Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 167–192

Chapter 6
When EVERYTHING STANDS OUT, Nothing Does

Typography, expectations and procedures

| Kingston University London, UK
| Independent researcher
Writers often use typographical features such as capitalization, boldface or underlining to draw attention to particular words or phrases in a written text. In this article we use ideas from the relevance-theoretic pragmatic framework to discuss how use of typographical features may convey meaning and/or produce stylistic or literary effects in written texts. We show how typography, like prosody in spoken language, can be used intentionally to guide a reader’s interpretation. We discuss a range of examples to show how typographical features are interpreted relative to the rest of the text and relative to the cultural norms and expectations associated with a particular language and writing system.
Keywords: typography, orthography, natural highlighting, prosody, paralinguistic information, punctuation, procedural meaning, contrast, hearer expectations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Typography and language
    • 2.1Typography and linguistics
    • 2.2Typography and prosody
  • 3.Relevance theory and procedural meaning
  • 4.Typography, procedures and relevance
    • 4.1Typography and interpretation
    • 4.2Expectations and effects
    • 4.3Typography as a natural highlighting device
  • 5.Summary, conclusion and next steps
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.06sco
References (79)
References
Adams, A. & Edworthy, J. (1995). Quantifying and predicting the effects of basic text display parameters on the perceived urgency of warning labels: Trade offs involving font size, border width and colour. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2221–2237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2014). Cogntive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, S., Marquard, C. & Neibuhr, O. (2016). How different typefaces affect speech prosody. Proc. 8th International Conference of Speech Prosody, 513–517.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1983). The inherent iconism of intonation. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 97–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: identity, community and culture on social networking sites (pp. 39–58). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J. & Katsos, N. (2013). Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition, 126, 423–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bryant, G. A. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2005). Is there an ironic tone of voice?. Language and Speech, 48(3), 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butterick, M. (2010). Butterick’s Practical Typography. [Online] Available at: [URL]
(2016). Drowning the Crystal Goblet. [Online] Available at: [URL]
Calhoun, S. (2009). What makes a word contrastive? Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface (pp. 53–78). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua, 175–176, 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cirillo, L. (2019). The pragmatics of air quotes in English academic presentations. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, B. (2012). The relevance of tones: prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review, 29(4), 643–661. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Procedures and prosody: weak encoding and weak communication. In: F. Liedtke & C. Schulze (Eds.), Beyond words: Content, context and inference (pp. 151–181). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (1998). Toward a typographical linguistics. Type, 2(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
(2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. (2016). Drive all night to watch the blues. [Online] Available at: [URL]
Defoe, D. (1964 [1724]). Roxana. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drury, J. E., Baum, S. R., Valeriote, H. & Steinhauer, K. (2016). Punctuation and implicit prosody in silent reading: an ERP study investigating English garden-path sentences. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 7, p. 1375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egermann, H., Pearce, M. T., Wiggins, G. A. & McAdams, S. (2013). Probabilistic models of expectation violation predict psychophysiological emotional responses to live concert music. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience, 13, 533–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eliot, G. (1861). Silas Marner. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. E. (1991). American Psycho. London: Picador.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, V. (1998). Intonation and procedural meaning: the case of Spanish interrogatives. In V. Rouchota & A. Jucker (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 169–203). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, R., Țurcan, A., Thompson, D., Harvey, N., Davies, H. & Turner, A. (2016). Sarcasm and emoticons: Comprehension and emotional impact, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2130–2146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, F. S. (1926). The Great Gatsby. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. SP-2002, 83–90.Google Scholar
Fretheim, T. (2002). Intonation as a constrainst on inferential processing. s.l., s.n., pp. 59–64.Google Scholar
Gross, J. et al. (2014). Evidence for prosody in silent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 189–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2002). Intonation and interpretation: phonetics and phonology. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp.47–57). Aix-en-Provence, France, 11–13 April.Google Scholar
Hedley, P. (2005). Pronouns, procedures and relevance theory. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 41–55.Google Scholar
House, J. (2006). Constructing a context with intonation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1542–1558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, K. (1998). Intonation and relevance. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 69–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R. (2016). The pragmatics of repetition, emphasis and intensification. University of Salford: PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Lampert, M. (2013). Say, be like, quote (unquote), and the air-quotes: interactive quotatives and their multimodal implications: The ‘new’ quotatives remind us of the vocal, verbal, and gestural dimensions of speech. English Today, 29(4), 45–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1999). The Cambridge history of the English language volume III 1478–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 16, 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaya, M. & Perea, M. (2004). Does bold emphasis facilitate the process of visual word recognition. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(e2), 1–5.Google Scholar
