5.     Accounting for floor development

Many factors may influence the development of particular floor types. Here we outline three contextual aspects of the discourse which shape floor development: participants and their roles within the group; verbal activity (topic and communicative action); and a selection of medium-related features. The effects of these are then investigated with reference to examples of the floor types outlined in part four. These occur within a single stretch of SCMC discourse text.

5.1 Participant roles

Both Edelsky (1981) and Herring (forthcoming) concentrate on gender as key contextual aspects of floor development. Edelsky is careful to note that the F1 and F2 floor types are gender-independent, though participation by men in F1 floors was far greater than participation by women (1981:415). Herring concludes that her findings are of two gender styles rather than two different floor types: a male style associated with individual power and a female style associated with accommodation to others (forthcoming:18). In the discourse of the virtual community in question here, Webheads, the status of the participants and their various role relations may be more influential than gender in shaping floor structure. A primary though troublesome distinction is between expert user teachers of English on one hand, and learners of English on the other. The term expert user is used in preference to the term native speaker for the obvious reason that expert users of a language are not necessarily native speakers. For discussion of this and other issues surrounding the notion of the ?native speaker? see Rampton (1990). Though there are students and tutors in the Webheads  group, care is taken to minimise any perceived divide. Nonetheless, the role of participant as learner, as tutor, or as other interested party (e.g., help-desk volunteer; researcher) is often, though not always, clear. Incidentally, Webheads ?learners? are sometimes English language teachers in off-screen life. Another distinction may be made between the more and the less technologically able, or electronically literate members of the group, regardless of their level of English. Proficiency in English does not automatically confer proficiency in the use of the technologies of CMC, as any first-time visitor to an internet chat room will testify. Thus a proficient technophile may find him- or herself cast in the role of tutor, but tutor in the use of the technologies of electronic literacy.

There is a growing body of research on role relations in virtual communities. See, for example, Cherny (1999) on life in a MUD community; Turkle (1995) on roles and identity on-screen, and Smith and Kollock?s (1999) collection of papers on online communities. On the subject of the roles of language teachers and students face-to-face and online, see Salmon (2000); Kern (1995); Warschauer (1996; 1999).

5.2 Verbal activity and topic

The research of Shultz et al. (1982) showed that floor patterns were associated with the speech activity, and that changes in floor patterns occurred when the speech activity changed. ?Speech activities?, say Shultz et al. (1982:96), are: ?units of discourse in conversation that are longer than a sentence and may consist of one discourse topic, or may consist of a set of connected topics and subtopics.? The term speech activity is from Gumperz (1977) and is a synthesis of the current communicative action and the broad topic of the conversation, for example, ?discussing politics?; ?chatting about the weather? (Gumperz, 1977:206). The communicative action is the name given to the type of conversation which might be happening at any time, for example chatting, explaining, discussing, or arguing.

Shultz et al., when making the important link between conversational floor patterns and speech activity, found that certain types of speech activity often corresponded with certain types of floor. That is to say, when the speech activity was ?chatting about how much everything costs in the stores nowadays?, the appropriate floor was a multiple conversational floor with overlapping speech. And when the speech activity was ?explaining why and where the father?is going out of town?? there is only one floor, where the parents are the primary speakers (Shultz et al, 1982: 97). Because SCMC is written rather than spoken, the term verbal activity is used here in preference to speech activity.

The floor, then, is not defined by topic, or aboutness, alone. This is partly, but not entirely, because topics and their boundaries themselves are such difficult things to identify. As Brown and Yule do, we can consider topic as ?what is being talked about?(1983:71). In addition, Brown and Yule explain that within a broad topic framework there are elements of personal ?speaker?s topics?. By considering speaker?s topic, they recognise that within a particular framework where the general topic may be generally or loosely agreed, the individual participants sometimes have differing views on what the topic is or where the focus should be. When investigating speaker?s topic, text of discourse is analysed: ?? not in terms of how we would characterise the participants? shared information, but in terms of a process in which each participant expresses a personal topic within the general topic framework as a whole? (1983:88).

Topics frequently drift; that is, they move gradually from one area into others, without an easily discernible topic boundary. Topic drift, or shading, as a feature of spoken conversation has been commented on by Hobbs (1990), Schegloff and Sacks (1973) and Jefferson (1984) among others. In SCMC rapid topic drift - or topic decay - is the subject of work by Herring and Nix (1997).

The broad topic itself as it relates to focus of attention is a concern here. In the Webheads SCMC sessions, it is common for a learner to explicitly raise a language learning point. When the topic of the discourse is so obviously related to the acquisition of the L2 (English), it is expected that attention would be focused towards that floor of conversation. It is also common for a participant (and no distinction is made here between learners and tutors) to discuss an aspect of the technologies of SCMC. Particular floor patterns are associated with topics relating to the development of second or foreign language skills and with topics relating to the development of electronic literacy skills. This is demonstrated and explained in the analysis and discussion below.

5.3 Medium-related factors

There are also medium-related reasons for particular floors to develop in SCMC. In particular, the emergence of the multiple conversational floor may be associated with the way in which a written conversation occurs. Cherny (1999:180) maintains that: ?Multiple participant floors are in fact easier to achieve [in SCMC discourse] than they are in face-to-face conversations.? She claims this is due to the lack of overlap (i.e. the inability to co-construct turns) in the medium. We might also note that the ability to scroll up and re-read previous turns, coupled with the slower speed of the unfolding discourse compared to spoken conversation, facilitate the emergence of multiple floors, and enable an individual to participate in a number of floors simultaneously.

Topics in SCMC are prone to recur, leading to the re-emergence of particular floor types. This is the case when participants are carrying out more than one on-screen activity. That is to say, when they are multitasking. At certain points in the discourse something happens in another space on the internet which is relevant to a previous topic which then over-rides the current topics. The floor type may consequently revert to a previous one.

5.4 Analysis and discussion: Floor development

This discussion is based on a stretch of SCMC discourse text of 36 turns in length, presented below as example 12:

Example 12

There are three distinct phases to this stretch of SCMC text:

Turns 1-22: a period where a number of conversations continue simultaneously (a multiple conversational floor);

Turns 8-24: a period where there is one main conversation where many participants hold the floor (a collaborative floor);

Turns 25-36: a period where one participant is the floor holder, supported by others (a speaker-and-supporter floor).

It will be immediately noted that the first and second phases overlap considerably, while there is a clear boundary between the second and third phases. Floor boundaries in SCMC are not necessarily distinct. On this occasion, a collaborative floor is the main floor in a multiple conversational floor; when the other conversations in the multiple floor are completed, it becomes briefly the only floor in a single collaborative floor. Here the multiple floor continues from turn 1 to turn 22. The floor which emerges at turn 8 becomes the main floor. At turn 23 it becomes the only floor, as previous conversations are completed. At turn 25 the pattern shifts decisively to a single speaker-and-supporter floor.

An analytical technique for discussing floors in SCMC is to isolate individual conversations from the text. Naturally, the objection to this might be: how can we know post hoc and without being informed by the participants which turns belong to which conversation? The answer must be that we cannot be certain. Nonetheless, despite the possibility of there being other interpretations, it seems quite clear that all but one turn (turn 5) can be accounted for in the way described below.

In examples 12a to 12f the individual floors and elements of floors in the stretch of SCMC discourse presented above as example 12 are discussed with reference to the features which can be said to influence floor development. Before we turn to these isolated sections, there are three points to note. Firstly, this stretch of discourse text is not a complete textual record of the interaction. The log was originally recorded by VanceS, and begins 40 turns after his arrival at Tapped In. However, the other participants had already commenced the interaction. Thus some of the conversations in the example are incomplete; either because they had started before the extract begins, or because they continue after it ends. The example contains no instances of a participant entering or leaving the conversation. An illuminating study of openings in SCMC can be found in Rintel, Mulholland, and Pittam (2001). Secondly, it should be recalled that the disrupted turn adjacency inherent in the medium gives a certain arbitrariness to the position of the individual turns in the text in relation to the other turns. Thirdly, we should also briefly note some relevant contextual details about the participants:

VanceS is the founder tutor of the Webheads group.
BJB works as a volunteer on the helpdesk at Tapped In.
PhilB is an English teacher who coordinates another group at Tapped In.
LianA and Sue are English language learners with Webheads.

In example 12a, the turns of Vance, LianA and PhilB belong to the end of the same conversation, a collaborative floor within a multiple conversational floor which has the verbal activity chatting about chilli and China. The discussion about chilli had been continuing for a number of turns before the beginning of this extract.

Example 12a

Contextual and temporal aspects of the discourse would suggest that much attention is paid to personal speaker?s topic (writer?s topic?) in SCMC. In example 12a above, within a broad topic framework which could be said to be about chilli, LianA?s speaker?s topic is China. This also becomes Vance?s speaker?s topic in turn 15; a topic drift has taken place within a floor of conversation. Neither the topic of chilli or of China are developed any further in the interaction.

In Example 12b we see the end of another conversation. BJB has been explaining to Sue how to open the graphical interface of Tapped In:

Example 12b

We note that BJB is using a device whereby her turn is displayed inside an ASCII ?thinks? bubble. This is done in Tapped In by prefacing the turn with the command ?/thinks?. We might infer that she uses this technique because the turns are directed towards only one among many participants. It is possible in Tapped In to send a turn privately to another participant using the ?/whisper? command. That BJB does not do this suggests, in the light of her role with Tapped In, that she feels the information might be of use to more than one participant.

Example 12c is an exchange of three turns spread over seven turns of the extract.

Example 12c

The two language learners here are discussing an English language test. Although not proficient in English, they are both adept at SCMC discourse. Both Sue and LianA participate in more than one conversation in this extract; turns by LianA appear in four of the six isolated examples highlighted here.

Example 12d is an aside:

Example 12d

The topic here is the conversation itself. In spoken discourse the turns would be expected to appear together, as an adjacency pair or as the initiation and response of an exchange. However, here in SCMC they are separated by four unrelated turns. Also of note is the fact that BJB?s turn is posted in the third person as an emote or metacomment; that is, a comment on the unfolding conversation. Vance?s turn is also a representation of something other than speech, using as BJB did earlier the cartoon ?thinks? bubble.

Example 12e is the main floor of the multiple floor. The previous examples (12a to 12d) can be considered side floors, or even mere asides, in the multiple floor.

Example 12e

This is a collaborative floor in that four participants are involved in its development. The contention is that it dominates because the verbal activity is explaining about a phrase LianA has read, which involves the communicative action explaining. The topic, raised quite explicitly by LianA in turn 8, is a phrase that LianA has presumably read or heard and that she wants help in understanding what it means. As noted above, LianA is an English language learner, and Webheads is a virtual community dedicated to language learning. In other words, when a language learner raises a language learning point, much of the focus redirects towards that particular floor, the floor becomes collaborative, and the communicative action of the verbal activity orients towards ?explaining?.

In example 12f the floor type can also be attributed directly to the participant and the verbal activity:

Example 12f

This is a single floor with one floor holder being supported by other participants. In the terminology adopted here, from Hayashi (1991) and Cherny (1999), it is a speaker-and-supporter floor. The communicative action of the verbal activity is primarily didactic: PhilB is demonstrating an internet resource called ?stuffincommon?. There is a sub-topic in turns 34 to 36: using the project command in Tapped In. The communicative activity remains explanatory.

In this section the concern has been with a limited set of patterns of participation and floor types. There are undoubtedly many other patterns which relate to the development of other floor types. This notwithstanding, the conclusion can be drawn from this analysis that floor development is related to verbal activity. When the topic of the verbal activity is a language point raised by a learner, the floor becomes collaborative. It either develops as the single collaboratively constructed floor or as the main floor of a multiple conversational floor. When the topic is related to the technologies of electronic literacy (for example, how to build a website; or where a particular resource can be found), the floor develops into a speaker-and-supporter floor. The participant role is also important. In each case the communicative action (explaining/demonstrating) is pedagogic. However, when the verbal activity is directly related to the acquisition of the second or foreign language (English), a number of participants contribute substantive turns. When the verbal activity is related to the development of the skills of electronic literacy, other participants focus their attention on the single floor holder.