4.     Floors in spoken and written conversation

4.1 Background

A detailed treatment of the notion of floor in synchronous CMC is found in Cherny (1999). She states (1999:174):

Given that there is no competition for the [MOO] channel per se, but rather competition for attention or control of the discourse, notions of shared or collaborative floor seem to be more helpful than the standard turn-taking literature. These notions also appear more useful for theorising multi-threaded topic discourse.

Cherny has found that work on floors of conversation in multi-party spoken discourse was helpful in developing her categorisation of floor types in a MOO. And on the face of it, multi-party SCMC discourse bears more similarity to the fluid threads of dinner party conversation or discussion groups than to the two-party conversation which is the foundation of much spoken conversation analysis.

In her review of early conversation analysis work on turn taking and floor of conversation, Edelsky (1981) reveals that frequently no distinction was made between floor and turn, though in any multi-party discourse such a distinction is vital. Stenstrom?s (1994:34) definition of the turn as: ?? everything A says before B takes over, and vice versa? is crude but entirely workable in SCMC, a discourse environment where turns cannot be co-constructed and where there is no overlap. It is a technical definition with little ambiguity. Definition of the floor is less clear-cut, dependent as it is upon inferring how participants themselves viewed the unfolding discourse. For such a definition, we first turn to Edelsky (1981:405):

The floor is defined as the acknowledged what?s-going-on within a psychological time/space. What?s going on can be the development of a topic or a function (teasing, soliciting a response, etc.) or an interaction of the two. It can be developed or controlled by one person at a time or by several simultaneously or in quick succession. It is official or acknowledged in that, if questioned, participants could describe what?s going on as ?he?s talking about grades? or ?she?s making a suggestion? or ?we?re all answering her.? 

A reading of Edelsky suggests that there are three definable elements to the floor: (1) the topic, the aboutness of the discourse; (2) the communicative action: how things are being said in the discourse; and (3) the participants? sense of what is happening in the conversation. From the analyst?s point of view, these are each evident only to the extent to which they can be inferred from the text. This constraint should be acknowledged as a caveat in a discussion of floor. Nonetheless, the text of SCMC allows an analyst to gain a closer participant?s sense of what was going on than, for example, a transcription of spoken discourse. This is because the participants themselves are denied the range of visual and aural feedback cues; any ratification must ipso facto appear in the text itself, as we see below.

4.2 Floor ratification in SCMC

?Simply talking, in itself, does not constitute having the floor,? say Shultz, Florio and Erikson (1982:95). ?The ?floor? is interactionally produced, in that speakers and hearers must work together at maintaining it.? Thus one can be the speaker but not hold the floor. In her study of floor and gender patterns in asynchronous CMC discourse, Herring (forthcoming) supports Edelsky?s assertion that to be a floor-holding turn, it must be ratified by other participants. In spoken discourse, such ratification can be done verbally or through non-verbal nods and backchannels. In the examples below, we see that in SCMC floor ratification can also be done verbally or through responses which are representations of non-verbal behaviour.

In example 5 Vance (turns 1, 2 and 4) is holding the floor; ratification is done by BJB (turn 3) and SusanneN (turn 4) through their verbal responses.

Example 5

In example 6 BJB ratifies Susanne?s turn with a ?nod?. This is an action, a turn sent in the third person to represent non-verbal behaviour:

Example 6

Floor ratification by members of the Webheads group has the dual purpose of signalling both that the participant is paying attention to the floor holder and that they comprehend what has been written. In her investigation into backchannel responses in a MOO, Cherny (1999:194) similarly maintains that: ?? it is difficult if not impossible to separate affect out from the back channel function in this medium, since an appropriate emotional response to a turn (e.g., a laugh) indicates both attention and understanding just as well as a nod does.?

In multi-party SCMC discourse, problems arise with floor ratification being misdirected or mistaken. In example 7 below, Maggi?s response (turn 4) to Gold10?s turn (1) is misinterpreted by Ying in turn 5 as a ratification of her turns 2 and 3:

Example 7

Turns are directed in SCMC by naming the participant to which they are addressed. This SCMC-specific cohesive device of cross-turn reference (Herring, 1999) or addressivity (Werry, 1996) is used by Maggi in turn 8 of example 7 to repair the misunderstanding above. In other cases, as with example 8 below, addressivity is included in the original floor-holding and floor-ratifying turns (turns 1 and 4). This can be considered a navigation technique in response to the fact that there are a number of participants.

Example 8

Again, ratification is carried out by a representation of non-verbal behaviour: ROTFL is SCMC shorthand for ?rolling on the floor laughing?.

4.3 Participant structure and floor types

Research into conversational floors in CMC discourse has quite naturally concentrated on applying and testing findings from analysis of multi-party spoken conversation. Edelsky?s (1981) research into floors and gender in spoken conversation identified two types of floor: a singly developed floor (F1) and one which is a ?collaborative venture? (F2). F1?s are: ?? characterised by monologues, single-party control and hierarchical interaction where turn takers stand out from non-turn takers and floors are won or lost ?? (Edelsky, 1981:416). F2?s are: ?? inherently more informal, cooperative ventures ?? (ibid.). Herring (forthcoming) found that these two floor types were evident in her study of asynchronous CMC discourse on two discussion boards.

Missing from Edelsky?s bipartite distinction are instances where two or more floors of conversation are continuing in parallel. A broader classification deriving from research into dinner table conversation and classroom discourse by Shultz et al. (1982) (also in Erikson and Shultz, 1977) posits categories of participation structure where floors are single or multiple. Though there are further sub-divisions in this classification, single floors are, broadly speaking, correspondent with Edelsky?s F1 and F2: a single speaker, with a number of attenders; or a floor which is more collective or collaborative. Multiple floors, type IV participation structure in the typology of Shultz et al., are described by these authors (1982:102) as having: ?? subgroups of the persons present participating in topically distinct simultaneous conversations.?

The summary grouping of floor types by Hayashi (1991) draws on the findings of Shultz et al. and Edelsky. Hayashi also divides floor types into single conversational floors and multiple conversational floors, and also subdivides the single floor type into the single person floor and the collaborative floor. Further sub-categorisations are described, based on relative levels of interaction. Hayashi?s system is adapted by Cherny (1999:176ff) to describe floor types in MOO discourse. Within the context of the Webheads SCMC described here, identification of these floors is straightforward enough, suggesting a similarity of floor structure across contexts of synchronous CMC use. Leaving aside some of the less common patterns, three habitually occurring floor types are described and illustrated below: the speaker-and-supporter floor; the collaborative floor; and the multiple conversational floor.

4.4 Speaker-and-supporter floor

The speaker-and-supporter floor is a single conversational floor. One participant can be regarded as the floor holder, and others are supporting through the use of back-channel devices and other short interjections. In this example (9), Vance is holding the floor; his short turns are interspersed by the occasional supporting comment, question and back-channel from Maggie and Ying-Lan:

Example 9

4.5 Collaborative floor

The single floor is constructed by a number of participants. In this example (10) Ying-Lan, Vance and Maggi co-construct the collaborative floor:

Example 10

4.6 Multiple conversational floor

When two or more floors exist in parallel, a multiple conversational floor is evident. In the following stretch of twelve turns (example11), the floors have been identified and labelled by their primary feature, topic. Five turns are associated with the topic of thanksgiving (floor A), while seven relate to discussion of the TOEFL test (floor B):

Example 11

Within a multiple conversational floor, as Cherny (1999:176) notes, there can be a main floor and side floors, or there can be two or more main floors running in parallel. In SCMC discourse it is possible for an individual participant to be involved in more than one floor of conversation. In the above example of a multiple conversational floor, three of the four participants contribute to both floors. This tendency of the proficient SCMC participant to switch between floors is an echo of other traits of CMC use. for example, multitasking ? attending to a number of different on-screen activities at once ? is commonplace (Jones, 2002). And in SCMC, participants are known to cycle between on-screen identities which they have created (Turkle, 1995).

It may be noted that in example 9 above (the speaker-and-supporter floor), one participant was explaining to others how to do something ? in this case, how to build a website. This is in contrast to the pattern in example 10 (the collaborative floor). Here, the participants could be said to be ?chatting?, which is, after all, the prototypical activity in a chat room. In the following section, we ask whether floor development is shaped by the relationships of the participants and the topic and purpose of the conversation, and the computer-mediated nature of the discourse.