Grounding in communication

Key takeaways

Grounding in communication belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Grounding in communication to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Grounding in communication from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Grounding in communication is a concept proposed by Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. It comprises the collection of "mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions" that is essential for communication between two people. Successful grounding in communication requires parties "to coordinate both the content and process". The concept is also common in philosophy of language.

Elements of theory

Grounding in conversation Grounding in communication theory has described conversation as a form of collaborative action. While grounding in communication theory has been applied to mediated communication, the theory primarily addresses face-to-face conversation. Groups working together will ground their conversations by coming up with common ground or mutual knowledge. The members will utilize this knowledge in order to contribute to a more efficient dialogue. Grounding criterion is the mutual belief between conversational partners that everyone involved has a clear enough understanding of the concept to move forward. Clark and Schaefer (1989) found that, to reach this state of grounding criterion, groups use three methods of reaching an understanding that they can move forward.

New contribution: A partner moves forward with a new idea, and waits to see if their partner expresses confusion. Assertion of acceptance: The partner receiving the information asserts that he understands by smiling, nodding, or verbally confirming the other partner. They may also assert their understanding by remaining silent. Request for clarification: The partner receiving the information asks for clarification.

Phases in grounding The parties engaging in grounding exchange information over what they do or do not understand over the course of a communication and they will continue to clarify concepts until they have agreed on grounding criterion. There are generally two phases in grounding.

Presenting utterance – speaker presents utterance to addressee Accepting utterance – addressee accepts utterance by providing evidence of understanding According to this theory, mere utterance qualifies as presentation in conversation whereas contribution to conversation demands both utterance and assurance of mutual understanding. The presentation phase can become complex when meanings are embedded or repairs are made to utterances. An example of a repair is "Do you and your husband have a car," but rather the messier, "now, – um do you and your husband have a j-car". The acceptance phase often clarifies any ambiguities with grounding. For example:

Presentation phase: Alan: Now, – um do you and your husband have a j-car Acceptance phase: Barbara: – have a car? Alan: Yeah Barbara: No The acceptance phase is completed once Barbara indicates that the answer is "no" and Alan accepts it as a valid answer.

Evidence in conversation Grounding theory identifies three common types of evidence in conversation: 'acknowledgements, relevant next turn, and continued attention. Acknowledgements refer to back channel modes of communication that affirm and validate the messages being communicated. Some examples of these include, "uh huh," "yeah," "really," and head nods that act as continuers. They are used to signal that a phrase has been understood and that the conversation can move on. Relevant next turn refers to the initiation or invitation to respond between speakers, including verbal and nonverbal prompts for turn-taking in conversation. Questions and answers act as adjacency pairs, the first part of the conversation is relevant to the second part. Meaning that a relevant utterance needs to be made in response to the question in order for it to be accepted. For example:

Miss Dimple: Where can I get a hold of you? Chico: I don't know, lady. You see, I'm very ticklish. Miss Dimple: I mean, where do you live? Chico: I live with my brother. Chico is revealing that he did not understand Miss Dimple's first question. She then corrects her phrase after realizing Chico's utterance wasn't an appropriate response and they continue to communicate with adjacent pairs. Continued attention is the "mutual belief that addressees have correctly identified a referent." Partners involved in a conversation usually demonstrate this through eye gaze. One can capture their partner's gaze and attention by beginning an utterance. Attention that is undisturbed and not interrupted is an example of positive evidence of understanding. However, if one of the partners turns away or looks puzzled, these are signs that indicate there is no longer continued attention. More evidence for grounding comes from a study done in 2014, in which dialogue between humans and robots was studied. The complexity of human-robot dialogue arises from the difference between the human's idea of what the robot has internalized versus the robot's actual internal representation of the real world. By going through the grounding process, this study concluded that human-robot grounding can be strengthened by the robot providing information to its partner about how it has internalized the information it has received.

Anticipation of what a partner knows There are three main factors that allow speakers to anticipate what a partner knows.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Grounding in communication

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Grounding in communication claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Grounding in communication before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Grounding in communication ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Grounding in communication

In research: Grounding in communication appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Grounding in communication in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Grounding in communication is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Human communication, Pragmatics, Semantics, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Grounding in communication outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

How to study Grounding in communication in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Grounding in communication means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Grounding in communication out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Grounding in communication in simple terms?

Grounding in communication is a concept proposed by Herbert H. Clark and Susan E.

Why does Grounding in communication matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Grounding in communication?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Grounding in communication.