What do you think?
Rate this book
The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet
Shortlisted for the BAAL Book Prize 2017
Emoji have gone from being virtually unknown to being a central topic in internet communication. What is behind the rise and rise of these winky faces, clinking glasses and smiling poos? Given the sheer variety of verbal communication on the internet and English's still-controversial role as lingua mundi for the web, these icons have emerged as a compensatory universal language.
The Semiotics of Emoji looks at what is officially the world's fastest-growing form of communication. Emoji, the colourful symbols and glyphs that represent everything from frowning disapproval to red-faced shame, are fast becoming embedded into digital communication. Controlled by a centralized body and regulated across the web, emoji seems to be a language: but is it? The rapid adoption of emoji in such a short span of time makes it a rich study in exploring the functions of language.
Professor Marcel Danesi, an internationally-known expert in semiotics, branding and communication, answers the pertinent questions. Are emoji making us dumber? Can they ultimately replace language? Will people grow up emoji literate as well as digitally native? Can there be such a thing as a Universal Visual Language? Read this book for the answers.
Emoji have gone from being virtually unknown to being a central topic in internet communication. What is behind the rise and rise of these winky faces, clinking glasses and smiling poos? Given the sheer variety of verbal communication on the internet and English's still-controversial role as lingua mundi for the web, these icons have emerged as a compensatory universal language.
The Semiotics of Emoji looks at what is officially the world's fastest-growing form of communication. Emoji, the colourful symbols and glyphs that represent everything from frowning disapproval to red-faced shame, are fast becoming embedded into digital communication. Controlled by a centralized body and regulated across the web, emoji seems to be a language: but is it? The rapid adoption of emoji in such a short span of time makes it a rich study in exploring the functions of language.
Professor Marcel Danesi, an internationally-known expert in semiotics, branding and communication, answers the pertinent questions. Are emoji making us dumber? Can they ultimately replace language? Will people grow up emoji literate as well as digitally native? Can there be such a thing as a Universal Visual Language? Read this book for the answers.
273 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 17, 2016
23 people are currently reading
123 people want to read
About the author
Marcel Danesi
273 books34 followersMarcel Danesi (b. Marcello Danesi, 1946) is a current Professor of Semiotics and Linguistic Anthropology at the University of Toronto. He is known for his work in language, communications, and semiotics; being Director of the Program in Semiotics and Communication Theory.
He has also held positions at Rutgers University (1972), The University of Rome "La Sapienza" (1988), the Catholic University of Milan (1990), and the University of Lugano.
He is the Editor-in-Chief of Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies and is a past-president of the Semiotic Society of America.
He has also held positions at Rutgers University (1972), The University of Rome "La Sapienza" (1988), the Catholic University of Milan (1990), and the University of Lugano.
He is the Editor-in-Chief of Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies and is a past-president of the Semiotic Society of America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 20, 2017
Do you use emoji in your day-to-day communications? If so, do not read this book. You know everything that this man has to say and much more. The inaccuracies in his understandings of emoji in context will probably seem at once laughable and painful.
If you don’t use emoji often or ever, maybe read this book for a cursory understanding of what an emoji is and to see some examples of emoji in messages. Otherwise, take everything Danesi says with a grain of salt. He isn’t necessarily incorrect in his final summaries of emoji use, which is surprising considering the lack of understanding which led him to those conclusions. Nonetheless, he fails to capture the nuances of emoji use which both reflect and guide digital communication. If you truly want to understand how people use emoji, ask them—the people who actually use emoji—about it. Better yet, try doing what Danesi clearly did not try: use emoji. You’ll likely glean more through experience than you will reading this book.
Along with his blatant errors in “translations” of emoji, Danesi’s obvious bias towards Western alphabetic traditions (aided through his belief in McLuhan’s teleology) is misguided and misguiding to readers. Alphabets are in no way superior to other forms of writing, like logographic or syllabic systems. All systems are fully expressive, capable of abstraction, can fully encode spoken languages, etc. In that same vein, emoji are not a result of a collective yearning from alphabet users to return to our primitive, pictographic pasts pre-1000 B.C.E. (which is a random, wholly inaccurate date Danesi cites as the beginning of civilization). Nonetheless, using this belief as a guiding principle, Danesi structures his book around the question of whether emoji will ultimately return alphabet users to their pictographic pasts. Danesi’s answer vacillates between yes and no as often as several times a chapter, until he finally concludes that he doesn’t know. That is perhaps the best answer Danesi can give based on his poor understanding of how emoji users perceive how non-users perceive them; however, it is debatable whether he should have established this lack of an answer from the beginning to avoid the inevitable confusion which followed for the rest of the book.
In summary, Danesi, a scholar who does not use emoji, does not understand how emoji are used. Take it from me, a scholar who both uses and studies emoji: Don’t read this book.
If you don’t use emoji often or ever, maybe read this book for a cursory understanding of what an emoji is and to see some examples of emoji in messages. Otherwise, take everything Danesi says with a grain of salt. He isn’t necessarily incorrect in his final summaries of emoji use, which is surprising considering the lack of understanding which led him to those conclusions. Nonetheless, he fails to capture the nuances of emoji use which both reflect and guide digital communication. If you truly want to understand how people use emoji, ask them—the people who actually use emoji—about it. Better yet, try doing what Danesi clearly did not try: use emoji. You’ll likely glean more through experience than you will reading this book.
Along with his blatant errors in “translations” of emoji, Danesi’s obvious bias towards Western alphabetic traditions (aided through his belief in McLuhan’s teleology) is misguided and misguiding to readers. Alphabets are in no way superior to other forms of writing, like logographic or syllabic systems. All systems are fully expressive, capable of abstraction, can fully encode spoken languages, etc. In that same vein, emoji are not a result of a collective yearning from alphabet users to return to our primitive, pictographic pasts pre-1000 B.C.E. (which is a random, wholly inaccurate date Danesi cites as the beginning of civilization). Nonetheless, using this belief as a guiding principle, Danesi structures his book around the question of whether emoji will ultimately return alphabet users to their pictographic pasts. Danesi’s answer vacillates between yes and no as often as several times a chapter, until he finally concludes that he doesn’t know. That is perhaps the best answer Danesi can give based on his poor understanding of how emoji users perceive how non-users perceive them; however, it is debatable whether he should have established this lack of an answer from the beginning to avoid the inevitable confusion which followed for the rest of the book.
In summary, Danesi, a scholar who does not use emoji, does not understand how emoji are used. Take it from me, a scholar who both uses and studies emoji: Don’t read this book.
August 17, 2018
This is preposterous. A supposedly academic book from a supposed academic published by an academic press, and so many images are uncited and uncredited. Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of "public domain" in the context of copyright, which one would think would have been caught by both the publisher's editors and their legal department. Emoji strings are badly—and pretty obviously—misinterpreted. I would expect a putative professor of linguistics to know not to publish on a language in which they are not fluent.
Or is the whole thing a giant piss take? A hoax? A joke? If so, then it gets the same rating for not being funny enough.
EDIT: it is also possible that this is the literal textbook example of how post-modern semiotics is often 100% pure grade-A unadulterated bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense.
Or is the whole thing a giant piss take? A hoax? A joke? If so, then it gets the same rating for not being funny enough.
EDIT: it is also possible that this is the literal textbook example of how post-modern semiotics is often 100% pure grade-A unadulterated bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense.
July 22, 2020
It was a decent and easy read, but like most books in this genre there's a lot of points that are being repeated which makes a bit boring at times. Some chapters also have long passages with analysations of messages, I didn't find interesting or very giving. I can however recommend the first chapter which outline developments leading to the use of emojis. It was a bit difficult at times to figure out what is based on research and what are just Danesi's own thoughts.
I also found some of his conclusions a bit off point - e.g. “Miley Cyrus’s tweet implies that she will be successful, that is, she will soon explode (bomb emoji) onto the scene—ending the tweet with a heart emoji to send her love to her readers and to indicate how thrilled she is about her career.“ -115. The tweet has four emojis; a man, a bomb, a ball/stone, a heart - and to most people with even just a small knowledge of Miley Cyrus will remember her mega hit 'Wrecking Ball' which I'm sure the tweet is a reference to, and not her career as Danesi claims.
I also found some of his conclusions a bit off point - e.g. “Miley Cyrus’s tweet implies that she will be successful, that is, she will soon explode (bomb emoji) onto the scene—ending the tweet with a heart emoji to send her love to her readers and to indicate how thrilled she is about her career.“ -115. The tweet has four emojis; a man, a bomb, a ball/stone, a heart - and to most people with even just a small knowledge of Miley Cyrus will remember her mega hit 'Wrecking Ball' which I'm sure the tweet is a reference to, and not her career as Danesi claims.
March 6, 2024
Did you grow up knowing emojis? Stay clear of this book. Are you an adult who never got the crasp of how emojis work? This is a great book to learn that!
But for most people growing up today, the things in this book is nothing more than second nature.
But for most people growing up today, the things in this book is nothing more than second nature.
September 1, 2019
A bit technical at times but a very interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews