#textbasedconversation

[kcb206group4]

Social Cues in Text Based Conversation

It is considered common knowledge that body language and tone of voice communicate more about an individual's feelings and attitudes than what they are actually saying. In the age of New Media an important question arises: Since tone of voice and body language are obsolete in text based conversations (think texting and Facebook messaging…go read someone else’s blog for a discussion on webcam technology), does this mean that significant amounts of information and meaning are lost in this format?

Basic human knowledge would dictate that this cannot be true, otherwise we would simply not partake in discourse over text – it would be wholly inefficient. At the same time however, there is no denying that it is less personal than face to face communication. It is so convenient that if there was so loss of meaning, face-to-face communication would be far more deemphasised in society.

"Jen, just open a chat window and we can all talk in it!"

(Source: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=o9pidk&s=8#.U0qPx_mSy8B)

Many responses during a survey conducted in 2002 sounded something like this:

            “I am more apt to be more affectionate and personable face to                  face...The internet is much too impersonal to communicate                      feelings.“ (Baym, 2010)

 Remember that this was the general view of individuals over twelve years ago, and it’s safe to say that New Media technology has improved quite a bit since then. Consequently, the efficiency of text based connection has improved, and the proof is in the pudding; despite its shortcomings, I myself and countless individuals utilise text based conversation to communicate this enigmatic phenomenon known as “personal feelings” on a near daily basis.

(Source: http://cdn2.crushable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/right-in-the-feels.gif)

The reason this form of communication is adequate for most people is because it has formed its own ways of communicating social cues – the things that people mean, but is not explicitly said. In other words, both humans and this technology have adapted and have, to an extent, compensated for the lack of body language and tone of voice during conversation in this platform of communication.

Crystal writes, “The rhythm of an internet interaction is very much slower than that found in a speech situation, and disallows some of conversation’s most salient properties”. (2006) I agree with this statement, but I would argue that the rhythm of responses itself can often communicate meaning between two parties.

Imagine two people have been talking for half an hour and the entire time the responses have been almost instantaneous. Subject A asks an unusual question, and there is a ten minute delay before subject B’s response. While it is possible that subject B has decided to get a snack or their internet connection has dropped out, it is far more likely they either did not know the answer to the question, or worse, did not want to respond to it. As a technologically conscious individual, subject A derives meaning (particularly in regards to subject B’s personal feelings) from this online social cue, just like they would derive meaning from subject B’s body language or tone of voice.

There are countless other methods from which meaning can be derived, enriching the communicative experience. This includes when an individual, begins writing, then stops. Then begins again. Then stops. Continue ad infinitum. This usually means that the individual is considering their response very carefully and is constantly revising it. How about if the accuracy of an individual’s spelling, punctuation and grammar decreases? It is likely that they are rushing to respond and possibly becoming more excited or anxious.

Languages develop, and the language of online communication is no exception.

Baron, Naomi, (2008). Chapter 1 : Email to Your Brain : Language in an Online and Mobile World. In Baron, Naomi, Always on : language in an online and mobile world, (pp.3 - 10). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Baym, Nancy K, (2010). Chapter 3 : Communication in Digital Spaces. In Baym, Nancy K,Personal connections in the digital age, (pp.50 - 71). Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Crystal, David, (2006). Chapter 2 : The Medium of Netspeak. In Crystal, David, Language and the internet, (pp.26 - 65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.