Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse

Abstract

This article presents a study of the discourse characteristics of interaction within a virtual community. The data are from the text-based chat forum of an online community of learners and teachers of English. The forum is the meeting place for community members, and is an international site of language use with participants from a range of linguistic backgrounds. Within this context, some pertinent themes are investigated which relate to a relatively recent form of discourse, synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication (SCMC). The discussion centres on the interplay between the technological attributes of the medium and the linguistic, discourse and sociocultural conditions within which the participants interact. How do these elements combine to shape the discourse? This question is addressed with reference to the cohesive feature of conversational floor. Because there is a lack of coordination of turn transfer in SCMC interaction, conversational floor emerges as an organizing principle in preference to models of conversation based on turn taking.

Elementary students' participation style in synchronous online communication and collaboration

“…Previous research suggested online communication or collaboration should be attractive for girls because girls appear to be particularly interested in social interaction and collaboration tasks (McSporran andYoung 2001, Michailidou andEconomides 2007). In addition, a reduction of gender-influenced inequalities is expected because many social cues are absent in electronic discussions (Harasim 1987, 1989, McCreary 1990, Wojahn 1994, and everyone has a chance to participate without competing for the floor (Graddol and Swann 1989, Warschauer 1995, Simpson 2005, Kim et al 2007). However, after a review of 19 online communication and collaboration studies, Prinsen et al (2007) argued that gender differences in communication style under face-to-face situations would carry over into electronic environments.…”

Digital Business Discourse

“…Conversational coherence (or the lack of it), for example, has received considerable scholarly attention Lam & Mackiewicz, 2007;Woerner et al, 2007; see also Markman in current volume), as well as the communicative effects of multitasking and multiple concurrent conversations Reinsch et al, 2008;Rennecker & Godwin, 2003;Turner & Reinsch, 2007) and the problematic nature of turn-taking (Condon & Cech, 2002;Hancock & Dunham, 2001;Markman, 2005;Simpson, 2005b).…”

22. Conversational coherence in small group chat

“…The persistence of talk is an advantage that text-based conversational systems have over oral interaction. Many chat systems used in education, such as the one used here and those examined by Simpson (2005) and Colomb and Simutis (1996), offer users access to an ongoing log of the interaction, allowing them to scroll back to previous parts of the conversation. This feature was used recurrently by the team members in this study, and on some occasions contributed directly to the formulation of new turns.…”

“…Werry (1996) identified four conventions typically used in IRC to manage conversations: addressivity, abbreviation (of turn length and words and phrases), paralinguistic and prosodic cues, and actions and gestures. Of these, addressivity, or the practice of routinely naming the intended recipient within each post, has been shown to be important for conversational coherence in large group chat interactions (Herring 1999;Panyametheekul and Herring 2003;Simpson 2005). A common convention for addressivity in chat is to type the recipient's name followed by a colon before beginning the turn, as in:…”