ALT VII,
Paris, 2007
Vocative: a definition
Michael Daniel,
Moscow State University
Introductory
Thanks to EVA MPI for supporting my research
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
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’
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.
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’
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
Illocutionary approach
By uttering a form of address, the speaker
causes the addressee to listen to him.
(rough definition)
Behavorial properties
• addresses do not have truth value
(just as imperatives, or interjections)
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)
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
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.
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.
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…
Phonological
suprasegmentals
Prefixes
Case
Truncation
Suffixes
Bound Particles
Word-level
non-phonological
suprasegmentals
Intjct
Free Particles
Sentential
prosody
Exclamatives
Lexicon
Morphosyntactic autonomy
Potentially, a complete utterance
Rarely takes dependents
Bare stem tendency
Tends to be left unmarked
Sometimes even less marked than the nominative
Ancient Greek
Russian
’Άρτεμις ‘Artemis’ Voc ’Άρτεμι;
πατήρ ‘father’ Voc πάτερ
Nom пап-а, Voc пап! Nom Саш-а, Voc Саш!
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).
Once again:
By uttering a form of address, the speaker
causes the addressee to listen to him.
(rough definition)
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.
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)
Vocative and Imperative
(Khrakovski, Volodin 1986) – vocative is an
inducement to listen, and thus is an instantiation
of inducement in general (appeals to truncation).
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.
Vocative and Imperative
What evidence do we have?
vocatives
imperatives
no truth value
+
+
irreportability
+
+
isolated use
+
+?
extraphonological
+
-
truncation
+
+??
bare stem tendency
+
+
Vocative and Imperative
No truth
Illocution
value
Special prosodies
Bare stem
Irreportability
Truncation
Isolated use
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.
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
Vocative Illocution
extension
core
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
Georgian: an illustration of extended use
še
you.VOC
‘You rascal!’
oxer-o!
rascal-VOC
tkve
you.PL.VOC
‘You boors!’
briq’v-eb-o!
boor-PL-VOC!
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
Invisibility Vocatives
Hey, Hey
where(ever)
you are
you, here!
Visibile vocative
Vs.
Invisibile vocative
Wappo (Raudin 1929); Walapai (Watahomigie et
al. 2001); Ket (Vajda 2004)
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)
The
End