The language of chatgroups 163
nearly half of all turns were off-topic.^57 It may only take a slight
semantic shift to start a drift towards another topic – such as might
be triggered by a playful remark. A comment aboutTony Blair,
for example, elicits a rhyme onhair, which leads to a participant
wishing he (the participant) had more hair... and gradually the
topic moves in a new direction. In unmoderated channels, it may
never get back to where it was. Nor is ‘where it was’ a clear concept,
as there are often several topics being discussed in parallel – not
only between different pairs of discussants (as illustrated above),
but by the same discussant. P writes on topic X to Q while Q writes
on topic Y to P. Sophisticated performances can be found among
experienced chatgroup members, with someone keeping several
conversations going simultaneously (sometimes even on different
channels, using different screen windows).^58 But for most people,
following a multidimensional conversation is extremely difficult,
with the need to maintain close attention to a rapidly scrolling
screen.
Several formal features of synchronous chatgroups make this
variety of Netspeak highly distinctive. The nick-initiated lineation,
with names in angle brackets, is one such feature. Another is the
identification of message-types generated by the software. In IRC,
for example, as we have seen, system messages are introduced by
thetriple-asteriskconvention.Theseformulaicmessagesgiveinfor-
mation about such matters as which participants are present, who
is joining or leaving a channel, or whether someone is changing
identity:
∗∗∗DC has joined channel #suchandsuch
∗∗∗Signoff: DC
∗∗∗DC is now known as CD(^57) Herring (1999: 10).
(^58) Presumably this often happens, not because people have several equally competing inter-
ests, but because they find a single channel insufficiently stimulating. Cynical observers
might conclude that such ‘multi-taskers’ are trying to escape the boredom which must
be present on many channels, with most of the participants having nothing to say. It is
difficult to avoid the impression that, in some groups, an issue that might give people
cause to worry (p. 1) is more to do with poverty of content than of language.