Common ground

Keith Allan
Table of contents

Human language is characteristically a form of social interactive behaviour. It may occasionally have other functions, but the motivation for its coming into existence (see Dunbar 1996; Allan 2003) and by far the majority of its usage is when S (speaker, writer, signer) addresses utterance U to audience H for an unbounded number of perlocutionary and illocutionary purposes such as to establish or maintain a social relationship, to inform, question, demand, warn, apologize, and so forth. S and H are mutually aware that, normally, their interlocutor is an intelligent being. S does not need to spell out those things which are obvious to the sensory receptors of H, or such that H can very easily reason them out using the knowledge that each of us develops from birth as we experience the world around us on the basis of communicative competence (knowing the language and the conventions for its use). These constitute common ground (CG). Our understanding of linguistic utterances rests on an assumption of CG: e.g. when S points to something visible in the situation of utterance and says Isn’t that nice? there is an assumption that H understands English and can also see it; saying Let’s go to Brisbane assumes that ‘Brisbane’ will be understood as referring to a certain city. Some CG is universal, e.g. knowledge of the sun as a heavenly body that is a source of light and warmth, rain as (among other things) a source of fresh water replenishing the earth, the physiological and socio-cultural differences between the sexes. Some CG is very restricted, e.g. between a couple who use the wicked witch to refer to the man’s second wife. Usually S can readily assess the probable CG with H, and chooses his or her words accordingly. This requires S to make assumptions about H’s capacity to understand U well enough that S’s expressed intention in the message is, in S’s opinion, more or less correctly interpreted by H (Allan 1986; Lasersohn 1999; Colston 2008: 173). S’s assumptions here are S’s estimates of the CG between S and H with respect to U; this is not something S is normally conscious of except, perhaps, when communicating with a stranger – and not often then. Assumed CG is based on an assessment of H’s competence to understand U, and it motivates such things as choice of language and language variety, style and level of presentation – because, for instance, addressing a neophyte or a child must be differently handled from addressing a group of experts. CG allows meaning to be underspecified by S, so that language understanding is a constructive process in which a lot of inferencing is expected from H.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Abbey, Edward.
1982Down the River. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988One Life at a Time, Please. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abbott, Barbara.
2008“Presuppositions and common ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 523–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allan, Keith.
1986Linguistic Meaning. 2 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Reprint edn, Beijing: World Publishing Corporation. 1991).  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001Natural Language Semantics. Oxford & Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003“Linguistic metatheory.” Language Sciences 25: 533–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006“Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English.” Language Sciences 28: 1–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent.
2012“Saying, meaning, and implicating.” In Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 47–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish
1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartlett, Frederic C.
1932Remembering: An Experimental and Social Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian.
1995Speakers, Listeners and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandler, Raymond.
1939The Big Sleep. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson
1981“Context for comprehension.” In Attention and Performance IX, ed. by John Long and Alan Baddeley, 313–330. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Catherine R. Marshall
1981“Definite reference and mutual knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. by Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber and Ivan A. Sag, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., Robert Schreuder and Samuel Butterick
1983“Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 245–58.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colston, Herbert L.
2008“A new look at common ground: memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob L. Mey, 151–187. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, Robin I.M.
1996Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber and Faber.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro.
1997Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J.
2008“Common ground as a resource for social affiliation.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskés and Jacob L. Mey, 223–254. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982“Frame semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold.
1964“Studies of the routine rounds of everyday activities.” Social Problems 11: 225–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff.
2006“Cultural scripts.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka
2004“Cultural scripts: what are they and what are they good for?Intercultural Pragmatics 1: 153–166.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving.
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul.
1957“Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–88. Reprinted in H. Paul Grice Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1989, pp. 213–223.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1968“Utterer’s meaning, sentence meaning, and word-meaning.” Foundations of Language 4: 225–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1969“Utterer’s meaning and intentions.” Philosophical Review 78: 147–77.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981“Presupposition and conversational implicature.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 183–198. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in H. Paul Grice Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1989, pp. 269–282.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982“Meaning revisited.” In Mutual Knowledge, ed. by Neilson V. Smith, 223–243. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in H. Paul Grice Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 1989, pp. 283–303.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989“Indicative conditionals.” Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA Harvard University Press, pp. 58–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas M.
2002Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S.
2008“A memory-based approach to common ground and audience design.” In Intention, common ground, and the egocentric speaker-hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskés and Jacob L. Mey, 189–222. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horton, William S. and Richard J. Gerrig
2005“Conversational common ground and memory processses in language production.” Discourse Processes 40: 1–35.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley F. Peters
1979“Conventional implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. by Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskés, Istvan and Fenghui Zhang.
2009“Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: a socio-cognitive approach.” Pragmatics and Cognition 17: 331–355.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013“On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition.” In Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, ed. by Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo and Marco Carapezza 375–396 Cham, CH: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz.
2007“Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4: 71–84.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz and Anne S. Henly
2002“Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness.” Psychological Science 13: 207–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter.
1982A Course in Phonetics. 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter.
1999“Pragmatic halos.” Language 75: 522–51.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Benny P.H.
2001“Mutual knowledge, background knowledge and shared beliefs: Their roles in establishing common ground.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 21–44.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David.
1969Convention. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979“Scorekeeping in a language game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzone, Marco.
2011“Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2148–2159.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin.
1977“Frame-system theory.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, ed. by Philip N. Johnson-Laird and P.C. Wason, 355–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen.
1981“Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. and Simon C. Garrod
1981Understanding Written Language. Chichester: John Wiley.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, Roger.
1984The Cognitive Computer. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schank, Roger and Robert C. Abelson
1977Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheff, Thomas J.
1967“Toward a scoiological model of consensus.” American Sociological Review 32: 32–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen R.
1972Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solheim, Dave and Rob Levin
1989Bloomsbury Review. In Resist Much, Obey Little: Some Notes on Edward Abbey, ed. by James Hepworth and Gregory Mcnamee, 89–104. Tucson: Harbinger House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C.
1973“Presupposition.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 77–96.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1974“Pragmatic presupposition.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger. New York: New York University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1978“Assertion.” In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 315–332. New York: Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002“Common ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–21.  BoPGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Twain, Mark
(Samuel Clemens) 1884The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Scene, the Mississippi Valley: Time, forty to fifty years ago. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
 
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue