Bonvillain vs. Online Communication

During the comparison between the online communication and the face-to-face interaction analyzed by Bonvillain, the biggest difference is the structural properties of conversation. The reason that makes the structural difference seems to be because the uttered words are not volatile in an online environment. The comparisons below are mostly between the face-to-face interaction and text-based online discussion which is more different from real world conversation. (The interaction occurred in IM conversation is the most and similar to face-to-face conversation among online discussion, blogging and IM. IM is similar to real world conversation in many ways such as the requirement of coincidence of time). The elements related to postulates, directiveness and politeness appear quite similar in both face-to-face and online interaction, except some aspects like using of linguistic alternatives by the intonation.

(1)While taking the turn, the face-to-face interaction has no or slight gap(or overlap). However, in the online discussion board, the big gaps are often observed, and the overlaps are hardly seen. Even when the overlap between two opinions can be seen, it is rather a accidental “simultaneous talk,” which cannot be acknowledged and repaired until the writers and readers can see both opinions being posted with little time difference. The gaps are sometimes very big that the recent comment has been posted several months after the previous comment. The continuity of time of utterance does not seem a critical factor for the online discussion board, while it is very important for the face-to-face interaction which requires the participants to present with time and spatial coincidence for its occurrence. For the participants being free from the time and spatial coincidence is one significant difference of the online communicative interaction comparing to the face-to-face interaction.

(2)Another significant aspect of online discussion interaction is that there lacks closing very often. The online conversation in a discussion board setting can last forever as long as its topic is interesting to the present and potential participants. The reason seems to be because the online discussion is more bound to the topic of participant’s interest than the simultaneous time and spatial presence of the participants. Since the online discussion comes to continue sporadically and forever, the lack of closing again increases the big gaps seen between the online communication.

(3)There is little way to see if anyone is listening to what I am saying during the online discussion before the response is posted. Sometimes the hit number can be the evidence that someone has at least viewed my words but the hit number does not guarantee the active listenership. There is little concept of active listenership with background cues in online conversation.

In addition to the differences directly inferred from Bonvillain’s analysis, there are some more distinctive characters of communicative interaction in online conversation.

(4)A participant of an online conversation can participate in multiple conversations in parallel without having his/her conversational partners to notice or feel being treated impolitely.

(5)In face-to-face interaction, there is a thinking process before utterance. In online communicative interaction, there is additional process such as typing between thinking and uttering. This additional process, typing, is a form of utterance in the speaker’s cognitive world, but it is not an utterance from the public’s view until the speaker clicks the publish button or pushes the enter key. The speaker has the option of changing his/her words or whether to publicize the words until the publish button and enter key.

(6)In face-to-face interaction, the spilt utterance is irreversible. But in case of online communication, the spilt milk sometimes can be gathered by deleting the post.