smiley icons
Brenda Danet
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I'm very interested in the language of
electronic communication. My own interests are in sociolinguistics, orality,
literacy, folklore, and verbal art. Right now I'm working on a paper on the
smiley icons in CMC (computer-mediated communication). Any leads on examples,
interesting uses in context, links with the history of writing, generally,
etc? I'd be especially appreciative if you'd send me interestng examples in
messages that you receive. The basic smiley :-) is in very common use at the
end of letters. What other uses are fairly common? Do you have examples in
more fully interactive genres than email letters? Any help will be much
appreciated. :-)) Brenda Danet.
Natalie Maynor
> end of letters. What other uses are fairly common? Do you have examples in
> more fully interactive genres than email letters? Any help will be much
> appreciated. :-)) Brenda Danet.
Is that a beard or a double chin? :-)
I would say that the most commonly used icons are :-) (smile), :-( (frown),
and ;-) (wink). Others that are fairly common involve extensions of those
basic ones -- e.g., B-) (added glasses), :-)} (added beard). I sometimes
use :-> as something like a devious grin. I've seen lists of hundreds of
other icons, although I haven't seen most of them used. I think that
icons are probably used more often in interactive exchanges like IRC and
RELAY than on e-mail. And the frequency of their use on e-mail lists
depends upon the list. Some people spurn them as being indications of
weak writing -- sort of like underlining for emphasis or using exclamation
points. I disagree with that attitude. Most e-mail is not like other
kinds of writing. It's more of a cross between speech and writing. (An
article entitled "The Language of Electronic Mail: Written Speech?" by
a very famous author :-) :-) is forthcoming soon in an anthology being
published by the American Dialect Society. I can't remember the title of
the anthology at the moment.)
I used to have a fairly large collection of lists of icons that I got
from various places, but I think I deleted them all in a frenzy of
computer-housekeeping not long ago. If I run across any more, I'll
send them to you via direct e-mail. A good source of info on this
kind of topic is the CMC hotline of COMSERVE. The address is CMC@
RPIECS.BITNET. (There's also an internet address, but I can't remember
it.)
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Brenda Danet
le; maybe that's not much in use, I don't know. I've been using them a lot late
ly with close friends, but we are all very interested in the phenomenon as a re
search topic, so maybe we overdoing it. Thanks for your observtions that the sm
ile, frown and wink are most common. That's my experience so far. Yes, I also t
hink that interactive modes invite them more. But it's a good question why--non
-verbal cues might be quite absent in the mail mode too. We are partly just wri
ting letters which happen to be electronic rather than hard-copy/printed; yet
intuitively I sense that even e-mail is more like talking than letter writing a
s we have known it. Why didn't we use smileys in printed letters? Partly it's a
function of genre--formal letters would discourage it. There *are* other
devices which some of us have used in ordinary letters, like XXXX, lots of !!!,
maybe the occasional smiley, right side up, of course. What lists do you think
seem to discourage them? It is possible to make any generalizations by academic
discipline? Have seen a reference somewhere to the paper you mention; I'll
keep an eye out for it. Yes, I am trying to make contact with people thru CMC.
Thanks for your reactions, and do pass on any smiley files you find. :-) Brenda
Natalie Maynor
over to usenet to see what was happening there and found something on
bit.listserv.words-l that hasn't made it to the listserv yet. (Don't worry,
all you regular subscribers -- only postings submitted via usenet show up
there first -- normally, people reading the list on usenet are *WAY* behind
the rest of us.)
>-verbal cues might be quite absent in the mail mode too. We are partly just wri
>ting letters which happen to be electronic rather than hard-copy/printed; yet
>intuitively I sense that even e-mail is more like talking than letter writing a
>s we have known it. Why didn't we use smileys in printed letters? Partly it's a
>function of genre--formal letters would discourage it. There *are* other
Occasionally I send e-mail that is very much like a typical business letter
-- without icons. Most e-mail that I send, however, is more conversational.
I definitely agree with you that for many of us, e-mail is more like talking
than letter writing. Part of that is the immediacy of it. Even with
mail (as opposed to interactive modes) the turn-around time is in most cases
very rapid -- sort of like a conversation. E-mail also tends to be more
ephemeral than regular letter writing. Most of us don't save most of the
e-mail we receive, and we assume that the recipients of our e-mail don't
save it either. Like spoken words, these words on our screens vanish
shortly after they've been uttered.
>maybe the occasional smiley, right side up, of course. What lists do you think
>seem to discourage them? It is possible to make any generalizations by academic
>discipline?
Moderated lists probably have fewer icons than unmoderated lists. But
then moderated lists lack many of the characteristics that make e-mail
like speech -- and that make it fun: the turn-around time is slow, the
postings tend to be longer and often pedantic. I have the impression
that many postings on moderated lists are carefully written off-line for
uploading. I don't think that icons show up very often on lists like
HUMANIST (although they do occasionally). Probably the academic disciplines
that use fewer icons are those in areas like the humanities, where traditions
die slowly. That's just a guess, of course. I haven't gone icon-hunting
on lists.
>Have seen a reference somewhere to the paper you mention; I'll
>keep an eye out for it.
Don't go out of your way to find it. It was written as mainly a lark
and is not very good.
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Brenda Danet
not sure I understand the difference between moderated and unmoderated lists.
If there is a moderator, does this person knock some letters off, with the
result that messages are not sent instantly to everyone on the list? I have
been meanng to join Humanist; I'll keep an eye out for what happens there.
I've just asked a friend who's a chemist to follow BBS in his fields. More
later, I'm sure. Brenda.
Natalie Maynor
> If there is a moderator, does this person knock some letters off, with the
> result that messages are not sent instantly to everyone on the list? I have
Messages sent to a moderated list go to the moderator rather than being
automatically distributed. The moderator can then do with them as he/she
chooses. Usually not much editing or screening occurs. The moderator
bundles the messages together in clumps, sometimes grouping them by topic,
and sends them to the subscribers. The length of delay between sending
a message to a moderated list and having it distributed depends, of course,
on how fast the moderator works. Most of the moderated lists I'm on are
distributed a few times a week. Sometimes delays are longer than that.
I find that I often delete mail from moderated lists unread because I
save clumped mail until last and then run out of time. I dislike various
things about moderated lists, mainly the delays and having to wade through
five or six messages I don't want to read in order to get to the last one
in the clump. Mail from moderated lists also arrives in spurts, something
else I don't like. I would rather have a steady flow of single messages
than sudden spurts of clumped messages.
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Charles Stanford
A "moderator" is sort of like an editor who reviews posts (letters)
before they are sent out to the enitre list. Some are power-hungry and
amount to little more that censors. Others just check for relevance and/
or appropriate language. There is a fine line, however, between helping
the readership by eliminating the "junk" on the one hand and enforcing
taste and opinion on the subscribers. When I find that a moderator is
becoming too heavy-handed (and I reserve that desicion to myself) I
first say so and then, if things are not explianed, I simply unsubscribe.
I don't need people protecting me from what they consider offensive.
An unmoderated list relays all posts automatically and there is no
review of them before they are distributed.
Charles
Bill Sjostrom
I rarely use icons except for the ocassional smiley, because there
are so many of them, it seems to me to defeat their purpose. I have
no intention of keeping a long list of icons next to my computer to
keep track of them all, and in this rare case, I doubt I am alone.
The rapid pace of conversation makes it easier to get meaning
clarified, so I suppose people are less careful than when they write
ordinary letters. Ordinarily that doesn't bother me, but sometimes
it exasperates me when I think people are being unduly cute and
making up phrases. They routinely get into Gleanings.
I got onto Humanist briefly because I was interested in the long
posts from Israel during the Gulf war. After the posts ended, I got
off. Like Natalie, I don't enjoy getting ocassional long posts full
of messages. I prefer to get several shorter posts. Natalie said
that moderated posts, such as Humanist, tend to be more pedantic.
Just before I left Humanist, someone got very upset because she had
not been addressed as doctor, because after all she had her Ph.D.
Perhaps that is merely my pet peeve, but that was too much for me.
Bill Sjostrom
Bayla Singer
call for smileys of various kinds because I haven't met the readers in the
flesh, and so have no real information as to how they're likely to receive
the informal mode of "speech" endemic here. When I use other written
media, informality is usually reserved for those who have had occasion to
know my "style" and who are likely to remember my idiosyncrasies.
--bayla
Dr. Bernard
> not been addressed as doctor, because after all she had her Ph.D.
I stay subscribed to Humanist because the archives are closed. This
way I can delete the postings unread but search the archives when I
want to.
I hope nobody is watching ESPN right now. It's not good.
-- Dr. Bernard Chien Perro o/.\___/
\_____|
/ \ / \
Don Moore (813) 974-4078 S/C 574-4078
not by choice.
Don, ex-list moderator, also not by choice.
Peace,
Don
Dr. Perro
> should I not be watching ESPN? By the way, what is ESPN?
If you don't know what ESPN is, why do you think it is related to cable
or tv? It's really a fake organization that makes up events and pretends
they really happened. That's why you shouldn't have watched it tonight.
None of it really happened.
Bill Sjostrom
>
> \_____|
> / \ / \
Ok, Doc. As one of 12 people in America who does not have cable, why
should I not be watching ESPN? By the way, what is ESPN?
Bill Sjostrom
Charles Stanford
management, please apply my remarks to management as well.
Thanks for the clarification, Don.
(You are remembered on FOLKLORE),
Charles
Torkel Franzen
CC.VT.EDU (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>Some people spurn them as being indications of
>weak writing -- sort of like underlining for emphasis or using exclamation
>points.
"Weak writing" isn't really the argument against smileys. This is another
one of the recurring topics, and I think the arguments presented by the
anti-smiley faction (to which I belong) come down more or less to this:
An effect of the constant use of smileys on the net has been that
people apparently become incapable of understanding any statement
whatever as anything but a statement of fact, or expression of
earnest conviction. Any joke, any nuance of expression or attitude
not annotated by these cue cards is apt to cause confusion or
outrage or both. Communication over the net becomes, through the
constant use of these devices, incomparably *poorer* than ordinary
conversation.
Another effect is that many people seem to believe that any
insulting, idiotic, or damaging statement becomes perfectly
acceptable, and perhaps even witty, if accompanied by smileys.
Don Moore (813) 974-4078 S/C 574-4078
writing, are more a consideration to people, who may not know you, can not
see your facial expression, and so may not be sure if a person is serious,
or just joking. There is a very wide range of personalities on WORDS-L, and
I find that one can quite easily unintentionally insult or antagonize someone
by the omission of the smiley. (Oh, now watch out for the flames!! :-))
Get my point?
Peace,
Don
Natalie Maynor
> constant use of these devices, incomparably *poorer* than ordinary
> conversation.
Ordinary conversation includes tone-markers like smiles and laughs.
Does that make it weaker than it would be without those markers?
> Another effect is that many people seem to believe that any
> insulting, idiotic, or damaging statement becomes perfectly
> acceptable, and perhaps even witty, if accompanied by smileys.
Good point.
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Tony Harminc
>I would say that the most commonly used icons are :-) (smile), :-( (frown),
>and ;-) (wink). Others that are fairly common involve extensions of those
>basic ones -- e.g., B-) (added glasses), :-)} (added beard). I sometimes
>use :-> as something like a devious grin. I've seen lists of hundreds of
>other icons, although I haven't seen most of them used.
This brings up another problem with icons: there is only vague agreement
about what they mean. Even the ubiquitous smiley is somewhat ambiguous.
It can mean "this is not meant seriously so don't treat it like a serious
statement and start analysing it and pointing out my logical & factual errors".
It can also mean just "don't flame me for this", or "I find this statement
funny". It is often used to make it "clear" that a statement is sarcastic.
The frown covers two rather different things: the more common use is a sort
of smiley-frown, used perhaps to indicate mild displeasure/disagreement with
something: "I forgot to go to the beer store before New Year's, so I guess
I'll be drinking fruit juice :-(". But it also get used to indicate real
and serious sadness/revulsion/hatred etc: "It now seems clear that over
100 000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the Gulf war :-(". This is
supposed to make it clear that unlike many people, I think this is a
bad thing. But the smiley aspects may make it seem that I am using it
as sarcasm. So I leave it off.
What Natalie calls a wink, I think of as a raised eyebrow. Sort of half
way between the smiley and an "oh really ?" So there is confusion there too.
The various icons like &-) and %-) have various amusing explanations, but
they're just not consistant.
I understand there are Hebrew icons circulating in Israel. These wouldn't
make it easily over the network, but I can probably find pointers to them
if there's enough interest.
Tony H.
Graham Toal
> Another effect is that many people seem to believe that any
> insulting, idiotic, or damaging statement becomes perfectly
> acceptable, and perhaps even witty, if accompanied by smileys.
Only a fatheaded shitforbrains idiot would think that :-)
Graham
PS :-)
Brenda Danet
moderated vs. unmoderated lists work and about smiley icons. I'm just
beginning to get a sense of the variety of opinions that are floating around,
and it's very important for me to hear/see more--maybe from other bulletin
boards, even other fields as well. It's obvious that there's a lot of playful
inventiveness going on, but this says very little, if anything, about
processes of conventionalization. I'm very curious as to which icons will
survive, in the long run. Maybe years have to go by before we'll have a
sense of this. I am already beginning to see that some icons communicate
fairly well, while others are used by different people to mean different
things. For example, some people use :-)))) to mean a very big smile;
others see it only as a person with a lot of chins, etc. I'm also interested
in the different functions of the icons, to close a message, like saying
goodbye with a smile; to express irony and distance from the verbal content
of a message; to signal one's logo or personal signature, etc. I hope others
will share their experiences and views on all this with me. :-) of course!
Brenda Danet
thanks for taking the trouble to write, over this holiday weekend in the U.S.
Let me respond briefly to each of you in turn:
Bayla: I find it interesting that you feel the need for the icons because
you're new to the list. I'm very curious as to which ones you have
used besides the basic smiley. Can you recall any examples?
Bill: I forgot to ask you: what are Gleanings? Do you only use the basic
smiley, occasionally?
Don: it seems you agree with Bayla that they help in communicating with
strangers. So you think smileys help prevent flaming. What smileys
have you used, other than the basic one? Can you remember any examples?
Torkel: I'm not sure I understand your argument. Do you mean that using
discourages people from trying to communicate their full intent by
words alone? Why is that so important?
Why don't smileys make communication richer rather than poorer?
I hope some of you will take the time and trouble to continue this
dialogue. I learn something new every day! Thanks. Brenda.
tk0jut1@mvs.cso.niu.edu jim thomas
punctuation that allow short-hand nuances to be added to otherwise
monologic and unidimensional text. Such symbols supplement chat-mode
communications and add another layer or two of meanings, mediate
potentially-perceived extremes, and reduce the authority of the
author's words by providing an alternative way to format readings that
might be missed. In hard-copy chat-notes, we often do the same with
"****s," "!!!!," or "$@@%#!~", among other symbols. The keyboad
offers ease of symbol-creation, and the emergence of shared cultural
norms creates a community in which the symbols are helpful for quicker
and more meaningful communication. In some ways these symbols mimic
face-to-face rituals in which we smile while telling somebody to
fuck-off, which appears to reduce the hostility while still getting
across the message, or body language that includes mock-violin/hearts
& flowers, the finger wiping away a symbolic tear, and the rest.
There was a long discussion among the literati on The Well debating
the use of symbols. One side argued that they decreased the quality of
writing, because the use mitigated against verbal expression. The
other side, on which I'm on (even though I almost never use symbols)
argued that effective communication relies on whatever tools are at
hand, and the written word possess no special authority.
There's a third alternative (which I tend to use), which is to simply
insert the word where a smiley would go (chortle) which (cringe)
communicates broader images. The use of some symbols seems to become
too rote, kinda like, I mean, valley-speak, sorta, where they go :>)
and then they go 8^( and like, well, ya know?
Jim (ever the PC :^) Thomas)
Anne Diffily
resist telling you that my favorite (or most often-used) smiley
is:
:-P
Perhaps this tells you something about my bratty personality.
Anyway, it indicates someone sticking out their tongue, to say
"nyah, nyah!" or "thwpppppptttt!" or your basic Bronx Cheer
(raspberry). A taunt, in short.
I use it a lot in private e-chat (real-time messaging) within
the Brown mainframe environment or with friends at BITNET
nodes; also in private e-mail; occasionally in postings when I'm
being tongue in cheek, or goofing on someone. - Anne
Bill Sjostrom
>insert the word where a smiley would go (chortle) which (cringe)
>communicates broader images. The use of some symbols seems to become
>too rote, kinda like, I mean, valley-speak, sorta, where they go :>)
>and then they go 8^( and like, well, ya know?
>Jim (ever the PC :^) Thomas)
Words take a little more time than the fancy symbols, but they are a
lot clearer. I like Jim's idea.
Bill Sjostrom
Bill Sjostrom
> smiley, occasionally?
Well, I'll be darned. Gleanings has been gleaned. One of our
is Akio, who is from Tokyo. He regularly sends a list of phrases
he has gleaned from the list that make no sense to him, usually
because they are American idioms. Then it is up to the rest of us
to explain them. In my view, one of the best parts of Words-L.
As to the second question, the answer is yes.
Bill Sjostrom
Don Moore (813) 974-4078 S/C 574-4078
I only use three smileys <:-), ;-) & :-(> although I have several pages
of smileys (courtesy of Ruth who sends me tons of stuff via her Random
Weirdness Generator). Primarily I use the smileys to indicate that I
am teasing, joking, etc - not flaming. However, by now, most people
know I rarely flame. Yes, I believe smileys help communications - I
would not use them if I thought otherwise. Certainly in professional
writing, smileys would not be needed or appropriate - but in this E-MAIL
chat environment, the smileys help convey one's true intention. Certainly,
you could probably do the same with proper selection of words. But E-MAIL
is often short, quick messages (some of us are quite busy and have to
squeeze in note here and there) sent without having a lot of time for
more elaborate presentation of ideas. So, I like the smileys - so maybe
I'm lazy, or uninmaginative, but I'm a programmer, not a writer (how's
that for obtuse logic?). :-) not :-(
Peace,
Don
Charles Stanford
For example, even on this list, there once was a discussion of # of
posts. Nat mentioned some person who asked her what the "correct" number
per day would be. I said something like 25. A few notes later, the
subject came up again and I said 47. Someone accused me of "waffling."
This put me in a strange situation. Either the person did not quite get
the sardonic tone of the posts or was being sardonic himself. So I said
"the correct number of waffles per day is 5," hoping to avoid further
confusion. At this point, Graham came in and clarified the matter and
we then carried on an off list discussion of density and smileys. Since
then I have used them so as not to confuse idiots. :-)
Charles
Evelyn
>"the correct number of waffles per day is 5," hoping to avoid further
Belgian waffles or Eggo waffles? I don't think I could handle 5
Belgian waffles. :-)
>
>Charles
Evelyn
Charles Stanford
The Belgians have always had large waffles. I think that their
abuse of the term amounts to a heinous crime against humanity and that
the U.N. should do something about it.
Charles
Evelyn
How can a Belgian waffle be an abuse of the term when it tastes so
good with vanilla ice cream and hot fudge?
Evelyn
Beisbol been bery bery good to me
> dialogue. I learn something new every day! Thanks. Brenda.
Brenda, I always use ;^) as my default smiley. It seems to me that
this one appears more 'three-dimensional' than the standard one -- and
those who have met me (Dan, Marty -- are you back on-line yet?) would
concur that the ^ nose is fairly representative. I suppose I could
also put in a } for my beard, but I haven't done so.
I find it interesting that we *only* do smileys in e-mail. When
writing a note to Anne Diffily with my t-shirt order, there were
several places where a smiley might have been appropriate. Yet I
didn't (and wouldn't) use one. Perhaps that's because in hardcopy one
can turn the smiley upright, which makes it seem more like the type of
thing done by 13-year-olds -- the same ones who dot an 'i' with a heart
and such.
neal
Graham Toal
:This put me in a strange situation. Either the person did not quite get
:the sardonic tone of the posts or was being sardonic himself. So I said
:"the correct number of waffles per day is 5," hoping to avoid further
:confusion. At this point, Graham came in and clarified the matter and
:we then carried on an off list discussion of density and smileys. Since
:then I have used them so as not to confuse idiots. :-)
Not to mention the correct length of one's signature...
G
Mark R. Susskind
> writing a note to Anne Diffily with my t-shirt order, there were
> several places where a smiley might have been appropriate. Yet I
> didn't (and wouldn't) use one. Perhaps that's because in hardcopy one
> can turn the smiley upright, which makes it seem more like the type of
> thing done by 13-year-olds -- the same ones who dot an 'i' with a heart
> and such.
>neal
Well, I drew a little face when I tallied up my bill for Anne D.
I leave it to your imagination where I drew it and why. =)
--Mark Susskind <NY91...@PACEVM.BITNET>
C551534%UMCVM...@vtvm2.cc.vt.edu
it not?
The correct number of smileys per post is .49.
