Emoticon punctuation?!

[theta4]

Okay, I have a question that falls somewhat in line with the comic TED Talk. I've always wondered if emoticons could be used as punctuation. I'm going to have to use code and pretend like I'm using IRC, because if I don't, phpBB will put smilies in for me, which I don't want. (I chose to pretend like I'm using IRC just for the aesthetic).

Code: Select all

Let's say I want to say something along these lines:
<theta4> I really enjoy pizza <insert smiley here>. Do you?

This looks weird:
<theta4> I really enjoy pizza :). Do you?
It looks like the smiley has a mole or something

This, while more visually appealing, looks grammatically unsatisfying:
<theta4> I really enjoy pizza :) Do you?


So which is most correct? I've always used the second one, because there are plenty of clues that the smiley is the end of a sentence.

[GhostWolfe]

I tend to put emoticons outside of punctuation (or add a space between the emoticon and a closing bracket); but if I was "shorthanding" for IRC/chat, I have no problem with the emoticon acting as a full stop for the preceeding sentence.

This topic, however, reminds me of an article written by Steve Martin where he suggests the use of emoticons instead of full stops because the Times New Roman font is running out of periods.

/angell

[theta4]

... because the Times New Roman font is running out of periods.

Forget about the periods! Why hasn't anybody cared to think about the commas or the apostrophes?

[gmalivuk]

For the record, one of the posting options when you're composing a reply is to disable smileys. So you can put things like :-) and 8) and :oops: in your post without them being replaced with little images.

And regarding the actual question: I don't think either of them is "more correct" at this point, because the combination of punctuation and smileys has yet to develop enough of a convention for there to even *be* a correct way of doing it.

[GhostWolfe]

/\ that, so for the most part, my choice is governed by aesthetics.

/angell

[Apeiron]

In the language i'm building, punctuation is at the beginning. In English, punctuation goes at the end. If you're using emoticons in English, they go at the end and after the real punctuation.

[Grop]

I am used to considering smileys don't replace punctuation. In this case I would write "I really enjoy pizza . Do you?".

I agree most places are undecided on this, but I have been on a French-language game forum where you would be moderated if you used the other convention.

[Velifer]

So when do we standardize the emoticons themselves?
or 0_0 ?
...and what the hell does <_< mean?

I tend to put my emoticons after a carriage return and line feed, but I also often run out of stamps before I get to the end of a conversation.

[Hooch]

So when do we standardize the emoticons themselves?
or 0_0 ?
...and what the hell does <_< mean?

I tend to put my emoticons after a carriage return and line feed, but I also often run out of stamps before I get to the end of a conversation.

From what I know, ">_>" or "<_<" indicates the breaking of eye contact -- shifting eyes.

[there is no zero]

I usually put smileys after the punctuation and a space. :)

I believe <_< is "shifty", presumably because you have to use the shift key for all three characters.

[Terebrant]

Isn't punctuation used to indicate (at least partially) how something would sound when read aloud ? If so the second one provides the necessary information.

[Bobber]

I understand ">_>" and "<_<" as shifty eyes (or eye-contact breaking) as well.

A relevant problem is smilies in parentheses. "I'm feeling good today (because I ate candy :-)) but I have a dentist appointment tomorrow." looks really awkward. The solutions I can think of are putting a space between (as in "...today (because I ate candy :-) ) but...") or letting the smiley's mouth carry both the emoticon meaning and the parenthesis meaning (as in "...today (because I ate candy :-) but..."). I don't really like either of them though.

What do you forumites usually do?

[Hooch]

I usually use the "= 3" smiley, so parentheses pose no threat to me.

[Laogeodritt]

Personally, I prefer using emoticons outside punctuation. They convey additional information (tone especially) separate from the text's direct semantics, so I usually treat them as an additional part of a sentence (though not so much a linguistic part) coming after a final punctuation mark. They're not words in themselves, so placing them within punctuation seems even less "correct" to me.

When it comes to instant messaging, I tend to get lazy and drop (some) full stops that occur at the end of a message.

From what I know, ">_>" or "<_<" indicates the breaking of eye contact -- shifting eyes.

In my circle of friends and my main online communities (...emoticon conventions seems to differ by group), it tends to mean that and also a sideways glare at a person. Expressing disapproval or disbelief. I, personally, tend to use the mouthless >> or << to indicate some form of shame - well, not quite, but to "break eye contact", pointing at myself for something.

And that was a horrible explanation.

A relevant problem is smilies in parentheses. "I'm feeling good today (because I ate candy :-)) but I have a dentist appointment tomorrow." looks really awkward. The solutions I can think of are putting a space between (as in "...today (because I ate candy :-) ) but...") or letting the smiley's mouth carry both the emoticon meaning and the parenthesis meaning (as in "...today (because I ate candy :-) but..."). I don't really like either of them though.

Personally, I add spaces within ( at both parentheses just to make it even ;D ), and even if the emoticon doesn't use a parenthesis.

> I'm feeling good today ( because I ate candy :-) ) but I have a dentist appointment tomorrow.

Your last option can be ambiguous, though - certainly my first reaction is not to close the parenthetical statement while reading that. And what if you have several sentences within that parenthetical statement? D; (Yes, I know, it's horrible style... but in informal writing - like on forums and when doing some serious ranting/explaining on instant messengers, I tend to use parenthetical statements to convey relevant but not directly useful information - like background explanations to whatever fact that I'm presenting - both inline in a text and at paragraph's end, like I'm doing now.)

[6453893]

Oft have I heard friends say that >_> indicates a glare or gesture of anger, though I always tended to use it as the equivalent to guiltily tugging on one's collar. This may have lead to some unintentional offenses in my IRC conversations.

In any case I dislike that particular emoticon and avoid using it. Something about it just irks me. For those of you that just insist on using it, I recommend consolidating these two meanings somehow to avoid further disparity. Perhaps we should establish some sort of emoticon definitional panel?

[Marleen]

I use smileys in different positions throughout sentences. Examples:

1. That was a fun night!
2. That "film" was fun.
3 You're so sweet !

--> In the first case, I make my statement and that's that. The emoticon displays my general mood while typing, and is not directly (or only loosely) tied to the content of the sentence (hence it is outside the sentence).
--> In the second case, I emphasize one word or one part of a sentence by adding a wink (or any other emotion) precisely where I would have in real life.
--> In the third case, the emoticon is contained within the sentence because the emotion is directly tied to the content of the entire statement.

A practical approach: Since an emoticon can occur anywhere within or outside of a sentence, I'd never use the emoticon as a substitue for puctuation.

A logical approach: Punctuation adds another bit of information to your sentence. So does an emoticon, but it is a different dimension. You should be able to combine (think protfolio diagram) [ "." (default); "!" (emphasized); "..." (pensive, open); ...] x [":)"; ":("; ";)"; ...] to add as much or as little additional information to your words as you like.

So, no, I don't think it is a good idea to substitute punctuation with an emotiocon. I mean, in written messages, each to their own; but if we're talking formality (or structures used to enforce certain formats), then: no.