Marwick, A. E., Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13, 96–113.Google Scholar
Pearce, M. T., Müllensiefen, D. & Wiggins, G. (2010). The role of expectation and probabilistic learning in auditory boundary perception. Perception, 39, 1367–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekkola, J. et al. (2005). Primary auditory cortex activation by visual speech: an fMRI study at 3T. NeuroReport, 16, 125–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B. & Moore-Page, D. C. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46(28), 4646–4674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perea, M. & Rosa, E. (2002). Does “whole-word shape” play a role in visual word recognition. Perception and Psychphysics, 64(5), 785–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrone-Bertolotti, M. et al. (2012). How silent is silent reading? Intracerebral evidence for top-down activation of temporal voice areas during reading. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(49), 17554–17562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadokierski, Z. (2011). Disturbing the text: typography devices in literary fiction. Book 2.0, 1(2), 101–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, R. (2014). Impact caption as a highlighting device: attempts at viewer manipulation on TV. Discourse, Context and Media, 6, 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, R. & Jackson, R. (2016). Onomatopoeia – showing-word or saying-word? Relevance theory, lexis, and the communication of impressions. Lingua, 175–176, 36–53.Google Scholar
Sasamoto, R. & O’Hagan, M. (2020). Relevance, style and multimodality: typographical features as stylistic devices. In A. Piskorska (Ed.), Relevance theory, figuration and continuity in pragmatics (pp. 193–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Scott, K., (2016). Pronouns and procedures: Reference and beyond. Lingua, 175–176, 69–82.Google Scholar
(2017). Prosody, procedures and pragmatics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 323–341). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Hashtags work everywhere: The pragmatic functions of spoken hashtags. Discourse, Context and Media, 22, 57–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, T. (1972). Perspectives in zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G. & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skovholt, K. Grønning, A. & Kankaanranta, A. (2014). The communicative function of emoticons in workplace emails::-). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 780–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communciation and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2015). Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(44), 117–149.Google Scholar
Steinbeis, N., Koelsch, S. & Sloboda, J. A. (2006). The role of harmonic expectancy violations in musical emotions: evidence from subjective, physiological and neural responses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 188, 1380–1393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagg, C. & Seargeant, P. (2014). Audience design and language choice in the construction and maintenance of translocal communities on social network sites. In P. Seargeant, & C. Tagg, (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet (pp. 161–185). Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twyman, M. (1982). The graphic presentation of language. Information Design Journal, 1(2), 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. et al. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 14(2), 139–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, S. (2001). Typography and language in everyday life: Prescriptions and practices. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Warde, B. (1955). The crystal goblet. London: The Sylvan Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (2006). English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wesch, M. (2009). Youtube and you: experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorations in Media Ecology 8(2), 19–34.Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Prosody and meaning: theory and practice. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed). Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (2011). The conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp. 3–31). Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua 175–176, 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Wharton, T. (2006). Relevance and prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1559–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, B., Belin, P. & Scheepers, C. (2011). Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10), 3146–3152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Grosz, Patrick Georg
2022. Emojis and conditionals: exploring the super linguistic interplay of pictorial modifiers and conditional meaning. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s4 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2022. Review of Forceville (2020): Visual and multimodal communication: Applying the relevance principle. Functions of Language 29:3 ► pp. 328 ff. DOI logo
William Pinder, Daniel
2022. Typographical iconicity and the communication of impressions: A relevance-theoretic perspective. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 18:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2021. Sprechakttheoretische Überlegungen zur Typographie – am Beispiel von Presseüberschriften. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Sasamoto, Ryoko
2021. Onomatopoeia, impressions and text on screen. In Beyond Meaning [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 324], ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Scott, Kate
2021. Contrastive stress in English. In Beyond Meaning [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 324], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Scott, Kate
2023. Nutritional labeling, communication design, and relevance. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo
Rohrer, Patrick Louis, Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie & Pilar Prieto
2020. Beat Gestures for Comprehension and Recall: Differential Effects of Language Learners and Native Listeners. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.