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.
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.
Prispevek obravnava različno ubesedovanje načina v slovenščini, ruščini in štokavščini: v treh jezikih se način izraža s protistavo med tvornikom in trpnikom. Prav pri ubesedovanju trpnika in njegovi ...možnosti rabe se med omenjenimi jeziki kažejo razlike. Poudarek je na različnih rabah trpniških zgradb v omenjenih jezikih. Trpniške zgradbe so primerjane tudi s tvornimi splošnovršilskimi zgradbami, ki so razširjene v južnoslovanskih jezikih.
Prispevek analizira učinke transferja med slovenščino in angleščino na področju malo raziskanih absolutnih in relativnih rab pridevnikov. Teoretična osnova, ki loči podsistema standarda (notranji, ...zunanji) in stopnje (osnovna, srednja, visoka), je nadgrajena s praktičnim preizkusom, v kolikšni meri slovenski študenti anglistike, katerih znanje je na ravni C1 in C2, na tem področju (neustrezno) prenašajo jezikovne strategije iz enega jezika v drugega. Rezultati kažejo, da študenti, vključeni v preizkus, ob prevajanju iz slovenščine v angleščino v veliki večini ohranjajo absolutne primernike, čeprav so ti v angleščini veliko redkejši. Po drugi strani tudi ob prevajanju v materni jezik znaten del študentov ohranja absolutne presežnike, ki so produktivna strategija v angleščini, v slovenščini pa se pojavljajo le redko.
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.
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).
PDF
