Mladen Uhlik
Mladen Uhlik, PhD (b. 1977 in Sarajevo) is associate professor of the Russian language. He is head of the Russian language chair at the Slavistics department (Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia), where he teaches Russian syntax and Russian morphology. In 2019 he was engaged as a guest professor at the University of Graz.He is a member of the editorial board of the journals “Philological studies”, “Književni jezik” and “Rhema/Рема”. His research interests cover various topics, such as the contrastive functional analysis of East and South Slavic languages, Slavic morphosyntax and the history of linguistics. He is fluent in Slovene, BCMS, French, Russian and English.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (41)
Uploads
Papers by Mladen Uhlik
The initial section of the article discusses the agreement within the QPs, focusing on the interaction between cardinal numerals and nouns signifying quantity. The subsequent part addresses diverse patterns of predicate agreement in constructions involving a quantified subject. The analysis demonstrates that the numerals from 1 to 4 contrast with higher numerals (starting from 5 onwards) based on their distinct properties.
Within the Slovene QPs, the dual as a grammatical number serves to differentiate between the forms of the Noun Phrase (NP) in constructions involving the quantities 2 and those in constructions involving 3 and 4. Conversely, in Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian, the dual has been lost as a grammatical number. Using the inherited dual and plural endings, the Štokavian languages developed the paucal, a bound number grammeme that marks the noun forms in QPs with 2, 3, and 4 identically.
In the Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects, the paucal grammatical number is absent. In a Central Čakavian dialect of the village Kukljica, vestiges of the dual number are preserved solely within bound constructions involving nouns of the o-declension and the numeral 2. In such cases, masculine nouns exhibit distinctive forms, deviating from plural nouns found in constructions with 3 and 4. In some neuter nouns an accent difference distinguishes the construction with 2 from the nominative plural. Within the chosen Čakavian dialect, across other (non o-) declensions, the numerals 2, 3, and 4 are succeeded by the nominative case. The linguistic situation in the Kajkavian dialect of Gornja Konjščina is relatively straightforward compared to that of the Čakavian and Štokavian dialects. In this context, the nominative forms of 2, 3, and 4 are employed in conjunction with the nominative forms of plural nouns across all genders.
Across all of the chosen languages, numerals starting from 5 do not function as attributes: they are accompanied by a genitive complement. The second part of the article deals with predicate agreement with quantifier phrases. Numerals ranging from 1 to 4 in constructions involving a quantified subject do not affect the form of the predicate. In such instances, the predicates agree with the nouns encompassed within the quantified subjects.
It is worth highlighting that Slovene stands out by employing dual and plural forms across all categories of predicates. In Štokavian, the predicate in constructions featuring paucal subjects deviates from the plural form only in the masculine forms of analytic predicates. In all other instances, predicate forms correspond with the plural.
In the chosen Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects, plural forms of predicates are employed in all constructions involving the quantities 2, 3, and 4. Across all Western South Slavic languages and dialects, quantified subjects that incorporate numerals such as 5 elicit the default agreement pattern, wherein the predicate is rendered in the neuter singular form.
Exclusively within the Štokavian, quantified subjects featuring numerals from 5 onward can take plural agreement.
In adjectival copular clauses in all languages that we analyze, the QPs containing the numeral 5 induces default 3SG agreement on the copula. Regarding the adjectival form marking within these constructions, Slovene has two distinct patterns: it may either adopt the plural genitive form, aligning with the NP within the Quantifier Phrase (QP), or, akin to the other languages under consideration, employ the singular neuter form.
in case with the argument of the main predicate, whereas Russian additionally allows to mark the adjective with the non-agreeing instrumental.
In Russian sentences with attributive meaning, the use of masculine forms in subject complement is more frequent than in Slovenian.
Since Russian feminatives are less productive than Slovenian ones, in some professional
designations Russian uses “hybrid nouns” that can refer to both genders despite belonging to the first declension. The female referent in this case can be marked by analytical forms of the predicate (Врач пришла 'The doctor arrived'). This type of agreement is less frequent in the case of noun phrases with modifiers (наша врач 'our doctor', хорошая врач 'a good doctor'), where, though the referent is a woman, the masculine form is preferred.
In Slovenian, the referential gender is most commonly marked by feminine derived nouns, so its marking with analytical predicate forms is not typical. The only exception is the noun vodja 'leader', which lacks a feminative, and for that reason licenses the gender marking of the referential gender with its syntactical targets—predicate verbs (Obe vodji sta prišli 'Both leaders arrived') as well as modifiers within the framework of noun phrase (naša vodja 'our leader', umetniška vodja 'art director'). In contrast to Russian equivalents, the feminine forms of the modifier are used in non-nominative cases as well (Projekt smo oddali umetniški vodji 'The project was submitted to the art director').
with those in other South Slavic languages. Impersonal verbal constructions comprise verbal forms in the third-person neuter that express a general agent (Sln. Delalo se je dan in noč ‘work went on day and night’) or experiencer of the state (Sln. Vrti se mi ‘I’m dizzy’).
The main message in both types remains centered on the act or condition, and therefore
reflexivity is used, which modifies the predication to some extent. A very productive type
of these constructions in Slovenian and other South Slavic languages is the type with a
general agent (e.g., Sln. Vprašal naju je, ali je res, kar se govori, da je . . . ‘He asked us
whether it was true what was being said, [namely] that . . .’). Because the precondition
for this type is an unnamed human agent, it can be concluded that the selection of verbal
meanings is limited to human activity: verbs of conscious activity strongly predominate
over verbs of state.
A special type of construction with a general agent and an accusative object is used in Slovenian and Croatian (e.g., Sln. Kavo se dobi za dva evra ‘Coffee can be bought
for two euros’), which differs from the passive proper (Sln. Kava se dobi za deset evrov) because the semantic patient is in a non-nominative case. The use of constructions with a general agent and an accusative object is especially justified from the viewpoint of making the message unambiguous, whereby with regard to an animate participant in the role of the patient a distinction is made between Sln. Otroke se preverja ‘The children are being checked (by someone)’ and Sln. Otroci se preverjajo ‘The children are being checked’.
The second type of construction studied (i.e., reflexive impersonal verbal constructions with a dative experiencer) is characterized by the fact that the dative experiencer reduces the degree of agency of the entire sentence (which is lower than in constructions with a general agent).
Russian reflexive impersonal verbal constructions with the dative (Rus. Мне сегодня тяжело работается ‘Work is difficult for me today’) express the evaluation of
the degree of success of a specific action, process, or state, which is manifested through the obligatory use of deadjectival qualitative adverbs, the negative, or the interrogative как ‘how?’. In South Slavic languages, except for Slovenian, the expression of inclination (an optative construction with an emphasized internal need) using the dative and a reflexive form of originally non-reflexive (transitive or intransitive) verbs is productive; e.g., BCS Putuje mi se ‘I feel like travelling’. Omitting the dative agent, however, changes the meaning of the construction: for example, the optative construction BCS Svako l(j)eto mi se putuje na more ‘I like to travel to the seaside every year’ instead turns into a construction with a general agent, BCS Svako l(j)eto se putuje na more ‘People travel to the seaside every year’.
The Slovenian equivalents confirm that, compared to other South Slavic languages, the dative optative construction is marginal and significantly less common in Slovenian. A
reflexive impersonal construction with an obligatory dative is active in Slovenian, denoting the agent’s uncontrolled inclination toward the state verbalized (e.g., Sln. Spi se mi ‘I’m sleepy’).
that combine the copula with various word classes of subject complements. Typically, the Slovenian copula biti
associates with forms that can be used as adverbs of manner, nouns, and a small number of words that only
occur as subject complements. An overall important characteristic of such constructions is the fact that they do
not contain the canonical nominal subject with which the predicator would agree, the latter typically occurring
in the 3rd person singular (neuter). It is attempted to show that the semantic value of predicative constructions
is not entirely dependent on the particular lexeme that functions as the subject complement, but is additionally
directed by the presence/absence of the subject, as well as the syntactic possibility of augmentation with a clausal
or infinitival complement. The type of construction that encodes current states characteristically expresses the
subject in the dative, or in the accusative. There is an essential difference between the latter type of sentences
and those predicative constructions that express evaluation and/or the attitude of the subject towards an action or an agent. This type of construction often lacks an overt subject of evaluation and commonly features clausal
complements, in particular da-clauses.
of Slovenian desiderative and manipulative verbs, viz. želeti ‘wish’, hoteti ‘want’, and zahtevati ‘demand’.
The main focus is on the various types of complements that they take, specifically the sentential complements
introduced by complementizers da and naj, which function as objects to matrix predicates. Additional attention is devoted to the interchangeability of sentential and infinitive complements. The article analyzes the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic criteria that influence the choice of a particular sentential complement, as well as the parameters determining the use of the complementizer that relates the clause complement to the matrix predicate. The analysis focuses on three types of construction with sentence connectives da and naj in main and dependent clauses: 1) da + the indicative mood, 2) da + the conditional mood, 3) naj + the indicative mood. The use of such sentence structures is connected with different meanings that the combinations achieve: in the so-called da-constructions, the conditional has an optative reading, while both da and naj function as hortatives if co-occurring with the indicative.
Keywords: da-clauses, desiderative and manipulative predicates, modality, sentential complements, Slovenian, South Slavic languages
For citation: Uhlik M., Žele A. Da-clauses as complements of desiderative and manipulative verbs in Slovenian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2018. No. 5. Pp. 87–113. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001399-7.
The initial section of the article discusses the agreement within the QPs, focusing on the interaction between cardinal numerals and nouns signifying quantity. The subsequent part addresses diverse patterns of predicate agreement in constructions involving a quantified subject. The analysis demonstrates that the numerals from 1 to 4 contrast with higher numerals (starting from 5 onwards) based on their distinct properties.
Within the Slovene QPs, the dual as a grammatical number serves to differentiate between the forms of the Noun Phrase (NP) in constructions involving the quantities 2 and those in constructions involving 3 and 4. Conversely, in Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian, the dual has been lost as a grammatical number. Using the inherited dual and plural endings, the Štokavian languages developed the paucal, a bound number grammeme that marks the noun forms in QPs with 2, 3, and 4 identically.
In the Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects, the paucal grammatical number is absent. In a Central Čakavian dialect of the village Kukljica, vestiges of the dual number are preserved solely within bound constructions involving nouns of the o-declension and the numeral 2. In such cases, masculine nouns exhibit distinctive forms, deviating from plural nouns found in constructions with 3 and 4. In some neuter nouns an accent difference distinguishes the construction with 2 from the nominative plural. Within the chosen Čakavian dialect, across other (non o-) declensions, the numerals 2, 3, and 4 are succeeded by the nominative case. The linguistic situation in the Kajkavian dialect of Gornja Konjščina is relatively straightforward compared to that of the Čakavian and Štokavian dialects. In this context, the nominative forms of 2, 3, and 4 are employed in conjunction with the nominative forms of plural nouns across all genders.
Across all of the chosen languages, numerals starting from 5 do not function as attributes: they are accompanied by a genitive complement. The second part of the article deals with predicate agreement with quantifier phrases. Numerals ranging from 1 to 4 in constructions involving a quantified subject do not affect the form of the predicate. In such instances, the predicates agree with the nouns encompassed within the quantified subjects.
It is worth highlighting that Slovene stands out by employing dual and plural forms across all categories of predicates. In Štokavian, the predicate in constructions featuring paucal subjects deviates from the plural form only in the masculine forms of analytic predicates. In all other instances, predicate forms correspond with the plural.
In the chosen Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects, plural forms of predicates are employed in all constructions involving the quantities 2, 3, and 4. Across all Western South Slavic languages and dialects, quantified subjects that incorporate numerals such as 5 elicit the default agreement pattern, wherein the predicate is rendered in the neuter singular form.
Exclusively within the Štokavian, quantified subjects featuring numerals from 5 onward can take plural agreement.
In adjectival copular clauses in all languages that we analyze, the QPs containing the numeral 5 induces default 3SG agreement on the copula. Regarding the adjectival form marking within these constructions, Slovene has two distinct patterns: it may either adopt the plural genitive form, aligning with the NP within the Quantifier Phrase (QP), or, akin to the other languages under consideration, employ the singular neuter form.
in case with the argument of the main predicate, whereas Russian additionally allows to mark the adjective with the non-agreeing instrumental.
In Russian sentences with attributive meaning, the use of masculine forms in subject complement is more frequent than in Slovenian.
Since Russian feminatives are less productive than Slovenian ones, in some professional
designations Russian uses “hybrid nouns” that can refer to both genders despite belonging to the first declension. The female referent in this case can be marked by analytical forms of the predicate (Врач пришла 'The doctor arrived'). This type of agreement is less frequent in the case of noun phrases with modifiers (наша врач 'our doctor', хорошая врач 'a good doctor'), where, though the referent is a woman, the masculine form is preferred.
In Slovenian, the referential gender is most commonly marked by feminine derived nouns, so its marking with analytical predicate forms is not typical. The only exception is the noun vodja 'leader', which lacks a feminative, and for that reason licenses the gender marking of the referential gender with its syntactical targets—predicate verbs (Obe vodji sta prišli 'Both leaders arrived') as well as modifiers within the framework of noun phrase (naša vodja 'our leader', umetniška vodja 'art director'). In contrast to Russian equivalents, the feminine forms of the modifier are used in non-nominative cases as well (Projekt smo oddali umetniški vodji 'The project was submitted to the art director').
with those in other South Slavic languages. Impersonal verbal constructions comprise verbal forms in the third-person neuter that express a general agent (Sln. Delalo se je dan in noč ‘work went on day and night’) or experiencer of the state (Sln. Vrti se mi ‘I’m dizzy’).
The main message in both types remains centered on the act or condition, and therefore
reflexivity is used, which modifies the predication to some extent. A very productive type
of these constructions in Slovenian and other South Slavic languages is the type with a
general agent (e.g., Sln. Vprašal naju je, ali je res, kar se govori, da je . . . ‘He asked us
whether it was true what was being said, [namely] that . . .’). Because the precondition
for this type is an unnamed human agent, it can be concluded that the selection of verbal
meanings is limited to human activity: verbs of conscious activity strongly predominate
over verbs of state.
A special type of construction with a general agent and an accusative object is used in Slovenian and Croatian (e.g., Sln. Kavo se dobi za dva evra ‘Coffee can be bought
for two euros’), which differs from the passive proper (Sln. Kava se dobi za deset evrov) because the semantic patient is in a non-nominative case. The use of constructions with a general agent and an accusative object is especially justified from the viewpoint of making the message unambiguous, whereby with regard to an animate participant in the role of the patient a distinction is made between Sln. Otroke se preverja ‘The children are being checked (by someone)’ and Sln. Otroci se preverjajo ‘The children are being checked’.
The second type of construction studied (i.e., reflexive impersonal verbal constructions with a dative experiencer) is characterized by the fact that the dative experiencer reduces the degree of agency of the entire sentence (which is lower than in constructions with a general agent).
Russian reflexive impersonal verbal constructions with the dative (Rus. Мне сегодня тяжело работается ‘Work is difficult for me today’) express the evaluation of
the degree of success of a specific action, process, or state, which is manifested through the obligatory use of deadjectival qualitative adverbs, the negative, or the interrogative как ‘how?’. In South Slavic languages, except for Slovenian, the expression of inclination (an optative construction with an emphasized internal need) using the dative and a reflexive form of originally non-reflexive (transitive or intransitive) verbs is productive; e.g., BCS Putuje mi se ‘I feel like travelling’. Omitting the dative agent, however, changes the meaning of the construction: for example, the optative construction BCS Svako l(j)eto mi se putuje na more ‘I like to travel to the seaside every year’ instead turns into a construction with a general agent, BCS Svako l(j)eto se putuje na more ‘People travel to the seaside every year’.
The Slovenian equivalents confirm that, compared to other South Slavic languages, the dative optative construction is marginal and significantly less common in Slovenian. A
reflexive impersonal construction with an obligatory dative is active in Slovenian, denoting the agent’s uncontrolled inclination toward the state verbalized (e.g., Sln. Spi se mi ‘I’m sleepy’).
that combine the copula with various word classes of subject complements. Typically, the Slovenian copula biti
associates with forms that can be used as adverbs of manner, nouns, and a small number of words that only
occur as subject complements. An overall important characteristic of such constructions is the fact that they do
not contain the canonical nominal subject with which the predicator would agree, the latter typically occurring
in the 3rd person singular (neuter). It is attempted to show that the semantic value of predicative constructions
is not entirely dependent on the particular lexeme that functions as the subject complement, but is additionally
directed by the presence/absence of the subject, as well as the syntactic possibility of augmentation with a clausal
or infinitival complement. The type of construction that encodes current states characteristically expresses the
subject in the dative, or in the accusative. There is an essential difference between the latter type of sentences
and those predicative constructions that express evaluation and/or the attitude of the subject towards an action or an agent. This type of construction often lacks an overt subject of evaluation and commonly features clausal
complements, in particular da-clauses.
of Slovenian desiderative and manipulative verbs, viz. želeti ‘wish’, hoteti ‘want’, and zahtevati ‘demand’.
The main focus is on the various types of complements that they take, specifically the sentential complements
introduced by complementizers da and naj, which function as objects to matrix predicates. Additional attention is devoted to the interchangeability of sentential and infinitive complements. The article analyzes the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic criteria that influence the choice of a particular sentential complement, as well as the parameters determining the use of the complementizer that relates the clause complement to the matrix predicate. The analysis focuses on three types of construction with sentence connectives da and naj in main and dependent clauses: 1) da + the indicative mood, 2) da + the conditional mood, 3) naj + the indicative mood. The use of such sentence structures is connected with different meanings that the combinations achieve: in the so-called da-constructions, the conditional has an optative reading, while both da and naj function as hortatives if co-occurring with the indicative.
Keywords: da-clauses, desiderative and manipulative predicates, modality, sentential complements, Slovenian, South Slavic languages
For citation: Uhlik M., Žele A. Da-clauses as complements of desiderative and manipulative verbs in Slovenian. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2018. No. 5. Pp. 87–113. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0001399-7.
Monografija je kontrastivna predstavitev nekaterih temeljnih skladenjskih zgradb v ruščini in slovenščini. Je prvi temeljitejši opis skladenjskih razmerij v sodobni ruščini v primerjavi s slovenščino. Razprava je trodelna. Prvi del obsega opis ujemanja, vezave in primika, drugi del vključuje analizo razlik pri izražanju povratnosti. Zaključni del kontrastivno obravnava še različne tipe hierahičnih razmerij med stavki, predvsem osnovne značilnosti priredij in podredij.