Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje

JOLANTA ZABARSKAITĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language INTERJECTIONS IN LANGUAGE AND SPEECH Lithuanian is one of the few languages whose grammatical descriptions treat interjections and ideophones as two independent parts of speech. The Grammar of Contemporary Lithuanian states that interjections, as a separate part of speech, are distinguished from ideophones only in Lithuanian and in some non-Indo-European languages (DLKG 2005: 469). Interjections are words that express (rather than name) feelings or acts of will. Because of functions in language similar to those of interjections—the emotional and appellative functions—invocatives, swearwords, and the specialized lexicon of language etiquette are associated with this part of speech. Researchers of the Lithuanian language have not studied interjections in depth. We have been unable to find any comprehensive studies (monographs, studies, or articles) devoted exclusively to them1. Jaustukai aprašyti LKG (1971: 698–733) ir DLKG (2005: 462–468), be to, Aldonos Paulauskienės morfologijos vadovėlyje (1976: 243–247). Ši kalbos dalis minima leksikologijos darbuose (plg. Jakaitienė 2009: 23). Jaustukai, kaip ekspresyvūs žodžiai, vertinami nagrinėjant kalbos poveikį, pavyzdžiui, reklamos kalbos tyrimuose (plg. Blažinskaitė 2002: 125–130). Kaip ir kita ekspresyvioji leksika, jaustukai yra nelengvai išverčiami į kitas kalbas, todėl jiems skiriama dėmesio nagrinėjant grožinio teksto vertimo teorinius ir praktinius klausimus (dėl lietuviškų keiksmažodžių vertimo žr. Balčiūnienė 2006). Nagrinėdama ekspresyviosios leksikos atrankos ir pateikimo žodynuose klausimus, apie jaustukų reikšmių aprašymo problemas yra užsiminusi šio straipsnio autorė (žr. Zabarskaitė 2006: 170–180). Apie jaustukus, kaip vieną iš raiškos būdų, rašo kalbos etiketo tyrinėtojai (Kučinskaitė 1985; Čepaitienė, Malakauskas 2006: 22–34; Čepaitienė 2007). In ethnolinguistics, considerable attention is paid to interjections—swearwords or phraseological expressions performing the functions of interjections—formulaic curses and formulaic etiquette vocabulary (see Jasiūnaitė: on swear- 1Irena Jašinskaitė’s monograph (1975) is devoted to ideophones, the part of speech closest to interjections. J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 91 mažodžių, pejoratyvų bei eufemizmų santykį (1995: 35–56); apie tradicinius vaišių linkėjimus – „užgėrimus“ (1999: 34–45); apie tradicinius formulinius keiksmus su žodžiu medis bei jo sinonimais (2006: 265–281); apie žemaičių formulinius keiksmus (2007: 257–276) ir kt.). Foreign-language literature examines theoretical issues concerning the place of interjections in the lexicon and language system. Whether they are “real” words with characteristic semantic content and a concept has been debated since the time of Latin grammarians (Wharton 2003: 41–49). From a pragmatic perspective, etiquette vocabulary is examined (cf. Rathmayr 1996; Russian translation 2003), and the expression of emotional experiences in various languages is compared (Wierzbicka 1997: 26–27; cited in Gudavičius 2007: 199). CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS AND FIXED WORD COMBINATIONS EXPRESSING FEELINGS ACCORDING TO THE FUNCTIONS THEY PERFORM Interjections are a difficult part of Lithuanian to describe. In traditional (descriptive) grammar, some words and word combinations expressing feelings are left outside the scope of the description of this part of speech, or their differences from interjections as traditionally understood are not sufficiently highlighted. Words expressing feelings and acts of will, as mentioned, are traditionally called i n t e r j e c t i o n s (invocations2—onomatopoeic words for calling or driving domestic animals and birds—are closely related to them). Such words do not name or indicate anything, nor do they perform linking, specifying, or modal functions. They are used to express feelings (usually intentionally3), for example: e—1. expressing a negative evaluation, usually disappointment, contempt, etc. (emotive function): E, better not get involved. E, so that’s all the pay he gave him; 2. calling out to someone in order to attract their attention (appeal function): E, where are you going? 2 The author of the article believes that it would be more appropriate to call invocations invocatives, cf. appellatives, expressives, etc. This term is used below in the text. 3 It is thought that sounds uttered unconsciously by a person are not words, because they do not belong to a speech act, which is based on a linguistic action. The latter aims to formulate a thought as precisely as possible for an addressee (listener or reader). The sound oi will not be a word if uttered unconsciously, for example, after cutting one’s finger (Zaikauskas 2002: 10; Jakaitienė 2009: 144–149). But the question arises: what should we consider a written or recounted sound of some kind, uttered unconsciously by a person, which is assigned meaning in a text or narrative—that is, acquires a lexical meaning—as in: Ee, now I remember clearly, mate (here ee is an unconscious filler used to fill a pause in speech—it will have this meaning again when the situation is recounted or written down). Will such a semantic construct, or an interjection uttered unconsciously and later used to recount the situation in writing or speech, be considered a word? 92 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 ech—used to express a sigh (emotive function): Ech, what a hard lot! ehe—used to attract attention, usually without addressing someone directly (appeal function): Ehe!