Introduction

In classic pragmatic models interlocutors can successfully communicate intended meanings by taking common ground into account. This common ground in interactions is typically taken to be a body of information that is in a sense assumed to be shared between participants. Duranti (1997) argued that even comparatively simple exchanges such as greeting are organized according to complex socio-historic cultural knowledge and are dependent for their interactional accomplishment on participants “sharing” that knowledge, having it as part of common ground. Where this knowledge is not shared, one might expect breaches to these taken for granted linguistic forms, with all kinds of interactional consequences. The more common ground we share with another person, the less effort and time we need to convey and interpret information. Enfield (2008: 223) uses the term, “economy of expression” for this phenomenon.

In recent years the traditional approach to common ground (e.g. Stalnaker 1978, 2002; Clark and Brennan 1991; Clark 1996) has been challenged from different perspectives. Taking into account not only L1 but also intercultural interactions and attempting to bring together the traditional view with the egocentrism-based view of cognitive psychologists (Barr 2004; Barr and Keysar 2005; Colston and Katz 2005), Kecskes and Zhang (2009) argued that construction of common ground is a flexible and dynamic process. It is the convergence of the mental representation of shared knowledge that we activate, assumed mutual knowledge that we seek, and rapport as well as knowledge that we co-construct in the communicative process. Based on this approach Kecskes and Zhang (2009) made a difference between core common ground and emergent common ground. The former is knowledge we assume to share at the time of conversation and the later is knowledge that is generated and shared in the process of ­interaction.

People usually infer this “core common ground” from their past conversations, their immediate surroundings, and their shared cultural background and experience. We can distinguish between three components of core common ground: information that the participants share, understanding the situational context, and relationships between the participants – knowledge about each other and trust and their mutual experience of the interaction. According to current research if people have common or similar prior experience, participate in similar actions and events, they know each other and have been in similar situations before, all that will result in core common ground. Similar prior contexts, prior experience and similar understanding of the actual situational context will build common ground. This is all the result of a longer, diachronic process, so what is happening in intercultural interactions where we have temporary speech communities? Of course, interlocutors there also share some core common ground, but it is usually quite limited. Understanding between interlocutors with similar histories, experiences and world knowledge is believed to be much easier than between those who lack or have limited common backgrounds (Gumperz 1982; Scollon and Scollon 2001; Tannen 2005; Kecskes 2021).

Communication conventions are usually acquired through a long-lasting history of socialization and usage in the first language. They are generally processed unconsciously during interaction, thus, not easily subject to repair procedures. However, participants of intercultural communication do not share much of that type of common ground, which has led to a “problem approach” in second language and intercultural communication research. Gass and Varonis (1985: 340) summed up the various issues associated with “shared background” and described in their study what can be termed a problem approach to the study of cross-cultural, cross-linguistic communication: “ … NSs [native speakers] and NNSs [nonnative speakers] are multiply handicapped in conversations with one another. Often, they may not share a world view or cultural assumptions, one or both of which may lead to misunderstanding. In addition, they may not share common background … that would permit them to converse with shared beliefs about what Gumperz and Tannen (1979) call the “semantic content” of the conversation. Furthermore, they may have difficulty with speaking and interpreting an interlocutor’s discourse as a result of a linguistic deficit.”

The main problem in intercultural interactions is that interlocutors do not and cannot have that type of core common ground that L1 speakers have because of limited common prior experience. Consequently, since they have little shared knowledge to activate and seek, they have to co-construct common ground in the course of conversation. Generally, there is more reliance on core common ground in L1, while in intercultural interaction we see the priority of emergent common ground. This dynamic understanding of common ground has been applied in many research projects addressing both L1 and intercultural interactions in recent years. As a result, several new elements, aspects and interpretations of common ground have been identified. Some researchers (e.g. Roberts 2012; Garcia-Carpintero 2015) came to view the common ground as one component in a complex contextual information structure. Others analyzing intercultural interactions pointed out dynamism of the interplay of core common ground and emergent common ground (e.g. Ladilova and Schröder 2022; Macagno 2018; Diedrichsen and Nolan 2019; Ping 2018). The volume aims to present current research from different angles of pragmatics and communication to examine 1) what adjustments to the notion of common ground based on L1 communication should be made in the light of research in intercultural communication, 2) What the relationship is between context, situation and common ground, and 3) how relevant knowledge and content get selected for inclusion into core and emergent common ground.

The volume consists of five parts. After this introduction the second part contains chapters about general issues of common ground such as the relationship of common ground and context (Keith Alan), cognitive character of common ground (Brian Nolan), obstacles in common ground building (Arto Mustajoki) and negotiation of common ground (Fabricio Macagno). The third part focuses on emergent common ground in online discussions (Elke Diedrichsen) and in classroom interactions (Adriana Merino and Eunhee Kim). The fourth section looks at common ground building from different perspectives. Karsten Senkbeil’s chapter discusses mutual knowledge and hidden common ground. Olga Obdalova, Ludmila Minakova and Alexandra Soboleva argued that the linguistic code functions as common ground in English as a Foreign Language communication. Qing Yang’s chapter treats disagreement as interactional resource for developing interculturality. The last part explores common ground in different discourses such as written discourse (Ivana Trbojevic), business communication (Liu Ping) and aikido training (Greet Angèle De Baets, and Ellen Van Praet).

References

Barr, Dale J. 2004. Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary? Cognitive Science 28(6). 937–962. →

Barr, Dale J. and Boaz, Keysar. 2005. Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In Colston Herbert L. and Albert N. Katz (eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and cultural influences, 21–43. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. →

Clark, Herbert H. and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Resnick Lauren B., Levine John M. and Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. →

Colston, Herbert L. and Albert N. Katz (eds.). 2005. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and cultural influences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Universal and cultural-specific properties of greetings. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1). 63–97. →

Diedrichsen E and Nolan B (eds.) 2019. Linguistic perspectives on the construction of meaning and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. →

Enfield, Nicholas J. 2008. Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In Kecskés István and Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, 223–254. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

García-Carpintero, M. 2015. Accommodating presupposition. Topoi. doi: 10.1007/s11245-014-9264-5. 

Gass, Susan M. and Evangeline Marlos, Varonis. 1985. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in Society 14(3). 327–343. 

Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. →