Assignment #4 - Language, Emotion, and CMC

Kailyn Gee, Kevin Ciaccio, Sarah Aslam, Jennifer Lin

Our project will examine the ways in which emotion is expressed through CMC. Additionally, we will study whether the expression of emotion can be detected in this medium.

Specifically, we plan to determine whether the sadness portrayed by one individual can be detected by a neutral partner through instant messaging. A question we hope to answer is the following: in this medium, what methods, if any, will the subject use to convey his mood? This question is additionally complicated by our prediction that during conversation, partners will attempt to match their communication styles with each other; this trend is known as communication accommodation theory. For instance, if one subject uses his language to convey a sad mood, his partner will similarly adopt a depressing writing style.

Our project will emulate a previous study completed in 2005. The purpose of this previous study was to determine whether emotion could be detected through instant messaging. It concluded that significant changes in language use occurred depending on whether the participant was happy or sad. Moreover, a neutral subject was easily able to detect his partner’s mood. A significant drawback to this study, however, was that the emotion communicated was not genuine. At the beginning of the experiment, one participant was asked to deliberately act happy or sad while conversing with his partner. After communicating, his partner was then asked whether he could detect the portrayal of the feigned emotion. Our study will improve upon the previous research by provoking a genuine emotion in our subjects before asking them to interact. We plan to induce the emotion of sadness by showing our participants a video clip. From a meta-analysis report, it has been shown that the best mood induction procedure (MIP) is video.

Procedure
We will have two participants arrive at different locations to ensure that they do not meet. Subject A will be shown a sad video clip and asked to empathize with the characters within. Following that, he will be asked to fill out a questionnaire to allow us to detect his current mood. In order to ensure that Subject A does not realize we plan to study his emotions, we will frame the second part of the experiment as a completely different study. In this part of the experiment, we will have Subject A interact with Subject B through instant messaging. After communicating with each other, we will have both subjects fill out a questionnaire to rate the mood of Subject A.

Following the experiment, we will use the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program to analyze the emotion expressed through instant messaging. This will allow us to precisely determine the ways in which language use is affected by emotion. For example, the previous study specifically found that when participants were sad, they used more affect terms and negations but fewer words and assents in their communication.

#4 — Examining How Cues Affect Grounding

Our group plans to examine how conversational cues, or the lack
thereof, affect participants' behavior and perception of common
ground. Such perception can be established in three primary ways:
gestural indications, partner's activities, and salient perceptual
events (e.g., both people hear a loud noise in the next room).

To examine the nuances of perception of common ground, we will
experiment with different sets of people holding controlled
conversations in different controlled environments. For example, we
might come up with a single conversation topic, and then have
different pairs of people discuss it face to face, face to face
blindfolded, via IM, via IM with emoticons forbidden, and so on.
Blindfolds allow us to control when a participant can perceive his/her
partner's gestures and other activities. Forbidding IM emoticons will
also allow a measure of control over a participant's gestural
indications.

One possibility for experimenting with salient perceptual events is to
set up such events that only one participant can perceive and the
other is oblivious to. For instance, we may have two participants
carry on a conversation via some controlled audio chat setup, and have
a strange noise play for only one of the participants; we could then
observe how, if at all, the participants try to ground information on
what has just happened. Our primary concern about this approach,
however, is ensuring that we can set up an audio chat experiment that
we can have such control over.

By imposing different constraints on a wide variety of conversations
and participants, we will see how the medium and the constraints on
cues can affect the conversation and how the participants perceive
their common ground. In the experiments, we will use a combination of
transcripts and questionnaires answered by participants to hopefully
extract some broad observations about how different controls affect
perception of common ground, and so to better understand the roles of
different cues in communication.

~Will Fleming, representing for Stan Chen, Ron DeVera, and Josh Perlin. Word.

Featured Post - Assignment #3

This weeks featured post comes from Jennifer. The strenght of this post is the excellent treatment of adjacency pairs and their important structural properties. Very clear, succint and nicely written. The analysis of the transcripts is also excellent (many posts had great transcript analyses). Nicely done.
--Jeff

Adjacency pairs are joint actions that take place in two statements spoken by different people. The two parts are distinctly ordered; they could not occur in reverse. In addition, the structure and subject of the second part of the pair depends on that of the first. Moreover, if a neutral party was presented with only the first part of the pair, he would expect something like the second to follow it. In the first part, the speaker presents a signal and proposes a joint project. The second part consists of the second speaker identifying the signal and taking up the suggestion for the joint project.

Clark asserts that conversation takes place on two levels: Track 1 and Track 2. Track 1 is what the conversation is explicitly about, and Track 2 is where the two speakers are attempting to successfully execute the joint communication. While the subject matter of Track 1 is the topic of conversation, the subject matter of Track 2 is the communication taking place in Track 1. Track 2 refers to whether the participants both understand what is taking place in Track 1. Usually the first speaker asks whether the second speaker understands his meaning, and the second speaker establishes his affirmation. Although this is usually unspoken, when a participant wishes to directly question or correct his partner's understanding of his meaning, the conversation moves into Track 2.

Cellphone conversation excerpt

(Assertion)B: I'm so behind on this project.

(Question)B: Don't you have class in five minutes?
(Answer)A: Four minutes.

(Assertion)A: But i'm walking so i can talk to you.
(Assent)B: Oh-
[Track 2]
(Question)B: on the hill?
(Answer)A: No, I'm almost there.

(Assent)A: It's ok.

(Request)A: Just get up and do it.
(Promise)B: I'm going to, but by the time i get there i'll only have one hour.

(Question)A: Why don't you do it now?
(Answer)B: Grrr, we don't have internet.

(Promise)A: i'll call you later
(Acknowledgment)B: Ok

AIM conversation excerpt

(Greeting)A: heyy
(Greeting)B: heyyy

(Question)A: how's it going?
(Answer) B: good good

(Question)B: you?
(Answer)A: good

(Assertion)A: busy and stuff
(Assent) B: ohh yeah very much so that too

(Question)A: what kind of art stuff are you doing now?
(Answer) B: still mainly graphic design and now into fashion as well

[Track 2]
(Question)A: fashion too??
(Answer) B: yes yes hehee

#4 - Private vs. Public Communication

Kimberly Biason, Tony Cardell, Jennifer Weber, Maggie Pan

Our group is interested in examining private versus public communication in online settings. Specifically, we will be analyzing wall posting and personal messaging on Facebook. Why do students post on their friend’s wall as opposed to sending them a personal message? Do they use the wall for certain kinds of messages, and personal messaging for other types of messages? Our main objective is to find out when people post on walls and when people use personal messaging to communicate with their friends.

For our study, we will be conducting a survey in which we ask people to perform a list of tasks on Facebook. For example, one task might be to send their friend a message asking them how they are doing. Another task might be to ask their friend a personal question. For each task, they will have the choice of communicating through either wall posting or personal messaging. After the participants complete the tasks, they will note which method they used for each one. At the end of the survey general questions will be asked, such as how often the person checks Facebook. In this way, we can gather both quantitative as well as qualitative data for our research project.

Some other factors that we might also consider or take into account:
- Only friends are allowed to post on a person’s wall.
- Some people hide their walls, which would make the messages private.
- When a student sends a personal message, their friend also gets an email notifying them of the PM.
- Even though a student may have many friends, only a few regularly post on their wall.

We have already started a preliminary examination of Facebook walls. Overall, our group noticed that some messages are rather personal, some are inside jokes, and others are written in other languages. Many students also comment on the profile photo, respond to another wall posting, or just write to say “hi”. Chain messages are popular as well. In general, most of the messages seem to be non-personal, but for those that are, why did the person not use personal messaging instead? In addition, most wall messages are very short (1-2 lines), but a few are rather long. For those lengthy messages, how come they were not sent as PMs?

We hope that our analysis of Facebook can give general insight into the reasons why people choose public online communication over private online communication and vice versa.

#4 - Research idea

Our group is comprised of Evan, Lisa, and Dustin. We’re interested in exploring gender differences in online, text-based communication. Specifically, we want to find out which gender gives clearer, more understandable directions using only text.

In a text-based environment, speakers cannot rely on visual indicators and demonstrations (two aspects of Clark’s model of grounding) to facilitate the act of directing listeners. Thus, we will be investigating which gender better copes with this lack of traditional communication tools (specifically, which gender can more easily progress to the higher levels of Clark’s action ladder when they do not have these tools at their disposal). We will also figure out if we have a predisposition regarding the matter (i.e., do we naturally feel that men or women are better at this?).

In our experiment, we will ask participants of each gender, via instant messenger, how to complete a variety of tasks. These may be relatively complex tasks that the participants may not have any personal experience with. Our job as experimenters will merely be to introduce the task to the participant and serve as a moderator for the duration of the experiment. Other than moving the experiment along, we will not have any interaction with the participants so as not to produce biased results.

