Abstract

This study investigates the pattern of conversational floors of digital discourse in WhatsApp groups among Pakistan's students after the outbreak of Covid-19. Gender differences were also focused while generating digital discourse in the post corona scenario. Non-probability sampling techniques are used, as our research design is qualitative. Data is taken from universities of Punjab and is in the form of interviews and screenshots of students' five days chat in Whatsapp groups. Researchers chiefly focused on conversational floors, gender roles, and post corona discourse. Results show the effects of Covid-19 as students have problems involving in more meaningful conversations, and due to conflicts among members, a breakdown in communication occurs. The connection between argumentation and floor holding gives a deep analysis of the dynamics of online discussion. From the gender perspective, males maintained the central stage in non-collaborative discourse while there are almost equal or more active females in collaborative discourse.

Key Words

Conversational Floors, Digital Discourse, Gender Differences, Pakistani Students, Post Corona Scenario.

Introduction

This article intends to investigate conversational patterns of communication in multi-participant text-based digital discourse in the post-corona scenario. Much of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) research motivated the researchers to understand how computer mediation and cellular phones influence human conversation.  This research is inspired by the conversational floors discussed by Simpson (2005). In this present study, the researchers focus on the WhatsApp groups created for Academic purposes among English-major students in Pakistan after a sudden outbreak of coronavirus (henceforth, COVID-19).

WhatsApp, primarily developed in 2009 as an informal instant chat app. It has widely been used by youth worldwide. Manufacturers of WhatsApp brought many changes in its format and introduced many new features over the years, i.e., written text messages, audio recordings, picture and video sharing, use of emoticons, document sharing, and status updating. Soon after realizing the liking of people for instant messaging application, WhatsApp launched 2.0 in its beta stage (Pahwa, 2019). People love the notion of using WhatsApp for sending messages via the internet instead of using the Operator's SMS plans by using just phone numbers.  This is how WhatsApp replaced SMS and emails in many countries like Pakistan. In Pakistan, WhatsApp has been used for both formal and informal purposes.

Consequently, right after the widespread of the novel coronavirus in March 2020 leading to the suspension of traditional classes, the university teachers and students in Pakistan  moved  to WhatsApp  instantly  to  resume Academic

session before the introduction of institutional apps. Subsequently, this article unfolds the interplay between the technology of, particularly, WhatsApp medium and linguistics, discourse, and socio-cultural aspects within which participants interact with each other. Apparently, there is a significant distortion of the coordination of turn transfer in digital discourse. Furthermore, this study intended to investigate the role of gender in taking floors in digital discourse under critical conditions like coronavirus.


Statement of Problem
Conversational analysis has been a crucial factor in the face to face conversation. Thus, this article focused on the conversational features of the virtual community in the post-corona scenario. For this purpose, the medium of WhatsApp chat group is adopted since WhatsApp group chat has been widely used among students and teachers to discuss academic and non-academic issues in Punjab, Pakistan. 
This study aims to understand the effect of computer-mediated communication on the interactions of human beings and the roles of gender in overtaking the floor in multi-participant computer-mediated communication after the sudden outbreak of coronavirus in a state of anxiety and fear. The interaction of technology and language learners develops an online discourse. However, the question of the conversational floor in online communication is addressed through cohesive features—this research intended to find out the coordination of turn-transfer in interaction. Further, the study extends to understand the roles of gender in taking turns in multi-participant chat to determine gender under the perpetuated anxiety of coronavirus.


Significance of the Study
Online conversations and interactions have hooked up the modern man, and the prevailing situation of COVID-19 has created many online communities. Hence, this interface of technology and linguistics in a specific online socio-cultural scenario has manifold implications in the present situation to develop novel digital discourse under the air of global pandemic of coronavirus that suddenly overcame the whole world as an “unprecedented humanitarian crisis from which there can be no return to the old normal”  ( Barneveld et al:, 2020, p. 134). In this regard, interaction has given rise to a new form of discourse, i.e., the digital discourse of fear. The present study tends to investigate the psychological impulse of both male and female university students while generating the discourse and conversation floors embedded in the digital discourse, which is a stark contrast from Face to Face chat (Chun, 1994). This study can be beneficial for researchers interested in online discourse and conversational analysis in critical situations. 


Aims and Objectives
The principal aim of this research is to understand how students take conversational floors in digital discourse in order to determine gender disparities under prevailing disastrous coronavirus through WhatsApp group chat used for academic and non-academic tasks among students in Pakistan. 
Following are the objectives:
• To investigate the patterns of conversational floors of digital discourse in WhatsApp groups among students in Pakistan. 
• To analyze the major gender differences while generating the post-corona digital discourse. 


Research Questions
The research questions are the following: 
1. What are the patterns of conversational floors of digital discourse in WhatsApp groups among Pakistani students? 
2. What are the major gender differences while generating the post-corona digital discourse?


Delimitations
The present study was carried on WhatsApp academic groups of students of Punjab, Pakistan, in the post-corona scenario. Though both genders were part of the research investigating their choices and behaviours in taking the floor in online chat, it was delimited to the age group from 18 to 25. Further, the present research gathered data exclusively from major universities of Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. 

Literature Review

However, much research has been carried out on Conversational Analysis of conversational floors or turn-taking in F2F and online conversation. The present research focuses on the turn-taking procedure in online synchronous and asynchronous discourse through the medium of WhatsApp under the uncertain situation of COVID-19.




The Floor in Written and Spoken Conversations

'Floor' frequently refers to getting a turn at a speech in the colloquial sense by using linguistic or paralinguistic codes. According to Sack, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974, 704), speakers use strategies to allocate the turns to transit to relevant places (TPR) just to "lessen the gap" between turns taken by participants, to maintain the ideal of one speaker per time. Hence, the speaker only tries to hold the floor until his or her turn gets over. The floor changes with the change of speaker, and this can be applied for written discourse in the online discussion.  

As a matter of fact, not every message posted online on any forum takes the floor for all recipients in a multi-party online chat: many posts are deleted unread or only read partly. Likewise, Messages having a thematic profile are more in the centre of attention than the rest of the messages. Furthermore, eventually, they get more responses, as seen in the present situation of COVID-19. A good reading of seminal works of researchers opens a new dimension of conversational analysis as a model. 

Stenstrom (1994) defines turn as what is said by A and taken over by B and vice versa. According to Edelsky (1981), the floor is acknowledged with an ongoing conversation with psychological time and space, categorized as the topic or function (as asking, teasing, response) in the two-person interaction.  The discussion between two persons may go in a direction, though discussion by people grounds many views. The discussion between two persons gets affected if one between them does not respond. There is less randomness in the discussion of two people, and there are more parcels of news by the discussion of many. Hence, multi-party opens the floor for everybody at the same time in online interaction.




Gender differences in taking Conversational Floors

A substantial amount of research has been done on gender and conversational floors in asynchronous and synchronous interaction. In this regard, it is essential to mention Carol Edelsky (1981), whose research was based on an analysis of the F2F university committee meeting investigating gender differences in taking floors in conversation. Edelsky asserted that turns are built in collaboration with a chain of turns, and particular features of this turn-taking enable us to identify different floor types instead of occupying a single turn. She particularly recognizes two significant kinds: non-collaborative floors (F1), which are marked by only one speaker at one time, and second is a collaborative floor (F2), “where many speakers are present at a particular time and contributing in communication that is free-for-all” (p. 383). 

The primary research of Edelsky discovered that male participants had chiefly constituted the floors of F1. On the other hand, men and women equally developed the asynchronous floors of F2. Thus, in this research, gender is studied as a different entity with reference to the manners of developing and contributing to the computer-mediated discourse in stressful situations of coronavirus. Herring (2010) extended the research of Edelsky and tried to find out the different gender behaviours in online interaction. Her research on gender patterns in taking the conversational floor in CMC is evident in the role of power in taking floors in even online conversation. She propagated that the types of floor are fundamentally based on influence, and like F2F discourse, synchronous discourse also accounts for the association of more influenced communication management techniques with male communicators, and that also helps to understand the concept of men posting longer messages than women and why their posts get more comments and responses, regardless of context. 

Her work also sheds light on the strategies used by males and females in asserting the power to control a floor in a conversation, which is a burning question. About her previous research on the role of gender in taking conversational floors, Herring (1993) argued that mediated computer discourse is also biased or at least not democratic despite its theoretical approach because it follows the same patterns for gender-bias from F2F discourse. One hindrance in women taking the floor in conversation is the stereotype that the art of public speaking is not related to the feminine domain (Spencer, 1980).

