hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Suvremena lingvistika, Vol. 42 No. 82, 2016.


Datum izdavanja: prosinac 2016.

Objavljen na Hrčku: 28. 12. 2016.
Sadržaj Puni tekst
The formation of Croatian verbs has been described in various ways in Croatian linguistics. Unfortunately, many descriptions fall short of being truly illuminating since the data have not been held up to sufficient scrutiny. What is missing is their critical assessment in the light of issues and debates that have dominated theoretical morphology, viz. on the nature of derivational and inflectional categories and their differentiation (but see Marković 2012). The goal of the present paper is to foreground some of the vagueness and inconsistencies that this situation has engendered in the description of the formation of Croatian verbs from non–verbs. We will discuss arguments for an alternative interpretation of what has typically been analyzed as the derivation of denominal verbs by means of the suffixes –i–, –a–, –ov–a–. This will underscore the need to at least buttress the time–honored descriptions with proper arguments, if not modify them in the light of the arguments presented. This concerns primarily the status and function of those suffixes in the structure of denominal verbs given that a review of existing literature points to: (a) a lack of arguments for treating those suffixes as derivational, (b) the existence of alternative descriptions in anglophone linguistic references of analogical word formation processes in other Slavic languages, including Croatian, where the corresponding/given suffixes are not considered (primarily) derivational, (c) a lack of consideration of the above–mentioned theoretical issues which might have led to more substantiated if not fundamentally different analyses. Since the arguments to be presented clearly indicate a gradient nature of the three suffixes, making them neither uncontroversial means nor unquestionable symptoms of verb formation, we will argue that there is no room for any strict (binary) categorical judgements in the analysis of these verbs, including for a categorical ʻno' as a response to the question in the title of this paper.  
Ima li mjesta za preobrazbu u denominalnoj tvorbi hrvatskih glagola? (str.155-190) hrvatskipdf 297 KB
Gabrijela Buljan
Izvorni znanstveni članak
 
The Croatian circumfix jo–…–ń  
Hrvatski cirkumfiks jo–…–ń (str.191-217) hrvatskipdf 235 KB
Ivan Marković
Izvorni znanstveni članak
 
Council for Standard Croatian Language Norm and Language Management Theory  
Vijeće za normu i teorija upravljanja jezikom (str.219-235) hrvatskipdf 161 KB
Petar Vuković
Izvorni znanstveni članak
 
Carlo Consani (Ed.),Contatto interlinguistico fra presente e passato, LED Milano, 2015, 498 pp.  
Carlo Consani (urednik),Contatto interlinguistico fra presente e passato, LED Milano, 2015., 498 str. (str.237-241) hrvatskipdf 98 KB
Vesna Deželjin
Recenzija, Prikaz
 
Joop van der Horst, Propast standardnoga jezika. Mijena u jezičnoj kulturi Zapadne Europe (translated by Radovan Lučić, Srednja Europa, Zagreb, 2016, 258 pp)  
Joop van der Horst, Propast standardnoga jezika. Mijena u jezičnoj kulturi Zapadne Europe (s nizozemskog preveo Radovan Lučić, Srednja Europa, Zagreb, 2016., 258 str.) (str.243-247) hrvatskipdf 69 KB
Jurica Polančec
Recenzija, Prikaz
 
HrTAL 2016 Conference Chronicle 10th International Conference on Natural Language Processing  
HrTAL 2016 Conference Chronicle 10th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (str.249-252) engleskipdf 87 KB
Lia Dragojević
Vijest
 
Zagrebački lingvistički krug, Izvješće o radu u ak. god. 2015./2016.  
Zagrebački lingvistički krug, Izvješće o radu u ak. god. 2015./2016. (str.253-254) hrvatskipdf 61 KB
Barbara Kerovec
Vijest
 
10. međunarodni znanstveni skup o višejezičnosti i ovladavanju trećim jezikom  
10. međunarodni znanstveni skup o višejezičnosti i ovladavanju trećim jezikom (str.255-263) hrvatskipdf 106 KB
Rea Lujić
Vijest
 
Posjeta: 3.158 *