Vocative: a definition

1. ALT VII, Paris, 2007 Vocative: a definition Michael Daniel, Moscow State University

2. Introductory Thanks to EVA MPI for supporting my research

3. Why there is a need for a definition • Traditional grammar considers vocative trivial ~ nominal form used as address / in addressing people • Often, the definition is redirected to the category of address, which itself remains undefined

4. Attempts Daniel, Spencer to appear: ‘the vocative is a dedicated nominal form used for calling out, attracting or sustaining the addressee’s attention; it names the addressee explicitly, by using a noun referring to him or she’

5. Extending the definition formally Not only nominal markers, but also: adnominal markers, such as bound adnominal particles (cf. Celtic preposed a, preposed or postposed clitics in Daghestanian); imaginable vocative NP patterns (to which the Italian non-productive inverse order figlio mio is close). This definition is still inadequate, in a different way.

6. Not a semantic category Vocative is used to attract the addressee’s attention. But it does not mean ‘I want to talk to you’ or ‘I want you to listen to me’

7. Obvious Analogy… Imperatives are used to cause the addressee’s doing something. But they do not mean simply ‘I want you to do something’ Illocutionary force Speaker says ‘I want you to carry out P’, and by saying so he causes the addressee to carry out his wish

8. Illocutionary approach By uttering a form of address, the speaker causes the addressee to listen to him. (rough definition)

9. Behavorial properties • addresses do not have truth value (just as imperatives, or interjections)

10. Behaviorial properties • addresses seem to be hard to be reported indirectly (again, just as, and may be even more than, imperatives) In Agul, imperatives seem to be reportable in indirect or semidirect speech - but not vocatives (Merdanova 2006)

11. Non-phonological prosody Tone Mangarayi: (Merlan 1982: 77) “The final syllable increases and then falls sharply in loudness and pitch” Vajda on Ket (2004: 22) “Nouns in the vocative represent a special type of intonation phrase in which a dynamic stress appears on the vocative ending and all the lexical tones are elided.” Indonesian (Gil, p.c.; a pattern specific to a dialect) sharp change of pitch on the last syllable

12. Vowel length Archi (Kibrik et al 1977) Consonant final names change the last vowel to o of any duration Pat’imat > Pat’imoo…oot Elsewhere in the dictionary, vowel length is sometimes phonological (phonetically impredictable), but only peripherally. In lexicon – expressive.

13. Truncation Truncation is loss of material definable in phonotactic or morphonological but not exclusively morphological terms. Truncation cuts across morphemes. Widespread in vocatives, apprently much more than in any other grammatical category. Khrakovski&Volodin 1986 and Goussev 2005 claim truncation for imperatives, but this seems much more limited.

14. Truncation • Nivkh (Panfilov 1962) – for kinship terms and personal names – drop the final consonant; lengthen the vowel and / or open it at’ik ‘younger brother’  at’i[k] Voc at’ā; T’inyk <fem personal name>  T’iny[k] Voc T’inē • Georgian (Vogt 1971) – special vocatives in –i are claimed to be derived from vocative/hypocoristic forms in –ilo by dropping the last syllable dedi from [ded-i]l-o ‘mother’; mami from [mam-i]l-o ‘father’ Also Chuckchi (Skorik 1961), probably Yurok (isolate within Algic) (Robins 1958), Indonesian (Gil p.c., Gil 2007), Russian, other…

15. Phonological suprasegmentals Case Prefixes Truncation Suffixes Bound Particles Word-level non-phonological suprasegmentals Free Particles Intjct Sentential prosody borrowing Exclamatives Lexicon

16. Morphosyntactic autonomy Potentially, a complete utterance Rarely takes dependents

17. Bare stem tendency Tends to be left unmarked Sometimes even less marked than the nominative ’Άρτεμις ‘Artemis’ Voc ’Άρτεμι; πατήρ ‘father’ Voc πάτερ Ancient Greek Russian Nom пап-а, Voc пап!Nom Саш-а, Voc Саш!

18. Vocative and Imperative Special prosody, irreportability (may be to a lesser extent than for vocatives), some truncation – are also reported for imperatives (Khrakovski, Volodin 1986; Goussev 2005 discusses imperative truncation). Common to both categories are also tendency to use a bare stem and ability to constitute a complete utterance (Jakobson).

19. Once again: By uttering a form of address, the speaker causes the addressee to listen to him. (rough definition)

20. Vocative and Imperative Partly because of these formal similarities, and partly for purely onthological reasons, the analogies between vocative and imperative have been drawn before.

21. Vocative and Imperative Jakobson in his ‘On the structure of Russian verb’: underlines similarities between vocative and imperative (bare stem tendency, capability to constitute a complete utterance on its own). He says that both share apellative function (following Buehler), as opposed to representative function. In a way, he claims imperative is a kind of vocative (or else uses the term apellative in the sense of illocution)

22. Vocative and Imperative (Khrakovski, Volodin 1986) – vocative is an inducement to listen, and thus is an instantiation of inducement in general (appeals to truncation).

23. Vocative and Imperative Thus, Jakobson says imperative is a kind of vocative, or both are ‘apellatives’ (whatever that means), while Khrakovski & Volodin say that vocative is a kind of imperative.

24. Vocative and Imperative What evidence do we have?

25. Vocative and Imperative No truth value Illocution Special prosodies Bare stem Irreportability Truncation Isolated use

26. Vocative and Imperative Both imperative and vocative are illocutions with special prosodies, but not with the same prosody - and thus not necessarily the same type of illocution.

27. Vocative Illocution Again, roughly: by uttering a form of address, the speaker causes the addressee to listen to him. But finer grain: • catching addressee’s attention • sustaining addressee’s attention • requiring an answer to localize an invisible addressee • singling the addressee out of a group of listeners • apprehensive • reproaching • invective / praise

28. Vocative Illocution Core function: manipulating the addressee’s discourse behavior • catching addressee’s attention • sustaining addressee’s attention • requiring an answer to localize an invisible addressee • singling the addressee out of a group of listeners • apprehensive • reproaching • invective / appraisal core extension

29. Georgian: an illustration of extended use še oxer-o! you.VOC rascal-VOC ‘You rascal!’ tkve briq’v-eb-o! you.PL.VOC boor-PL-VOC! ‘You boors!’

30. Vocative Illocution Main distinctions: Short distance vs. long distance vocatives Short distance may correlate with discourse integratedness Long distance may correlate with addressee’s invisibility

31. Invisibility Vocatives Hey, where(ever) you are Hey you, here! Vs. Invisibile vocative Visibile vocative Wappo (Raudin 1929); Walapai (Watahomigie et al. 2001); Ket (Vajda 2004)

32. Vocative Illocution Core vocative illocution: manipulating the addressee’s discourse behavior as opposed to: Core imperative illocution: manipulating the addressee’s behavior in general (~physical behavior, actions in general)

33. The End