“Hashtags work everywhere”: The pragmatic functions of spoken hashtags

Discourse, Context and Media

Volumn 22, Issue , 2018, Pages 57-64

  Scott, Kate ^a  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Hashtag; Pragmatics; Relevance theory; Tagging

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044870775     PISSN: 22116958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Baron, N.S., Alphabet to Email: How Written English Evolved and Where It's Heading. 2000, Routledge, London.
2. Baym, N.K., Personal Connections in the Digital Age. 2010, Polity Press, Cambridge.
3. Biddle, S., How the Hashtag Is Ruining the English Language (Updated). 2011 http://gizmodo.com/5869538/how-the-hashtag-is-ruining-the-english-language ([Online] Available at: Accessed 24 3 2016).
4. Blakemore, D., Semantic Constraints on Relevance. 1987, Blackwell, Oxford.
5. Blakemore, D., Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. boyd, D., Social network sites as networked public: affordances, dynamics and implications. Papacharissi, Z., (eds.) Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites, 2010, Routledge, Abingdon, 39–58.
7. Carston, R., Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. 2002, Blackwell, Oxford.
8. Clark, B., The relevance of tones: prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. Ling. Rev. 29:4 (2012), 643–661.
9. Clark, B., Relevance Theory. 2013, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Clark, B., Procedures and prosody: weak encoding and weak communication. Liedtke, F., Schulze, C., (eds.) Beyond Words: Content, Context and Inference, 2013, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, 151–181.
11. Clark, B., Relevance theory and language change. Lingua 175–176 (2016), 139–153.
12. Curzan, A., Slash: Not Just a Punctuation Mark Anymore. 2013 http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2013/04/24/slash-not-just-a-punctuation-mark-anymore/ ([Online] Available at: Accessed 31 3 2016).
13. Daniels, P., Drive All Night To Watch The Blues. 2016 http://playbackmedia.co.uk/the-chels-the-chelsea-podcast-archive/ ([Online] vailable at: Accessed 23 May 2016).
14. Goodwin, E., How Hashtags Evolved and Changed the Way We Communicate. 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uloop/how-hashtags-evolved-and-_b_6795646.html ([Online] Available at: Accessed 3 3 2016).
15. Humphrey, K., Hashtags Seep Into Everyday Speech. 2012 http://www.startribune.com/hashtags-seep-into-everyday-speech/173909961/ ([Online] Available at: Accessed 2 March 2016).
16. Litt, E., Knock, Knock. Who's there? The imagined audience. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 56:3 (2012), 330–345.
17. MacDonald, M., How #Hashtags Changed the Way We Talk. 2015 http://www.tintup.com/blog/how-hashtags-changed-the-way-we-talk/ ([Online] Available at: Accessed 3 3 2016).
18. Mack, E., The Spoken Hashtag Must Die - Here's How. 2012 http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/the-spoken-hashtag-must-die-heres-how/ ([Online] Available at: Accessed 2 March 2016).
19. Marwick, A., To catch a predator? The MySpace Moral Panic. First Monday, 2(6), 2008, 13 (6).
20. Marwick, A., Memes. Contexts 12:4 (2013), 13–14.
21. Marwick, A.E., boyd, d., I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc. 13 (2011), 114–133.
22. McWhorter, J., Twitterish. 2012 https://newrepublic.com/article/104238/twitter-language-writing-speaking ([Online] Available at: Accessed 3 3 2016).
23. Meltzer, T., How to Say ‘Hashtag’ With Your Fingers: So Addicted to Twitter You Need to Tag Your Every Spoken Word? Here's How to Add the Social Media Equivalent of Air Quotes to Your Conversation. 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2012/aug/01/how-to-say-hashtag-fingers?CMP=twt_fd ([Online] Available at: Accessed 24 3 2016).
24. Messina, C., Groups for Twitter; or a Proposal for Twitter Tag Channels. 2007 http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/groups-for-twitter-or-a-proposal-for-twitter-tag-channels/ ([Online] Available at: Accessed 30 7 2014).
25. Page, R., The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: the role of hashtags. Discour. Commun. 6:2 (2012), 181–201.
26. Pullum, G.K., Part-of-Speech Classification Question. 2010 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2584 ([Online] Available at: Accessed 2016 3 31).
27. Schuhmacher, L., How the #Hashtag Changed the Way We Communicate. 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-schuhmacher/how-the-hashtag-changed-t_b_3407787.html ([Online] Available at: Accessed 30 3 2016).
28. Scott, K., The Relevance of Referring Expressions: The Case of Diary Drop in English. (PhD Dissertation), 2010, University College London.
29. Scott, K., Pragmatically motivated null subjects in English: a relevance theory perspective. J. Pragmat., 2013, 68–83.
30. Scott, K., The pragmatics of hashtags: inference and conversational style on Twitter. J. Pragmat. 81 (2015), 8–20.
31. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D., 1986/95. Relevance: Communciation and Cognition. Second ed. (with postface) Ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
32. Tagg, C., Exploring Digital Communication: Language in Action. 2015, Routledge, Abindgon.
33. Twitter, Inc, n.d. Using hashtags on Twitter. [Online] Available at: < https://support.twitter.com/articles/49309-using-hashtags-on-twitter#> (Accessed 7 30 2014).
34. Wesch, M., Youtube and you: experiences of self-awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam. Explorat. Media Ecol. 8:2 (2009), 19–34.
35. Wharton, T., Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Wilson, D., The conceptual-procedural distinction: past, present and future. Escandell-Vidal, V., Leonetti, M., Ahern, A., (eds.) Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives. Bingley, Emerald, 2011, 3–31.
37. Wilson, D., Sperber, D., Meaning and Relevance. 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Zappavigna, M., Searchable talk: the linguistic function of hashtags. Soc. Semiot. 25:3 (2015), 274–291.