Chat room piss
At Level 5, which seems most appropriate for the current study, miscommunication is seen as resid[ing] in group and cultural phenomena, and may be accountable in terms of code-based or other cultural differences in behaviors, beliefs, or construals. 9) In this view, miscommunication is socially situated and results in social consequences, ranging from positive to negative.
Culture is seen as having communicative consequences for participants Social group membership may be defined as ingroup/outgroup membership, giving rise to observable communication difficulties based on lack of understanding of differences, suspicion or fear of the outgroup, or threatened social identity. As such, this level of analysis of miscommunication seems to fit well with Linells theory of understanding and misunderstanding in discourse (1995), which together may help answer the research questions of this study.
Specifically, this study examines how new members negotiate entry with current chat room participants into ongoing chat sessions.
In doing so, this study examines factors that contribute to successful and unsuccessful entry into IVC.
Interestingly, even though audio streaming is a feature of this IVC platform, it has been observed repeatedly that participants in chat rooms prefer to use text messaging, and audio chat is very rarely heard.
The particular chat room from which the data comes is located within the adults only section of the IVC platform.
With this sociological view of communication, it is possible to identify and explain instances in interaction where understanding and misunderstanding might occur. Each level represents a classification of miscommunication, increasing in complexity and contextualization from 1 to 6: at Level 1, miscommunication is seen as an inherent aspect of communication and, as such, unproblematic; at Level 6, miscommunication is idealogically considered problematic in that it disadvantages the targeted social groups.Additional early studies examined the discourse of discussion boards, also referred to as asynchronous chat (Crystal, 2001), focusing on the structural and textual features of message postings (see Crystal, 2001, for a review), the socialization of new members into discussion communities (Surratt, 1996; Wellman & Gullia, 1999), and comparisons between discussion board communication and other mediums of communication (Etzione & Etzione, 1999; Herring, 1999; Burnett, 2000; Burnett & Buerkle, 2004; Crystal, 2001; Rosen, Woelfel, Krikorian, & Barnett, 2003).More recently, language researchers have directed attention to synchronous CMC, in particular Internet relay chat (IRC) and Web-chat, examining features such as chat management (Crystal, 2001), information exchange within chat groups (Burnett, 2000), gender differences (Soukup, 1999; Bowker & Liu, 2001), language variation (Paolillo, 1999, 2001), native and non-native speaker interaction (Freiermuth, 2001), repair (Schnfeldt & Golata, 2003), and chat openings (Rintel, Mulholland, & Pittam, 2001).By applying Linells notions of understanding and misunderstanding in discourse and Coupland et al.s integrative model to an examination of openings in IVC, the following research questions are investigated: At this point in time, very few, if any, studies have been conducted that look into linguistic features of IVC.In my extensive literature search, I have not been able to locate even one study of IVC per se, although several studies do make mention of IVC as a future research area.