This week, we wanted to convene a small panel discussion in response to recent developments in the comments to our previous posts. Some of our readers experienced difficulty interpreting each other's tones. As such, we invited avid reader and internet user Michael "Mikey" Kapinus to join us in remarking on this issue.
Written electronic communication poses a unique risk in that the person or people you are communicating with may not be able to detect nuances that are obvious in a face-to-face conversation. To elucidate the problems associated with this phenomenon, we have three topics today. First, blog author Maggie Paino will discuss the failure of fonts to effectively communicate tone. Peter Giordano will then comment on "tone tags", a novel system for communicating tone in writing. Finally, our special guest Michael "Mikey" Kapinus will respond specifically to some of the issues raised by our readers in their comments, partly by comparing caveats applicable to the European linguistic tradition with Ethiopic grammatical devices.
The Failure of Fonts
The option of fonts is one that is both abused and taken for granted. Fonts can be selected by an instant message user to individualize her text and allow herself to shine through the doldrums of text boxes, or to allow an individual to enhance an otherwise everyday email so that it expresses the livelihood of her e-vite. Many individuals fall victim to the apathy of default fonts and do not take advantage of the many possibilities available to provide a tone indicative of that trying to be portrayed by the electronic communicator.
Perhaps fonts could contribute to the resolution of evasive tone in electronic communication? Or, perhaps they only hinder any headway made in the war against ambiguous tone? In determining whether fonts achieve the former or the latter, I think that it is important to recognize the difference between “tone” and “personality.” “Personality” is one’s personal character, what makes that individual “them.” “Tone”, on the other hand, is emitted by an individual to portray a particular mood or emotion at a given time.
One can express their personality through a font easily. For example, an individual who uses “Papyrus” is obviously trying to convey a different personality than someone who uses “Zapfino” or “Stencil.” But, one cannot express her tone through the modification of a font. For instance, if I were to ask, “Would you like to meet me after work so that we can talk about the status of our relationship?” the tone of your response consisting of “Sure. I’m so excited!” formatted in “Comic Sans” would be just as ambiguous as “Sure. I’m so excited!” formatted in “Verdana.” Either could be characterized as genuine, sarcastic, solemn, or flip. Maybe someday the use of fonts will develop and progress to the point where they can be applied to the denotation of tone, and resolve all of these interpersonal electronic fiascos.
Tone tags: Wave of the Future
When I was ruminating on the difficulty of conveying tone electronically, it occurred to me that people might find it useful to literally annotate their writing with indications of their tone. Take this hypothetical passage from an e-mail as an example:
*salutory* Hey Maggie!
*genuine* I'm so excited for our upcoming trip. Who would have thought that there was a historic produce market with an enormous, cement peach on top of it just 25 miles outside of town? *sarcastic* I'm totally enamored with the prospect that Michael "Mikey" Kapinus might join us... seeing how he was just sooo good in the car when we took our last trip. *genuine* Well, I'm looking forward to seeing you at the Soma Coffeehouse later. Have a good day!
Pete
When I came up with this idea, I thought I was probing an experimental boundary in electronic communication. Much to my surprise, when I related the story to computer engineer Andres Bastidas, he informed me that tone tags were already in use at his office:
Andres: Actually, when communicating with Jason, we do that. Especially when talking with an accent or a specific tone that you want to convey
Pete: No way!
Andres: *span class="limey"* top of the morning */span*
He later gave me another example.
Andres: *span style="strong"*When's this MS Paint blog going to launch?*/span*
It seems that computer engineers and other computer professionals are, as we might expect, ahead of the curve on this one. It remains yet to be seen if the rest of us will ever catch up.
Kapinus Drops By
In the comments to a recent post, cyber-guru Robert Pondiscio remarked:
"I'm laughing as well. And I think the hosts of this blog are laughing too. At us."
In response, Jim Stephens opined:
"People write web logs; they don't 'host' them."
Pondiscio stood his ground on his language, characterizing his own, delicious role as a blog "host" as follows:
"I 'host' an active education blog... I'm self-consciously trying to put out an interesting and appetizing mental buffet."
Expert commentator Michael "Mikey" Kapinus had this to say on the issue:
I have to say that I mostly stand with Robert Pondiscio on this one. I think "host" is definitely appropriate for the founder(s) and operator(s)of a blog. Just by the mere fact that there is a comment section, a blog opens up the possibility of dialogue between many people. The "host" of the blog is the provider AND essentially may act as something of a moderator if needed (when things inevitably get out of hand). I feel that this blog in particular has to act as somewhat of a forum since the nature of interpersonal electronic communication is still evolving and changing.
Jim Stephens was also critical of what he perceived of as a lack of appreciation for sarcasm on Robert Pondiscio's part. Exhibiting some sarcasm himself, he said:
"We now know that sarcasm is A-OK and fun for everyone!"
Pondiscio responded thusly:
" My sarcasm, if you want to call it that, was a signal that I'm in on the joke and not insulted, per your point."
Our very special guest, Michael "Mikey" Kapinus, offered some insight into the nature of sarcasm on the internet:
I also believe that sarcasm is absolutely not always "humorous and harmless" or "A-OK and fun for everyone". While I love the use of sarcasm in a humorous context, most definitions of sarcasm include bitter, cutting, and taunting. This is the whole reason why there is often trouble in interpersonal electronic communication: because sarcasm, along with other rhetorical devices, is often conveyed through tone, which is difficult to relate over the internet. Devices such as quotations, emoticons(winking, tongue out, frowning) and abbreviated code (LOL) help with this conveyance of tone, but are not foolproof. In certain Ethiopic languages, sarcasm is indicated with a sarcasm mark, a character that looks like a backwards question mark at the end of a sentence. Maybe English needs this. I fear that we may never see the ability to communicate as clearly over electronic means as we do with vocal communication. Call me "old-fashioned." : - P All modes of communication have their downfalls. We can't read minds...yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment