Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse-pragmatic markers, fillers and filled pauses: Pragmatic, cognitive, multimodal and sociolinguistic perspectives
Edited by Kate Beeching, Grant Howie, Minna Kirjavainen and Anna Piasecki
[Pragmatics & Cognition 29:2] 2022
► pp. 246–271

The three-dot sign in language contact

ORCID logo | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
ORCID logo | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
ORCID logo | Technische Universität Kaiserslautern
ORCID logo | University of Kaiserslautern
In this study, we investigate the three-dot sign as a discourse marker (DM) with textual, subjective and intersubjective discourse functions. As a graphical marker that is used across languages, the three-dot sign is especially suitable for comparative studies and dynamics in language contact. Our corpus study targeting instant messages of different languages (English, German, Greek, Russian, Turkish) and speaker groups (monolinguals and bilingual heritage speakers) suggests that graphical DMs are prone to cross-linguistic influence. This depends on the specific contact situation and does not seem to be a general effect of bilingualism. The societal status of a language might further influence the use of such markers in digital informal writing. Language-specific developments that relate to emerging functions indicate that functional versatility promotes frequent use of (graphical) DMs.
Keywords: three-dot sign, graphic discourse marker, computer-mediated communication, discourse functions, language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review and research questions
    • 2.1The three-dot sign as a graphic discourse marker
    • 2.2Textual discourse functions
    • 2.3Subjective discourse functions
    • 2.4Intersubjective discourse functions
    • 2.5This study: A cross-linguistic perspective on the three-dot sign
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1The database
    • 3.2Positions, context, and functions
      • 3.2.1Positions
      • 3.2.2Context: Discourse units
      • 3.2.3Derivation and systematization of functions
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Overall and individual use of the three-dot sign
    • 4.2Functions across languages
    • 4.3Tendencies in contact situations
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21021.lab
References (45)
References
Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jeff Verschueren (eds.), Discursive pragmatics, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albert, Georg. 2013. Innovative Schriftlichkeit in digitalen Texten. Syntaktische Variation und stilistische Differenzierung in Chat und Forum. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2018. Digitale Interpunktion: Stilistische Ressourcen und soziolinguistischer Wandel in der informellen digitalen Schriftlichkeit von Jugendlichen. In Arne Ziegler (ed.), Jugendsprachen: Aktuelle Perspektiven internationaler Forschung [Youth languages: Current perspectives of international research], 721–748. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Auslassungspunkte in der schriftbasierten Interaktion. Sequenziell-topologische Anlaysen an Daten von griechischen Jugendlichen. In Jannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 133–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis & Busch, Florian. 2020. Register des Graphischen. In Jannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi & Rich Ling. 2011. Necessary smileys and useless periods: Redefining punctuation in electronically-mediated communication. Visible Language 45(1/2). 45–67.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges. 2014. Introduction. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Cross-linguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2004. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula. 2008. Die Interpunktion des Deutschen: Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Busch, Florian. 2021a. Digitale Schreibregister: Kontexte, Formen und metapragmatische Reflexionen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. The interactional principle in digital punctuation. Discourse, Context & Media 401. 100481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 841. 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Maria-Josep Cuenca. 2017. Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse 8(2). 149–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dainas, Ashley R. & Susan C. Herring. 2021. Interpreting emoji pragmatics. In Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland (eds.), Approaches to internet pragmatics: Theory and practice, 107–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2011. Ein neues Schreiben? Sprachreport 11. 9–14.Google Scholar
. 2020. Zeichen setzen im digitalen Schreiben. In Jannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 31–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41(1). 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gohl, Christine & Susanne Günthner. 1999. Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 181. 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyo, Gwang J. Kim, Han W. Park & Ronald E. Rice. 2007. Configurations of relationships in different media: FtF, email, instant messenger, mobile phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 12(4). 1183–1207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loban, Walter. 1976. Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Research Report No. 18.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2020. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2019. Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2019. How omission marks mark omission…: An inquiry into the graphematics/pragmatics interface. In Claudia Claridge & Merja Kytö (eds.), Punctuation in context: Past and present perspectives, 67–83. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ong, Kenneth K. W. 2011. Disagreement, confusion, disapproval, turn elicitation and floor holding: Actions as accomplished by ellipsis marks-only turns and blank turns in quasi synchronous chats. Discourse Studies 13(2). 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua. 2006. Punctuation as social action: The ellipsis as a discourse marker in computer-mediated communication. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32(1). 299–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasoloson, Janie Noëlle. 1993. Interjektionen im Kontrast. Am Beispiel der deutschen, madagassischen, englischen und französischen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2004. Showing structure: Using um in the academic seminar. Pragmatics 14(4). 479–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Dietmar E. 2012. Spravochnik po pravopisaniyu I literaturnoi pravke [Handbook of orthography and literary editing]. Moscow: Iris Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2010. Some other uh(m)s . Discourse Processes 47(2). 130–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siebenhaar, Beat. 2020. Informalitätsmarkierung in der WhatsApp-Kommunikation. In Jannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 67–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1990. Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In Jan Svartvik (eds.), The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research, 211–252. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Swerts, Marc. 1998. Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 301. 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Derek Denis. 2008. Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech 83(1). 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Chuysken (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turan, Feride. 2014. Türk Dil Kurumu. Yazim Kilavuzu ve Kurallar. [URL]
Vandergriff, Ilona. 2013. Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics 511. 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2020. Language situations: A method for capturing variation within speakers’ repertoires. In Yoshiyuki Asahi (ed.), Methods in dialectology XVI 1, 105–117. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike, Artemis Alexiadou, Shanley Allen, Oliver Bunk, Natalia Gagarina, Kateryna Iefremenko, Esther Jahns, Martin Klotz, Thomas Krause, Annika Labrenz, Anke Lüdeling, Maria Martynova, Katrin Neuhaus, Tatiana Pashkova, Vicky Rizou, Rosemarie Tracy, Christoph Schroeder, Luka Szucsich, Wintai Tsehaye, Sabine Zerbian, & Yulia Zuban. 2019. RUEG corpus (version 0.4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike & Annika Labrenz. 2021. Emoji as graphic discourse markers: Functional and positional associations in German WhatsApp® messages. In Daniël van Olmen & Jolanta Šinkūnienė (eds.), Pragmatic markers and clause peripheries, 277–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar