Alex and I have a dog together- a black Labrador retriever named Champ. This morning (Sunday), I made plans to go to Alex's house, where Champ lives, so that I could spend time with both of them. Alex and I planned this visit through text message. We immediately drew on existing common ground; he and I had discussed my Sunday visit face to face on Saturday, so we did not have to re-establish that I was planning to come over. Also, Alex knows that I live in my sorority house, and he knew that I had slept there on Saturday night. As a result, he did not have to ask me 1) if I needed a ride (because he knew the distance was great enough that I would) or 2) where he should pick me up. In stead, our first exchange read as:
Me: Just let me know when you're ready.
Alex: I'm awake but not too "up" yet.
From there, Alex and I briefly mentioned how "ready" we were for the day -- I mentioned that I was still rolling around in bed, and he said he "would have to get up for Champ in a minute." Here we had more common ground, because he and I both know Champ's morning routine. He did not have to explain to me that he needed to get out of bed, take Champ outside to "potty", and then feed him breakfast.
During these instances, existing knowledge was vital to understanding the exchange. If I had not known that I was supposed to go to Alex's house, who or what "Champ" is, how long his routine takes, then I probably would not have been able to figure anything out about the conversation.
Then, we had to establish a bit of common ground. Alex mentioned that he needed to help his housemate, Chad, clean today. I had to ask why, because I was not aware that Chad's parents were planning to be in town for Chad's brother's wrestling tournament. Had Alex not explained this factor to me, I would not have understood why Chad required "help" cleaning, and I would not have known that they intended to clean the whole house as opposed to only Chad's room, or another area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Your conversation seems minimal due to the common ground you two share, but do you think it could have been kept to a minimum due to the production costs? It would probably have been much easier to elaborate had you two been face to face? In addition, how did Alex know that you received his message? I'm curious about how your communication continued if there was no certification that you received Alex's comment. When you communicate via text messaging, do you assume that the person you are communicating with will receive all the messages you send? And when he does not respond immediately, how long does it take you to ask if he is there or if he understood your last comment?
ReplyDeleteWhile there was certainly common ground in the form of mutual knowledge about the dog, each other's locations, etc, the conversation itself was to coordinate spending time with the dog. While this led to grounding in establishing new information, like Chad's reasons for needing to clean, it also led to grounding between you and Alex in terms of status. In asking you if you were ready (although indirectly), you were trying to discern new information about Alex that you did not have before. Although you knew many things about him, you were unaware of his current readiness.
ReplyDelete