Address Enclosure in the System of English Sentence Modifiers

Even if exclamations of interjectional type («Good Lord!», «Dear me!» and the like) are isolated, in M.Y. Blokh’s opinion, these are not sentences by virtue of their not possessing the inner structure of actual division even through associative implications. The isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make them into any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with their own informative perspective (either explicit, or implicit), since they remain not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not «communicative utterances» (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or unconsciously produced shouts of strong feelings.

H istorically, interjections have often been seen as marginal to language. L atin grammarians described them as non-words, independent of syntax, signifying only feelings or states of mind. C

h. F ries classed them as «noncommunicative» utterances. R. Q uirk, S. Greenbaum et al. describe interjections as «purely emotive words which do not enter into syntactic relations»; Trask describes an interjection as «a lexical item or phrase which serves to express emotion and which typically fails to enter into any syntactic structures at all»; D. Crystal concurs — «an interjection is a word or sound thrown into a sentence to express some feeling of the mind».

According to the conceptualists: «interjections have real ‘semantic' (i.e. propositional/ conceptual) content…». They confirm that, first, interjections communicate complex conceptual structures; second, communication is achieved principally by means of encoding conceptual structures; third, since interjections are viewed as having ‘semantic' content, they are part of language.

A.Wierzbicka suggests that it is preferable not to regard exclamations such as shit and hell as interjections, since their semantics should be included in the semantics of the nouns/verbs they are derived from. A. Wierzbicka extends conventional approach to interjections: «we can capture the subtlest shades of meaning encoded in interjections relying exclusively on universal or near-universal concepts such as ‘good' and ‘bad', ‘do' and ‘happen', ‘want', ‘know', ‘say', or ‘think'».

J.Fodor provides further arguments against decompositionalism. Very few words, he claims, are decomposable into satisfactory definitions.

The difficulty to distinguish different expletives enables us to consider them together as address enclosure. An interjection, or a phrase equivalent to an interjection, to B.A. Ilyish’s mind, can also be considered a kind of parenthesis (unless, of course, it is a sentence in itself). Thus, the interjection oh in the sentence «Oh, but she depended entirely on her voice!» can be called a parenthesis, and so can the phrase oh dear in the sentence «Oh dear, I hope I shall be a success!»

So, nowadays there’s no coommon view concerning address, but it is reasonable to include there not only vocatives, but interjections and parentheses as well, as it is difficult to differentiate them in a great number of cases.

2.

3. Usage and Expressivity of address

In linguistics there are different terms to denote those particular means by which a speaker obtains his effect. Expressive means, stylistic means, stylistic devices and other terms are all used indiscriminately. The expressive means of a language are those phonetic means, morphological forms, means of word-building, and lexical, phraseological and syntactical forms, all of which function in the language for emotional or logical intensification of the utterance.

Expressiveness cannot be studied outside of their relation to the distinctive objective elements of language which are emotionally neutral. Intensity and emphasis may be obtained in different ways. There are expressive means in any language established by right of long use at different levels: phonetic, morphological, lexical, phraseological and syntactic. Expressive nuances may be obtained, for instance, by prosody alone, by interjections and particles of emphatic precision or, say, by word-making, etc.

The selection of such linguistic devices is a factor of great significance in the act of communication. Phonetic means are most effective. By prosody we express subtle nuances of meaning that perhaps no other means can attain. Pitch, melody and stress, pausation, drawling out certain syllables, whispering and many other ways of using the voice are much stronger than any other means of intensifying the utterance, to convey emotions or to kindle emotions in others.

On the morphological level expressivity is often attained by effective transpositions of grammatical forms the stylistic value of which can hardly be overestimated.

Colloquial English is generally recognised by its loose syntax, its relatively short and uncomplicated sentence structure, by its frequent use of so-called sentence fragments and readily understood grammatical idioms. It is lively, free in form, often exclamatory, abounding in usage of various address enclosures.

The individuality of a speaker using this or that form of address is shown not only in the choice of lexical, syntactical and stylistic means but also in their treatment. What we here call individular style, therefore, is a unique combination of language units, expressive means and stylistic devices peculiar to a given person; which makes that speaker’s utterances easily recognizable by the adressee (s).

Words of address (or vocatives) make the speech more expressive with the usage of abbreviated or diminutive proper names or metaphors. The speaker even may do without vocatives expressing his assessment and emotions by means of various interjections or interjectional phrases.

With usage of diminutive proper names (Andy instead of Andrew, Berny instead of Bernard, Ernie instead of Ernest, Nicky instead of Nick, Gerry instead of Gerald, Aggie instead of Agnes, Conny instead of Constance, Kathy instead of Katherine, Jacky instead of Jacqueline, Margy instead of Margery, Winnie instead of Winifred…) expressiveness increases, as the speaker shows his aattitude to and assessment of the listener (s).

jamieson: Hello, Meme.

mbmb: Hi, Jam.

jamieson: God, you’re looking great. (Owen)

Use of interjections or parentheses in addition to diminutive address forms makes the speech more expressive and emotive.

mag: Bobby! Hello!

bobby: How are you then?

mag: Oh, I’m fine. You’re home then? (Owen)

official: Good afternoon, Mrs Sawney… M r Sawney… er, Mrs er … H ello, love … I

dare say you remember me, eh? aye, well —. You had a letter last week from the Department, didn’t you? (Arden)

Interjections make up a specific class of purely emotive words i.e. phrases expressing a variety of emotions (joy, sorrow, surprise, anger, annoyance, indignation, etc.).

They are usually sentence-words themselves and may be used parenthetically to initiate utterances.

e.g. Professor (soothingly): There, there! I’m sorry, darling; I really am. (J.Galsworthy)

" Dear me!" said Lady Agatha. «How you men argue! I am sure I never can.» (O.Wilde)

Mulligan: Oh, for goodness' sake, get up! Angela: All right. (S.O'Casey)

So, address inclosure makes the speech more expressive, makes the listener pay attention to the speaker. Expressiveness rises with the use of more informal address inclosures such as interjerctions or imprecations.

Conclusion

Address is conventionally defined as a gramatically independent and intonationally isolated sentence part, denoting a speech adressee. It mutually performs invocatory and expressive functions, quite often demonstrating the speaker’s attitude to and assessment of the adressee.

Address enclosure include:

words of address (or vocatives),

interjections and interjectional phrases,

parentheses (in fact, of course, to be sure, indeed, I suppose, I hope, you know, you see, clearly, in any event, in effect, certainly, remarkably),

metacommunicative utterences including greetings, farewells, introductions, thanks, imprecations etc. (Good day, goodbye, yes, no, thanks, well…), which can be cosidered as interjectional phrases as well.

Though traditionally the vocative case has been considered as the only form of address, nowadays interjections, parentheses and metacommunicative utterences including greetings, farewells, introductions, thanks, imprecations etc. are viewed as address as well. If we do not know the name of our conversation partner (s) we can use interjection as a form of address. Modes of address include interjections, first names, diminutive first names, surnames, terms associated with professions, kinship terms and second person pronouns of address.

It is not very easy to judge whether interjections are an open or a closed set of words, since they form a relatively stable group of easily identifiable words and phrases with particular communicative function. The interjections of English make up a comparatively small but rather varied group of words with a particular communicative significance. Most often, these are uninterrupted lexical sequences positioned towards the beginning of the sentence/utterance. Various interjections can be used to suggest certain emotions or attitudes, among the typical of which are anger, disgust, fear, joy, pain, pleasure, relief, surprise, triumph, wonder, etc. Recognizing interjections as a form of address we can attain better understanding of different independent elements in the system of English syntax.

Bibliography

Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смысл: Логико-семантические проблемы. — М.: Наука, 1976.

Береговская Э. М. Экспрессивный синтаксис. Смоленск, 1984.

Бузаров В. В. Основы синтаксиса английской разговорной речи. М., 1998.

Иванова И.Л., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка, М., 1981.

Ившин В. Д. Синтаксис речи современного английского языка. Ростов н/Д, 2002.

Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка. Л., 1971.

Кручинина И.Н. Обращение// Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. — М., 1990.

Ameka, F. (1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 101−118.

Blokh M.Y. (2003) A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. Moscow.

Chafe, W.L. (1971) Meaning аnd the Structure of Language.

Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fodor, J. (1981) Representations. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

Fries, Ch.C. (1952) The Structure of English.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gramley S., Patzold K. (1992) A Survey of Modern English, Routledge, London and New York.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An introduction to functional grammar.

Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan R. (1976) Cohesion in English.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, J. Leech & J. Svartik (eds.) (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Radford, A. (2004) English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rayevska, N. M. (1976) Modern English Grammar. Kiev.

Sledd J. (1959) A Short Introduction to English Grammar, Scott, Foresman and Company, Chicago.

Trask, R. L. (1993) A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992) The semantics of interjection. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 159−192.

Wilkins, D. (1992) Interjections as deictics. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119−158.

Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 2003. P. 255.

Иванова И.Л., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка, М., 1981. C. 174.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=expletive

Бузаров В. В. Основы синтаксиса английской разговорной речи. М., 1998. C. 56.

Ibid. С. 59−60.

Кручинина И.Н. Обращение// Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. — М.: Сов. энциклопедия, 1990. С. 340−341.

Ameka, F. (1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 101−118.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992) The semantics of interjection. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 159−192.

Wilkins, D. (1992) Interjections as deictics. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 119−158.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ibid. P. 102.

Ibid. P. 121.

S. Gramley, K. Patzold (1992) A Survey of Modern English, Routledge, London and New York. P. 125.

Sledd J. (1959) A Short Introduction to English Grammar, Scott, Foresman and Company, Chicago. P. 144.

Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка. Л., 1971. C. 167.

Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 2003. P. 277.

Ibid. 262.

Fries Ch.C. (1952) The Structure of English. P. 53.

Q uirk, R., S. G reenbaum, J. L

eech & J. S vartik (eds.) (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. L ondon: Longman. P. 853.

Trask, R. L. (1993) A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge. P.

144.

Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 207.

Wilkins, D. (1992) Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 119−158. P. 119.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992) The semantics of interjection. In Journal of Pragmatics 18, 159−192.

Ibid. P. 163.

Fodor, J. (1981) Representations. Hassocks: Harvester Press.

Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка. Л., 1971. C. 34.