It is relatively obvious for human to associate technology in terms of automation, machinery, impersonal and such, rather than to communication and conversation, prior to the intervention of communicative technologies. The nineteenth century had witnessed and experienced the rapid evolution of the large quantity of electronic devices for communication, for instance, telephone, radio, television, and internet. Among all, telephone technology emerged as ‘an integral part of’ everyday lives for humans universally (Kang, 2015). Since then, chatting with other people via telephone is as easy as breathing; it is the most convenient means to maintain contacts with family and friends, to participate in social activities and execution of businesses.
…show more content…
Many research (e.g. Argyle and Cook, 1976; Duncan and Fiske, 1977; Kendon, 1990) on human interaction indicated and argued on the significance of non-verbal cues (e.g. eye contact; gestures) in handling the co-participation and reciprocal engagement in talk (Hutchby, 2001). Rutter analysed the discrepancies of ‘cuelessness’ between the classroom-based seminars in university and telephone seminars; his findings denoted that human appear having little difficulty in handling coordination even when visual cues are absent. In comparing the interactions between the two settings mentioned above, Rutter disclosed that face-to-face seminars in classrooms proved more student-to-student interaction, while telephone tutorials evidenced as more turn-taking interaction between tutor and student; tutors had to play the constructive role in telephone tutorial (Rutter, 1989: 303). Rutter demonstrated that participants in telephone tutorials had a greater consciousness of distance and higher degree of ‘cuelessness’ than participants in classroom-based seminars. Telephone technology is deemed affording ‘sense of intimacy’ because the nature of telephone system (anonymity) places participants in a more ‘cuelessness’ condition and psychologically stimulate their sense of
Many research (e.g. Argyle and Cook, 1976; Duncan and Fiske, 1977; Kendon, 1990) on human interaction indicated and argued on the significance of non-verbal cues (e.g. eye contact; gestures) in handling the co-participation and reciprocal engagement in talk (Hutchby, 2001). Rutter analysed the discrepancies of ‘cuelessness’ between the classroom-based seminars in university and telephone seminars; his findings denoted that human appear having little difficulty in handling coordination even when visual cues are absent. In comparing the interactions between the two settings mentioned above, Rutter disclosed that face-to-face seminars in classrooms proved more student-to-student interaction, while telephone tutorials evidenced as more turn-taking interaction between tutor and student; tutors had to play the constructive role in telephone tutorial (Rutter, 1989: 303). Rutter demonstrated that participants in telephone tutorials had a greater consciousness of distance and higher degree of ‘cuelessness’ than participants in classroom-based seminars. Telephone technology is deemed affording ‘sense of intimacy’ because the nature of telephone system (anonymity) places participants in a more ‘cuelessness’ condition and psychologically stimulate their sense of