Exploring emoji usage in intercultural CMC: Insights from Colombian and Argentinian learners of German

1 Introduction

Communication nowadays is facilitated by a continuously expanding array of platforms that enable free, real-time conversations among users from all over the world. These platforms are accessible to anyone with a functioning internet connection and a compatible device. One of the most popular platforms for Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is WhatsApp. Founded in 2009^[1] and acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) in 2014,^[2] WhatsApp has reached a vast user base. As of the latest figures, it has over 2 billion active users worldwide,^[3] reflecting its critical role in global digital communication. The platform allows users to send text messages and offers a wide range of functions, such as voice messaging, and sharing images and files. Like many other platforms, WhatsApp also gives its users the ability to enhance text messages with a diverse array of more than 3,600 digital pictographs known as emojis. Emoji options available to users range from facial expressions depicting a variety of emotions to images representing food, beverages, sports, leisure activities, animals, and plants.

Emojis, evolving from the earlier ‘emoticons’ (Dresner and Herring 2010; Sampietro 2019), enrich CMC by conveying emotions and contextual cues, almost like facial expressions in face-to-face interactions (Skovholt et al. 2014; Vandergriff 2014). Recent studies have highlighted the multifunctionality of emojis in CMC, noting their role in modifying speech acts and managing interactional dynamics (Sampietro 2019). However, existing research primarily focuses on interactions within monolingual and monocultural contexts. Hence, this study explores emojis in an interlingual and intercultural setting. More specifically, this investigation focuses on What’s app interactions among Colombian and Argentinian learners of German during an online exchange. It aims to understand whether emojis can transcend linguistic barriers as a ‘universal visually constructed language’ (Azuma and Ebner 2008) and how the use of an L2 may influence emoji usage in intercultural exchanges.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review, followed by the methodology and participant description in Section 3. Section 4 addresses the limitations of the current study, while Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 offers a discussion of the results, and Section 7 concludes with preliminary conclusions and suggestions for further research.

2 Review of the literature

Emoticons and emojis emerged as solutions to one of the fundamental limitations of CMC – the absence of non-verbal cues inherent in face-to-face interactions (Krohn 2004; Shao-Kang 2008; Walther 1996). Initially, CMC was predominantly text-based, comprising mediums like emails, chat rooms, forums, and instant messaging. Moreover, CMC is characterized by interactions among users who are physically distant, relying on written text or digital symbols for communication. This medium offers both synchronous and asynchronous modes, thereby introducing flexibility in the dynamics of communication (Herring 1996). Over time, CMC has evolved, embracing multimodality, which allows users to integrate text with images, videos, and sound. This shift towards multimodality has significantly enriched communication, enabling users to express complex messages and emotions more effectively (Kress and van Leeuwen 2001). The original text-centric nature of CMC led to the development of unique linguistic patterns that are distinct from spoken language, including the use of emojis, GIFs, and stickers. These visual elements add a profound layer of expression, partially compensating for the lack of physical cues like body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice (Danet 2001).

In the past decade, CMC has emerged as a primary area of interest in numerous pragmatic studies. Initially, research in this field predominantly centered around English-based communication (Herring et al. 2013). However, recent years have seen a significant expansion in this area of study, with an increasing number of investigations emerging from Europe and Asia (Herring et al. 2013). This global diversification in research has enriched our understanding of CMC, shedding light on cross-linguistic similarities and differences. Contemporary studies in CMC pragmatics broadly encompass three major areas: core pragmatic concepts such as implicature, presuppositions, relevance, speech acts, and politeness; CMC-specific phenomena including emoticons, emojis, and stickers; and a variety of CMC-specific genres like emails, blogs, text messaging, wikis, and more (Herring et al. 2013).

Emojis are considered the modern successors of the so-called “emoticons” (Sampietro 2019: 109), which began as graphic representations created with ASCII symbols and, over time, evolved into visually images (Dresner and Herring 2010: 249). Since their inception, emoticons have been the focus of numerous studies, with researchers exploring their various functions in CMC. These studies have consistently highlighted that emoticons are more than mere symbols; they effectively convey feelings and emotional states, mirroring the role of facial expressions in face-to-face interactions (Skovholt et al. 2014: 781). This parallel between emoticons and physical gestures provide evidence for their importance in providing emotional context to digital conversations, which are otherwise limited to text. Furthermore, emoticons serve as crucial contextual cues within online dialogues. For instance, a smiley face can transform a complaint into a light-hearted comment, softening the potential harshness of the message (Dresner and Herring 2010: 263). This ability to modify the tone of a statement is instrumental in maintaining the coherence and flow of online dialogues, similar to the role of vocal inflections and pauses in oral communication.

Emoticons also play a significant role in the pragmatic aspects of digital communication. They are often employed as tools for politeness strategies, such as softening statements that might otherwise be perceived as aggressive or confrontational (Calero Vaquera 2014; Darics 2012). This use of emoticons for mitigating and clarifying messages reduces potential miscommunications, ensuring a smoother interactional experience. The versatility of emoticons in CMC extends beyond emotional expression. Studies by Kavanagh et al. (2016) and Marengo et al. (2017) reveal that these symbols perform a variety of communicative functions. They are instrumental in mitigating disagreements, introducing elements of humor, and regulating the conversational flow (Bettelli and Panzeri 2023; Kavanagh et al. 2016; Marengo et al. 2017) This broad scope of functionalities indicates a sophisticated level of digital communication, closely mirroring the interactive dynamics found in in-person exchanges. Emoticons, therefore, are not just visual adornments but crucial elements that enrich and facilitate nuanced digital communication.

Emojis, similar to emoticons, have been extensively studied across various fields, including linguistics, computer science, communication, marketing, behavioral science, and psychology (Bai et al. 2019). In pragmatics, Sampietro (2019) investigates the functions of emojis within WhatsApp conversations among Peninsular Spanish speakers, examining their roles in illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains.^[4]

Sampietro (2019) demonstrates that emojis primarily serve to amplify or mitigate the force of speech acts, functioning as upgraders or mitigation devices (downgraders) (Sampietro 2019: 113). In the discourse domain, emojis are utilized to mark the opening and closing of dialogues, guiding the flow of conversation whether accompanying text or standing alone (Sampietro 2019: 114). This highlights their role as digital cues that substitute for gestures and expressions in face-to-face interactions (Sampietro 2019: 114). In the stylistic domain, emojis contribute to the tone of conversations, often conveying informality and relaxed communication between interlocutors (Sampietro 2019: 116). By using emojis, speakers can steer conversations toward a more casual and friendly atmosphere, strategically managing interpersonal relationships and social dynamics (Sampietro 2019: 116). Sampietro’s research suggests that emojis have evolved into a sophisticated system of signals that enrich digital communication by adding layers of meaning and aiding in the social construction of discourse.

Overall, Sampietro’s study emphasizes that emojis are employed in culturally specific communicative strategies (Sampietro 2019: 118). For example, birthday greetings often included emojis and prompted notable responses, such as expressions of thanks accompanied by emojis. Family apologies frequently involved smiling emojis without additional verbal emphasis, while closings were enhanced with emojis, reflecting a strong desire to maintain contact. Interactions between bosses and employees illustrated the informal nature of workplace communication in Spain, with the corpus emphasizing a strive for closeness and ‘confianza’ (trust). Sampietro (2019) suggests that while some emoji usage patterns are common in other studies (e.g., Al Rashdi 2018; Danesi 2016; Pérez-Sabater 2019), emojis should not be considered a universal language. Instead, they function as tools for culturally appropriate social interaction (Sampietro 2019: 118).

Although enlightening, Sampietro’s study (2019) draws on data from speakers sharing the same first language (L1) and cultural background. This leaves an open question regarding the adaptability of emojis’ functions in multilingual and multicultural contexts. Emoticons have been suggested to transcend linguistic barriers, acting as universally comprehensible elements of communication (Azuma and Ebner 2008). In a study on blog comments between L1 Japanese and L1 Austrian speakers communicating in English, emoticons were shown to function as elements of a “primitive universal visually constructed language” (Azuma and Ebner 2008). This raises the possibility that emojis might behave similarly.

Given this potential, emojis’ usage in CMC interactions among second language (L2) speakers could mirror the range of functions observed in monolingual conversations. However, the influence of cultural factors on emoji interpretation and use (Gibson et al. 2018) necessitates further exploration into their use across different cultures. For instance, research on emoji usage has shown significant cultural variation, particularly in how certain emojis are used across different linguistic and cultural groups. Sampietro et al. (2022) analyzed the use of kissing emojis across WhatsApp conversations in Spain, Germany, and the German-speaking part of Switzerland. They found that, while the “face throwing a kiss” emoji is frequently used in closing messages among speakers from Spain and Switzerland, it is not present in the German corpus, where cultural norms around physical greetings differ. This study highlights the influence of cultural context on digital communication practices and suggests that emoji usage can vary significantly even within regions that share a common language.

To address the lack of studies focusing on emoji use in intercultural contact and among speakers using an L2, this study conducts a qualitative analysis of WhatsApp messages in a virtual exchange among Colombian and Argentinian learners of German. By examining how emojis function in these intercultural and interlingual interactions, this research aims to determine whether emojis can transcend linguistic barriers, as suggested by some studies, or if their use remains culturally specific, as Sampietro (2019) indicates. If emojis can indeed transcend linguistic barriers, we should observe similar functions in intercultural interactions as those seen in monolingual interactions. Conversely, if their use is culturally specific, we would expect to see distinct differences in emoji usage patterns between these contexts. Additionally, while L1 pragmatic transfer was not the primary focus of this study, evidence of such transfer could appear in the data. As Kecskes (2015) explains, pragmatic competence in the L1 is the result of language socialization, and the sociopragmatic norms developed through L1 are highly influential and resistant to change. As Thomas (1983, as cited in Kecskes 2015, p. 63) notes, L2 learners often perceive the L2 through their L1 socio-cultural lens, leading to the persistence of L1 norms in L2 communication. Consequently, L2 speakers may transfer utterances from their L1 to the target language that are semantically or syntactically equivalent but contextually inappropriate (Mullan and Béal 2022). This transfer is likely reflected in our data. However, the lack of comprehensive data on how German native speakers use emojis presents a challenge in fully understanding these patterns. Additionally, as highlighted by Sampietro et al. (2022), significant differences in emoji usage even among native speakers, such as those from Germany and Switzerland, further complicate the analysis and make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.

The study by Sampietro et al. (2022) also highlights that even among native speakers, such as those from Germany and Switzerland, there are differences in emoji usage, making this a complex issue to fully untangle.

The current analysis focuses on the same domains identified by Sampietro (2019) – illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains – derived from Helen Spencer-Oatey’s rapport management framework (2002). This framework also includes participation and non-verbal behavior domains (Helen Spencer-Oatey 2002: 543), which are not considered in this study due to the text-based nature of WhatsApp communication. By employing this framework, the study seeks to offer a deeper understanding of the adaptability and universality of emojis in digital communication, potentially reconciling these differing perspectives. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:

1. What types of functions do emojis carry out in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of intercultural communication using German as an L2?

2. Do the functions of emojis in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of virtual exchanges among L2 learners parallel those observed in monolingual contexts?

3. Is there a universal component to emoji use that transcends cultural boundaries in intercultural communication?

The first research question investigates the types of functions emojis carry out in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of CMC among second language (L2) learners of German. It examines whether these functions are consistent with or differ from those observed in monolingual (L1) interactions, thereby assessing the potential parallels or divergences in emoji use between L2 and L1 settings.

The second question examines whether the functions of emojis in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of virtual exchanges among L2 learners parallel those observed in monolingual contexts. This involves a comparative analysis to determine similarities and differences in how emojis are used in L2 and L1 interactions.

The third question addresses whether there is a universal component to emoji use that transcends cultural boundaries in intercultural communication. By examining emoji usage in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains during virtual exchanges between Colombian and Argentinian learners of German, this question aims to determine if certain aspects of emoji use are universally understood or culturally specific, shedding light on the potential for emojis to act as a universal language.

3 Methodology

The study analyzes a corpus of WhatsApp messages exchanged during a virtual interaction between 24 learners from Colombia and Argentina, all of whom are enrolled in Foreign Language programs at their respective universities and are learning German at an intermediate level (B1/B2 as per the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages). The participant group consists of 17 Colombian and 7 Argentine students. Each Argentine student was paired with two to three Colombian counterparts, forming a total of 7 diverse groups. Over the course of six weeks, these groups were assigned identical weekly tasks, intended to be completed collaboratively. The tasks were designed to stimulate conversation and interaction among the participants, primarily through WhatsApp for text-based communication and platforms such as Zoom or Teams for verbal exchanges. This approach aimed to create a rich and naturalistic environment for emoji use in L2 communication, allowing for an in-depth exploration of emoji utilization within the context of intercultural and language learning dynamics. The tasks and the platforms in which these tasks had to be carried out are shown in Table 1.

The varied weekly tasks facilitated the collection of data reflecting the participants’ communication for diverse objectives: acquainting themselves with each other, coordinating meetings, and deliberating on forthcoming group activities. Importantly, the use of WhatsApp extended beyond these structured tasks. Even when the activities for the week did not specifically involve messaging, participants continued to engage on WhatsApp. This extended use allowed for the collection of additional data, capturing communications that occurred outside of the assigned tasks for weeks 1, 2, and 5. This aspect of the study was crucial in providing a fuller picture of the participants’ communication habits, encompassing not just task-oriented exchanges but also their broader, more spontaneous interactions.

The data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods to answer the research questions. To answer the first research question, which addresses the types of functions emojis carry out in intercultural communication using German as an L2, a detailed content analysis was conducted, drawing on the same three domains used in Sampietro’s study (2019): the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains.^[5] In the illocutionary domain, emojis were categorized based on their role in expressing emotions and reinforcing the intended force of speech acts. In the discourse domain, the analysis focused on how emojis facilitated the flow of conversation, marking openings, closings, and transitions. Finally, in the stylistic domain, the use of emojis was examined for their contribution to the tone and style of communication. Frequency counts and contextual usage patterns were analyzed to identify common functions and any deviations in their use within these three domains.

For the second research question, which investigates whether the functions of emojis in virtual exchanges among L2 learners parallel those observed in monolingual contexts, a comparative analysis was conducted. This analysis involved comparing the data from the intercultural exchanges with existing studies on emoji use in monolingual (L1) contexts, specifically examining the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains as outlined by Sampietro (2019). The focus was on identifying similarities and differences in emoji functions, usage frequency, and contextual application across these domains.

To address the third research question, which explores whether there is a universal component to emoji use that transcends cultural boundaries in intercultural communication, the study conducted a cross-cultural analysis leveraging insights from the comparative analysis in the second question. By examining emoji usage in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains during virtual exchanges between Colombian and Argentinian learners of German, the analysis assessed whether certain aspects of emoji use are universally understood or culturally specific. This approach helped identify both commonalities and differences in emoji functions across diverse cultural backgrounds, shedding light on the potential for emojis to act as a universal language.

4 Limitations

Despite the insights offered by this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. One primary limitation is the relatively small sample size of 24 participants, which, while manageable for in-depth qualitative analysis, restricts the generalizability of the findings. The study focused exclusively on learners from Colombia and Argentina, enrolled in Foreign Language programs at their respective universities, which may not fully represent the broader population of L2 learners and limits applicability to other groups or educational contexts.

Additionally, the six-week duration, though sufficient for observing initial patterns, may not capture long-term trends and behaviors, suggesting that a longer study period could provide a more comprehensive understanding of emoji usage among L2 learners.

Another limitation is that the data collection was confined to WhatsApp interactions. While this platform is widely used, it does not encompass all forms of digital communication, and findings might differ in contexts such as email, social media, or other messaging apps. The weekly tasks designed to stimulate conversation might have influenced the natural use of emojis, as participants might use emojis differently in less structured or more spontaneous interactions.

Moreover, the focus on only two cultural backgrounds limits the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts, indicating the need for studies that include participants from a broader range of cultures to provide a more comprehensive understanding of cultural influences on emoji use.

5 Results

This section presents the findings of the study, addressing the three research questions on the use of emojis in intercultural communication among learners of German from Colombia and Argentina. Following an initial presentation of the frequency count of emojis observed in the WhatsApp interactions, the analysis is structured around the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains, as outlined in Sampietro’s study (2019). The instances presented in this section have been left as found in the chats, with no corrections made by the researchers.

5.1 Frequency

The total number of emojis used across the six-week period was 573, with 426 emojis used in conversations and 147 as reactions to other members’ turns. Table 2 shows the frequency count of the emojis across all groups.

Table 2:

Emojis frequency count.

Group	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Total	28	84	245	42	74	16	60
Conversation	26	48	193	33	66	_	24
Reaction	2	36	52	9	8	16	84

Table 2 reveals significant differences in emoji usage across the seven groups. Group 3 exhibits the highest total emoji usage with 245 emojis, significantly more than any other group, while Group 6 has the lowest with only 16 emojis. In terms of conversations, Group 3 again leads with 193 emojis, indicating a high level of engagement through emojis, whereas Group 6 recorded no emoji usage in conversations. When looking at reactions, Group 7 stands out with 84 emojis, suggesting a preference for responding to messages with emojis rather than using them in initial conversations. In contrast, Groups 1 and 5 show minimal use of emojis in reactions, with only 2 and 8 emojis respectively. Groups 2 and 5 display a balanced approach, using emojis in both conversations and reactions. Notably, Group 4 uses more emojis in conversations (33) than in reactions (9), indicating a tendency to use emojis more in initiating messages rather than in responses. This analysis highlights the varied use of emojis among the different groups and suggests how group dynamics may influence communication preference when using emojis.

Table 3 shows which emojis were used with most frequency across all groups.

Table 3:

Emojis frequency count.

Emoji	Rank	Frequency total	Frequency in Con_	Frequency in Reac_
	1	58	1	57
	2	48	15	33
	3	46	21	25
	4	30	30	–
	5	20	18	2
	6	18	18	–
	7	16	16	–
	8	15	15	–
	9	13	3	10
	10	12	12	–
	10	12	11	1

Table 3 presents the frequency of the top ten emojis used across conversations and reactions. The emoji is the most frequently used, with a total of 58 occurrences, predominantly in reactions (57 times) and only once in conversations. The emoji follows, with 48 total uses, split between 15 in conversations and 33 in reactions. The emoji ranks third, used 46 times, with a slightly higher occurrence in reactions (25 times) compared to conversations (21 times). The emoji is used exclusively in conversations, with a total of 30 occurrences. Similarly, the emoji appears 18 times, all within conversations. The emoji, although less frequent overall with 20 occurrences, shows a predominant use in conversations (18 times) and minimal in reactions (2 times). Other emojis like , , , , and display varied usage patterns, with , , and being used exclusively in conversations, while and have mixed usage, appearing both in conversations and reactions. The high frequency of certain emojis in reactions, particularly , could indicate how certain emojis are more commonly used as reactions than in conversational turns. In contrast, emojis like and are used solely in conversations.

5.2 Illocutionary domain

In the illocutionary domain, emojis were used to modify the force of speech acts, functioning as upgraders or downgrades. Table 4 shows some of the instances of emojis used in this domain with the original in German and the English translation.

Table 4:

Use of emojis in the illocutionary domain_speech acts.

	Instance	Function	Speech act
(1)	Entschuldigung (excuse me)	Upgrader	Apology
(2)	sorry das passt mir nicht so gut (Hello! Sorry, that doesn’t work with me)	Upgrader	Apology
(3)	Danke (Thanks)	Upgrader	Thanking
(4)	Dankeee (Thanksss)	Upgrader	Thanking
(5)	können wir anfangen? (Hello, can we start?)	Downgrader	Request
(6)	danke und Entschuldigung (thanks and excuse me)	Downgrader	Thanking

Table 4 shows how emojis are used to either upgrade or downgrade of the force of speech acts. In the context of politeness theory (Brown and Levinson 1987; Leech 2014), several studies have shown how mitigation tools are often used to soften the force of utterances (Albelda Marco and Cestero Mancera 2011; Caffi 2007). In our data, emojis also are employed as tools to both reinforce the effect of face-enhancing acts (FEAs) and manage face-threatening acts (FTAs).

More specifically, emojis serve as upgraders in apologies and thanking, and as downgrades in requests.

Apologies are seen as both a FTA for the speakers’ face (as they recognize their fault and humbly ask for forgiveness) and as FEA for the hearer’s face (Brinton 2023: 105). In the data, the use of and in (1) and (2) respectively points towards a speaker oriented function, as the addresser tries to redeem their own face in these interactions. The use of emojis reinforces the remorse of the addressers expressed through the German Entschuldigung and the English sorry.

The speech act of thanking is an ‘inherently polite speech act’ expressing gratitude and appreciation, and “its force can be maximized by boosting, using intensifying adjectives or by prosodic devise” (Jucker 2020: 127). However, they can also be seen as a threat to the speaker’s negative face, since they voluntarily recognize a debt towards the hearer (Brown and Levinson 1987). In our data, the emojis in (3) and in (4) (used twice) function as upgraders to intensify the expressions of gratitude, enhancing the positive face of the hearer.

In the data, emojis were used also as downgraders. In the case of the request in (5), here stated with the modal verb können -can- (and thus classified as ‘on-record indirect questions’) (Leech 2014: 148), the emoji , which represents a person funnily disguised as someone else, softens the threat to the hearer’s negative face.

In (6), there is a case in which the speech act of thanking, which is normally upgraded to strengthen its positive impact (Spencer-Oatey 2008: 23) −and in our data often upgraded through emojis such as , , and −, seems to be downgraded through the use of the emoji . This instance was found in the following interaction.

[21/09/23, 20:10:52]	A:	I’m sorry I didn’t tell you earlier. I can’t attend the Zoom meeting today. Can you do it tomorrow?
[21/09/23, 20:10:58]	A:
[21/09/23, 20:11:42]	B:	Morgen ist für mich ok Tomorrow is ok for me
[21/09/23, 20:11:48]	B:	gleich zeit the same time
[21/09/23, 20:28:48]	C:	Ich kann nicht morgen um diesem Zeit. Können sie morgen Vormittag oder Samstag Vormittag? I can’t do it tomorrow at this time. Can you do it tomorrow morning or Saturday morning?
[21/09/23, 20:29:54]	A:	ich kann samstag Vormittag I can Saturday before noon
[21/09/23, 20:30:09]	A:	ist dass ok für alles? is that ok for everyone?
[21/09/23, 20:33:14]	D:	Samstag Vormittag geht auch Saturday before noon works too
[21/09/23, 20:37:25]	A:	B?
[21/09/23, 20:37:27]	B:	samstaag ist ok Saturday is ok
[21/09/23, 20:37:34]	A:	Gut good
[21/09/23, 20:37:29]	A:	danke und Entschuldigung thanks and sorry

In this interaction, A starts apologizing and asking for an alternative time for the Zoom meeting. This turn is followed by another one from the same person, which includes the repeated (three times) use of , likely employed to upgrade the previous apology and elicit a response from the other members. After all the members agree on the new time for the meeting, A thanks everyone, accompanying this speech act with the emoji and introducing a second apology. This use of could be interpreted as a downgrader of the speech act of thanking (although, as already mentioned, this speech act is typically upgraded, Spencer-Oatey 2008: 23), as A expresses their gratitude for the change of plans they caused and for which they already apologized. Another possible interpretation is that is used to prepare the floor for the final apology, which follows right after this emoji and the conjunction und (and). Regardless of which interpretation better reflects the speaker’s intention, the use of the emoji in this case highlights its role in emphasizing sincerity and reinforcing the speaker’s awareness of the inconvenience caused.

In addition to their use in apologies and expressions of gratitude, emojis are also employed to indicate the self-assignment of tasks, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5:

Use of emojis in the illocutionary domain_ rights and obligations.

(7)	ich kann Deutschland wählen und auch ein wenig an dem poster arbeiten (I can choose Germany and work on the poster a little bit)	Voluntary_ task
(8)	Für die grafische Gestaltung könnten wir die ersten jemals verwendeten Emojis und die am häufigsten verwendeten/berühmten Emojis hinzufügen (For the graphic design, we could use the first ever used emojis and the most frequently used/famous ones)	Task_ Assignment

The emoji in (7) and (8) highlights the influence of perceived sociality rights and obligations on interpersonal rapport (Spencer-Oatey 2008: 15). People regard themselves as having a range of sociality rights and obligations in relation to others, and they develop behavioral expectations based on these perceptions (Spencer-Oatey 2008: 15). If these expectations are not met, interpersonal rapport can be affected, particularly in intercultural interactions where differing views on sociality rights and obligations are common (Spencer- Oatey 2008: 15). In (7), is used is used to signal a willingness to take on specific responsibilities, clearly communicating the speaker’s intention to self-assign a task. This aligns with their perceived sociality obligations and ensures that their commitment is understood and acknowledged by all participants. Conversely, in (8), the emoji is used while assigning tasks to the group. This use of the emoji may serve to mitigate the potential face-threatening act of imposing a task on others, by softening the directive and maintaining positive rapport.

By visually reinforcing both the self-assignment and the assignment of tasks, emojis contribute to the clarity and effectiveness of collaborative efforts in digital communication, thereby supporting positive interpersonal rapport through the fulfillment of sociality expectations. This strategic use of emojis highlights their multifunctional role in enhancing communication by facilitating smoother interpersonal interactions and manage group dynamics.

5.3 Discourse domain

In the discourse domain, emojis were used to mark the opening and closing of conversations, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6:

Use of emojis in the discourse domain.

	Instance	Function
(9)	Hallo Leute! (Hello everyone!)	Opening
(10)	Halloooo (Helloooo!)	Opening
(11)	Hallo zusammen:D	Opening
(12)	tschüss (Bye)	Closing
(13)	Gute nacht (Good night)	Closing
(14)	Schönen Sonntag noch! (Have a great rest of your Sunday!)	Closing

Table 6 displays how emojis are used to mark the openings and closings of conversations, emphasizing their role in structuring the flow of dialogue and organizing tasks. For example, greetings such as Hallo Leute! (Hello everyone!) and halloooo (Helloooo!) are accompanied by emojis to create a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, signaling the start of a conversation. Similarly, Hallo zusammen '' (Hello everyone) uses emojis to convey enthusiasm and approachability. Emojis also mark the end of conversations. Instances like tschüss (Bye) and Gute nacht (Good night) use emojis to provide a clear and polite closing to the interaction.

The phrase Schönen Sonntag noch! (Have a great rest of your Sunday!) employs the emoji to mark the closing of the interaction in a friendly manner. A similar emoji, , was found later on in the same group chat, also closing the conversational turn. The use of these types of emojis to mark the end of a conversation aligns with patterns observed in Spanish and Swiss data analyzed by Sampietro et al. (2022), where such emojis are commonly used in closing sequences. This contrasts with German data, where did not appear at the end of conversations. These findings suggest that the participants’ L1 cultural norms may influence their L2 communication practices, particularly in managing conversational closings. The alignment of emoji usage with L1 norms in an L2 context highlights the presence of pragmatic transfer, where learners carry over cultural practices from their L1 into their L2 interactions (Kecskes 2015; Thomas 1983, as cited in Kecskes 2015, p. 63; Mullan and Béal 2022).

Overall, the data show that emojis are always used after the opening and closing turns, with the only exception of the instance in (12). Given the inherent ambiguity of , which can signify both a greeting and a farewell, its use to open a turn may have promoted the speaker to provide additional context to ensure the emoji is interpreted correctly as a farewell.

5.4 Stylistic domain

In the stylistic domain, since all the conversations occurred between participants in symmetrical relationships (student-student), emojis were used to differentiate between types of interactions, specifically marking the transition from small talk to task-oriented discussions. Table 7 illustrates instances of this usage.

Table 7:

Use of emojis in the stylistic domain.

	Instance	Function
(15)	Übrigens, ihr könnt mich einfach XX nennen (Btw, you can just call me XX)	Vicinity
(16)	Guten Tag , Können alle um 8:30 Uhr? (Good morning, can we all at 8:30?)	Task-oriented
(17)	chale, was ist mit Montag? (oh no, what about Monday?)	Task-oriented
(18)	können wir anfangen? (Can we start?)	Task-oriented

Table 7 shows how emojis are used to differentiate between types of interactions, such as marking the transition from small talk to task-oriented discussions. For example, the emojis in (15), which accompany the phrase Übrigens, ihr könnt mich einfach XX nennen (Btw, you can just call me XX), create a friendly and approachable atmosphere, building rapport and establishing a sense of closeness and informality among the participants. In contrast, in instances (16), (17), and (18), the emojis and help mark the shift from ongoing conversation to a more serious, task-oriented tone. Specifically, in (16) the emoji indicates a move from casual greeting to planning; in (17) it conveys concern and prompts a discussion about scheduling, emphasizing the task-oriented nature of the message; and in (18), it adds a touch of seriousness and focus to the request, reinforcing the task-oriented shift in the conversation. In (19), the emoji, which follows the description of the task already carried out by the speaker, indicates the provision of important information, marking the continuation of task-oriented communication. These instances demonstrate how emojis help to signal the type of conversation taking place, facilitating a smooth transition from casual interactions to focused, task-oriented discussions, thereby enhancing the clarity and effectiveness of communication within the group.

5.5 A further domain of analysis: The social identity domain

In addition to the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains, emojis in the data were also used to express social identities. This includes conveying national identities and indicating age differences among participants. The following interaction shows the use of emojis as tools for expressing and negotiating personal and cultural identities in digital communication.

[4/09/23, 20:23:23]	A:	Hallo Leute! ich bin A! Ich freue mich darauf, euch kennenzulernen:)
		Hello everyone! I am A! I am looking forward to getting to know you:)
[4/09/23, 20:26:28]	A:	Ich wollte euch fragen, wann ihr Zeit für einen Austausch habt, dann können wir einen gemeinsamen Termin vereinbaren
		I wanted to ask you when you have time for an exchange, so we can arrange a common appointment
[21/09/23, 20:11:42]	B:	Hallo A! Ich bin B und ich bin sehr Glucklich mit dir zu arbeiten
		Hello A! I am B and I am very happy to work with you

