CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
31
VOLUME:
Vol.06 Issue01 2025
10.37547/philological-crjps-06-01-08
Page: - 31-42
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Non-Verbal Means of Communication: Semantics of
Extralinguistic And Paralinguistic Components of Text
Dildor Otajonova
Independent Researcher (DSc), Associate Professor, Doctor of Philosophy in Philological Sciences (PhD), Chirchik State
Pedagogical University, Chirchik, Uzbekistan
Received:
22 November 2024
Accepted:
24 December 2024
Published:
25 January 2025
INTRODUCTION
Semantic multiplicity, which is potentially inherent in the
language system, is considered an important characteristic
of media speech. Its linguistic and semiotic features are
verbal signs of manipulation as a complex system of signs
and symbols. They are used to control the perception and
influence of public opinion through their pragmatic value,
multifaceted nature, and multifaceted prism, in the
interconnection of their informativeness and impact. This
characteristic of mass media speech should be taken into
account when conducting linguistic expertise of specific
information messages.
Mass media plays a central role in shaping our
understanding of the world, controlling our perception of
reality, and significantly influencing our beliefs and views.
We are all daily consumers of news, articles, reports,
podcasts, and other forms of media content. However, how
we understand and interpret information is often
determined not only by the facts but also by the way these
facts are presented. One of the key aspects that
significantly influences this perception process is
ABSTRACT
This study examines the semantics of extralinguistic and paralinguistic components in non-verbal communication, particularly
focusing on their role in legal linguistics and digital discourse. The research aims to analyze how non-verbal elements, specifically
emoticons and emojis, function as meaningful signs in legal contexts and digital communication. The study addresses several
tasks: investigating the manipulation potential of non-verbal signs in media discourse, analyzing the legal implications of emoji
use in digital communication, and examining the challenges of emoji interpretation in forensic linguistics. The methodology
employs a comprehensive analysis combining traditional linguistic analysis with modern forensic linguistics techniques. The
study utilizes a socio-semiotic approach to analyze court documents, legal proceedings, and forensic linguistic reports where
emoji interpretation plays a crucial role. The research also includes cross-platform analysis of emoji verbalization and
interpretation across different cultural and linguistic contexts. The results reveal several classes of variations in emoji
interpretation, including platform-dependent variations, temporal changes, and cultural differences. The study identifies
significant challenges in standardizing emoji interpretation for legal purposes, particularly in cases involving contract for mation,
evidence verification, and criminal intent. The research also demonstrates how platform-specific differences in emoji display can
affect legal interpretation and evidence validity. The study concludes that non-verbal elements in digital communication require
specialized approaches in legal linguistics, highlighting the emergence of “emoji forensics” as a distinct field. These findings
contribute to the development of more robust methodologies for analyzing non-verbal components in digital communication
within legal contexts.
Keywords:
Non-verbal communication, legal linguistics, emoji forensics, digital manipulation, semiotics, linguistic expertise, media discourse, communication
mediation, forensic linguistics, digital evidence.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
32
language. Language is not just a means of transmitting
information; it is a complex system of signs and symbols
with deep semiotic structures that can be used to control
perception and influence opinions.
Theoretical and empirical research in the media field
shows how relevant the participation of linguists who study
media speech in various paradigms of scientific knowledge
is. Media texts are a broad field of informational influence
on modern society.
Praxeology, as the study of various actions from the
perspective of their effectiveness, focuses on studying
effective methods and techniques of speech influence
(Redkina, 2015), since media texts clearly show the
predominance of influential, emotional, and manipulative
functions along with information. The strong potential of
language’s multidimensionality as a dynamic means of
communication allows analysis of the pragmatic value,
multidimensionality, and multifaceted nature of verbal
representations in various manifestations of newly
emerging meanings in a rapidly changing world, in the
interconnection of their informativeness and impact. We
use various linguistic and semiotic tools to study these
phenomena, including discourse analysis, corpus analysis,
critical speech analysis, and other methods of examining
linguistic-semiotic features of media speech through
manipulative techniques. Influence is one of the most
important
functions
of
language
along
with
communication and message (Vinogradova, 2004). The
manipulation function is expressed in close relation to the
influential function of language. The virtuoso ability of
language allows showing the same situation from different
angles.
Manipulation can be presented as ‘the process and result of
manipulative influence of legal norms on the behavior of
legal subjects’ (Romashov, 2010). The study of the
manipulation mechanism appears to be very important in
various spheres of modern society life.
Depending on the circumstances, both linguistic and
extralinguistic attention of linguists and legal experts is
focused on various socio-political events, and they are
given legal assessment while collecting socially significant
information (Novikova, 2020).
Various linguistic manifestations describe manipulation as
a complex and urgent problem in linguistics, manipulative
functions of speech – potential hidden properties of
influence that are not easily separated from informational
content.
Manipulative influence is connected with the problems of
linguistic and legal space. Assessment of the legal force of
language actions, which is the object of legal linguistics –
a new complex discipline at the intersection of sciences,
should be relevant to the phenomenon of manipulation,
correctly notes I.V. Belyaeva (Belyaeva, 2009). Important
dimensions of the legal system – linguistic and
argumentative – are closely interconnected and do not exist
without each other, because since law is connected with
language, it is objectified in language and becomes known
through language (Golev, 2000). The pragmatic potential
of a legal text is determined by the interaction of various
components expressed by a certain set of linguistic means:
informational, conceptual, and verbal (Novikova, 2020).
The linguist deals with the content of words and phrases,
words that have the property of negative evaluation in the
form of confirmation of negative information about facts,
words that have the property of negative evaluation in the
form of opinion. They should not go beyond their
competence, legal assessment is incorrect, the expert
should clearly separate facts and opinions (Galyashina,
2022). The understanding of language’s pragmatic
potential as a basis for people’s goal-setting activity is
manifested in all its diversity in the information field of
mass media.
METHODS
The research employs a comprehensive analysis of legal
linguistics approaches to studying non-verbal means of
communication, particularly in digital environments. The
methodology combines traditional linguistic analysis with
modern
forensic
linguistics
techniques,
focusing
specifically on the examination of emoticons and emojis in
legal contexts. The study analyzes court documents, legal
proceedings, and forensic linguistic reports where emoji
interpretation plays a significant role in legal decision-
making.
The research methodology includes a comparative analysis
of emoji interpretation across different platforms and
cultural contexts. This involves examining variations in
emoji representation across different devices and operating
systems, as well as analyzing how these differences affect
legal interpretation. The study particularly focuses on cases
from U.S. and Chinese courts where emoji interpretation is
crucial to the legal proceedings.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
33
A socio-semiotic approach is utilized to analyze the
multifunctional
nature
of
emoticons
in
digital
communication. This includes examining both the
linguistic and extralinguistic features of digital messages,
with particular attention to how emojis function as signs
within legal and social contexts. The methodology
incorporates analysis of real-world cases where emoji
interpretation leads to specific legal outcomes, including
cases of contract formation, harassment, and evidence
tampering.
The research also employs cross-platform analysis of emoji
verbalization and interpretation. This includes studying
online translation tools and their effectiveness in
conveying meaning through emoji, examining the
challenges in standardizing emoji interpretation across
different cultural and linguistic contexts, and analyzing the
technical aspects of emoji display and representation
across various digital platforms. This multi-faceted
approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of
how non-verbal elements in digital communication are
interpreted and applied in legal contexts.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
New aspects of various issues of interaction between
language and law are connected with the undoubted
importance of their theoretical-linguistic and theoretical-
legal research. The manipulation techniques and methods
of manipulating meaning in media speech are diverse: use
of ambiguous terms and phrases, false authority, false
alternatives, distortion of information; hiding information,
replacing neutral concepts with emotional-evaluative ones,
misleading maneuvers, and others. An important feature of
media text is verbal signs, information about the course of
communication, ‘in mass communication messages, not
only what happened plays a big role, but also the reflection:
who, what, when, why, for what purpose and how they
spoke, wrote, reported about it. This information is
important for influencing speech, forming attitudes toward
reported facts’ (Duskaeva, 2023).
The subtle, ‘embedded’ function of the word in relation to
given reality, which is not obligatory and even unexpected,
is an important expression of the modal quality of thought.
This leads to a moving transition from one meaning to
another, which, according to V.G. Kostomarov, creates a
special aesthetic effect expressing the unified constructive
principle of media speech as a dialectical combination of
the leading features of ‘expression’ and ‘standard’,
originally contrasted as evaluation, influence, and
information. From the perspective of this research,
‘manipulation is a two-dimensional communicative act, in
which opposition... is systematically opposed to mono-
planned and functionally multi-interpreted and mono-
translated integrally marked actions’ (Karasik, 2015).
One of the main means of forming media speech is verbal
signs of manipulation – words and phrases used to shape
or change people’s opinions through manipulation of clear,
overt and indirect emotions, beliefs, or ideas (Pirogova,
2002). They are studied as a social phenomenon (from the
perspective of interaction between different social groups),
as a cognitive phenomenon affecting consciousness, and as
a discursive-semiotic phenomenon of mass media that
influences people’s consciousness (Van Dijk, 2006). The
classification of these signs and how they are used is an
important aspect of research, and the problem of
manipulative potential of each linguistic phenomenon ‘can
only be considered adequately described when examined
at the intersection of cognitive and communication’
(Kubryakova, 2004).
Semantic multiplicity, which is potentially inherent in the
language system, is considered an important characteristic
of media speech. The study of word meaning and its
changes from a semantic perspective shows that it reflects
a particular reality, organizing an information system of
moving and intersecting planes. A word has not only
objective meaning but also various variable meanings,
multi-vectored developed evaluative meanings appear in
its application, where the main ‘elements’ are combined:
1) semantic objectivity, 2) understanding it as a ‘meeting
field of two energies, objective – objectivity and subjective
– human consciousness’, 3) physical and physiological
factuality, which includes the awareness of this objectivity
(Losev, 2010).
The study of different types of verbal signs of manipulation
is an important step towards conscious perception of
information and critical analysis of the content of various
mass media (Kara-Murza, 2002).
Let us turn to the analysis of these signs and their use in
various contexts, taking into account some of their
manifestations.
Words with strong expressive meaning and emotional
connotation are one of the most important signs of
manipulation. For example, using ‘terrorist’ instead of
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
34
‘militant’ or ‘refugee’ instead of ‘migrant’ can affect our
perception of these people and the situations they face.
