THE VARIATION IN NON-FINITE COMPLEMENTS IN SERBIAN: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT AN INTRA-SPEAKER LEVEL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TRANSLATION

Article Sidebar

PDF (Cрпски)
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19090/gff.2018.1.437-451
Keywords:
non-finite complements, da present, infinitive, syntactic variation, a translation study

Main Article Content

Predrag Stevan Kovačević
Filozofski fakultet, Novi Sad
Tanja Milićev
Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu
Ivana Đurić Paunović
Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu

Abstract

The paper investigates the nature of syntactic variation in non-finite complements of modal verbs in Serbian. Specifically, we examine what factors may underlie the intra-speaker variation in the choice of infinitive over da+present, and how these differences can be represented structurally. The empirical data from a restricted corpus study confirm the observation from the literature that infinitive is often used for stylistic reasons and in impersonal contexts. What we have also found is that for the speaker infinitive is preferred with abstract or non-referential subjects, with stative complements and in the context of epistemic rather than deontic modals. We hypothesize that all the grammatical factors converge around the pivotal role of the subject in the two constructions. An account that predicts enough structural similarity between da+present and infinitive to allow virtual interchangeability, while postulating enough difference in terms of the role of the subject to accommodate the observed differences could, thus, be a good candidate to explain the observed phenomena.

Downloads

Metrics

No metrics found.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kovačević, P. S., Milićev, T., & Đurić Paunović, I. THE VARIATION IN NON-FINITE COMPLEMENTS IN SERBIAN: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AT AN INTRA-SPEAKER LEVEL: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TRANSLATION. ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, 43(1), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.19090/gff.2018.1.437-451
Issue
Vol. 43 No. 1 (2018)
Section
Српски језик и лингвистика
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Ajdžanović, J. – Dražić, J. (2016). Sintaksičko-semantička analiza konstrukcije za + infinitiv i
njene pragmatičke implikacije. Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, XLI-1, 21-31.
Auster, P. (2012). Winter Journal. New York: Faber and Faber.
Brozović, D. (1953). O razlikama između infinitiva i prezenta s veznikom da. Jezik; časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnog jezika, 2/5, 153-154.
Davis, L. (2014). Can't and Won't. London: Penguin Books.
Dejvis, L. (2015). Ne mogu i neću. Beograd: Geopoetika. Prevod: Ivana Đurić Paunović.
Fintel, Von K. – Iatridou, S. (2003). Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(2), 173-198.
Gallis, A. (1970). Zum Gebrauch von DA+Präsens versus Infinitiv beim Futurum I in Serbokroatischen: Untersuchungen über die ‘Koreni’ von Dobrica Ćosić. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 13/2, 217-223.
Gudkov, V. P. (1958). Употребление инфинитива и конструкции с да в сербском языке (сочетания с глаголами). Вопросы лингвистики и методики преподавания иностранных языков, 6, 98-112.
Hope, C. (2011). Shooting Angels. London: Atlantic Books.
Houp, K. (2013). Lov na anđele. Beograd: Geopoetika. Prevod: Zoran Paunović i Ivana Đurić Paunović.
Huddican, B. & Plunkett, B. (eds.) (2010). Formalizing syntactic variability. Lingua (Special Issue), 120/5, 1057-1332.
Ivić, M. 1970. O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj rečenici: prezent u rečenici s veznikom da. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 13/1, 43-55.
Ivić, M. 1972. Problematika srpskohrvatskog infinitiva. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku. 15/2, 115-138.
Katičić, R. (1986). Sintaksa hrvatskoga književnog jezika. nacrt za gramatiku. Zagreb: HAZU.
Klajn, I. (2005). Gramatika srpskog jezika. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Kovačević, P. – Milićev, T. (to appear). The nature(s) of syntactic variation: Evidence from the
Serbian/Croatian dialect continuum. Paper submitted to Proceedings of Formal
Description of Slavic Languages 12, Berlin, 2016.
Libermann, A. (1992). The relation of speech to reading and writing. Advances in Psychology
94,167-178.
Linnel, P. (2004). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge.
Oster, P. (2012). Zimski dnevnik. Beograd: Geopoetika. Prevod: Ivana Đurić Paunović.
Piper, P. – Antonić, I. – Ružić, V. – Tanasić, S. – Popović, L. & Tošović, B. (2005). Sintaksa savremenog srpskog jezika: prosta rečenica. Beograd: Institut za srpski jezik SANU.
Marelj, M. (2004). Middles and Argument Structure across Languages. PhD dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Moskovljević, M. S. (1936). Još o upotrebi svezice “da” s prezentom mesto infinitiva. Naš jezik, 4, 106-113.
Nord, C (1997). Translation as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Stevanović, M. 1954. Naporedna upotreba infinitiva i prezenta sa svezicom da. Naš jezik (nova serija), 5/3-4, 85-102 & 5/5-6, 165-185.
.
Todorović, N. (2012). The Indicative and Subjunctive da-Complements in Serbian A Syntactic-Semantic Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.
Todorović, N. – Wurmbrand, S. (2015). (In)Finite possibilities of ‘da’: Restructuring the tense and aspect domains. Workshop on aspect in embedded clauses, ZAS, Göttingen. Preuzeto sa http://wurmbrand.uconn.edu/Resources/da%20da%20da%20HO.pdf
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.