forked from cadey/xesite
148 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
148 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: Emoji is not a Language
|
||
date: 2021-07-14
|
||
tags:
|
||
- linguistics
|
||
- philosophy
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
What is a language? This is something that is surprisingly controversial.
|
||
There's some easy ways to tell when something is a language (one of them being
|
||
that they have an army), but what about things like emoji? Is emoji a language?
|
||
In this article I will attempt to argue that emoji is not a language unto
|
||
itself.
|
||
|
||
At a high level, language is a tool that we use to represent
|
||
spatial/temporal/conceptual relations between objects/ideas/things, statements
|
||
about reality and similar things among that nature. Many languages are broken
|
||
into units of meaning that we call words. Here are some example words:
|
||
|
||
- the
|
||
- taco
|
||
- is
|
||
- beautiful
|
||
|
||
We can break these words into two basic classes like this:
|
||
|
||
| Content | Grammar |
|
||
| :------- | :------- |
|
||
| taco | the |
|
||
| beautiful | is |
|
||
|
||
It's worth noting that not all verbs fall into the "grammar" category. Things
|
||
like "eat" would fall into a content word, however "is" is a special case
|
||
because it is directly drawing a relation between two things. In the sentence
|
||
"The taco is beautiful", there is a relation being made from one specific taco
|
||
and the abstract concept of beauty.
|
||
|
||
I want to argue that emoji has plenty of content words, but no grammar words. If
|
||
we wanted to assemble an analog to "The taco is beautiful" in emoji, we could
|
||
make 1:1 correlations between English words and emoji like this:
|
||
|
||
| English | Emoji |
|
||
|:------- |:----- |
|
||
| the | |
|
||
| taco | 🌮 |
|
||
| is | |
|
||
| beautiful | 🎀 |
|
||
|
||
I dug through the entire emoji chart and was unable to find things that could be
|
||
used for "the" and "is". Heck, even the word I used for "beautiful" was a
|
||
stretch because the ribbon emoji is normally used that way. Is a language
|
||
defined by words that have inherent meaning or is that meaning arbitrarily
|
||
assigned by its users? Can I just firng out words like "xnoypt" as in "realizing
|
||
how the word would be pronounced, Tom [xnoypted](https://youtu.be/aMgCBYgVwsI)
|
||
out of existence"? Does that mean "xnoypt" is a word?
|
||
|
||
The closest I was able to get to "the" and "is" would be metaphors that would
|
||
fall apart when you want to discuss the actual things involved. Let's say that
|
||
you assign arbitrary emoji at least to "is" so that you can end up with this
|
||
sentence in emoji:
|
||
|
||
🌮➡️🎀
|
||
|
||
What if you want to talk about the concept of right though? Say you want to
|
||
convey that the taco store is to the right of the office building. You'd need to
|
||
say something like:
|
||
|
||
🌮🏪➡️➡️🏢
|
||
|
||
And this could be easily confused with the interpretation "taco store right
|
||
right office building".
|
||
|
||
But how do you know that it's a taco store? That's just a convention English
|
||
follows where the thing being described is the right-most thing and other things
|
||
on the left are just qualifiers or determiners to what's going on about it. It's
|
||
a "taco store", not a "store taco". Other languages like French do have this
|
||
reversed, so it could easily become a source of confusion.
|
||
|
||
So what if you ripped out the grammar entirely? What if you just had something
|
||
that was pure content? Could utterances like "🌮🏪➡️🏢" function in place of
|
||
something that breaks apart the words into groups? How would people know the
|
||
difference between that being a giant list of descriptors on top of a taco or an
|
||
office building?
|
||
|
||
How would you express verbs like "to eat"? Emojipedia says that 🍴 is used to
|
||
signify eating, but what about cultures that don't use cutlery to eat with?
|
||
Would this really be global enough to work in places like China? Cultural
|
||
cross-contamination would likely be enough at this point that most people could
|
||
get the message, but is this really representing the idea of eating or the idea
|
||
of something that you can use to eat other things? Would using this mean that
|
||
you could express what you ate with emoji? What would make it more of a concept
|
||
of eating than "to eat", "mangxi" (Esperanto), "manger" (French), or "citka"
|
||
(Lojban)?
|
||
|
||
If language is a tool that we can use to describe relations, then we can sorta
|
||
get them across with emoji by piggy-backing on top of the grammar of other
|
||
languages. You can derive new words like "taco store" with phrases like "🌮🏪".
|
||
You can use these to create meaning, I guess, but it wouldn't be very precise.
|
||
You could get across the most common words and cultural ideas, but not much
|
||
else.
|
||
|
||
Certainly not technical things where detail is important. Where is that taco
|
||
store in relation to the office building? Is it 5 meters to the right of it or
|
||
500 meters? What color is the office building? What name does it have? What is
|
||
the name of the road? What is the name of the taco store?
|
||
|
||
What can you really convey with emoji that isn't also conveyed with words?
|
||
|
||
You can create new words easily with some chat platforms and how they use emoji
|
||
though. You can either describe "nonbinary people" as "🚫🔢0️1️🧍" or you can just
|
||
upload an image of the [nonbinary pride
|
||
flag](https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Pride_Flags#Nonbinary_Flag) to use as a
|
||
direct descriptor of the concept instead. In a way emoji gives you a level of
|
||
freedom of expression that simple words can't. The word "xnoypt" makes sense to
|
||
people that know the word, but the picture has a greater chance of being closer
|
||
to understood on its own. Here is an emoji that my coworkers use as a loving
|
||
description:
|
||
|
||
<center>
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
</center>
|
||
|
||
This one is called `friday_deploy` and is used as the avatar of our deployment
|
||
bot as well as a way to describe the abstract horror of deploying software on a
|
||
Friday. By being an emoji it can represent something more than just the
|
||
pictograph that it is.
|
||
|
||
These all certainly encode meaning on their own, but meaning on its own doesn't
|
||
make a language. Emoji certainly could become a language, but it would need a
|
||
lot of work to become one. Even then it would likely fall into the other
|
||
failings that International Auxiliary Languages that have fell into. It is
|
||
easier to type emoji than it is to type things like Esperanto's "ĉ", but it's
|
||
going to inherently encode assumptions in the creator's first language.
|
||
|
||
Emoji is not a language, it's used to augment existing languages.
|
||
|
||
> If you want to claim that emoji is a language, you should be able to make that
|
||
> same claim using emoji. Not an ad hoc cypher of the english sentence; just use
|
||
> emoji the way people commonly use them, which you're saying counts as a
|
||
> language, to say "Emoji is a language".
|
||
|
||
- allthingslinguistic
|
||
|
||
I'd be willing to be proven wrong if you can write "Emoji is a language"
|
||
unambiguously using emoji without it being a baroque cipher of English.
|