One consequence of the use of conte

One consequence of the use of context in speech is the fragmentary nature
of utterances. The example transcripts are, if anything, atypically grammatical.
Although there is evidence of rules of grammar for the spoken word, these are very
different, and much more relaxed, than the written equivalent.
14.3.3 Topics, focus and forms of utterance
Given that conversation is so dependent on context, it is important that the participants have a shared focus. We have addressed this in terms of the external focus – the
objects that are visible to the participants – but it is also true of the internal focus of
the conversation.
Alison: Oh, look at your roses . . .
Brian: Mmm, but I’ve had trouble with greenfly.
Alison: They’re the symbol of the English summer.
Brian: Greenfly?
Alison: No roses silly!
Alison began the conversation with the topicof roses. Brian shifts to the related, but
distinct, topic of greenfly. However, for some reason Alison has missed this shift in
focus, so when she makes her second utterance, her focus and Brian’s differ, leading
to the breakdownin communication. The last two utterances are a recovery which
re-establishes a shared dialog focus.
In general, we can go through a transcript annotating the utterances by the topics
to which they refer. The identification of topics and assigning utterances to them is
a somewhat subjective affair, and one may want to use several levels of topic categorization. Of course, those points where such a labeling is difficult are interesting in
themselves. They may either represent potential points of breakdown (as above),
or show where external context is needed to disambiguate the conversation. Also
of interest is the way that the participants negotiate changes in dialog focus, either
because they recognize a divergence, or because one party wants to shift the focus of
the conversation.
This sort of analysis can be pursued for its own sake, but has a more pragmatic
interest in the analysis of computer-mediated conversation and design of groupware.
We want to know where breakdowns occur in order to see whether these are due
to the electronic medium. We also want to understand the shifts in focus and the
reliance on external context and compare these with the shared objects available
through the computer system.
Another way of classifying utterances is by their relation to the task in hand. At
one extreme the utterance may have no direct relevance at all, either a digression
or purely social. Looking at the task-related conversation, the utterances can be
classified into three kinds [335]:
substantivedirectly relevant to the development of the topic;
annotativepoints of clarification, elaborations, etc.;
proceduraltalking about the process of collaboration itself.
In addition, the procedural utterances may be related to the structure of collaboration itself, or may be about the technology supporting the collaboration. The latter
is usually in response to a breakdown where the technology has intruded into the
communication.
Alison and Brian are now discussing the best way to get to the cinema. Alison is
using a whiteboard to draw a map.
1. Alison: You go along this road until you get to the river.
2. Brian: Do you stop before the river or after you cross it?
3. Alison: Before.
4. Brian: Draw the river in blue and the roads black . . .
5. Alison: So, you turn right beside the river.
6. Brian: Past the pub.
7. Alison: Yeah. . . Is there another black pen, this one’s gone dry?
Alison’s first utterance, turn 1, is substantive. Brian then interrupts with an annotative utterance, asking a question of clarification, which is answered by Alison at 3.
Brian then makes a procedural point (perhaps prompted by his confusion at 2).
In turns 5 and 6, the conversation again becomes substantive, but then the pen
runs out, and utterance 7 is a procedural remark concerning the communication
technology (pen and whiteboard).
The last form of utterance (procedural technological) is most interesting when
analyzing transcripts of computer-mediated conversation as it represents points
where the system became apparent to the participants. However, it is also interesting
to compare the forms of conversation used in, say, an electronic conference with
those in normal speech. For example, a hypertext-oriented conference will allow
digressions without any danger of losing the flow of the conference, thus encouraging annotative and procedural utterances. 14.3.4 Breakdown and repair
We have already seen an example of breakdownin conversation. When Alison and
Brian were talking about Brian’s roses, they failed to maintain a shared focus. Brian
tried to interpret Alison’s utterance in terms of his focus and failed, or rather the
meaning in that focus was unusual – greenfly are the symbol of the English summer?
He then questioned Alison and the confusion was cleared. This correction after
breakdown is called repair.
If we look at transcripts of computer-mediated conversations, and see