WEBVTT - Why Is the Exclamation Point on the Rise?

0:00:01.920 --> 0:00:06.520
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to brain Stuff production of I Heart Radio, Hey

0:00:06.559 --> 0:00:11.040
<v Speaker 1>brain Stuff, Lauren Vogelbaum here. Not too long ago, exclamation

0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:14.760
<v Speaker 1>points were scorned as silly punctuation marks, largely employed by

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>excited teenage girls or inexperienced novelists otherwise having trouble conveying emotions.

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:24.440
<v Speaker 1>But today exclamation points are everywhere. Just check your email,

0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>text messages, or social media accounts. Exclamation points abound. What

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:32.279
<v Speaker 1>accounts for this explosion and is it a good thing?

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.520
<v Speaker 1>No one knows for sure who invented the exclamation mark,

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:39.320
<v Speaker 1>although it was introduced into English as far back as

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:43.080
<v Speaker 1>the late fourteenth century, whereupon it was poetically called the

0:00:43.159 --> 0:00:46.920
<v Speaker 1>point of admiration. One common theory is that it was

0:00:46.960 --> 0:00:49.840
<v Speaker 1>derived from the Latin exclamation of joy, which was EO,

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:54.120
<v Speaker 1>with the E written above the oh. The look of

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:59.080
<v Speaker 1>today's exclamation point. Dr Samuel Johnson, the eighteenth century lexicographer,

0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>was the person who coined the word exclamation for sentences

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:08.720
<v Speaker 1>that were pathetical meaningful of emotion. Grammatically speaking, an exclamation

0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 1>point is supposed to be used in just one of

0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 1>two ways to punctuate an exclamatory sentence I can't find

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:21.039
<v Speaker 1>my wallet, or to punctuate an interjection hooray. While exclamation

0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 1>marks have long been scorned in formal writing, throughout the centuries,

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 1>people regularly used them in personal correspondence, and in the

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>late nineteenth century, tabloid journalists and sensationalists often incorporated the

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:39.560
<v Speaker 1>startling marks, which printers called screamers, shrieks, or bangs. During

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:44.119
<v Speaker 1>the twentieth century, use the exclamation point calmed down. In fact,

0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.000
<v Speaker 1>while the typewriter was invented in the late eighteen hundreds,

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 1>the exclamation point wasn't given its own key until nineteen seventy,

0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:54.040
<v Speaker 1>the reason being that people weren't expected to use it.

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:57.560
<v Speaker 1>In professional writing, an exclamation point could be created by

0:01:57.560 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 1>typing a period backspacing and then to hyping an apostrophe

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:03.880
<v Speaker 1>on top of it. But around the end of the

0:02:03.880 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 1>twentieth century, when the Internet and texting became widespread, followed

0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:11.400
<v Speaker 1>by social media a decade later, exclamation points began popping

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:15.720
<v Speaker 1>up everywhere and in great numbers. Experts say the reason

0:02:15.800 --> 0:02:19.399
<v Speaker 1>for the increase is that people began communicating predominantly through

0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:23.680
<v Speaker 1>electronic means versus personal encounters. When we speak with people

0:02:23.680 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>face to face, we use visual and audio cues to

0:02:26.520 --> 0:02:29.639
<v Speaker 1>help determine the meaning behind their words. Think of the

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>difference when someone says great idea with sincerity and a

0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:36.519
<v Speaker 1>smile versus great idea with sarcasm and an eye roll.

0:02:37.400 --> 0:02:40.680
<v Speaker 1>When these cues are lost, as happens during text based

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:45.160
<v Speaker 1>electronic communication, something else must be used to help determine intent,

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:50.240
<v Speaker 1>like the exclamation point. Linguist Gretchen Maccolic noted in an

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.240
<v Speaker 1>article in the Atlantic that the exclamation point today is

0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 1>used as a sincerity marker, not an intensity marker. She said,

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:00.840
<v Speaker 1>if I end an email with thanks exclamation point, I'm

0:03:00.880 --> 0:03:04.520
<v Speaker 1>not shouting or being particularly enthusiastic. I'm just trying to

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>convey that I'm sincerely thankful, and I'm saying it with

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:11.360
<v Speaker 1>a bit of a social smile. This is especially true

0:03:11.400 --> 0:03:14.919
<v Speaker 1>for women. Research shows women use exclamation marks more than

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:19.919
<v Speaker 1>men in online communications, ostensibly to demonstrate friendliness, leave one off,

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>and message recipients may view a female writer as rude, cold,

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:27.600
<v Speaker 1>or harsh. We spoke with Rachel George, and assistant professor

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:31.800
<v Speaker 1>at Washington's Whitman College who teaches courses in linguistic anthropology.

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>She says the rise in the usage and possible overusage

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:39.320
<v Speaker 1>of the exclamation point isn't surprising because all punctuation is

0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:42.440
<v Speaker 1>flexible when it comes to social media, and being grammatically

0:03:42.440 --> 0:03:46.080
<v Speaker 1>correct can't always get your whole point across, she said.

0:03:46.520 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>Because of the way electronic communication represents a combination of

0:03:49.840 --> 0:03:53.400
<v Speaker 1>the written and spoken word, punctuation becomes much more about

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>the esthetic and the emotional. She also notes that the

0:03:57.680 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 1>rise of the exclamation point may be tied to the

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.040
<v Speaker 1>fact that research indicates young women and young people of

0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 1>color are linguistic innovators. During the linguistic innovation process, aspects

0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:12.000
<v Speaker 1>of a new speaking style are initially vilified. Recall how

0:04:12.040 --> 0:04:14.560
<v Speaker 1>people made fun of Valley Girls speech in the nineteen

0:04:14.600 --> 0:04:17.040
<v Speaker 1>eighties with its overuse of the word like and it's

0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>rise and pitch, the end of sentences, and use of

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>vocal fry. Yet today aspects of value speak are widespread.

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.440
<v Speaker 1>So if young women began peppering their texts, emails, and

0:04:27.520 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>social media posts with exclamation points a decade ago, that

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:36.040
<v Speaker 1>may help explain their ubiquity. Now. Another possible reason we're

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:39.240
<v Speaker 1>seeing so many screamers maybe the need for speed. According

0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:42.560
<v Speaker 1>to researchers, we are communicating via the written word more

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>than ever before. And in short bursts. Sometimes an exclamation

0:04:46.680 --> 0:04:49.120
<v Speaker 1>point comes in handy is shorthand for a few words

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:52.919
<v Speaker 1>or sentences we don't have the time to write. While

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.280
<v Speaker 1>exclamation points are still frowned upon in some contexts like

0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:59.960
<v Speaker 1>college term papers, for example, one study showed that company

0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:04.520
<v Speaker 1>these using exclamation marks on their LinkedIn messages received more

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:07.360
<v Speaker 1>clicks on their business to business channels and twenty seven

0:05:07.400 --> 0:05:11.239
<v Speaker 1>percent more clicks on their business to consumer channels. Despite

0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:14.599
<v Speaker 1>all of this exclamation point positivity, there is a limit

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:17.480
<v Speaker 1>to their usage in the business world. People who use

0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:20.119
<v Speaker 1>a lot of exclamation points and messages are more likely

0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:23.320
<v Speaker 1>to be seen as underlings than supervisors, one study found,

0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:27.119
<v Speaker 1>and when it comes to posting negative online reviews, another

0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>study found that using too many exclamation points causes people

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:33.840
<v Speaker 1>to discredit your review. Unless you're an expert in the

0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:39.200
<v Speaker 1>subject batter, then exclamation points carry more weight. In the end.

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>Time will tell whether high exclamation point usage is here

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:47.200
<v Speaker 1>to stay, linguistic innovation or just a passing fad. So sorry.

0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>Today's episode was written by Melanie Red Zekie McManus and

0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:58.080
<v Speaker 1>produced by Tyler Clay. Brain Stuff is production of iHeart Radios.

0:05:58.120 --> 0:06:00.000
<v Speaker 1>How Stuff works for more on this and lots of

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:02.599
<v Speaker 1>other banging topics, visit our home planet has stuff works

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.919
<v Speaker 1>dot com and for more podcasts Rhineheart Radio visit the

0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:08.760
<v Speaker 1>iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to

0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:09.599
<v Speaker 1>your favorite shows