Face work with emojis in a didactic peer-feedback …...Face work with emojis in a didactic...

Face work with emojis in a didactic peer-feedback setting:

A pragmatic analysis

Michael Beißwenger · Steffen PappertUniversität Duisburg-Essen

Final Workshop. 18th–20th October 2018, Zurich

Results of an exploratory, pragmatic analysis of the use of emojisin 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).

Focus of our talk

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.

Three perspectives

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

Structure of our talk

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)


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)

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.

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.

Model of linguistic politeness: face work approach(GOFFMAN 1986, BROWN/LEVINSON 1987)

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.

The learning scenario – in a nutshell:The cooperative Learning game Ortho & Graf

https://udue.de/orthoundgraf

game phase 1: investigation request

game phase 2: case file with investigation result & rationale

game phase 3: internal audit

Task for game phase 3

Please check the selected case files for plausibility: Is the investigators‘ result comprehensible? Does the assign-ment of the result to an article of the set of rules seem trace-able and have the investigators justified their decision com-prehensibly? Has the file been completed accurately?

Please provide short written feedback to the investigators. Highlight what you consider the strengths of their analysis, but please also address aspects that are in need of improve-ment. Try to formulate proposals and suggestions as construc-tively and concisely as possible. Please keep in mind that the investigators whose cases you evaluate are your peers!

Please check the selected case files for plausibility: Is the investigators‘ result comprehensible? Does the assign-ment of the result to an article of the set of rules seem trace-able and have the investigators justified their decision com-prehensibly? Has the file been completed accurately?

Please provide short written feedback to the investigators. Highlight what you consider the strengths of their analysis, but please also address aspects that are in need of improve-ment. Try to formulate proposals and suggestions as construc-tively and concisely as possible. Please keep in mind that the investigators whose cases you evaluate are your peers!

(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 addresseesas their work is criticised.

(3) w.r.t. the positive face of the authoras 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.

Performing the task implies face-threats in several respect:

How students solve the task: an example

The data

post 1

post 2

post 3

post 4

Data set: 680 posts from three instantiations of the game in seminarswith teacher students at the UDE during the summer semester 2017(95 students in total, 65 actively participating in game phase 3).

Classification 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)


216

120

343

... plus at least one emoji / emoticon: 229

(Subset 1) ... and only FTAs:

(Subset 2) ... and both FTAs and FFAs:

62

167

Classification of the data

Classification results:

Posts which include a reactive component:

Posts which contain FFAs only:

Posts which contain at least one FTA and no reactive component

How emojis contribute to face work in our data

(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 context

(2) as softeners: they are used to modalise the effect of an FTA:

(1.1) FFA boosters: emojis supporting a face-flattering act.

(1.2) FTA boosters: emojis supporting a face-threatening act.

(1) as boosters: they support and intensify the effects of face-related acts:

FFA boosters:


FTA boosters:


softeners: modalising by positioning:


softeners: modalising by characterising the FTA as facetious:


softeners: characterising the FTA as an action within a ludic context:



Three categories of posts:

(1) Posts which include a reactive component:

(2) Posts which contain FFAs only:

(3) Posts which contain at least one FTA and no reactive component

216

120

343

(3.1) ... plus at least one emoji / emoticon: 229

(3.1.1) ... and only FTAs:

(3.1.2) ... and both FTAs and FFAs:

62

167

Politeness 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


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“).

ReferencesBeißwenger, 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, kommunikativenGattungen 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 PappertUniversität Duisburg-Essen

Final Workshop. 18th–20th October 2018, Zurich

Face work with emojis in a didactic peer-feedback …...Face work with emojis in a didactic...

Documents

Transcript of Face work with emojis in a didactic peer-feedback …...Face work with emojis in a didactic...