General moves

Accept

An utterance that accepts a proposal, request, statement or information request .

 Example (1) :
       A: Can you tell me the time?
       B: Yes (accept)

Example (2):

-Explainer: ['So what would that have to do', 'with gravity or astrophysics?']
-Explainee: ["Well, what I'm looking at is states of matter", 'that might exist inside neutron stars.', 'So, when a star dies, if the star is massive enough,', "there's a huge explosion, called a supernova,", "and the stuff that's left behind", "that doesn't get blown away", 'collapses into a tiny compact blob', 'called a neutron star.']
-Explainer: ['So what I love about neutron stars personally', "is that they're kind of city-sized,", 'right?']
-Explainee: [That's right.] ---> Accept

Accept-part

An utterance that accepts part of a proposal, request, statement or information request . Implicitly, it rejects another part of the utterance, but we only code what is explicitly accepted. When an utterance does both explicitly, it should be segmented it into two units and labelled accordingly.

  Example (1):
      Something like that

Acknowledge

Acknowledgments are utterances consisting of short phrases such as “ok”, “yes”, “uh-huh”, that signal that the previous utterance was understood without necessarily signaling acceptance. They do not resolve the content of the utterance they address. ”right”, ”alright” and ”ok” are ambiguous. They are commonly only an acknowledge when they are followed by a hint. ”OK” is commonly used after a not totally wrong answer.

-Explainer: ['Have you ever heard of harmony?']
-Explainee: ['Yes.']
-Explainer: ['Okay, so what do you think harmony is?']
-Explainee: ["I think basically it's like, one person has the lower", 'voice and then like, girl usually has the higher voice', 'and then they blend it together.']
-Explainer: ['I like it.', "That's absolutely correct."]
-Explainee: [Okay.] ---> Acknowledge

Action directive

An utterance that requests an action to be performed, i.e., commands, pleas etc.

Example (1):

    -"Please show that..."

Example (2):

-Explainer: [Try look over there and concentrate on his face over there., 'Can you see me waving my hand without turning your eyes?'] --> Action directive
-Explainee: ['No.']
-Explainer: ['Alright, so, at some point,', 'you can probably see it right now?', 'So without moving your eyes, this is kind of hard,', "tell me how many fingers I'm holding up?"]
-Explainee: ['Uh, three?']

Backchannel response

A backchannel response can be verbal, non-verbal, or both. Backchannel responses are often phatic expressions, primarily serving a social or meta-conversational purpose, such as signifying the listener's attention, understanding, or agreement, rather than conveying significant information. Examples of backchanneling in English include such expressions as "yeah", "uh-huh", "hmm", and "right".

Causal consequence question

A Causal consequence question requires a long answer. Causal consequence questions are formed according to the following abstract specification: "What are the consequences of an event or state?". An example of Causal consequence question would be: "What happens when this level decreases?"

Example (1):

-Explainer: ['So this is C major, yeah?', '(keyboard music)', 'And then this is C minor.', 'So the feelings are different, right?']
-Explainee: ['Yeah, feels like dark and spooky.']
-Explainer: ["[Jacob] Yeah, this one's dark and spooky."]
-Explainee: ['Haunted house.']
-Explainer: [And how does this one make you feel though?]---> Causal consequence question
-Explainee: ['Happy. And joyful.']
-Explainer: ['Yeah, I like that, yeah.']
-Explainee: ['Yeah, yeah.']

Example (2):

-Explainer:	['Yeah.', 'The main thing is that if something falls', "into a black hole, it can never get out, it's--"]
-Explainee:	['What about the earth? What if it rolls into it--] ---> Causal consequence question
-Explainer:	['Oh, if the earth rolls into it?']
-Explainee:	['Yeah.']
-Explainer:	["It would be bad, we wouldn't be able to get out."]

Commit

An utterance with which the speaker commits himself to a future course of action. An utterance that accepts an action directive or open option will typically be a commit. “Okay” can be also a commit. The speaker’s commitment does not depend on the acceptance of the commitment by the hearer, e.g.,as in the case of a promise.

Example (1):
   I do this now.
 
Example (2) :
   I’ll have to check that out

Completion

An utterance that shows ”understanding by finishing or adding to the clause that a speaker is in the middle of constructing”

Continuer

A continuer is a short utterance which plays discourse-structuring roles like indicating that the other speaker should go on talking, such as “uh-huh” and “okay”

Example (1):

-Explainer: ["So today, we're gonna talk about blockchain technology."]
-Explainee: [Okay.] --->Continuer 
-Explainer: ['[Bettina] Have you ever heard of blockchain?']
-Explainee: ['I have.', "Whenever we have a transaction, and let's say", 'I buy something from you, this information gets logged.', 'And it gets verified by a third person or third party.', 'And then if like all this information verified', 'and it all matches, right, the transaction goes through', 'without any intermediary basically, right?', 'It gets stored, and when you make further transactions,', 'this information is ready, embedded.', "It's in the ledger."]

Disjunctive question

A Disjunctive question requires a short answer. Disjunctive questions are formed according to the following abstract specification: "Is a fact true? Did an event occur?Is X or Y the case? Is X,Y,or Z the case?".

Example:

-Is gender or female the variable?----> Disjunctive question

Example:

 -Explainer: ['Black holes are so amazing', 'that when the neutron star stops', "and there's something actually there.", "There's material there.", "If it's so heavy it becomes a black hole,", 'so it keeps falling,', 'once the event horizon of the black hole forms,', 'which is the shadow,', "the curve that's so strong that not even light can escape,", 'the material keeps falling.', 'And like you said, maybe space-time breaks down', 'right at the center there, but whatever happens,', "the star's gone, that black hole is empty.", 'So in a weird way black holes are a place and not a thing.']
-Explainee: [So is there a sensible way to talk about what's inside a black hole or is that, should you think of it, as there is no space-time inside?]. ----> Disjunctive question
-Explainer: ["There isn't a sensible way to talk about it yet,", "and that probably means that's where Einstein's", 'theory of gravity as a curved space-time', 'is beginning to break down,', 'and we need to take the extra step', 'of going to some kind of quantum theory of gravity.', "And we don't have that yet.", "So even though the black hole isn't completely understood,", 'we do know that they form astronomically,', 'that in the universe things like neutron stars form', 'and things like black holes form.', 'The consequences are very much speaking', 'to this curved space-time.', 'So, for instance, if two black holes orbit each other,', "they're like mallets on a drum,", 'and they actually cause space-time to ring,', "and it's very much part of gravitation.", 'The ringing of space-time itself,', 'we call gravitational waves.', 'And this was something Einstein thought about', 'right away in 1950-1960, he was thinking about that.']
 -Explainee: ['Those waves are very exciting for me too', 'because neutron stars orbiting each other', 'also give off gravitational waves', 'and we might be able to get some data', 'about neutron star material from that kind of signal.']

Example:

-Explainer: [Do you know a lot about lasers? Or just about the laser that you use.] ----> Disjunctive question
-Explainee: ['Not a lot, just a little bit.']
-Explainer: ['Okay.', 'So this is about high intensity lasers.', 'Not only how do you make them,', 'but what was really stopping them being made', 'in both cases is non linear optics.', 'We wanna do something that requires', 'a huge photon density application,', "and so that's how come we came up with", 'chirped pulse amplification,', 'so that we could stretch the pulse,', 'safely amplify it, then compress it at the end,', "and then we're ready to do whatever we want at the end.", 'So what do you think the main difference is', 'between the continuous wave laser that you have', 'that runs at 10 watts and a chirped pulse amplifier?']
-Explainee: ['I feel like the continuous laser', 'delivers power at a continuous rate,', 'whereas you want all that power to be delivered', 'in a really, really short time with your amplification.']

Gratitude

An utterance that expresses gratitude.

-Explainer: ['[Janna laughs]']
-Explainee: ["It's sort of like there's a description", 'that works pretty well.']
-Explainer: ["Yeah, you don't go to the doctor and say,", "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle caused", 'a series of fluctuations.']
-Explainee: ['Right, would you help me?', "So there's so many open questions.", 'The fact that they are all these fundamental issues', "that we really don't understand.", "But, on the other hand, there's all these moving parts", 'that fit together so neatly.', "There's definitely something that's working here.", 'But ultimately what is gonna emerge from that,', "what structure is lying under it, we just don't know.", 'But I think the fact that there are', 'so many fundamental questions', "that we just don't know the answer to,", "that is an opportunity, that's exciting, it's great."]
-Explainer: [Thanks so much for coming. It's really good to have you here.] -->Gratitude
-Explainee: [Thank you very much, Janna, it was my pleasure.] -->Gratitude

Judgmental question

A Judgmental question requires a long answer. Judgmental questions are formed according to the following abstract specification: "What value does the answerer place on an idea or advice?". An example of Judgmental question would be: "What do you think of this operational definition?"

Example (1): In this example the explainer makes judgemental questions as an explanation move.

-Explainer:	[So, what do you think of that?, What do you think of origami?]----> Judgmental questions
-Explainee:	['I think that the people that make them are talented.', "It's hard.", "Seeing the stuff that we've made here,", "I'd bet that they could do rocket ships.", 'Just so much that you can do with them.']
-Explainer:	['Thanks for coming.']
-Explainee:	['Thanks for having me.']

Example (2): This example shows where the explainee makes judgmental questions.

-Explainer: ['Maybe a wiring diagram is not sufficient to understand', 'the brain, and it would be crazy to think that that would be', 'sufficient, actually.']
-Explainee: ['If you limit the connectome to be just the wiring diagram', 'without, you know, more information about myelination', 'or glial cells, all types of environmental features that', 'surround the neurons and axons then you have an incomplete', 'picture, no doubt.']
-Explainer: ['Sometimes when people get, they worry about connectomics,', "I think what they're actually worrying about is that", "it's the end of the that we used to do neuroscience."]
-Explainee: [What do you think about memory?, Do you think that there's ways of resolving what the substrate of human memory is, you know, is it just LTP and LTD?] ----> Judgmental questions
-Explainer: ["I'm not sure if you had a connectome of a human brain,", 'of an adult human, I would be able to read out', 'memories from that.']

Maybe

An utterance with which the speaker ”explicitly states that he cannot give a definite answer at the moment”. Examples: "I’ll have to think about it."

-Explainer: ["We're gonna talk about some science.", 'Do you like science?']
-Explainee: ['Yes, a lot.']
-Explainer: ['Oh, very good.', "You've come to the right place.", "So we're gonna think about physics.", 'Have you heard the word physics before?', 'Do you know what that is?']
-Explainee: ['Yeah, kind of.']
-Explainer: ["What's your idea what physics is?"]
-Explainee: ["Um, I'm not so sure.] --> Maybe

non-lexical backchannel

Non-lexical backchannel is a type of backchannel response. "A non-lexical backchannel is a vocalized sound that has little or no referential meaning but still verbalizes the listener's attention, and that frequently co-occurs with gestures. In English, sounds like uh-huh and hmm serve this role."

Example (1):

-Explainer: ["Do you know what we're gonna talk about today?", "It's called blockchain."]
-Explainee: ["What's blockchain?"]
-Explainer: ["That's a really good question.", "It's actually a way that we can trade.", 'Do you know what trade is?']
-Explainee: [Mmm-hmm, it's when you take turns doing something. It's when you give up most of what you want, right?] --> non-lexical backchannel

Example (2):

-Explainee: ["It's a large scale attempt to understand the wiring map", 'of the brain, essentially.']
-Explainer: ['Yeah, great.']
-Explainee: ["I think that it's definitely needed."]
-Explainer: [Huh.] --> non-lexical backchannel
-Explainee: ['Understanding the anatomy of the brain is definitely', "important but, it doesn't necessarily tell us everything", "about the function, there's some sort of temporal order", 'from neuron to neuron and region to region', 'that we may not be able to pick up.']

Offer

An utterance by which the speaker indicates willingness to commit to an action, if the hearer accepts it

-Explainer:	['Do you know what origami is?']
-Explainee:	['Is that where you fold paper', 'to make different animals, like those?']
-Explainer:	['Yes, in fact it is.', 'Have you ever done any origami before?']
-Explainee:	['Nope.']
-Explainer:	['[Robert] Would you like to give it a try?] ---> Offer
-Explainee:	['Sure.']

Phrasal backchannel

Phrasal backchannel is a type of backchannel response. "Phrasal backchannels most commonly assess or acknowledge a speaker's communication with simple words or phrases (for example, "Really?" or "Wow!" in English). One of the conversational functions of phrasal backchannels is to assess or appraise a previous utterance."

-Example (1):

-Explainer: ['Okay.', "We're going to start with a model", 'that every Japanese person learns in kindergarten,', "it's called a crane, traditional origami design,", "it's over 400 years old.", "So, people have been doing what we're about to do", 'for 400 years.']
-Explainee: [Wow.] ---> Phrasal backchannel
-Explainer: ["Let's fold it in half from corner to corner, unfold it", "and then we'll fold it in half the other direction,", "also corner to corner but we're going to lift it up", "and we're going to hold the fold with both hands.", "We're going to bring these corners together,", 'making a little pocket and then,', 'this is the trickiest part of this whole design,', "so you're going to put your finger underneath the top layer", "and we're going to try to make that layer", 'fold right along the edge.', 'Now you see how the sides kind of want to come in', "as you're doing that?"]
-Explainee: ['Yeah.']
-Explainer: ["It's called a petal fold,", "it's a part of a lot of origami designs", "and it's key to the crane.", "Now we're ready for the magic.", "We're going to hold it in between thumb and forefinger,", 'reach inside,', "grab the skinny point that's between the two layers,", 'which are the wings,', "and I'm going to slide it out so it pokes out at an angle.", "We'll take the two wings, we spread them out to the side", 'and you have made your first origami crane.']
Explainee: [Wow.] ---> Phrasal backchannel

-Example (2):

-Explainer: ["Do you know what we're gonna talk about today?", "It's called blockchain."]
-Explainee: ["What's blockchain?"]
-Explainer: ["That's a really good question.", "It's actually a way that we can trade.", 'Do you know what trade is?']
-Explainee: ["Mmm-hmm, it's when you take turns doing something.", "It's when you give up most of what you want, right?"]
-Explainer: ['When you give up most of what you want?', 'Well, sometimes that definitely happens for sure.', 'What if I told you that this is the kind of technology', 'that I work on that means you could trade', 'with any kid all over the world?']
-Explainee: [Really?] ---> Phrasal backchannel
-Explainer: ['Yeah.']

-Example (3):

-Explainee: ['Connectone?']
-Explainer: ['Connectome.']
-Explainee: ['To be honest, I have no idea.']
-Explainer: ["That's good, that's a great place to start.", 'There are cells in your brain.', 'Those brain cells are connected by wires to each other.', 'Electricity travels down those wires and communicates', 'from one part of the brain to the other part of the brain,', 'and each of those brain cells makes, you know,', "a thousand connections, it's something like", 'a hundred trillion connections.']
-Explainee: [Whoa.] ---> Phrasal backchannel

Reassert

The same as assert, but the speaker thinks that the claim has already been made, and indicates it.

Example:

-Explainee: Why hasn't near 0% interest done this to the USD?
-Explainer: (Reassert)[As already mentioned, the relationship between inflation, interest rates and currency value is very complex. Inflation in the US has been low. Explaining that is a topic in itself, but maybe it'll suffice to say that the economies of Turkey and the US are very different. The United States' institutions, particularly the fed, are trusted to keep the dollar fairly stable in value, and they have the funds and economic strength to achieve this (barring some really big problem). The US dollar also has a special advantage known as "seigniorage" due to its central position in the world economy. I don't know enough about this to say how important it is here though. If inflation rates do rise in the US it's likely there'll be a rise in interest rates. This is occurring in the UK, which also has very low rates, at the moment.]

Reject

An utterance that rejects a proposal, request, statement or information request. It says nothing positive about the antecedent (possibly indicating error). It can be implicit or contain ”no” or “not”.

The following statements indicate reject moves:

-That's not a statement.
-One cannot conclude that.
-That is not the way to go.
-What you answered is not clear.
-This is not a complete statement.
-This is incomplete or not entirely correct.
-This is not a complete expression.
-You did not apply the rule correctly.

Reject-part

An utterance that rejects partly a proposal, request, statement or information request. It implicitly accepts another part of the utterance, but we only code what is explicitly rejected.

Example (1):

-That is not entirely correct.

Rephrasing

Rephrasing is an explanation move where the explanandum is phrased or expressed in a different way especially to make the meaning clearer

Satisfaction

An utterance which expresses a positive emotion.

Example (1):

-Explainer: ['Have you ever traded or sold anything?']
-Explainee: ["Actually, I'm selling my computer on eBay right now."]
-Explainer: ["That's amazing.", 'What made you decide to trade on eBay?']
-Explainee: ["Well, I mean, I've heard of it,", 'and I trust it a lot because they have', "all of their guarantees, so I know that I'm gonna", "get money and the person's gonna get what they want."]
-Explainer: ['So what if I told you that blockchain technology', 'is basically a tool where you can do the exact same thing,', 'but it goes to you and I directly?', "You wouldn't need an eBay or a brand in between."]
-Explainee: [That's cool.] ---> Satisfaction

Substantive backchannel

Substantive backchannel is a type of backchannel response. Substantive backchannels consist of more substantial turn-taking by the listener and usually manifest as asking for clarification or repetitions. More substantive backchannels such as "oh come on, are you serious?" require a context where the speaker is responding to something exasperating or frustrating.

summarising

summarizing could be considered as a scaffolding strategy where the tutor supplies a summary or recap of the answer. There is however an idea that "unskilled tutors normally give a summary that recaps an answer to a question or solution to a problem. This summary serves the function of succinctly codifying a lengthy, multiturn, collaborative exchange when a question is answered or problem is solved. A skilled tutor might encourage the student to construct the summary instead of the tutor supplying one. This would promote a more active construction of knowledge on the part of the student, an activity that is known to facilitate learning.

Example (1):

-Explainer: ['So you are already a PhD student, you know a lot about gravity, but what do you think you've taken away from this conversation?']
-Explainee: [Well, I've definitely taken away that the way that we think about gravity today is very different from how Newton thought about it, and that even though we have a very good understanding, "there's lots of things that we don't fully understand. There's still a lot of questions to be answered, which I think is really exciting.] ---> summarising
-Explainer: [ See, you're a scientist. [laughs], Isn't the best part being able to ask the questions?]
-Explainee: [ Oh yeah.]