Redundancy is often a good thing in language. Any communication medium has to deal with the “noise” factor; count on some of the signal getting garbled. So if important parts of the meaning are carried at only one point, it won’t take much blurring to turn the message into nonsense. Whereas if you get multiple clues, you’ve got a better chance of understanding what was intended.
Here are some examples of useful redundancy in English:
Multiple sorts of punctuation; for example, one could argue we don’t really need to have both commas and semicolons.
Capitalization. i could write a sentence without it, couldn’t i?
Spacing between words. Manyancientlanguagesdidnothaveanythingofthekind.
I think that should be obvious: to let you know that the question has finished. In Spanish you can have multi-sentence questions.
I think it is worth repeating, without the clue of the opening symbol we (Hispanoparlantes) would have no clue that the sentence is a question (or exclamation) until we get to the end, by then we would have used the wrong inflection.
You’ll find the variation in the second line: the original has "¿no será "
The point would be that communication is difficult, and in most languages cues have been developed to help translate between written and spoken language. Those cues sometimes seem odd to someone coming to the language from outside; but if it’s your own language, you’ll probably know how to use them effectively.
One thing native English-speakers have to take into account is that Spanish writers (and perhaps by the nature Spanish grammar rules) tend to write long and windy sentences. The “¿” and “¡” are excellent cues when reading those windy sentences.
Such as the one I quoted from El Hidalgo Don Quijote de La Mancha. By the time you reach the closing question mark it would have been too late to convey what you wanted. Plus, how do you know where that mammoth of a question started?
