Friday, November 28, 2008

More from The Impacts of Emoticons on Message Interpretation in Computer-Mediated Communication

non verbal behavior is thought to reflect general intentions, many of its forms are perceived by observers to be less controlled and deliberate than verbal utterances (seeKnapp, Wiemann, &Daly, 1978). Facial expressions are considered by some to be among the most controllable of nonverbal cues (Ekman & Friesen,1969). Yet, Birdwhistell (1970) reminds us that people “are not always aware that they are or are not smiling”(p.33). Furthermore, some forms of facial affect displays—those accompanying weeping, for example—are generally considered direct and involuntary representations of internal states (Kendon,1987). Typed-out textual symbols, whether verbal or iconic, may not be so involuntarily casual, in the minds of receivers. Relative to FtF nonverbal communication , emoticons may be considered more deliberate and voluntary. One may unconsciously smile FtF, but it is hard to imagine some one typing a :-) with less awareness than of the words he or she is selecting. Marvin(1995)recognized this phenomen on in her discussion of MOO interaction, stating that :
smiles in face-to-face contexts can be strategic or spontaneous and unintentional. In the context of the MOO... every smile must be consciously indicated. In private some thing flowing across the computer screen might cause a participant to spontaneously smile, but a conscious choice must be made to type it out; a participant might frown at the keyboard and but[sic]strategically decide to type a smile.

*these quotes are very good example for my own statement about emoticons an FtF facial expressions, the advantages of the emoticons over the real face expressions, therefore if there is something that FtF expressions luck of, it might be supported by emoticons by exporting them to the FtF communication.

No comments: