other comments on the other two platforms. In general, they assume a function of a more pragmatic nature, such that they acquire different meanings depending on the context in which they appear, occasionally associating themselves with other particles (pero bueno). Concerning this aspect, it is worth noting that this type of particles very often invite a presupposition of the content implicitly transmitted by the message, on being used in brief messages that express a reaction to contents posted on a certain profile or channel or to other messages, promptly and from mobile devices, where linguistic economy is predominant.

The texts analysed, particularly the tweets, present quite a limited picture as regards the presence and functions of these particles on the networks. We can observe a tendency to favour a restricted group of particles (pero, pues, claro), which perform interactive, cognitive and discursive macro-functions, depending on the type of message –reaction to a certain content or response to another user’s message – and the communicative intention of the speaker. These allow for the expression of criticism of the institutional spokesperson, indicate agreement or disagreement with that interlocutor or with another participant in the same debate, to finetune or modify what has been said and to intensify or attenuate a statement by the speaker him/herself or by the interlocutor. These three markers acquire different values depending on the type of “response” (Twitter) or “comment” (Facebook and YouTube) that they appear in, being more or less cooperative or reactive. In this sense, the study partially corroborates the results of previous studies into the utilisation of markers in chats, fora of debate and comments in the digital press (López Quero, 2007; Landone, 2012; Pano Alamán, 2015).

The conversational connectors and markers identified tend to appear in comments on Facebook and, especially, YouTube. In Twitter, on the other hand, the use of connectors is preponderant. This fact seems to indicate a difference between this and the other social networks as regards the use of markers, perhaps due to the diverse conception and elaboration of the message, which cannot be greater than 280 characters, and to the type of interaction within “threads”, where it can be more difficult to see the message which originated the thread and distinguish between the responses to that first post. The interfaces of YouTube and Facebook allow one to activate a visualization of the comments, where it is possible to immediately identify the initial message and any responses it has received. In this sense, the user perceives, arguably more evidently, that he/she is participating in a space in which an exchange between users predominates. This hypothesis and other aspects explored in this article invite us to continue reflecting on the influence of technical and socio-situational factors on interactions on social networks on the use or non-use of certain markers in Spanish, be they conceptionally oral or written. To this end it is necessary to expand the corpus of study and work out each of the functions these particles perform in digital environments where the expression of opinions predominates.

6. Bibliographic references

Aschenberg, H; Loureda Lamas, Ó. (2011). Marcadores del discurso: de la descripción a la definición. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. DOI https://doi.org/10.31819/9783865278760

Bou-Franch, P.; Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19-36. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.001