Printer Friendly

On the article-like use of the indefinite determiners jedan and neki in Croatian and other Slavic languages/0 upotrebi i funkciji neodredenih determinatora jedan i neki kao clanova u hrvatskom i drugim slavenskim jezicima (Izvorni znanstveni radovi).

1. Introduction

Articles as a grammatical category are not present in all modern European languages, even though they are considered a feature of the so-called Standard Average European (van der Auwera 2011: 293). Both the indefinite and the definite article can be found in all Romance and in almost all German languages as well as in Hungarian and in languages belonging to the Balkan Sprachbund (in Romanian, a Romance language, and in Modern Greek and Albanian). Slavic languages in general do not have articles as a separate grammatical category. The Balkan Sprachbund languages that belong to the eastern group of South Slavic languages, with the sole exception of Bulgarian and Macedonian, fully developed only the definite article. This is considered to be a prominent feature of the Balkan Sprachbund (Friedman 2000a: 105). Definite articles in Bulgarian and Macedonian are of pronominal origin and they are, contrary to e.g. English or German definite articles, suffixed to the noun or to the first nominal constituent of the definite nominal. When considering the indefinite article, there is no Slavic language that has fully developed this grammatical category to this day. Nevertheless, all Slavic languages do have the indefinite determiners as a functional category. In some Slavic languages and in some contexts the indefinite determiners can function as indefinite articles. This is a fact that is usually either neglected or misinterpreted in the literature and prescriptive grammar books regularly describe it as examples of incorrect language use. The goal of this paper is, therefore, to discuss in detail the use of the indefinite determiners 'one' and 'some/certain' in Slavic languages, with special emphasis on Croatian, one of four west South Slavic languages based on Stokavian dialect. (1) The purpose of this paper is to show that it is possible to speak about the indefinite articles in Slavic languages, even though they are still not a fully developed grammatical category. The theoretical framework employed in this paper is that of functional-typological approaches to language (e.g. Givon 1981; Heine 1997; Heine and Kuteva 2006) and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987; Langacker 1999; Langacker 2008; Langacker 2009; Taylor 2002; Radden and Dirven 2007).

Linguists often avoid the term "indefinite article" when discussing the use of the indefinite determiners in a particular Slavic language. Instead, they more willingly recourse to terms such as the indefinite marker (Friedman 2003a) or to labels such as category in statu nascendi (Weiss 2004: 139) or an incipient category (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 71). This paper employs the term "article-like use of indefinite determiners" to indicate that 'one' and 'some/ certain' still did not fully develop into indefinite articles in Slavic languages. However, this term additionally indicates that some uses of 'one' and 'some/ certain' are consistent with the uses of the indefinite articles in languages that have fully developed this grammatical category.

In general, linguists are more willing to use the term indefinite article when discussing the use of the indefinite determiner jedan 'one' than when discussing the use of the indefinite determiner neki 'some/certain'. (2) This is in connection with the fact that the grammaticalization chain leading from the number meaning 'one' to the indefinite article via the indefinite determiner (indefinite pronoun, to be more accurate) is considered a linguistic universal, or as "a reasonable candidate for a linguistic quasi-universal" (Weiss 2004: 141). This grammaticalization chain, which presupposes semantic bleaching of quantification into reference and non-reference (Givon 1981; Heine 1997), is still directly identifiable in many European languages where the number meaning 'one' and the indefinite article still have the same phonological form, e.g. German ein Hund 'a dog' or ein Hund 'one dog' or French un chien 'a dog' and un chien 'one dog'. However, it should be noted that a different approach is possible when it comes to Slavic languages, e.g. Comrie and Corbett (1993: 92) deviate from the usual claims that the number 'one' developed into the indefinite determiner and claim that in Proto-Slavic the numerals 'one' and 'two' were of pronominal origin and followed the pronominal inflection (that in fact successfully explains why 'one' can be used for the meaning of 'certain' in all Slavic languages). Following Givon (1981), Heine (1997: 71-76) and Heine and Kuteva (2006: 104-105) state that stages within the grammaticalization chain

number 'one' > indefinite determiner > indefinite article (i.e. quantification > reference > non-reference)

can be presented in a more specific way. Altogether five stages are to be identified

numeral > presentative marker > specific indefinite marker > non-specific indefinite marker > generalized article.

In the numeral stage, 'one' functions only as a numeral, as in the Croatian example Svako jutro pojedem jedno jaje. 'Every morning I eat one egg.' In the presentative marker stage, 'one' introduces a new and major participant into discourse (it can be said that its purpose is to indicate discourse persistence of a referent). The participant introduced into discourse by 'one' is assumed to be unknown to the hearer. This use is typical of the presentative constructions at the beginnings of fairy tales (note that when introduced by 'one' the referent is considered as definite in subsequent discourse and, being major participant of the discourse, it is always immediately taken up in the next sentence), as in the Croatian example Bio jednom jedan kralj. Taj kralj je imao ... 'Once upon a time there was a (lit. one) king. The king had...' In the specific indefinite marker stage, 'one' behaves in the same manner as in the previous stage, i.e. it is used to introduce a discourse participant known to the speaker but presumed to be unknown to the hearer, with the difference that the participant is not expected to be a major discourse participant, as in the Croatian example Cula sam to od jedne prijateljice. 'I heard it from a (lit. one) friend.' The use of 'one' is still associated with subsequent mentions, but the introduced participant does not need to be persistent in the discourse. In the non-specific indefinite marker stage, 'one' can be used when a newly introduced discourse participant is known to neither the hearer nor the speaker, as in the Upper Sorbian example Ja cem jen mikser mec. 'I want to have a (lit. one) mixer.' or in the English example You should draw a clown. The previous two stages presuppose the use of 'one' only with singular countable nouns while in the last stage of grammaticalization, called the generalized article stage, 'one' can occur with more or less all types of nouns, as in the Spanish example Unas mujeres llegaron al edificio. 'Some women arrived at the building.', in which the indefinite article combines with a plural noun. Language will be described in grammars and handbooks as having a fully developed indefinite article only if 'one' has reached the fourth or the fifth stage of grammaticalization. In Europe the last stage of grammaticalization is reached by 'one' only in Ibero-Romance languages while e.g. English and German indefinite articles are still at the penultimate stage (therefore they cannot be used with plural or non-countable nouns, e.g. in English examples *1 have a books in my bag or *Please give me a water). According to Heine and Kuteva (2006), Russian and Polish have reached the presentative marker stage, Czech, Serbian and Croatian are between the presentative marker stage and the specific indefinite marker stage, while Upper Sorbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian have reached stage three. Even though these observations are in need of more detailed explanations and further research, which will be exemplified in the following paragraphs, they still clearly demonstrate that in Slavic languages 'one' is the most grammaticalized in those closer to a Germanic or Romance language or in those languages closer to Greek or Turkish. It can be said that closer a Slavic language is to those languages, it is more likely that the language will manifest the more advanced stage of the development of 'one' into the indefinite article. Since the rise of the indefinite article in Slavic languages is facilitated by language contact with European languages that have fully developed this grammatical category, it is not surprising that Slavic languages situated in the east of Europe, i.e. Russian, (3) Belarussian and Ukrainian, have not developed the article-like use of the indefinite determiners.

Before proceeding to the analysis of different uses of the indefinite determiners jedan 'one' and neki 'some/certain' in Croatian and other Slavic languages, it is important to consider what kinds of referents an indefinite article can refer to, i.e. it is important to distinguish its generic vs. its individual use. In its generic use the indefinite article denotes a referent that stands for the whole class, (4) as in the Upper Sorbian example Jen tigor jo jene wulke zwerjo. 'A tiger is a big animal.' In its individual use, the indefinite article can refer either to an indefinite specific or an indefinite non-specific referent. Specific interpretation of the indefinite article implies that the speaker has some knowledge about the referent. In other words, the speaker has a specific instance of the referent in mind, which s/he selects from a maximum range of possible instances of the referent. In the case of non-specific interpretation, the choice of instance is completely unconstrained, so any instance of the referent would do. In other words, the speaker does not have any specific referent on his mind. To put it more simply, the specific interpretation of the indefinite article implies that it is either irrelevant for the context of communication to be able to pin down the exact identity of the referent or that the speaker does not have sufficient information about the referent to be able to afford its definite interpretation. It is imperative to distinguish the specific indefinite reference from the definite reference, although this may be a difficult task to accomplish in the languages that do not have articles as a distinct grammatical category--a group which Slavic languages belong to.

This paper addresses an issue in the article-like use of the indefinite determiners in Slavic languages in the following manner. The first part of the discussion focuses on the article-like usages of jedan 'one' in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Upper Sorbian. This part of the paper is an overview of the literature and it does not claim to present new language data but it tries to summarize different approaches in a consistent way. The overview of the article- like usages of jedan 'one' in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Upper Sorbian serves as a starting point for a discussion about the functions of jedan 'one' and neki 'some/certain' in Croatian. This discussion is the main part of the paper in which new language data is given and discussed in detail. The goal of the discussion is to show that the indefinite determiners in Slavic languages, as exemplified on Croatian, could be regarded as indefinite articles. A final overview of the conclusions set out on the basis of the proposed analysis is given in the last part of the paper.

2. The article-like usages of jedan 'one' in Bulgarian, Macedonian and Upper Sorbian

Bulgarian, Macedonian and Upper Sorbian are the languages most directly exposed to the influence of the languages with the fully developed grammatical category of the indefinite article. The three languages have the highest degree of article-like usage of 'one', e.g. 'one' can be used to denote indefinite specific or indefinite non-specific referents, it can be used in predicative or generic constructions etc. In some of these contexts the indefinite article-like use of 'one' is obligatory. (5)

Bulgarian, a language considered to be a prominent member of the Balkan Sprachbund, (6) consistently makes the difference between indefinite specific and indefinite non-specific referents by marking indefinite specific referents with edin 'one' while indefinite non-specific referents are bare nominals. Furthermore, the use of an article with topicalized nominals is obligatory in Bulgarian. If the topicalized nominal is not suffixed with the definite article as in (1b), then the use of edin as the indefinite article is obligatory, as in example (1a). Sentences in which the topicalized nominal is not determined, i.e. those in which there is no definite or indefinite article, as in example (1c), are not considered acceptable (examples taken form Geist (2011)). Furthermore, as Geist (2011) notices, edin can be used in Bulgarian in predicative constructions, as in example (1d), but only within nominals designating specified types. (7) Additionally, it can be used in generic contexts as well, as in example (1e). Its use in these contexts, although preferred, is not always obligatory, e.g. in example (1f Geist (2011) concludes therefore that edin still did not fully develop into the indefinite article (in the sense of the indefinite articles in English, German or Spanish). Nevertheless, its predicative and generic uses are proof that edin in some examples should be considered as the indefinite article, a stand that is in correspondence with the presumptions in this paper. Weiss (2004: 155) furthermore demonstrates that edin can be used in Bulgarian even to indicate indefinite non-specific referents, as in example (1g). This is one step further in the grammaticalization of edin into the indefinite article. Nevertheless, the use of edin to indicate indefinite non-specific referents is restricted to examples in which the referent is further specified by a subordinate clause (the use of edin without subordinate clause in such examples would render an indefinite specific interpretation).

(1) a) Edna zena ja risuva edin xudoznik.

'A woman was painted by a (lit. one) painter.'

b) Zenata ja risuva edin xudoznik.

'The woman was painted by a (lit. one) painter.'

c) * zena ja risuva edin xudoznik.

* 'Woman was painted by a (lit. one) painter.'

d) Stojcev e edin zurnalist. kogoto poznavam otdavna.

'Stojchev is a journalist whom I have known for a long time.'

e) Edin lekar bi pomognal.

'A (lit. one) doctor would help.'

f) (Edin) lekar ne bi postapil taka.

'A (lit. one) doctor would not have acted like that.'

g) Bix iskal da imam edin prijatel. kojito da me razbira.

'I would like to have a (lit. one) friend that understands me.'

Upper Sorbian has been in contact with German for many centuries and it is therefore not surprising that it has almost replicated the German indefinite article by grammaticalizing the numeral jedyn 'one' into the contracted monosyllabic indefinite article jen that is used in indefinite specific, indefinite non-specific and generic contexts. (8) This refers namely to Colloquial Upper Sorbian, a vernacular that differs from conservative written standard version of Upper Sorbian (Breu 2011). The Colloquial Upper Sorbian jen represents the highest grammaticalization stage 'one' has reached in any Slavic language (however, it is still not possible to use jen with non-countable nouns (Sholze 2006: 142-143). Example (2a) shows the use of jen in Colloquial Upper Sorbian to indicate the indefinite specific referent, example (2b) to indicate the indefinite non-specific referent while (2c) is an example of the use of the indefinite article jen to indicate a generic referent (all examples taken from Breu 2011). When it comes to generic use, it needs to be noted that in Colloquial Upper Sorbian both subject nominal and predicate nominal can be generic, as in (2c).

(2) a) Najemol sindze jen muz z jenym koferom.

'Suddenly a man comes with a (lit. one) suitcase.'

b) Ja cem jen mikser mec.

'I want to have a (lit. one) mixer.'

c) Jen tigor jo jene wulke zwerjo.

'A (lit. one) tiger is a (lit. one) big animal.'

In Macedonian, eden 'one' used as the indefinite article can mark indefinite specific referents, as in example (3a), but in some examples it is possible to use it to refer to indefinite non-specific referents, as in example (3b). (9) Such examples are not frequent and the use of eden in them is not obligatory or is even considered unacceptable. Weiss (2004: 155) shows that the acceptance of eden in indefinite non-specific contexts rises if the referent is further specified by a subordinate clause (same as in Bulgarian, e.g. example (1g)). Furthermore, the use of eden in predicative constructions is possible only within specified nominals (again, same as in Bulgarian). (10) This proves that the grammaticalization of the indefinite article is not determined only by the specific or non-specific status of the referent in question but by its specified or not- specified status as well. Unlike Bulgarian, the use of eden in generic contexts is not possible in Macedonian. However, the Macedonian eden can trigger object reduplication, as in example (3c), while that does not occur in Bulgarian. The fact that Macedonian eden is a part of a higher level construction can be seen as a proof that it is more grammaticalized than Bulgarian edin. Nevertheless, article-like use of 'one' is more frequent in Bulgarian (Friedman 2000a: 110), which is probably, but not only, a result of the use in generic contexts. The use in generic contexts can be seen as a proof that Bulgarian edin is more grammaticalized than Macedonian eden. Occurrences in different constructions and with different frequencies show that the Bulgarian edin and Macedonian eden do not follow identical grammaticalization paths. Examples (3a) and (3b) are from Heine and Kuteva (2006), while example (3c) is from Comrie and Corbett (1993: 289).

(3) a) Ivan saka da se zene za edna devojka so zeleni oci.

'Ivan wants to marry a (lit. one) girl with green eyes.'

b) Nacrtaj (edno) kuce!

'Draw a (lit. one) dog!'

c) V odajata vleze eden covek kogo go vidov porano na ulica.

'Into the room came a (lit. one) person whom I had seen (him) earlier on the street.'

3. Functions of jedan 'one' and neki 'some/certain' in Croatian

In Croatian language jedan 'one' can be used as a numeral, as in example (4a), as an adjective, as in example (4b), and as an indefinite determiner with article-like use, as in example (4c). The indefinite article-like jedan can be used to determine any nominal within a sentence, even ones used in predicative constructions, as in (4d). (11) An important parameter which makes the article- like jedan distinct from the numeral jedan and the adjective jedan is the fact that it is not stressed. In other words, it behaves as a proclitic, forming a single accentual unit with the following word.

(4) a) Samo jedan student je dosao.

'Only one student has come.'

b) Jedni majstori su tek otisli, a drugi vec dolaze.

'No sooner had one workmen gone than the others arrived.'

c) Kupio sam to od jedne zene na trznici.

'I bought this from a (lit. one) woman at the market.'

d) Ti si jedna velika budala.

'You are a (lit. one) big fool.'

On the other hand, carrying no stress is a feature that the indefinite article- like jedan shares with the indefinite article-like use of neki 'some/certain'. Interestingly, the indefinite article-like neki differs precisely along this same parameter from neki used as a relative quantifier. Example (5a) shows the use of neki as a relative quantifier in Croatian, while example (5b) demonstrates indefinite article-like use of neki. Note that both jedan and neki used as indefinite articles will be stressed when followed by enclitics that are always unstressed, as in (5c) and (5d).

(5) a) Neki su liudi dobri, a neki nisu.

'Some people are good and some are not.'

b) Kupio sam to na trznici od neke zene.

'I bought this at the market from some woman.'

c) Jedan me je priiateli trazio danas.

'A (lit. one) friend was asking for me today'

d) Neki su nas liudi trazili danas.

'Some people were searching for us today.'

e) Kupio sam to na trznici od iedne zene.

'I bought this at the market from a (lit. one) woman.'

f) Kupio sam to na trznici od nekih zena.

'I bought this at the market from some women.'

g) ?Kupio sam to na trznici od iednih zena.

?'I bought this at the market from a (lit. one) women.'

The indefinite article-like jedan and neki are mostly interchangeable (12) native speakers of Croatian would explain with no hesitation that example (5b) has the same meaning as example (5e). Neki is used to refer to the indefinite non-specific referent only (13), while jedan can refer both to indefinite specific and indefinite non-specific referents. Jedan and neki share the primary function of referring to an indefinite entity and this indefiniteness makes them both nominal grounding elements since, no matter how indefinite, they still supply sufficient information about the referent (they are grounding the referent, i.e. they are singling the referent out for individual conscious awareness). From the pragmatic point of view, they imply that any further specification of the referent's identity would be redundant. Nevertheless, the determiners jedan and neki do have different distributions, i.e. they are not interchange able in all contexts. On one hand, neki enjoys free distribution when it comes to the singular vs. plural status of the referent, as exemplified by (5b) and (5f). The same applies to other Slavic languages as well. On the other hand, jedan is unmarked with singular referents, but marked and rare with plural referents, as is exemplified by (5g). This is no surprise, of course, given its basic meaning. In addition to the relatively marked contexts, there are also contexts where neki and jedan are not interchangeable at all, where the indefinite article-like jedan cannot be replaced by the indefinite article-like neki. (14) Although both jedan and neki have indefinite referents, they differ according to the criterion of specific vs. non-specific interpretation of indefinite articles.

(6) a) Ako me pitas kako to znam, mogu ti reci da sam to cuo jucer od jednog poznanika.

'If you ask me how I know this, I can tell you that I heard it yesterday from an (lit. one) acquaintance.'

b) Ako me pitas kako to znam, mogu ti reci da sam to cuo jucer od nekog poznanika.

'If you ask me how I know this, I can tell you that I heard it yesterday from some acquaintance.'

c) Danas sam popravljao racunalo nekog poznanika...

'Today I was repairing a computer of some acquaintance...'

d) * Ako me pitas kako to znam, mogu ti reci da sam to cuo jucer od nekog priiatelia.

* 'If you ask me how I know this, I can tell you that I heard it yesterday from some friend.'

e) Ako me pitas kako to znam, mogu ti reci da sam to cuo jucer od nekog poznanika, no zaboravio sam kako se zove.

'If you ask me how I know this, I can tell you that I heard it yesterday from some acquaintance, but I forgot his name.'

The anomaly of example (6b) is caused by the conflict between the non-specific meaning of neki and the context that strongly suggests a specific interpretation. As example (6a) shows, jedan is used with specific indefinite referents. Here the speaker surely knows which poznanik 'acquaintance' is being referred to because it is his acquaintance and it is an acquaintance he saw the day before. The speaker only found it unnecessary, from the pragmatic point of view, to specify the acquaintance by name, which would give him definite identity. The reason is either that the exact identity is not relevant or the acquaintance's name is currently inaccessible due to a short-term memory lapse. Of course, there are contexts where the speaker may want to emphasize that this acquaintance is someone s/he is not very close with. The indefinite non-specific article-like neki would bring precisely this implication to light, as in example (6c). This observation absolutely cannot hold in an example like (6d) in which prijatelj 'friend' replaces poznanik 'acquaintance'. This opens up a world of detailed knowledge that the speaker must have about the person s/ he calls a friend. Detailed knowledge strongly induces a specific interpretation, which, in turn, precludes the use of the indefinite non-specific article-like neki. Example (6b) would be acceptable only in contexts as in (6e) where the adversative content of the subordinate clause renders a non-specific interpretation, and thus is compatible with the indefinite non-specific neki. Just as there are contexts which require specific interpretation, so too are there contexts which require non-specific interpretation, in which case only the indefinite article-like neki can be used. Consider examples (7a) and (7b) where neki cannot be replaced by jedan, as evident in examples (7c) and (7d). The reason why neki is not interchangeable with jedan is the imprecise interpretation of the time and quantity adverbials. This is evident in the paraphrases in (7e) and (7f). Nevertheless, it is common, especially in spoken register, to use jedan in fixed neuter gender form jedno 'approximately, around' to indicate that the quantity expressed needs to be interpreted in terms of approximation, as in example (7g) or (7h). In such examples jedno is not to be considered as the indefinite article-like use of jedan since its function is not to ground a nominal. Instead, in examples such as (7g) and (7h) jedno is to be considered as having an adverbial function. Furthermore, the neuter gender form of jedno supresses the indefinite specific interpretation associated with indefinite article-like jedan (that is the reason why jedno and neki are interchangeable).

(7) a) Doei cu za nekih pola sata.

'I will arrive in some half hour.'

b) Platio sam to nekih sto eura.

'I paid for this some hundred euros.'

c) *Doei cu za jednih pola sata.

*'I will come in a (lit. one) half hour.'

d) *Platio sam to jednih sto kuna.

*'I paid for this a (lit. one) hundred kunas.'

e) Doei eu za otprilike pola sata.

'I will arrive in approximately a half hour.'

f) Platio sam to oko sto eura.

'I paid for this around one hundred euros.'

g) Doci cu za iedno pola sata.

'I will arrive in approximately a half hour.'

h) Platio sam to jedno sto eura.

'I paid for this around one hundred euros.'

Examples in (6) and (7) lead to the conclusion that in most contexts the indefinite article-like neki and the indefinite article-like jedan are in free distribution or in a relatively free distribution. They are not interchangeable, however, when the context strongly requires specific or non-specific interpretation--in which case one, but not the other will fit.

The indefinite article-like neki and jedan can also determine specified types, i.e. they can be used within nominals consisting of a noun specified by adjectival modifier, as in examples (8a) and (8b). This applies to other Slavic languages as well, as examples (8c) and (8d) show for Macedonian, examples (8e) and (8f) for Bulgarian and examples (8g) and (8h) for Czech. (15) Furthermore, example (8i) shows the use of the indefinite article-like jen to determine specified type in Upper Sorbian (example taken form Scholze 2006). It should be emphasized that when the Croatian jedan or neki determine the modifier of a noun, and not the noun itself, then they most often function as an analytical means of expressing the indefiniteness of the adjective in a definite form (see also Silic 1992-1993: 409). The same applies for the Macedonian example (8j) (example taken from Weiss 2004).

(8) a) Kupio sam to od jedne stare zene na trznici.

'I bought this from an (lit. one) old woman at the market.'

b) Kupio sam to od neke stare zene na trznici.

'I bought this from an (lit. some) old woman at the market.'

c) Toa go kupiv na pazarot od edna stara zena.

'I bought this from an (lit. one) old woman at the market.'

d) Toa go kupiv na pazarot od nekoja stara zena.

'I bought this from an (lit. some) old woman at the market.'

e) Kupikh go na pazara ot edna stara zhena.

'I bought this from an (lit. one) old woman at the market.'

f) Kupikh go na pazara ot nvakakva stara zhena.

'I bought this from an (lit. some) old woman at the market.'

g) Koupil jsem to na trzisti od jedne stare zenv.

'I bought this from an (lit. one) old woman at the market.'

h) Koupil jsem to na trzisti od neiake stare zenv.

'I bought this from an (lit. some) old woman at the market.'

i) Jen tigor jo jene wulke zwerjo.

'A tiger is a big animal.'

j) Stravot povtorno se naseli vo setko katce. Enen drug strah.

'Once again fear occupied every corner. A different fear.'

Since the primary feature of the indefinite determiners neki and jedan in the article-like use is indeterminateness, they mostly resist combinations with demonstratives, which are regarded as one of the strongest grounding elements, despite quite a few examples found in the spoken register, which show that combinations with medial, as in examples (9a) and (9b) (16), or with distal forms, as in examples (9c) and (9d), are possible. On the other hand, proximal demonstratives, as in example (9e) or (9f), cannot be combined with the indefinite article-like neki and jedan (if jedan co-occurs with a proximal demonstrative, then it always has numeral meaning). This is the direct consequence of the fact that proximal demonstratives presuppose that the referent is known to the speaker (this has to do with the experience that the things and persons that are close to the speaker are in fact the ones that are known to him/her). Since referents grounded by proximal determiners are always interpreted as known, it is not possible to combine proximal determiners with the indefinite article-like jedan and neki, as their indeterminateness is in connection with unknowingness. (17) On the other side, medial and distal determiners do not so strongly imply that the referent is known and it is therefore possible, and, as already said, quite often in spoken register, to combine them with the indefinite article-like jedan and neki and their meaning of indeterminateness.

(9) a) U zivotu svake zene postoji taj jedan muskarac kojeg nikad nece zaboraviti.

'In every woman's life there is this one man that she will never forget.'

b) Postoje ti neki ljudi koji ti pokazu da si ziva.

'There are those certain people that show you that you are alive.'

c) Onaj jedan nastavnik za kojega znam da me mrzi.

'That one teacher for whom I know that he hates me'

d) Ali ponekad to jednostavno nije to, nedostaje ona neka sitnica...

'But sometimes that is just not it, that one little thing is missing...'

e) * Kupio sam auto od ovog jednog covjeka.

*'I bought a car from that a (lit. one) man'

f) * Jucer je dosla ova neka zena i rekla mi...

* 'Yesterday came this some women and told me.

Furthermore, as it can be seen from example (10a), the indefinite article-like jedan and neki can combine with possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns, which are hierarchically lower grounding elements (Belaj and Tanackovic Faletar (2014) discuss this in more detail). This is especially the case with the indefinite article-like jedan. In addition, example (10b) shows that the same applies for Czech, while (10c) confirms such usage in Macedonian and (10d) does so in Bulgarian.

(10) a) Ne sjecam se, ali vjerojatno sam to cuo od nekog/iednog

Ivanovog/mog priiatelia.

'I don't recall, but I probably heard this from (lit. some/one) Ivan's/my friend.'

b) Slysel jsem to od neiake/iedne matciny/ieho pritelkyne.

'I've heard this from (lit. some/one) my mothers/his friend.'

c) Vcera mu zboruval na nekoi/eden tatkov/negov priyatel.

'Yesterday he spoke to (lit. some/one) dad's/his friend.'

d) Znam edna mudrost ot nyakakv/edin tatkov/moi priyatel.

'I have heard a wise saying from a (lit. one) friend of mine.'

The indefinite article-like neki can combine with numerals restriction-free, whereas jedan cannot, the only exceptions being the aforementioned use in the neuter gender form where jedno triggers the approximate interpretation of the quantity expressed by the numeral (recall the examples in (7)). The reason why the indefinite article neki combines with cardinal numerals in Croatian is the compatibility between its non-specificity and the non-specificity contributed by the numeral. Numerals as absolute quantifiers are non-specific. On the other hand, the non-specific meaning of the numeral is incompatible with the specific meaning of the article jedan. This precludes the use of jedan in contexts that require non-specific interpretations. Note that the opposite works with neki, which cannot be used in contexts that require a specific interpretation. However, this is not so in Bulgarian and Macedonian where both jedan and neki combine with numerals (see examples (11a) and (11b) for Bulgarian and (11c) and (11d) for Macedonian).

(11) a) Za edni pet sekundi poveche.

'It takes off in about 5 seconds.'

b) Za nyakoi shest pochivni dni.

'In some six days.'

c) Imam edni pet stanovi.

'I have these 5 apartments.'

d) Pred nekoi pet godini.

'Some five years ago.'

In addition to its numeral, adjectival and its determinative function proper as an indefinite article, jedan has one more function, which semantically sits between its qualifying function and its function as an article. The term used is "between", because in that function jedan is at the same time close to the indefinite article in also not having an independent stress, and to the qualifier as it is not completely devoid of meaning--its function is to further emphasize some already familiar features of the nominal referent. This is why this fourth function can be referred to as the determinative intensifier. This is illustrated by examples (12a) and (12b). The two examples are clearly not equivalent, since the sentence with the intensifying jedan puts a stronger emphasis on the referent's property--that of being an excellent team. This makes the paraphrase in (12c) more likely with sentence (12b), the one with the determinative intensifier. In such examples, jedan combines not only with proper nouns but with common nouns as well (as mentioned previously, we observe a similar situation in Macedonian). Nevertheless, the intensifier jedan as a referring element is very common especially with proper nouns. At first, this may seem odd, since proper nouns are capable of achieving full reference on their own. After all, they allow us to easily identify the target referent, implying full and shared knowledge of its identity between the speaker and the hearer. This is why they normally do not need any further grounding elements. However, when jedan as an intensifier serves to foreground a referent's property, proper names no longer emphasize instantiation alone. In such contexts, names also refer to the properties of types.

(12) a) Posljednjih je godina Barcelonu vrlo tesko pobijediti.

'Recently, it has been difficult to beat Barcelona.'

b) Posljednjih je godina jednu Barcelonu vrlo teeko pobijediti.

'Recently, it has been difficult to beat (lit. one) Barcelona.'

c) Posljednjih je godina vrlo tesko pobijediti mom~ad takve kvalitete kao sto je Barcelona.

'Recently, it's been difficult to beat a team with the qualities of Barcelona.'

4. Conclusion

As stated in the introduction of this paper, Slavic languages in general do not have articles, definite or indefinite, as a separate grammatical category (the only exceptions are Bulgarian and Macedonian with their suffixed definite article). Nevertheless, it is apparent from many examples presented in the literature and in this paper that some usages of indefinite determiners, namely the indefinite determiners jedan ('one') and neki ('some/certain'), exhibit the same properties as those ascribed to usages of indefinite articles in languages such as German, English or Spanish. The goal of this paper was to show in detail that the indefinite determiners in Slavic languages could be regarded as indefinite articles. It is certain that the process of grammaticalization of indefinite determiners into indefinite articles still did not reach the point when it would be acceptable to claim that Slavic languages have indefinite articles as a grammatical category on its own. Nevertheless, the data presented in this paper proves that claims by Heine and Kuteva (2006) need to be reconsidered, particularly the claims stating that the Croatian 'one' still has not fully reached the specific indefinite marker stage of grammaticalization into indefinite article and that 'one' in Upper Sorbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian has not moved beyond that same stage.

In Upper Sorbian, the indefinite article jen is grammaticalized to the point that it can be used in generic and predicative contexts, same as indefinite articles are used in Germanic languages, which is a clear sign that the grammaticalization process has moved beyond the indefinite specific stage. In Bulgarian and Macedonian, there are contexts in which edin and eden can be used to mark the indefinite non-specific referents. Even though other elements trigger indefinite specific interpretation of referents in such contexts, i.e. further specification of the referent by subordinate clause, such usage is a clear sign that 'one' has moved beyond specific indefinite marker stage of grammaticalization. When it comes to Croatian, the examples analyzed clearly show that the grammaticalization of jedan has fully reached the specific indefinite marker stage and partially the non-specific indefinite marker stage in contexts in which jedan and neki are interchangeable. Furthermore, in addition to jedan, Croatian uses neki to mark indefinite referents as well. The indefinite article-like jedan and neki, although interchangeable in most contexts, do have different distributions, e.g. jedan cannot be freely combined with plural referents (except in rare contexts and in spoken register (5g)), while neki enjoys free distribution when it comes to the singular vs. plural status of the referent. Moreover, they differ according to the criterion of specific vs. non-specific interpretation of the indefinite articles (in contexts that require specific interpretation only jedan can be used, while in contexts requiring non-specific interpretation only neki can be used). Together with examples of indefinite non-specific uses of edin in Bulgarian and eden in Macedonian, this is proof that the grammaticalization of an indefinite article is not determined only by specific or non-specific status of the referent in question but by its contextually specified or not-specified status as well. This topic certainly deserves further attention. Furthermore, the analysis of other examples, taken mostly from Croatian, identified some other properties of indefinite article-like use of indefinite determiners, e.g. their ability to combine with hierarchically lower means of grounding, such as possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns, or their inability to combine with hierarchically higher means of grounding, namely proximal demonstratives when it comes to Croatian.

All properties of the indefinite article-like uses of the indefinite determiners that have been identified and discussed in this paper clearly prove that it is legitimate to speak about indefinite articles in Slavic languages, even though they still have not fully developed as a grammatical category on its own (in the sense of indefinite articles in e.g. English, German, Spanish or Italian). Nevertheless, the rise of the indefinite article in Slavic languages should not be regarded as a peripheral phenomenon. A proper account of grammatical processes that are in action here certainly could provide us with a greater insight into the development of grammatical structures and in that way provide us with a more thorough understanding of language.

UDK 821.16'373.611

821.16'367.632

Izvorni znanstveni clanak

Prihvaceno za tisak: 8. lipnja 2015.

References

Van der Auwera, Johan. 2011. "Standard Average European". The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, Bernd Kortmann and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), 292-306, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Baric, Eugenija et al. 1999. Hrvatski jezicni savjetnik. Zagreb: Pergamena, skolske novine.

Belaj, Branimir, Goran Tanackovic Faletar. 2014. Kognitivna gramatika hrvatskog jezika, Knjiga prva, Imenska sintagma i sintaksa padeia. Zagreb: Disput.

Breu, Walter. 2011. "Language contact of minority languages in Central and Southern Europe: a comparative approach". The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, Bernd Kortmann and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), 429-451, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Comrie, Bernard, Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 1993. The Slavonic Languages. London, New York: Routledge.

Friedman, Victor A. 1976. "The Question of a Bulgarian Indefinite Article". Bulgaria: Past and Present--Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bulgarian Studies, Held at the University of Winsconsin, Madison--May 3--5, 1973, Thomas Butler (ed.), 334- 340, Columbus: American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.

Friedman, Victor A. 2000a. "The Bulgarian Indefinite Article Revisited in Its Balkan Context". Bulgarian Studies at the Dawn of the 21st Century: A Bulgarian-American Perspective (Sixth Joint Meeting of Bulgarian and North American Scholars. Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, May 30 June 2, 1999), Anisava Miltenova (ed.), 105-114, Sofia: IK Gutenberg.

Friedman, Victor A. 2000b. "Observations on the use of jedan as a marker of indefiniteness in Serbian/Croatian". In a Foreign Harbor: Essays in Honor of Vasa D. Mihailovich, Radmila Gorup and Bogdan Rakic (eds.), 195-204, Bloomington: Slavica.

Friedman, Victor A. 2003a. "'One' as an Indefinite Marker in Balkan and Non- Balkan Slavic". Prilozi 28 (1), 109-151.

Friedman, Victor A. 2003b. "The Indefiniteness of 'one' in its Macedonian and Balkan Context". Zbornik referati od cetvrtata Makedonsko-severnoamerikanska slavisticka konferencija za makedonistika Makedonski jazik, literatura i kultura, Violeta Cepujnovska, Vera StojcevskaAntik, Milan Gurcinov, Aleksa Poposki and Snezana Velkovska (eds.), 25-33, Skopje: Univerzitet Sv. Kiril i Metodij.

Geist, Ljudmila. 2011. "Bulgarian edin: The Rise of an Indefinite Article". Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference. Proceedings of FDSL 9, Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertova and Hagen Pitsch (eds.), 125-148, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Givon, Talmy. 1981. "On the Development of the Numeral 'One' as an Indefinite Marker." Folia Linguistica Historica 2 (1), 35-53.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva. 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ionin, Tania. 2006. "This is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems." Natural Language Semantics 14 (2): 175-234.

Katunar, Daniela, Willer-Gold, Jana, Tena Gnjatovic. 2013. ^Achieving specificity in an article-less language: Specificity markers in Croatian". Suvremena lingvistika 75, 25-43.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lipavic-Ostir, Alja. 2010. "Grammaticalization and Language Contact between German and Slovene". Grammaticalization in Slavic Languages: From Areal and Typological Perspectives, Nomachi Motoki (ed.), 27-48, Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.

Radden, Gunter, Rene Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Reindl, Donald F. 2008. Language Contact, German and Slovenian. Brockmeyer Verlag.

Scholze, Lenka. 2006. "Das grammatische System der obersorbischen Umgangssprache unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Sprachkontakts." Universitat Konstanz.

Siewierska, Anna, Ludmila Uhlirova. 1998. "An Overview of word order in Slavic languages". Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, Anna Siewierska (ed.), 105-150, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Silic, Josip. 1992-1993. "Aktualizator jedan u hrvatskom jeziku (uvodna razmisljanja)". Filologija 20/21, 403-411.

Silic, Josip, Ivo Pranjkovic. 2005. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika za gimnazije i visoka ucilista. Zagreb: skolska knjiga.

Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weiss, Daniel. 2004. "The rise of an indefinite article: The case of Macedonian eden". What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Bjorn Wiemer (eds.), 139-168, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Branimir Belaj

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Osijek

branimir.belaj@os.t-com.hr

Darko Matovac

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb

darko.matovac@gmail.com

(1) The other three languages are Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Since all four languages are based on the same dialect Stokavian, they do not differ significantly in the use of 'one' and 'some/certain'. Nevertheless, Friedman (2000b: 196) claims that 'one' is more grammaticalized in Serbian than in Croatian, this having to do with the fact that Serbian is more influenced by languages belonging to the Balkan Sprachbund (Bulgarian in particular). It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse differences in the use of 'one' and 'some/certain' in Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin.

(2) Some occurrences of jedan 'one' are described as the use of an indefinite article in the literature dealing with Polish (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 122-123), Czech (Siewierska and Uhlirova 1998:107; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 123-124), Upper Sorbian (Siewierska and Uhlirova 1998: 107; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 123; Scholze 2006; Breu 2011), Slovenian (Comrie and Corbett 1993: 441; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 124; Reindl 2008: 133-135; Lipavic-Ostir 2010), Croatian (Silic 1992-1993; Baric et al. 1999; Silic and Pranjkovic 2005; Katunar, Willer-Gold and Gnjatovic 2013; Belaj and Tanackovic Faletar 2014), Serbian (Friedman 2000b; Friedman 2003a; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 125), Molise Croatian (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 125; Breu 2011), Kashubian (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 125), Burgenland Croatian (Reindl 2008), Macedonian (Comrie and Corbett 1993: 261; Siewierska and Uhlirova 1998; Friedman 2003a; Friedman 2003b; Weiss 2004; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 129-131), Bulgarian (Friedman 1976; Comrie and Corbett 1993: 209; Siewierska and Uhlirova 1998; Friedman 2000a; Friedman 2003a; Heine and Kuteva 2006: 129; Geist 2011) and the extinct Polabian language (Reindl 2008: 133). When it comes to neki 'some, certain', its article- like uses are usually not discussed in the literature. The reason for this lies in the fact that neki is the grammaticalized form of the indefinite pronoun. Slavic languages differ in the inventory of indefinite pronouns, e.g. Russian has seven classes of indefinite pronouns, while Croatian has four, and Polish and Bulgarian three. According to Haspelmath (1997), who deals extensively with indefinite pronouns from the typological perspective and gives some observation on the function of indefinite determiners in Slavic languages as well, ne-class of indefinite pronouns, a class to which grammaticalization source of neki belongs to, does not occur in Russian and occurs only marginally in Polish. On the other hand, in Croatian and Bulgarian this is a fully developed series of indefinite pronouns. Since bigger Slavic languages do not have neki, it is not surprising that the article-like use of this determiner is not widely discussed in the literature. When it comes to Croatian, the article-like uses of neki are discussed, although only recently in more detail (Belaj and Tanackovic Faletar 2014).

(3) Heine and Kuteva (2006: 121-122) show, however, that the Russian odin 'one' has reached the presentative marker stage, e.g. Zyl da byl odin starik... 'Once upon a time there was an old man...', as well as that it can be used in the article-like manner in the titles of scientific articles, e.g. Ob odnom slucae palatalizaeii 'About a (certain) palatalization phenomenon'.

(4) Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991: 63) considers that a generic nominal denotes a type and an instance at the same time, i.e. that a type functions as an instance. This, however, presupposes conceptualization of a single schematic representative of a category in question in a way that this schematic representative metonymically stands for the whole category. The nature of this representative is influenced by the speaker's knowledge, experience and beliefs (Belaj and Tanackovic Faletar 2014: 61-63).

(5) As already said, linguists are more willing to use the term indefinite article when discussing the use of the indefinite determiner jedan 'one' than when discussing the use of the indefinite determiner neki 'some/certain'. This does not mean that neki 'some/certain' is not being used in the indefinite article-like manner in Slavic languages that have this linguistic unit--this certainly applies to Croatian, as it will be shown in this paper. Nevertheless, this part of the paper presents a literature overview. The literature dealing with the topic of the indefinite article-like use of indefinite determiners in Slavic languages systematically fails to mention the indefinite article-like use of neki 'some/certain' in languages other than Croatian. Therefore, this part of the paper concentrates only on the usage of jedan 'one' in selected Slavic languages. The full analysis of the use of neki 'some/certain' in Slavic languages, either from a language specific or from a contrastive point of view, is beyond the scope of this paper.

(6) Friedman (1976; 2000a; 2000b; 2003a; 2003b) presents a hypothesis that the rise of the indefinite article in Bulgarian is in connection with the fact that Bulgarian belongs to the Balkan Sprachbund (he considers Turkish and the ancestor of modern Albanian to be the source of the indefinite article in Bulgarian), but this hypothesis is still not widely accepted in the literature.

(7) The term "specified type" refers to the nominals which designate referents that are more detailed. This means that a noun in such nominals is either preceded or followed by a modifier e.g. subordinate clause, as in To je zena o kojoj svi govore 'This is a woman that everybody speaks of' or adjective modifier, as in To je stara zena 'This is an old woman'. The process of modification precedes the process of grounding, i.e. specified nouns are not determined. Furthermore, it needs to be explained here that Geist (2011) distinguishes between predicational and referential nominals (both syntactically being part of a predicative construction). Predicational nominals qualify a referent whereas referential nominals identify a referent. Geist (2011) shows that the development of edin as a predicative marker is not completed in Bulgarian and that only evaluative nouns in a predicative construction need edin.

(8) In the same way Molise Croatian fully grammaticalized the indefinite article jena 'one' to reduplicate functions of the Italian indefinite article. According to Breu (2011), jena can be used with indefinite specific, indefinite non-specific and with generic referents (only within predicative nominals). Additionally, jena is used in the phonetically eroded form as well, the forms being na or nu, which are similar to the Italian indefinite article una.

(9) Example (3a) can have non-specific interpretation as well.

(10) It is possible to use eden in predicative constructions with non-specified nouns, as in Toj eden lazlivec 'He is a (lit. one) liar'. In this use eden has a special intonation contour and it does not trigger indefinite interpretation. In such uses, it should be interpreted as an intensifier. Similar applies to uses of jedan 'one' in Croatian and it will therefore be discussed later within this paper.

(11) Note that it is not possible to use jedan to determine generic subject nominals, e.g. Jedan lav je velika zivotinja 'A (lit. one) lion is a big animal.' On the other hand, it is possible to use jedan to determine generic predicative nominals, e.g. Lav je jedna velika zivotinja 'A lion is a (lit. one) big animal.'

(12) Jedan and neki used as indefinite articles, like articles in other European languages in which they exist, appear as the left-most elements in a nominal. They cannot be moved to the right. Consider the following examples: (1a) neki veliki crveni stolovi 'some big red tables', (1b) * veliki neki crveni stolovi * 'big some red tables', (1c) * veliki crveni neki stolovi * 'big red some tables', (1d) iedni veliki crveni stolovi 'a (lit. one) big red tables', (1e) * veliki iedni crveni stolovi * 'big one red tables' and (1f) * veliki crveni iedni stolovi * 'big red one tables'. Only several examples were found in which neki is being used after numerals, purely for stylistic reasons, e.g. parenie dvaju nekih kukaca 'mating of two bugs'. Furthermore, the indefinite article-like jedan and neki can be separated from the referent noun they are grounding, as in examples (5a), (5c) and (5d).

(13) According to Haspelmath (1997: 269), the indefinite pronouns of ne-series, to which grammaticalization source of the indefinite article-like neki belongs to, can be used in specific known, specific unknown and irealis non-specific contexts (an example of specific known usage is Mira voli nekoga 'Mira loves somone'). The fact that the indefinite article-like neki refers only to indefinite non-specific referents shows how far the grammaticalization process has advanced.

(14) One of those contexts is the aforementioned use of jedan to determine generic predicative nominals, e.g. Lav je jedna velika zivotinja 'A lion is a (lit. one) big animal'. In such contexts, jedan and neki are not interchangeable and only jedan is acceptable.

(15) This paper does not discuss Czech examples in particular. Nevertheless, that does not mean that article-like uses of indefinite determiners are not present in Czech. Bear in mind that Heine and Kuteva (2006) claim that 'one' in Czech has reached the same grammaticalization stage as it has reached in Croatian.

(16) Katunar, Willer-Gold and Gnjatovic (2013: 38-40) also mention constructions with medial demonstratives using the term constructional specificity. Ionin (2006) discusses the use of demonstrative this in English and shows that it can be used to mark indefinite specific referents, often in spoken language, e.g. There is this man who lives next door and likes to play loud music. Similarly, medial demonstrative in examples as (9a) and (9b) can be interpreted as marking indefinite specific referent as well.

(17) In examples in (6) it is shown that the use of neki is not possible when the speaker is familiar with the referent. Instead, jedan is used in such contexts. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that jedan should be compatible with the proximal determiner. However, this does not occur and the explanation could be that the demonstrative indicates the familiarity not only for the speaker, as jedan does, but for the hearer as well.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Croatian Philologic Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Belaj, Branimir; Matovac, Darko
Publication:Suvremena Lingvistika
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:8871
Previous Article:Ranko Matasovic, >>Slavic Nominal Word-Formation: Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development<<.
Next Article:Morphological marking of animacy: differential object marking in the acquisition of Croatian/Morfolosko oznacavanje zivosti: razlicito oznacavanje...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters