394 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
Table 2: Variables Analyzed^
Variable Interpretation
DialogType actual vs. randomized
OtherSpeakers total number of participants, minus one
n length of n-grams (1, 2 or 3)
n-bar^ n-gram length as a two-level factor (“1” or^
“2+”)
Nbar n-bar
NGrams total number of n-grams in a turn
SelfShared count of tokens from turn shared with own
prior contribution
OtherShared count of tokens from turn shared with prior
contribution of other
ss SelfShared
os OtherShared
SSrel SelfShared / NGrams
OSrel OtherShared / (NGrams OtherSpeakers)
NonSelfShared NGrams-SelfShared
NonOtherShared (NGrams OtherSpeakers)-OtherShared
nss NonSelfShared
nos NonOtherShared
SSprop SelfShared,NonSelfShared
OSprop OtherShared,NonOtherShared
II. A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
The method of analysis advocated here provides an index of
synchronized engagement in conversation. This section addresses
an example of conversation that has been independently
transcribed and analyzed in order to provide a reference point
for assessing levels of engagement as a proxy measure of mutual
understanding in cases that are selected as more contentious and
discussed in Part III. The example is one in which opinion
evidently converges on the notion that the conversation does not
exemplify mutual understanding.
Nbar and vary solely DialogType.