Litnet

Abstract

Question marks in user-generated comments on Afrikaans websites: a corpus linguistic study

In computer-mediated communication (CMC) a need can arise to express certain paralinguistic cues since participants cannot see or hear one another. Punctuation marks, such as the question mark, can be used to express paralinguistic elements such as intonation. When internet users find standard punctuation insufficient to express the meanings or paralinguistic cues they wish to express, they may use punctuation marks in unconventional ways. Existing studies on the use of punctuation marks in Afrikaans CMC have largely focused on forms of CMC that imitate real-life conversations, such as chatrooms, SMS or WhatsApp conversations. However, other forms of CMC, such as user comments left on websites, differ in terms of objective and the platforms on which it takes place. User comments are reactions to a particular post or article (Reich 2011:97), and although conversations may occur between different users in a comment section, it is not the primary goal, as it is in conversation-based CMC. This article aims to describe the use of question marks in Afrikaans user comments on websites by doing a corpus study in the NWU-Kommentaarkorpus (CTexT 2022). The findings of the corpus study will be compared to the standard usage in Afrikaans as it is presented in the Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls (AWS 2017), as well as existing literature on question marks in conversation-based Afrikaans CMC.

In the existing literature on the use of punctuation marks in CMC, some common themes can be observed. Firstly, punctuation marks may serve as a way to express paralinguistic cues such as intonation, pauses and emphasis (Crystal 2011:19; Kalman & Gergle 2009:2; Van Gass 2006:79; Verhoef 2001:14). Failing to express paralinguistic cues in a social context online may cause an internet user to appear somewhat robotic (McCulloch 2019:109–10). Written CMC therefore tends to exhibit some characteristics commonly associated with spoken language (Crystal 2011:21). Secondly, the omission of punctuation marks is frequently described as a characteristic of CMC (Busch 2021; Ferreira 2022; Jansen van Vuuren 2007; Ruhl 2016; Verhoef 2001). Various reasons are ascribed to this, such as the fast pace of ongoing simultaneous conversations in certain contexts (Jansen van Vuuren 2007:241). According to Busch (2021:6-7), question marks are often omitted at the end of sentences which are syntactically marked as questions, since question marks are not necessary to indicate that these sentences should be read as questions. A third common theme in studies on punctuation use in CMC is the use of multiple punctuation marks, also known as flooding. The flooding of punctuation marks can be used to convey intensity, emphasis, or emotions such as surprise or uncertainty (Daelemans, Hilte & Vandekerckhove 2018:296; Jansen van Vuuren 2007:242). Another theme is the independent use of punctuation marks, where punctuation marks are not attached to preceding sentences or phrases and are used to express certain meanings independently (Ruhl 2016:8). Lastly, punctuation marks, such as question marks, can be used to self-censor offensive language in CMC in order to evade moderators or moderation software (Banda en Mokwena 2019:1090).

The corpus utilized in the study is the NWU-Kommentaarkorpus 1.6, which is available on the Virtuele Instituut vir Afrikaans (VivA) Korpusportaal. The corpus consists of unedited user comments from two anonymous websites (VivA 2023). A random sample of 400 hits was selected in the corpus from the first 100 000 hits for the query “?”. Every question mark in the sample was annotated based on three categories: 1) the type of question mark (e.g. single question mark, multiple question marks, question mark combined with other punctuation marks); 2) the context in which the question mark occurred (e.g. the type of sentence or utterance it is attached to, if any); and 3) the communicative functions or speech acts (representatives, commissives, directives, declarations or expressives (Searle 1976:10–6)) of the utterances accompanying the question marks. The speech acts were also annotated as direct or indirect speech acts.

The most common type of question mark usage in the sample was single question marks, which occurred in 65,5% of the 400 cases. The remaining 34,5% of the cases consisted of multiple question marks and question marks combined with other punctuation marks. Multiple question marks occurred in 112 cases and were mostly used to convey intensity or emphasis. Question marks combined with exclamation marks occurred in 12 cases, conveying emotions such as disbelief, shock or anger. In these cases, the combinations could also indicate intensity or loudness. Question marks also occurred in combinations with full stops or ellipses in 11 cases and with commas in 3 cases. In 70% of the cases, question marks occurred at the end of sentences that were syntactically marked as questions, whereas in 27,25% of the cases, question marks occurred at the end of sentences that would not have been considered questions if not for the presence of the question marks. In the other 2,75% of the cases, question marks occurred within sentences, after interjections or forms of address, or independently. The majority of the utterances in the sample were expressives (74,25%), followed by representatives (15,5%), directives (9,75%) and commissives (0,5%). Only questions that appeared to have been asked in genuine anticipation of a response, such as questions directed at the writers of an article asking for more details, were annotated as directives. Most of the questions were rhetorical questions that served (often along with capital letters and the flooding of punctuation marks) as expressives. In many cases, what appeared to be rhetorical questions could be interpreted as statements (Van der Merwe 1998:145–6), which were softened by being turned into questions. These cases were annotated as indirect representatives. Of all the speech acts in the sample, 85,25% were indirect speech acts, while 14,75% were direct speech acts.

In conclusion, the majority of the question marks in the sample were used in accordance with the guidelines presented in the Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls (AWS 2017). However, in many instances, the use of question marks was consistent with existing literature on punctuation marks in CMC. The various descriptions of question mark usage in the literature on conversational CMC, such as SMS language, were also applicable to question mark usage in the user comments in the sample. The use of question marks and other punctuation marks to convey elements such as intonation, pauses, loudness, intensity and emotions indicates that a need exists to represent paralinguistic cues in informal written CMC. This need is met to some degree in Afrikaans user comments through the use of punctuation marks.

Keywords: CMC; comment corpus; computer-mediated communication; corpus linguistics; flooding; internet language; punctuation marks; question mark; user-generated comments

• This article’s featured image was created by Arek Socha and obtained from Pixabay.