Lipar 61

XVII/ 61 / 2016.
Editorial Board
. aslav Nikoli, Assistant Professor, PhD
- , Faculty of Philology and Arts, Kragujevac
Editor in Chief
. Jelena Arsenijevi Mitri, Assistant Professor, PhD
Managing editor
. Vladimir Polomac, Associate Professor, PhD
. Biljana Vlakovi Ili, Assistant Professor, PhD
. Mirjana Sekuli, Assistant Professor, PhD
. Jelena Danilovi Jeremi, Assistant Professor, PhD
Nevena Vujoevi, Assistant Professor, PhD
Bojana Veljovic, Assistant Professor, PhD
, Radomir Mitri, Associate for digitization and
web presentation
University Library of Kragujevac
. Ana Jovanovi, Associate Professor, PhD
, Faculty of Philology, Belgrade
. Pavle Boti, Assistant Professor, PhD
, Faculty of Philosophy, Novi Sad
Jana Aleksi, PhD
, Institute for Literature and Arts, Belgrade
. prof. Persida Lazarevi di Giakomo, Full
. , , Professor, PhD
he G. dAnnunzio University, Pescara, Italia
. Marianna Pozza, Assistant Professor, PhD
, , University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy
. Tatjana Aleksi,Associate Professor, PhD
, University of Michigan, USA
. Jelenka Pandurevi, Associate Professor, PhD
, , Faculty of Philology in Banja Luka, Bosnia and
() Hercegovina
. Svetlana Kalezi, Assistant Professor, PhD
, , Faculty of Philosophy in Niki, Montenegro
. Ostap Slavinski, Assistant Professor, PhD
Faculty of Philology, Ivan Franko National
, , University of Lviv, Ukraine
. Borjan Janev, Assistant Professor, PhD
, , University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
. Martin Stefanov, Assistant Professor,
, PhD Faculty of Slavic Studies,
, , University St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia,
Bulgaria
Editorial assistant
Bojana Veljovi
, ,
Journal for Literature, Language, Art and Culture
XVII / 61 / 2016
Year XVII / Volume 61 / 2016

University of Kragujevac

.
PERSONA DRAMATIS
.................................................................. 9
.

.................................................................... 31
.
: ..................... 83
.

......... 93
.
................... 105

......... 113
.

..................... 127
.

.............................................................. 137
.
, ... 153
Ivana S. Jovanovi
No happily ever after Family in Martin Amiss
London Fields and Salman Rushdies The Ground
Beneath Her Feet..................................................................... 167
Boana M. Tomi i Jelena. V. ajinovi Novakovi
O PREFIKSU OVER-...................................................................... 183
. .

................................... 195
.
:
............................................................ 213
.
() ......... 219

................................................. 227

: .......................... 235
821.111-21.09 .

. 1

-

PERSONA DRAMATIS

.
personae dramatis, ,
,
.
,
,
. , : ,
. personae dramatis :
, .
: , , persona dramatis, ,
, ,
(persona dramatis) -
.
,
/, -
( 2011: 424).
,
.
(: 424).
-
, ,
,
.
e -
.
(: 424425).
, -
:
1 antonijevic.090153@gmail.com
Lipar / Journal for Literature, Language, Art and Culture / Year XVII / Volume 61 9
.

( 1978: 2325).
,
, ,
(: 3839). Persona dramatis
, -
,
, -
.
-
(: 4445).
persone dramatis
. -
, -
.
. -
: -
, (
2011: 425426). ,

( 1978: 27).
-
(: 28).
. . ,
,
( 1981: 214219).

, -
. ,

(: 237239). ,
-
. ,

( 1981: 239240).

. , -
-
,
( 1981: 290291).
,
: ,
. -

,
10 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
.
,

(: 291).
- -
, ,
.
, -
, ,
, (-
1981: 293294).

(--
1981: 295). ,

,
. -
-
,
, (: 300309).
(1981: 5783)
. -
,
.

, .
, . -
,
.
, ,
(: 5768). ,
. -
, ,
.
, ,
. -
(: 7176). , -
, .

. ,

( 1981: 7880).
-
-
. ,
.
: , . personae dramatis -
:
, .
1.
, 1601. 1604. ,
.
-
-
, 1565. -
.
, :
,

( 2009: 276).
:
, -
.
,
, ,
( 2009: 276). ,
,
, , .
-
,
.
: -
,
.
, , -

(: 276277).
,
. ,
,
.
, ,
.
: -
, , -
,
.
: -
12 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
,
, -
.
, .
. -
, , ,
.
, .
,
.
, ,
. ,
, .
,
. ,
. -

. , .

, -
, . ,
. , ,
:
.
, , , ;
[...]
, ,
,
.
(I, 3)

.
,
. , ,
.
,
,
:
[...] . ; .
. ,
, . (I, 3)
.
,
, .
,
.
,
. ,
, .
, :

; [...] [...]
:
.
(I, 1)
-
.
,
. ,
,
: ,
, .
, -
, -
.
,
. , -
,
, .
,
.
,
:
,
,
!
(III,3)

. -
,
. ,
, :
14 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
,
[...]
:
? [...]

.
(III,3)
,
, , .

, :
, ,
;
,
, , ,
.
(I,3)
,

. , ,
. -

, . -
,
,
, , .
2.
,
: . -
:
,
.
. ,
, -
.
.
, -

.
,
. ,
.
.

.
,
. -
, -
.

, .

.
:
;
,

.
[...]
.

, .

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

,
, .

,
. .
(I,1)
, -
.
. -

, -
.
,
.

16 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
,
.

.
,
.

( 2005: xx). -
.

,
,
( 2009: 507508). -
.

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

,
,
:
.
,
;
,

.
(II, 3)
,
,
.
, -
. ,
.
,
. -
.
.
, -
.
:
;
, ; ,
. -

( 2009: 279).
,
. -
( 2009: 279). -
:

( 1997: 127).

.
, ( ,
(I,2)) -
( ;
(II,1)), (IV, 1), -
(II,1), (I,2)
(I,1) .

.
, ,
,
( 1997: 127128).
-
.
, -
: [...] / -
? (III,3).
. -
, :
[...] / ! (IV, 2). -

, ,
, ,
( 1997: 131). -
,
; -
, -

( 1997: 143).
18 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
-
-
,
.

( 1997: 129). -
- ,
,
, -
( 1997: 129):
, ;

; ,
, ,
, ,
.
, ,
,
,

.

.
.
. ,

!
(II,1)

.

: (I,1). -
,
, -
. , :
, ,
, :
, . ,
,
,

, ,
( 1997: 127).
: , -
, :
.
() ; -
; .

. ,
, . [...] ;
; ! (IV,2)

. -
, ,
.
,
.
: . . /
(I,3). ,
, , -
.
,
-
, . ,
,
.
; -
,
.
(I,3),
.
-
,

,
( 1997: 133).
, -
,
.
3.
, ,
, .
-
. (1979: 45) -
:
, ,
, , ,
20 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
. : -
. ,
.
. ,
,
,
( 1979: 45).
-
. -
: , -
; .
(I,3),
,
(II,1).
:
-, ,
( /
), (
, / , / ,
/ (I,3)). ,
: , , (
/ ? (III,3)),
, (-
1979: 45). -

.

.
-
. , -
, :
!
,
!
(II,1)
, -
. ,
,
.
, :
, , ,
, ,
. (I, 1)
.
-
. -
,
. ,
, -
: ,
, ,
( 1979: 45).
, .
(1952: 243)
.
,
.
711. ,
.
, , ,
. ,

, ( 1952: 243).

( 1990: 316).
;
, -
, .
,
:
, , ,
, ( 1990: 316).

, ,
( 1990: 319). , ,
, , :
. , , -
, ,
, :
/
, / , (I,
2).
.
,
( 1958: 244).
-
, -
: ,
22 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
( 1979: 48).
, -
, ,
.
, ,
( 1979: 48). -
, ,
, :
[...]

.

, [...]
(I, 3)
-
,
. -

( /
, / (I, 3)).
, , , .
, -
,
.
.
-
. -
, ,
. -

( 1979: 4849). , ,
(-
1979: 49). ,
, -
:
, !
, ,

! ,
, ,
,
, ,
.
, , !
,
,
! !
(III, 3)
,
.

( 1979: 50).
.
,
.
-
-
( 1958: 97).
:
;
, ,
,
.
,
;

[...]

.
(III, 3)
-
. , -
.
,
, -
.

:

,
,

,
, .
(I, 3)
24 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
-
. ,
. , ,

, . :
/ , / .
/ , / ,
/ (II, 2).
. -
,
, ( 1958: 99). -
,
, . -

persona dramatis.
, ,
.
,
.
, -
( 1958: 99). ,
.
,

( 1958: 99). , -
,
, -
. ,
; , ,
( 1958: 100).
,
,
.
,
.
,
. ,
; ,
.
.
4.
-
. -
, , -

. ,
(
1979: 50) .
,
.
, ,
.
, -
:

,
.
.
.
,
, .
(I, 3)
-
, , -
.
,
, -
,
, .
,
( 1979: 51).

. ,
, -
(I, 3), , ( 1979: 51).
. -
, ,
.
. -
,
, : , ,
/ , /
(IV, 2). , -
26 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
, .

, :
/ , ...
(IV, 3). ,
.
, . -
: /
(IV, 3). ,
-
.

, -
.
, , -
, .
( 1979: 51).
,
-
. :
,
,
;
.
(V, 2)
. -
, -
(V, 2).
-
, . -
,
.
,
, ,

. -
, ,
. ,
,
, -
,
, ( 1979: 5152). ,
, -
, .
.
,
,
.

persona dramatis. ,
: -
, ; ,
; , -
. , -
, .
, -
. -
, -
,
.
, . , -
, , -

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

.
, persona dramatis,
.

1963: V. ekspir, Kralj Lir; Otelo: tragedije / Viljem ekspir ; [preveli ivojin
Simi i Sima Pandurovi], Beograd: Kultura (Novi Sad: Budunost).
2005: W. Shakespeare, Othello : the Moor of Venice / by William Shakespeare;
with related reading.
www.emcp.com/previews/AccessEditions/ACCESS%20EDITIONS/Othello.pdf
03.07.2016.
28 / , , / XVII / 61
PERSONA DRAMATIS
1997: J. Adelman, Iagos Alter Ego: Race as Projection in Othello.

Shakespeare Quarterly, Summer 1997. JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
1958: J. Arthos, The Fall of Othello. Shakespeare Quarterly, Spring 1958.
JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
1990: E. Berry, Othellos Alienation. Studies in English Literature, Spring 1990.
JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
1952: P. Butcher, Othellos Racial Identity. Shakespeare Quarterly, July 1952.
JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
22009: A. Dickson, The Rough Guide to Shakespeare, London: Rough Guides
Ltd.
- 1981: U. Elis-Fermor, Jedan tehniki problem: otkrivanje neizreenih
misli u drami, u M. Mioinovi (ured.), Moderna teorija drame, Beograd: Nolit, 293
318.
22011: . , , : .
1978: . Luka, Istorija razvoja moderne drame, Beograd: Nolit.
1981: J. Mukarovski, Dve studije o dijalogu, u: M. Mioinovi
(ured.), Moderna teorija drame, Beograd: Nolit, 264292.
1981: . Surio, Dramaturke funkcije, u: M. Mioinovi (ured.), Moderna
teorija drame, Beograd: Nolit, 5783.
1981: D. L. Stajan, Komunikacija u drami, :u M. Mioinovi (ured.), Moderna
teorija drame, Beograd: Nolit, 214243.
1989: P. Hollindale, Othello and Desdemona. Critical Survey, 1989.
JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
2009: K. Jacobsen, Iagos Art of War: The Machiavellian Moment in
Othello. Modern Philology, February 2009. JSTOR. 01.06.2016.
Nataa Z. Antonijevi / PERSONA DRAMATIS IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES

OTHELLO
Summary / This paper aims to discuss the dramatic character and its formation as
one of the basic elements of drama. The introductory section discusses the demands
set in front of the dramatist during the formation of persona dramatis, regarding the
figuration of characters, possible types into which they can be sorted and dramatic
functions they can perform, and communication and dialogue in drama. It has been
examined how the characters of Shakespeares Othello represent the types of dramatic
characters within Souriaus model of dramatic functions. Souriaus model has been
applied in two ways in this drama, depending on the given thematic force. Follow-
ing this analysis, the paper analyses the three main dramatic characters of the play:
Othello, Iago, and Desdemona. The analysis of personae dramatis focuses on the
relationship between Othello and Iago as the protagonist and the antagonist, as well
as on the relationship between Othello and Desdemona.
Key words: William Shakespeare, Etienne Souriau, persona dramatis, dramatic func-
tions, Othello, Iago, Desdemona
821.163.41-31.09 .

. 1

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

.
,
, ,
.
: . , /, , , ,
,
1.

(. individuum, ), -
,
(. 2011: 4). , -
, -
, -
().
1 Bojana.Sekulic.90@gmail.com
2 , . -
, 2016. - -
.
.
-
1920. , -
.
,
, .
, -
-
, (
, , , ,
, , ) ( 2008: 77).
, -
, (Selbst3):

( 1996: 58). -
, -
4, , ,
.
:
,
. -
,
( 1996: 185).
,
.
,
,
, -
.
, -
, -
.
, -
(. 1971: 189).
:
,
.
3 Selbst : .
, -
(. 1995: 19).
4 .
. , ,
, ,
.
, , , . -
.
(. 1971:137).
32 / , , / XVII / 61

,
, (. 1996: 34).
-
,
. ,
. ,
, ,
(.
1995: 58) ,
,
,
. , -
,
, .
, , ,
, , -
(. 1995: 6566).
, -
, .
,

, . :
, . ( 1995: 67)
, -
,
(.
1996a: 194).

,
.
,
-
:
, , ,
,
( 1996: 51).
,
,
( 1996:46),
,
,
(: 55).
, , ,
.
, , , ...
, ,

( 1996: 5152).
,
() .
. .
. , ,
.

, , , . .
, , . .
1.1

,
,
- .
(. 1995: 155), -
, ,
: ,
, , -
-
, , -
( 2015: 302).
,
,

. -
.
,
-
, ,
(: 308).

.
, ,
. -

, -
,
.
,
,
, (-
34 / , , / XVII / 61

1968: 9).
, ,
, , -
( 2015: 310).
,

, , , ...

,

, .
-
, -
,
, ,
. -

, (
2014: 86).
( 2014: 86), . -

-
,
. (. 2015: 318)
,
-
. , ,
,
, ,
(: 313).
-
,
,
, -
.
2.
-
-
, , ,
(. 2010: 5). -
-
, , ,
.
.
: -
, , .

, , -
:
, ,
.
, ,
, ,
( 1968: 9).
.

. -
,
. (
)
( 1971: 109).
,
,
( 1968: 9).
, , -
,
. -
, -
, -
, .
, ,

( 2014: 86).
-
. ,

, .
,
(-
1968: 9). , -
,
.

, -
36 / , , / XVII / 61

.
, . -
,
, (.
1995: 97). -
,
(-
2010: 1).
,
( 1996: 58).
,
,
.

, , ,
.

( 1996: 60).

-
. , -
,
. ,
. -

,
, :
, : ,
. ,
.
, ,
, .
,
( 1986: 10).
,
, -
, , ,
. -
, -
( 1996:
34). -
, -
, , ,
.
.
-
,
. -
, -
. -
,
.
-
, , -
:
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ,
, . , ,
,
( 1968: 10).
-
. -
-
,
.

, , , -
.
, . -

,
,
(. 1968: 10). -
, -

.

.
: -
,
-
. :
, ,
, (. 1971: 18).

-. -
,
.
38 / , , / XVII / 61

.

, ,
, . ,
(. 1971: 108),
.
, -
,
, -
(. 1996: 36). -

, , . -
,
,
: ,
. ( 1968: 244). ,
, .

, :
. (-
1968: 244). -
,
, -
- , , (.
1971: 115).
, -
,
.
(respect) -
,
(. 1999:40).
, , , -
, .
,
,
. ,
, ,
.
, (. 1995:
113) , :
, -
.
, . ,
,
.
( 1999: 42).
, -
, , , .
3.

3.1.
,
, -
, ,
.
, , -
: . ,
. ,
. -
,
( 1968: 15). ,
-
, , -
, .
, ,
, -
.

.
-
, (, 2007:
202). , -
,
, ,
. -
, :
[...] , ,
. , ,
( 1968: 12).
,
,
. , -

( 1996: 107). ,
, , -
, , ,
40 / , , / XVII / 61

: ,
, -
.
( 1968: 12).
.
,
. ,
, ,
. -
, -
( 1995: 20).
, -
.
-
. -
.
, , -
,
, . -
. -
,

(. 1968: 16). -
. ,
,
.
,
.
, :
: ?
, . .
, , . , ,
, , .
: .
,
. ,
,
( 1968: 17).
-
. -
.
-
.

.
a , ,
: ,
-
,
( 1996: 208). , ,
, --
: , . (-
1968: 17)
, -
, .
,
.
, -
, , .
-
. ,
. ,
,
, , .
, ,

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

; , , (
2007: 69). ,
.
,
,
( 1995: 21). -

.
, .
,
,
, .
-
.
42 / , , / XVII / 61

-
,
, ,
. ,
, ,
:
, ,
, , , .
,
, .
: , , ,
( 1968: 70).
-
, ,
, ,
. -
, ,
.
,
. ,

. , , ,
( 1968: 29). -
,
,
, . -
-
, .

,
. ,
,
;
,
( 1995: 45).
, -
,
.
, .
. -
-
, -
. . ,
.
(, 2007: 124).
,
, ,
. ,

:
, ,
, , . -
, ,
.
, . , ,
, ?
, ?
, ?
?
[ ]?
( 1968: 33)
A -
:
, -
, , . ,
, (
1971: 160). -
, .

. -

.

, . -

, ,

:
, ,
(-
1968: 35).
.
( 1995:
21). , ,
,
. -
,
. , -
, ( 1996: 198).
44 / , , / XVII / 61

,
, ,
, -

.

, -
, , .
. .
,
:
,
. -
,
.
, ,
, . (
) ( 1996: 206).
,
,
,
. ,
, , :
, -
, , , ,
, , ,
, , , ,
,

, ,
, , ,
( 1968: 35).
,
.
, -
, , .
,
, -
. ,
5,
5 ,
, -,
, (. 1996: 219).
.
. -
, -
, , ,
, .
3.2. -
-
. -

-.
-
. , , -

. , , ,

.
, . -
-.
. , -
,

.
, ,
,
-. -
,
. , -
, -
. ,
,
, -
, .
, , -
, :
. , -
. , .
. -
( 1996: 98).
,

, , .
, -
, - (. 1996: 215). -
aurum volatile, (
2008: 395).
46 / , , / XVII / 61

,
. - -
. -
(
1995: 20). ,
, -
,
, , -
. , ,
,
.
, , -
, (. -
1995: 21), -
.
,
.

-
, -
. ,
:
, , .
, , , ,
, ,
, ,
, ( 1968: 62).
-
, , .
.
,
. , -
:
,
,
, (
1995: 22). ,
:
.
. , ,
.
, ,
,
( 1971: 171).
.
(. 1971:171), -
,
.
, -
.

, (. 1995: 127128).
, - , -
. ,

:
? , .
. , .
. .
.
, .
. . .
.
. .
, , .
,
, , (-
1968: 62).

, -
. , ,
. -
je ,
.
, , -
,
. ,
-
:
, , :
, (
1968: 209).
-
.
,
. -
.
, ,
:
48 / , , / XVII / 61

, , ,
, ? ?
, , , ?
, , ,
, ( 1968: 83).
-
,
, , , -
. , ,
,
,
.
,
, :
, ,
.
. ,
,
. -,
, ,
, (-
2002: 228).
-, ,
,
, .
, -
, ,
. , -
, -
, . -

,
.
, ,
.
,
, -
(. 1996: 124).
, -
. , ,
,
, , -
.
.
3.3.
-
, , -
, , -
:
, ,
, , .
. , ,
, . , .
,
( 1968: 90).
-
,
. -
, -
.
,
(. 1968: 92). ,
,
,
(. 1968: 92).

,
.
, -
,
. -

.
, ,
-
.

.
:

, , -
( 1999: 42). ,
, -
. , -
,
.

50 / , , / XVII / 61

6.
,
(. 1968: 90).

. , -
, ,
. ,
,
[...] ( 1995: 33). -

. ,
, , , -
.
, -

, , ,
.
,
.

, :
, .
, . -
.
?
. ( 1968: 97).
,
: , -
,
,
( 1999: 146).

-
.
, -
, ,
,
(. 1999: 36). -
. ,

,
6 e-
. : http://jungiancenter.org/jung-on-the-
enantiodromia-part-1-definitions-and-examples/
.
,
. -
, , -
, ,
(. 1968: 83).
-
. ,
:
, , .
, , , .
, . ,
, .
( 1968: 110).
, -
, -
.
-
.
.
, -
. , -
. ,
,
.
-
,
, .
, -
, ,
, .
,
( 1999: 150). -
:
, , ,
, !
.
. !
.
. . ( 1968: 116).
-
, .
-
52 / , , / XVII / 61

, ,
,
, -
.
7 ,
,
.
-
,
.
, -
:

, . ,
,
.

( 1999: 152).

, .

.

. ,

. -
-
. -
, ,
,
, ( 1999: 152).
-

(. 1968: 117).

.
, -
7 , -

.
. , , -
, .
: http://www.psihoedukacija.rs/recnik_R.php
.

. ,
-
, ,
. -
,
.
( 1968: 128), -
. -
.
, ( 1968:
137),
.
, ,
.
, ,
-, , -
.
,
,
. ,
,
. -
,
, -
.
, , ,
.

:
. , ,
, . (
1968: 137). , , -
,

. -
: , ,
, ,
, ,
( 1968: 149). -

, -
. ,
.

54 / , , / XVII / 61

- , , -
.
,
. ,
- , -
8.
-
, -
. -
,
. -

,
. ,
: , -
, ,
. :
( 1968: 159). -
9,
. -

. -
,
-

: , -
,
,
,
( 1968: 160).
-
.
,
. -
, .
,
, -
8 , -
, , . -
,
. : http://psychcentral.
com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/2/
9 , .
. -
,
. (. 1996:36
.
(. 1996: 49).

. , -
, , ,
,
. -
,
(. 1996: 50).
-
, , ,

. ,
. -
-
,
. , -
: .
. .
, , ,
( 1968: 164).
-
,
. , -
,
.
,

. , -

. -
, , -
.
- :
, , ?
? , ! ? ( 1968: 166)
-
.

(. 1996: 31) -
. ,
-
.
, -
.
.
56 / , , / XVII / 61

-
.
10 -
. ,
.
, -
,
:
,
, .
, , .

,
( 1996: 61).

.
, -
,
.

. 11
, ,
. . -
, , (.
2008: 132). , ,
, ,
. -
(. 1984: 20),
, -

.
-

. , -
,
.
.
-
:
10 . . ;
, ,
. ( 1971: 150)
11 , (.
2008: 129)
.
, ,
. , .
, . . ,
, , , , .
. , .
, ( 1968: 174).

, .
,
.
.
:
. .
, .
( 1996: 118)

.
, -
(. 1995: 118),
.
,
.
, -
(. 1996: 124).
-
, .
, , -
.
,
.
,
-
.

. ,

-
.
: , -

. , ,
, .
,
( 1996: 92).
-
58 / , , / XVII / 61

. -
,
.
a
, -
.
. : ! ( 1968: 186) -
.
.
,
. -
,
. -
, , ( 1968:
188), ,
-, .
-
, .
, , ,
, ,
(. 1968: 203).
-
. -
,
.

,
(. 1968: 196). 12,
, -
.
,
, : .
. .
, , ( 1968: 197).
-
, :
,
,
( 1996: 66).
12 -
, ,
, , .
,
, (.
1996: 109).
.
-, ,
,
. ,
. -
, ,
.

. -
, . -
,
,
.
13.
,
, .
-
,
, -
. -
.

(. 1968: 202),
. . .
,
:
;
( 1996: 259). -
, , -
.
, -
, -
.
, -
. , -
,
, .
13 . . (, , ,
) . -
(. 1996: 259).
, , -
.
60 / , , / XVII / 61

4.

4.1.

, . -
, ,
. -
,
:
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
, (
1968: 208).
, ,
-
. , , -
, , ,
-

:

, (
1996: 140). ,
,
, ,
( 1968: 208).
, -
, , , -
.

, -
.
, , ,

.
, ,
:
. -
,
.

. ( 1971: 201)
-
, :
, , , , ,
. . -
,
, , .
, , ,
( 1968: 209).

,
( 1971: 30), ,
. -
,
, (.
1993: 80).
, -
, .
,
, .

.

,
.
14.
,

, -
(. 1993: 94). -

(: 94), -
.

,
14 :
. -, -
, .
, summum bonum ( ),
, , . ,
, . , ,
( ), , -
, , , (: 1993: 95).
62 / , , / XVII / 61

, , , ,
.

.
4.2.

,
. -
,
-
. -
, -
.

,
. -
,
. ,
, -,
. -

, :
, -
,
,
, (
1968: 213).
,
, -
, , -
.
, -
, :
, , , , ,
, ,
, .
. , ,
, ( 1968: 215).

, -
.
, . ,
,
:

. , ; .
; -
, .
. ( 1996: 32).
, , -
,
, .

, -
( 1995: 89).
, .
-
,
, . -

, . ,

, -

. -
,
-
. , ,
,
. -
, . (.
1995: 77)
,
.
4.3.

,
.
,
.
-
( 1995: 172). , -
, -
64 / , , / XVII / 61

.
, , ,
, -

. :
, , ,
. .
, . ( 1968: 259).

,
:
.
, :
, , .
, , -
.
, ( ). ,
,
( 2007: 185).
-
, .
.
,
,
.
, -
: , , , -
, ; , .
,
. -
, -
.

, . -
-, , -
, ,
, (.
1968: 225). ,
, -
,
, .
, -
,
, . -
.
, -
, -
, ,
(. 1968: 230).

, -
, . -
.
[] ,
,
.
, -
,
( 1996: 46).

. ,
-
, , . , ,
.

( 1996: 62).
. -

,
, (. 1968: 245).
,
: ,
-,
. ,
[....] ( 1968: 240).
,
,
.
-
. -
, ,
. -

.
, .
,
: -,
-, , .
, -
.
66 / , , / XVII / 61

: ,
. , . ,
, .
(. 1968: 267). -

.
, :
-
, , ,
,
. ,
, , ( 2002: 232).

,
, .
, -

,
. ,
, -
, (.
1968: 226).
.
(. 1968: 282)
,

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

,
: , ! , -
, . :
( 1968: 361).
15.
15 -
, , ,
. : http://www.psihoedukacija.rs/recnik_N.php
.
-
,
. -
. , ,
,
( 1996: 203).
, .
,
.

.
, -
, ,
. ,
, -
.
,
.
5.

, . . -
, -
.
, , -
(. 1995: 69).
,
.
-
, , .
:
, , , .

, , ,
.
( 1968: 13).

, ,
.
, .
-
68 / , , / XVII / 61

,
,
, .
a , -
, -
.
, -
,
, .

, ( 1978: 105). -
, :
,
, ,
, .
,
, , .
.
( 1968: 40).
, -
. , -
, , -
. . . -
,
, 16.
,
. -
,
, -
.
, .
,
, : -
, , -
,
( 1968: 166). -
,
, . -
16 -
[...] . -
. ( )
.
.
. (), ,
, ( 1995: 67).
.

,
.
,
.
(. 1995: 71),
, -
. ,

,
, -
, , , :
( 1968: 384).
-

. (.
1968: 364)
,
.
-
-
-
, ,
(. 1968: 10).
-
.
, ,
,
, ,
. , ,
, (. 1971: 108).
,
.

,
.

(. 1968: 383) -
.
, , ,
.
70 / , , / XVII / 61

6.
, -
, ,
.
o ,
. -
, ,
, . -
.

, .
, 17,
.

: ,
( 1996:
84).
, ,
, :
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, , . ,
,
, , .
, , ( 1968: 21).
, -
-
. -
,
(. 1996: 108).
, , ,
, - . -
,
.

.
,
17
(. 2008: 332).
,
( 1994: 89).
.
. -
,

. -

.
-
(. 1996:
119), . . . -
, :
,
, ,
, ,
,
( 1996: 119).
-
. -
.
(. 1968: 361), ,
.
,
.
.

.
-
. ,
,
?
, ,
, -

. , , -
, :
, , , , -
, . ,
, (. 1996: 127). -
,
.
. . -
-
, (. 1984: 22)
. -
,
72 / , , / XVII / 61

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

,
.
, , (.
, 1984: 35). -
, ,
-
.
e , .
,
.
.
. [...]
. ,
(, 2007: 203).

, :
, ,
. ,
. , , ,
, ( 1995: 15).

, . -

, , -
. -
,
,
. ,
, ,

(. 1996: 127).
,
.
, :
.
, , , , ,
, , .
. , , .
. , , , .
, .
, ,
, , .
. ,
. . ? , -
, , ? !
( 1968: 383)
VII ,

,
, , . -
:
,
, .
.
.
, ( 1996: 106107).
-
,
.
, ,
.
je ( 1996: 109),
. -
,
, . -
,
.
,
. ,
,
( 1968: 275).
, -
. ,
-, -
. -
18
.
18 ,
, : , -
74 / , , / XVII / 61

,
, , ,
,
. ,
, -
.
7.
, -
, -
. , -
,
. ,
, -
, -
, , -
.
, -
.
-
-, , -

, .
,
,
. ,
, -
.
, -
, . -
, ,
. -
, ,
, ,
.
- .
, ( 2007: 203).
, , -
, : -
, , .
. ;
. , ! ( 2007: 203)
je J . ,
, ,
(. 2007: 204).
.
. -
, , ,
, , -
.

-
.
,

.

-
-
, -
. -
,
.
, , -
,
. ,
.
-
, -
. -
o :
, , ,
, , (-
1968: 13).
, -
.
,
.

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

.
-
. -
76 / , , / XVII / 61

, ,
,
. (. 1968: 226)

. ,
,
, ,
. ,
, -
: -
, ,
, , [...]
( 1978: 167). : -

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

, ,
, , -
,
.
-
.
,

, , -
, .
-
, .
a a, , -
.
,
.
, .
,
.

1968: . Selimovi, Dervi i smrt, Sarajevo: Svjetlost.

2014: . , , :
.
, 1995: . . ,
, : . , , :
.
2008: . , ,
: .
1995: . , , :
.
1994: . , : , , :
, : .
2015: . , () , :
.
1996: . , , : .
1996: . , , :
, , : .
, 2015: . , . , () ,
: .
1995: . , , : , ,
: .
2002: . , :
. 1, : Ars libri.
2011: . , , : . , ,
: .
1971: . . , , : .
1971: . . , , : .
1971: . . , , : .
Jung 1984: C. G. Jung, Psihologija i alkemija, Zagreb: Naprijed.
1995: . . , , : .
1996: . . , , : .
Jung 1996: C. G. Jung, ion, Beograd: ATOS.
ung, Kerenji 2007: K. G. Jung, K. Kerenji, Uvod u sutinu mitologije, Beograd, Fedon.
1988: . , , : .
78 / , , / XVII / 61

1995: ,
, : . , , :
.
2010: Z. Milutinovi, ta je dervi ispovedio o smrti: Dervi i smrt
Mee Selimovia, https://www.academia.edu/3380499/Sta_je_dervis_ispovedio_o_
smrti_Dervis_i_smrt_Mese_Selimovica, 19. 8. 2016.
, 1995: , : . , ,
: .
1995: . , , : ,
, : .
2007: . , , : .
2008: . , , :
HESPERIAedu.
Frojd 1979: S. Frojd, Uvod u psihoanalizu, Novi Sad: Matica srpska.
1999: . , , : MONO & MANANA PRESS.
From 1993: E. From, Umee ljubavi, Beograd: BIGZ.
1996: M.-. , , : ,
, : .
1996: . , , : .
1996: , : ,
, : .
Bojana Sekuli / THE PROCESS OF INDIVIDUATION IN MEA SELIMOVIS

NOVEL DEATH AND THE DERVISH
Summary / In this paper, we consider stages through which the main character of
the novel, Ahmed Nurudin, goes in the process of individuation. We analyze the
presence of the conscious and unconscious in Ahmed Nurudins actions, and the
desire to identify with aspects of society that are accepted by the collective, as well
as their intersection with the need for self-actualization. We will present some of the
borderline situations which triggered prominent influence of the heros alter ego in
his search for safety. We based the thesis on Jungs studies of individuation and the
studies further developed by Jungs disciples. We will examine the psychological
phenomenon of need for individuation as well as the puzzling presence of elements of
the collective unconscious in modern, civilized psyche. In the paper, we will observe
some of the symbols present in the novel which can be interpreted as concretization
of certain archetypical aspects. The situations and characters in this novel can be
analyzed from a dual point of view: as subjects in their basic form, and as objects on
which certain unconscious complexes of heros psyche are being projected. Being
that our critical approach to the novel is based on psychoanalytic critics, certain
motifs and situations will be interpreted in the mentioned manner. The main goal of
the paper is to determine the boundaries which Ahmed Nurudin reaches in his self-
actualization. We will also consider the possibility of keeping ones identity generally
unchanged in interaction with society and its system.
Key words: M. Selimovi, individuation/disintegration, the Self, Shadow, Persona,

archetype, symbol
: 15. 2016.
2016.
821.163.41-4.09 . .
821.163.41-14.09 . .

. 1

: 2
. ,

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

.

, -
, , -
, .
. , -
, ,
. [...]
(Hajdeger 1982: 167168).
, , ,
: -
, , ,
. ,
1 tiamataleksic@gmil.com
2
(178013), ,
.
.
(Hajdeger 1982: 147). , -

, , (Hajdeger
1982: 152) , , ,

. -

.
,
, .

-
(Fridman 2012: 17).

.
-
,
,
.
. -
, ,
(Kami 2008: 217).
, :
, ,

,
, (Kami 2008: 217). -
,
,
(. Kami 2008: 223).

, ,
.
. -

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

84 / , , / XVII / 61
:
,
(Fridman: 410). , ,
, . -
,
, -
, , -
: / -
/ /
/ /
/ /
. ( )

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

-
. , ,
.
. -
, .

, , -
.3 - ,
.
, ;
.
, :
, -
. ,
:
/ ( ). -
,
.
. homo
religiosus ,
. hibris
3
: 2015: 4748.
.
. -
, .
- ,
, (Sloterdijk 2008:
21), -
. , -

. , , ,
, -
.

,
. -

. -
, .
. -
: , ,
,

,
,
. -
-
, .
/ /
/ //
/ / /
.
, , ,
( 2003: 190).
, -
; .
. , ,
, ,
:
.
, ,
:
. ,
, -
modus vivendi, .
, ,
, -
, . ,
86 / , , / XVII / 61
:
, , -
.

, ,
, . -
,
, , -
, , ,
? -

, -
, ,
. , ,
,
,
, ,
. , a -
.
-

. -
, -
, ,
. ,
.
-
. ,
, , :
(Kami 2008: 222). ,
-
(Kami: 223). -

, ,
(Kami: 223). , , , -
,
. , , -
-
, . ()

. , ,
.

. , ,
. -
. -
.
.

.

.
: -
.
, ,
,
.
-
, , -
, .
,
. -
. o o, o -
o : ,
,
.
,
, , -
:
/ /
/ ().
(-
2015: 54), , -
.
,
. ,
,
. , , (-
2007: 111) , -
,
, :
/ /
/ ().
-
.
, , -
, , -
. , , -
, -
.
-
, . -
88 / , , / XVII / 61
:
, -
. , ,
:
(). -
, -, ,
.
-
.
- -
,
() . -

-
, -
. -

( 2007: 138).
, :
, .
,

(Kami 2008: 423).
, -
, , .
, ,
, ,
, -
.
, ,
.
-
,
. , , -
: , -
(Kami: 426). , ,
. ,
, :
/ / -
/ ( ). :
( ). ,

, ,
-
: / -
( ). , -
.
,
, : /
/ ( ). , -
, , ,
, ,
? , -
? ,
, ,
, -
: /
/ /
( ).
.
-
, , , , .
. ,
,
, , . ,
, -
: , -
.
( 2001:
152). ,
,
: ,
, -
. .
, ( 203: 183).
,
, -
: / -
.
, , .
.
,
, .
, , , ,
-
. , , :
, ,, ,
( 2003: 192).
vita nuova. -
, , .
, ,
90 / , , / XVII / 61
:
( 2011: 3132)
.
-
, .
,
. , , -
, ,
, . -
,
, -
, , . ,
, , ,
, -
.
, ,
,
, . -
, .

2003: . . , , : .
2013: . . , : .
: Orpheus.

2001: . . , : ,
. . , : .
2007: . , ,
. , [ : ], . . . 160
161, . 134140.
Kami 2008: A. Kami, Pobunjeni ovek, Eseji. Preveli Dana Miloevi, Nikola Bertolino
i Neda Vali-Lazovi. Beograd: Paideia.
2007: . , :
20. , :
.
.
2015: . , , :
(.), . :
, 4362.
Sloterdijk 2008: P. Sloterdijk, Kritika cininoga uma, Preveo Boris Hudoletnjak,
Podgorica: CID, Fridman 2012: M. Fridman, Pobunjeni ovek: Melvil, Dostojevski,
Kafka, Kami, Preveo Igor Javor, Beograd: Slubeni glasnik.
.
Hajdeger 1982: M. Hajdeger, Miljenje i pevanje, Izabrao i preveo Boidar Zec,

Beograd: Nolit. Hamva 1994: B. Hamva, Patam, Preveo Sava Babi, Beograd:
Centar za geopoetiku.
Jana M. Aleksi / Rajko Petrov Nogo: the dignity of rebellion
Summary / In this paper, we have tried to clarify certain philosophical aspects of

Nogos poetics. This poet, essayist and anthologist seeks to legitimize the existence
of poetry, in Heideggers sense of the word, through metaphysical rebellion against
the fraught precipitate of historical experience and modern consciousness. That is,
for Nogo, modus vivendi, based on the preservation of permanent spiritual values,
from which, according to the philosopher Albert Camus, each artistic rebellion be-
gins. Since the poets consciousness is already part of the modernity, here, analogous
to Friedmans stance on the problematic rebel, we point to several intellectual-
spiritual paradoxes, from which Nogos resistance is derived, in order to gain sense
and artistic freedom. The poet is subversive, because his (mainly aesthetic) rebellion
is delegitimized by the spirit of modernity, but he is also problematic not because
he has no ontological background for his rebellion, but precisely because he declares
one through the act of rebellion. That is not a statement of a worried, blindfolded,
disintegrated, determined or absurd man. The rebellion belongs to the man who has
the memory of sense and owns an inner profound principle.
Key words: Rajko Petrov Nogo, rebellion, rebel, poetic residence, modernity, history,
paradox
: 12. 2016.
2016.
92 / , , / XVII / 61
821.163.41-31.09 .

. 1

o -

, ,
, , .

,
,

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

,
. -

,
,
, ,
- -
.
, ,
1 annatasha77@gmail.com
.

. ,

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

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

-

. -
, , -
. , ,
, .
, , -
,
. -
, , , , , -
, ,
, -
, , , ,
.
, -
: ,
( 1966: 49). -
,
,
, -
94 / , , / XVII / 61
...

. -
, .
-
, .

. ,
, ,
: ,
, .
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
( 1966: 51). -
,
, -
, - -
-.

, , . ,
[...] , ,
( 1966: 52). ,
, -
.
--

( 1967: 218). , -
,
-
( 1967: 218).
, ,

.
: .
[...] ... ( 1966: 57).
, :
,
, -
, ( 1966: 57). -
.
,
. .
-
. ( 1966: 57);
, .
.
,
, ,
.
, ( 1966: 60);

, -
, :
[...] .
.
( 1966: 61).

.
, , -

, .

. : ... -
, ,
( 1966: 60).

. , , -
. ( , . )
, ,
( 1967: 243). -
, , -

.
. , -

. ,
,
, -
.
, , -
.
: -
.
, , ,
, -
( 1966: 62). -
-,
, ,
. -

-
96 / , , / XVII / 61
...
,
. ,
. [...] -
, -
, .

, -
, ,
( 2014: 184). -
,
,
.
, , , -
.
-
.

. -
: ,
( 1966: 62).
-
,
.

, ,
- .

.
( 2014:
145). .
, ,
, -
, . .
, ,
.
.
-
, : . [...] , -
, , ,
( 1966: 63).
,
. .
,
,
.
, ,

, , . -
, ,
,
( 1996: 218). -

, .

.

( 1992: 68).
,
-
. ,
, , -, .
, -
,
, .
, , ,
-
, . -
, ,
.

.

.
, , :
,
( 1966: 33). -
, , -
:
, ,
-
( 2011: 108).
,

. -
:
98 / , , / XVII / 61
...

,

.

( 1993: 38).
-
.
, ,
. ,
.
,
, -
.
.
, , -

, -
,
( 1993: 32).
-
.
, ,
,

. -
, -
, , -
,
, .

