The Naturally-Occuring Chat Machine: Newsgroup Messages

Chat: pretty basic stuff; we can all recognise it and we can all do it. Yet when we come to define chat we have to make decisions about its character. For us, chat is defined by its 'informality' (not that we are capable of defining that), not its modality. Thus it names informal textual interaction as well as informal voiced interaction: holiday postcards, letters to friends and informal emails, along with telephone and dinner table conversation. However, in Conversation Analysis (CA) -- the pre-eminent mode of 'chat analysis' -- textually produced interaction is not considered an altogether appropriate topic, and 'textual CA' remains marginal at best (McHoul; Nelson; Mulkay). According to CA, conversation (or 'talk-in-interaction') is the primordial mode of social interaction. As a practice, ordinary talk is not considered by its practitioners to be particularly skilled (presumably because it is so basic, so pervasive, so ordinary); yet CA shows it to be a precision instrument, wielded by maestros. Subtle, nuanced and highly sensitive; yet structured, normative and accountable; it displays "order at all points" (Sacks 22), yet is entirely improvised. Moreover, the doing of talk produces and reproduces all the supposedly 'external' phenomena of the socio-psychological sciences: persons, interaction, groups, membership categories (class/gender/ethnicity), the 'sense of social structure' and ultimately society itself. For CA, 'naturally-occurring ordinary conversation' is at once the most mundane and the most consequential social phenomenon (Boden & Zimmerman; Silverman; Hutchby & Wooffitt). Part of our aim is to provoke a reconsideration of the marginal status of textually conducted interaction as a proper topic for CA. We do this by comparing two forms of CA and their corresponding data -- the CA of face-to-face conversations and the CA of Internet newsgroup messages (for the latter, see Reed, "Being 'OTP'"; Reed, "Newsgroups"; for other insider commentaries and critiques of CA practices, see Anderson and Sharrock; Bogen). The main axis of comparison between the two forms of analysis is the relevant procedures that each uses to produce its data; and in particular, the subset of these we call 'machinic-productive processes' (see Table 1). If we concentrate on the two heavily outlined boxes which list each mode's machinic-productive processes we can note first that these processes are assigned to different actors: for the CA of conversation, they are the ta