Emojis are ideograms that are becoming ubiquitous in digital communication. However, no research has yet investigated how humans process semantic and pragmatic content of emojis in real time. We investigated neural responses to irony-producing emojis, the question being whether emoji-generated irony is processed similarly to word-generated irony. Previous ERP studies have routinely found P600 effects to verbal irony. Our research sought to identify whether the same neural responses could also be elicited by emoji-induced irony. In three experiments, participants read sentences that ended in either a congruent, incongruent, or ironic (wink) emoji. Results across all three experiments demonstrated clear P600 effects, the amplitudes of which were correlated with participants’ tendency to treat the emoji as a marker of irony, as indicated by behavioral comprehension question responses. These ironic wink emojis also elicited a strong P200 effect, also found in studies of verbal irony processing. Moreover, unexpected emojis (both mismatch and ironic emoji) also elicited late frontal positivities, which have been implicated processing unpredicted words in context. These results are the first to identify how linguistically-relevant ideograms are processed in real-time at the neural level, and specifically draw parallels between the processing of word- and emoji-induced irony.

Lies are typically defined as believed falsehoods asserted with the intention of deceiving the hearer. A particularly problematic case for this definition is that of false implicatures. These are prototypically cases where the proposition expressed by the speaker's utterance is true, yet an implicature conveyed by this proposition in context is false. However, implicature is a diverse category and whether a blanket statement such as “false implicatures are lies,” as some have argued can account for all of them is open to investigation. We present an experimental investigation of whether naïve participants define different types of implicatures as lies. Our results show that only a couple of types of implicatures were strongly rated as lies by participants. These results suggest that participants distinguish between different types of communicated meanings on linguistic grounds, contributing both to the literature on lying, as well as to theoretical discussions of how different types of meaning are communicated.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper presents the results of an experiment designed to measure interpretations of two emojis oft-discussed in popular culture, the eggplant and the peach. The experiment asked people to judge how sexual an emoji-containing text message was. The context surrounding these messages was manipulated across experimental conditions, altering both the preceding discourse and the presence of a sentence-final wink emoji. Unsurprisingly, the baseline interpretation of both the eggplant and peach emoji is euphemism. When one of these emojis is used in a context that strongly biases towards the non-euphemistic interpretation, ratings for sexualness decrease and variability increases. This suggests that participants are still able to access non-euphemistic interpretations of these emojis, but it must be under specific circumstances and will nonetheless come with a high degree of variability. Wink emojis added to messages containing non-euphemistic food emojis were also rated as more highly sexual (albeit still low on the rating scale), indicating an affective role for this emoji.