Simmering in the Soviet pot: language heterogeneity in early Soviet socio-linguistics

At the beginning of the '30s—the period of lively debates on the relation between language and society—one of the main issues in linguistics was language heterogeneity. On the example of the texts by Boris Larin, Georgij Danilov and Lev Jakubinskij we shall compare two attitudes about unity and division of a language. If the studies by Larin and Danilov in various ways establish divisions in society and language at the end of the '20s, in the '30s there is a marked tendency to recognize language unity and the cohesiveness of the proletarian society, as seen in socio-linguistic analyses by Jakubinskij. The conclusion, suggested at the end of this exposition, claims that the idea of one national language grows in importance in the discourse of the Soviet linguistics at the beginning of 1930s. Disappearance of the contemporary language heterogeneity in the discourse of Soviet linguists of the period corroborates how linguistics adapts to the political conceptions of societ

Субъектно-имперсональные рефлексивные конструкции в словенском языке

The article presents formal, semantic, and pragmatic features of Slovenian subject impersonal reflexive constructions, e. g. Nekoč se je veliko delalo ‘Back in the day, one used to work a lot’. Constructions with unexpressed arbitrary agents should be distinguished from sentences in which the nominative agent has been omitted, but can be determined from the context. Subject impersonal reflexive constructions use the reflexive forms of non-reflexive verbs. In such constructions, the morpheme se is a grammaticalized element that does not express a reflexive action. The constructions under discussion can express habitual or iterative actions performed by a non-expressed human agent and can also have a deontic meaning. Reflexive constructions with arbitrary agents mainly involve verbs denoting conscious human actions and activities, which sets them apart from weather impersonals or subjectless constructions describing physiological states. Subject impersonals, characteristic of South Slavic and West Slavic languages, are parallel to those in which the arbitrary agent is expressed lexically (Nekoč so ljudje veliko delali ‘Back in the day, people used to work a lot’). We compare subject impersonals with other impersonal and passive constructions in Slovenian and, at the same time, contrast their features with similar constructions in other South Slavic languages and Russian.В статье рассматриваются формальные, смысловые и коммуникативно-прагматические особенности субъектно-имперсональных рефлексивных конструкций в словенском языке. Предметом исследования являются конструкции с возвратными формами невозвратных глаголов (Nekoč se je veliko delalo ‘В прошлом много работали’), связанные с невыраженным произвольным агенсом-человеком и передающие хабитуальные или итеративные действия, а также способные вырaжать деонтическую модальность. Подобные конструкции, характерные для южно- и западнославянского ареалов, могут трансформироваться в активные личные конструкции (Nekoč so ljudje veliko delali ‘В прошлом люди много работали’). Субъектный имперсонал мы сравниваем с другими безличными и пассивными конструкциями в словенском языке, контрастивно рассматривая их особенности на фоне подобных конструкций других южнославянских языков, а также русского языка. Subjektinės impersonalinės refleksyvinės konstrukcijos slovėnų kalbojeStraipsnyje nagrinėjamos slovėnų kalbos subjektinių impersonalinių refleksyvinių konstrukcijų formalinės, semantinės ir komunikatyvinės bei pragmatinės savybės. Tyrinėjimų objektas — beasmenės konstrukcijos su nesangrąžinių veiksmažodžių sangrąžinėmis formomis (Nekoč se je veliko delalo ‘Kadaise (žmonių) daug darbuotasi’), kuriose morfema se yra gramatizuotas elementas, neišreiškiantis refleksinio veiksmo. Jos yra susietos su nenurodytu agentu (veiksniu) – žmogumi ir perteikia habitualius arba iteratyvius veiksmus, taip pat gali reikšti deontinį modalumą. Panašios konstrukcijos būdingos pietų ir vakarų slavų arealo kalboms ir gali transformuotis į aktyvines asmenines konstrukcijas (Nekoč so ljudje veliko delali ‘Kadaise žmonės daug darbavosi’). Slovėnų kalbos subjektinės impersonalinės konstrukcijos lyginamos su kitomis šios kalbos beasmenėmis ir pasyvinėmis konstrukcijomis, kartu jos savybės kontrastyviai gretinamos su kitų pietų slavų bei rusų kalbos atitinkamomis konstrukcijomis.Reikšminiai žodžiai: subjektyvus impersonalas, refleksyvinės konstrukcijos, beasmenės konstrukcijos, arbitralus agentas, slovėnų kalba, pietų slavų kalbos

O naj in pust’ v slovensko-ruski sopostavitvi

Prispevek obravnava značilnosti rabe slovenskega naj in ruskega pust’ (пусть). V prvem delu je predstavljena klasifikacija zgradb, v katerih naj in pust’ nastopata v členkovni funkciji. V obeh jezikih se členka uporabljata v zgradbah s tretjeosebno obliko povednega naklona, ki lahko izraža bodisi posredno pobudo bodisi pomene, ki so sorodni z velelnostjo (izrekanje želje, izražanje soglasja ali dovoljenja). Kot posebnost slovenskega naj izpostavljamo zgradbe s členkom in pogojnikom, ki lahko оznačujejo znižano stopnjo verjetnosti ali posredujejo informacijo iz tujega vira. V drugem delu obravnavamo rabo leksemov naj in pust’ v vezniški funkciji. Ključna razlika med slovenskim leksemom naj in ruskim pust’ je v tem, da se je naj gramatikaliziral v veznik, ki ob glagolih velevanja uvaja predmetne odvisnike. Glagoli velevanja imajo v ruščini druga dopolnila: nedoločnike ali stavke z veznikom čtoby (da bi)

Analiza pojma jezikovna slika sveta v zgodovini jezikoslovnih idej – primer determinizma v jezikoslovju

This article analyzes the concept of the “linguistic picture of the world,” investigates its genesis in the history of linguistic ideas, and discusses its methodological and ideological premises. It seeks to demonstrate that the claim of a linguistic picture of the world, which enjoys popularity among certain linguists studying Russian, represents a case of determinism in linguistics.Prispevek analizira pojem »jezikovna slika sveta«, raziskuje njegovo genezo v zgodovini jezikoslovnih idej ter obravnava njegove metodološka in ideološka izhodišča. Poskušamo dokazati, da trditev o jezikovni sliki sveta, ki je popularna med nekaterimi preučevalci ruskega jezika, predstavlja primer determinizma v jezikoslovju

Nekatere značilnosti izražanja nujnosti oz. obveznosti v slovenščini in ruščini

This article addresses some aspects of modality in Slovenian and Russian. The frst part analyses the basic lexical means through which Slovenian and Russian express two modal meanings: necessity and possibility (or ability). The second part describes the syntactic and semantic characteristics of the Slovenian predicative construction treba je, which stands out among other Slovenian means of expressing necessity. Its features are compared to those of the corresponding Russian construction.Prispevek obravnava nekatere značilnosti izražanja naklonskosti v slovenskem in ruskem jeziku. V prvem delu analiziramo osnovna leksikalna sredstva, s katerimi se v slovenščini in ruščini izražata dva naklonska pomena - nujnost in (z)možnost. Drugi del posvečamo opisu skladenjskih in pomenskih lastnosti slovenske povedkovne zgradbe treba je, ki med slovenskimi sredstvi, ki izražajo nujnost, zavzemа posebno mesto. Značilnosti omenjene zgradbe primerjamo z lastnostmi ustreznih zgradb v ruskem jeziku

Primerjalna analiza dveh tipov stavčnih zgradb s povedkovim določilom v slovenščini in ruščini

Prispevek se loteva aktualnega in problemskega vprašanja opredelitve povedkovnika in opozarja na različne tipe biti-stavkov. Je poskus analize in sopostavitve stavkov z zloženim povedkom, ki v slovenščini in ruščini označujejo trenutno in aktualno stanje

Brezosebne zgradbe v slovenščini: kontrastiva z drugimi južnoslovanskimi jeziki in ruščino

This article discusses two types of impersonal constructions with reflexive verbs: (a) constructions with a general agent and (b) constructions with the experiencer of the state in the dative. It presents special syntactic-semantic features and the use of these constructions in Slovenian, other South Slavic languages, and Russian.Prispevek obravnava dva tipa brezosebnih zgradb z glagolskimi povratnimi oblikami: (a) zgradbe s splošnim vršilcem; (b) zgradbe z nosilcem stanja v dajalniku. Predstaviti skuša skladenjskopomenske posebnosti in razširjenost obravnavanih zgradb v slovenskem, drugih južnoslovanskih jezikih in ruščini

Kontrastivna obravnava povratnosvojilnega zaimka v slovenščini in ruščini

This article deals with the usage of the Slovenian reflexive possessive pronoun svoj, which is contrasted with its Russian counterpart, the anaphoric pronoun svoj. It considers various syntactic environments and the issue of coreference between the pronoun and the antecedent. Examining the rules that govern the use of the reflexive possessive in both languages sheds light on the connection between the syntactic contexts they function in and the various meanings they express.Prispevek obravnava osnovne značilnosti rabe povratnosvojilnega zaimka svoj v slovenščini in ruščini. Opozorjeno je na različne skladenjske kontekste in na vprašanje koreferenčnosti med povratnosvojilnim zaimkom in njegovim antecedentom. V obeh jezikih se kaže, da je pojavljanje povratnosvojilnega zaimka v različnih skladenjskih vlogah v veliki meri povezano z različnimi tipi pomenskih rab

Словенские комитативные конструкции (в сопоставлении с другими южнославянскими и русскими)

Naše izhodišče so slovenske komitativne zgradbe z dvema človeškima udeležencema, ki sta vključena v isto situacijo: prvi udeleženec je v vlogi jedra komitativne zgradbe najpogosteje izražen z imenovalniško samostalniško zvezo, drugi ali spremljevalni udeleženec pa je izražen z orodniško predložno zvezo. Vsi slovenski primeri rabe komitativnih zgradb so predstavljeni vzporedno z možnimi ustreznicami v ruščini in štokavščini.  Za slovenščino so značilne predvsem komitativne zgradbe v osebkovi vlogi, z osebkom pa je poudarjeno predikacijsko razmerje. Predikacijsko razmerje odpira soodvisnost udeležencev in povedkov, zato izbira oblike povedka pogosto določa število referenčnih udeležencev.  V prvem delu sta predstavljeni dve komitativni zgradbi: prva z udeležencema, ki sta najpogosteje v medsebojno nestičnem položaju, in povedkom v edninski obliki (slvn. Anton je gledal film z Ano); druga z udeležencema, ki sta medsebojno stična, in nastopata kot celovita samostalniška zveza, ki določa needninsko obliko povedka (slvn. Midva z Ano gledava film).  Razlike med slovanskimi jeziki se kažejo pri drugi komitativni zgradbi: tako na primer slovenščina dopušča zgolj zgradbe z osebnimi zaimki v dvojini (midva z Ano), pri čemer mora zaimek zaradi stične rabe vključevati soudeleženca v orodniku (t. i. inkluzivna interpretacija). Po tej lastnosti se slovenščina razlikuje od štokavščine, v kateri stične konstrukcije z inkluzivnim spremljajočim udeležencem in množinsko obliko povedka (*mi s tobom pišemo) niso mogoče.  V slovenskih zgledih inkluzivnost udeležencev v komitativni zgradbi potrjuje tudi dvojinska oblika povedka še posebej v primerih, ko prvi udeleženec ostaja neizražen (Z Ano piševa pismo). S povedkovo dvojinsko obliko je povezana tudi razlika med slovenščino in štokavščino. V slovenskem stavku S profesorjem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem ima lahko neizraženi zaimek vidva, ki označuje naslovljenca, najverjetnejšo inkluzivno interpretacijo, ki vključuje spremljevalnega udeleženca. V štokavskem stavku z množinskim povedkom L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom pa neizraženi zaimek vi glede na profesorja nikakor ni v vključevalnem razmerju. Profesor ima v štokavskem primeru vlogo okoliščine, torej ni del komitativne zgradbe. Primerjava s štokavščino kaže na to, da v slovenščini ravno dvojina (dvojinska oblika povedka z dvojinskim osebnim zaimkom) omogoča in hkrati napoveduje možnost inkluzivne komitativne zgradbe.  V povezavi z zgornjimi ugotovitvami je treba poudariti, da komitativne stične zgradbe s prvim udeležencem, izraženim z lastnim ali občim imenom in needninskim povedkom (rus. Павел с Евой пришли) za južnoslovanske jeziku niso značilne; v teh jezikih se namreč zveza dveh lastnoimenskih vršilcev izraža s koordinacijo in veznikom (slvn. Pavel in Eva sta prišla, štok. Pavel i Eva su došli).  V slovenščini in štokavščini je v nasprotju z ruščino raba vključevalne stične komitativne konstrukcije v neimenovalniških sklonih dokaj neobičajna in omejena zlasti na glagole zaznavanja.  V drugem delu so predstavljene razlike med povedki, ki obvezno implicirajo skupno dejanje, in povedki, ki šele sobesedilno lahko izražajo pomene skupnega dejanja. Ugotavljamo, da se vzajemnost pri prvem tipu povedkov v slovenščini in štokavščini pogosteje kot v ruščini izraža s povratnoоsebnimi glagoli (slvn. prepirati se, štok. svađati se vs. rus. спортить).  Velja še pripomniti, da se ruščina bistveno razlikuje od južnoslovanskih jezikov po tem, da komitativno konstrukcijo uporablja tudi za izražanje skupne svojine (rus. твоя с Машей книга). Ponujene so različne možnosti smiselnega prevajanja te svojilne zgradbe v slovenščino. The paper focuses on Slovenian comitative constructions with two human participants who are involved in the same situation: the first participant, most frequently expressed by a nominative noun phrase, acts as a nucleus of the comitative construction, whereas the other accompanying participant is expressed by means of a prepositional phrase. All Slovenian examples of comitative constructions are presented in parallel with their possible equivalents in Russian and Shtokavian.  Comitative constructions typically found in Slovenian are those that act as subjects, the subject emphasizing the predicative relation. The predicative relation suggests mutual dependence of participants and predicates, which is why the choice of the form of the predicate often determines the number of referential participants.  The first part presents two comitative constructions. The first one includes two participants, which are often detached, and a singular predicate (Slovenian Anton je gledal film z Ano ‘Anton watched a movie with Ana’). The second one consists of two contiguous participants that act as a complete noun phrase (Slovenian Midva z Ano gledava film ‘Ana and I are watching a movie’) demanding a non-singular predicate. Differences between Slavic languages show up in the second comitative construction: Slovenian, for example, only allows constructions with personal pronouns in dual (midva z Ano), in which the pronoun has to include the other participant in the instrumental case. This is how Slovenian differs from Shtokavian, in which contiguous constructions with an inclusive accompanying participant and a plural predicate are not possible (*mi s tobom pišemo).  The inclusiveness of participants in Slovenian comitative constructions is also related to the dual form of the predicate, especially in those cases in which the first participant remains unexpressed (Z Ano piševa pismo ‘Ana and I are writing a letter’). The dual form of the predicate is linked to the difference between Slovenian and Shtokavian, which lacks dual. The unexpressed pronoun vidva (‘you two’) denoting the addressee in the Slovenian sentence S profesorjem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem (‘You and professor have a nice time’) may receive an inclusive interpretation that includes the accompanying participant. In its Shtokavian counterpart with a plural predicate L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom (‘Have a nice time with the professor’), however, the unexpressed pronoun vi (‘you’), is by no means in an inclusive relation to the professor. Profesor in the Shtokavian example assumes the role of the circumstance and is thus not part of the comitative construction. The comparison with Shtokavian shows that it is precisely the Slovenian dual (the dual form of the predicate with a dual personal pronoun) that enables and also announces the inclusive comitative construction.  It should be emphasized that contiguous comitative constructions with the first participant expressed by a proper noun and a non-singular predicate (Russian Павел с Евой пришли ‘Pavel and Eva came’) are not characteristic of South Slavic languages. In these languages, a union of two proper noun agents is expressed through coordination and conjunction (Slovenian Pavel in Eva sta prišla, Shtokavian Pavel i Eva su došli). In contrast to Russian, the use of inclusive contiguous comitative construction in Slovenian and Shtokavian is rather unusual.  The second part discusses differences between predicates that necessarily imply a common action and predicates that can only express a common action contextually. It was established that reciprocity in the first type of predicates is more frequently expressed with reflexive verbs in Slovenian and Shtokavian than in Russian (Slovenian prepirati se, Shtokavian svađati se vs. Russian спортить ‘argue’).  It is also noteworthy that Russian fundamentally differs from South Slavic languages in that a comitative construction is also used to express common possession (Russian твоя/ваша с Машей книга ‘your and Masha’s book’). Different possibilities of translating this possessive construction into Slovenian are provided

Словенские комитативные конструкции (в сопоставлении с другими южнославянскими и русскими)

The paper focuses on Slovenian comitative constructions with two human participants who are involved in the same situation: the first participant, most frequently expressed by a nominative noun phrase, acts as a nucleus of the comitative construction, whereas the other accompanying participant is expressed by means of a prepositional phrase. All Slovenian examples of comitative constructions are presented in parallel with their possible equivalents in Russian and Shtokavian.  Comitative constructions typically found in Slovenian are those that act as subjects, the subject emphasizing the predicative relation. The predicative relation suggests mutual dependence of participants and predicates, which is why the choice of the form of the predicate often determines the number of referential participants.  The first part presents two comitative constructions. The first one includes two participants, which are often detached, and a singular predicate (Slovenian Anton je gledal film z Ano ‘Anton watched a movie with Ana’). The second one consists of two contiguous participants that act as a complete noun phrase (Slovenian Midva z Ano gledava film ‘Ana and I are watching a movie’) demanding a non-singular predicate. Differences between Slavic languages show up in the second comitative construction: Slovenian, for example, only allows constructions with personal pronouns in dual (midva z Ano), in which the pronoun has to include the other participant in the instrumental case. This is how Slovenian differs from Shtokavian, in which contiguous constructions with an inclusive accompanying participant and a plural predicate are not possible (*mi s tobom pišemo).  The inclusiveness of participants in Slovenian comitative constructions is also related to the dual form of the predicate, especially in those cases in which the first participant remains unexpressed (Z Ano piševa pismo ‘Ana and I are writing a letter’). The dual form of the predicate is linked to the difference between Slovenian and Shtokavian, which lacks dual. The unexpressed pronoun vidva (‘you two’) denoting the addressee in the Slovenian sentence S profesorjem se lepo imejta / Lepo se imejta s profesorjem (‘You and professor have a nice time’) may receive an inclusive interpretation that includes the accompanying participant. In its Shtokavian counterpart with a plural predicate L(ij)epo se provedite s profesorom (‘Have a nice time with the professor’), however, the unexpressed pronoun vi (‘you’), is by no means in an inclusive relation to the professor. Profesor in the Shtokavian example assumes the role of the circumstance and is thus not part of the comitative construction. The comparison with Shtokavian shows that it is precisely the Slovenian dual (the dual form of the predicate with a dual personal pronoun) that enables and also announces the inclusive comitative construction.  It should be emphasized that contiguous comitative constructions with the first participant expressed by a proper noun and a non-singular predicate (Russian Павел с Евой пришли ‘Pavel and Eva came’) are not characteristic of South Slavic languages. In these languages, a union of two proper noun agents is expressed through coordination and conjunction (Slovenian Pavel in Eva sta prišla, Shtokavian Pavel i Eva su došli). In contrast to Russian, the use of inclusive contiguous comitative construction in Slovenian and Shtokavian is rather unusual.  The second part discusses differences between predicates that necessarily imply a common action and predicates that can only express a common action contextually. It was established that reciprocity in the first type of predicates is more frequently expressed with reflexive verbs in Slovenian and Shtokavian than in Russian (Slovenian prepirati se, Shtokavian svađati se vs. Russian спортить ‘argue’).  It is also noteworthy that Russian fundamentally differs from South Slavic languages in that a comitative construction is also used to express common possession (Russian твоя/ваша с Машей книга ‘your and Masha’s book’). Different possibilities of translating this possessive construction into Slovenian are provided