Volume 33, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Online communication has created new ways to express emotions, including emoji and reaction GIFs. Emoji are often discussed as signs for meaning-making, adding emotional tone to communication. Reaction GIFs express emotions and attitudes in a playful manner. This study shows that through the lens of cognitive pragmatics, these phenomena are not distinct. Both are cases of non-verbal communication pointing to the communicator’s emotional state. Drawing on relevance-theoretic notions of the and , along with relevance-theoretic analyses of metaphor and irony, I argue that emoji and reaction GIFs provide clues to ostension and communicate emotions by virtue of perceptual resemblance between what they represent and the communicator’s emotional state. I will also argue that both emoji and GIFs can involve echoic use of language, enabling the communicator to convey their attitude.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aldredge, Jourdan
    2019 “The Michael Jackson Popcorn Gif and the Controversy of ‘Leaving Neverland’.” No Film School. Available athttps://nofilmschool.com/Michael-Jackson-Popcorn-GIF. Accessed15 October 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ash, James, and Stephen Wilhite
    2015 “Sensation, Networks, and the GIF: Toward an Allotropic Account of Affect.” InNetworked Affect, ed. byKen Hillis, Susanna Paasonen, and Michael Petit, 119–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bai, Qiyu, Qi Dan, Zhe Mu, and Maokun Yang
    2019 “A Systematic Review of Emoji: Current Research and Future Perspectives.” Frontiers in Psychology101: 2221. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02221 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carston, Robyn
    1997 “Enrichment and Loosening: Complementary Processes in Deriving the Proposition Expressed?” Linguistische Berichte81, Special Issue on Pragmatics: 103–127. 10.1007/978‑3‑663‑11116‑0_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1999 “The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: A View from Relevance Theory.” InThe Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, ed. byKen Turner, 85–125. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004 “Explicature and Semantics.” InSemantics: A Reader, ed. byS. Davis, and B. Gillon, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2008 “Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinctions.” Synthèse165 (3): 321–345. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9191‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 “Metaphor: Ad Hoc Concepts, Literal Meaning and Mental Images.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society110 (3): 295–321. 10.1111/j.1467‑9264.2010.00288.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng, Lifen
    2017 “Do I Mean What I Say and Say What I Mean? A Cross-Cultural Approach to the Use of Emoticons & Emojis in CMC Messages.” FONSECA: Journal of Communication151: 199–217. 10.14201/fjc201715199217
    https://doi.org/10.14201/fjc201715199217 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cho, Alexander
    2015 “Queer Reverb: Tumblr, Affect, Time.” InNetworked Affect, ed. byKen Hillis, Susanna Paasonen, and Michael Petit, 43–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  12. Collister, Lauren
    2015 “Textspeak is Modernizing the English Language.” New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/121463/textspeak-streamlining-language-not-ruining-it
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Danesi, Marcel
    2017The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781474282024
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474282024 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eppink, Jason
    2014 “A Brief History of the Gif (So Far).” Journal of Visual Culture131: 298–306. 10.1177/1470412914553365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914553365 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1997Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  16. Forceville, Charles
    2020Visual and Multimodal Communication: Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190845230.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibson, Will, Pingping Huang, and Qianyun Yu
    2018 “Emoji and Communicative Action: The Semiotics, Sequence and Gestural Actions of ‘Face Covering Hand’.” Discourse, Context & Media261: 91–99. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gülşen, Tüge. T.
    2016 “You Tell Me in Emojis.” InComputational and Cognitive Approaches to Narratology, ed. byT. Ogata and T. Akimoto, 354–375. IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑5225‑0432‑0.ch014
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0432-0.ch014 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, Jeffrey. A., and Natalie Pennington
    2013 “Self-Monitoring, Honesty, and Cue Use on Facebook: The Relationship with User Extraversion and Conscientiousness.” Computers in Human Behavior291: 1556–1564. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hjartstrom, Hanna, Daniel E. Sörman, and Jessica K. Ljungberg
    2019 “Distraction and Facilitation: The Impact of Emotional Sounds in an Emoji Oddball Task.” PsyCh Journal81: 180–186. 10.1002/pchj.273
    https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.273 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hymes, Dell
    1971On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jaeger, Sara R., and Gastón Ares
    2017 “Dominant Meanings of Facial Emoji: Insights from Chinese Consumers and Comparison with Meanings from Internet Resources.” Food Quality and Preference621: 275–283. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaeger, Sara R., Christina M. Roigard, David Jin, Leticia Vidal, and Gastón Ares
    2019 “Valence, Arousal and Sentiment Meanings of 33 Facial Emoji: Insights for the Use of Emoji in Consumer Research.” Food Research International. 1191: 895–907. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.10.074
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.10.074 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Linguistics and Poetics.” InStyle in Language, ed. byThomas A. Sebeok, 34–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jibril, Ahmed Tanimu, and Mardziah Haytati Abdullah
    2013 “Relevance of Emoticons in Computer-Mediated Communication Contexts: An Overview.” Asian Social Science91: 201. 10.5539/ass.v9n4p201
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n4p201 [Google Scholar]
  26. Katz, Yuval, and Limor Shifman
    2017 “Making Sense? The Structure and Meanings Of Digital Memetic Nonsense.” Information, Communication & Society201: 825–842. 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1291702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1291702 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1994 “What is Metaphor?” Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory31: 203–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. López, Rebecca Padilla, and Fabienne Cap
    2017 “Did You Ever Read about Frogs Drinking Coffee? Investigating the Compositionality of Multi-Emoji Expressions.” Paper Presented at the8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. 10.18653/v1/W17‑5215
  30. Miltner, Kate M., and Tim Highfield
    2017 “Never Gonna GIF You Up: Analyzing the Cultural Significance of the Animated GIF.” Social Media and Society3.31: 1–11. 10.1177/2056305117725223
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117725223 [Google Scholar]
  31. Paasonen, Susanna, Ken Hillis, and Michael Petit
    2015 “Introduction: Networks of Transmission: Intensity, Sensation, Value.” InNetworked affect, ed. byKen Hillis, Susanna Paasonen, and Michael Petit, 1–24. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9715.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Prada, Marília, David L. Rodrigues, Margarida V. Garrido, Diniz Lopes, Bernardo Cavalheiro, and Rui Gaspar
    2018 “Motives, Frequency and Attitudes toward Emoji and Emoticon Use.” Telematics and Informatics351: 1925–1934. 10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Riordan, Monica A.
    2017 “Emojis as Tools for Emotion Work: Communicating Affect in Text Messages.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology361: 549–567. 10.1177/0261927X17704238
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17704238 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sadiq, M., and Shahida
    2019 “Learning Pakistani Culture through the Namaz Emoji.” 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET):1–8, 10.1109/ICOMET.2019.8673479
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOMET.2019.8673479 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sasamoto, Ryoko and Rebecca Jackson
    2016 “Onomatopoeia – Showing-Word or Saying-Word? Relevance Theory, Lexis, and the Communication of Impressions.” Lingua1751: 36–53. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sasamoto, Ryoko
    2019Onomatopoeia and Relevance Communication of Impressions via Sound. London: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑26318‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26318-8 [Google Scholar]
  37. Scott, Kate
    2017 “Prosody, Procedures and Pragmatics.” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. byI. Depraetere, and R. Salkie, 323–341. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_18
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_18 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2022Pragmatics Online. London: Routledge. 10.4324/b22750
    https://doi.org/10.4324/b22750 [Google Scholar]
  39. Settanni, Michele, and Davide Marengo
    2015 “Sharing Feelings Online: Studying Emotional Well-Being Via Automated Text Analysis of Facebook Posts.” Frontiers in Psychology61: 1045. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01045
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01045 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sha
    Sha 2016 “The Digital Materiality Of Gifs.” Retrieved fromdigitalmateriality.com/
  41. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986/1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1987 “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences101: 697–754. 10.1017/S0140525X00055345
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055345 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1998 “Irony and Relevance: A Reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi.” InRelevance Theory. Applications and Implications. ed. byR. Carston, and S. Uchida, 283–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.37.16spe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.16spe [Google Scholar]
  44. 2015 “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy15 (2): 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008 “A Deflationary Account of Metaphors.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. ed. byRaymond W. Gibbs, jr., 84–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sujay, Khandekar, Chae Won Ryu, Joseph Higgs, Jerry O. Talton, Yuanzhe Bian, and Ranjitha Kumar
    2019 “Opico: A Study of Emoji-First Communication in a Mobile Social App.” Paper presented at theCompanion of the World Wide Web Conference. 10.1145/3308560.3316547
  47. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol.21. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tolins, Jackson, and Patrawat Samermit
    2016 “Gifs as Embodied Enactments in Text-Mediated Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction491: 75–91. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164391
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164391 [Google Scholar]
  49. Tossell, Chad C., Philip Kortum, Clayton Shepard, Laura H. Barg-Walkow, Ahmad Rahmati, and Lin Zhong
    2012 “A Longitudinal Study of Emoticon Use in Text Messaging from Smartphones.” Computer in Human Behavior281: 659–663. 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  50. Veszelszki, Agnes
    2015 “Emoticons vs. Reaction-Gifs. Non-Verbal Communication on the Internet from the Aspects of Visuality, Verbality and Time.” InBeyond Words. Pictures, Parables, Paradoxes, Visual Learning series, vol. 5, ed. byAndrás Benedek, and Kristóf Nyíri, 131–145. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wharton, Tim
    2008 “‘Meaning’ and ‘Showing’: Gricean Intentions and Relevance-Theoretic Intentions.” Intercultural Pragmatics5 (2): 131–152. 10.1515/IP.2008.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  52. Wharton, Tin
    2009Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511635649
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1992 “On Verbal Irony.” Lingua871: 53–76. 10.1016/0024‑3841(92)90025‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90025-E [Google Scholar]
  54. 2002 “Truthfulness and Relevance.” Mind111 (443): 583–632. 10.1093/mind/111.443.583
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2012Relevance and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
    2006 “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind & Language21 (3): 404–433. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2006.00284.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Wilson, Deirdre
    2006 “The Pragmatics of Verbal Irony: Echo or Pretence?” Lingua1161: 1722–1743. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2012 Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. InMeaning and Relevance, Deidre Wilson, and Dan Sperber, 230–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.014 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2021 “Explaining Metonymy.” Paper presented atInstitute of Humanities Research Seminar, Northumbria University, 17 March 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Yus, Francisco
    2019 “Emoji: A Full Cyberpragmatic Approach.” Paper presented at the16th China Pragmatics Conference. Nanchang, China.
  62. 2021Smartphone Communication: Interactions in the App Ecosystem. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003200574
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003200574 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error