See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263808801

THE IMPORTANCE OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN

COMMUNICATING MEANING -THE VIEW TAKEN BY CONSTRUCTION
GRAMMAR

Conference Paper · January 2012

READS

33

1 author:

Vladan Pavlovic
University of Niš
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Vladan Pavlovic
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 04 May 2016
 Biblioteka
Univerzitet u NBu

NAUCNI SKUPOVI
Filozofski fakultet

Urednice:
. Prof. dr Biljana Misie Ilie

Prof. dr Vesna Lopicie

Glavni i bdgovorni urednik:

Prof. dr ,?ojana Dimitrijevie
JEZIK, KNJIZEVNOST, KOMUNlKACIJA

Akademski odbor: .}EZICKA ISTRAZIVANJA

Prof. dr Vesna Lopicie

, ',Prof. dr Biljana Mgit Ilie
Prof. dr Milos Kovacevic
Zbornik radova

Prof. dr G6ran Maksimovie

Prof. Colin Nicholson
Prof. dr Walter Epp
Prof. dr Dragana Masovic
Prof. dr Dorde Vidanovic
Prof. dr Sneblna Bilbija
Prof. dr Marija Knezevie
Doc. dr Mihailo Antovie

Recenzenti:
Prof. Or Jordana Markovic
Prot dr Sneblna Bilbija
Doc. dr Mihailo Antovie

Sekretar redakcije:
Mr Milena Kostic
Urednice:

Biljana Misi6 Ilie

Vesna LopiCie

Objavijivanje ovog zbornika pomoglo je Ministarstvo prosvete i nauke Republike Srbije

u okviru projekta Dinamika struktura savremenog srpskogjezika 178014
i Filozofski fakultet u Nisu. '
Nis, 2012.
 SADRZAJ

JEZIK, KNJIZEVNOST, KOMUNIKACIJA: JEZICKA ISTRAZIVANJA

UVOD
Biljana Misic lIic, Vesna Lopicic

KOMPLEKSNOST JEZIC:KE KOMUNIKACIJE

II

I TEORIJSKI ASPEKTI PROUCAVANJAJEZICKE KOMUNIKACIJE

Mi§kovic-Lukovic Mitjalla

JEZIK I KOMUNIKACIJA: STA GOVORNIK KAZE

A EKSPLICITNO SAOPSTAVA? ......................................................................

33
Jasmina 80rdevic

THE CONCEPT OF COGNO-CULTURAL AWARENESS A PREREQUISITE

FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

45
l' Vladeta Radovic, Ivan Cvetanovic

PRECIZNOST VERBALNOG ISKAZA - PROBLEMSKI PRINCIPI I OSNOVNI

KRITERIJUMI USPESNOSTI MEDIJS~E KOMUNIKACIJE

55
Bojan Blagojevic

INDIREKTNA KOMUNIKACIJA- DA LI JOS VERUJEMO DA SE JEZIK

MOZE "ZAOBICI~' ...................................................................................................

69
Ivana Stojanovic Prelevic

OSTINOVO RAZLIKOVANJE "OZBILJNIH" I "NEOZBILJNIH"

GOVORNIH CINOVA: GOVOR NA BfNl KAO FIKTIVNA KOMUNIKACIJA? .....

77
Miliea Pavlovic, Ljubga Zlatanovic

KOMUNIKACIJA I PSIHOLOSKE IGRE ME8U LJUDIMA ................................

84

II
KOMUNlKATIVNA YREDNOST JEZICKIH SREDSTAVA
MHJlOIll M. KOBa'leBHn
o HEKYIM PA3JI03Y1MA 6Y1CEMYl4HOCTYI PE4EHHUA
Y HOBHHAPCKOM JE3Y1KY 97
Biljana Misic Ilic
INFERENCIJA U JEZIC:KOJ KOMUNIKACIJI NEKOLIKO TIPOVA
, VLASTlTIH IMENICA
SPECIFIC:NE UPOTREBE l18
Sabina Halupka-Resetar
NOTHING HAPPENS FOR NO REASON AT ALL:
ON A'-SCRAMBLING IN SERBIAN 132
Sva autorska prava zadrfana. Zabranjeno je svako neovlaSceno urnnozavanje, VIadan Pavlovic
fotokopiranje iii reprodukcija delova teksta. THE IMPORTANCE OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS IN COMMUNICATING
MEANING - THE VIEW TAKEN BY CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR 149
Violeta Stojicic
JOBallKa MHJlOWeBHti
THEMATIC FRONTING IN ENGLISH DECLARATIVE CLAUSES
o (HE)YCnEllI1M PEKllAMHI1M nOPYKAMA 305
IN LITERARY TEXTS
158
MapKO 6aHKoBflti
. Milos D. Duric npOnArAH.ll:HA KOMYHI1KAUI1JA HA I1HTEPHETY:
DISKURSNI KONEKTIVI BUT I MAlS U KOMUNlKACIJI U ENGLESKOM i AHAlll13A )l(AHPA cnAM nOPYKA 318
FRANCUSKOM DISKURSU ELEKTROTEHNIKE 168
Mapl1Ha JaH>Hti, I1J1HjaHa 4yrypa
. III .ll:I1CKYPC MllA.ll:I1X HA .ll:I1JAllEKATCKOM n0.ll:PY4JY:
KOMUNIKACIJA I SAVREMENI MEDIJf YI'6AHI1.ll:I1JAllEKAT KAO PE3YllTAT JE3114KE XI16PI1.ll:H3AUHJE ............ 332

