As I started to analyze some of my conversations with friends due to this assignment, the usage of common ground in my every day life popped out at me. My interactions with friends aligns with how Fussel, Kraut and Siegel (2000) state that common ground makes conversations more efficient.
The first example I am using consists of a conversation based entirely on common ground since unless you know and understand the background and history of my friend's statements you are extremely confused.
Her: I saw him
Me: Oh, him, how was he?
Her: The same, except he was with that girl again
Me: Oh you mean the one who...
Her: Yeah her, I don't get it anymore
Me: I've stopped trying
Her: To understand?
Me: Yeah
The above conversation relies entirely on common ground to be completed. A stranger would be confused since we use language that relies on previously known information. The usage of common ground means that there was no need for her to clarify who "him" was since I knew exactly who she was referring to. Although there was a slight clarification due to me confirming who the girl was by stating "oh you mean the one who", but since this same conversation has taken place every day for a week, it was a moot clarification as you can see since she cut me off.
Due to grounding the above conversation was extremely efficient. No one utterance was more than 10 words long. This is exactly was Fussel et. al. (2000) predicted would due to our history or common ground. If I tried to have the same conversation with someone who I do not share this common ground with, the conversation would have to be longer due to clarifications and repetition. I actually tried this by having a conversation about the same topic with another friend.
Me: So Norma* just saw him
Him: Saw who?
Me: Oh you know, the boy
Him: The boy?
Me: Scott*
Him: Oh right, well what about him?
Me: Norma saw him with his new girlfriend, you know the one who hates her
Him: right, and?
Me: nothing, just that she doesn't get it
Him: get what?
Me: how he's with her
* Names have been changed to protect
The above conversation about the exact same topic is more inefficient due to lack of common ground. I had to reiterate a point more than once due to my friend not understanding what I was revering to the first time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The difference that grounding makes is really evident when you compare the 'filled in' version with the grounded version of the same conversation, and it was interesting to see the same exchange in two different lights. The reason it probably worked so well with your first friend is because you've already done the grounding work (like in the second conversation) once before. If you went back to the second friend again, it'd be possible, I think, to have the same conversation as with the first friend, now that the second one knows what you mean.
ReplyDeleteIt seems there was even a bit of grounding done in the first conversation. Prior experience grounded the main idea of the conversation, but it seems that the 2nd to last comment by you needed grounded when you said, "i've stopped trying." Your friend had to clarify the meaning of your statment. Perhaps in FtF grounding would not have been needed because of voice inflection, but then again it's entirely possible it would have needed grounding then too.
ReplyDelete