Just as our society is beginning to accept the fact that texting is not destroying the written word, it seems to have fixated its blame on a new source of language slaughter: the emoticon. These seemingly innocuous smileys have been dubbed a “linguistic Armageddon” (BBC) and blamed in part for our generation’s lack of open emotion and inability to express nuanced thought. Some particularly pessimistic onlookers have speculated that the emoji might replace actual writing and that our noble language will descend into an unsophisticated system of animated pictographs.
The last claim, at least, is highly unlikely. The general consensus among linguists seems to be that emojis constitute something of a pidgin language—a way to communicate simplistic and highly tangible concepts with very little structure or inflection. While some pidgin languages have gone on to become fully functional languages with distinguishable tenses and the capability of expressing abstract concepts, the development of a language consisting entirely of emojis would be next to impossible. A crucial characteristic of developing languages is the ability of its speakers to quickly expand its vocabulary, which is not possible with emojis. Rather than creating new words from distinct sounds or modifying existing words, people attempting to communicate with emojis must make do with the limited number of symbols available. While developers could certainly add new emojis to our devices, the effort required to select the right one would make emojis an impractical system of communication.
A language based solely on emojis is very unlikely to become a reality, but their use is undoubtedly having an effect on pre-existing languages. The symbols are typically used to supplement text by suggesting tone or emotion, which has prompted critics to dismiss emoji users as lazy or incompetent in their use of language. They argue that any sufficiently coherent writer should be able to make their opinion clear without relying on the use of images. This makes complete sense in a formal setting; I wouldn’t want to read a book punctuated by emojis.
However, in everyday life, people use gestures and facial expressions to condition their speech. The absence of such nonverbal cues in writing would seem to require a greater degree of precision in word choice; that said, correct grammar and precise syntax rarely occur in texts and instant messages. That’s not because people are incapable of articulate thought, but because this type of language is closer to casual speech than to, say, the writing in a novel. The spontaneity and fast pace of casual conversation doesn’t provide an environment for someone to create beautiful prose, so it’s logical that texters find a way to make sure the intent behind their words is understood. Since the people on either end of the messaging feed can’t see each other, sending symbols to convey emotion makes perfect sense.
Emojis do have an impact on modern language, but it’s far from a destructive one. Like the nonverbal cues that accompany spoken language, emojis provide a little bit of additional context for a quick and casual written word.