ABSTRACT

This research takes a close look at how today’s technology is effecting communication throughout the world. In this paper, theories of discourse and conversational analysis are applied to each recorded conversation in order to find out the pros and cons of each script. This study was conducted in order to find out if oral conversations were superior to on-line chatroom conversations or vise-versa.

This paper also contains other facts about similar studies that have been conducted by professional analysts to help support arguments for either side. Each conversation was carefully analyzed and scrutinized in order to retrieve information that was deemed worthy of study.

METHODOLOGY

The theories of disclosure and communication analysis are applied to these conversations to help understand the difference and similarities between chat room conversations and real time conversations.

When recording two conversations, one had to be an on-line conversation from a chat room with at least two or more people, and the other conversation, also with three or more people, in real time, face to face. Both conversations had to be about forty-five minutes in length to obtain enough information for studying. Both conversations were transcribed into scripts, such as a script for a play. Theories of conversation analysis and theories of disclosure were applied to each conversation. After applying theories the scripts were compared and contrast to find the differences between these two conversations. Finally the conclusions were recorded and describe the results.

Major theoretical studies have examined conversation as interaction between

participants with the dialogue understood as spoken communication. One primary characteristic of conversation is that it is fully interactive - at least two people must participate in it, and they exchange messages in a real-time basis. Participants take turns in exchanging these messages, so conversation is fundamentally a sequential activity (Norrick, 1991 p47). This study has extended the research beyond the area of 'speech' to include on-line dialogue as it exists in chatrooms. On-line interactivity has similarities to speech in its notion of immediate turn taking and therefore differs from other written forms of electric or physical communication such as e-mails, letter writing, etc. There is a sense of virtual speech and especially turn taking between participants. There are also significant differences.

Communication is made up of many different signs and sounds. The study of the message structure in communication is known as disclosure analysis. In today’s society, where there are many new and improved technologies, communication has changed over the years. Conversation is no longer exclusively a face to face act or a simple chat over the telephone. Now-a-days there are computers and the internet; specifically, chat rooms that are growing in popularity. With this new technology comes the good and the bad. Neither oral communication nor on-line communication is superior to the other. On-line communication appears to be more open because of what people will say to one another because they are not speaking directly, face to face to the other person. People use the computer as a safety net, simply meaning that individuals can hide behind their computer screens while having a conversation with a complete stranger. When or if the conversation is not going the way one of the participants want it to they can exit the chat room and go log on to another under a completely different alias. Oral communication helps each individual get more out of the conversation due to physical and nonverbal cues such as body movements and facial expressions.

Conversation analysis theory focuses on the relationship between conversation and language. Many theorists look at conversation as a form of game play that involves a series of moves, turns, goals and strategies. This paper will analyze the structure of different conversations; in particular conversations that are face to face and in real time, space as opposed to talking to other individuals in the virtual space of chat rooms on the internet.

The emergence of the term 'chat' to describe electronic communication text forms is one indication of its difference from existing talk modes. Although there has been many studies about conversational analysis, there is the sense that on-line conversation is not serious and therefore may not be worthy of an intensive linguistic study. The term, 'chat', however captures only some of the dimensions of this emergent communication form.

As on-line chatroom and discussion groups grow in popularity and importance and as these applications increase, so too will the analysis of these environments, in both depth and range. There is the question of whether cyberspace is even "real" and therefore worthy of study. Over the years because chatrooms have grown in popularity, they gained the importance of being studied. Many conversational analysts have broadened their studies to include cyber talk or on line chatroom.

Many people have different ideas as to what "chat" actually means. Webster Dictionary definitions of CHAT include:

CHAT ~ Informal conversation or talk in an easy familiar manner.

• Informal ~ Not of a formal, official, or stiffly conventional nature. Appropriate to everyday life or use;
• conversation ~ The interchange through speech of information, ideas, etc.; spoken communication
• speech ~ The act or faculty of speaking; Utterance
• Utter ~ To give audible expression to (something)
• expression The act or an instance of transforming ideas into words; A manifestation of an emotion, feeling, etc., without words (For example in chatrooms 'emoticons' are used to illustrate emotions; smiling face, frown or symbols such as :) to say one is just kidding or is laughing)
• communication ~ The imparting or exchange of information, ideas, or feelings
• talk ~ to express one's thoughts, feelings, or desires by means of words; To communicate by other means: lovers talk with their eyes; To exchange ideas (NOTE: it is not until definition 10 that it uses 'to make sounds suggestive of talking')
• familiar ~ well known; Frequent or customary; Close, intimate.

From the above words in bold only the following can be keywords in defining chatroom conversation: informal, communication, talk, familiar.

As the dictionary defines the remaining words in their physical usage as speech, these require re-definition to use them in their written form: conversation, speech, utterance, expression. These terms will be re-defined to suit written forms of what traditionally is oral expression.

Although conversations appear to be commonplace and simple, they require a great deal of communication competence. This competence includes the knowledge and practice of rules. Since most conversation are not rehearsed, the individuals actively and spontaneously apply myraid rules to generate coherent talk. "Communication scholars have spend a considerable amount of time studying how people converse with one another. Much of this research can be categorized into five groups. (a) The relationship between conversation and language, (b) conversations as gameplaying, (c) conversational actions, sequences, and coherence, (d) turn taking in conversations, and (e) conversational alignment." (Neuliep, 1996). Language is the most essential prerequisite for engaging in conversation. The most basic units of language are sounds, that are used to create speech. Conversation as gameplaying is the actual use of how the language is utilized. Neuliep said, "Conversation, like most games, exists only if certain rules are followed. These terms include (a) moves, (b) turns, goal, and (d) strategy." (Neuliep, 1996) Conversational actions, sequences and coherence verbal and nonverbal statements that people bring into the conversation. Conversational action sequences are conversations that consist of more than one illocutionary act. An illocutionary act is the actual message itself, the words and sounds used to produce it, and what it means. At least three or more conversational acts are considered a conversational action sequence. Turn taking in conversations is a very important part of having an organized, coherent conversation with another person.

Most conversation analysis is in the tradition of ethnomethodology, which is the careful and detailed study of how people organize their thoughts. The primary concern of conversation analysis is sequential organization, or the ways in which speakers organize their talk turn-by-turn. (Neuliep, 1996) With an on-line chat there is not much organization. A chat room is numerous people from all around the world, typing in various conversations at once. Conversations overlap one another, and are easily misinterpreted as well as lost in these unpredictable typing styles.

Interactional features of conversation such as turn taking, silences and gaps, and overlaps have been of special interest to many conversation analysts. Turn taking is a major part of conversational analysis. First the teller has to get the floor by offering to tell a story, and the other members acknowledge and permit the extended turn to be taken. During the story itself, listeners may take various types of turns to recognize and reinforce the teller’s story, to indicate understanding, to give further permission to continue the extended turn, to direct or affect the story in some way, or to correct or repair something the teller said. All of this requires work and organization on the part of the participants. (Neuliep, 1996)

While analyzing the two transcribed conversations, there was virtually no sign of turn taking in the chatroom, although when listening to the real-time conversation there were distinct pauses in each of the people’s voices to grant the floor to the other individuals in the room. Turn taking in chatrooms is not the same as turn taking in oral communication. Chatrooms present a chaotic form of turn taking which has as much to do with detemporalization. Within a real life conversation where the participants are actually hearing one another, there are distinct pauses and different pitches in their voices to grant the others in the group a turn to talk. As in the transcribed verbal conversation, although there was four people, they were all taking turns because they have been taught that when a person pauses, or makes certain body movements, they are now handing the floor over to the next person to talk. Within chatrooms, there is no body language nor is there any pauses in peoples voices to help with turn taking. Within the chatroom people enter and leave the room frequently; therefore, creating disturbances in the conversation. These disturbances are just one of the few examples why turn taking does not work. With a forty-five minute conversation in the chatroom, many individuals will talk to near twenty other people. The conversation changes many times and if a person does not type fast enough they are left behind. Most chatrooms are so fast moving that taking in all of what is written and then responding is next to impossible. The conversations are very scattered and unorganized due to these occurrences.