.
, , -

. -
.

,
(. 1989).

, -
,
.
,
( ) , , -
.
, (. 2004).

/ -
.
,
,
, -
.
,
, , -
.
:
, ,
,
, -
, [...],
( 2003: 177).
-
,

. . -
, -
,
,
, , ,
.

. , -
, . , -
, , -
, , ,
. ,
, , -
, :
. . .
; ,
[...]. , ,
; ( 1966: 18).
,
-
.
,
100 / , , / XVII / 61
...
.
-
, .
-
.
.
,

: , -
, , ; -
, . ,
( 1966: 18). -
, -

. -

. -
:
.
( 1966: 20).

, :
,
,
(-
1970: 70).
, -
,
. , --
:
. .
. , -
, .
. ,
, , , .
[...] , . [...]
, . . [...]
. , .
.
. , ,
( 1966: 85).
-

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

.
,
. ,
.
,
. -

, ,

, . -
: , -
, ,
( 1970: 71).

, -
, -
, : ,
,
, , ( 1966: 85).
- -

.

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

,
.
102 / , , / XVII / 61
...

- -
, ,
.
,
, -
, , -
, .
:
, . ,
, . [...] ,
( 1966: 4647).
, , -
, ,
. -
-
,
,
.

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

1966: . , , : .

1967: . , , . ,
: .
1989: . , , . , :
.
1992: . , , :
, IIV, .
.
1070: . , , .
2014: . , :
, : : . ,
: ,
, .
2004: . , , . , : .
1996: .,
, : , , :
.
2011: . , ,
: .
2003: . , , :
.
1993: . , , , :
.
Nataa B. Anelkovi / The relationship between carnivalization and identity forma-

tion in The Journal of arnojevi by Milo Crnjanski
Summary / The goal of this paper is to use a genre-poetical and literary-historical

base to analyze possibility of establishing a specific sub-genre core in The Journal
of arnojevi, which is founded on a multicentenial tradition of Menippean satire and
the carnivalized literature on one hand, and modernism on the other. The result of
examining the genre tradition, or rather carnivalization and Menippea, and literary-
historical context, or rather modernism in this work, should be the definition of a
new sub-genre, based directly on these two premises (genre and periodization).
From the thematic-motif and semantic contexts in this novel, one can delineate the
crucial question of identity (hero, society, the work itself), so that this new genre
sub-group of carnivalized modernistic literature, represented by the aforementioned
work, can be characterized as carnival-identity literature, or rather, as will be shown
in this work, a kind of carnivalization of identity.
Key words: carnival, carnivalization, Menippean satire, modernism, mask, irony,

humor, parody.
: 1. 2016.
2016.
104 / , , / XVII / 61
821.163.41-32.09 .

. 1

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

, -
( 2010: 20),
. -
,
,
. -
, :
? -
,
.
. -
, .
, . -
, ,
.
,
. -
( ) .
. .
, , -
, , .
, ,
.
,
1 duskovucicevic@riseup.net
.
. , ,
, , ,
- ( ).
, , -
, , ,
.
-
, .
, ,
ulazak u sferu smislova ( 1986: 357), -
. -
,
, ( 2013: 17),
, . -
,
. -
, , , .
( 2001: 99)2,
: , , (. 104).
., .
,
. -
. , : -
--. -
, , .
, , ,
: (. 47).
, (. 48);

, ,
. .
,
, .
.
: -
.(. 144).
. ,
, -
. ,
,
3. ---
2 .
3 -
(2010: 8081),

106 / , , / XVII / 61

, -
,
, .
.
-
2000. (2003: 131; 2005: 171). 2000.

, -
, 2000. 2000. -
, 2000.
.
2000. (. 55),
, 2000,
. -
. -
, -
-,
(. 104106).
1892.
3892. ,
(
, ).
1945. 3945.
; -
20. -
(2007: 301), -
1996,
3996.
? -
2000. ( ,
), (
) . ,
,
. -
() ,
() .
, , ?
, -
.
, ,
.
.
-
; -
, ,
, .
.

, -
. , ,
,
4.
.
, .
, -
. . -

(. 5051),
. ,
.
, ,
: ,
(. 132).
, . ,
, -
,
( 1998: 228). ,
;
,
. -
5. ,
:
. ,
(. 77). -
: Jasno je da se politiar mora ograniiti
na borbu protiv zla, umjesto borbe za pozitivne ili vie vrijednosti, kao
to je srea itd... ( 1998: 156).
, -
. ,

, .
.

... ...
... (. 111). - -

4 , , ,
. ,
.
5 , , , ,
; , ,
; -
, , .
108 / , , / XVII / 61

: , -
, -
, , (. 130). -
,
. ,
, ,
. , -
: Ne elim biti pogreno
shvaen. Ne osjeam neprijateljstvo prema religioznom misticizmu (samo
prema militantnom antiracionalistikom intelektualizmu) i moram biti
prvi u borbi protiv bilo kojeg pokuaja njegovog guenja. ( 1998:
308).
, -

. ,
, ,
.
. -
, -
,
.

, ,
.
-
. -
,
:
(2007: 301). , , -
,
; , - -
, . -
-, : ,
, . .
, , (. 90).
, . , -
, .
?
, . ,
, ; -
. -
, : individualizam je tvrava
nove humanitarne vere. Emancipacija individue je bila duhovna revolucija
koja je dovela do sloma tribalizma i uspona demokracije (1998: 143).
, -
-
.
.
.
- ;
, , -
, .
;
. ,
, , .
, , -
. , -
. ()

(1998: 229). , -
, -
.
(

, ):
,
,
(1998: 229230).
, -
. -
, ,
, . , , -
. ,

,
(1970: 556).
: -
,

, .
,
. o , -
, -
. ,
. ,
(2006: 65). -
, . -
,
. ,
, , -
.
, , ?
110 / , , / XVII / 61

, -
, .
?

. ,

(. 84). -
.
.
: ,
,
, , (.
125). , ,
(. 145).
?
,
, -
. -,
, -
.
, -
. -
;

.
, .
; ,
,
(
2010: 150151) . , ,
, , -
, . -
,
. , ,
, , ,
, -
.
,
, , .
.

1986: J. M. Bahtin, Jedinstvo hronotopa, : Polja, 330331, Novi Sad,
355357.
Gordi Petkovi 2010: V. Gordi Petkovi, Mistika i mehanika, Beograd: Stubovi kulture.
2006: . , : , 81,
, 6568.
2003: V. Gordi Petkovi, Motivi i modeli enskosti: srpska enska
proza devedesetih : Sarajevske sveske, 2, Sarajevo,123132.
2005: V.Gordi Petkovi, The Gospel According to Women: Female
Christ Figures in Serbian and American Womens Writing, Ni: FactaUnivesrsitas.
Series: Linguistic and Literarure, Vol. 3, No2. Ni, 169174.
2007: . , , , :
: . (.),
, , : , :
, 299307.
1970: I. Kant, Kritika istog uma, Beograd: Kultura.
2013: . , :
, Novi Sad:
, 4, , 733.
2001: . , , : -.
1998: . R. Popper, Otvoreno drutvo i njegovi neprijatelji: Hegel, Marx i
posljedice, Sarajevo: Open Soiety Institute.
1998b: K. R. Popper, Otvoreno drutvo i njegovi neprijatelji: ar Platona,
Sarajevo: Open Society Institute.
2010: C. Todorov, Uvod u fantastinu knjievnost, Beograd: Slubeni glasnik.
Duko .Vuievi / EVANGELIUM NACH DER DURSTIGEN ALS ANTIEVAN-

GELIUM
Resmee / In dieser Arbit haben wir anhand der Analyse des Cchronotopos festges-
tellt, dass sich die Handlung dieser Geschichte in der fernen Zukunft entwickelt, was
typisch fr die phantastische Literatur ist. Dieses Werk gibt deswegen dem Leser einen
Eindruck, dass es eine Voraussage der knftigen Ereignisse ist. Anhand der Analyse
der intertextuellen Beziehung mit dem Werk von Karl Popper wurde dargestellt, dass
die dystopische Gesellschaft in dieser Geschichte durch die bertreibung einzelner
Elemente der Gesellschaftsphilosophie von Popper entstanden ist. Deswegen knnen
wir diese Gesellschaft in diesem Sinne als eine abstrakte Gesellschaft beschreiben.
Man hat bemerkt, dass die Religion der Durstigen, die einzige Alternative gegenber
der dystopischen Gesellschaftsordnung aus der Geschichte darstellt, auf undeutlichen
Stellungen, dem Willen zur Macht und Lgen beruht. Die endgltigen Ergebnisse
verweisen darauf, dass eine gute Nachricht aus der Zukunft, wie schon der Begriff
Evangelium in der berschrift suggeriert, ein postmodernes Verfahren darstellt, denn
die Geschichte bringt keine guten Nachrichten aus der Zukunft, sondern bringt uns
in ein moralisches Dilemma. Deswegen kann man Evangelium nach der Durstigen als
ein Antienvagelium bezeichnen.
Schlsselwrter: Mirjana Novakovi, der Chronotopos, der Erzhler, Karl Popper,

die ffene Gesellschaft, die Dystopie
: 10. 2016.
2016.
112 / , , / XVII / 61
821.112.2-31.09 .

, ,
, .
, , , ,
.
. ,
, , ,
, , . ,
, .
.
: . . , , , , , ,
, o
-
, , 1917. , -
,
. . .
, , ,
, .
1917. ,
. , ,
.
, , ,
. -
, , ,
, .
1920. -
, .
, -
,
. ,
1 jasminanektarijevic@gmail.com

. ,
, , , ,
,
( 2005: 135).
,
, .
.
,
, . -
(
), -
.
, ,
, , [...]
,
, , . , ,
,
,
.
( 2005: 135).
, -
, . -
, -
.
,
, , ,
. --
( , -
), - ,
.

,
, .

( , -
...).
. -
.
:
, ,
. ,
, , . -
, , ,
114 / , , / XVII / 61
...
, , . ,
.
, ,
, , ,
.
, ( 1999: 11).
.
, , , -
, , -
,
, , , . ,,
. ,,
.

. ,
, , ,
, .
, , -
.
, ,
, , ,
. ,
, ,
, , ,
, , [...], ,
, . ,
[...] ,
. .
, , ,
,
, [...].
,
( 1999: 1112).
, , , ,
, , -
, ,
. , , -
, , , , -
, , , , ,
, , : ,
, ... , -
.
-
. -

, -
, .
( ?)
. ,
( 1999: 21). ,
, ,
. ,
, . -

. . -
. -
.
, das Selbst (-
). -
,
,
, , -
. ,
,
( 2003: 10).
: , -
,
, (Selbst). []
, -
, ,
, . []
,
( 1977: 189190).
-
, ,
.
, , .
,
-
( 1977: 168). ,
.
, ,
.
. -
.
? , , -
.
, ,
116 / , , / XVII / 61
...
.
.
.
, .
,
. .

; ,
, , ,
. ,
, , , ,
, , ,
( 1999: 5859).
: , -
-
,
-
, -
, .

-
. ,
, . -
, . .
, .
, ,
: ?
: , : . .
! [...] , !
! , .
? ,
? ( 1999: 37)
, ,
. , ,
, . ,
, .
: , ,
? ?
? , -
, , , ? ( 1999: 38)

,
, .
, , -
, .
,
. , ,
,
, , .
, ,
, , ,
, , .
, . , :
!
( 1999: 51)
( )
( ).
.
,
. ,
, ,
,

.
,
,
( 1999: 56).

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

. ,
.
,
. , ,
, -
.

.
118 / , , / XVII / 61
...
, -
. ,
-, -
. , -
,
, .
. -
, -
, , . -
, . -
,
.
,
, ,
, , . -
, -
, , ,
, , ( 1999: 90). -

:
, .
, .
. ,
, ,
[] ,
( 1999: 92).

-
,
, -
.
,
. -
, .
[], ,
.
.

,
.
, -
.
,
. , , -

-
, :
. . , .
. ( 1999: 101).
,
, -
, . ,

. ,
. ,
, , .
,
( ). , .
, , ,
(
, , ). , ,
, , ,
. ,
( 1999: 103).
,
:
,
. , [] -
, [] .
.
, ,
.
. ,
. , ,
( 1999: 125).
, , ,
. , ,
, . ,
.
,
,
, ,
.
, ,
, ,
.
-
.
120 / , , / XVII / 61
...
.
. -
-
. ,
. ,

:
, ,
. : -

. , ,
( 1999: 137).

( 1995: 24).
,
. -
. ,
, , , -
.
, .
. -
, ,
.
. , , -
, (
1977: 224).
...,

, .
,
( , ), -
, (
2014: 151).
,
.
,
. ,
,
. , -
, ,
.

das Selbst ( ).

,
.
,
. , [] . -
. ,
. , . ,
. ,
( 1999: 162).
, ,
, -
, .

:
, -
.
,
, , . -
, , .
, .
, ,
. ,
, ,
.
, .
, ,
( 1999: 177178).

,
, -,
, , , -

, , ,
-
,
, , -
,
, .
, , .
, . ,
, ,
, .
, -
,
,
.
122 / , , / XVII / 61
...
[] -
,
;
, , (
, ).
, ,
( )
. -
, , ,
( 1977: 106).
,
, , .
, , -
.
, ! .
, . ,
.
, ( 1999: 179).
.
. ,
,
, ,
, ( 1999: 179).
, -
, ,
, , ,
, .

, , , , -
, , , .
, ,
. , ( 1999:
90). , , -

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

. -
.
.

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

.
, .
, -
, -
.
-
. , , , -
. ,
, -
. , ,
.
. -
,
. . -
, ,
.
. -
-
. , ,
.
, .
,
.
,
, . -
,
.
, -
124 / , , / XVII / 61
...
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
. -
, .

, , ,
, -
.
, ,
.

, ,
,
.

1999: . , : , :
Verzalpress.

2013: . ,
, : , 13, 1.
Baumann 1997: G. Baumann, Hermann Hesses Demian im Lichte der Psychologie
C.G. Jungs, <www.gss.ucsb.edu&projects/hesse/papers/baumann/demian2.pdf>.
10.12.2016.
Vukovi 1962: R.Vukovi, Mitska sinteza, u: Savremenik, godina 8, knjiga 15, broj
3, 269272.
Vukovi 1976: R.Vukovi, Smisao lutanja Heseovih junaka, u: Problemi, pisci i dela
2, Sarajevo: Veselin Maslea, 141165.
1976: . , . , :
- .
1977: . . , , : .
Jung 1987: C.G. Jung, ovjek i njegovi simboli, u: M. L.V. Franz, J.L. Henderson, J.
Jacobi, A. Jaffe (urednici), Zagreb: Mladost.
1995: . . , , : .
2005: . . , . .
, , , : .

, , 2007: . . , . , , :
.
2014: . , , :
, 190, 493, 1/1.
1993: . , , , : .
Hesse 1974: H. Hesse, Fritz Bttiger, Berlin: Verlag der Nation.
Jasmina Nektarijevi / AUSSICHTEN DER UNTERSUCHUNG DES ROMANS

DEMIAN VON HERMANN HESSE IN ANBETRACHT JUNGS INDIVIDUATION
Zusammenfassung / Das Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, die Aktualitt des kreativen Opus
von Hesse, hier konkret seines Romans Demian, im Lichte der Theorien von C.G.
Jung, aber auch der geschichtlichen Erfahrung zu zeigen. Die Verfasserin dieses Bei-
trags macht den Versuch, das Werk sowohl deskriptiv als auch analytisch als zeitlosen
Diskurs darzustellen, obwohl es im Grunde autobiografisch und zutiefst persnlich
ist. In diesem Werk wirft Hesse vor allem methaphysiche und psychologische Fragen
auf. Zu den Problemen, mit welchen Hesse von seiner Jugend an rang, zhlen Reif-
eprozesse, Selbstbehauptung, Erlangung eines inneren Gleichgewichts, Anstreben
der Harmonie zwischen Geist und Krper, Denken und Handeln, Individium und
Umgebung. Andererseits dachte Hesse auch ber die Antimonie zwischen Tradition
und Wandel, Gut und Bse nach. Indem man auf die verschiedensten Hrden auf
dem Wege des Idividuationsprozesses aufstt und dieselben dabei berspringt, sol-
lte man zum eigenen Ich kommen. Bei diesem Prozess der Selbstfindung stt man
blicherweise auf Fhrer. Aber erst durch das Unabghngigwerden von den Fhrern
und sich auf eigenes Selbstbewusstsein verlassend knnte man sagen, dass der Prozess
der Ich-Findung beendet ist. Hesse hat beinahe all jene von jeder neuen Generation
stellenden Fragen artikuliert. In einigen Domnen kann man mit gewisser Sicher-
heit sagen, dass er in seiner psychologischen und philosophischen Abhandlungen
prophetisch klang, sogar den Zweiten Weltkrieg voraussagend.
Schlsselwrter: C. G. Jung, Demian, Identittsproblem, Schatten, Individuation,

Urbild, Wandlung, das Selbst
: 5. 2016.
2016.
126 / , , / XVII / 61
821.111(417.71)-14.09
82.09

. 1

.
,
, ,
.
.

. ,

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

III -
, -
(19001946) .
,
( 2003: 88) , , -
.
, re soldato,
, : -
?. ,
, -

.

,
1 stefan@capsred.com
2
, . -
.
.
(.), , -
, . -
,
. -
,
- .
, /
,
.
,
.
-

. ,
,
( 2008: 363). , -
:
( 2008: 30).

. ,
,

.
, -
, -
. de facto
, ( ) .

. -
,
, -
,
. ,
-
,
-
. ,
,
. -
.
. ,
,
, -
128 / , , / XVII / 61

,

( 1997: 112). -
-
, -

.
.
.
,
. ,

-, .
,
, ,

. ,
,
.
,
3.961 ,
. -
,

. -
,
.

, ,
. , , -

. , ,

.
,
( 2008: 363).
-
.
-
.
-

.
, -
.
.

. -
,
, -
. [Ian
McEwan] [The Comfort of Strangers]
-
.
, -
.
,
, ,
,
,
. -
.
, -
,
; ,
( 2004: 458).3 -
,
, . -
, , -
, ( 2006: 171).

, -
,
.
,
. -
, -
,
. [The Road]
[Cormac McCarthy] ,
.
, ,
- ,

. ,

:
3 .
130 / , , / XVII / 61

,

,
, (2013: 9).4

. ,
, -
:
,

,
( ) (
, ):5
(1977: 67).
, ,

. ,

. -
, .
, -
,
.
-
. ,
.
( 2000: 116).
, verbatim .
-
,
. -

.

, -

4 .
5 ,
, .
.
. ,

.
, -
.
, -
.

.
, ,

(1978: 41).
,

,
.
, -
.
-
, :
[...] [...]
(2003: 97). -
, , -
-
. , -
, , ,
.

. -
, ,
.
[Two
Lorries], , ,
, .
-
;
; -
,
.
,
,
, .
,
. -
,
132 / , , / XVII / 61

, :
,
,
(1978: 42).

.
-
.
, -
.
,
: , .
,

. [Louis MacNeice]
-
.
, :

,
.
, .
/
( 2011).

.
1966.
.
2003. -
: .

[Wicklow hills].
[Four Courts] ,
1922.
.
, [Patrick Kavanagh],

[Luke Kelly], .
, .
, ,
, :
...
...
( 2003).
.

:

.
, :
,
( 2008).
, -
: ,
.
.
,
,
,
. -
, , . -

, .
, .

,
. ,
, -
, . ,
-
.

-
, .
,
-
, .
,
, ,

( ), -
-
. ,
,
. -
, ,
.
134 / , , / XVII / 61

,
. -

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

.
-
.
,
-
.

2000: M. Bal, Prostor. Naratologija: teorija prie i pripovedanja, Prevela sa
holandskog Rastislava Mirkovi, Beograd: Narodna knjiga-Alfa, 109118.
1998: E. Boland, The Lost Land. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/
poem/180325>. 04.08.2016.
2008: A. Bokovi, Doleelova teorija fikcije. U: L. Doleel,
Heterokosmika: fikcija i mogui svetovi, Beograd: Slubeni glasnik, 353369.
2003: U. Eko, est etnji kroz narativnu umu, Preveo sa engleskog Lazar Macura,
Beograd: Narodna knjiga-Alfa.
2004: U. Eko, Postile uz Ime Rue (1983), Prevela sa italijanskog Milana Pileti,
Beograd: Novosti, 449476.
2013: . , , : .
2003: P. Kavanagh, On Raglan Road. <http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/
on-raglan-road/>. 04.06.2016.
1978: D. Lewis,Truth in Fiction, Champaign, IL: American Philosophical
Quarterly, 15.1, 3746.
2011: L. MacNeice, Dublin. <http://www.irishcultureandcustoms.com/
Poetry/LouisMacNeice.html>. 04.06.2016.
1997: T. Pavel, Fikcionalni svetovi i ekonomija imaginarnog, Preveo sa engleskog
Ivan Radosavljevi, Beograd: Rei, 30,111115.
2006: Z. Paunovi, Istorija, fikcija, mit: eseji o anglo-amerikoj knjievnosti,
Beograd: Geopoetika.
.
1977: . , :
, : .
1975: S. Heaney, North, London:Faber and Faber.
Stefan Pajovi / THE PROBLEM OF PRESUPPOSED SPACE IN THE POSSIBLE

LITERARY WORLDS THEORY
Summary / The paper examines the ontological and epistemological nature of the
fictional worlds of literature. The focus is not on the delineated part of space described
in the literary work, but rather on those parts of the literary world which are not
explicitly mentioned and the degree to which they are presupposed in relation to the
real world. The paper also focuses on the spatial milestones and the reasons behind
their existence or non-existence. The theoretical framework includes primarily but
not exclusively the writings of Lubomir Doleel and Umberto Eco, who are the most
prominent writers of the Possible worlds theory. Having taken their viewpoints into
consideration, we explore the degree to which the unwritten parts of space corre-
spond to the real world order. We conduct our research using examples from Irish
poetry, or more precisely, four poems by Louis MacNeice, Seamus Heaney, Patrick
Kavanagh, and Eavan Boland and their image of the city of Dublin, or more precisely,
its literary chronotope. In the conclusion, we determine the nature of these literary
worlds and the (in)ability of their existence, including the various ways in which we
as readers can perceive them.
Keywords: fiction, space, ontology, toponym, possible worlds, poetry, Dublin, chrono-
tope
: 14. 2016.
2016.
136 / , , / XVII / 61
821.133.1(493)-2.09 M .

. 1

-

.
, , ,
,
. ,
,
.
, , ,
.
: . , , , , , , ,
,
, .
( , , : Vega media, 2004.)
1.
,
,
, , -
, -,
-, , ,
. -
,
,
, .
, ,
, , , , .
,
, , , -
1 eca.veska@gmail.com
.
, , ,
. -
.
, -
, ,, ,
,
(. 1971: 5455).
. -
, , ,
,
, -
, -
.
, ,
, -

,
-
.
,
,
. -
,
,
.
; -
( 2008: 78).
2. , ,

, -
, . ,
, , , -

. ,
, (
1996: 1627).
. -
. , ,
, ,
,

-
138 / , , / XVII / 61

( 1996: 172).
.

. -
-

.
, -
.
,
-
. , ,
:
-
, , ,
. ,
, . .
; ,
( 1996: 90).
-
, -
.
- --
: ,,[...]
[...] (Meterlink 2004: 156)
,
. ,, , -
, -
, , , (Gerbran,
evalije 2004: 510). , -
.
, ,
, -
, ,
, ( 2000:
115).

(. Gerbran, evalije 2004: 511).
-
. -
, ,
, .
, , -
, ,
.
,
(
2008: 82). ,
, . -
, ,
. ,,

.
, , -
. , , ,
, .
- ,
(Gerbran, evalije 2004: 510).

, , ,
e
.

, , . . ,
, ,
. -
, : ,
(Surio 1981: 6465).
,
, ,

,
, -
.
,
: (Surio 1981: 65). -
,
-
.
,,
,
:
: . .
; .
.
: ?
: , ... (eterlink 2004: 24)
140 / , , / XVII / 61

-
. , ,
,
, ,
. , -
, , ,
, ,,
, .
/ ,, ,,-
(. Jansen 1981: 166170).
3.

,

-
(. inestje 1981: 147).
:
) :

, -

.
) :

. ,
.
,, , -
[...] (inestje 1981: 148).
, , -
, -
, -
,
.
, ,
.

( 1996: 139).
.
, -
,
,
. , ,

,
( 1996: 190).
-
, ,,[...]
( 2008: 83).

,
(. Jansen 1981: 174).
,
, ,
, , -
.
: ( ) !... !
: !
: !
: ! (Meterlink 2004: 79)
,
, -
, , . , -
,
,
(Jansen 1981: 174).
: ; -
, , ,
- .
: .
: , ; [...]
, : -
. [...]
, , , :
.
: [...] (Meterlink
2004: 56).
,
,

/
.
142 / , , / XVII / 61

,
,
( -
) -
, . -
, -
, -
. , ,,
.
. -
, .
, ,
.
-
,
, ,
-
/.
,
, , -
: ,
, , ,
, ( 2007: 65).

. ,
. ,, ,
( 2007: 67). , ,
,
, ,
. .
,
,
,
. -
, ,
, , ,
-
( 2007: 67):
: ( ) ! !... ! ,
! ! ?
: , , , , .
: ?
: .
(Meterlink 2004: 132).
.

, .

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

. -
-
. , -
.

, :
: . . ?
: , ?
: ?...
: ...
: () ?...?...
: ...
: ?
: (eterlink 2004: 2122).
-
, , .
-
(. Goldman 1981: 73). ,
-
, -

. , ,
.
,
, -
:
144 / , , / XVII / 61

: , , . , !
: .
: !... , , ...
: ; ... (eterlink 2004: 27)
...
: ( ) ! , !
?
: , .
,
. (eterlink 2004: 130)

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

.
: ( ),
, , ( 2008: 78).

-
,
. ,,

. ,
,
( 2012: 88).
,
. ,
,,
. , -
,
,
(. Stajan 1981: 240).
, ,
, , -
, , , .
, -
.
. -
,
, ,
,
.
, . -
-
.
, -
, ,
, . ,,-
,, ,
( 2001: 25). -

; ,
, . ,
, .

(. 1996: 1793). ,
-,

, .
, -
, ,, -
, , .
-
( 2001: 133).
,
,
:
,

-
.

,
. , ,
,
a ( 2001: 179).
, -
, -

. ,,
, , -
146 / , , / XVII / 61

, , , -
( 2001: 181182). ,

,
,
,, , , , ,,
;
. [...]
[...]
drama statique ( )
( 2008: 78).
4.
, -
, -
. ,
: ,
,
; , -
(Jansen 1981: 156
157). ,
.
-
.
, -
, ,
, -
.
, . -
, ,,-
, (Jansen 1981: 160161).

, . ,
-
.

. , ,

.
-
, .
,
,
.
- ,
:
: ?
: ,
.
: ?
?
: , ,
... (Meterlink 2004: 30).
, ,
-
.

. -
, -
, , -
. , ,
,
(. Luka 1978: 389433). ,
,
.
,
,
. ,,
,
.

, /
.

, -
, .
,
.
, :
: .
: ?
: , , , .
: ? .
: ( , ) , ,
... (Meterlink 2004: 184)
, ,
(. Jansen 1981: 166). -
148 / , , / XVII / 61

, ,
. , ,
: , , ,
. ,

, (Jansen 1981: 167). -
, -
. ,
.
, .
: , , ... -
. , -
,
. ,
, , -
. ,
: , , .
-
, .
, (vers
libre) (. Luka 1978: 393400).
.
. , , -
, -
. ,

-
. ,

.
, ,
. ,
. ,
,
(. Luka 1978: 393400):
: ?
: , .
: ?
: .
: ?
: ...
() (Meterlink 2004: 115)
,
-
.
, ,
,
, .
- ,
,

(Elis-Fermor 1981: 296). ,

, ,
, ,
,
:
: ... , ,
. ,
, ,
... (Meterlink 2004: 45)
...
: , , ;
...
: ...
: , ... . (Meterlink 2004: 56)

, , ,
, ,
: ,
. , -
,
,
. . -
-
, . ,
, .
, . , -
, ; ,
, , -
, . , -
, ,
, ,
(. 2007: 3739). -

. ,

:
150 / , , / XVII / 61

: . . .
( , ) ,
? ...
(Meterlink 2004: 191)
5.
-
.
, ,
, , -

.
,
-
.

, . -
-

.
, -
,
.
,

.

, . -
,
,
. -

, , -
.

-
, .

Meterlink 2004: M. Meterlink, Plava ptica, Novi Sad: Vega media.
.

Gerbran, evalije 2004: A. Gerbran, . evalije, Renik simbola mitovi, snovi, obiaji,
postupci, oblici, likovi, boje brojevi, Novi Sad: Stylos.
Goldman 1981: L. Goldman, Genetikostrukturalistika metoda u istoriji knjievnosti
u: Novim putevima francuske kritike, D. urikovi (ured.), Sarajevo: Svjetlost.
1971: . , ?, :
;
Elis-Fermor 1981: U. Elis-Fermor, Jedan tehniki problem: Otkrivanje neizreenih
misli u drami u: Moderna teorija drame, M. Mioinovi (ured.), Beograd: Nolit.
inestje 1981: P. inestje, Dramska geometrija u: Moderna teorija drame, M.
Mioinovi (ured.), Beograd: Nolit.
Jansen 1981: S. Jansen, ta je dramska situacija? u: Moderna teorija drame, M.
1996: . , , . (.), :
, .
2001: . , , :
.
Luka 1978: . Luka, Istorija razvoja moderne drame, Beograd: Nolit.
2007: . , , : .
2007: . , :
, . a (.), . (.), : Libro
Company.
Prop 2012: V. Prop, Morfologija bajke, Beograd: Biblioteka XX veka.
2008: . , , : .
Stajan 1981: D. L. Stajan, Komunikacija u drami u: Moderna teorija drame, M.
Surio 1981: E. Surio, Dramaturke funkcije u: Moderna teorija drame, M. Mioinovi
(red.), Beograd: Nolit.
2000: . , XX , : .
1996: . . , : . ,
, : , .
1996: . . , : . ,
, : , .
Jelena . Veskovi/ Structural Value of Drama The Blue Bird by Maurice Maeterlinck
Summary/ In this paper, we try to show in what way Maurice Maeterlincks play The
Blue Bird is constituted. The research will present how symbols and archetypes are set
up within the dramatic action, and we will link their magical, mythical, psychological
and social motivation of structuring drama as a whole, whilst attempting to define
the genre of The Blue Bird. On the other hand, starting from certain assumptions
of dramatic structuring in the theoretical sense, we will show how these assump-
tions are embodied in the elements of Maeterlincks play.Taking into consideration
Maeterlincks philosophy that certainly includes the question of existence, we will
view the motivation of the play which opens and ends with the mentioned question.
Key words: M. Maeterlinck, bird, dreams, fairy tale, myth, archetype, drama, hunger
: 15. 2016.
2016.
152 / , , / XVII / 61
821.133.1-14.09 .
82-14.09

. 1

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

-
, -

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

a
. .
,
[]
, .
( 1999: 157) , , ,
, ( )
1 nego.pesenka@gmail.com
.
, , ( ) .
,
.
,
. , ,
, ( -
, , )
( ), , , , ,
, ,

, , -
.
:
, , -
, , ,

, . ,
,
. ,
. -
, ;
. ,
/ ,
, , , -
. ,
, , , .

, .
-
. :
(...);
, ;
. ( 2015:
116) .
, , . (
) . -
, ,
, .
-
, Santa
Maria, , , locus amoenus-, -

, , ,
. . -
. , , -
; , ; .
154 / , , / XVII / 61
,
;
, , . ,
. .
. , ,
, , , .
: -
? (...) ,
. ,

() ,
.

,
,
-
. ( 1999: 158 -159)

--
---. , -
. :
, --
; -
, ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
. ,
, -
-. , , ,
, ,
.
; .
, , .
.
, -
, ,
:
. , -
. ( 2010: 10)
,
, .
,
- , -
. , -
.
.
.
, ,
.
, , -
-
. ,
,
. -
,
, ,
, ,
, , -.
-
, , . (
, ), -
- ,
-
.
, . ( 1970:
102), (-
1976: 25), -
( 1972: 14).
-
-,
, . -
(. 1972: 13-15) ,
(. 1970: 137).
, ,
, ,
?
differentia specifica , ,
, .
, ,
; , (
) .
-
,
, .
:
, ,
(arbor, .) , arbor ,
156 / , , / XVII / 61
,
, -
. [] (signe)
, (concept) (image acoustique)
(signifi), (signifiant). ( 1977: 135)
, ,
. -
.
, , . , ,
.
. , .
, -
,
. (resp. ),
(resp. ). ,
, . ( 2004: 15) , -
,
, , ,

( , , , -
).
,
. ( 2004: 18)
-

,
. -
.
-
. ,
, .
, , ,
.
(interpretant)
-
. (, 2009: 256)
, (, ..)
. (: 256)
-
, -
, aj ,
-
. , ,
, .
,
, ,
.
, , , -
, . ( 2015: 130)
, ,
.
, , -
, .
, , -
, ( liter ego)
-
. -
.
. , . :
: ,
, () . -
, ,
( ); , :
. , , -
.
. [] ,
, , .
( 1985: 78, 79)
-
, .
Jai lu tous les livres...

,
, -
. ( 1960: 253)
, , ,
, . -
, . ,
, .
-2 , ,
. , -
, .
,
2 ,
: , -
-, , , 2009.
158 / , , / XVII / 61
,
. ( 1983: 406)
, ,
, .
,
. (. 1983: 406) -
, -
, , .
, ; ,
. ,
. ( 1960: 255) .
, -
. ,
.
,
.
, ,
, -
, . , ,
, .
, , -
, , .
,
().
.
( , )
,
, , .

. ( 1995: 89-90) -

. ,
, , . -

. : / -
. ( 2011: 85)
,
.
. ,
, . -
. -
.
, ,
. -
.
,
.
.
: ! / -
/ , / .
( 2011: 66)
-
.
.
[] ;
-
( , ),
: , , . ,
,
, . ,
; ; ,
. ( 1979: 38)
-
. , , -
. ,
.
, . -
, ,
. .
(...) , (...) ( 2009: 252 253)
, ,
.
,
;

.
,
,

;
160 / , , / XVII / 61
,
,

. ( 2011: 29)
, , , ,
-
.

. -
. , , , , ,
, .
. ,
,
, .
, , ,
- . , ,
, , .
, .
3
, -
,
/ . .

, .
, -
, . -
, ,

.
, , ,
, , -. -
.
.
[]
, -
. ( 1976: 180) -

(
). , - -
. je
, - .

. ,
3 , , 1893. ,
. (. 2009: 252, 497)
.
,
, , .
, ,
, , -
. , ,
.
? 2
. . .
.

( )
. , -
, .
.
. , , .
, ,
! ( 2011: 14)
, ,
. -
.

. [] ,
, ,
,
. ( 1993: 342, 343)
.
, , . ,
. ,
. , -
. . .
. , -
, , .
,
.
4. ,
, .
4 ,
,
,
162 / , , / XVII / 61
,
, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
,
, :
. ( 1960: 262)
, -
, , . , -
a,
, -
. ( 1960: 266) .
:
?, -

, , , . .
, -
, , . : ,
,
,
, , , :
! ( 1979: 63)
...
, ,
a
.

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

, ...
. ,
.

1995: . . , , : , , :
.
1960: . , , : .
2015: . , , : .
, 2009: . , . . ,
XX , -, : .
1979: . , , : .
1983: . : ,
, : : . 29,
. 57, . 5/6 (1983), . 397-415.
1977: . , , , :
.
1985: . , , , : , ,
.
1970: , , :
, , , :
.
1970: . , , :
, , , :
.
2004: . . , : : , ,
, , : .
2011: . , , ,
, : .
2010: . , , : .
2009: . , , :
.
1993: . , ,: , :
.
1976: . ,
, : .
1972: . . , . , :
.
1999: . , , : .
164 / , , / XVII / 61
,
ore urevi / ON POETRY AND LANGUAGE, WHILE MALLARM MAKES A

TOAST
Summary / This paper examines the problem of emptiness inside the language sign
and poetry. Establishing the relationship between the language and poetry, we con-
clude that these two notions depend on each other. The language sign is divided into
signifi and signifiant, and we are following the line of division of these two elements
from De Saussure to post-structuralism, while the other part of this work focuses on
the problem of poetry, which is understood as an omnipresent being. A poem is the
confirmation that this being exists.
We also scrutinize Stphane Mallarms poetics in established context. We will show
how Mallarm was playing with the language sign, poetry and poems, and the given
problem is ilustrated through his poem A Toast .
Keywords: Mallarm, poetry, emptiness, word-being, language, sign
: 4. 2016.
2016.
821.111-31.09
Amis M.
821.111(73)-31.09
Rushdie S.
316.356.2:159.96

Ivana S. Jovanovi1
Visoka poslovna kola strukovnih studija Leskovac
NO HAPPILY EVER AFTER FAMILY IN MARTIN

AMISS LONDON FIELDS AND SALMAN RUSHDIES
THE GROUND BENEATH HER FEET
Modern society is said to be one of innovations, new and rising ideas, fast occurring events and
enjoyable lives. It is a society of multitudes occurring in all forms and sizes. We applaud our-
selves for all the ground-breaking inventions that had brought about the welfare of humanity.
Still, we seem to disregard the shortcomings that fast cars, fast food and fast lives bring about.
One of those shortcomings is the disillusion of families and family lives. Families of today seem
perfect on the outside but if one takes a closer look, one sees the corruption, degeneracy and
deadening where love, support and outmost trust ought to be. Contemporary authors (in the
light of the role and function literature has always had and still has) try to draw attention to
the pervading distortion of the societys core cell that family is. This paper examines the works
of Martin Amis and Salman Rushdie (London Fields and The Ground Beneath Her Feet) and of-
fers insight into the state of our families and society. Their criticism and condemnation of
what families have become today oblige us to question the values, principles and beliefs upon
which we construct our lives. An in-depth analysis of the characters and the relationships they
form leads to the conclusion that without an immediate, drastic change in our way of being,
the society of today is doomed.
Keywords: M. Amis, S. Rushdie, family, downfall, society, abuse, isolation, separation.
1. INTRODUCTION
The society of today is a society of consumerism, of watching TV, ad-

vertising, pop music, media-saturation. It is shaped by pluralism, religious
freedom, democracy, mobility, access to everything and anything. This so-
ciety does not treat the family issue so well. But what is a family? How do
we define it? The definition of family varies according to different points
of view. We can talk of traditional and modern (or postmodern) families. A
traditional family can be defined as a patriarchal institution in which the
structure consists of a male father, a female mother, and children. In this
structure woman is submissive to man and children to parents. A modern
family on the other hand is any structure except that of a traditional fam-
ily. Shorter (1975) was among the first to describe the postmodern family
1 ivanajovanovic87@yahoo.com
Ivana S. Jovanovi
that was emerging in the 20th century. Its characteristics include adoles-
cent indifference to the familys identity, instability in the lives of couples,
accompanied by rapidly increasing divorce rates and destruction of the
nest notion of nuclear family life with the liberation of women (Shorter
1977). According to Walker and Crocker (1988), a family system can be
defined as any social unit with which an individual is intimately involved
and which is governed by family rules. If we consider family to be a vi-
tal social institution2 providing a network of relations which support and
maintain individual identity and if we then look at the divorce figures, data
on family break-ups, domestic violence and an ever growing number of
single parents, we come to a conclusion that modern family is disintegrat-
ing and dying. Our society is one made up of individuals with no clearly
defined sense of the self,3 so what has led to such a saturated family? The
reasons are numerous and various, but one can say that it is post-industri-
alization that has led to the abandonment of traditional family forms and
individualisation of social life. Lack of faith in the previously established
order, increasing individualisation and democratisation, the influence of
electronic media all these have led to formation of new models of family
kinship (gay and lesbian families, etc.). According to Judith Stacey (1990),
these brave, new families are pioneers of the postmodern family condition,
struggling to embrace diversity and flux and to generate more egalitarian
relationships. These new family forms can be seen as a form of rebellion
against the traditional, old models of family life in which a father, a mother
and a child are placed in the roles of the dominant (husband), the subordi-
nate (wife) and the most subordinate (child).
Still, numerous intimacy theorists recognize and discuss various
disadvantages of a detraditionalised family life. The growing need for the
respect of individuality, raised expectations and the increased significance
of intimacy have led to disillusionment and a sense of insecurity. Equal-
ity of genders has become a reality, but at the same time it has become a
new type of fashion, element of mass culture bringing about power strug-
gles in which we have winners and losers, cheaters and the cheated (not
equal partners). The appetites of both sexes have grown in size and one
can argue about who is where in a contemporary family. This paper nei-
ther takes the side of traditional forms of family life nor the side of new,
modern families as it turns out that both are faulty and corrupted. It tries
to show that in a society eroded by mass, consumer culture any kind of
2 David Popenoe defines social institution as a way of organizing human behavior in such a way that
society needs are best served. Social institution consists essentially of normative, accepted codes
that indicate how people should act in a certain area of life.
3 In his work Disturbing the nest: family change and decline in modern societies, David Popenoe argues
that although families are changing in form and shape, they are not disintegrating and are here to
stay. Popenoe analyzes families in a highly developed country (Sweden) and claims that despite the
general belief that Sweden has the most advanced family system, its family is in decline. Sweden
is also known for an extremely high family disillusion rate (statistics show a high percentage of
single-parent, female-headed families, low marriage rate and an oldest average age at first marriage
in comparison to other western countries.)
168 / , , / XVII / 61
NO HAPPILY EVER AFTER...
family is doomed as long as the world is what it is today. Literature is the

realitys mirror and due to its undeniable role in the construction of mens
consciousness, as well as its use in promoting, promulgating certain val-
ues, ideas and beliefs we must turn to it in order to understand the state
in which contemporary family is.
2. FAMILY IN AMISS LONDON FIELDS
Martin Amiss London Fields appeared in 1989, at a time when the

author was at the height of his literary achievements. Following Money: A
Suicide Note in 1984, a novel considered by multiple critics to have been
and perhaps still is his best and most influential work, London Fields forms
part of an informal trilogy that also includes the read and appreciated The
Information (1995). It is a perfect example of themes with which Amis
dealt, of his techniques and influences. A prolific author, unique and direct
in his criticism of modern, mass society and its values, Martin Amis dealt
with numerous topics: commerce, shame, exhibitionism, gender, class,
violence, victimization, manipulation, eroticism, sexual deviation, drug
abuse, male-female relations or more importantly male-female conflict.
Amis believed in, and was thus in his writing led by, the idea of a writers
preoccupation with the decline of social values and his obligation to point
out and criticize the lack of direction and meaning of modern life. Thus,
his novels are a reaction to a corrupted, amoral, modern civilization and
as such should be read carefully by those who are part of the world of lost
values and prevailing technology, violence and inhumanity. London Fields
is mostly described as a state-of-the-nation novel, a murder mystery, an
anti-love story and a satire a post-modernist apocalyptic take on the mil-
lenniums finale (Childs 2005: 46). It can be analysed from various aspects
but what this paper will focus on is the family theme. It will explore its
looks and deal with questions of how, why and when it changed. By explor-
ing the issue of families we touch upon other themes, all important, burn-
ing and terrifying.
Families in London Fields are everything but families. If we consider
a family to be a system in which all members are closely connected and in-
volved in provision of safety, sense of belonging and emotional closeness of
all members, then we can say that the Talent family and the Clinch family
are not families but merely a group of people who are related/unrelated to
each other. Keith Talent, a symbol of the horrifying reduced times (Greg-
son 2006: 43) is a small-time crook, a low-life, compulsive womanizer, a
bloke interested in cheating people, pornography, playing darts, a very
bad guy.the worst guy (Amis 1991: 5). Although interested in women,
he is not interested in two most important women in his life, the ones who
constitute his family. Keith is entirely indifferent to his wife Kath, unlov-
ing, uncaring and unfatherly towards his child (a girl named Kim), and like
Ivana S. Jovanovi
all the other relationships in this novel, these are broken, drained of love,
affection, intimacy, happiness and genuine care. In a gloomy London of
Thatcherite England, a bleak place of growing poverty, human relation-
ships are reduced to a diagram; they are radically simplified and Keith-
Kath relationship is no exception. Keiths marriage to Kath is a clear paro-
dy. When asked about his family, Keith is quick in proclaiming it a worth-
less, meaningless thing in his life:
Youre married.
Not really. Put it like this. My wife thinks she is. But me Im not so sure.
Children?
No. Well, yeah, I got a little girl. Shes not even one yet.
(Amis 1991: 85)
Not interested in building a meaningful relationship with his wife,

Keith is yet interested in abusing her and their child (directly and indi-
rectly). He is aggressive, both verbally and physically, he does not control
his emotions and is quite capable of putting his wife in a hospital, which
he did on several occasions (some occurred even during her pregnancy).
Keith neither loves his wife nor their baby, as the wife is merely an object,
an entity to be used when his masculine needs arise, and the baby is ob-
viously a slippage babies, infants, little human beings: theyre a skirt
thing. The only blokes who love babies are transvestites, hormone-cases,
sex-maniacs (Amis 1991: 54). The trouble with the baby was that it was
a girl (Amis 1991: 7). He tries to name the baby after his dog Clive, evades
his duties and responsibilities as a father (he is reluctant to even feed the
baby), does not provide any food or clothing, does not create a safe envi-
ronment for the child.
Immersed in the world of pornography, TV and darts, Keith is in-
capable of showing respect or concern for any woman in his life, and the
list of his women is not a short one. Peggy Obbs (from whom he con-
tracts a sexually transmitted disease, urethritis), Nicola Six (the one using
him, and providing him with pornographic materials), Trish Shirt (the one
with a certain quality that of being nearest to Keith), Debbee Kensit (the
special one rounded, pouting, his lover since the age of 12), Analiese
Furnish (the one that slept with him because she confused him with Rick
Purist) all of them formed part of Keiths life and were still nowhere near
of being truly appreciated, loved or cared about by Keith.
Constantly drunk, Keith cannot stop abusing Kath and she, tired,
victimized, ignored, in return abuses Kim:
When he met her five years ago she looked like the girl in the advert for
double cream: the eyebrows rurally pale, the hair and its innocent russet.
Now she looked to Keith like a figure glimpsed at dawn through a rainy
windscreen.
170 / , , / XVII / 61
Look at the state of you, said Keith, and watched her shoulders tighten
over the sink. She paused in her work. Im tired, she said to the window.
Im so tired (Amis 1991:71).
Locked in the subjugated position, reduced to a role of Keiths serv-

ant, a sexual object, a manipulative puppet, Kath is but a walking shadow
as she, like Keith, has a failure to thrive (Amis 1991: 196). From the very
beginning, the relationship between Keith and Kath is an unhealthy one.
It is based on mere lust with no genuine closeness. Disregard, abuse and
lack of love lead Kath to inflict pain on her child and ultimately leave Kim
in Samsons care as she had resisted the force of her own powerlessness,
this time (Amis 1991: 292).
A contemporary family therefore gives birth to absent fathers, si-
lent, monstrous mothers and abused children. Relationship of Keith and
Kath is that of exploitation it is loveless, meaningless, and stormy, and
there is no hope that this odd couple will ever form a home, a place where
feelings of love, genuine care and unity will prevail. Although more edu-
cated and more intelligent than Keith, Kath will, until the very end, re-
main a victim and she will willingly keep on yielding to her husbands
tyranny and dominance. A man with no capacity to love and a shadow of
a woman will remain locked in this joke of a family, each falling apart in
their own way, dragging to the bottom the person whose life has not even
started their child Kim.
Another London Fields family is that of Guy Clinch. Guy, Hope and
their son Marmaduke make up quite a unique but nevertheless dysfunc-
tional family. They live in a beautiful, spacious house on Lansdowne Cres-
cent in West London, but nothing in their relationship and their family is
beautiful. The first thing we learn about members of the Clinch family is
that they are handsome, in good health and with lots of money on their
bank accounts. What we also learn is that there was no life in their mas-
terpiece house in West London. We immediately find out that the happiest
time of Guys fifteen years long marriage had come during Hopes preg-
nancy when she had taken her fifty percent cut in IQ with good grace,
and for a while Guy had found himself dealing with an intellectual equal
(Amis 1991: 20). The happiness has passed, and now a highly intelligent
Hope and a rather wealthy Guy were living a life of appearances. As we
read through the novel, we find it hard to understand why these two ut-
terly different individuals came to be together in the first place. It seems
that Hope had married Guy for money:
When they met at Oxford this was sixteen years ago there was something
about Guy that Hope liked. She liked his curly-ended fair hair, his house in
the country, his shyness about his height, his house in Lansdowne Crescent,
his habit of hooding his eyes against a low sun, his title, his partiality to cher-
ries (especially ripe ones), his large private income (Amis 1991: 58).
Ivana S. Jovanovi
As for Guy, we are not certain why he married Hope, as she com-
ments in a conversation with her sister that Guy has never been in love
with her. Perhaps they accidentally came across each other and became a
couple just to escape. But what were they running from? Both Hope and
Guy seem to have come from dysfunctional families, in which they both
felt underloved and unhappy. Hope dislikes her mother and her mother
dislikes Hope. The story of mothers not loving their children and fathers
not involved is once again repeated. The offspring of unhappy families
creates another unhappy family. Guy feels like he has two of everything
except for two lips, two breasts, the walls of intimacy, enfolding arms, en-
folding legs (Amis 1991: 21). Namely, after their child is born, a son called
Marmaduke, a perfect baby yet a monster (as he is proclaimed to be from
the beginning), Hope and Guy drift miles apart and the single thing which
should bring them closer, a child, is actually driving them apart.
A long time after she delivers the baby, Hope spends much of her
time in bed, with or without Marmaduke but without Guy, only calling his
name occasionally not for loves sake but as a COME HERE order. Hope,
turning into a symbol of indignation and coldness, and Guy, losing himself
in his own romanticized version of the world, fall apart. The trips they take
to reconnect are useless, and it seems that this family functions well only
when all of its members are on their own. Marmaduke, a caricature of a
child, is a usurper of his fathers position and can be called anything but
a cute, little, sweet baby. He seems not to miss his parents when they are
away, or if he misses something it is his mothers French kisses and mo-
lesting his father (Marmaduke would poke his fathers eyes, vomit on him
violently, bite him, and make him experience a savage rake of his nails).
The product of a wrongful match, Marmaduke is the abuser, as he abuses
his parents and does not allow them to even try to save their marriage:
.Mummy
Yes, darling?
Mummy? Dont love Daddy.
I wont. I certainly wont.
Good.
.Bye bye, Daddy (Amis 1991: 290).
Even with Marmaduke out of the way, Guy and Hope cant seem
to say anything meaningful to each other as the communication always
breaks down:
What are those pills youre taking? Oh. Yeast.

What?
Yeast.
What about it?
Nothing.
What are you talking about?
Sorry.
Christ (Amis 1991: 96).
172 / , , / XVII / 61
The Clinch family is heading towards a disastrous ending and noth-

ing can stop it. There is no hope for Hope and Guy as their marriage is a
person fatally drowning (Amis 1991: 233). Neither of the partners cares
about the actions of the other. When Guy becomes aware of his wifes in-
fidelity, he is not devastated but happy my wife doesnt love me my
wife has betrayed me how absolutely wonderful (Amis 1991: 180). Hope
takes up Dick for lover, and Guy plunges into a relationship with manipu-
lative Nicola. Neither of these relationships will evolve into a meaningful
one, neither will bring about the birth of true intimacy as all is flesh, de-
sire, manipulation, false pretences. Love was either dying or already dead.
Up until now, Guy and Hopes relationship, to the child and to each other,
had been largely paramedical. After Marmadukes renaissance, it became,
well you wouldnt say paramilitary. Youd say military (Amis 1991:23).
Although Guy is a father who despite everything loves his son, and
Hope a mother that accepts Marmaduke for what he is, their family is bro-
ken. During a visit he pays to Mrs. Broadener, Hopes mother, Guy stresses
how important it is for family members to love each other, care about each
other, protect each other no matter what and stick together. Mrs. Broad-
eners response to this is ITS ALL _______ SHIT! (Amis 1991: 275).
The family prognosis is therefore not good. In the world of lost values, a
world of technology, pornography, lost meaning, lost identity, and lost self,
family cannot be a safe haven. In these conditions, family is not a place
where the core values of the preceding generations and the ancestors are
transmitted and lived (Viser 2005: 5). A modern family is thus a source of
grief, abuse, superficiality. There is no growth, no continuity these dis-
rupted families only produce individuals who are not even individuals but
destructive machines or black holes with no sense of morality, incapable
of intimacy, socially isolated and corrupted.
3. DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY IN THE GROUND

BENEATH HER FEET
To talk of Salman Rushdie and his works is a hard, yet rewarding task.
To read Rushdies works is to read and re-read in search of new themes
that easily reveal themselves to attentive and open-minded readers. Prior to
writing and publishing The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Salman Rushdie wrote
Grimus, Midnights Children, Shame, The Satanic Verses, The Moorss Last Sigh
and other novels and short stories. Some of these novels have been charac-
terized as family novels because of the pervading theme of family (pre-
dominantly Midnights Children, Shame and The Moors Last Sigh). According
to Matt Kimmich, the family theme provides structure for the abovemen-
tioned novels, so they need to be analysed from this point of view. Families
Ivana S. Jovanovi
and parent-child relationships in The Ground Beneath Her Feet will enable
us to understand the characters of the novel, their actions and emotions,
the world Salman Rushdie depicts in this novel and the ultimate message
he tries to convey to the readers. Through numerous dysfunctional families
Salman Rushdie makes us understand the notions of identity, belonging,
complexity of contemporary civilization and its corruption.
All families of The Ground Beneath Her Feet are unhappy families made
up of members who are complex, extremely different, opposing individu-
als. These families are on-and-off, come-and-go; they have no stability, no
firm ground beneath their feet. Let us start discussing this novels families
from the Camas. The Cama family is made up of five members, each unique
and in sharp contrast to other members. There is the head of the family, Sir
Darius Xerxes Cama, tall, ectomorphic, extravagantly moustachioed and
gimlet-eyed (Rushdie 2000: 25), Lady Spenta Cama, a placid individual,
an astigmatic endomorph, heavy-spectacled and heavy-bodied (Rushdie
2000:24), Khusro and Ardaviraf (known to all as Cyrus and Virus) Cyrus,
a child with the genuinely malign ruthlessness of a true hero and Virus,
the slow-witted, sweet-natured child (Rushdie 2000: 25). Finally, there is
the fifth member of the family, the most famous of all Ormus Cama, a sur-
prise baby hidden in his mothers uterus behind his dead twins larger body.
Everything about this family is strange and problematic. The par-
ents, Sir Darius Cama and Lady Spenta Cama, are rather different charac-
ters. Darius Cama is a staunch rationalist, a great metropolitan creation of
the British, barrister-at-law (a false one, as it turns out later in the novel),
a person of noble origins, a sportsman, while Lady Spenta Cama is pre-
ternaturally calm, a soul fully occupied on the spiritual level (Rushdie
2000: 24). The birth of their third son, Ormus and an accident (an inju-
ry Darius Cama unintentionally inflicts upon Virus) bring about a great
change in their attitudes towards life, their behaviour, their treatment of
family life and their children. While there seemed to have been love among
them prior to these events (and although some of that love survived until
Spenta found out that Sir Darius had built his entire professional life on
a falsehood (Rushdie 2000: 132)), Darius and Spenta Cama have drifted
apart into their own, separate, distinct worlds. Sir Darius did not like his
wifes literalist religiosity and had difficulty in repressing his unease when
it came to Spentas saints. Even an event such as the birth of a child does
not bring them together, as we learn that Darius immediately made his
excuses, went so far as to kiss his wife and rushed off, somewhat too eager-
lyto play cricket (Rushdie 2000: 27). Lady Spenta Cama does not seem
to mind this kind of behaviour, as she is entirely immersed in her spiritual
word. Both of them seem to disagree with the actions of the other, but nei-
ther rebels, neither objects, nor shows displeasure or dislike.
With Viruss silence comes the silence of the entire family, especially
of Darius and Spenta. Sir Darius turns into an alcoholic, withdraws from
everyday life and turns to hemp and opium. He gets immersed into the
174 / , , / XVII / 61
fictional world of his imagination in which he envisions to return to the

bosom of his beloved mother. On the other hand, Lady Spenta does noth-
ing to connect with her husband, to help him or save him from the doom
to which he is heading. She remains trapped in deep sadness and in her
mystical world, paying scarce attention only to Virus. The only thing that
seems to matter to Spenta at the time of Dariuss decline is keeping up the
appearances. What prevails in their marital life until Sir Dariuss death is a
tragic silence, and what silence equals in this relationship and this house is
death of love, life, and of true and genuine care for the partner and family.
Neither of them can be said to have been a good parent. Darius Cama
oppressed all his children equally, awaking his sons in the middle of the
night to accuse them of decadence, defeatism, homosexuality and weak-
ness of new generations. Sir Dariuss gradual decline brought about the
true nature of his being, making him a bad father, a bad role model, a fa-
ther who makes his sons wrestle hands with him and then laughs at them.
He turns a deaf ear to all their needs and Lady Spenta is no better. With
the birth of Ormus and simultaneous death of his twin brother, Spenta be-
comes a nervy, unsettled, easily flustered woman who is incapable of loving
her newborn son. She rejects him completely (as if he had been born with
a disease), does not attend to his needs, does not wash him or feed him:
To Ormus she continued to be distant, never fond. Events had neutered her
maternal feelings towards him. Raised by servants, he was left to find love
where he could (Rushdie 2000: 40).
While Lady Spenta changes her attitude towards her son Ormus and
helps him recover from a car accident (not before she buys her freedom
from him so that she could leave him and start a new life with a new,
wealthy husband), she seems to be constantly changing in her behaviour
towards her other two sons. For a moment the reader feels that Lady Spenta
loves and cares for Virus, but as soon she is married to Lord Methword she
dispatches him to a nursing home. After the family finds out that Cyrus is
a serial killer, she completely erases him from her life, declaring that she
no longer has a son called Cyrus Cama and that his name is never to be
spoken in her presence again. She feels betrayed by her son, yet she never
stops to ask herself whether she or her husband had anything to do with
their sons violent behaviour. Physical displays of affection between Lady
Spenta and her remaining two sons are uncharacteristic and infrequent. A
mother capable of saying goodbye to her child with a simple OK is not a
good mother:
So she was saying goodbye after all, she thinks, and foolish tears blub out:
What are you saying Ormie, have I not been, she cant finish a sentence, be-
cause she knows the answer, which is No. A good mother? No, no (Rushdie
2000: 255).
Ivana S. Jovanovi
The three, or better yet say the four Cama brothers, although con-
nected at an inexplicable, psychological level (Virus and Cyrus, Ormus and
Gayo), are not really communicating or helping each other. They exchange
thoughts, but they do not really listen to one another. Lacking love in their
family, they seem to be running towards one another, searching for salva-
tion, hope and care, but what they get is not what they desperately long for.
Another family which started off with love but somehow lost it down
the road is the Merchant family. Vasim Vaqar Merchant and Ameer Mer-
chant, as they like to believe, have been thrown by chance into each others
arms; for them it was Destiny that was determined to unite them and make
them fall in love with each other. V.V. Merchant is mild, shy, tender-heart-
ed, and unworldly temperament while Ameer Merchant is rich by name,
a disappointed altruist, an angry woman, a daughter of an even angrier
man, Ishak Merchant, a man so interminably choleric that at the age of
forty-three his inner organs literally burst with anger and he died, bleeding
copiously inside his skin (Rushdie 2000: 80). These two opposing person-
alities came to care for each other, form a family and even bring a baby to
the world their son Rai.
They started off well as a couple, cared for their son (as Rai says,
it was a childhood of being loved, of believing in the safety of their lit-
tle world), shared responsibilities (a fifty-fifty regime, parental equality),
dedicated time to the family, but somehow Vasim and Ameer slowly started
to drift apart. The danger of falling apart was present from the very begin-
ning, but the happy couple, deeply and desperately in love, did not see it.
Vasim Vaqar was a dreamer, a great, tender soul, a digger of the past
an excavator, architect and historian searching for fixity in the knowl-
edge from the past. His diggings of the citys past might be interpreted as
his quest for his mislaid personal identity. On the other hand, Ameer was
sharp, explosive, and incapable of accepting any kind of cavils; she was an
entrepreneur, a developer, a believer not in gods and ghosts of the past,
but in the future, technology, development. One dreaming of unknown
depths, other dreaming of unknown heights, Vasim and Ameer came to
lose themselves in their respective worlds, just like Lady Spenta and Sir
Darius. Consequently, they lost each other, their home, their safety, their
unity. V.V. Merchant turned to gambling and got into huge debts, while
Ameer allowed her cynicism to corrode all her youthful principles. She be-
came bitter, ready to start a fight at any moment, constantly nagging and
accusing V.V. Merchant that he had utterly and cruelly wronged her in nu-
merous ways. They no longer communicated and as the author says, V.V.
Merchant was unable to talk to her about his grave concerns, was obliged,
instead, to follow the dictates of his nature, and dig (Rushdie 2000: 155).
V.V. Merchant went on digging until he dug up what would ruin
Ameer, while she joined forces with Piloo Doodhwala, a ruthless, corrupt-
ed businessmen involved in all kinds of shady transactions. Ameer is ready
to sell off their family house without thinking so that the construction of
176 / , , / XVII / 61
Cuffe Parade could go on. Her husband objects, and as a result they fall
out even more. After insulting each other heavily, they destroy others (e.g.
Vina receives a heavy rain of insults from Ameer on that occasion). Eve-
rything ends with fire. Villa Thracia, once a home, a place of love, laughs,
joy, mutual respect and happiness is burned to the ground: the smoke,
black, unfeeling smoke, took over, the illusion was destroyed and darkness
covered all (Rushdie 2000: 168). The darkness did cover all, as after this
event the Merchants are never again a family. They go on arguing, living
on their own, fighting for the child (turning him into a yo-yo bouncing
between the pair of them), and they ultimately die. Ameer, the cynical
Mammon worshipper (Rushdie 2000: 207) will die of a tumour which will
consume her in six weeks time. V.V. Merchant, after fighting his gambling
addiction and trying to win his wife back but being rejected with a definite
its over, for sure will fall apart physically and emotionally and will even-
tually commit suicide. Their son Rai is left alone with a painful memory,
desperately searching for a little love.
The third family we examine is that of Vina Apsara. Here we can talk
of several families in relation to Vina Apsara as she moved from one family
to another. Born Nissa Shetty, Vina grew up in the middle of a cornfield
in Virginia with her mother Helen (Greek-American), a woman of humble
origins, a stepfather John Poe, a jack-of-all-trades builder, two siblings and
John Poes children (four of them). As we immediately see, Vina is not
living with both of her biological parents. Someone is missing from the
picture, and that is her father an Indian gent, a lawyer who went to jail
for malpractice during World War II. He came out of jail after Nagasaki
and then decided to abandon his wife and three daughters. He became a
butcher and started a new life with his male lover.
After being abandoned with three children left at her care, Helen
Shetty turns to drinking, pills and debts, and the children went to hell at
high speed (Rushdie 2000: 103). It was then that she was rescued by John
Poe who was determined to help Helen and her children, but in his own
way. While he never differentiated between his own and Helens children
and provided money and food for every member of this large family, John
Poe was still a man demanding traditional behaviour from all family mem-
bers, especially from Helen and Vina. Vina was taught not to contradict
John Poe (a kind but a dominating man), accept everything as it is (the
same meals, same clothes, same routine day after day) and put a smile on
her face while doing it because John Poe needed regular thanking for the
blessings he bestowed (Rushdie 2000: 104).
The Poe family home was a home without privacy: children were
stuck in their bunk beds, four in a room. In a family of dominating, con-
trolling father and a quiet, broken-down mother, children had no other
option but to grow up quiet and inward. Still Vina rebelled. She decided to
run wild and acted accordingly. Without any true love or affection offered
to her, being abandoned and unprotected, Vina struggled with her child-
Ivana S. Jovanovi
hood, struggled to form an identity and yet she never succeeded. Discrimi-
nated for the colour of her skin, insulted (called cabritos and cabrono) by
other children, Vina searched for solitude so that she could be a part of
music and not silence that prevailed in the home of John Poe. Her child-
hood, and childhood of all the children of the Poe family for that matter,
was without hope and none of the parental figures could provide it. Her
mother ultimately commits suicide but not before killing everyone in the
household except Vina. A wife kills her husband, a MOTHER kills her chil-
dren (crazy woman ran amuck, big hadsome woman like herthings got
to her, she snappedshit happens) (Rushdie 2000: 108). This one line is
enough to explain and help us understand the degree of dysfunctionality
of this family.
Vina, only ten and already abandoned for the second time in her life,
gets abandoned for the third time by her father who, after the abovemen-
tioned massacre, decides to ship Vina out to Helens distant relatives liv-
ing in Chickaboom. There Vina becomes part of the Egiptus family. She is
given the family name and becomes Diana Egiptus, but this is all she gets
from the new family, since it was equally dysfunctional as all previously
mentioned ones. Although we are not given a lot of information on what
this family is like, from what the author provides we can tell that Vina was
not treated well in that family. The head of the Egiptus family, in this case
a woman, Mrs. Marion Egiptus, is Vinas primary tormentor; however, all
other members of the Egiptus family seem to be equally interested in tor-
turing Vina. Without any guidance, love or advice to help her grow, Vina
turns to delinquency, violence and excessive use of pills. No Egiptus family
member is family for Vina, and they eventually toss her out. Her biological
father once again turns his back on Vina, offering her crumbs of love (one
dinner, one dance) in exchange for freedom dont call, dont write, have
a good life, goodbye (Rushdie 2000: 111).
Vina is then shipped off to yet another broken family that of Piloo
Doodhwala. A capitalist, ruthless and self-centred, Piloo Doodhwala is no
new fatherly figure to which Vina can turn to for protection, guidance or
love. Both wife and children are completely under his command. Vina is
accepted into this family only because of Piloos strive in politics. Here, as
with all other families in this novel, what looks good on the outside is quite
rotten on the inside. What these broken families produce can be shown on
the example of Vina Apsara:
What a piece of jetsam she was then, what a casualty! Literally selfless, her
personality smashed, like a mirror, by the fist of her life. Her name, her mother
and family, her sense of place and home and safety and belonging and being
loved, her belief in the future, all these things had been pulled out from under
her, like a rug. She was floating in a void, denatured, dehistoried, clawing at
the shapelessness, trying to make some sort of mark (Rushdie 2000: 121).
178 / , , / XVII / 61
Rushdies 575 pages long novel is full of misery, sorrow, unhappi-

ness, turbulence, change, complex, unhealthy relationships which produce
unhealthy individuals as part of an unhealthy society. Partners are on an
on-off basis; their love and affection, although strong and true in the be-
ginning, quickly diminishes and leaves behind nothing but bad feelings,
bad intentions, and bad actions. No stability, no affection, and no family
centre eventually lead to the creation of broken children, people who are
never to find their true place in the world and live happily ever after.
4. CONCLUSION
Family that elaborate circuitry of passion and power is a topi-
cal and politically sensitive issue but at the same time one that has pre-
occupied and conditioned Western culture, in one form or another, for
centuries (Senn 1996: 9). Family forms have evolved from small bands
of nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled institutional agrarian families and
finally to modern nuclear and newly diverse and permeable post-modern
families (Zeitlin 1993). A number of literary works focus on representing
family and its issues. These discuss family values and their importance
for society in general, enforced family separations, violence within the do-
mestic environment, disruption, and family as a shield against moral and
socio-political conditions of the modern society. Through the family issue
we discuss multiple other issues such as identity, authenticity, nation, his-
tory, sense of belonging, love, etc.
By reviewing societys families we comment on the whole of soci-
ety its past, current and future conditions. Contemporary fiction often
portrays families or homes which are unconventional. It portrays families
from different cultures, made up of different personalities, influenced by
different beliefs, values and traditions, but somehow in the 20th century
literature they are all quite similar. They are all crumbling under the pres-
sure of the modern societies, in a state of crisis, disharmonious, and with
little chance for success.
Salman Rushdies and Martin Amiss novels (although not consid-
ered family novels) show exactly this: how families, due to advancement of
wrong values, ideas, and beliefs, due to increased consumerism, wars and
industrialization have become small in value, action, identity, unique-
ness, genuine affection, intimacy and ultimately life. All family relations
have gone utterly wrong and the question is can they be fixed? Literature
has the role of pointing out problems, making judgements and suggest-
ing alternatives together with ways of resisting the contrived images the
alienated world. A cheating husband obsessed with pornography, a self-
absorbed wife with her eyes on money, a victimized or a monsterized child
taken either separately or together (as a family) are certainly not the
solution for the rising problem of disorientation and loss of self.
Ivana S. Jovanovi
Literature is not magical, and it cannot simply offer one good solu-
tion to the problems of humanity. As the world becomes bigger, more com-
plex and more industrialized, the greater the role of literature will be to talk
of injustice and bolt us into re-evaluating, re-thinking, and re-constructing
our families, our homes and thus our lives. Anglo-American literature of
the 20th century provides enough family novels for the public and through
them alternative ways of improving ourselves. Once jolted into acting, we
are all to undertake other steps towards a better present and a better fu-
ture. It is quite clear that these other steps are not an easy task, as there
exists a wide range of family related issues which are to be dealt with.
Even the most prominent of sociologists cannot offer a universal so-
lution to the problems of abortion, pornography, gender roles or divorce.
It is even more unclear how to tackle the notions such as tolerance of dif-
ferent life styles, individual and cultural diversity, rising women power,
individual autonomy, changing gender roles etc. which are all said to have
contributed to the transformation of family unit. How do we determine
which society is doing the best job? Are we to follow the example of those
who foster social order or those who promote individual development?
Where do we draw the line and say what is wrong and what is right? Do
we even have the right to do that, and are the opinions and actions of a
single human being enough to bring about a drastic change in the modern
world? The questions are numerous and the answers might seem vague,
but it should be clear that what we need are actions. We cannot accept the
situation as it is. While this paper does not offer answers to the above-
mentioned questions, it aims at making a difference through informing its
readers about what our families have turned into as is evident in contem-
porary literature. Awareness of the message that contemporary authors
are sending through their literary works is the first step towards creating
a better society.
References
Amis 1991: M. Amis, London Fields, New York: Vintage Books.
Childs 2005: P. Childs, Contemporary novelists: British fiction since 1970, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gregson 2006: I. Gregson, Character and Satire in Postwar Fiction, London:
Continuum
Keulks 2003: G. Keulks, Father and Son: Kingsley Amis, Martin Amis and the British
Novels since 1950, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Popenoe 1988: D. Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern
Societies, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Popenoe, 1992: D. Popenoe, The Declining American Family: Taking a Reasoned Moral
Position, New York: Rutgers University.
Rushdie 2000: S. Rushdie, The Ground Beneath Her Feet, London: Vintage.
180 / , , / XVII / 61
Shorther 1977: E. Shorther, The Making of the Modern Family, University of

Michigan: Basic Books.
Senekal 2008: B.A. Senekal, Alienation as a fictional construct in four contemporary
fictional novels: A Literary theoretical Study, Unpublished MA Thesis: University of
the Free State.
Senn 1996: W. Senn, Families, Swiss papers in English Language and Literature,
Vol.9, Tubingen: Gunger Narr Verlang.
Thomas, S. Posing as a Postmodernist: Race and Class in Martin Amiss London
Fields, Literary London: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Representation of London,
Volume 1 Number 2, September 2003. The Literary London Journal. 18.08.2016.
Viser 2005: I.Viser, Family Fictions: The Family in Contemporary Postcolonial
Literatures in English, Groningen: University of Groningen.
Zeitlin et al 1993: M. Zeitlin et al, Strengthening the family to participate in development,
Medford: Turf University.
. /

/ , ,
. -

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

.
( ),
,

.
,
.

.
: . , . , , , , ,
,
: 5. 2016.
2016.
811.111373.611

Boana M. Tomi1
Filoloki fakultet Beograd
Doktorske studije jezika
Jelena. V. ajinovi Novakovi

Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci
Filoloki fakultet
Odsjek za engleski jezik i knjievnost
O PREFIKSU OVER-
Polazei od pretpostavke da je prefiks over- veoma produktivan u stvaranju novih rijei u en-
gleskom jeziku, jedan od ciljeva ovog rada je da se istrae njegove morfoloko-semantike
karakteristike. Metodoloki postupci koriteni u radu su kvalitativan i kvantitativan metod
i zasnivaju se na analizi. Prefiks over- ima vie znaenja nego to se to esto navodi u litera-
turi. Osim na glagole i pridjeve, dodaje se i na druge vrste rijei. Rad e se baviti i moguim
prevodima pomenutog prefiksa na srpski jezik. Imajui u vidu da se o ovoj temi nije opirno
pisalo, smatramo da e ovaj rad doprinijeti ne samo morfolokim ve i leksiko-semantikim
istraivanjima u navedenim jezicima.
Kljune rijei: prefiks over-, znaenje, prevod
1. Uvod
Temom prefiksa u okviru morfolokih istraivanja u engleskom

jeziku bavili su se mnogi lingvisti, meu kojima su Bauer (1988), Plag
(2002), Lieber (2009) i drugi. Ovi autori pojedine prefikse navode taksa-
tivno, bez detalja, prvenstveno sa primarnim znaenjima, iako su mogua
znaenja pojedinih prefiksa, u naem sluaju prefiksa over-, ira, kako je
pokazala i analiza.
Quirk (1985: 1542) prefiks over- svrstava u prefikse stepena i velii-
ne, i navodi da mu je kao takvom primarno znaenje prekomjeran. U ovom
znaenju prefiks over- se dodaje na glagole: overeat (prejesti se), overestimate
(precijeniti), oversimplify (pojednostaviti) i pridjeve: overambitious (preambi-
ciozan),overcomplicated (prekomplikovan), dok se u svom drugom znaenju,
koje takoe navodi Quirk (ibid.) i koje je vie mjesnog karaktera sa zna-
enjem odozgo, dodaje iskljuivo na glagole: overflow (izliti se, preplaviti),
overshadow (zasjeniti).
1 tomicbozana@gmail.com
Meutim, analiza e pokazati da se prefiks over- sve ee dodaje i

na druge vrste rijei, prvenstveno na imenice, o emu e biti vie rijei u
sljedeim redovima.
Mnogi prefiksi ne mijenjaju sintaksiku kategoriju baza na koje se
dodaju. Osim toga, oni se, generalno gledajui, mogu dodavati i na vie
sintaksikih kategorija (glagole, pridjeve, imenice) i da pritom ne utiu na
poziciju akcenta baze. Tako, recimo, rije overwork moe biti i imenica i
glagol, sa istim znaenjem, ali postoje primjeri rijei kojima homomorf ima
jedno znaenje kada se radi o imenici, a drugo kada je u pitanju glagol. Ta-
kav je sluaj kod rijei overman, koja kao glagol oznaava da je angaovano
previe ljudi u nekom poslu, dok kao imenica oznaava nadzornika, ili pak
natovjeka u filozofiji.
Pored toga, u engleskom jeziku postoje rijei koje u svom sastavu
imaju over- kod kojih je dolo do promjene akcenta baze. To su rijei koje
pripadaju kategoriji sloenica prema Vidanovi (1994: 47) i nisu predmet
ovog istraivanja. Takve rijei su overalls, overboot, overcoat, overtrousers sa
primarnim stresom na poetku, koje oznaavaju zatitne odjevne predmete
koji se obino nose preko nekog drugog odjevnog predmeta; spoljanji sloj
neega overglaze, overhair; dekoracija ili stvar koja se nalazi iznad neega:
overmantel, overdoor, overbridge, ponovljene rijei ili fraze overword i slino.
2. Metodologija
Metodoloki postupci koriteni u radu su kvalitativan i kvantitativan

metod i zasnivaju se na analizi rijei s prefiksom over-. Izvori za korpus
navedeni su u spisku koritene literature. Podaci do kojih se dolo obraeni
su kvalitativno i kvantitativno. Kvalitativni metod obezbijedio je validnost
u izvoenju zakljuaka, dok je kvantitativni osigurao pouzdanost.
Analiza
2.1. Karakteristike imenica s prefiksom over-

Iako se prefiks over- uglavnom dodaje na zajednike imenice, u
analiziranom korpusu se javljao i u sastavu vlastitih imenica, i to u na-
zivima igrica: Sunset Overdrive, Overfall, Overman King Gainer; gradova:
Overland Park; hotela/restorana: The Overdraught, Overlook Hotel i prezi-
mena: Overdeck.
Morfoloki gledano, prefiks over- se dodaje na imenice izvedene
od glagola sa sufiksom -or/-er koje oznaavaju vrioca radnje. Rije je
o konkretnim imenicama, kao to su: overachiever, overbidder, overeater,
overruler, oversharer. Pojedine rijei ovog tipa mogu oznaavati i osobu i
stvar (overclocker, overlier, overlocker, overrunner), dok druge, kao, recimo,
184 / , , / XVII / 61
O PREFIKSU OVER-
overnighter, oznaavaju osobu (a), a u neformalnim kontekstima i stvar

(b) i mjesto (c):
(a) There were no overnighters asleep on bedrolls,
(b) Anovernighter at a nearby campsite,
(c) He had an overnighter with him.
Kod imenica izvedenih na ovaj nain prefiks over- se moe prevesti
na srpski jezik opisno, na primjer onaj koji se prejeda (overeater) ili onaj koji
pretjeruje u poslu (overdoer), ali i sljedeim prefiksima: pre-, nad-, super-. U
srpskom jeziku dobijene rijei same po sebi postaju pridjevi, a ne imenice,
pa takooverachiever u srpskom jeziku postaje preambiciozan ili natprosje-
an i samo u formi imenske sintagme preambiciozan ovjek odgovara engle-
skom ekvivalentu. Prefiks pre- u prefiksalnim pridjevskim izvedenicama
ima elativno znaenje (Piper-Klajn 2013: 243), dok prefiks nad-ima prene-
seno (ibid.).
Sljedea kategorija imenica u kombinacijama s prefiksom over- su
imenice izvedene od glagola sufiksom-ing: overbooking, overbreathing, over-
charging, overeating, overcropping, overfishing, overplanning, overstaffing,
overtaking i sline. One u srpskom jeziku nisu nuno glagolske imenice sa
sufiksom -nje i prevode se uz pomo prefiksa do-, pre-, hiper-, za: prebukira-
nost (overbooking), hiperventilacija (overbreathing), zaraunavanje (overchar-
ging), iscrpljivanje (overcropping). Interesantna je imenica overtaking koja,
iako sainjena uz pomo prefiksa over-,nema ekscesivno znaenje, barem
ne u primarnom smislu, i u srpskom prevodu glasi zaobilaenje ili preticanje.
Postoji kategorija imenica izvedena prefiksom over-, a radi se o de-
adjektivnim apstraktnim imenicama koje se zavravaju nastavkom ity i
uglavnom izraavaju osjeanja i karakterne osobine: overanxiety, overcre-
dulity, overgenerosity, overmodesty, overnicety, oversensitivity i druge. Srpski
ekvivalenti ovih rijei mogu se nai u imenicama izvedenim odgovaraju-
im prefiksom pre-, kao, recimo, preosjetljivost ili prefinjenost, mada se u
mnogim sluajevima prevode sintagmama: pretjerana zabrinutost, prevelika
lakovjernost, prenaglaena velikodunost, prevelika skromnost.
Prefiks over-je prisutan i u imenicama koje se zavravaju na sufikse
-ment,-ness, -ion. Imenice sa sufiksom -ment i prefiksom over- u srpskom se
mogu prevesti odgovarajuom imenicom s prefiksom pre-: prezaposlenost
(overemployment), prekoraenje (overfullfiment), preuveliavanje (overstate-
ment), ali i opisno odgovarajuom sintagmom pretjerana finoa (overefine-
ment) i u osnovi su ekscesivnog znaenja. Slina situacija je i kod imenica
izvedenih sufiksom -ness, kod kojih prefiks over- donosi ekscesivno znaenje.
U neto manjem broju rijei prefiks over- se kombinuje sa denomi-
nalnim apstraktnim imenicama koje se zavravaju na -ism (overoptimism,
overcrticisim); -ist (overoptimist); -al (overarousal, overdispersal); -ship (over-
lordship, overseership); -age (overdosage ,overvoltage); -ance/-ence (overdo-
minance, overconfidence); -cy (overfluency, overdelicacy, overfrequency) ;-ure
(overexposure, overclosure), koji se na engleski jezik gotovo uvijek prevode

imenskim sintagmama u ijem sastavu je pridjev prevelik: recimo optimi-
zam, uzbuenost, rjeitost, izloenost i slino.
Analizirani primjeri iz naeg korpusa pokazuju da se prefiks over- ne
dodaje na deverbalne konkretne izvedene sufiksom -ant/-ent i -ee, kao ni na
denominalne apstraktne imenice izvedene prefiksom -hood, denominalne
konkretne stranog porijekla izvedene prefiksima -let i -ette.
Najvei broj imenica s prefiksom over- nastaje dodavanjem prefiksa
na postojee imenice, i to najee na izvedene sufiksima -or/er, -ing, -ness,
u neto rjee na imenice izvedene sufiksima -ity, -ment, ion, a u najmanjem
broju sluajeva na imenice izvedene sufiksima age, -al, -dom, -ism, -ist,
-ship, -ure, dok ih kod imenica nastalih od sufiksa -hood, -ant, -ee, -ie, -let,
-ette uopte nema.
Treba napomenuti da znaenje prefiksa over-u imenicama nije uvijek
ekscesivno. To pokazuju imenice overgrainer (etka za farbanje), overtaking
(zaobilaenje), overcoating (dodavanje zavrnog sloja), overbalance (gubljenje
ravnotee).
2.2. Karakteristike glagola s prefiksom over-

Veliki broj glagola s prefiksom over- izaao je iz upotrebe ili se vrlo ri-
jetko koristi u savremenom engleskom jeziku. Pomenuti glagoli pripadaju
pasivnoj leksici engleskog jezika. U tu grupu ubrajaju se glagoli: overbribe,
overcurtain, overlaw, overpost, oversit, overvote.
Uprkos tome, u savremenom engleskom jeziku koristi se mnotvo
glagola s prefiksom over-. Neki od glagola nastalih na ovaj nain oznaava-
ju ekscesivnost. Toj kategoriji pripadaju glagoli overheat (pregrijati), overate
(precijenti), overdo (prepei), overburden (preopteretiti). Pojedini glagoli s pre-
fiksom over- imaju preneseno znaenje i oznaavaju superiornost: overbear
(nadjaati), overmaster (nadvladati). Pored navedenih postoje i glagoli koji
oznaavaju radnju koja se vri s kraja na kraj neega (Piper-Klajn, 2013:
247): overspread (prekriti), overfly (preletjeti). Poneki glagoli s prefiksom
over- imaju prostorno znaenje: overpass (prei), overspill (preliti), overhang
(visiti), dok pojedini imaju sativno znaenje (Piper-Klajn, 2013: 245) i uka-
zuju na potpunost izvrenja radnje: overfatigue, overcrop (iscrpiti). Glagoli
kao overcall (ponuditi vie od protivnika) ne znae previe, nego za nijansu
vie od postavljene granice, a glagoli tipa overhear (sluajno uti, prisluki-
vati) u svom primarnom znaenju oznaavaju akcidentalnost.
Analizirajui glagole iz naeg korpusa, jedna od prvih podjela je
podjela glagola po prelaznosti i neprelaznosti. Neki glagoli sa prefiksom
over- konstantno zahtijevaju objekat, dok se drugi mogu upotrebljavati s
objektom, ali i bez njega. Trea vrsta podrazumijeva glagole koji nikad nisu
prelazni. S tim u vezi smo i podjelili glagole na: prelazne: overclassify, overc-
log, overplay, overprint, overprize, overprocess; neprelazne: overact, overcen-
tralise, overeat, overtalk, oversleep; i prelazno-neprelazne ili kombinovane:
overcorrect, overpay, overwork, overcharge i slini:
186 / , , / XVII / 61
O PREFIKSU OVER-
You have been overworking-why dont you take a week off. (n)
Have they been overworking you again?(p)
Osim standardne podjele na prelazne, neprelazne i prelazno-nepre-

lazne, rjenici navode i refleksivnu upotrebu glagola s prefiksom over-, koja
takoe pripada pasivnoj leksici engleskog jezika. Pojedini glagoli ovog tipa,
kao overtravel (naputovati se), overwalk (naetati se), ne zahtijevaju upotrebu
povratne zamjenice, dok se glagoli poput overreach (napregnuti se) upotre-
bljavaju s povratnom zamjenicom oneself:
The Church overreached itself in securing a territory that would prove impossible
to hold.
Pojedini glagoli s prefiksom over- spadaju u grupu takozvanih prepo-

zicionih glagola. Jedna od karakteristika ovih glagola je da se mogu pojaviti
u pasivu, ali mnogo rjee nego u aktivu. Ovi prepozicioni glagoli zapravo
su glagolski idiomi koji se sastoje od leksikog glagola kojeg prati prepo-
zicija (Quirk 1985:1155-1167). Postoje i primjeri prepozicionih glagola u
engleskom jeziku: overindulge in, overlook for, overeact to, kao i primjer iz
analiziranog korpusa:
The leaked proposals say the DWP is at high risk of continuing to overspend on
sickness and disability benefits in future years because the high-profile programme
of welfare reform introduced by Duncan Smith in 2010 has not realised its goals
of saving money.
Glagoli sa prefiksom over- ne ulaze u kombinacije glagola poznate

kao frazalni glagoli. Primjere frazalnih glagola s prefiksom over- nisu nae-
ni ni u analiziranom korpusu ni u jednom od rjenika konsultovanih prili-
kom izrade ovog rada.
Znaenje prefiksa over- je najire u kategoriji glagola. Premda veliki
broj glagola s prefiksom over- oznaava ekscesivnost, postoje i druga zna-
enja koja ovaj prefiks donosi kao to su to preneseno, prostorno i aksiden-
talno znaenje.
2.3. Karakteristike pridjeva s prefiksom over-

Prefiks over- uestvuje u nijansiranju pridjeva i u veini sluajeva
ima ekscesivno znaenje.
Uprkos injenici da su pridjevi s prefiksom over- superlativnog
znaenja i da se njima izraava osobina osnovnog pridjeva izraena u neto
viem stepenu, neki od ovih pridjeva se mogu komparirati:
In your opinion, who is the most overrated celebrity today?
Osim toga, ovi pridjevi se mogu modifikovati prilogom very:
As I sat on the bus to university this night (late night mission to return somevery
overdue library books), I realised that I have a rule,
ili pojaati upotrebom intenzifikatora:
Other than that, Im afraid this chapter really did come off as excessively
overdramatic.
In their place stand pool tables, ergonomic chairs, and a bar sooverladen with
fluorescent drinks that one darent approach without first applying sunscreen.
Pleonastine strukture ovog tipa oigledno nisu neobina pojava u

engleskom jeziku, ali u srpskom mogu stvoriti probleme u prevodu i do-
vesti do suvinog nagomilavanja rijei istog znaenja. Sintagma excesivelly
overdramatic ne bi se mogla prevesti na srpski jezik bez gubitka budui
da pridjev overdramatic ve oznaava neto to je pretjerano dramatino i
nema potrebe za dodatnim pojaavanjem.
Najvei broj pridjeva izvedenih prefiksom over- su participski pridje-
vi: overbearing, overcaring, overwhelming, overblown, overpaid, overaged,over-
boiled i slini.
Iako veina pridjeva s prefiksom over- pripada prostim pridjevima,
oni s prefiksom over- ulaze i u pridjevske sloenice: over-the-counter, over-
the-top:
ridiculously over-the-top performances
Analizirajui korpus, primijeeno je da se prefiks over-u gramatici ne

dodaje na pridjeve poznate kao a-adjectives (ablaze, afloat, afraid, ashamed,
asleep, aware, awake). Jedina mogua kombinacija prefiksa over- i takozva-
nog a-adjective je u rijei overalert.
Pojedini opisni pridjevi s prefiksom over-mogu biti upravne rijei u
imenskim frazama koje oznaavaju klasu ljudi:
The overprivileged are often prominent public features...
Kao i veina pridjeva u engleskom jeziku, pridjevi s prefiksom

over-javljaju se u atributivnoj funkciji: overlapping stores, overriding feeling,
overcharging claims, overcooked pasta.
Pored toga, neki pridjevi s prefiksom over- javljaju se uvijek samo-
stalno u predikativnoj funkciji i ne ulaze u sintagme sa imenicama recimo
pridjev overjoyed:
All of them were overjoyed at my success.
Iako Piper i Klajn (2013: 243) navode samo prefiks pre- kao jedan od
prefiksa sa ekscesivnim znaenjem suvie ili elativnim znaenjem veoma
izraenog svojstva, navedeni primjeri su pokazali da bi se u prevodu na
188 / , , / XVII / 61
O PREFIKSU OVER-
srpski jezik pridjeva koji oznaavaju prekomjernost mogli prevesti i prefik-

sima za- (zastario overdated), raz- (razgolien overexposed), iz-(iznerviran
overheated), na- (naitan overread). Navedeni autori prefiks na- opisuju
kao prefiks koji oznaava slabije izraene osobine, to nije znaenje prefik-
sa na-u primjeru naitan.
Mnogobrojni pridjevi s prefiksom over- imaju prostorno znaenje i u
svom sastavu prefikse nad- (nadzemni overground), iz- (isturen overshot),
u- (uukati overdight).
Neki pridjevi s prefiksom over- su dio idiomatske leksike engleskog
jezika, spajaju se veznikom i najee ine fiksan red rijei. One mogu
predstavljati kombinaciju rijei slinih po znaenju: oversolicitous and over-
protective, kombinaciju rijei suprotnih po znaenju: overbought and overso-
ld, kombinaciju rijei koje su komplementarne: overtired and overwrought.
Najea razlika izmeu pridjeva i priloga u engleskom jeziku je to
se veina priloga izvode sufiksom -ly: overcareful overcarefully. Meutim,
postoje rijei koje su istog oblika, nemaju razliku u nastavku, a mogu biti
u funkciji pridjeva i priloga. Takve rijei u engleskom jeziku su: overlate,o-
vernight, overland, overlong, overhead. U sintagmi overhead wires overhead je
pridjev, dok je u reenici A plane flew overhead,overhead u slubi priloga.
Pridjevi se prema emotivnoj obojenosti mogu podijeliti na pozitivne,
negativne, ambivalente i neutralne. U mnotvu analiziranih rijei pridjevi
s prefiksom over-su negativno obojeni to dovodi do zakljuka da se prefik-
som over- pojaava ve postojea negativna karakteristika.
U pridjeve s pozitivnom obojenou spadaju overgenerous, overhappy,
overjoyed, overglad. Negativno obojeni pridjevi su u primjerima: overfussy,
overbearing, overblown, overcritical, overworked. Pojedini pridjevi mogu biti
pozitivni ili negativni, zavisno od konteksta u kojem se javljaju:
Even at times when you may feel overwhelmed, always keep your sense of humour.(neg.)
His wife was overwhelmed to see him back safe.(poz.)
Neki od pridjeva s prefiksom over-nemaju emotivno svojstvo poto

oznaavaju pojmove koji su po prirodi neutralni: overfolded, overplaced, ove-
recorded, overstitched.
2.4. Karakteristike priloga s prefiksom over-

S morfolokog stanovita postoje tri tipa priloga: jednostavni, koji su
nepromjenljiva vrsta rijei, sloeni i derivacioni. Prilozi s prefiksom over-
uglavnom spadaju u ovu treu grupu, mada se i veina njih obrazuju kao
sloeni prilozi.
Derivacioni prilozi nastaju dodavanjem sufiksa -ly na pridjeve (uk-
ljuujui i participske pridjeve):
overwhelming-overwhelmingly,
overbearing-overbearingly.
Jedna od karakteristika priloga s prefiksom over-je da su najee

modifikatori pridjeva sa znaenjem prekomjerno:
In a country where female police officers are few and team leaders are overwhelmingly
male, Lizana has known what she wanted since childhood.
Pored pomenutih postoje i prilozi koji nastaju dodavanjem prefiksa

over- na prilog, kao, recimo, prilog overmuch:
I would not worry overmuch.
2.5. Ostale vrste rijei s prefiksom over-

Pored pomenutih vrsta rijei koje su obrazovane pomou prefiksa
over-, postoje i rijei s prefiksom over- kao to su: prepozicije (overcross,
overight, overtop):
Sprinkle the mixture overtop the butter
i determinatori (overmuch):
The police may have overmuch regard for public order considerations
Kao prefiks, over- se moe kombinovati sa rijecama i obrazovati ono

to tradicionalni gramatiari zovu sloeni adverbi, a kognitivni gramatiari
sloene prepozicije. U tu grupu ubrajaju se: overall, overboard, overhand,
overhead, overland, overnight, overseas koje takoe mogu biti pridjevi.
3. Zakljuak
Prefiks over- ima vie znaenja nego to se to esto navodi u litera-

turi. Osim toga, taj prefiks se osim na glagole i pridjeve, kako se navodi u
literaturi posveenoj morfolokim istraivanjima, dodaje i na druge vrste
rijei. Prefiks over- uestvuje i u tvorbi imenica, priloga i ostalih vrsti rijei,
o emu je ve bilo govora u ovom radu.
Najvei broj imenica s prefiksom over- nastaje dodavanjem prefiksa
na postojee imenice, i to najee na one izvedene sufiksima -or/-er, -ing,
-ness, u neto manjem broju na imenice izvedene sufiksima -ity, -ment, -ion,
a u najmanjem broju sluajeva na one izvedene sufiksima age, -al, -dom,
-ism, -ist, -ship, -ure, dok ih kod imenica nastalih od sufiksa -hood, -ant, -ee,
-ie, -let, -ette uopte nema.
Znaenje prefiksa over- u imenicama nije uvijek ekscesivno. To poka-
zuju imenice overgrainer (etka za farbanje), overtaking (zaobilaenje), over-
coating (dodavanje zavrnog sloja), overbalance (gubljenje ravnotee).
190 / , , / XVII / 61
O PREFIKSU OVER-
U tvorbi glagola prefiks over- ima irok dijapazon znaenja. Premda

veliki broj glagola s prefiksom over- oznaava ekscesivnost, postoje i druga
znaenja koja ovaj prefiks nosi, a to su preneseno, prostorno i akscidental-
no znaenje.
Prefiks over- pridjevima donosi ekcesivno znaenje. Iako sami po
sebi superlativni, pridjevi sa over-su gradabilni, to jeste mogu se kompari-
rati. Kombinuju se i sa pozitivno i sa negativno obojenim pridjevima, iako
veoma esto pojaavaju znaenje negativnog pridjeva.
Prilozi s prefiksom over- su u najveem broju sluajeva derivaci-
oni i nastali su dodavanjem sufiksa -ly na pridjeve ukljuujui i parti-
cipske pridjeve.
Jedna od karakteristika priloga s prefiksom over-je da su najee
modifikatori pridjeva sa znaenjem prekomjerno.
Kao prefiks, over- se moe kombinovati sa rijecama i obrazovati ono
to tradicionalni gramatiari zovu sloeni adverbi, a kognitivni gramatiari
sloene prepozicije. U tu grupu ubrajaju se: overall, overboard, overhand,
overhead, overland, overnight, overseas, koje takoe mogu biti pridjevi.
Literatura
Bauer 1983: L. Bauer, English Word-formation, Cambridge: CUP.
Bauer 1988: L. Bauer, Introducing Linguistic Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Bauer 2003: L. Bauer, Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: CUP.
Biber et al 2007: D. Biber, S.Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, E. Finegan, E, Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written Language, London: Longman.
Brenda 2014: M. Brenda, The Cogniitive Perspective on the Polysemy of the English
Spatial Preposition Over, Cambridge: Scholars Publishing.
Brugman 1988: C. Brugman, The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of
the lexicon, New York: Garland Press.
Lehrer 2009: A.Lehrer, Prefixes in English Word Formation, in Folia Linguistica
XXIX,12, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p.133148.
Lieber 2009: R Lieber, Introducing Morphology, Cambridge: CPU.
Plag 2002: I. Plag, Word-formation in English, Cambridge: CPU.
Piper & Klajn 2013: P.Piper i I. Klajn, Normativna gramatika srpskog jezika, Novi Sad:
Matica srpska.
Quirk et al 1985: R. Quirk,S. Greenbaum, G. Leech G.& J. Svartvik, A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language, London and New York: Longman.
Stageberg and Oaks 2000: N. Stageberg & D. Oaks, An Introductory English Grammar,
Texas: Harcourt College Publishers.
Vidanovi 1994: . Vidanovi, An Outline of English Morphology with Elements of
Lexicology, Ni: Prosveta.
http://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Rjenici
Oxford Dictionary of English, 1970, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ilustrovani Oxford Engleski renik, 1998, Oxford: Dorling Kindersley and Oxford
University Press.
Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2003, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Press.
Press.
Press.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2009, Longman: Pearson Education
Limited.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2014, Longman: Pearson Education
Limited.
Longman Dictionary of American English, 2014, Longman: Pearson Education
Limited.
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 2002, Macmillan: Macmillan
Education.
Education.
Education.
Collins English Dictionary, 2014, HarperCollins, UK.
New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopedic
Edition, 1978, New York: Guild Press New York.
Merriam-Websters Collegiate Thesaurus, 1998, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.
The New International Websters Comprehensive Dictionary of the English
Language, Encyclopedic Edition, 2004, Trident Press International, USA.
Merriam-Websters Advanced Learners English Dictionary, 2008, Merriam-
Webster, Incorporated. Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.
Boana M.Tomi, Jelena V. ajinovi Novakovi / ABOUT PREFIX OVER-
Summary / Having in mind that prefix over- is very productive in forming new words
in English, one of the aims of this study is to analyse its morphological and semantical
characteristics. Methods used in this study are qualitative and quantitative and are
based on word analysis. We have tried to interpret all possible meanings of prefix
over- and compare them to the previously conducted researches on the same topic.
As the analysis has shown, prefix over- has more meanings than it is usually stated,
especially in reference grammars of the English language. Moreover, it is added not
only to verbs and adjectives but to all open class words. The majority of nouns with
prefix over- are the existing nouns ending in -or/-er, -ing, -ness, while the prefix is not
added to nouns ending in -hood, -ant, -ee, -ie, -let, -ette. The study has also discussed all
192 / , , / XVII / 61
O PREFIKSU OVER-
possible translations of prefix over- in Serbian. The meaning of prefix over- in nouns
is not always excessive. There are nouns in which over- has miscellaneous mean-
ing as in overgrainer, overtaking, overcoating, and overbalance. In verbs, the meaning
of over- is mostly excessive, but it also carries local, metaphorical and accidental
meanings. Prefix over- in adjectives intensifies the basic meaning of the adjective to
which it is added. Adverbs with prefix over- are mostly excessive modifiers of adjec-
tives. Since the topic has not been thoroughly discussed in the past, we believe that
this study will contribute to both morphological and lexical-semantic researches in
the two languages.
Keywords: prefix over-, meaning, translation.
: 6. 2016.
2016.
811.163.411:811.111373.421

. 1

- ()
.

- ()
(.
argue)
.
. ,

.
,
. ,
. ,
.
: , , ,
1.
e ,
. , (F. R. Palmer)
. , ,
, -
. , -
, . ,

( 1997: 6).

, , . -
, . , -
1 mico_todorovic@yahoo.com
. .

( 1997 :6).
-
-
-
.
( , /, -
, .) (, , -
, .) . , -
-
.
.
, -
(
)
, -
.

.
2.
2.1.

. 2
-
. , . -
( ).
.
. ,
, . , -
( 1997:
29). ,

( , , , ).
, ,
-
. -
, (. )
( 2011: 89). ,
2 (John Lyons) , -
() .
, ( )
(1977: 174).
196 / , , / XVII / 61
...
-
,
( 1977: 176). , -
.

, ,
. .
, ,
,
( 2011: 90).

( 1977: 176).
.
, -

,
( 1997: 4).
: .
.
, -
. -
3 ( 1997: 2039). ,
:
, -
. (Wittgenstein):
[...] (-
1953: 31; 1997: 29). -
. ,
.
,
( -
). , -
, , ,
( 2011: 95).
, -
, -
.
-

. :
.
,
, -
.
3 .
. .
.
, ,
, 4.
,
, -

.

,
.
2.2.

, , -
5 ( 1996: 18).
, -
.
+[] +[] +[]6.
, , , -
, .
( 1996: 87).
,
.
-
( 1977: 318319). -
,
,
+ -. ,
: () ,
; () -
. , -
, , ,
. ,
(. markedness) (
1977: 322). , -
. -
.
,
, -
4 . 1997:2223.
.
5 // -
/, (. 2004: 95). (-
) .
6 [ ] .
198 / , , / XVII / 61
...
.
. , (1996: 93)

:
(. , -
) , .
-
, -
[] ,
( 1977: 301). ,
-
7. ,
,
(
1997: 6369). -
()
, .
,
.

, . [ ]. :
[] [] [] -
,
[]
( 1997: 69).
2.3.
(
1997: 8991): , -
, (.
) . ,

: (
,
) (-
,
) ( 2011: 93).
3.
.
. -
7 ( 1997: 99).
. .
: The Oxford Thesaurus An A-Z Dictionary of Synonym,

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th edition, Merriam-Websters
11th Collegiate Dictionary Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 8th edition.
: .
, -
, (2011),
.

8. , -
,
. ,
, .
. -
.
. , -
, -
, , .
,
. , -
, -
,
,
. -
, . -

. , ,
-
. -
,
.
( 12
13). , .
, ,
, .
, , -
.
9,
50 .
, 50 .
, -
, 3. , -
, . ,
8
(2006:154).
9 British National Corpus: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
200 / , , / XVII / 61
...
-
10.
, , . -
, -
(
) .
:
Argue +[() ] +[] +[] +[/]

Bicke r+[/] +[] +[]
Clash +[ ] +[/] +[ ]
+[ ]
Disagree [] +[] +[] +[]
Dispute +[] +[() ] +[/ ]
+[ ]
Fight +[(/) ] +[] +[] [-
11]
Haggle +[ ] +[]
Quarrel +[/] +[] +[ ] +[]
Row +[ ] +[] +[] +[ ]
Squabble12 +[/] +[] +[ ] +[]
Wrangle +[] +[ ] +[] +[]
/ +[] +[] +[] +[-

()]
+[/]13+[] +[]+[
]
+[] +[] +[] +[ ]
/ +[] +[] +[] +[]
+[] +[]
+[] +[] +[ ]
+[] +[o- ]
+[]+[() ] +[]
+[/]14 +[]+[ ] +[]
+[] +[] +[ ] +[ ]
+[] +[] +[] +[/-
]
+[ ] +[]
10 http://www.korpus.matf.bg.ac.rs/korpus/login.php
11 5. 6. .
12 squabble bicker row.
13 .
, .
14 . ,
, ( , ).
. .
+[ , ] +[]
+[]
+[() ] +[ ] +[]
+[/]
+[] +[ ] +[] +[ ]
+[] +[] +[/]
() +[ ] +[/] +[()
] +[ ]
+[ ] +[a] +[/
] +[] +[] +[() ]
+[(/) ] +[ ] +[
]
[ ( , )]
+[/] +[] +[ ()]
+[ ] +[] +[] +[]
+[/ / ] +[/
/] +[] +[]
+[() ] +[] +[] +[()
] +[() ]
+[ ] +[]
+[] +[] +[]15
4.
-
.
(Ladislav Zgusta) (
) : ,
, -
(, , -
) ( 1991: 291). -
, , -

. -
,
16.
: .
: 2009,
. - 2006. Oxford English-
15 -
, , . ; ,
. .
16
.
.
202 / , , / XVII / 61
...
Serbian Students Dictionary 2009.

:
Argue , ,
Bicker
Clash
Disagree
Dispute
Fight , ,
Haggle ,
Quarrel ,
Row ( )
Squabble ,
Wrangle ,
,
. ,

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

,
, ,
, rgue. , ,
, argue, -
,
+[].
Bicker -
. , -
. /
( ).
, 17
, -
.
.
Clash
.
17 .
. .
. -
. :
, lash,
, , .
,
, -
.
, .
Disagree , ,
,
,
, , .
,
. , +[],
disagree . -
, .
Dispute . -
.
. , -
-
.
Fight
.
, , ,
() -
. , fight ,
. -
,
, , ,
.
fight,
. , -
,
, , ,
.
Haggle -
.
, ,
,
.
Quarrel -
. , -
, ,
: , quarrel
.
204 / , , / XVII / 61
...
-
. Quarrel
() .
, -
,
, ,
. ,
+[() ], -
.
Row ,
( ) . -

. , ,
, .

. ,
, row . -
.
, -
,
( )
.
Squbble, , -
quarrel row.
. , , -
,
.
, -
, ,

, .
Wrangle
+[] +[ ], -
.
wrangle -
/-
. ,
, , -
wrangle +[].
,
.
, ,
wrangle (
).
. .
-
,
-
. set/pit
one against the other; tease; do something
out of spite; chide; be after somebodys blood;
take somebody/something to court; debate;
object; oppose; lock
horns with somebody; joke around, kid.

,
.
5.
-
,
. -
. , -
-
.
. ,
,

.

, ,

,
, .

2005: C. Beedham, Language and Meaning: the structural creation of reality,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
1989: . , , :
.
2003: M. Webster, Merriam-Websters 11th Collegiate Dictionary, New
Hampshire: Merriam-Webster Inc.
2003: D. Willems, et al., Contrastive Analysis in Language: Identifing
Linguistic Units of Comparison, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
, -, et al. 2011: . , . -, et al.,
, : .
206 / , , / XVII / 61
...
: . , ,
.
http://www.academia.edu/4466940/SAVREMENI_JEZICKI_KORPUSI_NA_
ZAPADNOM_BALKANU_ISTORIJAT_TRENUTNO_STANJE_I_BUDUCNOST_
NDobric 03.12.2015.
1987: . , , :
.
2009: . Kovaevi, Lani prijatelji u engleskom jeziku: zamke doslovnog
prevoenja, 3. izdanje, Beograd: Albatros Plus.
2002: C. W. Kreidler, Introducing English Semantics, London: Routledge.
1974: . ,
, : .
Major 2009: M. Mayor (.), Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 5th edition,
London: Pearson Education Limited.
2003: M. L. Murphy, Semantic Relations and the Lexicon, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2000: . ,
, : .
2008: , , : .
1991: L. Urdang (.), The Oxford Thesaurus An A-Z Dictionary of Synonym,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2009: J. Philips (.), Oxford English-Serbian Students Dictionary (englesko-
srpski renik sa srpsko-engleskim indeksom), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2006: . , - ( ),
: .
2010: Hornby (.), Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 8th edition, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
2006: . , , :
.
2011: . Ai, Nauka o jeziku, Beograd: BeoBook.

1991: . , (1. ), :
.
K 1996: R. M. Kempson, Semantic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
2004: A. Curse, Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and
Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1977: J. Lyons, Semantics Vol. 1 and 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1997: F. R. Palmer, Semantics 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1997: . , , :
.
2006: . , Focus on Language, Kragujevac: FILUM.
. .
Milan D. Todorovi, Marija M. Jovi / COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE

Group of synonymS OF THE VERB AND THEIR ENGLISH
TRANSLATIONAL EQUIVALENTS
Summary / In this paper, the English and Serbian groups of synonyms of the verb
(English to argue) have been examined in order to establish whether the
proposed equivalents in dictionaries were precise enough. Firstly, the paper elaborates
on different types of meaning which can influence the formation of semantic featuress
of the given lexemes. Afterwards, by means of componential analysis and consulting
dictionaries and the gathered corpora, the authors have underscored the semantic
features which bring out the subtle differences within the groups of synonyms in
both Serbian and English. By consulting existing bilingual dictionaries, the authors
of this paper wanted to re-evaluate the given suggestions of equivalents. The analysis
gave way to the following conclusion: bilingual dictionaries in many cases provide
suitable suggestions. However, in several cases, where it was obvious one could use
other verbs, there was a repetitive usage of the same equivalent.
Key words: componential analysis, synonymy, meaning, semantic features
: 15. 2016.
2016.
208 / , , / XVII / 61
821.163.41.09 .
. 1

( , . (18781881),
, : , 2015, 272. .)
( , . (18821884),
, : , 2015, 296. .)
-. -
, , 15. 19. -
1885. , , -
(. I, . 3338),
, .
-
, ( -
, . 65, . 188, . 4, 1896, . 109119),
,
(- ), , -
, ( -). -

-
.
, ,
, , -
--
,
, , , ,
, , , , , -
, ,
.
, , ,
, , (
-), , , , , ,
(18801883), (1880), -
(1889),
1 tiskicvet38@gmail.com
.
(1876), (1884),
(1894), -
, -
(1890),
XIX
(1900), -
(1845, 1900, ),
, , ,
, (Abul Casem)
,
,
, ,
,
( ).
2015. , , -

, .
() , -
(
XIX ). , -
-
(
-
) , -
, () --
, , , -
, ( . . -
) ()
, (
).
1878. 1884. ,
, ,
, , ,
, , , ,
, -
, -
- ,
.

,
, , -
.
, .
( ), ,
, ,
214 / , , / XVII / 61
:
, -
(, ) -
, , (,
, -
), ,
( )
,
- .
, , ,
( ,
) , -
,
XIX , ,
,
, .

-
, , , , ,
() () ( , ,
, I: 352,
; I: 7273, I: 80
82; , , I: 205; -
, II: 193; , II: 208; , II:
210; , II: 256) , ,
, , -
.
-
. (DasBlatt)

, . -
, -
( ,
, ), ,
, ,
. (I: 114), -
-
, [ , ,
. ..] (I: 121). ,
, (Naplo) ,
(Nap lo ),
Naplo
. . ,
2 (I . (1878
1881), II . (18821884)),
/ .
.
, , !
, ,
. [...] : Nap
; , lo; , : lo ,
Naplo . , -
! (II: 7879).
, ,

(
: gula; / ; / , / )
( : gut, / /
, / / ).
-
( -
)
, , -
. -

(I: 45), -

(I: 158159, I: 216, II: 45, II: 52, II: 61,
II: 77, II: 82, II: 98, II: 101, II: 157, II: 220),

,
,
.
EingangindieGartenrestauration,
.
: Wasistgefllig
,
, ,
, I: 38 (

), ( )
,
,
. - :
Csokolomkezt!! , -
. (II: 66), -
, , ,
, , ,
. , ! . -
.
-, -
216 / , , / XVII / 61
:
( -
, 1875. ) -
, ,
- , , ,
(II: 13, II: 92, II: 183, II: 186).
( -
, , , !, .) , ,
(I: 210212),
( , ,
), . , ,
, -
(II: 109, II: 154). ,
, , ,
(I: 198199)

( ,
) ( ) -

, , -
, II: 185 ( : II: 183, II. 194,
II: 199, II: 208).
(
)
? ! ,
, . 1880. (I: 113),

. , ,
: , ! (I: 198),
[...] ,
; -
, -,
., I: 201 ( :
I: 115116, I: 174, II: 16, II: 25). ,
-
,
; ,
! ((I: 59), -
,
.
1735. , ! (II: 17),
, , -
,
(II: 63). , , ,
.

, (-
), ,
, (II: 72).
-
,
,
, ,
-
, ,
, ,
5. 1881. , , -
, -
(I: 145),
XIX ,
(
, , , ,
..., . ), -

.
-
,
, ,
( , , -

, ,
), ,
-
( , -
),
() ,
, , -
, , -
, , ,
, -
, , -
.
: 5. 2016.
2016.
218 / , , / XVII / 61
821.163.41.09 .
. 1

()
( , : ,
- : Orionspirit, 2015, 140. .)

, , ,
: , , -
(2011) , , ,
-
, ,
( , , , ), -
, , ()
, , ,
(
,
).

, -
,
-
, ,
, .

( , -
, , , ,
, , -
)
, : 1)
(
) , 2) ,
, , 3)
( , -
, -
, (. 33), 4) ,
(. 31), 5) -
1 tiskicvet38@gmail.com
.
() , 6) -
(. 99), ,
,
, , -
, , ...

(. 72). ,
, ,
,
() .
, , ,
( )
() .
, -
-
(, ,
-
, . 55)
,
( -
, -
), ,
(
) ( -
,
, , , -
,
, , . 136).
1936.
( , , ), -
-
( )
,
,
,
,
. ,

( 1931. ,
) (. 16)
, ,
, , . -
(

), -
220 / , , / XVII / 61
()
, ,
. , -
,

, , ,
(, 1960),
1920. [ ]
(. 114), -
,
- , ,
-
( -
) ; ,
-
, -
(. 132).
-
. , -
,
, ,
-
, , , (.
29);

. : -
, (. 42),

, -
, (. 68),

, -
(. 76),
, -
(. 80)
,
(. 92. . 97),
,
, ,
; ,
, , , -

, (. 127).
,
, -
, ,
.
, , ,
, , -
, -
, , .
, -
,
, (
, , )
-
, ,
, .
: 25. 2016.
2016.
222 / , , / XVII / 61

821.133.1-5=163.41:711.4
2 .
,
( ),
, , , , -
. ,
, ,
, :
, , ,
. , ja . (
) ,
, . ,
, , -
?
. ,

. (
) . , -
, ,
, ( -
) 3. , ,
, ,
. , 4
: , ,

, , -
. , -
, , , -
: , ;
1 : Roland Barthes, Smiologie et urbanisme, LArchitecture aujourdhui, . 153 (.

1970. 1971), . 1113.
2 16. 1967. , -
Op. cit.
3 (. signification) , ;
, . (R. Bart, Elementi semiologije,
sa francuskog preveo Ivan olovi, Beograd, Biblioteka XX vek, 2015, str. 49) (. .).
4 :
. : e .

, , , -
, .

, ,
VI . . . , -
, , -
5.
,

, . -
.
, , ,
-
,
.
,
, -
, , -
6. , , .
. -

, , .
, -
, , ,
. , -
,
.
,
. , -
.
, , .
, (Kewin Lynch),

,
, . ,
, -
. ,
( ,
, )
: -
, ,
. ,
, , , .
5 .Vidal-Naquet et Lvque, Clisthne lAthnien.
6 : F. Choay, Lurbanisme: utopies et ralits, ditions du Seuil, Paris, 1965.
228 / , , / XVII / 61

. ,
, ,
.

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

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

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

, ,
, :
.
, ;
, , -
, ,
. , -
.
,
.
.
,
-
. :
? ,
, , -
, -
( )

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

,
.
(
) ,
, .
, , -
, : , -
. ,
-
. , ,
(Katz) (Fodor),
230 / , , / XVII / 61

. ,
,
( )
,
, ,
. , ,
;
; .
,
, ,
, . ,
/ -
, :

.
, -
,
, , ; ,
, , ,
.
. ,
(
, -
). , -
, ,
,
; ,
:
, ;
, . , ,
. ,
, -
. , e -
, . ,

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

-
,
,
. , , -
, ,
. ,
- ,
( -
, ). ,
, -
. -
.
. , ,
, -
, .
:
.
, ,
;

; , ,
e
,
. ;
;
,
. ,
, ,
, , , .
:
; , (
) ,
,
. ,
100 000 ,
; ,
, .
, -
. -
, . , -
,
,
. , ,
. , -
, . ,
232 / , , / XVII / 61

,
, ,
.
.
.
. -
,

;
. . ,
, -
.
, .
, , ,
; -
, .
,
, , .
.

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

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

-
, , ,
, , , .
, .
, .
. -
? , ,

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

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

.
: 18. 2016.
2016.
234 / , , / XVII / 61
821.111-5=163.41:7
: 1
, ,
, , -
.
, e
.

.
: -
.
,
.
,
, .
. -
-
.
2009. -
, -
.
,
,
.
, -
: -
,
.
, -
, :
,
; ,
,
: -, , -
- , .
1 http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/altermodern/explain-altermodern/
altermodern-explained-manifesto

, -
, -
, , ,
.
-
, ,
.
, . -
, -
, -
, ,
.
, . -
, .
,
.
homo viator, ,

, . -
:
, ,
.
, , -.
,
, -
, .
, time-specific, site-specific
1960-. , -
.
,
.
2009. -
.
***
,
,

03. 26. 2009. , ,

/Tate Britan/, -
, 2009 /Tate Triennial 2009/. -
, , ,

.. /Nicolas
236 / , , / XVII / 61
:
Bourriaud/ , -
.
:
1. :
, -
. 1973.
- . , -
(, homo novus ) ,

. ,
. (. )
2. : ,
,
. ,
. ,
, .
Viator , .
, -
, .
! -
()(), ,
!
3. : homo viator,
, ,
. . -
: ,
, , ;
, , , .
.
4. : . -
, ,
.
, -
, ,
. ( . ,
, -
)
5. :
. .
? ,
.
6. : ,
,
. .
.
.
. .
7. :
, , -

, . , , .
photoshop product.
8. : ,
, , . ,
.

, ( ).

( , 2009,
)
. .
-

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/
altermodern
-
.
: 11. 2016.
2016.
238 / , , / XVII / 61

61,

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

, , Lipar / Journal for Literature,
Language, Art and Culture
Publisher
University of Kragujevac
Published by
Neboja Arsenijevi
Rector
Proofreader
Jelena Veskovi
Translator
Nataa Antonijevi
- Artistic and graphic design

Lazar Dimitrijevi
Technical editor
Stefan Sekuli
Adress
., 34000 Jovana Cvijia b.b, 34000 Kragujevac
: (+381) 034/370-270 Phone: (+381) 034/370-270
: (+381) 034/370-168 Fax: (+381) 034/370-168
e-mail: casopislipar@gmail.com e-mail: casopislipar@gmail.com
www.lipar.kg.ac.rs www.lipar.kg.ac.rs
Resavska Author of font Resavska

Olivera Stojadinovi
/Print Print
, KG DIGITAL PRESS, Kragujevac
Impression
250 250 copies
Lipar comes out

three times annually
CIP
,
82
: , , ,
. . 1, . 1 (1999)- .
( ) : ,
1999- ( : ). 24 cm

ISSN 1450-8338 = ()
COBISS.SR.ID 151188999

Lipar 61

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lipar 61

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XVII/ 61 / 2016.

1997: J. Adelman, Iagos Alter Ego: Race as Projection in Othello.

Nataa Z. Antonijevi / PERSONA DRAMATIS IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES

Bojana Sekuli / THE PROCESS OF INDIVIDUATION IN MEA SELIMOVIS

Key words: M. Selimovi, individuation/disintegration, the Self, Shadow, Persona,

(Hajdeger 1982: 147). , -

Hajdeger 1982: M. Hajdeger, Miljenje i pevanje, Izabrao i preveo Boidar Zec,

Jana M. Aleksi / Rajko Petrov Nogo: the dignity of rebellion

Summary / In this paper, we have tried to clarify certain philosophical aspects of

Nataa B. Anelkovi / The relationship between carnivalization and identity forma-

Summary / The goal of this paper is to use a genre-poetical and literary-historical

Key words: carnival, carnivalization, Menippean satire, modernism, mask, irony,

Duko .Vuievi / EVANGELIUM NACH DER DURSTIGEN ALS ANTIEVAN-

Schlsselwrter: Mirjana Novakovi, der Chronotopos, der Erzhler, Karl Popper,

Jasmina Nektarijevi / AUSSICHTEN DER UNTERSUCHUNG DES ROMANS

Schlsselwrter: C. G. Jung, Demian, Identittsproblem, Schatten, Individuation,

Stefan Pajovi / THE PROBLEM OF PRESUPPOSED SPACE IN THE POSSIBLE

Jai lu tous les livres...

(...) , (...) ( 2009: 252 253)

ore urevi / ON POETRY AND LANGUAGE, WHILE MALLARM MAKES A

Keywords: Mallarm, poetry, emptiness, word-being, language, sign

NO HAPPILY EVER AFTER FAMILY IN MARTIN

Keywords: M. Amis, S. Rushdie, family, downfall, society, abuse, isolation, separation.

The society of today is a society of consumerism, of watching TV, ad-

family is doomed as long as the world is what it is today. Literature is the

2. FAMILY IN AMISS LONDON FIELDS

Martin Amiss London Fields appeared in 1989, at a time when the

Not interested in building a meaningful relationship with his wife,

Locked in the subjugated position, reduced to a role of Keiths serv-

What are those pills youre taking? Oh. Yeast.

The Clinch family is heading towards a disastrous ending and noth-

3. DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY IN THE GROUND

fictional world of his imagination in which he envisions to return to the

Rushdies 575 pages long novel is full of misery, sorrow, unhappi-

Shorther 1977: E. Shorther, The Making of the Modern Family, University of

Jelena. V. ajinovi Novakovi

Kljune rijei: prefiks over-, znaenje, prevod

Temom prefiksa u okviru morfolokih istraivanja u engleskom

Meutim, analiza e pokazati da se prefiks over- sve ee dodaje i

Metodoloki postupci koriteni u radu su kvalitativan i kvantitativan

2.1. Karakteristike imenica s prefiksom over-

overnighter, oznaavaju osobu (a), a u neformalnim kontekstima i stvar

(overexposure, overclosure), koji se na engleski jezik gotovo uvijek prevode

2.2. Karakteristike glagola s prefiksom over-

Osim standardne podjele na prelazne, neprelazne i prelazno-nepre-

Pojedini glagoli s prefiksom over- spadaju u grupu takozvanih prepo-

Glagoli sa prefiksom over- ne ulaze u kombinacije glagola poznate

2.3. Karakteristike pridjeva s prefiksom over-

In your opinion, who is the most overrated celebrity today?

Osim toga, ovi pridjevi se mogu modifikovati prilogom very:

ili pojaati upotrebom intenzifikatora:

Pleonastine strukture ovog tipa oigledno nisu neobina pojava u

ridiculously over-the-top performances

Analizirajui korpus, primijeeno je da se prefiks over-u gramatici ne

The overprivileged are often prominent public features...

Kao i veina pridjeva u engleskom jeziku, pridjevi s prefiksom

All of them were overjoyed at my success.

srpski jezik pridjeva koji oznaavaju prekomjernost mogli prevesti i prefik-

Neki od pridjeva s prefiksom over-nemaju emotivno svojstvo poto

2.4. Karakteristike priloga s prefiksom over-

Jedna od karakteristika priloga s prefiksom over-je da su najee

Pored pomenutih postoje i prilozi koji nastaju dodavanjem prefiksa

I would not worry overmuch.

2.5. Ostale vrste rijei s prefiksom over-