With emoji everywhere you might care to look, a nagging question remains unanswered. What are emoji? Are they a language, whatever that means? A pictographic script in the manner of hieroglyphics or Chinese characters? Or are they something else entirely? In this post we examine how emoji are, and arenât, used, and what that might tell us about the nature of emoji as a whole.
Bearing in mind that I am very much not a linguist, letâs nevertheless start with the biggest of these questions: are emoji a language? To answer it, we first need to define what a language is. Oxford Dictionaries offers the following:
The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.1
Taking this definition step by step, emoji meet the first clause â âThe method of human communicationâ â without breaking a sweat. Weâre all humans here and at this point in time, a full twenty years since emoji first came into being, it is not a great stretch to claim that that we use them to communicate amongst ourselves. Equally, it goes without saying that if emoji are to be âeither [a] spoken or writtenâ language then they must be a written one. Emoji were born as visual symbols and, aside from their workmanlike Unicode names, they have no direct verbal equivalents. So far, so good.
Finally, though, can we be confident in declaring that emoji constitute âwords [used] in a structured and conventional wayâ? This is less clear cut. If we assume that each individual emoji constitutes a word (by no means a settled assumption), consider how I might explain that I, đ , am to squirt you, đ¨, with a đŤ. Do we write that from left to right (đ đŤđ¨) as we would with words, or from right to left as the direction of the water pistol would suggest (đ¨đŤđ )? Equally, can we say for sure that âđŤâ is a verb rather than a noun? If a verb, is it in the simple future tense? The simple past? Or, God forbid, the pluperfect? Without some kind of grammar, none of these questions is easily answered.
If we turn from grammar to semantics, we run into yet more problems. Does âđŤâ mean âwater pistolâ in particular rather than âgunâ in general? Do you, the reader, even see a water pistol rather than a real gun? Most major emoji vendors have replaced the latter with the former in recent years, so that even the most basic atoms of any putative emoji language are subject to change with warning.2 If emoji are a language, it is one that somehow functions without either a regular grammar or an agreed vocabulary.
Perhaps there is a different way to look at things. In 2015, Oxford Dictionaries, who provided our definition of language above, named FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY (đ) â now, as then, the worldâs most popular emoji3 â as Word of the Year, beating out such zingers as âad blockerâ, âBrexitâ, âlumbersexualâ, âon fleekâ, and âsharing economyâ.4 In the press release that accompanied the announcement, Casper Grathwohl, president of Oxford Dictionaries, commented that:
You can see how traditional alphabet scripts have been struggling to meet the rapid-fire, visually focused demands of 21st Century communication. Itâs not surprising that a pictographic script like emoji has stepped in to fill those gaps â itâs flexible, immediate, and infuses tone beautifully.4
If emoji are not a language, are they instead a script â that is, the written expression of a language proper? It is tempting to file them alongside pictographic scripts such as cuneiform, hieroglyphics or modern Chinese characters, but merely existing as a collection of discrete images is not enough for us to call emoji a fully-fledged script. For one thing, each of these other examples started out as a means to record an existing, spoken language (Akkadian, Old Egyptian and Old Chinese respectively5,6,7) whereas emoji were founded as a repertoire of visual icons unmoored from any spoken equivalents. If emoji are a script, as Grathwohl suggests, they certainly did not start out as one.
The thing is, successful scripts have a habit of broadening their horizons. The Latin alphabet, for example, having started life as the written representation of Latin itself, is now used for hundreds of other languages worldwide.8,9 Some, such as the Romance languages, are derived from Latin and brought the alphabet along with them; others, such as Turkish, have had the Latin alphabet retroactively applied.10,11 Even if emoji did not begin life as a script, itâs possible to argue that it could have become one through its application to spoken language: it isnât hard to imagine that âđâ could translate to âsmileâ, for instance, or that âđâ might mean âcarâ.
Emoji resembles the Latin alphabet in another way, too, although perhaps a more equivocal one. Just as âbadâ in English means something quite different to bad (âbathâ) in German, so some emoji mean different things in different places. In Japan, âđâ means âthank youâ and not âprayer handsâ (or even âhigh fiveâ) as it does in many other places;12 the Japanese word for âpooâ and âluckâ sound similar, and so âđŠâ has connotations of serendipity that donât travel well;13 and ââ¨ď¸â is Japanâs cartographic symbol for hot springs rather than hot food.14 Elsewhere, in many parts of the world the thumbs-up emoji (đ) is a rude gesture, and in some countries but not others the insouciant âđ â has sexual connotations.15 Lastly, in China, the lack of expression around the eyes of many common smileys, such as âđâ, give them a dismissive or mocking air; the more expressive eyes of âđâ and âđâ are less ambiguous.16 In this respect, emoji are as geographically chameleonic as any other widely-used script.
Despite these seeming overlaps, there is one crucial characteristic shared by many scripts (and alphabets in particular) that emoji does not yet possess. In linguistic terms, emoji are not symbolic.
Historically, scripts tend to evolve. Cuneiform became syllabic, repurposing its logograms, or word symbols, as sounds.17 And Egyptian hieroglyphics, initially both logographic and syllabic, morphed into true alphabets, Latin included, through a tortuous procession of descendants.18,19 This isnât to say that scripts must evolve in order to be considered legitimate, and, in some ways, emoji is already evolving. As weâve already seen, thereâs a steady stream of new emoji, and the meaning of those emoji does change over time. But what true scripts have in common, and what emoji lacks, is that they have either partially or entirely outgrown their ties to physical objects and actions. The letters âdâ, âoâ and âgâ, for example, have no inherent connection to dogs other than the fact that when we combine them into the word âdogâ, we understand that composite symbol as representing the concept of a dog. As such, we say that the Latin alphabet is symbolic, and it is a property that makes for a flexible, expressive means of communication.
Here, finally, is where the idea of emoji as a script runs aground. As far as emoji is concerned, âđŠâ is simply a picture of a dog, inherently bound to the idea of dogness or, indeed, the sound of the word âdogâ in the readerâs language. We say that emoji are iconic rather than symbolic, with each glyph representing only its pictured object or activity â no more, and no less.20
What, then, are emoji? The truth is that they are exactly what they look like: a grab bag of tenuously-related pictures of people, things and activities. And yet, as reductive as this sounds, it has not stopped emoji from becoming an integral part of modern communication. For one thing, pictures are uniquely self-descriptive. A visual depiction of a person, action or thing is an effective way of communicating that thing. As we saw back in part 1, the Tokyo Olympics of 196421 pioneered the use of icons as language-independent wayfinding symbols. A decade later, the American Institute of Graphic Arts created a similar vocabulary of symbols for use by the US Department of Transport in airports and other transportation hubs.22,23,24 Forty-five years later, and the DOTâs symbols are still in use â indeed, they have been enshrined in their own ISO standard.25* Proof that a well-designed set of symbols need not be elevated to the status of language or script to be worthy of our attention.

Emoj are very much part of this tradition of icons; they are, in other words, pictures. And if you will permit me a terrible pun, that is one of their greatest strengths: they are pictures in other words. The DOTâs classic airport iconography and the Tokyo Olympicsâ graphical signposts live, or lived, in a deliberately wordless context, relying on their iconicity to transcend the languages of their countries of origin. By contrast, emoji positively embrace their place among their alphabetic siblings and are all the richer for it.