Dragana Pavlovic, Tatjana Vulic

Coqllolja MUJlopaLloBHIi
KOMUNIKACIJA MLADIH I DRUSTVENE MREZE
187 JE3HK "Y KOH.ll:HUHJW - MY3H4KH )l(APrOHH3MH 348
CBeTJlaHa CJll1jen'leBl1ti, CJl060LlaH HOBoKMeT Taiba I'YCHMOBHti
o JE3114Kl1M HE.ll:OYMI1UAMA KOPI1CHI1KA
)l(APrOHH3MH CA nEJOPATHBHHM 3HA4El-bEM Y rOBOPY OMJlA.ll:HHE ...... 359
.ll:PYWTBEHE MPE)l(E <l>EJC6YK
199 Danica Jerotijevic
Du~an Stamenkovic, Ivana Vlajkovic STEREOTIPI U NARATIVIMA UCENlKA KAO MANIFESTACIJE RODNE
'JEZICKI IDENTITET U KOMUNIKACIJI l RAZLIKE U KOMUNIKACIJI 367
.NA DRUSTVENIM MREZAMA U SRBIJI 212
PaLlMHJlO MapojeBH:ll'
Biljana Radic-Bojanic
HHBEP3HJA ATPH6YTA H nPE.ll:llOWKO-HMEHH4KE BE3E CA ACnEKTA
VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES ON FACEBOOK:
KOMYHHKAUHJE (<l>OPMYllHCAHA nOETHKA llYKE MHllOBAHOBA
COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION
225 rEOprHJEBHTIA, nPHMHJEI-bEHA nOETHKA HBAHA MA)l(YPAHHllA) .... 376

Sofija Bilandzija
JaBopKa MapHIIKOBI1Ii, .ll:paraHa Mapl1HKOBl1ti
J£ZIK MLADIH U SKANDINAVIJI ISREDSTVA
A<fJEKTHBHOCT JE3H4KOr H3PA3A 60PHCABA CTAHKOBHllA
SAVREMENE KOMUNIKACIJE
_.n
?~-
Y KOHTEKCTY KOMYHHKAUHJE CA 4HTAOUEM
(llHHrBOCTHllHCTH4KH nPHCTyn) ................................................................ 386

MI1J1I1Ha I1BaHOBl1n-6apl1wl1ti

KOMYHI1KAUI1JA SMS nOPYKAMA - ETHOllOWKI1 ACnEKT

247 HeHaLl HBaHoBwl, TaTjaHa pY)l(I1I1-HBaHoBHti

KPHllATHUE Y .ll:PAMCKHM .ll:EllHMA .ll:YWAHA KOBNIEBHllA

Halla TOLlOPOB, ApTea naHajoTOBl1ti

H IbHXOBA ynOTPE6A Y KOMYHHKATHBHOM

CTABOBI1 CTY.ll:EHATA AHrlll1CTI1KE 11 CP6l1CTl1KE

.ll:HCKYPCY CABPEMEHor cpnCKor JE3HKA 396

nPEMA CMC nOPYKAMA KAO BI1.ll:Y KOMYHI1KAUI1JE

258
Branislav Stevanovic

IV.' . SOCIJALNA OGRANICENJA DEMOKRATSKE KOMUNIKACIJE 409.

DISKURSNE SPECIFICNOSTf I KONTEKSTUALNI UTfCAJI

Marija Vujovic

U KOMUNIKACIJI

PROPAGANDA I MEDIJI U SLUZBI NACIZMA 421

Vesna Bulatovic
npeLlpar MyTaBUl1ti

KOMUNIKACIJA IZVJESTAJIMA 0 NAPRETKU ZEMALJA

CABPEMEHH rp4KH KAO ME.ll:HJYM KOMYHHUHPAI-bA

PRETENDENATA NA CLANSTVO U EVROPSKOJ UNIJI 272

Y EBPonH 11 HA 6AllKAHY 432
Nadezda Sila~ki, Tatjana Durovic
Maja Andrijevic, Andelka Pejovic
COMMUNICATION WITH THE ELECTORATE-ANIMATE AND INANIMATE
ELEMENTI NEVERBALNE KOMUNlKACIJE U JEZIKU:
METAPHORS IN ZORAN DINDIC'S SPEECHES AND INTERVIEWS 284 VEZA IZMEDU KINEZIKE I FRAZEOLOGIJE 442
Milica Radulovic
Vladimir Z. Jovanovic
KOMUNIKATIVNA FUNKCIJA NASLOVA NOVINSKIH CLANAKA
EMBLEMATIC ELEMENTS OF NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
U SVETLU TEORIJE RELEVANCIJE 294 WITH ENGLISH AND SERBIAN SPEAKERS 452
Dubravka Vlahovic
Jelica Tosic
COMMUNICATION IN THE CULTURE OF THE DEAF ....................................... 474
"GREEN WASHING" IN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 605
V Predrag Novakov
KOMUNIKACIJA U PRAKSI- NASTAVA JEZIKA, PREVODENJE, PREVODENJE, KOD I "BUKA" U KOMUNIKACIONOM KANALU 613
JEZIK STRUKE. BILINGVIZAM
BHOJleTa [JOHMli
Milica Savic KOMYHI1KATI1BHE JIAKYHE (HA flJIAHY PYCKE 11 CPflCKE
WHO COULD THEY BE TALKING TO? ADVANCED SERBIAN KOMYHI1KATI1BHE KYJITYPE 11 JE3I1KA) p25
EFL LEARNERS' METAPRAGMATIC AWARENESS ..................................... :..... 485
Ivana Kostic
Jovana Dimitrijevic Savic, Marta Dimitrijevic, Jelena Danilovic: PREVOD ENGLESKIH VICEVA NA SRPSKI 634
MITIGATING REQUESTS IN ENGLISH: WHAT DO SERBIAN LJ LEARNERS
Ana
KNOW AND WHAT DO THEY NEED TO LEARN? ............................................. 499
TJUDORI MEDU NAMA-TRANZITIVNOST INFORMACIJA
CaBKa 6JlarojeBMrl, Mapnja CTojKoBHn KROZ ANALIZU PREVODA 645 .
KOMYHI1KATI1BHI1l1PI1CTYfl Y HACTABI1 EHrJIECKOr JE311KA 3A
Natasa Jovanov, Marica Jelic
flOCE6HE CBPXE HA YHI1BEP311TETCKOM HI1BOY: TEOPI1JA 11 flPAKCA... 509
SMETNJE U KOMUNIKACIJI (INTERFERENCIJA GRCKOG ti SRPSKI):
Danijela Dorovic, Katarina Zavisin KOMPARATIVNAANALIZA IZMEDU DVOJEZICNE DECE I STUDENATA
ZNACAJ KOGNITIVNIH AKADEM3KIH JEZICKIH VESTINA (CALP) SRPSKOG KAO L2 656
ZA AKADEMSKU KOMUNIKACIJU NA STRANOM JEZIKU 519
Alessandra Genoyesi-Bogicevic
Jankovic, Milena Kostic MARKIRANOST KODA KAO SIGNAL NEUSAGLASENOSTI
POP CULTURE IN EFL TEACHING: ENHANCING CLASSROOM U KOMUNIKACIJI BILlNGVALACA: STUDIJA SLUCAJA 668
COMMUNICATION 535
6paHKa MMJleHKOBHn
(flPE)fl03HABAI-bE KOMYHI1KATI1BHI1X EJlEMEHATA
fll1CAHOr .ll:I1CKYPCA HA U2 HI1BOY Y OKBI1PY OCHOBHI1X
AKA.ll:EMCKI1X CTY.ll:I1JA ...................................................................................... 545
Tijana J. Dabic, Radmila R. Suzic
KOMUNIKACIJA IZMEDU PROFESORA I STUDENATA .................................... 555
Sanja Vuletic
RAZVIJANJE VESTINA KOMUNIKACIJE U NASTAVI ENGLESKOG
KAO JEZIKA STRUKE U MEDICINSKIM SKOLAMA ......................................... 564
Enisa Nikolic
ULOGA PREVODENJA U KOMUNIKATIVNO ORIJENTISANOJ
NASTAVI STRANOG JEZIKA STRUKE 575
Miljana Stojkovic
UPOTREBA SIMULACIJA U PRIPREMI STUDENATA ZA POSLOVNO
KOMUNICIRANJE NA STRANOM JEZIKU 582
Solzica Popovska
WHAT IS COMMUNICATED BY ESP? ................................................................... 589
Sofija Micic
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ENGLISH-SPEAKING
AND SERBIAN DOCTORS ..................................................................... 596
 Jezik, knjizevnost, komunikacija Jezicka istrazivanja

to da preuredivanje recnicnih elemenata uvek ima uticaja na komunikaciju, ponekad UDC 81'
menjajuci sarno infonnacijsKu strukturu recenice, a u nekim slucajevima i njenu 81 '367
semantiku, sto dovodi u pitanje opravdanost postojanja A'-pokretljivosti strukture u Vladan Pavlovic
srpskom jeziku, kao pojave odelite od tematizacije i fokalizacije i govori u prilog analizi
University ofNis
u kojoj upravo komunikacija, odn. komunikativna namera govomika, oblikuje recenicu i
. Faculty of Philosophy
utice na njeno tumacenje.

halupka.resetar@tf.uns.ac.rs
THE IMPORTANCE OF SYNTACTIC CONSTRUCTIONS

IN COMMUNICATING MEANING - THE VIEW TAKEN BY

CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR

Abstract: The paper first briefly presents the basic tenets of A. Goldberg's Construction
Grammar, as one of the theories developing within the cognitive linguistic approach to
the grammaticaiievel of language structure. It thereby especially focuses on those notions
}' put forward by the given theory that may support its claim that syntactic constructions are
indispensible in communicating meaning, such as the notion that constructions (including
the syntactic ones) are to be treated as symbol~ (pairings of fonn and meaning) and that
they themselves can potentially serve as the semantic centre of a sentence and carry
meaning in and of themselves irrespective of the actual words I word groups that may
appear in them as arguments. All of this is illustrated not only by the construction types
typically cited in the relevant literature in the construction grammar theory, but also by
several construction types in Serbian.
Key words: construction grammar, constructions, symbols.

I. Introduction
1.1 The Goals of the Paper
The goals of this paper are: I) to briefly present the basic tenets of A.
Goldberg's construction grammar, 2) to briefly present the examples from English
that substantiate the given theory, 3) to present and discuss some examples from
Serbian in view of the given theory, 4) to draw the relevant conclusions, along with
their pedagogical implications.

1.2. The Theoretical Background

Construction grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006; lackendoff 1997; Goldberg!
Jackendoff 2002; Ostman I Fried 2005, Trousdale I Gisbome 2008) is one of the
. theories developing within cognitive grammar, i.e. the cognitive-linguistic approach
the grammatical level of language structure, some of the other theories within
the same approach being: I) Unification Construction Grammar (Fillmore,
O'Connor); 2) Cognitive Grammar (Langacker), and 3) Radical Construction
lTrnmmar (Croft).
As should be evident from the very name of the given theory (construction
grammar), the notion of construction occupies an important place in it. In that

148 149
 Jezik, knjizevnost, komunikacija 0 Jezicka istrazivanja
sense, this theory defines constructions as symbols - pairings of form (syntactic,
morphological, phonetic form) and content (semantic / pragmatic meaning).
The theory argues that constructions vary along tvvo lines. First, they can
show variations in structural complexity, with morphemes being the smallest
linguistic symbols (or constructions) and polymorphemic words, phrases, clauses
and sentences getting progressively more complex constructions structurally. Yet,
another line along which constructiQns can be said to vary is defined by the poles
of substantivity / schematicity. Namely, individual constructions as lingusitic
symbols can be completely substantivized or lexically filled (~g. It takes one to know
one), completely schematized, i.e. lexically empty (eg. Nl V N2), or somewhere
inbetween (The X-er. the Y-er). In other words, construction grammar takes the view
that language systems can be viewed as a continuum of symbolic structures along
which different constructions can be distributed between the two given pairs of
poles (atomicity / complexity, substantity / schematicity). In'that sense, the given
theory can be said to try to approach the totality of language without giving greater
.. sign~ficance to any of the linguistic levels (such as the morphological, syntactic or
semantic ones). . ones, such as the verb to sleep. This and a ra~gt:: .C?f other similar examples that
In addition, from this it follows that all constructions, including the completely
schematized ones carry meaning in and of themselves, for which we will provide
several examples here.
For instance, a construction such as N 1 V N2 N3 (as in John gave Mary an apple)
can be said to carry meaning that can be represented as X causes Y to receive Z.
A construction such as Nl V temporal NP away (He slept the afternoon away,
We're twistin ' the night away) can be taken to mean the following: X spends time
frivolously doing Y.
The construction Nl V Xs way PP can be taken to have at least two related
senses: X moves despite some external difficulty, as in In some cases, passengers
tried to fight their way through smoke-choked hallways to get back to their cabins
to get safety jackets, She drank her way through a case ofvodka, -as well as X moves
towards a goal using illegal, immoral, or other socially unacceptable means, which
can be exemplified by the following sentence: He wanted to trick his way into your
house to see what he could steal. . " ",erb participant roles, role contribution,fusion, the principle ofsemantic coherence,
The construction Nl V N2 ADJ, as in We talked ourselves hoarse, catching up
on all the news, I was tied up, but managed to work myselffree, He talked himself
blue in the face, Water filled the tub half-full, The sun has baked the ground hard can
be said to express resultative meaning, i.e. to have meaning that can be expressed
as X causes Y to become Z, in which sense it can be referred to as the resultative
construction (the presented formal construction type can obviously also have the
static interpretation as in: I want my coffee strong).
One of the meanings of the construction of the following type - N 1 V N2
AD V can potentially be X causes Y to go in a particular direction, physically or
metaphorically, in which sense it can be labelled the caused motion construction.
We can cite the following examples for it: I talked him out of his depression, The
150
Vladan Pavlovic
audience laughed the poor guy offthe stage, She sneezed the napkin offthe table, In
the last Star Trek episode, there was a woman who could trick people into a different
galaxy..
An additional tenet of construction grammar that is especially important for
this paper emerges from what has just been said. Namely, this theory stresses that, in
effect, a construction can often function as the semantic head of the sentence. In order
to clarify this, let us consider one example - the construction N V temporal NP away
(as in He slept the afternoon away, We punk-rocked the night away, and the like),
also known as the time-away construction (Jackendoff, 199.7). The given (partly
lexicalized and partly schematized) construction can also be said to carry meaning
which can be represented as follows: the subject referent, ususally wastefully, spends
time doing something. In that sense, all the concrete iristantiations of this construction
will have this meaning regardless of the verb that gets incorporated into it.
In addition to this, as one of the above examples shows, the verbs that can
be used in this complex-transitive construction (a contruction type that requires an
object and an object complement) can also be those typically considered intransitive
construction grammar explores (such as I talked him out ofhis depression, We talked
ourselves hoarse, catching up on all the news, I was tied UP," but managed to work
mvselffree, I read him to sleep, and the like) imply that constructions themselves are
capable ofcontributing meaning not present in the individual words found in them,
i.e. that sentence argument structure need not always be determined by the main
verb - as contemporary grammars say, but sometimes (partly) by the construction
itself. In other words, construction grammar abandons the rigid view, to be found,
for example, in structuralism or generative grammar, that the verb alone determines
the complement structure of the verb phrase, as well "as the overall structure of the
sentence in which it appears.
Yet another theoretical standpoint ofconstruction grammar is the one pertaining
to the mechanisms of interaction between syntactic constructions and the verbs that
'.lppear in them. In order to explore the given kind of interaction, the linguists dealing
with construction grammar rely on the concepts such as "construction argument roles,
t~e principle ofcorrespondence, motivation, the principle ofno-synonymy and some
"i.>thers (e.g. see Goldberg, 1995).
For limitations of space, in this paper we cannot possibly explain all of these
~e.rms but will only briefly focus on only one of them, namely the principle of no­
synonymy, as it is important for our purposes in this paper. In that sense, the given
can be stated in the following way: if two constructions are syntactically
they must be semantically or pragmatically distinct. For example, the
entences such as John gave an apple to Mary and John gave Mary an apple are
quite similar in meaning. Still, the difference in the actual syntactic form
two (the fact that the order, and in one case also the form, of the two objects
'different in one as opposed to the other example) signals the actual difference in
151
!
'i
"i'
,i
Jezik, knjiZevnost, komunjka~ija ~. Jezicka istraiivanja
~------------------
meaning. Namely, whereas the focus in the former example is on the direct object, in
the latter it is on the indirect object.
I
1
2. Analysis and discussion - examples from Serbian
Four groups of examples coming form Serbian will be briefly discussed here:
a) possessive adj + N vs N + possessive genitive (uciteljev glas vs glas uCitelja,
sudijina staloienost vs staloienost sudi/e),
b) ellipsis of the refelexive pronoun se in Serbian reply sentences (in spoken
language), as in the following short discourse: A: Nije moguce - kaje se? - B: Ka/e,
c) the structures with verbs with alternative complementation types, e.g. cekati
nekoga vs cekati !1Q nekoga, zaboraviti nesto vs zaboraviti na nesto,
d) several structures where the (obligatory or optional) negative fOrnl does
not have a (proper) negativ,e me~ing (also partly dealt with in Pavlovic, 2009), e.g.
Telekom nece bili prodat ((sve) dotle) dok/dokle (god) savetnit;:i tako ne kaiu,
As indicated above, we will first focus on the pair of structures possessive
adjective + N as opposed to N + possessive genitive, in the discussion of which we
will primarily focus on Ivic, 1995:206-216.
In that sense, let us first biefly consider the following pairs of examples:
sudijina staloienost vs staloienost sudije; Cim smo culi ucite/jev glas, utisali smo
se vs C:lm cu/u glas ucitel;a. deca se po pravilu utiSaju; Teodorakisova supruga vs
supruga [slavnog pevaca] Teodorakisa; kolegina pomoc vs pomoc kolege; sudijina
staloienost vs staloienost sudUe, and the like.
According to the source cited above, the N in the possessive adjective + N
structure (exemplified by the first example in each of the given pairs) refers to a
concrete individual, and what is emphasized by the whole given construction is the
speaker's emotional stance towards N's referent. As opposed to that, the N in the N
+ the possessive genitive construction (exemplified by the second example in each
of the given pairs), refers to an individual as a representative of a class. The given.
structure can be used when speakers want to be objective' and emotionally detached
from N, i.e. when they want to leave the private aspect of the N's referent out of the
picture (in the discussion of the given examples, Ivic in the given source primarily
focuses on the following paper - Kuno, S. and E. Kaburaki (1977): Empathy
and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 8, 4, p. 627-672, in which the given authors
introduce the notion of empathy-induced grammatical phenomena and the concept
of the camera angle).
Yet another structure that we would like to briefly discuss here is the one­
with the ellipsis of the refelexive pronoun se in Serbian reply sentences (in spoken
language), relying thereby on primarily on Ivic, 2000: 105-118.
It can be exeplified by the following short discourses: A: Nije moguce _ kaje
se? - B: Kaje; A: To se ne sme raditi. - B: Sme! Eto ja probala, pa sam, kao sto vidis,
jos iiva; A: On se, kaiu, onesvestio. - B: Qnesvestio?! Ma kojeS/a!; A: On se tll
152
Vladan Pavlovic
prevario. - B: I prevario. i istrosio, i pred njom izbrukao... Grozno!; A: Ma nemo/ da
pricas! On se od droge izleCio?! - B: lzleCio.
As. it can be seen for the given examples, the given structure can be used
when reacting to somebody's statement or question (especially the one with which
the speaker aims to check the validity of something rather than simply ask for
information), and when that is done in an emotionally highly-charged way, lio that
the speaker can confiml or deny what has been said. So in such cases the reflexive
pronoun se gets dropped (for details see the above reference).
The third structure to be briefly discussed here (primari[y on the basis of Ivic,
2002:[ 15 -121) is the one where a verb can be used in alternative complementation types,
in the given case those where it is followed by a direct object, on the one hand, and a
preposition followed by an object, on the other hand (for limitations of space, here we
will briefly discuss only such structures in which the verbs t5ekati and zaboraviti appear).
Let us, in that sense, first consider the pair of examples Cekamo Peru i Cekamo
na Peru. The former sentence (in which the verb cekati is used with the direct'object
immediately following it) can be said to be a suitable answer to the question s.uc,h as
Koga cekate? On the oter hand, the latter one (in which the same verb is followed
by a prepositional phrase) can be said to be a fitting answer to a question such as
Sta,ios ste tu; zasto? Kako to dajoJ niste krenuli? In other words, the use of the
preposition seems to indicate that the focus here is unexpected, unforseeable length
of waiting, for which the subject referent is held responsible, i.e. that such structure
can introduce new and usually more opaque information, all of which is missin~ in
the former example (cf. also Dugo smo ga cekali and Dugo sma na njega cekali).
Something similar can be said of the follwing pair of examples: Zaboravio
sam kljuceve and Zaboravio sam na kljuceve. Namely, whereas the former sentence
can be taken to simply mean I have forgotten to bring the keys along, the latter one
implies something along these lines: I have forgotten to go to Pera:S to get the keys,
or I have forgotten that I have agreed with my neighbours to leave the keys with
them, or I have forgotten to give the keys back to Pera, and the like. In other words;
this example implies that the speaker is talking about a preplanned activity, all··of
which, once again, stresses the importance of the 'mental stance',
The last structure that we will focus on here is the one where the (obligatory
or optional) negative form does not have a proper negative meaning. As we have
previously dealt with that structure in greater detail (see Pavlovic, 2009), here we
will present just a brief outline of it, and point to the ways it can be appraoched form
the theoretical framework offered by construction grammar.
The structure we have in mind is the following one: (dot/e I sve dot/e) dok (god)
I dokle (god) (subject) predication in the negative form, i.e. a temporal (adverbial)
clause) as an adverbial constituent of a superordinate clause or of another (nomina[,
relative or adverbial) subordinate clause, which contains an obligatory or optional
negative form that has no proper negative meaning, as in the following examples:
Cekaj me dok ne dot/em, Molimo ne pusite dok avion ne poleli, Nosim je i ljuijuJkam
dok ne zaspi, Znam da treba da mutim dok se say secer ne istopi, and the like.
153
 Jezik, knjizevnost, komunikacija Q Jezicka istrazivanja
Some of the syntactic properties of the given structure (including the larger
structures in which it appears as a subordinate one) can be represented in the
following way.
[a) {imperfective predication + [((dotle I sve dotle) dok I dokle optional
negative perfective predication}), as in Nastavljamo nasu ofanzivu na pojas Gaze
((sve) dotle) dok (ne) postignemo utvraene ciljeve,
I b) {imperfective predication + [((dotle I sve dotle) dokldokle obligatory
negative peifective predication}), as in Snage u Avganistanu ostaju ((sve) dotle) dok
neprijatelj ne bude poraien J
2a) peifective predication' + [((dotle I sve dot/e) dok (god)ldokle (god) optional
negative perfective predication}), as in Odloiili smo pradaju dok Fijat ne uplati 200
miliona evra,
2b) {peifective predicafion + [((dotle I sve dotle) dokldokle (god) obligatory
negative peifeclive predication}), as in Telekom nece bili prodat ((sve) dotle) dokl
dokle (god) savetnici tako ne kaiu.
As far as the use of this structure is concerned, it can appear when the speaker
.wants to emphasize the completion of the action or state denoted by the subordinate
clause (by which time the action denoted by the main clause continues (as in la and
Ib), or also gets completed (as in 2a and 2b) (for the rules governing whether the
negative form is obligatory or not, the reader is referred to the last mentioned paper).
Some similar Serbian structures in which the negative form, no matter whether
it is obligatory or not, does not have any proper negative meaning, are the follwing
ones:
kol stalkudalgdelkakolkadaleegasve ne(cf. RSANU, 1989:668), which
is used to emphasize the quantity of something and in which the negative
form is obligatory, as in TraieCi lek, putovali su u Bee, Pariz, London, kuda
sve ne, Pokusao je, kako sve ne, da ispravi greiku,
- ko I sta etc. (subject) negative VP (cf. RSJMS, 2007:806), which is used to
emphasize one's surprise at something and in which the negative form is
mostly optional, as in Ko se sve danas ne bogati!, Sta sve oni ne izmisle I Sta
sve nei:e da iZ,,!isle!,
- sarno sto negative VP, which is used to emphasize the fact that a particular
action is bound to get completed soon, and in which the negative form is
obligatory, as in Sarno sto nije stigao!,
- ne + the conditional ofthe verb bili + Ii (RSANU, 1989:668), which is used
in adverbial clauses of purpose to express uncertainty with respect to the
completion of the action denoted by the verb in the subordordinate clause,
as in Sve su pokuiali ne bi Ii naSI; naCin da... , as well as in reported yes / no
questions to express recommendation or wish for somebody to do something,
as in Upitao je X ne (reba Ii sto; in both cases the negative form is obligatory.
154
Vladan Pavlovic
3, Conclusions
On the basis of what we have said above so far, the following conclusions can
be drawn.
First of all, all the given structures can be considered to be constructions from
the point of view of construction grammar, i.e. to be pairings of form and meaning.
[n addition, they can be considered to be possible semantic centres of sentences, i.e.
to carry meaning in and of themselves, independent of the actual words that appear
in them. As it could also be seen, they can be said to have clear communicative
functions (so that their existence is not arbitrary and ad hoc), and not to be mere
amalgamations ·6f.m~anif\gs of individual words. For example, the word ne in them
(and the negative form in general) has no (proper) negative meaning (see once
again: Telekom nece biti pradat dok savetnici tako ne kaiu). Namely, that particular
. I~xical element gets contributed by the construction itself according to the relevant
principles postulated by cOnstruction grammar and signals a particular meaning (also
compare once again the pairs of examples such as uCiteljev glas and glas uCitelja,
eekati nekoga.and··tekati na nekoga, and the like) .
Secondly, we would also like to point to the importance of the presented
examples in foreign language teaching. In that sense, we would first like to focus
on the cases where a foreigner studies Serbian. Namely, in that sense, it would be
useful to' point the students' / learners' attention to the fact that the choice of the
construction tipe may affect and should suit the intended meaning. For example, the
verbs usually appearing with the reflexive pronoun are sometimes used without that
pronoun for communicative purposes, which were addressed above.
If that is not done, the actual utterance can sometimes be rendered not fully
acceptable, as in this short discourse: A: To se ne sme raditi. - B: ?Sme set Eta ja
probala, pa sam, kao sto vidis, jos iiva. In addition, the students' / the leamers'
attention can be directed to the fact that th~ choice of one verb complementation type
over another can signal difference in meaning, as should be clear from tne pair of
examples such as Zabor(1Vio sam kljueeve and Zaboravio sam na kljueeve. Still-more,
as it could be seen, 'in Serbian there can appear (obligatory or optional) negative
form in adverbial clauses and elsewhere, despite the fact that it need not have any
proper negative meaning but is an integral part of the construction (and may signal
completion of an action). In that sense, if an English speaking person would like to
render a sentence such as The US forces will stay in Afganistan until the enemy has
been defeated, they should be warned that in Serbian the obligatory negativeform
should be used in the adverbial clause, despite the fact that no negative form appearas
in the original sentence (compare Americke snage ce ostati u Avganistanu (sve dotle)
dok neprijatelj ne bude poraien and *Americke snage ce ostali u Avganistanu (sve
dotle) dok neprijatelj bude poraien).
As far as the cases where a native speaker ofSerbian studies a foreign language
are concerned, we can say the following. Namely, it would be quite useful to, for
example, discuss with students / pupils whether the different nuances of meaning
155
 Jezik. knjizevnost, komunikacija 0 Jezicka istrazivanja Vladan Pavlovic

that the choice of one construction type over another may imply can be rendered Vladan Pavlovic
(if at all) in the given foreign language and what grammatical tools can be used
thereby. In that sense, the students' attention can be pointed to the fact that the ZNACAJ SINTAKSICKIH KONSTRUKCIJA U KOMUNIKACIJI

meaning implied by one construction type may be rendered in a foreign language ZNACENJA - POGLED IZ UGLA KONSTRUKCIONE

using another construction type. For example, as we hiwe seen, the completion of GRAMATIKE

an action in English can be rendered by using the perfective aspect, without the
negative fonn - compare .once again Americke snage ce os/ali u Avganistanu sve Rezime
dotle dok neprijatelj ne bude poraien, on the one hand, and The US Forces will stay
in Afg(;mistan until the enemy has been defeatea (is defeated) (*hasn 1 been defeated U radu je ukratko predstavljena konstrukciona gramatika Adele Goldberg, kao jedna od
teorija koja se razvija u okviru kognitivno-lingvisti~kog pristupa gramatickom nivou
I *is not defeated), on the other hand.
jezi~ke strukture. Tom prilikom,.rad se n(!rocito zadrzao na onim postavkama date teorije
In view of everything said above, we hope to have shown that construction
kojima se potencira stav dasu sintaksickekonstrukcije od sustinske vafnosti u komunikaciji
grammar, sketched here only rudimeritarily, can be said to be a viable theoretical Zllacenja, u smislu, pored ostalog, da ih treba pbsmatrati kao simbole (odnosno uparivanja
approach and to have equally worthwhile applied aspects. oblika i zna~enja);kao i da same konstrukcije mogu biti semanticki centar re~enice i
da nose znacenje bez obzira na konkretne reci koje se u njima javljaju. Ovo se potom
ilustruje ne sarno primerima tipova konstrukcija koje se navode u relavantnoj literaturi iz
.1'
References oblasti konstrukcione gramatike ve.t. i tipovima konstrukcija iz srpskog jezika. Na kraju
rada izvode se odgovarajuci zakljucci, ukljucujuci i one u vezi sa pedagoskim znacajem
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument • predstavljene analize.
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
vladanp2@gmail.com
Goldberg, Adele and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The Resultatives as a Family of Constructions.
Language 80(3).
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature o/Generalization in Language.
New York: Oxford UniVersity Press Inc.
[vic, Milka. 1995. 0 zelenom konju - novi lingvisticki ogledi. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek
I Siavograf.
lvic, Milka. 2000. Lingvisticki ogledi. tri. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek I Cigoja stampa.
[vic, Milka. 2002. Red reCi - Lingvisticki ogledi, eetiri. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vekl Cigoja
starnpa.
Jackendoff, Ray 1997. Twistin' the Night Away. Language, 73: 534-559.
Ostman, Jan-Ola and Miriam Fried, eds. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding
and Theoretical Extensions. AmsterdamlPhiladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Pavlovic, Vladan. 2009. "Cekaj me dok ne dodem" - konstrukciona grarnatika ijedan slu~aj
kada konstrukcija sa ne u srpskom jeziku nema (pravo) negativno znacenje. Primenjena
lingvistika, 10: 129-140.
Recnik srpskoga jezika. 2007. Novi Sad: Madca Srpska.
Reenik srpskohrvatskog knjiievnog i narodnog jezika. 1989. Beograd: SANU, lnstitut za
srpskohrvatski jezik. knj. XIV.
Trousdale, Graeme and Nikolas Gisbome, eds. 2008. Constructional Appraches to English
Grammar. Berlin I New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

156 157
....

 .J'

CIP· KaTallOrfnauHja y ny611HKflUHjH

HapolUla 6HOllHOT<!Ka Cp6Hje, beorpall

81'27(082)
81 '23(082)
8209(082)
82.0(082)
JEZIK, knjizevnost, komunikacija :
zbornik radova. Jaicka iSlrazivanja /
ur~dnic~ Biljana Misic llie. Vesna Lopicic. -
Ni~ : Filozofski fakultet. 2012 (Ni~ : Scero
print). - 682 Slr. : 24 COl
Tekst Cir. i jat. - Radovi 113 srp. i eng\.
jeziku. - Tiraz 200. - Sir. 11-29: Uvod /
Biljana MiSic [lie i Vesna Lopicic. -
Napomene i bibJiografske reference uz leks!.
- Bibliografija uz svaki rad. - Surnmeries;
Rezime.
ISBN 978-86-7379-241-5
\. I1onH'iHn. BecH3 (ypellHI1K) [ayTOp llO.llaTHOr
TeKcTa12. MHwHn Hlll1h, bl1Jl,aHa [ypeilHHK!
[ayTOp ilO.llaTlIOr TeKcTu)
a) Je3HK - KOMYHI1KUTI1BHa QJYIlKUl1ja ­
36opllHUl1 h) COUI1011HHrBI1CTI1KU - 36oPHl1UH
c)KIh!1)KeSHOCT - nOeTI1Ka - 360PHHUH
d) Ko~mapaTl1BHa Klhl1lKeBHOCT - 360pHHUH
COBISS.SR-ID 190409740