—he called out from around the corner. ei—used to attract attention, usually by addressing someone directly (appeal function): Ei, let’s go together. fe—1. expressing disgust (emotive function): Fe, throw it away!; 2. expressing revulsion (emotive function): Fe, how pimply! fi—used to express affected disgust (emotive function): Fi, how unpleasant-tasting. fu—1. expressing disgust: Fu, what a filthy dog; 2. expressing revulsion: Fu, what a nasty girl. fui—1. expressing stronger disgust: Fui, don’t eat those fruits; 2. expressing greater revulsion: I don’t understand these new customs—fui.4 Invocatives belong with interjections because, as words (though from the periphery of the lexicon), they perform an appeal function. Alongside familiar examples such as ciu ciu ciu; k ac kac; kic kic, many invocatives have been completely forgotten, are little used, or are not used at all, for example: koš—an onomatopoeic call to a horse: Koš, koš, koš abrako! Ob. Košius, košius, koš, koš, koš Zp. py—used when calling ducklings or goslings, or imitating them: Py py py—that’s how we call the ducklings Gs.5 Sometimes they may be made up of sound combinations that are not characteristic of Lithuanian, cf.: tpruka – calling a cow or calf (usually repeated): Tpruka tpruka, here’s some bread Dgl. Tpruka tpruka, you poor thing! Slm. Kaip jaustukų rūšis invokatyvai pateikiami tradicinėse gramatikose (LKG 1971: 715–718; DLKG 2005: 466–467). Naminų gyvulių ir paukščių šaukimo ar varymo garsažodžiai yra mūsų agrarinės praeities dalis, vertingas tautinis paveldas. Jų gausu tautosakoje, daug yra LKŽₑ ir jo kartotekoje. Invokatyvai labai mažai tyrinėti ir beveik nykstantys. The same emotional function as interjections is also performed by swear words—lexical periphery items fluctuating in the system between interjections and 4 More examples were deliberately selected from the forthcoming Dictionary of Standard Lithuanian to show how rich, varied, and diverse the linguistic group of interjections is. The three-term opposition fi:fu:fui among interjections is an object of interpretation in phonosemantics—the study of the expression of linguistic iconicity. 5 Unless stated otherwise, the examples given below in the article are from the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽₑ 2005). J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 93 phraseological units. Swear words are not discussed in LKG's account of the meanings of interjections. They are a distinctive part of figurative vocabulary and phraseology. Swear words may consist of a single lexeme: Toads! Devils! They are distinguished from words serving a nominative function primarily by intonation. Interestingly, swear words are often pronounced not only with a different intonation from ordinary words, but also with sounds unusually lengthened or shortened. For example, Aleksas Girdenis offers the following illustration of this phenomenon: intense, long consonants against the background of unusually shortened vowels signify anger; therefore, we pronounce the swear word rupūžės approximately as follows: rruppūžes (Girdenis 2003: 37). Another group of swear words comprises the so-called formulaic curses: May you walk through dry trees! Sug; Go to hell! Žd; May misfortune strike you! Sug; May the bog take you in! Švn6 (Jasiūnaitė 2006: 265–281). In form, such curses are close to phraseological units, while in meaning they are close to interjections. E t i q u e t t e v o c a b u l a r y—greetings, apologies, expressions of sympathy, well-wishes for meals and work, etc.—also comprises words close to interjections in terms of their appellative function. Many of them are interjections of nominal origin (in Evalda Jakaitienė's terminology, interjections derived from a nominal phrase (cf. Jakaitienė 2009: 156)) or nominal phrases that have become interjections: hello, hi, dear, greetings, be well, goodbye, farewell, stay well, etc. Verb forms can also perform the function of interjections. Sometimes their evident connection with homonyms of the same form that serve a nominative function causes classificatory confusion. For example, the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian (DLKŽe 2003) does not classify the forms atleiskite / atleisk and atsiprašau of the verbs atleisti and atsiprašyti as interjections. Solely because of their cognitive aspect of meaning, these forms—words should be given separate dictionary entries as interjections belonging to the domain of etiquette vocabulary. In form, etiquette vocabulary can consist of single- or two-lexeme linguistic units (thanks, thank you very much, bless you) and—like curses—fixed expressions close to phraseological units (God help you, glory to Jesus Christ; good steam—a wish offered to someone going to the bathhouse). Traditional formulaic well-wishes for work and meals are rapidly disappearing, for example: “Healthy gulp!”—“Thanks, gulp!” Srv; “May the roots be strong!”—“May the roots be strong!” TDr I 34 (Kdn); “Given to the giver, good to the good!” Bržr7 (Jasiūnaitė 1999: 34–45). 6 Abbreviations of example sources are as cited in the author's article. 7 Abbreviations are as cited in the author's article. 94 K A L B O S K U L T Ū R A | 82 CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS EXPRESSING EMOTIONS AND FIXED WORD COMBINATIONS BY ORIGIN By origin, interjections are of two kinds. Many are universal, common to several languages, and have developed from voluntary and involuntary exclamations, cf.: ach, och, cha, ha, mmmm, vai, etc. They are considered interjections of p r i m a r y origin. Some invocatives are also classified as interjections of primary origin. Another group of interjections of this type is associated with imitative words or ideophones8; yet another part of this interesting vocabulary may be of onomatopoeic origin. The analysis of the invocative alia can be given as an example. This word is used to scare or drive something away, e.g.: alia, aliai – A goose is driven away: when it is near – alia! alia!, but when it is far away – aliai! aliai! Vr. This is a sound-word used to call or drive animals. Since this expressive word does not imitate a sound