An Analysis of Man-Machine Interaction in Instant Messenger

  • Ong Sing Goh
  • Chun Che Fung
  • Arnold Depickere
  • Kok Wai Wong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 4)

The availability of multiple media channels through the Internet has added new dimensions of communication between people or communities who are geographically separated. In the environment of informal communication on the Internet, chat applications are popular in which a user may be represented only by a nickname or an alias. This suggests that a person may be able to communicate more freely when his or her identity is concealed. Popular chatting or instant messaging (IM) systems such as Microsoft MSN Messenger, America Online’s Instant Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, and GoogleTalk have changed the way that a user may communicate with friends, acquaintances, and business colleagues. Once limited to desktop personal computers (PCs) or laptops, popular instant messaging systems are finding their way onto handheld devices and mobile phones. This allows a user to chat from virtually anywhere. Nowadays, IM is found on almost every personal PC connected to the Internet as well as on many corporate desktops.


Instant Messaging British National Corpus Embody Conversation Agent Instant Messenger Natural Language Query 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shiu E, Lenhart A (2004) How Americans use instant messaging.
  2. 2.
    Saunders C (2003) Vendors debut new IM bot tech.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Gray Y (2005) The Brokerage and the bot.
  5. 5.
    USAToday (June 24, 2002) Agents pursue terrorists online.
  6. 6.
    Crenzel SR, Nojima VL (2006) Children and instant messaging.
  7. 7.
    Hoffman KR (2003) Messaging mania in time for kids. Time, vol. 8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Livingstone S (2006) UK children go online: surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.
  9. 9.
    Boneva B, Quinn A, Kraut R, Kiesler S, Cummings J, Shklovski I (in press) Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grinter RE, Palen L (2002) Instant messaging in teen life. Presented at 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forgas RC, Negre JS (2004) The use of new technologies amongst minors in the Balearic Islands. Presented at IAARE Conference, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baron N (2005) Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM 48: 29–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neustaedter C (2001) A 3D Instant Messenger visualization using a space metaphor.
  14. 14.
    Rovers AF, Van Essen HA (2004) Him: a framework for haptic instant messaging. Presented at CHI, Vienna, April 2004Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cherry SM (2002) IM means business. IEEE Spectrum Magazine, November 2002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herbsleb JD, Atkins DL, Boyer DG, Handel M, Finholt TA (2002) Introducing instant messaging and chat in the workplace. Presented at CHI’2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Neill J, Martin D (2003) Text chat in action. Presented at GROUP’03, Sanibel Island, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nardi B, Whittaker S, Bradner E (2000) Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action. Presented at CSCW’2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Craig D (2003) Instant messaging: the language of youth literacy. The Boothe Prize Essays,\%20Boothe-Craig.pdf
  20. 20.
    af Segerstad YH, Hashemi SS (2004) Exploring the writing of children and adolescents in the information society. Presented at the 9th international conference of the EARLI - special interest group on writing, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goh OS, Fung CC, Depickere A, Wong KW, Wilson W (2005) Domain knowledge model for embodied conversation agent. Presented at the 3rd international conference on computational intelligence, robotics and autonomous systems (CIRAS 2005), SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goh OS, Fung CC, Lee MP (2005) Intelligent agents for an internet-based global crisis communication system. Journal of Technology Management and Entrepreneurship 2:65–78Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goh OS, Fung CC, Ardil C, Wong KW, Depickere A (2006) A Crisis communication network based on embodied conversational agents system with mobile services. Journal of Information Technology 3: 257–266Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uhrhan C, Goh OS (2003) Features of a mobile personal assistant robot. Presented at the International conference on robotics, vision, information and signal processing, IEEE-ROVISP 03, Penang, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goh OS, Ardil C, Wong W, Fung CC (2006) A Black-box approach for response quality evaluation conversational agent system. International Journal of Computational Intelligence 3:195–203Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin D (1998) Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR. Presented at Workshop on the evaluation of parsing systems, Granada, SpainGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Isaacs E, Walendowski A, Whittaker S, Schiano DJ, Kamm C (2002) The Character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. Presented at CSCW‘02, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Avrahami D, Hudson SE (2006) Communication characteristics of instant messaging: effects and predictions of interpersonal relationships. Presented at CSCW’06, Banff, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    L’Abbé S (2006) Instant msg-ing messes with grammar? As if! lol! Teens adopting unique linguistic shorthand but not ruining syntax.
  32. 32.
    Banerjee S, Pedersen T (2003) The Design, implementation, and use of the ngram statistic package. Presented at the Fourth international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stewart J (2000) Word frequency usage in English.
  34. 34.
    Nass C (2004) Etiquette inequality: exibitions and expectations of computer politeness. Communications of the ACM 47:35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leech G, Rayson P, Wilson A (2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. London, LongmanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ong Sing Goh
    • 1
  • Chun Che Fung
    • 2
  • Arnold Depickere
    • 3
  • Kok Wai Wong
    • 3
  1. 1.Murdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information TechnologyMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia
  3. 3.Murdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations