Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues Ilona Vandergriff * Foreign Languages and Literatures, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, United States Received 6 November 2012; received in revised form 11 February 2013; accepted 16 February 2013

Abstract More than any other feature, computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues such as emoticons and other typographic markers are associated with digital communication, including text-based chat. Using transcripts from college classroom discussions, this study adopts a pragmatic perspective to analyze how advanced foreign language learners use CMC cues, including emoticons (“:-)”), nonstandard/ multiple punctuation (“. . .”, “!!!”), and lexical surrogates (“hmmm”) in a quasi-synchronous computer-mediated consensus-building discussion. Rather than taking form-meaning pairings for granted (e.g., smiley “:)” means “happy”), I adopt a microanalytic approach to show systematic, empirically grounded correlations between CMC cues and their interpretations in different contexts. I argue that the results must be interpreted and viewed alongside the large body of research on emotive communication in offline modes to better understand the pragmatics of online relational work. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Synchronous computer-mediated communication (cmc); Cmc cues; Emoticons; Emotive communication; Foreign language

1. Introduction The use of CMC cues, including nonstandard/multiple punctuation (“. . .”, “!!!”), lexical surrogates (“hmmm”) and emoticons (“:-)”)1 has been observed frequently in text-based digital communication. More often than not, these cues have been regarded as stand-ins for nonverbal cues of oral interaction or even as “strategies for oralization” (Yus, 2011). However, recent findings on emoticons cast serious doubt on the notion that emoticons translate nonverbal cues of faceto-face communication into text-based CMC (Derks, 2008; Derks et al., 2007, 2008; Dresner and Herring, 2010; Hancock, 2004; Lo, 2008; Walther and D’Addario, 2001; but cf. Crystal, 2005; Danet, 2001). For example, Hancock (2004) shows that emoticons lack both “range and nuance” (2004:450). Overall, little is known about the functional range of emoticons, let alone other CMC cues, such as nonstandard punctuation, especially ellipsis, exclamation and question marks. These may even play a larger role than emoticons (e.g., Hancock, 2004) in some contexts of use. This research gap can be explained in part by the fact that CMC cues are often subtle, highly variable, and relatively infrequent. What is more, their interpretation is highly context-dependent, much like prosodic stress. For example, a rising tone can mark incompleteness or uncertainty, which can be interpreted in context as polite denial or invitation. Similarly, three or more periods (or dots) are taken to mark ellipsis, or online “silence”, which, depending on context, has been shown to cue irony (Hancock, 2004) or to mitigate a face threat (Ong, 2011; Vandergriff, 2010). Because of their contextsensitivity, CMC cues offer fertile ground for qualitative research. In this study, I take a microanalytic approach to correlate

* Tel.: +1 415 338 1106; fax: +1 415 405 0588. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 Halvorsen (2012) subsumes multiple exclamation marks and questions marks under emoticons. 0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008

2

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

meanings and functions in context. My goal is to elucidate the possible mechanisms that allow these cues to convey socio-emotional information and to arrive at a more complete understanding of the pragmatics of online relational work. To this end, I situate the analysis of CMC cues within the large body of research on emotive communication that has thus far been restricted to offline modes only (for a research overview, see Caffi and Janney, 1994). If CMC cues are indeed used to maintain, enhance or/and challenge relationships, conflictual interaction among collaborators promises to be a rich data source. For this reason, I analyze the use of CMC cues among advanced foreign language students use as they negotiate a group consensus on a moral dilemma. The tasks were designed to promote disagreement (or contradictions, challenges) -- an area that has been identified as particularly rich for politeness research (Angouri and Tseliga, 2010; Locher, 2004) -- but also cooperation as groups of three must work together to arrive at consensus. Using chat data from synchronous computer-mediated college classroom discussions, I ask whether and how participants use CMC cues to orient to disagreement within the larger conflictual task interaction. 1.1. Emoticons and other cmc cues Whereas early research looks at CMC as an impoverished medium, contemporary frameworks in Communication Studies such as social information processing (SIP) and social identity/deindividuation (SIDE) theory (for an overview see Walther, 2011) have opened up new perspectives that show that CMC can be as effective as traditional modes of communication. SIDE research, in particular, emphasizes CMC cues (e.g., Lea and Spears, 1992). Earlier research generally treated CMC cues as an added feature (e.g., Lea and Spears, 1992; Postmes et al., 2000) whereas researchers now tend to view CMC cues as integral to online language use. In a recent communication research paper, CMC cues are described as an “abundant, diverse, and an inseparable aspect of every CMC message” (Kalman and Gergle, 2010:n.p.). Beyond recognizing that they play a crucial role in online communication, a complete account of CMC cues must specify what it is exactly that a CMC cue does. While there is ample evidence that CMC cues can communicate social information, many existing studies describe the use of CMC cues in terms of an analytical framework that makes it difficult for researchers to compare and contrast findings. For one thing, results are often generalized to all CMC cues as CMC cues are analyzed as a group rather than individually. Lea and Spears (1992), for example, showed a correlation between the use of CMC cues as a group and perceived personal attributes such as warmth, dominance, liking and responsibility. Along the same lines, CMC cues were found to disambiguate the message, regulate the interaction, express affect and strengthen the message content (Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). Fox et al. (2007) find women using more CMC cues than men, suggesting a greater propensity to convey socio-emotional content through cues. Some studies have found that a higher rate of CMC cues occur in less task-oriented communication among people who know each other (Hancock et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2008; Walther, 1995). Zeroing in on typographic markers that use nonprescribed punctuation and spelling, one study shows that repeated characters such as repeated punctuation marks or vocal spellings occur often in messages that also include interjections (Kalman and Gergle, 2010). Overall, CMC cues often, though not always, have been found to communicate socio-emotional meaning. In serving these functions, CMC cues appear to carry some of the same functional load as nonverbal behavior in faceto-face communication, which also has been claimed to regulate the interaction (Harrison, 1973) and disambiguate the message (Kiesler et al., 1984). It is not clear, however, that nonverbal cues of face-to-face communication actually translate into CMC cues. Instead, the communicative functions of oral interaction may be expressed verbally, resulting in increased language production. In fact, some studies (e.g., Tidwell and Walther, 2002; Walther and Tidwell, 1995) have found that interlocutors in a text-only environment tend to ask more questions and disclose more information when communicating. It follows from these considerations that finding equivalents between the nonverbal inventories of online and offline communication may be problematic; instead research suggests that a more fruitful approach would be to investigate how CMC participants adopt the semiotic system of chat to their communicative needs (Walther and D’Addario, 2001). Even though existing research generally acknowledges the context-sensitivity of CMC cues (e.g., Huffaker and Calvert, 2005; Wolf, 2000), existing research is dominated by the quantitative paradigm. Among the few qualitative studies carried out thus far, the vast majority is concerned with emoticons rather than other CMC cues. In spite of their perceived ubiquity, emoticons are fairly rare in most CMC environments (e.g., Crystal, 2005; Hancock, 2004; Vandergriff and Fuchs, 2009). When they do occur, emoticons are generally claimed to promote group rapport (Derks et al., 2008; Golato and TaleghaniNikazm, 2006; Hancock, 2004; Vandergriff, submitted for publication; Walther and D’Addario, 2001) and politeness (Darics, 2010). One study of IM communication concludes that “the ‘smiley face’ emoticon is an essential element of relational work at the workplace, part of a workplace culture that functions as a positive politeness strategy for creating a collaborative work environment” (Darics, 2010:140). Compared to emoticons, research on other CMC cues is lagging. In some contexts of use, nonstandard punctuation, especially ellipsis, exclamation and question marks appear to play a more prominent role than emoticons (e.g., Hancock, 2004; Herring and Zelenkauskaite, 2009; Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Kalman and Gergle, 2009; Ong, 2011; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010; Vandergriff, 2010;

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

3

Waseleski, 2006). Ellipsis or the repetition of dots or “periods” has been interpreted to signal silence. In disagreements, e.g., the use of ellipsis (“. . .”) has been looked at in different positions in the message. Whereas inter-turn silence, which can signal a dispreferred response in face-to-face communication, is unavailable in CMC (Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; cf. Ong, 2011), a disagreeing assessment can be delayed by an intra-turn silence which is “indicated in the chat environment in the form of three (or more) dots” (Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006:315). As a marker for online “silence”, ellipsis remains multifunctional, as it has been shown to cue irony (Hancock, 2004)2 and to mitigate a face threat (Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Ong, 2011; Vandergriff, 2010).1 The same can be said for other CMC cues. The repeated exclamation point has also been associated with different functions. Rather than marking “excitability” or even “positive or negative emotionality” (cf. Waseleski, 2006), one study interpreted them as indicating “friendly interaction” or emphasis because they are often used online with statements involving facts (Waseleski, 2006:n.p.; Herring and Zelenkauskaite, 2009:11). However, as is often the case in existing research on CMC cues, the analytical framework and methodology used in one study does not align well enough with other studies to discern whether the interpretation as friendly interaction or emphasis might be viewed as emotive. Finally, researchers have just begun to take an interest in the CMC cue combinations (Kalman and Gergle, 2009; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). As in research on emoticon use, studies on nonstandard orthography including capitalization and vocal spellings have primarily been concerned with mapping correspondences between CMC cues and nonverbal cues in oral interaction. Considering “articulability”, vocal spellings have been hypothesized to emulate spoken nonverbal cues, for example (for an overview, see Kalman and Gergle, 2009). Yet, the repertoire of CMC is crude compared to nonverbal oral interaction. Even if we could be sure that participants used the marker “capitalization” in CMC to emulate “increased volume” in speaking, it does not mean that the functions of both are identical. In other words, we cannot accurately describe the meaning and function of a given CMC cue by “translating it back” into a prosodic cue. Instead, a linguistic description of CMC cues must be based on a pragmatic analysis of CMC cues in context and must account for the impact of variables such as CMC tool, genre and/or user. Both in terms of depth and breadth of analysis, research on CMC cues is still scarce and deserves more attention. This paper situates the analysis of CMC cues within the area of emotive communication research, a larger integrative, interdisciplinary framework that allows researchers to investigate the roles of CMC cues vis-à-vis those of verbal devices. Since emotive communication has more to do with performance or rhetoric than affective states, it is less an intrapersonal phenomenon than an interpersonal social one (Caffi and Janney, 1994; see also Bühler, 1934; cf. Arndt and Janney, 1991). Emotive communication is thus conceptualized as an act of self-presentation, and as such “it is inherently strategic, persuasive, interactional, and other-directed by its very nature” (Caffi and Janney, 1994:329; cf. Parret, 1984; Robinson, 1986; Arndt and Janney, 1991). Seeking a unified approach that includes both verbal and nonverbal devices, Caffi and Janney’s (1994) conceptual article describes devices of emotive communication as “indices of speakers’ feelings, attitudes, or relational orientations toward their topics, their partners, and/or their own acts of communication in different situations.” Viewing emotive communication as linguistic communication, Caffi and Janney (1994) persuasively make the case for situating its study firmly within pragmatics. 2. Data and methodology Taking a pragmatic approach, this study looks at how language learner use CMC cues in the context of task-based conflictual chat. I analyze these within the larger framework of emotive communication devices and explore their roles in relational work. The extracts analyzed come from a chat corpus of advanced foreign language learners of German at a large public university in the US. Groups of students, who were acquainted with each other, worked on two similar consensus-building tasks. The tasks can be considered comparable in many ways. Both required each group to arrive at a collective opinion concerning a moral dilemma. Task 1, Alligator River asked groups to rank characters from most reprehensible to least and Task 2, the Bomb Shelter Problem asked groups to select four out of six characters for a spot in the life-saving bomb shelter. Before coming to class, students were given a handout with one of the two short moral dilemma texts. They were asked to prepare their own personal responses prior to class (pre-discussion phase) and to refrain from discussing their responses with other students before the online discussion began. The responses involved students’ personal evaluations of the characters in the text and, as such, had no “right” answer. Groups of three students each worked together under a 30-min time limit discussing their positions in a non-moderated chatroom. The assigned task was designed to promote conflictual talk and disagreement in a number of ways. First, having generated diverse

2 In fact, in a study of irony Hancock (2004) reports that chat participants used ellipses to mark ironic intent, a finding likely to trigger further inquiries into the role of punctuation in CMC humor. Since the article cites little data, it is difficult to verify whether Hancock’s analysis of ellipsis is correct. In his example of hyperbole “The most vile thing known to man . . . hotdogs” (Hancock, 2004:453) ellipsis may not mark ironic intent, as he suggests, but just a pause to enhance the humorous effect.

4

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

positions in the pre-discussion phase, groups were asked to arrive at consensus within a given time limit. This task process necessitated arguing for and against positions. Second, the moral dilemma scenario was designed to put participants at ease in expressing diverse opinions because such disagreements are considered less severe than disagreements that could threaten a participant’s identity, beliefs, or values (see Rees-Miller, 2000). Moreover, students were acquainted with each other and had reviewed German vocabulary and phrases typically required in disagreement sequences. Nonetheless, disagreements constitute a potential face threat (Pomerantz, 1984). Following Brown and Levinson (1987), much of prior research on politeness has viewed disagreements as dispreferred, “socially disruptive” (Georgakopoulou and Patrona, 2000:323) or even face-threatening. From this perspective, such a face-threatening act (FTA) carries the potential to cause a breakdown in communication, unless it is mitigated in some way (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Taylor and Cameron, 1987; Heritage, 1989). Recent research on relational work (e.g., Locher and Watts, 2005) cautions against general claims, however, arguing that not all instances of disagreement constitute a face threat. Whereas Locher (2004:94) acknowledges that “the need to get one’s point across without seeming self-righteous or being injurious can cause friction,” disagreement is not viewed as an a priori negatively marked act. If participants orient toward a conflict frame, non-polite conflictual interaction can still be perceived as appropriate or “politic” (Locher and Watts, 2005:21), even in the absence of mitigation. Disagreements resulting from a classroom task therefore do not necessarily constitute a face threat. 3. Results In my analysis I ask how participants used CMC cues to orient to disagreement and to maintain, enhance or challenge relationships with each other. Except in a few cases,3 disagreement is a dispreferred response (Pomerantz, 1984), for example, following an assessment, or following a question, as in the case of a negative answer. All instances of disagreements examined in this study are dispreferred responses. 3.1. Mitigated disagreement In extract 1, I analyze a section of chat that shows a participant doing mitigated disagreement using CMC cues. Because disagreements, by and large, are viewed as dispreferred, “socially disruptive” (Georgakopoulou and Patrona, 2000:323) or even face-threatening, they often trigger mitigating strategies (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Taylor and Cameron, 1987; Heritage, 1989). Otherwise, communication could break down. In extract 1, Amy and Anna have arrived at a stalemate. In message 2, Amy uses a lexical surrogate “hmmm” to convey skepticism and withhold agreement. Extract 1 “hmmm:)”

1

Anna:

2 3

Amy: Amy:

4

Anna:

5

Anna:

3

! !

Ich finde auch, dass Renate schlecht ist, weil sie Peter ausgelacht hat. Das ist doch schlimm und kindisch. Aber wenn ihr denkt. dass das schlimmer ist, als physicalische Brutalitat oder sexuelle Brutalitat, das hat keinen Sinn. hmmm:) Ich finde das sexuelle brutalitat ist nicht gut. . .aber sie musste nicht mit ihm schlafen. . . Die Geschichte koennt 4 oder 5 verschiedene Versionen geben, aber wir muessen damit arbeiten, was wir haben. Ich muss annehmen, dass es keine andere Moeglichkeit gab, um auf die andere Seite des Flusses zu kommen. O.K, wir muessen uns einigen. Machen wir alle Kompromisse? Am 3ten Platz stellen wir Sindbad, am 4ten, Renate, am 5ten Schleggi. Oder nicht. . .?

‘I also think that Renate is bad because she laughed at Peter. That’s bad and childish. But if you [plural] think that that’s worse than physical brutality or sexual brutality, that makes no sense.’ ‘hmmm:)’ ‘I think that sexual violence is not good. . .but she didn’t have to sleep with him. . .’ ‘The story could have 4 or 5 different versions but we’ve got to work with what we have. I have to assume that there was no other way to get to the other side of the river.’

‘O.K., we have to come to consensus. Do we all compromise? In 3rd place we put Sinbad, in 4th Renate, in 5th Schleggi. Or not. . .?’

For example, disagreements are preferred responses following a speaker’s self-deprecation.

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

6

Amy:

!

aber es gab doch andere moglichkeiten. . .. es ist unmoglich dass es kein andere moglichkeiten gab

5

‘but there were also other possibilities. . .. it is impossible that there were no other possibilities.’

Anna’s assessment in e-turn4 1 makes Amy’s response conditionally relevant. In e-turn 2, Amy first acknowledges Anna’s assessment with a filled pause, followed by an emoticon, then sends another message (e-turn 3) which appears as adjacent to her first one in the chat transcript. In oral interaction, “hmmm” or rather its equivalent is a multifunctional nonverbal cue. Depending on context and prosodic markers, it could signal uptake, disagreement and/or skepticism. In the context of e-turns 3 and 6 which show Amy doing disagreement, and Anna’s e-turns 4 and 5 doing persuasion (urging her co-participant to work toward a resolution) the filled pause conveys skepticism, and does so in an unassertive polite way.5 In a consensus-building task, withholding consent amounts to doing disagreement. Instead of the dispreferred action, namely outright disagreement, she first indicates skepticism, then orients to her avoidance strategy with a smiley emoticon. It is clear that Amy is not displaying positive affect, such as delight, relief or joy. Instead she utilizes the smiley emoticons to display her orientation to the avoidance strategy. This use of smiley emoticons to display the participant’s orientation to a dispreferred action has been documented in a number of studies (e.g., Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm, 2006; Vandergriff, submitted for publication). Turn-medial ellipsis also plays a role in doing polite disagreements online. E-turn 3 begins with an agreement preface, followed by three dots signaling turn-medial silence. She then gives her account, which implies disagreement with Anna. Turn-medial ellipsis is used often, though not always, to separate the agreement preface from the disagreement token and delay it. In e-turn 6, for example, Amy uses turn-medial ellipsis again to do disagreement. In contrast to e-turn 3, there is no agreement preface in e-turn 6. Here, the virtual pause does not delay the disagreeing response as such, but the upgraded disagreeing assessment. The three periods or dots marking ellipsis in turn-mediate position appears to be a common FTA-mitigating strategy. The findings align with Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm (2006), who showed that “disagreements can be delayed by intra-turn silences which are indicated in the chat environment in the form of three (or more) dots” (2006:315). In sum, the analysis of ellipsis suggests that its use is subject to considerable variation. The analysis of extract 1 also illustrates that the position of ellipsis within the turn plays an important role. Whereas the turn-medial ellipsis in e-turn 3 can be interpreted as a ‘pause,’ the ellipsis in e-turn 6 marks the status of the e-turn as “unfinished” or “open”. In marking the omission of word(s) at the end of the message, turn-final ellipsis may be described as a virtual trailing off, which is associated with unfinished thoughts (Hacker, 2003). Unlike the turn-medial silence in the same message, it does not delay a dispreferred response. The extract also shows that “open” or “unfinished” does not mean that the participant is taking a tentative stance on the proposition since the verbal part of the message does not suggest uncertainty on Amy’s part. Instead, turn-final ellipsis marks the sequence as “to be continued” and thus provides a space for expansion (perhaps akin to dialogic expansion, Martin and White, 2005). We may conclude that turn-final ellipsis thus orients to disagreement by indexing unassertiveness. In e-turn 5, Anna’s turn-final ellipsis, combined with a question mark, serves to illustrate how a participant can not only make room for dialogic expansion but actively invite it. My analysis of this extract yields findings which complement previous studies in that they show the interpretation of ellipsis as a volitional device and the functional variation of ellipsis. In addition, extract 1 illustrates how the filled pause ‘hmmm’ and ellipsis (both turn-medial and turn-final) mitigate disagreement by delaying or avoiding the dispreferred response and how these CMC cues serve to maintain the relationship. 3.2. Aggravated disagreement Not all disagreements are mitigated in the data. In extract 2, Susan is siding with Liz while Frank stubbornly maintains a different position. In the course of the discussion, Susan pressures Frank repeatedly to yield as she dismisses his arguments as far-fetched or irrelevant. Extract 2 shows Susan doing aggravated disagreement. Extract 2 “And You, Frank?”6

1

Susan:

Also wir sind dann einverstanden. Und Du, Frank?

‘Then we have an agreement. And you, Frank?’

4 The term “e-turn”, introduced in Thorne (1999), is based on the turn concept of oral interaction but also signals that the two concepts are not the same. Whereas turn-taking and sequence organization are crucial in face-to-face communication, e-turns are formatted by the server after the participant has sent the message. E-turn-taking is therefore partly user-controlled and partly system-controlled. 5 In CMC, by contrast, backchannel signals or their absence are viewed as an important feature (Cherny, 1999; Darics, 2010; but cf. Crystal, 2001:40) but they remain largely underexplored. 6 This extract was analyzed for humor in Vandergriff and Fuchs (2009, 2012).

6

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

2 3

Susan: Liz:

4

Frank:

5

Susan:

6

Liz:

7

Frank:

8 9

Susan: Liz:

10

Susan:

11

Frank:

12 13

Susan: Liz:

14

Susan:

15

Liz:

36 37 38

Susan: Susan: Frank:

39 40 41

Susan: Susan: Liz:

42

Liz:

Ja, richtig. Mit welches Geld? Sie hat ja noch schon mehr bezahlt, Peter soll sie danken und dann trösten für ihrer Opferung. Ja, Schleggi hat doch viel Schuld denn man soll nicht so brutal sein gegen ein anderen. Mehr Schuld als Sinbad? Ich finde es unglaublich, dass Du Sinbad im vierten Platz hast. Aber was ist dann mit solche emotionelle Brutalität wie Peter und Renate gezeigt haben? Frank? S.B. Wir wissen nicht ob Geld gab, vielleicht mit Kartoffeln und Gemüse.

!

!

!

Ja, ok genug damit Ich benutze meine “codename” zu überzeugen! Ha! Hier ist Ilona, stimmst du zu Frank? Siehst Du, Frank? Sogar Professor Vandergriff stimmt zu! Ja, OK. Du hast aber nocht nicht gewonnen. Du? Wir!!! Und was ist dann Sinbad lieber Kartoffeln oder sex? Ich bin ganz ernst jetzt Frank. Es tut mir Leid, ein bißchen Brutalität von Schleggi ist in meinen Körper eingetreten. Komm schon, Frank! Sind Peter und Renate so wenig schrecklich? Sinbad ist ganz offensichtlich ein Schwein. Renate hatte keine chance. ((E-turns 16 to 35 deleted.)) Genau !!!! Was sie gesagt hat. Einigung schafen wir offentsichlich nicht. So Sindbad ist der schlimmste. Dann Schleggi. ja! Gut, Frank! Und dann? Also wir können über sinbad einstimmen. . . aber ich finde daß tschüs!!

‘Yeah right. With what money?’ ‘She already paid more. Peter should thank her and console her for the sacrifice.’ ‘Yes, Schleggi carries a lot of responsibility because one should not be so brutal.’ ‘More responsibility than Sinbad? I find it unbelievable that you have Sinbad in fourth place.’ ‘But what about the emotional brutality from Peter and Renate? Frank?’ ‘S.B. [i.e., Susan B.] We don’t know if there was money, perhaps with potatoes and vegetables.’ ‘Yes, ok enough already.’ ‘I use my “codename” to convince! Ha! This is Ilona, do you agree Frank?’ ‘You see, Frank? Even Professor Vandergriff agrees!’ ‘Yes, OK. But you haven’t won yet.’ ‘You [singular]? We!!! ‘And what does Sinbad prefer potatoes or sex? I am totally serious now, Frank. I am sorry, a little bit of Schleggi’s brutality has entered my body.’ ‘Come on, Frank! Are Peter and Renate not terrible?’ ‘Sinbad is a pig, of course. Renate had no chance.’ ‘Exactly!!! Like she said.’ ‘We obviously can’t agree.’ ‘So Sinbad is the worst. Then Schleggi.’ ‘Yes! Good, Frank!’ ‘And then?’ ‘So we can agree on Sinbad. . . but I think that’ ‘Bye!!’

The analysis focuses on the triple exclamation point in e-turn 12 and the quadruple one in e-turn 36. I will argue that Susan is doing aggravated disagreement and that the CMC cue multiple exclamation marks plays a crucial role in marking her action as intentional attacks on Frank’s face. In e-turn 2, she casts Frank as the odd one out in their group of three. In e-turn 3, Susan provides uptake on his assessment in message 1. Her disagreement has an agreement preface (ja richtig ‘yeah right’), which -- especially in the absence of paralinguistic features -- may appear like a mitigating strategy at first glance. However, her rhetorical question “with what money?” implies that she finds his argument far-fetched, giving her message a sarcastic tone. Instead of being mitigating, the agreement preface (ja richtig ‘yeah right’) is used in mock agreement and is therefore aggravating. In e-turn 5, following a rhetorical question (Mehr Schuld as Sinbad?), Susan uses another aggravating disagreement strategy, viz., judgmental language to describe his assessment (“I find it unbelievable that you. . .”). The specificity in the token choice of pronoun (“you”) contributes to what can interpreted as in a direct judgment of his opinion and thus a personal assault. In e-turn 8, she dismisses his arguments categorically (“Yes, enough already.”). In e-turn 12, she highlights his role as an outsider and underscores her won alignment with Liz. In e-turn 14, she is coaxing him with a very direct “come on, Frank”, a token of specificity. The deleted turns in e-turns 16 through 35, which discuss the parallels of the

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

7

task plot with that of a movie, provide Susan with another opportunity for one-upmanship and explicit disalignment. E-turns 36 and 37 express Susan’s strong alignment with Liz and re-assert Frank’s role as an outsider, followed in e-turn 39 by mock praise for Frank’s position of alignment as she reacts to the emerging consensus with a facetious, sarcastic Gut Frank!. In fact, all her messages directed at Frank show aggravating strategies. Having failed to convince Frank with rational argument, Susan’s impoliteness is an “exercise of power” (Locher and Bousfield, 2008:8--9). In her intentional attack on Frank’s face, Susan uses single exclamation points, a triple and a quadruple one in combination with rhetorical questions, judgmental language, mock agreement/praise and other devices of emotive communication. While the use of single exclamation marks as appellative technique signals the sender’s assertiveness, the multiple exclamation mark is a quantity device that serves to intensify this assertiveness (e-turns 12 and 36). By the same token, multiple exclamation points are not always used in a self-assertive manner. In e-turn 42, Liz follows her “tschüss!!” ‘bye!!’ with a double exclamation point, a marker perhaps designed to evoke the sharp fall in intonation often associated with sequence closing. The token in e-turn 42 can be interpreted as “friendly interaction” associated with greetings or closings (Waseleski, 2006). What is clear is that it cannot be interpreted in the same way as the multiple exclamation marks in e-turns 12 and 36. In fact, the context does not support any interpretation of this double exclamation mark as a marker of high affect or excitability. Whereas Susan’s use of multiple exclamation mark represent a challenge to her relationship with Frank, Liz’s use of friendly greeting serves to maintain the relationship. In this way, the analysis of multiple exclamation marks in extract 2 illustrate the multifunctionality of exclamations marks as CMC cues, whose meaning only emerge in the context of co-occurring emotive markers. 3.3. Mock disagreement The task scenarios also triggered a number of humor/play sequences. In a mock display of high affect Dave is arguing against admitting the policeman (who in the task scenario cannot lose his gun) to the bombshelter (extract 3). In extract 3 the triple exclamation point conveys excitability and/or high affect. Extract 3 Pistol!!!

1 2

Dave: Rick:

3 4

Dave: Rick:

!

Lisa, wir haben die gleiche Meinung OK dann die Frau und ihr Mann, Professor und die Studentin Ich fuerchte mich fuer eine Pistole!!! Der Polizist bleibt draussen

‘Lisa, we have the same opinion.’ ‘OK then the woman and her husband, professor and the student.’ ‘I fear a pistol!!!’ ‘The policeman stays outside.’

In this highly contrived task scenario, group members are asked to decide who among the cast of stereotypical characters is admitted to the only life-saving bombshelter on the planet. In e-turn 3, Dave jokingly proclaims his personal fear of guns as though he lived in the fictitious task world. His tongue-in-cheek remark cues humor in two ways. First, proclaiming his personal fear of a fictitious gun breaks with contextual appropriateness. One might add that the choice of relatively formal register heightens the sense of inappropriateness.7 Contextual inappropriateness, in turn, is a typical cue for irony (Attardo, 2005). At the same time, the triple exclamation mark ups the emotive force of the proposition, suggesting that the sender is very fearful. In the following extract I discuss another instance of mock disagreement. Right after arriving at consensus, Al complicates the process by suggesting that the couple may not be fertile. In extract 4, Emma uses a smiley emoticon in the closing sequence. Extract 4 “Wait!”

1

Emma:

2

Al:

3 4 5

Emma: Al: Emma:

!

Noch mal denn, wir behalten die zwei Frauen, den Buchhandler und den Student, gut. abwarten! wir müssen sicher machen daß es keine physiologische probleme mit das jungere Paar gibt’s, oder? sei ruhig schon. ich mach nur spaß! ich weiss:)

‘Once again, then, we keep the two women, the bookseller and the student, good.’ ‘Wait! We have to make sure that there are no physiological problems with the young couple, right?’ ‘Oh, be quiet.’ ‘I am just kidding!’ ‘I know:)’

7 The student’s level of proficiency (as evidenced in the data) suggests that the lexical choice of sich fürchten vor ‘to fear’ rather than less formal Angst haben vor ‘to be afraid of’ was deliberat.

8

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

In e-turn 2, Al teasingly withholds agreement. In order to secure a spot for the fictitious young couple in the only lifesaving bombshelter he suggests that they undergo fertility testing. Emma plays along at doing ‘mock disagreement’ by telling him to be quiet. He delays the formal keying of his verbal message in e-turn 2 as humor until his next e-turn (Ich mach nur Spaß! ‘I am just kidding!’, e-turn 4). Signaling her understanding of the humor token, Emma replies with ich weiss ‘I know’, followed by a smiley emoticon (e-turn 5). Here the chat ends. This mock disagreement sequence allows participants to use humor to orient to the task disagreement in an effort to maintain (or even enhance) group rapport. By using an a smiley emoticon Emma signals appreciation for Al’s humor and thereby aligns with him (Hay, 2001). 4. Discussion In spite of its limited scope, the descriptive analysis of CMC cues illustrates that form-meaning correlations of CMC cues only emerge in context. For example, the filled pause hmmm can convey the sender’s skepticism and thus functions to withhold agreement (extract 1). In this way, disagreement can be mitigated. Turn-medial ellipsis can also mitigate disagreement by delaying the (upgraded) disagreement token (extract 1). Used turn-finally, ellipsis marks room for dialogic expansion. In the context of conflictual interaction, it can convey the sender’s openness to other points of view. Note that this openness is not uncertainty, but rather unassertiveness (extract 1). Extract 2 illustrates how participants can use multiple exclamation marks to do aggravated disagreement or friendly closings. They can even serve as humor cues (extract 3). These findings align with previous by Waseleski (2006), whose analysis documents the multifunctionality of exclamation marks in CMC, beyond excitability, i.e. negative or positive emotionality (Waseleski, 2006; cf. Quirk et al., 1985:1633). Finally, the analysis shows that smiley emoticons can be used to mark affect (extract 4) or to orient to a dispreferred action. Both functions have been attested in various studies, esp. Golato and Taleghani-Nikazm (2006) and Vandergriff (submitted for publication). For ellipsis, different positions in the message appear to correlate with different function. In sum, the analysis provides additional empirical evidence of the multifunctionality of CMC cues. At the same time, different cues appear to serve partially overlapping functions. For example, both the filled pause and turn-medial ellipsis8 mitigate disagreement by delay. CMC cues varied greatly in type frequency. Among the CMC cue tokens in my collection, nearly half marked ellipsis. Multiple exclamation points and multiple question marks, some in combination with each other, occurred at similar rates. Among the small number of emoticons, smileys were twice as frequent than frowns. No winks were evidenced in my data. In light of their different emotive meanings, the frequency of CMC cues will vary, of course, yet “production costs” may also have a differential effect. In the time-sensitive mode of synchronous CMC, the ease of producing repeat characters by holding down a key (as for “???” or “!!!”) compared to hitting two or more keys as required for emoticons (“:)”) may also play a small role in accounting for their relative frequencies.9 It is empirically questionable whether users will show a preference for repeat-character cues when choosing between two CMC cues with overlapping functions, yet variation also depends on social, technical and contextual factors (see Herring, 2007). Token frequency of CMC cues of all types was relatively low. In my data set of nearly 8000 words, CMC cues occurred at the rate of 0.95%. Riordan and Kreuz (2010) report a base rate of 0.47% or cues per word, ranging between 0.19% and 0.98% for different types of CMC. Although few in numbers, their importance for interpersonal communication is evident in the data presented here. This analysis also throws some light on previous findings which have shown that the number of cues is proportional to the perceived emotional involvement of the sender. Harris and Paradice (2007), for example, had found that the more cues a message has, the stronger the recipients judged the sender’s emotions to be (see also Selting, 1994, on parallels in speech). Along the same lines, Utz (2000) also showed that CMC cues are correlated with online friendship development. While CMC cues as a group have long been associated with interpersonal communication and emotional involvement, the present analysis tried to tease apart which CMC cue does what in what context. 4.1. Emotive communication The descriptive analysis of CMC cues in extracts 1 through 4 has shown that the interpretation of CMC cues is highly context-dependent and that their meanings only emerge in context, specifically in the context of co-occurring verbal emotive devices. In other words, CMC cues interact with other verbal and nonverbal cues in emotive communication. In fact, there is little evidence that participants privilege one type over another (Caffi and Janney, 1994), verbal and nonverbal cues seem to be equally important. All types of emotive devices allow participants to signal and assess (Caffi and Janney, 1994) different types and/or degrees of emotive involvement in interaction. The larger conceptual framework of emotive communication provides robust analytical categories for analysis. From this perspective, emoticons can be

8 9

Turn-constitutive ellipsis (not attested in the extracts presented here) can also delay/avoid a dispreferred response. I thank the anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

9

classified as evaluation devices which “include all types of verbal and nonverbal choices that suggest an inferable positive or negative evaluative stance on the part of the speaker” (Caffi and Janney, 1994:354). The filled pause “hmmm” and ellipsis can be classified as volitionality devices which include all “verbal and nonverbal choices used to vary levels of [. . .] self-assertiveness vis-à-vis partners” (Caffi and Janney, 1994:358), such as pauses, hedges, or modal particles. Multiple exclamation marks or other CMC cues (e.g., capitalization and vocal spelling, which were not analyzed in the present study) function as quantifying devices, which include all intensifying and deintensifying verbal and nonverbal choices. Quantitative devices also include repetition and pitch. The analyzed CMC cues can thus be described as evaluation devices, volitionality devices, and quantity devices within a system of emotive communication that also includes evidentiality devices (I think/know that), specificity (e.g. Can someone/you help me?) devices and proximity devices (e.g. Bob/Dr. Robert Adam). There are many advantages to classifying CMC cues with other emotive devices as they share some important features, most importantly, they are multifunctional and derive their meaning from context. All signal the relative presence of emotion or stance, though not necessarily the specific emotion. In the case of CMC cues, the multiple exclamation point can express “assertiveness,” or “falling tone”, which can be interpreted in context as aggravated disagreement (extract 2), friendly closing (extract 2) or “excitability” (extract 3). Ellipsis can express “delay” or “openness”, which can be interpreted in context as mitigated disagreement or openness to dialogic expansion (extract 1). Not even smiley emoticons are context-independent. They can express “delight”, “amusement” or “relief” (extract 4) but are often used as contextualization cues to signal the sender’s orientation to a dispreferred action (extract 1) or nonserious intent (Vandergriff, submitted for publication). 4.2. (Im-)Politeness In the context of the analyzed conflictual talk, participants used CMC cues for emotive communication to mitigate or aggravate disagreement. Which CMC cues were used and how, has to do with participants’ orientation to the disagreement. Across the groups, the degree of “dispreference” of disagreement seemed to differ, making it difficult to generalize what is (im-)polite. Whereas disagreements in general have traditionally been viewed as “socially disruptive” (Georgakopoulou and Patrona, 2000:323) or even face-threatening, recent research on relational work (e.g., Locher and Watts, 2005) acknowledges this variation. If participants orient toward a conflict frame, non-polite conflictual interaction can still be perceived as appropriate and “politic” (Locher and Watts, 2005:21), even in the absence of mitigation. In fact, there is a growing consensus among politeness researchers that the actual degree of face-threat or dispreference associated with acts of disagreement is closely connected with the situational contexts in which the acts occur (e.g., BlumKulka, 1997; Georgakopoulou and Patrona, 2000; Locher, 2004; Locher and Watts, 2005). In some contexts, social solidarity may be unaffected or even strengthened by this type of conflictual interaction, as has been shown for conflict talk in other settings (e.g., Locher, 2004; Rees-Miller, 2000; Schiffrin, 1984). Extract 2 does not yield any signals that Frank is offended by Susan’s impoliteness. It is conceivable that participants perceive these classroom discussions as “enactments of conflict” (Schiffrin, 1984) in the context of an educational system that values diversity and evaluates academic ability on how a participant engages with alternative positions. By and large, CMC cues were used in the service of politeness. Participants in extracts 1, 3 and 4 used CMC cues as emotive devices (including smiley emoticon, filled pause, turn-medial and turn-final ellipsis, and exclamation mark) to mitigate disagreement. Many participants indicated their dispreference of disagreement with such mitigation strategies (e. g., extract 1). The data also show participants explicitly sanctioning the disagreement. One way to do so is by mock disagreements, which allow participants to (re-)orient to the disagreement and retroactively sanction it (extracts 3 and 4). 4.3. Nonnative use of CMC cues The data do not yield any direct insights into the possible role the language learning context played in the use of CMC cues. In light of participants’ relatively high levels of German proficiency, it is not surprising that the use of cues among these language learners resembles that of native German speakers. At the same time, little is known about the use of cues across cultures. It is conceivable that participants used CMC cues in German exactly as they would in their native English, effectively transferring their skill in emoticon use from their first to their foreign language. Although, in principle, it is also possible that online cues are largely universal, research is beginning to emerge that suggests that cultural differences exist in both forms and functions of online cues, in particular, emoticons (e.g., Kavanagh, 2010; Kayan et al., 2006; Sugimoto and Levin, 2000). Yet, even if language learners can rely on universal or native-language-based transferable pragmatic knowledge meaning, their transfer to German should not be taken for granted because research has shown that learners do not always transfer what is transferable (Kasper and Rose, 2001). It is also not clear whether advanced learner use cues more frequently than lower-level learners, which has been suggested for the CMC cue subset of emoticons (Collentine, 2009; Sauro, personal communication). If lower-level learners do indeed use fewer CMC cues than

