Correlation of stereotypical and irregular in epistolary text addressee-orientation

When identifying epistolary address models, we adhere to the following principles. Proper names in their most diverse manifestations are reduced to three main groups: first name (N), patronymic (P), surname (S), or to typical anthroponymic formulas: name + patronymic (NP), name + surname (NS), name + patronymic + surname (NPS). This symbolism summarizes various abbreviations, shortenings, diminutives, augmentatives, hypocoristic names, as well as people's nicknames. In the system of appellatives and determinants, which accompany the core structural component, we summarize various forms of one lexeme, such as Russian господин / господа; милый/милая; добрый/добрейший (mister/messieurs; sweet (m)/sweet (f); kind/kindest); essential generators and their derivatives with modification word-building meanings, such as сударь / сударыня; голубчик /голубушка; друг / дружок / дружище; мама /мамочка /мам- чик / мамуленька / мамаша (my lord / my lady; my dear fellow / my darling; friend / little friend/ old boy; mother /mummy / mom / mama / mommy) etc. As a result, for instance, the vocatives Dear Ivan Nikolaevich and Dearest Petr Sergeevich match one Dear NP model, while the vocatives Beloved friend and Beloved little friend match the Beloved friend model. Vocatives with a modified components order (provided that their grammar relations are identical, the lexical content is invariable, and the abovementioned transformations are considered) are combined into one model. Hence, the vocative Dear and beloved friend and Beloved and dear friend match one basic model. The same model is traced in such vocatives as Dear and kind Victor Petrovich and Kindest, dear Julia Andreevna, and so on.

The segmented vocative construction, which combines two or more addresses to various addressees, each of whom is nominated separately, is considered a combination of single vocatives, elementary or expanded constructions. These constituents of the segmented vocative construction may lean on various models. For instance, My dear mummy, Liudochka and Serezha combines three vocatives that match the following two models: 1) My dear mother and 2) N. The same is true with the segmented vocative constructions that represent the address to the same addressee, which consists of several coordinate vocatives with different core components.

To separate the vocative formations regularly used by this or that author from extraordinary, unique addresses, which embody the author's individual style, we have introduced a one-percent statistical threshold. This provided the basis for attributing to the stable elements of the author's speech behaviour those address models whose speech implementation had exceeded 1% of the total number of addresses in the author's epistolary. For instance, if the letters by G.V. Adamovich [Коростелев, 2008, pp. 14-96, 204-354, 464-552] contain 314 addresses, to those exceeding the one-percent statistical threshold (above-threshold) belong the models that serve the basis for at least four addresses. This group counts 11 models: Dear NP (150 implementations); Dear Madam (38); Madam (29); N (10); Highly respected NP (8); Dear friend Madam (7); Cherie (6); Dear friend (6); NP (5); My pretty (4); Amie (4). These models can be considered stereotypical and repeated in the speech of the particular addresser. Apparently, this list, alongside the widespread models in different authors' epistolary of the XIX-XX centuries (Dear NP, N, NP, Dear friend), includes addresses that tend to characterize individual speech preferences rather than general linguistic rules, i.e., those that exceeded the statistical threshold in this author only: Madam, Dear Madam, Dear friend Madam, Мадам, Cherie, My pretty, Amie. Some of them have quite a few variations; for instance, the Dear Madam model is implemented in the following ways: Дорогая Мадам; Дорогая Madame; Chere Madame; шер мадам; Chere Madamotchka; Дорогая Мадамочка; Дорогая Madamotchka. Obviously, these options contain not only the Russian vocabulary but its French equivalents and their derivatives that lean on the Russian word-building patterns (Madamotchka) reproduced both in Cyrillic and Roman scripts. To the original, irregular models in G. V. Adamovich's written speech belong, for instance, addresses used only once or twice: Голубой и дальний друг; Дорогой друг и ангел; Друг мой дорогой и милый, а также - надеюсь - верный (Blue and far-away friend; Dear friend and angel; My dear and sweet, and, hopefully, loyal friend), and so on. It is noteworthy that among the rarely used addresses, we can see the ones that are pretty ordinary for their time, such as Дорогие товарищи (Dear friends) or Голубчик (Dear fellow), however, for this author's speech practice they are not common, hence, they cannot be considered the stereotypical elements of his epistolary discourse.

The number of models that have exceeded the one-per-cent statistical threshold is significantly lower than the number of extraordinary addresses; yet, in total, the implemented regular vocative formations in any addresser's letters outnumber the non-usual vocative constructions, hence, the exclusion of these constructions, of the description of the relation between the regular and irregular in the correspondent's speech makes it impossible to provide an accurate picture of their written speech stylistics. The above-threshold vocative models must be compared with the vocative models that have not exceeded the established statistical threshold but compared in such a way that does not to break this research-appropriate level of generalization of ways and means of address and not try to list all original and exotic vocative structures found in the letters by particular addressers. We will manage to do so if we trace the dynamics of the emergence of new vocatives and new models under the gradual growth of the total amount of letters by any addresser. Let us clarify one crucial point for the study of vocatives' dynamics: It is necessary to consider the timeline for the creation of texts that constitute each addresser's epistolary discourse.

We will show the dynamics of new vocatives' emergence based on two selections of letters of a relatively similar size, one of which belongs to a lawyer, an orator, a memoir writer A.F. Koni [Кони, 1969], and the other one belongs to a writer, an opinion journalist, a statesman V.G. Korolenko [Короленко, 1956]. These are the letters by contemporaries who were skilled in the art of words, manifested in their prose and epistolary heritage. Both authors were well-known for their legal advocacy, both regularly communicated with a wide circle of correspondents, which consisted of numerous outstanding people; more specifically, the list of Koni's addressees included the writers I.A. Honcharov and F.M. Dostoevsky, a poet A.M. Zhemchuzhnikov, a literary critic S.A. Vengerov, a historian and philosopher B.M. Chicherin, the linguists F.F. Fortunatov and A.A. Shakhmatov, a painter I. Ye. Repin; the list of Korolenko's addressees includes the writers A.N. Plescheev, I.S. Shmelyov, M.M. Kotsiubynsky, a philologist F.D. Batushkov, the opinion journalists N.F. Annensky and A.V. Lunacharsky, a literary critic A.G. Hornfeld, a natural scientist

K. A. Timiryazev, a singer F.I. Shaliapin. They also had common correspondents, including

L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov, and M. Gorkiy; there is evidence that Koni and Korolenko's letters were directed to each other. V.G. Korolenko's life and creative work were intimately connected with Ukraine; A.F. Koni started his legal practice in Kharkiv; later, he obtained the degree of Doctor of Criminal Justice in Kharkiv University.

We will create a table, the first column of which will indicate the letter's ordinal number, the second one will show the vocative models found in this letter, the third one will contain the numbers of these models, and forth one will reflect the number of vocatives leaning on the particular model. The numbers of the letters that do not contain vocatives or any new, their previously undetected models, are omitted, hence, the first column may not contain the numbers of the certain amount of letters by the respective addresser.

Therefore, the epistolary by A.F. Koni counts 266 letters, and 288 vocatives in total. Their dynamics are presented in Table 1 (the above-threshold vocative models are written in bold).

Table 1

Vocative models formation dynamics in A.F. Koni's epistolary

End of table 1

In total, we have recorded in Koni's letters 51 vocative models, which serve as the basis for 288 addresses. Thirteen models have exceeded the one-percent statistical threshold; these models served as the basis for 242 vocative formations, which can be considered stereotypical for this author's epistolary. Most of the above-threshold models were implemented in the first 144 Koni's letters out of 266, and only one - precious NP - in letter 196. At the same time, we clearly see the overall tendency towards the growth of the amount of vocative linguistic figures utilized by the addresser. The number of various irregular vocative formations, including single-use models, grows much faster, and such models significantly prevail over the above-threshold ones, the majority of which (10 out of 13) are implemented in the first quarter of the analyzed letters.

The letters by V.G. Korolenko show a pretty similar yet somewhat different picture. In total, we have analyzed 306 published letters, to which we approached in the same way as to Koni's, and the findings are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Vocative models formation dynamics in V. G. Korolenko's epistolary

End of table 2

The total number of vocatives is 517, of vocative models is 79, of vocatives that exceeded the statistical threshold is 421; the number of above-threshold models is 15, while 14 out of those were implemented in the first forty letters, and only one - highly respected NP - in letter 150. In general, the difference in the growth dynamics of various address models and forms and vocative formations that build a subset of regular, stereotypical constructions is the same as in Koni's epistolary, but it is even more sharply outlined.

The dynamics of growth of the models that have exceeded the statistical threshold, as well as below-threshold models in the letters by A.F. Koni and V.G. Korolenko are illustrated in the graph below. The horizontal axis indicates the number of letters (one graduation equals 50 letters); the vertical axis indicates the number of vocative models implemented in these letters. The solid line indicates the growth of the total number of vocative models, while the dashed line shows regular (above-threshold) models (Graph 1).

Graph 1. Vocative models formation dynamics in the epistolary by A.F. Koni and V.G. Korolenko

In the first fifty letters, the curves in Koni and Korolenko are mostly identical, and further, the stability is detected only in the regularly used models. A striking difference is observed between the number of all implemented models (two top lines) and above-threshold models (two bottom lines). The curves reflecting the threshold vocative models' dynamics, slightly diverge at the start, but then become almost parallel; these models are mainly detected at the very beginning of the correspondence, and both addressers exhaust the resource of the regular vocative formations in the first two hundred letters. As we can see, the dynamics of threshold vocative formations in Korolenko and Koni's written speech are very similar. The peculiarities of such dynamics, which are in some way determined by the addresser's personality, are revealed only at the level of the general vocatives' framework, the formation of which is not related to the statistical threshold. As a result, this framework combines the stereotypical elements of speech behaviour with the irregular (or even unique) vocative formations in each author's discourse.

Conclusions