[3] Grounding criterion is the mutual belief between conversational partners that everyone involved has a clear enough understanding of the concept to move forward.
[6] Grounding theory identifies three common types of evidence in conversation: 'acknowledgements, relevant next turn, and continued attention.
Relevant next turn refers to the initiation or invitation to respond between speakers, including verbal and nonverbal prompts for turn-taking in conversation.
She then corrects her phrase after realizing Chico's utterance wasn't an appropriate response and they continue to communicate with adjacent pairs.
[13] The results from the experiment showed that the pairs completed the task 30–40% faster when they were given shared visual information.
This increase in activity is due to the fact that it is easier for the former to produce the information rather than for the ones giving the instruction to continuously ask questions to anticipate their partners' understanding.
Such a phenomenon is predicted by the grounding theory, where it is said that since communication costs are distributed among the partners, the result should shift to the method that would be the most efficient for the pair.
When interactants are trying to pick out difficult to describe shapes from a set of similar items, they produce and agree on an expression which is understood and accepted by both and this process is termed refashioning.
First, the process of refashioning itself involves less work than A having to produce a 'perfect' referring expression first time, because of the degree of effort which would be needed to achieve that.
According to the theory, computer mediated communication presents potential barriers to establishing mutual understanding.
Situation awareness theory[21] holds that visual information helps pairs assess the current state of the task and plan future actions.
Therefore, an extension to both theories would mean that when groups have timely visual information, they would be able to monitor the situation and clarify instructions more efficiently.
If one were to propose the painting of a room a certain shade of pink, they could describe it by comparing it to a conch shell they saw at the beach.
[26] The difficulties of establishing common ground, especially in using telecommunications technology, can give rise to dispositional rather than situational attribution.
Observers' lack of contextual knowledge about the traffic, i.e. common ground, leads to them attributing the lateness due to ignorance or laziness on the actor's part.
This lack of common ground damages interpersonal trust, especially when partners do not have the contextual information of why the other party behaves the way they did.
[22] Distinguishing between situation awareness and grounding in communication can provide insights about how these concepts affect collaboration and furthering research in this area.
[22] Despite revealing evidence of how these theories exist independently, recognizing these concepts in conversation can prove to be difficult.
For example, in a study where Helpers had a small field of view and were able to see pieces being manipulated demonstrates grounding in communication.
There have been suggestions that the term common ground be revised to better reflect how people actually come to understand each other.
[27] Grounding in communication has also been described as a mechanistic style of dialogue which can be used to make many predictions about basic language processing.
[29] Pickering and Garrod conducted many studies that reveal, when engaging in dialogue, production and comprehension become closely related.
In Pickering and Garrod's paper Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue, they discuss three points that exemplify the mechanistic quality of language processing: Another component that is essential to this criticism on Grounding in Communication is that successful dialogue is coupled with how well those engaged in the conversation adapt to different linguistic levels.