Return to Mappings Wednesday, 14 February 2001 SUPERVISOR’S COMMENTS VERSION OF INTRODUCTION
|
|
It is my belief that through the interactive forms of the day that
society evolves. terrell
This thesis proposes that through the
interactive forms of the day society changes. The more accessible communication
is to all the quicker ideas can be exchanged. Through the exchange of ideas and
information we become better informed and we are able to make decisions, which
affect not only ourselves but also the world in which we live.
From the era of
pictographs of accounts written on clay tablets in Sumeria 5500 years ago to
the first evidence of writing during the Protoliterate period
(Sumerian civilization, to about 28 B.C.) form of communication had advanced.
For example, by 2800 B.C., the use of syllabic writing had reduced
the number of signs from nearly two thousand to six hundred. (1) Communications codes for meaning exchange
at a distance or across time were becoming accessible to more users.
...........All communication involves interaction and thus forms
a basis for relationships. Chatrooms are no different in this regard. More needed here about exchange of meaning as
social...Establish this before you go into selecting an analytical
system... you cannot jump from Sumeria to Chatrooms! Unless you do so or a “functional” thesis of
langujage. Use Halliday to show that if
function drove the development of writing, it continues to drive the
development of chatrooms. (And may even obliterate them, as commercial
functions wipe out “sociability” on the Web.)
your task then is to examine e-chat now, show what it does, to
show how it might develop - or die!!! Whether we use Halliday’s
(1994: 68-71) approach to interaction from a functional-semantic perspective;
or Crystal’s (1992: 409) listing of theoretical approaches to grammatical
analysis (Case grammar, Relational grammar, X-bar (x) grammar, Montague
grammar, Generalised phrase structure grammar, Functional grammar, Realistic
grammar, and Network grammar (2). (which may be the
closest to the study of on-line grammar using emoticons and abbreviations)
........... I. Statement of
the problem
........... ....... a. Why
examine chatroom dialogue?
........... ....... b. Is
electronic talk comparable to verbal talk?
........... II. Analysing
Chatroom 'Talk'
........... ....... a.
research questions
........... ....... b.
research hypothesis
........... III. How 'chat'
differs from natural conversation
........... I. Statement of the problem This is too specific: see above for a way to capture the
“problem” of your research.
Research
on-line is different from face to face research. why/how?
If the social science’s two roles are observation and
explanation of human behavior then it is the chatethonographer’s responsibility
to explain what is going on in chatrooms. Researchers such as Robin Hamman (http://www.cybersoc.com) a doctoral
student at the University of Westminster, London currently studying online
communities take an ethnographic approach to researching chatrooms. WHY? what does ethnography offer?
Rarely do we
research human interaction without including the subjects involved. I am making
the assumption in my work that the snatches of dialogue I have captured are
actually from humans. A program could be written that would put up a selection
of words every few turns in a chatroom and not be representative of any particular
person. ref. this to the TURING CHALLENGE
At a more
functional level a particular phrase or word can be added to an ongoing
conversation with the push of the copy (usually control-C) key on a computer.
An example of this is in the ‘Talk City’ chat of February 16, 2000. In this dialogue the ‘speaker’
B_witched_2002-guest copies in ‘OHI’ 37 times in 75 turns of ‘speech’. One-half
of the conversation is computer generated. I will further examine this in
chapter 8 when analysing this particular chat.
more on this .Every
human event is culture-bound (Nobuo: 1990: 79), yet there is the question of
whether cyberspace is even "real" and therefore worthy of study. cite studies In addition, there are questions
of whether cyberculture, especially exchanges within chatrooms, are public or
private. (Cybersociology ~ http://www.cybersociology.com ~ issue six: Research Methodology Online). ~ detail the arguments,
Why does this matter?
...........There are many forms of electronic communication to
choose from. Therefore, identifying what area of electronic communication to
analyse on-line conversation was the first task. There is a continuing
developing array of communication forms being developed. How people 'talk' has
gone through many transformations. One of the first forms of non face-to-face
'turn-taking' communications available to most people in Western Society on a
large scale was the telephone. Computers are the next step in non face-to-face
'turn-taking' communication. You need to
distinguish between them - especially with the arrival of the Palm Pilot and
email via mobile phone.
........... ........ a.
Why examine chatroom dialogue?
...........All areas of communication are worth examining. why? However,
a significant value which is what? can
be had from analysing current forms of communication. More and more people are
communicating through electronic-on-line services. statistics?
...........New ways of engaging in conversation are emerging
with the growing wide spread use of computers as a form of communication. The
impact these forms of communication will have on future interactions between
people is just beginning to be studied. examples?
E-mail is replacing a
lot of traditional letter writing and its primary difference is the rapidity of
response expected when an e-mail is sent. Unlike letters, which often are not
answered for a varying period of time, it is assumed that e-mail will be
responded to within a day or two. For example, if we do not respond to an
e-mail within a day or two from a friend, another e-mail will prompt us to respond,
inquiring why we had not responded yet. Therefore, e-mails tend to be answered
in haste with at least a short response, maybe even just a "got your
e-mail, am too busy to answer now, but will in a few days". Though e-mail
can be a form of turn-taking, people writing back and forth immediately after
receiving correspondence, it does not provide the conversational turn-taking
choices which chatroom do. cite some studies on
email.
...........A few studies of computer dialogue are beginning to
appear on the Internet. I will note studies in progress and completed theses on
this topic. However, due to the nature of the Internet some links may not be
working by the end of this thesis. A study of computer conferencing for
instructional purposes by Dr. Karen L. Murphy,
Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Curriculum and Instruction
at Texas A&M University and Mauri P. Collins,
Research Associate for Educational Systems Programming and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at Northern Arizona University in
Flagstaff have categorized on line study by students as asynchronously or synchronously.
Asynchronous study allows time for reflection between interactions.
Synchronously interactions allows real-time interactive chats or open sessions
among as many participants as are online simultaneously. Their study: Communication
Conventions in Instructional Electronic Chats will be discussed in other
sections of this thesis. The study is available on line at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue2_11/murphy/#author. and usefully summarises the spontaneity and immediacy of
chatroom-styled synchronicity.
........... Chatrooms are
more hastily interactive (turn-taking exchange) than e-mail. Conversations in
Chatrooms are rarely planned out making Chatrooms an ideal source of casual
conversation analysis. In Chatrooms conversations are informal, often
experimental and often are used for entertainment and escape. cite studies?
Virtual conversations, which Chatrooms can be considered, can have
little to no real life significance. For example, in some chatrooms
participants experiment with various personas. As they are not seen, heard or
known by others in the chatroom, cite studies
e.g. Turkle. a participant can be anyone or anything. Turkle >> http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/sturkle/
........... Internet
conversation, whether in chatrooms, America Online's Instant messenger (IM), ICQ, PalTalk, discussion
groups, or even in role playing games such as MUDs and MOOS already involves two new paradigm shifts. To bring into being an
"electronic interactive conversational analysis" requires a cross
over between print and conversation-based analyses and theorisations. Firstly, there
is the shift from print text to computerization. Print relies on hierarchy and
linearity. Computer interactivity can have several voices going at once or a
"synchronous communication". A prime example is in chatrooms where
there can be multiple conversations involving multiple subjects happening at
the same time (Aokk, 1995; Siemieniuch & Sinclair, 1994). more on THIS, before isolating the difference in IM and IRC
exchange.
........... Discussion
groups also operate around the concept of threads, where a topic takes on a
life of its own. Even within the topic chosen there can be offshoots. However,
I will not explore those within the context of this study. why not?
...........Instant
Messenger, ICQ,and PalTalk, have only two voices at one time, but not
necessarily following one another. People still "talk" at the same
time. One does not always wait for a response. If two people are typing rapidly
back and forth, they can return and respond to something which was said whilst
the other was typing. (See examples four and five.) While print media works on
a flow of conversation or writing directed to an organised progression, on-line
conversations fragment into multi-directionality.
...........A second paradigm shift is taking place around the
notion of "discourse", parallel to the shift from print to the
Internet (provide the details of his argument see
Landow 1992, pp. 1-11). Within the Internet interactive environment there are
further developments taking place. Recently there has been a shift from e-maiI
and discussion groups to chatrooms and "Instant messenger"
("IM") and ICQ.
E-mail
and discussion groups are more or less a one-way road. For example, one usually
waits for a return e-mail, which often is a complete response with several
paragraphs: a considered and edited "textual" piece, close to the
regulated print culture. Conversely, chatrooms and ‘IM’ are composed of one or
two lines of text from one person then a response of one or two lines from
another person. provide some good examples Chatroom,
‘IM’ or ‘ICQ’ are thus more a form of spontaneous casual conversation while
discussion groups are e-mailed "texted" responses usually thought out
and spell and grammar checked before they are sent to the discussion group.
Similarily discussion groups are more controlled and planned: more
"textual". In other words, the Internet has already produced its own
set of "text-talk" genres and practices. At the same time, its
universe of discourse is rapidly diversifying.
