PATTERNS OF EMOTICON USAGE IN ESL STUDENTS’ DISCUSSION FORUM WRITING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.694-717Keywords:
Emoticons, Computer Mediated Communication, Discourse Analysis, Discourse FeaturesAbstract
This mixed-methods study looks at patterns of emoticon usage in adult, ESL student writing. Data are drawn from 13 students and their participation in online discussion forums designed to supplement a traditional ESL writing course. The study conceptualizes computer mediated communication as a hybridized and emergent form which utilizes features of both oral and written discourse. Emoticons are seen as central to this hybridity in terms of their ability to serve as textual representations of oral discourse features. Findings from this study suggest that emoticon usage is prevalent in the writing of some non-native speakers of English but that usage patterns vary significantly across individuals. Previous experience with discussion forums in the first language as well as emoticon familiarity are identified as mediating factors in emoticon usage in English. The study also raises concerns about the multiple and diverse interpretations of emoticons and the possibilities for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
References
Averianova, I. (2012). The language of electronic communication and its implications for TEFL. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 34, 14-19.
Belz, J. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 68-117.
Blake, R. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 76-97.
Carter, K. (2003). Type me how you feel: Quasi-nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication. (An Internet Fieldtrip Report) The Free Library. Retrieved July 09, 2012, from http://tiny.cc/SBxdL.
Chen, E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 33-55.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249-268.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Gaies, S. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems, and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 53-60.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and technology. New York: Macmillan.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hawkes, M. (2006). Linguistic discourse variables as indicators of reflective online interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 231–244.
Herring, S. C. (2003). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report No. 3. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners' discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457–482.
Lo, S. (2008). Rapid communication: The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(5), 595-599.
Loewen, S., & Reissner, S. (2009). A comparison of incidental focus on form in the second language classroom and chatroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 101-114.
Lotherington, H., & Xu, Y. (2004). How to chat in English and Chinese: Emerging digital language conventions. ReCALL, 16(2), 308-329.
Mertens, D. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. London: Sage.
Murray, D. (1985). Composition as conversation: The computer terminal as medium of communication. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 203-227). New York: Guilford.
O’Dowd, R. & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623-642.
Provine, R. R., Spencer, R., & Mandell, D. (2007). Emotional expression online: Emoticons punctuate website text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 299-307.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer mediated versus face-to-face interactions. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 110-138.
Walther, J., & D'Addario, K. (2004). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324-347.
Ware, P. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Competition, 21, 451-468.
Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert and G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, M. (2008). Learning, change, and power: Competing discourses of technology and literacy. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 215-240). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yamada, M., & Akihori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 37-65.
