Filologija 54-1

ZBORNIK
MATICE SRPSKE
ZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKU
LIV/1
M ATIC A SRPSK A
ODEQEWE ZA KWIEVNOST I JEZIK
ZBORN I K
MATICE SRPSKE ZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKU
M AT ICA SER BICA

CLASSIS LITTERARUM
ARCHIVUM PHILOLOGICUM ET LINGUISTICUM

Pokrenut 1957. godine
Do HH kwige (1983) izlazio pod nazivom Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku
Glavni urednici:
Dr Milivoj Pavlovi (19571960), dr Rudolf Kolari (19611962),
akademik Pavle Ivi (19632000), akademik Aleksandar Mladenovi (20012009),
dr Jasmina Grkovi-Mejxor (2010)
LIV/1
Urednitvo:
Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MEJXOR (glavni i odgovorni urednik), dr DRAGA ZEC,
dr JOVAN JERKOVI, dr GERHARD NEVEKLOVSKI, dr SLOBODAN PAVLOVI (sekretar),
dr DRAGOQUB PETROVI, dr MATO PIURICA, dr MILORAD RADOVANOVI,
dr SVETLANA TOLSTOJ, dr ZUZANA TOPOLIWSKA
Collegium redactorum:
Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MEJDOR, Dr DRAGA ZEC, Dr JOVAN JERKOVI,
Dr GERHARD NEVEKLOVSKI, Dr SLOBODAN PAVLOVI, Dr DRAGOLJUB PETROVI,
Dr MATO PIURICA, Dr MILORAD RADOVANOVI, Dr SVETLANA TOLSTOJ,
Dr ZUZANA TOPOLINJSKA
Glavni i odgovorni urednik:
Dr JASMINA GRKOVI-MEJXOR
ISSN-0352-5724 | UDK 80/81(082)
ZBORNIK
MATICE SRPSKE
ZA FILOLOGIJU I LINGVISTIKU
LIV/1
POSVEENO SEAWU NA AK ADEMIK A
MILKU IVI
NOVI SA D
2 011
Ovu svesku Zbornika Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku po

sveujemo seawu na akademika Milku Ivi, koja je od 1970. do 2011. bila
lan Urednitva naeg asopisa.
Urednitvo
Zbornika Matice srpske
za filologiju i lingvistiku
SA DR A J
L A N C I I RAS P RA VE
A n d r e j V. S i d e l c e v: Hittite parallels for Balkan Sprachbund clitic doubling . . . . . . . .
J a s m i n a G r k o v i - M e j x o r: Dativ + infinitiv: praindoevropsko poreklo i

slovenski razvoj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
S l o b o d a n P a v l o v i : Rekonceptualizacija slovenske prostorne padene para

digme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M i l a n M i h a l j e v i : Verba dicendi in Croatian Church Slavonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
63
N a d e d a J o v i : Participi, glagolski prilozi i pridevi u Hilandarskom medi

cinskom kodeksu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Q i q a n a N e d e q k o v , K a t i c a k o r i : Rukopisna zbirka turcizama iz 18.

veka (struktura, pravopisne, fonetske, morfoloke crte i poreklo leksike) . .
87
R a d m i l o M a r o j e v i : Rijei s pobonim akcentima. Prozodijsko-intonaciona

interpretacija teksta Lue mikrokozma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
N a d a A r s e n i j e v i : Prilog prouavawu povratnih glagola u srpskom jeziku . . .
115
M i l i v o j A l a n o v i : Glagoli asistencije i wihova

sintaksiko-semantika valentnost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M i l e n a J a k i : O tipologiji dekomponovanih konstrukcija u srpskom jeziku . . .
137
151
G o r d a n a t a s n i: Nominacija oveka motivisana pozitivnim karakternim oso

binama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
167
a r k o B o w a k o v i , D r a g a n a R a d o v a n o v i : Sintetiki pogled na
tvorbu aorista i areal nastavaka u tokavskom nareju . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
181
R a d i v o j e M l a d e n o v i : Morfoloka i sintaksika pluralizacija zbirnih

imenica i nekih zamenica u govorima jugozapadnog dela Kosova i Metohije . .
205
N a d e d a S i l a k i , T a t j a n a u r o v i : The natural force metaphor in the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis in English and Serbian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
227
M a r k o J a n i i j e v i : Modelovawe tekstualnih celina na primeru zakonskih

akata na srpskom i engleskom jeziku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
247
B i q a n a M i i I l i , V e s n a L o p i i : Pragmatiki anglicizmi u srp

skom jeziku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
261
HRONIK A
M i l o r a d R a d o v a n o v i : Akademik Milka Ivi (11. 12. 1923 7. 3. 2011) . . . . .
275
P r e d r a g P i p e r , M a r i n a N i k o l i : Meunarodni nauni simpozijum Gra

matika i leksika u slovenskim jezicima . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
277
A l e k s a n d a r L o m a: Promocija kwige Teorija dijahronijske lingvistike i proua

vawe slovenskih jezika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
282
KRITIKE I PRIK AZI

M i l o r a d R a d o v a n o v i : Graduelnost sintaksikih promena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
287
D u a n k a Z v e k i - D u a n o v i : Ivan Klajn, Predrag Piper (ur.), Kontrastiv

na prouavawa srpskog jezika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
294
G o r d a n a D r a g i n: Dragoqub Petrovi, Sneana Guduri, Fonologija srpskoga

jezika . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
301
Du anka Vujovi, Olga Pani-Kavgi, Bi qana Ra di-Bojani,

T v r t k o P r i : Jo tri nove kwige Ranka Bugarskog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
306
M a r i n a K u r e e v i : O kategoriji animatnosti ili o markirawu atipinih

objekata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
328
S a b i n a H a l u p k a - R e e t a r: Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Lisa Rochman (eds.), The Sound

Patterns of Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
332
Z o r a n S i m i : Claudia Leah, Sinonimia i elementul slav n sistemul sinonimic al limbii

romne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
339
D r a g a n a R a d o v a n o v i : Momilo Popovi, Dragoqub Petrovi, O govoru

Spia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
346
V e r a n S t a n o j e v i : Nenad Krsti, Napoleon Bonaparta Aleksandra Dime u

prevodu Qubomira Nenadovia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N e n a d I v a n o v i : Vera Vasi (ur.), Diskurs i diskursi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
350
354
Uputstvo za pripremu rukopisa za tampu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
361

UDC 811.292.1:811.16/.18362

Andrej V. Sidelcev
HITTITE PARALLELS
FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING*
This paper deals with Hittite parallels to Balkan clitic doubling. The structure and functions of Hittite clitic doubling are briefly described, then they are compared with the Balkan one.
The small number of occurrences as well as the exclusively pragmatic conditioning of Hittite
clitic doubling (not any kind of topic, but rather shift topic) testify that clitic doubling was just
emerging in Hittite. The comparison with the pragmatically conditioned Balkan Sprachbund
clitic doubling demonstrates that these very first steps of clitic doubling evolution in Hittite
attest a very different scenario from the one in the Balkans, namely that clitic doubling need not
always develop along the same cline dependent on the topical hierarchy. This Hittite Balkan
comparison contributes to the little described diachronic typology of clitic doubling.
Keywords: clitic doubling, Hittite, Balkan Sprachbund, topic, topical hierarchy, diachronic
typology.
0. Introduction. The research of clitic doubling in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund has recently been activated by an important collection of papers
(K alluli Tasmowski 2008). Outside the Balkans, clitic doubling has also been
described in Romance, Celtic and Slavic languages, as well as in more exotic
ones (see Arkadiev 2009; 2010b).
This paper aims to bring Hittite data into the diachronic typology of clitic
doubling. The Hittite data are interesting for non-specialists in Hittite in two
ways: Hittite contributes to the universal diachronic typology of clitic doubling
(for which, see Arkadiev 2009; 2010b)1 and, as a consequence, it is also of interest to specialists in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund. Of particular importance is the contribution of Hittite to the functional aspect of universal clitic
doubling typology. Since clitic doubling is functionally described in the most
detailed way in the Balkan Sprachbund languages, this aspect is also of interest
to scholars of those languages. Like the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund,
* This research is supported by RGNF, grant No. 11-04-00282a. I wish to thank Prof. Dr.
Grkovi-Major and the anonymous reviewers for valuable criticism and bibliographical suggestions.
The author alone remains responsible for all possible errors of fact or interpretation.
1
I will also try to draw parallels from clitic doubling of exotic languages (A rkadiev 2010b),
Celtic (Parina 2006), Slovenian dialects (Maruic aucer in print) and Romance languages (Narumov
Suchaev 2001; Narumov 2001; elyeva 2001; Vanelli 1998).
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 926.
10
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
Hittite demonstrates pragmatic conditioning of clitic doubling by topicality. At

the same time it attests an interesting variation of the type of topicality involved:
it is shift topic that triggers clitic doubling in Hittite.
For Hittitologists, the typological background may speak in favour of clitic
doubling as a special pragmatic category, up to now virtually ignored in Hittite
linguistics. Clitic doubling was discovered already in Garrett 1990, but has been
completely ignored ever since. Even for A. Garrett the function and typology of
Hittite clitic doubling were a complete mystery.
0.1. Hittite clitics. Traditionally Hittite clitics are divided into three classes:
enclitic personal pronouns: subject, direct object and indirect object (Hoffner
Melchert 2008: 135137, 279282). Particles included the direct speech particle
-wa(r), the reflexive particle -z(a), local particles, the emphatic particle -pat
(Hoffner Melchert 2008: 354388), and the enclitic conjunctions -a/ma but,
-a/ya and (Hoffner Melchert 2008: 395400). This distinction is based mostly on semantics although there are syntactic differences as well, mostly as far as
clitic position is concerned. The majority of the clitics are sentential clitics2 and
are always placed in accordance with Wackernagels law, after the first accented
word (Hoffner Melchert 2008: 410).
1. Hittite clitic doubling. Clitic doubling involves enclitic personal pronouns in their standard Wackernagel position in one clause with the full coreferential NP in the same syntactic function. The position of the NP within the clause
is not marked, i.e. it is base-generated:
NS (CTH 461.D) KUB 44.63+ Vs. II 8` (Garrett 1990: 264)
mahhan=ma=at
=i
=kan
ihar
when=but=it- cl.pron.3sg.acc.n.=him-cl.pron.3sg.dat.=loc.part. blood-acc.sg.n.
arha tarnai #
off lets-3 sg.pres.
But when (s)he lets it, the blood, off from him,
Clitic doubling is rare. However, it is attested 14 times at all periods of Hittite language history: once in an Old Hittite text written in Old Script; twice in
Old Hittite texts preserved in New Script copies; seven times in texts written in
Middle Script; four times in texts written in New Script. The number of clitic
doubling occurrences is comparable to that of left dislocations in Hittite (15 cases).
These seemingly irrelevant statistics are significant because left dislocations are
unanimously acknowledged in studies of Hittite syntax, whereas clitic doubling
is ignored.
1.1. Hittite clitic doubling as different from appositive dislocation. Taxonomically it is necessary to distinguish clitic doubling from appositive dislocation where the clitic doubled NP has to be marked off with comma intonation. As
opposed to appositive dislocation, clitic doubling should demonstrate no pauses
between the enclitic pronoun and the coreferent NP. Naturally, this assessment
2
With the exception of the emphatic particle -pat, partially local particles and enclitic conjunctions.
HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING
11
remains unverifiable for Hittite since there is no way to establish any intonation
or intraclausal pauses.
However, it seems that there are still criteria that distinguish clitic doubling
from appositive dislocations even when no prosodic data are present:
First, 1st and 2nd person pronoun clitic doubling (both enclitic pronoun and
accented pronoun are 1st or 2nd person) is cross-linguistically attested only as
clitic doubling, but not as appositive dislocation. So the only Hittite example of
this type has to be clitic doubling.
MH/MS (CTH 188) HKM 48 Vs. 46
D
UTUI
=[m]u3
kuit
BELI=[Y]A
Your Majesty=me-cl.pron.1sg.acc. concerning the fact that lord=my
m
Hapirin
kian
wtarnahta #
ammu[k]
me-stressed pron.1sg.acc. Hapiri-acc.sg. as follows commanded-3sg.pret.
Concerning the fact that you, Your Majesty, my lord, commanded me, Hapiri, as
follows.
The second difference between clitic doubling and appositive dislocation is

the fact that appositive dislocation is used with both stressed and enclitic pronouns
whereas clitic doubling is only employed with enclitic pronouns. An example of
appositive dislocation with a stressed pronoun is
MS (CTH 186) HKM 17 Vs. 911
m
Hullan
kuwapi gimmanti
1. [n]=ata
t[u]k
s.c.part.=loc.part. you-stressed pron.2sg.acc. Hulla-acc.sg.c. when in winter-loc.sg.
par nehhun #
out sent-1sg.pret.
2. nu =tta
apiya UL itamaer #
s.c.part.=you- cl.pron.2acc.sg. then not heard-3pl.pret.
(1) When I sent you, Hulla, out in winter, (2) they did not hear about you then.
In the example already cited, appositive dislocation occurs in the same context with clitic doubling:
D
UTUI
=[m]u4
kuit
BELI=[Y]A
m
Hapirin
kian wtarnahta #
ammu[k]
follows.
While clitic doubling in this case operates within the 1st person pronoun (clitic
-mu stressed form ammu[k]), the appositive dislocation (ammu[k] m Hapirin me,
Hapiri) involves the stressed pronoun (ammu[k]).
3
4
In the autography (ALP 1991: 51) the sign, although damaged, is unambiguously read MU.
12
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
Stressed pronouns never double shift topic NPs, they exclusively co-occur
as part of the appositive dislocation. The opposite is not true: both clitic and
stressed pronouns occur with appositive dislocation: 1st person pronouns attest
both forms (2 times clitic, once stressed in my corpus); 2nd person pronouns attest
only stressed forms with it.
Third, clitic doubling and appositive dislocation have different functions.
Appositive dislocation involves some kind of qualification/description of the referent of the enclitic (or stressed) pronoun of the 1st and 2nd person, while clitic doubling deals with topicality. Appositive dislocation is never used in the immediate
anaphora after first mention (discourse status change function). It only gives additional information about the referent. Conversely, no descriptions whatsoever, not
even epithets are possible as the full NP with clitic doubling. By this I mean that
normally the clitic doubled full NP is lexically identical to the antecedent full NP.
Unfortunately, this last criterion is not as straightforward as the first three
ones sketched above. I cannot exclude the possibility that some of the examples
which I consider to represent clitic doubling are, in fact, appositive dislocations.
The reason for this is the fact that both clear appositive dislocations and presumable clitic doubling employ lexically identical NPs: DUTUI my majesty. Names
occur quite frequently in appositive dislocations as well as in clitic doubling
(m Kizzuwan in clitic doubling; m Hapirin in appositive dislocation MS (CTH 186)
HKM 17 Vs. 911). So purely lexically, no line can be drawn between clitic doubling and appositive dislocations, especially if presumable clitic doubling examples demonstrate a continued topic function. Only discourse status change keeps
them appropriately distinct in some of the clitic doubling uses. Even in this case,
appropriate difference from appositive dislocation exists only if immediate anaphora after first mention is involved.
1.2. Hittite clitic doubling as a discourse conditioned phenomenon. Hittite
clitic doubling is clearly pragmatically conditioned. It attests to three functions.
The first function is shift topic:
MS (CTH 480) KUB 29.7+ KBo 21.41 Rs. 2430
1. nu =i
hauw[i]SAR
pianzi #
s.c.part.= her- cl.pron.3sg.dat. soapwort-acc.sg.n. give-3pl.pres.
2. n =at
anda puaizzi #
s.c.part.=it- cl.pron.3sg.acc.n. in
pounds-3sg.pres.
3. anda=ma=kan
kian me[mai] #
then =but =loc.part. thus speaks-3sg.pres.
4. mn=wa ANA PA[NI] DINGIR LIM kuiki
EN SSKUR
idlawanni
if=dir.sp.part. before
deity
some-nom.sg.c. ritual practitioner evil-loc.sg.n.
memian
harzi #
speak-part.sg.nom.n. aux.3sg.pres.perf.
5. paiddu=wa=kan
edani
DINGIR LIM-a parni
aux.3sg.imper.=dir.sp.part.=loc.part. that-loc.sg. gods-gen.sg. house-loc.sg.
and[a]n hurtai
ling[a]i
paprtarr =a
huwya
inside curse-nom.sg.c. perjury-nom.sg.c. uncleanliness-nom.sg.n.=and soapwort-gen.sg.
iwar kiaru #
like may become-3sg.imper.med
13
6. nu =war
=at
hu[wy]aSAR iwar
s.c.part.=dir.sp.part.=them- cl.pron.3pl.nom.n. soapwort-gen.sg. like
miyn
du #
luxuriant-part.nom.sg.n. let be-3sg.imper.
7. nu =war
=at
=za namma iyatnuwan
s.c.part.=dir.sp.part.=it- cl.pron.3sg.acc.n.=refl. further luxuriant-acc.sg.n.
huwiSAR
[pu]uwanzi
[l]
kuiki
tarahzi #
soapwort-acc.sg.n. to crush/pluck-inf. prohib. no one-nom.c. let be able-3sg.pres.
(1) They give her the soapwort (2) she pounds it (3) and then speaks thus: (4) If
some ritual practitioner has spoken with evil intent befo[re] the deity: (5) Let
curse, perjury and uncleanliness inside that temple become like soapwort. (6) Let
them be luxuriant like soapwort. (7) Further let no one be able to crush/pluck it, the
luxurious soapwort!.
In clause 7 enclitic proun -at refers to huwiSAR soapwort, a referent different from the referent of the pronoun -at in the previous clause 6 (hurtai ling[a]i
paprtarr=a curse, perjury and uncleanliness). Thus there is a topic shift: the
primary topic of clause 7 was the secondary topic of clause 6 whose primary
topic was hurtai ling[a]i paprtarr=a curse, perjury and uncleanliness.
It follows from the term that shift topic always involves a change of topic in
the clause with clitic doubling. The new topic is normally present in the previous
discourse either in the immediately preceding context, or earlier. In the latter
case the topic has been deactivated and the clitic doubling construction serves to
re-activate it. In the former case the topic was a secondary topic. Quite rarely
clitic doubling is used to select one from several equally active referents. Even in
this case there is to some degree topic shift as a less active referent is chosen.
The second function is discourse status change:
OH/NS (CTH 9.6) KBo 3.28 Vs. II 1719` (Garrett 1990: 264)
D
1. atta
=ma
haran
D-ya
mekke
of father-gen.sg.=my-gen.sg. in the person-dat.sg. in the river-loc.sg. many-nom.pl.c.
papreker #
were proven guilty-3pl.pret.iter.
2. =u
ABI LUGAL natta huinukt #
s.c.part.=them-cl.pron.3pl.acc.c. father of the king not let live-3sg.pret.caus.iter.
D
3. m Kizzuwa=pat
ANA SAG<.DU> ABI=YA
D-ya
Kizzuwa-nom.sg.c.=emph.part. in the person
of father=my in the river-loc.sg.
papritta #
was proven guilty-3sg.pret.med.
m
4.
=an
atta=mi
Kizzuwan
s.c.part.=him- cl.pron.3sg.acc.c. father-nom.sg.c.=my-nom.sg.c. Kizzuwa-acc.sg.c.
nat<ta> hue<>nt #
not let live-3sg.pret.caus.
(1) Many were proven guilty in the river ordeal in (the matter of offending) the person
of my father. (2) The kings father did not let them live. (3) Kizzuwa in particular
was proven guilty by the river ordeal in (the matter of offending) the person of my
father. (4) My father did not let him, Kizzuwa, live.
14
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
In this example clitic doubling codes the change of NP discourse status from
non-topical to topical: NP Kizzuwa- was focus in the previous clause 3. In clause
4 clitic doubling marks the change of Kizzuwa- discourse status to the topical.
Discourse status change is actually shift topic. Still it is different enough
from other shift topics to be described separately. Discourse status change does
not involve referential ambiguity. There is indeed topic shift involved with discourse status change, but the referent which is the topic of the clause with clitic
doubling is present in the previous clause, although in that clause it is focus or
comment.5 Moreover, the main topic of the context is normally maintained and
coded by an enclitic or zero pronoun. Full scale topic shift (the main topic of the
preceding clause is not the main topic of the clause in question; the secondary
topic of the preceding context is the main topic of the clause in question) never
occurs with the discourse status change function.
It is important to notice that nearly all cases of discourse status change are
immediate anaphora after the first mention.
The third function is continued topic:
MS (CTH 443) KBo 15.10+ Vs. II 3335
1. nu
i[d][l]u
harnikten #
s.c.part. evil-acc.sg.n. destroy-2pl.imper.
2. nu ANA BELI ANA DAM=U DUMU ME=U u
s.c.part. for lord for wife=his
children=his good-acc.sg.n.
namma t[u] #
then. may be-3sg.imper.
D
D
3. [nu=]i
UTU-u
IM-a=a
ANA BEL[I] ANA
s.c.part.=him- cl.pron.3sg.dat. Sungod-voc.sg. Stormgod-voc.sg.=and to lord to
DAM DUMU ME=U u
TI-tar
mayandatar
wife children=his
well-being-acc.sg.n. life-acc.sg.n. youthful vigour-acc.sg.n.
GI
TUKUL par nantan
[na]m[m]a pikatten #
weapon ahead pointed-acc.sg.n. then
keep giving-2pl.imper.iter.
(1) Destroy evil. (2) May it then be good for the lord, (his) wife (and) his children.
(3) But let you, Sungod and Stormgod, then keep giving to him, the lord, (his) wife
(and) his children well-being, life, youthful vigour (and) weapon pointed ahead.
ANA BELI to the lord was re-activated in clause 2 and is the established
topic of the context. No discourse status change is involved. The use is identical
to the enclitic anaphoric pronoun with unmarked word order. Such a use is actually attested to in the lexically identical context of the same text:
(CTH 443) KBo 15.10+ Vs. I 3536 (= Rs. III 3537)
1. ANA BELI=ma DAM=U DUMU ME=U TI-tar
hat[iliyatar]
for lord=but
wife=his children=his life-acc.sg.n. bravery-acc.sg.n.
mayandatar
pikandu #
youthful vigour-acc.sg.n. let keep giving-3pl.imper.iter.
5
This lack of referential ambiguity is probably the reason why, cross-linguistically and normally
in Hittite, discourse status change is coded by an anaphoric clitic pronoun.
15
2. nu=i
DINGIR ME.HI.A GI[TUK]UL par neantan
s.c.p.=him- cl.pron.3sg.dat. gods
weapon ahead pointed-acc.sg.n.
piandu #
let give-3pl.imper.
(1) But let them keep giving to the lord, his wife (and) his children life, bravery
(and) youthful vigour. (2) Let the gods give him a weapon pointed ahead.
Thus, clitic doubling is really redundant here, being identical to the anaphoric
enclitic pronoun use with unmarked word order. This function is the rarest, being
attested only twice.
All these examples demonstrate that clitic doubling in Hittite is pragmatically
conditioned. It is the topical status of the NP that brings about clitic doubling.
Normally, clitic doubling is conditioned by some finer-grained topicality, and only
in two cases of continued topic function is it pure topicality without finer meanings.
The question arises here possibly in view of the two examples that code
unmarked topicality of whether we should really consider Hittite clitic doubling
to code generic topicality: in some cases accompanied by finer-grained meanings, but not in other cases. However, I am reluctant to resort to this description
as in this case clitic doubling would not be employed in the absolute majority of
contexts where the conditions for its use are met, as most of the topics are not coded
by clitic doubling. So I prefer to assess shift topic, including discourse status
change, as the main conditioning of clitic doubling, narrowing the potential contexts for clitic doubling considerably. The continued topic function is for me a
rare extension of this function implying the very start of clitic doubling, spread
to less specific and more general topicality.
Summing up the section on Hittite clitic doubling, it is necessary to say that
the small number of occurrences as well as the exclusively pragmatic conditioning of Hittite clitic doubling testify to the very first steps of the evolution of this
syntactic phenomenon in Hittite.
2. Hittite and Balkan pragmatically conditioned clitic doubling: topicality.
It is unanimously believed that, in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund, clitic
doubling is triggered by topicality. It is sometimes specified that only one kind of
topic the already established topic triggers clitic doubling (Kalluli Tasmowski
2008: 1314, 16).6
Functional descriptions of concrete languages deviate from this general picture,
revealing more complex details. The most interesting case is provided by Bulgarian.
Functionally, clitic doubling is described as coding a contrastive topic (Friedman
2008: 45 with ref. to Leafgren; Dimitrova-Vulchanova Vulchanov 2008: 105,
121). The contrastive topic is, however, understood in very different ways.
According to Leafgren, clitic doubling in Bulgarian is almost always used
as an overt marker of topicality when this topicality is unexpected owing to its
not being an (established) topic of the preceding context (Friedman 2008: 45 with
ref. to Leafgren). It must be noted that this understanding is closer to new topic.
6
The authors term it intended topic.
16
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
Thus, for example, in the next example the discourse theme, i.e., the topic of
the context, is a philanderer, but in the clause with reduplication, the topic is adolescent greed:
No izvedna zad garb-a mu
ostana ljubopitstvo-to kam
but suddenly behind back-def him.dat remained curiosity-def to
ensko-to tjalo, njamae ja povece junoceska-ta lakomija da natrupva
female-def body not.have it more adolescent-def greed sp accumulate
opit
i toj se cuvae da kazva na prijateli-te si
experience and he it heard sp says to friends-def self.dat

But all of a sudden he lost his curiosity about the female body, the adolescent voracity
for accumulating experience was now gone, and he was heard to say to his friends
(Friedman 2008: 45 with ref. to Leafgren).
In Dimitrova-Vulchanova Vulchanov 2008 (105, 121) contrastive topic is

understood in a more standard way:
[Clitic] doubling is predicted to occur when reference is made to a referent already
present in the discourse [] and when this referent is selected out of a larger set. The
necessary condition then is that the larger set is introduced previously, thus making
the concrete referent available for selection later on through the clitic doubling
mechanism.
Whatever the exact nature of the contrastive topic in Bulgarian, Hittite provides an interesting parallel. In Hittite it is not just topicality, but rather topic shift
(including change of the discourse status from non-topical to topical) that is marked
by clitic doubling. When the NP is already an established topic and there is no topic
shift, it is not marked by clitic doubling.7 This situation is very close to Bulgarian
in Leafgren`s rendering.
An illustration of widely divergent finer-grained types of topicality triggering
clitic doubling in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund is provided by Romanian where clitic doubling entails some sort of familiarity with the topic, i.e. having
a referent in mind beforehand (Friedman 2008: 54 with ref. to L. Tasmowski).
2.1. Inherent/contextual higher vs. lower topicality. For the languages of
the Balkan Sprachbund a number of asymmetries of clitic doubling are observed:
human, definite/specific, quantified by all, indirect object, 1st and 2nd person pronoun NPs (a) more often and more regularly trigger clitic doubling or (b) display
less pragmatic constraints on it (thus being more grammaticalized) synchronically,
(c) are the first to get clitic doubled diachronically than non-human, indefinite, not
quantified by all, direct object, 3rd person and full lexical NPs. This asymmetry
is motivated by higher vs. lower topicality (Friedman 2008: 59; Arkadiev 2009:
12 with ref. to Haspelmath; 2010b). Left members of these pairs (human, definite/
specific, quantified by all, indirect objects/recipients, 1st and 2nd person pronouns)
are more topical that right ones (non-human, indefinite, not quantified by all, direct
7
With the exception of two examples which are in any case practically indistinguishable from
appositive dislocation.
17
objects/themes, 3rd person pronouns and full NPs). The Balkan Sprachbund clitic
doubling is thus sensitive to the degree of topicality. Outside the Balkans the same
hierarchy is also operative.
All these parameters are part of the universal hierarchy of topicality:8
a. human > non-human; b. definite > indefinite; c. more involved participant >
less involved participant (agent > dative > accusative); d. 1st person > 2nd person
> 3rd person (Givn 1976: 152). The parameters may be linearly ordered as subject
> definite object > human object > indefinite object (Givn 1976: 152). The topicality hierarchy of M. Haspelmath is virtually identical: recipient vs. theme; 1st/2nd
person vs. 3rd person; pronoun vs. full NP; proper name vs. common name; animate
vs. inanimate; definite vs. indefinite (Arkadiev 2009: 12). The hierarchy correlates
with the likelihood of verb agreement (Givn 1976: 152), thus predicting earlier
development of clitic doubling into an agreement marker for indirect objects and
1st and 2nd person pronouns in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund.
On the contrary, Hittite clitic doubling seems to be independent of the hierarchy. This is not unique. There are other data that contradict this correlation of
the topicality hierarchy with the likelihood of agreement marking. For example,
Bakker and Siewierska highlighted the fact that agreement as head-marking is
more likely for the patient of transitive verbs (direct object) than for the recipient (indirect object). The latter is likelier to be dependent-marked (by case) (see Arkadiev
2009: 1, 9 with lit.; Arkadiev 2010a: 2).
2.1.1. Human vs. non-human. It is repeatedly noted that, in Romanian, animacy triggers clitic doubling (Cornilescu Dobrovie-Sorin 2008: 3045):
a. L-am
vazut pe profesor-ul
3sg.acc-aux.1sg.sbj seen obj professor-def
I saw your professor.
b. (*L-)am
vazut (*pe) autobuzu-ul
3sg.acc-aux.1sg.sbj seen obj
bus-def
I saw your bus. (Arkadiev 2010b: 7).
tau.
your
tau.
your
As animacy obviously is more inherently topical than inanimacy, it is quite

often deduced from this that animacy/humanness should be an obligatory stage
in the grammaticalization process (Givn) and that a universal correlation exists
between animacy/humanness and a higher degree of topicality, including such a
connection in clitic doubling (Friedman 2008: 59; Arkadiev 2009: 12 with ref. to
Haspelmath; 2010b).
In Hittite animacy/humanness is irrelevant for clitic doubling: any kind of NP
can trigger clitic doubling: both animate, human, common gender NPs (LUGAL
MUNUS.LUGAL-ann=a the queen and the king, m Kizzuwan proper name, DUTUI
My Majesty as the title of the Hittite great king, BEL[I] lord), animate, non-human,
common gender NPs (MUilluyanka[n] the serpent), and inanimate, non-human
NPs of both neuter gender (huwiSAR soapwort, tarhuilatar valour, ihar blood,
AHUR.SAG Ammana uwawar coming to Mt. Ammana, EUTTA brotherhood) and
common gender (MUHI.A-u years, galulup fingers).
8
See also K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 19, 26; Hill Tasmowski 2008.
18
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
More importantly, within the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund itself

only Romanian attests animacy as conditioning clitic doubling.9 This certainly
means that animacy/humanness implies greater topicality indeed,10 but it also means
that animacy/humanness as a topicality related phenomenon does not automatically trigger clitic doubling and, indeed, triggers it very seldom by itself.11 So animacy/humanness as an obligatory stage on the universal topicality scale is open
to question.
2.1.2. Definite/specific vs. indefinite. Another important pragmatic trigger
of clitic doubling related to higher topicality degree is definiteness and specificity (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 1011; Friedman 2008: 43; Mieska Tomi 2008:
70).12 Mostly definiteness and specificity co-occur with topicality,13 more rarely
they conflict, and in this case there are two scenarios: 1. Topicality has priority:
in Albanian and Modern Greek clitic doubling is triggered by non-pronominal
direct object DPs if they are topical/given/anti-focal irrespective of their definite
status (Kalluli Tasmowski 2008: 16, 18; Friedman 2008: 43). 2. Definiteness has
priority over topicality: in Macedonian bare indefinite direct objects are not clitic
doubled even when topicalized (Mieska Tomi 2008: 7374).
Hittite follows the first scenario since shift topic triggers clitic doubling.
While I have no examples of shift topic indefinite NPs being clitic doubled,14 no
definite focal NPs are ever clitic doubled.
2.1.3. The Quantifier all. Clitic doubling is obligatorily triggered by the
quantifier all not only in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund (Romanian,
Modern Greek, Albanian), but also in (River Plate) Spanish (Kalluli Tasmowski
2008: 17). It is especially stressed that in Modern Greek only this quantifier triggers
clitic doubling obligatorily (Kalluli Tasmowski 2008: 17; Friedman 2008: 37, 49).
Clitic doubling in this context is observed already in Old Slavonic (DimitrovaVulchanova Vulchanov 2008: 123124).
This obligatory triggering is explained by the fact that the restrictor of all is
always given (Kalluli Tasmowski 2008: 19) and thus it is again higher topicality
that regularly triggers clitic doubling in the Balkans and (River Plate) Spanish.
As for Hittite higher degree of topicality is not relevant, all does not obligatory trigger clitic doubling.
9
The only other evidence comes from a Macedonian dialect spoken in Northern Greece where
clitic-doubling of a noun without an article [] can sometimes occur with indefinite human direct
objects, especially if they are masculine (Mieska Tomi 2008: 73 fn. 9 with ref. to Topolinjska).
10
Humanness is also present in the indirect object which in the basic function of recipient is
normally human (see below 2.1.4.2.) and in 1st and 2nd person pronouns.
11
I.e., outside such inherently human categories as indirect object and 1st and 2nd person pronouns.
12
See ibid.: 19; Friedman 2008: 4143 on some finer-grained distinctions involving nonnovelty, referential stability and potential specifiability.
13
This connection seems to be universal (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 13). See also K alluli
Tasmowski 2008: 19 for analyzing certain indefinite expressions as non-novel leading to the conflation of specificity and topichood/givenness and A rkadiev 2009: 12 (with ref. to Haspelmath) for
the definite NPs being more topical.
14
Naturally, we should remember that Hittite does not grammaticalize definiteness as it has
no articles.
19
2.1.4. Topical asymmetry

2.1.4.1. 1 s t a n d 2 n d p e r s o n p r o n o u n s v s . 3 r d p e r s o n p r o n o u n s v s . f u l l N P s. Direct objects instantiated by 1st and 2nd person pronouns trigger clitic doubling more obligatorily or have less pragmatic constraints
on it than other types of direct objects in at least some languages of the Balkan
Sprachbund (Friedman 2008: 40 generally; K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 17 and
K alluli 2008: 228, 248 for Albanian; Mieska Tomi 2008: 70 and Koneski 1981:
334 for Macedonian). There are even Serbo-Croatian dialects where only pronominal direct objects trigger clitic doubling (Friedman 2008: 4647, 59; Mieska
Tomi 2008: 82; Mnnesland 197715).16 Diachronically this fact can be unambiguously interpreted as 1st and 2nd person pronouns being the first to trigger
clitic doubling. See most explicitly (K rapova Cinque 2008: 279 fn. 33).
It is noted that, in Albanian, direct objects instantiated by first and second
person full pronouns are always clitic doubled irrespective of their discourse
status (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 9, 17; K alluli 2008: 228, 248). The situation
in Romanian is analogous as clitic doubling there is triggered by all full personal
and definite pronouns (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 910). Thus, an inherent
higher degree of topicality again has priority over contextual topicality that may
be completely absent.
Outside the Balkans 1st and 2nd person pronouns are more frequently clitic
doubled than 3rd person pronouns in Welsh (Parina 2006: 9).
More rarely, the borderline is between pronouns and full NPs: in Slovenian
dialects (Gorica) it is pronouns (including 3rd person pronouns) that trigger clitic
doubling as different from full NPs (Maruic aucer in print: 3; Arkadiev
2010b: 7). Any person, number and case of full personal pronouns (not demonstrative), including reflexive pronouns, triggers clitic doubling. Simultaneous
clitic doubling of two pronouns is judged possible, but not recorded in spontaneous
speech (Maruic aucer in print: 34, 12).
Similarly in North Italian dialects (Turin) object clitic doubling is attested
only if the object is instantiated with a pronoun (elyeva 2001: 110). In (River
Plate) Spanish, the indirect object is obligatorily clitic doubled if it is instantiated
by a pronoun and facultative if it is instantiated by a full human NP. It is obligatory if the indirect object is the possessor and when it is a quirky subject (Vanelli
1998: 135136).
A very interesting distribution occurs in Friulian and in Italian Venetian
dialects: subjects are most obligatorily and widely clitic-doubled when instantiated by a 2nd sg. pronoun (Narumov Suchaev 2001: 378; elyeva 2001: 122).
The situation in Ladinian is similar, but in some dialects subject clitic doubling
is obligatory not only in 2nd sg., but also in 3rd person (both sg. and pl.), instantiated
by both pronouns and full NPs with some phonological and morphonological
conditioning (Narumov 2001: 403, 409). Analogous, but more complex is the
situation in North Italian dialects (elyeva 2001: 109): in some dialects subject
15
Actually, in Old Serbian there are some examples of clitic doubled full NPs (Mnnesland
1977: 106107), but they are really sporadic, being attested in three documents under the Albanian
influence (ibid.).
16
Clitic doubling of full pronouns is attested even in the New tokavian dialect of Serbian
which does not attest to Balkan Sprachbund linguistic features (Bonjakovi 2000).
20
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
clitic doubling is obligatory in any person, in some in 2 sg., 3 sg. and 1 pl. In
some dialects the subject clitic is facultative. In Genoa subject clitic doubling is
obligatory in 2 sg. and 3 sg. In Venetian dialects there are also generalized subject
clitics: in Padua a is a topicalizor for all persons and numbers (elyeva 2001:
122). In Sicily subject clitic doubling is obligatory in 2 sg. and pl. in imperfect,
conjunctive and conditional (elyeva 2001: 144). For a fuller list of obligatory
subject clitic doubling, see Vanelli 1998 (37, 48) where the obligatoriness scale is
2nd sg. < 3rd sg. < 3rd pl. However, it should be mentioned that this difference is
actually based on the degree of obligatoriness of subject clitic pronouns without
clitic doubling (Vanelli 1998: 2949).
This difference between 1st and 2nd person pronouns vs. 3rd person pronouns
vs. full NPs is motivated by the fact that 1st and 2nd person pronouns are more
topical than 3rd person pronouns and full NPs (Friedman 2008: 59; Arkadiev
2009: 12 with ref. to Haspelmath).
In Hittite 1st and 2nd person pronouns are not clitic doubled more regularly
than full NPs. Actually, there is only one case of 1st person pronouns triggering
clitic doubling.
D
UTUI
=[m]u17
kuit
BELI=[Y]A
m
ammu[k]
Hapirin
kian
wtarnahta #
follows.
As 1st and 2nd person pronouns have higher inherent topicality than 3rd person pronouns and full NPs, the lack of any particular frequency/obligatoriness of
them being clitic doubled implies again that Hittite is insensitive to the degree of
topicality. However, an important proviso is in place here: it is clitic doubling of
the 1st person pronoun in Hittite that differs most clearly from appositive dislocations. Although I believe that the shift topic function of clitic doubled full NPs
distinguishes the structures they occur in well enough from the appositive dislocations, I cannot totally exclude the possibility that only clitic doubling of the 1st
person pronoun is actually clitic doubling in Hittite. If this is indeed so, the Hittite state of affairs would be similar to that of the Slovenian dialects. In any case,
note that clitic doubling of 1st and 2nd person pronouns is an innovation of clitic
doubling in comparison with left dislocations out of which clitic doubling most
likely developed: personal pronouns are never left-dislocated in Hittite.
2.1.4.2. I n d i r e c t v s . d i r e c t o b j e c t. It has been remarked that []
the literature on clitic doubling in various languages18 converges on the view that
direct object clitic doubling is much more restricted than indirect object clitic
doubling [] (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 7). See also Friedman 2008: 40. In
the western periphery of the South-Eastern Serbian dialects, e.g. in the dialect of
Actually only Romance languages ((River Plate) Spanish) and the languages of the Balkan
Sprachbund are considered AS.
17
18
21
Prizren, only indirect lexical objects are as a rule clitic doubled (Mieska Tomi
2008: 82). This fact implies that diachronically indirect objects are the first to be
clitic doubled.
It is further specified that [a]t least in Macedonian and Albanian, clitic
doubling of indirect objects can be equated with object agreement (K alluli
Tasmowski 2008: 13, 15; K alluli 2008: 228, 248; Vidoeski 19981999: I, 25). In
Albanian clitic doubling is pragmatically conditioned when triggered by direct
objects. It is triggered only by grammatical factors with indirect objects. So it is
a grammaticalized agreement marker for indirect objects and pragmatically conditioned clitic doubling for direct objects (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 13, 15;
K alluli 2008: 228, 248).19 The only constraint on Macedonian direct objects is
definiteness (specificity with partitive indefiniteness) (Mieska Tomi 2008: 7073,
79) while the constraint on indirect objects is specificity. However, bare dat[ive]
indefinites, which can never be specific, can also be optionally clitic doubled
(ibid.: 76). This indicates that [t]he dat[ive] clitic [] is actually much more close
to becoming a mere case marker than the acc[usative] clitic is (ibid.: 76, 80).20
The situation outside the Balkans is similar. In Friulian and in the Venetian
dialect of Italian clitic doubling of the indirect object is obligatory with verbs like
dare give, regalare present, mandare send, promettere promise where the
recipient is an obligatory valency of the verb (Vanelli 1998: 134135). The description seems to imply that clitic doubling of direct objects is not obligatory.
These data mean that there is a distinction between indirect object clitic
doubling as an agreement marker21 (for the definition, see Givn 1976) being
grammatically conditioned and direct object clitic doubling as the only clitic doubling proper type being grammatically and pragmatically conditioned (Arkadiev
2009; 2010a; 2010b).22 The two are diachronically connected as different stages
of the grammaticalization of the same cross-referencing relations (Arkadiev
2009; 2010a). Grammaticalization proceeds more quickly with indirect objects
because of their inherent higher topicality.23 This difference between clitic dou19
This is not characteristic of all the Balkan Sprachbund: [] grammatically constrained
clitic doubling on the left handside becom[es] freer and pragmatically significant as one proceeds to
the right: Macedonian > Albanian > Romanian > Greek > Bulgarian (K alluli Tasmowski 2008:
9). Clitic doubling of both indirect and direct objects in Greek and colloquial Bulgarian is not only
grammatically but also pragmatically conditioned (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 23). Notice that,
contrary to frequent claims otherwise (Friedman 2008: 50; K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 11), both in
Modern Greek and Bulgarian clitic doubling is obligatory when properly pragmatically licenced
(Dimitrova-Vulchanova Vulchanov 2008: 121; Janse 2008: 166).
20
At the same time I fail to understand why the fact that the clitics can be optionally left out
even when the indirect object is obviously specific (ibid.: 80) should mean that the Macedonian
dat[ive] doubling clitics actually act as case markers (ibid.: 80). This fact can signify only one
thing: Macedonian clitic doubling of indirect object is not yet completely grammaticalized.
21
See most explicitly: Mieska Tomi 2008: 69.
22
Cf. A rkadiev 2010a: 910, who assesses both direct and indirect object clitic doubling as
being agreement markers. In this case they would just be differently conditioned: both by grammatical relations and by topicality (ibid.: 14). However, even if we consider clitic doubling of all indirect and definite direct objects to be an agreement marker, we have to concede that it is not a canonical
one as it corresponds only to the part of criteria for agreement markers in A rkadiev 2010b.
23
The problem that so much troubled Kalluli and Tasmowski if the nature of agreement
and topic markers is indeed substantially different [], why are doubling clitics employed as means
22
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
bling of indirect and direct objects is explained by the fact that all indirect objects
are inherently more topical than direct objects as recipient vs. theme (Arkadiev
2009: 12 with ref. to Haspelmath).
Again, as with definiteness, inherent topicality can be in conflict with textual
topicality. For Macedonian, all pragmatic uses (including focal ones) of definite
direct objects and all indirect objects trigger clitic doubling; for Albanian, all IOs,
DOs instantiated by first and second person pronouns, and all non-focal/non-rhematic DO DPs trigger clitic doubling (Kalluli Tasmowski 2008: 910, 25; Kalluli
2008: 228, 248; Friedman 2008: 48, 54; Arkadiev 2009: 9 with lit.; Mieska Tomi
2008: 65).24 This would represent some difficulty for the authors like Arkadiev
2009 (12) who directly assess obligatory clitic doubling of these categories as
topic-related. Alongside the lines of (Givn 1976), I would suggest a somewhat
more complex scenario. While originally the general greater topicality status of
indirect objects and direct objects instantiated by 1st and 2nd person pronouns
caused them to trigger clitic doubling more regularly, the situation in Western
Macedonian is grammaticalized and synchronically independent of pragmatics:
both categories can trigger clitic doubling even when in focus.25 Another way to
explain the situation is to assume the priority of inherent topicality over textual
topicality.
Hittite differs markedly from this state of affairs.26 Indirect objects are not
clitic doubled more regularly/obligatorily than direct objects. Clitic doubling of
both of them is purely pragmatically conditioned. In this respect Hittite is closer
to Greek and colloquial Bulgarian than to Romanian, Albanian, and especially
Macedonian (Kalluli Tasmowski 2008: 9). Note that, in contrast to Balkan clitic
doubling, in Hittite clitic doubling is never present for both direct and indirect
objects simultaneously. Actually in my corpus there is only one clitic doubled
indirect object:
MS (CTH 443) KBo 15.10+ Vs. II 3335
1. nu
i[d][l]u
harnikten #
s.c.part. evil-acc.sg.n. destroy-2pl.imper.
2. nu ANA BELI ANA DAM=U DUMU ME=U u
namma
s.c.part. for lord for wife=his
children=his good-acc.sg.n. then.
t[u] #
may be-3sg.imper.
for fulfilling such different functions? (K alluli Tasmowski 2008: 17; K alluli 2008: 228) can
be answered fairly easily within the functionalist paradigm: they represent different stages of the
same cline of grammaticalization dependent on the topicality hierarchy (Givn 1976; Friedman
2008; A rkadiev 2009; 2010b). Cf. K alluli 2008: 249; K rapova Cinque 2008: 280.
24
See Mieska Tomi 2008: 723, 80 for some special cases. This holds good for standard
Macedonian and the western dialects (on which it is based). Clitic doubling in the eastern dialects is
not so consistent (Vidoeski 1999: 53).
25
Although even in Macedonian there is historical evidence from the 18th and 19th centuries
for pragmatic factors in clitic doubling (Friedman 2008: 43, 58): in focal contexts clitic doubling of
definite direct objects was blocked.
26
This concurs with those rare Balkan systems (some Bulgarian dialects) where the frequency of clitic doubling is equal for direct and indirect objects (Friedman 2008: 40 fn. 11). However,
nothing is said about the obligatory/non-obligatory character of both of them in Friedman 2008 (40
fn. 11). So the real similarity of the Hittite system to the Bulgarian dialectal one remains unclear.
23
D
D
3. [nu=]i
UTU-u
IM-a=a
ANA BEL[I]
s.c.part.=him- cl.pron.3sg.dat. Sungod-voc.sg. Stormgod-voc.sg.=and to lord
ANA DAM DUMUME=U u
TI-tar
mayandatar
to wife children=his
well-being-acc.sg.n. life-acc.sg.n. youthful vigour-acc.sg.n.
GI
TUKUL par nantan
[na]m[m]a pikatten #
weapon ahead pointed-acc.sg.n. then keep giving-2pl.imper.iter.
(1) Destroy evil. (2) May it then be good for the lord, (his) wife (and) his children.
(3) But let you, Sungod and Stormgod, then keep giving to him, the lord, (his) wife
(and) his children well-being, life, youthful vigour (and) weapon pointed ahead.
What should be especially emphasized here is the fact that this unique case
of a clitic doubled indirect object in Hittite has the function of a continued topic,
a sporadic secondary development of clitic doubling into the sphere of generic
topicality. This has two consequences: 1. The clitic doubling of indirect objects
involves a diachronically later function than the clitic doubling of direct objects and
subjects. 2. The continued topic function of clitic doubling is indistinguishable
from appositive dislocation in Hittite and may actually be an appositive dislocation. At the same time the shift topic function, more distinct from appositive
structures, is attested only with direct objects and subjects.
Again, Hittite is not the only exception to the topicality hierarchy. Bakker
and Siewierskas head and dependent-marking hierarchy plainly contradicts it
(see Arkadiev 2010a: 5): viewed from the perspective of Bakker and Siewierskas
hierarchy (for which see Arkadiev 2010a: 5), the topicality hierarchy would produce
a typologically unique situation (see Arkadiev 2010a: 5) where indirect objects are
both indexed on the verb (head-marked) by an agreement marker and bear case
(dependent-marked) while direct objects only bear case (dependent-marked).27
Head and dependent-marking hierarchy predicts a totally opposite state of affairs.
It is also important that systems with indirect object clitic doubling vs. subject and
direct object agreement are attested, but not ones with direct object clitic doubling
vs. indirect object agreement (Arkadiev 2010b: 4). However, as Arkadiev 2010a
showed, there are quite a number of counterexamples to Bakker and Siewierskas
hierarchy, e.g. Amharic where in case of ditransitives both Theme and Recipient
may be marked accusative, but in this case only the Recipient triggers verb agreement, and this agreement is now obligatory (Arkadiev 2010a: 8). Other counterexamples are Kwomtari and Usan (Arkadiev 2010a: 1011). Thus, both hierarchies
simply do not coincide and neither of them is truly universal.
In any case, it is important to remember that Hittite clitic doubling is not
described within Bakker and Siewierskas head and dependent-marking hierarchy either as it has nothing to do with agreement markers being exclusively pragmatically motivated.
2.1.4.3. S u b j e c t v s . o b j e c t c l i t i c d o u b l i n g. According to T.
Givn, since agents possess an inherently higher degree of topicality (Givn 1976:
152), they should be more regularly/obligatorily clitic doubled. However, this prediction is not borne out by the clitic doubling data available to me because I know
The fact that there are systems with clitic doubling of just indirect objects, beneficiaries and
raised possessors (A rkadiev 2010b: 5 Ex. 20) is irrelevant as there is no information whether
clitic doubling in Yawuru is clitic doubling proper or agreement.
27
24
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
of no languages where only subject clitic doubling is present. Still, if a language has
subject clitics, subject clitic doubling is always present (Hittite; Italian dialects).
Macedonian and Modern Greek lack subject clitics (Mieska Tomi 2008: 66;
De Boel 2008: 89). This situation is typologically common: subject agreement vs.
object clitic doubling is the most common type of their co-occurrence in a language (Arkadiev 2010b: 4).
In Friulian and in Italian Venetian dialects subject clitic doubling is obligatory
and is generally considered to be agreement (Narumov Suchaev 2001: 378;
elyeva 2001: 122). In other sources it is observed that in Friulian and in the
Venetian dialect of Italian clitic doubling of the indirect object is obligatory with
verbs like dare give, regalare present, mandare send, promettere promise
where the indirect object is an obligatory valency of the verb (Vanelli 1998: 1345).
In the same source nothing is said about subject clitic doubling. (See Narumov
Suchaev 2001: 388; elyeva 2001: 110, 122, 144.)
Hittite is similar to Italian dialects since it clitic-doubles subjects in the
same way as direct and indirect objects. Thus it is insensitive to the higher degree
of topicality again. There are two examples of clitic doubling in my corpus:
NH/NS (CTH 171) KUB 23.102 Vs. I 19
1. kuitt=a =at
EUTTA #
what=and=it-cl.pron.3sg.nom.n. brotherhood-nom.sg.n.?
2. n =at
kuit=ma A HUR.SAG Ammana uwawar #
s.c.part.=it- cl.pron.3sg.nom.n. what=but of Mt. Ammana coming-nom.sg.n.?
(1) What is it, brotherhood? (2) And what is it, coming to Mt. Ammana?.
MS (CTH 789) KBo 32.13 Vs. II 3032
1. kira
=ma =i
galulup=e
taluga[] #
of hand-gen.sg.=but=her-cl.pron.3sg.dat. fingers-nom.pl.c.=her-nom.pl.c. long-nom.pl.c.
2. n =at
=kan
miyawe
=pat
s.c.part.=they- cl.pron.3pl.nom.c.=loc.part. four-nom.pl.c.=emph.part.
galulup
[ANA B]IBRI kattanta kiantari #
fingers-nom.pl.c. vessel
under
are placed-3pl.pres.med.
(1) The fingers of her hand (are) long. (2) They, (her) four fingers, are placed under
the animal-shaped vessel.
2.2. Higher vs. lower topicality and clitic doubling: summing up. It follows
from the material presented above that the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund
are sensitive to the degree of topicality while Hittite is not.
The higher degree of topicality of human, specific, quantified by all, subject,
indirect object, instantiated by 1st and 2nd person pronoun NPs is inherent. In concrete texts most of these NPs can also be focal. This conflict between inherent
and contextual topicality in the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund is mostly
resolved in favour of inherent topicality. If contextually determined features (definiteness and comment/focus) are in conflict, either property can have priority.
For Hittite generally it is the presence of a particular type of topicality (shift
topic including change of discourse status from non-topical to topical) that triggers
clitic doubling. Higher vs. lower degree of topicality has no effect whatsoever:
Hittite lacks more regular/obligatory clitic doubling of both indirect objects (in
comparison with direct objects) and of 1st and 2nd person pronouns (in comparison
25
with full NPs). In Hittite, a higher level of topicality does not trigger any grammaticalization or more regular use of clitic doubling as it does in the Balkans.
The alternative scenario could assume that less topical features triggering
clitic doubling in Hittite besides more topical ones implies that grammaticalization has gone further than in the Balkans. This would be supported by the facts that
(a) not only human but also inanimate NPs, (b) not only indirect, but also direct
objects, (c) not only subjects, but also objects; (d) not only 1st and 2nd person pronouns, but also full NPs trigger clitic doubling in Hittite. This certainly means
that clitic doubling has spread from the most topical categories to the less topical
ones. However, this scenario is not very likely: Hittite does not attest any proper
grammaticalization as clitic doubling is triggered by pragmatic factors only.
Moreover, it seems that inherent topicality is not relevant for Hittite clitic doubling, only contextually determined topicality is.
3. Conclusion. The small number of occurrences as well as the exclusively
pragmatic conditioning of Hittite clitic doubling testify that this syntactic structure
was only emerging in Hittite. The comparison with the pragmatically conditioned
Balkan Sprachbund clitic doubling demonstrates that these very first steps of clitic
doubling evolution attest to a scenario different from the Balkan one. It implies
that clitic doubling need not always develop along the same cline dependent on the
topical hierarchy. Thus, the Hittite Balkan comparison contributes to the little
described diachronic typology of clitic doubling.
References
Alp, Sedat. Hethitische Keilschrifttafeln aus Maat-Hyk. Ankara: Trk tarih kurumu basmevi, 1991.
Arkadiev, P.M. Soglasovanie s imennoj gruppoj v periferijnom padee: opyt tipologii. VI konferencija
po tipologii i grammatike. ILI RAN. Sankt-Peterburg 2628 nojabrja 2009 g., 116.
A rkadiev, Peter. Towards a Typology of Case in Head-Marking Languages. MPI for Evolutionary
Anthropology. Leipzig, February 4, 2010, 120.
A rkadiev, Peter. Clitic Doubling: Towards a Typology. Kruglyj stol Klitiki i sintaksieskaja tipo
logija. RGGU, 7 ijunja 2010 g, 110.
Bonjakovi, arko. O ponavljanju reeninih konstituenata. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i
lingvistiku XLIII (2000): 6572.
Cornilescu, Alexandra, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin. Clitic doubling, complex heads and interarboreal
operations. Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages.
Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008: 289319.
elyeva, I. I. Dialekty Italii. I. I. elyeva, B. P. Narumov, O. I. Romanova (red.). Romanskie jazyki.
Moskva: Academia, 2001, 90145.
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Mila, Valentin Vulchanov. Clitic doubling and Old Bulgarian. Dalina Kalluli,
Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 2008: 105134.
Friedman, Victor. Balkan object reduplication in areal and dialectological perspective. Dalina Kalluli,
John Benjamins, 2008, 3564.
Garrett, Andrew. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Ph.D. Diss., Harvard University, 1990.
Givn, Talmy. Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement. Ch. Li (ed.). Subject and Topic. New
York: Academic Press, 1976: 149188.
Hill, Virginia, Liliane Tasmowski. Romanian Clitic Doubling: A view from pragmatics-semantics
and diachrony. Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008, 135164.
26
ANDREJ V. SIDELCEV
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr., H. Craig Melchert. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Part 1: Reference
Grammar. Winona Lake, Indiana, 2008.
Janse, Mark. Clitic doubling from Ancient to Asia Minor Greek. Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski
(eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
2008, 165202.
K allulli, Dalina. Clitic doubling, agreement and information structure: The case of Albanian.
Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008, 227256.
K alluli, Dalina, Liliane, Tasmowski. Introduction: Clitic doubling, core syntax and the interfaces.
Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008, 132.
Koneski, Blae. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Del I i II. Skopje: Kultura, 1981.
Krapova, Iliyana, Guglielmo, Cinque. Clitic reduplication constructions in Bulgarian. Dalina Kalluli,
John Benjamins, 2008, 257287.
Maruic, Franc, Rok aucer. Clitic Doubling in a determinerless language with second position
clitics. Proceedings of FDSL 7.5. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, in print (lingBuzz/000924), 114.
Mieska Tomi, Olga. Towards grammaticalization of clitic doubling: Clitic doubling in Macedonian
and neighbouring languages. Dalina Kalluli, Liliane Tasmowski (eds.). Clitic Doubling in the
Balkan Languages. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2008, 6588.
Mnnesland, Svein. Udvajanje linih zamenica u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Nauni sastanak slavista
u Vukove dane 1 (1977): 101110.
Narumov, B. P. Ladinskij jazyk. I. I. elyeva, B. P. Narumov, O. I. Romanova (red.). Romanskie
jazyki. Moskva: Academia, 2001, 392410.
Narumov, B. P., N. L. Suchaev. Friulskij jazyk. I. I. elyeva, B. P. Narumov, O. I. Romanova
(red.). Romanskie jazyki. Moskva: Academia, 2001, 365391.
Parina, Elena. Direct object double marking in Celtic and South Slavic Languages Preliminary
remarks. S. Mac Mathuna, M. Fomin (eds.). Parallels between Celtic and Slavic. Studia
Celto-Slavica. Coleraine, 2006, 119130.
Vanelli, Laura. I dialetti italiani settentrionali nel panorama romanzo. Studi di sintassi e morfologia.
Biblioteca di cultura 555. Roma: Bulzoni editore, 1998.
Vidoeski, Boidar. Dijalektite na makedonskiot jazik. IIII. Skopje: MANU, 19981999.

.
.

.

, .
Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Linguistics
Department of Indo-European Languages
Moscow
cidelcev@rambler.ru
UDC 811.16362

+ :
O *
/
+ (), .

.
/
. , .
- :
, ,
. ,
, ,
, . ,
,
, .
: , , ,
, + .
1. .
(Palmaitis 1981: 72)
.
,
, ,

(. . 1984),
.
,
, p
, (- 2008: 80).

( -
) ,
.
,
*
(178001),
.
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 2744.
28
.

/ + (),
.

.1 ,
, . ,
,2 .
2.
2.1. . .
: j , ,
,
(Wackernagel 2009: 324325).
(nomen
actionis) (Bopp 1856: 1156),
:
,
,
(Whitney 2004: 349).
- o .
(1933: 352). -tum,
,
( 1980: 339), - .3
.

:
Beteiligt sind beim Inf. von den Kasus der Nomina actionis nur die obliquen des
Sing., unter diesen besonders diejenigen, welche den Gedanken des Zweckes und
Zieles auszudrcken im stande sind (Brugmann 1933: 351).
. 1963.
, . nystx mqny sego dati , nystx namx
oubiti mihi est (
- 2007: 98117).
3
. . Nomen actionis
und Infinitiv (Supinum) Substantiva mit Abstraktbedeutung
(Brugmann 1933: 340353). . (1934: 195),
. . (1964: 160)
. d . (1975: 133),
,
. , *-tu- E. (1975:
112): *-tu- dnote laction comme subjective, manant du sujet et laccomplissant.
1
2
+ : O
29
, -anna
(Hoffner Melchert 2008: 76). .
(, , ,
.)
(Haspelmath 1989: 292293; Heine Kuteva 2002: 247248).

(Wackernagel 2009: 328). . (1980:
191) -, : ,
. .
, .

: . . *magh - + knnen, imstande sein (LIV 2001:
422) + .
, .4
2.2. .
-ti5 -ti-. E.
(1975: 112) : laction objective.
.
, ,
/ .6 (< ) , . (1934: 242)
,
. . (1966: 127), . (1980: 340)
.
- .7
. . (1961: 349)
,8 ,
4
,
. .
(1880: 214)
. II *d/(t)od (Beeks 1995: 248),
. hic et
nunc (), (),
~ .
5
.
-t (Meillet 1934: 242),
(Stieber 1979: 191194).
-t, -t
XIII ( 2004: 161). (-ti -t)
2000 (200201).
6
. (2000: 200203) ;
.
7
. Sturtevant 1931: 18; Kuryowicz 1964: 190191; Palmaitis 1981: 93;

1984: I, 287; Beekes 1995: 173.
8
. Lehmann 1958; 1996 (225226),
.
.
30
,
.
-
. *ei- (Haudry 1997; - 2007:
6567),
/ ()
().9 :
) ( )
(Heine Kuteva 2002: 327); )
(Heine 1990: 131;
Rice K abata 2007); ) Spirallauf
> > > (. Sgall 1999).

. , ,
, ( 1961).
-,
. , / ,
.
3. .

(Jeffers 1975: 136). .
, , ,
(Hoffner Melchert 2008: 330). ,
(Windisch
1879: 97; Schmidt 2010), ,
:
( 1965: 205).

.

. , ,
.10 , , ,
9
. ,
~ ,
. . (2004: 310): () , ()
, .
10
. , (
, 1856: 1249): old datives which are no longer conscious of their derivation and their
original destination to express a definite case/relation and hence can be used as accusatives and
nominatives.
+ : O
31
. , , () , . , (/realis),11 /
(Harbert 2007: 333335).
du , : urrann sa saiands du saian
( 4:3, Wulf.). ,

+ .12 . (1933:
352) -
.
, ,
.13
4.
4.1. . . .
*xotom pite / p14
: pt, (- 2007: 88).

( ): )
, )
, ) . ,
( ) (Disterheft 1980: 94, 152), (-, Hoffner Melchert 2008: 333334),
(Delbrck 1897: 466), (Ambrazas 1987: 204) (Miklosich 186874: 547).
,
. , ,
, . (Haudry
1968: 143).
, . . (1880:
254)
11
, ( )
(Fischer 1989: 160).
12
,
; . vidm t leet
+ : vizu t leiec (Trvnek 1956: 167).
13
(Haspelmath
1989), , ,
, . .
14

, . emou/e a{e ho{e[i damq ti CM . 6:22.
32
, . .
(2004: 352):15
(1) cakra
s ryya (Dat)

pnthm

nvetav (Inf)
t
. . (1958: 390) ,
.
,
, . . (1989: 164)
, . .

,
, :
(2) ndram avardhayann hay (Dat) hntav (Inf) (Disterheft 1980: 61)

, : ,
(Delbrck 1897: 470).16
-
.

.
, (Disterheft 1980: 61;
2004: 308), .
(Hoffner
Melchert 2008: 333334):
(3) nu
munusme uktu[riy]a
atia (Dat) lewanzi (Inf) pnzi
(conj.)
t
p
.
:
(4) tveia
kri tvrai (Dat) tvrti (Inf)
(Schmalstieg 1988: 216)
g
p.
. (1964: 162),
. ,
:
als eines doppelten finalen Dativs (Dativus duplex), wobei der zweite Dativ des
Verbalabstrakts, der sich auf das Prdikatsverb bezog und dem ersten Dativ als
eine ihn erklrende nominale Apposition beigefgt wurde, spter zum Infinitiv
erstarrte (Ambrazas 1987: 204).
: Acc = , ccADV = , Dat
= , Inf = , O = , Sup = , V = .
16
. H ahn 1966: 390.
15
+ : O
33

. . ,
, :
It is the setting side by side in the same case of two substantives which are not of
equal scope. One may really be a literal, physical part of the other, as in the case of
a group and an individual or an individual and a part of his body; or the connection
may be that of part and whole in a more figurative or abstract sense, as in the case of
an individual and one of his qualities; or the relationship may be something still more
tenuous and intangible, as in the case of an entity of some sort and an action for which
the entity serves as either agent or recipient (Hahn 1953: 9293, ).

.
, ,
.
, ,

(1954: 280).

, .
. (1957: 284), ,
,
.17
, .
(1965: 195206): ,
, ,
; p,
g, , ( );
, , . ,
, .18
17
. ardha- ,
, : ardhabhmi-
, ardhamsa- . , ,
.
, ,
.
18
. : Es ist z. B. gar kein
logischer Grund vorhanden, warum das Adj. an dem Geschlechte, Numerus und Kasus des Substantivums partizipieren msste (Paul 1970 [1880]: 304).
. (concord, which has nothing to do with logic, Jespersen 1958 [1824]:
207).
34

. ,
, - ,
t-t + gg .

.

, :
(- ). ,
, ,19
.
,
. . . (1984: I, 267319).20
, , ( )
(Hewson Bubenik 2006; Luraghi 2010).
, , ,
.

. , .21
,
. ,
OV , (Lehmann 1974; 1984: 320326). ,
19
,
, (Hewson Bubenik
2006: 3132). ,
:
( 1967: 5859),
.
,
, .
20
( 1963). . .
(1972) . O ,
, (. Lehmann 1996; 2002;
1997; Bauer 2000; Boley 2005; Hewson Bubenik 2006; Bardal Eythrsson 2009; Schmidt
2010). , . , .
. . , ,
. (2002: 23) (Pre-Indo-European).

, (-
2007: 7797; 2010; 2010; Grkovi-M ajor 2010; 2011).
21
, ,
(controller : target, Corbett 1999: 103).
+ : O
35
( : ), . , .
: s r yya nvetav
, hay hntav .
. , (double marking,
Nichols 1999: 49, 101). ,
, ,
(head-marking, Nichols 1999: 101).
(dependent-marking),

: , .
, . .
(1983: 108), . . ,
22
.
,
, : the relation of dependence was of any conceivable kind, and this explains the inability to classify so
many of the adnominal genitives (Petersen 1925: 134), , .
: > ( ) >
. A , , . ,
. (2007) XVII ,
o Mu. dlh
brada.
(. ).
4.2. .
, , . , , -
.
, OV :
22

( = ) .
. . dativus adverbialis
dativus objectivus dativus subjectivus ( 1983: 109).
36
(5)
.

(Dat) (Inf) ( . 284)23

(6) kupichu jedno pole ptnkm (Dat) histi (Inf)
(Miklosich 186874: XII)
pt

24 .25

,
:
(7) kako mo/eto-sx dati plxtq svo| ysti (Inf) namx (Dat) ( 6:52)
-

(Dat) [ ] (Inf)26
:
(8)

(Inf)

(Dat) ( .: 88)27

,
( 1995: 365366). ,
, .
( 2009:
296300). ,
(1956: 176) XIV XV .
4.3. . ,
,
.
.
.
(- 2010: 58),
- ,
1958: 388389.

,
.
25

, (Pacnerov 1958).
26
/ , ,
: hvaiwa mag sa unsis (Dat) leik giban du matjan (du + Inf) (Wulf.)
27
. . (1958: 388).
23
24
+ : O
37
, .
,
: Dat + Inf (V) > Inf + Acc (VO).
:
(9)
(VO) (Inf) () (VO) ( .: 63)

ndram avardhayann (OV) hay (Dat) hntav (Inf) (OV)

(= )
V > VO
.
, . , ,
.
.
,
,28 ,
, : ) ,
) ( 1955: 116;
1990: 179), .
.
,
,
.
. t gg,
, , , . ( 2010),
:
(10) pride otx konecx zemlA slQ[ati (Inf) prym\drosti solomonA ( 11:31)

:
(11) sydya[e

sx slougami

vidyti (Inf)

konq;in\ ( 26:58)
(. 1949:
331335), , ( 2009:
297), .:
28
. (1971: 160)
, .
word type conjuction ,
.
38
(12)

(13) pridohq

(Inf) ( .: 4)

U dUbrovnikq postaviti (Inf) vy;qni mirq i l}bevq ( 24.45)
pt
: > .
, ,
,
t t pt g p.

, .:29
(14) prid\

obryzatx (Sup)

otro;Ate ( 1:59)
(= tt)

.30 , ( 1990: 357). , , ,
(Trvnek 1956: 166).
,
, , , , ,
.

. ,
31 (15) (16)
:
(15) ne dyite32
dytii (ccadv > O) prihoditi (Inf) ( 10:14)
>

29
.
. (2006: 299312),
t
, ou, na + , ,
gg .
.
30
,
, , ,
/ , .
.
+ ., . zu + . (Lipavic Otir 2010).
31
t
( 1984: I, 285): .
32
(
: , , ., : 205).
+ : O
(16) ne dayh\
emou (Dat) piti (Inf)

p

p
39
ocxtxno vino
( 15:23)
>

: ,
, :
(17)

(O)

(Inf) ( .: 23)
/ (?)
,
:
(18) egda vqveste
roditely
otro;A is a= (O)

t
po obX;a| zakonqnoumou
o nemq ( 2:27)

sxtvoriti (Inf) ima (Dat)

, , (Grkovi-Major 2010: 68). ,

(Veerka 2002: 339340).
.
.
: ( )
.
5. . (< - + )

, ,
, .
,
, ,
.

- ,
.
.
, ,
.
, , . .
40

(Haiman 1983: 782).
,
, ,
, .
,
, (- 2010),
(= ) /,
.

, . . :
, 1990.
, . p gt (t, g,
g ). : , 2000.
, . ., . . . , I-II. :
, 1984.
- , . p t gt. : , 2007.
-, . . t p
t 73 (2008): 7183.
-, . . -
, (.). gt p . : , 2010, 4362.
- , . . g
LXVI (2010): 187204.
, . . / .
. : , 1967, 5873.
, . . . : , 2004.
, . . . : , 1990.
, . . .
-
(12-14 ). . : , 1972, 62.
, . . . : , 1983.
, . . . 1
(1955): 108116.
, . . . . . . : , 2004.
, . . : . a:
, 1997.
. . : . : , 19261928.
, . - . Sbornk
prac Filosofick fakulty Brnnsk university XII (A11) (1963): 107126.
, . tt p tp pp pt.
: , 2006.
, . .
t p t 7172 (2007): 435444.
, . tp ( XII XV ).
o : , 2009.
+ : O
41
, . . , IV. :
, 1941.
, . . . : , , 1995.
, . . : , 1980 ( ).
. . t p p p I/1 ( , XIX). 1929.
, X-XI (. . . , . , .
). : , 1994.
, . . . : , 1989.
, . . . : ,
1961.
, . t t . ,
, ( -), 2010.
*
A mbrazas, Vytautas. Die indogermanische Grundlage des Dativus und Nominativus cum infinitivo
im Baltischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 92 (1987): 203219.
Bauer, Brigitte. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French.
Berlin New York: uton de Gruyter, 2000.
Bardal, Jhanna, Thrhallur Eythrsson. The Origin of the Oblique Subject Construction: an
Indo-European Comparison. Vit Bubenik, John Hewson, Sarah Rose (eds.). Grammatical Change
in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009, 179193.
Beekes, Robert S.P. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995.
Bednarczuk, Leszek. Indo-European Parataxis. Krakw: Wydawnictwo naukowe Wyszej szkoy
pedagogicznej, 1971.
Benveniste, . Noms dagent et noms daction en indoeuropen. Paris: Librairie dAmrique et
dOrient, 1975.
Boley, Jacqueline. The World of Early Proto-Indo-European and Linguistic Universals. Indogermanische Forschungen 110 (2005): 140.
Bopp, Franz. A Comparative Grammar of the Sanskit, Zend, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, German
and Sclavonic Languages (translated by Edward B. Eastwick), vol. III. London: Williams and
Norgate, 1856.
Brugmann, Karl. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin Leipzig:
Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1933.
CM Codex Marianus glagoliticus (ed. V. Jagi). Graz: Akademische DruckU. Verlagsanstalt, 1960.
Corbett, Greville G. Agreement: Terms and Boundaries. W. E. Griffin (ed.). The Role of Agreement
in Natural Language: TLS 5 Proceedings, Texas Linguistics Forum 53 (2003): 109122.
Delbrck, Berthold. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2. Strassburg: Karl J.
Trbner, 1897.
Disterheft, Dorothy. The Syntactic Development of the Infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus:
Slavica, 1980.
Fischer, Olga. The Origin and Spread of the Accusative and Infinitive Construction in English.
Folia Lingustica Historica VIII/12 (1989): 143217.
Gaedicke, Carl. Accusativ im Veda. Breslau: Verlag von Wilhelm Koebner, 1880.
Gonda, J. Attraction and Co-ordination in the Veda. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, 20, 1/3 [= Studies in Honour of Sir Ralph Turner, Director of the School of Oriental
and African Studies] (1957): 279289.
Grkovi-Major, Jasmina. he Role of Syntactic Transitivity in the Development of Slavic Syntactic
Structures. Bjrn Hansen, Jasmina Grkovi-Major (eds.). Diachronic Slavonic Syntax.
Gradual Changes in Focus. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach (Sonderband 74). Mnchen
Berlin Wien, 2010, 6374.
Grkovi-M ajor, Jasmina. he Development of Predicative Possession in Slavic Languages. Motoki
Nomachi (ed.). The Grammar of Possessivity in South Slavic: Synchronic and Diachronic
Perspectives (Slavic Eurasian Studies), 2011 ( ).
42
Hahn, Adelaide E. Vestiges of Partitive Apposition in Latin Syntax. Transactions and Proceedings
of the American Philological Association 84 (1953): 92123.
H ahn, Adelaide E. Partitive Apposition in Homer and the Greek Accusative. Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 85 (1954): 197289.
Hahn, Adelaide E. Verbal Nouns and Adjectives in Some Ancient Languages. Language 42/2 (1966):
378398.
Haiman, John. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language 59 (1983): 781819.
Harbert, Wayne. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: University Press, 2007.
Haspelmath, Martin. From Purposive to Infinitive a Universal Path of Grammaticalization. Folia
Linguistica Historica X/12 (1989): 287310.
Haudry, J. Les emplois doubles du datif et la fonction du datif indo-europen. Bulletin de la Socit
de Linguistique de Paris 63/l (1968): 141l59.
Haudry, Jean. Vestiges de constructions serielles en Indo-Europen. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Pergamon, Oxford, Paper No. 0419, 1997.
Heine, Bernd. The Dative in Ik and Kanuri. William Croft, Keith Denning, Suzanne Kemmer (eds.).
Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1990, 129149.
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: University Press,
2002.
Hewson, John, Vit Bubenik. From Case to Adposition: The Development of Configurational Syntax
in Indo-European Languages. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 2006.
Hoffner, Harry A. Jr., H. Craig Melchert. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1: Reference Grammar.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Jeffers, Robert J. Remarks on Indo-European Infinitives. Language 51/1 (1975): 133148.
Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1958 [1924].
Lehmann, W. P. On Earlier Stages of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Language 34/2 (1958):
179202.
Lehmann, Winfred. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin London: University of Texas Press, 1974.
Lehmann, Winfred P. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London New York: Routledge,
1996.
Lehmann, W. P. Pre-Indo-European. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph 41. Washington:
Institute for the Study of Man, 2002.
Luraghi, Silvia. The Rise (and Possible Downfall) of Configurationality. Silvia Luraghi, Vit Bubenik (eds.). Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London New York: Continuum,
2010, 212229.
Kuryowicz, Jerzy. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universittsverlag, 1964.
Lipavic Otir, Alja. Grammaticalization and Language Contact between German and Slovene. Motoki
Nomachi (ed.). Grammaticalization in Slavic Languages: From An Areal and Typological
Perspective. Sapporo: Hokkaido University ( ) <http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/
publish/no23_ses/02_Ostir.pdf> 4.02.2012.
LIV Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primrstammbildungen (Unter
Leitung von Helmut Rix). Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2001.
Meillet, A. Le slave commun. Paris: Librairie ancienne Honor Champion, 1934.
Meje, Antoan. Uvod u uporedno prouavanje indoevropskih jezika: Beograd: Nauna knjiga, 1965
( ).
Miklosich, Fr. Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. Wien: Wilhelm Braumller, 186874.
Nichols, Johanna. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago London: The University of Chicago
Press, 1999.
Pacnerov, Ludmila. K syntaxi infinitivu v staroslovnskch evangelnich kodexech. Vclav Machek
(red.). Studie ze slovansk jazykovdy. Sbornik k 70. narozeninm akademika Frantika
Trvnika. Praha: Sttn pedagogick nakladatelstv, 1958, 263269.
Palmaitis, Mykolas L. The New Look of Indo-European Declension (Thematic Stems). Indogermanische Forschungen 86 (1981): 7195.
Paul, Hermann. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1970 [1880].
Petersen, Walter. The Adnominal Genitive. The American Journal of Philology 46/2 (1925): 128160.
R ice, Sally, Kaori K abata. Crosslinguistic Grammaticalization Patterns of the allative. Linguistic
Typology 11 (2007): 451514.
+ : O
43
Sgall, Petr. Prague School Typology. Shibatani, Masayoshi, Theodora Bynon (eds.). Approaches to
Language Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 4984.
Schmalstieg, William. A Lithuanian Historical Syntax. Columbus: Slavica, 1988.
Schmidt, Karl Horst. How to Define Celtiberian Archaisms?. Palaeohispanica 10 (2010): 479487.
Stieber, Zdzisaw. Zarys gramatyki porwnawczej jzykw sowiaskich. Warszawa: Pastwowe
wydawnictwo naukowe, 1979.
Sturtevant, Edgar Howard. The Indo-European Dative and Locative. Transactions and Proceedings
of the American Philological Association 62 (1931): 18-25.
Trvnek, Frantiek. Historick mluvnice esk III: Skladba. Praha: Sttn pedagogick nakladatelstv, 1956.
Wulf. : <http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/> 8.02.2011.
Vaillant, Andr. Grammaire compare des langues slaves. Tome III: Le verbe. Paris: ditions
Klincksieck, 1966.
Veerka, Radoslav. Altkirchenslavische (Altbulgarische) Syntax. IV: Die Satztypen: der zusammengesetze Satz. Freiburg: Weiher, 2002.
Wackernagel, Jacob. Lectures on Syntax, with Special Reference to Greek, Latin and Germanic (ed.
David Langslow). Oxford: University Press, 2009.
Whitney, William Dwight. Sanskrit Grammar (Including Both the Classical Language, and the
Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.
Ltd. (reprint), 2004.
Windisch, Ernst. Kurzgefasste irische Grammatik mit Lesestcken. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel,
1879.
Jasmina Grkovi-Major
DATIVE + INFINITIVE:
ITS PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN SOURCE AND SLAVIC DEVELOPMENT
Summary
This paper deals with the Proto-Indo-European sources of the purposive Dative + (nomen
actionis>) Infinitive construction (DatInf) in Indo-European languages and its development in early
Slavic. This was originally an appositive construction in which the semantic connection between
two datives was marked by agreement; the second dative could be an agent or a patient of the action
denoted by a verbal noun. This is in accordance with the basic characteristics of the Proto-IndoEuropean sentence, as already defined by Antoine Meillet: every word in the sentence was autonomous and sufficient to denote its meaning and function, thus there was no government; the structuring
principle in the sentence was apposition, and the basic way of connecting its elements was agreement. A major role in expressing semantic subordination was played by semantically diffuse nominal
forms.
The loss of the DatInf in the early history of Slavic was due to the typological change which
started in Proto-Indo-European and continued in the daughter languages: the drift toward a nominative, agent-oriented language type, whose core characteristic is syntactic transitivity, possibly from an
earlier active type (early Proto-Indo-European/Pre-Indo-European). Since the rise of the nominative
language type gave prominence to the predicate, which became the centripetal force in the sentence, the second predicative core (= predicative nominal structure) had to be removed. The process
encompassed the removal of the patient in the DatInf as well as the removal of the heteroagentive
DatInf. Heteroagentive infinitive structures remained possible only if two predications became syntactically connected by a direct or an indirect object which was at the same time the agent of the
infinitive action. Thus the infinitive became a predicate complement, which was also manifested by
a word order change (OV > VO). At the same time, the tautoagentive infinitive was closely connected
to the predicate: it narrowed its function, becoming the complement of directive motion verbs. At that
point it was possible for it to replace the archaic and highly marked supine.
This process testifies to a drift from an agreement language type to a government language,
characterized by intra-sentence cohesion and a formally marked hierarchy of the sentence elements.
44
It also testifies to the iconicity principle, according to which the linguistic distance between two
expressions corresponds to the conceptual distance between them. Thus the rise of transitivity
caused the rise of configurationality.

jgrkovicns@sbb.rs
UDC 811.1636

*
,
(, ,
),
.
() () ,
.
: , , ,
, , .
1. . ,
()

,1

*
t pg (178001),
.
1
, XIX
(1835: 136) : Die
CasusEndungen drcken die wechselseitigen, vorzglich und ursprnglich einzig rumlichen, vom
Rume auch auf Zeit und Ursache bertragenen, Verhltnisse der Nomina, d. h. der Personen der
Sprachwelt zu einander aus. , . (Fnagy 2001: 521)
, :
Alle wahre Prpositionen haben das gemein, da sie ursprnglich Raumanschauungen bezeichnen
und unterscheiden sich darin, da diese Anschauungen verschieden sind. Also kan die Grundbedeutung
der Casus nicht etwas specielleres sein, als Raumanschauungen sind (Wllner 1827: 7),
: Die ursprnglichen Adverbia bezeichnen Rauman
schauungen und Raumanschauungen, und nichts weiter, werden auch durch die Casus bezeichnet
(Wllner 1831: 147). XIX ,
, XX , Space is also at
the very heart of all conceptualization and consequently at the very heart of the new cognitive paradigm in linguistics that seeks to explore the fundamental, spatial basis of conceptualization in and
through language (Ptz 1996: XI) .
(.
2006: 12), , (. Anderson 1987: 115), .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 4562.
46
.2

. (2007: 318319) ,
,
,
, ,
,
. (LakoffJohnson
1980).

,
. ,
, ,
, ,
,
, ,
. , ,
,
,
. ,
,
.
2. .
(. Creissels 2009: 615),3 , , ,
,
(BliovK ikov 1978).

, .
. , ,
[+ ] [ ]
. ,
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1983)
, , ,
( 2006: 10)

. ,

(., , Cienki 1995).
3

, , XV .
2
47
[+ ] [ ]. , ,
[+ ] [+ ],
[+ ], [+ ] . ( 2006: 1920).4
, . [+ ]
[ ], [ ]
[+ ], . . , . [+
], , . [+ ],
, . [+ ] (.
Piper 2001: 6869).
, [+ ]
[ ],
[+ ], [+ ], [+ ]
, [+ ].
, , , ,
.
.
,
, .
, ,
.
2.1.

//v + loc [+ ] (1) ~ /z + gen [+ ] (2) ~ //skrz
+ acc [+ ] (3) ~ //v + acc [+ ] (4),
:
(1) (.) 2.16 ( 1963: 320), (.)
( 2006: 27), (.) : :
: : : [] ( 2004: 289), (.) dnes se mn
bude v rji (Gebauer 1929: 500);
(2) (.) ( 1963: 348), (.) (
2006: 60), (.) ( 2004: 546), (.) z
t hory voda tee (Gebauer 1929: 506);
(3) (.) 65.12 ( 605), (.)
( 2006: 70), (.)

(., , Zlatev
2007: 331; Creissels 2009: 616).
4
48
(. 30/30), (.) Kdi knz skrz jednu ves jediee (Gebauer 1929:
493);
(4) (.) 6.6 ( 126), (.)
( 2006: 90), (.) (

2004: 401), (.) kdi echy v klter jdiechu (Gebauer 1929: 496).

[+ / ]
/na + loc [+ ] (5) ~ /s + gen [+ ]
(6) ~ //ps + acc [+ ] (7) ~ /na + acc [+ ] (8):
(5) (.) M. 5.16 ( 345), (.)
( 2006: 27), (.)
( 2004: 672), (.) ech sm sedm na tj ho (Ge
bauer 1929: 456);
(6) (.) 8.1 ( 1963: 341), (.)
( 2006: 63), (.) (
2004: 670), (.) jen jest s nebes sstpil (Gebauer 1929: 490);
(7) (.) ( 2006: 71), (.)
( . 167/56), (.) bsti ps ku (Gebauer 1929: 484);
(8) (.) 3.13 ( 344), (.)
( 2006: 94), (.) (
2004: 316), (.) na velzsk horu kon vyved (Gebauer 1929: 450).
2.2.

. , ,
[+ ] (9), [+ ] (10),
[+ ] (11), [+ ] (12)
(a)
(),
(/nad, /pod, //pd, /za)
,5
:
(9) (.) . 568.17 ( 1963: 360), (.)
|| ( 2006: 42), (.)
(. 112.33), (.) kdi Jei nad studnic sedl (Gebauer 1929: 462);
(9) (.) 10.33 ( 346), (.) ||
(
2006: 111), (.) (. 87/28), (.) mnich

jedn chod nadjide nad padchy (Gebauer 1929: 461);
5
, ,
: je
, , ,
() .

, , ,
, (19491950: 92).
.
49
(10) (.) 6.11 ( 1963:

361), (.) || ( 2006: 27),
(.)
( 2004: 575), (.) tch vc, kter pod zem js (Gebauer 1929: 481);
(10) (.) 13.2 ( 464), (.)
|| ( 2006: 109), (.)
(. 87/28), (.) pod hlavu kmen kladiechu (Gebauer 1929: 480);
(11) (.) 18.16 ( 538), (.)
( 2006: 45), (.) []
( 2004: 635), (.) tluku pd vraty tvho milosrdenstvie (Geb aue r
1929: 483);
(11) (.) 42.8 ( 537), (.)
( 2006: 112), ( . 379/128),
(.) aby idnho pd sd nevodili (Gebauer 1929: 483);
(12) (.) || || || || (
2006: 45), (.) {}
( 2004: 653);
(12) (.) ( 2006: 113), (.)
(. 53/80).
,

. /mimo
, [ ] (13),
[ ] /od (14), () ():
(13) (.) ( 2006: 82), (.)
( . 12/4), (.) krl s nimi mimo itavu na Tatary jide
(Geb auer 1929: 449);
(14) (.) 108.17 ( 425), (.)
( 2006: 65), (.) ( . 191/64), (.)
knze ot lpy otvzachu (Gebauer 1929: 469);
(14) (.) 80.11 ( 425), (.)
|||| ( 2006: 65), (.)
( . 29/14).
2.3.
, ,
.
,
,
(
) [ ] (/mimo), -
50
. , ,
:
[+ ]
[+ ]
[+ ]
+ loc
+ acc
+ acc
+ instr
[ ]
+ loc
+ acc
+ acc
+ acc
[+ ]
+ instr
+ acc
[+ ]
+ instr
+ acc
[+ ]
+ instr
+ acc
[+ ]
+ instr
+ acc
+ gen
[+ ]
+ acc
[+ ]

a + gen
[+ ], [ ],
, .6

.7
, , , ,
,
.

, , , ,
(. Givn 1995). , ,

, , ,
6
ot *atos,
atah (. III: 168; Kopen 1973: 155156), .
. (Hewson Bubenik 2006: 337) : the ablative postposition *=ed seen in the Hittite Ablatives of personal pronouns, amdat S from/by me (enlarged by the
ablative suffix ats), the IndoIranian and Old Latin thematic Ablative (d and d, respectively),
and the Hittite instrumental suffix (i)t also appears in the ItaloCeltic preposition de (OIr di from,
Latin d from) and the OCS preposition ot awey from.
, ,
(= ) .
7
. spatial case systems tend to be structured along two dimensions: the
distinction between location, destination, source, and path on the one hand, and reference to particular
types of spatial conf igurations (or relative orientations) on the other hand (Creissels 2009: 614).
51
,
.
3.
.
,
(. GrkoviMajor 2010b: 64). , ,
,

, ,
,
[ ] .
+ gen, ,
+ gen,
+ dat, ,
+ gen, + dat, + acc, + instr + loc.
3.1. /do +
gen (15), /k + dat (16)
() ():8
(15) (.) 2.15 ( 2006: 190) (.)
... ( 2006: 105) (.) - .
|| ( . 250/82), (.) Svatopluk s do Velehrada vrti
(Geb auer 1929: 434);
(15) (.) 106.18 ( 2006: 190) (.)
|| || ( 2006: 105) (.) .
( . 317/105), (.) Bracislav do kltera jde, a kdy echy v
klter jdiechu (Gebauer 1929: 434);
(16a) (.) 76.23 ( 1963: 350) (.)
( 2006: 102), (.)
(. 216/109);
(16) (.) 85.5 ( 1963: 350) (.)
( 2006: 102), (.)
( . 56/16);
, ,
a,
, 8
k
kam (commodi) (. II: 146147; Kopen 1973: 105),
do, , j vasmanda
zum hause hin , , da bis,
*t (. I: 519; Kopen 1973: 66). . . (2006: 337) do
*=de: the allative posposition of Hellenic, Iranian and Tocharian A (=ac < *ode) corresponds to the Baltic allative preverb da Slavic
preposition and preverb do, Celtic to, do for, to and Germanic t (OE), OHG zuo.
52
, .

.
,

.9
3.2. , .
,
,
, , , (17):10
(17) (.) 135.13 (
1963: 265),11 (.) : : : : : :: : :: : :: :: : ::
( 2004: 243), (.) Pavel dal iest Plosskovicich zemu (Gebauer 1929:
398).
3.3.

(1818),
(19), (20) (21):
(18) (.) || ( 2006: 101) (.)
: ( 2004: 272),
. ( . 150/51),
. . ( . 310/103), (.)
aby dvoru krlovu p i jiezden piel (Gebauer 1929: 370);
9
. (1978: 128129) pedloka
do, spojen s SR [smantick rys] lokalizace v rmci PO [prostorov orienttor], kdeto k je schopno
krom vz namu lokalizace mimo rmec PO vyjadovat metonymicky tak vznam pedloky do,
k s monost metonymickho uit v irm vznamu protjkem pznakovho v,
spojenho s SR lokalizace v rmci PO, a souasn nepznakovm protjkem do, spojenho s SR
lokalizace mimo rmec PO.
10
. (1997: 5153)
;
, ,
(), ,
,
(. 2006: 7981). .
,
, .

(
),
(17) (18), ,
(. Luraghi 2009: 298299)
11
. a (1993: 285)
0,5% 99,5%, ,
.
53
(18) (.) (
2006: 101), (.)
(. 59/91; 1956: 11);12
(19) (.) 30.29 ( 1963: 214); (.)
. ( . 289/96);
(20) (.) ( 1961: 20), (.
478/172; 1961: 25);
(21) (.) (. 315/105; 1965: 474),
(. 403/II.52; 1997:
53).13

, ,
(, , ,
).
.
, ,
[ ] ~ [+ ],
,
(. 1956: 17; Aitzetmller 1981: 35),
, , . .
(1997: 57),
(11 : 9),
.
,
(18) (18) .
3.4.
(22) (23):
(22) (.) 2.12 ( 1963: 290), (.)
|| || || ( 2006: 78), (.)
. ( . 19/7; 1977: 68),
(.) jde cestama dvma (Gebauer 1929: 400);
(23) (.) . 84.1 ( 542); (.)
|||| ( 2006: 25), (.) ( 406/137).
,
, . ,
12
. (1963: 231)

[+ ], :
21.5 .
13
352.17
(1883: 391)
.
54
,

(, ). ,
(24),
:
(24) (.) . 142.3 (
1963: 290); (.) || || ( . 31/16; 1958:
257), (.) (
2006: 77), (.) priel jest Jei dvemi zavenmi (Gebauer 1929: 400).

,
.
3.5.
(25):
(25) (.) 288.26 ( 106); (.)
( 1965: 466),
(. 71/33), (.) || ...
( 2006: 25),14 (.) aby mohl tohoto svta otstpiti (Gebauer
1929: 351).

(, otstpiti).
4. J .

,
.
,
, ,15

, ,
.
15

.
,
,
. ,
,
14
55
.

(. BliovK ikov 1978),16 () ,
()
()
, ( )
.17
, , (, )
( ),18
[ ].
, , ,

,
:
[+ ]
[+ ]
[+ ]
loc
gen
instr

acc

[+ ]
dat
gen
loc
acc
, (1)
, (2) (3)
. , , .
(. 2009) ,
, , ,
, .
16
,
( ),
.
,
(.
~ || 2007),
,
,

(., , Creissels 2006: 21).
17

,
, . (1998: 92): *
; * , :
[] [].
18

(1964) , (., ,
Luraghi 2009: 284285). , ,
,
.
56
,
, ,
,19
.
,
, : ,
,
.
:

gen
dat
acc
instr
loc
[] [] []

+

+

+
+
[]
+
+
+
+
, .
(. Moravcsik 2006: 145),
,
, ,
.

,
( 2008: 75).
, .
,20
.
( ) (25),21
(22, 24),
.
4.1. [+ ] [+ ] , (17, 20),
19

.
20
. . (2006: 1620)
,
: a nominal level represented by the Nominative and Accusative, an adjectival
level repersented by the Genitive and Dative, and an adverbial level reperesented by the typically
adverbial cases, . .
, .
21
,
a a ,
(., , 2005: 59).
57

[+ ] ~ [ ],
,

. ,

,

.

(*i ti, *i axati),
, (*postaviti, *poloiti),
(. Miklosich 1883: 664;
1961: 299301; 1963: 328; 2006: 2122).

. , , [+ ]
, ,
,

, . , ,
,
,

(. BliovK ikov 1978: 128129).

, ,
( 2010a: 56),

.22
(. ) (Hewson Bubenik 2006: 18),
,23 (
2005: 54,
22
, ,
.

( 1961: 300), , ,

,
,
( 2010a: 5455).
23
.
. . (1984: 287), *ei
58
7879). ,
,
(Hewson Bubenik 2006: 1718).
(
)
,
.24
4.2. [+ ] [+ ]

( ,
),
( ) ( ).

(22) (24), ( 1958: 246261),

, . , ,
(23).
.
4.3. ,

, .
p ~ p
p ~ p p
, , , ,
(. . Ivi 1963: 87). o
,
(Hewson Bubenik 2006: 5153).25
*i
,

.
24
., , *v(n) *na.
25
,
, , ,
,
, . (. 1990: 291).
59
5. . ()
()

,
, , , ,
.
, . ,
,
. (Hewson Bubenik 2006), , ,

svo .
svo
, , . ,
, (. Hewson Bubenik
2006: 345346).26 , , (. , )
() svo () sov .
, ,
,
, .
.

,
(
),

.

. ,
, ,
,
( , , , , )
.
,
XX . .
: ,

,
(1998: 91).
26
60

, . . (.). . . :
, 1963, 287311.
, . .
(.). . . :
, 1963, 287311.
, . . g XVIII
/14 (19491950): 87101.
, . pt gt. p t. g I
II. : , 1998.
, , .
. : , 1965.
, A. M. . (.).
. : , 1958, 246265.
, . . (.). .
. : , 1963, 183223.
, , .
. . I. : , 1984.
, . . (.).
. . :
, 1963, 316368.
, . . t p
t 73 (2008): 7183.
, . .
, (.). gt p . : , 2010a.
, . . :
, 2004.
, . . : ,
1990.
: i . . . . . (.) : , 1908.
, . .
: , 2005.
, . . .
: , 1997.
: . . . :
, 19261928.
, . . (.).
. . :
, 1963, 225261.
: . . . (.).
: , 1950.
, . tt p tp pp pt.
: , 2006.
, . . t
t 37/1 (2007): 211219.
, .
. (.). gtgt p pg . :
, 2006, 946.
, . . . XIII (1956): 3120.
, . gt. :
, 2009.
61
: . . , . , . (.). ( XXI
). : , 1994.
, . . : ,
1977.
, . . : ,
1961.
, . (
. . ). IIV. : , 19861987.
*
Anderson, John. Case Grammar and the Localist Hypothesis. Concepts of Case. Ren Dirven, Gnter
Radden (eds.). Tbingen: Narr, 1987, 103121.
Aitzetmller, Rudolf. Beobachtungen zur syntaktischen Verwendung von Lokativ und Akkusativ
im Altbulgarischen und Serbokroatischen. H. Jaksche (ed.). Monumenta linguae slavicae
dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes XV. Festschrift fr Linda Sadnik zum 70. Geburtstag.
Freiburg: U. W. Weiher, 1981, 1442.
BliovK ikov, Helena. K systmu prostorovch vztah v souasnch slovanskch jazycch.
Slavia 47 (1978): 122142.
Bopp, Franz. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Gothischen und Deutsch. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1833.
Cienki, Alan. 19th and 20th Century Theories of Case: A Comparison of Localist and Cognitive
Approaches. Historiographia Linguistica 22/12 (1995): 123162.
Creissels, Denis. Encoding the Distinction between Location, Source, and Destination: A Typological
Study. Maya Hickmann, Stphane Robert (eds.). Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and
Cognitive Categories. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
2006, 1928.
Creissels, Denis. Spatial Cases. Andrej Malchukov, Andrew Spencer (eds.). The Oxford Handbook
of Case. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 609625.
Fnagy, Ivan. Languages within Language: An Evolutive Approach. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001.
Gebauer, Jan. Historick mluvnice jazyka eskho Dl IV. Skladba. Praha: esk akademie vd a
umn, 1929.
Givn, Talmy. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1995.
Grkovi-Major, Jasmina. The Role of Syntactic Transitivity in the Development of Slavic Syntactic
Structures. Bjrn Hansen, Jasmina Grkovi-Major (eds.). Diachronic Slavonic Syntax. Gradual
Changes in Focus. Wiener slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 74. Mnchen Berlin Wien:
Otto Sagner, 2010b, 6374.
Hewson, John, Vt Bubenk. From Case to Adposition: the Development of Configurational Syntax
in IndoEuropean Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.
Ivi, Milka, Dativus respectivus i sinonimine konstrukcije u slovenskim jezicima. Tadeusz Milewski,
Jan Safarewicz, Franciszek Sawski (red.). Studia Linguistica in Honorem Thaddaei Lehr-Spawiski. Warszawa: Pastwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1963, 99104.
Kopen, Frantiek. Etymologick slovnk slovanskch jazyk. Slova gramatick a zjmena. Sv. 1.
Pedloky, koncov partikule. Praha: eskoslovensk akademie vd, 1973.
Kuryowicz, Jerzy. The Inflectional Categories of IndoEuropean. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1964.
Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago London: The University of Chicago
Press, 1980.
Langacker, Ronald. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics
Club, 1983.
Luraghi, Silvia. The Evolution of Local Cases and Their Grammatical Equivalent in Greek and
Latin. Jhanna Bardal, Shobhana L. Chelliah (ed.). The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and
Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Amsterdam Philadelphia: ohn Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2009, 283305.
Miklosich, Franz. Vergleichende Syntax der slavischen Sprachen. Wien: Wilhelm Braumler, 1883.
Moravcsik, Edith. An Introduction to Syntax: Fundamentals of Syntactic Analysis. London New
York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006.
62
Piper, Predrag. Jezik i prostor. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2001.

Ptz, Martin. Introduction: Language and the Cognitive Construal of Space. Martin Ptz, Ren
Dirven (eds.). The Construal of Space in Language and Thought. Berlin New York: Mouton
de Gruyter, 1996, XIXXIII.
Veerka, Radoslav. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Sintax. II. Die innere Satzstruktur. Freiburg
im Breisgau: UW Weiher, 1993.
Wllner, Franz. Die Bedeutung der sprachlichen Casus und Modi. Mnster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung, 1827.
Wllner, Franz. Ueber Ursprung und Urbedeutung der Sprachlichen Formen. Mnster: Theissingsche
Buchhandlung, 1831.
Zlatev, Jordan. Spatial Semantics. Dirk Geeraerts, Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook
of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 318350.
Slobodan Pavlovi
THE RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE SLAVIC SPATIAL CASE PARADIGM
Summary
This paper discusses the change of the ProtoSlavic unidimensional spatial case system to the
bidimensional spatial case system already attested in the earliest Slavic written monuments. Old
Slavic languages (Old Church Slavonic, Old Serbian, Old Russian and Old Czech) already had a
bidimensional spatial case system that combined position, i.e. orientation parameters ([ contact],
[+ contact]) with direction parameters ([+ locat], [+ ablat], [+ perlat] and [+ adlat]). The orientation
parameters are expressed by prepositions, while the direction parameters are, as a rule, expressed by
caseforms. From the distribution of prepositionless cases in the earliest Slavic written monuments,
one can argue that the late Proto-Slavic spatial case system was organized according to a quadripartite
distinction between location, destination, source and path. This spatial case system was neutral with
respect to the orientation parameters. The development of the bidimensional spatial case system
in Slavic languages is conditioned by the development of configurational syntax which is directly
related to the development of syntactic transitivity.

slobodanpavlovic@sbb.rs
UDC 811.163.136

Milan Mihaljevi
VERBA DICENDI IN CROATIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC*

The semantic frame of verba dicendi includes: the speaker; the addressee; the topic;
the benefactor; the information, and sometimes the instrument. The aim of this paper is to
describe the syntactic realization of these roles in Croatian Church Slavonic. The speaker,
whose referent is typically human, is in active sentences usually realized as a subject in the
nominative case. In passive sentences it is realized as a genitive complement of the preposition
ot from, of, less frequently as a locative complement of the preposition po by, or as the instrumental without preposition. With most of the surveyed verbs the addressee can be expressed
as an indirect object in the dative, with or without the preposition k to. The exception is the
verb prositi beg, request, ask, as well as its derivatives such as vpraati/vprositi ask, question, with which this role is realized either as a direct object in the accusative or as a PP
consisting of u in + accusative, or ot + genitive. The addressee of the verb vzvati call (out)
can be expressed either as a PP consisting of k + dative, or as a direct object in the accusative.
With the verb vzpiti cry out this role can be expressed by k+ dative, as well as by protiv
against + dative. The topic is most often realized as a PP consisting of o about + locative
or ot + genitive. Quite exceptionally, it can be expressed by ob round, about + locative. With
verbs otgovarati, otveati answer, reply and vpraati/vprositi this role can also be realized
as a PP consisting of na on + accusative or k + dative. With the verb vzpiti this role can also
be expressed by nad over + instrumental. The fact that the speech is directed against somebody
is indicated by the PP consisting of na + accusative or protiv(u) + dative. If it is necessary to
stress for whose benefit one speaks, this can be done by a PP consisting of za for + accusative, but with the verb prositi it can also be achieved by an indirect object in the dative. As
expected, the instrument is usually expressed by an NP in the instrumental case, or less frequently by a PP consisting of po + locative. The information, which is typically the complement of the verb of speaking, can be either nominal or clausal in structure. The nominal
complement is either a direct object NP in the accusative or a predication consisting of an
accusative NP (DP) followed by a participial construction which agrees with it in gender,
number and case. Clausal complements can be finite or infinitival. The information can further be presented either as direct or as indirect speech. Therefore the author identifies the
distinguishing features of direct and indirect speech in Croatian Church Slavonic. It is shown
that Croatian Church Slavonic belongs to the languages with a speech report continuum, where
some constructions display features of both direct and indirect speech. Direct and indirect
speech in Croatian Church Slavonic do not differ in their position relative to the reporting
verb. In both cases, the reporting verb may precede or follow the speech report, and in both
cases the speech report may be discontinuous, i.e. parenthesis is possible in both cases.
Keywords: Croatian Church Slavonic language, verbs of speaking, semantic frame,
direct speech, indirect speech.
1. Introduction. The semantic frame of verba dicendi includes: the speaker;

the addressee; the topic (the person or the thing that the speech is about); the
*
Earlier version of this paper was presented as an invited speech at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society SLS 2009 in Zadar.
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 6377.
64
MILAN MIHALJEVI
benefactor (the person for whose benefit, or against whom the speech is aimed);
the information (the content of the speech), and sometimes the instrument. The
aim of this paper is to describe the syntactic realization of these roles in Croatian
Church Slavonic. But, before we begin with this, I will say a few words about
Croatian Church Slavonic for those who are not familiar with it. We are talking
about the language that was used as a literary language (mostly in liturgy) in the
littoral (coastal) part of Croatia from the end of the 11th century until the middle
of the 16th century. The period before that, we call Old Church Slavonic, and the
period after that New Church Slavonic. We are dealing with the language which
was never a spoken language, which means that we cannot rely on the intuition
of native speakers (since there are and never were any), but only on the corpus of
the preserved texts. Among the Slavic medieval cultures the Croatian literary
culture was specific as the only one that has preserved the Glagolitic script. Furthermore, it emerged and developed in the bosom of the Western (Roman)
Church. The last fact is particularly important for its syntax, since in syntax we
encounter a more complicated situation than in phonology and morphology. In
addition to the changes in comparison with classical Old Church Slavonic and the
influence of the Croatian (mostly akavian) vernacular, a further factor to be
considered is the influence of other languages from which Croatian glagolites
translated their texts. The most important language is of course Latin, to a much
lesser degree Greek and Italian and in some cases Czech. Readers, who have any
knowledge of Latin, will instantly recognize Latin influence in what follows.1
The base for my research was the corpus compiled for the Dictionary of the
Croatian Redaction of Church Slavonic in Staroslavenski institut in Zagreb. I
have examined the following verbs: dti, glagolati, govoriti, kazati, moliti, otgovarati, otvati, povdati, povelti, praviti, prositi, rei, skazati, svdtelstvovati,
svdokovati, velti, vpraati, vzglagolati, vzvstiti, vzpiti, vzvati, zapovdati. It
should be pointed out that, contrary to modern Croatian, the verb kazati doesnt
belong to the class of verbs of speaking in CCS, since it does not mean anything
like speak, tell, talk, etc., but only show (or point).
2. The speaker. The speaker, whose referent is typically human, is in active
sentences usually realized as a subject in the nominative case. In passive sentences it is realized as a genitive complement of the preposition ot from, of
(1) ee
ot
an(e)la prde zaharii
b()e vzveno
what from angel
before ZachariasDAT was proclaimed
lat. quod ab angelo ante Zacharie ruerat pronunciatum.
What was before proclaimed to Zacharias by angel
less frequently as a locative complement of the preposition po by

(2) po
an(e)lh vzven
by
angelsLOC announced
lat. per angelos indicat
Announced by angels
1
More about Croatian Church Slavonic see in Mihaljevi R einhart 2005.
VERBA DICENDI IN CROATIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC
65
or as the instrumental without preposition.

(3) vzveno
bis a(n)(e)l(o)m gabrielom
marii
dvici o
announced was angelINST
GabrielINST
MaryDAT virgin DAT about
vsti
c(sa)ra
entrance
kingGEN
lat. Anuntiatum est per Gabriel archangelum ad Mariam virginem de introitum regis.
It was announced to Virgin Mary by the angel Gabriel about the entrance of the king
(The entrance of the king was announced to Virgin Mary by the angel Gabriel)
There is a certain semantic difference between (1) on the one hand and (2) and (3)
on the other. The genitive NP which is a complement of the preposition ot in (1)
can only be interpreted as an agent (primary causer), while the locative and instrumental NPs in (2) and (3) can also be interpreted as a kind of instrument, i.e.
as a secondary causer. In other words, in both cases the translation announced
through is possible. In active sentences,2 there is no such ambiguity. Locative
and instrumental NPs can only be interpreted as instruments (secondary causers),
or as a manner adverbials.3
3. The addressee. With most of the examined verbs the addressee can be expressed as an indirect object in the dative, with or without the preposition k to:
(4) i
dih
k an(e)lu hotel bim
viditi due
grinih
and sayAOR1SG to angelDAT wanted beCOND.1SG seeINF soulsACC sinningGEN.PL
And I said to the angel: I would like to see the souls of the sinners.
(5) ena
e vzbo
se
povedati sie muu
svoemu
woman but fearAOR.3SG self relate
this husbandDAT poss.reflDAT
lat. Ipsa autem viro suo visionem indicare timuit.
But the woman become frightened to tell this to her husband.
The exception is the verb prositi beg, request, ask, as well as its derivatives such
as vpraati/vprositi ask, question, with which this role is realized either as a
direct object in the accusative or as a PP consisting of u in + accusative, or ot +
genitive.
(6) a. i
potom prosih
an(e)la da
mi pokae
rai
and after that begAOR.1SG angelACC that me showPRES..3SG paradise
And after that I begged the angel to show me paradise
b. prosie u pilata
da
ubit
i
ask AOR.3PL in PilateACC that killPRES.3SG him
lat. petierunt a Pilato: ut interficerent eum A 13, 28
They asked Pilate to have him executed.
2
3
I.e. with the nominative subject that must be interpreted as an agent.

Cf. the examples (19) and (20) below.
66
MILAN MIHALJEVI
c. eso
prosii
ot
cr()kve h(rsto)ve
whatGEN ask PRES.2SG from church Christs
lat. Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?
What do you ask of the Church of God?
The addressee of the verb vzvati call (out) can be expressed either as a PP consisting of k + dative, or as a direct object in the accusative.
(7) a. vzovet
k mn i
az usliu
i
to
me and I
hearPRES.1SG him
callPRES.3SG
lat. Invocabit me, et ego exaudiam eum Ps 90, 15
He shall call upon me, and I will answer him.
b. vzovei
me i
az otvea
t(e)b
answerPRES.1SG theeDAT
callPRES.2SG me and I
lat. Vocabis me, et ego respondebo tibi Job 14, 15
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee.
In the first example God is the addressee and in the second example it is the man,
i.e. God calls the man (Job). Indeed, in all examples in the corpus (= 4) with k +
dative, God is the addressee, while in cases with the accusative the addressee can
be either inferior or superior to the caller, i.e. it can also be God, as shown by the
example (8).
(8) v peali
moei vazvah g(ospod)a i uslia
me v prostranstv
in distressLOC myLOC callAOR.1SG Lord ACC and hearAOR.3SG me in wide space
lat. In tribulatione invocavi Dominum, et exaudivit me in latitudine.
In my distress I called upon the Lord, and he answered me in a wide space.
Therefore, we can conclude that the accusative object is an unmarked, and k +

dative is a marked option here. With the verb vzpiti cry out the addressee can
be expressed by k+ dative, as well as by proti(v) against + dative.
(9) a. i
vzapi
k stoeim
v pakli
and cryAOR.3SG to standingDAT.PL in hell
gr.
And he cried out to those standing in hell.
b. zato
ti
isti an(e)li naivee vzapit na (lov)ki proti b(og)u
therefore those same angels mostly cryPRES.3PL on men ACC against GodDAT
Mostly for this reason those angels cry out to God against men
Interesting in the last example is the fact that the preposition na on means against
(which is, as we shall see, usual), while the preposition proti against means to.
4. The topic of the speech. The topic is most often realized as a PP consisting
of o about + locative or ot + genitive.
67
(10) a. naet i(su)s g(lago)lati k narodom o

iv(a)n
began Jesus speak
to people
about John
lat. cepit Jesus dicere ad turbas de Johanne Mt 11, 7
Jesus began to speak to the people about John.
b. se li e(st) bratr v(a) mani ot negoe povidiste mn
this Q is
brother your younger of whom tellAOR.2PL me
lat. Iste est frater vester parvulus, de quo dixeratis mihi? Gn 43, 29
Is this your youngest brother, of whom you told me?
The latter is a loan translation for Latin de + genitive. It should be mentioned that
the examples of this construction in CCS texts are less common than in the texts
written in Old Croatian.4 Quite exceptionally, the topic can be expressed by ob
round, about + locative, for example:
(11) kako nam pravi
ob
tom edan notar komu est ime lav.
as
us
doPRES.3SG about itLOC one notary whoDAT is name Leo
As one notary whose name is Leo tells us.
With verbs otgovarati, otveati answer, reply and vpraati/vprositi this role can
also be realized as a PP consisting of na on + accusative or k + dative:
(12) a. vpraaei
ego na zdravie
askingNOM.SG.M him on health ACC
lat. Qui enim dicit illi Ave 2J 11
anyone who asks him about (his) health (anyone who gives him a greeting)
b. ne otgov(a)raei li nie na ona ka tebi obmiut se ot sh
not answerPRES.2SG Q nothing on those which youDAT impute self from these
lat. Non respondes quidquam ad ea quae tibi obiiciuntur ab his? Mc 14, 60
Have you no answer to the charges that these witnesses bring against you?
c. niesoe otveaei
k sim e
si
na te svdtelstvut
nothing answerPRES.2SG to these which theseNOM on you testifyPRES.3PL
lat. Nihil respondes ad ea que isti adversum te testificantur. Mt 26, 62
Have you no answer to the charge that these witnesses bring against you?
I have also noted one example of the verb skazati tell (at length) with po + locative:
(13) oito
skazati im
po vsem
razumno
obviously tell
havePRES.1SG by everythingLOC reasonably
Obviously, I have to tell (about) everything reasonably.
With the verb vzpiti this role can also be expressed by nad over + instrumental:
4
Cf. Hudeek 2001, 2003.
68
MILAN MIHALJEVI
(14) vzvapie vinograane nad penice i

ozimcem.
and barley
cryAOR.3PL vinedressers over wheat
lat. ululaverunt vintores super frumento, et hordeo Jl 1, 11
you vinedressers, lament, because the wheat and the barley
5. The benefactor. The fact that the speech is directed against somebody is
indicated by the PP consisting of na + accusative or protiv(u) + dative.
(15) a. ko mi sliahom ego g(lago)la
slovesa hulna
that we hearIMPF.1PL him speakingACC.SG words blasphemousACC.PL
na mos i
na b(og)a
on Moses and on God
lat. se audivisse eum dicentem verba blasphemiae in Moysen, et in Deum. A 6, 11
gr. .
We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God
b. Kto protivu mn g(lago)let
who against me
speak PRES.3SG
lat. Quis contradicet mihi? Is 50, 8
Who dare argue against me?
In one example with the verb govoriti this is indicated by suprotiv + dative:
(16) i
ne smih
suprotiv nim govoriti
and not dareAOR.1SG against them speak
And I didnt dare speak against them.
If it is necessary to stress for whose benefit one speaks, this can be done by a PP
consisting of za for + accusative,
(17) moli za ldi
m(o)li za redovniki prosi za bogolbni enski spol
pray for people pray for monks
beg for God-loving female sex
lat. Ora pro populo, interveni pro clero, intercede pro devoto femineo sexu.
Pray for the people, pray for the monks, beg for the pious female sex.
but with the verb prositi it can also be achieved by an indirect object in the dative:
(18) prosi teb zn(a)m(e)ni ot
g(ospod)a b(og)a tvoego
from Lord
God yourGEN.SG
ask youDAT sign
lat. Pete tibi signum a Domino Deo tuo Is 7, 11
Ask the Lord your God for a sign.
6. The instrument. As expected, the instrument is usually expressed by an

NP in the instrumental case:
(19) g(lago)la
g(ospod) ruko
anea pr(o)r(o)ka
handINSTR.SG Haggai prophetGEN.SG
speak AOR.3SG Lord
lat. factum est verbum Domini in manu Aggaei prophetae Agg 2, 1
These words came from the Lord through the prophet Haggai.
69
or less frequently by a PP consisting of po + locative:

(20) ki govoril e(st) po pr(oro)cih
who spoken is
by prophetLOC.PL
lat. qui locutus est per Prophetas Credo
Who spoke by the Prophets.
7. The information (the content of the speech). The information, which is

typically the complement of the verb of speaking, is syntactically the most interesting part of the frame. It can be either nominal or clausal in structure. The
nominal complement is either a direct object NP in the accusative
(21) i
imeni tvoemu psan
reku
and name yourDAT.SG songACC.SG sayPRES.1SG
lat. et nomini tuo psalmum dicam. Ps 17, 4850
I will and sing psalms to thy name.
or a predication (small clause) consisting of an accusative NP (DP) followed by a

participial construction which agrees with it in gender, number and case:
(22) a. ko sego c(sa)rstvua dem
that this rulingACC.SG
doPRES.1PL
lat. ut hunc ubique regnare fateamur.
that we call this one the ruler
b. Kogo i
g(lago)lt (lov)ci sua?
WhoACC him sayPRES.3PL menNOM beingACC.SG
lat. quemnam eum dicerent homines esse?
Who do men say that he is?
If we assume, following Mark Baker (2008), that agreement can be upward as well
as downward, we can represent the relevant part of the underlying structure of
these examples as:
(23)
V
|
dem

VP
PredP
DP
|
segoACC.SG.M
Pred
Pred
|

FAP
FA
|
[ACC.SG.M]
AP
|
c(sa)rstvua
Clausal complements can be finite or infinitival. The first group consists of clauses
introduced by complementizers ko ([jako]), da, ae/ako, as well as different kinds
of wh-interrogatives.
70
MILAN MIHALJEVI
(24) a. vi
g(lago)lete ko az esm
youNOM.PL sayPRES.2PL that I
am
lat. Vos dicitis, quia ego sum. L 22, 70
You say that I am.
b. zapov()da
ti
da piei
grhi (lov)skie
commandPRES.1SG youDAT.SG that writePRES.2SG sins human ACC.PL
gr.
I command you to write human sins.
c. da reei
nam ae ti esi h(rst) s(i)n b(og)a
ivago
that tellPRES.2SG us if you are Christ son GodGEN.SG livingGEN.SG
lat. ut dicas nobis si tu es Christus filius dei. Mt 26, 63
to tell us whether you are the Christ, the son of God.
The second group consists of four types: 1. infinitives without overt subjects,
(25) a. rh
shraniti zakon tvoi
sayAOR.1SG keep
law
yourACC.SG
lat. dixi, custodire legem tuam. Ps 118, 57
I have promised to keep thy word.
b. markin
e paki pov(e)l
urzati saski ee
Martinianus and again orderAOR.3SG cut off breast sheGEN.SG
And Martinianus ordered again to cut off her breast.
The example (25a) is an instance of the so-called control structure in which the
empty subject of the infinitive, traditionally big PRO, is coreferential with the
main subject, while the example (25b) is an instance of free infinitives, i.e. its
subject does not have to be coreferential with any NP in the main clause. The difference between them is shown in (26a) and (26b) respectively.
(26) a. proi rh [ proi shraniti zakon tvoi]
b. markini e paki pov(e)l [ proj urzati saski ee]
2. infinitives with accusative subjects (Accusativus cum Infinitivo = AcI), traditionally called ECM structures:
(27) I skua
bo g(ospod) ot pars ie
gl(agola)e
and excuseAOR.3SG thus her Lord
from Pharisees whoNOM.PL.M sayAOR.3PL
biti neistu
her be unclean ACC.SG.F
lat. Nam excusavit eam apud Pharisaeum, qui dicebat ipsam immundam.
And thus the Lord discharged (excused) her before the Pharisees who accused her
to be unclean.
3. infinitives with dative subjects (Dativus cum Infinitivo = DcI). and 4. infinitives with nominative subjects (with reflexive verbs, i.e. in se-passives). There are
71
two types of constructions Dativus cum Infinitivo. The first are the so-called
control structures in which the dative NP is an indirect object of the verb of
speaking and controls the subject of the infinitive. In other words, it has the role
of the addressee assigned to it by the verb of speaking, and the role of the agent
assigned by the infinitive.
(28) a. da povelita
ldem prvu
pasku
stvoriti
that orderPRES.2DU men DAT firstACC.SG.F PassoverACC.SG make
that you order (to) the men to prepare the first Passover
b. reci
mi ti
enu
i decu i blago
moe
ostaviti
tellIMP.2SG me youNOM.SG wifeACC.SG and kidsACC and treasureACC.SG myACC.SG.N leave
You tell me to leave (my) wife and kids and my treasure.
For them we assume the following underlying structure:

(29) [CP da proi [VP povelita ldemj [?P proj [VP stvoriti prvu pasku]]]]
The second are the structures in which the dative NP is only a subject of the infinitive
and does not have the role of the addressee assigned to it from the main verb, but
only the role of the agent of the infinitive:
(30) B(og) e e prde ree
usti
vsh
pr(o)r(o)k
God
but what before sayAOR.3SG mouthINSTR allGEN.PL prophetGEN.PL
postradati h(rst)u
svoemu
i
isplni
tako
suffer
ChristDAT possREFL.DAT.SG and fulfillAOR.3SG so
lat. Deus autem qui praenunciavit per os omnium prophetarum, pati Christum suum
implevit sic. A 3, 18
but this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold in the utterances of all the
prophets: that his Messiah should suffer.
(King James: But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all
his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.)
For them we assume the following structure

(31) Bog [VP [V ree [?P h(rst)u svoemu postradati]]]
4. infinitives with nominative subjects (with reflexive verbs, i.e. in se-passives).

(32) c(sa)rstvo
n(e)b(e)sko
v istinu (lov)ku domovitu
kingdomNOM.SG HeavensNOM.SG.N in truth man DAT householderDAT
podobno
biti pravit
se
similarNOM.SG.N be doPRES.3SG self
lat. Regnum caelorum homini patrifamilias simile dicitur
The kingdom of Heaven is truly said to be like a landowner (a man that is an householder)
72
MILAN MIHALJEVI
The category status of the infinitive phrases, which I have, in (29) and (31), marked
with question marks, is an interesting question. A deeper analysis of this problem
would require a special study. Here, I will drop only few hints. Several facts indicate that infinitives are not CPs. First, it seems that the infinitival complement
cannot be interrogative, while direct questions are allowed, as shown by (22b).
Second, infinitival clauses do not constitute domains for enclitic placement, since
the enclitics from the infinitival clauses can be located in the second position in the
matrix clause, as shown by (22b) and (33) (which is the variant of (27)):
(33) ki

govorae biti neistu
whoNOM.PL.M her sayAOR.3PL be unclean ACC.SG.F
lat. qui dicebat ipsam immundam
who accused her of being unclean.
On the other hand, infinitives can assign to their external argument a theta-role
which is independent of the main verb. This suggests that they must have the
projection of the light verb, which projects a specifier. Therefore, they must at least
be vPs (or predications depending on the theory). More difficult is the question
whether infinitival structures are TPs or something else between TP and vP, which
I cannot discuss here.
The information can further be presented either as direct or as indirect
speech. In written texts, which have no orthographic means for marking direct
speech, in many instances it is not easy to determine whether we are dealing with
direct or indirect speech, and sometimes it is almost impossible. The distinguishing features of direct and indirect speech in Croatian Church Slavonic are the
following: (i) indirect speech is typically a clause, while direct speech may be
less than a clause,
(34) eni
e divie
se i
vzpie prd sudiem
women and amazeAOR.3PL self and cryAOR.3PL before court
[stoee] zl
sud
nepravdn sud
standing bad
verdict unjust
verdict
And the women were amazed and, standing in front of the court, cried out: Bad
verdict! Unjust verdict!
or may consist of several sentences:

(35) vzpi
e gorko ne nudi
mene strannice
ne nudi
cryAOR.3SG and bitterly not forceIMP.2SG me foreignerGEN.SG not forceIMP.2SG
mene rabi
b(o)ie
me
servant-girlGEN.SG GodsGEN.SG.F
And she cried out bitterly: Do not force me, a foreign woman. Do not force me, a
Gods servant.
(ii) as in all other languages, person shift is the most prominent feature for distinguishing direct and indirect speech; (iii) indirect speech can be marked with a
special verb form. The use of conditional, as well as infinitive and participial con-
73
structions, usually implies indirect speech. (iv) the occurrence of imperative and
vocative is restricted to direct speech:
(36) a. az teb
vel
izidi
i
nego
I youDAT.SG sayPRES.1SG come-outIMP.2SG from him
lat. ego tibi praecipio, exi ab eo Mc 9, 25
I command you, come out of him.
b. i oe
pravi
pr(o)r(o)k g(ospod)u sedam krat
and additionally makeAOR.3SG prophetNOM.SG LordDAT seven times
na d()n hv(a)lih
te g(ospod)i
in day
praiseAOR.1SG you LordVOC
lat. ut ait propheta: Septem in die laudem dixi tibi.
And additionally, the prophet spoke to the Lord: Seven times a day I praise thee.
(v) questions introduced by hypothetical complementizers ae and ako may occur

only in indirect speech.
(37) vprosi
ae (lov)k galilnin est
var. uprosi
ako (lov)k galili
bil bi
ask AOR.3SG if
man
Galilean
is/beCOND.3SG
lat. interrogavit si homo Galileus esset. L 23, 6
He asked if the man was a Galilean.
On the other hand, wh-questions can be used both in direct and indirect speech. In
this case other factors, such as the shift in personal deixis, the use of indicative or
conditional etc., determine whether we are dealing with direct or indirect speech.
(38) a. i
paki ih
vprosi
koga iete
and again them ask AOR.3SG whom seek PRES.2PL
lat. Iterum interrogavit eos: Quem quaeritis? J 18, 7
Again Jesus asked: Who is it you want?
b. i
vprosi
i
to hotl bi
and ask AOR.3SG him what willCOND.3SG
lat. interrogavit illum, dicens: Quid tibi vis faciam? L 18, 4041
He asked him: What do you want me to do for you?
In the example (38b) the shift in personal deixis and the use of the conditional show
indirect speech, although the parallel Latin text is in direct speech. In contrast to
this, in the example (38a) the use of the indicative and the lack of the person shift
show direct speech, as in Latin.
The complementizers ko and da may also be used in both direct and indirect speech.
(39) a. rekl bim
vam
ko idu
ugotovati msto vam
told
beCOND.1SG youDAT.PL that goPRES.1SG prepare place youDAT.PL
lat. dixissem vobis: Quia vado parare vobis locum. J 14, 2
I should have told you: I am going to prepare a place for you.
74
MILAN MIHALJEVI
b. i
ae reet
vama
kto
to
rcta ko g(ospod)
and if sayPRES.3SG youDAT.PL whoNOM whatACC sayIMP.2PL that LordNOM
trbuet e
needs theyGEN.DU
lat. et si quis vobis aliquid dixerit, dicite, quia Dominus his opus habet. Mt 21, 3
And if any man say ought unto you, you shall say: The Lord had need of them.
(40) a. o d(u)e
okanna
k(a)ko to gov(o)rii da ne sagrih
Oh soulVOC.SG sinfulVOC.SG.F how it sayPRES.2SG that not sin AOR.1SG
Oh you sinful soul, why do you say: I havent sin.
b. govoru
t(e)bi
da poimu
te
za enu
i
speak PRES.1SG youDAT.SG that takePRES.1SG you ACC.SG for wifeACC.SG and
bude
t(e)bi
k(a)ko i
mani
beFUT.3SG youDAT.SG like and meDAT
lat. tibi dico quia accipiam te mihi in conjugium et bene tibi erit sicut et mihi.
I am telling you that I shall take you in marriage and it will be to you as good as it
is to me.
This suggests the existence of speech report continuum in Croatian Church Slavonic, where some constructions display features of both direct and indirect speech;
(vi) a reporting marker can be a combination of any verb of speaking with the verb
rei or glagolati. In that case the speech report is always direct speech:
(41) i
uprosi
ego reki
to
esi
slial.
and ask AOR.3SG him saying whatACC are2SG heard
Et interrogavit eum: Quis est sermo? 1Rg 3, 17
And he said: What is the thing?
Direct and indirect speech, in Croatian Church Slavonic, do not differ in

their position relative to the reporting verb. In both cases, the reporting verb may
precede or follow the speech report,
(42) a. oskudniem da oskudet s
lica
z(e)mli
g(lago)let g(ospod)
ruinINSTR.SG that ruin PRES.3SG from faceGEN.SG earthGEN.SG sayPRES.3SG LordNOM
lat. Congregans congregabo omnia a facie terrae, dicit Dominus. So 1, 2
I will utterly consume all things from off the land, said the Lord.
b. nam o(t)e
poim
bliz budi
prosim
usDAT fatherVOC.SG singingDAT.PL close beIMP.2SG begPRES.1PL
lat. nobis, Pater, canentibus adesse Te deposcimus.
Father, be at hand to us who are singing, we beg you.
c. ot
koga
roda
esi vzvsti
mn
from whichGEN.SG.M birthGEN.SG areSG informIMP.2SG meDAT
lat. Ex quo genere es tu, enarra mihi.
Tell me your birth.
75
In both cases the speech report may be discontinuous. In other words, parenthesis,
although extremely rare, is possible in both cases.
(43) a. Vzbudi
prosim g(ospod)i sr(d)ca n(a)a
arouseIMP.2SG begPRES.1PL LordVOC heartACC.PL ourACC.N
lat. Excita, Domine, corda nostra.
O Lord, we beg you to arouse our hearts.
b.
osip
k(a)ko govoret zvirem
iziden
bi
Joseph as
sayPRES.3PL beastINST.SG eatenNOM.SG.M beAOR.3SG
lat. Joseph pulcherimus a fera, ut ajunt, interfectus est.
Joseph, as they say, was devoured by a beast.
Only in examples where the reporting marker is a combination of two verbs of

speaking, the second being rei or glagolati, the speech report must always follow
the reporting verb.5
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Direct and indirect speech in typological perspective. Position paper for RCLT
Local Workshop, February 2005 onwards.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. Semi-direct speech: Manambu and beyond. Language Sciences 30 (2008): 383422.
Baker, M. C. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Beneov, V., O. Bojar. Czech Verbs of Communication and the Extraction of their Frames. In: Text,
Speech and Dialogue. Berlin: Springer, 2006, 2936.
Bible The New English Bible: with the Apocrypha. Oxford Cambridge: Penguin Books, Oxford
University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Clark, H. H., R. J. Gerrig. Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66 (1990): 764805.
Clarke, J. E. M. Speech Report Constructions in Russian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 52 (2005):
367381.
Fortmann, C. On Parentheticals (in German). In: M. Butt, T. Holloway King (eds.). Proceedings of
the LFG05 Conference. Bergen, 2005. <http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/>
Fortmann, C. The Complement of verba dicendi Parentheticals. In: M. Butt, T. Holloway King (eds.).
Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference. Konstanz, 2006 <h ttp://csli-publications.stanford.edu/>
Gjurkova, A., M. Mihaljevi. Upravni i neupravni govor u hrvatskoj i makedonskoj redakciji crkve
noslavenskoga jezika. M. Jei, M. Jauk-Pinhak (eds.). Zbornik u ast Radoslavu Katiiu
povodom 80 godina ivota. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, 2011 (to appear).
Hudeek, L. Glagoli govorenja i miljenja u hrvatskome akavskom knjievnom jeziku do 17. sto
ljea strani sintaktiki utjecaji. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 27 (2001):
95112.
Hudeek, L. Dopune glagolima govorenja, miljenja i srodnih znaenja u hrvatskome knjievnom
jeziku od 17. do polovice 19. stoljea strani sintaktiki utjecaji. Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski
jezik i jezikoslovlje 29 (2003): 103129.
Lysaght, T. A. Material towards the Compilation of a Concise Old Church Slavonic English Dictionary. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1978.
Mihaljevi, M., J. R einhart. The Croatian Redaction. Language and Literature. Incontri linguistici
28 (2005): 3182.
Pranjkovi, I. Glagoli govorenja i njihove dopune. Zbornik Matice srpske za slavistiku 7172 (2007):
133141.
5
More about direct and indirect speech in Church Slavonic see in Gjurkova Mihaljevi (to
appear).
76
MILAN MIHALJEVI
Tuman Vukovi, N. Glagoli govorenja u engleskome i hrvatskome jeziku: sintaktiko-semantika

analiza. doktorska disertacija. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, 2007.
Vince, J. Obiljeeni upravni i neupravni govor. Rije 8 (2002): 118123.
Zwicky, A. M. In a Manner of Speaking. Linguistic Inquiry 2 (1971): 223232.
Milan Mihaljevi
GLAGOLI GOVORENJA U HRVATSKOME CRKVENOSLAVENSKOM JEZIKU
Saetak
Semantiki okvir glagola govorenja ukljuuje: govornika, primatelja (adresata), temu (osobu
ili stvar o kojoj se govori), uitnika (benefaktora, tj. osobu u iju je korist ili protiv koje je govor
usmjeren), obavijest (sadraj govora) te katkad i sredstvo. U lanku se opisuju sintaktika sredstva
kojima se te uloge ostvaruju u hrvatskome crkvenoslavenskom jeziku. Uloga govornika koja obino
oznauje ljudsko bie u aktivnim se reenicama ostvaruje kao subjekt u nominativu. U pasivnim re
enicama izrie se genitivom s prijedlogom ot, rjee lokativom s prijedlogom po ili besprijedlonim
instrumentalom. Primatelj se uz veinu istraivanih glagola ostvaruje kao neizravni objekt u dativu,
sa ili bez prijedloga k. Izuzetak je glagol prositi i njegove izvedenice kao to su vpraati/vprositi s
kojima se ta uloga izrie ili izravnim objektom u akuzativu ili prijedlonom skupinom koja se sastoji
od prijedloga u i akuzativa ili od prijedloga ot i genitiva. Primatelj glagola vzvati moe biti ostvaren
ili s pomou prijedlone skupine k + dativ ili kao izravni objekt u akuzativu. Uz glagol vzpiti ta se
uloga izrie prijedlonom skupinom k + dativ ili protiv + dativ. Tema se najee izrie prijedlogom
o i lokativom ili prijedlogom ot i genitivom. Posljednja je prijedlona skupina kalk prema latinskome
de + genitiv. Sasvim iznimno ta se uloga moe izraziti i prijedlogom ob i lokativom, primjerice: kako
nam pravi ob tom edan notar komu est ime lav (C g 79rv). Uz glagole otgovarati, otveati i
vpraati/vprositi ona se moe izraziti i s pomou prijedlone skupine na + akuzativ ili k + dativ:
vpraaei ego na zdravie (Br VO 295b), ne otgov(a)raei li nie na ona ka tebi obmiut se ot sh
(C Par 250r), niesoe otveaei k sim e si na te svdtelstvut (M Vat4 75ab), ni sm kto ot dne
togo vpraati ego k tomu (M Ro 122b). Pronaao sam i jedan primjer s glagolom skazati u kojemu
se ta uloga izrie s pomou po + lokativ: oito skazati im po vsem razumno (C Pet 140r). Uz glagol vzpiti ona se moe izraziti i s pomou nad + instrumental: vzvapie vinograane nad penice
i ozimcem (Br Vat5 234d). injenica da je govor uperen protiv koga obino se izraava prijedlonom
skupinom na + akuzativ ili protiv(u) + dativ. U jednom primjeru s glagolom govoriti izraena je pri
jedlogom suprotiv i dativom: i ne smih suprotiv nim govoriti (C Oxf 23b). Ako je potrebno naglasiti
komu se u korist govori, to se moe uiniti s pomou prijedlone skupine za + akuzativ, a uz glagol
prositi i neizravnim objektom u dativu: prosi teb zn(a)m(e)ni ot g(ospod)a b(og)a tvoego (M Vat4 3d).
Prema oekivanju, sredstvo je najee izraeno imenskom skupinom u instrumentalu: g(lago)la
g(ospod) ruko anea pr(o)r(o)ka (Br VO 459c) ili, rjee, prijedlonom skupinom po + lokativ: ki
govoril e(st) po pr(oro)cih (C Par 138v). Obavijest, koja je obino dopuna glagola govorenja, sintaktiki je najzanimljiviji dio okvira. Ona moe biti strukturirana ili kao imenska skupina ili kao
reenica. Imenska je dopuna ili izravni objekt u akuzativu ili predikacija koja se sastoji od imenske
skupine u akuzativu iza koje slijedi participska konstrukcija ija se glava s njome slae u rodu, broju i
padeu: ko sego c(sa)rstvua dem (Br VO 74d), kogo i g(lago)lt (lov)ci sua (Br Pm 232b).
Reenine dopune mogu biti finitne ili infinitivne. U prvoj su skupini reenice uvedene dopunjaima
ko ([jako]), da, ae/ako kao i razliite vrste pronominalnih pitanja. Drugu skupinu ine: 1. infinitivi
bez glasovno ostvarenoga subjekta, 2. infinitivi iji je subjekt u akuzativu, 3.infinitivi sa subjektom
u dativu i 4. infinitivi sa subjektom u nominativu (uz povratne glagole u tzv. se-pasivima). Postoje
dvije vrste dativa s infinitivom. Prva su tzv. nadzorne (kontrolne) strukture u kojima je dativna
imenska skupina neizravni objekt glagola govorenja (primatelj) i nadzire subjekt infinitiva: da povelita ldem prvu pasku stvoriti (Br VO 194d), reci mi ti enu i decu i blago moe ostaviti (C g 104r),
a drugu ine strukture u kojima je dativna imenska skupina samo subjekt infinitiva: B(og) e e
prde ree usti vsh pr(o)r(o)k postradati h(rst)u svoemu i isplni tako (MVat4 113d). Obavijest, nadalje, moe biti izraena u obliku upravnoga ili neupravnoga govora. U pisanim tekstovima
u kojima te dvije vrste govora nisu pravopisno razgraniene nije lako odrediti je li rije o upravnom
77
ili neupravnom govoru, a katkad je to gotovo i nemogue. Razlikovna su obiljeja upravnoga i ne

upravnoga govora u hrvatskome crkvenoslavenskom jeziku sljedea: (i) neupravni je govor obino
jedna reenica, dok upravni moe biti i konstituent manji od reenice, ali se moe sastojati i od vie
reenica; (ii) kao i u svim ostalim jezicima, prilagodba lica trenutnomu govorniku najvanije je
obiljeje kojim se razlikuje neupravni od upravnoga govora; (iii) neupravni govor moe biti oznaen
posebnim glagolskim oblicima (kondicional, infinitiv, participske konstrukcije); (iv) imperativi i
vokativi obino su znak upravnoga govora; (v) neizravna pitanja uvedena pogodbenim dopunjaima
ae i ako pojavljuju se samo u neupravnom govoru. Nasuprot tome, dopunjai ko i da mogu se po
javiti i u upravnom i u neupravnom govoru. To pokazuje da tipoloki hrvatski crkvenoslavenski jezik
pripada skupini jezika u kojima pri prijenosu tuega govora postoji kontinuum i da neke konstrukcije
imaju obiljeja svojstvena i upravnomu i neupravnomu govoru. (vi) Uvod moe biti kombinacija bilo
kojega glagola govorenja i glagola rei ili glagolati. U tom je sluaju navod uvijek upravni govor:
i uprosi ego reki to esi slial (Br VO 314d). Upravni i neupravni govor ne razlikuju se u hrvatskome crkvenoslavenskom poloajem u odnosu na uvodni glagol (glagol govorenja). U oba sluaja uvodni
glagol moe biti ispred ili iza navoda i u oba sluaju navod moe biti diskontinuiran, tj. parenteza je
mogua i u upravnom i u neupravnom govoru. Jedino u primjerima iz toke (vi) navod mora uvijek
biti iza uvodnoga glagola.
Staroslavenski institut
Zagreb
mihalj@stin.hr
UDC 811.163.1373.46
091=163.115

,
*
, ( XVI , 204 )
, - -, ,
.
: , , , , , .
1. . 1
, 1952.
( 1952).
,2 3
.4

(- 2007: 450451),
.5
(- 2007: 231) ,
* t pg ,
, 178001.
p t XXIII,
10 (2010): 415422, .
1
.
2
1980. . ( 1980), 1989.
( 1989). XVI (
, 2010) ( XIII
XV ) , , - ,
XIII XIV ( 1989: XXXVI).
. 2005.
3
. , ,
- ( 1998: 8889), ( 2004), 2005: 54.
4
, :
1987, 1989, 2006
.
5
, .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 7986.
80
,
( 1959: 88).
2. .
-,
(sopMki 4/18, skva[a}ki 155/15, trxki 165/19, EdMki 166/19, wmakM}ki 37/12,
stal]}ki 170/12, o;i{M}ki 170/12).
- (hote 137/3).
() , (smrxdy{x 98/12, smrxde{e 66/14,
smrxde{a 177/3, smrxde{Ji/m/ 63a/8, hode{M 64a/20).
(, , .
2.1., 2.2., 2.3.) (, ,
. 2.4., 2.5.).
2.1. , .
( , - 2007: 233),
t,
:
(1) wpote se smrxde{Ji/m/ wpokEnJe/m/ 63a/7-8, sxtvaraet se sJa ista bolestx w/t/ zlaa ]stJa
i smrxdek] 66/910.
,
,
(- 2007: 236), :
(2) i tako//d/e ho{e[i vidyti zvyrq divJ} hode{M pry/d/ l}dmJi 64a/1920.
2.2. t, t, t, :
(3) nJihx gnoi bMdy von}kx 63a/2-3, voda [] bMdetx [] smrxde{a 177/23, i vi/d/i[x
da E/st/ wnai gnoi smrxdy{x i wstrx 98/1112, togai ra/dJ/ glEt se onai \ila dva{i
Mdara}ki6 i tolikoi ]ko bXe, kako ne mo\e/t/ Mdariti Ed`nx kra/t/ liho dvakratx
137a/16.
2.3. ,
(- 2007: 232233).
- -t,
:

.
6
( 1968: 210211).

- ,
( 1957: 242245, 375377).
, ...
81
(4) i jg/d/a se my[a gnilostx ko] E sxtvorena w/t/ gnilyhx ve{i, e/e ]stx ;lv#kx von}kE i
smrxde{e 66/1214.
: - ( 1999: 375376) - ( 1968: 210211;

1957: 242245, 375377),
.
2.4. () , (-).
, .
( 1973: 195196).7
( , , , ), .
,
( 1959: 101):
(5) tri ezXkx onw/m/ krxpicw/m/ M kowoi e syme, skva[a}ki ;esto M vody 155a/14 15, ma/i
stomahx ego trxki mo{no 165/19,8 i wmakM}ki perw stavi M o;Ji 37a/12.9
, :
(6) pone///e trMdetx se dytca ;esto sopMki 4/18.10
:
(7) i mesw ihx slano EdMki, mnogo w;isti tylw w/t/ otrovX. 166/1819.11
2.5. ( ,
- 2007: 240241), ,
( 1973: 192; Brozovi Ivi 1988: 38; 1957:
375377):
(8) mazav[i nimx dobro E/st/ w/t/ v`sake bolesti [] i svakE stary rany, ili /iviny,
rastopiv[I ga sx voskomx stal]}ki MnMtra. i o;i{M}ki ranM ili /ivinM 170a/412;12
(Ivi 1983: 156).
trxki tt,
t, .
9

(Ivi 1983: 165).
10
,
. (Ivi 1983: 170
171).
11

, , ,
(Ivi 1983: 172173).
12
, . 1973: 196.
7
8
82
/ivwtnJi dhx ne idetx po pravo po /lybovyhx /ilnXi/h/ [] liho ;ini takoi kako myhove
kova;nJi egda sMtx razdrxti na mnogo mysta, i hote dMhnMtJ nimJi, ny;to idetx po cyvi,
i ny;to semo i tamo kMdy E razdrxto. 137/15.13
3. -. -mx , pt,
:
(9) [menta] Edna e pitoma 56/16.
,
.14
4. .
- -, -,15 , .
(. - 2007: 245246). o
.
o ( 1973:
196),16 (. 1959: 101):
(10) vxzmi [] smokvx sMhihx .k . broiv[i ihq 112a/916, i minMv[i dva dn Ji, ili .g . dai
mM po;i{enJe 119a/2223.
:
(11) [irokM potrybMe da gledamo postav[i vrx/h/ nE .d . prxste 135/1011, da drx/i nagnMv[i
203/2.17
. Po izuzetku, i to samo
pod uslovom da se vrilac radnje koju gerund imenuje razume u optem smislu, tj. kao ovek uopte
subjekat reenice moe ne biti identian s njime (Ivi 1983: 156157).
14
Pasivni particip sadanjiiezao je iz ive upotrebe jo pre prvih tekstova na srpskohrvat
skom (Brozovi Ivi 1988: 35). . :
( 1874: 370) .
1995: 37, .
.
15
- (
: stMk`[i 171/3 stlxk[J 195/19, 164/1314; Mzxm[i 17/15 vxzxm[i 163/23,
po;nx[i 177/17, 19, w/t/ved`[i 66/5) -, - (
: by/av[Ji 136/16, ;ekav[Ji 134/21, pipav[i 1/9, 2/253/1, govoriv[i 12/17,
neznav`[/i/ 1/5, karav[i se 7/21, zgryav[i 195/8, mnyv[i 203/4, variv[J 3/18, mXsliv[i 132/18,
134/24, sMdiv[i 3/1; broiv[i 112/1516; popivx 166/26). 1973:7273
- XVIII , ,
-, -, -, - .
ptt -, -
( . e).
16
. Ivi 1983: 156.
17
1977: 7475, , : p . t t . ,
, - - ( 1977: 7172, ).
13
, ...
83
takoi:
(12) pone/e mnoga{i pryvaraet se vra/;/ takoi pipav[I /ilM i sMdiv[i. 2/253a/1.
,
(13), (13) :
(13) po/l / aKa/// popivx kto w/t/ nE ]ka E/st/ Mmoriti ;lvka 166/2627, i takogE/r/
postaviv[i aloe na ognx i Mzxm[i dimx, pomaga mozgM 17a/1415, mazav[i nimx dobro
E/st/ w/t/ v`sake bolesti [] i svakE stary rany, ili /iviny, rastopiv[i ga sx voskomx
stal]}ki MnMtra. i o;i{M}ki ranM ili /ivinM 170a/412.18
(13) dobro E/st/ [] mazav[i se po ban]nJ} 20/7-8, dobro E/st/ za ony/h/ koem` sM bylyzXbyli
po obrazM, i po v`semM tylM mazav[Ji. 23/1718.
a{e:
(14) i a{e postaviv[i .d . prxste na /ilM vidi[x 135a/1314.
5. -/-.19 ,
,
(- 2007: 251252).
5.1. (15)
(15) :
(15) nx wnJi koi ima} zatvore/n / stomahx 203a/56, dobro E/st/ za onyhx koe/m/ e zali[no
meso M rany 195/14, EsM zatvoreny /ily 8a/23, i po wbydM mM bMde/t/ /ila kako M pJana
;lvka 75/12, postavi M strake/n/ sM/d/ 173a/22,20 postavi M strake/n/ sqsMdq 172a/3;
(15) Mzmi meda procygEna i wpynEna 157/2021, da//d/q EmM [] s malw meda varena s
vodicw/m/ 204a/14, postavl]i mM na trxbM/h/ ;esto vlxnM nepranM 85a/34, drx/e wnoi
mlyko vx stomxhM nykoliko, i paki ga bl}} M;tekEna, i wctyna i neprobavlEnnaa 114a/
1617 ().
-
,
ponE/e:
(16) ne mo/et se ;lv k krenMti, ponE///(e) stoitx napet kako lMkx 137/2224.
. Ivi
1983: 173.
19
- (smy[anno 195/2, zatvore/n / 203/5, zatvoreny 8/23, zatvoreno
7/19, varenX9/18, varena 204/14, nepranM 85/34; Mwctyna 114/17; procygEna i wpynEna 157/20
21, strake/n/ 173/22, 172/3, izvagEno 165/8, otrovlEnX26/5, kisylEno 163/34, M;tekEna [] i
neprobavlEnnaa 114/17+; pJana 75/2; pokrivenx 6/9) -t (razdrxti 137/3, napet 137/23,
napetM 137/11, stisnMte 6/13). .
20
, < . ttt, . 1863: III, 259 sqtratiti ,
, sqtra:ati, sqtra:eniE.
18
84
5.2. , :
(17) i bMde/t/ kow/m/ gody halinw/m/ pokrivenx vrxhx Msta 66/8-9, bMde/t/ vare/n/ 195a/7, i
postavi k ni/m/ .a . li/t/ vody na kwoi bMde/t/ vare/n/ mora/; / 195a/67, i tagEr` mM ;i/n /i
ban}, na ko} bMde varena kameleMn`ta 10/1213, is koego bMdetx izvagEno maslo 165/89;
(17) Erx e ono drobno i /lxto i smy[ano z dragap`tw/m/ 195a/12, mlyko i/e E/st/ kisylEno
wdavna 163a/34, Eg/d/a E/s t/ ;lv kx /alostnx sr/d/ce mM E/s t/ zatvoreno 7/1819,
;ini takoi kako myhovy kova;nJi eg/d/a sMtx razdrxti na mnogo mysta 137/3, [] i
takoi hokE/[/ poznati kx/d/ sM varenX 9a/1718, dobro E/st/ za wnyhx koi sM otrovlEnX
26/5,21 ponE///(e) sMtx /ily stisnMte zimy radi 6a/13, Jppokratovy ry;i nysM sli;ny s
moemi 116/910.
6. -.22 ,
: , , II (-
2007: 16), ,
, :
(18) Sa/m/ reklx 134a/1, pisalx Esmx 165/26; E/s t/ bi/l / zgrx;i/l / 203/1, ery mM si bilx
malw bilJa dalx 112/89; bi probrazdilx 203/21, bX do[la 132a/7; bMde/[/ moglx
3a/14, 193a/14, ne bMdetx imalx 132/10.
, ( 1973:74):
(19) wgnica gnila 8/18, wgnica gnXla 8/16, wtekla slyzena 195/12, oteklo grxlw 194/17,
wteklo mesw 202/5.
7. .

, - -
( ),
, , ,
(- 2007: 254255, ).

, ,

(2.1., 2.2., 2.3.).
(
, , , ,
Slovnjik 24, 583 Otraviti, otravlEniE, otrovleniE; 1863: ; 1999: 322
t, t, t.
22
-, -, -, . izgorylx 2/12, vxzimalx 3/17,
vxpalx 203/2; Spihtosala 136/16, Mvryla 197/20, izx[la 6/1011; po;elw 133/2, po;rxnylw 204/1,
potrybovalw 136/22; izgMbili 195/5, pili 203/4, oslabyli 133/2122, rekli 1/14.
, , -<-: ozdravya 130/4.
21
, ...
85
15 ), , , ().
(12 ), , (,
). , .
-/-t (
), ,
-,
.

, (- 2007: 241).
(
- 2007: 231),
, ,
, (Ivi
1983: 155176, ),

, , ,
.

, . t ptg , . II, . 2 ( g).
, 1973.
, . t t , ,
. 9. : , 1999.
-, . p t gt. - :
, 2007.
, . t p IIII. , 1863-1864. :
, 1975.
, . t pg tg t XVII ,
, 1874. Mnchen: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1981.
, . . p t XII (1957): 1519.
, . g t pg . :
, 1998.
, . . t p
g gt XXXVIII/1 (1995): 2939.
, . . p t XVII (1968): 1239.
, . g g . :
, 2004.
, . N0517.
t p: t p (2005): 123131.
, . , , ,
. t p g
gt XLVIII/12 (2005): 5375.
, . .
t p g gt XLIX/2 (2006): 5772.
, . N0517. : , 1980.
, . p . ( , . DLXXV, , 36). : , 1987.
86
, . N0517. . , 1989.
, . . t p
g gt II (1959): 88106.
, . . 1952 . t II /2 (1952): 4782.
, .
( ).
t t 7 (1977): 7178.
, . p p XVI . :
, 2010.
*
Brozovi Dalibor, Pavle Ivi. Jezik srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski. Zagreb, 1988.
Ivi, Milka. Lingvistiki ogledi. Beograd: Nolit, 1983.
Slovnjik Slovnk jazyka staroslovnskho (Slovansk stav) (red. Jozef Kurz), 152. Praha: SAV,
19581997.
,
( XVI , 204 ).
(, , , ). .

(, ).
( ),
; .
, .

nadajovic@filfak.ni.ac.rs
UDC 81373(497.5 Baranja)17

18.
(, , ,
)*
606
a
t (17981800) (). .
, ,
, .

.
: , 18. , , , ,
, .
1. . 1 (
) t
(17981800)
.
,
( 1993; 1991;
1991).
.
18.
, .
,
,
(, , ),
, * t t pg g p
t (148001),
.
1
.
1570. , 32 . 1747. .
1796. ,
t, 622 ( 1932: 372).
1570 ( 1991).
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 87100.
88
(, , , , , )
.
,

. ,

,
, .
, ,

18. .

,
,
. ( 1991: 235).
2. . ,
, t ,
, , 10. 1798.
13. 1800. .2
, (
2004: 153).
, ,
. ,

, , . I II
( ). .
, , ,
,
. ,
, :
.
,
, .

: t t pt /
2
( III 39).
, . . : 5267.
18. ...
89
, : t .
,
( ). , 379 ,
28 , , :
t ; .
, , , 18.
.
t i p ,
,
(. I, II).
100 , 97,
( ).
/, i.

, , .

t (17981800) 479 , 606.
, , ,
, t
.
, ,
, ,
(, pt, p, ).
: , , , , p t, : g g,
, , .
, ,
. .
.
.
, (. I, IIa),
.
3
. / (, t, , gt),

(, , t, t, , t, ),
(i, , t).
3
90
127 ,
.
.
, ,
, , .

kalji 1973; RJAZU; Skok 1972.
(kalji 1973, RJAZU: ), (kalji 1973:
; RJAZU: :
) ) ; Skok
1972: ),
(kalji 1973: ; RJAZU:
(, , .); Skok 1972: ),
(kalji 1973: ; RJAZU: ;
Skok 1972: () ).
3. . , ,
, ,
, .
/
,
.
, ,
. , // //:
// // i, .
() ,
: .
// : ,
g, , p. // //:
g, ia, aa, (, ).
: , , .
- . -: , , .
-- (t). - .
-- -- , .
, (, ).
// (, , t, ,
) : (. fayda, kalji 1973),
(. kadife, kalji 1973). (,
), (, ).
g (t,
) (, ) g (, , , g,
g, g). (, p, ).
18. ...
91
. - .
-- + (pt),
- + (p ). - (pt).
// : + ()
(, g). - + : t,
-- + : .
// :
t, , . :
, g.
: p ,
p , (, ) (,
p).
// : ,
, : , t , t.

(tt), pt .
t,
t.
.
: i, , --:
.
--: , .
,
: , ().

.
4. .

.
, 478.
(p, , ), (, , ) ( g). .
, . ao plt: g, g, ,
t. ,
. . (gt, , ), . .
(, t).
. ,
. (t t, t ,
t). .
. (gt ).
41 .
, ,
( gt, gt, pt, tt, tt)
92
3. . . (g). (, ,
t, , , , , , , p, ,
t, t), (, , , , ,
, , t, , t, t, ), (,
, , , ) (, , , ).
5. .
, .
,
.
, : (gt,
t, , , t, t, p), (t,
t, , , t + ), (, pt), (, g). ,
p,4 (Skok 1972; RJAZU),

, .
: , t, p(!), ,
. , : g ,
, pt, tt (), t
(t , ), , i
, pt (), g, p
(), i t, t (), gtt,
pt, t (), t tp
().
, ,
, , , 18.
. 18. ,
, ,
, , ,
.
, ,
. ,
a je .
6. . . .
, ([]g).
4
1818; 1852.
, .
18. ...
93
(| | : g||).
(/) (g/). (!)
(!).
.
: t t
pt / g
a
g/
tp
g g ||
t
i
a g / (!)

g
t

t :
pt
5 6
gt :
pt
t
[]g
g
g[]
t
/
t
t
t
t

(!)6
gt
gt
t
p.
6
-, .
5
94
/p(!)
/p
t /g
t
pt
t
i
g
gt
g
t
, , : t
g
g
g
i
/ pt
g
gp
ia
aa
p
p
p
p
t
p
t
500 f
18. ...
g
p
7
g
(!)
t
t
t
tg
gt
t
t
p
p
p
p
pp
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
7
pt
g
t
t
p
p
t
t
95
96
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
tg
t
t
tp
tp
t
t
tt
tt
tt
tt
tt
t
tp
tp
t
tp
t
tt
p
p(!)9
p
p
t
g
t
10
, : t
p
g11

12
13
14
pg
g
g
p
t
p
p
g
- .
.
10
,
, .
11
- .
12
- .
13
- .
14
- .
8
18. ...
gt
t
=====
/(!)
/
/
=/t
p:/
t
t
t
t
t
tg=/
t
g g/
g
p15
p
p/t
g
p
t/
g
p
t p/t
t

p
g(!)

gt
tt
t t

p/p
g||
pt
tg/
p
/t

16
tt
p
tt
p g
g g||

g g
97
p
gtt
t

t
p
t
pt p
pt
pt[]

pt ppt
pt
pt
t

t
tt
p[t]

t i[]
p
p
p(!)17 t
t /
. Ia, ,
:
pg, g pt.
. t18 tp, t
. tt . tt .
. I:
. tg. tg. t p
p p . . tp .
g. g. .
. IIa
tt t. g. g
. .
.
.
17
.
18
, .
15
16
98
18. ...
99
t , :
, . III 39, 17981800.

p g t t p, . X: ,
(. ). : , 2004.
, . XVIII . :
, 1993.
, . g pg . : , 2007.
, . t p . g- p. :
, 1971.
, . t ptg , g 2. : , 1991.
, . p g . : , 1986.
, . pt t, tt .
: , 1994.
, . . t p g g
t XXXIV/2 (1991): 145157.
, . p , 1818. ( ). : , 1966.
, . p t t ,
1852 ( ). : , 1969.
, . t p p. III. :
, 19721974.
, . t . ,
, 1991 ( , , 1937).
, . . tt 17 ,
V/3 (1932): 358374.
ptg g . 13, : :
, 19671969; 46, : , 19711976.
, . . t t
20/1 (1991): 397402.
, . . p
g t t p, . X: , (. ).
: , 2004, 153181.
*
Skok, Petar. Etimologijski rjenik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. II . Zagreb: JAZU, 1972.
Stepanovi, Predrag. Govori Srba i Hrvata u Maarsko. Novi Sad: Matica srpska Filozofski fa
kultet, 1994.
ipka, Danko. Osnovi leksikologije i srodnih disciplina. Novi Sad: Matica srpska, 2006.
kalji, Abdulah. Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom hrvatskosrpskom jeziku. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1973.
RJAZU Rjenik Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti. IXXIII. Zagreb: JAZU, 18821976.
Zgusta, Ladislav. Prirunik leksikografije. Sarajevo: Svjetlost Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sred
stva, 1991.
100

XVIII
(, , ,
)
XVIII ., 500
.
, - . , .
, ; , ,
.

ljiljan@neobee.net

UDC 811.163.41342.8

*

II , : .

,

.

, : ) )
.
: , ,
, , , ,
, .
0.1. ()
,
.

,

(
),
, . , . .
.
(1)
, ( 2001; 2001), ,
, : ,
,
*

.
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 101114.
102
( 2006), ( 2008).
.
. . ,
, ( ),
( 19831: 681682;
19976: 663665] ( 19831: 683684;
19976: 665666).
;
(1971: 240253;
1993:
99106; 1996: 400409;
1995:8098;
2001:145
148;
2003:258272; 2002: 8593;
2006:194199).
. . , ,
,
( 20002: 240): ( 20002: 240), .
( ,
, ).
(2)
. :
()
,

(- 2005: 7; - 2004: 9).
, ,
, .
(:
)
(
)
. ( ) 33.
,
: ^ : ,

. (
) :
, || :
|| | ,
|| | ,
|| | !
[ 3336]
: ^
: ,
.
:

...
103
(
),
(
).
(3) p
t g p t ( 2008), ,
.

. . .
,
( )
(= ) (
Wack
ernagel 1892: 333436),
(Jak
obs on 1971 /1935/),
: 1984. 1989.
( 1993: 191321), .

( 1993: 280308).
.
( ),
. /
: 1) []; 2)
[]; 3) (
) ( 1993: 288).
, ,
, , , , , (
1: ), ( 3: ) (
1993: 289 / /).

, 3 (.
), , :
() (
1993: 283], :
. .
, 3 1. ,
: -

( ,
).

, ,
( 2004: 185189).
:
104
[]
( ) ( 2004:
186). : [], : )
; ) , ,
( 2004: 188).
:
(
2004: 4472), .
( ).
, , ( 2008).
, ,

, ,

( )
.
[ . (1)]
[ . 2)]
,
:
.
0.2. (
2008), ,
()
. ,
,
, ,

. .
(1) ,
( 2007, 330337),
, .
,
.
(2)
, .
, ,
( 2008; 2006).
(3) , , ,
, .

...
105
, ()
,
. , ,
.
0.3.
( , ,
2006: 5254).
(3),
(1) (2)
.
(1) ,
t , ( 2010),
, ,
( 2009).

, g (-
2005), , .
(2)
. ,
( 2011),
,
, ,
, ,
(
).

(, , )
, ,
, .
,
. , ,
.
. .
(3)
,
:
[ . 1], [ . 2], ( |p|
) [ . 3] [ . 4],
[ . 5]
[ . 6]. , ,
(
, ).
106
, , .
, ,
, (
, , ,
,
),
.
1.
1.1. ( ) ,
: , , , , t, t, ,
[ . 2.1], ( ,
, 1073, 2145, 2156, 2177), [ . 4.3], .
( ),
,
( < , < , g < , t < ).
1.2. ,
( ),
(), .
1.3.
, (), .
.
1.4.
( ) : t (17, 150), t (82, 2013), t
(288, 629, 710, 1318, 1961), (1274), (1927).
1.5. , ,
, .
. ( 56. ), ( 734. )
( 1360. ):
56 || | ,
734 || | []
1360 || p | .

. ,
, :
75 || | pt
161 || | ,
...
107
318 || | ,
319 || |
988 || | ,
1597 || |
1769 || |
2002 || | ,
, ( 75, 1597. 2002.

), ( 161. ), ( 318. ), ( 319. ), ( 988.
) ( 1769. ), .
1.6. :
203 || |
703 || | ,
918 || |
1316 || | ,
1489 || | ,
1924 || | x:
1980 y || | ,
1983 || | ;
,
.
2.
2.1. , [ . 1.1 1.3],
, (
, ):
1
|| | ,
315 || [] | ,
2.2. ( )
( ),
. :
28
77
141
376
|| |
|| | :
|| | ,
|| | ,
2.3. , ( )
g ( 561. 2191. ) ( 1347. ):
561 [], || | : []
2191 || | :
1347 y || |
108
2.4. (1944)
, ( , ), :
1944 || |
2.5. ( 170, 205, 299, 527, 617, 913,

1068, 1069 1343. ), ( 182. ), t ( 328. ), t ( 530.
), ( 1936. ) ( 1975. 1978. ).
2.6., ( )
:
1124 || |
1127 || |
1512 || |
2096 || |
(, , )
, , () , .
3.
3.1. ,
(pt + .),
( < + .)
(p + . p
, p + . / /
).
3.2. p
:
866 y || |
1896 p || |
1931 || |
p
:
1170 [ / ] p ||
| .
1418 [ ca] p , || , | .
3.3. p
p (1990), p (105).
...
109
4.
4.1. ,
,
, .
4.2. , .
, . ,
. ,
228. 229. :
[ ]
228 || | ,
229 y || |
, 272. 273. (
):
[ ]
272 || | ,
273 || | y,
,
( ):
1027 || | :
, , , :
37
[ ]
|| |
4.3. ( 205, 207; 278, 279, 280, 283;

525, 526, 527, 529, 538, 539, 540; 1559, 1560)
( , [ . 2.1], .
(
):
525 y || | ,
526 || | ,
279 || | ,
1560 [] || | !
110
5.
5.1. |p|
, |p| () p:
2146 || |
|p| ( ) p (483, 1641),

p (481) ( ) p (776), () p (1949):
481 || | p.
483 t || | p
1641 || | p,
776 || p |
1949 || | p
5.2. |p| ( ,
, , 1183. ,
):
329 || p |
343 || p |
436 || py |
713 [ ] p, || | ,
791 t || | p
901 p || | ,
903 || t y | p []
964 || p:
989 || py | ,
1171 p || p | ,
1175 || | p
1183 p || |
1336 || | p
1349 p || |
1391 || p | , []
1444 || p |
1551 || p |
1585 p || |
1607 p || | .
1628 p || | :
1669 py || |
1780 || py | .
1820 || p | .
1894 p || |
1915 || |
1935 p || |
2048 || | p
2201 p || | ,
...
111
|p| ( ,
). |p|

(
):
1176 || |
1181 || | ,
5.3. ,
( *), (
||),
() (y).
6.
6.1. :
1401 ||
||
-.
6.2.
-- ( ):
198 g || | :
1539 g || |
1774 t || y | ,
1852 t || g |
1862 || y |
2092 || g | ,
, ,
, |g| ( )
|t|, |g| |y|.
, ||.
6.3. , ,
( ,
,
; ,
).
7..
.
:
, , ,
112
, . , ,

. ,
. .
7.1.
,
[ . 1.6]: () (203), () (703), ()
(918), () (1316), () (1489), ()
(1924), () (1980), () (1983) (
). ( )
() .
,
()
( ) .
7.2.Kao [ . 1.5], ,
,
, . ,
. :
( ) (56), ( ) (734),
( po ) (1360).
, ,
( )
.
: ( pt) (75), () (1597),
() (2002), : () (161) : ()
(1769). : () (319)

, (
, ).
7.3.Kao [ . 2.6], (
)
. ( 1124. 1127. ),
( 1512. ) ( 2096. ).
(, , ) , ,
.
,
,

( ) (
).
...
113

, . . : . . 2. ,
, 4/26 (2002): 8593.
, . .
. 4 (1995): 8098.
, . . (
). : 80-
. , 2001, 145148.
, . .
. : 100- - .
. . , 2003, 258272.
. . . : - 2004; - 2005.
, . . . ,
19952003 . : , 2004.
, . . : . : , 2004.
, . . . : , 2008.
. ., . . .
. 4 (1993): 99106.
, . .
. ? . . . 60- . , 1996, 400409.
, . . : ,
2006.
, . :
. . I. . .
. :
: ,
, 2001.
, . :
. . II. .
. . : : , , 2001.
, . .
. 3 (2008): 109118.
, . . t p
. I. p XI/12 (2006): 3750.
, . . g tt tt 9 (2006): 1357.
, . . (.).
p t t p. : , 2007, 325
339.
, .
. t p t 73 (2008): 267281.
, . .
t 8 (2009): 219224.
, . : . t
p t 58 (2010): 67109.
, . :
. tt g
tt 29 (2011): .
19831 : , ,
( . . . ). : , 1983.
114
19976 : , ,
( . . . ). [5- ., . . , 1989]. 6- .,
. : , 1997.
, . . . . . :
. . . , 1971, 240253.
-, II. . . .
: , 2004.
-, II. . . . . : , 2005.
, . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2- . , 2000.
. ., . . . . ( 19841989 .).
: , 1993.
*
Jakobson, Roman. Selected Writings. Vol. II. The HagueParis, 1971: Les enclitiques slaves (1935)
1622.
Wackernagel, Jacob. ber ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Fors
chungen I (1892): 333436.

(
)

, : .

, ,
.
, ,
, : )
)
.

r.marojevic@fil.bg.ac.rs
UDC 811.163.41367.625

*
,
.
, ,
.

.
: , , , .
1.

, .
(
) , , , ,
( 1998: 256260; 1999: 476
482; 1954; 1988: 1328; 19611962; 1997),
.
,
(
1999: 476; 1988: 16; , . 2005: 626).
, (
),
( . 1989: 97),
(Mrazovi 2009:
109-110). , - ,
, ( 2002: 589621).
(1996: 9)
, ,
, .
(Mrazovi
2009: 110), .
*
(178004), .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 115135.
116
: ,
. , ,
, ,
, ,
( 1980: 270271).

.
,1
( ) ,
, ,
( 1999: 476).
2. ,
, ,
,
( 2004; 20022003), ,
,
( 1997),
(Burzan 1984: 4251; Zveki-Duanovi 1999; Dimitrakopoulou Mavrogeni 2006). ,
,
, ,

.2 , ,
.
,

,

.

, ,
, .
,
pt gg,

.
1
(1999: 476) (1988: 13) ,
(), ,
.
2
,
(Toanac
1982) .
117
, ,
,
, ( 1997:
7072), ,

.
( 196162: 138) (1954: 305) , , .
, ,
,
,
( 1954:
306). (. Toanac 1982: 1011)
,3
, (Belaj 2001: 2),
. (1999: 481)
t,
, ,
( 19611962:138; 1973: 3436).
3. verba reflexiva

. ,4
, , p , ,
, p tt,
,
( 19841985: 633).
, ,
, ,

, . ,
(Belaj 2001: 3). ,
, ,
.
, - (
,
.
( 1997).
4
, . ,
, ,
( 1998: 54). ,
, , ( 1. 2. . )
. (Toanac 1982: 1112).
3
118
1979: 555), ( 2003: 222),

5 ( 19611962; , . 2005: 626), ( 1973: 33).
( 19611962: 138), . e
s, ,
si,
( 1963: 2038).
(1988: 25)
. - : tt , pt , tt
. (tt tt / ).

, ptt (ptt
ptt pt ), 6 , , ( 1982: 38).
, - (- 20022003: 91), .
,
. ,

,
,
(Kasirer 1985: 187).
,
, a , , ,
, , , ,

(K asirer 1985: 180181 ). ,
( , sob)
a
t (Skok 1988: 211).
7

.
, ,

, .
6
, ( 1963: 31)
,
, (
) .
7

(K asirer 1985: 205).
5
119
, p t
, , pt ( 1998: 257259). - (2002
2003: 9192)
,
8 .
, , , ,
.
4.
, (t , t ) (p
tt , gt )
, .
( as irer 1985: 181),
(Milkovi 2010: 254)
.
,

,
.
,
, ,
, : X t g X t
g t t g
t t M g ( 19841985: 634).
, .
, , .
,
:
p p p t,
,
, . /
() ,
,
.

,
t ( tt ),
( ). M,
,
? ,
, ,
, (1999: 476) ,
.
8
120
t
t, ,
t/tt . ,
,
, ( = t, tt
(, ), t . ,
~ , ,
, .
, ,
: ,
t/t , t.
,
t . ,
, ,
.
,

, .
, t,
, , ,
- . ,
, , ,
. , - .

, t, tgt.
/ tg / tg ,

, , ( ),
( = g
), ( tg tg
= tg g tg), , , (
/tg ), , (Ivi 2002: 5161).

(1997: 110) : .9
(1997:110) : g t ; g t
; g t g .
9
121
, ,
, ,
,
, (
, t
,
).

,
. (, . 2005:
628), ,
t .

( = ), ( = ),
( =
).
5. , (pgt g,
tt , pt , pt ), , ,
. ,
, : pgt , tt , pt , pt ,
: ptt , ggt , t . -
(*pgt
, *tt ). (1999: 476477)

, ( ~ ,
tt ~ tt , tt ~ tt ),
.

(t ~ t ),
(t , t , t ), ,
,
.
(t, t, t, tt)
, , (t , t
, t , tt ).
6.
(, . 2005: 626633),
,
( / t),
122
(t ), ,
(p ),
( ) , (t g).
( 1997: 112),
.
7. (1999: 480481) ,10

, .
,
(1988), ,
. p, p pt,
, . ,
,
,
, . (1988:
2324) [] [ . ] . ,

[] , [], ,
, , ,
, . t ,
.

, ,

.
( 1997: 11),
,
( 1973:
31; 2009).

, .

, .
,
. ,
.
,
10
: ,
, ( 1999: 478).
123
,
,
, () .11 ,
, (*t
t/p).
,
,

( + ).
.
,
(, ),
.
() , t tt (t g tt),
,
. t (. tt t, , ), t
t , . ,
( tt).
, , . , .

,
t ( 2004: 115116).
,
, , ,
.
, , ,
, t, g.

,
. ,
, .

11

, . , ,
, .
124
, . ,
. ,
, ,
, .
,
.
, ,
.

,12
tt ~ tt p,
, ,
, tt . ,
,
. , ,
t , .
,
, ,
(. t).
, -
(1999)

(t ;
pt , t; , t ?).

(tt t ; pt t , t
t , t t ),
.

,
, ,
,
.
12
- (2007: 421)
,
.
125
, .13
8. , . ,
, ,
. , ,
(reflexiva tantum),

, . , ,
, )
( ~
; g g ), )
(t
= t ~ t p)
(gt ~ gt ; g), )

( ~ ).
) ,

(
, ) . ,
, ( ),
( ). , p pt gg.

, ,
. ,
, , (ppt , t , pt
, t , t , pt , pt ).
,
, , , , ,
, ,
. ,
, , ,
. , t
13
,
( 1996), t pt t
pt gg, : ,

. (X
Y /X ), (X Y/ X
).
126
(, , g, , t, ), ,
, . , ,
t , ,
(t t ).
.
,

: t (t
() ) ~ t , t (t ) ~
t , t (tt ) ~ t .
,
, pt (, g, , ), ,
(p p ) t (pt, p, , , , )
, , (t t ). t
, . , ,
: p,
,
,
: p =
g// p; * p).

, (pt () ~ *pt
), ( t ~ (/p) ,
t ~ t ). (1997: 113)

.

,
, (
t, ,
t t g ;
= / /
g ).
,
p pt gg, (1988:
2223) ,

,
t , , ptt .

(t ~ t g),
127
,
. ,
, (tt = t ~ tt )
t
~ t g, t; gt ~ gt pt, , ; pt
~ pt , g, t, pt; tt ~ tt g, pt.
, ,
, ,
t = t t g
t p (, ), , ,
(*t /g).
(p , ptt , pt , t ) (t , , tgt , t , pt ),
(ppt , ptt , ptt , t ) (t , , pt ), (pt , , t
, t , t ), ,
(pt pt , t
t g, t t t).
. , gt

.
g t
. g
, ,
- , t p g
g (, ).
,
: ()pt , ()t , t
, t , pt , tgt , pt , t ,
pt ,
(pt , t g, pt g). t , pt , (1988: 22)
, , () .
, ,
. t pt,
, ,
128
, ,
.14
,
.
,
,
(t , pt t).
,
(t, pt) ,
: (*t : t
, *pt : pt 15).
,
, ,
, , ( 1998: 258;
Hlebec 1996: 6566; Milkovi 2009: 252253), , t
t g ; p
p; tg tg.
(
t , t , gt , gt ),
(tt , t
, t , pt , t , pt , t ).
,
,
( )
(t , ; gt
, ; t ; pt ; t , ).
,
,
. t t, tt
tt (- 1975). t , t
t t t t (, ; ~ ).
, : , :
p t g
g p t g.
(gt , tt ) ,

14
pt
. ,
,
.
15

- (1973: 284) pt ( t
, XV ., . ),
pt g.
129
, ( g g = g(1)
~ g g(2)). ( )
, :
,

, ,
,

, ,

,
, ,

,
,
)
(2004: 223225),
, . , , : tt = tt ~ tt p;
t = t ~ t pt; t = t ~ t
, ,
: t = t ~
t ; pt = pt ~ pt , pt
= pt ~ pt t et = t ~ t
,
t tt.
: t = t ~ t t;
= ~ g, t = t ~ t ;
t = t ~ t16 pt, pt = pt ~ p
t g ( p g) .
. . t
16
(2004: 224) ,
, t t, t t
t, t t
t.
130
( 1970: 120)
: , ,

: .
: ,
p, t (()p
, (/p)t ) (()p pt, ; t , pt)
( p, ).
, t/t ,
t /t /.
, , .
t /t
,
, t/t .17 t

, () , *
/,
, , .
)
,
( 2004: 223)
[]
. : ,
, , ( > ),
, , ,
( > ). , (1970)

,
, .
t/t ,
, (
), , .
,
, , ,

17
, t
, , ,
[] t
[] (, ; ~ )
131
,18 : (149)/ (40);

(129)/ (9); (154)/ (49).

t ~ t.
t
t ~ tt; tt ~ tt; t ~ t.
,
, , : t
, , ,
,
: t; tp ( t t).
:
~ ; t ~ t,
, p ~ p ,
, .
,
, (, ),

.

, (2004: 223)
. t ,
(
p, p, ). ,
g g.

,
. t
~ t, ,
, ,
(, ; ~ ), .
9. , ,
.
: pt , pt , t , t , ,
: t , ptt ( ) p

, , 1996.
, Printa / , 2009.
18
132
t ( ), .

, ,
, .
: g p, t g
tg , t pt t,
. (1999: 477478)
, ,
tt , ,
t .
tt p.
: p
p, , t g, t,

. , ,
. ,
(. , . ).

,
: p / t, g
pt, t , , g
g p, : g, ,
g, : t pt p,
.
: , g t
, , , t
, tg.
10. .
, , ,
, , ,
, . ,
,
,
, ,
. ,
, -
133

, . () .
t p g gt LII/1 (2009): 179191.
, . pt gt. . . : , 1998.
, . t pg . . .
: , 1999.
, . . :
. , 2002.
, . (genera verbi) . . :
, 1963: 15100.
- , . O
. g XXX/12 (1973): 281295.
- , . O : 1. (e); 2. ().
XXI/45 (1975): 270274.
, . t t ptg . :
, 2004.
- , . .
t p t 45 (20022003): 8794.
-, . . t p
t 7172 (2007): 417435.
, .
. . : , 1996: 6169.
, .
( ). g XXV
(19611962): 137151.
, . . g LIII (1997): 2933.
, .
. XVIII/12 (1970): 115124.
, . . : ,
2004.
, . . . . :
, 1997.
, . , . II/12 (1973): 2939.
, .
. g LIII (1997): 107113.
, , , , , ,
. t g pg . t .
. . : , .
: , 2005.
, . Pronomina reflexiva . t p
g gt XXVIIXXVIII (19841985): 633639.
ptg g . . 2. :
, 1967; . 5. : , 1973.
ptg g g . XVII. : ,
2006.
pg . : , 2007.
, . . : , 1980.
134
, , , . pt
t . I, II, III IV . :
, 1989.
, . . t 5 (1954): 303316.
, . pt II. (t t
). : , 1979.
, . t p . : ,
1988.
, .
. g LII (1996): 19.
, . . p t p 12 (1996): 6569.
*
Belaj, Branimir. Prototipno-kontekstualna analiza povratnih glagola u hrvatskom jeziku. Suvremena
lingvistika 27, br. 51 (2001): 111.
Burzan, Mirjana. Interferencija u predikatu srpskohrvatske reenice u jeziku uenika maarske
narodnosti. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, Institut za junoslovenske jezike, 1984.
Dimitrakopoulou, Maria, Stavroula Mavrogeni. The Acquisition of Reflexive Passive Construction
in Serbian as an L2: Evidence from Greek Learners. Primenjena lingvistika 7 (2006): 110123.
Ivi, Milka. Red rei. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2002.
K asirer, Ernst. Filozofija simbolikih oblika. Novi Sad: Dnevnik Knjievna zajednica Novog Sada,
1985.
Milkovi, Alen. Razmatranje glagolske prijelaznosti i povratnosti u hrvatskome jeziku. Rasprave
Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 35 (2010): 243256.
Mrazovi, Pavica. Gramatika srpskog jezika za strance. Sremski Karlovci Novi Sad: Izdavaka
knjiarnica Zorana Stojanovia, 2009.
Skok, Petar. Etimologijski rjenik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. Knjiga trea. Zagreb: JAZU, 1988.
Toanac Duanka. Povratni glagoli u francuskom i srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Novi Sad: Filozofski
fakultet, 1982.
Zveki-Duanovi, Duanka. O neadekvatnoj upotrebi morfeme se u produkciji maarsko-srpskih
bilingvalnih govornika. t p g gt XLII (1999):
219224.
Nada Arsenijevi
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF REFLEXIVE VERBS IN SERBIAN
Summary
Reflexive verbs are one of the means of grammaticalization of diathesis relations in the Serbian language; thanks to their diverse problematic nature (terminological, lexical and syntactic) they
attracted the attention of the author of this paper and became the subject of the linguistic analysis
conducted in it. In spite of the varying syntactic conditions in which reflexive verbs are realized,
they are terminologically traditionally based on the formal principle the appearance of a unique
signal of reflexivity, the morpheme se. The moment when they appear as opponents of the verbs
denoting an activity to mark voice, or already mark middle in relation to the opposite active verb, is
a significant moment because it thus continues the ancient language distinction of activeinactive.
This paper emphasizes the fact that real reflexive verbs differ from the corresponding reflexive
construction, and the examples illustrate a specificity related to the linking of the morpheme se and
the reflexive pronoun sebe as combinatory variants. Having in mind that the pronoun behaves like
any other syntactic object, the verb which it syntactically complements is transitive, which is not
the case with a reflexive verb (umivam sebe umivam se). It carries only one feature characteristic
for transitive verbs, and that is the presence of an object. Thanks to the absence of the other feature
135
syntactic transitivity reflexive verbs were proclaimed a means of detransitivization, and the
morpheme se a sign of syntactic intransitivity. The authoress of this paper tried to explain the given
statement by the fact that all reflexive verbs are characterized by the inclusion of the subject, i.e. its
participation as an inactive argument, with the difference in the degree of such participation. In
other words, the morpheme se could be treated as a sign of intransitivity, primarily syntactic, but
also of intransitivity which is at the same time characterized by a semantic feature objectness of
the subject. In discussing interesting details related to specific semantic groups of reflexive verbs,
it is revealed that they are all linked by the above-mentioned semantic component, because it is not
related only to the ones in which the given morphological form has a distinctive role when compared
with the opposed verb without the morpheme se, but also to those for which it is the only way of
lexicalization (reflexiva tantum).

mikinada@yahoo.com
UDC 811.163.41367.625

- *
- .
,
,
.
: , , , , .
1. . - - p / pgt / gt.
, ,
, .
( ),
.
( )
(), . ,
,
- (. p)
(. ),
,1 , ,
.

- , ()
() , p,
. 178004 t p
t, t pt t,
.
1
. (Kulikov 2001) .
(K hokhlova 2004),
p, , , .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 137150.
138
- .
(Y // ),
.
-
, -
. ,
,
.
2. .
p, -
, (X Y // , Y
// ).
, ,
. ,
(g
[ ] / g [ () ]),
.
p :
. .
, ,
.

(g [ ])
,
(g p tt).
, .
,
.
- p
pg t :
1 g 2, t 2 p -
, , (.
). K

( 2005: 639), .2
2
/
, , . (
139

,
(- 2006: 60) ( 2002: 72).
2.1. , p / pgt p / pgt,
tt, pt / pt .
. . 1: 103.
. ., 1903, 483. 4: 558. .
., 1898, 733. 8: 260.
. . 4: 684.

. , tt, p
t, p .,
,

.
, (p pt .).
, ,

, ( pt p p .).

. t (. tt t p),
p . , ,
,
pt. pt
, - .
2.1.1.
t, t, t,3 pt .,
2005: 638). . , ,
,
tt, t t,
(g, p, .). . -, ,

,
(- 2006: 58).
, ,
.
3
t , , . 17: 553554. ,
,
- .
140
(,
, ).
.
. 4: 120. . 1. 4: 495. . . .
6: 386.
3. . .

.
.
,
. p,

: Y
p -.
(. ),
.
- :
1 2, t Y 2, p -
, g p p,
,
, ,
pt.
. 1924. 4: 52.
,

.
, (//
t, tt;4 t,5 tt, ppt; gt,
4
,
(t = p ).
. ,
- . t p
/ p
, ,
- (g t p / p).
5
t
( ). ,
(t g).
141
tt, t, ()t, t, t, t,6 t,7

tt), (t, t,8 tt, t, g
t,9 ptt,10 tt, pt, tt, gt, t).
4. - . , ,
,
, .
, , , .
, .
,
(tt ; p ): Arg1 + V + Arg2;
Arg1 + V + Arg2 + Arg3.
,
, :
() (pt ):
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjIndD: Prop
-
pt, p . , ,
(, .).
, , -
: . .
. 4: 928. . . .
. . .
. . 4: 988.
6
t, t, t . t
,
: -
. 1, 174. 2: 464.
t,
, a
: , ,
. . 19, 54. 6: 2.
t ,
: 56 , .
. 1, 73. 6: 351.
7
,
, //gt,
pt, pt ., - .
, , , : gt ; pt ; pt .
8
, ,
, ( 4: 211), .
9
( 16: 640).
10
ptt ,
:
. . . 5: 954.
142
.
SubjSuprag + V1 + Obj: Cl [ + V2]
() ,
,
(t / tt
/ ; pg / ):
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: Prop / ObjIndD: Prop

(p / t g):
()
, , (p / g ; t g ):
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: PacSubAg / ObjIndD: AdSubAg + ObjIndPP :[ + L]: SubPred

(p t ):
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: PacSubAg / ObjIndD: AdSubAg + Obj: Cl [ + V2]
() ,
(t
/ tt ):
SubjSuprag + V + ObjDirA: SubPred + ObjIndD: AdSubAg
,
, ,
(t / tt
/ ; p / ):
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjIndD: AdSubAg + Obj: Cl [ + V2] / Inf
4.1. - . , , ,
.
. ,
, . ,
.
143
4.1.1. [SubjSuprag].
().

.
/+/ /+/,
/-/ /+/ ( pg t).
, , - , g p
g p t pt .
, (
p pt). ,
, (t t t g, p pt).
4.1.2. [ObjDir / ObjInd / Cl / Inf].
, . ,
,
.
.
, 11 (p t, p t t; pt
t, ),

.
4.1.2.1. () pt,12
.
, .
, ,
( 2010: 139).
() SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjIndD: Prop
,
. . . 1, 68. 4: 558. Nemaka
e doprineti poboljanju prilika u Iraku. www.dw-world.de.
.
11
.
pt, pt, tt, tt

( 2005: 622).
12
.
,
: pt t ( 2008: 423, 425).
144
. ., 8, 301.
4: 558. Premijer Republike Srpske Milorad Dodik izjavio je da e RS doprineti da
Univerzijada u Beogradu bude dogaaj koji e obeleiti ceo region. www.danas.rs.

, - .
, (
1970: 43), . ,13 ,
, ( 19261927: 104105;
19381939: 168; 1970: 45; 2009: 61).
, ,
,
(p i i).
4.1.2.2. () p/
pgt, / gt, t, tt, p / pgt
., .
,
(p
/ p ). ,
.
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: Prop / ObjIndD: Prop
Nacionalna biblioteka Austrije pomoi e obnovu Nacionalne i univerzitetske bi
blioteke BiH. www.sarajevo-x.com. Drugi deo programa (5 miliona evra), koji treba
da vodi direktno Evropska komisija, pomoi e modernizaciji i razvoju Savezne
uprave carina. www.ec.europa.eu. ukanovi nije morao ispomagati sam proces ga
enja navedenih. www.wordpress.com. , . .
. 2, 114. 17: 553-554.
. . . 7, 138. 17: 628. Sneg je to
kom vikenda oteao odvijanje saobraaja na veini puteva u Srbiji. www.poslednjavest.
com. . 2. 4: 234.
. . . 4: 916.
Sve to moe ograniiti i sputati ljubav potrebno je eliminisati www.balasevic.net.
Izbor ekua nee ugroziti pregovore o budunosti Kosova. www.voanews.com. Rat
u Gruziji moe usporiti priznavanje Kosova. www.vesti.rs.

ograniiti da korisnik ne moe sa jednim korisnikim imenom dva puta da pokrene
program. www.elitsecurity.org. Voleo bih da vidim ovakav odnos mnogo vie nego
obino, jer e ovo olakati da se teorija i praksa najzad poklope. www.maksimalno.
com. mada, ako ste napolju, sunani zraci bi mogli da oteaju da vidite prikaze
. ,
, ,
(Kordi 2008: 192).
13
145
na ekranu laptopa. www.vesti.rs. Herceg Novi e pomoi da Vektra investira u Boku.

www.seebiz.eu. Hoe li Haki tribunal pomoi ili odmoi da srpski narod sa sebe
skine etiketu o kolektivnoj krivici koju mu otvoreno ili prikriveno priivaju pojedi
ni. www.6yka.com. Jedini ovjek koji je tada mogao zaustaviti da Amerika naorua
Armiju Republike BiH je bio bosanski predsjednik www.republikabih.net. Zima je
omela da ove godine makarada bude masovnija www.vojvodina.com. Na taj na
in moete preduprediti da se Vae mail sandue ne prepuni iznad dozvoljene veli
ine. www.telenor.co.yu.
- (
2010: 137) ,
p , (p
pp; pt pp).
,
(p tg
; p tg ; p tg ; p
tg ).
SubjSuprag+ V1 + ObjDirA{NP[Nom1: SubPred+ Nom2G: SubAg/DetSubAg+ Nom1A: SubPred]}
SubjSuprag+ V1 + ObjIndD{NP[Nom1D: SubPred+ Nom2G: SubAg/DetSubAg+ Nom1D: SubPred]}
. .
1, 89. 17: 456.
. 1. 4: 495.
4.1.2.3. () , ,
,
, .
,
(p / ptt
g ).
(. tt, t, pt .).14
() SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: PacSubAg / ObjIndD: AdSubAg + ObjIndPP [ + L]: SubPred
Ameriki predsednik Barak Obama izrazio je spremnost da pomogne Severnoj Ko
reji u obnovi privrede i da okona decenije meunarodne izolacije. www.pressonline.
rs. Nju Delhi smatra da preuzimanje takve obaveze nije fer i da e joj odmoi u
pokuaju da milione ljudi izvue iz siromatva. www.rtv.co.yu. Ono to moe da
zavara u tumaenju ovih rezultata jeste to da ima mnogo drugih manjih uzroka po
jave raka www.zdravlje.krstarica. Zastraivanja nas nee zaustaviti u potrazi za
istinom. www.24sata.info. Nikako nemojte da vas neko zbuni u odreivanju magni
14
, .

(Batisti 1972: 37). . , ,
( 2005: 280).
146
tude meteora. www.agsaiph.dzaba.com. Ipak, pele ne treba ni koiti u razvoju

www.pcela.co.yu. Na pitanje da li se poslovne banke, podizanjem obavezne rezerve,
mogu obuzdati u podizanju potronje ivkovi kae da je to nemogue www.
mcentar.rs. Restrictive member je grupa napravljena zbog takvih koji nisu za trajni
ban, ali ih je potrebno za neko vreme ograniiti u njihovim aktivnostima na forumu.
www.astronomija.co.rs.
. ,
. . . 4, 160. 17: 628. Pri tome neprekidno tinja strah da e je neko
ili neto osujetiti u tom njenom pohodu. www.seminar.rs. Mistian i jo nepoznat
onima koji bi morali da ga zaskoe i preduprede u njegovim apokaliptikim name
rama. www.politika.rs. Ne treba da nas sputaju u borbi za ljudska prava, verske slo
bode, pravo na ivot i slobodu najranjivijih ljudskih bia. www.studentskikutak.com.
pa je kolo pre kraja izvesno da ga vie niko ne moe ugroziti u borbi za prestinu
nagradu. www.sportske.net.
. . . 6: 521. Mrzovoljni su pa
cijenti i uvek ele da dokau da su jaki i da ih nijedna bolest ne moe usporiti u radu.
www.kurir-info.rs.
4.1.2.3.1. tt, t,
tt, gt, p, t, gt, pt .,
,
(p ).15

(p / g ).16
4.1.2.3.2. a
, . (
19793: 363)17 , , .
, .

tt, p / pgt, / gt,
( p ).
p, .,
( g ; pgt g t),
.
4.1.2.3.3.
.18
15
. (Batisti 1972: 36),
. , , ( 2005:
278).
16
, . - pgt pgt g
, , , , (- 1971: 42).
17
. tt, p .
( 2005: 185).
18

, :
, . . . 2, 3.
8: 260.
147
SubjSuprag + V + ObjDirA: PacSubAg / ObjIndD: AdSubAg + Obj: Cl [ + V2]

Ostala je pria o velikom kreditu koji joj je televizija dala da je ispomogne da rei
stambeno pitanje www.glas-javnosti.rs. On e vas esto koiti da mnoge stvari
realizujete do kraja www.krstarica.com. Ve sam u jednoj temi pomenuo da je
na um kao ludi majmun koga je teko obuzdati da skae s misli na misao www.
madeinmontenegro.com. ,
. 9, 169. 16:
640. U svakom sluaju, nee vas omesti da bar zavrite poslove od kojih vas oekuje
dobra zarada. www.glas-javnosti.rs. Bog e nam pomoi da doemo do pravde.
www.vesti.rs. i upravo e ih to sputati da ostvare pozitivan rezultat www.b92.net.

[Obj: Cl [ + V2]].
, , . ,
(g t).
,
,
. (g
tt),
.
4.2.1.4. () ,

gt, t, tt .19
() SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: SubPred + ObjIndD: AdSubg
Kako ograniiti pristup internetu onim korisnicima koji www.wireless.uzice.net.
Crnogorskim turistikim radnicima olakati rad u Hrvatskoj. www. e-turizam.com.
4.2.1.4.1.
[ObjIndD: AdSubAg].
,
, ,
. . /+/ /+/.
4.2.1.4.2. ,
.
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjIndD: AdSubg + Obj: Cl [ + V2] / Inf

, : t .
19
, ( 2005: 185, 209).
148
Korisnicima je mogue i ograniiti da imaju pristup samo unapred odreenim pod

mreama www.telfor.rs. Klijentima elimo da pruimo najsavremenija reenja
koja e im olakati da postignu sopstveni uspeh www.tehnicomcomputers. com.
Funkcionerima oteati da namjetaju tendere. www.bizniscg.info.
p,

, . t,
(Helbig/Buscha 19968: 252): p t /
/ .
4.2.1.4.3. ,
t, pt, t, gt, pt .,
, (pt
[ ]; t / pt
p [ / ]),
.
SubjSuprag + V1 + ObjDirA: SubPred + ObjIndD: Subg
-. www.nspm.rs. Albancima poboljati stat us. www.
visit-ulcinj.com. -. .
. 6: 419.
4.3. [Advj].
.
- ( 2005: 263)

(p g ).
, ,
, . p
g p pg20 (Batisti 1972: 33; 151),

: g
p.
5. .

, . ,

, .
,
- - ,
, 20
. ( 2005: 289).
149
, , . , ,
,
. , ,
.
ptg g . . 13, : - , . 46, : , 1967.

ptg g g . 117. :
, 1959.
: www.danas.rs, www.dw-world.de, www.sarajevo-x.com, www.ec.europa.eu,
www.vesti.rs, www.wordpress.com, www.balasevic.net, www.voanews.com, www.vesti.rs,
www.elitsecurity.org, www.maksimalno.com, www.poslednjavest.com, www.seebiz.eu,
www.6yka.com, www.republikabih.net, www.vojvodina.com, www.telenor.co.yu, www.
pressonline.rs, www.rtv.co.yu, www.zdravlje.krstarica, www.24sata.info, www.agsaiph.
dzaba.com, www.pcela.co.yu, www.mcentar.rs, www.astronomija.co.rs, www.seminar.rs,
www.politika.rs, www.studentskikutak.com, www.kolekcionari.com, www.sportske.net,
www.kurir-info.rs, www.glas-javnosti.rs, www.madeinmontenegro.com, www.b92.net,
www.wireless.uzice.net, www.e-turizam.com, www.visit-ulcinj.com, www.bizniscg.info,
www.nspm.rs, www.telfor.rs, www.tehnicomcomputers.com.

, . .
t p g gt LIII/1 (2010): 125142.
, . . : . t g
pg . t . : , 2005, 119344.
, . . g
VI (19261927): 102132.
- , . t tg pg pt .
: , 1971.
, . :
. t p g gt XIII/1 (1970): 4354.
, . .
g LVIII (2002): 1522.
, . .
t t 38/1 (2009): 5771.
, . : . :
. t g pg . t . :
, 2005, 575982.
, . . g LXIV (2008): 419435.
, . .
g XVII (19381939): 150178.
, . pt II. : , 19793.
150
*
Batisti, Tatjana. Lokativ u savremenom srpskohrvatskom knjievnom jeziku. Beograd: Institut za
srpskohrvatski jezik, 1972.
Helbig, Gerhard, Joachim Buscha. Leitfaden der deutschen Grammatik. Leipzig: Langenscheidt,
19968.
Khokhlova, L. V. Argument Structure and Case Assignment in The Causative Constructions of Western
New Indo-Aryan Languages (Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, Gujarati, Rajasthani). International Symposium on Typology of the Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations in Languages Spoken
in Europe and North and Central Asia. Lenca 2 (2004). Abstracts. Kazan: Kazan State University, 7576.
Kordi, Snjeana. Koordinacija i subordinacija u sloenim reenicama slavenskih jezika.
g LXIV (2008): 189197.
Kulikov, Leonid I. Causatives. Language Typology and Language Universals 2 (2001): 886898.
Berlin New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Zveki-Duanovi, Duanka. Sintaksiko-semantike strukture s modalnim indikatorom u srpskom
i maarskom jeziku. Doktorska disertacija. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet, 2006.
Milivoj Alanovi
Assistenzverben und deren syntaktische und semantische Valenz
Zusammenfassung
In dieser Arbeit versuchen wir die Assistenzverben als eine Unterklasse der kausativen Verben
zu definieren. Dies ist nicht nur mit semantischen Grnden berechtigt, sondern auch bezglich auf
deren Valenzeigenschaften. Das eigentliche Ziel dieser Arbeit ist verschiedene syntaktische Modelle, die diese Verben bilden, zu beschreiben. Als die semantischen Prototypen der Assistenzverben
betrachten wir folgende Verben: pomoi und odmoi.

malanovic@ptt.rs
UDC 811.163.4136

*
, .
.

M. (1977).
,
,
, . , ,
. ,
,
.
: , , ,
, , , .
1. .
()
, ,
, .1
. ,
( ) . ,
,
,
. ,
,
. ,

.
gt t g pg g ptg g g (178009),
.
1
.
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 151165.
152
,

. ,
.
1977,
() .
, ,
,
.

.
. 1977. ,
,
. ,
, , ,
, .
. ,
. , ,
. ,
()
( 1999: 40).

.
2. .
,
, .
. :
Verbum (= gg p pt gg) + Nomen deverbativum, a (
) ( ) ( 1977: 53).2

: 1. (.
), 2. (
), 3. (

) 4.
( ).
2
, . (1977)
, . , , .
153
( . ) , ,
,
( 1988; 2004; 2005; 2006).
2.1.
. ,
.
, ,
, ( : .
1990; - 2006). . ,

. . .
( , 2.4. ),
,
, t, t.
[]
. , , , ,
nomen actionis,
( 1982: 36).
, , ( 2006: 224;
),
t t ( ),
, , (.
2005: 313).
, , .
( : t pg,
1988: 2). . .
, ,
: .
(t =
t; pgt = t) .
,
(t p; tt t3) (
gg p,
p pt pt pt,
( ). ,

(.
1988).
3
154
1990: 177179). , (
)

: , , ( 1998: 93) (
).
2.2.
. ,
(. t g gt, :
1977). ,

(. 4 : 1977: 60).

, .
(. . t g gt, t
t : 2006: 226). . , ,
,
( 1988). , .
, . (t t;
2004), (t pg
pgt), (t p pt) .,

( 2004: 44).
2.3. , ,
. , .
(. t t *tt;
t *t : 1977: 59)5.
, .

[] ,
( . 2005: 315).
. , ,

() (.: / ;
/ ; / ; /
.). ( 1977: 60). .
5
. (1999: 39) ,
.
4
155

,
t t (= ) t t (= ), . ,
,

( . 2005: 313; 1977: 73). ,
.
: t / pgt , ,
t = t; pt / pt / t t
t t = tt ( 1988: 3). 2004,
.
, t (2004:
44). . - ,
,
(t p = pt)
, (t p = ptt),
(t = ) (-
2006: 250251).
2.4. . . . ,

t / (p)t / t,
t / =
(g) / . , .
pt pt,
( 2005: 315; 2006;
2010), ( 1988; - 2006),
,
( 1977; 1982;
1988; 1990; 1995; 1996; 1997).
. :
,
[]
( ),
,
- ( )
( 1988: 511512).
. . -

( 1982; - 2006: 247248):
156
1) :
) , . : [] ptg = p t6
) , . : 250 t =
pt ),
2) (g p =
tg ),
3) ( = / t )
4) (t p = t ).
, -, ,
( ), . , .
,

. ,
,
.
.
3.
3.1. .
, .
, , , (.
1977; 1990: 170),

(. 1988; 1996).
, , (

).

t, 2001.
.
.
20.000 .
, (1977)
(
). .
6

- 2006 (247248).
157
30 : ()t, t, t / t,
()t, t, pt, pt, ()t, pt, pt,
t, t, t, t, (/p)t, pt, pt, ()t, t, t, tt, t, , t.7

( )
.
,
,
(. 1977).
30 , 25 . :
t, pt, t, pt pt.
, , ,
() .
( . )
,
.
,
,
.
3.2. .
,
, . , ,
.
. , .
,
.
, .8

,
,
.
7
,
, .
8
, - ( 1970; Bari i dr. 1979; , 2002: 144146).
,
(Babi 1986: 185; 2003: 250251).
158
: tg
p g; p t
t; tt t p p,
VSemicop + NDev. ,
(. , 13). ,

(
) , , ,
.
,
( ) :
1. VSemicop + NAbstract/DeAdj :
t t9 (=
10).

,
, (. )
(. . 2.1. ).
2. 3. ,
,
. .
,
. , : t t pt pt.
, , (pt),
. ,
: ( 2.) ( 3.).11
2. VSemicop + NDetNP : tp
p 0,5 t ( 0,5 ); t
p g ( );
t p p g pt t
( ).12
9

.
10
t, (
) , , .
11
(, ) .
12

(.
).
159
3. VSemicop + AdjDetNP13
: tt g ( );
( 14).
3.3. . , (
)
: g p p g
p (= ); g t p (= ); p
11.30 (= ).
, , :
t t t p p
p p pt ( *t); t
t (*t);
[] t p t , t
pt (*ptt15); t p
( *pt pt,
t / t p).
,
, , . , t p p g
pt t
. 3.2. (
2), , ,
. , ,

. : t
t p g pt t.
( ,
)

. ,
(3.3) - , . ,
.16
13
, ,
, / + , ,
: t = t ; ptt p = pt p
( , 1990: 172).
14
,
. , t
( 2004: 212214),
.
15
t tt
(. ), ,
.
16

( ) . (1999).
160
3.4. .

, () ( ). ,
.

(.
p g ptt =
p g ptt).

, ,
.
1) , t []
[ ], ,
,
.
2)
, . t t tt (t t), t t ( g); t tg
tt ( tg p pt,
tt p pt).
3)
: t ( g
t t t t); t ( pt pt t); t (
); pt ptt (
pt [] p (*?) pt); t ( pt t (*?)
pt t) .
,
,
, . ,

, ,
. . t p
t t p (p ), :
t t g pt t g p ( g
p) .
pt
161
p,
g , t
g p ( )
( () ).
3.5. .
,
,
. ,
.
3.5.1. ( 3.2)
(
), : (= ).
3.5.2. ( 3.4)

,
. ,
. - (2006).
3.5.2.1.
, : ttg pt tp (= / tpt); pg t
t (= tt pgt); p
t pp pt g (= t pt
pt g);
p (= g p / g p).
3.5.2.2.
,
. . (1988)
, t / t:
p g ptt (=
); g
p p p (=
); (= );
t p (= ).
4. .
, ,
:
1. ,
( )
.
, .
,
162
( 3.2).
2. , ,

. . ,

.
3. ,
, ,
.
4. ,
.
( )
,
pt pt. (
) .
,
,

, .
, ,
g t p ttg pt,
tg tg g,
, pt,
(. g p p g p; t p t t
p ), (tg
p p g;
t ptp p ; 360 ,
t). ,
.

( t p p g pt
t; t g t p p
p p pt t),
(pt t ;
t p t
g).
163
, , (VSemicop + Ndev)
. , ,
,
.
, , (.
p ) (:
), .
,
. (. )
( : )
,
. : pt pp pt
g, ( t pt
pt g), ,
. : t p ;
tt,
,
( : ; :
).
,
,
,
.
,
,
( )
.
. 2. 2001.
. 9. 2001.
. 16. 2001.
. 23. 2001.
164

, . . g XLIV 15 (1988): 15.
, . ( ). p III (1997): 303310.
, . . t II (1998): 9398.
, . p . g .
( gt pg II). :
, 2003.
-, . , ( ). t p g g
t XLIX/1 (2006): 219304.
, , . t ptg t. : , 1990.
, . .
t t 18/2 (1988): 507513.
, .
. t p g gt 42/1 (1999): 3743.
, , , , , ,
. t g pg : pt . : , ; : , 2005.
, . ( ).
g XXXIII (1977): 5378.
, . . t p
g gt XLVII/12 (2004): 4349.
, . g p. :
, 2004.
, . -
. t t 39/1 (2010): 375385.
, , . t pg . I, II, III IV
. : , 2002.
, . pt (gt t
) II. t. : , 1970.
, . . p
XI/12 (2006): 223239.
, . . g LI (1995): 157166.
, . . Stylistika V (1996):
305312.
, . .
g XXXVIII (1982): 3551.
*
Babi, Stjepan. Tvorba rijei u hrvatskome knjievnome jeziku. Nacrt za gramatiku, Zagreb: Na
kladni zavod Globus Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1986.
Bari, Eugenija, Mijo Lonari, Dragica Mali, Slavko Pavei, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zeevi, Marija
Znika. Priruna gramatika hrvatskog knjievnog jezika. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1979.
165
Milena Jaki
ON THE TYPOLOGY OF DECOMPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS IN SERBIAN
Summary
The aim of this study was to delimit typical and less typical examples of decomposed predicates.
The focus of the research is on two-word constructions equal to the morpho-syntactic model of
decomposed predicates proposed by M. Radovanovi (1977). Based on the analysis of examples
given in the previous research, together with examples from a newspaper text sample in this
research, we differentiate these constructions at the structural, semantic and word formation level.
In addition, we contrast decomposed constructions that originate from simple and complex verb
predicates, adjective predicates, as well as from two predicates in the clauses in compound sentences.
We also establish new morpho-syntactic models of decomposed predicates, and at the end we propose
a revised definition of this construction.

mmjakic@gmail.com
UDC 8137

*
-
.
- pg (2007).
.
o nomina attributiva
. ,
(-, , -
). , , .
nomina attributiva - ,
.
: nomina attributiva, ,
.
1. .
- .
, ,
,
. , ,
, .
, .
(
, ), , ,
,
,
,
.
.1
t p : t, t
pgt t (178004), .
1
, ;
, , , , ;
; ;
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 167180.
168
.
,
nomina attributiva. , , ,

. ,
( ) ( 2007: 470).2
2. .
nomina attributiva .3
t
,
.4

t.
, t
5.
, (, pt, p
, ) .
,
, , ,
;
; , , . ;
,
; , .
2
. , , . (2008: 78) nomina
attributiva ,
. , .
3
.
4
, . ,
, , ,
,
, , t
(K re K rafild 1987: 295).
5
t : 1. ,
;
, . . , , ; , . 2.
, , , . 3. , ,
(). 4. . ; .
(. ) : 1..
( ) , , , . . . .
, . 2.. , , ,
. . ( .) , ;
, . 3.. , , , ., , , . .
, , (). . , , .
169

, (. pt , ).
t
(
, ), [+]:
, , [-]: ,
(). , ,
, , , .
, ,

. ptg
gtg.6

(),
. , /
, . ,
. , (
),
.7
3. . .

, nomina attributiv,
,
.
,
. , ,

,
( ) .
.
- nomina
attributiva
.
6
. (2001: 4648, 6668, 8991, 9899, 107109, 119, 122123, 142
143) nomina attributiva
( ) .
7
, g , : , , ;
, ,
.
170
, , ,
. nomina attributiva .
3.1. Nomina attributiva .

: : t
(t) : (, , ), pt (pt, pt, pt)8;
- (, , );
(, , ); - (), pt (pt),
(, ), t (t,
t).
Nomina attributiva

. t (, , ), t (, ),
t (t, t).
nomina attributiva. - t
.
3.1.1. Nomina attributiva . , , (), , ,
, ,
.

, .
, (
). , ,
,
( 2004: 142).
-, -(), -
, .9
RTF
-: ; > .

,
, , . . ,
,
,
( 2001: 21).
9
.
, : 1.. ,
, , ; . , , . . .
8
171
(2003: 103) - :
- ; - t
.
, -()
(2003: 30); RTF
. , ()
() ,
, , ,
-().
-,
( )
.10 - ,
.
()
( pt)
. ,

. pt.
,
, . ,
,
, .
pt pt11 ,
, : pt
pt -,
( 2003: 32). pt pt -,
pt -.12 -
, . , , pt ( 2003: 101).
t -
.13
-()
10
:
, (); [ ] .
; . (); ,
. (); ,
, . ().
11
pt .
12
, pt
pt pt.
13
t: 1..
. . . 1) , . 2)
, , . 2. , , , .
172
t,
. (2003: 60)
, . , (1986: 70)
: g, t, , .
3.1.2. Nomina attributiva - . -
: , ,
. : --;
- ( 2002: 224).
- -.

. - , -, . - ,
, ( 2003: 141).
,
. - , ,
, .14
,
, ,
. , ,
- .15
3.1.3. Nomina attributiva . 16 :
, , , .
-(),
- -.
nomina agentis, - - nomina professionis
. - -
, .17 - nomina attributiva
14
RTF -
, , , ,
(1. , > ; 2.
-, > ; -; 4. , > ).
15

( 1982).
, ,
. -
, ( 2001: 29).
16
: --
,
: ( ) ( 2002: 121).
17
- nomina attributiva: ,
p, , t t; : , ,
173
.18 , , ,
.19
3.1.4. Nomina attributiva -
.
.
: , pt , , , .
: + + + -(),
-.
.
3.1.5. Nomina attributiva .
t t . (2002: 123),
t ,

( ) .
t (=
), - .
, , - - -().
.
,
nomina attributiva. t.
nomina attributiva t
, , , .
-() ()20 -
(). -()
. , ,
. -
-() -, -: g, ;
-/-: , , t t,
t t ( 2001: 47, 66).
18
. (2001), -
(. t,
t, p, ; , g, , , , ,
, , t, , , t)
(, , , , p, p). ,
- nomina attributiva nomina agentis -, -, - ( nomina attributiva
19992001: 291292).
19
1: pg- , , p
g- , g- , , t
g- ; , tpg- .
20
(2003: 148) -
-().
174
,
( ).21

.
-.22
, - -.
- nomina loci,
- : , t, , ( 2003: 163).
(2003: 148),
-.
-, t
-.23
, nomina attributiva
. - .24
, ,
, ,
,
( ,
(). , ,
,
.25

(t , t t . ,
21
(2003: 148),
-, pt, t, . RTF - :
-, > , : , > ;
.
22
: 1.. . (= , ,
, ). 2. ( . ) , , , ; , .
-.
. . (2001: 90) nomina attributiva
.
23
(1986: 157) ,
g, , t, (), , ().
24
-

, , ,
, ( ).
25
2
. ,
, , : 2. 3. .
175
, .26
(). ,
- (2003: 122). ,
, ; , .

. ,
: - + -;
- + - : , ; , .
t t
, t ;
t; nomen attibutiva
t.
3.1.8. Nomina attributiva - .

: ,
, , , ();
: t
: p ,
.
+ (, , + ),
. 1
- : ---, ---.
(2002: 96), - (-) t, : p-, t-,
( )-, + + . -() (2002: 53, 57), ,
t + + .
4. . , ,

. ,

.
- . ,
, 26
, ,
t .
( gt : g) (
2011: 96).
. , , (2003: 181) (1986: 442)
- ,
, .
176
, , , .
. (2008: 498), .

.
nomina attributiva , ,
, ; , , (
). ,
,
: .
p, 27; (
, ).

(), : ,
, , . :
; .

(t t).
-
.
,

( )
( 2004: 142).
.28 SSHJ
, .
.29
pt, p, , .
27
, , ,
; : 1. ,
. 2. , .
28
,
(, ).
29
:
pt, t, pt, ptp, , , , pt
, , p, , , ,
, ., ., ., ., ., pt .,
p ., ., p ., p ., t .,
.
177
( , ,
, ),
(, , ). SSHJ
: pt ( ,
, ,
) pt, pt pt (
pt) .
:
,

, ,
, , ,
.
(),
pt, p, . () .
: ) (
[ ] pt ; [
] p ; pt t; :
pt t t ( ); ; ) (, , pt); t;
t.
pt
t, . ;

.30
5. . ,
, ,
.
,
,
, , .
nomina attributiva
,
: t (t), (, , ), pt (pt, pt, pt); (30
, .
, .
178
, , ); (, , ); (), pt (pt), (, ), t (t, t

) t (, , ), t (,
) t (t, t).
- + +
+ (, t, p).
nomina attributiva
- ,
-,
.
. - -().
-() -
.
. -()
, -, -, -()
,
.
- -. -.
Nomina attributiva -.
, ,
;
- . -
. , ,
. -
.
- nomina attributiva

.
,
pt gt. ptg
. ,
- , ,
, , . , ,

. ,
.
179
ptg g , IIII. :
, 19671969; IVVI. : , 19711976.
pg . : , 2007.

, . pt . :
, 2008.
, . g g t. :
, 2004.
, . p ( t ). . . . 18.
: , 2001.
, . g pg . : , 2007.
, . p , g p.
: , 2002.
, . p , g .
: . .
, 2003.
, . . : Kornet, 2008.
1 , , . t-
. 1: t. : ,
, 2003.
2 , , . t-
. 2: t g t, p t ,
p , t. : ,
, 2006.
, . ( ). g. LXIV (2008): 497507.
, . pt . : ,
1982.
, . Nomina agentis nomina attributiva
. p . 3032 (19992001): 285295.
, . (nomina attributiva) . p .
12/12 (2007): 469483.
, . . t p
g gt. LIII/2 (2011): 9097.
*
Babi, Stjepan. Tvorba rijei u hrvatskom knjievnom jeziku. Nacrt za gramatiku. Zagreb: Globus
Jugoslvenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1986.
K re, Dejvid, Riard K rafild. Elementi psihologije. Beograd: Nauna knjiga, 1978.
RTF ipka, Danko. Renik tvorbenih formanata. Beograd: Alma, 2003.
SSHJ Lalevi, Miodrag. Sinonimi i srodne rei srpskohrvatskoga jezika. Beograd: Leksikografski
zavod Sveznanje, 1974.
180
Gordana tasni
DENOTATION OF MAN MOTIVATED BY POSITIVE CHARACTER TRAITS
Summary
This paper analyzes the derivation and semantics of nominals whose denotation is man as a
bearer of a positive character trait. The corpus includes lexemes of this semantic-derivational type
excerpted from the one-volume Renik srpskoga jezika (Dictionary of the Serbian Language) (2007).
The semantic analysis is based on the elements of prototype theory and componential analysis.
Derivational analysis established the motivational lexemes in the formation of nouns of the type
nomina attributiva which denote man. It turned out that the dominant motivation is adjectival, by
adjectives with a complex formation structure (prefixational-suffixational, complex, complex-suffixational and blends). It also turned out that derivational formation dominates in the formation of
nouns of this semantic type, while the semantic one is completely absent. This paper also investigated
the paradigmatic relations characteristic for the nouns of the type nomina attributiva, as well as the
semantic sources of the established paradigmatic relations.

gordanastasni@yahoo.com
UDC 811.163.4128

*
.
(-/-/-), (-/-()/-()/-), (-t/-()t/-t) (-/-()/-()),
( > , g > g; /, t ,
t , t ).
( , , ),
.
: , , , , .
1.
1.1.
, .
.
- .
. (1952), -
. (2009).
- -
( 2006).
-
(2008). . (2000) .
. (1995).

. (1980), .
(1970). .
t (1977).
*
t t pg g p
t (148022), .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 181204.
182
1.2.
.
. ,
,
. ,
,
. , ,
,
( 1973: 166; 1985: 319320).
1.3.
,

,
(
1994: 301, 305). ,
(-/-/-)
(-t/-()t/-t; -/-()/-()). ( > ; g > g)
(- -t; -, -t -, -()t -() -()
-()t); t, , , ).

t , t , t , --:
/, , , /, t,
. ,
,
.
1.4.
,
,
.
.
,
.
2.
2.1.
, .
,
, .

( 1999: 376).
, (// , /
) (, ).
2.2.
//
...
183
// //, /h/
.
2.2.1. (. 1)
. - ,
-, -, -,
( ), ,
, - ( ).
:
) -: : , ( . 1997: 179); :
, ( 1994: 126); : p, , ` (
1968: 191); : p ( 139); : ,
( 1964: 351); : ( 1964: 147); : , ,
p ( 1966: 272); : , p; , t
( 1969: 52; 2006: 298); : p,
pg, ( 1985: 317); : t, tg ( 1985:
317); : , ( 1999: 382); : ; , g
( 1969: 486);
) -: : p, , , g ( 2004:
446, ); : ( 1994: 339); :
, , ( 1985: 317); a : t, p
y, pg ( 1982:37);
) -: pt: : y, py, , p, ,
, p, p ( 2003: 258); : t,
t, p ( 1935: 550); : g, ( 1977: 121); pt: : /, pg/pg, p/p, /, , y, p (
1968: 141142); : , , ( 2001: 219);
: , g, (
1966: 308), : p ( 1990: 31); : p,
( 1993: 32); : , p , pg, ( 2004,
); pt: : , p, p, t,
y ( 1972: 48); : p, g , ,
( 1995: 184); : , t, p, t (-
1990: 101);
) -: p- g: : , ,
p, ( 1987: 194); : /, p (
1939: 203); : , p, g ( 1996: 504); :
, t ( 1950: 126); : p,
( 1977: 121); : , pt ( 1977:
287); : p() ( 1977: 4647);
: , , pg, ( 1996: 215); :
g, , g ( 2009: 209); : , , (
1984: 101); -p g: : pt, p, t,
( 2000: 174); : , ( 1979: 83);
: pg, p ( 1999: 169); t-: :
t ( 1983: 85); : , p, ( 1979: 83);
: , tp ( 1999: 169);
184
) : gt g: : , ( 1968: 420); : , pt, t ( 1977: 227); p g: :

pg ( 1992: 228); : , , (
1936: 249); p g: : g, pt (
1976: 264); : , , ( 1986: 162);
: ( 1978: 105); : , , , t
( 1973: 166);
) -: : , t, p, t ( 2007: 178);
) : - : , , p, t
( 1999: 386);
) : : p, p, (Baoti 1983: 138).
2.2.2. -/-g
(
, , , , ), - (, , , , ,
, ). - - (
), (, ).
-/-/-g.
-/-g .
-/-g:
) : gt g: : , , ( 19381939: 72); : , , , ( 1927: 19, 60);
: pgg, g, g, g, g, g, g ( 1981: 188);
: , /g, g, g, g, tg, tgg () (
1974: 251); : , , p ( 1972: 680); :
, , pt, p ( 2001: 219); : p, ,
( 1970: 131);
) -: : p, , ( 2009: 42); :
, p, p ( 1940: 452);
1: , pt, yp; p, , (

1965: 7475, 178179); : , p; g ( 1973: 214).
-/-/-g:
-: : , p/, t/g, g ( 1985: 317);
: gt g: : p, /, , (
)/tg, tg, g () ( 1995: 6263).
-/-:
) -: : p, /, ( 2005: 387);
: , , , , , ( 1977: 93);
) : gt g: : , ; (K ai 1995: 336);
: g, t, p, /p, g, ( 2005: 302304, ).
1
, ,
, ( 1965: 9).
...
185
2.2.3. ,
-() - ( , ), - (, - ),
. ( ,
) - (
).
- -, -:
p pt -/-:
) : gt g: : , , /, ;
( 1964: 154155);
) -: : pg; g, t, ( 1969: 263).
p pt -/-:
) -: p- g: : p, , t, /p
, g, pt, t ( 2001: 422);
) -: - : yh, ph, tgh, ph ( )/, , , ( 1966: 103);
) : p g: : ,
, g, , , (Peco 1982: 167168).
p pt -/-/-:
) : gt g: : h, h, ph (
); , , , g; , , , p ( 1991: 268,
270, 278); : , , t (
); , , , pg (); , , py,
p ( 1992: 303);
) -: : /, y, p/p, : y,
, p/, : , ( 1998: 8889).
-:
: t g: : , , p (Peco 1983: 271).
3.
3.1.
. , -, - -
-(). , -, ,
-,
.
2.
a:
t -():
) -: : , , ( 1985: 318319);
) -: pt: : g, , pp (
1968: 142); : , , g ( 2001:
186
219); : p, t, (
1966: 308); : pt, p, (
1990: 31); : g, p, pg ( 2010: 79); pt: : pp, g, , (
1968: 352);2 : , t, g, t (- 1990: 101).
) -: p- pt: : , pt
( 1977: 287); : , (

1977: 362); : t, pp, ,
p ( 1987: 194); : , , p (
1939: 203); : , , p ( 1977:
47); : p, p, t, g, ( 1996: 216); -p pt: : ,
, ( 2000: 175); : , ( 1979: 83); : p ( 1999: 170); t-
: : t ( 1983: 8586); : p,
( 1979: 83); : p, t, p
( 1999: 170).
t -():
-: p- g: : p, pt; pt,
t ( 2001: 423).
3.2. -t
. - -
, , - - - . - ,
,
- -() ( 1958: 339).
, -
-(), - -.
,
- XVIII ( 1958: 339).
t -:
) -: : p ( 1994: 139);
: , ( 1964: 147); : , ,
( 1985: 318319); : p, , g,
( 1969: 483);
) -: : t, , t ( 1958: 339);
) -: pt: : ty, ( 1935: 549, 560); pt: : (
2009: 51);
2
, ,
( 1968: 352).
...
187
) -: p- pt: : g, g
, p ( 1996: 504); : , t
( 1950: 126);3
) : gt g: : t, ( 1964:
154155); ( 1927: 60); : , g, p
(K ai 1995: 336); : , , (Peco 1983:
271); : , , ( 19381939: 71);
: , , g ( 1981: 168169); : t
, t , t , , t ( 1974:
251); : g, , t ( 1972: 680); :
pp, , t ( 2005: 148); : ,
, ( 2001: 219); : t, g
, ( 2005: 302304); : , ,
( 1977: 227); : ,
, t ( 1992: 304); : g, pt,
( 1970: 131); p g: : (
1992: 228); : ( 1936: 249);
) -: : g, , t ( 1969: 263); :
, p, g ( 2005: 388); : p,
, ( 1940: 452453); : ; p, ( 1965: 7475);
: , y; , ( 1973: 214); : , / ( 1977: 93); :
g, ; t ( 2007: 179); -
: ; tg ( 1966: 128); :
/, ( 1998: 88).
3.3. ,
. , -
-.
t - t g:
) : p g: : t, , p
( 1986: 163); : p, ,
(: 1976: 264); : , , ,
( 1978: 106); : p ( 1984: 403);
) : : , (Ivi 1913: 190);
: pg, , p (Baoti 1983: 139);
) : : p, (Mogu 1966: 85).
3.4. (-/-;
-()/-) , , . (.
9).
3

-.
t. -
, , ( 1950: 126127).
188
:
3.4.1. t -/-:
) -: : p; t, t ( 1964: 351); : g,
p, pg; tg, ( 1966: 273);
: , p, , ; t, t,
, ( 1969: 52; 2006: 298);
: , , t; , p, t ( 1985: 318);
) : gt g: : , , p;
, 4 ( 1991: 474); : , , g,
pg; , pg ( 1968: 421); p g:
: t, t, ;
p, p, p (Pc 1982: 167); : , ,
, , t ( 1973: 167);5
) -: : p, p; t, t ( 2008:
254);
) : - : p,
( -); p, p, ( 1999: 386).
3.4.2. t -()/-:
) -: : , t, pt, ,
: , p ( 1985: 318);
) -: pt: : , p, t, pp
; , pg, ( 2003: 258)6;
: g, g, (
1977: 121); : , p ( )
gp, t ( ) ( 1993: 9293);
: , t; , , t ( 2008: 253);
pt: : , ,
-: p,
( 1993: 32); : g, p; ,
( 2004, ); pt: : , ,
p, t, : , , t ( 1972: 384386);
: pg, , ; tg, ,
( 1995: 184);7
) -: p- g: :
p, p ( 1977: 121); : ,
p, t, : g, ,
g ( 2009: 210); : , , t,
; , p, p ( 1984: 101).
4
- ( 1991: 474).
5
-
; - ,
- ( 1973: 167).
6
- 1... ,
( 2003: 258-260).
7
- ( 1995: 184).
...
189
3.4.3. t -/-()/-:
) -: : , p, t; ,
t; , ( 1985: 318);
) -: : , , /g, ,
g; , py ( 2004: 449, ).
4.
4.1. -t:
) -: : pt, t ( 1994: 139);

: t, t ( 1964: 147); : t,
t, t ( 1969: 484);
) -: : tt, ptt ( 2004: 450,
);
) -: pt: : pgt, pt, t
t ( 2003: 260); :
gt, t ( 1977: 121); pt: : yt! ( 1966: 308);
: t ( 2004, ); pt: : t ( 2009: 51);
) -: p- pt:
: pt ( 1977: 121); : pt,
t, pt ( 1987: 195); : t, t ( 1996: 504); : t ( 1977: 48);
: pgt, t, ptt, pgt ( 1977:
216); : t, t ( 1984: 101); -p
pt: : pt, t ( 2000: 175); :
t ( 1979: 83); t- pt: :
tt ( 1983: 86); : t, t, ptt (
1979: 83); : t, t, pt (
1999: 170);
) : gt g: : t ( 19381939: 72);
: t, t ( 1981: 169); : t
( 1974: 253); : t, t, tt ( 2001: 220);
: t, pt ( 1972: 681); : ppt,
t, t ( 1995: 148); : t,
pt ( 2005: 302-304); : t ( 1968: 421);
: t, t ( 1977: 227); p g: :
t, ( 1992: 228); : t (
1936: 249);
) -: : t, tt ( 1969: 263); : y
t ( 2005: 387); : pt, t ( 1940: 452
453); : t (
1965: 74); : t, t, pt, pt (
1973: 215); : t, t, t, yt ( 1977: 93);
: t, t, ptt, t ( 2007:
179); : t, yt, t ( 1998: 88).
190
4.2. -() -t/-()t

- ,
(. 3):
-: p- pt: : t, t;
pgt, ppt ( 2001: 423); : t,
t ( 2009: 211).
4.3. -
-t, ,
:
) -: : pt , t ( 1966: 273);
) : p g: : pt, t
( 1976: 264); : t, t ( 1986:
163); : t, t ( 1978: 106); : p
t, t, t ( 1973: 167); : t ( 1984: 403);
) : : t (Ivi 1913: 190); :
pgt, pt (Baoti 1983: 139);
) : - : pgt, t
( 1999: 386).
4.4.
.
4.4.1. t -t/-t:
) -: : tt; t; tt, t ( 1969: 52; 2006: 299); : pt,
pgt, t; pt, t ( 1985: 320);
) : gt g: : pt, tt (. 10) ( 1991: 474); p g: : t; t (Peco 1982: 168).
4.4.2. t -()t/-t:
-: p- g: : t, tt, p
tt, t, pt, t
( 2009: 212).
4.4.3. t -()t:
-: p- g: : t, t, pt
( 1939: 203).
5.
5.1. -, - (, , ), - (
, ) - (
...
191
) -().
,
, ,
( 1965: 179).
-, -()/-()/- (. 4). -():
) -: pt: : p, p ( 1968: 143), :

p ( 1990: 31); pt: : p (
2008: 254);
) -: p-: : t, p, ( 1950: 127); pt: : p ( 1972: 386);
) -: : ,
( 1965: 179).
5.2. , -()
- :
: t, , p, t ( 2001: 423424);
: , /, p ( 1939: 203).
5.3. ( )
( 1985: 321): , p
, t, p ( 1985: 321).
6.
6.1.
(. 5).
, , , , ,
,
( . 1997: 180, 551). ,
- (, , )
- ( , )
: ( .
1997: 180). ,

.
:
) -: : a p, a yp; , pg; ,
( . 1997: 180); : a t; p; ( 1964: 351); : , a , a ; ,
( 1966: 273); : a , a p ( 1969:
52); : a ( 1985: 321);
) -: : a ( 2004: 448, );
: a , a , t a ( 1985: 321);
) -: pt: : ; p ( 2004,
);
192
) : gt g: : a ( 1991: 474);
: a t ( 2005: 302-304, ); p
g: : a t; pg; ( 1992: 228);
p g: : a , a p ( 1976: 264);
: a, a, a p ( 1986: 162); : a , a ( 1981: 167); : a
( 1978: 105); : a , a t ( 1973: 165); :
a ( 1984: 403);
) -: : a ( t) ( 1977: 280);
) : a , a , a p, a
a (Ivi 1913: 190);
) : : (Sekuli 1986: 191); - : a, a, t a ( 1999: 386).
6.2. 2.. . .
,

( 1985: 316).
7. --
7.1.
--
.
.
,
( 1984: 101).
--:
7.1.1. p gg (t, t, t, tt, t,
t, t, t):
) -: : yt, t ( . 1997: 177); : , g
( 1966: 273); : , , (
2006: 298); : , , p ( 1985: 317);
: ( 1999: 392); : , (
1969: 483);
) -: : t, pt, ( 2004: 452,
); : , t ( 1985: 321);
) -: pt: : , t (
1935: 556, 660); : t, t ( 2008: 254);
: ( 1977: 121); pt: : ( 1995: 184);
: t ( 1993: 32); :
( 2010: 79); pt: : (-
1990: 102); : ( 1990: 31);
) -: p- pt:
: , ( 1977: 121); : ,
( 1987: 194195); : , t, p (
2001: 422423); : , t ( 1977: 215);
...
193
: , t ( 2009: 209); :
p() ( 1977: 4647); -p: : , ,
t ( 2000: 175); t-: : , pt ( 1999: 170);
) : gt g: : , , , pp,
t ( 19381939: 72); : t ( 1995: 148);
: t, ( 1977: 227); : , t
( 2001: 220); p g: :
( 1976: 264); : ,
(Peco 1981: 167); : ( 1978: 106);
) -: : t, t, t ( 2005: 389); : ( 1965: 75);
: , , t, t ( 1998: 88);
: t, , ( 2008: 254);
) : - : , (
1999: 386);
) : : t, (Baoti 1983: 139).
7.1.2. gg:
-: : --
--/, -/-, -t, - ( 1984: 101).
7.1.3. t gg, p:
) -: pt: : /, p/p
, : t, tt, , p, p
( 2003: 260-261); pt: : t/t
( 2004, );
) : gt g: : , p, t,
, , , ,
( 1964: 154); : , ( 1927: 60);
: g, g, tg, ptg, g, pg, g,
g ( 1981: 168); : g, tg, t , p,
, tg, t , p, ( 1974: 251); : , tp, t, p, p, , ,
, t, ( 1991: 474); : ,
, t, , t, t ( 2005: 302304);
p g: : , p t (
1973: 167);
) -: : p, t, p, p,
p, t ( 1940: 452); : t,
t/t, g/ g ( 2007: 178180).
8.
8.1.
.
(, , ) (. 6):
194
) -: : , , p / , , , p (
. 1997: 179180); : , ( 1968: 191);
) : p g: :
(Peco 1981: 168); : , , ,
, ( 1978: 106).
8.2. , .
: g ( 1966: 273).
9.
9.1. , , . //
- -.
// // /g/,
-(), -()g.
. -t
-, -() -()t 2... - ,
-, -t.
9.2. , -() , - , .
- + .
(. . 6)
, (. . 7 8).
9.3. -()
-, - -
(. 2). -
- -
. -, -t
(. 2).

-()/-; -/-, -/-(), ,
.
-
(. 6).
-
-(), -().
9.4. , ,
.

.
...
195
9.5. p
t t .
, t ,
,
.
.
196
...
197
198
...
199
200
...
201

tt
, . t pg . t. .
g. . tt t. :
, 1999.
, , .
. t
p g gt LI/12 (2008): 157175.
, . (I).
g LVI/34 (2000): 357378.
, . pt t. tt . g: pt
t t . : , 1994.
, . t t. : . , 1, 1975.
, .
. t t 31 (1980):
7379.
, . .
g XXXIII (1977): 247265.
, . : ,
. p t XLI (1995): 491520.
, . . ,
t 4 (1952): 114128.
, . - -
. t p g gt XLIX/2 (2006): 289304.
, . -
. p 14/1-2, XIV (2009): 503531.
- t (-)
, , , . -
, : , , , . p
t XLIII (1997): 1585.
, . . p t XIV (1964): 201412.
, . . p t XVI (1966): 179313.
, . . p t XVIII (1969): 171.
, . . t p g
gt XLII (1999): 383398.
, . p tt g . : .
CDXXV, , . 21, 1968.
, . . p t LIII (2006): 189374.
, . . p t XXXI
(1985): 1555.
, . . t p g gt
VII (1964): 141152.
, . . p t
XVIII (1969): 401435.
, . t . t . : , 1994.
- t (-)
, . g . .
: , 2004.
, . t tg g g p t.
V, (1958): 326353.
202
, .
( ). p t XXVIII (1982): 761.
- t (-)
, , . .
g tt 6 (1966): 291319.
, . t tp. . : , 1977, 11135.
, . g . : .
, 1998.
, . g . :
, 2008.
, . ( ), t
p g gt LII/2 (2009): 3756.
, . . p t L (2003): 1356.
, . g . . : , 742.
, . g p. : ,
1995.
, . t. .
, .
, . - . p t
V/2 (1935): 1587.
, . . p t XVII (1968): 1241.
, ., . , . p t XVII (1968): 241367.
, . . p t
XXXVI (1990): 175.
, . p g. tgg t ptp. :
. , . 70, 2010.
-, . . p
23 (1987): 75119.
, . . p t XIX (1972): 1619.
-t t (-)
, . . . : , 1977, 226300.
, . - g . .
: , 1977, 300373.
, . . p t XXV
(1979): 1178.
, . . p t
XXXIII (1987): 7-302.
, . . p t XLII
(1996): 1317.
, . . . :
, 6, 2009.
, . . p XLVII (2000): 7307.
, . g. , 1977.
, . . p t
XLVIII (2001): 1696.
, . . p t XVIII (1939): 3352.
, . I. p t XLII (1996):
319614.
, . . p t XI (1950): 1152.
, . . p t XXIX (1983): 7119.
, . . p t XLVI (1999): 7262.
, . . p t XXX (1984): 1265.
...
203
tg t ()
, . . g XVII (19381939): 1114.
, . . p t III (1927):
171.
, . . p t XXI
(1976): 316+.
, . . p t XXXII (1986):
7241.
, . . p t XLI (1995): 1240.
, . . p t XXXVIII (1992): 9378.
, . . . :
, 2005.
, . gt g. :
. . , IV,
3, 2001.
, . . p t XVII (1968): 367472.
, . ( ). p t
XIX (1972): 619746.
, . . p t XXXVII
(1991): 1549.
, . . p t XXX (1984):
357424.
, . . : ,
1978.
, . g . : . .
, 1973.
, . . :
, , 12, , 2, 1981.
, . - . p t XLVI
(1970): 263426.
, . .
p 6 (1970): 105135.
, . . t , t
XVI (1936): 237254.
, . I. p t XX (1974): 1259.
, . . p t XXII (1977): 159328.
*
K ai, Zorka. Govor Konavala. p t XLI (1995): 241396.
Peco, Asim. Ikavskoakavski govori zapadne Bosne (II dio: akcenat, oblici, tekstovi). Bosanskoher
cegovaki dijalektoloki zbornik III (1982): 7261.
Peco, Asim. Govor Podveleja. Bosanskohercegovaki dijalektoloki zbornik IV (1983): 209281.
t- t (-)
, . - . p t XVI
(1966): 1177.
, M. g . : .
, 1998.
, . . p t XVIII (1969): 73401.
, . t. : . 2005.
, . . p t IX (1940): 1663.
, . . g
tt XVI/I (1973): 201233.
, . . p t XV (1965): 1294.
204
, , . . p t
LVI (2009): 1275.
, . . p t LIV (2007): 1323.
, . . p t XXIII (1977): 1226.
, . , g XXXIII
(1977): 265284.
t
Mogu, ilan. Dananji senjski govor. Senjski zbornik II (1966): 5152.
Sekuli, Ante. Baki Bunjevci. Zbornik za narodni ivot i obiaje 50 (1986): 164197.
t
Baoti, osip. Ikavskoakavski govor u okolini Dervente. Bosanskohercegovaki dijalektoloki
zbornik IV (1983): 7208.
Ivi, Stjepan. Dananji posavski govor II. Rad JAZU 197 (1913): 9138.

. 1- . . . (-/-/-), 1- . .. (-/-()/-()/-), 2- . . .
(-t/-()t/-t) 3- . . . (-/-()/-()), (>,
g>g; /, t , t , t ).
3- . . . 1- . . . . ( , , ),
2- . . .

piros@panline.net

saraluka@eunet.rs
UDC 811.163.4136(497.115)

. ( > py /
py, , , )
( , p, y ).
,
.
- ,
. /
/ ~ / ,
/ p ~ p /
.

.
: , , ,
, .
1. .
.

.

: -, -,
-, (, , .),
(, pt).

.
, ,
.
,
.
*

(148001), .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 205226.
206

.
1.1.
, - ,
-
,
,
-, (
).1
, . , ,
, ,
-
-
.
1.2. () .2
) - . () (),
() ().
-, , (),
-, .
, , (),

- .
) -, , (), ( 2001: 519).
, ,
(), - ,
( 2004:
219). -
, , ( 2005:
7079). (),
.
1
. 2010: 1524.
. 208.
2
.
2004.
...
207
1999. ,
() .
1.3.
. pluralia tantum
( 2007: 99116),
. . (
, p ).

.
, ,
, , ,

3.

.
,
( 1979:
133; 1987: 266; 1983: 107108; 2000: 236237; 2009:
130; 1962: 240).4

,
( 1969: 284285).
1.4. a) -,
.

( / / / / )
( 2001: 246; 2004: 246; 1996: 507508, 511;
1950: 136137; 1939: 206207). .
) .
, , ,
, :
.
, (3 > 2 ),
.
, ,

, ( . 1997: 409411).
4
a
, ( 1905:
230, 399).
3
208

a - (, , , , ),
. . . (, ) ,
( 2010: 195197, 216251).
)
, ,

( ; ).
)
.
.

. , p ,
, ,
.
(> , t p g, ).5
. (
) ( ).
,
5
. 2010: 100102.
...
209
(
= t ).
, ,
.
.

:
. () (),
. ,
. ,
. .
) ,
,
. , . , pt, . / ,
- (.: t :
t, : t . t / t).
2. -. -
o je
2005: 169173,
. ,
,
.
2.1.
.
)
( 2005: 172173; 1996: 470)
, (p : p : p),
.
) -, (, , ) - ()
, -,
. . . ( 2005: 171172).
. - ,
( 2001: 318319; 2005: 171). ,

( 2005: 171).

, - .6
6
2001: 318. . .
210
- .
2.2. .
) . . .
. . . ( > t).7
)
( 2005: 169, 172173)8.
) - . . (=
) . . (- : -) (. . 2.3 ).
2.3. ,
-, .
-
- / - / -. ,
.
) p, / p, p,
, :
a[] p, p , p ;
p , p p, p - ,
p, , .
- ( p , p
, ), .
,
:
,
.
.9
, t, (
1970: 79), - ,
- ( 1954: 216; 1962: 140).
)
. , ,
p, , p ( , :
p, / p, / ), . ., ,
( , , : p,
, ).
7
-
( 2003: 203), ( 1969: 194, 211, 216, 217218).
8
. . -,
( 1970: 79; 2009: 128).
9
,
. 2004: 209246.
...
211
, .
-,
.
. p , , , p,
p , , -
, ;
, p, p , ,
, t.
. p , ; o p,
, , .
2.4. . .
. . - . . (
p, t ),
- . - . ( 2004: 228229; 2010: 319324;
1996: 453458; 1950: 102105), . -
- . :
, o, ,
o, p , p.
2.5. - , - ,10
, -
, . . -11 ( 1957:
180; 1979: 54; 1987: 157; 1969: 194, 211, 216218).
2.6. , , , je /-/,
/- + /,
( : / ) ( 1939: 135, 159; 1970: 79;
2001: 192193; 1962: 348; 1987: 157; 1968: 75).
2.7. . -
/ ( , ),

:
, ,
, , .
10
.
- ,
(, , ) ( ) ( 2003: 203).
11
. e pe et .
212
3. - (, ).
/ ,
,
-,
, -
( 1996: 475, 476477; 1939: 169;
2001: 317318; 2003: 216217; 1957: 196; . 1997:
6768; 1968: 86).
, , . , (.,
., .) (.).
.
(, djeca),
, XIV : kako da Est pomenq vlqkoslavU i EgovYmx
dYcam ( . 2003: 222), Selo Sini virq sq vsYmi starimi meg]mi {o E
drq/alq dragoslavq veterq z dYcami ( . 2003: 223).
, -e e,

.
.12
.
, ,
( > O
).
3.1. - - ( 2004:
226227; 2010: 276292; 1996: 458464). .
/ .
t, . -
. . ( , a , p
).
.

.
3.2. (., .:
.), :
. , .
( 1969: 284),
.
12
213
...
, ; ; ;
, , ,
-- .

:
, a .
1: e, a / a
.
.
.
3.3.
3.3.1.
) -
1. :
T , t , g ,
, t e (. 1950: 150)
, , , ,
, g , , g ,
, , ,
[], , t,
, , t ,
, , , ; t
, , , t
, t , t , g ,
t , t , ,
, t , ,
, g , t , t
.
. . . 13
: , . ,
. . . - ( ,
t ).
; t , t , ,
, .
13
. . . , - . . .
. . . ( 2010: 229230).
214
, , t
, , , t t ,
, , ,
, , e e t t
, gw , , t
, ,
, g , t , , .
(,
), a . . .,
.
e
(
; , ) ( 2001: 307), . a.
a
- :
, t ( 2010: 221222).
2. :
t g(), ,
, -e- , t , p
, , , , E
, , t , t
, , ,
, ew, [] ,
, , ,
, ,
, [] , [] t ,
, p , ,
, g , .

. . e.
:
, , .
, t , , ,
, e ,
, p t , e -, e - ,
t , , ,
, , ,
, e -, t .
)
1. :
, , o
, t , , -
, -, , , -, -,
...
215
t- , -, -, g-,
, -, .
, , -,
, , ,
, w , , t , ,
t , .
2. :
e , t , t , pt ,
, t , ;
- , - , t- ,
t-, t-, pt , -,
, , -, t ,
-, -, g-, co tt ,
- .
, c -, t ,
, -, ; - ,
-, pt , [] t ,
, tt , ,
t a .
/
. - , -
( 2005: 72; 2010: 292, 310), -

- ( 2010: 310).
-
[] t , t , t . 2010: 236237.
3.3.2.
) -
e t , g ,
, , , ta
, , , ,
, t , t , o g
, , pt, p .
)
t, , ,
, - pt, .
3.3.3.
, e , e p,
p .14
14
. 3.3.1..
216
3.3.4.
e , , ,
, , , ,
, .15
3.4.
3.4.1.
.
) -
, e , t , t
, t , , t
, , , t ,
, a, , ,
, , t ,
g g , , w
, w, ,
, , ,
, o , t , p ,
, , ,
; , o , t
, , t , ,
o .
, ,
, t , t , , t
, t , t , t
, , a,
, .
- .
-,
. ( 2010: 335339).
- . . . ( 2010: 339340).
. . e a
. / + + / = .
. . . - ( / :
), - .
. - , / + + / =
. . .
.
/ .
- ,
15
. 3.3.1..
...
217
. . .,
(
2004: 230231). . .
( : g g > : /
: p p / : g g). .
,
. .,
.
)
, , , t , ,
, , , t ,
, pt , , ,
.
, , , t
, , g .
4. (, t, pt).
,

.
, (. . 33.4.1): ,
.
.
,
.
4.1. :
1. , t ; , (.
1996: 498) , a t ,
, , ,
p t , , ,
t , t ;
, gt , p , pt
, , (. 2001: 314317) .
2. , t ,
, [] pt, t .
4.2. :
1. 16 , t ,
t t , ;
2. , , t , pt
.
16
. ( 2003: 251).
218
5. *-jad. (;
, ),
*-jad. .17
. . .
.18 - 19
- (.),
(< ) , . . .
, . -
(. . 6 ) (.),
( 2001: 221, 276, 317).
-
, ,
, . - ,
, / ( ,
, ).
, ,
( ) (
, , ).
) , ,
, w , , -
(. 1950: 150) , .
) , , ; ,
, .
6. (, t, ,
.).
, ,
.

, ( : ).20 , ,
,
.
. . ,
,

*-jad ( 1996: 139; 1979: 57; 1968: 85, 158).
18
. , .
- ( . 1997: 412).
19
( 1939: 15,
118), (.
2005: 173, . 24).

20
. (
. 1997: 69).
17
219
...
.
.21

- (, , , t),
. .
-
(, , ). .
,

. , t :
g , g ,
t , t .

, .
2: ,
.
(.)22
.
.
.
.
.
(.)
.
(.)
.
(.)
(.)
(.)
(.)
6.1. 22
6.1.1.
6.1.1.1.
) :
1. , ,
, , t ,
, , , g
, w ,
, , pg
, , o
. (
1969: 284205; 1987: 157).
22
.
21
220
, , ,
t ;
2. a, ,
, g ,
.
:
g .
) :
1. , t ,
, ,
, , 23, ,
, w , ,
, w [] t ,
o , ;
2. ; ,
, .
6.1.1.2.
, ,
, ppw , o
, g
. . 6.1.1.1.
6.1.1.3.
1. ,
, t , t t , e
, w , e
, g , ,
;
2. , t .
6.2.
6.2.1.
6.2.1.1.
) :
1. , ,
, w ,
; , p 24, w
, p ;
2. , g .
23
. .

, .
24

. ., .
...
221
.,
.
:
.
) :
1. ,
, , ;
2. o , .
6.2.1.2.
1. , o25 ,
g , c p ,
pt , ; p
, , t ,
, c , ,
g , , w , p
, p ;
2.
/ , :
g , , , g
, w , ;
; , , .
:
.
6.2.1.3.
, ,
, t , p
t .
6.3.
6.3.1.
6.3.1.1.
) :
K w E , t ,
.
) :
- .
. . , , t
( 1950: 151) ,
(it a e eg, o e i a).
25
222
:
, , .
6.3.1.2.
pt , tw Eg, g
, t, t ,
pg , t , .
: o t, t
.
6.3.1.3.
t g , t .
7. .
, ( / ,
/ , ).26 ,
.

*kt
*kyj, ( 2010: 7172).
- , . ,
.
3: a / a, e / e, i
.
.
.
.
(.)
.
(.)
.
(.)
7.1.
.
.
g , ,
, , (. 1950: 151) ,
, , ,
p , pg ,
tt, , p , p
26
. ( . 1997: 411).
...
223
, -, ; , g
;
pt, .
7.2. :
t , g t ,
t, , , ,
p , , ,
, , ,
pp , g p a,
, g ;
t, gt , .
7.3. ,
, . . .,
:
g p, , g
t, .
7.4. ,
.
, .
,
( 2010: 8790).
, 27 ; ,
t , t, a ,
, g , tw, t;
( ),
.
7.5. ,
:
, pg, pt ; , p ; O, ,
p , og p, p ,
t ; , .
7.6. , ,

:
27
/-/ /-/ . 2010: 8390.
224
) g , g , g
, g , g , g
, g , g
.
)
:
g a , g , g
, g , g ,
g , g , g .
8. . ,
,
, ,
(
, ), ( -)
( 1984: 175).
8.1. - .
.

.

, ( : p < ), ( . -:
, / , , ),
,
.

(, )
.
8.2. -
,
.
.
, / ~ /
,
. / / ~
/ , / ~ / .
...
225
8.3.
,

,
.

: , - .

, . t t . .
. : , 1990 (1905).
, . . p t XXV
(1979): 1178.
, . . p t
XXXIII (1987): 10302.
, . . p t L.
(2003): 1456.
, . . : , tt t
. 2. : , 1999 (1954), 159
239.
, . t g. : , 1962.
, . . t p
g gt IVV (19611962a): 343356.
, . . p t XVIII (1969): 73399.
, . . p t XLII
(1996): 1317.
, . . p t II (1957): IXXII,
1519.
, . - . :
, , , . p t XLIII (1997):
1585.
, . . p t XVII (1968): 1239.
, . (g ). 6. :
, 2009.
, . . p t XLVII (2000): 7307.
, . . : , 2003.
, . . p t
XLVIII (2001): 1606.
, .
. g g p t
. (.). : , :
, : , :
, : , :
, 2004, 209249.
, . - (,
, , , )
. g LXI (2005): 147177.
, . - . . . . (.). (
226
(-, 1112 2004 .). - :

Biblion Verlag: ,
, 2005, 5282.
, . pluralia tantum
() . (). p ,
t tt. :
- , 2007, 97118.
, . g gpg t. 12. : , 2010.
, . . p t VIII (1939): 1353.
, . . : , 1970.
, . .
t t 13 (1984): 171175.
, . I. p t XLVII (1996):
317614.
Rjenik hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika, IXXIII. Zagreb: JAZU, 18801976.
, . . p t XI (1950): 1252.
, . . p t XXIX (1983): 7119.

,
- , -,
.
( > p / p, , , ),
( , p, g ,
). .
- . .
. .
. ,
. /
, / ~ / , /
~ / , .
,
,
, , .

-
radivoje.mladenovic@gmail.com
UDC 81373:32

Nadeda Silaki
Tatjana urovi
THE NATURAL FORCE METAPHOR IN THE CONCEPTUALISATION

OF THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS IN ENGLISH AND SERBIAN
The paper, set within the wider theoretical framework of Cognitive Theory of Metaphor,
deals with the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis in English and Serbian, focusing
on the topic economic crisis is a natural force metaphor, cognitively and linguistically realised
by means of several metaphors discussed in the text. The data collection for the analysis was
gathered from various media sources during the period 20072010, which coincides with the
outbreak of the global financial crisis, on the one hand, and the first signs of economic recovery,
on the other. Our main aim is to contrast the use of this metaphor in order to find out, by adopting an interlinguistic and intercultural approach, whether any universal or culture-specific
aspects of the natural force metaphor may be found in the two languages. As metaphors are
generally rarely void of any evaluative stance, we also point out some ideological aspects of
the natural force metaphor used for the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis in
English and Serbian.
Keywords: conceptual metaphor, natural force metaphor, global financial crisis, English, Serbian.
1. Introduction. Having resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailouts of banks by national governments and sharp downturns in
stock markets around the world, the global financial crisis, which started in 2007,
has had the most severe consequences since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Naturally, it has drawn a large body of comments, opinions, suggestions and
criticisms from economic and financial experts and non-experts alike as to its
causes, effects, and future policy responses. All these diverse opinions, recommendations, interpretations, explanations, etc. may be termed discourses of the
crisis (Lai Yeung 2003: 463), as a label for describing various modes through
which meanings are constructed and conveyed (un)intentionally to their recipients (Lai Yeung 2003: 463). In this paper we deal with one way of the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis in English and Serbian, that by means of
the natural force metaphor, in order to establish, by adopting an interlinguistic
The paper is the result of research conducted within project no. 178002 Languages and cultures across space and time funded by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of
the Republic of Serbia. A much shorter version, titled From a local squall to the global tsunami
the natural force metaphor in the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis in English and
Serbian, was presented at the Sixth International Conference on English Language and Literary
Studies Facing the Other in the Absence of Theory, September 30October 2, 2010, Faculty of Philosophy, Niki, Montenegro. The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 227245.
228
Nadeda Silaki, Tatjana urovi
and intercultural approach, whether any universal or culture-specific aspects of the

natural force metaphor may be found in the two languages as well as whether
this metaphor is ideologically coloured and evaluatively loaded.
Dealing with the issue of the universality of conceptual metaphors, Kvecses
(2002: 163) argues that it is very difficult to answer the question if there are any
conceptual metaphors that can be found in all languages and cultures considering that there are more than 4,000 languages spoken currently around the world.
What research can do, according to Kvecses, is to look at some conceptual
metaphors that one can find in some language and then check whether the same
metaphors exist in typologically very different languages (2002: 163). If they do
occur, it is possible to set up a hypothesis that they may be universal. This is the
approach we have adopted in this paper. Firstly, we noticed the use of the natural
force metaphor in English, after which an attempt was made to check whether
the same metaphor is used for the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis
in Serbian as well. Since the same metaphor (the natural force metaphor) turned
out to occur in the data collections both in English and Serbian, the question that
arose was the following why is the natural force metaphor shared between English and Serbian for the conceptualisation of various aspects of the global economic
crisis? Is it only because of the shared physical as well as cultural experience that
we, as human beings, have not only with the natural disaster forces such as
storms, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., but also with the
four elements of nature (earth, water, air and fire), regardless of what language
we speak? Additionally, does the natural force metaphor, used for the purposes
of conceiving of the global financial crisis, contain any ideological component
which could indicate that it is used deliberately and consciously in order to shape
and construct a particular discourse because this was the initial intention of its
creator? In the sections that follow an attempt will be made to provide some possible answers to these and similar questions. We will argue that the choice of
metaphors used in popular economic and business discourse may have an impact
on the reasoning, judgement and the way social and economic issues are conceived of by the readers1, thus strongly advocating a view according to which
metaphor has a crucial role in constituting and shaping reality (Boers 1997: 239),
as initially proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). As this paper offers not only
an interlinguistic but also an intercultural analysis of the natural force metaphor, an attempt will be made to establish similarities and differences in the
metaphorical construal of reality between English and Serbian, as well as to offer
some possible explanations for the underlying motivation for the choice of this
particular metaphor in popular economic and business discourse. Our analysis is
not quantitative and we are not interested in the frequency analysis of the natural force metaphor, nor do we tend to establish the metaphorical density of the
texts from the corpus. Within the framework of Cognitive Linguistics, our main
focus is on the qualitative analysis of the examples of the natural force metaphor used in popular economic and business discourse in English and Serbian.
1
See Boers (1997), who shows that exposure to different metaphors to describe a general
economic scenario can lead to different lines of reasoning (1997: 238). The results of his study offer
strong support to a constitutivist view of metaphor (1997: 239), as originally advocated by Lakoff
and Johnson (1980).
THE NATURAL FORCE METAPHOR IN THE CONCEPTUALISATION...
229
2. Theoretical framework and data collection. The theoretical framework

used in this paper is that of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), as initiated by
Lakoff and Johnson (1980) and later modified to better accommodate metaphors
that occur in authentic discourse (see e.g. Semino 2008; Cameron Deignan 2006;
etc.).2 According to the main tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory, metaphor is
not a property of individual linguistic expressions and their meanings, but of
whole conceptual domains. Lakoff and Johnson use the target domain is source
domain formula to describe the metaphorical connection between the two domains. More precisely, the conceptual metaphor consists of a structural mapping
from a more structured and tangible, more concrete and physical source domain
onto a more abstract and less structured target domain. In this view, metaphor is
not only an ornamental feature of language but plays a central role in the way we
conceptualise the world. It is of crucial importance to draw a distinction between
metaphor and linguistic metaphor. While metaphor is now used as the equivalent to
conceptual metaphor, linguistic metaphor (more commonly known as a metaphorical expression) is the linguistic realisation of a particular conceptual metaphor.
The corollary is that it is our conceptual system that is metaphorical in nature, not
the language itself. However, contemporary metaphor research from the late 1990s
onwards has completely shifted focus from viewing metaphor as a primarily cognitive phenomenon, placing great emphasis on the importance of language use
in understanding metaphor (Cameron Deignan 2006: 672). In other words,
metaphor now emerges as an equally cognitive and linguistic phenomenon. In
this new emergentist perspective metaphor is viewed as a blend of linguistic,
conceptual and socio-cultural aspects (Cameron Deignan 2006: 674). Charteris-Black (2004: 24) also emphasises the interconnecting aspects of metaphor
arguing for such a definition of metaphor which incorporates its semantic, cognitive and pragmatic dimensions. A semantic role of a metaphor refers to the creation of new meanings for words, since the meanings of words change over time
(Charteris-Black 2004: 20) and it is difficult to determine what counts as a
metaphor. Thus, definitions of metaphor also need to address a cognitive role of
metaphor in developing our understanding on the basis of analogy, and a pragmatic one arising from the underlying purpose of [metaphor] influencing opinions
and judgements by persuasion (Charteris-Black 2004: 21), since metaphors are
often used persuasively to convey evaluations and therefore constitute part of
the ideology of texts (Charteris-Black 2004: 28). In this paper, therefore, metaphors are regarded as a powerful persuasive tool used for generating specific
value judgements thus constructing via discourse a certain point of view. It is for
this reason that we use another theoretical framework, that of Critical Metaphor
Analysis (CMA) (Charteris-Black 2004), which will help us to conduct the
ideological analysis of implicit textual content as texts are not as neutral as
they at first appear because the social processes that lead to unconscious choices
being made are concealed or made opaque in the linguistic encoding (Charteris-Black 2004: 30). The combination of CMT and CMA may provide a synergetic
For an overview of Conceptual Metaphor Theory with examples of metaphors in Serbian see
K likovac 2004, particularly p. 744. For a discussion of metaphors that occur in Serbian authentic
public discourse see e.g. R asuli 2008; Silaki et al. 2009; urovi Silaki 2010, etc.
2
230
effect, enabling the researcher to establish whether a certain metaphor carries any
ideological meaning in real discourse, in this case, popular economic and business
discourse.
The English data for the analysis have been gathered from the Financial
Times, a British international business newspaper, whereas the Serbian examples of
metaphorical expressions have been excerpted from a variety of sources: business
and economy sections of a number of dailies of general orientation (Blic, Politika,
Glas javnosti, Veernje novosti, Borba, Dnevnik and Danas), some business oriented electronic news media (EMportal and Biznis novine) as well as from some
electronic media of general orientation (B92 and e-Novine). The texts from which
the metaphorical expressions as linguistic realisations of the natural force metaphor were excerpted in both languages (totalling around 65,000 words, respectively) proved to be mainly aimed at the general public, i.e. ordinary people, not
specifically at experts. Therefore, such discourse may be termed popular economic and business discourse, which refers to journalistic texts that deal with
current economic and business matters for an audience of experts and nonexperts, and seek to inform and entertain more generally (Skorczynska Deignan
2006: 89). The examples originate from the period between 2007 and 20103,
which more or less coincides with the outbreak of the global financial crisis, on
the one hand, and the first signs of economic recovery, on the other. The method
for metaphor identification we applied here is the one proposed by the Pragglejaz
Group (2007) Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), which we used as a
reliable tool to check the metaphoricity of the lexical units relating to natural
forces as well as to establish their basic and contextual meaning. The procedure
of metaphor identification is realised through four stages starting with reading
the entire text to establish a general understanding of meaning. The two central
stages comprise first, determining the lexical units, and then, for each lexical unit4,
establishing its contextual meaning, deciding if it has a more basic contemporary
meaning (defined as that which is more concrete, related to bodily action, more
precise, as well as historically older), and determining whether the contextual
meaning contrasts with the basic meaning but can be understood in comparison
with it. If these questions are positively rated, in the last step the lexical unit is
marked as metaphorical (see Pragglejaz Group 2007: 3). Having established the
presence of metaphoricity modelled on MIP, we then extracted the parts (sentences, parts of sentences or titles of newspaper articles) containing those expressions which both of us judged to be metaphorical. Some of these sentences will
be used to illustrate our points in the analysis that follows.
In the next section we deal with the most prominent aspects of the natural
force metaphor and the main purpose it serves in the popular economic and business discourse in English and Serbian.
3. The natural force metaphor. Although Kvecses (2007: 37) claims that
[i]t is not always easy to distinguish physical forces from natural ones, he clas3
More precisely, English data refer to the period February 2007January 2010, while Serbian
data originate from the period November 2007October 2009.
4
A lexical unit refers not only to individual words but also to multiword expressions (Semino
2008: 12).
231
sifies natural forces as a subcase of physical forces (2007: 37), the classification
we adopt in this paper as well. In our opinion, the natural force metaphor, as
used for the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis both in English and
Serbian, has two main purposes. The first one is that it helps emphasise the unpredictability of the crisis, thus presenting those responsible for its outbreak as
innocent and powerless lookers-on unable to discern the early warning signs of
the impending events. The aspect of the global financial crisis that the natural
force metaphorical scenario seems to highlight here is the uncontrollable character of the event, its nothing-can-be-done-about-it aspect. Within this frame, by
employing catastrophic and cataclysmic metaphorical images, readers are expected to accept the images of a doomsday scenario (Martn de la Rosa 2007:
24), so that, unless they want to question the validity of this discourse, [they] have
no other option but to embrace [] the rhetoric and the logic resulting from it
(Martn de la Rosa 2007: 24).
The second purpose the natural force metaphor serves in popular economic
and business discourse is that of masking the agency the doer of the action.
What the natural force metaphor accentuates is pointed out by Kvecses, who
claims the following, albeit speaking about the conceptualisation of emotions:
If we are carried away and swept off our feet, we have no control over what is happening to us. And not only do we not have control over it, we cant help it either. In
other words, we are passive in relation to the event or state that we are involved in.
We are not the agents but the victims or patients. It is this aspect of the concept that
is highlighted by the natural force metaphor. (Kvecses 2002: 87)
If the global financial crisis is talked about in terms of the natural force, no-one
may be held responsible for the disastrous effects of the human acts which have
caused the crisis to break out. It is the crisis itself, understood as an unpredictable, uncontrollable and above all hostile event, that is the main agent no human
being is able to control earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, etc. since they are beyond
human control and influence. The global financial crisis is thus metaphorically
presented as a sudden, out-of-nowhere event, which diverts peoples attention
from its causes, its originators, and, most importantly, from human decisions
which were supposed to be made in order to prevent the crisis from occurring in
the first place. The natural force metaphor thus serves the purpose of holding
force majeure responsible for the crisis and its consequences, a force which essentially frees all the parties from liability or obligation in case of an extraordinary
event or circumstance beyond the control of those parties. It is almost like an Act
of God a disembodied, externally imposed force on which human beings have
no influence. However, prior experience has shown that economic and financial
crises should be observed as a fact of business life, and their cyclical nature
makes them rather predictable in comparison to floods, earthquakes, volcanoes,
and other whims of nature. While natural disasters are extremely difficult or
even impossible to foresee because they are the products of many interdependent
agents and cascades of events in inherently unstable systems that generate large
variations (Zanini 2009: 1), economy is a human-made system, traditionally
viewed as fully transparent and rational, self-regulating and striving toward equi-
232
librium. Henderson (1982) points out that economics is the result of decisions
taken by rational agents, and economy is nothing more than the accumulated
outcome of human choice (1982: 149, our italics). It is we as human beings, as
rational agents, who make economic choices thus modelling the economy. The
global financial crisis was caused by greedy and hazardous behaviour of people,
not by an unexpected and uncontrollable force beyond human control. By drawing parallels between failures of human-made systems such as economy on the
one hand and similar complex natural systems on the other, metaphor creators are
primarily aiming to capture the extreme and abrupt nature of the circumstances,
simultaneously camouflaging culpability of economic and political experts for
not making the necessary provisions and contingency plans so as to soften the
devastating blow of the crisis. Hence by employing the natural force metaphor,
which aptly masks the doer of the activity, metaphor creators only use what are
for them the most favourable aspects of this metaphor the unknown agency and
a disruptive nature of the force in question.
4. The global financial crisis as a natural force in English and Serbian.
In an attempt to find perceivable analogies in their environment to cognitively
and linguistically present the full impact of the crisis, metaphor creators tap into
phenomena which in terms of their power, dynamism, etc. are reminiscent of the
state of markets worldwide. It is the natural phenomena (wind, atmosphere in
general, water, tectonic shifts, etc.) whose features of being highly spontaneous,
involuntary, obscure and changeable as regards the source of their movements,
map onto the abstract concept of the crisis.
The topic, overarching natural force metaphor is realised via the reiterative use of several metaphors, classified according to the source domain used to
conceptualise the global economic crisis and its various aspects in English and
Serbian. In the sections which follow we deal with the catastrophe/disaster, air /
wind, water, earthquake, and volcano metaphors, which we illustrate with their
linguistic instantiations. We also provide possible explanation for the selected
mappings and the relationship between the source and target domains in light of
the ideological role metaphors play in authentic popular economic and business
discourse in the two languages, at the same time discussing possible differences
in the use of these metaphors between English and Serbian.
4.1. Catastrophe/disaster metaphors. Generally speaking, descriptions of
the current economic and financial crisis have drawn on the natural disaster
metaphors, i.e. on depersonification (Charteris-Black 2004: 140), since economic
events that are actually caused by people are described as if they were natural
disasters (Charteris-Black 2004: 140). As data collections in both English and
Serbian show, inanimate natural disasters do not refer to any particular natural
force, such as storms, floods or earthquakes, elaborated later in the text, but the
discursive power of the natural disaster metaphors, similarly to subsequent
other metaphors, lies primarily in imparting the scale and destructive power of
the financial forces, as evidenced by the metaphorical expressions in English
such as economic apocalypse, catastrophe, natural disaster, economic cataclysm,
233
shifted economic gravity, a chain reaction of crashes and collapses, etc. i.e. by
apokalipsa, kataklizma, finansijska katastrofa in Serbian.
English
(1) If crisis is changes catalyst, recovery is its inhibitor. As preparations for the G20
summit get under way, finance ministers meeting in London deserve credit for
averting economic apocalypse5 (FT, Sep 3, 2009).6
(2) Mr Obama is said to credit Mr Bernanke with a leading role in helping to avert
economic catastrophe (FT, Aug 25, 2009).
(3) the economic crisis has felt like a natural disaster (FT, Mar 12, 2009).
(4) The G20 leaders can look back on this year with satisfaction, with a good claim to
having prevented economic cataclysm (FT, Sep 18, 2009).
(5) In the world after the crisis, the centre of economic gravity has shifted to really
large agglomerations of power (FT, Jan 4, 2010).
(6) Since the financial crisis unleashed a chain reaction of crashes and collapses, commentators have clamoured to say the world will never be the same (FT, Jun 11, 2009).
Serbian
(7) Apokalipsa iz Davosa (Politika, Feb 2, 2009).
(8) Svi koji su odgovorni za privredni sektor u svetu moraju promeniti ponaanje, jer
ako se budu ponaali isto kao pre poetka krize dogodila bi se kataklizma jer bi se
ponovila ista ekonomska kriza (EMportal, May 8, 2009).
(9) Ipak, analitiari tvrde da se finansijska kriza kao zarazna kuga7 iri i ve zahvata
Evropu pa to se reavanje vie odlae to bolest sve vie uzima maha i cela planeta
e se nai u kandama dosad neviene finansijske katastrofe (Glas javnosti, Oct 1,
2008).
It comes as no surprise that severe disturbances of nature seriously affect

peoples lives. Invoking catastrophic scenarios of unspecified disasters in which
the natural law of gravity is being challenged and massive, apocalyptic destruction ensues as in the aftermath of floods or earthquakes, serves to convey the
devastating impact of what has been occurring globally. There does seem to be
a strong element of hyperbole in disaster-based keywords because they exaggerate
the severity of market trading conditions (Charteris-Black 2004: 154). However, the natural disaster metaphors conceal one important notion the financial crisis is not a natural disaster, but is brought about by people. Metaphorising
the economic and financial crisis as a natural disaster shifts the focus of attention
away from its causes, especially from its social and geographic source (Chiang
Duann 2007: 596), letting economic actors evade responsibility they should
Henceforth, all examples of metaphorical expressions will be italicised.
Each source contains the name of the media and the date of its publication.
7
Several other source domains may be noticed in our examples in both languages, which are
subtly intertwined with the natural force source domain, thus further structuring the thinking
about the global financial crisis, conceptually realised through metaphors such as the crisis is a
disease, the zoomorphised crisis is an animal, the personified crisis is human, etc. All these metaphors deserve an individual study and detailed discussion, which is beyond the scope of the present
paper. See, though, Silaki urovi (2010) for a discussion of the economy is a person metaphor
used for conceptualising the global financial crisis in English and Serbian.
5
6
234
accept. The equation of the source of the global financial crisis to that of any
natural disaster nicely blurs the social aspects of the origin of crisis, i.e. the fact
that it is the product of decisions made by governments and companies. If those
decisions had been made differently, they could have led to different outcomes.
According to Charteris-Black, conceptualising a highly abstract concept of the
global financial crisis caused by humans as the outcome of natural processes is
a type of reverse personification (2004: 154), which serves to veil the originator
of the crisis in the first place. Moreover, no reference in the natural force metaphor is made to the pain people endure in these harsh economic times, adding to
viewing the financial crisis as disembodied, extraneous force. Dramatic aspects
of the crisis on the one hand, and obfuscation of the doer of the action, on the
other, which in turn draws on the notion of unpredictability, is further evidenced
by metaphors of the specified source domains, such as storms, typhoons, floods,
tsunamis, earthquakes, or volcanoes, on which we further elaborate in the next
sections.
4.2. ir /wind metaphors. The air /wind metaphors encompass a substantial
group of metaphorical expressions in both English and Serbian data collections.
Also, both data collections exhibit rich diversity of the air /wind metaphors stemming from the most salient characteristics of winds such as their speed, strength,
and the direction from which they are blowing. Thus, the financial crisis is likened
to winds in general, additionally modified as cold or of gale force, then squalls as
rather strong winds of intermediate duration, to extremely strong, devastating
winds accompanied by heavy rain, such as storms, tempests, hurricanes, and
typhoons in English, that is, oluja, tornado, or uragan in Serbian. The following
examples from both English and Serbian show evidence of using the same conceptual metaphor with almost equivalent linguistic expressions:
English
(10) Banks, insurers and building societies will have to dramatically overhaul how they
assess their ability to weather another financial storm under proposals put forward
by the Financial Services Authority (FT, Dec 12, 2009).
(11) Fear would be a bad adviser, the matriarch said a year ago, when the company
was in the eye of the financial hurricane that almost blew away her wealth (FT,
Dec 29, 2009).
(12) He warned that the local squall in the US could easily turn into a global tempest
with profound consequences for economic growth (FT, Dec 15, 2008).
(13) As appropriate as those superlatives might have seemed in the late 1990s, they
depicted a squall compared with the current tsunami (FT, Mar 10, 2009).
(14) Mr Cohen describes the financial crisis as five weeks of hell. The challenge for
us was to keep on an even keel and keep our balance in front of gale force winds,
he says (FT, Oct 22, 2009).
(15) Jan Parkinson, managing director of Local Government Employers, said councils
had already had to cut thousands of jobs because of the cold winds of recession
(FT, Jan 20, 2010).
(16) While Japans financial system remained sound, he said, there was no doubt that
the global crisis would affect Japans real economy. [] We cant wait for the typhoon to pass, Mr Aso said (FT, Oct 30, 2008).
235
Serbian
(17) Ovo pitanje je postavljeno im je postalo oigledno da se finansijska oluja koja se
uzvitlala sa Volstrita nee, u svom pustonom pohodu, zaustaviti samo na Americi,
a odgovor je stigao prolog ponedeljka (Politika, Oct 25, 2008).
(18) Svetski finansijski lideri sloili su se na sastanku u Vaingtonu da se pojavio pro
cep u oblaku svetske ekonomske oluje, ali da je potrebno preduzeti dodatne mere
kako bi se osigurao kraj globalne recesije (Blic, Apr 26, 2009).
(19) Finansijski uragan, koji je krenuo sa Istone obale Amerike, iz njujorke novane
svetinje Volstrita, jo pustoi njene obale, ali ozbiljno preti i berzama na mnogo
daljim prostorima (Politika, Oct 1, 2008).
(20) Srbiju bi tornado uvezene finansijske krize ozbiljno mogao da pogodi ve krajem
prvog kvartala naredne godine (Veernje novosti, Dec 14, 2008).
(21) Ekonomista Miodrag Zec istie da je privreda povezana i da je srpsko trite plitko
i da ga moe protresti i najmanji povetarac, to znai da e krediti poskupeti (Glas
javnosti, Oct 1, 2008).
Why do metaphor creators gladly resort to wind as a source domain in order

to cognitively structure the global financial crisis? A part of the answer lies in the
overwhelming force of wind, i.e. its intensity. It arises from our bodily sensation
of the way in which the speed and power of wind can affect a wide area along its
path, and this conveniently serves to depict the severity of the crisis. In addition,
the motion of the air is uncertain, inconstant and vanishing, winds start to blow
from one direction but can change to another, which connotes pervasiveness and
powerfulness of the crisis. Deliberately opting for devastating wind metaphors,
such as storms, hurricanes or typhoons in English and oluja, uragan or tornado
in Serbian to visualise the financial crisis and connote the huge upheaval, metaphor creators are drawing on the ingrained characteristic that there is nothing
solid or substantial in wind, employing it metaphorically to signify the futility of
efforts on behalf of human agents to stop it or influence it in any way. Moreover,
since wind is insubstantial it spreads quickly across vast areas, contributing to
the perception of the financial crisis as a global phenomenon. Mapping unobstructed and strong forward movements of storms, hurricanes or typhoons, and
awesome power and overwhelming force that we attach to these natural events
onto the global economic event seems to be intentionally utilised as a convenient
shelter from bearing any responsibility for the dire state of economy. Still, images of breeze (in Serbian, povetarac) and winds, though cold and chilly, may
imply negligence, self-complacence and, as it has turned out, sheer incompetence
on behalf of economic and political elites to interpret these images as omens of
something far more serious yet to come and, in turn, prepare for all contingencies.
Although metaphors of squalls, tempests, hurricanes and typhoons are originally
employed as an objective and realistic description of economic events, their
more prominent role is being a part of discursive strategy that should aid in constructing a particular understanding of reality, which consequently elicits actions
and policies pertinent to that understanding (see Lai Yeung 2003).
4.3. Water metaphors. The water metaphors as used in popular economic
and business discourse are of ambivalent nature. On the one hand, they connote
plenitude of something desirable, such as money, i.e. cash and things that can easily
236
be turned into cash, the metaphorical expression liquidity in our data collection
being a case in point. The positive connotations of the water metaphors are linked
with the abundance of water hence its usefulness when mapped onto financial
means.8 The depth of water and its multitude, on the other hand, are the very same
aspects which make it dangerous and hurtful, conjuring up extremely negative
images of the two major containers of water in our data collections the river and
the sea. Rapid and sudden overflowing of rivers and huge waves formed by the
sea denote peril, hardships and above all, powerlessness to control the force of
water which may detrimentally affect peoples lives. As Charteris-Black (2004:
162) claims, liquid movements can be used as a basis for modelling the economy
as a whole. Because in cognitive terms, it is the instability of water that is most
salient when it is used for economic concepts (Charteris-Black 2004: 163), this
aspect of water as a source domain gives rise to various metaphorical expressions
which depict the turbulence the global financial crisis has caused in financial
markets. Let us illustrate the water metaphor by several examples from English
and Serbian:
English
(22) At the height of the financial maelstrom, the price fell to 50p (FT, Jul 31, 2009).
(23) Third it is short sighted rather then curbing the black money [used in FDI] it is
only going to bring more unknown money, leading us to a spiralling downward
whirlpool (FT, Feb 18, 2009).
(24) This statement was greeted with a certain irritation in Hungary, where many are
under the impression that their economy is underwater because of a tidal wave that
started from American shores (FT, May 11, 2009).
(25) Soon after the global financial system was flooded with liquidity, to try and solve
a solvency problem, people were actually surprised when the price of the things they
needed to buy started to inflate (FT, Oct 8, 2008).
(26) As the ripples from the financial crisis continue to move across the globe (FT, Mar
16, 2009).
Serbian
(27) Globalna ekonomska kriza je silovito zapljusnula i obale japanskog arhipelaga,
uinivi da stopa nezaposlenosti dostigne 5,7%, rekordni procenat jo od 1945. (e-No
vine, Oct 5, 2009).
(28) Pored krize koja je potopila berzu, komplikovana i nekonkurentna zakonska regulativa glavni je krivac za gaenje brokerskih kua i jednog investicionog fonda
(Biznis novine, Jan 12, 2009).
(29) Drugi talas krize najvie e pogoditi bankarski sektor zbog nelikvidnosti privrede,
ali e Vlada uiniti sve da ouva pouzdanost bankarskog sektora, kazao je premijer
(Borba, Mar 3, 2009).
Metaphorical expressions, as linguistic instantiations of the water metaphor,

such as whirlpool, flood, tidal wave, maelstrom, etc. as well as the corresponding
expressions in Serbian such as zapljusnuti, potopiti, talas, etc., connote in their
Thus we talk about liquid assets, liquidation and cash flow, to give only a few examples.
Even the name for a medium of exchange in current use in a country (currency) originates from the
Latin verb currere, meaning to run, and is related to the noun current (running, flowing).
8
237
literal meanings the enormous energy of water that occasionally causes immense
damage to human lives (Omori 2008: 136). In case of the water metaphors, it is
knowledge of the impact of a solid object on water that is used to convey notions
of causality as we know that the ripples become larger the further they move from
the source of the impact (Charteris-Black 2004: 163). The global economic crisis
starts with ripples, causing small undulations of the economy. It then spreads in
waves, the financial maelstrom intensifies, the global financial system is flooded
with liquidity, and it finally ends in a tsunami, which further spreads in tidal
waves causing economies to go underwater. The underlying logic of the water
metaphors and the fact that they are deeply grounded in and motivated by human
experience is best explained by Omori, who points out the following:
Water sprung up in a mountain increases in volume during its long travel to the
sea, and its powerful flow is occasionally dangerous: Failure to control it may
cause a disastrous flood. The power of seawater is far beyond human biological
capacities. Swimming in high waves may make people drown. Television images
of storm surges and tidal waves sweeping everything, such as the tsunami that
devastated the coastal areas around the Indian Ocean in 2004, reinforce anew our
bodily based knowledge about water. (Omori 2008: 138)
Interestingly, the metaphorical expressions in both English and Serbian show

the tendency of highlighting the difficulty of controlling the crisis via the aspect
of intensity, by bringing in the vertical line of human experience, i.e. the metaphor,
a lack of control over the crisis is up (originating from the more is up metaphor).
Although an upward orientation is usually associated with the positive evaluation
(see Lakoff Johnson 1980: 1417; Kvecses 2002: 36), the gradual increase in
quantity and intensity of liquid movements, starting with ripples, giving birth to
waves and via whirlpools and maelstroms to floods and even worse, tidal waves,
pinpoints extremely negative aspects of the crisis and the lack or even loss of any
control over it. The metaphorical pattern of equating the financial crisis with
these natural events foregrounds its imminence and force, difficulty of curbing
it, viewing it as a social disaster which turns people into passive victims of circumstances, tossed roughly by waves, maelstroms and floods.
The overall intensity of water movements (i.e. the effects of the global financial crisis), the magnitude of these effects, and, most importantly, the fact that the
crisis is getting completely out of control, are best communicated by the tsunami
metaphor. We illustrate this metaphor with several examples from English and
Serbian:
English
(30) The Asian financial crisis acted like a tsunami in swallowing up many uncompetitive companies (FT, Feb 12, 2007).
(31) Greece would be the trigger for the 2nd wave of the Global Tsunami (FT, Feb 17, 2010).
Serbian
(32) Strepnje da e ameriki finansijski cunami zakaiti nau zemlju naterale su i srp
sku vladu da formira spasilaki tim protiv globalne nepogode. (Politika, Oct 6,
2008)
238
(33) Da li to znai da cunami svetske ekonomije, kao i bog Janus, ima svoja dva lica
vedro, tranziciono prema Americi i smrknuto, krizno prema ostatku sveta? (Glas
javnosti, Jan 19, 2009).
A tsunami is a series of destructive water waves caused by an earthquake or

volcanic eruption. Many people seem to have been unfamiliar with the word until
the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, after which it has been affecting the way we
think about and conceive of the events that happened in the period 20072010,
marked by the global financial crisis. The tsunami metaphor, as used for the conceptualisation of the global financial crisis, serves to visualize the felt quality of
the shock, its suddenness and vehemence (Kimmel 2009: 72), at the same time
emphasising the unpredictable, violent and hostile character of a catastrophe which
is thus conceived of as outstripping human ability to cope with its emergence and
consequences. A tsunami is a natural force, a natural hazard, and this fact aptly fits
the intention of metaphor creators that of downplaying human failure to address
and prevent the causes of the crisis by highlighting the unpreventable character of
the natural phenomenon of the same name. The tsunami metaphor, in line with the
metaphorical hiding and highlighting principle (Kvecses 2002: 7980), at the same
time hides the fact that the financial tsunami, however, has been brought on by human acts, not by nature. All water metaphorical expressions present an economic
scenario of dramatic disequilibrium fanned by very powerful or primeval forces
which spell disturbance and lack of control (White 2004: 77). The underlying
logic of these metaphorical expressions is that we are poor and helpless human
beings, who, faced with the elements and natural forces, are at their disposal and
can only take them as they come (White 2004), since they are impossible to control.
The snow metaphors lend support to somewhat different conceptualisation
in comparison to other water metaphors. Snow, being originally liquid and transformed into solid because of low temperatures, when mapped onto the financial
crisis rather connotes inability to move or impossibility of recovery, illustrated by
metaphorical expressions frozen, freeze and blizzard (though to a lesser extent) in
English, and zamrznut in Serbian, as in the following examples:
English
(34) The market, considered crucial in boosting the flow of non-bank credit to the real
economy, froze for more than a year during the financial crisis (FT, Jan 25, 2010).
(35) When the financial crisis intensified in 2008, many of these securities effectively
became frozen (FT, Feb 17, 2010).
(36) The green shoots in credit unfortunately seem to have been killed off by an early
spring blizzard, said Matt King, global head of credit products strategy at Citigroup
(FT, Mar 2, 2009).
(37) So, a year into the big freeze in financial markets and the world economy bears all
the hallmarks of overheating (FT, Aug 5, 2008).
Serbian
(38) Centralna banka Japana ve otkupljuje korporativne dugove kako bi pomogla pre
duzeima da dou do gotovog novca, a vlada je ponudila sredstva bankama da mogu
da odobre vie kredita, ali su pad izvoza i zamrznuta kreditna trita i dalje pretnja
industrijama koje ine okosnicu japanske privrede (B92, Jan 28, 2009).
239
The freezing of markets similarly to the freezing of solid objects causes

them to become stiff and brittle and unable to progress without the influence of
some external circumstances (e.g. a rise in temperature in the physical world),
which adds to the perception of the crisis as perpetuating and as a force which
happens without our volition.
4.4. Earthquake metaphors. The earthquake metaphor is yet another metaphor of natural disasters which tends to dominate the discourse of the financial
crisis in both data collections, conveying a sense that similar to literal earthquakes,
which represent a sudden shaking movement on terra firma, the financial crisis
cognitively structured as an earthquake is also abrupt, unforeseeable, and causes
the overall instability. Just as the sudden release of great energy in the earths
crust that creates seismic waves drastically changes the environment, so does the
financial crisis perceived as the earthquake, reshaping the markets. Along with
flood, typhoon, hurricane, tsunami, etc. the earthquake metaphor is another perfect illustration of human reckless economic behaviour, of their not being on the
lookout for early turmoil and tremors in financial markets. In addition, as the
examples below show, economic earthquakes are also followed by dangerous
aftershocks which continued to reverberate around the globe. Foregrounding
the aspects of precariousness and suddenness due to a lack of premonition, the
earthquake metaphor obscures the real causes of the crisis which are deeply
embedded in humans carelessness to take precautions, i.e. strengthen the financial
structures worldwide. Let us illustrate the earthquake metaphor with several
examples in English and Serbian:
English
(39) Financial turmoil has shaken even the continents furthest-flung outposts (FT, Mar
11, 2009).
(40) But, as shockwaves continued to reverberate around the globe, even the edge was
no longer a safe place to be (FT, Oct 13, 2008).
(41) Recently, the Wholesale Market Brokers Association commented that the GFC
[global financial crisis] was caused not by OTC derivatives themselves but by several seismic economic and financial forces that centred on problems in valuing
and hedging complex derivatives (FT, Jun 29, 2009).
(42) India is far from the epicenter of the global economic crisis (FT, Oct 17, 2008).
(43) The social after-shocks of this economic earthquake are still being felt in April
(FT, May 17, 2009).
(44) Amid the turmoil, there has also been a tectonic shift in bankings centre of gravity (FT, Mar 22, 2009).
(45) Tremors from the financial crisis and the collapse in world trade volumes, which
fell by 17% between September and December 2008, were felt across the world
(FT, Sep 4, 2009).
(46) The global economy may be showing tentative signs of recovery but international trade
is still suffering from the aftershocks of last years credit quakes (FT, Sep 7, 2009).
Serbian
(47) naveo je Hoakin Almunija, komesar EU za monetarna pitanja, govorei uoi
dana kada je prole godine propala amerika investiciona banka Liman braders,
to je pokrenulo lananu reakciju ekonomskih potresa (Blic, Sep 15, 2009).
240
(48) Japanski BDP je u etvrtom kvartalu ove godine opao, u odnosu na prethodno tro
meseje, 3,3 odsto, dok je na godinjoj osnovi to smanjenje bilo osetno vee 12,7
procenata to je oko tri puta vie nego u SAD koje su od strane strunjaka oznae
ne kao epicentar sadanje globalne privredne krize(Biznis novine, Feb 16, 2009).
(49) Premda je prole jeseni, kada je svetske berze ve tresla groznica, izgledalo da glo
balna kriza nee uzdrmati i istonu Evropu, ve krajem godine je postalo jasno da
e ove zemlje najvie nastradati, iako nisu imale udela u potresima na svetskom
finansijskom tritu (EMportal, Mar 14, 2009).
(50) Lideri ne prestaju da sebi postavljaju pitanje koje su to aktivnosti koje treba da pre
duzmu ne samo da bi preiveli ovaj tektonski poremeaj svetske ekonomije nego i
da bi zauzeli ili odrali poziciju ispred svoje konkurencije kada se udar smiri, a eko
nomija oporavi? (EMportal, Apr 6, 2009).
(51) Globalna finansijska kriza, koja je izbila prole jeseni, izazvala je pravi ekonomski
zemljotres u svetu (Biznis novine, Oct 6, 2009).
(52) Opte je poznato da finansijska kriza nekoliko meseci unazad drma itavim sve
tom. Potresaju se, ak i pucaju, veliki svetski bankarski sistemi, propadaju kompa
nije, radnici ostaju bez posla (Politika, Nov 12, 2008).
(53) Nema smisla vie organizovati okupljanja pod ve legendarnom ifrom G-7 kada
su se u svetskoj ekonomiji desili ne samo potresi seizmike prirode ve i promenila
strukt ura moi, odnosa i pretenzija, koji unekoliko drukije oblikuju tekua dea
vanja (EMportal, Jul 17, 2009).
The above examples from the data collections in both languages exhibit considerable conceptual and linguistic overlapping, contributing to the intercultural
character of the earthquake metaphor. Apart from lexical variety of the metaphor
both in English quake and tremor, and Serbian potres, udar, the earthquake
scenario is complemented with other semantically related words, such as turmoil,
aftershocks, epicenter, tectonic/seismic shifts in English, i.e. with epicentar, tektonski poremeaj, potresi seizmike prirode in Serbian, serving as metaphorical
underpinnings of the disastrous impact of the financial crisis.
4.5. Volcano metaphors. Piling up of prolonged erroneous decisions, bad
practices, and the utmost insatiability of people has resulted in a financial volcano
modelled on its literal counterpart as an unanticipatory, subversive force, even
more appalling when it erupts because it has been so long silent. Let us illustrate
this metaphor by several examples from English and Serbian, marked by various
metaphorical expressions, such as dramatic eruption, sleeping volcano, vulkanska lava, etc.
English
(54) Sir, what is the similarity between the current financial crisis and a volcano? The
answer is the shape of the graph of activity levels leading up to the main event. It
shows a long period of deceptive calm followed by a dramatic eruption, up or down,
depending on which event is being plotted (FT, Jan 29, 2009).
(55) To the wider investment community, the US Treasury market resembles a sleeping
volcano, prone to periodic, but usually brief eruptions of volatility (FT, May 30,
2009).
241
Serbian
(56) Finansijska kriza koja je zahvatila itavu planetu i iri se kao vulkanska lava, preti
da zahvati i duhovnu sferu (Dnevnik, Nov 23, 2008).
(57) Erupcija krize na amerikom tritu drugorazrednih hipotekarnih zajmova (Danas,
Nov 21, 2007).
As a destructive force which totally changes the landscape it is surrounded

by, leaving lava flows, poisonous gases and ash, the volcano metaphors serve the
purpose of metaphorically portraying the crisis as unconstrained energy, mounting from the inside which once released causes massive ravaging. Still, volcanoes
being dormant (a sleeping volcano), but not totally inactive, presupposes constant
monitoring of markets and prudent and responsible behaviour of people, while
the image of vulkanska lava in Serbian calls for timely intervention, i.e. undertaking some precautionary measures in order to get out of its way.
5. Discussion. The analysis has shown that both English and Serbian rely on
the same natural force metaphorical scenarios, sharing the same conceptual
metaphors in terms of which the global financial crisis is comprehended, those of
disaster, air /wind, water, earthquake and volcano, which contributes to the
overall systematicity and generative power of the given topic metaphor. In addition, the selected conceptual metaphors are linguistically rendered with similar
metaphorical expressions, since the two languages exhibit the significant overlap
in linguistic instantiations of the natural force metaphor. On closer inspection,
two cases may be identified the similarity on the conceptual level, where Serbian
and English make the same semantic links, and the similarity on the linguistic
level, where linguistic metaphorical expression[s] in two languages are literal
translations of each other (Charteris-Black Ennis 2001: 253). Still, the qualitative analysis of data collections lends support to several insights which are further
to be validated in additional research. Thus, apart from the earthquake metaphor
where Serbian is rather equivalent to English regarding the variety of lexical
metaphors, there is a noticeable discrepancy between the two languages in case
of the disaster, air and water metaphors, respectively. The lexical richness of
English compared to that of Serbian indicates the direction of metaphoric transfer
from English to Serbian, and the degree of impact that English exerts on Serbian, in both conceptual and linguistic sense. The use of inverted commas for
tornado, finansijski cunami or epicentar, for instance, signals that these
metaphorical terms are not totally accommodated in Serbian and are deemed as
examples of new, innovative, creative thus unconventional metaphorical expressions. Yet, the presence of some lexical expressions in one language, e.g. povetarac
in Serbian and its absence in English may rather be accounted for the fact that the
data collections are not large enough to cover these cases, and we may assume
that these missing semantic overlaps would appear in larger corpora. Still, the
water and earthquake metaphors reveal one interesting point regarding Serbian
data. Unlike English examples which predominantly deploy nominal metaphorical
expressions, the conceptualisation of some natural force phenomena is realised
via verbal expressions in Serbian (e.g. zapljusnuti, potopiti, uzdrmati, drmati,
potresati, pucati). If we agree with Goatlys claim that verbal metaphors need to
242
hook up to their conventional noun colligate, in order to preserve their metaphoric

life (Goatly 1997: 92), the use of a wider variety of metaphorical expressions in
English, being mainly realised through noun class, may account for more striking
vividness of mental imagery and its expressivity when compared to Serbian examples.
How can this similarity of conceptual and linguistic mindset between Serbian and English be explained? The most plausible answer is to take into account
a major finding in Cognitive Linguistics that of embodiment. Namely, Lakoff
and Johnson (1999: 12) argue that human concepts are not just reflections of an
external reality, but that they are crucially shaped by our bodies and brains, especially by our sensimotor system. We are not able to talk about the body and the
mind as distinct entities; the mind is embodied and embodied image schematic
experience provides much of the structure of what we call the mind (Lakoff
Johnson 1999), or as Johnson (1987) put it, the body is in the mind. As Lakoff
(1987: 267) points out, meaning is characterised in terms of embodiment, that
is, in terms of our collective biological capacities and our physical and social
experiences as beings functioning in our environment.
Embodiment, therefore, may be the crucial reason why the natural force
metaphor is used in both languages, English and Serbian, for the cognitive structuring of the global financial crisis. Because metaphors are grounded in universal
human bodily and physical experience (in our case, with natural forces, whether
directly or indirectly), they tend to have a quality of universality, although the
role of the cultural background, tradition and geographical location should not be
neglected.9 Although we should be cautious in attributing [] differences in
metaphorical choice to underlying cultural differences (Charteris-Black Ennis
2001: 262), we single out the example of the snow metaphors, which is represented
only by zamrznut in Serbian as opposed to frozen, freeze, blizzard in English
data, which may be attributed to specific climate features of Britain and Serbia.
For example, at the beginning of 2010, unaccustomed to heavy snowfalls, Britain
was paralysed by blizzards and freezing weather which forced hundreds of schools
to close, crippled transport and put the entire country on alert. This is very unlikely to happen in Serbia, where heavy snow is a rather common trace of winter
climate, which is probably why the snow linguistic metaphors in Serbian data do
not have the strength needed to point out the seriousness of the global financial
crisis, which is why this mental imagery is not deemed as appropriate for the
conceptualisation of an unexpected and intense phenomenon as the global financial
crisis in Serbian, as opposed to English. This finding proves that the experiential
basis of conceptual metaphors, according to many authors (e.g. Kvecses 2007),
accounts, inter alia, for cross-cultural and cross-linguistic variation in metaphor
use.
In addition to the aspect of embodiment, conceptual and linguistic overlapping of English and Serbian may be supported by some other, equally important
evidence. Namely, some of the Serbian linguistic instantiations of the natural
force metaphor have been excerpted from texts which explicitly deal with the
9
For a detailed discussion of the role cultural practices have in human conceptualisations
see e.g. Yu 2009; Kvecses 2006, etc.
243
developments as regards the global financial crisis in some English-speaking

countries (primarily the USA and Britain), which means these texts may not be
written by Serbian authors but translated from English, or, alternatively, the texts
quote the words of those countries high officials thus preserving the metaphors
they use in the translation into Serbian. In addition, being largely affected by the
journalistic style of Anglo-American financial press and news media, some Serbian authors tend to adapt their writing style so that it matches the style of the
well-known and established business and financial press authors, which is why
the findings of our analysis need to be characterised as tentative until proven by
further research conducted on a much larger corpus of texts.
6. Conclusion. Our aim in this article was to contrastively analyse the use
of the natural force metaphor for the conceptualisation of the global financial
crisis in English and Serbian in order to establish whether the two languages share
the same cognitive framework and conceptual representations as regards this
major event in the political and economic history of the world. The results of the
study point to a significant conceptual and linguistic overlapping with regard to
the use of the natural force metaphor used for the structuring of the global financial crisis in English and Serbian popular economic and business discourse.
In addition, an attempt was made to determine whether the conceptualisation of
the global financial crisis structured by means of the natural force metaphor
carries any specific ideological implications in popular economic and business
discourse in the two languages and whether it has any connotations which may
be attributed to the fact that it is deliberately and intentionally used for a specific
purpose. We have argued here that the natural force metaphor shifts readers
attention away from its real causes, i.e. the (wrong) decisions taken by people,
thus shaping the way members of the two speech communities perceive it.
Both English and Serbian use this metaphor in such a way and for such a
purpose which support Charteris-Black (2004: 28) who argues for the potential
of metaphor to construct representations of the world that impinge on human
understanding of various aspects of social and political life and for its vital role
in forming and influencing human beliefs, attitudes and action. The results of
our analysis prove that the logic entailed in certain metaphors may favourably
predispose readers towards the acceptance of the argumentation involved (White
2004: 83). The choice of the natural force metaphor fulfils the original intention
of metaphor creators the justification of certain courses of human economic
(and political) action which may have caused the global financial crisis as well as
hiding the fact that the global economic crisis is a human-made disaster, caused
by reckless economic behaviour of people. Being vital in creating a favourable
and a desirable presentation of reality, the natural force metaphor, as used both
in English and Serbian, appears to serve as an effective justification mechanism,
making people seem innocent and helpless as regards the causes and consequences
of the global financial crisis. Metaphor as a way of thinking and a way of persuading as much as [] a linguistic phenomenon (Charteris-Black 2004: 22)
has thus once more demonstrated its immense potential in creating realities, offering strong support to a constitutivist view of this cognitive mechanism.
244
References
Boers, Frank. No Pain, No Gain in a Free market Rhetoric: A Test for Cognitive Semantics?. Metaphor and Symbol 12/4 (1997): 231241.
Cameron, Lynne, Alice Deignan. The Emergence of Metaphor in Discourse. Applied Linguistics
27/4 (2006): 671690.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan, Timothy Ennis. A comparative study of metaphor in Spanish and English
financial reporting. English for Specific Purposes 20 (2001): 249266.
Chiang, Wen Yu, Ren-Feng Duann. Conceptual metaphors for SARS: war between whom?. Discourse & Society 18/5 (2007): 579602.
urovi, Tatjana, Nadeda Silaki. Metaphors we vote by the case of marriage in Serbian contemporary political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 9:2 (2010): 237259.
Goatly, Andrew. The language of metaphors. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Henderson, William. Metaphor in economics. Economics 18 (1982): 147157.
Johnson, Mark. The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Kimmel, Michael. Metaphors of the EU constitutional debate Ways of charting discourse coherence
in a complex metaphor field. metaphorik.de 17 (2009): 49100. <http://www.metaphorik.de/
17/kimmel.pdf> 14.04.2010.
K likovac, Duka. Metafore u miljenju i jeziku. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2004.
Kvecses, Zoltn. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Kvecses, Zoltn. Language, Mind and Culture: a Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
Kvecses, Zoltn. Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Lai, Karen P. Y., Henry Wai-chung Yeung. Contesting the state: discourses of the Asian economic
crisis and mediating strategies of electronics firms in Singapore. Environment and Planning
35 (2003): 463488.
Lakoff, George. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1987.
Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. Philosophy In The Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to
Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Martn de la Rosa, Victoria. A global war against avian influenza. RAEL 6 (2007): 1630.
Omori, Ayako. Emotion as a Huge Mass of Moving Water. Metaphor and Symbol 23 (2008): 130146.
Pragglejaz Group. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (2007): 139.
R asuli, Katarina. On the Conceptualization of the European Union across EU Boundaries. Katarina Rasuli, Ivana Trbojevi Miloevi (eds.). ELLSSAC Proceedings, Volume I, Belgrade:
Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade, 2008, 315327.
Semino, Elena. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Silaki, Nadeda, Tatjana urovi, Biljana R adi Bojani. Javni diskurs Srbije kognitivistiko-kritika studija. Beograd: Centar za izdavaku delatnost Ekonomskog fakulteta, 2009.
Silaki, Nadeda, Tatjana urovi. The conceptualisation of the global financial crisis via the economy
is a person metaphor a contrastive study of English and Serbian. Facta Universitatis. Series:
Linguistics and Literature Vol. 8/2 (2010): 129139.
Skorczynska, Hanna, Alice Deignan. Readership and Purpose in the Choice of Economics Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol 21/2 (2006): 87104.
White, Michael. Turbulence and turmoil in the market or the language of a financial crisis. Ibrica
7 (2004): 7186.
Yu, Ning. From Body to Meaning in Culture. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009.
Zanini, Michele. Power curves: What natural and economic disasters have in common. The McKinsey
Quarterly, June (2009): 15.
245

M

,
.
.
: ,
, .
2007. 2010. ,
,
.

.
,

, ,
, .
,
, , .
, , ,
.
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Economics
Belgrade
silaskin@sbb.rs
UDC 81373:32

, , o- . , , ,
, ,
. .
, , . , ( ) .
: , , , , , , , , .
1. . , ,
: ,
. () (. Mareti 1963; 19811),
(. Mrazovi Vukadinovi 1990; 1997) , , (. K atii 1986; Bari et al. 1997).
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
(2002).

. , ,
() (. Haspelmath 2007; Bussman 1999: 231), ,
, () (. Mihailovi
2006).
- (. Halliday 1985) ,
(. Hoey 2001; Fairclough 2003),
1
, , (1981: 797),
(1981: 813).
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 247259.
248
. . (Fairclough
2003: 8991) : ,
, , , / . ,
.
, ,
,
. ,
,
(1998). ,
- :
1) (),
2) (),
3) (),
4)
5) ().

, , .
-
, - , .
:
, : 19461992 .
1990, 2006. .;
, : , 2
( 2004. .)
.
,
, , , () ,
.
,
,
1974, , , .
2. .
, , - ,
, :
< >, ;
| , ;
{ }, , .
2
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
...
249
2.1. .
( 1, 2, 3, 4).3
.
1.
[1] .
( )
[2] < .
> ( 1963: . 140; 1974: . 228; 1990: . 98)
,
( 1998: 3641), ,
., t, , , . ,
p .

. , ,
() ,
.
2.
164
[1] , ,

1) , |
2) , | , |
, | , |
3) ,
, |
|
11) .

[2] |
<
. > ( 1963: loc. cit.)
,
a b ( c ).
,
, ,
, , t.
(Fairclough 2003)
, , ,
.
3
250
3.
16. [ ]
[1] < < . > >

/
[2] < |
> . ( : loc. cit.)
( : . 6; 1963: . 71;
1990: . 2; : . 8; cf. 11 [ 1974: . 8889])

. , ., (2)
.
4.
[1] .
[2]
, < ,
, |
- |
. > ( : loc. cit.)
, ,
. ,
(1.2.1 1.2.2) (1.1) ( , ., t),
. (1),
, (,
, ) (2).
, , :
, , .
5.

[1]
54.
{[1.1] .
[1.2] {[1.2.1] ,
.
...
[2]
251
[1.2.2] ,
, . } }
( )
<
, , . > ( 2006: loc. cit.)
, (
, . ).4
( )
. 6,
however,
, , in fact.
6.
Protection of property
[1]
Article 1
[1.1] { Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. [1.2] No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in
the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law. }
()
[2] The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a
State to enforce such laws < as it deems necessary to control the use of property in
accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties. > (CHR: Protocol)
7 : (1) (1.1) ,
( ) , (1.2); (2) ,
; , , (3) , (1 2).
7.
,
4
, a
(Sperber Wilson 1995: 182)
, (op. cit.). ,
, (. if and only if ),
(. iff ).
252
43.
[1] {[1.1] {[1.1.1] , , ,
< |
. >
[1.1.2] <
. > }
[1.2] <
, , , , |
. > } }
( )
[2] , <
,
, ,
,
, . >

[3] <
. > ( 2006: loc. cit.)
8, ,
, , 3 4, . (3.1.2 4.2), but ,
3.2 3.1
choosing the President not choosing a President.
8.
Amendment XII (1804)
[1] The Electors shall meet in their respective states, | and vote by ballot for President and
Vice-President, < one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state
with themselves; > | they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, | and they shall
make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for
as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, < which lists they shall sign
and certify, | and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States,
directed to the President of the Senate; >

[2] The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

[3] {[3.1] {[3.1.1] The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall
be the President, < if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed; > and < if no person have such majority, > then from the persons having
the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,
...
253
the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

[3.1.2] But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states,
the representation from each state having one vote; | a quorum for this purpose
shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, | and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. } [3.2] And <
if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President < whenever the right
of choice shall devolve upon them, > before the fourth day of March next following,
> then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President. }

[4] {[4.1] The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be
the Vice-President, < if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed, > and < if no person have a majority, > then from the two highest numbers
on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; | a quorum for the purpose
shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, | and a majority of the
whole number shall be necessary to a choice. [4.2] But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. } (US Const.: amdt. 12)
2.2. .
.
9 (1.1) (1.1.1 1.1.2)
(1.21.4).
, ., p. .
9.
[1]
62.
[1.1] {[1.1.1]
.
[1.1.2]
. }

[1.2] ,
.

[1.3] .

[1.4] , .

[2]
254
63.
[2.1] < . >
[2.2] < > |

.
[3]
64.
[4]
65.
( 2006: . 6265)
() ( 10).
10.
[1] Subsection 2: The European Council
Article III-341
[1.1] 1. [1.1.1] < Where a vote is taken, > any member of the European Council may
also act on behalf of not more than one other member.
[1.1.2] Abstentions by members present in person or represented shall not prevent
the adoption by the European Council of acts < which require unanimity. >

[1.2] 2. The President of the European Parliament may be invited to be heard by the
European Council.

[1.3] 3. The European Council shall act by a simple majority for procedural questions
and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.

[1.4] 4. The European Council shall be assisted by the General Secretariat of the
Council.
[2] Subsection 3: The Council of Ministers

[2.1] Article III-342
The Council shall meet < when convened by its President on his or her own initiative,
> | or at the request of one of its members or of the Commission.

[2.2.1] 1. < Where a vote is taken, > any member of the Council may act on behalf
of not more than one other member.

...
255
[2.2.2] 2. < Where it is required to act by a simple majority, > the Council shall act
by a majority of its component members.

[2.2.3] 3. Abstentions by members present in person or represented shall not prevent

the adoption by the Council of acts < which require unanimity. >

[2.3.1] 1. [2.3.1.1] A committee consisting of the Permanent Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of
the Council and for carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the latter.
[2.3.1.2] The Committee may adopt procedural decisions in cases provided for in
the Councils Rules of Procedure.

[2.3.2] 2. [2.3.2.1] The Council shall be assisted by a General Secretariat, under the
responsibility of a Secretary-General appointed by the Council.
[2.3.2.2] The Council shall decide on the organisation of the General Secretariat by
a simple majority.

[2.3.3] 3. The Council shall act by a simple majority regarding procedural matters
and for the adoption of its Rules of Procedure.
[2.4.1] The Council, by a simple majority, may request the Commission to undertake
any studies < the Council considers desirable for the attainment of the common
objectives, > | and to submit any appropriate proposals to it. [2.4.2] <
If the Commission does not submit a proposal, > it shall inform the Council of the
reasons.

[2.5.1] The Council shall adopt European decisions laying down the rules governing
the committees provided for in the Constitution. [2.5.2] It shall act
by a simple majority after consulting the Commission.
[3] Subsection 4: The European Commission

(EU Const.: Art. III-341III-346)
, , ,
: a + ( b + c ) = ( a + b ) + c = a + b + c, a, b
c , + ; , .

, 1974. . 4 . , (2) (1),
.
256
11.
[1]
88.
[1.1]
.
[1.2] |

-
.
[2]
89.
|
, ,

,
, , - ,
. (
1974: loc. cit.)
, , 12. however .
12.
[1] Article III-153
Quantitative restrictions on imports and exports and all measures having equivalent
effect shall be prohibited between Member States.
( )
[2] Article III-154
[2.1] Article III-153 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports
or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public
security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection
of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the
protection of industrial and commercial property. [2.2] Such prohibitions
or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or
a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. (EU Const.: Art. III-153
III-154)
13 ( : 1974: . 178;
2006: . 3031) ()
. , , .
...
257
(2), (2.1)
, , (2.2)
, (2.2.2) (2.2.1). (2.2.2.1),
(2.2.2.2).
13.
[1]
15.
[1.1] .

[1.2] , <
. >
( )
[2]
16.
[2.1] < <

> > , , |
, <
. >
[2.2]
{ [2.2.1] { .
[2.2.2] { [2.2.2.1]
.
. } [2.2.2.2] <
, >
. } } ( 1990: . 1516)
, ,
.
3. .
,
.
, ,
, . ,
( , .,
, ).
,
,
.
. ,
, , , (
258
),
,
.

, ,
, for,
, , , .
, ,

. ,
, ,
, (, ,
), .
1990 . g p 1 (1990).
2006 . g p 98 (2006).
. t p g
I/1 (27. 1992).
1963 . t
t t p g. XIX/14 (10. 1963).
1974 . t
t t p g XXX/ 9 (21. 1974).
. t
t p g II/10 (1. 1946).
*
CHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
<http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm> 3.11.2010.
EU Const. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. Official Journal of the European Union
C series, No 310 (16 December 2004).
US Const. The Constitution of the United States. J. W. Peltason (ed.). About America:The Constitution of the United States of America with Explanatory Notes. 1943. <http://www.america.gov/
media/pdf/books/constitution.pdf> 3.11.2010.

, . t p . :
, 1998.
, , . p t. III. : , 2002.
, , . t pg : I, II, III IV
. 5. . : , 1997.
, . pt (gt t
) II: t. : , 1986.
...
259
*
Bari, Eugenija, Mijo Lonari, Dragica Mali, Slavko Pavei, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zeevi, Marija
Znika. Hrvatska gramatika. 2. promijenjeno izd. Zagreb: kolska knjiga, 1997.
Bussman, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary f Language nd Linguistics. London New York:
Routledge, 1999.
Fairclough, Norman. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge,
2003.
Halliday, Michael A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 1985.
Haspelmath, Martin. Coordination. Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language ypology and Syntactic Description. Volume 2: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 151.
Hoey, Michael. Textual Interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge,
2001.
K atii, Radoslav. Sintaksa hrvatskoga knjievnog jezika nacrt za gramatiku. Zagreb: Jugoslaven
ska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1986.
M areti, Tomo. Gramatika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga knjievnog jezika. 3. promijenjeno izd. Zagreb:
Matica hrvatska, 1963.
Mihailovi, Ljiljana. Gramatika engleskog jezika. Beograd: Nauna KMD, 2006.
Mrazovi, Pavica, Zora Vukadinovi. Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance. Sremski Kar
lovci Novi Sad: Izdavaka knjiarnica Zorana Stojanovia Dobra vest, 1990.
Sperber, Dan, Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Marko Janiijevi
MODELING TEXTUAL UNITS WITH THE EXAMPLE
OF LEGAL ACTS IN SERBIAN AND ENGLISH
Summary
In this paper, with the corpus of the highest written laws from the modern diachrony of the
Serbian and the English languages, we show how syntactic-semantic analysis can be extended to the
level of the text. Into consideration, thereby, we take relations among sentences and especially sentence
complexes, the latter formed at different levels, from intersentential to the level of whole sections of
statutes. The given relations are analysed on the basis of explicit and implicit connectors as well as
of the sense orientation of connected units. It is shown that both sentences and complexes differ with
respect to their rank in textual hierarchy, and that some sentences actually function as complexes,
establishing relations even with multiple complexes of sentences. Basic relations established on the
global plane are copulative, and on the local plane they are adversative (particularly exclusive) and
copulative.

-

trupko@sezampro.rs
UDC 811.111:811.163.41

Biljana Mii Ili

Vesna Lopii
PRAGMATIKI ANGLICIZMI U SRPSKOM JEZIKU*

Polazei od novijeg shvatanja anglicizama, gde se pod tim terminom podrazumeva ne
samo re ili morfema iz engleskog koja se, sa razliitim stepenom integrisanosti, upotrebljava
u srpskom jeziku ve i re, sintagma ili reenica u srpskom ija upotreba odraava ili sledi nor
mu engleskog jezika ortografsku, gramatiku, semantiku ili pragmatiku (Pri 2005: 59), u
radu se razmatraju anglicizmi na nivou pragmatike. Predloeni termin pragmatiki anglicizmi
oznaava upotrebu diskursnih formula iz engleskog jezika u situacijama kada za njih postoje
odgovarajue ustaljene formule u srpskom jeziku. Daleko rei i manje uoljivi nego leksiki
anglicizmi, pragmatiki anglicizmi se ipak neretko sreu prvenstveno u govornom jeziku
urbanih govornika, ali i u javnoj upotrebi. U radu se identifikuju tipini pragmatiki angli
cizmi, klasifikuju po tipu, po formi i po vrsti diskursne situacije. Razmatraju se kulturoloki
aspekti vezani za razloge nastanka ovih anglicizama i interpretiraju se u svetlu savremenih
globalizacijskih trendova s jedne strane i tenji za ouvanjem jezikog i kulturnog identiteta
s druge.
Kljune rei: pragmatiki anglicizmi, pozajmljenice, srpski jezik, diskursne formule.
1. Uvod. Uticaj engleskog jezika na srpski ve vie decenija privlai panju

kako lingvista tako i laika.1 Na teorijskim osnovama kontaktne lingvistike i kon
kretnim istraivanjem engleskog i srpskohrvatskog jezika predstavljenim u zna
ajnim studijama R. Filipovia (1986; 1990), sledilo je desetine radova i studija u
kojima su se razliiti autori, prvenstveno srpski anglisti, bavili bilo pojedinanim
tipovima anglicizama u srpskom (Injac 2002; Filipovi 2003; 2005; 2006, R adi-Bojani 2007; Silaki 2009; Baji 2009; Janji 2010, da pomenemo samo neke od
novijih radova), bilo optijim sociolingvistikim i pragmatikim aspektima (evi
1996; Bugarski 1997; Pani K avgi 2006). Najznaajnije i najobimnije studije o
anglicizmima i uticaju engleskog jezika na srpski svakako predstavljaju renik
novijih anglicizama V. Vasi, T. Pria i G. Nejgebauer (2001) i monografija T.
Pria Engleski u srpskom (2005).
Rad je deo projekta Dinamika struktura srpskog jezika (178014), koji finansira Ministarstvo
prosvete i nauke Republike Srbije. Rad predstavlja znatno proirenu i preraenu verziju saoptenja
koje je bilo izloeno na meunarodnom naunom skupu Srpski jezik, knjievnost, umetnost odranog
na Filoloko-umetnikom fakultetu u Kragujevcu 2930. 10. 2010. godine.
1
Da zaokupljenost anglicizmima nije privilegija samo strunjaka, pokazuju blogovi i forumi
na kojima se moe nai zanimljiva razmena miljenja izmeu mlaih i starijih korisnika interneta,
koji ovu temu smatraju veoma inspirativnom. Videti, na primer, http://forum.bgdcafe.com/index.
php?showtopic=3538&st=60), ili http://www.vokabular.org/forum/index.php?topic=194.0
*
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 261273.
262
Biljana Mii Ili, Vesna Lopii
Cilj ovoga rada jeste da se ukae na jednu specifinu vrstu anglicizama, one
koji se javljaju na nivou pragmatike. Mada jesu identifikovani u literaturi (Pri
2005: 68, 8384), oni zasada nisu bili predmet posebnog istraivanja.
1.1. Tradicionalno, anglicizmom se smatra morfema, re ili idiom iz engle
skog jezika koji se, sa razliitim stepenom integrisanosti, koristi u nekom drugom
jeziku, u naem sluaju u srpskom jeziku. Ovakvo shvatanje zastupa i M. Gerlah
(Grlach 2002: 1) u svom poznatom reniku anglicizama u evropskim jezicima,
koji naalost nije obuhvatio i srpski jezik: ,,An anglicism is a word or idiom that
is recognizably English in its form (spelling, pronunciation, morphology or at
least one of the three) but is accepted as an item in the vocabulary of the receptor
language.
Meutim, u ovom radu prihvatamo novije, ire shvatanje pojma anglicizam,
gde se pod time podrazumeva ne samo re ili morfema iz engleskog koja se, sa
razliitim stepenom integrisanosti, upotrebljava u srpskom jeziku ve i re, sin
tagma ili reenica u srpskom ija upotreba odraava ili sledi normu engleskog
jezika ortografsku, gramatiku, semantiku ili pragmatiku (Pri 2005: 59).
1.2. Anglicizmi se najee posmatraju kao rezultat jezikog pozajmljivanja,2
a javljaju se u nekom jeziku kao posledica njegovog kontakta sa engleskim. U
teoriji se navode razni tipovi anglicizama (detaljan pregled videti kod Kapusa
(Capuz 1997)), ali veina istraivaa koji su se bavili anglicizmima u raznim je
zicima, prvenstveno romanskim i germanskim, slae se da pozajmljivanje moe
biti na svim nivoima jezikog sistema fonolokom, ortografskom, morfolokom,
semantikom, leksikom, sintaksikom, frazeolokom. Znaaj pragmatikog nivoa,
kao i pragmatikog pristupa fenomenu pozajmljivanja prvi je istakao M. Klajn
(Clyne 1972; 1977), bavei se nemakim i engleskim jezikom. Kapus (Capuz 1997:
9192), razmatrajui mnoge tipove anglicizama, za one na nivou pragmatike
koristi termin pragmatika interferencija i navodi sledee kategorije, uz primere
anglicizama u romanskim jezicima:
1) Diskursni markeri sa fatikom funkcijom (ee korienje rei bien/bueno
i bene, u panskom i italijanskom, kao prevod engleskog well, na poetku odgovora,
naroito u filmskim dijalozima).
2) Diskursne rutine i kliei (tradicionalni nain odgovaranja na telefon, dgame
na panskom i pronto na italijanskom, zamenjuje se formulom s?, kao prevodom
engleskom yes?, sa dugim vokalom; olvdalo!, kao direktan prevod engleskog
forget it!, koje se koristi kao formula kojom se zavava komunikacijska razmena
sa primesom odbijanja, umesto panskog nada, djalo (estar), no te procupes, no
importa.)
3) Preformulisane diskursne formule kalkovi u obraanju (damas y caballeros,
od engleskog ladies and gentlemen, umesto tradicionalne panske formule seoras
y seores), pozdravljanju (u panskom korienje chao, od italijanskog ciao, fran
cuski au revoir i bay bay, od engleskog bye-bye), formule utivosti (u panskom
2
Pod pozajmljivanjem podrazumevamo: ,,the incorporation of foreign features into a groups
native language by speakers of that language (Thomason K aufman 1991: 37). Izvesni autori prave
razliku izmeu pozajmljivanja (borrowing) i interferencije, o emu detaljno pie S. Romejn (Romaine 1995: 5159). Mi emo u radu koristiti termin pozajmlijvanje, kao najoptiji.
PRAGMATIKI ANGLICIZMI U SRPSKOM JEZIKU
263
i italijanskom ee korienje por favor i prego, u govornom inu zahteva, pod

uticajem engleskog please).
4) uzvici sa ilokucionom snagom (u panskom hey, okey, guau (od eng. wow)).
U naoj novijoj literaturi anglicizmima se najdetaljnije bavio T. Pri, koji
je identifikovao anglicizme i na pragmatikom nivou i definisao ih kao ,,upotrebu
uvezenih diskursnih formula u situacijama kada za njih postoje odgovarajue i
ustaljene domae formule (Pri 2005: 68, 8384).
1.3. Na osnovu iznetih teorijskih postavki, predlaemo termin pragmatiki
anglicizmi, kojim bi se oznaila upotreba diskursnih formula iz engleskog jezika
u situacijama kada za njih postoje odgovarajue i ustaljene formule u srpskom
jeziku, kao i uvoenje diskursnih formula iz engleskog jezika tamo gde postoji
izvesna diskursna praznina, tj. gde nije bilo nikakvih diskursnih formula u srp
skom jeziku. Na primer, pragmatikim anglicizmima moglo bi se smatrati ukoli
ko se prodavaica u radnji obrati sa Da li mogu da Vam pomognem? (od engleskog
Can I help you?) umesto uobiajenog srpskog ,,Izvolite?, ili kada se koriste uzvici
i diskursni markeri tipa baj-baj, okej, vau, ups, (adaptirani od engleskih bye-bye,
Ok, Wow, oops), ili ako se na tampanom raunu koristi utiva formula Hvala to
ste koristili nae usluge (od engleskog Thank you for using our services).3 Ovaj
poslednji primer ilustruje upotpunjavanje jedne situacije koja bi se mogla uslovno
nazvati diskursnom prazninom u srpskom jeziku, jer ranije nije bila ispunjena
nikakvim verbalnim sadrajem, tako to e se upotrebiti verbalna diskursna for
mula pozajmljena iz engleskog jezika. Ovakve diskursne praznine najbolje se mogu
sagledati u kontrastu dvaju (ili vie) jezika i predstavljaju nulti odnos,4 i to upravo
na pragmatikom nivou.
Cilj ovog rada nije da ponudi iscrpan spisak pragmatikih anglicizama u srp
skom jeziku, ve prvenstveno da identifikuje ovu pojavu, ponudi nekoliko vrsta
klasifikacije, da ukratko razmotri sociolingvistike aspekte vezane za njihov
nastanak i da ih interpretira u svetlu savremenih globalizacijskih trendova s jedne
i tenji za ouvanjem jezikog i kulturnog identiteta s druge strane.
2. Pragmatiki anglicizmi sociolingvistiki i lingvistiki aspekti. Kako
bismo sagledali pragmatike anglicizme to potpunije, razmotriemo kako neke
sociolingvistike aspekte vezane na njihov nastanak i upotrebu, tako i lingvistike
aspekte koji se tiu njihove formalne kategorije, oblike realizacije u srpskom
jeziku i vrste diskursne situacije u kojoj se koriste.
3
Svi primeri pragmatikih anglicizama u ovom radu preuzeti su iz knjige Engleski u srpskom
T. Pria i/ili su vie puta primeeni i zabeleeni u prevodima filmova, u javnim natpisima, u govor u
urbanih srpskih govornika u medijima, kao i u profesionalnom i privatnom okruenju autorki rada.
Primeri su navoeni na sledei nain: pragmatiki anglicizam kurziv Da li mogu da Vam po
mognem?; engleski original mali verzal, dat u zagradi, ako je samo naveden primer, Can I help you?;
uobiajena re/fraza/formula na srpskom obian font, dat pod navodnicima ako je primer naveden
u okviru teksta, ,,Izvolite?.
4
Radmila orevi (2004: 64) daje sledee objanjenje: ,,Za nulte odnose dva jezika kae se
da su to oni sluajevi u kojima u jeziku A postoji simbol za neku pojmovnu sadrinu, a u jeziku B
odgovarajueg simbola nema, i obratno. Oni se mogu nai na gramatikom nivou (npr. lan), kao i
na leksikom.
264
2.1. Sociolingvistiki aspekti. U razmatranju sociolingvistikih aspekata

nastanka i upotrebe pragmatikih anglicizama (kao i anglicizama uopte), neki
osnovni parametri koje treba razmotriti jesu govornici koji ih koriste, medijum,
stil i registar u kome se pojavljuju, kao i sociopsiholoki razlozi za njihovu upo
trebu.
Pragmatiki anglicizmi sreu se najee u govornom, a neto ree u pisanom
jeziku urbanih govornika, posebno onih mlaih i obrazovanijih. Takoe, mogu
se nai i u dijalozima iz filmova, serija, crtanih filmova i popularne beletristike
prevedenim s engleskog jezika.5 Pragmatiki anglicizmi zabeleeni su i u nekim
oblicima usmene i pisane javne i slubene komunikacije, prvenstveno u sferi uslu
ga, i gotovo iskljuivo kada se radi o stranim firmama i njihovim ekspoziturama
i franizama.
Razlozi nastanka i ovakve upotrebe pragmatikih anglicizama mogu biti
predmet posebnog interdisciplinarnog etnografskog i korpusnog istraivanja, ali
izvesno je da se radi o kombinaciji faktora, od kojih emo najoiglednije samo
pomenuti:
nemarni prevodioci direktno prenose ili kalkiraju sintagmu/reenicu iz
engleskog (na primer: Ti ne eli da zna od engleskog You dont want to know,
u znaenju ,,Ma ne pitaj, ,,Bolje ne pitaj);
uzvici na engleskom koji se uju u originalu filma su zvuni, upeatljivi i
atraktivni, pa ih mladi lako pokupe (na primer: vau, engleski wow; baj-baj, en
gleski bye-bye);
srpski govornici, posebno mladi i urbani, tee da zvue svetski i po
modno;
deca ele da imitiraju svoje crtane junake, koje uju u sinhronizovanim
filmovima, a tinejderi i mladi junake popularnih TV serija;6
diskursne formule poslovne komunikacije i propisanog kda u stranoj fir
mi direktno se prenose u srpski jezik (na primer, u Mekdonaldsu ujemo: Izvolite
ovo je Va raun/kusur od engleskog Here is your bill/change).
2.2. Forma pragmatikih anglicizama. Po formi, pragmatiki anglicizmi
mogu biti rei (najee uzvici, prilozi, imperativi, skraenice: okej, Zaboravi!,
OMG), sintagme (tagod, Prijatan put!, No comment) i reenice (Moje ime je,
Hajde, kupiu ti pie!, Priaj mi neto o tome.). Treba istai da formalni aspekt
nije presudan za razumevanje pragmatikih anglicizama koliko su to razliiti
aspekti njihove upotrebe, o emu e biti rei u nastavku rada.
2.3. Tipovi pragmatikih anglicizama. Najiscrpniju analizu anglicizama u
srpskom jeziku ponudio je T. Pri, koji je predloio etvorostruku klasifikacionu
shemu, u kojoj se anglicizmi sagledavaju po vrsti (oigledni, skriveni i sirovi),
nastanku (preoblikovani, prevedeni i meoviti), opravdanosti (sasvim opravdani,
opravdani, uslovno opravdani, neopravdani i sasvim neopravdani) i po statusu
Zanimljiva je studija o prevodima uzvika iz engleskih filmova na panski i baskijski, gde autor
ka zakljuuje da direktno prenoenje predstavlja najei sluaj, to se smatra grekom na pragma
tikom nivou (Cuenca 2006).
6
Zabeleile smo kako mlai osnovci spontano kau ups i upsi, od engleskog oops, vau od wow
i tagod od whatever. Takoe smo esto ule tinejdere i studente koji koriste potpuno neadaptirane
anglicizme whatever i okej, kao i Priaj mi neto o tome, od engleskog Tell me something about it.
5
265
(potpuno odomaeni, delimino odomaeni i neodomaeni) (Pri 2005: 119143).

U ovom radu, ne elei da ulazimo bez vrstih empirijskih podataka u pitanja odo
maenosti ili opravdanosti, smatrale smo da je najuputnije pragmatike anglicizme
na poetku postmatrati i klasifikovati prema vrsti, to jest prema njihovoj oblikoj
realizaciji u srpskom jeziku. Stoga su anglicizmi u ovom radu klasifikovanini na
oigledne, sirove i skrivene.
2.3.1. Priblino najblii tradicionalnoj definciji pojma anglicizam bili bi tzv.
oigledni anglicizmi, tj. leksike jedinice rei i afiksi, koji su preuzeti iz engle
skog i podvrgnuti manjem ili veem stepenu adaptacije na ortografskom, fonolo
kom, morfolokom, semantikom ili pragmatikom planu. Od identifikovanih
pragmatikih anglicizama ovde bi svakako spadali mnogi uzvici (haj, baj-baj,
vau, sori, itd.), kao i prilozi ok, ofkors i kul, upotrebljeni sa ilokucionim znaenjem
slaganja. Svi oni su adaptirani fonoloki, a u pisanoj formi i ortografski prema pra
vilima srpskog jezika. Ovde bi se mogla svrstati i aljiva varijanta priloga ofskroz,
u znaenju potpuno, naravno, gde je dolo i do morfoloke adaptacije, a deli
mino i semantike promene engleske sintagme of course. U govoru mlaih urba
nih govornika uje se i Vocap?, koji smo zabeleili i u kombinaciji Gde, si, brate,
vocap?. Potrebno je ne samo znanje engleskog nego i poprilino mate da se u
ovome prepozna englesko Whats up?, odnosno na srpskom ta ima novo?.
2.3.2. Jo oigledniji su tzv. sirovi anglicizmi, koji se javljaju u pisanoj formi
u engleskom originalu, dakle potpuno neprilagoeni ortografskom sistemu srp
skog jezika, mada su integrisani na pragmatikom planu, a u govornom obliku, tj.
ako se izgovore/proitaju, i na fonolokom. Tu bi spadale pisane varijante uzvika
(hi, bye-bye, wow, oops, yeah, sorry), priloga/prideva sa ilokucionom snagom
odobravanja (cool, ok, okay), fraza (no comment, of course) i skraenica (OMG,
BTW).
2.3.3. Sledei novo shvatanje pojma anglicizam, Pri (2005: 121122) skree
panju i na skrivene anglicizme, tj. rei, sintagme i reenice srpskog jezika koje
odraavaju normu i/ili slede obiaje engleskog jezika, pri emu se znaenja i
upotrebe svojstvene oblicima engleskog jezika kriju u oblicima srpskog jezika.7
Diskursne formule u formi reenica koje smatramo pragmatikim anglici
zmima upravo predstavljaju primere skrivenih anglicizama. Preslikana struktura,
znaenje i upotreba iz engleskog poinju da se odomauju u srpskom jeziku, za
menjujui i ak istiskujui srpske strukture. Tako, na primer, gotovo nikog vie
ne iznenauje utivost u uslunim delatnostima izraena reenicama:
Da li mogu da Vam pomognem? Mogu li da Vam pomognem? (Can I help you?) =
Izvolite?
Izvolite (ovo je) Va kusur. (heres you change.) = Izvolite.
Takoe, ono to se moglo smatrati nemarnim prevodom filmskih dijaloga,

sada se uje i u govoru srpskih govornika:
7
Na leksikom nivou tipini noviji primeri skrivenih anglicizama bili bi mi (kompjuterski)
od mouse ili definitivno od definitely (u znaenju izvesno, zasigurno), a na sintagmatskom nivou
to je pre mogue od as soon as possible. Na leksikom nivou kalkovi, tj. preslikani, prevedeni
anglicizmi (neboder od skyscraper) takoe bi se mogli smatrati skrivenim anglicizmima.
266
(Ti) ne eli da zna. (You dont want to know.) = Ma ne pitaj. / Bolje ne pitaj.
Ovo se moe uti kada govornik ne eli ili smatra da je nepotrebno da odgo
vori na neko pitanje jer bi se u odgovoru saoptile neke neprijatne stvari.
Zaboravi! (Forget it!) = Nema veze! / Nije vano. / Nema na emu. / U redu je. /
Batali!
Ovo ve postaje uobiajena formula kada govornik eli da prekine razgovor

o nekoj temi istiui da nije bitna ili da nema vie svrhe govoriti o tome.
Priaj mi (neto) o tome. (Tell me (something) about it.) = Ma ta mi kae. / Meni
kae.
Ova reenica koristi se kao pomalo ironian komentar govornika na neto

to je ve znao, a ne zahtev da sazna vie, to bi se moglo pomisliti na osnovu do
slovnog znaenja.
uvaj se! (take care!) = Zdravo! / Do vienja!
Ovo se moe uti kao pozdrav pri odlasku, ak i kada ne postoji nikakva
realna opasnost za odlazeeg sagovornika.
Moje ime je (My name is ) = Zovem se / Ja sam
(Ja) dolazim iz (I come from ) = Ja sam iz
Neto su ree i zasada neuobiajeno zvue sledee reenice, koje se takoe

mogu uti u javnoj upotrebi:
Ne mogu se vie sloiti sa Vama/tobom. (I cant agree with you more.) = U potpu
nosti / Potpuno se slaem sa vama.
Hvala to si to primetila. (Thanks for noticing it.) = Lepo od tebe to si to primetila.
Uivaj(te)! (Enjoy!) = Prijatno! / Lepo se provedite!
Ovo se moe uti u govornom jeziku, kao utiv pozdrav dobrodolice ili pri
odlasku.
Zato nisam iznenaen? (Why am I not surprised?) = To me (uopte) ne udi/izne
nauje.
Zadovoljstvo je moje. (The pleasure is (all) mine.) = I meni.
Ovakav odgovor na izraz zahvalnosti ,,Bilo mi je zadovoljstvo, koji i ne mora

biti prevod engleske reenice ,,It was my pleasure, moe se smatrati pragmatikim
anglicizmom.
U skrivene anglicizme bismo svakako svrstali i rei/sintagme/reenice koje
preslikavaju strukturu, znaenje i upotrebu engleskih ekvivalenata, ali za njih ne
postoji pragmatiki ekvivalent u srpskom, tj. postoji diskursna praznina. Tu bi
spadale posebne forme pisane utivosti u javnom sektoru usluga, kao, na primer,
kada na fiskalnim raunima, bankomatima i oglasnim panoima pie:
267
Hvala to ste koristili usluge naeg bankomata. (Thank you for using our ATM
services.)
Prijatan put! (Enjoy the journey!) = Srean put!
Uivajte! (Enjoy!) = Prijatno! / Lepo se provedite!
Bankomat trenutno ne radi. Hvala na razumevanju. (ATM is temporarily out
of service. Thank you for your understanding).
Ovde bismo uvrstili i formule koje se sve vie sreu u javnim prezentacijama:
Hvala (napisano na poslednjem slajdu na prezentaciji).
Q & A (Ovo je u stvari sirovi anglicizam, od engleskog questions and answers,
to predstavlja poziv publici da uputi pitanja na koja e govornik odgovarati).
Ova posebna podvrsta skrivenih pragmatikih anglicizama, za koje nije po

stojao diskursni i pragmatiki ekvivalent u srpskom jeziku, naroito je zanimljiva
sa kulturolokog i pragmatikog stanovita jer oni unose ne samo nov jeziki sa
draj u srpski jezik ve i jedan novi kulturni obrazac, svojstven nekoj drugoj
profesionalnoj kulturi, koju mi prihvatamo upravo kroz ovaj novi jeziki sadraj,
novu diskursnu formulu.
2.4. Vrsta diskursne situacije. Pod vrstom diskursne situacije prvenstveno
razmatramo vrstu diskursne/komunikativne situacije u kojoj se pragmatiki angli
cizmi javljaju. Situacioni aspekti uglavnom se tiu medijuma (usmeni ili pisani),
opte sfere ljudske delatnosti (privatna ili javna) i registra (uslune delatnosti,
poslovna komunikacija, akademski diskurs, itd.). Mada su u klasifikaciji mogua
izvesna preklapanja, mogu se izdvojiti tri osnovna tipa diskursne situacije.
2.4.1. Diskursne formule u sferi usluga i javne komunikacije: a) diskursne
formule koje se javljaju u usmenom obliku:
Da li mogu da vam pomognem? Mogu li da vam pomognem? (Can I help you?) =
Izvolite?
Izvolite (ovo je) va kusur. (heres you change.) = Izvolite.
Ovakve fraze u sferi usluga ve su postale sasvim uobiajene, a njihov na

stanak mogao bi se vezati za pojavu prvih Mekdonalds restorana i finih prodavni
ca. U efikasno organizovanim restoranima brze hrane i komunikacija sa gostima
treba da bude brza, efikasna i nedvosmislena, pa otuda, recimo, i ova diskursna
formula za vraanje kusura. Kada u prodavnicama roba vie nije stajala iza ne
pristupane tezge, ve je mogla slobodno da se razgleda, promenio se i sam nain
kupovine, pa prodavac sada zaista nije samo neko ko vam daje ono to traite,
ve je tu i da pomogne savetom otuda potreba za novom diskursnom formulom,
umesto tradicionalne Izvolite.
Postavlja se pitanje da li su ove formule zaista anglicizmi, jer sline diskur
sne formule postoje i u drugim jezicima, recimo u francuskom ili italijanskom,
gde nisu ule iz engleskog, pa su moda i u srpski ule iz nekog od tih jezika. Sma
tramo da, iako je to mogue, to ipak nije sluaj upravo zbog neuporedivo veeg
uticaja engleskog i izloenosti srpske sredine tom jeziku.
268
Takoe, moe se smatrati da je formula Da li mogu da vam pomognem?

moda samo opta utiva diskursna formula, kakva svakako postoji u srpskom
jeziku, a kojom se ljubazno nudi pomo u svakoj sferi i u svakom pogledu, pa se
tako njena upotreba proirila i na sferu uslunih delatnosti. Meutim, smatramo
da bi se ak i u tom sluaju mogla smatrati anglicizmom, jer je do proirenja
upotrebe najverovatnije dolo upravo pod uticajem engleske diskursne formule i
kulturnog obrasca u sferi trgovine.8
b) diskursne formule koje su u pisanom obliku, na tampanim raunima,
por ukama na ekranu ili na oglasnim panoima:
Hvala to ste koristili usluge naeg bankomata. (Thank you for using our ATM
services.)
Prijatan put! (Enjoy the journey!) = Srean put!
Uivajte! (Enjoy!) = Prijatno!/ Lepo se provedite!
Bankomat trenutno ne radi. Hvala na razumevanju. (ATM is temporarily out of
service. Thank you for your understanding).
Prema naem neformalnom anketiranju govornika srpskog, gotovo niko ove

reenice ne prepoznaje kao anglicizme, mada se neki od njih doivljavaju kao
neuobiajeni a neki (Prijatan put! umesto ,,Srean put!) i kao nepravilni u srp
skom. Dakle, oni bi se mogli svrstati u grupu skrivenih anglicizama. Kao to je
ve pomenuto, ovi anglicizmi nisu zamena za ustaljene srpske formule/reenice,
jer u srpskoj vanjezikoj stvarnosti, pa samim tim ni u jeziku, doskora nisu ni
postojali fiskalni rauni i bankomati. Gore navedene reenice su direktno prenete
(prevedene) iz engleskog, gde je ovakav utiv nain komunikacije sa klijentima i
kupcima uobiajen i normalan. Moda ovi skriveni pragmatiki anglicizmi, kojih
i nismo svesni, a koji su popunili jednu diskursnu prazninu, predstavljaju izvesnu
novu formu utivosti, pa ih moemo smatrati i dobrodolom novinom. Slino za
paanje, u vezi sa ruskim jezikom, iznosi Rathmayr (2008), koja kao pozitivnu no
vinu istie nove forme (verbalne) utivosti u ruskom jeziku i drutvu, u sferi usluga
i javne komunikacije, pod uticajem trine ekonomije i, posredno, engleskog jezika.
Ipak, da bi se doneo valjaniji sud o ovoj pojavi, potrebno bi bilo izvriti socioling
vistiko istraivanje stavova govornika srpskog jezika. Moda ovakve diskursne
formule, ukoliko se prihvataju po automatizmu, i nekritino poinju da se koriste
samo na jezikom, pragmatikom nivou, a da ih ne prati sutinsko semantiko i
pragmatiko znaenje i odgovarajue ponaanje, mogu da imaju i suprotan, iriti
rajui efekat na primaoca poruke.9
c) diskursne formule u pisanom obliku, koje se koriste u zvaninoj i poslov
noj korespondenciji
Ukoliko imate bilo kakvih pitanja, ne oklevajte da nas kontaktirate / da nam se
obratite. (In case you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us.).
Autorke se zahvaljuju prof. dr Julijani Vuo na stimulativnoj diskusiji u vezi sa ovim primerom.
Kao ilustracija ovog stava moe da poslui scena iz TV serije Bela laa: Jedan od likova,
Tika pic, nalazi pisano obavetenje da mu je pauk odneo pogreno parkiran auto gde, izmeu osta
log, pie i Hvala to ste koristili nae usluge. Tika oigledno ne ceni ovakvu utivost i dramatino rea
guje: ,,Kako sam ja, bre, usluen, odneli ste mi auto s pauka, ja nesam traio da budem usluen!.
8
9
269
Radujem/Radujui se Vaem skorom odgovoru. (Looking forward to your (prompt)

reply.).
Ove fraze predstavljaju direktan prevod uobiajenih formula iz anglosakson

ske poslovne korespondencije.10 Na osnovu neformalne ankete petnaestak urbanih
govornika srpskog jezika, moe se zakljuiti da ih govornici srpskog jezika do
ivljavaju kao neuobiajene, ali zvanine. Bilo je komentara da zvue i izveta
eno, ali da je i ceo diskurs poslovne zvanine korespondencije izvetaen i
utogljen.
d) diskursne formule u pisanom obliku, koje se mogu videti na slajdovima
javne akademske ili poslovne prezentacije:
Hvala (na poslednjem slajdu na prezentaciji)
Q&A
Ovo je tipian primer pragmatikog anglicizma koji ne zamenjuje postojeu

diskursnu formulu u srpskom, ve u diskursnu prazninu uvodi englesku formulu,
bilo adaptiranu (Hvala) bilo sirovu (Q & A). U srpskom jeziku doskora nije bilo
uobiajeno zahvaljivati sluaocima na kraju izlaganja ili ih pozivati da postavljaju
pitanja u okviru posebnog segmenta u izlaganju. Dok u poslovnim krugovima
ovo gotovo da postaje pravilo, u akademskim krugovima se ponekad doivljava
kao nepotrebno i neprimereno akademskom diskursu.11
2.4.2. Diskursne formule u usmenoj privatnoj i javnoj komunikaciji. Ovim
formulama se uglavnom izraava neko interpersonalno znaenje, kao, na primer,
slaganje, neslaganje, predstavljanje ili slino. Ovde bi se mogli svrstati i uzvici sa
ekspresivnom vrednou i diskursne formule u pozdravljanju. To po formi mogu
biti reenice, sintagme i rei, a po tipu adaptirani i skriveni anglicizmi, najee
kalkirane reenice.
ta god. Bilo kako. Kako bilo. (whatever.).
(Ti) ne eli da zna. (You dont want to know.) = Ma ne pitaj. / Bolje ne pitaj.
Zaboravi! (Forget it!) = Nema veze. / Nije vano. / Nema na emu. / U redu je. /
Batali!
Priaj mi neto o tome. (Tell me something about it!) = Ma ta mi kae! / Meni
kae!
uvaj se! (Take care!) = Zdravo! (kao pozdrav pri odlasku)
Moje ime je (My name is) = Zovem se
(Ja) dolazim iz (I come from ) = Ja sam iz
Ne mogu se vie sloiti sa vama/tobom. (I cant agree with you more.) = U potpu
nosti / Potpuno se slaem sa vama.
Hvala to si to primetila (Thanks for noticing it.) = Lepo od tebe to si to primetila.
Hajde, kupiu ti pie. (Let me buy you a drink.) = Hajde, vodim te na pie. / Hajde,
ja astim (pie).
Sline fraze verovatno se mogu nai i u nekim drugim jezicima, pa bi bilo zanimljivo uraditi
kontrastivno i dijahronijsko istraivanje da se vidi da li je i kako dolo do pozajmljivanja ovakvih
formula. S obzirom na to da je srpska poslovna korespondencija danas najvie pod uticajem engle
ske, za sada ove fraze smatramo anglicizmima.
11
Neki profesori ak izriito zabranjuju ove formule u prezentacijama (J. Vuo, lina komu
nikacija).
10
270
Nekoliko primera zasluuje da bude posebno prokomentarisano. Formule pri

predstavljanju Moje ime je i (Ja) dolazim iz naroito su se ustalile na televi
ziji, gde se tako predstavljaju i voditelji, odnosno, da upotrebimo anglicizam, pre
zenteri i njihovi sagovornici. Recimo, kada se najavi da osoba A dolazi iz Kruevca,
to moda zaista znai da je gost iz Kruevca i da je pravo odatle doao u emisiju.
Ali, kada, recimo, u nedelju ujutru gost jutarnjeg programa kae Ja dolazim iz firme
XY, jasno je da ne stie s posla, ve koristi formulu koja je poela da se smatra
prigodnom u tom diskursu.
Engleska reenica sa ilokucionim znaenjem emfatinog slaganja sa sago
vornikom I cant agree with you more u srpskoj varijanti Ne mogu se vie sloiti
sa Vama/tobom zvui ne samo kao pomalo rogobatni prevod, ve je zbog svoje
dvosmislenosti i komunikaciono neprikladna. Upravo poliseminost priloga vie,
koji ovde moe imati znaenja ili u veoj meri ili i nadalje, moe izazvati i su
protni efekat od onoga to je bila namera otmenog govornika, koji koristi ovu
formulu.
Na poslednji primer iz ove grupe, Hajde, kupiu ti pie, zasluuje posebnu
panju. U kulturi gde je uobiajeno da u zajednikom drutvu svako sam plaa
svoje pie, a sveprisutni konzumerizam jo jae podstie iskazivanje ljubavi, na
klonosti i prijateljstva kroz materijalne stvari, engleski idiom buy someone a drink
moe se posmatrati i kao odraz izvesnog aspekta te drutvene stvarnosti. U naoj
varijanti, izraz voditi nekoga na pie i astiti nekoga piem ima veze sa aktivnom
naklonou i au, to je sasvim drugaije od kupoprodajnog odnosa. Kako smo
ovaj pragmatiki anglicizam zabeleile i u drastinijem obliku Hajde da ti kupim
jedno pie, smatramo da se ovde ne radi samo o prenoenju/pozajmljivanju jezike
diskursne formule ve i same konceptualizacije pojma astiti nekoga piem.12
2.4.2.1. Posebnu grupu diskursnih formula u usmenoj komunikaciji ine uz
vici. U korpusu su naeni sledei, ali mogue je da to ne iscrpljuje spisak: okej, vau,
jea, jes, kul, no(u) koment, ofkors, ofskroz, sori, haj, baj, ups, au, da (izgovoreno sa
produenim vokalom, prilikom odgovora na telefonski poziv umesto halo), alo
(ne u javljanju telefonom, nego za skretanje panje, od engleskog hello), tenks
(od engleskog thanks = hvala), Vocap (od engleskog Whats up? = ta ima novo?)
O, moj Boe. Ne smemo zaboraviti ni ve sasvim odomaeni anglicizam super,
koga ovde svrstavamo meu uzvike, mada se, naravno, koristi i kao pridev i pri
log u srpskom. Zanimljivo je da se podvueni uzvici nalaze se na spisku sto dva
deset najeih anglicizama kod T. Pria (2005: 160164).
2.4.3. Uzvici i skraenice ekspresivne vrednosti u pisanoj komunikaciji,
uglavnom privatnoj. Treba istai da se ovde ne radi o jednokratnim ili povremenim
interpolacijama, ve ovi pragmatiki anglicizmi predstavljaju odliku posebnog
stila SMS poruka, elektronskih askaonica i foruma, kojim komuniciraju posebno
12
Prevod engleskog idioma Ill buy you a drink srpskim Platiu ti pie umesto Ja astim /
astim pie / Moj je red komentarisala je i Slavica Perovi (2009: 262): ,,Glagol platiti teko je sa
obraziv sa naom gostoljubivou i direktno je suprotan dobrom ukusu i dobrom duhu naeg poima
nja asti i aavanja. astiti je u vezi sa rijeju ast. Kako je u duhu naeg jezika i naeg naroda
ukazati ast nekome ponudivi mu pie, upotrebom glagola platiti u ovoj frazi zadire se u obiaj,
duh naroda, njegov karakter koji je od davanja vie nego od plaanja. Time mijenjamo sutinu
(jezika i kulture) mnogo vie nego to u prvi mah izgleda, trampivi tom jednom reenicom tradiciju
za jednu uvezenu frazu koja se, avaj, izgleda polako ukorijenjuje.
271
mlai urbani govornici. Ovi uzvici mogu se klasifikovati kao oigledni anglicizmi
kada su u usmenoj formi, a kao sirovi, u pisanoj komunikaciji, ako su napisani u
engleskom originalu: haj (u pisanoj formi Hi), okej (u pisanoj formi i OK, O.K.),
baj, baj-baj (pisano i bye), vau (pisano i WOW), ups, upsi (u pisanoj formi i oops),
jea (pisano i yeah), au (pisano i ouch), o-ou (kao uzvik uenja i zbunjenosti, sa
specifinom intonacijom i duinom), kul (pisano i cool), no comment, of course,
ofskroz, sorry, yes, My God, txs. Najpoznatije skraenice ovog tipa su OMG (skra
eno od Oh, my God), BTW (skraeno od by the way), LOL (skraeno od laughing
out loud), ROFL (rolling on the floor with laughter), RIP (od engleskog rest
in peace, kao pisana izjava sauea).
3. Zakljuna razmatranja
3.1. Anglicizmi koji su bili predmet ovoga rada, a za koje je predloen termin
pragmatiki anglicizmi, mogu biti posmatrani, odvojeno, i na ortografskom, lek
sikom, semantikom i frazeolokom nivou. Ono to predstavlja njihovu zajed
niku bitnu odliku, meutim, jeste njihova upotreba u specifinim diskursnim situa
cijama, tj. njihova pragmatika vrednost. Nesumnjivo je da su neki identifikovani
primeri nastali kao posledica nemarnog prevoda, meutim, veina danas predsta
vlja formule koje se koriste u stvarnoj jezikoj upotrebi. Neki se doivljavaju kao
stilski i registarski manje ili vie markirani, ali neki se ve mogu smatrati potpuno
integrisanim u sistem srpskog jezika (kao na primer pisane formule u poslovnoj
komunikaciji).
3.2. Pitanje prodora anglicizama u neki jezik nije karakteristino samo za
nau sredinu. Za razliku od stranih rei koje su dole iz grkog, latinskog, fran
cuskog, nemakog, maarskog ili, u sluaju srpskog jezika, i iz turskog jezika, u
savremenom drutvu anglicizmi su posebno upadljivi jer predstavljaju promenu
jezika koja nastaje pod uticajem ekonomskih, tehnolokih i politikih uticaja i
dostignua, a ide ruku pod ruku i sa kulturolokim uticajem, ne toliko iz Velike
Britanije ve iz SAD, pa neki smatraju da otpor anglicizmima moe da bude i
svojevrsni otpor amerikanizaciji i globalizaciji. Ipak, treba imati u vidu da se ak
ni velike, stare i razvijene evropske nacije ne mogu odupreti najezdi anglicizama,
a ak ni tamo gde postoji organizovana obrazovna i politika akcija (kao na pri
mer u Francuskoj i Nemakoj; videti kod R. Fier (Fischer 2008)), ini se da je
gotovo nemogue izbei uticaj engleskog.
Savremena prouavanja ovog uticaja, koja idu od leksikografskih, lingvi
stikih do sociolingvistikih i psiholingvistikih, kako u Evropi (videti radove u
tematskom zborniku koji su uredile R. Fier i H. Pulaevska (Fisher Puaczew
ska 2008)) tako i kod nas, istiu i kreativni potencijal jezika u koji anglicizmi
ulaze, a koji moe da ih adaptira u skladu sa svojom strukturom, ali i da razvije
nova znaenja i nove upotrebe. Takoe, priznavanje injenice da je engleski sred
stvo meunarodne komunikacije ne mora da znai negiranje dominantne i pre
sudne uloge nacionalnih jezika kao sredstva ne samo komunikacije ve i identi
fikacije, i u jezikom i u kulturolokom smislu.
injenica je da se savremeni civilizacijski tokovi ne mogu ni zamisliti bez
sve eih kontakata razliitih kultura kroz sve vidove komunikacije i da se ona
najee, ali ne i iskljuivo, odvija na engleskom. Nesumnjivo je da se kulture kroz
272
kontakte obogauju, ali pri tom ne bi smele da se i drastino osiromauju. Angli

cizama svih vrsta sigurno e biti jo vie, ali radikalni purizam ne predstavlja
reenje, pa ne bi bio reenje ni u naoj sredini.13 Naprotiv, treba se zalagati za pro
miljeni, organizovani pristup integraciji anglicizama utemeljen na postavkama
savremene lingvistike i sociolingvistike (Pri 2005: 135136). Zbog toga svakako
da prihvatanje i odgovarajua adaptacija anglicizama mogu biti i opravdani, uko
liko se unose novi jeziki (leksiki, frazeoloki, semantiki, pragmatiki) sadraji
koji oznaavaju neke nove vanjezike aspekte.
U stalnom kontaktu srpskog jezika sa engleskim, anglicizama e biti sve
vie, pa tako i pragmatikih anglicizama, a posebno onih koji pripadaju tipu skri
venih. Pruivi u ovom radu okvir za njihovo identifikovanje i ispitivanje, smatra
mo da ova pojava zasluuje da bude detaljnije sagledana i u korpusnim, etnoling
vistikim i kulturolokim istraivanjima.
Citirana literatura
Baji, Sanja. Nastanak pravopisne pseudonorme pod uticajem engleskog jezika. Srpski jezik studije
srpske i slovenske 14/12 (2009): 331346.
Bugarski, Ranko. Jezik u kontekstu. Beograd: igoja tampa XX vek, 1997.
Capuz, Juan Gmez. Towards a Typological Classification of Linguistic Borrowing (Illustrated with
Anglicisms in Romance Languages). Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 10 (1997): 8194.
Clyne, Michael. Perspectives on Language Contact. Melbourne: Hawthorn, 1972.
Clyne, Michael. Intercultural Communication Breakdown and Communication Conflict: Towards a
Linguistic Model and its Exemplification. C. Molony, H. Zobl and W. Stolting (eds). Deutsch im
Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen/German in Contact with Other Languages. Kronberg: Scriptor,
1977, 12946.
Cuenca, Maria Josep. Interjections and Pragmatic Errors in Dubbing. Meta: journal des traducteurs/
Meta: Translators Journal 51/1 (2006):2035.
orevi, Radmila. Uvod u kontrastiranje jezika. 6. izd. Beograd: Filoloki fakultet, 2004.
Grlach, Manfred, ed. A Dictionary of European Anglicisms: A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in
Sixteen European Languages. Oxford: OUP, 2001.
Filipovi, Rudolf. Teorija jezika u kontaktu. Uvod u lingvistiku jezikih dodira. Zagreb: JAZU kol
ska knjiga, 1986.
Filipovi, Rudolf. Anglicizmi u hrvatskom ili srpskom jeziku: porijeklo, razvoj, znaenje. Zagreb: kol
ska knjiga, 1990.
Filipovi, Sonja. Anglicizmi iz registra mode u srpskom jeziku: formalna analiza. Prilozi prouava
nju jezika 34 (2003): 179196.
Filipovi, Sonja. Izgovor i pisanje raunarskih anglicizama u srpskom jeziku. Beograd: Zadubina
Andrejevi, Biblioteka Academia, 2005.
Filipovi, Sonja. Semantika anglicizama u srpskom jeziku u registru mode. Philologia 4 (2006):
5765.
Fisher, Roswitha, H. Puaczewska (eds). Anglicisms in Europe: Linguistic Diversity in a Global
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.
Fisher, Roswitha. Studying Anglicisms. Roswitha Fischer, Hanna Puaczewska (eds.). Anglicisms in
Europe: Linguistic Diversity in a Global Context. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
2008, 116.
Injac, Goran. Engleski jezik u com_media@ prilog prouavanju srpske kompjuterske terminologije.
Prilozi prouavanju jezika 33 (2002): 78122.
13
O tome da purizam nije neto to je svojstveno naoj jezikoj i kulturnoj sredini videti u lanku
I. Klajna (2008).
273
Janji, Marina. (Anglo)srpski knjievni jezik u ogledalu popularnih enskih asopisa. M. Kovaevi
i ur. odbor (ur.). Jeziki sistem i upotreba jezika. Zborik radova. Kragujevac: FILUM, 2010,
311321.
Klajn, Ivan. Purizam i antipurizam u srpskom jeziku. Junoslovenski filolog LXIV (2008): 153176.
Pani K avgi, Olga. Koliko razumemo nove anglicizme. Novi Sad: Zmaj, 2006.
Perovi, Slavica. Jezik u akciji. Podgorica: CID, 2009.
Pri, Tvrtko. Engleski u srpskom. Novi Sad: Zmaj, 2005.
R adi-Bojani, Biljana. neko za chat?! Diskurs elektronskih askaonica na engleskom i srpskom
jeziku. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet Futura publikacije, 2007.
R athmayr, Renate. 2008. Intercultural Aspects of New Russian Politeness. WU Online Papers in
International Business Communication Series One: Intercultural Communication and Language
Learning. Viena. <http://epub.wu-wien.ac.at> 15. 08. 2010.
Romaine, Suzanne. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Silaki, Nadeda. Economic terminology in Serbian and Croatian: a comparative analysis of anglicisms.
Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature 7/1 (2009): 7586.
evi, Radmila. Srpski i engleski jezici u kontaktu?. J. Planko (ur.). O leksikim pozajmljenicama.
Subotica Beograd: Gradska biblioteka Institut za srpski jezik, 1996, 8188.
Thomason, Sara, Terrence K aufman. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics.
Berkely: University of California Press, 1991.
Vasi, Vera, Tvrtko Pri, Gordana Nejgebauer. Du yu speak anglosrpski? Renik novijih angliciza
ma. Novi Sad: Zmaj, 2001.
Biljana Mii Ili

Vesna Lopii
PRAGMATIC ANGLICISIMS IN SERBIAN
Summary
Adopting the recent view of Anglicisms, according to which the term does not only refer to
words and morphemes originating from English, which are, with a various degree of integration,
used in the Serbian language, but also includes words, phrases or sentences in Serbian whose norm
reflects or follows the English norm orthographic, grammatical, semantic or pragmatic (Pri
2005: 59), this paper deals with the Anglicisms at the level of pragmatics. The suggested term pragmatic
Anglicisms refers to the use of discourse formulas from English in situations where there are common
formulas in Serbian. Far less frequent and less conspicuous than lexical Anglicisms, pragmatic
Anglicisms are nevertheless often found primarily in the speech of urban speakers, as well as in
public use. In this paper, we identify typical pragmatic Anglicisms, and classify them according to
their linguistic form, the general type and contextual discourse aspects of their use. We also discuss
some cultural aspects related to the formation and use of such Anglicisms and interpret them in
view of contemporary globalization trends on the one hand, and the attempts to maintain linguistic
and cultural identity, on the other.
Univerzitet u Niu
Filozofski fakultet
Departman za anglistiku
Ni
bmisicilic@gmail.com
lovevuk@gmail.com

UDC 81:929 Ivi M.
(11. 12. 1923 7. 3. 2011)*

, .
, .
,
, ,
,
(
), (
, , ), ( ).
,
.
11. 1923.
, , , ,
. ,
1954. 1984. .
, ,
. . .
1976. 1983. .
, , : , ,
a .
. :
, , , , , ,
.
,
( ),
( ) ,
, ,
, , ,
11. 2011. .
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 275286.
276
: ,
, ,
( ),
,
, , ,
, , (
), , ,
, , ,
,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
.

: ;
;
- (
); ;

( );
,
, , , ,
(
), ;
gt ( );
( ,
);
g.
,
gt:
1963. .
,
, , , .
,
() .
, ( [; ],
, , , , , , ,
, , ).

, , ,
,
. gt
,
,
.
, .
gt ,
277

,
,
(
). ,
, , ( )
, ,

.
, , ,
. ,
, , ,
, , , .

milard@eunet.rs
UDC 811.16:061.3(497.113 Novi Sad)2010

811.16362(082)

(14. , , 1516. 2010, ,
)

t
( 14. , 15.
16. ).
, 1964. 1984.
.

, , . , .

t
, .
53 ( 51 ) 15
(, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ).
278
, ,
, 65
. S0
J. .
(. tt, pp, p). , ,
, .
.
.
,
,
.

. M. Metaoperatory o postaci komparatiwu przyswka (we wspczesnym jzyku polskim) , ,
() ,
-
(.
bardziej, dalej, lepiej, prdzej).
. -

,
. . Split lexemes in Slavonic
,
.
, , . lovek / ljud-
, .
.
, . , . , . , . .
,

.
, 45
. : , , , , - .
20 30 .
30 .
.

, .
279
.
. .

(:
) ,
15. (, 2013) .
:
1972, 2005. 2010. (www.gram-komisija-mks.com)
1963. , V
. Ko .
, .

.
(1964). (1966),
(1966), (1968), (1969), (1971), (1972),
(1973), (1974), (1975), (1976),
(1978), (1979), (1981), (1983), (1985),
(1990), (1991), (1993), C (1996),
(1997), (2000), (2002), (2004),
(2005), (2007), (2009) (2010).

.1
1
Sesja Naukowa Midzynarodowej Komisiji Budowy Gramatycznej Jzykw Sowiaskih: w
Krakowie w dniach 35 grudnia 1969 r. Red. S. Urbaczyk. Wrocaw Warszawa Krakw
Gdask: Zakad Narodowy im. Ossoliskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1971. 232 s.;
t gt tt 1974. g. . . . : ,
1974. 163 .; . .
. : , 1977; Slavica Slovaca, red. E. Kuerov, D. Slobodnk, 1977, 12, . 3, str. 183294;
. . . , .
, . . : , 1979. 242
.; Studia Gramatyczne V: Materiay z posiedzenia Midzynarodowej Komisiji Struktury Gramatycznej Jzykw Sowiaskih (Mogilany, 2224 padziernika 1979 r.). red. S. Urbaczyk, J.
Basara, K. Rymut. Wrocaw Warszawa Krakw Gdask d. Zakad Narodowy im.
Ossoliskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1982. 169 s.;
:
, , 911 1981 . . . . . .
, 1983. 112 .; Zeitschrift fr Slawistik, 1985, 30; Helmut Schaller, Vorwort. Funktion
und Struktur in der Grammatik slawischer Sprachen. Vortrge whrend der Tagung der Kommission
fr das Studium der grammatischen Struktur der slawischen Sprachen beim Internationalen Slawistenkomitee in Marburg vom 15. bis 17. Mai 1985. Redaktion: Helmut Schaller. Mnchen: Hieronymus Verlag Neuried, 1987, S. 59; Anafora w strukturze tekstu. Pod red. M. Grochowskiego.
Warszawa: Energeia, 1996. 112 s.; t p t. . . , 2005,
. 7071. 1273; .
: t
: t. . . . : : , 2010, 100 .
280
(Studia Gramatyczne, Slavica Slovaca, t p t, Zeitschrift
fr Slawistik),
.

,
, ,
,
. ()
. O przeszosci niedokonanej, . .
(, , ): ,
.
( ),
. Izraanje razlinih stopenj vrilskosti v slovenini, .

.
, . . . . , , . .
, . ( ~ ), . Albanian-Macedonian Contact-Induced Language Change
today, .
, .
. .
a (. , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . .).
()
,
.
. . ( ). . - , . ,
, . () , .
, . , .
, .
- . . , , .
, .
, .
- , . .
(
281
), .
, .
, .
, . .
, . ,
.
, .
, . -
. -
,
. Verba dicendi

, .

, , .
t t, t, . - , .

( ), . - .
.
,
, .

t
.

. t

.
g p

piperm@eunet.rs

marina.nikolic@isj.sanu.ac.rs
282
UDC 811.1636(082)
*2
-, (.).
gt p . :
(
, . 4), 2010.
,

, ,
, .
.
, , ,

,
.
, . -
. ,
, , ,
, .

.
,
p t gt t. ,
gt p
, , ,
.
: , , , , ,
, , , . ,
,
; , , , ,
,
, , , .
g, , ,
. ,

.

. J a n I v a r B j r n f l a
t e n , Grammaticalization and Typological Change:
*2
, , 23. 2010, 13 .
283
The Plural Paradigm of Russian Substantives
: g.
,
() ,
, ,
. Mi r am Fr ied Ke zrodu esk
modln stice jestli zpohledu gramatikalizan teorie,
. . jestli
.
B j r n H a n s e n
Grammaticalization Theory as a Basis for the
Panchronic Study of the Serbian Language: Setting the Agenda
tt, t, tt, t, t,
tt, t .,
, ( + ).
. , ,

,
,
,
. O
, ,
(, , , )
,
.

.
,
, ,
.
(
),

,

.
.

, ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , . A x e l H o l v o e t
: Reanalysis or Endemic Ambi-
284
guity? Infinitival Clauses with Overt Subject in Slavonic and Baltic,
. , (
) (
t ), ;
, , p = t p; ,

.
. -,
,
, . , ,
,
, .

: , : , : . :
, ,
,
: , ,
, ,
, . R a i n e r E c k e r t
, Serbische / Kroatische Lesefrchte,
,
( ),
( )
p.
.1
.. p
,
.

.
. *mir *svt
mundus . ,
, ,
,
.
1
Rdiger Schmitt, Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1967,
135138, .
285
R a d o s l a v
V e e r k a . Poznmky ke genezi hlaholice
.
,
. ,

868, , ,

,
, ,
.
I l o n a
J a n y k o v , , .

;

Wrter und Sachen,
, , . J o h a n n e s R e i n h a r t
d ,
.

. ,
, , ,
, .
, ,
.

.
. -
;

.
, .
Z u z a n a T o p o l i s k a . O tradycji w nauce
p, ,
286
t,
.
(277 )

. :

.
,
,
.

loma.aleksandar@gmail.com

UDC 811.16367(049.32)
:
Hansen, Bjrn, Jasmina Grkovi-Major (eds.). Diachronic Slavonic Syntax.
Gradual Changes in Focus. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach (Sonderband 74).
Mnchen Berlin Wien, 2010, 208 .
( ) (Preface, 56)
. , ,
, .
( . , ). , ,
20. ,
, ,
, . , ,
,
, ,
,
. ,
( , )
( ),
,
.

(
). , ,
, e,
,
, ,
, , , ,
( , ).

. ,
( ; . Aarts 2007; Dane 1966; 2009).
t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 287360.
288
(
, )
, (Aarts 2007; 2010).
20.
(Dane 1966).
: Diachronic
Syntax of the Slavonic Languages: Gradual Changes in Focus,
Regensburger
Universittsstiftung Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst DAAD, 5. 6. 2008. (
), Centre for Interdisciplinary
Research on the Ancient Languages and the Early Stages of Modern Languages
of the Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic,
( ). : Mirjam Fried (Princeton/Prague), Jasmina GrkoviMajor (Novi Sad), Peter Kosta (Potsdam), Radoslav Veerka (Brno) David
Willis (Cambridge).
: Preface (56), Hauke Bartels (Cottbus): Das (diachrone) Textkorpus
der niedersorbischen Schriftsprache als Grundlage fr Sprachdokumentation und
Sprachwandelforschung (718), Jan Ivar Bjrnflaten (Oslo): Grammaticalization
Theory and the Formation of Gerunds in Russian (1928), Mojmr Doekal
(Brno): Negative Concord: from Old Church Slavonic to Contemporary Czech
(2939), Hanne Eckhoff and Dag Haug (Oslo): Aligning Syntax in Early New
Testament Texts: the PROIEL Corpus (4151), Mirjam Fried (Princeton/Prague):
A Construction Grammar Approach to Grammatical Change (5362), Jasmina
Grkovi-Major (Novi Sad): The Role of Syntactic Transitivity in the Development
of Slavic Syntactic Structures (6374), Bjrn Hansen (Regensburg): Constructional
Aspects of the Rise of Epistemic Sentence Adverbs in Russian (7586), Hakyung
Jung (Seoul): Preconditions and Motivations in the Grammaticalization of the
North Russian Be-perfect (8797), Petr Karlk (Brno): Old Czech Adjectives with
the Meaning of Passive Potentials (99107), Alexander Krasovitsky, Matthew
Baerman, Dunstan Brown, Greville G. Corbett, Peter Williams (Guildford):
Predicate Agreement in Russian: A Corpus-based Approach (109119), Marija
Lazar (Hamburg): Placement of the Reflexive sja in Russian Business Writing
(121130), Julia McAnallen (Berkeley): Developments in Predicative Possession
in the History of Slavic (131142), Krzysztof Migdalski (Wrocaw/Connecticut):
The Diachronic Syntax of Perfective Auxiliaries in Polish (143153), Achim Rabus
(Freiburg): Die Relativisatoren im Ruthenischen (155168), Gilbert Rappaport
(Austin): The Grammaticalization of the Category Masculine Personal in West
Slavic (169180), Radoslav Veerka (Brno): Entwicklungsvoraussetzungen und
Triebkrfte der slavischen Syntax (181194), Ljuba Veselinova (Stockholm):
Standard and Special Negators in the Slavonic Languages: Synchrony and
Diachrony (195208).
, , , 17
, 9 ( , , ,
289
, , , , ).
. :
Hauke Bartels (Cottbus): Das (diachrone) Textkorpus der niedersorbischen
Schriftsprache als Grundlage fr Sprachdokumentation und Sprachwandelforschung. , .
,
,
. ,
, : wordowa (< . werden) by, parona vs.
wsoba kt(a)ry vs. ken.
.
Jan Ivar Bjrnflaten (Oslo): Grammaticalization Theory and the Formation
of Gerunds in Russian. ,
,
() .
,
,
.

, .

, ,
, .
Mojmr Doekal (Brno): Negative Concord: from Old Church Slavonic to
Contemporary Czech. (Negative
Concord) , ,
(=
,
, . . Nikdo nevidl nikoho).
,
,
.
Hanne Eckhoff and Dag Haug (Oslo): Aligning Syntax in Early New Testament
Texts: the PROIEL Corpus.
.
(PROIEL),

: , , . - Pragmatic Resources in Old Indo-European
Languages .

290
, , .

.
Mirjam Fried (Princeton/Prague): A Construction Grammar Approach to
Grammatical Change.

, .
(Construction Grammar) .

: ()
. ,

,
.
Jasmina Grkovi-Major (Novi Sad): The Role of Syntactic Transitivity in the
Development of Slavic Syntactic Structures.
, , .

, ,
.
: )
)
.
,

, .
Bjrn Hansen (Regensburg): Constructional Aspects of the Rise of Epistemic
Sentence Adverbs in Russian.
,
. (),

, .
, .
,
,
(XIXVII ). (
)

-
291
( , ).
.
Hakyung Jung (Seoul): Preconditions and Motivations in the Grammaticalization of the North Russian Be-perfect.
.
(. : U menja bylo telenka zarezano)
.
/
+ gt.
, .
( > ).
.
Petr Karlk (Brno): Old Czech Adjectives with the Meaning of Passive Potentials.
-teln(-) (prokazateln)
.
, -tel-, (kaz-a-tel),
, -n-, pr-kaz-n-.
,
. Templatic Morphology theory.
-tedln(-) -teln(-),
. ,
.
Alexander Krasovitsky, Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown, Greville G.
Corbett, Peter Williams (Guildford): Predicate Agreement in Russian: A Corpus-based Approach.

. ,
, ,
: .

. ,
.
Marija Lazar (Hamburg): Placement of the Reflexive sja in Russian Business
Writing.
, XIIXV .

,
.
,
,
292
.
.
Julia McAnallen (Berkeley): Developments in Predicative Possession in the
History of Slavic.
: *imti,
*u + .
, , (XIV XVI), ,
. mt
, XIV , , ,
.
mt .
Krzysztof Migdalski (Wrocaw/Connecticut): The Diachronic Syntax of
Perfective Auxiliaries in Polish.
, :
, , ,
.
,
, , - , ,

: ,
.
Achim Rabus (Freiburg): Die Relativisatoren im Ruthenischen.
(-, ;
: ,

, , ).
,
XVII XVIII .
,
. : XVII
kotoryj, XVIII
: ie, kotryj, jakyj.
Gilbert Rappaport (Austin): The Grammaticalization of the Category Masculine Personal in West Slavic.
,
: ,
.
.
, , . ,
, .
293
, ,
.
Radoslav Veerka (Brno): Entwicklungsvoraussetzungen und Triebkrfte
der slavischen Syntax. , , , : )

; )

; ) ()
.
, , .
Ljuba Veselinova (Stockholm): Standard and Special Negators in the Slavonic Languages: Synchrony and Diachrony.
: ) ( ), ) ( ,
). esse- habeo-,
,
. (
), , ,
,
.
, , , ,
, ,
gt p (-
(.) 2010). , ,
, (
), , :
, , .
.
, , , , , , , ,
, .
, : ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , .
:
, . ,
,
. , ( , ,
294
). ,
. ,

-
.

- , , (.). gt
p . : (
, 4),
2010.
, . gt. :
, 2009.
, , . ( ).
t (
, , 1416 2010, ).
*
A arts, Bas. Syntactic Gradience: The nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Dane, Frantiek. The Relation of Centre and Periphery as a Language Universal. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2 = Les problmes du centre et la priphrie du systme de la langue (1966):
921.

milard@eunet. rs
UDC 811.163.41-116(082)
, (.). tt p
pg : p tt. : ,
, 2010, 375 .*2
1. tt p pg : p
tt , , , , .
,
t p : t,
t pgt t (178004)
.
*2
295

(8).
(78) .
,1

. : , tt t p(t)g g (940); ,
g-p tt gt t (4160);
, g -p tt t (6199); , tt t pg
g (101106); , tt
t pg g (107121); ,
tt . ? (123146); , p
tt p (147154);
, -, tt
pg g (155176); , , tt p g pg (177
190); , t tt gt
t (191217); , tt p p
g pg p gt t (219239);
, tt p g pg (241261);
, , -p tt t (263280); , tt t
g pg/ptg (281299); ,
p p- tp
t (301315); , tt t
pg tg (317340); , tt p
pg pg (341352) , t
t pg pg (353375).

, . ,
, , ,
, , ,
.
2. p tt
. tt.
, 1500 .
, , .

,

, , .
1
296
, , , : - , ,
, ,
.
(, , ,
) ( ) (. , ).
, : (
,
(: 342)), (
(: 101)),
( (: 371).
,
, ,
-
(: 263264).
, , , , ,
, -
, (:
147149). , , ,
,
.
,
(317336).
, (: 940) (: 107121),

(: 301315).

, ,
(, , , ),

(),
(, , , , ).

( ) , .
297
, .
, : ( :
178), (
-: 155), ,
(: 285),
(: 41)
(: 219; : 147; :
103). / (: 241; : 10).
.

.
g p
t-g tt pt
. 1968. 1984.
(: 125128).

1978. .
()
. (: 286,
292). 1969.
,
.
tt gt ptg g .
,
(:
10).
t tt,

(: 110).
:
tt-t
p ( ,
) (: 43)).
p- t, pt p
pt
( -: 172173).
tt pg pg
(: 203).

g/g, tg pg
298
2006. .
(: 335).
.

(22 ),
(10), (6), (4), (4), (3), (2)
, , . ,
,
.
- .

.
p t
tt t,
t p g gt, g, p . ,

( ), .
, , , ,
.

,
.
, , 400 .
3. -
, , , , .

.

.
( ,
, ),
,
, , , ,
299
(: 241251).
, ,
,
- (: 127128),
.
(: 287).
, ,
, (
),
( : 179, 186).
,
-
,
(: 8788).

. , ,

(: 107), , ,

(: 372).
, (: 202203) (:
342),
, -
.
.

.
, , . ,
/

.
,
, , :
. ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
, . ,
, ,
300
: , , ,
.
4. p,

.
, , :

, , .
, , ,
. ,
,
(: 251).

(: 142) .

. - :
(: 49)

.

(, , , ,
, ).
, .
5. .

,
, ,
, ,
(
), .
-

dusa@neobee.net
301
UDC 811.163.4134(049.32)
, . g pg .
:
, 2010, 524 .

. : , p
, : g p, , 2002, . 372; :
, , 2003, . 524; ,
, , , ,
, t g pg : t , ,
2005, . 1164 ( ); , g
pg . , 2007, . 366. (
, , g pg , , , )

2010. .
: g (915), 1. (1548),
I t (53295): 1. pt p, 2. t t.
, 3. t t. , 4. pt pg ;
II g (295487): 1. , 2. p t, 3. t
, 4. g; g (491507), p
(507521), gt (521524).
g

.
t , ()
g () t ,
, , .

t g (fonologia), (phonetique),
(fonologia) (fonologie). ,
t g
. , ,
.
, o .
1. , . (
) : pg t
g (1.1), - t (1.2), t (1.3),
p p t (1.4), t (1.5), (1.6),
= p (1.7), g p (1.8), t (1.9), t (1.10), t
302
p. t (1.11), g p t (1.11.1),
~ : ttt (1.11.2).
I t, 1. pt p
.
, , ()
(11), : , .
2. t t.
, .

( ).
( )
.
.
: 1. , (
), 2. , ( 57) 3. ,
1 2,
( 4. ).
, . , , . .
3. t t.
, ,
.
(Hz). , ,
(
, ), .
.
(, , ,
, ) .

, . -
, .
, . pt (g + t).
(, , , , (), ())

. (60,5%), (11,5%),
(10,87%) (9,7%).
4. pt
pg (115292)

, .
.

, ,
(4.1).
303
,
.
, ,
,

. , ,
:
,
.

, .
, (4.1.1).
() ,
.
. (4.1.1.1). , .
70 Hz,
(4.1.1.2).
g (4.2)

. .

,
.
. . . g (4.3) 25
, . . t (4.3.1),
() (
)
.
.
() . t
g (, , , , , , , ) (4.3.2) ,
, .
.
.
7 (,
p, , t, , , t).

. ,
304
. ,
,

( ).

(259).
, .
.
, , ,
, , . g, , , , , , () (4.3.3)
, , ,
.
. , , , . , . , .
. .

g (, p, , t, g, ) (4.3.4) a

.
, II g, 1.

, .
. , .
( )
, , ,
.
, , , 41.
()
,
(1. +, 2. +, 3.
+, 4. +, 5. +, 6. +, 7.
+, 8. +, 9. +).
,
(), () ()
.
2. p t
.
,
. .
: 1. , 2.
, 3. , . -
305
( ), 4.
(
).
, p t,
, ,
, .
.
. (, ), (,
, ) (,
, , ).
,
.
, 3. t, , . .

(,
).

. , , , g
,
,
.
( 90), .
, , , : 4.
g.
p t (4.2.1),
(4.2.1.1) (4.2.1.2). , -, ,
, .
t t (4.2.2) (4.2.2.1)
(4.2.2.2). , , ,
.
(4.2.2.2.1) (4.2.2.2.2).
: 1) (~pt,
g~, g~gt, ~t, tp~t, t~,
gt~g, ~, t~, ~g), 2) ,
/ , (pt, t, t
), 3) (, pt, , p), 4) / (p, t, : pt, tpt,
p), 5) / (~, ~, ~, ~, p~p,
306
, ~; g, , g, ) 6)
(t, ~, t~t).
.
,

. : 1) //~ //, 2) //~ //, 3) //~ //, 4)
// ~ //, 5) //~ // 6) / .

. : 1) ( )
, 2) , 3) -
, 3)
, , 4) ,
5) , .
270
,
.
,
,
, ,
g pg
,
.
g

gordanadragin@yahoo.com
UDC 81272

25. 2010. ,
. ,
2010. . .
, , . -,
, . - .
, ttt.
, .
307
1. . , . :
, XX , 2010, 143 .
, , ,
, , , ,
. ,
.
, , 1993. ,
1996. . , ,
, , ,
, .
1997. , XX .
, g g
.
, , 2003. ,
, 2005. (
). , ,
, 5000
6000.
,
20 .
,
. , 2010.
,
,
.
o , t, .
. ,
,
6000. .
,
. , ,
(. )
.
, , , . ,
, , .
, , (. 21),
, .

, ,
308
;
, , , ,
(. 21).

. []

. , ,
. . 1700.
, (. 23-24).
.

! (. 28). ,

.
.
, .

. (
6000), 1550 , .
10.000 , 100.000 .
,
(. 33). 320 , 50 100 10 , 100
10 .
, 95% .

. , ,
.
55 200 .
, pt,
() ()
.
,
, , ,
. ,
15 20 . :
, , , , -, , -, , , -, ,
-, , , -, -
().
309
.
300 40%
.
: 32% , 30%,
20%, 15%
3%.
, , t,
,
, ,
, , ,
, , , , ,
, , lingua franca,
, , ,
() , . (), , , ,
, ,
.
,
. , ,
. ,
,

(. 72). ,
,
, . , ,
,
.

(. 75).
, ,
. ,
,
(. 75).
,
, , , , , ,
. ,
, , , .

.
,

. ,
310
(. 84).
, , , .

, ,
, .

, , ,
.
, , , ,
,
.
,
, .
. (, , ),
. ( ) (.
83).
.
(. 86),

.
g
1991. .
27 ,

. , ,
16.400.000 ,
,
, .
400 .
,

.
,
,
.
.
, , ,
, , + 2.
, , p, -
.
.
, , ,
, : / , .
311

, , .
,
, . , , . , (.
123) , .
(. 125).
,
, ,
(. 126)
,
(. 126).

. ,
() :
( ), ( ),
( ) (
),
( ,
).
g ,
, ,
gt 260 ,
.
,
,
.
, , ,
.

, p t,
gt gt
.

vuduns@yahoo.com
312
2. . , . : , XX , 2010, 194 .
, o 2010.
. A
1996. , ,
, , , , , , . , ,

,

20. 21. .
, ,
g, ,
, . , ,
.
, : ,
,
, (. 9); ,
, (. 9); ,
,

, . (. 10).
:
, . , ,
, .
: , ,
, , , , , (

),
, , , , , .
, p,
g p, , ,
: g, p.
, ,
, .
:
( );
, ,
; , , ,
. , -
313
,
, , , ,
, . ,
, , , .
,
,
. , ,
19. 20. ,
(Hermann Paul), (Ferdinand de Saussure),
, (Leonard Bloomfield),
,
(. 26),
,
/, / (. 26).
, p, ,

, .
,
,
,
.
, ,
,
(. 37)

, ,
. ( ),
( ). , ,
, ,
.

,
, ,
.
,
. ,
. , , . ,
, , ,
(. 54).
(. 45), ,
314
. g pt
g g,
, , g
tg, . gg
( ) g
( ),
( ), t
( ) ,
, ( ).
, t p t p,
, ,
.
: , gpt . ()
3200. ...
,
. , ,
, . , ,
, ,
, . ,
, ,
, , 3500 .
,
, . ,
, .
,
(
). , ,
,
: t g,
.
.

, . , ,
, , , , , , ,
, g-g .
, t p,
, .
, ,
315
. , , ,
, t t,
,
. ,
, t,
t , p,
.
, 800. .., ptp
t, , ,
(. 86),
.
. , ,
, , ,
, . ,
, /
: , , , , .
,
: ,
, , .

, ,
,

.
,
, ,
,
. ,
,
, .
,
(. 117), ,
,
(. 118).

.

,
(. 122).

, ,
316
,
.

. ,
.
, , , ,
. , , ,
, , ,
.
, .
, 15.
. , ,
, ,
p, ,

.
,

.
,
, :
,
, , ,
.
. ,
,
,
. ,

, , , , ,
21. , , , ,
.
, t g p,
.
g tt,

. , ,

,
(. 164).
, g t -
317

(. 164).
, , ?
, , - (.
iPad), ptt
, ,
, , : ,
. ,
, , ,
.

(Robert Pattison)
On Literacy: the Politics of the Word from Homer to the Age of Rock
.
:
, , ,
,
.
,

,
. ,
,
,
. ,
:
, ,

,

( ttt; : , , 2010:
. 80, ).

.
g -g

olgapk@sbb.rs
318
3. ttt. : XX , ,
2010, 278 .
:
, , , ,
. ,
, .
3.1.
ttt
. ,
, ,
, , , , , .
ttt
, .
.
,
, .
(. 13). ,
, , . .
, :
, , , , , . ,
: , , .

,
: ,
-, ,
, . ,
,
,
, , . , ,
, , .

.
,
. (. 22), ,
. .
319
,
. ,
, .
,
-, - . ,
, , ,
, (. 28).

,

(. 31). ,
,

, ,
-.
, t ,
,

, ,
.
,
, ,
. ,
,

.
, , , , ,
, , ,
!
(. 49).
50 70%
,
.
,
(.
50), (. 51), .
. ,
,
.
, .
, , ,
. ,
,
320
(. 58).

, .
, , tt
p gt
,
.
, ,
,
.
,
: ,

,
, .
, ,
: (1) ,
; . ,
, , (2) ,
; . ,
, , (3) ; . , .

,
, ,
, , . , ,
,
, , , , , , . ,

,
, , .
,
.
ttt
, g gt t (2006) p (2009) XX .

(. , , ,
, .),
321
.
,
, , t,
.
65
2006. 2010. .
,
,

(. 249).
:
(. t), (. g),
(. , ),
, , , (. t, pt, gt), (. Oglasee, ), (. t,
), , , , , (. Rocknrom, , 2010, Klopizza),
(. ttg, ).
:
(. pt+t > pt),
(. t+t > t),
(. t+ > t),
(. g+g > g), ,
(. OTPlatne kartice), (. NSkool,
Jazzik). , , .
,
3200 800 ,
.
(. 264).
, , 2009. 2010.
2006-2008. ,

(2002), (2009), t (2005) p
(2009). 93
,
,
, ,
.
ttt
, ,

322
.
,
.
-

radic.bojanic@gmail.com
3.2.
, ,
, , , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
50 .
: , t tg, , , ,
(. 105), , g gt
t,
, .
t tg,
, :
, , , , ,
, .
, , ,
. , , ,
. , ,
,

( ) ( ),
. 1957. , , 10
.
,
323
1. 1961. ,
, .
1961. 1970.
: , 1962/63. .
, ,
, ; 1966/67. .
,
, ; 1967. ,
,
, ; 1968.
,
On the interrelatedness of grammar and lexis in the structure
of English (Lingua, Amsterdam, 19/3: 233-263); 1969.
, over, under, above, below beneath g
;
(: , 1969),
(: , XX , 1996); 1969/70.
.
, ; 1970.
, 1974,
1980, 1988. .
, ( ),
, , .
,
, .
, ,

,
,
(. 97). ,
,
, t : (1)
,
, , , ,
, (2)
,

(. 99), (3) ,
, ,
,
, , ,
, -
324
, ,
( . ), (4)
(, , ),
, ,
, , (5) ,
,
,
, (6) , , ,
pt gt (:
; : , 1989), (: ,
XX , 1996)
.
,
gt g / /
19672007 (: , 2009),
; ,
, ,
( , g ; : ,
XX , 2010). , ,
,
12 46
, , ,
.
, ,
: 12 (199697),
7 , ,
ttt, . ,
,
, ,
. g , ,
1. 2010. , 481, 12
, 493 .
, , , ,
, ,
,
( 2001. )
, ( 2006. ).
: ,
History and Perspectives of Language Study. Papers in Honor of Ranko Bugarski
325
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000; : . - .
), , ,
t, . g g tt (:
, 2003; : . . );
, , . .
, g gt t, ,
, , , (. 105).
: 850900 ,
, ,

(. 107). :
; ,

,
; ,
;
, , ,
(. 106107).
,

20. , ( ),
, ,
. , ,
: (1) (Randolph Quirk), ,
, (2) (Robert Austerlitz), , (3)
(Uriel Weinreich), , (4) (William Labov), ,
(5) (Edward Sapir), , (6) (Benjamin Lee
Whorf), , (7) (Eric P. Hamp), , (8) (Archibald
A. Hill), , (9) (Kenneth L. Pike), , (10)
(Joseph H. Greenberg), , (11) (Roman Jakobson), , (12)
(Noam Chomsky), , (13) (Charles J. Fillmore),
, (14) (David Crystal), , (15) (Jan Svartvik), , (16) (A. C. Gimson),
, (17) (George Steiner), / ,
(18) (E. F. K. Koerner), , (19) (Jacek Fisiak),
, (20) (Anders Ahlqvist), , (21)
(Peter Trudgill), , (22) (Joshua A. Fishman), ,
(23) - (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas), , (24)
(Peter H. Nelde), , (25) .-. (A.-Ph. Christidis), , (26)
(Stathis Efstathiadis), , (27) (John
Edwards), , (28) (Richard J. Watts), , (29)
326
(Florian Coulmas), , (30) (Petr Sgall), ,
(31) (Edward Stankiewicz), , (32) (Kenneth
E. Naylor), , (33) (E. Wayles Browne), , (34) (Ronelle Alexander), , (35) - (Paul-Louis Thomas),
, (36) , , (37) , , (38)
, , (39) , , (40) ,
.
,
, , ,
, ,
. , ,
,

.
, , ,
, ,
, , , .
, , ,
(.
123);
,
. (111);
, 1970. ,
, (149150);
, 1984. , (233);
( t ; : , 1972) (145); 150 (133
134); , , (127);
(114115);
(208); 1983. ,
, , (168169);
(207); ,
14. , 1987. , (200201).
, , ,

192550, (. 136); ,
Linguistic and Slavic Picnic,
327
Linguislavicnic (150151);
(159);
, ,
(213); (153);
, , (142).

( , pp, ); ,
, ,
, , ,
, ;
: -, , pp!,
, (143144).
-
,
,
-
. ,

, ,

, .
, ,
, (
. , Just a
Phrase Im Going Through. My Life in Language; London and New York: Routledge,
2009). ,
, , , g (. 109),
- .
, , , ttt , ,

, . ,
, .
t

tprcic@eunet.rs
328
UDC 811.163.41:811.161.1(049.32)

*1
( . tg tt p .
: , 2008, 257 .)
1.
,
, . ,
, -
,
, ,

.
[] The Category of
Animacy: a Semantic Feature Hierarchy, 2000. .
, .
g, ,
. , .
. ,
, , . . , ,
,
.
,
.

, ,
( - )
g t. , tg tt, ,

.
, . . ,

, .

*1
t pg (178001),
.
329
.
2. , g (56),
: 1. (734), 2. pt tg t
t (3559), 3. t t t g
t t t (6093), 4. p g t t tg tg tt p
(94165), 5. t g
gp (166199), 6. t
t gt t t t
p t tt p pt
pt (200223) 7. (224233).

.
.
3. . , ,
,
,
, : () ,
, .

. , ,
.

,
. , ,
, ,
.

. .
, ,
(
),
- ( , , , , , .).
,
, , , ,
() , .

, / ,
330
.
( , ,
, )
.
. :
) / ) .

(. tt),

(. ).
.
(. ) () ,
(. ), , () . ,
.
, , .
.
,
, . ,
,
, .

/ .
. ,
, . A.
, , .
. ,

,
.

, .
, , . ,
. .

.
.
. , . ,
331
. . .
, , . ,

.
.
,
, , , , , ,
.
. , ,
, . .
, .

, . ,
,
, , ,
,
,
,
.
.
g (234
251) .

2000. .

,
.
4. ,

, ,
, , ,

, .

kuresevicmk@sbb.rs
332
UDC 81364(049.32)
Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Lisa Rochman (eds.). The Sound Patterns of Syntax.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 385 str.1,2
Knjiga The Sound Patterns of Syntax (u prevodu: Glasovne strukture sin
takse), koju su uredile Nomi Erteschik-Shir, profesor Odseka za strane knjievnosti i lingvistiku Univerziteta Ben-Gurion i Lisa Rochman, doktorand na istom
univerzitetu, predstavlja zbirku izabranih radova izloenih na istoimenom skupu
odranom na u Berevi, Izrael, juna 2007. godine. Cilj skupa bio je da vodee
svetske naunike iz oblasti sintakse i fonologije priblii odgovoru na pitanja da li
fonologija moe da utie na sintaksu, u kojoj meri i kako, to su teme kojima se
biolingvistika produkcije i recepcije govora intenzivno bavi u dananje vreme.
Veza izmeu sintakse i fonologije, izmeu glasova i strukture, igra znaajnu
ulogu u generativnoj gramatici od samog njenog nastanka. Dok je u ranijim perio
dima ova veza poimana kao neto to se mahom tie fokusa i prozodijskog obelea
vanja konstituentske strukture, danas se ona sve vie posmatra u svetlu ogranienja
reda rei, pa je upravo iz ovakvih prouavanja proistekla ideja da se organizuje
skup, a potom i da se objave radovi u kojima e lingvisti iz raznih perspektiva
osvetliti meuodnose sintakse i prozodije, sintakse i fonologije, te informacijske
strukture i prozodije. Rezultat ovih prouavanja predstavljen je u ovoj knjizi u
obliku 16 poglavlja, od kojih svaki (osim prvog, uvodnog) daje originalan nauni
doprinos u smislu analize pojedinanih pojava ili struktura, ali i u irem smislu,
u pogledu (re)analize arhitekture sistema (gramatike).
Postoji itav niz pojava koje se moraju smatrati ne samo sintaksiki uslovlje
nim, ve i fonoloki, kao to su stilska inverzija (eng. stylistic inversion, npr. Down
the hill rolled the ball.), premetanje objekta (eng. object shift) karakteristino za
skandinavske jezike, podizanje desnog vora (eng. right node raising, npr. I know
[[a boy who loves e] and [a girl who hates e]] Nintendo WII.) ili drugi poloaj kli
tika (eng. second position clitics) koji je odlika raznih jezika, ukljuujui i srpski.
Nekoliko sintaksiara (meu njima Bobaljik 2002; Bokovi 2001, 2002, 2004;
Pesetsky 1997; Stjepanovi 1999, 2004, 2007) predlagalo je ve da se ove pojave
objasne u smislu mogunosti izgovaranja neke nie kopije pomerenog elementa,
ne nuno najvie, kao to se u minimalizmu, iji je zaetnik N. Chomsky (1995;
2000; 2001) obino pretpostavlja. Dakle, red rei je posledica sintaksikog pomeranja, ali morfofonoloka ogranienja odreuju koja e se kopija pomerenih eleme
nata izgovoriti, to znai da na red rei, iako je on sintaksiki uslovljen, mogu uti
cati odlike fonoloke forme (eng. Phonological Form, PF), kao to je, na primer,
susednost (eng. adjacency). Drugu krajnost u objanjavanju interakcije sintakse i
fonologije u gore nabrojanim pojavama predstavlja posve radikalan pristup Erteschik-Shir (2005a, b), koja tvrdi da je red rei u potpunosti rezultat fonolokih obe
leja. Veina autora zastupa umereniji stav, te red rei koji nije u skladu sa uteme
1
Naslov skupa i knjige predstavlja aluziju na sveobuhvatni opis fonologije engleskog jezika
koji su 1968. godine objavili N. Chomsky i M. Halle pod naslovom The Sound Pattern of English.
2
Rad je nastao u okviru projekta br. 178002 Ministarstva Republike Srbije za nauku i tehno
loki razvoj, Jezici i kulture u vremenu i prostoru.
333
ljenim sintaksikim ogranienjima objanjavaju pozivanjem na postsintaksiki,
stilski nivo, koji je naroito pogodan za sluajeve u kojima je redosled konstituenata direktno zavisan od informacijske strukture reenice. Meutim, uvoenje ove
sasvim nove komponente u arhitekturu sistema trebalo bi da bude zaista opravda
no, s jedne strane zato to se na taj nain komplikuje model, a s druge, zbog toga
to postoji opasnost od toga da se sve problematine strukture gurnu u ovu
komponentu, bez valjanog objanjenja. Konano, vezu izmeu sintakse i ove post
sintaksike komponente, odnosno preslikavanje (eng. mapping) sintakse na stilsku
komponentu takoe bi trebalo jasno definisati. Upravo ovakvim temama bave se
radovi u ovoj knjizi, i to na osnovu podataka iz veoma razliitih jezika, kao to su
engleski, nemaki, maarski, japanski, norveki, evropski portugalski, danski,
junoslovenski jezici, i mnogi drugi, u pokuaju da objasne interakciju reda rei,
prozodije i informacijske strukture reenice, te uticaj potonje na prva dva, naroito
u sluajevima kada ona igra odluujuu ulogu u objanjavanju neke pojave kao
sintaksike ili kao fonoloke. Kao nita manje vaan zadatak postavlja se i smetanje same informacijske strukture u arhitekturu sistema: dok je neki autori sma
traju delom sintakse, drugi su miljenja da ona odreuje fonoloku linearizaciju
reeninih elemenata, dok trei zastupaju stav da je informacijska struktura od
vanosti samo za fonologiju.
Prva etiri poglavlja knjige bave se raznim aspektima priloga. Tor A. farli
predlae nain na koji se fleksibilnost priloga u pogledu distribucije moe objasniti: ukoliko fraznu strukturu posmatramo trodimenzionalno, pri emu prilozi
pripadaju treoj dimenziji, koja se moe na razliite naine saviti na dvodimenzionalnu ravan osnovne strukture klauze (CP+TP+vP+VP), moemo objasniti
linearizaciju konstituenata tree dimenzije u odnosu na konstituente dvodimenzi
onalne ravni, i omoguiti njihovo linearno izgovaranje. Istovremeno, ovo savijanje podrazumeva da su elementi tree dimenzije u hijerarhijskom redosledu u
strukturama adjunkcije, te da se u semantikoj komponenti moe tumaiti njihov
opseg. Ovakva osnova za trodimenzionalnu analizu priloga jeste teorijski sloenija od njihove proste adjunkcije, tvrdi autor, ali kognitivna stvarnost, ako se ona
moe hipotetski identifikovati na osnovu empirijskih podataka, govori u prilog
ideji o trodimenzionalnom poreklu priloga i kasnijoj intergraciji ovih u dvodimen
zionalnu ravan klauze.
Na osnovu ponaanja ilokucione partikule mon u danskom jeziku (iji bi
najblii prevodni ekvivalent bio da li u srpskom, iako mon nije komplementizator
ve prilog), Nomi Erteschik-Shir prouava da li je red rei uobiajen za glavnu
klauzu, sa glagolom u drugom poloaju, mogu i u umetnutoj klauzi i pod kojim
uslovima. Zakljuak do kojeg dolazi jeste da se partikula mon prikljuuje (eng.
adjoin) reenici koju modifikuje, linearizuje se u prvom poloaju i formalno dopu
ta (eng. license) ili klasifikuje (eng. type) klauzu (u smislu Cheng 1991) jer predstavlja fonoloki nerealizovanu glavnu klauzu performativ, koji je prikljuen i
linearizovan. Istovremeno, sama partikula je sintaksiki nerealizovana (neaktivna je u sintaksi, jer se, kao prilog, spaja na drugoj ravni i nije deo hijerarhijski
ustrojene sintaksike strukture), pa ne uzrokuje pomeranje glagola u drugi poloaj, ali se interpretira kao partikula koja odreuje ilokucionu snagu i fonoloki se
realizuje. Unutar renice, mon se ponaa kao i ostali prilozi u danskom jeziku, s
tim to se javlja samo u upitnim reenicama.
334
Katalin . Kiss postavlja kao cilj rada iznalaenje odgovora na pitanje da li
je slobodan red rei iza glagola u maarskom jeziku sintaksika pojava ili se tie
fonoloke forme. Naime, na osnovu raznih mogunosti reanja elemenata u post
verbalnom delu reenice, odnosa reda rei i opsega adverbijalnih adjunkt, te reda
rei i opsega kvantifikator, autorka nudi novi pristup, u kome se sloboda reda
rei iza glagola u potpunosti smatra pojavom na nivou fonoloke forme, to potvruje i injenica da su jedinice koje podleu promeni redosleda fonoloke fraze.
Postverbalne fonoloke fraze se reaju u skladu sa fonolokom teinom.
O lutajuim kvantifikatorima (eng. floating quantifiers) i informacijskoj
strukturi govori Lisa Rochman i tvrdi da postoji veza izmeu upotrebe lutajueg
kvantifikatora (poput all u engeskom primeru The students have all failed the
exam.) i fokusiranog elementa iza njega, koji se nuno tumai kao (kontrastivni)
fokus. U ovom radu se analizira ponaanje lutajuih kvantifikatora u sprezi sa
glagolima sa partikulom (poput engleskih primera drink up, tear down, itd.), pri
hvatljivost ovih kvantifikatora sa predikatima koji izraavaju subjektivni stav,
kao i sa onima koji izraavaju objektivnu stvarnost, te meuodnos lutajuih kvan
tif ikatora i glavnog akcenta. Autorka zakljuuje da izbor izmeu lutajueg i nelu
tajueg kvantifikatora nije proizvoljan, niti stilski uslovljen, ve je posledica informacijsko-strukturnog statusa elemen(a)ta koji slede iza kvantifikatora. Drugim
reima, fonologija odraava, s jedne strane, odliku obeleavanja fokusa koju ima
lutajui kvantifikator, a s druge strane, ogranienja datog jezika u pogledu strukture fokusa (v. Erteschik-Shir 1997; 2007).
Slian zakljuak donosi u svom radu i Joo Costa u kojem se istie da se ve
ina autora koji prouavaju obeleavanje fokusa slae da fokus (moe) podrazu
meva(ti) prozodijsko obeleavanje i promenu reda rei, ali da ne postoji slaganje
u pogledu tane interpretacije meusobnog odnosa prozodije i sintakse, a jo manje
u pogledu mesta ili nivoa na kojem se fokus enkodira. Na osnovu podataka iz
portugalskog jezika, Costa trai odgovor na dva pitanja: da li je odriva ideja o
autonomiji sintakse ako prozodija moe posluiti kao njen okida, i ta je izvor
meujezike varijacije, s obzirom na to da prozodijski odraz fokusa varira od
jezika do jezika. Primeri konstrukcija u kojima informacijski fokus reenice nije
u oekivanom poslednjem poloaju, ve se obeleava dodeljivanjem naglaska fokusiranom konstituentu (na nain slian kao u francuskom ili engleskom jeziku),
kao i drugi konteksti u kojima se pomeranje naglaska (eng. stress shift) primenjuje
kada sintaksika komponenta iz nekog razloga ne moe da stavi neki konstituent
u poslednji poloaj, dokazuju da pomeranje naglaska ne moemo smatrati operacijom sintaksike komponente. Kao reenje veze izmeu varijacije u pogledu reda
rei i prozodije i diskursa, Costa predlae da gramatika moe da generie viestruke izlaze (eng. output), a koji e se od njih izabrati zavisi od postsintaksikih
faktora. Ukoliko nijedan od ovih faktora nije primenljiv na date izlaze, tada imamo
pravi sluaj fakultativnosti. Za ovog autora fokus nije stvar sintakse, ve diskursa,
a informacijska struktura, kao komponenta gramatike, sarauje i sa semantikom
i sa prozodijom, otud i semantiki i prozodijski znaaj fokusa.
Pomou klitika u junoslovenskim jezicima Steven Franks dokazuje da ra
vanje (eng. Spellout) podrazumeva itav niz operacija (od kojih su brisanje kopija,
linearizacija i prozodifikacija samo neke) koji su potrebni da se apstrakni, hijerarhijski poreani skupovi obeleja (sintaksa) pretvore u nizove artikulatornih
335
uputstava (fonetika). Dok sintaksa samo stvara strukture primenom operacije ravanja, ne specifikujui pritom linearni redosled ulananih elemenata, faktori
fonoloke forme su od odluujue vanosti za linearizaciju. Franks smatra da se li
nearizacija mora deavati ciklino, putem viestrukog ravanja koje se primenjuje
u razliitim trenucima u toku derivacije i koje koristi razliite vrste informacija,
od odnosa konstituentskog upravljanja (eng. c-command) u ranim fazama linearizacije do prozodijskih odlika pojedinanih leksikih jedinica u kasnijim fazama. Budui da pre linearizacije valja odluiti na ta e se ona primeniti, odluka o
tome koja e se kopija nekog elementa izgovoriti nije sintaksiki uslovljena, ve
zavisi od potreba fonoloke i morfoloke komponente, s kojima sintaksa sarauje.
Delovi derivacije pojedinano poslati u ravanje ponovo se sastavljaju, i to tako to
svi lanovi jednog podniza (eng. subarray) kroz ravanje postaju jedna leksika
jedinica koja i sama moe posluiti kao lan nekog drugog podniza unutar iste
numeracije.
Mamuro Saito istrauje sluaj pokretljivosti strukture (eng. scrambling) u
japanskom jeziku, i tvrdi da pokretljivost strukture, iako se u prvi mah ini da je
samo stilske prirode, moe imati i semantiki i diskursni znaaj, to se moe
objasniti mehanizmom interpretacije lanaca stvorenih pomeranjem. Pokretljivost
strukture je semantiki bez efekta (eng. vacuous), ali se sva obeleja pomerenog
elementa kopiraju u mesto prizemljenja (eng. landing site) i tako ulaze u interakciju sa upravnim elementima viih funkcijskih kategorija koji utiu na interpretaciju (naroito sa upravnim elementom Pred). Element Pred, koji se uvek nalazi
iznad TP i privlai u poloaj specifikatora elemente s obelejem [arg] (argument),
ima opseg preko svega to se nalazi u poloaju komplementa TP, nominativna sin
tagma u njegovom specifikatoru tumai se kao iscrpni fokus i to je i konani
poloaj pokretljivog elementa, ali i subjekta kada pokretljivih elemenata nema.
Fakultativni, diskursom uslovljen red rei poput pokretljivosti strukture u japanskom jeziku moe se objasniti sintaksiki, bez pozivanja na fonoloku linearizaciju, tvrdi Saito.
Naredni prilog, iji su autori Mohinish Shukla i Marina Nespor, bavi se usvajanjem reda rei kod dece, naroito redosleda glagola i objekta (u onih oko 86%
jezika sveta u kojima se moe govoriti o dominantnom redu rei, v. Dryer 2005)
i razmatra hipotezu da se red rei ogleda u ritmikom obrascu govorenog jezika,
to omoguava deci da usvoje red rei karakteristian za jezik koji usvajaju i pre
nego to naue pojedinane rei. Govor nije samo niz rei, ve se sastoji od hijerarhijski ustrojenih fonolokih konstituenata koji nisu u direktnoj vezi sa sintaksikim jedinicama. Jedan nivo ove hijerarhije, fonoloka fraza, razlikuje se od
jezika do jezika, u skladu sa dubinskom sintaksom, tako to obrazac istaknutosti
(eng. prominence) fonoloke fraze odraava pravac ravanja u datom jeziku
ukoliko je istaknut inicijalni element, ravanje je u jeziku na levo (komplement
prethodi upravnom elementu, OV), a ako je istaknut finalni element, radi se o
jeziku u kome je ravanje na desno (redosled upravni element komplement, odn.
VO). Budui da mala deca reaguju na razliite ritmike obrasce na ovom hijerarhijskom nivou, a akustiki korelati gorepomenuta dva obrasca istaknutosti se
razlikuju, ovo omoguava deci da odrede pravac ravanja, a time i usvoje red rei
karakteristian za dati jezik, i to bez znanja o leksikim jedinicama u reenici.
Ovim Shukla i Nespor objanjavaju empirijsko opaanje da je i najranija produk-
336
cija dece u skladu sa redom rei u usvajanom jeziku, i dokazuju znaaj fonoloke
fraze u otkrivanju sintaksike strukture jezika u toku usvajanja.
Prozodijske teme istrauju i Hubert Truckenbrodt i Isabelle Darcy u radu koji
zapravo predstavlja rezultate eksperimenta u kome se analizira uticaj objekatskih
klauza na frazni akcenat (eng. phrasal stress) glagola glavne klauze, u irem kon
tekstu interakcije fraznog akcenta i pomeranja u nemakom jeziku. Cilj je da se
utvrdi da li ekstraponirana objekatska klauza ima isti uticaj na akcenatski obrazac
glagola kao i objekatska imenika sintagma (DP) u smislu da je glagol nenaglaen
(eng. unaccented) kada je priloan naglaenoj leksikoj sintagmi objektu (otud
kontrast izmeu Peter hat [ein Buch] verkauft. i Peter hat es verkauft, gde podvla
enje oznaava naglaenost). Pomou zadataka percepcije i produkcije autori otkri
vaju da ekstrapozicija ne prua mogunost rekonstrukcije naglaska, tj. da glagol
mora ostati naglaen u ovim sluajevima, ime se, ini se, potvruje uticaj sintakse
na ispoljavanje prozodijske strukture.
Polazei od ranijeg rada u kojem je ukazao na potrebu da se u cilju objanjavanja alternacije kratkih i dugih vokala u bravanskom jeziku (dijalekt svahilija) reenice
posmatraju kao nizovi fonolokih fraza, Kisseberth u svom prilogu dokazuje da se
tonski akcenat (eng. pitch accent) utvruje u okviru fonolokih fraza i daje dodatne
razloge za prihvatanje stava (Selkirk 1986) da fonoloka fraza nije (nuno) i sintaksika fraza, te da je neophodan mehanizam koji bi potonje pretvorio u fonoloke
fraze. U nastavku rada, prvobitni derivacioni pristup Selkirk poredi se sa pristupom
teorije optimalnosti (eng. Optimality Theory), koja potpunije moe da objasni fonoloke fraze u bravanskom jeziku, naroito ako se pored ogranienja poravnaj-XP
(eng. Align-XP) uvede jo jedno ogranienje, Uvij-XP (eng. Wrap-XP), koje zahteva
da sav materijal unutar jedne maksimalne projekcije bude u istoj fonolokoj frazi.
Kisseberth pretpostavlja postojanje ogranienja na preslikavanje (eng. mapping) izmeu sintakse i fonologije i naglaava potrebu za rekurzivnom prozodijskom struk
turom, istiui vanost fonoloke fraze i njene uloge u obeleavanju fokusa.
Autonomiju sintakse i fonologije u izraavanju fokusa istrauje Sam Hellmuth
na osnovu podataka iz egipatskog arapskog jezika. Naime, esto se dostupnost od
reene strategije u jednoj komponenti gramatike moe predvideti na osnovu odlika druge (npr. jezici koji ne koriste reenini akcenat za kodiranje odnosa teme
i komentara ee koriste sintaksike strukture u ovu svrhu nego jezici u kojima
je reenini akcenat relativno slobodan). U ovom radu se predlae da se dostupnost
jedne strategije za izraavanje informacijske strukture moe objasniti odlikama
date komponente gramatike. Ovaj zakljuak autorka donosi izuavajui sluajeve
prividne komplementarnosti u upotrebi prozodijskih i sintaksikih strategija u egi
patskom arapskom jeziku, u kojem, slino romanskim jezicima, postoje odreene
sintaksike strategije za izraavanje informacijske strukture (npr. promena reda
rei, elizija argumenata, razdvojene strukture) ali ne postoje pojedine prozodijske
strategije (poput deakcentuacije datih elemenata, ili davanja prednosti naglaavanju argumenata u odnosu na predikat), to je nuno posledica odlika (samo) fonoloke komponente, tvrdi Hellmuth. Iz ovoga sledi da informacijska struktura nije
modul ili podsistem gramatike, ve da je njen povrinski odraz zapravo rezultat
interakcije ostalih komponenata gramatike (ukljuujui i fonologiju i sintaksu).
Trinaesto poglavlje knjige, autorke Caroline Fry, analizira u kojoj meri fokus utie na tonski akcenat u nemakom jeziku. U jezicima poput nemakog, no
337
sioci tonskog akcenta su upravni elementi prozodijskih konstituenata, koji se pre
slikavaju iz sintakse. Visina tonskog akcenta zavisi od poloaja u reenici i informacijske strukture koja se izraava, pa se u jezicima poput nemakog ona mora
poimati relaciono, u zavisnosti od drugih tonskih akcenata u istom prozodijskom
domenu, a ne apsolutno. Tonski akcenat koji se dovodi u vezu sa uskim fokusom
dostie veu visinu nego tonski akcenat reenice koja predstavlja novu informaciju (npr. Ein Bier haben wir getrunken Popili smo pivo, u odgovoru na ta ste
popili? odnosno Da li ste posle toga izali?), a manju kada se povezuje se neim
to je ve dato u diskursu (npr. Das Bier haben wir getrunken u odgovoru na ta
ste uradili s pivom?); ukoliko u datom prozodijskom domenu nema drugih tonskih
akcenata, do prilagoavanja visine nee doi. Na osnovu podataka dobijenih testi
ranjem produkcije izvornih govornika nemakog jezika, Fry iznosi novo vienje,
u kojem se visina tonskog akcenta odreuje zavisno od susednih akcenata. Prome
na jednog dela reenice povlai za sobom promenu i u drugim njenim delovima,
ime se dokazuje da su akcenti relacioni, te da informacijska struktura ne moe
stvoriti tonske akcente, ve samo moe uticati na njihovu visinu poveati je kada
je u pitanju nova informacija, odnosno smanjiti je u sluaju date informacije.
U sledeem prilogu se takoe razmatra odnos fokusa i prozodije, i to u poku
aju da se odgovori na pitanje kako se on uspostavlja. S jedne strane, fokus utie
na gramatiko znaenje, a s druge, frazna istaknutost igra vanu ulogu u odreivanju koji e se delovi reenice tumaiti kao fokusirani, tj. nepresuponirani. U ne
kim jezicima fokus utie i na poloaj konstituenata u sintaksikoj strukturi (npr.
obavezan neposredno preverbalni poloaj fokusiranog elementa u maarskom
jeziku), dok u drugima (npr. u engleskom) to nije sluaj. Pitanje veze izmeu frazne
istaknutosti i tumaenja nekog dela reenice kao fokusiranog postaje jo zanimljivije ukoliko se uzme u obzir injenica da u standardnom modelu generativne
gramatike sintaksa posreduje izmeu fonologije i semantike. Od raznih teorija
koje su u literaturi predlagane, Emily Nava i Maria Luisa Zubizarreta opredeljuju
se za onu koja glavni frazni akcenat3 dovodi u direktnu vezu sa tumaenjem i dri
da deo reenice koji se tumai kao fokusiran mora sadrati ritmiki najistaknutiju
re, s ciljem da se dokae da se razlika u pogledu glavnog akcenta (eng. Nuclear
Stress, Zubizarreta 1998) u germanskim i romanskim jezicima moe izvesti iz
injenice da se u germanskim jezicima funkcijske kategorije mogu tumaiti kao
metriki nevidljive (pa mogu biti nenaglaene), dok to nije sluaj u romanskim
jezicima, gde se uvek cela sintaksika struktura mora metriki tumaiti. Kao drugi
cilj, autorke postavljaju isticanje modularne prirode algoritama koji generiu glavni
akcenat: pored gramatikog pravila glavnog akcenta (eng. Nuclear Stress Rule),
distribucija glavnog akcenta u germanskim jezicima zavisi i od diskursno povezanih faktora, kao to je deakcentuacija anafore,4 to se potvruje i rezultatima
3
Termin akcenat(eng. stress) odnosi se na relativnu ritmiku istaknutost unutar odreene je
dinice govora. U jezicima poput germanskih i romanskih, tonski akcenat (eng. pitch accent) odnosi
se na jedan od perceptualnih korelata naglaska, dok su ostali jaina zvuka ili intenzitet segmenata
(eng. loudness) i njihovo trajanje (eng. length).
4
Zamenice su u engleskom jeziku inherentno neakcentovane (glavni akcenat prelazi na
glagol, npr. Do we have tomatoes? No, I didnt buy them), dok se imenike sintagme deakcentuju
ukoliko su ranije implicitno ili eksplicitno pomenute (npr. Did John read Don Quixote? No, John
doesnt read books, gde se knjige impliciraju u pitanju).
338
eksperimenta u kojem se ispitivalo usvajanje deakcentuacije anafore i pravila
glavnog akcenta (u germanskim jezicima) kod izvornih govornika panskog jezika kojima je engleski drugi jezik.
Kriszta Szendri koristi psiholingvistiku metodologiju za prouavanje obeleavanja fokusa (eng. focus marking) i dokazuje da obeleavanje fokusa nije samo
komunikativno sredstvo, ve i pravilo usko vezano za pojedinani jezik. Naime,
njen ispitanik je trinaestogodinje autistino dete sa potpuno normalnim koeficijentom neverbalne inteligencije, ija je jezika sposobnost vrlo dobra: esto gradi
sloene reenice, ima veliki fond rei i retko pravi gramatike greke u spontanom
govoru, ali pokazuje nedostatak u sposobnosti funkcionalne mentalizacije (kao to
je npr. razumevanje sujeverja, zabrinutosti zbog neega to (bi) se moglo desiti a
nije, itd.). Ipak, ovaj ispitanik je obeleavanje fokusa koristio bez ikakvih problema, to nesumnjivo sugerie (iako ne potvruje konano) da obeleavanje fokusa
nije vanjezika kategorija, ve deo gramatike.
Za razliku od arhitekture sistema koju Chomsky zagovara u raznim modelima
jo od ezdesetih godina prolog veka, i u kome morfosintaksa daje ulaz fonolokoj
i logikoj formi, u zakljunom poglavlju Tobias Scheer istrauje interakcionali
stiki stav, po kojem su konkatenacija (nizanje elemenata) i interpretacija ispre
pletane. Autor dokazuje da uslov neprobojnosti faze (eng. Phase Impenetrability
Condition), jedno od najvanijih ogranienja u modernoj sintaksikoj teoriji faza
(eng. phase theory), igra izuzetno vanu ulogu u odreivanju valjanosti fonoloke
teorije. Meu raznim pristupima afiksima u engleskom jeziku, koji se mogu grubo
podeliti u one koje se zasnivaju na specifinostima morfema i one koje se zasniva
ju na selektivnom ravanju (u smislu Halle Vergnaud 1987), Sheer pokazuje
da su u prednosti potonje, naroito sistem koji predlae Kaye (K aye 1992; 1995),
koji primenjuje i uslov neprobojnosti faze. Fonologija i sintaksa biraju iste interpretacijske jedinice, tvrdi ovaj autor (kao i Kaye), i koriste iste mehanizme ravanja, to predstavlja stav o saradnji razliitih modula gramatike koji zauzima vei
na autora iji su prilozi ovde ukratko predstavljeni.
Kao dvadeset i deveta knjiga u seriji pod naslovom Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics izdavaa Oxford University Press, Glasovne strukture sintakse
na 385 strana (sa objedinjenim popisom literature i tematskim registrom) donosi
odgovore na mnoga pitanja koja se tiu veze izmeu sintakse, fonologije i informacijske strukture, u najrazliitijim jezicima sveta. Iako je knjiga prvenstveno na
menjena strunjacima u oblasti lingvistike (pre svega fonologije i sintakse), ona
istovremeno predstavlja izuzetno zanimljivo tivo svima onima koji ele da sazna
ju vie o ovoj oblasti nauke o jeziku, a imaju prethodnog lingvistikog znanja.
Citirana literatura
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. -chains at the PF-interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 20/2 (2002): 197267.
Bokovi, eljko. On the Nature of the SyntaxPhonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001.
Bokovi, eljko. 2002. On certain differences between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian C(P). Balkanistica 15 (2002): 3548.
339
Bokovi, eljko. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry
35/4 (2004): 613638.
Cheng, Lisa. On the typology of wh-questions. Doktorska disertacija, MIT, 1991.
Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Chomsky, Noam. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka (eds.). Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge,
MA.: MIT Press, 2000, 89155.
Chomsky, Noam. Derivation by Phase. Michael Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken Hale: A Life in Language.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2001, 152.
Dryer, Matthew. S. Order of subject, object and verb. Martin Haspelmath et al. (eds.). The World
Atlas of Language Structures Online. <http://wals.info/feature/81.> 28.3.2011.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP, 1997.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. Sound Patterns of Syntax: Object Shift. Theoretical Linguistics 31 (2005a):
4793.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. What is Syntax? Theoretical Linguistics 31 (2005b): 263274.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP, 2007.
Halle, Morris, Jean-Roger Vergnaud. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
K aye, Jonathan. On the interaction of theories of Lexical Phonology and theories of phonological
phenomena. Uli Dressler et al. (eds.). Phonologica 1988. Cambridge: CUP, 1992, 141155.
K aye, Jonathan. Derivations and interfaces. Jacques Durand, Francis Katamba (ed.). Frontiers of
Phonology: atoms, structures, derivations. Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1995, 289332.
Pesetsky, David. Optimality theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation. Diana Archangeli, D.
Terence Langedoen (eds.). Optimality theory: An overview. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997,
134170.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearboook 3 (1986):
371405.
Stjepanovi, Sandra. What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple Wh-fronting
Have in Common. Doktorska disertacija, University of Connecticut, Storrs, 1999.
Stjepanovi, Sandra. A word order paradox resolved by copy deletion at PF. Pierre Pica (ed.). Linguistic
Variation Yearbook 2003. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004, 139177.
Stjepanovi, Sandra. Free word order and copy theory of movement. Norbert Corver, Jairo Nunes (eds.).
The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007, 219248.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1998.
Sabina Halupka-Reetar
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu
Filozofski fakultet
Odsek za anglistiku
Novi Sad
halupka.resetar@ff.uns.ac.rs
UDC 811(049.32)
Claudia Leah. Sinonimia i elementul slav n sistemul sinonimic al limbii romne.

Oradea: Editura Universitii din Oradea, 2005, 320 .
Sinonimia i elementul slav n sistemul sinonimic al limbii romne

. (lementul slav
n sistemul sinonimic al limbii romne),

, ,
- .
340
I Relaia semasiologic de sinonimie (33
119), II Elementul slav n limba romn (120195), III Elementul slav component
n serii sinonimice (196268),
Consideraii preliminare (832) Consideraii finale (269274),
(277320). , ,
,
, , ,
. , ,
,

.
t
(sens, semnificaie, sinonimie, sinonime, sistemul sinonimiei
.). T ( ),

, , ,
. :
,
, .
, Relaia semasiologic de sinonimie,
,
.
,
.
,
, , .
.
, .
(. Vineler),
:

.
,
.
,
,
: ,
, .
, : , ,
, , , ( ,
.), , , / /
, / ; ( ),
/ , / / .
tt (pt)
, (t) .
,
() .
341

.
, ,
/ gp. : p / t, g / ,
, t ; pt , ,
t ( : t t p
t), .

( t t,
), ( : t
tt, t,
-), (
g ), (
) (
).

,
, , .

,
.
,
,
, ,
, ,
, , .
, Elementul slav n limba romn,
,
.
,
, .
,
,
, V VII X XII .
(bab, coas, izvor,
lopat, nevoie) X ,
, XII
,
.

,
, 200 .

,
,
.
342
slavon slavic slav. , XIX ,
, ,
slavon
. slavic
slav. ( limba slav veche)
: limba paleoslavic, limba paleoslav, paleoslav
veche, veche slav bisericeasc, veche bulgar .,
: limb srbeasc, srbie, srbie cea veche, limb
sloveneasc, slovenete, slavonete, slavon .

, ,
, , , ,
, ,

,
.
,
,
.

,
,

.
, ,
:
.

, , , ,
, , , , .,
. , , ,
.
, ,
, ,
. ne-, po-,
pro-, rs- prea-, -eal ( ), -c (
), -i ( )
.

.
,

, -.

, ,
343
(. veac < . vk; drag < . drag).
, ,
, - .
, ,
,
.
,
-
.

,
.
.

, .
.

, ,
, . , o

: ) ,
, )

.

- ,
,
.
, Elementul slav component n serii sinonimice,

. miros putoare mireasm duhoare iz miasm
mirodenie condiment parfum arom aromat balsam
miros,

.
.
nevast soie muiere cucoan dam

: g, p t
g; t g t.
,
.

t , pt , tt
ptt tp pt.
344
.
,
,
.
,
, , ,
, cuvnt vorb.
,

, . purttor de cuvnt, joc de cuvinte, nici vorb, a las vorb.

vorb cuvnt .
,
. a schimba cteva cuvinte / dou vorbe, n cteva cuvinte / vorbe.

. , , pace (.)
rzboi (.), gras (.) slab (.), sntate sntos (.) boal bolnav
(.), prieten (.) duman (.), gin (.) coco
(.), capr (.) ap ()
: a scrie (.) a citi, ctun () sat (.) trg
(.) ora (.) municipiu (. .).

,
. . (G. Mihil)

: 1. ; 2.
; 3. // ; 4.
.
.
,
, , ,
, ,
.

. ,
,
, . bour (< . bubalus)
/ bivol (< . bivol < buvalus, . . bubalus), cruce (< . crux) / crj
(< . kry < crux) / cross (< . cross ).
,
, , ,
.
.
.
,
,
345
.
,
, ,
.
, , :
sfat popular (.) primrie (.), prefect (.) ispravnic (.).

: cursant (.) cursist (.), exponat (.) obiect expus
(.).

- , .
, , , . blagoslovenie, oblu,
zapis, , ,
peve (.) cntare (.)
, , . finit (.) cone (.) otpust (.) sfrit
(.).
(pop, slav .),
(prealuminat prsvtl).

,
. .
, ,
lege (.) pravil (.), rod (.) plod (.), plnge (.) jeli
(.), sfat (.) sobor (.) gloat (.).
XVI ,
, .
, . ciud (.)
minune (.), jale (.) pofta (.), lege (.) obicei (.), nrav (.)
obicei (.).

, 981 ,
.
3.368 ,
312 .
t .

,
.
.

346
,
,
.

zosim04@yahoo.com
UDC 811.163.4128(049.32)
, . g p: .
LVI. :
, 2009, . 275.
g p:
,
.
,
.
: g (. 510), (.
1117), g p (. 1844), t (. 4590),
(. 91165), : t (. 166264), :
ptp p (. 265269),
(. 270274), t p (. 275). .
g ( )
,

.
.
g p
,
,
.
. , . . . ( ),
( ) ,
. (. 1821).
, (. 19: ,
pt), (. 19: -g);
(.
19: pt).
(. 2021:
347
, p).
( )
,
,
(. 19: , -t, , /; t,
). (. 1920:
t). . (. 20).
(. , t, :
, 2005, . 6264), (.
, g, IX, 1940, . 380),
; .
. : , , , ,
, ; , ; t;
, p , , p ; ,
; , , g ; g, ; t, . (
, t g t ,
LV, 2008, . 8990).
: , g, ;
p, pt, p, ,
, t ( , p p,
. ,
, 2005, . 6162).
,
,
(. 2122: , ),
,

(. 22).

(. 23: y s, g).
, (. 23
37).
,
,

,
(. 23). : - (< -)>
- (p, p); -(<)> (p, g); py, y; y (. 2627).
.
: , (. 2930:
. . , .) > (. 28: , t)
: (. . . 31: , t,
348
., ),
( , t,
XVIII, 1969, . 156162). . (. 32)

,
(. , g,
IX, 1940, . 278282)
(/ y/; ,
gg t ppg g, , ,
1965, . 113116). /s/: s,
ss, s, [, ] , : t, ,
, t (. 34);
(. 3537: , ; p, ; pt, y; t p,
; ; g; ; ; (), ; , ; t
t , ; ; ptt; ; ; ).
, , (. 3839), (39), (3940), (41),
(4142) (4244).
(. 44).
(
, p )
( , t),
- .
(. pt , ; -
; t- , , -
, p ,
, . , luty
; ,
wrzesie padziernik .).
t ( )
:
(, , , , ,
g, t, , )
;
, (4578);
(7881), (82)
(8290).
,
: t
. . [ ]
, , .
(. 8). ,
( -)
2.000 ( ),
, ( ,
)
349
,
() (. 44), , ,
,
( ) . ,
, , ,

, , (
, ),
. .

. .
( ,
), , , () (p , , . 35; )
, , > (. . , p , p,
), t> (), t> (pt), t>
(t, t), t> (, ; ), p>p (pt),
> (), >g (gt), > (t) .
, ( )
( ).
, .

,
. ,
.
. (. ), (
), t, t ( t, t), (),
( ), (, ), p ( , ),
( ), p, pt (), p (
) .
, , (
, ), ,
, ,

.
g

saraluka@eunet.rs
350
UDC 821.133.1.09 Jumas A.=163.41
. p pt
p . : , 2010, 210 .
p pt a p
,
, .
,
.
,

. , ,

t p p
(17751843).
,
: I t tt , II t
tt , III
p IV. t, V. .

,
,
.

. .
, ,
, .
.
p
pt 135
. , , : 1. t p, 2. ,
3. pt , 4. t
tt 5. t p.

(. ),
(.
).
.
-
351
,
(. ), (.
).
, . / ,

, , , .
,
, . , ,
,
.
,
. , , ,
. .

,
. ,
, .
,
. ,

,
.

,
. , , ,
,
. , , ,
.
, . . , ,
. , ,

, , .
.
, .
. , ,
. , , -
352
,
, . , , ,
,
, .
,
, .
, ,
.
,
. ,

.

. , . ,
, , ,
.

.
,
, - , . ,

.
, . ,
,
.

.

.

, ,
, .
, , , .
XIX , .
,
XIX , ,
,
.
,
, .
. ,
353
,
,
.
,

.

.
, .

.
,
.

. ,
,
, .
,

. , ,
XVIII
XIX , : , ,
, , .
, XIX .

,
p pt ,
. ,
, , ,

. ,
, ,
XIX .
t

veranva@sbb.rs
354
UDC 8142(049.32)
(.). . t .
: , 2010, 415 .

,
, ,
(, , ).
, ,
,
.
, , , ,
, , ,
, -
() . , ,
,
, , /
/ . ,
,

, .
, , ,
,
.

, ,
,
, ,
, , . , ,
,
(Shiffrin
Tannen Hamilton 2001: 5).
,
.
,

. ,
, ,
80- XX
. ,
355
(
),
.
,
(19602010). .
, ,
,
, 20. .
,
, (
) .
. ,
( )
,

. , ,
,
,
.
*
, ,
,
: gt ; t, t ; ;
; p gt .
,
.
, t ,
. , , ,
,
.
: ( ) .

.

,

,
.
,
, e .
356
. ,
, ,
.

, . ,
, .
,
, gp t
( , . going to gonna, want
to wanna), gt pt tt ( ,
, , . in spite of ), ptp p ttt t
t tg (
,
. of in spite of ). ( . , .), .
,
.
, :
, ,

16. 19. .

,
(1578), (1762), (1872)
(1890).
. ,

, .
, , ,
. ,

.
, t, t
, . , ,
,
.
357
, , ,
, ;
, , ,
.
,
: ,
, , .

, , . ,
,

.
,
,
. , . ,
, ,
, ,
. , ,

.

, - .
,
, -
. gt
pt pt p (
, , ,
), t pt pt p p
( - ), p
pt p (

). ,
, .
,
, , .
, ,
.
, ,

358
,
.
, ,
, ,
. ,
, Guardian,
Independent Times 1999.
, ,
; ,
- ( t 1999. ),

.

, . ,
,

, .
.
t,
. ,
, t pt ( :
t , t ,
p , p ); ppt
( tt) t
( : pt t
, p p t ,
47 , ).
tg t
( ) ,
, ,
() .
,
,
. ,
,

,
,
.

359
. , , gt- t t
tt
(. )
(. ,
, .); p ttt

(
).

, .
,
.

,
.
, g
t , . ,

, - ;
?
,
,
; . , , ROMLEX

,
,
.
, - .
270 , .
,
,
.
,
, .
- .
, .
15 ,
. ,
, speech act (g ) :
locution (), illocution (), illocutinary force indicating device
360
(t g), felicity condition = happines condition (1.
pt, 2. pt) , : general condition
(pt ), content condition ( ), preparatory condition
(pp ) . ,

, .
. , ( ,
),
, , ,
,
, .

Shiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

nenad.ivanovic@isj.sanu.ac.rs
t p g gt
, ,
.

t p g g
t. ,

.
, , ,
. p pg
, ( :
, 2010).
1.
: t p
g gt, , 1, 21 000
, . Word ( CD-y
) : jdjukic@maticasrpska.org.rs
t p g
gt. ,
(
, ). ,
.
PD . .
1. ( ) 1. (
).
2.
.

. .
3. ( ):
) :
, ; /
,
;
362
) : , ;
) : 100150 , , t;
1,5 cm ;
) : 10, ;
1,5 cm ; ;
) ;
) : (small caps); ;
) : , ( , ), ( ),
; ,
, ; ,
, je ;
,
, .
)
, , ;
,
.
4.
) : 4; 2,5 cm;
) : Times New Roman;
; onah
( jdjukic@maticasrpska.
org.rs);
) : 12 pt, a , ,
, , , ,
10 pt;
) : 1,5;
) : (footnotes, endnotes),
; 1,5 cm ;
: 18 mm;
) t ( );
) ,
1,5 ;
(1., 1.1., 1.2., 1.2.1. .).
5.
)
;
) (
..., ),
(...);
();
, ;
;
363
) (23 ) , (), ;
) , (...).
6. , :
) : ( 1975);
) : (Veerka 1961: 5960);
) : ( 19862: 66);
) : ( 1986:
55), ( 1986: 110);
) : ( 1984: 320
364);
) : (Halle 1959;
1962);
) ,
,
./et al.;
) ;
;
) , , .
, , ,
. (1986: 6769).
) ,
, . ( 1958; 1968);
) (. 23), , .
7.
,
;
1,5 cm .
; ,
; .
:
) ( ):
, . t t ptg . :
, 1975.
) ( ):
R adden, Gnter, Ren Dirven. Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practic 2).
Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
) :
Hahn, Adelaide. Verbal Nouns and Adjectives in Some Ancient Languages. Language 42/2 (1966):
378398.
) :
364
, .
. (.). gtgt p pg .
: , 2006, 946.
) :
ESJS: Etymologick slovnk jazyka staroslovnskho (red. Eva Havlov), 1. Praha: Academia, 1989.
) :
, . ptg tt (t-
t t). , 1954. :
, 2005.
) :
, . . : , . 8552/264/5, 17801783.
) on-line:
Veltman, K. H. Augmented Books, nowledge and Culture. <http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceed

ings/6d/6d.> 02.02.2002.

: , 1
: 021/6622-726
e-mail: zmsfl@maticasrpska.org.rs
www.maticasrpska.org.rs
LIV/1 .
22. 2011.
:
:
:
2011.
: , ,
: ,

CIP
,
80/81(082)

Archivum philologicum et linguisticum /
-. 1984/1985, . 27/28 .
: , ,
1985 . 24 cm
:
ISSN 0352-5724
COBISS.SR-ID 9630978

Filologija 54-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filologija 54-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZBORNIK

M AT ICA SER BICA

ARCHIVUM PHILOLOGICUM ET LINGUISTICUM

Glavni i odgovorni urednik:

ISSN-0352-5724 | UDK 80/81(082)

Ovu svesku Zbornika Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku po

J a s m i n a G r k o v i - M e j x o r: Dativ + infinitiv: praindoevropsko poreklo i

S l o b o d a n P a v l o v i : Rekonceptualizacija slovenske prostorne padene para

N a d e d a J o v i : Participi, glagolski prilozi i pridevi u Hilandarskom medi

Q i q a n a N e d e q k o v , K a t i c a k o r i : Rukopisna zbirka turcizama iz 18.

R a d m i l o M a r o j e v i : Rijei s pobonim akcentima. Prozodijsko-intonaciona

N a d a A r s e n i j e v i : Prilog prouavawu povratnih glagola u srpskom jeziku . . .

M i l i v o j A l a n o v i : Glagoli asistencije i wihova

G o r d a n a t a s n i: Nominacija oveka motivisana pozitivnim karakternim oso

R a d i v o j e M l a d e n o v i : Morfoloka i sintaksika pluralizacija zbirnih

M a r k o J a n i i j e v i : Modelovawe tekstualnih celina na primeru zakonskih

B i q a n a M i i I l i , V e s n a L o p i i : Pragmatiki anglicizmi u srp

P r e d r a g P i p e r , M a r i n a N i k o l i : Meunarodni nauni simpozijum Gra

A l e k s a n d a r L o m a: Promocija kwige Teorija dijahronijske lingvistike i proua

KRITIKE I PRIK AZI

D u a n k a Z v e k i - D u a n o v i : Ivan Klajn, Predrag Piper (ur.), Kontrastiv

G o r d a n a D r a g i n: Dragoqub Petrovi, Sneana Guduri, Fonologija srpskoga

Du anka Vujovi, Olga Pani-Kavgi, Bi qana Ra di-Bojani,

M a r i n a K u r e e v i : O kategoriji animatnosti ili o markirawu atipinih

S a b i n a H a l u p k a - R e e t a r: Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Lisa Rochman (eds.), The Sound

Z o r a n S i m i : Claudia Leah, Sinonimia i elementul slav n sistemul sinonimic al limbii

D r a g a n a R a d o v a n o v i : Momilo Popovi, Dragoqub Petrovi, O govoru

V e r a n S t a n o j e v i : Nenad Krsti, Napoleon Bonaparta Aleksandra Dime u

Uputstvo za pripremu rukopisa za tampu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hittite demonstrates pragmatic conditioning of clitic doubling by topicality. At

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

The second difference between clitic doubling and appositive dislocation is

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

The authors term it intended topic.

experience and he it heard sp says to friends-def self.dat

In Dimitrova-Vulchanova Vulchanov 2008 (105, 121) contrastive topic is

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

As animacy obviously is more inherently topical than inanimacy, it is quite

More importantly, within the languages of the Balkan Sprachbund itself

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

2.1.4. Topical asymmetry

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

HITTITE PARALLELS FOR BALKAN SPRACHBUND CLITIC DOUBLING

t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 2744.

ndram avardhayann (OV) hay (Dat) hntav (Inf) (OV)

sxtvoriti (Inf) ima (Dat)

, , (Grkovi-Major 2010: 68). ,

t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 4562.

2006: 111), (.) (. 87/28), (.) mnich

(10) (.) 6.11 ( 1963:

Piper, Predrag. Jezik i prostor. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek, 2001.

VERBA DICENDI IN CROATIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC*

1. Introduction. The semantic frame of verba dicendi includes: the speaker;

t p g gt LIV/1 (2011): 6377.

less frequently as a locative complement of the preposition po by

More about Croatian Church Slavonic see in Mihaljevi R einhart 2005.

VERBA DICENDI IN CROATIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC

or as the instrumental without preposition.

I.e. with the nominative subject that must be interpreted as an agent.

Therefore, we can conclude that the accusative object is an unmarked, and k +

VERBA DICENDI IN CROATIAN CHURCH SLAVONIC