 |
|
|
|
|
Using Face-to-face Dialogue as a Standard for Other Communication Systems
An essay written in the Canadian Journal of Communication, Volume 22, Number 1, 1997, by Janet Beavin Bavelas, Sarah Hutchinson, Christine Kenwood, & Deborah Hunt Matheson explores how face-to-face communication is used a prototype for judging other types of communications.
Bias of the Ear and Eye: 'Great Divide' Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism
This essay by Daniel Chandler discusses oral and literate cultures and some of the differences between written and oral communication.
Daniel Chandler provides links on a wide range of theoretical topics such as reading, writing, orality and literacy, and textual media that pertain to differences in spoken discourse and forms fo writen communications.
Developing Personal and Emotional Relationships Via Computer-Mediated Communication
This is an article published online in CMC Magazine by by Brittney G. Chenault. If explores questions about how meaningful interpersonal relationships can be developed on the Internet.
The decline of conversation: with everybody wired, we are starved for face-to-face conversation. Jeff Minerd. The Futurist, Feb 1999 v33 i2 p18(2).
The widespread use of Internet and other high-technology communications systems risks increasing people's sense of isolation instead of drawing them together. Telecommunications cannot make up for the intimacy generated by non-verbal cues in face-to-face conversations. InfoTrac
Internet and Face-to-Face Communication: Not Functional Alternatives. Lisa M. Flaherty, Kevin J. Pearce and Rebecca B. Rubin. Communication Quarterly, Summer 1998 v46 i3 p250(1).
This empirical study examined whether users of online Internet communication perceived it to be a functional alternative to face-to-face communication. The findings indicated that use of the Internet as a communication channel is not perceived as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication. Computer mediated communication apprehension (CMCA) was linked to differences for communication motives. Subjects with high apprehension communicated on the Internet for inclusion and escape; they also used the Internet for social interaction, control, time-shifting, and habit motives. Low CMCAs communicated on the Internet for pleasure, affection, information, and entertainment, and communicated face-to-face for escape, time-shifting, and out of habit. People high in CMCA seem to use face-to-face channels as a distraction from the computer, whereas people low in CMCA use face-to-face channels because they enjoy it. InfoTrac.
communication process | cultural context | self | relational development | listening & perception | messages | relationships
Copyright, 2000-05 by Terrence A. Doyle, Ph. D. Feedback to tdoyle@nvcc.edu