146 LANGUAGE AND THE INTERNET
Another conversation-like feature is the unpredictability of the
subject-matter. Although a particular topic motivates a message,
there is nothing to stop the writer from introducing a new topic,
angle, or allusion into it. Davis and Brewer use an ornithologi-
cal metaphor to capture the ‘flocking’ behaviour of their students,
as a cluster of writers ‘migrate’ to a new topic.^32 However, there is
nothinginasynchronouschatgroupsquiteresemblingtherandom-
ness of the subject-matter in face-to-face conversation.^33 Perhaps
it is the sharpness of focus which comes from joining a group, or
perhaps it is something to do with the act of typing or the time
available to the typist, but the vast majority of messages I have seen
do stay surprisingly on-topic. Relevance (p. 49) seems to be a pow-
erful motivation, which all members share. If a contribution strays
too far from the subject-matter of a group, a moderator (if there is
one) may intervene, or other members may criticize. In Usenet, for
example, there is the conventionob-[=obligatory] placed in front
of a word to show that an attempt is being made to bring a topic
back to the point, after it has gone off in various directions (e.g.
obpassportswas used after a discussion about passports had got
sidetracked into one on holidays). Contributors are only human,
of course, so they do find themselves going off-topic, from time
to time, but they usually realize this and often apologize for do-
ing so. One writer deleted (scribbled) his message to a group, then
immediately sent another message apologizing for having done so
and explaining why – his first message had been off-topic, as it
had been intended for some other group, and he was sorry for the
distraction. Anyone who writes persistently off-topic is likely to be
excluded. Moderators are mercifully absent from everyday conver-
sation, and topic-shift is not normally corrected by participants or
apologized for. Anyone may say ‘That reminds me.. .’ and change
the conversation’s direction, without feeling self-conscious about
it or running the risk of being told to leave the room. Although
chatgroup discussion is much less tightly structured by compari-
son with virtually all other varieties of written language, it rarely
(^32) Davis and Brewer (1997: 137).
(^33) Again, synchronous chatgroups are a different matter: see p. 162.