Abstract
There is no punctuation in English endowed with attenuating qualities which could function as the contrary of “!”, and in a language with no speech levels, such paucity of expression can come at a cost, especially online. This paper on the non-standard 1sg in English — i — aims to demonstrate that the use of this novel form is both conscious and meaningful, indeed it is a variation carrying its own linguistic mechanisms. Using linguistics and statistics we will see: a) how the use of the lowercase variant, which in English is an aberration, can have prosodic effects on the utterance, and thus signify a feeling. And, b) how textometry allows us to reveal the use of this non-standard 1sg in a contrastive corpus of tweets addressed directly to (@) Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, over four days of the UK general elections, by testing its frequency with several collocations, among others: slurs and hate speech, hapax, and conjunctions. The results obtained tend towards the confirmation that the non-standard 1sg is used not only to signal youth, but also as a precautionary implement deployed when weighing in on divisive topics, amounting to publishing a statement with a caveat.
Résumé
Il n’existe pas en anglais de ponctuation dotée de qualités atténuantes qui pourrait fonctionner comme le contraire de “!”, et dans une langue sans niveaux de parole, une telle indigence d’expression peut avoir un coût, surtout en ligne. Cet article sur le 1sg non-standard en anglais — i — vise à démontrer que l’utilisation de cette nouvelle forme est à la fois consciente et significative, il s’agit en effet d’une variation portant ses propres mécanismes linguistiques. En adoptant une approche linguistique et statistique, nous verrons : a) comment l’utilisation de la variante minuscule, qui en anglais est une aberration, peut avoir des effets prosodiques sur l’énoncé, et ainsi signifier un sentiment. Et, b) comment la textométrie nous permet de révéler l’usage de ce 1sg non standard dans un corpus contrastif de tweets adressés directement à (@) Boris Johnson et Jeremy Corbyn, durant quatre jours des élections générales britanniques, en testant sa fréquence avec plusieurs collocations, entre autres : insultes et discours de haine, hapax, et conjonctions. Les résultats obtenus tendent à confirmer que le 1sg non standard est utilisé non seulement pour signaler la jeunesse, mais aussi comme une mesure de précaution déployé lorsque l’on prend position sur des sujets qui divisent, ce qui revient à publier une déclaration sous réserve.
Zusammenfassung
Im Englischen gibt es keine abschwächenden Satzzeichen die als das Gegenteil von “!” fungieren könnten, und in einer Sprache ohne Sprachstufen kann ein solcher Mangel an Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten seinen Preis haben, insbesondere im Internet. In diesem Beitrag über das nicht standardisierte 1sg im Englischen — i — soll gezeigt werden, dass der Gebrauch dieser neuen Form sowohl bewusst als auch bedeutungsvoll ist, da es sich um eine Variation mit eigenen linguistischen Mechanismen handelt. Mit Hilfe von Linguistik und Statistik werden wir sehen: a) wie die Verwendung der Kleinschreibung, die im Englischen eine Abweichung darstellt, prosodische Effekte auf die Äußerung haben und somit ein Gefühl ausdrücken kann. Und b) wie die Textometrie es uns ermöglicht, die Verwendung dieses nicht standardisierten 1sg in einem kontrastiven Korpus von Tweets zu zeigen, die direkt an (@) Boris Johnson und Jeremy Corbyn gerichtet sind, über vier Tage der britischen Parlamentswahlen, indem wir die Frequenz mit verschiedenen Kollokationen testen, unter anderem: Verunglimpfungen und Hassreden, Hapax und Konjunktionen. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass das nicht standardisierte 1sg nicht nur verwendet wird, um Jugend zu signalisieren, sondern auch als Vorsichtsmaßnahme, wenn man sich zu kontroversen Themen äußert, was der Veröffentlichung einer Erklärung mit einem Vorbehalt gleichkommt.
References
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2011. Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. In Kristiansen, Tore & Coupland, Nikolas (eds.). Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe (1) 145–159. Oslo: Novus Press. https://tinyurl.com/2w53hfu8 (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Aru, Jaan, Francesca Siclari, William A. Phillips & Johan F. Storm. 2020. Apical drive — A cellular mechanism of dreaming? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (119) 440–455. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.018 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.018Search in Google Scholar
Augustine, of Hippo, Saint., & Warner, Rex. 1981[AD 397]. The Confessions of St. Augustine. New York: Penguin Group.Search in Google Scholar
Bänziger, Tanja & Klaus R. Scherer. 2005. The Role of Intonation in Emotional Expressions. Speech Communication. 10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.016. (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Baym, Nancy K. 2015. Social Media and the Struggle for Society. Social Media + Society. 10.1177/2056305115580477 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.1177/2056305115580477Search in Google Scholar
Borrell, André & Salsignac, Jeanne. 2002. Importance de la prosodie en didactique des langues [Importance of prosody in language didactics]. In Renard, Raymond (ed.) Apprentissage d’une langue étrangère/seconde (2): La phonétique verbo-tonale. [Second/foreign language learning (2) : Verbo-tonal phonetics] 163–182. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur. 10.3917/dbu.renar.2002.01.0163. (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Felix & Sendlmeier, Walter F. 2000. Verification of acoustical correlates of emotional speech using formant-synthesis. SpeechEmotion, 151–156. http://web4.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/courses/old/cs6998-02/burkhardt00.pdf (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Search in Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166973Search in Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2011. Internet Linguistics. 1st ed. Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor and Francis. https://www.perlego.com/book/1607289/internet-linguistics-pdf . (accessed 26 August 2022) 10.4324/9780203830901Search in Google Scholar
Dubois, Jean. 2002. La linguistique textuelle [Text linguistics] Paris: Armand Colin Search in Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob. 2015. Systematic patterning in phonologically motivated orthographic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(2), 161–188. 10.1111/josl.12119 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.1111/josl.12119Search in Google Scholar
Falk, Simone. 2014. Communicative functions of rhythm in spoken discourse – the case of radio broadcasting, Cahiers de praxématique, 61. http://journals.openedition.org/praxematique/1904 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.4000/praxematique.1904Search in Google Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen, Hans Brunner & Greg Whittemore. 1991. Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication 8 (1) 8–34. doi:10.1177/0741088391008001002. (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Fuchs, Susanne & Jelena Krivokapić. 2016. Prosodic boundaries in writing: Evidence from a keystroke analysis. Frontiers in Psychology (7)1678. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01678. (accessed 26 August 2022)10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01678Search in Google Scholar
Gadet, Françoise. 2006. La Variation sociale en français [Social variation in French] Paris: Ophrys. 10.4000/linx.306Search in Google Scholar
Heath, Maria. 2018. Orthography in Social Media: Pragmatic and Prosodic Interpretations of Caps Lock. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America. Linguistic Society of America. doi:10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4350. (accessed 26 August 2022)10.3765/plsa.v3i1.4350Search in Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 1992. Phonology and Morphology. In Hogg, Richard (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.002Search in Google Scholar
Howell, Peter & Van Borsel, John. 2011. Multilingual Aspects of Fluency Disorders. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847693570Search in Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2000. Introduction: Non-standard orthography and non-standard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4: 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–9481.00127 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.1111/1467-9481.00127Search in Google Scholar
James, Allan. 2017. Prosody and paralanguage in speech and the social media: The vocal and graphic realisation of affective meaning. Linguistica, 57(1), 137–149. doi:10.4312/linguistica.57.1.137–149 (accessed 26 August 2022)10.4312/linguistica.57.1.137-149Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness, New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Loevenbruck, Hélène, Grandchamp, Romain, Rapin, Lucile, Nalborczyk, Ladislas & Dohen, Marion 2018. A cognitive neuroscience view of inner language: to predict and to hear, see, feel. In Langland-Hassan, Peter & Vicente, Agustín (eds.). Inner Speech: New Voices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.131–167.10.1093/oso/9780198796640.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
MacMurray, Erin & Leenhardt, Marguerite. 2012. Textometry and Information Discovery: A New Approach to Mining Textual Data on the Web. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.217.9320&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Maybaum, Rebecca. 2013. Language Change as a Social Process: Diffusion Patterns of Lexical Innovations in Twitter. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Linguistic Society of America. 10.3765/bls.v39i1.3877.10.3765/bls.v39i1.3877Search in Google Scholar
Mounin, George. 1974. Dictionnaire de la linguistique [Dictionary of linguistics] Paris: PUF.Search in Google Scholar
Perrone-Bertolotti, Marcela, Grandchamp, Romain, Rapin, Lucile, Baciu, Romain & Lachaux, Jean-Philippe. 2016. Langage Intérieur [Inner speech]. In Pinto, Serge & Sato, Marc. (Eds.) Traité neurolinguistique. Du cerveau au langage [On neurolinguistics. From the brain to language]. 109–125. Louvain-La-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01467107/file/Perrone_Bertolotti_etal_2016_LangageInterieur.pdf (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Pincemin, Bénédicte. 2018. Sept logiciels de textometrie [Seven textometry software tools]. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01843695/file/sept_logiciels_de_textometrie_180718a.pdf (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Rodero, Emma & Potter, Robert F. 2017. Melodic variations to stimulate your attention, Human Communication Research, 43 (3) 397–413.10.1111/hcre.12109Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1985[1916]. Cours de linguistique générale, Paris : Payot. Search in Google Scholar
Sidani, Jaime. 2016. The Association between Social Media Use and Eating Concerns among US Young Adults. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116 (9) 1465–1472. 10.1016/j.jand.2016.03.021 (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Naomi and Copland, Simon. 2021. Memetic Moments: The Speed of Twitter Memes. Journal of Digital Social Research, 4 (1) 23–48. 10.33621/jdsr.v4i1.95. (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Werry, Christopher C. 1996. Linguistic and Interactional Features of Internet Relay Chat. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.39.06wer. (accessed 26 August 2022)10.1075/pbns.39.06werSearch in Google Scholar
Williams, Jake Ryland, Paul R. Lessard, Suma Desu, Eric Clark, James P. Bagrow, Christopher M. Danforth, & Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2014. Zipf’s Law Holds for Phrases, Not Words. arXiv. 10.48550/ARXIV.1406.5181. (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Handbuch Pragmatik. Liedtke, Frank & Tuchen, Astrid (eds). Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-04624-6_8 (accessed 26 August 2022)Search in Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Bloomsbury. Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
