Emojis and Communicative Competence: A Comparative Study of Generation Z and Generation Alpha Digital Discourse
Keywords:
communicative competence, emojis, Generation Z, Generation Alpha, multimodality, computer-mediated communication, Bachman and PalmerAbstract
Emojis have proven to be a defining characteristic of digital communication, but their place in communicative competence is still underexplained given the ubiquity of the emoji. This study explores the use of emojis in the daily communication of Generation Z (1997–2012) and Generation Alpha (2010–2024), using a model of communicative competence in language, developed by Bachman and Palmer (1996, 2010), which divides the communicative competence aspects into organizational, pragmatic and strategic. The study employed a comparative mixed method design, with the WhatsApp chat excerpts analyzed, and the questionnaire self-reported responses analyzed from the members of both generations. The results suggest that emojis can be seen as semiotic resources with structure and context sensitivity, not as a decorative ornament; they facilitate the cohesion of the text, convey emotional and attitudinal attitude, and contribute to coping with interpersonal relationships without being face-to-face. Generation Z participants exhibited greater organizational control, using emojis intentionally with text and modifying their use to fit audience and context. The emojis were used with greater color or intensity of expression, and in more concentrated groups, and were sometimes used as the main vehicle of meaning, suggesting an emergent rather than a fully systematized competence in the use of emojis. The generational differences indicate that e-sociability and emoji literacy are gradually acquired during the course of life development; this has implications for applied linguistics, digital literacy instruction, and the theory of multimodal communicative competence.
References
Arslan, M. F., & Shakir, A. (2019). Inclusion of social media abbreviations in communicative language testing. Linguistic Forum – A Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 33–41.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Crystal, D. (2006). The fight for English: How language pundits ate, shot, and left. Oxford University Press.
Danesi, M. (2017). The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet. Bloomsbury Academic.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin Books.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
Tagg, C. (2015). Exploring digital communication: Language in action. Routledge.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2026 Pakistan Journal of Language Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
