Emojis have contributed to lower levels of literacy.

The argument

The argument identifies a specific consequence of a general change in how people communicate. The 'digital revolution' has introduced alternative modes of communication, including the emoji, which enable users to interact without written language. That is the structural point. An emoji is not shorthand for a word but a substitute for the work a sentence would have done: it conveys tone, reaction, and attitude directly, without the writer having to find the words that would otherwise carry them. What follows concerns practice rather than intention. Literacy is a skill maintained by use. Every message composed in words is an occasion for constructing a sentence, choosing a term, and punctuating a thought, and the fluency a person has is the accumulated residue of having done this repeatedly. As people increasingly use images to express themselves, those occasions become fewer, and the skill they sustained is exercised less often. The effects named are the ones that depend most directly on practice. Knowledge of grammar, punctuation and linguistic accuracy is largely tacit, acquired and retained through the act of writing rather than through instruction about it. Reduce the volume of writing and this knowledge erodes among users, impacting literacy fluency across the board and contributing to a wider crisis in literacy standards. It is worth noting where the argument places that effect. The harm it identifies is to how people express themselves and understand one another, which is to say it operates entirely within the domain of communication. Emojis have contributed to lower levels of literacy, but on this view that is the extent of what they have altered, which is why their impact is limited to communication rather than amounting to a change in the world.

Context

The rapid growth in emoji use has meant users frequently choose images over text to express themselves. People are increasingly communicating in much simpler terms, choosing 'cartoon language' over written language. Several academic studies suggest that this evolution is to blame for the deterioration of wider literacy standards amongst emoji users. A 2018 YouTube study revealed that more than a third of British adults agree with this perspective, and that almost 75% now depend upon emojis and predictive text to craft digital messages.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Language is fluid, and evolves over time. As emojis have become ingrained in communication, so have many other byproducts of the digital revolution, such as 'text speak' and predictive text. Each of these has contributed to reducing standards of literacy. However, if the primary goal of language is to communicate, many studies show that emojis actually bring clarity to otherwise ambiguous messages. For example, a 2017 study by psychologist Linda Kaye found that participants were more likely to understand the nuance of ambiguous messaging when emojis were included. Kaye concludes, 'these symbols are not purely emotional, but they add layers of complexity and clarity to communication.'

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] There is no evidence that without emojis, literacy standards would not be reducing