Conversational Analysis of Chat Room Talk PHD thesis by Dr. Terrell Neuage University of South Australia National Library of Australia. THESIS COMPLETE .pdf / or
THESIShome ~ Abstract.html/pdf ~ Glossary.html/pdf ~ Introduction.html/pdf ~ methodology.html/pdf ~ literature review.html/pdf ~ Case
Study 1.html/pdf~ 2.html/pdf~ 3.html/pdf~ 4.html/pdf~ 5.html/pdf~ 6.html/pdf~ 7.html/pdf~ discussion.html/pdf ~ conclusion.html~ postscipt.html/pdf~ O*D*A*M.html/pdf~ Bibliography.html/pdf~ 911~ thesis-complete.htm/~ Terrell Neuage Home
Chapter 6 Conclusion and further
research
Chapter 6 Conclusion and further
research.... 5
My conclusion to this thesis is in three sections as I have found that this work had three general themes that were developed during the course of my research. Firstly, I looked at several linguistic theories which I highlighted as being of possible use in the establishment of an Online Discourse Analysis Method. Secondly, I posed several questions on electronic conversation at the beginning of this thesis (See 1.2) and in each case study, of which there are seven, I suggested questions which were pertinent to the particular case study. And thirdly, my conclusion to this study is that I have been researching a new textual genre which may be of an historical significance.
I made several hypothesis at the beginning of this thesis and I have used these hypothesis as a structure for my thesis and to centre my questions which would help to establish an Online Discourse Analysis Method and to verify chatroom genres. My three hypothesis are that chatrooms are a new genre of writing and communicating style, that people create a different ‘textual self’ for each chat room environment they are in and that chatroom ‘talk’ does not differs from natural conversation.
6.1 ODAM – theories on the way to ODAM
My overall strategy in the development of this thesis was to look at several theories of conversational analysis and apply a theoretical framework to individual chatrooms. I took the six theories of ‘Reading-Response’, ‘Computer-Mediated Communication’, ‘Semiotic Analysis’, ‘Speech Act’, ‘Discourse Analysis’ and ‘Conversational Analysis’ theory as well as examining several schools of linguistics and modified them so as to have a method to look at conversation in a chatroom.
Possessing a language is the quintessentially
human trait
(Pinker 2002, Lieberman, P. 1984 Piaget, J. 1926).
The Internet chatroom, in its universality, may be part of the process of
redefining what language is and how we are going to use it in the future to
communicate. It is possible that
most exchanges that are carried on in chatrooms are part of the entertainment
cycle of the chatroom inhabitant.
However, just as in any casual conversation the importance of exchange is
fundamental to who we are how we understand our world
around us and whether we are able to pass on meaning to someone else. Without
language we cannot understand one another and it this new language that has
developed rapidly since the mid-1980s as chatroom ‘talk’ that will effect our communicative endeavours. If chatroom language and turn-taking
dialogue becomes a normal way of communication then our every day conversation
may become either fragments as discourse in chatroom is or humans will learn to
disassociate themselves from one stream of thought in order to engage in a hypertextual mindfield of broken
conversational flow. At these early stages of electronic
communication there may be a parallel drawn to the broken-‘English’ or
pigeon of people learning a new language. As technology develops so that less
text is typed, i.e. video, i.e web cameras and voice
is used instead of keyboard type, chatrooms will take on more similarities to
offline-person-to-person conversation.
Of the
several theories which I have discussed in the case studies the primarily
important theories for chatroom conversational analysis are Reading-response
theory, semiotic analysis and discourse analysis. Finally I have used
conversational analysis to create a coding of electronic talk. As I discussed in
CS 1.2, ‘reading is as important to writing as listening is to speaking.
It is the response to the text by the reader that creates the written dialogue
of the reader-writer-listener-speaker in a chatroom.’ Even though I used
different theories with specific case studies I found that the theories could
have been applied to any of the case studies. However, using Reader-response
theory in case study one I found significant as that chatroom was about an
emergency. I looked at two emergency situations in the course of this research,
a chatroom during Hurricane Floyd and several chatrooms during September
11th in
6.2 Questions asked in case studies and in
Introduction
Re. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 1 – ‘That people create
a different ‘textual
self’ for each chatroom
environment they are in.’
Most chat servers divide their chatrooms into
areas.
v
Hosted
Rooms
http://www.talkcity.com/tiers/rooms_hosted.htmpl
(Our safest rooms,
with hosts who help keep the conversation on track -- and help new chatters feel
at home. Talkcity re. ChatSafe™ ‘Tired of chatroom flooders, hackers and
harassers? Talk City's new ChatSafe™ service delivers an environment
that minimizes the ability of intruders to disrupt your chat, and gives you the
tools and resources you need to maximize your freedom and
enjoyment.’)
v
Featured
Rooms
http://www.talkcity.com/tiers/rooms_featured.htmpl
(‘Rooms
where chatters prefer to follow Talk City Standards. Rooms
may be owned and hosted by members. Conversation son TalkCity run the gamut from personal lives to sports to
world events. Here are some rooms with a focus on different subjects.
This is a good starting place for finding people with interests similar to
yours.’)
v
Open
Rooms http://www.talkcity.com/tiers/rooms_open.htmpl
(Open category rooms are not regularly moderated or monitored. Visitors accept
additional risks when chatting here.)
I am reviewing the following rooms briefly of
the more than one thousand rooms available to chat in within the TalkCity portal. There are rooms for any topic imaginable
and my purpose in researching various rooms within the TalkCity arena is to get a ‘feel’ for the variety of
conversations in different rooms. I
was unable to ‘capture’ dialogue in TalkCity as their
rooms appear in java applets, which will not allow cutting or copying and
pasting. My comments therefore,
will not discuss actual text as I do in the chatrooms in the case studies which
I have used, but instead give a general overview to identify whether there is
turn taking as described in the individual case studies. This is not an
intensive review of chatrooms but I am just demonstrating whether different
chatrooms will exhibit different conversation. For the TalkCity rooms I visited and the rooms at Chatropolis which is different than most chatrooms as it is
more of a sexual image exchange site with little discussion ever involved, I
wanted to observe current conversations.
The TalkCity rooms I visited
were:
§ dealing-with-disability I checked into this room on several
occasions and there was no one in it.
The time of day I visited was between
§ diddling-n-doodling No one in the
room
§ flippinchicks No one in the
room
§
!massachusetts_flirts 21 visitors – There was a lot of ‘talk’
with little answering anyone. There
was mainly just statements, such as ‘I will never eat
McDonalds again’, with no follow up, even by the same person. There was a sense of just passing the
time away.
§ married-lonely-hearts-
No one in the room
§ not-necessarily-married
five – I said I was doing a PhD on ‘Conversational analysis of chatrooms’ – The
five people already in the room carried on dialogue on what I was doing a PhD on
for about half an hour. It became a
very question and answer chat and shows that whatever was being discussed in a
chatroom can be changed. Of course,
I don’t know what was previously said, but for the approximately 200 turn
takings I was involved in questions and answers were almost sequential. Someone would ask a question, and I
would answer.
§ !sexy-adults-who-arent-shy Seven
participants – everyone wrote in something to the effect of ‘neuage are you a male or female?’
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
(21:25:32 ) Darkside(m,44,TO)) : givent
the extent to which men appear to outnumber women in these rooms, perhaps
it would be more satisfying to be gay? |
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
( |
|
|
Taking
the dialogue from one other room we have the following turn
taking: |
|
|
( |
|
|
(21:54:53
) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to Traveling Man: Thank you.
Good eveing, *S* |
|
|
(21:55:05 ®) ©SCREWIE
gently nudges ~Banshee~: yep yep...she
better. |
|
|
(21:55:24 ®) ~Banshee~ says
to ©SCREWIE: LOL |
|
|
(21:55:42 ®) ©SCREWIE
gently nudges FREAK: elohssa says whats up? |
|
|
(21:55:44
) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to (M)agnet..: Ah! Your first response that you wont like... chuckling... I don't talk in
private, unless, ummmmmm....I am , errrr.......getting a lil
intimate , *S* |
|
|
(21:56:03 ) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to
Harry: Neither, I'm afraid, *laughs* |
|
|
(21:56:36
) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to (M)agnet..: chuckling... This guy has no clue
if this is true because he's not yet had the Goddess experience,
*S* |
|
|
(21:57:32 ®) ©SCREWIE
invites ~Banshee~ to get a little cozier: ya board? |
|
|
(21:57:54
) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to Traveling Man: How has your
evening been? |
|
|
(21:59:57
) oh (m) 4r/t : hello all..any horny
ladies looking for hott phone please private
message me...thanks |
|
|
(22:00:05 ®) ~Banshee~
offers a candy to ©SCREWIE: sorry that i
dont have any brownies |
|
|
(22:00:37
) (F)allen SlutGoddess says to Traveling Man: I like many
things. Just saw the halfpipe. pretty exciting
stuff, *S* |
|
|
(22:00:47 ®) ©SCREWIE
agrees with ~Banshee~: yep ...your sorry...*L*J/K...im on a roll....thats
all |
Chatropolis,
http://www.chatropolis.com/whochat/x.html, had
1684Users when I visited Chatropolis has
a lot of specific areas (Cybersex, Image Exchange,
Alternative Lifestyle,
Vampires, Bondage, S&M, Fetish,
Gorean Lifestyle, Role Playing and Bars),
each with many rooms such as
Cybersex
which has rooms as [Analopolis
‘Anal Sex
Chat’],
[Bed &
Breakfast
‘General
Chat’],
[Bits of
Tits
’Breast
Chat’],
[Five
Knuckle Shuffle
‘Masturbation’],
[Gang
Bang
’Cyber
Sex’]
and [Hairless
and Horny
‘Shaved
Smooth’].
Like TalkCity above there are many rooms catering to
whatever anyone fancies. The
dialogue to the right was cut and pasted from one of the rooms (observing more
than a dozen rooms the talk was basically the same as this dialogue with little
variation. In all these chatrooms there are a lot of photos posted, primarily of
females in various undress situations.
note… looking for
overlaps or commonalities here. A
question I often ask as I progress with this study is whether there is a
difference between theories. For
example, what is so different between ‘Conversational
Analysis’ ‘Discourse
Theory’ and ‘Speech Act
Theory’? Each theory has volumes of
published material, advocates, dissenters, as well as there are schools of
thoughts with breakaway theories and on forever. Is any one theory better than another
for the analysis of conversation?
Can one theory better produce meaning than another can? After looking at each theory
individually in the Case Studies, I will attempt to answer these questions in
the discussion and comparison chapter.
The language
frontier: Chat-room as the beginning and end of
language.
With
the wide availability and increase in devices to receive and relay text
messages, languages have become the latest frontier in communication. Language is perhaps the biggest
remaining hindrance to any interaction online. The Internet has made the world a
global village, with English as the lingua franca of cyberspace, but the numbers
of non-English speakers and those who don't share English as their first
language are rising rapidly and will soon overtake the number of native English
speakers. One of the fastest growing non-English speaking Internet communities
is in
According
to IDC,
the number of people accessing the Internet in
Different ‘textual
self’
Natural
conversation
That 'chat' does not differs from natural conversation
1) That people create a different 'textual self' for each electronic environment they are in, and that we should not continue to regard all electronic textual practices as equal. (A question arises whether the speaker makes the chatroom or does the chatroom create the speaker?) Just as in real life, talk parallels an environment. For example, one speaks differently at a church supper than at a brothel) I am referring to different chatroom environments and not the wide range of electronic dialogue tools available such as eMail, eGroups, newsgroups and one-on-one eChat areas such as Instant Messenger or ICQ. Some chatrooms invite participators to play a role such as in ‘Friendly Bondage Chat’[4][11].
‘A person may claim to be a different gender, or might use two identities at the same time in one chatroom....It’s up to each individual to decide how they wish to represent themselves...’ http://www.bedroombondage.com
Participators in a religious chatroom may choose to ‘speak’ differently than they would in the bondage chatroom or in a baseball chatroom or an academic or policy-making chatroom or a crisis care chatroom. These are the various ‘textual selves’ I am exploring. In my research I use a variety of chatrooms to analyse how text is written.
2) That conversation within chatrooms, without all the cues of previous forms of conversation (physical or phone meeting and dialogues) will change how we come to know others and new cues based on written conversation may become as important as the physical ones which we rely on now.
3) That observational study of chatroom conversation can capture some of the adaptations of conversational behaviours from the way people identify themselves (log-on or screen names) and how they 'talk' As this is a grey area from an ethics point of view, the identifying of the user, I may not be able to explore this as fully as I would want to.
4)
That this work gives us a better understanding of how, and why, chatrooms
are an important area in which to create a new conversational research theory.
This new eclectic approach to ‘chat’ ‘borrows’ from existing theories of
linguistics and Computer Mediated Communications as outlined in the beginning of
the Literature Review.
5) That 'chat' does not differ from natural conversation
compare all seven case study’s
chatroom’s dialogue in a discussion of whether there
is a pattern of talk that is similar in all chatrooms.
This
study has looked at chatroom conversation as a new genre of writing. My research
has come from the study of a number of chatroom dialogues. I have concentrated
on several Internet multivoiced chatrooms, two two
person only Instant Messenger dialogues as well as having looked at several
other chatrooms for comparisons. After using several linguistic theories to
investigate chatrooms I have found that the theories I used had some useful
tools to analyse chatroom talk but none of them were fully adequate on their own
to discuss chatrooms as a writing genre. The reason is because all the theories
pre-date this form of communication. I therefore, propose that a new theory,
using parts of other linguistic theories be developed to research the chatroom
genre. I have labelled this theory, Online Discourse Analysis Theory (ODAT). In
its most basic state this is the theory of investigating all electronic
communication, including, email, chatrooms (MUDs, IRC,
IM, ICQ), discussion and news groups, net-conferencing, mobile telephone,
hand-held computers as well as new forums as technology develops. I have
narrowed this study to Chatroom Online Discourse Analysis Theory (CODAT) and
have furthered narrowed the study of Online Discourse to a linguistic study to
show how people communicate online to create a new genre of writing and
speaking.
What
makes chatroom writing a new genre is the result of its format. Fleeting writing
is the result of chat disappearing soon after it is
written.
As I have noted throughout this thesis, online chat is a new language which uses several linguistic features that are un common in other genres. Firstly, the emoticons people use has an agreed meaning for only several symbols. Using :) is interpreted as a smile or that what was said was a bit of a joke. A few others which are commonly used as expressions of feelings online are: {{{{}}} for hugs and :-) for frowning. This is the beginning of a new language which incorporates symbols for words. There are thousands of other emoticons, many are the playful imagination of the creator of the emoticon, such as;
|
:( |
Person who is sad because he or she has a large fish for a nose |
|
:%) |
Accountant |
|
@@@@8 (|) |
Marge Simpson |
|
:-(( |
Al Jolson |
Just as there are several emoticons which are becoming
universal, for example, on French chat sites[5]
many of the emoticons are the same as are used in English chatrooms, many may
not become part of a universal language of computer speak. As electronic talk
becomes more prevalent there will be more emoticons exchanged with the same
intended meaning.
|
:-) |
le sourire |
the smile |
|
:-)) |
le rire |
the laughter |
|
:-( |
le triste |
the sad one |
|
:-# |
je ne dirai rien |
I will not say anything |
|
() |
sans commentaire |
without comment |
Abbreviations on line
I have collected several hundred emoticons and
abbreviations and saved them at, http://se.unisa.edu.au/phd/storm/abreviations.htm
Discussing
how computer language is linked with other languages
Language
origins are based on speculations. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
there were several proposals with labels such as; ‘ding-dong’, ‘bow-wow’ and ‘yo-he-ho’ theories (Barber 1972) to explain the origin
of language. With chatrooms,
language may be going through a new and rapid development. Chatroom communication separates
from traditional language through world corruption and its use of abbreviations and emoticons.
The
acquisition of computer-based language is just as important as the learning of a
child to speak. Because it
computer-speak is done by people who already have a basic language it is a
learning of a new language or a shortening of linguistics to what would be in a
social person-to-person setting a series of grunts or maybe even just hand
signals. Chatroom
conversation is similar to earlier forms of communication such as
smoke-signals. They are simple in
their expression but meaning is derived from knowing what they mean in
context.
Chatrooms are as close to being
pre-literate [D1] as they are to being an advanced literate
textual state. Language is broken down to its simplest rudimentary format. At the same time there is a certain
advanced form of communication involved, when one is limited to a few words to
state irony, belief structures or humour, as well as to have a command of enough
emoticons and abbreviations to create meaningful interaction. [D2]
When
doing comparison on action – re.
Discourse markers p. 10-13 schiffrin
Nonlinear
scientists believe that self-organization is part of the dynamics by which life
arises from inert matter. Nonlinear systems often undergo a process of
self-organization in which order arises spontaneously out of disorder. P.23 IONS march-may 2002.
Pre-electronic
corpora
|
|
Pre-electronic corpora see http://leo.meikai.ac.jp/~tono/resources.html#Pre-electronic%20corpora
for more Corpus-based research
is often assumed to have begun in the early 1960s with the availability of
electronic, machine-readable corpora. However, before then there was a
considerable tradition of corpus-based linguistic analysis of various
kinds occurring in five main fields of scholarship. (Kennedy 1998:
13)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Major electronic corpora for
linguistic research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
First generation
corpora |
Eighty-four percent of US Internet users have
contacted an online group[6]
Smoke signals to Internet
FROM
SMOKE SIGNALS TO THE INTERNET - http://www.chariot.net.au/~michaelc/ELLS/conf.html
Some theoreticians have based their discourse theories
on environmental factors while others believed that it is the innate factors
that determine the acquisition of language. We can not assume what the innate
factors here are but the acquisition of language, if shown here, is of limiting
value. What is shown in chatrooms
is the invention or even the reinvention of communication using the minimal
amount of words.
The
primary intents and purposes of the practice of linguistic science, directly
point to its fundamental capacity to convey, to transfer and to exchange
meaningful information by physical means of expressing and exchanging
information.
For
example, with respect to our special species' case, we cannot alter the
fundamental nature of the matter, whether the physical signals are sent in the
secondary form of smoke signals from hilltop to hilltop, or by way of drumbeats
from jungle settlement to jungle settlement, or whether the physical signals are
sent in the secondary form of fiber-optic cable
telephone signals from sea to shining sea and from shore to shifting shore, or
in any of the various, possible other secondary physical forms of different ways
of which there are many more.
http://www.nuclear-free.com/savage/partthree.htm#four
6.4 Further Research
One of
the areas of on-line conversation that would be good for future investigate is
the differences between conversations of known participants and unknown. (see case study 2 – IM)
flaming
Linguistic
study of flaming – flaming as discourse
how people communicate intent through
flaming.
However, the smaller groups seem to attract more dialogue with ‘The_Perfect_Britney_Spears_Fans’ group having the most members postings messages of all the groups except for the largest group, Britney Spears Legs Club and Sexy_Britney_Spears having very few postings. This could be a further research project looking at how young people and fan worship operates as meaning generation.
Is chatroom conversation different with people we know in them?
1.
Smoke
signals and Internet
2.
http://www.ccci.or.jp/newsletter/96autumn_e/issues.html
For
further study
How
one responds to messages may be a result of whether the communication is
Point-to-Point or Point-to-Mass.
I do not include multimedia
in the chatroom as part of the interpretation of the chat text in this thesis as
I am only interested, here, in text only chatrooms. However, I would believe
that a chatroom with multimedia would have one of two affects on the
conversation. Firstly, there could
be so much chaos due to text plus images and sound to contend with that the
textual message could easily become lost.
Secondly, the converse, the multimedia could enhance the textual message
and make it clearer. This would make a good further research
project.
Table
X12
|
Theory
used |
Case
study |
Title |
Chat-log |
# of
users |
Turns
recorded |
#
words[7] | |||
|
Reader-Response
Theory |
45 |
279 |
2001 | ||||||
|
Reading Theory
-
(also - hypertextuality) |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
Speech Act (SA)
theory |
Astrology
'chat' ---- |
16 |
85 |
| |||||
|
Discourse Analysis
(DA) |
11 |
89 |
| ||||||
|
Conversational Analysis (CA)
|
8 |
511 |
| ||||||
|
Semiotics
(Pragmatics) |
17 |
70 |
297 | ||||||
|
Linguistic schools of
thought |
13 |
155 |
570 | ||||||
|
|
Chapter
7 |
IM |
|
2 |
|
| |||
|
110 |
1189 |
|
| ||||||
|
TABLE ONE |
Highest |
Lowest |
Averg. |
|
A/ = greetings or
salutations |
5 (30) |
3 (01) |
12% |
|
B/ = statement- open no one in particular, ever
who is in the chatroom |
1 (40) |
4 (09) |
20% |
|
C/ = statement - to someone named or previous
(earlier) speaker |
3 (62) |
1 (18) |
38% |
|
D/ = answer - to someone named or previous
(earlier) speaker |
6 (19) |
05 % |
11% |
|
E/ = answer - open - to ever who is in the
chatroom |
5 (05) |
6 (01) |
01% |
|
F/ = question - open - to anyone - ever who is
in the chatroom |
1 (08) |
4 (01) |
04% |
|
G/ = question - to someone specific or previous
(earlier) speaker |
1 (13) |
5 (01) |
07% |
|
?/ = undetermined or not classifiable by one of
the criteria above |
4 (08) |
6 (03) |
05% |
|
** = uses abbreviations such as lol |
3 (30) |
5 (05) |
|
|
*) = uses emoticons in places of words or
identify |
5 (05) |
6 (03) |
|
|
CS |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
? |
*) |
** |
|
1 |
STORM (Reader) |
.05% |
.40% |
.18% |
.12% |
.01% |
.08% |
.13% |
.01% |
|
|
|
2. |
IM (CMC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
SPEARS (Semiotics) |
.01% |
.16% |
.62% |
.05% |
|
.03% |
.07% |
.06% |
4 (.06%) |
(21) 30% |
|
4 |
ASTROCHAT (SA) |
.11% |
.19% |
.32% |
.16% |
|
.01% |
.10% |
.08% |
|
|
|
5 |
TALK CITY (DA) |
.30% |
.09% |
.30% |
.11% |
.05% |
.05% |
.01% |
.05% |
.05% |
.05% |
|
6 |
WEB3D (CA) |
.11% |
.22% |
.37% |
.19% |
.01% |
.06% |
.02% |
.03% |
.03% |
.06% |
|
7. |
BASEBALL (Schools) |
.16% |
.15% |
.46% |
.05% |
|
.03% |
.07% |
.07% |
|
|
|
|
average |
.12% |
.20% |
.38% |
.11% |
.01% |
.04% |
.07% |
.05% |
|
|
|
TABLE THREE
| ||||||
|
CS |
|
Greetings |
Statements |
Answers |
Questions |
? |
|
1 |
STORM (Reader) |
.05% |
.58% |
.13% |
.21% |
.03% |
|
2. |
IM (CMC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
SPEARS (Semiotics) |
.01% |
.78% |
.05% |
.10% |
.06% |
|
4 |
ASTROCHAT (SA) |
.11% |
.51% |
.16% |
.11% |
.11% |
|
5 |
TALK CITY (DA) |
.30% |
.39% |
.16% |
.06% |
.09% |
|
6 |
WEB3D (CA) |
.11% |
.59% |
.20% |
.08% |
.02% |
|
7. |
BASEBALL (Schools) |
.16% |
.61% |
.05% |
.10% |
.08% |
|
|
average |
.12% |
.58% |
.12% |
.11% |
.07% |
5.5
References
Lieberman, P. (1984) The biology and
evolution of language.
Piaget, J. (1926) The language and
thought of the child.
Pinker, Steven. (2002) Language Acquisition, in L. R. Gleitman,
M. Liberman, and D. N. Osherson (Eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science,
2nd Ed. Volume 1: Language.