Prior studies have found that emojis can contribute to rebuilding customers’ trust when after-sale staff apologize to them, but studies on the different types of emojis and their different levels of effectiveness in rebuilding trust are still needed. In this paper, we explore the different types and frequencies of emojis and their effectiveness in rebuilding trust based on commercial discourses. Our data are collected from conversations between after-sale staff and customers during Ali Trademanager after-sale service. We find three types of emojis frequently used when after-sale staff apologizing to customers: face-related emojis, gesture-related emojis, and object-related emojis. Moreover, face-related emojis are the most frequently used, as their nature is to express emotion and attitude. The most effective emojis are the whimper emoji and kiss emoji, which are used by after-sale staff for sajiao (literally, ‘playing cute’). On the other hand, we show that the least effective emojis are the sorry emoji and happy emoji, which are deemed insincere because they violate the quality maxim and quantity maxim in the Cooperative Principle. This paper thus contributes to understanding the nature and function of emojis in commercial communication.
ArakawaASuzukiN (2004) Effects of emoticon with an apologetic message on the receiver’s feelings. Japanese Journal of Interpersonal and Social Psychology4: 128–133.
2.
BeitatKBenteleGIedemaR (2013) Trust after medical incidents. In: CandlinCNCrichtonJ (eds) Discourses of Trust. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.70–85.
3.
Bich-CarrièreL (2019) Say it with [A smiling face with smiling eyes]: Judicial use and legal challenges with emoji interpretation in Canada. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law32: 283–319.
4.
BrinkeLAdamsGS (2015) Saving face? When emotion displays during public apologies mitigate damage to organizational performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes130(1): 1–12.
5.
BrooksAWDaiHSchweitzerME (2014) I’m sorry about the rain! Superfluous apologies demonstrate empathic concern and increase trust. Social Psychological and Personality Science5(4): 467–474.
6.
DanesiM (2017) The Semiotics of Emoji. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
7.
DaricsE (2012) Instant Messaging in Work-Based Virtual Teams: The Analysis of Non-verbal Communication Used for the Contextualisation of Transactional and Relational Communicative Goals. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
8.
DresnerEHerringSC (2010) Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory20(3): 249–268.
9.
EarleTC (2009) Trust, confidence, and the 2008 global financial crisis. Risk Analysis29(6): 785–792.
10.
FuoliMHartC (2018) Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study. Discourse & Society29(5): 514–552.
11.
GeorgakopoulouA (2011) Computer-mediated communication. Pragmatics in practice9: 93.
12.
GillespieNDietzGLockeyS (2014) Organizational reintegration and trust repair after an integrity violation: A case study. Business Ethics Quarterly24(3): 371–410.
13.
GolatoATaleghani-NikazmC (2006) Negotiation of face in web chats. Multilingua25(3): 293–321.
14.
GornGJJiangYJoharGV (2008) Babyfaces, trait inferences, and Company evaluations in a public relations crisis. Journal of Consumer Research35(1): 36–49.
15.
GriceHP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: ColePMorganJ (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp.41–58.
16.
HanaiTOguchiT (2008) Features of lodging information in promotion of reservation through the internet: what kind of lodgings are popular in Shinjuku?Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research13(1): 33–40.
17.
HerringSC (2004) Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society6(1): 26–36.
18.
HoltgravesTRobinsonC (2020) Emoji can facilitate recognition of conveyed indirect meaning. PLoS One15(4): e0232361.
19.
HoV (2019) Hotel management’s attempts at repairing customers’ trust: The use of apology and denial. Pragmatics and Society10(4): 493–511.
20.
HuangY (2018) The impact of network emoticon consumers’ forgiveness in the context of online shopping[网络表情符号对消费者宽恕意愿的意向研究]. Master Degree Dissertation, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Changsha, China.
21.
KavanaghB (2010) A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and English non-verbal online communication: The use of emoticons in weblogs. Intercultural Communication Studies19(3): 65–80.
22.
LiLYangY (2018) Pragmatic functions of emoji in internet-based communication—a corpus-based study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education3(1): 16.
23.
LuorTWuLLLuHP, et al. (2010) The effect of emoticons in simplex and complex task-oriented communication: An empirical study of instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior26(5): 889–895.
24.
Maíz-ArévaloC (2015) Jocular mockery in computer-mediated communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community. Journal of Politeness Research11(2): 289–327.
25.
MaRFanWLiuJ (2021) Words only or words and emoticon together? Effect of apologetic form on forgiveness willing of Cuctomers—Mediated role of empathy [纯文字还是加”表情”？道歉形式对消费者宽恕意愿的影响——移情的中介视角]. Nankai Business Review5: 1–16.
26.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
27.
McCreadyE (2015) Relaibility in Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
MitchellAA (1986) The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand attitudes and attitude toward the ad. Journal of Consumer Research13: 12–24.
29.
NovakPKSmailovićJSlubanBMozetičI (2015) Sentiment of emojis. PloS One10(12): e0144296.
30.
ÖztürkEBNoorderhavenNG (2018) Influence of peers’ types of trust on trust repair: The role of apologies. Psychological Studies63(3): 253–265.
31.
PelsmaekersKJacobsGRolloC (eds) (2014) Trust and Discourse: Organizational Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
32.
RiordanMA (2017) Emojis as tools for emotion work: Communicating affect in text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology36(5): 549–567.
33.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRS, et al. (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
34.
SampietroA (2019) Emoji and rapport management in Spanish WhatsApp chats. Journal of Pragmatics143: 109–120.
35.
Spencer-OateyH (2000) Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London: Continuum.
36.
SperberDClémentFHeintzC, et al. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language25(4): 359–393.
37.
TannenD (1984) The pragmatics of cross-cultural communication1. Applied Linguistics5(3): 189–195.
38.
ThompsonDFilikR (2016) Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(2): 105–120.
39.
TogansLJHoltgravesTKwonG, et al. (2021) Digitally saving face: An experimental investigation of cross-cultural differences in the use of emoticons and emoji. Journal of Pragmatics186: 277–288.
40.
WaltherJBD’AddarioKP (2001) The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review19(3): 324–347.
41.
YangKMaoYS (2020) How to do things with emojis: The pragmatic functions of emojis in teacher-student interaction through Wechat. Sinología Hispánica (10): 51–70.
42.
YangK (2021) Disclaimer as a metapragmatic device in Chinese: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics173: 167–176.
43.
YuehH-I (2016) Identity Politics and Popular Culture in Taiwan: A Sajiao Generation. London: Lexington Books.
44.
YuWZhangJ (2019) An analysis on the communication of emoticons: Forms, distribution and influential elements. On the basis of data mining on WeChat group chat [表情包的传播分析 : 形态、分布与影响因素——基于微信群的数据挖掘]. Shanghai Journalism Review5: 36–43.
