Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Non-verbal Communication' keyword pg.1 of 1
05 JUNE 2015

Emoticons as computer-mediated non-verbal communication

"The term 'emoticons'—short for 'emotion icons'—refers to graphic signs, such as the smiley face, that often accompany computer-mediated textual communication. They are most often characterized as iconic indicators of emotion, conveyed through a communication channel that is parallel to the linguistic one. In this article, it is argued that this conception of emoticons fails to account for some of their important uses. We present a brief outline of speech act theory and use it to provide a complementary account of emoticons, according to which they also function as indicators of illocutionary force. More broadly, we identify and illustrate three ways in which emoticons function: 1) as emotion indicators, mapped directly onto facial expression; 2) as indicators of non-emotional meanings, mapped conventionally onto facial expressions, and 3) as illocutionary force indicators that do not map conventionally onto a facial expression. In concluding, we draw parallels between emoticons and utterance-final punctuation marks, and show how our discussion of emoticons bears upon the broader question of the bounds between linguistic and non-linguistic communication."

(Eli Dresner and Susan C. Herring, 2010)

Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). "Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force". Communication Theory, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 249-268.

1

TAGS

2010computer-mediated communication (CMC) • computer-mediated textual communication • discourse analysis • Eli Dresner • emoticons • emotion icon • emotion indicators • facial expressionsgraphic communication • graphic signs • hieroglyphs • iconic indicators of emotion • illocutionary act • illocutionary force • illocutionary force indicator • illustration to visually communicate informationimages replace text • linguistic communication • linguistics • non-emotional meanings • non-linguistic communication • non-verbal communicationpictogrampictorial languagepicture language • smiley face • social informatics • speech act theory • Susan Herring • textual computer-mediated communication (CMC) • utterance-final punctuation marks • visual languagevisual literacyvisual representation graphically

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
26 NOVEMBER 2008

Knowledge Integration between Experts and Decision Makers

"Amidst the increasing complexity of markets, technologies, or consumer demands, ever more distributed expertise needs to be integrated for effective decision making. Consequently, the integration of knowledge becomes an important function for organizations [Grant 1996: 377]. Knowledge integration is the synthesis of individuals' specialized knowledge into situation–specific, systemic knowledge [Alavi and Tiwana 2002]. The aim of knowledge integration is not to minimize the knowledge gap between individuals, groups, or organizations, but to foster specialization while combining specialized knowledge in joint actions and decisions [Eisenhardt and Santos 2000]. Especially in complex, uncertain, and high–risk decision processes, managers need to draw on the specific knowledge of domain experts. Yet, the use of expertise is bound to cognitive, interactional, social, and political challenges that intervene in the decision making process [Eisenhardt and Zbaracki 1992]. In this paper, we focus on the interactional, i.e. communicative challenges of knowledge integration. By doing so, we aim to advance a communication perspective on knowledge management issues [see also: Mengis and Eppler 2005]. This perspective is based on the idea that we create, share, and integrate knowledge in social interactions [Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995] and that communication is therefore constitutive to knowledge processes. In the context of the expert–decision maker interaction, co–located conversations are the main communicative form through which knowledge is integrated. Conversations allow for high interactivity (participants can pose clarifying questions and ask for the larger context of a specific piece of information). The language and complexity of discourse can be finely aligned to the characteristics of the interlocutors [Krauss and Fussell 1991] and the para– and non–verbal cues facilitate the development of a common ground [Olson and Olson 2000], a prerequisite for mutual understanding.

On the other hand, conversations are ephemeral [Bregman and Haythornthwaite 2001] so that the major reasons and motivations behind the decisions taken are often poorly documented. They are bound to the linear flow of time, which limits comparisons of multiple variables and complex issues. Finally, conversations are often characterized by conversational patterns such as defensive arguing [Argyris 1996], unequal turn–talking [Ellinor and Gerard 1998], or dichotomous arguing [Tannen 1999].

In order to better utilize the potential of conversations for knowledge integration and to overcome the drawbacks and challenges that are bound to this communicational form, conversations can be supported by interactive visualization tools [Eppler 2005]. In this paper, we will hence discuss the role of collaborative visualization for knowledge integration by presenting an experimentally tested model."
(Jeanne Mengis & Martin J. Eppler, University of Lugano, Switzerland)

CONTRIBUTOR

Simon Perkins
Sign-In

Sign-In to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.