Eli Dresner & Susan C. Herring
Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force
Communication Theory, 20,3 249-268
What is an emoticon?
Note the definitions that follow will be critiqued later on
P250 ‘prototypical emoticons are facial expressions’ ‘They are construed as indicators of affective states, the purpose of which is to convey non-linguistic information’
Authors claim that the term ‘emoticon’ misrepresents.Authors claim that the 1y function is not to convey emotion but rather pragmatic meaning, and this function needs to be understood in linguistic, rather than extralinguistic terms’
Emoticons as emotion icons
Rezabek and Cochenour (1998,p201) definition ‘ visual cues formed from ordinary typographical symbols that when read sideways represents feelings or emotions’
Assumptions of emoticons as indicators of emotion is reflected in research questions.
e.g.
Walther & D’Addario (2001)
P251 ‘how the affective value of emoticons combines with linguistic messages to which they are attached’. When pointed in the opposite direction the linguistic part has greater effect. Any negativity (language or emotion) had a negative effect on the overall assessment of the message whereas the same did not hold for positive. ‘Study does not go beyond the question of whether emoticons modulate affect’.
Provin et al (2007) take emoticons as emotional indicators for granted. Studies asynchronous message board.‘emoticons hardly ever interrupt the phrase structure of typed messages, just as laughter rarely interrupts spoken phrases’
Gender (page 252 for refs)
Gender female use more than males
Wolf (2000) men use to express sarcasm
Critique
Many of the emoticons are not confined to depicting a single emotion e.g. joke emoticon but joking can be associated with a range of emotions e.g either happiness or being sad.
Emoticons express not only emotions but other things as well.
A related deficiency ‘ that it depicts the contributions of emoticons to CMI as independent of language’ rather than contributing to - p253 ‘ –indeed, provide a vital cue as to how to interpret- the linguistic content of messages.When used this way, emoticons seem to be part of the text, on a par with punctuation marks, which can also signal sarcasm.The current construal of emoticons seems not to be able to accommodate this aspect of their use’
What is required is a theoretical framework that situates emoticons ( or, rather, some of their uses) between the extremes of nonlanguage and language. ‘The authors suggest that speech acts can provide such a framework.
Speech act and pragmatic force
Speech act (J.L.Austin (1962) How to do things with words.
253 ‘ when one produces an utterance, one typically performs concomitant acts of three types’
• locutionary – basic production of a linguistic expression, with a given stntactic structure and a literal meaning.
• illocutionary – intended action performed through the locution – the speech act carried out by the speaker ‘by producing the utterance, the speaker may be asserting a claim, asking a question, making a promise etc
then organised by other workers (p254 for refs) into 5 categories
assertive e.g. statements
commisive e.g. promises
directive acts e.g. commands
expressive e.g. emotions
declarative
• perlocutionary ‘an action performed through an utterance that depends for its identity not only on the speaker’s intentions but rather also on the effect of the utterance on its audience’ e.g. persuading
Are illocutionary acts conventional in nature?
Convention
P254 Austen & Searle and also Dummett ‘ producing an utterance with a certain force isrule-governed’ therefore conventional and depends on a process of socialisation.
Others disagree
Intention
Davidson (1984) ‘views neither literal meaning not force as essentially conventional. What is necessary for speech is only that a hearer be able to interpret a speaker, and this, in principle can be achieved without shared conventions. It is only required that each interpreter be able to make an adequate ascription of content ( be it semantic or illocutionary0 to the other’s utterances on the basis of observing his linguistic or nonlinguistic behaviour.(Dresner, 2006) or considerations of relevance .i.e. the ability of the spoken to discern intentions.
“Sperber & Wilson / note that conventional and intentional approaches to illocutionary force are not inconsistent with each other, but rather can be combined.’
Sentential moods and speech acts ( but note, many examples where sentential mood is absent therefore indicative that speech acts do not consistently rely on it)
English speakers typically use sentinel mood as follows
Indicative to make assertions
Imperative to issue commands
Interrogative to ask questions
Leads to the next question
P255
Is typographic indication of force possible?
Question mark ? is coupled with interogative mood
exclamation mark is more heterogenous and is associated with commands, protests, and other speech acts that can be considered forceful or emphatic’ “ However, as in the case of the relation between mood and force, punctuation marks are not always as numerous as types of speech acts, nor are they correlated in a strict rule like fashion with the speech acts as they indicate.
The argument at the centre of this paper about the communicative functions of emoticons: from emotion to illocutionary force.
That emoticons ‘help convey the speech act performed through the production of the utterance. These uses of emoticons neither contribute to the propositional content ( the locution) of the language used nor are they just and extralinguistic communication channel indicating emotion.Rather, they help convey an important aspect of the linguistic utterance they are attached to: What the user intends by what he or she types’
Gives an example of using a wink emoticon ‘p257 ‘ This usage neither expresses emotion nor does it mimic a physical wink; its sole function seems to be to indicate the utterance’s intended illocutionary force; which it does though mitigation of face threat’‘that the utterance is intended as one kind of speech act, rather than another’ . Another example -using a smiley to suggest that a prior description of circumstance is not complaining but describing a situation.
To summarise
P259
Emoticons ( whether stand alone or appearing on the same line) can express
• Emotional expressions
• Conventionalized (nonemotional) facial expressions
• Contextually dependent illocutionary force
Depending on the producer’s communicative intent.
Discussion
1. Thinking in terms of bodily gestures as well as facial expression
P260
McNeill (2005,p4) writes “ it is profoundly an error to think of gesture as a code or ‘body language’ separate from spoken language…. [G]estures are part of language’ The meaning expressed by gestures are conventualised to varying degrees, like those expressed by emoticons.Moreover, Kendon (1995) claims that some gestures function as illocutionary speech acts, making visible the implications of what is being said. Our account of emoticons resonates with this outlook and may be viewed as lending support to it, by pointing to expressions of (facial) bodily movement in text.
The authors point out that this account does not rule out an iconic mapping between the function of emoticons and some bodily and facial movements.
2. there is a loose connection between emoticons and the speech acts they sometimes help to carry out.
‘- such that there appears to be no simple one-to-one mapping between any of the commonly used emoticons discussed in this article and a particular illocutionary force- as in accord with the general discussion of textual markers and speech acts presented in an earlier section’
‘In all cases, contextual interpretation is involved, which the textual markers contribute to rather than making redundant’ ‘However all the usage as illustrated in the article ‘ convey a nuance of playfulness9cf Danet,2001), even the fron. This appears to be an illocutionary force that maps onto emoticon use in general, indicating that the speech act performed is not intended to be taken entirely seriously’ Context is essentiual for interpretation.
3. What factors condition the use of emoticons and the ways in which they are used?
Emoticons are native to CMC.‘Technological factors influence the extent to which emoticons are used and which ones are used in different CMC modes’ ‘more pertinent to synchronous’ i.e as shorthand.
4 p261 ‘Our analysis of emoticons as illocutionary force markers can shed light on a fourth issue: The apparent paradox that emoticons mimic often nonintentional facial expressions, although they are intentionally produced. In Goffman’s (1959) terms, facial expressions are expressions given off rather than expressions given. Emoticons, in contrast, are always produced consciously and intentionally, on a par with other aspects of writing. The use of emoticons as emotion indicators seems difficult to explain in this respect.Nonintentional ‘expression given off’ is usually taken to be a more reliable cue to interpreting other people’s emotive states than intentional ‘expression given. It follows that the representation of a bodily channel that in some cases involves involuntary expression in the intention-governed domain of textual expression should be detrimental to its perceived value as an indicator of emotion, and the apparent success of this representation is left unaccounted for’.
‘The construal of emoticons as indicators of illocutionary force partially obviates this paradox’ ‘Force is fully within the domain of the intentional’
KRO an emoticon in CMC need not actually mirror a users facial expression.
Questions that arise
P262
• How are emoticons connected to the illocutionary force they express?
• What justifies a claim that a given emoticon indicates that a certain illocutionary act is performed?
‘The use of emoticons as indicators of illocutionary force appears to comprise both conventional and nonconventional aspects’ ‘”On the conventional side the conventions are ……..borrowed from f-to-f, as well as conventions that evolve within CMC contexts’ see Penas & Hancock, 2006 for the conventions of an online gaming community’
Some unconventional use can be attributed to the producers’s intention. Eg producing a smile after listing hardships.This of course relies on the reader making an interpretation that matches the intention i.e. whether or not they are persuaded.
Conclusion
P263
3 functions of emoticons identified.
• emotion mapped directly onto facial expression
• non emotional meaning, mapped conventionally onto facial expression
• illocutionary force indicators that do not map conventionally onto facial expression
What is the balance between them?
Are there technological, cultural and /or situated “ – are there others? Authors see opportunity for much more empirical work.
Check use in DZX222 against Searle taxonomy
Raises the question of
“What is the range of speech acts performed with the help of emoticons and how ( and to what extent) are the acts correlated with the indicators?
e.g. ‘are specific emoticons used for some types of taxonomy and not others? Are there success conditions that are particular to CMC contexts?
P264 “use of emoticons as indicators of illocutionary force can be viewed as an expansion of text in the same way that, for example, question marks or exclamation marks are.
Parks,1993 for a history of punctuation – these marks ‘were late additions to text, that their early uses were not subject to widely agreed upon conventions; and that marks used to day are a subset of a larger class of punctuation marks.’
Markman & Oshima (2007) – punctuation is the 1y function of emoticons, based on an analysis of their placement
(KRO – emoticon use involves a translation process ? mob use influences)
Searle, J. (1969) Speech acts: An essay in philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1979) Expression and meaning . Studeis in the theory of speech acts.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