For example, one conversation might go as follows:

Us: Please explain how to tie your shoes.

Participant: well, first you need to cross one lace over the other…

… and so on, until the participant has (in his or her mind) satisfactorily addressed the issue.

We will then print out transcripts of these conversations and show them to a second group of participants. They will be instructed to rate each conversation on various criteria on a numeric scale (e.g. 1 to 7), such as how clear the directions are and how well the person giving the instructions seems to understand the task. They will also be asked if they think the person is male or female.

This study has many far-reaching implications. Are instruction manuals written by a particular gender more understandable? Might it make a difference if the help section of a web site is authored by a man or a woman? And, more generally, does the absence of visual aids affect the speech of one gender more than another?

Assignment #3

Adjacency pairs are joint actions that take place in two statements spoken by different people. The two parts are distinctly ordered; they could not occur in reverse. In addition, the structure and subject of the second part of the pair depends on that of the first. Moreover, if a neutral party was presented with only the first part of the pair, he would expect something like the second to follow it. In the first part, the speaker presents a signal and proposes a joint project. The second part consists of the second speaker identifying the signal and taking up the suggestion for the joint project.

Clark asserts that conversation takes place on two levels: Track 1 and Track 2. Track 1 is what the conversation is explicitly about, and Track 2 is where the two speakers are attempting to successfully execute the joint communication. While the subject matter of Track 1 is the topic of conversation, the subject matter of Track 2 is the communication taking place in Track 1. Track 2 refers to whether the participants both understand what is taking place in Track 1. Usually the first speaker asks whether the second speaker understands his meaning, and the second speaker establishes his affirmation. Although this is usually unspoken, when a participant wishes to directly question or correct his partner's understanding of his meaning, the conversation moves into Track 2.

Cellphone conversation excerpt

(Assertion)B: I'm so behind on this project.

(Question)B: Don't you have class in five minutes?
(Answer)A: Four minutes.

(Assertion)A: But i'm walking so i can talk to you.
(Assent)B: Oh-
[Track 2]
(Question)B: on the hill?
(Answer)A: No, I'm almost there.

(Assent)A: It's ok.

(Request)A: Just get up and do it.
(Promise)B: I'm going to, but by the time i get there i'll only have one hour.

(Question)A: Why don't you do it now?
(Answer)B: Grrr, we don't have internet.

(Promise)A: i'll call you later
(Acknowledgment)B: Ok

AIM conversation excerpt

(Greeting)A: heyy
(Greeting)B: heyyy

(Question)A: how's it going?
(Answer) B: good good

(Question)B: you?
(Answer)A: good

(Assertion)A: busy and stuff
(Assent) B: ohh yeah very much so that too

(Question)A: what kind of art stuff are you doing now?
(Answer) B: still mainly graphic design and now into fashion as well

[Track 2]
(Question)A: fashion too??
(Answer) B: yes yes hehee

#3 Adjacency Pairs and Track Signals

Adjacency pairs are pairs of utterances that occur between participants in conversation. They must consist of two ordered utterances, which are uttered by different people, and there must be a difference between the types of the utterances which marks their order. The content and manner of the second part of the adjacency pair must in some way be dependent on the same qualities of the first part, and the inverse (converse?) must be true as well: given the first part, the second part should be relevant and predictable as the second part.

Track 1 and 2 signals are signals in conversation that deal with different levels of the conversation. Track 1 is the communication concerned directly with the business at hand, the goal of the conversation. Track 2 signals are parts of the communication that are concerned with the signals in part 1: they are metacommunicative in that they are intended to communicate something about the communication occurring in track 1. Frequently, track 2 signals occur more in the background while track 1 signals are more prominently in the foreground of the conversation.

Face to face conversation

[1. greeting/question] A: Hey, what are you doing over here?
[1. greeting / answer ] B: Yo. Yeah, I work in the Space Sciences Building. I just ran out for a second to grab some coffee at Big Red Barn.
[2. assertion] A: You could have walked over to Gimme!5 and gotten much better coffee.
[2. assent / 3. argument] B: Yeah [track 2: understanding and agreement with A's statement], but that's over there. I'd have to walk. The barn is right there: I can see it from my office window.
[3. assent] A: Point.
[ 4. explanation ] B: See, the joke is that our office doesn't actually have any windows.
[5. assertion] A: That would have been a lot funnier if I'd known that earlier.
[ 5. assent] B: Yeah, probably.

AIM conversation

[1. question A: have you seen this gmail stuff? tell me if you figure out a way of turning off the mouseover popup. very annoying.
[1. clarification / answer] B: I have no idea what popovers you're talking about: do you have the gmail chat client already? because i don't. [track 2: attempt to clarify A's question and determine what portion of Gmail he is referring to, while taking a guess at what he means.]
that said, whatever the problem you're having is, you can probably fix it with greasemonkey.
[2. follow up question] A: so you dont have chat in gmail yet?
[2. response / 3. explanation] B: no, apparently they're pushing it out to people on a limited basis, like they did with customizable google home page. i'll probably have it inside a few days
[3. affirmation / 4. new topic] A: gotcha. yea, im using it right now. its decent
[4. acknowledgement / 5. question] B: cool.
i've heard a few complaints and some nice things. i hear it uses wiki-like markup for doing bold, italic, etc?
[5. answer] A: i wouldn't know, i dont do markups in im to be honest

#2 Adjacency Pairs and Track 1/2

Adjacency pairs consist of a pair of signals in conversation – one participant does (typically says) something, and the other responds. The type and content of the second part are dependent upon the first and involve the uptake of a joint project proposed in the first part. For example, an acknowledgement would follow thankfulness, and a greeting from person B would follow a greeting from person A.

A conversation between two people includes two synchronous communication tracks. Track 1 contains the main purpose of the conversation – the official topics that both parties have decided to talk about. The function of Track 2 is to enable both parties to have a successful communication. This track becomes conspicuous, for example, when person B wants to make sure he correctly heard and understood something that person A uttered. In this track, people refer to the communication itself rather than its “official business.”

Instant Message Conversation

[1. Greeting] A: yo

[2. Greeting] B: hi

[1. Question] A: how do u take pics of a wmp

[2. Answer / 1. Question] B: huh {Track 2}

[2. Answer] A: wmp

[1. Question] A: how do u take a snapshot

A: of a movie file {End of Track 2}

[2. Answer / 1. Request] B: try pressing ctrl-i

[2. Acknowledgement / 1. Question] A: control and I {Track 2}

[2. Answer] B: yeah {End of Track 2}

[1. Question] A: do u pause it

A: or do it while its playin

[2. Answer] B: it doesnt matter

Text Message Conversation (with my mom, after she realized she could send texts)

[1. Assertion] Her: i did not no i cd tx msg

[2. Assent] Me: Wow i thought we tried it and you werent signed up for it

[1. Assertion] Her: i am slo

[2. Acknowledgement / 1. Suggestion] Me: if you learn how to use t9word its a lot faster and easier

[2. Acknowledgement / 1. Question] Her: how

[2. Answer / 1. Promise] Me: its hard to explain now.. ill tell you later, or maybe you can ask someone

[[no response to promise] 1. Assertion] Her: Dad bdy

[2. Assent / 1. Question] Me: I know, is he working late

[2. Answer] Her: yes

Assignment #2 - Featured Post

Last week's featured post is by Yan, who analyzed away messages in the context of Grice's cooperative principle and four maxims. Its a really nice summary of the concepts, and his application to away messages is intriguing . Yan speculates that the odd content of many away messages violate the maxims. Yan notes that the very presence of an away message may accomplish the maxim goals. As Evan and Helena point out in their comments this allows the content of the away messages to fulfill other communicative goals, such as self-expression.

Assignment 2B - Maxims and away messages

Grice believes that communication functions because of the cooperation between the parties involved in the conversation. A speaker says the literal words that he is thinking, but at the some time makes implicatures, things that a sentence is able to convey, but are not mentioned explicitly in the sentence. It is the job of the listener has to somehow figure out what the speaker meant to say. To facilitate this, Grice proposes that we use four maxims as guidelines when we speak. The maxims that he proposes are the maxim of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. The maxim of quantity states that the speaker says only as much as necessary. The maxim of quality dictates that we should only say things that we think are true based on good evidence. The maxim of relevance says that we should only say things that are relevant to the conversation at hand. Finally, the maxim of manner is accomplished simply by speaking without purposely making the sentence hard for the listener to understand.

With the exception of flouting maxims as a literary technique, these maxims seem to work pretty well within spoken communication, and they seem to hold pretty well for most of our new technologies because in all of these mediums, efficiency of communication is still the key. However, I believe that there is an exception to the rule which regularly violates all four of Grice’s maxims: away messages.

I will use “the speaker” to refer to the person who is putting up the away message from here on. In principle, the speaker puts up an away message to inform others that he is not at the computer or is busy. In most cases, the generic “I am away from my computer right now” message follows the four maxims perfectly. It follows the maxim of quantity because it provides information that the speaker are away from the computer, the maxim of quality because he (presumably) really is away from the computer, the maxim of relation because the other party most likely would like to know not to expect a response from the speaker, and the maxim of manner because it is a courteous and concise way of conveying a message.

Even with the generic away message, we can start to see that there may be problems with the maxim of quality because someone could put up that away message just because he doesn’t want to chat at the moment, rather than truly being away from the computer. Since Internet access is so simple these days, many people find it easier to leave their computers on and their instant message clients connected all the time. Away messages are being used more and more often, and in order to add some uniqueness into away messages, people have started to use creative and witty away messages, which sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with the speaker being away.

Just taking a quick glance down my buddy list, I see away messages like “Easy like making mac and cheese right?” This clearly violates every single maxim. If I had simply received this message without knowing that it was supposed to be an away message, it wouldn’t tell me anything. It doesn’t convey any information that the speaker is away, it is hard to justify the maxim of quality for this message because I have no idea what it is referring to, it is definitely not relevant to the fact that the speaker is away, and in fact, it seems like the sentence is structured to be somewhat confusing.

It seems that it is once again the technology itself that lets us get away with things like this. If I click on someone’s profile on AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), the yellow icon lets me know that an away message is being displayed. If I actually go ahead and message that person, AIM responds with a message saying “Auto-response from xxxx”. In effect, the technology takes care of all four maxims, and no matter what the speaker puts into the actual body of the away message, the fact that he is away is always clearly conveyed. Indeed, even a blank away message would serve that purpose. Because of this, the body of the away message is often used as a tool of self expression rather than as something informative

#3 - Adjacency Pairs and Track Signals

Adjacency pairs, termed by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), are characteristic of everyday conversation. One person says something, and another utters something in response to that—the saying and responding come in pairs, adjacency pairs. They have five properties. The first is that they consist of two utterances—a first pair part and a second pair part. Second, the two parts have to be uttered by two different speakers. The third property says that the two pair parts come in types that specify which part is first and which second. Fourthly, the content of the second part depends on what was uttered in the first part. And lastly, given a first part, the second part comes relevantly and expectedly as the next utterance.

The grounding hypothesis introduced in chapter eight says that, when people engage in joint activities, they try to establish the thing they are trying to do currently as a part of their common ground. In doing so, they are essentially trying to complete two things, or two tracks. That is, the speaker and the addressee are 1. trying to carry out official business—whatever it is that’s specific to the conversation, or the goal of that particular conversation, whether it’s to arrange a meeting, or to compare and contrast their opinions and 2. trying to communicate successfully—or attempting to succeed in all levels of the joint action ladder.

The following are two recorded conversations in two different communication settings. Five adjacency pairs are identified in each. And a track two signal is identified for one of these settings:

IM Setting:

1.question [14:52] A: did you call taste of thai?
2.answer [14:53] me: no not yet

1.question/suggestion [14:54] A: do you want to just try to go without calling? we can walk around the commons for a while if we have to wait

2. suggestion, 1. assertion[14:55] me: well it's no problem for me to call

2. assent [14:56] A: ok you can if you want

1. question [14:56] me: what time should i tell them?
2. question [14:57] A: i dunno.. 7:30 maybe?

1. explanation [14:57] A: well i just want to be sure that ill be hungry
2. acknowledgement [14:58] me: ok J

Cell Phone Setting:

1. summons A: (ring’s Lisa’s cell phone)

2. response me: Hello?

1. greetings A: Hi.

2. greetings me: hey! What’s up?

1. question A: well, you know how I wasn’t sure about when I’m coming over?

2. acknowledgement me: yea…

1. assertion A: well, I’ve finally figured it out!

2. acknowledgment me: finally

1. promise A: I’ll be there on the fifth.

2. question [track 2] me: the sixth?

1. negation [track 2] A: no, the fifth—f as in food.

2. response me: oh ok.

…

1. goodbye me: well I gotta go now, I’ll cya then! Can’t wait!

2. goodbye A: bye!

Assignment #2 - Option A

Clark asserts that in the course of conversation, "at each moment an action ladder" comprised of four levels exists; moreover, "each level consist[s] of a joint action" (149). Clark's ladder of actions for language requires a consideration of the participatory acts of each individual as well as the joint actions taken by both.

In Level 1, the first speaker carries out a certain act. The second speaker in turn does his part by paying attention to the act carried out by the first. Level 2 is where the first speaker puts forth a signal to the second speaker; the second speaker then identifies this signal. In Level 3, the first speaker signals to the second. The second speaker must then understand the first speaker's meaning. Level 4 is the stage in which the first speaker proposes an action for the two speakers to undertake together. The second speaker then accepts this suggestion for a joint project.

The distinctions between each level can be most clearly seen with respect to the properties of upward completion and upward causality. Upward causality states that Level 1 is done in order for Level 2 to occur, Level 2 is done in order for Level 3 to occur, and Level 3 is done in order for Level 4 to occur. Upward completion maintains that it is only possible to start at Level 1 and move up to any other level; in addition, it states that the ladder is not always completed. For example, although in Level 4 the first speaker has proposed a joint project, the second could refuse to consider his proposal. Therefore, although the second speaker has attended to the action made by the first speaker, identified his signal, and understood his meaning, he does not have to think about the suggestion. Furthermore, a misunderstanding on the part of the second speaker could occur, stopping the ladder before Level 3 is reached.

According to Clark, "the paired actions by the speaker and addressee must be cotemporal", capturing "their actions in progress" (148, 150). This quality is evident when the levels are viewed together. While the first speaker is voicing the words of a question, he also presents a signal to the second speaker and has an intention which he believes the second speaker can understand. While attending to the first speaker, the second is simultaneously identifying the signal presented and recognizing the intention behind the signal. Moreover, in the process of asking the second speaker to execute some action, the first is also presenting the suggestion for a joint project. By understanding the first speaker, the second simultaneously considers taking up the project. Clark maintains that because "communicative acts are joint acts", both the evaluation of individual and joint actions are essential (153).

#2 — option 2 — Grice's Maxims

Grice's four maxims seem to be phrased with face to face conversation specifically in mind, so it is important to consider how different communication technologies may alter the way the maxims are actually used, much in the same way different technologies alter the features that characterize coversation (ch. 1).

The first maxim, the maxim of quantity declares simply that you should say as much as you need to say, but no more, to get your point across to your audience. It's clear that this maxim is very sensitive to production costs in different mediums. For example, in face to face conversation production costs for speech are practically nil, so if you need to formulate a very long and complex utterance to make your point, that's a viable option. In contrast, in instant messenging, production costs are very high since we can think much faster than we can type. For this reason, a communicator in IM will more strictly enforce the first maxim in their utterances. In a medium with low production costs, such as face to face conversation, the maxim can be bent a little. For example, while conveying an anecdote to a friend, there may be certain details (such as the weather, the color of a person's hair) which, although not directly vital to the point of your story, still help flesh out what you wanted to say. In a medium with high production costs like IM, a speaker is much less likely to include such details.

The maxim of quality says that a speaker should not intentionally communicate a falsehood (they should not lie), and they should also not say things which they have no reason to believe are true (don't say things for which there is no evidence). This is a maxim that a speaker is more likely to adhere to strictly when they are using a delayed-response communication technology, such as letter writing or email. In synchronous or nearly synchronous mediums like face to face conversation and instant messenging, a speaker probably won't really have the opportunity to fact check themselves, so if they are unsure of something, they may go ahead and say it anyways, possibly with the addition that they aren't sure of themselves. On the other hand, when writing a letter, a speaker has plenty of time to find and check reference material if they are unsure of something they want to say, so they can take the time to make sure they have correct data before communicating their thoughts.

The third maxim, the maxim of relation, declares that a speaker's utterances should be relevant to the direction or goal of the conversation. This seems like a rule that most speakers follow in most mediums, and is if anything effected more by social situation than by technological medium. For example, 'relevance' would be much more narrowly defined in a business meeting than in a casual conversation. Some people might argue that differences in conversation flow in mediums like IRC and IM constitue differences in relevance, but I would argue that these are really differences of structure, and fall under the guides of the maxim of manner.

The maxim of manner addresses the need of speakers to be as clear and as brief as possible, and to structure or order their utterances in such a way as to make understanding easiest for addressees. The exhortation to be brief seems to closely tied to the first maxim, and the need to be clear seems universal. These two aspects interact in the form of conventions that might otherwise be unclear, such as 'lol' or emoticons. On the one hand, such conventions are obscure and nigh indecipherable to those who are not experienced with such things, but on the other hand they make online communications considerably more brief if all participants are familiar with the conventions. I would argue that since, as language conventions, they are meant to be perfectly clear to the communities that use them, they help make online communications briefer without sacrificing any clarity.

The need for structure, however, seems to vary greatly by medium. For example, there is much more structure in a letter than in a face to face conversation, and there is more structure in a face to face conversation than in IRC or IM. In a letter, we do not ramble because we have time to plot out what we want to say and how, as mentioned earlier. In face to face conversation, we don't have the luxury of time. In instant messenging, we still don't have indefinite time to construct utterances, but we do have a record of utterances by all participants, which makes it much easier to keep multiple and unrelated threads interspersed with each other in a single conversation. Or, in the case of IRC, to follow a conversation that you are having with one person while other people in the chat room have different conversations about different topics with different people at the same time. In this sense, the choice of medium greatly affects what level of structure is expected and useful in communication.

#2 - Option B: Grice's Four Maxims

In chapter 5, Grice argues that conversation is a joint activity--an activity which cannot be achieved without the cooperation of its participants. He believes that “what speakers mean…generally go beyond what they actually say”, that is, most of the time, when a sentence is utter by a speaker, there are implicatures behind the sentence, or, a sentence’s meaning is composed of saying and implicating. In today’s world, where most are technologically-savvy, it is more important than ever to eliminate confusion and get information across as efficiently as possible. In order to best understand what a speaker’s implications are, Grice comes up with four maxims for speakers to abide by.

The first one, maxim of quantity, says that the speaker should say as much as is necessary (not any more or less) to get his point across, that is, to be informative without being verbose. This is seen on a regular basis in text messaging. For example, when A text messages B, “When are you going to the meeting?”, and B replies, “I’m going to the meeting at five o’clock, and afterwards I’m going to Jill’s house,” it would violate this maxim for two reasons: 1. the part about Jill’s house is unnecessary, A didn’t ask B what B is going to do after the meeting, A only asked at what time B will be going to the meeting. 2.With text messaging, one rarely types words out in complete sentences because it’s very time-consuming and in this case, it would be extra information. B needn’t say “I’m going to the meeting at five o’clock” because A only asked for a time, so a simple “5” would do—it would be sufficient for A to understand what “5” means because A had just asked for a time.

Second is the maxim of quality, which states that the speaker shouldn’t say things which he believe are untrue and does not have too much knowledge on. In the world of text messaging and IMs, where immediacy is nonexistent, this maxim is even more important. Take sarcasm for instance, if spoken face-to-face, one can usually detect it, from the speaker’s tone-of-voice and facial expressions. But if moved to an online setting, the addressee’s detection of sarcastic remarks is not so certain. For example, if A and B both went to see a stand-up comedy which both of them, individually, did not enjoy, and A asks B later, on AIM, “What did you think of the show?” and B, who thinks A knows that he did not enjoy it, says “It was wonderful!” A will be confused, will have false information about B’s attitude towards the show, or (unlikely) detect B’s sarcasm. Three things can happen: 1. if A believes B didn’t like it, then, with what B just told A, A will be confused because what B said does not coincide with what A thinks. 2. A believes B didn’t like it, and caught on B’s sarcasm (somehow). 3. A believed B’s statement about the show, thereby having false knowledge about B’s opinion of the show. So, unless the sarcastic remark is truly blatant and obvious, it would be hard for addressee’s to detect in an online setting.

The third maxim is the maxim of relation, which encourages the speaker to be germane, and stay on topic, during a conversation. If A has been talking to B about a movie and asks, “What time was Anita killed?”, and B replies, “This pen writes in blue ink,” understanding full well what A meant, B’s contribution to the conversation is not relevant and therefore should be omitted otherwise running the risk of implicating to A that he has not understood A’s previous question which can result in confusion.

Lastly, the maxim of manner urges speakers to avoid being ambiguous and express themselves in a way so that others can understand them. They should also be orderly with their wording. Again, conciseness and informing are stressed here.

Even though Grice’s maxims aren’t all one needs to understand another, they significantly increase the understanding of implicatures and reduce the chance of misunderstanding and confusion when used properly.

#2 Option B

Grice asserts that a critical component to effective communication is for both parties to cooperate – that is, to contribute to the conversation when necessary and to be sure that one’s contribution is aligned with the purpose or direction of the discussion. He introduces four maxims, which can be regarded as general rules of thumb, for achieving ideal cooperation.

The first of these is the maxim of quantity. Grice encourages speakers to be as informative as needed, but not to give an excess of information. For example, if I ask someone if I can borrow a pencil, I would expect him to either reply with, “Yes, I have a pencil,” or, “No.” If he had said, “Yes, I have five pencils,” then he would be giving me more than the required amount of information needed to complete the exchange, resulting in a lack of understanding.

Next is the maxim of quality, which states that one should say only that which he believes to be true and can support through sufficient evidence. It is easy to see that failure to follow this rule only leads to confusion and miscommunication. Guessing is discouraged – the goal of the speaker is to inform the listener of something, not to plant misinformation in his head.

Third, the maxim of relation says that one’s contributions to the conversation should be relevant to the current topic. This is a logical assertion, and perhaps the most important and far-reaching of the four. The participants of a conversation must stay on topic to make the flow of speech as smooth as possible.

Finally, the maxim of manner promotes conciseness and removal of ambiguity. A speaker wants to be sure that his message is received clearly and that his intentions are fully understood by the listener. This encourages speakers to be specific but not superfluous in their choice of words. They must choose terms that they are sure the addressee will understand.

Grice’s four maxims are closely related to the use of communicative technology. For example, when talking through text messages or instant messaging, time and technology constraints hinder a speaking from being as expressive as in face-to-face conversation. A speaker may need to take more time to formulate and express his ideas in such a way that they can be completely understood by the addressee. If he chooses instead to speak as quickly as possible, as one might want to do when sending a text message, he could be trading time for a lack of comprehension on the addressee’s part. The use of acronyms and abbreviations has become extremely popular, but the speaker must be sure that his meaning will be understood. Therefore, it becomes critical, especially when dealing with these new technologies, that the speaker be familiar with his audience and uphold the maxims, particularly those of quantity and manner.

Featured post - assignment #1

Each week we will select on post as the featured post. Feature posts are selected because they were really good, raise particularly interesting posts, or generated a lot of comments. Last week's featured post by Helena focused on the convention/nonconvention distinction, and how various signals within IM can or cannot be considered a conventional form of coordination.

Also, Will, Keith and Evan all had posts that generated a lot of commentry (4 each) - some very nice discussions there.

Here is the featured post:

#1 The Convention/Nonconvention Dichotomy

According to Clark, conventions are defined as the following: “arbitrary regularities in behavior [that are] coordination devices for recurrent coordination problems.” To clarify, Clark provides four broad categories of conventions, which he further distinguishes from other “nonconventional” forms of joint action coordination. With this dichotomy in mind, I will discuss a phenomenon I’ve observed in the online space of AIM. My examination leads me to conclude that Clark’s neat categorization of coordination devices may not be the best way to examine language in a computer-mediated context.

When thinking about online conventions, I immediately identified a device I use often in my AIM conversations: sandwiching words I wish to emphasize between two asterisks. Initially, it seemed appropriate to call this behavior a convention of use. The asterisk sandwich is a behavior AIM users undertake regularly, and we use the behavior to solve the problem of being unable to create emphasis with vocal or nonverbal cues. In addition, it seems arbitrary – another convention, such exclamation points, might easily have developed.

The more I thought about this “convention,” however, the more I began to think that it could also be a somewhat nonconventional coordination. The use of asterisks could be a way of creating “perceptual salience,” which Clark asserts “can be brought about by … almost anything.” For example, the phrase “what was that?” as a clear reference to a recent loud noise makes perfect sense – that is, when considering the world of face-to-face communication.

In AIM conversations, participants are (probably) not sharing the same physical environment, and thus Clark’s idea of perceptual salience does not apply. And unlike virtual games, AIM conversations do not take place within a realistic virtual “world.” Therefore, I propose a new idea of AIM perceptual salience, one that does not involve referencing a particular object or environmental event. In AIM, words reign supreme, and participants use devices such as the asterisk sandwich to visually emphasize important words and phrases. These devices make certain words stand out, making them more perceptually salient to the participants in text-based AIM conversations.

In my opinion, the use of asterisk sandwiches may have evolved as a way to create emphasis in situations where the use of another device, such as italics, was impossible or inconvenient. In other forms writing (such as novels), font-change is often used for this purpose, and it seems natural for written emphasis to manifest itself online.
The above possible history of the asterisk sandwich supports the idea that it is a convention of use that has simply relocated. However, the idea of perceptual salience in an online environment seems too important to ignore, and I conclude that Clark’s cut-and-dry model, while useful, is not the perfect way to describe online language behaviors. Perhaps the asterisk sandwich could be classified as “semi-conventional,” as it seems to exhibit characteristics common to both categories of coordination.