Workplace Emoticons Digital Communication

With the age of rapid technological advancements comes evolution in how people communicate through writing. It is now commonplace to utilize a digital platform to send messages: sending a quick text to friends or sending a professor an email. Having a typing experience through computer-mediated communication (CMC) at our disposal led to the popularity of emoticons.

The word ‘emoticon’ refers to the graphic representation of facial features and expressions and are typically placed after a utterance in CMC. The emoticon was first used in written text by Scott E.

Fahlman in 1982: Fahlman suggested both the :) and :( as keyboard-based symbols that could be used identify jokes in discussion forums. The goal was to economize CMC. (Grønning et al, 2014).

Emoticons have become a crucial part of CMC because they take on the role of nonverbal cues for a given written message. In a way, emoticons supplement CMC through not only verbal cues but also as cues for nonverbal functions as well (Lo, 2008).

Get quality help now

Sweet V

Verified writer

Proficient in: Communication Process

4.9 (984)

“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

According to the 2008 study by Lo, many individuals, when faced with pure text (one without emoticons), cannot perceive the correct attention expression and attitude behind the message. It is only when emoticons are added into the text that said receivers are able to correctly perceive the attention expression and attitude. This shows the practicality of emoticon usage as cues of nonverbal communication functions.

Emoticon Perception

Over the past 30 years, since the first coined usage in 1982, emoticons have evolved rapidly in form and meaning, many of which are chat software specific.

Despite this decades long evolution, emoticons are still traditionally viewed as rather childish: usage is associated with adolescences (Johansen, 2008) or even as a waste of bandwidth (Andrews, 1994). With this in mind, it is not surprising that many guidelines for CMC advises limiting use of emoticons as it could signal not only childness but also a lack of emotional stability(Grønning et al, 2014). Said guidelines are also narrowminded in the perception of emoticons. The guidelines tend to be normative and biased rather than reflecting communicative functions of emoticons (Grønning et al, 2014). Also, there is a heavy divide on emoticons in popular media: some send praise while others show disdain.

Theoretical Acknowledgement

When proving the relevancy of emoticons in CMC it is also important to acknowledge the theoretical background pushing the research forward. The first theory validating emoticons as nonverbal cues is the social information processing theory. Lo (2008) asserts that this theory explains the interpersonal needs of communicators to try and obtain information by developing image and relationship. Lo (2008) further explains the channel expansion theory: the communicative ability of a computer channel is not weaker than its physical communication counterpart. As users becomes more familiar with the interface, they begin to develop specific skills to convey nonverbal cues in an otherwise limited environment. Lo (2008) argues that these two theories reason the popularity and functionality of emoticons in CMC.

Other theories discussed when studying emoticons are speech act theory and politeness theory (which are also two prominent linguistic theories in general). Austin (1962) takes root in the speech act theory: a speech act is a social action. Austin (1962) examined the two types of utterances: performatives and constatives. Constatives are statements that are either true or false. Performatives are statements that realize social actions.

It does not stop there. Austin (1962) goes on to further elaborate on three distinct acts of utterances: locutionary (determinate sense and reference), illocutionary (act of a joke, offer, promise, request), and perlocutionary (effect brought onto the audience). There have been many renditions of speech acts; however the taxonomy is too extensive for the purpose of this paper.

Politeness theory analyzes the relationship between language usage and the construction of social relations. To understand the politeness theory first the notion of face must be made clear: it is our public self-image (Grønning et al, 2014). Each individual holds two kinds of wants: to be unimpeded (a negative face) and the want of approval (positive face). When interacting, the parties involved have a mutual interest in mind: maintaining each other’s face. Speech acts can then be used for mutual benefit of face or to threaten another individual’s face (Grønning et al, 2014).

It is important to note that the theories above are not without criticism; however for the purpose of this paper it is important to understand the basics of each theory in order to understand the research corresponding with the use of emoticons as discussed below.

Emoticons in Emails

Over the years, there have been many studies done on the usage of emoticons in emails. Such research endeavors include the emoticon’s function as an indicator of emotional state as well as the difference in usage dependent upon gender(Wolf, 2000). Some research points are as followed : Women tend to use more emoticons than their male counter parts (Wolf, 2000) and the more frequently used an emoticon is, the better the shared understanding of said emoticon is within a group of people (Grønning et al, 2014). In all, scholars tend to agree on the notion that emoticons indicate emotional state. Also, most scholars tend to work on the assumption that emoticons are utilized in the role of nonverbal communication cues: gestures, expressions, and intonation to name a few (Lo,2008). In essence, emoticons are simply support features for written communication (Grønning et al, 2014).

Besides looking at emoticons through a functionally linguistic perspective, many scholars have also looked at emoticons through a social psychology lens to understand the impact of emoticons on interpretation. Studies were found with many conflicting results: emoticons were seen to be both impactful and unimpactful depending on the study (Grønning et al, 2014). Emoticons are subordinate to the spoken phrase and had minimal effect on the message interpretation according to Spencer and Mandell in their 2007 study.

In contrast, the pragmatic function of emoticons were concluded to show not necessarily emotion, but rather, the intended force of an utterance (illocutionary force) in a study done by Dresner and Herring (2010). Dresner and Herring go on to say that emoticons actually serve two additional functions: indicators of emotion and nonemotional meaning (i.e ;) is to intend a joke not necessarily an emotion).

Grønning et al (2014) take the conversation of emoticons farther. Their look into the workplace correspondence between three different Nordic companies indicate that new functions of emoticons have emerged in email correspondences. Their study affirms the three functions of emoticons stated by Dresner and Herring. Grønning et al (2014) further elaborate the different conditions in which emoticons function: irony/joke markers and hedges. Hedge speech acts either strengthen or soften the message conveyed: they soften messages that are make requests or complaints and they strengthen messages of appreciation and greetings. Both the irony/joke markers and the hedges do not express inner emotion of the writer but rather contextualize and modify the utterances made and aims to soften the recipient’s negative face or strengthen the recipient’s positive face (as seen in Politeness Theory) (Grønning et al, 2014).

This is a new take on emoticons as when emoticons are labeled as contextualization cues (as in Grønning et al (2014)), they now become pragmatic modifiers. Emoticons thus provide additional information to aid in interpretation of the utterance and not necessarily needing to reveal the inner emotional state of the writer. This is supported by the many studies discussed above as well as the four main theories supporting the practicality of emoticons in CMC.

Discussion

Workplace Usage

All three communicative functions of emoticons (positive attitude, irony/joke marker and hedges) all come together on a social level and guides social relations through CMC. Grønning et al (2014) make a point to explain that, with this knowledge in mind, employees can use emoticons to their advantage. Employees are able to utilize emoticons to modify speech acts that may otherwise be a face-threatening act. Rather than posing concerns, rejections, or requests directly, employees can utilize emoticons to appear less imposing and authoritative and in turn, more polite.

An example can be found in Grønning et al (2014): when an employee accompanies a request with emoticons, they are able to organize their social relations with subordinates and peers in a way that reduces the risk of coming off has too demanding. This scenario enforces the notion that emoticons can function as a politeness strategy as seen in politeness theory.

When emoticons are used within workplace correspondences, the social relationship between the communicators are highlighted, thus pushing any business or institutional roles to the backburner. This allows for the notion of solidarity among employees and reduces any social distance individuals may feel in the workplace. Here, emoticons foster and strengthen the social dynamics within a given institution.

Concluding Thoughts

Emoticons have been shown to be a useful tool to express communicative functions otherwise lacking in CMC over the last few decades. They are a dynamic function in CMC that create communities among the those who use them. With that in mind, emoticons have had their fare share of criticism and bias, as with many topics regarding language and writing. There is both a gender and generational gap in usage and interpretation that leads to the common notion that emoticons are rather childish and unprofessional.

With the use of some basic theories (such as the speech act theory, politeness theory, social information processing theory, and channel expansion theory) research has been able to prove some interesting notions of why emoticons have become increasingly popular over the last few decades. Emoticons are able to communicate things that cannot be explicitly seen through linguistic writing measures (writing measures where there is a correspondence to spoken utterances).

Emoticons are able to function on at least three communicative levels: joke/irony markers, hedges, and positive attitude. Regarding positive attitude, emoticons signal the writer’s positive feeling towards the recipient and can often times be seen after a signature to indicate positive facial expressions. Regarding jokes and irony, emoticons signal a clearer interpretation of an utterance and reduces the risk of misinterpretation of humor in inappropriate contexts. Hedges are seen in two categories: strengtheners and softeners. Emoticons are strengtheners in context of greetings, praise, and signs of gratitude. They act as softeners in the context of complaints, rejections, and demands.

When these three communicative functions come together, they are able to guide social relations between group members. Emoticons allow for employees to reduce the risk of seeming too demanding and emoticons foster the social dynamic by setting aside institution roles just enough to give group members a sense of solidarity. Through this solidarity, emoticons introduce a personal level to corporate communication which leads to closer working relations. This blurs the lines of where emoticons belong in the sphere of CMC and enforces the notion that emoticons can be used in the workplace to better the relations among the members involved.