Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T14:45:52.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who's got the floor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Carole Edelsky
Carole Edelsky
Affiliation:
Department of Elementary Education, Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study into the nature of “the floor” actually began as an open-ended inquiry into sex differences that might occur beyond the sentence level in the multi-party interaction of five informal committee meetings. Technical difficulties prompted the trying out of several different transcription displays, most of which failed to capture the “feel” of the interaction and each of which biased (in its own way) the perception of what had actually gone on. The type of unconventional display eventually used was intended to show the floor holder in the center of the page, flanked by co-occurring talk. Because there were many episodes for which a single floor holder could not be identified, the primary focus of the study shifted to the nature of the floor itself. Questions about sex differences became a secondary and succeeding focus.

In the analysis, “floor” and “turn” were distinguished on the basis of “participant-sense” rather than technical criteria. Two kinds of floors were subjectively identified: F1, a singly developed floor; and F2, a collaborative venture where several people seemed to be either operating on the same wavelength or engaging in a free-for-all. The two kinds of floors were differentiated objectively by such features as quantity and frequency participation, language functions, number of nonturn utterances, overlaps, and pauses. There were indeed sex/language differences, but these were related to the type of floor being developed. Men took more and longer turns and did more of the joking, arguing, directing, and soliciting of responses F1 's. Turn length and frequency differences were neutralized in F2's, and certain language functions were used by women to a greater extent in F2's than in F1 's. (Conversational analysis, gender and language, qualitative research methodology.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , December 1981 , pp. 383 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aleguire, D. (1978). Interruptions as turn-taking. Paper presented at 9th World Congress of Sociology, Upsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Atkinson, M., Cuff, E., & Lee, J. (1978). The recommencement of a meeting as a member's accomplishment. In Schenkein, J. (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bleiberg, S., & Churchill, L. (1975). Notes on confrontation in conversation. Journal of psycholinguistic research 4 (3): 273–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionisism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed). Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, J. (1979). Interruptions and overlap. Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois, Urbana. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. (no date). Three models of discourse analysis: The role of social structure. Department of Sociology, University of California. San Diego. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Coser, R. (1960). Laughter among colleagues. Psychiatry 23: 81–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubois, B.. & Crouch, I. (1976). Proceedings of the conference on the sociology of the languages of American women. San Antonio, Tx.: Trinity University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of personality and social psychology 23 (2): 283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S., & Niederehe, G. (1974). On signalling that it's your turn to speak. Journal of experimental social psychology 10: 234–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eakins, B., & Eakins, O. (1978). Sex differences in human communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Edelsky, C. (1978). Genderlects: A brief review of the literature. Paper presented at annual meeting of NCTE, Kansas City. Available on Eric microfiche no. ED 165 187.Google Scholar
Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community ethnography. Anthropology amtd education quarterly 8 (2): 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esau, H., & Bristol-Poth, A. (1981). Contextual Constraints on conversational turn-taking. In C. Edelsky (ed). Conversational analysis: Nem perspectives. Special issue of Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 4(1).Google Scholar
Fishman, P. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social problems 24: 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1972). Remarks on ethnomethodology. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of groumtded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in society. 5 257–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1980). Review of S. Duncan & D. Fiske, Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Language in Society 8 (3): 439–44.Google Scholar
Goody, E. (1978). Towards a theory of questions. In Goody, E. (ed). Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K., & Cancino, H. (1977). Trends in second-language-acquisition research. Harvard educational review 47 (3): 294–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1977). Qualitative/quantitative research methodologies in education: A linguistic perspective. Anthropology and education quarterly 8 (2): 165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (ed), Studies in social interaction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G., & Schenkein, J. (1978). Some sequential negotiations in conversation. In Schenkein, J. (ed). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kalčik, S. (1975).… like Ann's gynecologist or the time I was almost raped: Personal narratives in women's rap groups. Journal of American folklore 88 (347–50): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta psychologica 26: 22–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, C. (1975). Women's speech: Separate but unequal? In Thome, B. & Henley, N. (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kramer, C., Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (1978). Perspectives on language and communication. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 3 (3): 638–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, D. (ed). Studies in social interaction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., & Furman, N. (eds.), (1980). Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Mchoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in society 7: 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1974). Accomplishing classroom lessons. In Cicourel, A. et al. (eds.), Language use and school performance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard educational review 48(1): 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, L., Morris, W., & Hayes, D. (1971). Interruption outcomes and vocal amplitude: Explorations in social psychophysics. Journal of personality and social psychology 18 (3): 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, P. (1978). Dynamic variation as a model for the study of language and sex. Paper presented at 9th World Congress of Sociology, Upsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Prescription as theory. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, B., Delia, J., & O'Keefe, D. (1980). Interaction analysis and the analysis of interactional organization. In Denzin, N. (ed), Studies in symbolic interaction, III. New York: Johnson Associates.Google Scholar
Philips, S. (1976). Some sources of cultural variability in the regulation of talk. Language in society 5 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, S.(in progress). The invisible culture: Communication in classrooms and community on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Chapter 7: “Getting the Floor” in the Classroom.Google Scholar
Reisman, K. (1974). Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan village. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G.A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1972a). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In Giglioli, P. (ed), Language and social context. Baltimore. Md.: Penguin.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1972b). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E.. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 283–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkein, J. (1978). Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. (1976). Conversational structures and accurate empathy: An exploratory study. British journal of social and clinical psychology 15: 213–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, J.. Florio, S.. & Erickson, F. (in press). Where's the floor: Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and at school. In Gilmore, P. & Glaithorn, A. (eds.). Ethnographv and education: Children in and out of school. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Soskin, W., & John, V. (1963). The study of spontaneous talk. In Barker, R. (ed), The stream of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Speier, M. (1972). Some conversational problems for interactional analysis. In Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in social interaction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Spelke, E., Hirst, W.. & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition: 215–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, F.. & Mishler, E. (1952). The distribution of participation in small groups: An exponential approximation. American sociological review 17: 598–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, R.. & Hewitt, J. (1976). Aligning actions. American sociological review 41: 838–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, B.. & Henley, N. (1975). Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Turner, R. (1972). Some formal properties of therapy talk. In Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in social interaction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
VanDijk, T. (1977). Context and cognition: Knowledge frames and speech act comprehension. Journal of pragmnatics I: 211–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged. (1971). Chicago: G. & C. Merriam.Google Scholar
West, C. (1977). Against our will: Negotiating interruptions in male-female conversations. Paper presented at New York Academy of Sciences. New York.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 567–78.Google Scholar