User:Alena b/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Ellen Prince
 * This article is very short, consisting of only 10 sentenes to describe Ellen Prince's life and work.
 * None of the information seems irrelevant or distracting.
 * The only statement that seems potentially biased is: "Many of her papers have been – and remain – highly influential in the field of pragmatics," which has two citations. The citations take the reader to two sites where easily upwards of three dozen scholarly articles/publications of Prince's are available for perusing or purchasing. Thus, it seems likely that the Wiki article's assertion about Prince's influential role is not, in fact, biased and is evidenced by the amount of her scholarly contributions to the field of semantics and pragmatics.
 * However, if Prince was so influential to the field, why are her areas of expertise mentioned in such brevity in her Wiki article (namely "pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions in English and Yiddish" and "typology of information statuses in discourse")? There is surely an ample supply of her works available (as evidenced by following citations 2 and 3) such that the article could provide more detail on what exactly her influential contributions in these areas consisted of, and more of a discussion of these areas. In the same vein, only five of her academic publications are listed under "Selected Publications", which seems a bit short.
 * The second paragraph quotes exactly and closely paraphrases some language about Prince's life work found in the first citation ("Memoriam") without actually citing that reference in the paragraph. Thus, the footnote [1] should be added to this paragraph and the wording re-phrased so as not to plagiarize. In addition, I'm not sure that a memorial brochure is a reliable, unbiased source?
 * On that note, the References section is overall weak and unreliable. Two are memorials written either by her colleagues (1) or unknown (4). Two are links to search engines that produce Prince's many publications (2 and 3), and one is simply a link to the LSA's list of presidents over the years (5). One of the External Links ("Yiddish") leads to a 404 Error page.

Editing an Article - Interjections
The interjections article has a very short lead that defines interjections, a short section on "distinctions", a short section addressing interjections across languages, and some examples in English. There is enough literature available to expound these points and add to them so readers have a better understanding of interjections. I plan on adding information regarding interjections as a part of speech (or not) and how they can be classified, which there seems to be some differing ideas about in the literature. I also think it would be helpful to provide a little history on interjections, i.e., that they can be traced back to Latin and Greek, how interjections have been thought of in respect to classification over the years, records of interjections spoken in the 18th and 19th centuries, etc.

Bibliography of sources to use for adding this info:

Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2-3), 101-118. Retrieved from https://login.ezproxy.uta.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.uta.edu/docview/58242074?accountid=7117 -->already cited in the Wiki article

Meinard, M. E. M. (2015). Distinguishing onomatopoeias from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 150-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.011

Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866-891. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005

Traugott, E. C. (2015). “Ah, pox o’ your pad-lock”: Interjections in the Old Bailey Corpus 1720-1913. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 68-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.013

Wharton, T. (2003). Interjections, language, and the 'showing/saying' continuum. Pragmatics & Cognition, 11(1): 173-215. -->already cited in the Wiki article

Draft Space for Editing "Interjections" Article
(Natasha and Cristina: here is a copy of the article for our combined edit drafts.)

In linguistics, an interjection is a word or expression that occurs as an utterance on its own and expresses a spontaneous feeling or reaction. The category is quite heterogeneous, and includes such things as exclamations (ouch!, wow!), curses (damn!), greetings (hey, bye), response particles (okay, oh!, m-hm, huh?), and hesitation markers (uh, er, um). Due to its heterogeneous nature, the category of interjections partly overlaps with categories like profanities, discourse markers and fillers.

Historical classification
Greek and Latin intellectuals as well as the Modistae have contributed to the different perspectives of interjections in language throughout history. The Greeks held that interjections fell into the grammatical category of adverbs. They thought interjections modified the verb much in the same way as adverbs do, thus interjections were closely connected to verbs.

Unlike their Greek counterparts, many Latin scholars took the position that interjections did not rely on verbs and were used to communicate emotions and abstract ideas. They considered interjections to be their own independent part of speech. Further, the Latin grammarians classified any small non-word utterances as interjections.

Several hundred years later, the 13th- and 14th-century Modistae took inconsistent approaches to interjections. Some, such as Thomas of Erfurt, agreed with the former Greeks that the interjection was closely tied to the verb while others like Siger of Courtrai held that the interjection was its own part of speech syntactically, much like the Latin scholars.

Meaning and use
In contrast to typical words and sentences, the function of most interjections is related to an expression of feeling, rather than representing some idea or concept. Generally, interjections can be classified into three types of meaning: volitive, emotive, or cognitive. While there exists some apparent overlap between emotive and cognitive interjections, as both express a feeling, cognitive interjections can be seen as more related to knowledge of something (i.e. information previously known to the speaker, or recently learned).
 * Volitive interjections function as imperative or directive expressions, requesting or demanding something from the addressee (e.g. "Shh!" = "Be quiet!").
 * Emotive interjections are used to express emotions, such as disgust and fear (e.g. "Yuck!" = disgust).
 * Cognitive interjections express feelings which are more related to cognition, or information known to the speaker of the utterance (e.g. "Wow!" = surprise).

Primary and secondary interjections
Interjections may be subdivided and classified in several ways. A common distinction is based on relations to other word categories: primary interjections are interjections first and foremost (examples: Oops., Ouch!, Huh?), while secondary interjections are words from other categories that come to be used as interjections in virtue of their meaning (examples: Damn!, Hell!)  Primary interjections are generally considered to be single words (Oh!, Wow!). Secondary interjections can consist of multi-word phrases, or interjectional phrases, (examples: sup! from What's up?, Excuse me!, Oh dear!, Thank God!), but can also include single-word alarm words (Help!), swear and taboo words (Heavens!), and other words used to show emotion (Drats!). Although secondary interjections tend to interact more with the words around them, a characteristic of all interjections--whether primary or secondary--is that they can stand alone. For example, it is possible to utter an interjection like ouch! or bloody hell! on its own, whereas a different part of speech that may seem similar in function and length, such as the conjunction  ' and ', cannot be uttered alone (you can't just say ' and! ' independently in English).

 

Further distinctions can be made based on function. Exclamations and curses are primarily about giving expression to private feelings or emotions, while response particles and hesitation markers are primarily directed at managing the flow of social interaction.

Interjections and other particles
Many consider interjections to fall under the part of speech of particles which also includes adverbs, fillers and onomatopoeias. As particles share many similarities, there exists confusion as to how to correctly define one subcategory from another. For example, one way to differentiate interjections from onomatopoeias is to take into account that interjections are not created by inanimate sources. That is, onomatopoeias can be created from sounds made by tools, machines, and non-animate sources in nature as well as animate sources such as animals. Thus, interjections are by and large created by animate sources which in almost all cases come from humans.

Interjections are often confused as adverbs as they often appear following a form of the verb “go” causing many to think it is describing the verb instead of supplementing the utterance. One way to differentiate between an interjection and adverb is to find the locutor of the utterance. That is, if the locutor is making the utterance then it is an interjection. However, if the locutor is making a description of an utterance made by another locutor then it is considered an adverb.

There is also a need to make a distinction between fillers and interjections. Often considered the same, interjections belong to their own subcategory in that they are able to stand freely outside of an utterance and may include pauses without losing its semantic meaning. Further, interjections are able to begin a direct and hypothetical utterance unlike fillers. Finally, many words of expressions considered as fillers are not classified as belonging to interjections.

Routines are considered as a form of speech acts that rely on an understood social communicative pattern between the addressee and addressed. This differs from an interjection that is more of a strategic utterance within a speech act that brings attention to the utterance but may or may not also have an intended addressed (directed at an individual or group). In addition, routines generally are multi-word expressions whereas interjections tend to be single utterances.

Not all scholars agree that interjections can be grouped with particles. Felix Ameka maintains that the two are distinct in that particles cannot be independent utterances and are fully a part of the syntax of the utterance. Interjections, on the other hand, can stand alone and also are always preceded by a pause, separating them from the grammar and syntax of other surrounding utterances.

Interjections as deictics
Interjections are bound by context, meaning that their interpretation is largely dependent on the time and place at which they are uttered. In linguistics, interjections can also be considered a form of deixis. Although their meaning is fixed (e.g. "Wow!" = "surprised"), there is also a referencing element which is tied to the situation. For example, the use of the interjection "Wow!" necessarily references some relation between the speaker and something that has just caused surprise to the speaker at the moment of the utterance. Without context, the listener would not know the referent of the expression (i.e. the source of the surprise). Similarly, the interjection "Ouch!" generally expresses pain, but also requires contextual information for the listener to determine the referent of the expression (i.e. the cause of the pain).

While we can often see deictic or indexical elements in expressive interjections, examples of reference are perhaps more clearly illustrated in the use of imperative examples. Volitive interjections such as "Ahem", "Psst!", and "Shh!" could be considered imperative, as the speaker is requesting or demanding something from the listener. Similar to the deictic pronoun "you", the referent of these expressions changes, dependent on the context of the utterance.

Interjections across languages
Interjections can take very different forms and meanings across cultures. For instance, the English interjections gee and wow have no direct equivalent in Polish, and the closest equivalent for Polish fu (an interjection of disgust) is the different sounding Yuck!. Curses likewise are famously language-specific and colourful. On the other hand, interjections that manage social interaction may be more similar across languages. For instance, the word 'Huh?', used when one has not caught what someone just said, is remarkably similar in 31 spoken languages around the world, prompting claims that it may be a universal word. Similar observations have been made for the interjections 'Oh!' (meaning, roughly, now I see) and 'Mm/m-hm' (with the meaning 'keep talking, I'm with you').

Across languages, interjections often use special sounds and syllable types that are not commonly used in other parts of the vocabulary. For instance, interjections like brr and shh! are made entirely of consonants, where in virtually all languages, words have to feature at least one vowel-like element. Some, like 'tut-tut' and 'ahem', are written like normal words, but their actual production involves clicks or throat-clearing. The phonetic atypicality of some interjections is one reason they have traditionally been considered as lying outside the realm of language.

Examples from English
Several English interjections contain sounds, or are sounds as opposed to words, that do not (or very rarely) exist in regular English phonological inventory. For example:
 * Ahem, ("attention!") may contain a glottal stop or a  in any dialect of English; the glottal stop is common in American English, some British dialects, and in other languages, such as German.
 * Gah, ("Gah, there's nothing to do!") ends with , which does not occur with regular English words.
 * Psst ("here!") is an entirely consonantal syllable, and its consonant cluster does not occur initially in regular English words.
 * Shh ("quiet!") is another entirely consonantal syllable word.
 * Tut-tut ("shame..."), also spelled tsk-tsk, is made up entirely of clicks, which are an active part of regular speech in several African languages. This particular click is dental. (This also has the spelling pronunciation  .)
 * Ugh ("disgusting!") ends with a velar fricative consonant, which is otherwise restricted to just a few regional dialects of English, though is common in languages like Spanish, German, Gaelic and Russian.
 * Whew or phew, ("what a relief!"), also spelled shew, may start with a bilabial fricative, a sound pronounced with a strong puff of air through the lips. This sound is a common phoneme in such languages as Suki (a language of New Guinea) and Ewe and Logba (both spoken in Ghana and Togo).
 * Yeah ("yes") ends with the vowel, or in some dialects the short vowel  or tensed , none of which are found at the end of any regular English words.

Peer-Reviews
From Mrobbins4:

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. Something I noticed was the fact that first letter of the italicized examples within parentheses under the "Primary and secondary interjections" section were not italicized. This is a very minor issue and I did not notice anything else distracting.

The article appears to be neutral, showing differing opinions without being biased to either one, like in the "Historical classification" section. In that same vein, the viewpoints that are presented are represented pretty fairly, with an even amount of evidence and prose for each section.

The links to the citations work, with the claims from the sources being correctly supported. Every reference is appropriate and reliable, with most of them coming from linguistic journals. The dates of the references vary, with the oldest being from 1904 to the most recent being from 2014. It could be possible that there is even more recent articles written about interjections, but overall the information is relevant and well-supported.

Great job on the draft!

From Ericaldagar

This is all relevant to your topic and neutral. I also agree with Mrobbins4 that all of the sources are reliable and that the links work. You have a lot of valuable information and it all flows very well. I also think that you have a lot of great examples. The only minor error I found was the same one as Mrobbins4, but other than that this is a great draft.

From cainss

Alena,

Your sources and information are great. I did check your sources and I really like how you added sources that can describe your article without having to log in to a student/teacher only website or database.

Your plans and articles are neutral which is great for the article. Like Mrobbins4 stated if possible are there any newer sources at least something from 2017. Otherwise I see your articles are supported great.

Cainss (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Cainss

From Ebuckingham:

Your article is looking great! All of the headings are clear and concise, and the few citations I clicked on worked perfectly. I especially liked the "Examples from English" portion. I wanted to suggest that for the meaning of "tut-tut (tsk-tsk)", instead of having the meaning simply say "shame...", you could add "shame on you/what a shame". I think this would add some more depth to the meaning and give people a more clear idea of when one would use it.

Ebuckingham (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

-- To Mrobbins4: Thanks for cathing that! We have corrected the italicization. To Ericaldager: Thanks for your input, glad the links all work for you too. To Cainss: Thanks for the positive feedback. To Ebuckingham: I agree, thanks for sharing!

Alena b (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC) --To Mrobbins4: Thank you for the positive feedback! As Alena mentioned, we corrected the issue with the italics - thanks for pointing it out!

To Ericaldagar: Thank you for the positive feedback - I'm glad you think it all flows well, especially since we have all worked on different sections.

To Cainss: We will look into some more recent articles to add. Thanks!

To Ebuckingham: Good suggestion on the clarification of "tut-tut (tsk-tsk)" - thank you!

Natnicmo (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

-

To Mrobbins4: Thanks for the feedback, the issue was corrected since it did look weird.

To Ericaldagar: Thanks for the review. I appreciate you liked the draft. Please, check out the actual article.

To Cainss: Thanks for the feedback! We are in the process of improving the draft and making the article live.

To Ebuckingham: Thanks for the advice! We will look into clarifying the uses of "tut-tut" (tsk-tsk) CA108017 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)