RESEARCH PAPER

CONSTRASTIVE AND ERROR ANALYSIS

Error in Emoticon and Emoji Usage in Digital Discourse

Supporting Lecturer:
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alek, S.S., M. Pd.

Arranged By:
Ezra Sisilya Noor Firdausyi 11200140000011

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND VOCATIONAL SCIENCE
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2023
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER

Table of Contents ……..……………………………………………………………..……2

Introduction ………………..………………………………………………………………3

Discussion ………………….………………………………………………………………4

Error ...……………………………………………………………………………...4

Emoji and Emoticon ………………………………………………………………5

Case Study………………………………………………………………………….6

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………9

References …………………………………………………………………………………10
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Error analysis examines how well learners do in terms of the mental operations they
utilize to recognize or code input from the target language. This research draws conclusions
concerning the fundamental concept of emoticons based on assessments of the pertinent
literature and data from past investigations. A new symbol that appears over the Internet and
immediately gets popularity is the emoticon. It frequently represents a look on the face or
communicates an attitude or sentiment.

Emoticons and emoji received a lot of interest and are now being researched. The
significance of non-verbal communication for comprehending the meaning and type of the
message that is intended to be conveyed has been highlighted by many academics (Argyle,
1988). People in the past have utilized emoticons in their drawings on the walls of caves, rocks,
and trees to communicate their feelings and messages to other people. Danesi (2016) asserted,
however, that since these emoticons must be processed through each step to be able to derive
their meanings, humans are unable to comprehend them. The phrase "computer-mediated
communication" (CMC) lacks context in today's setting, making it difficult for readers to
understand the message being conveyed clearly (Sproull & Keisle, 1986). Computers are
favored to be employed in today's situations.

As stated by Miller et al in 2016, an emoji conveys its meaning through its graphic
resemblance to a physical object (for example: smiling face), but it is not well understood how
people interpret the meaning of emoji and emoticon. Words have dictionary definition but
emojis are nuanced, visually detailed graphics that may be more open to interpretation. Related
to this problem, this paper is discussed by the author in order to offer new insights and set
future directions for the analysis of digital discourse. The limitation of this paper is that this
paper just analyse the usage of emoji and emoticon, even that indirect communication might
be delivered by using memes, gif, Bitmoji, etc. The purpose of this research leads the discussion
towards a research question.

1) What is the effect of error in emoji and emoticon usage towards people in general?
 CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

2.1 Error

The literatures on Error distinguishes between an ‘error’ and a ‘mistake’. Brown (2000),
for example, described a mistake as “a performance error that is either a random guess or a
slip, in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly”. That is to say, a learner makes a
mistake when writing or speaking due to several factors, such as when the learner is tired,
anxious, careless, or lacking attention. As such, mistakes do not reflect incompetence in using
the language. They are, instead, the result of a breakdown when trying to have a piece of written
discourse or produce an utterance. Additionally, mistakes can be noticed and corrected as soon
as they are recognized. Therefore, learners can make mistakes in both native and non-native
language situations.

Conversely, Brown (2000) defined an error as “a noticeable deviation from the adult
grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage incompetence of the learner”. Then,
errors are when the learner mistakenly uses a linguistic item, reflecting a lack of or incomplete
knowledge of the learner’s language, which implies that errors are made mainly by non-native
speakers of a language. They reveal the fact that the learner has not yet reached complete
mastery of the linguistic form of the target language. That is why errors, unlike mistakes, are
difficult to be self-corrected immediately after they occur.

According to Kharmilah and Narius in 2019, Error analysis is an activity to identify,

classify and interpret or describe the errors made by someone in speaking or in writing and it
is carried out to obtain information on common difficulties faced by someone in speaking or
in writing English sentences. Erdogan (2005) emphasizes, “Error analysis deals with the
learners’ performance in terms of the cognitive processes they make use of recognizing or
coding the input they receive from the target language”. In this research, the writer focuses on
analysing error in utilizing emoji or emoticon made by people in digital discourse.

2.2 Emoji and Emoticon

 There is currently no universally recognized definition of emoticons in scholarly
settings that is found by the author. The following concluding observations about the basic
idea of emoticons are made in this paper based on reviews of the relevant literature and findings
from earlier studies: An emoticon is a new sign that comes on the Internet and quickly gains
popularity. It often depicts a facial expression or denotes an attitude or feeling. It is available
in several variations, including character emoticons, kaomoji, emoji, stickers, and memes,
among others. Emoticons have the following qualities: intuition, unclear information,
vividness, communicativeness, and productivity.

