Based on analyis of F2F university committee meetings, Edelsky argued that rather than residing in a single turn, floors are constructed jointly over a series of turns and have a distinctive “feel” that enables participants to recognize different floor types.She identified two types: singly-developed floors (F1), characterized by one speaker at a time, and collaborative floors (F2), “where several people seemed to be either operating on the same wavelength or engaging in a free-for-all” (p. In this study, I adapt and employ Edelsky’s notion of floor types to analyze three extended threads from public academic discussion forums on the Internet. The mere sight of the word may make you cringe and rightly so.It seems like every minute on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" there's a perv lurking behind his computer monitor to lure your child.
As Flores (192) puts it, “[t]he computer conference (...) model[s] a more egalitarian mode of dialogue.
It also sheds light on the strategic use of F1 practices by both genders to attempt to assert power when control of the floor is contested.
‘Floor’ is frequently invoked in the colloquial sense of getting a turn at speech; the floor is bid for, taken, held, negotiated, controlled, managed, vied for, turned over to someone else, etc.
Male-predominant discussions exhibit the features of the F1 floor type; however, female-predominant discussions exhibit a mixed floor type combining features of F2, F1 (male predominant) and F1 (predominant) floors.
An integrated account of these findings based on the conventional mapping of gender and floor onto power relations is proposed and invoked to explain phenomena that appear anomalous under a simple floor- or gender-based view, including the greater likelihood that messages posted by certain participants will receive responses.