The Exchange Structure Analysis

In this study, The Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA) by Kneser et al. (2001) was adopted to evaluate the conversational floors. Kneser et al. (2001) developed The Exchange Structure Analysis (ESA) to investigate the response, moves, and roles of participants in taking conversational floors in CMC discourse. The ESA was chosen for this research because of its extensive usage and smooth coding approach (Wishart & Guy, 2009, p. 134). The ESA was initially established on transactional analysis by Sinclair and Courtyard (1975) and was developed to see the role of teacher and student in an online discussion. The present research adopted ESA for analyzing the conversational floor through turn-taking, coherence, and cohesion in digital discourse.

 

Table 1. Initiate & Respond Categories (Sinclair and Courtyard, 1975 source: Kneser et al., 2001)

Initiate (I)	A contribution that anticipates a response and is not predicted from a previous turn.
Respond (R)	A contribution that is not initial does not anticipate a turn and usually completes an exchange.
Reinitiating (RI)	A contribution that is a continuation of a current exchange and anticipates a response but was not predicted from an earlier turn and was not initial. Feedback can be negative
Response-complement (RC)	It is a contribution that can be acknowledgement, feedback, or evaluation. Response-complement signals the intention to close the exchange; however, it can be followed by a new change.
Standalone (SA)	Contributions in which one participant continues to initiate, and where turns by the same speaker follow each other.
Ill-informed turn (II)	A contribution that is an island, with no response to it.

The present research will focus on ESA moves (see Table 2), reflecting description of the challenge, feedback, clarify, inform, and reason.

 

Table 2. Types of Moves in ESA (source: Wishart & Guy, 2009)

Challenge	Statements requesting reasoning or fresh thinking Justify
Reply	with evidence or contraindication
Clarify	Questions of clarification
Feedback	Evaluative statements
Inform	Description/ Difference
Inquire	Questions requesting information
Reason	State casual proposition

 

Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion and coherence are the two main principles of synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Herring S. (2006) explored that Text-based Computer-Mediated Communication has been categorized, altogether, to be disjointed in multiple ways – disintegrated and internationally disrupted because of limited imposition by computer messaging system and reoccurrence of unpredictable threads of a conversation causing disruption in turn adjacency. She further claimed that this dysfunctionality in CMC gives the third medium to language, which is different from written and spoken in familiar terms (Herring S., 2006). Thus, it cranks the discussion up a notch, opening possibilities for new types of Cohesion and Coherence in Computer-Mediated Communication.

In Computer-Mediated Communication, one does not need to look far and deep in the literature of research for proof of evidently flawed communicative interaction and turn adjacency. It originates from the descriptive study of CMC based on the methods of Conversational Analysis and computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) traditions (Herring S, 2006). Tracing out the relationship between cohesion and coherence, Simpson (2005) opines that cohesion contributes as a linguistic manifestation of coherence; cohesion is the actual form of linguistic linkage in CMC discourse. However, in spoken discourse, turn-taking can follow a typical ideal of precisely alternative turns in the utterance. According to Herring (2006), the word precisely is preferably supposed with almost no gap and overlap between speakers in a specific order. However, in diploid interactions, if one person says something, the other response while taking a turn, first again take turns, and second takes his turn afterwards. In comparison, Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) shows various changes in both principles of 'no gap, no overlap' and orderly turn alteration (Herring S., 2006, p. 5). Concerning the gap in CMC, the time span between sending a message and getting the response of the message can be varied in asynchronous, e.g., email and synchronous, which involves more rapid exchanges of turns.

Data Source (WhatsApp)

Many course designers and educators acknowledge the desirability and usefulness of digital discussion in second language learning, but the most challenging thing is to keep the discussion didactic and outgoing.

There are numerous applications for learning which make the learning experience very pleasurable, and there are also a lot of mobile applications that promote the process of learning tremendously in the field of Second Language Learning (Rambe & Chipunza, 2013).   Similarly, WhatsApp, being a very user-oriented and trouble-free application on smartphones, enables users to get actively connected and involved (Baffour-Awuah, 2015).WhatsApp has been used as equipment to enhance the language learner's efficiency in the EFL classroom (Baffour-Awuah, 2015). Hence, WhatsApp seems a favourite medium of instructions for both learners and instructors. 

From the phrase of the English language, 'What's up? the meaning of "WhatsApp" is derived, which means “what is new?” Being an instant messaging app, WhatsApp provides its users with access to audios, videos, images, or written messaging facilities when the internet service is available. Thus, WhatsApp messages can significantly increase blending learning (Bouhnik & Deshen, 2014). Moreover, WhatsApp group chat motivates ESL learners to be up to date, to communicate with each other, facilitates them to save time and enhances the efficiency of students by prompting them of pending assignments. 




Group Chat in WhatsApp

A recent study is based on multi-party SCMC discourse, so the researchers took group discussions on WhatsApp chat, where F2 collaborative discussion (Edelsky, 1981) and chats can be analyzed. The following Image describes the pattern of chat in Academic groups:


Online Source: Google Images, https://www.naukrinama.com/stressbuster/WhatsApp-launches-new-quote-feature/WhatsApp-group-chat/


The Floor of the Speaker and Supporter
In the group discussion, the single conversational floor hold by the speaker and supporter is of essential importance. Hence, one participant is a conversational floor holder, and others are supporters who provide time to time support by using back channels and short interjections (Simpson, 2005).  

Methodology

The Data

This section will shed light on the research design, tool, sample, and techniques used in collecting data.

This research is qualitative. The qualitative data was based on the online conversations of students in Pakistan via WhatsApp group chat since lockdown and suspension of traditional classes in March 2020 until May 2020 due to outbreak and widespread coronavirus. The rationale for selecting WhatsApp group chat was its extensive use among young university students in Pakistan for academic and non-academic corresponding. The data was based on students' lived experiences in the state of fear of contagion embedded in floor-taking in conversation. The researchers selected purposively the mixed group chat to observe the gender roles in holding floors in conversation in order to determine anxiety, confusion, fear, and psychological condition of both genders.

Further, WhatsApp group chat portrays both synchronous and asynchronous messaging; this study mainly focused on an instant asynchronous group chat to determine the characteristics of turn-taking and coherence in digital discourse. The chat taken as data was in the form of narratives and descriptions. The graphic images were also embedded in conversation to amplify the impact of COVID-19 on students. However, researchers took them as meaning-making codes and excluded them from the data to maintain the focus of the study on the use of language deployed to take turns and hold floors in computer-mediated-communication. 

Data collection was a very challenging task. The population of the study involved Pakistani students. In this regard, non-probability sampling techniques were used, which are popular for qualitative research at large. Depending on convenience sampling, two major public universities of Lahore-Punjab were taken. These universities from metropolitan city Lahore, the capital city of Punjab, represented both males and females from different areas of Punjab, Pakistan. The variable of age was used to observe the difference of perception and effects of discursive themes though their participation in taking floors. These two WhatsApp groups were created for the academic purposes of students after the outbreak of novel coronavirus. Moreover, the selection of the sample was limited to students ageing between 18-22. 

However, the researchers informed the participants that the data collected from them would be used solely for the present study. Keeping in mind their concerns about confidentiality and security of information, the researchers assured them that their names and institutions would never be disclosed while interpreting data. For this purpose, the data was codified: M for males and F for females and U1 and U2 for both universities.

 

Data Text

Organization Codes                                    Categories

Interpretation Themes

Description	Linguistics	Arguments	Conversational Floors
Narrative	Negation	Overlapping, Turn-taking	Gender Roles, COVID-19 discourse

Figure 1: Codification of data adapted from (Rafi 2020).

Data Analysis

The observation, codification, and interpretation were carried out through screenshots to analyze data in WhatsApp group chat of five consecutive days, collected from two well-known universities of Lahore- Punjab, Pakistan. The primary focus was on the conversational floor patterns of both male and female participants to observe perplexity, anxiety, and uncertainty about contagion among young students. The data was interpreted through discursive themes of digital discourse related to conversational floors, elements of fear in online discourse, and gender roles in taking turns and holding floors (exhibited in Figure 2). Although the researchers took 100 excerpts from the chat threads of focused students of two major universities from March 2020 until May 2020, interpretations are not established on entire chat logs, only sections that reflect the chat related to coronavirus and its effects were focused for interpretation. 

Figure 2

Codification of Interpretation of Discursive themes



Conversational floors

Turn-taking

In conversation, when people take turns and how they take turns is called turn-taking (Burns, Joyce &Gollin, 1996, p.18). It deals with the way people hold and pass turns: the way they get in and out of a talk or in a conversation. A conversational move is found within a message.  A message may have one or more moves (Schrite, 2006).

To evaluate the different views of online communication, like initiation, response, and the types of messages, a design for the analysis of messages was created to draw on concepts in the conversational analysis. In the context of this study, any digital interaction can be more meaningfully considered as an episode, a discussion thread can be viewed as an interaction, and a conversational turn can be represented from a message (Kneser, Pilkington, Treasure-Jones, 2001). 

Excerpt 1

From Group Chat



Analysis of excerpts revealed that one participant, M, initiated a conversation by addressing a selected sender, F directly, who is an instructor. The first message in an interaction was generally considered an icebreaker.  To grab the attention, he used an interactive response that expects a reply and is not projected from the last turn. Taking the role of an inquirer asking questions requesting information, he took a turn, which was different from the previous message. As a result of the initiation of the episode by participant M, the F responded. She particularly replied to him.  In her response, there was a clear explanation, and the anticipated move was of clarification category.  She did not anticipate a turn and completed an exchange.

In order to continue a thread, another student M contributed and took a turn. He responded by referring to the message posted by the instructor. He used a backchannel in his response to suggest that he had no wish to take turns. In his response, there was a move of inquiry (Wishart & Guy, 2009).  Another student, M, reinitiated a conversation by continuing a previous response, and it was just a continuance of a present conversation, and it anticipated a reply but was not expected from an initial turn. It was an Ill-informed turn. The F responded to participant M. It was a Response-complement (RC) and participation that could be recognition, reaction, or assessment. Response-complement signalled a desire to end the conversation. However, this is not always the case. The latest shift can accompany it. In her response, the anticipated move category was of feedback type.

Motivated by the F's response, another Participant M appeared and requested further information.  In light of the categorization of moves by Wishart & Guy (2009), the movie is of the inquiry category. Again, the instructor responded to him with a statement that can be considered an adequate response. From moves in ESA, it is an informing category. In response to her, participant M replied with a short utterance, "Ok." This move comes in the category of the backchannel. This backchannel shows that he does not want to take a turn. It is not merely a response, but he wants the instructor to know that he has seen her message in which she gives a warning. This move is considered feedback, according to Wishart & Guy (2009). It is also an ill-formed turn, as described by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975).  This message did not expect a reply and closed an exchange.

Following is Table that represents Initiate & Responds Categories (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975 source: Kneser et al., 2001) in this chat. 




Table 3.  Initiation and Respond Category 


With either an investigating question or statement of approval (reinitiating or response-complement statements), the F answered each participant. The participants' perspectives are included in turns, and there is no standalone turn in a whole episode of this interaction.


Floor Holding
Simpson (2005a) states that a floor is co-constructed by two participants, at least, particularized by a topic and participants' mutual understanding of what is going on. The number of words sent to the participants' chat interface decides the degree of contribution in a discussion.  The more words used by the participants, the more are participants participating and said to be called a floor holder.
The analysis of the collected data shows that there was always someone who initiated a conversation, and then others responded or contributed several times in order to terminate the episode successfully. The landscape for the anticipation of a response from the initiator is entirely in the form of a wavelet. It is progressive enough to stand on the arguments until or unless the domain of initiating gets weak. Here, participant M1 initiated an episode of conversation which was open, allowing other participants to respond. To catch the visual recognition from other participants, M1 used an ‘attention-seeking tool’ when initiating a conversation. Participant M1 was inquiring about the issue by expressing himself. Participant F responded to Participant M1 inquiry by giving a detailed response consisting of a specified explanation along with the alternative. Usually, speakers decide whether they want to hold a floor. Participant M2 also contributed to the conversation by giving an interactive response. His interactive response “same problem” can be used as a backchannel to indicate that he was paying attention to the message sent by participant M1.

Excerpt 2

From Group Chat



The statement of participant M acted as a simultaneous talk or encouraging remarks that prompted other participants. Other participants called M and M also contributed to the episode motivated by the response produced by the earlier participant. The response produced by participant M is of interactional type. Participant M reinitiated the topic again that was not predicted from the previous turn.  Participant F acting as an instructor, contributed to the earlier participants who were inquiring and justifying, respectively. She responded to them again clearly and closed the episode of conversation. She was holding a floor by taking turns.  Participants M3 and M were taking turns continuously by maintaining the floor holding of participant F. The topic shift resulted in a new floor construction when participant F closed the conversation.

From this group, participant F held "one end of the floor," while she impressively and clearly described

participant structures that implied various ways to obtain a floor. The one who holds a floor might have a hold over the conversation as well. In short, the floor can be considered a place of a competition where there is only one winner, and the others are losers. There is a synchronous floor holding till there are logics on the ground’s principles of fact and figures.




Gender Roles

Power Relations

According to research, men and women are often viewed as almost mechanical entities working in a planned set up. Both genders are opposing in terms of many grounds. We can study the different aspects of online interchange in terms of gender differences and view an online chat as an episode and a single message in a chat interface as a conversational turn (Kneser, Pilkington, & Treasure-Jones, 2001). 

In the conversational analysis of the WhatsApp chat, it was observed that the difference in language was not restricted to syntax only but also dealt with variables like restrictions of the topic in any natural conversational exchanges that are related to pragmatics. Moreover, the differences in language among both genders were not revealed or made visible by each word they used, and power differences were reflected not only by the usage of words or syntax but also the way they were constructed through the perspectives of structuring discourse. 




Excerpt 3

From Group Chat



When the group's chats were analyzed, a collaborative floor was visible throughout the chat. It was all a free fall conversation. In such scenarios, there occurred a difference in the discourse of both genders. As far as the female gender is concerned, she participated more in conversation than male students. They dominated the construction of the floor by taking longer turns.  Their turns were more than that of the males in a collaborative chat. We see females joking, arguing, giving directions, and taking help of soliciting male students' responses in the absence of teacher-based conversation. Their feedback rate also increases. As far as the pattern of communication is concerned, women are seen as more judgmental and harsher than males. They feel that they need to interpret and defend themselves in response to men's analytical and investigative statements. They are initiating and reinitiating more than males in this group. There are also messages in which females are word playing, crossing swords disagreeing and teasing, often expressed subsequently in the discourse of females. 

On the other hand, men are "rational" beings, can answer and manage time to time shifts in conversation to go with their motives in such conversations.  Males participated less in such a conversation, and as a result, male dominance is reduced.  The desire to give challenges and clarification, the moves of Kneser et al. (2001), represents the female conversation in this analysis, but in general, these are the features of the male communication pattern. More specifically, there are minor differences, and the outcomes suggested that the ordinary differences between both genders are nullified in such an environment.




Argumentation 

For the analysis of argumentation, WhatsApp chat is used as a tool of data. The contribution of participants in interaction is calculated by the number of messages they sent in a chat interface. The analysis of data is based on the entire chat log. Chat Excerpt under analysis can be taken chiefly as a loose floor. The floors in which there are incomplete or poorly substantiated arguments and the ones in which argumentation sequences are missing, called loose or semi-loose floors. Turns are distributed equally among the participants with the proof of throughout the holding up of the floor. 

Excerpt 4

From Group Chat




Initially, student M put forward a question. In reply, a provisional assertion was received from another student, F, who is functioning as a qualifier. Qualifiers are the ones who expressed the extent of reliability about the claim. However, her claim was soon refuted by a floor holder, student M. Later, she justified her claim with the notion that she regarded the claim. The response of student F "I hope it makes sense" is a defensive behaviour, which is a strategic move in attempting to reduce vulnerability to disagreement from student M.  Everyone claims and proves themselves with evidence for the claims they make. No one supports other’s claims and comes with new claims at every turn. Many disagreements arise between Student M and Student F as a result of conflict-oriented consensus building.

From the dimension of argumentation, the interaction matches the quality of level 1, which is "Claim only," as the claims are not substantiated. Participants are preceding claims slightly without any appropriate supporting proof, so the chat consists of mere claims with no supporting idea. Without any reinforcement by specific references to sources of evidence, these claims are considered framed.




Table 3. Hierarchy of Dialogic Argumentation (Adapted from Erduran et al. (2004) and Clark et al. 2007)



Post-Corona Discourse

Psychological condition through response

Emotions of students are hopeful or depressed; there is no in-between way due to the overlapped pandemic of COVID-19. Some are optimistic, but there are hues of pessimism as well. Data Excerpts also include a chat of students in which they discuss the lockdown of universities as a result of pandemic COVID-19. They express their emotions, feelings, and their inquiries regarding the lockdown. At the start, many participants did not believe in the news and considered it fake news or a hoax. One participant took a turn by adding comic relief, calling university students "antivirus." She created a humorous atmosphere by adding just a pun. Then the other students also contributed to an episode by adding emoticons of laughter.

E xcerpt 5

From Group Chat



Some were not happy, and they showed their sadness in the chat interface by using emoticons of crying. With the fear of an ongoing pandemic, they appeared sad because they would not be seeing their campuses, friends, and teachers. Some students were in a state of disbelief. They were not willing to accept the decision of the holidays. Some others were in a state of surprise, and they showed their feelings by inquiring or confirming from others. Then the other participant who tried to initiate a conversation by taking turns justified her claim by giving proof. Some participants still appeared to have a high level of motivation.

There was an atmosphere of uncertainty in the group until an instructor posted a message. She reinitiated a conversation by confirming the news of the lockdown of the university. With her message, the psychological state of all participants changed abruptly. Again, some students shared their emotions of happiness in an interface using emoticons as well. The psychological state of both genders is seen to be almost the same. In those messages, there were different moves. Most of the moves were of thanking and missing. In short, there were mixed emotions. It is depicted through the usage of words used by participants and the emoticons they put in before sending a message in a chat log.  




Fear 

Fear and stress are everyday feelings observed in both males and females in post corona syntax, as observed from the WhatsApp chat of students. It is vague for us to count the extent of unpredictability in our lives from the perspective of variance to adapt. On the other hand, complexity goes parallel to some for straying life. Everyone has a limit. Uncertainty about the future is all around us, never more so than today, as observed in the participants' responses. All the pillars of society are affected magnanimously from the nook and corner by the mounting wave of Covid-19, but humans are still searching for security. Fear and uncertainty have left students feeling stressed. The darkness prevailing everywhere has encircled us for good. The extent of security has decreased due to the lack of hope in students.

There is an enormous disruption in the lives of everyone. The threats from coronavirus have limited the factor of social patterns in us. The lack of the ray of aspiration has made people pessimist. Students may find less excitement and zeal with limited social assistance, which can affect them both physically and mentally. There is a panic found in students with the flow of horror. As reflected in the chat of students, they experience anxiety and fear. Most of them are in the same boat at this corona time regardless of gender, as observed from the participants' responses.




Data Source (Interviews)

Interviews are used as a supplementary tool for getting the data. Random students were picked out from the WhatsApp group of different universities as we used before, and unstructured interviews of such students are conducted in order to get their opinion. These students belong to two different universities of Lahore, Punjab having age between 18 -22. These interviews are carried on a mobile phone in order to follow the SOPS.  




Data collection

Interviews are used as a secondary tool for getting the data. Students were picked out from the WhatsApp group of different universities for interview purposes. These groups were created for academic purposes. Non-probability sampling techniques are used for the Random selection of students, and unstructured interviews of such students are conducted in order to get their opinion. These students are studying in two famous universities of Lahore, Punjab having age between 18 -22. These interviews are carried on a mobile phone in order to follow the SOPS with the condition that their identities will remain confidential.

Data Analysis

An unstructured interview is the most common tool used in the qualitative research method. From the two WhatsApp group, eight students were randomly picked in total. From one university WhatsApp group, two females and two males students were selected randomly for interview. The selection of students from the second university was carried out similarly. The selected students were interviewed on phone calls individually, and their calls were recorded. They were asked questions related to the corona pandemic and questions related to discourse, and they answered. From call recordings, their answers were transcribed and compared and contrasted. In this way, the analysis of the interview is done. 




Floor holding

Interviewees have mixed views about floor holding. They said that in a collaborative setting, men always initiate a conversation by using an interactive response.  Most of the interviewees are agreed on the fact that females are floor holder in a collaborative setting. Only one percent of the interviewees think that male dominates a floor in a collaborative setup. The ratio is 3:1. 

Some students think that On the basis of justice, the one who is right is a floor holder. It is totally dependent on the person whether they want to hold a floor or not. It is also noted that the floor is achieved as the interaction of both speaker and hearer.




New Language 

A lot of new words came into being with the arrival of the Covid pandemic. When the researcher asked interviewees about what kind of new words did they learn in the whole corona scenario, they said many new words they heard for the first time. Those words are Covid- 19, Quarantine, and social distancing. Most students said they did not have any idea about isolation before corona.  Some said they knew the difference between pandemic and epidemic.  Some said they came to know about what disinfectants and sanitizers are.  Two to three interviewees also said that they heard the word Ventilator for the first time. 

Quarantine and isolation are two common words that everyone answered. In short, new words are added to everyone’s dictionary, which is related to the corona virus. 




Turn-taking 

When the researcher asked interviewees about turn-taking, there were different views. Most of the interviewees were of the view that females take more turns as compared to males when they are provided with a collaborative setup. Only one percent of them said that males take more turns in a free fall conversation. There was a ratio of 3: 1. 




Gender and Psychological effects:

Covid- 19 provoked anxiety in both genders equally. Nobody was sure what will happen in the next moment. Some interviewees agree on the fact that Covid hits equally to both genders in terms of Covid fear and anxiety. Both genders had a common fear of testing positive for the corona virus. There was a constant fear of losing their loved ones any day.  

Most of the male interviewees were of the view that men were affected more in terms of fear. They had to go outside for jobs or to get the things for the markets. They said that they had a constant fear of losing a job or infecting themselves with the virus while going outside and then carry this virus to their families.  

Some interviewees said that females were more affected psychologically as compared to males due to corona. They usually don’t have many ways to vent out like males. They were completely restricted to homes, and they had no activity to do to get rid of corona anxiety.  

When the researcher asked interviewees about how this psychological change affected them, they had different answers. Most of the participants said that constant fear of corona affected their sleep cycle, and a drastic change was observed in the eating patterns of people. They were of the view that they observe difficulty in maintaining concentration in their tasks.   




Pattern of Communication 

A different pattern of communication is observed among the people. In whole corona scenario, some interviewees feel that there is a drastic change of communication. 

When they are asked about what kind of language shift did they observe, they were of the view that usage of abusive words has become a part of communication due to being locked up in homes for six months.  To get rid of frustration and anxiety caused by coronavirus, they used such language. People take more turns, and argumentative responses are used in conversation, representing the anxiety of the speaker.

Some interviewees were of the view that no change in communication pattern is observed by them. It is the same as it used to happen before coronavirus. Some suggested that there is just the addition of new words used by the people in a conversation, and the style or pattern of communication is just the same.  

Conclusion

The data excerpts and analysis indicate that students are in the course of disturbance in communication even in the presence of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) settings. The factor of reinitiating is less when the underlying arguments are in a box, but as the arguments start to finalize as vast, this encourages even standing alone. The bottom line is that shared referential information is less precise than the argumentation that imparts power to floor management. This link circumscribes the mosaic and forms online discussion patterns among students. In a nutshell, Students are keen to counter-responses. It is noticed that students aspire towards the "challenge" and are "tender" towards the headway of feedback, inform, reason, and justify as in the Kneser's Exchange Structure Analysis. "Floor" is produced by interaction, and in that, speakers and hearers must work together to maintain it. The data analysis concludes that the grounds of 'feel' and "style" both are unlike for both genders but dependent on each other. Males occupy a central stage and are more dynamic in a non-collaborative discourse, while there is almost equal or more proactive females in collaborative discourse.

References

• Baffour-Awuah, E. (2015). Institutional case-based study on the effect of research methods on project work in the curriculum of mechanical engineering programmed in Ghanaian polytechnics
• Barneveld et al., K. V. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons on building equal and sustainable societies. The Economic and Labour Relations, 133-157.
• Bouhnik, D., & Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp goes to School: Mobile Instant messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 217-231.
• Burns, A., Joyce, H., & Gollin, S. (1996). I see what you mean: Using spoken discourse in the classroom. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquaire University.
• Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
• Chun, D. M. (1994). Using Computer Networking to Facilitate the Acquisition of Interactive Competence. System, 17-31.
• Edelsky, C. (1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society, 10, 383-421.
• Herring, S. (2006). Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic journal of communication.
• Herring, S. C. (2010). Who's Got the Floor in Computer-Mediated Communication? Edelsky's Gender Patterns Revisited: Language@Internet, 7, article 8. Special issue on
• Kneser, C., Pilkington, R., & Treasure- Jones, T. (2001). The tutor's role: An investigation of the power of exchange structure analysis to identify different roles in CMC seminars. International Journals of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 63-84.
• Pahwa, A. (2019, October 3). The history of WhatsApp. FEEDOUGH, the entrepreneur's guide.com:
• Rafi, M. S. (2020). Language of COVID-19: Discourse of Fear and Sinophobia. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 18.
• Rambe, P., &Chipunza, C. (2013). Using mobile devices to leverage student access to collaboratively generated resources: A case of WhatsApp instant messaging at a South African University. In International Conference on Advanced Information and Communication Technology for Education.Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.
• Sack, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for conversation. Language, 696-735.
• Schrite, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers and Education, 46 (1), 49-70.
• Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC. Discourse Studies, Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi), 337-361.
• Sinclair, J., &Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard, Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 1-35). London: Routledge
• Speier, M. (1972). Some conversational problems for interactional analysis. In D. Sudnow (Ed.),Studies in social interaction. New York: Macmillan.
• Stenstrom, A. B. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. Harlow: Longman
• Wishart, C., & Guy, R. (2009). Analyzing Responses, Moves, and Roles in Online Discussions. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning Objects Volume 5, 129-144.