Izražavanje specifičnosti u jeziku bez članova: Pokazatelji specifičnosti u hrvatskom jeziku

The main goal of the paper was to detect specificity markers in Croatian. As specificity is in a close relation to (in)definiteness, markers of (in)definiteness such as articles are standardly used as indicators of specificity as well. However, detecting specificity in articleless languages becomes less straightforward. Regardless of the lack of the article system, other (in)definiteness markers exist in Croatian. Here, we focused on the following markers of (in)definiteness in order to find specificity markers: i) the adjectives, ii) the numeral jedan ’one’, and iii) the demonstrative (definite) and indefinite pronouns. As specificity markers in Croatian we discuss the numeral jedan ’one’, the indefinite pronoun neki ’some’ and the construction taj + neki ’that some’. Our study also lead to the formation of three categories of specificity based on the properties of these markers: a) contextual specificity, b) semi–lexicalized specificity and c) constructional specificity.Glavni cilj ovoga rada bio je odrediti pokazatelje specifičnosti u hrvatskom jeziku. Definicija specifičnosti odnosi se na mogućnost govornikove identifikacije jedinstvenog referenta imenske fraze i na taj način funkcionira kao primarno pragmatički utemeljena kategorija, koja svoju funkciju ostvaruje u govornom, odnosno komunikacijskom činu. Također, specifičnost se kao sintaktičko–semantička kategorija u literaturi često veže uz pojmove određenosti i neodređenosti te se obično izražava članovima u jezicima poput engleskoga. Na taj se način specifičnost u literaturi definira kao kategorija koja presijeca kategorije određenosti i neodređenosti te je njezino izdvajanje za potrebe jezične analize izazovan zadatak. Također, jezici bez sustava članova, poput hrvatskoga, koriste raznorodne strategije za izražavanje neodređenosti i određenosti, kao i njima srodne kategorije specifičnosti. U radu se tako raspravlja s kojim se pokazateljima određenosti i neodređenosti u hrvatskome može povezati i ostvarivanje specifičnosti. Tri kategorije za izražavanje određenosti i neodređenosti koje se obrađuju jesu: a) kratki i dugi oblici pridjeva, b) broj jedan i c) pokazne i neodređene zamjenice. Na primjerima iz Hrvatskoga nacionalnog korpusa te Hrvatske jezične riznice pokazuje se nestanak opreke neodređenosti i određenosti u kratkim i dugim oblicima pridjeva te u skladu s time i nedostatnost ove tradicionalne gramatičke podjele za opis kategorije specifičnosti. Posebna se pažnja posvećuje funkcijama broja jedan i procesu gramatikalizacije kojime jedan u određenim kontekstima gubi svoju funkciju broja te preuzima funkciju neodređenoga specifičnog člana. Nadalje, kao dodatni pokazatelj specifičnosti u hrvatskome ističe se složena konstrukcija taj+neki, odnosno konstrukcija pokazne zamjenice i neodređene zamjenice u poziciji modifikatora imenske fraze. Na temelju korpusne analize primjera i sredstava kojima se izražava specifičnost u hrvatskome ustanovljena je klasifikacija jezičnih sredstava za izražavanje specifičnosti koja se sastoji od kategorija a) kontekstualne specifičnosti, b) poluleksikalizirane specifičnosti i c) konstrukcijske specifičnosti. Kontekstualna specifičnost se definira kao pragmatički ostvarena kategorija, dok se poluleksikalizirana specifičnost ostvaruje gramatikalizacijom broja jedan. Konstrukcijska je specifičnost izražena slaganjem zamjenica taj+neki

O glagolima s obveznom kontrolom u hrvatskome

Obligatory control refers to the relation of obligatory coreference between one of the arguments in the matrix clause and an unexpressed argument of the subordinate infinitive. This paper provides examples of subject and object control in Croatian that reveal significant differences between these two constructions. Subject control is understood as a purely syntactic relation, while the analysis of object control requires the introduction of semantic macroroles. The two constructions are therefore based on different basic principles, which results in various asymmetries with regard to restrictions on possible syntactic realizations. Moreover, the limitations on scope interpretation of temporal adverbs resulting from word order changes in object control constructions suggest that the two verbs in object control might form a tighter unit than those in subject control constructions.Obvezna kontrola označava odnos obvezne korefencije između jednog od argumenata u glavnoj surečenici i neizrečenog argumenta subordiniranog infinitiva. U ovom se radu na primjerima objektne i subjektne kontrole u hrvatskome otkrivaju i opisuju značajne razlike između ovih dviju konstrukcija. Subjektnu kontrolu smatramo isključivo sintaktičkim odnosom, dok je za analizu objektne kontrole potrebno uvesti pojam semantičkih makrouloga. Ove dvije konstrukcije, dakle, počivaju na različitim temeljnim načelima, posljedica čega su razne asimetrije koje proizlaze iz ograničenja mogućih sintaktičkih realizacija. Povrh toga, ograničenja u interpretaciji dosega vremenskih priloga kao rezultat promjena u redu riječi upućuju na zaključak da su glagoli u konstrukcijama s objektnom kontrolom sintaktički čvršće povezani od onih u konstrukcijama sa subjektnom kontrolom

Multilingualism and structural borrowing in Arbanasi Albanian

In this paper we present a brief overview of the history of linguistic contacts of Arbanasi Albanian, a Gheg Albanian dialect spoken in Croatia, with Croatian and Italian. Then we discuss a number of contact-induced changes in that language. We show that Arbanasi Albanian was subject to strong influences from Croatian (and, to a lesser extent, from Italian) on all levels of linguistic structure. Using the data from our own fieldwork, we were able to show that there were also influences on the level of syntax, including the borrowing of certain constructions, such as analytic causative and imperative constructions, as well as the extension of the use of infinitive in subordinate clauses.National Foreign Language Resource Cente

Effects of (in)alienability on the expression of possessive relations in the language of Plautus’ plays

The aim of this paper is to analyse possessive constructions in the language of Plautus’ plays and see whether there is any difference in expressing alienable and what may be perceived as inalienable relations. Since nouns denoting kinship and body parts make up the two most frequent semantic groups treated as inalienable in languages in which the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is grammaticalized, a corpus of twelve plays was searched based on a list of possibly inalienable nouns including body part terms and kin terms. Certain partitive relations were subsequently included in the analysis. To see whether these putatively inalienable nouns appear in different possessive constructions than alienable ones, the prologues and the first two acts of each of the twelve plays were searched for instances of alienable nouns occurring in possessive constructions, which were then compared to the first group. The general finding is that, although the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is not grammaticalized in Early Latin, i.e. there is no alienability split which requires different possessive constructions for alienables as opposed to inalienables, it seems to have been more appropriate to use certain constructions, such as the possessive adjective or possessor promotion and deletion, with inalienable nouns than with alienable ones. The result is a higher frequency of these constructions in cases when the possessed noun tends to be perceived as inalienable from the possessor

Utjecaj (ne)otuđivosti na izražavanje odnosa posvojnosti u jeziku Plautovih drama

The aim of this paper is to analyse possessive constructions in the language of Plautus’ plays and see whether there is any difference in expressing alienable and what may be perceived as inalienable relations. Since nouns denoting kinship and body parts make up the two most frequent semantic groups treated as inalienable in languages in which the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is grammaticalized, a corpus of twelve plays was searched based on a list of possibly inalienable nouns including body part terms and kin terms. Certain partitive relations were subsequently included in the analysis. To see whether these putatively inalienable nouns appear in different possessive constructions than alienable ones, the prologues and the first two acts of each of the twelve plays were searched for instances of alienable nouns occurring in possessive constructions, which were then compared to the first group. The general finding is that, although the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is not grammaticalized in Early Latin, i.e. there is no alienability split which requires different possessive constructions for alienables as opposed to inalienables, it seems to have been more appropriate to use certain constructions, such as the possessive adjective or possessor promotion and deletion, with inalienable nouns than with alienable ones. The result is a higher frequency of these constructions in cases when the possessed noun tends to be perceived as inalienable from the possessor.Cilj je ovoga rada usporediti posvojne konstrukcije u jeziku Plautovih komedija i vidjeti postoji li razlika u izražavanju otuđivih odnosa posvojnosti i odnosa koje bismo mogli smatrati neotuđivima. Budući da se u jezicima u kojima je opreka između otuđive i neotuđive posvojnosti gramatikalizirana neotuđivima najčešće smatraju imenice koje označavaju dijelove tijela i odnose srodstva, korpus od dvanaest Plautovih drama pretraživan je upravo prema tim dvjema semantičkim skupinama imenica. Neki su partitivni odnosi naknadno uključeni u analizu. Kako bi se vidjela eventualna razlika između posvojnih konstrukcija u kojima se pojavljuju ove pretpostavljeno neotuđive posjedovane imenice i onih s otuđivim imenicama, u prologu i prvim dvama činovima svake od dvanaest drama pronađene su konstrukcije kojima se izražava odnos otuđive posvojnosti i uspoređene su s prvom skupinom. Posebna je pozornost pridana posvojnim pridjevima i posvojnim genitivima imenica kao oznakama posjednika, kao i pojavama brisanja posjednika i promocije posjednika u usporedbi s upotrebom posvojnih zamjenica. Opći je zaključak da, iako opreka između otuđive i neotuđive posvojnosti nije gramatikalizirana u starolatinskome, čini se da su neke konstrukcije, poput posvojnog pridjeva ili brisanja i promocije posjednika, bile prihvatljivije uz neotuđive nego uz otuđive imenice, a posljedica je toga veća učestalost takvih konstrukcija u slučajevima kada se posjedovano smatra neotuđivim od posjednika. Konstrukcije iz latinskog uspoređene su sa sličnim posvojnim konstrukcijama u hrvatskome i u još nekim europskim jezicima u kojima također postoji tendencija razlikovanja otuđivih i neotuđivih posvojnih odnosa, premda ona, kao ni u latinskome, nije gramatikalizirana

Some Observations on Verbs with Obligatory Control in Croatian

Obligatory control refers to the relation of obligatory coreference between one of the arguments in the matrix clause and an unexpressed argument of the subordinate infinitive. This paper provides examples of subject and object control in Croatian that reveal significant differences between these two constructions. Subject control is understood as a purely syntactic relation, while the analysis of object control requires the introduction of semantic macroroles. The two constructions are therefore based on different basic principles, which results in various asymmetries with regard to restrictions on possible syntactic realizations. Moreover, the limitations on scope interpretation of temporal adverbs resulting from word order changes in object control constructions suggest that the two verbs in object control might form a tighter unit than those in subject control constructions

O glagolima s obveznom kontrolom u hrvatskome

Obligatory control refers to the relation of obligatory coreference between one of the arguments in the matrix clause and an unexpressed argument of the subordinate infinitive. This paper provides examples of subject and object control in Croatian that reveal significant differences between these two constructions. Subject control is understood as a purely syntactic relation, while the analysis of object control requires the introduction of semantic macroroles. The two constructions are therefore based on different basic principles, which results in various asymmetries with regard to restrictions on possible syntactic realizations. Moreover, the limitations on scope interpretation of temporal adverbs resulting from word order changes in object control constructions suggest that the two verbs in object control might form a tighter unit than those in subject control constructions.Obvezna kontrola označava odnos obvezne korefencije između jednog od argumenata u glavnoj surečenici i neizrečenog argumenta subordiniranog infinitiva. U ovom se radu na primjerima objektne i subjektne kontrole u hrvatskome otkrivaju i opisuju značajne razlike između ovih dviju konstrukcija. Subjektnu kontrolu smatramo isključivo sintaktičkim odnosom, dok je za analizu objektne kontrole potrebno uvesti pojam semantičkih makrouloga. Ove dvije konstrukcije, dakle, počivaju na različitim temeljnim načelima, posljedica čega su razne asimetrije koje proizlaze iz ograničenja mogućih sintaktičkih realizacija. Povrh toga, ograničenja u interpretaciji dosega vremenskih priloga kao rezultat promjena u redu riječi upućuju na zaključak da su glagoli u konstrukcijama s objektnom kontrolom sintaktički čvršće povezani od onih u konstrukcijama sa subjektnom kontrolom

Achieving specificity in an articleless language: Specificity markers in Croatian

The main goal of the paper was to detect specificity markers in Croatian. As specificity is in a close relation to (in)definiteness, markers of (in)definiteness such as articles are standardly used as indicators of specificity as well. However, detecting specificity in articleless languages becomes less straightforward. Regardless of the lack of the article system, other (in)definiteness markers exist in Croatian. Here, we focused on the following markers of (in)definiteness in order to find specificity markers: i) the adjectives, ii) the numeral jedan ’one’, and iii) the demonstrative (definite) and indefinite pronouns. As specificity markers in Croatian we discuss the numeral jedan ’one’, the indefinite pronoun neki ’some’ and the construction taj + neki ’that some’. Our study also lead to the formation of three categories of specificity based on the properties of these markers: a) contextual specificity, b) semi–lexicalized specificity and c) constructional specificity