Russian onomatopoeic verbal interjections. Why use ‘non-words’ instead of ordinary ones?


https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2020-7-130-146

Full Text:




Abstract

This paper considers such expressive words in Russian as onomatopoeic verbal interjections (bukh ‘bang’, stuk ‘knock’, bul’ ‘plop’). First of all, it focuses on the reasons for using those words. This study suggests that native speakers of Russian may deliberately prefer those linguistic units over words from other classes (nouns, verbs or adverbs). It happens when such factors as Zipf’s law and the principles of iconicity and economy in grammar come into play. Secondly, the article claims that while morphologically simple, syntactically mobile and with transparent onomatopoeia-based meaning, those words are not that primitive. Onomatopoeic verbal interjections are capable of conveying multiple shades of meaning due to such diachronic processes as lexical shifts and extensions they have undergone. That kind of qualities enable speakers to imply more than they want to explicitly utter under certain conditions. And finally, using corpus data the research distinguishes such pragmatic functions of those linguistic units (bukh ‘bang’, stuk ‘knock’, bul’ ‘plop’) as quasi-referential, emotive, phatic, poetic and metalinguistic function.

About the Author

О. A. Kanerva
Helsinki University
Russian Federation

Oksana A. Kanerva

bld. 4, Yliopistonkatu Str., Helsinki, Finland, 00100



References

1. Боронникова, Верижникова 2014 – Боронникова Н.В., Верижникова Е.В. Междометия в македонском языке (разработка концепции словаря) // Руско-македонски jазични, литературни и културни врски 5 / Во редакциjа на Максим Каранфиловски. Скопjе: Филолошки факултет «Блаже Конески», 2014. С. 59–82.

2. Валгина 1979 – Валгина Н.С. Русская пунктуация: принципы и назначение: Пособие для учителей. М.: Просвещение, 1979.

3. Ефремова 2000 – Ефремова Т.Ф. Новый словарь русского языка: В 2 т. М.: Русский язык, 2000. Каневра, Виймаранта 2018 – Каневра О.А., Виймаранта Й. Функциональная мотивация знаков препинания со звукоподражательными глагольными междометиями // Вестн. Том. гос. ун-та. Филология. 2018. № 52. C. 83–97.

4. Карцевский 1984 – Карцевский С. Введение в изучение междометий // Вопросы языкознания. 1984. № 6. С. 127–137.

5. Кор Шаин 2008 – Кор Шаин И. Плюх! – плюх – плюхнуть(ся). К вопросу об эволюции нарративных предикатов в свете корпусных данных // Инструментарий русистики: корпусные подходы / Под ред. А. Мустайоки, М.В. Копотева, Л.А. Бирюлина, Е.Ю. Протасовой. Хельсинки: Department of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures, 2008. С. 152–162. ( Slavica Helsingiensia 34)

6. Русская грамматика 1980 – Русская грамматика: В 2 т. / Гл. ред. Н.Ю. Шведова. М.: Наука, 1980.

7. Шаронов 2008 – Шаронов И.А. Междометия в речи, тексте и словаре. М.: РГГУ, 2008. 296 с.

8. Ameka 1992 – Ameka F. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech // Journal of Pragmatics. 1992. Vol. 18, no. 2. P. 101–118.

9. Clark, Gerrig 1990 – Clark H.H., Gerrig R.J. Quotations as Demonstrations // Language. 1990. Vol. 66, no. 4. P. 764–805.

10. Cuenca 2000 – Cuenca M.J. Defining the indefinable? Interjections // Syntaxis. 2000. Vol. 3. P. 29–44.

11. Dingemanse, Akita 2017 – Dingemanse M., Akita K. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: on the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese // Journal of Linguistics. 2017. Vol. 53, no. 3. P. 501–532.

12. Foolen 2012 – Foolen A. The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics // Moving ourselves, moving others: motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language / A. Foolen, U.M. Lüdke, T.P. Racine, J. Zlatev (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. P. 349–368.

13. Frege 1949 [1892] – Frege G. On sense and nominatum // Readings in philosophical analysis / H. Feigl, W. Sellars, (eds.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1949 [1892]. P. 85–102.

14. Givón 1985 – Givón T. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax // Iconicity in syntax / J. Haiman (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. P. 187–219.

15. Givón 1991 – Givón T. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations // Studies in Language. 1991. Vol. 15, no. 1. P. 85–114.

16. Grice 1975 – Grice H.P. Logic and conversation // Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts / P. Cole, J.C. Morgan (eds.). New York: Academic Press, 1975. P. 41–58.

17. Haiman 1983 – Haiman J. Iconic and economic motivation // Language. 1983. Vol. 59. P. 781–819.

18. Hinton, Ohala, Nichols 1994 – Hinton L., Ohala J.J., Nichols J. Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

19. Jakobson 1960 – Jakobson R. Linguistics and poetics // Style in language / T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. P. 350–377.

20. Kanerva 2018 – Kanerva O. Correlation between expressiveness and syntactic independence of Russian onomatopoeic verbal interjections // Poljarnyj Vestnik. 2018. Vol. 21. P. 15–30.

21. Kryk 1992 – Kryk B. The pragmatics of interjections: The case of Polish no // Journal of Pragmatics. 1992. Vol. 18. P. 193–207.

22. Mainer 2015 – Mainer M. Distinguishing onomatopoeias from interjections // Journal of Pragmatics. 2015. Vol. 76. P. 150–168.

23. Nikitina 20112 – Nikitina T. Russian verboids: A case study in expressive vocabulary // Linguistics. 2012. Vol. 50, no. 2. P. 165–189.

24. Oswalt 1994 – Oswalt R.L. Inanimate imitatives in English // Sound Symbolism / L. Hinton, J. Nichols, J.J. Ohala (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. P. 293–308.

25. Viimaranta 2015 – Viimaranta J. Verbal aspect in onomatopoeic interjections in Russian. Paper presented on 13.12.2015 at Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Oxford, 2015.

26. Waugh, Newfield 1995 – Waugh L.R., Newfield M. Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of Morphology // Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension / M.E. Landsberg (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1995. P. 189–222.

27. Wierzbicka 2003 – Interjections across cultures // Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction / A. Wierzbicka (ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. P. 285–340.

28. Wilkins 1992 – Wilkins D. Interjections as deictics // Journal of Pragmatics. 1992. Vol. 18, no. 2. P. 119–158.

29. Zipf 1935 – Zipf G. The psychobiology of language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1935.


Supplementary files

For citation: Kanerva О.A. Russian onomatopoeic verbal interjections. Why use ‘non-words’ instead of ordinary ones? RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2020;(7):130-146. https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2020-7-130-146

Views: 319

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2073-6355 (Print)