Emoji are widely used in digital communication, but their linguistic status and meaning are not well understood. This study aims to investigate how emoji are perceived and interpreted by diferent groups of speakers, based on their age, profession, and knowledge of foreign languages. The study is based on an experiment that involved participants from various fields of education and other professions, who were asked to use emoji in the learning process. The study applies the concept of frame semantics to analyze the structure and semantics of emoji signs, and to explain the variation in their perception and interpretation. The results show that emoji are an artificial digital language that exhibits both a priori and a posteriori features, and that their meaning depends on the speaker's mental frames, which are influenced by their professional activity and experience. The study also reveals the diferences between representatives of the humanities and social sciences, and representatives of sciences, in their use and understanding of emoji. The study suggests that emoji have both advantages and disadvantages for the educational process and for the digitalization of society in general.
Computational linguists (Anber and Jameel [
However, we should note that the digitalization of the traditional text with the help of ICT introduces
a new communicative barrier – the problem of sign interpretation. In our article [
This digital technology is very relevant for the field of philological communication today, and we
believe that the further development of text visualization technology will facilitate the efective learning
of fiction by philology students. However, we think that it is important to pay more attention to the
problem of sign interpretation, because it afects the level of understanding among humanity in a
global sense. Therefore, after conducting an experiment with students generating visual text based on
ifction [
The objective of the paper. Systematic analysis of the empirical method in the study of interpretation of the visual emoji sign during its generation and perception, which will trace the semiotic transformation in the analysis of transgression of signs from natural languages into digital artificial (a posteriori) ones, especially emoji. Determining the pedagogical perception of the visual sign is made possible by the fact that the experiment involved not only teachers and students of philology, but also representatives of various fields: historians, economists, programmers, mathematicians and others, which allows to compare perceptions and interpretations of artificial emoji.
First of all, let us explain what we mean by the aposteriori nature of artificial languages. We follow the
definition given by Piperski [
In our study [
Therefore, based on the logic (a priori) and a posteriori aspects of the artificial digital emoji language, and building on previous research on this topic, we propose the design of the pedagogical experiment. We aim to examine how emoji is used in the learning process through digital communication, what criteria are used by educators and learners when constructing an artificial sign, which plays a special role in the interpretation of a specific emoji.
To solve the delineated tasks, the following methods were used: analytical review – for the study and analysis of scientific and methodological literature, curricula, generalization of information to determine the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study; pedagogical modeling – for the study of pedagogical objects through the modeling of procedural, structural and substantive and conceptual characteristics and individual “aspects” of the educational process. Empirical method – in order to study the phenomenon through experiment and rational processing of the obtained data. Structural method – in order to identify and analyze structural elements, individual components, categories, etc., which form the emoji-sign. The method of component analysis – in order to identify the minimum semantic (semantic) elements that form the semantic component of the sign. Semiotic method – in order to study the sign from the standpoint of its organization, the properties of its elements and categories. Descriptive method – in order to describe in detail, the language units in the inventory and systematization. Dialectical method as a way to find a theoretical construction of the linguistic picture of the world, the study of the true criteria for the coexistence of language and the world, language and man, language and machine. Logical-analytical methods, namely the method of induction and deduction, which allows to consider the content of the object, specifying and generalizing its concept; the method of formalization as the study of an object by reflecting their structure in symbolic form.
In order to identify diferentiation in the interpretation of emoji, we conducted an experiment involving 110 respondents aged 10 to 70 years (figure 1). Such a large-scale coverage of the age category allowed to fundamentally reflect the picture of the world and digital literacy of mentally diferent representatives, and also allowed to distinguish groups of people whose linguistic pattern difers significantly from respondents of other age categories. All this is directly reproduced in the interpretation of the optical digital sign. Thus, the results of the experiment show that emoji is used more by respondents whose age range is from 10 to 20 years, and to a lesser extent – from 40 years (figure 2). Accordingly, such results explain the verbal skills of the recipients, depending on the professional and mental qualities, which will be discussed later.
Since the experiment was conducted in order to identify functioning of digital emoji language in the pedagogical process, divided into various narrow fields, the part was taken by representatives of the following professions: philology (educators (lecturers, teachers) and students). However, the validity of the experimental field increases due to the participation in the experiment of representatives of the following fields: history, IT, mathematical modeling, publishing, choreography, psychology, economics, diplomacy, archaeology, IT, nfie arts. The status of the respondent varies from student to habilitated doctor. The wide scale of profile diferentiation fractalizes semantic shifts in the interpretation of a sign in more detail. This is characterized, in addition, by the choice of social network, where the respondent uses emoji (figure 3). We can see that most age groups of recipients use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (X). However, the age group of up to 20 years tests artificial languages on other platforms (Tik-Tok, Discord, Tumblr), which is also reflected in the verbal skills of the recipients. In terms of professional afiliation, Facebook is more used by the teaching staf of various universities (59.1% of respondents); Instagram – by students of diferent universities – 67.3%, other social networks – by the lowest percentage of respondents, which is fractalized to all categories of respondents.
Another important characteristic of diferentiation and fractalization of answers is mastery of foreign
languages. Among the respondents were experts in the following languages: Russian (99%), English
(98%), Spanish (74%), Italian (49%), French (49%), German (23%), Chinese (4%), Japanese (2%), Korean (1%),
Czech (1%), Polish (1%), Georgian (1%), Armenian (1%), Hebrew (1%), Turkish (1%). Therefore, the results
concluded that the use of emoji in digital communication (both in everyday life and in the professional
sphere) is more pertinent to recipients with knowledge of two or more foreign languages (table 1).
However, the interpretation of a particular sign varies and depends on a particular foreign language
(and / or on professional skills). Emoji is a typical visual complement to the content of text / speech
in digital communication for experts in Oriental languages, including Mandarin Chinese, Japanese
and Korean, which, in turn, refers us to the mental frames of Oriental language structures. Fillmore
[
The most unexpected among the results of the survey were the responses of computer science specialists, whose attitude to emoji was twofold. However, we can assume that experts in the field of IT completely include emoji in the loglan, which apriori cannot have an emotional substrate. Computer science specialists, in turn, perceive not so much a language as its matrix. Under such conditions, the logical indicator is that the most extensive use of emoji is in the humanities (philologists, historians, philosophers), the specifics of whose profession refers to information as a tool of influence, which is directly inferred from the emotional substrate. To a lesser extent, emoji is used by the exact sciences specialists, the results of whose activity are represented by numerical data. The smallest percentage – computer science specialists, where the result is a matrix. The same efectiveness, as in the above case, applied to the interpretation of the concept of emoji (table 2). Artists and / or Oriental and Romance languages professionals emphasized the iconicity / ideography of the sign in digital communication, the graphic visualization of which is independent of the narrative form, but performs the contractual function of an auxiliary non-verbal explicant. Specialists in the humanities focused on the emotional characteristics of the sign, which is designed to enhance the efect of the communicative act in digital medium. A symbol for conveying the emotional side of communication Graphic symbol for emotions and states A picture depicting a certain emotion Emoticons designed to facilitate communication and convey diferent states / emotions Expression of emotions with the help of visual images A picture that helps you show your own emotions in text messages
Facial expressions in social networks A kind of graphic language Mood display Face sticker to emphasize or express your emotions in the message The language of various graphic signs A picture that reproduces feelings, understandable to both the recipient and the author of the statement A graphic sign, an illustration that conveys a certain concept, is used when communicating online Psychological state that reflects the instantaneous reaction to external factors Coloring of the written text and accessible expression of emotions Emotions that help to convey more clearly our emotions, state, attitude to the situation, feelings, and sometimes due to emotions you cannot even write a text.
Mini drawings to indicate emotions, objects through which it is possible to convey information Use of digital symbols to demonstrate emotions, feelings, personal reaction to messages, photos in online communication
Auxiliary ideographic record
We mentioned above the verbal skills of the recipients, which, like the previous features, depend on age, professional activity and knowledge of foreign languages. In order to trace the diferentiation of the perception and interpretation of the emoji sign, 10 most used emoji in diferent operation systems and digital platforms were added to the survey in order to trace how the respondent understood each sign. In addition to the characteristic of popularity, the dual or polylateral nature of the sign was an important factor in choosing emoji for the experiment, which hypothetically refers to the conclusion about the diferentiation of the perception of signs by each recipient. Thus, the sign #1 (figure 4) for 99% of respondents is interpreted unambiguously, with deviations of the semantic load in 1%: ok, good, cool, great, well done, good job, very good, super, perfectly etc. However, from recipients aged 10 to 20 we have answers that reflect age-related deviations in perception, for example, “I like it (smiley is not very much, my grandmother throws me and teenagers use for this )”.
A similar perception applies to the sign #2 (figure 5), the interpretation of which is 100% synthesized with a negative connotation and explicated within one semantic field. However, given the scale to diferentiate the characteristics of respondents, the verbal definitions of the sign can be traced to the structure of the linguistic ousia of answers, hypothetically deducing the nature of the category / profession / status / experience of a particular answer (table 3).
The sign #3 (figure 6) in digital communication embodies the polylateral structure of perception and interpretation. The answers to this sign are radically diferent (table 4).
Perception and interpretation of the sign varies within the concepts of “horror”, “shock”, “fear”, “surprise”. Accordingly, it will be appropriate to emphasize the characteristics of the recipient to trace
What does the following emoji mean to you? In what context could you use it? Surprise from the written (description of actions in the message) Surprise from the situation or from the words spoken the frame structure of speech and verbal skills of respondents. Thus, the sign #3 is interpreted and perceived as horror in the category of 20 to 40 years (60%), shock – from 10 to 20 years (15.5%), fear – from 40 to 65 years (22.7%), as well as 66 years (1%) and 70 years (1%), surprise – from 40 to 65 years (22.7%). According to professional characteristics, the answers are fractalized into all categories evenly.
The situation with the sign #4 is more unambiguous (figure 7). However, it should be noted that the age categories 10 to 20 and 20 to 40 years in most cases interpreted the sign in terms of CB exclusively, emphasizing the digital continuum, in contrast to other categories that described the sign purely emotionally in the real ontological dimension (table 5).
The sign #5 (figure 8) expresses an error in interpretation and perception of 2%. Among the most typical – “sadness”, “tears”, “sadness”, “fiasco”, “pain”. The sarcastic connotation of the use of the sign in digital communication (age category from 40 to 65 in the humanities) (table 6) has to be emphasized, as well as despair, depression, fatigue (age category 10 to 20 years – students) – with appropriate explanation by the recipients of their interpretation and perception: term finals at the university).
The sign #6 (figure 9) is identically interpreted and perceived by the respondents, but there is a diferentiation in the verbal reproduction of the sign. Thus, respondents with an age category ranging from 10 to 20 years, as well as specialists in Germanic languages have the signification “ kiss”; from 20 to 40 years (respondents of the humanities) – “flirtation ”, “love”, and respondents of exact sciences – “Air kiss”, “I kiss and love”. “You are very dear to me”. Respondents between the ages of 40 and 65 provide a more detailed lexical field, giving the signifier an explicit character: “ You are my good, thank you. A sign of support, gratitude, approval, support”. The results showed that such an explication would be more typical for teachers with suficient experience in educational institutions, mainly in the humanities. It is noteworthy that IT professionals do not visually perceive the sign for two reasons: 1) this symbol can be used only with the close social circle; 2) visually do not like the symbol. This perception once again concludes the structure of thinking of specialists in the exact sciences, the result of which is a number / calculation / matrix.
An ambiguous picture is observed with the sign #7 in digital communication (figure 10), because “With love” – especially a warm relationship, thank you Fascination with news / comments from a close person / child / friend See something cute, beautiful Friendship compassion Fascination with news / comments from a close person / It has many meanings: it conveys pleasant amazechild / friend ment, joy, admiration for beauty, love according to previous experimental empirical data, it was stated that the sign has a latent negative connotation. In order to confirm or refute the station, the mentioned sign was placed in the questionnaire. The results showed a proportion of 60/40: 60% of respondents, whose age category is mainly from 20 to 40 (23%) and from 40 to 65 (37%), perceive and interpret the sign, emphasizing the neutral and / or positive connotation that explains approval of something (“okay”, “good”, “super”, “yes” etc.). However, 40% of respondents (mostly humanities students – age group 10 to 20 years, as well as representatives of creative professions – artists, writers) see in the sign a negative connotation, which is characterized by several expressions: either sarcasm, or contempt for the interlocutor, or attempt to maintain one’s opinion (table 7).
It was experimentally interesting for the authors of the study to trace the emotional characteristics of the sign #8 (figure 11).
Undoubtedly, the sign is an identifier of the global civilizational phenomenon of modernity, which led
to the global pandemic – the coronavirus in COVID-19 [
Personal correspondence or friendly, reaction to the message in digital communication usage at the beginning of the quarantine, which covered virtually the whole world. However, computer being eliminates any locality, leaving in the substrate a psycho-emotional factor of sign perception. Thus, according to the results, we obtained the following disclosure: 70% of respondents of all categories explained the sign as “disease”, “epidemic”, “temperature”. However, the answers of humanities teachers, as well as students aged 20 to 40, were typical. The signifier of the #8 sign of the mentioned respondents is “silence” or “I do not use”. Representatives of exact and natural sciences mostly emphasized that the sign does not belong to their digital continuum (table 8).
The sign #9 (figure 12) is not characterized by popularity in use in computer being, therefore a priori Class, great, thanks! All is well! Most likely, it is a response / reaction to someone’s fulfilled request or reaction to the news and carries approval, or sometimes this smiley is a neutral response.
postironia
Keep it up, super Short answer to the sign of approval, support, acceptance of information Very good, or sarcastic “approval” (neutral) Means that the above seen cool (accompanied by other emojis can mean causticity, on the bag, generally expressing both good and evil) Approval of user message (actions described in message) Again, it can mean either satisfaction and approval, or I use it in an ironic sense good job; consent What does the following emoji mean to you? In what context could you use it? it was placed for the purpose of revealing of diferentiation of a lexical field of respondents that is projected on perceptual sensations.
A remarkable point is that the less popular (almost unknown emoji sign) was 100% interpreted unambiguously and with one (in this case – negative) connotation. This is important information, because popular characters have many semantic branches in recipients of diferent categories, which again confirms the open aposteriority of artificial emoji language with the emergence of new connotations in digital communication and expansion of the lexical field of the respondent (table 9).
The sign #10 (figure 13) in our experiment is the key optical sign in digital communication.
The sign is quite popular, however, as the results of the experiment showed, it is popular not for the denotation, but for the psycho-emotional characteristics of the respondent. 99% of respondents answered that the sign has a negative connotation and optically reflects the state of anger, rage and rage. In fact, this sign is mental in location – a sign of Japanese origin to express a sense of triumph (in Unicode Consortium – “Face with Look of Triumph”). Thus, we conclude that the mentioned mental
What does the following emoji mean to you? In what context could you use it? Head turn In alcohol intoxication tired, broken, confused This is my face every morning Amazingly I do not use it because it is disgusting incomprehension An unusual, extraordinary situation; uncertainty “Hangover” / “sleep deprivation” – a reaction to questions Expresses stupidity, play, intoxication about the condition Fatigue, inability to concentrate Confused condition of students after the session Crazy situation
I don’t even know. when I swelled dumplings... I have never seen such a thing, he is a bit drunk frame was not read by computer science specialists, artists or connoisseurs of oriental languages. The sign was interpreted and perceived according to the universal psycho-emotional state – the state of anger, rage, anger (table 10).
The respondent who provided the only correct answer is a historian by profession. Hypothetically and deductively, we can conclude that in this case the emotional nature of the artificial language emoji prevailed, which, in fact, is one hundred percent embedded in the concept of Unicode Consortium. Correct disambiguation of this sign is an exception to appeal to the respondent’s profession when it comes to text as information. For linguists the text was perceived as a structure for computer science specialists – a matrix, representatives of the exact sciences – hypothesis. Perceiving the text as information, the representative of the historical profession did not notice the emotional nature of the sign, relying in general on the information about this sign, which is its (sign) English name “Face with Look of Triumph”.
The final stage of the survey was the question “Can emoji replace natural language?”. In fact, the last question is an additional result of previous conclusions on the use of emoji in the pedagogical process, depending on the diferent categories of respondents. The results of the survey show the following picture: 5.5% (6 respondents) answered “Yes, in full”; 29.1% (32 respondents) – “50/50”; 59.1% (65 respondents) – “No, they can’t” (figure 14).
What does the following emoji mean to you? Anger, resentment, but again, I would use it to denote my reactions in not very serious situations. In addition, I read that this smiley is not an expression of dissatisfaction, but has a diferent connotation, but for me it is an expression of these emotions.
Dissatisfaction, anger, the tram was late Lots of work, boring, maybe annoying “evil”, “dissatisfied”, “not in humor”, “ofended” I’m outraged I would kill! Horror the last stage before anger, I can barely restrain myself from breaking “God forbid she’s still something” XD (stock up on patience) overflowing with negative emotions, I want to let of steam
Note that the answer “Yes, in full” belongs to the respondents, whose age category is mostly from 10 to 20 years, to a lesser extent – from 20 to 40 (students and teachers of philology and artists). In the ifrst case, such results are explained by the nature of the humanities (mostly literary studies), where emoji is an a priori fact of the aposteriori continuum (for example, a work of fiction), and therefore is one hundred percent significant and signifier at the same time. In the second case, the object of fine art is essentially synonymous with emoji pictographic (visual, optical) result of creative activity.
The answer “50/50” belongs to philologists (linguistics), as well as representatives of sciences
(economists), social sciences (psychologists), humanities (archaeologists, publishers).
Philologistslinguists appeal to the nature of their profession, considering the text (including art) as a structure –
in particular in syntagmatics and paradigmatics, and thus, this explains the interest in the diferential
verbalization of the polylateral emoji sign as an apriori-posteriori system of thinking [
The answer “No, they can’t” belongs more to the humanities, in particular to philologists, whose age category is from 40 to 60, as well as 66 years. This is probably explained by the temporal limits of the emergence of the digital continuum in the former Soviet republics, which in the long run prolonged the universality, ideality and completeness of natural languages.
A big surprise was the position of computer science specialists, which expresses the impossibility of artificial languages (including emoji) to be a substitute for natural. We have already emphasized this unexpectedness above. Thus, we finally conclude that computer science specialists, studying language as a digital palindrome and an atemporal matrix, classify emoji as a loglan, which a priori cannot have an emotional substrate. 7 out of 110 respondents expressed a desire to express their opinion on the question “Can emoji replace natural language?”: 1. They can only supplement / diversify. 2. Replace no, but they give the correspondence cool emotions. One emoji can convey your mood. 3. It is only a supplement to the written conversation, although it can be a substitute for emotions in the same conversation. 4. For me, emoji is more of a complement to ordinary language, but not a replacement for it. It’s like a picture book. Without pictures it is not so colorful and fun. 5. They create an analog language, but natural language is better, because you can operate live with a newly created expression of emotions. Emoji create boundaries within which you can express yourself, but it is often impossible to find an exact match for your emotions. 6. Partly, but it is worth the vicinity ’ favorites, each emoji treated every person diferently. And this can lead to misunderstandings. And natural language cannot be completely replaced, it is rather a supplement to the expression of emotions. 7. To some extent. But some have already replaced
The respondents’ detailed answers were subject to digital content analysis via an open source Voyant corpus/text mining toolkit (https://voyant-tools.org/). Two instruments were used specifitaly for 1) key words identification (quantitavely calibrated word cirrus, featuring foregrounded concepts and notions) – figure 15, and 2) key words frequency estimation (key words trending in the horizontally segmented corpus of responses) – figure 16. The key words of the respondents’ detailed answers in equal proportions are “language”, “emotions”, “emoji”, “expression”, which hypothetically appeals to the conceptualiazation of natural languages as perfect, and therefore artificial languages, in particular emoji, are an optical supplement to the expression of a particular context. Consequently, emoji becomes not so much an artificial language as a form of language, a frame of writing that enhances and / or explains human feelings and emotions, but at the same time can create misunderstandings of the explication of the signifier, which depends on many factors: conditions, modality of expression etc.
All the stated above, given the specifics of the respondents’ answers, allows to conclude that in
terms of expression emoji is not an independent language. Despite a clear and logical algorithm for
generating and codifying artificial language in computer being, the perception and interpretation of a
particular emoji sign varies depending on its use by a particular person. However, it is this feature of
the emoji language that involves updating the content and form of academic writing in the pedagogical
educational process with the involvement of the ICT generated and implemented emoji language in a
specific context. After all, the use of graphic signs will promote the development of visual (photographic)
memory in students, as well as the development of emotional intelligence (EQ), necessary for awareness
and understanding of one’s own emotions and the emotions of others [
Thus, summarizing all the empirical data collected through the survey, we can trace the efectiveness
of the use of artificial languages in the pedagogical process, taking into account the specifics of the
professional activities of the respondent. However, we should note that, summarizing the experimental
data, we get another question: why use the emoji language in the pedagogical process? As the survey
showed, emoji are an integral part of modern digital communications. Moreover, the digitalization of the
educational process by its nature appeals to the codification of the semantic field of the communicative
act [
We conducted a survey of participants in the educational process to investigate the following: 1. The artificial digital emoji language exhibits polylaterality in its structure (sign generation elements) and semantics (multi-directional perception and interpretation of the sign). This accounts for the diversity of emoji signs, which reflect both mental frames and universal features. 2. The polylateral perception and interpretation of emoji depends on the characteristics of the speaker, which we classified into the following categories in our study: • Age • Profession • Foreign language proficiency • Social network preference.
Our empirical experiment was initially designed for teachers and educators in the pedagogical field. Our aim was to examine the speed and direction of the integration of the digital continuum into the pedagogical activity (artificial languages, especially emoji) in order to assess the feasibility and efectiveness of learning at the intersection of natural and artificial languages and digital communication. However, we also received responses from other professionals, such as computer scientists, economists, artists, poets and writers, which enabled us to broaden the scope of our study, considering not only antithetical professions (humanities and sciences), but also the nature and specifics of each profession. The latter, in turn, is encoded in the structure of the speaker’s thought by mental frames that shape the verbal language system and the speaking behavior of the respondents, as well as the ideographic visual pattern embedded in the artificial language of emoji.
Based on the results of the experiment, we also conclude that all respondents (110 people) use emoji in both their personal and professional lives. However, the essence of emoji in digital communication has significant nuances for each profession (not excluding age and language skills). Thus, the representatives of the humanities and social sciences use emoji to convey the psycho-emotional aspect of the sign, considering it as an addition to the text to express emotions in digital communication. Therefore, emoji can replace natural language up to 50% for these respondents, as shown by the experiment to reproduce poetic content using Emoji-Maker platform.
Only a small percentage of respondents believe that natural language can be fully replaced by artificial language. These respondents include philologists and linguists. However, it should be noted that linguists provided detailed answers regarding the perception and interpretation of emoji signs, which confirms their view of emoji language as an a priori-a posteriori system. Therefore, emoji can be either a supplement or a substitute for natural language with a complete meaning representation.
Representatives of sciences (mathematicians, economists, programmers) regard emoji as an independent language to a lesser extent, which is explained by the frame P-semantics of their thinking structure, which is as follows. For these speakers, natural language itself is an auxiliary element for their professional performance, which a priori places artificial languages in the position of auxiliary symbols to obtain the work result in the form of digital content and matrix grid. Therefore, most of these respondents use emoji without assigning clear and unambiguous connotations to the sign during digital communication.
For future research, we need to extend the classification of respondents by their professional activity, by including the following groups in the experiment: 1. Teachers: specialists in physics, biology, law, political science and others who were not involved in the experiment. 2. Non-teachers: other professions that are not related to education and pedagogy.
Such a large and diverse sample of respondents will allow us to obtain a Gaussian curve with a
normal (statistical) distribution of the essence of emoji language, fractalizing the efect of the exponential
function of artificial language into a quadratic function. This way, we will have a deductive hypothesis
of the role, function and impact of emoji language on teachers and non-teachers, which will reveal
the pros and cons of digitalization of society both in the educational process and beyond. Moreover,
this approach will enable us to examine the linguistic construction of individual “Sprachspiel” (term by
Wittgenstein [
The research was conducted within the framework project of the Department of Romance Philology and Typology (Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, Kyiv) “Development of European languages and literatures in the context of intercultural communication” (registration code 0116U00660) and the framework project of the Department of Ukrainian and World Literatures (Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, Kryvyi Rih) “Poetics of the text of a work of art”.