1887
image of A study of phatic emoji use in WhatsApp communication
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN 2542-386X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Mobile messaging is considered as a prominent site for phatic communication, where interpersonal connection is often foregrounded over information transaction. Though frequently overlooked, a large amount of this interpersonal work is done nonverbally through regular and meaningful emoji use. This exploratory study deals with emoji use within phatic token framework, showing that different relationship structures (e.g., status-differential vs. solidary) correspond to distinct phatic token norms. The article analyzes phatic emoji use in a small-scale corpus of WhatsApp interactions between (a) a teacher and her L2-English students and (b) a teacher and her friends/family. Qualitative and quantitative analyses reveal patterns which widely corroborate Laver’s account of socially marked and unmarked token options: the teacher, the students, and the friends/family members tend towards addressee-specific use of neutral, other-oriented, and self-oriented phatic emojis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00029.aul
2019-06-07
2019-08-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al Rashdi, Fathiya
    2015 “Forms and functions of emojis in WhatsApp interaction among Omanis.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
  2. Alcántara Plá, Manuel
    2014 “Las Unidades discursivas en los mensajes instantáneos de wasap [Discursive units in WhatsApp instant messages].” Estudios de Lingüística del Español [Studies in Spanish Linguistics] 35: 223–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron, Naomi S., and Richard Ling
    2011 “Necessary smileys & useless periods.” Visible Language45(1–2): 46–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope, and Steven C. Levinson
    1978 “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.” InQuestions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. byEsther N. Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coupland, Justine
    (ed.) 2000Small Talk. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coupland, Justine, Nikolas Coupland, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    1992 “‘How are you?’: Negotiating phatic communion.” Language in Society21: 207–230. 10.1017/S0047404500015268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015268 [Google Scholar]
  7. Darics, Erika
    2013 “Non-verbal signalling in digital discourse: The case of letter repetition.” Discourse, Context & Media2(3): 141–148. 10.1016/j.dcm.2013.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Derks, Daantje, Arjan E. R. Bos, and Jasper von Grumbkow
    2007 “Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: The importance of social context.” Computers in Human Behavior23(1): 842–849. 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dresner, Eli, and Susan C. Herring
    2010 “Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force.” Communication Theory20(3): 249–268. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2010.01362.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Færch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper
    1982 “Phatic, metalingual and metacommunicative functions in discourse: Gambits and repairs.” InImpromptu Speech: A Symposium, ed. byNils Erik Enkvist, 71–103. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gardner, Rod
    1997 “The listener and minimal responses in conversational interaction.” Prospect12(2): 12–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction.” Psychiatry18(3): 213–231. 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kavanagh, Barry
    2016 “Emoticons as a medium for channeling politeness within American and Japanese online blogging communities.” Language & Communication48: 53–65. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kulkarni, Dipti
    2014 “Exploring Jakobson’s ‘phatic function’ in instant messaging interactions.” Discourse & Communication8(2): 117–136. 10.1177/1750481313507150
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313507150 [Google Scholar]
  15. Laver, John
    1975 “Communicative functions of phatic communion.” InOrganization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction, ed. byAdam Kendon, Richard M. Harris, and Mary R. Key, 215–238. The Hague: Mouton & Co.. 10.1515/9783110907643.215
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907643.215 [Google Scholar]
  16. Malinowski, Bronislaw
    1923 “The Problem of meaning in primitive languages.” InThe Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, ed. byCharles K. Ogden, John P. Postgate, and Ivor A. Richards, 451–510. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Maíz-Arévalo, Carmen
    2015 “Typographic alteration in formal computer-mediated communication.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences212: 140–145. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.311
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.311 [Google Scholar]
  18. McCarthy, Michael
    2003 “Talking back: ‘Small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36(1): 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Miller, Vincent
    2008 “New media, networking and phatic culture.” Convergence14(4): 387–400. 10.1177/1354856508094659
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856508094659 [Google Scholar]
  20. Padilla Cruz, Manuel
    2004 “On the social importance of phatic utterances: Some considerations for a relevance-theoretic approach.” InCurrent Trends in Intercultural, Cognitive and Social Pragmatics, ed. byPilar Garcés Conejos, Reyes Gómez Morón, Lucía Fernández Amaya, and Manuel Padilla Cruz, 199–216. Sevilla: Intercultural Pragmatics Research Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2007 “Metarepresentations and phatic utterances: A pragmatic proposal about the generation of solidarity between interlocutors.” InCurrent Trends in Pragmatics, ed. byPiotr Cap, and Joanna Nijakowska, 110–128. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pérez-Sabater, Carmen
    2019 “Emoticons in relational writing practices on WhatsApp: Some reflections on gender.” Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, ed. byPatricia Bou-Franch, and Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 163–189. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92663‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92663-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Provine, Robert R., Robert J. Spencer, and Darcy L. Mandell
    2007 “Emotional expression online: Emoticons punctuate website text messages.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology26(3): 299–307. 10.1177/0261927X06303481
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X06303481 [Google Scholar]
  24. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language50: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  25. Sampietro, Agnese
    2016 “Emoticonos y emojis: Análisis de su historia, difusión y uso en la comunicación digital actual [Emoticons and emojis: Analysis of their history, dissemination and use in current digital communication].” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad de Valencia.
  26. Schandorf, Michael
    2013 “Mediated gesture: Paralinguistic communication and phatic text.” Convergence19(3): 319–344. 10.1177/1354856512439501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856512439501 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schneider, Klaus P.
    1987 “Topic selection in phatic communication.” Multilingua6(3): 247–256. 10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1987.6.3.247 [Google Scholar]
  28. Siebenhaar, Beat
    2017 “Accommodation in WhatsApp communication.” Paper presented at the6th Conference on CMC and Social Media Corpora. University of Antwerp, 17–18 September 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Walther, Joseph B.
    1996 “Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.” Communication Research23(1): 3–43. 10.1177/009365096023001001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wichmann, Anne
    2004 “The intonation of Please-requests: A corpus-based study.” Journal of Pragmatics36(9): 1521–1549. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Yus, Francisco
    2014 “Not all emoticons are created equal.” Linguagem em (Dis)curso14(3): 511–529. 10.1590/1982‑4017‑140304‑0414
    https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4017-140304-0414 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2017 “Contextual constraints and non-propositional effects in WhatsApp communication.” Journal of Pragmatics114: 66–86. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Žegarac, Vladimir
    1998 “What is ‘phatic communication?’.” InCurrent Issues in Relevance Theory, ed. byVilly Rouchota, and Andreas Jucker, 327–362. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.58.14zeg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.58.14zeg [Google Scholar]
  35. Žegarac, Vladimir, and Billy Clark
    1999 “Phatic interpretations and phatic communication.” Journal of Linguistics35(2): 321–346. 10.1017/S0022226799007628
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226799007628 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00029.aul
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00029.aul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error