One of my good friends is a student at Cornell that happens to be in my year and major. As a result, we see and talk to each other frequently.
According to Clark & Brennan, in order to coordinate on content, participants must assume a vast amount of shared information or common ground (mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions) (128). My friend and I often draw on common ground in our conversations.
For example:
Me: wanna meet up tomm at 11?
A: ok, sure
A: same place
Me: sure
We had to rely on mutual knowledge to understand the other. I knew what place she was referring to because we had just gone there a few days ago.
Clark & Brennan explain that grounding is used when participants try to establish that what has been said has been understood. The two main factors that shape grounding are purpose and medium (128). In my case, our purpose was to discuss how different classes were going; and our medium was IM. Grounding occurs when “the contributor and their partner mutually believe that the partner has understood what the contributor meant to a criterion sufficient for current purposes” (Clark, 129). Clark & Brennan also explain that the two phases of contributing to conversation are the presentation phase, and the acceptance phase (130).
For example:
A: Im ok, studying for linear…
Me: oooh, okay. that’s tomm, right?
A: yes it is
In this case, my friend is presenting when she says, “studying for linear”, and I accept by saying “okay”. I accept her contribution to the conversation. But then we switch roles and I present “that’s tomm, right?”, she accepts this time by saying “yes it is”.
This conversation also conveys positive evidence of understanding. There were acknowledgments involved (ex: okay, yes). There were also relevant next turns or adjacency pairs.
But another part of the conversation revealed negative evidence, or evidence that we have been misheard or misunderstood.
For example:
A: I am definitely not regretting that class
Me: wait, you’re not regretting it?
A: yeah, remember, counterfactual thinkings leads to regret which is the downward one
A: I am not doing that for that class
Me: ahahaha! good job.
When I first heard that my friend did not regret the class, I thought that it was a typo, or that I read it wrong. So I asked her to clarify, and she explained her point. I finally responded with positive evidence (an acknowledgment).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting that you had miscommunication when using a double negative, even in writing. I know that happens regularly in speech, but the fact that occurs with written word is weird. Also, her confirmation statement answered that question, but then totally spun off in a new direction that needed additional grounding. A very complicated conversation.
ReplyDeleteA complicated conversation indeed! To even try to understand the context of the conversation, a considerable amount of common ground seems to be needed because at certain points, your friend seems to reference other subjects and classes via "5-lined" sentences. However, since there is a great amount of shared awareness and history between you too, you are able to pick up on things that an outsider would not.
ReplyDelete