towards Deception. Cognition 112 (3). 367-380. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012	en
dc.references	Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. ‘Optimal Relevance’ as a Pragmatic Criterion: The Role of Epistemic Vigilance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 20-45.	en
dc.references	Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance: The Deployment of Sophisticated Interpretative Strategies. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 183-199.	en
dc.references	Medina, Jose. 2011. The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 25 (1). 15-35. doi: doi: 10.1080/02691728.2010.534568	en
dc.references	Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber. 2011. Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2). 57-111. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968	en
dc.references	Michaelian, Kourken. 2013. The evolution of testimony: Receiver vigilance, speaker honesty and the reliability of communication. Episteme 10 (1). 37-59. doi: doi: 10.1017/epi.2013.2	en
dc.references	Miller, Michael and Donald. Perlis. 1993. Presentations and this and that: Logic in action. In Martha C. Polson (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 83-88. Boulder: Psychology Press.	en
dc.references	Mustajoki, Arto. 2012. A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2 (2). 216-246. doi: doi: 10.1075/ld.2.2.03mus	en
dc.references	Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2 (2). 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175	en
dc.references	Origgi, Gloria. 2013. Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 26 (2). 221-235. doi: doi: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652213	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2005. Towards new politeness systems. In Juan J. Calvo Garcia de Leonardo et al. (eds.), Actas del XXVIII Congreso Internacional de AEDEAN, 385-396. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia.	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2012. Epistemic vigilance, cautious optimism and sophisticated understanding. Research in Language 10 (4). 365-386. doi: doi: 10.2478/v10015-011-0040-y	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013a. Understanding and overcoming pragmatic failure in intercultural communication: From focus on speakers to focus on hearers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 51 (1). 23-54. doi: doi: 10.1515/iral-2013-0002	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2013b. Metapsychological awareness of comprehension and epistemic vigilance of L2 communication in interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Pragmatics 59 (A). 117-135. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.005	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2014. Pragmatic Failure, Epistemic Injustice and Epistemic Vigilance. Language & Communication 39. 34-50. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.002	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2015. On the Role of Vigilance in the Interpretation of Puns. Humor. International Journal of Humor Research 28 (3). 469-490. doi: doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0068	en
dc.references	Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2016. Vigilance Mechanisms in Interpretation: Hermeneutical Vigilance. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 133 (1). 21-29. doi: doi: 10.4467/20834624SL.15.001.4890	en
dc.references	Perlis, Donald, Purang, Khemdut and Carl Andersen. 1998. Conversational Adequacy: Mistakes are the Essence. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 48. 553-575. doi: doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1997.0181	en
dc.references	Reynolds, Mike. 1995. Where the Trouble Lies: Cross-cultural Pragmatics and Miscommunication. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 30. 5-15.	en
dc.references	Ryan, Jonathon and Roger Barnard. 2009. “Who Do You Mean?” Investigating Miscommunication in Paired Interactions. The TESOLANZ Journal 17. 44-62.	en
dc.references	Sebanz, Natalie and Guenther Knoblich. 2009. Prediction in Joint Action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 353-367. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x	en
dc.references	Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar. 2009. Less is More: A Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 260-273. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01018.x	en
dc.references	Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. 1996. Reconsidering Power and Distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1-24. doi: doi: 10.1016/0379-2166(95)00047-X	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan. 1994. Understanding Verbal Understanding. In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What Is Intelligence?, 179-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan. 1996. Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan. 1997. Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs. Mind & Language 12 (1). 67-83. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1997.tb00062.x	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan. (ed.). 2000. Metarepresentations. A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan. 2013. Speakers are Honest Because Hearers are Vigilant. Reply to Kourken Michaelian. Episteme 10 (1). 61-71. doi: doi: 10.1017/epi.2013.7	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan and Hugo Mercier. 2012. Reasoning as a Social Competence. In Helene Landemore and Jon Elster (eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, 368-392. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond Speaker’s Meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44). 117-149.	en
dc.references	Sperber, Dan et al. 2010. Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language 25 (4). 359-393. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x	en
dc.references	Tannen, Deborah. 1984. The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics 5 (3). 188-195. doi: doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.189	en
dc.references	Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand. Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago Press.	en
dc.references	Tannen, Deborah. 1992. That’s not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. London: Virago Press.	en
dc.references	Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. Women and Men at Work: Language, Sex and Power. London: Virago Press.	en
dc.references	Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2). 91-112. doi: doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91	en
dc.references	Todd, Andrew R. et al. 2011. When Focusing on Differences Leads to Similar Perspectives. Psychological Science 22 (1). 134-141. doi: doi: 10.1177/0956797610392929	en
dc.references	Verdonik, Darinka. 2010. Between Understanding and Misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1364-1379. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.00710.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.007	en
dc.references	Weigand, Edda. 1999. Misunderstanding: The Standard Case. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 763-785. doi: doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00068-X	en
dc.references	Weizman, Elda. 1999. Building True Understanding Via Apparent Miscommunication: A Case Study. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 837-846. doi: doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00057-4	en
dc.references	Wells, John C. 1996. Accents of English 1: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.	en
dc.references	Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.	en
dc.references	Wierzbicka, Anna. 2010. Cross-cultural Communication and Miscommunication: The Role of Cultural Keywords. Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (1). 1-23. doi: doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.001	en
dc.references	Wilson, Deirdre. 1999. Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11. 127-161.	en
dc.references	Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2002. Relevance Theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 249-287.	en
dc.references	Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Larry Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	Yus Ramos, Francisco. 1999a. Towards a Pragmatic Taxonomy of Misunderstandings. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38. 217-239.	en
dc.references	Yus Ramos, Francisco. 1999b. Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication. Pragmatics 9 (4). 487-517. doi: doi: 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus	en
dc.references	Yus Ramos, Francisco. 2000. On Reaching the Intended Ironic Interpretation. International Journal of Communication 10 (1-2). 27-78.	en
dc.references	Zamborlin, Chiara. 2007. Going Beyond Pragmatic Failures: Dissonance in Intercultural Communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (1). 21-50. doi: doi: 10.1515/IP.2007.002	en
dc.references	Žegarac, Vladimir. 2009. A Cognitive Pragmatic Perspective on Communication and Culture. In Helen D. Spencer-Oatey and Peter Franklin (eds.), Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication, 31-53. Basingstoke: Palgrave.	en
dc.contributor.authorEmail	mpadillacruz@us.es	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1515/rela-2017-0006	en

Pliki tej pozycji

Nazwa:: rela-2017-0006.pdf
Rozmiar:: 272.9KB
Format:: PDF

Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Research in Language (2017) vol.15 nr 1 [6]

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.