iyaw! whoever talks about (cree) interjections 45th - artsites

iyaw! Whoever Talks about (Cree) Interjections 45th Algonquian Conference Arok Wolvengrey October 18, 2013, Ottawa

1

[email protected]

1.1 Intro: Definitions of “Interjection” a.k.a. “exclamation”; “ejaculation”

1.1.1 Form: “(one) word” (Wiki) “word or phrase” (WNWD) “word or remark” (FOD) “abrupt remark” (OALD) “sound, word or phrase” (OALD) “short utterance” (FOD) “single word or (non-sentence) phrase” (Wiki) “filled pauses” (Wiki) (cf. hesitatory particles)

1.1.2 Meaning: “something” !!!! “express (an) emotion” (OALD; FOD) “expresses sudden emotion” (FOD) “emotion of sentiment” (Wiki)

1.1.3 Syntax: “without grammatical connection” (WNWD) “aside or interruption” (ODOnline) “standing alone” (FOD) “syntactic isolation (FOD) “non-sentence (phrase)” (Wiki) “[placed at the] beginning of sentence” (Wiki)

1.2 Introductory Linguistics Textbooks - 0/19 consulted have anything to say about interjections - the majority do, however, define “holophrases” or

“holophrastic utterances” as self-contained, one-word utterances in child language.

- no-one links holophrases and interjections.

1.3 Bloomfield’s (1933) Language 1.3.1 Form: “words or phrases (secondary interjections)” “substantive form naming a hearer” “vocative forms” ; “lexical form” “occasionally deviate from the phonetic form of their language”

1.3.2 Meaning: “answers” ; “completive (interjections)” “demand (silence)” “reflect a violent stimulus” “semantic closeness to non-linguistic forms of

response”

1.3.3 Syntax: “[a subclass of] minor sentences” “peculiar construction” “occurs in … few [positions of certain constructions] or none”

1.4 Hengeveld and Mackenzie’s (2008:76-77) FDG - situate interjections as holophrastic utterances lexicalized

at the pragmatic or Interpersonal Level - divide Interjections into Expressives and Interactives - Expressives “are ways for Speakers to give vent to their

reactions to elements of the ongoing communicative situation. One could easily imagine them being produced in solitude, as when one hits one’s thumb with a hammer.

- Interactives “differ from Expressives in being clearly directed to the Addressee.”

- “Vocatives constitute a special class of Interactives, ...”

2.1 Expressives - “The meaning of Expressives tend to recur across different

languages. Thus we very regularly find expressions for Ekman et al.’s (1972) six basic emotions[:] anger (damn), disgust (yuck), fear (help), joy (wow), sadness (aw) and surprise (well, well).”

1) pain āwiya ‘ouch, ow’ ~ āwiyā [cf. Woods Cree: ayayā]

takay ‘dammit!’ ; “prick!”

2) anger āh ‘aagh!’ mā ‘surely not; come on’ [also: surprise (disbelief)] stā ‘dammit!; geez, not again’ [cf. wācistakāc] takay ‘dammit!; prick!’ [cf. -takay- NDI ‘penis’] wīnt ‘dirty …’ [cf. wīnitakay ‘dirty prick’; wīnicisk ‘dirty ass’]

3) disgust āw ‘ah! och! oh!’ [low intonation, dismissive or

expressing disagreement]


2

[email protected]

3) disgust continued cah ‘geez, ridiculous, absurd; nonsense; be serious’

[exclamation of disgust; also: cāh, cēh, cwā; see nc] iyaw ‘oh for goodness sakes’ [low intonation; also

surprise] mā ‘surely not; come on’ [disbelief] nc ‘geez, ridiculous, absurd; nonsense; be serious’

[exclamation of disgust; also: inc; see cah] nitakisa ‘yeah, right!; not by any chance’ [also: nitaki,

nitakis]

4) joy hah ‘ha’ [also: ha; can also express schadenfreude: ‘so,

serves him/her right’] haha ‘ha, haha’ [also: ha, hah] num-num ‘mmmm’ [pleasurable sensation from taste] tāpwē kihci ‘truly great!’ wahwā ‘oh my!’ [surprise, positive or negative] yahē ‘yesss!’ yahow ‘yahoo!’

5) sadness āmī ‘oh my, oh dear’ [expression of sympathy, sorrow] wiyakāc ‘that’s too bad, sorry to hear that’ [expression of

sympathy, sorrow]

6) surprise ayiwāk ‘what more?’ [cf. IPC ayiwāk ‘more’] aýiwāk ihkin ‘goodness gracious, too much’ [cf. aýiwāk ‘more’

+ VII ihkin ‘it exists’; literally “more exists(?)”] ānakacā ‘oh my God! holy cow! cool!’ [also: ānakacay,

nakacā] iyaw ‘well, well now, for goodness sakes; oops’ [also:

yaw] īh ‘my goodness, good heavens, oh no!’ [also: ī] kakwāhýahkamik ‘goodness gracious; how startling!’ māmaskāc ‘amazing, wondrous, strange, unbelievable’ wah ‘oh; well’ [also: wa, wā, wāh] wahwā ‘oh my! wow! good gracious’ wahwāhay ‘oh my! wow! good gracious; oh my goodness, oh

for pete’s sake, geez!’ [cf. wāhay]

wācistakāc ‘oh my, goodness gracious, incredible! beyond reason!’ [also: wācistak, wācistikā, wācistakāt]

wāhay ‘oh my goodness, oh for pete’s sake, geez!’ [cf. wahwāhay]

7) fear ēyahē ‘oh no!’ īh ‘ahh!’ īhay ‘oh no!’ īhī ‘enemy in sight!’

2.2 Observations - Overlap between the categories (sometimes intonationally

distinguished): • pain and anger (e.g. takay!) • anger and disgust (e.g. mā!) • disgust and surprise (e.g. iyaw!) • surprise and joy (e.g. wahwā!) • surprise and fear (e.g. īh!)

- Not necessarily restricted to lacking an addressee: • anger (e.g. wīnt! - and many other terms can be

used vocatively) • disgust (e.g. cah!, etc. - in response to someone’s

statement, etc.) • surprise (e.g. iyaw!, etc. - in response to someone’s

statement, etc.) • pain! (e.g. āwiya! - as a warning to a child)

- The Expressive Frame in Functional Discourse Grammar:

(A1: [(F1: Intj (F1)) (P1)S] (A1)

A = Discourse Act - not to be equated with clause or sentence, but will

nevertheless result in a meaningful and complete utterance (cf. Bloomfield’s “minor sentence”)

F = Illocution variable of the Discourse Act, - in the case, the Illocution is not abstract but instead filled by Intj = the lexical Interjection, constituting the holophrastic

message PS = the Speaker, as sole required participant

Note: There is no variable for the Addressee (PA)


3

[email protected]

- modified Expressive Frame for FDG:

(A1: [(F1: Intj (F1)) (P1)S {(P2)A}] (A1)

PA = the Addressee Note: This adds an option to allow Expressives to overlap

with the function of Interactives, since many can be used to impart a message to an addressee and are not restricted to Speaker-oriented use alone.

3.1 Interactives: - Interactives “differ from Expressives in being clearly

directed to the Addressee.” (H&M 2008:77)

- Interactives also allow for additional (presupposed) communicative content to be added beyond the lexical interjection itself:

e.g. Congratulations! or Congratulations [on winning the Nobel]!

- The form of Interactives may be dependent on “contextual circumstances”:

e.g. Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening! - time of day greetings e.g. Obrigado / Obrigada!

- gender-based “thank you” in Portuguese; etc.

- Interactives show language-specific variability. The following preliminary classification for Plains Cree is

not complete, but based on Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008), as augmented by categories from Dik’s (1997) earlier Functional Grammar discussion of Extra-Clausal Constituents, and by the Cree data itself.

8) Greetings (opening) tānisi ‘hello; how are you?’ [lit: “how”] tānisi ēkwa ‘hello, how are you now?’ [lit: “how now”] tānisi kiya ‘hello, how are you?’ [lit: “how (are) you”] tānisi ēkwa kiya ‘hello, how are you now?’ [lit: “how (are) now you”] tānisi ātawiya ‘hello, how’s it going?’ [lit: “how although”] tānisi ātawiya kiya ‘hello, how are you getting along?’ [lit: “how although you”] tawāw ‘come in, welcome’ [lit: “there is room”]

9) Greetings (response)

ēyiwēhk ‘so-so’ namōya nānitaw ‘I’m fine; no worries’ [literally: “not about”; also:

mōya nānitaw; mōy nānitaw, mōnānitaw] takahki! ‘great!’

10) Parting ēkosi ‘that’s it’ [literally: “so, thus”] ēkosi māka ‘that’s it then, but so it is’ [literally: “so but”] hāw ‘okay; let’s go’ [also: ahām, ahāw, hām]

ka-wāpamitin ‘(I will) see you’ [also: ka-wāpamitin ici ‘I’ll see you later’, kīhtwām ka-wāpamitin ‘I’ll see you again’; ka-wāpamitin pa-pimātisiyahko ‘I’ll see you again if we are living’]

mwēstas ‘later’

11) Asking āh ‘eh, what’s that?’ hā ‘eh, what’s that?’ kiya māka ‘and you?’ 12) Thanking hay-hay ‘thanks’ [also: ay-hay] kinanāskomitin ‘thank you’ [literally: “I am grateful to you”] kitatamihin ‘thank you’ [literally: “you make me smile”] 13) Acknowledgement ka ‘oh, I see’ [also: kah; kā] hā ‘oh, I see’ 14) Agreement ēha ‘yes’ [also: āha, ēha’ ] hāw ‘okay, all right; fine, agreed’ [also: ahā, ahāw,

ahām,āhāw, āw, hām] mhm ‘ya’ [backchannel; used during another

speaker’s narrative as acknowledgement or agreement without interruption]

tak ōt āni ‘it is a good thing’ [from: tako oti ani]


4

[email protected]

15) Disagreement āh ‘ah! och! oh!’ [low intonation; dismissive or

disagreement; also: āw] cah ‘geez, ridiculous, absurd; nonsense; be

serious’ [exclamation of disgust; also: cāh, cēh, cwā, inc, nc]

mā ‘surely not; come on’ [disbelief] mwāc ‘no; not; no way, by no means, not at all’

[also: mwāt, namwāc, namwāt] namōya ‘no; not’ [also: mōya] nāh ‘not so’ [cf. expressive: mā] nitakisa ‘yeah, right!; not by any chance’ [also: nitaki,

nitakis]

16) Directive awas ‘go away; get out of my way’ [singular] āstam ‘come here’ [singular] ī ‘look, behold’ [also: īh] kākito ‘be quiet, shut up’ kiyām ‘let it be; nevermind’ mah ‘hark!, listen’ na ‘here, take it’ [also: nah] niyā ‘be off, get along; go ahead’ [singular] tawāw ‘come in; welcome’ 17) Warning awahē ‘be careful’ [singular] pēyāhtak ‘be careful’ [also: pēyāhtik] yākwā ‘look out!’

- the Interactive Frame in FDG:

(A1: [(F1: Intj (F1)) (P1)S (P2)A {(C1)Φ}] (A1)

- this adds an obligatory addressee (PA), which incidentally might be made explicit through the inclusion of second person pronouns as in Greetings (e.g. tānisi kiya, tānisi ēkwa kiya, etc.) or Questions (e.g. kiya māka), or Vocatives.

- it can optionally also add communicative content {(C1)Φ}.

3.2 Vocatives:

- Elements within vocative expressions can occupy one of two places in the FDG interactive frame:

(A1: [(F1: Intj (F1)) (P1)S (P2)A {(C1)Φ}] (A1)

- Particles which serve as summonses or attention-getting devices (cf. Dik 1997:386; Wolvengrey 2011:350) can be added to the list of interactives occupying the head (Intj) position in the interactive frame.

18) Summonses ay ‘hey’ [also: ēhēy, ēy, hēy] āh ‘ah’ [neutral intonation, introductory; also: ā] ēy ‘hey’ [also: ay, ēhēy, hēy] hāw ‘well then’ [also: agreement, exhortation]

- In addition to and often in combination with the interactive

particles, there are specific vocative forms for indicating the addressee. In the singular, these are primarily kinship terms which may or may not take a distinct vocative form.

- Vocatives are in considerable flux in (Plains) Cree with conservative (sub)dialects retaining many irregular and distinct vocative patterns, while many other areas, perhaps exhibiting language loss, have simplified most vocatives and/or replaced them with the first person singular possessive referential forms of bound kinship noun stems.

- The following list of vocatives are arranged by the type of differences exhibited from the regular referential form. Vocatives may be a) shortened or clipped forms, (b) marked by a particular vocative singular affix, or (c) a mixture of these and other patterns.

(19) Clipped Vocatives 1sPoss-Referential Kinship Term cāpān nicāpān;nitāniskotāpān great-grandparent nōhkō nōhkom grandmother nimosō nimosōm grandfather


5

[email protected]

(19) Clipped Vocatives continued nikā / nēkā nikāwiy mother nōhtā nōhtāwiy father niciwā niciwām brother; male ||-cousin

[male speaker only] nitawēmā nitāwēmāw sibling of opposite

gender nitān nitānis daughter nitihkwā nitihkwatim nephew; son-in-law (20) -ē Vocatives 1sPoss-Referential Kinship Term nisikosē nisikos mother-in-law;

cross-aunt nisisē nisis father-in-law;

cross-uncle nimisē nimis older sister nistēsē nistēs older brother nicāhkosē nicāhkos sister-in-law; female

X-cousin [female speakers only]

nisīmē nisīm younger sibling 21) Mixed Vocatives 1sPoss-Referential Kinship Term nikosē nikosis son nōsisē nōsisim grandchild nikwēmē nikwēmēs namesake; namer

- Like other interactives, plurality of an addressee can be indicated. Any kinship term - and some additional nouns - can be marked to indicate plural address by the vocative plural suffix -itik (cf. regular plural -ak).

22) Plural Kinship Voc 1sPoss-Referential Kinship Term nōhkomitik nōhkomak grandmothers nimosōmitik nimosōmak grandfathers nimisitik nimisak older sisters nistēsitik nistēsak older brothers nitānisitik nitānisak daughters nikosisitik nikosisak sons niwāhkōmākanitik niwāhkōmākanak relatives

23) Plural Nominal Voc Referential Gloss iskwētik iskwēwak ladies/women nāpētik nāpēwak gentlemen/men

3.3 Observations - While the regular animate plural merely indicates number

of the referent (as provided at the semantic/ representational level of FDG and subsequently given morphosyntactic and phonological form through encoding), the vocative plural -itik is a distinct morpheme triggered by a plural feature of the Addressee (PA) at the pragmatic/interpersonal level of FDG, or simply inserted as part of the lexical vocative/name.

- The following examples, expressing both lexical interjectives and vocatives, would thus have the accompanying FDG representations below.

24) āh, nikosē! ... “Ahh, my son!” (A1: [(F1: āh (F1)) (P1)S (nikosē)A] (A1)

hāw, nimosōmitik! ... “Well, Grandfathers!” (A1: [(F1: hāw (F1)) (P1)S (nimosōmitik)A] (A1)

4.1 Concluding Observations - Most Interactives are invariant in form, though there are

some that vary by the number of the addressee.

25) Directives: singular plural (plural suffix) ‘go away’ awas awasitik (-itik) ‘come here’ āstam āstamik / āstamitik (-(it)ik) ‘go on’ niyā niyāk (-k)

Warnings: singular plural (plural suffix) ‘be careful’ awahē awahēk (-k)

- The two plural patterns mirror the verbal Imperative (-k) and the Vocative (-itik).

- More complex verbal patterns might also be in evidence if

certain formulas of Parting and Thanking are fully included as Interactives:


6

[email protected]

26) Thanking: 1s>2s 1s>2p etc...

‘thank you’ kinanāskomitin kinanāskomitināwāw (“be grateful”) ‘thank you’ kitatamihin kitatamihināwāw (“make smile”) Parting: 1s>2s 1s>2p etc... ‘see you later’ ka-wāpamitin ici ka-wāpamitināwāw ici

- First person plural (1p>2s/p) forms are also possible. - These may thus take the full range of inverse local set

agreement; as the speech act participants (speaker and addressee), such forms are directly linked to the interpersonal/pragmatic level of FDG.

- Full verbal forms may originally be the communicated content, but over time grammaticalize to become more and more invariant resulting in interactive (and perhaps ultimately expressive?) interjections.

27) Productive VAI stem: kito- ‘make a sound, speak up’

2s.Imp: (ē)kā(wi)ya kito! ‘Don’t make a sound!’

Interactive Particle: kākito! ‘Shut up!’

- Whereas kito- can be fully inflected, kākito(k) can only be in singular and plural imperative-like forms as Interactive interjections.

- Phonetic forms of Cree Interactives (and Expressives) usually keep to the minimal word requirements of the language, but do occasionally break the phonetic rules:

- /h/-initial words only occur as interjections (e.g. hā, hāw, hay-hay, etc.)

- Single-syllable words are very rare; proportionately more occur as interjections (e.g. āh, cah, hā, hāw, ī, īh, mah, na, wah), possibly reflecting a process of phonetic as well as semantic reduction/grammaticalization.

- In contrast, hesitatory particles (e.g. aya, ayi, ayihk) must be two syllables to allow for the stress/intonational patterns of the language to work even when hesitating.

- aya is fluent, “um” is not!

Acknowledgements Most interjections (expressives, interactives, and vocatives) cited in this paper are found as entries in Wolvengrey 2001. However, others have been added to the data set through the contributions of discussants on the “Nēhiyawēwin (Cree) Word/Phrase of the Day” facebook site (https://www.facebook.com/groups/18414147673/), particularly the section on expressives as discussed on March 29-31, 2013. Fort heir contributions to this discussion, I am particularly grateful to Sekwun Ahenakew, Guy Albert, Paul Danial Beatty, Mary Cardinal Collins, Pauline Clarke, Laura Custer, Wayne Goodspirit, Celina Jones, Billy Joe Laboucan, Kevin Lewis, Miriam McNab, Arden Ogg, Solomon Ratt, Les Skinner, Johnjames Spence, and Ramona Washburn. I am also grateful to the organizers and reviewers of an earlier and very different version of this paper that was to have been a part of the 2013 International Workshop on Functional Discourse Grammar in Vienna (Sept 5-6), but which I was unable to attend for health reasons. As always, I am especially grateful to my wife, Jean Okimāsis, for her many contributions through discussion, endurance through the rants, proofreading, proofviewing, and general grounding, not to mention her not inconsiderable skill at healing. Any and all errors remain solely my own.

References Ameka, F. 1992. “Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech.” Journal of

Pragmatics 18, 101-118. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1984 (1933). Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 1: The Structure of the

Clause. Second, revised edition, ed. by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ekman, Paul. 1999. “Basic Emotions”. 45-60 in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, T.

Dalgleish and M. Power, (eds.). Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ekman, Paul., Wallace V. Friesen, and Phoebe Ellsworth. 1972. Emotion in the Human

Face. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. Hengeveld, Kees. 2004. “Epilogue.” 365-378 in A New Architecture for Functional

Grammar. J. Lachlan Mackenzie and María de los Ángeles Gómez-Gonzáles, (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hengeveld, Kees, and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. “Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity.” Trends in Cognitive Science, Vol. 3, No. 7.

Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 1998. “The basis of syntax in the holophrase”. 267-295 in Functional Grammar and Verbal Interaction, Studies in Language Companion Series 44, Mike Hannay and A. Machtelt Bolkestein (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wharton, Tim. 2000. Abstract for “Interjections, language and the showing/telling continuum.” 3rd Conference on the Evolution of Language. Paris, April 3-6, 2000. http://confs.infres.enst.fr/evolang/actes/_actes77.html, accessed December 28, 2012.

----------. 2003. “Interjections, language and the 'showing-saying' continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition 11(1), 39-91.

Wierzbicka, A. 1992. “The semantics of interjection.” Journal of Pragmatics 18, 159-192. Wilkins, D. 1992. “Interjections as deictics.” Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119-158. Wolvengrey, Arok. 2001. nēhiýawēwin: itwēwina / Cree: Words. Volumes 1 & 2.

Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center.

iyaw! whoever talks about (cree) interjections 45th - artsites

Documents