Grounding in communication

Common Ground and Grounding is an assumption which is subject to some discourse models of linguistics and communication theory and the substantially by Herbert H. Clark and Edward F. Schaefer ( 1989) has been coined. Also in the philosophy of language plays the Common Ground, especially after the model of Robert Stalnaker, an important role. It is the assumption of an abstract common " knowledge space " that exists between communication partners.

• 6.1 Notes and references
• 6.2 Further Reading

Basic assumptions

• Communication: communication between two or more people can have different objectives. Regardless of individual goals, want people who lead a conversation, but always tell each other anything. This means that the communication is a common type ( action joint ). Thus, a message is successfully and beyond the understanding to work, the communication partners must mutually insure that they have understood correctly. In the communication, the communication partner so try to reach a common knowledge base.

• Cooperation: Assuming that the participants of a discourse a common goal, namely the understanding, strive for, so you can assume the discourse participants cooperation.

• Collective Act: Is the goal of a discourse understanding and this happens through cooperation of the participants, so you can the discourse itself described as collective act.

• Grounding: Two people cooperate so to communicate. This means both pursue the aim that they are, first, the other properly understood and secondly that they themselves understand correctly what the other wants to communicate. The discourse participants work together accordingly to the understanding and thereby open up new knowledge together. Thus, a speech is successful when it comes to Grounding: Grounding is the point of the discourse to which the discourse participants believe to have understood each other correctly and the new common knowledge " stored " is.

Theory

Assumptions / presuppositions

The basic idea behind Clark and Schaefer's discourse model Contributing to Discourse is Common Ground. At any given time a discourse makes any discourse participant assumptions (so-called presuppositions ) about the knowledge that the others participants in the discourse and he himself about the discourse topic. Common Ground describes the common knowledge - that is, the common knowledge base of all the participants in the discourse - and it is assumed by the speaker as background information. Every discourse participant makes its own assumptions about the knowledge he as presupposes together, with its assumptions also listened to the assumption that the other, the same assumptions about the Common Ground make. In simple terms this means that all callers constantly make assumptions about the background knowledge of all involved.

Update

With progression of the discourse previously made ​​assumptions can be either confirmed or destroyed, which means that the Common Ground is updated ( update). Here, the Common Ground is constantly growing, since self-destructed assumptions are now part of common knowledge.

Confirm assumptions

In order to confirm assumptions, the discourse participants must notify each other that they have a statement properly understood and there are no misunderstandings. This can be done through a variety pronounced forms of acceptance ( acceptance ) of the statement made ​​, which results in clues for understanding the current statement. Thus, signals the interlocutor about through an appropriate response to a question that you have understood the question form and content properly. Is there any problems in communication, the new common knowledge is added to the Common Ground ( grounding ).

Destroy assumptions

Turns out that there are communication problems, because made ​​different assumptions about the Common Ground, these misunderstandings are cleared and the new knowledge, including the knowledge stored on the misconception in the Common Ground.

Examples

• A: Can you give me the solution for the task? B: Yes, you can copy them from me.

A makes some assumptions about the Common Ground, for example, that B knows of which task A is talking to B the solution for the task and knows that B is willing to share the solution to the problem of A, etc. B confirms again that he has recognized the question formally as a question, because its expression has the form of a reply. He also confirms the assumption that he knows the solution, and also that he is willing to share the solution to the problem of A. All assumptions that have now been confirmed to be added to the Common Ground of A and B.

• A: Even my father knows Johnny Depp.

This statement includes, among other things, the assumptions that A believes that everyone actually knows who is Johnny Depp, but also that A did not believe that his father knows who is Johnny Depp. The pre-existing assumption, the father of A did not know who is Johnny Depp, was eventually destroyed and the knowledge that both A and his father know who is Johnny Depp, were added to the Common Ground.

Application

The idea of ​​grounding found in many discourse models in different areas of application, eg in communication science, cognitive science, linguistics and computer science. Even if the theory itself is often subjected to criticism, it is often taken in the spirit or at least involved and, if removed.

Criticism

The idea of ​​the Common Grounds as a kind of mental representation is just an abstract idea. Common Ground can not be empirically tested or measured with a measure. Since it is a mental abstraction that is accessible or displayed to anyone, the suitability of this theory for the research is often questioned. For this reason, an attempt is made in newer models to consider the perspective of the individual communication partners, who may not really know due to the double contingency of what each other was white.

Another criticism comes from the ranks of linguistics and cognitive science: make Clark alleges that a cognitive process that permanently "calculate" the Common Ground of a discourse participant must, do not be that of the brain, since it is a recursive process. This means there is no point at which a chain of thoughts like "A thought that B knows that X, and A also suspected that B thinks that A believes B knows X, etc. " comes to a stop. In later works, Clark acknowledged this criticism, defended his theory but with the view that the knowledge of the participants in the discourse about Common Ground itself sufficient to make successful conversation. He takes therefore even distance from the idea that the assumptions made are actually mentally represented (in the sense of a theoretically infinite chain of thought " A knows that B knows that A knows that B knows ... "), but still insists on the idea that Common Ground is an idea of ​​the knowledge base, which presuppose the discourse participants unconsciously as given.