Izredna SR ANG.indd - Slavistična revija

Transcription

Ada Vidovič Muha, On the Categorialness of Lexemes between Lexicon and Grammar
369
SLOVENIAN LINGUISTICS TODAY
370
General Linguistic Topics
371
CONTENTS
I GRAMMAR AND LEXICON
CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGE
GENERAL LINGUISTIC TOPICS
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA, On the Categorialness of Lexemes between Lexicon
and Grammar ....................................................................................................381
Andreja @ELE, Valency in Standard Slovenian with Special Reference
to the Verb .........................................................................................................405
Aleksandra DERGANC, Some Characteristics of the Dual in Slovenian ....................419
Jerica SNOJ, Metonymic Meanings: Syntagmatic Aspect .........................................439
Nata{a LOGAR, Stylistically Marked New Derivatives – A Typology ......................455
Peter JURGEC, Formant Frequencies of Vowels in Tonal and Non-Tonal Standard
Slovenian ............................................................................................................471
DIALECT TOPICS
Karmen KENDA JE`, Stucturalism in Slovenian Dialectology ..................................483
Vera SMOLE, A Geolinguistic Examination of Gender in Singular: Neuter Nouns
in -o in Slovenian Dialects ................................................................................495
CORPUS-LINGUISTIC TOPICS
Vojko GORJANC, Corpus Linguistics and Lexical Descriptions of the Slovenian
Language ..........................................................................................................507
Polona GANTAR, Corpus Approach in Phraseology and Dictionary
Applications .....................................................................................................521
LANGUAGE IN DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVE
Marc L. GREENBERG, The Slovene Sound System through Time .............................537
Majda MER{E, Verbal Aspect in Correlation with Other Verbal Categories
in the 16th-Century Slovenian Literary Language .............................................547
Irena OREL, Prepositional Phrases in the Development of the Slovenian
Literary Language .............................................................................................563
Marko JESEN{EK, Participial and Gerundival Constructions in -~ and -{i
in Slovenian ......................................................................................................583
Jasna HONZAK JAHI}, Notional Elements of Marko Pohlin’s Kraynska
grammatika (1768) ...........................................................................................595
372
II TEXTOLOGY AND JOURNALISTIC WRITING
Tomo KORO{EC, On Elements of Text Linguistics in Slovenian Linguistics ............611
Erika KRÌ{NIK, The Use of Semantic Potency of Phraseological Units ..................633
Monika KALIN GOLOB, Stylistics of Journalism and Journalistic Style:
From the First Daily Newspapers to the Tabloidisation of the Media ..............657
III SOCIOLINGUISTICS
Andrej E. SKUBIC, Attitudes towards Social Speech among Different
Social Groups in Slovenia.................................................................................673
Marko STABEJ, The Outlines of Slovenian Language Policy ....................................687
Nada [ABEC, Language, Society and Culture: Slovene in Contact
with English ......................................................................................................705
Marko SNOJ, On Foreignisms and Borrowings in Slovene.......................................721
Simona KRANJC, Ljubica MARJANOVI~ UMEK, Ur{ka FEKONJA, Language
Development in Early Childhood: Developmental Changes between
the Ages of Three and Four...............................................................................729
I GRAMMAR AND LEXICON
373
374
CONTEMPORARY LANGUAGE
375
376
GENERAL LINGUISTIC TOPICS
377
UDC 811.169.6’37
Ada Vidovi~ Muha
Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana
ON THE CATEGORIALNESS OF LEXEMES BETWEEN LEXICON
AND GRAMMAR
The present article builds on the findings concerning the connectedness between lexical
and grammatical linguistic issues – the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of lexico-semantic analysis. The categorial semantic features as definitional properties of individual sentence
elements divide lexemes into those which concretize these categorial semantic features when
performing syntactic functions and those which do not. A change in the syntactic function of the
lexeme results in the change of categorial semantic features and, consequently, in the change of
the lexical meaning. – It is characteristic of lexemes with syntactic functions that their denotata
are part of the propositional structure of the (underlying) sentence meaning if these are verbs or
nouns or adverbs of exterior circumstances. Outside the proposition remain the semantic »modificators« of propositional lexemes, the adjective next to the noun, and the adverb of interior
circumstances next to the verb. The meaning of lexemes with such denotata can be represented
structurally as a hierarchically organized string of semantic features which reflect the logical
relationship between what is conceptually wider and conceptually narrower.
Razprava izhaja iz spoznanja o prepletenosti slovarskih in slovni~nih vpra{anj jezika – paradigmatskih in sintagmatskih vidikov leksikalnopomenske analize. Kategorialne pomenske
sestavine kot definicijske lastnosti posameznih stav~nih ~lenov lo~ujejo leksiko na tisto, ki v
stav~no~lenskih vlogah te kategorialne pomenske sestavine konkretizira, od tiste, ki te vloge
nima. Spreminjanje stav~no~lenskih vlog leksema pomeni spreminjanje kategorialnih pomenskih sestavin in s tem spreminjanje leksikalnega pomena. – Za lekseme s stav~no~lensko vlogo
je zna~ilno, da njihov denotat sodi v propozicijsko ogrodje (stav~ne) povedi, ~e gre za glagolsko
in samostalni{ko besedo ter prislovno besedo zunanjih okoli{~in; zunaj propozicije sta pomenska »modifikatorja« propozicijskih leksemov, ob samostalniku pridevni{ka beseda, ob glagolu
pa prislov notranjih okoli{~in. – Pomen leksemov s tovrstnimi denotati je mogo~e predstaviti
strukturalno kot hierarhi~no urejen nabor pomenskih sestavin, ki odsevajo smiselno razmerje
med pojmovno {ir{im in pojmovno o`jim.
Key words: categorical property, semantic feature, denotative meaning, word-formational
meaning, sentence element
Klju~ne besede: kategorialna lastnost, pomenska sestavina, denotativni pomen, besedotvorni pomen, stav~ni ~len
It is a well-known fact that lexemes as vocabulary units can possess both obligatory and potential meanings; the obligatory meaning comprises the categorial as well
as the denotative lexical meanings, 1 while the potential meaning includes the connota-
1
The distinction between the categorial meaning and the denotative one is, as will be clarified later,
based on a different method of their identification.
378
tive and the pragmatic meanings (Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 30).2 The present discussion
will be limited to the obligatory lexical meaning, primarily to the issues of categorialness, but will also touch on denotativeness.
Within the lexicon, categorialness can be linked to the denotative meaning and to
the word-formational meaning. Categorialness linked to the issues of lexical denotativeness opens up a rather complex relationship between the functions performed by
lexemes as sentence elements and the denotative lexical meaning fixed by the structure. In categorial word-formational meaning, as was established already in 1988 (Vidovi~ Muha 1988: 16–17, 18; 2000: 40–42)3, we build on the fact that a foreseeable
group of complex words (derivatives) can be transformed into the proposition on the
level of sentence meaning. Since this transformational link limits the number and
type of word-formational meaning as to the elements of the proposition, the wordformational meaning can also be referred to as the propositional meaning.4 However,
in at least two instances both types of categorial meaning, the denotative meaning
and the word-formational one, enter a cause-effect relationship: the categorial wordformational meaning, which is transformationally linked to the predicate (denoting an
action, a property, or a state), is also the carrier of the morphemic abstract properties
(suffixal formatives) as one of the lexical categorial semantic features of the noun;
in other words, the abstract quality is its definitional feature, as can be observed in
nouns such as pisa-nje ’to, da /…/’, mlad-ost ’to, da je /…/’, gozdar-stvo ’to, da je
/…/’ [writing ’(the fact) that /…/’, youth ’(the fact) that /…/ is’, forestry ’(the fact)
that /…/ is’]; the same holds true for the time of an action or the time when something
exists, e.g. mlad-ost ’tedaj, ko /…/’ [youth ’(the time) when /…/’]. This statement,
however, does not hold true for any other categorial (propositional) word-formational
meanings, such as the doer of an action (nomen agentis), the carrier of a property,
the animate +/– feature, the result of an action, the instrument of an action (these are
all derived from a base denoting an actant), the place or time of an action, the place
2
In certain lexemes, the potential meaning is to be understood as obligatory. In other words, the potential meaning is in such lexemes necessary to provide complete information on the potential textual role of
that particular lexeme. The connotative and pragmatic lexical meanings are determined by the fact that they
are always accompanying additions to the denotative meaning, e.g. baraba slabšalno ’človek /…/’ [bastard
pejorative ’man /…/’]; ob dvigu kozarca Na zdravje/in ’Pijemo /z določenim namenom/’[when lifting a
glass of drink Cheers ’Let us drink /a toast to a certain purpose/’]. In connotative meaning, various factors
(emotionality, stylization, etc.) make the creator of the text enter into the relationship existing between the
meaningful concept of the denotatum and the (linguistic) form. As for the denotatum, curses are an exception, since in them the denotative and connotative meanings coincide; in this case, it would be possible
to speak of transvaluation of the connotatum into the denotatum. However, these curses do not include
swearwords (with the subclass of names of abuse) where we deal with a type of connotatum determined
primarily by the fact that the denotatum is a human being whose action etc. is being evaluated from the
point of view of the creator of the text (Vidovič Muha 2000: 89). In (lexicalized) pragmatic meaning, the
textual realization of the lexeme is possible only under foreseeable extralinguistic circumstances.
3
This thesis was first put forward in the PhD dissertation Zloženke v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku [Compounds in Standard Slovene] by the same author, defended in 1984.
4
Snoj (2003: 387–409; 2004: 27–38) offers an explanation of the term ’syntactic wordformation’ as
used by Apresjan (1995); of particular interest is his syntactically interpreted analogy between wordformation and the so-called regular polysemy such as (lexicalized) metonymy.
379
of existence of somebody/something, the time of existence of somebody/something
(these are all derived from bases denoting locative or temporal circumstants). The
categorial word-formational meaning is to be found in nominal and verbal derivatives, which are a result of suffixation, of derivation from a prepositional phrase or
of infixal-suffixal compounding.5 This word-formational meaning excludes modificational derivatives such as pra-domovina, medved-ek [original homeland, little bear]
as well as a special group of compounds containing only an infixal formative such as
sever-o-vzhod, golf-0-igri{~e [northeast, golf course] as these cannot be linked to the
proposition of the sentence.6
1 Definition of denotative meaning
1.1 Typology of lexical denotatum
The metalinguistic definition or description of the denotative meaning is based on
the denotatum of the lexeme. These denotata can be classified as follows:7
(a) The denotata of nouns and verbs8 as well as of locative and temporal adverbs
make up the propositional structure of the (underlying) sentence meaning: verbs
and verbal primitives function as predicates, nouns and pronouns as actants, adverbs as locative and temporal circumstants. Outside the proposition there remain
adjectives with pronouns, e.g. dober/njihov/kak{en (govor) [a good (speech), their
(speech), what a (speech)], and partly adverbs, e.g. dobro/slovensko/ve~krat (govoriti) [(speak) well/Slovene/often]. The lexical meaning of lexemes with such
denotata can be represented structurally by forming a semantic network, i.e. a
network of potential interlexemic semantic ties.9 In this case the meaning is determined by the smallest units of meaning – the semantic features (semes).
5
Traditional Slovene wordformation does not deal with the word-formational meaning in verbs. However, the comprehension of wordformation as a generative-transformational process which includes verbal
primitives (biti, imeti, delati; postati, dati [be, have, do; become, give]) – these possess, like pronouns, a
transformational value of suffixal formatives/suffixes on account of their semantic extensiveness – enables
us to identify the (categorial) word-formational meaning also in verbs, e.g. action: gozdar-i-ti [biti] gozdar
[-0], [ ] → -i-ti, gozdar- [to work as a forester]; instrument of action: pluž-i-ti ← [delati s] plug[-om], [ ] →
-i-ti, plug- [to plough], etc.
6
In the locative adverbial meaning of the prefixal formative found in verbal derivatives such as iz-pisati
← pisati [iz], [ ] ’ven’ ← iz-, -pisati [copy out] (Vidovič Muha 1988: 21–24), a link with the proposition of
the sentence can be established. This calls for an additional typological classification of such derivatives.
7
The classification according to the type of denotatum has been taken from Vidovič Muha (2003:
37–48); the same issue has been dealt with already in Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje [Slovenian Lexical Semantics] (SLP) by the same author (2000: 83–97).
8
Apart from the terms nominal word and adjectival word [samostalniška beseda, pridevniška beseda],
which were introduced into Slovene linguistics by Toporišič (1976: e.g. 208, 252), the term verbal word
[glagolska beseda], with the sub-classes of verbal primitives or primary verbs and all other verbs, is necessary both from the syntactico-functional and word-formational aspects.
9
The denotative meanings of those lexemes which compose the propositional structure of the sentence
meaning are characterized by an internal hierarchical organization of the semantic features (semes), e.g. Kaj
je drevo – (Drevo je) rastlina, Kakšna rastlina – (npr.) z olesenelim steblom /…/ [What is a tree – (A tree is)
a plant, What kind of plant – (e.g.) with a woody trunk /.../]; these are the so-called endogenous lexemes. In
lexemes which do not make up the proposition of the sentence meaning – the exogenous lexemes – there is
380
(b) The denotata of lexemes are speech acts which can be realized either non-verbally,
e.g. by lowering and raising the head in ’nodding’, or verbally; the usage of both
is often bound to lexicalized extralinguistic circumstances, to the lexicalized pragmatic meaning (Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 83–97). The form of a lexicalized speech act
can be either a covert or overt sentence or sentence meaning. Interjections stem
from covert speech acts since these are deep-structure sentence meanings, e.g. Au
’Zelo me je zabolelo’ [Ouch ’It hurt me a lot’], as do (some) particles where the
underlying deep-structure sentence is expressed as part of the (coordinate) complex sentence, e.g. Tudi o~e pride ’Vsi pridejo (in) o~e pride’ [Father will come
too ’Everybody will come (and) Father will come’] (Topori{i~ 2000: 445). Overt
speech acts comprise various lexicalized patterns of linguistic behaviour such as
greetings, address formulae, etc.; these can be realized in connection with foreseeable (lexicalized) pragmatic circumstances, e.g. greeting ob prihodu dober dan
(èlim) [on arrival Hello].
(b1) The communication elements which form the speech act, i.e. the speaker and
the addressee (first- and second-person pronouns, deep-structure (personal)
proper nouns, including all personifications), form a special sub-class of denotatum. Proper nouns per definition belong to a special part of the lexicon
as they do not designate a group, a class of denotata of the same kind. They
designate something individual, but not necessarily one (Mluvnice ~e{tiny,
M^ 2: 47). Thus, their lexical value cannot be determined and they are classified as textual actualizers (Miku{ 1960; Vidovi~ Muha 1996).10
2
(b ) The denotatum of locative and temporal adverbs or adjectives derived from
these can be bound to both spatial-temporal elements of the speech act, i.e.
the location of the speaker (place) and the moment of speaking (time), e.g.
tukaj – tukaj{nji [here – local], tam – tamkaj{nji [there – (of) there], or sedaj
– sedanji [now – present], v~eraj – v~eraj{nji [yesterday – of yesterday].
(c) The denotata of sentence-structured phraseological units can be either potential
minimum texts or parts of texts, depending on the presence of co-referential linguistic elements in their sentence structure. They form a special part of the lexicon
– phraseology.
no internal hierarchical organization of the semantic features. For more on this cf. the monograph Slovensko
leksikalno pomenoslovje (Vidovič Muha 2000: 45–77). Geneva structuralism introduced the term lexical
value for this type of lexical meaning.
10
On the lexico-semantic level, therefore, the common nouns differ from the proper ones precisely in
their ability to define their own meaning by means of the smallest semantic units – the semantic features
(semes). As is well-known, a proper name can also speak volumes as to its connectedness to certain linguistic, cultural, religious, political and other circumstances; it tells of its own momentary fashionableness or
datedness, and also of the social status of its bearer, the social structure of the society, the wish to be different in respect of generalness or frequency, etc. It is particularly place names and street names which can be
subjected to current political circumstances, and they may also indicate a person’s importance considering
their central or marginal position within a place. However, these interesting, mainly sociolinguistic findings
should not overshadow the fact that those are, after all, secondary roles performed by proper names, and
that their primary role remains the naming of an individual and thus his/her identification as opposed to all
else that is individual (Vidovič Muha 2000: 77–78).
381
(d) The linguistic relationships (coordination, subordination) are the denotata of
grammatico-semantic word-classes or of grammatico-semantic lexis, i.e. of conjunctions and prepositions.11
1.2 The hierarchy of semantic features in denotative meaning
The lexical denotative meaning in the structuralist sense is based on the comprehension of a non-linear or graded organization (structure) of our conceptual world.
Or, seen from the aspect of the lexicon: an individual entity is to be found within the
more general one without having lost its distinguishable characteristics. Or, put in yet
another way: the structural organization of the lexical meaning can be understood as
a logical relationship between what is conceptually wider and thus in principle more
general and more extensive in meaning, and what is conceptually narrower and thus
more specialized and intensive in meaning.
The degree of semantic extensiveness or intensiveness is the basis for a distinction
between three types of the smallest meaning-distinguishing units of lexical meaning
– distinctive semantic features or semes. These are the categorial semantic features
(CaSF), classifying semantic features (ClSF) and differentiating semantic features
(DSF).
1.2.1 The double nature of CaSF
The CaSF seem particularly interesting: on the one hand, they are a condition for
the realization of sentence elements and thus for the formation of the basic sentence
structure as a textual unit – the sentence meaning. On the other hand, they form the
lexical meaning of lexemes. They can thus be considered a kind of bridge between the
grammar or, more precisely, the syntax, and the lexicon or, more precisely, its denotative meaning.
1.2.1.1 The syntactic functions of CaSF
The starting point is the realization that word-classes need to fulfil certain conditions in order to be able to perform their functions within the sentence. They need
to be carriers of the so-called categorial semantic features (CaSF) since these, along
with the syntactic categorial properties, determine individual sentence elements.12
Thus, everything which is the subject is determined by the CaSF of gender, which
is, in turn, a condition for the presence or absence of animateness and/or humanness,
11
Everything said so far confirms that the lexeme is to be understood in a much wider sense than the
term word as it comprises designations of all the denotati mentioned. This, however, does not rule out the
possibility of using other terms within the lexicon, due to the specificity of individual denotati, e.g. phraseme, phraseological unit.
12
Seen from the syntactico-functional viewpoint, the CaSF are to be understood as a subgroup of categorial properties; these can be divided into syntactic properties which can only be realized in a sentence
in the form of case, number, tense, mood, voice, and lexical properties, termed CaSF and recognizable in
the lexicon.
382
of person, of abstractness,13 also of countability as a potential syntactic category of
number, and of declension as a potential syntactic category of case. Everything which
is the predicator is determined by the CaSF of aspect, i.e. the lexical foresightedness
of duration, and by the ability of (at least) leftward (lexical) valency (subject-related
valency), that is by the intention or capability to form the smallest possible text, i.e.
the sentence meaning.14 The CaSF of exterior circumstances (of place and time) are
linked to the adjunct, and primarily to those adverbs which are propositional elements
of the sentence. The functions performed by the developing sentence elements, i.e.
the adjective next to the noun and the adverb denoting interior circumstances next to
the verb, as well as the functions performed by the complementary sentence element,
the predicative adjective, are (apart from some foreseeable exceptions) determined by
their distribution and, primarily, by the CaSF of degree.15 The lexicon in the functions
of individual sentence elements can be said to make concrete the CaSF which are
characteristic of individual sentence elements.
The syntactic functions are therefore determined by the categorial semantic features. These are categorial in the sense of comprising an entire group of lexemes
performing a certain function as a sentence element. The syntactico-functional view
relativizes the word-classes by limiting them to the metalinguistic systemization of
a certain linguistic reality expressed by the sentence meaning.16 The invariability of
13
Abstractness as a CaSF of the subject-function of the noun (and thus its definitional function) is,
as was already mentioned, formally (morphemically) recognizable only in derived nouns, namely in those bearing the word-formational meaning of action, quality, state and the word-formational meaning of
the time of an action or the time when something exists. The label »abstract« is also used by the Slovar
slovenskega pravopisa (2001), probably on the basis of the editor’s language feeling as no definition or
explanation of the term is provided.
14
In the chapter on morphology (Oblikoslovje) of his Slovenska slovnica (1976: 176), Toporišič cites
among the »morphological categories of declinable words« gender, case, number, person and other. To this
last category he assigns »the remaining categories shared by several classes, e.g. definiteness /…/« (207).
Within gender in nouns, animate and human features are included as well as declension, in verbs there are
aspect, types of verbal actions, transitivity, voice and mood (1976: 183, 184). The »morphological categories« remain unchanged in the latest edition of Slovenska slovnica.
15
The inability to express degree is a definitional characteristic of those adjectives and adverbs which
form nominal set phrases and semi-variable verbal phrases, e.g. ambulantni pregled [outpatient management] – ambulantno pregledati [manage as outpatient], of propositional (temporal and locative) adverbs,
e.g. stanovati doma [live at home], priti danes [come today], as well as of some other semantically related
groups of adjectives and adverbs. Interestingly, the locative adverbs whose meanings may depend on the
speaker’s location generally combine with an adverb of degree, e.g. čisto, zelo, precej blizu, daleč; čisto
zgoraj, spodaj [quite/very/rather near/far; at the very top/bottom]. These adverbs lose their ability to combine with an adverb of degree once they are lexicalized, for example in the form of a prefixal formative in
the verb, i.e. when they become part of the syntactic base of the derived verb, e.g. (Kdo) pod-piše ← piše
pod, pod ’spodaj’ [(Somebody) signs].
16
The Slovene linguist Mikuš (1960; 1972), influenced by Geneva structuralism, particularly Bally,
understood word-classes as the metalinguistic systemization of syntactic functions. The syntactico-functional perspective of the word-class classification can also, to some extent, be found in works by Toporišič
(e.g. 1974/5; 1976: 192–193), which is reflected in the use of terms such as nominal word, adjectival word
(these also include pronouns on account of identical syntactic functions). However, Toporišič still gives
definitions such as »/G/lagoli so besede, ki izražajo dejanje /…/, stanje /…/, potek /…/« [Verbs are words
which denote actions /…/, states /…/, processes /…/] (2001: 345) and also does not distinguish between
word-classes which can function as sentence elements and those which cannot.
383
syntactic functions is thus a condition for the invariability of categorial properties,
and within these of the CaSF, and thus also for the open, dynamic invariability of the
word-classes. This determines their primary or secondary status: a change in categorial property results in a change of syntactic function, of sentence element, of wordclass.
Thus, the word-classes can be divided into two basic groups when the above findings are taken into account:
(a) The word-classes functioning as sentence elements are determined by the fact that
they are carriers of categorial properties which determine individual sentence elements. Within this group they can be subdivided into those which are propositional
(both first-degree word-classes, i.e. nouns and verbs,17 and second-degree adverbs
of exterior circumstances) and those which are not (adjectives, adverbs of interior
circumstances).18 The third-degree status of the latter is based on their syntacticofunctional dependence, connected to their role of developing first-degree and second-degree sentence elements. The meaning of both subclasses – the propositional
one and that reaching beyond the proposition – can in principle be represented
structurally by means of semantic features, as will be clarified later.19
(b) The word-classes which cannot function as sentence elements are non-propositional, their denotatum is a speech act or a grammatical relationship, and therefore
their meanings cannot be represented structurally. As was already mentioned, the
denotatum of modificational word-classes (interjections and (some) particles) is a
covert speech act, while the denotatum of grammatical word-classes (prepositions
and conjunctions) is a grammatical relationship (coordination or subordination).
17
All verbs can express the subject-predicator relationship. That is why the subject and its CaSF can
justifiably be called definitional in the case of noun. The function of the object, possible only with transitive
verbs, is irrelevant when word-classes are defined.
18
Both of these word-classes belong to exogenous lexemes which need to combine with a noun or
a verb as their syntactic and semantic nucleus. Syntactically, the two function as modifiers to nouns or
verbs. A special place is reserved for the predicative »noun/adjective« as the complementary (syntactic)
word-class which, basically, represents the (lexico-)semantic part of the predicator; in this case, we have
a two- or multi-part »verb«. The issue of positioning the predicative »noun/adjective« among the thirddegree sentence elements remains open. Švedova (1970: 304), for example, tries to find a solution in the
term syntactic derivative – later, for instance in her Russian grammar of 1980, this term is no longer used
– which, however, does not provide a solution to the problem for our syntactico-functional word-class classification in general. In fact, we have a two-part »verb« with two separate roles – a syntactico-categorial
one and a lexico-semantic one.
19
Why in principle? Here we deal with locative and temporal adverbs such as tu, zgoraj [here, up] or
sedaj, lani [now, last year]. Although in these cases positioning within time and space is built into the potential sentence meaning, i.e. the proposition itself opens up a possibility of locative and temporal positioning,
as can be proven by word-formational morphemization of their meanings in, for example, v-pisati ← pisati
v, v ’noter’ [write in], this ability is concretized only in the text (unlike instances such as doma [at home])
with regard to concrete textual circumstances, e.g. the location of the speaker, as in tu, blizu [here, near] or
the moment of speaking, as in sedaj [now]. Their textual semantic realization results in their inability to be
represented structurally by semantic features.
384
1.2.1.2 The lexico-semantic role of CaSF
The starting point for the following discussion is the realization that the CaSF form
a link between the lexicon in the function of sentence elements and the lexicon as the
carrier of the denotative (lexical) meaning. As to the structural denotative meaning,
the CaSF namely make possible the initial division of the lexicon, that is the gender
with animateness, humanness, abstractness, countability and person separates out the
group of nouns which are syntactically linked to the subject function, while the aspect
and lexical intention separate out the group of verbs, syntactically in the function of
the predicator. Among the nominal (subject) categorial semantic features, the gender
is a precondition for all the other features, while in the (Slavic) verb the aspect plays
the same role due to its morphemic recognizability. As will be clarified later, all other
CaSF often have a crucial meaning-distinctive function within the basic syntactic (and
thus word-class) determination, that is within the nominal meanings as opposed to, for
instance, the verbal meanings. Therefore, it is possible to talk of duality of role of the
CaSF within the lexicon as well.20
In order to further define the lexeme as to its semantic structure, another two
lexico-associative complexes of semantic features are needed: the classifying semantic features (ClSF), and within these the differentiating semantic features (DSF). Here
an increase in semantic intensiveness of the lexeme is set into operation until the point
of irreplaceability of its denotative meaning has been reached. The graphic representation below shows how the structural denotative meaning of the lexeme (L ’M’)
is determined by the three complexes of semantic features which differ in semantic
intensiveness.
DSF
ClSF
CaS
385
1.2.2 The lexico-associative role of ClSF and DSF20
The difference in the roles performed by the ClSF and the DSF is based on the
difference in semantic intensiveness or extensiveness. The essential underlying realization here is the fact that what is conceptually wider (and designated by the ClSF)
can be used to explain what is conceptually narrower.21 Thus, for example, a birch can
be defined as a deciduous tree (ClSF), yet as one possessing certain qualities, denoted
by the DSF, which differentiate a birch from all other deciduous trees, such as the thin
white peeling bark, etc.
The semantic features thus form the basic pattern of the semantic structure of the
lexeme: ’M’ = CaSF [ClSF/xDSF].22 This formula reads: the (lexical) meaning is, with
regard to the original semantic word-class (sentence-element) identification by the
CaSF – gender or aspect or location (in adverbs of place and time) – defined by the
classifying semantic feature (ClSF), which is subordinate to (/) a relative number (x)
of the differentiating semantic features (DSF); the relativity of the number of the DSF
is based on the role performed by the DSF, i.e. on the achievement of lexicosemantic
differentiation of the lexemes within their common ClSF.23 The lexical structural
meaning, originally defined by the CaSF, is based on the syntagmatic, i.e. subordinate
relationship between the associative concepts of paradigmatic origin expressed by the
ClSF and DSF. The syntagmatic-paradigmatic aspect has been established as the basic
constituent element in defining the lexical meaning.
The hierarchical two-degree relationship between the semantic features of lexemes
(the ClSF and the DSF), which the present discussion will remain limited to, therefore
results from two different roles within the lexemic meaning: the ClSF defines the
meaning as to its position within the higher (and, in principle, directly superordinate)
and thus more extensive conceptual and semantic field. A generalization of the meaning is possible until a pronoun or a verbal primitive (i.e. the lexical groups which
denote only the CaSF) is used as the only possible ClSF, e.g. jazbe~ar → lovski pes→
pes → doma~a ìval → ìval → bitje → kar biva /…/ [dachshund → hunting dog →
dog → domestic animal → animal → being → what exists /…/].24
In their basic roles, the semantic features establish semantico-structural lexical links. Thus, the ClSF opens up possibility of lexico-semantic differentiation by
means of semantic transition in terms of hypernymy or hyponymy (extension or intensification of meaning of the lexeme), and as an agent linking together the meanings of
20
Adapted from Vidovič Muha (2000: 51–77).
However, as has been proven by cognitive semantics (Kleiber 1993: 77; Taylor 1995: 257–264), what
is wider in abstract terms is not necessarily conceptually wider. A classification of conceptuality is needed
already, for example, for the world of sciences and professions as opposed to the world outside these fields.
22
This formula has been further developed since the original publication in 1988 (Vidovič Muha 1988:
26).
23
For more on the role of semantic features in the formation of the smallest and the largest conceptual
and semantic fields, see SLP (especially pp. 59–64).
24
A similar type of hierarchical structure of the lexicon in the form of tree diagram was put forward by
Lyons (1980: 305–311). Of particular importance is the realization concerning the possibility of transition
between individual lexemes which are hierarchically interrelated in terms of hypernymy or hyponymy.
21
386
the lexemes which are members of its conceptual-semantic field. The DSF, however,
establish semantico-differentiating relations between the meanings of the lexemes
sharing a common ClSF, e.g. pes: lovski pes [dog : hunting dog] – the DSF are fixed
with relation to hi{ni pes, lavinski pes [pet dog, avalanche dog], etc.; hi{ni pes [pet
dog] – the DSF are fixed with relation to lovski pes, lavinski pes [hunting dog, avalanche dog], etc.
To sum up: the communicative power of the semantic features which make up a
lexical semantic pattern depends on the position or on the role which these semantic
features have in the conceptual-semantic structure of the lexeme, that is their power
depends on the extensiveness of the conceptual-semantic field which they cover.25
It can be deduced that the hyper-/hyponymic relation, or the super-/subordinate
relation in the broad sense, remains the basic principle of the organization of the lexicon, reflecting the way of thinking or abstract processing and thus to a large extent
also the actual organization of the real world. It is on this relationship that the lexical
meaning is based, as is its metalinguistic expression – the paraphrase of two groups
of hierarchically different semantic features: the ClSF in the hypernymic role, and
the DSF performing the role of lexicosemantic identification of concrete meanings of
individual lexemes.
It is interesting that inter-dependent conceptual relationships (lexically expressed
by hyper-/hyponymy) are eliminable not only within the abstract world of an individual lexemic meaning, but also between the senses of an individual polysemous lexeme. Thus, the motivated meaning of the lexeme mo` [man] (synonymous with mo{ki
[male]), expressed in syntagms such as êta je {tela dvajset mo` [The squad had twenty
men], is included in the motivating meaning ’adult human being of male sex’, yet it is
undefined by semantic features. The ClSF of the motivated meaning becomes the entire
motivating meaning, i.e. ’mo`1’ (ClSF) with a new meaningful DSF ’as a member of
a military unit’. Naturally, the semantic relationship presented here is also an interlexemic one, as in Bor je iglavec [A pine is a coniferous tree].
The hyper-/hyponymic relationship is, as expected, based on one-sided inclusion
(Lyons 1980: 300–305). This can be proven by Halliday’s identifying clauses (1994:
122) such as ê{nja je drevo [A cherry is a tree] or Jazbe~ar je lovski pes; Lovski pes
je pes [A dachshund is a hunting dog; A hunting dog is a dog], etc. The sentences are
absolutely truthful statements, i.e. they are absolute in the sense of categorial unmarkedness for tense (present tense) as well as for mood (indicative). Understandably, the
subject-predicator elements are not interchangeable, e.g. *Drevo je ~e{nja [*A tree is
a cherry]. The concept of semantic inclusion, which is typical of the hypernymic lexeme, is based on the fact that the hypernym contains all the properties whose carriers
appear on the level of hyponymic lexemes.
25
The type of lexical meaning presented here is, naturally, a structural one. The validity of semantic
structuralism has been further supported by the fact that the tenets of cognitive (lexical) semantic theory
(whether on the prototypical level or on the level of the model of necessary and sufficient conditions) also
indirectly support the findings of structural lexical semantics which seems to be able to largely reflect the
structure of the real world through the structure of the language (more on this in Vidovič Muha 2000: e.g.
47–51).
387
1.2.3 The field of the lexicon of CISF and DSF
The semantic features ClSF and DSF are part of both basic aspects of the structurally defined lexical meaning, the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic. The semantic features perform their meaning-formative and meaning-distinctive functions in all fields
of the lexicon:
(a) They differentiate between two basic designative groups, the common and the
proper nouns. The former are, in principle, defined by their semantic feature structure, the latter by textual functionality, i.e. the designative quality pertaining to
something or somebody individual.
(b) They differentiate multi-word lexemes – set phrases – such as rde~a mravlja –
(spoken) rde~ka [red ant], nedovr{ni glagol – nedovr{nik [progressive verb], strojni inènir – strojnik [mechanical engineer], from multi-lexemic free combinations,
such as rde~a bluza, zgornji sosed, o~etov klobuk, drugi otrok (v druìni) [red
blouse, the neighbour upstairs, father’s hat, a second child (in the family)]. The
former are identified by the fact that they are one single lexeme, with a semanticfeature structure identical to that which can be found in the meaning of the single
word, the latter do not display this characteristic and always form a combination
(a phrase) of at least two lexemes.
(c) As units of lexical meaning they determine not only the identity, but to a great
extent also the formalization of the type of semantic diversity, i.e. the types of
polysemy of the lexeme. Therefore, in semantic inclusion, the entire motivating
meaning appears as the ClSF in the motivated meaning (cf., for instance, the example mo` [man] above), in lexicalized synecdoche there is a rearrangement of the
roles performed by the semantic features of the motivated meaning with respect to
the motivating meaning (e.g. hru{ka [pear] (1) ClSF tree, DSF with /…/ fruit, (2)
ClSF fruit, DSF of tree), in metonymy there is a new ClSF introduced into the motivated meaning, while on the DSF level the entire semantic structure has motivating
meaning (e.g. svila [silk] (1) ClSF fibre, DSF by silkworm to make its cocoon, (2)
ClSF fabric, DSF from silk (1) (SLP: 111–157); in lexicalized metaphor, two types
can be distinguished, whereby the conceptual world of the ClSF of the motivating
meaning is either retained in the motivated meaning or changed (e.g. (a) klepetulja
[chatterbox] (1) ClSF woman, DSF chatty, (2) pejorative any woman; (b) osel [ass]
(1) ClSF animal, DSF /…/, (2) pejorative ClSF man, DSF /…/.
(d) As to the meanings of different lexemes (SLP 157-186), we can distinguish carriers of:
(1) semantic equality – synonymy. In denotative meaning, synonymy can be defined
as a phenomenon of overlapping semantic features both on selective and hierarchical levels, i.e. in the determination of the ClSF with respect to the DSF, while
the phonemic/graphemic forms remain different. In synonymy, we deal with references of different expressions sharing the same denotatum, e.g. bab-i – bab-ica
– stara mama [gran – granny – grandmother],
(1a) semantic similarity, as in hypernymy, hyponymy, and parallel hyponymy or
kochyponymy,
(2) semantic difference – antonymy. In Lyons’ sense there is polar antonymy, defined
by the so-called mean value, such as velik – (srednji) – majhen [big – (medium)
388
– small], complementary antonymy, such as mo{ki – ènska [man – woman], vectorial antonymy, such as priti – oditi [come – go], conversive antonymy which
affects the theme-rheme division, e.g. dati – dobiti [give – get]; hetereonymy can
also be counted here,
(3) homonymy, which is characterized by the overlapping of the phonemic/graphemic
forms with different meanings of at least two lexemes. These are references of
identical expressions with different denotata, e.g. boks ’usnje’, boks ’prostor’,
boks ’{port’ [box ’box calf’, ’cubicle’, ’sport’]. Unlike polysemy, no polysemic
criteria (e.g. semantic inclusion, metonymy with synecdoche, metaphor) can be
applied in these cases.
(e) On the interlinguistic level the semantic features facilitate the identification of
calques, both denotative calques and semantic ones. In the denotative calque, the
denotatum is non-existent in the recipient language, while in the semantic calque,
the calque makes possible a choice and a hierarchy of the semantic features of
the donor language, e.g. Wortschatz – besedni zaklad : besedi{~e [vocabulary] or
Hochofen – visoka pe~ : plav` [blast furnace] (SLP 11–17).
2 The position of CaSF in the semantic structure of the lexeme
2.1 On the metalinguistic level, the CaSF is built into the ClSF, i.e. into the dictionary definition of the lexeme, whereby the transparency of the definitional syntacticofunctional role of the CaSF is retained (e.g. the subject or the nominal CaSF remain
nominal also on the level of the ClSF). The metalanguage of the definition is a structural one: a subordinate (non-sentential) phrase with the ClSF in its syntactic nucleus
(e.g. ~lovek [human] ClSF bitje [being], DSF ’ki je sposobno misliti /.../’ [’capable
of thinking /.../’]). When the original noun functions as the subject complement (e.g.
(Sosed) je (zelo) ~lovek [(The neighbour) is (very) human] where human appears as
the meaningful part of the predicator), the verbal role of the original noun, now the
predicative »noun«, is reflected in the dictionary metalanguage (to a certain extent
also in the SSKJ) in the sentence-style dictionary definition, i.e. in the omission of
the structural explanation with semantic features, as in (Sosed) je ~lovek – biti ~lovek
’/Kdo/ izraà /izraàti/ pozitivne vrednote koga’ [(The neighbour) is human – be human ’/Somebody/ expresses positive values of somebody else (the subject noun)].
However, within the ClSF, the CaSF of gender is rendered irrelevant in the metalinguistic explanation of the noun, e.g. mo{ki [man] ’oseba (ClSF) mo{kega spola’
[person (ClSF) of male sex] or drevo ’rastlina /.../’ [tree ’a plant /.../’]). The aspectual
distinction in the explanation of the verb, however, is retained, as in brati ’razpoznavati (ClSF) /.../’ [read ’recognize (ClSF) /.../’] versus izbrati ’odlo~iti se (ClSF) /.../’
[choose ’decide on (ClSF) /.../’].26
26
It seems that word-formational morphematics plays a crucial role in preserving the type of the
CaSF: both aspectual morphemes – the prefix and the suffix – have not only an aspectual, but also a wordformational role.
389
2.2 The nominal (subject) CaSF can be divided into two groups regarding the role
performed by the CaSF in the semantic definition of the lexeme: they either completely take over the role of the ClSF when this is a pronominal one, or (in all other cases)
they tend to become part of the ClSF, e.g. u~itelj ’kdor (tisti, ki) /…/’ [teacher ’that
who /…/’]. A similar pattern is to be observed, in principle, in all occupations, also
interpersonal relationships, e.g. prijatelj ’kdor je s kom v iskrenem, zaupnem odnosu
/…/’ [friend ’that who is known well to another person and has an intimate relationship /…/’], sovra`nik [enemy]. The relative pronoun kdor [who], marked human+ and
itself of masculine gender, in fact relates only to designations of masculine gender,
or, more precisely, the designations for male persons, e.g. u~itelj, sodnik, prijatelj
[teacher, judge, friend]. The gender identification is made possible only by analysing
its primary components: kdor ← tist-i/-a, ki /…/[who ← ’that who /…/’], e.g. natakarica ’ènska, ki (tista, ki) /…/’ [waitress ’a woman who (that who) /…/’]. Everything
that is unmarked for human is, where the function of the ClSF is concerned, expressed
by the relative pronoun kar [what] and formally of neuter gender: kar ← ’tisto, ki /…/’
[what ← ’that which /…/’]. Here belong all designations marked concrete, unless they
are human, and abstract, e.g. bitje ’kar ìvi ali je mi{ljeno kot ìvo’ [being ’what is
alive or is perceived as alive’], stvar ’kar je, obstaja, ali se misli, da je, obstaja /…/’
[thing ’what is, exists, or is perceived to be, exist /…/’], stanje ’kar je v kakem ~asu
dolo~eno z dejstvi /…/’ [state ’what is at a certain time determined by facts /…/’],
pojav ’kar se kaè in je ~utno zaznavno’ [phenomenon ’what shows and can be perceived by the senses’], etc. When overlapping with the CaSF, the ClSF denotes only
the distinction between human+ and human–, i.e. kdor [who] vs. kar [what].
2.3 When the noun is used predicatively (as the subject complement), the CaSF of
gender and with it other subject CaSF lose their roles or these become irrelevant since
the gender information is expressed already by the noun functioning as the subject.27
What was originally a noun (and is now a predicative »noun«) takes on verbal characteristics along with the copula; formally, this is reflected in the ability to undergo comparison: Te`ko ga poslu{am, je zelo u~itelj-0 ’u~iteljski, zelo u~i-0’ [I find it difficult
to listen to him, he is very much a teacher ’teacher-like’] (Isa~enko 1954: 358–382;
Kozlev~ar 1968).28 The meaning of the noun functioning as the subject complement
is limited to denoting qualities, actions, states (verbal meaning), while the meaning of
the noun functioning as the subject denotes the carrier, the agent (of an action, quality,
etc.).29 The fact that the original noun when functioning as the subject complement
27
Naturally, this cannot be described as unmarkedness for gender (cf. the following), but rather as
redundancy of this category.
28
Adjectives such as učiteljski, človeški [teacher-like, human] functioning as subject complements
are originally qualitative, and appear as predicative adjectives only secondarily. In both cases they can be
combined by the CaSF of degree: zelo učiteljski, zelo človeški [very teacher-like, very human]. Instances
such as (zelo) učitelj [(very much) a teacher] functioning as the subject complement are, as can be expected,
abstract, but are marked human+ in their original, subject function.
29
In the denominal predicative »noun«, the (sub)category human (h +/–) also fails. This can be neatly illustrated by pronominal questions, e.g. Kdo (č+) je tvoj sosed : Kaj (č–) je (dela) tvoj sosed [Who (h+) is your
neighbour : What (h–) is your neighbour (What does your neighbour do)]. The first question requires a subject
as its answer, e.g. Učitelj (je moj sosed) [The teacher (is my neighbour)], while the second question requires a
390
forms part of the predicator is further proven by its inability to influence the agreement. As already established by Slovene grammars, the linking verb can be affected
only by the noun functioning as the subject with its nominal categories, e.g. Sosed je
(bil) lisica : Lisica je (bila) sosed [The neighbour is/was a (cunning) fox : The fox
is/was the neighbour].30
The lexicalization of, for example, metaphorical nominal meanings, that is the
meanings of nouns which are per definition derived, proceeds in principle via the sentence, i.e. via the predicative »noun« or the subject complement function: Direktor je
(kot) osel ’neumen kot osel’ [The manager is (like) a donkey ’stupid like a donkey’].31
It is only when such a noun functions as the subject or, sometimes, the object (e.g. S
tem oslom se nima smisla pogajati [There’s no point in negotiating with this donkey],
or Samo osli so se strinjali [Only the donkeys agreed]) that total lexicalization of the
derived (motivated) meaning is achieved; the change of the (sub)category animate
into the (sub)category human is the basis for a new, motivated meaning. Naturally,
lisica [fox] as the (predicative – subject complement) designation for sosed [neighbour] does not automatically entail a change of the concept neighbour from human+
into human– or into animate+. The original (subject) noun (e.g. donkey or fox), when
functioning as the subject complement, is, like all predicative »nouns«, marked for
(verbal) abstractness, i.e. abstract+. All predicative »nouns« can only be abstract. This
is true even of those which are denominal, regardless of their original (nominal) categorial abstractness. They may denote an activity (Sosed je u~itelj [The neighbour is a
teacher]), a quality (Sosed je lisica [The neighbour is a (cunning) fox]), etc.
2.4 It has been made evident so far that the CaSF have an important role also
within the semantic classification of the same lexeme. This is to be further elucidated
in the following discussion.
Yet before we turn to issues concerning the influence of the CaSF on semantic diversity, we should clarify the relationship existing between markedness and unmarkedness relating to the CaSF of gender and other categorial properties, not necessarily
the CaSF (Jakobson 1964: 347). In fact, it is necessary to distinguish between form
and meaning (function) within the CaSF too. Thus, the CaSF linked to the masculine
form can actually denote male gender or give no information at all on the gender.
However, this latter option – the unmarkedness – should also be understood as the
presence and not absence of the CaSF. The concept of unmarkedness thus equals the
subject complement, e.g. (Moj sosed je) učitelj [(My neighbour is) a teacher]. The (sub)category human
(h+) corresponding to the pronoun who – is invalid for the »noun« functioning as the subject complement.
30
It is also possible to consider aspectual qualities of the complex verb, its exterior, not just interior
valency properties; more on this by Žele (2001: e.g. 143–147).
31
Only one anthropocentrically selected animal quality is singled out to denote a human being. In the
subject complement function the human being is not (yet) fully identified with a (certain) animal. Correspondingly, the offensiveness of such lexemes is felt to be relatively low.
391
irrelevance of a certain category and not, for example, in the case of the masculine
form, the absence of information on the feminine.32
Within the present discussion, the influence of the CaSF on polysemy will be illustrated by several instances of primarily first-degree sentence elements, i.e. the subjectnoun and the predicator-verb; the meanings of the (second-degree) adverb of exterior
circumstances and the third-degree word-classes (adverbs of interior circumstances
and adjectives) will be only touched upon.
2.4.1 The relationship between the CaSF animate and human, also between concrete (abstract–) and human, is to be taken as the point of departure in the analysis of
polysemy based on the anthropocentric view, which can then function as a basis for
metaphorical polysemy. Thus, the motivating meaning (1) is marked for the CaSF
animate+, and the motivated meaning (2) for the CaSF human+, as in osel [donkey]
(1) animate+ ’doma~a ìval z dolgimi uhlji /…/’ [’domestic animal having long ears
/…/’]→ (2) (conotative) perjorative human+ ’omejen, neumen ~lovek’ [’a stupid, silly
person’]. Also, the motivating meaning (1) is marked for concrete (abstract–), the motivated meaning (2) for human+, as in hlod [log] (1) concrete ’odàgano, debelej{e
deblo brez vej’ [’the trunk of a felled tree’] → (2) (conotative) perjorative human+
’neroden, okoren ~lovek’ [’a clumsy person’]. An instance of anthropocentricity in
metonymical polysemy can be observed in: violina [violin] (1) concrete ’godalni instrument /…/’ [’a bowed instrument /…/’] → (2) human+ ’violinist’ [’a violinist’].33
Countability as a CaSF of the subject is determined by the possibility of using cardinal numerals attributively, i.e. countable+ as opposed to countable– if such attributes
are not possible (M^ 2. 1986: 114). To this second group (countable–) belong mass
and abstract nouns as well as nouns of multitude, e.g. vino, moka; mladost, veselje;
vejevje, srnjad [wine, flour; youth, joy; branches; roe deer] (Topori{i~ 1976: 210). As
for their countability, mass nouns denoting fruits are of interest syntactically. They
are consistently uncountable when forming a (potential) base for mass adjectives, i.e.
when they can be linked to the subject-complement function, e.g. Sok (ki je) iz ananasa → ananasov [juice (which is made) of pineapple → pineapple juice]34; in all other
cases these nouns can also be countable, e.g. Dva krompirja sta gnila [Two potatoes
have gone bad] and Dve drevesi se su{ita [Two trees have been withering] next to
Krompir je drag [Potato is expensive] and Sladkor je drag [Sugar is expensive]. The
32
The statement made by Toporišič (2001: 266) that the »masculine gender« – probably the masculine
form – »is grammatically unmarked as opposed to the feminine one« does not fit in with the concept of
unmarkedness as presented above.
33
All the examples cited have been taken from the Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika [Dictionary of
the Standard Slovenie Language] (SSKJ) (1970, 1975, 1979, 1985, 1991).
34
When denoting fruitage, the nouns appear in their plural form, and when denoting fruits in their
singular form (for a comparison with Russian see Derganc 1991). Exotic fruits also take singular forms,
e.g. hruškov, jagod-ov/-ni, jabolč-ni (sok) [pear, strawberry, apple (juice)] – kivi(j)-ev, ananas-ov, mang-ov
(liker) [kiwi, pineapple, mango liqueur] – krompir(j)-ev, fižol-ov, grah-ov (pire) [potato, bean, pea puree]
← (sok (ki je) iz hrušk, jagod, jabolk [juice (which is made) of pears, strawberries, apples] – liker (ki je)
iz kivija, ananasa, manga [liqueur (which is made) of kiwi, pineapple, mango] – pire (ki je) iz krompirja,
fižola, graha [puree (which is made) of potatoes, beans, peas].
392
taking on of the countable quality by what were originally uncountable nouns can
motivate a new meaning, e.g. uncountable abstract noun (e.g. lepota [beauty] – krhka
lepota [fragile beauty] ’quality’), when acquiring countability, becomes a concrete
(abstract–) noun, which can be further determined by the CaSF human denoting the
carrier of the quality (e.g. lepote z vsega sveta [beauties from all over the world]
’beautiful women’).
The person as a categorial property of the noun35 is directly linked only to the first
and the second persons – to the two active elements of a speech act in which there
is always a human being defined by his/her personal proper name. The third person,
however, can be anything that functions as the subject, in other words, everything that
belongs to either common or proper nouns; however, in the case of personal proper
names only if it is not identical to the first or the second person. In this sense the third
person is semantically the most general (extensive) one, being determined by gender
on the level of the CaSF. Declension has turned out to be the formal behaviour of the
word within the text dependent on gender.36
As was already hinted at earlier, abstractness is morphemically expressed in two
semantic groups after the normal process of nominal derivation: in those where the
suffixal formative expresses the propositional meaning (that of action, quality, state,
e.g. skok-0 [jump], bel-ina [whiteness], hudob-ija [evil]) or the meaning of temporal
circumstances (that of time of action, time when something is, e.g. è-tev [harvest],
mlad-ost [youth]). It has already been established that the denominal predicative
»noun« can only be abstract; the opposition between concrete and abstract, so characteristic of nouns, is lost in the predicative »noun« derived from a noun with the CaSF
concrete (abstract–).
2.4.2 A peculiarity of the verb can be seen in the fact that the intention of the verbal
action37 as its CaSF is, unlike aspect, not expressed within the morphemic structure
of the verb. The aspect, however, can be expressed by means of a prefix (perfective aspect) or a (verbal) suffix (progressive aspect).38 The aspect as an overt lexicocategorial characteristic of the verb, as a CaSF of the verb affecting (like intention)
the entire class of verbs, is therefore justifiably treated by dictionaries, including the
35
An important issue here concerns the justification for the inclusion of person among the CaSF, i.e.
among lexical units. Personal pronouns (apart from certain exceptions) as lexemes find their textual realization in the morphemic ending of the personal verbal form (e.g. Piše-m [I write]). This, however, does
not affect their status as lexemes – deep-structure personal pronouns. From the personal verbal form results
another rule which can be transferred to the lexicon in the form of CaSF, namely that all nominal words,
including pronouns of the type kdo, kaj [who, what] are third-person pronouns (Toporišič 1976: 207).
Changing this CaSF can bring about a change in lexical meaning.
36
The logical classification of declension patterns according to gender (Toporišič 1976: 213–236)
indirectly connects this categorial lexical property to gender.
37
As is well known, verbal intention makes possible the potential valency ability of a verb as realized in
a text – a sentence (Daneš, Hlavsa a kol. 1981: 15; M^, 3, 1987: 132–135; M^, 3, 1987: 9–10, 22–37).
38
Naturally, a change in aspectual characteristics (the formation of perfective and progressive verbal
forms) can cause a change in valency qualities since aspectual morphemes are, in principle, also wordformational (formatives).
393
SSKJ, as a word-class label.39 Furnished with the formal carriers – the verbal suffix or,
in the case of word-formational function, the suffixal formative and the verbal prefixal
formative – the aspect is the basis for a phenomenon which can usually be explained
in word-formational terms, e.g. pod-pisati ← pisati [pod], [ ] ’spodaj’ → pod-, -pisati
[sign]. In a word-formationally explicable verbal suffix (concerning the value of the
suffixal formative), the type of verbal action can be explained word-formationally,
as in dvig-ova-ti ← [ve~krat] dvig[-ni]-ti, [ ] → -ova-(ti), dvig- [lift several times]
to denote repetition of an action, but also termination of an action, e.g. [delati, da]
dvig[-ne]-mo, [ ] → -ova-(ti), dvig- [lift up].
The intention of the verbal action enables us to form sentence meaning by filling
a minimal number of actant positions, i.e. by actualizing the left (subject) actant, thus
forming the smallest possible text. Even the so-called synthetic sentence40 such as
Grmi, Deùje [It thunders/rains] is the carrier of all categorial properties which define
the predicator: it contains the CaSF of aspect and syntactic categorial properties such
as tense Je/Bo grmelo/deèvalo [It thundered/rained; It will thunder/rain] and mood
Bi grmelo/deèvalo [It would thunder/rain]. In these cases we can justifiably talk of an
unexpressed, covert, or, even better, interior actant whose formal marker is the verbal
ending in the third person singular.41
The valency ability (intention) of the verb is at least leftward, whereby the leftward
actant can be, as already mentioned above, either an interior (covert, unexpressed)
one, as in Grmi [It thunders] or an exterior (overt) one, as in (Sosed) spi [(The neighbour) sleeps]. Naturally, the actant can be also rightward, filling one, two or more
positions, as in zidati, kupiti komu kaj [build/buy somebody something]. A change
in verbal intention and thus a change in sentential valency behaviour of the verb can
affect the verb already when an interior actant turns into an exterior one; the semanticfeature structure of the verb is consequently changed and thus also the polysemy of
that verb. Deèvati: Zunaj deùje ’padati iz oblakov v obliki vodnih kapelj’ – Vodne
kaplje padajo (iz oblakov) : Kamenje je kar deèvalo ’v veliki koli~ini padati’ – Kamenje pada [Rain: It is raining outside ’fall from the clouds in the form of drops of
39
This statement, however, is valid for Slavic verbs which are capable of expressing not only relative
(text-related) time, but also lexical time (language-systemic time).
40
A synthetic sentence is a sentence which does not distinguish formally between place and time, i.e.
between the meanings of the subject (nominal) and the predicator (verbal) in, for example, Indoeuropean
languages; the term is used in the structuralist interpretation of the origin of language (Mikuš 1946; 1960).
It is based on the understanding of the communicational role of the language as part of its origin: the
language originally actualizes time and place, always in accordance with the communicational effect, i.e.
regardless of the form of expression of both determining actualizations of existential reality (Vidovič Muha
1994).
41
The term »prisojevalna nevezljivost« [quasi-valency] of the Slovene verb (Toporišič 1992: 351) for
the type Grmi [It thunders] was, following the Czech valency theory, developed by Žele (2001: 74–75;
2003: 11) into »formal sentence-forming relationship« »without a concrete person as a valency-related category« (2001: 75). For more on the relationship between meaning and sentence structure or, rather, on the
relationship between the sentence-forming elements from the formal and semantic viewpoints see Karolak
(2001: 117–1220). Žele also provides an excellent overview on valency treatment in Slovene linguistics and
presents the theories developed by European valency schools, German, Czech, and Russian respectively
(2000: 245–264; 2001: 21–69).
394
water’ – Drops of water are falling (from the clouds) : The stones rained on everybody
’fall in large measure’ – Stones were falling]. Another example can be cited here,
that of verbs of sensory perception, which in their primary meaning, when denoting
an ability or a characteristic of man for a certain activity (i.e. for being capable of
perceiving, for example, with the sense of hearing or the eyesight), can be considered
solely leftward-valency verbs; their valency changes when this ability is made concrete, e.g. Otrok è sli{i, vidi; Po operaciji spet vidi : Ga è vidim, sli{im [The child can
already hear/see; After the operation he can see again : I can already see/hear him]. A
more extensive group of such verbs can also include verbs of knowledge acquisition,
i.e. know (learn something and then know it); in this case the ability can be regarded
as a resultative state, e.g. Otrok è plava, pi{e, bere [The child can already swim/write/
read], and as a realization of this ability with a possible rightward actant, as in Ves
dan samo bere, pi{e; Berem zanimivo knjigo [He’s been reading/writing all day; I’m
reading an interesting book].
Interesting from the point of view of valency are also prefixed verbs whose prefixal formative has an adverb of place in its syntactic base.42 All these verbs are
characterized by lexicalized adjunctive locative positioning, which is expressed in
the syntactic base of such a verb by a free verbal morpheme which is, in principle,
homonymous with the preposition, e.g. Dim se po-leè ← leè po (~em), po ’zgoraj’
[The smoke settles]; Neznanec v-stopi ← stopi v (kaj), v ’noter’ [The stranger enters];
(Kdo) po-lije juho ← lije juho po (~em), po ’zgoraj’ [(Somebody) spills the soup].
The rightward actant or one of the rightward actants remains non-lexicalized in these
cases; if needed, such an actant can be actualized in the text and is therefore a textual
actant. Roughly speaking, at least two types of textual valency can be distinguished
here: (1) The lexicalized locative meaning of the prefixal formative is realized in the
text; in this case the prefixal formative, combined with a durative base, retains only
its aspectual function, that is it gives the verb a perfective status, while its locative
meaning is textually concretized in the form of a free verbal morpheme, e.g. Dim se
poleè po prostoru [The smoke settles in the room], vstopiti v, e.g. Neznanec vstopi v
sobo [A stranger enters the room], politi po, (Kdo) polije juho po mizi [(Somebody)
spills the soup all over the table]; (2) The locative meaning of the prefixal formative is textually irrelevant for various reasons. In the text itself another free verbal
morpheme with a locative meaning is concretized, e.g. po-mesti (kaj) pod (stopnice)
[sweep (something) under (the stairs)], za-/po-tla~iti (kaj) v (usta) [stuff (something)
into (the mouth)], i.e. mesti (po ~em) pod, tla~iti (za ~em, po ~em) v. If the lexicalization of the locative meaning in the verbal prefixal formative becomes accepted, then
it is also understandable that prefixed verbs can be poorer as to their valency patterns
(e.g. ^M 1 1986: 392).43
42
»Syntactic base is a term taken from word-formation; it can be defined as a non-sentential subordinate phrase (with foreseeable exceptions) whose lexical and grammatico-semantic components can be transformed into a meaningful combination of morphemes – a complex word (Vidovič Muha e.g. 1988: 183).
43
An extensive treatment of valency change in prefixed verbs, also covering covert and overt rightward
actants, can be found in Vidovič Muha (1993). Based on the material collected from the SSKJ, the treatise
395
2.4.3 As for the CaSF, only adverbs denoting exterior circumstances of the verbal
action, i.e. of place and time, remain of interest as second-degree sentence elements.
As already established, both sub-groups belong entirely to the propositional components of the sentence and act as carriers of the categorial feature or, more precisely, of
the CaSF.44 An adverb of exterior circumstances makes possible a spatial and temporal
positioning of the verbal action; this positioning can be lexically concretized if the
adverb has been derived from, in principle, a prepositional noun, e.g. (Stanuje) doma
’na domu’ [(He lives) at home ’in his home’]; (Dela) pono~i, zve~er ’v no~i, ve~eru
– ko je no~, ve~er’ [(He works) nights/evenings ’at night/in the evening – when there
is night/evening’], or it can be dependent on the elements of the speech act or the
context, e.g. tu – Naj ostane tu ’kjer je govore~i’ [here – Let him stay here ’where
the speaker is’], sedaj – Sedaj ne utegne ’v trenutku govorjenja’ [now – He can’t do it
now ’at the moment of speaking’]. Locative adverbs whose meanings depend on the
location of the speaker or the contextual circumstances can be either overt or covert.
In principle, only the overt ones can combine with adverbs of degree and motivate the
adjective, e.g. ~isto zgoraj, spodaj – ~isto zgornji, spodnji [at the very top/bottom – the
very top/bottom one]. Covert locative adverbs can be used as free verbal morphemes,
forming with the verb either a lexicalized or a free word combination (see also @ele
2001: 82–101), e.g. biti ob denar ’zgubiti ga : biti ob drevesu ’zraven drevesa’ [’lose
the money : be/stand next to the tree’], or, as was exemplified earlier, they can also be
used as verbal prefixal formatives, e.g. na-sesti ← sesti na, na ’zgoraj’ [’to strand/get
stranded’].
2.4.4 The degree or the ability to undergo comparison affects the nuclei of both
developing, i.e. modifying, sentence elements (the semantic group of qualitative adverbs and qualitative adjectives), and affects the complementary (subject complement)
predicative »noun/adjective« in its entirety.
Seen from the lexico-categorial, i.e. sentence-functional, perspective, two subgroups should be distinguished in adverbs: firstly, there is the adverb functioning as
the developing sentence element, a kind of »modificator« of the verbal action, and
expressing interior circumstances of the verbal action; secondly, there is the adverb
expressing exterior circumstances. The modifying adverbs can only be used next to
the verb, e.g. dobro/lepo pisati [write well/nicely], or, if they are adverbs of degree,
deals with the valency relationship between a verb with a prefixal formative, a syntactic-base verb with
an obligatory free verbal morpheme, and a verbal simplex without a free morpheme. Additionally, there
are two monographs by Žele (2001; 2003) which treat valency in Slovene in general and verbal valency in
particular, covering an exceptional amount of material. Žele, however, builds her work on sentential semantico-structural patterns where free verbal morphemes are also taken into account. However, an approach
which would reach beyond the sentence and include both typological patterns presented above within the
so-called obligatory valency (e.g. 2001: 89–94; 2003: 34–35) in terms of lexicalization, i.e. semantic abstraction, might prove more useful.
44
Both place and time are also propositional elements in terms of word-formational meaning, just like
the predicate and the potential first, fourth, and sixth actants. In the SSKJ they are treated as independent
entries with an explicit word-class label, unlike qualitative and classifying adverbs, which are derived from
adjectives and treated as sub-entries of the corresponding adjectives.
396
next to all word-classes which can denote a different dimension, intensity of something, for example of activity in a verb (mo~no/zelo jokati [cry hard/bitterly]), of quality in an adjective (zelo dober (~lovek) [a very good (man)]), of degree of activity
in an adverb (zelo/~isto malo (jokati) [(cry) very little]), of degree of quality, state,
etc. in a predicative »noun/adjective« (zelo/precej v{e~, (biti) zelo/precej ~lovek, (biti)
zelo/precej mraz/mrzlo [very/quite likeable, (be) very/rather human, (be) very/rather
cold]), etc. As developing elements of an adjective or another adverb they can also be
transformed into the (modificational) ending of an adjective or an adverb as in bolj
lep – lep-{i, bolj lepo – lep-{e, izredno lep – pre-lep [more pretty – prettier; more prettily; extraordinary pretty – prettiest]. The adverbs developing the verb originate from
qualitative adjectives, e.g. lepo pisati [write nicely], or from proper classifying adjectives, e.g. ambulantno pregledati [manage as outpatient].45 Only qualitative adverbs
can undergo comparison if their original qualitative adjectives allow comparison.
In the research of adjectival modifiers another phenomenon, interesting from the
lexico-semantic aspect, is to be pointed out. The qualitative adjective can assume the
ability to express degree: its denotatum is identical to the denotatum of the adverb of
degree. An adjective of this type formally retains its adjectival characteristics, e.g.
agreement,46 semantically, however, it can express only the highest degree of the quality denoted by the nominal headword. In fact, it performs the role of an adverb of degree and, as such, cannot be used predicatively functioning as a subject complement,
e.g. ~ista la`, golo dejstvo, pravi konstrukt [absolute lie, bare fact, blatant construct];
these combinations resist transformation into *La` je ~ista [*The lie is absolute],
etc.47
3 Concluding thought
It is important for the lexical meaning which can be represented structurally that
individual syntactic functions are determined by the categorial semantic features
which are realized by word-classes. Both the lexicon and the grammar have proven
themselves to be metalinguistic fiction of what is, in fact, an inseparable whole called
the language.
V angle{~ino prevedla
Eva Sicherl.
45
It is questionable whether the so-called classifying adverbs (derived from classifying adjectives proper) can be regarded as those denoting interior circumstances of a verbal action; these adverbs have, like
the corresponding adjectives, been derived from locative adverbial phrases, e.g. ambulantno pregledati
’pregledati v ambulanti’ [manage as outpatient ’treat in the doctor’s office’]. This issue remains open.
46
Agreement is a (syntactic) categorial property of the adjective; this is the ability of the adjective
to take over the CaSF of gender and syntactic categorial properties of number and case from the nominal
headword, which makes this a dependent relationship. In adjectives, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish
their intrinsic categorial properties from the acquired ones.
47
For more on the nominal phrase, particularly that with the adjectival modifier and on adjectives in
general, cf. several treatises by Vidovič Muha (e.g. 1981, 1988a, 2000: 62–75); see also SLP (75–77) for an
attempt to make a semantic classification of adverbs.
397
REFERENCES
Dane{, F., Hlavsa Za kol., 1981: Vmtné vzorec v ~e{tinm. Praha: êskoslovenská akademie vmd.
Derganc, A., 1991: O (ne){tevnosti poimenovanj za zelenjavo, sadje in jagode v sloven{~ini in
ru{~ini. SRL 39, 3, 277–283.
Halliday, M. A. K., 1994: An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, Melbourne, Auckland: Arnold.
Isa~enko, A., V., 1954: Grammati~eskij stroj russkogo jazyka. Bratislava: Izdajatel’stvo Slovackoj akademii mank.
Jakobson, R., 1964 (1932): Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Prague School Reader in
Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 347–359.
Karołak, S, 22001 (1989 v franco{~ini): Forma logiczna propozycji a strukturalny schemat
zdania. O semantyki do gramatyki. Wybor rozprav. Waszawa: Instytut slawistyki Polskiej
akademii nauk.
Kleiber, G., 1993: Prototypensemantik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Lyons, J., 1978 (1980): Semantik. Band 1. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Miku{, R. F. 1946: [ta je u stvari re~enica. Ljubljana: Samozalo`ba.
– – 1960: Prostorni podatak doga|aja. Radovi 1. Zagreb: Sveu~ili{te u Zagrebu.
Mluvnice ~e{tiny (M^) (2). Tvarosloví. Praha 1986: êskoslovenská akademie vmd.
Mluvnice ~e{tiny (M^) (1). Fonetika, fonologie, Morfomologie a mortemika. TvoVení slov.
Praha 1986: êskoslovenská akademie vmd.
Snoj, J., 2003: Slovarska ve~pomenskost in Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje. SR, 51/ 4,
387–409.
– – 2004: Tipologija slovarske ve~pomenskosti slovenskih samostalnikov. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba
ZRC SAZU.
[vedova, J. Ju. (ur.), 1970: Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva:
Akademija nauk SSSR.
Taylor, J., R., 21995 (1991): Linguistic categorisation. Oxford: Claredon Press
Topori{i~, J., 1976: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Zalo`ba Obzorja Maribor.
– – 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zalo`ba.
– – 42001: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Zalo`ba Obzorja Maribor.
Vidovi~ Muha, A., 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloènk. Ljubljana:
Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete, Partizanska knjiga, Znanstveni tisk.
– – 1988a: Kotrastive slowenisch-deutsche Typologie der Nominalkompositioni. Wiener slawistischer Almanach 22. Wien. 311–322.
– – 1993: Glagolske sestavljenke – njihova skladenjska podstava in vezljivostne lastnosti (z
normativnim slovensko-nem{kim vidikom). SRL 41, 1, 161–192.
– – 1994: O izvoru in delovanju jezika ali teorija sintagme R. F. Miku{a (s predstavitvijo trikotnika Ramov{ – Miku{ – Beli}). SRL (Ramov{ev zbornik) 42, 2–3, 229–248.
– – 1996: Dolo~nost kot besedilna prvina v slovni~nem opisu slovenskega jezika (Ob Kopitarjevi
slovnici). Obdobja 15. Kopitarjev zbornik. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 115–130.
– – 2000: Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje (SLP). Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske
fakultete.
– – 2003: Pomenska tipologija leksemov glede na vrsto denotata. V: Po`gaj Hadì, V. (ur.).
Zbornik referatov z drugega slovensko-hrva{kega sre~anja. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta,
37–48.
@ele, A., 2000: Pojmovanje vezljivosti v tujem jezikoslovju. SR 48, 3, 245–264.
– – 2001: Vezljivost v slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC SAZU.
– – 2003: Glagolska vezljivost iz teorije v slovar. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC SAZU.
398
POVZETEK
1 Kategorialne lastnosti kot prvine slovarskega pomena, se pravi kot kategorialne pomenske
sestavine, je mogo~e prepoznavati v zvezi s posebnim tipom denotativnega pomena leksemov
in besedotvornega pomena tvorjenk: v prvem primeru gre za razmerje med stav~no~lenskimi
vlogami leksike in strukturno dolo~enim denotativnim pomenom, v drugem za t. i. propozocijski besedotvorni pomen.
1.1 Pri besedotvornem pomenu izhajamo iz dejstva, da je mogo~e priponske (obrazilne)
morfeme dolo~ene mnoìce tvorjenk razlagati kot pretvorbene variante prvin pomenske podstave (propozicije) stav~no zgrajene povedi; tako je povedje v podstavi dejanja, lastnosti, stanja,
delovalniki (aktanti) v podstavi vr{ilca dejanja, nosilca lastnosti, stanja (razlo~evalno glede na
kategorijo ìvosti), rezultata in sredstva dejanja, okoli{~ine kraja in ~asa pa v podstavi mesta,
~asa dejanja, mesta, kjer je kdo kaj, ~asa, ko je kdo, kaj. [tevilo in vrste propozicijskih sestavin
dolo~ajo torej tudi {tevilo in vrste besedotvornih pomenov, zato v tem primeru govorimo lahko
o kategorialnem ali propozicijskem besedotvornem pomenu.
1.2 Denotativni pomen in s tem tudi njegova metajezikovna predstavitev (razlaga) izhaja iz
treh razli~nih tipov denotatov:
(a) Za strukturalno pomenoslovje so posebej zanimive stav~no~lenske besedne vrste
– samostalni{ka in glagolska beseda, prislovna beseda zunanjih okoli{~in (kraj, ~as), prislovna beseda notranjih okoli{~in, pridevni{ka beseda in povedkovnik. Njihov denotat je dolo~en
s kategorialnimi pomenskimi sestavinami (KPS), ki definirajo posamezne stav~no~lenske
vloge. Besedne vrste kot realizatorke posameznih stav~nih ~lenov, se pravi kot nosilke KPS,
omogo~ajo temeljno slovarskopomensko razvr{~anje leksemov. – KPS so podlaga za paradigmatska (asociativna) razmerja, ki izhajajo iz predvidljivih sintagmatskih povezav tako na ravni
opredelitve samega pomena, kjer gre za razmerje med uvr{~evalnimi in razlo~evalnimi pomenskimi sestavinami (UPS in RPS), kot ve~pomenskosti s pomenotvornimi tipi – pomenska
vsebovanost, metonimi~ni in sinekdohi~ni pomen ter metafori~ni pomen – in medleksemskih
povezav, lo~enih na podlagi zgradbe jezikovnega znaka na pomenska in izrazna razmerja – sopomenskost, protipomenskost, nad-/podpomenskost, enakoizraznost, ~e na{tejemo samo glavne.
(b) Denotati leksemov so leksikalizirana govorna dejanja, katerih izrazna podoba je lahko
zakrita – medmeti in del ~lenkov – ali izraèna stav~na poved oz. stavek, npr. razli~ni govornovedenjski vzorci v leksikaliziranih pragmati~nih okoli{~inah.
(c) Razmerji v jeziku – prirednost, podrednost – sta denotat slovni~nopomenskih besednih
vrst – veznika in predloga.
2 Kategorialnost slovarskega denotativnega pomena izhaja iz spoznanja, da temeljna klasifikacija besednih vrst temelji na stav~no~lenskih vlogah, se pravi na potencialnem (minimalnem) besedilu. Besedne vrste so torej odprta, dinami~na metajezikovna sistemizacija stav~nih
~lenov, s slovarskega vidika dolo~enih s kategorialnimi pomenskimi sestavinami. Spreminjanje
KPS v smislu razli~nosti stav~no~lenskih vlog leksema pomeni hkrati tudi spreminjanje leksikalnega pomena.
2.1 Samostalni{ka beseda, ~e je v definicijski osebkovi vlogi, je nosilka prakategorije spola,
tudi ~love{kosti, ìvosti, pojmovnosti, {tevnosti – pogoj za skladenjsko kategorijo {tevila, sklanjatve – pogoj za skladenjsko vlogo sklona, in osebe. Prehod samostalnika med povedkovnike
– (slovarsko)pomensko vlogo glagola v povedku – pomeni izgubo relevantnosti spola in pridobitev kategorialnih lastnosti (zloènega) glagola v povedku, kot so vid in vezljivost, na ravni
skladenjskih kategorij pa ~asa, naklona; stopnjevanje zaznamuje tudi iz samostalnika nastali
povedkovnik, npr. Je zelo u~itelj, zelo ~lovek.
2.2 Vid in inten~nost – potencialna vezljivost – sta slovarski KPS glagola. Glede potencialne vezljivosti velja omeniti, da ima t. i. leva vezljivost lahko tudi notranji aktant v tipu Grmi.
Zanimivost s predponskim obrazilom tvorjenih glagolov izhaja iz leksikalizacije krajevnega
399
prislovnega pomena predponskega obrazila, npr. v-stopiti ← stopiti v, v ’noter’. ê se leksikaliziran pomen predponskega obrazila aktualizira v besedilu, ohrani predponsko obrazilo
samo vidsko vlogo (na nedovr{ni{ki podstavi), npr. po-liti po mizi, ~e pa pomen predponskega
obrazila besedilno ni aktualen, se v besedilu konkretizira kateri izmed drugih prostih glagolskih
morfemov s pomenom krajevnosti, npr. za-/po-tla~iti (za ~im, po ~em tla~iti) kaj v odprtino.
Leksikaliziranost krajevnoprislovnega pomena predponskega obrazila lahko povzro~i vezljivostno osiroma{enje glagola oz. spremembo vezljivosti glede na netvorjeni glagol, npr. grmovje
raste pod /…/ : Grmovje pod-raste.
2.3 Prislovi kraja in ~asa sodijo tako kot samostalni{ke in glagolske besede med propozicijske sestavne. Zanimiva je njihova izrazna podoba: kot prosti glagolski morfemi ali kot
predponska obrazila se lahko pojavljajo na~eloma le v krajevnoprislovnem pomenu, npr. v-stopiti, stopiti v. Kot prislovna dolo~ila kraja, ~asa pa so pomensko dvovrstni, slovarskopomensko
samostojni, npr. doma, ali odvisni od prvin govornega dejanja – krajevni od mesta nahajanja
govore~ega, ~asovni od trenutka govorjenja oz. sobesedila, npr. tu; sedaj.
3 Vpra{anja skladenjskih vlog so se izkazala tudi kot osrednja vpra{anja strukturalno
dolo~anega slovarskega pomena: kategorialne slovni~ne lastnosti so hkrati tudi kategorialne
pomenske sestavine skladenjskofunkcijsko dolo~ene mnoìce besed – besednih vrst.
400
Andreja Žele, Valency in Standard Slovenian with Special Reference to the Verb
UDC 811.163.6’367
Andreja @ele
Fran Ramov{ Institute of the Slovenian Language, Ljubljana
401
VALENCY IN STANDARD SLOVENIAN (WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO THE VERB)
The paper is a chronological and problem-oriented survey of the uneven development of
Slovenian valency theory. The relations between the semantic, syntactic-functional, and expressive levels of language through the centuries very clearly show the gradual perception of
Slovenian from the initial merely surface-level comparative descriptions of syntax (comparative descriptions of syntactic phenomena in Latin, German and Slovenian) to problem-oriented
treatments.
Prispevek je kronolo{ko-problemska predstavitev slovenske vezljivostne teorije. Obenem
pa razmerja med pomensko, skladenjskofunkcijsko in izrazno ravnino jezika skozi stoletja zelo
jasno pokaèjo postopno uzave{~anje slovenskega jezika, od za~etnih zgolj povr{inskih opisov
skladnje (primerjalni opisi skladenjskih pojavov v latin{~ini, nem{~ini in sloven{~ini) do problemskih obravnav.
Key words: semantic-syntactic / structural-syntactic verbal valency, valency verbal groups,
primary/basic/specialized verbs, verbal prepositional morphemes, nonlexicalized prepositional
deverbal (participant) morpheme, basic participant roles
Klju~ne besede: pomenskoskladenjska / strukturalnoskladenjska glagolska vezljivost,
vezljivostne glagolske skupine, primarni/temeljni/specializirani glagoli, glagolski predlo`ni
morfemi, neleksikalizirani predlo`ni izglagolski (udeleènski) morfemi, temeljne udeleènske
vloge
1 Valency in Slovenian and foreign linguistics
The relations between the semantic, syntactic-functional, and expressive levels
of language through the centuries very clearly show the gradual perception of the
Slovenian language from the initial, merely surface-level comparative descriptions of
the syntax (comparative descriptions of syntactic phenomena in Latin, German, and
Slovenian) to issue-oriented treatments.
1.1 The representatives of phrasal valency are A. Bohori~ (1584), M. Pohlin
(1768), O. Gutsman (1777), and J. Kopitar (1808). Their work is a predominantly surface-level comparative treatment of valency. However, Bohori~’s treatment of clausal
valency was not surpassed until the beginning of the nineteenth century.
V. Vodnik (1811) represents the transition from phrasal valency to clausal valency. He pointed out the relationship between semantic- and structural-syntactic
verbal valency with a normative commentary on the use of active and passive verbal
moods.
The main representatives of clausal valency are P. Dajnko (1824) and F. Metelko
(1825), who display a strong theoretical influence of the leading Slavonic linguist of
402
the time, J. Dobrovský (1940), and his grammar Podrobná mluvnice jazyka ~eského.
The hierarchy of sentence element relations is taken into account, thus all the particular features of the predicative relation are first presented. The second half of the
nineteenth century is marked by the mutual (also transformational) link between
phrasal and clausal valency. This is the period of Janeì~’s editions of his Slovenian
grammar (1854; 1863; 1900) and of Miklo{i~’s syntactic theory (1868–1874).
In the first decades of the twentieth century Slovenian syntactic theory began to
be visibly modernized. With A. Breznik (1916; 1982) and above all with R. F. Miku{
(1945) it attempted to follow current European linguistic development. The startingpoint is the semantic-syntactic aspect of valency. In addition to Breznik, R. F. Miku{
(1945) in the 1950s tried to interrupt the course of primarily grammarian linguistics.
A more complex multi-level treatment of valency from the semantic- and structural-syntactic aspects (with an original orientation from form to meaning and vice
versa and with account taken of transformational grammar linguistics) is found in
the second half of the 1970s with J. Topori{i~’s Slovenska slovnica 1976 (Slovenian
Grammar).1
At the beginning of the 1980s studies appeared by J. Dular, A. Vidovi~ Muha and
M. Kriàj Ortar, who introduced the transformational grammar aspect of valency
more intensively. In treating the valency value of verbal free morphemes and by investigating the influence of verbal motivation on verbal valency they complement and
extend the knowledge available up to that time.2
1.2 The influences of foreign valency theories on the development
of Slovenian valency theory
We can affirm that Tesnière’s findings on the structure of the predicate are particularly useful for the progress of valency theory.3
G. Helbig (1984; 1992) complemented Tesnière when he condensed valency in
terms of the language system into the definition that logical valency is the extralinguistic relation between the contents of reality, semantic valency represents the distri1
J. Topori{i~’s Slovenska slovnica 1976 (Slovenian Grammar) (which derives from Slovenski knji`ni
jezik I – IV (Standard Slovenian Language) – Sintaksa stavka (Clause Syntax), 1965: 67–74; O ~etverih stav~nih ~lenih (On the Four Clause Elements), 1967: 181–202; Posebni tipi stavkov (Special Clause
Types), 1970: 151–187). Approximately at the same time Slovenian valency was dealt with by Claude
Vincenot in his grammar Essai de Grammaire Slovène (1975; cf. Topori{i~’s review in Slavisti~na revija
(Slavonic Review) and Nova slovenska skladnja (New Slovenian Syntax).
2
See the review by A. Vidovi~ Muha (1984) Nova slovenska skladnja J. Topori{i~a. From the valency
viewpoint more weighty works and discussions (in chronological order) include: the doctoral thesis by J.
Dular (1982), Priglagolska vezava v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku (20. stoletja) (Verbal Rection in Standard Slovenian (of the 20th Century); the B.A. thesis of M. Kriàj (1981) Glagolska vezljivost (na podlagi
ko pusa ~rke b v SSKJ) (Verbal Valency (on the Basis of the Letter B Corpus in SSKJ); also the article
derived from the thesis Glagolska vezljivost (1982); and the studies by M. Kriàj Ortar (1989) Vezljivost:
iz pomena v izraz (Valency: from Meaning to Expression) and A. Vidovi~ Muha (1993a) Glagolske sestavljenke – njihova skladenjska podstava in vezljivostne lastnosti (Z normativnim slovensko-nem{kim vidikom)
(Verbal Compounds – their Syntactic Base and Valency Properties (with a Slovenian-German Aspect)).
3
L. Tesnière’s Éléments de syntaxe structurale (21965).
403
butional/ combinatory capacities of specific word meanings or semes, while syntactic
valency indicates the (non)obligatory valency places and thus the number of complements as well as their grammatical-functional properties in individual languages.
In addition, F. Dane{ (1957; 1968; 1987) pointed out as early as in the 1950s
the importance of taking into account the semantic, syntactic-functional and expressive levels. A more comtemporary approach to the relationship of semantic-syntactic
and structural-syntactic valency (e.g., the question of obligatorily expressed circumstants and the (non)expression of actants, etc.) is used in the works of P. Sgall (1976;
1986a,b), E. Haji~ová (1983) and J. Panevová (1975).
Ju. D. Apresjan (1967) within the framework of the contemporary semantics develops the theory of so-called (non)productive semantic forms and esablishes that the
most productive semantic forms are those in phrases with basic verbal meanings, and
the least productive are those in phrases with phraseologically bound meanings (nonproductive semantic forms are idioms).
Works of O. Kunst Gnamu{ (1981) and J. Ore{nik (1992) rely theoretically and
methodologically on Anglo-American studies, thus from the aspect of Slovenian valency the treatment within the framework of the semantic level is particularly important. Within Anglo-American valency theory N. Chomsky (1957) from the valency
standpoint introduced some theses or even rules of translating from meaning into
expression, which are a supportive orientation in removing semantic ambiguities and,
at the same time, in establishing the valency characteristics of a particular language. In
contrast to Chomsky, C. J. Fillmore (1968) concentrates primarily on the description
of the deep structure. M. A. K. Halliday (21994) as the representative of systemicfunctional grammar deals with valency within the framework of clause meaning – of
the clausal semantic base and of the clause as message.
2 Valency as a semantic- and structural-syntactic phenomenon
2.1 From the viewpoint of verbal valency, verbal groups are elaborated.4 The semantic-syntactic or valency base for all verbs is the three primary verbs or verbal
primitives BITI (to be), IMETI (to have), and DELATI (to do, make). The basis of
the semantic-hierarchical valency network is composed of basic verbs of state (the
hypernyms of all stative verbs are the two primitives biti (’existence’) and imeti (’relations’)), basic verbs of active/nonactive actions and processes (the hypernyms of process active verbs are the two primitives delati and dati < ’povzro~iti, da (kdo) imeti’,
and of process nonactive verbs the phasal postati < ’narediti se/za~eti biti’ and dobiti <
’za~eti imeti’). The basic verbs (already defined as to type and lacking true synonyms)
constitute the fundamental classifying standard for verbal valency groups and at the
same time the semantic-syntactic basis and starting-point for semantically specialized
verbs (a) of treating/managing/creating, (b) of speaking, thinking, under-standing, (c)
of changes, (d) of movement. A special subgroup of basic verbs consists of (e) ele4
The typology of verbal valency here worked out is at the same time a basis for producing a valency
dictionary of Slovenian.
404
mentary verbs of natural phenomena and life processes, which form a kind of semantic-syntactic or valency synthesis of all the enumerated verbal semantic groups.
Each semantic group is embraced and thus typified semantic-syntactically by the
so-called realizer basic verb. Realizer basic verbs as representatives of verbal semantic groups are bivati, ~utiti; govoriti/re~i, misliti, gledati, hoteti, èleti; delovati, deti,
vzeti, igrati (se); spreminjati (se); iti, hoditi. (A subgroup of basic verbs is the elementary verbs, which indicate basic life processes/activities and natural phenomena.) The
basic verbs are hypernyms of specialized and higher specialized verbs.
The different meaning and derivation of the verbs shapes the semantic-hierarchic
valency network of the type premikati se – iti – stopati – korakati, delati – udarjati/
tol~i – sekati – cepiti, etc.
The hierarchical semantic-syntactic relation between primary, basic and specialized verbs makes it possible to formulate a valency network with valency overlapping
and with the semantic-syntactic valency formulas, including the participant roles: the
agent or bearer of an action/processes/state (V/Nd/p/s), the affected object of an action/processes/state (Prd/p/s), goal/result of an action/processes/state (Cd/p/s/Rd/p/s),
recipient of an action/processes/state (Pred/p/s), the relative object of an action/processes/state (Rad/p/s), content of an action/processes/state (Vsd/p/s), means of an action/
processes/state (Sd/p/s), place of an action/processes/state (Md/p/s), starting-point/goal
place of an action/processes/state (IM/CMd/p/s), time of an action/processes/state (^d/
p/s), starting-point/goal time of an action/processes/state (I^/C^d/p/s), as follows:
2.1.1 Specialized verbs of physical or mental state/processes (prebivati, stanovati, po~ivati, smejati se, etc.) overlap in valency with basic verbs of state/processes
(bivati, nahajati se, leàti, ~utiti, etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are:
Sam1|Np/d/dog/s| + Glag|E+|, Sam1|xVd/Ns/p/d/dog `-/+| + Glag|Msos/p/d/dog| (+ Prisl~/
-/+
k/n/kol / p ∩ Sam2–6|yM/^/IM/I^/CM/C^/Po/N/wL/S/Ra/Vss/p/d/dog ` |): (Nekdaj) je (tu)
-/+
bival je kralj, (Ob poteh) so bivala znamenja; Sam1|xVd/Ns/p ` | + Glag|POS/Msos/p|
+ Prislk / p ∩ Sam2/4–6|yMs/p `-/+|: Biva/Stanuje doma, Tedaj je (pre)bival tam/na deèli/
v Pivki/sredi polja/pri teti; Sam1|xNs/p `+/-| + Glag|POS/Msos| + p ∩ Sam2|yVss `-|:
Biva iz ve~ delov. The realizer basic verb for physical and mental relations is ~utiti –’to
perceive, to foresee with the senses: ûti pod prsti utripanje (Vss/p) ìle, Psi so ~utili
ljudi/potres (Ras/p), ûtila je bliìno/nevarnost (Ras/p), ’to establish with the consciousness the presence of something’ V zraku se ~uti pomlad (Ras/p): Sam1|xNs/p `+|
+ Glag|E+ + P| + Sam4|yRa/Vs/s/p `+/–/~–| + p ∩ Sam5|zMs/p `+ ~-| / Prislk/~|zMs/p//^s/p
`+/-|; Sam1|xNs/p ~+| + Glag|(EF + P ∩ (L- T L+)| + Sam4|yRas `+/-|.
2.1.2 Specialized verbs of treating/managing/creating as regards their dominant
semantic element are divided into:
2.1.2.1 Verbs of enabling the originating/origin of something (organizirati,
opremljati, osredoto~ati se, etc.) which overlap in valency with basic verbs of enabling the originating/origin of something (omogo~ati, pripravljati, prizadevati si,
etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are: Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag(se)Moza/na/v/k +
405
(Sam3|yPred/Cd ~+|) + Sam4(2/3)|yCd/Rd `+/-|: Tako delo (Prd) je potrebno dobro organizirati/pripraviti, Organizirajo (jim (Pred)) preno~i{~e (Rd); organizirati se – colloq.
Organiziral se je k socialistom (Cd).
2.1.2.2 Verbs with a stressed semantic element of movement (nesti/nositi, lepiti,
postaviti, ~olnariti, etc.) which overlap in valency with basic verbs of dealing with
movement and self-movement (deti, namestiti (se), vzeti, etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are: Sam1|xPvd ~+| + Glag + Sam4|yPrd `-/+| + pv/na/k ∩ Sam3–4/Prislk
/Namen|CMd|: Dati/Nesti kaj v popravilo/promet/mlin/na po{to, Dati delat obleko;
Sam1|xPvd ~+| + Glag + Sam4|yPrd `-/+| + p ∩ Sam2|IMd|: Dati/Dobiti/Vzeti denar iz
denarnice; Sam1|xPvd ~+| + Glag + Sam3|zPred/Prd ~+| + Sam4|yPrd `-| (+ p ∩ Sam4|Cd
`-/+|): Dati/Nesti/Nositi mu denar (za blago).
2.1.2.3 Verbs with a stressed semantic element of co-originating/co-occurring/
appurtenance (zgrabiti, ~akati, pestovati, pustiti, pomagati, nabrati, sprejeti, etc.),
which overlap in valency with basic verbs of treating and managing (ravnati, izvajati, upravljati, vplivati, etc.); the element of co-originating/co-occurring also represents the partial valency overlap with basic verbs of non-active happenings and
processes (pojaviti se, nastati, spreminjati se, etc.), while the semantic element of
appurtenance represents the partial valency overlap with basic verbs of dealing with
movement (vzeti, pustiti, etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are: Sam1|xVd ~+|
+ GlagMov/pri//z/s + Sam5–6|yMd–Sd/Vsd `-|; Sam1|xVd ~+| + GlagMoz/s + Sam6|wVsd `-|;
Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag + p Sam6|zSd `-|; Sam1|xV/Nd/s/p `-/+| + Glag|Msod/s/p| + Prislk/~/n
/ p ∩ Sam2–6| yM/IM/CM/^/I^/C^/ N/wL/S/Ra/Vsd/s/p `-/+|: Pacienti ~akajo zdravnika
(Ras/p), /Te`ko/ ~aka pomlad (Vss/p), âka s kosilom/pla~ilom/ otvoritvijo (Ras/p),
Kosilo vas ~aka na mizi (Ms/p), Sodelujejo z razli~nimi organizacijami (Sp/d) Sodelujejo pri knjigi/pri projektu/na predstavitvi (Mp/d); (similarly: re{evati se).
2.1.2.4 Verbs with a stressed semantic element of a change of property (aktivirati, kisati, odpirati/zapirati (se), etc.), which overlap in valency with basic verbs of
a change of property (spreminjati (se), oblikovati, ohranjati, etc.) and of dealing
(izpolnjevati, izdelovati, pripravljati, etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are:
Sam1|xPvd `+/-| + Glag + Sam4|yRd/Cd/Prd `-|, Sam1|xPvd `+/-| + Glag (+ Sam3|zRad `+/|) + Sam4|yVsd `-|: Oblikuje stavke (Cd), Oblikuje posode (Cd)/v posode (Cd), Oblikujejo (mu (Rad)) svetovni nazor (Rd), odpreti/zapreti – Odprl/Zaprl je znancu (Rad)
vrata (Prd), Odprl/Zaprl je trgovino/razstavo/razpravo (Prd); Odprl se je prijatelju
(Ras), Odprl se je estetskim idejam romantike (Ras), etc.
2.1.3 Specialized verbs of speaking, understanding and thinking (sporo~ati,
signalizirati, ugotavljati, razumeti, spoznavati, preu~evati, etc) overlap in valency
with basic verbs of speaking, understanding and thinking (govoriti, predstavljati
(si), misliti, etc.). Specialized and higher specialized verbs of speaking, thinking and
understanding (mental acting) include ’accepting and appropriating information’
(dokumentirati, izvedeti, dojemati, verjeti, etc.) and ’intelligent understanding and
406
responding to information’ (razumeti, argumentirati, etc.) and ’giving out information’ (sporo~ati, pokazati, agitirati, etc). They have the same participant roles and
the same semantic-syntactic valency formulas as the basic verbs of ’speaking, understanding, thinking’. The semantic-syntactic possibilities are: Sam1|xNd `+/-| + Glag:
Ljudje govorijo/mislijo, Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag /+ Prisln/~ / p ∩ Sam2 ∩ Sam2|wNd/^d|
/ p ∩ Sam5|zMd `-| = modifier/; Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag /+ Prisln|yNd| / + kot ∩ Sam1
/ p ∩ Sam5–6|yNd/Sd/Vsd abstr. `-| = modifier/; Govori proti okupatorju/z mladino/
za odpravo zaostalosti /v korist ~love{tva: Sam1|xVd ~+| + GlagMov/za//z/s//na//pri/proti//o
+ Sam3–6|yCd/Vsd `- / yRad/Prd ~+|: Obravnava problematiko (Vsd) / mladostnika
(Rad), Ugotavlja rezultate (Rad) /z zadovoljstvom (Rad)/, etc.
2.1.4 Specialized verbs with a general meaning of change (ru{iti se, prikazovati
se, vznikati, etc.) overlap in valency with basic verbs of enabling the originating/
origin of something (napravljati se, lotevati se, prizadevati si, etc.), of dealing and
of self-movement (uresni~evati se, uveljavljati se, iskati etc.). The semantic-syntactic possibilities are: Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag + Sam4|yPrd/Cd `+/-| (+ p ∩ Sam4|Cd `+/-|);
Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag(se)Moza/na/v/k + (Sam3|yPred/Cd ~+|) + Sam4(2/3)|yCd/Rd `+/-|;
Sam1|xVd ~+| + GlagMov/pri//z/s + Sam5–6|yMd–Sd/Vsd|; Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag
+ Sam4|yRd `-| (+ piz ∩ Sam2|yPrd `-|); + ’self-movement’: Sam1|xVd/Np/d/dog `-/+|
+ Glag|Msop/d/dog| + Prislk / p ∩ Sam2–6|yM/IM/CM/ Rap/d/dog `-/+|: V zadnjem ~asu se
je zelo razko{atil, Iz sobe se je skolobaril dim. Similarly: pogrezniti se, razdeliti (se),
razliti se, spojiti (se), zatoniti, etc.
2.1.5 Specialized verbs of movement are divided as regards valency into a) rightward non-valent process verbs (iti, beàti, letati, begati, voziti se, the course of movement is stressed) and into rightward-valent b) goal-directed verbs (te~i nakupovat,
Janez ène Toneta na delo, Janez goni kolo v popravilo, Pes podi koko{i spat, the goal/
purpose is stressed) and c) event verbs (sre~ati se, sestati se, vrniti se, preiti, the content of the event is stressed with predominating verbal compounds). The elementary
verb premikati se and the basic verbs hoditi and iti with their derivatives typivally
cover the entire valency of verbs of movement. The semantic-syntactic possibilities
are: Sam1|xVd/Np/d/dog `-/+| + Glag|Msop/d/dog| + Prisl~/k/n/kol / p ∩ Sam2,4–6|yM/^/IM/
I^/CM/C^/Po/N/wL/S/Ra/Vsp/d/dog `-/+|.
2.2 Within the framework of compounds with the same prefix the valency influence of the basic semantic values of the prefixes is expressed (‘phaseness (initial/
momentary/final)’, ’resultativeness (once/several times)’ and ’property/measure (degree/quantity)’), which are additional semantic properties or distinguishing semantic
elements. The compound is transitive when another one of the other two enumerated
semantically distinguishing elements is added to the phaseness. The semantic value
of the prefix also influences the participant role of the valency complement. Typical
original verbal hypernyms with typical semantic-syntactic valency formulas are verbal
compounds with syntactic-base delati, dati, biti or iti, e.g. with syntactic-base delati:
dodelati – ’finalness’ (Fk):’to finish work’–’absolute finalness of action’ – absolute
407
semantic-syntactic use of the verb: /Pri nas/ je dodelal: Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag|Fk|:
Duhovnik doma{uje, Bolnik dotrpi; ’relative finalness of action’: Kmet dobrana/ dogospodari/dokosi/dokuje/domlati/domolze, Mati dohrepeni/domodruje/dopoje; – ’resultativeness’: ’to produce something to the end’ – ’completeness of an action to the
end’: dodelati obleko/sliko: Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag|Fk|(Mo) + Sam4|yCd `+/-|: Dodojila
je otroka, Dooral je njivo, Dopekel je kruh, Dopil je vino, Dopletla je jopico, Dopolnil
je kozarec, Dotipkal je stran, Dogradili so most, Dokrmil je ~ebele, Dogovoril se je za
sestanek; – ’property’: ’to carry out final works for a better appearance, better quality’: dodelati okrasje/dodelati tkanino: Sam1|xVd ~+| + Glag|Fk (L- T L+)| + Sam4|yCd
`+/-|: Do~akal/Dobojeval je zmago za zatirane, Dosegel je sporazum, Do~aral je lep{e
ìvljenje za otroke, Doklicali so blagostanje.
2.3 Within the framework of valency according to nominalization and adjectivalization or the valency of deverbal derivatives, the following are taken into account
as realizers of valency a) the so-called transpositional derivatives with the meanings
of action/state/property (De/St/L) – they are of clausal origin and are thus treated
transformationally, and b) the so-called mutational derivatives with word-formational
meanings of agent, object, result and means (Vd, Pd, Rd, Sd), allowed by the selected
verbal meaning.
2.3.1 The nuclear Vd (the agent of an action) and Nd/s/l (the bearer of an action/
state/property) introduce a true possessive (since with the simultaneous indicating
of action/state (De/St) they express the direct connection of agent/ bearer with the
object of the action), e.g. prijateljev znanec/svetovalec, prijateljev brat. But action
(De), property (L) and state (St) can only introduce non-true possessive relations, e.g.
o~etovo delo, voznikova prednost. With same-verb derivatives with the word-formational meaning of object of an action (Pd) or result of an action (Rd) or means of an
action (Sd), compared with the word-formational meaning of action (De) or agent of
an action (Vd), the arrangement of participant roles or semantic-syntactic valency
is optionally narrowed. The hierarchical or preferential optional arrangement of the
participant roles is: with nuclear deverbal nouns of action/state/property(De/St/L)
and of the agent of an action and of the bearer of an action/state/property (Vd /
Nd/s/l), the nucleus-adjacent position can be occupied by all the participant roles,
though the preferential arrangement is: affected/relative/content/ appearing object of
an action (Pr/Ra/Vs/Pod), means of an action (Sd), goal of an action (Cd), result of an
action (Rd); with all these the non-preferential roles, which can be semantic-syntactically obligatory or non-obligatory, are occupied by spatial and temporal participants,
e.g. pripravljanje (De) {portnikov (Prd)/napitkov (Rd), igranje (De) nogometa (Vsd)
s prijatelji (Rad) za nagrado (Cd), igranje (De) hokeja (Vsd) na travi (Md) z ògico
(Sd); bivanje (De/St) doma (Md), obseg (St) romana (Vss), pripadnost (St) zemlje
(Prs) obdelovalcu (Ras), obstojnost (L) barv (Vss) proti vlagi (Ras); igralec (Vd)
sonate (Vsd) na klavir (Rad), prebivalec (Nd/s) bloka (Md/s), rastje (Np/s) v mo~virju
(Mp/s), hudi~/hudobec (Nl) do najbli`njih (Ral). With nuclear Pd the nucleus-adjacent position is most frequently occupied by means of an action (Sd) or goal of an
408
action (Cd), more rarely by the content, affected or relative object of an action (Vsd/
Prd/Rad), e.g. iskalnik (Pd) z elektromagnetom (Sd) za kable (Cd), igralo (Pd) s krogi
(Sd) za guganje (Cd), spravljalnik (Pd) ìta (Prd), nadzorstvo (Pd) nad trì{~em (Rad).
With nuclear Rd the nucleus-adjacent position is occupied by means of an action (Sd)
or material, more rarely by the content of an action (Vsd), e.g. izdelek (Rd) z roko (Sd)
iz kovine (Vsd), proizvod (Rd) iz kovine (Vsd) od kova~ev (Rad); with nuclear Sd the
nucleus-adjacent position is occupied by goal of an action (Cd), e.g. igra~a (Sd) za
odrasle (Cd).
Pd, Rd and Sd also have non-preferential participant roles: place of an action
(Md), starting-point/goal place of an action (IM/CMd), time of an action (^d), starting-point/goal time of an action (I^/C^d).
Pd, Rd and Sd are semantically linked with De metonymically, while Vd (which
can combine non-actual De and V/Nd) and De semantically exclude each other due to
the cause-consequence link within the predicative relation. The syncretic linkage or
combination of ’action’ (De) with ’agent of an action’ (Vd) is also indicated by attributive adjuncts with the noun with the meaning ’agent of an action’ (Vd), when they
can transformationally modify the predicative verb e.g. mo`ni kandidat Tone – Tone je
mo`ni kandidat – Tone bi lahko kandidiral (cf. M: 152).
2.3.1.1 The combination or syncretism of participant roles as a valency important
semantic-syntactic phenomenon.
2.3.1.1.1 The deverbal nuclear noun as agent of an action (Vd) can combine action
(De) and the agent or bearer of an action (V/Nd) into (Vd ∩ V/Nd), thus proving the
possibility of expressing a true possessive to the object of an action (Pd), e.g. znan~ev
svetovalec (< svetovalec (od) znanca / svetovalec znancu < kdor svetuje znancu) – this
true-possessive relation is a transformation of rection. A true possessive to the object
is also expressed by the bearer of a state (Ns), e.g. sestrin mo` (< mo` (od) sestre /
sestri mo` < sestra ima moà). But in contrast to the deverbal Vd, only action (De) or
state/property (St/L) with only a predicative relation can transform only into a nontrue possessive relation, e.g. delav~evo sluènje (< sluènje delavca < delavec sluì)
or delav~eva pripravljenost/prijaznost (< pripravljenost/prijaznost delavca < delavec
je pripravljen/prijazen).
2.3.1.1.2 The deverbal nuclear noun in the participant role of result of an action
(Rd), which at the same time is the final phasal degree of an action (DeFk), according
to expectation combines action (De) and the object of an action (Pd) into (De ∩ Pd),
which is also confirmed by the syntactic bases for the word-formational meaning Rd,
e.g. izpis < |to, kar| izpi{e|-Ø| with the semantic base ’izpisati kaj’.
2.3.1.1.3 The deverbal nuclear noun as means of an action (Sd) with the semantic
element ’self-acting’ can further combine the two participant roles of causer of an
action (Pvd) and bearer of an action (Nd), e.g. celilno mazilo (< mazilo za celjenje <
mazilo, ki celi), similarly meh~alno sredstvo. But only the bearer of an action (Nd) is
409
included in means of transport, e.g. dostavno vozilo (< vozilo za dostavo < vozilo, s
katerim se dostavlja).
2.3.1.2 The nominalization of clauses into gerundial-nuclear phrases is followed
by adjectivalization, when the predicative relation is transformed into a relative (nontrue possessive) gerund-adjacent adjective, while the rection and collocation relations
are transformed into classifying adjectives.
Within the framework of transformations of leftward valency gerund-adjacentnuclear non-true possessive adjectives of action/state (Spd/s) are generally adjectivalized into the most typical subject participant roles as agent/causer/initiator of an action
(Vd/Pvd/Pbd), which typically have the category of animacy, expressing potential selfcausation. But the bearer of an action/state/property (Nd/s/l) is obligatorily adjectivalized only if it is at the same time also the causer of an action/ state/property (Nd/s/l ∩
Pvd/s/l), e.g. Janez se premika > Janezovo premikanje (as against e.g. premikati Janeza
> premikanje Janeza), Janez je vztrajen > Janez ima vztrajnost > Janezova vztrajnost.
The fact that classifying adjectives as transformers of rightward-valency relations
with nuclear deverbal nouns having different word-formational meanings are preferentially arranged differently has already been established (Vidovi~ Muha 1981).
2.4 The valency roles of verbal prepositional morphemes are seen in that a rectionvalent prepositional morpheme, unlike a rection-combinatory prepositional morpheme,
requires the arrangement of all the obligatory rightward participant roles and thus from
the structural-syntactic aspect as well demands the complete expression of all the syntactically obligatory complements. Unjustified omissions, e.g. with the action of an
affected object, are also confirmed by transformations, e.g. dajanje Janeza otroka za
pastirja, dajanje Janeza hrane za pastirja – Janezovo dajanje otroka/hrane za pastirja
– the second genitive (from left to right: otrok/hrana) has the participant role of affected due to the communicative completion of the phrase, which is demanded by the
free prepositional verbal morpheme, e.g. za. The omission of this genitive also causes a
semantic change: dajanje Janeza za pastirja : dajanje hrane za pastirja.
2.4.1 The prepositional verbal morpheme underscores the obligatory semanticand structural-syntactic role of the affected with the action (Prd). An additional indirect proof that prepositional verbal morphemes are part of the verbal meaning lies in
the fact that in the tendency to preserve the verbal meaning (with its transitivity) they
are sometimes expressed only with a transformation, e.g. kesati se (zaradi) grehov
– kesanje zaradi grehov, udeleìti se ~esa – udele`ba pri ~em.
2.4.2 A nonlexicalized prepositional deverbal (participant) morpheme is determined primarily by the participant role which is anticipated by the verbal occasional
syntactic meaning. The clearest examples for deverbal (participant) prepositional
morphemes are seen in a transformation with indication of the subject participant
roles, e.g. Janez in prijatelj se pogovarjata – Janez se pogovarja s prijateljem – pogovarjanje/pogovor Janeza s prijateljem – Janezovo pogovarjanje/Janezov pogovor s
410
prijateljem). This is because the participant role of agent of an action is self-evident
from the standpointof the verbal action.
2.5 Predominating obligatorily valent participant roles according to verbal
groups
This treatment takes into account basic, specialized and higher specialized verbs
(the latter are derivatives – verbal derivatives, compounds with particular predominating semantic elements, which are also at the same time semantically distinguishing
between the individual verbal semantic groups.
Within the framework of deverbal nouns, the basic word-formational meanings of
action, property and state (De, L, St) are dealt with, while Vd, Pd, Rd in Sd are also
presented comparatively.
Although the verbal semantic groups, determined on the basis of verbal valency,
include all the participant roles, certain participant roles are more frequent. Also after the nominalization of verbs into nuclear deverbal nouns with the word-formational meaning of action (De), all the participant roles are preserved (mostly also
adjecti-valized into different classifying adjectives) and the same semantic-hierarchic
arrangement (distributing and expressing participant roles in the direction agent/ causer/source of an action > recipient > affected by an action > circumstances of an action;
first the so-called mono-functional cases and then the poly-functional cases), only in
varying extent – as regards the starting-point nuclear word-formational meaning certain participant roles are omitted.
The sufficiency or correctness of the extent of valency verbal semantic groups
from the aspect of structural-syntactic valency is also confirmed by the accusative
comple-ment (T), which with verbs of state, course, and action encompasses all the
basic participant roles. However in transformations, instead of the accusative (T) there
is the genitive (R): a) verbs of state/process – relative/content T, b) verbs of active
processes/actions – b1) affected/result/goal T, b2) – affected/relative T, b3) affected/
result/goal T, b4) content/appearing/relative T, b5) T as goal place/time; in trans-formations R functions as departure-point/goal place/time.(The more frequent non-obligatorily valent participant roles are indicated by round brackets.)
In Slovenian, the frequency case arrangement TRIMOD has been confirmed (the
case arrangement of words which are at the same time phrasally nuclear is TIMROD,
while the use of verbal prepositional morphemes – the most frequent are za, z/s, o, v,
pri, na –gives the case relation TMROD). The locative (M) is so high in frequency
because the prepositional morphemes o and pri are only locative, z/s are only instrumental whereas the other three prepositional morphemes have several cases.) The
nominative complement is something special from the semantic- and structural-syntactic aspect, while the dative complement in terms of valency is arranged before
prepositional-case complements.
For Slovenian I distinguish five basic groups of complements, which as regards
their morphological-syntactic properties I further divide into ten classes (Dl1–10):
411
a) With verbs of full meaning as realizers of valency (on account of their valency
properties they are internationally indicated as functors, alongside which the comple-ments indicate the appropriate participant or else its participant role on the
syntactic level):
– case complements (Dl1–4): nominative, accusative, genitive and dative (in terms
of word-class these are nouns);
– (prepositional) case complements (Dl5–7): locative and instrumental (in terms
of word-class these are nouns whose case is determined by a verbal prepositional morpheme); the same holds true for accusative, genitive and dative
complements with prepositional-morpheme verbs;
– adverbials (Dl8): in terms of word-class these are adverbs – static adverbs,
which in terms of clause function encompass all the basic adverbials of place/
time/manner/ cause, dynamic adverbs, which are all the adverbials of direction
and goal.
b) With verbs of non-full meaning as only copular or grammatical-functional realizers of non-true/non-participant valency (they are internationally indicated as
proto-functors, which together with non-participant predicate complements define
a particular participant as to property):
– case/adverb predicate-attribute complements (Dl9): in terms of word-class
these are nouns and adjectives, verbs and adverbs;
– infinitive/supine complements (Dl10): in terms of word-class these are verbs.
2.6 The typology of obligatory valency is the basis for the typology of clause
patterns
From the standpoint of the semantic- and structural-syntactic obligatoriness of
com-plements the typology of clause patterns in Slovenian is formulated, taking into
account the verbal-semantic orientation of all the verbal semantic groups.
From the standpoint of clause creation the original division is into a) one-part and
two-part clause utterances, while a secondary division is that regarding b) the semantic-syntactic valency of verbs in the predicate, which can be non-valent, uni-, bi-, tri-,
or multi-valent. In a one-clause utterance, verbal valency can be caught in predicate valency, which forms clause utterances with two, three or four clause ele-ments and takes
into account c) the criterion of grammatical correctness and com-municative completeness, which divides utterances into the main clause patterns and subpatterns.
Clause subpatterns are formed by two special semantic-syntactically foreseeable
but structural-syntactically non-obligatory complements: a) the general subject (Misli
se, ^lovek misli) and b) the internal object (with the same word: Ple{e ples, not with
the same word: ê{e lase, Govori besede) or the inner adverbial, whose semantic
pro-perties are already included in the verb. (The two complements are indicated by
round brackets.)
The number of clause patterns (V) and subpatterns (PV) also reveals the most
frequent and at the same time most usual semantic-syntactic use of verbs from the
standpoint of forming clause utterances as well: a) one-part clauses: originally imper-
412
sonal non-valent Glag (1V, Lije, Deùje, Piha, No~i se), and secondarily impersonal
uni-/bivalent Glag (8V, 1PV, Brni (mu) v glavi, Zahotelo se mu je bogastva); b) twopart clauses: univalent Glag (2V, 1PV, Pono~uje{, Spi, (De`) lije), bivalent Glag (10V,
9PV, Vozim avto, Mati ziba otroka), trivalent Glag (27V, 7PV, U~itelj je otroke nau~il
pesem/pisati), quadrivalent Glag (4V, Mati je h~eri vpletla trak v kito), pentivalent
Glag (1V, 1PV, Zdravnik je bolniku vbriznil zdravilo v ìlo (z injekcijo)).
Margaret Davis.
REFERENCES
APRESJAN, Ju. D., 1967: Eksperimental’noe issledovanie semantiki russkogo glagola. Moskva:
Nauka.
BOHORI~, A., 1584, prev. izd. 1987: Arcticae horulae succisivae (Zimske urice proste). Wittenberg. Prevedel in spremno {tudijo napisal J. Topori{i~. Maribor: Obzorja.
BREZNIK, A., 1916: Slovenska slovnica za srednje {ole. Celovec. 3. izd., Prevalje 1924: Dru`ba
sv. Mohorja. 4. pomnoèna izd., Celje 1934: Dru`ba sv. Mohorja.
– – 1982: Jezikoslovne razprave. Besedni red v govoru. 233–253. Izbral in uredil J. Topori{i~.
Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
BRINKER, K., 1977: Modelle und Methoden der strukturalistischen Syntax. Stuttgart – Berlin
– Köln – Mainz.
CHOMSKY, N., 1957: Syntactic structures. The Netherlands: The Hague: Mouton and Co. Printers.
DAJNKO, P., 1824: Lehrbuch der Windi∫chen Sprache. II del: Von der Wortfügung. Gratz.
269–296.
DANE{, F., 1957: Intonace a věta ve spisovné ~e{tině. Praha.
– – 1968: Sémantická struktura větného vzorce. Otázky slovanské syntaxe II. Brno. 45–49.
DANE{, F. idr., 1987: Větné vzorce v ~e{tině. Praha: Academia.
DOBROVSKÝ, J., 1940: Podrobná mluvnice jazyka ~eského. (V redakcích z roku 1809 a 1819).
Praha.
DULAR, J., 1982: Priglagolska vezava v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku (20. stoletja): disertacija.
Ljubljana. 1–259.
ENGEL, U., 1970: Die deutschen Satzbaupläne. Wirkendes Wort XX. Berlin. 361–392.
FILLMORE, Ch. J., 1968: The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory. Urednika E. Bach
in R. T. Harms. USA.
GREPL, M. idr., 1987: Mluvnice ~e{tiny (3 – Skladba). Praha: Academia.
GUTSMAN, O., 1777: Windi∫che Sprachlehre verfa∫∫et von Oswald Gutsman. Gratz. 81–133.
HAJI~OVÁ, E. idr., 1983: Větná stavba a aktualní ~lenění ve slovanských jazycích z porovnávacího hlediska. êskoslovenská slavistika. 139–149.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K., 21994: An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
HELBIG, G., BUSCHA, J., 1984: Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. 137, 352–398, 535–564.
HELBIG, G., 1992: Probleme der Valenz– und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
HELBIG, G., SCHENKEL, W., 1969: Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben.
Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.
HERINGER, H. J., 1967: Wertigkeiten und nullwertige Verben im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache 23. 13–34.
413
JANEÌ~, A., 1854: Slovenska slovnica s kratkim pregledom slovenskega slovstva. 2. izd. 1863, 5.
izd. 1876, 6. izd. 1889, 7. izd. 1894, 8. izd. 1900. Celovec.
KOPITAR, J., 1808: Grammatik Slavi∫chen Sprache in Krain, Kärntennund Steyermark. Laibach.
KORO{EC, T., 1977: Slovenski dajalnik in nominalizacija dajalni{kih zvez. XIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana. 59–67.
KRIÀJ ORTAR, M., 1989: Vezljivost: iz pomena v izraz. XXV. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana. 129–140.
KUNST GNAMU{, O., 1981: Pomenska sestava povedi. Ljubljana.
LEVSTIK, F., 1858a, cit. po izd. 1956: Jezikovni spisi in odlomki. Odlomek slovenske slovnice
– Glagol. Zbrano delo 10. Ljubljana 1978: DZS. 153–161.
METELKO, F., 1825: Lehrgebäude der Sloweni∫chen Sprache im Königreiche Illyrien und in den
benachbarten Provinzen. Laibach. 236–264.
MIKLO{I~, F., 1868–1874: Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. Wien.
MIKU{, R. F., 1945: [to je u stvari re~enica? Fragment iz teorije jezika i mi{ljenja. Ljubljana:
Samozalo`ba.
ORE{NIK, J., 1992: Udeleènske vloge v sloven{~ini. Ljubljana: SAZU.
PANEVOVÁ, J., 1975: Rozvití předmětová a příslove~ná, doplňující a ur~ující. NR 58. 61–66.
POHLIN, M., 1768: Kraynska grammatika. Ljubljana. 163–199.
SGALL, P., 1976: K obecným otázkám sémantiky věty. Slovo a slovesnost XXXVII/3. 184–194.
SGALL, P. idr., 1986a: Úvod do syntaxe a sémantiky (Některé nové směry v teoretické lingvistice). Praha: Academia.
– – 1986b: The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Praha:
Academia.
[UMAN, J., 1881: Slovenska slovnica (po Miklo{i~evi primerjalni). Ljubljana: Matica slovenska.
TESNIÈRE, L., 21965: Éléments de Syntaxe structurale. Paris.
TOPORI{I~, J.: 1965–1970: Slovenski knji`ni jezik I–IV. Maribor: Obzorja.
– – 1976: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.
– – 1982: Nova slovenska skladnja. Ljubljana: DZS.
– – 2000: Slovenska slovnica. êtrta prenovljena in raz{irjena izdaja. Maribor:
Obzorja.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, A., 1981: Pomenske skupine nekakovostnih izpeljanih pridevnikov. SR XXIX/1.
19–42.
– – 1984: Nova slovenska skladnja J. Topori{i~a. SR XXXII/2. 142–155.
– – 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloènk. Ljubljana:
Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete in Partizanska knjiga.
– – 1993: Glagolske sestavljenke – njihova skladenjska podstava in vezljivostne lastnosti (Z
normativnim slovensko-nem{kim vidikom). SR XLI/1. 161–192.
VINCENOT, C., 1975: Essai de Grammaire Slovène. Ljubljana: MK.
VODNIK, V., 1811: Pi∫meno∫t ali Grammatika sa Perve Shole. V Lublani. Vésanje. 115–147.
POVZETEK
Predstavitev razvoja slovenske vezljivostne teorije kaè, kako se je od 16. stoletja naprej
po~asi tipizirala oz. izoblikovala tudi slovenska skladnja s svojimi lastnostmi in problemi.
Kar pomeni, da se je obravnava od za~etnih vsesplo{nojezikovnih primerjalnih skladenjskih
pojavov za~ela oìviti in hkrati kvalitetno poglabljati. Obenem pa razmerja med pomensko,
skladenjskofunkcijsko in izrazno ravnino jezika skozi stoletja zelo jasno pokaèjo postopno
414
uzave{~anje slovenskega jezika, od za~etnih zgolj povr{inskih opisov skladnje (primerjalni opisi skladenjskih pojavov v latin{~ini, nem{~ini in sloven{~ini) do problemskih obravnav. Tako se
za~etno predstavljanje osnovne rabe posameznih sklonov v sloven{~ini – izhodi{~e obravnave
je izrazna ravnina – osredoto~i na obravnavo predvsem slovenskih skladenjskih posebnosti, ki
jih izpostavlja skladenjskofunkcijska oz. stav~no~lenska ravnina v vzro~no-posledi~ni povezavi
s pomensko ravnino jezika.
Aleksandra Derganc, Some Characteristics of the Dual in Slovenian
UDC 811.163.6’366.53
Aleksandra Derganc
415
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DUAL IN SLOVENIAN1
The article deals with dual forms in Slovenian and their use in standard Slovenian, the
dialects of Slovenian and the colloquial language of Ljubljana. The article draws attention to
the fact that a stronger degree of formal markedness of part of dual forms (consistent with a
stronger degree of semantic double markedness of dual forms), which is a result of the historical
development, and the pragmatic value of the dual when the reference is to two people, contribute to the vitality of this grammatical category.
V prispevku se govori o dvojinskih oblikah v sloven{~ini, o njihovi rabi, o odnosu med
temi oblikami v knji`nem jeziku in nare~jih ter pogovornem jeziku Ljubljane. Opozarja se, da
krepkej{a oblikovna markiranost dela dvojinskih oblik (kar ustreza pomensko krepkej{i dvojni
markiranosti dvojinskih oblik), do katere je pri{lo v zgodovinskem razvoju, poleg pragmati~ne
teè, ki jo ima dvojina, kadar je govor o dveh osebah, prispeva k vitalnosti te kategorije.
Key words: The use of the dual in Slovenian, paired nouns, historical development of the
dual in Slovenian, pragmatic value of the dual in Slovenian
Klju~ne besede: raba dvojine v sloven{~ini, parni samostalniki, zgodovinski razvoj dvojine
v sloven{~ini, pragmati~na vrednost dvojine v sloven{~ini
Slovenian is one of the few European languages exhibiting the grammatical category of the dual. As far as Slavic languages are concerned, this category is also found
in Upper and Lower Sorbian. According to Corbett (2000: 36), the dual is also found
in some newly-formed dual forms in Breton.
The following definition of the category number is found in a recent grammar of
Slovenian: »Number is the morphological expression of quantity for values one, two,
three or more in nominal and some predicative words, and in finite verb forms /…/.
There are three numbers in Slovenian; /…/ Singular refers to the value ’one’, dual to
the value ’two’ (or ’one and one’) and plural to the value ’more than two’ (or ’more
than one and one’)« (Topori{i~ 2000: 271).
The forms and the use of the dual
The category of the dual is an inherent property of nouns and personal pronouns.
In other parts of speech (adjectives, adjectival pronouns, participles, verbs, etc.) it appears as an agreeing category. The grammar of Slovenian provides dual paradigms for
all inflected parts of speech that show the category of number. Nouns and the agreeing
1
This article is a shortened and a revised version of the article The dual in Slovenian (In: J. Ore{nik, D.
F. Reindl (eds.). Slovenian from a typological perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung =
Language Typology and Universals, Vol. 56, 2003, Issue 3, 165–181.)
416
parts of speech – comprising adjectival pronouns, adjectives, numerals and participles
– display special dual forms only in the nominative, the accusative, the dative and
the instrumental, while the genitive and locative forms are identical to plural forms.
Distinctive dual forms (different from the plural ones) are exhibited by finite forms of
verbs, with the dual forms for the 2nd and 3rd person being identical. Personal pronouns
display special dual forms in all cases.
The nominative and accusative of dual nouns of masculine gender and the agreeing
parts of speech are typically expressed by the ending -a (dva ’two-du.’, tista ’thosedu.’, moja ’my-du.’, lepa ’beautiful-du.’, sinova ’sons-du.’, delala ’worked-du., etc.).
This ending is also found in all three finite dual verb forms in the present tense, which
in standard Slovenian do not show special endings for gender (delava ’we work-du.’,
delata ’you work-du.’, delata ’they work-du.’). Dual personal pronouns of masculine
gender in the nominative end in -dva ’-two’ (midva ’we-two’, vidva ’you-two’, onadva ’they-two’). This ending differs from the singular and the plural ending. Dual
forms of feminine and neuter gender do not display one typical ending. The nouns
and the agreeing parts of speech are expressed by the ending -i in the nominative (tisti
’those-du.’, moji ’my-du.’, lepi ’beautiful-du.’, h~eri ’daughters-du.’, okni windowsdu., delali ’worked-du.’ ) and only exceptionally by the ending -e (v dve gube literally
’in two folds-du.’, ’hunched’). The form of the numeral is dve ’two-du.’, which is
how personal pronouns in the nominative end as well (midve/medve ’we-two-fem.’,
vidve/vedve ’you-two-fem.’, onidve/onedve ’they-two-fem.’). The verb ending is the
same for all genders: -a.
The noun in its dual form is usually premodified by the numerals dva ’two-masc.’,
dve ’two-fem./neu.’, or the pronouns oba ’both-masc.’, obe ’both-fem./neu.’. Such
premodification can be omitted if the speaker knows that the nominal phrase refers to
two entities. All parts of speech agreeing with the noun in its dual form (i.e. adjectives,
adjectival pronouns, numerals and participles) as well the predicator and its complements are also found in their dual forms (Topori{i~ 2000: 609):
Dva
otroka
hodita
še
v šolo.
Two-du.masc.nom. child-du.masc.nom. go-3du.pres. still to school
»Two children still go to school.«
Otroka
hodita
še v šolo.
child-du.masc.nom. go-3du.pres.
still to school
»The two children still go to school.«
Ta
dva
stola
sta
polomljena.
These-du.masc.nom. two-du.masc.nom. chair-du.masc.nom. be-3du.pres. broken-du.masc.
»These two chairs are broken.«
nom.
Ti
dve
knjigi
sta
predragi.
These-du.fem.nom. two-du.fem.nom. book-du.fem.nom. be-3du.pres. too-expensive-du.fem.
»These two books are too expensive.«
nom.
417
Ana je
kupila
dva
zvezka.
Ana be-3sing.pres. buy-ptc.sg.fem two-du.masc.acc. notebook-du.masc.acc.
»Ana bought two notebooks.«
Ana je šla v kino
s
svojima
prijateljicama/
A. is gone to movies with her-du.fem.in. friend-du.fem.in./
z
dvema
novima
prijateljicama.
with two-du.fem.in. new-du.fem.in. friend-du.fem.in.
»Ana went to the movies with her two friends/ with her two new friends.«
When two people are involved, a dual personal pronoun is used. (the 3rd person
pronoun can refer to two things as well, though such contexts are extremely rare).
When the pronoun is the subject of the sentence, it is often dropped in the same way
as the personal pronouns functioning as subjects are generally omitted. The category
of number is in such cases expressed by the verb form:
Midva
bova
{la
po levi poti, vidva
pa po desni.
we (1du.masc.) be (1du.fut.) go (ptc.du.masc.) on left road you (2du.masc.) pa on right
»The two of us will take the road on the left, while the two of you the one on the right.«
V~eraj
sva
{la
v kino.
Yesterday be (1du.pres.) go (ptc.du.masc.) to movies
»Yesterday the two of us went to the movies.«
Kdaj gresta
v kino?
When go (2du.pres.) or go (3du.pres.) to movies
»When are the two of you going to the movies? or When are the two of them going to the
movies?«
If the subject is a coordinate noun phrase such as jaz in Tone ’I and Tone’; ti in
Tone ’you and Tone’; on in Tone ’he and Tone’, it can be replaced by the phrase midva
s Tonetom ’us (du.) with Tone’; vidva s Tonetom ’you (du.) with Tone’; onadva s
Tonetom ’they (du.) with Tone’, as exemplified below. The examples are taken from
(Topori{i~ 2000: 608).
Tone in jaz sva
{la
h kova~u.
Tone and I be (1du.pres.) go (ptc.du.masc.) to blacksmith.
»Tone and I went to the blacksmith«
Midva s
Tonetom sva
{la
h kova~u.
We (1du.) with Tone (in.) be (1du.pres.) go (ptc.du.masc.) to blacksmith.
»Tone and I went to the blacksmith.«
S Tonetom sva
{la
h kova~u.
with Tone (in.) be (1du.pres.) go (ptc.du.masc.) to blacksmith
»Tone and I went to the blacksmith«
418
A subject consisting of two singular headwords generally requires a dual predicate (Topori{i~
2000: 609):
Borut in Meta pridno {tudirata.
Borut and Meta hard study (3du.pres.).
»Borut and Meta are studying hard«
Ne
ti ne jaz nisva
kriva.
Neither you nor I not-be (1du.pres.) guilty-du.masc.nom.
»Neither of the two of us is guilty«
When the coordinate subject is composed of one head of masculine gender and
one head of feminine gender, the predicate that agrees with the subject shows dual
masculine agreement, since masculine gender is the unmarked gender; (Topori{i~
2000: 266, see also Topori{i~ 2000: 609):
Janez
in Micka
sta
{la
v kino.
Janez (sg.masc.) and Micka (sg.fem.) be (3du.pres.) go (ptc.du.masc.) to movies
»Janez and Micka went to the movies.«
Slovenian exhibits the polite use of the second person plural form instead of the
second person singular to address one person, which expresses respect and distance on
the part of the speaker. It is interesting to note that it is often more adequate to use the
dual form when addressing two people we would separately address with an honorific
form (see also Corbett 2000: 226). The use of the dual disambiguates the otherwise
ambiguous meaning of the utterance – if the plural form is used, it is not clear whether
the speaker is referring to one, two or even more people.
Kdo ve,
zakaj vam
tega ni povedala. Saj sta
bili
tako reko~
nelo~ljivi.
who knows why you (pl.hon.) this not told
saj be (3du.pres.) be (ptc.du.fem.) so to say
inseparable
(du.fem.)
»Who knows why she did not tell you that. Especially since you two were practically inseparable.«
The plural personal pronoun vam refers to the listener, whom the speaker addresses with the honorific form. The dual forms bili and nelo~ljivi refer to the listener and
some other person of feminine gender.
The dual is used in the same way when the speaker is referring to himself or herself and the listener whom he or she addresses with the honorific plural.
Naj ostane
med nama. Saj menda veste,
da je Makiko v Evropi,
mar ne?
Let remain between we-du.in. saj certainly know (3pl.hon.pres.) that is Makiko in Europe,
mar not
»This is between the two of us. You do know that Makiko is in Europe, don’t you?«
419
The dual can also be used when talking to a child about an action that will either
be performed only by the adult or by the child (Topori{i~ 2000: 508):
Zdaj bova
pa juho pojedla.
now be (1du.fut.) pa shoes put on (ptc.du.masc.)
»Now we shall eat up the soup.«
Zdaj bova
pa ~evlje obula.
now be (1du.fut.) pa shoes put on (ptc.du.masc.)
»Now we shall put on the shoes.«
A similar example is found in (Corbett 2000: 227), where, after an acupuncture session, the doctor is talking to a patient whom he addresses with the honorific plural.
Gospod Ore{nik, zdaj bova
pobrala
iglice.
Mister Ore{nik now be-1du.fut take out (ptc.du.masc.) needles
»Mr. Ore{nik, we shall take out the needles now.«
It appears that the use of the dual in the examples above establishes a special
connection of cooperation between the speaker and the listener and some degree of a
patronizing attitude to the listener (adult to child, doctor to patient).
Markedness/Unmarkedness
In general, the singular is considered the unmarked form against the dual and the
plural, while the plural is the unmarked form against the dual, (Topori{i~ 2000: 271,
slightly differing from Corbett 2000: 38ff). Therefore, in certain contexts it is possible
to use the plural instead of the dual and the singular instead of the plural.
Dual forms exhibit many structural idiosyncrasies: they are longer than the corresponding singular and plural forms (as observed by Topori{i~ 2000: 272) and most
of them are expressed by the ending -a, typical of the dual masculine form. The structure of dual personal pronouns in the nominative case is especially transparent: these
pronouns are composed of the elements mi ’we-pl.masc.’; me ’we-pl.fem.’; vi ’youpl.masc.’; ve ’you-pl.fem.’; ona ’they-du.masc.’ etc. followed by the numerals dva,
dve ’two’. The numerals dva, dve ’two’ can sometimes be added (but spelt separately)
in the oblique cases as well: naju/vaju/njiju dveh ’we-du.gen./you-du.gen./themdu.gen. two’; nama/vama/njima dvema ’we-du.dat./you-du.dat./them-du.dat. two’,
etc. (Topori{i~ 2000: 305-6). Such a structure confirms the claim that the more a certain form is marked in terms of its meaning the more complex and composed of longer
elements its structure is (Stolz 1988: 477–81).
In the nominative, all nominal dual masculine forms and all finite verb forms (of
all genders) are expressed by the ending -a. Thus, in a sentence with a dual masculine
subject, all inflected agreeing forms have the ending -a. No such uniformity in terms
of the morphological ending is found with the plural or with the dual feminine and
neuter subjects.
420
Dual:
Masculine:
Midva/vidva/onadva/dva brata
sva/sta
mlada//
We-du./you-du./they-du./two brother-du. be (1du./2,3du.pres.) young (du.masc.)
sva/sta
bila
mlada //
hodiva/hodita
v {olo.
be (1du./2,3du.pres.) be (ptc.du.masc.) young (du.masc.) go (1du./2,3du.pres.) to school
»The two of us/the two of you/the two of them/two brothers are young//were young//go to
school.«
Feminine:
Midve/vidve /onidve / dve sestri
sva/sta//
mladi//
We-du./you-du./they-du./two sisters-du. be (1du./2,3du.pres.) young (du.fem.)//
sva/sta
bili
mladi //
hodiva/hodita
v {olo.
be (1du./2,3du.pres.) be (ptc.du.fem.) young (du.fem.) go (1du./2,3du.pres.) to school
»The two of us/the two of you/the two of them/two sisters are young//were young//go to
school.«
Neuter:
Dve
okni
sta
odprti
// sta
bili
odprti.
Two (du.neu.) windows (du.neu.) be (3du.pres.) open (du.neu.) // be (du.neu.pres.) be (ptc.
du.neu.)
open
(du.neu.)
»Two windows are open//were open.«
Plural:
Masculine:
Mi/vi/oni/otroci
smo/ste/so
mladi //
smo/ste/so
We/you/they/children be (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.) young (pl.masc.) be (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.)
bili
mladi//
be (ptc.pl.masc.) young (pl.masc.)
hodimo/hodite/hodijo v {olo.
go (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.) to school
»We/you/they/children/ are young//were young//go to school.«
Feminine:
Me/ve/one
smo/ste/so
mlade
/smo/ste, so/
We/you/they (fem.) be (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.) young (pl.fem.) be (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.)
bile
mlade //
be (ptc.pl.fem.) young (pl.fem.)
hodimo/hodite/hodijo v {olo.
go (1pl./2pl./3pl.pres.) to school
»We/you/they are young//were young//go to school.«
421
Neuter:
Vsa
okna
so
odprta
// so
bila
all (pl.neu.) windows (pl.neu.) be (3pl.pres.) open (pl.neu.) // be (3pl.pres.) be (ptc.pl.neu.
odprta.
open (pl.neu.)
»All windows are open//were open.«
Given that marked forms are less often used than less marked or unmarked forms,
dual forms are less commonly used than plural or singular forms. This fact is confirmed by Neweklowsky and Ozbalt (cited in Corbett 2000: 281–282) showing that
the occurrence of the three numbers in Slovenian is as follows: the use of the singular
compared to the use of the plural is 3:1, while the dual is used in fewer than one percent of the cases (according to some other research it is a bit higher). In terms of part
of speech, the use of the dual is distributed as follows: nouns: 0.5 %, adjectives: 1 %,
pronouns: 1.9 %, verbs: 2.4 %.
Considering that the plural is unmarked in comparison with the dual, the plural can
be used instead of the dual in certain cases if such use is justified. The exact conditions for this kind of use have not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. One
possibility in colloquial language is mentioned by Topori{i~ (1970/71), namely that in
families with two sons or two daughters, plural phrases are often used instead of dual
ones: na{i fantje ’our-pl. boys-pl.’; na{a dekleta ’our-pl. girls-pl.’ instead of na{a fanta
’our-du. boys-du.’; na{i dekleti ’our-du. girls-du.’.
Paired nouns
The fact that in Slovenian nouns denoting body parts which occur in pairs, such as
roke ’hands’, noge ’feet’, o~i ’eyes’, or articles of clothing consisting of two elements,
such as ~evlji ’shoes’, rokavice ’gloves’, or biological pairs, such as star{i ’parents’,
are used in the plural might come as a surprise.
Noge
me bolijo.
Foot (pl.) me hurt (3pl.pres.)
»My feet hurt.«
Nogavice so
se mi strgale.
Sock (pl.) be (3pl.) se to-me tear (ptc.pl.fem).
»I tore my socks/My socks tore on me.«
Grammarians consider such use of the plural as following from the notion of redundancy – every person has two hands, two feet and so on. Such argumentation is
found already in Jernej Kopitar (1808: 218), Topori{i~ (2000: 271) and in the Sorbian
linguistic atlas (Sorbischer Sprachatlas: 34).
If the numerals dva, dve ’two’ or oba, obe ’both’ are used as premodifiers of these
nouns, the latter behave as regular countable nouns and take dual agreement.
422
Vsi imamo
dve roki
in dve nogi. (Delo, 30. 11. 1997, p. 15)
all have (1pl.pres.) two hand (du.) and two foot (du).
»We all have two hands and two feet.«
Obe nogi
me bolita.
both foot (du.) me hurt (3du.pres).
»Both my feet hurt.«
^lovek ima dve nogi, pes pa {tiri.
human has two foot-du. dog pa four
»A human has two feet, while a dog has four.«
Corbett (2000) claims that this phenomenon shows that the dual in Slovenian is
optional (pp. 42–44) because, despite the fact that the category of number in Slovenian is obligatorily expressed, the plural can be used to refer to two entities.
Such an explanation does not consider the fact that these nouns represent a special
category in terms of meaning. They do indeed refer to body parts (e.g. roke ’hands’),
articles of clothing (e.g. rokavice ’gloves’) or a group of people (e.g. star{i ’parents’)
composed of two parts; however, the central part of their meaning is the unity of the
two parts with respect to their function. Even Corbett (2000: 80) notes that such nouns
in some languages behave in a special way and wonders whether the nouns of the type
boots or ears refer to one thing or two things – that is, whether they refer to the means
of hearing or two ears; or to footwear or two boots.
It certainly seems that Slovenian offers evidence that such nouns show a special
behavior. Nouns such as noge ’feet’, roke ’hands’, nogavice ’socks’, should be considered a kind of pluralia tantum (dualia tantum in some languages with the dual, e.g. in
Old Church Slavic, @olobov and Krys’ko 2001: 24), denoting a body part or a garment
that is incidentally composed of two parts. On the other hand, nouns such as noga
’foot’, roka ’hand’, nogavica ’sock’, are countable nouns found in all three numbers.
Leva noga me boli. Ena nogavica je
strgana.
left foot (sg.) me hurts. One sock (sg. be-sg.) torn.
»My left foot hurts. One sock is torn.«
^lovek ima dve nogi.
Dve nogavici sta strgani.
human has two foot (du.) two sock (du.) be (du) torn.
»A human has two feet. Two socks are torn.«
Klavir ima tri noge.
Tri nogavice so
strgane.
piano has three foot (pl.) three sock (pl.) be (pl.) torn
»A piano has three feet. Three socks are torn.«
In this sense, the use of the dual in Slovenian is not optional. The speaker cannot
choose between the plural or the dual when talking about the two entities that countable
nouns such as noga ’foot’, roka ’hand’ or rokavica ’glove’ denote. In the same way,
the speaker has no choice with the nouns denoting body parts and articles of clothing
423
consisting of two identical parts. These are normally used in the plural and without the
numeral dva/dve ’two’. The sentences *Dve nogi me bolita (*My two feet hurt) and
*Kupil sem si dve nogavici (*I bought myself two socks) do not make sense.
The use of the nouns noga ’foot’, roka ’hand’ in the dual without the numeral
is possible, though rare. If we assume that the dual of these nouns is the dual of the
countable nouns noga ’foot’ and roka ’hand’, then the meaning of the dual form nogi
’foot-dual’, is different from the meaning of the plurale tantum noge ’foot-plural’.
Noge ’foot-plural’ denotes a body part, while the form nogi ’foot-dual’, refers not to
one body part but to two individual entities. Such use can be found in the elevated or
poetic style:
Njeni
beli
roki
sta
po~ivali
na mizi.
Her (du.) white (du.) hand (du.) be (3du.pres.) rest (past.ptc.du.) on table
»Her two white hands were resting on the table.«
It is very hard if not impossible to find a context in which the utterance Nogi
me bolita ’My feet-dual hurt’ could be used. In her column on proper language use,
J. Bav~ar considers such use of the dual funny. (Delo, 30. 9. 2002, Knjièvni listi,
p. 3).
The noun star{i ’parents-pl.’ shows interesting behavior. On the one hand, it belongs
to the same group as nouns for paired body parts and paired objects – Topori{i~ assigns it to the same group as other paired nouns, naming it a biological pair (Topori{i~
2000: 271). On the other hand, it is special in the sense that it denotes people. In the
contemporary language the dual form star{a ’parents-du.’ is commonly used in addition to the plural form star{i. The reason for such behavior probably lies in the fact
that this noun denotes two people that can be easily perceived either as one unit of
two people (a biological pair) or as two individual persons: the mother and the father
(which has become typical of the modern way of life). The phrase o~e in mati ’father
and mother’ is often used instead of star{i ’parents’; in such cases the predicate shows
dual agreement.
Star{i
so
me obiskali.
Parent (pl.) be (3pl.pres.) me visit (ptc.pl.)
»My parents visited me.«
O~e
in mati
sta
me obiskala.
Father (sg.) and mother (sg.) be (3du.pres.) me visit (ptc.du.)
»My father and mother visited me.«
Star{a
sta
me obiskala.
Parent (du.) be (3du.pres.) me visit (ptc.du.)
»My parents visited me.«
The form star{a ’parents-du.’ is considered a substandard variant by the Slovenski
pravopis, while the Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika considers it a variant of the
more common form star{i ’parents-pl.’ without assigning it to any register.
424
Such development, i.e. the emergence of the dual form star{a next to the more
common plural variant, is a proof that the category of the dual in Slovenian is alive and
points to the fact that the use of the dual and the meaning of ’person’ are intimately
connected. (See also Corbett 2000: 56ff, where a hierarchy of linguistic categories
expressing number is suggested. In this hierarchy, the personal pronouns are immediately followed by the categories kin and human). In other words, the dual is more important when referring to people than when referring to things. A group of two people
differs from a group of three or more people in a more important way than a group of
two things differs from a group of three or more things.
The dual in Slovenian dialects and the colloquial language (of Ljubljana)
Up to this point the dual has been discussed in the form as it is prescribed by the
grammar of the standard Slovenian language. Until recently, the most comprehensive
reference for the occurrence of the dual in Slovenian dialects has been the linguistic
atlas and the accompanying monograph by Lucien Tesnière (1925). Now, however,
we can find more up-to-date data in the doctoral dissertation Dvojina v slovenskih
nare~jih ’The dual in Slovenian dialects’ by T. Jakop. The dissertation offers linguistic maps based on the data collected for the Slovenian linguistic atlas and some other
sources, which systematically show dual forms of individual parts of speech. As mentioned by the author herself, the collected material suffers from certain shortcomings,
(such as its origin extending over a long period of time, beginning in the 1940s, and
its being partly documented by students). Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly an important
contemporary indicator of the spread of the dual in Slovenian dialects. The results obtained by Jakop’s research do not differ significantly from Tesnière’s, which in itself
is interesting, considering that several linguists thought that the dual in Slovenian is
condemned to extinction.
One can see in Tesnière’s atlas that the following forms (in dialectal variations) are
spread almost throughout all Slovenian territory:
1) dva brata ’two brother-du.masc.nom.’ (map 10)
2) midva ’we-du.masc.’, onadva ’they-du.masc.’, medve ’we-du.fem.’ , vedve ’youdu.fem.’, onidve ’they-du.fem.’ (maps 41–44)
3) naju ’us-du.’ (map 46), najin ’ours-du.masc.’, vajina ’yours-du.fem.’ (47), z nama
’with us-du.’ (52)
4) mlada ’young-du.masc.nom.’ as in moja dva brata sta mlada ’my two brothers are
young’ (55)
5) midva pi{eva ’we-du.masc. write-1du.pres.’, vidva govorita ’you-du.masc. talk2du.pres.’, onadva pi{eta ’they-du.masc. write-3du.pres.’ (65–67)
In most Slovenian regions, the dual is preserved in the forms stated above. It is
replaced by the plural only at the periphery of Slovenian territory.
Tja{a Jakop’s dissertation shows that that the most widely spread dual forms are
(the linguistic maps in her dissertation do not completely overlap with Tesnière’s,
therefore the absence of a form found in Tesnière’s maps does not necessarily mean
its absence in the material obtained by Jakop):
425
1) midva ’we-du.masc.’ (map number 6), midve ’we-du.fem.’ (7)
2) dva sin-(ov)-a ’two sons-du.nom.’(12)
3) dobra sin-(ov)-a ’good sons-du.nom.’ (20)
Dual forms of nominative neuter nouns are also widespread, though in a great
number of dialects these nouns became masculine in gender (dve okni (neu.), dva
okna (masc.) ’two windows’) (18)).
These are followed by:
1) 2nd and 1st person of the present tense verb
2) personal pronouns in the genitive and dative naju ’we-gen.’, nama ’we-dat.’
Dual forms of nominative feminine nouns, the oblique cases of masculine and
feminine nouns and adjectives are less widely spread.
Let us sum up the main findings of Jakop’s dissertation (pp. 199–203):
1) The pluralization of verb forms has occurred in the southwest part (the nadi{ko,
bri{ko, kra{ko and istrsko dialects) and the extreme southeast part (the belokranjsko dialect) of Slovenian linguistic territory. It thus appears as if the dual were
weakening under the influence of Italian, Friulian and Croatian but not German
and Hungarian. Other dialects preserve the dual in verb forms at least when the
subject is of masculine gender, while verb forms with a subject of feminine gender
are more readily pluralized.
2) Dual pronouns are characteristic of a predominant part of Slovenian linguistic territory. Plural forms are found only in the extreme southwest (the nadi{ko dialect,
the banj{ko speech, the kra{ko dialect), in the southwest – in the eastern part of the
kostelsko dialect, in the ju`no belokranjsko and severno belokranjsko dialects, and,
as a consequence of colonization, in the ba{ko speech.
3) The dual in nouns is most firmly established in the nouns of masculine gender,
in a substantial number of cases existing only in the nominative and the accusative. The dual form in the nominative and the accusative and the plural form in all
other cases is found in the central koro{ko dialects, most rezijansko dialects, the
tersko, nadi{ko and bri{ko dialects, most of the speeches of the kra{ko, istrsko and
notranjsko dialects, the cerkljansko dialect, most of the speeches of the gorenjsko dialect, the ba{ko speech, the vzhodnodolenjsko speech and the posavsko
sevni{ko-kr{ko speech, the zgornjesavinjsko dialect and most of the speeches of
the ju`nobelokranjsko and severnobelokranjsko dialects.
4) As in nouns, the dual in adjectives is better preserved in the masculine gender
(which of course follows from the agreeing role of the adjective). Only in some
speeches the dual is better preserved in nouns than in adjectives (e.g. dobre h~eri
’good-pl. daughters-du.’, dobrim sinoma ’good-pl. sons-du.’).
5) The forms dva, dve ’two’ exist in all dialects. The dative and the instrumental are
pluralized in a significant number of dialects.
According to the author, the comparison of Tesnière’s data with more recent data
reveals that the geographical extent of the use of the dual forms has not lessened
significantly. The dual is extinct only in a small part of Slovenian linguistic territory
(mostly in the southwest and extreme southeast), while other Slovenian dialects preserve it – albeit to a different extent.
426
As regards the vitality of the dual, an interesting finding by Jakop (Jakop 2004:
49ff) is that the distinction between the dual verb forms of feminine and masculine
gender, for example in the 1st person singular: greva ’we go-masc.’ : greve ’we gofem.’, inexistent in standard Slovenian but existing in some Slovenian dialects, has
recently appeared also in the language of Ljubljana. As discussed at Jakop’s dissertation defense, this phenomenon has been observed by several female linguists when
dealing with less educated female speakers in typically female environments, such
as at the hairdresser’s (e.g. Kaj bove? ’What are we having-fem.’, meaning ’Which
hairdressing service would you like?’)
The substandard colloquial language of Ljubljana is also characterized by the replacement of the standard feminine dual ending -i by the ending -e (Topori{i~ 2000:
20). The ending -e is from a historical perspective perhaps unjustly considered only
a plural ending, though it can be seen also as the continuation of jat’, the old feminine dual ending of »hard« stems (preserved e.g. in the feminine form of the numeral
dve ’two’, in the form v dve gubé ’lit. in two folds-du.’, ’hunched’, in the alternative
dual ending roké ’hands-du.’). Nevertheless, its being identical to the plural ending
undoubtedly leads to pluralization. The following are typical examples from the colloquial language of Ljubljana:
Kupil
sem
dve knjige.
Buy (ptc.sg.masc.) be (1sg.pres.) two book (pl.fem.)
»I bought two books.«
V~eraj sva
{le
v kino.
yesterday be (1du.pres.) go (ptc.pl.fem.) to movies
»Yesterday we went to the movies.«
Koliko
so
stale
te
dve knjige? (Jakopin 1966: 103)
how much be (3pl.pres.) cost (ptc.pl.fem.) these (pl.fem.) two book (pl.fem.)
»How much did these two books cost?«
In the colloquial language of Ljubljana the dual is often dropped in the dative and
the instrumental of all genders. A typical mistake made by the speakers of this variant
is using the phrase pred dvemi leti ’two years-pl. ago’, instead of pred dvema letoma
’two years-du. ago’, Nouns of neuter gender in the non-standard variant often acquire
a masculine ending. In such cases they keep the category of the dual though with the
masculine endings (homonymous to the ending for neuter plural): dva stanovanja ’twomasc.du. apartments-masc.du.’, dva vpra{anja ’two-masc.du. questions-masc.du.’.
Being myself a speaker of the colloquial language of Ljubljana, I can see that
the dual is consistently used in all examples that were classified as most common by
Tesnière. That is, the dual is preserved in the sentences in which the subject is either
a personal pronoun (which is often dropped so that dual agreement is visible on the
verb), a noun of masculine gender, or a coordinate phrase such as Janez in Joè ’Janez
and Joè’; Janez in Micka ’Janez and Micka’. In such sentences the predicate carries
dual agreement. In such positions, the dual is also consistently used in substandard
427
varieties, which can be seen from the paragraph of slang quoted by Topori{i~. In this
story of a meeting of two young people, the dual is used with all verbs in the sentences
where the two of them are the subjects (Topori{i~ 2000: 26). This excerpt is a good
illustration of the importance and use of the dual – the dual is used in a story about
the actions of two people. Here we can also see why in Slovenian the dual is best preserved in verb forms. The first person personal pronoun is dropped everywhere, so the
only remaining forms are verbs (se poznava ’we know-du. each other’, sva se zezala
’we were joking-du. around’, se {armirava ’we are flirting-du.’, sva se v zdrav mozak
’we are teasing-du. each other’).
A comment from the historical point of view
As already stated by Beli}, Slavic languages are especially suitable for the study
of the dual, the reason being that no other Indo-European group of languages has
preserved this category to such an extent as Slavic languages have. @olobov (@olobov,
Krys’ko 2001: 14) relates this fact to the preservation of Indo-European mythology
of paired gods and the Slavic worship of twins. The state in Proto-Slavic is probably
closest to the state in Old Church Slavic, where, amongst others, the following properties are characteristic of the dual:
– Dual nominal endings of the genitive and the locative differed from the plural ones
in Old Church Slavic and thus supposedly also in Proto-Slavic.
– Paired nouns were used in the dual (many Indo-Europeanists believe the dual originated from the forms of paired nouns).
– The nominative of personal pronouns in the dual is in Proto-Slavic reconstructed
as *vě for the 1st person and *vy for the 2nd person (Vaillant 1958: 454). The fact
that the form for the second person dual nominative was a homophone to the second person plural nominative *vy can be seen as one of the reasons for the instability of the dual pronominal-verbal paradigm.
The dual existed in early periods of Slavic languages, for example in Old Russian
(the most contemporary and relevant study is found in the monograph by @olobov and
Krys’ko 2001). But it has, as a live grammatical category, disappeared from all Slavic
languages except from Slovenian and Upper and Lower Sorbian (leaving more or less
noticeable traces in all Slavic languages, for example, Russian два брата from which
три, четыре брата). The historical development of the dual in Slovenian is characterized by the following points:
1) Dual endings in the genitive and the locative of all nominal forms were replaced
by plural endings, personal pronouns being an exception.
2) In Slovenian, paired nouns are used in their plural forms. As can be seen from
16th century texts, such use had been established already before the 16th century,
as 16th century texts show practically the same state as found in the contemporary
language. Traces of the older state, when these nouns were presumably used in
the dual, as in Old Church Slavic and Old Russian, are extremely scarce (e.g. pred
bosima ozima ’in front of god’s eyes-du.’ in the Freising manuscripts). Such a
development of the dual is not unique to Slovenian. That paired nouns are the first
428
linguistic category in which the dual was replaced by the plural can also be seen
in the Sorbian linguistic atlas (Sorbischer Sprachatlas 11: 22). Yet in most Sorbian
dialects these nouns are used in the dual (which probably explains why the dual is
more often used in Sorbian than in Slovenian, a surprising fact for (Corbett 2000:
282)).
Before eventually replacing the dual, the plural in Slovenian was certainly optionally used as an unmarked number in paired nouns for a period of time in the same way
as it is used nowadays in some Sorbian dialects (Sorbischer Sprachatlas 11: 20) or it
was used in Old Russian (@olobov, Krys’ko 2001: 139ff). In Slovenian, however, the
plural has prevailed and is thus no longer considered optional.
The paired noun star{i ’parents-pl.’ differs from other paired nouns, as it is often
used in its dual form star{a ’parents-du.’ and which appears to be a recent phenomenon. This noun can also be assumed to have been used in its dual form in the past, but
in the 16th century texts (as seen from the data at the history of the Slovenian language
section at the In{titut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a) it always appears in the plural form and had thus undergone the same development as other paired nouns. Let us
compare examples from Old Church Slavic, the translation of the Bible by Dalmatin
and the contemporary translation of the Bible into Slovenian.
Къто съгреши: сь ли или родителя его? (St John’s Gospel IX.2, Ostromirov’s
Gospel)
Gdu je greshil? leta ali njegovi Starishi? (Dalmatin’s translation)
Kdo je gre{il, on ali njegovi star{i? (the contemporary translation, 1997)
’Who sinned, he or his parents?’
The story of Suzana in Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible (Prophets, 207ff) consistently uses the plural form starishi in the meaning »father and mother« (that is the
plural for paired nouns) and the dual form starisha in the meaning »elders« (that is the
dual for the countable noun stare{ina ’elder’):
Ona je imela brumne Starishe (father and mother), kateri so njo bily podvuzhili po Mosessovi Postavi. ... Tvistu lejtu pak stabila dva Starisha (two elders-du.) is mej folka k’Rihtarjem
postaulena. ... Inu kadar sta njo ta Starisha vsak dan vidila noter hodejozh, so nyu hude
shelje pruti njej obshle, de sta norela. ... Inu obeniga zhloveka nej bilu v’tem verti, kakor le
ta dva Starisha , katera sta se bila skrivshi skrila, inu sta na njo shpegala. ... Je ona prishla
svojemi Starishimi (with parents) inu otruki , inu sovso svojo shlahto.
The reason for this noun being nowadays often used in the dual certainly lies in the
fact that it refers to two people, two independently acting subjects.
3) The nominative of dual personal pronouns in Slovenian developed in an interesting way. While the forms of oblique cases are a continuation of the Proto-Slavic
forms, the nominative forms of the 1st and 2nd person midva ’we-du.’, vidva ’youdu.’ are innovations – transparent structures consisting of the elements mi ’we’
and vi ’you’ and the element dva ’two’. Vi ’you’ is the continuation of the ProtoSlavic *vy, a homophonous form for the dual and the plural, a fact that certainly
influenced the use of the plural pronoun mi ’we’ in dual contexts. There appear to
be no traces of the Proto-Slavic 1st person nominative dual *vě in Slovenian. As
429
pointed out by Tesnière (1925a: 316–317) and as seen in 16th century Protestant
texts, it seems that a weakening of the dual in the nominative pronouns for the 1st
and 2nd persons occurred in the history of the Slovenian language. This development had an influence on the verbal dual as well, since the verb started to be used
in the plural with the pronouns mi ’we’ and vi ’you’. The process was stopped by
the emergence of the new dual pronoun forms for personal pronouns.
The following possibilities are thus found in dual contexts in 16th century texts:
a) mi/vi ’we/you’ + dual verb:
my hozheva ... vy nevesta
’we want … you don’t know’ (Dalmatin 1584, Mark X)
b) mi/vi ’we/you’ + plural verb (in dual contexts, the subject is ’Adam and Eve’):
my ieimo ta sad tih dreues kir so v tim paradyshi
’we eat this fruit of the trees that are in the paradise’
sh nikako smertyo ne vmeryete
’with no death you will die’
(Trubar, Katekizem 1550)
c) midva/vidva ’we-du/you-du’ + dual verb:
Midua Ieiua od sadou tih Driues vtim Vertu
’we are eating the fruits of the trees in the garden’
De vidua ne vmerieta /... /
’that you don’t die…’
(Trubar, Tiga noviga testamenta ena dolga predguvor 1557)
It therefore appears that the gradual disappearing of the dual was stopped by the
emergence of new dual personal pronoun forms, since these require dual agreement
with the verb. The optionality of the element dva ’two’ attaching to the dual personal
pronouns mi ’we’, vi ’you’, ona ’they’ in the 16th century is discussed by Bohori~ in
his grammar (De Verbo: 109). Apart from these new, strengthened personal pronouns,
a stable position of the central dual pronominal-verbal paradigm was also established
by the equalization of verb suffixes, which were in all three persons clearly marked by
the suffix -a (when the subject was of masculine gender; in Protestant texts, dual verb
forms differ according to gender, as stated also in the grammar by Bohori~). In ProtoSlavic, the reconstructed suffixes for the 1st person dual and the 3rd person dual are -vě
and -te, respectively. The language system responded to the weakening of dual forms
by creating forms with a stronger degree of morphological markedness with respect to
the state in Proto-Slavic and with respect to the singular and the plural.
Personal pronouns (and agreeing verb forms) appear to have been an important
factor in preserving the dual in Slovenian. Namely, the information whether two or
more people are part of the event is relevant. As already mentioned, Corbett (2000)
notes that there exists the following hierarchy of linguistic categories expressing
number: personal pronoun (1st, 2nd, and 3rd person), kin, human, animate, and inanimate. The higher in this hierarchy a category is found, the more probable it is that it
expresses the category of number and that the latter is expressed by the parts of speech
showing agreement (Corbett 2000: 56ff.). Despite the fact that Corbett’s hierarchy is
not specifically about the dual, but mostly about distinguishing between the plural and
430
the singular, one can certainly see its explanatory force when it comes to distinguishing between the plural and the dual. The importance of personal pronouns, especially
the 1st and the 2nd person pronouns, for the category of the dual is discussed also by @
olobov (@olobov, Krys’ko 2001: 30ff). @olobov stresses that the special importance
of the pronominal-verbal paradigm in relation to the dual is supported by typological
as well as historical facts. There are many languages in which the dual is found only
with personal pronouns and/or the agreeing verb forms. A special role is played by
the 1st and 2nd person pronouns, which are most strongly associated with the notion of
’person’ and mark the participants in a dialogue. Personal pronouns are more closely
tied to verbs than nouns are, which can be seen from the pronominal origin of the verb
suffixes in numerous languages. The reason for the preservation of the dual in the
pronominal-verbal paradigm could be ascribed to the fact that this paradigm is a core
structure of the dialogue.
From a historical perspective, one can see that the dual in Slovenian does not exist
in the same form as it supposedly existed in Proto-Slavic and as found in Old Church
Slavic. In its historical development, it has undergone change; some segments have
been replaced by the plural, some segments show a higher degree of morphological
markedness than in the past. From a typological perspective, parallel phenomena in
terms of the development of dual forms and its final results can be observed in Sorbian, the other Slavic language with a preserved dual, (Derganc 1994).
The assumed connection of the dual with extralinguistic reality; the pragmatic
value of the dual
The field of linguistics witnessed also some assumptions about the existence of
the dual being directly linked to the stage of civilizational development. Meillet, for
instance, claimed that the omission of the dual occurred due to the development of
abstract thought and that the loss of the dual is a sign of a higher degree of civilization
(Tesnière 1925a: VII–IX). Such explanation can be found also in some Russian historical grammars (e. g. Gor{kova, Haburgaev 1981: 158). Many linguists considered
such direct linking of linguistic facts to extralinguistic ones unacceptable and stressed
the intralinguistic reasons for the preservation or omission of the dual, among others
Dostál (1954: 25–26), N. S. Trubeckoj and Jakobson (according to Len~ek 1994: 204)
and Iordanskij (1960: 7). Tesnière does not reject Meillet’s hypothesis, however, in the
introduction to his monograph on the dual in Slovenian, he feels that it is contradictory in nature and that it does not match reality (Tesnière 1925a: IX).
Contrary to Meillet, W. von Humboldt states in his well-known treatise Ueber
den Dualis that the notion of duality is deeply rooted in the human perception of the
world and that expressing the number of any two objects is only the most obvious and
superficial task of the dual. Human beings see and perceive several objects and phenomena as forming a tighter duality: from paired body parts, the division of the human
race into two sexes, natural phenomena such as day and night, the sky and the earth,
to such psychological and linguistic phenomena as perceiving oneself in relation to
other human beings and realizing the possibility of communicating only between two
431
people, the speaker and the listener. As a grammatical means of expressing these deep
dualities the dual is »neither an extravagance nor an unnecessary growth on the body
of the language« (1985: 402).
The expressive potential of the dual in Slovenian is studied by R. Len~ek, whose
work includes also Humboldt’s ideas and Jakobson’s thoughts on the poetic potential
of different grammatical categories. Len~ek (1982) points out that the dual in personal pronouns and verb forms, which has to be used to refer to two people, implies
also meanings other than those relating to grammar: solidarity, intimacy between two
people, a connection in emotions, intentions and actions of two people. The dual is
therefore an especially suggestive means used in love poems, which can be seen from
the examples provided by the author. Len~ek appends to his article a short composition by the poet Dane Zajc on his feelings about the dual. Let me quote some examples
that are surprisingly in tune with Humbold’s thoughts on the subject.
»Mother and I are my first experience of duality. /…/ As though the two of us were
alone in the world. /…/ Only later, father, brothers, both sisters cross the threshold
into my memories; plurality enters, and with it, the world. /…/ There are many things
I remember doing when I was a child. But my most vivid recollections are of things
I did with another, in twos. /…/ A love poem in a foreign language remains alien to
me unless I can discover from the context that the lyrical plot unfolds in the dual. I
can only »think« love in the dual. /…/ The singular is to the dual and to the plural as
solitude (to be alone) is to trust, trustfulness and intimacy (to be two) and finally, to the
world, which is plurality. The bridge which links the condition of being one (alone)
with the condition to being in the world is that most enigmatic of bridges: being two«
(Len~ek 1982: 211–212).
These connotations are alive not only in poetry but in the everyday use of language
as well. Dane Zajc mentions that when one wants to hide an intimate relationship with
another person, he or she uses the plural. One does not say: Bila sva skupaj, ’we-du.
were-du. together’ but Bili smo skupaj, ’we-pl. were-pl. together’. Such linguistic behavior is typical of young people who want to avoid the unpleasant interrogation by
their parents and thus say Bili smo v kinu, ’we-pl. were-pl. at the movies’ instead of
Bila sva v kinu, ’we-du. were-du. at the movies’. Similarly, one can use the plural instead of the dual in order to distance oneself from the closeness conveyed by the dual.
When used to refer to people, it thus appears that apart from grammatical information,
the grammatical category of the dual in Slovenian also expresses connotations such as
intimacy, closeness and solidarity between two people.
Child language
As far as I know, the use of the dual in child language has not yet been analyzed.
Some of the data can be found in Kranjc (1999). Although the goal of her research
goes beyond establishing the use of the dual, some data from her book are interesting
also in that respect.
When describing child grammar at the morphological level, the author observes
that, though rarely, the dual occurs in the speech of 2–3 year old children in the
432
Sevnica preschool. Here one should note that the dual is rare in general (see above).
The author further observes that the dual is quite regularly present in the speech of a
Ljubljana boy of the same age, concluding that this difference results from differences
of the dialects surrounding the children. While the dual is gradually disappearing from
the Sevnica dialect, the boy in Ljubljana is growing up in an environment where the
standard variant of Slovenian is spoken. Jakop (2004) notes that in the Sevnica dialect,
the state of the dual is quite similar to the state in many dialects of Slovenian: the dual
is found with personal pronouns, in verb forms and in the nominative/accusative cases
of masculine nouns; the dual is disappearing in oblique cases and in feminine gender.
One cannot conclude from the data in Kranjc’s book that the dual in the language of
Sevnica children is being replaced by the plural. There are simply not many contexts
requiring the use of the dual among the sentences that they uttered. Let me state some
examples from the speech of Sevnica children in which the dual is used.
Ko bom
pa jes velik, boma
pa z
mamico enak stara.
when be (1sg.fut.) pa I big be (1du.fut.) pa with mummy same old (du.masc.)
»When I am grown up, my mummy and I will be the same age.«
[Kranjc 1999: 108]
Kila.
cover-ptc.du.masc.
’(Shall the two of us) cover (the bunny)’
[Kranjc 1999: 118]
In the statement above the child invited the researcher to do something together
(i.e. to cover the bunny, because it is sleepy).
V Sevnici bundo kuple, kupl
smo,
ati mami kupla.
Bundo v~eri.
in Sevnica coat buy (pl.) buy (pl.) be (1pl.pres.) dad mum buy (3du.) coat yesterday
Smo
tuki vozl
cest.
be (1pl.pres.) here drive (pl. road)
»Yesterday we bought a coat in Sevnica, my mum and dad bought a coat. We drove here on
this road.«
[Kranjc 1999: 124]
In the statement above, the dual is interchanged with the plural. The plural is used
when the child expresses the actions of the entire family (together with his parents),
while the dual is used when the child expresses the actions by his mother and father.
V~eri
je
kupla
liziko pa sladoled. Hiter sma
yesterday be (3sg.pres.) buy (ptc.sg.fem.) lollipop and ice-cream quickly be (1du.
{la.
go-ptc.du.masc.)
»Yesterday she bought a lollipop and ice-cream. The two of us left quickly.«
[Kranjc 1999: 125]
433
I recall the following utterance from the speech of my two-and-a-half-year-old
grandson (father from Ljubljana, mother from Maribor): mami tati huda bila ’mum
dad angry-du.masc. be-ptc.du.masc.’; ’My mum and dad were angry.’.
These few fragmented claims about child language are here to note the following:
it does not seem to be the case that children are having trouble with dual forms in language varieties where dual forms indeed exist. In addition, the utterances above show
that the first natural contexts requiring the dual in child language are utterances about
activities of two people, the child and someone else (often the mother) or the father
and the mother – the relevant forms are pronominal-verbal forms or the verb forms
where the personal pronoun is omitted (as in the examples stated above).
Tatjana Marvin.
REFERENCES
A. BELI}, 1932: O dvojini u slovenskim jezicima. Beograd.
A. BOHORI~, 1584: Arcticae horulae succisivae. Mladinska knjiga & R. Trofenik. Ljubljana
1970. (= Monumenta litterarum Slovenicarum 7).
J. DALMATIN, 1584: Biblia. R. Trofenik & Mladinska knjiga. Muenchen 1968 (= Geschichte,
Kultur und Geistesleben der Slowenen III.).
G. G. CORBETT, 2000: Number. Cambridge.
A. DERGANC, 1994: Some Specific Features in the Development of the Dual in Slovene as
Compared to other Slavic Languages. – Linguistica XXXIV, 1, Mélanges Lucien Tesnière.
71–80.
– – 1998: O parnyh su{~estvitel’nyh v slovenskom jazyke. In: A. A. Kiklevi~, N. B. Me~kovskaja
(ur.). îslo – jazyk – tekst: sbornik statej k 70-letiju A. E. Supruna. Minsk. 44–51.
– – 2003: The Dual in Slovenian. In: J. Ore{nik, D. F. Reindl (ur.). Slovenian from a typological
perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung = Language Typology and Universals, Vol. 56, Issue 3. 165–181.
A. DOSTÁL, 1954: Vývoj dualu v slovanských jazycích, zvlá{tĕ v pol{tine. Praha.
K. V. GOR{KOVA, G. A. HABURGAEV, 1981: Istori~eskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva.
W. HUMBOLDT: Über den Dualis. Abhandlungen der historisch-philologischen Klasse der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin aus dem Jahre 1827, Berlin 1830. According
to the Russian translation: V. Gumbol’dt, Jazyk i filosofija kul’tury. Moskva 1985.
A. M. IORDANSKIJ, 1960: Istorija dvojstvennogo ~isla v russkom jazyke. Vladimir.
T. JAKOP, 2004: Dvojina v slovenskih nare~jih. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana.
F. JAKOPIN, 1966: Slovenska dvojina in jezikovne plasti, Jezik in slovstvo XI (1966), {t. 4.
98–104.
J. KOPITAR, 1808: Grammatik der Slavischen Sprache in Krain, Kaernten und Steyermark. Laibach.
S. KRANJC, 1999: Razvoj govora pred{olskih otrok. Ljubljana.
R. LEN~EK, 1982: On Poetic Functions of the Grammatical Category of Dual. South Slavic and
Balcan Linguistics. Amsterdam. 193–214.
– – 1994: Po stopinjah fonolo{ke problematike slovenskega jezika v jezikoslovju Ramov{evega
~asa. Ramov{ev zbornik. SR 42, 2–3. 199–213.
G. NEWEKLOWSKY, 1984: Trubarjev katekizem 1550. Ljubljana.
434
Ostromirovo evangelie. Izd. A. Vostokovym. Sanktpeterburg, 1845. Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. T. 1. Wiesbaden, 1964.
Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika. I–IV. Ljubljana 1970–91.
Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana 2001.
Sorbischer Sprachatlas 11. Morphologie. Die grammatischen Kategorien – Die Paradigmatik
des Substantivs. Bearbeitet von H. Fasske. Bautzen 1975.
Sveto pismo stare in nove zaveze. Slovenski standardni prevod iz izvirnih jezikov. Svetopisemska dru`ba Slovenije. Ljubljana 1997.
Th. STOLZ, 1988: Markierheitshierarchie und Merkmalhaftigkeit in Numerussystemen: Ueber
den Dual. Zeitschrift fuer Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41,
4. 476–487.
L. TESNIÈRE, 1925a: Les formes du duel en slovène. Paris.
– – 1925b: Atlas linguistique pour servir à l’etude du duel en slovène. Paris.
J. TOPORI{I~, 1970/71: Problemi tipa Cigan/cigan in dvojine. Jezik in slovstvo XVI, {t. 5.
159–60.
– – 2000: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor.
P. TRUBAR, 1557: Ena dolga predguvor k novemu testamentu. Reprint. CZ. Ljubljana 1986.
A. VAILLANT, 1958: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie. Deuxième partie: Flexion pronominale. Lyon, Paris.
O. F. @OLOBOV, V. B. KRYS’KO, 2001: Istori~eskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Dvojstvennoe
~islo. Moskva.
POVZETEK
Sloven{~ina je eden redkih evropskih jezikov, ki ima slovni~no kategorijo dvojine. Dvojina je imanentna kategorija samostalnika in osebnega zaimka, v drugih besednih vrstah je
ujemalna, ~eprav, glede na to, da se v sloven{~ini osebni zaimek pogosto opu{~a, tedaj postane
nosilec dvojine glagol. Dvojina se uporablja, kadar je govora o dveh entitetah: dveh osebah,
dveh stvareh itd. Uporablja se ob {tevniku dva, dve ali pa, kadar se ve, da je govor o dveh entitetah. Parni samostalniki, ki pomenijo parne organe, obla~ila itd. se v sloven{~ini uporabljajo v
mnoìni, verjetno zaradi redundantnosti. Dvojina je dvojno markirana, ~e izhajamo iz domneve,
da je mnoìna markirana nasproti ednini. Dvojina je markirana nasproti mnoìni, saj pomeni
»ve~ kot eden (= mnoìna), in sicer natanko dva«. Dvojna pomenska markiranost se odraà
tudi v zapletenej{i strukturni markiranosti mnogih dvojinskih oblik: imenske besedne vrste m.
sp. v imenovalniku in glagolske kon~nice imajo v dvojini zna~ilno kon~nico -a, imenovalnik
dvojinskih osebnih zaimkov je {e posebej zaznamovan z elementom -dva. Prav te strukturno
markirane dvojinske oblike tvorijo tudi jedro dvojinskih struktur, ki se uporabljajo, kot kaèjo
dialektolo{ke raziskave, na ve~ini slovenskega ozemlja. Glede na knji`ni jezik se dvojina umika
pri samostalnikih ènskega sp. in z njimi ujemajo~ih se oblikah ter v odvisnih sklonih. Teritorialno se dvojina opu{~a na robovih slovenskega ozemlja, predvsem na meji s hrva{~ino in
italijan{~ino.
O vitalnosti dvojine v sloven{~ini pri~ajo nekateri novi pojavi dvojine, tako npr. vedno
pogostej{a raba parnega samostalnika star{i v dvojini – star{a – ali pojav posebnih, od m. sp.
druga~nih glagolskih kon~nic `. sp. v ni`jem pogovornem govoru Ljubljane, kar je bilo prej
zna~ilno le za nekatera nare~ja. Zdi se, da je obstoju dvojine poleg oblikovne markiranosti nekaterih dvojinskih oblik v prid pragmati~na pomembnost dvojine takrat, ko je govor o ljudeh.
Jerica Snoj, Metonymic Meanings: Syntagmatic Aspect
UDC 811.163.6’373.612
Jerica Snoj
435
METONYMIC MEANINGS: SYNTAGMATIC ASPECT
In lexicological treatments of metonymy the syntagmatic criterion is generally cited as constitutive for metonymic transfers of meaning. Individual scholars (A. Vidovi~ Muha, A. Birix,
E. L. Ginzburg, Ju. D. Apresjan) focus on different planes on which this criterion is realized in
the metonymy. In typologizing metonymic meanings of nouns, the focus is on changes in the
structure of semantic components and on the agreement of the metonymic semantic relations
with the relations between proposition components.
V leksikolo{kih obravnavah metonimije je sintagmatsko na~elo splo{no navajano kot konstitutivno za metonimi~ne pomenske prenose. Posamezni razpravljavci (A. Vidovi~ Muha, A.
Birih, E. L. Ginzburg, Ju. D. Apresjan) posve~ajo ve~ pozornosti tej ali oni ravni, na kateri
se to na~elo uresni~uje v metonimiji. Pri tipologiziranju samostalni{kih metonimi~nih pomenov sta v ospredju zlasti raven sprememb v pomenskosestavinski zgradbi in raven ujemanja
metonimi~nih medpomenskih razmerij z razmerji med sestavinami propozicije.
Key words: metonymy, semantic component, lexical meaning, proposition, syntagmatics
Klju~ne besede: metonimija, pomenska sestavina, slovarski pomen, propozicija, sintagmatika
1 Lexicological definition of metonymic semantic transfer
1.1 Metonymy as lexicalized semantic transfer in lexicological literature differs
from other methods of semantic derivation with relatively stereotypical quotation of
certain characteristics. The motivating and the motivated meanings are conceptually
connected, i.e., this connection reflects the objective connection in the reality that they
denote. Between the motivating and the motivated meanings there is a logical relation
of inclusion and implication; the motivated meaning includes the motivating meaning (e.g., {ola: ’institution providing education’ → ’building of this institution’); the
motivating meaning with its structure allows the derivation of the motivated meaning
({ola as ’institution’ provides the appropriate space for conducting the appurtenant
activity). In other words, the metonymic semantic relation is described as the transfer
of meaning »by vicinity« or as the transfer of meaning »with respect to proximity«.
Further typological characteristic of metonymy are the common semantic components, predictability or regularity and the presence of the type-metonymic semantic
relations within entire semantic groups. The regularity of metonymic links between
meanings allows us to establish the analogy between the semantic derivation and word
derivation.
1.2 Numerous, partially different, descriptions of metonymy in lexicological literature can be summarized as follows: Metonymy as a type of inter-semantic derivation includes logical connection between the content of the original meaning and the
436
derived meaning. The logical connection is the complementary opposite of the associative connection between the meanings in the metaphoric semantic transfer. This
kind of definition of the metonymy is based in content; it has extra-linguistic origin,
which makes it similar to the definition of metonymy as textual phenomenon in literary theory. On the other hand, the definition of metonymy as a lexical-semantic, thus
linguistic-systemic concept must be focused on and restricted to the relation between
the lexical meanings connected in the derivation, i.e., the motivating, original meaning → the motivated, derived, formed meaning. The definition of the lexical meaning
and the selection of the point of view from which to uniformly analyze all relations
between meanings within words are crucial; within those, individual types of lexicalized semantic derivations may be determined.
1.3 The possibility of this type of definition of metonymy seems to exist in structurally conceived model of lexical meaning. According to this model, the lexical meaning
is described as hierarchical structure of semantic components, i.e., of the syntactically
superordinate classifying semantic component (CSC) and syntactically subordinate distinctive semantic components (DSC) (Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 53). The types of relations
between derivationally connected meanings differ on the level of typological changes
arising in the structure of semantic components when a new meaning is derived (121–
154). The typological change characteristic of metonymy is that a new CSC enters the
motivated meaning, while the semantic components of the motivating meaning are preserved on the level of semantic distinctiveness, i.e., distinctive semantic components
(Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 136–142). Example: {ola: ’institution providing education’ →
’building’ (= new CSC) belonging to the institution providing education’. In such DSC,
the semantic components of the motivating meaning are entirely preserved, including
their syntagmatic sequence. The relation between meanings within the lexeme is thus
typologized on the basis of the change in the structure of semantic components, which
is the result of the semantic derivation, in fact, of the new CSC. The derived meaning
therefore depends on the way in which the semantic components of the motivating
meaning are combined into a new meaning after the new CSC has been entered. The
determined method of semantic derivation clearly shows that the constitutive basis of
the metonymic semantic derivation is in the syntagmatic ordering principle.
2 Treatments of metonymy with respect to the differences in considering
2 the syntagmatic principle
2.0 The survey of lexicological treatments of metonymy shows that is precisely
the syntagmatic linguistic systemic principle what allows the metonymy as a type of
semantic derivation. Usually this characteristic of metonymy is not specifically mentioned, but, rather, it is implied in the characteristics of metonymic transfers. It would
then be logical to compare the treatment of metonymy by some scholars, particularly
with regard to the levels on which the syntagmatic determination of the metonymic
semantic transfer is mentioned.
437
2.1 The concept of syntagmatics basically refers to the linear relations between
the elements in the word or phrase, i.e., on relations between the elements of the syntactic unit (Crystal 1997: 438). In accordance with that, syntagmatics is predictably
the center of attention in phonology, morphology, word derivation, and syntax, where
linear relations between materialized elements of syntactic unit are essential. In semantic derivation, the syntagmatic principle works on the level of ordering of linear
relations between semantic components, i.e., between the elements without their own
expression. Generally, we are less aware of the significance of syntagmatics as abstract linguistic-systemic ordering principle in semantic derivation.
2.2 In structural linguistics the opposite concept of syntagmatics and paradigmatics are effectively present mostly through the conceptions of R. Jakobson, who considers them the basic ordering linguistic-systemic axes. Within the linguistic system
he differentiates two different types of semantic relations: Given content may lead to
another content either because they are connected by similarity (hut → is a poor little
house; ko~a → je uborna majhna hi{a; Jakobson 1956: 77) or by association, complementation (hut → burnt out; ko~a → je pogorela). The former connection is founded
in the paradigmatic axis and the appropriate term for it is metaphoric connection. The
latter connection corresponds to the syntagmatic axis and the term for it is metonymic
connection. The metaphoric connection is characterized as substitutive, metonymic as
predicative (Jakobson 1956: 76–82). In this binary interpretation of semantic relations
on the level of linguistic system one can see the basis of the systemic distinction of
semantic transfers, which allows further and narrower typologizing of semantic derivations. The resulting typologies depend on the size of the analyzed material and on
the individual views of a particular scholar. By way of illustration we comparatively
summarize the findings presented by some authors in more extensive treatments of
lexical metonymy.
2.3 A. Vidovi~ Muha in her definition of metonymic semantic derivation stresses
the operation of syntagmatic rule on the level of the semantic component structure,
i.e., changes in this structure occurring in the process of derivation of metonymic
meaning.1 The metonymically motivated meaning is created with the entrance of a
new CSC; the entire motivating meaning including the original semantic component structure gains the role of the distinctive semantic feature (Vidovi~ Muha 2000:
136–142). Example: {ola: ’institution providing education’ → ’building (new CSC)
belonging to the institution providing education’. In some derivatives with derivative meaning, A. Vidovi~ Muha also finds the realization of the syntagmatic rule on
the propositional level. In some deverbatives, the meaning of non-primary actant or
circumstance is metonymically derived from the meaning of action. The relation between metonymically connected meanings corresponds to the relation between the
propositional components, e.g., pisanje: 1. ’formation of letters, numbers on a smooth
1
Ada Vidovi~ Muha, Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje, Govorica slovarja, Ljubljana, Znanstveni
in{titut Filozofske fakultete, 2000, 136–142.
438
surface’ (zmotiti se pri pisanju) → 2. ’what results from formation of letters ...’ (zbrisati pisanje) = ’that is written’→ ’what is written’ = ’action’ → ’result of action’
(Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 137–138).
2.4 In his monographic treatment of the metonymy in Russian, A. Birih places the
syntagmatic principle on extra-linguistic level, as he finds the connections between
neighboring denotata to be the basis of metonymic derivations.2 While presenting a
comprehensive and detailed overview of various views of the metonymy, he chooses
traditional paths in treating this semantic transfer. He describes the systemicity of
metonymic semantic transfers on the level of denotative meaning. According to that
he assigns the central significance to the regular appearance of a given metonymic
change within a semantic group. The affiliation of words with individual semantic
groups, in A. Birih’s opinion, particularly clearly show the relations between objects
in reality. The authors thus decides on the classification of metonymies with respect
to the types of relation between neighboring/proximate denotata. He establishes six
main types of metonymic transfers: partitive, causal, temporal, local, attributive, and
quantitative. Further, narrower, typologizing includes grouping of words with metonymic meanings into different categories with respect to what categorial semantic features (countability, humanness, animacy, etc.) are included in original meanings and
motivated meanings. While he does not explicitly discuss the syntagmatic principle
as being basic for metonymy, he recognizes it indirectly when he describes the differences between the synecdoche and metonymy. He notes that metonymy has semanticsyntactic character, since it is a result of the compression of the phrase.
2.5.0 From our point of view, the treatment of metonymy in E. L. Ginzburg’s
Konstrukcii polisemii v russkom jazyke is particularly promising.3 In the introduction it promises to treat the metonymy as a kind of polysemy, particularly from the
point of view of its »agreement with the basic syntactic-semantic relations« (Ginzburg
1985: 3).
2.5.1 The author in his points of departure emphasizes the systemicity of the structure of lexical units. In the systemicity, the concepts »construction of polysemy« and
»metonymic construction« as a sub-variety of polysemy are based. The systemicity
of semantic derivation is determined and binding to the extent that the differentiation
between metonymic meanings, metonymic semantic nuances, and a one-time metonymic use of the word – compared to the systemic determination of the metonymic
semantic derivation itself – negligible (53; 65). Ginzburg rejects as insufficient the
definition of the metonymy in which metonymic semantic derivations are based on the
relations between the denoted realities or on the relations between the corresponding
concepts (55–56). The assumption that metonymic constructions as formulas accord2
3
1985.
Aleksandr Birih, Metonimija v sovremennom russkom jazyke, Munich, Verlag Otto Sagner, 1995.
E. L. Ginzburg, Konstrukcii polisemii v russkom jazyke, Taksonomija i metonimija, Moskva, Nauka,
439
ing to which the individual metonymic semantic derivations are realized, cannot exist
on the level of lexical units (expressive-semantic units). Metonymic constructions exist
on the level of semantic components that correspond to the categories of lexical meanings, and not on the level of individual lexical units. Metonymic connections between
meanings are not a method of connecting the realities to which these meanings are
referring. If we wish to establish general classes into which to place metonymically
connected meanings, these meanings must be outside the level of denotative meanings. The existence of the metonymic formula is possible only on the level of syntactic
oppositions reflecting the inclusion of lexical meanings in the text; in other words,
the existence of the metonymic formulas is only possible on the level of the sentencesyntactical meanings (59).
2.5.2 Further Ginzburg’s discussion of the metonymic formula can be, with the
inclusion of lexicographic material, summarized as follows: The metonymic formula
can be introduced only into relations of the sentence syntax (»syntactic oppositions
reflecting the inclusion of lexical meanings in the text«). The material with metonymically connected meanings convincingly shows that the motivating and metonymically
derived meanings are in such a relation that, together with the appropriate predicate,
they constitute a minimal message (64). Example:
A lexical item including a metonymic motivated meaning: `áganje-a neut.
Motivating meaning: àganje0 ’producing pieces, parts by pulling saw back and
forth or by its moving leaf’
Motivated meaning: àganjeMtd ’what results from this action’
⇒
Message that motivating and motivated meanings constitute: àganjeMtd [is the result of] àganje0.
Ginzburg finds that the predicative components have a special role in the metonymic transformation of the motivating meaning. They allow a special typology of the
metonymic constructions, which is particularly evident in metonymic derivations in
depredicatives. In these cases the meaning of the predicative components is additionally transparent from the derivative, which can appear as a synonym in place of the
metonymic meaning (e.g., àganjeMtd = àgovina). Depredicatives represent the central part of metonymy; the definition of predicate components is supported with the
possibility of parallel derivational connections with the motivating verb or adjective
(e.g., razsad: ’that the plants are being transplanted’ = razsaditev; → ’the result of the
fact that the plants are being transplanted’ = razsajene rastline).
2.5.3 As a special question, Ginzburg treats the means of description of metonymy
(68-70). He points out that for typological description the generalization of meanings
into classes of denotative meanings is not sufficient (e.g., kitara: ’music instrument’
→ ’performer on this instrument’); rather, for a complete typology of metonymic
semantic derivations it is necessary to find formulas on the level of the sentencesyntactic categories. A part of the description of the metonymic relations is also the
comparison of the metonymic relations with the relations between the base word and
440
the derivative (kitara 1 ’instrument’ : kitara 2 ’performer’ = kitara 1 : kitarist). This
proves the analogy between the word derivation and the semantic derivation and it
confirms the requirement that the metonymic formulas be established equally to wordderivational formulas on the sentence-syntactic level, rather than on the level of denotative meaning (68–69).
The result of the effort to find the fundamental typology of the metonymic constructions that includes all metonymic derivations with all their heterogeneity, is the
list of opposition types (81–82):
(1) rusultative construction with the predicates [is result], [is consequence], [originates from], [is from] and causal construction with the predicates [is cause], [is motive], etc.;
(2) instrumental construction with predicates [serves as], [is tool], [is manner], [is
means], [is for] and final construction (of goal, objective) with predicates [is used], [is
goal], [is tool], [is purpose], etc.;
(3) local construction with the predicates [to be in], [to be located in], [to take
place in space/time], [to participate in], [is the feature] and the possessive construction
with the predicates [is location], [has].
2.6.0 The syntagmatic principle of metonymic meanings is described most explicitly in the work of Ju. D. Apresjan, i.e., he treats polysemy as an area within word
derivation in the broader sense (Apresjan 1995: 164–215).4 He emphasizes that this
understanding of polysemy originates in the fact that polysemy and derivation equally
allow synonymic transformations of sentences. Example:
Synonymic transformation based on word derivation:
Tkanina je bila ble{~e~e bela. ’The fabric was glowingly white.’
Belina tkanine je bila ble{~e~a. ’The whiteness of fabric was glowing.’
Synonymic transformation of sentence based on polysemy:
Poimenovanje predmetov poteka nepredvidljivo. ’Naming of object is carried out
unpredictably.’ … poimenovánje -a neut. M1 ’action’
Predmeti nepredvidljivo dobijo svoja poimenovanja. ’Objects unpredictably get
their names.’… poimenovánje –a neut. M2 ’result of action’5
2.6.1 Synonymic transformations of sentences on the level of word derivation are
made possible by some types of nominal syntactic derivatives, i.e., the nouns meaning
4
Jurij Derenikovi~ Apresjan, Leksi~eskaja semantika, Moscow, Vosto~naja literatura RAN, 1995.
– Apresjan presented some of his views on the connection between polysemy and word derivation for the
first time in the article Regular polysemy in the journal Linguistics 142, 1974, 5–32. Since in the second,
revised, edition of the work Leksi~eskaja semantika (1995), they were presented with improvements, this
edition is used for our purpose.
5
Apresjan calls the synonymic transformation of the sentence isosemantic transformation and the occurrence of these sentences isosemantics, differentiating between the semantic equality of lexical units, for
which the term synonymy is established, and the semantic equality (equivalence) of the sentence. The term
isosemantics, in accordance with Apresjan’s understanding of the lexical meaning (the semantics of the
sign) emphasizes the independence of the denotative semantic features, which with the identical configuration in the base word and in derivative, in fact, allows the synonymity of the sentence.
441
action or state (e.g., delo ← delati), nouns meaning the result of action (preboj stene
← prebiti steno), nouns meaning the quantity of action (poklon ← klanjati se), nouns
with actant or circumstantial meaning (agent, object, location, instrument, means,
method of action; Apresjan 1995: 165–168). It is evident from the aforementioned
types that these are nominal derivatives with derivational meaning, i.e., derivatives
that are transformationally linked to the components of the proposition (Vidovi~ Muha
1988: 1–17, 175–181). Apresjan does not explicitly mention the notion of proposition, but in the fundamental treatment of semantic relations and basic differentiation
between syntagmatics and paradigmatics he lists basic syntagmatic relations. These
relations are reflected in the type-meanings of the noun. Apresjan calls them substantive lexical parameters: Si = type-name of the first actant, Sinstr. = type-name of the
instrument of action, Sloc. = type-name of the location of action, Smod = type-name
of the manner of action, and Sres = type-name of the result of action (Apresjan 1995:
48). Apresjan finds that the processes of word derivation and semantic derivation are
analogous on the levels of regularity and productivity, both of which are originally
characteristic of word derivation, but are equally present in semantic derivation.
2.6.2 From Apresjan’s finding of the equal role of word formation and polysemy in
the synonymic transformations of sentences, another analogy between the two levels
is evident, i.e., the relation between the motivating word and the derivative is from the
point of view of the result (synonymic transformation of the sentence) equal to the
relation between the motivating meaning and the motivated meaning:
motivated word : derivative ≡ motivating meaning : motivated meaning
bel -a -o adj. : belina -e f. ≡ poimenovanje -a 1 (’action’) : poimenovanje -a 2
(’result of action’)
Based on this, Apresjan claims that numerous types of regular polysemy (semantic
pairs within lexemes) are analogical to some syntactic derivatives on the level of the
relation between the derivative vs. motivating word.6 The possible conclusion is that
in the case of polysemy, the motivated meanings may be connected to the meanings
of the propositional components, analogically to the way in which the derivatives are
connected to the meanings of the propositional components via derivational meanings:
poimenovanje -a 1 : poimenovanje -a 2 = motivating meaning : metonymically
motivated meaning = (’action’) : (’result of action’).
2.6.3 While discussing the analogy between derivation and polysemy, it is important to consider that Apresjan emphasizes the independence of the derivation and
polysemy as two separate levels of the language system. For instance, the polysemy
of the word stráà -e f. refers to the meanings (1) ’action concerning protection, defense, overseeing of somebody/something;’ (2) ’a person, group of people performing
this action’. The meanings are connected in terms of derivation by the type ’action’
– ’performer of action;’ the emphasis is on the metonymic character of the connection,
6
The literal realization of the equation requires us to take Apresjan’s conception of lexical meaning into
consideration. Cf. Apresjan 1995: 56–69.
442
while the derivation from the same derivational base (straìti: (1) → 'that one guards’;
(2) → 'who guards’) is not relevant. The semantic relations of regular polysemy within lexical items should thus be discussed without differentiation between derivatives
and non-derivatives.
Polysemic deverbal nouns that clearly include the meaning ’action’ in their affix,
i.e., one of the predicational meanings (predicate as the obligatory part of proposition), predictably fulfill the expectation that one of the semantic relations within the
lexical item agrees with one of the relations between the propositional components
(cf. the quoted examples poimenovanje -a neut., straà -e f.).7 This raises the question to what extent this is possible to determine in non-derivatives, which do not have
derivative affix and thus lack a formally realized connection between the meaning and
the propositional element. Apresjan claims that they are in terms of polysemy equal
to derivatives. Following is a brief outline of an attempt to test this position on the
examples of metonymic semantic derivations of Slovene nouns.8
2.6.4.1 If one tries to discern one given fact that, in determining the connection between the propositional meanings, is equally relevant in derivatives as in non-derivatives, this fact is the given semantic relation, the given metonymic semantic relation;
in this element the polysemy of the non-derivatives does not differ from the polysemy
of the derivatives. In determining whether the semantic relation {Mm : MMn} corresponds to the relation between the components of the proposition {Pred: A/C} one
has in mind the abstract proposition in which the two different meanings connected
within a lexeme, Mm and MMn, can be realized simultaneously as a semantic relation.
This abstract proposition would yield – with the introduction of the metonymically
polysemic noun no{a -e f. (1. ’clothing, vestments, typical of the inhabitants of certain
area, period, representatives of certain class,’ 2. ’person dressed in such clothing’) on
the positions of both propositional elements connected within the lexeme, i.e., the
predicate and the actant – the sentence *No{a (’person’) si je slekla no{o (’clothing’).
Since it is possible to talk about the proposition only if the presence of the predication is confirmed, in the given semantic relation of the polysemic word one lexical
meaning must allow predication (P(Pred)), while the other must correspond to the
non-predicational part, i.e., actant or circumstance (of place or time) (P (A/C)):
{Mm : MMn } ≡ {M(Pred) : M (A/C)}
2.6.4.2 This raises the question which meanings of the non-derived nouns are possible as predicational meanings if we exclude the nouns with the meaning ’action,’
which do not exist among non-derived words. It is possible to predict that these are
mainly nominal lexical meanings, which at least in terms of deep structure allow predicative use and thus allow the possibility of the following propositional structure:
Pred (auxiliary verb + noun ’characteristic’, ’state’) + A 1 (’carrier of characteristic’ , ’carrier of state’) / C(p/t)
7
8
Cf. the typologization of this kind of metonymies in deverbal nouns in Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 137–138.
For a more detailed description of this attempt see Snoj 2004: 86–102.
443
Let us take, for example, the noun nó{a -e f., which is in the Dictionary of Standard
Slovene explained with metonymically connected meanings: 1. ’clothing, vestments,
typical of the inhabitants of certain area, period, representatives of a certain class,’ 2.
’person dressed in such clothing’; typologized metonymic relation expressed with the
hypernym is: Mm ’clothing’ – MMn ’person dressed in this clothing’.
The motivated metonymic meaning ’person dressed in this clothing’ is with the
gained categorial semantic property (CSP) human+ (during metonymic change) within the given semantic relation appropriate for the position of A1, i.e., as the typemeaning ’carrier of characteristic’. The motivating meaning ’clothing’ allows the use
of the noun in the predicate function, which is on the structural level confirmed in the
syntagmatic phrases biti oble~en v no{o, biti v no{i, hoditi v no{i. In these phrases the
noun nó{a -e f. as the nominal part of the predicate, i.e., as a realization of predication
in which the noun nó{a -e f. corresponds to the component of the meaning ’characteristic’ (Ch = oble~en v no{o). This way the meaning ’dressed in this clothing’ with CSP
human+ is simultaneously confirmed as the actant meaning ’carrier of characteristic’
(CrCh), which in addition to the predication realizes the second necessary component
of the proposition.
2.6.4.3 The original equation {Mm : MMn } ≡ {M(Pred) : M (A/C)} can be, based
on these findings, translated into: {Mm : MMn } ≡ {Ch : CrCh}. The relation between
the potentially possible or, in some uses, demonstrated meaning 'characteristic' and
metonymically derived meaning 'carrier of characteristic', as demonstrated by the metonymically connected meanings of no{a – e f., widely broadens the area of metonymic semantic derivations that correspond to propositional relations. Among these
are particularly numerous the nouns derived from adjectives in -ost (absurdnost, aktualnost, majhnost, etc.), other de-adjectival nouns denoting characteristics (dobrina,
nagota, teà, toplina), and derived nouns without lexicalized meaning of characteristic (sedmica: ’number’ – ’vehicle (bus) marked with that number’; preteklost: ’time’
– ’existing in that time,’ etc.), as well as some non-derived nouns (sever: ’direction in
the sky’ – ’wind from this direction’).
3 The typology of metonymic meanings as reflection of syntagmatics
3 in semantic derivation
3.0 Metonymic semantic transfer is, by comparison with complementary metaphoric semantic transfer, distinctively defined with syntagmatic change in the structure of semantic components: the entire motivating meaning as a distinctive feature
is added to the new classifying semantic component in the motivated meaning (e.g.,
{ola: ’institution providing education’ → ’building (new CSC) belonging to the institution providing education’). A comparative survey of the treatment of the metonymy
in some lexicological works shows how the syntagmatic principle is realized in the
metonymic semantic transfers on other levels as well. Despite partial disagreements
in various interpretations it is clear that systematizing of metonymic semantic derivations is in all cases one way or another related to the search for types of syntagmatic
connections between lexical meanings or semantic components.
444
In typologizing of metonymic meanings of Slovenian polysemic nouns a threefold typology emerged directly from the lexicographic material, i.e., based on the
types of syntagmatic semantic relations on three levels: (1) on the level of the semantic component structure of denotative meaning; (2) on the level of the semantic component structure of the categorial meaning; (3) on the level of semantic relations in
terms of their agreement with the relations between propositional components (Snoj
2004: 103–160). The criterion of the agreement with the relations between the propositional components (pisanje: ’action’ → ’result of action’) divides all metonymic
meanings of nouns into two large groups: into propositional metonymic meanings
(agreement with propositional relations) and non-propositional metonymic meanings.
Both groups allow further typologization, i.e., with respect to the belonging of the
denotative meaning to a semantic group (e.g., skodela: ’smaller, low, round dish for
serving food’ (razbiti skodelo) → ’the contents of this dish’ (pojesti skodelo do konca)
⇒ 'dish' → ’contents of dish’) and typologization with respect to the alteration of the
categorial semantic features (e.g., èlezo: ’substance’ (predmeti iz èleza (–count)) →
’object made of substance’ @elezo ga je udarilo v nogo (+count)).
3.1 Syntagmatic relations on the level of the semantic component structure of the
denotative meaning allow the typology in which the relations are classified depending
on the semantic groups to which the meanings belong (e.g., {ola -e f.: ’institution’ →
’building’, hi{a: ’building’ → ’inhabitants’, skodela: ’dish’ → ’contents,’ etc.; Snoj
2004: 126-138). This typology includes all regular metonymic semantic connections.
It is most commonly cited in lexicological literature and it does not differ from the
typology used in literary theory for textual metonymic semantic transfers. As it is
based on the generalization of denotative meanings into semantic groups, it is closest
to the denoted reality and to the connections existing in extra-linguistic reality. The
total number of these metonymic types is unlimited: every new regular metonymic
semantic relation can potentially be a new type. Delimitation between individual types
and subtypes of semantic relations in this typology cannot be unambiguous; the level
of generalization of a given metonymic connection towards conforming to a semantic
group is left to the individual judgment of the author. For instance, the metonymic
connections in the words kozarec (’dish’ – ’contents of the dish’), kuhinja (’room’
– ’furniture in the room’), gimnazija (’institution’ – ’group of people belonging to the
institution’), mesto (’settlement’ – ’inhabitants of the settlement’) can be considered
different types, but they can also be merged into a more general connection ’space’
– ’what is located in that space’.
3.2 The framework of the typology of metonymic meanings with respect to the
categorial semantic features are three different possibilities in which the categorial
semantic properties (CSP) can behave in the metonymic derivation of the motivated
meaning: (1) the metonymic semantic transfer does not involve change in CSP; (2) the
metonymic meaning involves predictable change in CSP; (3) the metonymic meaning
involves partially predictable change in CSP. This type of typologizing is interesting
particularly as an addition to typologized propositional metonymic meanings (Snoj
445
2004: 124–125, 139–141). For example, CSP –count is preserved without any change
in the metonymic types ’action’ – ’time of action’ (ètev, pletev, ko{nja, etc.), but it
changes obligatorily (– count into +count) in the derivations like ’action’ – ’place of
action’ (dovoz, izstop, izvoz, odvoz, prehod, etc.). A predictable change of CSP –count
into CSP +count is involved in the relations ’action’ – ’agent’, ’state’ – ’carrier of
state,’ and ’characteristic’ – ’carrier of characteristic’, in which the change –count →
+count implies the change to +human.
3.3.0 The classification of metonymic meanings based on the criterion of the semantic relations within lexeme that agree with the relations between propositional
components, best fulfills the requirements that the typology be linguistic-systemic
and independent of extra-linguistic connections. The agreement of the given semantic
relation within the word with one between the components of the proposition is established directly on the given relation between motivating and metonymically motivated
meaning. Example: In the word pisánje -a neut. the two meanings are, from the point
of view of polysemy, metonymically linked: ’forming letters, numbers on smooth
surface’ (zmotiti se pri pisanju) → 2. ’what is the result of forming letters ...’ (zbrisati
pisanje) = ’action’ → ’result of action’ (the propositional components of predication and non-first actant). The relation agrees with the derivative meanings: ’that one
writes’ – ’what is written’, which from the point of view of polysemy is not relevant.
The criterion for connection with the propositional components must be independent of the derivation of the word and the derivational meaning, in order to fulfill the
requirement that the propositional metonymic meanings be established in derivatives
as well as in non-derivatives.
3.3.1 The common feature of the nouns with the propositional metonymic meaning
is that they include the predicative meaning (’action’, ’characteristic’, ’state’), mostly
as motivating meaning. The majority of them are deverbal nouns (grabe`, vodstvo;
dokumentacija, argumantacija, razlaga, re{itev, zamenjava, etc.); by including the
meaning ’action’ as the key predicative meaning represent a noticeable and distinctive
group within all nominal metonymies.9 Furthermore, all propositional connections
are attested in metonymic meanings of Slovene nouns: ’action’ – ’agent’ (grabe`), 2.
’action’ – ’object for the action’ (dokumentacija), 3. ’state’ – ’carrier of state’ (eksistenca), 4. ’state’ – ’cause of state’ (razo~aranje), 5. ’characteristic’ – ’carrier of characteristic’ (grdoba), 6. ’characteristic’ – ’object carrier of characteristic’ (neumnost, belina, meh~ava), 7. ’action’ – ’object of action’ (razsad, doìvetje), 8. ’action’ – ’second
object of action’ (dopolnitev), 9. ’action’ – ’result of action’ (àganje, asociacija), 10.
’action’ – ’means of action’ (dovod, premaz), 11. ’action’ – ’manner of action’ (govor,
hoja), 12. ’action’ – ’place of action’ (dovoz, izstop, prehod), 13. ’action’ – ’time of
action’ (ètev), 14. ’state’ – ’time of state’ (vojna, mrak, ìvljenje). Several types have
9
For Slovene, the metonymies with the motivating meaning ’action’ in deverbal nominal derivatives
have been discussed with regard to the connection between metonymy and word-derivational meaning. Cf.
Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 137–138.
446
the meaning ’action’ as the motivated meaning: 1. ’agent’ – ’action’ ({ola: ’institution’
– ’activity’), 2. ’object of action’ – ’action’ (pesem: ’composition’ – ’performance of
composition’), 3. ’tool’ – ’action’ (viola: ’instrument’ – ’playing of instrument’), 4.
’means of action’ – ’action’ (predominant relation ’means of visual representation’
– ’artistic creating with these means’ (oglje)).
3.3.2 The propositional metonymic type ’characteristic’ – ’object carrier of the
characteristic’ (neumnost, ~uda{tvo, ljubeznivost, meh~ava, modrost, etc.; cf. Snoj
2004: 114–117) is particularly interesting from the point of view of the assumption
that any metonymic connection within a lexeme is potentially a realization of the
proposition (Ginzburg 1985: 64). Based on the relation ’characteristic’ – ’object carrier of characteristic’ it is possible to interpret metonymically derived meanings of
some non-derived words, e.g., ’number’ – ’object, marked with that number’ (sedmica: ’number’ – ’bus’), ’basic unit for measuring something’ – ’measuring device
being the size of that unit’ (meter), ’unit for measuring something’ – ’reality having
the extension of that unit’ (ura), ’extension’ – ’reality having that extension to the
considerable degree’ (globina), ’monetary unit’ – ’banknote, coin for that unit’, ’direction’ – ’the side of sky in that direction’, ’direction’ – ’wind in that direction’, ’time’
– ’existing in that time’. Similarly, some words in which the motivating meaning
’action’ is not evidently derived from the verb, belong to the type ’action’ – ’result
of action.’ Such examples are metonymic connections ’artistic visual representation
in a particular manner’ – ’work of art created through that representation’ (akvarel,
olje, akvatinta, enkavstika, grafika, gravura, gva{, kola`, lepljenka, litografija, olje,
praskanka, sgraffito, trganka, arhitektura, poezija, glasba, etc.) and ’weaving with
respect to the way the threads are interwoven’ – ’fabric created in that weaving’ (atlas,
cirkas, kanava, keper, empir, barok).
4 Conclusion
An attempt to typologize metonymic meanings of the Slovene nouns cogently
shows that the syntagmatic principle as constitutive for the metonymy is reflected in
three general characteristics of metonymically derived meanings: (1) In metonymically derived meaning, a complete motivating meaning is added to the new classifying
semantic component, according to the syntagmatic principle. (2) The relation between
the motivating meaning and the metonymically derived meaning in nouns often agrees
with the relation between the proposition constituents. (3) From the point of view of
the function in synonymic transformation of the sentence, the analogy was established
between the procedures of word derivation and semantic derivation, which is the basis
for comparing semantic derivation to word derivation.
The possibilities of metonymic semantic derivation are predictable to a relatively
high degree based on the structure of the motivating meaning, particularly by including all possible connections between the propositional components. The syntagmatic
organization of the semantic components makes metonymic semantic transfers predictable, i.e., parallel to word derivation. The definition of metonymy in the realiza-
447
tion of the syntagmatic principle allows clear differentiation of metonymic semantic
transfers from the paradygmatically defined metaphoric semantic transfers.
Marta Pirnat Greenberg.
REFERENCES
APRESJAN, Ju. D., 1995: Leksi~eskaja semantika. Moscow: Vosto~naja literatura RAN.
− − 1974: Regular Polysemy. Linguistics 142. 5−32.
BIRIH, A, 1995: Metonimija v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.
CRYSTAL, D., 1997: The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: University Press.
FILIPEC, J., ÊRMÁK, F., 1985: êská lexikologie. Prague: Academia.
GINZBURG, E. L., 1986: Konsstrukcii polisemii v russkom jazyke. Taksonomija i metonimija.
Moscow: Nauka.
GORTAN PREMK, D., 1997: Polisemija i organizacija leksi~kog sistema u srpskome jeziku. Belgrade: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.
JAKOBSON, R., 1956: The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles. Fundamentals of Language. Janua
Linguarum 1. Gravenhage: Mouton @ Co. 76–82.
ORE{NIK, J., 1992: Udeleènske vloge v sloven{~ini. Ljubljana: SAZU.
Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika: Elektronska izdaja v 1.0, 1998. Ljubljana: DZS.
SNOJ, J., 2004: Tipologija slovarske ve~pomenskosti slovenskih samostalnikov. Ljubljana:
Zalo`ba ZRC.
[MELEV, D. N., 1973: Problemy semanti~eskogo analiza leksiki (na materiale russkogo jazyka).
Moscow: Nauka.
UFIMCEVA, A. A., 1986: Leksi~eskoe zna~enie. Princip semiologi~eskogo opisanija leksiki. Moscow: Nauka.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, A., 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloènk. Ljubljana:
Partizanska knjiga.
− − 2000: Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje: Govorica slovarja. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut
Filozofske fakultete (Razprave Filozofske fakultete).
− − 2000a: âs v besedi (Tipologija leksikalne ve~pomenskosti). 36. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 85−109.
POVZETEK
Vsebinska dolo~itev metonimije z zunajjezikovnim izhodi{~em poudarja, da je za metonimijo zna~ilna logi~na povezanost med vsebino izhodi{~nega pomena in izpeljanega pomena.
Dolo~itev metonimije kot jezikovnosistemske danosti pa se mora usmeriti in omejiti na razmerje med tvorbno povezanima slovarskima pomenoma: motivirajo~i, izhodi{~ni pomen → motivirani, izpeljani, tvorjeni pomen. Pri tem ima odlo~ilno vlogo opredelitev slovarskega pomena in
izbira stali{~a, s katerega se enotno obravnavajo vsa znotrajleksemska medpomenska razmerja.
Mo`nost tovrstne dolo~itve metonimije se kaè v okviru strukturalno zasnovanega modela slovarskega pomena, po katerem se slovarski pomen opisuje kot hierarhizirana zgradba iz pomenskih sestavin, in sicer iz skladenjsko nadrejene uvr{~evalne pomenske sestavine (UPS) in in
skladenjsko podrejenih razlo~evalnih pomenskih sestavin (RPS) (Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 53). Tipi
razmerij med tvorbno povezanimi pomeni se lo~ujejo na ravni tipskih sprememb, do katerih
pride v pomenskosestavinski zgradbi pri izpeljavi motiviranega pomena (121–154). Za me-
448
tonimijo zna~ilna tipska sprememba je, da v motivirani pomen vstopa nova UPS, motivirajo~i
pomen v celoti (vklju~no z izhodi{~no razvrstitvijo pomenskih sestavin) pa prevzame vlogo
razlo~evalne lastnosti v novem pomenu. Motivirani pomen je torej odvisen od tega, kako se
motivirajo~i pomen ob vstopu nove UPS v skladu s sintagmatskim na~elom z njo druì v novi
pomen.
Pojem sintagmatike se v osnovi nana{a na linearna razmerja med elementi v besedi ali besedni zvezi, tj. na razmerja med elementi skladenjske enote (Crystal 1997: 438). V strukturalnem
jezikoslovju sta opozicijska pojma sintagmatike in paradigmatike u~inkovito prisotna zlasti
preko pojmovanja R. Jakobsona, ki lo~uje znotraj jezikovnega sistema dva tipa pomenskih povezav: Dana vsebina lahko vodi k drugi vsebini bodisi zaradi njune medsebojne povezanosti po
podobnosti (hut → is a poor little house; Jakobson 1956: 77) bodisi zaradi njune medsebojne
povezanosti preko dru`ljivosti, dopolnjevalnosti (hut → burnt out ). Prva povezava je utemeljena v paradigmatski osi in zanjo ustrezno poimenovanje je metafori~na povezava; druga ustreza
sintagmatski osi in poimenovanje zanjo je metonimi~na povezava (Jakobson 1956: 76–82). V
tej binarni interpretaciji pomenskih povezav na ravni jezikovnega sistema je mogo~e videti
temelj sistemske lo~ljivosti vseh pomenskih prenosov.
Sintagmatska dolo~enost metonimi~nih pomenskih prenosov je v leksikolo{kih obravnavah
metonimije na~elno splo{no sprejeta, pri ~emer posamezni razpravljavci individualno posve~ajo
ve~ pozornosti tej ali oni zna~ilnosti, povezani s sintagmatskim na~elom. V definiciji metonimi~ne
pomenske izpeljave pri A. Vidovi~ Muha (2000) je delovanje sintagmatskega na~ela izpostavljeno na ravni pomenskosestavinske zgradbe oz. na ravni spremembe v tej zgradbi, do katere
pride pri izpeljavi metonimi~nega pomena. Poleg tega pri nekaterih tvorjenkah z besedotvornim pomenom A. Vidovi~ Muha ugotavlja uresni~enost sintagmatskega na~ela na propozicijski
ravni. Pri nekaterih izglagolskih tvorjenkah je namre~ iz pomena dejanja metonimi~no izpeljan
pomen neprvega delovalnika ali pomen okoli{~ine. Npr.: pisanje: 1. ’delanje ~rk, {tevilk na
gladki povr{ini’ (zmotiti se pri pisanju) → 2. ’kar nastane pri delanju ~rk ...’ (zbrisati pisanje)
= ’to, da se pi{e’ → ’to, kar je napisano’ = ’dejanje’ → ’rezultat dejanja’ (Vidovi~ Muha 2000:
137–138). – A. Birih (1995) sistemskost metonimi~nih pomenskih prenosov opisuje na ravni
denotativnega pomena in pripisuje osrednji pomen regularnemu pojavljanju dane metonimi~ne
spremembe v okviru pomenske skupine. O sintagmatskem na~elu kot temeljnem za metonimijo
eksplicitno ne razpravlja, ugotavlja le, da ima metonimija semanti~no-sintakti~ni zna~aj, saj je
rezultat strnitve (kompresije) besedne zveze. – E. L. Ginzburg (1985) zavra~a kot nezadostno
dolo~anje metonimije, pri katerem se metonimi~ne pomenske izpeljave utemeljujejo bodisi s
povezavami med poimenovanimi realijami bodisi s povezavami med njim ustrezajo~imi pojmi
(55–56). Po njegovem mnenju metonimi~ne formule ne morejo obstajati na ravni leksikalnih
enot, pa~ pa samo na ravni propozicijskih pomenov. Gradivo metonimi~no povezanih pomenov
prepri~ljivo kaè, da sta motivirajo~i pomen in metonimi~no izpeljani pomen v takem razmerju,
da z ustreznim predikatom tvorita minimalno sporo~ilo. Primer: àganjeMtn ’snov’ [je rezultat]
àganje0 ’dejanje’. Za celovito tipologijo metonimi~nih pomenskih izpeljav je potrebno poiskati
formule na ravni povednoskladenjskih kategorij. K opisu metonimi~nih razmerij spada tudi
vzporejanje metonimi~nih razmerij z razmerji med podstavno besedo in tvorjenko (kitara 1 ’instrument’ : kitara 2 ’izvajalec’ = kitara 1 : kitarist). – Najbolj eksplicitno je sintagmatski princip
metonimi~nih pomenov opisovan v delu Ju. D. Apresjana (1995): ve~pomenskost obravnava
kot podro~je znotraj besedotvorja v {ir{em pomenu besede. To pojmovanje ve~pomenskosti ima
izhodi{~e v danosti, da ve~pomenskost in besedotvorje enakovredno omogo~ata sopomenske
pretvorbe povedi. (Primer: Pretvorba na osnovi besedotvorja: Tkanina je bila ble{~e~e bela.
Belina tkanine je bila ble{~e~a. – Sopomenska pretvorba povedi na osnovi ve~pomenskosti:
Poimenovanje predmetov poteka nepredvidljivo (poimenovánje -a s P1 ’dejanje’) – Predmeti
nepredvidljivo dobijo svoja poimenovanja (poimenovánje -a s P2 ’rezultat dejanja’)) Iz te ugo-
449
tovitve je nadalje razvidna {e ena analogija med besedotvorjem in ve~pomenskostjo: razmerje
med motivirajo~o besedo in tvorjenko je enakovredno razmerju med motivirajo~im pomenom
in motiviranim pomenom: bel -a -o prid. : belina -e ` ≡ poimenovanje -a 1 (’dejanje’) : poimenovanje -a 2 (’rezultat dejanja’). Iz vzporednosti motivacijskega razmerja v besedotvorju in motivacijskega razmerja pri ve~pomenskosti je mogo~e sklepati, da se metonimi~ne pomenske
povezave ujemajo s povezavami med propozicijskimi sestavinami analogno temu, kot se s sestavinami propozicije ujemajo pomeni tvorjenke preko besedotvornih pomenov. Gradivo slovenskih samostalnikov to domnevo potrjuje.
Sistematiziranje metonimi~nih pomenskih povezav je v vseh primerih vezano na iskanje
tipov sintagmatskih povezav med slovarskimi pomeni oz. pomenskimi sestavinami. Neposredno v gradivu slovenskih samostalnikov se je potrdila trojna tipologija, utemeljena v tipih sintagmatskih znotrajleksemskih pomenskih povezav na treh ravneh: 1. na ravni pomenskosestavinske zgradbe denotativnega pomena, 2. na ravni pomenskosestavinske zgradbe kategorialnega
pomena in 3. na ravni ujemanja metonimi~nih pomenskih povezav z razmerji med propozicijskimi sestavinami. Tipologija, ki temelji na merilu ujemanja metonimi~nih pomenskih povezav
z razmerji med propozicijskimi sestavinami, najbolj ustreza zahtevi po tipologiziranju, neodvisnem od zunajjezikovnih povezav.
Sintagmatska organiziranost daje metonimi~nim pomenskim prenosom zna~aj predvidljivosti, po kateri se pomenotvorje lahko primerja z besedotvorjem. Mo`nosti metonimi~ne pomenske
izpeljave so v razmeroma visoki stopnji predvidljive na osnovi zgradbe motivirajo~ega pomena,
zlasti ob upo{tevanju vseh mo`nih povezav med propozicijskimi sestavinami. Sintagmatska
dolo~enost metonimije omogo~a nedvoumno lo~evanje metonimi~nih pomenskih prenosov od
paradigmati~no dolo~enih metafori~nih pomenskih prenosov.
450
Nataša
Logar, Stylistically Marked New Derivatives – A Typology
UDC 811.163.6’366
Nata{a Logar
Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana
451
STYLISTICALLY MARKED NEW DERIVATIVES – A TYPOLOGY1
Word formation enables the formation of stylistically marked derivatives on two levels: on
the level of the transformational-generative processes described and predicted in linguistics;
on the level of unpredictable transformational-generative processes. This paper presents, with
examples, the most productive sub-types from both groups, and is an attempt to investigate the
reasons for the markedness of derivatives in the syntactic base within the context of transformational-generative word formation, in the relationship between formant and word base, and
in the relationship between formation and non-formation. At the level of unpredictable transformational-generative processes, one can define nine different groups of derivatives, some of
which are crossing the border of word formation.
Besedotvorje omogo~a tvorbo stilno zaznamovanih tvorjenk na dveh ravneh: na ravni v
jezikoslovju opisanih in predvidljivih tvorbeno-pretvorbenih postopkov in na ravni tvorbenopretvorbeno nepredvidljivih postopkov. V prispevku so s primeri prikazani najproduktivnej{i
podtipi obeh skupin. V okviru tvorbeno-pretvorbenega besedotvorja smo razloge za zaznamovanost tvorjenk iskali v skladenjski podstavi, v razmerju med obrazilom in besedotvorno podstavo in v razmerju tvorjenosti do netvorjenosti; na ravni tvorbeno-pretvorbeno nepredvidljivih
postopkov pa smo opredelili devet razli~nih skupin tvorjenk, od katerih nekatere è prestopajo
mejo besedotvorja.
Key words: word formation, stylistics, neologism
Klju~ne besede: besedotvorje, stilistika, neologizem
0 Introduction
There is no segment of language as variable and dynamic, with such a high turnover of individual units constantly falling out of use and new units being formed, as
the lexical domain. This variability is closely connected to changes in the life of the
language speaker, i.e. to changes in the reality that surrounds him/her, new ideologies and political systems, innovations resulting from contacts with different cultures,
religious beliefs and values, etc. These changes are constant, rapid and inevitable in
today’s world. Every language that wishes to stay (or that we wish to keep) alive,
topical and fully functional follows these changes rapidly, simultaneously adopting
or assimilating them, i.e. mainly by giving them its own expression or the expression
that conforms to its features.
Changing the linguistic image of the world – which in this context chiefly means
the formation of a new lexicon – is not conditioned merely by the extra-linguistic
reality in which the speakers of a certain language live, but also by the relationship
1
The paper is an amended and revised part of Besedotvorna stilistika (Master’s thesis, 2003). Supervisor: Professor A. Vidovi~ Muha.
452
between speakers and their (first) language and, in this context, with what already
exists in language as well. At the lexical level the latter is demonstrated in the formation of new expressions for existing designations. In relation to the »old« formations,
these new formations can be ironic, funny, vulgar, endearing or colloquial, or else
they might simply be abbreviations of an old formation, formations characteristic of a
single author or, over time, the only neutral formation. In lexicon, it is also possible to
observe the changes in the otherwise stable, systemic, core of the language, brought
about by the influence of other languages.
Changes, including the systemic changes, may simply be current innovations,
short-lived specialisms or areas of popular interest that disappear from the language
as suddenly as they entered it. But they can also be set firm, stay in the language,
perhaps in one of its sub-systems. As a rule, this occurs only when they play a role
in language that another language device cannot or does not know how to play well
enough or as well. New formations are indispensable for a fully functional language.
After a while (although this can happen quite quickly), these words, regular word
phrases and patterns of word formation lose their newness and become a formative
part of the language, part of those who live within that language, and part of their
outlook on the world.
0.1 In linguistics, stylistics is the »science of alternative possibilities in language
(lexical, syntactic, morphological, phonetic), according to the role or purpose of a
text« (Enciklopedija Slovenije/Encyclopedia of Slovenia 1998: 317). The narrowing
of the concept of stylistics to linguistic-systemic stylistics brings us to the following
definition: »/C/ertain morphological categories, accent variants or syntactic phenomena /.../ already contain /.../ stylistic markedness in relation to the other in themselves,
i.e., without regard to the text« (Koro{ec 1998: 13). Vidovi~ Muha (2000: 159), using
the example pis-ec, pis-ar, pis-un, which shows synonymy of morphemes -ec, -ar,
-un, illustrates her finding that »morphemes are basic bearers of linguistic-systemic
stylistics«. Koro{ec (1998: 8) defines language style from a number of aspects, though
only two of the more important ones are quoted here for the purpose of this discussion,
i.e., »style, as a complex of attributes of language communication, is achieved by selecting from the given linguistic devices of language as a system« (processual aspect);
and »selection is an element of linguistic activity whose purpose is communication;
selection therefore depends on an entirely defined goal of the former’s communication« (teleological aspect). This can be summarised as »where there is an alternative,
there is style« (Topori{i~ 1974: 245).
0.2 This paper will address two areas of word-formative stylistics (see Figure 1):
A The first will proceed from the characteristics of the definitional and expressive
parts of derivatives, i.e. from the word base, formant or formant morpheme, and from
the word phrase from which the derivatives arise (the syntactic base).2 One finds in the
2
The word-formative theoretical basis of this paper is syntactic word formation, as established in Slovenian linguistics by A. Vidovi~ Muha (1988).
Nataša Logar, Stylistically Marked New Derivatives – A Typology
453
literature (Topori{i~ (1973), Vidovi~ Muha (1972, 2000), Filipec (1961), Ohnheiser
(1979), etc.) that some word-formative morphemes always have a certain connotative
meaning in themselves, while others have that meaning only in the word base upon
which a certain other formant can be placed so that the derivative can be marked
(though not necessarily) if its base already contains such an auto-semantic word, etc.
All these examples involve derivatives that arose according to linguistically-systemically stable and predictable word-formation processes, already defined in linguistics.
They will therefore be discussed within the framework of the stylistics of predictable
transformational-generative processes.
B Word-formative stylistics also has to take into account all of the unpredictable
transformational-generative patterns of word formation such as the formation of
juxtaposed compounds, abbreviations, clippings, word-phrased alternations, etc. New
(as a rule, borrowed) word-formative patterns (in Slovenian, these include the compounding of two nouns encountered at the end of the 19th century, e.g. ìvinozdravnik,
and ordinary noun derivatives by prefixation, e.g. podkuhar, from the first half of the
20th century (Vidovi~ Muha 1991: 319)) are also (at some point) part of word-formative
stylistics; in contemporary Slovenian, this pattern is evident in such words as e-po{ta,
e-sporo~ilo and m-poslovanje, which can be called e-derivatives.3 Abbreviations, juxtaposed compounds, clippings and the like are systematically indefinite or »elusive«,
and therefore outside the system, and are also always at least to some extent left to the
choice of the (first) former. With these words it is possible to identify only some of most
Figure 1: Typology of style-marked new derivatives.
3
A more detailed discussion of e-derivatives is omitted here. For more, see Logar 2003: 181–188 or
Logar 2004: 122–126.
454
frequent manifestations. Moreover, as will be shown, although these are derivatives,
one can no longer refer to basic notions of systemic word formation (i.e. to syntactic
base, word base and formant). All the examples listed here will therefore be dealt with
in relation to unpredictable transformational-generative word-formation processes.
1 Analysis
The purpose of this paper is to support the typology of word-formative stylistics
with material; the focus has therefore been on gathering as many typologically diverse
examples of new or newer derivatives as possible. The following sources were selected: journalism (Delo, Mladina), two popular science periodicals (Mobinet, Joker)
and a science-fiction novel by Miha Remec, Iksia ali slovo ìvostrojnega ~lovega (for
more about sources, see the end of this paper and Logar 2003: 6–12). All new common-named derivatives and parts of one-word newly formed proper names were written out according to the Dictionary of Standard Slovenian (SSKJ). A set of abbreviated
terms was also taken from Slavisti~na revija, Medicinski razgledi and Elektrotehni{ki
vestnik, and a review made of the Slovar~ek mini sloven{~ine (www.pinkponk.com/
smskratice.asp), 15 columns of Informacijska tehnologija from the Delo newspaper,
the 3rd edition of Leksikon imen by Janez Keber, and the International Country Codes
(www.iol.ie/˜taeger/tables/tab9.htm), a collection of international vehicle codes. The
material was also partly gathered from the Korpus slovenskega jezika FIDA (www.
fida.net). The entire selection covered over 3,800 new derivatives according to the
SSKJ. It should be pointed out that examples will be cited unchanged in the paper;
furthermore, because of the extensive nature of the issue at hand, only the most productive and most interesting groups will be examined.
1.1 Stylistics of transformational-generative word formation
The starting points for the stylistics of transformational-generative word formation
are, as mentioned above, the defining attributes of the derivative (their definition is
given after Vidovi~ Muha 1988: 183):
1. Syntactic base (non-clausal subordinate word phrase /.../ whose auto- and grammatical-semantic elements can be transformed into derivatives);
2. Formant (part of a derivative from one or more morphemes as a transformation of
the grammatical meaning of the syntactic base, but it can also be its core or developing segment);
3. Word base (part of a derivative from non-formed root-morpheme words in the
syntactic base).
1.1.1 Syntactic base
A Derivatives from marked words
Vidovi~ Muha (2000: 99) has proposed »the connotativity of words from the syntactic base« as one of the reasons for the markedness of derivatives, and also pointed
455
out that a connotative word from the base does not necessarily also mean that the
derivative is marked. Ohnheiser’s conclusion (1979: 86) is similar: if a marked word
is the base and the formant is not marked, then the derivative can also be neutral, but
only in rare case.
The material contains a group of stylistically special derivatives which are, because of the marked word from the syntactic base, fairly extensive. The markedness of
syntactic-base words has been checked in the SSKJ and every derivative classified that
has, at one of its formation stages, a word that contains, within the meaning relevant
for the derivative, any style, genre or temporal qualifier. The normative value of the
semicolon in synonyms was also considered.4
The examples are as follows (only a few are listed here, from the most extensive
groups):
– expressive: pozer,5 ~rkoèr, cunjarnica, blefiranje, fr~alnica, naìgalnica, rigajo~,
pojodlati, izviseti, odkriàriti,
– vulgar: zajebancija, jebivetrsko, kur~iti se, pizdarija, vukojebina, presranost, slaboritne`, popizditi,
– lower colloquial: àjfast, {trikarija, nucnik, {opanje, fu{a~, preklofan, znucan,
krepavanje, pre{vercan, frocovje,
– colloquial: hoh{taplerija, frajerizem, pobezljava, brkljalnik, zafrknjen, blondinski,
bajturina,
– jargon: ùrer, preùran, preùrati, zaìcati, vaènje, pavzer, tenisa~ina, brzinec,
– pejorative: kracanje, ~vekalstvo, pokruliti, pisunjenje, ~istunski, pofrfuliti,
– journalistic: scenosled, spotni~ka, tinejdèrski, lobiranje, lobist, lobizem.
One can ascertain that almost all derivatives from marked words are also marked
themselves; however, additional checks would have to be made to see whether the
type of markedness of the base word is preserved in the derivative. In general one can
conclude that this is mostly the case (but it should be pointed out that qualifiers from
the SSKJ of some of the base words no longer correspond to contemporary usage and
connotative value, e.g. the journalistic lobi).
B Derivatives from new derivatives
Many such derivatives were encountered in the material. However, only those with
the base word marked only as new, i.e. as neologism (its existence might be attested
in this derivative alone, i.e. in a higher-degree derivative), but without a marked form-
4
The value of the semicolon with synonyms in the SSKJ is as follows (§ 48): »A less-used synonym
with a single meaning has an explanation and, after the semicolon, a superior (stronger in use) /.../ synonym.« One group of qualifiers that could still be relevant to this discussion (the so-called »special normative qualifiers« (SSKJ I, 1970: § 156, 157)) has not been attested in the material.
5
It should be mentioned at this point that examples from the material in comparison with an already
established (neutral) synonym (not necessarily derivative) can also be generically marked or marked for
several wordformation reasons at the same time – such examples were classified only in one of these
groups, i.e. the one to which, in this author’s opinion, they most obviously belonged. At the same time it
has to be said that material from Iksia has not been included under point 1.1 because of its connection with
the poetics of a single author.
456
ant or base word etc., were included; they cannot be included in any other group of
derivatives that are connotative, for (other) word-formative reasons. Some examples:
menedèriranje, nenavadnjenje, grafitanje, pre{ernovanje, direktorovanje, granatiranje, kitarjevanje, uglasbljevanje, bunkabrcanje, razdihovalec, zakajevalec, prednastavljen, pre~esnan, za~esnan, sfotokopiran, samozgodovinjenje, sokolarjenje, plinarjenje, avtopobijav{~ina, burekovalnica, lastnoustni~no.
If the base words of such derivatives were in frequent use and became unmarked,
derivatives would, as a rule, also lose markedness (probably the opposite is true as well).
1.1.2 Formant and word base
A Derivatives with a marked combination of word base and formant
Typical of this group is that markedness arises from the fact that the combination
of a certain word base and a formant is different compared to the set synonym of the
derivative. In this group, neither the word base nor the formant is marked; only the
combination of the two is marked, different, special, and new. There are two groups
of such marked derivatives:
A1 In the first group are those new derivatives that have, at the last formation stage,
a different formant than the synonym in the SSKJ (this synonym is also not necessarily unmarked); these derivatives are of the same word-formative type, but they might
differ in the degree of formation (in that case the difference between them is also in
the word base of the last formation stage).
Some examples: starinec (: starina), znanski (: znan), plovilec (: plovilo), ubo`~en
(: ubog), posipalec (: posipalnik), stoletka (: stoletnica), me~kator (: me~ka~), podoìvitev (: podoìvetje), bera~evski (: bera{ki), prelesnovit (: prelesten), ògobrcanje
(: ògobrc), mi{on (: mi{jak), komunistica (: komunistka), trendovski (: trendni), vampirizem (: vampirstvo), filmi~en (: filmski), podkulturni (: nekulturni), podpo{tenjak
(: nepo{tenjak).
A2 In the second group are the new derivatives which have the same formant in
the last formation stage and are of the same word-formative type as the set synonym
(again, this synonym is not necessarily unmarked), but they have a different word base
(at least) in the last formation stage; this can at the same time mean that they also differ in the degree of formation. Some examples:
– the new derivative is of higher degree of formation: uìvantski (: uìva{ki), tenisa{ki
(: teni{ki), kriticisti~ni (: kriti~ni), dogajali{~e (: prizori{~e), zakajevalnica (: kadilnica), zahodnjakarski (: zahodnja{ki), te~nobne` (: te~ne`);
– the new derivative is of lower degree of formation: /;
– the new derivative is of the same degree of formation: tiholazenje (: tihotapljenje),
zdaj{njik (: sedanjik), zdruèk (: skupek), o~igledno (: o~itno), intelegibilno (: inteligentno), programabilnost (: programskost), zabavnja{tvo (: zabavni{tvo), pevalka (: pevka), ~itavec (: bralec), fr~oplan (: aeroplan).
The formers of these derivatives have, for effectiveness of style, selected a word
that is semantically close to the base word of the set synonym, which makes the meaning of the new derivative recognizable.
457
B Derivatives with a systemically new formant
This type of formant is attested in the following examples: seksualija, tehnikalija, sekvencarijada, fle{ijada, transijada, aparatus, rezultatus, ~lankoidni, bruhoidni,
plo{~koid, ex-minister, iberpomanjkanje, animateka. These formants in Slovenian are
not (yet) set or identified as morphemes. They are all borrowed and used precisely
because of the connotation that has been inserted into the derivative by its foreignness.
1.1.3 Formation with respect to non-formation
The choice of formation with respect to non-formation has already been proposed
by Vidovi~ Muha (2000: 99) as a reason for the connotativity of the derivative. She
gives the following examples: bosonog, bosopet : bos, kopec : hrib, hromonog : hrom,
lenokrven : len, dobrosr~en : dober. Filipec (1961) drew similar conclusions regarding
Czech (e.g. ~inohra : hra).
Our material also contained a few new derivatives that have a synonym in a nonderivative: dvanajstmese~je (: leto), slikosuk (: projektor), redilnica (: hlev), mukica
(: krava), nièk (: dno), oblepek (: obli`), svatbar (: svat).
This is clearly a less productive option for word-formative stylistics. All of the
examples except the last one are lexical rather than word-formative synonyms, i.e.
the pairs of synonyms do not have the same root (compare the examples dogajali{~e :
prizori{~e and zdruèk : skupek in 1.1.2A2 – for more about this, see Ohnheiser 1979:
15–17, 62, 111, 112, summarised in Logar 2003: 27–29).
***
The remaining groups of systemic new derivatives are less productive in relation
to the examples from the material. A few of them are listed here: derivatives which
are of another word-formative type in comparison with the synonym, e.g. oblastidrèc
(: oblastnik) = compound : ordinary derivative by suffixation; further modificational
derivatives by suffixation (e.g. spotni~ka, jugoslovanar); duplication of formants (e.g.
predpredogrevalni); derivatives from non-dictionary interjections (e.g. muuuuuuukica), etc. These examples are omitted because they are fewer in number. The discussion now moves on to the second group of new derivatives.
1.2 Stylistics of unpredictable transformational-generative word formation
What classifies the derivatives to be presented here outside the linguistic-systemic
word formation is the following: the base of these derivatives can be single- or multiword; it can be a set phrase; the grammatical relationship between the words within
the base can be arbitrary. The base of this derivative is therefore not the syntactic base.
The elements of the base are then truncated, integrated or blended in an unpredictable
way, which makes it impossible to determine which part of the base was replaced by
a formant or, in the newly-formed word, where the boundaries of the formant are. In
unpredictable transformational-generative derivatives, there is no basic division into
two parts, i.e. word base : formant.
458
However, from the synchronic point of view, the words presented below are nevertheless derivatives or at least formations in the broader sense, as long as it is possible
to identify their base units, i.e. as long as they are perceived as »compound«.
How is it possible to form new words in an unpredictable linguistic-systematic
way?
On the one hand one can put two or more words together without changing them,
e.g. from ne vem kak{en we get nevemkak{en; such a derivative is called a juxtaposed
compound. Further, we can truncate6 one or more words arbitrarily into at least two
parts (e.g. ultrazvok we truncate at two points and get U- and Z-, which are later combined into UZ). The same can be done with two or more words: e.g. from olimpijske
igre we get OI, thus forming an acronym. If there is only one word in the base and we
truncate it either from the end towards the beginning, from the beginning towards the
end or from the beginning and the end simultaneously, so that we get one truncation
that is both spoken and written,7 that is called clipping (e.g. from the name Elizabeta
we get names like Beta, Ela and Iza). On the other side is an unlimited set of further
possibilities, of which only a few will be recorded and described here, i.e. the ones
found in the material. One possibility is that there are at least two words in the base
that overlap at some point, forming a blend (see below for examples). Other derivatives discussed in the continuation of the article are: word-phrase alternations; derivatives with an internal part of the word omitted; words with the inserted hyphen
and other punctuation marks (both explicitly linked to writing only); derivatives
like 5ek (’petek’), which are formed from symbols from different systems and limited to the written channel (this group is already on the extreme edge of word formation). As already mentioned, this is an open set, still awaiting further investigation.
1.2.1 Juxtaposed compounds
Juxtaposition in Slovenian is a less productive but nevertheless simple and effective way of forming stylistically marked words. This is an old type of word formation, with Miklo{i~ being the first Slovenian linguist to define it, and it has not been
ignored by any of the more important researchers of Slovenian word formation. In
the Slovenian lexical system, juxtaposed compounds are, as a word-formation type,
predictable, but practically unpredictable in terms of the (trans)formation itself. Their
formative predictability lies merely in the fact that they are always made up of successive constituents of speech (parole), but cannot, as a word-formation type, be defined
by the number of base words, their word type and interactive relations. As already
stated, in juxtaposed compounds the concept of a syntactic base is not relevant (see
6
Truncation is a simultaneous omission of grammatical attributes and other morphemes of the base
word(s) – the extent and number of these morphemes are arbitrary; the part of the word that remains is a
clip.
7
As far as truncation is concerned, the same method yields (formed) symbols, which are in fact only
written abbreviations. For more on word-formative distinction between abbreviations and symbols, see
Logar 2003: 154–156.
459
Vidovi~ Muha 1988: 12, 32), as we cannot determine what formant belongs to the
base and what is the formant of the juxtaposed compound itself. From the transformational-generative aspect, juxtaposed compounds are therefore unpredictable. What
makes the juxtaposed compound one word in the written channel (this paper contains
only juxtaposed compounds from written sources), is its deliberately unbroken notation, i.e. the intentional continuity of its letters. For more on the morpheme structure
of juxtaposed compounds, see Logar 2005.
Only some of the juxtaposed compounds will be listed here; these can be characterised as individual (former’s aspect), textual (systemicity aspect), occasional (manifestation aspect) or written juxtaposed compounds (channel aspect).
Almost all compounds in the material were of these types. Juxtaposed compounds
from proper names include: Igra~e-smo-mi (a translation of Toys ’r’ us, an American
toy store chain) and Dromeva (the name of a planet in Iksia).8 The material contained many more juxtaposed compounds of common names (35); most of them were
taken from Joker (e.g. vedno-na-pomo~-pripravljen-Ameri~an, babanaga, laserplazmahudiplamen, dva-jurjevo-plus-eden, hodi-mo`, poberi-in-uporabi, za-nekatereidealisti~en, vunmetati se, takenako).
Juxtaposed compounds are stylistically immediately noticeable at the time of their
formation because of the way they are formed (there might be other reasons as well).
The visibility can fade over time with the loss of authorship or even multi-authorship
and more extensive use of these formations.
1.2.2 Acronyms
In the latest Slovenski pravopis from 2001 (hereafter: SP ’01), an acronym is defined as »a noun made up of the initial parts of a multi-word designation« (SP ’01:
200), e.g. BiH < Bosna in Hercegovina, DDV < davek na dodano vrednost, TV <
televizija.
In the Slovenian language, acronyms began to appear more widely in all types
of texts, and above all in specialised texts, from the 1950s. Since that time they have
also been subjected to linguistic analysis. They are considered one of the sub-types
of word shortening. They are part of unpredictable transformational-generative word
formation and are formed by combining unpredictable clips; however, the base of
the acronym can be a single word, a set phrase, a clausal phrase, etc. Base words are
truncated to various extents, i.e. to one or more phonemes or letters and sometime
coincidentally to one or more morpheme boundaries. However, abbreviated clips cannot be equated with morphemes, i.e. it is not possible to determine the formant or the
word base of acronyms.
As expected according to the findings by Rode (1974) and Gloàn~ev (2000),
the vast majority of acronyms in the material, regardless of the source, were made of
initials, i.e. all auto-semantic base words were truncated to the initial letter/phoneme,
8
The first inhabitants named the planet Drom and the others Eva. After making friends, they named
the planet Dromeva.
460
e.g. CD < Cankarjev dom, RK < raztopljeni kisik, UHF < Ultra High Frequency.
Next by frequency (although far behind) are acronyms made up of a combination of
initial clips and word-formative morphemes truncated to the first letters, i.e. both parts
of the word base of the base compounds (not necessarily the compound in the last
formation stage), e.g. ZRC < Znanstvenoraziskovalni center, BAS < bakterijsko-akumulatorski sistem, ELISA < Enzyme-linked Imunosobent Assay; or a prefix and a word
base of an ordinary derivative by prefixation (not necessarily in the last formation
stage), e.g. MF < medfrekven~ni, PP < perpleksnost, ADH < antidiureti~ni hormon.
These word-formative morphemes are not surprising, since both the word base and
the prefix of these ordinary noun derivatives by prefixation are morphemes that originate in auto-semantic words. Because both patterns have been confirmed as dominant
on approximately the same, sufficiently extensive, samples of acronyms with both
Slovenian and English bases, it would be possible to say that acronym formation is a
universal linguistic phenomenon, not just as a formation method but also in terms of
its most frequent patterns.
1.2.3 Clippings
Koro{ec defines clippings (1993: 20), after Topori{i~ (1992: 162), as words formed
by truncation, e.g. izem < modernizem/realizem, etc., Kora < Kornelija. As is obvious
from the two examples above, of all the derivatives presented in this article, clippings
are the most difficult to identify as derivatives. Clippings may have no association
with the base word at all, and in that case, from a synchronic point of view, they can
no longer be classed as derivatives.
In clippings, as in acronyms, it is impossible to determine the formant, since truncation is (as shown above) an unpredictable linguistic phenomenon in terms of its scope
and its outcome (a clip) is not a morpheme; a clip can only occasionally be the same as
the morpheme of the base word (as in our previous example izem, which is originally a
formant). The fact remains that clips themselves are not morphemes, which means that
it is impossible to define the word base and the formant in clippings as well.
A more precise definition of clippings is given by Koro{ec (1993: 20, 27) as follows: they are at least three-letter shortenings in speech/writing formed from a oneword base, with back or front truncation. For the names of companies (e.g. Fructa
< Fructal, Investa < investicija, Sibir < Sibirija), Gloàn~ev (2000: 77–78, 87) has
found that all examples truncate the back part of the word, which is logical for proper
names. The carrier of lexical meaning (word base or stem) is preserved, while the
formants and grammatical morphemes are omitted; this otherwise rare method of formation is primarily used in borrowed words. The author also believes that »such derivatives are taken as somewhat jargon-like, colloquial or at least expressive« (77). For
the English language as well, Bauer (1993: 233–234) establishes that shortening in
clippings is unpredictable and that the initial part of the base word is most frequently
preserved (e.g. deli < delicatessen). There are two other, much more rare patterns: the
last part of the word is preserved (e.g. loid < celluloid) or the middle part of the word
is preserved (e.g. shrink < head-shrinker).
461
In the material, three clippings were new according to the SSKJ: mobi < mobile
(ʻmobile phone’); evro/euro < Europe (ʻmoney unit’); and demo < demonstration
(ʻdemonstration’, ʻdemonstration recording’). All three examples have already been
borrowed as clippings and therefore did not originate in Slovenian. Clippings are frequent particularly among personal proper names, e.g. Mateja > Teja, Ur{ula > Ula,
Ur{a, Albert > Bert, Janez > Jan.
1.2.4 Blends
Blends are derivatives from two or more words, with the base words that are expressively the same in some parts, and those parts then overlap.
Some examples:9 Mladinamit < Mladina + dinamit, japanimacija < Japan + animacija, sekskluzivni < seks + ekskluzivni, Opoldnevnik < opoldne + dnevnik, Problemarket < problem + market, nogomanija < nogomet + manija, problemat < problem +
avtomat, smu~arajanje < smu~ar + rajanje, testisirati < testirati + testis, genenjava <
gen + zelenjava, {printernet < {printer + internet,10 Megazin < mega magazin, wamposukcija < vamposukcija + wap, izwampiti < izvampiti + wap, RAP{eren < Pre{eren +
rap [rêp], »Arafatistan« < Afganistan + Arafat, O.K.olje < OK + okolje + olje ’okolju
prijazno olje’.
From these examples it is obvious that the overlapping part is arbitrary.
Bauer (1993: 234–237) defines a blend as a new word formed from parts of two
or more other words, so that a clear division into morphemes is not possible, e.g. ballute < balloon + parachute, chunnel < channel + tunnel, dawk < dove + hawk. As
also evident from the examples, the most common pattern is the formation from the
first part of the first word and the last part of the second word (only this type is found
in Racek Kleinedler and Spears 1993). However, it is always up to the former of the
blend how large the parts included in the new derivative will be, as long as it can be
pronounced and semantically recognisable. It seems that such derivatives are logical
and stylistically effective only if the base words within them are identifiable and each
of them still appears with its (primary) meaning in the new word. Blends in Slovenian
have one accent only; higher-degree derivatives can also be formed from them, e.g.
japanimacijski, testisiran, stestisirati.
1.2.5 Word-phrase alternations
With word-phrase alternations, part of the first word is transferred into the second
word and part of the second word is transferred into the first word. The length of these
parts and which parts are transferred, varies from example to example; however, the
9
Some examples of blends were also found by chance in the advertising material of the Collegium
travel agency, November 2004; Delo Saturday supplement, 13 November 2004: 20; advertising campaigns
of the Horizont company from Maribor, August–November 2004; and the Siol company, August–November 2004.
10
In advertising for fast Internet connection that began during the Olympic Games.
462
length is likely to be syllable-bound, i.e., in the new word, the transferred parts should
not produce a sound cluster that is hard to pronounce on the boundary between parts.
The described word-phrase changes are probably more frequent with collocations, as
recognisability and comprehension are easier or faster. Only one example was found
in the material: grak in zvofika < zvok and grafika (»Grak in zvofika sta vrhunska«).
Again, the division into morphemes is not possible, i.e. arbitrary parts are transferred
(or overlapping).
1.2.6 Omission of an internal part of a word
The truncation of certain non-initial and non-final parts of words is also unpredictable, as evident from the example h’woodski (»nam poda h’woodsko kritiko Hollywooda«). The truncated part is -olly- and therefore almost the whole auto-semantic
morpheme holly-, which is paronym of the adjective holy ’sacred’, which was probably the reason for its omission. It seems that for this type, the compounds (or higherdegree derivatives) with one part of their word base omitted could be most relevant.
These omissions seem worthwhile if they lead to a semantic shift between the new and
the old word and, at the same time, they highlight the omitted part. Such formations
are only comprehensible in the narrowest textual context.
1.2.7 Insertion of a punctuation mask into a word
A Insertion of a hypen into a word
Examples: pred-sodek, ne-potrebnost, po-ziv, od-ziv, lju-biti (»~ ali ne ~, to je tu
vpra{anje«), na-klada (»Joker zategadelj povi{a na-klado«), Ne-da, Seve-da (»Nekdo
ima punco Ne-da. Upa, da bo prihodnji ime Seve-da.«).
In all these examples, the hyphen was inserted on the word-formative border. In
the first three examples, the insertion of the hyphen emphasises certain semantic nuances. The hyphen separates and therefore highlights the word-formative morpheme,
or, more precisely, both word-formative morphemes, which have an auto-semantic
word in the base (prefix of ordinary derivatives by prefixation, word base), are highlighted. In the case of lju-biti, there is a modification of Hamlet’s famous expression.
The »derivatives« Ne-da and Seve-da play on the homonymy of their end part with
the third person singular form of the verb dati (therefore da). In fact, by inserting the
hyphen into the examples above, no new derivatives were created, only the old ones
were exposed as derivatives. Following the model from phraseology, this could be
considered a renovation of derivative. The insertion of a hyphen did not change the
morpheme structure of the »base« derivative.
B Insertion of other punctuation marks into a word
The following derivatives in our material contain a punctuation mark within the
word: Si.mobil, S!mobil, Si.mobilov and BU!janje. SP ’01 does not recognise this use
463
of punctuation marks, but the following comment can be made: in the case of Si.mobil,
the full-stop visually exposes the first part of the word and therefore points to its original meaning (partly therefore similar to the hyphen above), Si is the international Internet domain for Slovenia and the exclamation mark in S!mobil preserves the meaning
of the exclamation mark (an appeal) and is at the same time also visually similar to the
letter -i- turned upside down. BU!janje is a derivative from the interjection bu, or more
precisely, from the new first-grade formation (verb) bujati; the exclamation mark in
the derivative, together with the capital letters of the base interjection, apparently preserves its syntactical role and exposes the interjectional part of the word in a way that
probably determines a louder, more expressive pronunciation (or at least presents the
notion of such pronunciation). Additionally, the punctuation mark in the morpheme
division of such »derivatives« plays no role; the morpheme structure is therefore the
same as it would be without the intermediate full stop, exclamation mark, etc.
1.2.8 Combination of various writing symbols
To establish one of the possible influences mobile telephony has on language,
it was decided to review the set of abbreviations for text messages accessible from
www.pinkponk.com/smskratice.asp. On 7 September 2001 the Mobitel d.d. company,
clearly encouraged by similar examples from abroad, invited their younger users to
submit »imaginative abbreviations« to the website and be involved in creating the
»new text-messaging language«.
Among the more than 450 examples of SMS abbreviations11 that had been submitted to the site by 11 January 2002, more than 60 % were some type of abbreviation,
while the rest of the material (160 examples) was made of, for example, the following:
:-) ʻzadovoljen’,12 :) ʻveselje’, :(... ʻjo~em’, :x ʻpoljub~ek’, :D ʻ{irok nasme{ek’, mi2
ʻmidva’, ju3 ʻjutri’, 2ma~ ʻpreve~’, sk8ar ʻskejtar’, 8-) ʻNosim o~ala’, <>< ʻribica’, {*}
ʻobjem~ek, poljub~ek’, *+* ʻvidim te’, @x@ ʻma{ ma~ka?’, @->-- ʻvrtnica’, \_/0 ʻA
gre{ na kavo?’, =:x ʻzaj~ek’.
The formation of these naming-communicative units is in their composition of
symbols from different symbol systems; it has already been noted that these »derivatives« are connected with written channels only. The individual structural parts of
these units, and therefore individual symbols (which are by no means morphemes),
cannot appear in the »derivative« with their meaning but merely with their expression,
i.e. written expression (appearance), creating an icon or partial icon (e.g. :) or kr@
ʻkrof’) or spoken expression (e.g. ju3). An even more significant fact is that we have
examples such as @->-- (ʻvrtnica’, see above), which are no longer words, and therefore, according to Peirce’s division, can no longer be classified as symbols (which is
what human language is), but as icons or pictures.
11
Many are not linked exclusively to text messages, but are also part of the so-called Internet texts, the
most typical being e-mail, and texts written in Internet chatrooms. Moreover, several of the iconic abbreviations listed are international.
12
The meaning of these abbreviations is quoted in single quotation marks, with only s, c, z changed to
{, ~, `, where this was obvious.
464
2 Conclusion
The article surveyed a set of stylistically interesting derivatives and attempted to
present them typologically. However, it should be pointed out that this typology was
limited by the size of the sample and that the other aspect of the formation of new
terms has been ignored completely, i.e. those terms that fill the terminological gap and
are, as such, necessary for the overall functioning of language, but they lack authorship (or their authorship is quickly forgotten), in order for them to become accepted in
general use as rapidly as possible, even though they were also neologisms when they
first appeared. Only the most productive groups of new or newer stylistically marked
derivatives have been discussed here, i.e. derivatives which only secondarily and differently name something that has already been named. All the examples discussed in
this article might potentially take their place in a general dictionary. We can with certainty conclude the following: whether the former of the word or expression proceeds
from already set and systemic word-formative processes and defining attributes of a
derivative, or forms a new word in an entirely unexpected and systemically elusive
way, there are a great many possibilities for linguistic innovation in (Slovenian) word
formation.
V angle{~ino prevedel
Joel Smith.
SOURCES
Delo XLII/253 (2. 11. 2001), 256 (5. 11. 2001), 257 (6. 11. 2001), 258 (7. 11. 2001), 260 (9.
11. 2001).
Elektrotehni{ki vestnik 34/1–12 (brez 3–4–5) (1967), 67/1–5 (2000).
International Country Codes, 15. 10. 2002, http://www.iol.ie/taeger/tables/tab9.htm.
Joker 10/100, 101 (november, december 2001).
Janez KEBER, 32001: Leksikon imen: Izvor imen na Slovenskem. Celje: Mohorjeva dru`ba.
Korpus slovenskega jezika Fida, www.fida.net.
Medicinski razgledi 6/1–4 (1967), 39/1–4 (2000).
Mladina 44 (5. 11. 2001), 45 (12. 11. 2001), 46 (19. 11. 2001), 47 (26. 11. 2001), 48 (3. 12.
2001), 49 (10. 12. 2001), 50 (17. 12. 2002), 51/52 (24. 12. 2001).
Mobinet 30 (november 2001).
Miha REMEC, 2001: Iksia ali slovo od ìvostrojnega ~loveka. Maribor: Obzorja.
Slavisti~na revija 15/1–4 (1967), 48/1–4 (2000).
SMS – Slovar~ek mini sloven{~ine, 11. 1. 2002, http://www.pinkponk.com/smskratice.asp.
REFERENCES
Laurie BAUER, 1993: English Word-formation. Cambridge: University Press.
Enciklopedija Slovenije, 1987–. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
Josef FILIPEC, 1961: êská synonyma z hlediska stylistiky a leksikologie. Praha: Nakladatelství
êskoslovenské akademie vmd.
Alenka GLOÀN~EV, 2000: Imena podjetij kot jezikovnokulturno vpra{anje. Ljubljana: Rokus.
465
Tomo KORO{EC, 1993: O kraj{avah. XXIX. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture.
Ljubljana: Center za sloven{~ino kot tuji ali drugi jezik pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in
knjièvnosti Filozofske fakultete. 15–27.
– – 1998: Stilistika slovenskega poro~evalstva. Ljubljana: Kme~ki glas.
Nata{a LOGAR, 2003: Besedotvorna stilistika: Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
– – 2004: Filter vre~ka ali filtervre~ka, foto posnetek ali fotoposnetek, ISDN paket ali ISDNpaket? Knji`no in nare~no besedoslovje slovenskega jezika. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo.
222–239.
– – 2005: Besedotvorni sklopi. Slavisti~na revija 53/2 (2005). 171–192.
Ingeborg OHNHEISER, 1979: Wortbildung und Synonymie. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopdie.
Steven RACEK KLEINEDLER, Richard A. SPEARS, 1993: NTC’s Dictionary of Acronyms and
Abbreviations. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company. Uvod.
Matej RODE, 1974: Poskus klasifikacije kraj{av. Slavisti~na revija 22/2. 213–219.
Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika I–V, 1970–1991. Ljubljana: SAZU in DZS.
Slovenski pravopis, 2001. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1973: Stilna vrednost glasovnih, prozodijskih, (pravo)pisnih, morfemskih in
naglasnih variant slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Slavisti~na revija 21/2. 217–263.
– – 1974: Stilna vrednost oblikoslovnih kategorij slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Slavisti~na revija 22/3. 245–262.
– – 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zalo`ba.
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA, 1972: Kategorizacija in stilna opredelitev ozko knji`ne leksike. VIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 35–52.
– – 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloènk. Ljubljana: Znanstveni
in{titut Filozofske fakultete.
– – 1991: Nekaj temeljnih prvin za »besedotvorno {olanje«. Slavisti~na revija 39/3. 317–326.
– – 2000: Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje: Govorica slovarja. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut
Filozofske fakultete.
POVZETEK
Podro~je leksike je izjemno spremenljivo in dinami~no. V okvir jezikovnosistemske stilistike, katere temeljni nosilci so morfemi (Vidovi~ Muha 2000: 159), sodi seveda tudi besedotvorna stilistika, pri kateri smo izhajali iz dvojega: (a) iz zna~ilnosti definicijskih izraznih delov
tvorjenke, tj. besedotvorne podstave in obrazila, ter iz skladenjske podstave; na drugi strani (b)
pa smo v besedotvornostilisti~no obravnavo zajeli tudi vse vzorce tvorjenja besed, ki jih sistemsko ne moremo dolo~iti in ujeti. Prvo skupino smo opredelili kot tvorbeno-pretvorbeno predvidljive postopke tvorjenja besed, drugo skupino pa kot tvorbeno-pretvorbeno nepredvidljive
postopke tvorjenja besed. Obe skupini smo {e nadalje ~lenili in podskupine ponazorili s primeri,
vsekakor pa tako predvidljivi kot nepredvidljivi postopki tvorjenja besed v sloven{~ini ponujajo
veliko mo`nosti za besedno inovativnost.
466
Peter
Formant Frequencies of Vowels in Tonal and Non-Tonal ...
UDCJurgec,
811.163.6’342.41
467
Peter Jurgec
Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, Ljubljana
FORMANT FREQUENCIES OF VOWELS IN TONAL AND NON-TONAL
STANDARD SLOVENIAN
The article presents formant frequencies of Standard Slovenian (SS) vowels as spoken by
five tonal and five non-tonal speakers in citation form. The results and subsequent analysis of
variance indicate two types of differences between both groups. In the tonal SS, [+ ATR] mid
vowels have higher F1, and short [a] has considerably lower F1. Secondly, acute, circumflex,
and short vowels of all phonemes are more dispersed in the tonal SS, the differences being statistically significant in most cases. This is a by-product of fundamental frequency and intensity
distinctions in the two tones, and of duration/centralization effects in quantity contrast. These
phenomena do not occur in the non-tonal SS.
V članku so predstavljene formantne frekvence samoglasnikov standardne slovenščine,
kot jih govori pet tonemskih in pet netonemskih govorcev v izoliranih besedah. Rezultati in
statistična analiza kažejo na dve vrsti razlik med obema skupinama: (1) pri tonemskih govorcih
imata srednja visoka samoglasnika višji F1, kratki [a] pa precej nižjega (je centraliziran). (2) Pri
tonemskih govorcih se akutirani, cirkumflektirani in kratki samoglasniki posameznega fonema
v večini primerov statistično različni. V akustičnem smislu je to predvsem posledica razlik v
osnovni frekvenci in jakosti, deloma pa tudi trajanja oz. fonetične redukcije. Tega v netonemski
standardni slovenščini ni.
Key words: acoustic phonetics, formant frequencies, suprasegmentals, tone, Slovenian
Ključne besede: akustična fonetika, formanti, formantne frekvence, nadsegmentne lastnosti, ton, tonem, slovenščina
1 Introduction1
Phonetic studies of lexical tones in pitch-accented languages usually include
acoustic analyses of fundamental frequency, intensity (or amplitude), duration, and
phonation types. Spectral characteristics, most prominently formant frequencies, are
considered non-significant or only marginally affected, and thus left aside, when tone
is in question. On the other hand, formant frequencies, formant bandwidths, and spectral balance are the primary indicators of vowel quality (e.g., correspondence between
openness and F1), and also prone to phonological and phonetic influence of stress (cf.
Sluijter and Van Heuven 1996). The dependence of formant frequencies on vowel
duration, phonetic reduction, or undershoot effect, speaking rate and style (e.g., Lind1
The author wishes to thank Vesna Mildner, Mateja Blas and the speakers for their valuable contributions to this work. Any remaining errors are the author’s. Earlier versions of the article (or parts thereof)
have been presented at Between Stress and Tone Conference in Leiden (June 16–18, 2005) and the International Conference of Language Variation in Europe in Amsterdam (June 23–25, 2005). The ZRCola
font, used in this text, was developed by Peter Weiss at The Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian
Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana (http://www.zrc-sazu.si).
468
blom 1963, Gay 1978, Tuller idr. 1982, Miller 1989, Engestrand 1988, Bakran 1989,
Fourakis 1991, Van Son and Pols 1992, Moon and Lindblom 1994, Fourakis idr. 1999,
Pitermann 2000, Erickson 2002, and Jurgec 2005c, for Slovenian), speaker’s gender and fundamental frequency (Murry and Singh 1980, Assmann and Nearey 1987,
Childers and Wu 1991, Wu and Childers 1991, Simpson 2001, and Jurgec 2005b)
have been researched extensively. Moreover, studies of formant frequencies in pitchaccented languages usually represent each prosodic combination individually, cf.,
vowel charts of Croatian in Bakran 1989, or Lehiste and Ivić 1963: 84.
In the present study however, the interaction between tonal features (i.e., phonological features primarily encoded as fundamental frequency oscillations) and formant frequencies is addressed. The hypothesis is that in tonal languages, formant frequencies can be affected by tonal differences to a certain degree. This can be viewed
primarily as a by-product of fundamental frequency and intensity. In respect to tonal
features, Slovenian has two types of dialects, pitch-accented2 and stress-accented, and
is therefore very appropriate for this task. Furthermore, in contemporary Standard
Slovenian (SS) both tonal and non-tonal varieties are permitted.
In Slovenian,3 the majority of central dialects, i.e., those of the Upper and Lower
Carniola regions, are tonal. Additionally, Carinthian dialects in Austria and Italy are
tonal, as well as the Littoral dialects of Ter, Nadiža, and Upper Soča Valley. In Rovtarsko dialects, only Horjul and parts of Tolmin dialects are tonal. Tonal speech is
found in Bela Krajina as well. Other dialects (most of the Littoral dialects, all of
Styrian and Pannonian dialects, and Carinthian dialects in Slovenia) are non-tonal (cf.
Rigler 1968). Srebot Rejec (1988) disputed the tonal contrast in educated speech of
Ljubljana, believed to be the most important in contemporary standardization processes. She concludes: »The lexical (phonological) function of the two accents is on
the wane, while the phonetic characteristics, the sing-song effect, is retained.« (Srebot
Rejec 2000: 66.) Relatively recent tone loss has also been documented in Eastern
Haloze (Lundberg 2003). – Slovenian has two lexical tones, acute and circumflex.
For acoustic analyses of tones in Slovenian, see Vodušek 1961, Toporišič 1967, 1968,
Neweklowsky 1973, and Srebot Rejec 1988, 2000. Phonetically, the acute is realized
as a rising tone (or low on the stressed and high on the post-stressed/final syllable),
the circumflex as the opposite. Phonologically, both tones can occur only in traditionally (i.e., diachronically) long vowels, while short vowels are considered circumflex
(unmarked) in SS. In contrast to phonological limitations of better known pitch-accent
languages, like Swedish and Serbo-Croatian, the contrast is preserved also in words
with final stress (e.g., pot /ˈpoːt/ – acute ‘path’, circumflex ‘sweat’). A total of less than
100 morphologically non-related minimal pairs in tone exist (e.g., kila, kura, mula,
šibica, šalica), while morphologically related pairs are abundant.
In comparing the tonal and the non-tonal varieties of SS, other issues, such as inherent phonetic distinctions in vowel height, not limited to a certain prosodic feature,
2
In the present article, the term tonal (language) is used in reference to lexical tones, i.e., in this meaning of the pitch accent (as opposed to non-tonal). The term tonal is preferred to the term pitch-accented.
3
This paragraph and the corresponding references do not appear in the Slovenian version of the
article.
Peter Jurgec, Formant Frequencies of Vowels in Tonal and Non-Tonal ...
469
may arise. These are to be acknowledged as well, although these are not the main aim
of the study. The sole nature of the linguistic material used (see section 2 for further
details) renders it impossible to exclude such variables.
2 Method
The present study of SS vowels is based on the extensive corpus of 241 one-, two-,
and three-syllable words, compiled according to the suprasegmental criteria (stress,
tone, duration).4 The list was exported to PowerPoint program and randomized manually, so that each word appeared twice non-consecutively. Speakers were instructed to
read the words in citation form as they appear on the computer screen. 10 native speakers of Slovene were chosen, representative by sex (5 female and 5 male), tone contrast
(5 non-tonal in origin, and 4 tonal), and age (35 years on average). The geographical
criteria (i.e., the origin of the speakers) were in favour of central Slovenia. Recordings
took place in the studio of the Department of Phonetics in Zagreb (Croatia) in April
2004 and in the studios of Radio Slovenia in June 2004 (1 speaker only). Sampling
frequency was 44.1 kHz, at a 16-bit rate. F1–F4 of the total of 5,960 vowels were
measured using Praat LPC-analysis software (ver. 4.2–4.2.14) under default settings.
Typically, the individual formant steady state was measured, if possible. Alternatively,
the central point or averaged value of the transient formant was measured. Altogether,
21,220 readings (of stressed and unstressed vowel formants) were acknowledged, and
4.59 % of the readings were discarded. Data were averaged and analyzed statistically
(ANOVA) separately for both groups of speakers. – For a more detailed description of
the speakers, method, procedures and more general results see Jurgec 2005b.
3 Results
The measurements of formant frequencies were grouped into prosodic combinations (or accent types), i.e., acute, circumflex and short vowels,5 separately for both
tonal and non-tonal SS. For each, mean value, standard deviation (SD), sample size,
and confidence interval were calculated. One needs to note that sample size varies
considerably, which is a consequence of (1) phonological distribution or constraints,
(2) lexical realization, and (3) discharged cases due to nature of pronunciation. These
data are presented in Table 1–2 below. Here, F1–F4 values are presented, while in the
rest of the article only F1 and F2 are discussed.
Generally, several types of differences between the tonal and the non-tonal speakers can be observed. Mean values of individual phonemes differ substantially in highmid vowels /e/ and /o/, which have lower F1 in the tonal SS, while /ɛ/ has somewhat
higher F1. Short [a] is considerably centralized (i.e., has lower F1) for the tonal speakers, and this phenomenon is much higher than in other vowels. In /u/, the mean values
of F1 are only slightly lower for the tonal speakers.
4
The complete list of words can be obtained from the author.
For discussion on this matter and its implications to the traditional grammar (e.g. Toporišič 2000 and
the predecessors), see Jurgec 2005b: 128–131.
5
470
Table 1. Average values of formant frequencies (in Hz) of tonal speakers, according to phoneme, formant, and prosodic combination. Below the mean values, standard deviation, sample
size, and confidence interval (± of mean value, α = .05) are listed.
SD is similar in both varieties of SS, on average. Coefficient of SD is 11.22 % for
the non-tonal and 10.55 % for the tonal variety, although the individual SDs for several phonemes and prosodic combinations vary. This is further discussed in section 4.
On the other hand, comparison of prosodic combinations within their phonemic
domain reveals fundamental differences between the two varieties of SS. Acute, circumflex and for most phonemes also short vowels are clearly much more dispersed in
the tonal SS. This is clearly visible from Fig. 1, where the more dispersed accent types
of the tonal SS are depicted with empty symbols (as opposed to the full symbols of
the non-tonal variety). To evaluate the statistical significance of the differences among
prosodic combinations a single-factor ANOVA was performed for each of the combinations. In F1, there are no statistically significant (p < .05) differences between the
accent types, for all phonemes in the non-tonal variety of SS. In the tonal SS however,
accent types are statistically distinct for /e/ and /o/. For /a/ the difference between long
and short is highly significant (but no difference between acute and circumflex). The
distinctions in /ɛ/ and /ɛ/ are marginal, as there is statistical significance only between
471
Table 2. Average values of formant frequencies (in Hz) of non-tonal speakers, according to
phoneme, formant and prosodic combination. Below the mean values, standard deviation, sample size and confidence interval (± of mean value, α = .05) are listed.
most distinct prosodic combinations, i.e., acute and short (but not between acute and
circumflex, and circumflex and short).
In F2, statistical significance is attested for both accent types of /o/ in the tonal
SS. Acute and circumflex difference is significant also in [ɛ], [a], [u], circumflex vs.
short in [a], and acute vs. short in [ɛ] and [ɛ]. In [a], significance is only marginal. In
sum, the accent types of [a] and of both tense mid vowels [e], [o] differ significantly,
while in [ɛ] and [ɛ] this effect is only marginally significant. There is no statistical
significance only among the accent types of the high vowel [i] and central vowel [ə].
Detailed results of the analysis for both F1 and F2 are presented in Table 3.
472
Figure 1. F1×F2 vowel space of tonal and non-tonal varieties of SS.
Table 3. F1xF2 vowel space of tonal and non-tonal varieties of SS.
This is not the case in non-tonal SS, where no variability is attested in F1. In F2
however, a marginal statistical significance is found in [ɛ], [a] and [u] (see Table 4 for
further results). This fact is explained in Section 4.
4 Discussion and conclusion
Previous section revealed several differences between the groups of tonal and nontonal speakers, either related to purely acoustic phonetic factors of tone itself or not.
As regards the latter, one could say that in the tonal variety, low-mid and high-mid
vowels are less central. [e] and [o] are therefore more tense perceptually, or higher
articulatorily in the tonal SS than in the non-tonal, while [ɛ] is lower. The only exception is [ɛ], which exhibits no such tendency. Generally, in Slovenian spoken in central
473
Table 4. Single-factor ANOVA results for separate phonemes and prosodic combinations of the
tonal SS. The default Alpha factor is used (.05). Statistically significant values are underlined;
marginally significant p-values (0.035–0.055) are marked with a dashed line.
dialects, including Ljubljana, the feature [+ ATR] has greater effect on vowel quality, decreasing F1 of high-mid vowels. This is complemented by the increased F1 of
low-mid, but the effect is rather limited. The above-mentioned phonetic property is
consistent with experimental data from non-central Slovenian in Ozbič 1998ab for SS
as spoken in Trst (Trieste) and in Jurgec 2005a, for speech of Ovčja vas (Valbruna).
One should also take into account the gender of both groups of speakers: 3 females
and 2 males are tonal (the situation is reversed for the non-tonal speakers). Average
F0 of females is higher than that of males, and there is a positive correlation between
average F0 and formant frequencies. Therefore, the increased F2 of tonal speakers in
/ɛ/, /e/, and /i/ can be attributed to this, but no such effect should be present in F1.
Moreover, certain phonological variables influence formant frequencies of the
tonal variety. Quantity contrast in SS stressed vowels is at least questionable (Srebot Rejec 1988, Petek et al. 1996), if not already completely neutralized, at least
for speakers of Ljubljana, as well as for most speakers in southwest and northeast
Slovenia. On the other hand, these oppositions are still present on dialectal level and
474
Table 5. Single-factor ANOVA results for separate phonemes and prosodic combinations of the
non-tonal SS. The default Alpha factor is used (.05). Statistically significant values are underlined; marginally significant p-values (0.035–0.055) are marked with a dashed line.
in the sub-standard speech as qualitative changes, i.e., phonological reduction processes. Thus when speaking SS, speakers tend to avoid these processes, and since they
are unable to produce any quantity contrasts, diachronically short vowels merge with
unreduced long vowels (Rigler 1968). Present data confirm only marginally significant contrast between short and long vowels, limited to the tonal SS, namely to the
phonemes /ɛ/ and /ɛ/, in F1 and F2 (see Table 3–4). The only exception is /a/, where
phonologically short [a] is considerably centralized. The average F1 of short [a] is
67 Hz lower than the average F1 in long [a]. This is highly significant (p < 0.0001),
although the coefficient of SD is moderately increased (14.7 % in F1). This unique
phenomenon, not attested in other phonemes, can be corroborated by the data in Petek
et al. 1996, where /a/ was the only phoneme that exhibited (some) durational differences. This inconsistency has not been explored yet and has had no influence on
normative practice so far.
As regards the influence of phonological tone on formant frequencies, the results
prove a positive correspondence. To confirm the research hypothesis, one should first
475
prove that there are differences in formant frequencies of the tonal SS and that they
are statistically significant. Furthermore, that no such differences exist in the nontonal SS, and that this situation cannot be explained otherwise, for example as a consequence of other phonetic features.
Suprasegmental (phonological) variables are statistically significant in majority
of phonemes in the tonal SS (Fig. 1). Upon further inspection (ANOVA, cf. Table
3–4), only /i/ and /ə/ exhibit no significant differences between the accent types. /ə/
is a phonetically neutral vowel and attested differences should not be contraindicative to the research hypothesis. On the other hand, the same situation in /i/ cannot be
explained in terms of general phonetics. However, other data from Slovenian and its
formant frequencies (Jurgec 2005bc), posit an interesting property of Slovenian /i/,
being the least subjected to influences of stress and word-position. In contrast, another
high vowel, /u/, is subjected to much greater degree of variance, while the influence
of tone is only marginal.
In the non-tonal SS, individual accent types of each phoneme are clearly less dispersed. This is evident from Fig. 1 (e.g., phonemes /e/, /o/, /ɛ/, and /a/), and corroborated by statistical analyses in Tables 3–4. In F1, no prosodic differences are statistically significant. In F2 however, there are a few exceptions: acute [ɛ] is distinctive
of circumflex and short, as it is circumflex [a]. There is also statistical significance in
acute or circumflex [u].
Dispersion in [ɛ] could be attributed to the problematic distribution of both front
mid vowels, which are morphonologically connected, and the distribution in SS differs greatly from the contemporary dialectal and sub-standard realization. When unstressed, both phonemes are neutralized and merged into a single archiphoneme (Lehiste 1961, Srebot Rejec 1988, 1998), which is realized as [e] in the pre-stressed and
as [ɛ] in the post-stressed position (see Jurgec 2006 for further data and discussion).
This is corroborated by the increased coefficient of SD, which is exhibited in both
front mid vowels of the non-tonal SS; in F1 of [ɛ] the coeff. is 20.1 %, almost twice
the average, in [e] it is 15.3 % (F2 of both vowels is too close to influence SD). Although erroneous cases of pronunciation were discharged (see the drop in sample size
of both phonemes in Table 2), a partial overlap in formant frequencies is a possible
and also probable explanation. The increase is also noticeable in back mid vowels (yet
lower than in front vowels) and in [ɛ] of the tonal SS (but not in front vowels and [e])
and exhibits a general phonological tendency of contemporary Slovenian. To sum up,
the data of the non-tonal [ɛ] should be regarded highly inconclusive.
The increased coefficient of SD is observed in [u] as well, both tonal and nontonal (on average, well above 15 % in F2). The fact that circumflex [u] is statistically
distinct from the acute and short is also surprising. In most vowels, circumflex is
more similar to short than the acute, which is in accordance with the traditional theory
that considers phonologically short vowels circumflex in tone. As the significance is
similar in both varieties of SS, one can say that the analysis is dubious: [u] must also
be influenced by other variables. For example, the difference between word-final and
initial vs. medial position of the two high vowels, documented in certain sources (e.g.,
Toporišič 2000: 50). The present analysis, based on linguistic material of the existing
476
and generally known words in Slovene, cannot answer this problem satisfactorily.
This will be done in the future work.
The phoneme /a/ has a moderately increased coefficient of SD as well, under acute
tone more than under circumflex and as short. One reason for this could be a considerable backness of the low vowel in Styrian and Pannonian dialects, where three of our
speakers originate.6 If this is true, only the acute is being influenced and is statistically significantly differs from circumflex and short [a]. This cannot be caused by the
phonetic factors per se, but by dialectal phonetic influences and should therefore be
disregarded.
All things considered, vowel formant frequencies of the tonal SS are affected by
phonological tone. The differences may not be large (as opposed to influence of consonantal environment, stress, and certain extralinguistic factors), but they are still
significant, and, as a rule, not present in the non-tonal speech. Whether this is directly
related to the distinctions in fundamental frequency or intensity attested in Slovene
acute vs. circumflex tone, remains unknown. However, F0 and formant frequencies
show a positive correlation (via stress, gender or speaking style), and the correspondence grows exponentially, higher formants exhibiting much larger increase than the
lower ones if F0 rises. Intensity (via duration, stress or speaking style) also corresponds to formant frequencies, i.e., vowels with greater intensity have higher formant
frequencies (either via duration, stress, or speaking style), all other things being equal.
– The design of the present experiment itself renders it impossible to account for all
acoustic and articulatory factors and to determine their extent. It proves, however, that
such differences occur.
REFERENCES
Peter F. ASSMANN and Terrance M. NEAREY, 1987: Perception of front vowels: The role of
harmonics in the first formant region. The journal of the Acoustical society of America
LXXXI/2. 520–534.
Juraj BAKRAN, 1989: Djelovanje naglasaka i dužine na frekvencije formanata vokala. Govor
VI/2. 1–12.
D. G. CHILDERS and Ke WU, 1991: Gender recognition from speech. Part II: Fine analysis. The
journal of theAacoustical society of America XC/4. 1841–1856.
Olle ENGESTRAND, 1988: Articulatory correlates of stress and speaking rate in Swedish VCV utterances. The journal of the Acoustical society of America LXXXIII/5. 1863–1875.
Donna ERICKSON, 2002: Articulation of extreme formant patterns for emphasized vowels. Phonetica IL/2–3. 134–149.
Marios FOURAKIS, 1991: Tempo, stress, and vowel reduction in American English. The journal
of the Acoustical society of America XC/4,1. 1816–1827.
Marios FOURAKIS, Antonis BOTINIS in Maria KATSAITI, 1999: Acoustic characteristics of Greek
vowels. Phonetica LVI/1–2. 28–43.
Thomas GAY, 1978: Effect of speaking rate on vowel formant movements. The journal of the
Acoustical society of America LXIII/1. 223–230.
6
There were no cases of non-standard rounded back vowel [ɒ], which differs from SS low vowel considerably, and would subsequently be excluded from further analysis.
477
Peter JURGEC, 2005a: Fonetični opis govora Ovčje vasi. Ovčja vas in njena slovenska govorica
/ Valbruna e la sua parlata slovena. Kanalska dolina: Slovensko kulturno središče Planika,
ZRC SAZU. 60–84.
– – 2005b: Formant frequencies of standard Slovenian vowels. Govor XXII/2. 127–144.
– – 2005c: Položaj v besedi in formantne frekvence samoglasnikov (standardne slovenščine), I.
Naglašeni samoglasniki. Jezikoslovni zapiski XI: 1. 121–132.
– – 2006: O nenaglašenih /e/ in /o/ v standardni slovenščini. Slavistična revija LIV/2. 173–185.
Ilse LEHISTE, 1961: The phonemes of Slovene. International journal of Slavic linguistics and
poetics IV. 48–66.
Ilse LEHISTE and Pavle IVIĆ, 1963: Accent in Serbo-Croatian: An experimental study. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan (Michigan Slavic Materials 4).
Björn LINDBLOM, 1963: Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. The journal of the Acoustical
society of America XXXV/11. 1773–1781.
Grant H. LUNDBERG, 2003: Typology of tone loss in Haloze, Slovenia: An acoustic and autosegmental analysis. Slovenski jezik / Slovene linguistic studies III. 169–189.
James D. MILLER, 1989: Auditory-perceptual interpretation of the vowel. The journal of the
Acoustical society of America LXXXV/5. 2114–2134.
Seung-Jae MOON and Björn LINDBLOM, 1994: Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels. The journal of the Acoustical society of America
XCVI/1. 40–55.
Thomas MURRY and Sadanand SINGH, 1980: Multidimensional analysis of male and female
voices. The journal of the Acoustical society of America LXVIII/5. 1294–1300.
Gerhard NEWEKLOWSKY, 1973: Slowenische Akzentstudien [...]. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Martina OZBIČ, 1998a: Akustična spektralna FFT-analiza samoglasniškega sistema slovenskega jezika: formanti slovenskih samoglasnikov. Jezikovne tehnologije za slovenski jezik:
Zbornik konference. 55–59. Http://nl.ijs.si/isjt98/zbornik/sdjt98-Ozbic.pdf.
– – 1998b: Razmerja med formanti samoglasnikov matične in tržaške slovenščine. Uporabno
jezikoslovje VI: Jezikovne tehnologije. 124–135.
Bojan PETEK, Rastislav ŠUŠTARŠIČ and Smiljana KOMAR, 1996: An acoustic analysis of contemporary vowels of the Standard Slovenian language. Proceedings ICSLP 96: Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, October 3–6, 1996, Philadelphia, PA,
USA. 133–136. Http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol1/820/a820.pdf.
Michel PITERMANN, 2000: Effect of speaking rate and contrastive stress on formant dynamics and
vowel perception. The journal of The acoustical society of America CVII/6. 3425–3437.
Jakob RIGLER, 1968: Problematika naglaševanja v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. Jezik in slovstvo
XIII/6. 192–199.
Adrian P. SIMPSON, 2001: Dynamic consequences of differences in male and female vocal tract
dimensions. The journal of the Acoustical society of America CIX/5.1. 2153–2164.
Agaath M. C. SLUIJTER and Vincent J. VAN HEUVEN, 1996: Spectral balance as a acoustic correlate
of linguistic stress. The journal of the Acoustical society of America C/4.1. 2471–2485.
Tatjana SREBOT REJEC, 1988: Word accent and vowel duration in Standard Slovene: An acoustic
and linguistic investigation. Munich: Otto Sagner (Slavistische Beiträge, 226).
– – 1998: O slovenskih samoglasniških sestavih zadnjih 45 let. Slavistična revija XLVI/4:
339–346.
– – 2000: Ali je današnja knjižna slovenščina še tonematična? Razprave II. razreda SAZU
XVII. 51–66.
Jože TOPORIŠIČ, 1967: Pojmovanje tonemičnosti slovenskega jezika. Slavistična revija XV/1–2.
64–108.
478
– – 1968: Liki slovenskih tonemov. Slavistična revija XVI. 315–393.
– – 2000: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.
Betty TULLER, Katharine S. HARRIS and J. A. Scott KELSO, 1982: Stress and rate: Differential
transformations of articulation. The journal of the Acoustical society of America LXXI/6.
1534–1543.
R. J. J. H. VAN SON and Louis C. W. POLS, 1992: Formant movements of Dutch vowels in
text, read at normal and fast rate. The journal of the Acoustical society of America XCII/1.
121–127.
Božo VODUŠEK, 1961: Grudsätzliche Betrachtungen über den melodischen Verlauf der Wortakzente in den zentralen Slowenichen Mundarten, Linguistica IV. 20-38.
Ke WU and D. G. CHILDERS, 1991: Gender recognition from speech. Part I: Coarse analysis. The
journal of the Acoustical society of America XC/4. 1828–1840.
POVZETEK
Članek predstavlja formantne frekvence samoglasnikov tonemske in netonemske različice
standardne slovenščine (SS).
Upoštevajoč fonološko distribucijo in nadsegmentne lastnosti je bil sestavljen obsežen korpus eno-, dvo- in trizložnic. 241 besed je v naključnem vrstnem redu izolirano bralo deset
govorcev, enakomerno porazdeljenih po spolu, izvoru in tonemskosti. Pet jih je bilo tonemskih
(3 ženske in 2 moška govorca), pet netonemskih. Snemanje je bilo digitalno, pri standardnih pogojih, tj. frekvenci vzorčenja 44,1 kHz in 16-bitni kvantizaciji. F1–F4 skupno 5.960
samoglasnikov so bili izmerjeni z LPC-analizo v programu Praat, pri standardnih nastavitvah.
Izmerjene vrednosti so bile razvrščene v skupine in izračunana povprečja. Sledila je statistična
analiza, vključno z analizo variance (ANOVA). Za podrobnejše podatke gl. Jurgec 2005b.
Povprečne vrednosti (skupaj s standardnim odklonom, številom meritev in intervalom zaupanja) obeh različic SS so v prikazih 1 in 2 (Table 1 in 2). V prikazu 3 (Figure 3) je akustični
diagram F2/F1 za tonemske (prazni simboli) in netonemske (polni simboli) govorce. V prikazih
4 in 5 (Table 3 in 4) pa so rezultati analize variance (najprej za tonemske, potem za netonemske
govorce).
Rezultate lahko razdelimo v dve skupini, ki so bodisi (nad)narečni v fonetičnem in
fonološkem smislu ali strogo akustični. V prvi skupini so tako razlike v F1 [+ ATR] srednjih
samoglasnikov [e] in [o], ki je v tonemski slovenščini nižji, kratki [a] je pri tonemskih govorcih
občutno centraliziran, česar ni pri drugih samoglasnikih tonemskih ali netonemskih govorcev.
Razlike med akutiranimi, cirkumflektiranimi in kratkimi samoglasniki posameznega fonema so pričakovano večje v tonemski SS in povečini tudi statistično značilne v F1 in/ali F2. Ni
pa take razlike pri [ə] in [i]. Pri [u] so očitno pomembnejše druge segmentne spremenljivke, saj
se F1 in F2 obeh skupin tu bistveno ne razlikujejo. Sicer so v netonemski SS statistično značilne
razlike redke; tako lahko F2 pri [a] pojasnimo z narečnimi vplivi, pri [ɛ] pa je problematična
distribucija.
Razpršenost skupin akutiranih, cirkumflektiranih in kratkih samoglasnikov ter njihovih
formantnih frekvenc v tonemski SS lahko razložimo (tudi) kot posledico osnovne frekvence
in jakosti na eni ter jakosti in fonetične redukcije oz. učinka podhranjenosti (undershoot) na
drugi.
Karmen Kenda-Jež, Structuralism in Slovenian Dialectology
DIALECT TOPICS
479
UDC 811.163.6’282
Karmen Kenda-Je`
STRUCTURALISM IN SLOVENIAN DIALECTOLOGY1
This paper outlines the introduction and formalisation of forms of structural description in
Slovenian dialectology. Its main focus is on the concept of phonological description, which is
the current dominant model for the phonetic analysis of the accent of Slovenian micro-dialects.
^lanek je predstavitev uvedbe in formalizacije oblik strukturalnega opisa v slovenski
dialektologiji. Osrednja pozornost je namenjena vpra{anju zasnove fonolo{kega opisa, danes
prevladujo~ega modela glasovne raz~lembe slovenskih govorov.
Key words: structuralism, phonetics, phonology, phonological description, Slovenian dialectology
Klju~ne besede: strukturalizem, glasoslovje, fonolo{ki opis, slovenska dialektologija
0 Of all the new linguistic tendencies, only structuralism has, since the Second
World War, made a complete breakthrough into European dialectology; this is due
to its analytical nature (Coseriu 1992: 171–172). Generative dialectology was either
restricted to single excursions, particularly in the field of German and Serbian phonology (Niebaum – Macha 1999: 72; Ivi} 1998: 63–69), or virtually unknown, as
in Polish and Slovenian philology (Dunaj 1996: 26; Neweklowsky 1999: 24).2 The
first structural descriptions of single micro-dialects appeared in the 1930s (Niebaum
– Macha 1999: 66); these included Isa~enko’s 1939 description of the micro-dialect
of the village of Sele.3 However, structuralism only really took off in dialectology in
the 1950s and 60s, following Weinreich’s4 concept of the »diasystem« and Moulton’s5
1
This paper has been adapted from a chapter entitled ’Methodology of Slovenian Dialectological
Research in Relation to the Development of Modern Dialectology’ in Cerkljansko nare~je: Teoreti~ni model dialektolo{kega raziskovanja na zgledu besedi{~a in glasoslovja (’The Cerkno Dialect: A Theoretical
Model of Dialectological Research Using the Example of Lexis and Phonology’) (Ljubljana 2002), a thesis
written under the supervision of Tine Logar.
2
Because of this, generative dialectology procedures were not used in wide-ranging projects. See Ivi}’s
argument for the decision to opt for a structural survey of linguistic material in the Fonolo{ki opisi/Phonological Descriptions (FO 1981: 5–6): »The purpose of the book [...] is to present the facts in such a way as
to ensure that the work is used as widely as possible. It has therefore been necessary among other things
to discontinue the generative approach to the material, which would distance the book from the majority
of linguistic experts in Yugoslavia, where its usefulness in the future would depend on the fate of a certain
school of linguistic thinking.«
3
See Vidovi~ Muha 1996: 82. It appears that earlier examples of the use of the phonological method
in dialectology were closely linked to Trubeckoj’s influence (see Weijnen 1982: 190). I am leaving to one
side here the methodological aspects of L. Tesnière’s papers published in the inter-war period – M. Oroèn
(1994: 170) considers him to be one of the first synchronic structuralists – because he did not directly influence the subsequent development of Slovenian dialectology (Oroèn 1994: 172).
4
U. Weinreich: ‛Is a Structural Dialectology Possible?’, Word (New York) 10 (1954), pp. 388–400.
5
W. G. Moulton, ‛The Short Vowel Systems of Northern Switzerland: A Study in Structural Dialectology’, Word (New York) 16 (1960), pp. 155–182.
480
Dialect Topics
use of initial patterns (Chambers – Trudgill 1994: 39, 44; Niebaum – Macha 1999: 67)
as an (abstract) comparative link that allowed a (structural) comparison to be made
between individual (sub-)components of a diasystem – in the period, therefore, in
which this tendency had reached its peak and had come to an end (Milner 2003: 160)
as a »research programme«, so that one can therefore talk primarily of methods of use
of its research procedures and tools.
1 Structuralism in dialectology redirected attention away from extralinguistic to intralinguistic issues of spatial linguistic analysis, finally freeing up description (in phonetics in particular) as the goal of dialectological research. At the end of the 19th and
beginning of the 20th century, one of the main tasks of dialectology, along with that of
positivist historical linguistics (Coseriu 1992: 40–41), was, in addition to an overview
of the linguistic situation, the extra-linguistic explanation of linguistic facts, particularly
the detection of direct links between dialectal and geographical/historical boundaries.
Slovenian dialectology, as initially planned by Fran Ramov{ in the 1930s, also
followed this trend. Ramov{ was, by scientific inclination, primarily a linguistic historian – one who perceived, »in today’s living speech of the people« (Ramov{ 1924:
I), the »youngest« level of linguistic development, and in dialectology the geographical-linguistic development correlative of linguistic history. This meant that he was
more connected with the neo-grammarian pole of the Germanic linguistic area from
which he came (Oroèn 1994: 172, note 11) than with the linguistic geography pole.
In his dialectological works however, particularly the Dialektolo{ka karta slovenskega jezika/‛Dialectological Map of the Slovenian Language’ (Ramov{ 1931: 23) and
the Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika/‛Short History of the Slovenian Language’
(Ramov{ 1936), his use of a term such as promet/‛traffic’ (see Grober-Glück 1982:
98; Weijnen 1982: 199) – in the sense of »any type of natural or social connection
between a town or province and its surrounding area« (Ramov{ 1936: 98) – probably
also reflects the procedures of German linguistic geography and cultural morphology
(Grober-Glück 1982: 93) in the isogloss/areal phonetic maps and in the method of
cartographic presentation of settlement centres, »dialect [developmental] centres«,
directions of expansion, natural obstacles and barriers, the oldest church parishes and
historical transport links (Ramov{ 1931, 1936), alongside Tesnière’s cartographical
model and Bartoli’s areal linguistics.
Taking extra-linguistic factors into account was, according to Ramov{, an obligatory part of dialectological work. His Dialekti (1935) is a consistent realisation of these
principles, with the geographical and historical framework forming a basic structural
element of the »introductory paragraphs« (Ramov{ 1935: XXXII) to the linguistic and
linguistic-geographical descriptions of individual dialect groups or dialects woven
throughout the text. The methodology of this type of dialectological research – the
combination of fieldwork with the continuous assessment of relevant, primarily historical extra-linguistic factors – was developed in the 1950s alongside the linguistic
geography work carried out for the Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas/‛Atlas of the Slovenian
Language’ (SLA), and crystallised in Tine Logar’s early work on dialectology.
Topographical names showing demographic structure or demographic movements
in an area under examination have remained obligatory up to the present day, although
481
they are more or less separate from linguistic discussion in monographic presentations
of individual dialects and micro-dialects which are, in terms of their structure, close to
the classic form of dialect grammar and characteristic chiefly of Master’s and doctoral
study in Slovene dialectology.
2 Slovenian structural dialectology, which in the 1960s replaced Ramov{’s classic
model of dialect survey (phonetic) with a structural description (of the sound system),
did not lag significantly behind developments in Europe at the outset (Rigler 1960
[publ. 1963b], 1963a; Topori{i~ 1961, 1962; Logar 1963).6 It drew from two sources.
2.1 Diachronic structural dialectology was a continuation, critique and re-evaluation of Ramov{’s research into the historical development of dialectal phonetics.
It enabled a new, denser inventory to be drawn up of dialect material (for the SLA)
from the 1950s, as set out by Jakob Rigler in his paper ‛Pregled osnovnih razvojnih
etap v slovenskem vokalizmu’/‛Review of the Basic Development Stages in Slovene
Vocalism’ (Rigler 1963b), in which he also justified his decision to use the structural
method (Rigler 1963b: 25–26).
This ‛Review’, and the later ‛Pripombe k pregledu [...]’/‛Notes on the Review’
(Rigler 1967), outlined plans for a historical phonology7 of the type that appeared
in other Slavonic languages in the 1960s and 70s.8 In this period, as the head of the
Dialectology Section of the Institute of the Slovenian Language at SAZU, Jakob
Rigler also attempted to formulate research plans and to determine the composition
of research groups in a way that enabled diachronic dialectology to develop equally
alongside the predominantly synchronically oriented linguistic geography (Archive
26-16/76). Unfortunately, owing to the priorities of the Institute at the time, which
drew Rigler away from the Dialectology Section, these plans did not even begin to be
realised, so that the two above-mentioned papers represent the summit of Slovenian
diachronic dialectology in central Slovenia.
2.2 The beginnings of the synchronic structural treatment of individual dialectal
idioms were stimulated by changes to the methodology of research into the standard
language9 – an awareness that the »old dialectological method alone could not comprehend dialect to the extent demanded by the modern science of language« (Topori{i~
1961: 203) – and by more thorough contact with other Slavonic dialectology centres,
enabled in the 1960s by collaboration in the international ‛Slavonic Linguistic Atlas’
(OLA) project. Among other basic tasks, Logar’s programme paper mentioned »the
6
German (Weijnen 1982: 190) and Polish (Dunaj 1996: 25) structural dialectology began around the
same time.
7
In the 1960s, monographs on the development and state of Slovenian vocalism were among the basic
tasks of the Dialectology Section of the Institute of the Slovenian Language (Archive 26/1964 – unnumbered).
8
The first discussion of this type did not appear until the end of the century (Greenberg 2000).
9
For the beginnings of Slovenian structural phonology at the end of the 1950s and its links with the
principles of the Prague Linguistic Circle, see Vidovi~ Muha 1996: 81.
482
Dialect Topics
preparation of a new Slovene dialectology that should present Slovenian dialects from
a phonologically structural aspect, while also taking into account the premises of historical development of course«, giving special emphasis to the importance of a presence in modern Slavonic dialectology trends (Logar 1962/63: 1).
The gradual introduction of structural methods into Slovenian linguistic geography is evident from both the method of Rigler’s 1961 re-arrangement of the grammatical section of Ramov{’s questionnaire (Benedik 1999: 17) and from the reports on the
field research work carried out for the SLA in the early 1960s, although a declarative
statement on the »structural approach« in linguistic geography research only appeared
at the beginning of the 1980s (Archive 21-257/82).
The following features are characteristic of the first Slovenian structural descriptions of phonology:
(a) the consistent separation of linguistic papers into synchronic and diachronic
sections (Rigler 1960;10 Topori{i~ 1961; Zdovc 1972, etc.);
(b) the demonstration of phonemicity with illustrative material for minimal vocal
pairs, which after the publication of Topori{i~’s paper on the Mostec micro-dialect
(Topori{i~ 1961: 204, 206, 208) was more or less only characteristic of the Vienna
and Graz schools of dialectology (Zdovc 1972; Sturm-Schnabl 1973; Karni~ar 1979;
see also Steenwijk 1988), while this procedure was commonly deployed in central Slovenia only in relation to individual unclear cases (e.g. Logar 1966: 73; Smole 1988:
28, 44);
(c) the explanation of phonetic development using the parameters of the structural
phonology school (Ivi} 1998: 10), such as the principles of the symmetry, differentiation, concision, load and balance of phonological systems and the functional load of
their elements (Topori{i~ 1961; Logar 1963; Rigler 1963b, etc.).
3 In addition to these classic procedures of structural dialectology, the direct influence of linguistic geography research carried out for the OLA, particularly the theoretical and methodological work of the former OLA Commission for the Yugoslav
Inter-Academy Committee for Dialectological Atlases,11 which collaborated very actively in the formulation of premises for the analysis of dialect material across the
whole of the Slavonic area (Ivi} 1981: 2–3), was also of fundamental importance for
the further development of dialectology in Slovenia.
3.1 Slovenian national (or more precisely, Ramov{’s) transcription began to
change in the 1960s with the gradual phonologisation of dialect recordings and under
the influence of the phonetic transcription deployed for the OLA. Although the term
»OLA transcription« is commonly used in professional literature for new (national)
transcription such as that put forward by Tine Logar in his work in the mid-1970s,
this merely involves the assumption of individual transcription elements, particularly
10
Rigler’s paper ‛Karakteristika glasoslovja v govoru Ribnice na Dolenjskem’ (‛Characteristics of Phonology in the Micro-Dialect of Ribnica in Dolenjska’), written in 1952, should also be mentioned here.
11
The central figures in this commission were Pavle Ivi}, Dalibor Brozovi} and Boò Vidoeski.
483
those that enable separation of the phonological value of quantity (V : Vː) from the
phonological value of stress (V : ˈV) or pitch (V :  : ).
3.2 Following the publication of the Fonolo{ki opisi srbohrva{kih/hrva{kosrbskih,
slovenskih in makedonskih govorov, obravnavanih v Slovanskem lingvisti~nem atlasu/
‛Phonological Descriptions of Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian, Slovenian and Macedonian Micro-Dialects in the Slavonic Linguistic Atlas’ (FO 1981), phonological
description using a characteristic three-part scheme (system – distribution – origin)
was adopted in the 1980s as the model for the structural analysis (Ivi} 1998: 600) of
dialect phonology.
Because of its precisely prescribed structure (Ivi} 1981: 6–8) and its focus on systemic linguistic features, phonological description is a tool that enables comparisons
to be drawn between dialects, therefore laying the ground for the synthetic presentation of the phonology of a larger number of micro-dialects. In Slovenia as well it
began to assert itself as a method with efforts to (re-)arrange the SLA dialect collections; however, it has since developed primarily as a fairly independent method (in
monographs as well) of presenting the phonology of single micro-dialects. The basic
scheme of the textual structure is otherwise preserved while individual descriptions
differ (in scope of material presented, terms used and method of analysis) to such an
extent that direct comparison of results is no longer possible in all cases.
In addition to the lack of uniformity, which stems from the very concept of the
Slovenian phonological descriptions for FO 1981, the further development of phonological description in Slovenia brought discrepancies in the understanding of the
initial pattern, either from the fact that this was adjusted to encompass all dialects in
the area of the former Yugoslavia, for the requirements of the OLA – one can certainly
include here the lack of analysis contained in the chapter on vowel loss, which even in
the FO 1981 was not tackled in a uniform manner – or from the different methodological premises of Slovenian researchers, for example in the treatment of accented and
non-accented short vowels12 or in the use of different terms for, for example, reflexes
of vowels stressed after stress retractions or advancements.13
The initial pattern is an abstract, pre-agreed system – the last development stage
of the proto-structure on whose basis it is still possible to explain in its entirety the
current synchronic dialect »picture« – and one that is supposed to enable the most
economical comparison to be drawn between dialects. The initial all-Slovenian vowel
system, as formulated by Tine Logar for FO 1981 (FO 1981: 29), rests on Ramov{’s
findings on the development of Slovene vocalism (1936: 147–148), and particularly
12
In some phonological descriptions of micro-dialects that attest quantitative contrast (OLA 6, 12,
14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 147), all short vowels are dealt with together, regardless of whether they are stressed or
unstressed. In others, stressed and unstressed vowels are presented in separate sub-sections (OLA 2, 7, 8,
10, 13, 15, 146, 148–149).
13
Compare: the (Slovenian) stress-shift from the final short syllable/vowel – secondarily stressed V – V
in the syllable/position before the short-stressed final syllable (Logar); the stress-shift from the final short
syllable (Benedik, Lipovec – Benedik, Novak, Rigler); the (later) jump of the stress from the final short
syllable (Oroèn); the shift of the stress from the final short syllable (Topori{i~).
484
Dialect Topics
on the »dependence of vocal quality on quantity«, or on the re-phonologisation of
prosodic contrasts as vowel quantity and quality contrasts« (Greenberg 2000: 78). It
is based therefore on contrast by quantity (Vː – V), which is the result of the parallel
development of circumflected, neo-circumflex-stressed and (originally extended or
extended at an early date) long neo-acute-stressed vowels or pre-stressed long vowels
before a short final accented syllable on the one hand, and old-acute-stressed, short
neo-acute-stressed and unstressed vowels (except long vowels before a short final
stressed syllable) on the other (FO 1981: 30–32). Hypothetically speaking, notes on
the pitch of the initial phonological units, or further Vː/V sorting in relation to pitch
in surveys of the origin of vowels, should therefore be unnecessary, except (as far as
Slovenian is concerned) in relation to the special development of vowel structure in the
Mostec micro-dialect (FO 1981: 150–153), stress retraction from long circumflected
vowels (FO 1981: 37–39, 97, 168, 186–188, 205–207) and in cases of exceptional development, for example the Horjul -òː > uː versus the usual oː > ː (FO 1981: 82), the
shortness of the circumflected o, e in open syllables in Dragatu{ (FO 1981: 135–136)
or the new pitch-accent system in the Poljane dialect (Benedik 1989: 32–33).
In phonological descriptions since 1981, reference has been made without exception to the initial all-Slovenian system in the survey of the origin of consonants (see
e.g. Smole 1988: 64; 1998: 83; Jakop 2001: 375) and synchronic accent relations
(e.g. [kofic 2000: 151; Smole 1998: 84), while in the determination of the origin of
vowels, a combination of quantitative and pitch definitions of original vowels has
been used despite reference to the initial pattern (e.g. Smole 1998; [kofic 1999, 2000;
Zemljak 2000; Koletnik 2000, 2001; Jakop 2001).14 This is in all likelihood (see the
table below) the result of contact with the tradition of recording the initial sounds, as
put forward by Jakob Rigler in his basic diachronic paper (1963b: 35, note 16). His
recording method is otherwise based on pitch-accented contrasts, but he only takes account of them when they are relevant to the development of phonology in Slovene dialects. The model of phonological description using a combined method of recording
initial sounds takes account of the pitch of the original short sound in today’s (central
Slovenian) long vowels; with short vowels, only their quantity is usually given. This
method of presentation can be very misleading with micro-dialects in which there has
been no systemic lengthening of acuted vowels in the non-final word syllables, since
it creates the impression that two categories of vowels that were once acuted existed
in this area as well according to their position in the word.15
14
The descriptions in Benedik 1989, Škofic 1997, Kenda-Je` 1999, Nartnik 1999, Koletnik 1999 and
Weiss 2001 (for example) were produced in accordance with the FO 1981 model.
15
However, this type of apparent division can also occur with the use of uniform terminology. See e.g.
the phonological description of the ^re{njevci micro-dialect (SLA 368), where the accented i originates
from both the old-acute-stressed i in the non-final word syllable and from the same i in the final word syllable (Koletnik 2001: 62).
485
Development of the all-Slovenian initial system
(a) Scheme for presentation of the origin of phonemes from stressed corner
vowels*
Logar (prior to FO 1981) Rigler 1963b
Logar (FO 1981)
FO after 1981
old (long)
i/ī
in long
Slovenian
syllables)
ië
(etymologically)
long i /ië/ī
old-acute-stressed
i/í
etymologically long i
psl. (long)
old-acutestressed-i
-ì(t)**
(in short
Slovenian
syllables)
Slovenian etymologically long i (ī)
old-acute- oldstressed
acutei in NFS stressed i
(í-)
old-acutestressed i
in FS (-í)
unstressed stressed i
i in NFS
stressed i
in FS
short stressed i/ì
NFS = non-final word syllable
FS = final word syllable
* The right half of each column shows information that applies to micro-dialects which have not
seen the lengthening of acuted vowels
** = (psl = Proto-Slavic) sound under Slovenian short stress
(b) Scheme for presentation of the origin of phonemes from accented *e, *o, *ə
Logar (prior to FO
1981)
(psl.) ȅ/ falling e
Rigler 1963b
Logar (FO 1981)
lengthened original
short-circumflected
e (ē)
eë
FO after 1981
long circumflected e/eë/etim.
ē/ etymologically long e (?!)
(psl.)
(psl.) è
neo-acute- neo-acutestressed e accented e neo-acuteè /psl.
/psl.
stressed
stressed
in NFS
stressed e/
(short)
(short)
e in NFS e ()
stressed e in
NFS
neo-acute- neo-acute- (-)
stressed e stressed e
(psl.) -è(t)
neo-acutestressed e
short stressed e
stressed e
in FS
in FS (-)
Only a concept of phonological description based entirely on Slovenian linguistic
development issues will enable a comprehensive (structural) comparison of Slovenian
sound systems to be properly carried out, alongside a final decision to opt for a uniform initial system that would, if used consistently, allow automatic data processing.
4 It would be difficult to argue that Slovenian dialectology has been completely
structural since the 1960s; and in any case, it is the interweaving of classic dialecto-
486
Dialect Topics
logical procedures with those of the new linguistic tendencies that has characterised
European dialectology as a whole. The structural method of presenting material has
to a greater or lesser degree penetrated the (otherwise predominant) treatment of
phonology, although no research has yet been done on the extent to which they are
really structural dialect descriptions of other linguistic levels, particularly morphology,16
since they are in most cases synchronic contrastive dialect-standard analysis whose
presentation is usually based on the model of presentation of linguistic structures in
the standard language.17
Structurally based descriptions of the grammatical structure of single micro-dialects forms the core of modern Slovenian dialectology. The first forays by linguistic
geography and dialect dictionary production, which has only begun to be intensively
developed in central Slovenia in the last 20 years, are for now primarily an enlargement of the dialect data corpus.
Joel Smith.
REFERENCES
Arhiv = Arhiv In{tituta za slovenski jezik ZRC SAZU: 21 (1948–); 26 (1958–) – arhiv Lingvisti~ne
oz. Dialektolo{ke sekcije. (Typescript, manuscript.)
Francka BENEDIK, 1989: Fonolo{ki opis govora vasi Bukov Vrh. Zbornik razprav iz slovanskega
jezikoslovja: Tinetu Logarju ob sedemdesetletnici. Ed. Franc Jakopin. Ljubljana: SAZU.
31–44.
– – 1999: Vodnik po zbirki nare~nega gradiva za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA). Ljubljana:
Zalo`ba ZRC (ZRC SAZU).
J. K. CHAMBERS – Peter TRUDGILL, 1994: Dialectology. Cambridge: University Press (Cambridge
Textbooks in Linguistics).
Eugenio COSERIU, 21992: Einführung in die Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Francke
Verlag (Uni-Taschenbücher 1372).
Bogusław DUNAJ, 1996: Przedmiot i kierunki badań dialektologicznych. Studia dialektologiczne 1.
Eds. Bogusław Dunaj – Jerzy Reichan. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk – Instytut Języka
Polskiego (Prace Instytutu Języka Polskiego 97). 21–29.
FO, 1981: Fonolo{ki opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovena~kih i makedonskih govora
obuhva}enih op{teslovenskim lingvisti~kim atlasom. Ed. Pavle Ivi}. Sarajevo: Akademija
nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine (Posebna izdanja LV, Odjeljenje dru{tvenih nauka,
Knjiga 9).
16
One might also mention here, for the purposes of illustration, the issue of the classification of nouns by
gender in micro-dialects that have not retained all three genders. The presentation occasionally follows contrastive principles (Smole 1994: 111–117), with the structural relations being mentioned in the abstract (253).
17
In recent decades, models from Joè Topori{i~’s Slovenska slovnica/’Slovene Grammar’ and Nova
slovenska skladnja/’New Slovene Syntax’ have been used for comparisons with the standard language in
relation to morphology, word formation and syntax, and with the syntactical features of the (»general«)
colloquial language. When dealing with the verb, the classification of material is usually based on the
traditional grammar – »after Dobrovský and Miklo{i~« and the grammar of four authors (Bajec – Kolari~
– Rupel – [[olar], 1956] – and in the most recent monographs on Rigler’s scheme for the dynamic accent
and morphology from the Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika (‛Dictionary of Standard Slovene’). The
classification of dialect words in individual semantic groups follows the division proposed in a paper by
M. Hanj{ek Holz (1989).
487
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2000: A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language. Heidelberg: Universitätverlag C. Winter (Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 13).
Gerta GROBER-GLÜCK, 1982: Kulturmorphologie im Rahmen dialektgeographischer Interpretation. Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Eds.
Werner Besch – Ulrich Knoop – Wolfgang Putschke – Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Berlin –
New York: Walter de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft
1.1). 92–113.
Milena HANJ{EK HOLZ, 1989: Nare~ne prvine v Slovarju slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Zbornik
razprav iz slovanskega jezikoslovja (Tinetu Logarju ob sedemdesetletnici). Ed. Franc Jakopin. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU – In{titut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a. 79–100.
Tja{a JAKOP, 2001: Fonolo{ki opis govora Lo`nice pri @alcu (SLA 324). Jezikoslovni zapiski:
Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 5. 207–234.
Ludwig KARNI~AR, 1979: Die Mundart von Ebriach/Obirsko in Kärnten: Inauguraldissertation
zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität in Graz. Graz.
Karmen KENDA-JE`, 1999: Fonolo{ki opis govora kraja Cerkno (OLA 6, SLA 166). Jezikoslovni
zapiski: Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 5. 207–234.
Mihaela KOLETNIK, 1999: Fonolo{ki opis voli~inskega in ~re{njevskega govora. Slavisti~na revija 47. 69–87.
– – 2000: Fonolo{ki opis govora v Radencih. Jezikoslovni zapiski: Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski
jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 6. 155–165.
– – 2001: Fonolo{ki opis govora pri Sv. Ani na Kremberku v Slovenskih goricah. Jezikoslovni
zapiski: Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 7. 381–392.
A. V. ISA~ENKO, 1939: Nare~je vasi Sele na Roù. Ljubljana: U~iteljska tiskarna.
Pavle Ivi} 1981: Uvod. FO 1981. 1–10.
– – 1998: Celokupna dela 10/1: Rasprave, studije, ~lanci: O fonologiji. Ed. Dragoljub Petrovi}.
Sremski Karlovci – Novi Sad: Izdava~ka knjiàrnica Zorana Stojanovi}a.
Tine LOGAR, 1962/63: Dana{nje stanje in naloge slovenske dialektologije. Jezik in slovstvo 8.
1–6.
– – 1963: Sistemi dolgih vokalnih fonemov v slovenskih nare~jih: Referat za mednarodni
slavisti~ni kongres v Sofiji 1963. Slavisti~na revija 14. 111–132.
– – 1966: Prispevek k poznavanju nadi{kega dialekta v Italiji. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku
(Novi Sad) 9. 73–75.
Vladimir NARTNIK, 1999: Fonolo{ki opis govora Vnanjih Goric (SLA 226). Jezikoslovni zapiski:
Gerhard NEWEKLOWSKY, 1999: Iz zgodovine klasifikacije slovenskih nare~ij na Koro{kem in
nove naloge slovenske dialektologije. Logarjev zbornik: Referati s 1. mednarodnega
dialektolo{kega simpozija v Mariboru. Eds. Zinka Zorko – Mihaela Koletnik. Maribor:
Slavisti~no dru{tvo (Zora 8). 16–26.
Herman NIEBAUM – Jürgen MACHA, 1999: Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (Germanistische Arbeitshefte 37).
Jean Claude MILNER, 2003: Strukturalizem: Liki in paradigma. Ljubljana: Krtina (Knji`na
zbirka Krt).
Martina OROÈN, 1994: Le consonantisme de Ramov{ dans l’optique structuraliste de Tesnière.
Mélanges Lucien Tesnière = Linguistica 34. 165–179.
Fran RAMOV{, 1924: Histori~na gramatika slovenskega jezika II: Konzonantizem. Ljubljana:
U~iteljska tiskarna (Znanstveno dru{tvo za humanisti~ne vede v Ljubljani, Dela I).
– – 1931: Dialektolo{ka karta slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana.
488
Dialect Topics
– – 1935: Histori~na gramatika slovenskega jezika VII: Dialekti. Ljubljana: U~iteljska tiskarna
(Znanstveno dru{tvo za humanisti~ne vede v Ljubljani, Dela I).
– – 1936: Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika I, Ljubljana: Akademska zalo`ba (Akademska
biblioteka 3).
Jakob RIGLER, 1960: Ju`nonotranjski govori – Akcentska in glasoslovna analiza ju`nonotranjskih
govorov med Sne`nikom in Slavnikom: Disertacija. Ljubljana. (Typescript.)
– – 1963a: Ju`nonotranjski govori. Ljubljana: SAZU (Dela Razreda za filolo{ke in literarne
vede 13, In{titut za slovenski jezik 7).
– – 1963b: Pregled osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavisti~na revija 14.
25–78.
– – 1967: Pripombe k pregledu osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem vokalizmu. Slavisti~na
revijai 15. 129–152.
Vera SMOLE, 1988: Govor vasi [entrupert in okolice: Glasoslovje in naglas – Magistrsko delo.
Ljubljana. (Typescript.)
– – 1994: Oblikoglasje in oblikoslovje {entruperskega govora: Doktorsko delo. Ljubljana, 1994.
(Typescript.)
– – 1998: Fonolo{ki opis govora vasi [entrupert (SLA 262). Jezikoslovni zapiski: Zbornik
In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 4. 73–88.
Han STEENWIJK, 1988: Sestav nagla{enih samoglasnikov v belskem govoru, Slavisti~na revija
36. 331–337.
Stanislava Katharina STURM-SCHNABL, 1973: Die slovenischen Mundarten und Mundartreste
im Klagenfurter Becken: Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Wien. Wien. (Typescript.)
Joìca [KOFIC, 1997: Fonolo{ki opis govora Krope (SLA 202). Jezikoslovni zapiski: Zbornik
– – 1999: Fonolo{ki opis govora Zgornje Gorje (SLA 198), Jezikoslovni zapiski: Zbornik
– – 2000: Joìca [kofic, Fonolo{ki opis govora kraja Lom pod Storì~em (SLA 204), Jezikoslovni zapiski: Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a ZRC SAZU 5. 141–153.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1961: Vokalizem mo{~anskega govora v breì{kem Posavju. Dolenjski zbornik.
Ed. Stanko [kaler. Novo mesto: Dolenjska zalo`ba. 203–222.
– – 1962: Ablösung des relevanten Wortintonationssystems durch den Quantitätsunterschied in
einer slovenischen Mundart. Scandoslavica (Copenhagen) 8. 239–254.
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA, 1996: Tvornost razmerja med slovenskim in ~e{kim jezikoslovjem 20. stoletja. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture: Zbornik predavanj 32. Ljubljana:
Filozofska fakulteta. 77–85.
Antonius A. WEIJNEN, 1982: Deutsche Dialektologie und europäische Dialektforschung: wechselseitige Wirkungen. Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung. Eds Werner Besch – Ulrich Knoop – Wolfgang Putschke – Herbert Ernst
Wiegand. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.1). 190–202.
Peter WEISS, 2001: Fonolo{ki opis govora kraja Spodnje Kra{e (SLA 314). Jezikoslovni zapiski:
Paul ZDOVC, 1972: Die Mundart des südöstliches Jauntales in Kärnten: Lautlehre und Akzent
der Mundart der »Poljanci«. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972
(Schriften der Balkankomission, Linguistische Abteilung 20).
Melita ZEMLJAK, 2000: Govor Zabukovja nad Sevnico – Glasoslovje in naglas: Magistrsko delo.
Ljubljana. (Tipkopis.)
489
POVZETEK
Do prehoda iz predvojnega Ramovševega klasičnega modela opisa diferenciacije narečnega
glasovja, utemeljenega z zunajjezikovno razlago jezikovnih dejstev, v strukturalni opis glasovnega sestava je v slovenski dialektologiji prišlo na začetku šestdesetih let 20. st. To desetletje
je prineslo tako zasnove za diahrono (Riglerjev Pregled Osnovnih razvojnih etap v slovenskem
vokalizmu) kot za sinhrono strukturalno dialektologijo in uvedlo vrsto klasičnih fonoloških
strukturalnih postopkov. Vendar se – kljub temu da zgodovinski vidik nikoli ni bil povsem
opuščen – od sedemdesetih let naprej razvija predvsem sinhrona opisna dialektologija, njeno
glavno orodje pa je od izida Fonoloških opisov srbohrvaških/hrvaškosrbskih, slovenskih in
makedonskih govorov, obravnavanih v Slovanskem lingvističnem atlasu (FO 1981) fonološki
opis s svojo značilno tridelno zasnovo (sistem – distribucija – izvor). Sprejeta je bila predvsem
formalna oblika fonološkega opisa, ne pa tudi shema slovenskega izhodiščnega glasovnega
sestava, ki bi omogočila učinkovito mednarečno primerjavo. Fonološki opis se je zato razvil
predvsem kot način predstavitve posameznih govorov.
490
Dialect Topics
Vera Smole, A Geolinguistic Examination of Gender in Singular: Neuter Nouns ...
UDC 811.163.6’28
Vera Smole
491
A GEOLINGUISTIC EXAMINATION OF GENDER IN SINGULAR: NEUTER
NOUNS IN -O IN SLOVENIAN DIALECTS
Using the methodology of linguistic geography (i.e., linguistic phonetic/morphological
maps), and with the aid of dialectological literature and the material collected for the Slovenian
Linguistic Atlas (Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas – SLA), this paper presents *-o reflexes and the
geographical spread of the masculinisation and feminisation of neuter in Slovenian dialects,
with an emphasis on the impact of phonetic changes on morphological changes. The paper
draws a comparison with Ramov{’s earlier synthesis of these phenomena, and provides a more
comprehensive explanation of feminisation in several northeastern Slovenian dialects.
S pomo~jo gradiva za nastajajo~i Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA) in dialektolo{ke literature so z metodami lingvisti~ne geografije, tj. na jezikovni foneti~no-morfolo{ki karti, prikazani
refleksi *-o in prostorski obsegi maskulinizacije in feminizacije nevter v slovenskih nare~jih s
poudarkom na vplivu glasovnih sprememb na oblikoslovne. Narejena je primerjava s starej{o
Ramov{evo sintezo teh pojavov in dodana nekoliko dopolnjena razlaga feminizacije v nekaterih
slovenskih severovzhodnih nare~jih.
Key words: Slovenian dialects, neuter, word-final *-o, linguistic geography/geolinguistics,
phonetic map, morphological map, masculinisation of neuter, feminisation of neuter
Klju~ne besede: slovenska nare~ja, srednji spol, izglasni *-o, lingvisti~na geografija oz.
geolingvistika, foneti~na karta, morfolo{ka karta, maskulinizacija nevter, feminizacija nevter
1 When examining varieties of speech and attempting to detect the structural
changes within them, it is important to determine the centres and the range of linguistic
»innovation«; this allows one to recognise and understand the agents of those changes
with greater ease. Without the knowledge of these changes and their range in dialects
it is not possible to reconstruct the history of the Slovenian language as a whole or its
standard variant. By focusing exclusively on written sources, only an incomplete and
vague picture can be assembled (Bern{tejn 22000: 302–306). Dialects are still the »basic source for the reconstruction of the development of the Slovenian language [because] they are, as a whole or in their individual elements, preserved in vastly different
stages of development« (Logar 21996: 337–338), and are therefore a living reflection
of history at any given moment. Linguistic geography, which began to develop at the
end of the 19th century in Germanic and Romance (specifically, French) philology,1
has enabled researchers to take a broad view of the history of language and it remains
an ongoing and important development in dialectology. Unfortunately, linguistics has
1
Lucien Tesnière was the pioneer of Slovene linguistic geography and his Atlas dvojinskih oblik v
sloven{~ini (Atlas linguistique pour servir à l’étude du duel en slovène, 1925) was the first to be drawn up
for any Slavonic language. At the first International Congress of Slavonic Scholars in Prague in 1929, he
was the first to suggest a compilation of a Slavonic linguistic atlas (along with A. Meillet). Two years later
Tesnière set up the European Linguistic Atlas Organising Committee.
492
Dialect Topics
not paid enough attention to the results obtained by linguistic geography methodology
(Bern{tejn 22000: 300). The basic objective of linguistic geography is the compilation
of linguistic maps for individual linguistic phenomena; these are then brought together
in linguistic atlases that vary in terms of content and geographical range.2 In addition
to grammars, manuals of official usage, and dictionaries, a national linguistic atlas is
fundamental to any language. It is well known that the Slovenian language, in common
with the other languages of the former Yugoslavia, is still without a linguistic atlas of
its own, although the plan has now been seven decades in the making.3
2 Although contemporary Slovenian dialectology has the same research objectives
as other linguistic disciplines – naturally, in close connection with them – 4 it must,
at least in this writer’s opinion, persist in its endeavours to complete the national linguistic atlas (working title – Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas / ’Slovenian Linguistic Atlas’,
or SLA), since it is an indispensable basis for other fundamental research work on
linguistic history5 and dialectology. Efforts to complete the atlas are proceeding at the
Dialectology Section of the Fran Ramov{ Institute of the Slovenian Language, which
is part of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovene Academy of Arts and Sciences
2
Atlases can address one or more linguistic levels, or even a single linguistic category, can cover a single
specific (dialect) area, the area of a single language, a country, several related or unrelated languages, etc.
3
The plan for the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (SLA) was first outlined by Fran Ramov{ in 1934. Francka
Benedik has published, in the form of an introduction, a more detailed description of the progress of work
on the atlas, the questionnaire (Ramov{’s, later revised, supplemented, and alphabeticised), the network
of research locations (Ramov{’s, with later additions), additional field records made outside the network,
field researchers, and a description of how the material and commentaries are organised (Vodnik po zbirki
nare~nega gradiva za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA)). This guide also contains an introduction by Karmen Kenda-Je` (pp. 5–9) outlining the origins of the SLA and the results of the work produced so far, with
a focus on the points of departure of the research and the method used to collect and process the material.
Given the volume of work – 406 research points and around 2.500 phonetic, lexical (a few semantic), and
morphological questions – Ramov{’s plan and subsequent minor amendments will be retained for the publication of the first lexical volume, planned for 2008, while the cartographical and commentary methodology
will be consistent with current developments in (Slavonic) linguistic geography.
4
If the work on atlases is almost inevitably a collective endeavour (the only exceptions being atlases
for specific areas), more recent work has also been done by individuals. Alongside a number of short dialectological works, this has also been demonstrated by several recent doctoral dissertations, e.g., Karmen
Kenda-Je`, 2002: Cerkljansko nare~je. Teoreti~ni model dialektolo{kega raziskovanja na zgledu besedi{~a
in glasoslovja. Doctoral dissertation supervised by Tine Logar, Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts. Computer print,
203 pp. + Appendices (Slovar osrednjecerkljanskega nare~ja (A–K), 156 pp.); Melita Zemljak, 2002: Trajanje glasov {tajerskega zabukov{kega govora. Instrumentalno-slu{na analiza. Doctoral dissertation supervised by Vera Smole and Zdravko Ka~i~, Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts. Computer print, 536 pp. + Appendices
(published as Melita Zemljak, 2004: Trajanje glasov {tajerskega zabukov{kega govora: instrumentalnoslu{na analiza. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo (Zalo`ba Zora; 30), 318 pp.; Danila Zuljan, 2005: Govorjena
bri{ka nare~na besedila z vidika besedilne skladnje. Doctoral dissertation, supervised by Vera Smole and
Simona Kranjc. Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts. Computer print, [236 pp.]
5
This is also evident in M. Greenberg 12000, 22002, whose Zgodovinsko glasoslovje slovenskega jezika
needs numerous additions and amendments. These could be accomplished with a more consistent use of
existing literature on Slovenian dialects and, more crucially, of the material collected for the SLA. One example of this is Greenberg’s examination of short vowels in Chapter 40 (’Osredinjenje in izginotje visokih
kratkih samoglasnikov (»moderna vokalna redukcija«)’/’Centring and disappearance of high short vowels
(»modern vowel reduction«)’) (2002: 161–165), the very title of which is misleading, as all vowels can
become reduced and, later on, in certain positions disappear. Similarly, some short vowel phenomena in
493
(ZRC SAZU)6 and which houses all the material compiled so far. Over the years,
many students of Slovenian language and linguistics at the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts
have assisted in the collecting of material (Kenda-Je` 1999: 8).
3 To outline the methodology used in linguistic geography and the material collected for the SLA, the article will present – based on a few examples of neuter nouns
in -o- the extent and the types of changes in Slovenian dialects in this marked, less
stable morphological category of the Slovenian language, i.e only in the singular. In
dialects this is such a complex problem that the existing material does not provide a
complete explanation. It is thus necessary, at least in the more »problematic« areas,
to record all originally neuter nouns and to determine the gender of each individual
noun; this could only be accomplished in more detailed monographic descriptions of
the morphology of local dialects. The spread of gender changes, i.e the transition from
neuter to feminine (feminisation) or masculine (masculinisation), is also dependent on
number. The plural differs from the singular in this regard, and both differ from the
dual, since the very existence of the dual in some places is dependent on a previous
change of gender (it is better preserved in the case of masculinisation), while the dual
occasionally takes a singular and occasionally a plural base. The development of the
neuter in Slovenian dialects is a very complex issue and one that merits special monograph treatment.7 This paper will deal with it only in part, primarily with the purpose
of presenting the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas project and a small selection of the results
obtained with the methodology of linguistic geography.
3.1 Unlike the masculine and feminine, the neuter is simply a grammatical gender.
Moreover, in singular nouns the ways in which the neuter is expressed – in underived
nouns primarily with endings, in tonemic variant also with accent – differ from those
characteristic of masculine only in two cases with the same ending, i.e the nominative
and the accusative. Many neuter nouns end in an unstressed -o (< *-o),8 which is one
Slovene dialects (some only concern unstressed vowels) not mentioned by Greenberg are important, e.g.,
akanje (*o and *è > a); ukanje (*o and *ǫ > u – this is mentioned, erroneously, as being established in the
western rather than the central dialects); positional ukanje and akanje (i.e., dependent on the consonant that
comes before it); ikanje (*e and *ę > i); e-akanje (*e and *ę > a); umlaut after (functionally) soft consonants
and before /j/ (*a, *o, *ǫ > e); and even the diphthongisation of the word-final *-e, *-ę > -e or *-o, *-ǫ>
-o). These widely divergent dialectal developments in short vocalism are among the most characteristic
innovations in Slovene and should have been more thoroughly discussed in Greenberg’s work, which could
have been accomplished with a closer examination of the existing dialectogical literature.
6
Associates of the Dialectology Section (Benedik, Jakop, Smole, [kofic, Pokla~) have already published a large number of individual lexical/word-formation, morphological, phonetic, and accentological
maps, as well as monographs (e.g., Jakop 2004; Pokla~ 2001). There has been recent strong collaboration
with specialists in GIS (Geographical Information System) and electronic databases with the aim of preparing IT support for map-making, phonetic transcription, and the formulation of dialect dictionaries.
7
This would also be interesting from a comparative Slavonic point of view since the change in gender
of various nouns through history is also attested in the dialects (and therefore the literary languages) of
other Slavonic languages. The reasons for this can, however, differ widely.
8
The original *-o, i.e., the etymological -o, needs to be emphasised for the Slovenian language because
in the central dialects (originally dialects of Dolenjska, Gorenjska, South [tajerska, and Eastern Rovte), the
word-final *-o and *-ǫ have developed differently; this con-/divergence will be shown elsewhere.
494
Dialect Topics
of the vowels in the word-final position that was first affected by modern vowel reduction. The interaction of phonetic levelling in the nominative/accusative singular and
the large number of common endings in other masculine noun forms has in innovative
dialects (and local dialects) caused the masculinisation of the neuter (the causes of
feminisation need to be sought elsewhere, see 5.3). In geographical terms, both processes are today at different stages of development.
4 To show the (non)existence of the neuter across a range of contemporary Slovenian dialects9, the following nouns included in the questionnaire were taken from SLA
material10 and their presence plotted on maps: 14511 okno, 169 korito, 191 ìto, 206
èlezo, 410 vino, and 517 leto.12 The material was supplemented from other sources as
necessity and opportunity dictated. The phonetic/morphological map Reflexes of the
Word-Final *-o and the Gender of the Nouns ’okno’, ’korito’, ’ìto’, ’èlezo’, ’vino’,
’leto’ shows the synchronic state of the -o ending (areas retaining the word-final -o
and the reflexes arising from modern vowel reduction or morphological analogy) and
the gender of these nouns in the singular. Phonetic changes in the word-final *-o are
marked by isophones (see the map key),13 with the area attesting a preserved (or merely
narrowed) -o (< *-o) lying outside the isophones. The gender of nouns is shown by
means of hatching: slanted grey lines = an area that has preserved the neuter in the featured nouns; vertical black lines = masculinisation; horizontal black lines = feminisation;
crosshatched lines = both phenomena).14 Map commentary is provided in section 4.2.
9
The criteria used for selecting these nouns were: (a) the existence of a lexeme across the whole area;
(b) the non-positional nature of the development of -o (owing to its position after the consonant group,
the noun okno is a partial exception here); (c) the usage of the word in everyday communication; (d) the
unstressed nature of -o.
10
The material is too extensive to be dealt with here and can be consulted at the Dialectology Section
of the Fran Ramov{ Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, in Ljubljana. Material for 45 research
locations in the SLA network (one for each dialect) can also be found in Pokla~ (2001: 26–36).
11
The number before the noun signifies the serial number of the question in the SLA questionnaire (in:
Benedik 1997: 26–86).
12
As will become clear later, the ending itself does not always indicates the gender of the noun. In
Slovene, neuter nouns can, following the umlaut, also end in -e, which is why we verified the gender using
two further questions from the SLA questionnaire (813 masculinisation of the neuter and 814 feminisation
of the neuter) which required adjective + noun (veliko okno, mo~no sonce) or noun + verb in the past tense
(okno je bilo zaprto, sonce je sijalo) types. Unfortunately, the material relating to these two questions is
also very deficient.
13
If a line bisects the number of the research location, this signifies that both (or even three) *-o reflexes in contact are present in the local dialect, e.g., at point 256 -o can be preserved or reduced. In the first
case the noun is neuter, in the second case masculine; given this, the local dialect is transitional. # signifies
the zero reflex (*-o > -).
14
Only those local dialects in which changes have occurred in one of the featured nouns or in other
neuter nouns have been excluded. Occasionally the gender of a noun changes independently of the general
tendencies of neuter change; one of the most frequently used is jabolko ʻapple’, where this noun is also
feminine in Southern [tajerska local dialects with masculinisation in the singular, i.e., jabka, which could
be by analogy with hru{ka ’pear’ and with other common types of fruit, which are all feminine (~e{nja,
~e{plja, sliva, marelica, and the re-formed breskva, etc.).
495
4.1 That developments in short unstressed vowels are relatively recent, particularly
in non-central dialects, is confirmed by the fact that the isoglosses of individual developments do not correspond with the geographical boundaries of dialects. At the same
time, the map neatly shows the expansion of phonetic innovations from the centre
towards the periphery, as well as several different focal points of morphological innovation. Of course, a single map, though it might present the range of phenomena,15
can by no means show the full complexity of the changes undergone by the neuter,
even in the limited number of nouns. Even the SLA material is somewhat deficient
as regards morphological questions; a proper understanding of the morphology of
Slovenian dialects (and therefore of accent) will require more research detailing the
features of individual local dialects, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions
(e.g., Oroèn 20032: 184). The findings outlined below are merely an attempt to initiate a new synthetic analysis of the neuter in Slovenian dialects.
4.2 As regards the level of preservation of the neuter singular in the nouns okno
(’window’), korito (’trough’), ìto (’corn’), èlezo (’iron’), vino (’wine’) and leto
(’year’), which are a fairly satisfactory representation of neuter nouns in -o, Slovenian
dialects can be divided into four groups: 1) the neuter has been preserved; 2) the neuter has been masculinised; 3) the neuter has been feminised; 4) according to a set of
rules (or none) some nouns have remained neuter while others have been feminised
or (more rarely) masculinised. In a very rare number of cases, both feminisation and
masculinisation are possible (see 5.2). Since gender change is strongly (though not absolutely) connected with the phonetic ending of the noun, the neuter will be presented
in relation to what happens to -o:
4.2.1 The neuter is preserved if *-o:
4.2.1.1 is preserved (*-o = -o) or partly narrowed (*-o > -, -ọ, -ȯ), as in the Koro{ka
Zilja and Western Ro` local dialects in Austria,16 similarly in the Eastern Podjuna and
Western Northern Pohorje and most of the Meìca dialects. In the Pannonian dialects,
it is more consistently preserved in the local dialects of Prekmurje (with the exception
of the southern local dialects), as well as in the Eastern Slovenske Gorice dialect, and
in the Haloze, Prlekija and [tajerska Central [tajerska and Kozjansko-Bizeljsko on
15
The most common practice in modern linguistic atlases is to use a single map to show a single phenomenon in an individual word. In this case this would mean producing six phonetic and six morphological
maps. Identical or related phenomena can be shown at the end in general maps.
16
The names of the dialects have been taken from the Karta slovenskih narečij (Map of Slovenian
Dialects, Logar – Rigler 1983), with the exception of the Goričansko dialect, which is referred to as the
Slovenske Gorice dialect (after Koletnik 2001). The dialect group to which the dialect or parts of the dialect
(local dialects) belong is always given in italics, mostly preceding mention of the local dialects (but occasionally after, as style dictates). In this case, ʻKoroška’ denotes the dialect group to which the Zilja and
Ro` local dialects belong; since in this case the phenomenon does not cover the whole dialect area, the local dialects are given for the purposes of greater precision, usually with its compass definition (north-east,
south-west, etc.).
496
Dialect Topics
the border with Croatia.17 In the west it is preserved in the Primorska Ter, Nadià, and
Brda local dialects, and in most of the So~a, Banj{ice, Karst, Istria, and î~arija local
dialects. Within the Dolenjska dialect group, the Bela Krajina and Eastern Kostel local
dialects preserve -o and the neuter;
4.2.1.2 is narrowed to -u (*-o > -u), as in the Primorska Notranjska dialect and in
the Karst and Istrian local dialects in contact with it; in the southern part of the Dolenjska dialect (the Eastern Dolenjska local dialects from Novo Mesto towards Gorjanci);
in the local dialects of most [tajerska dialects; in a more condensed fashion mainly in
the Southern Pohorje and Central Savinja local dialects; and in the Panonnian dialect
group, where the Southern Prekmurje local dialects have -u or - (slightly reduced
u);
4.2.1.3 is aspirated (*-o > -), as in the Primorska Rezija local dialects (with the
exception of the Bila local dialect);
4.2.1.4 is diphthongised (*-o > -o),18 as in several Primorska Karst (Lower Vipava Valley and along the coast) and Central Istria local dialects;
4.2.1.5 is partly reduced to -ə (*-o > -ə, probably through an intermediate -u), as in
the Koro{ka Eastern Ro` and Obir local dialects; in the Western Podjuna and [tajerska
Upper Savinja local dialects19; and in Dolenjska local dialects south of Ljubljana (in
the latter, for the most part only positionally).20
4.2.2 Neuter nouns are masculinised in the singular if the -o is completely reduced
(*-o > -, through an intermediate -u, which can still be preserved positionally);21
this feature appears in all Gorenjska dialects, in the Rovte ^rni Vrh, Poljanska Sora,
Horjul, and [kofja Loka local dialects, in the Cerkno Lani{e local dialect (168), in
northern Dolenjska and most of the Eastern Dolenjska local dialects (Dolenjska)22, in
most local dialects of the Central Savinja and Posavje dialects, in the Western Koz17
In all Pannonian and [tajerska local dialects listed at least some of the featured nouns are feminine
(frequently okno for example, or the nouns more commonly used in the plural, since the plural is mostly
feminised here).
18
This diphthong has undergone further development, i.e., -o (103 Renče); -uo (104 Branik); -ä (112
Križ/S. Croce); -a 113 (Prosek/Prosecco); -ə (118 Dekani, 119 Kubed). The numbers here refer to the
number of the location in the network of research points.
19
One exception is the Mozirje dialect, where the post-war generation abandoned the old -ə ending and
replaced it with -ȯ (compare the field record from 1952 with those from 1966 and 1973).
20
Consistent *-o > -u > -ə development is found in local dialect 231 Rakitna (stéːgnə, víːnə), and positionally, after the consonant group, in: 240 Grosuplje (stːgnə : víːn), 253 Gorenje Brezovo (stéːgnə), 245
Stična (stːgnə, sːdłə), 255 Muljava (stḙáːgnə). In the first case, the nouns are neuter, in the second case
they are masculine. This is marked on the map with an asterisk to the right of the number of the location.
21
Marked on the map with an asterisk to the right of the number.
22
In local dialect 262 Šentrupert, for example (see Smole 1997: 170), the -u is preserved for the consonant group ending in l or v, while the noun nevertheless remains masculine (usàk stjáːblu ʻvisoko steblo’,
an djáːblu je pà čs pùọt ʻeno deblo je padlo ʻčez pot’, tàːk bugàːst(v)u ʻtako bogastvo’).
497
jansko-Bizeljsko and Central [tajerska local dialects ([tajerska), and in the South
Eastern Ro` and Western Obir local dialects (Koro{ka).
4.2.3 Some neuter nouns are feminised in the singular23 if by analogy (Ramov{
1952: 37) they take an a-declension ending.24 This has happened at the point of contact between the Koro{ka, [tajerska and Pannonian dialect groups, i.e., to the greatest
extent in the Kozjak and Southern Pohorje local dialects of the [tajerska dialect and in
the Pannonian Slovenske Gorice dialect, to a lesser extent stretching further towards
the nearby Prlekija local dialects on the one side and to the Northern Pohorje local
dialects (Koro{ka) on the other.25 Z. Zorko (1995,26 1998) and M. Koletnik (2001:
129–132) have described the complex situation that has arisen in relation to these
local dialects on a number of occasions. The other, less significant focal point of this
phenomenon, caused by akanje, is the point of contact between the Primorska and
Rovte dialect groups along the Sava river and its tributary, the Ba~a river, i.e., in two
So~a local dialects (72 Zatolmin, 73 îginj), one Tolmin local dialect (161 Most na
So~i) and in all Ba~a local dialects27 (158 Rut, 159 Podbrdo, 160 Porezen).
4.2.4 The exceptions, where the phonetic ending conceals the actual gender,
are as follows:
4.2.4.1 *-o > -a following akanje, neuter is preserved: in two local dialects of
the Banj{ice micro-dialect of the Primorska dialect group (90 Av~e, 95 Lokve); in
two Tolmin local dialects of the Rovte dialect (162 Grahovo ob Ba~i, 163 êpovan);
and in one Cerkno local dialect (166 Cerkno). Two local dialects close to Cerkno are,
on account of their proximity, proper mixed local dialects: in the first (165 [ebrelje),
several nouns are neuter despite their -a ending, while others are feminine (gender is
distinguished by the genitive); in the second (164 Gorenja Trebu{a), the same noun
can be masculine and feminine (the two forms co-exist);
23
According to Ramov{ (1952: 36–37), the focal point of this phenomenon should be Kozjak and
Gori~ansko. The Prekmurje dialect is spoken in Gori~ansko, where feminisation is not attested except in a
very small number of nouns. Generally speaking, Ramov{ indicates a wider area of feminisation than that
indicated by the SLA material. There are two possible reasons for this: either he did not have accurate data
and reached his conclusion on the basis of individual words; or the area covered by this phenomenon has
shrunk. This last possibility appears to be confirmed by local dialect 387 Cankova (Prekmurje). According
to Pavel (1909), this local dialect had several feminised nouns (bedro, gnezdo, ~udo), others were still neuter (delo, leto, mesto), and okno was both feminine and neuter. At the present time, all of the above nouns
are neuter (fieldwork performed by T. Jakop, 12 Nov 2005).
24
The following nouns are most frequently feminised: koleno, korito, kopito, okno, rebro, stegno. Leto,
vino, èlezo, ìto, or nouns used primarily in the singular (leto is an exception here), retain the neuter and the
(narrowed) -o ending. Individual nouns with an -a ending can still be found in some Prlekija local dialects,
and more rarely in the local dialects of Southern Pohorje and Northern Pohorje. A similar situation as that
found in Kozjak and Slovenske Gorice local dialects is encountered in the neighbouring Northern Pohorje
local dialect of Koro{ka (55 Zgornje Kaple).
25
The only exception is local dialect 367 Negova (-ọ ending and a preserved neuter).
26
Our material does not always agree with hers.
27
This is the dialect of Slovenicised Germans, who have, generally speaking, greatly simplified the
morphology.
498
Dialect Topics
4.2.4.2 *-o > -a following akanje, while the noun is masculine: in two local dialects of the Koro{ka Zilja dialect (5 Ukve/Ugovizza,28 8 Rate~e);
4.2.4.3 *-o > -Ø, the noun preserves the neuter: in the Koro{ka Ro` local dialect
(28 @itara vas – Sittersdorf);
4.2.4.4 *-o > -u or -ə after a consonant group, but the noun is nevertheless masculine (see 1.2.2 and 1.2.1.5).
5 The most condensed description of the neuter in Slovenian can be found in
Ramov{’s Morfologija slovenskega jezika (Morphology of the Slovenian Language,
1952: 35–37). This work features a number of inaccuracies, and is often at variance
with his findings in his Dialekti (1935), which is a further proof that his Morfologija
was only an approximate indication of what he knew at the time.29
5.1 Ramov{ noted all the phenomena described here; the discrepancies with our
findings lie chiefly in their geographical extent and have arisen as a result of the expansion of the modern vowel reduction of the word-final -o in the last 50 years (it should
also be borne in mind that this paper is restricted to only a few -o nouns). Ramov{ does
not make further mention, for example, of tendencies towards the narrowing of -o to
-ọ, -ȯ (and even to -u) in a number of [tajerska and Pannonian local dialects (which
he believed still preserved -o). One also observes a widening of the area in which a
complete -u (< *-o) > - reduction is attested: to the Western Gorenjska local dialects,
several Northern Dolenjska local dialects, and to most of the Eastern Dolenjska local
dialects. Ramov{ (1952: 36) was well aware that masculinisation was taking place for
morphological reasons, since the forms differed only in the nominative and accusative, and that the complete reduction of the nominative and accusative ending and the
equalisation of all singular case endings were even further accelerating the process.
The situation we see today is also proof of this, since masculinisation is known in all
local dialects in which the -o (along with a fair number of others) has disappeared and
now covers a condensed area along the Sava river from the Kanalska Valley in Italy,
across the whole of Gorenjska and through the Karavanke deep into Koro{ka (the Ro`
part), and to Obir, the whole of Sev{ka and Poljanska valleys, the ^rni Vrh plateau,
the Ljubljana basin, the northern half of Dolenjska (including Posavje and Zasavje)
and Southern [tajerska along the Savinja to the mouth of the Paka, and the Celje
basin up to [marje pri Jel{ah. The morphological nature of masculinisation is also
confirmed by its expansion to the -o or -ə < *-o area to two Koro{ka Ro` local dialects
28
E.g. trúːpwá, kalːná, àlːzá.
Ramov{’s Morfologija slovenskega jezika (Morphology of the Slovenian Language) is an edited collection of lecture notes from 1947/48 and 1948/49 prepared by his students B. Pogorelec, P. Merku, and
M. Sovre. The author reviewed and approved the notes on 1 June 1952, when his health was already failing
(he died three months later). Although this work remains invaluable, its very nature (a series of lecture
notes) means that it does not match the quality of his monographs and does not reflect the full extent of
his findings.
29
499
(16 Sve~e [Suetschach] and 19 Slovenji Plajberk [Windisch Bleiberg]) and two Zilja
local dialects (8 Rate~ and 5 Ukev) with -a < *-o, while the Ro` local dialect 28 @itara
vas (Sittersdorf) preserves the neuter despite a silent -o. Nouns with positional -u or
-ə do not preserve the neuter after the consonant group in a number of Dolenjska and
Eastern Dolenjska local dialects.30
5.2 Ramov{ was not aware of feminisation of the neuter in the west, in the Ba~a
micro-dialect of the Rovte Tolmin dialect,31 which through feminisation (Logar 21996:
412) in the plural, and as a result of akanje, has spread to neighbouring local dialects
via individual nouns; it has already spread to the Tolmin (161 Most na So~i) and
Cerkno local dialects (165 [ebrelje). Feminisation is also attested in the 164 Gorenja
Trebu{a local dialect, although masculinisation is also advancing there from the east
such that both phenomena are possible. Ramov{ was aware of local dialects which,
despite akanje, preserved the neuter (e.g. other Cerkno and Karst Ba~a local dialects).
In general, the area of contact between the Rovte and Primorska dialect groups is a
very sensitive one as far as this phenomenon is concerned and the present situation
probably also unstable. Phonetic developments do not overlap with morphological
developments; rather, phonetic and morphological phenomena occur in contact with
each other. Further changes can be expected.32
5.3 Ramov{ (1952: 37) describes a feminised area in the east that is only slightly
larger than the mixed area here, and he incorrectly gives Gori~ansko as the centre of
this phenomenon, alongside Kozjak. It was clear to Ramov{ in the Dialekti (1935:
172, 175, 190) that feminisation in the Pannonian Prekmurje dialect and the northeastern part of the Prlekija dialect was confined to a few neuter nouns, which could
differ from one local dialect to the next. In none of the local dialects in this dialect
does feminisation encompass all nouns; the preservation of a number of neuter nouns,
which Ramov{ attributes solely to Slovenske Gorice in the Morfologija, in fact applies
to the whole area. The rules of feminisation of individual nouns in the Prekmurje and
Prlekija dialects are difficult or indeed impossible to ascertain (it is partly the case
that feminisation is more common in those nouns generally used in the plural). At the
centre of this occurrence (in the north of Slovenske Gorice, i.e., the Slovenske Gorice
dialect, as well as in the Kozjak and Pohorje local dialects), one can detect some of the
rules by which the new morphological division of neuter nouns has arisen. According
to Koletnik (2001: 129–132), these are as follows for the Slovenske Gorice dialect:
some neuter nouns can preserve their gender and declension only in the singular,
being feminised or masculinised in the dual and plural; in the singular the neuter is
mostly preserved (1) in uncountable nouns (e.g., mleko, vino, ìto), (2) in nouns which
in oblique cases extend the stem with -t and -n; however, some of them, because they
30
Ramov{ does not mention Dolenjska dialects in which -o > -u > -ə reduction is possible, although it is
now attested in Rakitna and to the east of there; we can infer from this that it is a recent development.
31
Rigler (22001: 450) has drawn attention to this: »Feminisation of the neuter also appears in the west,
not just in the east (see Cronia, SR III, 324).«
32
On the microlocations of individual phenomena, see Kenda-Je` (1999a: 217, footnote 12).
500
Dialect Topics
also have the extension in the nominative by analogy, can also be masculine (e.g., tele,
`rebe; te`ko bremen and tisti bremen); (3) a considerable number of nouns take the
-a ending in the nominative and decline according to the feminine -a declension, or
are feminised in the singular (e.g., ~ela, gnezda, kolena, korita, {ila, okna). In several
Slovenske Gorice local dialects (Negova, Ivanjci, ^re{njevci, and Radenci), certain
nouns that are neuter in the nominative are then declined as feminine nouns (koleno,
-e, -i). In the Morfologija (1952: 37), feminisation in this area is explained as being
the result of pluralia tantum (plu~a, jetra, nebesa, vrata), where, following akanje in
the dative, locative and instrumental endings -om > -am, -ah, -ami, the majority of
plural endings were the same as the feminine -a endings, as expected, which is why
the nominative took -e (plju~e, jetre) by analogy, with a gradual transition to feminine
declension in the plural and then the singular. The weakness of this explanation (accepted by Zorko and Koletnik) lies in the fact that akanje has not been attested in the
local dialects in this area, as Ramov{ well knew. He does not explain the generalisation of -a endings by akanje but by analogy with the nominative and accusative plural
(Dialekti, 167).33 The commonly used genitive zero-ending had an influence here that
should not be overlooked, as did the syllable word structure present in both feminine
-a and neuter declensions (lipe, lip = vrata, vrat).34 The original difference in the
nominative is not important since nouns of the same gender can also have different
phonetic endings in the singular (already in neuter: in -o or -e).
6 Conclusion. Using the methodology of linguistic geography to show the extent
of preservation of neuter nouns in -o in Slovenian dialects, and by comparing these
findings with those of Ramov{ from an earlier date, the following can be said:
1) The process of masculinisation in central Slovenian dialects (in a wide belt that
stretches along the Sava river) is ongoing, and is closely connected with a phonetic
phenomenon, i.e., reduction *-o > -Ø;
2) The process of feminisation has two centres: (a) the north-east, in the wider surroundings of Maribor, which has its origins in morphological analogies in the plural
and has affected only some neuter nouns; with lexicalisation, the process stopped not
long ago, and the situation can differ widely from one local dialect to the next; (b) the
west, in the western environs of Tolmin, where it is the result of akanje and where the
process is still continuing and is also being stimulated by the tendency towards simpli-
33
The following passage from the Dialekti (p. 167) confirms that Ramov{’s summary was wrong: »Of
the morphological features [Pohorje-Kozjak dialect, author’s note], particular mention should be made of
the feminisation of the neuter, which to a greater or lesser extent appears in Kozjak, in Slovenske Gorice,
and in Prekmurje; it originates from the unification of the plural in the feminine and neuter: following
the nominative and accusative -a, -am, -ax, -ami also appeared in the neuter (the genitive was without an
ending); and now, following the feminine (which has had the same form, except in the nominative and
accusative), a form has arisen with -e in the nominative and accusative: vrȃt (and all the neuter plural only
nouns) are now perceived as being feminine singular; e.g., u~sa for oko, ȅna drevsa, ȅna ȁkna (lto,
drvo, mlŋku, ȗxo, etc. are also used).«
34
In the Eastern Dolenjska local dialect of [entrupert (262), following masculinisation of neuter, the
stem of the genitive plural began to extend with -ov (korakov = koritov).
501
fication of declensions; the situation differs from one local dialect to the next, and the
vowel ending in the nominative singular is not relevant to the gender of the noun;
3) The neuter has been preserved in a fairly wide belt on the periphery; the vowel
ending has generally been preserved, albeit in a partly reduced form.
Joel Smith.
REFERENCES
BENEDIK, F., 1999: Vodnik po zbirki nare~nega gradiva za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA).
Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC (ZRC SAZU), 154 p.
BERN{TEJN, S. B., 22000: Razmy{lenija o slavjanskoj dialektologii. In: Iz problematiki dialektologii i lingvogeografii. Sbornik statej. Moskva: »Indrik«. 299–309.
JAKOP, T., 2004: Dvojina v slovenskih nare~jih. Doktorsko delo, mentorica Vera Smole, somentor Vladimir Nartnik, Ljubljana, FF. Computer printout, 213 p. + Priloge (indeksi: 55 p.,
member of maps: 26).
KENDA-JE`, K., 1999: Predgovor. In: F. BENEDIK, Vodnik po zbirki nare~nega gradiva za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA). Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC (ZRC SAZU), 5–9.
– – 1999a: Fonolo{ki opis govora kraja Cerkno(OLA 6, SLA 166). Jezikoslovni zapiski 5:
Zbornik In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni
center SAZU, 207–234.
KOLETNIK, M., 2001: Slovenskogori{ko nare~je. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo (Zora; 12), 323
p.
LOGAR, T., 21999: Rovtarska nare~ja (^lanki za Enciklopedijo Slovenije). In: Dialektolo{ke in
jezikovnozgodovinske razprave (ur. Karmen Kenda-Je`). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, In{titut za
slovenski jezik Frana Ramov{a, 407–412.
OROÈN, M. 22003: Pogled na slovensko nare~no oblikoslovje od V. Oblaka do T. Logarja. In:
Razvoj slovenske jezikoslovne misli. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo (Zora; 26), 173–184.
POKLA~, S., 2001: Akanje v slovenskih nare~jih (po gradivu za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas).
Diplomsko delo, mentorica Vera Smole, Ljubljana, FF. Computer printout, 119 p. + 12
maps.
RAMOV{, F., 1935: Histori~na gramatika slovenskega jezika VII., Dialekti. Ljubljana: U~iteljska
tiskarna, 204 p.
– – 1952: Morfologija slovenskega jezika. Skripta, prirejena po predavanjih prof. dr. Fr. Ramov{a v l. 1947/48, 48/49. Ljubljana: DZS, 167 p.
RIGLER, J., 22001: Ramov{eva Morfologija slovenskega jezika. In: Zbrani spisi 1. Jezikovnozgodovinske in dialektolo{ke razprave. (ed. V. SMOLE). Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
449–464. [Written in 1953/54, published in SR 33/3. 1986.]
SMOLE, V., 1997: Sovplivanje samoglasnikov in soglasnikov v vzhodnodoelnjskih govorih. Jezikoslovni zapiski 3, Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. 167–173.
ZORKO, Z., 1995: Nare~na podoba Dravske doline. Maribor: Kulturni forum (Zbirka Piramida;
3). 362 p.
– – 1998: Halo{ko nare~je in druge dialektolo{ke {tudije. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo (Zora;
6). 342 p.
502
Dialect Topics
POVZETEK
Srednji spol je v sodobnih slovenskih nare~jih tista kategorija, ki izkazuje razli~no stanje:
ohranjenost, maskulinizacijo ali feminizacijo, obseg teh pojavov pa ni natan~no dolo~en ne v
oblikoslovnih sistemih ne glede na prostor. Droben prispevek k temu je z metodami lingvisti~ne
geografije obdelan spol samostalnikov srednjega spola na nenagla{eni -o (okno, korito, ìto,
èlezo, vino in leto) – gradivo je iz zbirke za Slovenski lingvisti~ni atlas (SLA), ugotovitve pa
primerjane s sinteti~nimi starej{imi (Ramov{ 1952, 1935), ki zajemajo vse samostalnike srednjega spola. Prostorski prikaz in razlage pojavov maskulinizacije in feminizacije nevter so v
Ramov{ 1952 neto~ne, mestoma napa~ne, a àl v dialektolo{ki literaturi najpogosteje citirane;
pravilneje, a seveda v delu razpr{eno in veljavne za tisti ~as, so pojavi prikazani v Ramov{
1935. Ugotovitve, nastale s primerjavo slednjih in dela kartografiranega gradiva za SLA, lahko
strnemo takole:
1) proces maskulinizacije v osrednjih slovenskih nare~jih v {irokem pasu ob Savi se nadaljuje in je tesno povezan z glasoslovnim pojavom, tj. z redukcijo *-o > -Ø;
2) proces feminizacije ima dve sredi{~i: a) severovzhodno, v {ir{i okolici Maribora, ki ima
vzvod v morfolo{kih analogijah v mnoìni in je zajel samo del samostalnikov srednjega spola
– z leksikalizacijo se je proces nedolgo nazaj ustavil, stanje v posameznih govorih pa je lahko
zelo razli~no; b) zahodno, v zahodni okolici Tolmina, je posledica akanja, proces {e poteka,
spodbuja pa ga tudi te`nja k poenostavitvi sklanjatev – stanje v posameznih govorih je razli~no,
glasovna kon~nica v I. ed. za spol samostalnika ni relevantna;
3) srednji spol se ohranja v dokaj {irokem obrobnem pasu; glasovna kon~nica, ~etudi v
delno reducirani obliki, je praviloma ohranjena.
503
504
Dialect Topics
Vojko Gorjanc, Corpus-Linguistics and Lexical Descriptions of the Slovenian Language 505
CORPUS-LINGUISTIC TOPICS
UDC 811.163.6’373
Vojko Gorjanc
CORPUS LINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SLOVENIAN LANGUAGE
The paper presents a brief overview of the history of the corpus approach in Slovenian language studies and the existing corpora of the Slovenian language. These corpora have provided
an incentive for a series of thorough linguistic studies, both monolingual and contrastive; at the
same time they are becoming an indispensable part of general linguistic research, especially in
the field of lexical or lexicosemantic studies. In the second part of the paper, a case study illustrates one of the procedures in lexical corpus analysis: using selected examples, we demonstrate
how it is possible to track changes in the lexis of the Slovenian language in the last decade of
the twentieth century.
V ~lanku na kratko predstavimo zgodovinsko ozadje korpusnega pristopa v slovenisti~nem
jezikoslovju, ob tem pa tudi obstoje~e korpuse slovenskega jezika. Ti so v bili za jezikoslovje
v slovenskem prostoru pobudni za vrsto celovitih korpusnih {tudij, tako enojezi~nih kot tudi
kontrastivnih, hkrati pa postajajo vse bolj nepogre{ljiv del jezikoslovnega raziskovalnega
dela sploh, predvsem ko gre za leksikalne oz. leksikalnopomenske {tudije. V drugem delu s
{tudijo primera prikaèmo enega od postopkov leksikalne korpusne analize: z izbranimi zgledi
pokaèmo na mo`nosti sledenja spremembam leksike slovenskega jezika v zadnjem desetletju
prej{njega stoletja.
Key words: corpus linguistics, lexical semantics, Slovenian corpora
Klju~ne besede: korpusno jezikoslovje, leksikalno pomenoslovje, korpusi sloven{~ine
1 Introduction
In the last decade, corpus linguistics has established itself as a separate research
starting point, strictly empirical in nature, in which language is explored exclusively
on the basis of texts which form a universe of discourse and are collected in corpora
for research purposes. Corpus linguistics focuses primarily on the meaning which
manifests itself as language use (Teubert 1999). Within this framework, the starting
point for contemporary lexical descriptions is the analysis of large samples of materials collected with a purpose and the empirical analysis of actual samples of language
use (Biber et. al. 1998: 5, 9–10). These characteristics cannot be found in older precomputer corpora (êrmák 2002: 265). Setting standards, based on the analysis of
discourse space, for including texts in corpora contributes in an important way to the
quality of the language data found in a corpus. In this way, it is possible to establish
a distinction between the typical and the special/individual, i.e. the recognition of
the central and the peripheral language phenomena, and the observation of their distribution in different texts (Gorjanc, Krek and Gantar: 2001: 4), among other things
by comparing their times of creation. In Slovenia, different types of corpora have
emerged in the past few years thus establishing the field of corpus linguistics as a
506
Corpus-Linguistic Topics
separate research starting point. Corpora were, of course, a necessary prerequisite
for such a development, but in the last few years a number of corpus-based linguistic
studies have been carried out.
It is the aim of this paper to briefly present the history of the corpus approach in
Slovenian linguistic studies and the existing corpora of the Slovenian language, as
well as to draw attention to the linguistic studies of the past few years based on this
approach. In the second part of the paper, one of the procedures in lexical corpus analysis is presented: the selected examples show the possibility to track changes in the
lexis of the Slovenian language in the last decade of the twentieth century by selecting
lexical elements introduced into the language with the arrival of the Internet. In addition to showing the dynamics of lexical development, it is our goal to demonstrate the
response of the speakers of Slovenian in their acceptance of English lexical elements
and their integration into Slovenian.
2 Brief overview of history
Just as the pre-computer corpus SEU, Survey of English Usage, which began
in the second half of the 1950s, was a turning point in the linguistic description of
English (Kennedy 1998: 19), the collection of materials compiled for the design of
Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika (1970−1991) (Engl. Dictionary of the Standard
Slovenian Language), was a turning point for Slovenian lexicosemantic descriptions
since it enabled a thorough description of the Slovenian language on the basis of data
on textual reality. In the 1960s, when the concept of the new monolingual dictionary
was fully formed, lexical descriptions based on materials collected for that purpose,
which rejected descriptions of linguistic elements not based on real language use and
exceeded the normative approach to language description, were designed.
Because of the threat to the existence of our nationality, the Slovenians, perhaps more than
other nations, are used to being very careful so as not to introduce too many foreign elements or elements not attested to by the literary tradition into our standard language. The
dictionary will register much more now: that, which has been recognised as good, less
good, or even bad. We tried to show the standard language in its broadest sense of the word:
alive, full, with synonyms, inner oppositions, parallel simultaneous norms, a language in
its momentum and development. /.../ The dictionary will register the actual state of the
language, the bases of its norms, while labels and indicators will be used to show special
features, double forms and exceptions (Suhadolnik 1968: 4–5).
About ten years after the first computer corpus, the Brown Corpus, which was
created approximately at the same time as the pre-computer corpus for the Slovar
slovenskega knji`nega jezika (Engl. Dictionary of the Standard Slovenian Language),
Croatians began designing their first corpus, based on the American Brown Corpus.
Formally, the work began in 1975; the aim of the project was to build a million-word
corpus of contemporary Croatian texts (Mogu{ et. al. 1999: 6). This ambitious project
demonstrates the remarkable ability of Croatian linguistics to respond to the trends in
American and European linguistics of the time. It is, however, interesting that Sloveni-
an linguistics offered no active response, even though the need for »developing a section dedicated to computational linguistics (with a focus on linguistics)« was recognised at the conference on the Slovene language in Portoro` in 1979 (Pogorelec 1983:
113−114). Individual studies, such as T. Koro{ec’s PhD thesis (1976), prove that certain linguists pursued the ideas of an automatic linguistic analysis in Slovenia as well.
In the 1980s the field of computer-assisted language data processing began to develop
dynamically; proceedings from academic conferences on this topic (Ra~unalni{ka obdelava lingvisti~nih podatkov, Engl. Computer Processing of Linguistic Data 1982,
1985) testify to this, but it remained a peripheral research topic of Slovenian language
studies and Slovenian language researchers rarely participated in research on this topic (Koro{ec et. al 1982). In general, the topic was not explored by Slovenian language
researchers and it was computer experts who initiated all the research. It is a pity that
Slovenian language studies did not focus on the field of language technology research
more, since an excellent opportunity to begin actively developing the field of language
technologies of the Slovenian language was missed. This meant that Slovenian language studies only began to focus on language technologies in the second half of the
1990s and started to actively shape this field. Most of the activities were connected
with language resource design, especially corpus design.
3 Slovenian language corpora
There are quite a few of corpora available for the Slovenian language; most of
them were designed in the second half of the 1990s. The exploration of corpus-building largely began within the framework of an international project, MULTEXT-EAST,
which resulted in small literary and newspaper text corpora of Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Romanian and Slovenian. In their creation, standards for corpus
design and linguistic annotation tools, used earlier in the MULTEXT project, were
tested (Erjavec et al. 1995: 88−89). In the second half of the 1990s, the necessity of
building larger corpora of the Slovenian language became apparent.
At the moment, there are two monolingual corpora available for the Slovenian language. The first is the 100-million-word reference corpus of the Slovenian language,
the FIDA Corpus, a result of co-operation of two research/pedagogical and two commercial partners, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Joèf Stefan Institute, DZS
Publishing House in Amebis Ltd. The corpus was collected between 1997 and 2000, it
is available at http://www.fida.net; Amebis Ltd. also developed concordance software
ASP32 (http://www.amebis.si) for corpus analysis of the FIDA Corpus. Unlike the
FIDA Corpus, which is a reference corpus, the other, and currently, largest corpus,
Nova beseda, a corpus of over 160-million words at the Institute of the Slovenian
Language ZRC SAZU has no ambition to be a reference corpus; the largest part of
the corpus is composed of texts from Delo, a daily newspaper, (http://bos.zrc-sazu.
si/s_beseda.html); but it is currently the largest, freely accessible corpus of the Slovenian language.
At the moment, a new large reference corpus of the Slovenian language, FidaPLUS, (http://www.fidaplus.net) is being created. It is an open-ended corpus to which
508
texts are constantly being added; the individual segments will gradually become more
balanced and it will include a segment of a spoken subcorpus (http://gandalf.aksis.uib.
no/tale/ssp/adgang.html). This introduces an entirely new dimension in both quantity
and quality of language resource design in the Slovenian context.
Type of
corpus
Format
FIDA
synchronic
static
reference
written (the only
spoken segment:
transcriptions of
parliamentary
discussions)
SGML
TEI
Nova beseda
synchronic
-diachronic
dynamic
non-reference
written (the only spoken
segment: transcriptions
of parliamentary
discussions)
special format in the
EVA editor/an XML
version
no linguistic annotation
Plans for FidaPLUS
synchronic
dynamic
reference
written +
a pilot spoken
segment+
a sample of Slovene
Internet archive
XML
TEI
automatic
lemmatization
automatic
morphosyntactic
tagging
Linguistic
annotation
automatic
lemmatization
automatic
morphosyntactic
tagging
Tools for
analysis
ASP32
Neva
ASP32 and Bonito
Size
100 million
162 million
Accessibility
free access for
researchers in the
institutions involved in
the project, other users
are charged a fee
free access
300 million; 100
million balanced
free access for noncommercial use with
user registration
Table 1: Basic data on the type and characteristics of the FIDA Corpus, the Nova beseda Corpus and the FidaPLUS Corpus.
Ensuring a permanent dynamic growth of a reference corpus will have to be one of
the priorities in language resource design for Slovenian in the future, but there is also
a growing need to consider the Web as a corpus for Slovenian, with all its limitations,
since we need to be aware that the ideas which work with English cannot simply be
transferred to Slovenian. The importance of a dynamic reference corpus is well-illustrated by a topical expression referring to a new genre, which has appeared fairly
recently in Slovenian, but has quickly become naturalized and can motivate in the
sense of word-formation, i.e. blog.
FIDA
blog
bloger
Nova beseda
blog
bloger
blogger
blogerski
bloggerski
Najdi.si
blog
blogg
blogar
blogarica
bloger
blogerka
blogerski
blogger
bloggerjev
bloggec
blogati
bloganje
Figure 1: The term blog and its derivations in the FIDA Corpus, the Nova beseda Corpus and
on the Najdi.si website [5 November 2005].
Parallel corpora for Slovenian exist only in combination with English so far, in
spite of the tendency for different language combinations. An English-Slovenian
corpus, ELAN, (http://nl.ijs.si/elan) was made within the framework of a European
project, the corpus project of students of Translation at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, TRANS, http://www-ai.ijs.si/~spela/trans-index.html, is similar to
ELAN, while Evrokorpus, http://www.sigov.si/evrokor/, a parallel corpus was produced as an upgrade of the terminological database created in the translation of European legislation.
4 Lexicosemantic corpus descriptions of the Slovenian language
We now leave aside the lexicosemantic descriptions of the Slovenian language
based on pre-computer language corpora, above all the Slovar slovenskega knji`nega
jezika (Engl. Dictionary of the Standard Slovenian Language) (1970−1991) and the
lexicosemantic studies based on this dictionary (Vidovi~ Muha 2000). As mentioned
above, they are an extremely important segment in the development of Slovenian linguistic studies which was made possible above all by the data on language reality. We
would like to focus on the segment of corpus-based descriptions, i.e. the empirical
analysis of samples of language in use as manifested by a corpus with automatic and
interactive techniques.
Corpus linguistics has successfully completed its first phase, which is, of course,
essential for any further development, with the completed projects of corpus building.
The inevitable interdisciplinary approach in corpus design has helped create a solid
basis for a broad development of the field. The existing Slovenian language corpora
have also provided an incentive for a series of thorough corpus studies, both monolingual and contrastive (Gorjanc 2002, 2005b, Vintar 2003, Gantar 2004, Pisanski Peterlin 2005). At the same time, corpora, especially the FIDA Corpus, are increasingly
becoming an indispensable part of language research in general, above all in lexical
510
and lexicosemantic studies (e.g. Gorjanc and Krek 2001, Jakopin 2001, Vintar 2001,
Drstven{ek 2003, Krek 2003, Vintar and Gorjanc 2003, Erjavec and Vintar 2004, Krek
2004, Gorjanc, Krek and Gantar 2005, Holz 2005, @agar 2005), many of which are
also phraseological studies (e.g. Gantar 2003, Krì{nik 2003).
Just as for other languages, the introduction of corpora in language descriptions
meant important dictionary projects for Slovenian as well. Unfortunately, corpora
have not provided an incentive for monolingual lexicography, but it was in the stage
of the design of the new, comprehensive English-Slovenian dictionary that the FIDA
Corpus, which later became the basis for the Slovene part of the Oxford-DZS English-Slovenian dictionary (Simon Krek, Ed., 2005: Veliki angle{ko-slovenski slovar
Oxford. A−K. Ljubljana: DZS. 1035 pages), began to be created. This is the first dictionary into which the corpus data of Slovenian is incorporated (Grabnar and [orli
2003).
4.1 An example of a lexicosemantic corpus analysis
To illustrate how structured language data in a corpus can be used for lexical analyses, we present here one of the examples of a lexical corpus analysis of the Slovenian language which is only possible with a large quantity of machine-readable language data. The starting point of the analysis involved comparing the wordlist from
the FIDA Corpus with the list of new terms in English, as presented by J. Ayto (1999).
By means of corpus analysis, we tried to determine when a lexical element motivated in English occurs in the Slovenian language and how it establishes itself in the
language. Since pairs of synonyms or strings often occur with new lexical elements,
we tried to determine these relations as well. With the help of markers of semantic
relations already identified for the Slovenian language by corpus analysis (Vintar and
Gorjanc 2003), we identified pairs of synonyms and strings within the corpus, and
studied the dominance of one or the other element in the pair of synonyms.
4.1.1 Obtaining corpus data on pairs of synonyms and strings
Semantically related lexemes often appear in predictable contexts; that is why it
is possible to identify semantically connected lexis on the basis of samples of mutual textual connections from the corpus. The starting point was determining the text
markers of semantic relations; a corpus analysis based on a subcorpus of natural science and technical texts from the FIDA Corpus and examples from research in other
languages (Meyer et al. 1999; Pearson 1998: 174–175) has revealed the following relevant text elements which function as interlexeme semantic relation markers (Vintar
in Gorjanc 2000) for Slovenian:
• for synonymy: ali, ali tudi, imenujemo (tudi), imenovan tudi, sinonim, je sinonim
za, znan tudi kot, znan tudi pod imenom, je poimenovan, nosi ime... (Engl. or, also,
we (also) call it, also called, a synonym, is a synonym for, also known as, also
referred to as, is called, is named...)
• for hyper- and hyponymy: je, kot je (na primer), kot je npr., je vrsta, pri{tevamo
Vojko Gorjanc, Corpus-Linguistics and Lexical Descriptions of the Slovenian Language
511
med, sodi med, med * sodi, spada med, spada v druìno, uvr{~amo med, med *
uvr{~amo, uvr{~amo v skupino... (Engl. is, such as (for instance), e.g., is a type of,
is classified among, belongs to, belongs among, belongs to, belongs to the family,
is classified among, is classified in the group...)
• for meronymy: ima, ima * dele, je iz, je sestavljen iz, vsebuje... (Engl. has, has *
parts, is made of, is composed of, contains ...)
Among the above listed markers, the connectors ali (Engl. or) and ali tudi (Engl.
also) are irrelevant for corpus analyses with the analytical procedures used here, since
they cover too many different text functions and yield poor results in terms of identifying two terminological synonyms. The situation is quite different with regard to some
other semantic markers, such as imenovan tudi/imenujemo tudi (Engl. also called /we
also call it).
opisan neposreden način odkril dušikov oksid,
Vitamin B1,
Vitamin B2,
Stopnjo dostopa do kode
rumenkastorjave maroge. Ta samotarski kuščar,
že kdaj slišal(-a), da Zemljo
Zato spletne strani
Večplastno osebnost
karte meril 1 : 10 000 in 1 : 5 000
Oddajanje hitrih elektronov
Snovi v trdnem agregatnem stanju
imenovan tudi
imenovan tudi
imenovan tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenovan tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenujemo tudi
imenujemo tudi
smejalni plin, zaradi katerega postane človek
tiamin, je verjetno najbolj znan med šestimi vitamini
riboflavin, je pravzaprav deležen najmanj pozornosti
doseg procedure.
žlezoglavi legvan, je v preteklosti
modri planet?
HTML dokumenti. V osnovi je HTML dokument
razcepljena osebnost; to je izraz, s katerim
detajlne geološke karte, karte v še večjih merilih
sevanje žarkov ß, ves pojav pa
trdnine. Tudi pri njih nas zanima, kako se
Figure 2: Part of the concordance string for the search condition imenovan tudi/imenujemo
tudi (Engl. also called /we also call it).
The marker of synonymy imenujemo tudi (Engl. we also call it) actually shows
true synonyms, e.g. du{ikov oksid – smejalni plin (Engl. nitrous oxide – laughing
gas), vitamin B1 – tiamin (Engl. vitamin B1 – tiamine), vitamin B2 – riboflavin (Engl.
vitamin B2 – riboflavin), dostop do kode – doseg procedure (Engl. code access – procedure scope), spletna stran – HTML dokument (Engl. web page – HTML document).
At the same time, it turns out that it connects not only lexical synonyms, but also the
lexeme and its paraphrase, e.g. Trdine so snovi v trdnem agregatnem stanju, @eleznata
tla so tla, bogata predvsem z èlezovimi spojinami (Engl. Solids are materials in the
solid phase, Ferrous soil is rich above all in iron compounds) etc.
Punctuation marks in their non-syntactic role, above all quotation marks and parentheses, also occur as interlexeme relation markers; they generally mark pairs of
synonyms by including the synonym which is less frequent, uncommon or foreign in
origin (Gorjanc 1996: 256–257). It is also possible to obtain information on synonyms
from a corpus by using these two types of punctuation marks, but it has turned out
that as the parentheses above all, are multifunctional, the analyses fail to yield relevant
results. However, if we limit the search to a specific part of the corpus, e.g. natural science texts (Cobiss label Natural sciences), and to adjacent noun + noun combinations,
the results are encouraging.
512
enocelični plazmodiji razgrajajo rdeča krvna
v vodik in kisik. Vodik se nabira na negativni
lastnosti dimnih zaves temeljijo na optičnih pojavih
dneh na zemeljski ekvator (polutnik) ter na oba
tega ima sodobna kopija kar 8-krat večji delovni
kemijski postopek, kako iz slanice pridobivati natrijev
lastnosti sta hitro učinkovanje in visoka stopnja
dela ali telesa nevrona, več krajših, vejastih
Je pri svojih operacijah uporabljal karbolno
sušijo, potem ko so jih prepojili s polietilen
sestava je odvisna od matične kamnine, odnašanja
Ptiče bogov in kraljev, ki se v času
telesca (eritrocite)
elektrodi (katodi)
disperzije (razprševanja)
pola (tečaja)
pomnilnik (RAM)
hidroksid (lug)
strupenosti (toksičnosti)
izrastkov (dendritov)
kislino (fenol)
glikolom (PEG),
prsti (erozije)
ženitve (spomladi)
in ob tem povzročajo silne napad
, kisik pa na pozitivni
in absorpcije (vsrkanja) svetlobe
, severnega in južnega. Če naprej
In 4-krat večji trajni pomnilnik (ROM)
, ki je za izdelavo mila neprimerno boljši
; so brez barve, vonja in okusa.
in le enega dolgega izrastka (aksona).
, da je preprečil zastrupitve. Kasneje so
v vodi topljivo polimerno smolo, katere
in živih bitij, ki sodelujejo pri nastajanju
v resnici prelevijo v pravljična bitja.
Figure 3: Part of an edited concordance string for the search Noun (Noun) in the subcorpus
»natural sciences« (Cobiss).
Once the concordance string is edited and only pairs or synonyms are left, it turns
out that parentheses as markers of synonymy generally occur with lexicalised semantic pairs, e.g. rde~e krvno telesce – eritrocit (Engl. red blood cell – erythrocyte),
karbolna kislina – fenol (Engl. carbolic acid – phenol), odna{anje prsti – erozija
(Engl. soil loss – erosion), etc., while pairs of synonyms where a text actualisation is
used as a synonym are rare, e.g. ~as ènitve – spomladi (Engl. time of marriage – in
the spring). The text sample is thus effective for obtaining pairs of synonyms from the
text; the pairs of synonyms are above all of the type loan word – Slovenian word or
acronym – phrase.
4.1.2 The distribution of selected pairs of synonyms or concordance strings
4.1.2 in the FIDA Corpus
It is possible to follow the relations between pairs of synonyms and synonym
strings with the aid of corpus data. Corpus data will reveal the dominant term in a pair
of synonyms or a string, and, according to the information on time distribution, the
change in the dominant term with usage preference in a discourse community.
Corpus data can thus be used to realise the principle of synchrony, based on European structuralism. Due to the nature of language data, synchrony has often been equated with synchronic statics; this, however, was not the original idea of structuralism:
It would be a serious mistake to consider statics and synchrony to be synonyms. Static section is a fiction: it is not a special form of scientific procedure, only its auxiliary method.
The perception of a film may be considered not only diachronically, but also synchronically: however, the synchronic view of a film is not identical with an isolated picture extracted from the film. The perception of movement is present even in synchronic view. The
same is true of language (Jakobson 1931: 264–265). (English translation form: Dictionary
of the Prague school of linguistics. (Ed.) Libu{e Du{ková. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 2003, p.154)
Dynamic corpora above all, to which new texts are continuously added, are truly
able to follow the development of a language; at the same time they reflect decisions
513
of the discourse community. This can be seen from the example of an analysis of the
lexical element (svetovni) splet (Engl. (World Wide) Web) entering the Slovene universe of discourse in the second half of the last decade.
In the two years after its first appearance, only the loan word occurs in the corpus,
but when the Slovenian variant appears, it immediately becomes a successful rival and
the use of the loan word gradually decreases (Gorjanc 2005b: 115).
Figure 4: Proportion of terms for WWW between the years 1994 and 1999 in the FIDA Corpus.
In written texts, the dominance of the Slovenian synonym over the loan word is
even more obvious in the case of another key term from the field of the Internet, i.e.
home page. After eliminating corpus noise related to proper names of pages, it turns
out that the Slovenian term doma~a stran (Engl. home page), has dominated completely (91.8 % of corpus occurrences). In addition to the calque doma~a stran (Engl.
home page), there is also a rival new term predstavitvena stran (Engl. presentation
page) (6.8 %), but it seems that the motivation in the calque from English is more acceptable. The opposite occurs with the term screen saver.
In addition to the loan word, the calque var~evalnik zaslona occurs next, but a
later Slovenian term formed by using the attribute ohrajeva- (Engl. keep) turns out to
be more acceptable. Two derivational variants occur, but later the derivative from the
adjective with the suffix -ik dominates.
The term internet itself is now fully integrated in the Slovenian language; this is
partly due to its everyday use. As a noun, it occurs as a premodifier in noun phrases:
e.g. internet storitev (Engl. Internet service), internet naslov (Engl. URL), internet
povezava (Engl. Internet connection), internet ponudnik (Engl. Internet service provider), internet stran (Engl. Web page), internet ra~un (Engl. Internet account), internet protokol (Engl. Internet protocol). The noun internet happens to be extremely
prolific in terms of word formation, since it forms:
514
•
•
•
•
•
derived classifying adjectives ending in -ni, and -ski: internetni, internetski,
a derived classifying adjective ending in -ov: internetov
a classifying adjective of a higher degree of derivation in -ski : internetovski,;
an adverb derived from the classifying adjective in -ski: internetsko
a noun derived from a noun and a noun of a higher degree of derivation derived
from an adjective: internetar; internetovec, as well as
• a compound noun meaning »internet addict« internetdànki (Engl. Internet junkie).
In classifying adjectives, the variability is relatively high, that is why we attempted
Figure 5: Relations in the synonym string for ’screen saver’ in the FIDA Corpus.
to determine whether the corpus can reveal information on links between an individual variant and specific strings of co-occurrences. It turns out that the collocators
of the adjectives internetni, internetski and internetovski overlap /service, page, search
engine, business, shop, bookseller, service provider.../, so that it is impossible to determine the specific phrases in the individual instances. Therefore, it seems that the
use is very much optional and different variants of the adjective are possible with the
same headword. In the case of the adjective internetov, which is the least common of
the adjectives listed above, the link to the headword is completely dispersed; this indicates that the suffix variant -ov is not integrated and consequently inappropriate for
the classifying character of the adjective. The frequent use of the classifying adjective
with the suffix -ni (internetni) shows a prevalence of this variant, its only real rival is
the classifying adjective with the suffix -ski (internetski).
The corpus analysis in the FIDA Corpus for another pair of synonyms, internet
– medmre`je (Engl. the Internet), with the search conditions for internet* and medmre`* , yields the ratio 13,638 : 308; at the same time we find that medmre`je is
not productive in terms of word formation. This confirms the fact that the attempt to
coin a new term was unsuccessful, although the Slovar slovenskega pravopisa (2001)
(Engl. Slovenian orthographic dictionary) prescribes medmre`je as the more acceptable synonym in the pair of synonyms referring to the Internet.
515
5 Conclusion
In the last decade, corpus linguistics has been very influential in the Slovenian
linguistic community. The initial stage was the design of Slovenian language corpora;
this was a necessary condition for a further development of the field. Since 2000 the
first thorough studies in corpus linguistics have been carried out. Corpora are increasingly becoming the bases of linguistic analyses as an independent research starting
point, while at the same time they present the basic research material in various types
of linguistic studies. The language data found in a corpus is practically unlimited, and
its analysis is a permanent challenge, above all when it surpasses the limits of the expected and breaks our intuitive assumptions about the linguistic reality. The results of
corpus analyses of the Slovenian language are exciting; they reveal the great creativity
and vitality of the Slovenian discourse community.
Agnes Pisanski Peterlin.
REFERENCES
John AYTO, 1999: 20th Century Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Douglas BIBER, Susan CONRAD in Randi REPPEN, 1998: Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Franti{ek ÊRMÁK, 2002: Today’s corpus linguistics. Some open questions. International journal of corpus linguistics 7/2. 265−282.
Nina DRSTVEN{EK, 2003: Vloga besedilnega korpusa pri postavitvi geselskega ~lanka v enojezi~nem slovarju. Jezik in slovstvo 48/5. 65–81.
Toma` ERJAVEC, Nancy IDE, Vladimír PETKEVI~ in Jean VÉRONIS, 1995: MULTEXT-EAST: Multi-lingual Text Tools and Corpora for Central and Eastern European languages. Heike RETTING s sodelovanjem Júlie PAJZS in Gáborja KISSA (ur.): TELRI: »Language Resources for
Language Technology«. Proceedings of the First European Semminar, Tihany, September
15−16. 87−97.
Toma` ERJAVEC in [pela VINTAR, 2004: Korpus kot podpora slovarju informacijskega izrazja
slovenskega jezika. Uporabna informatika 12/2. 97−106.
Polona GANTAR, 2003: Stalnost in spremenljivost frazema v slovarju. Stanisław Gajda in Ada
Vidovi~ Muha (ed.): Współczesna polska i słoweńska sytuacja językowa. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut Filologii Polskiej/Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska
fakulteta. 209−223.
− − 2004: Frazem in njegovo besedilno okolje. Doktorska disertacija. Mentorica A. Vidovi~
Muha. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
Vojko GORJANC, 1996: Terminologija novej{ih naravoslovno-tehni~nih strok (Ob primeru ra~unalni{tva in jedrske fizike). Ada Vidovi~ Muha (ed.): Jezik in ~as. Ljubljana: Znanstveni
in{titut Filozofske fakultete. 251−260.
− − 2002: Jezikoslovna na~ela gradnje ra~unalni{kih besedilnih zbirk strokovnih jezikov. Doktorska disertacija. Mentorica A. Vidovi~ Muha. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska
fakulteta.
− − 2003: Odkrivanje leksikalnih sprememb s pomo~jo korpusa. Stanisław Gajda in Ada Vidovi~ Muha (ed.): Współczesna polska i słoweńska sytuacja językowa. Opole: Uniwersytet
516
Opolski, Instytut Filologii Polskiej/Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
99−111.
− − 2005a: Tracking lexical changes in the reference corpus of Slovene text. Corpus Linguistics
Around the World. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. 91−100. V tisku.
− − 2005b: Uvod v korpusno jezikoslovje. Domàle: Izolit.
− − 2005c: V mavrici jezikovnih podatkov. Vojko GORJANC in Simon KREK (ed.): [tudije o korpusnem jezikoslovju. Ljubljana: Krtina. 173−199.
Vojko GORJANC in Simon KREK, 2001: A corpus-based dictionary database as the source for
compiling Slovene-X dictionaries. Proceedings of the COMPLEX 2001 6th Conference on
Computational Lexicography and Corpus Research. 41−47.
Vojko GORJANC, Simon KREK in Polona GANTAR, 2005: Slovenska leksikalna podatkovna zbirka.
Jezik in slovstvo 50/2. 3–19.
Katarina GRABNAR in Mojca [ORLI, 2003: Novi veliki angle{ko-slovenski slovar Oxford-DZS.
Jezik in slovstvo 48/3-4. 126−133.
Nanika HOLZ, 2005: Mesto Velikega slovarja tujk v slovenski leksikografiji. Jezik in slovstvo,
letnik 50/1. 87–99.
Roman JAKOBSON, 1931: Prinzipen der historischen Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4. Prague 1929–1939. 247–267.
Primo` JAKOPIN, 2001: Words and nonwords as basic units of a newspaper text corpus. Proceedings of the COMPLEX 2001 6th Conference on Computational Lexicography and Corpus
Research. 49−65.
Graeme KENNEDY, 1998: An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Tomo KORO{EC, 1976: Poglavja iz strukturalne analize slovenskega ~asopisnega stila. Doktorska disertacija. Mentor J. Topori{i~. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
Tomo KORO{EC, Denis PONI`, Peter TANCIG, 1982: Uporabnost ra~unalni{kih konkordanc v lingvisti~nih in literarnih raziskavah. Zbornik II. znanstvenega sre~anja Ra~unalni{ka obdelava
lingvisti~nih podatkov. Ljubljana: Institut Joèf Stefan. 405−415.
Simon KREK, 2003. Sodobna dvojezi~na leksikografija. Jezik in slovstvo 48/1. 45–60.
− − 2004: Slovarji serije COBUILD in formalizacija definicijskega jezika. Jezik in slovstvo
49/2. 3–16.
− − (ur.): Veliki angle{ko-slovenski slovar Oxford. 1. knjiga. A−K. Ljubljana: DZS.
Erika KRÌ{NIK, 2003: Novosti v slovenski frazeologiji. Stanisław GAJDA in Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA
(ed.): Współczesna polska i słoweńska sytuacja językowa. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut Filologii Polskiej/Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta. 191−208.
Milan MOGU{, Maja BRATANI} in Marko TADI}, 1999: Hrvatski ~estotni rije~nik. Zagreb: Zavod
za lingvistiku Filozofskog fakulteta Sveu~ili{ta u Zagrebu & [kolska knjiga.
Ingrid MEYER, Kristen MACKINTOSH, Caroline BARRIERE in Tricia MORGAN, 1999: Conceptual
sampling for terminological corpus analysis. Peter SANDRINI (ed.): Proceedings of TKE ’99.
Vienna: TermNet. 256−267.
Jennifer PEARSON, 1998: Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Agnes PISANSKI PETERLIN, 2005: Konvencije rabe medbesedilnih elementov. Doktorska disertacija. Mentorica I. Kova~i~. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
Breda POGORELEC (adapted), 1983: Slovenski knji`ni jezik, zgodovina slovenskega knji`nega
jezika in stilistika. Sloven{~ina v javnosti. Posvetovanje o jeziku. Portoro`, 14. in 15. maja
1979. Gradivo in sporo~ila. Ljubljana: Republi{ka konferenca SZDL Slovenije in Slavisti~no dru{tvo Slovenije. 110–114.
Stane SUHADOLNIK, 1968: Koncept novega slovarja slovenskega knji`nega jezika. 4. seminar
slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Predavanja iz jezika. 1–11.
517
Wolfgang TEUBERT, 1999: Korpuslinguistik und Lexikographie. Deutsche Sprache 99/4.
292−313.
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA, 2000: Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje. Govorica slovarja. Ljubljana:
Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete.
[pela VINTAR, 2001: Using parallel corpora for translation-oriented term extraction. Babel 47/2.
121−132.
− − 2003: Uporaba vzporednih korpusov za ra~unalni{ko podprto ustvarjanje dvojezi~nih terminolo{kih virov. Doktorska disertacija. Mentor R. [u{ter{i~. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani,
Filozofska fakulteta.
[pela VINTAR in Vojko GORJANC, 2003: Identifying markers of semantic relations in Slovene.
Strani jezici 1–2. 37−44.
Mojca @AGAR, 2005: Determinologizacija (na primeru terminologije fizike). Jezik in slovstvo
50/2. 35–48.
Slovene language corpora
Beseda http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/main_si_l2.html [5. 11. 2005]
ELAN http://nl.ijs.si/elan [20. 9. 2005]
Evrokorpus http://www.sigov.si/evrokor/ [20. 9. 2005]
Korpus slovenskega jezika FIDA http://www.fida.net [20. 9. 2005]
Korpus slovenskega jezika FidaPLUS http://www.fidaplus.net [20. 9. 2005]
Multext-East http://nl.ijs [20. 9. 2005] Nova beseda http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/s_beseda.html [20.
9. 2005]
TALE korpus − pilotni govorni korpus slovenskega jezika http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/tale/ssp/
adgang.html [5. 11. 2005]
TRANS http://www-ai.ijs.si/~spela/trans-index.html [20. 9. 2005]
POVZETEK
Korpusno jezikoslovje se je v zadnjem desetletju dokončno uveljavilo kot posebno raziskovalno izhodišče, utemeljeno strogo empirično, v zadnjih nekaj letih tudi v slovenskem prostoru
kot ločeno raziskovalno izhodišče. Nujni predpogoj za to so bili seveda korpusi, zato je druga polovica devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja zaznamovana z njihovo gradnjo, pri čemer so
pionirsko vlogo odigrali korpusi, nastali v okviru mednarodnega projekta MULTEXT-EAST.
Danes imamo za slovenščino na voljo dva enojezična korpusa, 100-milijonski referenčni Korpus slovenskega jezika FIDA, ter večji, a nereferenčni Nova beseda, velikosti nekaj nad 160
milijonov besed; v izgradnji pa je obsežni 300-milijonski referenčni korpus FidaPLUS. Ob
tem so bili oblikovani tudi vzporedni korpusi, zaenkrat samo v jezikovnem paru z angleščino.
Tako oblikovani korpusi so osnova za vrsto korpusno utemeljenih jezikoslovnih študij, nastalih
v zadnjih letih. Kot je za angleški prostor pomenila veliko prelomnico pri jezikovnih opisih
predračunalniška besedilna zbirka Survey of English Usage, je bila to za slovenske leksikalnopomenske opise predračunalniška gradivna zbirka, nastala za potrebe izdelave Slovarja slovenskega knjižnega jezika (1970−1991), saj je omogočila celovit leksikalni opis slovenskega
jezika na podlagi podatkov o besedilni realnosti. Ko se je v šestdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja dokončno oblikoval koncept novega enojezičnega slovarja, so se v slovenskem prostoru
načrtovali leksikalni opisi, temelječi na obsežnem gradivu, ki so zavračali možnost opisa jezikovnih elementov brez podlage v jezikovni realnosti in presegali normativistični pristop k jezikovnemu opisovanju. Kljub takemu programskemu izhodišču pa v tem času v okviru slovenistike ni prišlo do oblikovanja računalniško podprtega dela z jezikovnimi podatki, čeprav je bilo
to eno od njenih ekspliciranih programskih izhodišč. Tako se je slovenistika zares priključila
518
oblikovanju področje jezikovnih tehnologij za slovenski jezik šele v drugi polovici devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, vendar takrat zelo opazno, tako da lahko ugotovimo, da je korpusno
jezikoslovje je v zadnjem desetletju pomembno zaznamovalo slovenski jezikoslovni prostor, še
posebej po letu 2000, ko na osnovi oblikovanih korpusov dobimo prve celovite korpusnojezikoslovne študije. V slovenistiki so korpusi postali po eni strani izhodišče jezikovne analize kot
samostojnega raziskovalnega izhodišča, po drugi pa so v različnih tipih jezikoslovnih raziskav
nujno potrebni kot gradivna osnova jezikoslovnega raziskovanja. Korpusni jezikovni podatki
so praktično brezmejni, njihova analiza nenehen izziv, še posebej takrat, ko presegajo meje
pričakovanega in rušijo naše intuitivne predstave o jezikovni realnosti. Rezultati korpusnih
analiz slovenskega jezika so v veliki meri navdušujoči; razkrivajo namreč izjemno kreativnost
in vitalnost slovenske diskurzivne skupnosti.
Polona Gantar, Corpus Approach in Phraseology and Dictionary Applications
UDC 811.163.6’373.7
Polona Gantar
519
CORPUS APPROACH IN PHRASEOLOGY AND DICTIONARY
APPLICATIONS
This paper compares an attempt to identify the phraseological unit on the basis of the degree
of semantic motivation of phrasal elements, originating in the Russian phraseological tradition,
with various aspects of word combining, as revealed in the corpus environment. The relativisation of relations between single word and multiword lexical units on the one hand and the
semantically transparent and opaque phrases on the other broadens the subject-matter of phraseology to different types of language patterning and also offers dictionary solutions based on
the contextual treatment of the lexical element.
V ~lanku soo~amo poskus identifikacije frazeolo{ke enote na podlagi stopnje pomenske
motivacije besednozveznih elementov z izhodi{~i v ruski frazeol{ki literaturi in razli~ne vidike
besedne povezovalnosti, kot se odkrivajo v korpusnem okolju. Relativizacija razmerij med enoin ve~besednimi leksikalnimi enotami ter pomensko transparentnimi in netransparentnimi besednimi zvezami {iri predmet frazeolo{ke problematike na razli~ne tipe jezikovnega vzor~enja in
hkrati ponuja slovarske re{itve, ki temeljijo na kontekstualni obravnavi leksikalnega elementa.
Key words: phraseological unit, multiword unit, fixed expression, collocation, phraseme,
pure idiom, idiomaticity, phraseologically bound or idiomatic meaning, syntactic patterns, lexical unit; corpus-based approach, lexicographical aspects, dictionary framework
Klju~ne besede: frazeolo{ka enota, ve~besedna enota, stalna besedna zveza, kolokacija,
frazem, pravi idiom, idiomati~nost, frazeolo{ki ali idiomati~ni pomen, stopnja pomenske trdnosti, skladenjski vzorci, pomenska kohezija, leksikalna enota; korpusni pristop, leksikografski
vidik, slovarska struktura
1 Phraseology – delimiting the field
The phraseological theory has for some time attempted to delimit in as much detail as possible the field of phraseological research and the basic phraseological unit
(PU). For this purpose a set of criteria has been formed according to which the basic
and distinctive (in contrast with other lexical units) features of the phraseological
unit could be determined. The phraseological theory is most complex where most of
the rules recognised and confirmed in similar language samples of the so-called conventional language1 are blurred; this can be established by the fact that features such
as multiword character, collocability, stability, variation, idiomaticity, connotativity,
transformability, etc. are considered from different angles which leads to opposing
ideas about what is essential for the existence of the PU.
1
In those phraseological papers which are based on a study of language on different levels, conventional
language is the one in which the general syntactic and semantic rules operate as opposed to the systemically
unexpected realisations (i.e. anomalies) typical of the PU. (c.f. êrmák 1985: 167).
520
It seems that this state in the field of multiword units is not a coincidence. It is, on
the one hand, a consequence of the fact that multiword units present a complex linguistic phenomenon in which the distinctive features are realised to different extents,
while on the other hand, the reason for their independence from the syntactic and
semantic processes predicted by the system lies in the fact that, due to their idiosyncrasy, their individual constituent parts cannot be considered from separate syntactic
and semantic points of view. The traditional treatment of the PU has thus focused
on a certain type of multiword units which fitted specific demands, e.g. they are not
structurally and semantically fixed, they have a connotation, they are non-terminological, etc., while other units were excluded from the narrower phraseological and
consequently dictionary treatment.
1.1 Idiomaticity and the phraseologically bound meaning
The Russian phraseological theory, started by V. V. Vinogradov and N. N. Amosova in the 1950s and 1960s, and the majority of East European phraseological schools
built on its foundations tried to form a system of categories which could be used to
separate the field of phraseology from the field of general word-combining rules. The
fundamental feature of this concept of the PU is based on the ideas of idiomaticity and
phraseologically bound meaning.
Idiomaticity, which applies to the relationship between the entering and the exiting
semantics of the constituent parts of the PU as opposed to the meaning of the PU as a
whole, can generally be understood as a universal linguistic phenomenon; the distinctive features of morphemes, words and phrases in different languages differ both in
form and content. If we leave aside the possibility of idiomatic combinations on the
morpheme level and neglect the existence of single word idioms then, as a phraseological issue, idiomaticity is linked to recognising the level of semantic independence
of the entire PU in relation to the meaning of the individual parts. This happens in
spite of the fact that there have always been differences in understanding the degree
of semantic motivation of a concrete PU, while it has been impossible to set sharp
boundaries between the various degrees of such a concept of the PU, since determining the type of the PU on such a basis largely depends on the linguistic and cultural
experience of the individual speaker (Cowie 1998: 215).
Based on the concept of phraseological meaning, i.e. the meaning of the PU as
a whole, not the sum of its constituent parts, as the key feature of the PU, two basic
types of the PU were identified in the phraseological theory: those PUs which can be
semantically analysed (their meaning is dispersed to different extents among their
constituent parts), and those which show no such relation and are entirely semantically unmotivated (Erbach 1992: 12; Nunberg et al. 1994: 496–497). At the same time
the inability to literally translate the phraseological meaning was proposed as one of
the basic conditions for recognising a PU, even though recent text-based research has
shown that the phenomenon of interlinguistic idiomaticity is relative and dynamic
since an expression can be idiomatic in a certain language but its foreign language
counterpart may not be idiomatic (Mlacek et. al 1995: 64). The above starting points
521
were the main reason for treating the PU as a specialised segment of the lexical fund
and the content of specialised dictionaries, while they were presented quite ineffectively and unsystematically in general dictionaries.
1.2 The Slovenian linguists’ approaches to the PU have, since the first theoretical paper2 on phraseology (Topori{i~ 1973/74), followed the attempts to place the
PU onto different levels of the language structure. Criteria for determining the PU
were formed and they took into consideration the multiword character, permanency
and the possibility of automatic reproduction. Including multiword terms among the
PU3 meant setting the groundwork for phraseology in the wider sense, at first on the
basis of the Russian theoretical approaches. In the second half of the 1980s, the demand for at least one constituent part to have a »meaning distinct from the dictionary meaning« (Krì{nik-Kol{ek 1986: 435) and the elimination of terminological
expressions from the narrower phraseological framework established the distinction
between fixed expressions and PUs. When the concept of collocability was introduced
(Krì{nik-Kol{ek 1988: 51–54), the idea of the PU was limited to monocollocable
units of the type priti/spraviti na kant (Engl. to go broke/ to make someone bankrupt), while the so-called limited collocability of the type kriv + obto`ba, ovadba;
pri~evanje, izpoved, prisega; nauk, vera (Engl. false + charge, report; testimony, confession, oath (= perjury); teachings, creed (= heresy)) (Krì{nik 1994: 33) was not
specifically determined in relation to the PU, even though this meant that phrases in
which the words in one of their meanings collocate with a relatively limited range of
other words, e.g. star + mama, mati, o~e star{i; star + celina, kontinent, svet (Engl.
old + mother (= grandmother), father (= grandfather), parents (= grandparents); old
+ continent, world = Europe), were excluded from lexicological and phraseological
research. An important criterion which turned the attention of the Slovenian phraseological research to a very restricted segment of multiword referential units (i.e. phraseology in its narrower sense) was focusing on only those units which have important
connotative semantic components and an important pragmatic role (Krì{nik 1990:
400); this excluded from phraseological research phrasal verbs such as dràti s kom
(Engl. side with so.), pristati na kaj (Engl. agree to sth.), etc., prepositional collocations of the type (razlikovati, sortirati) po barvi; (Engl. (distinguish, sort) by colour;
v barvi (koè, lesa) (Engl. in the colour (of skin, wood)); (igrati) na mestu (branilca)
(Engl. (play) as a defender), and units with a so-called grammatical meaning, such
as: ne glede na (Engl. regardless of); za razliko od (Engl. as opposed to); v primerjavi
2
In Slovenian linguistics, phraseology has been considered as a research topic at least since the late
1950s, when the bases of Pavli~’s Frazeolo{ki slovar v petih jezikih (Engl. Phraseological dictionary in five
languages) (1960) were formed and when the grounds were determined for the presentation of phraseology
in the Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika (Engl. Dictionary of the Standard Slovenian Language), the
Volume One of which was published in 1970.
3
An important contribution is defining the group of terminological fixed expressions with classifying
adjectives of the type mehki, trdi les; ~rni bor (Engl. soft, hard wood; black pine), etc. on the basis of formal
recognition of the degree of semantic unity as revealed in the phrasal or morphemic composition of technical terms (Vidovi~ Muha 1988).
522
z/s (Engl. in comparison with), etc., in addition to the above mentioned terms. There
have been attempts to determine the highest possible phraseological entity which is
not yet a discourse entity and thus resolve the issue of the clausal construction of fixed
expressions; the most disputable were expressions consisting of a verb + noun, the socalled false verbal phrasemes (Krì{nik 1994: 83), such as luna trka koga (Engl. the
moon knocks so. (= be off one’s rocker)), srce pade v hla~e komu (Engl. so’ heart sinks
into his/her pants (= so.’ heart sinks), etc. As far as the methodology used in linguistic
analyses of PUs is concerned, intuition played an important role (e.g. through recognising the structure and the meaning of fixed expressions and their transformational
possibilities in surveys, etc.); due to the lack of substantial corpora (until 1997), the
analyses were typically limited to certain types of texts, such as newspapers, works of
literature, the Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika (Engl. Dictionary of the Standard
Slovenian Language).
Figure 1: PU placement into the lexical fund of the language according to their structural and
semantic base
1.3 Collocability and collocations
The Anglo-Saxon approaches to the issue of multiword units, on the other hand,
which originate in the traditions of A. S. Hornby and H. E. Palmer, also considered
those word combinations which are not strictly semantically unmotivated (i.e. pure
idioms). This starting point enabled the recognition of typical word combinations; the
level of idiomaticity, demonstrating itself as a relative linguistic phenomenon, seemed
less important than the fact that, in the process of language acquisition and learning,
certain word combinations cannot be »put together« from their individual constituents
but are rather learned as a whole. This was the basis for including multiword units,
especially collocations, in learner’s dictionaries. At the same time, recognising the
trends in word combinations, regardless of their phraseological predispositions in the
523
sense of how fixed they are semantically and grammatically, how expressive they are,
whether they are non-terminological, made it possible to recognise the syntactic patterns in which words and expressions tend to appear and established the starting point
for considering the issue of words and phrases within a context.
2 The starting points for a corpus-based approach to phraseology
Such a starting point is a good opportunity to observe, within the corpus environment, the capacity of words to connect in a text with a large or limited number of
other words. It has turned out that corpora are especially useful for studying the issue
of phrases, since their ability to automatically sort concordance strings and measure
word combinations in the form of statistical calculations has shed light on word collocability. In addition to stressing the importance of an empirical analysis of language
data, the phraseological literature emphasises the necessity of a suitable quantity of
language data, especially in determining the regularity of transformation processes
and variation. However, one of the basic problems in studying phraseology and establishing its rules still lies in the fact that conclusions are made on the basis of a small
quantity of data (êrmák 2001: 5). As mentioned above, one of the peculiarities of
phraseology is that categories familiar from elsewhere are blurred within fixed expressions and it is impossible to determine them from a small sample.
Using a corpus for lexicographical purposes thus offers a chance to identify those
word co-occurrences which are typical of a language. Studying the samples obtained
also provides, in a real context, an insight into the typical semantic and communicative roles. Both uses of the corpus, as material for analysis, as well as for methodological purposes, give the lexicographer more flexibility in dictionary design especially
in relation to the potential user. It is probably no coincidence that dictionary projects
contributed, among other things, to the shaping and improving of corpus design in
the sense of compiling greater linguistic variation and to corpus tool development.
It was above all those dictionary projects which tried to provide as real language
data as possible, primarily by choosing to present those headwords, phrases and their
forms which are well-represented in real language. It was corpus data that made lexicographers reconsider the issue of including forms which are simply the results of
word-formation possibilities of the language and have not been found in real texts.
Corpus-based dictionaries can better capture the semantic value of lexical elements
and establish their true frequency. Corpora have also provided entirely new possibilities in dictionary use. If we accept the demand for coherence and communicative effect of the text, our starting point is the fact that a text is formed in a number of very
sophisticated ways; a made-up example can more or less successfully mimic them,
but cannot replace the sensibility and the importance of the context. This also makes
it possible to determine on the basis of a corpus measurable and thus fairly objective
criteria for collecting the essential features of multiword units.
524
2.1 The features of a PU – the starting points and determining the criteria
In a corpus environment, the features of word combinations – especially to identify various types of multiword units as potential dictionary entities – can be established from three different starting points: frequency, functional or semantic. These
starting points are further determined with the basic procedures of corpus analysis
(Teubert 1999): the identification of language data, where the word or its form is the
basis; correlating language data with the use of statistical methods, where aspects of
word combination and language sampling are observed, and the interpretation of the
results. FIDA, A Reference Corpus of the Slovenian Language and the concordancer
available to its users were used for this purpose.
The frequency aspect, which is the centre of our analysis, refers to the recognition of obvious word co-occurrences and determining the typical collocators of the
word studied within the concordance string. Figure 2 shows that FIDA provides at
least three possibilities, with MI3 yielding the best results, especially when considered
together with the data on absolute frequency of a corpus element studied in a concordance string (Gorjanc and Krek 2001).
Figure 2: The frequency starting point; the keyword of the concordance string: {ala (Engl.
joke)
The functional aspect is based on recognising the typical syntactic patterns in
which the keyword of the concordance string occurs and establishing semantic links
between them. These patterns are typically the result of the grammatical and semantic
features of a language and are therefore some sort of grammatical and lexical conglomerates. As such they become, in a corpus environment, the starting point for various grammatical, lexical and syntactic analyses and turn the attention from the level
of the language system to studying examples of textual realisations; the typological
rules created on such grounds also take into consideration all the »violations« which
represent the basis of a topical linguistic description. Thus for instance the verb veljati
(Engl. to be in force, to be worth) – in addition to typical collocations where the indi-
525
vidual collocators are semantically distinctive – with the preposition za (Engl. for, as)
forms syntactic patterns which are of lexicographic interest in various stages of the
process of lexicalisation (cf. a1 and a2, which are phrasal verbs, as opposed to b).
Figure 3: The functional starting point; the keyword of the concordance string: veljati za (Engl.
to be considered as, to apply to)
The semantic aspect is based on recognising cognate semantic realisations on
the basis of lengthy concordance strings and enables the typical semantic features to
be transferred into dictionary definitions. The semantic aspect is a key feature in the
identification of fixed expressions and cannot be treated separately from the frequency
and syntactic aspects; the recognition of the lexical role of an expression notable for
its frequency is a highly complex phenomenon and very much linked to the typical
elements of the context, text type and other extra linguistic phenomena. As native
speakers, we never entirely abandon the intuition in the interpretation of the semantic
content; this is also true in the case of multiword units. However, it is possible, on the
basis of numerous textual realisations revealed by concordance strings and various
possibilities of sorting textual materials in a corpus environment, to recognise with a
great degree of certainty cognate semantic realisations and abstract them in the sense
of dictionary definitions.
We therefore anticipate that each frequently occurring mutually bound multiword
unit is a potential lexical unit or a typical syntactic pattern of the language studied, and
this broadens the narrow phraseological field to the entire concept of the fixed expression, where its actual lexical role still needs to be established. Slovenian materials too
526
have shown that typical co-occurrences need not have notable lexical values as well.
Co-occurrences with grammatical and semantic elements (prepositions and conjunctions) are particularly common; they become interesting from a lexicographic point of
view as part of broader syntactic patterns, e.g. kar tako za {alo; bolj za {alo kot zares;
gre za {alo; kot za {alo (premagati, opraviti z/s kom/~im, pomesti s kom); malo/malce
za {alo (in) malo/malce zares; napol za {alo napol zares; za {alo (povpra{ati, re~i
...); vzeti, jemati za {alo; imeti smisel za {alo (Engl. just like that, as a joke; more as
a joke than for real; it’s a joke; easily (beat so., deal with so. or sth., sweep aside);
half-joking, half-serious; (ask, say,…); as a joke; take as a joke; to know how to take
a joke), etc.
2.2 A typology of fixed expressions based on corpus data
Research anticipates three relatively independent types of fixed expressions which
can be determined by recognising syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations revealed by
corpus data, obtained according to the starting points outlined above. The syntagmatic
features are reflected in the ability of a word to form collocations on the horizontal axis, while the paradigmatic powers are revealed in the possibility to accumulate
words on the vertical axis within an individual semantic field. The anticipated types of
fixed expressions also predict potential dictionary headwords and a hierarchical relation within the dictionary entry, as we will see below.
The relativity of relations between single and multiword lexical units and between
the semantically transparent and semantically opaque fixed expressions is blurred in
a corpus. This of course does not mean that it is impossible to determine the basic
subject-matter of lexical study on the basis of corpus data; it means surpassing the
discrete separation into two categories: words and phrases on the one hand and fixed
and free expressions on the other. By enabling the recognition of word co-occurrences, the corpus has also given new value to concepts such as a lexical or grammatical
unit. When transferred into lexicographic practice along with the fact that the focus of
Figure 4: The sorting of collocators left of the keyword according to syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations; the keyword of the concordance string: jajce (Engl. egg).
p
a
r
a
d
i
g
m
a
t
i
c
s y n t a g m a t i c
whisked
golden
boiled
scrambled
fried
fried
raw
chicken
of Columbus
bird
hen’s
ostrich
cuckoo’s
leči
lay
brood
egg
lay
527
lexicography is ascribing meaning to the linguistic sign which manifests itself always
and exclusively within a text, this has resulted in equivalently treating the topics of
the word and the phrase, while fixed expressions and obvious syntactic patterns were
no longer limited to specialised dictionaries, but were included in general dictionaries
as well.
The concept of collocations as a phenomenon of formal probability and at the
same time a semantic phenomenon which is revealed through the mutual interconnection of lexical elements presents two types of typical word co-occurrences: those
that indicate individual meanings of a polysemous lexeme, e.g. (rde~a, modra, svetla,
temna ipd.) barva; (tiskarska, oljna) barva (Engl. (red, blue, light, dark, etc.) colour;
(printing (=printing ink), oil) colour) – ’material used for colouring’; (politi~na, klubska) barva – (Engl. (political, club) colour) – ’a reflection of belonging to sth’; and
those that occur only in the chosen sense of the word and thus form more or less limited collocational paradigms4 (êrmák 1985: 171, Krì{nik 1988: 51), e.g. barva koè
(Engl. colour of skin) – ’race’; osnovne barve (Engl. primary colours) ’basic colours
of the colour spectrum,’ etc. The first type of collocations, which appears under the
heading I in the table below, creates a direct link to single word elements and presents
a typical contextual placement of the word in question. The second type (appearing
under the heading II) comprises those fixed expressions and syntactic patterns which
are between the semantically transparent, of the type osnovne barve (Engl. primary
colours), (cvetje etc.) vseh barv (Engl. (flowers etc.) of every colour), (razlikovati,
razvrstiti, lo~iti) po barvi (Engl. (distinguish, sort, separate) by the colour); obrniti
(kaj) na/v {alo (Engl. turn sth. into a joke), etc. and semantically opaque, where the semantic link between the collocating elements is mutual, e.g. spreminjati barve (Engl.
change colour) ’express anger, distress’ etc.; priti s pravo barvo na dan (Engl. show
one’s true colour) ’express one’s true, secret intentions or character’. In the phraseological literature, this type, along with semantically opaque expressions, presents
the central part of the phraseological field and is generally referred to as a phraseme.
On the dictionary level, the term refers to phrases which need an explanation, while
they tend to be more or less linked to one of the meanings of the word forming such
a phrase; this presents possible starting points for the dictionary hierarchy. Idioms are
an extreme in the lack of expression of the meaning or anticipating the meaning from
the constituents of the phrase; this is why they are generally treated as semantically
relatively independent units within the dictionary.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to draw a sharp boundary between semantically
transparent and opaque fixed expressions, or phrasemes motivated by association,
such as e.g. ubiti dve muhi na en mah; obrniti komu hrbet, imeti zvezane roke (Engl.
4
The concept of a collocational paradigm is derived from various aspects of word combining where
the (linguistic) meaning can be taken into consideration. The lack of limitation on the one hand and the
limited number of elements (which morphologically and semantically function as a logical whole within
the collocational paradigm) on the other offer two basic sets of phrases among which the basic unit of
phraseology is determined: the broader collocational paradigm, which is an open set and has an unlimited
number of elements and the limited collocational paradigm which is generally a closed set and has a limited
number of elements.
528
kill to birds with one stone; turn one’s back on so., tie one’s hands), etc., and the
so called »pure« idioms, which include phrases without an obvious semantic link
between any of their constituent parts, e.g. iti se gnilo jajce, èlezna zavesa, na vrat
na nos (Engl. play rotten egg, iron curtain, out of the blue), etc. However, since the
dictionary, with its user friendly nature of a reference book, demands a consistent
structure, it is reasonable to think through the relationship between single word and
multiword lexical units as potential keywords in the stage of dictionary design. The
following table presents a possible general solution.
529
The types of fixed expressions mentioned above present potential dictionary units.
The degree of semantic transparency/opacity of a potential dictionary unit seems irrelevant for the usefulness of information provided by the dictionary, above all if that
means excluding phrases which are not lexicalised enough. Nevertheless, it seems important for the organisation of the dictionary itself to present, on various levels of the
dictionary entry, the different possibilities of word combinations which are obvious in
a language and have, at the same time, a visible lexical role.
2.3 The relationship between single word and multiword lexical units –
2.3 a dictionary example
The fact that multiword lexical units are equal to their single word counterparts
in their lexical role does not justify their subordination within the dictionary entry, at
least not in the sense of omitting expected dictionary information (meaning, pronunciation, part of speech classification, examples of usage, etc.). Multiword placement
within a dictionary system is, however, more complicated than it seems at first glance,
at least for two reasons. The first is the already mentioned fact that multiword units
are composed of elements of »conventional« language, which means that they generally also exist outside the concrete idiomatic combination, and the second is that they
tend to keep, to various extents, their extra-idiomatic grammatical and semantic features within the idiomatic combination. Establishing semantic associations between
the constituent of a fixed expression and the word which also exists independently of
the fixed expression presents a possibility to sort fixed expressions within a dictionary
according to previous semantic and grammatical data of the constituent parts of the
superordinate (single word) headword. Since the context of the word studied as the
keyword in a concordance string is the focus of our attention, it is possible to select,
among the typical co-occurrences, those possibilities of word combinations which
are created for instance by the metaphorical potential of a polysemic word, which
becomes a constituent of a fixed expression. The degree of semantic transparency/
opacity can then present a solid basis for placing a fixed expression under a certain
meaning of a word in the role of the superordinate single word headword5. Let us
consider some of the possibilities.
530
3 Conclusion
Attempts to delimit the field of phraseology based on determining the degree of
idiomaticity have not resulted in a single concept of the PU, especially when compared to free and semantically transparent fixed expressions. The concept of an idiomatic meaning of a phrase, i.e. a meaning which does not depend on its constituent parts, narrows the field of phraseology to semantically opaque fixed expressions
531
which used to be the subject-matter of specialised phraseological dictionaries, while
all other forms of language patterning were excluded from them and presented ineffectively and unsystematically in general dictionaries. The presentation of aspects of
word combining regardless of the degree of their grammatical and semantic fusion,
and the possibility to automatically sort concordance strings and measure word collocability in the form of statistical calculations in a corpus environment make it possible
to form objective bases for recognising typical word combinations which may be of
dictionary interest in various stages of the process of lexicalisation. Even though the
relations between single word and multiword lexical units and the relations between
semantically transparent and semantically opaque fixed expressions are blurred in a
corpus, it is possible to quite objectively show both the structural and the semantic
extension of the word to the level of the phrase or a longer syntactic pattern by considering the lexical element in its context.
Agnes Pisanski Peterlin.
REFERENCES
COWIE, Antony, 1998: Phraseological Dictionaries: Some East-West Comparisons. Phraseology.
A. P. Cowie (eds.). Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford University Press. 210–228.
COWIE, Anthony, 1999: Phraseology and corpora: some implications for dictionary making.
International Journal of Lexicography 12 (4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 307–323.
ÊRMÁK, Franti{ek, 1985: Frazeologie a idiomatika. Franti{ek êrmák, Josef Filipec: êská
lexikologie. Praha: Academia. 166–248.
– – Franti{ek, 2001: Substance of idioms: perennial problems, lack of data or theory? International Journal of Lexicography 14 (1). 1–20
ERBACH, Gregor, 1992: Head-Driven Lexical Representation of Idioms in HPSG. M. Everaert,
idr. (eds.). International Conference on Idioms Tilburg, NL: Proceedings of Idioms I–II.
GANTAR, Polona, 2004: Frazem in njegovo besedilno okolje. Doktorska disertacija. Univerza v
Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
GORJANC, Vojko, KREK, Simon, 2001: A Corpus-Based Dictionary Database as the Source for
Compiling Slovene-X Dictionary. COMPLEX 2001. 6th Conference on Computational Lexicography and Corpus Research: »Computational Lexicography and New EU Languages«.
Birmingham: The University of Birmingham. 41–47.
GORJANC, Vojko, KREK, Simon, GANTAR, Polona, 2005: Slovenska leksikalna podatkovna zbirka.
Jezik in slovstvo 50/2. 3–19.
HUNSTON, Susan in FRANCIS, Gill, 2000: Pattern Grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins Publishing: Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
Korpus slovenskega jezika FIDA: http://www.fida.net
KREK, Simon, 1999: Ra~unalni{ki korpusi v slovaropisju. Razgledi 13. 14–16.
KRÌ{NIK-KOL{EK, Erika, 1986: Poskus razvrstitve stalnih besednih zvez v Trubarjevi Cerkovni
ordningi. Obdobja 6, 16. stoletje v slovenskem jeziku, knjièvnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana:
Filozofska fakulteta. 435–445.
– – 1988: Frazeologija v moderni: Magistrsko delo. Mentorica B. Pogorelec. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
KRÌ{NIK, Erika, 1990: Tipologija frazeolo{kih prenovitev v Cankarjevih proznih besedilih.
Slavisti~na revija 4/38. 399–420.
532
– – 1994: Slovenski glagolski frazemi (ob primeru frazemov govorjenja). Doktorska disertacija.
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
MLACEK, Jozef, eds., 1995: Frazeologická terminológia. Bratislava: STIMUL – Centrum informatiky a vzdelávania FF UK.
MOON, Rosamund, 1998: Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach.
Oxford: Clarendon Press (Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology).
NUNBERG, Geoffrey, eds., 1994: Idioms. Language 3. 491–538.
TEUBERT, Wolfgang, 1999: Korpuslinguistik und Lexikographie. Deutsche Sprache 4/99. John
Benjamins. V: [tudije o korpusnem jezikoslovju. V. Gorjanc in S. Krek (eds.). Ljubljana:
Krtina. 2005. 103–136.
TOPORI{I~, Joè, 1973/74: K izrazju in tipologiji slovenske frazeologije. Jezik in slovstvo 8.
273–279.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, Ada, 1988: Nekatere jezikovnosistemske lastnosti strokovnih besednih zvez.
XXIV. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
83–91.
POVZETEK
Poskusi zamejitve podro~ja frazeologije na podlagi ugotavljanja stopenj idiomati~nosti niso
zagotovili enotnega pojmovanja FE, zlasti ne v razmerju do prostih in pomensko transparentnih SBZ. Pojmovanje idiomati~nega tj. od sestavin neodvisnega celostnega pomena zveze, oì
podro~je frazeologije na pomensko netransparetne SBZ, ki so bile navadno predmet specializiranih frazeolo{kih slovarjev, medtem ko so bile vse druge oblike jezikovnega vzor~enja iz njih
izklju~ene, v splo{nih slovarjih pa predstavljene neu~inkovito in nesistemati~no. Z izpostavitvijo vidikov besedne povezovalnosti ne glede na stopnjo medsebojne gramati~ne in pomenske
zlitosti ter z mo`nostjo avtomati~nega urejanja konkordan~nih nizov in merjenja besedne povezovalnosti v obliki statisti~nih izra~unov v korpusnem okolju je mogo~e oblikovati objektivna
izhodi{~a za prepoznavanje tipi~nih besednih kombinacij, ki so v razli~nih stopnjah leksikalizacijskega procesa tudi slovarsko zanimive. êprav se razmerja med enoin ve~besednimi
leksikalnimi enotami ter med pomensko transparentnimi in pomensko netransparentnimi SBZ
v korpusu zabrisujejo, je s kontekstualno obravnavo leksikalnega elementa v leksikografski
praksi mogo~e povsem suvereno prikazati tako strukturno kot pomensko {iritev besede na raven
besedne zveze ali obse`nej{ega skladenjskega vzorca.
Marc L. Greenberg, The Slovene Sound System through Time
LANGUAGE IN DIACHRONIC
PERSPECTIVE
533
534
Language in Diachronic Perspective
UDC 811.163.6’34(091)
Marc L. Greenberg
University of Kansas, USA
535
THE SLOVENE SOUND SYSTEM THROUGH TIME
The paper sketches selected changes discussed in Marc L. Greenberg’s A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Languages (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter, 2000) in which
innovative explanations shed new light on the complexity of the developments in the early
stages of the emergence of the Slovenian speech territory. The explanations demonstrate the
interplay of geographical, structural, social, and cognitive factors in sound change.
V razpravi avtor prikaè nekaj glasovnih sprememb, ki jih obravnava v svojem delu A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter, 2000),
v katerem z novimi razlagami osvetljuje zapleten razvoj v zgodnjih fazah oblikovanja slovenskega jezikovnega prostora. Te razlage ponazarjajo prepletenost zemljepisnih, strukturnih,
dru`benih in spoznavnih dejavnikov pri glasovnih spremembah.
Key words: Slovene language, historical phonology, sound change, dialectology, historical
sociolinguistics
Klju~ne besede: slovenski jezik, zgodovinsko glasoslovje, glasovna sprememba, dialektologija, zgodovinska sociolingvistika
0 Introduction
0.1 The present paper aims to give an overview of progress in the historical phonology of Slovene, largely limited to the treatment given in Greenberg 2000 (and its
Slovene translation in 2002, the two items hereafter referred to collectively as G).
While this work can hardly be claimed to represent all of the progress that has been
made in this field over the last decade or so (the time frame set out by the editors
of this volume), it is nevertheless the only monograph devoted to the topic in this
period. In turn, the volume itself refers to works relevant to the phonological history
of Slovenian from the beginnings of modern Slavic philology to about the time of
publication.
0.2 The enterprise of tracing the sound changes in the service of compiling historical narratives about Slavic languages has been out of fashion for at least a decade, the
conversation in phonological circles having turned to theoretical issues and phonetics having concerned itself primarily with synchronic matters (for a partial overview
see Bethin 2000).1 At least partly for this reason the series Historical Phonology of
the Slavic Languages (Universitätsverlag Carl Winter), begun in the 1960s, remains
1
Moreover, the claim has been made that the authoritative discourse on prehistory belongs to archaeology and not historical linguistics, a claim that I have rebutted elsewhere (see Curta 2002: 201; Greenberg
2005).
536
unfinished.2 The series nevertheless represents and summarizes the achievements of
Prague School phonology in the development of which the Slavic languages played
a central role. To date seven of a series of at least thirteen volumes of the Historical
Phonology have been published: Polish (Stieber 1973), Slovak (Kraj~ovi~ 1975), Belarusian (Wexler 1977), Ukrainian (Shevelov 1979), Macedonian (Koneski 1983), on
Sorbian (Schaarschmidt 1997), and Slovene (G). Among these volumes certain departures and advances were made from traditional structural treatments, notably, Wexler
1977 is informed by advances in contact linguistics and in particular the confrontation
of Baltic and Jewish-language influences on Belarusian; G emphasizes post-Stangian
accentological considerations as well as sociolinguistic factors. Future treatments of
diachronic phonology of individual Slavic languages, should the Zeitgeist ever return
to such projects, will build on the foundation of this series but also capitalize on the
theoretical, analytical, and technological advances in phonology and phonetics that
are now elaborating the complex interconnections of syntax, sentence-level intonation, word-formation and pragmatics with the sound structure of languages.
0.3 As mentioned above, G draws broadly on the theoretical underpinnings of the
Prague School structural phonology, owing a particular debt to and building upon the
pioneering work in Slovene historical phonology of Ramov{ and Rigler, the latter
point having been emphasized in Lisac’s review (2003a, 2000b), as well as on the
work of other scholars. Especially in the sections on early Slovenian development
and concerning toponymy and hydronymy, G owes a significant debt to the achievements of Bezlaj and his students. G goes beyond traditional works in considering
accentological issues, relying significantly on the work of the Moscow and Leiden
Accentological Schools, though not accepting their tenets wholesale (see, for example, Kortlandt 2003, Babik 20053). From a theoretical viewpoint, sound change is
conceptualized along the lines of Henning Andersen’s model, in which deductively
developed (phonetic) changes create ambiguities that are resolved by abductive decisions by speakers about the underlying phonemic relationships (see Andersen 1973).
Furthermore, diachronic sociolinguistic factors are taken into consideration with regard to changes that are amenable to such explanations (e.g., the reversal of the ` > r
change, G 204 and Greenberg 1999; the reversal of lenited mediae, G 38 and Greenberg 2001). While structural factors (deductive change or drift, abductive change or
phonemic reinterpretation) drive sound change in one direction, stylistic considerations for speakers, the relative prestige value placed one or another in a set of alternative pronunciations, can drive sound change in other directions, including backwards,
i.e., reversing the effects of structural sound changes. In general, sound changes are
viewed as (often long-term) processes, which, in contrast to the stylization required
2
Though progress is being made, according to the series editor, Paul Wexler, who is now preparing the
volume on Russian.
3
At some point I hope to respond to some of the suggestions made in these and other reviews. There
is hardly room to do so here.
4
Hereafter the designation G n refers to chapter numbers in Greenberg 2000 and 2002.
537
by the format of the book, cannot be in all cases readily placed into discrete sequential
order. In this regard, analysis of linguistic geography frequently reveals important patterns and the interaction of successive layers of change affecting the same structural
point. Moreover, the book assumes that drawing a direct correspondence between a
proto-language and its modern form is a fiction – dialects, given sufficient time, will
reorganize, die out, transform themselves, influence one another; individual innovations can get started, spread rapidly or not, and sometimes have their effects reversed.
At best one can only attempt to make a broad generalization about the diachrony of
a speech territory based on an analysis of the intricate interaction and layering of
changes, realizing that such a generalization cannot capture the complexity to which
the linguistic events attest.
0.3.1 Following the methodology and format of the Historical Phonology series,
Greenberg 2002 integrates sources of evidence ranging from texts, toponymy and
hydronymy, to dialect variation. In view of the relative dearth of an uninterrupted medieval textual tradition and the relative wealth of dialect variation, the work relied to a
greater extent on dialect variation from published and unpublished sources, including
the author’s own field notes pertaining to Prekmurje, Me|imurje, and Upper Carniola,
and analysis of the geographical spread of innovations.
0.4 A brief introduction sketches complex issues such as the relatedness of Slovenian dialects to other Slavic dialects, especially »Pannonian« Slavic (G 0.5; see also
more recently Richards 2003 and Greenberg 2004), Croatian and other Western South
Slavic dialects (G 0.6), and to Romance, German and Hungarian dialects (G 0.7).
0.5 In the following some representative examples demonstrate recent advances in
our understanding in the development of Slovene historical phonology.
1 Heterogeneity at the time of settlement: the Sava divide
1.1.0 The work assumes, following Bezlaj’s formulation (»[r]ojstvo sloven{~ine
moramo postaviti v dobo slovanske naselitve v Alpah« [1958: 677]), that the hypothetical construct »Proto-Slovene« emerged as a consequence of settlement in its
present-day territory. Several pieces of evidence point to an early Slavic speech territory in today’s Slovenia and adjoining Croatian territory that was already dialectally
differentiated. Following Andersen’s observations, G demonstrates that the future
Slovene territory (as other Slavic post-migratory territories) was settled by speakers
of heterogeneous dialect provenience. For example, we find cases of o- || e- (o- appears sporadically in the N and W) and -no- || -ni- in the infinitive of Leskien Class II
verbs (-no- appears in the NW and NE), isoglosses that go back to the earliest stages
of Slavic dialect differentiation and point to different pre-migration loci (Andersen
1996, 1999; G 0.4). Roughly speaking, these differences pattern in such a way that
one group emerges north of and the other south of the Sava river (with this bifurcation
continuing into today’s Croatian Kajkavian territory), a geographical division which
538
is later reflected by further isoglosses (see below). The northern dialect (hereafter
Sava-N) is continued by today’s Carinthian, Northern Styrian, and Pannonian dialects
(and Kajkavian dialects north of the Sava), and the southern dialect (hereafter Sava-S)
is continued by today’s Slovene Littoral, Upper and Lower Carniolan, and Southern
Styrian (and Kajkavian dialects south of the Sava). There is a reasonable chance that
Sava-N and Sava-S hark back to two distinct dialects that emerged by virtue of settlement on opposite banks of the Sava River, given not only the geographic patterning
of isoglosses that move from this locus, but also the central importance the river must
have had for the in-migration of the Slavic population from its origins beyond the
Danube. Later this division became obscured, though not completely, by successive
waves of further innovation. Map 2 in G shows the territorial delimitation of these and
other isoglosses, which have moved towards the periphery of the Slovene territory as
their areals have become marginalized eroded, generally speaking, by the influence of
the Carniolan central dialects as these grew in prestige over the following centuries.
1.1.1 An example of the systemic persistence of a Sava-N vs. Sava-S division lies
in the reflexes of vocalized jers, which in turn goes back to the distinction between
a system in which the contrast between low vowels were marked by round vs. nonround (Sava-N) and front vs. back (Sava-S), where Sava-S represents the innovative
system (G 19, 24). In Sava-N, which preserved Proto-Slavic *a with labialization at
the time of the vocalization of strong jers, the reflexes of vocalized long jers systematically merge with low front vowels, the identity of which depended on which low
front vowels were available at the moment at which this happened. For example, in
Carinthian and Pannonian the merger occurred at a moment when *ě, presumably having become already diphthongized, had raised, such that lengthened strong jers could
have merged only with *e (and later *ę); in Kajkavian (Sava-N) the merger occurred
with *ě at a time before its diphthongization and raising. Wherever labialization of
*a was not preserved, strong jers under conditions of length merged with *a. The
developments, illustrated in Figures 1–5, must be viewed as a series of overlapping
innovations unfolding at different speeds. For example, diphthongization and raising of *ě occurs later in Sava-N Kajkavian, represented in Figure 5, is not a discrete
development but a later arrival of the same innovation as in Figure 3 (Sava-N) with
different results owing to the systemic realignment of phonetic values as illustrated in
Figure 4.5 Figures 1 and 2 assume the archaic square pattern of four vowels before the
rephonologization of quantity to quality: Ī/Ĭ – Ū/Ŭ– Ē/Ĕ – Ā/Ă. In Figure 2 the square
bracketed vowels indicate explicit phonetic values where this becomes relevant for
the changes discussed, so *Ē = [ä] (jat), Sava-N *Ā = [å], Sava-S *Ā > [a]. Figure 3
represents a later stage, after the merger of *Ĭ and Ŭ, here represented as [ə] (though it
may have at this stage been a tense [e]). At the same time *Ē shifts to [eä] as part of the
quantity > quality rephonologization process, avoiding merger with *Ĕ [ä]. However,
5
The Kajkavian part of this explanation owes to a modification of an insight by Vermeer in his seminal
1983 paper.
539
as Figure 4 illustrates, the diphthongization process does not occur instantaneously,
but rather, spreads W > E, during which time in Proto-Kajkavian the reflexes of *Ē, *Ĭ,
*Ŭ had hitherto merged as [ä]. Once diphthongization reached Proto-Kajkavian, the
innovation affected both jat and jers (Figure 5). In this respect, Pannonian Slovenian
and Kajkavian end up having a superficially similar contrast, including in phonetic
detail, of ä–å in its low-vowel series, albeit with a divergent distribution of the historical entities.
Figure 1. Proto-Slavic input.
*DĬNĬ
*MŬXŬ
*MĔDŬ
Figure 2. Delabialization of *a (Sava-S).
Sava-N
Sava-S
*dьnь
*dьnь
*mъxъ
*mъxъ
*SNĒGŬ
*SĀDŬ
*medъ
*medъ
*sn[ä]gъ
*sn[ä]gъ
*s[å]dъ
*s[a]dъ
Figure 3. Diphthongization and raising of jat I.
Sava-N (¬Kaj) *d[ə]nь
*m[ə]xъ
*m[ä]dъ
Sava-S
*d[ə]nь
*m[ə]xъ
*medъ
*sn[eä]gъ
*sn[eä]gъ
*s[å]dъ
*s[a]dъ
Figure 4. Merger of lengthened strong jers.
Sava-N (¬Kaj) *d [ä]nь
*m[ä]xъ
*m[ä]dъ
Sava-N Kaj
*d[ä]nь
*m[ä]xъ
*m[e]dъ
Sava-S
*d[a]nь
*m[a]xъ
*medъ
*sn[eä]gъ
*sn[ä]gъ
*sn[eä]gъ
*s[å]dъ
*s[å]dъ
*s[a]dъ
Figure 5. Diphthongization and raising of jat II (Sava-N Kaj).
Sava-N Kaj *d[eä]nь
*m[eä]xъ
*m[e]dъ
*sn[eä]gъ
*s[å]dъ
1.1.2 The retraction of neo-circumflex (»Iv{i}’s Retraction«, G 23; see also Pronk
forthcoming) gives another example of the persistence of a Sava-N || Sava-S divide.
In this instance, Carinthian, Pannonian, and Kajkavian dialects regularly reflect the
retraction of internal long-falling-stressed syllables that arose from acute-stressed
(»neo-circumflex«, G 22) with the type *zāb&va > zábava. This retraction occurred
only onto long syllables, meaning that syllables that had undergone initial-syllable
shortening (G 12) and, later, advancement of stress (G 21), would not have been subject to this rule (e.g., the type ok, golb is unaffected).
2 Unifying changes
2.1 Among the changes that characterize the emergence of Slovene as a part of a
wider association of speech styles is one that has its roots in an innovation that has
a broad South Slavic areal spread, namely, the change of ` > r (Greenberg 1999, G
20), often referred to as »rhotacism«. The phonetic phase of this change most likely
occurred by the eighth century A.D. and it is known from Proto-Slovenian (attested
in the Freising Folia) as well as the entire South Slavic area inclusive of Macedo-Bul-
540
garian dialects, being attested also in old Bulgarian borrowings into Romanian. The
phonetic phase of the change was conditioned in that it occurred only in post-tonic
position and most consistently between two mid-vowels. The phonetic restrictions
limited the occurrence of the change to a small number of lexical items, notably the
voc. sg. *boè > bore ’O, God!’, *moè(tъ) > more ’s/he can’, compound forms of
the present tense of *gъnati (*-ène[tъ] > -rene) and relativizers in *-`(e) > -r(e).
The result of the change was carried over into the lexically innovative form morati
’to have to’. By the fourteenth century the forms all but disappear in the eastern half
of the South Slavic territory, roughly along the Jire~ek line, replaced by the archaic
variants in `. The lexically motivated reversal of the change did not penetrate South
Slavic dialects spoken by Catholics. For this reason it appears that the reversal of the
change was a stylistically motivated one that marked confessional allegiance. The reversal process probably proceeded in the following manner: -`- forms with competing
-r- variants were considered higher prestige in Orthodox contexts, based, for example,
on conservative Church Slavic pronunciation of relativizers such as iè, eè ’which
(masc., neut. sg.)’. The reversal even affected some forms non-etymologically, e.g.,
ve~er > ve~e, in which the final segment had been reinterpreted as a deictic particle.
On the other hand, west of the Jire~ek line, the -r- (< *-è) forms gained in prestige
and were structurally reinforced in the system of relativizers under the influence of
*kъter- ’which’, itself reinterpreted as consisting of a pro-form + relativizing particle
(-r-). A trace of the earlier variation is found in the Slovene form nih~e (< *nikъt[ъ]è) ’nobody’.
2.2 In a paper written before but published after the English-language edition of G
(Greenberg 2001), I claimed that another significant long-term innovation, which, in
effect, characterizes primarily the territory of modern-day Slovenian, is the lenition of
the stops *b, *d, *g (G 9, 33) to fricatives β, ð, γ. The lenitions of these segments probably developed gradually and in stages, the lenition of *g > *γ being part of a much
larger central Slavic areal, following by *b > β, known also in Czech dialects. This
innovation, or set of innovations, later became reversed or replaced through sociolinguistic pressure in most of the territory, receding in the eastern and central Slovenian
dialects and leaving traces in the west and the north. It had originally spread throughout most of the Slovene speech territory virtually to the modern border with Croatia,
e.g., the place name Rogatec (eastern [tajerska) is attested in 1130 as <Roas>, in 1192
as <Rohats>, and 1363 as <Rohats>. The impetus for the change is the fortis:lenis
opposition in what are traditionally considered voiceless:voiced stops. The Carinthian
reflex of the q (glottal stop) as the reflex of Proto-Slavic *k suggests that speakers
focused on glottal tension/stricture rather than on the presence or absence of voicing
– or even velar closure – as the primary marker of the opposition between *p, *t, *k :
*b, *d, *g. Lenition is evident today in western and central dialects that attest the
change *g > γ as well as in Carinthian localities that have the full set of lenited stops,
e.g., Kneà / Grafenbach βə~iəwa ’bee’ (St ~ebela), ðwoqa ’body hair’ (St dlaka),
γroð ’castle’ (St grad). Manuscript evidence attests to widespread lenition through the
fifteenth century, e.g., in the Sti~na ms. <zweſeýdo> ’with the word’, <woga> ’God
541
(gen., acc. sg.). The lenited and non-lenited variants must have persisted side-by-side,
either as local differences or as stylistic variants, in which case the non-lenited variants subsequently prevailed by virtue of higher social prestige. As evidence of reversal, we find examples of toponyms in which the speakers’ sense of the identity of the
original initial segment (realized as [β] or [v]) had been lost and the substitution (i.e.,
the reversal of the change) was made non-etymologically in particular lexical items,
e.g., the names Benetke (< *venet-), Bodovlje (< *vÜdol-).
2.3 Another unifying sound change is the advancement of the ictus corresponding
to the Proto-Slavic circumflex (the type ok, golộb). As I have indicated in a number of
publications (Greenberg 1992, 1994; G 12, 21), the innovation developed in a number
of stages, proceeding in a hierarchical manner depending on relative syllable weight
of the initial and post-initial syllable. I agree with Kortlandt that it was triggered by
a general tendency in western dialects of Proto-Slavic towards shortening of the circumflex (attested in Czech and Polish; see Kortlandt 1975: 33), which evidently had
as a result a compensatory lengthening of the following syllable, the greater length
of which increased the odds that subsequent generations of speakers would interpret
the second syllable as stressed. The geography of the change is such that it indicates a
typical center-periphery expansion and at the peripheries the more restricted environments do not carry through the shift (e.g., in Rezijanski dialect in the W, Prekmurski
and Prle{ki dialect in the NE). Moreover, the innovation in restricted environments
reaches into Kajkavian (see, for example, Vermeer 1979).
3 Conclusion
3.0 The above sketch of selected changes, which depart in a number of ways from
traditional explanations for Slovene sound changes, illustrates the dynamic nature
of the development of the Slovene linguistic territory, which, after being settled by
heterogeneous Proto-Slavic dialect speakers, emerged gradually by virtue of unifying changes that, in turn, had their roots in broader Proto-Slavic or South Slavic areal
changes. The changes discussed illustrate the necessity of viewing sound changes
as long-term and driven by competing factors including structural change, cognitive
reinterpretation, and sociolinguistic pressure.
REFERENCES
Henning ANDERSEN, 1973: Abductive and deductive change. Language 49. 567–595.
Henning ANDERSEN, 1996: Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects: Initial Vowels in Slavic and
Baltic. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Henning ANDERSEN, 1999: The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti // SC sah-nu-ti.
Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 2. 47–62.
Zbigniew BABIK, 2005: Na marginesie najnowszej fonologii historycznej języka słoweńskiego. Rocznik Slawistyczny LV. 93–136.
Christina Y. BETHIN, 2000: Slavic Phonology in the United States. SLING2K Workshop
Position Paper, http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/SLING2K/pospapers/bethin.pdf
542
France BEZLAJ, 1958: Predslovanski ostanki v sloven{~ini. Na{a sodobnost 6/2. 673–693.
Florin CURTA, 2002: From Kossina to Bromley. Ethnogenesis in Slavic Archaeology. On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages. Studies in the
Early Middle Ages v. 4, ed. by Andrew Gillett). Turnhout, Belgija: Brepols. 201–218.
Mark J. ELSON, 2002: Ocena Greenberg 2000. Language, vol. 78/4. Baltimore, MD. 796–797.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 1992: Circumflex Advancement in Prekmurje and Beyond. Journal of the
Society for Slovene Studies 14/1: 69–91.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 1994: Archaisms and Innovations in the Dialect of Sredi{~e (Southeastern
Prlekija, Slovenia). Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic
Linguistics. Literature and Folklore. Indiana Slavic Studies 7. 91–102.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 1999: Multiple Causation in the Spread and Reversal of a Sound Change:
Rhotacism in South Slavic. Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies. 63–76.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2000: A Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language. Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 13. Ed. by Paul Wexler. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl
Winter.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2001: ’Rascvet i padenie’ lenicii vzryvnyx v slovenskom jazyke. Voprosy
jazykoznanija. 31–42.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2002: Zgodovinsko glasoslovje slovenskega jezika. Maribor: Zalo`ba
Aristej.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2004: Sifting the Evidence for the Reconstruction of Pannonian Slavic.
[Review of] Richards, Ronald O. The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic
Proto-Language: The View from Old Hungarian. UCLA Indo-European Studies, vol. 2
[2003], ed. by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Brent Vine). Canadian Slavonic Papers 46/1–2.
213–220.
Marc L. GREENBERG, 2002–03: Common Slavic: Progress or Crisis in its Reconstruction? Notes
on Recent Archaeological Challenges to Historical Linguistics. International Journal of
Slavic Linguistics and Poetics. 44–45, 197–209.
Marko JESEN{EK, 2003: Ocena Greenberg 2002. Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 4.
65–69.
Blaè KONESKI, 1983: A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language (Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 12. Ed. by George Y. Shevelov). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter.
Frederik KORTLANDT, 1975: Slavic Accentuation. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
Frederik KORTLANDT, 2003: Early Dialectal Diversity in South Slavic II. Dutch Contributions
to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana (SSGL 30). Linguistics.
215–235. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi.
Rudolf KRAJ~OVI~, 1973: A Historical Phonology of the Slovak Language. Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 9. Ed. by George Y. Shevelov. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
Carl Winter.
L. V. KURKINA, 2003: Ocena Greenberg 2000. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3. 143–149.
Josip LISAC, 2003a: Ocena Greenberg 2000. Filologija 41. 189–191.
Josip LISAC, 2003b: Ocena Greenberg 2002. Kaj 1–2. 159–161.
Nikolai MIKHAILOV, 2001: Ocena Greenberg 2000. Slavica Tergestina 9. Studia Slavica II:
321–325.
Tom PRIESTLY, 2002: Ocena Greenberg 2000. Diachronica XVIII/2. 366–370.
Tijmen PRONK [v tisku]: The Retraction of the Neocircumflex in the Carinthian Dialects of
Slovene.
Ronald O. RICHARDS, 2003: The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic Proto-Language: The View from Old Hungarian. UCLA Indo-European Studies vol. 2. Ed. by Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in Brent Vine). Los Angeles: UCLA IES.
543
Gunter SCHAARSCHMIDT, 1997: A Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian Languages. Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 6. Ed. by Paul Wexler. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag Carl Winter.
George Y. SHEVELOV, 1979: A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian Language. Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 5. Ed. by George Y. Shevelov. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter.
Zdzisław STIEBER, 1973: A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language. Historical Phonology
of the Slavic Languages 5. Ed. by George Y. Shevelov). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl
Winter.
Willem VERMEER, 1979: Innovations in the Kajkavian Dialect of Bednja. Dutch Contributions
to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists. Ed. by J. M. Meijer. Lisse: Peter de Ridder
Press. 347–381.
Willem VERMEER, 1983: The Rise and Fall of the Kajkavian Vowel System. Dutch Contributions
to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists. Kiev, September 6–14, 1983, Linguistics.
Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 3. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 439–477.
Paul WEXLER, 1973: A Historical Phonology of the Belorussian Language. Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages 3. Ed. by George Y. Shevelov. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
Carl Winter.
POVZETEK
V razpravi avtor prikaè nekaj glasovnih sprememb, ki jih obravnava v svojem delu A
Historical Phonology of the Slovene Language (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter,
2000), v katerem z novimi razlagami osvetljuje zapleten razvoj v zgodnjih fazah oblikovanja
slovenskega jezikovnega prostora. Zaris izbranih sprememb, ki se v mnogo~em oddaljuje od
tradicionalnih razlag slovenskih glasovnih sprememb, ponazarja dinamiko razvoja slovenskega
jezikovnega prostora. Ta se je po naselitvi govorcev raznovrstnih praslovanskih nare~ij oblikoval postopoma s povezovalnimi spremembami, ki so imele osnovo v {ir{ih praslovanskih in
ju`noslovanskih spremembah. Obravnavane spremembe ponazarjajo potrebo po tem, da gledamo na glasovne spremembe kot na dolgoro~ni proces, ki ga vzpodbujajo nasprotujo~i si dejavniki, med njimi strukturne spremembe, kognitivna preinterpretacija in sociolingvisti~ni pritisk.
544
Majda Merše, Verbal Aspect in Correlation with Other Verbal Categories ...
UDC 811.163.6’366.58’’16’’
Majda Mer{e
545
VERBAL ASPECT IN CORRELATION WITH OTHER VERBAL CATEGORIES
IN THE 16th-CENTURY SLOVENIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
The paper discusses the interactive relationship between verbal categories (aspect as point
of departure, and time, voice, and mood) in the 16th-century Slovenian literary language. The
findings are based on the analysis of examples of aspect-time, aspect-voice, and aspect-mood
agreement or disagreement, established by comparing sample texts (particularly Trubar’s (1557)
and Dalmatin’s (1584) translations of the Gospels). In addition, the comparison with Luther’s
translation of the Bible (1545) as Dalmatin’s primary translation source, helped to illuminate
the causes of this situation and phenomena. The author also points out several characteristic differences between the practices of Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s literary language, limited primarily
to the verbal derivation and morphology.
V sestavku je predstavljeno sou~inkovalno razmerje med glagolskimi kategorijami (vidom
kot izhodi{~no kategorijo ter ~asom, na~inom in naklonom) v knji`nem jeziku 16. stoletja. Ugotovitve so oprte na analizo primerov vidsko-~asovne, vidsko-na~inovne in vidsko-naklonske
ujemalnosti in neujemalnosti, ugotovljenih s primerjavo vzor~nih besedil (zlasti Trubarjevega
(1557) in Dalmatinovega (1584) prevoda evangelijev). K vzro~ni osvetlitvi stanja in pojavov
je prispevala tudi primerjava z Lutrovim prevodom Biblije (1545) kot Dalmatinovo osnovno
prevodno prelogo. Hkrati je opozorjeno tudi na ve~ primerjalno odkritih, zna~ilnih razlik med
Trubarjevo in Dalmatinovo knji`nojezikovno prakso, omejenih predvsem na glagolsko besedotvorje in oblikoslovje.
Key words: verbal categories, verbal aspect, verbal aspect in correlation with time, voice,
and mood, derivation, sixteenth-century Slovenian literary language
Klju~ne besede: glagolske kategorije, glagolski vid, glagolski vid v povezavi s ~asom,
na~inom in naklonom, besedotvorje, slovenski knji`ni jezik 16. stoletja
0 The research of aspect, i.e., verbal aspect and Aktionsart, in the works of Slovene 16th-century Protestant writers (Mer{e 1995b) has shown that at the beginning
and through the initial normative stabilization of Slovenian literary language, verbal
aspect was well established and systematically fairly stable grammatical category.
Compared to the contemporary language, the 16th-century language displays mainly
a different frequency distribution of derivational and aspect-expressing means (their
inventory only insignificantly differs from the contemporary stock) and greater derivational variation (e.g., raztresati/raztresovati, pogubljati/pogubljavati, razmi{ljati/
razmi{ljovati/razmi{ljavati,1 predajati/predavati, utrdovati/utrjovati, preklinjati/pre-
1
On the relationship between the suffixes -ova- in -ava-, which present one of the most noticeable
derivational alternations in the language of the Slovenian 16th-century Protestant writers, cf. Mer{e 2005;
before that also Oroèn 1974: 18–19 and Vidovi~-Muha 1984: 255. The analysis (Mer{e 2005), based on
the entire corpus collected by the complete excerption of all works by the Slovene 16th-century Protestant writers, confirmed the previous findings about the frequency correlations, but it complemented them with new
546
kolnovati; obveseliti se/obeseliti se/oveseliti se, raztreti/streti, obrisati/ubrisati2, etc.).
The latter is clearly the consequence of the early phase of the literary language. The
analysis also shows several examples of disagreement between the forms and expected aspectual content,3 which can be often explained with the influence of the
foreign-language translation sources, particularly German, as German does not have
verbal aspect as a derivationally developed, binary grammar category, particularly
characteristic of Slavic languages.4
0.1 It is a generally accepted fact that there is correlation between the grammar
categories of aspect, time, voice, and mood, and that their mutual relationship is interactive, and, particularly on the functional level, also fairly complex. Aspectologists continuously pose questions about the nature of this relationship, what is the
level of interaction of the four categories, and at the same time, what is the correlation between the lexical and grammatical meaning of the verb used in the context.5
Slavic aspectologists studying the interaction of these categories use various methods.
Among the more common ones are finding and analyzing the cross-sections of the
verbal categories and deriving from one of the analyzed categories, which then serves
as the basis for the analysis of the functioning of the other. Pupynin (1995: 161), for
instance, treats the category of voice as a unity of two semantic plains, i.e., active and
passive, which display the semantic functions of aspect.
0.2 The findings about the structure and function of the aspectual system in the
16th-century literary language offered an appropriate starting point for the research of
the correlation between the aspect and other verbal categories. The present treatment
attempts to outline the extent and typology of disagreement discovered through comparison (but also to point out the examples and extent of the agreement in usage) that
findings about the realized aspectual semantics. The survey of the concrete usage showed a fairly even
spectrum of realized meanings (the so-called partial meanings) of imperfect aspect. Among the most commonly realized meanings of verbs derived with the suffixes -ova- and -ava- (in the case of synonymous use
also verbs with the suffix -a-, e.g., domi{ljati se – domi{ljavati se – domi{ljovati se) are the following: limited and unlimited iterative, concrete-processual and durative (state) meanings. Both also display the meaning of general validity/currency, which emphasizes the action, but does not actualize (countable) repetition
of action. The most commonly realized meaning of the imperfect aspect in the derivatives with both suffixes
is unlimited iteration, i.e., action repeated unlimited number of times. This is indicated simultaneously or
individually by the use of present tense with the meaning of general validity, plural subject or/and object,
allowing multiple realization of action, i.e., the first one as the agent, the other as patient (or as recipient),
typical circumstantial determinants, e.g., adverbials of time (pono~i) or place (povsod), providing a temporal or spatial framework that is wide enough for numerous repetitions of the action, series of similar actions
expressed with imperfect verbs.
2
The verb was used by Dalmatin. The prefix, which is not clear in terms of pronunciation, is consis
ently written with v: e.g., ta poshre inu vbriſhe ſvoja úſsta (DB 1584: I, 328a)).
3
E.g., inu ſo sazheli byti inu raniti nekotere od tiga folka (DB 1584: I,146a) – vnd fiengen an zu schlahen / vnd zuuerwunden vom Volck (LB 1545: 495); c.f. Merše 1998: 61.
4
The grammatical category of aspect is substituted by another verbal category, i.e., Aktionsart. Cf.
Helbig/Buscha 1990: 72–7; also Merše 1993, 2003: 82 and elsewhere.
5
Cf. Rasudova 1968, Bondarko 1971, Russkaja grammatika 1980: 641–645, Hrakovskij 1990, Pupynin
1995, etc., for Slovene Plotnikova 1975: 12–17, Orešnik 1994 (several places), Dickey 2003: 188–205.
547
refers to the co-appearance of verbal categories, i.e., aspect as the starting category,
and time, voice, and mood in Trubar’s (1557) and Dalmatin’s (1584) translations of
the Gospels.6 In the cause-consequence analysis of the differential examples, the author considered the function of verbal form, lexical meaning of the verb, the action
situation (its component is also the action and/or occurrence or state expressed with a
concrete verbal form), context, and the chosen syntactic pattern.
1 The correlation between aspect and time
1.1 Considering the essence and function of individual verbal categories, the categories of aspect and time are most closely related. Since they are as a rule expressed
by the same verbal form, Slavic aspectology speaks of aspectual-temporal forms.7
Mood and voice are expressed by the same form as well, but if the former is indicative,
because it only states the verbal event (Topori{i~ 1992: 119), and the latter is active,
i.e., if both categories appear in their basic, semantically unmarked roles, they remain
in the shadow of the correlation between aspect and time.
1.2 The analysis of the differences found by comparing sample texts, confirmed
the previously known findings about Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s use of temporal forms
(Mer{e 1997 and 2000). The majority of them were discussed and illustrated by examples in several studies by Martina Oroèn.8 The major difference is that the presenttense form is functionally more loaded in Trubar’s language than in Dalmatin’s. With
regard to the more common use of the complex forms for past tense, Dalmatin continued Krelj’s practice. The wider selection of temporal forms indirectly indicates that
their use was less established in Trubar’s language than in Dalmatin’s. The common
use of the historical present consequently limited Trubar’s use of the past tense, which
was in its usual role, i.e., in expressing the antecedent action, freed of some load,
and was able to take on other roles. Trubar often uses it to express past antecedent
actions, which is one of the meanings characteristic of pluperfect, which is also used
by Trubar.
1.3 Despite the synonymy of the historical present and past tense and their interchangeability, confirmed in Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s practice, the concrete examples
of usage of the present tense in Trubar’s language often indicate additional functional
meaning. Trubar often uses the historical present in showing connected series of actions, which are often also causally linked. Most of the two- and three-part series
consist of completed actions, expressed with the perfective verbs. Also possible are
combinations of completed and lasting actions and multi-part series of lasting ac6
Comparison of Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s translations of Gospels revealed the essential differences in
their use of aspect in relation to time (Mer{e 2000) as well as voice and mood (Mer{e 2001). Determining
the characteristics of Trubar’s, Krelj’s, and Dalmatin’s use of the conditional required examination of a
wider variety of works and complete excerption of the material (Mer{e 2002).
7
Cf. Zaliznjak, [melev 1997: 31–32.
8
Cf. Oroèn 1970: 225; 1977: 90; 1986a: 33; 1986b: 110; 1987: 32;
548
tions, processes, or states expressed by the imperfective verbs. By using the historical
present, Trubar internally connects and completes realistic action situations. This way
he separates them from other situations that are presented in the neighboring contexts,
i.e., they either come before or after, or they are related to different place of action or
different agent or carrier of occurrence/state. Examples: Inu on ſapouei tim ludem doli
ſeſti na to trauo. Inu uſame te pet kruhe /.../ pogleda gori unebeſa, ſahuali, inu reslomi
tar da te kruhe tim Iogrom ti Iogri pag dado tim ludem. Inu ſo ieili vſi inu ſo ſyti bili,
Inu ſo uſdignili kar ie zhes oſtalu od koſſou (TT 1557: 42) – Inu on je rekàl timu Folku
doli ſeſti na travo, inu je vsèl te pet Kruhe /.../ je gori pogledal v’Nebu, inu je sahvalil,
inu reslomil, inu je dal te Kruhe Iogrom, Inu Iogri ſo je dali timu Folku. Inu ony ſo vſi
jédli, inu ſo ſiti poſtali. Inu ſo pobrali, kar je bilu oſtalu Koſceu (DB 1584: III,10a).
1.3.1 A common component of series composed of imperfective and perfective
verbs in historical present are verba dicendi. The verb introducing direct speech is in
Trubar’s language commonly expressed with the historical present. Examples: Peter
tedai odgouori inu knemu praui, Pole, mi ſmo uſe ſapuſtili inu ſmo hodili ſa tebo /.../
Ieſus pag praui knim (TT 1557: 57) – Tedaj je Peter odguvoril, inu je djal k’njemu:
Pole, my ſmo vſe sapuſtili, inu ſmo ſhli sa tabo /.../ Iesus pak je djal k’nym (DB 1584:
III,12b). Similarly, Dalmatin often switches into historical present from past tense. For
introducing direct speech they both as a rule chose perfective verbs (e.g., djati, odgovoriti, re~i; praviti used as perfective); if they used imperfectives, these imperfectives
can often be considered to have perfective aspectual meaning (cf. Mer{e 1993: 230;
1995a: 496–497; 2000: 24).
1.3.2 Trubar’s language is also characterized by examples of rapid transitions from
one form to another, which are realized within the same series of actions. Although
the likely cause of these changes is the fact that the use of temporal forms was not
yet stable, numerous examples lead us to the conclusion that Trubar used the formal
duality, created by the historical present and past tense as synonymous forms, to increase the information value of the text. He often pointed out a new series of concrete
actions by expressing the first action with historical present, while using past tense
in the continuation, or vice versa. By choosing a synonymous form, which discontinues formally unified series, he sometimes pointed out actions that did not belong
to ongoing, actual series of actions, or actions that belong to another action plane.
That something belongs to a different action plane is often additionally indicated by
mood or voice marking of the action, i.e., the comparison of Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s
translation of the same text reveals the passive in Trubar’s translation and the active in
Dalmatin’s, or the conditional in Trubar’s translation and the indicative in Dalmatin’s,
or vice versa. Examples: Tedai Erodesh poklizhe ſcriuaie te Modre, inu ſfliſſom is nih
iſuprasha ta zhas, vkaterim ſe ie ta ſueisda prikaſala. Inu nee poshle Vbetleem, inu
praui (TT 1557: 3) – Tedaj je Erodesh te Modre ſkrivaje poklizal, inu je ſkèrbnu is nyh
isvpraſhoval, kadaj bi ſe ta Svésda bila pèrkasala: Inu je nje poſlal v’Betlehem, inu
je rekal (DB 1584: III,3b).
549
1.3.2.1 Trubar also used the synonymous temporal forms to distinguish concrete,
completed actions expressed with perfective verbs from lasting actions, occurrences,
or states (e.g., of cognitive-emotional nature) expressed with imperfective verb, as
well as for distinguishing the acts and states related to the outside world from the ones
limited to the inside of human beings. With the contrastive use of synonymous forms
he also emphasized, delimited, and contrasted causal and consequential series of actions. Examples: KAdar ie on pag vidil to Mnoshizo tih ludi gre on gori na eno Goro,
inu doli ſede, knemu perſtopio nega Iogri (TT 1557: 9) – KAdar je on pak ta Folk vidil,
je gori ſhàl na eno Gorro, inu je doli ſedèl, inu njegovi Iogri ſo k’njemu ſtopili (DB
1584: III, 4b).
1.3.2.2 Since the historical present does not require the choice of imperfectives,
which is characteristic of the actual and also of the expanded or general present tense,
the compared biblical translations – despite the polarized choice of synonymous temporal forms – usually agree in aspect. Occasional use of aspectually opposite verbs,
accompanying the contrasting of the synonymous temporal forms, might have been
affected by the individual author’s effort to more clearly form the series of actions,
either in terms of its dynamism or in terms of the sequencing of actions (occurrences,
states) by their value, taking into account their actuality. Both translators were aware
of the fact that stringing together several perfective verbs rendered the narration more
compact and intense, while including imperfective verbs slowed it down, and at the
same time, pointed out and emphasized individual phases of actions, represented by
lasting actions, processes and states.
The choice of aspectually different verbs is often clearly contextually coordinated
or even conditioned. In the example Tedai Erodesh poklizhe ſcriuaie te Modre, inu
ſfliſſom is nih iſuprasha ta zhas, vkaterim ſe ie ta ſueisda prikaſala. Inu nee poshle
Vbetleem, inu praui (TT 1557: 3) – Tedaj je Erodesh te Modre ſkrivaje poklizal, inu
je ſkèrbnu is nyh isvpraſhoval, kadaj bi ſe ta Svésda bila pèrkasala: Inu je nje poſlal
v’Betlehem, inu je rekal (DB 1584: III,3b) Trubar’s perfective iſuprasha and Dalmatin’s imperfective je isvpraſhoval are counter-posed.
The thoroughness of execution of the action is indicated by the adverbials of manner ſfliſſom and ſkèrbnu. Trubar’s use of the perfective is coordinated with the focus
on the final information about the time of appearance of the star, while Dalmatin’s
imperfective shows the iteration, prompted by the three adressees on the one hand and
the uncertainty about the time of the appearance of the star, which is emphasized by
the conditional, on the other.
1.3.2.3 When the compared texts feature the past tense on the one side and the
non-historical present tense on the other, the differentiation is most commonly multifaceted, but, most of all, it concerns the content.9 With respect to the use of the present
9
Examples: Koku ie de ui ne sastopite, de ieſt ne ſem od kruha uom gouuril, kadar ſem dial, Varuite ſe
pred Fariſeiskim inu Saduceiskim quaſſsum? (TT 1557: 47) – Koku je tu, de nesaſtopite, de vam jeſt nepravim
550
tense for the atemporal meaning the compared texts mostly agree. Because of the
possibility of numerous iterations, which is opened to the completed as well as to lasting actions by the atemporality, special, aspect-neutralizing positions arise.10 In these
positions, because of the equalization of partial aspectual meanings,11 the original difference in grammatical meaning between aspectually opposite verbs fades away.
1.3.3 The consequence of the basic principles in which Trubar and Dalmatin structured the temporal system is also the difference in the expression of the past antecedent action and remote past. Dalmatin often expresses these meanings with pluperfect
(Mer{e 1997: 11–14), while Trubar uses past tense or historical present, occasionally
also pluperfect. His past tense usually emphasizes actions that within the series of
actions stand out because of their early or earliest realization, or actions that are not a
component of the series of actions. Trubar often indicated the sequence of actions with
syntactic and lexical means, particularly with the selection of the syntactic pattern,
while Dalmatin used to a larger extent the combination of temporal forms (and verbal
aspect), as he often emphasized the temporal primariness of actions expressed in the
temporal clauses, by using pluperfect (and perfective verbs).12 Examples: Natu kadar
ſo oni tiga krala ſaslishali, gredo tiakai. Inu pole, ta ſueiſda katero ſo oni vti Iutroui
desheli vidili, gre nim naprei, dotle ona pride inu oſgorai obſtoy (TT 1557: 3) – Kadar
ſo ony vshe tiga Krajla bily saſliſhali, ſo ſhli tjakaj. Inu pole, ta Svésda, katero ſo ony
v’Iutrovi desheli vidili, je pred nymi ſhla tjakaj, dokler je priſhla inu osgoraj obſtala
(DB 1584: III,3b). The frequency and functional expanse of pluperfect in Dalmatin’s
Bible offers clear evidence that the form was a solid component of his temporal system, used with careful consideration. Particularly noticeable is its use in expressing
the state following a completed action (Mer{e 1997: 14), which Trubar expressed in
a simpler, more evident way, e.g., with a participle or with semantically appropriate
imperfective. The peculiarity of Dalmatin’s use is also indirectly evident from the
comparison with Luther’s translation (Dalmatin’s source), as the verified places in it
often have the state expressed with verb or description.13 Examples: (1) Natu kadar
ſo oni tiga krala ſaslishali, gredo tiakai. Inu pole, ta ſueiſda katero ſo oni vti Iutrovi
od Kruha (kadar pravim:) Varite ſe pred Qvaſsom téh Fariseerjeu iny Sadduceerjeu? (DB 1584: III,11a).
Trubar mentions an action completed in the past, while in DB 1584 the same action became atemporal,
meaning that it can be executed several times and that the content of what is said is essential, while the
distance from the time of the utterance is not important.
10
On the neutralization of the aspectual meaning cf. Bondarko – Bulanin 1967: 72–75.
11
The term partial aspectual meanings particularly in Russian aspectology refers to the types of the
contextual realizations of the categorial meanings of the perfective and imperfective aspects (Zaliznjak
– [melev 1997: 17). They are presented as the result of the interaction between the lexical meaning of the
verbs, verbal categories (time, mood, voice), context, and situation (Bondarko – Bulanin 1967: 52–61).
Hrakovskij (1990: 25) speaks of grammemes of the perfective and imperfective aspects. On the definitions
of the aspectual meanings by the leading Russian aspectologists cf. Mer{e 1995: 47.
12
Dalmatin did not limit pluperfect only to the use with perfective verbs, but also used it with the imperfective verbs such as govoriti, iti, piti, jesti, beàti, kraljovati, za{potovati, etc.
13
The comparison of the sample Old Testament texts (SAMVELOVE BVQVE in BVQVE TEH KRAILEV) showed that in about half of the cases Dalmatin’s use of pluperfect agreed with Luther’s (Mer{e 1993:
233 in 1997).
551
desheli vidili, gre nim naprei, dotle ona pride inu oſgorai obſtoy (TT 1557: 3) – Kadar
ſo ony vshe tiga Krajla bily saſliſhali, ſo ſhli tjakaj. Inu pole, ta Svésda, katero ſo ony
v’Iutrovi desheli vidili, je pred nymi ſhla tjakaj, dokler je priſhla inu osgoraj obſtala
(DB 1584: III,3b); (2) Kadar ie pag Erodesh bil mertou, pole, ta angel tiga Goſpudi ſe
prikashe Ioshefu (TT 1557: 5) – KAdar je pak Erodesh bil vmèrl, pole, tedaj ſe je GOSPODNI Angel Iosephu v’ſajni perkasal (DB 1584: III,3b); (3) VND das Weib gieng
hin ein zu Saul / vnd sahe / das er seer erschrocken war (LB 1545: 564) – Inu ta Shena
je notèr ſhla k’Saulu, inu je vidila, de ſe je on bil silnu preſtraſhil (DB 1584: I,166b).
Another characteristic of Dalmatin’s use of pluperfect is its incorporation into the
standard combination, intended for expression of the absolute completion of the action. It includes an appropriate prefix (e.g., od-), pluperfect, and temporal clause as
the most appropriate syntactic pattern, e.g., Vnd da sie gessen hatten / stunden sie auff
(LB 1545: 564) – Inu kadar ſo bily odjédli, ſo vſtali (DB 1584: I,166b).
1.3.4 Both authors expressed future with the same (traditional) means (descriptive
future tens, the construction imeti/hoteti + infinitive, (perfective) present tense),14 they
only differed in the frequency of use of individual means. The wide selection dictated
carefully considered usage. The selection of one or the other possibility could be affected by the reasons of content or style, the former ones particularly depending on the
need to express future and to modally nuance the utterance. The first two expressive
possibilities allowed the selection of aspectually different verbs. Besides the difference in the chosen expressive possibilities that were noticed in the compared translations, the analysis also showed aspectual difference, which is often a consequence of
the meaning of the chosen verb, and semantic, which is due to the modification of the
completion of the action (in one or both authors) or the difference in its aktionsart
(e.g., one-sided exposure of the beginning of the action: pregovoriti – govoriti, which
could be the result of relying on the translation source or distancing from it). In both
respects the compared translations can also differ in expression of other tenses, e.g.,
the past.
2 The correlation between aspect and voice
2.1 Among the differences affecting simultaneously and primarily the aspect and
voice, the most common one is Dalmatin’s replacement of the passive with the active voice.15 It was recorded in almost half of the examples with such disagreement.
This replacement causes the expected rearrangement of information, as the agent or
the carrier of the course of action or the state appears in the role of subject instead
of being relegated on the syntactic periphery (in the adverbial expressing the agent)
or not being mentioned at all. The adverbial of agent is usually expressed with the
prepositional phrase od koga ’by whom’ or od koga skuzi koga ’by whom through
whom’, if in addition to the actual agent, which is usually God, an intermediary is
14
15
Cf. Oroèn 1970: 226.
It was pointed out in several places by M. Oroèn (e.g. 1986b: 110).
552
also mentioned. Examples: (1) Letu ie pag vſe ſturienu, de bode dopolnenu tu, kar
ie gouorienu od Goſpudi skuſi tiga preroka, kir pravi (TT 1557: 2) – Letu ſe je pak
vſe sgodilu, de bi ſe tu dopolnilu, kar je GOSPVD ſkusi Preroka govuril, kateri pravi
(DB 1584: III,3b); DAS ist aber alles geschehen / Auff das erfüllet würde / das der
HERR durch den Propheten gesagt hat / der da spricht (LB 1545: 1968).
Dalmatin replaces both passive constructions with active voice: the more common
one, consisting of the finite form of the auxiliary verb biti and -n participle16 (the form
in -t is rare), and the less commonly used forms with se. A great majority of replaced
participle passive constructions included the participle of the perfective verb (usually
the same, less commonly synonymous or semantically changed) that Dalmatin used
in active voice (e.g., Inu kadar ſe Ioshef is ſna obudi, ſturi on, koker ie nemu bilu
ſapouedanu od angela tiga Goſpudi (TT 1557: 2) – Kadar ſe je pak Ioseph is ſna bil
obudil, je ſturil, kakòr je njemu GOSPODNI Angel bil sapovédal (DB 1584: III,3b).
Similarly, Dalmatin’s replacements of Trubar’s passive, expressed with se, are most of
the time realized with the same verb. Although several replacements concern imperfective verbs, imperfectivity of the passive form with se certainly is not a rule.
In some cases the partial aspectual meaning contained in Trubar’s translation, is
also preserved in the active form in Dalmatin’s Bible, but in most cases the replacement of construction also meant the shift from the state, which is the consequence
of the previous completion of action, to the completion of a concrete action, course
of action, or process. The latter previously approached or developed toward the end
point, which is at the same time also inner boundary of action (e.g., Kadar ie pag ta
ſad naprei perneſſen, taku on sdaici ta ſerp kiakai poshle, ſakai ta shetou ie tukai
(TT 1557: 106) – Kadar pak ſad pèrneſse, taku on sdajci Sèrp tjakaj poſhle, sakaj
shetou je tu (DB 1584: III,21a). By replacing passive voice with active voice, Dalmatin usually accomplishes informational equalization of the translation, but often with
different means than Trubar. The state, which Trubar expressed with passive forms,
Dalmatin often presents in a different way (e.g., descriptively, with verbs of state, or
with the previously mentioned pluperfect (cf. 1.3.3)). In the case of passive voice with
participle the differentiation between past tense and pluperfect fails, which means that
the form is paradigm-wise inferior to the active form.
The differences in the selection (and expression) of voice most often do not affect
aspectual semantics of the imperfectives. In both cases, frequently (often even with
the same verb) iterative (unlimited repetitions or general validity) and durative, and
less frequently concrete-processual meanings are preserved. The difference between
the compared translations that include the contrasting passive vs. active voice may
be augmented by the use of aspectually opposite verbs (example (1)); by the contrast
between transitive verb used by Trubar and intransitive verb used by Dalmatin or vice
16
-n-participle is often used in places when now the participle in -t (e.g., bijen), is used, which has been
previously mentioned (Ramov{ 1952: 148–149, Oroèn 1977: 97–98 etc.). Ramov{ (1952: 148) explains
the confusion of the two endings as the consequence of the analogy between verbal classes. M. Oroèn
(1977: 97–98) noticed the difference in Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s use of the passive participle in -t: it is less
frequent in Trubar’s writing, while Dalmatin under the influence of his dialect comes closer to the modern
usage, although he still uses it rarely.
553
versa (cf. example (2)); and by the contrast between the state following the completion
of action and the unfinished process aiming to achieve the same state (example (1)).
Examples: (1) ty slepci uidio, ty hromi hodio, ty gobouci bodo ozhiszheni /.../ ty mertui gori uſtaieio (TT 1557: 183) – Slépci vidio, Hromci hodio, Gobouci zhiſti poſtajejo
/.../ Mèrtvici gori vſtajejo (DB 1584: III,34b); (2) Kateru ie pag umei tu Terne palu, ſo
lety, kir /.../ bode ſadushenu, inu obeniga ſadu ne perneſſo (TT 1557: 187) – Kateru je
pak mej tèrnje padlu, ſo ty, kir /.../ sadahneo, de obeniga ſadu nepèrneſsó (DB 1584:
III,35a).
The comparative analysis of concrete usage of both voices has shown that both authors had a good practical command of the two categories. The evidence of Dalmatin’s
mastery are also the cases when he departed from Luther’s translation.17 The individuality of Dalmatin’s translation is also evident from the examples where a mechanical
exchange of syntactic positions of the agent and the patient in selecting the opposite
voice (usually because of the ellipsis of one of the actants) was not viable. Even
more indicative are the cases when Dalmatin, by changing the voice, also replaced
incomplete syntactic structures from Luther’s Bible with complete ones. Examples:
(1) DA gieng alles Fleisch vnter (LB 1545: 36) – Tedaj je konzhanu bilu vſe meſſu
(DB 1584: I,5b); (2) DA nu Samuel alle stemme Jsrael erzu bracht / ward getroffen
der stam BenJamin (LB 1545: 524) – Kadar je vshe Samuel vſe Israelſke Roduve bil
ſemkaj pèrpelal, je ta Loſs padèl na BenIaminou Rod (DB 1584: I,155a).
2.2 Trubar and Dalmatin used both types of formation of passive, but Dalmatin
favored the formation with the passive participle in -n. The choice of this form was
prompted by the translation source (Luther) and the different possibility in expressing
partial aspectual meanings, which was related to the need to emphasize the completion of action or express the state following the completion of action (example (1)).
One of the consequences of choosing another form of passive is the change in the
expressed situation. Since the state is the consequence of the previously completed
action, the choice of the passive formed with -n participle involves skipping of one
phase of action and consequently a different account of the action sequence. The second, later, phase is actualized, which is often also emphasized with the choice of temporal forms (example (2)). Examples: (1) Ona prauita knemu, Goſpud de ſe naiu ozhi
odpro (TT 1557: 60) – Ona ſta k’njemu djala: GOSPVD, de bodo naju ozhy odpèrte
(DB 1584: III,13a) – HERR / das vnsere augen aufgethan werden (LB 1545: 2008);
(2) ena Dezhla bode /…/ rodyla eniga Synu inu nega ime bode imenouanu Emanuel,
kateru ſe isloshi, Bug ſnami (TT 1557: 2) – ena Dezhla bo /…/ eniga Synu rodila, inu
bodo njegovu ime, Emmanuel, imenovali, kateru je ſtolmazhenu, Bug s’nami (DB
1584: III,3b) – EINE JUNGFRAW WIRD SCHWANGER SEIN / VND EINEN SON
GEBEREN / VND SIE WERDEN SEINEN NAMEN EMANUEL HEISSEN / DAS IST
VERDOLMETSCHET / GOTT MIT VNS (LB 1545: 1968). In the latter example,
Trubar’s passive of the perfective verb (ſe isloshi), expressing temporally unbound
17
While the replacements took place in both directions (Mer{e 1993: 232–233; 1995a: 509), the replacements of passive with active forms are more common (Mer{e 1998: 69).
554
action with a possibility of unlimited repetitions,18 is in Dalmatin’s Bible logically replaced with a passive expressed with the participle. This participle is based on another
perfective verb (je ſtolmazhenu), expressing the state after a completed action.
Neither of the forms expressing passivity used by Trubar and Dalmatin is particularly linked to one aspect. However, they differ in the frequency of expressing
individual partial aspectual meanings. Among atypical uses, usually explainable by
analogy, are the use of passive with se of the perfective verbs with the atypical meaning of state (example (1)), which is otherwise characteristic of the passive expressed
with participle of perfective verbs, and the use of passive expressed with participle of
imperfective verbs with perfective meaning (example (2)); this use has been preserved
in the contemporary standard Slovenian.19 Examples.: (1) En kamẽ na tim drugim
nekar ne oſtane, kir ſe ne resbye (TT 1557: 139) – En kamen nebo na drugim oſtal,
kateri bi resbyen nebil (DB 1584: III,26b); (2) leta ie ta kir ie poleg tiga potu uſeian
(TT 1557: 37) – Inu tu je ta, kateri je ſejan raven pota (DB 1584: III,9b).
The comparison also revealed some cases of disagreement, which is the result of
Dalmatin’s choice of passive in place of Trubar’s active. Dalmatin introduced the passive for similar reasons that led him to abandon it. He used it to achieve the desired
information quality of the clause or even longer sentence, particularly to emphasize
the state arising with the completion of action and for distancing from the iterative action, which is actualized in Trubar’s translation (example 1)). He also introduced the
passive when he wanted to front the patient while moving the agent or the cause for
a particular action into the periphery or even conceal it (example 2)). These choices
in some places rendered greater stylistic effect, particularly if the replacement established structural coherence, which was also rhythmically effective (cf. example (1)).
The diminished presence of the passive in Dalmatin’s language was also prompted by
his employment of the aforementioned, more widely used forms expressing the state,
to which he was often directed by Luther’s translation. Examples: (1) Inu kadar ſo ga
sketinami ſueſali, inu ute pote ſaklenili, taku ie uſe ſueſe reſtergal, inu ta Hudizh ga ie
poial po puſzhauah (TT 1557: 188) – Inu on je bil s’ketinami svesan, inu v’ſpringarje
vklenjen, inu je reſtèrgal te svese, inu je bil od Hudizha gnan v’puſzhavo (DB 1584:
III,35b); Vnd er war mit Ketten gebunden / vnd mit Fesseln gefangen / vnd zureis die
Bande / vnd ward getrieben von dem Teufel in die wüsten (LB 1545: 2092); (2) Inu
kadar ſo zhes nega ty Viſshifary /.../ toshyli, nishter nei odguuoril (TT 1557: 87) – Inu
kadar je on bil satoshen od Viſhih farjeu /.../ nej on niſhtèr odguvoril (DB 1584:
III,17b).
18
The aforementioned (partial aspectual) meaning of the perfective verb creates conditions for competition with the imperfective verb with the same meaning (Bondarko 1967: 59–60). The cases of aspectual
competition, which are the result of the realization of partial aspectual meanings of perfective and imperfective aspects, in contemporary standard Slovenian were noted by Plotnikova 1975: 13–14 (e.g., Sem è
malical – Sem è pomalical and Mislim, da smo mu prinesli tudi vedno sonca – Mislim, da smo mu prina{ali
tudi vedno malo sonca).
19
This type is discussed by Ore{nik (1994: 36). He cites the examples sin je bil tepen and krompir bo
pe~en v desetih minutah.
555
3 The correlation between aspect and mood
3.1 The most noticeable difference is the one between Trubar’s use of the indicative and Dalmatin’s parallel use of the conditional mood. This type of differentiation
is evident in one third of all differential examples (Mer{e 2001: 121–124 in 2002:
302–303). One can conclude that in Dalmatin’s language the conditional has proportionally much larger share vis-à-vis the indicative than the active voice has vis-à-vis
the passive voice. Dalmatin expressed conditionality with specialized forms still in
use today, while in Trubar’s texts in comparable places one can often find syntactic
and lexical substitutes, such as conditional clauses and modal verbs.
3.1.1 The opposition between the indicative and conditional moods in their basic
functions (example (1)) accounts for the greatest semantic difference when comparing
Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s texts.20 The two basic functions are ascertaining for the indicative mood and rendering of a hypothetical action depending on the possibility and
conditions of its realization for the conditional mood (Topori{i~ 2000: 329). The differences can usually be found in the same type of clause (in subordinate clauses, main
clauses, or coordinate clauses); less commonly they are connected with the choice
of a different type. Compared to Trubar, Dalmatin used the conditional more consistently in the conditional hypotactic sentences, fairly often also in final and object
clauses (in concrete realizations illustrating the content of the previously expressed
command, prohibition, request, desire, etc.) and in interrogative sentences. The differentiation is occasionally augmented by Dalmatin’s simultaneous use of modal verbs
(example (2)). The changes show that Dalmatin’s introduction of conditional is often
closely tied to the repetitiveness of action (example (3)). They are usually realized
with the same, less often with a synonymous or aspectually opposite verb. Examples:
(1) ſfliſſom is nih iſuprasha ta zhas, vkaterim ſe ie ta ſueisda prikaſala (TT 1557:
3) – je ſkèrbnu is nyh isvpraſhoval, kadaj bi ſe ta Svésda bila pèrkasala (DB 1584:
III,3b); (2) ſakai ona ie ſama ſebo diala, De ſe ieſt le nega guanta dotagnem taku bom
ieſt ſdraua (TT 1557: 24) – ona je ſama ſabo djala: De bi ſe jeſt mogla le njegoviga
Gvanta dotekniti, taku bi jeſt sdava poſtala (DB 1584: III,7a); 3. te ie on vpraſhal,
kei Criſtus ima biti royen (TT 1557: 3) – inu je nje isvpraſhoval: Kej bi imèl Criſtus
rojen biti? (DB 1584: III, 3b).
3.1.2 Within conditional feasibility or even non-feasibility of the actions, occurrences, or states denoted by the verbs in conditional mood, the selection remains aspectually unlimited. In addition, the spectrum of attested partial meanings of perfective and imperfective aspect is wide, despite the fact that the differences in the frequency of individual meaning in reality narrow it down (e.g., govoriti; hoditi; videti,
slu{ati; imeti pomagati, mo~i soditi, smeti govoriti; imeti; znati; gospodovati, etc.).
20
The comparison also found several examples of the reverse contrasts (conditional mood in Trubar’s
text > indicative mood in Dalmatin’s text), which, like all similar non-central substitution tendencies, show
that the authors were fully familiar with various possibilities of expressing conditionality and that they were
well aware of the functional range of individual forms and modes of expression.
556
Examples: Inu de bi jeſt vmèl prerokovati, inu bi vejdil vſe ſkrivnoſti, inu bi vſe snal,
inu bi imèl vſo vero, taku, de bi Gorre preſtaulal, inu bi lubesni neimèl, taku bi jeſt
niſhtèr nebil (DB 1584: II, 94a). Among the most common partial aspectual meanings
are the expression of repetition (mostly with unlimited number of repetitions), duration, and general validity of action.
3.1.3 Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s languages also differ in the ways in which they
express intention. The following forms are used in this capacity: final clause with
indicative mood, infinitive, and final clause with conditional, which was used more
commonly by Dalmatin than by Trubar. In this case, the differentiation is more commonly than with other functions of conditional accompanied by the choice of the
aspectually opposite verbs. Among them there are cases of aspectual competition,
e.g., hlapez, kateriga ie ta Goſpud poſtauil zhes ſuio drushino, de on tei per prauim
zhaſu da nee ſpisho (TT 1557: 75) – Hlapez, kateriga je Goſpud poſtavil zhes ſvojo
Drushino, de bi nym ob pravim zhaſsu ſhpisho dajal (DB 1584: III,5b). In the quoted
example the verbs dati (Trubar) and dajati (Dalmatin) are used with the same partial
aspectual meaning. They both denote action that allows numerous repetitions. The
context points out the iterative meaning with the adverbial of time (per prauim zhaſu
/ ob pravim zhaſsu).
3.2 In terms of correlation with aspect, the imperative seems to be the most complex among the mood categories. Aspectologists have found that particularly in negated imperatives, i.e., in prohibitions, in some Slavic languages the mood prevails
over aspect.21
3.2.1 The morphological difference in the expression of the imperative mood particularly stands out. In place of regularly formed imperative used by Trubar, Dalmatin’s language synonymically uses constructions made of the auxiliary verb imeti and
the infinitive (e.g., (1) Leta ie mui lubi Syn /…/ Tiga ui poslushaite (TT 1557: 50)
– Leta je moj lubesnivi Syn /…/ letiga imate vy poſluſhati (DB 1584: III,11a); DIS IST
MEIN LIEBER SON /…/ DEN SOLT JR HÖREN (LB 1545: 2000)). The construction
is a calque, which is clearly evident from the comparison with the translation source,
Luther. The parallel replacement of the expressive mode was carried out in second
person singular and in first and second person dual (cf. the example above) and plural.
Trubar expresses the command for the third person of all numbers periphrastically
with the particle naj and the indicative present tense third person, and Dalmatin with
the imperative forms for second person of all numbers (e.g., ie li mogozhe, nai gre
leta kelih od mene (TT 1557: 82) – je li mogozhe, taku pojdi leta Kelih od mene (DB
1584: III,43a)).
Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s literary practice shows that in expressing prohibitions
the same rule applies in the 16th century as it does today, i.e., that instead of negated
imperative of perfective (and definite) verbs usually the imperative of imperfective
21
Cf. Hrakovskij 1990: 27.
557
(and indefinite) verbs is used (Topori{i~ 1992: 348).22 Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s occasional deviations from the common norm give evidence that there was not yet clear
awareness of the rule. Dalmatin’s corrections of this kind of violations in Trubar’s
writing and Trubar’s own efforts for uniformity show that in choosing the aspect in
the negated imperative, the rule was to use the imperfective, but the obligatory transformation of non-negated imperative of perfective verb into negated imperative of imperfective verb was ignored. The permanent validity of most prohibitions, particularly
the prohibitions made by God (cf. example (1)), stimulated the use of imperfectives
with the meanings of generally validity, durability, and iteration. A prohibition referring to a particular action might have prompted the choice of perfective verb instead
of the expected imperfective (example (2)). (1) Ne preshuſtuai, Ne vbyai, Ne kradi
Ne prizhui kriuu, Poshtui tuiga ozheta inu tuio mater (TT 1557: 227) – Ti némaſh
preſhuſhtvati: Ti némaſh vbyati: ti némaſh kraſti: Ti némaſh falſh prizhovanja govoriti: Ti imaſh tvojga Ozheta inu tvojo Mater poſhtovati (DB 1584: III,42a); (2) Letu
Videne nikomer ne poueite (TT 1557: 50) – Vy némate lete prikasni nikomàr povédati
(DB 1584: III,11b).
SOURCES AND REFERENCES
Kr. BIDEM, 1988: Vidovoe zna~enie kostrukcii bit’ + »stradatel’noe pri~astie«. Voprosy jazykoznanija (1988) 6. 63–68.
A.V. BONDARKO, 1971: Vid i vremja russkogo glagola. Moskva.
A.V. BONDARKO – L.L. BULANIN, 1967: Russkij glagol. Leningrad.
DB 1584 = Jurij DALMATIN, 1584: BIBLIA. Wittenberg.
Stephen M. DICKEY, 2003: Verbal aspect in Slovene. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56/3 (2003). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 182–207.
Gerhard HELBIG, Joachim BUSCHA, 1996: Deutsche Grammatik. 17. Auflage. Leipzig, Berlin,
München, Wien, Zürich, New York: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopädie.
V.S. HRAKOVSKIJ, 1990: Vzaimodejstvie grammati~eskih kategorij glagola. Voprosy jazykoznanija (1990) 6. 18–36.
LB 1545 = Martin LUTHER, 1545: Biblia, Das ist die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch auffs new
zugericht. Wittenberg. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. 1974.
Majda MER{E, 1993: Glagolski vid v Dalmatinovi Bibliji ob naslonitvi na Lutrov prevodni
zgled. Rje~nik i dru{tvo. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa o leksikografiji i leksikologiji odrànog 11–13. X. 1989. u Zagrebu. Znanstveni skupovi razreda za filolo{ke znanosti 2.
Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. 227–236.
– – 1995a: Kongruenz und Divergenz der Übersetzung von Verben in der Dalmatinschen und
Lutherschen Bibelübertragung. Ein Leben zwischen Laibach und Tübingen : Primus Truber
22
The comparison between Dalmatin’s translation and its source, Luther’s translation, also shows the
incongruence between the imperfective form and perfective meaning in negated commands in Slovenian
translation, which indirectly underscores yet another characteristic of aspect in the 16th-century Slovenian
literary language. Examples: Du solt meinem Son kein Weib nemen von den töchtern der Cananiter (LB
1545: 64) – Nejemli mojmu Synuvi obene Shene od Kananiterskih hzhery (DB 1584: I,15b).
558
und sein Zeit : Intentionen, Verlauf und Folgen der Reformation in Württemberg und Innerösterreich. Sagners slavistische Sammlung 24. München: O. Sagner. 492–510.
– – 1995b: Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku 16. stoletja. Dela Razreda za
filolo{ke in literarne vede SAZU 44. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
– – 1997: Predpreteklik v Dalmatinovi Bibliji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 3. 9–24.
– – 1998: Vrste glagolskega dejanja v delih slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja in
tuje prevodne predloge. Slavisti~na revija 46/1–2. Zbornik slovenskih prispevkov za XII.
mednarodni slavisti~ni kongres v Krakovu. 55–71.
– – 2000: Vid in ~as v Trubarjevih in Dalmatinovih biblijskih prevodih. Seminar slovenskega
jezika, literature in kulture 36. Ljubljana. 21–34.
– – 2001: Glagolski vid v povezavi z na~inom in naklonom v Trubarjevih in Dalmatinovih biblijskih prevodih. Jezikoslovni zapiski 7/1–2. 113–128.
– – 2002: Raba pogojnika v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku 16. stoletja. Med dialektologijo in zgodovino slovenskega jezika. Ob ìvljenjskem in strokovnem jubileju prof. dr. Martine Oroèn.
Zora 18. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo. 285–305.
– – 2003: Glagolski kalki v zgodovini slovenskega knji`nega jezika (prevzemanje, raba in
primerjava s stanjem v slovanskih jezikih). Slavisti~na revija 51, Posebna {tevilka, Zbornik
referatov za trinajsti mednarodni slavisti~ni kongres. 81–103.
– – 2005: Glagolski priponi -ova- in -ava- v jeziku slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja.
Knji`no in nare~no besedoslovje slovenskega jezika, Zora 32. Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo.
353–379.
Janez ORE{NIK, 1994: Slovenski glagolski vid in univerzalna slovnica. Dela Razreda za filolo{ke
in literarne vede SAZU 40. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Martina OROÈN, 1970: Razvojne tendence in realizacije futuralno-modalnih sistemov v knji`ni
sloven{~ini od 16. do 19. stoletja. Prace filologiczne XX. 223–233.
– – 1974: Razvoj iterativov v slovenskem jeziku. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture 10. Ljubljana. 15–29.
– – 1977: Prisotnost dialektizmov v jeziku Jurija Dalmatina. Kr{ko skozi ~as. Kr{ko. 87–98.
– – 1984: Gramati~na in leksikalna preobrazba Dalmatinovega knji`nega jezika ob Japljevem
prevodu Biblije (1584–1784–1802). Protestantismus bei den Slowenen / Protestantizem pri
Slovencih. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 13. Wien. 153–177.
– – 1986a: Stilni problemi Trubarjevega jezika. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture
22. Ljubljana. 27–47.
– – 1986b: Vpra{anja sintakti~ne interference v Dalmatinovem prevodu Biblije 1584. Slovenci
v evropski reformaciji. Ljubljana. 105–123.
O.S. PLOTNIKOVA, 1975: Glagol’noe vidoobrazovanie i nekotorye osobennosti funkcionirovanija
vidov v slovenskom literaturnom jazyke. Avtoreferat. Moskva.
J. A. PUPYNIN, 1995: Vzaimnye svjazi grammati~eskih kategorij vida i zaloga v russkom jazyke.
Semantika i struktura slavjanskogo vida I. Krakov: Wydavnictvo Naukove WSP. 159–174.
Fran RAMOV{, 1952: Morfologija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Univerzitetna {tudijska komisija.
O. P. RASSUDOVA, 1968: Upotreblenie vidov v russkom jazyke. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo moskovskogo universiteta.
Russkaja grammatika, Tom I, 1980. Moskva.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zalo`ba.
– – 2000: Slovenska slovnica, êtrta, prenovljena in raz{irjena izdaja. Maribor: Zalo`ba Obzorja Maribor.
TT 1557 = Primo` TRUBAR, 1557: TA PERVI DEIL TIGA NOVIGA TESTAMENTA. Tübingen.
559
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA, 1984: Struktura glagolskih tvorjenk v Trubarjevi Cerkovni ordningi.
Slavisti~na revija 32/3 (1984). 245–256.
A. A. ZALIZNJAK, A. D. [MELEV, 1997: Lekcii po russkoj aspektologii. Slavistische Beiträge 353.
München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Listkovno gradivo Sekcije za zgodovino slovenskega jezika In{tituta za slovenski jezik Frana
Ramov{a, ZRC SAZU, zbrano s popolnimi izpisi del slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16.
stoletja.
POVZETEK
Raziskovanje aspektualnosti, to je glagolskega vida in vrstnosti, v delih slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja (Mer{e 1995) je pokazalo, da je bil glagolski vid v obdobju nastanka
in za~etnega normativnega ustaljevanja slovenskega knji`nega jezika uveljavljena in sistemsko
dokaj trdna slovni~na kategorija. Spoznanja o strukturiranosti in delovanju vidskega sistema
v knji`nem jeziku 16. stoletja so ponudila primerno izhodi{~e tudi za raziskavo razmerij med
vidom in drugimi glagolskimi kategorijami: ~asom, na~inom in naklonom. Sou~inkovalna razmerja med na{tetimi glagolskimi kategorijami, ki jih je mogo~e odkrivati s primerjavo vzor~nih
besedil, so se na funkcionalni ravni pokazala kot dokaj zapletena.
Najtesnej{o povezavo sta izkazovala vid in ~as. Osnovno razliko med Trubarjevim in
Dalmatinovim izborom ~asovnih oblik ustvarja ve~ja pomenska obremenjenost sedanjika pri
Trubarju kot pri Dalmatinu ter posledi~no pogostej{a raba opisnih oblik (zlasti preteklika in
predpreteklika) pri Dalmatinu. Analiza rab zgodovinskega sedanjika kaè, da je Trubar obliko
sku{al dodatno funkcionalno osmisliti in jo z namenom {irjenja besedilne obvestilnosti uporabljal tako pri prikazu sklenjenih dogajalnih nizov kot pri izpostavljanju in poudarjanju posameznih ~lenov niza. Zgodovinski sedanjik in preteklik nista postavljala omejitev glede izbora
dovr{nih ali nedovr{nih glagolov, predpreteklik pa se je pogosteje povezoval z dovr{nimi glagoli kot z nedovr{nimi. Razlike glede izbora ~asovnih oblik stopnjujejo hkratne vidske razlike,
v primeru vidske usklajenosti pa aktualizacija razli~nih delnih vidskih pomenov. V vidsko nevtralizacijskih poloàjih razlike lahko zbledevajo.
Znotraj problemskega obmo~ja, ki ga ustvarja povezava vida in na~ina, izstopa Dalmatinov izbor tvornika namesto Trubarjevega trpnika. Med predvidljive posledice spada obvestilna
prerazporeditev. Ve~inoma gre za pretvorbo istega, lahko pa tudi sopomenskega ali pomensko
spremenjenega dovr{nega glagola. Zgradba s se kaè izrazitej{o vezanost na nedovr{ni glagol,
ki se ohranja tudi pri pretvorbi. Pogosto izpri~an je hkrati opravljen premik od stanja, ki je posledica predhodne dovr{itve dejanja, k dovr{itvi konkretnega dejanja ali procesa.
Razlike v izboru (in izraànju) glagolskega na~ina praviloma ne povzro~ajo spreminjanja
vidske semantike. Isti delni vidski pomeni se pogosto pojavljajo obojestransko (npr. neomejeno-kratni, posplo{eno-fakti~ni in trajnostni oz. stanjski pomen, redkeje pa konkretno-procesni).
Trubar in Dalmatin sta uporabljala obe tvorbeni razli~ici trpnika (zgradbo, sestavljeno iz osebne
oblike pomo`nega glagola biti in dele`nika -n, in obliko s se), prednost pa je Dalmatin vendarle dajal zgradbi s trpnim dele`nikom -n. Na njen izbor je poleg Lutrove prevodne predloge
lahko vplivala tudi razli~na mo`nost izraànja delnih vidskih pomenov, povezana s potrebo po
poudarjanju dovr{itve dejanja ali po izraànju stanja, ki sledi dovr{itvi dejanja. Pri nobeni od
obeh izraznih oblik trpnosti, ki sta ju uporabljala Trubar in Dalmatin, ni mogo~e zaznati izrazite
vezanosti na en sam vid. Obstajajo pa razlike med njima glede pogostosti izraànja posameznih
delnih vidskih pomenov.
Opazovanje razmerja med vidom in naklonom je kot najo~itnej{o razlikovalno potezo
izlo~ilo nasprotje, ki ga ustvarjata Trubarjeva raba povednega naklona ter Dalmatinova vzporedna raba pogojnika. V okviru pogojne uresni~ljivosti ali celo neuresni~ljivosti dejanj, do-
560
gajanj ali stanj, ki jih ozna~ujejo glagoli v pogojniku, ostaja izbor vidsko nezamejen. Tudi
spekter izpri~anih delnih pomenov dovr{nega in nedovr{nega vida je {irok, ~eprav ga razlike
glede pogostosti pojavljanja posameznega pomena realno kr~ijo. Trubarjev in Dalmatinov jezik se razlikujeta tudi glede na~inov izraànja namere. Neujemalnost glede izraznega na~ina
pogosteje kot pri drugih funkcijah pogojnika spremlja izbor vidsko nasprotnih glagolov. Izmed
naklonskih kategorij se je glede odvisnostne povezave z vidom kot najbolj zapleten pokazal velelni naklon. Pri izraànju prepovedi je bilo è v 16. stoletju upo{tevano {e danes veljavno pravilo, da se namesto zanikanega velelnika dovr{nega glagola navadno rabi velelnik nedovr{nih
glagolov.
Irena Orel, Prepositional Phrases in the Development of the Slovenian Literary Language
UDC 811.163.6’367.63(091)
Irena Orel
561
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SLOVENIAN
LITERARY LANGUAGE
The article presents the basic formal and semantic changes in the usage of prepositional
phrases in two books of four Slovenian biblical translations from the 16th century to the present.
It deals separately with temporally marked usage of prepositional phrases and prepositional
verbs and their alternating pairs in the 400-year span.
V prispevku so predstavljene temeljne izrazne in pomenske razvojne spremembe v rabi
predlo`nih zvez v dveh knjigah {tirih slovenskih svetopisemskih prevodov od 16. stoletja do danes. Posebej je opredeljena ~asovno zaznamovana raba predlo`nih zvez in predlo`nomorfemskih
glagolov ter njihove izmenjavne dvojnice v {tiristoletnem razvojnem loku.
Key words: phrasal system in Slovenian, historical morphosyntax, prepositional phrases,
linguistic changes, biblical texts
Klju~ne besede: predlo`ni sestav slovenskega jezika, zgodovinska oblikoskladnja,
predlo`ne zveze, jezikovne spremembe, biblijska besedila
0 Introduction
0.1.0 Based on the complete concordance extract of more than 13,000 prepositional phrases from two biblical books (the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament and
the Book of Moses (Exodus) in the Old Testament) in four diachronic translations, i.e.,
Trubar’s (1557) and Dalmatin’s (1584) in the 16th century, Japelj-Kumerdej’s in the
18th (1784, 1791), Wolf’s edition in the middle of the 19th (1857-1859), and Zgodbe
svetega pisma by F. Lampe at the end of the 19th century (1894-1895)), a typology of
preservation and variation in the usage of prepositional phrases in the main literary
language over a 400-year time span has been established.1
0.1.1 The prepositional phrase2 has a two-part structure. Prepositions form the nucleus. They are real or primary3, which form a finite multitude, a closed system of
about twenty members, and unreal or secondary, originally adverbs without comple-
1
This research was conducted as a part of the author’s doctoral dissertation entitled Predlo`ni sistem v
razvoju slovenskega knji`nega jezika od 16. do 19. stoletja (The Prepositional System in the Development
of the Slovenian Literary Language from the 16th to the 19th century) (Ljubljana, 1993). The results were
also published in two articles in Linguistica (Orel-Poga~nik 1995) and JiS (Orel-Poga~nik 1994/95).
2
J. Topori{i~, in the section of his grammar concerned with types of word phrases and clauses, does not
take prepositional phrases into consideration, but only nominal, adjectival and adverbial phrases, as well
as verbal and predicative phrases (Topori{i~ 2000: 558), although in the part of morphology that deals with
prepositions he does have a section entitled Pomen predlo`nih zvez (The Meaning of Prepositional Phrases)
(2000: 416). V Enciklopediji pa ima izto~nico predlo`na zveza, uvaja pa tudi izraz predlo`na beseda za vse
vrste predlogov (1992: 206). In Enciklopedia has for the various prepositions entry as prepositional phrase
(1992: 206). He discusses the preposition in syntax (1982), i.e., in the framework of phrases in general.
3
They are derived from place adverbs and adverbial particles.
562
ments, which are the so-called adverbs in prepositional function or adverbial prepositions, homonyms with adverbs. From a functional-syntactic point of view the prepositional phrase is a prepositional-case form/phrase, which consists of a free deprepositional morpheme of the verb (PMV)4 and an oblique-case form of the noun or its
syntactic equivalent. In the prepositional phrase the preposition is usually followed
by a noun in an oblique case as its adjunct5 (a noun and a personal pronoun equivalent)6, a nominal phrase (e.g., D po redu, po sredi morja, po vsej egiptovski deèli; per
njemu/vas, pod se, po tebi inu po tvoim folki),7 an adjective converted into a noun (D
po suhim, po {irokim), an adjectival pronoun – usually a relative pronoun or a nominalized form (po/per katerim; po vsem tem), rarely an adverb or an adverbial pronoun
(od unod/tod/kdaj). Prepositions together with other parts of speech – their right-side
semantic complements form variously structured prepositional phrases. In addition
to simple nominal phrases (e.g., D pred gospuda, pred faraona), there are numerous
complex nominal phrases, which are realized by various types of adjectival pronouns
and numerals (to a lesser extent also real adjectives) functioning as premodifiers, and
non-agreeing genitives as postmodifiers. Often they are extended with coordinate or
subordinate clauses, or by means of juxtaposition. In biblical texts they further define
the noun, or determine and (demonstratively, by way of classification, qualitatively …)
modify it with premodifiers and postmodifiers, which may form a clause. Especially in
Trubar, less frequently in Dalmatin and Japelj, an indefinite or a definite article may
occur before the noun – under the influence of the German model text and Slovenian
spoken language (e.g., T uenim ~elnu, ven grob, za eno besedo; iz tiga vinograda, iz te
vode, na te Rotauè inu ute {ule). The context related to descriptions of the objective
world in the Second Book of Moses is also the accumulation of multi-word prepositional phrases with the same or different prepositions in coordinate, juxtapositional,
subordinate and appositional relations (e.g., D pred vsim folkom; pred izraelsko vojsko; pred uto tiga pri~ovanja; pred tem folkom; pred davri ute tiga pri~ovanja; per
svoje matere mleki; u’ venim ognenim plameni iz srede garma; v tretjim mesci po
izhodu Izraelskih otruk iz Egyptovske deèle; pred vzdihanjem inu britkostjo, inu pred
te{kim delom; pred ta pert, kateri /…/; na petnajsti dan druziga Mesca, po tem ~asu,
ker so oni bili iz Egiptovske deèle {li; (biti) v korbi, per davrih ute tiga pri~ovanja;
(biti) u va{ih rodeh, per davrih ute tiga pri~ovanja, pred gospudom; (storiti) iz zlata,
4
Henceforth the free prepositional morpheme of the verb will be referred to as PMV.
Compare L. Rizzi 1991: 507, R. Quirk etc. 1972: 299, H. Weinrich 1995: 612. Rizzi explains the
prepositional phrase as a mediator between lexical (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and grammatical categories
(complements, articles, etc.). Its inner structure is less complex compared to other phrases, which can have
many complements and one or more specifier. In Quirk etc. the prepositional phrase is defined as a structure consisting of a preposition and a complement (1972: 299), and in the framework of the adverbials it is
defined as a structure consisting of a nominal phrase with a superordinate preposition (1972: 44).
6
Only in Japelj is the complement to the preposition za an infinitive in the role of a noun used as a
colloquial phrase (e.g., za piti, za cegle delat, za nosit), whereas Dalmatin did not use it in the Bible, perhaps also because of the prevailing meaning of intention with the preposition k/h, where the infinitive was
replaced by a gerund (k pitju).
7
The examples are taken from the translations of the Second book of Moses by Dalmatin (D), Japelj
(J), Wolf (W), and Lampe (L). See Sources.
5
Irena Orel, Prepositional Phrases in the Development of the Slovenian Literary Language 563
iz gelih ìd, iz {karlata, karmeìna, inu iz sukanih belih ìd; (stati) ondukaj pred tabo
na eni skali v’Horebi,8 J On je tudi ∫turil penkle is vi∫hnove shide na robi eniga pèrta
na obeh plateh (2Mz 36,11)). The preposition, however, does not introduce a clause
and does not have a conjunctive function in Slovenian even in older texts.
0.1.2 In all translations, temporal markedness can be observed in some adverbs of
time when they are used as prepositional adverbial phrases – these adverbs of time are
not yet single-word lexical items, but are written separately as nominal prepositional
phrases consisting of a preposition and a temporal noun (e.g., po no~i ’pono~i’ (T–L),
po dnevi/dnevu ’podnevi’ (during the day), po zimi ’pozimi’, na ve~er ’zve~er’ (T, D,
J), z’ve~er, u’ve~er (D), z’jutra ’zjutraj’, only W zjutrej), and in some prepositional
adverbs influenced by German, which are today replaced by a free accusative case: na
taisti dan, na pervi dan (T, D, J) (SSP tisti dan, prvi dan).
0.2 Prepositions9 as uninflected, sinsemantic, grammatical or functional parts
of speech are categorized as relators because only when connected to other parts of
speech do they convey relations. Recently they have also been categorized as connectives,10 which are semantically defined in relation to the broader linguistic context.
On the surface level they are treated within the field of morphosyntax because they
convey relations between words and because of their connectedness to syntactic categories. On the deeper level one can observe their relative semantic independence,
i.e., dependence. Within the prepositional phrase, the preposition has the role of a
modifier or specifier of relations or a grammatical device for removing the functional
homonimity of case forms within phrases with lexical parts of speech (content words),
or it is treated like all other phrases in generative grammar. Sincretism of case forms
dictated the use of prepositional cases (in Slovenian exclusively prepositional cases
– locative and instrumental). The interchangeability of non-prepositional and prepositional cases is confirmed by the variation in government of some verbs (pribliàti
se k ~emu/~emu, ~akati na koga/koga, usmiliti se ~ez koga/koga etc.), but through the
development the non-prepositional case usage has prevailed.
0.3 Prepositions, together with the case ending of the noun, constitute case morphemes, which define the case by way of complementation because they imply the
case ending(s) (e.g., za ~asa, za ~as, za ~asom). Prepositions as the auxiliary words
8
There are many instances where synonymous prepositional phrases can be considered either subordinate, dependent from one another, or complementary.
9
Prepositions have had their name since Antiquity because of their position in front of the nominal
complement. The term was first introduced in Slovenian by Valentin Vodnik in his grammar of 1811, based
on Russian terminology. Prior to that, Pohlin’s term sprednja beseda (the front word) and Zagaj{ek’s translation from German predbeseda (pred – in front; beseda – word) were used.
10
In the syntax of connectives (Junktion), H. Weinrich treats them as prepositional connectives (Präpositional-Junktion) in his Text grammar of the German language (Weinrich 1993: 612–695). Weinrich divides
connectives according to their base (Basis), which can be nominal, subject + copula and a verb, into three
functions or determining types: attributive, predicative or applicable, which is also possible in adjuncts.
564
that enable the connection between a superordinate and a subordinate construction are
indicators of syntactic relations between the two. They cannot be a syntactic part of
the sentence themselves, but, instead, they express the relations between sentence elements, i.e., the oblique cases of nouns in relation to verbs, adjectives and nouns.
0.3.1 The basic role of prepositional phrases is that of adverbial complements as
specifiers and modifiers with the typical sentence-element role of adverbials, which
usually apply to the whole clause or the predicate; their place in the clause structure
is arbitrary, governed only by principles of functional sentence perspective. As post
modifiers they are optional because they only additionally define the predicate, the
post modifying PMV can appear in a complement and has a structural-syntactic influence of a verb (@ele 2001: 82): e.g., J 2Mz: videti kri na durci, pisati zavezo na table,
narediti/storiti kaj v ~em/na ~em/pod ~im, etc.); or obligatory, when they occur as
governed adverbial modifiers, without which the sentence would be ungrammatical
e.g., a) with some verbs of state, position or residence, which need a place adjunct, for
instance, ìveti/prebivati v/na/pri kom ali ~em, poloìti/postaviti na/v/pod/pred/za/nad
koga ali kaj, e.g., D poloìti kruhe na mizo, J postaviti {otorje v’tim kraji Etham na
zadnih pokrajnah te Pu{ave, stati na skali, ustaviti se na bregi te vode, zbrati se/sniti
se k njemu,11 etc.; b) with verbs of motion (iti, priti, peljati, voditi … kam) – e.g., D je
∫hàl tje k’Vi∫him farjem (Mr 14,10); je mej Folkom od sadaj k’njemu pri∫hla (Mr 5,27);
kadar je on od folka v’Hi∫ho bil pri∫hàl (Mr 7,17), SSP kadar je od mnoìce {el v hi{o;
(pri)peljati v deèlo; pasti na dno, plavati v mleku in medu, nesti v svoji roki etc.; c)
with verbs where the prefix and the preposition of direction are the same12 (vstopiti v,
izpeljati iz, vtakniti v, izvle~i iz, odgnati od, odlo~iti od, odstopiti od, strgati iz, izsekan
biti iz ~esa (J, in other translations it is antonymous v kaj (T), v ~em (D)), sle~i koga
iz ~esa (T), sle~i kaj iz koga (D), oble~i v kaj …) – in older translations there is also
a non-prefixed verb used instead of a prefixed one, even with an adverb of direction
(stopiti v, stopiti (ven) iz, iti od/iz, (vun) pelati/spelati/izpelati etc.), e.g., J iz ~olna
»vun« stopiti, od faraona pro~ iti ’to leave’) or with a synonymous preposition (izpeljati od). In written discourse, there are also some common figurative phrases in which
the adverbial function is blurred, e.g., poloìti bolezni na koga ’povzro~iti bolezni
komu’. The typical adverbial prepositional phrase with the meaning of manner used
in biblical texts is a fixed phrase with a nominal variable: ljubiti iz celega srca/ tvoje
du{e/tvoje misli/tvoje mo~i.
11
This phrase occurs in all translations and its usage is also confirmed in both foreign-language model
texts. Today the morpheme k/h is replaced with the complementary positional pri with the stress on the
final joining item.
12
Vidovi~ Muha: 22: »the prefix is homonymous with the prepositional verbal morpheme of the syntactic base form«. Dular 1982: 115: »the adverbial of destination can be governed if it is close to a verb that
requires the cases with directional prepositions (vstopiti v letalo ’to board a plane’)«. Kriàj Ortar (1990:
137) semantically differentiates the preposition as either a morpheme of the context with directional meaning or as a morpheme of the verb in lexicalized phrases, e.g., priklju~iti se ~emu ’to join something’.«
0.3.2.0 Participants appearing in front of prepositional phrases make them subordinate to other phrases (verbal, nominal), part of which they become, but they also
further define their meaning.
0.3.2.1 Prepositional phrases are usually a part of a verbal phrase, which they define and act as prepositional objects of the verb. Verbs with PMV occur in all oblique
(non-nominative) cases. There are two types of post modifying PMVs: lexicalized free
verbal morphemes and un-lexicalized free morphemes (@ele 2001: 82). The objective
role of prepositional phrases as governed verbal prepositional modifiers with PMV is
widely spread and homonymous with almost all real prepositions (less common with
do, iz), or limited to certain phrases (e.g., with ob: priti, biti ob kaj). With some it is
used extensively (e.g., with PMV k/h, ~ez, na, proti) or it is the only one (zoper). Prepositional phrases vary accordingly to different translations, as regards to the choice of
PMV as well as in resembling the usage in the original language German) or Slovenian colloquial language, which shows syntactic traits of the official language of the
country in that period (e.g., with the verb ~uditi se the recipient can be expressed with
a free dative case or a PMV ~ezA or nadI. The same change can be observed with the
PMV in jeziti se ~ez (T, D), na koga/kaj, nad kom/~im. Sometimes they partly overlap
or they are in agreement (e.g., D vojskovati se, bojovati zoper koga/s kom, in SSP also
proti komu, in the antonymous usage za koga). With some verbs the PMV is predictable, closely connected to the meaning of the case and in agreement with the meaning
of the verb, e.g., lo~iti se od koga/~esa, re{iti od ~esa, etc. The obligatory recipient
role is temporally marked in verbs of joining (pridruìti se h komu), bringing (prinesti
h komu), belonging (sli{ati h komu ’pripadati komu’), approaching (pribliàti se h
komu/~emu ’komu/~emu’), where the use of enclitic form of the personal pronoun
allows for the usage without PMV (except with pripeljati and dodajati, where SSP
uses both options); in Trubar and Dalmatin such usage is common – the reason could
be that the spatial relation was still felt between the prefix pri- and directional component of the verb expressed by the PMV k/h (e.g., pristopiti h komu/k ~emu), where
PMV remains, as is the case with other verbs of motion which express the orientation
towards an (in)animate goal that is reached (e.g., (pr)iti h komu/~emu, D pridruìti se
h komu : SSP pridruìti komu: ∫e bo k’∫voji Sheni perdrushil (1Mz 2,24), SSP: in se
pridruìl svoji èni; Ta Shena, katero ∫i ti meni pèrdrushil (1Mz 3,12)). The usage of
PMV coincides with use in German, but not in Latin (adherebit uxori suae).
0.3.2.2 In the early periods the use of fixed verbal phrases was adopted from foreign languages, and was sometimes stylistically selective, e.g., D imeti boj s kom along
with bojevati se s kom; poloìti roko na svojga bli`niga blagu; SSP: iztegniti roko po
blagu svojega bli`njega ’krasti’ (to steal); najti gnado pred mojma o~ima, SSP najti
milost v tvojih o~eh; dati gnado/milost pred Egipterji, SSP priskrbeti naklonjenost pri
Egip~anih; biti gospod ~ez koga/gospodovati ~ez koga, SSP gospodovati nad kom;
imeti/dati oblast ~ez koga (up to W), SSP dajati oblast nad kom, za koga; en svit dràti
~ez koga, SSP posvetovati se zoper koga; delati {pot iz koga (T), za{potovati (D); dati
povelje na koga (J) ’ukazati komu kaj’ (to order sb to do sth); v roke dati ’izro~iti’ (to
566
hand over); biti v nadlego ’nadlegovati’ (to annoy); imeti dopadenje na kom/nad kom,
SSP imeti veselje nad kom etc. Such fixed verbal phrases, consisting of a noun and a
primary verb or another verb, often form the syntactic base for single-lexeme verbal
compounds, which are used simultaneously or in the texts of later date. Literal translations also occur in several lexicalised phrases or verbal phrasemes with PMV k/h,
where the temporally marked usage of PMV expressing purpose or intention is preserved; today, these phrases are commonly used with PMV za or na, v, e.g., obsoditi k
smrti ’na smrt’, priti k srcu ’do srca’, k {kodi gnati, biti k pomo~i ’v pomo~’, povabiti
k ohceti ’na ohcet’, peljati k ve~nimu lebnu ’voditi v ve~no ìvljenje’, pripraviti/biti
pripravljen k ~emu ’za kaj’, biti komu h komu (e.g., k sinu ’za sina’) vzeti k èni ’za
èno, oèniti se’, dati k èni ’za èno’. Instead of the phrase vzeti koga k sebi the verb
vzeti, vzeti s seboj, privzeti is used in several other ways in later translations.
0.3.2.3 The choice of PMV varies between different texts or stages of language
development, and is common to specific types of verbal actions (e.g., with verbs expressing discontentment the free morpheme ~ez is used in older texts and nad in newer
ones etc.). Only seldom are the synonymous PMVs simultaneously interchangeable
(e.g., in the meaning of contradiction: proti and zoper), usually one is replaced by
the other or the translator makes a different choice. The verb vpiti shows a quadruple
variability (naA used today, less frequently used nadA, older ~ezA like with verbs of
discontentment, and k/h following the model of verbs of speaking).13
0.3.2.4 Less frequently – only with positional, but not with directional prepositions – the prepositional phrases act as non-participant, right-valency modifiers in the
role of predicative modifiers with sinsemantic verbs (e.g., Ioseph pak je bil poprej
v’Egypti) (2Mz 1,5). With the preposition za in some figurative verbal phrases they
are used as a predicative attribute (dràti koga za kaj ’imeti koga za kaj’ (to regard
sb as sth), biti komu za koga/kaj, e.g., Inu on je bil njej sa Syna (D 2Mz 2,10)). All
translations preserve the following type of phrase: postaviti/narediti koga za boga/
poglavarje/vi{je/sodnike ~ez koga, SSP postaviti za poglavarje nad kom; storiti za
vajvode ~ez en velik narod etc. The following phrases are also temporally marked and
resemble German patterns: postati h komu/~emu ’postati kdo/kaj’ (to become somebody/something) (inu (palica) je k’eni kazhi po∫tala (D 2Mz 7,10)).14
0.3.2.5.1 If they further define the noun, they are syntactically their prepositional
postmodifier: a) they can be a part of a nominal phrase (e.g., D luj od tiga ovna; pej~ico
per jetrah; pej~ico na jetrah; vse zeli{~e na puli; vsaki od svojga dela; (vzeti si) (to
take) polne vaju pesti saj od pe~i; Ephod iz zlata, iz gelih ìd, iz {karlata, karmeìna,
13
Compare with the section discussing synonymity of prepositional phrases (1.1.7) as well as the section on systemic changes in prepositions (1.3.3.3).
14
German is the only language that uses (as did Dalmatin) the verbal phrase with the auxiliary verb
postati (to become) with the predicative modifier in the prepositional dative case instead of the nominal
case postati k ~emu/komu, similarly, as in storiti k ~emu.
inu iz sukanih belih ìd; od vsake glave pul sikela, po sikeli te svetinje, od vseh kir
so bili {tiveni, od teh, kateri so bili /…/; J ta pervi dan po saboti; njegovu vpitje ~ez
nevsmilenje tih perganjavcov per delih (2Mz 3,7); W suknjo za pod naramnik (2Mz
39,20)); b) a part of an adjectival phrase (D /~astitliv/ v svetosti, per ogni pe~enu, /ena/
k drugi, /ena/ za drugim), c) a part of an adverbial phrase (T doli na {trikih; D z’vuna
pred tem pertom; vunkaj pred hi{o; zgoraj per verhi, noter do vode15); d) as well as
a part of a prepositional phrase (e.g., D (priti) k eni persegi per gospudu, (poloìti)
v lo~je per kraju vode). Paired, complementary prepositions that are antonymous in
only one semantic component form a special type of subordinate prepositional phrase,
e.g., iz Raemseza v Suhot; od perviga dne, noter do sedmiga; od enih vrat do drugih,
v tim kampi; od `lahte do `lahte)
0.3.2.5.2 The attributive role of prepositional phrases is limited to their use within the nominal phrase and not the sentence or the verbal phrase. They appear as an
agreeing right modifier of the nominal phrase, defining it in terms of quality, type,
or belonging. Its origin is twofold: it is the result of the conversion of an attributive dependent clause and an independent verbal clause with an adverbial. With some
prepositions this role is only marginal, rare (e.g., with prepositions na, v, and po), but
it is more prominent with others (e.g., od, do, iz, brez, or z/s). In some meanings it is
typical, e.g., that of belonging, possession, incompleteness, exclusion, arrangement,
and substantiality, it defines the noun with respect to place, time, and intention (e.g.,
T Inu on praui htimu zhloueku ∫to ∫uho roko, D kateri je imèl ∫uho rokó (Mr 3,3); D
eden, s’imenom Barrabas (Mr 15,7)). Such phrases are also temporally marked (e.g.,
T, D Symon od Cananeie (J; W Simona Kananitarja/Kananejca); D eniga od bo`jiga
`laka vdarjeniga; h’timu od bo`jiga `laka vdarjenimu (SSP hromega, hromemu)). To
some extent they are limited to only certain (lexicalized) nominal phrases (e.g., eden od
Pisarjev (D), eden iz vas (J), kteri zmed prerokov (W), kdo izmed vas (L); sam na/po/
v/pri sebi; njemu na ~ast (J), pet komolcov na dolgost (J) ’po dolìni/dolg’ (in length)).
1 Changes in the Development of the Prepositional System
1.0 As expected, the prepositional system from the sample of biblical texts, which
are written in a perfected and stylistically demanding language, confirms how stable,
limited in number, unusually frequent and confined the use of real prepositions is
in all of the translations: brez, do, iz, k/h, med, na, nad, ob, od, po, pod, pred, pri, v,
z/s, za; zavoljo/zaradi, zastran (L).16 On the other hand, the usage of unreal prepositions, which are of adverbial, nominal or adjectival origin, is unstable, and that unreal
prepositions are open in number, but used infrequently – their frequency varies from
the lowest in Trubar to the highest in Lampe (blizu, ~ez, krog (J Mr), mimo, naproti,
15
Reinforcement with a semantically empty adverb in the role of an emphatic particle ’tja, prav’ is
typical of Trubar’s, Dalmatin’s and Japelj’s translations and was influenced by the German model text.
16
Originally, the latter three do not belong to the group of real prepositions, but are included in this
group because of their exclusively prepositional, i.e., non-adverbial, use. Real prepositions also have a
word-formational function of prefixal morphemes in compounding.
568
nasproti, okoli, okrog (W, L), poleg, proti, skozi, sredi, vpri~o (W, L), vrh/vrhu (T, D),
znotraj, zoper, zraven/raven (D), zred (T, D), zunaj/izvuna (D).
1.0.1 The number of real and unreal prepositions partly leveled out in the texts
– there are 16 originally real prepositions, but from the functional viewpoint of their
exclusively prepositional, non-adverbial, usage there are 18 (also med and zavoljo/
zaradi, zastran). The number of unreal prepositions used in the translations increases
from 11 in Trubar to 19 in Lampe, which indicates how limited their use was compared to the present. In the translations up to the 19th century the most common preposition is k/h, which is used as many as 422 times by Dalmatin in 2Mz. This preposition
also displays the most significant decline in usage, i.e., from being used 233 times by
Trubar to only 47 times in Wolf’s edition. In Japelj’s translation (2Mz) prepositional
phrases with prepositions na, v and k/h are most common, but in the 19th century (W,
L) the most commonly used preposition is v, which is in second place in older translations except in Dalmatin (2Mz), who uses the preposition na most. Lack of uniformity
was observed, especially in the usage of prepositions ~ez and skozi from the middle of
the 19th century when they are mainly used to express spatial relations. A considerable
increase in usage can be observed with the preposition nad expressing the meaning of
location, which is replaced by the older preposition ~ez, which is also used as PMV
with verbs of surpassing, supremacy, emotion, opposition, and with ob, which is used
with the meaning of place in Wolf’s edition for the first time.
1.1.0 There are several developmental changes in prepositions: full or partial interchangeability with (an)other synonymous preposition(s), changes in their distribution,
their form and positional variation. Changes also occur in their semantic structure, i.e.,
polysemy vs. their present specialization for specific semantic roles, greater synonymity and differences in the frequency of usage of particular meanings.
1.1.1 The exchange in the prepositional inventory (the loss of one preposition and
its replacement by another) from the point of view of historical development can only
be observed in the etymologically and derivationally non-primary, i.e., unreal preposition of causality with separate constituents (circumposition) za voljo → zaradi17, which
was absolute (there is no competition between the two prepositions in the texts)18. In
all older translations only the former preposition is used, except in Lampe where it is
fully replaced by zaradi, which can be observed in Janeì~’s grammar (first edition
of 1854) for the first time, and individually zastran (used also in the formal variant
obstran, mentioned also in Kopitar’s grammar of 1808). Although it is still used in
Slovenian dialects (also in Pannonian dialect and the literary language of Prekmurje),
17
According to Kope~ný, it is used in Slovenian, the dialect of the Cres island (Croatia), Czech and
Slovakian, and old Polish, which has the dative form kvůli, kvôli, kwoli/gwoli with the preposition k.
18
In discussing the unusual position of prepositions, the unreal prepositions na(s)proti and zoper should
be mentioned. In rare instances, they are found after the noun and have post-positional (postponed) variants,
but this usage is not attested in the sample texts.
in literary language – as a calque from the German prepositional phrase um – willen,
where the real prepositional component comes before and the nominal component
after the complement of the prepositional phrase, while the prossesive pronouns also
have the possibility of compounding with the other constituent, е.g., um meinetwillen etc. (Schröder: 183–4)19 – it was replaced with the originally Slavic preposition
zaradi, which consists of the preposition za and the locative case of the noun radь. As
a free prepositional phrase it was used in Old Church Slavic, South Slavic languages,
and Ukrainian, referring to cause or intention. In the archaic use it also occurs without
the prepositional component as radi20. Trubar mostly uses the prepositional phrase za
volo + koga/~esa (e.g., ∫a uolo te be∫∫ede (Mr 4,17)), less commonly with inter-position za koga/~esa volo (∫a lete be∫∫ede uolo (Mr 7,29)). Dalmatin also uses it as interposition in agreement with German syntactic phrases as used by Luther. Japelj, on
the other hand, displays prepositional use with the constituents written separately (sa
vólo), or exceptionally written together (savólo). Japelj’s translation shows the decline
in such usage and shows the tendency towards the one-word prepositional form, but
not yet in his early translation (1791), where the components are written separately
even in the prepositional placement, which may be due to uniformity of writing. There
is a discrepancy between the fairly balanced number of prepositional phrases and considerable disagreement in examples, especially in comparison with Dalmatin’s and
other translations: for expressing causal relations Dalmatin uses translational options
with synonymous prepositions od, and ~ez, pred with appropriate verbal phrases; za
is the only alternating syntactic pattern in Japelj, whereas the prepositional phrase
za tega voljo/ za voljo tega is usually replaced by a causal and resultative clause – a
coordinate or a subordinate clause and an appropriate conjunction: causal zakaj; resultative zato, torej, zatorej or with the phrase zato, ker, or with an adverbial clause
of purpose with the conjunction da. In Wolf’s edition the components are written together and therefore used only prepositionally, e.g., zavoljo; prepositional phrases are
usually replaced by a subordinate clause with a subordinate conjunction ker, as well as
the phrases mentioned above or the synonymous preposition za. Lampe’s translation
from the end of the 19th century systematically replaces it with previously unknown
preposition zaradi, but zastran is also used with the same meaning in Wolf and Lampe
– with the primary meaning of consideration or with a causal emphasis. Considering
the comparison with Luther’s translation we can make the following observations:
analogy to the German phrase »vmb – willen« is confirmed in the disjoined usage of
both components with the enclosing noun in Trubar and Dalmatin, similarly, there is
an analogy to German in the phrase za mojo volo, whereas in Japelj’s translation the
phrase zavoljo mene is used, which is closer to Latin translation (propter me).
19
Following Miklo{i~’s examples taken from Trubar, it can also be combined with an adjective, e.g., za
va{o voljo (4, 415) (Kope~ný 1973: 266).
20
According to Bajec (similarly also in Pleter{nik), radi is a Croatism, zaradi the literary, and zarad the
colloquial form (Bajec 1959: 137).
570
1.1.2 In the translations between the 16th and the end of the 18th century the preposition z/sG is never used, since until W the outer-surface or the higher starting point is
not expressed separately, i.e., iz is used in this role.
1.1.3 The absence of some unreal prepositions is also fairly significant: vpri~o,
which according to Kope~ný (1973: 266) exists only in Slovenian, does not occur
in T and D,21 razen cannot be found in T, D, or J because it is replaced by izven/zunaj; the first one to use it was W (razun). The adverbial prepositions are mostly used
adverbially, very rarely prepositionally (e.g., in Dalmatin especially mimu22, seldom
blizu/blizi23, exceptionally vrh24), whereas in newer translations they are more frequent. The preposition prek(o) does not occur in any of the translations25. Nasproti and
naproti are used only adverbially in the 16th century because the non-prefixal preposition proti is used instead. W also has only the postponed usage of the preposition with
the noun in the dative case, whereas J uses the rare combination of the prepositional
na spruti/naspruti with the genitive/dative case, but also uses the more common dative combination with an inversion or with the preposition pruti. (For examples see
the chart bellow)
D
Sakaj ony ſo is
Raphidima bily
potegnili, inu ſo
priſhli v’Sinaiſko
Puſzhavo, inu ſo
ondukaj v’Puſzhavi
legli. Inu Israel je
ondukaj Shotore
poſtavil pruti tej
Gorri
J
Sakaj po tęm, kar
ſo ſe is Raphidim
prozh podáli, inu
do puſhave Şinai
priſhli, ſo ony ravnu
na timiſtim kraji
ſtan sa ſhotorje
svolili, inu Israel
je tam na ſpruti
hriba ſhotorje gori
poſtavil.
W
Vzdignili so se
namre~ iz Rafid in
so pri{li v sinajsko
pu{avo, in so
{otorili v tem kraji;
postavili so pa ondi
Izraelci {otore gôri
nasproti.
SSP
Odpravili so se iz
Refidíma in pri{li
v Sinajsko pu{~avo
ter se utaborili v
pu{~avi. Tam se
je Izrael utaboril
nasproti gori,
1.1.4 There is an exception in the 16th century in Trubar and Dalmatin – the unreal
preposition zredI ’skupaj z’ (together with), which consists of the prepositions sъn and
vъn, and the noun rędъ26, and was only used in the 16th century. In the selected corpus
it occurs only three times in Trubar and Dalmatin with the emphasized associative
meaning of s/z, reinforced by the adverb vred, which is also used in the coordinate
21
In Dalmatin’s Bible in digital format, 46 hits include adverbial usage and the verbal phrase biti
v’prizho, as well as seven cases of prepositional usage, e.g., v’prizho teh gmajn (2 Kor 8,24).
22
In Japelj only the variant męmu can be found, and in Wolf memo is used.
23
In the entire translation by Dalmatin the preposition blisu occurs only four times, whereas blisi is
used twenty-one times.
24
In Dalmatin it is replaced by the phrase na vrh, except in two instances where it is used with the noun
glava (head): do vèrh glave. In J and W the usage is more common.
25
In D, J, and W it is not even used as an adverb (confirmed by the analysis of the digital edition).
26
Compare Kope~ný 1973: 231, where he quotes Pleter{nik’s and Bajec’s examples e.g., zred teboj ’s
teboj vred’ (together with you).
Irena Orel, Prepositional Phrases in the Development of the Slovenian Literary Language
571
prepositional phrase as its first constituent (e.g., sred tém Iunzom, inu s’dvema Ounama (D 2Mz 29,3)). In newer translations the particle tudi is used for emphasis and the
preposition poleg (SSP) for the meaning of addition. Zred can also be used adverbially
with the preposition z/s (e.g., T ∫red ∫teimi duanai∫timi (Mr 4,10)), which is expressed
with the preposition z/s and with the adverb red by Dalmatin (s’témi dvanaj∫timi red);
Japelj similarly uses the adverb vred. In other positions it is replaced by the real preposition and in SSP a synonymous adverb is added (skupaj z dvanajsterimi).
1.1.5 Compound prepositions are rare in the 16th century, except is mej ’izmed’
(from among; out of) written with separate components, in Japelj also written as is
∫ręd (grma, njih). They started being used as single-word prepositions in the 19th century (zmed/izmed (14 : 1), spred (1), izsred (1) in Wolf’s edition; izmed (23), izpod (1),
izpred (6), spred (17) in Lampe (e.g., (od)iti, izgnati/pregnati spred faraona/obli~ja,
izginiti spred ljudstva), which is expressed by means of verbal phrases iti od koga or
izgnati pred kom/~im in Dalmatin’s and the present-day translations.
1.1.6 Prepositions with two-case valency with spatial and temporal meanings are
less frequently used with the accusative, depending on the reality they describe, although this is not always the case (for example, in Japelj the prepositions na and po
are more frequent with the accusative when referring to place). In other adverbial
meanings the locative and the instrumental forms are more frequent, except in the final
meaning, which is related to the orientation to a goal and has only accusative form. In
the sample texts the preposition za does not occur with the genitive and therefore does
not have the potential to form prepositional phrases with three-case valency.
1.1.7 A diachronic overview shows significant semantic changes, which, from the
19th century onwards, occur entirely only in the older prepositional calques from German from Luther’s translation. Thus, the preposition k/h does not express intentionality anymore, from Wolf’s edition from the middle of the 19th century the meaning
of instrument or mediator is not expressed by the preposition skozi, etc. The calqued
PMV verbal phrases are also replaced by the Slavic valency possibilities and PMV
changes in some verbal meanings. The spatial emphasis of direction, which is expressed by the deep meaning of the dative case itself, is in the early stages of Slovenian literary language development expressed by the PMV k/h, which is devoid of
meaning, in the object usage with verbs of speaking, such as praviti (especially in
Trubar inu praui Hpetru (Mr 14,37)), (po)re~i, dejati only in past tense (especially
in Dalmatin and Japelj: inu je djal h’Petru)), less frequently with govoriti; it is preserved the longest with vpiti/kri~ati, where prepositional usage was preserved in all
translations (W has the variant vpiti v Boga); with other verbs, PMV is not used in the
19th-century translations27. There are single instances of such usage also without PMV
27
Historically, the usage of the preposition k/h with such verbs, which coincides with the free dative
case, with an emphasized directionality of the speaker towards the addressee, can only be found in Old
Church Slavic, old Russian, Polish and Czech. Kope~ný presumes that the preposition originates from the
directional type klicati h komu and he explains the development of the postponed particle -ka/-ko with its
572
(e.g., D Mr 3.9), especially with govoriti, praviti, and some verbs are always used with
a free dative case e.g., odgovoriti and povedati. For the content object the preposition
od is replaced by o (vedeti od koga (SSP o kom)); with verbs of emotion PMV ~ez is
replaced with nad or na, or it is omitted (e.g., srditi/jeziti se ~ez koga → nad kom/na
koga; usmiliti se ~ez koga → koga; ~uditi se ~ez koga → komu etc.).
1.1.8 Comparison of individul translations showed that there is no agreement between the surface structure and the corresponding deeper level – the syntactic means
that can be substituted with prepositional phrases are mainly their original clauses,
subordinate clauses of appropriate relations, synonymous conjunctions and their single-word equivalents – corresponding adverbs, which substitute only some bare prepositional phrases, especially expressing spatial, temporal, and manner relations.
1.2.0 On the formal level the early stages of development show a rich formal diversity (written, phonetic, positional) with numerous morphemic variants. The written
form of even single-letter prepositions, even in the early stages of development of
the standard Slovenian language shows the translators’ consistent consideration of
the systemic norms for distinguishing phonetic positional variants and the tendency
towards uniformity of written form, which occurs in individual translator’s writing.
Differences occur between different translators, also because of the changes in the
standard language through history.
1.2.1 The evolution of spelling of nonsyllabic prepositions was oriented towards
the spelling of the preposition separately from the noun or its premodifiers. Trubar
still spells such prepositions together with the following word (when the following
word begins with the same grapheme, the two words merge into a single word and are
not doubled, e.g., ∫el∫ami, ∫vojemi).28 In Dalmatin29 they are separated from the following word by an apostrophe, following Krelj’s introduction of this trend in 1566-67
(e.g., Olje k’Lampam; h’prahu; k’vezheri), similarly in Japelj, where the preposition
is written with a space separating it from the following word (e.g., s’ tabo). In Wolf’s
edition and in Lampe it is written as it is today, i.e., it is not graphically connected to
the adjacent word, but it is connected to it in pronunciation. Other monosyllabic and
polysyllabic prepositions maintain their independent position. In the short, enclitic
form of the personal pronoun for the third person accusative case for all numbers it
occurs very rarely in the dependent form (e.g., nanj, vanje) – once in Trubar uain (Mr
9,25); more often only in the middle of the 19th century, e.g., W: prednj (5), vanj (9),
vanjo (10), vanja (1), vanji (3), vanje (5), zanje (3); L vanj (2), vanjo (1), zanje (1).
medial stage of pre- and post-positional usage (rьci-ka mъně-ka) into the type rьci kъ mъně, which was
originally more common compared to today’s non-prepositional usage (Vasmer after Kope~ný 1973: 105).
28
Dalmatin thus uses the reflexive personal pronoun only as ∫abo without a preposition, similarly to the
modern literary forms seboj, sabo.
29
In Dalmatin’s translation one can also observe instances where the preposition is written twice,
which seem to be errors: u’venim ognenim Plameni (2Mz 3,2), uv’eno mero (2Mz 26,8).
1.2.2 Phonetic variation reflected in writing is limited to cases where it simplifies
the pronunciation on the word boundary with nonsyllabic prepositions k/h, z/s/`, v/u.
The variant of the preposition h does not occur only in Wolf’s translation. Its usage is
a lot more common in older translations than it is today because it was used the same
way as in speech – with stops (p, b, t, d, k, g) and rarely with some fricatives (c, ~). In
Bohori~ica the voiceless morphemic variant ∫ was not observed in the preposition s/z,
but only s (= z) was used, except for Trubar, who used four variants (∫/s/sh/∫o). When
vs- occurred in the initial position, the vocalized variant zo was used in the 16th century
(e.g., D sov∫em dellom). This preposition also has the assimilated variant ` with n’ and
is spelled together in Dalmatin; it is also used in Wolf’s and Lampe’s editions (e.g., D:
shnym, L: ` njim). Among phonetic peculiarities there is one of special interest, i.e., the
spelling of the preposition od as ad, which occurs only once, in Trubar30. Its origin is in
the dialectal pronunciation of the unaccented o (the so-called akanje). The typical phonetic variants of the prepositions skozi and proti are the 16th-century Lower Carniolan
variants skuzi and pruti, as well as super, which is also used by the Upper Carniolan
authors. In Lampe’s translation the cluster ~r is used in the preposition ~ez (~rez), and
there are different variants of spelling of the reduced vowel in prepositions pri and zoper (pèr/per, super/supèr, supàr). The preposition ob in its abbreviated variant o occurs
only in some instances in Wolf’s edition (e.g., o polno~i). Originally a denominal preposition, med had different forms through history: in Trubar umei/vmei with the prefix v, which is also used by later writers (e.g., Kastelec, Rogerij), in Dalmatin mej, but since
J med has been used with d similarly to the rest of directional and spatial prepositions.
In the 16th century the preposition brez also occurs in the older phonetic variant pres.
Other prepositions, apart from the spelling variations, which originate from two different types of writing, and unstandardized usage of symbols for sibilants and shibilants in
Bohori~ica (e.g., sku∫i (T) – ∫kusi (D, J), do not show any other discrepancies. The old
written form of the preposition zoper has the largest number of different spelling variants (e.g., in T it is usually written as ∫ubper, and once as ∫uper and ∫upper), whereas
the translations from the 19th century already have the same form as today.
1.3.0 On the level of semantics there is a higher degree of agreement between the
prepositions and the classifying and disregarded distinctive features, with a greater
semantic field and, consequently, greater interchangeability. In older texts there was
less semantic differentiation of the prepositions and more transition between similar
meanings.
1.3.1 The period of stabilization of the prepositional system is marked by greater
semantic broadness, increased polysemy and simultaneously increased synonymity.
Through the development of language, these loosely used prepositions did not overlap
anymore, even though their interchangeability in some groups of prepositions is still
considerable, with a different register or stylistic markedness (e.g., meanings of spatial proximity, simultaneousness, manner, means, partiality, and comparison).
30
There are only two such cases in Dalmatin’s Bible.
574
1.3.2.1 Polysemy is typical of real and some unreal prepositions (~ez, proti, skozi),
which are used in several interconnected meanings. Usually all prepositions mark a
different basic relation of place (except the real preposition z/sI and the unreal zoper),
and real prepositions usually also a possible temporal relation. All have a predictable
syntactic objective and attributive usage, which is not always realized in the sample
texts. The preposition od has the largest number of adverbial meanings (11, apart
from those already mentioned, also partiality, origin, exclusion, comparison, manner,
cause, concession, agent), and ob/o has the least (2). Among the unreal prepositions
skozi (5) and ~ez (4) have the most, whereas some only occur in the locative meaning
(blizu, sredi).
1.3.2.2 Within the framework of individual meanings according to different denotations – localizers and verbal actions there are partial meanings developing as well
as shades of meaning of these partial meanings; sometimes they even demand a particular grammatical category (e.g., med demand a plural or group localizer). Unreal
prepositions express special spatial relations or they are PMV, less frequently they
express temporalness (~ez, proti, skozi), exclusion (mimo, razen, zunaj, poleg), comparison (~ez, mimo), means, mediator, manner (skozi up to the mid-nineteenth century), cause (~ez).
1.3.2.3 The number of all meanings occurring in the sample texts is approximately
twenty. Polysemy of the prepositions is semantically determined within the framework of its context, which, however, still leaves room for different interpretations.
The meaning with the broadest field of semantic meanings is definitively that of place
(spatial), from which other meanings (temporal, objective, manner, and reason) also
originate to a large extent e.g., prepositions of hierarchical relations also express temporal relations (pluperfectness and futureness) in pred and za, temporalness is secondary in pod, whereas nad does not occur in the temporal meaning; with their semantic
transfer they define the relation of human subordination (pod) and superiority (nad),
sequence, advantage, postposition (pred, za), exchangeability (za), causality (pred,
za), purpose (k/h, za, v), presence (pred), relation, connectedness (pred, na, z/s) etc.
1.3.3.1 Only those semantically corresponding prepositions that occur in simultaneously published translations can be considered synonymous, whereas those that
occur and alternate in different time frames are considered alternating, semantically
equivalent, but not interchangeable within the same context. On the basis of common
classifying semantic features, prepositions are interchangeable and synonymous in
specific meanings within a particular context. Synonymity also occurs in some unreal
prepositions: in the meaning of contradiction ~ez – proti – zoper, in the meaning of exclusion mimo – razen – poleg – zunaj/izven, and in the spatial meaning of immediate
proximity poleg – zraven; there are also prepositions synonymous with real prepositions with adverbial meanings: pri, ob – poleg, zraven; na – vrhu; pred – zunaj, izven;
od, za, pred – zavoljo, zaradi, zastran; other prepositions express specific (spatial)
relations, which real prepositions do not: spatial ~ez, skozi, mimo.
1.3.3.2 From full synonymity a type of situational synonymity has to be separated – one that is found in older texts especially with prepositions marking spatial
and temporal relations of the same kind. With atypical uses some semantic features
get blurred, neutralized, but the classifying feature gets emphasized. Semantic correspondence can develop as a result of neutralization of distinctive semantic features
in some specific phrases and uses, so that another preposition replaces the typical
preposition in a particular meaning due to omission or abandoning of one of the semantic features. This occurs only at the margins of the system, in specific usage, or in
a particular time frame.
1.3.3.3.1 In the older period, synonymity occurs most often in the most common
meaning, that is, in the meaning of place. The most rudimentary division according to
static and dynamic characteristics – which is also a criterion used for dividing prepositions that can occur with two cases into situational and directional – depends on the
preceding context, that is, on the static or dynamic meaning of the predicate. There is
an alternating usage of the prepositions iz and od for the starting point in the interior
or in the vicinity, since the preposition od was generalized to all types of starting
points, and iz expressed both an interior as well as a surface starting point up to Wolf’s
edition, when it was replaced by z/sG in the meaning of surface starting point. The semantic field of the preposition do also partly overlapped with that of k/h, whereas the
preposition ~ez expressed relations of the preposition nad not only for direction, but
also for position. Near-synonymous prepositions with common semantic features and
only one or two distinctive characteristics, which is/are neutralized, are interchangeable within the context, e.g., prepositions expressing starting point and destination iz,
od and from the 19th century onwards also z/sG, which all have distinctive meaning
according to the type of starting point, which can be disregarded. The preposition
od in the basic meaning of disjunction (or source), also that of place, has the central
position because it is the most general and can replace both. The semantic feature,
which defines the starting point according to the inner or outer point of contact gets
blurred, and the meaning of separating or going away is emphasized. The exchange is
also supported by the usage of the preposition in the language of origin (the German
von). The preposition iz is more specific because it includes the semantic feature +the
interior +point of contact.
1.3.3.3.2 In the sample texts all prepositions express temporal relations, except
nad, seldom pod, which is bound to the hierarchically expressed relation according to
the named leading person in the prepositional noun, and z/sI, which only appears once
in Wolf’s edition. Primarily, the temporal relation is expressed by the preposition ob,
which did not express any spatial relations prior to Wolf’s translation. The semantic
characteristic of repetitiveness was not necessary, but could be expressed by a singular
temporal form. Simultaneous precise determination of time is expressed by ob as well
as other prepositions, especially v, and influenced by German na and k/h e.g., v soboto, na soboto, ob soboti/sobotah’ (on Saturday(s); na ve~er, k ve~eru ’zve~er’ (in the
evening), k veliki no~i ’za veliko no~’ (for Easter) (SSP ob prazniku). Only in Japelj
576
one can find temporal usage of the preposition skozi, which determines the duration of
the action within the temporal meaning of the prepositional phrase (e.g., Skusi ∫edèm
dny bó∫h opre∫ni kruh jedèl (2Mz 23,15) (SSP: sedem dni) etc.
1.3.3.3.3 In the meaning of partiality or belonging, prepositions od, iz and med
only differ in frequency of usage. Gradually, combined variants of the preposition
med start to appear: zmed (in Wolf’s edition) and izmed only from Lampe’s translation
onwards.
1.3.3.3.4 In the meaning of materiality or origin iz is used, less often also od (by
Dalmatin). Means, manner and mediator are expressed by skozi in older translations
(Dalmatin, Japelj), in the first meaning skozi is even more common under the influence of German prepositional phrases with durch, but from the 19th century onwards
it is completely replaced by z/sI. For expressing the means vA is also used, and the
alternating preposition poL for the mediator, which had been used even before that,
in the 18th century, by the Prekmurje authors. In the meaning of means, there are
inanimate nouns used in the prepositional phrase in the Old Testament, indicating
by what an (miraculous) act had been achieved: skuzi eno mo~no/iztegneno/visoko/
gospodnjo roko; en mo~an vejter; (tvojo) mo~/mo~ moje/tvoje roke, velike pravde
(D); roko Itamara, veliko silo, mojo ~ast, eno persego, velike sodbe (J) – today it is
expressed with the preposition z/s.31 If the noun is an abstract notion (D milost, klafanje, J povzdigvanje, zalazvanje, zagovarjanja, te`ke dela, re~, {ibo, ~ude`/~udesa,
vse sorte tlake) which determines the characteristics or the specific manner in which
an act had been performed, the meaning of manner is expressed by it, which again,
is more common in Japelj (D Ti ∫i ∫kusi tvojo milo∫t ∫premil tvoj Folk (2Mz 15,13);
SSP: v svoji dobroti si vodil ljudstvo). When the noun in the prepositional phrase is an
animate one, the meaning is that of mediation, which performs the action (D: govoriti,
zapovedati; vrezati; J also rezati, zapisati, vun klicati, vkazati, dokon~ati) instead (by
order or command) of someone else (Mojzesa, moè, oznanuvavca, pe~atarja/e), e.g.,
D kakor je GOSPVD ∫kusi Mo∫∫esa bil govoril (2Mz 9.35).
1.3.3.3.5 Systemic changes in the choice of prepositions can also be observed
in the meaning of intention (intentionality), in which the preposition k/h is used in
the 16th century instead of today’s zaA. The usage of k/h is influenced by the German
preposition zu (in Japelj its usage becomes equal to that of za). To a certain extent the
prepositions vA and seldom naA are used with a synonymous meaning. The meaning of
intention, that is, of mental focusing on the realization of an action, which is expressed
by the complements, and the meaning of purpose or usefulness for a particular action,
which is expressed by a nominal phrase with a subordinate prepositional phrase, are
today introduced by prepositional phrases with prepositions zaA, vA, po and not k/h as
is the case in Dalmatin. Since such prepositional phrases are conversions from adverbial clauses of purpose, the complement is usually a deverbal noun, e.g., imeti u{esa
31
An example of an exchange can be observed in Japelj de bi na∫s /…/ ∫kusi shęjo pomóril (2Mz 17,3),
which is in Wolf’s edition replaced with the preposition z/sI (z èjo).
k poslu{anju, pridigovati k odpu{~anju grehov, so bila k ètvi, k spominu ’v spomin’
(in memory of), k pri~i ’v pri~evanje’ (in attesting), je pridnu k navuku ’koristiti k
~emu’ (to be useful for) (from the German ist nutze zur Lehre), biti k sramoti, k smrti
(these fixed phrases used by Dalmatin are substituted by an adjectival predicative
complement (biti osramo~en), similarly to other languages, also German (soll nicht
zuschanden werden)).
1.3.3.3.6 Causality is expressed through different syntactic patterns: after the uniting of adverbial clauses, prepositional phrases of cause are introduced by the originally and from the point of view of word-formation an unreal prepositional form za
voljo/zavoljo/zaradi, and other synonymous prepositions, which in their secondary,
figurative meaning also express a cause-effect relation, e.g., real preposition od (J od
straha (posahnili)) with the shift of the origin of the action to its consequence, in rare
cases za (D ofer za greh), predI (D pred te{kim delom), naA (J na prejeto rano (umreti)),
po (W po prejeti rani), and ~ez, which was used to the end of the 19th century (T je bil
àlosten ~ez slipoto nih serca (= J)).
1.3.4 Antonymous paired prepositions are defined according to a specific distinctive semantic characteristic. V and na are paired prepositions with regard to the type of
contact, v and iz with regard to their opposite orientation (starting point vs. end), vA and
vL with regard to their opposite position and direction, etc. Z/sI and brez are the only
completely opposite pair, where brez negates all meanings of the former by expressing
the lack or loss of what z/sI expresses, be it company (joining, uniting), means (instrument), manner, or a characteristic, which may also be expressed by clausal negation.
Complementary od – do express both extremes (that of the starting point and that of
the end). The preposition proti is an exception, which has the meaning of the opposite
direction in two of its partial meanings of place: in the direction of the localizer and
in the opposite direction – that is the reason for its double objective usage as well as
its positive and negative intention of direction. Today, this preposition cannot be used
in the positional meaning of place, whereas in the 16th century such usage was quite
extensive and replaced the compounded prepositional form na(s)proti.
1.4 When comparing prepositional phrases that differ in their usage with those
in Luther’s German translation and the Latin Vulgate, the influence of the model text
on the choice and usage of prepositions is – at least based on the limited number of
examples in the selected sample texts – confirmed to a large extent. The dependence
on the model text proves that the diversity in the choice of prepositional phrases or different syntactic phrases in the Slovenian translations is in many cases not coincidental
and is rooted in the sources. In several systemic alternating usages of prepositions, in
Dalmatin’s and more rarely in Trubar’s translations, the influence of Luther’s model
text can be observed. There is also a distinctive agreement of the prepositional phrases
in Japelj’s translation and in Wolf’s edition with those in the Vulgate. In the usage of
verbs with PMV, where the semantic motivation is diminishing and the influence of
a model text is stronger and is ousting the domestic syntactic expressional possibili-
578
ties, the influence is also possible from other sociolinguistic and pragmatically based
reasons, such as proficiency in German, bilingual ability, or the ability to translate
from/to different languages and automatically switch between languages. In other
prepositional phrases there is often no agreement even with the two model texts, or
in Japelj also agreement with Luther (especially in the usage of ~ez and skozi), as the
number of such, especially verbal phrases is also high in the translation from the Enlightenment period, when one would expect a greater concern for cultivated language
due to the study of Slavic languages. Also, there is often no agreement with the Latin
source (in prepositional phrases with ~ez, na, and v). Trubar’s translation, compared
to Dalmatin’s, shows better, originally Slovenian translation solutions, but it also confirms the existence of a coinciding prepositional usage in spoken language, since some
borrowed usages of verbs with PMV in Slavic languages are older and more widely
spread (e.g., expressing the addressee and the content of the speech act with PMV
k/h and od). This sheds some additional light on the fact that some typically used
borrowed prepositional phrases are only partially in accordance with Luther’s translations, which offers alternative explanations: they were either commonly established
in the Slovenian literary syntax, or that they were used in the spoken language of the
translator’s native geographic area. In the literary language of Prekmurje, on the other
hand, there were no such calque phrases. Following Küzmi~’s Prekmurje patterns,
Central Slovenian authors later also eliminated and replaced these phrases by more
primary Slavic patterns.
Martin Grad.
SOURCES
DALMATIN, Jurij, 1584: BIBLIA, TV IE, VSE SVETV PISMV STARIGA inu Noviga Te∫tamenta,
∫loven∫ki, tolmazhena, ∫kusi IVRIA DALMATINA. Bibel /das i∫t/ die gantze heilige Schrifft
/ Windi∫h. Gedruckt in der Churfür∫tlichen Sach∫i∫chen Stadt Wittemberg / durch Hans
Kraffts Erben. ANNO M.D.LXXXIIII.
– – 1994, BIBLIA, tu je vse svetu pismu stariga inu noviga testamenta, slovenski, skuzi Jurja
Dalmatina. Faksimile, Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. (D)
JAPELJ, Jurij, KUMERDEJ, Bla`, 1784-1802: SVETU PISMU NOVIGA TESTAMENTA. Pars prima.
Labacio Typis Joan. Frid. Eger. 1784. (J)
– – 1791: Svetu pismu Stariga testamenta (pars prima), Ljubljana. DRUGE MOJSESOVE
BUKVE, imenovane EXODUS, ali IS.HOD., 219–395.
LAMPE, Fran~i{ek, 1895: Zgodbe svetega pisma. Slovencem priredil in razloìl dr. F. Lampe.
Izdala in zaloìla Dru`ba sv. Mohorja v Celovcu, snop 1–3, 1894 dalje. (L)
LUTHER, D. Martin, 1972: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch. Wittenberg 1545, letzte zu
Luthers Lebzeiten erschienene Ausgabe, Herausgegeben von Hans Volz unter Mitarbeit von
Heinz Blanke, Textredaktion Friedrich Kur, Rogner & Bernhard, München. (Lu)
BIBLIA SACRA Vulgatae editionis. SIXTI V. PONTIFICIS MAXIMI JUSSU RECOGNITA.
ET CLEMENTIS VIII. Auctoritate edita. VENETIIS, Ex Typographia Balleoniana. MDCCCIV. (Vu)
Sveto pismo stare in nove zaveze z razlaganjem poleg nem{kiga, od apostoljskiga Sedeà poterjeniga sv. pisma, ki ga je iz Vulgate ponem~il in razloìl dr. Joèf Franc Allioli. – Natisnjeno
po povelji pre~astitljiviga Kneza Gospoda Antona Alojzija, Ljubljanskiga [kofa. V Ljubljani. Natisnil Joèf Blaznik. (Pervi zvezek.). 1857. (Druge Mojzesove bukve. 95–171.) 5.
zvezek, Evangeli Jezusa Kristusa po svetim Marku, 137–177. (W)
TRUBAR, Primo`, 1557: TA PERVI DEIL TIGA NOVIGA TESTAMENTA, VTIM SO VSI SHTYRI
EVANGELISTI INV TA DIAne tih Iogrou, ∫dai peruizh vta Slouenski Ie∫ik, Sku∫i Primosha Truberia ∫uei∫tu preobernen. TVBINGAE, [Ulrich Morhart] ANNO M.D.LVII (–M.D.
LVIII). (T)
Biblia Slovenica. 2004. Ljubljana: Dru{tvo Svetopisemska dru`ba Slovenije.
Slovenski standardni prevod, 1996. Svetopisemska dru`ba Slovenije. (SSP)
REFERENCES
BAJEC, Anton, 1959: Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika, IV, Predlogi in predpone. Ljubljana:
SAZU, 14.
DULAR, Janez, 1982: Priglagolska vezava v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku (20. stoletja), disertacija. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
– – 1983/84: Zdruèna vezava v desni vezljivosti slovenskega glagola. JiS, XXIX/8, Ljubljana,
282–297).
KOPE~NÝ, Franti{ek, 1973: Etymologický slovník slovanských jaziků, Slova gramatická a zájmena, svazek 1 (Predlo`ky, Koncové partikule). Praha: Nakladatelství êskoslovenské akademie ved.
KRIÀJ-ORTAR, Martina, 1990: Vezljivost: iz pomena v izraz. Zbornik XXVI. Seminarja slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana. 129–140.
MER{E, Majda, 1986: Konkuren~na razmerja glagolov v Dalmatinovi Bibliji. Obdobja 6, 16.
stoletje v slovenskem jeziku, knjièvnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete. 375–388.
– – 1989: Raba izsamostalni{kih glagolov in nadomestnih besednih zvez v Dalmatinovi Bibliji.
SR 36/4. 375–397.
OREL-POGA~NIK, Irena, 1994/1995: Predlo`ni sistem v razvoju slovenskega knji`nega jezika od
16. do 19. stoletja. JiS XL/5. 172–175.
– – 1995: Predlo`ne zveze v razvoju slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Zbornik Slavisti~nega
dru{tva Slovenije 4. Ljubljana: Zavod republike Slovenije za {olstvo in {port. 57–68.
– – 1995: Le système prépositionnel dans le développement de la langue slovène littéraire du
16eme au 19eme siècle. Linguistica XXXV/2. 107–134.
– – 1995: Predlo`ni sestav osrednjeslovenskega in prekmurskega knji`nega jezika ob koncu 18.
stoletja. Studia Slavica Savariensia 1/2. Szombately. 39–51.
OREL, Irena, 1999: Predlo`ni sestav osrednjeslovenske, koro{ke, {tajerske in prekmurske knji`ne
razli~ice od srede 18. do srede 19. stoletja. Logarjev zbornik: 1. mednarodni dialektolo{ki
simpozij v Mariboru (Zora 8). Maribor: Slavisti~no dru{tvo. 225–248.
OROÈN, Martina, 1975: Razvoj predlo`nih zvez v slovenskem jeziku. XI. Seminar slovenskega
jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete. 13–26.
– – 1989, Preobrazba jezikovne zgradbe od Japljevega do Lampetovega prevoda Biblije v 19.
stoletju. Slovenski jezik v znanosti 2. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete.
163–185.
QUIRK, Randolf, LEECH, Geoffrey, SVARTVIK, Jan, 1972: A Grammar of contemporary English.
London: Longman.
RIZZI, Luigi, 19913: Il sintagma prepositionale. 507–531. V: RENZI, Lorenzo (ur.), Grande
grammatica italiana di consultatione. La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale. Vol.
I. Bologna: Il Mulino.
580
SCHRÖDER, Jochen, 1986: Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
SICHERL, Eva, 2000: Sodobne jezikoslovne raziskave predlo`nih pomenov. Vestnik, Dru{tvo za
tuje jezike in knjièvnosti Slovenije, 34/1–2. 413–424.
– – 2001: O predlo`ni vezljivosti v angle{~ini in sloven{~ini. Vestnik, Dru{tvo za tuje jezike in
knjièvnosti Slovenije, 35/1–2. 299–312.
TOPORI{I~, Joè, 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zalo`ba.
– – 2000: Slovenska slovnica. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba Obzorja.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, Ada, 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloènk. Ljubljana:
Partizanska knjiga.
WEINRICH, Harald, 1993: Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim – Leipzig – Wien
– Zürich: Dudenverlag.
@ELE, Andreja, 2001: Vezljivost v slovenskem jeziku (s poudarkom na glagolu). Ljubljana: ZRC
SAZU.
– – 2003: Glagolska vezljivost: iz teorije v slovar. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.
POVZETEK
Iz diahrone slovenske medprevodne primerjave svetopisemskih besedil je bil ugotovljen
dele` ~asovno zaznamovanih izraznih, funkcijsko- in pomenskoskladenjskih zakonitosti
predlo`nozveznega sestava in razvojnih izmenjav predlo`nih zvez. V rabi predlo`nih zvez kot
izrazito negovorjene zgradbe v starej{ih obdobjih slovenskega knji`nega jezika je bila utemeljeno izkazana ve~ja stopnja medjezikovne povezanosti, ki je bila v svetopisemskih besedilih
izrazitej{a tudi zaradi besedilne, pomenske in povr{inske skladenjske odvisnosti od uporabljenih prevodnih predlog. V razvojni perspektivi je pri{lo do odpravljanja enakosti s tujejezi~nimi
vzorci, glagoli s PMG in stalne skladenjske zveze s tujimi PMG so opu{~eni relativno pozno,
so~asno z vzpostavitvijo norme splo{noslovenskega knji`nega jezika sredi 19. oz. {ele ob koncu stoletja; skladenjski divergentnosti starej{ih obdobij sledi ustalitev rabe predlo`nih zvez v
dana{njih okvirih.
Marko Jesenšek, Participal and Gerundival Constructions in -č and -ši in Slovenian
UDC 811.163.6’367.62
Marko Jesen{ek
Faculty of Arts, Maribor
581
PARTICIPIAL AND GERUNDIVAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN -Č AND -ŠI
IN SLOVENIAN
The Central Slovenian literary language between the 16th and 19th cc. did not make good use
of the expression with participial and gerundival forms in -~ and -{i, in fact, they were nearly
forgotten. They were brought back to life in the 19th c. under the influence of the Prekmurje
literary language and following the example of OCS. In the uniform Slovenian literary language
of the second half of the 19th c., the forms in -~ and -{i became fashionable and extremely literary, but at the end of the century with the arrival of the Slovenian Moderna they again retreated
to the linguistic periphery, where they survive in expository and journalistic language as an
effective syntactic condenser and means for the hierarchization of actions.
Dele`ni{ko in deleìjsko izraànje z oblikami na -~ in -{i je bilo v osrednjeslovenskem
knji`nem jeziku od 16. do 19. stoletja slabo izkori{~eno in skoraj pozabljeno, pod vplivom
prekmurskega knji`nega jezika in po vzgledu stare cerkvene slovan{~ine pa je v 19. stoletju
ponovno oìvelo. Oblike na -~ in -{i so v enotnem slovenskem knji`nem jeziku druge polovice
19. stoletja postale modne in izrazito knji`ne, konec stoletja pa so se z nastopom slovenskih
modernistov ponovno umaknile na jezikovno obrobje, kjer so se obdràle v znanstvenem in tudi
publicisti~nem jeziku kot u~inkovit skladenjski strnjevalec in sredstvo za hierarhizacijo dejanj.
Key words: history of the Slovenian language, Old Church Slavic, Central and Eastern
Slovenian literary languages, uniform Slovenian literary language, syntactic condensation, participles and gerunds in -~ and -{i
Klju~ne besede: zgodovina slovenskega jezika, stara cerkvena slovan{~ina, osrednje- in
vzhodnoslovenski knji`ni jezik, enotni slovenski knji`ni jezik, skladenjsko strnjanje, dele`niki
in dele`ja na -~ in -{i
0 Slovenian adopted participial and gerundival constructions in -~ and -{i from Old
Church Slavic (OCS), but the question remains whether the (gerundival) forms in -{i
were ever spoken in Slovene or they were already at the time of Cyril and Methodius
only literary solution for expressing temporal relations, and as such, a sign of linguistic
sophistication and used by writers to intellectualize their language. This reasoning
was prompted by the fact that the forms in -{i were preserved in Eastern Slovenian
Protestant and Catholic religious translations and secular texts of the 18th and first half
of the 19th cc., which display a high degree of agreement with OCS translations of the
Gospels. In the Slovenian Pannonian area, this points to the direct link between the
archaic Prekmurje literary language and Eastern Slovenian ritual language with the
Freising Manuscripts and through them, with Old Church Slavic (Jesen{ek 2005).
Compared to OCS, the Prekmurje literary language,1 like other Slavic languages
1
Martina Oroèn, »Prekmurski knji`ni jezik« Poglavja iz zgodovine slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Ljubljana 1996, 356–372. This is the most thorough Slovenian study on the Prekmurje literary language to date.
It presents in detail its historic origins and area, distinctive structures, and the relation towards the Central
Slovenian literary language. It also disambiguates the complex relationship with the Kajkavian literary
language.
582
(Tom{i~ 1955: 66), limited the use of participial and gerundival forms. However,
it was not entirely rid of them like »neo-Slovenian«, which purged its syntactic
system particularly of gerunds in -{i and retained very few participles as adverbial
forms already known in Bohori~’s grammar,2 or as adjectives such as, for instance,
in the contemporary Standard Slovenian the form biv{i, -a, -e (Biv{a jugoslovanska
republika; biv{i fant, biv{a èna) ’former’. In the Prekmurje literary language of the
second half of the 18th and the first half of the 19th cc. these linguistic processes were
not present, as it almost entirely preserved the rich inventory of expressive means
from OCS, that is to say, the verbal-nominal diversity of forms in -~ and -{i, i.e., the
gerunds expressing coordination of time, while the participles are used in attributive,
nominalized, predicative and adverbialized functions.
1 The use of gerunds in semi-predicative constructions to express actions that are
simultaneous and antecedent in relation to the action of the verbal clause is common
in OCS (Ve~erka 1961: 127). The comparison with Küzmi~’s Nouvi zakon3 shows that
their original function was preserved in the Prekmurje literary language.
1.1 Semi-predicative constructions with gerunds in -~ expressing simultaneous
actions are common in OCS and the Prekmurje literary language. Both systems display
the rules that prove that the Prekmurje literary language in this respect continued the
OCS tradition of shortening long and complex sentences: OCS (Mat. 12,25): vědy
è is. mysli imъ i re~e imъ. [tevan Küzmi~: Znajoucsi pa Jezus míszli nyihove ercsé
nyim. OCS (Mat. 14,25): vъ ~etvrъtǫjǫ è stra`ǫ no{ti. ide kъ ńimъ is. chodę po morju.
[tevan Küzmi~: Ob ſtrtoj ſtrá’zi pa te noucsi priſao je knyim Jezus hodécsi po mourji.
There are some noticeable differences, but they are mainly the result of the translators’
personal styles and the time difference in the conception of the Gospels. It would be
unrealistic to expect the translations to agree entirely, as there is nearly a thousand years
between them; also, [tevan Küzmi~ did not use any other sources4 besides the Greek
original and the Hungarian translation (Bajzek 2005). This answers the question as to
why Küzmi~ disambiguated into coordinating constructions or subordinated clauses
those places that are in OCS condensed with the gerund: OCS (Mat. 2,18): rachilь
pla~ǫ{ti sę ~jędъ svoichъ. i ne chotěa{e utě{it sę. [tevan Küzmi~: Rachel je joukala
ſzvoje szini, i nej sze je ſteila obeszeliti záto, kaj ji je nej bilou.
1.2 While the use of gerunds for expression of antecedent actions agrees fairly
well in both languages, the frequency of gerunds in -{i compared to the gerunds in -~
declines in [tevan Küzmi~’s writing (he replaces the OCS gerund with coordinating
or subordinating constructions): OCS (Mat. 27, 60): i vъzvalь kamenь velii na dvьri
groba i otide. [tevan Küzmi~: i priválavsi kamen veliki k dveram toga groba, odíde.
2
Adam Bohori~: Arcticae horulae succisivae. Witenberg 1584. On p. 154 he cites among deverbal adverbs the form in -{i: skriv{i (Derivata ſunt /…/ 3. A Verbo, ut: ſkrìuſhi, ſkrivaje, Clam. Furtim, à
ſkrivam).
3
[tevan Küzmi~, Nouvi Zakon, Halle 1771.
4
Cf. the Latin Foreword to the publication of Nouvi zakon of 1771 and M. Küzmi~’s Predgovori
[tefana Küzmi~a, Ljubljana 1981.
583
OCS (Mar. 7,8): ostavь{e bo zapovědь b`ьjǫ drъìte prědaaniě ~ska. [tevan Küzmi~:
Ár, tá niháte zapovid Bo’zjo, i zdr’zavate tadánke lüdi prajoucsi maſzline i peháre.
In Mar. 7.8 the OCS gerund expresses an antecedent action in the present, which
[tevan Küzmi~ expressed with a finite verb: ta nihate. OCS had known the active past
participle (gerund in -{i) for the verbs iti, govoriti (and their derivatives), and videti;
Küzmi~ in this constructions expressed antecedent actions with the gerund in -~ or with
the periphrastic form gda bi: OCS (Mar. 13,36): da ne pri{ьdъ vъ nezaěpǫ obrę{tetъ
vy sъpę{tę. [tevan Küzmi~: Da nagyagno pridoucsi ne nájde váſz ſzpajoucse. OCS
(Mat. 9,8): i viděvъ{e è narodi. divi{ę sę. [tevan Küzmi~: Gda bi pa tou lüſztvo
vidilo: csüdivalo ſze je.
2 The participial use of forms in -~ and -{i is even more common than the gerundival
use.
2.1 In OCS the participial forms in -y (-~) and -s (-{i) are often used as attributes.
2.1.1 The most common are the forms that take various cases, in which the
OCS and Prekmurje use usually agrees: OCS (Mat. 8,17): da sъbǫdetъ sę re~enoe
prorokomь isaiemь gljǫ{temь. [tevan Küzmi~: Da bi ſze ſzpünilo, ka je povejdano po
E’ziáſi proroki govorécsem.
2.1.2 [tevan Küzmi~ consistently replaced the Greek nominative absolute with the
nominative absolute, which is attested in OCS translations, albeit rarely. In the oldest
Slavic literary language Ve~erka found a few examples with the nominative absolute
(Ve~erka 1961: 108), but Küzmi~ has this form in different places (e.g., I idoucsi odnut
Jezus, naſzledüvala ſzta ga dvá ſzlepcza. Mat. 9,27); instead of the OCS equivalent
he has a specialized form for expressing pluperfectivity (gda bi and -l-participle):
OCS (Mat. 8,5): vъ ono v. pri{ъdъ is vъ kaperъnaumъ. pripade emu sъtьnikъ. [tevan
Küzmi~: Gda bi pa Jezus notri v Kapernaum ſou, priſztoupo je k nyemi eden ſztotnik
proſzécsi ga.
2.1.3 [tevan Küzmi~ did not use the dative absolute, which is a feature of the OCS
morphological-syntactic system. In the oldest Slavic language it has temporal, causal,
conditional, and consequential meanings;5 in these places, Küzmi~ has the participle in
-~, past tense, specialized form for pluperfectivity, and rarely the series of coordinating
constructions with the conjunction i (in the OCS translation the conjunction i connects
the dative absolute with the predicative sentence): OCS (Mar. 8,1): mnogu narodu
sǫ{tju. i ne imǫ{temъ ~eso ěsti. prizъvavъ is u~eniky svoję gla imъ. [tevan Küzmi~:
Vu oni dnévi, da bi jáko vnogo lüſztva bilou, i nebi melo kaj jeſzti, prizvajoucsi Jezus
5
On this topic see the exhaustive study by L. Ne~ásek, »Staroslověnské dativní vazby participiální a
jejich předlohy v řeckém textu evangelií«, Slavia 26, 1957, 13–30. He compared OCS translations with the
Greek original, where the dative object often appears with certain verbs, i.e., the participial construction in
the dative case often depends on verba dicendi.
584
vucseníke ſzvoje ercsé nyim. OCS (Mat. 26,47): i e{te gljǫ{tju emu. se i juda edinъ. otъ
oboju na desęte pride. [tevan Küzmi~: I, gda bi eſcse on gucsao, ovo Judas eden ſztí
dvanájſzet je priſao i ’znyim lüſztva vnougo. OCS (Mar. 2,23): i bystъ mimo chodę{tu
emu. vъ sǫboty skvězě sěěniě. i na~ę{ę u~enici ego pǫtь tvoriti. [tevan Küzmi~: I
prigoudilo ſze je; da bi on ſou vſzoboto po ſzvitváji: i zácsali ſzo vucseníczke nyegovi
po pouti idoucsi menoti vlatovjé.
2.1.4 The participle with the auxiliary verb biti is used more often in the OCS
translation than by Küzmi~. While Miklo{i~ showed that such a usage, adopted
from Greek, is not typically Slavic (MIKLO[I^ 1883: 822), Ve~erka found several
examples in Codex Suprasliensis where the construction with biti and the participle
in -~ appears, while the Greek source has different solutions, or the OCS translation
uses different syntactic means in place of the Greek predicative construction (Jesen{ek
1989: 245–246).6 In [tevan Küzmi~’s translation the predicative construction with the
participle appears as well, but his use only rarely corresponds with the OCS use, i.e.,
the participle is used as a predicative or subject, and sometimes he has the construction
with biti and -n-participle in coordination with the participle in -~: OCS (Mat. 11,3):
ty li esi grędy. ili inogo ~aemъ. [tevan Küzmi~: Erkao nyemi je: tí ſzi te pridoucsi,
ali pa drügoga mámo csakati. OCS (Mar. 7,15): ischodę{taa sǫtъ skvrьnę{ta ~ka.
[tevan Küzmi~: nego ta vöidoucsa od nyega; ona ſzo, ſtera oſkrunio csloveka. OCS
(Mar. 14,4): Běachǫ è etrii negodujǫ{te. vь sebě. i gljǫ{te. [tevan Küzmi~: Bilí ſzo
pa niki nemirovni vu ſzebi i govorécsi. Also interesting is the OCS example with the
aorist of the auxiliary biti and the participle in -~. In those places Küzmi~ preserved
the participle, but replaced the aorist – which was lost in Slovene after the Freising
Manuscripts – with the past tense of biti: OCS (Mar. 1,4): bystъ ioanъ krъstę vъ pustyni.
i propovědaję krъ{tenie pokaaniju. [tevan Küzmi~: Bio je pa Ivan krſztsávajoucsi vu
püſcsavi i predgajoucsi krſzt pokoure na odpüſcsanye grejhov.
2.2 Similarly, the nominal function of the forms in -y (-~) and -s (-{i) is well
attested in both languages. The material contains numerous examples showing the
similarities of the two linguistic systems. In OCS nominalized participles appear in
various syntactic functions, i.e., as subject, object, attribute, vocative (Ve~erka 1961:
12–31). They are also very common in the Prekmurje literary language, which might
indicate that they were alive in the spoken language in Eastern Slovenia. It is important
to note that both the OCS and Prekmurje translations contain the same places where
the Greek participle is disambiguated with a clause or replaced by a noun, i.e., the
examples demonstrate original Slavic solutions: GR (Mat. 7,14): ỏλίγoι εỉσὶν oι̉
ευ̉ρίσoντες αυ̉τήν. OCS: malo ichь estъ iè i obrětajǫtъ. [tevan Küzmi~: i malo ji
je, ſteri jo nájdejo. GR (Mat. 24,49): ε̉σθίη δὲ καὶ πίνη μετὰ τω̃ μεθυόντων. OCS:
ěsti è i piti. sъ pьěnicami. [tevan Küzmi~: I zacsne biti te ſzebom ſzlü’zécse, jeſzti
pa i piti ſzpiánczi. Despite the common use and tradition that was preserved in the
6
Cf. the Greek imperative or the Greek periphrastic form vs. OCS predicative participle (Jesenšek
1989: 245–246).
585
Slavic world (Ve~erka 1961: 15), the material shows that the use of the nominalized
participle somewhat dwindled in the Prekmurje literary language. The differences
occur particularly when the participle in -~ expresses future tense in OCS: OCS (Mat.
3. 11): grjędy è po mně krěplei mene estъ. [tevan Küzmi~: ki pa za menom pride,
mocsnejſi je od méne.
2.3 The adverbial function of the forms in -y (-~) and -s (-{i) shows a close
connection between both morphological-syntactic systems. In OCS writing, the
participles are commonly used with the accusative object. The construction with the
object next to the verb videti is typically Slavic (Miklo{i~ 1883: 823–824) and was
largely preserved by [tevan Küzmi~: OCS (Mar. 1,10): i vidě razvodę{ta sę nbsa. i
dchъ ěko golǫbь sьchodę{tь na ńь. [tevan Küzmi~: I precszi gori idoucsi od vodé
vido je odprta nebéſza; i Düha, liki golouba, doli idoucsega na nyega. Mar. 1,10 is an
interesting example, as it shows that the translations of the Gospels include only few
variants with the participle and the verb of perception, which takes the accusative.
It is typical of Küzmi~’s translation that the participles in the constructions
with the object always appear as right attributes, while in OCS they occasionally, if
rarely, appear as left attributes. The examples in which the participle appears before
the object in OCS, Küzmi~ translated periphrastically: OCS (Mat. 8,14): vidě tъ{tǫ
ego le`ǫ{tǫ. [tevan Küzmi~: I gda bi priſao Jezus vu Petrovo hi’zo, vido je puniczo
nyegovo le’zécso vu trésliki.
3 The Prekmurje use of participial-gerundival expressions is supported by the
Slavic linguistic tradition, which is clearly evident from the comparison above. [tevan
Küzmi~ did not use OCS sources in his translation, but the comparison of the material
nevertheless shows that the Prekmurje literary language of the second half of the 18th
c. preserved a similar participial-gerundival morphological-syntactic system as it was
attested in OCS. In Nouvi zakon gerunds in -~ mainly express simultaneity of action
and are as a rule derived from imperfective verbs, while participles in -~ mostly occur
in the functions of the right or left attribute, nominative absolute, nominalized and
adverbial participle. Most differences occur in the use of the predicative participle
with the auxiliary biti, as OCS translations use this syntactic solution, which is
calqued from Greek, in several cases, while Küzmi~ as a rule disambiguated them.
The predicative use (predicate attribute) of the participles was not Slovenian (Slavic),
therefore in this function, identical syntactic solutions of both translations are only
coincidental. Another apparent difference is in the use of the dative absolute, which
was no longer known to the Prekmurje translator. A similar derivation and range
of participial and gerundival constructions in -~ in -{i is present in the writing of
[tevan Küzmi~’s Prekmurje Catholic contemporary, Miklo{ Küzmi~, which shows
that Catholic writers also embraced the language of [tevan Küzmi~’s Nouvi zakon as
the Prekmurje literary standard, hence the gerunds clearly became a supradialectal,
literary means for the expression of simultaneous and antecedent actions. The forms
in -{i were preserved in the literary language because the influence of the Slavic
tradition was sufficiently strong, but they were less frequently used because they were
586
not based in the existing spoken language. In the Eastern Styrian literary language
of the first half of the 19th c., the participial-gerundival constructions in -{i had even
lesser presence, i.e., they were replaced by the Central Slovenian syntactic solutions
(coordinating constructions, clauses, infinitive).
4 The participles and gerunds in -~ and -{i, which were common in OCS texts, were
greatly reduced in the Freising Manuscripts (imy, imont’i, prijeml’onti) and the Central
Slovenian literary language was largely rid of them until Ravnikar, i.e., the forms in
-{i ceased to be productive, while the gerunds in -~ were limited mainly to cliché use
and rare examples in writing by Trubar and writers that followed. Oblak’s research of
OCS placed its origin in the vicinity of Thessaloniki, however, this does not negate
the thesis about the Slovenian Pannonian linguistic territory that was for centuries
developing separately and differently from the Central-Slovenian Alpine territory.
Oblak was convinced of that when he recorded dialects in »Hungarian« (ogrski) and by
the Prekmurje translations of the Gospels and the Bible (Jesen{ek 1998); among other
things, also by the frequent use of the gerunds and participles in -~ in -{i, which are not
attested from Trubar to Ravnikar in similar Central Slovenian translations. Oblak no
longer found forms in -{i in dialects of »Ogrsko« Slovenes nor in Eastern Slovenian
Styrian dialects, but they were preserved in the books by Prekmurje (Temlin, Sever,
[tevan in M. Küzmi~, Borovnjak, Ko{i~ ...) and Styrian (Dajnko, Krempl, [erf ...)
writers. The comparison with the Kajkavian lectionary (Kraja~ević) showed (Jesen{ek
1989: 384–414) that in the Pannonian linguistic territory in all three literary variants
(Prekmurje, Eastern-Styrian, Kajkavian) the same participial-gerundival system was
preserved as it is attested in OCS.
Central Slovenian writers did not know such syntactic condensation. Trubar,
Dalmatin, Kastelec, Svetokri{ki, and Japelj expressed antecedent actions primarily
periphrastically, while for simultaneity they used mainly the cliché form of the gerund
reko~, and, besides a few other solutions, they were familiar mostly with attributive
use of the participles in -~. The only exception was Ravnikar, who in the 19th c. became
interested in the Prekmurje syntactic condensation with participles and gerunds.
However, the so-called Wolf translation of the Bible in the 1850s already reverted
to Trubar’s and Dalmatin’s tradition of use of these forms in the Central Slovenian
linguistic region (Jesen{ek 1998).
The exclusion of gerundival-participial constructions is also typical of the second
complete Slovenian translation of the New Testament, published two-hundred years
after Dalmatin’s Bible (1584–1784). Japelj did not use the forms in -{i, as he consistently
expressed antecedent actions periphrastically with coordinate constructions and
clauses. At the same time, he greatly limited the forms in -~: the antecedent actions
are expressed (with a few exceptions) only by the cliché use of the participle reko~;
participles are mostly used in attributive and nominal functions. Because of the long
and complex sentences, Japelj introduces a new syntactic condenser, i.e., the infinitive
(Jesen{ek 1991).
587
5 The structural duality of Slovenian with respect to the use of forms in -~ and
-{i, grounded in the dialectal orientation and division of Slovenes between the Alpine
and Pannonian territories,7 was at the end of the 18th and at the beginning of the 19th
cc. reflected in two Slovenian literary standards. In the 19th c. the forms in -~ and -{i
as an effective syntactic condenser unexpectedly spread from the Eastern Slovenian
religious literature to the entire Slovenian linguistic territory, i.e., to all functional
styles of the Central and Eastern Slovenian literary languages. There were several
reasons for that. Among them the most important were: (1) the »discovery« of the
archaic Eastern Slovenian (Prekmurje) literary language, which preserved elaborate
participial-gerundival expression, attested in the Protestant and Catholic prints of
the 18th and first half of the 19th cc. (e.g., Temlin, Sever, [tevan and M. Kuzmi~,
Borovnjak, Ko{i~, etc.); (2) the search for Slovenian national identity and those
linguistic options that would bring Slovenes closer to the common Slavic territory;
(3) the absence of effective syntactic means for condensation in the Central Slovenian
literary language; (4) the standardization of the common-Slovenian literary language
after 1825, when after the previously diminishing differences and mutual exchange
of morphological, syntactic, and lexical elements, the Central and Eastern Slovenian
literary variants became uniform; and (5) the forms in -~ and -{i were fashinonable in
the 19th c. (Jesen{ek 1998a: 137–214, 316).
At the same time, there were growing tendencies in the Central Slovenian literary
language that the literary language be rid of all foreign elements. Ravnikar went
furthest in these efforts. He wanted to remove all foreignisms and calques from the
language, which he substituted with the originally Slovenian, Slavic, and OCS words.
He followed the example of the Eastern Slovenian literary language. He adopted
participial and gerundival constructions in -~ and -{i, which were no longer productive in
the Central Slovenian literary language after the Freising Manuscripts, from Küzmi~’s
Nouvi zakon. He liked the forms that effectively shortened complex sentences and
started using them in his Zgodbe svetega pisma za mlade ljudi (1815–17). However,
he did not revive the forms in -~ and -{i systematically; instead, he adopted them into
the Central Slovenian language too much like an »amateur« and used them in a stilted,
artificial manner, without paying attention to the morphological derivation and without
being aware of all their functions8 (Jesen{ek 1990: 175). He accepted participles in
-~ and -{i as original Slavic and Slovenian morphological-syntactic solutions, as
archaic forms with which he replaced calqued German syntactic patterns. Although
7
The Alpine-Slovenian territory was divided between the Salzburg and the Aquilea patriarchies. The
proto-parishes became the centers of the dialectal units, which took their final shape after the emergence of
provincial languages (Carniolan, Carinthian, and Styrian; Carniolan literary language covers the so-called
Central dialectal groups – Lower and Upper Carniolan, Rovte, »which opens the hypothesis that the ritual
language was to a certain degree established«.
The Eastern-Slovene territory belonged to Salzburg archdiocese (Styria), Györ diocese (northern
Prekmurje), and Zagreb diocese (southern Prekmurje); in the 18th c. Prekmurje was united in the Szombathely
diocese. Martina Orožen, Molitveni obrazci starejših obdobij v osrednjeslovenskem in vzhodnoslovenskem
knjižnem jeziku. Poglavja iz zgodovine slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana 1996, 70–79.
8
Pre{eren poked fun at Ravnikar’s linguistic error in his epigram: Slovencov jezik potuj~vav{i, si kriv,
da kolne kmet, molitve brav{i, in which he is playing with the incorrectly derived gerunds in -{i.
588
his contemporaries did not embrace his attempt to make the language more archaic
(nor did they later accept Levstik’s similar efforts), his significance was nevertheless
considerable: he contrasted two different syntactic systems, pointed out the original
Slovenian character of the Eastern Slovenian language, and, above all, he showed
that the revival of the forgotten archaic Slovene syntactic patterns is a reasonable
strategy to reverse excessive Germanization and to acquire a more economical means
of expression. This should apply at least to the literary religious and secular texts
and to those typical structures that are heavily present in the closely related Eastern
Slovenian literary language and seem appropriate for the Central literary norm; this
would also decrease the differences between the two literary systems of Slovenian and
later foster uniformity.
Ravnikar’s uncritical adoption and revival of participial-gerundival expression
were improved upon and corrected by Metelko in his grammar of 1825, where he
defined their derivation and classification. Metelko’s basic presentation of forms and,
most of all, the linguistic openness during the time before the March Revolution, were
the main reasons that the forms in -~ and -{i entered the Slovenian literary language
in the 19th c. (Jesen{ek 1998a: 206, 199–214). It was thus necessary to broaden and
deepen the knowledge about their use in the Slovenian literary language and develop
reliable normative rules for the Slovene writers to follow. The standardization was not
a smooth process, as it involved the gradual adaptation and mutual enrichment of the
Central and Eastern Slovenian expressions of simultaneous and antecedent actions.
Although Janeì~ in his Slovene grammar of 1863 defined the syntactic functions of
the participial-gerundival constructions and standardized their use, the writers only
gradually became accustomed to them. The only exceptions were Levstik and, under
his influence, Jur~i~. Levstik, who wanted to Slavicize (Oroèn 1996c) Slovenian
and purge it of German words, quickly embraced gerundival constructions (Oroèn
1996~: 323),9 and in the 1870s the forms in -~ and -{i became very fashionable, as
they were used by the authors participating in the almanac Vaje, Trdina, Tav~ar,
Kersnik, etc., who learned the language style from Janeì~’s grammar. They accepted
participles and gerunds as a typical literary device and a token of higher linguistic
sophistication, which encouraged other, less talented, authors and writers of nonliterary texts to imitate this style of expression. Levstik’s and Janeì~’s normativity
was replaced by the desire to be fashionable at any cost and the forms in -{i, which
had had a positive literary connotation since Metelko and were supposed to show the
author’s linguistic sophistication, became increasingly negative and characteristic of
writers with a bad sense of style. Abandonment and disappearance of these forms
began after 1897, when Cankar’s manifesto (»Na{a lirika«, Slovenski narod 1897)
declared a new literary direction among Slovenes and the end of »romantic realism«
and unsuccessful belated naturalism. New criteria of literary evaluation emerged
and new literary poetics demanded that artistic language be adapted to the »rules of
the ongoing reality« and thus be rid of lifeless participial-gerundival constructions.
9
»In Levstik’s text, the OCS participial system is masterfully carried out. The participles in -e~/-o~,
-e/, -aje, -v/-v{i, and -Ø appear in declinable as well as non-declinable (i.e., gerundival) forms and by their
semantic function correspond to the use in the old manuscripts (e.g., Freising).« (Oroèn 1996~: 323–324).
589
Sket’s grammars (1894, 1900) already gave priority to synchrony in language and
the archaic participial-gerundival forms in -{i quickly disappeared from the literary
language. Only rare forms in -~ in were preserved in similar functions and distribution
as in Japelj’s Central Slovene translation of the New Testament. Slovenian modernists
replaced gerunds in -{i with clauses, and participles in -~ and -{i with passive -n/-t and
active -l-participles, i.e., at the turn of the century they were relegated to the linguistic
periphery (Jesen{ek 1998a: 199–214). Shortly after that Slovene linguists confirmed
that participial-gerundival constructions in -{i were dead. The first to claim this was
Stanislav [krabec ([krabec 1995: 565).10 This was then repeated in 1916 by Breznik
when he wrote in his grammar that Slovenian »was spoiled by too many gerunds« (in
-{i) and he discouraged their use. Topori{i~ 1976 introduced in Slovenian grammar
the terms dele`je (gerunds in -~, -aje, and -e, gerund in -{i) and dele`nik (participles
in -~, -{i).11 The term dele`je denotes the verbal function of the forms in -~ and -{i,
while dele`nik has an adjectival function. In the grammar he quotes examples from
Levstik, Jur~i~, Detela, Gregor~i~, Pre{eren (19th c. authors) saying: »As is the case
with participles and gerunds in general, one derives semi-predicative constructions
from predicative sentences with the gerunds in -{i; the former are often stylistically
simpler than the latter« (Topori{i~ 1976: 339–340). The forms were withdrawn from
common use, but did not entirely disappear.
6 The current situation confirms Martina Oroèn’s findings that the forms in -~
retained the verbal meaning and that they express simultaneity of action with the action
expressed by the finite form (Oroèn 1977: 139). They are mostly used in expository
language, particularly with verba dicendi, cogitative verbs, verbs of perception and
movement as an efficient syntactic condenser and to express the hierarchic value
of actions. They are less common in artistic language (historical topics, comedic
texts), while cliché use is typical in journalism, in rare cases even of forms in -{i.
The expression of antecedent actions with forms in -{i is very limited, i.e., in the
contemporary standard language this temporal relation is expressed periphrastically
or new, different, options are arising.
As in the 19th c., participial-gerundival constructions in -~ in -{i are a narrowly
literary morphological-syntactic category, but much less widespread and clearly
retreating (particularly forms in -{i). The forms were ousted at the beginning of the
20th c. from the Standard Slovenian, but one could not claim that they are dead even
today. Although they are rare in the contemporary standard language, particularly
the participles and gerunds in -~ are well established in expository and journalistic
language, where gerunds, from the functional point of view, are an effective syntactic
condenser and means for the hierachization of actions.
10
Cf., Marko Jesen{ek, Dele`niki in dele`ja na -~ in -{i v [krab~evem jezikoslovju. [krab~eva misel I.
Nova Gorica 1995, 93–102.
11
The term dele`je is first found in Vodnik’s grammar of 1811 as deleshje sdajniga in pretekliga zhasa.
Cf. Marko Jesen{ek, Dele`niki in dele`ja na -~ in -{i. Maribor 1996, 80.
590
REFERENCES
Marija BAJZEK, 2005: Madàrske izposojenke v prevodu Novega zakona [tevana Küzmi~a.
Knji`no in nare~no besedoslovje slovenskega jezika. Zbirka Zora 32. Maribor.
Adam BOHORI~, 1584: Arcticae horulae succisivae. Witenberg.
Emil DVOŘAK, 1970: Vý́voj přechodníkových konstrukcí ve star{í ~e{tině. Praha.
– – 1978: Přechodníkové konstrukce v nové ~e{tině. Praha.
Marko JESEN{EK, 1989: Skladenjski sistem aktivnih dele`nikov sedanjega in preteklega ~asa I v
vzhodnoslovenskem knji`nem jeziku in njihovi skladenjski ustrezniki v osrednejslovenskem
knji`nem jeziku konec 18. stoletja. Ljubljana.
– – 1990: Pomenske funkcije aktivnih dele`nikov sedanjega in preteklega ~asa v prekmurskem
knji`nem jeziku konec 18. stoletja. Tudományos közlemények: 10 éves a szlovén nemzetisési tanárképzés a szombathelyi Berzsenyi Dániel Tanárképző Főiskolán. Znanstvene publikacije, 10 let Katedre za slovenski jezik in knjièvnost na Visoki u~iteljski {oli v Szombathelyu. Pomenske funkcije aktivnih dele`nikov sedanjega in preteklega ~asa v prekmurskem
knji`nem jeziku konec 18. stoletja. Berzsenyi Dániel Tanárképző Főiskola. SzombathelyMaribor, 175–187.
– – 1991: Dele`ni{ko-deleìjski skladi v Küzmi~evem in Japljevem prevodu Nove zaveze. Slavisti~na revija. 215–233.
– – 1992: Raba deleìjskih in dele`ni{kih oblik na -o~/-e~ v vzhodno{tajerskem knji`nem jeziku. âsopis za zgodovino in narodopisje. 60–72.
– – 1994: Dele`ni{ko-deleìjski skladi na -~ in -{i v zvrstnih besedilih slovenskega knji`nega
jezika 19. stoletja. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. 35–51.
– – 1995: Dele`niki in dele`ja na -~ in -{i v [krab~evem jezikoslovju. [krab~eva misel I. Nova
Gorica. 93–102.
– – 1995a: Zur Entwicklung der Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen auf -~ und -{i in der
slowenischen Schriftsprache des 19. Jahrhunderts. Linguistica (Ljubljana). 37–89.
– – 1995/96: Poskus periodizacije razvoja oblik na -~ in -{i v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku 19.
stoletja. Jezik in slovstvo. 179–198.
– – 1998a: Dele`niki in dele`ja na -~ in -{i. Zora 5. Maribor.
– – 1998: Dele`ni{ko-deleìjski skladi na -~ in -{i v slovenskih prevodih evangelijev. Obdobja
17. Ljubljana, 273–286.
– – 2000: Greek, Latin and German syntactic influence on Slovene gospel translation in the 18th
century. Studia Slavica Savariensia. 77–87.
– – 2004: Skladenjsko strnjanje v Mur{~evem Bogo~astju sv. katoli{ke cerkve. âsopis za zgodovino in narodopisje. 633–644
– – 2005: Nastanek in razvoj prekmurskega knji`nega jezika. Slavisti~na revija. 1–12.
Mihael KÜZMI~, 1981: Predgovori [tefana Küzmi~a. Ljubljana.
[tevan KÜZMI~, 1771: Nouvi Zakon. Halle.
Fran MIKLO{I~, 1883: Vergleichende Syntax. Wien. 822.
Majda MER{E, 1995: Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knji`nem jeziku 16. stoletja. Aspect
and aktionsart in the 16th century Slovene literary language. Ljubljana: SAZU.
– – 2001: Glagolski vid v povezavi z na~inom in naklonom v Trubarjevih in Dalmatinovih biblijskih prevodih. Jezikoslovni zapiski. 113–128.
– – 2002: Upo{tevanje glagolskega oblikoslovja 16. stoletja v jezikoslovnih delih 19. in prve
polovice 20. stoletja. Obdobja, 18. Ljubljana. 165–179.
L. NE~ÁSEK, 1957: Staroslověnské dativní vazby participiální a jejich předlohy v řeckém textu
evangelií. Slavia 26. 13–30.
I. NĚMEC, 1957: K Otázce staroslověnských participií praes. act. sloves dokonovaných. Slavia
26, 1957. 1–12.
591
Irena OREL, 2002: Historizem v sinhronih oblikoslovnih opisih 19. in 20. stoletja. Obdobja, 18.
Ljubljana. 201–217.
Martina OROÈN, 1974: O vzhodnoslovenskem knji`nem jeziku. Zbornik [tefana Küzmi~a.
Murska Sobota. 114–122.
– – 1977: Aktivne participske konstrukcije (primer srpskohrvatske interferencije u slovena~kom
knjièvnom jeziku). Nau~ni sastanak salvista u Vukove dane. Beograd. 123–143.
– – 1996: Molitveni obrazci starej{ih obdobij v osrednjeslovenskem in vzhodnoslovenskem
knji`nem jeziku. Poglavja iz zgodovine slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Ljubljana. 70–79.
– – 1996a: Prekmurski knji`ni jezik. Poglavja iz zgodovine slovenskega knji`nega jezika.
– – 1996b: Vpra{anje prekmurskega knji`nega jezika ob osrednjeslovenskem in kajkavskem
hrva{kem. Poglavja iz zgodovine slovenskega knji`nega jezika. Ljubljana. 372–381.
– – 1996c: Levstikovi pogledi na jezik. Oblikovanje enotnega slovenskega knji`nega jezika v 19.
stoletju. Ljubljana. 207–228.
– – 1996~: Arhaizacija jezika v Jur~i~-Levstikovem Tugomerju. Oblikovanje enotnega slovenskega knji`nega jezika v 19. stoletju. Ljubljana. 313–328.
Stanislav [KRABEC, 1995: Jezikoslovna dela 3. Ponatis platnic ~asopisa iz Cvetje z vertov sv.
Fran~i{ka. Nova Gorica.
France TOM{I~, 1955: Poglavje iz slovenske histori~ne sintakse. Slavisti~na revija. 56–67.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1976: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor.
Radoslav VE~ERKA, 1961: Syntax aktivních participií v staroslověn{tině. Praha.
POVZETEK
Dele`ni{ko-deleìjsko izraànje (-~, -{i) je pri{lo v osrednji slovenski jezikovni prostor
z vzhoda Slovenije, kjer je imelo v prekmurskem knji`nem jeziku 18. in prve polovice 19.
stoletja ohranjeno bogato panonsko tradicijo; ta je uzakonjala njihovo rabo, ~eprav v ìvem
govoru oblike niso bile prisotne. Ko sta se osrednje- in vzhodnoslovenska razli~ica knji`nega
jezika v 19. stoletju za~eli priblièvati in sta se kon~no tudi zdruìli v skupen »novoslovenski«
knji`ni jezik, so oblike na -~ in -{i le za kratek ~as postale vseslovenske in knji`ne. S prehodom prekmurske knjièvne ustvarjalnosti v nare~ne okvire se je pretrgala ve~stoletna tradicija
arhai~nosti in izvirnoslovenskosti, v jeziku so se kot norma in predpis za~ele postavljati le tiste
slovenske oblike in re{itve, ki so se uveljavile po 16. stoletju, tj. po normiranju osrednjeslovenskega knji`nega jezika. Oblike na -~ pa so slovenski protestanti v 16. stoletju uporabljali redko,
predvsem kli{ejsko, medtem ko oblik na -{i skoraj niso poznali. Oìvljanje starih oblik na -~ in
{i v osrednjeslovenskem knji`nem jeziku prve polovice 19. stoletja in njihov vdor v oblikoslovno-skladenjski sistem enotnega slovenskega knji`nega jezika druge polovice 19. stoletja sta
posledica soo~anja razlikovalnih skladenjskih sestavov dveh tipov slovenskega knji`nega jezika
in normiranja skupnega slovenskega knji`nega jezika sredi 19. stoletja, in sicer ob razvojnozgodovinskem upo{tevanju rezultatov glasoslovno-oblikoslovno-skladenjskih zakonitosti slovenskega knji`nega jezika, upo{tevajo~ arhai~en starocerkvenoslovanski dele`ni{ko-deleìjski
sestav in posnemovalno skladenjsko podobo vzhodnoslovenskega knji`nega jezika na prelomu
18. in 19. stoletja. Pri Ravnikarju je sicer {lo za sorazmerno nesre~en poskus »aplikacije«,
vendar pa je Metelko v slovnici (1825) popravil vse oblikoslovne in funkcijske nespretnosti
svojega sodobnika, tako da so se {e pred sredino 19. stoletja oblike raz{irile na celotno slovensko ozemlje. Njihova pogostost se je v 19. stoletju spreminjala in je bila v primerjavi z rabo
v sredi{~nem tipu knji`nega jezika od Trubarja do Japlja ter razsvetljenskih in romanti~nih
leposlovnih prizadevanj ves ~as zelo visoka, vendar pa z izjemo Levstika nikoli taka kot v prekmurskem knji`nem jeziku 18. in prve polovice 19. stoletja.
592
Jasna Honzak Jahić, Notional Elements of Marko Pohlin’s Kraynska grammatika (1768) 593
UDC 811.163.6”18”
Jasna Honzak Jahi}
Faculty of Arts, Prague
NOTIONAL ELEMENTS OF MARKO POHLIN’S KRAYNSKA GRAMMATIKA
(1768)
The article discusses the notional elements that were the basis of Marko Pohlin’s grammar,
Kraynska grammatika (1768). These elements were the following: the tradition of Slovenian
standard language, the author’s comparison of the public status of Slovenian with the public status of Czech, which stimulated his culture-forming and consequently nation-forming programs,
the context of two Czech grammars, Czech language textbooks at educational institutions in
Vienna, êchoře~nost by V. J. Rosa (1672) and Grammatica linguae Bohemicae oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst by J. V. Pohl (1756, 1764), the understanding of standard language in the
17th and 18th centuries, and the Enlightenment ideas.
Idejne prvine za Pohlinovo Kraynsko grammatiko (1768) so: slovensko knji`nojezikovno
izro~ilo, avtorjeva primerjava javnega poloàja slovenskega jezika s poloàjem ~e{kega, kar
je spodbudilo njegov kulturotvorni in posledi~no narodotvorni program, kontekst dveh ~e{kih
slovnic, u~benikov ~e{kega jezika v pedago{kih in{titucijah na Dunaju, êchoře~nost V. J. Rose
(1672) in Grammatica linguae Bohemicae oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst J. V. Pohla (1756,
1764), razumevanje jezika v 17. in 18. stoletju ter ideje razsvetljenstva.
Key words: Revival in the Slovenian lands, Marko Pohlin, Kraynska grammatika grammar,
Slovenian standard language tradition, public status of Czech and Slovenian, culture-forming
and nation-forming programs, grammars by V. J. Rosa (1672) and J. V. Pohl (1756, 1764), understanding of standard language, Enlightenment ideas
Klju~ne besede: prerod v slovenskem prostoru, Marko Pohlin, slovnica Kraynska grammatika, slovensko knji`nojezikovno izro~ilo, javni poloàj ~e{kega in slovenskega jezika, kulturotvorni in narodotvorni besedilni program, slovnica V. J. Rose (1672) in J. V. Pohla (1756,
1764), misel o knji`nem jeziku, ideje razsvetljenstva
0 In the second half of the 18th century and the first third of the 19th century, the
Slovenian cultural space was marked by the culture-forming and national awakening
movement of the Revival. During the Revival, the so-called ethnocentric texts, written
in Slovenian during the baroque period and mostly religious in purpose,1 reached programmatically into the secular sphere, where they grew in volume as well as in func1
During the Catholic restoration and baroque periods, Slovenian texts for religious purposes included
Jesuit and Capuchin sermons, spiritual lyric poetry, a new prose genre – translated and original meditative
prose, and a new literary genre – spiritual drama. Among the first technical texts created during this time
are almanacs, e.g., Nova kranjska pratika na lejtu MDCXXVI, 1725, which is admittedly modest in content,
but whose necessity and popularity are demonstrated by its impression – 30,000 copies (Rupel 1956: 313),
the first technical handbooks, such as popular medical books (A. Goli~nik, Arcni{ke bukve, 1759) and educational popular science texts (exercises in arithmetic and spelling) in addition to translations (M. Paglavec,
Tobijeve bukve, 1733, Zvesti tovari{, 1742). Foreign-language works of domestic research by polymath
empiricists @. Popovi~, J. L. Schönleben, J. V. Valvasor, as well as scientific, literary and cultural study texts
by members of baroque scientific and art societies, particularly of the first such society, Academia operosorum (1693–1725), were intended for the educated population. The reformist Catholic action brought to
594
tional diversity, i.e., they materialized in all functional styles. The reasons for this dynamism with regard to the standard language and functional styles are sociolinguistic:
new opportunities for public roles of standard Slovenian were brought about by new
civilizational, social, economic, and cultural circumstances of enlightened absolutism
together with reform and utilitarian activities of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. The final aim of the »changes in practices in language culture in Slovenian lands, attracting
new types of secular literary cultural disciplines, and the regeneration of the standard
language« (Kidri~ 1930: 42) was – to constitute the nation.2 In the Slovenian lands, the
Enlightenment philosophical, physiocratic, and political thought was modified3 in accordance with the social development and the status of the Slovenian language, and was
therefore focused on the national and linguistic awakening. Its point of departure was
the development and cultivation of a fully functional (standard) Slovenian language.
1 In Slovenian culture and literature, the role of a cultivated standard language,
well-developed with regard to functional styles, was first highlighted by Matija ôp
(1797–1835). In his biographic and bibliographic outline of Slovenian literature,
written in 1831 for [afařík’s second, expanded edition of Geschichte der slawischen
Sprache und Literatur nach allen Mundarten (hereafter Geschichte), he introduced
the concept of the »third period« of Slovenian literature. The novelty of this period in
literary history, which chronologically followed the periods of Trubar and Hren, lay,
in ôp’s opinion, in the fact that alongside the most frequent religious texts, technical
and popular science texts were written to a greater extent than in the previous period, and »/…/ even something belletristic for the more educated« (ôp, in: Slodnjak
1986: 61), and in the need to cultivate the standard Slovenian language, which was expressed in a greater concern for literary language, as »essays on grammar are even too
frequent when compared to other literary fruits« (ôp, ibid.). ôp estimated that the
initiator and also the creator of the new in the »third period« was Marko Pohlin. This
the forefront the role of the Slovenian language in liturgy and education, which supported the creation and
reprinting of linguistic works. Numerous dictionaries were compiled, but remained in manuscript, e.g., the
lost Dictionarium latino-carniolicum by M. Kastelec (c. 1680), of which only copies are preserved (e.g.,
copy by Vorenc, 1703–1710), or Hipolit’s trilingual dictionary (1711–1712); Bohori~’s grammar was reprinted (Hipolit Novome{ki, 1715, Carinthian Jesuits in German translation, 1758).
2
Cf. I. Prijatelj (1935: 1) (»/…/ that cultural, especially literary movement whose intention is to establish the Slovenians as a nation /…/«), J. Koruza (1975/76, 1991: 218) (»/…/ the preliminary stage of the
political formation of the Slovenian nation, limited actually to the sphere of culture«), J. Poga~nik (1995:
51) (»/…/ that the Slovenian historical subject was consciously constituted as a project to be attained«),
M. Juvan (2000: 133–134) (»/…/ being engaged in the Slovenian national emancipation, the autonomous
Slovenian culture /acquired/ a new task – it became an argument and representative of Slovenianhood in the
national-cultural relationship to Germanhood«).
3
J. Kos (1979: 33–34) considers a peculiarity of the Slovenian Revival its focus on pragmatic cultural
work (promotion of school and general education, compilation of pedagogical and lay technical texts),
which was also a unifying factor, as it brought together workers of various ideological orientations (e.g.,
Catholics, Jansenists, Josephinians, free thinkers), and a noticeable sociological change. The ideas of the
European higher and middle bourgeois classes reached the Slovenian, mostly provincial peasant and petit
bourgeois classes, as the higher-class, economically developed, intellectually above average or even radical
bourgeoisie was only too rare in the Slovenian lands.
assessment is also suggested by the fact that ôp pointed out two characteristics of
Pohlin’s work: the texts that took into consideration the receptive capacities and needs
of socially and educationally heterogeneous addressees, and the grammar.4 ôp found
Pohlin’s codification work (Kraynska grammatika, 1768) to have pioneer qualities
because it included the request for a cultivated standard language, rather than actually
realized the cultivation of standard Slovenian. In a text for [afařík, ôp referred to
Kopitar’s assessment (1808/09) of Pohlin’s grammar; this indicates implicit support
for the previous assessor’s judgment; which was heeded by P. J. [afařík in the first
edition of his Geschichte (1826, p. 284).5
2 The Slovenian lands provided several incentives to the first revivalist, Marko
Pohlin (1735–1801), for his national revival work. More specifically:
4
ôp’s estimate that the creation of functionally differentiated texts for socially and educationally
different addressees is a process in which a cultivated and functionally differentiated standard language
develops and shapes Slovenian culture has been accepted and defended by the Slovenian literary history
(cf., Ivan Prijatelj 1935 (1920/21), France Kidri~ 1930, 1929–1938, 1935–1955, Joè Koruza 1975/76,
1985, (1991), Joè Poga~nik 1968, 1995). A comparison between the first modern researchers, Kidri~ and
Prijatelj, shows certain differences in interpretation. In preporod ’rebirth’ (expressively reduced to prerod
’revival’ in contemporary usage), France Kidri~ mainly saw new possibilities for standard Slovenian, an
opportunity for its (greater) emancipation in public; he (like ôp) placed Marko Pohlin at the beginnings of
the new tasks of standard Slovenian. The starting point of Kidri~’s thought was the then (1930s) available
data about the public status of Slovenian during the Revival. Modern linguistic and cultural study findings
(J. Höffler 1973, P. Merku 1980, J. Dular 1989) maintain that in the background of the official, state German there was provincial Slovenian in everyday oral usage, and allow the conclusion that even before the
Revival took place in the Slovenian lands, spoken cultural Slovenian must have been more widely spread
in the society. – But for Ivan Prijatelj the Revival movement was first and foremost a national awakening
movement, and the role of revival acts (social, cultural, linguistic, literary) was assessed based on their
nation-forming quality (1935: 32–35). In this light, the final aim of the Revival was the political awakening
after March 1848, the Zedinjena Slovenija program demanding unification into one kingdom by the name
of Slovenia, self-determination in state legal systems, and introduction of Slovenian into schools and offices. The author moved the chronological beginning of the Revival to the 1870s, the time of Austrian state
absolutism, represented by the sovereign Joseph II, Enlightenment social and economic reforms, and the
growing power of German centralism. The conceptual introduction to the Slovenian national renaissance
(Prijatelj 1935: 1) was represented by the poem Zadovoljni Krajnc by Valentin Vodnik from the anthology
of poetry Pisanice od lepeh umetnost and the beginning of Kumerdej’s learned society (1779). Vodnik’s
poem professes the people’s active relation towards their own culture. The main goal of (the second) Academia operosorum was not the need for fundamental normative linguistic texts and preparation of the standard
Slovenian language, but a manifestation of ratio, a belief in the power of reason and in the sovereign’s Enlightenment reforms, with which A. T. Linhart at the time introduced the society of scholars to the Slovenian
lands. In spite of his vast literary production – »/wrote/ more himself than /was written/ in the two centuries
before him« (Prijatelj 1935: 34) – and his revival love of homeland, M. Pohlin was not included in the
beginnings of the Revival; according to Prijatelj, Pisanice represented a Jesuit school baroque classicism
work, bringing the previous literary history period to an end.
5
What J. Kopitar critiqued the most severely when assessing Pohlin’s grammar was his modernisation
of the Slovenian alphabet and his failure to take into consideration the standard language tradition. Kopitar’s negative assessment, a young philologist’s judgement »about a successful rival« (Topori{i~ 1983: 95)
was adopted by literary historians (e.g., F. Kidri~, A. Gspan, with the exception of A. Slodnjak). Pohlin as a
grammarian has been rehabilitated by Slovenian linguists (M. Oroèn, 1970, J. Topori{i~, 1983).
596
2.1 The Slovenian tradition of the standard language, created by the continuous
work of members of the clergy in pre-Pohlin times. These priests disseminated devotional, general educational texts and textbooks, as well as the first prose texts (J.
Svetokri{ki: Sveti priro~nik, 1691–1707; M. Paglavec: Tobijove bukve, 1733, Zvesti
tovari{, 1742, Thomasa Kempezarja bukve, 1745, Sveta vojska, 1747; M. Radeskini:
Spokorjenje ene imenitne gre{nice, 1769), compiled dictionaries (M. Kastelec, G. Vorenc, A. Apostel), and prepared two reprints of Bohori~’s grammar (Hipolit Novome{ki,
1715, Carinthian Jesuits in German translation, 1758).
2.2 The personal (professional) circumstances of belonging to the Augustinian
order initiated Marko Pohlin into a circle which through its compilation of general
educational texts and textbooks excellently put into effect the reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II concerning the school system and the advancement of general and
school education (Poga~nik 1968: 169–233, 1955: 31–33).
2.3 His stays in the monasteries in Maria Brunn (1754–1755) and Vienna (1755–
1763), as well as the contacts there with his brethren, the Czech discalceate friars,
enabled Pohlin to (a) become aware of the public status of Czech in Vienna and compare it to that of Slovenian, and (b) to gain insight into Czech language textbooks, the
grammars êchoře~nost by V. J. Rosa (1672) and Grammatica linguae Bohemicae
oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst by J. V. Pohl (1756, 1764, 1773, 1776, 1783), which
were used for studying Czech on secondary and post-secondary levels at Viennese
institutions.6
2.3.1 Due to phyisiocratic and Enlightenment ideas, the old conceptions of science
and education decreased in value. In reorganizing the studies, the second university
reform by Maria Theresa (1774), which was necessary because the Jesuit order had
been dissolved (1773), was modelled on more developed foreign universities (Göttingen, Jena), strengthening the role of German at what had been a Latin university and
introducing new practical teaching disciplines. The share of science and political science increased and the studies which now lasted for three years instead of the previous
two also included living, contemporary languages, e.g., Czech, Spanish, French, and
Italian. This fact shows that the public status of Czech in Vienna was the highest of all
Slavic languages. Beside German, it was the only language taught at the University of
Vienna (1775; first teacher was Josef Valentin Zlobický),7 as well as at several other
educational institutions (1746, elite Viennese gymnasium Theresianum, 1754, military
academy for aristocrats, Jan Václav Pohl; 1752, Theresian military academy in Wiener
Neustadt, Antonín Prokop Klobás; 1784, technical academy, Josef Werschauser).
6
Other language and linguistic reference books, dictionaries, and Czech textbooks were used for teaching Czech at secondary and post-secondary institutions in Vienna along with the two that have been
pointed out. They were written by the then Czech teachers in Vienna, J. V. Zlobický, V. M. Wiedermann, M.
V. [imek, A. J. B. Spurný. Cf. S. M. Newerka (2004: 42–60).
7
Cf. Jasna Honzak Jahić, Dele` dunajskih êhov pri razvoju bohemistike in slavistike: Josef Valentin
Zlobický (1743–1810) (to appear).
The status of Czech in secondary and post-secondary education in Vienna was
the result of the loyal relation of the state and was an integral part of the Austrian
state policy.8 The Austro-Hungarian Empire was facing a military threat in the 1740s;
Prussia became its greatest external enemy, especially after losing Silesia, and the
monarchy was in pressing need of allies. The Czechs became its most important ally,
as most wars for land and legacy were fought on Czech ground. In this way knowledge
of the Czech language became a necessity in administration, judiciary, and the army
in Czech provinces.
2.3.2 That the comparison of the public status of the two Slavic languages in the
Austro-Hungarian Empire influenced the orientation of Pohlin’s work and his program
is clearly shown in the content range of his early literary production. In his topical cultural, linguistic, and literary program he took into consideration receptively, socially,
culturally, and linguistically heterogeneous addressees as he started out with twofold
texts. In accordance with the Enlightenment belief in the power of reason and education, Pohlin’s general educational texts and textbooks written in Slovenian (Abecedika,
1765, Bukovce za rajtengo,1781, Bukve za brati…slovenskim òvnirjem, 1788, Kmetam za potrebo inu pomo~, 1789, Kratko~asne uganke, 1799) taught educational and
professional skills (and even cultured entertainment) to ordinary, uneducated addressees, educating them to be useful citizens. The texts for the educated, which were to
introduce them into the Slovenian cultural circles and thus strengthen the cultural elite,
at the time limited to a narrow circle of intellectuals, mostly priests, were in Slovenian
and foreign languages. The Slovenian texts ranged in functional styles from literary
(almanac of poetry Pisanice od lepeh umetnost, 1779–1781), technical (dictionaries,
Tu malu besedi{e treh jezikov, 1781, Glossarium slavicum, 1792), publicistic (manuscript translation of the Pentateuch), to conversational (manuscript translation of Geller’s letters); they showed the structural characteristics (capabilities) of Slovenian and
its high culture. Foreign languages also played a role in Pohlin’s texts, i.e., as a metalanguage. His bibliography of Slovenian (Carniolan) literary history Bibliotheka Carnioliae (1799, published in 1803), written in Latin, surveyed the cultural achievements
of the Slovenian lands; in his grammar, Kraynska grammatika /…/ oder die Kunst die
crainerische Sprache regelrichtig zu reden und zu schreiben, 1763, 1783, the metalanguage was German9 in order to teach standard Slovenian to young intellectuals versed in
German. This conception of Pohlin’s work must have been helpful in the reevaluation of
the public status of the standard Slovenian language, preparing it for its social emancipation. One could say that it loosened the social hierachical Slovenian-German bilingualism, which could not be abolished until the social circumstances changed.
8
Soon after Joseph II’s ascent to power the newly introduced language studies at the Viennese Faculty
of Arts were abolished for the lack of funding. The only exception among languages were Czech studies,
which were preserved because they »were needed and in many respects indispensable« (Studienhofkomision, 1791) (Reichel 2004: 32).
9
The fact that Pohlin’s grammar was written in German was not accepted as fully self-evident. In the
same year the grammar was published, the language teacher Matija ôp proposed Slovenian as a possible
metalanguage for Slovenian grammar in his review of Kraynska grammatika (Kidri~ 1938: 167).
598
2.3.2.1 Pohlin’s grammar of 1768, chronologically his second work, already included a literary program. It contained Pohlin’s plans for several texts belonging to
different functional styles, and their purpose was explicitly set as well. Beside setting the norms and codifying the standard Slovenian language in a grammar book,
the technical, linguistic ones were also to record the Slovenian vocabulary, which is
why the author later became engaged in lexicology and wrote two dictionaries (1781,
1792). The high culture of the living, contemporary standard Slovenian was to be
demonstrated by a new translation of the Bible. Pohlin partly realized his plans and
translated the Pentateuch, which nevertheless remained in manuscript; it was only J.
Japelj and his collaborators who produced an integral new translation. The polyfunctionality of Pohlin’s literary program was explicitely realized in his grammar through
Slovenian technical terminology, the theoretical chapter Spevore~nost with the added
examples from poetry (translations of Ovid and Virgil contributed by M. Pohlin and
F. A. Dev), and through textual examples, i.e. short dialogues on everyday life topics,
intended by the author for German and Italian speakers learning Slovenian.
2.3.2.2 Pohlin’s text selection is akin to the works by the poet, grammarian, and
lexicographer from the Czech baroque period Václav Jan Rosa (1630/1631–1689): the
latter first wrote the allegorical poem Discursus Lipirona, 1651, followed by his grammar êchoře~nost, 1672, to which he added a chapter on poetics and metrics with
literary (poetic) texts; he also compiled the trilingual dictionary Thesaurus linguae
bohemica (which remained in manuscript).
Rosa’s textual examples were important for Pohlin since they (a) realized a full
cultural textual program with respect to reception and functional variety, and prepared
it for its role in mobilizing the Slovenian cultural space, and (b) developed and cultivated the standard language. Pohlin conceived the texts in J. V. Pohl’s grammar Die
böhmische Sprachkunst, everyday life dialogues in German and Czech, as an interesting didactic supplement; befitting the Slovenian space, Pohlin’s grammar comprised
trilingual conversational texts (Slovenian, German, Italian).
2.3.2.2.1 The principal motive for the tasks that both authors undertook – Rosa
during the baroque period and Pohlin during the Revival – was based on a common
idea, i.e., the belief in the value of one’s own language and on the desire to fortify its
value. The established humanistic attitude that »every language is honorable and honest« (@. Herberstein, 1549, 1952), »every language shall meet God« (Bohori~, 1584,
1715), which under the current circumstances meant that one’s own language was
equal to the classical, i.e. biblical languages, was defended and strengthened by two
kinds of arguments, i.e., general, Slavic ones and particular, language-specific ones.
The general argument put emphasis on these languages being members of a powerful Slavic community, where the two authors used a tried and tested strategy known
from standard language tradition. In both the Czech and Slovenian cases it is evident
that a language defence defined by relatedness, the geographic extent, and famous
history of the language within the framework of a wider, more powerful and valuable
Slavic space was already established. In the Czech lands its holders were the so-called
vlastenci of humanism (lawyer Viktorin Kornel; grammarian and translator of the Bible, Jan Blahoslav; lexicographer Daniel Adam from Veleslavin; grammarian Matou{
Bene{ovský), and in the Slovenian lands the Protestant Adam Bohori~ (Arcticae horulae succisivae, 1584) and polymath empiricist @iga Popovi~ (Untersuchungen von
Meere, 1750).
It is no coincidence that in defending their own languages V. Rosa and M. Pohlin
affiliated themselves with tradition. V. Rosa was a representative of the second, i.e.,
Balbin’s generation during the Czech baroque period, an intellectual clergical circle
and (less numerous) lay intellectuals with a clear awareness of their own language.
In the same year that Rosa’s grammar was published (1672) his friend, the historian
Bohuslav Balbin (1621–1688), wrote Dissertatio apologetica pro lingua Slavonica,
praecipue Bohemica (Defence of Slavic Language, particularly Czech), which was
disseminated in manuscript form within the private circle of the author’s friends and
the like-minded (and was only published a good century later in 1775, editor F. M.
Pelcl). M. Pohlin was able to support his opinion that language was the expression of
a specific ethnic community (Let us not be ashamed of our language!) with arguments
from the first and second (Hipolit’s) editions of Bohori~’s grammar, possibly also
from the published essay by @. Popovi~ (1750), which included a Bohori~-like apology of Slovenian,10 but also from Rosa’s êchoře~nost, which he was given insight to
in Vienna among the Czech discalceate friars.
2.3.2.2.2 As a special characteristic, particuliarity of the language, Rosa pointed
out its structural properties: (a) the capability of inflection, made possible in Czech by
patterns of forming and changing word forms, described together with noun declinations, tense formation and comparison of adjectives, (b) a wealth of word-formation
means, affix morphemes proven by verbal compounds, i.e. by word-forming prefixes
added in an orderly way to verb bases thus changing the meaning of the base verbs,
and by the capability of Czech to form modification derivatives, i.e., diminutives, (c) a
developed phonologically expressive word image, functioning as a good didactic aid
to mastering other languages.
Pohlin pointed out (a) that Slovenian was recognizable to its speakers as it was a
language with its own fixed structure – a well-founded language,11 (b) that the current
language practice was in need of transformation, since the uneducated, uncultivated
users spoke any way they wished,12 and that the task of his grammar was therefore
to prove that the language was characterized and, what is more, distinguished by its
regularity,13 (c) the argument of utility. In the communication between socially non-
10
That Pohlin was familiar with the work of @. Popovi~ is testified by Pohlin’s lexicographic work. A.
Breznik (1927: 91–99) ascertained that in his etymological dictionary Glossarium slavicum, 1792, Pohlin
used all the data from Popovi~’s manuscript dictionary Specimen vocabularii vindocarniolici from his
legacy and from his essay Untersuchungen von Meere.
11
Cf. M. Pohlin, Predgovor v Kraynsko grammatiko (2003: 202).
12
600
homogeneous speakers, mastering Slovenian was useful for higher social classes: that
way it was easier to make the peasant listen to the Church and the state.14 Concluding
his thoughts about the usefulness of knowing Slovenian with his position that language
was a natural right of the majority class despite its being socially subordinate, Pohlin
supplemented the Enlightenment utilitarian motive with a humanistic element.15 Rosa
too wrote about the usefulness of knowing Czech, but within a didactic framework:
the wide repertoire of phonemes in Czech represented a good starting point for learning foreign languages.
The evident differences between the highlighted peculiarities of Czech and Slovenian in the two authors can be traced to the different intentions they envisaged for their
grammars. In his grammar, written in Latin, V. Rosa pointed out the particular structural properties of Czech, because he used them to defend and corroborate the value
of Czech in relation to other languages (although nowhere explicitly to a specific language). But since he intended his grammar for foreigners as a foreign language textbook,16 he had to point out those characteristics of Czech which were to prove it equal
to the languages which enjoyed a better social status in the Czech lands during the
Counter-Reformation.17 M. Pohlin on the other hand pointed out those properties of
Slovenian which were to support the author’s intention – to write a grammar of Slovenian which would codify and set the norms for a better and more regular language.
Pohlin’s decision to disregard the tradition and thus choose for his grammatical
description the contemporary colloquial language of the Carniolan center Ljubljana
was dictated by several reasons. It was certainly a decision made by an enlightened
person: the language spoken in the center of the province was primarily chosen because it was the one with the highest social value, because it was prestigious (»/V/illagers were educated in the language of the city intellectuals. After all, that was the
very idea of Enlightenment«) (Slodnjak, quoted in J. Topori{i~ 1983: 97), but it should
13
Cf. M. Pohlin, Predgovor v Kraynsko grammatiko (2003: 204). – For Pohlin, the basic ordering
criterion for setting the norms of the standard language was language regularity, which was not a new
criterion, but part of the cultural tradition (going back to antiquity, humanism). The position that language
was ordered on the basis of rules and that rules were to be given priority over exceptions and particularities,
which were but vestiges from older periods of development, meant that the fundamental method was to find
the linking rules and thus the systematic order in language description. In his description Pohlin made use
of one of the basic criteria of language regularity – the analogy, e.g., when choosing his sample words for
noun declinations, when classifying verb conjugations into thematic, -am, -em, -im, and athematic, when
classifying adverbs according to the typical question word…).
14
15
Cf. Trubar’s view of the Slovenian language in his prefaces, e.g., in the Slovenian preface to
Katekizem (1550).
16
Cf. V. J. Rosa, introduction to êchoře~nost, in: O. Koupil (1996: 121–122).
17
After the White Mountain events, changes in extralinguistic factors (with regard to the 15th and 16th
centuries) affected the social status of Czech, because the social range of its speakers was narrowed and its
functional differentiation was limited. Hence the Czech language was limited in usage in the sense that (a)
Czech was not the general language of conversation, because its usage was limited with respect to social
classes, (b) during that period the languages of science were primarily Latin, German, and French, and (c)
in administration German was used alongside Czech. Cf. B. Havránek (1936), A. Stich (1991, 1995), Z.
Starý (1995).
Jasna Honzak Jahić, Notional Elements of Marko Pohlin’s Kraynska grammatika (1768)
601
by no means be disregarded that Pohlin was a native speaker of the Carniolan city
centre, Ljubljana, which must have been helpful in his grammatical description. The
second reason for Pohlin’s decision was the current European linguistic thought. It
was characterized by a tension created through striving for the polyfunctionality of
language and realizing at the same time that the standard language was not perfect.
The imperfection of the standard language was supposedly reflected in the differences
between the standard language (tradition of written texts) and the contemporary spoken language. The authors were well aware of these differences, and mostly acted, by
and large, on the basis of two linguistic principles, the tolerant (preserving) and the
active (changing) one. J. L. Schönleben’s (1618–1681) view Let us write according
to the people’s habit, let us speak according to the local habit was adopted by the
most visible and productive authors in the Slovenian cultural space (M. Kastelec, J.
Svetokri{ki), and Hipolit Novome{ki’s reprint of Bohori~’s grammar (1715) confirmed
the aspirations to preserve the Protestant standard language tradition. Contrary to this
was the view (held, for example, by G. W. Leibnitz, J. Ch. Gottsched) that the linguist
should be actively involved in the theory and practice of the standard language; contemporary language research was the method based on which it was possible to overcome the differences between the standard language tradition and the contemporary
stage of language development, and thus attain a cultivated contemporary language.
The view indicated here can be seen in Pohlin’s relation to the standard Slovenian
language. The differences between the contemporary spoken and traditional written
forms of the language – created by modern vowel reduction, consequent consonantal
changes and the transition of l to bilabial u – would be smaller if the colloquial natural
contemporary language of educated citizens of the provincial center of Carniola were
accepted as the norm. – Pohlin’s disregard of the standard language tradition includes
his interventions in the material (spoken and written) word forms (e.g., introducing s
because of the replacement of f, notation of accents, introducing ę), which were partially retained and heeded.18
Pohlin’s Czech contemporary J. V. Pohl also decided in his grammar Grammatica
linguae Bohemicae oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst (1756, 1764, 1773, 1776, 1783),
which was intended for teaching Czech as a foreign language at the Vienna military
academy and at the Viennese court, to disregard the standard language tradition. In the
introduction to his grammar (p. 2), he argued for his decision by taking the view that
the contemporary language was superior to the language of earlier periods because
it was natural, and made his claim concrete by including in his language description
some phonological and morphological elements of contemporary spoken Czech, e.g.
diphthong -ej and narrowed -ý in adjective declination, substitution of diphthong ou for
initial short u, -(a)ma, -(a)mi endings in the plural instrumental of masculine nouns,
examples of colloquial forms of the comparative and imperative. The author’s explicit
opposition to tradition was exceptional for Czech grammarian work as a different
procedure was customary: in their descriptions, authors did not explicitly disavow the
18
More details on Pohlin’s description of the Slovenian language in his grammar in: Jasna Honzak
Jahi} (2003: 331–350).
602
humanistic standard language tradition, but at the same time they also acknowledged
the elements of contemporary spoken Czech.19
Pohl’s interventions in the Czech alphabet and orthographic rules also meant
disregarding the tradition. The author’s efforts can be characterized as adjusting the
Czech orthography and orthoepy to the foreign language addressee. Pohl’s method of
simplification (e.g., not distinguishing vowel length in i, í, substituting for the etymological long ů, discarding diacritics for shibilants preceding i, disregarding i, y distribution rules) actually decreased the differences between the source language, which
was also the metalanguage of the grammar, i.e., German, and the target language, i.e.,
Czech.20
2.3.3 Pohlin’s grammar was a novelty among Slovenian grammar texts also because its author was the first to systematically compile Slovenian linguistic terminology. A comparison of the arguments used by Pohlin to defend and advocate his right
to new terms with Rosa’s arguments shows that they are in agreement; Pohlin only
partly paraphrased and shortened the original text. Rosa’s (and Pohlin’s) arguments
are (a) sociolinguistic – the formation of new terms is dictated by the need for such
terms, which is why this possibility is present in all languages and is not a privilege of
classical languages; and (b) linguistic, especially with regard to the right and professional duty of a competent individual – linguist. The process of terminology formation
is governed by its own laws, which are derived from the ordering linguistic method,
i.e., the analogy, and (standard) language word-formation tradition – which is explicit
in the case of forming derivatives from indigenous word bases.
If both authors’ terminology formation is examined against the circumstances in
which they worked, certain differences can be seen in their motives. Rosa worked in
Counter-Reformation and baroque periods when standard Czech was lexically very
open. Part of the extention of standard lexicon due to the needs for new terms because
of general development and changes in extralinguistic reality was through borrowing
words, namely technical language from Latin (education), military and commercial
terms from Romance languages, general lexical items and technical terms for various
crafts from German, especially its spoken variety (Havránek 1943: 1075). For this
reason Rosa’s motive for creating technical terms could be his (puristic) response to
the intensive endorsement of loanwords in contemporary Czech. This conclusion is
supported by the fact that Rosa was so acutely aware of his own language that he used
Czech as the administrative language in his legal practice and as the language of his
professional and private correspondence. (Petrá~ková 1987: 140–141).
During the Revival, when M. Pohlin was active, he was motivated to form new
terms by the current new Enlightenment and physiocratic principles, which brought
about a new understanding of economy, science, and technical fields, the reformation
of university studies, the creation of new schools, specialities and professions, the
publication of pedagogical, technical and general educational tests, and consequent19
20
Cf. Czech grammars, e.g., J. Konstanc (1667), V. M. [teyer (1668), J. V. Rosa (1672).
More details in: Jasna Honzak Jahić (2003: 335–336).
ly the creation of new technical terms and terminological collections. The lexicon
included in Pohlin’s grammar provides a fair reflection of the time of its creation.
The expression of conceptual world of rationalism and physiocratism are general and
technical terms, e.g., names for nationalities, numerous professions, various kinds of
money, pragmatic world of objects, abstract and concrete qualities, and actions.21
Monika Kavalir.
REFERENCES
BREZNIK, A, 1926: Slovenski slovarji. Razprave. Ljubljana: Znanstveno dru{tvo za humanisti~ne
vede. 143–165.
BRŤĂŇ, R., 1939: Barokový slavizmus, Praha.
HAVRĀNEK, B., 1936: Spisovný jazyk ~eský a slovenský. Praha: êskoslovenská vlastivěda.
– – 1943: Heslo Terminologie. Ottův slovník nau~ný nové dobý. Dodatky. Dílo {esté, svazek
druhy. 1074–1078.
HONZAK JAHI}, J., 2002: Marko Pohlin in Václav Rosa, Slavisti~na revija 50/1, Ljubljana: Slavisti~no dru{tvo Slovenije, 9–28.
– – 2003: Pohlinov in Metelkov opis slovenskega knji`nega jezika v lu~i ~asa njunega zastanka.
Slavisti~na revija. Letnik 51. Posebna {tevilka. Zbornik referatov za trinajsti mednarodni
slavisti~ni kongres. Ljubljana, 15.–21. avgusta 2003. Ljubljana: Slavisti~no dru{tvo Slovenije, 331–350.
JUVAN, M., 2000: Vezi besedila. Ljubljana: Literarno-umetni{ko dru{tvo Literatura.
KORUZA, J., 1991: Slovstvene {tudije. Ljubljana: Znanstveni institut Filozofske fakultete.
KIDRI~, F:, 1929–1938: Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva od za~etkov do mar~ne revolucije.
Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
– – 1930: Razvojna linija slovenskega preporoda v prvih razdobjih. RDHV V–VI. 42–48.
KOS, J., 1979: Tipolo{ke zna~ilnosti slovenskega razsvetljenstva v evropskem kontekstu. Obdobja 1. Ljubljana: Znanstveni institut. 27–36.
KOUPIL, O:, 1996: Václav Jan Rosa: Předmluva k êchoře~nosti. Listy filologické CXIX/1–4.
101–161.
OROÈN, M:, 1970/71: Pohlinovo jezikoslovno delo. Jezik in slovstvo 16. 250–254.
PETRA~KOVĀ, V:, 1987: Příspěvek k ìvotopisu V. J. Rosy. AUC Philologica 2–3. Slavica Pragensia XXIX. 131–141.
POGA~NIK, J:, 1995: Slovensko slovstvo v obdobju razsvetljenstva. Ljubljana: Znanstveni institut
Filozofske fakultete.
POHL, J. V:, 1756: Grammatica linguae Bohemicae oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst.
POHLIN, M., 2003 (1768): Kraynska Gramatika, das ist Die Crainerische Gramatik.
PRA`ÈK, A, 1946: Národ se branil. Obrany národa a jazyka ~eského. Praha: Sfinx.
PRIJATELJ, I:, 1935: Du{evni profili slovenskih preporoditeljev. Ljubljana: Merkur.
ROSA, W. J., 1991 (1672): Czech grammar (êchoře~nost). Praque: Porta.
RUPEL, M., 1956: Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. Ljubljana: SM.
SLODNJAK, A:, 1968: Slovensko slovstvo. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
STARY, Z., 1995: Ve jménu funkce a intervence. Praha: Univerzita Karlova.
21
Cf. J. Honzak Jahić (2003: 339–340).
604
STICH, A:, 1987, 1991: On the beginning of modern standard Czech. Explicite Beschreibung Der
Sprache und automatische Textbearbeitung. Praha: Matematicko-Fyzikální fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. 121–128. Na{e ře~ 7. 57–62.
STICH, A:, 1995: êská spisovnost a nespisovnost – kořeny a přítomnost. Spisovná ~e{tina a
jazyková kultura. Sborník z olomoucké konference. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. 49–56.
TOPORI{I~, J:, 1984: Pohlinova slovnica. Slavisti~na revija 32/3. 427–479.
TRUBAR, P:, 1550: Katechismus.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, A:, 1998: Slovnice slovenskega jezika. Enciklopedija Slovenije 12. 79–81.
POVZETEK
Slovenski kulturni prostor je v drugi polovici 18. stoletja in prvi tretini 19. stoletja zaznamovalo kulturooblikovalno in narodnoprebujevalno gibanje prerod (preporod). Slovenska
besedila, v baroku namembno ve~inoma verska, so v ~asu preroda programsko posegla na
posvetno podro~je, se tam mnoìla in uresni~evala v vseh funkcijskih zvrsteh. Razlogi te
knji`nojezikovne in funkcijskozvrstne dinamike so bili sociolingvisti~ni; sproìle so jih nove
civilizacijske, dru`bene, kulturne in gospodarske okoli{~ine razsvetljenega absolutizma in terezijansko-joèfinskega reformnega in utilitarnega delovanja. Na Slovenskem je bila razsvetljenska misel v skladu z dru`benim rozvojem in s poloàjem slovenskega jezika osredoto~ena na
narodno in jezikovno prebujo z izhodi{~em v polnofunkcijskem razvijanju in kultiviranju slovenskega (knji`nega) jezika. @e Matija ôp (1831) je zato izpostavil Marka Pohlina (1735–
1801) in njegovo Kraynsko grammatiko, 1768; za ôpa je bila Pohlinova slovnica pobudna
zaradi izraène zahteve po kultiviranem knji`nem jeziku, zaradi Kopitarjeve kritike (1808/09)
pa vse do strokovne rehabilitacije (v sedemdesetih, predvsem v osemdesetih letih 20. stoletja)
ni bila sprejeta kot kodifikacijsko delo, ki bi knji`no sloven{~ino dejansko kultiviralo.
Za Pohlinovo narodnoprerodno delo so bili pobudni: slovensko knji`nojezikovno izro~ilo,
pripadnost k redu diskalceatov, ki so odli~no uresni~evali terezijanske in joèfinske reforme na
podro~ju {olstva in napredka {olske in splo{ne izobrazbe, ter stiki s sobrati, ~e{kimi diskalceati,
ki so Pohlinu omogo~ili (a) spoznati javni poloàj ~e{~ine na Dunaju in ga primerjati s slovenskim, in (b) dobiti v razvid u~benika ~e{kega jezika, slovnici, êchoře~nost V. J. Rose (1672)
in Grammatica linguae Bohemicae oder Die böhmische Sprachkunst J. V. Pohla (1756, 1764,
1773, 1776, 1783), ki sta se uporabljala pri visoko- in srednje{olskem {tudiju ~e{kega jezika na
dunajskih in{titucijah.
Kronolo{ko drugo Pohlinovo besedilo Kraynska grammatika /…/ oder die Kunst die crainerische Sprache regelrichtig zu reden und zu schreiben, 1763, 1783, je vsebovalo knji`ni program (slovnica sodobnega slovenskega deèlnega jezika, na~rtovanje evidentiranja slovenskega
besedi{~a in novega prevoda svetega pisma) ter je bilo hkrati polnofunkcijsko besedilo (strokovno, umetnostno, prakti~nosporazumevalno). Pohlinov program je soroden delom jezikoslovca
in pesnika iz ~e{kega baroka Václavu Janu Rosi (1630/1631–1689. Rosovi besedilni zgledi
so Pohlinu aktualni, ker (a) so uresni~evali recepcijsko in funkcijskozvrstno polnej{i kulturni
besedilni program in ga pripravljali na njegovo mobilizatorsko nalogo v slovenskem kulturnem
prostoru, (b) so razvijali in kultivirali knji`ni jezik. Osnovno gibalo nalog, ki sta si jih zadala
oba ustvarjalca, Rosa v baroku in Pohlin v prerodu, je imel skupno idejno podlago – verovanje v veljavnost lastnega jezika in hkrati njeno utrditev. V humanizmu uveljavljeno stali{~e
Vsak jezik je ~asten in po{ten (@. Herberstein, 1549, 1952) so branili in utrjevali argumenti
dveh vrst, splo{ni, slovanski, in posebni, lastni posameznemu jeziku. Splo{ni argument, ~lanstvo jezikov v jezikovno sorodni, {tevil~no mo~ni, zemljepisno raz{irjeni in slavni slovanski
skupnosti, je bil preizku{ena strategija, znana iz slovenskega in ~e{kega knji`nojezikovnega
izro~ila. Razli~ne posebne lastnosti ~e{~ine in sloven{~ine so rezultat razli~nih namenov, ki sta
ju imela pisca s svojima slovni~nima besediloma. V. Rosa je v svoji latinsko pisani slovnici,
namenjeni tujcem kot u~benik tujega jezika, izpostavljal posebne strukturne lastnosti ~e{~ine
(sposobnost pregibanja s oblikospreminjevalnimi in – tvornimi vzorci; bogastvo besedotvornih
sredstev, zlasti pred- in priponskih obrazil; razvita glasovna izrazna podoba jezika), ker je z
njimi branil in potrjeval veljavnost ~e{~ine v razmerju do drugih jezikov (~eprav nikjer eksplicitno proti kateremu) in z njimi dokazoval, da je ~e{~ina enakovredna jezikom, ki so imeli
v ~e{kem prostoru v protireformacijskem ~asu ugodnej{i dru`beni poloàj. M. Pohlin pa je
zaradi namere, napisati slovnico, ki bo zaradi slabe jezikovne prakse normirala in kodificirala
bolj{i jezik, izpostavil temeljne lastnosti svojega jezika (lastno, za nosilce slovenskega jezika
prepoznavno strukturo; pravilnost jezika), dodal ~asu aktualni argument utilitarnosti (koristnost
obvladanja sloven{~ine pri sporazumevanju socialno nehomogenih govorcev) ter humanisti~no
prvino (jezik kot naravna pravica ve~inskega, sicer dru`beno podrejenega sloja ljudi). Da je
Pohlin izbral za svoj slovni~ni opis so~asni ìvi jezik kranjskega sredi{~a Ljubljane, je vplivala
razsvetljenska misel o vplivanjski vlogi jezika z najve~jo dru`beno veljavo, in aktualna misel
o knji`nem jeziku (prou~evanje in urejanje sodobnega jezika kot mo`nost premo{~anja razlik
med knji`nojezikovnim izro~ilom in njegovim sodobnim razvojnim stanjem).
Pohlin je svojo novotvorbo (prvi tvorec slovenskega slovni~nega izrazja!) zagovarjal z argumenti obrambe in pravice do novotvorbe, prekrivnimi z Rosovimi (1. sociolingvisti~ni – novotvorbo narekuje poimenovalna potreba, zato je dana vsem jezikom, in 2. jezikoslovni sploh
– pravica in delovna dol`nost kompetentnega posameznika – jezikoslovca). Posebne okoli{~ine,
v katerih sta avtorja delovala, so pokazale tudi razlike v motivih. Pri Rosi, pri katerem je bila
zavest o lastnem jeziku izpri~ano zelo ìva, je bila lastna novotvorba lahko tudi odziv na veliko leksikalno odprtost knji`ne ~e{~ine v njegovem ~asu. V prerodnem ~asu pa so Pohlinovo novotvorbo motivirala tudi na~ela razsvetljenstva in fiziokratizma, kar je lepo razvidno v
splo{nopoimenovalni in strokovni leksiki, zajeti v Pohlinovi slovnici.
606
Textology and Journalistic Writing
Tomo Korošec, On Elements of Text Linguistics in Slovenian Linguistics
607
II TEXTOLOGY
II AND JOURNALISTIC WRITING
608
UDC 811.163.6’42
Tomo Koro{ec
609
ON ELEMENTS OF TEXT LINGUISTICS IN SLOVENIAN LINGUISTICS
The article surveys a selection of linguistic works by Slovenian authors which have from
the mid-1970s, and especially from the beginning of the 1980s, to the present employed a textlinguistic approach to texts written in the Slovenian language. In concise excerpts it presents
the more interesting works that are, compared with foreign text linguistic research, informative
enough to give an apt overview of Slovenian text linguistics.
Prispevek prina{a izbor jezikoslovnih del slovenskih avtorjev, ki iz sredine sedemdesetih,
zlasti pa iz za~etka osemdesetih let 20. stoletja do sodobnosti izpri~ujejo besediloslovni pristop
k pojavom v besedilih slovenskega jezika. S skr~enimi izvle~ki so prikazane bolj zanimive in
glede na tuje besediloslovje toliko informativne obravnave, da dajejo primeren pregled ~ez
slovensko besediloslovje.
Key words: textology, hipersyntax, connectors, cohesion-coherence level, headline block,
various text-formational relations, common communication circle
Klju~ne besede: besediloslovje, hipersintaksa, vezalniki (konektorji), kohezijsko-koheren~na ravnina, naslovje, razli~na besedilotvorna razmerja, skupni sporo~anjski krog
Neither at home nor abroad has Slovenian linguistics participated in the preliminary discussions on theoretical issues of text linguistics, the theory of texts, which
were at first on the level of a program for the development of a new linguistic field
(textology, text grammar, hypersyntax, macrostylistics, and the like). Those debates
ran from the end of the 1960s and throughout the 1970s, and were centered on issues
such as whether it is justified to go beyond the border of the clause to a higher level,
i.e. the text,1 then about the relation between stylistics (in a large proportion rhetoric
as well) and pragmatics as the theory of speech act, as well as whether text is, according to the old Saussurian dichotomy, the product of the language system (langue)
or it belongs as a communication unit to the use of this system, i.e. to the language
performance (parole). Today it is a well-established fact that text linguistics is a highly interdisciplinary field,2 especially because grammar and stylistics are intertwined,
with text considered a result of a discourse act and as an element of communication
(the theory of communication, pragmatics, and stylistics), strongly influenced by the
communicative situation (the so-called context). It was also duly noted that there is a
need for a more flexible view of the language system, since the rules of composition
valid for a considerable number of texts are at the same time the rules of grammar, and
as such enter the grammars of national languages.
1
In Isenberg (1974) this is reflected in the terms Satzbezogene and Textbezogene Grammatik.
Although the treatise by Anton Breznik on word order in Slovenian from the beginning of the 20th
century is in fact the first step to functional sentence perspective (which effects text structure and is one of
the elements of the language system) the author – as expected – remains within the framework of sentence
as the highest syntactic unit.
2
610
1 The first linguistic article that uses the Slovenian term besediloslovje3 instead
of the widely spread loanword tekstologija (’textology’, which had been used with a
different meaning in Slovenian), was published in the beginning of the 1980s. With
some delay it presented mainly the data from the abovementioned discussions and
reservations concerning the novelties.4 The author’s pro-text-linguistic standpoint was
at that time reasonably vague and »pragmatic«:
Whichever direction those two approaches take in the future – one considers text a unit
which can be described and explained by the same means that are applied at the level of
a sentence, while the other makes a distinction between the sentence and the text levels
– (the model of the propositional and the communication approaches to text as supposedly
equally valid alternatives (Isenberg) is a probable development), at this stage, when the two
approaches are on the level of programs and not yet fully developed theories, the most convenient stance is to follow Sgall, who suggests that text linguistics should merge suprasentential syntax with the theory of linguistic communication, i.e. with linguistic pragmatics
(Koro{ec 1981: 175, Trans. M. Hladnik).
In the same article – in accordance with the topical discussions on text structuring elements of the language system – a question is raised as to the text properties of
individual national languages:
The aim is of course not to find in a given national language a typical, characteristic text, the structure of which would be derived from the features of that language
only, but rather to find out which elements of a national language are relevant for the
text linguistics, in other words, whether there exist any text rules on the level of individual languages, or text linguistics is subject to universal linguistic rules (175–176,
Trans. M. Hladnik).
As an example of a text structuring rule which is at the same time a universal linguistic rule, one of the so-called types of thematic gradients, i.e. the »development of
a complex rheme« type, where the two-part rheme is either obscured or revealed, from
Dane{ (1968) is presented in the article. On the basis of material from a Slovenian
technical text, the pattern Dane{ uses is developed further so that the technique of
organizing a text in, for example, a textbook follows the movement from an obscured
to a revealed, and from a revealed to an expanded rheme. This is how the content of
a rheme is realized (for example, by the information about the topic in question). It is
not so important that the pattern can be expanded with other ways of providing content (for example an obscured rheme can be expanded or unexpressed), because the
point is to illustrate the initial investigation into the text linguistic inventory, which
includes functional sentence perspective as well, together with the almost unmanageable interdisciplinary network of professional fields of research, as it will be men3
The very first use of the word was in the name of a course dealing with this topic at the Department
of Slovenian at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana in 1977 and 1978. Reflecting the current discussions on text
linguistics in Europe, the course dealt with questions about the development of the general text theory, the
so-called »parole linguistics«, with Dressler (1972) being one of the primary items on the course reading
list. The lectures were held by T. Koro{ec.
4
For example Sgall (1937).
611
tioned later on. Today we agree that functional sentence perspective belonging to the
sphere of communication (we always communicate about something and always say
something about it) is also an element of the language system, which is – at least in
European languages – involved in text structuring, certainly governs the word order in
Slavic languages and affects sentence phonetics (stress patterns and intonation), and
enables the formulation of patterns important for coherent writing of shorter texts or
individual paragraphs as far as non-literary texts are concerned, which can then be
learned as guidelines in the domain of practical stylistics5. We can claim with negligible risk of being wrong that there is no element among the language system elements
of functional sentence perspective that would be a text structuring element per sé of
the Slovene language.
One of the features that belong to the level of text and are at the same time subject
to the rules of Slovene (as part of the descriptive grammar of the language) is undoubtedly the extensive – and far from thoroughly identified – array of coreferential
elements, especially the so-called conjuncts (connectors), which have an anaphoric
and cataphoric function. Such is the anaphoric conjunct {e kako (’and how’, often appearing together with the anaphoric particle pa: pa {e kako) when it clears some doubt
expressed in the preceding (linearly left) sentence, or it gives an affirmative answer
to a question in the preceding sentence. If the phrase is not in this – anaphoric – function, but only a set phrase meaning ’very’, such use is considered a token of deficient
language awareness. The same text structuring function is performed by the morphological particle le (-le and le-), also mentioned in the same article; -le: e.g. tale, tistile,
onile, tule, tamle, takole; le-: (almost exclusively with the demonstrative pronoun ta,
and always hyphenated in writing) le-ta.6
2 The use of the pronoun ta (’this’) is indeed interesting. As the definite article (ta
nova obleka, ’the new suit’ – only in colloquial Slovenian) it is not considered a demonstrative pronoun, because it is anomalous, with a zero gender and case morpheme
(it is »extra-textual«). Attention was drawn to the demonstrative’s text structuring
properties along the lines of textual definiteness by Vidovi~ Muha (1996: 118 ff.) in a
paper on text linguistics: »The pronoun that appears in the text is the anaphoric ta /…/
in the function of an unambiguous textual coreferent; the extra-textual importance of
the (relative) spatial distance from the speaker /…/ is replaced within the text by an
unambiguous textual coreference (118, Trans. M. Hladnik).«
As a nominalized demonstrative pronoun, though, ta has a distinct coreferential
function only when it refers to an antecedent which is not a person. This function of
the pronoun ta, a complex issue also from the viewpoint of standard Slovenian, was
researched by Zadravec-Pe{ec (2000), who also formulated suggestions for the stan-
5
Included in secondary school textbooks Slovenski jezik 3 (’The Slovenian Language 3’) and Slovenski
jezik 4 (cf. below).
6
In connection with this example we should mention the rule that le-ta is appropriate in a text only in
the case when it refers to an immediately preceding antecedent, while as an adjectival premodifier it is an
indication of poor literacy.
612
dardization of its use. The text structuring function of the relative pronoun ki7 was defined on the basis of examples from scientific texts by Gorjanc (1998). He recognized
two functions of the connector ki:
/…/ it can introduce a relative clause, restricting the referential field of the antecedent /…/;
in this case it is bound to its content. In the other case it introduces a clause which is only
formally subordinate, and can be from the point of view of text structure superordinate in
meaning; a textual element, therefore, that can carry the text forward (emphasis by T.
K.), e.g. Krivulja je simetri~na na abscisno os, ki jo se~e v eni ali treh to~kah (348, Trans.
M. Hladnik).
3 In the mid-1980s elements of text linguistics were extensively discussed in two
secondary school textbooks of the Slovenian language (Dular and Koro{ec (1985),
and Koro{ec and Dular (1985)8), although there had been as of yet no fundamental
study in Slovenian text linguistic literature. The author (Koro{ec) used foreign research to describe those features of Slovenian for classroom use, in particular Agricola, Dressler, (the then not yet translated) de Beaugrande and Dressler, Dane{, Harweg,
Isenberg, Lang, Sgall, Schmidt, and Werlich.9 In Slovenski jezik 3 elements of text linguistics are contained in the chapter titled »Nadpovedna skladnja« (»Suprasentential
Syntax«), where the differences between textual and non-textual characteristics10 are
briefly presented (to the extent proposed in the curriculum by the board of education).
The elements of suprasentential syntax presented are anaphoric and cataphoric references, and reiterations with the subcategories of repetitions, synonyms, antonyms,
hypernyms, and hypernyms with exclusive reference, while functional sentence perspective is represented with three types of text patterning (adapted from Dane{), i.e.
linear thematic progression, progression with derived themes, and progression with
theme iteration (in Slovenski jezik 4 a fourth patterning is added, viz. contextual ellipsis). In Slovenski jezik 4 appears a separate chapter with the title »Besediloslovje«
(»Text Linguistics«) with the first subchapter on pragmatic elements of text. Here
the significance of pragmatics11 in relation to lexicology and syntax is demonstrated,
and some basic examples of message interpretation based on the context of situation
explained together with its text structuring function. The second subchapter »Povezovanje povedi v besedilu« (»Connecting the Sentences Within a Text«) deals with
the most common cohesive ties. It starts off with the already familiar pronominalization (from Slovenski jezik 2), and continues with demonstrating the antecedent – ana7
Dippong (1999/2000: 272f) believes that ki can also be a subordinate conjunction, which is not entirely convincing if we consider the properties of this word class (conjunctions are indeclinable!), but is more
acceptable if we take into account its connector, i.e. strictly referential, role.
8
Reprinted four times, most recently in 1998.
9
The list of sources can be found in Korošec (1968: 59).
10
The definition of text herein is the following: A text is an ordered sequence of sentences that comprise a meaningful and formal unit of communication.
11
A work on the topic was first written a year before (Kunst-Gnamu{ 1984), later a handbook on
pragmatics by Zadravec-Pe{ec from the same academic circles appeared in 1994. The fundamental work
Understanding Pragmatics was only translated into Slovenian in 2000 (Verschueren).
12
First named naveznik in Slovenian, later revised to navezovalnik.
613
phora12 – cataphora relations. It goes into more detail with regard to reference by
demonstrative pronouns and pronominal adverbs, relativization (expanded from Slovenski jezik 2, and not limited only to condensation of text, but seen as a method in accordance with the principles of sentential dynamics). The notions of theme indicator
and identifying anaphora from Slovenian linguistics are presented, and in the field of
the so-called repetition avoidance (which is a stylistic device in literary texts, but undesired in scientific texts and downright wrong in legal ones) the following referential
expressions are demonstrated, adopted from Harweg: pronominalization, hypernyms,
stylistic synonyms, stylistic contextual hypernyms, and paraphrases (e.g., dog: it, animal, mutt, beast, man’s four-legged friend). Temporal and causal relations as elements
of coherence are represented inadequately with regards to their importance, while
condensation and its most frequent indicators are explained, however.13
The subchapter »^lenitev besedila« (»Text Structure«) stays within the domain of
the traditional horizontal division of text, known from approaches (Slovenian as well)
to guidelines in rhetoric and poetics, and is included in the so-called text structuring
steps (the level of orientation: towards an objective, towards the situation, and towards
the solution; the level of planning: choice of topic, mode, and composition planning;
the level of structuring: according to the mode and according to the sociolect and
functional style). The division is demonstrated on a – in our textbooks yet undiscussed
– functional example, viz. a telephone conversation (between two engineers, one of
them the other’s superior, who have to come to an agreement about the works on a
construction site). The following units are singled out: opening, signals for establishing communication and identification of the speakers; topic introduction, goal-oriented opinion, introduction to giving a suggestion: orientation; goal: suggestion of an
agreement, advocating the suggested solution, additional justification; (demand for
the explanation of the suggestion), explanation of the suggestion; (demand for further
explanation of the suggestion); agreement on steps to be taken to achieve the goal;
confirming the agreement; conclusion: signals for ending the conversation.
The papers that share the stylistic and text linguistic approaches to (technical) text
structure include two works from the second half of the eighties (which do not take
into consideration earlier research in the field). Pogorelec (1986) deals with reference
by repetition in technical texts, while in another paper the same author (1986a) discusses recurrent reference by synonyms and metaphors in non-technical texts.
13
The listed elements were found too demanding by the reviewer, who was negatively inclined: »/…/
quite some terms that are as such too difficult to master, not only for the students, but for the teacher as
well« (Topori{i~ 1993: 14, Trans. M. Hladnik). The terms were of course not included in the reviewer’s
Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika (Encyclopedia of the Slovenian language), published in 1992. The reason:
»The main items from the text linguistic vocabulary are indeed outlined in Slovenian linguistics as well.
Still, there is a lot of work lying ahead before everything is adequately sampled, then uniformly established
in linguistic and other works, and finally also appropriately represented by a definition in a terminology
handbook, in compliance with the standards newly set by Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika« (ibid. 14,
Trans. M. Hladnik). Let us add that in the encyclopedia the following items are »appropriately represented
by a definition«: ka{ljanje (’coughing’), sopihanje (’panting’), hlipanje (’sobbing’), and the like.
614
4 A step towards a more detailed discussion of the most distinct property of text,
viz. cohesion and coherence, was made in Koro{ec (1986: 49-59). The word soveznost
in the title of the paper is a (not entirely effective) attempt at merging the terms ’sovisnost’ (cohesion) and ’veznost’ (coherence) in this approach where there is no methodological distinction between the surface and deep levels of language representation14.
Pronominalization, i.e. pronominal reference, is – also in other languages – known to
cause problems due to the nature of pronouns themselves. In the so-called cohesive
ties (i.e. the simple antecedent – anaphora relation: brother ← he), where the reference
is supported either by the semantic property of the verb or coupled with a morphemic
reference (which is a sentence structure element), the meaning is still unambiguous,
while in cohesive strings (which include two agents or actants: the neighbour and the
brother ← he; the neighbour gave it to the brother ← he) not even the propositional
information ensures unambiguity (if the original patterning of propositional elements
is not known, as is shown on the example of a specific genre, viz. curriculum vitae).
Disturbances in communication due to these problems with reference are of various
degrees. In the textbook example15 from English (tense analysis) only the co-text,
from which we learn that Mr. Smith’s neighbor had come on the train in the last moment and had not been able to buy a newspaper, can help us, or perhaps also the wellknown reserved politeness of the English gentleman can put us in the right direction
when interpreting the exchange of the propositional roles of the agent and the actant.
In Slovenian newspaper reporting, ambiguous cohesive strings are common, and
for that reason a relatively extensive extract from the paper we are referring to (further
discussed and revised in Koro{ec 1998: 218 ff. and 2004: 27–29) is presented here to
illustrate the need for creating a series of rules for cohesion (in the form of a handbook, for example). A passage from a newspaper report about court proceedings in the
case of alleged people smuggling (Delo 2 August 2004: 8) is analyzed in the paper:
Slednji [i.e. the accused Mavrin; (T. K.)] je baje tujce vodil pe{ ~ez mejo in jih
skrival v okolici Ptuja, Ver{i~, Zelenik in Prelog so menda od tam vozili v Ljubljano,
Zidari~ pa pazil na policijske patrulje in jih usmerjal.
The text contains three asyndetically linked sentences, where (a) and (c) consist
of two clauses in copulative coordination, and (b) and (c) are linked by the cohesive
particle pa:
Slednji je baje tujce vodil pe{ ~ez mejo in jih skrival v okolici Ptuja,
Ver{i~, Zelenik in Prelog so menda od tam vozili v Ljubljano,
Zidari~ pa pazil na policijske patrulje in jih usmerjal.
If we indicate the cohesion markers in sentences (a), (b), and (c) (and leave out the
arguable and completely unnecessary reference particles baje and menda), we get:
14
Based on Hoffman (1983: 51), who believes that the distinction between cohesion and coherence is
only pertinent when we make a methodological difference between the two. Therefore she uses the term
»syntactic-semantic level of text«.
15
»Mr. Smith soon noticed that his neighbour, without turning his head, was reading his paper with him.
/.../ But he did not want to show that he had noticed he was reading; he was afraid of offending him.«
615
(a) Slednji1 je tujce2 vodil1 pe{ ~ez mejo in jih2 skrival1 v okolici Ptuja,
(b) Ver{i~, Zelenik in Prelog3 (3+3+3) so od tam vozili3 v Ljubljano,
(c) Zidari~4 pa pazil4 na policijske patrulje5 in jih5 (or 3 or 2?) usmerjal4.
The two-clause compound sentence (a) is formed by the coordination of two simple sentences (pattern: subject – predicate (+ predicative) – object – adverbial), but
the second clause in the coordination – despite still having a simple sentence pattern
– is no longer independent (e.g. Slednji1 je tujce2 skrival1 v okolici Ptuja.), but forms
a cohesive string with the morphemic anaphora skrival1 (the antecedent here is the
agent slednji) and the pronominalized actant jih2. This is actually the most common
stylistically unmarked coordination of all.
Sentence (b) is a simple sentence with a plural agent (let us render it as tihotapci3
(’smugglers’) for the sake of our analysis) and the agreeing predicate vozili3. The
sentence, though, is poorly formed both grammatically and textually. Grammatically
because the verb voziti (its second meaning listed in SSKJ – Dictionary of Standard
Slovenian) requires an object (here: tujce2 or jih2) and gives without its complement the
impression at least of jargon use, and textually because the asyndetically coordinated
sentence (b) is better incorporated textually if we at least repeat the pronominalized
actant tujce2 from sentence (a), i.e. jih2. Therefore sentence (b) should read: Ver{i~,
Zelenik in Prelog3 so jih2 od tam vozili3 v Ljubljano. Thus sentences (a) and (b) would
be textually, that is coreferentially, cohesive, because the pronominal anaphora jih2
still is properly referring to the only possible (considering the form and the meaning)
antecedent tujce2, for the cohesive string is not interrupted by any other antecedent.
Precisely such an interruption occurred in the second clause of the compound
sentence (c), where the cohesive tie patrulje5 ← jih5 ascribes a role to the smuggler
Zidari~ which he surely did not have in the situation, i.e. to guide police patrols. The
mistake is called a false cohesive tie. The rule for forming a cohesive string that prevents such mistakes is:
If the linear development of a cohesive string (with an expressed antecedent) is
interrupted by a sentence with an agent / bearer of the same grammatical properties as
the antecedent of the developing string, then the string must continue after the interruption with the repetition of the antecedent.
Let us apply the rule to our example: The introductory cohesive string in sentence
(a) is completed with the tie tujce ← jih, but it could – as it has been shown above –
continue for the sake of greater cohesion between (a) and (b) uninterruptedly into (b),
and come to a close at the end of unit (b), as the word tujci does not appear anymore
as the antecedent. Every further appearance of the pronominal anaphora jih can, as it
were, enter only the existing cohesive string on condition that no further antecedent
with the same grammatical properties appears in its linear development.16 This condition is not fulfilled, because the plural agent Ver{i~-Zelenik-Prelog follows, and serves
as an actant and an antecedent for sentence (c) when referred to by the pronominal
16
At this point we could (to avoid any confusion) add the following to the rule application: In the text
this can be either an agent or an actant. A textbook example: The father ploughs the field. The son helps
him. The agent the father is the antecedent, referred to by the pronominal anaphora him in the next sentence,
where the new agent is the son, and him is an actant.
616
anaphora jih, which creates a false cohesive tie patrulje5 ← jih5. This happens because
before jih stands an actant bearing the same grammatical properties (patrulje), and
thus a new cohesive string opens. The development of the string with the antecedent
Ver{i~-Zelenik-Prelog is clear only when we repeat the antecedent (e.g. by the synonym tihotapci): Zidari~4 pa pazil4 na policijske patrulje5 in tihotapce3 usmerjal4.
5 Towards the end of the 1960s, stylistics as a linguistic field was on the decline
in the world, and it seemed as if the approach to text and its units based on judging
the selection with respect to the realization of the communication intention was losing energy. In Slovenia, with a short delay but nevertheless intensely and in many
works, it focused on the study of functional styles, and within the journalistic style
especially on (newspaper) reporting. It quickly became apparent that the description
and interpretation of such texts considering only the inherent stylistic values of words
and phrasemes (as defined by lexicography) as system elements is rather inadequate.
The analysis of stylistic values of words with a whole spectrum of markedness, from
archaisms to nonce words and new words (even with comprehensive lists of neologisms) gave only an insight into – no doubt surprising – communication intentions
of the authors, but not into elements characteristic of a functional style, in this case
journalistic. Therefore the extensive study in this field (Koro{ec 1976) was necessarily
text linguistic oriented: it is dealing with text structuring relations between titles and
texts, particularly – which is typical of newspaper reporting – the relations between
the units of »the smallest texts«, viz. headline blocks, and the typology of headlines
based on those relations. For the first time textual elements that point from the text to
the non-verbal parts of the message, e.g. photographs, are analyzed, together with the
typology based on the position and type of those elements, as well as the openings
of newspaper reports (as »textemes«) and their typology. Text linguistic approach to
these types of texts developed further later on, and in the book on newspaper report
stylistics (Koro{ec 1998) it occupies the better half of the volume (pp. 161–328). Although we did not get a comprehensive and systematic text linguistic study of reportorial texts with this work that rather offers some partial insights, they are relevant for
the development of Slovenian text linguistics to such an extent that we present them in
this paper – meant as a brief overview only – in a form as concise as possible.
[1] Headline as Text
The headline relates not only to the text, but at the same time also to other titles
of the same text in different ways, and thus forms a specific reporting unit: a headline
block. A headline block, particularly the one consisting of bound units, is a written
(and thus graphically emphasized) text construction, which is – also developmentally
– adapted to a specific type of reading the newspaper, where the most important facts
of the reportorial text appear in a graphically emphasized position. Headline blocks
have textual properties, their textual organization is manifested in the following:
They are constructions which developed to serve a specific communication intention in written reporting.
617
It follows from this that every individual unit of the headline block demonstrates
a function, and as these functions support one another, a unity of the headline block
is created.
Units of the headline block are autonomous (the outer, non-verbal manifestation
of this autonomy is their graphic design), but there exists a hierarchy of relations
between the upper headline, the big headline, and the lower headline based on the
number of headline functions each unit can perform: big headline – lower headline
– upper headline, with the big headline having the largest autonomy.
The positioning of each unit is automated, i.e. conventionalized in the author – addressee relation, at the same time the choice of stylistic features is also limited by the
rules for each individual unit (e.g. topical elements are limited to the big title, the upper title must be stylistically unmarked, etc.).
Among the otherwise autonomous units of the headline block various text-formational relations can occur, but not each and every one of them. Those that limit or take
away the autonomy of a unit are inappropriate, although they create a clear and stable
new unit out of two units. If any of the units limits the autonomy of the big headline,
the whole of the headline block is weak.
If at least one of the units is in a textual relation to another unit, such headline
block is said to consist of bound units, otherwise it consists of free units.
Headline texts consisting of bound units have, according to the seven criteria of
textuality17 (de Beaugrande, Dressler, Derganc, and Mikli~ 1992), the value of text.18
Periphrase is rare in headline texts, but it distinctly structures them. First a name or
a designation must appear, and then in the following (not necessarily immediate) unit
the anaphora is a periphrase referring to the name antecedent.
Cohesion is achieved also when one element simply points to another, structuring
the headline block. The adverb takó (’thus’) is not interchangeable with the pronoun
to (’this’), as the adverbial function is to indicate manner. In principle this distinction
should be maintained, still, the substitution cannot cause any big disturbance. If the
demonstrative to refers to the big headline as a whole (a statement or quote), the tie
between the headline and the lower headline is clear. Should that not be the case, the
pronoun to could be coreferent with an element in the headline. The element, as a rule,
must be a feminine or a neuter noun in the accusative (pogodbo ← to; zasedanje ←
to), else the headline block is weak, and the uncertainty can be cleared only in the synopsis. From the point of view of the typology of lower headlines this is insufficient,
because the lower headline layout, i.e. the »frame« below the big headline reserved
17
These criteria are: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and
intertextuality.
18
The typology of headline texts is extensive. In order not to burden this overview with examples (the
interested reader can find them in the book) let us give here only a basic example of cohesion by repetition
of lexemes: Headline: Le ena Kitajska Lower Headline: ZDA priznale, da »obstoji samo ena Kitajska in
da je Formoza njen sestavni del« – Kissinger je od{el v Tokio. Synopsis: Tokio, 14. nov. (Reuter, Tanjug).
Zdruène dràve Amerike so v skupnem ameri{ko-kitajskem sporo~ilu o kon~anem {tiridnevnem obisku
ameri{kega zunanjega ministra Henryja Kissingerja v Pekingu priznale, da »obstoji samo ena Kitajska in
da je Formoza njen sestavni del«.
618
for it, must be observed, and filled by either a single unit (a verbal or a non-verbal
sentence) or several such units: two, tree, or even four (there are no typologically relevant examples in real-life reportorial texts of more than four-unit lower headlines).
The first level of the lower headline analysis tells us whether there is only one lower
headline unit, or more. In the first case we speak of single lower headline, otherwise
of lower headline clusters. The criterion for further division of single lower headlines
is the already mentioned headline block relation criterion. If the lower headline is in a
textual relation with any other unit of the headline block, it is called bound, otherwise
free. The criterion is of course also applied to lower headline clusters where one of
the lower headlines is bound, forming a lower headline cluster with a derived lower
headline. For example:
Headline: Nezadr`no {irjenje pu{~av
Lower Headline: V Nairobiju se je kon~ala mednarodna konferenca organizacije
za okolje OZN – Srhljivi podatki o vsakoletnem kr~enju obdelovalne zemlje na svetu
As we can see, the initial lower headline (in this example) provides the information about the end of a conference (the meeting, a period of activity in general), while
the second lower headline is its derivation (a conclusion/finding/outcome). The meaning relation between the two lower headlines could be expressed as follows:
At the conference ⇒ there emerged → shocking results of cultivated land reduction.
[2] Vague Headlines
The relation between headline and the text, a typical text linguistic matter (unfortunately limited to the examples from the daily newspaper Delo only), is discussed in
more detail in the chapter on vague headlines. These are headlines that fail in its function because of the misuse of linguistic means available, i.e. the deviation resulting
from breaking the rules of the headline – text relation. There are two types of obscured
headlines: empty headlines and hyperbolic headlines (the latter often include elements
of sensationalism). An extensive corpus of examples is of course presented.
[3] Common Communication Circle
We introduce the name common communication circle (CCC) for those instances
when the three communication parameters (speaker, message, and addressee) are oriented to the same context of situation. This is done in order to fully encompass the
activity of communication, and avoid the largely inadequate labels used in the field of
reportorial language. The CCC is not synonymous with the public; in some contexts
of situation it corresponds only partly to the audience and the grammatical labels
the participant, the speaker, the addressed. The CCC includes also the perception of
space in geographical sense, as well as nationality and statehood, although the CCC
is excluded from the area of influence and understanding of reportorial language as it
manifests in the specific reportorial style in journalism, resulting in stylistic effects,
disturbances in communication, as well as abuse. The CCC is therefore understood as
a concept of experience, which in the course of reporting establishes from the coorientation of the three parameters the here and the now of the communication situation.
619
Textually and as far as the understanding of the CCC is concerned, personal pronouns
and verb forms play an important part: first and second person plural forms (the latter
being rarer) have an exophoric function and, in contrast with third person forms, which
form cohesive ties and strings, i.e. antecedent ← anaphora(s) relations, in the text, refer
(or better: point to) elements of extra-textual reality; because the referent is not named,
it can vary even within the same text, despite being signaled by the same forms of
markers. Referential identity is thus established on the basis of CCC markers.
[4] Time and Temporal Structure (The Time Expression today)
The time of constructing the text, i.e. its dominant internal time, has in the same
way as the time of reception its own point of reference in the physical time. A date is
usually given in the so-called time-space entry of the text, which puts the text into a
relation with the objective time, and thus gives meaning to all adverbs and adjectives,
and other temporal relations as well. It seems that this makes it harder to recognize
the time expressed by tense, because the textual »today« is at the time of reception
objectively »yesterday«. Nevertheless the addressee (reader) can make those temporal
transformations on the basis of understanding the nature of the written medium, as
they belong to the ability to process reportorial texts. Therefore the addressee does not
expect from the reporter to make the transformation and use the tense structure in the
text that would match the time of reception. This would violate a convention as traditional as other linguistic, for example, orthographic, elements. The dominant time in a
reportorial text is thus the time expressed by the temporal adverbs referring to the (objective) public calendar time. The dominant time of the text is transferred unchanged
to the point of reception, where it meets the dominant experience of real time. From
this collision arises the need for transformations. The use of the time expression today
in written reports (written, because in radio reports the time of reception is always the
dominant time) shows two main transformational relations:
(a) Today in the reporting text refers to the dominant time of text construction,
and it coincides with the time of the reported event. In radio reporting, which features
real-time coverage, such relation is usual and frequent, in written reports the overlap is
experienced in evening editions of newspapers. The dominant tense is present.
(b) Today is expressed in the headline and coincides with the time of reception. It
overlaps with the time of an event which was forecasted beforehand (usually a day before, that is »yesterday«) – when the dominant time of text construction was different
– to take place »today«. This overlap effectively refers to the reported reality when an
event is stated to happen »today«, which is used in the big title accordingly.
[5] Temporal Structure and Reporting Text Construction
The focus of the news report is the part of the text that is a reportorial reaction to
an event – herein lies the crucial difference compared to literary texts – an element of
reality, and so the focus is not subject to the author’s imagination. In the focus there
are signals of the dominant internal textual time, i.e. the time of text construction (and
the time of the event as well in this case), which shows that the adverb today refers to
the period of time expressed in the time-space entry.
620
Between the focus and the other, usually longer part of the news text, the news
background, there appears a noticeable gap. It is called a textual turning point, which
is in fact a signal of time change. The text following this turning point is as to its content an explanation of causal relations, or an argumentation of the focus, and it refers
to the events before the event from the focus took place (we only learn after the turning point and with the help of background information, that the focus is a displaced
unit of text, moved to the beginning). At the place of the textual turning point stand
turning point signals. These are fixed phrases of the type as we have reported before,
or different anaphoras such as repetitions of the words from the focus, and establish
cohesion and coherence. In a continued piece of news, covering a longer time period,
the part of the text included in the news background has been in fact already expressed
in another, or several other pieces of news, which can be referred to by the textual
turning point signal as we have reported before.
[6] The Openings of Texts
The beginning as an element of existence is a time-space category, and if limited
to communication with signs (not only linguistic), the beginning of visual communication would be the point of appearance of something material in space, in written
linguistic communication of something material in the space designated for writing.
The appearance of a visual linguistic sign, contrary to artistic and design elements,
is limited (at least in the Western culture) to a certain point in the part of the visual
field meant for written communication, viz. the »upper«, »left« corner, following the
»empty« space, which used to be emphasized by an ornamented initial letter. In auditory communication the beginning is defined by the appearance of audible sound
waves, often, but not always, after the end of the absence of sound waves – after the
end of »silence«.
The beginning is defined as the first textual sentence (consisting of one, two, or
more clauses); it is a »texteme«, i.e. the smallest part of the text, standing at the beginning, which can be a text in itself. We call it the opening of the text. This shows that
the introduction and the opening are not one and the same thing, but every introduction has, of course, its opening. Because the introduction usually is a longer segment
in the linear division of the text, we cannot easily come across a text where the opening would be at the same time the introduction. The types of openings (recognized in
the short texts of editorial-like columns under the title of Tema dneva (’The Topic of
the Day’) from Delo) are the following: news, statement, thesis, quotation, question,
and figurative opening.
News opening
News openings establish the time-space coordinates of the text in two ways. They
show the orientation towards an event, using the pattern of news. Thus we face a newslike beginning of a non-news text. »Tema dneva« usually deals with topical issues,
the closest points around its own »now« point, which is not true for all openings of
these texts (if in a news opening the adverb now appears, it always – at least vaguely
– refers to those points in reality and never to the internal textual time). News opening
621
connects the text most directly of all opening types to an event, and give the addressee
the information about the content.
Statement opening
This is the most frequent opening of »Tema dneva«. On the syntactic level it is
also the most diverse one, including a subtype closely connected to news opening, but
beginning with a statement nonetheless. It is an opinion about a topical issue, which
provides the information about the content for the addressee.
Thesis opening
The word thesis is not used in quite the usual meaning here. It is not – at least not
always – a real thesis, an affirming or negating statement to be confirmed or rejected
with scientific methods. Sentences of these openings are similar to theses, as well as
to propositions in logic that can be either true or false. It is not difficult to distinguish
this type of opening from the others.
Quotation opening
It differs from other types only in the fact that the author begins his text with a
foreign text and the information that he is not the author of the quoted text.
Question opening
The use of interrogative sentences is a common means in rhetoric and teaching,
aiming at creating a sort of suspension and triggering interest with the (immediately
present) addressees. In journalism the same effect is achieved already by simply using
a question mark in cases when it stands after non-interrogative sentences, especially
nominal ones.
Figurative opening
This is the most demanding type of beginnings observed in the texts we have
analyzed, but not necessarily the most effective one. When deciding on that type of
opening we need a good judgment on choosing the right figure of speech that is in
accordance with the topic. A sound plan is needed as far as composition and methods
are concerned, lest the text should become pompous and space consuming, or lose the
crucial characteristics of the reportorial genre. Any trope is possible, with metaphor
being the most frequent. It is apparent that this type is more the issue of stylistics than
text linguistics in its narrower sense.
[7] The Textuality of Questions in Interview Initiations
We introduce the term initiation, which by its meaning indicates empathy, orientation towards another person. A dialogical sequence is thus a basic unit of dialogue and
one of the basic patterns of linguistic activity. Dialogical sequences needs also to be
considered a basic unit of newspaper (including all the supplementary pragmatic and
extra-linguistic means), as well as radio and television interview.
To analyze a dialogue, we need to build from the fact that it requires two persons
who exchange a message, usually a linguistic one. From one person (the speaker) a
622
linguistic sign originates and is transferred to the other (the addressee, the addressed,
the listener). Monologues are no exception; in this case an individual represents both
persons needed for the linguistic performance (a monologue is a dialogue between an
inner »me« and an inner »you«). We are interested in text linguistic issues of a dialogue, i.e. conversation between (usually) two persons, two real psychophysical entities, and not in the complicated ways of a monologue (a conversation with oneself).
In a dialogical situation a text emerges, the authors of which are persons A and
B. Person A realizes his or her communication intention by addressing his or her linguistic message to person B; this message serves as a stimulus for person B to reply.
As soon as A’s stimulus (initiation turn I) and B’s reply to it (response turn R) are
expressed, the complementary initiation and response form one dialogical sequence
as a unit of text. In every initiation and response both anaphoricity and cataphoricity
can be either communicational (or weak) or sign-bearing (or strong), we could also
call the two types implicit and explicit. A dialogical text has a high degree of cohesion and coherence when both types complement each other. An interesting type of
a dialogical sequence emerges when B’s answer is an interrogative sentence, asking
for repetition or clarification of A’s question. Linguistically, we arrive at the so-called
directional neutralization, the dialogical sequence is neutralized. It depends on the
continuation of the dialogue whether it will develop as unidirectional or bidirectional,
as A can either repeat his or her interrogative sentence or otherwise clarify the supposedly unclear question and thus begin a new sequence, or decides (consciously or not)
to pass on the role of maintaining the unidirectional dialogue to B by answering B’s
question. The neutralized sequence in this case changes to a direction-changing one,
starting a bidirectional dialogue.
The types and subtypes of initiations are the following:
1) interrogative initiation (subtype: interrogative initiation with insistence); 2)
interrogative-indicative initiation; 3) initiatory assertion; 4) two-part initiation (consisting of an introduction and a derived initiation, which is most frequently an interrogative or an imperative sentence. The introduction paves the way for the question,
introduces a topic, or suggests an answer. A subtype is a presentation introduction.);
5) one-part initiation; 6) imperative initiation; 7) interruption (the extreme case of
it is unsuccessful interruption, when the interlocutor wants to express disagreement
with the answer, but the other speaker ignores that); 8) initiatory adoption (with the
subtype interrogative adoption), 9) initiatory repetition (subtype: revised initiatory
repetition), 10) initiatory ellipsis.
[8] Inserts
What is here considered an insert – a typical way of reportorial text structuring – is
broader in meaning than the traditional parenthesis. The latter is marked in Slovenian
orthographic tradition by a pair of dashes, while the use of commas or brackets is
rarer and less appropriate. In reportorial text this feature appears more often than in
other text types. A view according to which all expressions between two dashes are
discussed in the common context of text construction is presented, with the relatively
unproblematic parenthesis being just one of such units. In this view all that appears
623
between two dashes is an insert, which may fall either into the group of highlights or
additions, with traditional parenthesis being a type of addition.
Real additions are the product of specific circumstances of newspaper text construction, and are typical of the reportorial style. They occur when the author has
already
– decided on the proposition for a given content,
– chosen propositional structure,
– set the syntactic pattern,
– based on all that, started to verbalize the content,
but then in the course of writing (by association or otherwise) at some point he
recalls new, in his opinion important, information, which complements the previous
text, but cannot be syntactically included in the present syntactic pattern (anymore).19
In order not to abandon the pattern and start all over, the author uses a syntactically
non-obligatory signal (a typical obligatory signal in Slovenian orthography is a comma!), develops his or her thought (on a parallel level of text), marks it off with the
same signal, and continues the interrupted, but not abandoned syntactic pattern. This
procedure becomes a pattern that also applies to reportorial circumstances different
from the described one.
[9] The Relation between Textual and Graphic Elements
Despite the undisputed fact that text structuring elements are parts of individual
sentences, and that they operate beyond its borders, we can only identify and understand them if we take a broader viewpoint, i.e. the viewpoint of text.
The role of special textual means in the relation between a picture and a textual
message is performed by special textual units with the function of linking a textual
message more or less closely to a graphic message. We could largely include them
in the list of pragmatic means, which organize relations between parts of texts as to
clarity, authorial comments on the content, its evaluation, etc. These special units,
characteristic of captions (in printed journalism mostly photograph captions), are adverbs, various prepositional phrases (usually prepositional-adverbial phrases), as well
as adjectival phrases (with demonstrative pronouns). In reportorial texts we found
them only in such environment, otherwise they are similar to stage directions in drama
texts. They are called free, accompanying¸ and demonstrative binders.
Free binders
These are: (left), (right), (in the photo), (in the photo above), (from left to right),
(below). They are without any syntactic relation – freely – inserted after the information, beside the information, and bind it to the graphic part of the message. Such binders are graphically marked, written in brackets.
19
It is interesting to call the attention to Viehrveger (and others), who claims that the speaker cannot
imagine the entire text structure in advance, and thus develops its stages gradually.
624
Accompanying binders
The most frequent accompanying binder is In the picture (in modern time: In the
photo). Its role is similar to that of a reporting clause introducing direct speech. Its
appearance is conventional.
Demonstrative binders
These are demonstrative pronouns with the verb to be functioning as a copula
(or as an auxiliary): this is ..., such is ..., that is what he looked like ..., such it was ...
Demonstrative binders stand at the beginning of those captions referring mainly to the
situation, not to the event shown in the graphic message.
Binders appear in longer reportorial units as captions. They link the text and the
photograph in a technical sense, not as far as the content is concerned. The text is
made dependent on the photograph by the binders directing attention to certain elements of it (without caption, the photograph is informative largely as an illustration
only, and it has a documentary function). The author of the text believes that the elements of the photograph will illustrate and support the textual part of the message in
terms of the identification of elements in reality the text is referring to. Seven basic
types and four subtypes of such text – photograph relations are identified.
6 It is probably not an exaggeration to claim that the publication of the translated
work of de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981), where the translators cooperated with the
authors by inserting examples from Slovene at certain points in the text, had a substantial and positive influence on Slovene text linguistics (de Beaugrande, Dressler,
Derganc, and Mikli~ 1992). This work in many ways filled the gap created by the lack
of Slovene theoretical studies. It brings an overview of a large number of select text
linguistic sources and useful short presentations of different approaches to the topic.
In the nineties, text linguistic research was tackled by the younger generation of
linguists in particular. Their PhD (Hudej (1998), Kalin Golob (1998), and ZadravecPe{ec (2000)) as well as MA theses (Gorjanc (1998a), Krajnc (2004a)) served as the
basis for many papers on text linguistics: Kalin Golob (1998), Gorjanc (1999b), Kalin Golob (2000), Kalin Golob (2002), Hudej (2002), Hudej (1994), Krajnc (2004b),
Krajnc (2004c), and Krajnc (2005a). It is characteristic of them that the text linguistic
approach is emphasized already in the titles.20 The research lead to valuable book editions, e.g. Kalin Golob (2003), which contains a text linguistic approach to newspaper
reports, comparing German and Slovenian text material from historical archives, and
Krajnc (2005b), which is the first Slovenian comprehensive text linguistic study of
spoken discourse.
A text linguistic approach is employed also in works that are essentially not text
linguistic. A thorough monograph on lexical synonymy by Zorman (2000), for example, deals with co-textual synonyms and their text structuring role (142–169).
20
An unusual exception in this respect is Pogorelec (1997), who in her extensive analysis of Ivan
Cankar’s prose works despite the phrase »Text Linguistic Aspects« in the title stays within the domain of
literary theory, traditional stylistics and poetics.
625
7 The relations between two semiotic categories, the language and the picture,
exist of course not only on the level of cohesion, but coherence as well. These are
much more complex. The content of textual and graphic elements refers to the addressee’s world of experience on many levels; what is more, it involves him or her in
the communication process not only as an addressee, but as a co-creator as well. This
sphere of the creative interplay of the two semiotic categories is most clearly apparent
in advertising, where the linguistic and non-linguistic (graphic) means are joined in
radio advertising by the only non-linguistic means available in that medium – sounds,
noises, non-verbal expression, and the like.
This is a prominent field of text linguistics. Let just a few examples from the book
edition (Koro{ec 2005) serve as an illustration in this overview. They appeared in
several subchapters with the common title »Oglasna pribesedilnost« (»By-textuality
(Non-verbal Elements) in Advertising«):
An advertisement consists of linguistic and non-linguistic (non-verbal) elements.21
The totality of all linguistic elements is called text; everything else is paralinguistic
and by-textual elements.22 We use the term advertisement by-textuality to denote all
non-linguistic elements of an advertisement which have – same as linguistic ones – a
sign value, and are as such subject to the character of the communication channel
in question, either visual or auditory. These are pictures, images, including animations, drawings, colors, shapes, as well as the size of the advertisement space, graphics
(fonts, e.g. printed vs. hand-written), music, sounds, noises, etc., therefore we could
in general speak of by-textuality of printed, radio, and television advertisements.23 It
is obvious that radio by-textuality has the smallest, and television the largest – by way
of digital imaging practically unlimited – range of possibilities.
21
Non-verbal elements include also the so-called paralinguistic means of communication, which (can)
accompany linguistic means of one or both physically present participants in a conversation. These are
above all mimics, gestics, and proxemics (the physical distance between the participants, the speaker and
the listener/s). Mimics, e.g. a smile, raised eyebrows, etc. are a very important element of communication,
which, according to some research, are even more decisive than linguistic elements when it comes to
interpreting the meaning of message. They are therefore decidedly sign elements, for they do not merely
accompany, but convey a meaning on their own, without linguistic elements, e.g. a raised eyebrow expresses ambiguity or irony.
22
By-textuality of a text is a semiotic category, and therefore we should not confuse it with the socalled co-text. This term is used in some foreign works alongside the term context. The latter is called
in Slovenian sobesedilo, and refers to the elements of text structure, its cohesion, coherence, and other
features. It would be appropriate to use the Slovenian term »sporo~anjska okoli{~ina« (’communicative
circumstance’) in Slovenian text linguistics when speaking of co-text. This term is supposed to cover nonsemiotic, extra-textual elements, which of course affect – in one way or another – the text itself, e.g. the inferior or superior relationship between the speakers in a dialogue, whether the text was prepared in advance
or not, time pressure, public vs. private communication, etc. The foreign terms text – context – co-text are
systematically rendered in this book as »besedilo – sobesedilo – sporo~anjska okoli{~ina«. Cook (1992: 1)
defines the terms the other way around: co-text is the text that precedes or follows the analysed part of the
text, and is considered a part of the discourse by the participants, which would correspond to the definition
of sobesedilo (context) in Slovenian text linguistics, while we refer to Cook’s inter-text as »medbesedilo«.
23
The listed elements are considered by Cook (1992: 1f) as part of the context, which includes the following: substance, music and pictures, paralinguistic means, circumstances, co-text, and inter-text.
626
Considering the criterion of cohesion and coherence between the text of an advertisement and its by-textuality, we can identify two types of by-textuality:
1) Completely independent by-textuality, which is only a decorative accompaniment of the advertisement, but plays the role of an attention seeking device24 and
directs the attention to the textual part of the message. In radio advertising this is first
and foremost music, and in television advertising a series of pictures and images, often with no reference to outer reality. By means of color and composition these refer
to themselves, similar as in abstract painting (which is in this view in fact »concrete«).
This artistic by-textuality has a limited sign value outside the artistic sphere itself.
This is no more the field of language stylistics.
2) Visual and auditory elements which are a necessary part of the advertisement as
they either give the advertisement text (or one of its elements) referential support, or
the other way around, because the visual part of by-textuality gives sense to the verbal
part of the message. Those two possibilities are realized in a varied array of types of
interdependency. On the one hand we have a linguistic element (e.g. a demonstrative
pronoun in ostensive function, i.e. defining an existing referent by direct demonstration) which refers to an element of by-textuality in a way that without any by-textuality the text would not make any sense. On the other hand, we have (moving) pictures
– most common in television advertisements – which convey »a story«, but the images
only make sense together with the verbal part of the advertisement.
Slogans as (relatively) independent units in advertisements also contain text structuring elements. One of the criteria for typological classification of slogans is their
connection to the text of the advertisement. This criterion is in fact a text structuring
one, which means that we are interested in whether there exists an anaphoric textual
element in the slogan or not. Cohesive slogans contain such element, while free slogans do not. Cohesive slogans are in this way more effective.25 Because slogans are
exclusively linguistic formations, anaphoric elements in them can only be linguistic
elements as well. They point to linguistic, that is, textual antecedents, or even more
often to by-textual ones.
In the closing sentence of a television advertisement there appears for example the
slogan »In tako sem za~el uporabljati papirne robce Paloma« (’Thus I began to use
Paloma paper tissues’), the contextual meaning of which depends on the story and is
derived from it as the final sentence in an account of an event that leads to the use of
Paloma paper tissues. The dependence is clear: the sentence with the demonstrative
element in tako cannot appear as an independent sentence, without the background
story, and cannot stand at the beginning of the advertisement.
Marko Hladnik.
24
Attention seeking is a broad term, and by its use here we do not mean extreme, Benetton-style – publishing of photos of various objects, e.g. the shirt of akilled soldier – however effective it may be, it is not
meant as real advertising.
25
This is but a tendency observed in stylistics. It should not be considered an instruction.
627
REFERENCES
AGRICOLA, E., 1976: Vom Text zum Thema. Probleme der Textlinguistik. Ur. F. Dane{ in D.
Viehwegwer. Studia Grammatica XI. Berlin. 15–27.
BEAUGRANDE, Robert Alain, de, DRESSLER, Wolfgang Uirich, DERGANC, Aleksandra, MIKLI~,
Tja{a, 1992: Uvod v besediloslovje. Ljubljana: Park.
COOK, Guy, 21994: The Discourse of Advertising. Routledge: London.
DANE{, Franti{ek, 1968: Typy tematických posloupností v textu. Slovo a slovesnost 29. 125–141.
DIPPONG, Horst, 1999/2000: Tehnika oziralne zveze in oziralni zaimki. Jezik in slovstvo XLV.
DRESSLER, Wolfgang, 1972: Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen.
DULAR, Janez, KORO{EC, Tomo, 1985: Slovenski jezik 3. Maribor: Obzorja.
GORJANC, Vojko, 1998a: Besediloslovni vidiki slovenskega znanstvenega jezika. Magistrsko
delo: Ljubljana.
– – 1998b: Konektorji v slovni~nem opisu znanstvenega besedila. Slavisti~na revija XLVI /4.
– – 1999: Kohezivni vzorec matemati~nih besedil. Slavisti~na revija XLVII/2. Ljubljana. 139–
159.
HARWEG, Roland, 21972: Pronomina und Textkonstitution. München.
HOFFMANNOVÁ, Jana, 1983: Sémantické a pragmatické aspekty koherence textu. Praha: Ústav
pro jazyk ~eský ^SAV.
HUDEJ, Sonja, 1994: [olske ure besediloslovja: temeljni pojmi besediloslovja in jezikoslovne
analize besedila. Zavod republike Slovenije za {olstvo in {port. Ljubljana: Zbirka Matura.
– – 1998: Besediloslovni vidiki utemeljevanja, prepri~evanja in pregovarjanja. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana. 304 str.
– – 2002: Uspe{nost uresni~evanja tvor~evega namena v {estih besedilnih vrstah. Slavisti~na
revija 50/ 1. Ljubljana. 61, 81.
ISENBERG, Horst, 1974: Texttheorie und Gegenstand der Grammatik. Linguistische Studien. Reihe A, Arbeitsberichte 11. Berlin.
KALIN-GOLOB, Monika, 1998: Jezikovno-stilni razvoj v slovenskih poro~evalnih besedilih do
za~etka 20. stoletja. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana. 306 str.
– – 2000: Razvoj sklicevalnih avtomatizmov v prvem slovenskem dneviku. Slavisti~na revija
48/1. Ljubljana. 1–26.
– – 2002: Za~etki slovenskega poro~evalstva: sklicevalni avtomatizmi glede na nezanesljivost o
dogodku. Slavisti~na revija 50/3. Ljubljana. 295–317.
– – 2003: H koreninam slovenskega poro~evalnega stila. Ljubljana: Zalo`ni{tvo Jutro.
KORO{EC, Tomo, 1976: Poglavja iz strukturalne analize slovenskega ~asopisnega stila. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana. 650 str.
– – 1981: Besediloslovna vpra{anja sloven{~ine. XVII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in
kulture. Zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 173–186.
KORO{EC, Tomo, DULAR, Janez, 1985: Slovenski jezik 4. Maribor: Obzorja.
KORO{EC, Tomo, 1986: K besedilni soveznosti ~asopisnega sporo~ila. XXII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 49–59.
– – 2004: Stilistika poro~evalstva – {panska vas. Poti slovenskega novinarstva – danes in jutri.
Znanstveni zbornik ob 40. obletnici {tudija novinarstva na Slovenskem. Ur. Melita Poler
Kova~i~ in Monika Kalin Golob. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za dru`bene vede.
– – 2005: Jezik in stil ogla{evanja. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za dru`bene vede.
628
KRAJNC, Mira, 2004a: Besediloslovne zna~ilnosti pokrajinskega pogovornega jezika. Na gradivu maribor{~ine. Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana.
– – 2004b: Besedilnoskladenjske zna~ilnosti javne govorjene besede (Na gradivu maribor{~ine).
Slavisti~na revija 4. Ljubljana. 475–498,
– – 2004c: Za~etniki oziroma sredstva za vzpostavljanje in ohranjanje stika v komunikaciji.
Jezikoslovni zapiski 10/2. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba ZRC. 121–136
– – 2005a: Poskus oblikovanja meril za tvorbo u~inkovitega javnega govorjenega politi~nega
besedila. Slavisti~na revija 1. Ljubljana. 27–47.
– – 2005b: Besedilne zna~ilnosti javna govorjene besede. Na gradivi sej mariborskega Mestnega sveta. Maribor: Zora.
POGORELEC, Breda, 1986: Znanstveno besedilo, njegove jezikoslovne prvine in slog. Ur. Vidovi~
Muha, A. Slovenski jezik v znanosti. Filozofska fakulteta: Ljubljana. 11–22.
– – 1986a: Okvirna tipologija metafore v slovenski prozi 20. stoletja. XXII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 7–20.
– – 1997: Besediloslovni vidiki Cankarjeve proze. Jezikoslovne in literarnovedne raziskave.
Zbornik referatov 6. sre~anja slavistov Celovec – Ljubljana. Ur. Breda Pogorelec in sod.
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
SGALL, Petr, 1973: K programu lingvistiky textu. Slovo a slovesnost 24/1. 39–43.
TOPORI{I~, Joè, 1993: Pojmovanja in izrazje slovenskega besediloslovja (V priro~nikih za /
srednje/ {ole). XXIX. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj.
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 5–14.
– – 1995: Besedilna skladnja. Slavisti~na revija 43/1. Ljubljana. 13–23.
VERSCHUEREN, Jef, 2000: Razumeti pragmatiko. Ljubljana: Zalo`ba *cf.
VIDOVI~ MUHA, Ada: 1996: Dolo~nost kot besedilna prvina v slovni~nam opisu slovenskega
jezika (Ob Kopitarjevi slovnici). Kopitarjev zbornik. Mednarodni simpozij v Ljubljani, 29.
junij do 1. julij 1994, Jernej Kopitar in njegova doba, Simpozij ob stopetdesetletnici njegove
smrti. Ljubljana : Filozofska fakulteta. 115–129.
ZADRAVEC-PE{EC, Renata, 1994: Pragmati~no jezikoslovje. Temeljni pojmi. Ljubljana: Pedago{ki
in{titut pri Univerzi v Ljubljani.
– – 2000: Besedilotvorni vidiki navezovanja v slovenskih neumetnostnih besedilih. Doktorska
disertacija. Ljubljana. Ljubljana. 136 str.
ZORMAN, Marina, 2000: O sinonimiji. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{tituta Filozofska fakultete.
POVZETEK
Do sredine sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja se je slovensko jezikoslovje v pristopih k besedilu
– zlasti v u~benikih in jezikovnih priro~nikih – zadrèvalo v okvirih tradicionalne poetike in
retorike, npr. glede horizontalne ~lenitve besedil (uvod – jedro – zaklju~ek), retori~nih predbesedilnih faz, itd. Proti koncu sedemdesetih in v za~etku osemdesetih let postajajo pri nas posamezne refleksije evropskega (~e{kega, nem{kega, nekoliko pozneje angle{kega) besediloslovja,
ki prina{ajo zahteve po raziskovalnem {irjenju od povedi k vi{jim tvorbam, k besedilom, sicer
dolo~nej{e, vendar {e zmeraj omejene na besedila dolo~enih funkcijskih zvrsti, npr. ~asopisnega poro~evalstva in strokovnih besedil. Pristopi zajemjo kohezijsko-koheretna besedilotvorna
razmerja, npr. razmerje naslov-besedilo, kohezijska (deikti~na itd.) razmerja med enotami naslovij, tipolo{ke zna~ilnosti za~etkov besedil, koheren~no razmerje med enotami podnaslovnih
sklopov, tipologija vpra{anj in njihova besedilnost v intervjujskih nagovorih, tipologija razmerij
med dvema semiolo{kima kategorijama, tj. med poro~evalkim spremnim besedilom in prvinami fotografske slike itd. Pestra in zapletena razmerja med besedilom in {iroko pojmovano
629
(gibljivo itd.) sliko, t. i. pribesedilnostjo, so obravnavana v tipih ogla{evanih besedil, kar vse se
pri nas obravnava v okviru stilistike.
Sorazmerno samostojen teoreti~ni pristop h koheziji (slovenskih poro~avalskih) besedil
predstavlja oblikovanje t. i. naveznih parov in naveznih nizov in zasnova za skupek pravil, ki bi
zagotavljala besedilno sovisnost in veznost med antecedenti in navezovalniki, ki so zaimenski
in besednomorfemski.
Pod vplivom prevoda knjige Uvod v besediloslovje (Beaugrande-Dressler 1981), ki je iz{a
l. 1992, se je besediloslovno raziskovanja pri nas precej razmahnilo tudi v disertacijah, samostojnih razpravah in knji`nih monografijah, npr. o sobesedilni sinonimiji, o govorjenih javnih
politi~nih besedilih ipd.
630
Erika Kržišnik, The Use of Semantic Potency of Phraseological Units
UDC 811.163.6’373.7
Erika Krì{nik
631
THE USE OF SEMANTIC POTENCY OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS
The article presents basic terms which enable the explanation of textually conditioned
creative interventions in the established structure and/or meaning of phraseological units. By
comparing the state of research with foreign, primarily German and Russian, phraseological
literature, we are trying to find the properties which would allow us to distinguish between
phraseological modifications and the incorrect use of phraseological units on the one hand, and
phraseological renewals on the other. The beginnings of this stylistic procedure in Slovene texts
are also briefly mentioned.
V prispevku so predstavljeni temeljni pojmi, s katerimi je mogo~e pojasniti besedilno pogojene kreativne posege v ustaljeno strukturo in/ali pomen frazeolo{kih enot. Ob primerjavi s
stanjem raziskav v tuji, predvsem germanisti~ni in rusisti~ni, frazeolo{ki literaturi se posku{a
najti lastnosti, na podlagi katerih bi frazeolo{ke modifikacije lo~ili na eni strani od napa~ne
rabe frazemov in na drugi od frazeolo{kih prenovitev. Na kratko se omenja tudi za~etke tega
stilisti~nega postopka v slovenskih besedilih.
Key words: Phraseology, semantic potency of a phraseological unit, modification, (phraseological) renewal, remotivation, literalization
Klju~ne besede: frazeologija, semanti~na potenca frazema, modifikacija, (frazeolo{ka)
prenovitev, remotivacija, podobesedenje
1 Semantic Potency of a Phraseological Unit
Phraseological units are secondary linguistic signs composed of other linguistic
signs (words)1 bearing meaning. Their »forms« therefore exist at two levels, i.e. at the
level of free combination (FC)*, whose meaning is the sum of meanings of its component elements as independent dictionary entries – this meaning is often referred to as
the »literal« meaning, and at the level of a phraseological word combination (PWC)
with a phraseological meaning. Besides the meanings of FC and PWCs, a third level
also appears in any creative innovative interventions in phraseological units, namely
the level of a relationship (tension) between both meanings. This relationship can be
activated to different degrees, primarily depending on whether it is (at least partially)
semantically motivated, possibly also motivated »anew« by so-called »folk etymology« (cf. the connection between mavra in pijan kot mavra ’very drunk’ and krava,
phraseological unit pijan kot krava, instead of the connection with – etymologically
* PWC – word combination (WC) with a certain degree of idiomaticity, FC – free combination.
1
The components of a phraseological unit are actually not words, since they are grammatically and
semantically depleted. An extreme example is monocollocational components, i.e. components that do not
appear outside the phraseological unit and are therefore not part of the lexical system of the given language
but only part of its phraseological system.
632
suitable – mavrica: mavra1 ’black or black spotted cow’; mavra2 ’rainbow’), or unmotivated, regardless of whether the motivatedness has been lost because of a linguistic or
some other (e.g. broader culture-specific, etc.) development (e.g. iti rakom `vi`gat) or
has not existed altogether (e.g. in phraseological units taken over from other languages). It is all these three elements that compose the entire semantic potency of phraseological units, and which make it so very dynamic. In connection with the concept
of semantic potency, we should also mention two partially overlapping terms, the socalled »double reading« and »inner form«, which appear in phraseology. The former
originates from the Germanic and the latter from the Russian phraseological theory.
»Double reading« is one of the »ways of reading« (Lesart) typical of phraseological units. The term is quoted from Burger (in Burger 1998: 59–66; the same in
Burger 2003) and refers to the relationship between both levels of syntagm (FC and
PWC) from the viewpoint of the »activity of the language user« in the formation or
comprehension of texts: the user realizes one semantic level of syntagm or the other
(or both). Regarding the manner of reading they allow, phraseological units may be
subdivided into those that have only a single reading and those with a double reading
or a mixed (combined) type:
– The phraseological units with monocollocational components have a single reading, e.g. priti na kant, ne re~i ne bev ne mev, poznati do obisti, ucvreti jo.2
– The double reading is of two types: disjunctive and synchronic.
The syntagms that realize their meaning as FCs and as PWCs have a disjunctive
double reading; the relationship between them can be homonymous, e.g. dati ko{arico
komu, iti rakom `vi`gat, or it can be connected with a semantic transfer, most frequently metaphorically and metonymically, e.g. metati polena pod noge komu, no~ni
pti~ (’night owl’), no~ in dan (’night and day’). The third type of disjunctive double
reading mentioned by Burger is the double reading of a syntagm, whose realization as
a FC is limited by the highly unlikely notion it contains, e.g. vzeti noge pod pazduho,
odpreti svoje srce, biti na psu (’to be on the dog’ meaning ’to be in a bad state’).3 – The
syntagms which are permanent descriptions of gestures and the phraseological units
(originating from them) have a simultaneous double reading, with both meanings realized simultaneously in a text, e.g. zmajevati z glavo (’to shake one’s head’ meaning ’to
express one’s astonishment, surprise, outrage’, skomigniti z rameni.4
2
If all WCs are regarded as part of phraseology, the group of syntagms with a »single reading« consists
of WCs with a zero degree of idiomaticity, which have only a »literal« reading, e.g. rde~a mu{nica, levi
prilastek, spalna srajca (’nightgown’).
3
Actually, this group is the most transitional one in both directions, i.e. towards a single (only phraseological) reading as well as towards other types of disjunctive double reading. Consequently, the phraseological unit kdo biti za luno (’to be behind the moon’ meaning ’to be stupid, naive’) has, for example,
moved from this group to the group with a homonymous relationship due to the technical achievements of
the 20th century.
4
Most certainly, this group does not consist of all phraseological units that have originated from the
permanent descriptions of gestures, e.g. in such an extreme case as vreči rokavico (’to throw down the
gauntlet’) the (culturally conditioned) gesture has been forgotten and only the phraseological unit has remained. Therefore this syntagm does not allow a synchronic double reading (but only the homonymous disjunctive one). Similarly, in the combinations such as ruvati si lase (’to pull one’s hair’), lasje gredo pokonci
komu (’somebody’s hair goes straight’), the realization of the gesture is fairly if not completely unlikely.
633
– The mixed (combined) type of reading is represented by phraseological units
where some component elements appear in the dictionary meaning and others
have a double reading, e.g. zaljubljen do u{es (’in love up to one’s ears’ meaning
’madly in love’), obljubljati zlate gradove.5
The »inner form« (vnutrennaja forma) of phraseological units is an established6
term in Russian phraseology and represents a motivating meaning7 and the »picture«
of a syntagm which is a type of derivationl base of phraseological unit.8 The term
itself is constant, while its contents, however, vary slightly in accordance with the
authors’ comprehension of semantics. Genarally, two viewpoints can be traced, both
of which have also been discussed in Slovar’ russkoj frazeologij~eskoj terminologii
(1993, headword Vnutrennaja forma). In this dictionary, a »wider« comprehension of
the inner form is more topical.9 It distinguishes between a simple and complex inner
form:
Мотивирующая образность языковой единицы, основанная на деривационных связях
ее значения со значением прототипа. Внутренняя форма может быть простой или
осложненной. Простую внутреннюю форму имеют ФЕ, образованные на базе
переменных сочетаний (см.) (плыть против течения, сидеть на шее у кого); осложненную
– ФЕ, образованные на базе пословиц (стреляный воробей ← стреляного воробья на
мякине не проведешь) или в результате конденсаций в своей семантике содержания
различных легенд, поверий, исторических фактов, художественных произведений и
т.п. (вольный казак, последний из могикан).
Among other things the inner form therefore consists of the whole cultural connotation of a phraseological unit.10
Regardless of the partial dissimilarity in connection with the comprehension of
the inner form, a comparison of the Germanic »double reading« and Russian »inner
form« reveals certain connections. In both cases, the semantic potency of phraseological units is emphasized. The potency lies in the fact that besides the phraseological
meaning another meaning exists in parallel, which can be activated in a text in one
way or another. The difference between the two types of comprehension of semantic
potency lies in a temporal cross section and the perception of its nature: double reading is about synchronic comprehension and the presence of this duality in the speakers’/writers’ and hearers’/readers’ mental lexicon, whereas the inner form is (for the
speaker/writer and the hearer/reader) a recognizable or unrecognizable relationship
5
According to the semantic classification by Vinogradov (1947) the so-called frazeologi~eskie so~etanija, in Slovene terminology (according to Topori{i~ 1973/74) skupi.
6
It has been used for a long time – cf. e.g. in @ukov 1978: 6.
7
Sometimes also referred to as the »etymological meaning«.
8
The term derivational base of a phraseological unit is used in this sense also by Wotjak (1992) in
her phraseology.
9
Several authors are quoted, the references are more recent.
10
The authors of this terminological dictionary quote here the Russian phraseologist V. N. Telija and
her work on a connotative aspect of the semantics of the naming units (Telija 1986). More on the culturespecific aspect of phraseology can be found in Part III of her Russkaja frazeologija (Telija 1996: 214–269),
according to which the concept of cultural connotation is represented in Kržišnik 2005: 67.
634
that exists synchronically or diachronically. From the synchronic point of view, the
inner form can be present or absent in the phraseological unit, whereas the possibility
of double reading depends solely on the compatibility of the component elements of
a phraseological unit: if they are compatible, the syntagm enables one of the types of
double reading. When talking about the use of semantic potency of the phraseological
units in texts, we are talking about a synchronic view only. It is, therefore, sensible,
at least at the beginning, to differentiate between the FC which is the inner form of
a phraseological unit – referred to as the derivational FC – and the FC which is not
the inner form of a phraseological unit (at least from the synchronic point of view)
– referred to as the source FC.
1.1 »Picturesqueness« of a phraseological unit
When discussing the use of the semantic potency of phraseological units (especially from the point of view of »perception« and comprehension of this use) the term
»picture« that is evoked by the phraseological unit is usable and often used. The term
is used in the definition of the inner form. Because we distinguish between the derivational FC and the source FC in phraseological units, we have to determine this term
precisely. The »picture« of a phraseological unit is mentioned in connection with two
different characteristics, i.e. its figurative (transferred) meaning and its sensory clarity
(imaginability). A. Buhofer (1988) warns us of this imprecision and explains:11 the
sensory clarity, i.e. the characteristic of the language also possessed by words, refers
to the ability of a person to imagine the linguistic expression visually – this is the reason that phraseological units which are rarely or no longer motivated can produce an
effect with the power of a picture; when talking about the figurative character which
refers to metaphors and among them also metaphorical phraseological units, the term
should be understood as a picture for something else and this ’something else’ should
be made accessible with the establishment of a connection – if, of course, this connection is not conventionalized, as is the case with phraseological units. Figurative
ways of expression can also be clear12 and clear expressions are not at all necessarily
figurative (e.g. dati ko{arico ’to give somebody the basket’ meaning ’to turn somebody down’). The differentiation is essential from the psycholinguistic point of view,
since the clarity of expression makes its comprehension easier, whereas the figurative
character makes it more difficult. – Within the framework of the inner form of a phraseological unit, the »picture« refers to the semantic relationship between the derivational FC and the phraseological unit, whereas besides this, the »double reading« also
regards the relationship between the »pictures« of the PWC and the source FC without
the motivating relationship.
11
In German, two similar terminological expressions exist which are frequently confused. These two
terms are bildlich ’figurative’ and bildhaft ’clear (from the sensory point of view), imaginable’.
12
Cf. the contrast between the abstract character of the meaning ’to control’ and the concrete sensory
clarity of the component elements of the phraseological unit gledati pod prste komu (’to look under somebody’s fingers’).
635
In connection with the figurative character of phraseological units, Burger (1989:
27) says that the metaphorical connection in phraseological units is not simply semantically »given« in the sense that »in the metaphorical process the phraseological
meaning would so to speak naturally originate from the literal meaning« (the meaning
of the PWC the meaning of the FC) – in reality it is truer that the »reading« of a FC
gives a wide range of interpretative possibilities, of which only one is actually lexicalized in the language. This can be seen fairly easily when comparing phraseological
units in different languages. Burger lists the following examples: in German jdm.
einen Floh ins Ohr setzen ’to say something which does not give a person any peace;
to arouse suspicion with what one has told’ and in English to send someone off with a
flea in his ear ’to scold somebody’. Cf. in Slovene ne imeti dlake na jeziku (literally
’not to have a hair on one’s tongue’) ’to tell something unpleasant openly’, in French
avoir un cheveu sur la langue (literally ’to have a hair on one’s tongue’ – without the
negative word!) ’to talk unclearly’ and in German Haare auf den Zähnen haben (literally ’to have hairs on one’s teeth’ – without the negative word!) ’to defend one’s point
of view in a determined way’ – the meaning of the German non-negated phraseological unit is closer to the Slovenian negated than to the French non-negated one.13
2 The modified use of the phraseological unit
2.1 The modifications of a phraseological unit as a deviation from the norm
As is true for all other linguistic units, phraseological units are subject to a linguistic norm – the latter is a consequence of their conventionalized character which
is necessary to make them accessible to the users of the given language community
in their mutual communication. In phraseological units, the norm is more difficult to
determine and is looser, since their multi-component structure and the syntactic relations between the components enable frequent and diverse variants (Krì{nik 1996:
133–135). This is becoming increasingly obvious as extensive corpora of texts are now
available bringing enormous quantities of data on actual uses (on this topic Gantar
2003 and 2004). Despite this, the norm in phraseology cannot be excluded. It is therefore justifiable to talk about the breaking of the norm or about incorrect uses when
faced with deviations from the norm, which go beyond the limits of the established
variants and are not functional in the text. Incorrect uses of phraseological units are
recognized (noticed) neither by the speaker/writer nor (mostly) by the hearer/reader
(compare the data in Krì{nik 1998 and 2004).
On the contrary, modification refers to changed uses of forms and/or meanings
of a phraseological unit in a text which are mostly conscious, although they may not
always be intentional;14 in a text, they are functional, and therefore noticeable and
13
Dobrovol’skij (1997: 38) also lists two phraseological units in German and Russian that are close
to each other according to the inner form and component elements, but are not translational equivalents:
Russian postavit’ na kartu ~to-l. and German etw. aufs Spiel setzen.
14
Particularly in free speech the modification can take place spontaneously, but also in this case the
speaker is (retrospectively) aware of it and the listener can recognize it.
636
recognizable.15 It is important that the text contains functionally used deviations from
the norm, since even the modifications that are intentional, but play no role in the text,
are inappropriate innovations close to incorrect use.16 Recognition of the modification
is not always achieved by the hearer/reader, since several conditions should be met;
at least two of them must necessarily be fulfilled: the knowledge and understanding
of the source phraseological unit or (at least intuitive) knowledge and understanding
of the procedure of linguistic innovations. In this regard, it is possible to claim that
incorrect uses are mostly not recognized as a deviation from the norm, whereas modifications are mostly understood as such.17
2.2 Modifications and renewals (actualizations) of phraseological units
The term phraseological modifications is used primarily in Germanic phraseology
– a more detailed treatment can be found in Elspaß 1998: 152. In Slovenian phraseological discussions, the term phraseological renewals has been used rather than the
term modifications; before the introduction of this term, the term renovations was
used. Topori{i~ discusses the renewals of clichés – among other things phraseological ones – as a stylistic procedure in artistic texts as early as 1964 in his monograph
on the literary texts of F. S. Fin`gar (Topori{i~ 1964, in several places, e.g. p. 260).
Topori{i~’s term renovations was adopted by Koro{ec (1978) to refer to the modified
use of phraseological units and various quotations in newspaper headlines. Koro{ec
did not find this term sufficient to describe all types of changes; besides the term
’renovation’ he, therefore, introduced the term repetitions. The different terms were
used to formally differentiate procedures; renovations are formal modifications and
repetitions are without formal changes. The term renewals first appeared in 1987 in
two articles (Krì{nik 1987a and 1987b). Krì{nik (1987a) emphasizes especially that
renewal is an innovative change that does not refer only to phraseological units, but
also to linguistic units at all meaning bearing levels (this topic is further discussed
under 3). In footnote 5 Krì{nik (1987b: 529) describes the history of the term renewal
and the reasons for the choice of this term: renewal covers the formal (expressional) as
well as semantic modifications of phraseological units. Further on, some other terms
are listed which were used to denote such textual procedures (e.g. breaking /of phra15
Some linguists differentiate between the normative (usual) and accidental (occassional) variants, the
latter are subdivided into modifications and mistakes (or violations) (Elspass 1998).
16
Example: /.../ ter pomagajo po svojih moččeh nezaposlenim otrokom, ki so obviseli v zraku sedanje
ureditve (Delo, Saturday Supplement, 1 April 1995, p. 30) obviseti v zraku something (e.g. a problem)
’to remain unsolved’ : somebody (otroci ’children’).
17
Among the deviations from the norm Krì{nik 1996 also lists the changes that are historically conditioned. The latter can appear as modifications in a text: as a styleme used for the temporal colouring of
the text or as an incorrect use that causes incomprehension of the text. The text Giapovi simpatizerji kajpak
trdijo, da gre za spletko sedanjega vodstva, s kateri si Giap nikakor ni v komolce (Delo, 26 January 1993)
contains a phraseological unit that can still be found in Slovene dictionaries (biti si v komolce ’to understand each other very well’), but is no longer part of a synchronic phraseological system and the text is not
understandable to a Slovene. It is impossible to say why the journalist used it, since it does not have any
stylistic effects.
637
seological units/, re-shaped phraseological unit), however it can be claimed that the
term (phraseological) renewal was established in Slovene phraseology.
Twice linguists have thought about modifications as changes which differ from
renewals. First in Krì{nik (1996: 134), where the author tries to divide the modified
use of phraseological units into renewed and non-renewed.18 Renewals are described
as the modifications of the types that have a noticeable function of (creative) linguistic innovations in a text, whereas non-renewed modification is described as a nonfunctional change and within the existing norm as actually a kind of incorrect use.
An example listed is the phraseological unit po`reti/snesti/pojesti besedo (’to devour
one’s word’ meaning ’not to do what is promised, said’) – it is assumed that the extension of the variants of the verbal component to comprise e.g. pogoltniti (besedo)
(’to swallow one’s word’) is a relatively plausible modification without innovative
effects.19 In this respect, the non-renewed modifications would refer to the changes
in the form of a phraseological unit that represent the establishment of the so-called
potential norm, leading potentially to changes in the norm and the appearance of new
variants (Krì{nik 1996: 149).20 – A further possibility for the differentiation between
modifications and renewals is – as a theoretically slightly different confirmation of
the above-mentioned facts – presented in Krì{nik, Smoli} (1999: 67, 68), within the
framework of the comprehension of phraseological units as one of the conventionalized linguistic means of expression for the conceptual metaphor, as understood by
cognitive semantics (e.g. Lakoff, Johnson 1980 and further works). The differentiation originates from the possibility that is offered by the explanation of a conventional
metaphor as one that expresses linguistically only some parts of a conceptual metaphor. This leaves open the possibility for the linguistic extension of the use of these
parts and a further extension of the use to the unused parts (Lakoff, Johnson 1980:
53). Consequently, the extension of the above-mentioned variant phraseological unit
po`reti/snesti/pojesti besedo to pogoltniti besedo would be the modification within the
conceptual metaphor WORDS ARE FOOD, whereas the substitution of ob glasnem
dnevu ’on a noisy day’for ob belem dnevu (’on a white day’ meaning ’publicly, not
secretly’) would be the renewal,21 i.e. the use of the unused part of the conceptual
metaphor KNOWING IS SEEING (= perceive in a sensory way hear). This seems
to be a theoretically suitable starting point for the division of modifications into re18
»Different modified uses (non-renewed and renewed) have to be differentiated from the variants as
standardized variants of the source form.«
19
In the Fida corpus (http://www.fida.net), which is a referential corpus of modern Slovene texts,
primarily from the second half of the 1990s, it is possible to find one example of such a use: ~e pogoltne
pa besedo (the example is taken from the Dolenjski list newspaper from 1998) – unfortunately, the wider
context is missing.
20
Elspass 1998: 158 also considers such a function of modifications. – Contrary to the modifications,
phraseological renewals can be a source of new phraseological units. Consequently, in Slovene the phraseological unit slabša polovica ’husband’ was coined from the original renewal of the phraseological unit
boljša polovica ’wife’ (more about this in Kržišnik 1994b: 64).
21
ZD IC VII/10 (abbreviation see note 38): Sanjala sva o stvareh, o katerih ~lovek ne sanja ob glasnem
dnevu; kdor jih opomni v pametni dru`bi, opazi pred sabo za~udene obraze in velike o~i … To so melodije,
ki jih poslu{a srce samo v samotnih no~eh, da ne vidi nepoklicano oko teh otro{kih smehljajev /.../.
638
newed and non-renewed. One weakness is, of course, that a comprehensive list of all
the conceptual metaphors and their (conventionalized) linguistic means of expression,
including also phraseological units, has not been made. The possibilities for the realization of these theoretical presuppositions are lacking, but we cannot ignore the fact
that two levels exist within modifications. Seen from the hearer’s/reader’s viewpoint
and his/her reception of linguistic innovations in the text, we can basically presuppose
that the changes not easily noticed by the hearer/reader are the linguistic changes that
do not affect the conceptual contents of the linguistic expression and that the changes that are mostly noticed must be of the sort that affect the conventionality of the
conceptual contents in one way or another. For this reason, two facts seem sensible:
firstly, to differentiate between the non-renewed and renewed modifications, and, secondly, to understand the changes in the form and/or the meaning of a phraseological
unit which are noticeable in the text (because they are functionally used) as renewed
modifications. Further discussion will focus on renewed modifications only and the
term renewal will be used to refer to them, as in all my contributions concerning this
topic so far (Krì{nik 1987a, 1987b, 1988, 1990, 1994b: 60–65, 1996: 140 –142).
3 Renewal as a linguistic innovation
Although the term renewal was established almost exclusively to name creative
interventions in phraseological units, we cannot ignore the fact that very similar linguistic innovations are possible in units belonging to all levels bearing meaning from
morphemes to texts. Let us provide some examples:
a) morpheme: S Silvijino sloven{~ino pa ni vse tako zelo v redu, da ne bi kak zdrsljaj
pogledal skozi slepe~o zaveso njenega strokovnjakarskega besedohitrstva22
rokohitrstvo (’the ability of being skillful with one’s hands’) = ro~na spretnost
(’skillfulness with one’s hands’) besedna spretnost (’skillfulness with words’),
which is, of course, negatively evaluated;23
b) word: SAMA-RIT (’the bottom-only’) samarit(an) ’one who is compassionate
and helpful to a person in distress’ – the headline of a newspaper article on the pronounced altruism of beauty queens and printed above a large photograph showing
a naked beauty;24
c) word combination – terminology:25
– Zakaj je ~rni ribez rde~?
– Ker je {e zelen.
~rni ribez (’blackcurrants’), rde~i ribez (’redcurrants’), zelen ’green’ = ’unripe’;
d) sentence – quotation: Na za~etku so bila pogajanja (biblical) Na za~etku je
bila beseda;26
22
Delo newspaper, Literary Supplement, 3 November 1988, p. 8.
About a person who only talks but does nothing.
24
Cf. text: [e misice nas prvi~, ko ~ivknejo javno, posku{ajo na{opati, da so tam samo zato, da ne bi
bilo ve~ la~nih in èjnih. ( Slovenske novice newspaper, 1 June 2005, p. 5.)
25
If the entirely motivated WCs (cf. note 2) were understood as phraseological units, that would be a
phraseological renewal.
26
Newspaper headline (Delo, 31 March 1995, p. 5).
23
639
e) text: renewal of the text of a TV commercial
– Gospod doktor, a lahko?
– Kar naprej, kar naprej, T/tun~ek!
– Gospod doktor, jaz sem ena ~isto navadna tuna, rad bi bil pa CALVO /.../27
a joke with the title Ambiciozna tuna: Gospod doktor, jaz sem en ~isto navaden
Janko. Rad bi bil pa Jankovi~.28
3.1 Since renewal is a creative procedure, the possible combinations are numerous,
but it cannot be ignored that among all the renewed interventions found in texts, it is
the renewals of phraseological units that are most frequently realized and appear most
commonly. The reason for this – besides the establishment of units that is actually the
basic condition for each renewal –29 lies in the fact that they are composed of several
elements, which increases the potential (e.g. in comparison with a word) for the use of
the semantic potency. Another reason is also the degree of recognition of phraseological units by speakers/writers and hearers/readers (e.g in comparison with the recognition of citational expressions and texts) which is a consequence of their relatively
long presence in the language and language community.30 Or as the phraseologist G.
Gréciano (1987: 196) put it: »Polylexikalität ist ein Appell an die Fragmentierung, die
Fixiertheit an die Variabilität, die Figuriertheit an die Literalisierung.«
The question can be asked whether such innovations have limits.31 This seems to
be the case, which is evident from the translations from languages spoken in far-off
countries, i.e. languages whose cultural background is different from ours. For example, the following extract can be found in the Slovenian translation of the novel
The Tale of Genji, by the Japanese author M. Shikibu (translated literally): His chamberlains were running back and forth in confusion; the Emperor’s messengers were
packed »densely as legs of rain drops«.32 It is clear that the combination »densely as
legs of rain drops« cannot be read as a FC due to the incompatibility between leg and
(rain) drop. Since the semantic transfer cannot be derived from the text, this is not a
creative metaphor. The only possibility left is that in the original this is a conventional
metaphor, i.e. a phraseological unit or a renewal derived from it – in Slovenian the
content is meaningless, it is beyond our conceptual net. It is clear from the text that
27
Advertising copy for the Calvo cans of tuna.
Jankovič – surname of the manager of the successful Slovenian company Mercator.
29
It was believed in phraseology that the sequence of the component elements of a phraseological unit
or their cooccurrence in texts is more frequently realized in phraseological meaning than in the meaning of
a homonymous FC even before it was possible to check it in extensive corpora of texts. Today, this can be
confirmed by the corpus data. Chafe (1968: 123) explains this »as determined by their semantic cogency,
their usefulness to speakers of a language in frequently occurring situations«. In this way, Koller (1977:
192) explains the unreflected correction of a wrong use of phraseological units on the side of the speaker
as well as on the side of the hearer. Doubts about the correctness of Chafe’s claim are found in Fleischer
(1983: 192). Cf. also Krì{nik 1994a: 126, 127 and 1996: 148, 149.
30
Consequently, the renewal of the above-mentioned advertising copy – regarding the recognition and
thus the renewal effect – has a fairly limited »shelf life«.
31
Burger (1998: 154) claims that in phraseological units the border is difficult to determine as the
speaker/writer and the hearer/reader assess it differently.
32
The first book from the collection Sto romanov, 1988, p. 127.
28
640
there were many »chamberlains« (they were packed densely), but what is the meaning
of legs of rain drops?
4 Renewals of a phraseological unit
Here, the definition from 2.1, where modifications are described, can be attributed
to phraseological renewals with a small correction: these are changed uses of form
and/or of meaning of a phraseological unit which are functional in the text; they are
used consciously by a speaker/writer and can be recognized by a hearer/reader.33
4.1 Typology of phraseological renewals
In the literature on phraseology several typologies of renewals can be found from
the very detailed to the very general.34 This can be illustrated by two typologies by
H. Burger, the second one written after an interval of more than 20 years. A relatively
detailed typology was published in Burger, Buhofer, Sialm in 1982 (68–91) and it
states:
lexical substitution (lexikalische Substitution), insertion of adjectives (Hinzufügung eines Adjektivs), change in morphemic structure of nominal component (Determinativkomposition), addition of (genitival) postmodifier (Hinzufügung eines
Genitivattributs), separation (relativization) (Abtrennung), reduction (Verkürzung),
co-ordination (of two phraseological units with the same component) (Koordinierung
/partiell identischer Phraseologismen mit Tilgung der identischen Elemente/), affirmation <--> negation change (Wechsel Affirmation <--> Negation), references in
context (Verweise im Kontext), violation of semantic conditions (Verletzung der semantischen Selektionbedigungen), violation of contextual (as well as consituational)
conditions (Verletzung der textlinguistischen Bedingungen).
It would be difficult to determine a uniform criterion on which this typology is
based. B. Wotjak (1992: 133–161) arranged and added to it and it now reads:35
Modifications inside phraseological unit (substitution, expansion, reduction, grammatical modifications, affirmation <--> negation change, separation, co-ordination of
33
As has already been mentioned (in 2.1), at least two conditions (knowledge of a phraseological unit
and of a technique of renewal) have to be satisfied. Burger (1998: 154) reports on disastrous results of a test
where the recognition of modifications in advertising copy, the majority of which were probably renewals,
was checked (he quotes Hemmi 1994 – unfortunately, Burger does not mention whether test subjects knew
the source phraseological units or not).
34
The typology in Krì{nik Kol{ek 1987: 519–525 is adopted from the one used by Mlacek 1977:
90–96, the latter being one of the earliest discussions of this phenomenon in phraseology. Such linguistic
innovations are called actualization of phraseological units by Mlacek. In his typology, he takes into account morphological, syntactic, lexical and contextual actualizations as well as a complex type of actualizations as a combination of the basic four types. – In Germanic phraseology Koller 1977 was one of the
first authors who wrote about it – on p. 188 he mentions that E. Riesel 1970 is the only scholar who was
concerned with this before him. Koller refers to the phenomenon very generally as »wordplay« but makes
a distinction between wordplay inside and outside syntagm.
35
It is used in several empirical studies, e.g. in Elspass 1998.
641
identical elements, contamination of phraseological units, substitution of verbal for
non-verbal, substitution of non-verbal for verbal (supplementation of verbal with nonverbal); modification outside phraseological unit, combinations of various types of
modifications.
More than 20 years after he had written his first typology, Burger (Burger 1998:
150–153, similarly in 20032: 152–155) decided to simplify it by proposing only three
types of renewals, or modifications, as he refers to them: 1. formal modification without semantic modification, 2. formal modification + semantic modification, 3. semantic modification without formal modification. The first type is actually not a renewal,
but a non-renewed modification.36 Burger’s newer typology, however, confirms that
it is wise to distinguish between non-renewed and renewed modifications: if there is
no change in meaning, it is not a renewal. The difference between type 2 and type 3
concerns whether or not the structure of a phraseological unit itself is affected or not.
We could, therefore, speak about renewals inside and outside a phraseological unit,
even though Burger (Burger 1998: 153) considers it unimportant, since in any case it
is the context which makes renovations semantically clear.
4.1.1 Two divisions of renewals have also existed in Slovenian phraseology for a
relatively long period of time: the division of T. Koro{ec (1978) consisting of renovations where the structure of a phraseological unit is changed one way or another and
repetitions without formal changes, and the more detailed typology of E. Krì{nik. I
base my typology (Krì{nik Kol{ek 1988: 84–124 and Krì{nik 1990: 400–420) on
the assumption that the smooth functioning of a phraseological unit as a phraseological unit (and only a phraseological unit) is possible only if the following conditions
are satisfied: 1. multiple constituency (including all permanent usual variants) 2. a given syntactic structure (with foreseeable possible transformations), 3. a given (outside
a phraseological unit) structural and semantic collocability, and 4. the incorporation
of a phraseological unit into a compatible environment, i.e. into context, which enables the recognition of a phraseological unit as a phraseological unit. Regarding these
conditions a further distinction is made between single-stage renewals (where one
of the conditions is not met) and multi-stage renewals (where several conditions are
simultaneously not satisfied). Considering the degree to which the form of a phraseological unit is affected single-stage renewals can be subdivided into renewals inside
36
He gives an example (Burger 1998: 151): /.../ Noch vor kurzem herrschte zwischen den beiden Bergländern politische Spannung, begründet durch die Angst, man werde unfreiwillig zuviel Transitverkehr
aufgedrängt bekommen. Der politische Schnee von gestern scheint jetzt zu tauen, Bundesrat Moritz Leuenberger will nach der Sommerpause sichtlich neuen Drive in die Verkehrsverhandlungen mit der EU bringen. In Slovene an equivalent example would be (from the Fida corpus): Za~ela je pripovedovati. S tisto
ljubko neokretnostjo, s katero so se ji zatikali pisani jeziki peresnika, je njen jezik stekel brez ovinkov in
zadr`kov. Ni se branila, ni se znala braniti; znala je napasti starega s kaktusovim cvetom, vse, kar je bilo
zanjo grd lanski sneg, ne pa tistega, kar je pri{lo nadnjo z uìtkom in brez nejasnosti. Pri{la je iz svoje vasi
s poro~eno sestri~no; dali so jo v isto sobo, lo~eno s premi~no steno. brigati/zanimati se/zmeniti se za
kaj kot za lanski sneg; the Fida corpus shows the increasing independence of the combination lanski sneg
’a thing forgotten because of its unimportance’ – 15 out of 43 hits prove it. It could be a modification if not
a new phraseological unit.
642
a phraseological unit (where the form of a phraseological unit, i.e. its componential
and syntactic structure, is changed) and into renewals outside a phraseological unit
(without formal changes). According to the type of formal changes, renewals inside a
phraseological unit are divided into componential ones – from phonetic, through morphological, word formational to verbal/componential – and syntactic ones; renewals
outside a phraseological unit are divided according to collocability37 and (true) context. In multi-stage renewals the procedures differ; depending on whether these procedures are apparent or not apparent, the renewals are divided into composed, which are
a combination of several derived single-stage procedures, and decomposed (decompositions), where the procedure of the derivation of the renewal from the source phraseological unit is not apparent. At the intermediate stage between single- and multistage renewals there is contamination of two or rarely more phraseological units as
well as PWCs and FCs – the contamination surpasses single-stage renewals together
with simultaneous changes at several levels. As it is also one of the partial procedures
in multi-stage renewals, it is, therefore, also one of the basic procedures.
The comparison of this typology with that of Wotjak’s reveals advantages and
disadvantages. The advantage of my typology from the 1980s is that it follows more
precisely the procedures to which phraseological units are subject in the process of
renewal; e.g. types of expansion, reduction, partial separation (Abtrennung), etc. can
be counted as syntactic renewals. Its main disadvantage is that my typology was based
on the analysis of artistic texts only and on just one author from the end of the 19th and
the beginning of the 20th century.38 This is the reason the possibilities of extratextual
actualizations, be it situational (consituational) or multimedial (nonverbal, pictorial),
cannot be observed. Such renewals are frequent in non-artistic texts from the second
half of the 20th century, such as caricatures in journalism, cartoons and various advertisements. By also taking these types into account, we get the typology shown in
Diagram 1; each type is illustrated with an example.
4.1.2 The effect of phraseological renewals
The division of modifications into non-renewed and renewed ones and the distinction between modifications and renewals is justified also from the point of view of
a consequential effect in the text. In contrast to (non-renewed) modifications where
a phraseological unit – basically in the case of a formal change within the potential
norm – realizes only its phraseological meaning in the text (cf. 4.1, the first of Burger’s three types of modifications), there is always an interaction between the meanings
of PWCs and FCs in renewals in the text. The relationship between both of them varies and depends on each concrete textual realization: the meaning of a PWC may be
in the foreground, whereas the meaning of a FC is an accompanying association (1);
37
Collocational renewals are actually an intermediate stage or connection between renewals inside and
outside a phraseological unit, since they represent part of a systemic (dictionary) image of a phraseological
unit as a valency element.
38
Prose texts of Ivan Cankar, collected in the Zbrana dela slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev (abbreviated as ZD IC ), books VI–XXIII.
643
both meanings may be realized simultaneously (2); or the meaning of a PWC is in the
foreground and the meaning of a PWC in the background (3).
(1) Joke
Prijatelj se pritoùje prijatelju:
– Najin sodelavec Zvone je pa res nesramen.
– Kako to misli{?
– Zadnji~ sem pri njem delal kot konj, pa sem dobil le sendvi~.
– Zares je nesramen. Jaz bi ti gotovo dal pol vre~e ovsa…
PWC: delati kot konj ’to work like a horse’ meaning ’to work very hard, to
slog’; the meaning of a FC: a horse feeds on oats not on a sandwich;39
(2) Pre{eren: Mornar (Sailor)
First stanza:
Nezvesta, bodi zdrava!
ôlni~ po mene plava,
na barko kli~e strel.
Po zemlji varno hodi,
moj up je {el po vodi,
mi drug te je prevzel.
Last stanza:
Po morju barka plava,
Nezvesta, bodi zdrava,
Sto tebi sre~ èlim!
Po zemlji sre~no hodi;
moj up je {el po vodi,
le jadrajmo za njim.
PWC: kaj iti po vodi komu ’to go along the water’ meaning ’to not be realized,
to fail; FC: jadrati ’move on water (using sails)’;
(3) ZD IC IX/36
»Vi torej mislite: – kar culo na ramo!«
»E, tako ne mislim! Ne smete vzeti besede, kakor je; obrnite jo malo! To sem hotel
re~i, da ni ni~ ~udnega in krivi~nega, ~e morate prena{ati … ìvljenja boj …«
Okrenil se je na stolu; za~util je pa~ na tihem, da si je bil odpel suknjo malo pregloboko. Dostavil je s previdnim, ne zelo prijaznim glasom:
»Jaz sem vam naposled rad na uslugo.«
In nato nadaljeval hitro:
»Toda moje zveze, veste, niso take, da bi mogel storiti kaj posebnega. Ali ste è bili
pri gospodu Koprivniku?«
odpreti srce komu ’to open somebody’s heart’ meaning ’to express one’s feelings, thoughts’ – Dictionary of the Slovene Standard Language: odpreti (’to open’) 1.
39
As a phraseological meaning is in the foreground, the joke is hidden enough to make a hearer/reader
react strongly but not immediately.
644
’to place in such a position, b) that the inside becomes accessible’; odpeti (’to undo’)
’to place something in such a position that it is not tied or attached to something’ +
sound similarity odp(r)eti.
The interaction between the meaning of a PWC and that of a FC is present even
in the case where the renewal is not indirectly supported by the context. The title of
a short commentary âs rani vse cele ’time hurts all the unhurt’ (Delo newspaper, 12
December 1996, p. 1) is an example of such an effect; it is a renewal of a phraseological unit ~as celi vse rane (’time heals all wounds’), which is the result of a combination of sound and componential substitutions. There are no concrete incentives or
derivations in the text, so that it is merely a play on the surface (especially because it
is not a remotivation – discussed later); but in spite of that it evokes the meaning of a
PWC as well as the meaning of a FC.
4.2 The choice of phraseological units for renewal
The inclusion of more contemporary artistic and non-artistic texts in the analysis
of phraseological renewals shows that the possibilities concerning the choice of phraseological units suitable for a renewal are basically unlimited. Based on the analysis
of prose texts of the Slovenian classic author Ivan Cankar (at the turn of the 19th
century – Slovene modern arts) Krì{nik Kol{ek (1988: 82, 83) establishes40 that the
choice of phraseological units is doubly limited to phraseological units with a derivational FC, i.e. the phraseological units with the so-called inner form (cf. section 1)
and an apparent semantic core component. The renewals in contemporary texts do
not confirm this finding. In these texts – artistic and even more so in non-artistic ones
– renewals of phraseological units with a source (homonymous) FC only, i.e. the ones
without an inner form, are not rare at all. Cf. the examples of two renewals from the
phraseological unit iti rakom `vi`gat ’to go to the crabs and whistle to them’ meaning
’to fail, to die’, whose meaning is completely idiomatic; this is the reason why it can
only be a homonymous FC:
Morda se je v postelji obna{al kot pobeteèni M. Jackson, ker ga prej nisem po{teno spitala.
Brez jela ni dela, kdo ve, enostavno ga nisem znala oceniti, pa tudi ~asa mi ni pustil veliko:
med ogledom znamenite Sintre si je moj ìgolo pogumno zvil joint in potem je kraljevsko
kora~enje {lo Mavrom `vi`gat. Po prodnatih stezicah, ki so vijugale skozi ~udovite vrtove,
se je spotikal kot ugonobljen zvodnik, ki {e hoditi ne zna ve~. Za konec je dejansko padel na
nos, skrajno nerodno. (From A. Morovi~’s novel Vladarka, 1997: 148.)
Za kaj takega ni ve~ ~asa, Zig! Sam bo{ moral opraviti, sicer lahko gre na{a invazija ònzom `vi`gat! (From the Fida corpus: Miki Mi{ka, 1996.)
Even the renewals of phraseological units which have an inner form are not necessarily oriented to the inner form but rather to a homonymous FC – the above-mentioned newspaper title âs rani vse cele serves as an example.
40
These findings are also supported by the analysis of renewals in other artistic texts in the second half
of the 19th century (Krì{nik 1994b) and the first half of the 20th century (Krì{nik 1987b).
645
4.2.1 Based on the findings mentioned above the conclusion can be drawn that
two different processes take place in renewals: remotivation or actualization of the
inner form, i.e. the meaning of a derivational FC, and literalization or actualization of
a homonymous FC, i.e. the meaning of a source FC.41 From here on the possible differences between both processes can be sought either in the observation of changes in
phraseological units themselves or in the possibility of use of renewals in texts. To carry out the former, very precise statistical analyses would be needed.42 Only the results
of the analysis of remotivational renewals (in artistic texts) are available to me; in this
analysis I establish among other things that in this procedure phraseological units with
a verbal categorial meaning (61 %) are most frequently used; in these phraseological
units a nominal component (Krì{nik Kol{ek 1988: 135–154) is renewed (its form is
changed or it is only actualized synonymously).43 Very precise statistical analyses can
be found in Elspaß (1998: 202–216),44 but they do not make a distinction between renewed and non-renewed modifications nor between remotivation and literalization.
So far no-one has thought about different possibilities in the use of remotivation
and literalization of phraseological units in texts, but textual use seems to be varied.
The process of literalization remains at the level of wordplay – interaction between
two meanings which are independent of each other; the interaction is noticeable and
efficient due to this discrepancy. Cf. example 7 streljati kozle ’to make big mistakes,
to demonstrate incredible stupidity’ : streljati ’to kill with firearms’ kozel ’billy goat
(= a small domestic animal …)’. This is the reason that literalization is a process used
mostly in non-artistic texts, particularly in journalism. In the process of remotivation
the procedure of demetaphorization is employed which makes new metaphorization
possible (the possibilities of new metaphorization may be used or not) – the latter is
the case primarily in artistic texts. Example 12 odpreti srce komu ’to express one’s
feelings, thoughts’ may serve as an illustration:
– demetaphorization: the source phraseological unit odpreti srce komu ’to open
somebody’s heart’ first undergoes a syntactic change (srce je odprto ’the heart
is open’) and a morphological substitution of plural for singular (srca ’hearts’),
which causes a change in the meaning srce = abstr. (symbolic meaning) concr.
(human organ, object), the meaning of a derivational FC is thus established;
– a FC is a starting point for the development of a text: what can be open is a room
(srce ’heart’ = izba: ’room’ »hearts, previously locked rooms«); they freely open
the door (»the door of the heart«), the door can be closed, locked or unlocked;
– new metaphorization: the heart as a room with all attributes is a room of emotional
relationships between people, the door to the heart is opened by either »a storm«
41
Wotjak (1992: 123) already distinguishes between them, but Burger (1989: 27/28) was probably the
first to draw attention to this difference.
42
Dictionaries of uses per authors exist for Russian phraseology (Melerovi~, Mokienko 1987 and 1997;
quoted in Eismann 2005), on the basis of which it would be possible to establish prevailing tendencies.
43
Formally, a nominal component is changed in 63 % of cases, verbal in 27 %, adjectival in more than
9 %, whereas the changes in components of other parts of speech can be found only in individual renewals.
44
His analysis confirms greater openness of phraseological units with a verbal component to all types
of modifications (Elspass 1998: 210, 214).
646
(»Kadar pa buti v vrata vihar« ’When the storm bangs on the door’) or by »a warm
spring wind«.
Originally, the procedure of phraseological renewals could be found – as probably each stylistically effective innovative linguistic procedure – in artistic texts, from
where it then spread to non-artistic ones. Regardless of the state of Slovenian phraseological research, it can be claimed with certainty that the procedure of renewals
can be traced back to Baroque texts. Janez Svetokri{ki (1648–1714) used them in the
texts of his sermons to create parable, so it comes as no surprise that his renewals are
often based on proverbs. An example from the first volume of the preacher’s handbook
Sacrum promptuarium (1691), the sermon Na tretjo nedelo po veliki no~i:45
Kaj se boji{ ti `lahtni gospod? – Jest se ne bojim drugiga, semu~ eniga neprijatela
mojga, zakaj jest imam eno te`ko pravdo. Inu deslih vse pisma sem v moje roke
prpravil, de ta drugi nima ne~ pokazat (pri~a bodo tudi prsegli, kakor je meni v{e~,
besednikom sem uè tudi dobru usta pomazal, tem, kateri imajo soditi, sem uè lepe
{enkinge poslal, zatoraj se tro{tam pravdo udobiti, dokler moje kula sem dobru pomazal; se tro{tam, de naprej poteko inu mojmu bli`nimu sem uè jamo prpravil,),
eniga samiga neprijatela se bojim, kateri per le-tej pravdi v pri~e se bode na{el inu vej,
de ta drugi ima prav. – Ah, pravi s. Bernardus, kadar bi jest v taki viì z mojim bli`nim
andlal, bi se ne bal ni rihtarja ni obeniga neprijatela, temu~ bi se bal Boga, kateri za
vse tu dobru vej, de bi on ne prpustil ravnu v taisto jamo mene pokopati, katero
mojmu bli`nimu sem prpravil.
kdor drugemu jamo koplje, sam vanjo pade ’he who digs a hole for somebody
else, falls into it himself’ meaning ’misfortune sb plans for sb else usually boomerangs on them’.
Although the creative use of phraseological units can be observed in all periods
since then, it should, however, be stressed that renewal as a stylistic procedure realized according to a literary programme became established in the texts written in the
period of Slovenian modern arts at the turn of the 19th century, especially in the prose
texts of Ivan Cankar (Krì{nik 1988).
As far as the use of renewals in Slovenian newspaper texts is concerned it can be
claimed that they have been used since the first half of the 20th century. Example:46 /.../
Dunaj~an, ki je pred kratkim ~asom odpotoval v Zedinjene dràve. Tudi on bo ugriznil
v dolarsko jabolko /.../ ugrizniti v kislo jabolko ’to start doing something unpleasant, disagreeable’. In the analysis of two Slovene newspapers (issues over a two
week period) one from 1929 and the other from 1939, 13 renewals (mostly contextual
ones) were found47, which is not a lot if compared with the use of this procedure in
contemporary newspaper texts. As far as the function of renewals in texts generally
and newspaper texts in particular is concerned, it is important to note that this procedure is found only very rarely in the Slovenian newspapers in the first few years after
45
Cited in accordance with the 1937 publication, p. 19, paragraph 10.
Slovenec, 6 January 1929, p. 8.
47
M. A. Viìntin, Frazemi v slovenskem narodu in Slovencu ob prelomnih zgodovinskih obdobjih, BA
dissertation, 2005, p. 13.
46
647
the Second World War; in the analysis of three newspapers over a one week period,
only three renewals were found48 in a newspaper that was published in the Free Zone
of Trieste (which means outside Yugoslavia) – obviously, it was too serious a time to
»play with the language«.
There are, however, no appropriate studies into the appearance and function of
renewals in Slovenian advertising and popular science texts as well as in spoken language.
Marjeta Vrbinc.
48
The newspapers Ljudska pravica and Slovenski poro~evalec were published in Ljubljana, whereas
Primorski dnevnik was published in Trieste.
1) Koritnikov Jazzy ga! v Meng{u jebi ga ’used to show that the person talking does not mind’ (pragmatic phraseological unit)
(Jazzy ga! proper name).
O, kanta simplicitas, kamor me~emo povolilne olupke sankta simplicitas (sveta prepro{~ina); kanta ’kind of vessel’ (Delo
newspaper, Saturday Supplement, 9 July 2005, p. 19)
tema kot v Rogu tema kot v rogu ’very dark’ (rog ’horny or bony growth on the head of some animals’; Rog = Ko~evski Rog
– seat of the headquarters of the Slovene partisan units during the war) (quoted after Gjurin 1982: 128)
Lenko Fuks len ko(t) fuks ’very lazy’; Zdravko Dren zdrav ko(t) dren ’very healthy’ (names of persons in Improliga, Ana
Monro Theatre)
2) Jakuza, japonska mafija, uporablja povsem druga~ne metode in ne dreza v sr{enja gnezda dregniti/dregati (drezati) v sr{enje
gnezdo ’to give cause for severe mass excitement’; substitution of plural for singular (Republika, 31 March 1995, p. 15)
Examples of renewals:
648
7)
ûde` pred cekajem
»Verjetno nih~e ne ve, kako sta se koza in njen mladi~ zna{la v parku pred stavbo centralnega komiteja ZK Jugoslavije,« je za~udeno napisal Tanjugov fotoreporter v podpisu k sliki, ki jo je poslal v svet.
@e res, ampak ob gornjem se zastavlja {e pomembnej{e vpra{anje: kako neki sta oba sploh preìvela ~isto blizu stavbe – kjer tako mnoì~no streljajo kozle? (Delo newspaper, Pa {e to column, 23 March 1990) streljati kozle ’to make big mistakes, to do foolish things’ (Delo newspaper, Pa
{e to column, back page, 23 March 1990)
6)
Vzemite Zdravje v svoje roke! ’Take Health into your hands!’ vzeti v svoje roke kaj ’to take something into one’s hands’ = abstract (zdravje) :
concrete (Zdravje magazine) (radio commercial)
5)
(...) na pet gospodarjev razdeljeno gostinstvo, tiso~ in en propadli na~rt o gradnji preno~itvenih zmogljivosti ve~jega obsega in svojo ve~no neusklajenost – ob ~emer bi utegnil kdo {e pomisliti, da je prav to tisti grm, v katerem ti~i pravi mozirski zajec. ’... that this is the bush in which the
real Mozirje rabbit hides’ v tem grmu ti~i zajec ’a rabbit hides in this bush’ meaning ’here lies the core of the problem, the essence of a thing’
(Delo newspaper, Polet, 7 February 2002)
Vsi vemo, kaj ostane od ljubezni, ki gre skozi èlodec ’We all know what remains from love that goes through the stomach.’ syntactic ljubezen
gre skozi èlodec ’love goes through the stomach’ meaning ’to retain love it is necessary to have good food’ (E. Juri~, Grizem aforizem, 1995, p.
71)
4)
Sveè gobe razreèmo ~ez klobuk in kocen tako, da dobimo rezine v obliki ~rke T. ê vam te posebne oblike ne gredo od noà, lahko naredite
navadne ko{~ke. iti od noà ’to go from the knife’ kaj iti od rok komu ’to go from the hands’ meaning ’somebody to do something quickly and
skilfully’ (M. Pe~jak, Kuharska umetnost Azije, 1977, p. 18)
3)
KRONOS: Brez skrbi, {e zmeraj vas vse uènem v kozlovji rog! ugnati v kozji rog koga (’to drive somebody into a goat’s horn’ meaning ’to be
better than (somebody)’ (in the performance Kronos had horns – he was kozel ’billy goat’) (E. Filip~i~, Ujetniki svobode, Problemi 1982/2, 1–17)
649
vre~i oko na koga/kaj ’to throw one’s eye on sb/sth’ meaning 1. ’to look at’, 2. ’to show interest in sb/sth’
(print on a T-shirt – advertisement for Kolosej cinema)
11) »Se namerava{ kmalu èniti?«
»Da,« pravim, »kakor hitro bo mogo~e. Kakor hitro si bom lahko kupil obe{alnik, omaro, posteljo, mizo, stole.«
»Zakaj obe{alnik?«
»Zato da bom imel kam obesiti suknji~, klobuk, {tudij in strokovno prihodnost.«
»Ne nor~uj se.«
contamination of PWC obesiti {olo, {tudij na klin ’to hang school, study on the hook’ meaning ’to quit school, to stop studying …’+ FC obesiti (kaj) na obe{alnik ’to hang (something) on a hanger’ contextual (B. Zupan~i~, Grmada, 1974, p. 64)
10) ^lovek mora v~asih misliti s tujo glavo, da bi ohranil svojo. PWC1 misliti s svojo glavo ’to think with one’s own head’ meaning ’to think independently’ + PWC2 odnesti celo glavo ’to take one’s whole head away’ meaning ’to escape from a fight, battle,
difficult situation unhurt’ (@. Petan, 1001 aforizem, 1986, p. 49)
99) Seveda ni ni~ narobe, ~e re~em, da si vlada puli lase, vendar ni lepo, ~e vsi vemo, da je ministrski predsednik dale~ od idealnega beatla. Toda stvar postane neprijetna, ~e re~em, da so se poslanci smejali ministrici v brk. puliti si lase ’to be very sad,
desperate’ (beatle ’a young boy with long hair’); smejati se v brk komu ’to laugh insolently, impertinently’ (brk ’a line of hair on
one’s upper lip’; men have a moustache) (Delo newspaper, 21 June 1993, p. 3):
NA dobre filme
@e teh manj kot 10 odstotkov kazni je podatek,da grejo ~loveku lasje pokonci (~e jih ima). ’The information about less than 10 per
cent of the fine makes a person’s hair go straight (if he has any).’ (The caption beneath the photo of the author, who is bald) (Delo
newspaper, 10 October 2000, p. 12)
8) VRZI
650
12) Mnogokdaj se primer, da se v enem trenotku odpro vsa srca in skozi {iroka vrata prikipi du{a v lica, v o~i in na jezik, tako da so si
ljudje mahoma podobni kakor brat bratu; ker bratje so si v najglobljih globo~inah. /.../ âsih odpahne narahlo prislonjene duri
src le beèn dih; prikaè se le ozka, svetla {pranja, komaj za hip, toda prikaè se. /.../ Pozdravili so se in koj so si tujci, ne poznajo
se, ne mislijo ve~ drug na drugega; svetla {pranja je ugasnila, tiho so se zaprle duri. /.../
Kadar pa buti v vrata vihar, jih odpre siloma in sunkoma nasteàj, da zaje~e in se stresejo v te~ajih, takrat ni ve~ nobenih
skrivnosti; kar bi druga~e mol~alo navekomaj, privre kvi{ku brez strahu. Srca, prej zaklenjene izbe, so prostrane, svetle veè,
kamor stopi s ceste, kogar je volja. /.../ êgava je bila roka, ki je samolastno odpahnila vrata zaklenjenih ~love{kih src? /.../ Srce
hrepeni in ~aka èljno, da bi se smelo razodeti srcu, tako da bi se zru{ili vsi jezovi in bi se do kaplje prelilo drugo v drugo (...).
Kmalu so si bili podobni v lica in celo po govorici in hoji; ker srca so bila odprta in so bila eno ter so ustvarila le eno podobo. Tudi
kadar so se sporekli med seboj do hudega, so se sporekli bratje; ni je bilo mo~i, tudi v njih samih ne, ki bi bila mogla zaloputniti
duri, odprte nasteàj. /.../ Ali ura pride neko~, ko bo odprl srca topel spomladanski veter, ko si bodo obrazi enaki v veselju, ne v
bridkosti, ko se bodo ljudje pozdravljali s cvetjem oven~ani in z glorijo ljubezni.
odpreti/razkriti/razodeti (svoje) srce komu ’to express one’s feelings, thoughts’ (ZD IC XXIII/97–99).
651
652
REFERENCES
Aleksandr K. BIERICH, S. S. VOLKOV, Tatjana G. NIKITINA, 1993: Slovar’ russkoj frazeologij~eskoj
terminologii. Pod redakciej V. M. Mokienko. München: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Harald BURGER, Annelies BUHOFER, Ambros SIALM, 1982: Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin,
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Harald BURGER, 1989: »Bildhaft, übertragen, metaphorisch …«. Zur Konfusion um die semantischen Merkmale von Phraseologismen. Europhras 88. Phraséologie Contrastive. Strasbourg. 17–29.
– – 1998: Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt
Verlag.
– – 2003: Phraseologie. Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. 2., überarbeitete Auflage.
Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Dmitrij O. DOBROVOL’SKIJ, 1997: Nacional’no-kul’turnaja specifika vo frazeologii (I). Voprosy
jazykoznania 6. 37–48.
Wolfgang EISMANN, 2005: Zum mehrdimensionalen Spiel mit Phrasemen in den Stücken von
E. [varc. Grani slova. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Elpis. 195–203.
Stephan ELSPASS, 1998: Phraseologie in der politischen Rede. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Polona GANTAR, 2003: Stalnost in spremenljivost frazema v slovarju. Współczesna polska i
słoweńska sytuacja językowa / Sodobni jezikovni poloàj na Poljskem in v Sloveniji. Opole:
Uniwersytet Opolski – Instytut Filologii Polskiej i Opolskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk.
209–223.
– – 2004: Frazem in njegovo besedilno okolje. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana.
Velemir GJURIN, 1982: Slovenski slengovski frazeologemi kot besedne igre. Nemzetközi
Szlavisztikai napok. Szombathely. 128–136.
Gertrud GRÉCIANO, 1987: Idiom und sprachspielerische Textkonstitution. Beiträge zur allgemeinen und germanistischen Phraseologieforschung. Oulu. 193–206.
Annelies HÄCKI-BUHOFER, 1989: Psycholinguistische Aspekte in der Bildhafitgkeit von Phraseologismen. Europhras 88. Phraséologie Contrastive. Strasbourg. 165–175.
Werner KOLLER, 1977: Redensarten. Linguistische Aspekte, Vorkommensanalysen, Sprachspiel.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Tomo KORO{EC, 1978: Obnovitev v ~asopisnih naslovih. Slavisti~na revija 26/1. 147–160.
Erika KRÌ{NIK, 1987a: Prenovitev kot inovacijski postopek. Slava I/2. Ljubljana: Filozofska
fakulteta. 49–56.
– – 1987b: Prenovitve stalnih besednih zvez v Kosma~evi prozi 30. let. Obdobje socialnega
realizma v slovenskem jeziku, knjièvnosti in kulturi. Obdobja 7. Ljubljana: Filozofska
fakulteta. 517–532.
– – 1988: Frazeologija v moderni. Magistrska naloga. Ljubljana.
– – 1990: Tipologija frazeolo{kih prenovitev v Cankarjevih proznih besedilih. Slavisti~na revija
XXXVIII/4. Ljubljana. 400–420.
– – 1994a: Slovenski glagolski frazemi. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana.
– – 1994b: Frazeologija v kratki pripovedni prozi druge polovice 19. stoletja. XXX. Seminar
slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
53–67.
– – 1996: Norma v frazeologiji in odstopi od nje v besedilih. Slavisti~na revija 44/2. Ljubljana.
133–154.
– – 1998: Normativno v frazeologiji. Zbornik Jezi~na norma i varieteti. Zagreb – Rijeka: Hrvatsko dru{tvo za primijenjenu lingvistiku. 283–294.
653
– – 2004: »Fehler« beim Gebrauch von Phrasemen – Gründe für Entstehung und (Nicht)Erkenen.
Eine empirische Untersuchung. Europhras 2000. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag Brigitte
Narr. 245–256.
– – 2005: Frazeologija v lu~i kulture. Ve~kulturnost v slovenskem jeziku literaturi in kulturi. 41.
SSJLK. Zbornik predavanj. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 67–81.
George LAKOFF, Mark JOHNSON, 1980: Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London.
Jozef MLACEK, 1977: Slovenská frazeológia. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatelstvo.
SSKJ = Slovar slovenskega knji`nega jezika. I–V. Ljubljana 1970–1991.
Veronika N. TELIJA, 1986: Konnotativnyj aspekt semantiki nominativnyh edinic. Moskva.
– – 1996: Russkaja frazeologija. Semanti~eskij, pragmati~eskij i lingvokul’turologi~eskij aspekty. Moskva.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1964: Pripovedna dela F. S. Fin`garja. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica.
– – 1973/74: K izrazju in tipologiji slovenske frazeologije. Jezik in slovstvo 19/8. Ljubljana.
295–305.
Viktor V. VINOGRADOV, 1947: Ob osnovnyh tipah frazeologi~eskih edinic v russkom jazyke. Zb.
A. A. [ahmatov. Moskva. 339–364.
Barbara WOTNJAK, 1992: Verbale Phraseolexeme in System und Text. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag.
Vlas P. @UKOV, 1978: Semantika frazeologi~eskih edinic. Moskva.
POVZETEK
Semanti~no potenco frazema gradijo pomen proste besedne zveze (PBZ), pomen frazeolo{ke
besedne zveze (FBZ) in razmerje med obema pomenoma, ki je lahko motivirajo~e – v tem primeru imenujemo PBZ podstavna PBZ (v literaturi imenovana tudi derivacijska baza), ali tudi
ne – v tem primeru gre za izhodi{~no PBZ (imenovana tudi homonimna). V zvezi s semanti~no
potenco frazema se v frazeolo{ki teoriji pojavljata dva temeljna pojma, t. i. »dvojno branje«
frazema in »notranja forma« frazema, prvi v germanisti~ni, drugi v rusisti~ni literaturi. Pojma sta med seboj deloma prekrivna, saj oba opozarjata na lastnost frazemov kot sekundarnih jezikovnih znakov, sestavljenih iz drugih pomenonosnih znakov, in na njihovo posledi~no
razpolo`ljivost za kreativne posege. Razlika med pojmovanjem semanti~ne potence v okviru
enega in drugega je ~asovni presek in predstava o na~inu njene prisotnosti: pri dvojnem branju
gre za sinhrono razumevanje, pri notranji formi za sinhrono in diahrono. Ko govorimo o kreativni izrabi semanti~ne potence v besedilih, govorimo o tem izklju~no s sinhronega vidika.
Podobno dvojnost izkazuje tudi razumevanje »slike« oz. »slikovitosti« frazema: figurativnost se
nana{a na »sliko«, ki pomensko motivirajo~e povezuje dva izraza (PBZ in FBZ), (~utna) nazornost frazema pa na »sliko« kot predstavo, ki jo evocirajo sestavine frazema (same na sebi).
Kreativni besedilni posegi v frazeme temeljijo na ustaljenosti njihove »podobe«, tj. oblike
in pomena. êprav postaja zlasti v ~asu, ko razpolagamo z obse`nimi besedilnimi zbirkami, ki
prina{ajo velike koli~ine podatkov o realnih rabah, stalnost frazemov kot njihova definirajo~a
lastnost ~edalje manj zanesljiva, norme v frazeologiji ni mogo~e izklju~iti (je pa te`je dolo~ljiva
in v primerjavi z normo pri enobesedni leksiki tudi ohlapnej{a). Eden izmed dokazov za obstoj
norme je ravno dejstvo, da posegi vanjo lahko u~inkujejo opazno in so funkcionalni. Napa~ne
rabe frazemov je namre~ od modifikacij mogo~e odmejiti ravno na podlagi opaznosti. »Napake« so najprej v besedilu nefunkcionalne spremembe, dalje pa tudi nenamerne in nezavedne
s strani tvorca in (ve~inoma) neprepoznane s strani naslovnika. Modifikacije pa so take spremenjene rabe oblike in/ali pomena frazema, ki so s strani tvorca ve~inoma zavestne, ~eprav ne
vedno namerne, v besedilu funkcionalne in od naslovnika prepoznane oz. lahko prepoznane,
654
kajti za to morata biti izpolnjena dva nujna pogoja: poznavanje in razumevanje izhodi{~nega
frazema ter (vsaj intuitivno) poznavanje in razumevanje postopka jezikovnih inovacij. V slovenski frazeologiji se je ve~ kot o modifikacijah govorilo o (frazeolo{kih) prenovitvah. Vpra{anje,
ki se zastavlja, je: ali preprosto preimenovati prenovitve v modifikacije ali iskati razlo~evalne
lastnosti. Smotrneje se zdi drugo, kajti ~e tipologije upo{tevajo na eni strani take modifikacije,
ki temeljijo zgolj na oblikovni spremembi frazema brez kakr{nekoli spremembe pomena, na
drugi pa vse ostale spremembe, potem je mogo~e govoriti o dveh stopnjah kreativne izrabe
semanti~ne potence frazema. Prva stopnja so modifikacije, ki se dogajajo znotraj potencialne
norme frazema, ali druga~e – z vidika pojmovanja frazemov kot enega od konvencionaliziranih
jezikovnih izrazil za konceptualno metaforo – so take spremembe, ki ne na~enjajo konceptualne
vsebine jezikovnega izraza (npr. raz{iritev variantnega frazema po`reti/snesti/pojesti besedo z
modifikacijo pogoltniti besedo – ob ustreznem sobesedilu – je modifikacija znotraj konceptualne
metafore BESEDE SO HRANA). Prenovitve so naslednja stopnja: zanje je ob spremenjeni ali
nespremenjeni obliki frazema zna~ilna vzpostavitev (raznovrstne) interakcije med pomenoma
FBZ in PBZ, in sicer ali podstavne ali izhodi{~ne PBZ – v prvem primeru gre za remotivacijo,
v drugem za podobesedenje. Raziskava prenovitev v slovenskih umetnostnih in neumetnostnih
besedilih kaè, da je od zadnjega odvisna »globina« poseganja frazeolo{ke enote v aktualno
sobesedilo: medtem ko proces podobesedenja ostaja na ravni besedne igre, proces remotivacije
preko postopka demetaforizacije lahko vodi v nove (kreativne) metaforizacije.
Monika Kalin Golob, Stylistics of Journalism and Journalistic Style ...
UDC 811.163.6’38:070
Monika Kalin Golob
655
STYLISTICS OF JOURNALISM AND JOURNALISTIC STYLE: FROM THE
FIRST DAILY NEWSPAPERS TO THE TABLOIDISATION OF THE MEDIA
The aim of this paper is to present both the history of linguistic research into journalistic
style in Slovenian and the development of Slovenian journalistic texts from the appearance of
the first daily newspapers to the present. The two elements are interlinked so as to emphasise the
more important researchers and the most representative or best researched periods of Slovenian
journalism. The former begins with Breznik’s linguistic criticism of »newspaper language«
(1933), which is regarded as the first written reflection on functional varieties of Slovenian that
includes the language of newspaper reporting. It continues in the 1960s when the first deeper
linguistic-stylistic analysis of journalism appears and concludes by focusing on research after
the »democratisation of the media« in 1991. The latter attempts to describe the basic developmental elements in Slovenian journalistic style from Slovenski narod (1873) to the present.
Namen prispevka je prikazati dva razvojna loka: 1. zgodovino jezikoslovnega raziskovanja
slovenskega poro~evalskega stila in 2. razvoj slovenskih poro~evalskih besedil od za~etkov
v prvih dnevnikih do sedanjosti. Oba loka sta prepletena tako, da poudarjata pomembnej{e
raziskovalce in zna~ilnej{a ali bolje raziskana obdobja slovenskega poro~evalstva. Prvi razvojni lok se za~enja z Breznikovo jezikovno kritiko ~asopisnega jezika (1933), ki jo {tejemo
za prvo zapisano razmi{ljanje o funkcijski zvrstnosti slovenskega jezika, v katerega vklju~uje
tudi »~asnikarski jezik«. Nadaljuje se s 60. leti, ko se pojavijo prve poglobljene jezikovnostilisti~ne raziskave poro~evalstva in se ob koncu osredoto~a na raziskave po »demokratizaciji
medijev« l. 1991. Drugi razvojni lok je poskus opisa bistvenih razvojnih prvin v stilu slovenskega poro~evalstva od Slovenskega naroda (1873) do sodobnosti.
Key words: stylistics of journalism, development of journalistic texts, tabloidisation of the
mass media
Klju~ne besede: stilistika poro~evalstva, razvoj poro~evalskih besedil, tabloidizacija medijev
0 Introduction
Linguistic research into journalistic texts, not only in Slovenia but in general, is
relatively young. Those offering an overview of the discipline (Zelizer 2004: 111) cite
the last 30 years as the period when interest began to be shown in the linguistic description and analysis of journalistic language. It could be said, though, that Slovenes
anticipated this time frame by several decades as Breznik in 1933 included »newspaper language« among his functional varieties, noting that it was the most influential
but at the same time the lowest in terms of value.
However, most early contributions, including Breznik’s, remained at the level of
language criticism; authors were not generally interested in newspaper texts as examples of a functional text variety with particular linguistic and stylistic characteristics,
but merely judged the texts on the basis of the »mistakes« that appeared in them.
656
Koro{ec (1976: 11–103), describing the state of Slovenian research into journalism up
to 1975, observes that we cannot view these studies as serious linguistic contributions,
as evaluation based on linguistic correctness is not research and identification of style,
but merely language criticism, which easily becomes the quotation of material for different degrees of purist indignation at language errors.
Serious research into journalism was made possible in the 1960s, when linguistics
outgrew at least the hierarchical perception of the functional classification of the standard language and when the marked linguistic-stylistic heterogeneity of journalism was
identified as a hindrance for further research. This is due to the fact that journalistic
texts are by definition aimed at the general public. On the one hand they include texts
with the characteristics of scientific or popular scientific sub-genres (objectivity, unmarked language) and on the other they extend into artistic genres (subjectivity, emotional expressiveness, the use of figurative language and figures of speech), so that the
language is not uniform – »sometimes it is close to scientific language, sometimes to
artistic and sometimes to practical communication« (Topori{i~ 1992: 238). It was necessary, from among these heterogeneous texts which failed to present a unified object
of research and thus no useful findings, to narrow the focus of study to news reports, in
which the special role of linguistic devices is clear without further investigation.
This narrowing of the focus came about in the 1970s, when a more thorough and
more modern approach was adopted to the discussion, evaluation, and research of
newspaper style within the framework of specific journalistic functional varieties. According to Koro{ec (1976: 26), the weightiest contributions of this kind were made
by Janez Dular (1971/72; 1974a; 1975a; 1975b). According to Koro{ec (1976: 27), a
fundamental shortcoming of Dular’s approach is his label »publicistic« language.
Koro{ec thus set aside from the stylistically varied journalistic variety the texts
that are created anew each day, i.e., restricted the object of research to daily newsprint
and showed that, within heterogeneous journalism, there is a particular field that is
realised by the work of reporters, i.e., journalistic activity. The result of this work or
activity is journalistic texts which, due to the influence of objective stylistic factors,
developed unique linguistic devices. Koro{ec analysed the majority of these devices
on the material published after 1968 and in his further studies on the stylistics of Slovene journalism. After 1981, he replaced the initial label of newspaper style with journalistic style. In so doing he rejected looser terms, such as newspaper language, the
language/style of reporting, newspaper Slovenian or even the derogatory journalese,
deciding at the same time that the term newspaper was unsuitable because »certain
identified elements of newspaper style (written to be read) are identical to elements of
radio news reporting (spoken to be heard)« (Koro{ec 1998: 10–12).
Within the broad journalistic functional variety there are thus narrower fields such
as reportage, which is »a narrower journalistic activity, usually daily informing of the
public of events in those spheres of life which are understandable to us and of interest«
(Koro{ec 1994: 287). It is precisely the daily publication, because of which we speak
of two important style-forming factors – the similar or repeat circumstances that the
newspaper text articulates (Koro{ec 1976: 33, 34) and the time pressure – that shapes
the particular characteristics of language and style in journalism.
657
1 The history of newspaper language as the origin of journalistic style
The formation of texts and their typological and generic features depends on the
social and reporting needs of a particular period, and these needs often encourage
language development or the adaptation of language to meet new needs. As Schildt
(cited in Sommerfeldt 1997: 26) emphasises, in linguistics there is really no need to
look for the causes of language changes in the reporting needs of a particular period if
the changes are of a formal nature, if they are about grammatical structure. But when
the reasons for change have emerged from changed social needs that have influenced
the circumstances of reporting, they must be taken into account as basic factors of
language development.
In the second half of the 19th century the Slovenian standard language developed
rapidly and adapted functionally to new fields that arose due to two important developmental factors: the growth of mass media (and thus written journalism) and the
important advances in sciences that led to technological development and opened numerous terminological questions in Slovenian. The standard language was faced with
new tasks, one of which was the result of the founding of the first daily newspaper in
1873.1 The language had to adapt to a demanding new role, i.e., to provide information each day about events that the editors thought would be of interest to the readers
of a Slovenian daily. Due to the lively social development, dynamic political life, and
the ever growing number of new organisations in the final decades of the 19th century,
there were more and more such events. Because of time pressure and technical limitations a need for brevity of texts, and the competition, specific linguistic features that
characterise journalism developed with the first daily paper.
In my research into the development of the linguistic and stylistic elements characteristic of the first Slovenian dailies (Kalin Golob 1998) I paid particular attention
to the analysis of journalistic reports, i.e., texts with a predominantly informative
function. I attempted to identify and categorise the linguistic devices developed by the
Slovene standard language faced by the new reporting demands of the second half of
the 19th century, i.e., in developing news reports to keep the readers of Slovenian daily
newspapers up to date with political, economic, and social developments. One of the
aims of this research was to ascertain to what extent the generic features grew out of
the Slovenian standard language and to what extent they were influenced by the generic features of the more developed German press and journalism. Some influences
were identified through a comparison of the first Slovenian daily newspaper Slovenski
narod (1868/73–1945) with the German-language Laibacher Zeitung (1778–1918).
The latter, published in Ljubljana, was losing its influence towards the end of the century (Amon 1988), as the political situation was increasingly unfavourable towards it
and it failed to develop linguistically or stylistically, while Slovenski narod overtook it
in terms of the generic and linguistic-stylistic features of its journalism.
During the analysis, in particular with regard to extracts from late 19th century
material, the question arose as to whether the comparison was still relevant. For that
1
Slovenski narod first appeared in 1868, but until 1872 it was published three times a week.
658
reason I also made comparisons with the Munich daily Münchner Neueste Nachrichten (MNN).2 An examination of reports and news items in MNN from 1895 to 1900
confirmed the results obtained through the comparison of texts from Slovenski narod
and Laibacher Zeitung. The more developed German journalism acted as both model
and competition. When in their early days German newspapers accumulated verbs in
place of quotation set phrases, Slovenian papers followed suit, creating ever more new
verbs to show the expressive capabilities of standard Slovenian. The range of abstract
vocabulary, in particular verbs of reporting (verba dicendi), increased considerably
and new (standard) syntactic patterns were formed. Although the range of options
widened, the external, objective, style-forming factors resulting from daily publication, i.e., hasty formulation of texts under time pressure, only some were accepted as
standard. The telegram also played a role in the creation of linguistic features of journalistic texts, as it influenced the textual, syntactic, and lexical properties of German
(Burger 1990: 8; Haβ-Zumker 1998: 193) and Slovenian news reports (Kalin Golob
1998: 85–99). Economising with words (the principle of succinctness) influenced the
selection of the most essential words that later became standard news vocabulary and
a new word family relating to the new technology was formed in the standard language (telegram, telegrafirati, telegrafski).3
The generic features of Slovenian journalistic texts at the end of the 19th century
are comparable with those of German texts.4 Due to the external style-forming factors news reports developed specific journalistic characteristics, i.e., a number of set
phrases and formulae. In the daily newspapers, a distinction slowly arose between
the style of journalistic reports (short items, extended items, continued reports, announcements, news reports) and evaluative texts (commentaries, editorials, columns,
analytical articles, portraits). The former, because of their predominantly informative
function, began to lose elements of commentary and include set phrases and neutral
expressions, while the latter gradually freed themselves from their literary and correspondence tradition to become the first newspaper texts with a predominantly interpretative role.
2
MNN has its origins in the year 1848, when it appeared under the name Neueste Nachrichten aus
dem Gebite der Politik. In 1887 it was taken over by Julius Knorr, renamed Münchner Neueste Nachichten
and revamped into a liberal political institution. It appeared until 28th February 1945, when it was replaced
by the still current Süddeutsche Zeitung (Holz: 1972, 191). Today Münchner Neueste Nachichten is a daily
regional supplement to Süddeutsche Zeitung, containing news items relating to Munich and Bavaria.
3
Along with the Slavic synonyms brzojav, brzojaviti.
4
Hass-Zumker (1998: 150–194) comes to strikingly similar conclusions with regard to the use of established set phrases in German newspapers. She discusses the rise of the »formulaic tradition« in printed
news reports from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Part of this is represented by the »formulations« that in the
stylistics of Slovenian journalism /news reporting are referred to as »referential automatisms« (sklicevalni
avtomatizmi). The parallels with Slovenian are great both with regard to the use of verbs instead of »referential automatism« (the terminology is, of course, different) as well as sentence construction. Her findings
confirm the view (Kalin Golob 1998) that the more developed German press acted as a model for Slovenian
journalism and that the objective style-forming factors represented by the given (and multiplied) possibilities within each language led to the selection of the most appropriate resources for effective (economic,
topical) reporting that gave rise to the stylistic features of the sub-genre of journalistic news reporting in the
Slovenian (German) standard language.
659
2 The 20th century and Slovenian journalistic style
With the increase in the number of daily newspapers and in the volume of information they contain, with new technical possibilities and photography, Slovenian daily
newspapers in the 20th century become increasingly similar to the contemporary ones.
As comprehensible linguistic-stylistic studies refer to the period after 1960s, there is
unfortunately no clear picture of the language and style of daily newspapers in the
first half of the century. From what is known about the appearance of journalism and
its development up to the end of the 19th century and the situation from the late 1960s
onwards, one can infer that the different norms relating to informative and interpretative genres that appeared in the first dailies became distinct in the 20th century. Thus
from the stylistic point of view a tension arises between the use of stock elements and
contemporising elements: set phrases and formulae are expected in informative texts,
contemporising elements in interpretative journalistic texts. Koro{ec’s contributions
on newspaper style published in the late 1960s (1967–1969) in Gospodarski vestnik5
already cite set phrases as self-evident characteristics of news reports, initially (in
1968) by way of counter-argument to those who saw in them the stereotypicality,
tediousness, and lack of creativity in journalists’ work.
A more important contribution to the revaluation of such views was Koro{ec’s doctoral thesis (Poglavja iz strukturalne analize slovenskega ~asopisnega stila – Chapters
from the Structural Analysis of Slovenian Newspaper Style, 1976), which critically
evaluates the existing contributions, discussions, and views on the language and style
of journalism and analyses its functional characteristics, i.e., »how language – the
Slovenian standard language – works when we assign to it the role of journalistic
reporting« (6). This work is followed by a number of articles on individual elements,
which in 1998 Koro{ec supplemented and revised into a deeper analysis of Slovenian
journalism and which represents the first such exhaustive theoretical stylistic and textlinguistic analysis of journalistic texts – not just in Slovenian, but also in European
and American linguistics.
3 Journalism after 1991
The period following Slovenian independence brought a considerable degree of
uncertainty and change to the country’s media. The rudiments of popular press in the
common state (the tabloid Kaj) grew into the tabloid daily Slovenske novice (Slovenian News), while the so-called serious press, in response to competition, replaced
some of the principles of quality journalism with more market-oriented approaches.
This is most apparent in headlines, which increasingly become a means of attracting
consumers, so that the boundaries between the serious and tabloid press, at least in
this respect, become blurred.
In Slovenian journalism from the 1990s onwards the borders between genres become indistinct (Kalin Golob 2004a) and the separation between the stylistic norms
5
Partly reprinted in Pet minut za bolj{i jezik (1972), including the contribution mentioned here (20–22).
660
of informative and interpretative texts unclear. The notion of democracy is often misinterpreted by writers of journalistic texts to mean unlimited freedom, i.e., freedom
without responsibility. This issue was addressed by a research project into the use of
insults in the print media6 that showed how the number of complaints against journalists under Article 169 of the Penal Code (libel) has grown enormously. The pages of
newspapers are often filled with journalistic contributions whose linguistic choices
raise stylistic, ethical (cf. Poler Kova~i~ 1997, 2001, 2003), and legal questions. The
research, the results of which were published in the collection Razàlitve v tiskanih
medijih (Insults in the Print Media, ed. Tomo Koro{ec, 2002), showed that libel was
often realised through deliberate choice of non-standard and expressive linguistic devices that were insulting in the specific context.
It is well known that stylistically marked linguistic devices in journalistic texts
have long played an evaluative role as well as enriching the texts. In the cases we are
considering they were indicators of insults. The transfer of non-standard, expressive
and other stylistically marked elements into journalistic texts after 1990 thus took on a
new role – some of them, because of their insulting connotations, were from a linguistic stylistic point of view identified as devices that were intended to show contempt
– the consequence of which was that those who had been libelled sought satisfaction
in the courts.7
The new role these elements assumed in the Slovenian tabloids is most evident
in the more frequent presence of (low) colloquial elements, from lexicon to sentence
patterns. The newspaper becomes a commodity which sells on the basis of more or
less juicy stories about public figures. Through the open door of the only important
market came »the only missing sign of Western commercial journalism – sensationalism« (Koro{ec 1998, 150), which appears in popular or tabloid journalism. A definitive analysis of contemporary media practice has yet to be completed, but some
research has been done (Koro{ec 1998: 149–159; Kalin Golob 2003; Kalin Golob,
Poler Kova~i~ 2005).
Alongside changes that were conditional upon the tabloidisation of the media and
which are visible in the appearance of new genres (investigative stories, journalistic
stories, features) or mixtures of old genres (extremely unrefined genres in Slovenske
novice), and which at the language level introduced into the texts an abundance of
substandard elements and colloquial patterns, we can also discern new developmental
tendencies in the elements that had become established or automatic in the quality
press by 1991. In the rest of this paper we shall present some of them by comparing
Koro{ec’s (1998) analysis with the situation after 1995.
6
The research project Insults in the media as a linguistic and a legal question (1999–2001) was led by
Dr. Tomo Koro{ec.
7
Examples and analysis are available in the already mentioned collection (Koro{ec 2002).
661
3.1 Journalistic referentiality
3.1.1 The expression of unreliability with regard to the reported event.
Koro{ec (1998: 33–42) discusses the particular grammatical form that developed
in journalism at the end of the 19th century (Kalin Golob 2003: 120 ff) to satisfy the
need for expression of something unproven, uncertain, and unofficial. The reporter
cannot report on alleged misdemeanours, criminal offences, or unconfirmed information as if they were certain, proven, or confirmed, as for purely legal reasons an
individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Along with certain words or word
combinations (XY je osumljen – XY is suspected of, domnevno dejanje – an alleged
offence, menda – supposedly) that are used to describe such circumstances, journalism
also developed a morphemic expression of the state of being unproven, i.e., the form
naj bi + l-participle (naj bi ukradel – is alleged to have stolen; naj bi aprila obiskal
Slovenijo – is expected to visit Slovenia in April). This pattern was at first attacked
as non-Slovenian, but Koro{ec, taking pragmatic factors into account, showed that it
came into being to meet a particular journalistic need and was thus a journalistic stylistic device, a special form that is neither predicative, nor conditional, nor imperative,
but rather a hybrid form that he labeled ne-povednik (»non-predicate«).
In spite of the extensive analysis, the range of collected material, and the years
of research evidence supporting the use of this special form, Janez Sr{en in one of
the latest manuals of style (1998), attempts to get rid of it. Under the headword naj
bi Sr{en (1998: 86, 87) on the basis of his work as a language editor rejects this serious research work: »the expressive power of the language is weakened by certain
linguists who thoughtlessly declare the use of naj bi to be an established journalistic
feature suitable for expressing a supposed event in the past« (emphasis by MKG).
Like Gradi{nik before him (1981/82), Sr{en corrects this type of examples with the
form naj bi bil, which is the past conditional form in Slovenian and has another grammatical role. In journalism the pattern naj bi + l-participle is also used to express an
»assumption about the future«, which is particularly common in diplomatic affairs
(with the pragmatic meaning »XY will visit Slovenia, but this has not been officially
confirmed«). The roles of the non-predicate are analyzed is numerous examples and
it is made clear that naj bi + l- participle »does not express any temporality or phase,
but takes its temporal determination from the context and the circumstances of reporting« (Koro{ec 1998: 39). More than a century of use shows its necessity and stability,
therefore Sr{en’s »explanation« should serve as a (symptomatic) example of the cultural-linguistic tendencies in Slovenia remaining unchanged, that linguistic research,
unfortunately, has no influence on certain individuals (even though it should represent
one of the foundations for their work) and that the development of the expressive capabilities of language linked to its new role in journalism can be considered its weakening only if one fails to acknowledge the facts. The consequence of this ignorance is
continued »corrections« of naj bi bil + -l, occasionally (depending on the particular
editor on duty) seen in the newspapers Ve~er and Dnevnik.
With regard to the expression of unreliability, where Koro{ec identifies as a typical element the particle menda, it should be added that today’s media also makes use
662
of baje, which appeared as an unmarked form in the first daily newspapers (cf. Kalin
Golob 2003: 117–120). For the 20th century, Koro{ec (1998: 203) considers it colloquial and therefore marked in journalism.
The word baje seems to have returned to Slovenian journalism via the tabloids.
In order to get closer to the addressee, the tabloids create a pseudo-intimate language
(Luthar 1998) that includes colloquial elements such as baje.8 The other reason seems
to lie in the fact that the news printed in the tabloids is somewhat unreliable, since it is
based on questionable sources and hearsay, for which baje is actually a good indicator
of the quality of reporting. From the tabloids, the expression spread to the commercial
television station POP TV, which alongside the (over-)frequent use of the adjective
domneven (translated from American sources) at the expense of the more usual naj bi
+ l- participle for an alleged criminal offence often relies on information derived from
hearsay. And from here, its use seems to have spread to the »serious« dailies, for it can
be found in Delo9 and Ve~er.10 The frequent use of baje even spread into court reports,
which are sometimes written as if they were based on gossip rather than proven acts,
which are, because of the presumption of innocence, recorded with naj bi + l-participle (Koro{ec 2004).
3.1.2 Quotation referentiality
Although Koro{ec (1998: 209) observes that direct speech occurs relatively infrequently in written reporting, the situation in recent years has changed. Slovenian daily
papers often carry reports that could be best described as a collage of statements. The
same point is made by Srpova (1998: 65) in relation to Czech papers since 1990. She
believes that this is primarily the result of pressure for accuracy and the avoidance of
rephrasing, which could be counted as subjective and thus reduce the credibility of
informative genres. In reports on Slovenia’s joining NATO,11 the texts are sometimes
composed almost exclusively of statements from politicians.12 This is not the only
topic (exceptional circumstances, the importance of this topic for Slovenia) treated
like that, but all three dailies (Delo, Dnevnik, Ve~er) publish reports that place the
journalist’s verbal competence firmly in the background. To take but one example (Je
»Holmes [...] pa baje ne na~rtuje velikih tekem« (Slovenske novice 29. 10. 2004, p. 18).
»Teàve so tudi astronomski ra~uni, po podatkih Potro{a~a menda t-ht vsak dan po{lje okoli 30
spornih ra~unov, nekateri so baje visoki tudi 100.000 kun ... » (Delo, 27. 10. 2004, p. 17).
10
Research projects carried out as part of the subject Stylistics of Journalism over the last two years
have highlighted the tendency to use baje with unofficial comments, as the following example shows: »O
brancinih je voznik baje izjavil, da jih je pri nas kupil kot preizkusni ’vzorec’ /.../ Informacija je neuradna.«
(Ve~er, 12. 11. 2004, p. 21).
11
The research project The Media in a Pluralist Society (led by Melita Poler Kova~i~) which was
carried out in 2002/2003 at the Centre for Research into Social Communication at the Faculty of Social
Sciences. The project, part of the Targeted Research Programme »Slovenia’s Competitiveness 2001–2006«
was financed by the Ministry of Education, Sport, and Science and the Government Public Relations and
Media Office.
12
For example: Neslana {ala ali minister è ve, kaj govori (Delo, 23. 1. 2003, G. Utenkar), the body of
the text has 68 lines in three columns of which 50 are direct speech.
8
9
663
Luka Koper diktator slovenske dràve? Ve~er 10. 4. 2004, 9, Damjan Toplak): a long,
four-column report has 287 lines of which only 20 are the reporter’s words and even
those are merely clauses accompanying the direct speech.13
The job of the journalist is not to string together quotes or to form a mosaic from
the statements of one or more politicians, but to write a coherent and readable text, in
which other methods of source citation or abstracting do not mean the lack of objectivity, but, rather, show the journalist’s verbal skill and his/her mastery of the stylistic
features of the genre.
At the same time, such collages are a type of manipulation. In the text under consideration (footnote 12), direct speech plays another role, i.e., only extremely evaluative literal quotes are selected. The selection of quotes that assign a negative value
to the statements of a particular politician is done so as to express an opinion in an
informative genre, but in a concealed fashion – only seemingly appropriately by using
direct speech: »These kinds of statements are clearly false and misleading propaganda
[…] which show that the government, lacking genuine arguments, is resorting to manipulation and lies …«
Quotations can also be contemporizing elements: in informative texts that describe
repeating circumstances they represent a break with the automatic use of set phrases
and provide colourful statements that liven up a dull text (Srpova 1998, 70). In reports
on NATO they also transform some texts into concealed evaluation, which is unexpected in an informative genre. A quotation can also provide an alibi to the journalist,
allowing him/her to pass on responsibility for what is said to others: »The party New
Slovenia referred to Grizold’s ’trivial and untrue’ statement as groundless threats. […]
The student movement against militarisation charactarised Grizold’s words as ’false
and misleading propaganda’…« (Neresnost z namenom? Delo, 23. 1. 2003, G. Utenkar).
3.2 Headlines
Koro{ec (1998: 43–159) discusses in detail the headlines of newspaper news reports as he believes these to be the most distinctive element of written reporting. With
great precision and thoroughness he analyses »headlining« – text formation adapted to
the particular way of reading a newspaper so that the most important information is in
a graphically highlighted location. Taking into account the findings of other researchers of newspaper headlines, he identifies and renames the functions of headlines, uses
clear criteria to determine their typology, discusses headlines involving punctuation,
and researches a special contemporizing element in newspaper headlines, i.e., recycling. In light of the frequency of ellipsis in headlines he categorises elliptical headlines and in relation to difficult processing of certain headlines he identifies two kinds
of veiled headlines – empty and hyperbolic. This exhaustive analysis, which is also
13
… ugotavlja Bo{tjan Penko, direktor vladnega urada za prepre~evanje korupcije … pravi Bo{tjan
Penko … Bruno Koreli~, predsednik uprave Luke Koper, komentira Penkove navedbe: »[…]« …, razloì
Koreli~ …
664
text-linguistic (cohesion, co-reference, anaphoric and cataphoric links) confirms the
author’s opinion that headlines are one of the key style-forming characteristics of
journalistic style.
When one adds the changes that have taken place over the past ten years to
Koro{ec’s analysis, one can observe that newspapers have become a commodity and
as other competing products, they win readers with numerous advertising campaigns
and tricks. The effort to attract consumers who will read the paper or listeners/viewers who will listen to a programme or sit in front of the TV, is particularly evident in
the front page headlines of the newspaper or in radio or television trailers (in which
the function of attraction predominates). Headlines are thus increasingly a means of
encouraging purchase, listening, or viewing. At the language level this is evident in
the use of elements that prior to 1990 rarely appeared in headlines or journalistic texts,
i.e., vulgarisms and low colloquialisms (cf. Kalin Golob: 52–54). Another difference
is in the increasing use of hyperbolic headlines.14 Hyperbole can lead to sensationalism, which is today a characteristic of both the serious press and the popular tabloids.
In fact, the market orientation has blurred the lines between these two types, so that
on the front page of the traditional, »serious, quality« paper Delo (23. 2. 2001) there is
a headline with a low colloquial word (actually labeled in Slovenski pravopis 2001 as
»journalistic«) ûdeà ni bilo, âde` na koncu »izvisel«, which would have not been
possible to find in the past, at least not on the front page. Research done as seminar
work has shown that even Delo cannot avoid hyperbole, especially in human interest
stories, where it takes the form of exaggeration and deception (Temni lesk seksualnosti, Prevro~i ra~unalniki 27. 1. 2004, back page), as well as in sports reports (@elja
pokopala La{~ane, 9. 2. 2004, 12; Nike ni ponudila toplega objema, 12. 2. 2004, 14);
it is included less frequently in the traditionally »serious« themes, i.e., politics and the
economy.
Hyperbole is often built on ambiguity, which is, admittedly, clarified at some point
in the text, but it is still a type of deception. Thus the headline Bush je za na Mars
(Dnevnik, 16. 1. 2004, 20) is first understood by the reader idiomatically and not, as
the sub-heading makes it clear, that the American President is announcing a serious
addition to space exploration.
Another interesting phenomenon worth a closer analysis is recycling of headlines.
In recent years, an ever more frequent source of recycling is advertising slogans and
titles of pop songs and films, to a lesser extent the titles of literary or other, intellectually or educationally more demanding texts. Successful slogans, such as Vsi druga~ni,
vsi enakopravni, have been frequently recycled in different daily newspapers; similarly also, for instance, Vsi druga~ni, vsi za re{etkami (Delo, 10. 1. 2004, 8) or Vsi dobri, vsi premagljivi (Ve~er, 27. 1. 2004, 10). As an intensive part of our everyday life,
advertising appears more often in journalism than it did in the past; the same is true
of popular songs: Od vi{ine se zvrti, Kar je staro, se novo zdi (repeating the titles of
14
The term is Koro{ec’s (1998) and relates to a kind of veiled headline in which the selection of language resources distorts the truth value of the content of the article, usually by increasing the actual importance
of the message or part of it.
665
songs by Vlado Kreslin, Delo, 5. 1. 2004, 24, and 24. 1. 2004, 13), Ra~unajte na nas
(from the Rani mraz song, Slovenske novice, 24. 12. 2003, 15); and Cela ulica gori, ne
kli~i 113! (recycling Cela ulica nori ..., Slovenske novice, 23. 1. 2004, 4).
In addition, Slovenske novice introduced a new type of headline that appears as a
sticker across part of another headline (according to Koro{ec’s typology, this could be
referred to as a »cross-heading«) and shows the journalist’s interpretation of a »scandalous« event, e.g., »terrible, perverse, tragic«.
3.3 The temporal-spatial framing of the journalistic text
Shortly after Koro{ec’s book was published (1998), the main Slovenian daily Delo
decided to change its long-standing practice based on a tradition derived from the
German journalism: the temporal-spatial framing of the journalistic text was tied to
the time when the text was written; also, the adverbials in the text were related to the
frame, which, in turn, established the relationship with the time of the event itself.
The second temporal information was the date on each edition of the paper: »The
double recording of newspaper time, i.e., the use of two different predominant times
(as in Delo or in German daily newspapers) is richer from a journalistic point of view,
although it is not the only option. If I am in favor of this system, it is out of respect for
the tradition, for the conventions established between newspapers and readers. Any
change of routine causes not only uncertainty among readers, but also difficulties in
processing the content« (Koro{ec 1998: 185, note 96).
Delo did precisely that and caused a lot of mistakes and difficulties in processing,
as the journalists, still used to a different practice, continued to make mistakes for
a long time. The readers, on the other hand, kept asking themselves what the writer
meant by yesterday or tomorrow. For example, on February 15, in a report with no
date, only the spatial framing, Ljubljana, we read, »Tomorrow the lecture on …«; later
in the text we find out that the lecture was »today«, February 15, at 11 o’clock. It was
no doubt a mere coincidence that this change or elimination of the traditional temporal-spatial framing occurred immediately after the publication of Koro{ec’s book. It
was probably due to the fact that Delo at that time hosted an expert from Britain who
recommended certain changes to the paper’s visual image (Media Watch 1998). The
British tradition quotes only one temporal piece of information, i.e., the date of the
edition of the paper, hence the Slovenian approach must have seemed unusual and was
even perhaps, with the self-confidence of the big, declared to be »wrong«. If those
responsible at Delo had had a more thorough awareness of tradition and if they had
checked the book by an expert in the »newspaper style«, they would have certainly
given the change some thought and would have not done away with a convention wellestablished between the paper and its readers.
Today Delo, Dnevnik, and Primorske novice use only a spatial framing for texts,
while the prevailing time is the date on the masthead, which compels the journalist to
adapt the time of the event to the time of reading. Ve~er leaves out both temporal and
spatial framings, which means that sometimes we simply do not know when an event
took place. Paradoxically, the traditional temporal-spatial framing is retained by the
666
popular tabloid Slovenske novice, in which the date is the time of the creation of the
text and does not signify an unnecessary repetition of the time on the masthead.
4. Conclusion
The work of the journalist has changed with the growth of the media, newspaper
tabloidisation, and the appearance of Internet journalism. The theory of journalism
has still not answered the question as to what now belongs in journalistic domain:
should we count only serious journalism (i.e., retain the traditional concept) or should
we face reality and include also infotainment (Poler Kova~i~ 2001), the journalism of
media scandals and sensationalism, and other marginal areas?
Stylistic research that currently relies primarily on newspaper material should also
include the electronic media. Media texts remain of interest to linguistics in general
particularly because they most accurately reflect developmental trends in language.
David Limon.
REFERENCES
Smilja AMON, 1988: Nem{ko ~asopisje na Slovenskem. V: Teorija in praksa 9–10. 1329–1333.
Anton BREZNIK, 1967: O ~asnikarski sloven{~ini. @ivljenje besed. Ur. Jakob [olar. Maribor.
Harald BURGER, 1990: Sprache der Massenmedien. Sammlung Göschen 2225. Berlin, New
York: Walter de Gruyter.
Janez DULAR, 1971–72: O slovenskem ~asnikarskem jeziku. V: JiS {t. 5.
– – 1974a: Zvrstnost slovenskega publicisti~nega jezika. V: Zbornik X. SSJLK. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 41–52.
– – 1974b: Publicisti~ni jezik v prepletu jezikovnih zvrsti in jezikovnih razli~ic. Ljubljana. Magistrska naloga.
– – 1975a: Slavizacija v oblikoslovju in skladnji slovenskih publicisti~nih besedil v drugi polovici XIX. stoletja. V: Zbornik XI SSJLK. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 27–35.
– – 1975b: Zvrstna pripadnost prvin v publicisti~nih besedlih V: SR 23. 197–221.
Janez GRADI{NIK, 1981/82: Domneve z ‚naj’. Jezik in slovstvo 27/1. 23–24.
Ulrike HASS-ZUMKER, 1998: »Wie glaubwűrdige Nachrichten versichert haben«. Formulirungstradiziones in Zeitungsnachrichten des 17. bis 20. Jahrhunderts. Tűbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
K. A. HOLZ, 1972: Münchner Neueste Nachrichten (1848−1945). Deutsche Zeitungen des 17.
−20. Jahrhunderts. Pullach, Isartal: Heinz-Dietrich Fischer. 191 str.
Monika KALIN GOLOB, 1998: Jezikovno-stilni razvoj v slovenskih poro~evalnih besedilih do
za~etka 20. stoletja. Ljubljana. Doktorska disertacija.
– – 2003a: H koreninam slovenskega poro~evalnega stila. Ljubljana: Jutro.
– – 2003b: Stil in novinarski {kandal. Teorija in praksa, marec/april 2003, let. 40, {t. 2. 229–
244.
– – 2004a: Mo~ jezika – izbor dejstev in besed. Teorija in praksa maj/avgust, let. 41, {t. 3–4.
703–711.
– – 2004b: Moderno in modno v publicisti~nem spletu vplivanja ter stilu slovenskih novinarskih
besedil. V Stabej, M. (ur.): Moderno in modno v slovenskem jeziku, literaturi in kulturi.
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 48–57.
667
Monika KALIN GOLOB, Melita POLER KOVA~I~, 2005: Med novinarskim stilom in etiko: senzacionalizem brez meja. Dru`boslovne razprave, letnik XXI, {tevilka 49/50, 289–303.
Tomo KORO{EC, 1968: O mestu novinarskega stila v publicistiki. Gospodarski vestnik {t. 37,
Sloven{~ina v gospodarstvu. 4.
– – 1976: Poglavja iz strukturalne analize slovenskega ~asopisnega stila. Ljubljana, doktorska
disertacija.
Tomo KORO{EC idr., 2002: Razàlitve v tiskanih medijih. Ljubljana: FDV.
– – 2004: Stilistika poro~evalstva – {panska vas. V: Poler Kova~i~, Melita (ur.), Kalin Golob,
Monika (ur.). Poti slovenskega novinarstva – danes in jutri : znanstveni zbornik ob 40.
obletnici {tudija novinarstva na Slovenskem, (Knji`na zbirka Media). Ljubljana: Fakulteta
za dru`bene vede. 17–31.
Breda LUTHAR, 1998: Poetika in politika tabloidne kulture. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicisti~no
sredi{~e.
Melita POLER,1997: Novinarska etika. Ljubljana: Magnolija.
– – 2001. Mesto subjekta v sodobni novinarski etiki. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: FDV.
– – 2003: Preiskovalno novinarstvo, ustvarjanje {kandalov in novinarska etika. Teorija in praksa, 40, 2. 207–228.
Karl-Ernst SOMMERFELDT, 1997: Gestern so und heute anders. Sprachliche Felder und Textsorten in der Presse. München: Iudicum Verlag.
Hana SRPOVÁ, 1998: K aktualizaci a automatizaci v sou~asné psané publicistice. Ostrava: Filozofická fakulta Ostravské univerzity.
Janez SR{EN, 1998: Jezik na{ vsakdanji. 2. izdaja. Ljubljana: Gospodarski vestnik.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva zalo`ba.
Barbie ZELIZER, 2004: Taking Journalism Seriously News and the Academy. London: Sage.
POVZETEK
Teorija novinarstva {e ni odgovorila na vpra{anje, kaj danes sploh sodi k novinarski dejavnosti: smemo med novinarstvo {teti le t. i. resno novinarstvo (torej upo{tevati klasi~no pojmovanje) ali pa sprejeti realnost in dodati {e t. i. infozabavno novinarstvo, novinarstvo medijskih
{kandalov in senzacionalizma, ter druga mejna podro~ja?
Pri stilisti~nem prou~evanju bo treba v raziskovanje, temelje~ predvsem na ~asopisnem gradivu, vklju~iti tudi elektronske medije. Za jezikoslovje nasploh pa ostajajo medijska besedila
zanimiva predvsem zato, ker se prav v njih najprej pokaèjo razvojne te`nje v jeziku.
668
Sociolinguistics
Andrej E. Skubic, Attitudes towards Social Speech among Different Social Groups ...
III SOCIOLINGUISTICS
669
670
Sociolinguistics
UDC 811.163.6’27
Andrej E. Skubic
Ljubljana
671
ATTITUDES TOWARDS SOCIAL SPEECH AMONG DIFFERENT SOCIAL
GROUPS IN SLOVENIA1
This paper presents the results of a survey of 238 speakers of Slovenian. The survey gathered responses to samples of four different sociolects; the analysis of the results contains a close
study of the distribution of these responses according to respondents’ sex, age and social group.
The analysis highlights specific links between certain groups and sociolects, the methods used
by respondents when evaluating the language and speakers of individual sociolects, and the
ways in which those methods are characteristic of membership of a specific social group.
V ~lanku so predstavljeni rezultati ankete med 238 govorci sloven{~ine. V anketi so bili
zbrani odzivi na vzorce {tirih razli~nih sociolektov, v analizi pa smo prou~ili distribucijo teh
odzivov po spolih, starostih in dru`benih skupinah anketirancev. Izkazale so se specifi~ne povezave posameznih skupin s posameznimi sociolekti, pa tudi specifi~ni na~ini vrednotenja
jezika in govorcev posameznih sociolektov, kot so zna~ilni za anketirance razli~nih dru`benih
pripadnosti.
Key words: sociolinguistics of Slovenian, sociolects, slang, vulgarity in language Survey
Klju~ne besede: sociolingvistika sloven{~ine, sociolekti, sleng, vulgarno v jeziku
1 Survey
A research survey was carried out of the responses of various groups of Slovenian
speakers to four samples of social speech (sociolects) taken from contemporary Slovenian literary texts. The sociolects used were: slang, elite (extemporaneous/relaxed
speech of educated speakers), rural (dialect) and urban (low colloquial language). A
total of 238 people were surveyed, divided as follows for the purposes of analysis:
1) into two age groups, those under and those over 25 (in choosing this division,
which corresponds roughly to the end of one’s schooling, we wished to separate
the members of the »moratorium group« from those that are already an established
part of the social economy);
2) by sex;
3) into three educational groups: lower (primary or secondary vocational education),
medium (secondary or further education), and higher (college education).
The division into educational groups is an approximation of social division and
is not, as such, ideal; for a more precise definition one would need to establish (primarily) social status on an individual basis (Max Weber), or even more precisely habitus (Pierre Bourdieu). Despite these reservations, it was decided, for the purposes
of analysis, that a single factor in an otherwise three-dimensional social stratification
1
This research was carried out as part of a doctoral study under the supervision of Professor Ada Vidovi~-Muha at the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana.
672
Sociolinguistics
(material, cultural and social capital, see Bourdieu, 1986: 241–261) would be used.
Institutional education is not only the factor which is the most easily addressed from
an objective point of view but also the most important when considering attitudes to
language. It is in the education process that a speaker of a language is introduced to
more complex forms of discourse (and to »cultural language« in general), and his own
practical linguistic sense develops from an understanding of his own attitude to these
discourses (see Bourdieu, 2002).
The table below shows a precise distribution of respondents according to the parameters outlined above.
Male
Female
Level of
education
Lower
25 and under
Over 25
25 and under
Over 25
Total
27
12
11
7
57
Medium
3
17
41
25
86
9
10
66
10
95
39
39
118
42
238
Higher
Total
Since the groups were distributed unevenly in numerical terms, the results had
to be weighted in the course of statistical processing. The following approach was
decided upon. In comparing, for instance, the responses of age groups within an individual age group, (1) we first calculated the average of the responses of all three social
groups for both sexes; (2) we then calculated the average of the responses between
the sexes. We were thus able to eliminate the possibility, for example, of the larger
number of women under 25 with higher education from distorting the results of the
analysis for the under-25 age group.
The questions that the respondents were required to answer can be divided into
two groups: questions relating to the attractiveness of a sample sociolect, from which
we calculated indices; and questions relating to stereotypes surrounding speakers of a
sample sociolect, where we considered the percentages of respondents within a given
group who had opted to give an individual descriptive response. There were four questions within the first group:
There were four questions within the first group:
1. Are you able to identify with or feel close to a person who uses this language?
a. Yes, I feel at home with such a person
b. No, but I am able to understand them
c. No, their way of thinking is strange to me
2. Is such a person attractive to you?
a. Yes
b. Somewhere in the middle
c. No
3. Would you normally be interested in a novel of this type?
a. Yes
4.
1)
2)
3)
673
b. Perhaps
c. No
What do you think of the use of such a method of expression in public, e.g. in television discussion programmes, public appearances, conversat conversations with
strangers?
a. It is inappropriate and unpleasant to hear
b. This unnatural manner of speaking is not appropriate in such situations.
c. I would not notice, and it would seem entirely normal to me
d. I would find it interesting
e. I would find it attractive and relaxed
We evaluated the responses as follows:
We counted the positive, neutral and negative responses in each group for each
question, and expressed them as percentages.
We then subtracted the percentage of negative responses from the percentage of
positive responses, thus obtaining an index of the sociolect in question for each
group according to the given parameter. For example, an index of –21 for the
second question means that in the group in question, 21 % more respondents responded that the sociolect was not attractive to them than those who gave a positive response. For the fourth question, where five answers were possible, the last
two answers were calculated in the same way as with the other questions, with
the moderately positive and the moderately negative answers being multiplied by
0.5 so that their contribution to the index had suitably lesser weight. The highest
hypothetical index was +/–100 (100 % positive or negative response), while an index that approaches zero signifies a largely neutral response to a sociolect among
respondents in the group in question (meaning either that their assessment was
mostly »somewhere in the middle« or that roughly the same numbers gave positive
and negative responses).
We processed the responses as indices of (1) identification (2) attractiveness (3)
interest and (4) suitability for public use. We refer to the average of these indices
as the index of attractiveness. Special attention has been paid to the index of identification and the average index of attractiveness; differences between the other indexes have been noted only when they pointed up a specific or unexpected ratio.
The second group of questions attempted to establish the image respondents had of
people who used such language. A range of possible positive and negative responses
corresponded to the characteristics that might induce a respondent to regard a speaker
of such language as attractive or unattractive. A person could be:
a) boring
b) sugary
c) vulgar
d) affected
e) stupid
f) narrow-minded
g) conceited
a) funny, witty
b) cultivated
c) coarse, direct, relaxed
d) sincere, open
e) intelligent, thoughtful
f) well-versed in the ways of the world
g) understanding towards other people
674
Sociolinguistics
We simply added up the responses to these questions and expressed them as percentages of all respondents (with the appropriate weighting of the results). At least
a fifth of all respondents were required to have chosen a particular response it to be
regarded as a conclusive response.
2 Comparison of age groups
Respondents in the younger age group assessed slang more favourably according
to all parameters (e.g. an index of identification of +21 vs. +6 among the older age
group);2 this was entirely in line with expectations. It is interesting to note, however,
that despite this high index, the under-25 group gave a fairly low assessment of its
suitability for public use (–35), even though the sample did not contain particularly
vulgar elements; clearly, secondary socialisation is already playing its role in constructing an approach towards cultural language among these respondents.
By contrast, the older speakers surveyed felt somewhat greater identification with
the rural sociolect: an index of identification of –5 among the younger and +5 among
the older respondents, with the overall index being –7 and +4 for the respective age
groups. This difference is even more interesting in relation to suitability for public
use. While the older age group regarded it as relatively suitable (+7), for example,
more suitable than the elite sociolect (–13), the index for the younger age group was
extremely low (–22) – even lower than for the elite sociolect (–17). This seems to
point to a re-evaluation of dialect by the younger generation, but is unlikely to be a
special symptom of our times; the deterioration of dialects has, after all, been a point
of discussion since the very beginning of dialectology. More likely this simply demonstrates the feeling that rural speech is inappropriate for younger speakers as they begin their professional careers on the one side and certain nostalgia for dialects among
older speakers on the other. This can also be seen in the fact that the older respondents
designated this language as the speech of compassionate people significantly more
often than the younger ones (28 % vs. 12 %), but at the same time as limited (37 %
vs. 28 %).
When we consider the stereotypical notion of the »rebellious« approach to language taken by younger people, the fact that by far and away the greatest difference
between the age groups was in their attitude towards the low urban sociolect was entirely in line with expectations. These differences were more pronounced than all others in the survey. The index of identification was 21 among the younger age group and
–0 among the older age group; the index of attractiveness was –7 among the younger
age group and –45 among the older age group; and the index of interest was +4 among
2
It is understandable that the index is not even higher if one considers the fact that slangs, like all major
types of sociolects, are differentiated. The identification with particular slang depends on other characteristics of the respondent, e.g., level of education, affiliation with a particular social network. This survey
is intended to measure the response to general features of individual groups of sociolects by a very diverse
group of participants, rather than the response of a concrete social network to the characteristics of a particular sociolect, which is typical of other sociolinguistic studies. For general features of individual groups
of sociolects cf. Skubic, 2004.
675
the younger age group (the only positive outcome for all sociolects) and –28 among
the older age group. Sixty-one percent of older respondents regarded such speech as
vulgar (37 % of younger respondents); and 38 % of younger respondents preferred to
regard such speech as sincere, open (25 % of older respondents did so).
3 Comparison of the sexes
There were no particular differentiations in responses according to sex when it
came to specific slang and elite features of language; the more interesting differences
came with both marginal (rural and urban) sociolects.
As regards the rural sociolect (dialect), the index of identification was lower
among women than among men (–5 vs. +8); at the same time, the index of attractiveness was slightly higher among women (+28 vs. +21). It appears that this figure,
though the difference is minimal, agrees with findings on the gender differentiation of
expression from sociolinguistic research in the United States and Great Britain (e.g.
1978, Trudgill, 1975, where interpretation proceeded in two directions. The original
interpretation of Labov and Trudgill was that the status of women in Western society
was under greater threat since they had less power in society, their need for a defence
mechanism as a substitute signalisation of status making it more incumbent on them
to use a more cultivated form of language. According to the other interpretation, advocated by James and Lesley Milroy (see Wodak, 1997: 136), this shows that social
networks control loyalty to local values considerably more rigidly among men, from
which it is therefore expected with greater certainty that they will preserve a marginal
sociolect; women, on the other hand, have greater linguistic freedom, which is why
they are also able to deploy cultivated variants (which for men are »too effeminate«).
The otherwise unpronounced trend shown by the survey is interesting, given that our
approach measured a relatively abstract attitude towards ways of speaking in general
and did not focus on concrete ways of speaking within a given speech network.
As expected, men expressed a greater degree of identification with regard to the
low urban sociolect than women (+17 vs. +9) and greater tolerance when it came
to assessing attractiveness (–21 vs. –29). Opinions on (un)suitability for public use
were roughly equal (–51 for men and –54 for women). It is interesting to note that
women nevertheless demonstrated greater interest in the text featuring this mode of
expression (–8 among women and –19 among men). Where there were roughly equal
levels of (un)attractiveness and (dis)interest among men (–21 and –19, respectively),
women expressed a greater interest in the language whose speakers were otherwise
regarded as less attractive (therefore, attractiveness –29 and interest –9). To draw a
perhaps inappropriate but nevertheless interesting parallel: in analysing the attitude
of social groups to the low sociolect, we see that this attitude to language was expressed by those with a medium level of education (index of attractiveness was –45,
with the index of interest somewhat higher at –33), where sociological research and
interpretation posits an uneasy relationship with language, rather than by those with a
higher level of education (attractiveness and interest roughly equal at –12 and –9, respectively), where the relationship with language is more relaxed. The differences are
676
Sociolinguistics
certainly not great and do not indicate a »principle«; however, they do perhaps show a
trend in the approach to the evaluation of what the dominant social culture excludes,
but what still remains exciting.
The reliance on conventional evaluations is demonstrated when one examines the
descriptive markers for all the sociolects. Women were more inclined to regard uncultivated elements as vulgar. Twenty-seven percent of women and 17 % of men
regarded the speaker of slang as vulgar; 54 % of women and 42 % of men regarded
the speaker of the urban sociolect as vulgar.
4 Comparison of educational groups
Expectations regarding the attitude of social groups to language derive from what
we know about their own sociolects (see Skubic, 2004). In this comparison we will
therefore examine the following: (1) view of the world, which is reflected in the specific assessments given by an educational group of respondents; (2) the evaluation
of sociolects seen as likely to be closer to the group in question. Naturally, it is not
possible to judge, on the basis of the modest amount of information available on the
respondents, whether a respondent speaks or identifies with a specific dialect; we can,
however, place a respondent with a proportionately high probability in a habitus in
which a certain sociolect is most at home. Likewise, when deploying this analytical
classification, one is unable to establish all the necessary links; for example, we have
not included in the survey samples of the hypercorrective cultivated sociolect, which
would one expect to be closer to the medium-level educational group. This sociolect
is (especially in written form) so close to the language of culture that readers expect
to encounter in printed texts that respondents probably would not recognise it as a
language that designates the social status of the speaker. For this reason, we have not
included a study of the evaluation of their sociolect in the sub-section on respondents
with a medium-level education. A review of the evaluation of the slang sociolect is
included in the section on respondents with a higher level of education with reservations; slang in general is not more closely linked with any single social group (unlike
the specific slang of vocational school students for example, which can be linked to
the lower education group), since it denotes speakers who have decided to withdraw
from established linguistic hierarchies and to resocialise within their own group under
their own conditions. We discuss this sociolect there because it expresses a linguistic
ease and exclusive (self-)evaluative approach that is close to the semiotic approach of
the elite sociolect. In fact, the expression elite sociolect itself might be problematic
because it actually involves a modification of the cultivated sociolect towards slang, a
marginal phenomenon that could also be treated as a socially higher variety of slang.
4.1 Respondents with a lower level of education
If we take language attitude as tolerance of social heterogeneity in language use,
we can take respondents with a lower level of education as being (1) relatively conscious of the importance and identification value of differences – they demonstrated
677
comparatively the most pronounced indices of identification with the expected sociolects; (2) despite this fact they were relatively tolerant – the total indices of attractiveness for all sociolects were, in comparison with the other two groups, moderately
(not excessively) low (slang –14, elite –6, rural –3, urban –7).
As expected, speakers with a lower level of education expressed the highest index of identification with the urban sociolect (+31, which was the highest index of
identification of all sociolects and all social groups in the study). This affiliation is in
apparent contradiction with the low index of suitability for public use (–37) and even
with the relatively low index of attractiveness (–12), although this was still the most
positive evaluation of all three groups surveyed. In part, this is the phenomenon that
William Labov called linguistic uncertainty ((1978): 124 and following), and partly
a discrepancy between the norms of the (declared) prestige and the (actual) covert
prestige, which could not be included in a study of this type. The most notable fact
here is that in no other educational group were the differences between the older
and younger age groups so pronounced. The index of identification was +61 among
younger speakers and +3 among older speakers; this difference appeared in all other
indices (the index of attractiveness was +25 among younger speakers and –49 among
older speakers), and even in the negative evaluation of suitability for public use (–21
among younger speakers and –53 among older speakers). The generation gap is clearly particularly deep in the social class whose marginal dysphemistic values are under
greatest pressure from the dominant culture.
The urban sociolect is followed by slang, with an index of identification of +15.
The most striking fact is that this group found the slang to be the least attractive of all
the sociolects (–26, which was twice as low as the index for the low urban sociolect).
What makes this relatively benign slang even more unattractive than the vulgarities of
the urban sociolect? In light of the general observations on the living habits and tastes
of social groups (see e.g. (1984)), it probably points to a certain characteristic of the
lower social groups in general: these groups are supposed to be extremely pragmatic
and are not meant to have an ear for »affected« speech, which is precisely how the
playful and ironic stance taken by slang towards the dominant culture can be understood. If dysphemism plays a role in living and working practices of a more physical
nature, the playfulness of slang is contrary to »common sense«, which is traditionally
linked with the term »folk«, as it has also been treated in Slovenian sociolinguistic
history. This also says something about the relationship of slang to the hierarchy in
general social semiotics: the idea of resocialisation, the decision to adopt alternative
values, which is the background of the origins of slang, is an act of individualisation, a
withdrawal from a linguistic environment that seems repressive in its conventionality;
it is experienced as subversive and, because of the relatively weak social power of its
adherents, frequently comical.3 It is no surprise that, with the exception of several ar-
3
This certainly does not mean that such a newly created group does not act in a repressive manner
against its members with respect to linguistic conduct – possibly even more so on account of its persecution
complex and self-exclusion.
678
Sociolinguistics
ticles by Velemir Gjurin (Gjurin, 1974, Gjurin, 1982), slangs have not been accorded
particularly serious or careful attention in Slovenian linguistics. There is a clearly
noticeable generational split here as well: the index of identification was +27 among
younger speakers (index of attractiveness –3), and +3 among older speakers (index of
attractiveness –49).
The elite sociolect scored relatively highly among members of this group, somewhat contrary to expectation (+12); curiously, this group gave it the highest index of
attractiveness of all the groups surveyed. Surprisingly, most of the credit for the high
score accorded to this sociolect goes to young people (+24, as opposed to +0 among
the older age group), and particularly to young women (+36, vs. +11 among young
men). It appears that the pejorative terms zasvinjanost, svinjarija, bedak and rovte,
which led more educated groups to regard this angry speaker as unattractive, are closer to the mode of expression of young women in the lower- education group, which
is also otherwise more inclined to uncensored expression of (also negative) feelings;
however, the extreme vulgarisms from the urban sociolect appear over-stigmatised to
the young women of this group. They are even willing to overlook certain obvious
intellectual words (razpadajo~e beljakovine).
4.1.1 Assessments of the rural sociolect
As expected, respondents with a lower level of education identified most with
the rural sociolect; however, a generation gap is found here as well. The total index of
identification was fairly low (+3), which can be attributed on the one hand to the expressly regional character of the rural sociolect in the sample text, which considerably
reduced the likelihood of identification; on the other hand, the index of identification
was much higher among older respondents with a lower level of education (+14 vs. –8
among the younger respondents). This language still expresses a marginal view of the
world, but in a way that is compatible with the dominant norms. The rural sociolect is
therefore the only language with which these respondents felt properly affiliated; their
index of identification for all other sociolects was close to zero (i.e. the number of
respondents who identified with it was roughly the same as those who did not). None
of the groups surveyed placed the rural sociolect first or second.
The evaluation of the rural sociolect was the most different from the evaluations
of other sociolects. The rural sociolect was the only language in which the index of
attractiveness exceeded the index of identification among all groups. All groups of
respondents assessed the speakers of this sociolect as funny, witty (average 42 %), and
of all sociolects, rural speakers obtained the highest average mark denoting them as
compassionate (around 20 % of all respondents). It is also interesting to note that the
group with medium and lower levels of education placed this sociolect before the
elite sociolect in terms of suitability for public use (–17 or –4 vs. –34 or –16); among
those with a higher level of education, the elite sociolect remained slightly ahead.
We may surmise that these results simply agree with the traditional myth of the »folk
language« as the best Slovene of all. Of all groups of respondents, those with a higher
level of education were far and away the most common in stating that speakers of
679
this sociolect were sincere, open (61 %), which points to the particularly pronounced
idealisation of rural life among this group (only 18 % of the more down-to-earth respondents with a lower level of education agreed with this assessment).
It should also be mentioned that this idealistic assessment hides within itself a
high degree of patronising. Respondents with a higher level of education also often
regarded speakers of this sociolect as limited (37 %), with the other two groups not
far behind. Respondents with a lower level of education commonly characterised
speakers of this sociolect as stupid (22 %); this was particularly the opinion of young
men (33 %).
4.1.2 Assessments of the urban sociolect
As mentioned above, the urban sociolect was most conspicuously claimed as their
own by respondents with a lower level of education; the index of identification was
most pronounced among this group. As expected, this sociolect provoked the most
extreme responses among all groups.
Respondents with a medium level of education were distinct in characterising
this sociolect as vulgar (61 %, which is around 20 % more than the other two groups
of respondents). They agreed with respondents with a higher level of education that
speakers of this sociolect were limited (44, or 48 %), although this opinion was not
held so widely by respondents with a lower level of education (only 23 %).4 At the
same time, respondents with a higher level of education did characterise speakers of
this sociolect as sincere, open to an above-average extent (42 %, vs. approx. 25 % for
the other two groups); this difference is similar to that seen in assessments of the rural
sociolect. This appears to suggest that there is a certain degree of idealisation of the
»untainted« nature of lower social groups generally among members of this group.
Respondents with a lower level of education did not contribute descriptive assessments in any great number; one can however note three relatively low (in percentage
terms) assessments that are specific to this group. Sixteen percent of these respondents
believed that a speaker of this sociolect was well-versed in the ways of the world (22
% of young men, only 5 % in the other two groups), 13 % that (s)he showed understanding towards other people (19 % of young men, with no respondent in the other
groups giving this assessment) and 17 % that (s)he was funny, witty (37 % of young
men vs. only 11 % and 5 %, respectively, for respondents with higher and medium
levels of education).
4
It is worth mentioning that around one third of respondents regarded speakers of practically all sociolects as limited. The deviations from this rule are also of interest: only respondents with a higher level
of education agreed with this assessment considerably less with respect to the elite sociolect, while only
respondents with a lower level of education disagreed with it with regard to the urban sociolect.
680
Sociolinguistics
4.2 Respondents with a higher level of education
Of all the groups surveyed, these respondents produced the highest indices of
attractiveness for all sociolects (E –5, M +3, S +8) with the exception of the urban
sociolect, which was evaluated lower by this group than by the groups with lower
education (–16). This points to a relatively high degree of linguistic tolerance among
these respondents even when they do not identify with a certain language.
Slang was markedly the sociolect with which this group most identified (+20,
rising to +29 among young people). Of all the groups surveyed, it produced by far
the highest index of attractiveness for this sociolect (although still a negative value of
–8). Of all respondents, they were most frequent in characterising a speaker of this
sociolect as sincere, open (45) and coarse, direct (50), even though such speakers
were also commonly characterised by this group (as they were by those with a lower
level of education) as relatively limited (40). With no other sociolect did the index of
identification exceed +10 for this group of respondents. Second place was occupied
by the elite sociolect (+6), which was the only sociolect that received a positive index
of suitability for public use among this group (+5).
4.2.1 Assessments of the elite sociolect
As mentioned earlier, of all the groups surveyed, the group with a lower level of
education produced the highest index of identification for the elite sociolect (+12),
although it put it only in third place overall. No group put it in first place. It did claim
second place among those with a higher level of education, but with a low index of
identification (+6).
The descriptive designations of this language differed quite widely according to
the group. To a large extent, those with a medium level of education regarded speakers of this sociolect as particularly unattractive (–31); this group also distinguishes
itself by its characterisation of the speakers of the elite sociolect as limited (32 %,
respondents with a low level of education 25 %; only respondents with a higher level
of education do not agree with this assessment) and boring (30 %; 24 % respondents
with a higher level of education). Respondents with a medium level of education also
regarded this sociolect as unsuitable for public use (–34). Respondents with a lower
level of education characterised speakers of this sociolect as conceited (25 %, which
was above average) and the sociolect itself as less suitable for public use (–16). As already mentioned, respondents with a higher level of education regarded this sociolect
as entirely suitable. Speakers of this sociolect were given positive assessments chiefly
by respondents with a higher level of education: well-versed in the ways of the world
(32 – half the number of respondents from the other two groups agreed with this, but
speakers of this sociolect nevertheless had the highest score for this parameter of all
the sociolects) and sincere, open (42 – close to 32 for the respondents with a lower
level of education; only respondents with a medium level of education do not agree).
681
4.2.2 Assessments of slang
Respondents with a higher level of education identified most with slang (+20),
followed by those with a lower level of education (+15); in both groups the lead was
taken by young people (+29 and +27 respectively). It is interesting to note that those
with a medium level of education identified least with this sociolect: the index was a
mere +9.
None of the groups produced a positive index of attractiveness for speakers of this
sociolect. The highest score (only –8) came from those with a higher level of education, who assigned positive attributes to speakers of this sociolect to an above-average degree: sincere, open – 45 % (only 29 % among the other two groups); coarse,
direct – 50 %. They were regarded across the board as being limited (approx. 38 %);
respondents with a medium level of education characterised them as vulgar to an
above-average degree (34 %, i.e. twice as often as respondents from other groups).
Those with a lower level of education characterised the speaker as moderately funny,
witty (22 % – the same figure as for those with a higher level of education, which
placed it in second place among all the sociolects).
4.3 Respondents with a medium level of education
The total indices of evaluation of all sociolects were exceptionally low among
respondents with a medium level of education (slang –23, elite –29, urban –38, even
rural –9). They were far and away the most common users of the marker vulgar for
all sociolects (see above). Their very low evaluation of the elite sociolect according
to all parameters was surprising; they even assessed it as being more unattractive and
uninteresting than the slang (as noted above, they regarded the speaker of this sociolect as limited and boring with above-average frequency). Moreover, this group was
distinguished by its unexpectedly low assessment of the rural sociolect, i.e., despite a
modest (the lowest of all at only +12) level of attractiveness, its suitability for public
use was assessed at –17 (–46 among young people!), although this assessment was not
based on a particularly outstanding descriptive markers.
These respondents gave no index of identification higher than +10 for any of the
sociolects included in the survey. In first place was slang (+7, among young people
+9), although this affiliation was by far the lowest for this sociolect according to all
parameters of all the groups surveyed; the index of identification was not positive for
any of the other sociolects.
The attitude to language displayed by this group effectively illustrates the features
of this social group put forward by Pierre Bourdieu in his book on the social critique
of taste (1984) and which I also anticipated, based on his analysis, in my article on
sociolects (Skubic, 2004). Although affiliation with the language of culture is stereotypically and frequently attributed primarily to educated people, a number of sociolinguistic studies (in my opinion, the present one as well) have shown that this is not
always the case in everyday life. The higher-status group is characterised by a fairly
relaxed attitude to language, rejection of conventional exclusivity and even an inclina-
682
Sociolinguistics
tion towards eccentricity (since it »does not need« symbolic linguistic endorsement).
On the other hand, the linguistic uncertainty forces the lower-status groups – which
desire to distance themselves from groups they regard as lower or less cultured – into
hypercorrection, rigidity and intolerance of difference.
5 Appendix: Samples of sociolects used in the survey
Slang
Elite sociolect
Mislim, mimoido~i je bil dobesedno tepec
na celi ~rti. Tak{ne tipe sovraìm è od
malih nog, res. Gledal sem za njim in kar na
bruhanje mi je {lo. Nisem vedel, kaj storiti,
pa sem se po~asi podal za njim. Brez vsakih
nakan, da smo si na jasnem. Imela sva pa~
isto pot. Capljal sem tam ob tisti reki in se
oziral za staro hi{o, katere stopnice vodijo v
reko. Stari mlin. Nekje sem sli{al, pa ne bi
potem, kje, da so v neki davni avstrijski in
ogrski deèli zmleli tam na tone in tone ìta,
ki so ga nato zmletega prevaàli po reki na
nekak{nih prekletih flosih. Da so se ti modeli,
ki so prevaàli moko, imeli nadvse kul in
to in da so bili pravi, khm, khm, poriva~i in
da so imeli v vsakem mestu, kjer so seveda
lahko privezali svoj flos, po eno ljubico. Da
so nosili domov muziko, kot so tedaj pravili
spolni bolezni in to. Za vola ubit.
»Situacija je kar normalna…«
»Toliko normalna, da ~loveku ni treba
stopati ~ez ljudi, prtljago, da {e ne smrdi
po hodnikih po ~esnu in ~ebuli, ov~etini in
kozletini mogo~e, da ni do konca zasvinjano
in da se ne kadi in ne pije. Lahko si samo
èlimo, da ne bo hitrih racij in pregledov
policije in carine, da si {e ni nabral ve~
kot tristo minut zamude, ne glede na to,
v katero smer pelje. To zate pomeni, da
so cariniki in policisti za silo normalni,
~etudi, tako kot potniki, malo smrdijo po
~esnu, ~ebuli in `ganju, po te`kem tobaku,
po kislem in postanem, po razpadajo~ih
beljakovinah… to je zate {e normalno, ne?
Ta tvoja ve~na te`nja, da bi se pribliàl dnu,
da bi se dotaknil ~im ve~je svinjarije… Ko
je doseèno to, takrat si sre~en – in vrh tvoje
sre~e je, ~e najde{ bedaka, da poslu{a tvoje
predavanje o zgodovini èleznice… kakor da
se danes peljem prvi~, kakor da grem prvi~
tja proti tistim rovtam…«
Malo se je presedel, kdo se pa ne bi. Ne
more ji uiti, ker je kriv. Kriv je za ta vlak in
verjetno {e za vse ostalo.
Du{an âter, Patosi
Du{an Merc, Sarkofag
683
Rural sociolect
Urban sociolect
Ivanka, gremo na Luno! re~e.
Kdaj? re~em mama.
Drugi mesec. Pi{e na giornali! Sputnik je è
pront!
Ma ja?!
Ja. Pi{e, da so ga prav ~entrirali na Luno!
Kako?
Ne znam. êntriran je, da pride na Luno!
Bojo pokazali na televi`joni!
A ja?
Ja. Vi nimaste televi`jona?
Ne.
Bem, ma uni bojo {li prav taku na Luno,
znaste?
O, znam, znam, re~e mama in mu nato~i
kozar~ek.
Odprl bo usta. Z mamo ga bova gledali.
Potem bo zaprl usta in se bo smejal in bo {el
in bo na vratih {e kaj rekel. Re~e. Zdaj.
Bem, Ivanka, ~e nimaste televi`jona, lahko
prideste h meni na dum. Sem stavu anteno na
streho. Je treba antena, da prime bul{e. Luna
je djel~! […]
Sem kupla televi`jon, ma Giacomino ga ne
mara, re~e Josipina.
Zakaj?
Pravi, da sem malo {tupida, in ~e bomo imeli
televi`jon, da bom {e bolj {tupida.
Giacomio ne zastopi, re~e tata. Mi bomo
kupli televi`jon, ki se kli~e Telefunken. Bo{
pr{la sem, da bo{ gledala na{ televi`jon.
Rekla je: »Ti pa najbr` nisi doìvel veliko
lepega v ìvljenju.«
To je rekla so~utno. Najbr` je mislila, da sem
potreben tola`be. Pa saj ne re~em. Potreba je
bila res velika.
»Ja, pizda,« sem rekel, »res nisem. Ljudje
govorijo o ljubezni, o sre~i, o ne vem ~em,
meni pa vse to ni~ ne pomeni.«
»Oh ne, tega ti pa ne verjamem,« je rekla
Mojca. »Kaj pa tvoja druìna?«
»Kak{na druìna? Tisti zajebani folk?«
Zasmejala se je: »Ah, daj no. A nisi bil
poro~en? A nima{ otrok?«
Verjetno je Dor~ek povedal, kolikor je vedel.
»Saj to ti govorim,« sem rekel. »Folk je
zajeban.«
»Kaj pa po~ne?«
»Kurc, ni~ ne po~ne. Le tistega ni, kar bi jaz
rad.«
»Kaj bi pa ti rad?«
Kurc, kaj bi rad. To me je vpra{ala è mami
na balkonu. Kaj bi rad. ê bi è moral kaj
re~i, bi rekel, da nimam nobene prihodnosti.
Da ne vidim stvari, ki bi bile vredne truda,
jebiga.
Prevalil sem se na bok. Mojca je vzela roko
k sebi, jaz pa sem ji dal svojo na stegno. Kar
tja blizu, jebiga. Rekel sem:
»Ve{ kaj. Nekaj bi pa res rad.«
Tone Ho~evar, Porkasvet
Branko Sosi~, Balerina, balerina
Joel Smith.
RERERENCES
BOURDIEU, P., 1984: Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
BOURDIEU, P., 1986: ’The Forms of Capital’. In: Richardson, J. G. (ed.), Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.
BOURDIEU, P., 2002: Prakti~ni ~ut. Ljubljana: Studia humanitatis.
GJURIN, V., 1974: ’Interesne govorice sleng, àrgon, argo’. Slavisti~na revija 22/1.
GJURIN, V., 1982: ’Slovenski slengovski frazeologemi kot besedne igre’. In: Károly, G. (ed.),
Nemzetközi szlavisztikai napok. Szombathely: Berzsenyi Daniel Tanarkepző Főiskola.
684
Sociolinguistics
LABOV, W., 1978: Sociolinguistic Patterns. Blackwell: Oxford.
SKUBIC, ANDREJ E., 2004: ’Sociolekti od izraza do pomena: kultiviranost, obrobje in eksces’.
Erika Krì{nik (ed.): Obdobja 22: Aktualizacija jezikovnozvrstne teorije na Slovenskem.
Ljubljana, ZI FF.
TRUDGILL, P., 1975: ’Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of
Norwich’. In: Thorne, B., Henley, N. (ed.): Language and Sex. Difference and Dominance.
Rowley: Newbury.
WODAK, R., BENKE, G., 1997: ’Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New Perspectives in Variation Studies’. In: Coulmas, F. (ed.): The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford/Malden:
Blackwell.
POVZETEK
Opravljena je bila anketna raziskava odnosa do {tirih vzor~nih sociolektov pri 238 govorcih
iz razli~nih izobrazbenih skupin, razli~nih starosti in spolov. S statisti~no analizo smo pri{li
do razlik v njihovem vrednotenju do jezika glede na omenjene tri parametre. V raziskavi so se
mlaj{i govorci izkazali za znatno strpnej{e do sociolektov, ki se oddaljujejo od norm dominantne kulture. Posebno izrazito je bilo identificiranje z vulgarnim govorom pri mlaj{ih anketirancev iz niè izobraène skupine, izredno izrazit pa je bil razkorak med mlaj{imi in starej{imi govorci v teh izobrazbeni skupini glede vrednotenja slenga. Podoben odnos so izkazali tudi mo{ki
nasproti ènskam. Najzanimivej{e rezultate je dela primerjava anketirancev po dru`benih skupinah. Skupina srednje izobraènih (srednja do vi{ja {ola) je izkazala znatno ve~jo nestrpnost
do oblik, ki so ocenjene kot vulgarne (urbano obrobje), nare~ne (ruralno obrobje) in slengovske
(ekscesne vrednote), kot obe drugi skupini. Niè izobraèna skupina (osnovna ali poklicna {ola)
je izrazila znatno identifikacijo z obrobnimi oblikami, visoko izobraèna skupina (univerza) pa
sicer manj{o identifikacijo, vendar pa veliko mero strpnosti.
Marko Stabej, The Outlines of Slovenian Language Policy
UDC 811.163.6’27
Marko Stabej
685
THE OUTLINES OF SLOVENIAN LANGUAGE POLICY
The article examines the processes involved in the conception and adoption of language
policy in Slovenia. It also points out some contradictory elements in contemporary developments in Slovenian language policy.
Zanimalo nas bo, katere poti nastajanja in sprejemanja jezikovne politike obstajajo v sodobnem slovenskem prostoru, izpostavili bomo nekaj protislovnih elementov sodobnega slovenskega jezikovnopoliti~nega dogajanja.
Key words: Slovenian, language policy, language planning, sociolinguistics, language programme
Klju~ne besede: sloven{~ina, jezikovna politika, jezikovno na~rtovanje, sociolingvistika,
jezikovni program
1 Introduction
This actualisation of the notion of language policy seems possible due to the special moment in history in Slovenia. The second half of the 1990s in Slovenia and the
first four years of the 21st century were in terms of language policy most noticeably
marked by the debate concerning the law on Slovenian,1 and in terms of substantive
issues by Slovenia’s accession to the European Union and the concrete dilemmas this
process brought about.2 This stage of the process concluded on 1 May 2005 when
Slovenia entered the EU. This also marked the ending of a period in which Slovenia
developed and matured as a distinct independent country, and the dilemmas of principle and the expectations regarding the new political situation began their transformation into concrete developments along the line between integration and independence.
Language policy developments have quieted down as well, but basing the predictions
of future events on Slovenian and European legal sources, it can be assumed that language policy will again become increasingly topical.
1
Entitled »Public Use of the Slovenian Language Act« in its final version, adopted in July 2004; with
different titles in previous versions. It first entered the parliamentary procedure in 2000 under the title »Use
of Slovenian as the Official Language Act« (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, 27 October 2005,
no. 92).
2
For an argumentation and characterisation of Slovenian language policy before the mid-1990s cf.
Pogorelec 1993, 1996, Vidovi~ Muha 1996, Topori{i~ 1991; for the dilemmas with regard to Slovenian language policy in connection with the accession to the European Union cf. [trukelj 1998, Kalin Golob 2001,
Stabej 2001a and 2003a, for a distinctly defensive position cf. Dular 2003.
686
Sociolinguistics
2 Language and Population
Census data on the population of Slovenia by mother tongue and ethnic affiliation can be taken as the basis for the debate on the current language situation.3 In
2002 there were supposedly 0.6 % fewer (87.7) inhabitants whose mother tongue was
Slovenian than in 1991 (88.3).4 The number of inhabitants increased, however, and
the number of native speakers of Slovenian was 1,723,434 according to the 2002 Census, while there were supposedly 1,690,388 speakers in 1991, which means that the
number actually increased by 33,046. All these numbers can only be explained in the
context of the whole linguistic picture. The share of inhabitants with Serbo-Croatian
as their mother tongue dropped significantly (from 4.2 % to 1.8 %, i.e. from 80,325 to
36,265), a ’new’ Census language appeared, namely Bosnian, which was not present
in the 1991 Census and was chosen by 1.6 % or 31,499 speakers in 2002. There was
a slight increase in the shares of Croatian (from 2.6 % to 2.8 %) and Serbian (from
0.9 % to 1.6 %) languages. The share of the declaration ’unknown’ increased as well
(from 2.2 % to 2.7 %).
If these data are compared to the ethnic affiliation data, the following picture
emerges:
1991 mother tongue
Slovenian 1690388
Italian
3882
Hungarian
8720
Romany
2752
Albanian
3903
Croatian
50699
Macedonian
4525
Serbian
18123
Serbo-Croatian 80325
Bosnian
1991 ethnic affiliation 2002 mother tongue 2002 ethnic affiliation
Slovenian 1689657
1723434
1631363
Italian
2959
3762
2258
Hungarian
8000
7713
6243
Romany
2259
3834
3246
Albanian
3534
7177
6186
Croatian
52876
54079
35642
Macedonian
4371
4760
3972
Serbian
47401
31329
38964
36265
Bosniac
31499
21542
Muslim
26577
10467
It needs to be added that the total share of those who did not declare their ethnic
affiliation, did not want to answer, or belonged to the category ’unknown’ was significantly higher in 2002 than in the 1991 Census.
In brief (being aware of the fact that statistical data need to be interpreted cautiously and that any conclusions may be precipitate), the thesis can be made on the basis
of the above-mentioned data that the Slovenian language has been denationalised to
some degree in the last 15 years. In 1991, the number of those who declared Slovenian
to be their mother tongue nearly matched the number of those who declared their ethnic affiliation to be Slovene; according to the 2002 Census, there were almost 100,000
more of those who considered Slovenian their mother tongue than of those who de3
Data taken from the website of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (http://www.stat.
si/index.asp).
4
To insure comparability of data, the Statistical Office recalculated the 1991 data according to the 2002
methodology.
687
clared themselves Slovenian by ethnic affiliation. All the interpretive cautiousness
notwithstanding, it can probably nevertheless be concluded that these data present an
image which speaks of the vitality of the Slovenian language, and indirectly also of
its prestigious status in the Republic of Slovenia ([kiljan 2003, 127). The definition of
mother tongue is of course somewhat problematic in itself,5 and at the same time these
data do not reveal the language repertoire (i.e. the knowledge of other languages) or
language habits of inhabitants of the RS. The preservation of the present share of
inhabitants with Slovenian as their mother tongue can surely be seen not only as a
good sign for the Slovenian language situation, but probably also as one of the goals
of language policy in Slovenia in the future. On the other hand, any further decrease
in the share of other languages6 – even if ’in favour’ of Slovene – would be a warning
to Slovenian language policy that it was not fulfilling its mission democratically and
in accordance with EU guidelines.
Regardless of the questionable nature of the notion of mother tongue, this declaration substantively mostly belongs, in terms of substance, to the private sphere. A
democratic language policy must above all make the sphere of private communication
possible, rather than directing it. It must predominantly direct the elements of public
and official communication.
The processes of migration have changed their course since the attainment of independence – ’sleeping’ immigration, which was a serious (and most often concealed)
problem of language policy all the way to the end of the 1990s,7 has mostly been
integrated and linguistically stabilised.8 A similar situation can be found in the population of refugees from the recent wars in Yugoslavia who after 1991 found refuge in
Slovenia. On the other hand, a new type of both immigration and emigration has been
on the increase, in a moderate form it seems. Statistical data also indirectly show that
5
Especially to multilingual members of minority communities, mother tongue can mean many things:
the language first acquired, the language they attribute the highest value to, the language of the mother (versus, e.g. the language of the father in bilingual families) etc., all combined or individually. Modern research
practice (Ban, [pelko 2005, Pav{i~ 2005) has shown, however, that also other language designations (e.g.
first language, second language) are never understood unambiguously in polls – even within a relatively
homogeneous community, let alone across different communities.
6
This is especially true of the languages of the indigenous and non-indigenous minority communities.
7
This concerns those immigrant citizens/residents of Slovenia who already resided in the Republic
of Slovenia when it was part of Federal Yugoslavia before 1991. For most of them it can be estimated
that after moving to Slovenia (mostly for economic and professional reasons) they did not systematically
learn Slovenian and for the most part did not speak it even in public communication due to the specific
understanding of the status of languages in Yugoslavia and the specific communicative habits of Slovenian
speakers. After the attainment of independence, one of the conditions that had to be fulfilled to acquire
Slovenian citizenship was (except for a short period of time) a proof of knowledge of Slovenian (Ferbeàr,
Pirih Svetina 2004). Leclerc 2000 (quoted in [kiljan 2003) interprets this as a markedly negative aspect of
Slovenian language policy.
8
The improvised designation of stabilisation means that the linguistic and communicative profile of
this population has been fixed and enables it to function at least approximately normally. This does not of
course mean that in individual cases members of this population do not encounter serious problems and
difficulties. Here again the problem of the erased turns up.
688
Sociolinguistics
Slovenia has become linguistically somewhat more diverse than it was before independence.9
3 Public Monolingualism and the Plurilingual Ability of Speakers
The fundamental task of language policy in Slovenia seems to be the search for
the answer to the following challenge: how to establish and maintain the sensitive
and constructive balance between the status of Slovene as a fully functional, public,
official, national language, and the increasing plurilingualism of the Slovenian public
and Slovenian speakers.10 Slovene has to keep its position as the most functional and
prestigious language in the language repertoire of individual speakers whose first language is Slovenian, and Slovenian has to be strengthened in the repertoire of speakers
who reside for a longer period of time or often communicate within the Slovenian
language community.11
There are several dimensions to the plurilingualism of the Slovenian (and European) public. The Council of Europe (especially its language division)12 and the
European Commission are working towards a broad plurilingualism. They strive for
as many Europeans as possible to know as many languages as possible, to reach the
highest level of language awareness possible, to be involved in the sphere of their own
culture and language, and to be at least tolerant to (if not actively curious about) other
cultures and languages.
The question to be posed is therefore the following: In what way will the new
Slovenian plurilingualism (with the following elements: an earlier, more wide-spread
and functional mastery of English as the global language; a possibly more varied mastery of other foreign languages; with a regained function and ideological unburdening
at least a receptive ability for other South Slavic languages, etc.) shape the Slovenian
public language sphere and to what extent will Slovenia be able to operate as a monolingual public sphere.
4 Operation of Slovenian Language Policy
The usual socio-linguistically posited dichotomy between a directive and a liberal
language policy ([kiljan 2003, 84) is less applicable to the characterisation of a concrete language policy in a certain time and space since any actual language policy will
9
The 2002 Census registered the following languages as new mother tongues: Arabic, Bosnian, Montenegrin (the last two concern a new definition of language and not the language itself), Chinese, and Spanish.
The number of declared speakers (although these are mostly negligible categories in terms of percentage)
increased for English, Bulgarian, Danish, French, Greek, German, Dutch, Russian, Slovak, Turkish, and
Ukrainian. The number decreased for the Czech, Polish, Romanian, Russinian, Swedish, and Vlach languages. The data are taken from the website of the Statistical Office.
10
Škiljan considers contradiction one of the fundamental characteristics of European integration, also
in the context of language policy (2003, 77).
11
For more on the dilemmas of plurilingualism in Slovenian circumstances see Stabej 2003b.
12
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/
689
oscillate in its acts between the two extremes. Moreover, a liberal language policy in
its extreme form is not a policy at all, but at best a public attitude toward the language
or languages.
The methodological distinction between an explicit and implicit language policy
(LP) might prove more fruitful. The former kind of LP would thus mean institutionally
manifest (specialised and authorised) agents of LP, with plainly stated programmatic
starting-points and goals, and clear public activities. The latter form would mean exactly the opposite, institutionally non-manifest agents of LP whose actions are concealed
and indirectly included in other forms of political and public-law activities, while their
language policy activity is not openly defined in terms of its programme and goals.
The inexplicitness of LP has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand,
it undoubtedly enables a more flexible activity and a more efficient realisation of
partial language policy goals, and thus most probably maintains a certain stability of
the language situation.13 On the other hand, the inexplicitness of LP can be a source
of several kinds of problems. The most serious one is perhaps that underlying most
actions with a possible language policy effect are default opinions of the agents of LP
about language, language situation, and its related values and goals. Default opinions
can only be a bad generator of language policy. People with default opinions usually
do not know much about the nature of linguistic phenomena and processes; they therefore cannot design or carry out constructive language policy acts,14 and they especially
cannot adapt to changes in the language situation.
Another problem of an inexplicit LP is that contradictory partial language policy
acts can bring about conflicts in the language situation which are difficult to resolve.
The warning needs to be repeated here that already at a theoretical level, let alone in
a concrete situation, it is very difficult to distinguish between language policy acts
and language planning acts. In our present debate, this difficulty can be resolved by
conceiving the decision for a change in the language situation as a language policy
act, and the determination of the ways of attaining the goal and of the steps of its
realisation as a language planning act. Many a language policy act is of course nothing but an ideological statement.15 Many acts which at first glance appear to pertain
to language planning actually have a language policy and ideological significance in
Slovenia – maintaining the symbolic link between the Slovenian nation and the Slovenian language as the only value of language policy.
13
Mostly because contradictory language interests can thus be realised in society; this in turn renders a
monolith and/or monopolistic language policy impossible.
14
Such language policy usually uses the terms language preservation, language cultivation, fostering
of language etc.
15
An example: on 28 August 2004, Delo (p. 30) featured an advertisement in which a primary school
in Ljubljana offered a position for a teacher of Slovenian and English. »Our new colleague is expected to
have a professional and ethical attitude to pupils. In the teaching of both subjects we wish for a creative approach and the use of the most modern teaching methods, and for Slovenian also an education in language
culture and the love of the Slovenian language and literature.« This expressed expectation of an education
in language culture and love is impossible to verify objectively, which makes it a purely ideological statement which can only be »realised« if only those apply for the position who agree with this ideological stand
and are probably also prepared to express it explicitly in front of the hiring committee.
690
Sociolinguistics
Notwithstanding the above hypothetical definition of the contemporary tasks of
Slovenian language policy, the question needs to be raised whether language policy
can really be justly treated as something with a task or tasks, as every language policy
situation is marked by contradictory and conflicting points of view. Perhaps the desire
for a consensual, uniform language policy activity is not only vacuous utopian romanticism, difficult to realise, but possibly even harmful to the stability of language and
public communication.
In the Slovenian public and political sphere, explicitly expressed contradictory attitudes to the status of the Slovene language are not so easy to find, i.e. they are very
rare. It is more often the case that certain acts are directly or indirectly labelled as
questionable, harmful or detrimental to Slovenian, its position and/or its image.
Explicitly expressed orientation of language policy can be seen in the current legal
acts and documents. There is an array of concrete public mechanisms (e.g. tenders for
the use of budgetary funding, announced by individual ministries in accordance with
their programmes and authorities) which are only indirectly connected with language
policy goals, i.e. these goals are of incidental significance only. Together with other
institutional activities, such acts can be considered implicit language policy.
4.1 Institutionalisation and Deinstitutionalisation
If it seemed in the 1990s that Slovenian language policy was gradually being established as a manifest institutional activity (Stabej 2000, 2001), recent times have
shown Slovenian language policy being deinstitutionalised again. The language planning and language policy parliamentary group, set up in 1994,16 was dissolved following the constitution of new parliament after the 2004 elections, i.e. despite the proposals to the contrary of the Culture, Education, Youth, Science, and Sport Committee,
the President of the National Assembly Franc Cukjati did not extend its mandate with
the argument that parliamentary regulations do not provide for its operation.17 The
Slovenian Language Office, established by a parliamentary decree in 2000, was reorganised in 2004 into the Slovenian Language Sector within the Ministry of Culture.18
The Foreign Languages Council, founded in 1999 as an advisory body to the Minister
of Education, has not met since 2003.19
16
Pogorelec 1996, 59. Transcriptions of the group’s meetings from 2001 to 2004 are available from the
National Assembly website (http://www.dz-rs.si/).
17
One of the last acts of the working group was to prepare the conference Language Planning Strategy
in the Republic of Slovenia, which was held on 28 September 2004 on the premises of the Parliament. In the
new parliament, the question of the working group was first considered at the first meeting of the Culture,
Education, Youth, Science, and Sport Committee on 14 January 2005; on 18 January 2005, the president of
the committee, Joè Tanko, announced the resolution of the committee for the group to continue its work to
the President of the National Assembly, who on 20 January 2005, announced to the president of the committee his decision that the group could not continue with its work.
18
The only publicly visible form of its operation is the yearly ‘public tender for the funding of projects
intended for the assertion, promotion, and development of the Slovenian language.’ The public is not informed about the results of the tender, nor are the yearly reports of the sector’s activities at its disposal.
19
http://www.mszs.si/slo/ministrstvo/sveti/ministrski/jeziki.asp
691
4.2 Explicit Acts
4.2.1 Resolution on the National Programme for Culture
The Resolution on the National Programme for Culture 2004–2007* is one of the
few documents beside the Public Use of Slovenian Act which are explicitly declaratory with regard to language policy.20 Already in the foreword, this document puts forward the thesis that »our cultural policy must pay special attention and constantly observe the fundamental element of our cultural identity, which at the same time presents
the basis of our national identity, the Slovenian language«.21 The substantial reason
for language concern is the estimate that the Slovenian language community is endangered and under pressure. The formulation of this threat may be slightly concealed
(the number of Slovenians in the neighbouring states is diminishing; smaller national
languages face the danger of marginalization in the processes of globalization and
integration), but it is unmistakably present. Given the time when the resolution was
approved, it is clear that it was tailored mostly to Slovenia’s accession to the EU: »The
challenges of European integration processes demand from the Slovenian cultural
policy a thorough and future-oriented strategy of development planning, which creates balance between preservation and development of Slovenian culture, especially
through concern for Slovenian language and language culture and through openness
to cultural diversity, which is the underlying idea of European integration, and the notion of culture as an indispensable factor of development and stimulation of individual
creativity in the period of globalization and commercialization, which have impact
also in the field of culture.« What is emphasised is therefore the concern for Slovenian
language and language culture, a more precise definition of which is attempted at in
the continuation of the document. As the goal of this concern, the document states
»sustainable and increasing development of the Slovenian language in the public life
of Slovenian society«, for its implementation »an active language policy« is required,
»e.g. balanced care for cultural, political, economic, and communicational dimensions of language usage«, which is to be »made independently«, »in line with the
existing practice« in Slovenia and encouraging linguistic awareness is stressed as its
principle instead of restrictive measures.22 As an important task of LP the resolution
* Translation by the Ministry of Culture: http://www.kultura.gov.si/bin?bin.svc=obj&bin.id=20844
(translator’s note).
20
It was adopted by the National Assembly on 27 February 2004 and published in the Official Gazette
on 25 March 2004. All of the formal legal documents cited are available at www.dz-rs.si.
21
It is interesting to note that the declaratory link-up of Slovenehood with the Slovenian language is
complemented by a concealed formal link – although first-person diction is not rare in other national programme resolutions from various fields either, it is even more definitive and at the same time exclusive in
the context of language matters; in other resolutions the reference of first-person pronouns can be citizens,
while here it can only be members of the Slovenian people.
22
»We are thus entering the European Union as a state with its own language in all areas of public
life, which has its norms, corpus and other bases, as well as articulated style. We will be able to develop
our linguistic independence also in the new circumstances, since the European Union embraces the idea
of a multilingual union and respects the development of linguistic diversity. Even though contacts between
speakers of different languages often result in specific situations in terms of the selection and usage of
692
Sociolinguistics
mentions connecting »different sources of language development and its agents« and
encouraging their activities. »In the narrower field of culture the Ministry of Culture
will support those programmes and projects which observe and support the development of language.« The paragraph which was only added as an amendment during the
actual adopting of the document by the Culture, Education, Youth, Science, and Sport
Committee accentuated with particular explicitness the symbolic function of Slovenian (which happens to be expressed several times in the document, cf. above) with
regard to its communicative role: »The Slovenian language is not only an instrument
of daily communication and expression of spiritual and artistic contents, but also a
treasury of culture and one of the main national and state symbols, therefore it should
be supported in every field, not only in schools, public communication, technological
and work processes, and scientific terminology.«
The measures to realise the programme are the following:
» – coordination of the language policy; – adoption of the Act on Public Use of
the Slovenian Language and its implementation; – increased accessibility of books
in Slovenian language and promotion of Slovenian literature and literature in translation, with the aim to broaden and enhance the reading culture; – support of programmes and projects for independent assessment of functional literacy and elimination of the causes of functional illiteracy; – cooperation and integration in the field of
science and education, e.g. in research programmes of standard Slovenian language,
especially in the research of morphology and semantics of both standard Slovenian
language and Slovenian technical terminologies; – promotion of the research of the
sociocultural dimensions of the usage of Slovenian language in all fields of life; – help
in the enhancement of knowledge on text-formation rules and on adequacy and semantic functionality of different expressions (proofreading, language tools, teaching
of writing skills); – special focus on the usage of language in the media and the overall spread of audiovisual culture, which impacts the general culture of public communication; – promotion of performing arts in the Slovenian language, along with
the promotion of Slovenian drama and translation of Slovenian plays; support of the
theatre production and its transmission to different media; – measures in the field of
librarianship which increase the accessibility of library materials and promote the
reading culture; – the aim of these measures is to preserve and develop library funds,
and also to ensure the modernisation of the materials through electronic publications
in Slovenian and the digitalisation of literary heritage; – consideration of the particularities of the usage of Slovenian as a second language in constitutionally bilingual
environments; promotion of awareness of Slovenian as a second/foreign language
with all relevant bases.«
The resolution includes an interesting mixture of traditional conceptions about
fostering for the language and more modern language planning ideas. It is understandable that in this type of text formulations are highly general. Nevertheless they
create the impression that the goals and means are not set clearly enough. The first
language, the language policy will address such cases not with restrictive measures but by encouraging
linguistic awareness (underlined by the author).«
693
two measures, coordinating language policy and adopting a law on the public use of
Slovenian, as a matter of fact indicate the idea of the self-evident unity of the goals of
Slovenian language policy. Many of the other measures mentioned are in fact goals
in themselves. It is obvious, however, that the goals are mostly oriented toward the
language itself, researching it and spreading texts written in it,23 and less toward the
speakers of the language, their language ability and their linguistic and communicative needs. Such were the goals of another language policy act, which is presented in
the next chapter.
4.2.2 Overview of Language Policy in Education
In February 2003, the Minister of Education appointed an expert group to prepare
the project Language Education Policy Profile in the Republic of Slovenia in cooperation with the Council of Europe.24 The project was roughly designed to go through
the following stages: First the working group, appointed according to the methodologically open recommendations and guidelines of the Council of Europe, prepared a
draft of the Country Report and sent it to the expert group appointed by the Council
of Europe.25 During a one-week working visit (from 18 to 24 January 2004), the latter
visited a number of educational institutions in Slovenia and held meetings with those
executing and attending educational programmes. After their visits they prepared the
report in September 2004. On the basis of both reports (taking into adequate consideration the remarks and recommendations of the Council of Europe experts), the
Slovenian experts were supposed to prepare, in cooperation with the authorities, and
the Council of Europe was supposed to publish, the final document Language Education Policy Profile in the Republic of Slovenia. Both intermediate documents were
published as working papers (Council of Europe Expert Report in September 2004,
and Draft Country Report in November 2004).26 On 30 November 2004 a presentation
of the two reports was organised in Ljubljana with a public debate to which representatives of all the institutions visited by the experts were invited as well as other
members of the interested public. Even though the final document was not (has not
yet been?) prepared and published, the project did produce some interesting results.
First of all, there was a noticeable difference in the interpretation of some facts in
the field of language education – among the members of the national group, but even
23
Underlying this orientation is most probably the deeply rooted belief that such acts in themselves
have a positive impact on the language situation, which is not necessarily true.
24
In the same year, Albina Ne}ak Lük (2003) published a booklet in English with an overview of the
data and an interpretation of language education policy in Slovenia (with a brief outline of the general
language policy and its history).
25
The following members were appointed to the Slovene expert group: Lucija ôk, Mateja Gajgar,
Zdravka Godunc, Meta Grosman, Albina Ne}ak Lük, Herta Ore{i~, Katja Pavli~ [kerjanc, Branka Petek,
and Marko Stabej. The Country Report coordinator was Herta Ore{i~, and the coordinator for the cooperation with the Council of Europe was Zdravka Godunc. The members of the Council of Europe expert group
were Joseph Shiels, Head of the Language Policy Division, Chief Reporter Jean-Claude Beacco, and Gábor
Boldizsár, Alan Dobson, and Georges Lüdi as members.
26
Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Office for Development of Education.
694
Sociolinguistics
more so among the Council of Europe experts. In the light of ensuring the plurilingual communicative ability of the population of the European countries, an explicit
goal of both the Council of Europe and the European Commission, most proposals
were naturally oriented toward further improvements in the efficiency of the Slovene education system offer in this field. More precisely, the recommendations were
directed towards increasing the offer of the neighbouring languages, a more general
offer and earlier learning of a second foreign language in primary school, expanding
language teaching in all tracks of secondary vocational and professional education,
and an effort – very generally formulated – for language education in all faculties.
The experts paid significant attention to the permanent education and further training
of teachers for a plurilingual and pluricultural education. The more specific remarks
regarding language planning were mostly oriented toward a greater harmonisation of
Slovenian language-education practices (including testing) with the Council of Europe’s language documents, especially the so-called Common European Framework
of Reference27 and the European Language Portfolio.28 The experts had no specific
comments regarding the role of Slovenian in education itself, except for stating that it
would be useful to »harmonise the aims and curricula of foreign languages and the
national language /…/, especially with regard to functional literacy«. This is perhaps
the domain where the discrepancy between the Country Report and the report by the
Council of Europe experts is the most evident: it seems that the latter understand, a
priori, the role of the national language in Slovenian education as stable and efficient
enough, and that here their only matter of concern is for such a role of the national language not to thwart the growth of the plurilingual repertoire and the communicative
ability of the Slovenian population. What can therefore be observed in the Council of
Europe expert group report, even more than the understanding of the specificity of the
Slovenian language situation and the proposals to overcome the discrepancy between
some of its elements, is the distinctly fashionable European political tendency towards
the necessary assurance of plurilingualism, i.e. within the language repertoire of individual speakers and not in the sense of creating multilingual public communication.
But in any real language situation it is difficult to leave aside the public and spatial
aspects of communication; in the Slovenian and similar situations, this is even more
difficult due to historical reasons. That is why, despite its richness, diversity, and efficiency, the offer of foreign languages (ranging from global and widespread to neighbouring and less widespread) cannot in itself positively shape the language situation
unless it is also substantiated by and harmonised with the learning and teaching of the
national language and other official languages in certain bilingual areas.29 An efficient
foreign language offer which is not harmonised can even fundamentally destabilise
the language situation. Clearly, the question again arises what it means for language
27
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Slovenian translation not yet available.
28
www.coe.int/portfolio
29
In this case this is true no matter who considers the national language their first language/mother
tongue and who does not.
695
offer to be harmonised,30 and the answer to this question cannot be both satisfying and
short at the same time. Participants in education can by no means have a feeling that
their language education is a battle for the dominance of an individual language.31 The
Council of Europe experts were aware of this as well when they hinted at harmonisation, but did not go into the ways of realising it.
4. 2. 3 Language Policy Programmes
Language policy programmes cannot in fact be separated from language planning programmes. So far certain fundamentals of the Slovenian language policy programme have been discussed, and even though it is clear that the present paper cannot
be the place to analyse these problems in detail, two such programmes by foreign authors will be presented in brief in the light of the national language policy programme
envisaged as necessary by the law on Slovenian in public use.32
De Beaugrande (1998) suggested for the Slovenian circumstances a language programme with six points, which is summed up here in its brief form. In his opinion, the
following steps would be necessary:33
1. a close integration of policy-making and implementation; more expertise in both
fields (government-supported cooperation between policy-makers, language experts, language teachers, mass media personnel, users of specialised terminology,
etc.);
2. assembling of a representative corpus of current language usage;
3. a large-scale programme for native language education; setting the goals and
methods of their realisation;
4. implementing policies for large-scale, rapid access to the major Western languages;
30
Cf. the similar dilemma in the Resolution on the National Programme of Culture 2004-2007 mentioned above.
31
Even statements that seem to be tolerant and all-inclusive can be a source of conflicting understanding of language. The second general aim of Slovenian as a school subject in the first three-year period of
primary school can be taken as an example: »Pupils are aware that the Slovenian language is the national
language in the Republic of Slovenia; in this way their national and patriotic awareness is shaped, as well
as respect of and tolerance toward other nations.« This aim appears to be very difficult to implement pedagogically – how is, for example, an eight-year-old to imagine that in his country the Slovenian language
is somehow superior to other languages and at the same time begin to respect other nations and become
tolerant toward them?
32
The act contains an explicit stipulation of this kind in article 4: »The Republic of Slovenia ensures the
status of Slovenian with an active language policy, which includes the concern for the assurance of the legal
basis of its use, for permanent scholarly research-based observation of linguistic life and for the broadening of language capacity, and the concern for language development and culture.« Article 4 stands in close
correlation with articles 28 and 35 of the same act, which speak of the obligation of the National Assembly
to approve within two years from the adoption of the law, at the proposal of the Government of RS, the
national language policy programme, where the measures will be defined to carry out the tasks from the
above-mentioned article 4 in the following five-year period and where the necessary means and the manner
of providing them will be secured. The question remains, however, how the government will succeed in
assuring a suitable programme without an authorised institutional body for language policy.
33
For the evaluation of Beaugrande’s steps and the condition of Slovenian language situation see Stabej
2001b.
696
Sociolinguistics
5. intensive teacher training programmes should coordinate training between the
Slovene language and the major foreign languages;
6. introduction of new teaching methodologies adapted to the context of contemporary Slovenia and its needs.
[kiljan (2003: 87) points out three components of LP in European integration
processes:
1. choice of strategy when one’s own communicative and symbolic sphere enters the
wider communicative and symbolic sphere of united Europe and the question of
balance between the aspiration for one’s own language identity and the communicative (but also symbolic) needs imposed by the common European market;
2. regulation of the relations between majority and minority language and ethnic
groups within the country in such a way as to correspond on the one hand to the
aims of one’s own politics and traditions they are based on, and on the other hand,
to meet the standards directly and indirectly promoted by the European Union;
3. language education of citizens and their communicative ability to participate efficiently in the common European labour market.
He stresses the following ideas in the Slovenian situation (133):
1) The membership in the European Union will not endanger communicatively nor
symbolically the ethnic identity of the Slovenian language community or its vitality.
2) The status of Slovenian as the national and official language and as the basic means
of public communication does not need tighter legal regulation; some deregulation and less legislation in this field would facilitate the development of language
multifunctionality.
3) The status of Slovenian as an official language of the European Union will not
change significantly its status in Europe; a greater effect would be exerted by its
presence as one of the ’rotating’ languages on the restricted list of working languages in the Union’s institutions.
4) Slovenian would have to be promoted in the Union among experts of different specialities as an idiom providing primary communicative access to the South Slavic
sphere.
5) A greater presence of other languages (particularly English) is to be expected in
specific (rather limited) fields of public communication in Slovenia; for Slovenian
to remain competitive in these fields as well, the design of the corpus should focus
more on the development of multifunctionality than on setting explicit norms.
6) The present high level of protection of language rights of ’indigenous’ minorities
could be – without any harm for Slovenian – extended to ’non-indigenous’ minorities as well.
7) In the field of language education, the already present model – which offers the
greatest number of languages possible at as young an age as possible and which
promotes trilingualism or quadrilingualism in the youngest population possible
– should be further developed.
697
5 Language between Its Symbolic and Communicative Roles
According to [kiljan (2003: 86), the most important determinant of every language policy is the dominant ideology in society. Despite the lack of proper qualifications for any debate about the dominant ideology in Slovenia, the following thesis
can nonetheless be advanced: at the level of linguistic, cultural and political identity,
the dominant ideology in Slovenia continues to be the national one, but at the level
of economic, financial and many other spheres, the ideology of the national is to a
great extent melting, being replaced by others. Within the framework of this process,
the language is subject to additional pressures – an even more powerful symbolic,
identifying role than before is attributed to the dominant language in society, which at
least in Slovenia Slovene is, as it is (again) becoming the only element distinguishing
’us’ from the ’others’ unambiguously and on a large scale. In this distinguishing role,
language is more efficient than other typically identifying phenomena, since it carries,
beside the symbolic dimension, a straightforwardly functional, i.e. communicative,
dimension. We do not wear our national costumes, dance our national dances, sing
our folk songs, read our national literature, eat our national dishes every day. The
language, however, is indeed with us every day in all the different communicative
activities. But this same language which is so strongly understood by the community
as the distinctive symbolic element of its unity is consequently highly vulnerable and
can be easily paralysed in its functional, i.e. communicative, dimension.
It is usually the case (within European national language situations) that an individual only accepts the direct link between the symbolic and communicative functions
in one language in their language repertoire (or two at the most if coming from a bilingual family environment), while any other acquired languages are of communicative
nature only. But a very real possibility exists that under changed circumstances different, multi-layered symbolic-communicative links occur in individuals. If in certain
situations a language is no longer sufficient for an individual communicatively (due
to a variety of possible reasons), it can easily happen that for this individual such a
language will also lose its generally valid symbolic role. The symbolism is thus allocated and dispersed to all of the languages in the individual’s language repertoire. In
its extreme, this type of individual language identity probably also implies a change
in the individual’s identity and its shift away from the national.
Slovenian must therefore remain the dominant public language in the territory of
the Republic of Slovenia if it is to further develop its corpus and if the number of its
speakers is to be maintained or increased. The public dominance of Slovenian must
at least in principle conform to the communicative and symbolic needs and the democratic (legal) obligations of society and its individuals. The discrimination of other
languages in Slovenia cannot render public communication inaccessible to speakers
(here the key role is played by efficient planning not only of the corpus of the Slovenian language, but most of all of the language capacity for Slovenian).34 At the same
34
The language capacity for Slovenian as a second/foreign language poses a special problem here, cf.
Zemljari~ 2000, Stabej 2003, Nata{a Pirih (ed.) 2004.
698
Sociolinguistics
time, the dominant role of Slovenian in Slovenian public communication must not
stop its speakers from efficient global communication in other languages (especially
in English as the global language), for which they of course need adequate language
ability and channels of communication. If this were to happen, the community would
close down on itself and most probably become not only economically but also civilisationally uncompetitive.35
The contradiction between the two requests often only clearly shows in everyday
practice. What is more, the actual relations of cause and effect are sometimes even
contrary to what is expected. Higher education can be taken as an example. Internationalisation seems to be absolutely indispensable to growth in quality and competitiveness of Slovenian higher education. Many see this process as being thwarted precisely by Slovenian as the prescribed obligatory language of the educational process
since it supposedly represents an insurmountable obstacle to a greater extent of both
teacher and student mobility.36 To those seeing it this way, the judgment of Solomon
usually appears to be to abolish the obligatory use of Slovenian and liberalise the
language side of higher education. But de facto this most probably means a significant
increase in the use of English as the language of instruction.
All of these dilemmas were easily noticeable during the debate about the changes
of the Slovenian Higher Education Act, especially in the discussions at the parliamentary meeting of the Culture, Education, Youth, Science, and Sport Committee on
11 May 2004. Until then, the legal wording of article 8 provided for a lesser number
of exceptions regarding the obligatory use of Slovenian as the university language of
instruction. With the suggested changes, the submitters wanted to increase the possibilities for the use of foreign language; as a kind of compensation, they adopted the
proposal of the working group for language planning and language policy for the law
to obligate institutions of higher education to actively participate in the forming of
technical Slovenian and to expressly enable foreign participants in the higher education process to learn Slovenian in an organised way. In the new version of the law,
adopted on 15 July 2004, the wording of article 8 is as follows:
»The language of instruction is Slovenian. An institution of higher education can
carry out study programmes or their parts in a foreign language under the conditions
defined in the statute. If an institution provides public service, the following can be
carried out in a foreign language: – study programmes of foreign languages; – parts
of study programmes if visiting higher-education teachers from abroad participate
in their execution or if a larger number of foreign students are enrolled; – study programmes if these programmes are also carried out at the institution of higher education in the Slovenian language. – Institutions of higher education concern themselves
35
M. Grosman (2003) discusses the language knowledge with which to function in Europe and the
intercultural dimension of language teaching.
36
Sometimes this is a real and sometimes an imagined obstacle. Knowledge of a language is something
that can be attained – and, for instance, within Erasmus exchange programmes there is quite some room to
efficiently learn the language of the host country. But the idea that Slovenian is there for Slovenians only is
so strongly rooted in the Slovenian mindset (Stabej 2005) that many will a priori renounce the possibility of
students learning Slovenian (in a functionally restricted sense, of course) or will not even think of it.
699
with the development of Slovenian as a technical and scientific language. – Foreigners
and Slovenian nationals without Slovenian citizenship are provided with the opportunity to learn Slovenian. – The manner of fostering for the development and learning of
Slovenian is determined in greater detail by the minister with jurisdiction over higher
education.«
At the moment of this writing (November 2005), the ministry has not yet determined the more detailed manner of fostering, mentioned in the last paragraph. This
is a rather typical illustration of the fact that without additional interventions by language planning bodies, explicit acts of language policy often remain unrealised.
The retreat of Slovenian from higher education would on the other hand mean
a retreat from a very representative domain of public use. Indirectly it could cause
a decrease in the use (or at least efficient use) of Slovenian in other public domains
as well. A retreat in use would most likely also have definite corpus language dimensions, not only at the level of terminology but also at the level of argumentative
structures, text patterns etc. And more: the accessibility of higher education would be
made – for some time at least – substantially more difficult for speakers of Slovenian,
as future students would already have to master English to a much higher degree
than today to enter Slovenian undergraduate education. Consequently this would also
mean a long-term adjustment of secondary school curricula (different goals and presumably also increased extent of English language learning), which would moreover
trigger changes in the primary school curriculum, etc. In other words, to access higher
education Slovenians would first have to learn another language thoroughly – which
in Slovenian historical memory means a severe regression.
On the other hand, it is also true that already today a lack of receptive capacity in
English represents a major practical deficiency in undergraduate study and that not
mastering English productively most probably leaves a considerable part of the contemporary active university teaching and research population in Slovenia paralysed in
terms of their careers.37
6 Conclusion
As it seems, it is the status of the language that takes priority with regard to language policy. This does not, however, exclusively (or mainly) concern the formal legal
37
This can only be speculated since no reliable data are available. It is clear that the Slovenian scientific
and university community has almost always had at its disposal active competence also (or principally) in
another language. There was a time when this was Latin, then German for a long time (when the Slovenian
language was not yet a language of science, then parallelly with it); within Slavic studies and in the Slavic
world the dominant language actively mastered by the vast majority of scientists was Russian; within the
framework of Yugoslavia it was Serbo-Croatian; it was actually only for a short while in the second half of
the 20th century that it seemed that productive knowledge of Slovenian would suffice and that it would be
possible to assure the conveyance of the best works of Slovenian scholarly production to foreign audiences
through translations. But this vague idea has virtually disappeared in modern conditions where most of the
time there is no money or time to translate. It has certainly been clear for a long time, however, that society
cannot afford to translate all the relevant scientific literature into Slovenian, but only the fundamental
works.
700
Sociolinguistics
definition of the status of the Slovenian language. Such a definition does not bring
about a real effect in the language community without a good plan for the realisation
and implementation of this status.38 A good plan must aim at assuring opportunities
to use the language, assuring the language ability of the speaker, and a language repertoire in line with their needs. Without opportunities for its use, neither the material
side of the language nor the language ability of its speakers will develop, let alone
the deeper socio- and psychological dimensions and bonds within the language community. Similarly the community cannot live without efficient and accessible public
communication – and the primary role of public communication is not to ensure the
status of the language, but to make it possible for people to participate in societal
processes.
Within this framework it becomes absolutely manifest that Slovenian language
policy and language planning cannot treat only the status and corpus of Slovenian in
the Republic of Slovenia, but must likewise systematically concern themselves with
its inhabitants’ first languages, foreign languages, and also with Slovenian language
communities outside Slovenia and the community of speakers who speak or are only
learning Slovenian as a second/foreign language. All of these are specific and complex
chapters of Slovenian language policy, united by the fact that they are still rather peripheral to the Slovenian language policy thought – although without them the existence of the core story will not be possible for much longer.
Monika Kavalir.
REFERENCES
Robert DE BEAUGRANDE 1998: Designing Language Programs in Emergent Nations: The Outlook in Slovenia. – Language Policy and Language Education in Emerging Nations. Ed.
R. de Beaugrande, M. Grosman, B. Siedlhofer. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Stamford,
Connecticut, London. 275–288.
Janez DULAR 2003: Sloven{~ina v Evropi. – Perspektive slovenistike ob vklju~evanju v Evropsko zvezo. Zbornik slavisti~nega dru{tva Slovenije 14. Ed. Marko Jesen{ek. Ljubljana:
Slavisti~no dru{tvo Slovenije. 218–222.
Ina FERBEÀR, Nata{a PIRIH SVETINA 2004: Certificiranje sloven{~ine kot drugega/tujega jezika – zgodovina in perspektive. – Jezik in slovstvo, year XLIX. No. 3–4 (Thematic issue
Sloven{~ina kot drugi/tuji jezik).
Monika KALIN GOLOB 2001: Jezikovnokulturni vidiki vklju~evanja Slovenije v Evropsko unijo. –
Teorija in praksa, year. 38. No. 2. 213–230. (http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/tip/tip20012KalinGolob.
PDF)
38
No study of the consequences and effects of the Slovenian in Public Use Act is available as yet:
anecdotal cases do show, however, that some legal stipulations are only enforced with grave difficulty – because they interfere with the wishes/needs of the members of the Slovenian language community that the
norm concerns (e.g. obligatory names of firms in the Slovenian language, obligatory use of Slovenian in the
media etc). It was already repeatedly pointed out (Ur{i~, Jan (ed.) 2000, Stabej 2000) during the procedures
of drafting and adopting the law that adopting a legal norm in opposition to the ideas of the majority of
members of the language community was nonsensical in the long run.
701
Meta GROSMAN 2003: Jezikovno znanje za delovanje v Evropi. – Perspektive slovenistike ob
vklju~evanju v Evropsko zvezo. Zbornik slavisti~nega dru{tva Slovenije 14. Ed. Marko
Jesen{ek. Ljubljana: Slavisti~no dru{tvo Slovenije. 32–49.
Jacques LECLERC 2000: Slovénie. L’aménagement linguistique dans le monde. Québec: TLFQ,
Université Laval. 21 September 2005 [http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/slovenie.htm]
(8. 11. 2005)
Albina NE}AK LÜK 2003: Language education policy in Slovenia. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Education Development unit.
Maja PAV{I~ 2005: Sloven{~ina in njeno pou~evanje pri slovenskih zdomcih : raziskava med
u~enci dopolnilnega pouka slovenskega jezika in kulture v Baden-Württenbergu. Unpublished
BA dissertation. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slovenistiko.
Nata{a PIRIH SVETINA, ED. 2004: Sloven{~ina kot drugi/tuji jezik. Jezik in slovstvo. Year XLIX.
No. 3–4 (Thematic issue).
Breda POGORELEC 1993: Jezikovna politika in jezikovno na~rtovanje pri Slovencih: zgodovina
in sodobni vidiki. – Jezik tako in druga~e. Ljubljana: Dru{tvo za uporabno jezikoslovje.
1–17.
− − 1996: Jezikovno na~rtovanje in jezikovna politika pri Slovencih med 1945 in 1995. – Jezik
in ~as. Ed. Ada Vidovi~ Muha. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete, 41–61.
Poro~evalec 2000: Poro~evalec dràvnega zbora Republike Slovenije, 27 October 2000. Year
XXVI. No. 92.
Marko STABEJ 2000: Nekatera vpra{anja formalnopravnega urejanja statusa slovenskega jezika
v Republiki Sloveniji. – Kultura, identiteta in jezik v procesih evropske integracije. Ed. Inka
[trukelj. Ljubljana: Dru{tvo za uporabno jezikoslovje Slovenije. Vol. 1. 234–245.
− − 2001: Institucionalizacija jezikovne politike v dràvnih organih Republike Slovenije.
Zbornik referatov s Prvega slovensko-hrva{kega slavisti~nega sre~anja, ki je bilo v Novigradu od 25. do 27. marca 1999. Ed. Vesna Po`gaj Hadì. Ljubljana: Oddelek za slovanske
jezike in knjièvnosti Filozofske fakultete. 33–42.
− − 2001a: Sloven{~ina v Evropi, Evropa v sloven{~ini : premislek pred okroglo mizo. – 37.
seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Zbornik predavanj. Ed. Irena Orel.
Ljubljana: Center za sloven{~ino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in
knjièvnosti Filozofske fakultete, 261-270.
− − 2001b: Spod materinega krila v lastne hla~e: (materni jezik, dràvni jezik – med intimnim
in javnim). – Materni jezik na pragu 21. stoletja. Zbornik Mednarodnega simpozija Materni
jezik na pragu 21. stoletja v Portoroù, 2 December 1999. Ed. Milena Iv{ek. 1st edition.
Ljubljana: Zavod Republike Slovenije za {olstvo, 20–31.
− − 2003: Sloven{~ina od pet do glave. – Slovenski jezik, literatura in kultura v izobraèvanju:
zbornik predavanj. Ed. Boà Krakar-Vogel Ljubljana: Center za sloven{~ino kot drugi/tuji
jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Filozofske fakultete. 83–90.
− − 2003a: Sloven{~ina v Evropski uniji, Evropska unija v sloven{~ini. – Zbornik referatov z
Drugega slovensko-hrva{kega slavisti~nega sre~anja, ki je bilo v [marje{kih Toplicah od
5. do 6. aprila 2001. Ed. Vesna Po`gaj Hadì. Ljubljana: Oddelek za slavistiko, Filozofska
fakulteta. 57–68.
− − 2003b: Bo en jezik dovolj? Ve~jezi~nost v enojezi~nosti. – Slovenski knji`ni jezik – aktualna
vpra{anja in zgodovinske izku{nje : ob 450-letnici izida prve slovenske knjige (Obdobja,
20). Ed. Ada Vidovi~ Muha. Ljubljana: Center za sloven{~ino kot drugi/tuji jezik pri Oddelku za slovenistiko Filozofske fakultete. 51–70.
− − 2005: Kdo si, ki govori{ slovensko? – Sloven{~ina in njeni uporabniki. Ed. Vesna Mikoli~.
Koper: ZRS UP. 13–22.
702
Sociolinguistics
Dubravko [KILJAN 2003: Jezikovna politika v kontekstu evropskih integracij – Konkuren~nost
Slovenije 2001-2006. Teì{~e 8, Narodna identiteta, pluralnost in mednarodne integracije.
Slovenija in nadaljnji razvoj Evropske unije: zaklju~no poro~ilo. Holder Jernej Zupan~i~.
Ljubljana: In{titut za narodnostna vpra{anja. 76–133.
Tina [PELKO, Janja BAN 2005: Slovenska jezikovna skupnost v Argentini : (socio)lingvisti~na
analiza. Unpublished BA dissertation. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta,
Oddelek za slovenistiko.
Inka [TRUKELJ 1998: Transnacionalne integracije, jezikovna politika in na~rtovanje jezika.
– Jezik za danes in jutri. Ed. Inka [trukelj. Ljubljana, Dru{tvo za uporabno jezikoslovje,
19–31.
Joè TOPORI{I~ 1991: Dru`benost slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana: DZS.
Sonja UR{I~, Zoltan JAN, ur., 2000: Javna predstavitev mnenj o tezah za zakonsko ureditev rabe
sloven{~ine kot uradnega jezika. Zbornik prispevkov iz razprave s tezami za predlog zakona
in izbor gradiva. Ljubljana: Dràvni svet Republike Slovenije
Ada VIDOVI~ MUHA 1996: Razvojne prvine normativnosti slovenskega knji`nega jezika. – Jezik
in ~as. Ed. Ada Vidovi~ Muha. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete. 15–40.
Jana ZEMLJARI~ MIKLAV~I~ 2000: Jezikovno na~rtovanje sloven{~ine kot J2/JT v okviru EU.
– Kultura, identiteta in jezik v procesih evropske integracije. Ed. Inka [trukelj. Ljubljana:
Dru{tvo za uporabno jezikoslovje Slovenije. 260–268.
POVZETEK
Slovenska jezikovna politika je bila v preteklih petnajstih letih zaznamovana predvsem z
osamosvojitvijo Republike Slovenije l. 1991 in z njeno priklju~itvijo Evropski Uniji l. 2004.
V ospredju jezikovnopoliti~nih prizadevanj je bila skrb za ohranjanje in utrjevanje statusa
sloven{~ine kot edinega uradnega jezika po celotni dràvi in kot absolutno dominantnega javnega jezika. Redkej{a je bila tista jezikovnopoliti~na misel, ki si je prizadevala za bolj operativno na~rtovalno dejavnost v smislu razumevanja celotne jezikovne situacije, z upo{tevanjem
predvsem potreb govorcev in s ciljem zagotoviti jim odprte poti do javnega sporazumevanja, pri
~emer pa ne bi upo{tevala samo sloven{~ine, temve~ tudi druge jezike. Po maju 2004 nekateri
znaki kaèjo, da se v prej{njem desetletju institucionalizirana jezikovna politika spet deinstitucionalizira ter da je jezikovna politika spet bolj implicitne kot eksplicitne narave. Zakon o javni
rabi sloven{~ine, sprejet l. 2004, predvideva aktivno jezikovno politiko, zato razprava pregleda dve eksplicitni jezikovnopoliti~ni dejanji iz l. 2004, Resolucijo o nacionalnem programu
za kulturo in Prereze politike jezikovnega izobraèvanja v Sloveniji, dva predloga jezikovnih
programov za slovensko situacijo, Beaugrandovega iz l. 1998 in [kiljanovega iz l. 2003. Klju~
nadaljnjega jezikovnopoliti~ne dejavnosti v Sloveniji leì najbr` v smiselnem ravnote`ju med
simbolnimi vlogami sloven{~ine in drugih jezikov, sporazumevalno zmo`nostjo govorcev in
odprtostjo javnega sporazumevalnega prostora.
Nada Šabec, Language, Society and Culture: Slovene in Contact with English
UDC 811.163.6’24:811.111’24
Nada [abec
Faculty of Arts, Maribor
703
LANGUAGE, SOCIETY AND CULTURE: SLOVENE IN CONTACT
WITH ENGLISH
The author addresses Slovene-English language contact, both in the immigrant context and
in Slovenia. The direct contact of Slovene and English in the case of Slovene Americans and
Canadians is examined from two perspectives: social and cultural on the one hand and linguistic
on the other. In the first part, I present the general linguistic situation in Cleveland (and to a
minor extent in Washington, D.C. and Toronto), with emphasis on language maintenance and
shift, the relationship between mother tongue preservation and ethnic awareness, and the impact
of extralinguistic factors on selected aspects of the linguistic behavior of the participants in the
study. I then compare the use of second person pronouns as terms of address and the use of
speech acts such as compliments to determine the role of different cultural backgrounds in the
speakers’ linguistic choices. The linguistic part of the analysis focuses on borrowing and code
switching, as well as on the influence of English on seemingly monolingual Slovene discourse,
where the Slovene inflectional system in particular is being increasingly generalized, simplified and reduced, and Slovene word order is beginning to resemble that of English. Finally, the
rapidly growing impact of English on Slovene in Slovenia on various linguistic levels from
vocabulary to syntax and intercultural communication is discussed.
Avtorica obravnava slovensko-angle{ki jezikovni stik v izseljenstvu in v Sloveniji. Neposredni stik med sloven{~ino in angle{~ino pri ameri{kih in kanadskih Slovencih prikaè z dveh
vidikov: dru`benega oz. kulturnega in jezikoslovnega. V prvem delu predstavi splo{no jezikovno
stanje v Clevelandu (in delno v Washingtonu, D. C. in Torontu), pri ~emer jo posebej zanimajo
vpra{anja jezikovnega ohranjanja in opu{~anja, odnosa med stopnjo ohranitve materin{~ine
in zavestjo o etni~ni pripadnosti ter vpliva izbranih zunajjezikovnih dejavnikov na jezikovno
vedenje sodelujo~ih v raziskavi. Sledi primerjava rabe osebnih zaimkov za 2. osebo pri ogovarjanju sogovornika in govornih dejanj, kakr{ni so npr. komplimenti, da bi ugotovila, v kolik{ni
meri so jezikovne izbire govorcev odvisne od razli~nih kulturnih okolij, iz katerih le-ti prihajajo.
Jezikoslovni del analize se osredoto~a na sposojanje in kodno preklapljanje, pa tudi na vpliv
angle{~ine v na videz enojezi~nem diskurzu izseljencev. Ta se kaè predvsem na oblikoslovni
ravnini, kjer se poenostavljajo, posplo{ujejo in celo opu{~ajo slovenski sklanjatveni vzorci, prisoten pa je tudi v skladnji, kjer se slovenski besedni red ponekod pribliùje angle{kemu. Zadnji
del je posve~en vedno mo~nej{emu vplivu angle{~ine na sloven{~ino v Sloveniji. Govora je o
angle{kem vplivu na leksikalni, sintakti~ni in medkulturni ravni.
Key words: Slovene-English language contact, language maintenance, language attitudes,
borrowing, code switching, intercultural communication
Klju~ne besede: slovensko-angle{ki jezikovni stik, jezikovna ohranitev, jezikovni odnosi,
sposojanje, kodno preklapljanje, medkulturna komunikacija
704
Sociolinguistics
1 Introduction
This article is an attempt at providing a reasonably brief, but nonetheless comprehensive survey of my research to date. As such, it will necessarily leave out a number
of issues that I have explored and focus only on those that I consider the most important ones. These are connected primarily with Slovene-English language contact, both
in the immigrant context and in Slovenia itself. I have always looked on language as
a dynamic system, susceptible to change and variation, depending on the social and
cultural context within which it is used. Language contact situations are particularly
relevant in this respect. In fact, I believe that Slovene studies cannot be complete
without including research on, say, the use of Slovene in an immigrant context. This
as well as studies of other contact situations are an integral part of Slovene language
studies and may well contribute to clearer insights into the linguistic mechanisms and
constraints governing language use. It is thus the purpose of this article to present
various aspects and possible outcomes of Slovene-English language contact, both in
terms of function and structure, with special emphasis on the interconnectedness of
the linguistic, social and cultural factors defining it.
2 Direct Contact between Slovene and English in an Immigrant
Environment
An environment which is ideally suited for observing direct contact between Slovene and English is an immigrant context, in my case North America. There Slovene
experiences a special kind of development, as if it were an island surrounded by the
ocean of the dominant English, which makes Slovene particularly vulnerable to the
English impact and, consequently, to potential language contact-induced change.
2.1 Social and Cultural Dimensions
In the three studies carried out in two U.S. cities (Cleveland, OH, Washington,
D.C.) and in Toronto, Canada, I describe the general linguistic situation of the speech
communities in terms of language maintenance and shift, the relationship between
mother tongue preservation and ethnic awareness, and the impact of extralinguistic
factors on the linguistic behavior of the participants in the study. In the second part, I
touch upon the 2nd person pronouns used as terms of address by Slovenes in Slovenia
and in diaspora in order to illustrate the kind of difficulties that may stem from the
different cultural backgrounds of the speakers. The same is often true in the case of
certain speech acts.
2.1.1 Mother Tongue Maintenance and Language Attitudes
Owing to space limitations, I will focus on only a couple of selected variables
relating to mother tongue maintenance and language attitudes. Also, only the study
conducted in Cleveland, the city with the largest population of Slovene Americans in
705
the U.S.A., will be described in more detail, the other two studies will be referred to
only briefly.
The findings are based on the analysis of the empirical data gathered over a fouryear time period from small and medium-sized social networks of immigrants (Milroy, 1987) through tape-recorded interviews, follow-up self-report questionnaires and
participant observation. For the purpose of this article, however, I rely only on the
analysis of questionnaire responses by 185 participants about their language use and
attitudes, and their socialization patterns.
A brief outline of the Cleveland Slovene American community is provided as
background information for the research. Cleveland Slovenes immigrated to the United States in two major waves. The first consists of those who came at the turn of the
19th century and in the first two decades of the 20th century, the second those who came
after WWII. The early immigrants came to America mostly for economic reasons;
as uneducated and unskilled workers they found jobs in steel mills, mechanical and
manufacturing industries, the construction industries and similar sectors. Their exact
number is practically impossible to determine. The census data for 1910, however,
lists 14,332 Slovenes in Cleveland, making it the third largest Slovene city in the
world at that point. Their number changed over time; The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History (1987: 989) estimates that there were approximately 50,000 Slovenes in
Cleveland in the 1980s, whereas the 1990 census record lists 120,000 Slovenes for the
entire country and 49,598 people of Slovene ancestry for the state of Ohio.
The early immigrants never really integrated into mainstream American society,
but lived instead in ethnically segregated neighborhoods, where they could rely on
ethnic organizations and communicate in their native dialects. These neighborhoods
were so Slovene in character that the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic
groups says that »In Cleveland, for example, St. Clair Avenue from 30th to East 79th
Streets became by the 1920s so completely Slovene in character that English was the
foreign language« (1980: 973). The influence of English was limited to borrowing,
with English lexemes being morphologically and partly phonologically adapted to
Slovene. Their children, the 2nd generation, however, were quite different. They went
to school, learned English, in most cases moved out of the inner city, became homeowners and progressed both socially and economically. While bilingual themselves,
they nevertheless resented the stigma of being of foreign origin, and more often than
not neglected to teach their own children any Slovene. The 3rd pre-war generation is
thus mostly college educated and economically successful, but no longer or only exceptionally speaks Slovene.
The group of post-war immigrants is largely made up of the refugees that fled
the Communist regime and came to the U.S. from former Yugoslavia after the 1948
Displaced Persons Act. Compared to the early immigrants, they came with better
education and in some cases even with a working knowledge of English. Residential
concentration was no longer essential to their survival, as it had been for the pre-war
immigrants, and the majority settled in the suburbs. Linguistically, it is interesting
that they have a good command of both the dialects and Standard Slovene, which is
why they only rarely resort to borrowing. Instead, they engage in code switching, i.e.
706
Sociolinguistics
the alternate use of two discrete linguistic systems. Their children are similar to the
3rd pre-war generation immigrants1 in that they speak little or no Slovene as well as in
terms of social and economic mobility.
The statistical analysis of the questionnaire responses reveals a highly significant
degree of intergenerational variation within each of the two major immigration groups
both in their bilingual competence and in their language attitudes. Two variables will
be presented for illustration purposes: the participants’ competence in Slovene and
their preferred conversational language.
The respondents were asked to evaluate their Slovene speaking, reading and writing skills rating them as poor, fair, good or excellent. The majority of 1st pre-war immigrants rate their speaking skills in Slovene as good and excellent. Only two out of
thirty-seven rate themselves as fair and none as poor. In the 2nd pre-war generation we
observe the same frequencies for good and excellent, an increase in the category of
fair and the first occurrence of poor ratings. In the 3rd pre-war generation, the number
of those who rate themselves as fair and poor continues to rise at the expense of those
who assess their speaking as good, while nobody rates themselves as excellent.
The 1st post-war generation immigrants rate themselves predominantly as excellent and only a few as good. The 2nd post-war generation has a high percentage of answers in the category of fair, which is similar to the 3rd pre-war generation data. Some
are in the good, and very few in the poor and excellent categories.
Not surprisingly, the 1st generation immigrants (both pre-war and post-war), who
grew up in a Slovene-speaking environment, show the highest competence in Slovene.
It is also understandable that a higher number of more recent immigrants rate themselves as excellent than the pre-war generation, for whom Slovene as was spoken in
the »old country«2 has become remote in terms of time and distance.
What is interesting is the difference between the two 2nd generations. While the
pre-war generation differs from their parents only slightly in that there are a few more
cases of only fair speaking skills among them, the post-war generation shows a drastically sharp decline in their speaking skills evaluation, exhibiting the same pattern as
the 3rd pre-war generation.
For reading and writing we observe similar patterns, the only difference being that
the rating starts at a considerably lower level, which is attributed to the higher difficulty level of the two skills. The higher the difficulty level, the more rapid the decline
in competence.
The responses relating to preferred conversational language point to the fact that
Slovene has largely lost its communicative value. Most respondents selected English (54 %), followed by those who preferred Slovene (25 %) and finally those who
couldn’t decide between the two (21 %). The relatively high numbers for Slovene are
1
For the sake of economy, the term immigrant(s) is used to refer to all the participants in the study. In
fact, only those who emigrated from Europe and settled in the U.S.A. (1st generation) qualify as immigrants, while their children are already American-born and U.S. citizens, i.e. not immigrants.
2
The »old country« is the usual term used by the Slovene-born immigrants to refer to their Slovenian
homeland.
707
somewhat misleading, as the respondents’ other answers show that Slovene is limited
to partial use on certain informal occasions among family members, and friends.
Two generations for which Slovene is the preferred language stand out from the
rest: the 1st pre-war and the 1st post-war generations. The 1st pre-war generation especially undoubtedly prefers Slovene, as only a negligible number opt for English
or both options. For the 1st post-war generation immigrants, the ratio between those
who prefer Slovene and those who prefer both languages is somewhat more balanced.
None prefer English, however, which is understandable in view of their Slovene upbringing. The pre-war immigrants, most of whom are rather elderly by now, are particularly fond of Slovene. As I was able to observe during my fieldwork, with some the
competence in English is decreasing and traces of their dialectal Slovene are becoming stronger and stronger. Their emotional attachment to the language and, by association, to the »old country« seems to be increasing with age. Post-war immigrants, on
the other hand, generally do not have such problems. They use English daily at work
and in their communication with non-Slovenes, which explains the large number of
those who chose both languages.
For all other generations, the preferred conversational language is English. For
the 3rd pre-war and the 2nd post-war generations this was the only language selected,
whereas in the 2nd pre-war generation some prefer both languages. It is not surprising
that it is this particular generation that shows such preferences, as it is the one that is
the most bilingual in the sense that it is in between their parents, who are still very
much Slovene, and their children, who are more or less Americanized.
These and other results were then used as a basis for singling out those factors
that encourage Slovene language maintenance and those that encourage the Slovene
language shift to English.
The former include the participants’ relatively high degree of competence in Slovene and their positive attitudes toward it, the latter the participants’ relatively low competence in Slovene and negative attitudes. The degree of Slovene competence depends
on the place, age, and manner in which the language was learned and on the frequency
of opportunities to actually use it.
Competence in Slovene is higher with Slovene-born respondents, especially those
who immigrated after WWII. Those who were born in the U.S., on the other hand,
with the exception of the 2nd pre-war generation, grew up in the homes where a partial
or a complete language shift from Slovene to English had already taken place. The
frequency of opportunities to speak Slovene are the highest for those who are married
to partners of Slovene descent, those who live in the same household with their grandparents and those who are involved in ethnic activities. For the younger generations
especially such opportunities are minimal, as they no longer live in segregated communities. They associate with friends and other contacts regardless of their ethnicity
and have little time to participate in ethnic activities. Social and geographical mobility
as well as the increasing number of intermarriages are therefore among the major factors that contribute to the rapid displacement of Slovene by English.
The linguistic situation in the community is therefore one of a very transitional
and unstable bilingualism. With the exception of the older pre-war immigrants, the
708
Sociolinguistics
majority of whom have very strong ties with their old homeland, and the most recent
post-war immigrants, for whom the time of emigration from Slovenia is still relatively
fresh in their minds, all the others are more bicultural than bilingual.
The majority perceive themselves as part of the mainstream society, and while
they take great pride in having »roots« and belonging to an ethnically distinct group,
their being Slovene comes only second to their being American. While they verbally
proclaim the importance of preserving Slovene, their enthusiasm remains largely at a
symbolic level and those who actually try to learn the language are the exceptions, not
the rule. Other factors, from Slovene music to culture and cuisine, and even non-ethnic values such as work ethic, rank higher than language among the factors that they
cite as contributing to their feeling Slovene.
The most striking finding, however, has to do with the greatly accelerated pace
at which the language is being lost if we compare the pre-war and the post-war immigrants. The 2nd post-war generation has its counterpart in the 3rd and not in the 2nd
pre-war generation. The language shift from English to Slovene, which in families of
pre-war immigrants took place over the course of three generations, has occurred in
just two generations in the case of post-war immigrants. In other words, we observe
the shortening of the cycles, the progression from the initial Slovene monolingualism
to partial Slovene-English bilingualism and finally to monolingualism again, only this
time English. A likely explanation for such development may be found in the indirect,
but omnipresent pressures exerted by English language and culture on the younger
generations who associate them with social, cultural, political, and economic prestige,
and are therefore driven to integrate as fully as possible. Coupled with this, their perception of Slovene as being of limited practical value for wider communication also
contributes to the attrition of the weaker language.
Contrary to the rather bleak prospects for the maintenance of the Slovene language, the participants’ ethnic awareness is very high, which is manifested in the impressive network of ethnic organizations, numerous cultural activities and regular or
at least frequent contact with Slovenia. In this respect, the newly gained independence
of Slovenia in 1991 contributed significantly to a heightened interest in their ethnic
heritage. The Slovene American community is thus likely to survive even though its
members may in the future no longer identify themselves as being bilingual but rather
as bicultural.
The Toronto study showed similar traits as the Cleveland one, the only difference
being that the community there is smaller and considerably less varied, as the vast majority of the immigrants came to Canada after WWII. Consequently, they speak relatively fluent Standard Slovene, local dialects, English and also engage in code switching. Their children and younger generations show strong signs of mother tongue attrition. The general impression about those who do speak Slovene, though, is that they
are remarkably proficient in it. The same is true of the greater Washington area (D.C.
together with Maryland and Virginia suburbs), where there are even fewer Slovenes,
but those who speak Slovene, speak it almost flawlessly. Typical of that community
is that most people moved to the capital city after WWII either from Slovenia or from
other U.S. federal states. They were attracted by occupational and professional oppor-
709
tunities that were quite different from those of early immigrants to Cleveland. Being
well-educated (many holding M.A. and Ph.D.s), the majority of Washington Slovenes
work in managerial positions, in academia, as federal employees and the like. For
them, living together was never a matter of survival, but rather a matter of personal
choice, a way to enrich their social and cultural lives and to express their identity.
2.1.2 Ti vs. Vi
Social background and ethnicity are not the only extralinguistic factors that affect
language use. Culture, for instance, plays a vital role, too. It is often said that language
and culture are inseparable, and indeed there can be little doubt that language to a
great extent mirrors the social values, attitudes, beliefs and norms of a specific society.
Speakers belonging to different social and cultural backgrounds often perceive reality
differently; they judge it by their own specific standards, have their own traditions and
conventions, allusions, references and ways of behavior and, as a result, do not always
agree in their views. The discrepancy between different cultures may be complete
or the cultures may only partially overlap, but in either case the danger of potential
misunderstanding or even communication breakdowns remains. The danger might be
in fact even greater in the case of only partial cultural overlap, where the speakers are
not aware of the differences and thus feel free to rely on their own taken-for-granted
intuitive knowledge, using it in communication with speakers coming from different
backgrounds. This may ocasionally apply to the communication between Slovenes
coming from Slovenia and those living in North America. It is thus not uncommon
for a Slovene American to, say, give compliments in Slovene as generously as any
American would do and be then dumbfounded that the Slovene recipients do not accept them graciously. Compliments in Slovene are far rarer than in American English,
given only for outstanding achievements. On top of that, many Slovene recipients
tend to withdraw into modesty and pretend not to deserve any credit. This strategy is
likely to put the Slovene American speakers offering compliments into an unpleasant,
even embarrassing position. They cannot figure out why the person was not pleased
with the compliment and can only interpret their behavior as a sign of false modesty
(fishing for compliments) or low self-esteem. In either case the likelihood that they
will compliment them again is small and so is the likelihood of their trying to maintain
normal relations. Similar misunderstandings may be encountered with other speech
acts as well.
Another example illustrating the impact of different cultural norms is the use of 2nd
person pronouns as terms of address. Almost every Slovene visitor to the U.S.A. has
probably had the experience of being addressed as ti by complete strangers upon first
meeting them. While Slovene has a binary system of 2nd person pronouns, whereby
a single interlocutor can be addressed either as ti or vi and where the choice implies
different degrees of personal and social (in)equality among speakers or, according to
Brown and Gilman (1960), power and solidarity, English uses the single form you in
all cases.
710
Sociolinguistics
In Slovenia, the distinction between ti and vi in addressing the other is largely observed (with the exception of some younger speakers). The situation in the U.S.A. and
Canada, on the other hand, is much less stable. A study comparing the use of ti vs. vi
among Slovenes in Slovenia on the one hand, and those living in Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Fontana in the U.S. and in Toronto, Canada on the other, showed that second
person pronouns in the U.S. and Canada often seemed to be used almost at random
and with a very strong bias in favor of ti. The distinction between ti and vi is partly observed only by some Slovene-born speakers, while the American- and Canadian-born
use the two with no consistency, or openly state that the distinction no longer matters
to them and that they prefer ti in all circumstances. There are several possible explanations for such attitudes: the exclusive use of ti that the early immigrants brought
with them from the »old country«3, the uncertainty as to which pronoun to choose
when they did not grow up with them in the case of all other speakers, and finally the
influence of the English language with you as the only pronoun used. The responses
provided by the participants in the study confirm this last view at least to some extent.
Especially younger speakers believe that the more formal vi is redundant and that the
less formal, casual ti better serves their needs in addressing others on an equal footing. Compared to the relatively conserative and stable ti vs. vi distinction in Slovenia,
Slovenes in the U.S.A. and Canada use predominantly ti, which is in line with the very
dynamic relations of a fairly egalitarian and socially mobile society. The tendency to
address people by first names only can be understood in this light as well.
The relatively relaxed approach to the use of pronouns on the part of Slovene
Americans and Canadians on the one hand and the deeply-rooted adherence to the
more conservative and consistent use of pronouns by speakers in Slovenia on the
other makes for potentially slippery ground in communication between individuals
from different environments. Speakers from Slovenia might be easily offended when
addressed as ti, when no familiarity is called for, and Slovenes from diaspora might
be puzzled as to the cause of their resentment and the resulting misunderstanding. The
risk of this happening is lower with younger speakers in Slovenia, who are increasingly beginning to use ti in the contexts where we would normally expect vi. Whether
or not such use is just a temporary phenomenon that will disappear as younger speakers age remains to be seen. It is equally possible that we are dealing with language
change under way. The ever more frequent use of the so-called partial vi/ na pol
vikanje (Topori{i~ 2000: 390) as well as the combination of titles such as gospod and
gospa with first rather than last names by the majority of all speakers, regardless of
age, indicates the possibility of such a change.
2.2 Linguistic Dimensions
Language contact is equally fascinating from the purely linguistic perspective, as
it offers a wealth of data that hold potential answers to the questions about the possible
3
Ti as the only pronoun used by lower classes such as peasants.
711
constraints on the combinations of two languages, the types of bilingual discourse, the
degree of interlingual infuences on various linguistic levels and the like.
My research reveals two types of bilingual discourse: borrowing and code switching.
The former is encountered primarily with the 1st pre-war generation immigrants, the
latter is typical of all others.
Borrowing involves attaching Slovene inflections to English bases, which results
in the most commonly borrowed parts of speech: nouns ({tor, ajsbaksa, braderlo from
store, ice-box, brother-in-law), verbs (hajrati, pejntati, spilati from to hire, to paint, to
spill) and adjectives (zbrokan, divorsana, pofiksano from broken, divorced, fixed). The
process involves both phonological and morphological adaptation, with a considerable degree of vacillation in the pronunciation (owing to the poor productive ability of
1st generation immigrants). It is precisely for this reason that phonological adaptation
alone is not a sufficient condition for a word to be classified as a borrowing. Morphological adaptation is required as well, which means that the new combination has to
acquire all of the morphological characteristics of a Slovene word in accordance with
the rules of Slovene grammar. In addition, not just any nonce borrowing is sufficient
either, rather a borrowing needs to be recognized and used as such by all or at least the
majority of the speech community.
Code switching, on the other hand, is defined as the alternate use of two discrete
languages or their respective varieties within the same conversation.
e.g. He had to take a day off; je blo ta prvi~, ko je {el vzet dràvljanstvo papir.
/He had to take a day off; that happened for the first time when he went to get his
citizenship documents/.
A detailed discussion of code switching would exceed the scope of this article.
Suffice to say that the predominant type of code switching in the case of Slovene
Americans is the intersentential type, that it is very difficult, if not impossible to
determine its directionality at a sentence level, that the most commonly switched
items include single lexemes, discourse markers and numerals and, most importantly,
that with the exception of the free-morpheme constraint (Sankoff and Poplack 1981),
most other lingustic constraints from the literature do not hold for the data in my
study. It is suggested that instead of trying to explain code switching within the strictly
syntactic framework, a broader approach that focuses on the semantic, pragmatic and
communicative aspects of code switching should be adopted in order to account for
those occurrences of code switching that contradict the mentioned constraints. The
only constraint therefore that basically prohibits the use of code switching and that
is proposed for the Slovene-English code switching is the potential breakdown in
communication.
An almost regular occurrence outside of borrowing and code switching, i.e. in
monolingual passages, are also the interlingual influences of Slovene and English.
The impact of English is understandably stronger than the Slovene one and is felt
on all levels from phonology to morphology, syntax and semantics. The two most
affected areas are the Slovene inflectional system which is being increasingly
generalized, simplified and reduced, and word order which is beginning to resemble
that of English.
712
Sociolinguistics
e.g. Pa smo {li z moja vnuk in poli mi smo vzeli ena slika od cela `lahta. /Standard
Slovene: Smo {li z mojim vnukom in se slikali z vsemi sorodniki/vso `lahto/.
3 Indirect Contact between Slovene and English in Slovenia
Living in an era of intense globalization and advanced technology, in which
English for all intents and purposes has gained the status of international lingua
franca, it comes as no surprise that Slovenia is not immune from its influence either.
Compared to the immigrant context, where the contact between Slovene and English
for bilingual speakers occurs directly and on a daily basis, the contact in Slovenia is
less direct, but neverthless very powerful, especially for some segments of the population (e.g. business community, scientists, Internet users and the like). The following
section will address this type of English influence on various levels from lexicon to
syntax and intercultural communication.
3.1 The Influence of English on Slovene Vocabulary
Slovenes borrow English words for more diverse reasons than Slovene Americans,
who do it primarily to fill lexical gaps. In Slovenia, too, some loanwords have been
adopted to name new objects and concepts, thus filling lexical gaps, but quite a few
enter the Slovene lexicon even though Slovene already has an equivalent native word
for that item. The former include examples such as disketa, bojkot, parkirati, and recent examples of globalizacija and wellness, the latter words such as manager, design,
marketing (with direktor, oblikovanje, trènje, as their Slovene equivalents). In cases
of these latter, fashionable borrowings, which could be termed cultural or prestigious
borrowings and that label their users as up-to-date, chic, knowledgeable, cosmopolitan or, alternatively, simply pretentious, their use may develop in several directions.
The foreign and the native word may coexist side by side as near-equivalents, e.g.
glamur and bli{~, tatu and tetovaà, reality show and resni~nostni {ov, talk show and
pogovorna oddaja; one of the words may be partially displaced in some of its meanings through the process of specialization and semantic restriction, e.g. miss retaining
just one of its English meanings in Slovene, referring to the winner of specific beauty
pageants and not matching the exact meaning of similar words in Slovene (lepotna
kraljica, zmagovalka lepotnega tekmovanja and the like); and occasionally, a loanword may undergo semantic expansion and, in Slovene, acquire a meaning that does
not exist in the original, e.g. the word toast in the sense of a toasted cheese-and-ham
sandwich or vikend meaning a cottage or a vacation home.
In the initial stages, borrowings are extremely susceptible to variation manifested
both in unstable pronunciation and orthography, e.g. college/kolid`, software/softver,
leasing/lizing, rock’n’roll/rokenrol, jazz/dè`, koktajl/koktejl/cocktail, jogging/dòging,
imid`/image, jeans/dìns. In printed media they are often used in inverted commas or
italics or even accompanied by a gloss or a footnote explaining their meaning.
713
e.g.
• Ameri{ka vlada si je pustila odprta vrata tudi za tak{en razvoj dogodkov: sporazum o embeddingu, ki ga je vsak embedded novinar moral podpisati z ameri{ko
vlado dolo~a, da sme ameri{ka vlada proces embeddinga prekiniti kadarkoli in
zaradi kateregakoli razloga – at any time and for any reason.
Opomba: Angle{ki izraz to embed v dobesednem prevodu pomeni nekaj trdno,
nelo~ljivo vstaviti, vloìti, zakopati v obkroàjo~o tvarino. Fosil, denimo, je embedded v obdajajo~o kamnino. Raba tega izraza za opisovanje poloàja, statusa
novinarjev je pomensko nova, gre za pentagonski novorek, zaradi ~esar ga tudi
angle{ko piso~i tisk neredko – v~asih posmehljivo – uporablja v navednicah. Mi
ga ne bomo prevajali, kadar pa è, potem z nevtralnim izrazom »vklju~itve v ento«.
(Delo, Sobotna priloga, 29.3. 2003:13).
• Veliko podjetij najema za iskanje zahtevnej{ih profilov kadrov 'headhunterje'
– lovce na glave, ki za njih i{~ejo ustrezne kandidate. (Mojedelo.com, revija za
zaposlovanje in razvoj kariere, August 2005:11).
• Mafini so modno pecivo. Priljubljene mini kola~e lahko jemo ob razli~nih
prilo`nostih … (Ona, year 7, no. 31, 9.8. 2005:53)
Borrowings naturally progress through several such stages until some gradually
disappear and some eventually become so completely integrated into the Slovene lexicon that they are no longer perceived as foreign, e.g. sendvi~, pulover, piknik, intervju,
tabu, jahta, bojler, trenirati, with klikniti as a recent example. This is also the stage of
their complete morphological assimilation, as they begin to comply completely with
the rules of Slovene word-formation, declination and conjugation.
The influence of English on Slovene vocabulary is evident in all areas of life and
in different genres, but particularly so in the media and in the spoken discourse of
the young. A survey carried out among my own students at the University of Maribor
shows English loanwords (nouns, verbs, adjectives and whole clauses) covering practically all areas of life that are closest to teenagers and young people: music, the movie
industry, computer terminology, mobile phones, sports, and entertainment, and also
swear-words. At first sight, they look similar to the loanwords used by Slovene Americans, but a closer examination reveals an extra element with them, that of slanginess.
Their use of English is therefore indicative of their unwillingness to conform to the
norms of adult society, of their in-group solidarity and also of their feeling of being
»in«, with a very strong American element being present as well. Obviously these
terms are very unstable and most of them, by definition, will probably be fairly shortlived. It is possible, however, that some of them may survive and in time become part
of the established vocabulary.
e.g.
• mesid`/mesi~/message, luzer, frendica from message, looser, friend;
• skenslati, mailati, densat from cancel (i.e. to hang up on somebody/to break up
with somebody), mail, dance;
• kul, ful, the/d best from cool, full, the best;
• Skuliraj se! Hauzit going? Gremo v lajf. from Cool down (i.e. Take it easy). How
is it going? Let’s go into life (i.e. Let’s party).
714
Sociolinguistics
Very similar, if not identical examples can be found in some magazines specifically targeted at teens (e.g. Smrklja). Again, a considerable degree of instability, illustrated by different spelling variants for the same items even within the same sentence,
is observed.
e.g. What about pajama party? Za dober pajama party potrebuje{ sestavine:
pet najbolj{ih prijateljic v piàmah … veliko pop-corna … Prijateljice te vabijo na
pidàma party z goro video-kaset.
Somewhat suprisingly, more »serious« printed media for wider audiences are often interspersed with English, too. Apparently, newspapers and magazines resorting to
such techniques take the English proficiency of their readers for granted. Unfortunately, they also marginalize all those who are not young, mobile and educated, therefore
not proficient in English, not to mention the very detrimental effect that such a policy
has on the status and development of Slovene in Slovenia.
e.g.
• Obstajata dva na~ina, kako izgovoriti tisto, kar misli{; on the record in off the
record, za objavljanje in ne za objavljanje. (Delo, Sobotna priloga, 20. 11. 2004:
23).
• Danes mladi skupaj z na{o dru`bo vstopajo v svet potro{ni{tva, kjer si 'in', ~e
zbira{ sli~ice Pokemon, nalepke ali celo akcijske figurice in tako imeovane baby
born pun~ke, ki star{e tudi ogromno stanejo. (Ve~er, 19.9. 2005:13).
3.2 The Influence of English on Slovene Syntax
While lexical aspects of Slovene-English language contact are the most salient, the
English influence does not stop there, but also affects syntax, namely the word order
of Slovene. This happens in more subtle ways and to a much smaller extent than in the
case of vocabulary. It is often attributed to careless language use and tendencies on the
part of some speakers and particularly writers to be sensationalistic (e.g. as a means
of attracting attention in commercials), but is nevertheless indicative of potential language change. I list a couple of very telling examples from the Slovene press, the most
typical of which are the premodifier/s + nominal head sequence and the redundant use
of possessive pronouns. Both are clearly in contradiction with the spirit of Slovene.
e.g.
• Afrodita Body Firm Lotion kolekcija …
• Shield ~istilo za{~iti va{a stekla ... va{e steklene povr{ine.
• Zahvaljujem se vam za va{ odgovor. (a typical error in my students’ e-mail messages to me).
3.3 Intercultural Aspects
Finally, we can observe the intercultural impact of English on Slovene. Advertising
strategies provide the clearest examples of English being used as an »in« language,
associated with prestige and values worth striving for. This is reflected in the choice
of visual and linguistic elements of advertisements, all of which is meant to make the
715
consumer feel part of a broader global family, sharing uniform cultural beliefs. Background music or lyrics during commercials are thus, as a rule, English or American
as are scenes from everyday life that often contain culturally-loaded elements from a
typically Anglo-American environment; slogans are often completely or at least partly
English (a Hyundai ad showing a car driving across a typical American landscape and
the English slogan Drive your way; the commercial for Smart (a small car) entirely
in English with pictures accompanied by the following lines: australopitecus, homo
erectus, homo sapiens, Smart, Open your mind; the teleshopping slogan Call now
translated into Slovene word-by-word as Pokli~ite zdaj (instead of Pokli~ite takoj) as
are many brand names of products as well as store and company names. Given the
interconnectedness of language and culture, there can be no doubt that such strategies
are slowly, but surely changing the Slovene cultural landscape molding it into a distinctly less Slovene and more and a more globalized entity.
It is obvious that English has managed to penetrate almost every aspect of our
lives. We see it on the billboards, electric displays, radio, TV, on the Internet, in commercials, in so called creative, unconventional spelling such as Batagel & Co., Roè &
Vrt etc. It is there to attract our attention and it has become so commonplace that we
no longer question its presence.
Given the current trends, it is unlikely that the kind of influence that English
exerts on Slovene in Slovenia will diminish. Just the opposite, which inevitably raises
the question of balance and of possible consequences for Slovene. As for English
loanwords, there are basically two kinds of attitudes toward them among native speakers of Slovene. Some regard it as a natural process of creating new vocabulary and
enriching the language, others are concerned that too many loanwords may endanger
the very existence of the language. The latter often try to counter the influx of English
loanwords by inventing new indigenous lexical material whenever possible. This has
worked very well in some cases, e.g. tiskalnik instead of printer, ra~unalnik instead
of kompjuter, splet instead of world wide web, najstnik instead of teenager, and somewhat less successfully in others, e.g. vro~a hrenovka instead of hot dog. Among recent
attempts in this direction we find the neologism dlan~nik for palm calculator and the
word medmre`je as an alternative for the Internet (the word Internet, however, is very
persistent and is unlikely to be displaced completey by its Slovene equivalent owing
to its wide-spread use across language boundaries).
As for the other aspects discussed, syntactic, and intercultural, the situation is far
less clear, as the areas affected are particularly sensitive in that they have direct or
indirect implications for our personal, social and cultural identities. Only time will tell
which of the changes will survive and to what extent English will make a permanent
impact on Slovene.
716
Sociolinguistics
4 Conclusion
The field of language contact research is simply too vast and too complex to be
presented thoroughly in the confines of such an article. For that reason, I was able only
to touch upon a limited number of issues, those too significant to be left out and those
which I personally find intriguing, challenging and fascinating. While much remains
to be learned and written about language contact, I hope that my research until now
provides a valuable contribution to an understanding of the way languages function.
And particularly so in contact, as this is not revealing only about languages per se, but
also about the social dynamics and cultural values mirrored in them.
REFERENCES
Peter AUER (ur.), 1998: Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity.
London: Routledge.
Allan BELL, 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 2. 145–204.
Roger BROWN, Albert GILMAN, 1960: The pronouns of Power and Solidarity. V: T.A. Sebeok
(ur.), Style and Language. Cambridge, Ma.: The MIT Press.
Michael CLYNE, 2003: Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Howard GILES, Nikolas COUPLAND, Justine COUPLAND, 1991: Accommodation theory: communication, context and consequence. V: Howard Giles, Justine Coupland in Nikolas Coupland
(ur.) Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 1– 68.
Monica HELLER, (ur.) 1988. Code-switching. Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives.
Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lesley MILROY, 1987: Observing and analysing natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Peter MUYSKEN, 2000: Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Joseph PATERNOST, 1983: Problems in Language Contact and the Social Meaning of Language
among American Slovenes. Slovene Studies 5, 2: 207–219.
Suzaine ROMAINE, 1989: Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
David SANKOFF, Shana POPLACK, 1981: A formal grammar for code-switching. Papers in Linguistics 14: 3–46.
Eva SICHERL, 1999: The English Element in Contemporary Standard Slovene: Phonological,
Morphological and Semantic Aspects. Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete.
Nada [ABEC, 1988: Functional and Structural Constraints on Slovene-English Code Switching.
Slovene Studies 10/1. 71–80.
– – 1992: Language Maintenance and Ethnic Identity in Two Cleveland Slovene American
Communities. V: Hölbling, W. in Wagnleitner, R. (ur.) The European Emigrant Experience
in the U.S.A. (Büchereiche zu den Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik: Bd. 5). Tübingen:Gunter Narr Verlag. 253–267.
– – 1993: Language Maintenance among Slovene Immigrants in the USA. Slovene Studies
15/1–2. 157–168.
– – 1995: Half pa pu: The Language of Slovene Americans. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis.
– – 1996: Sloven{~ina v diaspori: primer ameri{kih Slovencev. V: Ada Vidovi~ Muha (ur.) Jezik
in ~as (Razprave Filozofske fakultete). Ljubljana: Znanstveni in{titut Filozofske fakultete.
– – 1997: Slovene-English language contact in the USA. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 124:Sociolinguistics of Slovene. 129–183.
717
– – 1999: Language Change in a Contact Situation: The Case of Slovene in North America.
Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies, ZRC SAZU, In{titut za slovenski jezik Frana
Ramov{a and The Joyce and Elizabeth Hall Center for the Humanities, University of
Kansas, Ljubljana – Lawrence. 34–46.
– – 2002a: Second person pronouns used by Slovene and American Slovene speakers as linguistic markers of personal and social (in)equality. Acta neophilologica 35/1/2. 115–126.
– – 2002b: Usoda slovenskega jezika med Slovenci po svetu. Ustvarjalnost
Slovencev po svetu (38. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture). Ljubljana: Filozofska
fakulteta. 7-20.
– – 2004: Vpliv angle{~ine na slovensko besedje. V: Marko Jesen{ek, Joìca êh, Bernard Rajh
(ur.) Besedoslovne lastnosti slovenskega knji`nega jezika in nare~ij. (Zora, 28). Maribor:
Slavisti~no dru{tvo. 514–554.
Nada [ABEC, David LIMON, 2001: Across Cultures: Slovene-British-American Intercultural
Communication. Maribor: Zalo`ba Obzorja.
Stephen THERNSTON (ur.), 1980: The Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic groups. Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Joè TOPORI{I~, 2000: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Zalo`ba Obzorja.
David VAN TASSEL, John GRABOWSKI (ur.), 1987: The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.
Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press in association with the Case Western Reserve University.
Uriel WEINREICH, 1953: Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Donald WINFORD, 2003: An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
POVZETEK
Avtorica obravnava vpra{anje slovensko-angle{kega jezikovnega stika v izseljenstvu in v
Sloveniji. Neposredni stik med sloven{~ino in angle{~ino pri ameri{kih in kanadskih Slovencih prikaè z dveh vidikov: dru`benega oz. kulturnega in jezikoslovnega. V prvem delu predstavi splo{no jezikovno stanje v Clevelandu (in delno v Washingtonu, D.C. in Torontu), pri
~emer jo posebej zanimajo vpra{anja jezikovnega ohranjanja in opu{~anja, odnosa med stopnjo
ohranitve materin{~ine in zavestjo o etni~ni pripadnosti ter vpliva zunajjezikovnih dejavnikov
na jezikovno vedenje sodelujo~ih v raziskavi. Izpostavi razlike v jezikovni rabi in odnosu do
obeh jezikov pri pripadnikih razli~nih generacij izseljencev in ugotavlja pospe{eno opu{~anje
materin{~ine pri povojnih izseljencih v primerjavi s predvojnimi. Medtem ko se je premik od
sloven{~ine k angle{~ini v druìnah predvojnih izseljencev zgodil v toku treh generacij, se je pri
povojnih skraj{al na dve generaciji. Z drugimi besedami, gre za premik od prvotne slovenske
enojezi~nosti preko delne slovensko-angle{ke dvojezi~nosti do ponovne enojezi~nosti, le da
tokrat angle{ke. Vzroke je treba najbr` iskati v navidezno prikritem, a povsod in vedno prisotnem pritisku angle{~ine in ameri{ke kulture, ki ju predvsem mlaj{e generacije povezujejo z
dru`benim, kulturnim, politi~nim in gospodarskim prestièm. Tako ni presenetljivo, da se èlijo
v ~im ve~ji meri integrirati v okolje, v katerem ìvijo in da sloven{~ini ne pripisujejo velike
uporabne vrednosti za {ir{e sporazumevanje. Vse to prispeva k pe{anju {ibkej{ega jezika, tako
da je stanje dvojezi~nosti v obravnavanih skupnostih zelo nestabilno in prehodnega zna~aja.
Nasprotno pa je zavest o etni~ni pripadnosti slovenstvu pri vseh sodelujo~ih v raziskavi izredno
visoka, tako da lahko z veliko verjetnostjo predvidevamo, da bodo te skupnosti, kljub temu,
da se utegnejo njihovi ~lani v prihodnje prej kot za dvojezi~ne morda opredeljevati za dvokulturne, vendarle preìvele. Sledi primerjava rabe osebnih zaimkov za 2. osebo pri ogovarjanju
718
Sociolinguistics
sogovornika in govornih dejanj, kakr{ni so npr. komplimenti, da bi ugotovili, v kolik{ni meri so
jezikovne izbire govorcev odvisne od razli~nih kulturnih okolij, iz katerih le-ti prihajajo.
Jezikoslovni del analize se osredoto~a na vpra{anja mo`nih omejitev kombinacij obeh jezikov, vrst dvojezi~nega diskurza in stopnje medjezikovnih vplivov na razli~nih jezikovnih ravninah. Avtorica podrobno razi{~e oba glavna diskurzna tipa, sposojanje in kodno preklapljanje,
in s primeri angle{kega vpliva na prete`no enojezi~ne slovenske dele diskurza ponazori, kako
se slovenski sklanjatveni vzorci pogosto posplo{ujejo, poenostavljajo ali celo opu{~ajo ter kako
slovenski besedni vrstni red v nekaterih pogledih postopoma postaja podoben angle{kemu.
Zadnji del prispevka je posve~en vedno mo~nej{emu vplivu angle{~ine na sloven{~ino v
Sloveniji. Ta je najbolj opazen v medijih in ogla{evanju ter v govoru mladih. Najbolj o~itno se
kaè na leksikalni ravnini, kjer sloven{~ina ne privzema le besed, ki so potrebne za zapolnitev
leksikalnih vrzeli, ampak tudi take, kjer ima za dolo~ene predmete ali pojme popolnoma ustrezne lastne izraze. Angle{ke sposojenke gredo obi~ajno skozi ve~ razvojnih stopenj: na za~etku so
najve~krat zelo nestabilne, kar se kaè v neustaljeni pisavi in izgovorjavi, s~asoma pa lahko postanejo bolj stabilne, tako da govorci v njih ne zaznajo ve~ elementov tujosti. Nekatere se {e naprej rabijo kot pribli`ne sopomenke hkrati s slovenskimi ustreznicami, druge doìvijo razli~ne
semanti~ne modifikacije, spet druge s ~asom izginejo iz jezika. V primerjavi z leksikalnimi so
skladenjske spremembe precej manj pogoste in bolj subtilne, tako da jih v~asih komajda opazimo. Kljub temu si najbr` zasluìjo {e ve~jo pozornost, saj vplivajo na zelo ob~utljivo podro~je
besednega vrstnega reda in ustaljenih slovenskih skladenjskih struktur. So torej nekak{ne tihe
znanilke potencialnih jezikovnih sprememb slovenskega jezika v prihodnosti. Prav tako ne
smemo zanemariti pragmati~nih in medkulturnih vplivov angle{~ine, predvsem na podro~ju
ogla{evanja.
Glede na to, da je jezik sistem, ki je zaradi odvisnosti od zunajjezikovnih kontekstov, v
katerih se uporablja, zelo podvrèn spremembam, so jezikovno-sti~ne situacije {e posebej zanimive za raziskave. Lahko re~emo, da je raziskovanje slovensko-angle{kega jezikovnega stika
s tem, ko ponuja vpoglede v mehanizme potencialnih jezikovnih sprememb, ki izvirajo iz tovrstnih stikov, integralni del slovenisti~nih raziskovanj. Ne prina{a namre~ le novih spoznanj
o sami strukturi jezika, ampak tudi o dru`beni dinamiki in kulturnih vrednotah, ki se zrcalijo v
jezikovni rabi.
Marko Snoj, On Foreignisms and Borrowings in Slovene
UDC 811.163.6’373.45
Marko Snoj
Fran Ramov{ Institute of the Slovene Language, Ljubljana
719
ON FOREIGNISMS AND BORROWINGS IN SLOVENE
The article presents the linguistic criteria that allow loanwords to be grouped into two subgroups, i.e., into foreignisms and borrowings. The exact distinction is necessary particularly for
practical reasons, as only an accurate comprehension of the terms foreignism and borrowing
paves the way for the compilation of a good dictionary of foreignisms.
^lanek prina{a jezikoslovna merila, s katerimi je mogo~e prevzete besede deliti na dve
podskupini, na tujke in izposojenke. Eksaktna razmejitev med obema podskupinama je potrebna predvsem iz prakti~nih razlogov, saj le ustrezno pojmovanje izrazov tujka in izposojenka
omogo~a izdelavo dobrega slovarja tujk.
Key words: Slovene language, etymology, textology, loanwords, terminology
Klju~ne besede: sloven{~ina, etimologija, besediloslovje, prevzete besede, terminologija
1 Words, morphemes, and collocations, i.e., everything that is the object of etymological study, are by their provenience of either native or foreign origin. In Slovene,
all those words (morphemes, collocations) are native that were formed and were at
least at the time of their conception semantically motivated in the continuum of Slovene, i.e., in the continued linguistic development from Proto-Indo-European (and even
earlier) times, through Common Slavic to modern times. Hence, the words of native
origin are those that were formed from the known morphemes (regardless of origin)
by our more or less ancient linguistic (not necessarily genetic) ancestors and were
inherited by us. Such a word is, for instance, the word brat, which developed from
Proto-Indo-European *bhraHtōr and for which we do not know the original meaning;
such words are also the word nebo, for which the comparative linguistics has helped
us to determine the original meaning ’cloud, fog’, or the word plavica, derived from
the adjective plav ’blue’, which is not of native origin, since it was borrowed from the
neighboring Bavarian, where the dialectal equivalent of the High-German adjective
blau is still plau.
1.1 Words1 of foreign origin are all those that were not conceived in the linguistic
continuum of Slovene, but, rather, in the linguistic continuum of any other living or
dead language. If a word of foreign origin enters Slovene, i.e., Slovene speakers began
to use it, we say that we borrowed that word (it was loaned to us). Words of foreign origin can therefore be more concisely called loanwords.2 Loanwords are, for instance,
the aforementioned plav, the noun {porget, borrowed from the Bavarian-German variant of the standard German word Sparherd. Such words are also the word plin, bor-
1
2
The article is limited to the treatment of appelatives.
Topori{i~ 1992: 218.
720
Sociolinguistics
rowed in the 19th century from Czech (Czech, in turn, borrowed it from Polish); the
word recesija, originating from Lat. recessiō ’return, retreat, regression’; and the word
ful, which was borrowed from Eng. full by the teenage generation of the 1990s.
1.2 Both groups of words, the ones of native and the ones of foreign origin, are, as
needed, further divided into various subgroups. The topic of the present article is a further division of loanwords, which is mainly need in lexicographic practice. Because
of the heterogeneity of loanwords in terms of register and style it would not be prudent to compile a dictionary that would include all words of foreign origin. Instead,
there has been a tradition among Slovenes of compiling dictionaries with the word
tujka ’foreignism’ in the title; these dictionaries from the aforementioned words plav,
{porget, plin, ful, and recesija treat only the last one. The word plav and much more
recent word plin are already adapted to such a degree that they belong to the Slovene
core word stock, hence they are included in general dictionaries like the Dictionary of
Standard Slovene (SSKJ). The word {porget was banished from the literary language
(and was replaced by {tedilnik, which is native formation from the originally Croatian
verb {tediti), therefore it belongs to dictionaries that (also) include dialectal and colloquial material, while ful, which is a decidedly slang word, would belong only to a
slang dictionary.
2 Since Slovene dictionaries of foreignisms (supposedly) treat among all foreignisms only the ones of the type recesija, it seams justified to call this type of borrowings foreignisms i.e.3 Dictionaries of foreignisms, particularly Verbinc’s, affected
the Slovene linguistic instinct, which grants the status of a foreignism to words like
recesija, but not to the words like plav, plin, {porget, or ful, although the two latter
ones are recognized as non-native. However, for compiling the list of entry words to
be included in the dictionary of foreignisms, linguistic instinct is insufficient. One has
to find linguistic criteria as exact as possible, with which to distinguish foreignisms
from the rest of loanwords.
2.1 In Topori{i~’s Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika loanwords are divided into foreignisms and borrowings. A foreignism is defined as »1. loanword that is not entirely
adapted to Slovene, e.g., jazz (as a borrowing dèz)« /.../ »2. in an older interpretation,
a word borrowed from West-European or classical languages, e.g., avto, kros /.../«.4
Topori{i~’s first definition is valuable because, referring to foreignisms, it underscores
written language, however, one could not accept the notion that dèz is not the same
word as jazz, as they are only two allographs of the same word, in the same way as
trikrat and 3-krat are allographs. Similarly, weekend (pronounced with bilabial w)
and vikend are not two separate words, but, rather, vikend is the adapted continuant
of the word weekend, from which it developed in the second half of the 20th c., in the
same way as the native word mi{ is a continuant of the Common Slavic word *my{ь.
3
4
The term is a calque from Germ. Fremdwort.
Topori{i~ 1992: 334.
Marko Snoj, On Foreignisms and Borrowings in Slovene
721
2.1.1 According to the first definition from Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika, foreignisms are only the words that did not adapt to Slovene, according to the second
definition, these are all words borrowed from West-European and classical languages.
If one relied on the first definition in compiling the list of entry words for the dictionary of foreignisms, this dictionary would include only a very few words of the type
jazz, weekend, wehrmacht, while words like recesija, nevma, kloramfenikol, which
are adapted to Slovene, would be excluded. If one relied on the second definition, the
dictionary would include not only recesija, nevma, kloramfenikol, but also malha,
hi{a, `lemprga, fajmo{ter, which were borrowed from West-European languages, but
would not include words like ~ernozjom, hazena, hati{erif, sarafan, karaoke, which
were borrowed from East-European or Oriental languages. Since a Slovene user expects to find in a dictionary of foreignisms words like dèz (with an obsolete allograph
jazz), vikend (with an obsolete allograph weekend), recesija, nevma, kloramfenikol,
~ernozjom, hazena, hati{erif, and sarafan, but does not expect words like malha, hi{a,
`lemprga, and fajmo{ter, one could not compile the list of entry words for a serviceable dictionary of foreignisms relying one these two definitions.
2.2 The originally non-Slovene words were already divided into borrowings and
foreignisms by Breznik. He considered borrowings »all the words that common people borrowed while dealing with their neighbors, and adopted them after they had
changed foreign sounding sounds into native sounds«. Foreignisms are, in his view,
»all those words which are usually used in science, technology, and in the sophisticated world in general, and are only known to people who learned them through
education, regardless of the type«.5
2.2.1 The division of loanwords into borrowings and foreignisms is certainly appropriate, but it only partially corresponds to Breznik’s definition. A borrowing is,
more precisely, a word that common people borrowed from one the neighboring languages. That means that a borrowing is a word that was from one of the neighboring
dialects (Venetian Italian, Tergestian, Friulian, Bavarian and Tyrolian German, Western Hungarian, Kajkavian and âkavian Croatian, Romany) borrowed into one of the
neighboring Slovene dialects and from there, possibly, into other Slovene dialects
and into standard language. Slovene adapted such a word only as necessary, i.e., (1)
if the foreign-language source word included sound or sound cluster foreign to Slovene, most commonly a geminate, e.g., bakla from Old High German [OHG] vackel
(Slovene at the time did not have the sound f nor the spirant β, which was in OHG
recorded as v), cimet from OG Zimmet, from which is the modern word Zimt; (2) if
the word needed morphological adaptation, e.g., ponev from OHG pfanna,6 coprati
from Bavarian Middle High German [BavMHG] zoupern, which corresponds to the
broader MHG zoubern, frajla from BavG Frailein, which corresponds to Standard
[St] G Fräulein, lajbi~ from BavG Leiblein »vest«; (3) for other, harder to define, rea5
Breznik 1906: 149.
OHG pfanna was pronounced with the final back vowel, which was in Sln. substituted by the reflex
for CSl -y, thus the word was placed into the continuant of the *buky, -ъve declension.
6
722
Sociolinguistics
sons, e.g., marajon through majaron from Friul. majaron. The unexpected metathesis
of consonants occurred in some Slovene dialects because the loanwords in the receiving language are not motivated. Some people simply did not memorize the word well
and from the original majaron »by mistake« formed marajon. (4) In addition, many
words only seemingly underwent changes, as one cannot proceed from the neighboring standard language, but, rather, from the dialect. To say that pavola is a borrowing
from G Baumwolle is only partially true and certainly not precise. Pavola is borrowed
from the dialectal Austrian-Bavarian pa(um)wolle ’cotton’, which corresponds to StG
Baumwolle. Similarly, ponk is not from G word Bank, but from Bav ponk, which developed according to Bavarian-German rules from MHG bank ’bench, table’.
2.3 In foreignisms foreign sounds are replaced with Slovene approximates and
the word is adapted to Slovene morphological system. In

Izredna SR ANG.indd - Slavistična revija

Transcription

Similar documents

June 19, 2015

nretpwoorrkt 2 o 1 2 securitye - SI-CERT

NEWSLETTER “Dialogues”: Slovene and American Composers

Slovenia

THE DAWN - dLib.si

Sport training camps 6.42 MB

Package tours along the Emerald Trail

Slovenski filmi leta 2012 - Slovenski filmski center

st. joseph kskj local lodge, bridgeport, connecticut

Initial Announcement