Dialogue in and between Different Cultures - International ...

(2) Example (recording 19_15.09.01 episode 8)
Politeness and Social Dynamics in the Chat Communication 115
1119 Oliver663:
1120 @jan-eike. santom hat hirse in der birne [20:49:17]
„@jan-eike. santom has millet in the nut”
[...]
1125 jan-eike:
1126 oliver663: wahrscheinlich [20:49:34]
“oliver663: probably”
[...]
1152 Oliver663:
1153 @jan-eike es ist eh schade welches niveau diese diskussion zum teil hat
[20:50:05]
„@jan-eike it’s a pity anyhow, the standards this discussion at times”
[...]
Oliver663 and jan-eike’s evaluations refer to some contributions sent by the
participant Satom, which were left out of the episode for merely analytical
purposes. As seen in the messages, chatters share their perspectives about Satom’s
communicative behaviour and build, to a certain extent, a coalition with that.
Oliver663’s utterances in the first example are therefore neither face-threatening
nor impolite. The continuation of the communicative exchange between both
participants rather shows that some ‘politeness’ conventions can be absent in the
interaction in chats, without participants interpreting this absence as threatening
for their social relationships. This type of relationship is characteristic of the noncommittal
frame in chat communication.
Jan-eike’s omission of an excuse for having infringed other participants’
territory of action is also not to be interpreted as impolite. On the one hand,
participants did not demand an excuse of this chatter. On the other hand, that
omission was not evaluated as inappropriate during the interaction course. After
the requests made in the first example, jan-eike interacts with several participants,
takes part in other constellations and contributes to the maintenance of the
communication flow. The acceptance of the requests related to the chatters’ own
territory of action is merely shown through not sending such large contributions
anymore. The absence of an excuse is therefore neither polite nor impolite but
characteristic of the speed of the information exchange within the chat’s noncommittal
frame.
How does politeness function then, if many utterances, according to some
conventions, cannot be interpreted as (im)polite but as typical of the chats’ noncommittal
character? In which form can politeness be identified and described?
To answer these questions, the evaluative activities of the addressees must firstly
be taken into consideration for the analysis of (im)politeness in chat communication.
Secondly, communication in chats should be seen from an intersubjective
and not from a subjective or rational perspective. The knowledge about specific