For this assignment, I had an AIM conversation with my highschool friend Brian from back in California. I think Brian makes an interesting case for grounding in conversation because we share a lot of common ground based on our highschool years, but we need to re-establish common ground about what's currently up with each other whenever we talk every month or so. Our most recent conversation began with:
Brian (3:17:01 AM): so whatcha wanna know.
Because we had pre-established common ground with our previous conversation the night before, I knew that Brian was talking about a first date he had just gone on. Otherwise, I would have no idea what this very broad question meant.
Thus, I show Brian I understand by giving a relevant next turn and moving the conversation forward:
Lisa (3:17:13 AM): haha
Lisa (3:17:25 AM): whatcha wanna tell
Lisa (3:17:41 AM): i assume from ur fbook wall that ur date went well!
Brian then goes on to explain to me where he and his date went on their evening. Because we share the common ground of living in southern California and the knowledge of his past dating behavior, he can reference "santa monica", and I can understand this to mean Santa Monica pier. Thus, we can draw on common ground to streamline grounding when it comes to knowledge that we share, about people we both know (at least referentially), and places we've both been. As our conversation turns to the subject of dating in general, I freely referenced people I met in college because I know Brian knows them based on our past talks. However, when it comes to new events such as his ladyfriend, I have to ask him many questions to establish an understanding of the situaton.
During our conversation, I noticed a difference in how we use repairs in online conversation versus FtF conversation. For example, Brian made a statement, then clarified that he was being sarcastic:
Brian (3:41:14 AM): yeah and that [b****] didnt even eat the whole thing.
Lisa (3:41:23 AM): haha
Brian (3:41:26 AM): im not actually angry im just parroting what i heard my uncle say this past weekend.
This aligns with the higher costs of displays in IMing than in FtF. In FtF, we constantly and naturally give each other cues of understanding with our facial expressions, nods, and "uh huh"s. Because we are not copresent in AIM, we can't make physical gestures online, and it is awkward to type out "uh huh"s. Even as I gave a long spiel about my dating experiences, Brian gave no acknowledgements that he was listening. It is just as difficult to offer subtle cues of misunderstanding, such as frowning. Thus, Brian felt the need to repair his statement to make sure I understood his sarcasm. Because a speaker is aware of the higher display costs of the listener, he takes it upon himself to make clarifications where needed; there is a greater responsibility on the speaker's part to make sure he is being understood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Its always interesting how CMC conversations with friends from back home go. The juxtaposition of having your separate lives, but still trying to keep in contact with each other and the changes in your lives is always fun! Despite location barriers, it seems you two have a lot of common ground & are very comfortable sharing your lives with each other.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out the higher costs of sarcasm and snarkiness in CMC!