Mona Lisa's emoji: digital civilization and its discontents

Abstract

Emojis are presently thus customary in digital communication that they have become part of the communicative habits of most users of social networks. With variations that depend on the particular social network used, on the communicative context, and also on the personality and style of the interlocutors, emojis are, nevertheless, omnipresent. In daily digital conversation, few sentences end without being qualified by a smiling face or other similarly widespread emojis. It is evident to many, included the youngest users of these signs, that representing an attitude of hilarity towards a certain statement by ending its verbal transcription with an emoji 'smiling to tears' is not the same as smiling or laughing to tears when uttering the same content as an oral statement. For reasons that remain to be explained, for instance, most people in digital conversation both smile and cry to tears, as though emotional reactions in this domain were doomed to be conveyed in their most extreme form without the possibility of nuancing them. The major structural difference between an emoji in digital conversation and a facial expression in an oral, face-to-face dialogue, however, comes down to what could be labeled a 'semiotics of the interval'. In mainstream face-to-face conversation, the face is a fundamental interface of social interaction. It can be physiologically controlled in order to guide its communicative effect on the interlocutor; yet, the face is never an entirely semiotic surface. Some of its emotional expressions, such as blushing, for instance, cannot be totally controlled. Moreover, whereas the face must continuously react impromptu to external solicitations, emojis are a typical expression of mastered, differed communication. They are supposed to bestow on digital dialogue an illusion of immediacy, yet they inevitably turn into devices of mediation, resulting from the structural possibility of chiseling a message before sending it out to the interlocutor.The article reflects on this intrinsic difference so as to develop a more general consideration of the cultural reasons and effects of the disappearing of the body from communication and its replacement through digital simulacra.

El presente, la identidad y lo falso: Una epidemiología semiótica

“…Las ciencias del lenguaje también tienen una larga tradición en el estudio de la mentira, desde la perspectiva de la filosofía del lenguaje (Michaelson & Stokke, 2018), la lingüística (Meibauer, 2019) y la semiótica (Danesi, 2019;Leone, 2020;Violaris, 2020). Mientras que para la filosofía analítica del lenguaje, la verdad y la falsedad son atribuciones lógicas (Gorlée, 2012), para la filosofía continental del lenguaje y la semiótica se definen en relación con la significación (Eco, 1984).…”

O falso como vírus: uma epidemiologia semiótica

“…A literatura nesta área é abundante em várias línguas. As ciências da linguagem também têm uma longa tradição no estudo das mentiras, do ponto de vista da filosofia da linguagem (MICHAELSON; STOKKE, 2018), linguística (MEIBAUER, 2019) e semiótica (DANESI, 2019;LEONE, 2020;VIOLARIS, 2020). Enquanto para a filosofia analítica da linguagem, verdade e falsidade são atribuições lógicas (GORLÉE, 2012), para a filosofia continental da linguagem e para a semiótica elas são definidas em relação ao significado (ECO, 1984).…”

Semiótica do espelho digital

“…As perspectivas históricas também floresceram, a fim de dar nuances à novidade do fenômeno: Corran (2018) na Idade Média, Hadfield (2017) no período moderno inicial, O' Shaughnessy (2017) no nazismo, Cortada e Aspray (2019) nos anos de história dos EUA e Denery (2015) e Fraser (2020) no período do início da história ocidental. As ciências da linguagem também têm uma longa tradição de lidar com mentiras, como a filosofia da linguagem (MICHAELSON; STOKKE, 2018), a linguística (MEIBAUER, 2019) e a semiótica (DANESI, 2019;LEONE, 2020;SANTAELLA, 2018;VIOLARIS, 2020). Enquanto para a filosofia analítica da linguagem, verdade e falsidade são atribuições lógicas (GORLÉE, 2012), tanto para a filosofia continental da linguagem quanto para a semiótica elas são definidas em relação à significação (ECO, 1984).…”