Emoticons' primary purpose is to foster harmonious relationships between people (Guo,

2019 in Xu et al, 2023). Face-to-face conversation differs from online communication in that
we occasionally communicate via email with individuals we have not yet met. This is the main
distinction between the two forms of interaction. At this point, a cute emoticon might render
the conversation more pleasant. An initial assessment of someone's personality can be made
by simply seeing the emoticons they use, which is helpful for subsequent interaction. An
emoticon may occasionally help both of the parties in a dialogue break the awkward silence
when discussing delicate subjects. Cooperation is the foundation of effective communication,
as we all know. Emoticons can gently reduce the tension when there is a difference of opinion
or conflict. The relationship of the two sides can get along well with each other by the help of
vivid and interesting emoticons.

The emoticon's second purpose is to accurately convey the thoughts and sentiments of
the individual who sends it (Guo, 2019 in Xu et al, 2023). When the individuals communicate
with one another, they typically discuss the same subject and exchange ideas on it, but
occasionally they can also mentally connect with other things and produce their feelings, which
are not visible in a literal sense. People can benefit from a range of paraverbal indicators during
face-to-face interactions, such as hearing one another's voice, observing one another's facial
expressions, and forming emotional assessments of one another. It is challenging to precisely
measure each other's genuine emotion solely from circumstances in internet communication,
since people type words in order to communicate and can only infer emotions from words and
situations. In this instance, the employment of emoticons is equivalent to the recipient's brain
imitating the text of the sender's facial expressions. When emoticons are used, the recipient can
greatly infer the sender's feelings from them and attempt to respond in a polite and suitable
manner.
 The emoticon's third purpose is to make conversation more enjoyable (Guo, 2019 in
Xu et al, 2023). Humour, as every person know, may help foster interpersonal connections that
are beneficial. Due to the growing popularity of emoticons, people now frequently employ
charming and hilarious ones to lighten the mood of a conversation. Emoticons tend to be more
expressive than words, enhancing people's visual enjoyment and elevating their mood. A
positive attitude also facilitates easy interaction. In order to better communication, emoticons
mimic human body language and more vividly portray humour.

Emojis Emoticons

Figure 1. Emojis and emoticons (taken from the internet)

2.3 Digital Discourse

Discourse, in its traditional sense, refers to any oral or written communication that
involves active participation of two or more people in a social environment. As time went by
and technology evolved, communication process takes place through, or can be facilitated by
the use of electronic or computer medium. Discourse, in society, helps individuals build their
identity, their interests, and their social positions (Estermann, 1999). Thus, discourse plays an
important part in shaping individuals and their society. Today, people live and communicate
in the digital world. Discourse is no longer limited to face-to-face interaction in the physical
world but now is also computer-mediated.

Research in the interdisciplinary field of "Digital Discourse Analysis" examines how

language is used in digital communication. Digital texts like emails, chat logs, posts on social
media, blog posts, and online forums are subject to linguistic study. In order to better
understand how people use language to construct their identities, forge connections with others,
and navigate the dynamics of authority in online contexts, researchers frequently turn to digital
discourse analysis. The topic was developed as a result of the need to understand how language
use has evolved in this new environment and the growing use of digital communication.

Since Androutsopoulos (2006), motivated by Herring's (1996) seminal work, called for
"a shift of focus from medium-related to user-related patterns of language use," the field of
digital discourse analysis—also known as computer-mediated discourse, new media
sociolinguistics, or language and digital communication—has been discussed in terms of three
waves. While the 1990s saw the consolidation of the first wave of computer-mediated discourse
studies, which focused primarily on descriptive linguistic approaches, the 2000s saw the
consolidation of the second wave, which included socially oriented language researchers
interested in linguistic variability, diversity in society, issues related to identity, and community
formation and maintenance. In other words, this second wave was more specifically focused
on the study of computer-mediated discourse (Georgakopoulou, 2006; Herring &
Androutsopoulos, 2015).

According to recent research, a third wave ought to move toward incorporating

multimodal analyses of the sociocultural practices associated with computer-mediated
communication (CMC) as well as issues of "translocality," the complex ways in which various
local practices are available together in global spaces (Tagg & Seargeant, 2014), and
"transmediality," or how users transcend different media. Additionally, Georgakopoulou and
Spiliotti (2016) have urged researchers to create critical and ethical agendas, putting the
spotlight on ideas about media and how they are practiced, contested, and negotiated in the
digital sphere.

Case Study

Emoticons influence message meanings in further ways; they can mitigate messages
that feature tense undertones. This might be considered as the weakness of using emoji and
emoticon. For example, messages categorized as “flames” are typically defined as angry and
hostile messages. Yet, one study reported that flames were interpreted as less hostile when they
included emoticons. Results suggested that emoticons had the ability to modify the perception
of flames to prevent unintentional disagreements (Thompson & Foulger, 1996). Because,
emoticons work to soften otherwise serious statements (Stapa & Shaari, 2012), it is not
surprising that one of the earliest accounts of emoticon usage suggested that they could be used
to prevent arguments.

