logo
ResearchBunny Logo
Deciphering emoji variation in courts: a social semiotic perspective

Interdisciplinary Studies

Deciphering emoji variation in courts: a social semiotic perspective

J. Pei and L. Cheng

Emojis are reshaping the legal landscape, but their meanings aren't as straightforward as they seem! This intriguing study by Jiamin Pei and Le Cheng delves into how emoji interpretations vary across courts in China and the US, revealing vital insights for legal professionals navigating the complexities of digital evidence.

00:00
00:00
Playback language: English
Introduction
Emojis, originating in Japan, have become ubiquitous in digital communication. While primarily used to convey emotions and intentions, their varied usage and interpretation can lead to misunderstandings, making their appearance in courtrooms increasingly common. Existing research explores emoji variation across time, culture, gender, and platforms, but the complexities of interpretation within legal contexts remain under-examined. This study addresses the gap by focusing on emoji interpretation in Chinese and US courts, two jurisdictions with distinct legal systems and significant mobile messaging usage. The study employs a social semiotic lens, emphasizing the contextual nature of meaning-making, to analyze how emojis are understood and interpreted within legal proceedings. The central research questions are: 1) What are the variations in emoji usage and interpretation within US and Chinese court judgments? 2) What social, cultural, and legal factors explain these variations?
Literature Review
Prior research has extensively examined emoji variation, identifying aspects such as temporal shifts in usage, differences based on language and culture, and variations related to gender, age, and the platforms used. While acknowledging the potential for ambiguity and playfulness, the study highlights the risks of miscommunication in formal settings. Previous legal scholarship has addressed the admissibility of emojis as evidence, the challenges of presenting emojis in court, and the complexities of their interpretation. Some studies emphasize the high evidentiary value of emojis, while others note judicial reluctance to acknowledge their contribution. The lack of consistent guidelines underscores the need for further investigation into the interpretation of emojis as digital evidence. This study builds on prior work by providing a systematic cross-jurisdictional investigation into emoji variation within legal contexts.
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative content analysis of Chinese and US court documents related to emojis. Data were collected from China Judgments Online and WestLaw, using keywords such as "emoji," "emoticon," and their Chinese equivalents. The timeframe for data collection extended from the first emoji-related case to December 31, 2021, yielding 955 Chinese and 475 US cases. Supplementary data, including observations of everyday emoji usage and existing research, provided a broader contextual understanding. The analysis proceeded in two steps: 1) A preliminary analysis of court judgments to identify contextual factors related to emoji usage, focusing on cases where emojis served as evidence. Three primary contexts emerged: emojis as the subject of lawsuits (patent, copyright, trademark infringement); emojis within usernames; and emojis used within digital communication as evidence of intent or action. 2) A qualitative content analysis, guided by Biber's (1994) analytical framework for register studies, categorized six types of emoji variation based on contextual parameters including communicative characteristics of participants, the relationship between addressor and addressee, setting, channel, the participants' relation to the text, purposes and goals, and topic. Specific cases were selected to illustrate each type of variation, offering detailed descriptions and interpretations.
Key Findings
The analysis revealed six key categories of emoji variation: 1. **Variation Across Platforms:** Emojis can appear differently across devices, operating systems, and software programs. Proprietary emojis may not render correctly on different platforms, leading to misinterpretations. Cases highlighted instances where emojis were lost entirely in translation or transformed into other symbols. 2. **Temporal Variation:** The meaning of an emoji can change over time. The study cited the example of a QQ emoji that was altered due to concerns about promoting smoking among youth. 3. **Variation in Court Cases with Different Rules of Evidence:** The formality of evidence influenced emoji interpretation. Cases involving child abduction showed higher standards of formality for evidence than those involving debt disputes. The study stressed that the admissibility of emoji evidence, rather than its inherent meaning, was paramount. 4. **Variation in Individual Participants:** Plaintiffs, defendants, and judges may interpret the same emoji differently. This can stem from inherent ambiguity in emoji meaning, or intentional manipulation to benefit one party's case. The study highlighted that emojis standing alone, without accompanying text, are particularly susceptible to varying interpretations. 5. **Variation Across Social Groups:** Specific social groups may assign unique meanings to emojis. Cases involving prostitution and drug-related crimes showed the use of emojis as code words and identifiers within these communities. This underscores the role of emojis as tools for secrecy and group cohesion. 6. **Linguistic-Cultural Variation:** The meaning of an emoji can vary across cultures. The study provided examples where animal emojis, such as those depicting rats and monkeys, held drastically different connotations in Chinese and US contexts. Cultural understanding is crucial for accurate interpretation in cross-cultural cases.
Discussion
The findings demonstrate that emoji interpretation in legal settings is highly context-dependent. The social semiotic approach highlights the inadequacy of relying solely on the inherent meaning of an emoji; a pragmatic understanding considering the communicative context and authorial intent is necessary. The study emphasizes the importance of legal professionals carefully analyzing contextual elements to avoid misinterpretations and ensure accurate application of the law. Judges' interpretive approaches are also crucial; variations in these approaches can significantly impact case outcomes. The study argues that legal interpretations should consider both the semantic and communicative meanings of emoji-laden texts.
Conclusion
This study offers a systematic, cross-jurisdictional examination of emoji variation in courts. It highlights the limitations of relying solely on inherent emoji meaning and advocates for contextualized interpretation to enhance judicial decision-making. The findings underscore the need for further research on the influence of factors such as gender and age on emoji interpretation in legal settings. Recommendations include the development of clearer legal guidelines and the release of guiding cases by relevant judicial authorities.
Limitations
The study's scope was limited to available cases in China Judgments Online and WestLaw. The selection of cases may not fully represent the spectrum of emoji usage and interpretation in all legal contexts. Future research could expand the dataset and explore additional contextual factors to enhance the understanding of emoji variation.
Listen, Learn & Level Up
Over 10,000 hours of research content in 25+ fields, available in 12+ languages.
No more digging through PDFs, just hit play and absorb the world's latest research in your language, on your time.
listen to research audio papers with researchbunny