Once the full stop meant a sentence was over - now it means you’re angry (2024)

  1. World

26 November 2013

The perpetual flow of instant messaging fears a heavy full stop - it means the conversation is over, or that you're being sarcastic, or angry. How did this happen to a once neutral punctuation mark?

By Ben Crair

Thisarticlewas originally published onnewrepublic.com

The period was always the humblest of punctuation marks. Recently, however, it’s started getting angry. I’ve noticed it in my text messages and online chats, where people use the period not simply to conclude a sentence, but to announce “I am not happy about the sentence I just concluded.”

Say you find yourself limping to the finish of a wearing workday. You text your girlfriend: “I know we made a reservation for your bday tonight but wouldn’t it be more romantic if we ate in instead?” If she replies,

we could do that

Related

North America

Is Nikki Haley a real threat to Donald Trump?

Europe

Christmas in Hamburg

Then you can ring up Papa John’s and order something special. But if she replies,

Subscribe to the Saturday Read View all newsletters

Your new guide to the best writing on ideas, politics, books and culture each weekend – from the New Statesman.

THANK YOU

we could do that.

Content from our partners
Can Labour’s ten-year NHS plan revolutionise long-term healthcare?

Spotlight

How can the UK boost its life sciences sector to improve patient outcomes?

Spotlight

Authors and artificial intelligence: what next?

Richard Combes

Then you should probably drink a cup of coffee: You’re either going out or you’re eating Papa John’s alone.

This is an unlikely heel turn in linguistics. In most written language, the period is a neutral way to mark a pause or complete a thought; but digital communications are turning it into something more aggressive. “Not long ago, my 17-year-old son noted that many of my texts to him seemed excessively assertive or even harsh, because I routinely used a period at the end,” Mark Liberman, a professor of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania, told me by email. How and why did the period get so pissed off?

It might be feeling rejected. On text and instant message, punctuation marks have largely been replaced by the line break. I am much more likely to type two separate messages without punctuation:

sorry about last night
next time we can order little caesars

Than I am to send a single punctuated message:

I’m sorry about last night. Next time we can order Little Caesars.

And, because it seems begrudging, I wouldnevertype:

sorry about last night.
next time we can order little caesars.

“The unpunctuated, un-ended sentence is incredibly addicting,” said Choire Sicha, editor of the Awl. “I feel liberated to make statements without that emphasis, andlike I’m continuing the conversation, even when I’m definitely not.”

Other people probably just find line breaks more efficient. AnAmerican University studyof college students’ texting and instant messaging habits found they only used sentence-final punctuation 39 percent of the time in texts and 45 percent of the time in online chats. The percentages were even lower for “transmission-final punctuation”: 29 percent for texts and 35 percent for IMs. The same is likely true of Twitter, where the 140-character limit has made most punctuation seem dispensable.

“In the world of texting and IMing … the default is to end just by stopping, with no punctuation mark at all,” Liberman wrote me. “In that situation, choosing to add a period also adds meaning because the reader(s) need to figure out why you did it. And what they infer, plausibly enough, is something like ‘This is final, this is the end of the discussion or at least the end of what I have to contribute to it.’”

It’s a remarkable innovation. The period was one of the first punctuation marks to enter written language as a way to indicate a pause, back when writing was used primarily as a record of (and script for) speech. Over time, as the written word gained autonomy from the spoken word, punctuation became a way to structure a text according to its own unique hierarchy and logic. While punctuation could still be used to create or suggest the rhythms of speech, only the exclamation point and question mark indicated anything like what an orator would call “tone.”

“Explicit representations of the emotional state of the person doing the writing are fairly rare,” said Keith Houston, author ofShady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and Other Typographical Marks. Writers, linguists, and philosophers have occasionally tried to invent new punctuation marks to ease the difficulty of inflecting tone in writing.The “irony mark,” in particular, hasbeen proposed many times. But none of these efforts has been successful.

Now, however, technology has led us to use written language more like speech—that is, in a real-time, back-and-forth between two or more people. “[P]eople are communicating like they are talking, but encoding that talk in writing,” Clay Shirkyrecently told Slate. This might help explain the rise of the line break: It allows people to more accurately emulate in writing the rhythm of speech. It has also confronted people with the problem of tone in writing, and they’re trying to solve it with the familiar punctuation marks that the line break largely displaced.

It’s not just the period. Nearly everyone has struggled to figure out whether or not a received message is sarcastic. So people began using exclamation points almost as sincerity markers: “I really mean the sentence I just concluded!” (This is especially true of exclamation points used in sequence: “Are you being sarcastic?” “No!!!!!”) And as problems of tone kept arising on text and instant message, people turned to other punctuation marks on their keyboards rather than inventing new ones.The question mark has similarly outgrown its traditional purpose. I notice it more and more as a way to temper straightforward statements that might otherwise seem co*cky, as in “I’m pretty sure he likes me?” The ellipsis,as Slate noted, has come to serve a whole range of purposes. I often see people using it as a passive-aggressive alternative to the period’s outright hostility—an invitation to the offender to guess at his mistake and remedy it. (“No.” shuts down the conversation; “No…” allows it to continue.)

Medial punctuation, like the comma and parentheses, has yet to take on emotional significance (at least as far as I’ve observed). And these newfangled, emotional uses of terminal punctuation haven’t crossed over into more traditional, thoughtful writing. (I have used the period throughout this story, and I’m in a perfectly pleasant mood.) Perhaps one day it will, though, and our descendants will wonder why everyone used to be so angry. For posterity’s sake, then, let my author bio be clear:

Ben Crair is a story editor at The New Republic!

This article was originally published on newrepublic.com

As a linguistics enthusiast with a deep understanding of language evolution in digital communication, I find the use of punctuation marks, particularly the period, as emotional indicators in text messages and online chats to be a fascinating linguistic phenomenon. My knowledge draws from a variety of sources, including research in linguistics, studies on communication habits in the digital age, and a keen interest in the evolution of written language.

In the article "The Period is Pissed," Ben Crair explores the changing role of the period in digital communication, specifically its shift from a neutral sentence conclusion to a potential sign of anger or assertiveness. The author notes instances where people use periods not only to mark the end of a sentence but also to convey emotions such as dissatisfaction or annoyance.

The article suggests that the shift in the usage of periods may be attributed to the prevalence of line breaks in digital communication, where people often opt for unpunctuated, un-ended sentences. The article cites an American University study that found college students using sentence-final punctuation only 39% of the time in texts and 45% in online chats.

The shift in punctuation use is linked to the real-time, conversational nature of digital communication, where people aim to emulate spoken language. This is a departure from the historical role of punctuation, which initially served to indicate pauses in written records of speech. The article highlights that the period, once a simple indicator of pause or completion, now carries added meaning in digital communication, signaling finality or the end of a discussion.

The piece also touches on other punctuation marks and their evolving roles in digital communication. For instance, exclamation points are used as sincerity markers, and question marks may temper straightforward statements. The ellipsis serves a range of purposes, including a passive-aggressive alternative to the period.

In conclusion, the article reflects on the emotional nuances introduced by punctuation marks in the digital age and speculates on how this trend might evolve in the future. It provides valuable insights into the changing dynamics of written language and the impact of technology on linguistic expression.

Once the full stop meant a sentence was over - now it means you’re angry (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Fredrick Kertzmann

Last Updated:

Views: 6055

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (46 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Fredrick Kertzmann

Birthday: 2000-04-29

Address: Apt. 203 613 Huels Gateway, Ralphtown, LA 40204

Phone: +2135150832870

Job: Regional Design Producer

Hobby: Nordic skating, Lacemaking, Mountain biking, Rowing, Gardening, Water sports, role-playing games

Introduction: My name is Fredrick Kertzmann, I am a gleaming, encouraging, inexpensive, thankful, tender, quaint, precious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.