Cover not available
Part of
Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö
Edited by Ewa Jonsson and Tove Larsson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 97] 2020
► pp. 79–94

Chapter 6
Interjections in early popular literature

Stereotypes and innovation

 | University of Helsinki
Early modern jests and drama provide excellent materials for studies on speech-based language. This article focuses on a core group of interjections, alas, lo and O, and assesses their use from a diachronic perspective. The method of study is qualitative stylistic analysis and the data comes mostly from the popular genres of the Helsinki Corpus (HC) and the Corpus of English Dialogues (CED). Genuine feelings are depicted in romances and tragedies, but in popular genres these items express stereotypical reactions to awkward situations, contributing to audience involvement. Innovative uses emerge with novel stylistic effects in the early seventeenth century.
Keywords: emotions, genre, context, convention, humour
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminaries and research questions
  • 2.Data and method of the study
  • 3.Beginnings of the tradition and genre continuity
  • 4.Definitions and previous studies
  • 5.Interjections with genuine feelings versus to “[f]lout & mock & Iest”
    • 5.1 Alas
      • 5.1.1Genuine feelings
      • 5.1.2Stereotypical reactions
    • 5.2 Lo
      • 5.2.1Comical overtones
    • 5.3 O
      • 5.3.1Conventional uses
      • 5.3.2Innovative uses
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.06taa
References (29)
References
Aijmer, K. 1987. Oh and ah in English conversation. In Corpus Linguistics and Beyond, W. Meijs (ed.), 61–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2–3): 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benson, L. (ed.). 1987. The Riverside Chaucer, new edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brown, P. A. 2003. Better Shrew Than a Sheep: Women, Drama and the Culture of Jest in Early Modern England. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busse, B. 2006. Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 150]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled under the supervision of M. Kytö (Uppsala University) and J. Culpeper (Lancaster University).
Culpeper, J. & Kytö, M. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Davies, H. N. 1976. The Cobbler of Canterbury: Frederic Ouvry’s Edition of 1862 with a New Introduction by H. Neville Davies. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Evans, G. B. (ed.). 1973. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston MA: Houghton Miffin Company.Google Scholar
Felver, C. S. 1961. Robert Armin, Shakespeare’s fool: A biographical essay. Kent State University Bulletin (Kent, Ohio) XLIX(1).Google Scholar
Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
HC = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by M. Rissanen (Project leader), M. Kytö (Project secretary); L. Kahlas-Tarkka, M. Kilpiö (Old English); S. Nevanlinna, I. Taavitsainen (Middle English); T. Nevalainen, H. Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English).
Heritage, J. 2019. From case-marking to interjection: Speculations on the passage of English oh and its pathways. Guest lecture on the 20th of September at the University of Helsinki.
Holcomb, C. 2001. Mirth Making: The Rhetorical Discourse on Jesting in Early Modern England. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. 1991. Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 2015. Uh and Um as planners in the Corpus of Historical American English . In Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence, I. Taavitsainen, M. Kytö, C. Claridge & J. Smith (eds), 162–177. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. & Taavitsainen, I. 2000. Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morson, G. S. (ed.). 1981. Preface: Perhaps Bakhtin. In Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on His Works, vii–xiii. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. 2015. I will proclaim myself what I am: Corpus stylistics and the language of Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Language and Literature 24(4): 338–354.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. 2010. Laughter before the punch line during the performance of narrative jokes in conversation. Text & Talk 30(1): 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online, 2nd edn with additions. Oxford: OUP.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 1995a. Narrative patterns of affect in four genres of The Canterbury Tales . The Chaucer Review 30(2): 82–101.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 1995b. Interjections in Early Modern English: From imitations of spoken to conventions of written language. In Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35], A. H. Jucker (ed.), 419–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 1997. Genre conventions: Personal affect in fiction and non-fiction in Early Modern English. In English in Transition: Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles, M. Rissanen, M. Kytö & K. Heikkonen (eds), 185–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 1998. Emphatic language and romantic prose: Changing functions of interjections in a sociocultural perspective. In Linguistic Theory and Practice in Current Literary Scholarship, M. Fludernik (ed.). Special issue of European Journal of English Studies 2: 195–214.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. 2015. Turn management and the fillers uh and um . In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (eds), 381–407. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nikitina, Tatiana, Ekaterina Aplonova & Leonardo Contreras Roa
2023. The use of interjections as a discourse phenomenon. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 227], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.