Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Кам'янець-Подільський національний університет імені Івана Огієнка

Факультет іноземної філології

Кафедра англійської мови

Дипломна робота (проект) бакалавра

з теми: “STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH INTERJECTIONS”

Виконала студентка 4 курсу, 42 аін групи

Спеціальності 6.020303 Філологія.*

Мова та література (англійська) Площинська Олена Вікторівна

Керівник: Пастух Т. А.

кандидат філологічних наук,

викладач

Рецензент: Уманець А.В.,

кандидат філологічних наук,

професор кафедри іноземних мов

Кам'янець-Подільський - 2013 року

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

1.1 History of `interjection' as a part of speech

1.2 Different approaches to the classification of the interjections. Ameka's classification

1.3 Non-conceptualist and сonceptualist analyses of interjections

1.3.1 Non-conceptualist analysis of interjections

1.3.2 Conceptualist analysis of interjections

CHAPTER 2. LINGUISTIC PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH INTERJECTIONS

2.1 Structural peculiarities

2.1.1 Primary (Simple) interjections

2.1.2 Secondary (Derivative) interjections

2.2 Semantic properties

2.2.1 Motive interjections

2.2.2 Emotive interjections

2.2.3 Interjections of speech etiquette

CONCLUSION

LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Any language in its development acquires its structural and grammatical, communicative, functional features that are related to the social, intellectual, emotional and other aspects of human life, which are reflected in the units and categories of language. As the main means of communication, language is a mean of transmitting information from the speaker to the listener. Therefore, all items and categories of language respond to the needs and conditions of the implementation of human communication, which is an important aspect of social behavior.

In the process of communication a person not only conveys information but also responds differently to the reality. One of the most important roles is played by those units of speech that serve the expression of emotions, emotional evaluations, expression and etiquette. These units are interjections, that include constant words that don't have special morphological features except irremovability and phrases and different phraseological sentences. Interjections are characteristic features of emotionally colored speech that determines the accompaniment with paralinguistics, non-verbal means of communication: intonation, gestures, mimicry.

Although interjections are peripheral, linguists are aware of them. An interjection may be defined as a term used in the traditional classification of parts of speech, referring to a class of words which are unproductive, do not enter into syntacactic relationships with other classes, and whose function is purely emotive, e.g., Yuk! Strew! Blast! Tut tut! There is an unclear boundary between these items and other types of exclamation, where some referential meaning may be involved and where there may be more than one word, e.g. Excellent! Lucky devil! Cheers! Well well!.... [32, p. 4]

There is a general definition of interjection as a linguistic sign, an unchangeable word form that is isolated in a sentence by punctuation, which itself forms a full phrase, not combined with other phrases, devoid of nominative function, serves to express desires and live emotional reaction for the behavior of the interlocutor or the surrounding reality.

It is worth noticing that fact that both interjections and exclamations are interrelated since “some exclamations sometimes are called interjections” [32, p. 6]. The treatment of exclamations and interjections in grammar and linguistic literature has been diverse over the centuries. Historically speaking, Wierzbicka [42], Wharton [39] discuss the concept of exclamations and interjections providing the basic features and division.

The principles of allocation of parts of speech, such as interjections, their basis of classification remain controversial issues in modern linguistics. They were studied by Russian, Ukrainian and Western linguists: L. V. Scherba [28], V. V. Vynogradov [6], I. V. Korunets [16], I. P. Ivanova [11], O. I. Hermanovych [8], O. V. Karpyrova [13], F. K. Ameka [30], V. Ћ, Jovanoviж [36], M. P. Cruz [47], A. Wierzbicka [42], E. Goffman [34], O. Jespersen [35] , G. O. Curme [33], T. Wharton [39], etc.

In pragmatics, “interjections are defined as linguistic gestures which express a speaker`s mental state, action or attitude, or reaction to a situation” [31, p. 250]. What is more, Ameka says that the primary functions of interjections may either be `speaker or addressee-oriented', and the emotive function is given as a `subcategory of the speaker-oriented function'.

In Curme's A Grammar of the English Language general definition of an interjection is given, and also more specific information is offered on an interjection and its position in the sentence [33].

Vladimir. Z. Jovanovic, a Serbian scholar, gives more precise information about English interjections and also offers an extensive list of them. He discussed the meaning, position and usage of interjections. His article, “The Form, Position and Meaning of the Interjections in English”, was published in 2004 in Linguistics and Literature [36, p. 4].

Relevance of the topic is caused by the lack of systematic research on the specifics of interjections in the English language, which play a significant role in terms of individual, subjective attitude of the speaker to the situation, to the objective world, and especially lack of research that is connected with the distinct classification and use of them in communication.

The aim of the research is to deal with the main linguistic peculiarities of interjections in the English language, according to their structural and semantic properties.

The subject area of the work is to examine nature of English interjections, the different approaches to the classification of interjections. The specific topic is presented by semantic and structural components of interjections in the English language.

To achieve the aim it is necessary to solve the necessary tasks:

· to consider controversial issues related to the nature of interjections and their status in the system of English;

· to deal with history of `interjection' as a part of speech, while studying the works of researches of this;

· to describe different approaches to the classification of the interjections (Ameka, Tesniиre, etc.);

· to define the thoughts of linguists according to the conceptualist and non- conceptualist analyses of interjections;

· to present the structural (primary and secondary) and semantic (motive, emotive, interjections of speech etiquette) peculiarities of interjections;

· to give proper examples of interjections, in order to show the function they perform in the sentences;

To deal with this topic I used such research methodology as:

1. descriptive method;

2. comparative-historical method;

3. the method of analysis and synthesis;

4. contrastive method.

The practical value of the received results is that they may be the reason, the fulcrum for further research in the field of lexicology. The results can be used in the study of this topic on the lessons of foreign language, in the lecture courses.

The results of the research are reflected in the article “Interjections of speech etiquette of the English language”. The work has gone through the approbation during reporting conference of students and undergraduates in Kamianets-Podilsky Ivan Ohienko National University on 17 April 2013.

The Bachelor research includes an introduction, two chapters and conclusion and list of literature, numbering 50 positions.

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

1.1 History of `interjection' as a part of speech

The principles of allocation of parts of speech, such as interjections, their basis of classification remain controversial issues in modern linguistics. They were studied by Russian, Ukrainian and Western linguists.

The division of words into grammatical classes has been attracting the attention of scientists from ancient times and the question about the number of parts of speech is still a controversial one and is not fully resolved. The discussion in the journal «Journal of Pragmatics» in 1992 attests about it. It was devoted to the status of interjections in the system of parts of speech. The stating of the question - interjection as a part of the language or not - shows that interest in this unit of language is not reduced.

Sauer states that “the first Western grammar was the Techne grammatike by Dionysius Thrax (1st century B.C.), which established the pattern of word classes that is the backbone of most grammars still today” [30, p. 102] He adds that Dionysius distinguished eight parts of speech such as the noun, verb, participle, article, pronoun, preposition, adverb, and conjunction. But he did not recognize interjections as a separate entity.

Sauer points out that Quintilian was the first author to recognize the interjection as an independent word-class. In the 3rd century B.C., the Stoics established more formally the basic grammatical notions and grouped words into parts of speech organizing their variant forms into paradigms. Then, the adaptation of Greek grammar to Latin by Priscian, in the 6^th century, became influential. Priscian found that the interjection required no syntactic union with any part of the sentence and defined this part of speech as `a part of speech signifying an emotion by means of an unformed word i.e. one not fixed by convention” [30, p. 104]. So, Priscian defined eight parts of speech: the noun, verb, participles, pronoun, preposition, adverb, interjection, conjunction.

It should be noted that in Victorian times, books on grammar were simpler and nine parts of speech were established, namely determiners, nouns, adjectives, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Following an approach which can be traced to Latin, traditional grammars of English agreed that there were eight parts of speech (`partes orationis' or `magic' number eight), in English: the noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection.

Other scholars of the same period consider interjections as a class of words which are syntactically independent of verbs, and indicate a feeling or state of mind.

Three things are noteworthy about the views of Latin grammarians on interjections:

ь first, the implication that interjections include items which were thought of as `non-words';

ь second, interjections were thought of as being syntactically independent;

ь third, interjections are said to signify a feeling or state of mind.

Some of the Modistae (speculative grammarians) such as Martin of Dacia and Thomas of Erfurt reverted to the Greek tradition and insisted on the intimate link between the verb and the interjection although with different emphasis. According to Thomas of Erfurt, “The general essential mode of signifying of the interjection is the mode of signifying by means of the mode of determining something, which is the verb or participle representing states of mind. For since the mind is influenced by the emotions of pain, joy, fear and the like, this is expressed by means of interjections. Hence the interjection determines the verb or participle, not in a simple fashion, but in relation to the mind, expressing the state of the mind” [30, p. 103].

However, others recognized the syntactic independence of interjections. Thus Siger of Courtrai identifies interjections as a part of speech which is used to signify various states of mind as apprehended by the intellect; it is close to the verbum since such emotional states will be caused by the feature of movement but it does not signify the concept of the mind by determining the verb or participle in particular.

Perhaps another view about interjections worth noting is that of John Wilkins. He treats interjections as sentence substitutes. Padley suggests that this view was probably inspired by that of Campenalla for whom an interjection is not a simplex word. Thus interjections are strictly speaking not a part of speech because they are not words but rather an element of syntax [43, p. 133].

Thus far it is clear that interjections have been treated as a part of speech by the Latin grammarians and some Modistae but as an element of syntax by Wilkins following Campenalla. These two perspectives have remained and have become a source of confusion in the present day treatment of interjections. Basically, the term interjection tends to be used both for a word level category and for a sentence level category.

Twentieth century linguists have pointed to the subclasses of interjections that may be found in a language. Some of them, for instance Jespersen, have implied in their discussion that the interjection does not constitute a separate part of speech: “As a last part of speech the usual lists give interjections, under which name are comprised both words which are never used otherwise (some containing sounds not found in ordinary words e.g. an inhaled f produced by sudden pain, or the suction stop inadequately written rut and others formed by means of ordinary sounds e.g. hullo, oh), and on the other hand words from the ordinary language e.g. Well! Why? Nonsense! The only thing that these elements have in common is their ability to stand alone as a complete utterance; otherwise they may be assigned to various word classes. They should not therefore be isolated from their ordinary uses. Those interjections which cannot be used except as interjections may most conveniently be classed with other particles” [37, p. 14]

Here Jespersen suggests that those words which belong to other parts of speech such as noun, verb, etc. but which can be used by themselves as non-elliptical utterances should not be put in a separate class. This is an important observation because part of the confusion that surrounds the interjection word class today stems from the fact that analysts mix up functions and categories.

Bloomfield uses the term interjection as a term for forms that “occur predominantly as minor sentences, entering into few or no constructions other than parataxis”. They are “either special words such as ouch, oh, sh, gosh, hello, sir, ma'am, yes, or else phrases (secondary interjections) often of peculiar construction, such as dear me, goodness me, goodness gracious, goodness sakes alive, oh dear, by golly, you angel, please, thank you, good-bye” [32, p. 20].

Bloomfield goes on to classify minor sentences into `completive' and `exclamatory' ones and different interjections fall into one or the other type with other minor sentences. For instance yes and no fall together with other answer phrases into the completive type. Bloomfield uses the term interjection here to cover words and phrases and the latter are identified as secondary interjections.

L. Tenyer considers interjections not as the type of words but as the type of sentences and actually doesn't include them to the classification of parts of speech. It should be noted that A. A. Shakhmatov called interjections words-expression, and V. Vinogradov considered them as equivalents of words and acknowledged their affiliation to the morphology and as equivalents of sentences, indicating that they belong to the syntax. G. Paul understood interjections as “sounds that break out spontaneously and are caused by the heat of passion, including those that are not connected with the intention to make any announcements.” So the same emotions can be expressed in different ways in different languages and dialects and even by different individuals who speak one dialect [37, p. 16].

E. Goffman studies interjections as units that are not in the competence of linguistics, analyzing them in terms of socio-communicative functions performed by them. He identifies interjections as spontaneous, natural reactions, such as brrr, aimed to restore the natural balance; a man says oops! when something falls out of the hands [39, p. 176]. interjection linguistic semantic speech

I. I. Meshchaninov noted that interjection as a separate part of speech can not be reffered neither to modal words, nor to the category of state. Interjections, in his opinion, should be allocated to a particular part of speech, but exclude them from the language is very difficult, even though they have their own characteristics.

V. V. Vinogradov based on semantic structure of the word identified four basic grammar-semantic categories of words, including special place for interjections. Vinogradov believed that interjections are closer to the expressive gestures than words-names that, in his opinion, compares them with modal words. “They reflect emotional life of a person, social group or nation that is in organic connection with the activities of intelligence.” On this basis, the scientist concludes that “emotional language may not be in full and sharp break with intelligent speech [6]”.

Close to the views of V. Vinogradov are the views of O.O. Reformatskiy, L. A. Kapanadze and E. V. Krasilnikova. I. I. Meshchaninov

1.2 Different approaches to the classification of the interjections. Ameka's classification

Interjections are a part of speech and as such they can fulfill a communicative role. The use of interjections displays mental cognitive processes (we express what is going on in our minds with regard to the situation we are in). Depending on the expectations, appraisal, and other psychological processes, we choose the appropriate interjection to communicate our stand of mind. Consequently, different interjections convey different meanings and thus fulfill different functions. These functions can serve as parameters for the classification of interjections. Various attempts at categorizing interjections have been made; however, there is still a lack of unanimity as to what their `proper' classification is.

Different linguists have dealt with this issue.

Tesniиre classification of Interjections

Tesniиre divides interjections into 3 categories: phrasillons impulsifs, phrasillons representatifs, and phrasillons imreratifs [38, p. 26].

Phrasillons impulsifs occurs when the speaker is object to an external influence; they can express physical sensation, emotional states or cognitive process in the speaker's mind. They show the speaker's attitude with regard to the environment, ranging from relatively unemotional exclamations to expressions full with emotion. For example:

(1) A: Do you smoke?

B: No, I don't.

(2) A: I'm afraid we'll have to amputate your right arm.

B: No!

The No in (1) is a simple statement, whereas the No! in (2) is not only an exclamation but also carries an emotive value, which gives it an interjectional character.

Phrasillons representatifs are simply onomatopoetic renderings of sounds, such as are common found in comic strips. But some linguists are sure that such items can not be called interjections.

Phrasillons imreratifs express the speaker's wish to influence the hearer's awareness. They convey different degrees of imperative attitudes, ranging from polite forms to imperatives proper.

Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm's Classification of Interjections

In Deutsches Wцrterbuch, published towards the end of the 19^th century, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm give at least 16 categories of (Germanic) interjections. English examples are as follows: Oy!, Ow!, Brr!, Argh!, Whoopee!, Ha ha!, Wow!, Tut-tut!, Damn! [38, p. 20]

Ameka's classification of Interjections

Ameka has picked up Wundt's distinction between primary and secondary interjections and has further subdivided them according to their function. She divides primary interjections into 3 main subcategories: the expressive, the conative, and the phatic [38, p. 29].

Expressive interjections focus particularly on the speaker's state and can be further subcategorized into emotive and cognitive interjections. They can be described as “symptoms of the speaker's mental state” which, in the case of emotive interjections, “express the speaker's state with respect to the emotions and sensations [he has] at the time”, and, in the case of cognitive interjections, “pertain to the state of knowledge and thoughts at the time of utterance” [38, p. 29].

Some examples for emotive interjections:

Brr! …from head to toe he emitted a pleasant frosty smell - just looking at him gave you the shivers: “brr!”

Br-r-r! …it is impossible to look at such a thing without shuddering. Whenever I remember it the chills run up and down my back. “Br-r-r” [48, p. 60]

Wow!“I feel surprised and delighted”

…And cognitive interjection:

Ah! “It's not my suit, I bought it secondhand.”

“A-ah…I'd never say you'd bought it secondhand…It's a perfect fit.”

Conative interjections “are directed at someone else who may be expected to fulfill the wishes of the speaker”. Although they are directed at people, they do not have an addressee proper. They are habitually used to either get someone's attention, or “they demand an action or response from someone of the speaker's wants” (i.e. they aim at getting a reaction from the listener).

“Shh! Sh! Be quiet,” said his uncle, with a move of his hand. “It's a good thing my wife's asleep, or you know…”

Conative interjections containing an “I want”-element in their structure can also be classified as volitive (cf. Latin velle “to want”) interjections.

Phatic interjections are “used in the maintenance of social and communicative contact” [38, p. 62]. They play an important role in ongoing discourses with regard to feedback or back channeling: when being explained an arithmetic problem for example, we are still listening and trying to say mhm, or uh-huh every now and then to express that we are still listening and trying to get the point, at the same time encouraging the person to keep on talking.

A: I was talking to John the other day and he was a bit upset because his mum's in hostital.

B: Uh-huh

A: He said that she had a stroke or something, the doctors aren't really sure.

B: Mhm

A: It's a shame, really, with those doctors nowadays…

B: Yeah

A: Anyway, what have you been up to?

In B example interjections uh-huh, mhm and yeah got a somewhat ironic undertone to them, they expressed disinterest and boredom. On the other hand, if B did not use these phatic interjections, then A might get confused and hesitant, not knowing if B was actually listening or not.

1.3 Non-conceptualist and Conceptualist analyses of interjections

1.3.1 Non-conceptualist analyses of interjections

For many authors it is clear that interjections do not encode concepts as nouns, verbs or adjectives do. Interjections can and do refer to something related to the speaker or to the external world, but their referential process is not the same as that of lexical items belonging to the grammatical categories mentioned, for the referent of interjections is difficult to pin down. In fact, on many occasions interjectional utterances are so indeterminate that the outcome of their interpretation can be a whole proposition, although there is not a one-for-one correspondence between the interjection and what the hearer recovers because no phrasal constituents can be distinguished in interjectional utterances. Thus, in a context in which an individual has accidentally hit his finger with a hammer and shouts: “Ouch!” But the hearer may interpret this interjection as communicating any of the propositions in next example:

a. It hurts!

b. It hurts a lot!

c. My finger aches!

d. My finger aches a lot!

e. I feel pain in my finger!

f. I feel a rather intense pain in my finger!

Regarding the nature of interjections as signs, their indeterminacy and openness, which may lead hearers to recover a wide array of propositions, have made semanticists regard them as special types of linguistic signs. Nouns, adjectives or verbs can be defined in a more or less precise way by means of paraphrases or by resorting to synonyms. However, it is almost impossible to find appropriate contextual synonyms for many interjections or to paraphrase them. Although we could probably say that ow is a shriek we emit when we feel pain, and that oh and ouch are related expressions that fulfill the same function and are, in a certain sense, synonymous, it would be rather difficult to say what Oh my God, oh dear, damn, fuck and many other interjections mean.

Since interjections highly depend on what the speaker wants to express or communicate in the very situation in which they are used, their meaning would be non-natural and occasional. It is not linguistically encoded and cannot be decomposed in identifiable discrete elements.

On the other hand, interjections have also been considered indexical signs because they evoke in the hearer's mind a special content related to the feeling or emotion the speaker experiences when resorting to them. Many of them can actually be taken to be symptomatic signals because they are verbalizations which, in a sense, and to a certain extent, portray the speaker's internal state.

