Construcțiile incidente cu funcție expresivă: analiză cantitativă pe momentele și schițele lui I.L. Caragiale

Incident constructions with expressive function: Quantitative analysis on the moments and sketches of I.L. Caragiale




parentheticals, Caragiale, interjections, imprecations, cantitative analysis


The present work is composed of two parts: a theoretical part, in which some critical and personal considerations on the incident constructions are exposed, and the second part represents a qualitative-quantitative approach to the moments and sketches of I.L. Caragiale. In the theoretical part, the aim is to present incident constructions, especially in relation to GALR, where a complex and up-to-date classification of them is made from a semantic-functional point of view, into: allocutive incident constructions, direct speech reporting constructions, metadiscursive incident constructions, incident constructions with the role of pragmatic connectors, incident constructions with expressive function, with conative function, and verbal automatisms. However, according to the three basic features of incidents, namely the representation of an additional syntactic structure, the lack of syntactic links to the underlying utterance, and the provision of information of the type comment, explanation or direct speech reporting, it can be seen that not all the categories listed above fall into the narrow class of incidents, which is why we hypothesised that those categories that do not exhibit all three defining features of incidents belong to paranthetic constructions, a superclass of incidents. After this theoretical presentation, I carried out a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the incident constructions with expressive function in Caragiale’s moments and sketches. The analysis was carried out manually and with the software Voyant Tool. From the category of incident expressive constructions, we first considered interjections and imprecations, as these are the most representatives for Caragiale’s work. As far as interjections are concerned, we made an inventory of them according to the number of occurrences, which showed that the most frequent interjections in Caragiale’s work are the interjections: a!, as!, ei! and uf!, followed by ah!, ei aș! o! aoleu! and ehei! Taking contexts and representative examples from Caragiale’s moments and sketches, we have analysed their semantic valences, highlighting the fact that interjections known positively in Caragiale’s work receive many more semantic nuances than those known negatively. Using concrete examples, the main semantic nuances identified were admiration, determination, disappointment, disapproval, dissimulation, exaltation, hesitation, anger, irritation, irony, melancholy, satisfaction, puzzlement, dissatisfaction, disbelief, fear, hope, surprise, suspicion, confusion, disappointment, indifference, irony, joy, boldness or even suffering. The semantic analysis of the interjections identified in Caragiale’s work was followed by a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the imprecations, which produced an impressive list of imprecations that suggest the linguistic inventiveness of the Romanian prose writer and support the orality of his style. Interestingly, most of the imprecations are found in the texts "Întârziere" and "Un pedagog de școală nouă", in the speech of a female character and a teacher, characters often associated with elevated language. Taken as a whole, all these incident expressive constructions, whether interjections or imprecations, are intended not only to emphasise the characters’ feelings, but are also evidence of their attitude and relationship to the world, to other characters and to society in general. Through the variety of semantic nuances they update and the multitude of forms identified in Caragiale’s texts, they acquire a central role in the articulation of the message and meanings.


Author Biography

Denisa-Maria Bâlc, "Lucian Blaga" University of Sibiu, Romania

Denisa-Maria Bâlc is a doctoral student in the field of Philology and a Teacher Assistant at the Faculty of Letters and Arts, at Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu. Her main fields of interest are Romanian as a Foreign Language, Discourse Analysis, Romanian Grammar, and Language Studies. Over time, she took part in several projects, such as: MDRR – The Digital Museum of the Romanian Novel (1901-1932), a corpus-based analysis; FAKEROM – Fake News in Romanian: A Joint Discursive and Computational Approach; TEHNE – The Development of New and Emerging Technologies in the Context of Stimulating Research Excellence at LBUS; PATLIROThe Preservation, Transformation and Study of the Romanian Linguistic Heritage in the Context of Globalization, and CORECON – The coverage and reception of the Russian – Ukrainian conflict in Polish, Romanian and English-language media: A comparative critical discourse study with recommendations for journalism training. Each of these endeavors significantly enhanced her professional growth and served as the cornerstone for the academic articles she later published.


Surse primare:

Caragiale, I.L. (2011). Opere. Vol. I: Proză literară [Works. Vol. I: Literary prose]. București: Editura Fundației Naționale pentru Știință și Artă.

Referințe critice:

Avram, M. (2001). Gramatica pentru toți, ediția a III-a [Grammar for all, 3rd edition]. București: Humanitas.

Bidu-Vrănceanu, A., Călărașu, C., Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, L., Mancaș, M., Pană Dindelegan, G. (2005). Dicționarul de științe ale limbii [Dictionary of language sciences]. București: Editura Nemira&Co.

Ciobanu, F. (1966). Există propoziții „incidente legate”? [Are there related incident sentences?]. In Limba română, XV (6), 569-577.

Ciobanu, Fulvia (1966). Cuvintele și construcțiile incidente [Incident words and constructions]. În ***, Gramatica limbii române, vol. al II-lea, ediția a II-a revăzută și adăugită [Grammar of the Romanian Language, vol. II, 2nd revised and added edition] (pp. 422-427). București: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

Colciar, R. Mihali, A.E. (2021). Valori semantico-pragmatice ale interjecției în textul dialectal [Semantic-pragmatic values of the interjection in dialectal text]. In Caietele Sextil Pușcariu, V, 90-102.

Croitor Blaciu, B.(2008). Interjecții [Interjections]. În V. Guțu Romalo (coord.), Gramatica limbii române, vol. I: CuV, 90[Grammar of the Romanian language, vol. I: The word] (pp. 657-685). București: Editura Academiei Române [GALR I].

Dehé, N. (2014). Parentheticals in spoken English: The syntax – prosody relation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dehé, N., Kavalova, Y. (eds.) (2007). Parentheticals. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Dimitriu, C. (2000). Tratat de gramatică a limbii române, vol. 2: Sintaxa [Romanian grammar treatise, vol.2: Syntax]. Iași: Institutul European.

Drașoveanu, D.D. (1997). Teze și antiteze în sintaxa limbii române [Theses and antitheses in Romanian syntax]. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Clusium.

Gabrea, M.I. (1965). Construcții incidente: Aspecte morfologico-sintactice și stilistice [Incident constructions: Morphological-syntactic and stylistic aspects]. In Limba română, XIV (5), 533-544.

Găitănaru, Ș. (2018). Gramatica critică a limbii române [Critical grammar of the Romanian language]. Pitești: Editura Universității din Pitești.

Graur, A. (coord.), (1956). Limba română: Fonetică, vocabular, gramatică [Romanian language: Phonetics, vocabulary, grammar]. București: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române.

Graur, A. (1973). Gramatica azi [Grammar today]. București: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.

Guțu Romalo, V. (coord.) (2008) Gramatica limbii române, vol. I: Cuvântul [Grammar of the Romanian language, vol. I: The word]. București: Editura Academiei Române [GALR I].

Guțu Romalo, V. (coord.) (2008) Gramatica limbii române, vol. II: Enunțul, tiraj nou și revizuit [Grammar of the Romanian language, vol II: The sentence, new and revised edition]. București: Editura Academiei Române [GALR II].

Ilie, L. (2012). Un veac de caragialism: Comic și absurd în proza și dramaturgia românească postcaragialiană [A century of Caragialism. Comic and absurd in post-Caragialian Romanian prose and drama]. Iași: Institutul European.

Indrea, A. (1961). Construcții și cuvinte incidente [Incident constructions and words]. In Cercetări de lingvistică [Linguistic research], VI (2), 351-357.

Iordan, I., Robu, V. (1978). Limba română contemporană [Contemporary Romanian language]. București: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică.

Irimia, D. (1997). Gramatica limbii române [Romanian grammar]. Iași: Polirom.

Kaltenböck, G., Keizer, E., Lohmann, A. (2016). Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pamfil, M. (2002). Morfosintaxa limbii române contemporane, ediția a II-a, revăzută și adăugită [Morphosyntax of contemporary Romanian, 2nd edition, revised and added]. Sibiu: Editura Imago.

Pană Dindelegan, G. (coord.). (2016). Gramatica de bază a limbii române [Basic Romanian grammar]. București: Univers Enciclopedic Gold.

Pană Dindelegan, G. (ed.). (2021). O gramatică a limbii române altfel [A different grammar of the Romanian language]. București: Univers Enciclopedic Gold.

Șerban, V. (1970). Sintaxa limbii române, ediția a II-a revizuită și completată [Syntax of the Romanian language, 2nd revised and added edition]. București: Editura Didactică și Pedagogică.

Tomescu, D. (2008). Construcții incidente [Incident constructions]. În V. Guțu Romalo (coord.), Gramatica limbii române, vol. II: Enunțul, tiraj nou și revizuit [Grammar of the Romanian language, vol II: the Sentence, new and revised edition] (pp.802-806). București: Editura Academiei Române [GALR II].

Vasilescu, A. (2019). Construcțiile incidente [Incident constructions]. In SCL, LXX, 2019 (1), 3-31.




How to Cite

Bâlc, D.-M. (2024). Construcțiile incidente cu funcție expresivă: analiză cantitativă pe momentele și schițele lui I.L. Caragiale : Incident constructions with expressive function: Quantitative analysis on the moments and sketches of I.L. Caragiale. Swedish Journal of Romanian Studies, 7(2), 177–188.