Linguistic means have a general denotative meaning, as
well as connotative meaning that includes emotional,
stylistic, evaluative, and expressive semiotic nuances:
conflict, aggression, boycott, danger, manipulation,
propaganda, suppression, deception, repression, threat,
danger, denial, contradiction, rebels, uprising, separatists,
catastrophe, escalation, confrontation, and others.
Through generalization and simplification, it is used
dynamically to create a certain image or mood as a process
of creating new information, new meanings, forming it and
implementing it in media speech. Such signs have a
multifaceted, often negative impact on modern humans,
their speech behavior, value system, and linguistic
consciousness. For example, phrases like ‘all politicians
are corrupt’ or ‘all young people do not want to work’
create crude generalizations aimed at manipulating
audience perception by simplifying complex issues.
Speech about refugees often tends toward generalization,
describing all refugees as a security threat despite the
diversity of their personal stories and circumstances.
Evaluative vocabulary determines the specific historical
characteristic of perception and existence of media speech.
These are explicit or implicit evaluative words and phrases.
A distinctive feature of value concepts is the existence of
opposing value methods, offering personal choice and a
hierarchy of positive and negative preferences. The
inducement to action is the ultimate goal of influence,
which is associated with long-term pragmatics and value
orientation (Tretyakova, 2013). For example, using the
word ‘brave’ instead of ‘careless’ in a news article can
control our perception of people's actions. Evaluative
vocabulary plays a crucial role in informational speech. In
reporting on Middle East conflicts, words chosen to
describe the actions of parties can significantly influence
the perception of the situation, where a usual ‘defender’
can become an ‘aggressor’ in one context, and depending
on the evaluative position, a ‘terrorist’ can become a
‘freedom fighter’. Also see: destructive, aggressive, illegal,
dangerous, evil, friendly, conflict, disastrous, enemy,
guilty, cruel, dangerous, unprecedented, amazing, and so
on. Words and phrases that deliberately evoke strong
emotional responses enhance the impact of the message.
Framing, as a style that can present the same information
differently depending on the chosen ‘frame structure’, is a
type of cognitive distortion that helps influence how the
receiver perceives it through the form of information
presentation. For example, employee dismissal can be
described as ‘staff reduction’ or ‘process optimization’.
The same actions can have different meanings depending
on the chosen frame. Framing practices or ‘frame
modeling’ are widespread in mass media. Economic crisis
can be considered as an example. If we apply a ‘disaster
frame’, the crisis is described as an inevitable catastrophe
leading to disaster. If we use a ‘opportunities frame’, then
it can be shown as a period of difficulty that ultimately
leads to necessary reforms and economic improvement.
Metaphors and analogies are powerful tools of
manipulation because they help form images and establish
connections between different concepts. Axiological
guidelines are manifested in value meanings. For example,
using the phrase ‘war on drugs’ can be associated with
actual war, which might intensify the perception of drugs
as a threat to national security.
Media text is a multidimensional textual phenomenon,
whose actualization is determined by the interaction of
heterogeneous connections and relationships of linguistic
and extralinguistic nature. Repetition of various figurative
and expressive means is another method widely used in
mass media to reinforce a certain point of view. Constant
repetition of certain statements, even if they are not
supported by facts, can lead people to believe in their truth.
Contextualization as presenting information against the
background of certain circumstances, justification or
rationale for specific actions changes the perception of this
action. For example, an act of violence can be presented as
‘revenge’ or ‘self-defense’. Using synonyms to express the
same phenomenon, especially negative meaning, is also a
method of manipulation. For example, describing a
politician as ‘untrustworthy’, ‘suspicious’, ‘paranoid’ can
intensify negative perception, as clearly negatively
evaluated texts (especially evaluation markers) inevitably
create a special ‘conflictogenic’ speech environment
(Kotyurova, 2009). Thus, affirmative and negative signs
describe positive or negative aspects of events or people.
For example, using the word ‘responsible’ can emphasize
their positive aspects, while using ‘irresponsible’ can
emphasize negative ones.
In this regard, it seems interesting to contrast different
types of behavior in E.Shostrom’s concept: manipulative
(based on seeing oneself and other people as things, means
to achieve goals) and actualizing (expressed in evaluating
others as valuable persons) (Shostrom, 2008). Often
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
35
manipulation is carried out due to the absence of a thinking
style in ‘general semantic statements’, frequently
aphoristic generalized phrases that do not lend themselves
to critical analysis and are accepted as axioms or proven
truths. Such statements provide questionable information
due to incorrect generalization or lack of specific evidence:
‘income level rarely exceeds the level of personal
development’, ‘I am not rich enough to buy cheap things’.
Such sentences use additions that are signs of cognitive
style: clearly, naturally, obviously, and so on (Shelestyuk,
2014).
Verbal representations as units of verbal expression of
deep meanings are implemented based on text
syntagmatics, paradigmatics, and variability, which are
components of media speech that form as a result of the
interaction of its components and produce special
meanings. The mastery of discursive technologies and
influencing in the vector of achieving ‘consensus omnium’
(I.Kant) as an ‘information weapon’ of speech helps create
various representations of truth.
The process of verbal representations influencing
personality and their way of thinking is multifaceted. The
transmission of certain information, whose value (its
pragmatic level) depends on the systemic force that
condenses the most relevant meanings, develops in the
multi-vector
and
multi-directional
communicative
interaction of verbal signs of manipulation in media
speech. In the multifaceted manifestation of the word,
subjective and evaluative attitudes toward socially
significant phenomena are expressed directly or indirectly,
multiple viewpoints are presented – ‘internal’, ‘external’ in
relation to the media text, the information space is
determined by creative transformation of truth using
various manipulation methods in understanding value.
Modern society is developing rapidly and intensively due
to changes in technological structure, acceleration of life
rhythms,
and
transformation
of
communication.
Communication that is being carried out in modern
conditions through the connection of various digital quick
access devices and the use of the global Internet gradually
becomes
modified,
mediated,
and
asynchronous.
Communication mediation is the result of using ‘hardware
and software complex for transmitting and receiving
messages (desktop computer, tablet, smartphone, mobile
phone)’ (Sonin, 2016); asynchronicity is the non-
simultaneity of subjects’ virtual communication, and this
primarily relates to the written form of communication,
which gives a person additional time to create message
text, edit it, or even completely delete it. In general,
modern forensic tools allow considering actions committed
in the Internet speech space as intentional.
Every day, new portals open in the information field of the
Internet for interaction between people located in different
parts of the world. With the emergence of ‘free’ Internet
communication, people engaged in criminal activities have
the opportunity to distribute texts containing illegal
information, attract and intimidate other users. In recent
years, law enforcement officers have increasingly
encountered cases of criminal distribution of prohibited
texts and materials on the Internet. To more accurately
identify information in texts, investigators seek help from
specialists who conduct forensic linguistic examination.
Currently, linguists have not created a definitive list of
Internet communication genres. Examples of such genres
include: emails; all types of blogs, by the way, linguistic
experts often not only check information in published texts
but also view and listen to video and audio recordings, even
if they do not hold particular interest for the specialist;
Also, examples of special genres are forums, social
network messages, statuses, wall posts, and others. One of
the recently emerged methods of information exchange is
reposting. Reposting allows you to transfer a post from a
group, community page, or other social network user pages
to yourself. Reading interesting comics, instructive quotes,
resonant slogans, people get absorbed in beautiful words
and rush to share them with friends. Often users do not see
the original essence of the origin of a particular text. A
specific feature of examining Internet communications is
the analysis of non-verbal graphic, phonoscopic, and video
components of text in various genres.
In recent years, courts have begun issuing verdicts on
articles containing provisions that provide punishment for
degrading human honor and dignity, calling for extremist
activities, organizing extremist societies, and so on. The
number of those accused of distributing illegal materials on
the Internet has reached 658 (“Official statistics”, 2019). In
conducting
linguistic
expertise,
specialists
use
comprehensive language analysis, in particular: syntactic,
morphological, stylistic analysis of written text. When
talking about voice recording, specialists are guided by
instrumental and auditory analyses. In both cases, correctly
identifying a person’s speech culture plays an important
role. As part of linguistic expertise, specialists can
determine what state a person was in when writing the text,
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
36
their cultural and moral level (“Who conducts linguistic”,
n.d.). When checking reposts, comments, and messages on
the Internet, comparing the original text and comments
added to it can take a very long time.
Written Internet communication has a number of
characteristic features that bring it closer to the verbal form
of oral speech: ellipticity; reduction of significant metatext
components (disregard for speech norms); expressiveness;
involvement in apologetic and ironic communication
methods; tendency toward language games based on the
use of word play, paradoxes, allogisms, oxymorons,
paronymic abstractions and other linguistic means
(Toshovich, 2018), which is primarily characteristic of the
conversational style of oral speech.
In modern conditions, the use of keyboard in computer-
mediated communication devices for text creation
primarily employs a written form of speech activity that
has the above characteristics and gradually transforms
from a purely written form to a synthetic verbal form.
Therefore, semiotic linguistic expertise considers language
in comparison with two types of symbolic objects –
articular-phonetic and graphic (Volkov, 1966), for the
interpretation
of
which
the
extralinguistic
and
paralinguistic features of the text are of great importance.
For creating extralinguistic and paralinguistic features of
virtual computer-mediated communication, emoticons and
emojis – non-verbal components in the form of ideograms,
pictograms, and smileys – are increasingly being used.
They are designed to supplement the meaning of the
statement in a richer and more diverse way, to clarify its
expressive-intonational coloring, are used in conjunction
with Cyrillic graphics or Latin alphabet, can be directly
incorporated into the statement structure, separated from
statement units by spaces or commas. Their creation
became possible due to creativity enabled by the
interactivity
of
hypertext
and
computer-mediated
communication in general, where all participants strive to
implement the same communication capabilities that they
use in live, face-to-face communication.
The nature of emoticons and emojis is connected with the
linguistic theory of signs. A sign, in turn, is ‘any material-
ideal formation that serves to transmit certain information’
(Girutsky, 2017). Signs as elements can be words, images,
sounds,
smells,
tastes,
actions,
phenomena
that
traditionally express in linguistics a synthesis of form
(plane of expression) and content (plane of content). None
of these phenomena becomes a sign until it is interpreted
(Tokarev, 2013). The interpretation of signs is the science
of semiotics (from Greek σημεῖον - sign, attribute), whose
subject is the study of signs and sign systems as a means of
storing, transmitting, and processing information in human
society, nature, and in humans themselves.
Among information carriers, semiotics is considered in a
broad sense as a modeling system and ‘represents a certain
model (image, analogue) of the corresponding part of the
world’ (Mechkovskaya, 2008) in consciousness, through
which the subject of communication creates relevant
information about surrounding reality. The task of
semiotics in linguistic expertise is to study context, which
is ‘understood as the unity of semantic information and
conscious human attitude to it’ (Ageev, 2002). The context
and communicative situation in which the text is placed in
Internet speech is established, among other things, with the
help of non-verbal components of communication.
The development of modern communication naturally
leads to text containing various emoticons increasingly
becoming material for linguistic expertise. In our research,
we use the concept of emoticons in a broad sense,
understanding through emoticons various pictograms
operating in electronic communication, ‘including...
complex drawings with artistic elements for graphic
representation of emotion (emoji), its textual expression,
expressing a concept or idea without using words’
(Galyashina,
2022).
Emoticons
have
significantly
expanded their scope of operation beyond what developers
initially imagined. Currently, they are used not only as
backup signs or amplifiers to express the emotional and
psychological state of the communication participant
(Pigina, 2013), and not only as pictograms that allow
‘saving time and resources in the process of virtual
communication’
(Krylov,
2017),
but
also
in
‘communicative
internet
technology
that
allows
accelerating
political
information
exchange
and
encouraging citizens to participate in political events’
(Voinov, 2016). Emoticons can also be a signal of citizens’
criminal intentions, and therefore researchers unanimously
believe that modern pictograms require special attention
both from a scientific point of view and in judicial and
investigative practice. The authors of the methodological
manual devoted to semantic research in forensic linguistic
expertise identified many functions of emotional signs,
including ‘leveling the meaning expressed by verbal
signs’, ‘managing the communication process’, and others
(Plotnikova et al., 2018). Y.I. Galyashina supplemented the
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
37
above list of emoticon functions by ‘including functions of
enhancing the influencing effect of the verbal component
of the text; semantic addition, increasing the meaning of
the verbal component of the text; text convolutions;
imitation and/or camouflage of the emotional state of the
message’s author; ‘provocations’ (excitation) impact on a
certain reaction of the addressee; impact on the emotional
state of the recipient, and others (Galyashina, 2022), which
also indicates the ability of emoticons to be a means of
implementing criminal intentions.
The multifunctionality of emoticons, their operation as a
sign capable of conveying, supplementing, modifying, or
significantly altering a text message leads Y.I. Galyashina
to consider the theory of emoticon semiotics in forensic
linguistics specialization, and University of Toronto
researcher M.Danesi to consider distinguishing a new
research direction of ‘emoji forensics’ (Danesi, 2021).
Since the field of legal linguistics includes various
categories of cases, scientific research devoted to the study
of emotional signs significantly enriches the theory and
methodology of forensic linguistics and authorship studies.
Thus, scientific works devoted to considering emoticons as
‘authorship markers’ are very promising. Based on
studying smileys used by men and women of different ages
on the social network Instagram, C.Marko convincingly
showed that emoji analysis ‘is a valuable addition to
authorship analysis methods’ (Marko, 2020), as emoticons
can identify age, gender, personal characteristics, and the
person's area of residence. Also, one of the relevant aspects
of legal linguistic study of emotions is considering them as
signs of aggressiveness in electronic speech. As shown in
the research by A.Matulewska and D.Gwiazdowicz,
cyberattacks can initially use both emoticons expressing
negative and dangerous emotions and ideas (such as
weapons or an angry face). Furthermore, those that were
positive but somehow fell into an evaluated context can
turn into signs of support for aggressive users (Matulewska
& Gwiazdowicz, 2020).
Gestures as new research material raise problems of
verbalization,
interpretation,
and
lexicography
for
linguists. While discussing the difficulties in interpreting
emoticons, M.A. Crystal emphasizes that online
communication text can be ambiguous, and it is precisely
the emoticon that can bring clarity to understanding the
message. In this regard, the researcher believes that
‘lawyers were too quick to consider text and emojis as a
whole when they should be considered separately’. The
problem of verbalizing emotional signs interests not only
linguists themselves but also online translators, including
programming specialists who have developed everything
from natural language to emoji language. However, for
now, in linguistic research, such translation cannot be
relied upon due to serious discrepancies in translation. For
experiment, we offered a simple and common phrase in
two languages to two online emoji translators.
Yandex offered this translation variant from Russian:
the same phrase was translated into Uzbek by another translator as follows:
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
38
As we can see, the obtained result does not fully
correspond to the proposed structure of the sentence: In the
first case, there is a pictogram-subject experiencing
emotion; there is an expression of the action ‘to love’ in the
form of a ‘heart’ pictogram; there is no pictogram
expressing the loved subject. Back translation, that is, in
the direction from the resulting emoji combination to its
verbalization, logically corresponds when considering the
two signs that translated the phrase ‘I like it’, but the
sentence obtained during back translation of the phrase ‘I
love you’ does not correspond to the original. The pronoun
‘you’, which was initially intended and lost during emoji
translation, did not appear as a result of back translation. In
the second case of translation, both pronouns are not
indicated.
In this regard, we must acknowledge that currently online
verbalization does not always deal with correctly
expressing the proposed meaning of sentences. However,
we note that collaboration between linguists and
programmers can yield good results, and therefore the
achievements of translation linguistics emphasized by
N.D. Golev will be in demand for legal linguistics.
In legal linguistics, accurate transmission of word and style
is particularly important when verbalizing emoji. Since
communication is a creative process of expressing and
understanding thoughts, the most difficult problem for
linguistic expertise is determining the semantic meaning of
occasional (non-traditional) emotions and other visual
means that complement or accompany the verbal content
of the text. Internet communication; Understanding hidden
meanings expressed in the author's occasional emoticons
and other pictograms is a particular problem. Along with
the problem of adequate verbalization of gestures, we also
note the problem of determining the similarity between text
containing emoticons and text consisting only of verbal
signs.
Pictogram texts actively operate in modern internet
communications. Various riddles and texts composed
using
only
emoticons
are very
widespread
for
representatives
of
foreign
languages.
Besides
entertainment or educational purposes, combinations of
emoticons can be used to express criminal intent non-
verbally. Media has covered cases of insults, contract
negotiations, and threats involving the use of emoticons.
Court practice shows that the same pictograms can be
interpreted differently by the sender and receiver of the
message, meaning the same sign can have different
proposals, the existence of which is associated with the
homonymy of the sign. This may be due to intercultural
differences. For example, in many countries, the thumbs-
up sign is an expression of approval, showing that
everything is fine, but in some other countries, the same
sign is considered offensive. Describing this sign,
G.Khasanova notes; ‘actually, for the Uzbek people,
showing a thumb is enough to express the meanings
“everything is in place”, “good”. The inclusion of the
“OK” gesture as a non-verbal means in circulation is
certainly explained by the penetration of the European way
of life into our lives’ (Khasanova, 2023).
Both the sender and receiver of the message may
emphasize different aspects of the communication
situation, resulting in the same graphic sign having
different verbal content for each party. Let us simulate a
situation: in response to a request to send a contract, a
citizen receives a document from the manager and sends
them a ‘thumbs up’ sign in response. Taking into account
the general communicative context, the pictogram used
could be a graphic equivalent of verbal constructions such
as ‘received the contract’, ‘accepted’, ‘thank you’. The
same sign, if indicated in previous communication, could
mean agreement to contract terms, its signing.
Thus, U.S. courts, when considering controversial
situations, concluded that the pictograms of ‘thumbs up’,
‘handshake’, and even the ‘glasses’ sign were expressions
of intent to conclude contracts. According to Johannes du
Plessis, legal consultant specializing in insurance and risks
at Risk Benefit Solutions, ‘if you discuss an employment
contract via SMS or instant message and indicate a positive
or accepted impression, you could be liable for the
employer’s loss of income if you breach this contract.
Communication through gestures facilitates liability for
damage caused to instant message users, so do not put
yourself at risk by sending messages that could leave the
wrong impression on the recipient’ (Govender, 2017).
In this case, pictograms perform a modifying function,
reinforcing the modal component of the message: besides
the general evaluation method, manifested at the verbal
level and associated with the expression of interest in
property, there is an emotional evaluation method of great
joy, which encouraged the homeowner and ultimately led
to financial losses for the potential tenant.
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
39
The research results prove the relevance of verbalization,
interpretation, and lexicography problems of NVC (Non-
Verbal Communication) for modern legal linguistics.
Analysis of texts that are fragments of online dialogues
gives us grounds to conclude that similarity between text
containing NVC and text not containing NVC can manifest
at different levels:
1)
complete similarity (identity), which is possible in
cases of unambiguous verbalization and interpretation of
text with emoticons;
2)
presence of partial similarity in multiple but
similar, synonymous verbalization and interpretation with
emoticons by sender and receiver;
3)
absence of similarity in multiple but fundamentally
different verbalization and interpretation with emoticons
by sender and receiver. The degree of similarity between
texts is determined, on one hand, by relationships of
polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy of signs, and on the
other hand, by socio-psycholinguistic characteristics of the
addresser and receiver participating in communication.
Linguistic examination of emojis whose interpretation
became the basis in U.S. and Chinese courts became the
subject of research by two Chinese authors, a linguist and
a lawyer (Jiamin Pei, Le Cheng). They wrote an article
about the practice of applying such experience in the
judicial sphere. The article was titled: ‘Deciphering emoji
variation in courts: a social semiotic perspective’ and its
main conclusion was the following statement:
‘From a social semiotic perspective, emoji as dynamic
signs have great potential for conveying meaning, making
their meanings dependent on context and interpreter. ...
Studying the contextual configuration of emojis helps
understand the interpretation of texts containing emoji in
judicial decision-making, as well as determining the
admissibility of evidence and evaluating evidence in
courts’ (Pei & Cheng, 2022).
As is known, semiotics is the theory of signs and
communication using signs. A ‘sign’ is understood as any
object that is sensually perceived by the subject and used
in communication to represent another object, which is
called the ‘meaning’ of the given sign (Electronic Library,
n.d.).
The term ‘semiotics’, derived from the ancient Greek word
(σημεῖον) meaning ‘sign’, was introduced by the English
philosopher J.Locke in the 17th century. In his
fundamental work ‘An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding’, which laid the foundation for semiotics,
J.Locke connected the ability to understand ‘general signs’
with the subject’s legal capacity (By ‘general signs’ we
understand signs that denote whole categories of various
objects – for example, the word ‘tools’ means shovel, rake,
hoe, and others). If a monkey or other creature possesses
intelligence to the degree that it understands general signs
and draws conclusions based on general ideas, it
undoubtedly submits to law and in this sense will be
human, regardless of how it differs in appearance from
other creatures bearing this name (Locke, 1836).
When J.Locke spoke about ‘signs’, he primarily meant
words and sentences of natural language used to express
ideas and thoughts. At the same time, it is clear that non-
verbal means of communication, including emoji, can play
a similar role.
In the case we are considering, although the authors were
interdisciplinary in social semiotics, they meant a more
specific direction of research: studying the actual practice
of using certain signs by people in various social and
cultural conditions. The term ‘social semiotics’ was coined
by English-Australian linguist M.Halliday. In their article,
the authors try to understand how courts determine the
meaning of emoji. For this purpose, the authors analyzed
all court documents from two countries where emoji or
emoticons were mentioned.
Using sociosemiotic methods to study court documents,
the authors try to resolve two questions: (1) what variations
exist in the use and interpretation of emojis; and (2) what
are the causes of variability from the perspective of specific
social, cultural, and legal contexts.
The study identified several classes of such variations:
•
variations depending on platform;
•
variations over time;
•
variations in court cases depending on different
rules of evidence;
•
differences depending on individual interpreter;
•
variations depending on social group;
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
40
•
linguistic-cultural variations.
Regarding variations depending on platform (device,
operating system, software), it is known that the same
emoticons have both small and significant differences
across different smartphones and programs. In some cases,
emojis can even differ in different versions of the same
platform! For example, one of the popular emojis was the
‘pistol’, which initially depicted a real pistol. However, by
around 2018, all major platforms, while maintaining the
computer codes for the emoji, changed the image to that of
a toy water gun:
Picture 1.
Original and modified appearance of the ‘weapon’ emoji on
Twitter (source - Wikipedia article on ‘emoji’).
It should be added that emoji may appear differently on
sender and receiver devices. Depending on the time of
output, the recipient's device may not support the display
of later-appearing emojis. In such cases, instead of the
emoji sent to them, the message recipient sees a set of
meaningless characters, i.e., an empty square or just a
placeholder in the line. Such meaningless reflection of
transmitted information during linguistic expertise can lead
to the message being given a completely different meaning
than what the sender intended. In our opinion, when
studying information presented in internet communication
format, care should be taken so that specialists analyzing
correspondence provided by interested parties can clearly
see the images seen by the information recipient, their
variants (for example, a pistol rather than a water pistol).
The difference in reflecting information in different
versions can both hinder and help detect falsification of
evidence during linguistic expertise. This cannot be said to
have a particular relation to semiotics, but the possibility
of drawing conclusions based on the technical side of the
matter may interest a lawyer. There are precedents in court
cases where a dispute participant submitted screenshots to
the court claiming they were old messages, but in fact, the
appearance of the emoticon corresponds to later versions
of the program. For example, in 2021 in the USA, there
was a reference to a workplace sexual harassment case
where the plaintiff was accused of evidence tampering
(Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, 2023). As
evidence,
they
offered
text
messages
allegedly
photographed from the screen of an old iPhone 5 which,
according to the plaintiff, had already broken down by the
beginning of the court process. However, linguistic
expertise revealed that the text and photo were fake.
Among other things, the expert opinion noted that the
‘heart-shaped eyes’ emoji (presumably
😍
) in the photo did
not correspond to the software version of the old
smartphone. As a result, the judge not only dismissed the
claim but also ordered the plaintiff, as well as their lawyers,
to pay the defendants' court costs for deliberately falsifying
the claim.
CONCLUSION
The study of non-verbal means of communication,
particularly emoticons and emojis, in legal linguistics
reveals significant challenges in interpretation and forensic
analysis. The research demonstrates that these pictographic
elements serve multiple functions beyond mere emotional
expression, acting as potential markers of authorship,
indicators of criminal intent, and even legally binding
elements in digital contracts. The variations in emoji
interpretation across different platforms, time periods, and
cultural contexts present substantial challenges for legal
experts and linguists conducting forensic analysis.
The findings emphasize the crucial need for developing
standardized approaches to analyzing and interpreting non-
verbal communication elements in legal contexts. The
emergence of “emoji forensics” as a specialized field,
along with the growing div of court precedents involving
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
41
emoji interpretation, highlights the increasing importance
of understanding these communication tools in modern
legal practice. This research contributes to the broader
understanding of how digital communication elements
influence legal proceedings and underscores the necessity
for continued collaboration between linguists, legal
experts, and technology specialists in developing more
robust
methodologies
for
analyzing
non-verbal
components in digital communication.
REFERENCES
Ageev, V.N. (2002). Semiotics. Moscow: Publishing
House of ‘Whole World’.
Belyaeva, I.V. (2009). The phenomenon of speech
manipulation: Linguo-legal aspects. DSc thes. philol.
Rostov-on-Don.
Danesi, M. (2021). The law and emojis: Emoji forensics.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 34, 1117–
1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09854-6.
Duskaeva, L.R. (2023). Speech organization of Telegram
post metatext. Moscow University Bulletin, 1, 30–65.
Electronic Library. (n.d.). Sign. In Electronic Library of the
Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of
Sciences.
Retrieved
December
29,
2024
from
https://iphlib.ru/library/collection/newphilenc/document/
HASH016ac76ebd6e297504ddf56a.
Galyashina, Y.I. (2022). Semiotics of emoticons and
animated pictures in the aspect of forensic linguistic
expertise. Bulletin of the University named after O.Y.
Kutafin, 2(90), 41–48.
Girutsky, A.A. (2017). General linguistics. Minsk: Higher
School.
Golev, N.D. (2000). Juridization of natural language as a
linguistic problem. Legal Linguistics, 2, 8–41.
Govender, S. (2017, October 1). Those smiley face or
thumbs up emojis could land you in legal hot water. Times
Live.
Retrieved
from
https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2017-10-
01-those-smiley-face-or-thumbs-up-emojis-could-land-
you-in-legal-hot-water/.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The
social interpretation of language and meaning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Kara-Murza, S. (2002). Manipulation of consciousness.
Moscow: Eksmo-Press.
Karasik, V.I. (2015). Language spiral: Values, signs,
motives. Volgograd: Paradigm.
Khasanova, G.Kh. (2023). The role of non-verbal means in
linguoculturology. International Journal of Word Art, 6(4).
Kotyurova, M.P. (2009). Interpretation of conflictogenic
journalistic text in judicial discourse. In L.R. Duskaeva
(Ed.), Ethics of Speech Behavior of Russian Journalist (pp.
105–134). St. Petersburg: Asterion.
Krylov, Y.V. (2017). Semantics of emoji in virtual
dialogue. Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University,
2(15), 50–52.
Locke, J. (1836). An essay concerning human
understanding. Australia: T.Tegg and Son.
Losev, A.F. (2010). Dialectics of artistic form. Moscow:
Academic Project.
Marko, K. (2020). Exploring the distinctiveness of emoji
use for digital authorship analysis. Language and Law, 7(1-
2), 36–55.
Matulewska,
A.,
&
Gwiazdowicz,
D.J.
(2020).
Cyberbullying in Poland: a case study of aggressive
messages with emojis targeted at the community of hunters
in urbanized society. Social Semiotics, 30(3), 379–395.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1731194.
Mechkovskaya, N.B. (2008). Semiotics. Language.
Nature. Culture. Moscow: Academia.
Novikova, M. (2020). Speech manipulation as a problem
of language and law. Perspective Directions of Modern
Linguistics, 165–172.
Official statistics of the judicial department of the supreme
court in the field of combating extremism for 2018. (2019,
April
19).
Sova-center.ru.
Retrieved
from
https://www.sova-center.ru/racism-
xenophobia/news/counteraction/2019/04/d40922/.
Pei, J., & Cheng, L. (2022). Deciphering emoji variation in
CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES (ISSN: 2767-3758)
https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps
42
courts: a social semiotic perspective. Humanities and
Social
Sciences
Communications,
9,
445.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01453-5.
Pigina, Y.S. (2013). Smiley as an element of emotional
impact in organizing internet communication. Philological
Sciences, 11(29), 144–146.
Pirogova, Y.K. (2002). Implicit information as a means of
communicative impact and manipulation. In Novikov A.I.
(Ed.), Problems of Applied Linguistics (pp. 209–227).
Moscow: Alphabet Book.
Plotnikova, A.M., Kuznetsov, V.O., Sazhenin, I.I. (2018).
Semantic research in forensic linguistic expertise.
Moscow: FBU RFCFE under the Ministry of Justice of
Russia.
Redkina, T.Y. (2015). Speech explication of the situational
model: A linguopraxeological approach. Medialinguistics,
2(8), 104–116.
Romashov, R.A. (2010). Interpretation of law: Linguistic
and technical-legal aspects. Legal Linguistics, 10, 52–57.
Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, 78 F.4th 490 (2d
Cir.
2023).
Retrieved
from
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/ca2/21-2084/21-2084-2023-08-28.html.
Shelestyuk, Y.V. (2014). Speech impact: Ontology and
research methodology (2nd ed.). Moscow: Flinta.
Shostrom, E. (2008). Man, the manipulator: The inner
journey from manipulation to actualization (2nd ed.).
Moscow: Psychotherapy.
Sonin, A.G. (2016). Emoji: Non-cultural code of virtual
communication. In A.G. Sonin (Ed.), Methodology of
Modern Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 169–192). Moscow:
URSS.
Tokarev, G.V. (2013). Introduction to semiotics (2nd ed.).
Moscow: Flinta.
Toshovich, B. (2018). Structure of internet stylistics.
Moscow: Flinta.
Tretyakova, V.S. (2013). Speech conflictology: Problems,
tasks, perspectives. Chelyabinsk State University Bulletin,
1(292), 281.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation.
Discourse and Society, 17(2), 359–383.
Vinogradova,
T.Y.
(2004).
Specifics
of
Internet
communication. Russian and Comparative Philology:
Linguocultural Aspect, 11, 63–67.
Voinov, D.A. (2016). “Emoji” as a technology of political
communication on the internet. Century of Quality, 4, 103–
112.
Volkov, A.G. (1966). Language as a system of signs.
Moscow: Moscow University Publishing House.
Who conducts linguistic expertise of text and in what cases
it is necessary. (n.d.). Biz-faq.ru. Retrieved from
https://biz-
faq.ru/baza%20znanij/ekspertiza/lingvisticheskaya-
ekspertiza.html.