Consider this: emoji might have started out as mere pictures of things, but, courtesy of the way they coexist with conventional writing, they lend themselves to more subtle uses. In an article published in 2017 at the excellent (and sweary) blog Strong Language, Philip Sergeant, a lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the Open University, explained how emoji could be creatively used in the service of a little light profanity. Applying himself to the terms âcockwombleâ (an insult slung at then-presidential candidate Donald Trump during a 2016 visit to Scotland26) and âwankerâ, Sergeant explained how one might translate them into emoji:
For example, đđš is a calque: a word thatâs borrowed from another language through direct translation. In this case the two component parts of the English word are rendered with the icons that individually represent them (although with a bit of poetic licence being taken in the substitution of the âhamster faceâ for a womble). đâď¸, on the other hand, is a rebus: a linguistic device which uses pictures to represent part or all of a word. Here, the âwâ indicated by the conjoined hands is appended to âanchorâ to approximate the pronunciation of the English word.27
This is emoji in the role of exotic linguistic construct, an enthusiastic participant in the world of text. You can use âđâ in its usual role to mean âjazz handsâ or âhugâ, or you can hope that your reader will interpret it as the letter âwâ. You can use âđâ to mean âa male chickenâ, or you can use it as a substitute for the sound of the word âcockâ; likewise, ââď¸â can represent the concept of an anchor, or it can convey merely the sound of the word âanchorâ. (Pleasingly, this doubling-up of signs to mean both the thing they represent and the sound they make is exactly what prompted scripts such as cuneiform to evolve from ideographic towards syllabic. Itâs tempting to imagine that emoji, too, might one day become a true script through a similar mechanism.)
Nor does the use of emoji stop at word replacement: emoji are increasingly used as visual alternatives for others parts of written language, too. Witness the so-called ratchet clap, in which the CLAPPING HANDS SIGN is used to đ really đ truly đ thunderously đ emphasise đ words đ in đ a đ sentence đ.28,29 This is emoji as word space, yanking the eighth-century invention of Celtic monks firmly into the age of the smartphone.â And who could forget the graphical (and graphic) double entendres that we encountered back in part 5 of this series â âđâ, âđŽâ, âđâ, and more?
For my money, this is emojiâs most natural home: inhabiting the same space as our words but not replacing them, and invigorating otherwise bloodless digital messages at they do so.
Having said all this â that emoji cannot be a language, because they lack structure; that they are not a script because they are not symbolic; that they live among words but should not replace them â there are, of course, dissenters. Back in the fifth part of this series we took note of a viral tweet composed by Scottih tennis player Andy Murray to provide a blow-by-blow prognostication of his upcoming nuptials:30
đâđđđ đđđ°đđđđđŤđđđđđđšđˇđĽđđˇđ´đđđđŻđśđ¤đšđťđˇđşđŠđŚđˇđšđ¸đşđâ¤đđđ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤31
Murrayâs tweet is closer to a movie storyboard than it is to a sentence, but it does hint that emoji have the potential to be more than merely pictures embedded in text. And there have been other, more ambitious efforts too.
In September 2009, one Fred Benenson launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund an emoji âtranslationâ of Herman Melvilleâs 1851 opus, Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. Benenson exceeded his goal of $3,500, raising $3,676 from eighty-three backers, and went to print.32 The result, Emoji Dick; or, đł was an impressionistic, crowd-sourced rendering of the source text in emoji. As Benenson explained,
Each of the bookâs approximately 10,000 sentences has been translated three times by a Amazon Mechanical Turk worker. These results have been voted upon by another set of workers, and the most popular version of each sentence has been selected for inclusion in this book.33
Arguably, Emoji Dick is more notable for its means of production than for its emoji-ness: for the uninitiated, Amazon Mechanical Turk is a service whereby a computer doles out small, manual jobs to a pool of human workers and the results are sent back to the computer for processing.34 It is the exact opposite of the conventional model of human-computer interaction.
Practically speaking, Benensonâs use of Amazon Mechanical Turk resulted in Moby Dickâs famous opening line â âCall me Ishmaelâ â being translated as ââď¸đ¨âľđłđâ.32 The first two or three emoji I can just about agree with, but the rest have more to do with the sentences that follow in Melvilleâs novel:
Some years agoânever mind how long preciselyâhaving little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation.35
But these, too, were translated to yield, rather less convincingly, âđ°đđĽď¸â and â5ď¸âŁâđđšâđŞđťâ respectively.32 Personally, I canât help but wonder if Benensonâs results would be more convincing if he were to re-run his translation today; emoji literacy among English speakers must be significantly higher now that it was in 2010.
Notwithstanding the quality of the translation, Emoji Dick went on to be the first book acquired by the US Library of Congress to credit Amazon Mechanical Turk as an author.36 And Benensonâs success, if not his means of translation, inspired others to attempt their own emoji versions of classic works. In 2015, for example, a designer named Joe Hale translated both Aliceâs Adventures in Wonderland and Peter Pan into emoji;37,38 a year earlier, on the other hand, a photographer named Kamran Kastle raised just $105 of his goal of $25,000 towards translating the Bible.39 (Kastle may not have fully understood the task at hand, given that he referred to emoji as âemoticonsâ throughout his Kickstarter pitch.)
Does this mean that emoji really is a language? Obeying Betteridgeâs law of headlines, no, they are not. Despite Joe Haleâs optimistic claim that he could âreverse translateâ his emojified Alice into an approximation of the original,37 emoji still lack the symbolic nature of an alphabet, the scope of a pictographic script, and the convention and structure of a language.
Perhaps the most accurate statement we can make is that emoji are accessories to conventional scripts, adding literal and metaphorical colour to staid old letters and numbers and occasionally â just occasionally, and in very specific ways â replacing them entirely. Emoji may have colonised our writing, but it is they who have had to learn our language and not the other way around.
- 1.
- âLanguageâ, Oxford Dictionaries. â˘
- 2.
- Unknown entry â˘
- 3.
- Matthew Rotherberg, âFACE WITH TEARS OF JOYâ, emojitracker.Com, 2019. â˘
- 4.
- âWord of the Year 2015â, Oxford Dictionaries, Novemberâ2015. â˘
- 5.
- Jerrold Cooper S, Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- 6.
- Robert Rittner K, Hieroglyphic, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- 7.
- William Boltz G, Early Chinese Writing, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- 8.
- Stan Knight, The Roman Alphabet, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- âCLDR Likely Subtagsâ, Unicode.Org. â˘
- 10.
- Edward Tuttle, Romance Languages, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- 11.
- Edward Tuttle, Turkish, ed. P T Daniels and W Bright, The Worldâs Writing Systems, 1996. â˘
- 12.
- Kat Chow, âSimmering Online Debate Shows Emoji Is In The Eye Of The Beholderâ, NPR, Augustâ2014. â˘
- 13.
- Nalina Eggert, âEmoji Translator Wanted - London Firm Seeks Specialistâ, BBC News, Decemberâ2016. â˘
- 14.
- Sam Escobar, âEmoji Meanings Decoded - Emojis Youâre Using Wrongâ, Cosmopolitan, Decemberâ2016. â˘
- 15.
- Marcel Danesi, Emoji Uses, The Semiotics of Emoji : The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. â˘
- 16.
- Echo Huang, âChinese People Mean Something Very Different When They Send You a Smiley Emojiâ, Quarz, Marchâ2017. â˘
- 17.
- C Walker, âOrigin and Developmentâ, in Cuneiform, 1987, 7-21. â˘
- 18.
- Alan Gardiner H, âThe Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabetâ, 1916. â˘
- 19.
- Helmut Satzinger, âSyllabic and Alphabetic Script, or the Egyptian Origin of the Alphabetâ, 2002. â˘
- 20.
- Marcel Danesi, Emoji and Writing Systems, The Semiotics of Emoji : The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. â˘
- 21.
- Shigetaka Kurita, Mamiko Nakano, and Mitsuyo Inaba Lee, âWhy and How I Created Emojiâ, Ignition. â˘
- 22.
- Adam Sternbergh, âSmile, Youâre Speaking Emojiâ, New York, Novemberâ2014. â˘
- 23.
- Ellen Lupton and Abbott Miller, âModern Hieroglyphsâ, in Design Writing Research, 1999, 41-45. â˘
- 24.
- Roger Cook et al., âSymbol Signsâ, AIGA, 1974. â˘
- 25.
- âISO 7001:2007 - Graphical Symbols -- Public Information Symbolsâ, International Organization for Standardization, 2007. â˘
- 26.
- Hilary Mitchell, â24 Times Scottish Twitter Roasted The Fuck Out Of Trumpâ, BuzzFeed, Octoberâ2016. â˘
- 27.
- Philip Sergeant, âThe Whimsical World of Emoji Swearingâ, Strong Language, Marchâ2017. â˘
- 28.
- Katy Waldman, âTweets With Clap Emojis Between the Words Are Annoying.â, Slate, Aprilâ2016. â˘
- 29.
- Alexandria Princess, âRatchet Clapâ, Urban Dictionary, 2019. â˘
- 30.
- Katie Baillie, âAndy Murray Predicts Entire Wedding Day in Epic Emoji Tweetâ, Metro, Aprilâ2015. â˘
- 31.
- Andy Murray, âTweetâ, Twitter, Aprilâ2015. â˘
- 32.
- Unknown entry â˘
- 33.
- Fred Benenson, âEmoji Dickâ. â˘
- 34.
- âAmazon Mechanical Turkâ. â˘
- 35.
- Herman Melville, Moby-Dick, Or, the Whale, 1851. â˘
- 36.
- Erin Allen, âA Whale of an Acquisitionâ, Library of Congress Blog, Februaryâ2013. â˘
- 37.
- Beckett Mufson, âAuthor Translates All of âAlice in Wonderlandâ into Emojisâ, Vice. â˘
- 38.
- Beckett Mufson, âAuthor Translates All of Peter Pan into Emojisâ, Vice. â˘
- 39.
- Kamran Kastle, âThe Bible Translated into Emoticonsâ, Kickstarter, 2014. â˘
- *
- The AIGAâs expanded set of 50 symbols is now freely available on the web. â˘
- â
- See The Pilcrow, part 2 or the Shady Characters book for more on spaces between words. â˘
Comment posted by â° on
2ď¸âŁâ3ď¸âŁ2ď¸âŁâš
Comment posted by Keith Houston on
Well, quite.
Comment posted by Robert Seddon on
I wonder whether they’re comparable to heraldic devices, with a written description (blazon) that allows flexible artistic renderings, where the blazon is the actual definition that uniquely distinguishes the design.
Comment posted by Keith Houston on
Hi Robert — so a given emoji’s name is the blazon and each different version is a particular interpretation of that blazon?
Comment posted by Adriel Watt on
Thanks for another interesting post about emoji. I think the biggest thing standing in emoji’s way of being a script is that there is no phonetic component. Even Chinese, the most successful logographic script, includes phonetic elements. One commonly cited example is the word for ‘mother’. It is made up of the symbols for ‘horse’ and ‘woman’. ‘Horse’ because it has the same sound (though different tone) ‘ma’ and ‘woman’ for obvious reasons.
Also emoji don’t include symbols for most grammar words like prepositions, conjunctions, articles etc.
By the way, I think the final version of the following sentence got left on the cutting room floor:
“The first two or three two emoji I can just about agree with, but the rest seem to have more to do with the two senÂtences that folÂlow in Melvilleâs novel: …”
Comment posted by Keith Houston on
Hi Adriel — thanks for the comment! I’ve fixed that sentence.
As I mention in the post, some emoji are used phonetically (if only rarely), but you’re quite right about the lack of conjunctions, prepositions and so on. They just aren’t rich enough yet to qualify as a script.