...........Because of this developing diversity and its clear
formation around both textual and conversational practices, this study will
encompass several linguistic descriptive and analytical methods. The major
methods used will be Conversational Analysis (CA), Speech Act Theory (SA) and
Discourse Analysis (DA), but will include aspects of Reading Theory, Text and
Corpus Analysis, Computer Mediated Communication theories (CMC), Linguistics
and Pragmatics. explain what each offers, and why
you need it - or tell where in
the thesis you will do this Together these methods will provide
sufficient range to enable me to develop a method for chatroom analysis, which
will encompass more of its attributes than is possible within any one of the
existing frames.
........... ....... b. Is
electronic talk comparable to verbal talk?
Needs a detailed general discussion first...
..... Chatrooms have
limitations that conversations in which physical speech is produced do not
have. Talk in chatroom is limited to short phrases. Rarely will there be more
than several words written at a time by a 'speaker'. Looking at a sampling of a
dozen Chatrooms and hundreds of entrances I found that there was an average of
7.08 words per turn. Within that sampling 25 percent of words consisted of two
letters, and 20 percent consisted of three letter words. Eighty-three percent
of words used in chatroom conversations were five letters or less. how does this compare with “live/natural” communicaiton? The
way we will communicate will change and is now changing. As we are faced with
more choices and more to do all the time communication will become more concise
or the speaker will be left behind.
...........How this will affect the future way people speak with
one another can only be hinted at. For example, will people only ‘speak’ with
those people who understand what they are saying. Instead of explaining
meaning, will conversation only continue with those who grasp what is being
said immediately? In the rapid pace of chatroom ‘talk’ this seems to be the
case. There is also the danger that people can become poor communicators.
Chatrooms do not demand proper grammar as a conversation in person would.
Spelling, because of the rapid rate of scrolling text is an unimportant aspect.
Abbreviations become important. It is much quicker to write BTW than to write
by the way. All chatroom talk could be considered informal speech. Will we stop
using prepositions? In a Chatroom one may say, "he'll hit sixty in
cincy...maybe sixty five" (turn #85 in baseball chat).
When can such a statement be made? Without
knowing the context there is no meaning. As I will explore later in this
thesis, words do produce meaning, however the difficulty in Chatrooms is not
only finding meaning within any 'talk' but to have others understand or follow
what we mean.
What talk is there when the cues are
deleted? Who holds the power? Can conversation even exist without knowing
anything about the participants? My research says yes! People are fully able to
communicate as long as there are structures to communicate within. These
structures have a linguistic base, wyhich “stand in” for our categorisation of
speakers. all of these need discussion in more
detail
Chatrooms
do provide structure. There is an architectural setting, an existing space.
There are rooms, towers, Plato's cave, cathedrals, cities, states, nations,
worlds and universes. The fact that the space does not have a physical locale
is irrelevant. One moment we can have a philosophical discussion with
characters as real as the gods were to the Greeks, another time we discuss tofu
preparation, how to blow up an air plane, assassinate the pope, or love our
neighbor. We can laugh, talk, complain, and argue in any setting at any point
in time or space we want. Need to read
Lefelore/Soja on “ #### “ - but why is
this important to your study?
...........Two ways which dialogue can be studied are through
grammar and discourse (Eggins & Slade; 1997: p.178). Grammar provides the
“nodes” of speech, the constituent mood structures of conversational clauses.
In physical interacting conversation, linguistics provides a system of rights
and privileges of social roles in culture. Words very much define the speaker.
However, in electronic 'talk' words do not define social roles as much
as they define ideas. how do you know? This is very much the core of your thesis!! you need BOURDIEU here!
·
http://www.concentric.net/~Jhonnold/writing/Bourdieu.shtml
Bourdieu and the
status of the post-modern self
·
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/bourdieu/ the Bourdieu Forum
·
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~NZSRDA/bourdieu/pierre.htm Pierre Bourdieu
Bibliography
·
http://www.itcs.com/elawley/bourdieu.html
The Sociology of Culture in Computer-Mediated Communication: An Initial
Exploration
·
http://www.utu.fi/erill/RUSE/blink.html
Links to sites related to Pierre Bourdieu
·
http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/words/bourdieu-c.html
In Search of - Philosopher:
........... ....... II.
Analyzing Chatroom 'talk'
........... NOT ALL CHAT-rooms ARE THE SAME
meaning
not clear here.........One of the first things one observes about a chatroom
is its uniqueness. Whereas we may think walking into a particular environment
and talking with whoever is present is appropriate we do not need to have such
concerns with an electronic environment. There is not necessarily a sense of
"do I belong here?" All the social cues that are significant in a
physical encounter are no longer important: gender, race, age, social standing,
appearance, and attire. For example, it is reported (May 24, 2000) that 40% of people using chatrooms are not the
gender they say they are (ABC radio). Chatrooms are a great source of
mis-information. Yet, we find similar patterns in the conversations in
chatrooms to those we find in face-to-face conversation.
........... What is common
and at the same time unique about chatrooms can be discovered in the theme or
nature of the chatroom. I have identified categories into which all chatrooms
fit. Each category has sub-groupings and the subgroupings are further broken
down. I am analyzing the ‘talk’ within hierarchies of chatrooms, or topic
specific which most chatrooms are. These areas are:
........... ....... 1. Survival - The
example I use here is from a hurricane in the US in 1999 (chapter 4). The
hurricane - Hurricane Floyd, caused a lot of destruction but most importantly a
large area of the United States East Coast was evacuated. Survival Chatrooms
are just that, about survival. This is discussed in the introduction to the
research of chapter - ‘storm’ With this particular chatroom I am including a
Bulletin Board for this emergency as well as e-mails to a radio station. This
will compare the difference between ‘talk’ amongst people and the sending of
messages. Isn’t this a ‘help group’ - social
support - function? Or is it
‘information flow’? Whichever, I think the category is too narrow.
........... ....... 2. Subject
Specific - astrology.
Obviously to be involved in this chatroom people have to have a common
interest, as is the case in the following few subject specific chatrooms
discussed below.
........... ....... 3. Subject
Specific - 3d graphics -
........... ....... 4. Subject
Specific - Baseball
-
........... ....... 5. Subject
Specific - Britney Spears -This chatroom was meant to be topic specific. I chose this believing it
would be about a singer who is popular amongst
NEW SITE = JULY 2014 - http://neuage.us/2014/July/ - Today’s adolescents. However, no one seemed to mention Spears and I would count
this as a general chatroom. A general chatroom is where people go to just talk
about anything. What are the differences?...
........... Obviously one
could choose from any one of thousands of specific chatroom on any particular
subject. I chose these chatrooms to analysis, as I am particularly interested
in computer 3d, baseball and astrology. I also find these chatrooms interesting
in that the people in them are interested in the topics. It doesn’t matter who
the person is, if they are in a baseball chatroom, that is what is discussed.
This is also true of something like computer 3d; there is no purpose for
someone to be in an area about computer 3d modelling unless they had knowledge
of the topic. This contrasts with the general chatrooms where people go to meet
others, or to cybersex-chatrooms.
........... Cybersexual
chatrooms have been and are being analysed by researchers in
the fields of sociology and psychology and examining them from a linguistic
view is not as useful.
........... ....... I. a. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ~ as
a starting point toward analyzing a culture of electronic-talk:
........... ....... 1. How is
turn taking negotiated within Chatrooms?
........... ....... 2. With the
taking away of many identifying cues of participants (gender, nationality, age etc.) are
issues of sexism and political correctness as prevalent as in face-to-face talk?
........... ....... 3. How is
electronic chat reflective of current social discourse?
........... ....... 4. Is
meaning contractible within Chatrooms?
........... ....... II. a. RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES: The research project is built around the following hypotheses:
........... ....... 1. That
people create a different 'textual self' for each 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)
........... ....... 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 behaviors from the way
people identify themselves (log-on or screen names) and how they 'talk'
........... ....... 4. That
this work will assist in an understanding of how, and why, Chatrooms are an
important area in which to create a new conversational research theory.
........... ....... 5. That
'chat' does not differs from natural conversation
notes and references for
this section
1. The Civilizations
Of The Ancient Near East
For example the personal
name "Kuraka"could be written by combining the pictographs for
mountain (pronounced kur), water (pronounced a), and mouth (pronounced ka). By
2800 B.C., the use of syllabic writing had reduced the number of signs from
nearly two thousand to six hundred.
2. Lexical Elements of the Grammar
The lexical elements of the
grammar which defines network files are listed as regular expresions. For
example, SPM_ampx*& means, that the character or group x can occur zero or
more times. This is similar to writing computer programs.
Nobuo, Shimahara. (1990) Chapter 6
‘Anthroethnography: a methodological consideration’. In
Qualitative research in education: focus
and methods. Edited by Robert R. Sherman and
Rodman b Webb. London: The Falmer Press,
pages 76 - 89.
This is a
work in process by Terrell Neuage
for a Ph.D at the University of South
Australia 