The language of chatgroups 147
becomes as unfocused, rambling, and inconsequential as everyday
conversation.
A further feature of face-to-face conversation which is found
in chatgroups is that the members accommodate to each other.^34
Although they come from many different backgrounds, and write
in many different styles, their contributions progressively develop
a shared linguistic character – the equivalent of a local dialect
or accent. Everyone comes to use certain types of grammatical
construction, slang, jargon, or abbreviations. Often the accom-
modation is short-lived. A particular locution may be taken up
as a fad by several members, and be used intensively for a while
before it dies away – though it may become part of the group’s
communal memory, being resurrected from time to time. A typo-
graphical error can prompt a train of deviant spellings. A certain
competitiveness can exist, especially among smaller groups, with
members trying to ‘one up’ each other, perhaps by taking one
writer’s pun and coining others on analogy, as in face-to-face
examples of ‘ping-pong punning’.^35 Davis and Brewer found reg-
ular stylistic shifts in their student group: a new device (e.g. a
student using a particular feature, such as direct address) would
influence others for about five contributions before there was a
change.
A sample of messages from any chatgroup is likely to display a
similar use of certain linguistic features. The medium privileges the
personal and idiosyncratic contribution, and this has immediate
linguistic consequences. Davis and Brewer noted several features:
the ‘overwhelming use of the pronounI’; the frequency with which
itwas used to introduce a personal comment (e.g.itseemstome);
and the reliance on private verbs (e.g.think,feel,know).^36 Herring
also identified the importance of these features in her data, under
the heading of ‘expressing views’, and also notesitseemstome,
(^34) For the notion of accommodation, see Giles, Coupland, and Coupland (1991).
(^35) See Crystal (1998: ch.1). For an analysis of humour in a Usenet context, see Baym (1995).
(^36) Davis and Brewer (1997: 85ff.). Private verbs are those where the activities cannot be
publicly observed; they contrast with the public verbs, such assayandtell: see Quirk,
Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985: 1181).