UPPSALA UNIVERSITY - Index of - Uppsala universitet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51Journal of Slavic Languages and Literaturesjuncture in the research on Bulgarian syntax. In several works (Bajčev & Videnov1988:219–245; Angelova 1988a, 1988b; Likomanova 1996; Ničeva 1985; Yosifova1987, 1999; Barakova 2003 etc.), the ultimate goal is to determine the differences inthe syntactic parameters between spoken and written Bulgarian; however, theemphasis is only on spoken samples. The differences are interpreted in terms offrequency, in that the spoken language is spontaneous, contextual and produced in realtime. The spoken language is thus characterized as containing more elicitation ofverbal and nominal components in mono-predicative syntactic constructions, andshowing a preference for asyndetical chaining of syntactic elements in polypredicativeutterances 3 .The common denominator of the two approaches is the focus on only one of the twoforms of the language, either written or spoken, and on the frequency of syntacticstructures in either written or spoken form. Since the conclusions drawn in thosestudies are implicit to one of the two forms, this paper examines texts from both formsin parallel 4 .3. DataThe data, presented in Table 1, are divided into two groups: spoken and writtensamples. Each text sample is limited to approximately 1000 words. The sample size isdetermined by the desired confidence level and time interval, and by the volume of thetext. According to Woods, Fletcher and Hughes (1986:96–111), a confidence intervalof 3% is assumed, as well as a confidence level of 95% for a text 10, 000 words inlength.The spoken samples consist of face-to-face and telephone conversations betweenindividuals who know each other well, various types of media speech (TV talk shows,sport commentary, and radio discussions), and public speech (parliamentary debatesand political interviews). All the conversations take place in relatively casualsituations, such as conversation while doing daily household chores or dinnerconversations between friends or relatives, and are informal. The media and publicspeech texts are recordings from TV and radio broadcasts, political parliamentarydebates, and interviews. These are considered formal speech and, more importantly,presentations to or in front of an audience.3 The change in the focus of the research object also leads to a change in the terminology. For the syntactic unitsof spoken Bulgarian, “mono-predicative and poly-predicative constructions/utterances” (Bajčev&Videnov1988:277; Angelova‟s 1994:91) are suggested as corresponding terms for the traditional syntactic terms simpleand complex sentence.4 Among the research on Bulgarian syntax, studies on both spoken and written language are still rare, e.g. seeTiševa & Rå Hauge 2001, 2002; Leafgren 2004, 2007; Fielder 2008.118
Daniela AssenovaSpoken vs. Written or Dialogue vs. Non-Dialogue…SpokenNo. ofsamplesWrittenNo. ofsamplesConversationFace-to-face conversationTelephone conversationMedia talkTV-talk-showTV-sport-commentRadio discussionPublic talkParliamentary debatePolitical interview99463PlayFictionFiction dialogueFiction non-dialogJournalistic proseDaily newspapersWeekly magazinesAcademic proseArticlesBooks2375Total 36 Total 49Total spoken and written 8599946Table 1. The texts.The spoken samples were recorded between the years 2005–2008; the written sampleswere published after 2000. The limitation of the written texts to this period is based onthe assumption that it would be inappropriate to compare texts from a different timeperiod with contemporary speech.4. Spoken vs. written or dialogue vs. non-dialogue?For purposes of analysis, the texts in Table 1 can be classified according to twoparameters: (1) mode (written vs. spoken) and (2) text types (dialogue vs. nondialogue).A third parameter can be constructed by conjoining parameters (1) and (2).Parameter (3) allows for the identification of four mode/text types: (3a), writtendialogue (WD); (3b), written non-dialogue (WnD); (3c), spoken dialogue (SD); and(3d), spoken non-dialogue (SnD). The relationship among these four types isillustrated in Figure 1.WDSDWnDSnDFigure 1. The relation between the four discourse types.119
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 83: Никита МихайловО м
Page 86 and 87: Slovo (Uppsala), 2010, No. 51Journa
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?