Ðåãèîíàëüíûé
ñîöèàëüíî-èííîâàöèîííûé óíèâåðñèòåò
Action cues in literature
Action cues we are going to discuss in
this article is not found in the
literature on face-to-face nonverbal communication, and for good reason:
actions that take place during a conversation (such as stubbing one’s toe or
putting a book away on a shelf) may have little to no communicative function,
or at least no function beyond being part of the environment or demonstrating
that an interlocutor’s attention is divided. It is also possible that actions
may be so situationally-based that to study them directly would prove extremely
difficult.
These actions may not be a form of
communication in face-to-face interactions, they are encoded in online
conversations using the same marking systems as those used for kinesic and some
vocalic cues. Because these actions are specifically encoded into text and
marked off in the same way as body language, they may serve a similar function
to the forms mentioned above. Even if their function is significantly different
from more traditional kinesic and vocalic cues, the fact that they appear in
the same marking systems makes it seem prudent to include them in this study.
The action cues under consideration
here fall within the “specially-marked cues” group of internet forms. As
mentioned above, these forms can convey facial expressions such as grinning or
glaring or vocalic cues such as snickering or growling, but while there are
sometimes similar forms of other types (the emoticon ‘:)’, for example) for
these kinesic and vocalic cues, actions have only been found in these types of
online forms.
There are a few different systems for
marking these cues (described above; these forms include the double colon, the
asterisk, and the bare form), but all of them can be used to mark actions of
any kind that the speaker wishes to convey. For example, if the speaker wishes
to convey a simple gesture, such as waving, he or she may type ‘*waves*’ or
‘::waves::’. However, unlike other forms, which are used often and may be
conventionalized to some extent, these systems seem to allow for productive
creation of action cues: a speaker may not only wave, he or she may use these
systems to run into a lake, set the other speaker on fire, or dance around his
or her room singing. Of particular note is that though it is possible that many
of the more conventional online forms might refer to an actual action taking
place (it is possible, though maybe unlikely, that when a speaker types ‘LOL’,
he or she is literally laughing out loud while typing), these action cues can
refer to actions that clearly cannot take place while the speaker is typing
(for example, skipping merrily around a room) or that might not be able to take
place at all (e.g. curling up in a ball with his/her nose under his/her tail).
A possible way to approach these action
cues might be to consider them movements of a virtual persona, similar to a
character in an online game (indeed, it seems likely that many of these marking
systems evolved from various online gaming systems), and, given that these
actions are marked exactly like other actions more traditionally covered under
the umbrella of nonverbal behavior (such as smiling or grumbling), this virtual
persona might also be a useful way of approaching the other nonverbal behavior
outlined above.
Unfortunately, though there are some
older studies that examined the online games that used similar action systems
to those found today in other contexts online, studies of these cues as they
are now are close to nonexistent and do not appear as the sole focus of
studies. Some studies mentioned above include these types of action cues (such
as Danet et al, 1997; Stevenson, 2000; and Utz, 2000), but the interesting
variation on these cues and how they do or do not relate to nonverbal behavior
has not been extensively explored.
One question that might be asked at
this point is why, exactly, studying the links between traditional nonverbal
communication literature and computer-mediated communication is important and
how knowledge of such a correlation will improve and enrich our current
knowledge. The most obvious benefits of comparing nonverbal communication and
online forms are those to the study of computer-mediated communication. First,
nonverbal communication provides a good, solid grounding in linguistic and
related fields, giving studies of online forms a strong place to start. In
addition, given how similar these online forms appear to be to text versions
and names of various nonverbal behaviors, it is likely that nonverbal
behavioral studies will, in fact, help to explain (or begin to explain) much of
these online forms. In a more sociolinguistic direction, relating nonverbal
communication literature to computer-mediated communication also links this
area to studies of identity (shown in online discourse in everything from
screennames and personal pictures to word choice), as well as language
variation (where the choice of different forms of action cues, internet
abbreviations, and other online forms might now or someday constitute a kind of
online dialect), language socialization (as “newbies” or users new to an online
community of some kind slowly learn what online forms are used by that
community through discourse with more experienced members of the community),
and other sociolinguistic concerns.
There are other linguistic benefits
from studying these topics. One obvious result is a better understanding of the
forms that are used online - what forms are possible and, perhaps someday, why
certain structures (such as using the third person in action cues) are used and
not others. In addition, as these forms begin to make their way back into
language that is not used online (e.g. the use of emoticons in advertisements,
internet abbreviations in newspaper articles, or even action cues in
face-to-face conversation), knowing how they were used and what was possible in
their “original” context online helps us to think about how they are being used
in their newer, wider contexts.
Finally, there are some more
general benefits to studying online forms from a nonverbal communication
viewpoint. One of these benefits is that such a study should back-inform on
nonverbal communication. For example, there is still some question as to how
conscious people are of their own facial expressions and those of others.
Seeing what facial expressions are encoded as online forms helps to address
this issue, as those expressions that are encoded into an instant message
conversation are likely to be salient to the interlocutors. The same goes for
other nonverbal behaviors - vocalic cues such as snorting or growling are
probably quite salient and at least occasionally produced and understood quite
consciously considering the frequency with which they are produced and
understood in online conversations, however subtle shifts in posture and stance
might not be quite so salient to the participants in a conversation, as these
cues are never deliberately encoded online (another, related question pertains
to how important these cues might actually be to face-to-face communication if
stable friendships and communities can be built online without use of these and
many other subtle nonverbal cues). Lastly, studies of these online forms and
the roles they fill with respect to online friendships, communities, and
communication more generally help to confirm the importance of these online
forms of socialization, legitimizing an activity that has become an important
part of many people’s social lives, but which is still considered by many to be
silly or shallow.
Bibliography:
1. Stevenson,
J. (2000). The language of internet chat rooms. Accessed at: http://www.demo.inty.net/ Last access: June
2, 2008.
2. Utz,
S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of
friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of
Online Behavior, 1(1).