Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:56:41.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics of interjections: An experimental study with natural semantic metalanguage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

ANNA GLADKOVA ,
ULLA VANHATALO  and
CLIFF GODDARD
ANNA GLADKOVA*
Affiliation:
University of New England
ULLA VANHATALO
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and University of Tampere
CLIFF GODDARD
Affiliation:
Griffith University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Anna Gladkova, Department of Linguistics, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper reports the results of a pilot experimental study aimed at evaluating natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) explications of English interjections. It proposes a novel online survey technique to test NSM explications with language speakers. The survey tested recently developed semantic explications of selected English interjections as published in Goddard (2014a): wow, gosh, gee, yikes (“surprise” group) and yuck, ugh (“disgust” group). The results provide overall support for the proposed explications and indicate directions for their further development. It is interesting that respondents' preexisting knowledge of NSM and other background variables (age, gender, being a native speaker, or studying linguistics) were shown to have little influence on the test results.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , July 2016 , pp. 841 - 865
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ameka, F. (1992a). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–118.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. (Ed.) (1992b). Interjections [Special issue]. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–308.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. W. (2003). An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bott, O., Featherston, S., Radó, J., & Stolterfoht, B. (2011). The application of experimental methods in semantics. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Porter, P. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 305–321). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P. (1985). The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 31–36.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2000). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fontaine, J., Scherer, K., Roesch, E., & Ellsworth, P. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18, 1050–1057.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk, 27, 297–314.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A. (2010). Russian cultural semantics: Emotions, values, attitudes [in Russian]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A. (2013). “Is he one of ours?” The cultural semantics and ethnopragmatics of social categories in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 180–194.Google Scholar
Gladkova, A., & Romero Trillo, J. (2014). Ain't it beautiful? The conceptualization of beauty in an ethnopragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 140–159.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (Ed.) 2008. Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2010a). Semantic molecules and semantic complexity (with special reference to “environmental” molecules). Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 123–155.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2010b). The natural semantic metalanguage approach. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 459–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2011). Semantic analysis—A practical introduction (2nd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2014a). Interjections and emotion (with special reference to “surprise” and “disgust”). Emotion Review, 6, 53–63.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2014b). On “disgust.” In Baider, F. & Cislaru, G. (Eds.), Linguistic approaches to emotions in context (pp. 73–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (Eds.) (2002). Meaning and universal grammar—Theory and empirical findings (2 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2009). Contrastive semantics of physical activity verbs: “Cutting” and “chopping” in English, Polish and Japanese. Language Sciences, 31, 60–96.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages and cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language, culture, consciousness: Essays on mental structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866–891.Google Scholar
Peeters, B. (Ed.) (2006). Semantic primes and universal grammar: Empirical evidence from the Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. (1989). Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 167–170.Google Scholar
Schröder, M. (2003). Experimental study of affect bursts. Speech Communication, 40, 99–116.Google Scholar
Travis, C. (2005). Discourse markers in Colombian Spanish: A study in polysemy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, U. (2005). Kyselytestit synonymian selvittämisessä. Sanastotietoutta kielenpuhujilta sähköiseen sanakirjaan. Helsinki [The use of questionnaires in exploring synonymy. Lexical knowledge from native speakers to electronic dictionaries]. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/suoma/vk/vanhatalo Google Scholar
Vanhatalo, U., Tissari, H., & Idström, A. (2014). Revisiting the universality of natural semantic metalanguage: A view through Finnish. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 67–94.Google Scholar
Wakita, T., Ueshima, N., & Noguchi, H. (2012). Psychological distance between categories in the Likert scale: Comparing different numbers of options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 533–546.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). The semantics of interjection. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 159–192.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Original work published 1991)Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 119–158.Google Scholar