Emoticons in My E-Mail and Text Communications

Emoticons In my e-mail and text communications with friends and family, emoticons are actually infrequent. I receive them more than I use them myself. There are a few different ways to analyze this. Emoticons are intended as the "graphical representations of facial expressions" when using technology-mediated modes of communication (Walther & D'Addario, 2001). They act, therefore, as a substitute for non-verbal communication in face-to-face speech. It has been found that emoticons are generally outweighed by the verbal component of the communication.

Further research has showed that the most important communicative value of emoticons are as a means of communication not emotions, but context. Emoticons tell the message recipient how the message is to be received (Skovholt, Gronning & Kankaanranta, 2014). I have found that the latter tends to be true. Emoticons are used by myself in outbound communications mainly in situations where there may be interpretation issues with the text.

If the face value of the text is subject to interpretation, as in the case of something like sarcasm, then emoticons point the reader in the direction of how that text should be interpreted. Most emoticons used tend to be standard as well. This is because non-verbal communication demands a high degree of clarity, such that the use of non-standard emoticons would be potentially confusing.

I think about communication with my brother, which in other contexts will often contain random references to share experiences, and other elements that would make it difficult for an outsider to comprehend, there are no specialized emoticons, just standard ones, and they are almost never used because there is seldom any need to guide my brother with respect to how my communication should be interpreted. Communication between us can be very high-context, but that also means that misinterpretation is unlikely, negating the need for emoticons.

If there were specialized emoticons, I suspect that they would serve the same purpose as other specialized elements of our communication, being to make the conversation exclusionary to others, and to strengthen the social bond by means of having this specialized language. 2. There are many types of figures of speech. Accumulation is a figure of speech in which an argument previously stated is restated in a forceful manner. This is a commonly-used method of argument in modern communications, in everything from advertising to rallying support for political causes.

A second figure of speech is alliteration, which is used to draw attention to a sentence. Alliteration may be done because it is playful, but also may be used to emphasize particular ideas, or create mnemonic for the reader. Dysphemism and euphemism are two other figures of speech. As antonyms, they represent the use of harsher speech that might normally be used, and softer. A homeless person could thus be described as a vagrant (dysphemism) or a socioeconomically disadvantaged (euphemism).

Dysphemism is euphemistically known as 'unfortunate phrasing', while euphemism is dysphemistically referred to as "politically-correct bulls***." A fifth figure of speech is hyperbole, which is the use of exaggeration, either for comedic value or to emphasize a point. You see hyperbole about a million times a day. A sixth figure is the lilotes. This is the use of understatement to express the affirmative by negating its opposite, or at least I hope that is not a bad way of explaining it. 3.

There are a lot of non-verbal cues that are missed when communicating online. The use of SeeStorm Messenger provides the users with some opportunity to produce non-verbal communication but the avatars used are not nearly as sophisticated nor as responsive as the non-verbal communication in face-to-face contact. Online, without avatars, you miss most non-verbal cues. On SeeStorm Messenger, you get to convey vocal tones, pauses and some visual elements.

But the visual elements are not really your own, they have delayed reactions, and lack the subtlety to convey emotion in a serious way. Online, however, has its own cues that may work differently than offline communication. The visual elements of online communication, especially when using avatars, may tend to overstate certain things, because of the lack of subtlety in that communication form. Different statements could be expressly or interpreted differently.

The chat is different from writing as well -- written chats are a different communication style altogether from voice, because the use has the ability to convey a lot or a little (depending on how good they are at writing), and the user can also take time to edit or manage their responses to communication as well. I prefer written, followed by interpersonal. I find voice chats, phone calls or things like SeeStorm to be the worst of both worlds.

You lack the ability to filter your communications that you have in writing, but lack the subtlety and non-verbal texture that you get with in-person communications. 4. The International Listening Association website splash page is a lot of not much. For the casual visitor, there isn't much there -- an announcement about their convention -- and then we come to the paywall. Poking around the website for thought-provoking content is rather challenging. I arrived to listen, but there wasn't much to listen to, which strikes me as odd.

There were a couple of articles that were available for free, on specialized topics, but I was surprised at how closed off this organization is with respect to communications. They have no interest in talking to anyone who is not part of their little club, having failed to provide resources for the general public. An interesting element that I wish they would have gone into in more detail was the listicle about irritating and poor listening habits.

Out of 20 such habits, doubtless each of us who isn't the Dalai Lama does at least a few of them. And while the negativity of some is self-evident ("creating distractions"), I would have liked more details on why some of the others are so bad. There is a lot that professionals on the subject can say to explain these things, and indeed elaborate on what they see the role of listening is in communication. I see communication as a two-way street.

Just because there is a voice talking does not mean they deserve to be listened to -- America's media is more than enough evidence of that. Seriously, though, the ILA seems to take the view that the speaker has no role in listening -- that if they take.