Творба речи и миксоглотија : Прилози о суфиксацији у српском језику

WORD-FORMATION AND MIXOGLOSSIA
Studies on Suffixation in the Serb Language

This book originated out of an attempt to make an overview of a part of
the suffixal stock of Serb language within normally very complex processes
of Balkan interlinguistic ties and relations, for this occasion styled mixoglossia.
That is a topic much easier to open than to give satisfactory and generally
acceptable answers regarding many questions from its domain. Therefore, the
focus of the linguistic issues that I address in this book lies on the problem-
-oriented approach, which in itself entails many risks in every research of this
kind. A fuller elaboration of a number of questions is impossible, for example,
without a more fundamental knowledge of the general Balkan linguistic state,
but also without the so-called old Balkan ethnic and linguistic situation in relation
to which one also has to observe the ethnogenesis of particular Balkan
peoples with which the Serbs have had contacts since the ancient times. That
is the irrefutable relation between historical movements and linguistic facts
discussed by F. Saussure, for example. Many of the particular linguistic issues
are directly related to the chronology of interlinguistic contacts and migrational
routes (including the very matter of dating the Slavic presence in the Balkans),
and to the temporal and territorial scope of mediaeval ethnic movements, especially
towards the west of the Balkans, with the participation of a numerous
and diverse population (e.g. Romance, Slavic, etc.). The suffixes included in
this book have therefore been analysed in the light of complex interlinguistic
influences between the donor language and the recipient language, across a
wide range from positively foreign suffixes (i.e. suffixes of foreign origin, including
newer strata as well), via suffixes of insufficiently clear etymology, to
the domestic ones whose development could have been influenced by foreign
derivational morphemes. This study, however, excerpts a relatively modest suffixal
stock, although the number of suffixes that deserve this kind of research
is much higher.
The field of word-formation, as well as lexis as a whole, is of all the different
linguistic levels certainly at the forefront of mutual interlinguistic ties and
influences. In that sense, derivational morphemes, probably suffixal in the first
place, prove to be very dynamic derivational means which mutually exchange
and integrate in diverse types of linguistic contacts. When it comes to the presence
of foreign suffixes in the Serb language, it can be primarily attested by
their ability to bind to word stems of different origin, hence, by their ability to

take part in hybrid formations. The share of foreign suffixes in Serb language
can be analysed according to various criteria. From a diachronic perspective,
one can perceive a very wide spectrum of foreign derivational influences,
ranging from those inherited from as early as the Proto-Slavic period, which
have not been seen as foreign for a long time (e.g. the -ar suffix in the nomina
agentis category), via a number of subsequent influences, including an entire
group of Turkish suffixes (-čija / -džija, -lija, -luk, -ana, etc.) which marked
the Balkan linguistic area of the past centuries, to the newer strata, i.e. those
derivational means which use Europeanisms (internationalisms) to enter the
contemporary Serb language, primarily Standard language (-ant, -(a)tor, -er,
-izam, -(a/e-n)cija, -itet, -aža, etc.). The contemporary processes of the so-called
globalisation, dictated by the Western economic power, especially strengthen
and consolidate the last stratum, so for example, the English grammatical morpheme
-ing is on its way to become a derivational morpheme in Serb language
(cf. jahting, kamping, modeling). According to the contemporary distribution
criterion, foreign suffixes in Serb language could be classified into two basic
groups – generally distributed and medium distributed suffixes, into which
belong the majority of the above-mentioned suffixes (whether as a predominant
feature of the standard or vernacular language), and into the suffixes of more
or less local range, which in the standard language mostly have none or little
share. The latter group, for example, includes the collective -or, or -oš from
the nomina attributiva category, supposed to have Romanian and Hungarian
etymology respectively. Analysed according to parts of speech, foreign suffixes
most easily find their way into the noun system and they are most numerous
in this category. The verb system includes a small number of foreign suffixes
(-(d)isa, -osa, -ira), but especially the suffixes -(d)isa and -ira (the former of
Greco‑Turkish, and the latter of Latin-German origin) are widely represented
in Serb speeches, extending to the standard language as well. The foreign suffixes
demonstrate all the power of their influences in the derivational-semantic
categories in which they participate, for example, in the categories of nomina
abstracta (-ija, -ać, -luk, -izam, ‑(a/e-n)cija, -itet, -aža / -až, -(ij)ada), nomina
agentis (-ar, -čija / -džija, -ist(a), -ant, -(a)tor, -er), nomina attributiva (-ar,
-onja, -ać, -oš, -lija), nomina collectiva (-ar, -or, -ija, -ać, -luk), nomina loci
(-ar, -ać, -luk, -ana), and so on.
For a large number of suffixes, the researchers’ views diverge on their
origin, whether it concerns the fundamental question of the suffix being domestic
or foreign, or concerns the question what foreign stratum the suffix
belongs to. The reason for that seems to lie in the fact that in a number of cases
foreign suffixes are in way supported by the domestic derivational system,
which is sometimes expressed in formally and semantically close derivational
morphemes. It seems that those very coincidences also entail different interpretations
of particular suffixes’ origin. Hence the opposing opinions on the

origin of the noun suffixes -onja (of Romanian, Shqip / Slavic origin), -ać (of
Greek / Slavic), -ul(e) (of Romance / Slavic origin), etc., including a number
of suffixes that came from Turkish and achieved high productivity in Serb
language, but the same kind of support can also be attested for them in the
recipient language (cf. -čija / -džija : -(a)c-ija; -li(ja) : -ljiv). The simultaneous
complexity and delicacy of those derivational mechanisms is indicated
by the -če diminutive suffix, exceptionally productive in Eastern South Slavic
speeches (in all probability not coincidentally, exactly in the most Balkanised
ones), whose Slavic generic basis cannot be disputed, but it is possible that
its frequency in those speeches was facilitated through Turkish influences (cf.
modern Turkish diminutive suffix -ce / -çe / -ca / ‑ça). Processes like these did
not evade the field of proper name formation either.
Generally speaking, the formal similarity between the domestic and foreign
derivational morphemes (even between a foreign derivational morpheme
and a domestic ending and vice versa) is not an insignificant factor in their
relations, and in individual cases it is the explicit form of support to the foreign
morpheme. It seems that those overlappings do not have to be that strict, and
the authors who, for example, see Greek influences in the patronymic -ać do
not exclude the possibility that the stabilisation of this suffix was reinforced
with the domestic suffix -ić. There are examples of such relations in other suffixal
pairs of similar pronunciation as well, for example in the Turkish -džija
against the domestic -ač (kosadžija / kosač), or in the mentioned relation of the
Turkish -lija against the domestic -ljiv (dočeklija / dočekljiv). The possibility
of more liberal inclusion of foreign verb suffixes -isa and -ira is not far from
this, having in mind the fact that such final sequences also occur in a number
of domestic verbal derivatives (e.g. brisati, disati; birati, dirati), a phenomenon
already studied in Serb grammatography. The foreign verb suffix -osa was
probably not left without that kind of support either (cf. patosati), although it
could have received support along other lines.
With the semantics that they introduce, foreign suffixes often achieve
a special stylistic status in the recipient language, surviving as stylistically
marked among synonymous suffixes. The suffixes -onja from the nomina attributiva
category and the diminutive -ać largely function as stylistically marked
components, and the suffix -onja started developing a modifying meaning
directly from that position (e.g. augmentative bikonja, ježonja; hypocoristic
zekonja, medonja). It is a different question whether mixoglossia in this case
influenced the increased complexity of the meaning spectrum of the derivatives
with these suffixes. However, it is a fact that the suffix -onja, we suppose from
the nomina attributiva category (perhaps first in the animal class), went into
the direction of augmentation and pejoration on the one hand, but also towards
hypocoristic formation on the other hand, whereas the suffix -ać, taken to be
originally diminutive-hypocoristic, considerably approached augmentatives

and pejoratives (cf. glibać, klipać). In word-formation, that is a well-known
proces of dispersion of semantic values and their shifts into opposite directions.
Nevertheless, it is our impression that a negative semantic connotation of suffixes
dominates in these processes, which is often supported by stem words
of the same connotation. The identification of those processes can largely be
assisted by the analysis of the participation of the newer wave of foreign suffixes
in Serb language, which are, in fact, international derivational elements.
It is precisely in contemporary colloquial language and slang that a group of
these suffixes (e.g. -ant, ‑izam, -aža, etc.) achieve powerful stylistic-semantic
reflexions, among which pejorativity is one of the main results. Therefore,
it is possible that at the methodological level, this very feature of a foreign
formational element can be of assistance in identifying foreign formational
influences in the recipient language.