This notwithstanding, it is not always possible to generalize over interjections, as they form a rather heterogeneous word class. There are interjections that are relatively stable in the inventory of a language and are used in practically the same sort of conventional contexts. It is relatively easy to imagine contexts where hurrah, sorry, ok, shit or thanks would be used and, if asked about their meanings or senses, speakers may probably agree that these interjections have some sort of core meaning and are used in the same kind of circumstances. The semantics of these interjections would be stable and become, to a certain extent, transparent to many speakers. Some of these interjections, moreover, are derived from other words or lexical categories. This is the case of thanks, shit, hell or bloody hell, which are secondary interjections. Since they are originated in other lexical categories such as nouns or verbs, which do indeed have a semantic content, these interjections may preserve part of the initial conceptual content that the words that originated them had or, at least, some conceptual content related to it as a result of metaphorical or metonymic processes. Consequently, those interjections that have a relatively fixed meaning and usage would be close to the category of symbols and would contribute some sort of symbolic content.

1.3.2 Conceptualist analyses of interjections

Some authors have argued that interjections are conceptual elements. One of these authors is Wilkins who has defended his proposal on the basis of one of their features: indexicality. He saw the indexical nature of interjections to amount to some hidden referential or deictic components which would enable interjections to point to elements in the extralinguistic context necessary for their full interpretation. However, for the hearer to correctly develop a proposition, he must also rely on another feature of interjections: in addition to being indexical elements, they are also conventionalized, which means that they are connected with the emotions or feelings that they are repeatedly perceived to express. This description of interjections as indexical and conventionalized elements led Wilkins to suggest that they are incomplete lexemes that only offer a vague clue about a proposition that the speaker wants to transmit with them. As a result, Wilkins concluded that interjections do have some conceptual content, even if vague or general, which can be subsequently specified by resorting to the contextual information they point and information regarding their previous intentional occurrences in specific contexts [47, p. 8].

Wilkins's viewpoint was clearly in consonance with Wierzbicka's. This author also believed that interjections have a conceptual structure, which can be decomposed using `universal' or `near-universal' concepts that capture their basic meaning or senses. According to her, since interjections have some conceptual load, emotive/expressive interjections have a meaning that can be explicated through the formula `I feel X', while the meaning of conative or volitive interjections is `I want X' [47, p. 9].

With their proposals, Wilkins and Wierzbicka clearly positioned themselves in opposition to those authors who claimed that interjections are not speech acts because they lack an illocutionary dictum and cannot be reported by verbs of saying. According to those authors, interjections would be incomplete or defective speech acts that only show the speaker's illocutionary force toward an implicit content that must be recovered through inference.

But Wharton certainly finds compelling reasons to deny interjections a conceptual status:

a) they do not seem to have synonymous conceptual equivalents;

b) they cannot be taken to imply other concepts;

c) they cannot be the input to inferential rules;

d) interjectional utterances cannot be said to be true or false [39, p. 177].

At most, interjectional utterances can be tested in terms of the speaker's alleged (in)sincerity. These reasons may certainly override any claim about the conceptuality of interjections.

CHAPTER 2. LINGUISTIC PECULARITIES OF ENGLISH INTERJECTIONS

2.1 Structural peculiarities

Creating well-composed classification of interjections, not only in English but also in any other language can be complicated. This is because of two main reasons:

ь first, an interjection, as opposed to other parts of speech, includes units, rather dissimilar in its morphological structure. It can be a form of word or even a phrase (tsk-tsk-tsk! - bah! - Goodness gracious! - God bless you!).

ь the second reason is the lack of common opinion towards the structure of the parts of speech, such as interjection. To interjections refer units of language, not having all the categorical features of this part of the speech.

The problem is also if onomatopoeias have to be included into this part of speech. Many scientists believe that they cannot be included to the interjections, but compose their own part of speech or special group of words [24, p. 172].

For a proper understanding of the phenomenon of interjections in the languages of the world, it seems useful to distinguish between those words that are primary interjections and other words which come to be used as interjections by virtue of their notional semantics. These may be considered secondary interjections. The implication of this view is that secondary interjections are forms that belong to other word classes based on their semantics and are interjections only because they can occur by themselves non-elliptically as one-word utterances and in this usage refer to mental acts. It was Wundt who for the first time made this distinction (19^th c.). And since that time most scientists recognize this division. Also there is special group of interjections - mixed group (ah yes!, oh dear!).

Structurally they are heterogeneous and genetically related to:

1) short emotional exclamations, accompanied by individual response to external factors of different character (ah, oh, alas, eh, heigh);

2) meaningful parts of speech (good, come, look, well);

3) phrases (good morning, thank you, excuse me, so long);

4) different sentences of phraseological structure (how do you do).

However, they are characterized by semantic indivisibility and are integral units.