or image in reality, nor imitate a sensation experienced, it cannot be considered an ideophone. A non-linguistic exclamation that has become a word expresses volition. Invocatives such as ulia, uli, oliui, tule are similar to it. The invocative alia is related to the verb alioti, -ioja, -iojo ‘to drive, chase, fend off, or scare away by shouting’, e.g.: alioti – They all chase her like a dog alioja (cf. Why are you shouting like that alioji, perhaps you saw a hare, or maybe even a wolf! Ut. Children, nealiokit the stork – it won’t fly by again Užp. In the Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (Fraenkel 1962 I: 7), Ernst Fraenkel considers the ancient Indo-European verb alioti to have derived from a sound-word. The invocative alia denotes a non-linguistic human vocal sound, an exclamation. It becomes a word when it acquires the meaning ‘to drive or fend something away’. Sound-words with a similar phonetic structure, denoting a non-linguistic exclamation characteristic of humans, are widespread in many diverse languages. For example, ala in Swahili expresses a person’s impatience or surprise; ēālā in Old English expresses disappointment or grief and a desire for comfort. Catalans express similar feelings with ai las, Danes with helaas, and French speakers with hélas; in Finnish, the exclamation alas means ‘down’, ‘lower it’. Thus, one of the most widespread exclamations that has become an interjection-invocative now has different, but related, meanings in different languages. This word may form a phonosemantic opposition with the invocative aly – alia: aly. It correlates with the phonosemantic oppositions of related invocatives 8 Plačiau apie ištiktukų imitatyvų arba vaizdo ištiktukų sąvoką žr. Zabarskaitė 2003: 146–148. J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 95 ulia/ule: uli; olia/ole: oly; tule: tuly and so on. When one wants to drive something away, the invocative whose final sound better matches the desired aim is chosen unconsciously. The sound e is slightly lower in pitch and shorter in duration; alia is more likely to be chosen when gently scaring a domestic animal or bird. The long vowel y has a higher pitch and longer duration; it gives the invocative aly greater force and intensity. A speaker would probably choose the interjection aly when needing to drive something away more forcefully. Other interjections, so-called interjections of s e c o n d a r y origin, arose from various customs, traditions, and beliefs, e.g.: dieomyly – to express surprise or astonishment: Dievomyly, may I never see you do that again An; Dievomyly how angry he is! An; Why, dieomyly, are so many of you trying to be truly beautiful? A. Baran. These are interjections with a semantic basis, most often derived from words with lexical meaning and a nominative function. The source of interjections derived solely from proper words, for example, Jergau jergau, is a word that performs a deictic function and has no lexical meaning. Interjections of secondary origin and phraseological combinations (formulaic curses, well-wishes) arose from cultural, religious, and social experience and are a valuable source for ethnolinguistics. Researchers in pragmatics offer a canonical example that reveals the interplay between interjections of both types: I n t e r j e c t i o n s o f p r i m a r y o r i g i n I n t e r j e c t i o n s o f s e c o n d a r y o r i g i n Patient: Be careful with that needle! Dentist: Hell! I’m sorry. Dentist: Oops. Patient: Shit! Get the bloody thing out of my cheek! Patient: Ouch! (cf. Ameka 1992: 11)9. Grammars usually discuss monolexemic interjections of primary exclamatory origin (A, how fat you are!]; A, I did it wrong! Kp; A a a – and yours 9 When translating into Lithuanian, the interjections most characteristic of the situation are chosen, cf.: Patient: Be careful with the needle! Dentist: Ouch! Patient: Ow! Dentist: Damn!Sorry! Patient: Sh...! Get that damn thing out of my cheek! 96 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 singing it out!]nšk), monolexemic and sometimes bilexemic traditional interjections of secondary origin. Traditionally, invocatives are distinguished as a separate group, but monolexemic and bilexemic swear words are not. We believe that it would be appropriate to distinguish them as a separate group of interjections, since their sources, semantics, and structure have features unique to them. Traditional descriptions of grammar in their sections on interjections also do not examine traditional formulaic curses which, in terms of semantic structure, are phraseological interjections (May nine thunders strike you dead!; May the plague snatch you away!; May the bog take you!; see Jasiūnaitė 2007: 257–276), or traditional formulaic etiquette expressions (used while working, feasting, washing in a bathhouse, etc., e.g., To my health, and to my ill-wishers’ misery KrvP (VIkv)). Describing such phraseological formations within the system of interjections would help reveal this phenomenon more fully and give these formations a clear place in the lexical system of the Lithuanian language, as well as benefit research. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERJECTIONS AND ONOMATOPOEIC WORDS Sometimes, when classifying and describing interjections for scholarly and teaching purposes (for students taking a lexicology course and young lexicographers), it is difficult to distinguish more complex interjections from onomatopoeic words. One can consult DLKŽ, which distinguishes interjections from onomatopoeic words; however, LKŽₑ is not a source that can help classify these two parts of speech, since interjections and onomatopoeic words are marked there with the same abbreviation interj. (interjection). Cf. examples of less common interjections from LKŽₑ: acit interj. cit (while scolding): Acit, you screamer! Gs. ač interj. (?) 