Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1 Making Inferences in Chats
3. Rationale
4. Method and Design
5. Significance
References
Appendix
1. Introduction
The term conversation is related to spoken interchanges that take place in real time and where participants may change the topic as the conversation unfolds. “[c]onversations have their own particular mechanisms for controlling coherence and who is talking“ (Harley 1995, p. 208). Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and Webchats in general constitute a form computer- mediated communication (CMC) which also occurs in real time. Participants are spatially distant and communicate through written language. Yet this form of synchronous communication contains elements of both written and spoken discourse. Werry (1996) affirms that the discoursive properties of IRC are “a direct reflection of the physical constraints on the medium combined with the desire to create language that is as ’speech- like‘ as possible.“ (p. 48)
Chats are characterized by the anonynimity of their participants. People join a Chat room under a nickname and optionally provide some personal description and information about themselves in the so called ’profiles‘, which can be recalled by any participant at any time. This information may not correspond, however, to the real features of the person. Messages are relatively short, usually not more than a line, and are displayed in the order in which they are received by the system. As a result, different sequences are juxtaposed and topics are interwoven; this creates a relative incoherence in the communication. “The kind of sequencing evident contrasts significantly with that of oral discourse, as well as most forms of written discourse.“ (Werry 1996, p. 51) One of the strategies to avoid ambiguity and improve coherence is in some cases addressing the message with the corresponding nickname of the addressee.
The use of abbreviations like “re“ for “hello again“ as well as the acronyms “ROTFL“ (rolling on the floor laughing) or “brb“ (be right back) among others is also characteristic of the chat communication. Subject pronouns and auxiliaries are usually omitted in the messages. Moreover, a set of orthographic strategies is employed as compensation for the lack of paralinguistic and prosodic cues. Capitalization is often used to indicate yelling or to express emphasis. Periods and repetition of letters are intended to represent pauses and expressive intonation respectively. Smileys like “:- )“, “;-)“ or “J“, the most popular among participants, are used to express emotions graphically. Actions of everyday life such as hugging, kissing, shaking hands, offering coffee, etc., are enacted symbolically. Some of them are usually enclosed in asterisks (*hugs*, *shakes hands*), or written in third person after the nickname (“Zola fills a flute of champagne for all“). The graphic representation of these actions may compensate for the lack of physical and contextual cues in Chats (see Werry 1996, p. 60). IRC and Webchats are very similar in their structure. The difference between them lies in their technical properties, such as the set of commands through which users can join a room, send private messages to other participants, produce smileys or simulate actions and gestures.
Harley (1995) affirms that the construction-integration model is one of the most plausible theories in explaining spoken and written text comprehension. The model emphasizes text understanding, the representation of texts in memory and their integration into the comprehender’s general knowledge base. The terms text and discourse are used by the author almost interchangeably when referring to both written and spoken language. According to the model, input is processed in cycles, and short-term memory serves to store incoming material. Text is represented as a network of connected facts which build up coherence. The microstructure of a text is thus constituted by this network of connected facts. At a macrostructural level, readers retrieve general schemata from long-term memory. They decide which information is relevant and may construct inferences after deleting or summarising facts from the microstructure (see Harley 1995, pp. 233-234). Yet Chats are characterized by syntactically reduced forms in the messages as well as their loosened coherence. How is comprehension possible then? How do participants process the information that is displayed when interacting with each other? As already mentioned above, a central characteristic of Chats is their mix of spoken and written discourse conventions. Can comprehension in Chats be thus explained through theories of text comprehension which account for both oral and written language? Does the medium only constrain the way language is produced? Or does it reflect other aspects of text comprehension which have not been considered before?
This paper first surveys several studies that have already been done in this area of CMC. An example of a log file from one one-hour session on a Webchat illustrates in a general way the process of anaphoric resolution. A group of questions is presented then, regarding some psycholinguistic aspects of text comprehension which have not been taken into account in previous research. These questions will evaluate the claim that text comprehension is a constructive and not a minimalist process. In order to asses whether the claim is true or not, it will be suggested that the medium influences to some extent the way of text comprehension. Finally, a method of analysis will be proposed which comprises not only traditional elements of psycholinguistic theories but also some aspects of pragmatics.
2. Background
Reid (1991) sees IRC as a postmodern phenomenon in which social boundaries are deconstructed and users construct their own community and culture. It offers the possibility of playing with identity and gender-switching. “The chance to escape the assumed boundaries of gender, race, and age creates a game of interaction in which there are few rules but those that the users create themselves.“ (Reid 1991) She suggests that the use of smileys and other orthographic symbols together with the set of rules intended to enforce acceptable behaviour (the “netiquette“) are measures through which users construct their community and own culture.
In her study about nicknames in IRC, Bechar-Israeli (1995) illustrates that, although possibilities of identity playing exist, people tend to keep the same nickname for a long period of time and become deeply attached to it. The author analysed a corpus of 260 nicknames from four different IRC channels after a year of field research. Her results showed that among nicknames related to famous people, innanimate objects, or sex, those related to the self comprised in some way the most significant category. She came to the conclusion that although the medium is tolerant of identity games and deviations from social norms (including sexual fantasies, aggressiveness, and different forms of lunacy) without jeopardizing one's self, most IRCers don't take advantage of this privilege. Usually they prefer to keep the same nickname and identity, which for the most part is connected to a certain element in the real self which they wish to exhibit. (Bechar 1995)
Werry (1996) terms Chat communication as a form of “interactive written discourse“. He focuses his analysis on exchange structures, forms of addressivity, the use of abbreviations, smileys and other graphic symbols. Regarding the way messages are displayed on IRC, the author argues that this leads to rapid shifts in topic and to separate conversations intertwining. Messages are usually short in order to keep up with the flow of conversation. The use of abbreviations and acronyms also accelerate the way with which messages can be exchanged. Orthographic reduction and omission of pronouns resembles phonological reduction and elipsis in informal speech. As for the symbols used to compensate for the lack of paralinguistic and prosodic elements, Werry (1996) affirms that [p]articipants tend to play with language, to produce hybrid, heteroglossic forms that incorporate all manner of communicative styles. [...] Through being embodied in electronic text, the speaker’s words are depersonalized, stripped of all of the material qualities that individualize them and connect them to a particular speaker. Yet at the same time, words exist in a temporal framework which aproximates oral discourse, which requires interactivity and involvement, and which invites the fabrication of the texture and signature of an individual speaker’s voice. The process of self-conciously constructing the paralinguistic dimensions of communication may heighten the sense of their artificiality, and lead to an increased tendency to experiment and play with them. (pp. 58-59)
Hentschel (1998) observes a type of territorial behaviour on IRC. Users who employ obscene expressions may be thrown or banned from the channel by the so called channel operators, who are responsible for maintaining certain control on IRC channels. Banned users are not allowed to enter the channel again. According to the author, throwing a user from a channel may have the effect of a pedagogical measure, while banning can be seen as serious and unfriendly. Both acts are considered by Hentschel (1998) as territorial activities, with the territory in question being virtual. Such activities may lead to “virtual wars“ with banned users trying to join the channel they were banned from under a different nickname and with the intention to ban others. They could also send so many messages to the channel at the same time that any other message exchange is almost impossible. Regarding turn-taking, she makes the following statement:
If one wants to keep their turn on the IRC, one must take refuge in other resources. Contrary to other forms of communication, what one does is not talking on and on without pause, but interrupting one’s own sentences - typically in places where it is quite clear that they are not yet complete. (Hentschel 1998)
In her paper “Framing and face in Internet exchanges: A socio-cognitive approach“ Bays (1998) examines some conversational mechanisms on IRC to gain access to some cognitive structures of interaction. Following Goffman (1959), she employs the concepts of frame and face to describe base cognitive structures of presence constructed through discursive conventions and strategies. Inside of these structures, parallels to ordinary conversation can be found. Frame is regarded as the physical setting in which participants can express themselves and through which their words and actions are suitable. IRC users “have accepted the imaginative structure of an environment as a foundation to build their discursive symbolic system. This discursive community becomes a ’place‘ to meet others.“ (Bays 1998)
The notion of face is defined as “the positive social value that a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineation in terms of approved social attributes - albeit an image that others may share“ (Goffman 1959, p. 5)
Bays (1998) argues that nicknames show the aspect of face that users want to present. During interaction on IRC there is an ongoing process of verification of the information participants present. Nicknames are the beginning of a user’s line, and the verification process attempts to prove the consistency of this line. Being banned from an IRC channel could be seen as aspect of loosing face and reflect the establishment of social norms in this medium of interaction. Finally, the author suggests that
IRC allows us the opportunity to pare down the parameters of interpersonal interaction in order to try to see the underlying structures. Given the technical restrictions on physical expression and co-presence, we note that the participants readjust their criteria for a valid exchange and adapt their contributions and the medium to their desire to communicate.The key to this is the recreation of presence as the cognitive foundation upon which all other conversational strategies are based. (Bays 1998)
Herring (1999) evaluates coherence on IRC by surveying available research on this area. She illustrates some descriptive studies of CMC making use of the methods of conversation analysis. These studies are summarized under two aspects: ’turn taking‘ and ’sequential coherence‘. Regarding turn taking, the author asserts that the principle of no overlap between speakers in face-toface interaction are violated in CMC. Temporal overlaps do not apply to IRC, since messages appear in chronological order. However, there is an overlap of exchanges. Several messages can be addressed to a single initiating message, or one message can respond to other previous sequences. Messages may also not be responded to by the users, or a person could also send the same message repeatedly.
Sequential coherence in spoken conversations is characterized by speaking turns intended to be responses to previous ones. They will occur adjacent to one another in a temporal sequence. This group of turns are called ’adjacency pairs‘. Extended sequences of related turns comprise ’topics‘. On IRC, sequences that are related to each other can be separated by a number of other messages and thus contradict this notion of adjacency. There is also a tendency for topical fragmentation to take place.
Participants compose responses to a topic simultaneously without knowing what (or even that) others are writing; as a result, multiple competing new directions for discussion are introduced. As participants respond to others' responses, the chances that they will move further away from the original topic - and that new topics of discussion will arise - increase exponentially. (Herring 1999)
The author gives two explanations to account for the popularity of IRC despite its relative incoherence: The ability of users to adjust to the medium, and the possibility of language play. Moreover, she sees the overlapping of exchanges as a mo re efficient way of turn taking. Participants can type at the same time and then read the messages of the others, since there is a persistent available textual record. IRC also provides the possibility of hyperpersonal interaction due to the possibility of multiple simultaneous exchanges with other participants in different rooms at the same time.1
The studies mentioned above analysed communication on IRC in terms of the possibilities of playing with identity and language, activities considered as territorial behaviour, sociocognitive aspects, as well as in terms of turn taking and sequential coherence. However, many psycholinguistic aspects related to text understanding have not yet been considered when explaining this form of CMC.
2.1 Making Inferences in Chats
According to Harley (1995), the main way of dealing with communicated material is through the process of making inferences. “In making inferences, we construct a model of the complete structure that is communicated by the words and sentences that are presented.“ (p. 207). He distinguishes between logical, bridging and elaborative inferences. The first type of inferences follows from the meaning of the words. Bridging inferences are formed in the process of relating new information to previous information to create coherence in the text. Through elaborative inferences, we extend the text with our world knowledge (see pp. 216- 217). Two different positions are commonly held in explaining the process of making inferences; inferences are made either during comprehension or during recall. These positions are related to the constructionist and the minimalist approach of comprehension respectively. The author suggests that only bridging inferences are likely to be made during text comprehension, while elaborative inferences are generally made later during recall (see Harley 1995, p. 218).
Bridging inferences can be made in texts through anaphoric and cataphoric references. Anaphoric referents follow their antecedents, and are represented in the text either by pronouns or other words referring to the same thing. Cataphoric referents precede their antecedents. (see Harley 1995, p. 220). Moreover, the author distinguishes between deep and surface anaphors. While surface anaphors are characterized by their omission from the surface structure, deep anaphors are explicitly presented in text. Processing referents in text is called by Harley (1995) resolution. “Anaphoric resolution is not other than a particular type of backguard inference that we must do to maintain a coherent representation of the text“ (p. 221).
The following extracts taken from the log file of one one-hour session on a Webchat will try to show how the process of making inferences functions. They were taken from the English-speaking room “Oakland/ East Bay 1“, on the ’floor‘ “U.S. Pacific“, in the URL www.gay.com. Sequences in this log file were numbered, including messages that appeared on the screen when users joined the room.
We could first make the logical inference that participants in this room are male, since the room is intended to be a virtual encounter for people of the gay community. However, not all the nicknames or the information provided by users when joining the room illustrates explicitly that this is the case. The following information could result ambiguous in assigning gender to participants:
2. Please say hello to Fillmore's foot: 34 caramel colored 6'3.
3. Please say hello to HrdBdyWntd: mailto:HrdBdyWntd@gay.com http://facelink.com/hrdbdywntd/h573.
25. Please say hello to PoetByEscape: mailto:PoetByEscape@gay.com.
28.Please say hello to ViolinGodJosh: mailto:ViolinBoy@onebox.com Don't call me baby http://home.collegeclub.com/Osiris18/VGJ.html.
127. Please say hello to magix22: http://www.facelink.com/magix22 . The man in the wilderness asked me, how many strawberries grew in the sea. I answered him, as I thought good, as many as red herrings grew in the wood..
It is also plausible that female participants hide behind the following nicknames that allude
to male users: <Chris 24...booted>, <Alex (26)>, <MARC-HEAVEN>, <HotTom>,
<tecknoboi20>. Other nicknames like <N8>, <PoetByEscape>, <magix22>, <RVNBLU3>, <notch220> or <slider> may not refer explicitly to male or female users. The extract below shows examples of anaphoric resolution:
68. <Rimbaud15> My personal favorite quote is a peom by Rimbaud, thus the nick duh
69. <N8> been busy at work
70. <Scheile> yes they going to put in my inplamt
71. <Alex(26)> that's good
72. <N8> Joshie has some new pics !!
73. <N8> sometimes alex
74. <N8> :)
75. <Rimbaud15> similar to yours in an odd way Mark
76. <Scheile> to help me with my epilpsy
77. <Alex(26)> Night don't tell me their gonna make u go in later today
78. <NIGHT-WING> Hell No I am off the est of the day and tomorrow
79. <Alex(26)> kewl kewl
80. <NIGHT-WING> well I gotta make a few calls
81. <NIGHT-WING> I will talk to everyone later
82. <Alex(26)> take care bro
83. Please say hello to concord boy.
84. <N8> later Night
85. <NIGHT-WING> I will Alex
86. <NIGHT-WING> hey save a room for me with a bathroom in it
87. <NIGHT-WING> hehehehe
88. <Alex(26)> Night theres a meeting going on later tonight at 1220 if u wanna join
89. <N8> brb
90. <NIGHT-WING> well I am without transportation
91. <Rimbaud15> Well, I'm in legal hell and headed to the law library at Berkely this afternoon, anyone want coffee, if I find time?
92. <Scheile> it's call it a Vagus Nerve Stimulater
93. <Alex(26)> I can pick u up only if u want me to
94. <HrdBdyWntd> ciao boys have to ge tback to work...
95. <HrdBdyWntd> bye
96. <Rimbaud15> bibi hrd
97. <HrdBdyWntd> bye
98. <NIGHT-WING> well I tell you what I have to make a call first and see what is going on
99. <Alex(26)> okay
100. <NIGHT-WING> Alex do you have a number I can call you at
101. Please say hello to adidasboi*: 24 for fun, prefer to bottom but can top. 102. <Alex(26)> Yeah I do
103. <N8> bye HBW 104. <Scheile> bye
105. <N8> Me too ... gotta run boyz talk to you all later
Some of these sequences illustrate examples of surface anaphors, where some elements have been deleted from the previous referents. <NIGHT-WING>‘s response “I will (_) Alex“ on sequence 85 is related to the turn from the user <Alex(26)> “take care bro“. <Alex(26)>‘s turn “Yeah I do (_)“ refers to the previous message of <NIGHT-WING> on sequence 100, and <N8>‘s message “Me (_) too ...“ on sequence 105 may be linked to eleven previous turns on the sequence 94 by <HrdBdyWntd>. Deep anaphors are also present in this extract. The pronoun “yours“ on sequence 75 has its referent in the word “nickname“ mentioned by the same user on sequence 68. In <Scheile>‘s message “it’s call it a Vagus Nerve Stimulater“, the pronoun “it“ may refer to “my inplamt“ on sequence 70. In <Alex(26)>‘s “I can pick u up only if u want me to“, “u“ is related to the user <NIGHT-WING> and his/her previous message on the sequence 106. Although most of the sequences linked by this process of anaphoric resolution are separated by a number of other messages, a certain understanding between the participants and a relative coherence may have been achieved by the use of surface and deep anaphors that refer to other messages from the same or different users. However, it is not always very explicit if such an understanding is reached. After <Scheile>‘s turn “it’s call it a Vagus Nerve Stimulater“ there was no other message related to this sequence. Participants may have not been interested in following this topic and responding to the message. Yet between the pronoun “it“ and its antecedent “my inplamt“ there are 22 other messages, which can make the understanding of this referent more difficult. “Antecedents are generally easier to locate when they are close to their referents than when they are further away [...]“ ( Harley 1995, p. 223).
This is one of the strategies that Harley (1995) claims to be involved in the process of anaphoric resolution. Another set of strategies is defined by the author as parallel function, in which anaphors are easier to understand if they match their antecedents in the same relevant position. Anaphoric resolution could also be explained through the notion of accessibility: more accesible antecedents are retrieved faster.
The following extract will illustrate the use of some of these strategies. The topic of discussion is about one user who constantly bothers <slid er> and the possibility of ignoring or banning him. These sequences did not totally occur in the order that are presented here. The numbers on the left side correspond to their real order in the log file and may give an idea of the number of other messages that appeared between them.
203. <slider.> yeah, but of course the thing i have a problem with is never in the instructions 204. <HotTom> slider has a stalker
206. <slider.> i do for real tom 207. <HotTom> huh?
208. <slider.> spooky
211. <BigPaws> Really slider?
214. <slider.> we ll...this guy bothers me all the time 216. <slider.> and is very strange
217. <BigPaws> on line? 218. <slider.> yup
219. <BigPaws> and no real identification just a stranger? 220. <HotTom> does he ever talk, slider?
221. <slider.> yup
222. <BigPaws> is he abusive?
223. <slider.> oh no, he wants to "hook up"
224. <HotTom> do you need it taken care of, slider? 225. <BigPaws> and he is just persistent 227. <slider.> lol
228. <DeanSanJose> so give him a line and sinker 230. <BigPaws> Is this on gay.com?
231. <slider.> it's not a real big deal, but it is a little strange 232. <slider.> yup
234. <DeanSanJose> Nothing is strange on gay.com 235. <HotTom> how does he bother you? 236. <slider.> he privates me
237. <BigPaws> Slider you can select PEOPLE and then IGNORE so you do not receive messages from him either pvt or in the room
240. <slider.> i know paws it's not that bad, just a little strange is all
241. <BigPaws> By doing that you will lock him out for the entire chat session 242. <HotTom> i see, you like the excitement
243. <BigPaws> OK but be careful, you know some people get too strange 245. <slider.> i have heard things paws
246. <BigPaws> yup so have I --
247. <slider.> no tom, it's just that i don't get too worked up over it 248. <Rimbaud15> OOO ooo, talkin about me? :-P 249. <slider.> i mean can u blame him? 250. <slider.> lol
251. <HotTom> hey paws, you're just around the corner from the mechnic i go to 252. <BigPaws> I am?
253. <slider.> u are strange rimbaud, but i'm not talking about u. 278. <Rimbaud15> look at I missed something hehe
The user who bothers <slider> is first referred to as a “stalker“, then as “this guy“, “a stranger“, “he“, “it“, and “him“. In some cases, the antecedent and its referents are in the same position in the message, as subject of the sentence. In other occasions, the referent is in object position. The pronoun “it“ refers to the general situation of bothering in the sequences: “do you need it taken care of, slider?“, “ it's not a real big deal, but it is a little strange“ and “ i know paws it's not that bad, just a little strange is all“. The referent appears twice in the subject position and once as the object. This may suggest that not only the strategies of parallel function are applied here in order to resolve anaphoric ambiguity: referents are close to their antecedents, since the number of other messages that are not related to the topic of discussion is relatively short. Antecedents are also more accessible and can be faster to retrieve. <Rimbaud15>‘s difficulty to follow the discussion (sequences 248, 278) can be explained by the difficulty of retrieving the antecedents and their corresponding referents. In previous sequences both <Rimbaud15> and <Alex(26)> started communicating through private messages (see appendix, p. , sequences 131, 132).
These extracts serve only to illustrate some aspects related to psycholinguistics and text comprehension and cannot be taken as representative. More detailed research needs to be done in the processes of making inferences and resolving anaphoric ambiguity, the goals participants try to achieve during communication, and how cooperation is reached in this form of CMC.
3. Rationale
Harley (1995) asserts that we usually read for gist and forget afterwards details of surface form. “Comprehension is to some extent a constructive process: we build a model of what we are processing, although the level detail involved is controversial.“ (p. 224) This approach is presented in contrast with the minimalist account of comprehension, which suggests that readers do as little work as possible in text comprehension, only enough to make sense of the information (see p. 207). The author surveys then some models of text representation and processing to support his view of comprehension as a constructive process.
In propositional network models, sentences and text are represented as networks, where the intersections are related to the meaning of words, and the connections constitute the relationships between words. Sentences are analysed in terms of propositions, which are the smallest units of meaning with an internal structure and have a truth value. Propositions are thus connected together in propositional networks. He criticizes these models by arguing that they may indicate how knowledge is represented, but do not explain the process of making inferences and how the gist from text is obtained.
Schema-based theories illustrate the organisation of knowledge and the way the gist of text is remembered. Harley (1995) suggests four central processes involved in schema formation: selection of incoming stimuli, abstraction of meaning and its relation to syntactic and lexical details (sentence parsing and processing), activation of prior knowledge to interpret this meaning, and integration of the whole information to form a single holistic representation. Moreover, scripts are considered as another type of schema formation which comprises the sequences of events to be found in an action. According to the author, schema-based theories explain the way information is organised and the type of inferences that are made, but not how these inferences are made, or how anaphoric ambiguity is resolved. “To do this we must consider not only how knowledge is represented in memory, but also the processes that operate on that knowledge and relate it to incoming information.“ (p. 231) He thus suggests that the construction-integration model is the most promising theory in explaining the representation of texts in memory and their integration into the comprehender’s general knowledge base.
From these theories of text representation and processing, one could consider the following questions about communication in Chats:
- Do participants in Chat rooms construct a model of what is being communicated? Or do they process information only to make out the general sense?
- What type of information is selected by Chat users when responding to previous messages?
- How do processes of syntactic parsing function? How is meaning assigned to the sequences of messages?
- How do participants integrate new information to their prior knowledge in order to make inferences?
- What type of inferences are most frequently made during communication in Chat rooms? How are these inferences made given the constraints of the medium?
- In what way can anaphoric resolution be described in Chats?
The processes of making inferences constitutes one of the central themes in the area of pragmatics. According to Harley (1995), pragmatics deals with two interrelated main topics. The first one refers to the way in which hearers go beyond the literal meaning of what is said and draw inferences. These inferences are related to the particular goals speakers want to achieve in conversations. The second topic comprises the way conversations are maintained. Conversations are considered as a collaborative enterprise in which speakers collaborate with listeners to ensure the understanding of their utterances. “People are always making inferences at all levels on the basis of what they hear. Our utterances interact with the context they are uttered to give them their full meaning.“ (p. 236)
Harley (1995) reviews the theory of speech acts, and the Gricean maxims to account for the way goals are achieved during conversations. Following Searle (1969, 1975), the author illustrates five categories:
- Representatives. The speaker is asserting a fact and conveying his belief that a statement is true [...].
- Directive. The speaker is trying to get the listener to do something [...].
- Commisives. The speakers commit themselves to some future course of action
- Expressives. The speakers wish to reveal the psychological state.
- Declarative. The speaker brings about a new state of affairs. (p. 237)
They are defined as direct speech acts if the intention of the speaker can be recognized in his/her words. They constitute indirect speech acts when the intention of the speaker is ambiguous. Yet ambiguity might be difficult to analyse through this theory. In this respect, Harley (1995) alludes to the cooperative principle between speakers and hearers needed in conversations. Following Grice (1975), the author refers to four conversational maxims,:
- Maxim of quantity. Make your contributions as informative as is required, but no more.
- Maxim of quality. Make your contribution true. Do not say anything that you believe to be false or for which you lack sufficient evidence.
- Maxim of relevance. Make your contribution relevant to the aims of the conversation.
- Maxim of manner. Be clear: avoid obscurity, ambiguity, wordiness, and disorder in your language.
(pp. 238-239)
If these maxims are not followed, a type of inference called conversational implicature is done to maintain cooperation in conversations. Ho wever, inferences made from the violation of these maxims may vary between speakers.
Speech acts and conversational maxims lead to some questions that still need to be answered:
- What type of speech acts are most commonly used to achieve the goals of the participants during communication in Chats? (to criticize the static vision of it)
- In what way the theory of conversational maxims can be useful in explaining cooperation in Chats?
- Do speech acts and conversational maxims determine the way elaborative inferences are made?
- Which aspects of pragmatics other than speech acts or conversational maxims need to be taken into account in the analysis of Chat communication?
Approaches to conversation analysis deal with the structures that are used to maintain conversations. In addition to syntactic, lexical, paralinguistic and prosodic elements, conversations are structured through elements of turn-taking and sequential coherence (see Linke, Nussbaumer and Portmann 1996 pp. 262-292). Yet some of the critical studies mentioned above showed that this is not the case in Chat communication. In this way,
- How can collaboration be maintained in Chats?
- If there is no collaboration, which aspects other than playing with language and identity can support communication in Chat rooms?
- How does the transgression of face-to- face conversational structures influence the type of inferences made by participants?
These questions will try to evaluate the claim that text understanding is a constructive process, and that it can be better explained through the construction-integration model. To evaluate this claim, the following hypothesis will be suggested: the medium not only constraints the way language is produced, but it also influences the processes of text comprehension in a certain way. Many of the characteristics of Chat communication mentioned above clearly contrast with those of face-to-face conversation. The fact that so many users can interact at the same time in a Chat room makes text relatively incoherent and comprehension more difficult. According to the minimalist approach, “as few inferences are made as possible, and those that are made are kept as simple as possible and use only information that is readily available.“ (Harley 1995) It could be implied that text comprehension in Chats is likely to be explained through elements of both a constructive and a minimalist process. Other pragmatic aspects will also have to be considered in the analysis of this form of CMC. If the hypothesis suggested is confirmed, it will show that text comprehension has to be considered in a direct relationship with the medium through which it occurs.
4. Method and Design
Chat rooms related to different general topics will be taken into account in the analysis. Age, gender and socio-economic status of the participants cannot be established due to the anonymity of the users. The data will be gathered in a “naturalistic“ way (see Garman 1990, p. 113), i.e. in the way it occurs during interaction between participants. Given the assumption that utterances are not produced at random, and that speakers want to achieve particular goals in conversations, it will be more useful to collect the material without doing any manipulation to test the hypothesis suggested. Another assumption underlying the research is that general topics in Chat rooms could probably determine the group of users that join that room and the goals this users want to achieve during their interaction.
The analysis of the log files will consider processes of syntactic parsing and sentence processing, the relationship between given and new information among sequences of messages, the type of inferences made by participants (logical, bridging and elaborative), the most common strategies used to resolve anaphoric ambiguity, the way in which both speech acts and conversational maxims influence the process of making inferences and the type of inferences made, as well as some strategies of turn-taking and sequential coherence.
The analysis will be based on data from Chat rooms that have a recreational character. Rooms joined by users to discuss a very specific theme will not be considered, since the way discussions are conducted in these rooms resembles in many aspects that of face-to- face communication.
A first step will comprise a structural analysis of the sentences contained in the messages. Afterwards, it will be compared to which extent the syntactically reduced forms characteristic of Chats vary from channel to channel. In this way, some methods of syntactic parsing could tested. The responses of participants to previous messages will also be considered to see if messages are understood, and to determine how meaning is assigned to the sequences of messages.
Harley (1995) argues that “[i]t takes less time to understand a new sentence when it explicitly contains some of the same ideas as an earlier sentence than when the relationship between the contents of the sentences has to be inferred.“ (p. 209) In this respect, it will be taken into account how participants integrate new to previous information in their messages. Logical, bridging and elaborative inferences will be considered in the analysis to see what type of inferences are most commonly drawn in Chat communication. Bridging inferences will be analysed through the process of anaphoric resolution. And elaborative inferences will be determined through the analysis of speech acts and conversational maxims. It will also be proved to which extent strategies to achieve sequential coherence differ from channel to channel, or if they are the same type of strategies in all the channels analysed.
In addition to the analysis of Chat rooms according to different topics, the number of participants will also be taken into consideration. Rooms with a maximum of 10, 25 and 40 participants will be regarded to see how the aspects of text comprehension mentioned above may vary.
5. Significance
Psycholinguistic theories of text comprehension have considered aspects that account for both oral and written language. It has been proposed that the construction-integration model can be the most appropriate to explain text representation and processing. Yet the mix of spoken and written language, as well as other characteristic of Chats, could make some aspect of this model questionable. This paper proposes a research that takes into account not only traditional elements of text comprehension, but also some aspects of pragmatics which should also be integrated in psycholinguistics, which could lead to a significant improvement over the original studies.
Chats can show on the one hand an idea of the innovative linguistic strategies that have been developed in this type of CMC. On the other hand, the way communication occurs through this medium may contrast with many traditional assumptions of psycholinguistic theories of text comprehension and shed light on new aspects of the psychology of language.
References
Bays, Hillary (1998). “Framing and Face in Internet exchanges: A socio-cognitive approach“. In: Linguistic Online. http://viadrina.euv- frankfurt-o.de/~wjournal/bays.htm 29 Nov. 1999
Bechar-Israeli, Haya (1995). “From <Bonehead> to <cLoNehEAd>: Nicknames, Play and Identity on the Internet Relay Chat“. In: JCMC 1 http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/bechar.html 02 Dec. 1999
Garman, Michael (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge
Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York
Grice, H.P. (1975). “Lo gic and conversation“. In: Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol3: Speech acts. New York. pp. 41-58
Harley, Trevor A. (1995). The Psychology of Language. From Data to Theory. Erlbaum (UK)
Hentschel, Elke (1998). “Communication on IRC“. In: Linguistic Online. http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~wjournal/irc.htm 29 Nov. 1999
Herring, Susan C. (1999) “Interactional Coherence in CMC. In: JCMC 4. http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/herring.html 02 Dec. 1999
Hinrichs, Gisela (1997). Gesprächsanalyse zur Kommunikation im Internet. Das Chatten im WWW. http://www.websprache.uni- hannover.de/networx/docs/networx-2.pdf. 28 Nov. 1999
Linke, Angelika, Nussbaumer, Markus and Paul R. Portmann (1996). Studienbuch Linguistik. Tübingen
Reid, Elizabeth M. (1991). Electropolis. Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat. http://people.we.mediaone.net/elizrs/electropolis.html 02 Dec. 1999
Runkehl, Jens, Schlobinski, Peter and Torsten Siever (1998). Sprache und Kommunikation im Internet. Opladen / Wiesbaden.
Schmitz, Ulrich (ed.) (1995). Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 50. Oldenburg. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge
Searle, J. R. (1975). “Indirect speech acts“. In: Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics. Vol3: Speech acts. New York. pp. 59-82
Weingarten, Rüdiger (ed.) (1997). Sprachwandel durch Computer. Opladen
Werry, Christopher (1996). “Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat“. In: Herring, Susan C. (ed.). Computer-mediated Communication. Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam. 47-63
Appendix
1. <NIGHT-WING> so what is everyone up too
2. Please say hello to Fillmore's foot: 34 caramel colored 6'3.
3. Please say hello to HrdBdyWntd: mailto:HrdBdyWntd@gay.com http://facelink.com/hrdbdywntd/h573.
4. <HrdBdyWntd> howdy boys
5. <N8> no good and you Night?
6. <N8> howdy hrdbdy
7. <NIGHT-WING> HrdBdyWntd OMG
8. <NIGHT-WING> same here
9. <HrdBdyWntd> how are you?
10. <NIGHT-WING> great HBW what about you
11. Please say hello to Chris 24...booted.
12. <HrdBdyWntd> just honky dory
13. <NIGHT-WING> hiya Chris 24
14. <NIGHT-WING> HBW I have been thinking about you since we met
15. <Chris 24...booted> hi night wing
16. <HrdBdyWntd> i tend to leave that impression on people...lol
17. <NIGHT-WING> Bigelk said that he has not seen you around either since that Whitehorse night
18. <HrdBdyWntd> nah...i dont go there much
19. Please say hello to assplay buddy: cleancut handsome WM with hunky butt seeks fun guy into hot assplay, rimming, toys, whatever. Be into hot manass play.
20. <NIGHT-WING> so we thought that you had dropped off the face of the earth
21. <HrdBdyWntd> nah...just been busy with work..trying to get a promotion...have set some new goals
22. <NIGHT-WING> yeah I know what you mean
23. <NIGHT-WING> I am doing the same here
24. <HrdBdyWntd> want to pay off jeep and get another toy..want to do some more things to the house too
25. Please say hello to PoetByEscape: mailto:PoetByEscape@gay.com.
26. Please say hello to Pay4cum: 55 y o married will pay 4 your load pvt ok.
27. <PoetByEscape> hello room
28. Please say hello to ViolinGodJosh: mailto:ViolinBoy@onebox.com Don't call me baby http://home.collegeclub.com/Osiris18/VGJ.html.
29. Please say hello to MARC-HEAVEN: mailto:MARC-HEAVEN@gay.com.
30. <ViolinGodJosh> g'day, boys!!
31. <ViolinGodJosh> :-)
32. <N8> Joshie!!!!
33. <HrdBdyWntd> hello
34. Please say hello to Alex(26): @ work and hanging.
35. <ViolinGodJosh> N8!!!!!!111
36. <N8> hi alex
37. <NIGHT-WING> hiya Alex and MARC-HEAVEN
38. <PoetByEscape> g'day violin
39. <ViolinGodJosh> hello Poet :)
40. <Alex(26)> Hey N8, and Night
41. <MARC-HEAVEN> afternoon NIGHT WING
42. <N8> hi MARC
43. <MARC-HEAVEN> hi N8
44. <Scheile> so NIGHT -WING how are you/
45. <NIGHT-WING> tired
46. <NIGHT-WING> I just got in from work
47. <Alex(26)> really night?
48. <MARC-HEAVEN> you don't look old enough to have a bf of 20 years N8
49. <NIGHT-WING> but other than that I am great
50. <ViolinGodJosh> what a girl wants, what a girl needs
51. <NIGHT-WING> yueah
52. <Alex(26)> U work grave yard last night?
53. <N8> thanks MARC
54. <Scheile> I'm off did you read the profile yet
55. <NIGHT-WING> hell no
56. Please say hello to Rimbaud15: mailto:Rimbaud15@gay.com.
57. <Scheile> ok
58. <NIGHT-WING> I got to work at 5 am
59. <Alex(26)> stocking before the store opened?
60. <Scheile> well I'm into surgery
61. <Rimbaud15> Oooooo Markheaven, Nitzche, nice
62. <NIGHT-WING> No I was doing price changes
63. <MARC-HEAVEN> thanks
64. <Alex(26)> kewl
65. <N8> alex how are u?
66. <Alex(26)> Doing okay N8
67. <Alex(26)> haven't seen u around much
68. <Rimbaud15> My personal favorite quote is a peom by Rimbaud, thus the nick duh
69. <N8> been busy at work
70. <Scheile> yes they going to put in my inplamt
71. <Alex(26)> that's good
72. <N8> Joshie has some new pics !!
73. <N8> sometimes alex
74. <N8> :)
75. <Rimbaud15> similar to yours in an odd way Mark
76. <Scheile> to help me with my epilpsy
77. <Alex(26)> Night don't tell me their gonna make u go in later today
78. <NIGHT-WING> Hell No I am off the est of the day and tomorrow
79. <Alex(26)> kewl kewl
80. <NIGHT-WING> well I gotta make a few calls
81. <NIGHT-WING> I will talk to everyone later
82. <Alex(26)> take care bro
83. Please say hello to concord boy.
84. <N8> later Night
85. <NIGHT-WING> I will Alex
86. <NIGHT-WING> hey save a room for me with a bathroom in it
87. <NIGHT-WING> hehehehe
88. <Alex(26)> Night theres a meeting going on later tonight at 1220 if u wanna join
89. <N8> brb
90. <NIGHT-WING> well I am without transportation
91. <Rimbaud15> Well, I'm in legal hell and headed to the law library at Berkely this afternoon, anyone want coffee, if I find time?
92. <Scheile> it's call it a Vagus Nerve Stimulater
93. <Alex(26)> I can pick u up only if u want me to
94. <HrdBdyWntd> ciao boys have to ge tback to work...
95. <HrdBdyWntd> bye
96. <Rimbaud15> bibi hrd
97. <HrdBdyWntd> bye
98. <NIGHT-WING> well I tell you what I have to make a call first and see what is going on
99. <Alex(26)> okay
100. <NIGHT-WING> Alex do you have a number I can call you at
101. Please say hello to adidasboi*: 24 for fun, prefe r to bottom but can top. 102. <Alex(26)> Yeah I do
103. <N8> bye HBW 104. <Scheile> bye
105. <N8> Me too ... gotta run boyz talk to you all later 106. <Napajon> hi creekboy
107. <Rimbaud15> Hey Alex, give me a ride and I can get shit -faced! hehe 108. <Rimbaud15> BiBi nate
109. <N8> <--- is totally gay 110. <N8> LOL
111. <Rimbaud15> it was figurative, no offense meant
112. <Scheile> Night- Wing if this were pvt I would give you my eamial and ask for you phone number 113. <N8> none taken just playing
114. <Rimbaud15> k ;-P
115. <N8> :)D
116. <N8> good luck on your legal fight Rim
117. <Rimbaud15> Oh, I'm fucked, that's why I'm off to the law library
118. <Rimbaud15> thank you though
119. Please say hello to Napahorndog: mailto:Napahorndog@gay.com. 120. <Rimbaud15> Somthin to drink about anyway
121. Please say hello to HORSRYDA9: mailto:HORSRYDA9@gay.com. 122. <Rimbaud15> haha
123. <Alex(26)> Rimbaud where u at?
124. Please say hello to JohnnyQ: 5'11", 175lb, br/br, masculine, athletic/fit, attractive, easy going, friendly, fun & adventerous kind of guy..
125. Please say hello to HotTom: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/4989/stache/goatee/buzz, very masc/fit/athletic, sexy redhead, ASK B4 PVT.
126. Please say hello to magix22: http://www.facelink.com/magix22 . The man in the wilderness asked me, how many strawberries grew in the sea. I answered him, as I thought good, as many as red herrings grew in the wood..
127. <N8> no prob Rim...bye VGJ, Alex, Night, Red and everyone else...old and new
128. <Rimbaud15> pretty far Alex
129. <Napajon> magix22 LOL
130. <magix22> :)
131. <Alex(26)> prvt Rim?
132. <Rimbaud15> sure babe
133. <ViolinGodJosh> bye N8!!!
134. <Alex(26)> bye N8
Pittsburg/Antioch border
135. <ViolinGodJosh> has anybody seen Concordboy lately? 136. <N8> not in a while Joshie
137. <N8> later
138. <HotTom> hey jaesve 139. <N8> *poof*
140. Please say hello to BigPaws: mailto:BigPawMassage@aol.com
141. ***Please read my profile before pvt*** NO cyber, phone, or hook-ups. Other pic at
http://www.facelink.com/aw41 more about massage? see =>
http://hometown.aol.com/bigpawmassage/index.html. 142. <ViolinGodJosh> *grrrr*
143. <ViolinGodJosh> Bastard stood me up.
144. Please say hello to RYAN20_mo nitor: PVT. for assistance
only...Thanks...mailto:RYAN20_monitor@gay.com.
145. Please say hello to DeanSanJose: SlimOlderGWM 5'6" 145# shaved head seeks SLIM/attr guy
http://members.delphi.com/dminotaur http://mypage.goplay.com/dminotaur.
146. <HotTom> hey Paws
147. Please say hello to TallHans: http://www.geocities.com/c_it_all/tallhans.html or mailto:TallHans@gay.com. 148. <BigPaws> Hi HotTom, how are you feeling today cowboy?
149. <HotTom> Much better, thanks Paws; about 90% normal
150. <BigPaws> Keep that other 10% tucked warm and snug in your shorts and it will feel better tomorrow 151. <DeanSanJose> Darn I'll never be normal
152. <BigPaws> Hi Dean
153. <HotTom> i'll keep that in mind, Paws 154. <DeanSanJose> Hi Big Paws 155. <HotTom> and i got my car fixed, too
156. Please say hello to brklyboyy: 21yo, 6ft, 185, blk/brn, asain, built, looking for an older guy near Berkeley for r/t.
157. <BigPaws> That always feels good
158. Please say hello to blkml_42_livermore: mailto:blkml_42@gay.com. 159. <HotTom> except for the price
160. <DeanSanJose> Hi brkly
161. Please say hello to kinky.swimmer.: enjoys wild things. ask b4 pvt / pvt with pic only :
http://www.fuxter.com/profiles/swimmer_boy.htm.
162. <BigPaws> The computer thing went out on mine - it ran awful $500 fixed it
163. Please say hello to Rich_Berkeley: hot, blond, blu, 5'9, 165, 7 cut, masc, fit, gdlkg, 47 yo. Love to suck & swallow. Pvt OK..
164. <BigPaws> What did you have done to it? 165. Please say hello to eastbay19.
166. <HotTom> same with mine; crank sensor or somethin like that
167. <BigPaws> <<<--Volvo always expensive, but I do have a good mechanic in Berkeley 168. Please say hello to Antiochboy22: http://www.facelink.com/ab22.
169. <HotTom> i have a good one in Oakland, too 170. Please say hello to slider.: in pittsburg.
171. <BigPaws> I think we are neighbors Tom, you live by the Lake don't you? 172. <HotTom> aww. slider
173. <HotTom> yeah, i do, paws
174. <slider.> hey thomas.
175. <BigPaws> Hi slider
176. <slider.> hi again paws
177. <BigPaws> Me too on Harrison
178. <HotTom> i'm off grand near perkins
179. <BigPaws> Oh right by Mr. Neutron. I am about 5 blocks from you
180. Please say hello to tecknoboi20: http://profiles.yahoo.com/technoboi420 Latino bleached hair goatee Pierced tongue & eye brow Looking to hook up for some fun and excitement..
181. <HotTom> how are ya, slider?
182. <slider.> doin good tom
183. <slider.> playing eith this caerea 184. <slider.> with
185. <slider.> came ra 186. <slider.> sheesh
187. <HotTom> must be fun 188. <slider.> frustrating 189. <Alex(26)> Slider
190. <tecknoboi20> hello guys was up
191. <BigPaws> Got anything to show us slider? 192. <slider.> i'm not good with instructions 193. <BigPaws> Hi teckno
194. <slider.> sorry paws, lol
195. Please say hello to edible pleasures: Berkeley. 196. <slider.> hi alex
197. <tecknoboi20> hi big paws
198. Please say hello to Hayw4fun: Masc Latino in Hayward, 35 y/o 6'ht 195 lbs average build, 33 waist stache- goatee total top.
199. <Alex(26)> u know Asn's been looking for ya
200. <BigPaws> I prefer to mess around with things and go to the instructions for reference 201. <slider.> thanks alex
202. <HotTom> hey Hayw4fun
203. <slider.> yeah, but of course the thing i have a problem with is never in the instructions 204. <HotTom> slider has a stalker
205. Please say hello to Joe_B: 6'2", 180#, blk hr blu eyes, med. build/hairy chest, masculine (top), pvt ok.
http://www.trans-progressive.com.
206. <slider.> i do for real tom 207. <HotTom> huh?
208. <slider.> spooky
209. <ViolinGodJosh> so is everyone going to 1220 tonight?
210. Please say hello to Fremont420: Gen X latino,5'7",goatee, tan, cute and fun... WOOHOO!. 211. <BigPaws> Really slider?
212. <Chuckie925> are you going josh
213. Please say hello to 23 berkley: looking for guy under 23 for hook up. 214. <slider.> well...this guy bothers me all the time
215. <ViolinGo dJosh> I'm gonna try
216. <slider.> and is very strange 217. <BigPaws> on line? 218. <slider.> yup
219. <BigPaws> and no real identification just a stranger? 220. <HotTom> does he ever talk, slider?
221. <slider.> yup
222. <BigPaws> is he abusive?
223. <slider.> oh no, he wants to "hook up"
224. <HotTom> do you need it taken care of, slider? 225. <BigPaws> and he is just persistent 226. <ViolinGodJosh> gotta reboot...brb 227. <slider.> lol
228. <DeanSanJose> so give him a line and sinker
229. Please say hello to WM4AsianCream: Luv Asian cream lay back and let me pleasure you. 230. <BigPaws> Is this on gay.com?
231. <slider.> it's not a real big deal, but it is a little strange 232. <slider.> yup
233. Please say hello to tecknoboi20: http://profiles.yahoo.com/technoboi420 Latino bleached hair goatee Pierced tongue & eye brow <Looking to hook up for some fun and excitement> give great oral with Pierced tongue. 234. <DeanSanJose> Nothing is strange on gay.com
235. <HotTom> how does he bother you? 236. <slider.> he privates me
237. <BigPaws> Slider you can select PEOPLE and then IGNORE so you do not receive messages from him either pvt or in the room
238. <tecknoboi20> re-hi everyone 239. <BigPaws> re hi teckno
240. <slider.> i know paws it's not that bad, just a little strange is all
241. <BigPaws> By doing that you will lock him out for the entire chat session 242. <HotTom> i see, you like the excitement
243. <BigPaws> OK but be careful, you know some people get too strange
244. Please say hello to tonednconcord: tite bod, blonde hr,blue eyes, 158# of toned gay boy-pvt ok, care to work up a sweat?.
245. <slider.> i have heard things paws 246. <BigPaws> yup so h ave I --
247. <slider.> no tom, it's just that i don't get too worked up over it 248. <Rimbaud15> OOO ooo, talkin about me? :-P 249. <slider.> i mean can u blame him? 250. <slider.> lol
251. <HotTom> hey paws, you're just around the corner from the mechnic i go to 252. <BigPaws> I am?
253. <slider.> u are strange rimbaud, but i'm not talking about u. 254. <BigPaws> I am near that old Caddilac dealer
255. Please say hello to SFRaunchsub: servicing Don white man--rimming face fucking ws roles verbal. 256. <HotTom> 23rd street garage
257. <BigPaws> OK, down HArrison a bit
258. Please say hello to Longlegz: mailto:Longlegz@gay.com/pic&info in profile/ lookin for hairy bottom for real time today hayward, san leandro, fremont area.
259. <Longlegz> hi guys
260. <slider.> hey ll
261. <BigPaws> Hi Legz 262. <slider.> thomas...
263. <BigPaws> Co me up and soak in the hot tub some time TOm 264. <Longlegz> howdo slider and PAWS
265. <HotTom> yeah, slider?
266. <HotTom> well, i might want a massage, paws
267. <slider.> i have a friend who will be staying at that b&b close to u 268. <BigPaws> ok just let me know
269. <HotTom> oh yeah?
270. <slider.> yep
271. <slider.> friday and saturday
272. <BigPaws> I didn't know there were any here. 273. <HotTom> how did they find out about it? 274. <Scheile> hi slider
275. <BigPaws> Are you coming down to see him?
276. <slider.> he asked me to stop by and look at it
277. <BigPaws> Damn and I will be in Geyserville this weekend 278. <Rimbaud15> look at I missed something hehe 279. <slider.> i didn't ask tom, he claims to be straight 280. <HotTom> yeah right
281. <slider.> lol
282. <BigPaws> "claims to be" I love it
283. <HotTom> it's right on Van Buren, Paws 284. <slider.> lol
285. <HotTom> very non-descript
286. <HotTom> but has a gay flag flying on top 287. <BigPaws> of his butt
288. <BigPaws> LOL
289. Please say hello to Topguy.: Nice Asian in Berkeley. 290. <slider.> yep, he casually mentioned that
291. Please say hello to Hayw4fun: Latino in Hayward top here, 35 y/o 6 'ht 190 lbs average build, stache-goatee. 292. <Longlegz> hi hayw4fun
293. <HotTom> i like your home page, Paws; very honest 294. <BigPaws> Thanks Tom
295. Please say hello to notch220: mailto notch220@hotmail.com looking for a casual relation. mabey more ...must be 18-24yo and cut.
296. <Longlegz> hi notch 297. <notch220> hey 298. <notch220> sup room
299. Please say hello to theQ: http://www.qwarlock.com/qwarlock.
300. Please say hello to bi-bay-guy: 35 5"10 black hair brown eyes for hot safe oral now. 301. <HotTom> what's up in Ge yserville, Paws?
302. <BigPaws> not much notch s.o.s.d.d.
303. Please say hello to horn dog: 36yo biwm 6 -2 200 inshape masc vgl hung and hungry -- in sf bay area. 304. Please say hello to RVNBLU3: mailto:RVNBLU3@gay.com.
305. <BigPaws> Golden Gate Men's Council retreat 306. <HotTom> i'm gonna be up at the Russian River
307. Please say hello to BLUE621: gam/masc/musc/good looking...iso friends...pvt is cool. 308. <BigPaws> Oh at the Lazy Bear thing
309. <HotTom> yeah
310. <BigPaws> This is just about 30 of us at a friends vinyard. We pitch in $25 each and have a big dinner under the oaks, hand out at the hot tub and skinny dip in the pond
311. <HotTom> sounds kinda fishy to me, Paws
312. <slider.> lol
313. Please say hello to latinaction: 24yo latino 5'9" 165lbs blk. ltbrn eyes..Looking for friends.Live in Castro Valley.Work in Berkeley for a home furnishing company looking for friends 18-23 pic available. 314. <HotTom> hand out?
315. <slider.> ARE U A LAZY BEAR TOM? 316. <latinaction> hey everyone whats up??? 317. <slider.> oops
318. <BigPaws> nah, at night we do some drumming and poetry, 319. <slider.> sowwy
320. <latinaction> i just moved here from new mexico 321. <RVNBLU3> Wussup
322. <HotTom> no, slider
323. <BigPaws> Welcom to the area latinaction 324. <HotTom> i intend to wake them up 325. <slider.> lol
326. <slider.> i bet
327. <latinaction> thanks
328. <BigPaws> I hear it is crowded up there
329. <latinaction> although i do miss my friends in albuquerque 330. <latinaction> crowded???
331. <HotTom> that's what i hear, Paws, but it should be a lot of fun 332. <latinaction> what do you mean
333. <BigPaws> you will make new ones here 334. <latinaction> yeah
335. <latinaction> im looking to do that
336. <BigPaws> We were talking about the crowds at Russian River latin 337. <slider.> when are u going tom?
338. <HotTom> tomorrow night, slider 339. <HotTom> till sunday
340. <slider.> don't hurt anybody
341. <HotTom> it's a kind and gentle crowd 342. <latinaction> i have the day off today
343. <slider.> that's what i mean tom...and u loose amongst them 344. Please say hello to Theosis: mailto:Theosis@gay.com.
345. <HotTom> i'm bringin a big tent, too 346. <slider.> awoooooooooo
347. <BigPaws> awww the worst thing he would do is give them his cold 348. Please say hello to John..: 43 5.9 brn hr green east bay. 349. <slider.> u stilll have a cold tom?
350. <HotTom> by tomorrow i will be contagious-free
351. <HotTom> it's just about gone, slider; just stuffiness 352. <latinaction> contagious free???
353. <latinaction> you got the flu??? 354. <HotTom> no, just a cold, latin 355. <HotTom> on the wane 356. <latinaction> infection??? 357. <slider.> ebbing?
358. <HotTom> no infection, just a normal cold 359. <BigPaws> attenuating?
360. <latinaction> thank god i rarely get sick 361. <HotTom> either do i, latin
362. <slider.> he has an infectious smile 363. <HotTom> that's true, slider
364. <latinaction> i guess because i take my vitamins every day 365. <HotTom> flintstones?
366. <latinaction> your page wont come up hottom 367. <HotTom> or chocks
368. <slider.> i don't take vitamins and i haven't had a cold in several years
369. Please say hello to Terrific Guy: 43, 5'10", 160, brown,green,goatee, hairy chest, fit. 370. Please say hello to hung_muscleboy.
371. <latinaction> you must eat good and not do drugs or drink 372. <slider.> um i eat good
373. <HotTom> slider?
374. <latinaction> or live under stress 375. <HotTom> har har har
376. <BigPaws> I have to walk over to the Mail Box place on Grand @ Perkins to FedEx something. It gives me another chance to visit handsome Jesus who runs the place. Do you know who I mean HotTom? 377. <slider.> no stress here baby
378. Please say hello to tecknoboi20: http://profiles.yahoo.com/technoboi420 Latino Bleached hair goatee
Pierced Tongue and eye brow <looking to hook up Private ok to chatt>.
379. <HotTom> you know, i think i do, Paws!
380. <HotTom> is he gay?
381. <BigPaws> He is one cutie pie 382. <HotTom> real friendly?
383. <BigPaws> No I don't think so "cal;ims to be" straight 384. <slider.> lol
385. <BigPaws> yes he is friendly but to everyone 386. <slider.> lot of that going around 387. <notch220> hey room
388. <HotTom> my page must be down, latin
389. <notch220> I NEED TO WARN ALL OF YOU 390. <HotTom> oh no
391. Please say hello to Cute98: mailto:Cute98@gay.com. 392. <latinaction> that sucks
393. <latinaction> o well 394. <Cute98> hello all]
395. <BigPaws> RED ALERT????
396. Please say hello to cutepinoy22: http://facelink.com/keepitreal pinoys & azns +. 397. <BigPaws> Hi Cute
398. <Cute98> hello big
399. <BigPaws> What happened to our warning? 400. <HotTom> we're wating, notch
401. <slider.> the sky is falling...there u have it
402. Please say hello to KRONIK LATN.
403. <BigPaws> SMoking cigarettes can cause cnacer? 404. <latinaction> i wish i had a joint
405. <latinaction> or a sack 406. <BigPaws> an dyslexia? 407. <latinaction> id be high 408. <HotTom> a sack?
409. <HotTom> i have a joint, latin
410. <slider.> how do bend ur knees latin? 411. <jaesve> lol
412. <latinaction> sack of weed
413. <HotTom> well, jaesve IS alive 414. <jaesve> u do not hottom
415. <latinaction> i don't bend my knees 416. <jaesve> I am
417. <HotTom> yes, i do 418. <slider.> dayum
419. <notch220> ANTIOCH22 IS CRAZY HE STALKS PEOPLE,4 REALS I'M IN THE PROCESS OF FILING A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM PLEASE JUST BEWARE
420. Please say hello to GAManon: nothing to do for lunch so back to work
mailto:PecPlay99@hotmail.com.
421. <jaesve> u do
422. <jaesve> wow 423. <slider.> hi gam
424. <HotTom> is that a surprise, jaesve? 425. <notch220> U'VE BEEN WARNED 426. <GAManon> slider!
427. <HotTom> did i just move down a notch on your list, jaesve? 428. <jaesve> well sorta
429. <BigPaws> Hi gamaon
430. <slider.> and thank u for that notch 431. <GAManon> heya BigPaws!
432. [Wed Jul 19 22:19:51 GMT+02:00 2000] Disconnected. Close this window and try again.
[...]
Frequently asked questions about the Language Preview
What is this document about?
This is a language preview which includes a title, table of contents, objectives and key themes, chapter summaries, and key words related to the analysis of communication in Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and Webchats.
What topics are covered in the table of contents?
The table of contents includes sections for Introduction, Background (including Making Inferences in Chats), Rationale, Method and Design, Significance, References, and an Appendix.
What are some key characteristics of chat communication?
Chat communication is characterized by real-time interchanges through written language, anonymity of participants, short messages, interwoven topics, abbreviations, acronyms, omission of pronouns and auxiliaries, and orthographic strategies to compensate for the lack of paralinguistic and prosodic cues.
What does the introduction cover?
The introduction defines conversation, discusses the nature of IRC and Webchats as computer-mediated communication (CMC), highlights the mix of written and spoken discourse elements in chats, and raises questions about comprehension in this context.
What is the Construction-Integration Model?
The Construction-Integration Model is described as a theory that explains spoken and written text comprehension, emphasizing text understanding, the representation of texts in memory, and their integration into the comprehender’s general knowledge base. The model is used as a foundation for inquiry into comprehension in chats.
What are some studies already done in the area of CMC?
Several studies are surveyed that have already been done in the area of CMC related to CMC related to identity construction, nicknames in IRC, interactive written discourse, territorial behavior, framing and face in Internet exchanges, interactional coherence in CMC.
What is the definition of frame and face?
Frame is regarded as the physical setting in which participants can express themselves and through which their words and actions are suitable, whereas face is defined as “the positive social value that a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineation in terms of approved social attributes - albeit an image that others may share”.
What are logical, bridging and elaborative inferences?
Logical inferences follows from the meaning of the words. Bridging inferences are formed in the process of relating new information to previous information to create coherence in the text. Through elaborative inferences, we extend the text with our world knowledge.
What is anaphoric resolution?
Anaphoric resolution is the processing of referents in text, specifically when anaphoric referents (pronouns or words referring to the same thing) follow their antecedents in the text. It's a specific type of backward inference used to maintain a coherent representation of the text.
What examples of surface and deep anaphors?
The document provides examples of anaphoric references in text, such as N8's reply “I will Alex” to Alex’s “take care bro” and Scheile's message “it’s call it a Vagus Nerve Stimulater” related to "my inplamt"
What is the minimalist approach?
The minimalist approach of comprehension suggests that readers do as little work as possible in text comprehension, only enough to make sense of the information.
What questions are raised regarding text representation and processing in Chats?
Questions are raised about the degree to which chat participants construct a model of communicated information, the type of information selected, syntactic parsing, how new information is integrated with prior knowledge, and the types of inferences made.
What is reviewed from a pragmatic perspective?
From a pragmatic perspective, the document mentions the theory of speech acts (representatives, directives, commisives, expressives, declaratives) and the Gricean maxims (quantity, quality, relevance, manner) to account for how goals are achieved during conversations.
What questions arise from speech acts and conversational maxims?
Questions remain about the types of speech acts commonly used, the utility of conversational maxims, the influence of these factors on elaborative inferences, and additional pragmatic aspects to consider.
What type of Chat communication is most often the subject of studies in the paper?
Chat communication in recreation character. Rooms joined by users to discuss a very specific theme is often excluded.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Gabriel Dorta Méndez (Autor:in), 2000, Text Comprehension in Chat Communication, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/102215
