Is this picture corresponds to the verb "emit"

[sg2019]

What about this image, for instance?

I'm afraid the verb emit is not often used to describe what a volcano does to lava either. We would say that the lava emits light or heat...

I think most verbs, except those describing the simplest actions, just can't have a visual definition, they don't make much sense without a subject and an object, so you'd have to add captions to the images for them to be understood.

Thank you for your response.
Actually, my videos include captions of course! And the verbal context is always "emitted light", I think the picture clearly shows that the lava is emitting light, that is why I would consider it as a visual referent to the verb "emit"? Correct me if I am wrong please?

[sg2019]

I think a right understanding of the word "emit" can come from the Latin etymology "ex-" (out, away) + "mitto, mittere" (to send). http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/verb:mittere
(Not related to buying.)
"Emit" meaning "to send out" is a clear concrete definition that is equally applicable to the sun sending out light, a radio tower sending out a signal, a volcano sending out lava, or an object or person giving off molecules of odor. I think the initial image could be used, but might be better if the rays of light stood out more. I hope this helps!

Yes, it did help VERY MUCH. Thank you

[Iversen]

As far as I can see you can only use "emit" when something spreads something inorderly around in the neighbourhood, not when the output process is very controlled and regular and maybe even natural. So a volcano can emit ash clouds and lahars and lava streams etc., but a car factory doesn't emit cars. A radio station can emit a signal, but it sends or transmits its programs. Likewise you don't emit phone conversations. And if you shake a cereals package to get the last ones out it doesn't emit them, but if you put fire to the package it will emit fumes.

[sg2019]

As far as I can see you can only use "emit" when something spreads something inorderly around in the neighbourhood, not when the output process is very controlled and regular and maybe even natural. So a volcano can emit ash clouds and lahars and lava streams etc., but a car factory doesn't emit cars. A radio station can emit a signal, but it sends or transmits its programs. Likewise you don't emit phone conversations. And if you shake a cereals package to get the last ones out it doesn't emit them, but if you put fire to the package it will emit fumes.

Thank you for your response. However, the context of "emit" in this video is "light", i.e. emitted light from sun from volcano etc. So do you think the attached picture facilitates the grasping of this meaning?

[Iversen]

Light is definitely emitted from the Sun, but the picture won't make us think of the stream of fotons that passes from the Sun to the Earth - the sunset is too pretty. But one small change might make at least a nerd with an interest in astronomy like me remember to think about the rays: just cut the tree to the left away. The picture as a whole will suffer, but precisely because of that everybody will think: why show such a picture? Oh, yes the idea must be that we should notice the clearly visible rays in the picture. And those rays are caused by an emission process.

But the things that REALLY would me think of emission would be either a process at the atomic level, like beta decay "in which a beta ray (fast energetic electron or positron) and a neutrino are emitted from an atomic nucleus" or emission of CO2 or other atmospheric pollutants. Or maybe light emitting critters like glowworms. When you show me a beautiful sundown my first thought is not that a bunch of photons have been emitted from the sun 8 minuts ago.

[sg2019]

When you show me a beautiful sundown my first thought is not that a bunch of photons have been emitted from the sun 8 minuts ago.

Thank your for this detailed feedback. I totally understand your points, but I do not think I have to approach my task the way you are explaining it. Emit also means produce, release, send off, and the picture clearly shows that there is a sun which causes light to spread (emitted light). It does not have to be scientifically described in order for the learner to grasp he meaning of "sun emits light" right??
My goal is to simply locate (in the videos that participants watched), the imagery that corresponds to the target word, here "emit". The aim is to test whether there is an effect of imagery on incidental vocabulary leaning, even if its to a slight extent, and even if there are other objects (meaning candidates) displayed on screen. I feel that most of the responses tend to make the whole thing more complicated then it should be, but I cannot figure out their reasons for this

[tommus]

Thank your for this detailed feedback. I totally understand your points, but I do not think I have to approach my task the way you are explaining it.
......
I feel that most of the responses tend to make the whole thing more complicated then it should be, but I cannot figure out their reasons for this

I think the problem is that you believe you know what you want, and you reject all of our logical suggestions. I'm not sure why you even asked for our input.

[sg2019]

Thank your for this detailed feedback. I totally understand your points, but I do not think I have to approach my task the way you are explaining it.
......
I feel that most of the responses tend to make the whole thing more complicated then it should be, but I cannot figure out their reasons for this

I think the problem is that you believe you know what you want, and you reject all of our logical suggestions. I'm not sure why you even asked for our input.

I do not know what you have to be mean to me, saying why did you ask for our input.

I did not expect the responses to be as such. It's not about what I want but its about what I should do. I did not reject your suggestions, I refute the arguments behind them until you prove me wrong. I thought I should explain the context to you as much as I can because the task context makes a difference.

[Iversen]

The problem is that it is hard to make people think of the word "emit". If you want an almost automatic connection between your test word and the image of a sundown then more common words like "sundown" or "shine" or "evening" would be more appropriate. And by the way, you are not the only one to have this problem. Some textbook authors (or maybe rather image editors) also seem to believe that everyone will think of the same word as them when confronted with a certain picture. It ain't that easy ...

[sg2019]

The problem is that it is hard to make people think of the word "emit". If you want an almost automatic connection between your test word and the image of a sundown then more common words like "sundown" or "shine" or "evening" would be more appropriate. And by the way, you are not the only one to have this problem. Some textbook authors (or maybe rather image editors) also seem to believe that everyone will think of the same word as them when confronted with a certain picture. It ain't that easy ...

So true, I think it's one of the toughest part of my work. Its subjective and even examiners won't accept it this way. So I plan to pay another rater to analyse for me 10% of this, and then check the inter-rater reliability.
Thank you very much