The language of chatgroups 135
werecomingineveryday;inanother,overahundredmessageswere
present, but spread out over a year; in a third, a group had received
no contributions for several years (and thus, I imagine, was de-
funct). Each contributor leaves a linguistic ‘footprint’, in that what
is said has a permanent pragmatic effect. In face-to-face commu-
nication, pragmatic effects are typically immediate and direct. In
an asynchronous list, the effect of a contribution is preserved over
an indefinable period of time – in much the same way that contact
with a broadcast interview can be indefinitely renewed, as long as
there is interest in it. It is a standard technique to embarrass politi-
cians, for example, by retransmitting their words years after they
were spoken. But it is not just politicians. Which of us, in everyday
conversation, have not had occasion to bless the fact that our ut-
terances are not being taken down to be later used in evidence? Yet
this is precisely the situation which obtains in asynchronous chat-
groups, where we ourselves put everything down, using our own
keyboards. Our individual e-conversations may come to an end,
but the text remains. We should not therefore be surprised if, at
some point – even years later – someone uses what we have said in a
way we did not intend, or quotes us out of context. The group man-
agers repeatedly warn their members about the long-term effect of
their contributions. As the WELL site says:
Remember that words you enter in a burst of inspired passion or
indignant anger will be there for you (and everyone) to read long
after your intense feelings are gone. This isn’t meant to discourage
spontaneity and the expression of feelings on The WELL, but
merely to remind you of the long-term existence and effects of
what you write.This pushes the situation much more in the direction of the written
language, as encountered in articles, books, and other ‘permanent’
literature. There is an autonomy about the text, once it is posted,
much like that encountered in a book. Indeed, in looking at the
topic-list within a particular group, with its main headings and
sub-headings, there is a distinct resemblance to conventional book
divisions. Boyd Davis and Jeutonne Brewer found that, after the