Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs: Vorlesung 2 ... · Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und...

Einfuhrung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs:Vorlesung 2: Common Ground. Collaboration.

Grounding mechnisms

Volha Petukhova & Nikolina Koleva & Christine Ankener

Universitat des Saarlandes

Sommersemester 2015

V. Petukhova & N. Koleva& C.Ankener Pragmatik & Diskurs: Einfuhrung .../04/2015

Overview for today

Introduction: Language as collaboration

Common ground

Establishing common ground

Communicative Intention/Kommunikative Intention

Basic reading: Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Groundingin communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley(Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APABooks (online)

Collaboration in language

speaking and listening are collaborative processes

conversing is collective activity

any successful communicative act requires participants tocoordinate with one another

Having a discourse = collective activity

Collective performance = individuals doing their parts andadjusting to one another

Having a discourse = collective activity

Collective performance = individuals doing their parts andadjusting to one another

Examples

A. Did you go to the store?B. Yes, I got the milk.

A. Did you go the store?B. Excuse me?A. Did you go to the store this morning?B. Yes, I got the milk.

A. Did you go the store?B. The grocery store?A. Yes.B. Yes, I got the milk.

Examples

The collaborative theory

assumption

communication is adding to ‘common ground’, the sharedknowledge.contributing to common ground is contributing to discourse.

principle of mutual responsibility

establish the mutual belief having understood what the othermeant

grounding process

provide a basis for correct understandingcontribution

Grounding in Conversation

In order to have an effective conversation, the participantsneed to understand each other

Real spoken conversation is very messy

incomplete sentences;overlapping turns;pauses;noisy voice data / unintelligible utterances

To do this they need to ground their communication

Listener has to notice that something was said (pay attention)Listener has to hear what was said (perceive)Listener has to understand what was said (interpret)Listener has to understand what was meant (evaluate)Listener has to perform adequate further action(-s) (execute)

So what is grounding?

Making sure that the listener understand what the speakersaid

Making sure the speaker knows the listener understood

Making sure the listener knows the speaker knows the listenerunderstood, etc.

So then what is common ground?

Information that participants know that they all know:

Common cultural and social historyPublic history of the interactionCurrent public state of the interaction

Common ground accumulates as the interaction continues

Common cultural and social history

Public history of the interactionCurrent public state of the interaction

Common cultural and social historyPublic history of the interaction

Current public state of the interaction

Evidence in Grounding

Speakers attempt to make sure they were understood bylisteners

To do this, they look for evidence of understanding

Speakers can look for both positive and negative evidence

Grounding a contribution

presentation phaseA. Did you go to the store?

acceptance phaseB. Yes, I got the milk

refashion

presentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?accept 1 / presentation 3.: A. Yes.accept 2 / presentation 4.: B. Yes, I got the milk.

refashion

refashionpresentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?

presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?accept 1 / presentation 3.: A. Yes.accept 2 / presentation 4.: B. Yes, I got the milk.

refashionpresentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?

accept 1 / presentation 3.: A. Yes.accept 2 / presentation 4.: B. Yes, I got the milk.

refashionpresentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?accept 1 / presentation 3.: A. Yes.

accept 2 / presentation 4.: B. Yes, I got the milk.

refashionpresentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?accept 1 / presentation 3.: A. Yes.accept 2 / presentation 4.: B. Yes, I got the milk.

Grounding a question

Elementary exchangeA. Did you go to the store?B. Yes, I got the milk

ExpansionA. Did you go to the store?B. Excuse me?A. Did you go to the store this morning?B. Yes, I got the milk.

Grounding a question

Elementary exchangeA. Did you go to the store?B. Yes, I got the milk

ExpansionA. Did you go to the store?B. Excuse me?A. Did you go to the store this morning?B. Yes, I got the milk.

Grounding a question- II

CompletionA. Did you go the ... uhh ...?B. Store?A. Yes.B. Yes, I got the milk.

ContinuationA. Did you go the store?B. to get milk and eggs?A. Yes.B. Yes.

Grounding a question- II

CompletionA. Did you go the ... uhh ...?B. Store?A. Yes.B. Yes, I got the milk.

ContinuationA. Did you go the store?B. to get milk and eggs?A. Yes.B. Yes.

Negative feedback

Involves a new communicative action on the part of the listener

repetition

A. Did you go to the store?B. A store?A. Yes, a grocery store

fill-in-the-blank

A. Did you go to the store?B. Go to where?A. To the store

clarification questions

A. Did you go to the store?B. Which store you mean?A. Grocery store

and many other methods

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Negative feedback

repetition

fill-in-the-blank

Positive feedback

continuers: *yeah*, mmhm, etc.

relevant next turns: i.e., something that makes sense incontext and continues the conversation

A: I am hungryB: There are some sandwiches in the fridge

continued attention: HELLO! ANYONE AWAKE OUTTHERE?

Positive feedback

Grounding Changes With Purpose

Participants alter their grounding methods according to situationand content

Alternative descriptionsAdding more detail to ensure grounding

Indicative gesturesPointing, other gestures

Referential installmentsBreaking a description into understandable chunks, e.g.123...45..6789

Trial referencesSpeaker puts out a tentative reference; listener ratifies orrejects it

Individual goals and collaborative activities

Not everyone seeks perfect understanding

Some goals dictate perfect understanding (high criteria)

Question:How do participants’ goals affect the nature and extent of theircollaboration?

Individual goals and collaborative activities

Not everyone seeks perfect understanding

Some goals dictate perfect understanding (high criteria)

Question:How do participants’ goals affect the nature and extent of theircollaboration?

Experiment ’City-tour’

high vs low criteria

‘paired’ and ‘impaired’ people

result 1: goal affects collaborationresult 2: no effect for role: contributor vs addresseeresult 3. elementary presentations most frequentresult 4. collaborate, but minimize effort

Experiment ’City-tour’

high vs low criteria

‘paired’ and ‘impaired’ people

result 1: goal affects collaborationresult 2: no effect for role: contributor vs addresseeresult 3. elementary presentations most frequentresult 4. collaborate, but minimize effort

Individual and shared knowledge

Question: does knowledge affect collaboration?

Experiments withexperts and novicesTask: Expert directors describe postcards to novice matchersA. number 3 is the church on this plainB. Oh yes, Ludwigskirche

Individual and shared knowledge

Question: does knowledge affect collaboration? Experiments withexperts and novicesTask: Expert directors describe postcards to novice matchersA. number 3 is the church on this plainB. Oh yes, Ludwigskirche

Collaboration and cognition

different perspectives - accommodationIf unsuccessful - refashionCommon ground may be qualitatively different

Example:A. so I see you in Dialogue Lab in C 7.4B. Perfect, it’s a building at the edge of forestA. uhm... you mean MMCE building?B. Wait. MMCE building? I mean the Coli new building behind C7.1 and 7.2 building, the last one before forest beginsA. Yes, that’s right, this is one.

Features of communication

Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point atobjects in common ground

Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures,facial expressions

Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use naturallanguage

Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timelyreply; interruptions or delays are significant

Simultaneity: participants can send and receive at the sametime; allows interruption, backchannel feedback

Sequentiality: participants contributions are strictly ordered,and cannot get out of order

Reviewability: participants can look at the past history of theconversation

Revisability: participants have the option of editing theircontributions before they commit to them

Comparison: face-to-face v. chat

new media

Comparison: face-to-face v. chat

?new media

Conclusions

Grounding is essential to communication

Communication is a collaborative activity

Content and task affect grounding

Medium affects grounding

Conclusions

Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs: Vorlesung 2 ... · Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und...

Documents

Transcript of Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs: Vorlesung 2 ... · Einf uhrung in die Pragmatik und...