'CAUSE IF THIS IS ALL WE'VE GOT I THINK WE SHOULD UH HAVE INTERACTIVE AND NON INTERACTIVE ON THE BOARD AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT PROPERTIES GOING TO EACH JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR WHAT THE TWO MEAN UH SO SO WHAT DID YOU HAVE MORE ON LATER SLIDES ABOUT THIS SO YEAH ACTIVITY IS UH I'D DEFINE INTERACTIVITY TO BE AS A DEGREES OF INTERACTION IN MEETINGS SO WHICH MIGHT UH SPEAK CHANGE WHI UH UH WOULD BE A VERY GOOD INDICATOR YEAH MM-HMM SO Y DO YOU MEAN ALL OF THE SPEAKERS ARE INVOLVED IN IT IS IT SUFFICIENT FOR TWO SPEAKERS RIGHT AND THEN SO ACTUALLY SO UH THIS IS A VERY ROUGH IDEA OF INTERACTIVITY IF WE GO FURTHER WE MIGHT DISTINGUISH UH THE INTERACTIVITY BETWEEN TWO F THREE OR ALL THE GROUPS SO THAT MIGHT BE SOME FINAL DEFINITION FOR THE UH INTERACTIVITY YEAH BUT WE'VE ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT IT'S NOT JUST SPEAKER CHANGE IT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE MM-HMM OKAY THEN OKAY BUT THAT'S N YOU CAN THAT'S DEFINITIONAL RIGHT SO SO I MEAN YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER THAT TO CHANGE THE TURNS THOSE ARE JUST BACK CHANNELS SO ONE SPEAKER WILL HAVE THE FLOOR CHANNEL UM THROUGHOUT THAT AND SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE INTERACTIVE SECTIONS WOULD HAVE SHORTER SPEAKER TURNS WHEN YOU'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE BACK CHANNELS AS INTERRUPTIONS UM SO WELL IT MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT TO BE INTERACTIVE THERE HAVE TO BE DIALOGUE ACTS OF SOME SPECIFIC TYPE IN A TURN RATHER THAN S YEAH YEAH ACTUALLY 'CAUSE UH I'VE LOOKED UH LIKE STATEMENT STATEMENT REJECT ACCEPT YOU KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT IT DEPEND IF YOU HAD SO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ALL JUST GIVING INFORMATION AND OPINION AROUND THE TABLE AND THEY NEVER ACTUALLY ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER BUT THE TURNS WERE ACTUALLY QUITE SHORT WHICH ONE WOULD IT BE SO IF WE COULD FIGURE OUT UH IF THEY ARE REALLY INTERACTI UH INTERACTING WITH EACH OTHER OR JUST UH UH INCREMENTAL MM PRESENTATION OF SOME INFORMATION SO THAT'S D UH DIFFERENT WE MIGHT UM YEAH NEED A MORE STRICT OR FINER UH DEFINITION OF INTERACTIVITY YEAH JU UH FOR THIS USE OF THE UH FOR THE USE OF THIS TERM FOR THE INDICATOR OF THE UH DEGREES OF INTERACTION UH I THINK FOR FOR THE CURRENT UH PROPOSAL I THINK THAT IT'S JUST FOR DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIALOGUES AND MONOLOGUES 'CAUSE FOR THESE TWO TYPES OF DISCOURSE UH THE UH THE THE CONS THE THE TWO THAT WE ARE GOING TO ANALYSE THE DISCOURSE STRUCTURE MIGHT BE D DIFFERENT RIGHT OKAY I REMEMBER YOU SAYING THIS BEFORE SO BASICALLY YOU WANT TO DO THE SEGMENTATION BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANALYSES TO THE TWO SECTIONS UM UH SO FOR SOME PART OF TH THAT KIND OF MEETINGS UM UH SEVERAL UTTERANCES OR DIALOGUE ACTS ARE JUST UH TAGGED AS STATEMENT SO THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY INFORMATIVE FOR HIGH LEVEL STR ANALYSIS SO THAT'S ALL WHAT UH THAT'S WHY WHY UH I'M DISTINGUISHING THE TWO KINDS OF DISCOURSE HERE SO WEI XUN QUITE TAKES QUITE A STRONG POSITION ON UM THIS UM DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO UM KINDS OF GROUP ACTIVITIES BECAUSE HE SAYS THAT THEY ADMIT DIFFERENT KINDS OF ANALYSES RIGHT THE WITH THE NON INTERACTIVE MORE MONOLO MONO LOGIC SECTIONS OF THE MEETING UM YOU HAVE TO UH ANALYSE THEM USING SOMETHING AKIN TO RHETORICAL STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING AND UH WITH THE OTHER SECTIONS YOU UH UM YOU YOU USE SOME OTHER THEORY TO LOOK AT THEM AND I ACTUALLY UH THINK THAT THAT'S A SLIGHTLY EXTREME UM POSITION UM WITH REGARD TO THE LITERATURE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT SAY IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THE DIFFERENT SPEAKERS ARE IN AN INTERACTIVE SECTION YOU CAN STILL UM BUILD MAYBE THE THE SAME ARGUMENT STRUCTURE OVER THE TOP OF THE BASIC UM ACTS AND PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT THAT'S THERE AND UH WHAT YOU GET IS A MESSIER VERSION OF THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ARGUMENT IN THEIR BRAIN YOU KNOW FOR THIS BUT UM BUT THAT THE SAME THEORY OR THE THE SAME ANALYSIS CAN BE APPLIED TO BOTH PARTS SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP UM THAT IN MIND AND IF YOU IF YOU DO NEED TO ARGUE THAT THESE TWO KINDS OF GROUP ACTIVITIES UH CAN CAN ONLY BE ANALYSED IF YOU USE DIFFERENT ANALYTICAL MECHANISMS THEN YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS RIGHT SO IT IT PUTS AN EXTRA BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE WORK THAT YOU DO WELL ACTUALLY I DON'T QUITE AGREE I MEAN I FOR EXAMPLE YOU CAN'T USE R. S. T. ACROSS SPEAKERS BECAUSE THE DEFINITIONS OF THE RELATIONS DEPEND ON THE INTENTIONS OF THE SPEAKER AND THERE'S DIFFERENT SPEAKERS HAVE DIFFERENT INTENTIONS SO YOU CAN'T USE THE THEORY IT'S JUST FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG IT'S IT WAS MEANT AS A THEORY FOR A ONE PERSON UH RIGHT SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T OTHER THEO SO FOR I MEAN IT I THINK WH WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN A GROUP DISCUSSION ISN'T NECESSARILY ONE COHERENT ARGUMENT F FOR THE PERSON BUT AN ARGUMENT THAT IS THE GROUP VIEW AND SO IT'S MAYBE IT'S NOT R. S. T. UM BUT IT'S UM MORE AKIN TO UM I DON'T KNOW IS IT TOOLMAN BUT YOU KNOW NOT THAT I BUT YOU KNOW THE KINDS OF THINGS WHERE PEOPLE TO TRY TO REPRESENT ARGUMENT STRUCTURE SOME OF THEM ADMIT OF MULTIPLE PARTIES AND SOME OF THEM ASSUME YOU'RE IN ONE SPEAKER'S HEAD RIGHT AND THE MM-HMM YEAH THE ENTIRE THEORY IS BASED ON INTENTION AND THE INTENTION OF ONE INDIVIDUAL SO R. S. T. WOULD BE A BAD THEORY TO USE W AND UM SOMEBODY MAKES A STATEMENT THEY HAVE AN INTENTION ABOUT HOW TO MODIFY THAT GROUP ARGUMENT BUT ACROSS SPEAKERS YOU CAN'T THEY HAVE NO RELATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE REJECT OR AGREE THEY THE THEORY DOESN'T HAVE THEM OKAY SO THE R THE RELATION NAMES AREN'T AREN'T RIGHT BUT UM SO WE NEED A DIFFERENT THEORY NOW I THINK ALEX UM S. D. R. S. ALLOWS BOTH KINDS SO YOU KNOW WITHIN A SPEAKER TURN YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE EXPLANATION AND CAUSE AND ALL THAT UM BUT THEN ACROSS SPEAKER TURNS YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE CORRECTION OR I DIDN'T SEE ANY EXAMPLES OF AGREE OR DISAGREE IN S. T. R. S. BUT I THERE AREN'T I MEAN THERE ARE THIRTY RELATIONS SO WE SHOULD LOOK AT AT WHAT THEY ARE BUT I D I DON'T I MEAN PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED FOR AGES ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT RELATIONS WERE IN ANY OF THESE THEORIES AND THAT'S THAT'S LESS IMPORTANT THAN WHAT THE THEORY IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE TWO DIF SEPARATE APPARATUSES FOR THE UM SPEAKER INTERNAL UM ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND THE GROUP ARGUMENT STRUCTURE THAT THAT'S MORE APPARA APPARATUS THAN YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY NEED FOR UM FROM DOING THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS 'CAUSE IN BOTH CASES YOU'RE UM BUILDING UP AN ARGUMENT PUBLICLY IN THIS GROUP MEETING AND THEN YOU KNOW