Since I've started using online communication, context and emotions have been a persistent issue. Decoding context has definitely progressed through adoption of emoticons and slang.
What I still have problems with is determining how to interpret and/or portray level of emotion. It's easy to show happiness as :) & very happy as :D However, there are many slangs that are just overboard. People use ROFL, LMAO, or LOL anytime something funny is posted. This ranges from very mildly amusing & trying to be polite... to absolutely hysterical. In a way, these slang terms seem to dumb down emotions into generic stereotypes. The general idea is there, but the subtle nuances are absent.
IMHO, as we continue the trend towards online and remote communication technologies, we must also find additional methods of bringing the humanistic traits into our conversations.
Streaning Star Trek: Insurrection Full Movie
6 years ago
3 comments:
I have such a hard time with emoticons and acronyms for emotions. In fact I have a problem with context in electronic communication in general. Emoticons are simple enough to understand but limited and I have absolutely no idea what most of the acronyms stand for but what is hardest for me is deciphering the context, emotions, and attitudes behind text only and also ensuring that my text can not be interpreted as angry or annoyed. Sometimes I read other peoples emails and I interpret them as rude and I can "hear" the irritation in their "voice". But it is highly likely that I am interpreting these "inflections" incorrectly. I think that too much communication is now done minus the human aspect and we miscommunicate and misinterpret more now than ever before in the past.
Thurlow et al. argue that "As human beings, we're born to communicate and are driven to maximize our communication satisfaction and interaction. This means that we invariably circumvent any practical or technological obstacles which might otherwise prevent us from having the kind of relational fulfilment we desire" (p. 51). Thus, we'll use technology in ways that work for us, rather than have the technology determine how we'll use it.
Consider how email has changed from the early days (plain text). Now you can embed images, use various fonts, change the color of the text. In addition, newer online technology such as web chat, podcasts, and Second Life allow for more communicative options. These additional ways to interact online all stem from the desire for people to interact with each other in meaningful ways.
It is interesting how these acronyms have fallen away from their stated meaning, and have come to represent shorthand for an emotional state rather than a literal action. I tend to use emotive actions rather than acronyms - *laughs*, *sighs*, *chuckles*, *looks guilty*, etc. - but even those are often times less than literal.
One time I was affected by laryngitis, and I was sitting on my couch with my laptop talking with my husband, who was sitting directly next to me with his laptop, via IM in order to save my voice. (It was slightly embarrassing how much more in-depth our conversation was than usual, but I digress.) At one point, he typed something funny, and by complete reflex I replied with "*laughs*". Immediately, he looked up and said out loud, "No, you didn't! I'm sitting right here, and you didn't laugh! Do you always lie online?" By that point, we honestly were laughing, or at least I was laughing as much as I could with no voice. But the exaggeration is a convention that I take for granted. I don't assume that my friends who constantly type ROFL are actually rolling on the floor, because they would never get any typing done if they did, but I understand the emotional response they're trying to convey.
Post a Comment