Pragmatic Play? 1

Pragmatic Play? Some Possible Functions of English Emoticons and Japanese Kaomoji in

Computer-Mediated Discourse

Kris M. Markman, Ph.D.

University of Memphis

Sae Oshima, M.A.

The University of Texas at Austin

Presented at the Association of Internet Researchers Annual Conference 8.0: Let's Play!

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

October 18, 2007

Pragmatic Play? 2

This paper presents an exploratory look into the pragmatic functions of emoticons in a

variety of computer-mediated discourse (CMD) contexts. Emoticons, also called "smileys," are

constructed through the use of punctuation marks and are generally thought to function as

paralinguistic devices that add to the emotional tone of a text-only message (e. g. Derks, Bos, &

von Grumbkow, 2007; Murray, 2000; Rivera, Cooke, Rowe, & Bauhs, 1994; Utz, 2000; Werry,

1996). Early research approached emoticons as a type of nonverbal communication that

supplemented the verbal content (Menges, 1996, October; Rezabeck & Cochenour, 1995).

However, more recent research suggests that whereas emoticons are deployed intentionally (as

opposed to subconsciously as in facial expressions), they are not directly comparable to

nonverbal communication in face-to-face settings (Krohn, 2004; Walther & D'Addario, 2001).

Because emoticons have been frequently linked to expressions emotion, and because

women are thought to use emotion more in their communication, a number of studies have

examined the links between emoticon usage and gender. The results of these studies have been

mixed, however. For example, Witmer and Katzman (1998; 1997) found that in newsgroup

postings women did use more emoticons (graphical accents) than men did, although overall

usage was low. Similar results were found by Wolf (2000), who also noted that men's emoticon

usage increased in mixed-gender groups. However, Walther and D'Addario (2001) found no

gender differences in the use of emoticons in email messages. Similarly, in their study of teen

blogs, Huffaker and Calvert (2005) found that while more than half of their bloggers used

emoticons, there was no significant gender difference, and even noted a slight trend for males to

use more emoticons than females. One possible explanation for these mixed results is that the use

of paralanguage (including emoticons) may increase over time as users become more familiar

with the medium and their communicative partners (Utz, 2000; Walther, 1992).

Pragmatic Play? 3

Emoticons have also been studied with respect to more specific message-level functions.

Derks et al. (2007) found that emoticons were used more frequently in socio-emotional chat

contexts as opposed to task-oriented contexts. Emoticon use has also been associated with

impression formation (Constantin, Kalyanaraman, Stavrositu, & Wagoner, 2002, August; Lea &

Spears, 1992). However, emoticons have been shown to have only a limited effect on message

interpretation, one that is outweighed by the verbal content of the message (Hancock, 2004;

Walther & D'Addario, 2001).

In order to build on the previous research on emoticons, we propose a different approach.

Situated in the growing field of computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA) (Herring, 2004),

this study will begin to map how emoticons function as pragmatic devices within turns at

computer-mediated talk. In addition, this study will compare emoticon usage in English with the

Japanese version, kaomoji ("face-marks"). We analyze a corpus of CMD drawn from English and

Japanese sources at the micro-level using an approach modeled on Conversation Analysis.

Japanese kaomoji were chosen because they are an understudied phenomenon in the CMD

research and because they vary quite dramatically from English emoticons, in both their

construction and in their variety (Katsuno & Yano, 2002; Nishimura, 2003).

Approach to the Study

This research is situated within the broader context of microethnography of interaction

(Streeck & Mehus, 2005). As such, it follows an emergent research design, whereby a general

phenomenon of interest is identified and a pool of data is collected, with research questions

becoming increasingly refined as the analysis proceeds. Additionally, this study is interested in

examining the form, as opposed to the content, of CMD in a variety of contexts, and thus the

particulars of the potential authors' identities is not relevant to the analysis (see Herring, 1996).

Pragmatic Play? 4

Adopting the microanalytic perspective also necessitates that we look at the functions of

emoticons and kaomoji not from the standpoint of intentions--i.e. trying to divine what the author

meant to convey--but from the perspective of the role within the ongoing conversation or

message. Thus it is the sequential placement of emoticons and kaomoji that is the focus of this

analysis. Although neither asynchronous nor synchronous CMD completely captures the turn

exchange system of oral discourse, the extant research clearly demonstrates the inherently

conversational nature of these textual interactions. We therefore propose the following research

questions guiding this project:

RQ1: What are the functions of emoticons in synchronous and asynchronous CMD?

RQ2: What are the functions of kaomoji in email?

RQ3: Does the function of the emoticon/kaomoji vary based on its placement in the text

(i.e. on the same line, or on its own line)?

RQ4: How do the functions of English emoticons and Japanese kaomoji differ?

Data Analysis

The data analyzed here represent a convenience sample of English emoticons and

Japanese kaomoji. The first author collected examples of emoticon usage from English language

public Internet forums, blog comments, chat rooms, and email discussion lists. Additional email

examples were collected from the corpus of Enron emails. Additional chat examples were drawn

from data collected for a prior study of chat conversation. Kaomoji examples were drawn from

the personal email correspondence of the second author, who also provided the Japanese-English

translations. In the case of all data gathered for this study, only those portions of the messages

containing the relevant phenomena were collected, and identifying information has been omitted.

What Emoticons Do

Pragmatic Play? 5

Although the emoticon has been most frequently associated with adding emotion to

CMD, at a pragmatic level, emoticons appear to clearly serve a specific purpose within the

structure of the message. Specifically, we would like to propose that emoticons serve as

punctuating devices in CMD. In these data, emoticons are most typically deployed at the end of

sentences or clauses (when part of a parenthetical remark), or turns at chat, either with or in place

of standard sentence-final punctuation marks. In this usage, the emoticon functions to close off

the sentence or thought by confirming the action performed by the text. In this sense, the

emoticon can be seen to complement, strengthen, or clarify the illocutionary force of the

utterance, while at the same time providing a cue to interpreting the structure of the message.

The emoticons in each example have been highlighted in gray.

1) public email According to [First Lastname], I am currently SECOND to him in number of links and accuracy, so with your help, I can change that. ;-) 2) web forum Edited to say: I totally ignored the fact that this may just be a place for 2007 newbies - of which I am not a part - to post. I thought about deleting this altogether, but thought that the advice was still good. :) So, pretend you didn't read this if you'd rather hear from a newbie. 3) public email available. Also, please register as soon as possible as we are trying to finalize all details of meals, meeting space, etc. Please make my life easier :-) If you have any questions about the retreat, please email or call me. I look forward to seeing you all in November. 4) chat SIDNEY: says so right here in the syllabus :P 5) public email I had a fun and relaxing weekend, and I'm really glad you were a part of it :-). Did you have fun? 6) web forum I currently use a Logitech MX700. It's great, except for the lack of a power switch, so I rigged a switch of sorts (I shaved off a bit of the battery door and taped a piece of plastic positioned so that I can easily block one battery

Pragmatic Play? 6

terminal with it using one hand..kind of switch like :) ) Plain old alkalines w/out switch: 4 days.

Examples 1-6 demonstrate the different ways that emoticons can be used to punctuate

ideas within a message. Of particular interest is the emerging relationship between standard

punctuation and emoticons. Across all of the emoticons examples analyzed here (n=219),

emoticons are most commonly deployed either in place of or just after the standard punctuation

(see Table 1). Example 1 (from email) and example 2 (from a web forum) are prototypical

examples of emoticons appearing after punctuation. Examples 3 (from email and 4 (from chat)

illustrate the use of emoticons in place of punctuation. Here, we see how the emoticon in effect

becomes the punctuation; it serves as a pragmatic marker to close off the sentence, while at the

same time providing cues as to how to read the tone of the sentence. Across all of the emoticons

data, emoticons without punctuation occur slightly more frequently than emoticons after

punctuation (39% vs. 37%). However, when we compare asynchronous vs. synchronous

messages, the difference is reversed--after punctuation usage is more common in email and web

forum examples (40.7% vs. 30.5%). In synchronous chat, the no punctuation usage occurs 65%

of the time. Some of this difference may be accounted for by the general lack of punctuation in

most chat interaction. Another possible explanation is that in chat, emoticons may do more than

just punctuate a message; they may, in fact, serve as turn-construction units. This possibility will

be examined more closely below.

Pragmatic Play? 7

Table 1 Distribution of emoticons and kaomoji with respect to standard punctuation

Before

punctuation

After

punctuation

No

punctuation

Stand alone

Signature

Other

Total

Email

6 (5%)

45 (38%)

33 (28%)

7 (6%)

26 (22%)

1 (0.8%)

118

Web forums

3 (6%)

23 (47%)

18 (37%)

0

n/a

5 (10%)

49

Chat

0

12 (23%)

34 (65%)

7 (13.5%)

n/a

0

52

Total Emoticons

9 (4%)

80 (37%)

85 (39%)

14 (6%)

26 (12%)

6 (3%)

219

Kaomoji

0

6 (9%)

59 (88%)

1 (1.5%)

1 (1.5%)

0

67

Finally, the least common placement of emoticons as sentence closers was before the

punctuation. Before punctuation usage occurs in only nine percent of all cases, and is only found

in asynchronous discussions. One possible interpretation here is that in written English, standard

punctuation is tightly bound to the words of the sentence. Because the emoticon, as a type of

nonverbal information, appears to punctuate or modify the sentence as a whole, its placement

before the final punctuation disrupts the logical flow for the reader. Here we see the tension in

asynchronous CMD between standards of written English, developed well before computers, and

conventions of spoken interaction, which take advantage of the simultaneity of speech. In spoken

interaction, nonverbal signals can occur before, during and after verbal content, and affect

interaction in different ways respective to their placement. The idea of nonverbal content was

largely absent in formal written English before CMD, but has become an important part of many

computer-mediated interactions.

In addition to their use to close out sentences, emoticons can be used to close out topics

or messages in email. In these instances, the emoticon may be part of a signature (usually

Pragmatic Play? 8

appended to the name) or it may stand alone between the message and the closing, as in the

following examples:

7) email by ALL residents -- has thrown California into financial peril, depleting reserves, taking $$ away from education, etc., for at least the next two decades. You around today? I still need to talk to you. :-) kd 8) email Please use the userid test and the password test. And obviously, send us any comments you might have. Thanks. SR:-) 9) email strategy. Personally I think this system will work because there are many speculators out there who want to play this kind of games. :-) -Cxxxxxxx 10) email In any case, I have a dinner this evening with my team, but should be home (hotel home) around 10ishEST. If you're around this evening, maybe we could try to talk then? I'm dying to hear your theories on Elvis... :-) Sxxxx

In examples 7 and 8 we see routinized use of emoticons appended to the signature. Here,

the emoticon punctuates the signature, becoming a stylized way of signing off email. As a

corollary, there were a few examples of emoticons in the greeting of the message, which

parallels findings about the use of kaomoji in greetings (Katsuno & Yano, 2007), however, so far

these examples are comparatively rare in these data. Thus far we have examined emoticons

placed in some way adjacent to other text. However, examples 9 and 10 demonstrate that in

email emoticons can stand alone from other parts of the message. In these examples and in the

Pragmatic Play? 9

data thus far, stand-alone emoticons appear at the end of the messages, before the closing. In

being used this way they punctuate the entire message, rather than belonging to a particular

sentence or to the signature/closing. It is possible to postulate, however, that stand-alone

emoticons could be used to punctuate topics or subsets of a message. Our continued investigation

will be mindful of this.

Although stand-alone emoticons were found in only 6% of the email data analyzed thus

far, this usage suggests that while punctuating may be the primary function of emoticons in

asynchronous CMD, there may be other functions of emoticons related specifically to

synchronous contexts. We previously noted that the majority of emoticons used in chat

conversations were placed at the end of turns in place of punctuation. Of the remaining chat

examples, 13.5% are stand alone emoticons; that is, they are turns composed only of emoticons.

For example:

11) public chat brickbrite: steaming ~ furious bogdan: :-) 12) Peer Research Team chat THADINE: bye y'all RESEARCHER: ciao all [REBECA left the session] SIDNEY: i wait for everyone else too [THADINE left the session] SIDNEY: :P RESEARCHER: :)

Here, we propose that emoticons function as turn construction units (TCUs). In

conversation analysis, a TCU is the smallest unit of talk from which a turn can be built and be

reasonably said to be complete (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1996). TCUs are

relevant for talk-in-interaction because they signal for the hearer points at which the turn-in-

Pragmatic Play? 10

progress might come to an end, therefore making that a relevant point for transitioning to a new

speaker. Complicating the application of the TCU concept to CMD is that fact that, even in most

synchronous channels, turns are necessarily retrospective; that is, recipients do not have ongoing

access to the construction of turns, certainly the case with the chat examples here. There is

evidence, however, that a form of TCU is oriented to in chat, whereby grammar is strategically

deployed to indicate if the post as sent is a TCU or not (see Markman, 2006, November).

Therefore, in proposing that emoticons can function as TCUs in chat, we are arguing that the use

of a stand-alone emoticon signals that a complete turn at chat has been taken. The result is that,

although participants in chat cannot literally pass the floor, they can help facilitate interactional

coherence by orienting to TCUs.

Thus in example 11 taken from a public chat interaction, user brickbrite offers a

clarification of a prior turn, to which the user bogden responds not with verbal text, but with a

single emoticon. In example 12, taken from previous research conducted by the first author,

Sidney posts a stand-alone emoticon, possibly as an elaboration or adjunct to his prior turn. Here

emoticon begets emoticon, as the researcher responds similarly. It is interesting that this feature

is relatively more common in chat, a CMD channel more similar in rhythm to spoken interaction

than asynchronous channels. Although we have not examined instant messaging data for this

paper, we can hypothesize that the use of emoticons as TCUs would be present in that channel as

well, perhaps even to a greater degree than in chat.

Doing More with Text: Functions of Japanese Kaomoji

One obvious difference between emoticons and kaomoji is the range of kaomoji used in

CMD. Although there are a wide variety of emoticons listed in various online dictionaries (i.e.

http://www.netlingo.com/smiley.cfm), in the data analyzed here the trend is clearly towards the

Pragmatic Play? 11

repeated use of the traditional smiley :-) and its variants. By contrast, out of the 67 examples of

kaomoji in the current data set, 48 appear only once. Many of these examples express similar

actions or emotions, however. For example, all of the following kaomoji representing smiling (or

possibly laughing) appear in our data at least once:

A) (^.^) B) (^^) C) >^_^< D) (^-^) E) (^_^) F) (^^;)

Of these six, examples B and D are the two most "popular" kaomoji in this corpus, with each

appearing six times. These six also give an indication as to the range of meanings expressed by

kaomoji. For example, A indicates not just a laugh, but symbolizes a ‘high-class’, snobbish laugh

(the shape of the mouth symbolizes such a laugh), whereas F indicates a wry/bitter smile (the

semi-colon symbolizes cold sweat).

Given this range it is difficult to examine the function of kaomoji by concentrating only

on their sequential placement within the message. Kaomoji can be seen to be more clearly

performative and expressive than emoticons. Indeed, Katsuno and Yano (2007) demonstrate that

kaomoji can be quite complex in their construction, and they may often incorporate movement,

onomatopoeic sounds, and words. Katsuno and Yano note that this complexity often allows

kaomoji to stand on their own, often expressing the intended meaning better than language could.

Therefore, we would like to propose that kaomoji do more than punctuate the sentence or

message, but are also analyzable as turn construction units. As TCUs, kaomoji help organize the

structure of the message, but are analyzably complete units of meaning, even within

asynchronous CMD such as email. In this respect, kaomoji may be similar to some kinds of

conventionalized emblematic gestures, such as those identified by Kendon (1995). Kendon

demonstrates how some gestures function as illocutionary speech acts, making visible the

implications of what is being said. Kendon argues that, because these gestures mark the turn at

Pragmatic Play? 12

the level of speech act, they can stand in for the speech itself. Many of the kaomoji examples in

these data appear to do the same thing. For example:

13)

ピーさんにもよろしくね！次回会うまでには英会話少しでも勉強してコミュニケ

ーションとれるようにしてみるよん(^^ゞ Say hi to P! I will study English, just a little, so that by the time I see him next, I can

communicate with him (^^ゞ

In 13, the kaomoji is placed in sentence-final position, substituting for standard

punctuation, as was seen previously in English emails. This kaomoji embodies an emblematic

gesture-- the hand movement of scratching one’s head, which many Japanese people do or at

least have an understanding of. When used, it displays a sense of being embarrassed and/or

despising oneself. Without it, the message will be just a statement of what the author will do

(learn some English and be able to communicate with P in the near future), but the use of the

kaomoji marks the admission of not knowing English as something embarrassing or something

to be ashamed about. Thus, in a way, although the verbal message does not clearly convey an

apology (but rather what the author is willing to do), the kaomoji conveys the motivation behind

the verbal message (negative feelings about herself) and a sense of an apology, albeit in a light,

playful manner. As with the emoticons discussed earlier, the kaomoji appears at the end of the

sentence, but rather than merely punctuating the sentence, it serves as a final TCU, imparting not

only meaning and clarifying the action of the sentence, as well as closing the thought.

