Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy

From: John Hudson (
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 21:26:45 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Unused Unicode planes (was: Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy)"

    Adam Twardoch wrote:

    > I'm sorry, but I fail to see how emoji is non-text. To me, emoji are
    > very much text -- as I wrote before, they're the new, vastly extended
    > set of punctuation characters.

    There is a functional difference between textual articulation marks that
    indicate the structure of clauses that make up linguistic communication
    and little pictures of things that *may* assume pictographic
    conventional significance within a user community (surely you are not
    suggesting that all of the random collection of pictures in the emoji
    proposal have attained such conventional semantics. This difference is
    one of the first things that was discussed in this latest round of the
    emoji debate.

    > Emoji are not non-text signs, they are non-verbal signs, just like the
    > traditional punctuation signs. I see no reason why they should not be
    > encoded.

    Traditional punctuation *is* verbally representative, just like letters.
    Pauses and tonality are as much linguistic content as consonants and
    vowels. Little pictures of things are not.


    Tiro Typeworks
    Gulf Islands, BC
    The Lord entered her to become a servant.
    The Word entered her to keep silence in her womb.
    The thunder entered her to be quiet.
                 -- St Ephrem the Syrian

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 21:29:29 CST