Charles
Charles Stanford
Charles Stanford
Lenny
-, /|
O.O
=(___)=
U
Q
Bandwidth Pig
available by ftp? Right, Natalie?
-abh
ktw%HLWP...@vtvm2.cc.vt.edu
>I think u r rite!!
>:-
Years ago, when I lived in New York and took the subways everywhere,
a shorthand system called Speedwriting used to advertise in the
trains. Their "hook" read: "F U CN RD THS, U CN GT A GD JB 4 HI PA!"
Ken
Natalie Maynor
> available by ftp? Right, Natalie?
I don't know. Is there? Did I put it there? Or is it somewhere other
than the Words-L directory on Ra? I'll roam Ra and see what I can find
in a little while -- or maybe in a longer while. Right now I'm taking a
quick break in big-time furniture rearranging. I go on kicks of this kind
once every couple of years. Thousands of new nail holes are going into my
walls as I keep changing my mind about placement of pictures. The most
important picture is an oil painting of Bernard made by a Chinese artist
in France from a picture that was in my wallet.
Now back to playing Bob Dylan tapes, dragging furniture around, and
destroying my walls...
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Dan Lester
>
>Not to mention the correct length of one's signature...
>
But I don't go around bragging about it, though.
dan
(who remembers that it's not the meat but the motion)
Torkel Franzen
VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Don Moore (813) 974-4078 S/C 574-4078) writes:
>I disagree with Torkel. The smiley's, rather than an indicator of weak
>writing, are more a consideration to people, who may not know you, can not
>see your facial expression, and so may not be sure if a person is serious,
>or just joking.
This is the theory, but it completely overlooks the further, and
undesirable, effects of using smileys. Smileys are sometimes
appropriate, and on a list such as words-l, they may even be harmless.
My argument was based on the overall effects that the use of smileys
have on computerized communication and discussion, as sadly evidenced
in thousands of usenet articles. These effects, or so I claim, far
outweigh the positive aspects of the use of smileys. Since you don't
comment on my claims regarding these other effects, I don't know what
to make of your response.
Torkel Franzen
CC.VT.EDU (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>Ordinary conversation includes tone-markers like smiles and laughs.
>Does that make it weaker than it would be without those markers?
Smiles and laughs, along with tones of voice, gestures, looks, etc,
are not at all like smileys. The intention may be that smileys should
take the place of these in electronic communication, but they don't, and
they can't. They are extremely crude and ambiguous markers, and they
promote crude forms of communication. "I didn't see any smileys, so
I'm assuming you were serious" is often the response to what anybody
would have recognized (in writing) as a joke before the advent of
smileys. Such a reaction may even be reasonable, once it has become
impossible for anybody to make any non-annotated jocularly intended statements
and expect to be understood. And of course jokes are just one small part
of it.
Torkel Franzen
My article illustrates another byproduct of electronic writing: the
too-great ease of editing:
>My argument was based on the overall effects that the use of smileys
>have on computerized communication and discussion, as sadly evidenced
As a linguistic pedant of long and fanatical standing (never loath to
point out the mistakes of others), I writhe in agony at the thought of
appearing guilty of the "wrong number through association with the
closest noun" grammatical error. "the use of" was inserted as an
afterthought, and I neglected the corresponding change in the verb.
Well, there you have it. A simple, but dignified explanation. The
"burden" of the subject line refers of course to the agonizing over even the
appearance of a mistake, when absolutely nobody else cares. I have attempted
certain therapeutic measures. The other day, when I noticed an actual
linguistic mistake that I had made in an article, I took a few deep breaths
and pointed out to myself that this sort of thing is of no conceivable
importance, and that my reaction now and in the future to linguistic errors
in my writing would be...would be...A SCREAM OF ANGUISH!! AAAAAAAAAAARRRGHH!
Natalie Maynor
> linguistic mistake that I had made in an article, I took a few deep breaths
> and pointed out to myself that this sort of thing is of no conceivable
> importance, and that my reaction now and in the future to linguistic errors
> in my writing would be...would be...A SCREAM OF ANGUISH!! AAAAAAAAAAARRRGHH!
My ex-husband, a sometimes journalist, taught me a useful trick for
avoiding that kind of problem: Never read something you've written once
it's in print. I have to admit that I don't always follow that advice,
but I try to follow it most of the time. When something I've published
shows up, I toss it into a filing cabinet and pull it out only when I have
a specific need for it ... usually ... sometimes ... theoretically ...