14) また、詳細決まったらお知らせするので、サエもお暇だったら考えてみて！！ では、また(*^3^)/~☆ I will get back to you when we find out the details, so consider coming if you had time!! Talk to you soon(*^3^)/~☆

Pragmatic Play? 13

Example 14 also depicts a very specific embodied act, that of blowing a kiss. Blowing

kisses are typically associated with farewells, and accordingly this kaomoji is placed in the

closing of the message. Here, however, the kaomoji, while also serving as a final TCU, does not

impart as much meaning as it does add to the sense of a fond farewell. Specifically, it indicates a

specific act of expressing affection. In general, Japanese people do not use affectionate words

very frequently among families and friends. In fact, in the second author's experience from

talking with other native Japanese who live in the U.S., it is often mentioned how easy it is to use

English to express, or talk about, affections. In English, an author can simply add “love,” to the

closing to be more affectionate—this strategy is not available in Japanese. Similarly, in English

“I love you!” is used in many contexts, to many different kinds of people. In contrast, Japanese

often limits the use of “I love you” to the context of romantic relationship. So another function of

kaomoji is to give Japanese speakers more opportunities to practice “being casually

affectionate.” In this example, the verbal message does not show any affection, but with this

kaomoji, the verbal content is both punctuated and embodied to show more love, while it is still

playful, fun, and light.

15)

勉強がんばってください.....φ(・∀・＊) ではでは。 Good luck with your studying.....φ(・∀・＊) Ok then.

A final example of the embodied punctuation performed by kaomoji is seen in 15. Here,

the verbal message indicates the recipient will be studying, and sends a wish for good luck

before the message closes. The kaomoji shows a movement (periods) preceding a hand holding a

pen, combined with a studious, yet happy face. The effect of this combination is to both embody

Pragmatic Play? 14

a specific act (writing/studying) and to indicate a stance, in this case that "studying is good." In

doing so, the kaomoji punctuates and also adds to the verbal message, by further affirming the

recipient's decision to study.

Our examination of Japanese kaomoji shows that, in contrast to English emoticons,

kaomoji are both punctuating devices and potentially units of larger meaning. The complexity

and variety of kaomoji allow users to express a range of actions that reflect nonverbal behaviors

that are part of the stock of Japanese cultural knowledge. At the same time, they also add

meaning, and often emotion, in ways that can extend past the affordances of the language.

Although we have looked at kaomoji drawn from a single channel, email, other research

indicates that they are prominent in chat (Katsuno & Yano, 2002, 2007) and in Japanese BBS

forums (Nishimura, 2007). In addition, a related form of emoticons, emoji, is popular in cell

phone (keitai) culture (Matsuda, 2005). And whereas emoticon usage have been shown in at least

some instances to be associated with less experienced users (Iorio, 2007; Nastri, Peña, &

Hancock, 2006; Thurlow & Brown, 2003), kaomoji are used regularly by a wide range of users

(Katsuno & Yano, 2007).

Conclusion

In this paper we have proposed that English emoticons and their Japanese counterpart,

kaomoji, can be examined from a pragmatic, microanalytic perspective to reveal how these text-

based symbols function within different CMD contexts. Rather than examining who uses these

symbols or in what contexts, we have instead attempted to examine them within their sequential

placement within the text. Based on a preliminary analysis of English and Japanese data, we

found that emoticons and kaomoji serve primarily as punctuating devices within text-based

conversations. As such, they clarify the structure of messages, generally by appearing at the

Pragmatic Play? 15

close of phrases, sentences, or messages. In some instances they may also reinforce the action of

the text, clarifying the stance or mood taken. In addition, we have shown that, particularly with

respect to synchronous CMD, emoticons can function as autonomous units of meaning, or turn-

construction units, that indicate continued participation and "pass the floor." We have also shown

that, in general, kaomoji are more varied and more complex than emoticons, and as a result may

be more similar in function to nonverbal communication in face-to-face communication than are

emoticons. This is especially clear when examining the more complex kaomoji that represent

distinctly embodied acts and can perform actions that extend beyond the meaning of the verbal

text.

As an exploratory study, the conclusions are preliminary and are not meant to be taken as

generalizable. Our data set is limited in size and scope, and is unbalanced with respect to the

amount of Japanese examples. In addition, we have only examined asynchronous Japanese

messages. Future research should include examples from a wider range of sources, including

instant messaging, for both English and Japanese.

Pragmatic Play? 16

References

Constantin, C., Kalyanaraman, S., Stavrositu, C., & Wagoner, N. (2002, August). To be or not to

be emotional: Impression formation effects of emoticons in moderated chatrooms. Paper

presented at the 85th annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communication, Miami Beach, FL.

Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., & von Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the

Internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 842-849.

Herring, S. C. (1996). Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication:

Some ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12, 153-168.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online

behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities

in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved January 12, 2007, from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html

Iorio, J. (2007, October). The serious side of play: Language attitudes in an online role-playing

game. Paper presented at the Association of Internet Researchers conference 8.0: Let's

Play!, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Katsuno, H., & Yano, C. R. (2002). Face to face: On-line subjectivity in contemporary Japan.

Asian Studies Review, 26, 205-232.

Katsuno, H., & Yano, C. R. (2007). Kaomoji and expressivity in a Japanese housewives' chat

room. In B. Danet & S. C. Herring (Eds.), The multilingual Internet: Language, culture,

and communication online (pp. 278-300). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pragmatic Play? 17

Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian

conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 247-279.

Krohn, F. B. (2004). A generational approach to using emoticons as nonverbal communication.

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, 321-328.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated

communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-341.

Markman, K. M. (2006, November). Following the thread: Turn organization in computer-

mediated chat. Paper presented at the Ninety-second annual meeting of the National

Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

Matsuda, M. (2005). Discourses of keitai in Japan. In M. Ito, D. Okabe & M. Matsuda (Eds.),

Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life (pp. 19-39). Cambridge:

MA: The MIT Press.

Menges, J. (1996, October). Feeling between the lines. CMC Magazine. Retrieved October 1,

2002, from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1996/oct/menges.html

Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated

communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 397-421.

Nastri, J., Peña, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). The construction of away messages: A speech act

analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4). Retrieved August 26,

2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/nastri.html

Nishimura, Y. (2003). Linguistic innovations and interactional features of casual online

communication in Japanese. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(1).

Retrieved September 10, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/nishimura.html

Pragmatic Play? 18

Nishimura, Y. (2007). Linguistic innovations and interactional features in Japanese BBS

communication. In B. Danet & S. C. Herring (Eds.), The multilingual Internet:

Language, culture, and communication online (pp. 163-183). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Rezabeck, L. L., & Cochenour, J. J. (1995). Emoticons: Visual cues for computer-mediated

communication. In Imagery and visual literacy: Selected readings from the 26th Annual

Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association (pp. 371-383). Tempe,

Arizona.

Rivera, K., Cooke, N. J., Rowe, A. L., & Bauhs, J. A. (1994, April). Conveying emotion in

remote computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the Computer Human

Interactions Conference, Boston, MA.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization

of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E.

Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Streeck, J., & Mehus, S. (2005). Microethnography: The study of practices. In K. L. Fitch & R.

E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 381-404). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thurlow, C., & Brown, A. (2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-

messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1(1). Retrieved August 26, 2007, from

http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html

Pragmatic Play? 19

Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in

virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved September 14, 2007, from

http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational

perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B., & D'Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation

in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324-347.

Werry, C., C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat. In S. C.

Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural

perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Witmer, D. (1998). Smile when you say that: Graphic accents as gender markers in computer-

mediated communication. In F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin & S. Rafaeli (Eds.), Network

& netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet (pp. 3-11). Menlo Park, CA: American

Association for Artificial Intelligence Press.

Witmer, D. F., & Katzman, S. L. (1997). On-line smiles: Does gender make a difference in the

use of graphic accents? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Retrieved

January 12, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/witmer1.html

Wolf, A. (2000). Emotional expression online: Gender differences in emoticon use.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 827-833.