1. Common ground Common ground refers to the ‘sum of all the information that people assume they share’ (Clark 2009:116) that may include world views, shared values, beliefs, and situational context.

2. Example Mother: - Joshua, what are you doing? Joshua: - Nothing. Mother: - Will you stop it immediately. (Mey 2001:216)

3. Three components of the common ground 1) information that the participants share, understanding the situational context, and relationships between the participants, 2) knowledge about each other and 3) their mutual experience of the interaction.

4. Problem approach Gass and Varonis (1985): “...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.”

5. Recipient design Clark et al (1983) defined common ground as follows: “The speaker designs his utterance in such a way that he has good reason to believe that the addressees can readily and uniquely compute what he meant on the basis of the utterance along with the rest of their common ground.

6. Is that really so? Sally: - Honey, I have a problem. Bill: - Tell me about it. I can’t find the mustard. Sally: - How can you care about mustard when Toby is missing.

7. Common ground makes it possible for speakers to be economical in wording utterances. - Peckish? - Hangover.

8. The socio-cognitive approach Common ground is a dynamic construct that is mutually constructed by interlocutors throughout the communicative process from prior and emergent elements. The core component (shared based on the knowledge of target language, let it be either L1 or L2) and emergent components join in the construction of common ground in all stages, although they may contribute to the construction process in different ways, in various degree, and in different phases of the communicative process.

9. Durkheimian view Collective belief is not a summative one. Durkheim (1982) expressed the view that anything properly called a collective belief will be “external to individual consciousness.” This means that a collective belief is “external to individual consciousness” insofar as it is not necessary for any individual member of a group to believe that ‘p’ in order for the group to believe that ‘p’. It is possible that most members of the committee do not personally believe what the group believes.

10. Example Jill: - I met someone today. Jane: - Good for you. Jill: - He is a police officer. Jane: - Are you in trouble? Jill: - Oh, no.

11. Core common ground and emergent common ground CCG refers to the relatively static (diachronically changing), generalized, common knowledge and beliefs that usually belong to a certain speech community as a result of prior interactions and experience. ECG; dynamic, particularized knowledge created in the course of communication and triggered by the actual situational context.

12. Activating CG Activate mental representations of shared information that they already have. For example, Ann talks to her husband: Ann: - Please check why the baby is crying.

13. Interlocutors seek information that potentially facilitates communication as mutual knowledge. A piece of information is mutually known to the interlocutors, but doesn ’ t appear as most salient in the particular moment when the conversation takes place. This occurs when the speaker attempts to talk about past experience or information that she shared with the hearer earlier.

14. Example Bill: - As I said last week I will be out of town on Wednesday. John: - You are going to see Mr. Parker? Bill: - Yes, that will be my priority. John: - Does he know that you are going to see him? Bill: - Not yet.

15. The speaker brings in her private knowledge and makes it a part of common ground The speaker has some private information that she knows is non-accessible to the hearer, and she adopts it as common ground in the belief that it facilitates the conversation and that the hearer will accept it willingly. For example, Ann responds to Bud’s invitation to dinner: Bud: - Ann, would you like to have dinner with me tonight? Ann: - I’d love to, but I’ll have to pick up my sister at the airport. Bud: - Well, I did not know that you have a sister.

16. A Brazilian girl, a Columbian girl and a girl from Hong Kong discuss their experience about using a car in America HK: Errh. I remember when I first came to this country, first thing I did… second day…errh…is to buy a car. (All giggle.) HK: I came here on Friday. I bought a car on Saturday. (Giggle a little.) Just look around, you know… CB: But… how about your license, driving license? HK: I have the international… CB: Oh. The international license will work here. HK: Errh…of course after a time, you can get a US license. BR: It is really easy. HK: It is not a big deal…It is very easy. HK: You want to say something. BR: I just wanted to say I don’t have a car. That’s kind of… not so nice taking the bus, all the time, going shopping by bus, so whatever, so…

17. “Not sure” approach The speakers have some kind of predisposition toward their communicative partners, they are not exactly sure what they can expect from their counterparts. However, the origin and nature of this “not sure’ approach differs in native speakers and nonnative speakers.

18. In nonnative speakers The “not sure” approach derives from the fact that they share limited core common ground, have little knowledge about each other’s proficiency in the target language and can rely on the meaning-specifying function of actual situational context less than in intracultural communication

19. The native speaker The “not sure” behavior is something like a general, top-down phenomenon that is associated with language proficiency issues. The NS’s expectation and assumptions in a conversation with a nonnative speaker differ from that in an interaction with another NS. They usually do not formulate these feeling for themselves but behave accordingly with the NNS, subconsciously and automatically.

20. Korean and Chinese - And then language problem. Sometimes I obviously look like a foleign.. foreign person … foreigner here… so they assume I don’t speak English so they sometimes … I don't know … they sometimes don't understand what I’m saying … even though I’m speaking English. It hurts me a lot … I don’t know. -Could you follow them? -Of course. -But they find it hard to follow you? -Mhmm I don’t know why. I think it’s because of my … how I look like you know. I don’t know it hurts me a lot.

21. Continuing - I don’t think it matters very much because just for your physical appearance. Did you try slowing down your space? -Yes eventually they understand I can speak English but still in their mind they have strong strategy … I mean … I’m sorry … stereotypes prejudice like … you look foreign. -Foreigner. -And you probably don’t speak English so they don’t even bother themselves to speak to me.