Vreme i gramatička kategoria vremena u sakralnom stilu
Ružica S. Bajić
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to describe the use of some Serbian tenses in sacral style (na- mely, in praying discourse), with regard to the special meaning of time in the Orthodox Church (e.g. that which emphasizes the eternity). The materiał we used was an Orthodox prayerbook. The project proved to be laborious; firstly because of the lack of research in sacral styles in modem linguistics and modem languages in generał, and secondly, because of vaguely-defined verb-tense concepts in Serbian linguistics.The main conclusion is that almost all tenses, especially most uses of the present and two past tenses (preterite and aorist) - serve exactly to emphasize the eternity. We have termed that stylistic characteristic svevremenost (in Serbian). The past tenses realize that characteristic by reminding us of some events from the Gospel. The present and the other uses of aorist, as well as the futurę tense, possess this main characteristic, as well; but to a lower extent. Namely, in the statements where the specified tense-uses appear, the wri- ter/reader speaks mostly about himself, not about God and some Church truths which are always valid - without either the beginning or the end. Furthermore, no matter how long one reads (speaks) these prayers (it is supposed that every Orthodox Christian reads them every day) - there will be the end to it, i.e. the end of everyone’s earthly life.
The main functions of the Church language connected to the examined verb-tense uses are performative (present is used in many performative statements, which we also find as one of the characteristics of praying discourse), function of reminding us, and recording facts.
Keywords:
sacral style, time, tense, eternity, praying discourseReferences
Бугарски Р., 1995, Увод у отиту лингвистику, Београд, с. 175.
ИвиЙ М., 1958, Систем личних гл аголских облика за обележавале времена у српскохрватскомезику, Годишн>ак Филозофског факултета у Новом Саду, III, с. 139-149.
Ивий М., 1980, О значелу српскохрватског плусквамперфекта, Зборник за филологиу и лингвистику XXIII/1, с. 93-100.
Jефтий А., 1996, Загрлаj светова. Есеjи о човеку и Цркви. Србине.
К. Кончаревич - Баич Р., 2004, О коммуникативных функциях литургического дискурса в сербском языке. - В сб.: П. Пипер, И. А. Стернин (ред.), Коммуни-кативное поведение славянских народов. Русские, сербы, чехи, словаки, поляки. Воронеж, с. 146-178.
Крылова К. А., 2005, Ситуация билингвизма в сфере церковно-религиозной общес-твенной деятельности в современной России, БТуНзТука XIV, с. 383-391.
МилошевиЙ К., 1978, О проучавалу временских глаголских облика у сербокро- атистици, Зборник за филолопцу и лингвистику ХХ1/2, с. 93-123.
Поповий I., 2001, Речи у времену о вечности, Валjево, с. 250.
Православии молитвеник, 2004, Београд, с. 178.
Свето писмо/Нови заедет. 1988, Сара]ево, с. 506.
Станоjчий Ж., Поповий Л>., 2002, Граматика српскогаjезика, Београд, с. 415.
Тошовиђ Б., 1995, Стилистика глагола, Wuppertal, с. 538.
Согппе В., 1985, Tense, Cambridge University Press, с. 139.
Authors
Ružica S. BajićStatistics
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2007 Stylistyka
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. Copyrights to published works are held by the University of Opole (to the collective work) and the Authors (to individual parts of the collective work that have an independent meaning).
2. Only previously undistributed works can be published in the scientific journal "Stylistics".
3. The University of Opole does not restrict the possibility of the author's further dissemination of his work on condition that the scientific journal "Stylistics" is indicated as the original place of publication and the consent of the University Publishing House.
4. Consent to the publication of the work in the scientific journal "Stylistics" is tantamount to granting the author a non-exclusive license to the University of Opole, including the right to use the work without territorial restrictions and time limits in the following fields of exploitation:
a) within the scope of recording and multiplication of the work - production of any number of copies of the work in whole or in part using a specified technique, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital technique, introduction of the work into computer memory and computer networks,
b) within the scope of circulation of the original or copies on which the work has been recorded - circulation, lending or hiring of the original or copies,
c) within the scope of dissemination of the work in a manner other than specified in item 2 - making the work or its abstract available on the Internet by enabling the recipients to access the work on-line or enabling them to download the work to their own device that makes it possible to read it, placing the work in electronic databases that disseminate scientific works, including in particular the CEEOL database (Central and Eastern Online Libray) and the abstract in English in the CEJSH database (The Central Europaen Journal of Social Scienes and Humanites).
d) within the scope of creating and distributing dependent works created using the work - using them in the fields of exploitation specified in points 1-3.
5. The author is not entitled to compensation for granting the license to the work.
6. The author agrees that the University may grant further permission to use the work (sublicense) in the fields of exploitation specified in par. 2 paragraph 4.
7. The author agrees that, in connection with the distribution of the work, his or her personal information, that is, name, affiliation, and e-mail address, may be made public.