--Natalie (may...@ra.msstate.edu)
Bayla Singer
My Dear Mr Torkel Franzen:
I fear your anguish was insufficiently piercing: I could not hear your
scream. Since I live near the shore of Lake Michigan, in a suburb of
Chicago, I thought it not unreasonable to expect to hear your utterance.
As for the substance of your apology, I fear that 'ease of editing' is not
restricted to computer writing. Sloppy editing has been with us since
grammar was sufficiently codified to support prescriptivists. I think
rather the culprit is the touching faith so many of us have in our
word-processing (editing?) programs, that they will make global corrections
appropriate to the local ones we make ourselves.
<Imagine a pedantically supercilious 'smiley' here, complete with raised
eyebrow and haughty tone. Then please imagine a broad grin, in response to
your dawning realization that I'm pulling your leg, at least insofar as
tone is concerned.>
Yours in pedantry,
--bayla
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 213-458-9811
> writing, are more a consideration to people, who may not know you, can not
> see your facial expression, and so may not be sure if a person is serious,
> I find that one can quite easily unintentionally insult or antagonize someone
> by the omission of the smiley. (Oh, now watch out for the flames!! :-))
> Get my point?
>
This is very helpful insight because it points to the special nature of
electronic communication--it is NOT simply writing (therefore the point about
smiley's and weak writing is very perceptive), NOR is it just like speech, but
with people not visually present in the flesh. It is precisely because we
are using writing, as if we were speaking, that such icons are so interesting.
They are an indicator, a reminder, of the special nature of this communication
as something between writing and speaking.
BKG
macphil
Good points. In a recent issue of _Discover_, smilies et al were discussed
and they were treated more new punctuation marks as part of a thought
regarding what new punctuation marks might be added to the language and
what might be dropped...
MacPhil | iqt...@indycms.bitnet | iqt...@indycms.iupui.edu
Clint Darling
By pulling Torkel's leg in an effort to effect a change of tone, are you
hoping to be able to hear his anguish more clearly?
Clint
Brenda Danet
smileys. Given that we have had a foot of snow in Jerusalem (which never
gets snow; not for 40 years), and a tree fell on my car and broke the window
and crushed the trunk, I hope you'll all forgive me if I don't react to each
and every contribution. :-( It's all fascinating, and I continue to be amazed
by the ferocity of people's opinions! Anyone remember details about a previous
round of discussion on smileys? Loved Charles Stanford's clever "Smileys
mean never having to say you're sorry...;-(" Brenda.
Evelyn
Ohio is warm and dry.
Evelyn
Dan Lester
>and every contribution. :-( It's all fascinating, and I continue to be amazed
>by the ferocity of people's opinions! Anyone remember details about a previous
Aaaahhhh....that is the hallmark of a true wordsler...
dan
Charles Stanford
I heard it was 18" there and 24" further east. (snow) Maybe it'll
cool things down a bit. :-)
Charles
tushar%ZAPHOD...@vtvm2.cc.vt.edu
>that the preference for words over visual symbols (e.g., "smiles" instead of
>:-) ) might be the product of the literate bias which all of us have as
>products of print culture. Might this not be related to the objections of
>parents and educators, so print and words-oriented, to comics, because they
>tell stories visually, primarily, and only secondarily in words?
I once received a letter which said
*smiles*
at the end. I dont know why, but it appealed to me much more strongly, and
the whole letter seemed to me to be strewn with smiles. A smiley has never
had the effect on me.
Why dont parents object to plays, which (to me) have nothing to with printed
words and yet tell a story ? (Or perhaps they do object ?) The objections
come not out of a 'print and words-oriented' bias but out of a much more
general, and correspondingly more vaguely defined, bias towards 'established'
things. What on earth would be a print oriented bias ?
tushar @zaphod.uchicago.edu
:-) A smiley
;-> A slimey
Charles Stanford
The slimey ;-) is a sardonic smiley. I author them regularly
for the wellness of communication.
Charles
:-)
WILSON ROBERTO AFONSO
-Wilson
Bernard Chien Perro
Most of the time it is. On December 29, however, it ran some kind of
fictional story instead of the Liberty Bowl. o/.\___/
\_____|
/ \ / \