[UA] Re: Emoticons

[Patrick None]

> Which is exactly what I said in #2 in my initial post on this
> subject.
>
> > Emoticons don't, typically, replace good, clever, and clear
> > writing, but rather a smile or a pat on the shoulder. Anyways,
> > that's my theory.
>
> And again, as I said in #5 in my initial post:
>
> "5. I think emoticons should be used as indicators of the
> writer's emotions, not to indicate the emotional intent,
> accompanying facial expression, or subtext of a line of prose."
>
> And I still think that as they are not necessary for
> communication, are informal, and slangy, they should be used
> between friends/associates in informal conversations. Formal
> conversations -- and I view most any post to a mailing list or
> message board as somewhat formal, and try not to use them.
>



 I think I got my wires crossed on
> 6. "But I need to show I'm being sarcastic/that it's a joke!" My
> opinion is: if you can't make humor or sarcasm obvious using
> plain prose and *require* an emoticon to do so, you should
> delete that email unsent.

 If informal email can be accuratly mapped to spoken conversation, then
should this apply?  Since, its akin to saying that if you can't get the
humor/sarcasm across using some body language - lets say primitives of a
smile, or a clap on the shoulder - then you shouldn't try to get the
humor/sarcasm across at all.
 I would never include an emoticon in a formal paper in their intended use,
in the same way that I wouldn't josh the interviewer and trust that a wry
grin and a punch on the shoulder will cover me if he thinks I should behave
more formaly.  But to restrain from using emoticons in casual email seems as
unccessary as not smiling, or clapping someone on the shoulder.
 And, last bit, keeping to an accurate mapping, many people, informally or
formally, don't like emoticons -  and many people don't like being smiled at
by someone they don't think is funny already, or clapped on the shoulder by
same.

> Note that I violate my own edict on occasion -- I am vast; I
> contain multitudes

 Lastly on this dry bit - which is to me the most UAable part. What if
someone took the (to most researchers) indescrete, basically unanalyzably
complex aspects of conversation - including body language - and made each
unit discrete? My initial thought was from being able to par down what a
certain group of people consider "basic," -  the emoticons and the usage
those emoticons see on the WWW - and extrapolate that into the real world by
taking semantics, Chomskyian theory on the "language structures within the
brain," head-driven syntax (for a predictable range of response), and
pureeing the whole thing with a  fine dusting of failed Self checks.
 Mind, I keep wandering back into "booogieee! its the alter toungue!" land,
but I really, really dig the alter toungue.

> Well, I know that informal/unprofessional emails -- the sorts
> that are likely to contain emoticons -- have caused companies
> mucho mucho problems during the discovery phase of legal
> proceedings. Indeed, all the advice I've recieved from work
> associates and instructors is to recall business email is
> legal/commerce correspondence, which means it's important to be
> formal across the board.
>

 ohhh. Infomancy, meet Alex Abel's upcoming through audit. Alex Abel, meet
hunting down Infomancers.
 Anyways, thanks.
 Patrick

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua