Theory of Understanding in Communication

Theory of Understanding in Communication

In the science of communication, the theory of understanding is described as a form of joint activity ^[2] . Groups of people, working together, will conduct their conversation, while trying to resort to mutual understanding and common knowledge, which will help achieve a more effective communication process. The principle of the theory of understanding is a mutual conviction of all participants in the conversation that each of the parties has a sufficient understanding of the topic under discussion and everyone is ready to continue the conversation. Clark and Schaefer (1989) found that in order to achieve a theory of understanding and to continue the conversation, participants in the groups studied can resort to the following methods:

1. New contribution. The participant proposes a new idea and looks to see if it is confusing to another participant.

2. Confirmation of consent. Upon receiving the information, the participant makes it clear that he / she understands the issue under discussion with the help of a smile, nodding or verbal confirmation. The participant can also show his understanding by keeping silent.

3. Request for clarification. The participant receiving the information asks to clarify one or another moment.

Steps in Understanding Theory

During the conversation, the participants, discussing a particular issue, will continue to clarify the concepts until they reach the principle of mutual understanding. Usually there are two steps in achieving a theory of understanding:

1. Presentation of the statement. The speaker utters an expression to the listener.

2. Acceptance of utterance. The listener accepts the statement, demonstrating this in one way or another.

The first step may be complicated by the introduction of new meanings or amendments to the original phrase. For example, the original phrase “Do you and your spouse have a car?” May be pronounced “Well, so ... do you and your husband have a car?” ^[2] . The second stage seeks to clarify issues that impede mutual understanding. For example ^[2] :

• Presentation of the statement:
  • Alan: Well ... do you and your husband have a car? ^[2]
• Acceptance of the statement:
  • Barbara: The car?
  • Alan: Yes
  • Barbara: Nope.

The second stage of the theory of understanding is considered complete as soon as Alan accepts Barbara’s clarifying answer ^[3] .

Confirmation during the conversation

In the theory of understanding, there are three types of confirmation in the process of conversation: recognition, the corresponding next turn and continuous attention. A recognition is a backlash that confirms or justifies the information provided. Nodding your head, using various interjections, such as “well,” “am,” are signals that the phrase is clear and the participants can continue the conversation. The corresponding next step is a call or invitation to answer between the participants in the conversation, including both verbal and non-verbal signs. Questions and answers, in this case, act as connectors, indicating that the first part of the conversation refers to the second part. In this case, for the adoption of the phrase, in response to the question, an appropriate remark should follow. For example ^[2] :

Miss Dimple: How can I contact you?

Boy: I don't know lady. You see, I'm not very sociable.

Miss Dimple: I mean, where do you live?

Boy: I live with my brother

Continuous attention is a mutual belief that the listener understands the essence of what is being expressed. Typically, participants in a conversation demonstrate this through visual contact. Continuous and attentive contact indicates a complete understanding of what is being expressed, if the participant looks away or looks surprised, continuous attention is violated.

Choice of communication tools

According to the theory of Clark and Brennan, the choice of means of communication influences successful mutual understanding ^[4] . For example, communication through computer technology creates a number of obstacles to mutual understanding. The theory of understanding - is the result of the adoption of a message due to verbal, non-verbal, formal and informal acceptance. Computer communication reduces the number of communication channels that conversation participants usually resort to for a successful understanding.

Factors Affecting Successful Understanding

1. Personal presence. The participants in the conversation should be in the same physical position, otherwise, they will not be able to see, hear and interact with each other personally, thereby slowing down the process of achieving mutual understanding.

2. Visual accessibility. Video conferences allow the participants in the conversation to see each other, however, they are still inferior to visual contact in person ^[5] .

3. Audibility. With a personal presence, the participants in the conversation take into account the intonation and the time required to understand the message or make appropriate decisions. While textual information exchange, such as e-mail or SMS, eliminates these two factors, preventing the participants in the conversation from responding to a particular message in a timely manner. 4. Timeliness. With a personal presence, all participants receive information at the time of its transmission. In the case of a text message, receiving and responding to it may occur with a delay ^[1] .

5. Synchronicity. Participants in the conversation receive and transmit information at the same time. The reaction of the participants helps to come to a common agreement on a particular topic. For example, one participant makes a message, another participant smiles in response, thereby showing that mutual understanding has been reached.

6. Ability to be reviewed. Participants may review information previously received from other participants in the conversation. In person, participants may forget certain details of the information they have just received. At the same time, the use of instant messaging allows you to save information ^[1] .

7. Ability to change the format. Participants in the conversation, using e-mail or sending instant messages, have the opportunity to review the message and consider their answer before sending it.

Situational Awareness ^[6]

According to the theory of situational awareness, the presence of visual information helps participants in what is happening to assess the current state of affairs and take the next steps ^[7] . For example, one participant sees that another participant in an event is stuck in some place. With visual information, the first participant can provide more prompt and appropriate assistance in solving the current problem.

Agreed Position (Communication Technique)

A coordinated position is a communication technique based on both mutual knowledge and awareness of the presence of mutual knowledge. An agreed position is achieved in order to reduce disagreements in the future. This technique is often used in the introduction of negotiations. Mr. Clark gives an example of one day spent with his son on the beach. Both share the experience of being on the beach and both are aware of this fact. If one of them suggested painting the room pink, they could describe this color by comparing it with the color of the shell that they both had seen on the beach. Both understand exactly what color they are talking about at the moment, which leads to greater mutual understanding.

There are many examples where the use of the method of reconciling positions resolved controversial issues.

Apollo 11

The interaction of the Apollo 11 crew and the mission control center staff is a prime example of a theory of understanding. Instructions from the MCC had to be clearly communicated to the Apollo crew, using written and verbal messages, in order to get a clear response from the crew.

Actor-Observer Effect

Dispositional attribution (explanation of an act by any circumstances) is a tactic that participants in a given situation often resort to. For example, an actor who is stuck in a traffic jam is late for his performance in the theater, while spectators (observers) who are not aware of the traffic jam explain the actor’s delay by his lack of assembly and punctuality.

Disappointment

Another example of a lack of understanding is frustration. Inability or unwillingness to convey to the conversation participant the importance of a message can lead to a distorted understanding of the situation and cause a loss of mutual trust.

General ignorance

People base their decision-making, usually on the basis of their own point of view. Lack of mutual understanding in the points of view of each participant within the group can lead to misunderstanding. Sometimes, such misunderstandings are not revealed and this can lead to the fact that the decision of the whole group will be based on misinformed points of view of each individual. As a result, there is general ignorance and misunderstanding of a particular issue, thereby complicating its successful solution ^[8] .

The creation of a common set of mutual knowledge is an observable process, which makes it impossible to conduct an empirical study of this issue. The problem arises in distinguishing between the concepts of the theory of understanding and situational awareness, which are often both present in a given situation ^[7] . Another criticism of the concept of common ground is the inaccurate connotation of the term. “Common ground” in translation from English means “common ground”, “common ground”, which, in turn, does not show how the understanding of the information received is carried out.

• Cognition
• Communication
• Generally accepted knowledge