Punctuation (1): the linguistic side
The role punctuation marks play within the discussion of writing and speech according to Bredel’s approach. Clarifying their functions puts them into a fresh light
As a research topic for my master’s thesis at the University of Reading I chose to look at the little marks that we use every day, to structure our texts, to create ‘smilies’ or, as part of the type-designer’s job, to design them. I was fascinated by these little shapes that always seem to be less thought about when designed or used, but have such a great impact on how we read and recognise a text and its content.
As I am German-speaking, and dyslexic, I figured out pretty fast that while investigating the actual grammatical rules of punctuation in English might be of use to me, this was not a topic I could convincingly write about. There are numerous books about how to use punctuation marks correctly — I however, was more interested in the broader story of these marks. Where did they come from, what do linguists think about them, how do I design them?
On that aspect of the topic, there were fewer publications. It seems as though each person takes an interest in punctuation marks exclusively from the point of view of their field: the linguists look at how to use punctuation marks and what their usage is, and the historians look at their origin. My master’s thesis covers several angles. For this blog my research will be divided into separate topics, to explore the marks themselves, their function and origin.
In this article I will define the characters that are considered punctuation marks, and describe the function they serve within written language. Before I go into that, I will give an introduction about the difference between writing and speech and how each depends on the other. This difference is also at the root of the ambiguity about what punctuation marks are and what purpose they serve.
Introduction to the traditional linguistic approach
The role of punctuation marks in the Latin writing system is ambiguous in several ways. Historically they changed from written ‘additions’ to part of the character set of written language. Their form and coverage was not necessarily bound to a fixed set of rules, but rather depended on the habits and taste of the reader and later writers who inserted them into the text. Within the linguistic field they are a difficult topic when it comes to the issue of the relationship between written and spoken language, which will be the focus for this article.
The topic of punctuation marks is discussed on two separate levels by linguists. Until recently viewed as a means to transmit pause and tonality in spoken language, punctuation slowly developed into a discrete part of written language. The discussion is bound to the broader question of the interdependence of writing and speech. In more traditional linguistics, where writing was seen as dependent on speech, the role of punctuation was vague and questionable. In recent decades new theories have acknowledged the growth of written language and thus, within this separation, have found room for punctuation marks. However, the differences between the older view (e.g. of Saussure in the 20th century) that writing is merely a depiction of speech, of limited importance [1], and new ideas of punctuation as a subsystem within written language, is only recently being discussed. [2]
Comparative theories
Historically, punctuation marks were added by readers to manuscripts to help them recite the written text aloud. [3] This can be seen as the origin of the comparative theory: Some linguists, for example Leonard Bloomfield who contributed to the development of linguistics in the 1930s, consider punctuation marks as a means to encode in writing the tonality and pauses of spoken language. “Writing is not language, but merely a means of recording language by means of visual marks.” [4] This more traditional view is the comparative theory; structures are transferred from one system into the other (in this example, from speech to writing). This theory often assigns the following punctuation marks . , ; : to different lengths of pauses of speech, while ? ! are treated as transmitters of tonality.
Shortcomings of the traditional approach applied to punctuation
Inventions of new punctuation marks, such as for example the interrobang by Martin K. Speckter ‽ [5] and the earlier punctus percontativus ⸮ of the sixteenth century [6], reveal flaws in the comparative theory; emotions, gestures, and expressions that are present in the act of speaking cannot be fully translated into writing. Endless ‘emotional translations’ like these would have to be invented to directly encode speech.
Thus the structure of language in written form needs different rules of expression in order to transmit the intended meaning. (Note: The use of emojis is becoming popular in chat and texting environments. That counters the comparative theory as far as the translation of emotions in written language goes. The emoji is supposed to convey a feeling and is used instead of a word or a punctuation mark.)
Nunberg’s sub-system for punctuation
The linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argues that the system of written languages developed an independent existence once the act of reading liberated itself from the practice of voiced articulation, and silent reading, the act of reading without articulation of the written, became established. [7] One of the earliest witnesses of the distinctions between written and spoken language is Isidore de Seville (c. 560–636). In his view, written letters are signs without sound that can convey the expressions of those not present (including the dead). Further, the act of silent reading allows the reader to concentrate on the written and interpret it more efficiently than if it were read aloud. [8]
As reading changed from oral recitation to silent reading, the role of the punctuation marks changed from a handwritten addition — put in by the reader to structure the text for himself to aid his interpretation of the reciting — to an interpretation of the text as the author intended it to be read, in silence. With silent reading the marks became part of the Latin character set to be printed directly into the text for structural reasons. (In more detail in the next article.)
In The Linguistics of Punctuation (1990) Nunberg questions the comparative theory. Although distinguishing between the written language system and the spoken one is now becoming more respected by linguists, it is still being legitimised by referring to the properties of spoken language. He means that the spoken language is still often set above the written one, to draw a conclusion. [9]
This is visible for example in how writing is taught; children learn to set punctuation according to the length of pause they would make while reading aloud. From this example we can see how intertwined writing and speech are. It is true, we do assign the marks with a certain length when speaking out loud, however that is not the only function the marks serve. The comparative approach to writing is still in evidence when discussing punctuation and favours the idea of its transcriptional purpose. The argument of the linguists shows the ambiguity surrounding punctuation marks. Punctuation marks are assigned different roles in the system of written language: on the one hand they are supposed to transmit the pauses made in oral transcription and on the other hand to convey structure to written communication. In simplified terms, the difference between the comparative theory and the more recent approach is the distance between writing and speech.
Nunberg believes over at least 400 years of development, writing has lived a separate life from speech; this starts with the age it is learned, the media it is used in, and the content it transmits. He suggests that under these circumstances unique structural features are developed in each system. Particularly the graphical constructions around writing have been ignored in the comparative approach. [10] The “various systems of figural conventions” surrounding the texts are connoted with meaning and customs that apply to the written text only. He argues that the punctuation system is a linguistic subsystem that has some functional overlap with the devices of speech. [11] M. B. Parkes states that the system of punctuation has always been an unsatisfactory appliance.
“It is true that punctuation originated in part as a device for the transcription of intonation (or analogously, as an aid for recitation or performance) in an age when the acts of reading and transcription were generally accompanied by oral recitation of the text. But even in scribal traditions, it appears the fit between punctuation and intonation was at best only approximate, and the two systems came to diverge increasingly as print traditions developed.” [12]
Bredel and her system of punctuation marks and their function
Ursula Bredel is a German linguist born in 1965. Currently she is working as a Professor of German Language and didactics at the university in Hildesheim. [13] In her book Interpunktion (2011) she converges the topic with a formal analysis of the elements of the Latin writing system. Moreover she defines the combinations of the marks to then include their function within the process of reading.
She takes the written language and analyses the function of the marks in addition to their translation of length in pause when reading aloud. Through characteristics the different characters for writing have, or do not have, Bredel derives a chart that explains how specific marks are positioned and what function they fulfil within the written language. The following is Bredel’s complete chart of punctuation. In the next sections I will explain the roles of each punctuation mark and the meaning of this chart.
I include this system in this paper because I see some important issues addressed: Bredel clarifies the role of the marks we use today. From a designer’s point of view it is important to know how elements are used to design them. When we are familiar with the functions of the characters we are designing we can respect those functions. The elements for the processing part, for example, should be designed clearly and have enough spacing around them to support their purpose. The elements of scanning, on the other hand, are lighter in form and can be designed accordingly.
The inventory
To begin Ursula Bredel takes all characters of the Latin writing system and classifies them into categories, to give each its appropriate classification. Through visualisation, articulation, ability of combining, and duality she assigns the following categories:
Letters, numbers and special characters are assigned a sound, whilst punctuation marks and spaces are a part of the structure of the written language and are processed not through vocalisation but are used to convey structure. There is a semiotic difference between the first three groups (content segments) and the last two (functional segments), which is the ability to articulate the character.
In this system there are 12 characters that we can define as punctuation marks . ; , : – — … ’ ? ! ( ) “ ”. Alternative designs of characters that exist in different languages due to stylistic and conventional differences are to be seen as a subdivision of the functional mark. For example, the functional mark quotation mark has the following style representations: “ ” ‘ ’ „ “ « » » « . So in the following we will be talking about those 12 marks . ; , : -— … ’ ? ! ( ) “ ” and which part their position and combination plays in the reading process.
Position of the marks
Bredel also develops certain criteria to establish a sub-classification of the punctuation marks. The marks are analysed according to their position between x-height and baseline. It also takes their basic elements of the characters’ construction into account. This part is interesting from a design point of view as it includes the position and the individual elements of the characters and relates them to their usage.
There are three criteria: Levitation, Verticality and Reduplication.
Two cases are derived from the position between baseline and x-height: Levitation and Verticality.
Levitation includes the characters that are not connected to the baseline or exceed the x-height - — … ’ . The ellipsis is included based on their historical form (around century) as three slightly upward-facing double slashes as described by Renate Baudusch in Punkt, Punkt, Komma, Strich (1984). [14]
Verticality includes the characters that exceed the x-height such as ! ? ( ) “ ” … ’ .
Reduplication is the third criterion that takes the basic construction of the character into account. [15] It includes those characters that have a repeated element in their visual form : — “ ” ( ) … . This includes those characters which open and close around a text element, such as — xxx — , and those that double a form, such as the colon (:) which repeats the dot-element (.).
The marks are organised into the chart according to the criteria they fulfil. [16] The criteria are also accompanied by the negative counterpart: Levitation, not Levitation, Verticality, not Verticality, Reduplication, and not Reduplication.
Punctuation in syntax
The previous assigned groups are important for the next step, when we look at the combination of the characters. Here we will have a look at the marks which can be neighbours (?”) and those which cannot (.:).
When we look at a written text format, the text covers a space, which is made of lines of sentences which are made of words, which are made of the single characters. The single character is thus the smallest element of the written language; it is called a segment. All elements from group 1–3 (letters, numbers, special characters) can be placed on one segment.
To understand how punctuation marks behave within the segments the marks are again divided into two groups. Punctuation marks are either fillers or clitics. A filler can stand alone while a clitic needs to be combined with another segment.
Fillers belong to the previous defined group of levitation - — … ’ .
One characteristic they share is symmetry; they have the same functional segment on both sides, such as: Letters, Numbers, Special Characters, Punctuation, Space. Letter-segments are on each side of the hyphen (-) and apostrophe (’). An empty segment (Space) is on each side of the en-dash (–) and ellipses (…).
|b|l|u|e|-|e|y|e|d|
|G|e|o|r|g|e|’|s|
Another attribute is that which can occur at the beginning and at the end of a line. That indicates that they are accounted as a segment in their own right.
|p|e|r|f|e|c|t|-|
|l|y| |w|e|l|l|
Clitics are bound to the segment anterior to them. The segment anterior is its pillar character. They are not symmetrical and are followed by a space. They belong to the non-levitation group . , ; : ( ) “ ” ! ? . Within the clitics the group with the verticality characteristics has the ability to be combined with elements of its own group in one segment |(“|A|r|t|i|s|t?!”)|, while the group with non-verticality characteristic occurs alone and cannot be combined with its own kind. It can, however, be combined with the clitics of the verticality group. [17] |“Ah,”| |s|a|i|d| |h|e|
Punctuation in the reading process
We have looked now very closely at the marks, their position, and how they behave in syntax. This part focuses on the function the marks serve within the reading process. This is especially interesting for the design aspect of the marks as it gives the designer an insight into the role of the mark, and in which process of reading it has to fulfil its role.
Bredel sees the reading process in terms of scanning and processing.
Scanning recognises the presence or absence of the graphic material and its arrangement in the format. Graphic elements are scanned, as they are recognised at once when the reader looks at the text. This refers to the spaces between words, the paragraphs, and columns. During scanning we are not yet concerned with grasping the content of the text.
Processing refers to the act of reading. Connecting the letters and symbols to entities (sentence) is part of working out the information with its meaning (text information). [18]
Bredel is of the opinion that each punctuation mark supports either scanning or processing. Fillers -— … ’ are present in the process of scanning, clitics ( )“ ”. , ; : ? ! in processing. When scanning the graphic information of the text, fillers reveal relevant changes in the text structure right away.
In the scanning process the hyphen and apostrophe are representative in the level of the word ((–) a word is hyphenated, (’) a letter is left out); ellipsis and en-dash indicate a value of text information and thus support the structure of the text ((–) indicates an inserted sentence, (…) leaving out information to finish a sentence). They are representatives of the visual text line.
In the act of processing, sentences are structured by the following marks . : , ; ! ? . Their function lies within decoding the text information. “ ” ( ) indicate the function of inserted text that changes the point of view within the context of the text. The latter add a different connotation and thus exceed the scanning function.
According to Bredel, cognitive and communicative activities are present while reading or writing. The cognitive process is when readers and writers are decoding the learned structures. Linguists call this activity parsing.
The communicative activity characterises the role of the writer or reader. It describes the exchange between the parties, which is usually a clear allocation: the writer, as the knowing/telling person, and the reader, as the receiver. Through a question, however, the writer can involve the reader. He pulls him out of the role of a passive receiver and engages him. A change of role also occurs when characters of the text talk to each other. Relationships of involved parties change with all the punctuation marks of the verticality group ! ? ( ) “ ” … ’ . [19]
The other punctuation marks . , ; — - support the parsing by structuring the segments to words and sentences so that the intended syntax is conveyed. That means that the cognitive reception is guided by the marks with the non-verticality characteristics.
- Lexical parsing describes processing of letters to words.
- Syntactical parsing describes processing of words to sentences.
- Textual parsing describes processing of sentences to texts. [20]
The punctuation marks signal certain functions to the reader when these processes are executed. Each activity is executed from figuring out the segments to words, indicated by a word-space, then the words to sentences where a full stop, question mark or exclamation mark indicate the next step, to process the text. Processing is then finished when the used space/format contains no further information.
Conclusion
The duality of the discussion around punctuation marks derives from their original role as manually inserted marks to mark pauses for speaking text, to one of conveying a certain interpretation that the author imposes already within his text as part of the alphabetic character set. Ursula Bredel’s example of a system to categorise the marks points out how the marks influence and structure content and how their form has developed to suit that function. Through her categories Bredel explains the different functions of the marks.
To know which marks are connected to a pillar segment makes it possible to test spacing and adjust kerning for those particular combinations.
Understanding on which level of reading the marks occur helps the designer to support each individual function better. The marks that have their function within the processing part of reading, convey the meaning of the sentences structure. They need to be clearly visible for a fast processing of the meaning. The marks with their function in the scanning of the graphic information, on the other hand, influence the overall text appearance; They are lighter to disrupt the graphic material, and should be designed accordingly
The next article is a historic analysis and will focus on the act of reading and deepen into the topic of how systems developed with their readers and what influences developed new punctuation systems.
Illustrations by Alessio D’Ellena
[1] Ferdinand De Saussure, Grundfragen der Allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, (Translation Hermann Lommel. 3rd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter), 2001, p.28.
[2] Geoffrey Nunberg, The Linguistics of Punctuation (Center for the Study of Language, 1990), p. 3.
[3] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 11.
[4] Leonard Bloomfield, Language: With a New Foreword by C. F. Hockett (Chicago and London: U of Chicago, 1984), p. 21.
[5] The New York Times, Martin K. Speckter, 73, Creator of Interrobang (The New York Times, 15 Feb. 1988), Web, retrieved 07 Sept. 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/16/obituaries/martin-k-speckter-73-creator-of-interrobang.html
[6] M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: U of California, 1993), p. 53.
[7] M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: U of California, 1993), p. 12.
[8] M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: U of California, 1993), p. 21.
[9] Geoffrey Nunberg, The Linguistics of Punctuation (Center for the Study of Language, 1990), p. 1.
[10] Geoffrey Nunberg, The Linguistics of Punctuation (Center for the Study of Language, 1990), p. 3
[11] Geoffrey Nunberg, The Linguistics of Punctuation (Center for the Study of Language, 1990), pp. 5–6.
[12] M.B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley: U of California, 1993), p. 12.
[13] retrieved: 15.05.17 from https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/fb3/institute/idsl/mitglieder/bredel/
[14] Renate Baudusch, Punkt, Punkt, Komma, Strich: Regeln und Zweifelsfälle der Deutschen Zeichensetzung (Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig, 1984), p. 41.
[15] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 16.
[16] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 16–17.
[17] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 19–22.
[18] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 24.
[19] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 26.
[20] Ursula Bredel, Interpunktion: Kurze Einführung in die Germanistische Linguistik (Vol. 11. Heidelberg: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, Unversitätsverlag Winter, 2011), p. 26.
