Chapter 2 : CyberTalk
When communicating with someone FTF, there are a number of aspects to that communication. Social penetration theory argues that there are three aspects to this: verbal behaviour, nonverbal use of the body and use of the physical environment. Without these aspects of communication the formation of relationships would not be possible. However, social presence theory indicates that there is a difference when using CMC as the communicants are invisible to each other and text on the computer screen is the only information given. As a result of this, communication is not available in the same way as it is FTF and if relationships are to be formed using CMC, users must adapt the medium to reproduce verbal, nonverbal and environmental aspects of communication.
In this chapter it will be shown how the users of IRC have in fact adapted the medium so that the formation of relationships can take place developing new forms of expression to compensate for the lack of physical presence. This will be done by investigating, first, the use of verbal and NVC on IRC, and secondly, the 'physical environment' of IRC.
A. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication
Verbal and NVC are vital to the forming of interpersonal relationships on a FTF level. Verbal communication consists of words and sentences, while NVC is obtained from the physical movements of another person during a conversation. For the purposes of this thesis, verbal refers to communication using words generally, including written text. NVC on IRC is also textual but involves the manipulation of keyboard commands and symbols.
According to Forgas (1989), verbal communication is "the messages sent using words and sentences", whereas NVCs "support, modify or even completely replace the verbal message consisting of eye gaze, smiles, gestures, postural changes, and so on." (p 137) Forgas goes on to argue that NVC is not simply another alternative to using language, but has very different characteristics to language. He says that there are three ways in which NVC differs from verbal communication. First, NVC is "much more immediate and automatic" (p 140) and so takes less time to decode than do verbal messages. A whole sentence takes longer to understand, interpret and to prepare a reply to than simply smiling at a friend. Secondly, NVC is often less subject to conscious interpretation and monitoring than is the case with language. As a result, nonverbal cues may often give a speaker away, revealing attitudes, feelings and emotions which they may not want to reveal. This is known as nonverbal leakage. Thirdly, NVC tends to be much more efficient in transmitting information about attitudes and emotions. For example, a smiling friend who runs over to hug someone expresses their joy in being able to see that person with a simple gesture rather than having to express this emotion in words. Forgas (1989) concludes that the consequence of these differences is that "language is primarily suited to conveying information about the external world, tasks to be solved and the like " while NVC plays " a particularly important role in social life, communicating values, attitudes, liking, and other personal reactions." (p 141)
The combination of verbal and NVC, then, provides a complementary richness in the expression of information and emotions in the formation of relationships. However, on IRC, this communication cannot take place in the same way as there is no physical person that can be seen. Hence, to convey a communicative richness, both verbal and NVC appear as text on the screen. It has therefore been argued that because communication is never spoken on IRC, all communication is therefore nonverbal. Yet, it appears that written text does contain elements of both verbal and NVC. While verbal communication appears as the written sentences, NVC is seen textually in the use of bold, underlining, italics, etc, which act in the same way as someone saying something loudly to attract attention (Daniels and Spiker, 1991).
Users of IRC have recognised the importance of both verbal and NVC in forming relationships and so have adapted the medium to allow them to distinguish between the two. This is achieved by representing verbal communication in the form of sentences while NVC is characterised in three ways: a) the manipulation of keyboard symbols to create 'emoticons' (iconic representations of emotions), b) a combination of IRC commands and words known as 'actions' (eg, *hug* to indicate hugging), and c) 'textual markers' (changes in spelling and the use of underlining, bold, exclamation marks, etc).
a) Emoticons
Emoticons involve the manipulation of keyboard symbols to form facial expressions. Their use is varied and there are an endless amount of combinations. Some examples of these are as follows (for the best effect they should be viewed side on):
:-) or :) a smiling face (known as smilies)
:-( or :( a sad face
:'-( a person crying
;-) a wink
*8) a person wearing glasses with funny hair
=) a person with squinting eyes
The use of these emoticons are quite frequent in the flow of conversation and are used to convey humour, sarcasm, happiness, sadness, anger, confusion, etc. They are also used quite often in conjunction with the other forms of NVC. The following log is an example of the use of emoticons and other NVC in a typical enthusiastic greeting as people who are known join #Aussies:
[metta] mikey :)
* hari thumps richard and steals the choccy MINE MINE MINE
[Wiccan] hey hari.
[hari] hi lisabeth :-) *lick*
[hari] hi metta *lick*
[hari] hi tz *puke* :-))))
*** McAdder ... has joined channel #aussies
* SmogNut huggles her bertie
[SmogNut] (:
[tz] adderyone
[Wiccan] McAdder! :) hey.
[McAdder] hey els :)
[GrayElf] Hey Mc! :-)
[Lisabeth] mcadder!!!!!!
[McAdder] tz, wiccan :) paul, l' :))
As can been seen, the use of emoticons is quite frequent. If the smilies were not present, many of the statements made in the above log may have appeared impersonal or been misunderstood. Their use is considered quite important for conveying meaning especially as much of the conversation is casual and informal and attempts to simulate conversation on a FTF level as far as possible. One interviewee reflected upon this:
M: you can change the whole meaning of something with a smiley.
Elisabeth: I tend to forget to put a smiley on the end of my sentences
and when that happens it sounds really cold.
M: some times I'll say things that have a time period between the
sentence and the smiley, so they think about what I have said and then
the smiley will come and they'll understand. People also do that in
real life with sarcasm.
b) Actions
Actions are a way of expressing a particular nonverbal event without actually describing it. While the person has to actually say that they are doing something, a new convention has been created which indicates a particular word construction is an 'action' rather than describing that action.
These actions take two forms. One form is accomplished by writing the action in asterisks such as *hug*, *smile*, *cry*, *nod*, *yawn*, *sneeze*, etc. The second form uses the action command itself which involves typing "/me" followed by a string of text. For example, a person with the nick (nickname) Fred may type "/me scratches his nose" which when sent to a channel will look like "*Fred scratches his nose". The following log shows how these actions are used:
* SmogNut throws pebbles at everyone
[SmogNut] *toink*
[SmogNut] *toink*
[Lisabeth] everyone has gone suddenly quiet
* muz threatens elsie with a live bunsen burner
[Lisabeth] you can hear a pin drop... or pebble rather
* Bram grabs the pebble and eats it *crunch*
[SmogNut] is it on a safety flame, muz? (:
* Lisabeth picks up the pebbles and throws them back
* SmogNut ducks
c) Textual Markers
The textual markers of NVC on IRC are found in the use of non-conventional spelling and the use of bold, underlining and exclamation marks. These elements serve to mimic speech patterns and features not always available in written words.
Unconventional spelling is often used on IRC to reproduce the way words sound in speech instead of complying with the conventions of written spelling. This element may help to convey a characteristic way of speaking of a particular person that would not be known about unless heard. It is also used to reflect the informal and often jovial nature of conversation on IRC. Words that are commonly changed include: enough = enuf, you = u, what = wot, because = coz, want to = wanna, don't know = dunno, etc.
The use of bold, underlining, exclamation marks and capitals serve as they do in other written forms, to emphasise particular words and phrases and to indicate tone. There are commands which will highlight a particular word and exclamation marks work in a similar way to their conventional use in writing but are sometimes over used for added emphasis. It is not possible to underline something on IRC so instead words are emphasised by adding one underline before and after the word or phrase, eg, _both_. The use of capitals on IRC indicates that someone is shouting, eg:
[IronEagle] I HATE EDNA, EDNA IS A BITCH..........OF A MACHINE
[IronEagle] I HAVE BUT ONE QUESTION.........WHY?
The problem with substituting textual forms for NVC is that it becomes conscious and highly constructed. In FTF communication, NVC is, as Forgas (1989) argues, more immediate and unconscious. Most of the time we are unaware of our body movements or our facial expressions and so they are more likely to reflect feelings that are not expressed in words. This factor alone makes it more difficult to tell what a person is feeling or thinking on IRC. This is something that IRC users are aware of:
M: Its not unconscious. I am sitting here wiggling my feet around. I know I wiggle my feet around when I think and I didn't know about that until I started going out with Ginnie ; I might scratch or stretch or yawn or take off my clothes and run around naked. You can't make up for that on IRC ; I think it is another thing that goes with using IRC for a while. Very often I will cough and most likely I'll type that in, just *cough* or *yawn* and people will ask me if I am bored and I'll say, "no, I'm just yawning", it has no underlying meaning to anything else on the channel ; It is conscious though. I mean I have been using IRC for 4 years and I don't subconsciously type stuff, even my yawns are conscious, I have to type them in.
NVC is also used in FTF communication to validate statements. It is often thought to show the truth in something someone says. On IRC it becomes much easier to use an appropriate emoticon to validate a statement even though the truth may not being told. Given this potential, IRC relationships involve more trust in what someone is saying is true as there is no unconscious NVC that can be used to suggest otherwise. This is something that many users of IRC worry about when attempting to form relationships and was reflected in comments from the survey:
They are not tangible coz I need something physical to see when I talk to someone. It helps me determine what is true and what is not. Body language is SO important in the way people perceive others and without that tone of voice a relationship is difficult to solidify.
This point was also brought up in the interviews:
B:Talking to her on IRC you don't really know what she is doing or
thinking. So like on IRC there was always this bit of paranoia, that she
didn't like me and all that. But comparing that to being with her, you
could here her voice, see her smile, you could hear her smile; brought
on a bit more confidence that she liked me and appreciated me.
Elisabeth: So you think that nonverbal is still important?
B: Yeah, not just words, like a head shake or nod. You don't actually
have to say those things to know they are happening.
Nevertheless, these technologies provide a communicative richness regarding emotions, tone and so on which compensates for the absence of physical presence and NVC on IRC.
It is obvious that users of IRC recognised the need for both verbal and NVC for the formation of their relationships and so adapted the medium to allow for both to occur. This form of communication has become an agreed convention for users of IRC, however, agreement is also needed for a key aspect of communication ( context.
B. Context
The physical environment also plays an important role in the formation of FTF relationships. Altman and Taylor (1973) define physical environment as the use of physical areas and objects and the manipulation of space between people. Physical areas and objects provide a context for relationship formation, providing information about the other person and appropriate behaviour for that situation. The manipulation of personal space between people, for example, provides information about the relationship. Such space is thought to decrease as intimacy increases (Altman & Taylor, 1973). The physical environment is also of importance to Levinger and Snoek (1972) who argue that people in close physical proximity are more likely to form relationships. Being geographically close to others provides increased opportunities to become aware of and develop relationships with them.
However, on IRC there is no physical environment in which people meet to communicate and for that reason could be considered 'contextless'. As users are not in each others' physical presence, there are no areas, objects or personal space from which to become aware of others or gain conversation cues. Yet IRC becomes the context for different types of relationships in two ways: a) through the recognition by users that IRC provides a common location for communication, and b) by the creation of channels.
a) Common Location
With no common area in which to meet, IRC itself becomes the context. IRC, while not a physical area, provides a "virtual" space or location for communication, hence the use of terms such as cyberspace. However, it is only through an "imagined shared context" (Rheingold, 1994, p 176) that users can have such a context. Stone (1991) points out that the use of CMC has brought about a new mode of interpersonal interaction and "a new manifestation of a social space that has been better known in its older and more familiar forms in conference calls, letters, and fireside chats. It can be characterised as 'virtual' space - an imaginary locus of interaction created by communal agreement." (pp 83-84) While the context created is a common space or location, the context is also "a cognitive and social one" (Rheingold, 1994, p 61) in which contextual meaning for the formation of relationships is found: "It's like having the corner bar, complete with old buddies and delightful newcomers and new tools waiting to take home and fresh graffiti and letters, except instead of putting on my coat, shutting down the computer, and walking down to the corner, I just invoke my telecom program and there they are. It's a place." (Rheingold, 1994, p 24)
Without a context, formation of relationships would be impossible. It seems that users of IRC have accepted the concept of 'virtual' space or cyberspace to provide the context for their communications. This acceptance was found in the surveys and logs on IRC. One survey participant stated that "it is like a favourite coffee-house one drops in for a chat." In the following log it can be seen how the context becomes accepted to the point where it is no longer a conscious part of communication on IRC:
*Mistic* we all come on IRC to talk to ppl
*Mistic* no other reason ...
*Lisabeth* thats true, how then do we etablish relationships... we have to
have some sort of overall setting that enables us to communicate ...
*Mistic* like hmmm
*Mistic* ya just tlak to ppl cause you can i think
*Mistic* and you don't need an introduction
*Mistic* there is no hesitation...
*Mistic* like all that stuff is discarded when you IRC..
*Lisabeth* ok, is it because as a group of people, all users of IRC agree that it
is a place to talk, that there are no boundaries and you can talk to or reject
people ...
*Mistic* yeah ...
*Lisabeth* so IRC becomes a "place" or a location like you would when you
go to a party for instnace ...
*Mistic* yeah
*Mistic* IRC as a whole..
With acceptance of IRC as being a virtual environment, there are certain characteristics of this environment which affect communication and the formation of relationships. Such a characteristic is time. On IRC it takes longer to communicate with someone than it would on a FTF level as text must be typed, sent to another person, read by that other person and a reply typed and returned. Often there will be added time lag between the sending of messages and the receiving of them because the connection is slow or the communications system is overloaded. This would indicate that it takes much longer to reach comparable stages in the formation of a relationship on IRC than it does FTF. Users of IRC wishing to form a relationship will need to have a certain amount of patience. As one interviewee said:
A: Just as easy as it is to make relationships, it is just as easy to break them as well. Just because of one simple word that is lacking in most ppl on the net: patience. They might express, "oh, look, you can send email around the world in less than ten seconds", or however quick it is, and if you mail someone, and if they don't mail you back, you might think that there is something wrong here and they start to panic and stuff. And it happens because they don't have patience.
Communication does take longer on IRC and as a consequence relationships would require more time to progress through conventional stages of development. However, a result of this aspect of the medium is that a relationship may progress to intimate levels more quickly, bypassing the more physical dimensions of small talk. When talking on IRC finding out about people is the prime focus. In a FTF context people talk about their surroundings, the weather, and so on, to avoid talking about themselves. People also go to the movies or somewhere which becomes the basis of a conversation. Yet, on IRC, with no physical environment to talk about, the crossroads of a relationship may be reached rather quickly. One participant of the survey noted the rapid development and decline of relationships on IRC:
IRC relationships come and go alot easier they tend to be more 'passionate' or 'exciting' but then tend to fade away just as fast.
With the obvious frustration that some people experience when trying to communicate with friends on IRC, some users will resort to other forms of communication to explore their relationships further. When users were asked in the survey whether their IRC relationships had gone beyond communication on IRC, every participant had. The most common forms of additional communication were the exchange of photos (either on-line or through the post), writing letters, phone calls, and 'real life' meetings.
In other words, for many IRC users, communication on IRC is inserted into 'traditional' means of communication in relationship formation.
b) Channels
Social demographic similarity is one factor that brings together people to form relationships. It is more likely that someone will notice and come across people who are of the same, ethnicity, religion, status or occupation as their own (Levinger & Snoek, 1972). These demographics often provide social contexts for communication. On IRC, the creation of channels also serves as social contexts, often forming around demographic similarities.
Channels are public areas which people can enter to talk with a group of people. Joining a channel is similar to walking down a corridor with many doors on either side and picking one door to enter. Walking through one of these doorways is like walking into a room. Inside these rooms there maybe many people or just one or two. Channels have names, and it is usually the name that will influence someone to join it. These names indicate either a demographic, topic of conversation or the name of the person who started the channel. Channels therefore serve to bring people with similar demographics into contact so that they can form relationships.
There are a wide range of demographics which are reflected in IRC channels. There are many channels for people with computer interests such as #linux, #mac, #dos, etc which are a result of a majority of people on IRC being male university students who study some form of computing or graduates working in the computer industry. These channels therefore reflect a similar occupation or status. Channels such as #Islam, #Wicca, #Christian, etc, bring people of the same religion or spirituality together. There are also channels that refer to nationality such as #Aussies, #Canada, #Taiwan, etc.
Channels also form around similar interests. #BDSM (Bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism) allows people who are involved in that sort of behaviour, or just curious about it to communicate. #NBA allows people who are interested in basketball to come into contact. When asked about this factor on IRC, one user responded:
[Pax] ... #'s are the communication...ppl gather at their interests
While the channels bring together people with common interests, they also serve to bring people together who may never have come into contact otherwise. As one survey participant said, "I find that many interesting chats take place with people from ethnic, national, or age groups that I would not usually be in touch with."
There are also channels created on IRC that have no bearing at all on demographic characteristics. Some are merely formed for the purposed of chatting with others, eg, #chat, #talk, etc. While this may not seem to provide a context, Rheingold (1994) says that "idle talk _is_ context-setting. Idle talk is where people learn what kind of person you are, why you should be trusted or mistrusted, what interests you." (p 60) Idle talk is only seen to be contextless when viewed from a task-related perspective. If it is viewed in the context of forming relationships, idle talk is not pointless, but the point of communication.
With a common space and social context for communication, IRC users have the means to form relationships and find out about other people. However, finding out what "kind of person you are" is a far more complex phenomenon than may first be thought. This will be discussed in the following chapter.