In this interaction, participants used the Argentinian and Colombian flags to express their national identities, adding a layer of cultural context to their interactions. A introduces themselves with Hallo Leute! ich bin A! Ich freue mich darauf, euch kennenzulernen:) (Hello everyone! I am A! I am looking forward to getting to know you:)). The inclusion of the Argentinian flag emoji alongside the waving hand emoji and smiley face helps to establish A’s national identity while also conveying warmth and enthusiasm. To this turn, B responds including the Colombian flag emoji , mirroring A’s use of a national flag emoji, reinforcing B’s own national identity and creating a sense of cultural exchange within the conversation. This exchange illustrates how emojis are used to express social identities, specifically national identities, in digital communication. By incorporating national flag emojis, participants not only introduce themselves but also emphasize their cultural backgrounds, enriching the interaction with elements of personal identity. This use aligns with the idea that some interactions are heavily influenced by the participants’ memberships in various social groups or categories. More specifically, the use of these emojis can be analyzed through Social Identity Theory (SIT),^[6] which posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into various social groups, significantly influencing their behavior and interactions (Tajfel and Turner 1986). In such cases, the individual’s identity and behavior are more shaped by their group affiliations than by personal relationships. The use of national flags arco in this instance illustrates this phenomenon, as these emojis serve to highlight and reinforce group identities over individual connections. Moreover, this instance suggests that emojis represent creative tools that members use to assess and express their membership in various social groups. This dynamic medium provides a fertile field for speakers to navigate and negotiate their social identities in digital spaces. Emojis enrich interactions by allowing individuals to visually and succinctly convey complex social and cultural affiliations. The use of national flags in this context also suggests the presence of a universal component of emojis, indicating their ability to transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries. This notion will be further explored in the discussion section, highlighting the potential of emojis to act as universal symbols in digital communication.

In the following interaction, emojis are used to mark age difference among participants:

[5/09/23, 21:17:27]	A:	ich bin der Jüngste…
		I am the youngest…
[5/09/23, 21:18:22]	A:	und was ist deine Lieblingssprache?
		and what is your favorite language?
[5/09/23, 21:18:30]	B:	Hehe da bin ich die Älteste
		Hehe, I am the oldest
[5/09/23, 21:19:11]	B:

In this interaction, participants use emojis to express and highlight their social identities related to age. In their first turn, A states, ich bin der Jüngste… (I am the youngest…), positioning themselves within the group based on their age. B responds to this turn using the elderly woman emoji to visually reinforce her statement about being the oldest. This not only establishes her position within the group’s age hierarchy but also adds a playful tone to the interaction. Shortly after, B also sends a baby emoji , further emphasizing the contrast between their ages in a humorous and engaging way. This exchange demonstrates how participants use emojis to negotiate and express their social identities. By incorporating emojis, A and B visually and textually convey their age differences, enriching their digital interaction with elements of personal identity.

6 Discussion

A total of 573 emojis were used, with significant variations across the seven groups.

Group 3 exhibited the highest emoji usage, particularly in conversations, while Group 6 recorded the lowest. Emojis like , , and were among the most frequently used, with certain emojis predominantly appearing in reactions () or conversations (, ). The analysis highlighted how group dynamics and communication preferences influenced emoji usage patterns, reflecting varying engagement levels and interaction styles within the groups.

The emojis were analyzed to answer the three research questions stated in the introduction:

1. What types of functions do emojis carry out in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of intercultural communication using German as an L2?

In the illocutionary domain, emojis were utilized to modify the force of speech acts, serving as both upgraders and downgraders. They enhanced or softened the impact of statements, aligning with politeness theory and face management principles. For example, emojis like and were used to upgrade apologies by amplifying the speaker’s remorse, thereby reinforcing the sincerity of the apology. Conversely, emojis such as and intensified expressions of gratitude, thereby boosting the positive face of the hearer. Additionally, emojis were employed to indicate the self-assignment of tasks and the assignment of tasks to others, reflecting perceived sociality rights and obligations (Spencer-Oatey 2008). This use of emojis mitigates the face-threatening act of imposing tasks and maintains positive rapport. Thus, emojis in the illocutionary domain help manage interpersonal interactions, enhancing both emotional expression and social coordination.

In the discourse domain, emojis functioned to mark the opening and closing of conversations, thereby structuring the flow of dialogue and organizing interactions. Emojis like and were used in greetings to signalize the start of a conversation, while emojis like and marked the end of conversations, providing a clear closing. This strategic use of emojis ensured that conversational boundaries were well-defined, facilitating smoother transitions and coherent communication exchanges. The use of these emojis aligns with their role as digital cues that substitute for nonverbal gestures in face-to-face communication, enhancing the clarity and effectiveness of the dialogue.

In the stylistic domain, emojis differentiated types of interactions by marking the transition from small talk to task-oriented discussions. Emojis like fostered a sense of closeness and rapport in informal interactions, promoting an environment of mutual trust and friendliness. In contrast, emojis like and indicated a shift to more serious, task-focused communication, signaling the participants’ intent to engage in planning and coordination. This use of emojis highlights their role in managing the tone and style of communication, adapting to the conversational context to enhance clarity and effectiveness.

1. Do the functions of emojis in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains of virtual exchanges among L2 learners parallel those observed in monolingual contexts?

The functions of emojis in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains among L2 learners indeed parallel those observed in monolingual contexts, albeit with some nuances that reflect the intercultural setting. Research in monolingual contexts (e.g., Sampietro 2019) has shown that emojis enhance emotional expressions, structure conversations, and manage the tone of interactions similarly.

In both L2 and monolingual contexts, emojis modify the force of speech acts, such as enhancing apologies or expressions of gratitude. The use of emojis to signal task assignments or self-assign tasks also reflects universal social dynamics, where maintaining positive interpersonal rapport is crucial. Thanks to the way the data collection was organized, this analysis captured an additional function that did not appear in Sampietro’s analysis (2019). This highlights the multifunctional role of emojis in managing communication dynamics and facilitating social interactions.

In both settings, emojis mark the opening and closing of conversations, ensuring that interactions are well-structured. This function of emojis as boundary markers helps maintain the flow and coherence of communication. In intercultural exchanges, this structuring role is particularly important as it helps bridge potential gaps in understanding and ensures that the conversation remains clear and organized. For example, in our corpus, the use of the and emojis to close conversations mirrors the patterns observed in Spanish and Swiss data by Sampietro et al. (2022), where such emojis are commonly used at the end of interactions. This contrasts with the German data from the same study, where did not appear at the end of a conversation. The presence of these emojis in closing sequences among Colombian and Argentinian learners of German suggests that L1 cultural norms may influence their L2 discourse practices, particularly in how they manage the boundaries of their conversations.

In monolingual and L2 contexts, emojis help differentiate the tone of interactions, distinguishing between casual and task-oriented communication. The use of emojis like to foster informality and friendliness, and emojis like to signal a shift to serious discussion, is consistent across both settings. This differentiation in the use of emojis helps participants manage the conversational tone effectively, ensuring that the communication remains appropriate to the context and purpose of the interaction.

Additionally, in the context of intercultural communication, emojis were found to serve a unique function: expressing social identities. This includes the use of national flags to convey national identities, which adds a layer of cultural context to interactions. This function aligns with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986), which posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into various social groups, significantly influencing their behavior and interactions. The use of national flags in this context illustrates how emojis serve to highlight and reinforce group identities, enriching the interaction with elements of personal identity and suggesting the potential for emojis to act as universal symbols in digital communication.

1. Is there a universal component to emoji use that transcends cultural boundaries in intercultural communication?

The study suggests that there is indeed a universal component to emoji use that transcends cultural boundaries in intercultural communication. Emojis like , , and ,which are frequently used across various cultural contexts, indicate shared understandings and interpretations of these symbols. These emojis serve universal functions such as expressing affection, agreement, and amusement, respectively. This universal component is further evidenced by the use of emojis in managing interactions and expressing emotions, which aligns with findings in monolingual contexts (Sampietro 2019).

The consistent use of emojis by both Argentinian and Colombian participants, such as national flags and age-related emojis in the social identity domain, reinforces the idea of a universal component. This indicates that emojis can transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries, providing a shared language for basic emotional expressions and social identity markers. This finding aligns with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986), which posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into various social groups, significantly influencing their behavior and interactions. By using similar emojis to express national identities and age, participants from different cultural backgrounds demonstrate the universal applicability of these symbols in digital communication.

This dual nature of emojis – being both universal and expressive of social identities – makes them powerful tools in intercultural communication. They provide a shared language for basic emotional expressions while also allowing for the expression of unique social identities. This dual functionality enhances the richness and depth of digital communication, enabling participants to navigate intercultural interactions more effectively. Thus, while emojis can act as universal symbols that transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries, their use also carries significant social meaning, demonstrating their versatility and significance in digital communication.

The study investigated the use of emojis in intercultural communication among learners of German from Colombia and Argentina, analyzing their roles across four domains: illocutionary, discourse, stylistic, and social identity domains. Data were collected from WhatsApp interactions over six weeks, revealing diverse uses of emojis across different contexts and groups.

7 Conclusions

This study highlights the multifunctional role of emojis in digital communication among L2 learners, highlighting their importance in conveying emotions, managing conversation flow, and expressing social identities. Emojis serve as essential tools for enhancing clarity, politeness, and personal expression in intercultural exchanges. They facilitate the navigation of complex social interactions, allowing participants to balance emotional tone and social dynamics effectively.

The analysis demonstrates that the functions of emojis in the illocutionary, discourse, and stylistic domains among L2 learners generally parallel those in monolingual contexts, with additional layers reflecting intercultural nuances. Emojis help modulate the force of speech acts, structure conversations, and adapt the tone of interactions, ensuring effective communication. Additionally, the study identifies a unique function of emojis in expressing social identities, such as through the use of national flags, which enrich interactions by adding layers of cultural and personal significance. This aligns with Social Identity Theory, highlighting how individuals use emojis to categorize themselves and others into various social groups, influencing their behavior and interactions.

Furthermore, the study reveals that while there are universal components to emoji use that facilitate intercultural communication, these components are consistently demonstrated across different cultural backgrounds. Emojis like , , and serve as universal symbols, bridging linguistic and cultural gaps. The consistent use of emojis by both Argentinian and Colombian participants supports the idea that emojis can act as universal symbols in digital communication, demonstrating their ability to transcend cultural boundaries while also carrying significant social meaning.

Additionally, the observation of kissing emojis being used to close conversations, similar to patterns found in Spanish and Swiss data, suggests that L1 cultural norms may influence L2 discourse practices, potentially indicating pragmatic transfer effect in intercultural interactions. This finding adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of how cultural practices can persist and shape communication in a second language context.

Future research could expand on these findings by exploring the impact of cultural differences on emoji usage across various digital communication platforms. Additionally, investigating the role of emojis in other forms of digital communication, such as emails or social media posts, could provide further insights into their versatile functions and contributions to effective online interaction. Another area for further exploration is the potential for bidirectional influence, where not only do L1 norms shape L2 communication, but L2 practices might also begin to influence L1 communication norms, particularly in multilingual or multicultural environments. This study lays the groundwork for understanding the complex interplay between emojis, language, and social identity in intercultural communication, offering valuable implications for language learners, educators, and digital communication designers.