236 10 3494 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/54c056bb4b171039b98d299b345bd9d1.pdf e3dc977fe9c76268c559bcfe479c58e9 PDF Text Text Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages Keti Miteva-Markovic South East European University, Tetovo, Macedonia Submitted: 16.04.2014. Accepted: 20.11.2014. Abstract Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for 'ink' in the Slavic languages This text will analyze the semantic and cultural motivation of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages and their dialects, followed by an etymological analysis of the corresponding terms in other European languages. The VIII Lexical volume of the General Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA) will be taken as a foundation; it contains the terms for ink in the Slavic dialects, i.e. approximately 850 settlements on the entire Slavic territory. Namely, various terms are used to refer to ink in the different linguistic areas of the Slavic territory, such as мастило, чернила, tinta, atrament, inkoust etc. This text will analyze their geographic distribution while presenting the semantic motivation of appropriate terms through etymological analysis. Taking the geographic distribution of the various terms for ink into consideration, the compatibility of areas is evident according to both the etymology of appropriate terms and the cultural influence that encompassed the appropriate semantic motivation. By analyzing various terms for ink, my tendency is to illustrate that lexical diversity does not depend only on lexical heritage, but on other factors as well, such as civilization and culture. Key words: language and culture, semantics, etymology, linguistic analysis Geographical distribution In terms of geographical distribution of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages and their dialects, an impressive compatibility of the areals is noted. Thus, on the entire Russian territory, the term чернила occurs (with several phonetic variants). On the Belarus linguistic territory, чернило and чернила are used, along with атрамант in 151 �Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages several points of the western Belarus territory. On the Ukrainian language territory, more precisely in its eastern and central part, чернило and чернила appear, whereas in the west, in addition to the abovementioned terms, uses атрамент, антрамент, leaving the southwest with тинта dominating. On the Polish territory, the term atrament dominates, while northern Poland uses tinta, inkost and inkast. On the Sorbian territory, tinta occurs. On the Czech territory, inkoust dominates, while Slovakia is divided: the west uses atrament, while the east uses tinta. The same form (tinta) appears on the entire territory of Slovenia. However, in several points, different forms, such as ingjustri and črnilo are used. On the territory of Bosnia and Croatia, tinta dominates. Nevertheless, mastilo is used in some points of Bosnia and crnilo is used in some points of Croatia. The form mastilo is dominant on the territory of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. In several points of Macedonia, муреќе and муруќуп are used, whereas the southern dialects use каламар and мелан. To complete the picture, some of the terms for мастило will be illustrated in several European languages. Namely, English uses ink, German: Tinte, French: encre, Italian: inchiostro, Spanish and Portuguese: tinta, while Swedish, Danish and Norwegian: black, blæk and blekk. In Latin, the term for ink is atramentum, Greek: μελάνη and Turkish : mürekkep. It is important to state that in two of the neighboring languages of the Slavic territory, there are accepted forms, such as cerneală in Romanian and bojë (shkrimi) in Albanian. Etymological analysis Terms such as чернило, чернила, črnilo and crnilo, derive from Proto-Slavic and Balto-Slavic adjective*сьrnь, meaning ‘black color’ (Skok 1971:277), from which the term црнило is formed as a loan-translation from the Latin atramentum. The term мастило is of a Proto-Slavic origin. Namely, it originates from a ProtoSlavic form *mast, with reference to ‘color’ and , along with maslo (oil), derives from Proto-Slavic verbal root *maz- 'mazati' (Skok 1971:383; ЭССЯ 1993: в.18). With the exception of these two terms (чернило and мастило), all terms for ink on the Slavic territory are of a foreign origin. Thus, the following forms: атрамант and atrament, from the Belarus, Ukrainian, Polish and Slovakian territories, derive from the Latin term atramentum. Atramentum in Latin refers to ‘ink, black pigment’ which itself derives from ater ('black, dark; dark-colored'), (OLD, 1982). Certain types of terms, such as inkost, inkast, inkoust and ingjustri, which dominate on the Polish territory, appear in the Czech and several points of the Slovenian territory; they originate from the Latin encaustum, meaning ‘purple or red ink', which was used by Roman emperors to sign official documents. This term is related to the ancient Greek 152 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics ἔγκαυστος ('burned-in'), from ἐν 'in' + καίω ('to burn'). This term illustrates the common etymological thread with the terms ink in English, encre in French and inchiostro in Italian. Forms such as tinta, occurring in the Ukrainian, Slovakian, Polish, Sorbian, Slovenian, Bosnian and Croatian territories, result from infiltration by the German Tinte (ink) and Italian tinta ('dye, color, paint'). The etymology of this term leads to the Latin tinctus 'dyeing ' deriving from the verb tingō, tingere, meaning 'color, dye'. As stated above, on the Macedonian territory, муреќе and муруќуп occur in several points, whereas in the southern Macedonian dialects, the form мелан is used, originating from the Greek term μελάνι, meaning ‘ink’. The following forms: муреќе and муруќуп originate from the Turkish term for 'ink,' – mürekkep, and symbolize a Balkan Turkish word with Arabic origin - muräkkäb ('compound, mixed’) (Skok 1971: 485). They can be encountered in Bosnia, Kosovo, Bulgaria and Albania as well. Semantic motivation Considering the etymological analysis of the various terms for 'мастило' (ink), the compatibility of the areals can be noticed through the cultural impacts, which include a semantic motivation. Thus, the abovementioned terms for 'мастило' (ink) can be mentioned under several semantic threads. In all of the semantic threads, there is a semantic motivation ‘to dye, to color’, including ‘color’ and types of color. 1. 'to dye, to color ' The primary use of ‘ink’ was not related to writing, but to the possibility of ‘dyeing, coloring’ a material – hence the relation of ‘painting’ to a subsequent use of a certain liquid substances for writing. This semantic thread encompasses the terms, such as мастило (from * mazati, to paint ), and tinta. As stated above, the first term originates from the Proto-Slavic *mazati, meaning 'to paint, dye color,' and the latter from the Latin tingō, tingere, meaning 'color, dye'. The forms муреќе and муруќуп, from ‘muräkkäb, ('compound, mixed') can be included in this category. 2. 'black color' The use of black pigment, more precisely black color for writing, is one of the semantic motivations which, although through various terms, is encountered in a vast European territory. Thus, vastly used terms in the eastern Slavic territory and, partially on the rest of its territory, are чернило, чернила, črnilo and crnilo which, as mentioned above, originate from the Proto-Slavic and Balto-Slavic adjective *сьrnь 153 �Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages (black). The identical semantic motivation is present in the following terms: атрамант and atrament, from the Latin term atramentum, deriving from ater ('black, dark-colored'). Similarly, the form мелан, originating from the Greek term μελάνι, has an identical semantic motivation, deriving from μέλας ('black'). As mentioned, the introduction of чернила and чернило as 'ink' in the Slavic languages has been motivated according to the Latin term atramentum. It is worth mentioning that this semantic thread dominates in the Nordic languages (Swedish, Danish and Norwegian), where forms, such as black, blæk and blekk occur. 1. 'red color, fire' Along with black color as a basic color for ink, the languages covered terms that derived from ‘dark red, burning red’ which was used as ink, as well. This semantic thread covers terms, such as inkost, inkast, inkoust and ingjustri, which occur in the Slavic territory, as well as terms in other languages: ink in English, encre in French and inchiostro in Italian. All of these terms originate from the Latin encaustum, meaning 'purple or red ink', which was used by the Roman Emperors to sign official documents. Although this type of ink was used primarily for official documents, its meaning developed through history. Conclusion From this histogram of geographical distribution and the analysis of semantic motivation of the terms for ‘ink’, several conclusions can be derived in the Slavic languages and dialects. Regarding the geographical distribution, the compact areals of the Slavic territory demonstrate both the linguistic and cultural history of proper ethnicities. It can be concluded that in certain Slavic languages, regarding lexicology, the linguistic heritage derives from material culture and written tradition. Thus, the following terms: чернило, чернила, crnilo and mastilo, originating from the ProtoSlavic linguistic stratum, cover a vast territory. In the remaining areals, where the terms атрамант, atrament, inkost, inkast, inkoust, ingjustri and tinta occur, it is concluded that cultural impact has had a primary role for the infiltration of these terms in proper languages. The analysis of the semantic motivation of the terms for ‘ink’ illustrates the expansibility and the richness of the semantic nucleuses, developed through the history of civilizations. Similarly, this analysis demonstrates that lexical variety does 154 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics not depend only on the linguistic heritage, but on other factors as well, such as civilization and culture. Thus, for instance, although on the Polish territory, there is a foreign term атрамент, whereas on the Russian, Belarus and Ukrainian – чернила is used, the semantic thread that connects them is identical – 'black color'. These analyses of lexicological and cultural spheres can lead to further interesting discoveries for the cultural and linguistic tradition of the Slavic ethnicities. References Общеславянский лингвистический атлас : Серия лексикословообразовательная : Выпуск 8 : Профессии и общественная жизнь, Warszawa 2003. Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, P. Skok, Zagreb, 1971 Słownik etymologyczny języka polskiego, A. Bruckner, Warszawa, 1985 Български етимологичен речник, Българска Академия на науките, София, 1971 Lexicon Palaeoslovenico-Graeco-Latinum, Franz Von Miklosich, Wien, 1865 Зтимологический словарь славянских языков, Випуск 18, РАН, Москва, 1993 A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, Carl Darling Buck, University of Chicago, 1949, reprinted 1988 Słownik etymologyczny języka polskiego, Wydawnyctwo Literacke, Kraków, 2005 Wiesław Boryś, Oxford Latin Dictionary, 1982 (http://www.latin-dictionary.net) A Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D., Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) 155 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 2791 Title A name given to the resource Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages Author Author Miteva-Markovic, Keti Abstract A summary of the resource. Semantic and cultural analysis of the terms for 'ink' in the Slavic languages This text will analyze the semantic and cultural motivation of the terms for ink in the Slavic languages and their dialects, followed by an etymological analysis of the corresponding terms in other European languages. The VIII Lexical volume of the General Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA) will be taken as a foundation; it contains the terms for ink in the Slavic dialects, i.e. approximately 850 settlements on the entire Slavic territory. Namely, various terms are used to refer to ink in the different linguistic areas of the Slavic territory, such as мастило, чернила, tinta, atrament, inkoust etc. This text will analyze their geographic distribution while presenting the semantic motivation of appropriate terms through etymological analysis. Taking the geographic distribution of the various terms for ink into consideration, the compatibility of areas is evident according to both the etymology of appropriate terms and the cultural influence that encompassed the appropriate semantic motivation. By analyzing various terms for ink, my tendency is to illustrate that lexical diversity does not depend only on lexical heritage, but on other factors as well, such as civilization and culture. Key words: language and culture, semantics, etymology, linguistic analysis Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics,PE English,PG Slavic, Baltic, Albanian languages and literature https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/3531b7a8e787462773f72cf24365bd8d.pdf 55ed41775d73b865a085ab33b62e703d PDF Text Text 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8-9, 2010 Sarajevo Semantic and Operational Contribution of the Conjunctions to the Improvement of the Linguistic Expression Mustafa Çetin Faculty of Education, International Burch University Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina mcetin@hotmail.com Abstract: In the 20th century, with F. de Saussure’s bringing scientific approach to the language , language/ word separation has been made in the language. The foundation of this separation was attributed to the language with social dimension and to word with individual dimension. This perspective led the individuality-based words (spoken language) to come into prominence. Spoken language, with the freewill of the individual, showed its existence in the axis of paradigm, the possibility of the unlimited utterance production through the preferred limited indicator. In the individual expression too, utterances are cultivated and the discourses are formed with the combination of them. In this process, it was seen that the conjunctions performed an important semantic and Operational functions. The presence significant contribution was observed intending for the flexibility of the conjunction expression and improvement, in this abstract, the impact of the important function that conjunction perform in the collocation axis to the development of the expression will be discussed. 2. Introduction Communication is seen to be one of the most important social and personal activities for human beings. Although there are several means of communication, written and verbal expression are regarded as frequently referred tool of communication. It is a well-known fact that everyone sustains corcerns to express themselves correctly. Verbal utterance (Langue) that forms the basis of written expression has been seen to gain importance with the linguistic studies that F. de Saussure has laid the foundation in 20th century. Particularly, with perspectives like language*, speech†, and performance‡ language has been seen to be intensively in use by the individuals. While producing utterances§, individuals choose the language indicators from that he picks up from the paradigmatic relation** with respect to his intension, his knowledge and his language. Combining the (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) * Human being’s communication, information achievement capability through the use of audible indicators or natural languages(Vardar, 2002:78). † The individual side of language identified with personal desire and the act of comprehension. According to the division, which F.de Saussure made and many linguists adopted, word, which is separated from the language with social quality, comprises combinations that the individual speaking it use the language system to express his thoughts and the mental-physical machinery that enables it to be conveyed outside(Vardar, 2002:180). ‡ In the concept of producer-transformation grammar, acquisition taking place in a speaker during the language use. Chomsky’s concepts of acquisition, memory, attention etc. It indicates the fact, which factors condition, reminds, in some aspects, F.de Saussure’s word concept, emerges with the use of language skill in the individuals(Vardar, 2002:88). § Part of speech chain, which lies between a speaker’s two silence maras; expression emerges from the acquisition of enunciation...some linguists see word as the collection of sentences which follow sentence or each other(Vardar, 2002:88). ** The syntagmatic connections are defined with the transformation relations between the equal language indicators which shoulder the same function. These relations take place in vertical axis and is also known as axis of choice(Kiran, Eziler, 2006:126). 35 �2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8-9, 2010 Sarajevo chosen linguistics in syntagmatic relation††, he produces utterances and puts his thoughts into words. While explaining thoughts in the combination axis, the necessity of depiction is felt with the connection of indicators. The most beautiful examples that language feels the need to bind are the conjunctions.These only gain value within the utterance. The strongest or absolute meaning fields have been put forward in the context. Therefore, conjunctions appear in syntagmatic axis as syntax catalyst and strengthen and develops the meaning. The procedure of binding is done within the framework of language rules. The bodies of conjugational form, known as connectors perform the binding procedure. Some of these are the dependant conjugational forms, and yet some are the independent conjugational forms. This type of bodies are thought of independant structures like“reproduction of so connector”‡‡ or bodies of dependant forms such as state adjuncts like(to, in, from) In the examples “Ahmet eve geldi(Ahmet came to school). Okulu bitiriyorum(I am finishing school)” form bodies /-e/ ve /-u/ connect the indicators /ev/ ve /okul/ to the next indicator(verb). These are considered as formbodies. Their power of expression is weaker than independant form-bodies. Indeed, variety and richness that prepositional phrases add to the expression in terms of structural meaning is impossible to be given by adjunct.§§ In the following examples “Cennet gibi vatanımız var(Our country is just like heaven).” , “ Oyna ama derslerine çalışmayı ihmal etme(Play, but do not neglect to study).”, “kitapları Sana geri vermek üzere veriyorum(I am lending you these books in order to return back).” independent form bodies /gibi(like)/,/ama(but)/,/üzere(for the purpose)/ establish bonds meaning and shape in terms of syntax. However, here the independence of independent form-bodies is limited even though they are regarded as connectives. These are, in the syntagmatic axis of meaning, certainly connected to another element within the syntax. They are assigned to establish bonds of form and meaning. 2. Methodological Background The connecting elements are considered as being a different linguistic category and are refered with different names by the linguists. Generally, they are evaluated under the heading of prepositions. The linguistic constituent which is expressed with the term “preposition” in Turkish, is used in Western Languages as ‘preposition’ (word which establishes an interest and combines two different words) (Aksan, 2000:96). Prepositions help the usage and the expression capabilities of the words, word groups and sentences they are used in. In this sense, we can nouns and verbs the main words, prepositions the supplementary words. Prepositions are of three types: exclamatory prepositions, connecting prepositions and the last conjugated prepositions(Ergin,2009:348). Prepositions are the words which obtained significance not with their meanings, but with their functions. These functions are two types:1.to establish connection between subject and ojbects.These can not exceed their limit; in other words, they can not be independent components in sentences like prepositions.*** Tahsin Banguoğlu, too, using almost the same statement in terms of function, expressed glosseme with different names. Morpehemes, which come after nouns and establish their connection with other elements, are called postposition. Morphemes, which are used to connect two words, two sentence elements with the same value, two opinions and sometimes, two paragraphs - are called conjunctions (Banguoğlu, 1998:385390). Leyla Karahan examined the functionary elements as being conjugated prepositions and connecting prepositions (Karahan, 1999:28-30). H. Đbrahim Delice, in his research called Turkish Syntax, evaluated the word category, generally under the name of preposition, under four different sub-headings: connecting prepositions, conjugated prepositions, exclamatory prepostions and reinforcement prepositions (Delice, 2007:2023). Words, which have no meaning alone, appear their meaning with other word ane word groups, contribute to the meaning, are called “prepositions”. Old linguists regarded prepositions as words with missing letters; in this (f) (g) (h) *** †† The chosen terms or words are called sequence, the combination of these terms and words are called syntax(Kiran, Eziler, 2006:128). ‡‡ Tekin,T. (1958) Daha Zarfı ve da/de Edatı Hakkında. Türk Dili, c. 7, issue 83, p. 560-562. §§ Oner, M.(2003). Prepositions’ “Comparative” and “Limitation” Relations, Turkish Language Research Yearbook – Bulletin 1999 / I-II, Ankara, p. 147-157. Gencan,T.N. (1967) Edat Tümleçleri. Aylık Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, vol xvı, issue 192. 36 �2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8-9, 2010 Sarajevo sense, they called prepositions “huruf-u meani: meaningful words”( Oğuzkan,2005:139). Ediskun (1985: 284),too, mentions prepostions as having no meaning when used alone, but when entering into a sentence they establish semantic interest,suggest their meaning and relying on this definition, state adjunctives (to,in,from) along with adjunctives that produce adverbs (from and –less)are examined in this category. Kahraman (1986: 93), like Deny (1941: 560)divides prepositions into three: postposition, conjunction and exclamation. We propose the following division of the terms shown under preposition: Exclamations, conjunctions, prepositions.††† As seen, connectives are given different names and are evaluated in different categories. Among word categories which are evaluated as connectives, exclamations are not included. Because, connectives, in syntagmatic axis, can not take place alone. However, exclamations can take place alone in syntagmatic axis. Therefore, exclamatory prepositions should not be considered within connectives. From syntagmatic perspective: Exclamations are the words that have sentence value;can be used alone or at the end / in the beginning of the sentence: Oh! Ay! Eyvah! Mister!! Özgür!‡‡‡ Glosseme, which we called connectives, take place in the syntactical chain primarily in form and necessitates the continuation of the meaning before or afterwards. In other words, connectives, formally, link the elements in the combination axis. This formal link cause to set up semantic link. When prepositions mentioned, this kind of functioning linguistic category is thought. Some words are satisfied spending an evening at home, alone, eating ice-cream right out of the box, watching Seinfeld re-runs on TV, or reading a good book. Others aren't happy unless they're out on the town, mixing it up with other words; they're joiners and they just can't help themselves. A conjunction is a joiner, a word that connects (conjoins) parts of a sentence. §§§ 3. The Role of Conjunctions in Linguistic Utterance In fact, in Turkish syntax, the elements are stated to connect to each other through gerunds and participles. So, the work of connecting primary elements, within syntagmatic axis, is still done with primary elements. But, through time, as a consequence of contact of Turkish Language with foreign socities, cultures and languages, linguistic categories, which we call meaningless and funcitonary words, started entering into our language. (...)Ancak zaman içerisinde Türkçenin yabancı toplumlarla, kültürlerle ve dillerle teması neticesinde anlamsız, görevli sözcükler dediğimiz dilbilgisi ulamları dilimize girmeye başlamıştır. (...)Since Uyghur period, in the first level religious texts, as a result of the desire to comply with the original and word by word translation, parallel word and sentence connecting prepositions(conjunctions)along with various supplementary sentences and the prepositions that connect these to the main sentence were seen to enter into Turkish Language.**** The supplementary sentences, which are formed with connecting prepositions,were seen to be used firstly during Uyghur period with the influence of Iranian tribes like Sogud and Tohar. The supplementary sentences, constructed with the connecting preposition‘so’,were widely seen in the Old Anatolian Turkish Language period in the translations made from Persian Language.†††† Even though it is contrary to the nature cof Turkish Language, these elements settled in our language throughout centuries. Entering into the syntax of our language, they contribute to the formal and semantic format of the expression. The members of society will ††† Balcı, T.( 2003). Edat Bağlamında Sözcük Türlerine Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Dil Dergisi, issue 122, p. 7. ‡‡‡ Balcı, T.( 2003). Edat Bağlamında Sözcük Türlerine Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Dil Dergisi, issue 122, p. 7. §§§ **** (i) http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/Grammar/conjunctions.htm Mansuroğlu, M.(1955).Türkçede Cümle Çeşitleri ve Bağlayıcıları. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten, p. 59. †††† Tokatlı, S. (2006). Anadolu Ağızlarında Ki Bağlama Edatı ile Kurulan Yardımcı Cümleler. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, sayı : 21, yıl: 2, s. 453. 37 �2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8-9, 2010 Sarajevo want to use every facilities of language at the moment of communication. These elements have been made use of in our written and verbal expressions. The conjunctions, which have no meaning alone, establish strong meaning relations in the chains of syntax and improve the meaning. The conjunctions, set up interests of meaning with words; serve the function of connecting: like“I will speak in that meeting too”, “We came from the garage by car.” The interests of meaning, which prepositions add to the sentence, are in plenty. Primarily:express meanings such as, comparison, similarity, indecision, curiosity, loneliness, hesitation, desire, orientation, inclination...etc , karşılaştırma,benzerlik, kararsızlık, merak, tek başınalık, tereddüt, istek, yönelme, yöneliş...(Oğuzkan, 2005:140). With conjunctions, which enter into Turkish later and are mostly foreign elements, unforgettable songs, folk-songs and texts have been presented. Artist, while saying “I heard that you had forgotten the color of my eyes” the influence of meaning have been felt on the listeners for many years. Songs were liked by large crowds of public, were listened. Here, the artist could have said “I heard you forgot the color of my eyes.” He could have expressed the same thought. But, it is seen that the expression with preposition is more effective. Saying “I,too, missed I too”in a song the effective expression constructed with prespositions can not be ignored. Here, can the power of expression of “I,too, missed I too” be put at the same scale with the power of expression of “I missed I”? Prepositions, which are connected to nouns, contribute a great deal to the expression. In syntax “There is no vivid impression of imaginary reflection of Speaks well and like a Nightingale.‡‡‡‡ In a song, the singer’s statement “For you I can dig through mountains, open ways” the power of expression of for seems to surround the entire song. Again, in “I have a world of work” statement the power of exaggeration that of adds to the expression is difficult to give with another expression. In“There can be no spring with one rose” sentence It is impossible not to notice the richess of expression that with adds. In “I, too, could not understand you!” statement the powerful contribution of too to the expression can not be denied. As seen by the examples, the powerful contribution of the connectors to the expression can be perceived. The student attitudes related to the connectors can be seen as the indication that these were not properly comprehended. While the emphasis is given on the function and meaning in the classification of connectors, and because they were subjected to classification and naming in many aspects like the meaning relations that they establish in application, their structure, their sources, places of use, types of words they are connected to, need or no need for an adjunct, uncertainy is felt on the issue of this grammatical category. Preposition, is one of the most uncertain terms of grammar; it is very difficult to imagine what it tries to explain.§§§§ This uncertainty is reflected to the users(students) too. It is difficult to comprehend the meaning since the classification is not obvious and clear. Mistakes are being made in the usage of connectives because of this. This mistake is clearly seen in the use of connective in. Additionally, the connectives, which have substitutes in language, be replaced with other elements in the expression, are bodies that appeared as a result of fancy choice in expression, are quite difficult to comprehend by the speaker. One significant fact that affects the student attitude towards the connectives is originated from the teacher attitude. In some essay books and teacher recommendations, students are suggested to form short sentences. Short sentences prevent the expression of thoughts within the influence, cause-effect integrality. All of these are seen to cause students to develop negative attitude towards the connectives. These negative atittues can only be remedied, on the students’ part, by doing excessive reading and making plenty of exercises on written and verbal expression. ‡‡‡‡ §§§§ . Gencan, T.N.(1967) Edat Tümleçleri. Türk Dili, Cilt.xvı, Sayı 192, Sayfa 909 . BALCI T. (2003).Edat Bağlamında Sözcük Türlerine Yeni Bir Yaklaşım. Dil Dergisi , Sayı 122, s. 7. 38 �2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 8-9, 2010 Sarajevo Conclusion: The connectives are active elements of expression. They appear in syntagmatic level as being a catalyst of effective communication and improve the expression stylistically and semantically. The connectives, as understood from their name, are words whose functional aspect overpower and sometimes, they establish very powerful meaning relations too. Connectives, being grammar categories, are called with different names and are evaluated in different categories. A confusion of term attracts the attention. Along with this, it is generally accepted that connectives establish stylistic and semantic relations in syntax as functionary words. From the perspective of student attitude, some mistakes are made in written and verbal expression related to connectives. This results in usage mistakes because students fail to comprehend the semantic and functional fields of word category and opportunites completely. Being one of the problems resulted from teacher attitude, the requirement to form short sentences from the students in essay classes, within integrality, prevents the expression of the thoughts with connectives. The connectives are one of the riches of a language. We can not turn our back on them just because they are foreign elements. In written and verbal expression classes, we can ask students to express complex thoughts with the help of main elements like gerunds and participles and also with the connectives and thus we can make students realize their potentials of expression. References: Aksan, D.(2000). Her Yönüyle Dil Ana Çizgileriyle Dilbilim. II.cilt. Ankara:TDK yayınları. Banguoğlu, T.(1998).TÜRKÇENĐNĐ Grameri.Ankara, TDK:528. Delice,H.Đ.(2007).Türkçe Sözdizimi.Đstanbul:Kitabevi yayınları. Ergin, M.(2009). Türk Dil Bilgisi. Đstanbul:Bayrak yayınları Karahan, L.(1999). Türkçede Sözdizimi. Ankara: Akçağ yayınları. Kıran, Z., Kıran, A. (2006). Dilbilime Giriş. Ankara: Seçkin yayınları. Oğuzkan, A.(2005). Örneklerle Türkçe Kompozisyon Bilgileri,Đstanbul,Đnkılap yayınları. Vardar, B.(2002). Açıklamalı Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. Đstanbul:Multilingual yayınları. 39 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 368 Title A name given to the resource Semantic and Operational Contribution of the Conjunctions to the Improvement of the Linguistic Expression Author Author Çetin, Mustafa Abstract A summary of the resource. In the 20th century, with F. de Saussure’s bringing scientific approach to the language , language/ word separation has been made in the language. The foundation of this separation was attributed to the language with social dimension and to word with individual dimension. This perspective led the individuality-based words (spoken language) to come into prominence. Spoken language, with the freewill of the individual, showed its existence in the axis of paradigm, the possibility of the unlimited utterance production through the preferred limited indicator. In the individual expression too, utterances are cultivated and the discourses are formed with the combination of them. In this process, it was seen that the conjunctions performed an important semantic and Operational functions. The presence significant contribution was observed intending for the flexibility of the conjunction expression and improvement, in this abstract, the impact of the important function that conjunction perform in the collocation axis to the development of the expression will be discussed. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-06 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed H Social Sciences (General) https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/d84fc0654055e7ad75fba355245ceee9.pdf 8e97f887a96a664697e8fd9f86c6c274 PDF Text Text Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons Azamat Akbarov International Burch University Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina Saodat Muhamedova Tashkent State Pedagogical University Tashkent, Uzbekistan Submitted: 12.04.2014. Accepted: 18.11.2014. Abstract The article deals with the semantic field units with semanteme "thinking" in Uzbek, Bosnian and English languages, defined by their integral seme, on the basis of the criteria specified internal semantic groups. Lexical units refer to the meaning “thinking” and semantic field, integral and distinctive meaning have been investigated, inner groups have been classified in the example of the Uzbek language. The study of linguistic units on the basis of semantic fields is widespread in the world linguistics. They are mainly directed at the study of semantic groups of verbs. Our research will compare the semantic fields of units with semanteme "thinking" in the Uzbek language. The given lexical-semantic field includes not only the lexeme of the verbs, but the lexemes of nouns, lexemes of adjectives, lexemes of adverbs and also some of the idioms. In the result of the analysis of the factual material revealed the following semantic groups of units with semantepe "thinking" in the Uzbek language. Keywords: semanteme “thinking,” semantic fields of units, idioms, factual material, Uzbek language Introduction Known works of Russian linguists devoted to the study of lexical-semantic fields (groups) include verbs as action verbs (Kildibekova, 1985), verb relations (Gysin , 1981, 1982 ), speech, feelings, thoughts and behavior (Vasiliev, 1981), verbs initiation object (Kuznetsov, 1974) and desire (Vorkachev, 1994), emotions ( 41 �Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons Rudakov, 1994, Fomenko, 1974), giving (Gonchareva , 1981), compliance (Gysin , 1989), speech ( Rubtsov , 1976), gender inequality (Gysin, 1977), verb classification relations (Gysin , 1980), full coverage ( Paducheva Motherland, 1993), verbs of communication (Glowinski , 2000). In Uzbek linguistics, the previous research was conducted in the semantic fields of the verbs of speech ( I.Kuchkartaev , 1977), states ( R.Rasulov , 1989), motion (S.Muhamedova, 2007) , relationships ( M.Sodikova, 1992) , feelings (T.Musaev) and view (Z.Siddikov, 2000). In German linguistics as well, previously the research was conducted in detail with the lexical-semantic group of verbs both by the German and the Russian linguists. These are the verbs of the event semantics (Vaysgerber, 1964, Vikmane, 1989), thinking ( Kozhevnikov, 1970), verbs with the meaning of connection (Rumin, 1970), verbs of receiving and withdrawal (Shcherbakov, 1975), verbs of motion (Orthen, 1976), verbs of directed motion (Alexandrov, 1993), and verbs of motion gehen kommen (Irgashev, 1985), sound (Savina, 1978), beliefs ( Egorchenkova, 1985), promotion (Paly, Slepko, 1999), verbs of behavior (Grishaeva, 1999), verbs of state (Vinokurov , 2002), verbs of surprise (Kolayan 2001), verbs expressing liquid (Vintsova, 2001), verbs haben and possession besitzen (Kalinin, 2002), auditory perception verbs (Vliegel , 1988), verbs with the meaning "see" in German and French (Schpping, 1982). Also in comparative linguistics method of semantic fields is widely applied as well as in this field it is applied mainly in respect to the lexical-semantic groups of verbs. There are some PhD thesis such as "verbs of movement in German and English" (Zlobin, 1993), "Visual verbs in German and Georgian" (Karegauli , 1991), "The German and Russian verbs of motion" ( Shamne, 2000), "Verbs of perception of English and German languages" (Babalova, 1989)," The verbs of sound in German and Russian " (Dementieva, 1982)," Russian and German verbs with the meaning of beginning (Shihanova, 1987), and others. Thus, the field of linguistics presently has no special research on the object of our study - the semantic field units with semanteme "thinking." There is the study in Russian linguistics that considers the verbal speech means of the physical and intellectual activities, recorded in the dictionaries of the Russian and English languages also functioning the class of verbs of intellectual activity in all poetry of the Russian texts of Joseph Brodsky. In these studies, detailed and comprehensive semantic features are considered only some of the verbs with seme "thinking." 42 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics According to Steven Pinker, in order to analyze and compare the words, we should find a case in which the rule and the words themselves express the same content; however, even when compared, and when an equivalent was found (among the languages), they (the words) would still be psychologically and neurologically distinguishable (Pinker, 1999). Therefore, in the following examples we will try to find some equivalents of Uzbek words in the Bosnian language, with their explanations in English language, but always bearing in mind that the words can never be completely the same in two languages. 1. Units with seme "thinking, the thought." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as Tafakkur (thinking), тафаккур қилмоқ (think), ўй (thought), ўйламоқ (think), ўй сурмоқ (think over), фикр (thought), фикрламоқ (think), фикрлашмоқ (share thoughts), фикран (mentally), фикрли (thinking), фикрий (mental, intellectual) and others. (Siddikov, 2000) In the Bosnian language the term for thought is Misao. From this word the following forms were made: misliti (thinking – to think), promišljati (to think over), premišljati (se) (to think through or to be indecisive), promijeniti misao (to change one’s mind), podijeliti mišljenje (to share thoughts), misaono (mentally), istomišljenik (the person that has the same opinion as someone else). (Halilović, 1996) In the English language, the word thought originally meant, “to conceive in mind, consider” (Harper, 2001). As seen above, most of the English equivalents of thought exist in both the Uzbek and Bosnian languages, except for Bosnian word istomišljenik (the person that has the same opinion as someone else). English language recognizes this word as supporter, however the word supporter means the one who supports the idea, but istomišljenik is the one who has the same idea as someone else, and shares that idea with the person. 2. Units with seme "Decision.” This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as аҳд (determination), аҳд қилмоқ (decide), аҳдлашмоқ (decide together), қарор (decision), қарор қилмоқ (decide), қарорга келмоқ (come to a decision), қарорида тўхтамоқ (stay on the decision), ҳисобламоқ (think that decision is right) and others. (Kuchkartaev, 1977) In the Bosnian language the derivations from the word decision are: određivanje (determination) or odluka (determination), odlučiti (to decide), odluka (decision), donijeti odluku (make a decision), držati se odluke (stay firm when making a decision), etc. (Halilović, 1996) 43 �Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons The Uzbek word аҳдлашмоқ (decide together), actually has a lot in common with the English word decision: settlement, agreement. The action of agreeing requires at least two participants, and sometimes the derived word in one language describes the original thought behind the main word in another language – in this case, English. (Harper, 2001) 3. Units with seme "discuss, deliberate." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as муҳокама 1,2 (discussion), муҳокама қилмоқ (этмоқ, юритмоқ) (discuss), ақллашмоқ (advice), кенгаш 1,2 (discussion), кенгашмоқ 1 (confer, consult), маслаҳат 1,2,3 (advice, recommendation), маслаҳатлашмоқ 1 (advice) and others. (Glowinski, 2000) The Bosnian forms are: rasprava (discussion) and raspravljati (to discuss). (Halilović, 1996) 4. Units with seme "Awareness , understanding thought." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as англамоқ 1,2 (understand, realize), тушунча 1,2,3 (concept), тушунчали (having a vision, knowing), тушунмоқ 1 (understand), тушунмоқ 2 (penetrate), идрок 1 (mind, intellect), идрок қилмоқ (этмоқ) (to work out, realize), зеҳн (mind, intellect, consciousness), фаҳм (ingenuity, resourcefulness), фаҳмламоқ (think, guess, know, understand, to catch onto), уқув 1 (understand, bright), уқмоқ 1, 2 (understand, know, take in a sense) and others. (Kuchkartaev, 1977) The Bosnian language has similar equivalences in these terms: shvatati, poimati (understand, realize), shvatanje (understanding). (Halilović, 1996) In the English language, the word “awareness” has two meanings. The one is that of thought: being aware of something. However, the original form of this word means to be cautious, to be aware of danger. This meaning is not very odd if we make a closer comparison with both the Uzbek and Bosnian languages, where in some of the forms (in Uzbek этмоқ: to work out, realize, and in Bosnian shtavanje – understanding), we perceive that all three languages at some point identify the word “awareness” with caution. 5. Units with seme "to justify somebody’s thoughts." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as асосламоқ (justify), исбот (evidence, argument), исботламоқ (prove, argue), изоҳ 1 (explanation, interpretation), изоҳламоқ (to clarify, explain, interpret), талқин 2 (interpretation), талқин қилмоқ 3 (to interpret), тушунтирмоқ (to clarify, explain, expound, cram), уқдирмоқ (to 44 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics clarify, explain, expound, cram, to make it clear), шарҳ (interpretation, explanation), шарҳламоқ (explain, cram, comment) and others. (Vasiliev, 1981) Bosnian: opravdati (justify), dokaz (evidence), dokazati (to prove), objašnjenje (explanation), protumačiti (interpret) pojasniti (clarify), razjasniti (to make something clear) etc. (Halilović, 1996) In this aspect, English language recognizes few more examples of justifying someone’s thoughts: to bear out (verify), confirm, and validate. (The Oxford Thesaurus) 6. Units with seme "Knowledge." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as ақл (mind, intelligence, reason, intellect), ақлли (smart, intelligent), онг I, 1 (conscious, mind, reason), онгли (conscious, intelligent, clever), мия 3 (figuratively) mind, intelligence), мияли (smart, intelligent), интеллект, интуиция, билим 1 (knowledge, cognition), билмоқ 1 (know, possess the knowledge, to understand, to think), билимли ( knowing, having deep knowledge), билимдон (having deep knowledge), илмий 1,2,3 (scientific), олим 1,2 (scientist) and others. (Vinokurov, 2002) The Bosnian equivalents of these are: pametan (smart), inteligentan (intelligent), svjestan (conscious), oštrouman (smart, intelligent), znalac (the one who knows things). (Halilović, 1996) 7. Units with seme "Mental comparison." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as солиштирмоқ 2 (match, compare), чоғиштирмоқ (match, compare), қиёс 1 (comparison and contrast, analogy), қиёслашмоқ (compare, to draw an analogy), таққосламоқ (contrast, compare) and others. (Vasiliev, 1981) Bosnian equivalents: porediti (compare), suprotstavljati (contrast), razlikovati (distinguish), analogija (analogy). (Halilović, 1996) English sources: to match up to, be on par with, be in the same class, come close to, hold a candle to; etc. (The Oxford Thesaurus) 8. Units with seme "Think for a specific purpose." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as мақсад (goal), ғoя 3 (idea, concept), кўзламоқ 1 (scheduled to pursue, keep in mind), мўлжал 1.2 (basting, preliminary calculation), мўлжалламоқ 1.2, 3 (schedule , estimate, expect) , чоғламоқ 1,2,3 ( assume, schedule, to plan), режа 2 (plan, basting) , режа тузмоқ (режалаштирмоқ) (build-up, schedule), ният (intention, purpose, plan ) and others. (Vasiliev, 1981) 45 �Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons Bosnian equivalents: cilj (goal), ideja (idea), držati na umu (to keep in mind), promišljati (to think), očekivati (expect), pretpostaviti (assume), planirati (to plan), isplanirati (build up a schedule), namjera (intention). (Halilović, 1996) 9. Units with seme "has a sharp mind and talent." This group can be divided into two subgroups: A. Units with seme "has a sharp mind." B. Units with seme "has talent and ability." A. Units with seme "has a sharp mind." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as зеҳнли (smart, quick-witted, shrewd, clever), иқдидорли (sensible, intelligent, understanding), тазимли 1.2, (clever, clever), фаросатли (perceptive, very clever), зийрак (smart) дид 2 (insight, intelligence), дидли 2 (shrewd, smart), заковат (bright, insight, intelligence), заковатли (clever, shrewd, smart), уқувли 1 (smart, quick-witted, shrewd, clever ) фаҳмли (smart, quick-witted, quick on the uptake ). (Taranov, 2012) The terms for this category in Bosnian language are the same as ones mentioned in part 6. In the English language, the expressions are: brilliant, expert, competent, adept, and proficient. (The Oxford Thesaurus) B. Units with seme "has talent and ability." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as истеъдод (talent) 1 истеъдодли (talented), иқдидорли (with a strong, powerful mind, gifted) қобилият 2 (ability, gift, giftedness, talent), қобилиятли 2 (capable of, gifted, talented) лаёқат 2 (giftedness, talent), лаёқатли 2 (gifted, talented) and others. (Taranov, 2012) Bosnian: talenat (talent), nadarenost (talent), oštrouman (strong, powerful, gifted mind), nadarenost (giftedness). (Halilović, 1996) English language: gifted, skillful, skilled, brilliant, top-notch. (The Oxford Thesaurus) 10. Units with seme "Imagination and presentation." This group can be divided into two subgroups: A. Units with seme "Imagination." B. Units with seme "Representations". 46 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics A. Units with seme "Imagination." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as хаёл 1 (imagination, representation, thought), хаёлкаш (haёlparast) (dreamy, visionary), хаёллий (imaginary, fictional, seemingly) хаёлланмоқ (think, stargaze, dream), хаёлчан (dreamy, pensive) хаёлан (mentally, in dreams ) and others . (Taranov, 2012) Bosnian: mašta (imagination), bujna mašta (vivid imagination), sanjar (dreamer), sanjariti (to dream), vizionar (visioner). (Halilović, 1996) English: vision, inspiration, insight, by any stretch of the imagination, a flight of fancy (shows a lot of imagination, but it’s not very practical in use). (The Oxford Thesaurus) B. Units with seme "Representations." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as тасаввур 1.2 (presentation), тасаввур қилмок (present), хаёлига келтирмоқ (idiom) (pictured in the imagination), кўз олдига келмоқ (idiom) (present before the eyes) and others. (Muҳamedova, 2007) Bosnian: zamisliti (to picture), vidjeti kao pred očima (present before the eyes). (Halilović, 1996) 11. Units with seme "processes associated with memory." This group can be divided into two subgroups: A. Units with seme "Total Recall." B. Units with seme "Forget." A. Units with seme "Total Recall." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as хотир 1.2 (memory, mind, thought) хотирламоқ (remember, recall, restore memory), эс 2 (memory, mind, thought) эсламоқ 1.2 (recall, restore memory) ёд (memory), ёдламоқ 1.2 (remember, restore memory), ёдаки (memory, learn by heart), ёдга олмоқ, ёдга солмоқ, ёдга тушмоқ (idioms) (remember, recall, restore memory), эсга олмоқ (idiom) (remember, remember), эсга тушмоқ (idiom) (restored in memory, etc.) (Muhamedova, 2007) Bosnian: memorija, pamćenje, sjećanje (memory), pohraniti u memoriji (restore in ones memory – more used as a computer term), zapamtiti, naučiti napamet (learn by heart – in Bosnian language learn by mind). (Halilović, 1996) 47 �Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons English: consciousness, recollection, flashback, retrospection, camera-eye (meaning: the one that memorizes almost everything, mind’s eye (meaning: bright) (The Oxford Thesaurus) B. Units with seme "Forget." This sub-group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as унутмоқ 1, 2, 3 (forget, pass into oblivion), ёдидан кутармоқ, ёдидад чиқармоқ (idioms) - (go to tradition), эсидан чиқармоқ, эсидан чақарилмоқ (idioms) (delete from memory, forget), хаёлидан кўтарилмоқ (idiom ) - ( forget ) and others . (Vasiliev, 1981) Bosnian: zaboraviti (forget), izbrisati iz sjećanja (idiom: delete from ones memory). (Halilović, 1996) English: fail to remember, deliberately cease to think of, neglect to behave in an appropriate way. (The Oxford Thesaurus) 12. Units with seme "Guess, guess what." This group includes such linguistic units of the Uzbek language as чама 2 (assumption, reckoning, a rough calculation, the approximate definition), чамаламоқ 1.2 (assume, estimate, determine approximately), тахмин (guess, approximate), тахминан (presumably approximate), тахмин қилмоқ (assumed to figure), тахминий (presumably approximate) фараз (suggested hypothesis, assumption), фараз қилмоқ (assume, estimate, determine approximately) тусмол (assumption, reckoning, about the definition), тусмолламоқ (assumeestimate, to determine approximately), гумон (guess suspicion , doubt) , гумон қилмоқ (assume suspect doubt) and others. (Vasiliev, 1981) Bosnian: pretpostavka (assumption), pretpostaviti (guess, assume), odlučiti “otprilike” (colloquial use: to decide approximately), sumnja (doubt), etc. (HAlilović, 1996) So, a special study of the object of our research – the semantic field units with semanteme "thinking" – is not observed in general linguistics. There are studies in Russian linguistics in which verbal speech means considering the physical and intellectual activities, recorded in the dictionaries of the Russian and English languages and also functioning class of verbs of intellectual activity in the poetry of the Russian text by Joseph Brodsky. Conclusion 48 �Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics At present, the lexical-semantic field includes not only the lexeme verbs, but the lexemes of nouns and adjectives, as well as some idioms. An analysis of the factual material revealed the following semantic groups of units with semanteme "thinking" in Uzbek language: 1. Units with seme "thinking , the thought ." 2. Units with seme "decision". 3. Units with seme "discuss , deliberate ." 4. Units with seme "awareness , understanding thought." 5. Units with seme "to justify their thoughts." 6. Units with seme "knowledge.” 7 Units with seme "mental comparison." 8 Units with seme "think for a specific purpose ." 9. Units with seme "has a sharp mind and talent." A. Units with seme "has a sharp mind." B. Units with seme "has the talent and ability." 10. Units with seme "imagination and presentation." A. Units with seme "imagination." B. Units with seme "representations". 11 Units with seme "processes associated with memory." This group can be divided into two subgroups: A. Units with seme "total recall." B. Units with seme "forget." 12 Units with seme "guess, guess what." The study of the semantic field units with semanteme "thinking" in the Uzbek language allows new possibilities for compiling dictionaries with valence and with the units of automatic data analysis. 49 �Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons References Johnson-Laird, P. (1987), The Mental Representation of the Meaning of Words, Cognition 25, 189-211 Klima, E. and U. Bellugi (1979), The Signs of Language, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press 1979 Meyer D. and R. Schvaneveldt (1971), Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence Between Retrieval Operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90, 227-234, 1971 Halilović, Senahid (1996), Gnijezdo lijepih riječi (The Nest of Beautiful Words), Baština Sarajevo, 1996 Harper, Douglas (2001), Online (http://www.etymonline.com), 2001-2014 Etymology Dictionary Pinker, S. (1995), The Language Instinct, New York: HarperPerennial, 1995. Pinker, S. (1999), Words and Rules, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999 Pisoni, D, and P. P. Luce (1987), Acoustic-phonetic Representation in Word Recognition; In Frauenfelder and Tyler 1987. Taranov, A. (2012), Uzbek Vocabulary for English Speakers, T&P Books Publishing 2012 Tsohatzidis, S. ed. (1990), Meaning and Prototypes, London: Routledge, 1990. 50 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 2784 Title A name given to the resource Semantic Group of Units with the Semanteme "Thinking" in the Uzbek Language: A Contrastive Analysis with Bosnian and English Lexicons Author Author Akbarov, Azamat Muhamedova, Saodat Abstract A summary of the resource. The article deals with the semantic field units with semanteme "thinking" in Uzbek, Bosnian and English languages, defined by their integral seme, on the basis of the criteria specified internal semantic groups. Lexical units refer to the meaning “thinking” and semantic field, integral and distinctive meaning have been investigated, inner groups have been classified in the example of the Uzbek language. The study of linguistic units on the basis of semantic fields is widespread in the world linguistics. They are mainly directed at the study of semantic groups of verbs. Our research will compare the semantic fields of units with semanteme "thinking" in the Uzbek language. The given lexical-semantic field includes not only the lexeme of the verbs, but the lexemes of nouns, lexemes of adjectives, lexemes of adverbs and also some of the idioms. In the result of the analysis of the factual material revealed the following semantic groups of units with semantepe "thinking" in the Uzbek language. Keywords: semanteme “thinking,” semantic fields of units, idioms, factual material, Uzbek language Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2015 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics,PI Oriental languages and literatures,PL Languages and literatures of Eastern Asia, Africa, Oceania https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/e715d915eaac7425ef7919ee0104e72a.pdf 8c35c64daf2ca4534e8bb24b13baa16e PDF Text Text Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1 (2), pp. 65-88, Winter 2018 Review paper ISSN 2566-4638 © International Burch University http://dx.doi.org/10.14706/jeh2018121 Semantic preference and semantic prosodya theoretical overview Mirna Begagić, PhD University of Zenica Bosnia and Herzegovina mjasavic@yahoo.de Abstract: Semantic preference and semantic prosody are two notions that were carefully analysed in post-Firthian corpus linguistics and in the past few years there has been a growing interest in them. As corpora have become larger in size, and tools for extracting different lexical items for different purposes have been developed, the two terms have been addressed more frequently by linguists1. Throughout history, semantic preference and semantic prosody have sometimes been used for the same phenomenon but at other times the two were considered different but closely related. Previous corpus-based studies on the two terms have shown that they can be attached to many investigated lexical items. Therefore, this paper aims to present a detailed theoretical overview of the two terms in order to emphasise their immense importance for identifying the meaning of all the lexical items. Keywords: semantic preference, semantic prosody, corpus, corpus linguistics. Article History Submitted: 15 November 2018 Accepted: 3 January 2019 Studies which use corpus data to investigate semantic preference and semantic prosody have been published since the early 1990. 1 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 1. INTRODUCTION Semantic preference and semantic prosody are two distinct yet interdependent collocational meanings (McEnery, Xiao & Tono, 2006, p.84). As it is almost impossible to examine semantic preference separately from semantic prosody, the two notions will be presented as contingent on each other. Throughout history, semantic preference and semantic prosody have sometimes been used for the same phenomenon but at other times the two were considered different but closely related. Stubbs (2001) points out that “the distinction…is not entirely clear-cut. It is partly a question of how open-ended the list of collocates is: it might be possible to list all words in English for quantities and sizes, but not for ‘unpleasant things’” (p.66). Therefore, the need for precise definitions of the two terms emerges. Partington (2004) states that the relationship between the two terms can be described in two ways- on the one hand, semantic prosody can be described as a sub-category or special case of semantic preference i.e. it is “reserved for instances where an item shows a preference to co-occur with items that can be described as bad, unfavourable or unpleasant, or as good, favourable or pleasant” (p.149). However, some examples discussed in the literature prove that the relationship is more complex. Sinclair points out that semantic prosodies are “evaluative or attitudinal and are used to express the speaker’s approval (good prosody) or disapproval (bad prosody) of whatever topic is momentarily the object of discourse (Sinclair 1996, p. 87). On the other hand, semantic prosody can be described as a further stage of abstraction than preference. …semantic preference generally remains relatively closely tied to the phenomenon of collocation. As we have seen, it describes a phenomenon whereby a particular item x collocates frequently, not with another item y, but with a series of items which belong to a semantic set. (Partington, 2004, p.150) Therefore, Partington describes the difference between the two in his claim that semantic preference and semantic prosody have different operating scopes: the former relates the node item to another item from a particular semantic set whereas the latter can affect wider stretches of text. Semantic preference can be viewed as a feature of the collocates while semantic prosody is a feature of the node word. Partington also adds that these two terms interact. While semantic prosody “dictates the general environment which constrains the preferential choices of the node item”, semantic preference “contributes powerfully to building semantic prosody” (Partington, 2004, p.151). 66 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić In order to exemplify the above mentioned, two examples commonly discussed in the literature are presented. The first one of the verb break out, explained by Stewart (2010). The verb is investigated in the BNC (all inflected forms of the verb) where 1,126 occurrences were found. In the majority of cases break out showed semantic preference for ‘situations of conflict’, ‘disease’ or more broadly for ‘problematic circumstances’, since in the immediate environment of break out the following words are found: war, conflict, infection, crisis. As the verb cannot be classified as an item whose basic meaning is unfavourable, it is “considered to be associated with an unfavourable semantic prosody or ‘aura of meaning’, which is contingent upon its semantic preferences” (Stewart, 2010, p. 3). The second example is the verb undergo, discussed by Stubbs (2001, pp. 89-95). The collocates to the right of the verb indicated that undergo expresses several semantic preferences- for ‘medicine’ (treatment, hysterectomy, brain, surgery, etc.), ‘tests’ (examination, training) and ‘change’ (dramatic changes, a historic transformation among others). All these preferences result in a very strong unfavourable prosody of the verb undergo, since people are forced to undergo something they would rather not. Moreover, the verb bent on is classified as the verb with unfavourable prosody, but bent on can be also found in neutral as well as in favourable environment. Louw investigated how the speakers/writers change from the “expected profiles of semantic prosodies” (1993, p. 157). He explains that if they do that unconsciously, they are trying to sound ironic. Louw mentions an example from Small World by David Lodge: The modern conference resembles the pilgrimage of medieval Christendom in that it allows the participants to indulge themselves in all the pleasures and diversions of travel while apparently bent on self-improvement. Louw explains that since the verb bent on is usually found in the environment of unpleasant items (destroying, harrying, mayhem), in the cited example the author is trying to produce ironic effect and therefore uses the verb bent on in the environment of self-improvement. Corpus-based analyses from recent years have shown that semantic preference and semantic prosody have been considered in terms of ‘priming’ (Hoey 2003; Partington 2004) i.e. “as the word is learnt through encounters with it in speech and writing, it is loaded with the cumulative effects of those encounters such that it is part of our knowledge of the word that it co-occurs with other words” (Hoey, 2003, p. 5). Partington (2004) adds that the theory of priming helps us to answer one of the frequently raised question about prosody, 67 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 ...if the favourable or unfavourable evaluation of an item said to display semantic prosody is not part of its in-built, inherent meaning- as is clearly the case for words excessive or timely – then how do language users decide to employ such items in the appropriate environment? The answer is that language users have a set of mental rules derived from the priming process, alongside or integrated with the mental lexicon, of how items should collocate (p. 132). 2. SEMANTIC PREFERENCE The term semantic preference seems to be less problematic than the term semantic prosody. Stubbs (2001, p. 65) defines it as “the relation, not between individual words, but between a lemma2 or word form and a set of semantically related words”. In his work, Stubbs analysed the item large in the 200-millionword corpus and found out that at least 25 per cent of the 56, 000 occurrences of large collocated with words for “quantities and sizes”, such as numbers, scale, part, amounts, quantities. Later, Stubbs adds that an item shows semantic preference when it co-occurs with “a class of words which share some semantic feature” (Stubbs, 2001, p. 88). Partington (2004) examined the collocational behaviour of maximizersabsolutely, perfectly, entirely, completely, thoroughly, totally and utterly (group of items defined as such by Quirk et al. 1985). His analysis states that absolutely expresses semantic preference for items which have superlative sense such as: delighted, enchanting, splendid, preposterous, appalling, intolerable. Semantic prosody of absolutely is equally divided between favourable and unfavourable items. When it comes to perfectly, the tendency of the item to occur with pleasant things is evident (capable, correct, fit, good, happy, harmless, healthy, lovely, marvellous, natural). Furthermore, Partinton’s analysis showed that completely, entirely, totally and utterly shared a large number of collocates. Utterly indicated semantic preference for ‘absence’ (collocates are: helpless, useless, unable, forgotten, failed, ruined, destroyed) and ‘change’(changed, different, failed, ruined, destroyed). The overall semantic prosody is evidently unfavourable. Totally demonstrates semantic preference for ‘absence’ or ‘lack of’ collocating with bald, exempt, incapable, irrelevant, lost, oblivious, uneducated, unemployed, etc. but also for ‘change of state’ and ‘transformation’ words such as destroyed, different, transformed, absorbed, failed. Completely also showed semantic preference for ‘absence’ (devoid, disappeared, empty, forgotten, hopeless, ignored, lost, oblivious, vanished, etc.) but also for ‘change’ (alerted, changed, destroyed, different). Entirely expressed semantic preference for ‘absence’ and ‘change’ as well. Partington found the last maximizer thoroughly in the company of words relating to ‘emotions’ and ‘states of mind’, such as 2 68 The lemma make is realized in text by the word forms make, makes, made and making �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić annoyed, approved, enjoyed, confused, happy, sure, disgruntled and he concluded that thoroughly evidently retains traces of its ancient sense of thorough-like. Table 1 Summary of maximizers (Partington, 2004, p. 148) Maximizer: Absolutely Perfectly Utterly Totally Completely Entirely Thoroughly Preference for: hyperbole, superlatives absence/change of state absence/change of state absence/change of state absence/change of state, (in)dependency emotions/ liquid penetration Prosody favourable unfavourable Partington (1998, pp. 34-39) also analysed the item sheer in the newspaper and academic corpora. His analysis indicates that sheer collocated with a number of items from specific semantic sets i.e. 1. ‘magnitude’, ‘weight’ or ‘volume’, 2. items expressing ‘force’, 'strength’or ‘energy’, and 3. words expressing ‘persistence’. Then Partington (1998, pp. 39-47) compared the behaviour of sheer with other items that are consider to be its synonyms- complete, pure and absolute, and discovered that none of them shared semantic preferences with sheer. 3. SEMANTIC PROSODY The term semantic prosody was originally Sinclair’s idea in 1987 (later recited in Sinclair 1991), but he did not use the term as such when he first discussed it. Sinclair was observing the lexicogrammatical environment of the phrasal verb set in using a corpus of about 7.3 million words and he noticed that the verb is associated with unpleasant events. The most striking feature of this phrasal verb is the nature of the subjects. In general they refer to unpleasant states of affairs. Only three refer to the weather; a few are neutral, such as reaction and trend. The main vocabulary is rot (3), decay, ill-will, decadence, impoverishment, infection, prejudice, vicious (circle), rigor mortis, numbness, bitterness, mannerism, anticlimax, anarchy, disillusion, disillusionment, slump. Not one of these is desirable or attractive. (Sinclair 1987, pp. 155-156) In the same work Sinclair notes that “many uses of words and phrases show a tendency to occur in a certain semantic environment, for example the word happen is associated with unpleasant things- accidents and the like” (Sinclair, 69 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 1991, p. 112). Sinclair’s remarks were something completely new and they were completely backed up by corpus data. The ‘father’ of the term semantic prosody is Bill Louw who introduced the term to public in 19933. The term was coined with the reference to Firth’s discussion of prosody in phonological terms. Namely, Firth noticed that the realization of the phoneme /k/ depends on the sounds which precede it as well as the sounds which follow it, so the /k/ in word kangaroo is not the same as the /k/ in word keep because during the realization of the consonant the mouth is already making provision for the production of the next sound. In the same way, Louw (1993) claims that the expression symptomatic of prepares for the production of what follows i.e. something undesirable (e.g. parental paralysis, numerous disorders). In his definition of semantic prosody, Gavioli (2005) also points out the connection between meaning and sound: The term ‘prosody’, which is generally used in linguistics to refer to the sound or rhythm of words, is applied here to the sound of meanings rather than phonemes and particularly to the way in which words and expressions create an aura of meaning capable of affecting words around them. Gavioli (2005, p. 46) Several other linguists investigated the subject- they analysed several lexical items, proposed their definitions and expressed their standpoints on the topic of semantic prosody: Bublitz (1996) analysed the words cause, commit, happen, somewhat and prevail; Sinclair (1996a, 1998) analysed set in, cause, the idiom naked eye, the collocation true feelings, the word place and the verb brook; Stubbs (1995, 2001) investigated the lexical environment of heritage, provide, career, credibility, accost, loiter and lurk; Tognini-Bonelli (2001) analysed prosodies in both English and Italian including proper, expression andare incontro (literally “go towards”) and face; Chanell (1999) investigated fat and self-important; Partington (1998, 2004) analysed the verb peddle, 'happen' words (happen, take place, occur, set in, come about) and amplifying intensifiers (absolutely, perfectly, entirely, completely, thoroughly, totally, utterly). Bill Louw introduced the term semantic prosody in his article Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer?: The diagnostic Potential of semantic prosody (1993) 3 70 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić Table 2. The chronological review of the literature on semantic prosody. Study Examined lexical Items Sinclair (1987, 1991) Louw (1993) Semantic prosody Definition / contribution The most important standpoints set in happen -semantic prosody was Sinclair’s idea, although he did not use this very term when he first discussed it -many uses of words and phrases show a tendency to occur in a certain semantic environment; the words happen and set in are associated with unpleasant things symptomatic of utterly bent on Louw was the first to use the term semantic prosody, connecting the term to Firth’s discussion of prosody in phonological terms -Louw was interested in irony produced by deviations from habitual co-occurrence patterns (pp.157) -He also made few allusions to diachronic considerations claiming that prosodies are undoubtedly the product of a long period of refinement through historical change (pp.164) Stubbs (1995) cause Cause is near the stage where the word itself, out of context, has negative connotations. (1995:50) -made reference to diachronic consideration related to the word cause Bublitz (1996) cause happen commit somewhat prevail -node may be coloured by its habitual co-occurrences acquiring a “halo” of meaning as a result -prosodies vary according to the different basic meanings of any given word -diachronic emphasis on semantic prosody Sinclair (1996a, 1998) naked eye true feelings brook A semantic prosody… is attitudinal, and on the pragmatic side of the semantics/pragmatics continuum. It is thus capable of a wide range of realization, because in pragmatic expressions the normal semantic values of the words are not necessarily relevant. But once noticed among the variety of expressions, it is immediately clear that the semantic prosody has a leading role to play in the integration of an item with its surroundings. It expresses something close to the ‘function’ of an item- it shows how the rest of the item is to be interpreted functionally. (Sinclair 1996a:88) -in his work from 1996, Sinclair explained semantic prosody within his model of extended unit of meaning -in 1998 Sinclair stated that semantic prosody is one of the obligatory elements of the unit of meaning along with the ‘core item’, which is invariable, and constitutes the evidence of the occurrence of the item as a whole. (1998:15) 71 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 Partington (1998) peddle green fundamentalism/ fundamentalist Hunston and Francis (1999) A word may be said to have a particular semantic prosody if it can be shown to co-occur typically with other words that belong to a particular semantic set. (1999:137) -the importance of semantic consistency of lexical profiles Hunston and Thompson (1999) The notion of semantic prosody (or pragmatic meaning) is that a given word or phrase may occur most frequently in the context of other words or phrases which are predominantly positive or negative in their evaluative orientation…As a result, the given word takes on an association with the positive, or, more usually, the negative, and this association can be exploited by speakers to express evaluative meaning covertly. (1999:38) -the importance of the evaluative quality of semantic prosody -the words ‘take on’ meaning from their surrounds Speakers and writers cluster negative items so that there is a mutually supporting web of negative words (Channell 1999:44) -she does not refer to items with less obviously evaluative meanings -fat and self-important are also to be found in undesirable company -she adopts the expression ‘evaluative polarity’ -focuses on unfavourable prosodies A semantic prosody refers to a form of meaning which is established through the proximity of a consistent series of collocates, often characterized as positive or negative, and whose primary function is the expression of the attitude of its speaker or writer towards some pragmatic situation. A secondary, though no less important attitudinal function of semantic prosodies is the creation of irony through the deliberate injection of a form which clashes with the prosody’s consistent series of collocates. (2000:60). -Contextual Prosodic Theory which would seek to elucidate through semantic prosodies the Firthian view that that situational and linguistic contexts are co-extensive. (2000:48) -makes the difference between semantic prosody as strongly collocational phenomenon from connotation which he considers to be more ‘schematic’ in nature. Chanell (1999) regime par for the course fat self-important off the beaten track Louw (2000) TogniniBonelli (2001) 72 -focuses on similarities and differences between semantic prosody and connotation -Partington is interested in prosodies within the political discourse in newspapers proper largely broadly (to) face -importance of strict relation between lexical and grammatical choices -stresses that the pragmatic dimension is central �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić Stubbs (2001a) accost amid amusement backdrop care cause commit community deadlock distinctly soar heritage lavish loiter lurk proper provide somewhat standard undergo untold discoveries expression mutual career launch A discourse prosody is a feature which extends over more than one unit in a linear string… Discourse prosodies express speaker’s attitude. If you say that something is provided, then this implies that you approve of it. Since they are evaluative, prosodies often express the speaker’s reason for making the utterance, and therefore identify functional discourse units. (2001:65) in 2001 Stubbs switched from ‘semantic prosody’ to ‘discourse prosody’ Stubbs (2001b) sit through Hunston (2002) Semantic prosody…refers to a word that is typically used in a particular environment, such that the word takes on connotations from that environment. (2002:141) semantic prosody is a result of transferred meaning Sinclair (2003) As corpus enables us to see words grouping together to make special meanings as to the reasons why they were chosen together. This kind of meaning is called a semantic prosody; it has been recognized in part as connotation, pragmatic meaning and attitudinal meaning. (2003:178) Partington (2004a) Hoey (2005) ‘happen words’ (happen, take place, occur, set in, come about) absolutely perfectly entirely completely thoroughly totally utterly Semantic prosody is a type of evaluative meaning which is spread over a unit of language which potentially goes well beyond the single orthographic word and is much less evident to the naked eye. (2004a:131132) -Partington also discusses the interaction between semantic preference and semantic prosody Priming prosody occurs when the collocations, colligations, semantic associations, textual collocations, textual semantic associations and textual colligations of words chosen for a particular utterance -Hoey points out that the words are primed in all sorts of different ways, and that results in priming prosody -states that the boundaries between semantic preference 73 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 harmonise with each other in such a way as to contribute to the construction and coherence of the utterance. (2005:166) Whitsitt (2005) -focuses on the synchronic/ diachronic questions, on the function of intuition in identifying prosodies Hunston (2007) -discusses whether semantic prosody should be regarded as the property of a word or a longer unit of meaning; whether the binary distinctions should be used (favourable vs. unfavourable prosody); whether semantic prosody can be transmitted from one context to another -gives overview of the literature on both, semantic preference and prosody Bednarek (2008) -stresses the importance of the role of different registers for realisations of both semantic preferences and semantic prosodies Stewart (2010) make sense -presents extensive literature overview of the literature on semantic prosody Begagić (2013) initial/preliminary following/subsequent sufficient/adequate -More uses of the collocation are found than provided by dictionaries -Semantic prosody for 'difficulty', almost always accompanied by the preposition of Wei & Li (2014) Hu (2015) 74 and semantic prosody should be avoided -favours the term ‘semantic association’ instead ‘semantic preference’ only because he thinks that the term ‘semantic preference’ leads to a psychological preference on the part of the language user and may lead to confusion -A word may be associated with more than one group of semantic features thus designating different prosodies -Sematic prosody of a word cannot be accurately detected until its collocates are carefully scrutinized in the text -An apparently negative collocate might indicate a positive connotation �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić Throughout literature, semantic prosody is mostly described as a type of meaning. However, several authors defined it rather as a process. For example, Baker et al. in their Glossary of Corpus Linguistics (2006, p. 58) define it as a term “relating to the way that words in a corpus can collocate with a related set of words or phrases, often revealing (hidden) attitudes”. Coffin et.al (2004, xxi) also define semantic prosody as “a way in which apparently neutral terms come to carry positive or negative associations through regularly occurring in particular collocations”. Both authors refer to semantic prosody as the ways that contributes to establishing meanings. Berber-Sardinha (2000, p. 94) refers to semantic prosody as a pattern, while Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk (1996, p. 153) refers to it as a phenomenon. From the literature review it can be said that semantic prosody includes some type of reference to its evaluative or attitudinal quality. It is described as an aspect of evaluative meaning, which is defined by Hunston and Thompson (1999, p. 5) as “the speaker or writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities and propositions that he or she is talking about”. Though this definition seems to be too broad, some other authors defined the term in a more restricted sense, i.e. with emphasis on lexical expressions of the speaker’s/writer’s emotional attitude (see Conrad and Biber 1999 and Martin 1999). As stated in Table 2, according to both Sinclair and Stubbs, prosodies express speaker attitude. Stubbs claims that if something is provided, then you approve of it, “since they are evaluative, prosodies often express the speaker’s reason for making the utterance” (Stubbs 2001a, p. 65). Sinclair (1994) states that semantic prosody is attitudinal, and on the pragmatic side of the semantics/ pragmatics continuum and continues that: It is thus capable of a wide range of realization, because in pragmatic expressions the normal semantic values of the words are not necessarily relevant. But once noticed among the variety of expressions, it is immediately clear that the semantic prosody has a leading role to play in the integration of an item with its surroundings. It expresses something close to the ‘function’ of the item- it shows how the rest of the item is to be interpreted functionally. (Sinclair 2004, p. 22) According to the above mentioned, Stewart (2010) follows that when speakers use items like naked eye, true feelings, provide, commit, set in, undergo, happen, cause, symptomatic of, they make some type of evaluation or convey some type of attitude. In this way an utterance such as the cold weather set in might be considered more obviously attitudinal than, for instance, the cold weather started; John Smith had to undergo an operation more attitudinal than John Smith had to have an operation; and symptomatic of management inadequacies more attitudinal than indicative of management inadequacies (Stewart 2010, p. 22). 75 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 However, there are certain examples that prove this does not have to be that way. Sinclair (1996a, p. 87) ascribed the prosody of difficulty to item naked eye, and the evaluative element does not seem to be of huge importance at all4. Stewart (2010) also mentions example of the item cause, which has been assigned an unfavourable prosody in the literature, since it co-occurs with accident, problem, chaos, etc. Nevertheless it seems problematic to postulate that some sort of attitude has been expressed in certain examples, such as in the following examples:   The door closed and then Elaine pulled the magazine in, causing the letter box to snap shut smartly. The inhibitors might therefore be causing amnesia not because they prevent protein synthesis but because of their effect on increasing animo acid levels. (Stewart 2010, p. 23; examples taken from the BNC) The fact that the notions of evaluation and attitude are the complex one is proved by the following citation from Bernardini and Aston (2002, p. 291): Would this be the speaker as principal, author or animator (to use Goffman’s (1981) famous breakdown of the speaker discourse role (Levinson, 1988)? In contexts of reported speech, it is clear that prosodies may indicate the evaluation of the cited speaker, not the citing one, as the author (but not animator) of the text in question. It can be concluded that in most of the examples the two elements are present, evaluative and attitudinal quality of an item, however not in all cases. Each item in question should be carefully analysed in its environment in order to be claimed that evaluative and attitudinal qualities are pivotal for its semantic prosody. Apart from the evaluative and attitudinal quality, element that is found in almost all definitions and discussions on semantic prosody is its hidden nature. Most of the authors mentioned in Table 1 refer to semantic prosody as to something subliminal, covert or unconscious. Louw (1993, pp. 169-171) writes that semantic prosody can reveal speaker attitudes even when the speaker tries to conceal them, and Tognini-Bonelli, citing Louw’s statement argues that “semantic prosodies are mainly engaged at the subconscious level”. Hunston and Thompson (1999, p. 38) state that semantic prosody “can be exploited by speakers to express evaluative meaning covertly” and Hunston (2001, p. 21, 2002, pp. 61, While analysing the idiom naked eye, Sinclair used The Bank of English as corpus which contained 211 million words of current English. Sinclair found 154 instances of naked eye, but since 3 pairs of lines were identical he used 151 lines. Words see and visible (and their variations) are evident on position N3 which prove the clear semantic preference for visibility. Since the words visible and see are in 85 per cent of instances combined with words such as small, faint, weak and difficult, Sinclair concluded that the idiom naked eye indicates semantic prosody of difficulty. 4 76 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić 119, 141-142) makes several points to how semantic prosody conveys covert messages and hidden meanings. Partington (2004a, p.131) also states that semantic prosody “is much less evident to the naked eye”. Most of the authors interested in semantic prosody analysed lexical items that are neutral in semantic sense i.e. that have neither positive nor negative meanings. It seems that literature review suggests that the meaning of the item in question must be hidden, otherwise the prosody cannot be ascribed to it. However, there are still some examples that prove that the lexical item in question does not need to be semantically neutral in order to possess semantic prosody (e.g. verb brook). This study will also test weather only the neutral meanings of investigated items possess semantic prosody. As stated above, most of the authors investigated ‘neutral’ lexical item (happen, cause, break out, set in, undergo etc.) and to most of them the unfavourable prosody is ascribed (cause, set in, happen, break out, load of, undergo…) while only a few of them revealed positive or favourable semantic prosody such as provide and career. Saying this, it should be mentioned that several linguists noticed the importance of registers and genres in revealing semantic prosodies of certain lexical items. Hunston (2007, p. 263) argues that the verb cause “loses its association with negative evaluation when it occurs in ‘scientific’ registers”. Bednarek (2008) also mentions the importance of analysis of items in different registers: ..for instance, an analysis of concordance lines for responsibility for in the Bank of English shows a negative semantic preference (it co-occurs with recent bombings, Sunday’s suicide bombing, one of the murders, some of the explosions, the killing, these murders, the Holocaust, the kidnapping, the worst act of terrorism) while an analysis of the same lexical expression in a business English corpus does not (here responsibility for collocates with budgets, a major functional area, the product, a new stream of scheme, outcomes, decisions, aspects, the technical aspects, scale/up and operation, outcomes )(Walker 2004 in Bednarek 2008,p. 126) Analogous to O’Halloran (2007) this could be called register or genre preference i.e. semantic preference that is register or genre dependent. O’Halloran claims that there is a greater likelihood of some lexicogrammatical patterns in certain registers than others and as example she mentions the item ‘erupted’ saying that “the fact that ‘erupted’ in the past tense has largely positive associations in the sports report register, but largely negative ones in the hard news register, provides evidence for seeing ‘erupted’ in register prosody terms” (O’Halloran, 2007, p. 12). At this point, it is important to define the word ‘register’. According to Halliday and Hasan (1985, pp. 38-9) registers are varieties of language which are “typically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, tenor and mode”. Genre, on the other side is mostly treated at a ‘higher level’ than register, as Wales (2001, p. 338) states that “genres are groups of texts which perform a similar function”. However, in this study all the 77 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 newspaper texts found in COCA are considered to belong to the newspaper register, whereas the academic texts belong to the academic register. Partington (2004) anlaysed words that belong to the happen semantic group with the hypothesis that not only happen and set in have unfavourable prosody but all the other words from that group as well. Therefore he looked at the behaviour of set in, happen, occur, come about and take place in two corpora, one of the academic texts and the other of the newspaper texts. Partington presented the frequency of occurrence of all the ‘happen’ words as follows: Table 3. The analysis of happen words (Partington, 2004, p.134) Academic (one million words) Newspaper (four million words) Total Per million words Happens Happen Happened Totals 70 80 67 217 187 230 326 743 47 57 82 186 Occurs Occur Occurred Totals 125 221 114 460 27 32 112 171 7 8 28 43 Comes about Come about Came about Totals 2 16 9 27 2 9 5 16 1 2 1 4 Takes place Take place Took place Taken place Totals 25 39 44 23 131 47 87 68 38 240 12 22 17 9 60 Sets in Set in Totals 1 8 9 4 9 13 1 2 3 After the analysis of each happen word separately (he decided to examine only the examples from the academic register), Partington confirmed his hypothesis that all investigated happen words have unfavourable prosody, although there are different degrees of unfavourable prosody among the items in the group. “Set in has the worst prosody, followed by happen, followed by occur and take place, 78 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić while come about does not seem to evince any particular inclination” (Partington, 2004, p.144). Partington also states that there are register differences among the investigated lexical items “probably linked to cohesive function, i.e. more formal items like occur are used for extended cohesion more often than less formal ones such as happen” (ibid.). Most of the linguists discussing semantic preference and semantic prosody agree that semantic prosody is primarily contingent upon semantic preference and that “semantic preference 'feeds’ semantic prosody” (Stewart 2010, p.88, citing Hoey 2005, p.16ff). When Sinclair (1996) analysed expression true feelings he found out that there is a clear semantic preference for ‘expression’verbs: express, communicate, show, reveal, share, pour out, give vent to, indicate, make public. Hunston and Francis (1999, p. 137) stated that “a word may be said to have a particular semantic prosody if it can be shown to co-occur typically with other words that belong to a particular semantic set”, while Louw (2000, p. 57) writes that “semantic prosody refers to a form of meaning which is established through the proximity of a consistent series of collocates”. On the other hand, when Stubbs (1995) analysed the word provide in the 200-million word corpus, he found that some of its top collocates were information, service(s), support, help, money….It cannot be argued that there is an obvious semantic set in other words clear semantic preference, but there is definitely favourable prosody (which is interesting, since most of the investigated lexical items in literature review on semantic prosody have unfavourable prosody). The necessity to investigate more examples emerges, in order to claim that semantic preference is obligatory element in constituting semantic prosody. Very interesting example analysed by Sinclair (1996) is the one of the verb brook. Its dictionary meaning is something like ‘tolerate’ as Sinclair analysis shows that “ ‘tolerate’ can replace brook in all the examples without disturbing their message” (Sinclair, 1996, p. 91). Sinclair points out (ibid.) “since it always appears with some form of negative, e.g. brook no interference, will not brook any attack, it is used by speakers to indicate not tolerance, but intolerance.” Regarding this it could be concluded that the item expresses an unfavourable prosody. However, Sinclair’s analysis confirms that the verb brook expresses “the intolerance of intrusive behaviour by another” (ibid.). The overall prosody does not tend to be unfavourable but favourable. It can be concluded that although some words have negative basic meaning it is possible to find out that they reveal positive semantic prosody. Another interesting verb is alleviate which has positive meaning although negative semantic prosody can be ascribed to it. Stewart (2010) analysed this verb in the BNC and from his analysis it is obvious that the verb is associated with negative prosody “in view of the fact that its co-text is peppered with seriously undesirable elements”, but he adds that “we could not by any stretch of the 79 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 imagination argue that they have negative connotations” (Stewart, 2010, p. 73). Accordingly, it can be said that the verb alleviate has a positive basic meaning although it is mostly mixed with bad company (collocates with the words such as pain and suffering). Therefore, alleviate has not been ‘contaminated’ by its unpleasant co-occurrences. Stewart (2010) analysed the lexical environment of intuition in the BNC (British National Corpus) as well as in the other, the corpus of semantic prosody. On the one hand, in the BNC he found out that intuition seems to be neutral or even leaning towards the favourable prosody (according to the OED intuition is defined as our instinctive, immediate ‘feel’ for language). On the other hand, in the corpus on semantic prosody, intuition has thoroughly unfavourable prosody “occurs in the company of, unreliable, wrong, stranglehold, not reliable and accurate, chancy and unreliable…” (Stewart, 2010, p. 122). If this is observed from the diachronic view, we can say that a good word intuition has fallen under the influence of bad company and has been contaminated by its bad influence. The word intuition can also be observed from synchronic view and in that case it shows unfavourable prosody in the corpus of semantic prosody. It seems important to mention that the work, in which examples for the corpus on semantic prosody are gathered, is the book Semantic Prosody written by Stewart. Most of the scholars who dealt with the topic of semantic prosody agree that intuition is a poor guide to revealing semantic prosody as follows: “speaker’s intuition is usually an unreliable guide to patterns of collocation and that intuition is an even poorer guide to semantic prosody” (Xiao & McEnery, 2006, p. 103). “attested data are required in collocational studies, since native speaker intuitions are not reliable source of evidence” (Stubbs, 1995, p. 24) “analysis of evaluation can be removed from the chancy and unreliable business of linguistic intuitions based in systematic observation of naturally occurring data” (Channell, 1999, p. 39). “semantic prosodies are difficult, if not impossible, to determine on the basis of intuition alone” (Adfolphs & Carter, 2002, p. 7). “The quantitative analysis of text by computer reveals facts about actual language behaviour which are not, or at least not immediately, accessible to intuition” (Widdowson, 2000, p. 6). “It may well turn out to be the case that semantic prosodies are less accessible through human intuition than most other phenomena to do with language” (Louw, 1993, p. 173). 80 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić “SPs are open to introspection in principle...but native speakers have no reliable and accurate intuitions about them” (Bublitz, 1996, p. 8). Considering the historical development of language, the roots of the synchronic and diachronic approach can be seen in the works of Breal (1897), Saussure (CLG) and Bloomfield (1933). Breal, who is usually considered to be the father of semantics, differentiates between what is the synchronic and the diachronic study of a language, however his statements remained within the realms of historical linguistics5. Saussure recognised one of the major distinctions in linguistics, between synchronic and diachronic study of a language where the latter relates to the historical dimension or the outside world 6. However, Bloomfield restricts the object of linguistics to the decriprion of language in a synchronic way, even when the decription aims to study the historical development of a language (the historical development is considered to present series of synchronic slices of evidence at different times)7. When mentioning synchronic and diachronic approaches, it seems important to point out that the corpora used to evidence the existence of semantic prosody have always been synchronic. As Stewart notices (2010) the diachronic dimension seems to be of huge importance in descriptions on semantic prosody, though it has never been entirely central. The interests of all the mentioned linguists interested in the subject were somewhere else, and the diachronic analyses are almost entirely absent. Sinclair describes semantic prosody using synchronic criteria, while most other authors approach the subject using both diachronic and synchronic criteria, with scarcely acknowledgement that a single appellation (semantic prosody has been adopted to denote distinct phenomena). Diachronic explanations tend to…favour the folkoristic notion of good being contaminated by evil. (Stewart, 2010, p.55) An issue that is commonly discussed among linguists is whether semantic prosody resides in a single word or in several words. Bublitz (1996, p. 9) claims that “with prosody we refer to the fact that a feature extends its domain, stretches over and affects several units…something that accords with Firth’s idea that meaning is regularly dispersed in context”. Partington (2004a, pp. 131-132) also describes semantic prosody as a type of evaluative meaning which is “spread over a unit of language which potentially goes well beyond the single 5 Breal (1897) outlined new scientific criteria for the study of language based on observation. According to Saussure, the meaning of a word is no more just the relationship between a word and a concept or thing, but the set of relationships that a specific word may entertain within a relational network. 7 Bloomfield accepts that “in some cases a transferred meaning is linguistically determined by an accompanying form” (1933, p. 150) 6 81 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 orthographic word” and Sinclair (2003, p. 117) claims that “semantic prosody typically ranges over combinations of words in an utterance rather than being attached just to one”. Although many of the authors agree that semantic prosody does not reside in a single word but in several words, there are still several who argue for the opposite. Stewart (2010, pp. 57-58) summarizes their statements as the following:      “utterly has an overwhelmingly bad prosody” (Louw, 1993, p. 160) “affect has a clearly negative prosody” (Stubbs, 1995, p. 45) “the lemma cause has a strongly unfavourable prosody...the word provide, on the other hand, had a favourable prosody in the Cobuild corpus material” (Partington, 1998, p. 68) “we know that the English equivalent of forarsage, namely cause, has an overwhelmingly negative prosody” (Dam-Jensen & Zethsen, 2007, p. 1618) “The negative semantic prosody of cause has been widely observed” (Xiao & McEnery, 2006, p. 114) However, Cotterill (2001, p. 291) refers to “the SP of a word” and to “the semantic prosodies of words” (p. 293), whereas later assigns semantic prosody to “lexical items” (p.297). It seems that another open question remains and the need for more lexical items to be investigated in other to claim the former or latter. Another interesting question regarding semantic prosody that arises is whether connotation is a synonym of semantic prosody. In order to connect this term to the notion of semantic prosody, several definitions of the connotations are presented:    connotation of a word is “an emotive or affective component additional to its central meaning” (Lyons, 1977, p. 176) connotation implies “emotive or evaluative meaning” (Palmer, 1981, p. 92) the main application of connotations “with reference to emotional associations (personal or communal)which are suggested by, or are part of the meaning of, a linguistic unit, especially a lexical item” (Crystal, 1991, p. 74) On the one hand Partington (1998), Berber-Sardinha (2000) Stubbs (2001), Hunston (2002) and Whitsitt (2005) all agree that semantic prosody is connotational. Partington, while analysing concordances of the verb commit says “unfavourable connotation can be seen to reside not simply in the word commit but over a unit consisting of commit and its collocates” (1998, p. 67). Partington continues that “connotation would locate the meaning within a word, while semantic prosody would locate meaning as spread[ing] across words” (p. 68). Berber-Sarinha (2000, p. 93) states that “semantic prosody is the connotation 82 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić conveyed by the regular co-occurrence of lexical items” whereas Hunston (2002, p. 142) writes that semantic prosody “accounts for ‘connotation’: the sense that a word carries a meaning in addition to its ‘real meaning’ ”. While analysing the verb cause, Stubbs concludes that “cause has overwhelmingly unpleasant connotations” (2001a, p. 49) and Whitsitt (2005, p. 285) states that semantic prosody is defined in three different ways and one of these “which is very widespread, treats semantic prosody as if it was a synonym of connotation”. On the other hand Louw (2000, p. 49-50) argues that “semantic prosodies are not merely connotational” as “the force behind SPs [semantic prosodies] is more strongly collocational than the schematic aspects of connotation” and he indicates that that semantic prosody is more strictly attitudinal than connotation. Louw’s remarks suggest that semantic prosody is dependant on the relationship between the item and its lexical environment, whereas connotation is related to the single word and the experience the speaker/hearer associate with that word. Besides Louw, Sinclair is another important person to be mentioned, who does not seem to support excessive overlap between connotation and semantic prosody. Sinclair (1996, p. 34) stated that: But once noticed among the variety of expressions, it is immediately clear that the semantic prosody has a leading role to play in the integration of an item with its surroundings”...and he continues (ibid., p. 39) “The major structural categories that have been proposed here- collocation, colligation, semantic preference and semantic prosodyand their inter-relationships, will be elaborated and will assume a central rather than a peripheral role in language description (emphasis my own). Therefore, according to Sinclair, semantic prosody is completely central to the unit of meaning and has nothing to do with something peripheral. A statement claimed by McEnery, Xiao and Tono (2006, p. 85) represents the link between the two views above mentioned, as they argue that “connotation can be collocational or non-collocational whereas semantic prosody can only be collocational”. To sum up, the notions semantic preference and semantic prosody have been addressed frequently in several past years. The two prominent names to be found in relation to the two terms are Sinclair and Louw. Stewart (2010) presents the most common features of semantic prosody prioritised by Sinclair’s and by Louw’s approach. Element’s prioritized by Sinclair’s approach:     it is central to the unit of meaning, one of the two obligatory elements it is considered within a synchronic framework it is a feature of a unit which is larger than the single word/expression it is not restricted to semantically ‘neutral’ lexical items 83 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018  it is not restricted to descriptions in terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Elements prioritized by Louw’s approach:      it is transferred or attached meaning it is considered within both a diachronic and synchronic framework it is a feature of the word it is associated above all with more semantically ‘neutral’ lexical items it is generally expressed by means of a binary distinction whose primary terms are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (positive / negative, favourable / unfavourable) (Stewart, 2010, p. 161) Their approaches can be described in different ways, and other linguists interested in the topic are either influenced by Sinclair or by Louw. Still most of the issues related to the two terms and mentioned above are open for further discussion. 4. CONCLUSION From the literature review it is evident that some basic problems concerning semantic preference and prosody are yet to be solved. There is evident necessity for more examples, lexical items, to be analysed in this way in order to prove or refute some of the conclusions that have already been reached. In sum, the following are some of the open and much disputed issues that can serve as the commencement for the further research for the linguists interested in the subject:        84 the possibility of the existence of semantic prosody in the targeted V-N collocations ‘neutral’ meaning is necessary when revealing semantic prosody hidden element is (not) crucial for semantic preference semantic preference is (not) obligatory element in identification of semantic prosody connotation is (not) the synonym of semantic prosody semantic prosody resides (does not reside) in the single word semantic prosody can be considered in a diachronic framework as well �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić REFERENCES Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Continuum. Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic Preference and Semantic Prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4/2, 119-139. Begagić M. (2013). Semantic preference and semantic prosody of the collocation make sense. Jezikoslovlje 14(2), 403-416. Berber-Sardinha, T. (2000). Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: a contrastive study. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa (University of Murcia, Spain), 9/1, 93-110. Bernardini, S. and Aston,G. (2002). Review of Michael Stubbs: Words and Phrases. Corpus Studies in Lexical Semantics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7/2, 283-295. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic prosody and cohesive company: somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie, 85/1-2,1-32. Chanell, J. (1999) Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis in S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38-55. Coffin, C., Hewings, A. and O’Halloran, K. (eds.) (2004). Applying English Grammar. Functional and Corpus Approaches. London: Arnold. Cotterill, J. (2001). Domestic discord, rocky relationships: semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Discourse and Society, 12/3, 291-312. Crystal, D. (1991). Stylistic profiling. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman, 21-38. Dan-Jensen, H. And Zethsen, K. (2008). Translator awareness of semantic prosodies. Target, 20/2, 203-221. Gavioli, L. (2005). Exploring Corpora for ESP Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoey, M. (2003). Lexical Priming and the Properties of Text. Available from www.monabaker.com/tsresources/Lexical/PrimingandthePropertiesofText.ht m (1-15). Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London and New York: Routledge. Hu, M. ( 2015). A semantic prosody analysis of three adjective synonymous pairs in COCA. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 11(2) , 117-131. Hunston, S. and Francis, G. (1999). Pattern Grammar: The Principles and Practice of Corpus-driven Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (1999). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hunston, S. (2001). Colligation, lexis pattern and text, in M. Scott and G. Thompson (eds.), Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13-33. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12:2, 249-268. Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk, B. (1996). Cross-linguistic and language-specific aspects of semantic prosody. Language Sciences, 181/1-2, 153-178. Louw, B. (1993). “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies” in M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), Text and Tecnology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157-175. Louw, B. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: bringing semantic prosodies to life, in C. Heffer and H. Suaunston (eds), Words in Context: In Honour of John Sinclair. Birmingham: ELR 48-94. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol.1,2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 86 �Semantic preference and semantic prosody - a theoretical overview Mirna Begagić Martin, J.R. (1999). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English, in S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142-175. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge. O’Halloran, K.A. (2007). Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics 28, 1-24. Palmer, F. (1981). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Partington, A. (2004). Utterly content in each other’s company: semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9, 131-156. Sinclair, J. (1987). Looking up. London/ Glasgow: Collins. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (1996a). Lexis and Lexicography, J.A. Foley (ed.) Singapore: Unipress. Sinclair J. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. London and New York: Routledge. Stubbs, M. (1995b). Corpus Evidence for Norms of Lexical Collocation. In Cook and Seidlfofer (eds.), 245-256. Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wales, K. (2001). A Dictionary of Stylistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Walker, C. (2004). Factors which influence the collocational behavior of business English nouns and verbs. Paper given at the annual meeting of the British Association of Applied Linguistics (BAAL) at Kings’ College, London, September 9-11, 2004. 87 �Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1, Issue 2, Winter 2018 Wei, N. & Li, X. (2014). Exploring sematic preference and semantic prosody across English and Chinese: Their roles for cross-linguistic perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory, 10 (1), 103-138. Whitsitt, S. (2005). A critique of the concept of semantic prosodies. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10 (3), 283-305. 88 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Journal of Education and Humanities Subject The topic of the resource Education and Humanities Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Semantic preference and semantic prosody-a theoretical overview Description An account of the resource Abstract: Semantic preference and semantic prosody are two notions that were carefully analysed in post-Firthian corpus linguistics and in the past few years there has been a growing interest in them. As corpora have become larger in size, and tools for extracting different lexical items for different purposes have been developed, the two terms have been addressed more frequently by linguists1. Throughout history, semantic preference and semantic prosody have sometimes been used for the same phenomenon but at other times the two were considered different but closely related. Previous corpus-based studies on the two terms have shown that they can be attached to many investigated lexical items. Therefore, this paper aims to present a detailed theoretical overview of the two terms in order to emphasise their immense importance for identifying the meaning of all the lexical items. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mirna Begagić Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Journal of Education and Humanities Volume 1 (2) Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Winter 2018 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISSN 2566-4638 DOI 10.14706/JEH2018121 Type The nature or genre of the resource Keywords: semantic preference, semantic prosody, corpus, corpus linguistics. https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/a4acbbf36d796eb8cbba76c83aa65af0.docx 156d72fd351bb766e04eb4f1381219f5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 3778 Title A name given to the resource Semantic preference and semantic prosody-a theoretical overview Author Author Begagić, Mirna Abstract A summary of the resource. Abstract: Semantic preference and semantic prosody are two notions that were carefully analysed in post-Firthian corpus linguistics and in the past few years there has been a growing interest in them. As corpora have become larger in size, and tools for extracting different lexical items for different purposes have been developed, the two terms have been addressed more frequently by linguists1. Throughout history, semantic preference and semantic prosody have sometimes been used for the same phenomenon but at other times the two were considered different but closely related. Previous corpus-based studies on the two terms have shown that they can be attached to many investigated lexical items. Therefore, this paper aims to present a detailed theoretical overview of the two terms in order to emphasise their immense importance for identifying the meaning of all the lexical items. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Burch University Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context ISSN 2566-4638 (In Press) P Philology. Linguistics,PA Classical philology Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1024 Title A name given to the resource Semantic Transfer in Nominal Compounds as an Obstacle to Transfer of Meaning Author Author Bulatovic, Vesna Abstract A summary of the resource. The theoretical approach the paper is based on is cognitive lexical semantics and its view that a word’s conventional meaning is a just a prompt for the process of meaning construction. The paper looks at the problem of deciding on the right interpretation of semantic relations found within nominal compounds in the process of translation. It focuses on nominal compounds that are problematic for reason of their lack of syntactic and semantic clues, i.e. their semantic ambiguity. The added difficulty is that the extra-linguistic information that could help solve the problem is not always available. The corpus is composed of various documents considered as typical examples of the so called institutional language, which is rich in pre-packaged concepts often expressed by nominal compounds. While the analysis does not strive to offer a set of rules for disambiguation of nominal compounds, the author hopes that by pointing to examples of underspecified syntactic or semantic representations students of translation may be cautioned about such obstacles in their own translation. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2012-05 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/be49fbe8bd11e1c636464d8f197bbce9.pdf 5c8e2891a42371d307e532d18fe43d55 PDF Text Text 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo SEMANTIĥKI REGENS I NJEGOVI ABROGATORI U ARAPSKOJ GRAMATICI ZAVISNOSTI Amra MuloviĤ Odsjek za orijentalnu filologiju Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Sarajevu mulovica@gmail.com Saţetak: Ovaj rad istraņuje zavisne veze reĦeniĦnih Ħlanova u arapskom jeziku primarno iskazane promjenom flektivnih formi i interpretira ih u kontekstu tradicionalnog, izvorno arapskog koncepta zavisnosti reĦeniĦnih elemenata ili konstituenata, ali i u kontekstu modernih sintaktiĦkih i semantiĦkih teorija. Jedan dio rada se osvrĤe na al-Ğurğānījev sistem klasifikacije regensa kao upravnih elemenata unutar razliĦitih sintaktiĦkih konstrukcija, koji je na izvanredan naĦin uspio pomiriti sintaktiĦke i semantiĦke kriterije klasifikacije. Uglavnom se analiziraju semantiĦki ili apstraktni regensi koje je postulirala i prepoznala klasiĦna arapska nauka o jeziku, tj. semantiĦki regens imenske reĦenice, semantiĦki regens indikativa prezenta u okviru glagolske reĦenice i Ħesto propitivani i od nekih uĦenjaka odbaĦeni semantiĦki regens modifikatora u imeniĦkoj frazi. U radu se pojańnjavaju razlike koje postoje izmeħu dviju dominirajuĤih gramatiĦkih ńkola, kufske i basranske, pri analizi rekcije semantiĦkih regensa i njihovih abrogatora te forme zavisnih Ħlanova. ZakljuĦak pokazuje da su u tradicionalnoj arapskoj gramatici anticipirani neki pogledi modernih semantiĦara. KljuĦne rijeĦi: regens, dependens, semantiĦki regens, abrogator semantiĦkog regensa Uvod Gramatika zavisnosti podrazumijeva interakciju semantiĦke i sintaksiĦke zavisnosti, a poĦiva na radovima antiĦkih i klasiĦnih logiĦara i gramatiĦara. Koncept zavisnosti reĦeniĦkih elemenata ili konstituenata pronaħen je u tradicionalnim gramatikama, latinskoj, arapskoj i sanskrtskoj. Arapsku gramatiku karakterińe visoka deskriptivna moĤ koja se bavi funkcijama i gramatiĦkim kategorijeama. Lingvisti se uglavnom bave modelom gramatike zavisnosti i funkcionalne gramatike, koja je primjenljivija na arapski jezik, te vińe u skladu sa bogatom arapskom lingvistiĦkom tradicijom u okviru koje su anticipirani neki pogledi na jeziĦku strukturu. Arapska teorija se u svojoj biti ne razlikuje od modernih zapadnih koncepcija, kakve je imao, recimo, Tesnièr, koji se smatra zaĦetnikom savremenog poimanja zavisnosti. I u arapskoj tradicionalnoj gramatici postavljeni su uslovi za dobro oblikovanu strukturu zavisnosti: samo jedan element je nezavisan; svi drugi ovise direktno o nekom elementu; niti jedan element ne zavisi direktno od vińe od jednog elementa itd. Arapski koncept zavisnosti podrazumijeva postojanje upravnog elementa, regensa (al-‗āmil) i zavisnog elementa, dependensa (al-ma‗mūl). Regens je rijeĦ koja ima sposobnost rekcije (al-‗amal) ńto je, prema veĤini gramatiĦara „jednosmjerni proces u okviru koga jedan konstituent u reĦenici djeluje na drugi zahtijevajuĤi da se javi o odreħenom obliku― (Peled 2009:5). Zavisni Ħlanovi se u arapskom jeziku javljaju u nekom padeņnom ili naĦinskom obliku. Dakle, sve zavisne veze primarno se iskazuju promjenama flektivnih formi. S obzirom na to da je arapski jezik izrazito sintetiĦan i flektivan jezik, vokalna, spoljna fleksija (‘i‗rāb) ima ogroman znaĦaj. Pristupi ovoj jeziĦkoj specifiĦnosti bili su razliĦiti, ali su okupljani oko Ħinjenice da je fleksija znaĦajni razlikovni faktor znaĦenja, te da odreħuje ciljeve govornika lińavajuĤi iskaz svake ambigventnosti. Pitanje regensa jedno je od najznaĦajnijih pitanja koje je pokrenulo sveobuhvatna i iscrpna istraņivanja, zato ńto je, prema mińljenju veĤine klasiĦnih filologa, zadatak gramatike upravo istraņivanje spoljne, vokalne fleksije koja nosi sve informacije o meħusobnom odnosu rijeĦi u reĦenici i utvrħivanje naĦina njenog normiranja. Arapska gramatika zavisnosti PoĦeci arapske gramatike zavisnosti vezuju se veĤ za Sībawayha (u. 798), mada su neke potpunije, ureħenije, koherentnije teorije zavisnosti nastale tek poslije njega u okviru dvije suprotstavljene gramatiĦke ńkole - basranskoj i kufskoj. Neke klasiĦne rasprave posvetile su mnogo prostora diskusiji metalingvistiĦog statusa pojma rekcije. VeĤ u desetom stoljeĤu, gramatiĦari poput al-Sarrāğa (Kitāb al-‘Uṣūl), al-Zağğāğīja (Kitāb alĪḍāḥ) i Ibn Ğinnīja (Ḫaṣā‘iṣ) naglańavaju da se, iako u arapskoj terminologiji pojam al-‗amal znaĦi "djelovati", "Ħiniti", to mora uzeti uvjetno, kao konvencija, tehniĦki termin gramatiĦara (Bohas et al. 1990:58). Nakon mnońtva razliĦitih studija o regensu i meħusobnoj zavisnosti jeziĦkih jedinica koje nisu nań primarni interes, moņemo reĤi da je nemjerljiv doprinos izuĦavanju ovih gramatiĦkih fenomena dao, zapravo, jedan stilistiĦar - 134 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo ‗Abd al-Qāhir ibn ‗Abd al-Raḥmān al-Ğurğānī (u. 1078). Iako se svojim slavnim djelima ‘Asrār al-balāġa i Dalā‘l al-‘i‗ağāz udaljio od tradicionalnih metoda manipulirajuĤi promjenom znaĦenja koja se deńava unutar razliĦitih sintaksiĦkih konstrukcija, njegova dva djela, al-‗Awāmil al-mi‘a al-naḥwiyya („Stotinu regensa u sintaksi―) i al-Ğumal, koja nastavljaju tradiciju slavnih djela ranije spomenutih, stekla su popularnost, te sa njom i utjecaj, a al-‗Awāmil al-mi‘a al-naḥwiyya je postalo jedno od najĦeńĤe komentiranih djela arapske gramatiĦke tradicije. Meħu brojnim komentatorima nańao se i krajem 17. stoljeĤa Mustafa EjuboviĤ - Ńejh Jujo, jedan od bosanskohercegovaĦkih autora koji su pisali na orijentalnim jezicima. Klasifikacija regensa u okviru arapske gramatike zavisnosti U okviru teorijske obrade regensa i rekcije arapski uĦenjaci su se bavili razliĦitim temama, postavljali konkretna pravila, diskutirali o brojnim fenomenima, ali da bi se uopĤe moglo pristupiti primarnom cilju ovoga rada, opisu semantiĦkog regensa, neophodno je dati uvid u klasifikacije regensa koje su ponudili arapski gramatiĦari polazeĤi od razliĦitih kriterija koji su se nerijetko preplitali, nakon ńto su regense definirali kao jedinice koje mogu biti Ħlanovi svih klasa rijeĦi, tj. glagoli, imena i partikule. Tako govore o primarnim (al-‗awāmil al-‘aṣliyya) i sekundarnim regensima (al-‗awāmil al-far‗iyya), jakim (al-‗awāmil al-qawiyya) i slabim (al-‗awāmil al-ḍa‗īfa), eksplicitno (al-‗awāmil al-malfūẓa) i implicitno izraņenim regensima (al-‗awāmil al-muqaddara). U primarne regense ubrajaju glagole kao regense par exellance, dok su sekundarni regensi imena i partikule. Slabi regensi su imenske rijeĦi i partikule, a jaki su prelazni glagoli, ali i neke vrste partikule. Svi ovi regensi dalje se klasificiraju i prema naĦinu djelovanja i vrsti utjecaja na one koji zahtijevaju akuzativ, nominativ, genitiv, konjunktiv, apokopatus i sl., te prema broju i prema vrsti dependensa. Pitanje svake klasifikacije kopleksno je i teńko je pronaĤi neku adekvatnu, jasnu, dosljednu i u svakom sluĦaju odrņivu klasifikaciju koja bi uzela u obzir razliĦita obiljeņja regensa. Stoga je i bitno naglasiti kriterije odreħene podjele. ĥini nam se da je al-Ğurğānī na ingeniozan naĦin uspio izdiferencirati morfolońke, tj. formalno-gramatiĦke i funkcionalne kriterije u preglednoj i razumljivoj klasifikaciji regensa. Al-Ğurğānī polazi od strukturnih kao najznaĦajnijih kriterija i regense dijeli prema planu izraza i sadrņaja na leksiĦke ili formalne (al-‗awāmil al-lafẓiyya) i semantiĦke, ili kako ih Bohas naziva "apstraktne" regense (al-‗awāmil al-ma‗nawiyya) (1990:60). Formalni regensi su one upravne rijeĦi koje se javljaju u reĦeniĦkoj strukturi a koje imaju morfolońki oblik, formu, koje se daju izgovoriti. Meħutim, formalni regensi ne moraju biti eksplicitno izraņeni u reĦenici, odnosno njenoj povrńinskoj reprezentaciji. Oni mogu biti elidirani (al-maḫḏūf), Ħime se njihova rekcija ne dokida (vidi: Zwartjes 2007:235). Daju se rekonstruirati jer im je znaĦenje implicirano kontekstom. Formalni regensi se dalje dijele na formalne regense uzakonjene upotrebom (al-‗awāmil al-lafẓiyya al-samā‗iyya) i formalne regense uzakonjene analogijom (al-‗awāmil al-lafẓiyya al-qiyāsiyya). U prvu grupu spadaju regensi koji su rasprostranjeni u jeziĦkoj upotrebi i govornoj praksi Arapa, Ħlanovi zatvorenih klasa rijeĦi i ne mogu posluņiti kao osnova za tvorbu novih regensa istog utjecaja. S druge strane, regensi uzakonjeni analogijom, predstavljeni su otvorenim klasama rijeĦi na osnovu kojih se putem produktivnih pravila mogu izvoditi novi Ħlanovi. SemantiĦki regens subjekta i predikata imenske reĦenice SemantiĦki regens na planu izraza fonetski je prazan element, ali na planu sadrņaja znaĦenjem obiljeņen element kome je u klasiĦnoj arapskoj gramatici dodijeljena uloga upravnog elementa reĦenice. Arapski gramatiĦari su postulirali i izdiferencirali dva, odnosno tri semantiĦka regensa. Prvi je semantiĦki regens subjekta i predikata imenske reĦenice. Logika sistema da nema fleksijskog obiljeņja bez regensa (vidi: Bohas et al. 1990:59) potakla je gramatiĦare da identificiraju upravni element koji zahtijeva nominativne markere subjekta i predikata imenske reĦenice. Da bismo obrazloņili motive diferenciranja ovoga regensa, a radi jasnoĤe i razumljivosti, pokuńat Ĥemo u najkraĤem iznijeti kako arapski gramatiĦari poimaju imensku, odnosno glagolsku reĦenicu, buduĤi da se njihove definicije suńtinski razlikuju od onih koje nudi zapadna savremena lingvistika. Naime, oba tipa reĦenice u arapskom jeziku podrazumijevaju postojanje subjekta (al-musnad ‘ilayhi = dosl. ono na ńto se neńto oslanja) i predikata (al-musnad = ono ńto se oslanja), ńto su nadreħeni termini za sve tipove subjekata i prdikata koji se mogu javiti u reĦenicama. Izmeħu njih postoji specifiĦan odnos predikacije (al-‘isnād = oslanjanje). U okviru imenske reĦenice koju obiljeņava odsustvo kopule tako da se predikativni odnos najĦeńĤe ostvaruje kontrastom koji postoji izmeħu odreħenog subjekta i neodreħenog predikata. SintaksiĦka funkcija subjekta oznaĦena je terminom al-mubtada‘, koji zapadni arabisti katkada prevode kao tema, a funkcija predikata terminom al-ḫabar, za koji smo u literaturi nańli i prijevodni ekvivalent komentar (Owens 1984:28). Iako, ovi termini imaju nauĦno opravdanje, posebno za markirani red rijeĦi u reĦenici, procese dislociranja nekih reĦeniĦnih jedinica, fokusiranja itd., mi Ĥemo se dosljedno drņati ustaljenih termina. U okviru glagolske reĦenice subjekat koji odgovara semantiĦkoj kategoriji agensa, vrńioca glagolske radnje, u arapskoj gramatici je oznaĦen terminom al-fā‗il, a predikat se identificira finitnim oblikom glagola (al-fi‗l). Od krucijalne vaņnosti za 135 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo razumijevanje teorije ragensa je Ħinjenica da arapska gramatiĦka trdicija svaku reĦenicu koja zapoĦinje imenom smatra imenskom, a onu koja zapoĦinje potpunim glagolom glagolskom (o distinkcijama izmeħu imenske i glagolske reĦenice prema mińljenju arapskih gramatiĦara detaljno vidjeti u: Levin 1985:118-27). Dakle, jednostavnu imensku reĦenicu karakterizira jukstapozicija subjekta kojeg moņe Ħiniti imenica u nominativu (osim ako reĦenica ne zapoĦinje "uvodnim reĦeniĦnim partikulama" kako jedan tip subordinatora i reĦeniĦnih priloga naziva arapska tradicija), zamjenica (rastavljena i spojena liĦna, pokazna, odnosna zamjenica, upitna), pridjev, infinitiv i participi kada se koriste kao supstantivi, prijedloņna fraza, subjekatska reĦenica itd. i predikata koji moņe biti nedeterminirana imenica u nominativu, zamjenica (samostalna liĦna zamjenica, pokazna, upitna), pridjev, participi, brojevi, prijedloņna fraza, prilog, imenska ili glagolska reĦenica itd. Naravno, dio subjekta ili predikata bit Ĥe i svi njihovi determinatori, modifikatori i specifikatori, tj. svi njihovi zavisni Ħlanovi, apozitivi (al-tābi‗, pl. al-tawābi‗). U imenskoj reĦenici upravni element prama mińljenju basranske ńkole je inicijalni nulti glagol (al-‘ibtidā‘ = početak) koji predikatom upravlja preko subjekta. (uporedi s: Bohas et al. 1990:64; Amaireh 1984:35; Levin 1985:123) ø Zayd-un ğamīl-un. ‘ibtidā‘ Zejd-NOM lijep:MASC-NOM:INDEF ART Zejd je lijep. Treba naznaĦiti da samo basranska ńkola zagovara postuliranje semantiĦkog regensa subjekta i predikata imenske reĦenice. S druge strane, kufska ńkola postavlja teoriju reciproĦnog ili uzajamnog regiranja nominativa imena (al-tarāfu‗) koja pretpostavlja, ili bolje reĤi, dozvoljava subjektu imenske reĦenice da regira njen imenski predikat, i obratno. Ova teorija kasnije je odbaĦena buduĤi da nije konzistentna sa osnovnim eksplicitnim elaboracijama koje je porodila teorija regensa i model rekcije u okviru arapske gramatike zavisnosti. Meħutim, ovakav opis donekle podsjeĤa na opis uzajamne zavisnosti koji nudi savremena gramatika zavisnosti izmeħu glagola i subjekta koji mogu funkcionirati samo u prisustvu jedan drugog. RijeĦ je o morfolońkoj zavisnosti glagola (VP) od gramatiĦkog subjekta (NP) koji odreħuje njegovu formu i sintaktiĦkoj zavisnosti subjekta od glagola (vidi: MelĦuk 1988:26). U abrogirajuĤe elemente regensa imenske reĦenice (al-nawāsiḫ al-‘ibtidā‘), koje moņemo definirati kao subklasu upravnih elemenata spadaju spomenute uvodne reĦeniĦne partikule i glagol kāna i njemu sliĦni, tj. svi oni semantiĦki nepunoznaĦni ili nepotpuni glagoli (al-‘af‗āl al-nāqiṣa) ili, ako uzmemo u obzir sintaktiĦki aspekt, nesamostalni glagoli, partikule mā i lā koje sliĦe glagolu laysa, a prema nekim gramatiĦaraima i glagoli mińljenja (‘af‗āl al-qulūb) te glagoli transformacije (‘af‗āl al-taḥwīl). ‘Inna Zayd-an ğamīl-un. zaista:PRT Zejd-ACC lijep:MASC-NOM:INDEF ART Zaista je Zejd lijep. Kāna Zayd-un ğamīl-an. biti:PERF:3SG:MASC Zejd-NOM lijep:MASC-ACC:INDEF ART Zejd je bio lijep. Shodno ranije reĦenom da samo basranska ńkola stoji na stajalińtu da su i subjekat i predikat dependensi ovih partikula i nepotpunih glagola, treba naglasiti da kufska ńkola tvrdi da je njihova rekcija ograniĦena samo na subjekat, odnosno predikat. Ńest partikula (’inna, ’anna, ka’anna, lakinna, la‗alla i layta) dokidaju rekciju apstraktnog regensa i zauzimaju njegovu zamińljenu poziciju na poĦetku reĦenice zahtijevajuĤi akuzativ subjekta, koji se tada naziva ‘ism i nominativ predikata. Iako svaka od ovih ńest partikula uvodi imensku reĦenicu i ima istu rekciju, njihova 136 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo znaĦenja se razlikuju. Partikule ’inna i ’anna nose zajedniĦku nijansu u znaĦenju, a to je potvrħivanje predikacije (ta‘kīd al-‘isnād), taĦnije suda koji podrazumijeva semantiĦki aspekt predikativnog odnosa, te se opisuju i kao semantiĦki koroborativi. Kao ńto se iz primjera da vidjeti,’inna se na bosanski neobavezno prevodi reĦeniĦnim prilogom za izricanje dojma govornika i uvodi nezavisnu reĦenicu, mada iskljuĦivo nakon glagola qāla (reĤi) moņe biti i subordinator objekatske reĦenice, dok je ’anna iskljuĦivo veznik, tj. subordinator razliĦitih tipova zavisnih reĦenica. Partikula ka’anna uvodi nezavisnu reĦenicu kojom se ņeli izraziti irealno poreħenje, a koja korespondira sa bosanskim reduciranim poredbenim reĦenicama sa glagolom jesam ili biti (uporedi s: MrazoviĤ, VukadnoviĤ 1990:543). Partikula lakinna ("ali", "nego") sluņi za naknadno ograniĦavanje (al-‘istidrāk), kako al-‘Anṭākī opisuje znaĦenje ove partikule, tj. izdvajanje onoga u ńto bi sagovornik mogao povjerovati da je ukljuĦeno u kontekst ili da "onome ńto je poslije nje pripoji sud suprotan sudu prije nje" (1975:23). Svakako, to zanaĦi da sluņi kao koordinator nezavisne imenske adverzativne reĦenice. Naglańavamo "imenske reĦenice" zato ńto za uvoħenje adverzativne glagolske reĦenice u arapskom jeziku sluņi njena reducirana varijanta lakin koja, dakako, nema istu rekciju, taĦnije nema rekcije uopĤe. Partikule la‗alla (moņda, vjerovatno) i layta (kamo sreĤe) reĦeniĦni su prilozi za izraņavanje ņelje i ocjene govornika o onome o Ħemu se govori. U ovom kratkom pregledu uvodnih reĦeniĦkih partikula nismo iscrpili sve njihove sintaktiĦke funkcije a njihov semantiĦki opseg znatno je ńiri. Meħutim, nuņno je istaĤi da arapska lingvistiĦka tradicija ove partikule imenuje kao „partikule sliĦne glagolima― i motivi ovakvoga imenovanja su formalne, strukturne, ali i semantiĦke naravi. Njihova rekcija se Ħesto usporeħuje sa rekcijom prelaznih glagola. Naime, prelazni glagoli kao i ove partikule zahtijevaju dvije dopune (al-muta‗alliq), dva aktanta, kako ih naziva Tesnière (1959:105). Mogli bismo reĤi da su dvovalentne kao dvovalentni prelazni glagoli. Valentnost je, prema Engelovoj jednostavnoj definiciji, "rekcija ograniĦena na supklase leksema" (MrazoviĤ 1979:20). Valentnost kao sposobnost, prema gramatici zavisnosti, imaju autosemantiĦke klase elemenata jednog jezika kao ńto su glagoli, imenice, pridjevi i prijedlozi. Ovakvo definiranje ne vrijedi za arapski jezik, iako se proizvoljnost odreħivanja upravne rijeĦi u reĦenici tek se odnedavno propituje i u okvirima zapadne gramatike zavisnosti. Arapska gramatiĦka tradicija priskrbljuje sposobnost rekcije partikulama razliĦitih znaĦenja (leksiĦkih i gramatiĦkih) i raznovrsnih funkcija, te moguĤnost da budu nukleusom, odnosno centralnim regensom u reĦenici, s obzirom na to da imenska reĦenica predikatski odnos ostvaruje i bez glagola. Tako, dvovalentni prelazni glagol zahtijeva subjekatsku dopunu u nominativu i objekatsku dopunu u akuzativu, a ove partikule zahtijevaju subjekatsku dopunu u akuzativu i predikatsku dopunu u nominativu. Kada su u pitanju glagolski abrogatori semantiĦkog regensa imenske reĦenice, nailazimo na kontraverzna mińljenja i rasprave. U skladu sa kasnom arapskom lingvistiĦkom tradicijom, ovi glagoli samo mijenjaju znaĦenjski odnos koji postoji izmeħu subjekta i predikata, odnosno smisao reĦenice, ali ne mijenjaju tip reĦenice (vidi: al-Rāğiḥī 1999:111). To je zato ńto su ovi glagoli samo morfolońki glagoli, dok u semantiĦkom smislu oni samo, kako kaņe Beeston, "dodaju osnovnoj imenskoj reĦenici predodņbu o vremenu i modalnosti koju imenske reĦenice kao takve ne prenose" (1979:63) i ne oznaĦavaju radnju. Dakle, ovi glagoli samo modificiraju veĤ realizirani predikativni odnos na razliĦite naĦine i nepotpuni su samo u okviru imenske reĦenice. Ukoliko se jave sa agensom u okviru strukture glagolske reĦenice, onda je rijeĦ o njihovim punoznaĦnim homografima. Nemarkirani, neutralni red rijeĦi (al-tartīb al-‘aṣlī) u reĦeniĦkoj strukturi sa nepotpunim glagolom pretpostavlja glagol kao upravni element na prvoj poziciji, potom subjekatsku dopunu na drugom mjestu (korespondira agensu punoznaĦnog glagola) i predikatsku dopunu na treĤoj poziciji (korespondira objektu punoznaĦnog glagola). Moņe doĤi do permutacije u rasporedu ovih elemenata iz razliĦitih komunikacijskih razloga. U arapskom jeziku dozvoljena je antepozicija (al-taqdīm) predikatske dopune u odnosu na subjekatsku dopunu, meħutim, u sluĦajevima kada flektivna obiljeņja nisu eksplicitno izraņena, veĤ postoje samo u dubinskoj reprezentaciji, implicirani, antepozicija nije dozvoljena. U nepotpune glagole, koji se joń nazivaju i pomoĤnim (al-‘af‗āl al-musā‗ida), abrogatore regensa imenske reĦenice, ubrajaju se i inhoativni glagoli (‘af‗āl al-šurū‗), glagoli nade (‘af‗āl al-rağā‘) i glagoli iminencije (‘af‗āl al-muqāraba). BuduĤi da su uvjeti njihove upotrebe i njihova znaĦenja iscrpno obraħena u razliĦitim gramatikama, mi Ĥemo se zadrņati samo na takozvanim glagolima mińljenja koji se Ħesto prikljuĦuju abrogatorima apstraktnog regensa. Naime, arapski gramatiĦari su uspjeńno dokazali da se komplementi, odnosno objekti, ovih glagola bez izuzetka nalaze u predikativnom semantiĦkom odnosu, te da ovi glagoli opisuju vińe misaonu radnju nego stvarni dogaħaj (vidi: Peled 2009:191). 137 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo Ẓanantu Zayd-an ğamīl-an. misliti:PERF:1SG Zejd-ACC lijep:MASC-NOM:INDEF ART Mislio sam da je Zejd lijep. Meħuti, ovi glagoli su bez sumnje dvostruko prijelazni glagoli, a reĦenica u kojoj se javljaju glagolska reĦenica. U tom smislu njih se ne bi trebalo tretirati kao abrogatore semantiĦkog regensa imenske reĦenice. SemantiĦki regens indikativa glagola Drugi semantiĦki regens koji je postulirala arapska lingvistiĦka tradicija je regens glagola u imperfektu kojim zapoĦinje glagolska reĦenica. Damma kao marker indikativa prezenta glagola mora biti objańnjena u kontekstu postojanja apstraktnog regensa, a u skladu sa arapskim modelom zavisnosti jeziĦkih jedinica i pravila da nema fleksije bez regensa. BuduĤi da su regensi glagola u imperfektu uglavnom partikule koje zahtijevaju jusiv ili konjunktiv glagola, basranska gramatiĦka ńkola regensom indikativa smatra upravo odsustvo jusivnih i konjunktivnih partikula (al-tağarrud min al-nawāṣib wa al-ğawāzim) (vidi: Ya‗qūb 1988:441). ø yaqūm-u Zayd-un. al-tağarrud min al-nawāṣib wa al-ğawāzim ustati:PRES:3SG-IND Zejd-NOM Zejd ustaje. Konsekventno abrogatorima semantiĦkog regensa imenske reĦenice, abrogatorima ovog tipa regensa moņemo smatrati sve one rijeĦi koje zauzimaju poziciju apstraktong regensa indikativa, tj. sve konjunktivne partikule (‘an, lan, kay, likay, ‘iḏan) i jusivne partikule (‘in, lam, lammā za negaciju, imperativna li, prohibitivna lā). SemantiĦki regens atributa u imeniĦkoj frazi? Neki protagonisti kufske ńkole uvode treĤi semantiĦki regens, regens atributa u okviru imeniĦke atributivne fraze. U zapadnoj teoriji zavisnosti atribut se smatra dependensom imenice, ńto je stajalińte kojemu se pribliņava kufska ńkola, iako odriĦe eksplicitnost i formalnost takvog regensa i smatra ga znaĦenjem koji vezuje imenicu i atribut. Meħutim, veĤina gramatiĦara stoji na stajalińtu da su apozitivi (al-tawābi‗) koji ukljuĦuju atribute (al-na‗t), permutativ (al-badal), apoziciju (‗aṭf al-bayān) i sl. regirani regensom rijeĦi koju modificiraju, ńto se moņe usporediti sa Tesnièrovom analizom koordinirane fraze gdje je regens koordiniranih jedinica zajedniĦki (1959:325-6). Marartu bi rağul-in karīm-in. proĤi:PERF:1SG pored Ħovjek:SG-GEN:INDEF ART plemenit:SG-GEN:INDEF ART Prošao sam pored plemenitog čovjeka. BuduĤi da je u arapskoj tradicionalnoj gramatici izostao sveobuhvatan opis izuzetno komplicirane sintaktiĦke kategorije atributa i zbog brojnih formi u kojima se atribut moņe javiti, mi neĤemo propitivati problem regensa atributa, osim ńto moņemo, sa izvjesnom sigurnońĤu, odbaciti stajalińte kufske ńkole i naglasiti da je regens atributa u svakom sluĦaju formalni, odnosno leksiĦki regens. ZakljuĦak Ovaj rad je predstavio i opisao semantiĦke, odnosno, apstraktne regense koje je postulirala arapska gramatika zavisnosti i njihove abrogatore. PredoĦili smo razliĦite poglede i kontraverzna mińljenja dvaju dominirajuĤih gramatiĦkih ńkola, kufske i basranske. Basranska ńkola je ponudila koherentnu, sveobuhvatnu i 138 �1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics May 5-7 2011 Sarajevo jasnu teoriju koja u svojim postavkama gotovo da ne odstupa od postulata savremene gramatike zavisnosti. Arapski genij uspio je posmatrati jeziĦni materijal ne samo kroz sintaktiĦku zavisnost veĤ i kroz znatno kompleksniju semantiĦku zavisnost ponudivńi inspirirajuĤu interpretaciju zavisnosti reĦeniĦnih konstituenat References al-‘Anṭākī, Muḥammad (1975) al-Muḥīṭ fī ‘aṣwāt al-‗arabiyya wa naḥwihā wa ṣarfihā. vol. I-III. al-Tab. II. Bayrūt: Maktaba al-dār al-ńarq. Amaireh, Khalil. (1984) "Aspects of Classification and Functional Syntax in Classical Arabic Grammar". International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, 1: 33-54. Baalbabaki, Rouhi. (1983) "The Relations between naḥw and balāġa, a comparative study of the methods of Sībawayhi and Ğurğānī". Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik, 11: 7-24. Bloch, Ariel A. (1986) Studies in Arabic Syntax and Semantics. Wiesbaden: Otto Bohas, G., Guillaume, J.-P., Kouloughli, D.E. (1990) The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London and New York: Routledge. Harrassowitz. Holes, Clive. (1995) Modern Arabic. Structures, Functions and Varieties. London and New York: Longman. Levin, Aryeh. (1985) "The Distinction between Nominal and Verbal Sentences Acording to the Arab Grammarians". Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik, 15: 118-127. MelĦuk, Igor A. (1988) Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press. MrazoviĤ, P., VukadinoviĤ, Z. (1990) Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za strance. Novi Sad: Dobra vest. MrazoviĤ, Pavica. (1979) "Razvoj teorije gramatike zavisnosti". U: Gramatička teorija. Kontrastivne studije i nastava stranih jezika. sv.1:7-67. Novi Sad: Radovi instituta za strane jezike i knjiņevnost. MrazoviĤ, Pavica. (1984-5) "Mjesto upravnog glagola u reĦenici i iskazu srpskohrvatskog jezika". Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, XXVII-XXVIII:521-6. Owens, Jonathan. (1984) "Structure, Class and Dependency. Modern linguistic theory and Arabic grammatical tradition." Lingua, 64:25-62. Peled, Yishai. (2009) Sentence Types and Word-Order Patterns in Written Arabic. Medievel and Modern Perspectives. Leiden: Brill. al-Rāğiḥī, ‗Abda. (1999) al-Taṭbīq al-naḥwī. s.l.: Dār al-ma‗rifa al-ğāmi‗iyya. Qabāwa, Fahr al-Dīn. (2003) Muškila al-‗āmil al-naḥwī wa naẓariyya al-‘iqtiḍā‘. Dimańq: Dār al-fikr. Tesnière, Lucien. (1959) Ėlémens de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Wright, W. (1974) A Grammar of the Arabic Languagae. 3rd. ed. vol. I-II. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Ya‗qūb, ‘Amīl al-Badī‗. (1988) Mawsū‗ al-naḥw wa al-ṣarf wa al-‘i‗rāb. Bayrūt: Dār al-‗ilm li al-malāyīn. Zwartjes, Oto. (2007) "Inflection and Goverment in Arabic According to Spanish Missionary Grammarians from Damascus (XVIIIth Century): Grammars at the Crossroads of Two Systems". U: Approaches to Arabic Lingustics. Presented to Kees Versteegh on the Occasion of his Sixstieth Birthday. ed. Ditters, Everhard and Harald Motzki. Leiden: Brill. 209-247. 139 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 24 Title A name given to the resource SEMANTIĥKI REGENS I NJEGOVI ABROGATORI U ARAPSKOJ GRAMATICI ZAVISNOSTI Author Author Mulovć, Amra Abstract A summary of the resource. Ovaj rad istraņuje zavisne veze reĦeniĦnih Ħlanova u arapskom jeziku primarno iskazane promjenom flektivnih formi i interpretira ih u kontekstu tradicionalnog, izvorno arapskog koncepta zavisnosti reĦeniĦnih elemenata ili konstituenata, ali i u kontekstu modernih sintaktiĦkih i semantiĦkih teorija. Jedan dio rada se osvrĤe na al-Ğurğānījev sistem klasifikacije regensa kao upravnih elemenata unutar razliĦitih sintaktiĦkih konstrukcija, koji je na izvanredan naĦin uspio pomiriti sintaktiĦke i semantiĦke kriterije klasifikacije. Uglavnom se analiziraju semantiĦki ili apstraktni regensi koje je postulirala i prepoznala klasiĦna arapska nauka o jeziku, tj. semantiĦki regens imenske reĦenice, semantiĦki regens indikativa prezenta u okviru glagolske reĦenice i Ħesto propitivani i od nekih uĦenjaka odbaĦeni semantiĦki regens modifikatora u imeniĦkoj frazi. U radu se pojańnjavaju razlike koje postoje izmeħu dviju dominirajuĤih gramatiĦkih ńkola, kufske i basranske, pri analizi rekcije semantiĦkih regensa i njihovih abrogatora te forme zavisnih Ħlanova. ZakljuĦak pokazuje da su u tradicionalnoj arapskoj gramatici anticipirani neki pogledi modernih semantiĦara. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2011-05 Keywords Keywords. Conference or Workshop Item PeerReviewed P Philology. Linguistics https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/9dcade236d302b6b5a4ad2322fd2f836.docx 82c42f0e200202dc79e9da006b3d7777 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/2f9b66207c21fa8bb313e4af44a09979.pdf 7ea5ba3932409497a9df81eb7ac7cb87 PDF Text Text Semiotic Analysis of Advertising Texts Seref KARA Uludag University/ Bursa, Turkey Key words: semiotic, language, advertising, linguistics, analyze, media ABSTRACT Cultural background is an important part of one’s communication skills. This background develops as a result of an individual’s interaction with their environment and contributes to the quality of his/her communication skills. Language, which is an important element of culture, reflects various aspects of a community’s cultural values. Individual expression is interpreted according to word choice and syntax. Words convey shared common culture, and they can sometimes be used along with their figurative meanings or connotations. Thus, idioms, proverbs, song lyrics, and so on convey the past and background of a culture. These culture-laden elements play an important role in both reciprocal relationships and mass communication. Advertisement texts are a linguistic communication device supported by our cultural heritage that function effectively in communicating that heritage. Advertisement texts, which sometimes appear in daily life as a new expression largely based on an already existing one, contribute to updating common cultural memory. Because advertisement texts appear in popular culture with recognisable linguistic and cultural dimensions, they are important indicators of how society is perceived. Therefore, the expressions used in advertisement texts can be analysed from different aspects and with various methods. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1977 Title A name given to the resource Semiotic Analysis of Advertising Texts Author Author KARA, Seref Abstract A summary of the resource. Key words: semiotic, language, advertising, linguistics, analyze, media ABSTRACT Cultural background is an important part of one’s communication skills. This background develops as a result of an individual’s interaction with their environment and contributes to the quality of his/her communication skills. Language, which is an important element of culture, reflects various aspects of a community’s cultural values. Individual expression is interpreted according to word choice and syntax. Words convey shared common culture, and they can sometimes be used along with their figurative meanings or connotations. Thus, idioms, proverbs, song lyrics, and so on convey the past and background of a culture. These culture-laden elements play an important role in both reciprocal relationships and mass communication. Advertisement texts are a linguistic communication device supported by our cultural heritage that function effectively in communicating that heritage. Advertisement texts, which sometimes appear in daily life as a new expression largely based on an already existing one, contribute to updating common cultural memory. Because advertisement texts appear in popular culture with recognisable linguistic and cultural dimensions, they are important indicators of how society is perceived. Therefore, the expressions used in advertisement texts can be analysed from different aspects and with various methods. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available IBU Publishing Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-05-03 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/e43088bb6df70f43fad9d7d407bb455f.docx e56bdd57e402b88e79eb980e9abad881 https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/ff6b22518845697d99755b36c6e68455.pdf 3bb48d0155749e82fee6c240351f376c PDF Text Text Semiotika stripa Vedad Smailagić University of Sarajevo/ Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina ABSTRACT Strip je vrsta teksta u kojem se kombinira nekoliko znakovnih sistema. Najprije se radi o jeziku izraženom kroz pismo kombinirano sa slikama. Ali osim i u okviru tih znakovnih sistema u stripu se koriste i drugi poput boje, pismene imitacije zvukova iz okoline, slikovne imitacije pokreta i jezika tijela, slikovne metafore te konvencionaliziranih grafičkih znakova koji omogućavaju razumijevanje samog teksta: strukture pojedinih slika, udruživanje slika u panele sa linijama, oblaci koji karakteriziraju govori ili misli, te tekstualne kućice. Osim upotrebe različitih znakovnih sistema u stripu, strip obilježava i dvostruka komunikacija: komunikacija autor – čitalac i komunikacija između figura. Nas će u ovom radu interesovati upotreba različitih znakovnih sistema u stripu kao tekstnoj vrsti i u stripu kao mediju. Pri tome polazimo od tri vrste znakova: simboli, indeksi i ikone (Peirce) te dvostruke komunikacije. Kao osnova za analizu poslužiće nam stripovi Walta Disneya, a osim njih i graphic novel kao jedna od novih književnih vrsta koji obilježava kombinacija slike i teksta. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Extent The size or duration of the resource. 1978 Title A name given to the resource Semiotika stripa Author Author SMAILAGIC, Vedad Abstract A summary of the resource. Strip je vrsta teksta u kojem se kombinira nekoliko znakovnih sistema. Najprije se radi o jeziku izraženom kroz pismo kombinirano sa slikama. Ali osim i u okviru tih znakovnih sistema u stripu se koriste i drugi poput boje, pismene imitacije zvukova iz okoline, slikovne imitacije pokreta i jezika tijela, slikovne metafore te konvencionaliziranih grafičkih znakova koji omogućavaju razumijevanje samog teksta: strukture pojedinih slika, udruživanje slika u panele sa linijama, oblaci koji karakteriziraju govori ili misli, te tekstualne kućice. Osim upotrebe različitih znakovnih sistema u stripu, strip obilježava i dvostruka komunikacija: komunikacija autor – čitalac i komunikacija između figura. Nas će u ovom radu interesovati upotreba različitih znakovnih sistema u stripu kao tekstnoj vrsti i u stripu kao mediju. Pri tome polazimo od tri vrste znakova: simboli, indeksi i ikone (Peirce) te dvostruke komunikacije. Kao osnova za analizu poslužiće nam stripovi Walta Disneya, a osim njih i graphic novel kao jedna od novih književnih vrsta koji obilježava kombinacija slike i teksta. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available IBU Publishing Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2013-05-03 Keywords Keywords. Article PeerReviewed https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/85f02200d8b6a059ec3861f417da6e72.pdf 1f82ffbbe02c17154c3399fe61ce48b1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource IT Master's Theses Description An account of the resource IT Master's Thesis collection features master's theses authored by graduate students in the Department of Information Technology. Each thesis reflects a significant research effort, combining theoretical knowledge with practical application to address complex challenges in the IT domain. These works demonstrate students’ advanced understanding of information systems, software engineering, data science, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies. The theses serve as a testament to the students' capability to conduct independent research, propose innovative solutions, and contribute to the advancement of the IT field. Subject The topic of the resource IT Master's Thesis Language A language of the resource English Language Author Author IT Department Master’s Students Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Sentiment Analysis And Price Prediction For Accommodation Reviews in Bosnia And Herzegovina: A Comparative Study of NLTK and Hugging Face NLP Techniques Author Author Amila Čaušević Abstract A summary of the resource. The growing field of natural language processing (NLP) has huge potential in the advancement of consumer feedback and its application in determining pricing strategy in the hospitality industry. In this thesis, sentiment analysis and price predictions of accommodation reviews in Bosnia and Herzegovina are analyzed through a comparative study of two of the most commonly used approaches in NLP: NLTK - representing traditional methods, and Hugging Face - representing modern techniques. Initially, a long process of text preprocessing is performed that includes tokenization, lemmatization, stopword removal, and filtering of positive and negative reviews. Quantitative analysis such as word frequency distributions, measures of lexical diversity, and word co-occurrence tests reveal patterns within language use as well as the relationship between review attributes and sentiment.<br /><br />Different frameworks  for sentiment analysis are then compared. The Hugging Face sentiment pipeline and more modern and recent transformer architectures like BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet are compared with more traditional techniques (e.g., NLTK/VADER). Metrics for evaluation such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score are used to assess the performance of the sentiment models. In order to develop predictive price models based on regression techniques like Linear Regression, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting, the thesis additionally integrates sentiment scores with quantitative metadata, such as review ratings, location ratings, and accommodation categories. The results show that Random Forest regression is the most effective method for identifying subtle, non-linear sentiment-price correlations, even though transformer-based sentiment analysis can show promise in identifying subtle signals within guest reviews. Last but not least, this work offers helpful recommendations to help hoteliers in Bosnia and Herzegovina to create focused pricing strategies while also enhancing the general guest experience. Keywords Keywords. NLP, Sentiment Analysis, Accommodation Reviews, Price Prediction, Bosnia and Herzegovina Accommodation Reviews Bosnia and Herzegovina NLP Price Prediction sentiment analysis