Einführung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs: Vorlesung 2: Common Ground. Collaboration. Grounding mechnisms

Similar documents
GROUNDING IN COMMUNICATION

Modeling Dialogue Building Highly Responsive Conversational Agents

Eliciting Language in the Classroom. Presented by: Dionne Ramey, SBCUSD SLP Amanda Drake, SBCUSD Special Ed. Program Specialist

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION

FCE Speaking Part 4 Discussion teacher s notes

The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Speaking Production of EFL Students. Iman Moradimanesh

Teachers: Use this checklist periodically to keep track of the progress indicators that your learners have displayed.

Attention Getting Strategies : If You Can Hear My Voice Clap Once. By: Ann McCormick Boalsburg Elementary Intern Fourth Grade

REVIEW OF CONNECTED SPEECH

Handout 2.10a: 24 Operating Principles and the Verbal Behaviors That Go with Them Cultivating Classroom Discourse to Make Student Thinking Visible

Fearless Change -- Patterns for Introducing New Ideas

Eyebrows in French talk-in-interaction

BEST OFFICIAL WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE RULES

SYLLABUS: RURAL SOCIOLOGY 1500 INTRODUCTION TO RURAL SOCIOLOGY SPRING 2017

Case study Norway case 1

Chapter 9: Conducting Interviews

Vorlesung Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion

Behaviors: team learns more about its assigned task and each other; individual roles are not known; guidelines and ground rules are established

Conversational Common Ground and Memory Processes in Language Production

Client Psychology and Motivation for Personal Trainers

One Stop Shop For Educators

AGENDA LEARNING THEORIES LEARNING THEORIES. Advanced Learning Theories 2/22/2016

An Analysis of Gender Differences in Minimal Responses in the conversations in the two TV-series Growing Pains and Boy Meets World

Kelli Allen. Vicki Nieter. Jeanna Scheve. Foreword by Gregory J. Kaiser

Rubric for Scoring English 1 Unit 1, Rhetorical Analysis

Course Syllabus p. 1. Introduction to Web Design AVT 217 Spring 2017 TTh 10:30-1:10, 1:30-4:10 Instructor: Shanshan Cui

PREP S SPEAKER LISTENER TECHNIQUE COACHING MANUAL

ELPAC. Practice Test. Kindergarten. English Language Proficiency Assessments for California

What s in Your Communication Toolbox? COMMUNICATION TOOLBOX. verse clinical scenarios to bolster clinical outcomes: 1

Statistical Analysis of Climate Change, Renewable Energies, and Sustainability An Independent Investigation for Introduction to Statistics

4 Almost always mention the topic and the overall idea of simple. 3 Oftentimes mention the topic and the overall idea of simple

Grammar Lesson Plan: Yes/No Questions with No Overt Auxiliary Verbs

MGMT 3362 Human Resource Management Course Syllabus Spring 2016 (Interactive Video) Business Administration 222D (Edinburg Campus)

Secondary English-Language Arts

Author: Fatima Lemtouni, Wayzata High School, Wayzata, MN

SOFTWARE EVALUATION TOOL

Appendix L: Online Testing Highlights and Script

General Microbiology (BIOL ) Course Syllabus

Formulaic Language and Fluency: ESL Teaching Applications

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD AD HOC COMMITTEE ON.

Monticello Community School District K 12th Grade. Spanish Standards and Benchmarks

Cooking Matters at the Store Evaluation: Executive Summary

2 nd grade Task 5 Half and Half

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Team Report

MERRY CHRISTMAS Level: 5th year of Primary Education Grammar:

Tour. English Discoveries Online

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages p. 58 to p. 82

re An Interactive web based tool for sorting textbook images prior to adaptation to accessible format: Year 1 Final Report

A process by any other name

Demography and Population Geography with GISc GEH 320/GEP 620 (H81) / PHE 718 / EES80500 Syllabus

Vicente Amado Antonio Nariño HH. Corazonistas and Tabora School

Human Factors Engineering Design and Evaluation Checklist

Grade 5: Module 2A: Unit 1: Lesson 6 Analyzing an Interview with a Rainforest Scientist Part 1

Synthesis Essay: The 7 Habits of a Highly Effective Teacher: What Graduate School Has Taught Me By: Kamille Samborski

Guru: A Computer Tutor that Models Expert Human Tutors

Why Pay Attention to Race?

MATH 1A: Calculus I Sec 01 Winter 2017 Room E31 MTWThF 8:30-9:20AM

Assessing speaking skills:. a workshop for teacher development. Ben Knight

Team Dispersal. Some shaping ideas

How to make successful presentations in English Part 2

Functional Mark-up for Behaviour Planning: Theory and Practice

An ICT environment to assess and support students mathematical problem-solving performance in non-routine puzzle-like word problems

Effective practices of peer mentors in an undergraduate writing intensive course

Why Misquitoes Buzz in People s Ears (Part 1 of 3)

Individual Component Checklist L I S T E N I N G. for use with ONE task ENGLISH VERSION

Mastering Team Skills and Interpersonal Communication. Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Interpretive (seeing) Interpersonal (speaking and short phrases)

SMARTboard: The SMART Way To Engage Students

Films for ESOL training. Section 2 - Language Experience

Author: Justyna Kowalczys Stowarzyszenie Angielski w Medycynie (PL) Feb 2015

WiggleWorks Software Manual PDF0049 (PDF) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company

The Use of Drama and Dramatic Activities in English Language Teaching

Eduroam Support Clinics What are they?

E-3: Check for academic understanding

Lecturing Module

Classify: by elimination Road signs

Section 7, Unit 4: Sample Student Book Activities for Teaching Listening

2014 Free Spirit Publishing. All rights reserved.

Let's Learn English Lesson Plan

Instructor: Mario D. Garrett, Ph.D. Phone: Office: Hepner Hall (HH) 100

Think A F R I C A when assessing speaking. C.E.F.R. Oral Assessment Criteria. Think A F R I C A - 1 -

Getting a Sound Bite Across. Heather Long, MD ACMT Annual Scientific Meeting Clearwater, FL March 28, 2015

Wolf Watch. A Degree Evaluation and Advising Tool. University of West Georgia

CDTL-CELC WORKSHOP: EFFECTIVE INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

PRD Online

CO-ORDINATION OF SPEECH AND GESTURE IN SEQUENCE AND TIME: PHONETIC AND NON-VERBAL DETAIL IN FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION. Rein Ove Sikveland

Age-Related Differences in Communication and Audience Design

Setting the Scene and Getting Inspired

SCIENCE DISCOURSE 1. Peer Discourse and Science Achievement. Richard Therrien. K-12 Science Supervisor. New Haven Public Schools

WE GAVE A LAWYER BASIC MATH SKILLS, AND YOU WON T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT

Frequently Asked Questions About OSSI:NIFS for Student Applicants

Web as Corpus. Corpus Linguistics. Web as Corpus 1 / 1. Corpus Linguistics. Web as Corpus. web.pl 3 / 1. Sketch Engine. Corpus Linguistics

Communication Strategies for Children who have Rett Syndrome: Partner-Assisted Communication with PODD

evans_pt01.qxd 7/30/2003 3:57 PM Page 1 Putting the Domain Model to Work

Note Taking Handbook Mount Aloysius College Disability Services

Eye Movements in Speech Technologies: an overview of current research

Behavior List. Ref. No. Behavior. Grade. Std. Domain/Category. Social/ Emotional will notify the teacher when angry (words, signal)

Is There a Role for Tutor in Group Work: Peer Interaction in a Hong Kong EFL Classroom

IN THIS UNIT YOU LEARN HOW TO: SPEAKING 1 Work in pairs. Discuss the questions. 2 Work with a new partner. Discuss the questions.

How to Teach English

Transcription:

Einführung in die Pragmatik und Diskurs: Vorlesung 2: Common Ground. Collaboration. Grounding mechnisms Volha Petukhova & Nikolina Koleva & Christine Ankener Universität des Saarlandes Sommersemester 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). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books (online)

Collaboration in language speaking and listening are collaborative processes

Collaboration in language speaking and listening are collaborative processes conversing is collective activity

Collaboration in language speaking and listening are collaborative processes conversing is collective activity any successful communicative act requires participants to coordinate with one another

Having a discourse = collective activity

Having a discourse = collective activity Collective performance = individuals doing their parts and adjusting to one another

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

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.

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.

The collaborative theory assumption communication is adding to common ground, the shared knowledge. contributing to common ground is contributing to discourse. principle of mutual responsibility establish the mutual belief having understood what the other meant grounding process provide a basis for correct understanding contribution

Grounding in Conversation In order to have an effective conversation, the participants need to understand each other

Grounding in Conversation In order to have an effective conversation, the participants need to understand each other Real spoken conversation is very messy incomplete sentences; overlapping turns; pauses; noisy voice data / unintelligible utterances

Grounding in Conversation In order to have an effective conversation, the participants need 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)

Grounding in Conversation So what is grounding?

Grounding in Conversation So what is grounding? Making sure that the listener understand what the speaker said

Grounding in Conversation So what is grounding? Making sure that the listener understand what the speaker said Making sure the speaker knows the listener understood

Grounding in Conversation So what is grounding? Making sure that the listener understand what the speaker said Making sure the speaker knows the listener understood Making sure the listener knows the speaker knows the listener understood, etc.

So then what is common ground? Information that participants know that they all know:

So then what is common ground? Information that participants know that they all know: Common cultural and social history

So then what is common ground? Information that participants know that they all know: Common cultural and social history Public history of the interaction

So then what is common ground? Information that participants know that they all know: Common cultural and social history Public history of the interaction Current public state of the interaction

So then what is common ground? Information that participants know that they all know: Common cultural and social history Public history of the interaction Current public state of the interaction Common ground accumulates as the interaction continues

Evidence in Grounding Speakers attempt to make sure they were understood by listeners To do this, they look for evidence of understanding Speakers can look for both positive and negative evidence

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store?

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. Yes, I got the milk

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. Yes, I got the milk refashion

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. Yes, I got the milk refashion presentation 1.: A. Did you go the store?

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. Yes, I got the milk refashion presentation 1.: A. Did you go the store? presentation 2.: B. The grocery store?

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. 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.

Grounding a contribution presentation phase A. Did you go to the store? acceptance phase B. 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.

Grounding a question Elementary exchange A. Did you go to the store? B. Yes, I got the milk

Grounding a question Elementary exchange A. Did you go to the store? B. Yes, I got the milk Expansion A. 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 Completion A. Did you go the... uhh...? B. Store? A. Yes. B. Yes, I got the milk.

Grounding a question- II Completion A. Did you go the... uhh...? B. Store? A. Yes. B. Yes, I got the milk. Continuation A. 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

Negative feedback Involves a new communicative action on the part of the listener repetition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive feedback continuers: *yeah*, mmhm, etc.

Positive feedback continuers: *yeah*, mmhm, etc. relevant next turns: i.e., something that makes sense in context and continues the conversation

Positive feedback continuers: *yeah*, mmhm, etc. relevant next turns: i.e., something that makes sense in context and continues the conversation A: I am hungry B: There are some sandwiches in the fridge

Positive feedback continuers: *yeah*, mmhm, etc. relevant next turns: i.e., something that makes sense in context and continues the conversation A: I am hungry B: There are some sandwiches in the fridge continued attention: HELLO! ANYONE AWAKE OUT THERE?

Grounding Changes With Purpose Participants alter their grounding methods according to situation and content

Grounding Changes With Purpose Participants alter their grounding methods according to situation and content Alternative descriptions Adding more detail to ensure grounding

Grounding Changes With Purpose Participants alter their grounding methods according to situation and content Alternative descriptions Adding more detail to ensure grounding Indicative gestures Pointing, other gestures

Grounding Changes With Purpose Participants alter their grounding methods according to situation and content Alternative descriptions Adding more detail to ensure grounding Indicative gestures Pointing, other gestures Referential installments Breaking a description into understandable chunks, e.g. 123...45..6789

Grounding Changes With Purpose Participants alter their grounding methods according to situation and content Alternative descriptions Adding more detail to ensure grounding Indicative gestures Pointing, other gestures Referential installments Breaking a description into understandable chunks, e.g. 123...45..6789 Trial references Speaker puts out a tentative reference; listener ratifies or rejects it

Individual goals and collaborative activities Not everyone seeks perfect understanding Some goals dictate perfect understanding (high criteria)

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 their collaboration?

Experiment City-tour high vs low criteria paired and impaired people

Experiment City-tour high vs low criteria paired and impaired people result 1: goal affects collaboration result 2: no effect for role: contributor vs addressee result 3. elementary presentations most frequent result 4. collaborate, but minimize effort

Individual and shared knowledge Question: does knowledge affect collaboration?

Individual and shared knowledge Question: does knowledge affect collaboration? Experiments with experts and novices Task: Expert directors describe postcards to novice matchers A. number 3 is the church on this plain B. Oh yes, Ludwigskirche

Collaboration and cognition different perspectives - accommodation If unsuccessful - refashion Common ground may be qualitatively different Example: A. so I see you in Dialogue Lab in C 7.4 B. Perfect, it s a building at the edge of forest A. uhm... you mean MMCE building? B. Wait. MMCE building? I mean the Coli new building behind C 7.1 and 7.2 building, the last one before forest begins A. Yes, that s right, this is one.

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timely reply; interruptions or delays are significant

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timely reply; interruptions or delays are significant Simultaneity: participants can send and receive at the same time; allows interruption, backchannel feedback

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timely reply; interruptions or delays are significant Simultaneity: participants can send and receive at the same time; allows interruption, backchannel feedback Sequentiality: participants contributions are strictly ordered, and cannot get out of order

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timely reply; interruptions or delays are significant Simultaneity: participants can send and receive at the same time; 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 the conversation

Features of communication Copresence: participants are near each other, and can point at objects in common ground Visibility: participants can see each other; allows gestures, facial expressions Audibility: participants can hear each other, and use natural language Cotemporality: participants can expect to receive a timely reply; interruptions or delays are significant Simultaneity: participants can send and receive at the same time; 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 the conversation Revisability: participants have the option of editing their contributions before they commit to them

Comparison: face-to-face v. chat?

Comparison: face-to-face v. chat? new media

Conclusions Grounding is essential to communication

Conclusions Grounding is essential to communication Communication is a collaborative activity

Conclusions Grounding is essential to communication Communication is a collaborative activity Content and task affect grounding

Conclusions Grounding is essential to communication Communication is a collaborative activity Content and task affect grounding Medium affects grounding