Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-lhnfz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T17:11:14.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideography in interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Greta Gandolfi Open the ORCID record for Greta Gandolfi [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin J. Pickering Open the ORCID record for Martin J. Pickering [Opens in a new window]
Greta Gandolfi
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK greta.gandolfi@ed.ac.uk; https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/greta-gandolfi martin.pickering@ed.ac.uk; https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/martin-pickering
Martin J. Pickering
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK greta.gandolfi@ed.ac.uk; https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/greta-gandolfi martin.pickering@ed.ac.uk; https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/martin-pickering
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The standardization account predicts short message service (SMS) interactions, allowed by current technology, will support the use and conventionalization of ideographs. Relying on psycholinguistic theories of dialogue, we argue that ideographs (such as emoji) can be used by interlocutors in SMS interactions, so that the main contributor can use them to accompany language and the addressee can use them as stand-alone feedback.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e243
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bavelas, J. B. (2022). Face-to-face dialogue: Theory, research, and applications. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190913366.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., … Enfield, N. J. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0136100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawne, L., & McCulloch, G. (2019). Emoji as digital gestures. Language@ Internet, 17, article 2 (urn:nbn:de:0009-7-48882). https://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2019/gawne/index_html.Google Scholar
Grosz, P., Kaiser, E., & Pierini, F. (2021). Discourse anaphoricity and first-person indexicality in emoji resolution. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 25, 340–357. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2021.v25i0.941Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1932). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. II: Elements of logic (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding dialogue: Language use and social interaction. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108610728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Chicago Linguistics Society, 6th meeting, 1970, pp. 567–578.Google Scholar