Managing the flamingo: Politeness in an adolescent chatroom


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Image: Maria Kirk - 1904
  • MUTE - Attempts to speak but nothing comes out
  • Managing the flamingo: Politeness in an adolescent chatroom

    1. 1. Managing the Flamingo: Politeness in an Adolescent Chatroom Lois Ann Scheidt School of Library and Information Science Indiana University Image: Maria Kirk - 1904
    2. 2. Managing the Flamingo <ul><li>The hedgehog was engaged in a fight with another hedgehog, which seemed to Alice an excellent opportunity for croqueting one of them with the other: the only difficulty was, that her flamingo was gone across to the other side of the garden, where Alice could see it trying in a helpless sort of way to fly up into a tree. (Carroll, 1981: p. 65) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Research Question <ul><li>Does the presence of a moderator lead to a higher incidence of politeness behavior and a lower incidence of impolite behavior in an adolescent chat space? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Why do this research? <ul><li>Research is lacking on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Adolescent behavior in CMC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social moderation in CMC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This study aims to begin to fill these research voids. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Methodology – General Chat Room <ul><li>The chat site chosen consists of 180+ chatrooms. </li></ul><ul><li>24 chatrooms designated for General Chat and populated mostly by adolescents. </li></ul><ul><li>Each room had a capacity of 30 participants. </li></ul><ul><li>The total General Chat participation regularly exceeds 200 participants. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Methodology – Chatroom Selection <ul><li>One General Chatroom were selected for this study based on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High level of participation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability of samples </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Methodology - HTML Based Chat Spaces
    8. 8. Methodology – Data Collection <ul><li>Moderated samples (Female and Male Moderator) consist of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One hour with moderation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One unmoderated hour immediately following moderation. </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Methodology – Analysis <ul><li>Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical grounding: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Brown, G. & Levinson, S. (1987). The argument: Intuitive bases and derivative definitions. In Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage ( New York: Columbia University Press. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Herring, S. C. (1994). Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame. In M.Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton, & C. Hines (Eds.), Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278-294). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Methodology - CMDA Coding Scheme <ul><li>Observances of Negative Politeness (N+) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Apologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hedges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-sequences </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Methodology - CMDA Coding Scheme <ul><li>Observances of Positive Politeness (P+) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accepting an apology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solidarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thanks </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Methodology - CMDA Coding Scheme <ul><ul><li>Accusations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bald disagreements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Challenges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contempt </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contradictions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Criticism </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disapproval </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flames </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Insults </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ridicule </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Violations of Positive Politeness (P-) </li></ul>
    13. 13. Methodology - CMDA Coding Scheme <ul><ul><li>Admissions of guilt/responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Confessions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dares </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Orders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reminders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggestions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Threats </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Warnings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Violations of Negative Politeness (N-) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Methodology - CMDA Coding Scheme <ul><ul><li>All capital letters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By-passing the filters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ghosting other participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to read colors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to read fonts (<2 or 5<) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long messages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long quotes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Oversized avatars </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repeated message </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique word spellings (if they are hard to read) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Channel Offenses </li></ul>
    15. 15. Findings - Describing the Samples
    16. 16. Findings - Describing the Samples
    17. 17. Findings – Observances of Politeness
    18. 18. Findings – Violations of Politeness
    19. 19. Findings <ul><li>With Moderator samples trend toward Violations of Positive Politeness. </li></ul><ul><li>Without Moderator samples trend toward Violations of Negative Politeness. </li></ul><ul><li>Channel Offenses are high across all samples </li></ul>
    20. 20. Further Research Questions Raised by the Study <ul><li>Continue this study adding more data to confirm/refute preliminary findings. </li></ul><ul><li>Are there gender impacts across the speech acts that make up these coding schemes? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who does what and to whom? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Refine a taxonomy of Channel Offenses that are consistent with an adolescent population. </li></ul>