Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, Karin & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
    2011 Pragmatic markers. InJan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jeff Verschueren (eds.), Discursive pragmatics, 223–247. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.8.13aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.13aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert, Georg
    2013Innovative Schriftlichkeit in digitalen Texten. Syntaktische Variation und stilistische Differenzierung in Chat und Forum. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1524/9783050063676
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050063676 [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, Gisle
    2001Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  4. Androutsopoulos, Jannis
    2018 Digitale Interpunktion: Stilistische Ressourcen und soziolinguistischer Wandel in der informellen digitalen Schriftlichkeit von Jugendlichen. InArne Ziegler (ed.), Jugendsprachen: Aktuelle Perspektiven internationaler Forschung [Youth languages: Current perspectives of international research], 721–748. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110472226‑033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110472226-033 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 Auslassungspunkte in der schriftbasierten Interaktion. Sequenziell-topologische Anlaysen an Daten von griechischen Jugendlichen. InJannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 133–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110673241‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673241-006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Androutsopoulos, Jannis & Busch, Florian
    2020 Register des Graphischen. InJannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baron, Naomi & Rich Ling
    2011 Necessary smileys and useless periods: Redefining punctuation in electronically-mediated communication. Visible Language45(1/2). 45–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    2014 Introduction. InKate 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. 10.1163/9789004274822_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
    2009Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakemore, Diane
    2004Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bredel, Ursula
    2008Die Interpunktion des Deutschen: Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Busch, Florian
    2021aDigitale Schreibregister: Kontexte, Formen und metapragmatische Reflexionen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110728835
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110728835 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2021b The interactional principle in digital punctuation. Discourse, Context & Media401. 100481. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100481
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100481 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree
    2002 Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition841. 73–111. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Crible, Ludivine
    2018Discourse markers and (dis)fluency: Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.286
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.286 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crible, Ludivine & Maria-Josep Cuenca
    2017 Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse8(2). 149–166. 10.5087/dad.2017.207
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2017.207 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dainas, Ashley R. & Susan C. Herring
    2021 Interpreting emoji pragmatics. InChaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus & Hartmut Haberland (eds.), Approaches to internet pragmatics: Theory and practice, 107–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318.04dai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318.04dai [Google Scholar]
  18. Dürscheid, Christa
    2011 Ein neues Schreiben?Sprachreport11. 9–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2020 Zeichen setzen im digitalen Schreiben. InJannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 31–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110673241‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673241-002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckert, Penelope
    2012 Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology41(1). 87–100. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑092611‑145828
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gohl, Christine & Susanne Günthner
    1999 Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft181. 39–75. 10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.1999.18.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1978Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 Communication12(4). 1183–1207. 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2007.00369.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00369.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Loban, Walter
    1976Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Research Report No. 18.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Matras, Yaron
    2020Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108333955
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333955 [Google Scholar]
  26. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel
    2007 Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language31(4). 829–865. 10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat [Google Scholar]
  27. McCulloch, Gretchen
    2019Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. New York: Riverhead Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Meibauer, Jörg
    2019 How omission marks mark omission…: An inquiry into the graphematics/pragmatics interface. InClaudia Claridge & Merja Kytö (eds.), Punctuation in context: Past and present perspectives, 67–83. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 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 Studies13(2). 211–234. 10.1177/1461445610392138
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610392138 [Google Scholar]
  30. Raclaw, Joshua
    2006 Punctuation as social action: The ellipsis as a discourse marker in computer-mediated communication. Berkeley Linguistics Society32(1). 299–306. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3469
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3469 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rasoloson, Janie Noëlle
    1993Interjektionen im Kontrast. Am Beispiel der deutschen, madagassischen, englischen und französischen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2004 Showing structure: Using um in the academic seminar. Pragmatics14(4). 479–498. 14.4.04ren.10.1075/prag
    https://doi.org/14.4.04ren.10.1075/prag [Google Scholar]
  33. Rosenthal, Dietmar E.
    2012Spravochnik po pravopisaniyu I literaturnoi pravke [Handbook of orthography and literary editing]. Moscow: Iris Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2010 Some other uh(m)s. Discourse Processes47(2). 130–174. 10.1080/01638530903223380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903223380 [Google Scholar]
  35. Siebenhaar, Beat
    2020 Informalitätsmarkierung in der WhatsApp-Kommunikation. InJannis Androutsopoulos & Florian Busch (eds.), Register des Grafischen. Variation, Interaktion und Reflexion in der digitalen Schriftlichkeit, 67–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110673241‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110673241-004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stenström, Anna-Brita
    1990 Pauses in monologue and dialogue. InJan Svartvik (eds.), The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research, 211–252. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Swerts, Marc
    1998 Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics301. 485–496. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00014‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00014-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Derek Denis
    2008 Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech83(1). 3–34. 10.1215/00031283‑2008‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2010 Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. InKristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Chuysken (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction5(1). 7–28. 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau [Google Scholar]
  41. Turan, Feride [Google Scholar]
  42. Vandergriff, Ilona
    2013 Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) cues. Journal of Pragmatics511. 1–12. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wiese, Heike
    2020 Language situations: A method for capturing variation within speakers’ repertoires. InYoshiyuki Asahi (ed.), Methods in dialectologyXVI1, 105–117. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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). 10.5281/zenodo.3236069
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236069 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wiese, Heike & Annika Labrenz
    2021 Emoji as graphic discourse markers: Functional and positional associations in German WhatsApp® messages. InDaniël van Olmen & Jolanta Šinkūnienė (eds.), Pragmatic markers and clause peripheries, 277–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.325.10wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.10wie [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error