Problem Statement
Communication is not a mere exchange of codified signals (Clark, 1996; Paek &
Horvitz, 1999). The complexity of our cognition, emotion, and behavior and their
sophisticated interactions during conversation has puzzled scholars and researchers in
diverse disciplines. The simplest way of describing the communication cycle is that
people deliver messages, perceive the meanings, and interpret the intention. We might
not fully understand what, why, and how we do this. Even so, the verbal and non-verbal
behaviors during such discourse are meaningful and intentional and move toward the goal
of effective communication. We call this one specific and overarching intention to
advance the conversation as communicative intention (Clark, 1996; Stone, 2004).
In the process of delivering this communicative intention to a conversational
partner, coordination takes place. On the individual level, people synchronize between
speech and head movements as well as body gestures at various emphasis points (Ekman,
1979; McNeill et al, 2001; Stone et al, 2004). When the synchrony is broken, there is
significant deterioration in people’s understanding of what is spoken. All the verbal and
nonverbal elements are coordinated in a way that offers consistent description of the
message (McNeill, 1992; 2001; Chovil, 1992; Cassell et al, 1999; Kendon, 1970). On the
interpersonal level, conversation is a collaborative process (Clark, 1996). The findings
show that, in interactive discourse, speakers often make communicative choices that
benefit listeners. Speakers vary what they mention and how they mention it, depending
on their conversational partner. Listeners also adapt to speakers when they interpret
utterances (Schober & Brennan, 2003). This process of establishing shared meaning is
called grounding (Clark, 1996).
Page 1 of 25 
Convention