Assignment 4: (Too Much) common ground? [Daniel Gustafson]

I recently experienced a conversation that included examples of both effective and ineffective communication based on grounding features. I will include the chat with line numbers so I can easily reference parts of the conversation, an exercise in grounding in its own rights. I would like to first note that my friend and I have known each other for more than 7 years, and our communication can seem very quirky.

1 L: were areyouuu
2 Me: hey
3 L: hii
4 L: i have a wolf shirt
5 Me: lol
6 Me: remember my 7 wolf shirt?
7 Me: maybe not
8 L: no what
9 Me: i miss you
10 L: skype me
11 L: i got written up
12 Me: for what
13 Me: i can't i got work
14 L: what
15 L: alcohol
16 Me: i can't skype right now
17 L: i just wanted to show you my wolf shirt
18 Me: :( i'm sorry i really have a lot of work

While much of our communication is instantly understood by the other, frequently neither one of us will be able to adequately follow the conversation and we will lose track of what phase conversation is in (presentation vs. acceptance), or worse, misunderstand even our own contributions to the conversation. In general, though, we rely on our long history of grounding and assume an extremely efficient communication pattern, as Fussell would predict for our relationship (Fussel et. al. 2000).

Because my friend and I require little to no grounding to begin our conversations, I will analyze our conversation using some of the grounding concepts discussed in Clark & Brennan. In performing this task, a few things become readily apparent. If every utterance was understood perfectly, this conversation would be very efficient communication. No utterance needs to be longer than 10 words. Secondly, following my conversations with L can be tricky. This is due primarily to simultaneity and cotemporality, both in FtF and text/IM communication (Clark & Brennan 1991). Splits in conversation occur with lines 3,4 and 10,11 and conversation doesn't merge again until line 16. Even FtF, our conversations are rarely sequential and usually include multiple topics at once.

Lines 1,2 immediately demonstrate that L and I have existing common ground. In line 1, I knew that L was referring to my location in reference to my computer, as opposed to my geographic location. I responded with a standard greeting, having understood that line 1 was both a greeting, and fishing for my presence at my computer. Similarly lines 10-13 all demonstrate pre-existing common ground as well. I naturally understood the phrases “skype” and “written up,” and responded to each presentation. Lines 12,13 both provide L the acceptance needed to close the contribution(s) and comprise the presentation phase for my next contributions. Line 15 demonstrates L's understanding, whereas line 14 provides “negative evidence” that I have failed to accurately convey information to L. Lines 17,18 again both demonstrate acceptance to the presenter, as well as begin new contributions. Our conversations, though lacking many concepts described in Clark & Brennan are in fact complete, properly-structured exchanges.