Discourse anaphoricity vs. perspective sensitivity in emoji semantics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19038664 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Patrick Georg Grosz (0000-0001-6760-7729, University of Oslo, corresponding author), Elke Kaiser (0000-0003-3594-4127, University of Southern California), Francesco Pierini (0000-0002-3979-208X, Institut Jean Nicod, Département d'études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, PSL Research University, Paris) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2023-04-12 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Glossa a journal of general linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2397-1835 • E-ISSN: 2397-1835 |
| Publisher | Ubiquity Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.16995/glossa.9128 |
| OpenAlex | W4365140166 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 50 |
This paper aims to provide a foundation for studying the interplay between emoji and linguistic (natural language) expressions; it does so by proposing a formal semantic classification of emoji- text combinations, focusing on two core sets of emoji: face emoji and activity emoji. Based on different data sources (introspective intuitions, naturalistic Twitter examples, and experimental evidence), we argue that activity emoji (case study I) are essentially event descriptions that serve as separate discourse units (similar to free adjuncts) and connect to the accompanying (linguistic) text by virtue of suitable discourse relations. By contrast, face emoji (case study II) are expressive elements that are anchored to an attitude holder and comment on a proposition provided by the accompanying text. We provide further evidence for the distinct behavior of face emoji and activity emoji by looking at their scopal behavior with respect to linguistically- expressed negation. In particular, we probe interactions of emoji and texts that contain clausal negation, and conclude that both face emoji and activity emoji generally do not scope under negation. However, the appearance of such a scope relation arises with activity emoji when the emoji are connected to the accompanying text by virtue of an Explanation discourse relation. With face emoji, scopal interactions seem to appear in cases where the default interpretation would result in a discourse contribution that is pragmatically infelicitous, and also in cases that involve a specialized emoji-repetition construction where a repeated alternation of face emoji with words assumes a scope-marking role
Emoji · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Negation · Programming language · Social media · Computer Science · Digital Communication and Language · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Philosophy · Psychology
Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse
Lexical Meaning in Context
What and Where are the Primary Affects? Some Evidence for a Theory
Coherence and Coreference
Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment
The Logical Form of Action Sentences
Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives
The WaCky wide web
Sentiment of Emojis
A Systematic Review of Emoji
Beyond Expressives
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution
The Semantics of Emotive Markers and Other Illocutionary Content
A Formal Semantic Analysis of Gesture
Anaphoricity in emoji
The processing of emoji-word substitutions
A semantics of face emoji in discourse
Emojis and conditionals
Expressives, perspective and presupposition
Beyond unpluggability
Expressive presuppositions
Gesture projection and cosuppositions
Verbs and Times
A circumplex model of affect
The expressive dimension
Emoji
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |