The language of chatgroups 159
Moreover, this is a fairly simple example, compared with those
where a given message may result in multiple replies from partici-
pants,orwhererepliescomeinafteraconsiderablegap(separations
of stimulus and response by as many as fifty messages have been
noted). A further confusion arises if a message from one mem-
ber of the group is repeated. Herring reports, in another of her
studies, that over a third of all participants (N= 117 ) who posted
messages received no response, which led to some of them sending
their message more than once (cf. spamming, p. 53). She con-
cludes: ‘Violations of sequential coherence are the rule rather than
the exception in CMC [computer-mediated communication].’^51
The effect somewhat resembles a cocktail party in which every-
one is talking at once – except that it is worse, because every guest
can ‘hear’ every conversation equally, and every guest needs to
keep talking in order to prove to others that they are still in-
volved in the interchange. In a real-life party, if someone is not
talking, you can at least see that (s)he is still paying attention. In
a chatgroup, silence is ambiguous: it may reflect a deliberate with-
holding, a temporary inattention, or a physical absence (without
signing off). That is one reason why some of its conversations
seem so pointless: the contributors are talking to maintain their
screen presence, even though they may not in fact have anything
to say.
The use of nicknames (nicks) is a highly distinctive feature of
synchronous chatgroup language. Some use of nicks is also found
in asynchronous groups, sometimes replacing, sometimes supple-
menting the use of a real name; they may also be a feature of
e-mail addresses. But nick practice is primarily associated with
synchronous groups and the interactions of virtual worlds, where
people rarely use their real name. The choice of a nick is a ritual
act, demanded by the culture to which the individual aspires to
belong, and – as with all naming practices – a matter of great com-
plexity and sensitivity. However, unlike traditional nicknaming,
chatgroup practice is influenced by extraneous factors, notably the
(^51) Herring (1999: 9).