Hierarchical Ambiguities in Copula Coordinate Structures in Slovene and Other Slavic Languages

SLOVENE: Lastnosti prirednosti so vroča tema v sodobni lingvistiki. Mnogi problemi, ki so še danes v ospredju jezikoslovnega raziskovanja, so pritegovali pozornost avtorjev že v času antike. Tako že Aristotel in Dionizij Traški razpravljata o derivaciji in članstvu v prirednih strukturah. V tem stoletju najdemo podobno razpravljanje v delih Bloomfielda in Chomskega. Identificirati je mogoče nekaj vrst priredja. Vezalno priredje, ki izraža pomen 'in' s priredjem (dostavljanje tipa A B), sestavljanjem (spojitev tipa A B) in vezanjem (besedno povezovanje z veznikom tipa A in B), je glavna tema članka.Priredje in vezanje sta najpogostejša mehanizma prirednosti v slovanskih jezikih. Po van Oirsouwu je vezanje mogoče deliti na zaporedno, identično, hkratno in naključno. Vse štiri vrste seuporabljajo v slovanskih jezikih z večjo ali manjšo stopnjo besedne različnosti. Dvoumnost v teh vezalnih prirednih strukturah je funkcionalna,odnosna ali hierarhična. Nekateri avtorji so pokazali besednorazdvoumljenje teh dvoumnosti za klasične jezike, npr. staroperzijščino, latinščino, grščino in sanskrt. Čeprav se domneva, da današnji indoevropski jeziki takih struktur besedno nerazdvoumljajo več, nekateri slovanski jeziki vendarle lahko besedno razlikujejo članstvo na višji in nižji ravni v prirednih strukturah. Slovenščina je v tem pogledu posebno bogata, saj ima tri vezalne veznike: ter, in, pa. Ti izražajo članstvo vprirednih strukturah od strukturno najvišjega do najnižjega, čeprav vnjihovi rabi obstajajo stilistične omejitve. Drugi slovanski jeziki sov zmožnosti, da bi besedno razdvoumili priredne strukture, bolj omejeni. Slovenščina in nekateri drugi slovanski jeziki imajo za izražanje prirednosti na še nižji ravni dodatni mehanizem s predlogom z(s), npr. midva s Petrom. Vendar v različnih slovanskih jezikih opazimo variacije v slovničnosti in številu udeležencev v teh strukturah. Zlasti slovenščina je v rabi priredja s predlogom z(s) bolj omejena kot ruščina. ENGLISH: The nature of coordination is a current topic of debate in linguistic research. Many of the issues being discussed today, including derivation and constituency in coordinate structures, were debated by earlier writers, such as Aristotle and Dionysius Thrax, and have been paralleled in this century by linguists such as Bloomfield and Chomsky. A number of coordination types are recognized. Copulativecoordination, expressing and' is achieved through parataxis (juxtaposition of the type A B), composition (fusion of the type A B) and conjunction (lexical linkage of the type A and B), is the focus of this article. Parataxis and conjunction arethe most frequently employed coordinate mechanisms in the Slavic languages. This latter can be subdivided, à la van Oirsouw, intoordered, identity, concomitant and coincidental conjunction. All four types occur in Slavic with varying degrees of lexical distinction. Ambiguity in these copula coordinate structures is functional, relational or hierarchical. Lexical disambiguation of these ambiguities has been demonstrated or posited for classical languages such as Old Persian, Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Although it has been assumed that the modern Indo-European languages no longer lexically disambiguate such constructions, some Slavic languages are able lexically to differentiate higher- and lower-level constituency within coordinate structures. Slovene is particularly capable in this regard, employing three copulative conjunctions: ter, in and pa. These express structurally highest to lowest constituency in coordinate structures,although there are stylistic limitations on their use. Other Slavic languages are more limited in their ability lexically to disambiguate coordinate structures. A further coordination mechanism, expressed with the prepositionz (s) (e.g., midva s Petrom), can express yet alower level of coordination in Slovene and some other Slavic languages.However, there is cross-linguistic variation in the grammaticality and number of participants of these constructions. In particular, Slovene is more limited than Russian in its use of coordination with the preposition z (s)

The semantics of the preposition na in Slavic spatial constructions

Prepositional usage in spatial constructions in the Slavic languages is frequently unpredictable and perplexing to the non-native speaker. This is especially true in the case of the preposition na. By examining categories of spatial phenomena with which the preposition na is used, it is possible to better understand why na is used in many circumstances. This not only has implications for language pedagogy, but promises to aid the understanding of certain aspects of diachronic change in the semantics of the prepositional systems of the Slavic languages