Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 31:3 (2026) ► pp.396–425

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Data interference

Emojis, homoglyphs, and issues of data fidelity in corpora and their results

ORCiD logo with link | University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
Published online: 23 June 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.24116.dic
Abstract
Tokenisation is a crucial step for corpus linguistics, as it provides the basis for any applicable quantitative method (e.g. collocations) while ensuring the reliability of qualitative approaches. This paper examines how discrepancies in tokenisation affect the representation of language data and the validity of analytical findings. Investigating the challenges posed by emojis and homoglyphs, the study highlights the necessity of pre-processing these elements to maintain corpus fidelity to the source data. The research presents methods for ensuring that digital texts are accurately represented in corpora, thereby supporting reliable linguistic analysis and facilitating the repeatability of linguistic interpretations. The findings emphasise the necessity of a detailed understanding of both linguistic and technical aspects involved in digital textual data to enhance the accuracy of corpus analysis, and have significant implications for both quantitative and qualitative approaches in corpus-based research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Humans and computers reading digital textual data
    • 2.1Unicode UTF-8 encoding
    • 2.2Emojis
    • 2.3Homoglyphs
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Emojis and homoglyphs test files
    • 3.2Source data
    • 3.3Data pre-processing procedures
  • 4.Consequences of SoI in corpora and their results
    • 4.1Emoji detection in corpus tools
    • 4.2Homoglyphs detection in corpus tools
    • 4.3SoI tokenisation in natural language data
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Alsulami, A. (2019). A sociolinguistic analysis of the use of Arabizi in social media among Saudi Arabians. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(6), 257–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrade, B., Morais, R., & Soares De Lima, E. (2024). The personality of visual elements: A framework for the development of visual identity based on brand personality dimensions. The International Journal of Visual Design, 18(1), 67–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2023). AntConc (4.2.4) [Computer software]. Waseda University. [URL].
Bertini, F., Rizzo, S. G., & Montesi, D. (2019). Can information hiding in social media posts represent a threat? Computer, 52(10), 52–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, V., & Platt, W. (2024). #LancsBox X (4.0.0) [Computer software]. Lancaster University. [URL].
Brezina, V., & Timperley, M. (2017). How large is the BNC?: A proposal for standardised tokenization and word counting. In Proceedings of the 9th international corpus linguistics conference. University of Birmingham. [URL].
Bridge, K., Buck, A., White, S., Wojciakowski, M., Hickey, S., & Radich, Q. (2023). Use UTF-8 code pages in Windows apps. Microsoft Learn. [URL].
Calhoun, K., & Fawcett, A. (2023). “They edited out her nip nops”: Linguistic innovation as textual censorship avoidance on TikTok. Language@Internet, 21(1), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, R. (2019, August 30). The sad history of Unicode printf-style format specifiers in Visual C++. The Old New Thing. [URL].
Cooper, P., Surdeanu, M., & Blanco, E. (2023). Hiding in plain sight: Tweets with hate speech masked by homoglyphs. In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, & K. Bali (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 2922–2929. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curry, N., Baker, P., & Brookes, G. (2024). Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daniel, J. S., & Pal, A. (2024). Impact of non-Standard Unicode characters on security and comprehension in Large Language Models. arXiv:2405.14490v1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, M., & Holbrook, N. (Eds.). (2023). UTS #51: Unicode emoji. Unicode Technical Reports. [URL].
Di Cristofaro, M. (2023a). Corpus approaches to language in social media. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023b, July 3–6). The hierarchy of web pages: Accounting for contents’ accessibility in keywords analysis [Conference presentation]. The twelfth international corpus linguistics conference 2023, Lancaster, UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eleta, I., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Multilingual use of Twitter: Social networks at the language frontier. Computers in Human Behavior, 411, 424–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fricke, L., Grosz, P. G., & Scheffler, T. (2024). Semantic differences in visually similar face emojis. Language and Cognition, 16(4), 1433–1447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillings, M., Kohn, T., & Mautner, G. (2024). The rise of large language models: Challenges for Critical Discourse Studies. Critical Discourse Studies, 22(6), 625–641. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2016). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hafner, C. A. (2021). Discourse and computer-mediated communication. In K. Hyland, B. Paltridge, & L. L. C. Wong (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 281–294). Bloomsbury Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T., & Robinson, C. (2020). Emoji can facilitate recognition of conveyed indirect meaning. PLOS ONE, 15(4), e0232361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horváth, A., van Lit, C., Wagner, C., & Wrisley, D. J. (2023). Towards multilingually enabled digital knowledge infrastructures: A qualitative survey analysis. In L. Viola & P. Spence (Eds.), Multilingual digital humanities (pp. 197–212. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, T. (2024). Carpedm20/emoji [Python]. [URL].
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). ChatGPT for language teaching and learning. RELC Journal, 54(2), 537–550. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konrad, A., Herring, S. C., & Choi, D. (2020). Sticker and emoji use in Facebook Messenger: Implications for graphicon change. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(3), 217–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazarinis, F. (2008). Text extraction and web searching in a non-Latin language [Doctoral thesis, University of Sunderland]. [URL].
Logi, L., & Zappavigna, M. (2023). A social semiotic perspective on emoji: How emoji and language interact to make meaning in digital messages. New Media & Society, 25(12), 3222–3246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. S., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2002). Effects of typographic factors in advertising‐based persuasion: A general model and initial empirical tests. Psychology & Marketing, 19(7–8), 663–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Brezina, V. (2022). Fundamental principles of corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Xiao, R. (2005). Character encoding in corpus construction. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (pp. 47–58. Oxbow Books. [URL].
Miller, H., Thebault-Spieker, J., Chang, S., Johnson, I., Terveen, L., & Hecht, B. (2021). “Blissfully happy” or “ready to fight”: Varying interpretations of emoji. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 10(1), 259–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller Hillberg, H., Levonian, Z., Kluver, D., Terveen, L., & Hecht, B. (2018). What I see is what you don’t get: The effects of (not) seeing emoji rendering differences across platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(124), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Minnich, A., Abu-El-Rub, N., Gokhale, M., Minnich, R., & Mueen, A. (2016). ClearView: Data cleaning for online review mining. In R. Kumar, J. Caverlee, & H. Tong (Eds.), 2016 IEEE/ACM international conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 555–558. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, A., & Rayson, P. (2022). PyMUSAS: Python Multilingual Ucrel Semantic Analysis System (0.3.0) [Computer software]. [URL].
Moran, S., & Cysouw, M. (2018). The Unicode cookbook for linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. Zenodo. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Gries, S. Th. (Eds.). (2020). A Practical handbook of corpus linguistics. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, A. (Ed.). (2021). Character model for the World Wide Web: String matching. World Wide Web Consortium. [URL].
Python Software Foundation. (2024). Built-in types. Python Documentation. [URL].
Robertson, A., Magdy, W., & Goldwater, S. (2021). Black or White but never neutral: How readers perceive identity from yellow or skin-toned emoji. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(350), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shoeb, A. A. M., & de Melo, G. (2021). Assessing emoji use in modern text processing tools. In C. Zong, F. Xia, W. Li, & R. Navigli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th international joint conference on Natural Language Processing, 1379–1388. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shurick, A. A., & Daniel, J. (2020). What’s behind those smiling eyes: Examining emoji sentiment across vendors. In S. Chancellor, K. Garimella, & K. Weller (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of the 14th international AAAI conference on web and social media (Emoji 2020). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spence, P., & Viola, L. (2023). Introduction. In L. Viola & P. Spence (Eds.), Multilingual digital humanities (pp. 1–14. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spolsky, J. (2003, October 8). The absolute minimum every software developer absolutely, positively must know about Unicode and character sets (No excuses!). Joel on Software. [URL].
Storment, J. D. (2024). Going ✈ lexicon? The linguistic status of pro-text emojis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 9(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Struppek, L., Hintersdorf, D., Friedrich, F., Brack, M., Schramowski, P., & Kersting, K. (2023). Exploiting cultural biases via homoglyphs in text-to-image synthesis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 781, 1017–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, H., Chiba, D., Yoneya, Y., Mori, T., & Goto, S. (2019). ShamFinder: An automated framework for detecting IDN homographs. Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference, 449–462. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The TEI Consortium. (2023, November 16). TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. TEI Consortium. [URL].
Uchida, S. (2024). Using early LLMs for corpus linguistics: Examining ChatGPT’s potential and limitations. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100089. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unicode Consortium. (2023). UTS #39: Unicode security mechanisms. Unicode Technical Reports. [URL].
. (2024). Supported scripts. Unicode Technical Reports. [URL].
Wang, D., Li, Y., Jiang, J., Ding, Z., Jiang, G., Liang, J., & Yang, D. (2024a). Tokenization matters! Degrading Large Language Models through challenging their tokenization. arXiv:2405.17067. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, G., Shengyou, H., & Jingsong, Q. (2024b). Linguistic properties of emojis: A quantitative exploration of emoji frequency, category, and position on Twitter. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 31(3), 183–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weissman, B., Engelen, J., Baas, E., & Cohn, N. (2023). The Lexicon of emoji? Conventionality modulates processing of emoji. Cognitive Science, 47(4), e13275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whistler, K. (2023). UAX #15: Unicode Normalization Forms. Unicode Technical Reports. [URL].
Wiese, H., & Labrenz, A. (2021). Emoji as graphic discourse markers. Functional and positional associations in German WhatsApp® messages. In D. Van Olmen & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Pragmatic markers and peripheries (pp. 277–302. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, D., Bondi, M., & Hyland, K. (2026). Can GPT-4 learn to analyse moves in research article abstracts? Applied Linguistics, 47(1), 54–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M., & Logi, L. (2021). Emoji in social media discourse about working from home. Discourse, Context & Media, 441, 100543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Emoji and social media paralanguage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue