Abstract
<p>Emoticons can visually differ in various minor ways. This includes presence or absence of an element, like the 'nose' or 'tear' in the :-) and :'( emoticons, differences in orientation, as in the :) versus (: emoticons, or a change to an element, such as the 'eyes' in the :) versus ;) emoticons. It is unclear which types of variation impact meaning or whether there is consistency in the types of variation that have the most effect on meaning. We present a study investigating how emoticon variations are perceived and interpreted in a range of contexts, including positive, negative, and sarcastic. Given that an established function of emoticons is to clarify message intent, and research suggests non-native speakers may use emoticons in a compensatory way, we also compare the perceptions and interpretations of native (n = 151) and non-native (n = 119) speakers of English in each context type. Utilising emoticons that were produced by participants in earlier research, a series of ratings and emoticon selections reveal patterns of contextual use, interpretation, and perceptions of meaning equivalence. Results reveal that specific visual variations, including the nose element or rotation of an emoticon, have little impact on meaning, while other variations, such as mouthshape or mirroring an emoticon, do alter meaning. The scale of visual change does not correlate with meaning change. Results also indicate native and non-native speakers pattern very closely in their overall use and interpretation, suggesting emoticons can be useful in facilitating cross-cultural or cross-linguistic conversations. However, there are important exceptions with more subtle emoticon variations and in more semantically complex contexts. This suggests the nuances of emoticon usage within a language community take more time to acquire.</p>