In one study, joyful faces with congruently positive messages were sent through text.
According to reports, this improved the total message, making it more persuasive and
positively received as opposed to the written material alone (Walther & D'Addario, 2001). This
research was repeated in a related study that used the cartoon smiley-face emblem (☺).
However, one report (Dindia & Huber, 2009) did not note the same enhanced effect. Compared
to simple typed-emoticons, graphic emoticons may have various effects on message meanings.
Nevertheless, according to a different study, the number of negative emotions increased when
simple and complicated text-based communications were mixed with negative emoticons
(Luor, Wu, Lu, & Tao, 2010).

A case study written by Schneebeli in 2017 analysed the usage of emoticon in YouTube
video comments from a video that was posted on September 18, 2017 on a very popular
YouTube channel called Miranda Sings. It is found that laughter emoticons and emoji of all
kinds are the most common type used in the dataset, which is not surprising since the video is
intended to be funny. As expected, laughter emoticons and emoji are not necessarily used with
a descriptive purpose, for example saying “I’m laughing”, but rather to state a reaction to the
video, “I found that funny”, which is precisely the speaker’s stance. Of course this is not
specific to laughter only; it is also the case with other emotions, such as disgust, happiness,
anger, or shock ( ). It can be seen that the error which is often found in emoji and emoticon
usage is misinterpretation between sender and receiver. This may leads to misunderstanding
towards the mood or expression that is intended to be delivered.
 CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION

Error analysis is a process that identifies, classifies, and interprets errors made by
individuals in speaking or writing English sentences. It helps identify common difficulties
faced by learners in recognizing or coding input from the target language. This research focuses
on errors in using emojis or emoticons in digital discourse. There is currently no universally
recognized definition of emoticons in scholarly settings. Emoticons are new signs that quickly
gain popularity on the internet, often depicting facial expressions or expressing attitudes or
feelings. Emoticons are used to foster harmonious relationships between people, particularly
in face-to-face conversations and online communication.

Emoji and emoticon help assess someone's personality and break awkward silence
when discussing delicate subjects. Emoji are used alongside text in digital communication, but
their visual nature leaves them open to interpretation. In addition, emoji render differently on
different platforms, so people may interpret one platform’s rendering differently than they
interpret another platform’s. However, since every person might have their own understanding
to the emoji they are using, it may cause an error too. The error in using emoji or emoticon will
also lead to misinterpretation between the sender of the message and the recipient. Thus, it is
considered as the effect of error in using emoji and emoticon. Psycholinguistic theory suggests
that interpretation must be consistent between two people in order to avoid communication
challenges.
 REFERENCES

Ai, W., Lu, X., Liu, X., Wang, N., Huang, G., & Mei, Q. (2017). Uhure kita cobqntangling
emoji popularity through semantic embeddings. In Proceedings of the 11th ICWSM,
(pp. 2–11).

Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer- mediated

communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438.

Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Towards a ‘third wave’ of digital discourse studies: Audience

practices on Twitter. Unpublished Plenary talk delivered at the 1st International
Conference Approaches to Digital Discourse Analysis – ADDA, Valencia, 18–10
November, 2015.

Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily Communication, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Methuen.

Bich-Carrière, L. (2019). Say it with [a smiling face with smiling eyes]: judicial use and legal
challenges with emoji interpretation in Canada. International Journal for the Semiotics
of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 32(2), 283-319.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Longman, Inc.

Danesi, M. (2016). The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet.
London: Bloomsbury.

Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.

Derks, D., Fischer, A. H., & Bos, A. E. R. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated
communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766–785.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004

Dickey, M. H., Wasko, M. M., Chudoba, K. M., & Thatcher, J. B. (2006). Do you know what
I know? A shared understandings perspective on text-based communication. Journal of
 Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 66–87. doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2006.00315.x

Dimmick, J., Kline, S., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of personal e-mail and
the telephone: Competition, displacement, and complementarity. Communication
Research, 27, 227–248. doi:10.1177/009365000027002005

Dindia, K., & Huber, J. (2009). The influence of emoticons on message interpretation in instant
messages. In annual meeting of the National Communication Association in Chicago,
Illinois.

Dimson, Thomas. 2015. “Emojineering Part 1: Machine Learning for Emoji Trends.”
Instagram Engineering Blog.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Huffaker, David A., and Sandra L. Calvert. 2006. “Gender, Iden- tity, and Language Use in
Teenage Blogs.” JCMC 10 (2): 00–00.

Kelly, R., & Watts, L. (2015, September). Characterising the inventive appropriation of emoji
as relationally meaningful in mediated close personal relationships. In Experiences of
technology appropriation: Unanticipated users, usage, circumstances, and design.

Erdoğan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin

Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2).

Estermann, B. (1999). Discourse, Power and Society. Current Social Issues in English
Language, 1-13.

Islam, K. B. (2022). Death of English and the Language of the Internet: Mistakes and
Errors. Qeios.
Thompson, P. A., & Foulger, D. A. (1996). Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in
electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 225-243.

Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Postcript: Computer-mediated communication in sociolinguistics.

Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 548–557.

Georgakopoulou, A., & Spiliotti, T. (2016). Introduction. In A. Georgakopoulou & T. Spilioti

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communi- cation (pp. 1–16).
London: Routledge.

Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E.

Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 128–151).
Chichester: Blackwell.

Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E. (2017). Linear grammar as a possible stepping- stone in the
evolution of language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 219–224.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1073-y.

Kaye, L., Malone, S., & Wall, H. (2017). Emojis: Insights, affordances and possibilities for
psychological science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 66–68.

Kegl, J. (1994). The Nicaraguan Sign Language project: An overview. Signpost, 7, 24–31.

Kelly, R., & Watts, L. (2015). Characterising the inventive appropriation of emoji as
relationally meaningful in mediated close personal relationships. In Experiences of
Technology Appropriation: Unanticipated Users, Usage, Circumstances, and Design.

Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E. (2017). Linear grammar as a possible stepping- stone in the
evolution of language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 219–224.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1073-y.

Kaye, L., Malone, S., & Wall, H. (2017). Emojis: Insights, affordances and possibilities for
psychological science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 66–68.
Kegl, J. (1994). The Nicaraguan Sign Language project: An overview. Signpost, 7, 24–31.

Kelly, R., & Watts, Andersen, P. A., Hecht, M. L., Hoobler, G. D., & Smallwood, M. (2002).
Nonverbal communication across cultures. In W. B. Gundykunst & B. Moody (Eds.),
Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. L. (2015). Appropriation: Unanticipated Users, Usage, Circumstances, and Design.

Langus, A., & Nespor, M. (2010). Cognitive systems struggling for word order. Cognitive
Psychology, 60(4), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.004.

Lebduska, L. (2014). Emoji, emoji, what for art thou? Harlot: A revealing look at the arts of
persuasion, (vol. 1, p. 12) http://harlotofthearts.org/index.php/harlot/
article/view/186/157.

Kharmilah, P., & Narius, D. (2019). Error analysis in writing discussion text made by students
at English department of Universitas Negeri Padang. Journal of English Language
Teaching, 8(3), 327-335.

Moschini, I. (2016). The “face with tears of joy” emoji. A socio-semiotic and multimodal
insight into a Japan-America mash-up. HERMES-Journal of Language and
Communication in Business, 55, 11–25.

Na'aman, N., Provenza, H., & Montoya, O. (2017). Varying linguistic purposes of
emoji in (Twitter) context. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of ACL 2017,
Student Research Workshop.

Nigam, A., Hoffman, J., & Simons, R. (1992). N400 to semantically anomalous pictures and
words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(1), 15–22. https://doi.
org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.1.15.

Thompson, P. A., & Foulger, D. A. (1996). Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in
electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 225-243. Retrieved from
 http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/science/article/pi
i/0747563296000040.

Panckhurst, R., & Frontini, F. (2020). Evolving interactional practices of emoji in text
messages. Visualizing Digital Discourse, Berlin, De Gruyter, 81-103.

Sampietro, A. (2019). Emoji and rapport management in Spanish WhatsApp chats. Journal of
Pragmatics, 143, 109-120.

Sproull, L., Kiesler S. (1986) Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational
communication. Management Sci. 32 1493-1512.

Stapa, S. H., & Shaari, A. H. (2012). Understanding Online Communicative Language Features
In Social Networking Environment. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(3).

Tagg, C., & Seargeant, P. (2014). Audience design and language choice in the construction and
maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites. In The language of
social media: Identity and community on the internet (pp. 161-185). London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK.

Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., Prada, M., Thompson, D., & Garrido, M. V. (2017). A frown emoji
can be worth a thousand words: Perceptions of emoji use in text messages exchanged
between romantic partners. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1532-1543.

Walther, J. B., & D’addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation
in computer-mediated communication. Social science computer review, 19(3), 324-
347.

Vargas, M. (1986). Louder than words. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Xu, L., Yang, X., & Tian, S. A Study on the Role of Internet Emoticons in Business
Communication from the Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism.