UPPSALA UNIVERSITY - Index of - Uppsala universitet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51Journal of Slavic Languages and LiteraturesFigure 2. The frequency of V, N and PP in spoken and written texts.Figure 2 displays the differences in the frequency of V, N and PP, for the differentcategories, but it is difficult to make a general conclusion when the only distinction isthat of mode. Fictional dialogues and plays are different from the rest of the writtenmaterial in that they contain more Vs than Ns and considerably fewer PPs than the restof the written texts; similarly, TV commentaries, radio discussions, parliamentarydebates and political interviews differ from the rest of the spoken material, containingmore Ns than Vs.Figure 3. The frequency of V, N and PP in dialogue and non-dialogue.124
Daniela AssenovaSpoken vs. Written or Dialogue vs. Non-Dialogue…When the distinction is by text type, as in Figure 3, irrespective of written or spokenform, there is a strong correlation between the frequency of verbs vs. nouns. In nondialogue,there are considerably more Ns than Vs, whereas in dialogue the relation isreversed. A similar pattern is displayed in the frequency of PPs, which areconsiderably less frequent in dialogue. Since PPs can be related to both nominal andverbal elements, further analysis is necessary in order to determine to what extent thefrequency of PPs in dialogue is related to the frequency of Ns 8 .Figure 4. The frequency of V, N and PP with respect to mode and type.Figure 4 shows that the greatest differences lie between written dialogue (WD) andspoken non-dialogue (SnD), and between written non-dialogue (WnD) and spokendialogue (SD), respectively, i.e., when both mode and text type are different.5. DiscussionSo far the following four points can be made: (i) neither spoken nor written Bulgarianis homogeneous in respect to the frequency of Ns, Vs and PPs; (ii) the distinctionbetween dialogue and non-dialogue is significant for both forms of the language,because (iii) there is a correlation between the frequency of nominal vs. verbalelements and the dialogue vs. non-dialogue opposition, but not the spoken vs. writtenopposition; and, based on these observations, (iv) in order to be more meaningful,8 One complication, for example, is the classification of PPs with the preposition “на”, which in Bulgarian canfunction as (i) a possessive marker (as in Това е къщата на Иван/This is Ivan‟s house), (ii) a dative marker(Давам книгата на Иван/I am giving the book to Ivan) and (iii) a preposition in an adverbial (Иван стои наулицата/Ivan is standing on the street). In (i) the PP is a post-modifier in a NP, while in (ii) and (iii) it is anobject and an adverbial, respectively (i.e. an argument and an extension of the VP). It must be also consideredthat in respect to (ii), the preposition “на” is dropped when replacing the N with a short dative pronoun inBulgarian. Thus, relying on the quantitative analysis alone is not enough.125
Page 1 and 2:
UPPSALA UNIVERSITYlovoJournal of Sl
Page 3:
CONTENTSEDITORIAL: SLOVO ARAUND THE
Page 6 and 7:
Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51Journa
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 29 and 30:
Alexander I. Pereswetoff-MorathIsaa
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51, pp.
Page 37 and 38:
Juhani NuorluotoIzvori za prouĉava
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 71 and 72:
Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51, pp.
Page 73 and 74:
Никита МихайловО м
Page 75 and 76: Никита МихайловО м
Page 83: Никита МихайловО м
Page 86 and 87: Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51Journa
Page 97 and 98: Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51, pp.
Page 99 and 100: Карине Окерман Сар
Page 111 and 112: P. Ambrosiani, A. GranbergSlavonica
Page 113 and 114: P. Ambrosiani, A. GranbergSlavonica
Page 115: Stockholm, The Strindberg Museum (S
Page 133 and 134: Мария ЭнгстремАпоф
Page 145 and 146: Ingrid MaierRecension: Tore Nesset:
Page 151: Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51, pp.
show all

UPPSALA UNIVERSITY - Index of - Uppsala universitet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?