1. N give: Ač man tavo sūnų BB 1 Kings 17, 19. ači interj. see ač 1: Ači-m nu mana moteri, nesa čėsas yra eiti jospi BB Genesis 29, 21. 1 ačià interj. K I 575: Hey, look! (expressing unexpectedness, surprise). 2 ačià interj. Cuckoo! (the cuckoo) Here! (a person responds) Gs. dėku interj. thank you: You can't get by on thanks; you'll have to put your hand in your pocket too Sln. Confusion sometimes also arises because interjections, like onomatopoeic words, do not perform a nominative function, have a similar form (invariable, short little words), and share certain features of usage—they are often used repetitively. Their main J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 97 the difference is that ideophones belong to the so-called iconic lexicon10. Interjections, being non-arbitrary linguistic signs11, are close to signs of simpler structure—indices12 (in Lithuanian, these signs could aptly be called references). Through ideophones, a speaker/writer, wishing to affect a listener/reader (these words are close to expressives; see the next section of this article), imitates the objective impression produced in them by a sound they heard (The bell ding ding after classes Lkš), a scene they saw (When the lad mounted the sorrel, then clatter, clatter and overtook us Vad), or a sensation they experienced (Gush, gush I began to vomit Šts). Interjections express subjective feelings or will evoked by an impression or sensation (this may be either an objective experience or a subjective desire). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERJECTIONS, EMOTIVES, AND EXPRESSIVES A reasonable question may arise as to why the lexicon under discussion, which expresses feelings and has the status of a distinct part of speech, is compared with units at the level of use—figurative verbs and nouns, that is, expressives and emotives. Revealing the differences between interjections and words belonging to other parts of speech can better highlight the semantic and functional nature and structure of the former, since in the semantic structure of expressives and emotives, too, the emotional-expressive element is the basis of their existence in language. Words that not only name an action, object, phenomenon, state, and so on, but also provide additional expressive information about the denotatum being named are called expressives in scholarly literature (Jakaitienė 2009: 164). For example, in order to evaluate a person who walks slowly and with difficulty, a speaker may choose the expressive dūlinti: 10An iconic word is a word that has no nominative meaning, that is, it does not name reality but imitates it. The simplest example is onomatopoeia, e.g.: kukū, miau, kre, kva, and so on. This is a case of lexical iconicity in language. 11An arbitrary sign is a freely chosen plane of expression whose content signifies something that exists independently of it. In semiotics, arbitrary signs are called symbols. In lexicology, these are words that have nominative meaning. For more on types and features of signs, see (Fiske 1998: 57–114). 12An index is a sign whose plane of expression points to the plane of content within an agreed system of signs (ODP 190–191). 98 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 I trudge, that is, I walk awkwardly, lazily, at an easy pace J. Trudges with his head bowed Škn. Even a dog understands—you scold it, and it trudges off with its ears flattened Pbs. Some sort of person is trudging along the road Vžns. How he trudges, there trudges home Gs. Trudge slowly, and we'll catch up with you An. He saw a fox trudging across the field Mš. The Lithuanian language is particularly rich in expressive verbs denoting movement (walking, running, riding) and eating and drinking: plumpinti ‘to walk heavily’: The child in a fur coat plumpina across the field Jnš. I’m plumpinu home—my shoes are clean Bsg; kicenti ‘to run slowly with short strides, to trot’: He kiceno behind me, waving a long stick rš. It was a good little mare: she always kicena and kicena; she doesn’t walk at a regular pace Lnk. Straddling the gelding and kicena Slm. Let the little horse kicena Įnšk. Let the little horse kicena—it won’t get tired: it’s not far Rs. Rudis always kicendavo with me, accompanying me Vb. The children kiceno at a trot Lnkv; kliaukti ‘to drink greedily, to slurp’: Now all the helpers kliaukia beer Pbr. Everyone eats thick kissel, but no one nekliaukia thin groats Ml; marmalyti ‘to eat, to feed’: Marmalyk, i kevit KlvrŽ. All these words have a predominant expressive component in their lexical meaning, which is, of course, associated with feelings. A speaker seeking expressiveness is not satisfied with mere dry information; by choosing a vivid word, the speaker seeks to ensure that the person for whom the information is intended receives it not only intellectually, but also appreciates with feeling the image created by the expressive word13. The main distinguishing feature of expressives and interjections is that the former perform a nominative function and are associated with an objectively describable, specific denotatum; although the expressive element, as a connotative component in their semantic structure, predominates, it is not the only component. The denotatum of an interjection (a specific feeling and/or act of will in a specific situation) is individual; it is described when the interjection occurs in a spoken or written narrative. The meaning of an interjection is always borderline: in the language system it is highly abstract—“to express a feeling”; in each speech act it is highly specific—“to express pain,” “to express sorrow,” “to express joy,” “to express fear,” “to express disappointment,” and so on. Emotives are also words that show the speaker’s feelings toward someone (for more, see Jakaitienė 2009: 161–164). How do these words differ from interjections that express feelings? When using an emotive, the speaker/writer does not 13Dūlina a tired person or animal—aims to evoke in the listener sympathy mixed with dissatisfaction at the slow action; marmalyja a hungry, greedy person who does not much care how they look—aims to evoke a feeling of disgust, etc. J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 99 it not only names the object or subject being discussed, an action, state, or property, but also evaluates and describes it, revealing the speaker’s feelings toward it. If the speaker thinks that a head is bad, worthless, or poorly regarded, they choose the emotive makaulė to name it: I hit my makaulę so hard on that beam that it actually felt good rš. I’ll crack the traitors right across the makaulę! Žem. Don’t come near, or you’ll get hit with a ladle across the makaulę! Pgr. Keep your makaulę out of the light (don’t block it) Jrb. Go on, go on, or you’ll crack your makaulę Vvr. Once he recovered, it would still pierce (break through) his makaulę Srv. Put it in his makaulę so he won’t raise it again Alk. [With a hammer] knock out one makaulę, and three or four will grow back in its place S.Dauk. His mind no longer fits inside his makaulėj Smn. He drove the wolf with the horns right into the makaulę PP 28. People are generally made to feel positive or negative emotions by other people, so most emotives describe a person or their body parts, character traits, and personality features, e.g.: kepša ‘a lout, a fool’: At home he is quite clever, but among strangers he is a complete kepša Bgs; žvėga ‘a chatterbox, a blabbermouth’: The moment he sees or hears anything, he runs to tell žvega J. I’m tired of listening to such a žvegós Ktk. Whenever those žvegós get together, there’s no shortage of talk and laughter Krs; kleišys ‘one with crooked legs, a bow-legged person, a limper’: Here comes that kleišys limping along Al. Well, our kleišys (a lame horse) has come running S.Dauk. These words name reality while evaluating it, revealing negative or (less commonly) positive feelings toward it. However, they differ from interjections because of the same feature that expressives have: their lexical meaning structure also includes a nominative component. The connotative component of an emotive’s lexical meaning enables the speaker/writer to express their feelings toward the aspect of reality being described economically, without explanation or elaboration—that is, by choosing an apt, vivid word. With an interjection, the speaker/writer expresses feelings arising from their own subjective inner sensations, attitudes (in relation to etiquette vocabulary), and experiences. The source of feelings or acts of will is the speaker/writer themself; for emotives, the source of the feelings is subjectively evaluated reality. In conclusion, interjections can be said to have an individual denotatum, describable only when the interjection occurs in a spoken or written narrative, since through an interjection the speaker/writer expresses feelings concerning themself or their own attitudes. 100 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 INTERJECTIONS FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE. THE PROBLEM OF LEXICOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION Primary interjections merely indicate that the speaker / writer feels something or wants something, but additional information is needed to understand what the feeling, desire, or will is: intonation, linguistic and non-linguistic (body language) context, and so on. For example, the interjection oh can express a whole scale of emotions and experiences—from joy to disappointment, from pleasant bodily sensations to pain. Swear words do not always express negative feelings about reality; sometimes people swear to express simply strong, “overheated” emotions (e.g. surprise, great astonishment, even sudden good fortune, and so on). The meaning of etiquette vocabulary also depends on the specific situation in which it is used, various social conventions, the nature of the speaker’s / writer’s relationship with other people, even their worldview, etc. All this shows that studies of interjections and “interjectional” phraseologisms are impossible without the conceptual methodological principles and methods on which contemporary pragmatic research is based. The study of interjections requires a “pragmatic point of departure: usage, which is impossible without context, understood very broadly” (Rathmayr 1996). The parameters of expressivity discussed by pragmatic researchers are needed to study and describe interjections. Non-linguistic parameters Linguistic parameters Situation Context Gestures, facial expressions Figures of speech Manner of speaking Intonation Voice timbre Suprasegmental speech elements Loudness of speech (cf. Bally 1952) While linguists try to determine whether interjections are “real” words, lexicographers, following the tradition of dictionary writing, must explain these words when compiling new dictionaries and editing old ones. In lexicographically describing interjections, since their meanings differ from those of symbolic and iconic words, one should consider the pragmatic situations in which an interjection is most commonly used, that is, which typical feelings are most often expressed by a given interjection. To generalize—to abstract the lexical meaning of an interjection in a certain way—it is necessary to analyze the context of use. In some cases, in order to clarify— J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 101 …so that the lexical meaning of an interjection could be described clearly and comprehensively for the user, a microcontext should suffice, especially if the interjection is of secondary origin and used in ordinary situations, e.g.: hello, thank you. If an interjection is used not always in ordinary situations, but in situations clearly constrained by circumstances, a broader context would be needed to determine its meaning, e.g.: cit., brrr. Contextual analysis should be very broad if the situation in which an interjection is used is not specifically described. This is characteristic of many primary interjections, e.g.: aaa, oh, ah and so on. It can be argued that pragmatic studies of interjections are essential both for their scholarly analysis (which would undoubtedly reveal new and interesting aspects of language development and matters significant to ethnolinguistics) and for lexicographic practice. INTERJECTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ETHNOLINGUISTICS AND CONTEMPORARY USAGE Like all secondary-nomination vocabulary arising from social, cultural, and religious relations, interjections, formulaic curses and well-wishes, and etiquette vocabulary tell us a great deal about those relations. The linguist Birutė Jasiūnaitė has done the most work in this area. In reconstructing the ethnolinguistic world of Lithuanians, she draws on expressive vocabulary and phraseology. The scholar has studied formulaic curses and well-wishes, but has not yet turned her attention to single-lexeme interjections and invocatives. The contexts, situations, frequency, and other aspects of the use of interjections and related expressive vocabulary have hardly been studied. For example, in examining the motivation for using slang in advertising, Dalia Blažinskaitė draws attention to the use of slang interjections hey, oops. She concludes that these are “the least motivated” instances of slang use overall (Blažinskaitė 2002: 129). However, she does not consider why a foreign interjection is chosen in advertising language. Comprehensive studies of interjections from an ethnolinguistic perspective, combined with studies of their use, can yield very interesting results, especially when compared with the forms, semantics, and pragmatics of emotional expression in other languages. For example, A. Wierzbicka shows how the meanings of interjections containing the name of God differ. She argues that the English interjections God!, Christ!, Jesus! express anger, while the Polish Boże!, Chryste! express fear more strongly, and the German Mein Gott! conveys an unpleasant 102 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 surprise, while the French Mon Dieu! is associated with melancholic reflection, and so on. The author believes that such use of interjections may be related to a nation’s religiosity (Wierzbicka 1999: 26–27; cited in Gudavičius 2007: 199). Studies of interjection use and motivation, as well as of the national component, can help promote the use of Lithuanian interjections in the language. This is particularly relevant now, as a new variety of Lithuanian is taking shape—the language of information technology. It is concise, so it would be worthwhile to suggest short Lithuanian words for expressing feelings before their place is entirely taken by international slang. Lithuanian interjections should be promoted more actively. The author of this article has written about what lexicographers can do in this area by consciously choosing the direction of the dictionaries they compile: “promoting Lithuanian secondary interjections instead of the oops that dominates youth speech is a matter of choice for dictionary compilers” (Zabarskaitė 2006: 177). THE USE OF INTERJECTIONS IN DIALECTS No studies of tendencies in the use of interjections in Lithuanian dialects could be found. The data presented here are drawn from texts in the Anthology of Lithuanian Dialects (LKTCH 2004). These texts were selected because they represent recorded dialectal speech. Examples of lexicon expressing all types of feelings were sought. The data are not exhaustive because the texts are limited in scope; they should undoubtedly be supplemented with data from the dialect archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language14. Therefore, some of the tendencies that have emerged cannot be fully confirmed, although they are interesting and merit further investigation. One might think that interjections are especially frequent in dialect speech, but in fact they are a fairly rare phenomenon. They are most often used when recounting an event or dialogue, in narratives about the past, in fairy tales, and so on. Another tendency, which more comprehensive research will probably also confirm, is that in the LKTCH texts women use interjections considerably more often. The ratio of Aukštaitian to Samogitian dialects, 19: 3, merits attention, but should be verified, since the LKTCH contains considerably fewer Samogitian texts. The dialect corpus should also be checked to determine whether it is merely coincidental that the interjections used by Samogitians in the LKTCH are an obscenity and a formulaic curse, whereas the interjections most often used by Aukštaitians are secondary interjections mentioning God and the saints. 14 For more information about the dialect archive of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, see www.lki.lt J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 103 The variety of interjections found in dialect texts is limited; there is only one formulaic curse, no good-wishing expressions were found, and this probably indicates that this part of the lexicon inherited in present-day dialects has almost disappeared. The most frequently used interjections mention the name of God (Jesus); there is one instance of the interjection o Jackau: Well, it was sewn, oh dear. And that woman—she covered it with linen, lined it with wool, and went to church in that blouse, God bless. Oh Jesus, how I cried. (Rokiškis collection point, woman, born 1902; LKTCH 133)15 Ah, dear God, look at those little girls (said of girls). I can’t eat those pancakes oh, dear God. (Jurgeliškės collection point, Švenčionys district, woman, born 1907; LKTCH 113–114) What do women do now, then? Oh, now, good Lord, all dressed up, you know, wearing those silk rags, there. We used to sing; it would ring out, good Lord, the whole village. Oh, where are the songs now? (Verksnionys collection point, Rokiškis district, woman, born 1901; LKTCH 147–148) She says: “Oh dear God, what haven’t I done, oh Jesus Mary, I forgot to confess one sin. What will happen now?” (A story about the first confession, Pabaiskas collection point, woman, born 1940; LKTCH 166–167) Goodness, absolutely, what can you say? We used to have, you know, ohall kinds (of songs). (Musninkai collection point, Širvintos district, woman, born 1920; LKTCH 171) Goodness, what a pity about those ducks. Goodness, indeed. (Eržvilkas collection point, woman, born 1919; LKTCH 220) Other more frequent interjections are – ai/ajajai, for example: So when we started to stack those sheaves, then we turned them all over and broke off those level stalks there. Ajajai. (Minkūnai collection point, Rokiškis district, woman, born 1938; LKTCH 135) Ai, they answer us right away, without waiting long (the boys and girls tease one another while singing). (Čiulai collection point, Molėtai district, woman, born 1928; LKTCH 138) Or some neighbor woman came, ai, they say, her evil eye had looked them over there. (Tale about witches, Latvian collection point, Daugavpils district, Baltmuiža, woman, born 1897; LKTCH 141) So mother says: “Ai, they couldn’t protect it, but you will. –Ai, Mama, bake me a bun, and I’ll go.” (Fairy tale, Karsakiškis collection point, woman, born 1917; LKTCH 190) The district is specified when the collection point may be unfamiliar to the reader. For clarity, additions or explanations by the article’s author have been inserted in parentheses.15 104 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Interjections oi/ojei are used similarly, for example: Well, as people say, a dog – oi – lives there for five or six years. Ai, a fox once came to her, a little fox. (Tale about a dog, Jurgėnai collection point, Pasvalys district, woman, born 1904; LKTCH 188) It happened to me; I’m not very afraid, but there were people who, when a bee stung them, went oi oi oi oi oi. (Tale about bees, Kučiūnai, man, born 1928; LKTCH 95) Oi, there were wolves, wolves. (Pelesa, woman, born 1908; LKTCH 97) Oi! They give two cows and twelve ewes. (Kupreliškis collection point, woman, born 1916; LKTCH 157) Ojei, what a shame – seven lambs all at once (the wolf ate them). (Lazūnai, woman, born 1889; LKTCH 120) The third most frequent interjection found in the texts is a, for example: “Sir, he says—he says, well, such a fattened-up, worthless bull has died. — A, so you take it and bury it with the hide on.” (Lieporiai field site, Šiauliai environs, man, born 1904; LKTCH 73) “I walked,” he says, “through the whole village, and nobody took me in for the night. A. And then,” he says, “night is coming on—where will I, an old man, go?”: “A, give me a place, dear God.” A, and the gentleman took the shears and stood by the window. “Klimas will come soon to steal the shirts, so,” he says, “I’ll cut his head off.” Uhu. And there he stands. (Folktale, Varėna, man, born 1894; LKTCH 92–93) Well, when you twist the little top, when it spins around, it contracts. And that’s why it rises up. A a. (About milling, Punskas, man, born 1914; LKTCH 99) Interjections used once each—ačiū, aha, uhu—for example: Thank you to them; they got up, went, called their son, and called the ambulance. (Mančiūšėnai field site, Širvintos district, woman, born 1923; LKTCH 170) Well, aha, she fell onto the road and lies dead. (Varanavas, woman, born 1921; LKTCH 97) In Samogitian texts, a simplex verb and a formulaic action have been found: With flails, and still, you rascal,won. The tsar, you rascal,to close that church. So, oh,there was a great slaughter here. (Kražiai collection point, man, born 1918; LKTCH 214) And I crawled into an empty boot, and now, you wretched devil,come that night to steal the bees. And I, devil,a wolf came. (Sausgalviai collection point, Šilutė district, man, year of birth unknown; LKTCH 283) J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 105 A narrator who uses interjections repeats them more than once. A person who does not use interjections does not use them at all. In some cases, interjections are used not to express feelings or will, but as fillers, to regulate the pace of narration, fill pauses in speech, and so on. In these cases, they perform the function of particles. As has already been said, these initial data on the use of interjections should be refined and supplemented; moreover, the use of interjections in dialogues should be investigated. It seems that they should be used more frequently in that sphere of speech. For more in-depth research on the use of this part of speech, an analysis of interjection use in urban spoken language is needed. The use of electronic emoticons in the language of information technology should not displace the words of living speech, which—especially those of secondary origin—preserve far more elements important to the vitality of language, national identity, and the social history of language than may seem at first glance.16. CONCLUSIONS If we do not limit ourselves to the formal structure of interjections, but take into account similar or identical functions performed in language and their use, more linguistic phenomena can be assigned to this part of speech than are currently distinguished in traditional grammars. Interjections express subjective feelings or will, which are prompted by some impression or sensation—this may be either an objective experience or a subjective desire. As signs of communication, interjections are closest to indexical signs. Their meaning in the language system is highly abstract: “to express a feeling”; in each speech act, however, it is highly specific: “to express pain,” “to express sorrow,” “to express joy,” “to express fear,” “to express disappointment,” and so on. Therefore, to reveal the place of interjections in the language system and their role in the lexical hierarchy, and to develop methods for presenting interjections in dictionaries and describing them in databases and annotated corpora, consistent and comprehensive research into their use is essential. Such research would also yield results in the opposite direction—it would be useful for ethnolinguistics. It is also important to encourage the use of Lithuanian interjections in spoken language and in the language of information technology. 16 In 2010, the Lituanistics Center, a division of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language responsible for disseminating scientific knowledge and popularizing language, announces a competition for school pupils and students—to decipher digital emoticons in the most interesting and varied ways. 106 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 LITERATŪRA Ameka F. 1992: Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. – Journal of Pragmatic 18, 101–118. Balčiūnienė I. Keiksmažodžių vertimas. Pranešimas, skaitytas Lietuvos vertėjų sąjungos seminare-diskusijoje. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lvs.lt Bally Ch. 1952: Le Langage et la vie, Zurich: Max Niehans Éditeur. Blažinskaitė D. 2002: Žargonybių motyvacija reklamoje. – Kalbos kultūra 75, 125–131. Čepaitienė G. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas: semantika ir pragmatika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Čepaitienė G., Malakauskas A. 2006: Padėkos semantika ir raiška. – Acta humanitarica universitatis saulensis 1, 22–34. DLKG 2005: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. DLKŽ 2003: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. Vyr. red. S. Keinys. 4 leidimas (elektroninis variantas), Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lki.lt Fiske J. 1998: Įvadas į komunikacijos studijas, Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Fraenkel E. 1962: Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Band I. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Girdenis A. 2003: Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gudavičius A. 2007: Gretinamoji semantika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas. Jakaitienė E. 2009: Leksikologija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Jasiūnaitė B. 1995: Endriejaviškių pejoratyvinė leksika. (Neigiamieji žmogaus apibūdinimai). – Kalbotyra 44(1), 35–58. Jasiūnaitė B. 1999: „Į tavo sveikatą, į mano žyvata!“ Tradiciniai vaisių linkėjimai. – Lituanistica 2(38), 34–45. Jasiūnaitė B. 2006: Medžias Rytų Lietuvos folklore. – Baltistica 41(2), 265–283. Jasiūnaitė B. 2007: Žemaičių formulniai keiksmai. – Tautosakos darbai 34, 257–276. Jašinskaitė I. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos ištiktukai, Vilnius: Mintis. Kučinskaitė A. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas, Vilnius: Mokslas. KTŽ 1990: K. Gaivenis, S. Keinys. Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. LKG 1965, 1971, 1976: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika 1–3, Vilnius: Mintis. J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 107 LKTCH 2004: Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Sudarė: R. Bacevičiūtė, A. Ivanauskienė, A. Leskauskaitė, E. Trumpa, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LKŽₑ 2005: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 1–20 (elektroninis variantas). Red. kolegija: G. Naktinienė (vyr. redaktorė), J. Paulauskas, R. Petrokienė, V. Vitkauskas, J. Zabarskaitė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. – Prieiga per internetą: www.lkz.lt ODP 1996: S. Blackburn. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press. Paulauskienė A. 1976: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Rathmayr R. 1996: Pragmatik der Entschuldigungen, Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlou Verlag. Wharton T. 2003: Interjections. Language and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum. – Pragmatics & Cognition 11(1), 39–91. Wierzbicka A. 1999: Język–umysł–kultura, Warszawa: PWN. Zabarskaitė J. 2003: Ištiktukų reikšmių pateikimas žodynuose. – Leksikografijos ir leksikologijos problemos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 136–150. Zabarskaitė J. 2006: Ekspresyvioji lietuvių kalbos leksika ir vartosenos žodynai. – Aiškinamųjų bendrinės kalbos žodynų aktualijos, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, 170–180. Zaikauskas E. 2002: Teoriniai performatyvų pagrindai. Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija, Vilnius: VUB Rankraščių skyrius. Gauta 2009 11 11 INTERJECTIONS IN LANGUAGE AND SPEECH Summary Interjections make up a part of speech which is much more complex and varied than it looks at first sight. Without limiting to their formal structure and considering similar or equivalent functions and usage, the part of speech might include more linguistic phenomena than are usually attributed to interjections in traditional grammars. In dialects interjections are not so numerous. They are mostly used in re/telling a story, i.e. in telling about the past, in fairy-tales etc. 108 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Research into the usage of interjections, their motivation and expression of national identity could promote their more frequent usage. This is particularly relevant today, when we can witness the evolvement of the language of information technologies. To identify the position of interjections in the system of language, to clearly define their role in the lexicon, to include them in dictionaries and define in the databases and annotated corpora, further detailed and consistent research into their usage would be indispensable. Such research could also contribute to ethno-linguistic investigation. JOLANTA ZABARSKAITĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius [email protected] J. ZABARSKAITĖ. Jaustukai kalboje ir šnekoje 109