The theme of this memorial lecture series dedicated to Professor and colleague Predrag Piper was by no means chosen at random: Professor Piper devoted a substantial part of his scholarly work to exploring the role of the semantic category of space, particularly within the Slavic languages, and most notably in the comparative and contrastive relationship between Serbian and Russian. In his comparative and contrastive studies, Slovenian was by no means a foreign tongue to him; in fact, his connection to it was deeply personal, as it was his mother’s native language, and thus, in some measure, his own as well. In the discussion that follows, my point of departure will be two of his seminal works: the monograph Pronominal Adverbs (Grammatical Status and Semantic Types), published in 1983 in Novi Sad, as part of the Linguistic Studies series (No. 5) and based on his doctoral dissertation, and his study Language and Space (Belgrade, XX Century Library, 91, 20012). Certain words, and even entire classes of words, can function as potential spatially motivated linguistic metaphors. Each word class, in fact, encompasses spatial expressions which, by fostering the conceptualization of space, operate as spatial metaphors. Spatially motivated expressions are thus also spatially iconic. Within these spatial expressions or metaphors, the semantic category of space is present to varying degrees of intensity. Consequently, the question of how space is expressed is closely tied to the role of relational words and expressions. From the perspective of word classes, these are primarily adverbs, prepositions and particles, with adverbs playing both a foundational and central role. In this discussion, adverbs, prepositions and particles are therefore linked by spatial iconicity, spatial metaphor and conversion, a linguistic-systemic (categorical-syntactic) reclassification, within the categorization of word classes that share the same morphological form. In the word classes mentioned, spatial iconicity is clearly observable, and it is also morphologically embedded in verbs, for instance in the form of spatially iconic prefixes. More broadly, the category of space is incorporated both into lexemes and into lexical relations, and it illustrates how different perceptions of space, and of the world in general, can be expressed in ways that are partly similar and partly different across different linguistic systems. Each of these systems contains a theory of spatial grammar, and by extension, a theory of spatial metaphors. We may assume that the conceptual-semantic category of space, within the framework of spatial grammar theory, can exert a decisive influence on topicalization through the segmentation of word order. It is also possible that the spatial dimension, in analyses of variable word order, has been given too little emphasis.
This paper analyzes complex sentences containing the conjunctions a ‘and, but’, ali ‘but’, and dok ‘when; while; until’ in Serbian. The basic distinctions between coordination and subordination, between coordinative and adversative relations, and mixed cases are explored in detail. Ivo Andric’s novel The Bridge on the Drina and journalistic articles from the media during the 2000s are the sources for this material. Conjunctions are functional words, but they are more than mere building blocks; they have their own semantic specificity and, according to some sources, characterize the specificity of a national mentality and culture. The conjunctions a and ali are typically used to contrast objects, properties and situations, while the conjunction dok primarily expresses simultaneity. This choice occurs when a situation develops in accordance with the speaker’s expectations. If something abnormal or unexpected occurs, new meanings emerge: the conjunctions a and ali express the meaning of conjunction or complement, while the conjunction dok expresses comparison and opposition (‘whereas; but’). Thus, dok in the secondary meaning is synonymous with a and ali in the primary meaning. In some cases, these meanings overlap and cannot be distinguished. In non-simultaneous situations, the conjunction dok most likely expresses a comparative-adversative meaning. The conjunction dok is almost always found in the medial position in a sentence, and its placement at the beginning of a clause depends on style: initial placement occurred 20% of the time in fiction and 10% in the journalistic style. If it is placed at the beginning of a sentence, it most likely expresses a temporal meaning. This meaning is often replaced by an adversative meaning (contrastive meaning) in journalistic texts when placed in the medial position (52%). Overall, the adversative meaning is more characteristic of the journalistic style (48%) and less common in fiction (8%).
This paper starts from the claim that the lexemes we use give us, as members of a speech community, a kind of identity different from all other types of identity we have. The present paper assesses the ongoing research practice in this field and proposes additional research possibilities. Based on the critical evaluation of the methodology found in the ongoing research, the paper proposes the following. First, research materials should be sampled more systematically. Second, various qualitative and quantitative parameters should be deployed in its analysis. The final portion of the paper is devoted to the use of artificial intelligence in researching lexical identity.
Simo Matavulj’s literary language, richly enhanced and stylized due to the realist tendency to portray the local colour of a wide range of literary characters, and shaped by the diversity of the environments in which the author lived and worked, is fertile ground for research into the intentional and unintentional use of linguistic variants, especially from the perspective of narrative positions and the relation between the narrator’s and characters’ speech. From a historical linguistic perspective, this paper explores lexical, word-formation, morphological and phonological variants in a short story in which the narrator’s Stokavian dialect comes into contact with the characters’ Cakavian dialect. The story reveals both the intention to reduce linguistic distance and the production of blended forms that belong neither to the author’s speech nor to the speech of the represented society. As such, they represent a valuable example of mimesis as an act of creative expression operating also at the level of structural linguistic features. At the lexical level, erudite Romanisms stand out, in morphology and word formation, there are forms that have no basis in either the literary language or actual linguistic practice and may therefore be regarded as the author’s own creations, while at the phonological level, one encounters forms that combine elements originating from different linguistic systems and registers. The author’s shaping of the characters’ speech takes place through a dialectical interplay between salient distinctive features and hybridized forms, while a particularly important aspect of authorial stylization is the establishment of symmetry in the use and distribution of linguistic variants. Through all these procedures, Matavulj’s “Povareta”, as a lapidary sketch-like prose form, emerges as a repository of diverse linguistic material from which it developed and which is determined and constrained, among other factors, by the author’s reflections on multilingualism and multidialectalism.
In this paper we analyze the members of the synonymic sets whose dominants are the basic words expressing negative assessment in Russian and Serbian, i.e. Rus. плохой and Serb. los. It has been established that the negative assessment is derived from the positive, as it has been formed by a combination of some formal means of expressing negation, such as prefixes ne-, bez-, and root words with positive connotations. The internal word form is the main source for investigation of the motivations that enable words to develop a secondary meaning expressing negative assessment. It is shown that whenever the internal word form is identified as a metaphor, it contrasts with the metaphor used to express positive assessment: what is bad is conceptualized as pointing downward. Other metaphors reveal a general meaning whereby negatively evaluated objects are removed from the spotlight, in contrast to the conceptualization of what is good as visually salient. Other motivations identified in the root of the synonyms are based on unpleasant contact with objects, such as waste, refuse or other dirty, unwanted and unnecessary things. Another group of motivations includes reactions to spoiled food, disease and the absence of quality or aesthetic value in an object. Furthermore, some forms of unacceptable verbal or physical behaviour can also serve as sources of internal word forms for negative assessment. The paper demonstrates that the linguistic worldview underlying the expression of negative assessment in Russian and Serbian is almost identical, since the same motivations and linguistic means are used.
