I rarely IM. The following is an analysis of a conversation I had last summer.
me: What's up?
Sheryl: not much! what about you? are you ready for your trip??
me: Getting there. Shopping for shoes thursday morning, abd packing in the afternoon.
Sheryl: when are you leaving? i forgot
This conversation has a low start-up cost, since it uses IM, and a low formulation cost. I have nothing to say myself, but am striking up a conversation in the hopes that there will be a response. Sheryl returns by treading onto common ground, her knowledge that I am going on a trip. I know of this as well. Despite the fact that I misspell and as abd, Sheryl is still in State 3 (130, Clark and Brennan). She understands exactly what I meant, and is able to respond.
Talk later turns to the GREs.
Sheryl: work's good. sloooow day
but i start my GRE class later!
me: Which facility?
Sheryl: kaplan
me: What's on the GRE?
Sheryl: 1+1, etc...
the basics
me: Like the SATs for adults...
Sheryl: yeah!
The first thing to note is Sheryl’s use of slooow. Although I have never formally established with her that I understand that the extra o’s emphasize the slowness (slower than slow, you could say), she could draw upon this existing knowledge because it is a generally understood convention of people our age. We draw upon further common ground when she mentions that she is taking the GREs. She’s told me this in a previous conversation, so I know that she is taking the test, but I didn’t know who was tutoring her or what the GRE was. Sheryl assumed that I already understood what the GRE was, so she thought that she could draw on my existing knowledge in this case, but I didn’t have any. This led me ask for clarification.
We were no longer on common ground, and I needed to find my footing (Sheryl has some heavy grounding to do). Sheryl understands my “What’s on the GRE?” (State 3) question and tries to give me a response that I will understand. She reverts to a simple answer “1+1” and “the basics”. That response is a State 2 response. I heard her correctly, but I didn’t understand what she meant. I gave my own answer in the hopes of receiving confirmation, which Sheryl then gave me. Her response of “yeah!” informs me that my analogy to the SATs was correct, and now we are both aware that we have succeeded in exchanging information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
That was a good series of utterances right there. I liked the way that the conversation built up more and more as the shared meaning grew.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that you stayed in state 3, too. I hadn't seen many people in states 2 or lower, but I suppose that's because all of these messages have reviewability. That sure changes the game of message-analysis.
What you mentioned about a typo made me think a bit though. I suppose typos can be the equivalent of mishearings on AIM, though depending on the person, they may correct themselves immediately or, if the typo isn't all that bad, not even need to.
I have a friend who uses many acronyms in conversation (idk, yk, etc.), and on occasion, I find that I have to say things like, "what?" or "I don't understand," because I'm not necessarily familiar with some of the less common ones.
I'm one of those old full-word talkers. I know...it's weird. But...yeah. I'm just not hip like all of these kids.
I think it's interesting that you solved the issue of not understanding by establishing a link between your knowledge and her knowledge using a common test, like the SATs. This common ground helped to understand a concept like the GREs. The SATs serves as a symbol in your converstation or a sign.
ReplyDelete