Wold adopts an explicit social-psychological approach to language. This communicative perspective implies that we have to consider definite constraints both with respect to the ways in which an individual expresses him/herself and to the information then interpreted. A chatroom social-psychological approach to language differs though in several ways from Wold's views.

Wold emphasizes the importance of whom we are speaking with. This is because in oral communication we have the cues of the other person, either from sight or from hearing them. We then choose our words in a way which we perceive will suit the other person. For example, if we know our listener is from a higher or a lower social background than ourselves and we want to appear from the same social grouping we will take on the air of their social background. This could include such utterances as slang, accent, or speaking a particular dialect (dialect referring to grammar and vocabulary as well, for example saying 'He done it' or saying 'He did it")

Conversational coherence is the connectedness and meaningfulness in conversation. (Neuliep, 1996) Conversation analysis has also been concerned with rule violation and the ways in which people prevent and repair errors in talk. There are three current format of ‘real time’ on-line dialogues; These are areas in which participants 'speak' and answer in the present, creating a sense of 'natural conversation'. Other areas of on-line dialogue, such as E-mails, listserves and discussion groups will not be investigated.

Current Conversational Analysis builds on the earlier works of the American sociological movement of the 1970s, most notably that derived from the works of Harvey Sacks (1972), in collaborations with Emmanuel Schegloff (1974) and Gail Jefferson (1974) in their work in ethnomethodology (1972, 1974, 1984, 1992). Sacks's major studies into conversational analysis were in the early 1970s whilst teaching at the Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan.

William Gudykunst identified transmitting messages as "the process of putting our thoughts, feelings, emotions, or attitudes in a form recognizable by others. We then refer to these transmitted symbols as a message. Interpreting messages is the process of perceiving, or making sense of, incoming messages and stimuli from the environment. "

In chatroom conversation the way we transmit and interpret messages is different from the Gudykunst model. He claims that only messages can be transmitted, not meaning, as both message and meaning are transmitted when having an oral conversation. Their interpretation of communication between participants is based on the perception that messages are transmitted and interpreted based on our background: culture, ethnicity, and family upbringing as well as on our unique individual experiences. Therefore, since no two people have the same background or individual experiences no two people are able to transmit or interpret messages in the same way. How this model is reflected in the chatroom analysis will be important to this study because there is no sure way with current technology to know any more about someone than what they reveal, and what is revealed could easily be a mis-representation.

Transmitting and interpreting several messages at once can cause confusion. Also, if a few people leave the chatroom as we are quickly typing out what we want to say, we have hanging conversations. To add to the confusion, a person could log on three times into the same chatroom using different log-on names. At some point the chatroom can disintegrate into nonsense communication. This is something that could only happen in a chatroom, it is physically impossible for a person to do this with a face to face, or conversation.

Gudykunst argues that only messages can be transmitted from one person to another. Meaning can not be transmitted due to its ambiguity. With this assumption it is the channel used to transmit a message's influence which creates meaning: such as the medium is the message. Within chatrooms there is rarely formality, which affects the form of the dialogue. There is often a sense of instability, as people come and go, often without greetings or salutations. It is the medium wherein one can express whatever emotion they are feeling at the time and not worry about the immediate social consequences of the words written.

Gudykunst point out that if we do not know others, we use our stereotypes of their group memberships to interpret their meaning, such as their culture, ethnic group, social class and age. In chatrooms we seldom have such clues readily available as we do in a face to face discussion. This is referring to chatrooms in English. A chatroom where the participants speak in Yiddish, Swahili, or Yukaghir (USSR - NE Siberia) or the participants speak in specific slang may still have words used as cues which can express meaning just as symbols, such as the :) = J :| :( = L does. On many computers these faces comes up when :) :| :( is typed.

Conversations in chatrooms with others are usually carried on with short sentences. There are several reasons for this: 1. If several people are 'speaking' at once, then it is necessary to respond quickly. Unless paragraphs of text are available to cut and paste one is limited by both the speed at which one types, and the number of people in the chatroom. 2. If we do not know anyone in the chatroom short sentences may be 'spoken' in order to decrease misinterpretation as much as possible. The nature of the conversation will always determine how brief the conversation can be.

Gudykunst lists five reasons why misinterpretations occur and these reasons also show the problems to be dealt with in chatroom conversation:

1. We can never know the state of mind - the attitudes, thoughts, and feelings - of other people.
2. We depend on messages, which are frequently ambiguous, to inform us about the attitudes and wishes of other people.
3. We use our own coding system, which may be defective, to decipher these messages
4. Depending on our state of mind at a particular time, we may be biased in our method of interpreting other people's behavior.
5. The degree to which we believe that we are correct in divining another person's motives and attitudes is not related to the actual accuracy of our belief.

When in an on line chat transmitting and interpreting several message at once can cause confusion. Also, if a few people leave the chatroom as we are quickly typing out what we want to say, we have hanging conversations. To add to the confusion, a person could log on three times into the same chatroom using different log-on names. At some point the chatroom can disintegrate into nonsense communication. Communication takes place at varying levels of awareness. A large amount of our social interaction occurs at very low levels of awareness.

Chatroom conversation is not necessarily routine because a person is rarely in a chatroom because they have to be. Chatroom conversation is intentional conversation. Unlike oral conversation which we engage in because we need to. For example there is a person there in front of us whether it be a partner, supervisor, friend, or neighbor, or we have received a letter or e-mail and need to answer; chatrooms are where we go when we really don't need to have connection with anyone in particular.

Unlike in a oral, face to face conversation, we do not know with whom we are speaking or their background in a chatroom, our awareness is heightened. To be a part of a chatroom conversation we need to pay attention to what others are saying. However, due to the speed of conversation in chatroom there is rarely the opportunity to ask someone to clarify what they are saying. People either intuit conversation or respond in whatever way seems to fit at the time. Chatroom conversation is one of the rare instances in human communication where there is little retribution for saying the wrong thing.

In chatrooms as in oral communication, language and communication take place in real time, and the structure of language is to a great extent given in temporal patterns because of the primary oral character of natural language. (Barker, 1995)

Discourse Analysis studies complete text (both written and spoken), giving attention to textual form, structure and organization at all levels; phonological, grammatical, verbal and higher levels of textual organization in terms of exchange systems, structures of argumentation, and generic structures: within social, political and institutional practices of dialogue. Its analysis then extends out to its social and cultural contest.

Within a conversation there are many communication characteristics and communication style. By communication style is meant the topics people prefer to discuss, their favorite forms for interaction — ritual, repartee, argument, self-disclosure — and the depth of involvement they demand of each other. It includes the extent to which communicants reply upon the same channels — vocal, verbal, physical — for conveying information, and the extent to which they are tuned to the same level of meaning, that is, to the factual or emotional content of the messages. (Samovar, Porter, Stefani, 1998) The following chart show the different communication characteristics, and what trait the individual usual will display.

(Samovar, Porter, Stefani, 1998)

The above chart is strictly for a face to face conversation. While in a chatroom the majority of these characteristics can not be identified. It is difficult to try to identify with a person that you can see.

In conclusion, although chatroom discussions are widely used, they still can not surpass a face to face oral conversation. Chatrooms lack many things such as socialism, body language and that personal touch that can be added in an old fashion conversation with a friend. Chatrooms to have their purposes and helps people to meet others and keep in touch with long distance friends but after researching, oral conversations are the way to go.

Barker, Wahlers, Watson., (1995). Groups in Process, An introduction to small group communication (5^th ed.). Needham, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverly S. Hartford (1990). "Congruence in Native and Nonnative Conversations: Status Balance in the Academic Advising Session." Language Learning 40.4. p 467-501.

Littlejohn, S. W., (1992). Theories of Human Communication (4^th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Neuliep, J. W., (1996). Human Communication Theory, Applications and Case Studies. Needham, MA: Simon & Schuster .

Norrick, N. R. (1991). "On the Organization of Corrective Exchanges in Conversation." Journal of Pragmatics 16. 59- 83.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). "On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions." Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Eds. Paul Drew and John Heritage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samovar, Porter, and Stefani., (1998). Communication Between Cultures (3^rd ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Ulichny, P., and Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1989). "Interactions and Authority: The Dominant Interpretive Framework in Writing Conferences." Discourse Processes 12. 309-328.