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

Authors

  • Младен Ухлик [Mladen Uhlik] University of Ljubljana Faculty of Arts
  • Андрея Желе [Andreja Žele] University of Ljubljana Faculty of Arts

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3986/sjsls.12.1.08

Keywords:

komitativne zgradbe

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Benić, Mislav. 2020. Komitativ, instrumental i karitiv u kukljičkom govoru. Rasprave: Časopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje (в печати).

Brozović, Dalibor, Ivić, Pavle. 1988: Jezik srpskohrvatski, hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski. Zagreb: Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža.

Dyła, Stefan, Feldman, Anna 2008. On comitative constructions in Polish and Russian. Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uwe Junghanns, Roland Meyer (eds.) Formal description of Slavic languages: the fifth conference (Leipzig 2003). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 288–299.

Fran = Fran: slovarji Inštituta za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša ZRC SAZU. URL: www. fran.si, вход 20. 3. 2019.

GigaFida, korpusna besedilna zbirka, http://www.gigafida.net, вход 20. 3. 2019.

Ivić, Pavle. 1957: O govoru Galipoljskih Srba. Srpski dijalektološki zbornik 12. Beograd.

Ravnikar, Andreja Legan. 2017. Issues regarding the influence of a contact language: German influence on semantic change and stylistic values of the oldest Slovenian literary lexica (16th century). [K problematiki vpliva stičnega jezika - Nemščine na semantične spremembe in stilno vrednost najstarejše slovenske knjižne leksike (16. Stoletje)]. Slovenski Jezik 11: 35–53.

Nomachi, Motoki, Heine, Bernd. 2011. On Predicting Contact-induced Grammatical Change: Evidence from Slavic Languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1/1: 48–76.

Reindl, Donald F. 2008: Language Contact: German and Slovenian. Bochum: Universität Dr. N. Brockmeyer.

Škrabec, Stanislav 1895. Nekoliko slovenske slovnice za poskušnjo. Cvetke z vertov sv. Frančiška. 3., 4, 5 zvezek. 208–210, 212–214, 216–218. Gorica: Hilarijanska tiskarna.

Uhlik, Mladen, Žele, Andreja. 2018. Impersonal constructions in Slovenian: A comparison with other south Slavic languages and Russian. [Brezosebne zgradbe v slovenščini: kontrastiva z drugimi južnoslovanskimi jeziki in ruščino]. Jezikoslovni zapiski 24/2: 99–112.

Zimmerling, Anton, Kosta, Peter. 2013. Slavic Clitics: A Typology. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 66/2: 178–214.

Zimmerling, Anton. 2015. 1P orders in 2P languages. Типология морфосинтакси- ческих параметров. E. A. Лютикова (ред.), А. В. Циммерлинг (ред.), М. Б.

Коношенко(ред.). Материалы международной конференции «Типология морфо- синтаксических параметров 2015» 2: 459–483. Москва: МПГУ.

[Zimmerling, Anton. 2015. 1P orders in 2P languages. Tipologija morfosintaksičeskih parametrov. E. A. Ljutikova (red.), A. V. Zimmerling (red.), M. B. Konošenko(red.). Materialy meždunarodnoj konferencii «Tipologija morfosintaksičeskih parametrov 2015»: 2. Moskva: MPGU. 459–483.]

Архипов, Aлександр В. 2005. К типологии комитативных конструкций: часть I.

Определение и формальная типология. Вопросы языкознания 4: 76–100.

[Arhipov, Aleksandr V. 2005. K tipologii komitativnyh konstrukcij: čast’ I. Opredelenie i

formal’naja tipologija. Voprosy jazykoznanija 4: 76–100.]

Архипов, Aлександр В. 2008. К типологии комитативных конструкций: часть II.

Полисемия комитативных конструкций. Вопросы языкознания 3: 22–50.

[Arhipov, Aleksandr V. 2008. K tipologii komitativnyh konstrukcij: čast’ II. Polisemija komitativnyh konstrukcij. Voprosy jazykoznanija 3: 22–50.]

Зализняк, Андрей А. 2008: Древнерусские энклитики. Мoсква: Языки славянских

культур.

[Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008: Drevnerusskie ènklitiki. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskih kul’tur.]

Зализняк, Aнна А., Шмелев, Алексей Д. 1999. O том, чего нельзя сделать вместе. Рахилина, Екатерина В., Тестелец, Яков Г. (ред.). Сборник научных статей к 60-летию Александра Евгеневича Кибрика. Москва: Языки русской культуры. 450–457.

[Zaliznjak, Anna A., Šmelev, Aleksej D. 1999. O tom, čego nel’zja sdelat’ vmeste. Rahilina, Ekaterina V., Testelec, Jakov G. (red.). Sbornik naučnyh statej k 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgeneviča Kibrika. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. 450–457.]

Юрий П. Князев. 2007: Грамматическая семантика: русский язык в типологической перспективе. Москвa: Языки славянских культур.

[Jurij P. Knjazev, 2007: Grammatičeskaja semantika: russkij jazyk v tipologičeskoj perspektive. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskih kul’tur.]

Копчевская-Тамм, Мария, Шмелев, Алексей Д. 1994. Aлешина с Машей статья (о

некоторых свойствах русских «притяжательных прилагательных». Scando-Slavica 40: 209–228.

[Kopčevskaja-Tamm, Marija, Šmelev, Aleksej D. 1994. Alešina s Mašej stat’ja (o nekotoryh svojstvah russkih «pritjažatel’nyh prilagatel’nyh». Scando-Slavica 40: 209–228.]

Национальный корпус русского языка (НКРЯ), http://www.ruscorpora.ru/, вход 20. 3. 2019.

[Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka (NKRJa), http://www.ruscorpora.ru/, vhod 20. 3. 2019.]

Подлесская, Вера И. 2012. Структурно и линейно-просодическая целостность именных групп по данным корпусного исследования: сочнинение и комитативные группы с личным местоимением первого лица в русском языке. Вопросы языкознания 1: 42–65.

[Podlesskaja, Vera I. 2012. Strukturno i linejno-prosodičeskaja celostnost’ imennyh grupp po dannym korpusnogo issledovanija: sočninenie i komitativnye gruppy s ličnym mestoimeniem pervogo lica v russkom jazyke. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 42–65.]

How to Cite

Ухлик [Mladen Uhlik] М., & Желе [Andreja Žele] А. (2019). Словенские комитативные конструкции (в сопоставлении с другими южнославянскими и русскими). Slovenski Jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies, 12, 135–156. https://doi.org/10.3986/sjsls.12.1.08

Issue

Section

Articles