Cite this article as: Ogbuehi, P. N., &Abanji, T. M. (2026). Analysis of digital interactions on Facebook: The role of pragmatic markers. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.002
ANALYSIS OF DIGITAL INTERACTIONS ON FACEBOOK: THE ROLE
OF PRAGMATIC MARKERS
www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.002
By
Patricia Nneka
Ogbuehi, PhD
Department of
English and Literary Studies,
Admiralty
University of Nigeria, Ibusa,
Delta State,
Nigeria.
patoneka44@gmail.com
08060396696
&
Terfa Micheal
Abanji
Department of
English and Literary Studies,
Admiralty
University of Nigeria, Ibusa,
Delta State,
Nigeria.
miketabanji@gmail.com
07061833021
Abstract
This study investigates the role of
pragmatic markers in shaping meaning, stance, and social relations in
Facebook-based political interactions. Today, platforms such as Facebook have
emerged as key sites for interaction, identity construction, and discourse
negotiation, where users simultaneously manage public and private selves within
highly visible communicative spaces. Anchored in Discourse Marker Theory of
Schiffrin, 1987 and Fraser’s Pragmatic Marker Model of 1996, the research
adopts a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze a political Facebook post
by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the accompanying comment threads from
followers. The data, transcribed verbatim with emojis and other multimodal
features preserved, were examined to identify interactional, attitudinal, and
textual pragmatic markers and to interpret their communicative functions within
context. Findings revealed that pragmatic markers such as vocatives, greetings,
hedges, boosters, honorifics, religious expressions, emojis, hashtags, and
evaluative phrases play a crucial role in negotiating politeness, expressing
solidarity, managing stance, and reinforcing political and cultural identity.
These markers enable participants to soften criticism, signal admiration,
construct communal belonging, and align ideologically within a context of
audience hybridity and context collapse typical of Facebook discourse. The
study concludes that pragmatic markers function as socially meaningful
resources that humanize political communication, enhance persuasive impact, and
facilitate collective meaning-making in digital public spheres. It therefore
highlights the importance of pragmatic analysis for understanding contemporary
political discourse beyond propositional content, particularly in digitally
mediated environments.
Keywords: Digital
political interaction, Facebook discourse, identity construction,
meaning-making, pragmatic markers,
1.
Introduction
The
advent of social media has profoundly transformed human communication,
reshaping not only interactional patterns but also the ways pragmatic meaning
is produced and negotiated in digital discourse. Platforms such as Facebook
have emerged as key sites for interaction, identity construction, and discourse
negotiation, where users simultaneously manage public and private selves within
highly visible communicative spaces (Rambe & Mulyadi, 2023; Eke, Asak &
Adeyemi, 2025). Within political communication, Facebook enables political
actors to engage directly with constituents, creating a dynamic arena for
real-time public discourse that is marked by heightened pragmatic complexity.
On
Facebook, where audiences are hybrid and unpredictable comprising supporters,
critics, acquaintances, and unknown observers, the strategic deployment of
pragmatic markers becomes especially significant. The phenomenon of context collapse requires users,
particularly political actors, to craft utterances that simultaneously address
multiple audiences with divergent expectations (Rambe & Mulyadi, 2023). For
instance, the use of markers such as well may introduce hesitation or
modesty that mitigates certainty and appealing to both supporters and skeptics,
while so can signal transitions into evaluation or critique without
overt confrontation. Similarly, markers like you know and okay
often function to invoke shared understanding, alignment, or conversational
closure, contributing to the management of politeness and solidarity in
politically sensitive exchanges. The pragmatic richness of Facebook political
discourse is further intensified by the proliferation of multimodal resources,
including emojis, abbreviations, GIFs, and creative punctuation, which interact
with linguistic markers to produce meaning beyond literal semantics (Fitriani,
Hidayati & Budiarti, 2021; Rambe & Mulyadi, 2023).
Despite
Facebook’s growing importance as a site of political communication, scholarly
attention to the role of pragmatic markers in shaping meaning and managing
social relations in digital political interactions remains limited. Existing
studies on social media discourse often focus on content, ideology, or
participation patterns, paying insufficient attention to the subtle pragmatic
mechanisms through which politicians and citizens respond to politically
sensitive events. In contexts of Facebook political post, with the attending
comment threads, the use of pragmatic markers provides insight into how
political positions are articulated, contested, and negotiated in public online
spaces. This study therefore examines the types and functions of pragmatic
markers in Facebook political discourse, with a focus on their role in
meaning-making, stance management, politeness, disagreement, and solidarity in
digitally mediated political interaction.
2.0 Literature
Review
2.1 Pragmatics Markers
Pragmatic markers are subtle linguistic
and paralinguistic resources through which speakers and writers manage
discourse, interpersonal relationships, and epistemic stance in context. They
are especially important in contemporary digital communication where speech,
writing, and visual cues intersect. Fraser (2018) defines pragmatic markers as
expressions that contribute to communicative intent rather than propositional
meaning. They function at meta-discursive, interpersonal, and textual levels.
Similarly, Aijmer (2020) notes that pragmatic markers help interlocutors
interpret intentions, mitigate face-threats, and maintain cohesion. Among these
markers, discourse markers such as well, so, and you know
have been widely studied for their roles in organizing talk, signaling
transitions, and negotiating interpersonal alignment (Bolden, 2018; Buysse,
2021). For example, in a Facebook conversation where one user says, “Well, you
know the ref was biased,” the marker well delays disagreement while you
know appeals to shared understanding. This shows how discourse markers
shape interpretation rather than content (Andersen, 2022).
2.2 Emojis as Pragmatic Markers
Beyond verbal language, emojis have become
important pragmatic devices that express emotion, tone, and stance in
multimodal digital communication. Herring and Dainas (2020) argue that emojis
function as paralinguistic cues similar to facial expressions in spoken
interaction. They help clarify intentions or soften criticism. Weissman and
Tanner (2022) further show that emojis can carry illocutionary force or even
function as standalone utterances depending on context. For instance, a comment
such as “Nice job” may be interpreted as praise, sarcasm, or playful mockery
depending on the relationship between users. Yus (2022) therefore explains that
emoji interpretation is guided by relevance theory and depends on contextual
and cultural inference beyond visual recognition.
2.3 Netspeak
Abbreviations as Pragmatic Markers
Another emerging pragmatic resource is
netspeak abbreviations such as lol (laughing out loud), brb
(be right back), and idk (I don’t know). These forms function less as
lexical shortcuts and more as markers of stance, informality, and social
alignment (Tagg & Seargeant, 2019). A Study by McCulloch (2020) shows that
such abbreviations can signal solidarity among peers, though they may also
reduce perceived sincerity or effort. In addition, punctuation has been re-conceptualized
as a grapho-pragmatic tool rather than a purely grammatical system, especially
in texting and social media. Busch (2021) introduced the “interactional
principle of punctuation,” arguing that features such as ellipses, multiple
exclamation marks, and terminal periods now convey interpersonal meanings like
hesitation, excitement, or passive-aggression.
3. Theoretical
Framework
The analysis of pragmatic markers in
Facebook discourse requires a framework that combines classical linguistic
theories with modern perspectives on digital communication. This study is
therefore anchored on Schiffrin’s (1987) Discourse Marker Theory and Fraser’s
(1996) Pragmatic Marker Model. These theories explain how pragmatic markers
function across textual, interpersonal, and cognitive levels. Schiffrin (1987)
describes discourse markers as linguistic items that connect discourse
segments, organize interaction, guide conversation, and indicate speaker
intentions. For example, in Facebook discourse, markers such as well, so,
and you know retain these functions in asynchronous, text-based
interaction where comments and replies replace face-to-face turn-taking. Unlike
spoken discourse, social media communication allows these markers to coexist
with emojis, punctuation, and reaction icons, creating hybrid forms of
pragmatic marking.
Fraser’s (1996) pragmatic marker model
explains markers as elements operating at a pragmatic meta-level rather than
contributing to propositional meaning. According to Fraser, pragmatic markers
modify or comment on the communicative act. His model includes commentary
markers such as frankly and seriously, which express speaker
attitudes, and interpersonal markers such as please and you see,
which manage relational alignment. This distinction helps explain how Facebook
users negotiate agreement, disagreement, face needs, and solidarity in public
comment sections. Political discussions on Facebook often contain hedges such
as maybe and I think for face-saving, alongside boosters such
as clearly and obviously for assertiveness. These choices
reflect strategic identity positioning before diverse audiences (Fraser, 1996).
This study therefore applies Fraser’s model to code and interpret these
functional categories in the dataset.
4. Data
and Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative
descriptive research design to examine how pragmatic markers function within
political communication on Facebook. The data were drawn from a political post
made by Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central Senatorial Zone and the
comments from her followers on her Facebook page. The post was purposefully
selected due to its relevance to public discourse and high level of engagement.
The senator’s post and users’ responses were manually transcribed verbatim,
with emojis, reaction icons, abbreviations, and punctuation preserved, as they
serve as multimodal pragmatic cues. The data were analyzed qualitatively by
categorizing the identified pragmatic markers according to their interactional,
attitudinal, and textual functions.
5.0 Analysis
and Discussion
5.1 Data Analyses
This analysis involves the exemplification
of linguistic elements and structures from the data to illustratively
demonstrate how pragmatic markers are deployed in a Facebook political post and
the comments to showcase interactional, attitudinal, and textual functions that
reflect shared experiences, political alignment, or ideological conflict.
Facebook
Post
Excerpt 1
“Good
people of Kogi
central, good afternoon, I am Senator Natasha,”
The above except is an opening remark of
the post made by Senator Natasha who will afterwards be designated as the
Senator. In the above expression, the Senator employs pragmatic markers that
help establish rapport, define social relations, and frame the interaction. The
phrase “Good people of Kogi Central” functions as a discourse-opening boundary
marker that establishes audience, politeness, and communicative
alignment.It is used to directly address her constituents and signal
recognition, respect, and solidarity. By using this form of address, the
senator positions the audience as valued and esteemed which reinforces a sense
of communal identity and belonging. It also helps to capture attention and
create an atmosphere of goodwill.
The expression “good afternoon” serves as
a greeting marker. It performs a phatic function that opens the channel of
communication politely to maintain social harmony. This type of pragmatic
marker does not add propositional meaning but helps establish a courteous and
friendly tone. It signals that the interaction is setting off in a respectful
and socially appropriate manner. Moreso, the phrase “I am Senator Natasha” acts
as a self-identification or introductory pragmatic marker. It clarifies the
speaker’s identity and authority that reinforces her institutional role. This
functions to authenticate the speaker’s voice and establish credibility,
especially in a public or formal address. Through these pragmatic choices, the
senator not only shares information but also strategically builds connection,
respect, and legitimacy with her audience.
Excerpt
2
“And umm, I’ve decided to make it a duty to speak to
you directly when necessary”
In
the above expression, the senator uses two key pragmatic markers: “and” and “umm.” Each serves a distinct communicative function. “And” acts as a continuative discourse marker linking
this statement to a previous idea or utterance. It signals that the senator is
adding further information to her earlier message. Rather than starting a new
thought abruptly, “and” maintains the flow of discourse and shows coherence in
her address. It also softens the transition that creates a conversational tone
instead of a formal or abrupt shift. This helps maintain rapport with the
audience. Also, the hesitation marker “umm”
indicates a moment of thinking or self-monitoring before continuing the
statement. It does not contribute to the propositional content but signals a
brief search for words or a desire to speak carefully. It also serves to make
the speech feel more spontaneous and
sincere. This gives the impression that the senator is speaking from the
heart rather than delivering a scripted message. It helps to build authenticity
and foster a closer connection with her audience. It also subtly prepares the
audience for something she considers important or personal.
Excerpt
3
“Today,
I feel a bit ill, but I had to turn up”
In this statement, the senator uses the
pragmatic marker “but” to serve multiple communicative purposes at once. It
introduces a contrast between her physical condition and her actions in which
she acknowledges that she is unwell while emphasizing that she still chose to
appear before the audience. This contrast also functions as a concession that
subtly communicates that although circumstances might justify her absence, her
commitment overrides personal discomfort. The
senator uses it to indicate a sense of responsibility and duty. Even though she
is not strong enough, yet because of the duty and responsibility she owns her
people, she still went ahead to address her audience as a duty and
responsibility she owned them. At the same time, the use of “but” indicates a strong
sense of responsibility and duty which suggest that public service and loyalty
to her constituent take precedence over personal well-being. Through this
expression of sacrifice, the senator enhances her public image, presenting
herself as a dedicated and dependable leader. The hedge
“a bit” softens the claim, reduces imposition and projects humility.
The pragmatic marker therefore not only
organizes the sentence logically but also contributes to an ethos of appeal
that shapes how she is perceived by others.
Excerpt
4
“I
sat there for two hours, hoping to be called upon to make my contribution on
behalf of the people of Kogi Central, but umm, I wasn’t given a chance to
speak…,”
In the above expression, several pragmatic
markers are used to express attitude, manage discourse flow, and shape audience
perception. The marker “but” introduces contrast and signals a shift from
expectation to disappointment. It highlights a clash between her intention to
speak and the outcome of being denied that opportunity. This contrast not only
organizes the discourse but also evokes sympathy by emphasizing personal effort
and unfulfilled responsibility. This aligns with Schiffrin’s view of markers as
devices that manage ideational and interpersonal transitions. The hesitation
marker “umm” positioned immediately after “but” functions as a boundary marker
between the institutional narrative and the personal affective response. It
indexes cognitive processing and emotional restraint that signal that the
forthcoming clause is interactionally delicate. It conveys a moment of
emotional strain or careful reflection and adds a tone of sincerity and
vulnerability, implying that the senator is choosing her words thoughtfully,
possibly due to the sensitivity of the issue. It creates a more conversational
and relatable tone rather than a purely formal or rehearsed statement. These
pragmatic markers help the senator frame her narrative as one of commitment,
frustration, and authenticity. She presents herself as willing to serve her
people, hindered by circumstances beyond her control, and honest in sharing her
experience.
Excerpt 5
“At the National Assembly today, we
conducted a screening exercise for the nominated chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan.”
Although the utterance contains no
canonical discourse markers such as well, so, or but,
it performs crucial discourse-organising functions within the interaction.
The prepositional phrase “At the National Assembly today” functions as a contextual framing device
that anchors the discourse spatially and temporally. In Schiffrin’s terms, this
framing orients the audience to the institutional setting and legitimises the
relevance of the ensuing narrative. The inclusive pronoun “we “serves
as an interactional
alignment cue that constructs a shared identity between the
senator and her colleagues in the legislative body, and indirectly with the
audience who they represent. This enhances credibility and fosters a sense of
solidarity which indicates that the activity was a coordinated institutional
effort rather than a personal affair.
Comments:
Excerpt 6
Commentator 1: “Senator Natasha for 2027!
4+4=8! We stand with you.”
In the above expression, the commentator
employs several pragmatic markers to express alignment, solidarity, and
persuasive intent rather than merely conveying factual information. These
markers serve interpersonal and attitudinal functions that shape how the
message is understood within its political context. The phrase “for 2027” operates as a projective
pragmatic marker that signals future alignment and political endorsement.
It does not just state time; it frames a shared goal and assumes collective
agreement that the Senator should contest in the 2027 elections. This marker
projects intention and expectation that guides the audience to perceive the
senator as a viable future candidate. The expression “4+4=8!” functions as an ideological or
slogan-like pragmatic marker. While mathematically simple, here it
symbolically communicates the desire for a second four-year term, indirectly
urging continuity of leadership. Its function is persuasive and rallying. It
transforms numerical logic into political advocacy. The exclamation mark
further intensifies the emotional force that turns the statement into a
rallying cry rather than a neutral equation. The clause, “We stand with you” serves as an affiliative
and solidarity-building pragmatic marker. This phrase does more than show
support; it constructs a collective identity between the speaker, the senator,
and the implied public. It performs a unifying function that marks loyalty,
emotional alignment, and group commitment. The use of the inclusive pronoun
“we” reinforces communal backing and reduces social distance between the
speaker and the politician. These pragmatic markers all work to endorse,
persuade, and solidify political allegiance. They move beyond literal meaning
to perform interpersonal, ideological, and motivational functions within the
discourse that enhances the senator’s image and rallying of public support.
Excerpt 7
Commentator 2: “Well done, our dear
senator ❤ we are
proud of you always,”
In the above expression the commentator
uses several pragmatic markers that go beyond the literal meaning of the words
to express emotion, solidarity, and social bonding. These markers help the
speaker to create a tone of admiration and loyalty for the senator. The phrase “Well done “functions as an evaluative
pragmatic marker. It does not add new information but instead conveys
approval and positive judgment about the senator’s actions. It organises
reception of the previous speech. This is in line with Schiffrin’s observation
that markers help orient the audience’s interpretation of what came before. The
“well done” also serves as a discourse‐structuring cue that indexes praise and evaluation
that reinforces the senator’s credibility and leadership. The expression “our dear senator “acts as an affiliative
and honorific pragmatic marker.
The possessive pronoun “our” constructs a sense of collective belonging and
shared ownership, while the term “dear” softens the expression and introduces
affection and respect. The markers serve to reduce social distance and
strengthen the relational bond between the speaker, the audience, and the
senator.
The heart emoji ❤is a non-verbal
pragmatic marker that signals warmth, emotional support, and affection. It
enhances the sentiment already expressed in words in making the praise more
personal and emotionally charged. In digital discourse, this emoji functions
much like intonation or facial expressions in spoken conversation.
Additionally, the expression, “we
are proud of you always” serves as a solidarity and loyalty
marker. The inclusive pronoun “we” constructs a collective voice, while
“proud of you” expresses admiration and emotional alignment. The use of
“always” adds a sense of enduring support, suggesting that their loyalty is not
situational but constant. Altogether, these pragmatic markers create a message
that does more than compliment the senator; they as well build rapport, express
communal pride, and reinforce a shared identity between the speaker, the
senator, and the wider audience.
Excerpt 8
Commentator 4: “Senator Natasha is showing
real leadership. Her questions were thoughtful and in the best interest of
Nigerians👏👏👏
#VoiceOfThePeople.”
In the above expression, the speaker
employs several pragmatic markers that perform evaluative, affiliative, and
ideological functions to help shape how the audience perceives the senator’s
actions. The phrase “is showing real
leadership”
acts as an evaluative pragmatic marker. It goes beyond stating facts
to express a positive judgment about the senator’s behavior. The use of “real”
intensifies the validity of the praise that suggests authenticity and
distinguishing her leadership from superficial or performative acts. The description
“in the best interest of Nigerians
“serves
as a legitimizing and affiliative pragmatic marker. It implies that
the senator’s actions are not self-serving but aligned with national welfare,
thereby appealing to collective identity and reinforcing trust. This phrase
constructs a moral frame where the senator’s intentions are portrayed as noble
and patriotic. The clapping emoji (👏) is a non-verbal
emotive pragmatic marker. It functions much like applause in spoken
interaction, indicating admiration, approval, and public celebration of the
senator’s performance. It adds emotional force to the verbal praise. The
hashtag “#Voice Of The People” functions as an ideological
and collective alignment marker.
It positions the senator as a representative of public opinion and communal
values. The hashtag also extends the discourse into a wider digital community
to invite others to align with or circulate this viewpoint. These pragmatic
markers not only serve as compliment to the Senator, but also construct her
image as a patriotic, thoughtful, and people-centered leader. They also foster
collective identity, emotional support, and ideological alignment within the
audience.
Excerpt 9
Commentator 7
“The
woman after my heart❤,”
In the above expression, the speaker uses
pragmatic markers that express affection, personal alignment, and emotional
support rather than providing factual information. The phrase “after my heart” functions as an affiliative
and emotive pragmatic marker. It
is a figurative expression that conveys deep personal admiration and emotional
closeness. By using this phrase, the commentator positions the senator not just
as a respected leader but as someone whose values and actions align with their
own personal ideals and feelings. It constructs intimacy and approval. The
addition of the heart emoji (❤) strengthens this
effect as a non-verbal emotional pragmatic marker. In digital
communication, the heart symbol represents love, affection, or strong emotional
endorsement. It reinforces the warmth of the sentiment, functioning like tone
of voice or facial expression in spoken interaction. These pragmatic markers
work to express admiration and emotional allegiance. They elevate the praise
from neutral approval to personal affection that creates a bond between the
speaker and the senator and frame the senator as someone who inspires heartfelt
loyalty and connection.
5.2 Discussion of Findings
The analysis reveals that the pragmatic
markers used by Senator Natasha and those employed in the comments directed at
her perform more than simple informational functions. In the senator’s speech,
markers such as well, and, umm, but, and a
bit organize discourse, express hesitation, soften claims, and project
sincerity, humility, and responsibility. They help construct her identity as a
committed and relatable political figure while managing interpersonal relations
with her audience. Similarly, the pragmatic markers found in the comment
section encode emotion, solidarity, political allegiance, and community
identity. Expressions such as Well done, our dear senator, we are
proud of you always, and the use of emojis like ❤ and👏 create admiration, reduce social
distance, and reinforce collective support. Other expressions such as God
bless you, my distinguished senator, and Political
mathematician! further elevate her public image through respect, cultural
symbolism, and ideological endorsement. Together, these pragmatic markers
function as interpersonal, attitudinal, and ideological tools that strengthen
emotional connection, reinforce shared values, and make Facebook political
discourse more socially engaging, persuasive, and emotionally resonant.
6.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of pragmatic
markers in the comments directed at Senator Natasha demonstrates how language
in political discourse extends beyond conveying information to actively
constructing social bonds, affirming cultural values, and reinforcing political
identity. These markers function as subtle yet powerful tools that express
admiration, loyalty, respect, and ideological alignment, thereby enhancing the
senator’s credibility and public image. By incorporating emotional, honorific,
evaluative, and symbolic expressions, the audience transforms ordinary
communication into acts of solidarity and collective belonging. Thus, pragmatic
markers serve as essential linguistic strategies that humanize political
interaction, foster communal connection, and make political engagement more
persuasive and socially meaningful.
References
Aijmer,
K. (2020). Pragmatic markers in contrast. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Andersen, G. (2022). Discourse markers and stance in digital communication. Journal
of Pragmatics, 187, 45-58.
Bolden, G. (2018). The discourse marker “so” in everyday English conversation. Language in Society, 47(3), 371–398.
Busch,
F. (2021). The interactional principle in digital punctuation. Discourse,
Context & Media, 40, 100481. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100481
Buysse,
L. (2021). Revisiting discourse markers in interaction. Discourse Studies,
23(6), 715-733.
Eke, C., Asak, M. O., & Adeyemi,
M. O. (2025). Pragmatics and
communication in the digital age: A focus on the Nigerian experience. Advance Journal of Linguistics and Mass
Communication, 9(2), 34-52.
Fitriani, R. S., Hidayati, R. P. P.,
& Budiarti, A. (2021). Pragmatic markers and events on social media in new
habit era of COVID-19 outbreak. Linguistics & Culture Review, 5(S2),
1061-1071.
Fraser,
B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics (Pragmatics & beyond),
6(2). https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra. (ResearchGate)
Fraser,
B. (2018). The role of pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 124,
82-95.
Herring,
S., &Dainas, A. (2020). Emoji as pragmatic markers in digital discourse. Internet
Pragmatics, 3(2), 237-259.
McCulloch,
G. (2020). Because Internet: Understanding the digital language. New
York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Herring, S. C. & Ashley R. D.
(2020).Gender and age influences on interpretation of emoji functions. ACM
Transactions on Social Computing 3(2). 126. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375629.
Rambe, A. O., & Mulyadi. (2023). Semantic and pragmatic
dynamics in virtual communication: Speech act analysis. International
Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 5(6), [PDF]. (ijfmr.com)
Schiffrin,
D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
Tagg,
C., & Seargeant, P. (2019). Netspeak, abbreviations and identity. Social
Semiotics, 29(4), 543-560.
Weissman, B., & Tanner, J. (2022). Emoji semantics/pragmatics: investigating
commitment and lying. Proceedings
of the Fifth International Workshop on Emoji Understanding and Applications in
Social Media (EMOJI@ACL 2022), pages 21–28.DOI / proceedings entry: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emoji-1.3
Yus, F. (2022). Emoji
Pragmatics. Cham: Springer.
DOI / book page: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73723-7Springer (book page / eBook PDF preview): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-73723-7
0 Comments