• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.381-431
• /
• 2016

This paper deals with Slavic discourse deixis comparing Russian, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian demonstrative and personal pronouns. In general, the Slavic proximal pronouns have precedence over the distal ones. Proximal pronouns, such as Russian eto, Polish to, and Bulgarian tova, are employed more frequently and widely than their distal counterparts to, tamto and onova. The distance-neutral pronoun to in Modern Czech was also a proximal pronoun in the past. These Slavic proximal and former-proximal pronouns function as a discourse deixis marker, whereas, in most other languages, the discourse deixis is mainly a function of distal or non-proximal demonstrative pronouns. However, the Russian, Polish, Czech, and Bulgarian discourse deixis differs in distal demonstrative and personal pronouns. In general, the Polish and Czech discourse deixis does not employ the distal demonstrative pronoun tamto or the personal pronoun ono. The Russian distal demonstrative pronoun to is actively used as a discourse deixis marker, and the personal pronoun ono can also be used to refer to the preceding discourse, though it is not frequent. In Bulgarian the distal demonstrative pronoun onova is rarely used to refer to a discourse, but the personal pronoun to frequently indicates a discourse that is repeatedly referred to in a text. The discourse deixis, which is a peripheral deixis and can be both deixis and anaphora, reveals different characteristics in different Slavic languages. In Russian, where all of the proximal, distal, and personal pronouns function as a discourse deixis marker, the deixis itself plays a crucial role in distinguishing these three pronouns from each other, revealing the speaker's psychological, emotional, temporal, and cognitive proximity to or distance from a given discourse. In Bulgarian, the most analytic Slavic language, the personal pronoun is used more as a discourse deixis marker to reveal the highest givenness of a discourse, and it seems that Bulgarian discourse deixis is more anaphoric than the other Slavic discourse deixis is.

• Proceedings of the Acoustical Society of Korea Conference
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.355-360
• /
• 1999

이 연구는 폴란드어의 음성. 음운 체계를 조음 음성학에 기초를 두어 살펴보고, 한국어의 음성. 음운과 대조한다 모음은 한국어가 많고, 자음은 폴란드어가 더 많다. 한국인이 구별하기 힘든 모음 /i/와 /y/의 차이점과 슬라브어에서 유일하게 폴란드어에만 있는 비모음을 알아보고, 한국어에 없는 자음 $/\'{3}/$와, 중설연구개음 $/\'{k},\;\'{g},\;\'{s},\;\'{z},\;\'{c},\;\'{3},\;\'{n}/$과 기본적으로 자음에서 일어나는 음운 규칙들을 살펴본다. 모음 변화는 형태론과 연관지어 살펴보아야 하므로 여기에서는 제외한다. 폴란드어와 한국어의 음성. 음운 대조는 첫째, 모음과 자음 분절음의 대조, 둘째, 음운 현상의 대조, 셋째, 음절구조상의 대조로 분류하고, 분절음의 대조에 초점을 두고 조음표상에 대조를 이음과 함께 표시한다.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.407-459
• /
• 2013

The paper pragmatically analyzes ellipsis in Russian and Polish colloquial and informal texts. The famous Polish writer Sławomir $Mro{\dot{z}}ek^{\prime}s$ "Exit to the South", written in Polish and Russian is used as a material for the analysis. Russian and Polish ellipsis in colloquial and informal texts have in common that the givenness and subjecthood of the elliptical co-referent play a crucial role. However, the ellipsis in two languages also has differences in many ways. Above all, in the Polish texts of colloquial and informal style, a theme is likely to be elliptical and the coreferential relation reaches to an extra-sentential antecedent, while the ellipsis in analysed Russian texts in most cases requires coordinate, subordinate or relative clauses, and the elliptical co-referent tends to have an intra-sentential antecedent. The ellipsis of the theme-subject is unmarked in Polish, where every verbal form has an ending denoting person. Unlike formal style which often allows explicit noun subject, Polish text of colloquial and informal style prefer null form of the subject in most cases. If Polish sentences have explicit theme-subjects, they disambiguate intervening and main themes, and indicate the contrast, the focus, the introduction of new narratives or the change of speaker's point of view. Sometimes direct speeches and deictic pronouns also need explicit theme-subjects in Polish sentences. On the other hand, the ellipsis of the theme-subject is marked in Russian even in colloquial and informal texts. The theme-subject can be deleted in Russian colloquial and informal texts, if the subject is a form of the first or the second person, or if the aspect and the tense of the antecedent sentence's verb are the same as those of the given sentence's verb and both the antecedent and the coreferential word have the nominative case.