Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 11:2 (2024) ► pp.274–295

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The status of interjections in Cognitive Grammar

ORCiD logo with link | University of Kirkuk
Published online: 10 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00122.ham
Abstract
This paper reflects on interjections in English. An interjection is a word or phrase that is used to express strong emotions, often suddenly, like oops when a small mistake happens, as in Oops! I typed two Ls by mistake. To provide a new picture of interjections, it embeds the analysis in Cognitive Grammar. In this regard, it attempts to verify three claims of Cognitive Grammar. One claim describes a linguistic expression as a cluster of distinct but related senses. In light of this claim, the paper argues that an interjection forms a category of numerous senses organized around a central one. Another claim characterizes the meanings of linguistic expressions with respect to the fields to which they belong. In virtue of this claim, the paper argues that interjections form domains in which they stand for a general concept but differ in specifics. A further claim ascribes the use of a linguistic expression to the particular construal imposed on its content. Given this claim, the paper argues that the use of an interjection results from the particular perspective in which the speaker takes on a situation. The aim is to highlight the extra touch of meaning that interjections flavor the utterances in which they occur. The gist is that interjections are purposeful choices for expressing sentiments.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Characterization
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.The new analysis
    • 5.1The category theory
    • 5.2The domain theory
      • 5.2.1The domain of joy
      • 5.2.2The domain of pain
      • 5.2.3The domain of disgust
      • 5.2.4The domain of surprise
      • 5.2.5The domain of doubt
    • 5.3The construal theory
      • 5.3.1Ambiguity
      • 5.3.2Pauses
      • 5.3.3Position
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Note
  • References
References (32)
References
Aijmer, K. (1987). Oh and Ah in English conversation. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus linguistics and beyond (pp. 61–86). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2–3), 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Interjections. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language & linguistics (pp. 743–746). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K., & Wilkins, D. P. (2006). Interjections. In F. Brisard, P. Gras, S. D’hondt & M. Vandenbroucke (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics Online (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuenca, M. J. (2000). Defining the indefinable? Interjections. Syntaxis, 31, 29–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gehweiler, E. (2010). Interjections and expletives. In A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical pragmatics (pp. 315–350). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2014). Interjections and emotion (with special reference to “surprise” and “disgust”). Emotion Review, 6(1), 53–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamawand, Z. (2009). The semantics of English negative prefixes. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Semantics: A cognitive account of linguistic meaning. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional discourse grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 399–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jovanović, V. Ž. (2004). The form, position and meaning of interjections in English. Linguistics and Literature, 31, 17–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2015). A functional discourse grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2011). Collins COBUILD English grammar. London: Collins Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). The semantics of interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2–3), 159–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2–3), 119–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Saleem, Tahir & Shumaila Ahmad
2025. From structure to meaning: a lexical semantic framework for Urdu compounding. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue