VI World Congress for Central and East European Studies, Tampere, Finland, July 2000 Liljana Mitkovska, Skopje,

Republic of Macedonia ON THE POSSESSIVE FUNCTION OF THE PREPOSITIONS NA AND OD IN STANDARD MACEDONIAN AND HOW THE SITUATION IN THE DIALECTS AFFECTS THE NORM

1. Introduction As the inherited Slavic case system in Balkan Slavic was transformed into an analytical one a number of prepositions became employed in grammatical functions. In Macedonian dialects the possessive function, in a broad sense, was taken over by two prepositions of different origin: na (on, upon) with the basic meaning of contact and/or support prevails in the eastern dialects and od (from) the basic meaning of which is ablative (distancing from) is a more common possessive preposition in the western dialects. It seems that the possessive na and od in the western dialects are synonymous and are used as free variations, while in the other dialects they are in complementary distribution (Z. Topolonjska 1997:136). In these dialects the preposition na is fully grammaticalised in the possessive function and all other shades of meaning have faded away. It expresses the static relationship between two entities, while in the meaning of the adnominally used od the dynamic ablative component originate/come from or is made of/by is still retained. What is the situation in the Macedonian standard? In the Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language (B.Koneski 1987:269&525) the author points out that possession is commonly expressed with na in the literary language, but he does not deny the possibility of using od even for possession in a more narrow sense (he does not define this term more precisely). However, in the literary language, although in a more limited amount, od can be used for possession, mainly with proper names, where there is no danger of confusion with its other meanings: Compare Majka mu od Dimcheta pisna. (Dimches mother screamed.) ... (Koneski 1987:525) Korubin (1969:66) is somewhat more precise in defining the situation: In expressing a possessive function sensu stricto, i.e. ownership, it would certainly not be right - I mean nowadays in the literary language - to depart unreasonably from the defined direction and to confuse the meanings of the prepositions na and od, because the former is characteristic for some of our dialects and the latter for others. From the development of our literary language so far, along the line of the already defined norm, it is clear that as a basic preposition for expressing possession the preposition na has been accepted and confirmed.

In the Syntax of the Macedonian Standard Language (MInova-Gurkova, 1994:109) examples with the prepositions na, od, so (with) and bez (without) are given for the relation of possession without any comments on their functional distribution. 2. The results of the questionnaire I conducted a questionnaire to investigate how much Macedonian speakers accept the preposition od in possessive function as a correct standard expression. I took into consideration the relations in which the possessor is a person (or in certain instances an animal). They could be classified in the following types of relations: 1. Part/ whole relationship in which the part represents a part of the body or a characteristic of the personality of a human being. 2. Family relations and other types of social relations between persons. 3. Ownership of things (in a broad sense). 4. Relationship of the subject or object of the nominalized predication and the nominalization. The questionnaire consists of sentences in which od constructions are used in the mentioned functions instead of na (which is common for the West Macedonian dialects). Apart from this, other dialectal features are also used. The respondents were asked to underline the words they do not accept as standard forms and to mark them with a question mark (?) if according to them they depart a little from the literary norm, and with an asterisk (*) if they depart a lot. Considering that the norm leaves some freedom, while in practice there are some clearly defined tendencies in one direction, I argue that a key factor in accepting the possessive od constructions as standard forms is the dialect the speakers are in a close contact with. Therefore the origin of the parents is taken as an important variable. The respondents were 76 students at the University of Skopje, coming from different parts of the country. The main aim of this survey was to investigate how the speakers of Macedonian view the preposition od in possessive functions in the standard use of the language. Being a Western Macedonian feature, with the central West-Macedonian dialects representing the base of the Macedonian standard, it was important to see how this fact affects the attitude od the respondents. On the other hand, it is of special significance to determine to what extent the acceptance (or rejection) of od in possessive function is due to systemic factors.
2

Two aspects of the preliminary thesis proved to be correct. 1. The responses of the students showed that od is not considered as a neutral standard form for expressing possession. The speakers in all groups regard it mainly as a dialectal feature. However, the speakers whose parents originate from the western part of Macedonia proved more tolerant, while those from Skopje were most critical. 2. All of the respondents identified the words containing other dialectal characteristics as more strongly marked as dialectal than the use of od in possessive function. The large majority of the respondents marked those forms, regardless whether they belong to the eastern or to the western dialects, with an asterisk, while od was marked variably (either with an asterisk, with a question mark or left unmarked as acceptable). This shows that the speakers are more tolerant towards the possessive od. The thesis that od would be less acceptable in the sentences expressing more formal contexts than in those closer to the colloquial style could not be proved everywhere. It seems that other important factors prevail. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the results of the survey. Looking at the final scores it is not possible to say that od is more acceptable as a standard form in one function than in the others, even though gross percentage of acceptability is higher with the ownership relation and the nominalizations than with the whole part and family relations. A detailed analysis of the situation within each function shows that the acceptance of possessive od as a standard feature depends on two factors: one is deep, semantic and the other one linear, concerning its surface realization. The closer the meaning of the possessive construction with od to the other components of this preposition (origin, source, cause) the more acceptable it sounds to the respondents. On the other hand, it is felt less as a dialectal feature if it appears imbedded in another prepositional phrase headed by the preposition na. Other authors (among them Koneski, 1987 and Korubin, 1990) have noticed that the replacement of na by od in possessive constructions is a common means of avoiding repetition of the preposition na, which is the most heavily functionally loaded preposition in Macedonian. The results in each functional group will be analyzed separately in order to investigate the factors that allowed better acceptance of the possessive od constructions as standard forms in some contexts.
3

1. In the sentences in which the relation part / whole is expressed (table 1), the respondents accept od as standard more readily if there is a preposition in front of the head of the possessive noun phrase, especially if it is the preposition na. For example the sentence containing the phrase na inteligencijata od decata (on the intelligence of the children) (example 6) was found acceptable by more speakers when compared to other sentences containing abstract possessed (such as habits, illness, birthday) and even more so than some with concrete possessed (eyes, knee). In the sentence containing the phrase pod glavata od deteto (under the head of the child) (example 2) the higher percentage of acceptance is probably due to the fact that in such constructions the part can be abstracted from the whole and then the implication originating/coming from can easily be brought up. This is also supported by similar constructions with a non-human possessor, such as pokrivot od/na kukjata (the roof of the house), vratata od/na sobata (the door of the room), koricata od/na knigata (the cover of the book), in which both na and od sound equally acceptable in all dialects, as well as in the standard. 2. The percentage of acceptability of the sentences containing expressions of relations between people (table 2) is similar to those with part/whole relations. Here, also, more respondents accepted the expressions with na preceding the head noun. This is especially pronounced with the speakers whose parents come from Western Macedonia. Speakers familiar with the eastern dialects do not accept od in such position more than in other contexts. For these speakers, in relations between people, od strongly suggests source, not family relations (for example: vnuk od brat (???), bratuched od tetka (???), Goce od Stojanovi (Goce from the family of Stojanovi)), and this can not be overridden even in structures with preceding na. A slightly higher percentage of acceptability in the case of the sentence with drugarchinjata od Vesna (Vesnas friends) (sentence 6) could be due to the style which suggests familiarity between the speakers. When the possessor is in plural, as in the example vodachot od narko dilerite (the leader of the drug dealers) (sentence 8), a greater percentage of acceptability was expected. In such cases the possessor could be conceived of as a group and in that case the associations of come from and part of easily arise. The sentences containing pretstavnichkata od OBSE (the representative of OSCE) and chlenovite od partijata (the members of the party) (not included in the table) are readily accepted as standard by all
4

speakers of Macedonian. It seems, however, that the context in the above example does not allow a dynamic interpretation. In a similar example with an animal as possessor (I potoa brakjata mu ja dale parata na carot od zmiite. - And then the brothers gave the coin to the king of the snakes.) (not included in the table) the acceptability percentage was much higher. One of the reasons is certainly the presence of na, but even more important could be the style, which reminds of fairy tales, while the regarded sentence (8) (Javija deka bil zaroben vodachot od narko dilerite. - It was announced that the leader of the drug dealers had been arrested.) is associated with the style of the modern media (newspapers, radio or TV news). 3. In ownership relations (table 3) there is a slight rise in acceptability. Again the highest percentage is attested in the sentences where the preposition na precedes the possessive phrase. That the presence of the preposition affects the acceptability of the possessive od as standard expression becomes very clear if we compare the sentences 3 and 4 (... na mestoto od Snezana. - ... at Snezanas place. and ... na masata od Prof. Tanevski. ... at Prof. Tanevskis desk.) with sentences 5 and 6 (kabinetot od Prof. Bogdanovski - ... Prof. Bogdanovskis office. and ... uchilishteto od sin mi... - my sons school), which express similar relations, but sound acceptable for fewer people. Apart from this, in many contexts expressing ownership the component of source can easily be foregrounded, especially if the situation implies distancing of some kind1. This could be the key for explaining the greater percentage of acceptability of sentence 1 (-Chija e ovaa kapa? - Od Bojan. Ja zaboravil vchera. -Whose is this cap? -Bojans. He has left it yesterday.). The answer reinterprets the question into Od kade ovaa kapa tuka? (Where does this cap come from?). In the piloting version of the questionnaire the question was Chija e ovaa kniga? (Whose is this book?) and the acceptability was even higher (32%). Since books are more often lent and given away the inference of distance is easier. In expressing ownership of creation2 both od and na are accepted in all dialects (noviot roman na/od Bozin Pavlovski - the new novel of/by Bozin Pavlovski) with difference in the focused component, which, nevertheless, does not impede communication. In fact, this is the point where the possessive na and the possessive od overlap. That is the reason why a high percentage of the respondents accepted sentence 9 (spotot od Anastasija

See in Topolinjska (1997:151) about the importance of the factor time in differentiating the possessive na and od constructions. 2 Sometimes called resultative possession (Stojanovic 1996).

- the video of Anastasia). They extended the meaning of creation to include performance and then od had no dialectal connotation. 4. With nominalizations (table 4) the prepositional phrase specifies one of the arguments of the nominalized verb. It could be either the subject or the object. If both arguments appear, the preposition na specifies the object and od the subject (urivanjeto na gradot od varvarite - the destruction of the city by the barbarians). This is common for all dialects. If only one participant is specified periphrastically, the preposition na is used with the object, while with the subject both na and od are possible. There may appear a small difference due to the different implications of these prepositions: being fully grammaticalized, na only expresses the grammatical relation, while in od a component of its basic meaning (originate/come from or is the source/cause of) could be more or less foregrounded. Still, this component does not bring about a considerable difference in the meaning of the construction, since the subject of the verb usually has the same function and depending on the context and other factors it could be neutralized. This was probably the reason why our respondents, more than in other context, accepted od as standard in this position (sentence 3, 4, 5 and 6). In sentence 4 (Ne mozeme da se navikneme na pesnite od decata vo sosedniot stan.- We cant get used to the childrens songs in the neighbouring flat.) the presence of the preposition na was an additional motivation. The acceptance of od when specifying the object of nominalization (in sentence 1, 2 and 7) was not expected. The speakers were probably affected by the fact that the object argument is a person. Contrary to this, one sentence with the object non-human (Nikoj ne me izvesti za promenata od vashiot broj. - No one informed me about the change of your number.) turned out to be totally unacceptable. The same was with sentence 8 (Fizichkoto kaznuvanje od decata vo nashite uchilishta ne e dozvoleno. - Corporal punishment of the pupils in our schools is not allowed.). Only 2 out of 75 speakers thought od was acceptable as a standard form. The reanalysis may have been more difficult here as it is a generalized predication not a concrete event. The respondents originating from Western Macedonia and those with mixed origin marked od with object of nominalization with an asterisk more often than od in other functions. This could be indicative of the distribution of the possessive od in West Macedonian dialects.

3. The use of od in Standard Macedonian In order to see if and to what extent the reaction of the respondents matches the actual situation a short analysis of the use of od in possessive functions in standard Macedonian was conducted. For this purpose we have considered literary texts, newspapers and magazines as well as the langiage of TV, radio and everyday communication.. It is obvious that na prevails in the possessive functions that were taken into account in the questionnaire. However, examples with od are encountered in some situations, which indicate certain tendencies. In literary texts, possessive od is used for the purpose of authenticity, just like the other dialectal features. In such contexts the author uses od and na as free variations. In everyday communication among speakers in Skopje, who tend to use colloquial standard, those originating from Western Macedonia (or having closer contacts with people from that region) sometimes use od for possession, usually in less formal situations. In neutral style possessive od constructions are most common in contexts with the preposition na (or, less frequently, with some other preposition). Examples with relations of ownership (examples 1 and 2), part/whole (examples 3 and 4) and subject of nominalization (examples 5 and 6) are often encountered. (1) Javi mi se na adresata od Aneta. (attested in conversation) Write to me at Anetas address (2) Kire i Sotir se javuvale na telefonot od nashata sosetka. (ON:124) Kire and Sotir have been phoning at the telephone number of our neighbout. (3) .... go vide nasmevot na liceto od gospodinot Modijano i ... (Izbor:24) ... he saw the smile on the face of Mr. Modijano and ... (4) Pravo sproti nego, nad glavata od mudurot, viseshe ... (Izbor:14) Right opposite him, above the head of the warden, ... (5) Ne naidovme na razbiranje od gradonachalnikot. (Vikend 28.11.98:7) We didnt come upon the understanding of the mayor. (6) Toa ne mozev da go napravam bez pomoshta od mojot producent. I couldnt do that without the help of my producer. (TV program) Only one example with relations between people (example 7) and one with object of nominalization (example 8) was found.
7

(7) Stojche vednash istrchuva da razglasi na drugarkite od Simka (Pe:246) Stojch immediately runs out to pass the news to the friends of Simka ... (8) ...shto ne mozev da otidam na pogrebot od mojot tatko. (Antena:7.4.2000:6) ... that I couldnt go to the funeral of my father. These facts match the reactions of the respondents to the questionnaire. The sentences in which preposition na precedes the possessive od phrase were accepted as standard by more speakers than the other examples. Other cases of possessive od constructions encountered in neutral style in standard Macedonian are specifications of subject of nominalization (examples 9-12), as well as in some other types of relations (examples 13-16) in which the implication originates/comes from is present together with the possessive one. There are contexts in which the former component is immediately inferred, but in some it is backgrounded and the possessive one is dominant. (9) Dali povekje bi sakala da go nemashe toj pritisok od javnosta. Would you like it better if that pressure of/by the public did not exist. (Antena,7.4.2000:33) (10) ... razgledavme nekoi zabeleshki od lugje shto se angazirani vo... ... we looked at some remarks of/by the people engaged in...(Korubin 1980:119) (11) Jas gi prifakjam sovetite od drugarot chuvar. (BP Drami:38) I accept the advice of/by comrade door-keeper. (12) Naokolu jachi kikotot od palavoto momiche. (Izbor:84) Around echos the laughter of/by the naughty girl. (13) Daj mi go kluchot od Mare. (attested in conversation) Give me the key of/from Mare (Mares key). (14) ..., drugi pak shpekuliraat deka se toa inicijalite od tatko mu ... ..., others speculate that those are the initials of his father... (Ekran,26.12.96:21) (15) Pronajdeno e i proshtalno pismo od otec Srekjko, ... (NM,8.10.97:4) A farewell letter of/by father Srekjko has also been found. (16) Od Damjan edna kukla, Ekshnmen, imam staveno, da gi plashi pticite. I have put a doll of/from Damjan, Actionman, to frighten the birds. (attested in conversation)
8

In these examples the od construction is a condensation of a clause or a phrase. So example 9 could be paraphrased as pritisokot shto doagja od javnosta - the pressure exerted/which comes from the public; example 16 as inicijalite od imeto na tatko mu - the initials of the name of his father. This meaning is still implied in the construction. However, in the context of the overall situation in the Macedonian language norm and usage, where on one hand there is a group of dialects in which the possessive function of od is grammaticalized, and on the other hand, for a large number of the rest of the speakers it is not an unknown or a feature strongly marked as dialectal, this component can easily be backgrounded leaving more space for the possessive component. Example (17) (heard by a speaker in Skopje, whose parents originate from Eastern Macedonia) is a good prove of that. In it, the od construction is in coordination with a possessive pronoun. (17) A: Mnogu e kontradiktoren. On zboruva edno, a drugite zboruvaat drugo i ne znae chovek shto da misli. (He is so contradictory. He says one thing and the others say something else. You dont know what to think.) B: Ne, on ne e kontradiktoren. Vo odnos na drugite mozebi e. (No,he is not himself contradictory. Maybe in comparison with the others.) A: Da, negovoto (kazuvanje) ne se podudara so toa od drugite. Yes, his (explanation) does not match that of the others. (attested in conversation) We are faced here with reinterpretation induced by some linguistic and extralinguistic factors which leads to ambiguity. It is very much possible that for some speakers one of the components is in focus while for others the other one is more important. However, the two meanings are so close, sometimes absolutely vague (the initials of the name of a person are that persons initials; a letter written by a person remains that persons letter) that this causes no problems in communication.3 `

5. Conclusion According to the results obtained from the survey and the analysis of the use of the prepositions od and na in standard Macedonian, it is obvious that despite the dominance of

This situation is similar to the first phase of the so called context induced reinterpretation described in Heine at al. 1991:71). It is a mechanism of grammaticalization, a process of turning lexical (or less grammatical) language elements into gramatical (or more grammatical) ones.

the preposition na in this function, the preposition od is a means that is always at the speakers disposal. First of all, it is available for avoiding repetition of the preposition na, which is the most frequently used preposition in Macedonian. This enables, by analogy, its use in similar contexts (with other prepositions, for example) and creates conditions for reanalysis. This process is certainly supported by the situation in the West-Macedonian dialects, which raises no negative implications, but the key factor is the semantic one, a factor which allows the differences to be ignored in certain contexts. References:
Heine, B, U. Claudi and F. Hnnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization, A Conceptual Framework. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Koneski, B. 1987. Koneski. B. Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. (Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language.) Skopje: Kultura Korubin, B. 1969. Korubin, B. Predlogot na i negovoto odbegnuvawe. (The preposition na and its avoidance.) In: Jazikot na{ dene{en, kniga 1. Skopje:Na{a kniga. 57-71. Korubin, B. 1990. Korubin, B. Upotrebata i zna~ewata na predlogot na vo sovremeniot makedonski jazik. (The use and meanings of the preposition na in contemporary Macedonian.) In: Na makedonsko gramati~ki temi. Skopje: Institut za makedonski jazik. 177-223. Minova-Gurkova, L. 1994. Minova-\urkova, L. Sintaksa na makedonskiot standarden

jazik.(Syntax of the Macedonian standard language.) Skopje:Rading.

Stojanovic, S. 1996. Binarne relacije posesije u engleskom i srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Beograd: Filoloki fakultet beogradskog universiteta Topolinjska, Z. 1997. Topoliwska Z. Makedonskite dijalekti vo Egejska Makedonija, kniga prva, Sintaksa II del. (Macedonian Dialects in the Aegean Part of Macedonia.) Skopje: MANU

Souces:
Antena - weekly TV magazin BP Drami - Pendovski, B. 1985. Pendovski B. Drami. Skopje: Na{a Kniga Ekran - wekly TV magazin Izbor - Stalev. G. (ed.) 1990. Stalev G. (ured.) Sovremeni makedonski raskazuva~i.

Izbor. Skopje: Detska radost idr.

10

NM - Nova Makedonija, daily newspaper ON - Nikolova, O. 1993. Nikolova, O. Preminot ne e osvetlen.Skopje: Detska radost Pe - Risto, K. 1976. Risto K. Pe~albari. In: Nanevski, D. (urednik). Makedonskata

drama me\u dvete svetski vojni, Kniga I, Skopje: Makedonska kniga.

Vikend - weekly entertainment magazin

11