[lit-ideas] Vocative Particles in Natural Conversation

Vocatives, Interjections, and the Origin of Language
 
From
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language) 
 
below. It may relate to the idea that 'interjections' and 'vocatives' are  
basic in the development of elaborated speech.
 
Note that some of the explanation involves the idea of a 'vocalism', which  
relates, etymologically, and vaguely, to the idea of 'vocative'. 
 
In "conversation analysis", the expression 'summons' is I think use for  what 
traditional grammar has as 'vocative':
 
           A:  Michael!
           B: Yes?
           A: There's a  snake on your shoulder.
           B: Ah,  thanks.
 
The idea is that one has to waste a 'conversational move' to catch the  
addressee's attention. This can be done _within the same_ *turn*, but it would  
still be two different 'moves':
 
         A: Michael: There's a  snake on your shoulder.
         B: Ah, thanks.
 
In the case of "O, Mirembe", it's not clear to me what the use of "O" is.  If 
it's the apostrophical poetical function, it cannot be the _vocative_  
function carried by the use of the proper name itself. On the other hand, to 
use  
just "O", and do without the "Mirembe" seems otiose and hardly efficient.
Cheers,
 
JL
 
------
 
The "ding-dong" hypothesis
 
This hypothesis places the origin of human language in onomatopoeia: the  
various imitative sounds that humans make to mimic the sounds of the world  
around them. So boom becomes a word for thunder, and oink for a  pig.There are 
several reasons why this hypothesis has not met with universal  acceptance. Of 
course, many languages contain just such words; in English, birds  tweet; in 
Basque a knife is an ai-ai, an "ouch-ouch." It is  unclear how this process 
could 
supply words for silent objects like rocks; much  less prepositions and other g
rammatical particles or abstract concepts. Words  marked by onomatopoeia are 
conspicuous and somewhat unusual in most languages.  The "ding-dong" 
hypothesis is therefore not considered as a total explanation  for the origin 
of 
language. 
The "bow-wow" hypothesis. Similar to the "ding-dong" hypothesis, this one has 
 humans forming their first words by imitating animal sounds. Not only do all 
of  the objections involving other sorts of onomatopoeia explanations apply 
here, it  is worthy to note that the names of animal sounds are strongly 
culturally  determined and differ remarkably from one culture to the next, as 
the 
article on  oink sets forth. It seems difficult to accept that humans learned 
to 
 speak to one another by talking to the animals. 
The "pooh-pooh" hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the first words  
developed from sighs of pleasure, moans of pain, and other semi-involuntary  
cries or exclamations. These vocalisms then became the names of the phenomena  
that made people say them. Most of the objections to the "ding-dong" hypothesis 
 
apply here also. Such words are found in most languages; they are conspicuous 
by  their preverbal nature and incomplete assimilation into the lexicon. 
Moreover,  they are culturally determined, and themselves show a great deal of  
arbitrariness. 
The "ta-ta" hypothesis Charles Darwin lent his authority to this hypothesis.  
According to this, human language represents the use of oral gestures that 
began  in imitation of hand gestures that were already in use for 
communication. 
 Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's research into synesthesia and sound symbolism 
would  seem to support this hypothesis. The difficulty with this hypothesis, is 
that it  begs the question: it requires that a fairly sophisticated repertoire 
of  gestures be in place already for humans to imitate with their mouth 
gestures. It  assumes the existence of a language of gestures without 
explaining 
how it arose  (however, see Nicaraguan Sign Language). At any rate, though sign 
languages do  have somewhat imitative (or iconic) gestures, they also contain 
quite arbitrary  symbols and have vastly different meanings in different human 
cultures. 
The "uh-oh" hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, human language begins  
with the use of arbitrary symbols that represent warnings to other members of  
the human band. It is agreed that one sort of vocal cry means that lions have 
 been spotted in the area, and another one indicates a snake. You holler one  
thing at your neighbour to warn them, "Don't eat that! It'll make you sick!" 
and  something distinguishable to warn them "Don't eat that! It's mine!" This  
hypothesis seems to have the potential to explain the perceived diversity of  
human speech; obviously the warning cries uttered here are to some measure  
arbitrary. It is less certain that this hypothesis could explain how more  
abstract features of human language developed. 
The "yo-he-ho" hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, language arose in  
rhythmic chants and vocalisms uttered by people engaged in communal labour. 
This  may have more to do with the origins of poetry than with language itself. 
Sea  chanteys, jody calls, and similar work songs all show humans engaged in 
communal  work improvising with their language around the rhythms of their 
work. 
It is  uncertain from this hypothesis how meanings came to be associated with 
the  vocalisms uttered by the workers.


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: