<!-- image -->

## Interjections  in  Scandinavia  and beyond: Traditions and innovations

Eva Ska ft e Jensen, Dansk Sprognævn esj@dsn.dk

Tina Th ode Hougaard, Aarhus University nortth@cc.au.dk

Carsten Levisen, Roskilde University calev@ruc.dk

As  a  research  area,  the  study  of  interjections  is  characteristic  in  that  it  is very heterogeneously treated. In grammars it is sometimes mentioned as a lexical category, sometimes it is completely neglected. In pragmatic studies, it  is  sometimes  considered  the  most  fundamental  part  of  communication, sometimes it is almost not observed at all. Th e Danish tradition is no diff  erent. With  a  few  exceptions,  in  most  grammars  and  handbooks  on  Danish,  the subject is hardly mentioned at all. Th is may be due to the fact that interjections from a grammatical point of view may seem less than interesting.  With the point of departure in the criteria typically used in the work resulting in lexical categories, there is not much to be said, morpho-syntactically speaking. In fact, as pointed out in most of the papers of this volume, the real interesting features of interjecions lie in their communicative functions. Nevertheless, in many studies on interjections the traditional morpho-syntactic approach to linguistic items may reveal itself indirectly. As point in case, the idea of talking of  primary  and  secondary  interjections  stems  from  such  an  approach.  In grammatical studies, it is quite common to categorize an item (e.g. an adverb) in accordance with its prototypical function (e.g. as an adverbial), and then distinguish between 1) words capable of fulfi  lling this function by itself (e.g.

a word like now ) and 2a) lexically complex items, such as multi-word-units like at  this  point ,  and  2b)  items  functioning  diff  erently  than  prototypically expected (e.g. a noun like Sunday used adverbially as in Sunday, they came ). Th is is a traditional form and function distinction.

In written context, interjections have mostly been common in fi  ction or artistic writings. Especially in comics the interjections are numerous, and likewise the onomatopoetica; they belong to the specifi  c features that draw the reader 'into the thoughts and emotions of the protagonist' (Forster et al. 2012:133). In comics their written form is not fi  xed, but can show extensive variation  and  thereby  convey  both  emotional  and  social  meaning  through orthographic choices (ibid:123). Th e orthographic variants of the interjections exhibit the same pattern as in general in social media and other non-formal and un-regulated writings, e.g. fanzines and graffi ti (Androutsopoulos 2000, Sebba 2007): repetitions of letters (e.g. ahhh ), choice of upper-case vs. lowercase letters (e.g. OH ), use of 'special' characters (e.g. whew!! ), use of variant graphemes (e.g. whee or wee ) and 'paragraphematic variations' , e.g. font, size, shape, color or orientation of the writing (Forster et al. 2012). Several drives are  at  stake  here:  economization  (Androutsopoulos  2012,  Hougaard 2013), prosodic  spellings  (Androutsopoulos  2000),  language  play  (Danet  1995, Herring 1999) and the expressive (emotive) function (Jakobson 1960).

Inasmuch  as  Danish  grammars  do  mention  interjections  at  all,  they tend  to  treat  the  various  interjections  as  lexical  items,  giving  descriptions of  the  use  of  the  items  in  question.  Two  works  worth  mentioning  in  this respect are published two hundred years apart. Th e  fi  rst  one  is  a  grammar on Danish written by a teacher of arts and humanities at the Danish naval academy (Dichman 1800). Th e second one is the quite recent Grammatik over det Danske Sprog ('Grammar of the Danish Language') by Hansen & Helto ft (2011). In both of these works, the diffi culties in clear boundaries between the  lexical  categories  are  mentioned.  So  are  the  diffi culties  concerning  the categorization  of  interjections.  In  both  works,  some  general  properties  are treated, for instance the ability to form complete utterances by themselves, and also the diff  erence between form and function, i.e. what many of the papers in this volume call the diff  erence between primary and secondary interjections. However, the real interesting contributions of these works lie in the adjoining expositions whereby a selected number of interjections are treated one by one, with emphasis on their functional potential, i.e. their pragmatics. Th us,  we are told that some interjections primarily serve as attention getters (in phatic communication), others serve as expressions of emotions and sensations, yet others serve as metalinguistic comments.

Due to the explosive growth of written online interaction (especially because of the social media) during the past 30 years (online chat interaction via IRC 'Internet Relay Chat' has existed since the late 80's), linguistic and paralinguistic  phenomena  which  were  mostly  associated  with  the  spoken language,  e.g.  interjections,  gestures  and  mimics,  have  gained  ground  in a  new  and  'customized'  way. Th e  situation  of  interactive  writing  to  some extend  corresponds  to  the  situation  of  face  to  face-conversation,  and  this resemblance is o ft en mentioned as an explanation of the prevalence of diff  erent representations  of  socio-emotional  cues  (Sproull  &  Kiesler  1986).  In  an attempt to visually and verbally establish and support the understanding and relationship between sender and receiver in a written context, the interjections along  with  onomatopoetica,  emoticons,  emojis  and  other  kinds  of  extralinguistic elements are employed. Th e appealing potency of the interjections along with their innate underdetermination is probably contributing to the increasing use of this unique word class. Th is supports the idea that visual and paralinguistic components in communication are vital, and the language in social media has re-actualized the study of interjections.

Also, interjection  studies  seem  to  open  up  a  wide  array  of  interdisciplinary possibilities.  Consider  for  instance,  Goddard's  work  on  interjection  and emotion (2014), or Bromhead's historical work on era-specifi  c interjections, and the link between  interjections and societal change  (2009).  Such interdisciplinary advances continue to fuel the growing interest in the fi  eld. So do the rich discussions on how to capture in a precise defi  nition what the somewhat slippery category of interjection means, and how it diff  ers from related categories such as ideophones and discourse particles.

By revisiting interjections in Scandinavian Studies in  Language , the  explicit  goal  of  the  issue  is  to  bring  together  Scandinavian  and  global perspectives  on  interjections.  Our  volume  opens  up  Scandinavia-based  research to the global audience, and at the same time, our analysis is characterized by deep connections with global scholarships in the plural. Th e seminal work on interjections by Wierzbicka (1991 [2003]); and Ameka (1992) had a crosslinguistic vision that continues to inspire the ongoing work of understanding both local interjections and global comparison. Th e early work by Wierzbicka and Ameka demonstrated that interjections are highly culturally-specifi  c, but at the same time, that there are certain sub-classes, such as emotive (e.g. wow! ), cognitive (e.g. aha! ), volitive (e.g. psst! ) interjection that seem to be universal. In  contemporary  diversity  linguistics,  lexico-semantic  typology,  and  other new developments, there are several trends happening silmultaneously, such as big-scale comparisons, see e.g. Dingemanse, Torreria, and Enfi  eld (2013), areal lexico-semantics, see e.g. Ponsonnet's work on interjections in Aborginal Australia (in press), and single-language-focused studies, such as Nordgren's recent monograph on Greek interjections.

Th e  multiple  perspectives,  the  heterogeneity  of  approaches,  and  the emerging  nature  of  the  fi  eld,  are  underlined  by  many  diff  erent  kinds  of contributions in this special issue.

Borchmann argues  in  favor  of  an  ecological  pragmatic  approach  to the  analysis  of  interjections.  With  the  point  of  departure  in  a  traditional understanding of interjections being spontaneous and non-communicative, he  shows  that  in  addition  to  this  basic  function,  interjections  may  also function  as  1)  non-spontaneous  and  communicative,  and  2)  spontaneous and communicative. Whereas the traditional understanding clearly shows an indexical sign relation, the latter two convey iconic and symbolic sign relations respectively.

In  the  fi  eld  of  Conversation  Analysis  and  Interactional  Linguistics, Steensig and Sørensen investigate the interactional functions of some of the most frequent interjections (particles) in Danish talk-in-interaction: ja ('yes'), nej ('no'), mm ('mm') , nå (approximately 'oh'), and okay ('okay'). Th eir focus is the criteria for the choices interactants make when choosing one particle over another in 'third position' a ft er questions and answers, and they propose that a distinction between 'suffi cient confi  rmation' particles and 'stance-oriented' particles can be made.

Miltersen uses the Danish  word øv (used to convey vexation, disappointment and displeasure) as an occasion to question the criteria relied upon  in  lexical  categorization.  With  the  point  of  departure  in  traditional categorization of øv as an interjection, it is shown 1) that the criteria are less consistent than usually thought, and 2) that the word øv in many cases exceeds the boundaries of what is considered interjections. Th e paper proposes a more pragmatically, functionally-based kind of categorization of lexical material.

Several of the papers concern interjectionality in forms not ordinarily considered  the  primary  locus  of  interjections  (i.e.  speech). Th e  paper  by Fabricius is one of these. Using a particular meme as case study, she shows how some properties usually associated with interjections may be borrowed by the meme, in particular the function of emotional outbursts and the ability to turn otherwise non-interjections into interjectional-like displays of emotion. Th e  approach relies upon an understanding of interjections being gradable rather than belonging to discrete categories.

Levisen explores laughter interjections, i.e. expressive words of the type haha! Th e  paper  provides  a  new  semantic  and  typological  account  of  this sub-type of interjections that has not previously received much attention in the literature on interjections. From the vantage point of Danish, a language with an elaborate paradigm of laughter interjections, the paper develops an original analysis of interjectionalized laughter, and with special emphasis on two highly illuminating examples: hæhæ and tøhø .

Another  paper  dealing  with  interjections  in  social  media  presents the study of the written interjections åh ' oh'  and puha 'whew' in Facebook groups by Hougaard . Th is study takes a particular interest in existential and aff  ective publics that arise on Facebook groups that deal with the diagnoses, treatment and terminal consequences of child cancer. Th e main argument is that the use of these exact interjections is a response to the aff  ective and bodily experience of following the development of the child's illness as well as a signal about experiencing this aff  ect. Th e interjections are bodily triggered aff  ective expressions.

Experts  of  spoken  Israeli  Hebrew Shor  and  I  nbar contribute  to interjection studies by an in-depth case study on zehu! , 'that's it' . Tracing the development from a demonstrative and pronominal element to a secondary interjection,  the  authors  provide  new  evidence  for  two  new  meanings:  the ' zehu of completion' and the ' zehu of restriction' . Th e analysis engages with the  international  literature  on  interjections,  and  is  backed  up  by  corpus studies.

Th e fi  nal contribution by interjection specialist Stange , focusses on the discursive use of emotive interjections. With a case study on spoken British English, and a focus on social variables. Th e contribution sets new standards for the study of gendered interjection use. Based on corpus analysis, the paper provides an analysis of interjections such ow! , ouch!; ugh! , yuck!; whoops!, whoopsadaisy! Stange's study provides evidence for gender diff  erences in the discursive use of emotive interjections, especially in young female speakers.

Mortensen studies interjection in courtroom interaction. Comparing the Danish and American courtroom, the linguistic footprints of two diff  erent cultural-institutional  traditions  known  as  'common  law  adversarialism' and  'civil  law  inquisitorialism' .  Demonstrating  the  manifest  diff  erences  in interactive  style,  the  study  provides  new  evidence  for  how  micro-linguistic analysis can shed light on macro-societal question of justice, and how language, culture, and the law can intersect in diff  erent ways.

## References:

- Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2000. Non-standard spellings in media texts: Th e case of German fanzines. Journal of Sociolinguistics , 4(4), 514-533.
- Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: Th e universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 2-3, 101-118.
- Androutsopoulos,  Jannis.  2011.  Language  change  and  digital  medie:  A  review  of conceptions and evidence, ed. by Tore Kristiansen & Nicholas Coupland. Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe . Oslo. Novus, 145-159.
- Dichman, Carl Fr. 1800. Forsøg til en dansk Sproglære . Kiøbenhavn: Schultz.
- Bromhead, Helen. 2009. Th e Reign of Truth and Faith. Epistemic Expressions in 16th and 17th Century English . Berlin: Walter the Gruyter.
- Danet, Brenda (ed.). 1995.  Play and performance in computer-mediated communication. JCMC 1(2). Available: http://209.130.1.169/jcmc/vol1/issue2/.
- Goddard, Cliff  . 2014. Interjections and emotions, with special reference to 'surprise' and 'disgust' . Emotion Review 6(1), 53-63.
- Dingemanse, Mark, Torreria, Francisco & Enfi  eld, N. J. 2013. Is 'Huh?' a universal word?  Conversational  infrastructure  and  the  convergent  evolution  of  linguistic items. PLoS One 2013 Nov 8;8(11):e78273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078273.
- Hansen, Erik & Lars Helto ft . 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog . København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.
- Herring,  Susan  H.  1999.  Interactional  Coherence  in  CMC. Journal  of  Computer -Mediated Communication 4(4).

- Hougaard, Tina Th ode. 2013. Hmmm...Interjektioner på Facebook, MUDS 14. Møde om  Udforskningen  af  Dansk  Sprog ,  ed.  by  Inger  Schoonderbeek  Hansen,  Peter Widell & Tina Th ode Hougaard. Aarhus Universitet, 167-184.
- Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. Style in Language , ed.  by  T.  A.  Sebeok.  New  Y ork,  London: Th e  Technology  Press  of  assachusetts Institute of Tecnology and John Wiley & Sons, 350-377.
- Forster,  Iris,  Susanne  R.  Borgwaldt  &  Martin  Neef.  2012.  Form  follows  function: Interjections and onomatopoetica in comics. Writing Systems Research 4(2), 122139, DOI: 10.1080/17586801.2012.751348
- Nordgren, Lars. 2015. Greek Interjections: Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics . Berlin: De Gruyer Mouton.
- Sebba, Mark. 2007. Spelling and society: Th e culture and politics of orthography around the world . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Ponsonnet,  Maïa.  Submitted.  Interjections. Oxford  University  Press  Handbook  of Australian languages , ed. by Claire Bowern. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Sproull, Lee & Kiesler, Sara. 1986. Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communications. Management Science 32(11), 1492-1512.
- Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003 [1991]. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Th e semantics of human interaction . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.