10

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

more advanced learners, we might hypothesize that emoticon use in second language contexts has to be learned. By the same token, an alternative explanation is also possible. Even if CMC does not have to be learned, lower-level learners may use fewer emoticons because they do not yet have control over the kinds of language functions that provide the typical contexts for emoticon use, such as non-serious communication. Finally, since online cues often co-occur with other cues, their use may require a relatively large cues repertoire. Given the current state of research, it is unclear what effect, if any, the participants’ level of competency in German (advanced vs. novice, nonnative vs. native) has on the use of CMC cues. 5. Summary and conclusion Existing research shows that CMC cues including punctuation are not add-ons to CMC. Rather they are so integral that they can be viewed as constitutive of online usage. Though these CMC cues make use of the existing inventory of punctuation marks, CMC cues stand out as they differ from standard or prescribed written usage. The foregoing descriptive analysis of CMC cues documents that systematic form-meaning correlations exist and how CMC cues, in interaction with other emotive devices, can mitigate or aggravate disagreements. As such, CMC cues constitute important (im-)politeness strategies and play an important role in enhancing, maintaining and/or challenging relationships. Although less complex and less subtle than facial, gestural and prosodic cues, the present analysis showed that CMC cues contribute to a repertoire of emotive devices, which in combination and interaction with verbal markers do relational work. In spite of its simple form, a smiley emoticon, which may appear crude when compared to the range of smile variants, can convey subtle meanings in context. In this way, CMC cues carry some of the load of relational work (Darics, 2010; Herring and Zelenkauskaite, 2009; Kalman and Gergle, 2010), much like prosodic and paralinguistic cues. However, the search for prosodic and/or paralinguistic equivalents of CMC cues is misguided. Looking at letter repetitions and articulability, Kalman and Gergle (2010) claim that this “stretching” of syllables often emulates spoken nonverbal speech. They list examples such as ‘friiiiieeeeeennnnd’, yet there is little evidence that users actually stretch syllables to the extent suggested here. Capitalization may be equivalent to prosodic marking but one cannot be sure whether it corresponds to pitch or loudness or both. While it may be safe to say that caps emphasize a syllable or a word much in the same way pitch and/or loudness do in oral interaction, there is no reason to assume that users think of them as stand-ins. Moreover, CMC cues like prosodic stress are multifunctional. While a rising tone can mark incompleteness or uncertainty, interpretable in context as polite denial or invitation, a smiley emoticon as affect marker (extract 4) or contextualization cue (extract 1) can be interpreted as humor appreciation or mitigating strategy. Instead of assuming that participants adapt their face-to-face communication tools to CMC, we need to look at how participants use communication tools and strategies available within CMC. The present paper offered a glimpse of the systematic, empirically grounded correlations between CMC cues and their interpretations. I situated the analysis of CMC cues within the large body of research on emotive communication that has thus far been restricted to offline modes only (for a research overview, see Caffi and Janney, 1994). By analyzing CMC cues in contexts, I showed how participants used CMC cues, in combination/interaction with other emotive devices to convey socioemotional information, including the sender’s stance on the message or the sender’s position vis-à-vis co-participants. The findings thus support the call for deeper and broader analyses of CMC cues that are based on and tied into the large body of research on emotive communication. Not only do such analyses promise to arrive at a more complete understanding of the pragmatics of online relational work, they can also inform the research on interpersonal phenomena. References Angouri, Jo, Tseliga, Theodora, 2010. “You have no idea what you are talking about!” A study of impoliteness strategies in two online fora. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1) 57--82. Arndt, Horst, Janney, Richard W., 1991. Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 521--549. Attardo, Salvatore, 2005. Humor. In: Ӧstman, J.-O., Verschueren, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. pp. 1--18, Retrieved December 3, 2007 from http://www.benjamins.com/online/hop/. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, 1997. Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bühler, Karl, 1934. Sprachtheorie. Gustav Fischer, Jena. Caffi, Claudia, Janney, Richard W. (Eds.), 1994. Towards a pragmatic of emotive communication. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics 22, 325--373. Cherny, Lynn, 1999. Conversations and Community: Chat in a Virtual Community. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Collentine, Karina, 2009. Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology 13 (2) 68--87. Crystal, David, 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Crystal, David, 2005. Txting. The gr8 db8. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

11

Danet, Brenda, 2001. Cyberplay: Communicating Online. Berg, Oxford. Darics, Erika, 2010. Politeness in computer-mediated discourse of a virtual team. Journal of Politeness Research 6 (1) 129--150. Derks, Daantje, 2008. Emoticons and online message interpretation. Social Science Computer Review 26 (3) 379--388. Derks, Daantje, Bos, Arjan E.R., von Grumbkow, Jasper, 2007. Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: the importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 842--849. Derks, Daantje, Bos, Arjan E.R., von Grumbkow, Jasper, 2008. Emoticons in computer-mediated communication: social motives and social context. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11, 99--101. Dresner, Eli, Herring, Susan C., 2010. Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory 20, 249--268. Fox, Annie B., et al., 2007. The medium makes a difference: gender similarities and difference in Instant Messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26 (4) 389--397. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, Patrona, Marianna, 2000. Disagreements in television discussions: how small can small screen arguments be. Pragmatics 10 (3) , Retrieved from http://elanguage.net/journals/pragmatics/article/view/538/462. Golato, Andrea, Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, 2006. Negotiation of face in webchats. Multilingua 25, 293--321. Hacker, Diana, 2003. A Writer’s Reference, 5th ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston. Halvorsen, Andy, 2012. Patterns of emoticon usage in ESL students’ discussion forum writing. CALICO Journal 29 (4) 694--717. Hancock, Jeffrey T., 2004. Verbal irony use in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23 (4) 447--463. Hancock, Jeffrey T., Landrigan, Christopher, Silver, Courtney, 2007. Expressing emotion in text-based communication. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI’07: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 929--932. Harris, Ranida B., Paradice, David, 2007. An investigation of the computer-mediated communication of emotion. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 3, 2081--2090. Harrison, Randall P., 1973. Nonverbal communication. In: Pool, I.S., Schramm, W., Maccoby, N., Fry, F., Parker, E., Fern, J.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Communication. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 93--115. Hay, Jennifer, 2001. The pragmatics of humor support. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research 14 (1) 55--82. Heritage, John, 1989. Current developments in Conversation Analysis. In: Roger, D., Bull, P. (Eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Multilingual Matters, Avon, pp. 21--47. Herring, Susan C., 2007. A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. language@internet4. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761. Herring, Susan C, Zelenkauskaite, Asta, 2009. Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: abbreviation and insertion in Italian iTV SMS. Written Communication 26 (5) 5--31. Huang, Albert H., Yen, David C., Zhang, Xiaoni, 2008. Exploring the potential effects of emoticons. Information and Management 45, 466--473. Huffaker, D., Calvert, S.L., 2005. Gender, identity and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (2) , Retrieved March 18, 2011 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html. Kalman, Yoram M., Gergle, Darren, 2009. Letter and punctuation mark repeats as cues in computer-mediated communication. Paper Presented at the 95th Annual Meeting of the National Communication Association in Chicago, IL. Kalman, Yoram M., Gergle, Darren, 2010. CMC cues enrich lean online communication: the case of letter and punctuation mark repetitions. Paper Presented at the 5th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, September 12--14 in Tel-Aviv, Israel. Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://www.kalmans.com/MCIS2010Cues.pdf. Kasper, Gabriele, Rose, Kenneth, 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. In: Rose, K., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1--9. Kavanagh, Barry, 2010. A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and English non-verbal online communication: the use of emoticons in weblogs. Intercultural Communication Studies 19 (3) 65--80. Kayan, Shipra, Fussel, Susan R., Setlock, Leslie D., 2006. Cultural differences in the use of instant messaging in Asia and North America. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2006. ACM Press, New York, pp. 525--528. Kiesler, Sara, Siegel, Jane, McGuire, Timothy W., 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39, 1123--1134. Lea, Martin, Spears, Russell, 1992. Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 2, 321--341. Lo, Shao-Kang, 2008. The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11 (5) 595--597. Locher, Miriam, 2004. Power and Politeness in Action. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. Locher, Miriam, Bousfield, Derek, 2008. Impoliteness and power in language. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 1--16. Locher, Miriam, Watts, Richard J., 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1, 9--33. Martin, James R., White, Peter R.R., 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, London/New York. Ong, Kenneth K.W., 2011. Disagreement, confusion, disapproval, turn elcitation and floor holding: actions as accomplished by ellipsis marks-only turns and blank turns in quasisynchronous chats. Discourse Studies 13 (2) 211--234. Parret, Herman, 1984. Regularities, rules and strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 569--592. Pomerantz, Anita, 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 225--246. Postmes, Tom, Spears, Russell, Lea, Martin, 2000. The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research 26 (3) 341--371. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, Svartvik, Jan, 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, London. Rees-Miller, Janie, 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (8) 1087--1111.

12

I. Vandergriff / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 1--12

Riordan, Monica A, Kreuz, Roger J., 2010. Cues in computer-mediated communication: a corpus analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 1806--1817. Robinson, Douglas, 1986. Metapragmatics and its discontents. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 651--671. Schiffrin, Deborah, 1984. Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13, 311--335. Selting, Margret, 1994. Emphatic speech style -- with special focus on the prosodic signaling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 375--408. Sugimoto, Taku, Levin, James A., 2000. Multiple literacies and multimedia: a comparison of Japanese and American uses of the internet. In: Hawisher, G.E., Selfe, C.L. (Eds.), Global Literacies and the World Wide Web. Routledge, London, pp. 133--153. Taylor, Talbot J., Cameron, Deborah, 1987. Analyzing Conversation: Rules and Units in the Structure of Talk. Pergamon, Oxford/New York. Thorne, Steven L., 1999. An activity theoretical analysis of foreign language electronic discourse. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Tidwell, Lisa C., Walther, Joseph B., 2002. Computer mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research 28, 317--348. Utz, Sonja, 2000. Social information processing in MUDs: the development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior 1 (1.) , Retrieved October 1, 2012 from the World Wide Web http://JOB/v1n1/utz.html. Vandergriff, Ilona, 2010. “It’s Only a Class”: relational work and disagreement in the computer-mediated classroom. Paper Presented at LIAR II -Linguistic Impoliteness and Rudeness, Universität Basel, Switzerland, 30 June--2 July 2010. Vandergriff Ilona. A pragmatic investigation of EFL emoticon use in NS-NNS chat, submitted for publication. Vandergriff, Ilona, Fuchs, Carolin, 2009. Does CMC promote language play? Exploring humor in two modalities. CALICO Journal 27 (1) 26--47. Vandergriff, Ilona, Fuchs, Carolin, 2012. Humor support in synchronous computer-mediated classroom discussions. HUMOR. International Journal of Humor Research 25 (4) 437--458. Walther, Joseph B., 1995. Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time. Organization Science 6, 186--203. Walther, Joseph B., 2011. Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. 4th ed. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (Eds.), The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 443--479. Walther, Joseph B., D’Addario, Kyle P., 2001. The impact of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review 19 (3) 324--347. Walther, Joseph B., Tidwell, Lisa C., 1995. Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 5, 355--378. Waseleski, Carol, 2006. Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer-mediated communication: an analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic discussion lists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (4) , Retrieved January 5, 2012 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol11/issue4/waseleski.html. Wolf, Alecia, 2000. Emotional expression online: gender differences in emoticon use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3 (5) 827--833. Yus, Francisco, 2011. Cyberpragmatics. Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.