<<<haveing used chat for a few years now i have found that just a sentence with the correct paraphrases and emphasises on certian words that sometimes is not enough to relay what is actually been meant!>>> A (perhaps _the_) central issue in understanding what someone else is conveying is context, even more than content. The briefer the message, the more important the context. So "chat" being effectively a series of sound-bites is almost pure implied context. That's one reason why chat groups on AOL tend to proliferate like rabbits in heat. We need to have some idea before we enter what kind of people are likely to be in there and what they are likely to be talking about. Otherwise people would have to 'lurk' for a long time to figure out what was going on and be able to join in. There are a number of ways to provide context, and many ways it is provided implicitly. The emoticon is "Instant Context" (apologies to John Lennon). The whole message is supposed to be interpreted as "a joke," or whatever. My point is that this is useful for the medium (thus it survives), but intrinsically crude and definitely not the equivalent of our evolved skills at reading each other for clues of intention. You may be disagreeing with what I wrote, but less with what I meant, I suspect. The main thing I was disagreeing with myself was that emoticons replace body language or literary ability. They are just crude "Instant Context" markers in my opinion.
<<<i would have to disagree therefore to your remark about conveying things with just words! surely as human beings alone we all use body language and facial expressions to portray our emotions wether they be of indifference or of total happiness?>>>
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.