It should be noted that western linguists tend to analyze only primary interjections, which are the core of functional-semantic field and secondary interjections, consisting of phrases and sentences of phraseological structure, remain beyond their attention.

2.1.1 Primary (Simple) Interjections

Primary interjections are little words or non-words which in terms of their distribution can constitute an utterance by themselves and do not normally enter into construction with other word classes. For example:

Ouch!, Wow!, Gee!, Oho!, Oops!, etc.

Wierzbicka has proposed that one of the defining features of a primary interjection is that it is a linguistic sign “which is not homophonous with another lexical item that would be perceived as semantically related to it”, or perhaps “which is not homophonous with other lexical items whose meaning would be included in its own meaning, that is, in the meaning of the interjection [32, p. 5].”

They could be used as co-utterances with other units.

Gee, you look like you had it!

In this usage, they are related to connectors which always occur with another utterance - hence their discourse marking functions.

Primary interjections:

a) have no addressee;

b) have `no component about the social convention and predictability of the form (wow)';

c) are mental acts referring to `mental states and the dispositions of the speaker'

d) have culture-specific meanings.

Primary interjections tend to be phonologically and morphologically anomalous. They may thus be made up of sounds and sound sequences that are not found in other parts of the language. In English the interjection spelt tut-tut is phonetically a series of dental clicks - sounds which are not used otherwise in the language.

Some English interjections do not contain any vowels (for instance, pm!, sh!). From the point of view of the main sound system of English these are `non-words'. However, phonological anomaly is not a definitive criterion for the class of items because there are other interjections which conform with the patterns of the main sound system. Nevertheless this property of some of them has led to one of the reasons for the neglect of interjections because they are thought of as peripheral to the main sound system and linguists for a long time were not concerned with peripheral elements.

Morphologically, interjections do not normally take inflections or derivations in those languages that make use of such forms. This is one of the reasons why they have been classified together with particles and other uninflected words like adverbs. It should be noted here that some interjections which evolve from verbs could carry a particular inflection but they do not obey the agreements rules of the language in question. In other words the inflections together with the verb stem have become frozen and form a completely new word [30, p. 106].

Primary interjections can be of two types:

· Simple;

· Compound;

Simple include those interjections that are not composed by reduplication or by combination of stems of primary interjections, as well as those that have simple structure. They complete fairly large group.

Simple primary interjections are: aargh, agh, ah, aah, aha, ahem, ahey, ahoy, ai (aie, aiee), auh (aw), ay, ba, boo(bo, boh), boffo, br-r-r, coo, cooee(cooey), eh, er, eek, erm, faugh, fie, fuuah, ha(hah), hait, hallo(halloa, haloo, hullo, hollo), hark, haw, hech, heh(hegh), heigh, hem,(hm, hm-m), hey, hist, h'm, hmm, ho, hoa, hoicks. hoo, hooch, huh, huic, humph, io, keno(keeno), m'h'm, mm, mmm, mum, O(o), och, oh, oho, oi, oof, ooh, oops, ouch, ough, ow(oww), pah, pew, pfft, pfui, phew, phooey, phwoar, pish, poh, poof, pooh(pugh, poo, poop), pow, pshaw, psst, puff, rah, sh(`sh, shh, shush), shoo, soh, soho, shucks, snooks, snorks, tut, ugh, um, umph, ur, urgh, waugh(wagh, wah), whee, whew, whist, whoa, whoo, whoopee, whoops, wo, wow, yah(ya), yech(yecch), yikes, yipe, yipee, yo(yeo), yoi, yoichs, yosh, yuk, yum, zool etc.

Compound primary interjections can be divided into 4 types:

Type A - compounding - It consists of combining two primary stems: ah-ha, boo-hoo, heigh-ho, hi-ya, ho-hum, holla-hoa, uh(-)huh, uh-oh, whoo-whoop, wo-ho, yah-boo, yo-ho(yoho), yoo-hoo etc.

Type B reduplication - includes 5 subtypes:

Subtype A - vowel gradation + adding consonant to the end. To this subgroup belongs the interjection fee-faw-fum (the interjection of ogres in tales);

Subtype B - rhyming of two primary interjections: hi-yi, ki-yi, um-hum, tee-hee etc.;

Subtype C - two-fold (rarely three-fold) doubling of the stem. They are: ah-ah, ay-ay, aye-aye, chook-chook, chop-chop, ee-ee, ha-ha, haw-haw, he-he (hee-hee), ho-ho, hubba-hubba, sh-sh, tut-tut-tut, uh-uh, wee-wee, yum-yum etc.;

Subtype D - doubling the final syllable. For example, tra-la-la;

Subtype E - doubling of the initial syllable. For example, blankety-blank;

Type C - reduplication + compounding: hip-hop-hooray, o-ho-ho, etc.;

Type D - linear doubling - yadda, yadda; eh, eh; blah, blah; ha, ha; ho, ho; oh, oh; sook, sook; chuky, chuky, chuky; ow, ow etc.;

2.1.2 Secondary (Derivative) Interjections

Secondary interjections are those words which have an independent semantic value but which can be used conventionally as utterances by themselves to express a mental attitude or state. They thus refer to mental acts too. Under secondary interjections fall such alarm calls and attention getters as: Help!, Fire!, Careful! and swear and taboo words such as damn!, hell!, heavens!, Christ! and other emotively used words such as Shame!, Bother!, Drats!, etc. [30, p. 112].

Secondary interjections are more complicated since they are classified together with exclamatory phrases because “these expressions mix with swear words, oaths, pious wishes and greeting formulas, and there is a gliding scale to discourse particles” [37, p. 20].

Secondary interjection, depending on their structure, can be of 4 types:

· Simple (boy!, dear!, why!);

· Phrasal type (dear heart!, Good Lord!, my goodness!);

· Sentence type (You said it!, you tell `em!, God bless my soul!);

· Mixed type (Well, I'm damned!)

Simple secondary interjections include several subtypes.

a) substantival interjections: beans! bully! fiddle! hell! Lord! nuts! raspberry! rabbit! rats! taps!;

b) verbal interjections: come!look! see! cut! bother! shoot!;

с) adjectival interjections: fine! grand! right! dear! swell! divine! gracious!;

d) adverbial interjections: here! there! now! well! why? so!;

e) pronominal interjections: "ay me! oh me!" (Shakespeare);

f) integrated interjections: howdy (from how do you do), alright (from all right), my! (from my God/my Lord), dammit (from damn it), attaboy (from that's a boy).

g) linear interjections: come, come!; hear, hear!, there, there!, now, now!; my, my!; well, well, well!, wakey, wakey!; Lordy, Lordy!

[15, p. 272]

Phrasal interjections contain these main types:

· Type pron + nsg (my God!, my aunt!, my goodness!, my word!);

· Type adj + nsg/pl (good God!, Blessed Virgin!, dear God!, good Lord!, holy cats!, holy saints!);

· Type nsg/pl + adj (God Alighty!, man alive!, saints alive!);

· Type prep `for' + ngen + n `sake' (for heaven's sake!, for Christ's sake!, for pity's sake!);

· Type adj + pronobj ( dear ne!, poor me!);

· Type adj + adj (good gracious!);

· Type art indef + adj + n + prep `of' +n sg (a pretty pair of shoes!);

· Type n sg + prep `in' + n sg (Christ in heaven!);

· Type adv + adv (there now!, now then!, well then!);

· Type (adj) + nsg + prep `of' + n sg (Holy Mother of God!, Mother of God!);

Sentence type contains these types:

· Type Sn + Psimp + Odir/prep pron (God bless you! God damn you!, Heaven save you!, God forgive you!, saints preserve us!);

· Type AdvMadv + Psimp + Spron (here goes nothing!);

· Type Psimp + Odir n + Oprep pron (thank God for that!);

· Type Psimp + Odir pron (damn it!, beat it!, drat it!);

· Type Psimp + conj `and' + Psimp + Odir pron (damn and blast it!);

· Type Sn + Psimp (God forbid!, God grant!, God knows!);

· Type Ppron + Pnom (Everything is George!);

· Type Psimp + Attrpron + (adj) + On sg/pl (blast their dirty souls!, bless your heart(soul, life)!);

· Type Psimp + Odir n sg (praise the Lord!, thank God! Thank goodness!);

Mixed Type includes all other possible types. This type is the most numerous.

Some secondary interjections that genetically originate from meaningful words change their meanings. For example, the noun fiddlesticks indicates the bow for a violin and interjection fiddlesticks which means "nonsense." Longman Dictionary fixes the meaning of the interjection, which is connected with the noun.

Fiddlesticks int.

fid?dle?sticks old-fashioned

- said when you disagree with someone, or are slightly annoyed about something [50, p. 284].

We can compare also noun swell - with the meaning of anxiety and interjection swell, expressing joy, surprise and so on.

Primary interjections are generally devoid of any logical meaning. Derivative interjections may retain a modicum of logical meaning, though this is always suppressed by the volume of emotive meaning. Oft! Ahl Bahl Poohl GosM Hushl Alasl are primary interjections, though some of them once had logical meaning. 'Heavens!', 'good gracious!', 'dear me!', 'God!', 'Come on!', 'Look here!', 'dear!', 'by the Lord!', 'God knows!', 'Bless me!', 'Humbug!' and many others of this kind are not interjections as such; a better name for them would be exclamatory words and word-combinations generally used as interjections,' r.e. their function is that of the interjection.

It must be noted here that some adjectives, nouns and adverbs can also take on the function of interjections--for example, such words as terrible!, awful!, great!', wonderful!, splendid!', fine!, man!, boy! with proper intonation and with an adequate pause such as follows an interjection, these words may acquire a strong emotional colouring and are equal in force to interjections. In that case we can say that some adjectives and adverbs have acquired an additional grammatical meaning, that of the interjection [7, p. 138].

Sometimes linguists claim that the number of secondary interjections is overextended. The linguists doubt whether units of various language levels (such word combinations and sentences as Good Gracious, I am hanged, Well, I never, etc.) may be classed as interjections. The scholars argue that though these items have acquired the features of set expressions, still their transition into a part of speech has not been completed. The proponents of this point of view claim that the majority of these word combinations and sentences still preserve internal syntactic relations between their components, that they are internally divisible and may rather often change their components. Syntactically, though, they are homogeneous units, when used as emotive sentences.

By the way, T. Wharton observes that modern scholars of interjections “agreed that there should be distinguished two types of interjections: primary - words that can not be used in any other sense than interjections, and secondary - words that have independent semantic value, but are often used as interjections” [39, p. 175].

2.2 Semantic properties

It has already been mentioned that interjections differ from other parts of speech in that they express nomination in a peculiar way. This property plays a crucial part in differentiating between interjections and their homonyms and between emotive lexical words. For example, the adjectives super, gorgeous, awesome, uttered with a certain intonation, though expressing the speaker's attitude to some event, still may not be qualified as interjections, since they express a qualitative evaluation of some phenomena and, consequently, have a definite logical lexical meaning. The homonym of the noun, the interjection Goodness that expresses the speaker's emotional reaction does not name any phenomena and does not characterize them in any qualitative aspect: the interjection only indicates the type of the emotion.

There are many different classifications of interjections, which are based on various semantic features. In my research the most common classification is taken. Semantically, the interjections can be divided into 3 main groups:

· Motive interjections;

· Expressive interjections;

· Interjections of speech etiquette.

2.2.1 Motive interjections

Exclamations with conventionally-conditioned pragmatic significance ??, which include language formula whose meaning is clear even without context, combine the common and pragmatic meaning: ahoy!, Bravo!, Blymy! They are usually used in informal communication, or in the jargon in which they perform imperative function.

Motive interjections are used in directive speech acts, in motive acts in which the speaker expresses his will directed to a particular action. Taking into consideration the sphere of usage we can distinguish seven groups of motive speech and each group can also be subdivided in other subgroups.

1) military orders and commands (about face, about turn, action stations, as you were, at ease, attack; battle stations, boot and saddle, by the left; close ranks; dress; easy; fall in, fall out, forward march, front pass, left oblique, left shoulder arms, left step, left turn, left wheel; mount, mount up; one pace forward march, order arms; quick march; right dress, right form, right turn, right wheel; shoulder arms, show a leg, slope arms, stand easy, stand fast, step short, wakey, wakey.);

2) naval commands (all hands on deck, emergency full speed, Full astern together!);

3) sport commands (ready, steady, go; anchor, getcomes; you - heave - ho; yo - ho.); For example:

- Ed, we're going to jump.

- We're gonna jump?

- Yes.

- On three. Ready?

- Okay.

- One, two… three!

In this example the interjection ready is the question of preparedness for common jump, and the interjection оne, two … three is the command for fulfillment.

4) commands and instructions which are used in some jargon and during combined work:

a) in movies and on radio (action);

b) in circus (allez);

c) during joint work, lifting the weight, etc. (heave ho);

g) during singing songs, dances, etc. (all together now, come on, once again).

They are combined into one group because their illocutionary force is laconic express of strong will of the speaker, which does not presuppose denial, and has, as a rule, higher social status.

Also there are interjections, which are used to stimulate the listener to perform the speaker's will. They are typical for informal communication situations where the speakers are of symmetric and asymmetric social status. These interjections are divided into inducement to:

1) action (come on, : all change, all hands ahoy, all hands on deck; c'mon, c'mon, come on; get a move on, get cracking, go ahead, go to it; jump up; run for itsharp; make it snappy, move it; shake a leg, sharp's the word, show a leg, step lively, step on it);

e.g. “Hey, fellows! A thrain' s leaving for Penza. Come on!” [48, p. 32]

“Come on, come on let's have more of those, you old dodderers or you will hold everything up! ” [48, p. 108]

With the use of these interjection come on, move it and get moving the speaker tries to quicken the actions of the listener.

2) quick accomplishment of the action (shake a leg);

3) actions which are used to children (hush, hush-a-bye-baby, lullaby, rock-a-bye, time for bye-byes).

e.g.: “Hush now, hush. Your mother will soon return”, interjection Hush is a mean of calming a child.

All the interjections of these groups belong to mandative, imperative, motive speech acts.

To motive interjections belong inducement to stop the action. They are divided into some subgroups:

1) the speaker's desire to leave him alone (all right for you; get off my back; lay off, leave me be, let me alone).

2) stopping doing the action (wakey, wakey, break it up, can the stuff, chuck it, cut it; drop it, enough of…; get of it; have done it, let us have done with it; let us leave it at that, let's call it a day; no more, none of it that up, wrap it up).

...