The nature of CMC interactions is that which has spurned various researches across the length and breadth of communication and the related disciplines like anthropology, psychology, linguistics, sociology and even computer science. Within the communication field, it has spurned, debates upon debates. From our knowledge of communication so far, there is clear difference between the context of CMC and fact-to-face communication. Primarily, CMC does not allow a full array of non verbal behaviour to be utilized. Although, dated CMC studies held strongly that CMC would not even allow any of the nonverbal cues; that it is predominantly text-based and therefore a “lean medium” in terms of information exchange, which is unsuitable for carrying out tasks or social functions that requires rich, detailed and nuanced communication. With this notion come the “cues-filtered out” perspective (Parks and Floyd, 1996). The cues-filtered out (CFO) perspective, an umbrella term for several related theories (e.g. social presence theory; Short, William and Christie, 1976) which points that the lack of non verbal cues in CMC causes it to be more impersonal than face-to-face (FTF) interaction. Media richness theory (Daft and Hangel, 1986) also focuses on CMC’s predominantly lexical mode of interaction, deeming it a lean medium compared to FTF interaction, which has multiple cues and a high degree of personalization.
Due to the burgeoning use of the Internet for social purposes, anecdotes of online encounters have shown that people can have intimate relationships in the CMC environment. Theories such as the social identification/de individualization (SIDE) model (Spears and Lea, 1994) and the social information processing (SIP) theory (Walther, 1992), which asserts that all communicators experience similar needs for uncertainty reduction and affinity, regardless of medium have come to debunk the old assertions. In another words, the SIP theory holds that CMC users adapt existing communication cues, within constraints of language and textual display, to serve processes of relational management. This approach is also supported by research (Sherbloom 1988) suggesting that communicators adapt computer generated textual signals for specific relational purposes.
Recently, another theory has been articulated that is an extension of both SIDE and SIP perspectives. Walther’s (1996) hyper-personal communication model introduces factors that explain how the CMC environment can allow the individual to experience a level of closeness above the norm in FTF condition. Walther describes three necessary conditions for hyper personal communication to occur, these are;
1. The receiver’s idealization of the other due to over-attributions, where by the receiver assigns magnified positive values to his or her partners;
2. Sender’s selective self presentation, in which the sender has the advantage of being able to optimally edit his message before transmitting.
3. Feedback loop or reciprocity of interactions, whereby the interplay of idealization and self presentation becomes a dynamic process and creates a self-reinforcing cycle.
If these conditions are met, people can develop a sense of closeness and rapport in their CMC interactions.
Taken together the results of these studies teach us a great deal about the nature of CMC interactions. As Flaherty, Parce and Rubin (1998) cited in Pearson et al., (2003:352) “CMC is not a functional alternative to FTF communication”. Rather, evidence suggests that CMC users adapt their behaviours to the unique nature of the CMC environment. Rather than relying on visual cues, like pictures, for information, CMC participants are contact with visual anonymity. And CMC users may be more likely to discuss core issues about themselves rather than focusing on more superficial cues, consequently, the question of whether CMC is similar to face-to-face communication is largely irrelevant. CMC is a unique channel of communication to which people can naturally adapt their communication behaviours.
Another area of research which characterizes CMC and set the standard for its nature involves the ways in which gender and culture are related to CMC. The two important dimensions for this nature are;
(1) Are differences in CMC attitude or behaviours based on gender or ethnicity? And
(2) Can CMC be used as a tool for social change in the areas of gender and
ethnicity?
In theory, some CMC systems conceal both gender and ethnicity to the point that they can be both gender neutral and colour blind. Many studies in this dimension have found this position incorrect. For example, Tannen (1990) cited in Hian Chuan, Treror and Detenber (2004) noted that women tends to focus on reaching concessions while men focus on reaching concession while men focus on establishing status. Furthermore, men tend to stress competition, maintain some distance from others, operating by rules, interacting in groups, and doing, whereas women are inclined towards “cooperation, making and sustaining different relationship, (and) participating in close, dyadic friendships” (Wood, 1993:34).
Two dimensions are however identified from gender related research or CMC. These are relational language or communication style and context comparative for example, Hian et al., (2004) work is in line with the relational dimension, and their results indicate that “males and female individually did not experience significant differences in the level of intimacy felt with their partners, nor did the genders differ across CMC”. Previous research in this direction is by Self and Meyer (1991) cited in Jaffe et al., (1999) who analyzed the relationship of gender-based communication patterns and pseudonym use in a longitudinal panel study. Jaffe et al., (1999) however focused our second dimension that is changes in gender-based communication style accompanying the use of pseudonyms. It is worthy of note that several gender CMC studies have extended theories patterns of face-to-face conversation; such as that of Tannen, 1990; Lakoff, 1975; Eakins and Eakins, 1980; and Soskin and John, 1963, to CMC modes. Such works reflect in Herring, 1993; Kaplan and Farrell, 1994; Aune, Buller and Aune 1996, Rosenthal and Christensen, 1982; and Soukup, 1999. Communicative style has been studied because it qualifies as an information one used in interpersonal evaluation, which is an ongoing process in relationship (Adokins, 1995) cited in Hian et al., 2004).
The second dimension is what we have called context comparative CMC studies. This dimension of gender CMC tends to view communication between members of both genders in the CMC and FTF environment with respect to the difference in the interaction processes that occur in the two environments. Notable around works in this direction are Herring, 1993; Weisband, 1992, cited in spears and Lea, 1994; Kinney, 1999). As Jaffe et al., (1999) put it, CMC has been described as “democratizing” because it neutralizes one’s social status cue. It enables a person to exhibit different personality in relative anonymity and safety (We, 1993).
Whether CMC can be used as an agent of social change has been concretized by some recent happenings the world over. The way people converge in the CMC environments has since provided an outlet for discussion and deliberation. For example;
- Text messages that were sent in the Philippines
- The 11 March, 2004 Madrid
- The 2005 civil unrest in France
- The Arab Spring of the 2011
With the systems of CMC individual who have divergent worldviews and methods have been able to coordinate in short term goals.
In summary, CMC is any form of communication between two or more individuals who interact and or influence each other via separate computers through the Internet or a network connection using a software. It does not include the methods by which two computers communicate but rather how people communicate via computers. It is only peripherally concerned with any common work product created.
Research on CMC dates back to the early days of the technology in the 1970s (Herring, 1994). Linguistics study CMC to observe how language is used in computer mediated settings (online discourse environments). This includes such paralinguistic features as emoticons; pragmatic rules like turn taking, and specialized registers or sets of terminology specific to these environments.
A sociological approach to CMC covers how humans use “computer (or digital media) to form, support and maintain relationships with others (social cues), regulate information flow (learning instructional uses; see Gonzalez – Bueno, 1998; Warschauer, 1997; St. John and Cash, 1995; Chun, 1994; Wang, 1994; Ortega, 1997; Bieavois, 1998). It can also be used to make decisions (including major financial and political ones). It does not form on common work products or other “collaboration but rather on “meeting” itself on such human problem as lying and blaming and on other trust questions how computer mediation changes the character or emotional consequences of meetings or relationships.
The way human communicate in professional social and educational settings is different, depending upon not only the environment but also the method of communication in which the communication occurs, which in this case, is through the use of computers. CMC mostly occurs through email, video audio systems, newsgroups/bulleting boards, list-servers instant messaging and text considering and multi player video games.
Switching communication to a more computer mediated form has an effect on many different factors such as impression formation, deception and lying behaviour, group dynamics, disinhibition and especially relationship formation.
CMC is examined and compared to other communication media through common aspects of any forms of communication, including (but not limited to) synchronicity, persistence or “recordability”, and anonymity. Each of these aspects varies widely for different forms of communication (e.g. compare instant messaging and email systems). Anonymity and in part, privacy and security, depends more on the context and particular program or web page being used. It is important to remember the psychological and social implications of these factors instead of just focusing on the technical limitation.
Emoticons, Emotexts and Abbronyms in CMC
> Heyyyy, where were u? I was worried about u! :(
> Sorry … I was so busy LOL
> BRB
> :) OK
This kind of conversation is familiar to everybody who uses computer mediated communication such as email, GSM short messages service, mailing lists, and instant messaging or chat programs, especially that of Yahoo! and MSN instant messenger (IM). Computer -mediated communication (CMC) is laced with emoticons and multifarious shortenings which function as symbols for expressing emotions and feelings behind written words, phrases or sentences (see Hunnicutt and Magnuson, 2001; Sjoberg, 2001). The two of emoticons and acronyms have formed part of the “hybrid register” of the CMC, they have shifted the position of CMC as a limited and lean medium for effective social interactions to a rich and robust hyper personal and interpersonal mass medium. These perspectives have been duly acknowledged in our earlier discussion under the nature of CMC.
Emoticons: The Non Linguistic Signs
As earlier mentioned, one of the non linguistic signs of the CMC systems is emoticons. Emoticons, which evolved from the smiley face crated by Scott Fahlman (of MIT) in the 1980s are sequences of text characters such as :), :(, or ;) or small static and or dynamic keyboard generated images [ L, J ] that represent various human facial expressions and convey emotions. Emotions (realized in the blending of two lexicons emotive and icon) are used for recovering body language in the world of text. Owing to this, earlier studies have used the term “electronic paralanguage”. Emoticons can become an important part of successful communication when human presence is lost during an electronic exchange of text.
Consequently, the use of emoticons has become a common language for certain groups of people including those from different nations and cultures and those who speak different languages. In fact, emoticons have since warmed their ways into the literature communities both home and aboard. For example, the cover page of an international business magazine, The Economist, once featured emoticon as its cover picture. In Nigeria
In Nigeria Nigeria
During an online chat session, emoticons communicative competence is further enhanced through sound, colour, and structural arrangement with the linguistic signs such as words, phrases and sentences. They provide the much needed identity for the ‘faceless’ individual at the remote end of the network. On mouse over, emoticons give information on the individual tasks such as idle, online, offline, busy, and when it appears grey, apart from the usual yellow colour, it signifies either communicator’s absence from the context or his hiding from co-communicators. The range of animated emoticons that signifies human facial expressions like laugh, grin, smile, sad, wink etc. confirm the universal nature of some nonverbal are (especially facial expressions) (sec Watson and O’Sullivan, 1988; acted in Rozalla et al., 1990). Across the globe facial expressions are universal; that is unlike gesture such as head-nod which is culture-specific nonverbal behaviour.
However, it might be impossible to locate both the linguistic and non linguistic signs of instant messaging and most CMC within the context of formal writing, where content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanical accuracy set the stage. On the contrary, these CMC signs have ‘sneaked’ into informal writings of some communications. The most culpable of these communicators are advertisers and copy writers who have seen the communicative impact of these signs in the context of CMC. Political billboards, products and services posters and handbills are seen adorning CMC signs.
It suffices to say that some of these textual construct have ‘crawled’ into formal writing of many students due to their exposure to CMC contexts. This situation is equally observed by Alabi (2005:14) in her implication of the findings from her study of the written language of the GSM. Scholars have however identified sloppiness of the language use in CMC being the consequence of the consciousness for the immediacy of the medium and an unconscious effort to reciprocate speech act as if it is in the natural face-to-face interpersonal medium. Acronyms, as well as emoticons, are created to compensate for that sloppiness.
