Face work with emojis in a - didactic peer-feedback setting: A pragmatic analysis
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Face work with emojis in a
didactic peer-feedback setting:
A pragmatic analysis
Michael Beißwenger · Steffen Pappert
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Final Workshop. 18th–20th October 2018, Zurich
Focus of our talk Results of an exploratory, pragmatic analysis of the use of emojis in a digital learning environment (inverted classroom / game-based learning scenario). Data set: The total of posts written by learners in a learning environment using a wiki platform (N=680) Task: provide peer feedback for other learners‘ suggestions on how to solve a certain spelling phenomenon. The use of emojis was voluntary. Hypothesis: Providing feedback on the results of other learners is a challenging task as it requires to criticise people who are on the same level. Learners adopt emojis as a resource for managing this challenge: They use emojis as a means of politeness in interaction (as a resource for face work).
Three perspectives Media linguistics: Linguistic analysis of CMC; special focus on the functions of emojis and on politeness strategies in written interactions. Pragmatic analysis of emerging practices in mediated interaction: How do interlocutors adopt resources provided by the technological environment (in our case: emojis) for the organisation of social interaction? Research on ‚digital didactics‘: What devices can/should a learning environment – as an eco-logy for learning and teaching activities – provide to support learners with performing given or anticipated tasks? Linguistics can contribute to the evaluation and further development of scenarios for digitally enhanced learning.
Structure of our talk Linguistic perspectives on emojis: Previous and related work Face work in interaction: Basic concepts for our study on emojis in a learning environment Face work with emojis: results and examples from our study (Beißwenger/Pappert to appear 2019) Discussion & outlook
Emoijs as a means of managing interaction in CMC Research on emojis with a linguistic focus: e.g., Danesi 2017, Dürscheid/Frick 2014, Dürscheid/Siever 2018, Herring/Dainas 2017, Pappert 2017, Siebenhaar 2017 Suggestions from previous research on the functions of emojis: graphical function: emojis function “as allographs, as ideograms, and as border and sentence intention signals” (Dürscheid/Siever 2017: 266; 278) + indexical function (Dürscheid/Siever 2017: 274-275) commentary function; representation function; illustration function (Dürscheid/Frick 2016: 105; cf. Dürscheid/Frick 2014: 173) Siebenhaar (2018): Emojis function “as a substitute for complex propositions” (758) + as a “substitute for entire communicative actions” (760)
Emoijs as a means of managing interaction in CMC
Function types (Pappert 2017):
(1) Framing function (Rahmen)
(2) Economizing function (Ökonomisieren)
(3) Relationship building/management function
(Beziehungsgestaltung)
(4) Modalizing function (Modalisieren)
(5) Commentary/evaluative function (Kommentieren/Evaluieren)
(6) Structuring function (Strukturieren)
(7) Representation function (Darstellen)
(8) Ludic function (Ludische Funktion)
(9) Ornament function (Ausschmückung)
Emoijs as a means of managing interaction in CMC
I forgot the sandwich! Crap!
Can you please take it? !
I will.
I‘m arrived!
I’m free on July 04!
Forgot my tobacco. That never
happened to me before.
Wonderful!!!!!!
Model of linguistic politeness: face work approach
(GOFFMAN 1986, BROWN/LEVINSON 1987)
Basic concept:
o face: the public self-image that every member of a society wants to
claim for him- oder herself and that we typically protect and
negotiate in interaction.
Two components:
o positive face: the want to be respected and appreciated by others;
o negative face: the want for privacy and autonomy („I do not want to
be disturbed when not necessary and do not want to be expected by
others to do something that I do not want by myself “).
Face-threats in interaction:
o face threatening acts (FTAs): acts which have the potential to –
completely or partially – disrespect the face-wants of an interaction
partner and, thus, affect their positive and/or negative face.
Model of linguistic politeness: face work approach
(GOFFMAN 1986, BROWN/LEVINSON 1987)
Politeness strategies:
help to deal with potential face-threats in a socially acceptable way
are applied to protect the positive and/or negative face of the
interaction partner (or of oneself):
o by performing ‛redressive actions‘ in order to soften (modalize) a
potential face-threat;
o by boosting the partnerʼs face
(‛face-flattering acts‘, KERBAT-ORECCHIONI 2005; politeness as a
‛social accelerator‘, BROWN/LEVINSON 1987: 103)
In our study we are interested in:
the detection of (i) face-threatening acts (FTAs) and
(ii) face-flattering acts (FFAs) in the data,
the identification of emoji instances which in the given context serve
as visual boosters or softeners for FTAs/FFAs.
The learning scenario – in a nutshell:
The cooperative Learning game Ortho & Graf
https://udue.de/orthoundgraf
Beißwenger, Michael; Meyer, Lena (2018): Ortho & Graf: ein Wiki-basiertes Planspiel zur Förderung von Rechtschreibkompe-
tenzen in der Sekundarstufe II. In: Steffen Gailberger & Frauke Wietzke (Hrsg.): Deutschunterricht in einer digitalen
Gesellschaft. Unterrichtsanregungen für die Sekundarstufen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa, 296-330.
Beißwenger, Michael; Meyer, Lena (2019, in press): Gamification als Schlüssel zu „trockenen“ Themen? Beobachtungen und
Analysen zu einem webbasierten Planspiel zur Förderung orthographischer Kompetenz. In: Karin Beckers & Marvin Wasser-
mann (Hrsg.): Wissenskommunikation im Web. Sprachwissenschaftliche und didaktische Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.game phase 1: investigation request
game phase 3:
internal audit
game phase 2: case file
with investigation result
& rationaleTask for game phase 3
Please
Pleasecheck
checkthe
theselected
selectedcasecasefiles
filesfor
forplausibility:
plausibility:
IsIsthe
theinvestigators‘
investigators‘result
resultcomprehensible?
comprehensible?Does Doesthe
theassign-
assign-
ment
mentof ofthe
theresult
resultto
toan
anarticle
articleof
ofthe
theset
setof
ofrules
rulesseem
seemtrace-
trace-
able
ableand
andhave
havethe
theinvestigators
investigatorsjustified
justifiedtheir
theirdecision
decisioncom-
com-
prehensibly?
prehensibly?Has Hasthe
thefile
filebeen
beencompleted
completedaccurately?
accurately?
Please
Pleaseprovide
provideshort
shortwritten
writtenfeedback
feedbackto tothe
theinvestigators.
investigators.
Highlight
Highlightwhat
whatyou
youconsider
considerthe
thestrengths
strengthsofoftheir
theiranalysis,
analysis,
but
butplease
pleasealso
alsoaddress
addressaspects
aspectsthat
thatare
arein
inneed
needof ofimprove-
improve-
ment.
ment.Try
Tryto
toformulate
formulateproposals
proposalsand
andsuggestions
suggestionsas asconstruc-
construc-
tively
tivelyand
andconcisely
conciselyas
aspossible.
possible.Please
Pleasekeep
keepin inmind
mindthat
thatthe
the
investigators
investigatorswhose
whosecases
casesyou
youevaluate
evaluateare
areyour
yourpeers!
peers!Performing the task implies face-threats in several respect:
(1) w.r.t. the negative face of the addressees:
It can be seen as a limitation of their autonomy
(“Your case file needs to be revised”).
(2) w.r.t. the positive face of the addressees
as their work is criticised.
(3) w.r.t. the positive face of the author
as the addressees may consider her or him as a smart aleck.
Hypothesis:
Since the students had to perform the task in order to
successfully complete the seminar, they try to solve this risky
task in a socially acceptable way. Emojis are adopted for
softening face threats and for being polite.How students solve the task: an example
The data
Data set: 680 posts from three instantiations of the game in seminars
with teacher students at the UDE during the summer semester 2017
(95 students in total, 65 actively participating in game phase 3).
post 1
post 2
post 3
post 4Classification of the data
(1) Identify all posts which contain a reactive component
(i.e. which do not only perform the feedback task but also reply to a
previous post on the same talk page) and remove them to keep the
data set homogeneous.
(2) For all remaining posts:
Identify all posts which contain at least one FTA.
FTA is the case when an utterance suggests revision of a case file
and/or criticises the case file or parts of it and/or presents an
alternative opinion about the solution of the case described in the
file. Remove all posts which do not contain an FTA.
(3) For all remaining posts: Remove posts which do not include at least
one emoji or emoticon.
(4) For all remaining posts: Besides the FTAs, also identify all FFAs.
FFAs = „acts, which are like the positive side of the FTAs, acts that
reinforce the other’s face“ (KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI 2005: 30-31)Classification of the data
Data set: 680 posts from three instantiations of the game in seminars
with teacher students at the UDE during the summer semester 2017
(95 students in total, 65 actively participating in game phase 3).
Classification results:
Posts which include a reactive component: 120
Posts which contain FFAs only: 216
Posts which contain at least one FTA and no reactive
343
component
... plus at least one emoji / emoticon: 229
(Subset 1) ... and only FTAs: 62
(Subset 2) ... and both FTAs and FFAs: 167How emojis contribute to face work in our data
(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of
face-related acts:
(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.
(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.
(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:
(2.1) modalising by positioning: the emoji is used to mitigate the
claim of validity for an act of critique by indicating that the
critique might be unjustified.
(2.2) modalising by characterising an FTA as facetious
(2.3) modalising by characterising the FTA as an action within a
ludic contextHow emojis contribute to face work in our data FFA boosters:
How emojis contribute to face work in our data
(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of
face-related acts:
(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.
(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.
(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:
(2.1) modalising by positioning: the emoji is used to mitigate the
claim of validity for an act of critique by indicating that the
critique might be unjustified.
(2.2) modalising by characterising an FTA as facetious
(2.3) modalising by characterising the FTA as an action within a
ludic contextHow emojis contribute to face work in our data FTA boosters:
How emojis contribute to face work in our data
(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of
face-related acts:
(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.
(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.
(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:
(2.1) modalising by positioning: the emoji is used to mitigate the
claim of validity for an act of critique by indicating that the
critique might be unjustified.
(2.2) modalising by characterising an FTA as facetious
(2.3) modalising by characterising the FTA as an action within a
ludic contextHow emojis contribute to face work in our data softeners: modalising by positioning:
How emojis contribute to face work in our data
(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of
face-related acts:
(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.
(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.
(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:
(2.1) modalising by positioning: the emoji is used to mitigate the
claim of validity for an act of critique by indicating that the
critique might be unjustified.
(2.2) modalising by characterising an FTA as facetious
(2.3) modalising by characterising the FTA as an action within a
ludic contextHow emojis contribute to face work in our data softeners: modalising by characterising the FTA as facetious:
How emojis contribute to face work in our data
(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of
face-related acts:
(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.
(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.
(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:
(2.1) modalising by positioning: the emoji is used to mitigate the
claim of validity for an act of critique by indicating that the
critique might be unjustified.
(2.2) modalising by characterising an FTA as facetious
(2.3) modalising by characterising the FTA as an action within a
ludic contextHow emojis contribute to face work in our data softeners: characterising the FTA as an action within a ludic context:
Politeness strategies with emojis:
results from a classification of emojis occurrences in the data
Data set: 680 posts from three instantiations of the game in seminars
with teacher students at the UDE during the summer semester 2017
(95 students in total, 65 actively participating in game phase 3).
Three categories of posts:
(1) Posts which include a reactive component: 120
(2) Posts which contain FFAs only: 216
(3) Posts which contain at least one FTA and no reactive
343
component
(3.1) ... plus at least one emoji / emoticon: 229
(3.1.1) ... and only FTAs: 62
(3.1.2) ... and both FTAs and FFAs: 167Politeness strategies with emojis: results from a classification of emojis occurrences in the data emojis are rather used to soften than to boost posts containing FTAs
Politeness strategies with emojis: results from a classification of emojis occurrences in the data When occuring together with FTAs (69 cases), emojis are rather used as softeners (53) than as boosters (16). Emojis are used twice as often as FFA boosters than as FTA softeners. 57% of all posts in the data set (87) contain FFA boosters only.
A frequent pattern: softening FTAs by boosting an FFA
(87 out of 153 cases)Face work with emojis: interpretation of our findings Even though the given task („provide peer feedback“) encou- rages learners to critically discuss each other‘s results, the authors of feedback posts rather use emojis to soften than to highlight their critique. Besides that, the „1st choice strategy“ for mitigating the effects of FTAs using emojis is obviously not the use of emojis as moda- lisers; instead, authors of feedback posts use emojis as boosters for FFAs while FTAs performed in the same post are not accom- panied by an emoji at all. “bird‘s eye view politeness”: In posts of that type the FFA component is visually highlighted as salient whereas the FTAs are not discovered until the addressee actually reads the post. Strategy: collect social credits in advance and make the addressee feel great before s/he discovers the critique.
Conclusion and outlook Media Linguistics / Pragmatic analyses of practices: o This study: modeling the coontribution of emojis to face work practices on the basis of data from a ‘controlled’ environment (the analysed posts are all approaches to the solution of one and the same task). Findings can form the basis for investigations on face work practices in CMC in other contexts (e.g. everyday whatsapp interactions). o Corpora needed for analyses on a broader basis – e.g. the Whats Up, Switzerland (Ueberwasser & Stark 2017) or the MoCoDa2 corpus (Beißwenger, Fladrich, Imo & Ziegler 2018). Media Didactics: o Emojis are used by the learners not only as nice little „gimmicks“ but as resources to deal with a given task. Findings can contribute to the design and further development of scenarios for digitally enhanced learning where learners are expected to perform tasks which may result in potential face threats.
Book chapter (in press) Michael Beißwenger/Steffen Pappert (2019, in press): Face work mit Emojis. Was linguistische Analysen zum Verständnis sprachlichen Handelns in digitalen Lernumgebungen beitragen können. In: Michael Beißwenger & Matthias Knopp (eds.): Soziale Medien in Schule und Hochschule: Linguistische, sprach- und mediendidaktische Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Peter Lang (Reihe „Forum Angewandte Linguistik“).
References Beißwenger, Michael; Fladrich, Marcel; Imo, Wolfgang; Ziegler, Evelyn (2018): News from the MoCoDa2 corpus: A design and web-based editing environment for collecting and refining data from private CMC interactions. In: Reinhild Vandekerckhove, Darja Fišer & Lisa Hilte (Eds.): Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and Social Media Corpora (CMCCORPORA 2018), 17-18 September 2018, University of Antwerp. Antwerp, 10-14. https://www.uantwerpen.be/images/uantwerpen/container49896/files/proceedings_CMCcorpora2018.pdf Beißwenger, Michael; Meyer, Lena (2018a): Ortho & Graf: ein Wiki-basiertes Planspiel zur Förderung von Rechtschreibkompetenzen in der Sekundarstufe II. In: Steffen Gailberger/Frauke Wietzke (Hg.): Deutschunterricht in einer digitalen Gesellschaft. Unterrichtsanregungen für die Sekundarstufen. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa, 296– 330. Beißwenger, Michael; Meyer, Lena (2018b, im Druck): Gamification als Schlüssel zu „trockenen“ Themen? Beobachtungen und Analysen zu einem webbasierten Planspiel zur Förderung orthographischer Kompetenz. In: Karin Beckers/Marvin Wassermann (Hg.): Wissenskommunikation im Web. Sprachwissenschaftliche und didaktische Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Beißwenger, Michael; Pappert, Steffen (2019, in press): Analysefeld: Internetbasierte Kommunikation. In: Frank Liedtke/Astrid Tuchen (Hg.): Handbuch Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Metzler, 447–458. Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen C. (1987): Politeness. Some universals in language us-age. Cambridge: University Press. Danesi, Marcel (2017): The Semiotics of Emoji. The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London/New York: Bloomsbury. Dürscheid, Christa; Frick, Karina (2014): Keyboard-to-Screen-Kommunikation gestern und heute: SMS und WhatsApp im Vergleich. In: Alexa Mathias/Jens Runkehl/Torsten Siever (Hg.): Sprachen? Vielfalt! Sprache und Kommunikation in der Gesellschaft und den Medien. Eine Online-Festschrift zum Jubiläum für Peter Schlobinski (Networx 64), 149–181. https://www.mediensprache.net/de/networx/networx-64.aspx [04.10.2018]. Dürscheid, Christa; Frick, Karina (2016): Schreiben Digital. Wie das Internet unsere Alltagskommunikation verändert. Stuttgart: Kröner. Dürscheid, Christa/Siever, Christina M. (2017): Jenseits des Alphabets – Kommunikation mit Emojis. In: Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 45, Heft 2, 256–285. Goffman, Erving (102013 [1986]): Interaktionsrituale. Über Verhalten in direkter Kommunikation. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Herring, Susan C.; Dainas, Ashley R. (2017): "Nice picture comment!" Graphicons in Facebook comment threads. Proceedings of the Fiftieth Hawai'i International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-50). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE. (http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/hicss.graphicons [04.10.2018]). Imo, Wolfgang (2015): Vom ikonischen über einen indexikalischen zu einem symbolischen Ausdruck? Eine konstruktionsgrammatische Analyse des Emoticons :-). In: Jörg Bücker/Susanne Günthner/Wolfgang Imo (Hrsg.): Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld aus sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 133-162. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (2005): „Politeness in France: How to Buy Bread Politely“. In: Leo Hickey/Miranda Stewart (Hg.): Politeness in Europe. Clevedon u.a: Multilingual Matters, 29−44. Pappert, Steffen (2017): Zu kommunikativen Funktionen von Emojis in der WhatsApp-Kommunikation. In: Michael Beißwenger (Hg.): Empirische Erforschung internetbasierter Kommunikation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (Reihe Empirische Linguistik / Empirical Linguistics 9), 175–211. Schlobinski, Peter/Watanabe, Manabu (2003): SMS-Kommunikation – Deutsch/Japanisch kontrastiv. Eine explorative Studie. (= Networx 31, URL: http://www.mediensprache.net/networx/networx-31.pdf [04.10.2018]). Siebenhaar, Beat (2018): Funktionen von Emojis und Altersabhängigkeit ihres Gebrauchs in der WhatsApp-Kommunikation. In: Arne Ziegler (Hg.): Jugendsprachen. Ak- tuelle Perspektiven internationaler Forschung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 749–772. Ueberwasser, Simone; Stark, Elisabeth (2017). What’s up, Switzerland? A corpus-based research project in a multilingual country. Linguistik online 84/5, 105-126.
Face work with emojis in a
didactic peer-feedback setting:
A pragmatic analysis
Michael Beißwenger · Steffen Pappert
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Final Workshop. 18th–20th October 2018, ZurichYou can also read
