Dialogue in and between Different Cultures - International ...

112 Gabriel Dorta
salient communicative behaviour which exceeds what participants construct as
being appropriate to the ongoing social interaction and is open to evaluations as
(im)polite. As for chats, this behaviour is expressed through activities of special
treatment (‘Honorierungsaktivitäten’, see Brinker & Sager 2001:155). Based on
recordings from two German-speaking chat-rooms, I will show that politeness is
put into practice to overcome some restrictions and to express partial commitment,
friendliness and closeness among participants. The results of the analysis
question the usual categorization of social relationships as ‘formal’ or ‘informal’.
In the case of chats, social relationships must be classified in those that show
more or less commitment. Finally, the study opens some future research questions
about the cultural impact on politeness strategies in chats.
2. Chat communication and its non-committal frame
In every communicative exchange, participants follow several social norms and
thereby show, to a certain extent, commitment and involvement in the interaction.
According to Höflich & Gebhardt (2001), chat communication occurs precisely
within a non-committal frame, which determines the way people manage their
interaction in a written medium. In this frame, social relationships are characterized
by their instability and non-commitment. They result from a superficial and
playful contact with chatters who show interest in interacting with others
(ibid:41).
One of the basic components of this non-committal frame is the possibility of
logging out of the chat-room without giving any reason for not continuing the
interaction with others. This possibility opens a new scope of communicative
actions which would not always be free of social sanctions in the face-to-face
interaction. A second component of this frame is the participants’ relative
anonymity. Due to the medium’s restriction to the written communication
channel, it is solely the chatter who decides which information he or she gives
about his or her physical features or their private lives. The agreement of the
given information with the participants’ real physical characteristics plays a minor
role in the interaction (cf. Dorta 2005:62ff). More important are the presented
attributes and the participants’ linguistic behaviour for the interaction course, for
catching the chatters’ attention and establishing contact with them (cf. Höflich &
Gebhardt 2001:32f.).
The recognition of the chats’ non-committal frame is fundamental for
managing the interaction in this medium. For Höflich & Gebhardt (2001), this
frame should no be considered as negative or deficient but as a
restatement of relationships’ patterns that are spreading out” (ibid:35). Social
relationships are thereby “associated with a partial and functional commitment and
involvement; they primarily require that chatters manage the respective communicative
situation or, using the current terminology, the particular frame (ibid:36).